Bones and All

I saw it for Timothée Chalamet. And his work is just admirable. But the great job is offered by absolutely impressive Mark Rylance, giving a version of evil absolutely fantastic.

No doubts, Taylor Russell represents the perfect option for role of Maurene.

One of virtues - the atmosphere of Reagan United States. In same measure, the touch, especially in the meetings, of South Gothic. Another virtue - the gentle poeetry, the travel becoming, in some measure, scene by scene, yours. The exploration of family, in the perspective of young adults is another good point.

The sin - maybe, the paradoxal hurry, the characters remaining more sketches .

But , indeed, a beautiful film, deserving the atention each minute from its two hours.

Before I start this review, I have to admit I have a soft spot for Luca Guadagnino and his directing style, which really speaks to me on an emotional level.

The movie is not perfect, but I enjoyed watching it, as to me this mixture of gory horror and on the road romance is quite new.

The plot is quite thin and the pace of the movie is slow and indefinite, but to me this is not negative: in the two hours of screentime I was never bored, and I sort of felt like I was on the road along with the protagonists.

The lead actors were really good, and in my opinion this was one of the best performances by Timothée Chalamet, whose chemistry with Guadagnino is undeniable. I think he was particularly suited for this role, because his innocent face and body perfectly communicated the nature of his character, conflicted between his monstrous instincts and his good heart.

The best performance was anyway delivered by Mark Rylance, whose creepy character Sully was great for keeping the tension high throughout the whole movie.

I really loved the poetic atmospheres of the road trip scenes, so typical of Guadagnino.

The negative aspects that can't be denied are the poor development of the characters, which makes it hard to root for them, and the quality of the dialogues, which are often shallow.

Personally I didn't appreciate the ending scene and the related dialogue especially.

Despite some negative specs, I would absolutely suggest seeing it, if you don't mind some pretty gory scenes.

Plot summaries are misleading if they only discuss the good acting and touching love story and leave out the fact that it's all in the context of gory cannibalism. Is that too much to ask? Just tell us enough about what we are considering paying money and taking time to see so that we can make an informed decision. At least IMDB labels it as horror. RT does not, and there is no mention of cannibalism in the plot summary. It makes me wonder If there is more money to be made by misleading the public. The theater was full. Many people were obviously captivated by the story. Some got up and left. We hated it. Walked out.

I had high expectations for this film given some of the cast, especially Timothée Chalamet, who never disappoints. I was really excited to see this movie given the controversial and disturbing topic that attempts to combine romance with its horror. I am so frustrated by the fact that I truly believe this could've been "a win for cinema", as a famous critic has stated the movie was. I felt like all the pieces of the puzzle were there, but they didn't make a picture. Like others have said, there were so many plot holes, build-ups that lead to nothing, and cramped scenes with little time to involve yourself in the characters. The connection between Maren and Lee didn't feel believable, nor did it feel like they were given enough screen time to make that happen.

It felt like the director tried to capture too much in 2 hours and it ended up being a scattered slideshow of artsy scenes with gore and confusion. The 5/10 stars I give is for the acting, mainly on the part of Chalamet and Rylance. My other 5 is lost to the direction, editing, and script of the film.

The trailer and hype was 10x better than the movie itself, so all you need to watch is that. This could've been a true masterpiece, and I desperately wanted it to be. I found myself trying to be convinced it was good, but ultimately faced the honesty that it fell through. A chance for beauty, lost to the wind.

Fair to say I went in to this with pretty high expectations (considering I'm a genuine admirer of director Luca Guadagnino, since he made one of my favourite films "Call Me By Your Name") & sadly, as much as it physically pains me to say it, they just weren't met here. You could argue my disappointment is therefore my own fault - because the film endeavoured to achieve something I had not initially anticipated - (& that is a valid countenance to make, to a degree, as I'm judging it from a biased perspective, basing my opinions on what I'd originally envisioned etc.) but quite frankly, upon much rumination... After trying to consider what it was actually trying to do instead - other than tell a frustratingly shallow & simplistic tale about 2 cannibals falling in love - I still remain nonethewiser? Hence, the lack of any discernible purpose (that could justify the gruesome subject matter) irked me somewhat by the time I'd reached the end, as I'd assumed the theme of cannibalism would at the very least be allegorical & used to convey a deeper message to the audience. Alas, it wasn't - as far as I could decipher.

Yes, the movie is shot in a very intimate way, capturing the rawness of the emotions which are experienced between the two leads & the resultant primal nature of their bond - sealed by a forbidden urge neither can control - so I understand the filmmaker's desire to capture a stripped back depiction of "love", mirroring how primitive it is, ironically at its heart... But there's nothing linking that to the viewer (in a developed world) which could result in anything clear or relatable, so the meaning (if there is one?) feels sadly lost. The creative team at the helm therefore may have benefitted, drawing comparisons between the fictional reality & our own, portraying the romance as LGBT+ (immediately drawing parallels, using one controversial behaviour - rightfully - frowned upon by society as an extreme example to contrast it against another, which still isn't completely accepted - perhaps showing how ostracism results in deep connections being made between soulmates who share the same trauma / outlook?) but again, that potential is squandered frustratingly, despite the fact that briefly, it does seem to be headed in that direction - funnily enough, when it works most effectively.

Plus, it doesn't help that Timothée Chalamet's on screen chemistry with the aforementioned male (who has a fleeting role) is ten times stronger than that of which features alongside Taylor Russell; confounding the problem by acting as an immediate reminder of a more fruitful path this could've easily been taken in.

I see a lot of potential here & the possibilities for what could've been are enticing (a commentary on male entitlement, the destructiveness of addiction, or maybe showing how the worst of us have a chance at redemption if we're willing to commit to the idea of our own betterment?) but nothing is ever clear enough to feel satisfying or fulfilling, upon completion... So ironically, we do not enjoy this "Bones & All."