Reviews

I really loved this movie but it simply was way too long. I like long movies, I like slow cinema but there is still the concept of economy or story telling. I wish he would allow himself to "kill his darlings" and cut like almost an hour out of this. One of his justifications is that people "sit and binge tv shows for 4-5 hours" but it's not at all the same. The form and structure of television and film are completely different, he knows that. It really just feels like self indulgence because he's at the end of his career and nobody is going to tell him no. Self indulgence is the death of a lot of great artist once they find success. Particularly Scorsese, all of his most respected films (maybe with the exception of casino) even if they had a slightly longer run-time were completely trimmed of fat. Every shot, every line has a point in advancing the plot and was very economical. This adaptation felt like it made all the mistakes of adapting from a novel to film. I would absolutely love an edit of this film that is maybe 2 hours long and could easily been done. It would have been more emotionally impactful, interesting and still honored the story and the people it was about. The Osage, which was definitely the most interesting part of the film. But gets swept up in a stale courtroom drama that we've seen a million times and could have been a couple of short scenes.

I'm normally not a big Del Toro fan but this one worked for me, it was definitely self indulgently, but it really worked and for being so hyper stylized actually looked pretty cool for the most part. It doesn't hurt having every elite actor in the film. Shave 35 minutes off of that and you would've had a perfect taught little neo-noir moral thriller. The screenplay is straight out of one of those " how to write a screenplay" books and it works in this case.

Through a manic adderall haze you watch 3 young girls fall down the rabbit hole of Epstein and the powerful people who helped him and killed him in a schlocky Italian-slasher inspired thriller. Hints of the Safdie Brothers, which makes sense with the downtown cool kid scene, and Vera Chitlova (daisies). Before I realized it was supposed to essentially be an Argento movie (the score is basically Goblin) I thought some of the acting was weak but once it settles into itself it's great. It's a shame they couldn't do reshoots for that first 15-20 minutes because the performances are going to turn a lot of people off. It has a great Eyes Wide Shut reference I won't spoil.

What if Christopher Nolan had a traumatic brain injury? When Brian Cox in Adaptation said "god help you if you use voice-over" he was talking about this movie. Probably one of the worst screenplays I've ever seen. The CGI looks like a video game, absolutely TERRIBLE dialogue. "Memories are like beads on the necklace of time" or "Come on dad, let's get you home to your medicine" or "nobody wants to see a girl in a thrift store dress" when she's obviously wearing a like $3000 designer cocktail dress. The writer director has only ever been a producer for bad tv shows and it shows. The entire look and feel is right out of an NBC prime time sci-fi show that people's dad's begrudgingly watch as they fall asleep. And the entire concept feels like an artifact of 1999-2003. This is embarrassingly bad in every possible way. Razzie for screenplay.

The interstitial credits give such a great sense of suspense and dread. The design, cinematography, costumes, art direction are absolutely 10/10. Will be slow for some viewers but it felt perfect and the ending is great. Absolutely will be one of the best films of the year. Entrancing. A work of art on the screen from beginning to end.

I did not go into this movie expecting it to be about the transcendent beauty and power of food, but as an ex-fine-dining chef it was probably one of the best food movies ever made. How it captures the underground nature of such an insular community that if you've never been a member of you'll never understand. Albeit in an over dramatized manner, it still has come closer to showing what being a chef is really about more than any gritty drug movie or celebratory journey of self discovery through food crap. If you're a back of the house restaurant worker this should be A#1 on the top of your list. Beautiful, touching, haunting. The whole theater was gold with teens and bros and dads in khaki shorts and they all had their mouthed gaping or crying when the lights came up.

Dear god. How did CIA Jim get a sequel to that terrible film he originally got financing to? Idk. Maybe he had some favors he could call in? For some reason idiots liked it. This sequel is even more despicable and even more hate-able. Truly a despicable filmmaker, CIA Jim is. Trash. Trash. Trash. Boycott this guy.

Socialism on the big screen in a major film! So amazing to see how solidarity positively impacts people's lives and how hard the intelligence community worked to destroy that. It was so inspiring to see real left/black power in a film this year after we've been disenfranchised once again. People of the world stand up. Bring power back to the people. Beautiful, touching, moving.

Why must every prank/stunt movie be a cross country road trip to fulfill the protagonists missing desire? Eric Andre is so much funnier than this film. Every single plot beat is recycled. A few funny moments but so unimaginative and unoriginal from such an imaginative and original comedian. Very disappointed. Borat, Bruno, bad grandpa, that awful between two ferns movie that nobody saw, all the exact same plot. Road trip buddy movie searching for that obscure object of desire. Nope.

I watch bad movies as a hobby and this is among the worst movies I've ever seen. There is literally no story. People were walking out. Tom Hooper is the name Alan smithee uses when even he's embarrassed to put a name on his picture. One of the worst movies of the decade. 90 million dollars for that? Imagine how many poor children you could feed?

Just more proof that film critics and star wars fanatics are the two most unreliable narrators in the saga. This was great and I'm the most critical pretentious film snob you'll ever meet...

Sure there have been plenty of colonial era films. But this one reall F'd me up. Beautifully shot, well acted. Great script, showed a lot of restraint. Def one of the best films of 2019 or of the decade. It's a film that hurts. And it should. So good.

Rick Alverson is one of the most overlooked and inventive directors of our time. It's easy to understand why people might not like his films but I'm glued to the screen for every second when I watch one. My god, how beautiful and haunting.

This would've been a really interesting if it essentially a silent film. Cut all the voiceover, all the monologues, explain JUST enough so you know why this stuff is happening, cut the moon pirates and space baboon and the hack estranged wife plotline. There's a great experimental film hidden inside this, if only I had access to the editing bay I could re-cut this to be a great experience based movie.

Technically it's a beautiful film, great composer, great cinematographer, excellent sound design. But it made that fatal error of trying to be both appealing to wide audiences and be an art film. 75% of the script is done through voice over and monologue, which obviously reminds you immediately of Terrance Malick but in a bad way. There is a really good film inside this film, if you cut out about 30 minutes of the dumb stuff and cut all of the voiceover, psychology evaluations, exposition dumps and the wife backstory. Don't over explain and just let it unfold as a more experiential piece. I might actually try to make a 60-90 minute experimental cut of this film that I would absolutely love. So much wasted potential and talent on trying to make people comfortable and safe. Ugh.

Love the show but this movie is essentially "what if borat was terrible?". The South Park guys talk about how when you're writing you should always have consequences for actions to move the plot ahead (therefore's instead of and then's). This movie fails that terribly. It's a series of almost random events with no weight or meaning, the interviews themselves are just tiny snippets which is the whole reason people like the property....it's just bad writing and directing and judgement on such a deep and fundamental level. Will Ferrel was great.

It SUCKS! What tripe of person is this movie designed for. It was literally physically painful.

I was curious about this story. I was super surprised at how well it was done. Great. The lead is great, solid writing, great score, cinematography.

The visuals are at times impressive, other times very computery. Middle of the road. If you liked the original you will like it. I'm neutral. Every element is a 5.

My god. I cannot believe this script got bought and made. Who thought this was ok?

An extremely different film. Not sure how to feel. You will love it or hate it. The climax is madly effective no matter how you feel. Average movie goers will hate it.

Western audiences are not interested, what's the deal?

So obviously a first film by an actor who want to direct. Filled with sloppy collages of styles of films he's seen/been in before, zero originality. It's trying REALLY hard to be a quirky coen brothers crime dramedy but fails at both comedy and drama. He even got roger deakins to shoot it so that's an indication of intent. 90% of the time when actors try to be directors it doesn't work. It's somethibg you need to dedicate yourself to fully, just because you've been on films doesn't mean you know how to make them well. Forced myself to watch it for hoffman, Caleb Landry Jones, roger deakins, John turtorro, Richard Jenkins, all of whom have worked with the coen brothers...

I hope this movie is looked back upon in a very unique way in film history. It was essentially blacklisted, justified or not, for it's creator abusing his privilege and gender, which is exactly what the film was about. It's clearly somewhat autobiographical, I think some part of him knew his career was over and wanted to get this film out just in time. He was two weeks late. The themes of obscured sexual morals, patriarchy, privilege, male dominance is the core of the film, toxic masculinity. It would have actually done a lot to add to the dialog at the time around the "me too" movement, as a man who was admitting to doing these things growing and coming to terms with it, instead of silencing him. I understand why it was buried but I think that was a mistake and adds to the idea that the current culture is not an open forum. There are many ways this film could be interpreted to make him look worse or better, but we are all adults, we should be able to see it. You can find it online if you know how. It's excellent, a bit sloppy here and there, (blocking errors/script supervision, Pamela Aldon being too similar to her role in Louis takes you out of it a bit) but it's a self funded independent debut feature shot on black and white film by a stand up comedian and a television crew in 2017 and it's beautiful and heartfelt and that's a amazing. It is actually an extremely important film and should be seen no matter how you feel about the social issues surrounding it. Also comparing it to woody Allen is lazy and not at all accurate, it's much closer to 40's/50's American drama romances, Douglas Sirk, Howard hawks, George cukor, Preston sturges. Kubrick's Lolita is obviously a HUGE influence. Chloe grace moretz is basically playing a version of sue Lyons' Lolita and looks and acts much like her. There are moments in the film that are clear homages to that film.

Spike lee peacocked in a purple suit at the Oscars. Enough said. Look at his filmography, he is not a good director. Stop. Cliched, boring, false, poorly made, self aware, you are constantly aware/reminded you are watching a movie. Not good.