grantarp

It is ambitious and has some beautiful sequences, especially the opening sequence with the Statue of Liberty shot. Brody, as usual, is strong. The score is also strong. The movie has an epic sweep to it but also, I would say, some unnecessary scenes here and there. I didn't think all the sex scenes were necessary, or at least I thought they were too drawn out, and various other interstitial shots that felt excessive. I didn't like Pearce's performance so much. Although he's playing an unlikable character, true, there's just an artificiality about his delivery and mannerisms that I didn't like here.

The epilogue of the movie ends a little flat and on an odd note. It's just one of those "weird" endings, imo, but that's pretty typical for an a24 movie. I cared about Brody's character, but where did he REALLY go, in the end? Ask yourself that. He gets lost a bit, for me, with all the other side narratives and architectural explorations going on, and then it just kind of ends.

Thematically, the movie reflects the tension between artistry and capitalism well. Is it overlong? Yes, but the intermission dampens the impact of that. Would I want to see it again? No.

There are certainly some worthwhile discussions in this movie re: religion vs. Atheism. But especially toward the end, the plot takes too many weird turns that stretch believability and get overly contrived.

Ultimately, I think the overall point of this movie is that although religion is mostly false and untrue, and there cannot be "one correct religion", religion can still make you a better person, depending on how you approach it. Mr. Reed approaches it with much anger and cynicism, whereas Paxton, though naive, approaches religion in a way that helps her to be a better, more empathetic person.

I didn't really buy Sophie Thatcher in this role. She's not a bad actress and certainly attractive, but this character just didn't seem to fit her.

This movie has an undeniable energy to it and was constructed with passion and verve. The editing is perhaps a bit TOO kinetic at times, but it does what it's trying to do effectively. However, for me, the storyline stretches believability a little too much. I know it is metaphorical, but it is better when such metaphors are grounded in reality. The concept of a drug that does what the drug in this movie does is... well, it's impossible and will never be possible. And then there were various smaller plot elements that made me chuckle; e.g., Sue somehow has fairly advanced construction skills to be able to knock down a wall and install a door in her bathroom all by herself. Yeah, right. The "substance kit" looks like laughably cheap plastic that could be ordered off something like eBay. The origins of such a miraculous, transformative drug are never explained; the movie never makes an attempt to explain it. Far-fetched, to say the least.

The overall message of this movie has been said in other movies recently, such as "Crimes of the Future" and "Sick of Myself". It is dangerous to try to escape the natural cycles of life. There is a kind of evil associated with striving for immorality; it is unnatural and wrong. But this movie delivers that message with more style, energy and verve than the others, while also paying homage to various notable directors such as Kubrick (nods to "The Shining"), Lynch (nods to "Eraserhead" and "Elephant Man") and de Palma (nods to "Dressed to Kill"). It's a fun and wild ride. But, as a story, there isn't really anything new here.

Dennis Quaid is such a bad actor. He overplays his character here too much to the point of the guy just being a ridiculous caricature and if people like this really exist in real life, I would never want to know them. Demi Moore was good and this was a courageous performance for her; I respect it.