heltersonrsl

A moving film. In fact, some dialogues are devastating for any queer person because they so perfectly convey that heartbreaking mixture of anguish, fear, and loneliness that permeates the lives of all of us, strangers.

To me, the film is about queer loneliness. A loneliness that transforms but remains constant throughout life, and at times even defines the status of "being alive." Childhood is such a decisive and traumatic moment, and there isn't a queer person who isn't profoundly affected by the pain of that period in life. It hurts to perceive yourself as different, but it hurts even more when, in retrospect, you realize the innocence of that difference and how you were cowardly hurt by others' actions regarding something you weren't even aware of. It hurts to realize that the adults around you, probably your parents, grandparents, siblings, understood what was happening but, out of fear, did not defend you. This creates a sense of anguish: how can you accuse them? Were they not also victims of the same pain? And as an adult, you not only have to deal with your own traumas and pains but also, in relating to other strangers, you have to deal with their traumas and pains as well. In the end, it creates an infinite and monstrous cycle of loneliness. You are lonely as a child and lonely as an adult. You are lonely within your family, with friends, in relationships, in life. Therefore, when the mother questions the solitary life of a homosexual, the observation is accurate, but the merit is not. Being lonely is not a natural characteristic, as if given by the very condition of understanding your sexuality, but is harshly and collectively imposed by the way queer people grow up, understand themselves, and place themselves in the world. In the end, the question remains: "How come no one found me?"

A film with an excellent script, beautiful cinematography, and exceptional performances by Paul Mescal and Andrew Scott. 8 out of 10.

The film endeavors to be endearing, and it is only fair to acknowledge that it succeeds in this regard. It is, indeed, a charming film. The protagonist possesses sufficient charisma to engage the audience, fostering a sense of attachment. However, if this was the film's primary ambition, it is a rather modest one.

Ultimately, the film emerges as another project that prompts discussions about its unrealized potential. The principal flaw, in my opinion, lies within the script. Crafting dialogues for a specific group, complete with their unique slang, catchphrases, syntactic structures, and onomatopoeia, is a formidable task. However, the script's shortcomings are not confined to this aspect alone. The dialogues lack depth and are superficial, failing to provide any meaningful insight into the characters. The supporting characters serve merely as ornamental props, and even the protagonist is portrayed as shallow and unremarkable. The narrative, in the end, is more trivial than endearing. While the film does identify intriguing dilemmas faced by a white gay man in São Paulo, it addresses them in such a sterile, artificial, and uninspiring manner that it seems like an antiseptic portrayal of a complex reality.

Possibly due to the script, the performances at times appear awkward. Certain dialogues between the trio of friends become cringe-inducing due to the weak writing. The attempt to represent a specific group of young people from São Paulo ends up feeling like a caricature verging on the comedic. We learn very little about any of the characters, other than their professions in cinema and their habit of drinking coffee. Their primary dilemma is their struggle with relationships-a rather universal issue.

Furthermore, it is almost imperative for any film set in São Paulo to exhibit visual beauty, necessitating proficient cinematography. However, this film manages to be aesthetically displeasing in both its photography and art direction. With few exceptions, the film fails to capture the city's visual allure, which, in my opinion, is yet another flaw attributable to the script. The city's chaos is dialectically intertwined with each character's inner turmoil. Daily routines such as cohabitation, waking early, visiting cafes, shopping at markets, attending the cinema, and returning from trips-all these events occur within a space-time framework that is not integrated into the story. When time is incorporated, it is through an unsuccessful attempt to explore various possible realities.

In conclusion, I finished watching the film without understanding what the "13 feelings" refer to.

One of the best movies of 2019, without a doubt. The movie has a consistent direction and performances that leave our eyes fixed on the screen. Robert De Niro, Al Pacino and Joe Pesci are simply wonderful in their roles and the whole plot goes through the quality of the performances by the three actors. The script is confusing in some parts, mainly with the entry and exit of characters and overlapping of times. This mainly impacts the first part of the movie, which is very confusing and slow. The movie gains a leap in quality in the second half, the story flows naturally and the viewer's interest tends to increase. The movie's last hour worthy of the greatest film productions in history. In balance, it is a great movie that is sustained by the fine direction of Martin Scorsese and the already mentioned great performance of the three main actors. In a way, the movie can seem unstuck in time and bring us back to the 1980s. But I don't think it has any anachronism in history. Scorsese is refined and his film reflects this quality, even though it tells a story that has been told in cinema since its beginnings.