Station to Station

The acting is... terrible. I'm talking worse than community theater. Worse than a middle school play. I'm not trying to be funny. It's embarrassingly bad. Not one person in this is a good actor. Not a single soul on screen is meant for this.

I am the exact target demographic of this movie, if you know what I mean, and I have plenty of favorites in my collection of "so bad it's good" campy movies. This is not that. This is just really, really bad.

EVEN if you just want to watch it for the eye candy, it's about on par with fruit stripe gum. You'll only get about 30 seconds of flavor out of it.

And it's over two hours long. Could use a HEAVY edit. But then it might only be about half an hour.

I am not sure what I expected going into the movie (I was asked to be a test audience member two months ago) but it wasn't what I thought, in all really good ways. It's really hard to describe this movie without either giving too much away or giving people the wrong impression, so I think I'll just say it's a really well-done drama about a young man who has a lot of growing up to do, and a bit of a chip on his shoulder, who runs to Las Vegas rather than face his issues at home, only to find and create new issues there.

The film kind of follows him for 6-9 months as he interacts with friends/lovers/colleagues/family, and while he learn a lot about them, the audience learns a lot about him (and wonders if he's actually learning, too). In that way, the film is a lot like Richard Linklater's Beyond trilogy, and I think some reviewers have said that. But I think the other comparison they make, to Paul Thomas Anderson, is better.

Mostly because of the way the film makes all the psychological drama really watchable instead of depressing or boring. The two hours mostly flies by and it does a neat trick because by the end, you realize you had no idea where the movie was going, pretty much at any time, let alone somewhere so powerfully dramatic. I think that made it really satisfying to me. I am glad I didn't assume the end in the first half because the setup was for something else.

I think there will be lots of comparisons to Boogie Nights, but I think that's mostly due to surface similarities. Boogie Nights was bigger, more salcious for show, and wrapped up in a really predictable and old-fashioned way. This does a bunch of stuff I wasn't expecting and treats its characters as unique, not tropes and that's a movie lovers dream, in a way.

In a different review, for a different film, I said you could just watch the acting only and still be ertained, because all the leads were so good. That is 100% true here. The casting on this film, especially for all the main characters or the ones with big moments is incredible. I wouldn't be surprised if any of these new faces break out, but I hope if they do, they don't lose the raw parts of their performances in this film.

I don't usually give 10s, so I gave the film a 9, mostly because it's amazing they made this to this level of quality, on both a limited budget and during the pandemic. Without those challenges, it's obvious this would have been a 10, and that's a pretty big compliment from me. But maybe the more useful compliment is that I spent money to buy a ticket to see it again at a festival tonight when I already got to see it for free!

This is my first review, so apologies if it's not critic-y enough. I'll go through what worked best, what didn't work as well, and why I thought that, but I guess a good place to start is why I came on here to write a review in the first place (besides the fact there aren't any comments on reviews, lol): I keep turning over this film in my head and coming back to it and that's really unusual for a random indie at a local film festival. Second, I think a lot of people are going to have opinions on this film, because that's that's what we do as a culture these days when art doesn't fit our boxes or, like this one does, challenges our stereotypes and judgements about others, and groups of others. Also, as Americans we tend to get weird about things like sex and nudity (especially in the midwest, where I live), if by weird I mean "running around acting like the sky is going to fall down," and I do.

So yeah, let's put that out there first. I'm surprised the other reviewers haven't mentioned it. This is a movie set in Las Vegas, with a bunch of 20 somethings. There's sex and nudity in the film. It's not an erotic film, and it's not a salacious film (by objective standards), and the sex and nudity (which, to be fair, is a few butts, some side boob, and a lot of implied nudity, with a couple brief full frontal shots) makes sense for the characters, the premise, and the stories, journeys, and struggles they're dealing with. But let's be honest. Some folks will hear there's a male full frontal shot (it's not in a sexual situation) and immediately find a bunch of different things "wrong" with the film. I've been here long enough. So maybe the upfront disclaimer is if that kind of thing isn't your thing, just don't see the film. But if you don't sweat that kind of thing, I really, really recommend it.

Because there's not much wrong with this as an actual film and it's kind of mind-blowing (save one thing--the reason I have it a 9 and not a 10) that a first time writer-director and bunch of unknowns made something this careful, constrained, and affecting. It doesn't subscribe to any tropes, doesn't feel the need to move any faster or slower than the story and characters require, and boy does it all pay off at the end with some of the best acting and climactic pacing I've ever seen.

The reason I can't give it a 10 is that it is obviously not a polished studio production, though it comes REALLY close, you do have some little tells like inopportune camera shake here and there (which, also to be fair, is used intentionally and to really strong effect in other parts of the movie, where you feel like you're right in there with the people) or a scene or setting that's a solid 9, but you know would have gone from a 9 to a 10 if they'd had the money to open up the world a bit, or shoot in more exotic or challenging locations. But that's splitting hairs in a bit, because anyone who goes to see this is going to know they're seeing a human, character-driven indie. While it would be nice to see more location shoots in Las Vegas casinos, or on the Strip (there are some!) just to really celebrate and immerse ourselves in the place, it's understandable why we didn't for financial and maybe story reasons. I will say the locations do become almost like characters themselves, and watching them change over time of day, etc. (sunlight is really a big factor in this film as it is in Las Vegas) is so interesting and that wouldn't have happened with more settings and use of more familiar flashier places, so, who knows?

How will you know if you like it? I'd say if you find movies that push boundaries and convention a bit, this is a great movie for you. If you like movies that do melodrama, but in a grounded, believable, relatable way, this is definitely a movie for you, especially by the third act. If you like seeing characters who represent different sexualities, races, ethnicities, etc. In a story where those things have almost nothing to do with the film (they just are), this is a good film for you. And if you like films about people who mess up and make wrong calls and are trying to figure out who they are with a mix of family of origin and choice, this really delivers on that front, too.

I suspect some people will try to limit it or characterize this as a coming of age drama, or an erotic drama (again, it's not, it just has bodies and sex, but not in a particularly erotic context), or even an LGBT drama, an I think all of them are true, but none of them describe the movie, truly. This is an interesting drama, an ensemble piece that showcases some really good acting, and it's set in a very specific word, with very specific people, but has little to do with those specifics as a story point, the setting and the characteristics are the jumping off point for some characters you won't be able to forget about when you leave the theater or turn off your computer, which is sort of where I am this morning, writing a review on IMDb...

The easy comparisons here are to BOOGIE NIGHTS or SHAME but that just, again, I think is because we have so few films told about male protagonists like this. It definitely shares elements with these, but if you want a better parallel in general, I'd go with Steven Soderbergh's debut film, Sex Lies & Videotape. That's the comparison--a new director, a cast of characters and actors you can't stop watching or thinking about, and a story that moves slowly and deliberately, but you really feel delivers something in the end. Like you got what you needed, if not what you thought you were coming for, as a film, if that makes any sense. But in the end, I don't think this movie can be easily described, which is a pretty good compliment for a first time writer director and a bunch of unknowns!

I thought this was a comedy b/c I'd only seen a funny clip before and got the wrong impression, but this movie blew my mind with how good a drama this is. It's so good! The acting, the writing, the way it looks, and the beautiful messages it sends to the audience. The main character and actor who plays him are really interesting.

I never write reviews on films, but I felt this was necessary to warn everyone. What a horrible, waste of time movie that was excruciatingly unbearable to the end, in hopes that something good would happen. The bad acting, the bad Soundtrack and stupid story line needs to be announced to future victims of this movie. I can't believe it was even accepted for Production and then, suggested by Amazon prime. I would be embarrassed to show a film of this low caliber. This waste of my time will definitely make me think to check reviews before wasting another two hours of my time. I hope this review will save others from this excruciatingly horrible film.