Funny Face

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.

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

The movie itself is poor, kinda went nowhere, but the acting from Cosmo, is nothing short of breathless. As a sufferer of anxiety/depression I identified with him immediately. The meltdown in the car, I cried.

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.