National Anthem

Dylan is a 21-year-old loner, saving money to buy an RV. He lives with his younger brother Cassidy, and his harried (financially and otherwise) mother, his father having abandoned the family. Dylan works as a casual laborer, hanging around an area with other men waiting to be picked up for a day's worth of work, often in construction.

Along comes Pepe, owner of a distant ranch, who hires several of them for 2 weeks' work. There, Dylan becomes enamored with Sky, a beautiful woman with a horse. Sky invites his to a rodeo, which turns out to be a gay rodeo, complete with evening entertainment of line dancing and drag shows. There, certain people find their version of "The Amrican Dream". Here is where Sky thinks Dylan can find "his people". Indeed, Dylan ends up staying at the ranch for a while, and even brings Cassidy along when their mother had other plans.

While this is a good introduction to a gay subculture, I am dubious about how flexible Dylan is to sexuality and sexual expression. After a specific early scene of Dylan imaging Sky on her horse, it seems too fast a jump for him to participate in a pansexual orgy. Also, Dylan seems too easy to convince to perform in a drag show, and does too well in lip-synch-acting for a rookie. Meanwhile, Sky is puzzling - she seems to be played as a male-to-female trans person, but just looks too gorgeous.

Side note: This is supposed to be present day, despite the very old RV Dylan is shopping for. I saw a flash of the newer progress pride flag.

A queer film about growing up and awakening. The plot is a bit barren, but it constructs a wonderful queer Eden in the red soil of the American outback. There is no homophobic violence or discrimination. Everyone can be themselves and enjoy an open sex life and fluid sexual orientation. Maybe it is too beautiful and gives me a distorted illusion? Huang Zitao recently said something in his variety show, "Tolerable Love," which is enough to make people laugh, but it always reminds me of Charlie's increasingly vivid character personality in various film and television works over the years: always a little silent, suppressing his thoughts or just looking at one place melancholy. Six years after "Jockey Pete", he reinterprets his relationship with a land; even though the settings of the two films are very different, he can still find the qualities he was first seen in. Tolerable Love.

Luke Gilford's 'National Anthem' is a film that displays some considerable skill on the part of its director and cast. There are scenes that capture how it feels when you fall in love; and also scenes that reflect the tender pain of departure when you wish you didn't have to go. The film seems to be often described as "beautifully shot". Some of this is achieved by simply putting physically attractive people in the landscape of the American west; but this is done in such a way that does successfully evoke the desired vibe. The problem is that the movie only seems to consist of the big emotional scenes on which a greater film might hang; they're not earned, and there's no dramatic structure outside the slightly indulgent display of happiness and hurt. I also grew tired of the fact that almost every line of dialogue is whispered, as if the film is trying too hard to ooze sensitivity from every pore. Finally, it's never clear how our heroes, a commune of sexually non-conforming individuals, are earning a living; this is part of the reason for the absence of drama in the movie, as the group's contact with non-members seems limited to the interaction of the lead character and his mother. A little more conflict would not have gone amiss.

Man, I wish I could get back my 1 hour and 40 minutes. I really wanted to like this movie, but it was a disappointing mess with bad writing choices and piss poor dialogues. While the film's intentions may have been noble, National Anthem ultimately fails to deliver a compelling or memorable story. The characters are so flat, they might as well be cardboard cutouts.

Totally, a missed opportunity I guess the director didn't have a clue to flesh out the story from the POV of Dylan (Charlie Plummer), who does his best in parts and completely out of place and probably not going to end well. Of course he is a good actor, but even his talent can't overcome the sheer awfulness of the script. The only redeeming quality is the chemistry between him and his brother. Those scenes are standout, with good staging, backed with decent score in an otherwise boring film.

In conclusion, "National Anthem" ahh wish i can say it's decent but I'll value your time well, it's just bad. I recommend skipping this one.

Charlie Plummer is one of the best American actors who's still largely "undiscovered." In LEAN ON PETE (2017), his quietly searing portrayal of a sensitive boy trying to lead a life of kindness in a cruel and grinding world helped to elevate that film to one of the twenty-first century's best. It's a movie that's not wholly different from NATIONAL ANTHEM, although gay director Andrew Haigh (WEEKEND, ALL OF US STRANGERS) took an asexual approach that left most of the queerness of Plummer's character as merely a subtextual potentiality. The potential parallels between the two films--combined with the fact that Plummer never disappoints in pictures as varied as SPONTANEOUS, KING JACK, ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD, and more--left me excited to see this movie. Unfortunately, while National Anthem is not a bad movie, it never really achieves the spark of greatness. It left me largely bored and disappointed.

Director Luke Gilford, in his feature film debut, strives for a few different emotional tones but doesn't really nail any of them. There are sex scenes, but they're shot with the strange lighting and angles of some 1980s music video, and so they're not really sexy. There are romantic scenes, but despite strong performances from Plummer as Dylan and his love interest played by Eve Lindley, there's not much chemistry--their romance is more of a coincidental shrug than anything that conveys passion. There are scenes of romantic conflict driven by Rene Rosado, the third part of the love triangle, but the development of Rosado's character is cliche and nearly nonexistent. There aren't any clear stakes to the question of "will they or won't they," so the conflict is dramatically inert and its resolution unsatisfying. The film is ostensibly a showcase of queer joy in the hidden world of gay rodeos in the American West, but it never feels very joyful, inspiring, or uplifting because there is extremely little humor or spontaneity; instead of taking in this world through Dylan's perspective, we see it in the form of docudrama photojournalism--colorful characters smiling for the camera--which gives us a nice glimpse of an unfamiliar world but never really lets us feel like we're taking part in it. There are scenes of coming-of-age family drama that perhaps come closest to achieving their goal because of how well Plummer plays off the actors portraying his mother and little brother, but even that drama is pretty tired and unremarkable. There are memorable moments, but they don't cohere into any strong thread. On top of all that, there's a psychedelic drug scene that is inconsequential; scenes of work that don't seem like they're depicting real jobs; a tragic action climax that is random, forced, and predictable; and, of course, the titular performance of the national anthem, which fails to add any real thesis to the movie's narrative sloppiness.

I've written many negative things, yet the movie itself was ultimately fine if unremarkable, and I'm willing to round up with my star rating because its heart is ultimately in the right place. I'm sure many people, perhaps especially young queer people growing up in rural America, will see a lot to relate to and enjoy in this movie, and I'm grateful for that. Personally, however, I was just kinda bored.