Nunca estarás a salvo

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.

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.

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.

'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

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.