BETWEEN TWO FERNS: THE MOVIE (2019)

Zach Galifianakis hits the road to do celebrity interviews to restore his reputation.

Between Two Ferns: The Movie is basically a series of excerpts from celebrity interviews, linked together by a formulaic road trip story.  It literally follows the same story beats of every other road trip movie made, with no attempts to liven it up at all, because that isn't the focus of the film. All the road trip storyline is tasked with achieving, is carrying our characters from one interview to the next. To that extent, it does as advertised.

Two Ferns is a story of two parts, with the interview and road trip elements both being done vastly different in terms of cinematography, music and tone. The interviews have the usual zero background noise or ambience, combined with a purposefully antagonising, dry and sarcastic sense of humour. The road trip, on the other hand, is lively, colourful, accentuated with frequent musical pieces and over-the-top acting performances, but is far less memorable, with a lower success rate on the humour side of things.

There are a huge number of high-profile cameo performances involved, from David Letterman, John Legend, Matthew McConaughey, and Keanu Reeves, to Brie Larsen, Paul Rudd, Tessa Thompson, Bemused Kibblesnatch, and Peter Dinklage. You would be forgiven for thinking that this entire mockumentary was filmed on the set of Avengers: Infinity War and Endgame with the amount of Marvel MCU actors involved. As would be expected, the interviews for the most titillating portions of the total product, with a great mix of dry wit, offensive questions, and deadpan reactions from the actors in question. It should be noted that there are outtakes shown in the credits that (in this humble reviewers' opinion) were funnier than what was shown in the film. Something about the more organic and authentic reactions and the to-and-fro between them and Galifianakis having a greater appeal.

In all honesty, the only real appeal of the film comes from the interviews, and many of the full interviews that are partially shown here are available on YouTube. The narrative that surrounds these interviews is far less engaging. It telegraphs its intentions in the dialogue that lacks any sense of subtlety, which means there is no sense of surprise when characters act a certain way later in the film. The over-explained plot points remove any mystery and reduce the impact of the payoff. 

Between Two Ferns: The Movie is self-aware, and some of the comedic elements that revolve around that do work well. It is very aware of what the appeal of the show is, and it uses it in the most hamfisted way possible. It gets the laughs, but it does struggle to maintain that level of mirth throughout the 82-minute runtime. The whole story is of no real consequence and offers nothing to analyse or think about. I'd recommend looking for the full interviews on YouTube; it's a better use of your time.

IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON (2019)

In 1988, a police officer is hungry to become a detective and begins tracking a serial killer who resurfaces every nine years. But when the killer's crimes defy all scientific explanation, the officer's obsession threatens to destroy everything.

There are a few familiar faces in this cast list; Michael C. Hall (Dexter), Bokeem Woodbine (Fargo and Black Dynamite), and Boyd Holbrook (Logan and Narcos), all with reasonable experience in relation to action and crime dramas. While the quality of the cast is rather impressive, the end-product is no better off because of it. In fact, these familiar faces tend to take your focus away from the story occurring on-screen, giving the audience a false sense of expectation around the actor's roles.

There is still a lot to like about In The Shadow Of The Moon. The opening twenty minutes of the film throws the audience right into the thick of the action, with a surprisingly high-paced and bloody sequence that hooks you in with a few niggling unanswered questions. The excitement of those opening scenes was an absolute thrill, and if that content was what made up the majority of the film, it would no doubt be a winner. Instead, the film peaked at the beginning and--while engagement didn't drop too significantly--it wasn't able to match the intensity of those early scenes.

There has been a bit of a mixed response around the film so far, and a lot of it comes down to expectations and the focus on the film. The film involves a crime spree that occurs every nine years. The film doesn't actually spend a lot of time on the criminal investigation aspect of the story, instead, focusing on the personal emotional impact it has had on our protagonist due to his obsessive tendencies. This creates a much slower pace, and more emotional tone to the film, which requires you to be fully on the protagonist's side to remain invested in the story (especially as the time jumps can lead to the film being a little repetitive).

Overall, the film is quite well-grounded. While intriguing, the sci-fi aspects of the story are one of the big polarizing elements, as the progressively increasing presence builds to such a level that the concluding payoff--while present--doesn't match to an extent that it feels satisfying. The ending is rushed and--timeline questions aside--not enough time was spent on the reveal.

In The Shadow Of The Moon is in the same vein of Minority Report, Terminator, Looper, and 12 Monkeys, but lacked sufficient world-building to make this story memorable. There are some great scenes, with some shocking twists and turns, but it doesn't spend enough time on the consequences and moral implications to make the film standout. Still, there is enough originality in the premise to keep your interest throughout the 115-minute runtime.

TALL GIRL (2019)

When the tallest girl in high school falls for a handsome foreign exchange student, she becomes embroiled in a surprising love triangle and realizes she's far more than her insecurities about her height have led her to believe.

Tall Girl...what is there really to say about this film. It honestly has a really good idea for a premise. There is always something heartwarming about the idea of an anti-bullying stance, standing up against the oppressors. What this really is, however, is a half-baked idea, that never really manages to meet expectations.

The main issue with this film is its definition of bullying. We have a young woman who claims to be bullied. What we as the audience see, is a number of people simply asking "how is the weather up there?". Annoying yes, but bullying? I wouldn't go that far. There are a couple of instances further into the film that could constitute more elaborate bullying, but it was brought on by other elements, not by her being tall. 

It claims that our main protagonist being tall is an issue worth being bullied about, but she is a rather gorgeous young woman; blonde, with blue eyes, and perfect skin. She has the look of a character from a teen movie (just waiting for her to take off her glasses and let her hair down). She is attractive in the ways that a supermodel is attractive, and it really reduces the impact of any argument that her sister and mother may have at any point in time in the film. 

You could look perhaps look outside the obvious, and consider it a metaphor for general aspects that are bullied about (the idea that you are so ingrained about a certain "flaw" that you are unable to see your positive attributes), but the film is so ham-fisted, that there is no room for super deep metaphors. It is unfortunate because this whole idea of looking at how she reacts to this attention to an aspect that she dislikes, and her parents attempt to "fix" it, is the most engaging aspect of the film.

Because Tall Girl goes after the generic teen romance direction. It's annoying how cliché the film becomes. Despite an attempt to subvert expectations by developing the love interest in the film, and spending time with that character, no one but the main protagonist manages to get any significant screentime. Her sister, her best friends, they all get left to the wayside, in order to make room for this love interest story that has no strength behind it.

Tall Girl could have been something more, but it went down the generic paths, to do the generic things.  Cinematography and the soundtrack are nothing exceptional. Nothing stands out at all, and once the film concludes you wonder why you bothered giving it a go. 

GOOD BOYS (2019)

Invited to his first kissing party, 12-year-old Max asks his best friends Lucas and Thor for some much-needed help on how to pucker up. When they hit a dead-end, Max decides to use his father's drone to spy on the teenage girls next door. When the boys lose the drone, they skip school and hatch a plan to retrieve it before Max's dad can figure out what happened.

You don't need a reviewer to see from the trailers that Good Boys is a bit like watching a live-action South Park, or a prequel to Superbad. The entire humour of the film revolves around the inconsistent knowledge gaps that these tweens have regarding more mature topics. Where Superbad had protagonists trying to get laid, Good Boys has that younger age range trying to get that first kiss. It's the absurdity of the premise that really helps bring the humour to the table; the fact that it's a coming-of-age story about sixth-graders starting middle school (that 11-12 age range that translates to Year 7, or starting intermediate in New Zealand), but that age range is unable to watch the film (luckily it's only R13 in NZ). 

The entire film revolves around one boy wanting to achieve his first kiss with a girl he likes, but not knowing how to kiss. It's such a basic premise, and yet the situation devolves very quickly from innocent naivety to over-the-top raunchiness. To the credit of the script, an effort has been made to keep as much of the humour related to that want of a physical connection. Watching three young boys blissful ignorance around the details of feminine hygiene products, toys, dolls, and other accessories creates a good amount of laughs from the audience. The humour is hit-and-miss though; and while it works well when it hits, when it misses, the silence in the theatre is cringe-worthy. 

Our three main protagonists work really well together and put forth three distinct personality types. You have Max, the charmer, who is interested in girls (portrayed by Jacob Tremblay), Lucas, the rule-following, lawful good boy (portrayed by Keith L. Williams), and Thor, the one that talks a big game, and will do anything to fit in (portrayed by Brady Noon). Their different personalities create a good level of humour, as well as forming a source of conflict. 

Each of the three protagonists has their own story arc, which leads to one of the negative aspects of the film; the third act. As the film progresses, events transpire and accelerate, culminating in a great, albeit excessive, frat house scene. Unfortunately, the rest of the film goes downhill as everything takes a serious turn and all three character arcs are forced through to fruition, no matter how it affects the pacing. It's as if the writers--Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky--had no idea how to organically bring the story to a satisfying end, and after finishing the film, tacked on another end to fix it, then tacked on a third one to pad the runtime further...  

From about halfway through the 90-minute runtime, the film does introduce a theme of accepting the dynamic nature of friendships as one changes through life experiences. Again though, the majority of this is crammed into the tail end of the film. 

Altogether, Good Boys manages to put forward a good balance between story and comedy, with much of the successful execution coming from the performances coming from Tremblay, Williams, and Noon. There is the topic of consent, that is stressed almost too much, despite how inconsistent it was with the boys' knowledge level, but I guess that is a sign of the times where the film must place emphasis on such an issue to prevent backlash.

Good Boys is quirky, unadulterated fun. Even with such a basic premise and a sloppy third act, there are more than enough laughs to warrant checking this one out.

AD ASTRA (2019)

A man journeys across a lawless solar system to find his missing father -- a renegade scientist who poses a threat to humanity.

Since 20th Century Fox merged with Disney, the remaining titles that Fox had ready for release have come out with less than brilliant critic scores. X-Men: Dark Phoenix was widely panned, and Stuber was not received well (I still stand by my review that Stuber was a fun and highly enjoyable flick). Ad Astra is the latest film to add to that list of releases, but does it break the trend of poorly reviewed flicks to end 20th Century Fox's run? Actually, it does quite well.

What is immediately apparent is that Ad Astra is visually breath-taking. With gorgeous shots and overall spectacularly framed cinematography from Hoyte van Hoytema (best known for his work with Christopher Nolan on Interstellar and Dunkirk), Ad Astra manages to build convincing near-future worlds, with environments on Earth, The Moon, Mars, and beyond, all dressed in their own unique styles. The claustrophobic nature of underground bunkers, the cold, limitless expanse of space, or the black unknown of underwater caverns, each scene feels real.

The film is an absolute slow burn, however, and anyone wishing to see the film needs to be aware of this beforehand. This is no Gravity or Interstellar, Ad Astra is a combination of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey and Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now. With minimal dialogue from our main protagonist (portrayed by Brad Pitt), instead, making use of voiceover narration, and procedural processes to provide exposition and emotional explanations in the face of a character that has the range of facial expressions equal to that of a brick wall.

The whole film is not such a slow-paced film. Nearly every leg of the journey is interrupted by an out-of-place action scene. Out-of-place in such a manner that it feels as if the scenes come from a completely different style of movie. Scenes that also have no bearing on the remainder of the film and are most likely addendums added to each act in order to try and make the film appeal to a more mainstream audience. These scenes are well-shot and exciting to watch, but their inconsequential nature and lack of tonal consistency do reduce the impact of those scenes.

It is the deliberately measured pace of the remainder of the film that sets it apart from other space flicks. With a much stronger focus on the procedural aspects of space travel, the audience is treated to a much more realistic interpretation of life as an astronaut, with constant psychological tests, issues from zero gravity on the structure of the body, the use of feeding tubes, and a lot of political and bureaucratic hoops to go through to get anything done. Almost peaceful in its emphasis on the less desirable aspects of space travel. 

While the style of the film makes it stand out compared to other modern releases, the story covers nothing new. A shiny-looking skin, but still a recycled plot that we have all seen before. For a film that seems to want to be an intellectual, contemplative piece, it fails to go deeper into any of the psychological elements that pop up during the films 123-minute runtime. 

Still, this was quite an enjoyable film. Brad Pitt pulls off a Ryan Gosling-esque performance with similarities to the portrayals of Neil Armstrong and K from First Man and Blade Runner 2049 (respectively). Tommy Lee Jones is Tommy Lee Jones; that gruff, stubborn man that looks far too close to death for comfort. Ad Astra pulls off a slow burn, that despite the inconsistent tone and unoriginal plot beats, keeps you thoroughly engaged from start to finish.

ABOMINABLE (2019)

After discovering a Yeti on the roof of her apartment building, teenage Yi and her two friends embark on an epic quest to reunite the magical creature with his family. But to do so, they must stay one step ahead of a wealthy financier and a determined zoologist who want to capture the beast for their own gain.

Abominable is created by DreamWorks and Pearl studios, making this an American and Chinese collaboration. Where the use of Chinese characters and locations is generally seen as pandering to Chinese audiences to try and boost box office numbers, a collaboration with a Chinese animation studio actually gives the film a sense of credibility, in sharing some aspects of Chinese culture and geography. 

It goes without saying that the animation is beautiful. The rendering of the fur on our Yeti, Everest, is not overly detailed, but it looks incredibly lush and warm. Combine that with its pristine white colour and you have the perfect character to be adapted into a plushie nice and early before the Christmas rush. The film does lack some of the more elaborate set and character designs that you would expect from a Pixar film, but there is enough complexity and colour in the palette to keep the film visually interesting throughout. 

The colour schemes are quite eye-catching, with each location having its own colour palette (there are actually some similarities with the other Yeti animated film to come out this year The Missing Link), progressively getting more and more natural and clean as the protagonists move further and further away from the city environment. 

Despite some aesthetic similarities in character design, the target audience is noticeably younger than the audience for DreamWorks How To Train Your Dragon franchise, with a much simpler story that focuses on basic themes such as the importance of reconnecting with and supporting family, and the idea of appreciating the beauty of nature without owning or profiting from it. A straightforward story, with few character development moments.

The characters were rather one-dimensional but worked well for their roles in this 97-minute film, creating a good balance of positive and negative energy. The voice acting was perfectly fine from big names like Sarah Paulson, Chloe Bennet, and Eddie Izzard, with Paulson perhaps having the greatest impact. Something that made the film stand out, was the complete lack of vocal singing. Instead, focusing on the learning of a traditional orchestral instrument, the violin. A great choice with some very nice pieces of score that brought a lot of energy to the scenes, and complemented Everests deeply resonating rumblings. 

There is a lot to like about the film. While there isn't anything in the way of mature humour to keep the parents overly excited, there is more than enough to keep the children happy. Nice comedic moments together with some visually appealing set environments, some organic character growth, and a nice moral to the story. There is no super deep story here (it certainly doesn't have the emotional impact that an early Pixar film does), but it is inoffensive, cute, fun, with some good music.

UGLYDOLLS (2019)

In the adorably different town of Uglyville, weirdness is celebrated, strangeness is special and beauty is embraced as more than meets the eye. After travelling to the other side of a mountain, Moxy and her UglyDoll friends discover Perfection -- a town where more conventional dolls receive training before entering the real world to find the love of a child. Soon, the UglyDolls learn what it means to be different -- ultimately realizing that they don't have to be perfect to be amazing.

Kelly Clarkson, Nick Jonas, Janelle Monáe, Blake Shelton, Pitbull, Wang Leehom, Ice-T, Bebe Rexha, Charli XCX, and Lizzo. While it looks like a cat may have walked across my keyboard, alas no, these are the members of the cast list that are singers/songwriters. From this cast list alone, there is no doubt that this movie is much less a movie and more of a musical (or an 87-minute long advertisement for a soundtrack). 

By and large, this is actually an enjoyable film. UglyDolls has some really nice animation with good rendering on the suede/felt textures of these dolls in Uglyville. The entirety of Uglyville is well designed. Composed of many odd shapes and designs, with bright colours (not too over-the-top in saturation, but just brighter than pastel colours). It creates a nice optimistic, yet soothing environment; something that is mirrored by the positivity of our main protagonist Moxy.

Moxy is driven by her need to feel the love of a child, something that seems heavily influenced by Pixar's Toy Story. In fact, there are several elements that feel like they have been copied from Toy Story 2 and 3. As such, there is little that is original about UglyDolls beyond the songs (which themselves are rather generic). 

The songs are good, but they are overdone. They have a power and weight to them that is so in-your-face that it takes the focus away from the story, often removing the characters from the movie to sing in a fabricated music video, before returning them to the plot. When in the first 15 minutes, you already have three songs, you start to see these aren't songs being used to advance the plot, it is the story being used to bridge the songs. The latter being far less engaging. With an 87-minute runtime and a soundtrack length of 46 minutes, UglyDolls is half-song, half-plot.

UglyDolls has a theme around body positivity and being proud of your differences, which initially was impressive to have a message pushed with strength. The film then switches tack and for most of the remaining runtime, it spends song after song calling people ugly and pointing out how they will not be loved id they wear glasses, have crooked teeth, pimples, or different body shape. It's shocking to have a nice message undermined turned into something so poorly executed, that you have now given bullies a number of song and dance numbers they can use to make fun of their classmates. 

Here are a few of the lyrics from The Ugly Truth sung by Nick Jonas:

You're much too short (Too short)

You're way too thin (Too thin)

Is that a blemish on your double chin? (Oh man)

Don't ever walk a runway (No)

Or man a kissing booth (Mwah)

You're U-G-L-Y (Ugly)

And that's the ugly truth

You ugly, ah ah, you ugly

You ugly, ah ah, you ugly 

The animation team did a great job creating the environments, with a stark contrast between the odd but lovely, curvy, and colourful Uglyville, and the white, sterile, monotonous, straight-edged Institute of Perfection. The lighting shows how much effort was put in with backlighting really showing off the detail in the textures. There is no mature humour to keep the adults happy, but it is still entirely watchable. 

UglyDolls is the same story we have seen many times and it replicates Pixar's films quite well, but it doesn't have that strong emotional attachment that Pixar has. Still, the pacing, colours, and songs are enough that the young ones will love it!

MAIDEN (2018)

MAIDEN is the outstanding true story of the first all-female crew in the hazardous Round the World Ocean Race. Despite the media writing them off as a ‘tin full of tarts’, and no sponsors wanting to fund them, their incredible journey won over hearts and minds.

Maiden is one of those documentaries that can be difficult to get into, but by the end, you are gripping your seat in suspense and anticipation. 

A little all over the place in narrative direction, director Alex Holmes can't decide whether the documentary is focusing on the life of Tracy Edwards, or the 1989-1990 Whitbread Round the World Race. Of course, both are intrinsically linked, but the documentary starts with a fair bit of Tracy's family history that has very little relevance to the race itself and feels like it serves the function of filler to ensure the documentary is able to be "feature-length". 

It does give the documentary a very slow meandering start, that was a struggle to get invested in. Once we got to the point where she starts sailing, things start to get interesting, not only because we are moving into the main purpose of the documentary, but as you listen to the women narrating and recollecting the experience in the interviews, you can feel the excitement and passion in their voices, and it hooks you in. You may have to suffer for the initial 20 minutes, but it is more than worthwhile.

Inequality is a controversial topic, with many in disagreement as to whether it still exists or not. While there have been dramatic recreations of important moments in gender equality, there are not many that are captured on film, which makes Maiden all the more important. There is nothing more frustrating than watching someone who has a passion for something, being shut out. And there is nothing more invigorating than watching that person overcome those obstacles. Maiden is eye-opening to the difficulties that many have (and still) face. It's a visual historical record of how sexism existed; it's undeniable, it's in-your-face, and it presents one of the best underdog stories to come out in recent years.

It's eye-opening not because the men wanted to keep the Whitbread Round the World Race as a men-only sport. Literally, nobody thought they would survive the first leg of the race. Women were thought to be at such a physical and mental disadvantage compared to men that it was their misconceptions about safety that was driving the sexist behaviour. Despite its heavy sexist themes, Maiden is not a feminist men-hating tirade. It's a 9-month long event that changed perceptions at a global scale.

You can forgive the low-quality footage shot on a 9-month voyage at sea in all kinds of weather conditions. They are more than made up for by the interviews with members of the media and Maiden team that are interwoven amongst the footage. It is quite well edited once we get to the actual racing, building a lot of tension and suspense.

Also, on a side note, as I didn't actually know the race existed before watching this documentary, I was surprised to learn that Auckland was one of the four destinations that the boats stopped at, with favourites to win being the kiwi boats 'Fisher & Paykel NZ' and 'Steinlager 2' skippered by who else but Grant Dalton and (Sir to-be) Peter Blake respectively). It's always exciting to see New Zealand well-represented in the sporting world.

Maiden initially struggles to get the wind in her sails, but once she does, this documentary manages to put together an incredibly thrilling piece of cinema. A must-see.

Maiden is in cinemas on Thursday September 26, 2019

DRUNK PARENTS (2019)

After one too many drinks, two parents come up with an elaborate plan to hide their ever-increasing financial difficulties from their daughter and judgemental social circle.

It is increasingly apparent why I was not aware of this film until months after its theatrical and physical releases. Drunk Parents is a bad film, simple as that. This 97-minute film has an incoherent plot, with the lowest-value comedy, and I really cannot fathom why it exists. 

The only appeal to the film is in its cast. Alec Baldwin and Salma Hayek are our two main characters (I would struggle to justify calling them protagonists in this case), with Jim Gaffigan and Joe Manganiello in supporting roles. Even Will Ferrell manages to make a cameo, so you can't help but think that director Fred Wolf must have a lot of friends to keep getting these cheap comedy flicks made somehow (The House Bunny and Joe Dirt 2:Beautiful Loser are in his filmography).

The film has three main issues; the plot, the characters, and the comedy. The plot is incredibly thin. It spends no time trying to set up the story because there isn't one. Simply put, these parents like to drink, and need money to pay for tuition. There is no effort put into delving into the backstory of the characters, and worst of all is that Hayek and Baldwin's roles in the film are purely reactionary; they do not act in a way that drives the narrative, they are acted on by the environment and simply react to it. It is the simplest form of screenplay writing, and the least interesting to watch.

The characters themselves are caricatures, where most of their character development come from their attire and dialogue, rather than their behaviour, which created boring, predictable characters. While our main characters are more subtle in appearance, their over-the-top demeanour and general poor decision-making make them unlikeable in the eyes of the audience. When you don't know the direction of the film, and you don't care about the characters, there is little to make the audience want to watch the remainder of the film.

Lastly, the comedy is full of first draft-style comedy. When coming up with a scenario, your first thought is generally the most obvious one, and that makes it the more common option that has been overdone and will be less likely to be a successful source of comedy. With an over-reliance of low-brow humour and physical, slapstick comedy, there is no effort to create something smart. I would equate the humour in this film to that of Will Ferrel and John C. Reilly's Holmes & Watson. If you enjoyed that film, you may find this enjoyable.

The cinematography was uninspired, the score and soundtrack were not memorable enough to be able to discuss, the only good thing about the film was the acting. Alec Baldwin did his best, pulling off an almost 30 Rock-esque performance. Salma Hayek had a lot of energy in her performance, but the script did nothing for these actors. Drunk Parents is like a live adaptation of a recent Family Guy script; you know exactly what they were aiming for with their humour, and the story has so many unnecessary, and unrelated tangents, but in the end, zero laughs were had.

It's not funny. It's sad.

MIDSOMMAR (2019)

With their relationship in trouble, a young American couple travel to a fabled Swedish midsummer festival where a seemingly pastoral paradise transforms into a sinister, dread-soaked nightmare as the locals reveal their terrifying agenda.

Midsommar is the latest release to be written and directed by Ari Aster, who had previously created the polarizing thriller, Hereditary. While both films have the similarity of a grief-based plot device, the two films could not be any more different. 

Unlike Hereditary's dark and dreary colour grading, Midsommar goes for the polar opposite, purposefully overexposing the shots, generating a blown-out, almost ethereal setting, with a myriad of white tunics, among the natural greens and colour, and the cloudless, single shade of blue sky. Another core difference between the two films is the pacing; despite Midsommar chalking in a mere ten minutes longer (approximately 140 minutes) than Hereditary, it feels significantly longer.

Much like was the case in It: Chapter Two, if you are not prepared to enjoy a long viewing (perhaps tired, sick, or having plans directly after the film), then you will find the long scenes laborious. However, while the scenes are drawn out, it adds to the atmosphere of the film. This film does contain some shocking and violently graphic scenes, and the pacing of Midsommar really allows the audience to sit and dwell on them. This is not a fast-paced horror that wants to throw jump scares at you every couple of minutes with a harsh soundtrack. Instead, you will find that Aster wants you to think about the details of the scene, the rituals and meaning behind the events. The sense of tradition that makes the ceremonies almost unceremonious as the shocking nature of them is "normal".

It is this difference in culture that brings the film to life. The most intriguing aspects are the behind-the-scenes reasons why things are the way that they are. Not necessarily what quality makes a prophet, but how the presence of those qualities is ensured. Stark differences in privacy, values, life goals, rites-of-passage, all lead to a healthy amount of natural comedy in an otherwise unnerving and unsettling situation.

Midsommar aims not to horrify you, it aims to make you feel uneasy. While the opening sequence will leave quite an emotional impact on the audience, there is nothing inherently "shocking" for nearly an hour. Everything is slow, measured, methodical, and it is something that is mirrored in the skilful cinematography; every shot and sequence holds details. In an interesting directing choice, there is more focus on the cinematography than on the actual narrative. Flipping things upside down, specific framing and selective focus that makes the audience feel like another character in the film, the use of mirrors to allow an expanded view of characters off-screen, the staging of shots is exceptionally intriguing and a thrill to watch.

This focus on the visual side includes some well-designed effects, from "breathing" flowers, to pupil dilation, and the distortion of scenes to replicate that feeling of tripping on psilocybin (magic mushrooms). There is so much to take in on a visual standpoint, that it does mean the film has a rather weak narrative. More like a Final Destination film, with the exception of the main protagonist Dani (portrayed by Florence Pugh), the characters have little development, without any real goals, and don't have any significant effect on the story. Instead, they have a role similar to that of "meat for the grinder", which has little to really draw in the audience emotionally. 

Midsommar is a visually stimulating look into ritualistic pagan communities. Grief is used more as a plot device than a consistent theme, focusing more on creating a dark psychological break-up film. Again, this is not a fast-paced horror. This is unsettling, mesmerising, and perversely funny. This is Midsommar.