A Baleia

I recomend this movie and authorize it as factual from my life standpoint. The doctors told me I only had 5 to 10 years left in me. It was suggested that Bariatric surgury is the only way things will change. Since December 27th, 2022, 6 months later, I am 220lbs. I have had diabetes. I no longer have diabetes since I changed my diet. I never knew how disgusting I was or how much food I ate in one day because the chemicals in the High Fructose Corn Syrup that soda contained were causing my addiction to drinking more soda. My house was filled with garbage on the ground, and I couldn't even wipe myself or turn around; I couldn't even fit in the car that well to drive.

I only drove my car to the doctor and had the groceries delivered. Watching these academy award winners on the big screen affected me emotionally because it reflected my life. It destroys me, showing my life from a different perspective. This is as real as it gets people; this exists, and this story has no fiction in it. My issues were PTSD, X's wife, and her taking my children away. My children are older now, and we are getting reconnected. I do not blame anyone else for my problems, only me. I cried when the Xwife wanted to hear his heart and lungs; that scene hit home and affected me in many ways. What about my daughter? Well, it's not been easy, she doesn't talk much to me, and I am only in her life when she needs something; like Fraiser, I saved up all the money for her.

Thank you for reading my review, The doctors now say that I might reach 90 now because of all the changes I made and hopefully I will witness a few grandchildren along the way. I am alive today because I made the choice to live. It was hard to make that choice because psychologically I didnt believe anything was wrong with me even though I was deathly ill. Makes me think.... Am I creating my own life simulation? AmI still deathly ill even though I am healthy again? How much do we take our lives for granted?

TLDR: I liked The Whale, all things considered. This is a touching, sometimes difficult-to-watch, but frequently interesting and engaging movie, anchored by a stellar performance from Brendan Fraser. He really shines here. But, the movie is a bit too melodramatic and unsubtle for its own good, and can be a bit one-note, especially given it's runtime.

The Good:

1. Brendan Fraser. If a Best Actor win wasn't enough, let this lowly IMDB critic confirm it: Fraser is amazing in this movie. His performance isn't just "sad" and it isn't just him crying. He transforms into this character and expresses a pantheon of emotions; it's a truly remarkable and powerful performance that is worth the watch alone. Fraser's Charlie is a broken man, but a smart, kind, and fundamentally optimistic one. He's a complex and interesting character, and one I found myself really rooting for. Fiction is the ultimate empathy machine and while you don't have to love Charlie, I think it's fair to ask you understand him and where he's coming from.

2. The rest of the cast (mostly). Hong Chau is great in this movie as Charlie, I also (mostly) liked Sadie Sink as Ellie. Sink's raw talent shines through, yet again, even if her character can be unbearable at times. Ty Simpkins rounds out the cast as Thomas, a missionary from an Evangelical church, and gives a pretty good, and likeable performance.

3. The "stage play aesthetic." This film feels very much like a stage play, and I wasn't surprised to learn it was based on one. While some might decry its lacking cinematic quality, I actually really liked the confined setting, repeating stage play cues (i.e. The knock), and general pace of the movie. At points, I sort of felt I was watching a play, and I liked that quality of it.

4. The philosophy (mostly). I think this film has a nice outlook and explores some big questions in an interesting, if sometimes melodramatic way. It's actually quite astonishing how much the film really ends up being about given its setting and subject matter, and while I don't think all the positions are satisfying, A for effort.

5. The make up and set design. I feel like I could smell Charlie's house whilst watching this movie. Yes, the set is simple but it really feels like a place someone is living, as opposed to a set. Charlie...looks fantastic. The make-up and prosthetics truly transform Fraser.

The Bad:

• The philosophy. At the same time, I think this movie frequently veers into melodrama. Fraser's whole speech about um...college not mattering because what matters is (*checks papers*) that you can write a short sentence about yourself is what REALLY matters...was cringey, to say the least. The movie is extremely on the nose at times and sometimes feels like it's hand holding the audience. Aronofsky typically makes quite challenging movies, and I have to wonder if the studio insist he make this clearer and more straightforward.

• One note. Another thing, and consider this a minor negative, but aside from a few moments of levity, this is an otherwise pretty miserable movie. I don't know, felt like given the run time, we could've used a bit more variety.

• Sadie Sink and her Mom. I understand why Sink's Ellie acts the way she does, and I feel she is redeemed in the end, but OH MAN, is she one of the most irritating teens I've seen on screen in a while. Samantha Morton's Mary on the other hand...gave one of the most "play like" performances in the film, with even her voice sounding weirdly clearer and louder than others in the film. It's as if she's...on stage or something, and maybe it was intentional, but her scene just felt off to me for that reason.

I think there are some good reasons to criticize this film. It's a fairly stage bound adaptation of a play. That's not always a bad thing. In many cases, staging a film very similarly to the way the play was staged accentuates what works about the play. I don't think it really does here, and the film's repetitive structures leads to some dead patches. There's also a powerfully melodramatic tone to this film that I'm frankly just a bit unsure of.

I also think there are extremely bad reasons to criticize the film, and these reasons are starting to emerge as the consensus among critics in the mainstream media. This isn't a film about a very fat man. It's a film about someone with an extremely destructive eating addiction caused by grief and regret and the complete lack of self-worth that accompanies those feelings sometimes. There have been films that deal with drugs, alcohol, gambling and sex, but apparently when it comes to food, the only thing that this film can be doing is inviting you to gawk at the big fat guy. It's a very strange conclusion to reach that I speculate is generated by coming into the film dead set on the idea that this is all it can be doing.

I did not come away from this film with any notion that I was supposed to see Frasier as anything less than a human being deserving of our deepest empathy. The film parades in some shocking imagery, especially up front, but I found that once I confronted it, my initial reaction subsided and I was seeing Frasier for who he was. I think it's an extraordinary double-standard that people can watch Nicolas Cage indulge in ridiculous and cartoonish bouts of binge drinking in "Leaving Las Vegas" and declare brilliance, but balk at Frasier's fits of VERY CLEARLY self-annihilating eating in this film and think we are only supposed to be processing it as some kind of freak show.

I don't think this is an incredible film, and I wouldn't place it among Aronofsky's best. I do think Frasier's performance is brilliant, and the film is a flawed, but often marvelous character piece about a kind of addiction we seldom confront.

I looooved this movie. It is clearly based on a play, and if you can accept that from the start and just take it all in, this movie really takes you into emotional spaces i didn't expect.

At some parts I admittedly laughed when I shouldn't but when the film reaches culmination it's impossible to not be taken by the beautiful agony of this tale.

This will win a best lead Oscar and bc Aranofsky used so much restraint I suspect he will be snubbed but as with all his films I guarantee you wont be able to shake this movie off.

This is legit art and it will make you uncomfortable, but unlike Mother -- it will be totally justified in the end.

There's a part of this movie that even before going in I was apprehensive about. Is it exploitative? More than probably, yes. Is it phobic in a certain way? It isn't impossible to think that. But being far removed from certain aspects of what the movie shows and yet being so close and feeling related to a lot of other things the movie portrays, I can only speak from what I got and felt about this movie.

Performances by Brendon Fraser, Sadie Sink and Hong Chau were absolutely fantastic. But that's something almost everyone knew even before going in. What really touched me was the detailing through which they showed why each character behaves in certain ways and how everything ended up this way. The absolute helplessness of humans under a system and subsystems across various levels of power that are meant to make life better creates more obstacles for everyone involved are arguably the root of the evils here. But the way each person deals with the evils they face is entirely different even when those reactions have so much in common. That is really reflected in each of the performances. Each of them shows a variety of emotions that are so humane and makes your heart break even more with the contrast between their philosophies on life and how life treats them.

For me, the film wanted to tell us that everyone is flawed, but it's the authenticity that should matter more than anything else which should be the road to happiness in life.