One and Two

a photo album more than a film. because it reminds old themes, in right mix, well known characters, gestures and facts expected after the the first moments. the special children, the isolated space, the pressure of past, the father who does the right things in the wrong manner are pieces of a film who not surprise but it is far to be a disappointment. the only problem is the status of reminder. the director not propose a story, his story. only replace the same ingredients in a neutral manner. result - a beautiful film, first for its fragility, for images, for the references to Gothic, Scandinavian art, Sci. Fi. and a trend about special young people. the problem - the story has a fine potential and the silence, so generous used, could be better made.after its end remains only the flavor of a special form of poetry. like old pictures from an album.

Weird little film. Starts off promising and remains promising throughout, it just never does anything with that promise. Smart enough to come up with believable constraints on children who can teleport themselves (and yet are confined; i.e. there has to be line of sight to where they are going to poof to next, so put a bag over their head and their powers are gone), and equally clever enough to figure out ways around that.

But it moves at a pace that is, at first, leisurely, and later as the "action" ramps up (or more accurately as there are changes in the situation) the film slips even further into sleepwalking. It sets up interesting developments but then deliberately doesn't really do anything with them. The filmmakers seem averse to exploring any of the multiple concepts that are sprinkled throughout. Perhaps it's as simple as they were not as clever and smart as their own premise.

It's frustrating that so much could have been addressed but the filmmakers act just like the film's characters; dour and non-communicative to an extreme. Simple visual effects are believably handled; performances are strong; there is even a whole scene here or there that is everything you might want it to be, but then the film meanders away as if it has no clear idea where it wants to go or why it wants to get there. Or why we should stick around for the ride.

I am so confused, what did I just watch? It feels like a movie that is arty and philosophical but it isn't. The only reason to watch this movie is if you have an hour and a half to kill and you really like Timotheé Chalamet. It is a beautiful film at times, aesthetically pleasing. The story goes nowhere and if there is a meaning to it, it is lost on me. Maybe I am not deep or arty enough to understand it. It seems to have some religious undertones. Sometimes it is meditative though to watch something that has a beautiful boy in it and some nice nature shots.

So it's okay. It's fine. It's a movie that was made, but not made well. There's no passion, no story, no style, nothing. It's a movie that proves this director can put a movie together, outside of Rich Hill. Autumn Durald does a great job with the cinematography, despite there clearly being more budgetary constraints than Palo Alto, most notably the oval bokeh and the obvious digital grain, from the upped-ISO.

The movie is bearable, it's watchable, but not interesting. The dialogue, however, is laughable, and the Tree of Life internal monologues are baffling. This movie is practically a series of events, albeit beautiful to look at and competently put together, with no real satisfying conclusion nor moral.

This movie doesn't deserve the critical panning it has from RottenTomatoes, it's one of the better movies of the year, which I guess isn't saying much.

Kiernan Shipka, and everyone really, look bored and brooding. They have nothing to work with, and when they do, it's executed laughably and obnoxiously. I have no doubt Shipka has acting chops, but this doesn't prove it, she mopes around with a vaguely confused face the whole movie.

Timothee Chalamet is the best actor in the movie, and he barely has anything to show, possibly because no one has any characterization besides "quiet, distant, scared." I hope he stops being type-casted as Tom Cooper, because even when he's given the opportunity to act in these movies, it's quickly cut short (in this, his screaming and clawing are drowned out by a glaring score, muting any actual skill required to show emotion or character struggle).

Hopefully Jeff Nichols' Midnight Special shows this movie up, I'm pretty disappointed. (If at any point you think I'm blindly "hating" on this movie, the very fact that I was even looking forward to a movie that wasn't advertised or talked about shows my initial interest.)

This is a slow but very beautiful movie. If you only are in to action then this is nothing for you. But if you like movies that will challenge and dare your mind and if you not are afraid of something more deep than a couple of men punching each other, then this is a film for you.

The film will get you in a state of mind that will begin to think, to wonder. Will this be possible? Can a father be like that? Loving and still so demanding and ... cruel.

And then you realize that it's the way people, mostly men, dictates their women and children to live exactly as they want them to do. It also shows how hard it is to break free from a family bond. Hard even if you don't want to be a part of it, if you do want to go. You can't go, there is too much holding you back. Fear, love, obedience even respect holds you back from leaving although you don't want to be there.

You know what you have but you don't know what you will get.

For me the film was not about their ability to "jump". It was about the fear of something new, something you don't understand, the will to have everything as it always have been. Their ability was just the unknown in the world. The film for me was also about breaking free and leaving old habits behind, leaving (killing) the tyranny, the dictatorship and seeking the freedom.

I liked the film and I will remember it a long time - maybe see it again in a month or two.