User reviews

This one is somber. It's subdued, it's full of emotion and hinges on the mystery of what makes someone "bad." There's a complex level of surrealism to everything that happens. The soundtrack lulls you into almost a comfort, while the dialogue keeps you on edge.

It's a beautiful film, too. The long shots are stunning. There's this wonderful mix of natural vs hyper-realized environments. Sometimes, you're left wondering how true the scene you just saw was. It doesn't hold your hand. There's things the audience has to figure out as the movie goes on. How true is the dialogue? How truthful is the main character onto himself? How much are we meant to question?

It's not a perfect movie. It does feel like a "first" for this director, which it is. That's not a bad thing, by any means. I think it's a great introduction to his career and I'm excited to see where he goes within the next 10 years. The acting is good, but maybe it's not the very forefront of the movie. I thought it would be. I mean, it's Daniel Day-Lewis, and of course he nails it. Sean Bean also does. However, there are some scenes that leave you breathless with just how impactful the language is, yet the core of the movie feels like it's environments. The isolation. The storms. The music that accompanies it all.

Overall, a very good film. A little slow, and it feels small, but it's not trying to be huge. It's surrealism in a bottle, and I like that quite a lot.

I saw it today at the premiere nights festival in Athens. I must admit that I was influenced by the comments I saw on the internet for so long and expected that I would not like this film. But the exact opposite happened, I left the theater satisfied. I'm not saying the film doesn't have its problems, it certainly suffers from some strange choices in the editing and some repeating patterns in the direction, which involves calm then tension and ends up calm again, with the dialogue often working as exposition. Beyond that, however, it is a film with character in which it seems that the director has the courage to follow his vision to the end, without compromising and with some nice script choices. What really stands out in the film, however, is its beautiful cinematography, where every shot is a painting (which makes sense as Ronan himself said he was a painter once). The movie also has a great soundtrack and I think it goes without saying how awesome and unique Daniel Day Lewis is, with also very good performances from Sean Bean and Samantha Morton. In general, it's a film that needs attention as will the director in the future.

When a new filmmaker emerges on the scene, that director is often held to an almost impossibly high level of scrutiny, as if being judged before a panel evaluating a grad student's thesis. To a certain extent, that can be an arduous but worthwhile trial to see if the candidate has what it takes to defend his or her case and, ultimately, to cut it in the field into which entry is being sought. At the same time, though, it's important to remember that the cinematic newcomer has likely never attempted anything like this before and that there's bound to be an inescapable learning curve involved. Such are the circumstances surrounding the debut offering from Ronan Day-Lewis in his first feature outing, an ambitious if sometimes-flawed collaboration with his father, three-time Oscar-winning actor Daniel Day-Lewis, who comes out of retirement after eight years in making his return to the big screen. And, while there certainly are qualities that could have been better handled, this is nevertheless an impressive premiere for the new director, one that, one hopes, bodes well for an auspicious future. "Anemone" is, by its nature, a picture that's difficult to characterize, but I see it as an intensely personal drama made up of a collection of anecdotal stories that delve into the complexities involved in interpersonal relationships between brothers and between fathers and sons. This includes the experiences of siblings Ray and Jem Stoker (Day-Lewis, Sean Bean), along with those of their son/stepson, Brian (Samuel Bottomley), as well as Brian's marginalized mother, Nessa (Samantha Morton). These accounts address a variety of incidents involving personal trauma and the forgiveness (or lack thereof) associated with them. Their explicit and detailed confessions recount painful occurrences that stemmed from military service, family relations, and interactions with authority figures, such as implicitly trusted clergymen who never should have been accorded such respect to begin with. In the process, these revelations explore themes related to toxic masculinity, mental health issues (particularly PTSD), the willingness to face (or avoid) one's demons, and cultural behavioral expectations, including whether they should be adhered to unwaveringly. Because of the approach used here, the pacing has been criticized by some as overly slow and plodding, but, given the eloquence of the writing in conveying them, I found this take to be quite effective, coming across like listening to engaging, earnest and heartfelt storytelling being imparted to what one would hope is a willing, sensitive and supportive audience. This narrative is further enhanced by stylistically stunning cinematography and an emotive and atmospheric score, creating a visual painting accompanied by a fitting musical backdrop. And then there are the superb performances of Day-Lewis in a triumphant return to his craft, showing that he hasn't lost a step since his last on-screen appearance, as well as the fine supporting portrayals by Bean, Bottomley, and, especially, Morton. For all of these strengths, however, the production has some issues with its ill-considered attempts at symbolism and surrealism, occasional narrative meandering, and sequences that could have used some judicious film editing. However, considering that this is the filmmaker's first attempt at plying his craft, I'd much rather see him take the risk of experimenting in these ways than falling back on formula elements, even if not all of them work out as hoped for. "Anemone" may not be a perfect film, but I would hate to see it mercilessly trod upon for its shortcomings. There's enough discouragement in the world these days to see an excessive amount of it heaped upon a promising filmmaker at a time when the industry can use all of the fresh and inventive new talent it can get.

Anemone is a visual and auditory treat, intermittently sprinkled with heartfelt moments brought to life by the incredible performance of Daniel Day-Lewis. Between these powerful scenes lies a great deal of patient, deliberate filmmaking and quiet sombreness which most of the criticism lies.

The story itself is relatively simple, but it leans heavily on its emotional weight to carry it through. Anemone is a slow burn exploration of guilt and abandonment, tackling heavy themes with restraint and subtlety. A few abstract sequences feel somewhat out of place, though they invite interpretation.

For the most part, I found the experience interesting. Anemone's runtime could have been trimmed to prevent it from feeling so slow and the story might have benefited from delving slightly beyond its final scene but ultimately, I understand and appreciate the meaning behind its ending.

Movie is character-driven & slower paced w basically no action, so if that's not your forte you definitely won't like this movie.

What they'll fail to tell you is that DDL cowrote the script w his son. It's Ronin's director debut so obviously gonna have some rough edges, but for a first, it's really good. Ignore anyone complaining about nepotism, they just mad their dad isn't mf Daniel Day Lewis.

Daniel Day-Lewis delivers yet another masterclass in acting. He embodies his character so completely that you forget you're watching a performance at all. Sadly, Anemone itself does not deserve him. His work is stranded inside a film weighed down by misguided direction and undercooked writing.

The real failure here isn't the cast or the crew-it's the man steering the ship. The director mistakes pedigree for craft, connections for vision. Nepotism may have gotten him the chair, but it did not give him the discipline, perspective, or storytelling instincts that separate an apprentice from a true filmmaker. Just because you are someone's son does not make you a great director or writer. There is a journey required-a hard, humbling road of learning and growth-that is glaringly absent in Anemone.

The result is a film that gestures toward depth but collapses under its own pretensions. Scenes drag without purpose, themes never fully connect, and emotional beats land with all the subtlety of a first draft. You can sense the film reaching for greatness, but without the maturity or the skill to get there. Instead, it hides behind stylized visuals and family name recognition, hoping no one notices the hollowness at its core.

Day-Lewis elevates every moment he's in, but even he cannot redeem a story so poorly shepherded. Anemone should be a warning to Hollywood: nepotism may fill a résumé, but it cannot fake talent. Audiences deserve better than vanity projects dressed up as prestige cinema.

This movie shows incredible scenery and great performances from Daniel Day-Lewis and Sean Bean. Cinematography should win an Oscar this year. It was an incredible theater experience, and I wouldn't mind seeing it again. I personally wasn't a fan of the son in the movie. I didn't buy his experience in the movie as authentic. That's my opinion. He might be a great actor later in his life, but I thought they could have chosen a better young performer. It didn't need to be a superstar, but that's what brought my rating down, if it means anything. The movie is slow, but to me personally, I didn't mind it too much. It's a story and one hell of an experience.

I was hopeful at the start, with its stunning scenery and immediate tension, but that promise quickly faded during the mostly dialogue-free first act. The eventual monologues are delivered well as expected but never pull me into the plot, and the tortoise pacing makes the runtime feel much longer than it is. It's a half hour too long.

Anemone is not a story told with words; it's an emotional current that slowly pulls you into the ocean of the unsaid.

The film is less about the two characters on screen and more about the invisible space between them that fragile, electric field of memory, regret, and a love that only holds meaning when it's already too late.

The camera drifts like a wandering spirit. It observes their silence but never explains. Every frame breathes in the tension between holding on and letting go, between staying and leaving.

What is most haunting and beautiful is not what happens, but what doesn't. The film lingers on pauses, unfinished gestures, and half-caught breaths, as if the director wants us to experience absence itself. The emotional echo of something once alive.

In the end, Anemone is not about loss; it's about the unbearable beauty of remembering. It reminds us that memory is not just what remains. It's what continues to haunt you, like a tide that endlessly returns to the same shore.

This film is not for the general audience; it's for those who find intellectual and emotional fascination in witnessing the inner collapse of a human being.

It may feel slightly longer than necessary, but that very length allows us to feel the wounds, not just see them.

Plot was dull and uninteresting. I fell asleep. No dialogue really until the third act and then nothing but lengthy monologues. Too much talking and not enough action. The soundtrack was also kind of jarring. Ugh. Don't really have much more to say other than I was expecting something much better and left disappointed.

Eight years ago, Daniel Day-Lewis announced his retirement, and it seemed that one of the greatest actors of our time would never appear on screen again. And yet - he's back. And not just anywhere: Anemone was directed by his own son, Ronan Day-Lewis. Alongside him is one of my favorite actors, Sean Bean - the unforgettable Ned Stark and Boromir.

The film made a strong impression on me. Day-Lewis once again embodies a stern, silent man - almost like a continuation of his character from There Will Be Blood. Everything here feels raw, cold, and filled with inner pain.

The story takes us back to the early 1990s. The atmosphere is recreated perfectly: muted tones, sparse dialogue, the ever-present sense of loneliness and the heavy weight of the past. The cinematography is outstanding - the biting northern wind, foggy landscapes, dense forests - every frame breathes melancholy and despair. Visually, the film makes you feel the cold, sorrow, and grief carried by the protagonist.

Despite its cold tone and slow rhythm, Anemone captivates with its honesty. It's not just a story about guilt and forgiveness - it's about a man trying to reclaim his soul. Day-Lewis's return feels powerful and deeply personal; he acts as if he's living through his own purification. Sean Bean perfectly complements him - calm, humane, and quietly warm.

Anemone isn't a film for everyone. It requires patience and emotional openness. But if you let it unfold, it pierces right to the bone. For me, it's one of the most powerful and sincere cinematic comebacks in recent years.

Actually, this was not a bad film at all. I don't quite understand the abundance of weak reviews - perhaps audiences were simply overestimating the "return" of Daniel Day-Lewis. In reality, this is a very small and personal film he made together with his son, Ronan Day-Lewis. I found it engaging: a well-told story with interesting characters.

What can be criticized is that the film occasionally focuses a bit too much on technical finesse rather than delving deeply into emotional layers. As a result, certain passages may feel somewhat slow or superficial. Nonetheless, the film clearly demonstrates that Ronan Day-Lewis has learned a great deal from his father's collaborators - most notably Paul Thomas Anderson, but also Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese. At times, he seems to emulate their styles a little too eagerly instead of fully developing his own cinematic language, yet this will likely come with experience. He certainly shows promise as a future director.

From an acting standpoint, the film was excellent. Daniel Day-Lewis may not have delivered his most outstanding performance, but it was another fine turn that deserved more recognition than merely being labeled "the big DDL comeback." Sean Bean, who carried much of the film alongside Day-Lewis, did an impressive job. His role may have been less showy, and much of the dialogue belonged to Day-Lewis's character, yet Bean conveyed depth and emotion through subtle expression. He once again proved what an underrated actor he truly is.

Samantha Morton also had one or two really great scenes .

Technically, the film is superb - featuring outstanding cinematography, a well-crafted score and soundtrack, and precise editing. Overall, it's a refined and skillfully made piece of cinema that deserves far more appreciation than it has received.

Yes I was excited to see Daniel act in a film again but I was disappointed with this one. Setting aside the beautiful cinematography and lighting I felt the slow push in zooms were redundant as well as the main score. I was bored and was able to figure out what he did pretty early on. Style over substance on this one. I kept hoping the several cut to blacks that happened each time were the ending. Pretentious is the best way to describe this film. So far the biggest disappointment of 2025.

And I don't say that lightly, or often. I'm usually pretty much in agreement with IMDb user ratings, or I rate it way lower.

I'll agree this could use some tidying up in the cutting room as some shots drag on a bit, but I feel like it fits the story it's trying to tell. It's not a light subject as it deals with PTSD and estrangement.

There's a lot of symbolism and subtext in most of those long shots which I think the TikTok generation won't care to notice.

I'll give a few non-spoiler examples of dialogue free shots.

Pair walks through a closed funfair/carny. One looks around, the damaged looks straight ahead.

Pair walks across a beach, only one pets the dog.

There's more like this and the worst you can say about them is that they can be a bit repetitive - but they tell slightly different stories.

The dialogue is excellent and the characters and their relations believable.

They never get cartoonish, over the top or unrealistic. And though the Troubles PTSD is well trodden at this point, it doesn't devolve into cliché.

What I also liked is that it leaves some things open to interpretation. It doesn't really tell you how to feel, that's up to you.

If you've grown up on >15 second shot editing I'd say give this a try (without a phone in your hand).

Good first effort for a new film maker. This deserves way more praise.

He said he was retired, but looks like he lied, ha; eight years after his last film role, the great Daniel Day-Lewis ends his self-imposed exile from acting to appear in his son's directorial debut, for which he also served as co-writer. In a secluded region of Northern England, a man, still grappling with the pain of his past, has been living as a hermit for many years. His isolated existence suddenly ends when he's paid a visit by his long-estranged brother, which reopens old wounds. The aesthetic of gray and gloom, haunting imagery, and visual embellishments are quite entrancing, and DDL embodies the entirety of his character's soul just as well today as he did decades ago. It's just unfortunate he's stuck in a lengthy, dreary, meandering story, the stop-start directorial style and editing diminish (instead of enhance) the emotions on display, not to mention that the ambiguous ending is a source of frustration, rather than fascination. **

Best aspects riveting acting by Daniel Day Lewis and gorgeous cinematography that was so beautiful in some scenes. I don't understand most the dialogue but it was quite impressive the emotions deserves at least 2 award nominees not sure about anything else. Some of it was so intriguing/ captivating!

That being said, if alls that it took was 1 bike ride for Sean Bean to get there, and Day-Lewis could just hike to the pub the whole time to have a pint, would it really have been that hard for his son to find him 🤷‍♂️

This film is purely for the pretentious film snobs. As I wouldn't honestly recommend it to pretty much anyone.

My positives:

• DDL's Monologue's
• The Craft that's clearly gone into the film, some of cinematography was great as well as some nice special effects.

• Both DDL and Sean Beans overall performances
• Believability in the writing of them both being veterans and the ptsd DDL's character feels.

Negatives:

• It's dull as dishwater.

• Some of the shots and moments that the characters are silent are just obnoxiously long.

• Pretty much anytime DDL and Sean Bean weren't on screen. I couldn't care less about the son's story, if you cut his and the mums scenes out the film I don't think it would have much impact and probably even improve the story.

• Although the special effects were cool, and I know it was a dream sequences, it seemed too fantasy film like so it took me out of it at times.

• It's meant to be about how DDL is a recluse and hermit, yet alls that it took was 1 motorbike ride and walk through the woods for Sean Bean to get there.

• Plus, Halfway through they both go to a pub, so how isolated can this place be if at any point DDL can just seemingly hike to the pub for a pint. Therefore, given that the son is also a soldier, and Bean has his coordinates the whole time surely he couldn't have just found him himself.

I know this is a nitpick about the location, as they don't say how far away exactly this place is, so sure we can assume it's hard to get too, but given how long they make certain parts of the film, the sequences getting to and from the place aren't that long in comparison.

Overall, as I said at the start, I wouldn't recommend Anemone to most people. As if I take off my DDL rose coloured glasses, and just judge it for the film itself like any other then it just fails.

The ham has returned. OK that is a bit cruel. Three time Best Actor Oscar winner Daniel Day-Lewis is hoping that is brooding slow burn performance, punctuated with explosive monologues might land him another Oscar nomination.

His return to acting is to help kickstart his son's Ronan directing career. Father and son wrote the screenplay of a reclusive man living in the woods to escape his past.

Anemone is set in the early 1990s. Jem (Sean Bean) sets off to reunite with his brother Ray (Daniel Day-Lewis) and persuade to come home to south Yorkshire.

Ray's son Brian has become wayward and prone to violence himself.

As both men talk and try to reconnect. It transpires that they had an abusive violent father. Both came from a religious background but Ray was sexually abused by a priest.

Ray and Jem both joined the British army but an incident during the Troubles in Northern Ireland sent Ray over the edge.

There are good shots of the forest and other scenery. Many of the production crew worked on various Star Wars television shows even though this is a relative low budget feature.

It looks good but the movie has a thin plot. There are many wordless moments but Ronan Day-Lewis is struggling to fill the silence.

Crikey this is a STINKER. DDL is obviously one of the very greatest ever film actors, but this was abysmal - and feels like overcompensating for his having been an absent & indulgent father in reality, because there's no WAY his son (who, on this evidence, to put it kindly - couldn't write his way out of a paper bag. It was like high school drama, so amateurish and heavy handed it's laughable) would've got this film made off of his own back.

I wouldn't even say I was disappointed - I more than half-expected it to turn out how it has, and that was before the deliberately vague trailer.

This won't impact DDL's legacy and nor should it - if it goes some way to repairing his relationships with his actual family, then I guess it's worth it. But for someone whose enigmatic and unique approach to acting and selectiveness have made him legendary in his own lifetime? One can't help but wish he'd stayed retired.

A marvelous return from Day-Lewis in his son's debut feature that hit a couple of right spots but missed more all around.

The story follows the Stoker family as Brian (Samuel Bottomley) hits rock bottom after a violent incident reminds him of the characteristic void he carries from unanswered nanswered about the family's history, while Jem (Sean Bean), his father, tries to find salvation for all by reconnecting with his long-estranged brother Ray (Daniel Day-Lewis).

This slow-burner plot unfolds in a moody and melancholic atmosphere, delving into one family's affairs and dug-up secrets of the past from which there's no escape, all while confronting the agony of waiting for something to come.

While we can find perfect sparks of discussions revolving around identity loss caused by the horror of combat or war, along with the need for retribution against the fouled sculpture that religion can sometimes trap us within, the prolonged process of data feeding and slow unraveling may seem pointless past a certain curve.

You can feel the quiet sink in from the opening scene, a calmness before the storm, at a time when even the sound of wind itself speaks of a bad omen coming with the pale, cool tone of amazing and solitary scenery. You get a few nice ideas related to the camerawork.

Even though the whole movie is dialogue-oriented, you get to see body and eye conversations run deeper than words spoken because everyone's trying to speak throughout the runtime, but the heavy air and hanging dark clouds over each character won't let it. It feels like something to feel more rather than just simply watch.

Acting is superb, with Day-Lewis delivering every monologue as if it's Oscar-worthy, where you get to feel the weight of every look and word. Alongside a sidekick from Sean Bean, you get a strong duet that couldn't reach its full potential because of weak editing and a prolonged, half-dead plot.

The ominous choice of music to set a tone for an awaited reckoning is one of the best scores of the year. It is pretty captivating and liberating at the time, emphasizing the gloomy weather of the family and the whole movie altogether.

With no climax to reach plot-wise, it feels like a miss-shot more than a bullseye, but you get to see flares of creativity from newcomer Ronan Day-Lewis if you enjoy and let the silence take over you.

6.5/10.

If you've ever wondered what it feels like to lose 2 hours of your life in a slow-motion trainwreck while being personally insulted by bad writing, allow me to introduce you to Anemone - a film so catastrophically awful, it makes actual natural disasters seem merciful by comparison.

Let's start with the plot - or rather, the lack of one. I've seen PowerPoint presentations with more tension and character development. The story stumbles along like it's drunk, lost, and wearing socks on an ice rink. It tries to be a disaster movie but ends up being a disaster of a movie. I'm still not sure what the "Anemone" in the title refers to - maybe it's a metaphor for how this film slowly stings you with disappointment until you just go numb.

The acting? Imagine your middle school classmates performing Shakespeare after a sugar crash. Cardboard would be offended by the comparison. The lead actor looked as if they were being held hostage by the script, delivering lines with the emotional range of a voicemail prompt. I've seen more chemistry in a glass of lukewarm water.

Special effects? Please. I've seen better CGI in early 2000s video games. There's a scene where a supposedly "cataclysmic event" happens, and I genuinely thought my screen froze. Turns out - nope - that's just the movie's idea of action.

Let's talk direction - or maybe let's not, because I'm not convinced there was a director. It's as if someone accidentally left a camera running and called it a film. The pacing is so off, I started questioning the passage of time itself.

By the end, I was left wondering: Was this a prank? A tax write-off? A test of human patience? Whatever it was, Anemone is not just bad - it's a cinematic sinkhole. If you value your sanity, your time, or the concept of storytelling, stay as far away from this film as possible.

I wouldn't even recommend this as a "so bad it's good" watch. It's just bad. Terminally bad. Anemone belongs in a deep-sea trench, never to be seen again.

Daniel Day-Lewis once again proves why he is regarded as one of the greatest actors of our time. His performance in Anemone is nothing short of transformative-every glance, gesture, and line delivery feels lived-in and deeply human. He embodies his character with a rare intensity that pulls the audience in and refuses to let go, making even the quietest scenes resonate with meaning. It's a masterclass in restraint and power, and it's hard to imagine anyone else bringing this role to life with such depth.

As for the film itself, Anemone is a visually compelling and often moving piece of cinema. The direction and atmosphere are rich, and the story carries genuine emotional weight. That said, the pacing at times feels uneven, and the narrative doesn't fully capitalize on its potential. The plot could have benefited from being more layered and interconnected, with stronger ties between its themes and characters. It's still a strong film that lingers in your mind, but there's a sense that with tighter storytelling and more complexity, it could have reached even greater heights.

I went to see this movie on 10/08/2025. I'm glad that I used my Regal unlimited, so I didn't lose any money (except the 50-cent service fee) when I decided to walk out after an hour or so. This movie is so dull. I found myself yawning and closing my eyes. I don't know how the other handful of people in my theater remained in their seats

The movie tries too hard to be artsy. There are these moments where characters stare in silence. There are meaningless close-up shots of things like flowers and soup. There are scenes that are just random or weird. At one point, there's a cringy slow-motion dance scene with Daniel Day-Lewis and Sean Bean: I don't know what the point is. There are monologues where the camera fixates on a character's face, and he/she just rambles on for minutes (note: critics have mentioned a monologue where Daniel Day-Lewis's character talks about feces. That part actually isn't so bad because it occurs during a long monologue where, by the time he begins to talk about feces, you likely won't even know it because you'll be mentally checked-out and oblivious to what he's actually saying).

As I said, I walked out before the end; I might've fallen asleep if I stayed. One of the worst movies I've ever went to the theaters to watch

1.0/10.

Rating - 7.3: Overall, a movie that has many stunning individual pieces such as the stunning cinematography, experimental score, and very good performance from Daniel Day-Lewis that should be applauded on their own, but the story and writing fail to provide any glue to hold these pieces together as there really isn't much going on.

Direction - Pretty Good: The direction on a macroscale is stunning, as this is a very visual and beautiful movie; The direction on a microscale is very theater-esque, as it is just a two-man play, with Daniel Day-Lewis doing all the heavy hitting; The storytelling is a big problem, as there really isn't any story to tell, despite them trying to force one; The way they build tension is poor, because it gets kind of avant-garde and surrealist, as moments to emotionally invest yourself into what is going on; Even though it is good on a macro and microscale, they don't do a good job connecting the two, as they are very disjointed

Story - Decent: The concept is a little too simple, as it is just a familial drama, but it doesn't really have that much substance to make it interesting; the plot structure is pretty linear, just very shallow in substance, it ends how it should, but is not well, as it feels too abstract to get to that point; character writing is the best part of the writing because it paints Ray as an old man filled with so much trauma that he has to escape the world to find peace

Screenplay - Decent to Pretty Good: The dialogue is very play-esque, not amazing but filled with depth and trauma the characters experience; the symbolism is present as it deals with trauma and how it affects the protagonist as he secludes himself from the world to find peace

Acting - Good: Daniel Day-Lewis - Very Good (It's nice to see Day-Lewis still has it because he shows why he is one of the greatest actors of all time; Shows the trauma that Ray feels and how it made him the person he is, escaping the world to hide from the horrors he left behind; Has good chemistry with Bean, as this movie really feels like a two-act play about nothing, similar to Waiting for Godot), Sean Bean - Good (Holds his own in his scenes with Day-Lewis as he is meant to absorb the trauma dumping the protagonist gives him, and this works because of his good chemistry with him), Samantha Morton - Pretty Good (Shows some emotion, but isn't really given that much to work with, as it's really a movie about the main two), Rest of the cast - Pretty Good (The movie is really about the main two actors, but their chemistry is pretty strong)

Score - Great: Really enjoyed it, as it felt like a punk experimental score that really fit the vibe and aesthetic of the movie

Cinematography - Great: Such a beautifully shot movie is visually stunning as it is filled with beautiful landscapes and scenery, and is a reason to watch this movie alone; a massive feat considering this is a low-budget directorial debut

Editing - Bad: Not well edited, as many of the scenes felt unnecessarily long, and it left these awkward pauses and silences that just made the movie feel slower than it actually is

Visual Effects - Decent: Felt too abstract and unnecessary at points; Is used well to help build the scenery

Production Design - Good: More about the landscapes, they filmed it as it was stunning scenery

Pacing - Pacing is incredibly slow because the movie has so many scenes that are just two-person conversations with unnecessary pauses; this movie could have been cut by 20 minutes to be a lot tighter

Climax - Climax really hurts this movie as it is too abstract and surreal to be taken seriously, and it kind of ruins what they built up to that point

Tone - Tone is very play-esque, as a majority of the movie is two-person conversations, though the macroscale scenes do make it feel like an avant-garde film.