La destruction de la maison de ses grands-parents conduit un jeune homme à se venger sous un personnage masqué.La destruction de la maison de ses grands-parents conduit un jeune homme à se venger sous un personnage masqué.La destruction de la maison de ses grands-parents conduit un jeune homme à se venger sous un personnage masqué.
- Prix
- 4 nominations au total
Lawrence Oliver Cherry
- News Anchor - Dodley
- (voice)
- (credit only)
Kevin Alexis Rivera
- Store Employee
- (as a different name)
Avis en vedette
I had expectations for this one. That's why it is so hard to admit that I didn't really like it.
The film is subtle, is an art house film, I knew that before. I knew the pace wouldn't be a typical Hollywood pace, I knew that was a drama and not a vigilante movie or something similar. So, that was not my issue with the film. The silence and the lack of much dialogue doesn't bother me either (I like or love most of Kim Ki-duk films, that are much more raw than this regarding that).
However, for the most time, I can't say that something relevant for the plot was happening in scene. They ate a lot and don't like to speak while they are eating. I get that.
The film plays with your patience, drags a lot, with some cool shots, a nice cinematography and a good score. Unfortunately, the substance is not there and I was really bored during most of his duration, as there is no material here to fill 90 minutes.
Not my cup of tea, even if there are here and there some good appointments to take. Almost all in the technical aspects.
PS: That would be a pretty cool mask for a new slasher movie.
The film is subtle, is an art house film, I knew that before. I knew the pace wouldn't be a typical Hollywood pace, I knew that was a drama and not a vigilante movie or something similar. So, that was not my issue with the film. The silence and the lack of much dialogue doesn't bother me either (I like or love most of Kim Ki-duk films, that are much more raw than this regarding that).
However, for the most time, I can't say that something relevant for the plot was happening in scene. They ate a lot and don't like to speak while they are eating. I get that.
The film plays with your patience, drags a lot, with some cool shots, a nice cinematography and a good score. Unfortunately, the substance is not there and I was really bored during most of his duration, as there is no material here to fill 90 minutes.
Not my cup of tea, even if there are here and there some good appointments to take. Almost all in the technical aspects.
PS: That would be a pretty cool mask for a new slasher movie.
This movie had it's moments, but in the end, I was left with nothing. This film was pretty much pointless. Or if there was a point, it went right over my head. Cosmo Jarvis was great in this, but the movie itself goes nowhere. It felt like they were building up to something great but nothing happens. It had some good cinematography and acting but no concrete plot. Not a film I'd recommend. 5 stars.
OK, I'm done watching Tim Sutton movies.
It's not that Sutton isn't talented, but since his visually stunning debut "Pavillion", his creative vision keeps battering the same one wall, like a stymied writer-blocked film student.
Especially after "Dark Night", Sutton drew a lot of comparisons to Gus Van Sant, whose "Elephant" was similarly structured and themed. Sure, "Dark Night" meandered, as all of Sutton's films do, but it did it in such a curiously intriguing way, showing you characters and situations that when they weren't odd or slightly askew in a way you had to work to articulate, the film was at bare minimum striking to look at. On a macro level, it had a lot to say.
"Funny Face" has a premise that seems intriguing, but it's hung on a cast of the dullest characters Sutton has yet created. They aren't exactly unlikable, and for brief periods the boy-girl protag's relationship and shared grief over lives lost/ abandoned does work.
But then it's as if Sutton remembered he's also got a plot to run. This constant down and up shifting in the pacing only emphasizes Funny Face's threadbare conceits --- it's attempts to draw parallels between the protagonist and antagonist, and the few sledgehammer blows of symbolism (the pink neon sign was laughable) make it self-conscious and embarrassing. The limited character palettes guarantee all the performances come across as either stilted or overplayed (especially by the villain).
If Sutton's previous films did nothing else, they carried a bit of subtlety and grace. Funny Face's repetitive nature and lack of any substantial dialogue, combined with the basic ordinariness or ugliness of it's surroundings and leaden juxtaposition add up to nothing, at least nothing worth sitting still for at 93 minutes.
It's not that Sutton isn't talented, but since his visually stunning debut "Pavillion", his creative vision keeps battering the same one wall, like a stymied writer-blocked film student.
Especially after "Dark Night", Sutton drew a lot of comparisons to Gus Van Sant, whose "Elephant" was similarly structured and themed. Sure, "Dark Night" meandered, as all of Sutton's films do, but it did it in such a curiously intriguing way, showing you characters and situations that when they weren't odd or slightly askew in a way you had to work to articulate, the film was at bare minimum striking to look at. On a macro level, it had a lot to say.
"Funny Face" has a premise that seems intriguing, but it's hung on a cast of the dullest characters Sutton has yet created. They aren't exactly unlikable, and for brief periods the boy-girl protag's relationship and shared grief over lives lost/ abandoned does work.
But then it's as if Sutton remembered he's also got a plot to run. This constant down and up shifting in the pacing only emphasizes Funny Face's threadbare conceits --- it's attempts to draw parallels between the protagonist and antagonist, and the few sledgehammer blows of symbolism (the pink neon sign was laughable) make it self-conscious and embarrassing. The limited character palettes guarantee all the performances come across as either stilted or overplayed (especially by the villain).
If Sutton's previous films did nothing else, they carried a bit of subtlety and grace. Funny Face's repetitive nature and lack of any substantial dialogue, combined with the basic ordinariness or ugliness of it's surroundings and leaden juxtaposition add up to nothing, at least nothing worth sitting still for at 93 minutes.
I definitely see why *some* reviewers were turned off or annoyed by this film's slow pacing and lack of an in-your-face plot. The plot is there, but it's definitely not something like a John Wick or Joker where you feel as though every moment of the film is building on it and toward a specific outcome.
The story centers on two disaffected youths from different social backgrounds but who both live in and appreciate Brooklyn and NYC. I haven't seen New York presented as well as in this film in a long time, with long quiet (save for some background music in parts) scenes that capture the city as almost a character.
The dialog is slow and disjointed at times, but that's part of the deal when your protagonists are both somewhat introverted and still feeling out where they fit in their own skin and society at large.
The villain was a little over the top, and the strange (non) sex scene in which nothing actually happens but three semi-nude women writhing around all over each other in front of him was IMO totally unnecessary and, while filmed rather competently, amateurly conceived and included in the first place. That was good for a 2 star reduction right there.
The score was awesome and original. I loved most of the background music.
Look, this is the very definition of "art house" cinema. It reminded me of Uncut Gems but without the frenetic pacing, super uncomfortable situations and borderline psycho characters, not to mention the clear plot.
I give this one 6.8 stars rounded up to 7 as it was mostly a very engaging watch and sucked me in despite the no-frills production and sparse plot development (which, again, was intentional - leaving the viewer to read between the lines). If you're turned off by the negative reviews, then this one probably isn't for you and you can safely skip it. If you're in the mood for something different, relaxing even, give it a try.
The story centers on two disaffected youths from different social backgrounds but who both live in and appreciate Brooklyn and NYC. I haven't seen New York presented as well as in this film in a long time, with long quiet (save for some background music in parts) scenes that capture the city as almost a character.
The dialog is slow and disjointed at times, but that's part of the deal when your protagonists are both somewhat introverted and still feeling out where they fit in their own skin and society at large.
The villain was a little over the top, and the strange (non) sex scene in which nothing actually happens but three semi-nude women writhing around all over each other in front of him was IMO totally unnecessary and, while filmed rather competently, amateurly conceived and included in the first place. That was good for a 2 star reduction right there.
The score was awesome and original. I loved most of the background music.
Look, this is the very definition of "art house" cinema. It reminded me of Uncut Gems but without the frenetic pacing, super uncomfortable situations and borderline psycho characters, not to mention the clear plot.
I give this one 6.8 stars rounded up to 7 as it was mostly a very engaging watch and sucked me in despite the no-frills production and sparse plot development (which, again, was intentional - leaving the viewer to read between the lines). If you're turned off by the negative reviews, then this one probably isn't for you and you can safely skip it. If you're in the mood for something different, relaxing even, give it a try.
Honestly, I spent a great deal of this movie wondering what happened to the beautiful, sexy whiskey voice Cosmo had on "Shogun"; about the same amount of time I spent waiting for the plot to show up. The balance of the run-time (and a short time thereafter) included a failed search for the end of the film; not that there was much of a plot from the beginning.
After the incredible success of "Shogun", and Cosmo's performance in it, I was soooo looking forward to watching this movie to see more of his work. I started an attempt to excuse the sub-par performance on youth and inexperience; unfortunately this film is only dated 4 years ago.
Well, sadly, something went very wrong here. Even sadder, the story/plot didn't even show up for work.
Can't wait to see you again... in a GOOD movie, Cosmo. I believe in you.
One last thing, the beautiful young woman in the hijab, (I think her name is Dela Meskienyar) she had a number of really great moments and clearly has talent. Keep up the good work. 😁👍
After the incredible success of "Shogun", and Cosmo's performance in it, I was soooo looking forward to watching this movie to see more of his work. I started an attempt to excuse the sub-par performance on youth and inexperience; unfortunately this film is only dated 4 years ago.
Well, sadly, something went very wrong here. Even sadder, the story/plot didn't even show up for work.
Can't wait to see you again... in a GOOD movie, Cosmo. I believe in you.
One last thing, the beautiful young woman in the hijab, (I think her name is Dela Meskienyar) she had a number of really great moments and clearly has talent. Keep up the good work. 😁👍
Le saviez-vous
- Bandes originalesGive Me Life (Colors Verison)
Written by Simon Andersson (uncredited), Simon Lauridsen (uncredited), and Fine Jensen (uncredited)
Performed by Chinah
Courtesy of N03 / Colors Media UG
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Funny Face?Propulsé par Alexa
Détails
Box-office
- Brut – à l'échelle mondiale
- 18 489 $ US
- Durée
- 1h 35m(95 min)
- Couleur
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant