Before Midnight

This time, I find the film boring and just not charming. Instead of relating to each other, they are just bickering all the time. You can say it is raw and real, but that is not what I want to see.

Before Midnight (2013)

The most interesting facet to this slim movie is that it continues the singular predecessors with such glowing continuity. Most people know that Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke started their conversational fictional companionship on film with "Before Sunrise" and then continued it with "Before Sunset." The first of these was shot in 1995, and the next followup was nine years later, and then this new one, nine years more.

If you saw (and liked) the first two films as I did, this continuance alone makes "Before Midnight" worth checking out. And if there is a huge deadening flaw here it is simply that the continuing continues so expectedly. There are times here when this couple—which has been living together for nearly a decade—talk as though they are on that first date in 1995. It's not that they don't know certain things about each other, but more that they are talking about things as if for the first time--and they are such common things. Surely they've gotten around to some of this stuff before. It's not endlessly revelatory.

The director of all three films is Richard Linklater, and he absolutely gets a lot of the credit for an easy, almost languid style. Some would call it boring—all talk and walk, nothing much to watch. But it isn't boring. The first movie for sure is the most fresh (it was the first one), but the second keeps things really interesting because the two leads (Jesse and Celine) are meeting up again after a huge gap, and it's an odd and unpredictable situation. By 2013 things have fundamentally solidified. They are a happy couple with twin girls, living in France. The day proceeds with conversation, and we listen closely (there is nothing else to do), but in fact there is nothing to be surprised or even curious about.

So the words become so critical they can't help but fail. A long dinner conversation with a group of educated friends is fast paced and filled with clever banter, but it goes nowhere. Yes, you absolutely wish you were there (and maybe that you had such friends—that would depend). But what is said is not so wonderful after all. It's just a mood of warm, lively companionship.

Likewise elsewhere. It's all fun and clever. When they squabble a bit it never seems remotely possible that the fight is for real, or that the incredible ease and love shown earlier in the movie would unravel with a slight ill wind. The very last scene confirms, and is oddly wan.

So—a mixed bag. I truly think if you haven't seen these films you might find the style and the remarkable believability (at times) really special. It is. But for me it was more special and more interesting as a story in the earlier movies. This one can now not be separated from those, however, and the great whole, a trilogy with a possibility of more to come, is a special and worthy part of contemporary cinema. Start somewhere and see what this is all about.

This is the worst of the 'Before' trilogy.

The movie is preachy to a tea with its dialogue which loses the natural charm of the first two movies. Everything feels scripted now, or at least most of the interactions do now.

The wide-eyed outing of the first movie is progressively turned more dour with each instalment, and this climax puts it to an insufferable degree. I wanted to turn it off at the 45-minute mark, but I stayed to see if there were any redeeming qualities to come - there weren't. The last 30-50 minutes of the film are nails on chalkboard levels of galling.

The unique, somewhat documentary, style of the first film and, to a lesser extent, its sequel, is almost entirely lost in this instalment. There is an impressive one shot of the family driving a car, that lasts for about 20 minutes, but the dialogue in the scene was many notches lesser than its predecessors.

This movie is a stream of negative stimuli - about the climate, about technology, about relationships, about inequality between the sexes; everything is negative. And the dialogue between characters and the inclusion of outlandish stories and statements that are supposed to ring true about the differences between men and women, just come off as incredibly sexist for both parties and incredibly forced. There is a story delivered by a side character that purports that men only care about their penis, while women care about everyone else first. Like seriously? That's not only a horrendous generalisation to attribute to men but also a statement that reinforces the gender roles of the female caregiver. And for a film that tries so hard and in your face with its feminist and 'women are oppressed' themes, that comes off as extremely paradoxical.

The only benefit that comes from finishing this movie is a series of warnings drilled into your head about how toxic generalisation thinking is and how resentful relationships can become if your view of the world is rooted in pessimism. Don't be like that - don't become these characters. And, don't think that getting older forces these negative changes. Watch the first film to be hopeful about the world and spontaneity; watch the second to learn things can seem rooted in place, but change can still happen; and ignore this film.

I enjoyed Before Sunrise when I first saw it, and thought it was a clever, charming movie with an innovative approach. In my opinion though, Before Sunrise was vastly elevated by being paired with Before Sunset 9 years later.

Before Sunset is an exceptional movie, much more melancholic than its predecessor, but understandably so because the characters had grown up and had to let go of childish notions of fairytale happy ever afters. What makes Before Sunset so wonderful though is the notion throughout that even though things went wrong it's never too late to fix them.

Before Midnight is a different film to the previous two. In my opinion it is about two people who, having made the mistake of losing contact the first time, will work to make sure it never happens again. They were never going to have a fairytale life because they are both very complicated, and I liked the realism of how their relationship developed as they got older.

I strongly disagree with other reviewers who say that Before Midnight can be watched without seeing the previous two. I criticised people who did that for Before Sunset and would caution against it even more for this one. Before Midnight relies on the idea that the audience understands how complicated the characters are and therefore continues to like them even when they do things which could seem nasty and shallow.

In summary, while my favourite of the three movies remains Before Sunset, Before Midnight adds richly to the overarching story that has been told, in real time over 18 years, of two characters that fans of the series have grown to love. As a three part series, the Before movies are practically perfect.

I just saw this amazing movie at its Sundance premiere. It's wonderful on so many levels I don't know where to start. The performances are fantastic. If Julie Delpy doesn't get an Oscar nomination it would be a shame (the only stupider thing the Academy could do is have 10 best picture nominations.) Ethan Hawke's performance is brilliant in its own way, however, it's a less showy part and I'm not certain it'll get the recognition it deserves.

The writing is astounding. Sharp, intelligent, biting, humorous, with staggering subtext, but most importantly--it feels real. If the screenplay doesn't get an Oscar nomination it would be a shame (the only thing stupider the Academy could do is have 15 best picture nominations.)

Rick Linklater is now officially the Jedi master of indie filmmaking (Yoda Soderbergh actually said he's giving up filmmaking.) SLACKERS was only 22 years ago, and Linklater has matured into one of the most original filmic storytellers in the history of the medium. 95% of the movie is two-shots of people talking (the other 5% is people talking at a dinner table and cut aways to the gorgeous Greek landscape.) I don't know any other living filmmaker who could pull this off. There's a one-take during a car drive that lasts probably ten minutes (before a brief cut away), however, it goes on for probably another ten minutes (and Linklater said he could have kept the whole take, but needed to show ruins along the country side and cut away for script purposes, not performance.) There's a 30 minute scene of the two actors in a hotel room and I didn't even notice it (by that time I was so invested in the characters and their actions and emotions I wasn't even aware of time, it wasn't until the post screening Q&A that Linklater mentioned the actual time of the scene.)

All three, Linklater, Delpy, and Hawke have matured into their rolls (writing, directing, acting) so easily that it's all just great fun for them and the audience. This is a must see for many reasons (including the history of film--there's only one other modern trilogy where the final film is the best--LOTR, and their food budget was probably more than the total cost of BEFORE MIDNIGHT.)

i could go on gushing about this movie ad nauseum, however I'll finish by saying that BEFORE MIDNIGHT is what indie film making (and the Sundance Film Festival) is all about--truly original, creative, unique, interesting characters and their stories, told outside the Hollywood system, by people passionate about their craft (and in this case at the top of their craft).