Reviews

Covers a small handful of subjects related to photography, criminology, and surveillance, but frustratingly spends most of its time on the least interesting ones. Whenever it picks up on something good that stimulates curiosity, that is too soon dropped and it returns to tedious scenes repeatedly featuring a corporate salesman, and boring police training sessions. It has about three important questions to ask, and asks far more that are really not fully formed. Even the good questions raised are not direct, but more like "how does the future see the past?" or "what do we see when we see a picture?" In other words, woolly-headed academic or philosophical matters which the film should clarify or provide some insight into, but instead just drops in unexamined because they sound important and might add some plausible weight to the emptiness. Seems to be a critique of surveillance technology and an indictment of capitalism's effort to sell its way out of societal failure, but I am reading that into it, as nothing is explicitly stated or advocated for in this film. As others have said, it is slow and boring. The historical snippets are great, but they make up roughly ten percent of the screen time. Not very good film making, not an illuminating documentary, just trying to seem that way and coming up very short. Aesthetically, the annoying, loud, spacey music, long dull shots, and ponderously lazy writing and editing make this a chore. Needed a lot more thought and work before release.

You may not make it to the end of this, because if you are smarter than me you will abandon it after the first 10 or 15 minutes. I thought about doing just that, but by watching it a little bit at a time, I made it to the end. This has the trademark flimsiness of almost everything Noah Baumbach has ever done, and there is no evidence whatsoever of the occasionally intelligent work of Greta Gerwig. Generically dumb in almost every way. A combo of musical dance numbers, cartoonish performances, garish set pieces, horrible music, and terrible writing. It could be entertaining if you haven't seen this level of tragically vacuous Hollywood nonsense 1000 times before, but you have. Enough has been said about the hamfisted messaging and blatant commerciality. But, it did what it was intended to do, put people in seats and make over a billion dollars spoonfeeding more idiocy into our culture. It is a glittering, thoroughly contrived and self aware mess, with enough ironic melodrama to seem partially humorous, and enough spinning, moving parts to thoroughly transfix a tragically dumbed down target audience. The story and dialogue is all paint-by-numbers nonsense. It's like they had a checklist of over the top movie tropes and trendy gender related topics and just went down the list making sure they didn't miss any boxes. It's too bad making any kind of new or unique artistic statement was not on that list. Big money was spent and made on this sweepingly empty spectacle, and that is sadly its only apparent significance.

Good vs. Evil, standard stuff with a touch of ambiguity here and there. Most of it is extended chase scenes and a Holy Terror of bombs and guns and destruction, military raids, huge explosions, etc. The special effects are impressive. Things are supposed to look BIG, and they do. This is passive entertainment, not intellectually challenging, unless you begin to think on your own about AI and the future of mankind, etc. The film itself has little to offer in terms of making its own statement. Acting and dialogue is all secondary to the action and high emotional set-ups... will they get away? Will they get blown up? Will the "world be saved," etc. Script aims at some clever Die Hard type quips, but they fall flat. Nothing new here, but fun to watch for the visuals. Amazing that the space stations and super-advanced high tech gadgetry do not look in any substantial way different than Kubrick's 2001, which unlike this, did have things to say. 55 years on and it is surprising these film-makers come up with so little. Bottom line it's an action film, nothing more. Sunday afternoon veg-out stuff.

The camera moves beautifully and interestingly and there are hundreds of fantastic shots in this film. From a visual standpoint it is excellent, with a deft, soothing and atmospheric style that is very enjoyable to watch. However, what you are watching on the character interaction and story level is a stilted, pedantic slog. Bardot plays a needy, insecure and vapid woman who does not know what she wants and can't stop talking about it. Her writer husband has no personality. These two people talk about love, and how they feel, without saying how they feel. Which is the point, but very boring. The musical score is horrible, loud, repetitive, and melodramatic. No doubt part of a well thought out critique of film-making in general and of better written films. Like sitting in a boring class at school where you are meant to be learning something, whether you like it or not, but the the teacher is so uninspiring and dull you can't wait for it to be over. Visually stunning all the way through, no doubt, but a plotless, pointless, pretentious, endlessly rambling narrative debacle. At the end, you see something that brings finality, but you feel nothing. And that theme music keeps blaring, until it mercifully ends.

Very obviously written, acted, and directed by local theater types, whose desire to act and be on stage or in film surpasses anyone's entertainment needs. The characters are cliche from conception to execution. Performances are competent, but nothing special. Very weak concept and the comedy is half hearted and middling. Hits every British sitcom comedy trope like knocking down bowling pins or checking boxes one at a time. Musical score is canned and intrusive. Just not funny or original. Works best at keeping the participants busy with their just barely on the right side of competent theater group aspirations, and worst at being engaging or entertaining, much less surprising or challenging an audience. Some of the ideas are not bad, and even get close to being interesting or clever, but the concept is so silly and underwhelming it gets in the way of scenes which on their own might be lightly amusing if not presented as part of such a weak, absurd and goofy concept.

Todd Haynes has been brilliant in the past, but here he seriously falters. The film lacks the spark of enthusiasm that might have made up for the fact that there simply isn't an interesting story here to begin with. Deals with mental illness but only goes as deep as the glancing edge, and prefers instead to be mainly an uninsightful commentary about borderline narcissism, selfish, poor behavior, and some dull bits about acting and being an actor. Many scenes lacking in meaning and displaying only average dialogue and performances should have been cut out. Avenues that should have been pursued or at least satisfactorily explained were not, such as how and why would an actress spend days and weeks with someone they are meant to portray, who is patently uninteresting, and whose mannerisms and motivations can be imitated and deciphered very quickly? Who cares why these bland and monotonous individuals made odd life choices? It is the film's job to make things compelling or shed light on something, and nothing is really even interesting here. Each main character has flaws, but what this reveals about the human condition is zero. We simply witness tedious people having tiresome conversations which reveal far too little. We can guess, but always lurking at every moment is the dreaded "Who Cares?" No matter how hard you apply yourself to the themes covered, you will come up light, unless you enjoy medium temperature suburban drama that goes on for two solid hours with scant material to explore. Yes, we see there are some "meta" themes to pay attention to, but they are not substantial enough to make up for the lack of convincing emotion or energy.

At one point a journalist in the film, at first exposure to some news about these events, says "This seems like potentially this could be a story." Unfortunately, that potential turns out to be very low, at least in the hands of these filmmakers. This is a disjointed, slow and dull doc about a psychotic speed freak who manipulates and takes advantage of a few dopey and uninteresting college students who are not smart enough to stay away from him. The people in this are among the most bland and clueless people you will ever witness. The things they say are unbelievably, mind numbingly brainless. Calling this the story of a "sex cult" is a major stretch. Nothing here looks anything like a sex cult, or really any kind of cult at all. These are simply dimwitted people doing unintelligent things, some of which do bear the distinction of being criminal, but ultimately it is very difficult to be very invested in what happens to any of them. Nothing at all interesting happens film-wise, just a bunch of snoozy interviews with boring people, backed with swelling, dramatic piano music meant to add weight and emotion to the feather light substance of what they are saying. The story is nebulous and full of holes and questions, all presented very dramatically and mysteriously. Evil is in the air at all times, but the stakes are so low that cracking the mystery is not worth the time, nor is any attempt made by the filmmakers. There isn't that much story here, and this goes on for over three hours. A puffed up piece of nonsense about essentially a series of misguided non events that the participants got very upset about, even though everything that happened was fairly minor and entirely their fault. A con man pulls a long, transparently far-fetched series of con jobs on a bunch of dullards, and the victims are subsequently confused and hurt. In the end, an exercise in telling a story that does not matter as if it somehow matters. Proof that you do not need to be smart or talented to get into college, or become a doctor (?), or make a documentary film apparently. One bright spot is you will probably feel better about yourself after watching these imbeciles and listening to their mostly sleepy and occasionally histrionic drivel for three hours.

This is the kind of film that is going to be deeply personal on a deeply individual level for each viewer. There is no gloss here, other than occasional atmospheric lens and camera usage. This is seeing what happens on this particular type of dairy farm in England. It is mostly following one cow and for a while her calf. I don't think this film should be preached about or that it has a hidden message about anything other than what the viewer brings to it and takes from it. You will see here in vivid reality what happens, and unless you are already a dairy farmer you will leave with you perspective on life changed. Very engrossing, powerful, important, and excellent film.

Emotionally powerful, fondly told story with many layers of interest and meaning. The "less is more" approach heightens our curiosity about the characters and what they are feeling under the surface of their interactions. Rather than being confused as to their motivations, we can clearly see that these are good and unselfish people, wanting to lead good and decent lives and make meaningful connections with each other without the pretense and personal branding/image crafting that is the prevalent, current mode of human interaction. A story of loneliness and also how to avoid it, if we keep our hearts open and are not ashamed and wary of our own vulnerabilities. The camera work and blocking of each scene is masterfully and tightly arranged and composed, yet consistently seems effortless. Go where this film takes you, and you will be rewarded. A serene and beautiful film. A complete joy to watch. A moving piece of artful cinema.

Ari Aster is capable of mimicking good film making at times, but actually making his own great film is probably beyond his abilities, assuming he actually made an earnest effort to that here. If he didn't even try, then he is a master manipulator and a very sharp con man to get a studio to put up $35 million for the student film level results he produced here. At all turns he seems to be trying to impress some kind of mysterious or insightful psychological message upon the viewer, but there isn't anything meaningful or impressive going on in the film. It starts out off the rails in a good way, in a "They Live," "Mad Max," or "Brazil" dystopian vein, although all three of those films are much better than this one. In the first section of energetic, chaotic weirdness, there is some humor that works and curiosity is effectively instilled as to the where the film is going. Then for over two hours it goes nowhere. The pace slows drastically and we must endure lengthy, half cooked, conceptual drivel and witness nothing interesting going on at all in wildly expensive set pieces ($35M after all) that unfortunately cannot compensate for the total lack of narrative substance. We are to understand for the most part that the world presented in the film is a little bit real, and also made up of twisted figments and fragments of the protagonist's imagination and shaky mental condition. This has been attempted before in film, and it is always a difficult proposition to pull off. In the right hands, it can work. Aster does not have these hands, and plows ahead proving it for three hours. When artists set out to intentionally make something obtuse and "challenging" and overtly subtextual, and then complain the audience didn't "get it," well... what did they expect? We all don't care that much what you have say when we devote three hours to listening and get nowhere. I honestly don't think there is anything significant to "get" here at all. If there is then it is pretty standard oedipal complex stuff writ too large and tortuously beaten to death by a mid level talent with equally middling artistic sensibility. If it is a joke on the audience, calling us out for being pretentious film goers who think we can "understand" the scary inner workings of great artists, then bravo Mr. Aster, you did it, but it is not funny or revealing of anything. The great artist scours modern society and the human condition and picks as his subject the "horror of modern life," alienation, anomie, Freudian symbolism, mental health issues, etc. Wow, never seen that before. There is no "there" here. Structurally the film is a mess. We are watching something like a parade that starts out with a good band and some excellent tumblers and acrobats, then devolves into an entire boring afternoon of slow moving floats, and small town pageant winners waving from convertibles. Long speeches and statements are made by characters we don't know at all. These are meant - I think - to reveal something to the audience, or patch up the faltering story, but fail to actually be anything more than cryptic, stilted nonsense. As it drags on and on, it is a film of increasingly diminishing returns. Watch the first hour or so, then skip to the very end. You will not miss anything, and the ending credits steal an idea from Stanley Kubrick, which may be the best idea in the whole film.

A machine with too many moving parts has a tendency to be unreliable. So it is with this film. All of the scams and shams have to be precisely coordinated in order for any of the plot contrivances to operate smoothly. A few of the parts don't quite fit, and while it slowly chugs along, too many questions arise that are not sufficiently addressed in the script. Mamet no doubt has the touch of genius needed to make this whole thing 25% better, which would have made it a great mystery film. The question is, why isn't it? I don't like to give spoilers, so I won't, but certain aspects of the the story seem a bit "too" convenient, and lazy. It just "kind of" fits together. The logistics of all the meetings and imposters and travel and everything else that sometimes frantically propels the story are beyond belief. We never have any idea why people who seem to already own or have access to something would need to steal it, or do so much cheating and conning and conniving, when far simpler ways of achieving their goals would seem obvious. The dialogue is witty and entertaining, the acting is serviceable, but no one is called upon here to really do that much acting. If you like guessing and wondering what is going on, and that gives you a kick, then I'd recommend this. If you like a compelling story well told, that makes good sense, this is not it.

The actors do fine, but the story and writing are largely superficial and the courtroom scenes are pure Hollywood fantasy. It's a feel-good movie with some nebulous, trite and well worn messages about corporate greed and corruption, and American race relations. While it is often entertaining, it lacks depth and substance. From the title and poster art you wonder, is this a send-up, a goofy buddy comedy, a carefree romp? Or is it a serious film? I don't think the film knows the answer to this. The tone is uneven, sometimes straight, sometimes over the top, and the relationships between the characters are sudden, overfamiliar, and unearned. The whole thing is kind of breezy, when all the while it contains the potential of being insightful or containing some interesting or valuable social commentary, but never does. Why take on big cultural themes like justice and prejudice and greed, then do nothing with them? In the end, it is time passing, mild entertainment, with zero contribution to the themes it covers, and very little impact.

In life things happen that cannot be explained, understood, or justified. This very smart film looks closely at how we argue our points and rely on words and rhetoric to make sense of events. Or, how we twist and manipulate language and situations to our advantage, AKA lying. The main character here is a writer - of fiction. How much of what she says is true? How much is fiction? The film is careful to make sure we do not know. We either trust her, or we don't. We also feel certain we can trust the lawyers only as much as we are willing to, given their profession. After all, their job is only to present a precisely distilled portrayal of events that will win for their "side." The words we use can hit home and create mutual understanding and agreement, changing perspectives in the name of the good and the true. However, given the possible degree of falsity in our statements, we just as often use language at the expense of honesty, not saying what we know to be true, solely for our personal advantage. Our words can be sincere, or carefully crafted to be intentionally misleading. Entire industries rely on this, and are well compensated for the effort. Which is happening - honesty or deception - and at what points in this film? How much value do others place on our statements? This movie contains fascinating layers of truth vs. Fiction, trust vs. Mistrust, tales told, events remembered, events brought back to life by interrogation and carefully chosen statements. But, are they true? How did the dead man die? Does our protagonist really know, or not? Who is listening to our arguments, and do they really hear or care what we are saying when they have their own differing viewpoints, or do not trust us to tell the truth? This is a thoroughly thought provoking film, with excellence and superiority achieved in writing, acting and filming. "What happened?" is the point, but also not the point. Perhaps the actual point is that we work so hard to make sense of emotions and events, and we feel a strong desire or need to assign responsibility for things that may be far too complicated to arrive at "blame," and ultimately must remain imprecisely known. We accept the simplified explanations and answers - often fabrications - that suit our need for expediency, and continue our travels through life, half in the dark but shining our own light everywhere.

This film plods along and has nothing other than a mundane message to offer: people try and sometimes lose. The main character is fundamentally uninteresting and has nothing to say and presents no unique perspective on anything. He is presented as being painfully irritable, and the effect is painfully irritating. The story goes nowhere; it stays exactly the same from the first to last frame. The best part of the movie -- the only bright spot -- is Carey Mulligan, who is excellent in her role. She is the lone interesting character with any viewpoint or personality to express, and the only saving grace for this drawn out mess. Mulligan gives a complicated, energetic and trenchant performance and deserves major credit for making this marginally watchable. The Coen brothers, however, are taking a nap on this one. The worst parts are the pointless, stilted and unconvincing musical performances (five or six full songs?) by the main character. This was done to fill (waste) time? This movie needed a full re-conceptualization and a major re-write before filming began. The actors do their best with a meandering, shallow script. Washed out, almost mono- or duo-chrome visuals, watered down storytelling, and diluted speaking parts; this is a wash out on many levels. Some good performances, some good cinematography and interesting shots, but in total a waste of time. No offense intended, but I imagine only very bored or very pretentious and easily impressionable viewers would find this valuable or interesting in any way.

Tedious and awful. Almost unwatchably boring. A bunch of old guys relishing the old days with very little to say. Visually it is 1.5 hours of still pictures of knobs, wires, and racks of electronic equipment cut with 70 year old men talking. The whole idea is how great synthesizers are and how they impacted modern music, but no modern music is played or featured, They did not or could not buy the rights to any music to make this doc prove its point. A dull, goofy, bleepy, blurpy interstitial series of synth sounds accompanies the entire thing, but when they talk about a use of the synth, they never play the actual popular music or any kind of example. This is one of the absolute worst documentaries I have ever seen, and I came into it with an appreciation and interest in the subject. This should have been shelved and never released for lack of purpose and lack of the proper resources to pull off the project. I was in shock at how incredibly dull this was.

There is an over-reliance on sitcom style cleverness and sarcasm in the script which does not ring true for these characters, and there are more than a few moments of weak dialog. A great deal of the dialog is meant-to-be clever jibes and insults between the characters. As a result, for most of this movie it's hard to see why these people like each other and continue to interact. The moralizing is simple and a bit shallow and the relationships are largely undeveloped, but there are some moments of genuine feeling and emotion which keep it engaging. Light fare, relaxing to watch if you don't expect too much from it. More like a quickly written TV script than a fully developed movie script, but overall slightly more good than bad.

This film has: no plot; countless, pointless, extended shots of virtually nothing happening (a guy getting a tattoo for ten minutes, a girl crying on a dark porch for eight minutes, people swimming and smoking weed, people with nothing to say driving around in the dark, etc.); no character development; and apparently no script. Take a camera, go to a poor neighborhood and film the most boring people you can find sitting around doing nothing, and you can personally recreate this waste of time disguised as film making. Apparently, this guy had $50,000 on hand to accomplish this feat. What? The backdrop for the end credits is actually more interesting than anything else in the movie (which is why I gave it a 2 instead of a 1). Well paid critics apparently like the novelty of seeing what poor people do all day, but for those who already know, this is utterly pointless.