Funny Face

To save everyone time let me start out and tell you that this is in no way a revenge or vigilante movie. There is no violence, there is not much in the way of plot, there is no excitement or action. There is a little bit of boobies for like 60 seconds if that's your thing. This is an art house film, so be warned.

This was an odd movie to get all the way through for me, not because it's necessarily bad, but it's not "good" either because it really doesn't have a story or plot line. It is shot in a very gritty way that showcases both the beauty and griminess of New York. I've only been to NY state once and went through the various boroughs and they really do have a beauty to them, older architecture, mom and pop shops everywhere, it's alive and crawling with people. And rats. And pigeons. Because there's also the ugly side, trash everywhere, it stinks, it's noisy, the people are jerks...I hated NY city. But that doesn't mean I can't appreciate it.

And that's really a large part of this movie, the pros and the cons of life there. It's about how class warfare affects those at the bottom, about what happens to them when their neighborhood is bulldozed so an expensive high-rise complex can move in, displacing all the previous inhabitants. It's about immigrants moving into the middle of this and feeling out of place, trying to figure out where they fit in. This is not told through any sort of story, it's 90% atmosphere with a speech sort of explaining the heart of the issue near the end of the film. This is all told through the experiences of essentially 3 people, the displaced, the immigrant, and the wealthy real-estate mogul.

So if you like movies based entirely around atmosphere, long sweeping shots of city life, long silences and moments of brooding, give it a shot. The main performances were above average in general (couple poorly delivered lines here and there), the direction and cinematography is excellent...but it's a bit boring and feels aimless. I wouldn't recommend it to the average individual.

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 entire movie is built around seemingly interesting characters with very abstract personalities. The movie seemed really promising but the plot was not revealed for 70 mins of the film.

The actors were not clear about their personalities and often lost the character they were playing.

Would not recommend

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.

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.