ANATOMY OF A FALL - Movie Review
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 11. 2023
- Website: www.deepfocuslens.com
Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/deepfocuslens...
Follow me on instagram: / deepfocuslens
Follow me on twitter: / deepfocuslens
Like my Facebook page: / deepfocuslens
Email me: deepfocuslens@gmail.com - Krátké a kreslené filmy
Totally respect your opinions and views on the movie. But yeah I think it’s one of those films that’s more about the journey than the destination. It was really just using the trial procedural as a trojan horse to hit on a whole ton of themes. The complexities of marriage, family trauma, guilt, self harm, etc. It truly was the anatomy of a “fall”, the fall out of a marriage, the fall of a man, fall of family. How things come undone. And the conclusion felt pretty realistic to me. Rarely do we know the complete truth, we just have to decide what to believe in. I dug it.
And Snoop was the best dog actor ever. Thought the kid was excellent too.
I think this story is truly about the journey, we have that scene towards the end after the they win the trial eating dinner where we expect some grandiose resolution but it's as real as it gets. It's to the point. She could've kissed the lawyer but she lost her husband and went through a grueling trial, she just wanted to go back to her child. It was a lose-lose situation from the start, it was just us tagging along to see how much she lost.
The movie is for people who have life experience, someone who is more mature.
I think that was the problem. The movie had way too many things to say but didn’t really say anything very well. You constantly feel like the screenwriters are forcefeeding you and forcing the next twist. And the movie has a surprising lack of depth and focus for a movie with anatomy in the title. I thought it started out strongly but it didn’t hold together. I did love the dog by the way
@@ssssssstssssssss It's a realistic portrayal of a couple's life, depicting the challenges they face in various aspects. Life is multi-faceted and complex, not one-dimensional. if you get it you get it, if you don't get it you are not the target audience. It's a movie that provoke thinking, very common in European cinema, not a movie that preaches you or needs to tell you something that you don't know.
Fantastic comment…. Excellent! Thank-you!!
I saw it more about the anatomy of a fall of a marriage. Not even about did she or didn’t she but as an exploration of their marriage through this lens
This is a great film. As someone who is used to dealing with the legal system, I am dismayed how some reviews (like this one) miss crucial points to the film. For example, nothing in the film indicates that the boy tells any actual lies, yet the reviewer claims the boy lies. Maybe he does, maybe he misremembers? We don't know. People often contradict themselves. Lawyers like to exploit people who contradict themselves in order to make a person look like they’re guilty. It's all perception in a court of law and even the innocent can be made to look guilty. That is one of the points of the film.
I really loved this movie. I felt the boy was the point of the movie. The courtroom drama was the device used to show the anatomy of a fall of a marriage after the traumatic accident that caused the boys blindness. The only real evidence in the courtroom was the recording which instigated the flashback of their fight. But the fight was, after all, only one instance in an entire marriage. In the end it wasn't important to me whether she was found guilty or innocent by the court for murder. What mattered to me most was if the boy thought she was guilty or innocent. He made a decision with what he felt was objective evidence and then convinced the court.
I have wondered why many couples break apart after a child dies when you think they would unite and console. This movie was, I feel, an analysis of what can happen to the dynamics between the individuals within a marriage and ultimately the marriage itself after a traumatic event for their child.
Also, I found it refreshing to watch a movie where there is no hero.
um... drama? You mean nap time. Never felt so well rested. Film itself sucked.
@@manymany4879It’s so bizarre when people voice their subjective opinion like it’s fact and can’t understand why someone might enjoy something that they don’t. Comes across really immature. Personally I was riveted the entire runtime and had a knot in my stomach. Some of the most fleshed out characters I’ve seen on screen this year. But obviously I can see why the slow burn isn’t for everyone. I couldn’t stand Ferrari and almost walked out numerous times. But Maggie gave it a glowing review and I’m glad she liked it.
@@123rockfan this film shouldn't have been made . This is why swedes shouldn't be allowed to make films. not fun. totally irrelevant. boring. I would rather be on trial for murder myself than sit thru this thing again. Actually I left about 4 hours into the courtroom part
@@manymany4879 lol you sound like you’re still in middle school. Or trolling
@@manymany4879 you genuinely sound like you have a low I.Q. The movie cost only 6 million to make. And the people who love slow burn indie-drama films are loving it. So to say that it shouldn’t have been made is just so stupid.
The editing and pacing for this film was very clean and well done. Great shots and a great look to many scenes.
Not sure how you came away with the idea that the blind kid is just a gimmick for the film. It wasn't used as a gimmick at all. It provided reason and context as to why their marriage was falling apart and added depth to the characters and what they were thinking and their motivations. It added layers of emotions for all the characters especially the blind kid himself.
I don't get the complaint about the couples internal motivations being shrouded by a ton of diversions/red herrings. The point of the film was to have the nature and motivations of the couple slowly revealed as the film progressed. The diversions were there to add context and information about characters. To keep you picking apart the characters and wondering who was at fault. Slowly unveiling the nature and problems of their relationship, keeping the audience wondering and guessing. I didnt notice red herrings or diversions that threw me off as a viewer at all. There was a perfect amount of ambiguity to keep us wondering, and only towards the very end was there a bit of a red herring but it was done cleverly without any gimmick.
The flashback scene isnt supposed to invoke more skepticism towards the wife, its the opposite. Its giving you context that the husband is emotionally unstable and dealing with his personal mental anguish, as we hadnt seen it prior to that scene .The flashback reveals more into the nature of their relationship, I didnt interpret it as trying to skew opinion to favor one over the other.
The prosecutor playing the audio of the flashback is supposed to invoke skepticism of the wife towards the jury in the film. His whole purpose is to paint her in a negative light towards the jury and characters in the film. But as the audience, I think we're supposed to interpret these reveals and new information about their relationship as the context and reasons their relationshio eventually crumbled and fell, as opposed to pieces of a murder mystery puzzle.
I loved the film and felt like leaving a comment tangent in your review since i disagree with you on every aspect. Anyway keeo doin what you do!
I do as well, I was basically glued to the film from start to the end and not a second there was wasted to me, best film in years... but it made me think what happens when everyone is raving about the sort of film I think I'd like and I find it nothing much ...like the killers of flower moon
It deserves a rewatch, it’s not about a murder mystery, the anatomy of the “fall” is the fall of the marriage not the husband, who are these judges and lawyers to judge this marriage so willingly in public.
I didn’t think it was “muted” at all with how the sound design almost choked the audience out with context and the framing in each shot was just impeccable and foreshadowing.
This movie took a little while after seeing it to really hit me. I was left a little cold by how neatly the movie wraps up until I realized that “wanting more” in this way made me no better than the people in the movie gossiping on French daytime TV. An excellent exploration of how the spectacle of the media taints our perception of each other.
Oh wow, this film’s underlying message really jumped out at me (and captivated me) in so many ways! I think the title ‘Anatomy of a Fall’ had more to do with how an audience witnessing a story can choose to interpret (and even sensationalize) the details of the story to suit their specific needs, particularly if the details of the story are easy to interpret/contextualize in multiple ways.
Sandra Huller’s character is constantly needing to react to the perception other characters have of her over the course of the story. The flashback recording of the fight showed how her husband perceived her behavior as a wife under the lens of his own insecurities and unachieved goals. When Sandra’s character tells her lawyer/friend that she did not kill her husband, he tells her “that’s not the point,” and warns her that in the public eye, ‘how things look’ is often infinitely more interesting (and infinitely more entertaining) than ‘how things are.’ Even we - the film audience - constantly process every new piece of information we receive trying to decide (based on what we know) if the death of the husband is accidental, or premeditated.
The blind son (played by Milo Machado-Graner, who absolutely blew me away with his performance in the latter half of the film) is shown imagining new scenarios of how his father might have died based on what he learns from the trial. He didn’t see the fight and - like us - can only piece information together and form a conclusion. But it is painful - even heartbreaking - as the things he imagines might damage his perception of either his mother or his father for the rest of his life. The child is told by his court-appointed chaperone that he must review the details of his mothers case and CHOOSE what to believe, since the facts presented were so easy to interpret in multiple ways. In the end, (ironically) it’s his memory of a conversation he had with his father (connected to the terrifying incident that almost killed the family dog) that helps him finally make a decision about what to believe.
I think the film explores how we choose to perceive the actions and statements of others based on what we most desire out of our specific connections to them. I really enjoyed the film and was spellbound by both Sandra and Milo’s performances.
Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts - I’m not sure I would have come to terms with how really felt about the story if I hadn’t watched your video.
I'm busy as hell these days with my film studies thesis and barely find time for current movies. Lo and behold, the one film I went and saw recently is the one you're reviewing. What a nice coincidence.
it was the worst film I've seen for years. it was revolting
@@manymany4879 Why?
@@Thomas15 well i have to admit i didnt see all of it. I fell asleep 3 minutes into the utterly tedious courtroom crap. i hate the actors, i hate the writing, i hated the director, the editing and the camerawork. This film is a steaming pile of crap from the get-go and there was no way to save it. Oh, forgot to say i hated the script. Finally , making the child blind was like the final cringe. Just as patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, so is throwing in a handicapped child-character the last refuge of the bad director.
@@manymany4879 the camerawork????? you're out of your mind
@@JavierSly camera equipment + camera people (director cameraman dop etc) were very poor
Sandra Huller deserves accolades for her incredible performance, but Acadamy tends to ignore foreign performers. Isabelle Huppert for 'Elle' comes to mind
Thought of her instantly as well.
Even the dog acted his ass off.
Seriously, it felt so gripping, the last hour was an emotional rollercoaster, held by remarkable performances and dialogues. I was at rhe dge of my seat.
What a movie.
That is exactly how this movie made me feel : at the edge of my seat (n not in a cliché "on the nose" way like other archetypal murder mysteries) n I appreciate this movie for just that
😂 the scene where the dog got sick from the asperin was amazing! I didn't know an acting dog could do so much. Very impressive.
5/5. I am always surprised by which films you don’t connect with.
Maggie reminds me a lot of Anthony Fantano. Completely mystifying when it comes to their likes and dislikes lol. I thought the ambiguity and subtle nature of Anatomy of a Fall would be something Maggie would love. I didn’t find it labored or hackneyed whatsoever
@@123rockfanCan you me her real and full name ?
She’s too young to understand anything😂
@@User-vz4xm that’s a ridiculous statement
@@drewmcgill5290 ok, too American & too young then
it's interesting you say the flashback shifted the guilt toward her bc for me that moment made the husband dispatching himself seem way more likely because of how delusional he seemed. insisting that she was "imposing himself" on her when they were in the house he wanted to live in in his home town where she was a mllion miles forom her own family, culture, and career. He seemed so insane that the idea of him ending himself in a way that made it look like she did it felt possible whereas before i felt so sure that she did it.
Exactly, I feel like the reviewer had all of these pre--conceived notions of what specific "red herrings" or plot points were trying to say, when in reality I think she's missing the point. The open-endedness of these scenes WAS the point. And I'm so glad no real resolution or "truth" was settled upon, because it would have invalidated so much of what the movie had going on.
he was doing that thing with the music in the beginning, so when i did get to seem him it was like , well here you go, brilliant casting, just how i though he'd look and just how a woman like her would overlook it it and write what has to be written, great film
A disappointing review as Justine Triet won the Palme d’Or 2023 for this film and it wouldn't surprise me if this movie is nominated at the next Academy awards. Check out Mark Kermode's review of this same movie, perhaps it's the European cf. American sensibility that differs so much as this is classic French film. I loved the weaving of a writer's life and imagination as themes for her books and the counter-intuitive French court system that relies so heavily on conjecture to prosecute, for sure you wouldn't want to be Stephen King in the dock who gets a mention. These layers of stories puts the audience in the jury seat guessing until the final scene, to ponder what is true and what is fiction. Only the dog Snoop knows.
pfscpublix Weaving a writer’s life with her novels was done better in Basic Instinct and Drive My Car. In this film it felt like another gimmick.
I watched it a couple days ago, it's the best modern film I've seen in ages
agree, it reminds me of the great 70's fims. The writing and acting was amazing. I can see how it would go over most peoples heads.
I think the first comment, sums up so well about this film is. It's most certainly the interrogation into a marriage, and gender stereotypes and roles of the parent. I really found it quite powerful
I am of the camp that this film is an absolute masterpiece however I certainly think that not all films are for all people. There are some films that masterfully present and experience that not everybody wants to have. There are movies out there that present experiences that I don’t personally want to have because they do it so well. And that is totally OK. If everything was for everyone, there would be absolutely no point.
brilliant review, contained fair comments on film construction, like pace and editing I have not heard from other reviewers, and sharp insights into compared film references! Am now a subscriber! !
I actually think the themes of language and interpreting enhanced the film. There are a couple points in the court scenes when they argue over semantics, and this was not done merely for comedic relief but to elucidate the challenges of finding truth and justice through language. The ambiguity of what is permitted in the French court system as well as the child's discoveries, via the court scenes, of the complexities of the adult world are two great reasons for what may seem like mere verbosity at first glance. And while many films have too long-winded of dialogue to the extent that they provide narrative hand-holding to the audience or become didactic about their themes, I don't think this falls into either of those traps.
Yes, in fact the language was a major theme of the film. Not only is it the only direct contradiction we get of husband's perception of reality vs reality; its also used to convey the two central problems of the film, that of communication vs interpretation, and authenticity vs reality.
disappointed to know your take on one of my fav movies of the year.
Saw it at Telluride, and my thoughts are similar to yours. Courtroom dramas (as a genre) often feel didactic and un-cinematic (they tell rather than show), with a few exceptions. This one wavered between (at its best) a Bergman-influenced dissection of a marriage and (at its worst) a coroner's post-mortem about it. Curious what your thoughts on The Zone of Interest will be. It's my favorite film of the year, but it's (understandably) been very divisive.
How is the blindness a gimmick when it was his accident that resulted in the further breakdown of the marriage, the point is resentment not whether or not he could witness the murder, i think at least.
Yeah right? I also thought the fact that they changed from English to French frequently was weird and not needed and kind of a "gimmick" as you said, but as the film went on, I realized it was integral and had a point. Like everything in this movie felt purposeful and with meaning for me.
Thematically, in terms of the issue of translation in art, - and how the medium of film problematises this issue of communication, - right down to the son's lack of sight, - was just stunning. I have not felt so susceptible to being soaked by a film in years. You Were Never Really Here is the only other recent example.
I understand why some might find this slightly artificial, however. But, if you view this, following a theorist like Brecht who lurks in the distance, aesthetically, - the form itself, and the issues it raises, didactically, is what's meant to be decisively probing, by contrast to a straight-forward narrative arc. I would say that the narrative here is besides the point, compared to those issues like communication and translation which this film is strongly embedded in. That is, the difficulty.
However, I think I'm strongly biased here, from my sister recently having gone blind, which clearly dents my impression of the material.
I think this film will sadly struggle to find an audience.
Absolutely loved "You Were Never Really Here". Like this movie, an immersion into the real.
Watch that final flashback again. It's different from the film's other flashbacks, and that alone is enough to cause some speculation. Especially since it was offered right before Marge's advice about "choosing."
Yeah, not sure how she missed that.
I disagree with your comparison of yourself with overly verbose people. I find that you have a very economical use of language in your critiques.
She dissed the flashback but it was the best scene in the movie. Btw. You're watching what the jury is listening to. Not sure it qualifies as a flashback
Your analogies are always soooo on point... very insightful words
Liked you review! Thanks! A great take as always.
I like your take! I think the film is less about the mystery of a murder and more so about the fault of a judiciary system that relies so heavily on conjecture. I don’t particularly agree with the statement that the marriage relationship seeks to subvert gender expectations, as much as it reveals the depths of a controlling and toxic behavior by one party.
Triet painstakingly gives us no room to empathize with Sandra, as we have to wrestle with the unraveling of the most intimate details of her marriage. At the end of the film, she is acquitted. She might not be guilty of physically pushing her husband, but it is clear that she is guilty of pushing her husband into the darkness.
I loved the intentional and practical use of mixed media during interviews and evidence recordings. The haunting piano tune that drives the uneasiness throughout the film was well executed.
At the heart of the film Triet reminds us that this is not just an anatomy of a falling body, but really the anatomy of a falling marriage.
Amazing work, loved it.
I always watch your videos when I've watched a movie I loved - even though I expect you to disagree with me. And though I disagree with most of what you say (or I just think differently) [I agree the pace sagged at the 2 hour mark approx though I think it got over this blip quickly]. My view is the film is about many things, and I think each viewer will take what they want, probably more than one thing. I thought the meta was a little precious at times but I was reminded of Italo Calvino, specifically 'If on a winter's night a traveler' , and of Brian Friel's play 'Translations'; and overall I think it suited the themes of the movie well. Certainly Sandra Hüller tangibly elevated proceedings - I think the writing itself was also extremely strong. I'd summarise it for now as a take on neo-noir, refining old-fashioned plot mechanics exquisitely - but not just to be clever, but to say some very important things - what those are..well we have to choose, decide if you will, and give ourselves the benefit of the doubt as well as give it to others. The blind trope was I could wager a very light allusion to those paranormal melodramas of yore (in line with its seeming aim to revitalise genres that are out of favour right now), but mostly it was to say, perhaps, that sometimes what you see is deceiving, it's what you sense that matters. It's a symbol of tragedy - and not a heavy-handed one. Well-written, well-shot, well-directed, well-acted and extremely engaging - that's the best I could expect and am very happy to have seen it. :)
Thank you; your synopsis helped me put words to my feelings, I agree completely.
I saw this on the same day that I saw "Fallen Leaves" - which won the 2023 Cannes Jury Prize. I found the latter a much more compelling watch.
The blindness wasn't a gimmick, though. It played a crucial part in the unfolding of the story
Great review and totally agree!
I didn't care so much what the film was "about" but was riveted by the performances and the low buzz of suspense that was carried throughout the film. It was my favorite film this year.
Review the Last Starfighter?
I think it's a great movie.
I don't think there's anything superfluous, the editing and pacing are great, actors are great, dialogues make sense.
I like that we see what could have happen in that house through the view of the kid.
I miss this naturalistic/realistic approach in modern american cinema. It doesn't try to be fancy, gets to the point.
After seeing the trailer, this feels like it's from the late 70's or early 80's, but with more contemporary story-telling sensibilities.
Looking fwd to this one. Enjoyed Huller in Toni Erdmann and I’m Your Man, and Fall does intrigue me in ways I’ve seldom felt this disappointing year.
The articulation on this reviewer is amazing. How can one talk like her?
"Deepfocuslens", couldn't have a more perfect hashtag.
would love a review of the loneliest planet
great vid
Although with the choice of the handicap of the son I agree. I think it could have its place in the story. To pinpoint the long therm guilt of someone or just the overall look on handicaped people through the lens of those two types of human psyche - the mother and the father.
I never got the urgency that an innocent woman was fighting for her life or her freedom. We never feel the shift from accident to murder. The media attention suggests the case became something of a national scandal but the audience doesn't get the emotional experience of an increasingly grave circumstance which is really what the whole dramatic or cinematic aspect of the film should be. This film is very much dealing in gender issues and I think people like it because essentially a woman gets away with killing her husband. I enjoyed the performances but watching it after all the hype and Oscar buzz, I think it's somewhat overrated.
Finally I feel validated on my feelings toward this film.
Yeah she's made a living doing that.
I loved the movie, loved the pace and LOVED the argument scene. It was a fabulous. IMO. :)
So you didn't realise the kid made it up? There's a reason his big final scene is on the nose. A burgeoning child writer made it all up.
In my opinion. Obvious.
VERY obvious...which makes me question the validity of the rest of this review if that wasn't apparent.
@@lockekappa500
Yup. I can't put my finger on what I don't like about reviews and opinions like hers here in general. There's a pattern I notice I don't like in people. I'm fine with other reviews of hers, and negativity isn't a sin. But idk.
@@pseudonymousbeing987 I think it's a predisposition to contrarianism that I find can cause some critics to impose their "higher standards" on a piece of work before it's even resolved itself. SO much of this movie flew over her head, and I know it's not because of a lack of intellect or film knowledge. I just think she's seen so many films that she thinks she's already come to the correct conclusion before even allowing the scene to finish. She (and others) do this with A LOT of films.
I agree with you about the gimmicky premises; blind child and the argument being recorded so it could be available later. But you might be missing the point. I agree this is a murder mystery but I think complexity and ambiguity is the point, not suspense and tension.
loved it and we are reviewing the bad reviews!
I just watched the film and share your views. What I can’t get over is that jumping from the chalet balcony would not take his life nine out of ten times. The suicide required a Rube Goldberg-like sequence of events. If anything, it seems more likely he fell while leaning over balcony to watch son.
You know the classic trope of the blind child in 1970s satanic horror films that we’re all familiar with
The boy is blind because Justice is blind.
Would love to hear your thoughts on another Palme d'Or winner, Parasite!
There's no way she didn't review that
@@adamgates1142 I looked for her review of it but couldn't find it. Maybe I missed it? I only joined the channel about a year ago
@@schoolofrockcary6625 she has! czcams.com/video/U2GDM9_pGd8/video.htmlsi=d569plNz3CytNfys
I noticed that she has not reviewed many Asian films but I can understand if she doesn’t want to do it because she is not familiar with Asian cinema, especially Korean cinema which I think was the best on a global scale from 1999 to the mid 2010s and parasite was an outlier - it came late and so for those who missed the best of Korean cinema era in those early 2000s, it’s hard for reviewers to connect with them. Even my favorite movie critic the late Pauline kael had limited reviews of Asian films.
@@denniszenanywhere "The Isle" is another can't-miss Korean film
It’s a solid film, well-acted. But it’s 1/2 an hour longer than necessary and there’s little dramatic tension, particularly at the end.
The jury etc. decides the boy is being honest about his Dad’s conversation (about possibly signaling his self-harm intentions) and that’s that, it’s over.
Not one question about why someone would choose to leap as they did, after possibly taking an aspirin overdose. I don’t think a true resolution was possible, w/o a flashback as to *really* what happened.
As far as everything goes I tend to agree with you strongly on this one. I had some interest in the court room scenes and thought the lawyers both had strong and engaging arguments, along with the lead having an interesting and powerful performance in the courtroom as well. Beyond that though, I saw much to be desired. The plot seemed contrived and uninteresting, so many things were left ambiguous I felt I almost knew less at the end then I did at the beginning. And the ending I thought was boring, a total let down after everything that had happened. I'm glad I saw it but I'll take American Fiction any day over this one. Really nice review.
I think this film is amazing.
8:18 ??? you can see yourself watching this film again ???? you've got to be kidding. i'd rather have three teeth pulled
I agree with most of your points, I loved the rawness of this film. It felt like it was an honest view of how flawed we all are as human beings. Snoop was best on ground re acting range.
you should review “She’s having a baby(1988)!
Oh. My mistake. I thought you were going to talk about Disney and the MCU. 😉
I agree with you on so many fronts in this review. The movie released in India only recently and I saw it last night. I didn’t get the “Wow” factor. I found so much wrong in the portrayal of the lead actress and justifying her wrongdoings on humanitarian front. The courtroom drama was different and unique. The DOP and cinematography was sheer class. The acting of the lead lady was stupendous and so was that of Snoop and the boy. Overall though, it felt like an open ending and perspective based, making it different for different viewers. You’ve reviewed it quite well though.
I do not understand why this film is nominated for Best Picture. It is 45 minutes too long, it ends in as mundane a way as a murder trial can, there isn't any compelling event after the death. Watching it was like reading an encyclopedia. Sandra Hüeller was great though. I could see her winning an Oscar.
This movie and Plane with Gerard Butler were the only two films I really liked in 2023 😂 so I was impressed by it, the gender points are way more subtle than most movies made in the last 10 years and I'm typically oversensitive to political crap left or right, hilariously it's one of the only films you dislike.
There were three possibilities: accident, suicide, or murder. If each of those possibilities was explored with care and in depth without all of distractions it could have been a compelling film. Personally, I'd compare the movie to Marriage Story or Annette, which were much better, I thought. I think trickling information is required in a film like this though as it is a mystery. In Drive My Car, it was done effectively. In this movie, it felt like you were being jerked around.
I don't always agree with you, but... just listening to your reviews makes me reassess work that I have written.
I finally watched this a second time. Which took me a little because even though i loved it it’s a very filling movie. But upon second viewing of the fight flash back I see something totally different. I now fully believe he killed himself.
Was that really a flashback sequence? Or something the kid made up?
Made up
He's the child of two writers. He lied once already in the film obviously, even though that's unconfirmed. It's obvious to me.
I must say I also didn't feel much for this movie, it had glowing reviews but after I watched it I wasn't that impressed apart from the acting. I guess it is one of those things when it just doesn't click.
I really love this movie very very well done a female director and company writer the lead character female the whole film really from a female perspective I never for a moment believed that Sandra hooter killed the guy and the argument showed that he was just a whining immatured little boy who was a failure and couldn't handle his wife success I really like that about it so that women could have their head where the sun don't shine but I've noticed that a lot about her so I'm not listening her watching her much anymore
Like "It comes at night" or "Cache" this film doesn't satisfy. The premise promise is broken and audience is let down. It wouldn't be greenlit by any Hollywood executive, thank G.od.
Yeah, it wouldn't be greenlit because they can't tell good film if he hit them in the face with a 2 ton pole.
absolutely agree with you... Quite a deception for me!
I would love to hear your review of "Speak no evil". I find it the best and most intelligent horror movie since " It follows". I think you would love it too and your analysis would be so interesting (as they always are).
I just watched and was so empty, the film thinks that is more deep that it is
I want to watch it again
Ouch, agree to disagree. French fries vs mashed potatoes. I like both & this film.
Will you be watching The Queen's Gambit? I would love to hear your thoughts on this show.
You recommend us RENT it? What is this 1994? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Never heard of streaming services, grandpa?!
@@mattjames7386 You STREAM IT, you don't rent it dumb dumb!
I agree completely with your assessment of this movie, it’s decent but not great, it felt, as you say, rather laboured and hackneyed. Excellent lead performance but I’m surprised this won the top prize at Cannes
Compels me though.
Not because it is a classic french film but the ideology and wrong justification shown in the movie is bad......... technically its a good film..
*SPOILER ALERT*
I hated the ending!! WHERE was the twist? The hook? The 11th hour revelation? If I'm gonna spend three hours watching a droll courtroom drama, give me a solid, unexpected ending!!
Watch it again, that wasn't the point.
I think you did miss the point, yes.
There's a reason this film won the Palme and I doubt it's because it was the better film over Zone of Interest. I really want to watch both to determine for myself. Though I think it'll be why Dheepan won over Son of Saul.
You found it “weird” maybe because you are …a typical American. There, I judged you. And THAT is part of what the movie is about.
Let's not take it there. I'm American and I loved it, as well as many of other Americans. Americans are a very diverse group of people (people of all races, ethnicities (yes including French), sex, religion, sexuality, etc) and it's best not to see all 333 million of us as a monolith.
The op is just one person where the film didn't connect with, and that's okay.
I can't believe we didn't get to see what actually happened! Some could say that adds to the mystery but I feel it's a cop-out and a disappointment. I feel bad for saying this, but I found the child's acting as a blind boy thorougly unconvincing.
This film was ridiculous in lots of ways. But the boy was fantastic, he deserves all the awards.
9:00 YOU CLAIM SOME PEOPLE WILL SEE THIS FILM AS A MASTERPIECE ?!!! YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME
its a 9/10 for me. My favorite movie of 2023. But I can see why some people hate the slow burn.
The ending felt on the nose and ultimately not compelling. I also didn't like the choice to include a flashback of the father, maybe I just miswatched it, but it felt like it took away from some of the things that made the film interesting. It was a few weeks ago I saw it so some details have faded from my memory, but generally that's what I feel.
That's the way the end of trials often feel. Perfunctory. It's taken so long to even happen and the amount of personal, financial fallout is substantial win or lose. Seeing the husband/father is a key component in the reveal of his state of mind at the time of his death. Sometimes, a filmmaker will provide the audience more than the jury can see. I thought that was brilliant.
it's not my kind of movie, but if by 'flashback' you mean the part where the boy recalls his father speaking to him in the car and talking about the dog dying - in its defence that's basically meant to be understood as a fabrication, the boy giving that testimony basically to try acquit his mom whether she's guilty or not (which is left ambiguous). That's the 'choice' he makes. Both his parents were writers, it's a piece of fiction meant to depict the father as suicidal. Though I don't think it works well in that it's actually a corny and (fittingly) childish piece of fiction, I do not see anyone being acquitted of murder on account of it, which is how the film makes it look (the evidence against her looks pretty overwhelming up to that point)
@@helvete_ingres4717 I don't see that as fictional at all. He's trying to put together incidents that happened and he had no connection for prior. Now that he has more information a conversation he had with his father took on a different dimension. The only fiction was the son's supposition of his father's subtext. The testimonial conclusion is treated as purely subjective when it may have been...or not. There are many moments in the trial that are treated as expert opinions when they are also purely speculative fiction, like the therapist, or the inspector who went through the father's recordings and speculated the fight as being a 'dress rehearsal' for the next days fatal events.
@@razorbeard6970 I am not talking about the trial but what happens after it. With flashback I meant the fight between the mother and the father.
overwhelming? I don't think. There was definitely enough for reasonable doubt in my opinion. @@helvete_ingres4717
While greatly acted the film as a whole was mediocre. Very overrated imo
I thought Sandra Huller was great but the film was not so great ..B-
Marry me
You 100% missed the point. No offense but are you someone who doesn't understand realisim?
🥵🥵🥵
The movie was far from great
Iam the only the think, whata hot girl.?
Just came here stare at you
That’s creepy bro
Very overrated movie, quite dull really
I've listened to a lot of this young girls criticism and reviews and she really does over talk and uses the same phrases over and over again pistache editing rhythm tone whatever complaint here for adding me a fall which is a great film is the entertaining and the tone and rhythm of the editing I've never heard anything so silly in my life she boring uses the same phrases and I don't agree with her most of the time so there you are
woow just watched the trailer looks as booring as batshit. The level of movie making in this day and age... no wonder everyone plays online games.... its like watching rich kids make movies about there boooooring lives. Thanks for the review that will be a movie I will not waste my time on.