Benutzerrezensionen

Joe (Joaquin Phoenix) is a man you hire to track down missing people. Joe is also a skilled ex veteran who is permanently traumatised by his dark past. When Joe works, he walks around with confidence and has no problems using violence in order to get the job done. After getting the job done and collecting his pay, Joe comes home to his elderly mother who he takes care of.

After completing a recent job, Joe is soon offered a new mission from a New York senator. The mission is to find and rescue the Senator's 13 year old daughter who may have been captured.

I enjoyed the fact that Joe as a character is no 007. It's clear that while he is skilled, he's also a man with a horrible past, but in the end... he is very capable for any task. To the audience, we feel Joe does what he does to distracts himself or perhaps occupy to his thoughts from dwelling on his own personal hell.

The film is loaded with tension, but to my surprise it's also all shot beautifully. When Joe is on a mission, we don't do see the smashing and bashing. The director here gives us enough understanding to know what Joe is doing each step of the way without needing to show us every single detail. Other scenes are filmed creatively, allowing us to see Joe's mind and thoughts. These scenes can come across like a dream sequence and viewers might possibly find this slow and boring. Others may lock into what we see of Joe's world and be thankful for how much we get to see of his personal life. For me personally, I loved how creative this film was. Showing different camera angles and Joe's mind in depth only helped me to gain greater understanding of the situation and the characters. Naturally it's these types of moments that also build the suspense!

From a performance level I loved Joaquin Phoenix. While I understand the actor has kept himself busy on screen, I personally enjoyed his work here more than anything else I've seen of him recently. The actress of the 13 year old victim (actress Ekaterina Samsonov) also acts incredibly and provides perfect screen chemistry with Joaquin Phoenix's character. I personably enjoyed seeing these two work together as the story built up.

Overall, I found this film rather surprising in a positive way. The film is dark, gritty and loaded with tension as it progresses, but we also gain a greater understanding to Joe's thoughts and his mind. We are given plenty of creative detail thanks to the awesome work from the director. That being said, I feel many will enjoy the film's creativity while others might start to look at their watch during the film. For me, I loved it, and it was great to see something new and fresh in 2018 with yet another solid performance from actor Joaquin Phoenix. Worth a look!

8.2/10 Walkden Entertainment

I'm a huge fan of art films. This film is definitely inspired by taxi driver and that's one of the reasons why it caught my attention as I love that movie, but this film is a huge let down. It's not good. The acting is 10/10, the cinematography and camerawork is 10/10, but the plot is horrible and boring. Take blade runner 2049's slow (but awesome) pacing and slow it down, throw in an uninteresting predictable repetitive recycled plot we've seen a billion times which could have been told within 20 minutes, give the main character psychological traumatic issues and show us random crap that's going on in his mind, and you have this movie. It brings nothing new to the table and is done in a way that simply bores you. I love dramas, I know this movie is one, an art drama film, but there Wonder, no suspense, no clever conversations, no anything really. I felt like I was watching a long video demonstrating Joaquin Phoenix's phenomenal acting.

In a nutshell this film is a drama with your typical basic story line with phenomenal acting that you will forget within a couple of days. I can only recommend it if love movies with beautiful cinematography and are a huge fan of Joaquin Phoenix, but if you're looking for an original unforgettable drama, a crime revenge film, or whatever else you were expecting, I recommend staying away from this.

Probably the strangest movie I've seen in a while... It's hard to describe the feeling you get when you finish this film. The best way I can say is; there could have been more. It kind of ends on a bittersweet note, and it will piss off some, that is for sure. Overall though, it does a good job of showing how a traumatized man views the world. One word that sums up this movie would be PTSD. The film essentially is a PTSD fest. Throughout it's 1h30 runtime you aren't sure if what you're seeing is actually happening for real.

I saw mixed reviews for You Were Never Really Here and it made me put off watching this film for 2 years. That was a mistake to say the least. YWNRH is a fantastically shot, gripping stray away from your typical blockbuster crime drama. While this movie isn't perfect, most negative reviews I've seen for this movie are nonsense. This movie is more than worth the hour and a half runtime regardless of whether or not you're typically drawn to the genre. Without spoilers, this review will tell you what you can expect, give you pros and cons, and debunk the faulty overwhelmingly negative reviews some people gave it.

Don't believe the reviews saying there is a "nonexistent, boring plot". The people who think that are the people who need a plot spoon fed to them with in your face exposition and unrealistic, unnecessary character dialogue so they can follow along without having to pay attention. Not only is the plot very clear, it's also very well written. While I'm not sure I would call this movie a thriller, it is a gripping, gritty, crime drama. The plot, despite not being battered into the front of your brain, is straightforward and easy to follow. A man suffering from several traumatic life experiences bides his time finding, and avenging missing girls in an attempt to find peace within himself. Initially, you are left in the dark regarding the main character. His character is developed throughout the story via fragmented displays of flashbacks chopping up his daily life. Through this you simultaneously gather information regarding his daily life, his occupation, his past, and his motives. I believe the way these flashbacks are used are why some people incorrectly believe there is a weak or incomplete plot, but to be frank they couldn't be more wrong.

The use of flashbacks in this movie is not only masterful, but incredibly unique. They are not given to the viewer in their entirety, and they are not meant to give us the entire picture on Joaquin Phoenix's background. They give you enough to understand him, but serve to convey a more important point. The use of these choppy, fragmented flashbacks seen from the main characters perspective convey the hardships of daily life for someone suffering from traumatic experiences. Constantly being reminded of something they'd like to forget, but can't. The seamless and uncontrollable drift from present to the past triggered by random occurrences encountered in day to day life that takes a toll on a person. The director did a phenomenal job conveying this with her technique, while also creating a complete character.

This film is also incredibly well shot. While I'm sure someone could reference several influences this movie draws from I was taken aback at how unique each scene is in how it is shot. This movie strays from the norm and does it extremely well. This individuality not only creates very powerful, gripping, exciting scenes, but makes it easy to focus on less exciting, build up scenes as well. If only based on cinematography I would give this film a 10/10.

While the pros of this movies far outweigh the cons, no movie is perfect. One critique I have is that some of the audio during Joaquin's flashbacks is so quiet I would've completely missed it had I had the subtitles off. Because, as I referenced earlier, the flashbacks are incredibly fragmented each second really counts when establishing the main characters background. Without subtitles, while the quiet, layered audio creates a nice effect to describe the feeling in the main characters head, you lose some relatively important exposition to truly help you understand his past. It's not major and doesn't take away from anything, but it's a critique nonetheless. Same goes for dialogue in a few important character interactions. You really can't fall asleep for a second during this movie if you want to get every detail. I had to rewind another scene that wasn't a flashback just because I missed someone's name. Again, not a deal breaker, doesn't change the plot, but would slightly change your understanding if you missed it.

Overall I give this movie somewhere between a 7/8 out of ten. The only thing holding it back from a 8/9 or a 9/10 was a few minor plot holes at the end. Nothing major, especially when compared to the gargantuan plotholes most Hollywood blockbusters ignore these days, but I'm nitpicky and watch too much CinemaSins on YouTube. Great movie I would highly recommend to anyone.

Yes I am aware that many thought this film was slow. However, it the slow and thoughtful burn of this film that makes it so unique and well done. It is, overall, a story about trauma and how this trauma has afflicted the protagonist. This is what trauma looks like. I already loved it but could further appreciate it after viewing a video by screened titled " How to Show Trauma" Just watch this video and then decide for yourself. Everything about this film was very much intentional and for good reason.

In the realm of cinematic artistry, Lynne Ramsay's "You Were Never Really Here" emerges as a film that defies the conventional boundaries of its genre. It is a film that, with its dreamlike cadence and haunting visual poetry, captures the viewer in a grip as tight and compelling as the narrative it unfolds.

Joaquin Phoenix delivers a performance of such raw intensity that it becomes the beating heart of the film. His portrayal of Joe, a man whose life is a mosaic of trauma and violence, is both a towering achievement and a deeply human one. Phoenix's Joe is a man of few words, but each silence speaks volumes, each glance carries the weight of a thousand emotions. He is the weary titan of this story, carrying the burdens of his past with a stoicism that is as heartbreaking as it is admirable.

Ramsay's direction is nothing short of masterful. She weaves a tapestry of images and sounds that are as beautiful as they are disturbing. The film's score, a dissonant symphony by Jonny Greenwood, is accentuating the film's atmosphere of disquiet. The cinematography is a chiaroscuro of the soul, painting each scene with the shades of Joe's turbulent inner world.

The narrative structure of "You Were Never Really Here" is a bold choice. Ramsay opts for an elliptical storytelling style that mirrors the fragmented psyche of its protagonist. This choice is both the film's greatest strength and its most significant challenge to the viewer. The plot does not unfold; it reveals itself in shards, each piece a glimpse into the abyss that Joe stares into every day.

However, this very narrative choice may also be where the film falters for some. The disjointed nature of the storytelling, while thematically resonant, can at times leave the audience grasping for a thread to hold onto. The film demands attention and patience, and not all viewers are willing to give it the concentration it requires.

The violence, while never gratuitous, is visceral and unflinching. It serves the story, but it also runs the risk of alienating those with a more sensitive disposition. The film's resolution, too, may strike some as abrupt, leaving a lingering question as to the ultimate fate of its characters.

"You Were Never Really Here" is a film that, like its protagonist, is not easily forgotten. It is a challenging, evocative piece of cinema that dares to delve into the darkness of the human condition. While it may not find universal acclaim due to its unconventional approach and somber themes, it stands as a testament to the power of visual storytelling and the enduring strength of a well-crafted character study.

Joe (Joaquin Phoenix) is troubled living in New York City caring for his elderly mother and asphyxiating himself for comfort from a troubling past. He is hired to recover State Senator Albert Votto's runaway young daughter Nina from an underaged girls brothel. He buys a hammer and smashes his way through his crusade. He saves Nina but are confronted by murderous corrupt cops. It's the tip of a dangerous conspiracy leading all the way to the governor's mansion.

The first thirty minutes is a bit rough. It's an artsy meandering slow disjointed slice of life into Joe. I get it but it could be clearer. It does give a feel for the guy. It would be great to have a more complete flashback to his military or policing days instead of short flashes of everything. Once he gets hammering, the movie goes like a freight train with Joaquin driving hard. He delivers a great performance as usual. There is a shock ending which I don't like. Indies like to punctuate the end of their movies with a gunshot. It's a bit cheap and feels amateurish. Overall, there are some great work with a few flaws.

Joaquin Phoenix moves from strength to strength these days, truly moving into elite acting company via lead roles in highly regarded (whilst not heavily publicised) films throughout the 2000s. Unfortunately, You Were Never Really Here doesn't quite meet the expectations that the trailer promised - more of a slow-burning, passive crime film that doesn't ever satisfy the viewer. The film starts with a bang, immediately giving insight into Joe's (Phoenix) murky life as a pseudo-hitman with some dramatic and gruesome violence. From this point on, the initial highs are then never reached again - the plot becomes formulaic, and the characters do not evoke emotion as they apparently should do.

Artistically, this movie does push the boat out: camera angles are used effectively, with long sweeping shots accompanying the use of sound for a more complete experience. Colour is also vivid, with scenes suitably reflecting the dark tones constant throughout the film. However, this isn't enough to elevate the lacklustre storyline to the standard Phoenix's projects are now associated with.

The outrageousness of "You Were Never Really Here"'s plot just serves as a huge, self-conscious pointer of how unimportant the story is to the film. From "Taxi Driver" to "Taken", there are just too many plot-driven movies about unwilling heroes rescuing abducted girls out there already.

Now, after the film itself admits its redundancy in terms of narrative, it can only prove its mettle as an exercise in character study and style. And quite a stylish character study "You Were Never Really Here" is, with Joaquin Phoenix carrying the whole weight of its ninety minutes of duration on his shoulders - no wonder the man had to bulk up in order to play Joe.

So, after the director Lynne Ramsay, Mr. Phoenix and all their collaborators (at cinematography, editing, music score, et c.) have shown their full flex as cinema artisans, "You Were Never Really Here" can't help but ring hollow as the last scene at the diner fades out. And that is because the movie has excused itself of the task of telling a sound story to the audience. Apparently, it seems satisfied at just being this post-Scorsese, post-Tarantino afterthought (hints at foot fetishism scattered all around included), lacking the gravitas of a believable plot at its core.

This movie has been in my watchlist for a long long time, and finally when I had some time to spare, and that too on my birthday, I decided to watch it. And man, was it such a disappointment!

You Were Never Really Here is well acted and well filmed. The movie looks absolutely gorgeous. But that's all there is to it. 'Gorgeous' is enough to grab your attention, but not to carry a movie. Everything besides the acting and the visuals were so pretentious it makes me nauseous. And I'm more than willing to blame it all on the writing, cos the writing in this movie just straight up sucked. It was like the whole movie was on its knees begging us the audience to believe that it's some sort of overly sophisticated work of art.

When you have a plot that ends up being so stupid with even the slightest bit of examination into the specifics, with a main character written to have literally every art-house 'tormented individual' cliche, and with dialogue like "Let's go because it's such a beautiful day" uttered with a straight face in any context and expected to be taken seriously... Yea, that's where I'm comfortable disregarding this movie altogether. No amount of long shots, silence, close-ups and deadpan facial reactions can make something appear "deep" when there's no meaningful substance to back it up.

And this so disappoints me, because I was really hoping for it to be amazing. I've heard nothing but good things about this movie, and I never would have thought it would be as pretentious as it was. Man, I miss the version of this movie I had in my head before I actually watched it.

This film may draw some crass and unwarranted comparisons with Taxi Driver, but very much in the spirit of a review of this film in the Time's newspaper which lauded much praise, this isn't that movie. This is a film that intends to be substantial without actually having much substance so in some respect it is quite contemporary. The protagonist walks around with a hammer hurting bad people. Of course theres way more to it than that, but is there really? On a visual level this is a picture that easily holds its own and some, the ponderous direction doesn't quite become pretentious and there is a coherent aesthetic. Yet the film's reception doesn't seem fair considering what is on offer. The telegraph called it a film that will blow you away, yeah, one slow shot at a time.

So let us focus on positives . Joaquin Phoenix is great as always. He is an amazing actor and he is in control with every character that he plays .

The movie in general has a nice premise and an interesting little plot . There is also a deeper meaning in this one to question the people around us BUT The movie is extremely boring and slow. Even the more thrilling scenes are bland. Pacing of the movie overall is very slow and camera work is also quite bad for my taste.

There are a lot of unecessery close ups and there are multiple shots from very weird angles that are not made for some context or plot , they were made to make a movie more artistic and it fails 90% of time to make it seem like that. The whole movie just feels like someone trying really really hard to make a "deep thrilling artistic" movie.

Taxi Driver has some similar scenes like this movie but they are done quite well and they immerse you into a dark world and a dark mind. This movie tries to do that but it doesn't quite work.

There are some scenes that happen in water and I think those are made great but nothing you have not already seen before.

There were times where I wanted to fast forward some scenes and not just watch a guy walk for 10 minutes and that happens quite often. That is why I think the premise is great but the plot is stretched way too much and the whole story could have been told in like 20 minutes.

I still did enjoy it to some level. I didn't want to turn it off because it intriged me to watch it till the end , to hopefuly see a big payoff or explenation of some sort for certain things.

In the end , it all ends up pretty bland and leaves a bad taste after watching it.

If you like slow paced movies with a character study that is just weird at best and sprinkled with tiny bits of deeper thoughts then this movie is for you.

If you are a casual movie fan that has seen movies from more genres or casually watch suspense thriller movies than this one will be too bland for you.

PlatinumanYT 6.4.

'You Were Never Really Here' compelled me to watch it from the start. The fact that people were describing it as an unconventional thriller interested me, there are not many of those these days (speaking as a fan of thrillers), and then you have an extremely talented actor in Joaquin Phoenix in the lead role. The positive word of mouth and cool advertising added further to the promise.

Seeing it, 'You Were Never Really Here' came over as very good and very impressive. Can totally understand why it is divisive here and it is not surprising that some were alienated by it and not used to a thriller being done differently. It's hardly the first or only divisive film from 2018 so far, 'A Quiet Place' and 'Hereditary' were very different horrors that were critically acclaimed but polarising with audiences, personally loved both, especially 'A Quiet Place'. For me, that it was unconventional was a large part of why 'You Were Never Really Here' worked as well as it did. It is not quite a masterpiece and it just falls short of being one of my very favourite films of the year (though it is still towards the top).

It is not perfect. 'You Were Never Really Here' does have moments where the story could have done with more clarity, the vagueness did cause a little confusion at times.

Would have liked much more development to the supporting characters, while the protagonist is splendidly drawn the rest are sketchy.

However, there is so much to like about 'You Were Never Really Here'. The production values are extremely stylish with some very creative shots and film techniques, the rescue is particularly gritty and purposefully grainy in a security camera way. The minimal dialogue was a good choice, it let the atmosphere fully sear and the uncompromising brutality and unsettlement ensures plenty of deliberately slow-burning tension which helps make the story absorbing.

Lynne Ramsay directs cleverly, with a keen eye for visual style, letting the atmosphere speak for itself and never letting the deliberate pacing to become dull or self-indulgent. That's personal opinion, just to make that clear to anybody who will vehemently disagree. 'You Were Never Really Here' is successful in avoiding clichés and having the action scenes brief, not frequent and mostly off-screen provided to be a bold and good move. Joaquin Phoenix is excellent in the lead role, the intensity dripping off him at every turn. The rest of the cast do well but not to the same level of Phoenix, but only because he is something else.

Altogether, very good but so many great things. With better fleshed out characters and more clarity in some of the plotting, it would have been even better. 8/10 Bethany Cox

I'm still processing this. The comparisons to "Taxi Driver" are fair: the performances, the director's vision and exectution, the understated script..... those are some of the similarities. The major differences, for me include the depth to which the protagonist's trauma is not played out for us to view as observers, but drip-fed in increasing doses, often from a first-person perspective, which in my watching felt more like we were experiencing Joe's trauma with him, rather than seeing it played out for us. The film also has a lot of relevance to current discussions of modern masculinity, and here the gendering of social roles is presented very much more as a question than a statement.

If you prefer to finish watching a film with your friends and be able to agree pretty much without discussion on what it was about, then I suspect you might find this film pretentious or light on plot. If you're the type who enjoys discovering what your friends think they just saw, and don't mind spending a lot the movie time watching Joaquin Phoenix' face doing some really admirable acting, then this film might be as worthwhile for you as it was for me.

Just had me fed up about half way through. Really tried to like it. The shots were needlessly artsy and the music score often inappropriate. One could gild the lily all day with this and try to make it into something deeper than it is. In the end I just felt like fastforwarding it. Pretentious and ultimately painful to finish.

When I read on the posters « The Taxi Driver Of The XXI Century » I put it immediately on my watch-list; well, after seeing the movie, the comparison is almost blasphemy. Despite the strong performance delivered by Phoenix and the good cinematography, the movie is a total downer. Instead of a plot, what you have is a series of disjointed fragments which you try desperately to make sense of, but the task is hopeless. To add to it, as if it were needed, the director injects more fragments of flashbacks which hardly relate to anything happening in the present. Maybe I just grossly missed the whole thing, but I found this an irritating piece of self- indulgent cinema.