Station to Station

I am not sure what I expected going into the movie (I was asked to be a test audience member two months ago) but it wasn't what I thought, in all really good ways. It's really hard to describe this movie without either giving too much away or giving people the wrong impression, so I think I'll just say it's a really well-done drama about a young man who has a lot of growing up to do, and a bit of a chip on his shoulder, who runs to Las Vegas rather than face his issues at home, only to find and create new issues there.

The film kind of follows him for 6-9 months as he interacts with friends/lovers/colleagues/family, and while he learn a lot about them, the audience learns a lot about him (and wonders if he's actually learning, too). In that way, the film is a lot like Richard Linklater's Beyond trilogy, and I think some reviewers have said that. But I think the other comparison they make, to Paul Thomas Anderson, is better.

Mostly because of the way the film makes all the psychological drama really watchable instead of depressing or boring. The two hours mostly flies by and it does a neat trick because by the end, you realize you had no idea where the movie was going, pretty much at any time, let alone somewhere so powerfully dramatic. I think that made it really satisfying to me. I am glad I didn't assume the end in the first half because the setup was for something else.

I think there will be lots of comparisons to Boogie Nights, but I think that's mostly due to surface similarities. Boogie Nights was bigger, more salcious for show, and wrapped up in a really predictable and old-fashioned way. This does a bunch of stuff I wasn't expecting and treats its characters as unique, not tropes and that's a movie lovers dream, in a way.

In a different review, for a different film, I said you could just watch the acting only and still be ertained, because all the leads were so good. That is 100% true here. The casting on this film, especially for all the main characters or the ones with big moments is incredible. I wouldn't be surprised if any of these new faces break out, but I hope if they do, they don't lose the raw parts of their performances in this film.

I don't usually give 10s, so I gave the film a 9, mostly because it's amazing they made this to this level of quality, on both a limited budget and during the pandemic. Without those challenges, it's obvious this would have been a 10, and that's a pretty big compliment from me. But maybe the more useful compliment is that I spent money to buy a ticket to see it again at a festival tonight when I already got to see it for free!

This is what happens when there is no editing. A film that is about twice as long as it should be with the longest scenes shot with the worst of the cast (Jordan Getty and Cate Luna). I haven't seen such awful over-acting in a long time. I actually had to fast-forward through most of their extended scenes. If Jordan pursed his lips or cocked his jaw one more time, or Cate over-gestured her way through one more scene, I would have shut it off. Was there no director on set to tell them to chill out, or try to act a bit more natural? They were just too unbelievable and because they were in far too much of the movie, it ruined the decent job the rest of the cast did. Other than that, thanks for Eggers crotch shot.

This is my first review, so apologies if it's not critic-y enough. I'll go through what worked best, what didn't work as well, and why I thought that, but I guess a good place to start is why I came on here to write a review in the first place (besides the fact there aren't any comments on reviews, lol): I keep turning over this film in my head and coming back to it and that's really unusual for a random indie at a local film festival. Second, I think a lot of people are going to have opinions on this film, because that's that's what we do as a culture these days when art doesn't fit our boxes or, like this one does, challenges our stereotypes and judgements about others, and groups of others. Also, as Americans we tend to get weird about things like sex and nudity (especially in the midwest, where I live), if by weird I mean "running around acting like the sky is going to fall down," and I do.

So yeah, let's put that out there first. I'm surprised the other reviewers haven't mentioned it. This is a movie set in Las Vegas, with a bunch of 20 somethings. There's sex and nudity in the film. It's not an erotic film, and it's not a salacious film (by objective standards), and the sex and nudity (which, to be fair, is a few butts, some side boob, and a lot of implied nudity, with a couple brief full frontal shots) makes sense for the characters, the premise, and the stories, journeys, and struggles they're dealing with. But let's be honest. Some folks will hear there's a male full frontal shot (it's not in a sexual situation) and immediately find a bunch of different things "wrong" with the film. I've been here long enough. So maybe the upfront disclaimer is if that kind of thing isn't your thing, just don't see the film. But if you don't sweat that kind of thing, I really, really recommend it.

Because there's not much wrong with this as an actual film and it's kind of mind-blowing (save one thing--the reason I have it a 9 and not a 10) that a first time writer-director and bunch of unknowns made something this careful, constrained, and affecting. It doesn't subscribe to any tropes, doesn't feel the need to move any faster or slower than the story and characters require, and boy does it all pay off at the end with some of the best acting and climactic pacing I've ever seen.

The reason I can't give it a 10 is that it is obviously not a polished studio production, though it comes REALLY close, you do have some little tells like inopportune camera shake here and there (which, also to be fair, is used intentionally and to really strong effect in other parts of the movie, where you feel like you're right in there with the people) or a scene or setting that's a solid 9, but you know would have gone from a 9 to a 10 if they'd had the money to open up the world a bit, or shoot in more exotic or challenging locations. But that's splitting hairs in a bit, because anyone who goes to see this is going to know they're seeing a human, character-driven indie. While it would be nice to see more location shoots in Las Vegas casinos, or on the Strip (there are some!) just to really celebrate and immerse ourselves in the place, it's understandable why we didn't for financial and maybe story reasons. I will say the locations do become almost like characters themselves, and watching them change over time of day, etc. (sunlight is really a big factor in this film as it is in Las Vegas) is so interesting and that wouldn't have happened with more settings and use of more familiar flashier places, so, who knows?

How will you know if you like it? I'd say if you find movies that push boundaries and convention a bit, this is a great movie for you. If you like movies that do melodrama, but in a grounded, believable, relatable way, this is definitely a movie for you, especially by the third act. If you like seeing characters who represent different sexualities, races, ethnicities, etc. In a story where those things have almost nothing to do with the film (they just are), this is a good film for you. And if you like films about people who mess up and make wrong calls and are trying to figure out who they are with a mix of family of origin and choice, this really delivers on that front, too.

I suspect some people will try to limit it or characterize this as a coming of age drama, or an erotic drama (again, it's not, it just has bodies and sex, but not in a particularly erotic context), or even an LGBT drama, an I think all of them are true, but none of them describe the movie, truly. This is an interesting drama, an ensemble piece that showcases some really good acting, and it's set in a very specific word, with very specific people, but has little to do with those specifics as a story point, the setting and the characteristics are the jumping off point for some characters you won't be able to forget about when you leave the theater or turn off your computer, which is sort of where I am this morning, writing a review on IMDb...

The easy comparisons here are to BOOGIE NIGHTS or SHAME but that just, again, I think is because we have so few films told about male protagonists like this. It definitely shares elements with these, but if you want a better parallel in general, I'd go with Steven Soderbergh's debut film, Sex Lies & Videotape. That's the comparison--a new director, a cast of characters and actors you can't stop watching or thinking about, and a story that moves slowly and deliberately, but you really feel delivers something in the end. Like you got what you needed, if not what you thought you were coming for, as a film, if that makes any sense. But in the end, I don't think this movie can be easily described, which is a pretty good compliment for a first time writer director and a bunch of unknowns!

Set against the backdrop of Las Vegas, the film follows a young man named Major Tom Ryan (that's his legal name; it's explained in the film) as he navigates a complex time of self-discovery. The movie is deliberate and very compelling, and told through a series of extended conversations, full of genuine philosophical insights, that Tom has with various people he meets - ironically - through his association with the malevolently charismatic owner of a Vegas adult entertainment enterprise named Jordan.

Tom is a kid from Long Island on the run from his very real, but decidedly first-world problems, and through these conversations, he learns a lot about how the real world looks, gains perspective, and moves a little closer to being a fully realized adult. And, yes, in the meantime, he gets caught up in a lot of fun hijinks, faces some (often literally) naked truths, and has some interesting, and frankly entertaining, sexual encounters (all of which, believe it or not, are 100% story and character relevant).

There's a pretty intense series of tragic events in the last part of the film, and that's good because it feels necessary to bring the stories full circle, get Tom (and a couple of other characters) across the finish line, and I think that works well to balance out the tone of the film, making even its most indulgent and hedonistic elements justified building blocks in the film's narrative. The best part, though, is that all of these events are rooted in the psychological issues and concerns of the characters, not their alternative orientations or work in adult entertainment. The film is very modern and non-judgmental in this way, which I really appreciated. The folks who'd be messed up in any profession or situation are messed up here, and the folks who are decent and good are the same.

Notably, the film balances emotional depth with physical appeal. The diverse male characters are portrayed in ways that will absolutely cater to scopophilic pleasures (the female and gay male gaze), with instances of nudity and physicality that are not only justified within the narrative but necessary to telling the story, with its moral insights and ethical messages. This approach integrates a physical representation within the larger narrative, ensuring that characters are seen as complete individuals, even when they aren't wearing very much.

I want to mention, too, that the emphasis on emotional depth challenges traditional narratives and portrayals of men in films, offering a more nuanced and introspective view. The film succeeds in providing empathy and understanding for its characters.

I'm giving the film a 9, not a 10, because there are a few elements that could have made this film revelatory and near-perfect, but I agree with an online critic who noted the few weaknesses in this film probably result (either directly and directly) from the film's limited budget and the fact that it was shot during the COVID quarantiine. The film's American-auteur style, reminiscent early Linklater, Burns, or Anderson may not align with all viewer preferences, but it's a film worth seeing and I highly recommend it! And if long conversational scenes aren't your thing, the youthful hijinks, plentiful flesh (the eye-popping frontal nude scene from the star is probably best known, but it's just the start) and diverse hook-ups just might be. This balance means "Station to Station" has a little something for everyone, from those who like to analyze movies to those who just want to ogle them.

In conclusion, "Station to Station" is a significant step forward in the evolution of the female and gay male gaze in cinema. Its thoughtful integration of physical appeal with emotional depth and narrative complexity offers a more inclusive and empathetic cinematic experience. Whether one appreciates its literary qualities or focuses on the visually-driven scenes, the film stands as a meaningful contribution to diverse perspectives in film.

I thought this was a comedy b/c I'd only seen a funny clip before and got the wrong impression, but this movie blew my mind with how good a drama this is. It's so good! The acting, the writing, the way it looks, and the beautiful messages it sends to the audience. The main character and actor who plays him are really interesting.