Started by Jessica Nguyen85 · · 👁 8 views · 40 replies
…
Larry Martin11 said:@Chris Morgan67
The more I dwell on this movie, the less I actually know what to think about it 😳. So, here’s attempt number two—this time with a little bit of self-quoting...
While I was watching, it had me completely hooked. But staring at those credits roll, I couldn't shake the feeling that I was missing that other, fetishistic, mad, "associative," non-storytelling Cronenberg—that raw mastermind who treats sex primarily as a "symbol" rather than just an act, and whose violence is endlessly terrifying (because it's always a gateway to something else) while simultaneously being breathtakingly stylized 😍. Maybe, looking back at my favorite moments—after all, he’s the man who uncovered the unbearable side of media technology, but also the bearable side of Debbie Harry in Videodrome, and managed to pull a wilder Vaughan out of the "angelic" Noah (both, of course, are just different dimensions of my favorite Elias Koteas)—maybe I expected too much? Is it possible I’m unsatisfied because he decided to embrace straight storytelling, effectively stripping away a huge part of what I love most about his work?
To be fair, he’s usually figured out how to pull it off: History of Violence maintained a fine layer of social critique beneath the surface, along with that beautiful stylization of violence (that encounter with the brother 😍 ) and the way he repurposes familiar imagery in unexpected ways (that staircase sex scene is so quintessentially Cronenberg...). So, even if it fell apart toward the end, there was still plenty to enjoy... Here, though—perhaps due to the script alone—the use of contextual layers felt somewhat skimpy to me. The characters' motivations, rooted in their past mistakes or experiences, just didn't feel sufficient to drive the action, no matter how crucial they were to the plot. I wanted the horror of the American system, which results in the isolated segment we see in the film, to get more breathing room as either a political or social phenomenon. And while there were attempts—small sparks that mattered for both the story and the larger picture, like Nikolaiev’s attitude toward the Ukrainian prostitute—it just wasn't enough... All that remained of the stylization was a "stylized world" that feels like a bizarrely beautiful blend of noir and detective cartoons 🙂. It felt like the context was abandoned because the director didn't know what to do with it (...location isn't usually a big deal for Cronenberg, but occasionally it gains meaning beyond just being a setting—History of Violence absolutely had to have its roots in the US, because nowhere else would that story resonate as powerfully as in a small American town; Eastern Promises, however, fails to leverage its London setting, despite trying here and there. The exteriors are shot drastically worse than the interiors, making a good portion of the film feel like it’s taking place "nowhere." Even the attempt to use "doubly authentic" elements—like the Chelsea fans before a match—failed miserably in a poorly staged scene that missed a chance to use such a great "London" signifier
.) ...The core plot is a problem in itself. The female lead, who functions as the catalyst for everything, is basically a cliché. It makes me wonder if the film wouldn't have had a much better, more serious tone if she had been avoided entirely. That would have saved it from the naive, unnecessary "sugar-coating" at the end (which felt totally out of place) and the habitually unconvincing Naomi Watts, whom I simply don't understand was cast for this role. Granted, removing the female "moral compass" would mean needing to redefine the whole film, but I’d honestly be happier if that happened. Maybe then there wouldn't be room for that middle sentence, "Than make the next one right," which perfectly summarized her purpose in the film—but then again, I've never been a fan of those overly simplistic (and frankly, a bit cheap) screenwriter tricks, no matter how sweet they might seem...🙂
If we strip Watts out of the equation—which I did, because I was craving some "old school" Cronenberg—I actually stumbled upon some fresh acting dimensions. Viggo Mortensen delivers another stellar performance here; he’s quite frankly wonderfully unrecognizable and just plain brilliant 🙂. Mueller-Stahl is a fantastic foil for him, too. Both actors squeeze everything they can out of roles that are far less conventional than I’d like to believe—though they still possess a much finer layer of depth than what you typically see in "these kinds" of movies. Nuance matters, motivation is everything, and in this regard, nobody—not the actors, the writer, nor the director giving them space—fell short or felt forgettable. However, the one who truly delighted me was the least praised of the trio, Vincent Cassel. He’s the "pretty boy" of French cinema, often pigeonholed into mindless English-language roles, but here he takes on his most heartbreaking, expressive, and arguably most underrated turn. It’s easy to overlook how unusual this role is and how beautifully he plays it. He crafts such a "refined" portrayal of an unrefined man—someone whose existence is far less subtle or inconspicuous than Nikolaiev’s, even though he constantly insists on being invisible ("I'm just a driver."). He essentially becomes whatever he thinks people expect him to be, and since he knows he can't meet those expectations, he ends up destroying himself instead. He effectively has no voice—not literally in his decisions, but nowhere else either. His reactions always seem a beat too late, and honestly, the only thing saving him from total insignificance is the fact that blood is thicker than water. Cassel plays him with an unexpected tenderness that I didn't think he had in him—he isn't afraid of looking weak and shows a lovely ability to bypass clichés. Where I feared cheapness the most, I was instead met with that gorgeous scene with the "party girls." It’s beautiful, though not because of the content—which is endlessly brutal toward everyone involved. The girls are treated as mere "meat" or "merchandise," stripped of any dimension; Nikolai is caught in a situation where the end justifies the means (while also becoming "meat" for Kirill); and Kirill is bound by what his social standing demands, even if it leaves him torn. It’s all handled through the way it’s acted: I wasn't sure whether to laugh or feel awkward given the tension and that "forbidden" eroticism, which provided a stunning contrast to the usual banalization of "weakness"—something usually forbidden, yet so glaringly obvious here. There are moments of heavy, profound subtext, too—the basement scene is his best attempt at playing with the fragmentation Kirill can't escape from (even within the basement itself). The conversation with his father and Nikolaiev in front of the van is rawer, but equally successful. There's a pervasive, subtle sadness to it all, which reminds me most of the relationship between Tonny and his father in *Pusher II*. As a total sentimentalist, my biggest issue with this "favorite layer" of Cronenberg’s film is how much it mirrors Refn’s masterpiece, even if this doesn't quite reach those heights. Though, to be fair, Kirill has the upper hand because he betrays his father without the father having fully betrayed him first, whereas Tonny sees no choice at all and lacks even a false protector. Aside from that, both are immature, voiceless, and completely ill-equipped for their situations, which ultimately leaves them terrified. They are very similar. Cassel might not quite hit the level Mikkelsen maintains, but he does have the advantage of being the lead, so he has more room to maneuver...🙂
...and since Refn was mentioned, the similarities between the two films run deeper. Refn isn't particularly interested in underworld dynamics so much as human connections—specifically, the relationship one has with oneself. (Though Cronenberg is a stylist, so his characters carry their life stories tattooed on their skin, whereas Refn is a realist, and Tonny merely shames himself with that silly tattoo, even if he doesn't realize it). Honestly, I wish Cronenberg had learned a bit more from Refn's work, assuming he even watched it... I know most people will say they aren't comparable, but there are so many overlapping motifs...
...of course, aside from the pricing—which might have hit me a little too hard personally—the movie has its own obvious charms: that sauna fight is exactly the kind of thing I love about Cronenberg 😍, and the "initiation rite" is also masterful (if I felt even the slightest urge to slap Mortensen, it was right when he stood up from his chair), even if it leaned a bit too heavily into being a "caricature." And since the ending didn't quite land for me (and I don't just mean the very end, but those hospital scenes with both the detective and Anna, which felt like a subpar version of Deja Vu), I have to at least mention that brilliant, mosaic-like opening... the interior production design is way too good (it actually reminded me of how they play with space in Pusher—using a family celebration as a ritual within a setting that’s essentially hell, through which you see the hypocrisy of the central figures unfold: Semyon is much like Tony’s father, yet Milo is magically two-sided, sharing nothing but an obsession with detail between his refinement and his roughness; he operates on a somewhat different level, whereas in Kirill, just like in Tony, there's this dual need to protect and be protected when facing similar characters in similar situations), and you really have to tip your hat to the entire cast for those magical physical transformations... the cinematography is solid, but in a strange way—the gorgeously "costumed" interiors are pushed to their absolute limit, while the exteriors feel almost non-existent, which bothered me...
...but what kind of movie is this, ultimately? What is it even about? If I approach it as some sort of thriller (which it really isn't), then it’s visually striking, a little cliché, beautiful but somehow not all that unique... however, if I view it as a heavy study of how we behave, our motivations, the weight of external influences, and the horror of the choices that haunt us—then I like it much more, though perhaps it still "missed the mark" slightly. Maybe Ebert didn't win me over after all, but the simple fact that I watched this three days ago and I'm still thinking about it so intensely means Cronenberg actually pulled something off properly 🙂
Larry Martin11 said:@naspavani
...thanks 🙂 a little too long, though 😁, and I love getting bogged down in the trivialities, but that’s just the kind of movie it is—it has so many subplots, so don't blame me...🙂
@Chris Morgan67
...I idealize him because a) he reminds me intensely of Tony, who in my opinion is one of the best-constructed film characters ever—so beautifully nuanced that it’s almost painful to watch; b) I’ve always been more drawn to that blatant, in-your-face "fragmentation" rather than the "quiet" kind (which is what Nicholas embodies here), mostly because I feel the former is more of a "thesis," whereas the latter feels more easily skipped over...but Kirill has his own deep, negative dimension: he’s a threat to the entire system (he isn't even aware of how much he actually dismantles the very structure that created him—he is Semyonov's biggest headache, the one truly undermining the system), through his sheer recklessness and his "non-existence" (because as an individual, he really doesn't exist—there is only the need to please the "higher-ups"—his father—and the need to satisfy himself, which is incredibly selfish and purely self-contained; the clash of those two results in a tragic self-destruction...still, he’s arguably "better" than Tony, since Tony teeters on the edge of stupidity, though not by much...) He jeopardizes everything even when his intentions are good, and he doesn't give a damn about the consequences of his actions on the people around him—not just those within the Mafia world (where there isn't much room for emotion; rationality should rule, but he lacks it, even though the Mafia is a world and a "business" for those involved: take the women, for instance, who are merely objects to him, showing no difference between him and his father, nor in the way he approaches Anna) at all; viewed under a glass bell, he isn't evil—just lost and torn apart—but viewed as part of the world, he isn't good either, because he’s irresponsible toward absolutely everyone and everything (for comparison, Semyon is actually more responsible, even if he ends up being much "worse")...He is a victim of exploitation, yet he is an exploiter himself...What is wonderful, however, is how Cassel plays him; he isn't afraid to portray him as weak without making him "low"—in a different interpretation, Kirill would be the embodiment of a selfish fool; in this one, the end of the film is completely convincing because it flows naturally from who he is throughout the full 120 minutes (as mentioned earlier, it's interesting how children act as a "catalyst" for both Tony and Kirill 🙂)...
...I don't know, though, I wouldn't say Semyon and Nicholas "enjoy" the world they belong to: I think Semyon somehow has no choice, he is a part of that world and the world really is a part of him (as opposed to Kirill, who is a part of something by birth that he doesn't actually belong to and can't navigate—despite all the stars, he simply doesn't understand the system); Nicholas has "ascended" within that world, fighting it, opposing it while simultaneously treating it as a challenge 🙂 at least, I think, because his story is actually the most contained, the least clear, and his mystery is part of the Cronenberg game...or maybe I just spent too much time on the trivial stuff and missed some elements? 🙂
Jerry Martin19 said:When and where is this setting even supposed to be? This movie fails to capture either vibe. The depiction of New York Cronenberg provides nothing, not even in that scene with the Chelsea football fans—they look like a bunch of kids who were paid to wear blue scarves just to signal they belong to a club. The director missed out on all the gritty details that make a city like New York feel real, leaving me so lost I didn't even know the setting until it was mentioned... and even then, it still didn't feel like NYC. It’s hard to believe the location has zero charm, feeling more like some empty outdoor studio set than an actual city. The characters are thinly sliced by some of the actors (well, one specifically), but mostly it's the "fault" of a cliché, weak script. Naomi Watts isn't exactly spectacular here, but her character is so incredibly trope-heavy there's no room for a rich performance anyway. Viggo Mortensen left a bad taste in my mouth in his previous Cronenberg work (A History of Violence), and while he shows he can do slightly better here, it's still not enough. His dedication to the look—shamelessly sporting those tattoos in pubs even when cameras weren't rolling, or traveling to Moscow with an interpreter to soak up the accent and learn Mafia customs...—is brave, sure, but his internal characterization is practically non-existent, about as deep as Arnold's Terminator. Vincent Cassel and Armin Mueller-Stahl do a decent job playing the father, but their performances are overshadowed by a weak portrayal of the Mafia family. It follows the logic of those early star trek episodes with DeForest Kelley, Leonard Nimoy, and William Shatner, where the high-ranking officers (including Captain Kirk) always head down to the planet to handle things personally while the rest of the thousands of crew members just "hang out" on the Enterprise. Honestly, it would have been better if Cronenberg had at least aimed for that level of scale, because his Mafia "crew" doesn't even exist. There aren't any sinister henchmen opening car doors with terrifying respect or guarding the entrance to their house... instead, you just get one single Viggo Mortensen with his fake badass, nasty clichés that don't work even under pressure. Overall, it's a disappointing showing from Cronenberg, a guy I deeply admire for Videodrome, The Dead Zone, Dead Ringers, and even the underrated eXistenZa. He shouldn't try this dramatic narrative approach if it means stripping away what makes him who he is: that edgy, magical, supernatural atmosphere his films are known for...
totally agree with this review.
Jerry Martin19 said:When and where is this setting even supposed to be? This movie fails to capture either vibe. The depiction of New York Cronenberg provides nothing, not even in that scene with the Chelsea football fans—they look like a bunch of kids who were paid to wear blue scarves just to signal they belong to a club. The director missed out on all the gritty details that make a city like New York feel real, leaving me so lost I didn't even know the setting until it was mentioned... and even then, it still didn't feel like NYC. It’s hard to believe the location has zero charm, feeling more like some empty outdoor studio set than an actual city. The characters are thinly sliced by some of the actors (well, one specifically), but mostly it's the "fault" of a cliché, weak script. Naomi Watts isn't exactly spectacular here, but her character is so incredibly trope-heavy there's no room for a rich performance anyway. Viggo Mortensen left a bad taste in my mouth in his previous Cronenberg work (A History of Violence), and while he shows he can do slightly better here, it's still not enough. His dedication to the look—shamelessly sporting those tattoos in pubs even when cameras weren't rolling, or traveling to Moscow with an interpreter to soak up the accent and learn Mafia customs...—is brave, sure, but his internal characterization is practically non-existent, about as deep as Arnold's Terminator. Vincent Cassel and Armin Mueller-Stahl do a decent job playing the father, but their performances are overshadowed by a weak portrayal of the Mafia family. It follows the logic of those early star trek episodes with DeForest Kelley, Leonard Nimoy, and William Shatner, where the high-ranking officers (including Captain Kirk) always head down to the planet to handle things personally while the rest of the thousands of crew members just "hang out" on the Enterprise. Honestly, it would have been better if Cronenberg had at least aimed for that level of scale, because his Mafia "crew" doesn't even exist. There aren't any sinister henchmen opening car doors with terrifying respect or guarding the entrance to their house... instead, you just get one single Viggo Mortensen with his fake badass, nasty clichés that don't work even under pressure. Overall, it's a disappointing showing from Cronenberg, a guy I deeply admire for Videodrome, The Dead Zone, Dead Ringers, and even the underrated eXistenZa. He shouldn't try this dramatic narrative approach if it means stripping away what makes him who he is: that edgy, magical, supernatural atmosphere his films are known for...
totally agree with this review.
Jerry Martin19 said:When and where is this setting even supposed to be? This movie fails to capture either vibe. The depiction of New York Cronenberg provides nothing, not even in that scene with the Chelsea football fans—they look like a bunch of kids who were paid to wear blue scarves just to signal they belong to a club. The director missed out on all the gritty details that make a city like New York feel real, leaving me so lost I didn't even know the setting until it was mentioned... and even then, it still didn't feel like NYC. It’s hard to believe the location has zero charm, feeling more like some empty outdoor studio set than an actual city. The characters are thinly sliced by some of the actors (well, one specifically), but mostly it's the "fault" of a cliché, weak script. Naomi Watts isn't exactly spectacular here, but her character is so incredibly trope-heavy there's no room for a rich performance anyway. Viggo Mortensen left a bad taste in my mouth in his previous Cronenberg work (A History of Violence), and while he shows he can do slightly better here, it's still not enough. His dedication to the look—shamelessly sporting those tattoos in pubs even when cameras weren't rolling, or traveling to Moscow with an interpreter to soak up the accent and learn Mafia customs...—is brave, sure, but his internal characterization is practically non-existent, about as deep as Arnold's Terminator. Vincent Cassel and Armin Mueller-Stahl do a decent job playing the father, but their performances are overshadowed by a weak portrayal of the Mafia family. It follows the logic of those early star trek episodes with DeForest Kelley, Leonard Nimoy, and William Shatner, where the high-ranking officers (including Captain Kirk) always head down to the planet to handle things personally while the rest of the thousands of crew members just "hang out" on the Enterprise. Honestly, it would have been better if Cronenberg had at least aimed for that level of scale, because his Mafia "crew" doesn't even exist. There aren't any sinister henchmen opening car doors with terrifying respect or guarding the entrance to their house... instead, you just get one single Viggo Mortensen with his fake badass, nasty clichés that don't work even under pressure. Overall, it's a disappointing showing from Cronenberg, a guy I deeply admire for Videodrome, The Dead Zone, Dead Ringers, and even the underrated eXistenZa. He shouldn't try this dramatic narrative approach if it means stripping away what makes him who he is: that edgy, magical, supernatural atmosphere his films are known for...
totally agree with this review.
Jerry Martin19 said:When and where is this setting even supposed to be? This movie fails to capture either vibe. The depiction of New York Cronenberg provides nothing, not even in that scene with the Chelsea football fans—they look like a bunch of kids who were paid to wear blue scarves just to signal they belong to a club. The director missed out on all the gritty details that make a city like New York feel real, leaving me so lost I didn't even know the setting until it was mentioned... and even then, it still didn't feel like NYC. It’s hard to believe the location has zero charm, feeling more like some empty outdoor studio set than an actual city. The characters are thinly sliced by some of the actors (well, one specifically), but mostly it's the "fault" of a cliché, weak script. Naomi Watts isn't exactly spectacular here, but her character is so incredibly trope-heavy there's no room for a rich performance anyway. Viggo Mortensen left a bad taste in my mouth in his previous Cronenberg work (A History of Violence), and while he shows he can do slightly better here, it's still not enough. His dedication to the look—shamelessly sporting those tattoos in pubs even when cameras weren't rolling, or traveling to Moscow with an interpreter to soak up the accent and learn Mafia customs...—is brave, sure, but his internal characterization is practically non-existent, about as deep as Arnold's Terminator. Vincent Cassel and Armin Mueller-Stahl do a decent job playing the father, but their performances are overshadowed by a weak portrayal of the Mafia family. It follows the logic of those early star trek episodes with DeForest Kelley, Leonard Nimoy, and William Shatner, where the high-ranking officers (including Captain Kirk) always head down to the planet to handle things personally while the rest of the thousands of crew members just "hang out" on the Enterprise. Honestly, it would have been better if Cronenberg had at least aimed for that level of scale, because his Mafia "crew" doesn't even exist. There aren't any sinister henchmen opening car doors with terrifying respect or guarding the entrance to their house... instead, you just get one single Viggo Mortensen with his fake badass, nasty clichés that don't work even under pressure. Overall, it's a disappointing showing from Cronenberg, a guy I deeply admire for Videodrome, The Dead Zone, Dead Ringers, and even the underrated eXistenZa. He shouldn't try this dramatic narrative approach if it means stripping away what makes him who he is: that edgy, magical, supernatural atmosphere his films are known for...
totally agree with this review.
Jerry Martin19 said:When people talk about "mood," they’re usually talking about atmosphere. Since the word itself implies something pleasant, and Cronenberg’s vibe is anything but... it’s like he practically puts a "not" in parentheses right next to the word...
Harold Mendoza59 said:I don't follow. My point was just that this isn't realistic London or a realistic Mafia story. Everything happens in this highly stylized, comic-book, supernatural Cronenberg underworld. Complaining about the lack of realism here is as silly as complaining that Rambo takes down fifty guys and three helicopters with a single burst. It’s just nonsense.
Jerry Martin19 said:Look, this isn't your "typical" Cronenberg flick where he leans hard into his signature style. This is supposed to be a gritty drama-thriller with grounded characters—real people, ideally—set in a real time and a real place. The fact that New York doesn't feel realistic wouldn't even be an issue if it were actually New York, but this isn't New York, and it's definitely not the actual Mafia... If he wanted pure fiction, he would've made something like Videodrome, with some imaginary underground TV station and surreal characters and events. But here, they're trying to emphasize that these characters are real people, yet they're placed in the middle of nowhere...
And why New York specifically? Why those Chelsea fans? See, the issue isn't that it's unrealistic; it's that it's a failed attempt at being real...
