User reviews

Greetings again from the darkness. We tend to think of 'coming-of-age' movies as centered on teenagers as they face the challenges of transitioning into adulthood. The reality is that folks come of age during different phases of life (and some seemingly never do). Filmmaker Joanna Hogg continues her autobiographical look back with the follow-up to her exceptional 2019 arthouse film. Is it a sequel? Technically, yes; but it's more of a continuation, and the two parts actually function best as a single 4-hour story.

Starting off shortly after the first movie ended, part two finds Julie (Honor Swinton Byrne) in bed at her parents' house. They try to comfort her as she grieves the death of Anthony (played so well in the first by Tom Burke). For those who have not seen the 2019 film, I'll tread lightly as it should be seen prior to this one due to the continuing story line and numerous references. Despite her confusion and despondency, Julie heads back to film school. Using art to deal with her emotions, she starts all over with the script for her graduation film. The Film School committee of like-minded middle-aged men thrash her idea of dealing with her situation on film. Despite their harsh words, she persists.

For such a 'quiet' movie, it's astonishing how many things are going on in Ms. Hogg's film and in Julie's world. The jealousies of film school students are noted, as are the discrepancies between overly confident young filmmakers (a brilliant Richard Ayoade) and those still trying to find their voice (Julie). Ayoade's arrogant Patrick is recognizable to us as a big production filmmaker in the vein of many who have come before him. On the other hand, Julie stumbles over how best to convey the emotions for the actors in her film ... a film that is so personal she's dealing with memories even while setting up scenes.

Honor Swinton Byrne (Tilda Swinton's daughter) excels at relaying a certain sadness in Julie as she pushes onward. Anthony's ghost hovers everywhere for her. She bravely visits his parents. The confusion over Anthony's story, and her shock at not having recognized the signs, are exemplified as she presents the common façade of appearing OK while struggling inside. Julie's parents, played by (the always great) Tilda Swinton and James Spencer Ashworth walk on egg shells around her, while trying to offer support, despite their detachment - not just from the relationship, but from Julie's life in general (other than lending her money in times of need).

Supporting work comes from Charlie Heaton, Harris Dickinson, and Ariane Labed, as student actors. In Julie's film, Ms. Labed plays the role of Julie, which in reality, is the role of Ms. Hogg as a young aspiring filmmaker. Joe Alwyn has a terrific cameo as Julie's editor in one of the most awkward and tender scenes. Ms. Hogg did not film the two parts simultaneously, but her style is so unique (as an example, songs cut off abruptly mid-scene) that it's a challenge not to rave about the look and feel. Her talented collaborators include Film Editor Helle le Fevre, who serves up some creative transitions; Production Designer Stephane Collonge, whose sets are crucial in a film with minimal dialogue; and Cinematographer David Radeker whose lensing gives the film the perfect look for its time. Tilda Swinton stars in Ms. Hogg's upcoming film, THE ETERNAL DAUGHTER; however, we will have to be patient to see if Honor Swinton Byrne continues to pursue acting, a profession to which she seems destined.

In theaters beginning November 12, 2021.

If you didn't like Part I, you won't like Part II, as not much has changed. The film has a slightly more vibrant and upbeat tone, but the style and essence of the film is very similar.

If you loved Part I, you'll most likely love Part II, as it carries on the story right where we left off and completes the emotional arc of Julie.

Ultimately these films aren't quite my cup of tea, but they are watchable and do have some interesting moments.

This is much more "enjoyable" than its predecessor, and it's not solely because it doesn't contain the toxic Anthony. I felt so disappointed by the flat direction in the first film, and I was delighted to see more chances taken in this one. There is more life and color in Part II, and some meta moments were really quite surprising.

I think I enjoyed "The Souvenir Part II" even more than the first installment. I didn't actually enjoy the first one much while in the act of watching it, and it wasn't until days later, when I realized I couldn't stop thinking about it, that its specialness hit home. But it's still a frustrating experience to watch an entire movie about a woman letting a man treat her badly for two hours, even if that experience is a common one in the real world.

It's not really a spoiler to reveal that the man has died before the second episode begins, and that this film focuses on our heroine's attempts to work through her grief and insecurities by directing a student film. "The Souvenir Part II" is much more meta than the first one, and it's much more about the process of making a movie, which I find fascinating. This is one of the best movies about making movies I've ever seen. Think of it as a "Day for Night" for a student filmmaker.

Will there be a "Souvenir Part III?" If there is, count me in.

Grade: A.

The film will be rated approximately the same as The Souvenir, you either really appreciate the approach, really don't, or find some valuable insights and merits.

I did not see the films back to back, so was immediately put off by the way it delved into the aftermath of Anthony's death without any background. If it were a TV series no problem, but this is supposed to be an independent film. However this actually worked in exploring the here-absent Anthony from a different perspective, as a presence the character must endure/overcome in different ways: emotionally, sexually, artistically. The latter leads to more "arty" discussions that will certainly put off those who don't appreciate the vibe.

The grief of the main character is more believable here in the absence of Anthony as the relationship never really was convincing in the previous film. And the way she sublimates it in her art was very interesting, leading to baffled comments from her co-workers, colleagues and professors. The lead, however, remains in my mind a miscasting, although clearly under a lot of pressure (as a stand in at different levels for, basically, two strong women). However, as in The Souvenir, Part 2 will make much more sense for those with references/context than to a naive audience. Film is not life and vice versa, as is often stated.

Joanna Hogg's script constructs life at an eighties London film school, and captures the era to the T.

I was an actor working with Melbourne, Swinburne RMIT film students at that same time. The parallel's between Joanna's story here and the general, dystopian horror Swinburne film students operated under, are uncanny.

Despite myself, and as well made as this film is, I have to say it will probably only appeal to a niche audience. It is beautifully cast and executed, and worth watching for numerous reason, but overtly entertaining it isn't.

In me, it re-triggered a level of ire toward the hack and snake instructors who nested in eighties film schools. People whose creative instinct, if they ever had one, had long left their being, to be replaced by an unerring, subtle undermining of student confidence, and a bald faced, polite dishonesty they measured would ensure them the longest teaching tenure.

You'll see a bit of that in this film.

What I didn't see in ' The Souvenir' was any intimation of the effects of that long term poison on the development and wellbeing of would be film makers. It was nice to see Richard Ayoade on screen. He is sadly, accurately brilliant as the auteur from hell.

It seriously threatened to take the first spot on my list of the best films of 2021. Unbelievable! I didn't receive well the first film because I think I wasn't prepared for it when I saw it, and that is - I have to rewatch it, but that's an incredibly challenging film. In this one, you can get aboard trouble-free. And I'm not saying this is a more conventional film. It's not. Hogg managed to "reach out" to the viewer (at least to me) smoothly this time around while at the same time preserving the same confident, sumptuous directing style she displayed in the first film. Where the two films differ quite a bit is the writing. Here, there's a good deal of dialogue. Characters express themselves a lot, whereas, in the first film, you have to drain your intuition empty to understand what's going on; what's the motivation behind the characters' actions. And while I think that's what Hogg intended with the first film, and it wasn't an anomaly of the movie, I have to admit I didn't get along with it. Anyway, the rewatch is on the way, so I'll settle the score with the first film shortly.

Back to Part II, I loved it! There's a peaceful vibe that's so welcoming naive with its brute honesty yet disarming with its gentle way of coming to meet us. Honor Swinton gives a nuanced performance, fully embracing the pure nature of her character. And her performance gets even better and more genuine, almost unselfconscious when she's acting alongside Tilda. Double-Swinton powerhouse! Here, Hogg showcases a bit of her humor through my favorite character in the film: Patrick. I love hysteric characters, and this guy was my poison. - "You're forcing me to have a tantrum." I yelp-laughed at that. He almost ruined the rest of the movie for me because, after the scene where the line above takes place, I was in such a hurry for the film to end so I could go back and watch the scene on loop. Anyway, 'The Souvenir, Part II' is such a rich film. And it's this richness that allows for it to connect with everyone. I think everyone would find a piece in it they will relate to if they let themself reminisce in Hogg's confessional cinematics.

After finished watching The Worst Person In The World, the first thought in my mind was that's the film if The Souvenir was done right.

Apparently, The Souvenir Part II turn out to be a much better film. Julie is still an insufferable person, but this time she's become more bearable since the film laid a better ground for her characterization. We now can easily feel related and/or empathize with her, especially since the flow of her arc was engaging enough to follow.

The film equivalent of smelling ones own fart and enjoying it. What happens when money is thrown at privileged, talentless hacks who write a story about their petite bourgeoise struggles as a privileged "artist" with first world problem like a waste of space loser who croaked and terrible criticism at film school which is horrifyingly traumatic for said privileged and pretentious victim, but mummy and daddy are at hand with the cheque book to save this farting artist and give her the career promised her, because we all know once destiny manifests, the BFI which loves the fart in the air will come and reward the white woman with there cheque book to make more motion picture farts like this. Clearly the 7.2 rating is due to the paid fart smellers giving this film that lacks substance, reason, and talent a chance whereas actual talent is kept at bay. Clearly money talks. One of the worst films ever made.

"Souvenir, Part II" is even more elegant than "Souvenir". A tremendously proficient film, so proficient that there is no need for the first movie. Again for some the movie might be slow paced but once more there was no minute passing by where I felt uninterested. Loved the characters, the actors and especially the writing and the direction.

Hogg felt the need and had the means to make the lead-up film in its entirety before engaging with the events of Part II. Tilda shines as always and the story, directing, music and editing style are superb. And again Honor Swinton is the heart and soul of this film, her acting was as masterful as her mother's! And Richard Ayoade's turn as Patrick is exactly the kind of eccentric and charming character that the movie needed. You have to love him!

If you never heard of the first chapter, don´t worry. You will see how Julie dealt with the loss of her former lover. Souvenir Part II is an easy endorsement. Tilda, Honor and Richard will take you on a trip you will not forget.

Is Hogg here a minimalist struggling to reconcile an attraction to maximalism, a realist who can't let go of the oneiric, or maybe just a brilliant creator of vignettes desperately trying to figure out how to tell a long-form story?

Mostly I think it's the last of these. She's never done better than in Archipelago, where the vignettes had free reign to comically and sadly portray the maddening trivia of an upper-class family life, offset against the son's largely hopeless pursuit of meaning and purpose in developing-world philanthropy. The intelligence of the film was in realising just how rich all this barely perceptible stuff could be.

Cut a few years later to The Souvenir Part I and we find Hogg taking on a highly perceptible Big Subject, the death of her heroin addict boyfriend, in what proved, not necessarily paradoxically, to be an altogether duller and more conventional film. I don't mean to be unfeeling about what must have been a traumatic event, but the film is a case study in how the transfer of such real-life devastation into compelling story material is no simple thing - and by no means a guarantor of artistic quality on its own.

Part II, with its Cocteau-like, high-artifice student film within the film and flipping of film sets with real settings attempts, sort of, to tackle or at least acknowledge the trickiness of the endeavour. Actually, for me the thing is at its strongest on Hogg's home turf of sometimes sad, sometimes subtly comic realist set-pieces: the protagonist's visit to her dead boyfriend's parents and a particularly good little sequence on her mother learning ceramics. All this is early in the film and it's all I personally could ask for: shots as spare and beautifully composed as Vermeer or Piero, perfectly observed human interaction and deep feeling breaking through the quotidian and the politesse. This is where not just Hogg, but her actors get to shine, particularly Tilda Swinton, doing some of her very best work. Elsewhere, Richard Ayoade, likewise stands out, a bad director, ironically, in real life here portraying an aggressively intelligent and confident one in what's probably also his strongest acting anywhere. Accolades are due to both performers, but it's also a testament to Hogg's craft as both writer and director that she can get such gold from them and others here.

This kind of work is delicate and requires patience and when Hogg elsewhere tries to cut loose with dream imagery and film sets merging with reality, it looks like a loss of patience, understandable but a wrongturning. I may be missing something, but it just doesn't seem to me she has much to say at these points, despite the appearance of major statements being made.

Towards the end, her young director self gives an interview in which she candidly admits, in fact, that she still hasn't much to say. I think the point is supposed to be that she's in denial about the horror she's been through with her boyfriend - and the fact that it might constitute strong story material. But maybe what Hogg's really inadvertently acknowledging is that she has no conversion technique, no way of taking this compelling raw material and creating a metaphor or otherwise giving it a shape that can communicate it to an audience. That, ultimately, is what I think we've been watching: her struggling to find that way of connecting, from life to art and back again, and ultimately, I regret to say, failing.

The good: this movie has got quite a weird mix of a few, short intermittent scenes that are quite mesmirizing to watch, BUT...

The bad: the largest part of this movie is quite tedious to watch. Played by unknowns, directed by an unknown, who didnt rock the boat in any sort of way.

Not any good? Tilda Swinton has a small supporting role, really small.

I wrote a scathing review of the first film in which I noted its very competent filmmaking and yet deplored it for being the most tedious and obnoxious film I had ever sat through. I asked, was it satire? How could somebody who clearly knew what they were doing make a movie so blisteringly unnerving and unsatisfying? In my conclusion, I mentioned that I would sooner have someone administer a lethal dose of heroin to me than sit through the planned second part.

Well, I've still never done heroin, I willingly chose to watch the second film, I think it confirms that the first movie was indeed satire (of a very unique, unprecedented sort), and in a way, its boldly original blend of theme and style, so masterfully done here, almost entirely redeems the first film along with it. Yes, I was wrong. This movie--and perhaps it's best to think of the original and Part II as one extremely long movie, although maybe Hogg could have never pulled off what she wanted to achieve if she had indeed released it as a four-hour film--is a masterpiece. Where's my shoe? I'm ready to eat it.

I can't think of anything that compares to these two movies. My review of the microbudget Japanese horror comedy One Cut of the Dead most closely approximates what Hogg has done here, but even that very unique meta take on the creative process is far removed from The Souvenir. I don't want to spoil much, but I think The Souvenir: Part II is a film that can only achieve its very uplifting catharsis by deliberately coming after the utter tedium of the first film. Both films taken together, I believe, make a pointed statement on life and artifice, and that point can't truly be appreciated unless we first sit through a movie as mind-numbingly unsatisfying as the first film. I don't think Hogg wanted to punish us with the first film--I don't think she was laughing at us for being suckers, and I don't think that the many people who *did* claim to enjoy the first film were necessarily "wrong," so to speak; rather, I think she fully delivered on her vision of creating an autobiographical film that is truly reflective of the complexity, inanity, and absurdity of life, and I think she did so knowing full well that it would be a very bitter draught for most people to swallow. The second film consciously acknowledges that dilemma: that art is not in fact life, that our lives are not actually narratives which follow any sensible structure, and that in order to create an art derived from life that is both satisfying and coherent requires accommodating the expectations and needs of the audience by sacrificing a bit of idiosyncratic artistic vision in favor of some of the agreed upon conventions of artifice. In other words, yes, people do indeed sit around having extremely boring and forgettable conversations while crises are brewing, as we bear witness to throughout the first film, but one of the responsibilities of a filmmaker--or at least one who wants to reach an audience--is to edit some of that noise out.

In Part II, Hogg demonstrates that she can excel at all the conventional substance of the movie business: conflict, an autonomous protagonist, character growth and arcs, a goal-oriented plot, emotional resolution, levity, and so forth. Does she insist that such things are essential? Does she reject her original vision in favor of this more successful tack? Not necessarily. I haven't rewatched the first film yet, but I think I would get a lot more out of it now that I'm willing to extend more patience to its filmmaker. Like many of the men in the first film, I wasn't able to trust that the woman in front of and behind the camera had anything especially meaningful to say(--although I'd say that had more to do with my aversion to those of her cushy upbringing rather than any tendency to denigrate those of her gender). Like some of the crewmembers depicted in the second film, I had some valid reasons for those objections. Nevertheless, I have been proven wrong, and I am grateful for it. I look forward to learning from more of Hogg's work.

There's simply more of the film here to absorb. The abusive relationship of the first film is looked at through a prism in Part II, reliving the idea of whether Anthony was a good person or merely a junkie put on a pedestal. This competing idea is told through a clever dynamic of Julie tackling her graduation film project. Director Joanna Hogg manages to end this second film in a manner that will be satiable for all audiences. It's worth the watch if you're ready to see Julie take the reigns of her own life and need closure.

A woman looking for truth. It's not necessary to see part 1. This film stands alone. You have to pay attention and work things out on your own for the most part. A tall order these days, i know. The acting is great and fun to see tilda in anything. Not for the action crowd, but for those who love movies. Make sure you stay til the end.

Normally, I differ taking notes while watching a movie since I prefer to analyze them from a fresh point of view, remembering only what comes to mind at the moment. It's an exercise in which I've gotten used to remembering more of a movie everytime, which is why it felt quite exotic to do it in this one. A part of me feels glad I did it, because I feel like it analyzes the way I was processing the film quite well:

1. Joanna Hogg is pretty good at directing, but always, in all her scenes, something seems to need polishing (sound, lighting, even certain frames are missing).

2. The trailer is SO misleading.

3. It's up to the first 30 minutes that they show us a plot point that doesn't relate to the first installment. Until those 30 minutes, the plot remains STATIC.

From this moment on, I begin to remember that the purpose of cinema is not to be pleasant. In fact, many times, it is anything but.

4. The quite meta aspect of the film I think perfectly conveys the intentions of the first part. It makes me think that everything I'm writing in here is part of what is being criticized.

Spoiler alert: yes it was.

5. It just takes too long to develop that idea. Enough to make you wonder why it's divided into 2 parts, when it couldn't have possibly had the same impact if it wasn't.

6. It's criticizing the way filmmakers, especially aspiring ones, don't have that freedom to tell a story like people would think they do. And the lack of support to be able to land their ideas, due to the fact that they have a great lack of experience.

Even if there is initiative from people to understand the story they want to tell, this film shows that we will never get the true feeling that it evokes from the director as long as we are third parties.

7. The first film shows the lack of understanding of the people towards the story, this part tells that same lack of understanding, but at the moment of telling it.

8. Leads me to believe that it bends the rules in the beginning to make that point of view known. I don't fully understand if that decision works for me per se, but at least I can say I do understand it.

Second spoiler alert: it ended up working almost perfectly.

It's funny to think that both installments of The Souvenir opened my eyes in such different ways about the form and narratives you want to tell when making films. This itself just goes to show how detailed Joanna Hogg's direction is. You understand why there are two films, the reason behind the lines of entire scenes that seem to deliver nothing. These are things that, when you see them unfold on screen, do not stop conjuring rejection, for the same aspect of which we have cataloged films as "bad" or "good". When it comes to telling why, we have created an automated and repetitive mechanism that is only called to action when criticizing something. This film is an attempt, one of the most successful I've seen lately, to make us open our eyes.

The truth is, I needed this. I needed a movie to silence my criticism and make me reconsider. It is an extremely particular feeling that I think I will never neglect.

This is an unusual example of the sequel being better than the original film. I say "unusual," because it's such a little known small film, that few would even remember it enough to cite it as one of those "sequel was better" projects.

It has a slow start. A SLOW start. By mid film, I gave it a 5. At film's end, I nudged it up to a 6.

This is a "film within a film" film. It is, after all, about a girl making a film. It's a very gentle film. It's a film to be patient with; the less you expect, the more it may reward you.

I really like arthouse movies so I did not expect to be so bored throughout an entire movie. I kept going, hoping it was going to deliver but nah. Just a lot of tedious dialogue about nothing and arty fartiness. Most of the time I had no idea what I was watching. I gave it two stars for trying.

Thank the spirits above and below that there are real artists taking risks. There's a reason this avoids Netflix. Excellent, true, mind blowing. Thank you.

I feel bad for writing such a title but the movie wasn't exciting at all. But I guess it's not for everyone.

The first Souvenir film might have left you devastated. The second one leaves you chastened, but also hopeful. Still grieving over the death of her troubled boyfriend, a young film student discovers a new angle in her filmmaking repertoire and turns it toward her final project in order to graduate, much to the dismay of her instructors. She puts all her heart and soul into making this film, even when there's discord and frustration among her cast and crew.

Some might regard the film's conclusion as meandering or puzzling, but I actually think it rescues the film from a mediocre finish and instead chooses to bend the line between life and an artist's vision. More to the point, it underscores the hard-earned journey from loss to grieving to renewal. Our protagonist suffered a tragic loss, but in the end, is still young and starts to look at everything that lies ahead. It's about finding the strength within oneself to finally move on. It's a tantalizing second chapter and a flawless way to follow up. Grandly recommended.

Extraordinary second part of this fabulous diptych that is Souvenir. If the first one presented the characters, the conflict and its "resolution", the second one explores the delicate grieving process and its way out through creativity and film making. There are possibly very few active filmmakers as sensitive as Joanna Hogg. And, of course, her great find is the fabulous interpreter she found to portray what we assume is her own life experience. Metacine for glory (the film within the film reminded me those wonderful cinematic pieces signed by Powell/Pressburguer) . One of the best films of 2022.

After 40 minuts of watching it, coulde'nt waste more of my time. No storyline at all just long no sence mumble jumble. The only star I gave it for my love to british people.