Guest Review: US (2019)

guestpost

Written & Directed By: Jordan Peele
Runtime: 1 hour 56 minutes

Jordan Peele has done it again.  He has given us Us, a horror movie that can and will throw you into your favorite existential spiral. Have issues with interpersonal relationships? Peele can prod at that.  Worried about the government or science meddling in things above their scope and being all secretive about it?  Peele can poke at that. Do you agonize over the complexity of the self or the soul or whatever we’re calling our essence these days?  Peele can haunt. your. brain. With Us Peele has created a piece of horror that is funny, visceral, meditative, vicious, wholesome (seriously, the Wilson family has no business being so heart-melting), and clutch-at-your-movie-buddy scary.

Us follows the Wilsons, a perfect American family of four (think warm motherly glances and bad dad jokes), through the most horrific night of their collective lives. One day into what should have been an idyllic family vacation, the Wilsons are confronted by a family that looks exactly like their own. But this other family is faster, meaner, and has a grudge to settle. Violently.

This is a film full of mirror images and reflections. There is a running theme of the number 11:11 (including a bible verse, which, imho, is a superficial reference only used because of its two elevens and threatening tone); a huge amount of visual storytelling done through reflective surfaces; and multiple recurring motifs and actions. Us is a thoughtfully crafted script (Jordan Peele) and piece of visual art (Mike Gioulakis), which will keep your mind busy making connections from start to finish and beyond – when you’re not too busy giggling with terror.

This is Peele’s second collaboration with composer Michael Abels who has, once again, created a creepy, beautiful backdrop to the film. The score is percussive, orchestral, grungy, and will undoubtedly raise the tiny hairs on the back of your neck.

Because Us is about a battle between look-a-likes (if you have watched one trailer for this movie I am not telling you anything you don’t know), we get the delightful experience of watching each actor conquer two vastly different roles. Evan Alex (Jason Wilson/Pluto) oscillates between a sweet and socially awkward boy to something terrifying and bestial; Shahadi Wright Joseph (Zora Wilson/Umbrae) pings from a baby-faced pre-teen to a psychopath who will give you the shivers; Winston Duke (Gabe Wilson/Abraham) morphs from a nerdy, lovable dad to a silent behemoth; and Lupita Nyong’o (Adelaide Wilson/Red) goes from worried mother to something else entirely.

Although the bulk of the movie revolves around the Wilsons, there is a delightful cameo by Elisabeth Moss (Handmaid’s Tale) and, weirdly, Tim Heidecker (of Tim and Eric notoriety).

Watching Us feels a lot like solving a puzzle box. Peele introduces a mystery, gives you the tools to successfully solve it, and then beneath that first mystery is a second and then a third and then a fourth mystery. We, as viewers, get to successfully figure out puzzle after puzzle, but there is another one waiting.

My movie-going buddy complained about the frequent use of humor in Us, which I feel compelled to mention only because I disagree so much. Peele very effectively uses humor to both cut and create tension, which takes a very particular kind of finesse. Let’s all agree that movies that subsist in one measly genre are boring and thank the many movie makers (Jordan Peele included) who dare to explore multiple genres at once.

See Us.  You will laugh and cringe and while both your brain and heart melt.

And look out for the subtle nod to Get Out! Everyone loves an Easter Egg.


Have you seen Jordan Peele’s ‘US’? Well, what did you think? 

Guest Review: Isn’t It Romantic (2019)

guestpost

Directed By: Todd Strauss-Schulson
Written By: Dana Fox, Erin Cardillo, Katie Silberman
Runtime: 1 hour 29 minutes

Isn’t It Romantic is a masterpiece. Not in the sense that it’s ideologically revolutionary or that it’s even necessarily going to stand the test of time, but it is skillfully conceived, written, acted, shot, and edited in a way that can only be described as masterful. I’ve seen it twice and, while that has scratched the itch for now, I have no doubt that I will watch it again. And again. And again.

The movie opens on Natalie (Rebel Wilson) living an average life in a dingy, stinky version of New York. She has a tiny apartment, a disobedient dog, and a job as an undervalued architect at a small office where she works alongside two friends (Adam Devine and Betty Gilpin). One thing leads to another and, after spending several hours complaining about the unrealistic, flawed nature of romantic comedies, Wilson wakes up in one herself.

From the moment that Natalie wakes up, we are in a different universe. Everyone is beautiful, coupled off, and dressed in eye-popping color. The streets are brightly colored, the air apparently smells like lavender – even the parking signs have engagement rings on them instead of, y’know, parking instructions. Not only that, but Vanessa Carlton’s A Thousand Miles suddenly becomes the soundtrack to Natalie’s new life and she finds herself on the receiving end of some unwelcome (but wholesome!) romantic attention. This romantic attention is almost without fail the romantic comedy staple of Natalie tripping, being caught by a handsome stranger, and dramatically locking eyes.

But she hates it:  partially because that doesn’t happen in real life and partially because she “knows” that she isn’t special, so she doesn’t trust them “being so nice” to her. Isn’t it Romantic is a good parody (birds fly in heart formations in rom-com land! someone screams “thank you!” every single time an item gets thrown from a window!), but it’s more than that. The audience gets to see Natalie grow her confidence and self-love and becoming more comfortable as the star of the ridiculous romantic comedy she woke up in – even if that means running in slow motion at the appropriate moment.

Rebel Wilson puts on an exuberant, nuanced performance. She is the one straight character in a story full of over-exaggerated tropes (speaking of which, big ups to Priyanka Chopra for possibly the best hair flip of the decade and Betty Gilpin for going from awkward girl next door to cultivated she-demon in the space of one movie), but Wilson does so with verve, making the audience laugh, cringe, and get a little emotional right along with her.

Of course, there are flaws in masterpieces. There were a few parts of the movie that could have used tightening (although that is probably more of an editing issue than a writing one – the snappy dialogue and funny tone were impeccably done by the writing team) and Liam Hemsworth’s performance didn’t work quite as well for me on a second viewing, but any issues are nominal. 

There are plenty of things that are wrong with romantic comedies as a genre–and most of those are laid out very effectively by Natalie towards the beginning of the movie–but there is a lot of good in them, too. Isn’t it Romantic makes fun of the bad parts, elevates the good parts, and constantly references classic romantic comedies. (My personal favorite was “you had me at hello-copter.” I’ll leave it up to you to find the rest.)

See Isn’t It Romantic. If you like parodies. If you like rom-coms. If you like Rebel Wilson. Shoot, if you like playing I Spy, you should watch it and see how many of the references you catch. From a cast that easily hits key touchstones, incredible visuals, and a fun (ultimately feel good) storyline, Isn’t It Romantic is one of the good ones.


Have you seen ‘Isn’t It Romantic’? Well, what did you think? 

FlixChatter Review: On The Basis Of Sex (2018)

guestpost

“You couldn’t have existed until now.”

Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s teenage daughter has just told off a cat calling construction crew. RBG stares at her daughter, who is striding into the street to call a cab. Oblivious to the rain and to the cab which her daughter is now impatiently waiting by, RBG sees her daughter with new eyes. Jane Ginsburg is an entirely new kind of woman: a woman that RBG could never have conceptualized, much less become, in her teenage years.

This is one of two running themes of On the Basis of Sex. The movie never strays from its biographical storyline, but the movie is also clearly built to remind its audience that everyone is a product of their time. Bader Ginsburg was one of the first women to ever attend Harvard and yet she found herself shocked by her own daughter’s ability to stand up to a perhaps less institutionalized part of the patriarchy. The groundwork laid by our predecessors allows us to become something that they could never have dreamed and sometimes that shocks our predecessors.

The second theme regards the importance of family and a strong partnership. Martin Ginsburg prepares meals, comforts his children, and encourages his wife to pursue her ambitious dreams. RBG also puts in her fair share of work around the house, is willing to sacrifice a degree to support her husband, and puts in twice as much work as any other Harvard students when her husband gets sick. Most notably, the give and take of the Ginsburg’s relationship is not something that the movie asks its audience to be impressed by.

Aside from Armie Hammer’s unfortunately benign interpretation of Martin Ginsburg, the cast of On the Basis of Sex is spot on. Felicity Jones’ performance (as Ruth Bader Ginsburg) is strong-willed, reserved, and funny. Her performance, which is great all around, was downright heart stopping when she curled up in a hospital bed with her husband: the love, sadness, and hope exuded in that moment has lingered in the back of my mind in the week since I saw the movie.

Jones with Cailee Spaeny and Kathy Bates

Justin Theroux excelled as an almost likable, smarmy Mel Wulf. Cailee Spaeny (as Jane Ginsburg) was a perfect teenager: self-righteous, emotional, and ultimately full of love for her family. Sam Waterston was…Sam Waterston. He was a believable Dean of Harvard, but I doubt that Waterston captured Erwin Griswold’s essence in any meaningful way.

The costume and set design were gorgeous. From the very beginning of the movie when Bader Ginsburg is highlighted as a bright blue spot in a sea of black suits, the movie is visually stunning. The clothing, furniture, and city scape of the 50s and 60s are lovingly and colorfully recreated, making the movie an absolute treat to watch.

Ultimately a feel-good movie by director Mimi Leder, On the Basis of Sex is well worth seeing. Much of Bader Ginsburg’s life and work go unaddressed, which, considering the scope of her life’s work, is to be expected, but the film paints a beautiful portrait of Bader Ginsburg and her family.


hollyHolly P. is a twenty-something millennial who enjoys shouting at people on the internet, riding her bicycle, and overbooking her schedule. She prefers storytelling that has a point and comedy that isn’t mean. Her favorite movies are Aladdin, the Watchmen (even though the book was way better), and Hot Fuzz.  She’s seen every Lord of the Rings movie at least a dozen times. You can follow her @tertiaryhep on twitter or @hollyhollyoxenfreee on Instagram. She’s also on Tinder, but if you find her there she’ll probably ghost on you because wtf is dating in the 21st century.


Have you seen ‘On The Basis Of Sex’? Well, what did you think? 

FlixChatter Review: A Wrinkle in Time (2018)

guestpost

A Wrinkle in Time is a visually stunning film with a solid backbone and an incredible lead actress (Storm Reid). Due to a few unfortunate choices, it is a disappointing movie that I will nonetheless recommend to everyone.
Because A Wrinkle in Time is one of the first pieces of science fiction that I ever read, my expectations were high. I got teary watching the trailer because seeing a formative story told such amazing women was an exciting prospect.

It is hard to live up to a piece of art so steeped in nostalgia. Time and time again I was disappointed by elements of the story that were abridged or cut out entirely. Of course, the skeleton remained. A Wrinkle in Time is a fun science fiction romp through surprising landscapes that help a young person grow into herself. And I know that it is unfair to expect every page to make the final cut, but there were so many heavy handed moments where the the writers (Jennifer Lee and Jeff Stockwell) forced plot points into the mouths of characters because they must not have felt like they had the time or space to share that information with the audience.

Visually A Wrinkle in Time rivaled my childhood imagination. Costume design, CGI, and careful attention to cinematographic detail paints a moving picture that it is hard to peel your eyes away from. The costumes and makeup that Mrs. Which (Oprah Winfrey), Mrs. Who (Mindy Kaling), and Mrs. Whatsit (Reese Witherspoon) cycle through are stunning – even Mrs. Whatstit’s first outfit, which is supposedly made of bedsheets, is beautiful.

My one beef with the visual element of the movie is the giant, flying, lettuce shaped thing that Mrs. Whatsit transformed into. It is mind bogglingly bad in both execution and premise. Especially when you know that Mrs. Whatsit was supposed to be a centaur. Let me repeat that. Witherspoon was supposed to be a centaur and they made her an oversized piece of lettuce. I understand modesty concerns for a kid’s movie, but a bra flew across the screen when she transformed, so good luck convincing me that they couldn’t have put a bra on their centaur and called it a day.

Despite a cast that looks good on paper, I was mostly disappointed. At the top of my list of disappointments was Zach Galifianakis, who actually put on one of my favorite performances as the Happy Medium. In an otherwise incredibly diverse, female-focused cast, it was a disappointing surprise to see Galifianakis playing a role that was written as female originally.

On top of that, the school teachers were some of the worst featured actors I have ever seen, Mindy Kaling barely had any material to work with, Witherspoon turned a character I remember imagining as a likable but very oblivious person into a pretty rude character, and Deric McCabe was the most sympathetic of train wrecks.

No one wants to shit on a kid’s performance, but McCabe (playing Charles Wallace) left a lot to be desired. Charles Wallace is unique: a highly intelligent, empathetic kindergartner with a major shift in character toward the end of the movie. McCabe’s performance is passable early on, but at he seems visibly uncomfortable on screen. It is so disappointing that he, a nine year old, did not get better coaching for scenes that clearly stretched his acting ability.

Storm Reid redeemed everything else, though. She gave an incredibly riveting performance as Meg. I cannot wait to see what she does in the future: she clearly has the skills to have a long career if she wants it. In spite of its flaws A Wrinkle in Time is a beautiful story about loving yourself even if you don’t feel lovable. Meg is relatable: a teenager who hasn’t quite figured out how to love herself and has absorbed the meanness of her peers. The diverse cast and inspiring take away, described by is well worth supporting and the gorgeous set and costume design are well worth the price of a movie ticket.


hollyHolly P. is a twenty-something millennial who enjoys shouting at people on the internet, riding her bicycle, and overbooking her schedule. She prefers storytelling that has a point and comedy that isn’t mean. Her favorite movies are Aladdin, the Watchmen (even though the book was way better), and Hot Fuzz.  She’s seen every Lord of the Rings movie at least a dozen times. You can follow her @tertiaryhep on twitter or @hollyhollyoxenfreee on Instagram. She’s also on Tinder, but if you find her there she’ll probably ghost on you because wtf is dating in the 21st century.


Have you seen ‘A Wrinkle In Time’? Well, what did you think? 

Guest Review: LADY BIRD (2017)

guestpost

Directed By: Greta Gerwig
Written By: Greta Gerwig
Runtime: 1 hr 34 minutes

So at this point I think that my opinion of Lady Bird is wrong – if it is possible for an opinion on a piece of art to be wrong. The vast majority of everyone seems to have decided that Lady Bird is a piece of subtle genius, a near perfect discussion of adolescence and mother/daughter relationships.

But the movie didn’t do it for me.

Lady Bird opens on a mother and daughter traveling in a car as the last several moments of The Grapes of Wrath fill the silence between them. The monologue ends and Christine “Lady Bird” McPherson (Saoirse Ronan) removes the cassette tape from the tape deck, puts it back in its case, and takes a moment to sit in a harmonious sniffling silence with her mother (Laurie Metcalf). It is one of the few moments of harmony between the two characters and, like every other such moment, it quickly devolves in an argument, which itself terminates with a very dramatic, perfectly indie exit from the vehicle.

Lady Bird’s primary asset is its perfect grasp on indie films as a genre. Lady Bird perfectly encapsulates the quirky real-world aesthetic that makes indie movies so much fun through muted cinematography, a subtle script, and understated performances.

The cast in Lady Bird was incredible. Beanie Feldstein was charming as Julie Steffans, Lady Bird’s best friend. Lucas Hedges played a heart rending Danny O’Neill. Laurie Metcalf (again, the mother character) broke my damn heart on her drive around the airport out of the park, which was an especially marked achievement considering that that portion of the story made no sense. Having loved Saoirse Ronan in movies like Brooklyn and Grand Budapest Hotel, I was surprised to find her completely uninteresting in Lady Bird. Ronan’s performance was a steady monotone, which was a jarring choice considering Lady Bird’s tumultuous inner life. Lady Bird is constantly rebelling, but her exterior is placid to a fault.

I also took issue with the development of two characters: Kyle Scheible (Timothee Chalamet) and Marion McPherson (Laurie Metcalf). Kyle Scheible was simultaneously filling two icky boyfriend tropes: the pseudo-intellectual and the popular kid, which meant that some of the best jokes were at his character’s expense, but also that he did not make sense as a person. Kyle Scheible always existed on the periphery of a group of beautiful people, ignoring them for books about philosophy or history.

Similarly, Marion McPherson, played to a tee by Laurie Metcalf, made no sense. Perhaps my own childhood, being the average thing that it was, did not prepare me to believe that it is possible for a mother to be so petty with so little reason, but don’t think that’s it. I can buy a mother who is a flawed human and says the wrong thing and, despite it all, is still probably a better mother than she had growing up. What I cannot buy (and excuse me for being vague – I am trying to avoid spoilers) is a mother who reacts in extremes that wind up hurting her more than her victims.

Worse, the end of the movie felt forced. One bad college party makes Lady Bird appreciate her upbringing and the values she was raised with. Although I understand the impulse to wrap the story up neatly, the reason behind the revelation was not there, so it just felt awkward.

Ultimately a few amazing performances and general indie charm are not enough to save Lady Bird. If nothing else interesting is playing, I would still suggest watching it. It’s worth it for the the constant stream of early 2000s nostalgia that runs through the entire movie and a few powerful moments: the hug between Lady Bird and Danny O’Neill (you’ll know it when you see it) and the mother’s drive through the airport are two such moments that come to mind.

Lady Bird has its moments.


hollyHolly P. is a twenty-something millennial who enjoys shouting at people on the internet, riding her bicycle, and overbooking her schedule. She prefers storytelling that has a point and comedy that isn’t mean. Her favorite movies are Aladdin, the Watchmen (even though the book was way better), and Hot Fuzz.  She’s seen every Lord of the Rings movie at least a dozen times.  You can follow her @tertiaryhep on twitter or @hollyhollyoxenfreee on Instagram. She’s also on Tinder, but if you find her there she’ll probably ghost on you because wtf is dating in the 21st century. 


Have you seen ‘Lady Bird’? Well, what did you think? 

TCFF Indie Film Spotlight: FLORA + Interview with writer/director Sasha Louis Vukovic

One of my favorite film genres is sci-fi mystery. It’s also a genre indie filmmakers have thrived at, which includes some of my favorites such as Never Let Me Go (2012), The Machine (2014), Ex Machina (2015), and one of my faves that screened at Twin Cities Film Fest in 2014, Time Lapse.

One of the most intriguing films that played at TCFF this year is a feature film debut by Canadian filmmaker Sasha Louis Vukovic. I had the pleasure of meeting Sasha as well as lead actress Teresa Marie Doran briefly during the film fest, but we didn’t get to connect for the interview until after.

Thanks to FC blogger Holly Peterson for the review and interview questions!

In the summer of 1929 -at the end of the golden age of exploration- an expedition of Ivy League University Botanists enter an uncharted forest on the North American frontier. Tasked to study the native flora, the students unearth a deadly organism and are soon in a fight with nature itself, where they must use their limited resources to understand, survive and escape the wild and terrifying forest that surrounds them.

FlixChatter review (courtesy of Holly Peterson):

A misunderstood villain is not a new idea. Excessive violence perpetrated at the hands of a gentle being goes back at least as far as Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein in the 1800s and I am sure I could come up with an earlier example if I weren’t so gosh darn tired right now.

Point is, that although audiences are used to villains being villainous, we also understand that sometimes a villain just doesn’t have the right tools to express their good will. Everyone would get along fine if they could just talk out whatever is bothering them.

But what happens when a dealer of death, a perpetrator of violence, is not just misunderstood, but completely oblivious? What if it isn’t even sentient?

That’s the story Flora chooses to explore.

A group of intrepid young scientists treks out to a secluded forest to study it, only to find that their point of contact has gone missing. As the scientists try to unravel the mystery of this disappearance, they also begin to study the forest, which they gradually realize is more dangerous than they anticipated. Flora builds a sense of creeping dread with an intense score and several one-off scenes of tempers flaring and traps being set that you can’t help but expect to snap whenever the score begins to build again.

My one quibble with the film is that it wants its audience to see that it is diverse and doesn’t trust us to notice without calling it to our attention. This is problematic because it really isn’t that diverse to begin with. Half of the characters are white males. The Asian character goes off on a weird, unnecessary tangent about his heritage. One of the female characters has a really awful emotional speech about how she’s “just a nurse” because “they” wouldn’t let her study. The other female character doesn’t even get to tell her own story – it is told by a man behind her back and is an annoying soapbox moment about how talented and unappreciated she is because other people in her field cannot see beyond her gender. There is nothing wrong with a character facing adversity because of their gender or their race, but when six people are stranded in a forest, that is probably the adversity we should focus on.

Of course, there were a couple “DON’T GO INTO THE DARK CREEPY HOUSE BY YOURSELF” variety moments, but I think that’s kind of par for the course as far as horror/suspense goes. Humans don’t always use their best judgment and for the most part I thought the “what are you thinking!?” moments felt pretty organic.

The actors’ performances are solid and it is a compelling experience to watch a group of people fight for their lives without fighting against anything. Definitely worth a watch!

*images courtesy of IMDb

FCInterviewBanner

Sasha Louis Vukovic is a filmmaker from Toronto, Ontario, Canada. A graduate of the New World School of the Arts in Miami, Florida, and the Chicago College of Performing Arts, in Chicago, Illinois; his 2017 debut feature, Flora, won Best Feature Film at the London International Science Fiction Film Festival, and Best Original Screenplay at the Amsterdam International Film Festival.

FLORA’s DP Eric Irvin and director Sasha Vukovic on set

Q: Where did the idea for the story come from?

The idea for the story came from my personal lack of knowledge about my ecosystem. I was amazed by how little I knew or understood about the Flora that surrounded and interacted with me everyday. So many people come and go through life subsisting and relying on Flora with very little thought of the life of those organisms. I was also fascinated with creating a non-malicious antagonist. A villain with no villainy. Something beautiful and strong.

Q: What was it like shooting a period piece on a budget?

It was excellent fun. And actually a great creative box within which to imagine and create. Every element of the script was written with budget/period in mind. So I actually found it to be quite an interesting puzzle. The period was far more boon than bane.

Q: What was the most challenging part of the shoot?

The most challenging part of the shoot was by far contending with Nature. As the entire film is shot outdoors, we dealt with bugs, rain, heat, wild rivers, storms and dense forests. In many moments it felt as if we as a team were on an expedition into a dense wild forest as well. Thankfully a little less toxic than in the film.

Q: What is it like writing a script about / acting against a non sentient “villain”?

Again, a wonderful challenge. Creating action sequences in which characters are ostensibly running from a stationary pursuer was intersting.

A lot of the film focuses on the eeriness of how silent the forest is, coupled with the mystery of what befell the past humans who inhabited it. That way, suggestion and ambiguity does a great job at allowing the audience to build up a monster in their heads.

Then, the key is creating a believably toxic environment, from which there is an immediate need to escape. Think about the urgency that befalls people during an earthquake or hurricane. Flora is about non-symbiosis, about what happens if we have to run from nature.

Teresa Marie Doran and Dan Lin on the set of FLORA

Q: How did you find your composer?

Our composer Nathan Prillaman is incredible. He was introduced to me by one of our lead actors/executive producers Dan Lin.

Nathan and Dan went to school together as kids and right around the time that we were hunting for our Composer, they ran into one another -for the first time in years- at a dim sum restaurant. It was fantastic luck, and lead to a great creative partnership.


Thanks Sasha for talking to us about your film!

For more info about the making of the film,
check out this article from Sound & Picture magazine:

Check out this behind-the-scenes video of FLORA:

Guest Review: The Promise (2017)

guestpost

Directed By: Terry George
Written By: Terry George, Robin Swicord
Runtime: 2 hrs 13 minutes

It has taken more than ten years for Terry George to return from Hotel Rwanda with another sweeping historical narrative – again about genocide. The Promise is a sobering, beautiful disappointment. The film has a beautiful score and decent cinematography, but is hindered by two competing and uncomplimentary story-lines, flawed casting, and lackluster performances by usually gifted actors.
One thing that The Promise does right is its dogged determination – at least in the beginning – to accurately recreate the Ottoman Empire at its peak. The diversity of the Ottoman Empire is highlighted in the script and on the screen: crowded streets and classrooms alike brim with a rainbow of skin colors and a wide variety of clothing styles. This attention to detail falls to the wayside later on: extras become less and less Armenian with every passing scene, leaving me wondering if the casting department doubts an audience’s ability to see facial features through dirt.

That initial pursuit of realistic cultural immersion was also highlighted in moments like the one when our stars leave a stuffy party full of people in European clothing to hit up the nearby belly dancing club where they drink absinthe, sugar cube ritual and all. The effort to establish the Ottoman Empire as a progressive, inclusive, educated, and wealthy place is palpable.

Unfortunately, The Promise falls short constantly. The focus of the film is what can only be described as a love square: one man is betrothed to a woman but he falls in love with a different woman who is already romantically involved with another man, but she also falls in love with that first man. On its own, this might be a decent movie, but this love square has been placed in the foreground of a genocide. The result is a bad love story (because the backdrop is too dark) and a bad historical drama (because the love story is more carefully developed than the history).
The flashes of the Armenian Genocide that we get are stark: labor camps, cattle trains full of people, violent killings, riots, executions, people on the run and trying to hide. They deserve a telling that does not hide them behind a petty romantic squabble. This is a story that is more than 100 years old and is still illegal to tell in Turkey. 1.5 million people were killed in five years. That story can be told without a love story.

Casting was poor. Oscar Isaac is a great actor, but why a man who is nearly 40 years old is playing a medical student who is betrothed to be married in two years is completely beyond me. He also does not look particularly Armenian. Neither does Charlotte Le Bon, who plays his romantic interest. Angela Sarafyan who, is both a phenomenal actress and an Armenian was cast in a lesser role. I would have liked to see her as the leading actress and a younger, more Armenian man in the place of Isaac.

I get the feeling that this set was not especially actor friendly, which is evident in a lot of lackluster performances. Christian Bale’s character (which should not exist, but that’s a rant about American centrism that we can save for another day) had many a stale outburst. Marwan Kenzari gave a consistently mediocre performance. Charlotte Le Bon seemed out of place in the 20th Century.

It is unfortunate that The Promise fails in its execution because the film explores many prescient themes:

In what ways might people respond to an atrocity? What compromises of our own character might we make when put in a difficult situation? How do we know what side of a story is the true one, both journalistically and personally? What sacrifices might we make for the sake of our families and our friends?

I can only hope that we’ll get the opportunity to explore those questions in a different movie. With any luck, it will be about the Armenian Genocide, because clearly we still haven’t found it in ourselves to tell that story in the way it deserves to be told.


hollyHolly P. is a twenty-something millennial who enjoys shouting at people on the internet, riding her bicycle, and overbooking her schedule. She prefers storytelling that has a point and comedy that isn’t mean. Her favorite movies are Aladdin, the Watchmen (even though the book was way better), and Hot Fuzz.  She’s seen every Lord of the Rings movie at least a dozen times.  You can follow her @tertiaryhep on twitter or @hollyhollyoxenfreee on Instagram. She’s also on Tinder, but if you find her there she’ll probably ghost on you because wtf is dating in the 21st century.


Have you seen ‘The Promise’? Well, what did you think?