ryanpersaud-59415
Joined Mar 2016
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings936
ryanpersaud-59415's rating
Reviews616
ryanpersaud-59415's rating
In another universe, Sanctuary would be a mid-budget erotic thriller released theatrically and likely propelling Margaret Qualley and Christopher Abbott to stardom. (I mean, Qualley is a star but she would've been one much earlier) It's a little sad that great films like this are so frequently dumped on streaming with no promotion and only "stumbled upon" (as I did) or found during film festivals.
The film revolves around Hal (Abbott), a wealthy hotel heir, and Rebecca (Qualley), a dominatrix he's been engaging for elaborate, scripted role-play sessions. On the eve of Hal inheriting his father's fortune, he tries to end their arrangement. But Rebecca refuses to go quietly, and the film revolves around her attempt to stay in (and perhaps, dominate) Hal's life outside of the confines of their arrangement.
The performances here are incredible. Margaret Qualley should've been nominated for an Oscar; she is so compelling that even by the end of the film, it's hard to tell exactly whom she was and we, as the audience, are left just as bewildered and uncertain as Hal is. Abbott for his part, is more understated, but no less impressive. He too is a man of many shades and even by the end, it's hard to know exactly whom he is. (And no, this is entirely purposeful).
The film is a psychological chess game that boldly asks what the true nature of power really is; is it whom we are in front of the world or our internal sense of self? Can we ever really get over childhood trauma? In a world more obsessed with image than ever before, is it truly possible to fake-it-until-you-make it? The script is air tight and equal parts darkly hilarious, disturbing, off putting, and yet, genuinely sexy at times. I found myself confused by how I was meant to feel at certain parts, and this was again, entirely intentional. It's truly a film made up of controlled chaos.
It's also a film that makes me miss the erotic thriller; it feels like we're consistently baby-ed by Hollywood nowadays, and complicated ideas about sex, desire, and sexuality are just glossed over because market forces require every Hollywood production to be as sanitized and safe as possible. The twisted relationship here is just something I've found myself unused to seeing in Hollywood films, to be honest. It's so messed up, but so well presented.
Please watch this film. It is amazing. Way better than I expected and such an exhilarating watch. It's almost like a theatrical production put to screen, yet leverages what works best about cinema.
The film revolves around Hal (Abbott), a wealthy hotel heir, and Rebecca (Qualley), a dominatrix he's been engaging for elaborate, scripted role-play sessions. On the eve of Hal inheriting his father's fortune, he tries to end their arrangement. But Rebecca refuses to go quietly, and the film revolves around her attempt to stay in (and perhaps, dominate) Hal's life outside of the confines of their arrangement.
The performances here are incredible. Margaret Qualley should've been nominated for an Oscar; she is so compelling that even by the end of the film, it's hard to tell exactly whom she was and we, as the audience, are left just as bewildered and uncertain as Hal is. Abbott for his part, is more understated, but no less impressive. He too is a man of many shades and even by the end, it's hard to know exactly whom he is. (And no, this is entirely purposeful).
The film is a psychological chess game that boldly asks what the true nature of power really is; is it whom we are in front of the world or our internal sense of self? Can we ever really get over childhood trauma? In a world more obsessed with image than ever before, is it truly possible to fake-it-until-you-make it? The script is air tight and equal parts darkly hilarious, disturbing, off putting, and yet, genuinely sexy at times. I found myself confused by how I was meant to feel at certain parts, and this was again, entirely intentional. It's truly a film made up of controlled chaos.
It's also a film that makes me miss the erotic thriller; it feels like we're consistently baby-ed by Hollywood nowadays, and complicated ideas about sex, desire, and sexuality are just glossed over because market forces require every Hollywood production to be as sanitized and safe as possible. The twisted relationship here is just something I've found myself unused to seeing in Hollywood films, to be honest. It's so messed up, but so well presented.
Please watch this film. It is amazing. Way better than I expected and such an exhilarating watch. It's almost like a theatrical production put to screen, yet leverages what works best about cinema.
I'm not particularly familiar with Jim Jarmusch, but the premise of Night on Earth was very compelling to me, and honestly, we just don't see films quite like this anymore.
Night on Earth follows 5 cab drivers in 5 different cities (Los Angeles, New York, Paris, Rome, and Helsinki) as they pick up passengers trying to get home late at night. Jarmusch captures the micro-relationships built between cab driver and passenger, exploring different aspects of life through mostly conversation.
Indeed, despite the opening montages of the desolate city streets, Night on Earth is extremely contained. It's really just the cab and the surrounding areas around it, and once a passenger leaves the cab, the story is over.
I found this to be a very comforting watch; after the first two stories, you get the vibe that nothing particularly shocking is going to happen, and it just feels really cozy. That being said, as an anthology, I felt some stories were much, much better than others.
Los Angeles was a bit underwhelming; while I loved Winona Ryder's performance, I can't help but feel like the story left a lot on the table.
New York was by far the best to me; it's the most fun, Giancarlo Esposito and Rosie Perez are fantastic, and it was genuinely funny to me.
Paris was also really interesting and I liked it quite a bit; Isaach de Bankole and Beatrice Dalle were fantastic and had a really fun back and forth.
Rome was really the worst to me. It's basically 15 minutes of Robert Benigni yelling and saying all sorts of nonsense about having carnal relations with vegetables and animals. Pass.
Helsinki was slightly better, but it just wasn't particularly funny. I get the message about perspectives on life, but it just felt oddly short to me. There wasn't much in the way of dynamic performances or any interesting philosophical outlook on life. It kind of ends the film on a flat note.
All in all, I really really wanted to like Night on Earth more. I love the concept and honestly, wish we had an updated version of this, perhaps with livelier streets (I found the emptiness to be a bit drab and uninteresting as time went on), and more diverse locales. (Seriously, a movie called Night on Earth has two American cities and three European cities? Really?)
Night on Earth follows 5 cab drivers in 5 different cities (Los Angeles, New York, Paris, Rome, and Helsinki) as they pick up passengers trying to get home late at night. Jarmusch captures the micro-relationships built between cab driver and passenger, exploring different aspects of life through mostly conversation.
Indeed, despite the opening montages of the desolate city streets, Night on Earth is extremely contained. It's really just the cab and the surrounding areas around it, and once a passenger leaves the cab, the story is over.
I found this to be a very comforting watch; after the first two stories, you get the vibe that nothing particularly shocking is going to happen, and it just feels really cozy. That being said, as an anthology, I felt some stories were much, much better than others.
Los Angeles was a bit underwhelming; while I loved Winona Ryder's performance, I can't help but feel like the story left a lot on the table.
New York was by far the best to me; it's the most fun, Giancarlo Esposito and Rosie Perez are fantastic, and it was genuinely funny to me.
Paris was also really interesting and I liked it quite a bit; Isaach de Bankole and Beatrice Dalle were fantastic and had a really fun back and forth.
Rome was really the worst to me. It's basically 15 minutes of Robert Benigni yelling and saying all sorts of nonsense about having carnal relations with vegetables and animals. Pass.
Helsinki was slightly better, but it just wasn't particularly funny. I get the message about perspectives on life, but it just felt oddly short to me. There wasn't much in the way of dynamic performances or any interesting philosophical outlook on life. It kind of ends the film on a flat note.
All in all, I really really wanted to like Night on Earth more. I love the concept and honestly, wish we had an updated version of this, perhaps with livelier streets (I found the emptiness to be a bit drab and uninteresting as time went on), and more diverse locales. (Seriously, a movie called Night on Earth has two American cities and three European cities? Really?)
Eagles of the Republic is one of those movies you walk out really enjoying, but realizing as the days passed by that it wasn't quite as profound as it makes itself out to be.
It's a fantastic concept; Georges Fahmy (Fares Fares) is a star on the level of someone from thenGolden Age of Cinema for Egypt. He's invited to play the President in what is essentially a propaganda film, a role he does not want to, but is ultimately compelled to take.
The film explores the themes of power, celebrity, cultural identity, and corruption, with many interesting characters and spinning plates. There are a lot of really fun, intriguing people here and part of the film's biggest issue is that we never get to spend much time with them outside of Georges.
The film seems to really wow us with big, emotional moments. I know what it's trying to get across; that Georges eventually has an inflated sense of ego because he begins to "feel" like the President, but it isn't communicated particularly well.
The film has some fun twists and turns, but rather than feel like we're walking deeper and deeper into a web of conspiracy, we sort of sleep walk into it. I genuinely didn't see the film's biggest and frankly, best, moment coming, but it also didn't feel earned either.
Overall, I like this film's cultural authenticity and boldness with critique; not overbearing but effective in communicating its politics. It's a great looking film that felt higher budget than it probably was. But, it was lacking in narrative tightness and exploring more of the wide cast of characters.
It's a fantastic concept; Georges Fahmy (Fares Fares) is a star on the level of someone from thenGolden Age of Cinema for Egypt. He's invited to play the President in what is essentially a propaganda film, a role he does not want to, but is ultimately compelled to take.
The film explores the themes of power, celebrity, cultural identity, and corruption, with many interesting characters and spinning plates. There are a lot of really fun, intriguing people here and part of the film's biggest issue is that we never get to spend much time with them outside of Georges.
The film seems to really wow us with big, emotional moments. I know what it's trying to get across; that Georges eventually has an inflated sense of ego because he begins to "feel" like the President, but it isn't communicated particularly well.
The film has some fun twists and turns, but rather than feel like we're walking deeper and deeper into a web of conspiracy, we sort of sleep walk into it. I genuinely didn't see the film's biggest and frankly, best, moment coming, but it also didn't feel earned either.
Overall, I like this film's cultural authenticity and boldness with critique; not overbearing but effective in communicating its politics. It's a great looking film that felt higher budget than it probably was. But, it was lacking in narrative tightness and exploring more of the wide cast of characters.