Reviews

Decidedly unscary, and only moderately bloody, the film is something to behold in its attention to detail and deadpan humor. One could easily argue that if Wes Anderson were to make a horror film, something along the lines of El Conde would very likely be the result.

The set designs, the costuming, the repetition of certain acts and rituals; they all have a whimsical air much like Anderson's movies do, including the rather large yet useless family that shows up in Act 3. It's all in the service of satire though, which certainly works, especially with the introduction of a zealous yet naive nun sent to uncover the "truth" of the old vampiric Pinochet.

If there is a weakness in the presentation it is that too much effort is made to keep it all so light (despite all the dark scenery). Yes, there are glib mentions of torture and learning to love murder in the name of the State, but it felt like at a certain point the movie needed to have a more honest confrontation with the actual horror of history. I think about how Pan's Labrinth effectively balanced fantasy with the very real brutality of facist interrogation and executions.

Still, overall a very well made film with real magic and wonder all in gorgeous B&W.

To be honest, on paper, the film really shouldn't work. It's got so many "big" ideas and throughlines, by rights it should be all too much or nowhere nearly enough. And yet? It absolutely does work, and does so with a kind of naturalness that is kind of amazing.

Certainly it helps that the cast is uniformly excellent, starting of course with Geoffrey Wright who is in just about every scene. The main throughline of course is "frustrated writer who's tired of being passed by lesser works decides to write a satirical "Black" novel under an assumed name." Naturally, his shallow and stereotypical book immediately gets more interest than his real novels ever do, and now the train has left the station... As his agent so aptly declares: First rule of sales, never assume your customers are too smart to make a bad choice."

But the interesting thing here is that this storyline is at most ¼ of the overall plot, and at times much less important that what else is going on. There's his aging mother, the fallout of growing up a troubled dysfunctional household, the hope for intimacy vs the fear of letting others in, and much more. It never feels rushed or too crowded, giving everyone just the right amount of room to play things out.

There are bits of The Player and maybe even echos of Mel Brooke's along the way, but mostly it's all very much its own thing.

I give this 10 of 10 not to signify its the greatest film of all time, nor to agree that it should be the #1 on any critics list, but to acknowledge that it does what it set out to do almost to perfection. Though I can certainly "imagine" a version at half the length, there's a certain power to placing the viewer so "in the room" as Ackerman does.

I disagree that this was in any way an explicitly "feminist" film, despite the main subject (as well as the director) being women. Reading through the various reviews, it seems clear that much of the labeling the movie has received is more a function of projection. If the same film had been rolled out as work by Jean Luc Goddard, would the conclusion that it had feminist themes still apply?

The story, the structure, the characters... They all all most closely resemble classic existentialist novels, such as Nausea. This is less about a woman rebelling against the Patriarchy than a person seeking to break out of their own self-imposed exile from life.

There were aspects of this movie that felt frustrating at times because so much of it was really well done. To me it felt like the director (who also wrote the script) seemed to assume that each and every beat needed to be spelled out to the audience, including a few moments where a character would LITERALLY announce what was already obvious to the viewer.

Why these decisions were made, I can't say, but it probably comes down to either inexperience, or notes given to the director by a nervous producer." Luckily, the film was redeemed by many positive attributes, and featured an honesty regarding relationships that was refreshing. And to be fair, they were obviously working with a limited budget, so some things might have been re-done or altered in a bigger production probably just had to be moved on from here.

Anyway, despite a few missteps, where it worked (and was often outstanding) was the overall scene work, the realistic pacing and the realism of the intimacy. And above all, the two lead actresses really carried the film to the finish, bringing you into their characters that felt organic. Both women felt physically and emotionally "real" in their roles, even when occasionally they had to read lines that were a little clunky. The sex also felt (mostly) natural, took it's time, and was imperfect in a way that did justice to the characters.

When other actors would overdo it or add some barely perceptible snark or coolness to their delivery: they didn't. They both just "felt" like were really living inside these roles, and it was also very much evident that the director knew just how to allow them to breathe into their scenes.

The music: The music aspect was integral to the storyline and was surprisingly good! But again, it would have been more effective had the director not leaned on it quite so much.

This short gets at least 3 extra stars for the commitment and physicality of the twin sisters who play the main characters. Granted they are actually older than they look (at first glance very early twenties) but either way, they absolutely sell their stunts and fight sequences.

The story itself? Sure, it's vague and you jump right into something that feels like part of a much longer plotline, but suffice to say, it's really about the vibe. The lighting, the music, the sound and camera work all just "work" and the Why and the What are secondary to everything else. Again, mostly it comes down to whether you are rooting for the two sisters or not, and I most definitely was throughout. At under 10 minutes total, it's just enough to get the adrenaline flowing and wanting to see more.

One of the better Marvel Spin-off shows that had some well-earned twists. This is in certain ways the type of show that would "almost" requires one to be a Marvel superfan due to the numerous references and call-backs which... OK I guess I am, to a point. At the least, I've seen all the films up though Avengers: End Game multiple times, other than the inexcusable duds like Ironman 3 or Thor: Dark World. But that can also be a bit of problem when you base a show around a character that pretty obviously caused the death of many tens of thousands of people during the Battle of NY (and no, I do not accept the absurdly low number of 74 that is Marvel canon). Entire buildings were brought down, and it was in the middle of the day. A number closer 25k sounds more likely to me. Granted, it was nothing like what we saw at the end of Man of Steel, but still...

Moving along to Loki series: So, setting some of his "questionable" history aside, the look, feel and altogether loopy approach to the show was absolutely the right move! It probably sits closest to Wanda Vision in look, but definitely has its own strange yet light-hearted vibe going on. The initial tone sits somewhere between the deadpan of Dragnet and very gradually morphs into something much more psychedelic. Loki, being the God of Chaos, the Trickster, and an all-around prankster, this blended up mayhem is the perfect pool to throw Tom Hiddleston into, and he doesn't disappoint. He also is allowed some actual growth as story progresses, and though it may seem unlikely for a character several thousand years old to learn anything "new" he makes it seem at least possible.

The supporting cast all jump into the fun feet first as well, though you could argue that Owen Wilson essentially playing all his Wes Anderson characters all at once is... maybe too much sugar for the cake? OK, but it still works! Things just get nuttier as they progress, and yet also end up more serious in the landing. By the end I was fully invested and loved where they took the whole concept.

The Marvel multi-verse conceit has already pretty much worn out its welcome (with the 2nd Dr Strange being a real low point) but assuming these guys can stay whatever oddball course they have planned, I'll be looking forward to Season 2 in the Fall of 2023.

That the main main leads for My Brilliant Friend needed to become close was probably a professional necessity, but here we see that it went well beyond that aspect, becoming a genuine friendship. I think it's also evident that in terms of casting, landing these two young women with very little previous experience was like striking gold. The same could be said for the even younger actresses that play Elena and Lina as children, who are so physically and constitutionally similar that when we see them all together it's almost jarring: It's like actually seeing the younger and older version of the same girls.

In any case, how much you enjoy this documentary will probably depend on how familiar (and interested) you are with the entire production process. The set building, the blocking, lighting, cinematography... In my case I am, so every minute was fascinating. Others may find less to hold onto. Still, the actresses are so genuine and open, it would be hard not to just go along for their ride.

It's Bertolucci so I figured it'd at least be interesting, and I admit the NC-17 (rarely ever applied to a film) seemed to indicate something more edgey. In reality the content really didn't seem warrant the rating and though there was indeed a fair degree of nudity, most of it was hardly all that graphic. Often the shots were more like well composed classical paintings than anything overly gratuitous.

In my opinion this film was nothing like Last Tango in Paris, which was more an exploration of a nihilistic death wish. The Dreamers was the opposite: Three adult children, each a little spoiled in their own way, each clinging to the protection (and financial largesse) of their families. It is light, languid, beautiful; a Claude Monet vs a Francis Bacon. Each character is dimly aware that they still know little of the real world outside their protective bubble; often re-enacting scenes from classic films as if to try "life" on for size, but only a little bit. Each yearns to become "more" yet they all in their way are too afraid of what that might mean.

Michael Pitt, as the handsome American lover that has literally gotten between the semi-incestous French twins, is no more worldly than they are, and clings to Isabelle (Eva Greene whom is gorgeous at any age) in the same way her brother does. It is telling that he is seen often writing his mother... Eva also wants to grow, seeing his attention as both exciting and liberating, but almost crumbles when her brother looks for someone outside.

Are these three young beauties out of touch and a bit spoiled? Yes, but then again, one way or another aren't we all when we are 19 or 20? Even if not spoiled we still think the world revolves around us, and often take every new experience like a revelation that is unique. Thus where we end up in the film is more of "the beginning" of actual adulthood for the characters; they have started to grasp that children's dreams must eventually give way to something more concrete. That's not a bad place to start.

Extremely well done drama told almost entirely through two sets of eyes: those of self-appointed "hand of God" who murders "unholy" women, and those of a female reporter determined to find him. The actors in both roles are excellent, but special credit must go to Zar Amir-Ebrahimi as a determined reporter who is at some risk almost every step of the way. All women in the Islamic Republic of Iran are vulnerable and at risk, and the film let's this be understood in numerous small ways in addition to the outright murders.

It is these scenes where the movie deserves real credit for not backing away from the reality of what it means to be an unmarried, widowed, or any woman otherwise left out of society. These are women who come to prostitution out of desperation, and the film rightly strips away any hint of sexy or romanticism for these scenes. That they then are murdered for placed in this position is that much more brutal.

Overall the film has a verite feel to the locations, as well as the lighting and cinematography, but by no means should this imply low budget. I'm unfamiliar with the director and the main crew, but they definitely knew what they were doing. The soundtrack, both the musical score and effects was likewise excellent. I especially look forward to seeing more of the lead, as she clearly is a gifted actor.

The setup of the movie (and I gather in the book as well) isn't much different than of Aldus Huxley's story "Brave New World" minus the kinky vibe he managed to build into his world. But aside from that, the large docile population, grown in tanks, assigned to their roles by genetics, drugs to suppress passionate or violent emotions, as well as history being hidden from the populace. It's all been done in various forms before, though this one at least appears more realistic.

The main problem with these little "think piece" stories is that for whatever is "lost" of humanity when it submits to this dystopia, the argument to restore everyone back to what we have today is pretty weak. They say they lost music, and love, and passion; ok obviously not good. But neither is the horror of mass murder, genocide, political imprisonment, ethnic cleansing, rape, torture and starvation. These points are obliquely acknowledged, yet to avoid them is to avoid confronting reality at all!

Lastly, exactly what is the mechanism for this collective forgetting, as well.as the special One Who Receives Memories? It's asking a lot to believe it's telepathy, yet no technological explanation is posited.

A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night at its heart is essentially a Western, where the gunslinger, "the man with no name" is replaced by a teenage girl who is undead; a vampire. It seems that at the point we meet her, she's started to be a little more discerning about who's she's going to chose to be her next meal, and uses at least part of her time observing the goings-on a the dusty, run-down city she resides in. She especially has it in for the men around that use their strength or position to harm those weaker than they, though along the way she still displays a kind the detachment I assume one might build up as your life stretched beyond the normal human span. Still... she yearns for something. Love? Desire? Conversation even?

Filmed in deep black and white, the cinematography and darkness work well in the overall theme, and the actress who plays "the girl" is perfect for the role. A few spots here and there a bit weak, but the great scenes more than make up for it!

Told in a style that might best be described as Moonrise Kingdom meets The Bicycle Thief, this little tale hinges mostly on the naturalism of its young actresses, framed but some more experienced adult actors to keep it together. The period details are solid, as are the sets and musical numbers that serve as Greek Chorus of little girls.

Several times there are moments when I was tempted to assume I knew where things were headed, but on each occasion I was happy to be wrong. That also is what makes this work so well; it swims within certain storylines but is willing to go off script enough to remain surprising.

Danica Curcic absolutely inhabits her role as Miriam, a determined and capable Jewish mother whose Copenhagen family is forced to flee the Nazi wave rolling through Denmark. Miriam and her jazz musician husband Arne (David Dencik) are given advanced warning (very slight) that the Germans have reneged on their promise of not interfering with Denmark's affairs, but she is dismissed Arne and his friends for worrying too much.

Arne, her husband, for much of the movie seems like a decent man if a little flaky. The type of artist or musician who in ordinary times ends up being behind on the bills or neglects the practical aspects of life. In this case, an expensive instrument well beyond their means nearly prove fatal to them all.

The "setup" is that they barely escape Copenhagen and make a desperate run for a small coastal fishing town, hoping to get across the water to Sweden. Not a lot different than the soldiers trying to get out of Dunkirk in certain respects, though these are just ordinary people.

In between they meet more kindness than not, though it only takes a little bit of evil and a little bit of cowardice to change everything. The other actors feel genuine and are well cast, and the locations and cinematography is equally up to the task.

Streaming Quality: This has nothing to do with the "movie" per se, but the streaming quality is unfortunately not great, with several scenes being very dark and blocky from poor compression. It'd be much better to see the movie on Blu-ray, but for now it seems unavailable.

Just to get it out of the way, this is in no way a comedy, though it's comedic elements in it. It seems quite a number of people went in expecting SNL high jinx because of the leads and thus we have some irate low-star reviews here. Kind of a poor reason to hate a movie IMO, but that's their problem.

The storyline, which covers more than a few heavy topics is not overdone, and certainly not depressing in its outlook. As the movie opens, the two leads play fraternal twins that had both hit some kind of bottom, each seeming to have lost hope of life getting better. It is this crisis moment that brings them together after having been apart for a decade, the reason for which gradually is teased out as the story moves along. Along with that, the pain and damage they carry from the childhood becomes clearer, and healing these scars becomes key to each facing life anew.

More than anything, what really stands out is the warmth and vulnerability displayed between Bill Hader and Kristen Wigg. I'm going to assume part of that comes from the trust they have for each other from their previous work together. The rest of the cast is perhaps not as well drawn, but they are adequate. The resolution, such as it is, feels right; both earned and pointed in a positive direction.

Having attended a local theater's showing of the 2020 Oscar Shorts (Live Action) this was by far the best of the set in a particularly good year for the category. Within the first 60 seconds of the movie you immediately understand the very serious danger the main character (a woman who is a passenger in a man's car). The tension only builds from there. Even in a small theater the absolute stillness from the audience was palpable.

What is especially great here is the utter economy of how this story is told, along with an absolutelying perfect performance of the woman on the other end of the line (a police call operator). The pacing is likewise spot on, being long enough to build the story and draw out the tension, yet short enough to keep everything compact.

The short that did win that year was great as well, in fact several were, but this is one that you came away most changed by.

I don't normally "pile on" when there are already fairly negative reviews, but even going in with an open mind (and low expectations) wasn't enough to prepare me for HOW frustrating this film was. Many have either knocked it for "not enough dance" or not "good enough" dance, which are valid but actually sit well down the list for me as to what is wrong.

To me, the ENTIRE conceit that these two women had "male" inner/alter egos just did not work on ANY level. Could they, maybe, in some other form? Yes, I can imagine it though I still don't see the point. Why have a story about two women and hardly ever show them as women? There were so few scenes with them both who they actually were (women) that it made it impossible for any sort of character development to happen, and the chemistry between the various "alter" couplings was practically nil. The sex scenes were clumsy for the most part, which I guess comes down to the use of non-actors (all dancers) though again, for me it was just the jarring fact that every one of them were depicted as opposite sex versions of themselves. If it were 50/50 it might have worked a little, but this was 100% of them.

Even simple scenes where the two women might be sleeping next to the other, or having breakfast, had one of them as a man. Not only did neither of the women present as "masculine" in any way, but the men "playing" the women did not at all feel the women they supposed were playing. It was as if the director was telling a story (of two women in a relationship) that they didn't actually want to tell at all. Why this would be, I never could figure out. The other feeling you start to get by the end is that maybe they cast two women really uncomfortable with any physical contact with one another. Maybe that wasn't the case in reality, but that's how it feels.

The Dance Aspect I'll admit, I am not a huge "dance" fan and in many respects I'm not even sure that the art-form is a good match for film in general. Nor do I think multimedia is a great thing to bring into dance performances. That said, the times I've enjoyed dance productions the most have all been live and in person. That's kind of the whole point it seems to me; being in the space that they are and feeling the energy that comes from the performance. This applies to classical ballet as much as modern dance too.

Sure, there have been "some" great films that have heavily featured dance, albeit usually in the form of musicals, but the format here felt forced most of the time, other than the first scene where the two main characters were conversing via email. That actually kind of worked, chiefly because we were seeing a kind of abstracted emotional representation of what was happening behind their words. But as others have said, that was at the very beginning, and all but a few others seemed either thrown together or just out of place.

Still, in the end, it was less the dance than the storytelling that didn't work, and especially the "alternate" characterizations.

On paper, I have to admit I had my doubts that movie would really "work." In fact, I'm not sure I'd have watched it were it not for my trust in director Celine Sciamma, who's other films I love. I certainly add this to that list though, because it was beautifully done from start to finish. In her hands what could have been a saccharine "coming of age" or "ode to childhood" is anything but.

There is a deep and subtle honesty to her character's ways of interacting, which never feels overdone, always leaving enough open to feel like she is also placing her trust in the audience. This was certainly one of the strengths in Portrait of a Lady on Fire; when words are not needed, they are not spoken. But in that film she was working with adult actresses, who had a good deal more experience to bring to their characters. Yet somehow, she brings out the same kind of truth in the two young girls (identical twin sisters) that is kind of astounding to watch. Both actresses display a subtlety and naturalness to their characters, and one is immediately drawn into this seemingly small "moment" in their lives.

The story, like "Portrait..." is very nearly a world without men, though neither were in a literal sense. Both stories set that "other" world, the one with men as the central players, way off to the side. Sciamma thus allows the girls/women a place to play and build their own world; one distinct and uniquely theirs, if only for a time.

Filmed mostly in the slightly hazy light of remembered childhood during the days, the nights becoming darker and deeper, much like the childhood fears most all of had at some point. Again, it would have been easy to tip the cinematography into something entirely idealized, but it doesn't feel like it. It only hints a little at a certain "magical realism" but never is overt or explicit as to exactly "what" that might be.

In the end, one could likely view the story itself through several perspectives: a mother's memories and possible regrets, a daughter's desire to connect with her somewhat distant mother, each of them hoping to understand each other and thus themselves. It is again here that the director allows the viewer to bring their own questions and memories to the experience, without the need to "tell" us how to see it.

I have a feeling that this movie suffered from a difficulty in "finding" its audience, which was almost certainly those who are artists. It could approached and appreciated by others for sure, but for this film basically assumes you have at the least a passing interest in art, and a decent knowledge of art history. Without them, I don't see there being a lot for the viewer to latch onto except for the beautiful scenery, though I suppose the theme of "finding yourself" is fairly universal... But don't go in looking for broad comedy or warm and fuzzy romance or you will most certainly not find one. I however was very much drawn in and felt it to be a warm and honest portrayal of an artist searching for her path.

The trailers may present this as a sort of quirky rom-com, but it's really not, which is a strength in my opinion. But if that's what one went in expecting, I could see some disappointment. This is much more about Art, being a painter, perhaps being a Jewish painter who's a woman, and commitment to all of the above. Notice that list did NOT include love, romance or finding the "right one." I think we've had quite enough of those already anyway, and Jenny Slate does an excellent job in inhabiting her character in a natural and organic manner.

That said, it IS often funny, with snappy dialog when the scene calls for it, and more subdued when appropriate. Plenty of sections have little dialog at all except for some internal commentary coming from Slate's character.

Lastly, it's a visually beautiful film to look at, with gorgeous scenery and naturalistic lighting.

I saw this twice when it was playing so long ago in the theater, and in certain respects I loved it. A fan of the author's books, I was already inclined to like the film, but ultimately it didn't feel like the director could land it properly. I'm not entirely sure why that was, but my guess is that so much the source material is deeply "internal" which can be difficult to translate to the screen. And yet, for there are certain scenes that are as near perfect as can be. Vanessa Redgrave is so great throughout, and "dressed as a man" or not (I'm referring to another reviewers objections) she exudes a kind of pent up sensuality and power.

Keith Carradine does his thing, and the actor who plays the hunched dwarf is especially good. The love trifecta plays out as somewhere between tragedy and farce, leaving one to contemplate just how "bound" we are to the bodies we are given on our stay here on Earth.

In tone the movie closely resembles something you'd associate with the Cohen Brothers, though this director seemed reticent to fully embrace the strangeness inherent in the writings of Carson Mcullars. Perhaps the real problem is that a film version might be better served by a woman director? When this was filmed though there were very few female directors in Hollywood. In any case, it's certainly worth a viewing for those looking for stories off the path a bit.

The film is further aided by excellent cinematography and a strong soundtrack composition.

There is not much "more" I can add to the already glowing reviews here, other than to say all of it is true. That is, if anything, the standout feature of the series: the utterly truthful nature of what is portrayed. Every detail, every beautiful or ugly moment, every noble or base impulse that is played out; all of it rings absolutely true to life.

It is never melodrama, it contains little in the way of modern "cleverness" and gives no characters unnatural moments of grandiose dialog. It is earnest and naive when we open upon the lives of two poor girls in Naples, and yet unsparing when it comes to the casual violence that takes place in their neighborhood, in their homes, even a school.

All of the ways one assumes the story will evolve are invariably wrong, and there is where we feel the truth of what is being told. Each season grows organically from there, and not once does it lose its power, nor its ability to surprise.

Though not necessary, it does help to know a bit about where Italy had been in the early 20th century, the role of women who fought against fascism during the war, the way the country "moved on" in the aftermath.

Just to get it out of the way, the casting, script, music and overall production values are all top of line. The cinematography and set decoration could stand alone side any Christopher Nolan film, but most importantly, there is a real sense of "heart" at the center of this speculative tale.

Nominally it's about a fascinating conceit: given enough AI machine learning power (in this case quantum computing several major steps beyond where we are now) not only could every previous moment in time be eventually visualized, at some point all possibilities could be fed in to predicting all "probable" future actions.

Unlike Ex Machina, this story is not about AI reaching a convergence of pure consciousness, this is more like: What happens if you were given a window into omniscience? It's no spoiler given Garland's other works that Devs is more interested in asking the questions than laying out the answers (though it plays out several interesting possibilities).

Certainly, any series will have a few missteps, and there are a couple of dramatic tangents that are a bit improbable, as are aspects of the end point. But they in no way take away the from the strength of where the story takes you.

In all honesty, this film is indeed uneven and a number of points don't lead anywhere. But the story itself and the absolute dearth of anything about Iran gives it added value. Beautifully shot, great music, and genuine chemistry between the two leads make it worth it despite what flaws it may have.

Obviously most of the weaknesses stem from the limited budget and shooting schedule. The side plots could have been dropped in favor of better details of backstop. Some additional daily life would served the plot and characters well. I can't comment on accents but the delivery rang true most of the time.

The only drawback I felt by the end was that by splitting the perspectives in three, a certain amount of narrative cohesion is lost. Yet, individually, each story is powerfully told. Allowing for the point of view of a civilian young woman, who only reluctantly becomes part of the partisan resistance, is especially welcomed. The actress that plays Tuen, Dutch actress Susan Radder, is excellent and is allowed to grow in a realistic manner. The key role of women's resistance in every occupied territory is rarely acknowledged, but just as they are in this film many made major contributions to eventual military victory.

The other, more obvious standout performance was from Gijs Blom, who plays a Dutch citizen from a dirt-poor family that had naively joined the German army. The film opens on his unit being overrun by Soviet forces on the Eastern front, from that point and until the end, he is our eyes from within the Nazi machine; trapped by an evil that a poor 17 year old boy could never have imagined.

The third perspective, while necessary to the story was the most uneven, though I can't say exactly what made it so. We follow a young British glider pilot, who's never going to live up to his high-ranking father's expectations, who finds himself drawn slowly in the jaws of a brutal final battle. Both he and his original glider unit seem woefully under-trained for any of it, and yet there's no escaping. His travels across the Dutch countryside show the lack of coordination and planning that plagued this aspect of the Allied push. Victory or death are the only two likely options for any soldier, but so often the scales get tipped towards the latter for poor upper management.

The cinematography, sound design and score were all top-notch. Scenery, sets and SFX all as good as you could ask for; the flooded village a special standout for the production building.

One of the better soundtracks for the general subject of WWII I've heard for awhile in fact; not overdone, and minimal or non-existent when it would just be intrusive.

The rest of the cast were also excellent, especially the Dutch and German acting.

Simple enough concept for young children to laugh at, yet builds in plenty of more subtle layers of humor for older kids and adults. In particular the various winks at sci-fi tropes are especially funny, but there are almost always a few levels of whatever the primary joke might seem to be. The casting is absolutely perfect, and using Mr. T to play a manic super-cop, ultra dedicated father version of himself was inspired. Bill Hader and Anna Ferris both bring plenty of energy to their roles, though obviously it's really Hader as the quirky science good who carries the movie.

The animation is well done, though no one was looking to break any new ground per se. It's more the production design that shines here and multiple viewings will reward you with plenty of funny details that may have been initially missed.

I feel fortunate to have finally gotten to see this in the theater (after it was selfishly held back by Apple) and it was indeed everything that makes a movie great. It provides so many specific and authentic insights into a family like this, but goes another layer deeper by choosing to capture the daily ups and downs of small town New England fishermen.

It was filmed in and around Gloucester, MA (also where A Perfect Storm was based) and all the locals have been especially proud of how this livelihood was accurately portrayed. The acting, whether spoken or signed, was uniformly excellent, and hopefully will provide more opportunities for everyone. Great cinematography, and the music worked well throughout.

Definitely a director to pay attention to for the future!