Yesterday was my 5 favorites of the year, so today it’s only natural I go with my most disappointing. I’m hesitant to do my “bottom 5” because I’m not sure how interesting it will be for me to write and for you to read about This Is Me… Now: A Love Story. Because of that, I’ll go with stuff I was let down by. This doesn’t necessarily mean I disliked it, I just expected more.
I’ll start off with two horror movies since I’m not exactly the world’s biggest horror-head. Maybe I misunderstand the genre, so horror people, just go easy on me.
In A Violent Nature (dir. Chris Nash)
This one I already wrote about on here and summed up my thoughts so I’ll keep it brief. As time goes on I like it less and less. The idea of an inverted slasher sounds interesting on paper, but in execution, it’s just not pleasant to watch at all. This is maybe something to play in the background of a party, but definitely not engaging as a narrative in any way whatsoever.
I’m also becoming increasingly aware of my susceptibility to be duped by film festival groupthink. A small group of people go to a handful of screenings of a movie and declare it a staple of the coming year (I’m also guilty of this. It’s fine).
I Saw The TV Glow (dir. Jane Schoenbrun)
Listen: I know I’m in the minority here, and I’ve accepted that. You can read my piece on not liking stuff that other people like and that being ok if you need to get acquainted with my feelings on disliking things. Also let me reiterate that this doesn’t mean I think this movie is bad, I was just disappointed and that’s fine because this clearly wasn’t made for me. That’s just how it goes a lot of the time. I should have known this going in because I was also not a fan of director Jane Schoenbrun’s previous effort, We’re All Going To The World’s Fair.
This is another example of me getting duped by the Sundance crowd that sees its premiere. I really expected to walk in and see one of the greatest films of the year unfold before my eyes.
Schoenbrun has often been described as a David Lynch protégé, and I totally understand that categorization. Where I butt heads with that idea is the fact that Lynch made his surrealism accessible to a wider audience by layering it on top of very simple stories. Twin Peaks, at its core, is a cop investigation show with surreal imagery and ideas pushing the audience toward the evil embedded in the American small town. Mulholland Drive, Blue Velvet and every other signature Lynch project follow this sort of formula. TV Glow loses me when it begins to get confused with itself, unable to discern any sort of base narrative from its surreal elements. You can make the argument that that aspect of the film is a part of a metanarrative but at that point we’re really grasping for straws.
Wildcat (dir. Ethan Hawke)
In hindsight, maybe I shouldn’t have even seen this since I have never read Flannery O’Connor nor do I know anything about her life. But on the other hand, there’s tons of biopics I’ve seen about people I know nothing about or have any attachment to and had a fine time watching (Mank, Oppenheimer, Beautiful Boy, etc).
Unfortunately, this just is not a pleasant watch. Maya Hawke, who I think is great in other things I have seen her in, is wonderfully miscast in this. I understand that this movie was her idea that she brought to her dad, Ethan Hawke, to direct but it’s still a tough watch. I’ll give them credit for trying something… different, we can say, with how the narrative is framed, but that doesn’t make it good. The only explanation I can think of for why they did it this way was when someone in the post-screening Q&A asked Hawke and co-writer Shelby Gaines if the fading between reality and O’Connor stories was to mimic the confusion lupus brings with brain swelling.
Hit Man (dir. Richard Linklater)
This is the most painful one of all. I LOVE Richard Linklater. His movies have had an incredible effect on my life. Which is why it pains me to say I thought Hit Man was mid at best. Again, I drank the festival-goers Kool-Aid (I just about chugged the entire bottle) after this premiered last year at Venice.
It’s moderately funny and somewhat easy to watch, but just left such a sour taste in my mouth. For some odd reason the movie gives its female characters absolutely nothing to do except talk to Glen Powell about his feelings and have philosophical conversations about whether people can change. The only female character with any sort of depth is essentially reduced to a horny damsel in distress. The one time she actually does something interesting it happens off-screen, bizarrely.
Also, as a final gripe, you just cannot have Glen Powell of all people playing the main character and have a line about him being a forgettable face. He is one of the most attractive people in the world. Maybe it was supposed to be a joke, but I just sat there absolutely baffled by it.
The way I felt about this can basically be summed up to the fact that if this movie was the exact same and the only thing changed was the name of the director, it would be in the same pool as other streaming stuff like Ricky Stanicky and A Family Affair (I apologize Zac Efron for dinging you twice there).
you kind of perfectly summed up my thoughts on hit man. i feel like they pulled the whole “look we have really hot people in this mediocre movie” marketing strategy and it worked
honestly i think hit man would have been so much better with a different lead actor! i never feel like glenn powell gives enough, he’s always just kind of moderate. i think someone with more depth would have made the movie sooo much better