minifiecw
Joined Jul 2019
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews10
minifiecw's rating
A24 strikes again!
The cinematography is very good. Great use of lighting and color, and even the editing is excellent. Plus, of course, Ed Harris delivers another fantastic performance.
In spite of these things, the people behind me are chatting and I'm sitting here in the theater writing this. Bottom line is: the writing is bad. Even though it's a cool story, a lot of the characters' behaviors are nonsensical, and the dialogue is just weird, which really takes the audience out of it.
Plus the romantic story arc I think undermines some of the other cool elements of the film-like the world building and strong female leads. In spite of the action and strength the characters portray, it is the love arc that seems very unbelievable and forced, and I feel like I'm watching fan fiction.
Good music tho.
The cinematography is very good. Great use of lighting and color, and even the editing is excellent. Plus, of course, Ed Harris delivers another fantastic performance.
In spite of these things, the people behind me are chatting and I'm sitting here in the theater writing this. Bottom line is: the writing is bad. Even though it's a cool story, a lot of the characters' behaviors are nonsensical, and the dialogue is just weird, which really takes the audience out of it.
Plus the romantic story arc I think undermines some of the other cool elements of the film-like the world building and strong female leads. In spite of the action and strength the characters portray, it is the love arc that seems very unbelievable and forced, and I feel like I'm watching fan fiction.
Good music tho.
"Beau is Afraid" is a visually stunning masterpeice, but as for Ari Aster movies that is to be expected. Ultimately, Aster excels in portraying child-guilt and anxiety, but at the cost of tangible narrative.
Where I think his earlier films, especially "Midsommar," did very well is the portrayal of trauma through an unreliable narrator. However, in "Beau is Afraid," it is at the cost of actual story. In truth, I am still confused about where the character actually is-physically, psychologically, and even temproally-throughout most of not all of the movie.
Beau's (Joaquin Phoenix) story-arc in terms of growth leaves much to be desired. Aster shows how his titular, pathetic heroine came into being, but does little to show what his life is actually like, who he actually is, or even what he really does. A more apt name for this plotless movie may be 2 hours and 59 minutes of Joaquin Phoenix crying.
The film was interesting but, for my taste, incomplete. Certainly within a 3-hour timeframe a writer has more than enough time to close the loop for a case study on a single character's psyche.
I'll admit, though, that I struggle to give it less than 7-stars because (a) Aster sets the benchmark for show-don't-tell writing (his reveal of Beau's past), (b) the cast's incredible performances (led by Phoenix), and (c) visual successes. Plus it was altogether still an interesting movie that I'm sure I will contribute to think about.
How could you not? It's an Aster film.
Where I think his earlier films, especially "Midsommar," did very well is the portrayal of trauma through an unreliable narrator. However, in "Beau is Afraid," it is at the cost of actual story. In truth, I am still confused about where the character actually is-physically, psychologically, and even temproally-throughout most of not all of the movie.
Beau's (Joaquin Phoenix) story-arc in terms of growth leaves much to be desired. Aster shows how his titular, pathetic heroine came into being, but does little to show what his life is actually like, who he actually is, or even what he really does. A more apt name for this plotless movie may be 2 hours and 59 minutes of Joaquin Phoenix crying.
The film was interesting but, for my taste, incomplete. Certainly within a 3-hour timeframe a writer has more than enough time to close the loop for a case study on a single character's psyche.
I'll admit, though, that I struggle to give it less than 7-stars because (a) Aster sets the benchmark for show-don't-tell writing (his reveal of Beau's past), (b) the cast's incredible performances (led by Phoenix), and (c) visual successes. Plus it was altogether still an interesting movie that I'm sure I will contribute to think about.
How could you not? It's an Aster film.
First off and undeniably, Austin Butler had an incredible performance, and Tom Hanks did not disappoint.
The issue with this film is directing. It is far too long and tells the wrong story - rather than focusing on the titular character, director Baz Luhrman centers on his manager, the whimsical Colonel (Hanks), who financially abused Presley (Butler).
In a movie called "Elvis," I'd expect to learn more about Elvis Presley's actual journey through the industry and stardom rather than a tunnel-vision perspective from the man who manipulates the protégée over the course of his career.
Moreover, Luhrman's production is simultaneously thematically lacking and too on the nose. The well-accepted storytelling "show, don't tell" is not represented in this movie. Because Luhrman lacks the substance to support his ideas about Elvis's desire to be desired, he must repeatedly and explicitly state the idea through the narrator, the Colonel.
A more accurate depiction of Elvis's life may feature his submission to drugs (something practically mentioned twice throughout the movie) or the set of performance and how Elvis changed the industry. Instead, Luhrman takes the cop-out of "love" from an entirely unlikeable narrator. Elvis is one of the most successful artists of all time-that's the story. Luhrman tries to be artistic by looking an unknown member of Elvis's life, but his attempt comes across as pretentious and superficial.
Would not recommend, and one of the few movies I wasn't sure if I'd be able to finish.
The issue with this film is directing. It is far too long and tells the wrong story - rather than focusing on the titular character, director Baz Luhrman centers on his manager, the whimsical Colonel (Hanks), who financially abused Presley (Butler).
In a movie called "Elvis," I'd expect to learn more about Elvis Presley's actual journey through the industry and stardom rather than a tunnel-vision perspective from the man who manipulates the protégée over the course of his career.
Moreover, Luhrman's production is simultaneously thematically lacking and too on the nose. The well-accepted storytelling "show, don't tell" is not represented in this movie. Because Luhrman lacks the substance to support his ideas about Elvis's desire to be desired, he must repeatedly and explicitly state the idea through the narrator, the Colonel.
A more accurate depiction of Elvis's life may feature his submission to drugs (something practically mentioned twice throughout the movie) or the set of performance and how Elvis changed the industry. Instead, Luhrman takes the cop-out of "love" from an entirely unlikeable narrator. Elvis is one of the most successful artists of all time-that's the story. Luhrman tries to be artistic by looking an unknown member of Elvis's life, but his attempt comes across as pretentious and superficial.
Would not recommend, and one of the few movies I wasn't sure if I'd be able to finish.