Directed by Justine Triet, Anatomy of a Fall is about a writer trying to prove her innocence in her husband’s death. The only other witness there is the couple’s visually impaired son. The film grabbed my attention when it won the Palme d’Or. Not that it is expected for any winner to be a perfect masterpiece to me, but it tells me that the film is extremely important to watch. The time finally came for me to watch it this weekend at my closest movie theater. I was initially worried due to the runtime, because I didn’t want to be disappointed. Between Oppenheimer, Killers of the Flower Moon, and now this, I don’t think I should be as worried going forward. It seems like long dramas are back and I am here for it.
I am going to do my best to explain how the movie starts while also being vague to avoid any spoilers. I was aware of one specific aspect that occurs in the beginning of this, and I truly wished I didn’t know. It’s essentially a rendition of a popular song from about 20 years ago. It more or less sets the tone for what’s to come. Keep that in mind going into this, because I found it to be extremely unique for how it plays into the overall plot.
Lead actress Sandra Hüller plays her role with conviction as the woman that has been indicted for the suspicion of murdering her husband. Her son, played by a tremendous performance from Milo Machado-Graner, is extremely mature and has to be for good reason. Since he is visually impaired, he has to rely on his memory, making him extremely intelligent. These two performances will surely get attention around awards season, but I want to highlight that there is not a single bad or average performance here. It is like the director took their time with every single actor to ensure they kept the tension going through the script to make its runtime justifiable.
The script is quite extraordinary. A couple of years ago, I read a book about scriptwriting techniques. In that book, Kramer vs. Kramer & Chinatown was mentioned quite a bit and for good reason. Those are some great examples of how to make a script work. I thought a lot about this book after seeing this film, because this also feels like a great example of understanding scriptwriting. Due to how natural the dialogue was, it kept every moment going. The courtroom scenes were very engaging and made it feel like no time had passed. The dialogue is also an important piece to the overall plot. The main character is fluent in different languages, but sometimes has to rely on English over her French due to her comfortability. Not only does this make her feel like a real & complex character, but it makes you question if she did it or not as she flip flops through the different languages.
One key aspect that I really appreciated here is how the characters and their backgrounds naturally unfold throughout. There’s no dialogue in the beginning that feels out of place just because the filmmaker wants us to know who these characters are immediately. Aside from the dialogue, the way the plot unfolds keeps the viewer continuously guessing what happens next as new information comes in. The editing plays an important part in this as it has to cut back to moments from certain perspectives, once again, making you question whether the main character did it or not.
Overall, Anatomy of a Fall is a flawless masterpiece that deserves the praise it is getting. It does things that I have truly never seen before. There is also not a single bad or average performance. The script feels extremely realistic and allows the film to naturally tell the story. Keep an eye for those in front and behind the camera, because they are well on their way to big things.
The Last Deal is directed by Jonathan Salemi and is about a black market marijuana dealer trying to make one final score before being pushed out of the business due to cannabis becoming legal. This is essentially the IMDb synopsis, but I’d go as far as saying as it subverted my expectations based on what this synopsis gives and delivered even more. I am a sucker for crime dramas involving drugs. The best types of stories tend to be focused on the complexity of its characters and why they get pushed into this kind of business. While this film is leans more on the indie side, I still think the film does a great job at executing what makes these types of films work. The film also shows that the people in front and behind the camera are on their way to do some amazing things.
The black market dealer mentioned is played by Anthony Molinari, who gives an outstanding performance as Vincent. His confidence in the role gives a portrayal as someone who is very complex. His role in the business before legalization gives him the confidence that he can still maintain good business even after legalization puts him out of business. His character cares for those closest to him and he will do whatever it takes to make it right. Molinari has played in many other roles in the past that are smaller roles, yet this may be the film that truly puts him on the stage to continue to play bigger roles. Be on the lookout for this guy.
The film begins with a great amount of energy, giving the same tone as Grand Theft Auto thanks to its story, cinematography, and music, and doesn’t stop until the credits role. I really appreciated how the film takes on so much within its 90-minute runtime. It never feels that short. You can tell director Jonathan Salemi is inspired by other great filmmakers like Martin Scorsese & Michael Mann in certain scenes, but he shows promise as a director from how how he solidifies the tone here. His commitment to the story keeps the film engaging and highly unpredictable.
What does work for the film also has aspects that doesn’t work. While the film is highly engrossing and engaging, I did find the script to be void of realism at times. The dialogue between the the main character and his girlfriend didn’t always feel like a real relationship and the dialogue between villains didn’t give me the impression that they were real people. I do think it could have helped to beef up the dialogue and maybe doing some more research to convey more realism.
The film, as mentioned, has a great amount of energy. The problem within that is that the film does start with a heavy amount of exposition, where the viewer has to learn a lot to understand the foundations of the film. I think 20 more minutes could have been added in the beginning to not make the film rushed. With a 90-minute runtime, this could have worked. Even a scene showing what the main character is all about before the exposition could have worked. These moments also can carry some heavy narration. I get why it was done, and it does sometimes work, it does feel a bit forceful at times and used as too much of a device to rely on.
Overall, The Last Deal is pretty much everything I needed it to be. It has great pacing, allowing for a lot to happen within its runtime. I see great things for all involved. Though there were things that didn’t quite work for me, the film still manages to have some great quality to it. As someone who considers themselves a fan of these types of films, they truly get the tone and story right here.
Freelance is the newest film from director Pierre Morel. The same guy who directed modest actions films like Taken, From Paris with Love, District 13, and more. Add John Cena & Alison Brie to the mix and it doesn’t sound all that bad. I am sure that when they signed on for this, they knew it was going to be a masterpiece and it would be something fun. At the end of the day, I think the people making this were clearly just having fun, even if almost everything doesn’t make much sense to the audience.
The concept & cast alone immediately grabbed my attention. Even when the movie wasn’t getting great reviews, I still held high hopes that it may just be a mindless stupid comedy. I am a big fan of those. The problem is that the script goes in so many different directions without having any clear idea of characterization nor how to properly handle its action sequences.
Right off the bat, we are introduced to John Cena’s character through his POV. While that sounds harmless, there’s literally no reason for it. I am actually convinced that it was done because it was either out of Cena’s schedule or test screenings showed that the film needed to do more, so they tacked this on, because once again, it was out of Cena’s schedule. The action is told through cheap CG effects, characters are introduced in odd ways, and characters motivations are odd. Needless to say, it sets the tone for what’s to come.
After this rough set up, Cena is shown reminiscing on the good old days. He’s an alcoholic who is trying to make more money. From the looks of it, it looks like life is good as he has a house over his head with a family who loves him with a job as a lawyer. The plot makes it appear as though those things are the bottom of the barrel, even though it doesn’t seem that bad.
More characters are introduced in funky ways. Christian Slater, who was last seen in the POV beginning, is just here? He pops up here and there and acts like his reason for being there is bigger than what it was. He’s always in a hurry, too. Then, there’s Alison Brie. They show that she lost her job because of false resources, but then she lands a high profile job interviewing someone who only wants her there for her looks. It’s truly bizarre and out of touch with reality.
So, after all of this set up, Cena’s character reaches a point of no return with his wife, who tells him to move out. Then, as he is walking out, she gets upset that he is leaving for a job. You can’t make this stuff up. The script continuously contradicts people’s emotions based on what was said before. It’s like it is done on purpose, because the writing doesn’t know how real people talk.
Once the actual plot gets going, character motivations are thrown out the window, the bad CG effects come back, and characters continue to act in ways only for the sake of comedy. Cena plays the typical 80’s action star. This doesn’t sound bad in hindsight, but it does no justice for the level of quality he has been able to achieve. Brie is only there for the eye candy. Her character doesn’t know what they need to be. One moment, she hates Cena, the next, she is trying to sleep with him. Juan Pablo Raba’s character is lost between being a clown and a smart doctor. Lastly, Martin Csokas is introduced by creepily watching his daughter dance, which literally does nothing to push anything forward. The big reveal at the end is also lame and very anticlimactic.
Overall, Freelance has every single quality to make this an overall bad movie with nothing redeemable. If you are a super mega-fan of John Cena or Alison Brie, I don’t think it’s going to be the worst thing you’ve ever seen, but I also do feel like Cena & Brie can do much, much better.
Pain Hustlers is directed by David Yates – the same guy who directed the last four Harry Potter films, as well as all three Fantastic Beasts films. What’s always exciting is to see a director do something completely different than what they are known for, and that’s exactly what Yates is yearning to do. The problem is, even if you have an impressive cast, it can be hard to form something of your own if you are still making something that has been done before and done better.
I still had high hopes for this film. I always enjoy seeing this type of perspective in film. Between the director and cast, I was still intrigued even if the reviews beforehand were telling me to lower my expectations. Even though I still enjoyed it, I can see where people are coming from with this. Aside from the stellar performances, pacing, and Yate’s direction, the script falls victim to a cliche story done many times before, chaotic editing, and little to no characterization to anyone outside of Emily Blunt’s character.
Having an impressive cast can go one or two ways. It can either be like The Departed or it can be like the most recent Amsterdam. The qualities can sway one way or the other and if you are at all familiar with the movies mentioned, then you know what makes a good or bad movie with an impressive cast. While Pain Hustlers doesn’t have a huge series of A-listers, it has more than enough fire power to deliver entertainment to viewers, and that’s exactly what happens here. Blunt & Evans carry the movie through performances that push the boundary of what they are used to. Blunt is struggling as a single mother who’s inspiration of making it comes solely from her daughter. As she is doing it for her daughter, she is still conscious to the fact of what evil she is doing. It makes her character even more understandable as she gets more involved. Evans is totally confident with his character. From the way he speaks to how he acts are two different things. He speaks with conviction through his lies, while his actions when he says nothing says everything there is about the guy. It’s truly two performances that are worth watching thanks to Yate’s direction and understanding how to make the characters feel like real people and have an arc.
I can’t ever really say that I was bored with what I saw. For something that was a little over two hours, it is paced extremely well. It never lingers on scenes longer than it should. It continuously gets from scene to scene in a fast-paced manner that understands the balance of eventful dramatization.
Even if the film is paced really well, it doesn’t mean that the editing isn’t chaotic. I almost got the sense that Yates was inspired by The Wolf of Wall Street, but still wanted to integrate new things to ensure it wasn’t a complete carbon copy. For example, in particular moment, Blunt’s character in a doctor’s office with her daughter as the doctor is explaining something that is happening to her daughter. The doctor mentions something of the matter of maintaining a safe livelihood, resulting in Blunt thinking about where they are actually living. It results in a sudden cut of what she is thinking. It was so sudden that I thought the movie randomly skipped. I had to go back to ensure I wasn’t being gaslit. The film does this quite a bit really for no reason other than to appear to be original.
The themes also doing feel that poignant. The film desperately wants us to sympathize with Blunt, but the story never knows how to truly shows the implications of what’s done. It’s like she only got a slap on the hand. The film does struggle with trying to convey to its audience whether who’s side we should be on.
To make a better film that shows that Yates is more that capable to direct more original movies outside of a franchise, the structure should have been streamlined – not relying on sudden cuts. More characterization could have been done to any one other than Blunt’s character. Even Andy Garcia feels like a random placement to ensure you know that the film actually needs an antagonist. I think that’s where the problem lies. It’s just never really implied who is really the hero or the villain. It’s all blurred to the point where it doesn’t make the film redeemable. Lastly, the film could have focused more on the negative repercussions of what was done to these patients. The film focuses more on the positives that happened to them, resulting in once again, a blur of morals that are happening here.
Overall, Pain Hustlers is nowhere near as bad as expected. Yeah, it takes from other movies that did it better, thus resulting in a film with not much of an identity, but it is carried well from Emily Blunt’s & Chris Evans’ performances and Yates does an impressive job at doing something else than his previous seven movies. That’s more than enough to make up for its more negative qualities.
First & foremost, I haven’t played a single Five Nights at Freddy’s game. I have seen clips, but playing horror video games has never suited me. What I can speak on though is understanding the excitement of an adaptation from a beloved video game that you hold dear. For example, some video game franchise’s that I am a big fan of are Hitman, Doom, and Max Payne. For the longest time, I would always justify their movie adaptations. It wasn’t until recent rewatches where I truly saw them for what they were: A clash of not knowing what to really make it. Do they focus more on the story or the gameplay? What’s going to be the most appealing to fans & the newcomers? There’s not a whole lot of confidence in how they get made and I can almost say the same for this film.
The things I really liked, I like as much as the things I didn’t like. Starting with the positives, Five Nights at Freddy’s is perhaps at its strongest with who they have cast, in its more intense sequences, and with the overall lore of the story. It’s nice to have Josh Hutcherson in a lead role again. His presence feels like the right choice as he has to play a character with a complex background. His morals appear to be in check between the longing of trying to find his missing brother, as well as taking care of his younger sister. However, this makes him a flawed character seen through beating up someone he believes to be abducting a kid. He truly embodies a character worth rooting for. There is also Matthew Lillard in a role that feels earned with everything that is given to him as an actor. Without giving anything away, his character almost seems to have the same characteristics at Hutcherson’s role, which makes him a character worth paying attention to.
While the film maintains a PG-13 level rating, the intense sequences where the horror at Freddy Fazbear’s Pizzeria begins to occur is certainly one of the stronger elements of the film. Even though it’s not as much as I’d hope, whenever these scenes occur, I was glued in. You truly get the sense that everyone is in peril and anything could happen. It’s one element I hope we get to see more of in more entries.
The lore of the story is extremely fascinating. For its rating, I was quite surprised by how dark it actually goes, and that’s something that I mean that would have worked better if they went for a stronger rating. The story does go into a specific direction that I had no idea was going to go into. It’s one of those things that can make anyone rewatch it with different eyes, even if it can still be predictable at times (more on that in a bit). Regardless of what didn’t work for me, the lore is intriguing enough to make me want to visit more inevitable entries.
As for the negatives, there are one too many characters that only service the plot, the overall focus of the story can make it predictable at times, lack of scares, and moments important to the plot completely forgotten about until the films resolution. Characters literally come & go just to tell other characters integral to the story something important, and then they are never mentioned again. Cutting them out of the story could have done wonders to the runtime by adding more of the horror aspect that was to be expected.
Then, there’s the film’s focus on its set up. There is a LOT of build up. Without any spoilers, there is a particular focus on one plot point that saw coming. Technically two if you count how the film also adds these weird little moments that are only placed to let the audience that it is going to be important later on. Instead, when this happens, it results in characters resulting in unrealistic ways. With a film so heavily focused on the background of the main character and with the story, it can result in unrealistic situations not fitting to a real person.
The lack of scares has to be the film’s most disappointing aspect. From what I have seen from the gameplay itself, this could have been improved. Even from a horror standpoint, it struggles to maintain that specific genre. An R-rating could have helped this to feel more of that intensity. Instead, it comes off as Saw, but for the family.
Lastly, there is one thing I do want to mention. I was warned beforehand of a plot point involving dreams. It was something that seemed silly, and it’s still one that I don’t agree with the film doing. I am not sure if it is something that happens in the game, but here, it feels out of place. I won’t say anything more about what happens. It just felt out of place and made more of what comes predictable.
Overall, Five Nights at Freddy’s is a mixed bag of strengths & weaknesses with gimmicks taken from other video game adaptations. A stronger rating could have done this film more justice, and maybe, serviced more of what came before a lot better. I do think upon a rewatch of this, I may feel stronger in whether its a like or dislike, but at the moment I feel pretty neutral.
Killers of the Flower Moon is the latest Martin Scorsese film about a series of murders occurring in the Osage Nation in Oklahoma, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert De Niro, Lily Gladstone, and many more. It is Scorsese’s sixth collaboration with DiCaprio and tenth collaboration with De Niro. Going into this, I couldn’t help but to reflect on the filmography of Scorsese & DiCaprio in their own individual right. For Scorsese, it is amazing how much he continues to strike gold, no matter his age. For DiCaprio, is also amazing how he continues to pick the right roles and how much he continues to trust Scorsese. After viewing this, I am pleased with saying that this ranks amongst their best work.
Like many others, I was not that aware of history behind what this story is about. My family and I grew up in central area that is discussed, but I don’t ever recall it being mentioned in the education system, which says something. Not sure if it was due to timing, but I truly hope that this gets mentioned more in American history. Beforehand, I knew what to expect for a Scorsese flick on this caliber. With its enormous runtime at 206 minutes, I wasn’t worried about how that would impact me, but more so worried for my friend who went to go see it with me as he had never seen a Scorsese flick before. He, too, felt the same way that I did after watching it: we loved it.
The runtime is perhaps one of the film’s biggest talking points and I can certainly see why. For me, it was rather difficult to squeeze watching the film into my schedule, but I did make it work. I am sure for many others, it is a big time commitment. Every single moments matters. There is not a single moment that I, personally, would have cut. The direction from Scorsese makes every character feel important and integral to the overall story, even if it is a small role from certain actors that I won’t spoil here. The writing from both Scorsese & Eric Roth deliver dialogue that give undertones to bigger meanings & meaningful self reflections to its characters in its smaller moments. The editing flows seamlessly from scene to scene with background music that sounds almost tedious on the outskirts, but makes the pacing neutral throughout. Every aspect of the film goes hand-in-hand with one another in a meaningful way.
As of lately, when Leonardo DiCaprio is in something, you know he carefully chose the role. I feel like as he has gotten older, he prefers more and more complex characters that continues to challenge him in new ways, and he chose the right one here, playing as Ernest Burkhart. Coming back from the war, he meets with his uncle in order to get more work. Even though he says that he was in the war, he admits that he was only a cook, so he actually didn’t see much action. This is an important theme to his character and how evolves for the rest of the film. Once again, he puts himself in a place of war, but under a different scope. He says that he is a driver for his uncle, but he is really doing evil deeds for uncle. He can’t ever commit to delivering demands to other people. He even can’t admit the full truth when it is the most important. Most importantly, he believes he is wealthy because of his wife, Mollie placed by the tremendous Lily Gladstone. In reality, he wouldn’t be of this wealth if it wasn’t for her. DiCaprio plays a very realistic character of someone who is the belief that he has it all and has seen it all, but under false pretenses.
Mentioning of the tremendous Lily Gladstone, I truly believe she has the best performance here. She puts everything into this role of Mollie Burkhart, the wife of DiCaprio’s Ernest Burkhart. Her performance is being much talked about to which I wholeheartedly agree with. Gladstone plays the role of Mollie with conviction from start to finish as she appears to be shut in from the whole world, but actually has a lot of love for it. She closes herself off in the hopes to not be hurt. As she meets Ernest, she becomes more vulnerable and less independent. When she falls ill, she has to depend on Ernest, the same man that is giving her all of the grief through the family that she is losing.
Through DiCaprio & Gladstone’s performances lies the heart of the film. There is a particular scene were DiCaprio has to go find Gladstone after a horrendous event has occurred. We see his search for his wife his perspective. It gives the audience to have the same anxiety that he does. Once we see that he is delivering the bad news, all he can do is shake his head and Gladstone just knows what the news means and gives such a heartbreaking and realistic performance. After the film ended, I turned to my friend that saw it with me and told that I am missing my wife and all I wanted to do was to go back home and hug her. Not that I would ever do the evil things that Ernest does. It’s how real their relationship feels that reminded me of my own personal life. That’s how good this aspect of the story is. I can’t really recall how much I cared about a relationship in a film in a long time.
Then, there are the themes that play out in the film. At first, the film was meant to be from the FBI’s point of view with DiCaprio playing the lead agent that would have eventually gone to Jesse Plemons. I am glad that they saw the potential of changing the story to be from a different perspective. This perspectives offers something new and original. We, as the audience, get on the ground floor to see how much this hurt the people of the Osage Nation. Even though he is the main character, DiCaprio is still the villain of the story, playing as one of the many puppets for his uncle played by De Niro. What makes De Niro great in his own right in the film is how he never goes over the top with his performance as the lead antagonist. His character plays it safe as a way to play coy to the people around him. What he really does to these people when he is not playing dumb makes him turn in a very villainous performance.
What I found to be very vulnerable was how Scorsese gives DiCaprio, a white male, the most screentime. Even with the story being mostly from the Osage Nation perspective, having DiCaprio turn in this performance can give the viewers an actor that they are familiar with and know will deliver an outstanding performance. Through this perspective, the audience can see how horrendous this event was to American history. Then, there is the ending. What Scorsese does is completely different than what he has done before, yet it shows his brilliance with how he can tie back into the present.
If it hasn’t been said before, the cinematography and editing on this is insane. Cinematographer, Rodrigo Prieto, and editor, Thelma Schoonmaker, are also frequent collaborators with Scorsese. You’d almost think that Scorsese would want to almost play it safe with the amount of frequent collaborators he has. Instead, he does this to ensure the best possible product comes out that resonates with viewers. If it’s not broken, why fix it? That’s not to say that Scorsese still finds way to bring others into the product. Going back to the cinematography and editing, Prieto delivers some of his best work as he understands how to capture moments through both its day and night scenes. He understands what to bring out in each scene to capture the viewer’s eye. As for Schoonmaker, she has to be one of the best editors out there. There are specific moments where I was blown away by how they were cut. For such a long movie, they always found new ways to cut scenes to keep the film engaging.
Overall, putting any expectations aside beforehand, Killers of the Flower Moon is a flawless masterpiece. Every technical aspects behind the camera works on every level. The performances were outstanding and relatable. As a longtime viewer of Apple TV+, I am satisfied that this went to the big screen first, and I can’t wait to see it again when it hits the streaming service. For those weary because of its runtime, it’s worth it. If you can’t commit, then it’s also worth it when it eventually hits Apple TV+.
I am not one for musicals. I don’t mind them, but I feel like out of all of genres out there, musicals are perhaps the one genre that I am the most critical of. Seeing that this was being marketed as A24’s first musical, I was intrigued, because I will pretty much watch every A24 film out there, plus seeing this being strongly marketed as their first musical certainly piqued interest. The end product strongly exceeded my expectations. This is one of those films that rarely get made anymore.
Starting off with the humor, this is hilarious, and has to be one of the funniest movies of the year. I was actually not expecting the level of humor that this film has. The humor is very similar to adult comedies like South Park or Family Guy. I personally love that humor, because it allows me to not always take everything seriously. In the film’s opening monologue, they make it a point that the lead actors, who are gay, play straight roles and mention how brave they are doing for this. While that’s not exactly the case, I got the immediate impression that the film was meant to not be taken so serious. The last time I got that was in 2021’s Barb & Star Go to Vista Del Mar.
From the opening monologue, the film wastes no time to point how ridiculous is truly is. We are introduced to the two main characters, Craig & Trevor (or is it Trevor & Craig?) played by Josh Sharp & Aaron Jackson through a musical piece of what their life is like. It shows how they present the common toxic male. Through this opening song, it shows how ridiculous it is for even males to act in this sort of way. Even when they are introduced as identical twin brothers, God, played Bowen Yang is there to remind is that it is what it is and just deal with it. Craig & Trevor are appalled by this revelation when they begin to work at the same job that sells Roomba knock-off products. They even have matching necklaces that prove that they are indeed brothers. The opening sequence alone shows that Sharp & Jackson are stars in the making.
What I love about the humor is that it doesn’t stop there. I’d even say that it slowly dials up the raunchiness of it a level until the very end. When the main characters found out they are brothers, the next moment they are walking out of a sexually explicit film of another A24 film. Next thing you know it’s mentioned that is the morning. The fact that they would do this in the morning for a gag has to be appreciated. Next, are introduced to Nathan Lane’s & Megan Mullally’s characters as they play as the brother’s dad & mom. Lane & Mullally live up the characters that they need to play. Without getting into any spoilers, these two are not afraid to commit to the script. Only notable negative thing here regarding Mullally’s character is that it can be hard to hear here at times since she is intentionally trying to sound different.
After a hilarious first act, the second act slows down. I am not sure if this was intentional due to its short runtime. Not that it was bad, but it does impact the flow a bit compared to the rest of the film. There is a musical set piece from Megan Thee Stallion, which has a great message. The problem that stands out is that it doesn’t flow with the story of the rest of the film. It is quite random and feels like was only there to add in one more message. A longer runtime could have allowed for more of these type of sequences to tackle more. Overall, I would have to say that the overall message of the film is that no matter what others do, as long as they aren’t hurting you, leave them alone. It also coneys the fact that people have to take accountability for their toxic actions. A longer runtime would have really helped with the pacing and delivering that overall message on a higher note.
The third act picks back up and suspends any disbelief of what occurs. I’d even say that it solidifies that this film will not be for everyone. I was sure that someone would have walked out of my theater at some point, but everyone was laughing hysterically and enjoying themselves, even the older lady that was there. I can only hope that this type of humor can be more appreciated in the long run. With so much seriousness in the world, it is nice to see films that deliver on laughs & messages, no matter how raunchy and ridiculous it can get.
Overall, if you are a fan of A24’s filmography, enjoy musicals, or even enjoy raunchy humor in the veins of something like South Park, I strongly recommend Dicks: The Musical. It may not be for everyone and its short runtime may hinder the quality, but its originality & confidence certainly makes this worth the watch.
I don’t think this will be for everyone as it is definitely a slow burn, but director Kitty Green definitely understands how to build tension, deliver timely themes, and has a promising collaboration with Julia Garner going forward.
I have been really looking forward to seeing this since it was announced. Kitty Green & Julia Garner’s first collaboration in 2019 with The Assistant showed promise between director & actress. Seeing another collaboration between the two certainly brought excitement for this project. I meant to see this about a week ago, but life can prevent that from happening sometimes. Since this was really the only movie out in theaters this weekend, I believe it was worth going to see and I highly encourage people to go check this out if they can.
After watching this, what I love most between this and The Assistant is Kitty Green’s dedication to showing the how & the why of toxic masculinity from the female perspective. She understands how to build the tension around situations that feel realistic, which really heightens the anxiety throughout. One could say that there is not much going on and I can understand why. Just as something seems to be happening, Green pulls back. It can be nerve-racking and unpredictable with what comes next, which is a pro and a con. Delivering a film that makes one anxious throughout is impressive. The problem with that here is that with little to no characterization for nearly every single character can hurt the motives behind some of the decisions made.
What I truly appreciate about Green’s work thus far is how she shows more than tells. Immediately, we are thrown into the major characters played by Julia Garner & Jessica Henwick. They are out having a good time in Australia until they are faced with the reality that they need money and they need it fast. This brings them to The Royal Hotel – a questionable place of why these two girls even need to be hired in the first place as the area appear to be dissolute. This all happens within a short amount of time with the only context of these characters being where they are is that they are on vacation and it appears that they are trying to escape their reality from back home. While the film does the best that it can to explain prior events throughout, an additional twenty minutes or so could have really helped. There is not much explained as to why these characters decided to leave & how long they are planning on staying. If anything, I could see the film’s message here being that being young and being in tough situations can often lead to people choosing desperate measures. That’s not the film’s main point though as it gets in the actual meat of the story.
The film’s biggest takeaway is how small towns who are out of touch can be truly detrimental to others. It almost makes sense if that is where the main characters come from as they feel comfortable in this small town, yet they feel uncomfortable at the same time. Due to this component, I can see the film having major playback rewatch ability. Having a rewatch for this would certainly change my view of it positively every time.
Going back to the main story and what it resolves around, it shows how men can’t handle themselves when something new and something desirable comes into their lives. Starting off with Hugo Weaving’s appearance, the girls find his behavior to be odd, yet they brush it off and they continue to do this as time goes on until Julia Garner’s character becomes the voice of reason. Garner’s performance is truly great, but without much context as to who these characters were before, it makes them going forward quite confusing. Why have Garner be the voice of reason, yet brush things off almost immediately? Why be with friends with someone continuously gaslighting her? There’s not many answers to this other than Jessica Henwick’s character is that desperate and doesn’t care who it hurts as long as she thinks she is moving on. I am not sure if that is the best approach to this as it makes their character decisions quite conflicting with one another. Once again, more characterization in the beginning would have really helped.
For a ninety-minute film, the tense pacing allows for this film to say what it needs to say without feeling rushed. One moment, it looks like the girls are making the right decisions, then it seems like things are getting better, but they don’t, only going to show that their gut instincts were right. The climax is certainly gut-wrenching as everything from before comes down to everything hitting the fan. Garner’s performance feels real and her journey to becoming tough & resilient is one of the best aspects of the film. Seeing Henwick’s character go from nonchalant to understanding that she needs to listen to those closest to her was a satisfying character arc. The overall ending truly is satisfying, but it still doesn’t tackle what comes next for the characters. It can be left to assumption, but more could have been done to give these main characters a satisfying conclusion such as showing what happens to them when they come back home.
Overall, the slow burn pace may not be for everyone, but I am confident that if you can stick through it and wait to see what messages it has to entail, you will find a film that effectively says a lot thanks to its writing, direction, and on-screen talent.
I didn’t have much expectations going in other than the intriguing cast. I am sure that is a selling point for many. As I sat in the theater as only one of four people in attendance, I was sure it was due to it just being a Wednesday night. Considering how minimal the marketing was (I honestly didn’t realize this was coming out so soon), it is not surprising this hasn’t gained a whole lot of traction. Indies will do that. With a cast like this though, not only would you think that it would at least be talked about more, but the end product would have been much better.
I am genuinely not disappointed that I went to go see this. Frankly, I am never really disappointed in anything that I want to see. I love film no matter what, but I can see the potential on the wall with things that could have been much better and you can throw this movie in there. The film starts off strong. We can a pretty good insight into Peter Dinklage’s character that shows more than what has to be told. Very little is said about his character. You just get a good sense of him. Ten minutes in, the sudden jolt into what appeared to be a completely different movie only showed that the film was about to go off the rails.
Ten minutes in, I literally thought a brand new movie started playing. The widescreen aspect ratio suddenly went to a 1.19:1 aspect ratio that makes the scenes look tighter. A new set of characters are introduced with no mention as to who they really are and how they relate to the overall story. A pervy, racist father is introduced and has more screen time than he should. His goal looks like to get the daughter he adopted to himself. Problem is that his daughter is dating the step-son of Peter Dinklage’s character & biological son of Anne Hathaway’s character. Even typing that out brings me back to just how random and jarring this all is.
As it tries to go back to Dinklage’s story, the film feels like its getting itself back on track. The characterization on him is exceptional. He’s super successful, yet very uncomfortable with who he is. It allows his character to be brought down to Earth and become relatable with viewers. When he meets Marisa Tomei’s character, it continues to be interesting, even if some questionable things occur. How did her character think what she was doing was okay when Dinklage clearly has a wedding ring on his finger? It’s odd behavior.
Then there is Anne Hathaway’s character. This is probably one of the best roles that she has been in years as her character has to struggle with wanting to be someone that she feels destined to be, which is to be a nun. It’s interesting; however, it comes across very randomly. Considering that she has been a mom, a wife, and a therapist for so long, why the sudden urge to become a nun? It almost felt like the writing tried to literally make a story out of every single character no matter what. At this point, it was clear that three scripts were blended into one resulting in very disproportionate results.
As mentioned, there is a change in the aspect ratio not only after the first ten minutes of the film, but throughout the entire film. I don’t really understand why this style continues to be attempted. It was attempted in 2019’s Lucy in the Sky to disastrous results. The same can be applied here. Between the changes in story and cinematography, the film really struggles with creating an identify of its own, because its constant changes prove that it never knows what it wants to be.
I do believe there is a good film here though, because there are certainly good qualities of the film. The story does give the actors the opportunities to show their strengths as they are all quite good in the film. The story between Dinklage & Tomei is at the film’s strongest as it deals with the most complexity. When the cinematography focuses on only one style, it is quite good. As much as I didn’t care for the sudden changes, I do have to say that whenever it is in widescreen mode, it looks very cinematic, while when it is in the tighter aspect ratio, it perfectly frames the characters to create more intimate moments.
SPOILERS
The conclusion does have a nice way to wrap it all up and show how the three story come together, even if its complicated journey of getting there wasn’t completely necessary. Issues are resolved immediately. Peter Dinklage & Marisa Tomei are, I guess, living happily ever after together. Marisa Tomei, I also guess, never needed recovery. The father seems to not be a problem at the end, so what was the point of focusing so much on him? Then there is Anne Hathaway immediately becoming a nun, showing how the film doesn’t understand time.
Mentioning of time, the structure of the film makes the timeline quite confusing. One moment, Dinklage falls into a body of water, losing his dog. The next, he is already preparing an opera for his recent encounter. After that, the dog is shown to be no longer missing. How much time passed with this? Who knows. That’s just one example of others of how truly jarring this is.
END SPOILERS
Overall, She Came to Me is a weird balancing act experiment that has all of the right ingredients – talented cast, complex characters, smart writing, exceptional cinematography – but also manages to waste it convoluted plot lines that go in meaningless directions resulting in a chaotic structure and dull pacing. I encourage people to still see it, but I don’t know about seeing it in the theater.
Much like 2018’s Halloween, The Exorcist: Believer is meant to be the sequel that ignores all of the other sequels and serves as a continuation of the original, otherwise termed as a “requel.” Film director David Gordon Green revolutionized the term in 2018 with Halloween. It was a surprise considering his background in indies and comedies. Even more surprising when you add Danny McBride to the mix. In what could have been a disaster at the time, the duo proved that their work in horror could be impactful. What could go wrong going forward?
After spending $400 million dollars a few years ago for distribution rights – right before the follow-up to 2018’s Halloween, Halloween Kills came out – Universal went forward with delivering a requel of another popular horror franchise in the hopes that it would be as impactful of 2018’s Halloween. The problem that was yet to come at the time was the quality set forth between Halloween Kills & Halloween Ends. I don’t personally holds those entries in high regard, but I think Green continues to show his strengths as a direction in those films through displaying complex human drama. While I hope he continues to get work, it was clear that his work is getting stretched thin and it clearly shows here with this film. Once again, he chooses to favor complex human drama. I truly don’t blame him on this choice, but what ends up happening is the lack of other areas that could make this far better such as delivering on what the people want to see.
POSITIVES
Starting off with the positives, the majority of them come from specific characters. It is truly delightful to see Ellen Burstyn back again. Even with the small role that she is given, she is truly one of the best stand-outs in the film. Fans of the original will find plenty of value with seeing her again. Leslie Odom Jr. is a phenomenal actor and I am glad to see what he is capable of doing in this role. His performances feels very realistic and will be surely one that viewers can connect with. Lastly, Ann Dowd’s performance was one of my personal favorites. Her character has a journey of her own that is very integral to the overall story.
The set up isn’t that bad. It is slow, but it allows certain characters to develop in their own right. Once again, David Gordon Green truly wants to display complex human drama and that only goes so far in the film.. and that’s pretty much where the positives end.
NEGATIVES
Saying that I was bored throughout this would be an understatement. The structure is non-existent. While the first act has a slower set up to establish characters and story, the rest is rushed, resulting in characters motivations coming out of thin air and little to no tension in its scares. The scares mainly come from jolting jump scares with the sound.
As much as it is nice to have Ellen Burstyn back again, I was appalled as to what they did with their character. Her character is reintroduced in a forced way and it comes off random. Her character even mentions that she wasn’t in the room during the exorcist, so why did they make her into some expert? I get it that it comes from the parental perspective, but it only ends up serving as something to get fans back into seats. Even then, it’s not enough to save the movie. There is also a specific thing that happens to her character that floored me negatively. I truly couldn’t believe anyone thought what happened to her was a good idea.
Outside of Leslie Odom Jr.’s character, characters are severely underdeveloped. There are probably close to ten other characters that are integral to the story. Due to the runtime and attention to Odom Jr.’s character, these characters lack any real emotion to be attached to them. Once again, this is the result of lack of character motivations that leads to a bunch of random scenes with no build up and making scenes drag out longer than they should.
WHAT COULD HAVE MADE IT BETTER
I am very much of the opinion that David Gordon Green should have been an executive producer, not a director on this. His work is clearly being stretched thin, resulting in rushes messes like this one. Coming off the last two Halloween entries, having him work on this immediately was concerning. With a negative reception like this film has had so far, it is disappointing that Universal is okay with rushed productions that don’t fairly allow them to make proper use of their investment.
It really doesn’t make much sense as to why two characters needed to be possessed, especially when the story focuses so much more on Odom Jr’s character. When you throw in the other possessed girl, it’s difficult to care about what happens to her family when so little is given to them. Keeping it to one character being possessed would have faired much better.
Going back to Burstyn again, it is unfortunate what they also do with their character. It would have been far better had the movie focused on her as the protagonist, give her the purpose of having to help these families and find resolution in her personal life in the end. I am sure it was due to scheduling conflicts or something of the sort, but then again, maybe don’t rush these type of projects.
If Green & Co. continue with this franchise, please… stop rushing.
OVERALL…
Overall, The Exorcist: Believer is quite disappointing due to how much it tries to juggle between its abundance of its characters and story, resulting in a lack of horror.
The Creative Cinematic Collection 
You must be logged in to post a comment.