it took 5 grand
and 5 months
to get my mouth
Free Time is an indie cringe-comedy about Drew(Colin Burgess) a 20-something NYC hipster who quits his job on a whim.
Burgess struggles to carry the movie despite its brief run time. The combination of the script and his performance fail to coalesce into anything engaging. The character is bafflingly devoid of personality, is petulant, entitled, and grating while at the same time remaining stunningly opaque(other than his job struggles and the fact he's in a band we know nothing about him) which for a protagonist is a hurdle the movie doesn't acknowledge let alone surmount. The supporting cast has talent but overall there seems to be very little interest in character only in premise despite this being a slice-of-life type story. Holmes who plays Kim, Drew's roommate's girlfriend, is the only one that's particularly funny or feels like a recognizable human being.
The production is all competent, looks decent, costumes, soundtrack all effective. But the movie isn't clear on what its trying to say nor how it wants to say it. The result is a derivative mess. Drew is insufferable, the idea of someone just quitting their job especially in NYC because of some immature existential musing smacks more of teen angst than actual adult thinking, and the exploration of this idea offers nothing coherent let alone insightful. What rich person wrote this? The socio-economic reality of most people in the US provides a large barrier of entry to this white upper-middle class NYC thought experiment. There is no reality here, no actual dramatic weight, and the "comedy" is pretty much entirely derived from Drew being a capricious socially incompetent baby.
Clearly inspired by NYC hit shows High Maintenance and Broad City this fails in capturing either heart or humor.
Currently in theaters, coming soon to VOD.
Don't See It.
Abigail is a horror movie loosely based on Dracula's Daughter. A group of criminals are hired to kidnap a tween ballerina heiress only to discover she is more than she seems.
The cast is excellent- Melissa Barrera as Joey the medic and defacto lead, Dan Stevens as Frank the former cop, Kathryn Newton as Sammy the tech wiz, Alisha Weir as the titular Abigail among others. Its a lot of talent and they do a good job imbuing the story with some immediacy, humor, and stakes. The script is simply not as strong as the cast and there seems to be some tension in tone. The movie can't quite decide if it wants to be a pedal-to-the-metal horror comedy romp or something with legitimate emotional stakes, in trying to do a bit of both it dilutes the impact of both approaches.
Visually slick, mostly set in one location(a haunted house!), with an eerie score and some cool Victrola diegetic songs. It works and it works on what now would be considered a "small" budget($30M). The action scenes are effective, the wire work by Weir and her dancing and bloody decapitations and dismemberments are really fun. The script simply needed to be punched up(who knows if the production timeline was expedited), its a great idea, and a decent execution, but it falls a bit short from being a homerun, a solid double.
Diverting but not ecstatic.
Currently in theaters, coming soon to VOD.
Rent It.
Sasquatch Sunset is a fantasy/drama about four sasquatches in the Pacific Northwest. The film follows the four over the course of a year in a series of vignettes, following their mating, eating, and sheltering habits as they contend with challenges and the encroachment of humans.
Jesse Eisenberg, Riley Keough, Christophe Zajac-Denek, and Nathan Zellner all put in intricate, interesting, non-verbal performance(yes, there is zero dialogue). At times it does play as an experiment, a theatrical exercise, but other times as a surprisingly impactful exploration of community and behavior. There is a lot of truth here, some laughs, and some things that go to far but overall its refreshingly unique and displays a pretty profound courage on the part of the actors.
Visually the film is patient, evoking the natural world and these sasquatches living in it. It feels rich and peaceful and when the sasquatches encounter a road or trees marked for lumber we, along with them, feel the affront. The score is subtle and helps bolster the filmmaking's intentions, filling out what is a relatively sparse audioscape.
There are some particularly gross scenes, some of them work some of them don't, but they are ambitious, brave. Similarly the comedic moments are a bit hit-or-miss and yet overall the tone is one of honesty and adventurousness. If still, lets not mince words, incredibly bizarre.
Certainly not for everyone but the first truly singular piece of US cinema in 2024.
See It.
Rebel Moon - Part Two: The Scargiver is a SFF epic a sequel to the Rebel Moon - Part 1: A Child Of Fire released in December of last year. It picks up right after the events of the previous movie and delivers on the Seven Samurai premise with the first part being mostly set up for the battle in the latter half. It in no way stands on its own and both parts only together deliver a full narrative.
Much like the previous installment the lead Kora played by Sofia Boutella doesn't have enough to do or enough edge. The supporting cast, similarly, are underdeveloped and feel like undergrad aspiring screenwriter fumblings than actual characters. There is a ton of deadening exposition laden dialogue and scenes where characters painfully and explicitly set up flashbacks we are about to see. Its offensively juvenile writing but the actors do their best to breath some life into it to a modicum of success.
Visually the movie looks great, costumes are great, soundtrack is great, fight scenes are mostly great(if there is the standard Synder overuse of slow motion). And the idea behind it and the worldbuilding aren't half bad it is simply the characters and the dialogue, as written, are woefully boring, flat, and robotic.
Mildly diverting eye candy but no real substance.
Currently streaming on Netflix.
Stream It.
Monkey Man is an action thriller about a country kidin India who's village is destroyed and taken over by the government at the behest of a corrupt religious figure. Years later he(Dev Patel) is surviving in the city working as an underground fighter plotting his revenge.
Patel has moments of brilliance but overall his performance is overshadowed by the overstuffed script and production(his other duties as writer and director). There is just straight up too much going on in the film and Patel as a first time director is doing too much. The supporting cast has some wonderful folks in it but the focus is all over the place, the influences and ambitions so bloated it doesn't allow for any of the actors to really distinguish their characters outside of the relentless tone.
The dark saturated visuals paired with the shaky came quick cuts create a clipped momentum and a distinct mood(although it never really relents which in a 90 minute runtime would be perfect but at two hours is not as successful). The soundtrack has a couple on-the-nose needle drops but some decent scoring with one stand out training sequence with diegetic drumming. The action seems to be well choregraphed but follows the Paul Greengrass school of close up, hand held shooting which makes the fights incredibly difficult to actually see.
The are so many big ideas and themes in the film- class, religion, gender, capitalism- to name a few. It wants to be John Wick but it also wants to be political and also wants to be a modern day myth. Which is all great and a great start is made on a lot of the above but it never comes together, it doesn't coalesce, so what you are left with is something that is assuredly entertaining but not altogether satisfying. In attempting so much it is unable to fully deliver on any one thing.
Its reach exceeds its grasp.
See It.
Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire is a fantasy, the continuation of the monsterverse and a sequel to 2021's Godzilla vs. Kong. Kong is settled in Hollow Earth but lonely, Godzilla is on regular Earth but powering up on radiation for an unknown threat. Kong discovers a group of large apes like himself after an avalanche reveals a here-to-fore uncharted section of Hollow Earth. That group is lead by the tyrannical Scar King who Kong must face, with some help of course.
The human cast is full of talent but they don't have much to do and quite frankly their inclusion is virtually unnecessary. This is ultimately a story about Kong and the CGI rendering of Hollow Earth and all the principle monsters is pretty excellent. Devoid of the human dialogue the story is actually a pretty archetypal Hero's Journey and it works. Kong the forgotten son, the disgraced prince, returns to find his kingdom under the rule of a villain and he must usurp him for the good of the apes. At first attempt he is defeated but after receiving a Magic Weapon, a powerful mechanized gauntlet, and enlisting the aid of his former nemesis Godzilla, he returns to triumph. Simple and effective.
Most of the movie is CGI and especially on the big screen it looks great. There are some great needles drops, the pacing is quick and breezy, and the art design is good and for once doesn't have the sameness that a lot of contemporary CGI has. Is it an amazing piece of cinema? No. But an enjoyable, easy to follow, adventure building off of lore set up in the franchise but not really beholden to or bogged down by it.
A surprising popcorn success.
Currently in theaters, coming soon to VOD.
See It.
Gyllenhaal gives a painful, confused performance. Earnest in all the wrong ways, clearly a lot of effort went into his physique and on a 43 year old man it looks weird bordering on grotesque. He's not charming, he has no real chemistry with any of his castmates, he's not funny, there's virtually nothing that he brings to the role that is effective. Similarly Conor McGregor in his acting debut, is terrible. Awkward physically and stilted verbally he looks and sounds like a middle school drama club member who's excitement about participating far exceeds any sliver of talent. Excruciating to watch. Williams is wasted in the underdeveloped role as Frankie and her comedy chops aren't factored in. The sole person that's able to carve out an actual character is Arturo Castro as Moe one of the toughs, he plays him with a befuddled good-naturedness that's genuinely fun and funny and is pretty much the only character that resembles an actual human being.
The production elements are equally objectionable. CGI is liberally used to spruce up the fight scenes and the action sequences in a glitzy transparent way that undermines them. The soundtrack is full of treakley pop with the capper being an unsettling Sublime cover. There was clearly issues with the sound mix because over half the dialogue is disturbingly ADR'd. Like the performances, the production design and execution is profoundly uneven. The script(clearly doctored by half a dozen screenwriters) is beyond predictable with attempted one-liners that land like lead balloons, with a bad mix of action and(attempted) story that do justice to neither.
A total miss on virtually every level. Lifeless. Offensive, not in its content but in its quality.
Currently streaming on Prime.
Don't See It.
Dastmalchian is a great leading man, grounded, emotive, and in full control of the screen. Its wonderful to see him in this kind of role, being most frequently cast as the character or the creep. He's a soulful actor and he's able to bring that quality effectively to bear here in a context that really needs it. The supporting cast is all talented but have less to do, the exceptions are Laura Gordon as Dr. June Ross-Mitchell and Ingrid Torelli as Lilly, the duo that are the mainevent guests for the show as Lilly is possessed. Torelli is deliciously creepy and Gordon sparks good chemistry with Dastmalchian in the limited scenes they have. Ian Bliss is the one squeaky wheel, the character, as written, is pretty irritating but his performance doesn't bring much life to the plot's necessary contrarian.
Clearly on a limited budget the film looks authentic, evoking the 70's and late night network vibe. All the production elements, the narration, the montage, the costumes, the score, the show itself, all work together to evoke this cool transportive mood. The film doesn't fail in ambition or talent but it does fall a short in pacing, periodically it drags, and the ending isn't quite coherent or work particularly well. At times the plotting gets in the way of its impact. But it does feel fresh, there's a vitality to it, some edge, some danger.
Not a homerun but a solid base hit, satisfying with a great turn from Dastmalchian.
Currently in theaters, coming soon to VOD.
Rent It.
Love Lies Bleeding is a neo-noir set in an unspecified town in New Mexico in 1989. Lou(Kristen Stewart) is a lonely manager of a gym and has unspecified familial and law enforcement issues. Enter Jackie(Katy O'Brian) a transient bodybuilder on her way to a competition in Las Vegas. The two meet and begin a relationship while Jackie prepares. Lou's past and situation begin to interfere with the relationship and trouble ensues.
Stewart is miscast and brings her hipster aw-shucks shrugging to a role that requires more. O'Brian, in her first leading role, is clearly a talent to watch but doesn't have enough on the page to really carve out a character. The two have decent chemistry and it would have been nice to see them in a story not so bogged down by manufactured externals. Both are criminally underwritten and are propelled not by a real connection with each other or believable humanity but with the necessity of plot. It is glaring how contrived both the relationship and the situation the characters find themselves in are. The rest of the cast have very little to do and Jena Malone, a true star, is barely used. She would have been a better choice for Lou. Ed Harris's absurd wig does more acting than he does.
The film looks great, saturated and lush, the score thrumming and thrilling. But its all style no substance. Director/co-writer Rose Glass is an expert craftsperson, no question, but her screenwriting ability, at least in this effort, is little to none. She has no real sense of the time period, location, criminality, class, or fitness. All areas a rich prep school Londoner shouldn't get into without, at minimum, extensive research. Given the New Mexico setting the dearth of Latinx and Natives in the film is concerning. Understanding this is extra-textual but it underscores the inauthenticity that is an undercurrent throughout.
It is wonderful to see the representation and the uptick in queer filmmaking generally over the last couple years is encouraging but here there is almost a sprint to the stylized sex scenes proceeded by little-to-no character development which render them confusing at best, exploitive at worst.
Feels more like a protracted music video rather than a feature.
Currently in theaters, coming soon to VOD.
Don't See It.
Arthur The King is a feel-good sports drama about adventure racer Michael Light(Mark Wahlberg) who befriends a stray dog during an adventure race in the Dominican Republic.
Wahlberg gives the same performance that he has given over the past five years- blandly serviceable and indistinct. For this kind of flick that's mostly fine. There are some decent talents in the supporting cast but the script is so poor, the pacing so jagged, and the characters so thin it doesn't really matter who they are or what they're doing. The dog is very sweet.
Shoot on location as well as utilizing a fair amount of green screen the overall look is cheap and uneven. The sound track is generic inspirational and generally so are all the production elements. The reason to see this is for the dog but the problem is the dog doesn't really show up until over half way through the runtime. Its not even really about the dog, its about Wahlberg's Light who on paper isn't interesting and isn't made so by Wahlberg's performance. Much of the script and plot beats are baffling creating a vagueness, unreality, and general inability to engage.
There is a certain pleasure in saccharine feel-good dog movies like A Dog's Purpose, this ain't it.
Currently in theaters, coming soon to VOD.
Don't See It.
Damsel is a fantasy about Elodie(Millie Bobby Brown) a poor princess who is coerced into an infelicitous marriage. Made in Netflix's typical just-barely-watchable-enough-to-have-on-while-folding-laundry and extremely derivative given not only the almost exact same premised The Princess but the similar Catherine Called Bird and Ready Or Not all released within the last five years. Not to mention the exactly titled and similar(if Western set) Damsel.
Needless to say this movie is not good. And given the relatively substantial budget, one would guess between 50-100 million why has Netflix yet to solidify any note worthy relationship with theatrical distributors. This is not a good movie yet it is clearly attempting to be a major release, a defacto Blockbuster, this underscores Netflix's baffling approach to feature films. Regardless of its quality it would make some, if not quite a bit, of money in box office if given a national release. That would have little to no effect on Netflix's exclusive streaming rights or the number of views it would subsequently get on the platform. By also not releasing it into the open theatrical market its quality is not appropriately put to the test, and in this instance it is extremely poor(weak lead performance by Brown, predictable and unoriginal AI generated script, uneven visual effects). And if it were a straight-up bomb that would still provoke discussion and subsequently drive viewers to watch it on Netflix(if not in the theater). Win-win.
Clearly given how many of these types of movies that have been made recently(Ready Or Not being the superior by a wide margin and being a genuine box office success with a gross return of 1000%) there is a market or the studios perceive there to be a market for them. Why not put that to the test in the open market? Why not take some actual time and effort to make them good? Netflix currently has a limited contract with Landmark Theaters exclusively for showings of awards contenders to meet their minimum requirements for eligibility. There has been much discussion about the uncertain future of movie theaters, one of the clear issues is variety. One of the major reasons Dune: Part Two is a success is because there is simply nothing else to see right now.
All this is to say that the streamers, in particular Netflix, need to begin distributing their films into theaters. Its the best way forward for cinema and the best choice for them economically. This relationship between film and movie theaters is symbiotic. The medium of the TV, the device, is the TV show. The feature film is made for the movie theater.
Damsel currently streaming on Netflix.
Don't See It.
Problemista is a surrealist cringe comedy about Alejandro(Julio Torres, also written and directed by) a El Salvadoran immigrant to New York City an aspiring ironic-toy designer. When faced with a visa problem he befriends and begins to work as a personal assistant for Elizabeth(Tilda Swinton) a mentally unstable art critic and champion level Karen.
Torres Freshman film effort shows a lot of imagination, a lot of ambition, and a decent amount of visual flair and actuality, his effort as the lead is servicable but not as strong as his other efforts in the film. His characterization verges on a Napoleon Dynamite impersonation. Not overtly but in mannerism and in indicating a kind of vague intelligence, another influence in regards to the performance seems also to be Peter Sellers' Chance in Being There. This is not to say its bad but to simply say it doesn't come across as particularly original. Which is in stark contrast to Swinton's Elizabeth which, even if unpleasant as a character most of the time, is absolutely captivating to watch. Frequently Swinton's is cast as unknowable or distant or authoritative, its rare she gets a chance to be completely human(the Michael Clayton type roles for her are not frequent). Here she takes full advantage and gives a performance of singular quality. Outside the two of them the supporting cast is inconsequential, not in there talent but in their screentime and necessity to the narrative.
From a design standpoint Torres, out of the gate, has style, has point of view. Like his former SNL co-worker Kyle Mooney before him with Brigsby Bear, there is a clear sense of darkness and whimsy. A magical realism injected both in some of the emotional beats but in dream or representation sequences which are lovely to see. There is not one way to do a film although in the increasing homogenization of the studios most major releases follow the same screenwriting parameters, this does not. It has identity.
One can question how effective the film is and what, actually, is it trying to say. Those questions are more murky here, perhaps even off putting. There is a lot in the film, like many freshman features, it is overstuffed. With visuals and with ideas. But most of them are successful. The relationship between Alejandro and Elizabeth, the themes explored, are interesting. But the resolution of which leaves an odd, bitter, one imagines unintended, taste.
An intriguing new work from a promising talent.
Currently in theaters, coming soon to VOD.
See It.
Spaceman is a scifi drama based on the 2017 novel Spaceman of Bohemia about a solo Czech astronaut Jakob(Adam Sadler) who is sent to investigate a mysterious cloud around Jupiter. Increasingly isolated Jakob reflects on his failing marriage with Lenka(Carey Mulligan) and is inexplicably visited by an alien creature he names Hanuš(Paul Dano).
As always its nice to see Sandler in this kind of register. Grounded, emotional, with the same open vulnerability he brings to both his dramatic and comedic roles. Its a lot to ask of him here as he never has any actual scene partners and he thrives in the company of actual humans, he does a good job but can't quite carry it to the finish line. This is partly the fault of the script which at times languishes and becomes repetitive. Mulligan gives a great performance but its more pastiche, more montage, than actual scene work as she is mostly shown through fragmentary flashbacks. Dano's vocal performance has depth but not a lot of variation.
The production is very effective, very vivid, but perhaps overly dark and gloomy furthering the already dark and gloomy story and dark and gloomy lead performance. At times it is a bit much, a bit oppressive. Which is perhaps the intent, regardless the result is too much sameness not enough variety. It is kind of a plodding trudge which becomes slightly numbing as the film progresses due to this lack of change in pacing or tone. It is transportive and the themes it grapples with are intriguing but it is not well rounded, it does not feel complete.
Ambitious and commendable if not quite successful.
Currently streaming on Netflix.
Rent It.
Dune: Part 2 is a scifi epic, the sequel to 2021's Dune, together an adaptation of the 1965 novel. Following the events of Part 1 Paul(Timothée Chalamet) is embedded with the Fremen, works with them to launch effective military attacks against the Harkonnen, establishes his place as a leader, fights against the Messiah prophecy, and falls in love with Chani(Zendaya).
There is much more plot in Part 2 and an even bigger cast. Most of which are good additions other than Austin Butler as Feyd-Rautha who is out of his depth and is unable to provide the impression the film sets him up to make. He's got beautifully full attractive lips but his recent and rapid ascendance in Hollywood is somewhat baffling(as is Chalamet's for that matter, although Chalamet maintains a decent performance if not a definitive one). Because of so much that needs to happen in this installment character development and dimension is somewhat on the back burner. Which doesn't detract too much as the film is so gorgeously and evocatively rendered. But it is bordering on criminal how little Rebecca Ferguson and Dave Bautista are given to do. The sole exception is Javier Bardem who gives a full-to-the-brim performance. He's funny, emotional, and dynamic providing not only necessary levity but a solid grounding which makes the Fremen feel real.
Visually, like its predecessor, the film is immaculate. Rich and imaginative. The score thrumming and otherworldly. The costuming lush, clean, and specific. Denis Villeneuve's production team is absolutely, across-the-board, on top of their game carving out a singular and transportive world.
Part 1 was delicious because it luxuriated in the world building, it was more tone poem than narrative, Part 2 is unfortunately tasked with making up some of that difference plot-wise and although there is much more action(which is great) it feels a bit rushed.
A wonderful viewing experience if somewhat short of transcendent.
Currently in theaters, coming soon to Max.
See It.
Argylle is a meta-spy action-dramedy about an author of spy novels who gets embroiled in an espionage plot.
The cast is full of A-listers but there are too many of them and they are given too little to do. The movie has a great elevator pitch but the actual script is overlong, borderline incoherent, and is populated by paper thin characters no amount of talent can salvage it.
An over-reliance on unnecessary CGI and green screen give the movie a tacky, cheap look and the handful of action scenes with manic cuts and close ups do nothing to dispel this. The movie was either re-written and/or re-edited so many times the result is something that feels AI generated.
Too much plot, no actual story.
Currently in theaters, coming soon to Apple+.
Don't See It.
Perfect Days is a lowkey slice-of-life drama about Hirayama(Kōji Yakusho) a bathroom cleaner in Tokyo, seemingly content with his simple, disciplined, ritualistic life. The film follows him across several days of his routine.
Yakusho is on screen for the entire runtime and in close-up for at least a third so his task is monumental and he does well conveying a kind of quiet, monastic, compassion but the sparseness of the script and the character's unflinching disposition render the character, at times, unrealistically twee and/or contrived. Much is implied but nothing is explored, there's clearly a resistance to engaging with the character and subject only to a particular depth. The supporting cast is limited and are relegated to only a few scenes, some do well, some like Tokio Emoto as Takashi Hirayama's co-worker seem to be from a totally different movie.
The film looks great, the soundtrack is full of classic rock bops, but it all feels very curated, very constructed. Compare this to the tonally similar but much more successful Paterson and the clear difference is in genuinely exploring the character and delving into real human emotion and experience, even if subtle.
I don't necessarily believe Hirayama is content with his life the images and sequences are trying too hard to persuade me that this is the case. There doesn't need to be a hidden darkness or trauma revealed but there does need to be authenticity. Its almost a textbook case of show-don't-tell which is storytelling 101.
Beautiful and pleasant but underbaked. Too calculated in its attempt at transcendence to achieve it.
Currently in theaters, coming soon to VOD.
Rent It.
The Zone Of Interest is a historical drama about the domestic life of the commandant of Auschwitz.
The cast is all very talented and gives shallow reprehensible(ie realistic) performances but the whole endeavor begs the question, to what end? What is the point? This kind of investigation of the Nazi machine has been done many many times since 1993's Schindler's List brought cinema about the Holocaust into mainstream Hollywood and this doesn't do anything particularly new or inventive and doesn't have anything particularly new to say or observe.
Immaculately shot, impeccably costumed, successfully scored writer/director Jonathan Glazer is unquestionably a superb craftsman but as a storyteller this leaves a lot to be desired and doesn't have any of the formal inventiveness Glazer displayed in his last feature Under The Skin. The whole rigmarole begs the question- why? But never musters the energy to answer it.
Incredible artists produce a profoundly uninspired script.
Currently in theaters, coming soon to VOD.
Don't See It.
All Of Us Strangers is a supernatural drama about Adam(Andrew Scott) a lonesome screenwriter in London who strikes up a relationship with his neighbor Harry(Paul Mescal) at the same time he is returning to his childhood home to visit with his deceased parents(Jamie Bell and Claire Foy).
Scott is raw, emotional, and open. Its a very heartfelt and true performance, he's clearly giving it everything he's got which is commendable and at times truly beautiful but some of the script and editing work against the work he's trying to do. A big problem in the script(loosely based on a horror novel) is the mechanics and idea of his visits to his parents- is this in his head, are they ghosts, is this nefarious, is this some kind of divine cathartic opportunity? What is happening and what are its mechanics? Writer/director Andrew Haigh doesn't seem interested in answering these questions, and that's fair, this isn't trying to be a genre film but by using this genre trope the lack of clarity around it is distracting and at times undercuts or obfuscates some of the emotional truths the film is attempting to get at. With the editing there is simply too many close ups of Scott, every other scene has protracted close ups of his sad watering eyes and within those scenes there are numerous cuts of variations on the same close ups. The result is it feels as if we are investigating Adam(and by extension Scott) too much, we(the audience) are too close, it feels intrusive rather than inclusive. Off putting. We are being thrust at him when we should be him.
Mescal, Bell and Foy are all wonderful(particularly Foy, a killer as always) although sometimes the accents get a little bit thick for a US ear(we can absolutely subtitle UK films). But all three are equally constrained by the genre mechanics opacity of logic and all have relatively limited screentime in which to work.
The film looks great with rich and evocative night shots and utilizing kind of tracer or fuzzy imagery for the drug scenes as well as to evoke memory. The soundtrack is effective, the costuming and some of the set dressing(particularly when Adam is visiting his folks) subtle and works wonderfully. There's a lot to like and there's a lot that is of interest but overall the narrative itself is a bit overbearing in its bleakness. Adam is unhappy, he is stuck, and every aspect of the film works to underline this. There are transcendent moments- some of Adam's conversations with his parents are cathartic if somewhat on-the-nose, the montage of Adam and Harry falling in love is beautiful and makes you see the potential romcom that could have been- but what you are left with ultimately is a sedentary melancholy not particularly without hope but certainly not hopeful.
Not for this reviewer but for those with a higher tolerance for sorrowful whimsy.
Rent It.