Rosy

Well, this film has a lot going for it...and a lot going against it. In the plus category, the cast is excellent. Nat Wolff and Tony Shaloub (especially) are experienced and talented actors with impressive resumes. Stacy Martin, though a relative newcomer, is perhaps better than both in this film. And Johnny Knoxville is pitch-perfect in a small role. The direction is also solid.

So what's wrong? Mainly--as is common in near-misses--the actors are let down by the plot. While all kinds of bizarre circumstances and events do occur in real life, the story seems to become more and more contrived as the movie progresses. You're left wondering how this story is going to play out. Is this a love story involving two very damaged people? Or the horror story that the events of the plot (i.e. A kidnapping) should suggest. For a while, it could go either way. And the feeling that the film is toying with the audience detracts from the emotion resonance of the film. Ultimately, that's the problem.

The movie is interesting from the perspective of clinical psychology. We learn enough about the two main characters to know that their backgrounds are full of red flags. (Especially Wolff's character, Doug.) Neither had a healthy relationship with his or her parents--to say the least. In Rosy, that led to a series of unfulfilling and unhealthy sexual relationships and general aimlessness; in Doug, it led to...well...kidnapping Rosy. (And worse.) Students of psychology will see a case study in various aspects of Narcissism and psychopathy, and the relationships that characterize such people. It's sad; it's disastrous--but we all know that these things cannot possibly end well. So in that way, the movie is true to reality. But from a viewer's perspective, it would be more comfortable if there were some kind of redemption, or--on the other hand--if the film didn't trick us for so long into thinking redemption might be possible. Like Rosy, we end up feeling like we need a shower.

But the interactions between Wolff and Martin work on some level for much of the film, which is a testament to their talent, and to the direction. Martin is also gorgeous, of course; but she also has an emotional warmth and range, generally, that keeps her from being a prop. (Far from it. She's the gravitational center of the movie.) I look forward to seeing what she does in The Serpent, and in future films. It's just a shame this script wasn't just a tad bit better. Or maybe just that humanity has such a dark and irredeemable side.

I honestly really didn't like rosy from the beginning of the movie. As soon as she inserted herself into a married man's life, I just couldn't look at her in any kind of positive way. She had some funny moments that made her a little less bad, but then it'd cut back to her with James and she'd just do some other irritating and unbearable thing. I get the movie probably wants to emphasize the whole age difference thing by making her seem immature and stuff, but instead it just makes me kinda pity James for having to deal with her, which I'm almost entirely sure was not the director's intention. Obviously we're supposed to feel bad for the girl in the situation cause she's with an older married man, blah blah blah, but it's so hard to actually care when she blatantly and intentionally put herself in that situation.

I hate to be one of those "the book was better" people. But I started watching this on Hulu not knowing what it was. But two minutes into in I pulled the book "the collector" by John Fowles off my book shelf and told my partner of 15 years this movie is that book. I couldn't get over that they slightly altered the plot (girls story line) and the ending.. in the book she doesn't get the doctor when she needs it. But every other little things Is the same. Which wouldn't bother me if the movie was called "the collector" or if they gave John towels credit in the titles. But they don't. And it's disturbing to close for them not to give credit. Especially when the book was better.

I can claim no familiarity with filmmaker Jess Bond, but if nothing else is true, the cast is very noteworthy. Tony Shalhoub is a big get, even in only a supporting part, and Nat Wolff has shown his capability; even Johnny Knoxville is swell when he turns his attention toward earnest acting. Above all, I was highly impressed with Stacy Martin in her major role in Lars von Trier's 'Nymphomaniac,' and frankly it was her involvement that drew me in to check this out in the first place. The premise sits somewhere on a spectrum between curious and questionable, but that's never stopped me before, and I'll try just about anything. To actually sit and watch 'Rosy,' however? To be honest, I'm a little taken aback. I understand what Bond was doing. In this instance, sadly, I just don't think it especially works.

This sits somewhere at the intersection of dark comedy, thriller, and romance as the title character is abducted by a man she's never met who wants her to love him. It's certainly easy enough to think of other films that start with a grim central conceit (similar or not) and play it up with a wry, cheeky sense of humor; that notion is bolstered here with a score and soundtrack that's emphatically, drily playful. In fairness to Bond, at one point or another all these facets rise to the surface, and there are moments when it seems like the movie is really hitting on something good. Out of place as irregular flashbacks first seem, they're gradually woven into the active narrative with demonstrative purpose. The problem is that there is no consistency. Just when one is inclined to think that there's a distinct progression, the tale veers off with another mood. Elsewhere one might praise a picture for being unpredictable, and being inventive, but that's assuming that it's otherwise sufficiently well done to particularly deserve praise in the first place. The simple fact of the matter is that the writing here seems too scattered to strike any tone that feels complete and appropriate, or for we viewers to get a solid beat on what it's trying to do.

Even if we suppose for the sake of argument that 'Rosy' maintained pure dark comedy airs for the entirety of its length, or pure thriller vibes, it seems for all of these ninety minutes as though it's teetering on the edge, barely keeping its footing, and the slightest nudge will cast all to ruin. Now consider that it wavers between a few different tenors at multiple points, then comes back at the end and says "nah, it was this all along." The movie tries to achieve a very delicate balance, and I just don't think it can manage it. With this in mind, I'm inclined to say that the actors give strong, admirable performances, as they absolutely have elsewhere. Firstly, however, there are times where they seem as uncertain of the production as I am, and secondly - if the film can't decide what it wants, then on what basis is the acting to be assessed anyway? Likewise for Bond's direction. Those behind the scenes definitely turned in good work all around, but all told, I'm not sure how much those contributions matter when everything else of more ready importance is so up in the air.

I don't think this is bad. I sort of had a good time watching, and I appreciate the effort from all involved. Somewhere between Bond's screenplay and direction, however, this needed much greater focus, and a more firm, guiding ethos, to provide a more significant sense of unity to the project. 'Rosy' sits at a middling divide in terms of quality specifically because it also straddles such a split in terms of its content. I look forward to seeing more from all who participated here, but I just don't think this 2018 feature quite cuts it. It earns a soft recommendation, perhaps, if you're a big fan of someone involved; just keep your expectations in check, and don't go out of your way for it.

This story has all the right elements to be a new age cult classic, but some of the execution was so poor that it can't break past it. All in all the movie felt unfocused and the ending left something to be desired. Ideally the film would've needed another 30min added to its run time to give the movie enough time to fulfill the storyline and give the audience a better resolution. Although I understand the direction the movie was going for, it really didn't work with this movie in the slightest. Nat Wolff fit the "slightly off putting" character to a T, but as for his co star not so much. It's really unclear for most of the movie whether this is a case of Stockholm syndrome or if she is faking it. The line is very blurred and perhaps that was the goal, but it resulted in a very disorienting film.