Continue

This review is not just for the director / writer / actor in this movie but its for every combo writer / actor / director in the industry.

I implore you and beg of you tot please pick one profession and stick to it. Its not complicated, its just and right and spares us poor saps who have to watch the movies you produce, a lot of disappointment and despair.

Writers should only write.

Actors should only act.

Directors should only direct.

PERIOD. When you do all three, you create a mess.

Please do not think you can do all three let alone produce something that is in any way watchable.

Please listen to what I am saying, maybe ask some directors only or actors only if I am wrong. I will bet you that if they have a shred of honesty that they would tell you I am right.

Pick one field and stick to it please.....

The premise is good. The idea is also very good. It is like a mixed between Girl Interrupted and Stay, both are good movies in their own right. Unfortunately, Continue failed miserably to treat the very interesting subject. It is too bad that the acting of its main protagonist is over the top. She is so full of her self. The dialogue is so cringey and preachy, I had to skip several parts. And the psychiatry is so unprofessional. What kind of psychiatry allows her patient to visit her at home, in the evening? There is a professional boundaries that should be maintained between patient and their psy. It supposed to be a good movie. What a waste.

The film 'Continue' showcases a remarkable cinematic achievement through its thoughtful and impactful exploration of a critical yet harrowing subject matter.

Nadine Crocker's dual role as director and actor is very impressive. This woman can do it ALL. The narrative is both refined and captivating, avoiding gratuitousness and cliches. The film's strength lies in its realistic portrayal of mental health and the journey some of us face, the choices some of us make and the journey life can lead us on. I highly recommend watching 'Continue'.

Notably, Kat Foster also delivers a remarkable performance, and the film boasts exceptional casting, refined cinematography, and a resonant soundtrack.

To say that this is an important film almost begs the question.

Of course the topic is important; it has become so nearly taboo that we must use words such as unalived for fear of being outcast and expelled, our online presence itself eradicated.

What really makes this film important is the brilliant manner in which this issue is depicted. It is personal and direct, modest and humble, almost too timid in a way that illustrates and enhances the expression of self and selves, of love and connection and continuance.

All art is expression, its true value lies not in polemic, but in authenticity.

This film is completely and truly authentic. That is what makes it so devastating.

That is what makes it art.

To the fellow who thinks that artists should stick to one job...that is just nonsense. In the realm of film, just look at the works of Charlie Chaplin, of Orson Welles and Woody Allen...even those of Clint Eastwood amongst others. The dangers of being overwhelmed and not up to the task can be overcome by talent and genius, and by sheer intensity and purity of vision.

I find myself struggling with films of this nature, where individuals with mental challenges possess an acute awareness of everything except their own reality. Instead of confronting the truth and understanding the reasons behind their disconnection, they use substances to get them even further from the real world and then see the problem in the world we live in blaming it for all the misfortune in their lives.

A new female resident arrives at the rehabilitation center, or whatever term is used, and proclaims, "my problem is women..." However, the true issue lies within her troubled mind and flawed thought processes. The detrimental influence of her environment has penetrated too deeply, leading her to engage in self-destructive behavior while casting blame on others. Furthermore, the characters project an image of coolness, as defined by their peers-an assembly of individuals who have been granted the chance to "express" themselves through the dismantling of anything of value in life. It appears that the film allows these troubled individuals to take control of the narrative.

While the screenplay itself is well-crafted, I believe that Nadine Crocker, as a writer, should pivot towards more uplifting themes that showcase triumph rather than destruction. Although some viewers may empathize with the protagonist, I found it difficult to do so, as the narrative is rife with justifications and excuses. The boyfriend's remark, "Some people just feel more deeply than others..." left me questioning, "What exactly does that mean?"

The director seems to manipulate the audience's emotions, ensuring that by the conclusion, sympathy is directed solely towards the female lead, neglecting the collateral damage inflicted upon others. The character of Dean, portrayed by Crocker, did not elicit my sympathy; rather, she came across as bothersome, fragile, and unkind to those who cared for her. When her friend inquires, "How do we fix it?", Dean's response, "Live..." suggests a lack of direction and thoughtful consideration, raising the question of why different outcomes would be anticipated.

The ending felt like an attempt to sweeten the bitterness of the rest of the movie, and I am not sure that Nadine Crocker managed to do it. I understand this film as disappointing brainwashing for unsuspected.