Italian Studies

I've always been a fan of Vanessa's work, so when I saw this movie, I decided to watch it. All I can say is that it's a mediocre movie, the script and editing of the movie is confusing at times and I feel most of this movie relies on Vanessa's acting to carry it. Apart from that, nothing really stood out to me and in conclusion I think it could've gotten carried out better than it was.

It's one of those "Art Films" us New Yorkers catch at posh theatres like the IFC Center. It was the middle of the day and I wanted to see a movie, and this was a movie I had not seen yet, but I tell you, this was not the movie to see in the middle of the day when you have nothing to do.

Ironically, I wanted to waste some time and I did it on a movie that was a waste of time.

If I came out of this feeling like this was the worse movie I ever saw, then that would have been something, and obviously I did not come out of this thinking it was good, but this movie did the worse thing I think a movie could have done: waste my time.

I was bored, so bored. I could not believe this movie was only 80 mins, it felt like an entirely waiting for something to happen. Vanessa Kirby is no Margot Robbie. In all fairness maybe I can watch Kirby do nothing in a film if the film is right. Kirby tries and you can see her charm, but that was not enough. It's possible Robbie would have bored me to death in the same role.

I am more of a low budget B-movie type than an indi art house type so maybe that goes with it. I certainly admit I did not understand the plot well enough to even describe it here. That could just be me, but I've seen enough Art Films to know that's most likely not the case.

Sometimes it just doesn't click, and this is one of those times.

It's peculiar. It's aimless. It's awkward. And it's fake. I remember it was in either 3rd or 4th grade my teacher pulled out the projector and showed the class a movie. It was about a boy walking around where he met a dog, and some other kids. There were times he was alone, there was a stream, a rainstorm, and he met a little girl who he held hands with. When the lights came on I looked around the room. Little Jimmy was asleep. The other kids looked just as confused as I was. I remember asking my teacher what it was all about. She responded: "It's meant to make you think." As I sit here now there can be no doubt whoever put this together saw that same film.

I cannot understand some people's idea of film making and their point or storyline. This is slow, confused, boring, and to a greater extent, senseless!

If it wasn't for the lead actress this film would never have seen the light of day.

Saw that this had a pretty low rating but after watching the trailer, figured maybe it was unfairly judged and I'd give it a go.

I honestly don't think I have the artistic perspective or cerebral capacity to fully understand what the plot was, and the worst part is that I really can't be bothered to care to after watching it. It started off promising but never went anywhere satisfying. There are a few "ah-ha!" moments that didn't work because of the format of the film. It's very scattered. It probably makes complete sense to the writer but the viewer needs something to gnaw on, too. I can appreciate films taking liberties and trying something new but it just does not work here. It's not cohesive enough for the average viewer and I doubt there's enough for arthouse-lovers either. Some might classify it as style-over-substance or even pretentious but I feel like there is something here, it's just not fully realized.

The performances, particularly the ones given by the "teenagers" were actually very good and felt genuine, the camerawork was okay (except for the time they literally lost the actors walking, but maybe that was intentional), sound design and score was good, but it was ultimately a jumbled mess.

The biggest issue for me was: it was boring. It's shorter than most movies but still felt like a slog because I was left guessing until the credits rolled with only brief interludes of interesting characters that never meant much to me even though they're supposed to. If you are going to undertake something more freeform and have the capacity to make an otherwise fine movie from a technical standpoint, and hired a competent actress, why not invest in your main character? You know, the one that the entire movie revolves around and has to carry the audience's attention 'til the end? The way that the story is set up supposedly disallows this and it's a detriment to its ability to create any investment from the viewer.

My prediction was it was going to turn out to be a young author stricken by early-onset dementia or had some form of trauma-related amnesia triggered by something "mundane" on the streets of New York. There were even things that cemented my theories. I thought, surely, sticking with it would pay off in some way. But no, by the end, you're just left with a few decent puzzle pieces of filmmaking while some of the most important ones are lost, leaving you with an incomplete picture.

Most viewers will find themselves asking for their time back, unfortunately. However, if you are someone who can simply enjoy any ride, maybe you'll get something out of this that the rest us couldn't.