★ 6 / 10
Perhaps the clue comes from the opening scene
CinemaSerf
Perhaps the clue comes from the opening scene where “Lee” (Will Poulter) is having the most perfunctory sex with his fiancée “Muriel” (Daisy Edgar-Jones). He…
Perhaps the clue comes from the opening scene where “Lee” (Will Poulter) is having the most perfunctory sex with his fiancée “Muriel” (Daisy Edgar-Jones). He wants to get married, but she’s giving off some fairly unconvinced vibes. Then she opens the window to see a shirtless man draped across the bonnet of their car. It must be -5° outside, but this is his brother “Julius” (Jacob Elordi) who has just returned from the war on furlough. Both are supposed to go back, but he has managed to wangle himself some discharge papers so it is only “Lee” who has to return to the army - and hopefully as a married man. Scoot on a bit in their lives and we discover that “Julius” isn’t really the most reliable of gents. He has promised to go into business with his brother in California but en route, this itinerant gambler, finds himself winning, then fleeced, then employed in a casino trying to spot other cheats. That’s when he meets “Henry” (Diego Calva) and the pair are soon cavorting about in their tiny whities. Meantime, “Muriel” and “Lee” are making a go of things in California, but she’s unfulfilled. She works in a diner where she picks up some racing tips. Next thing, she has $12k hidden behind the mirror in their new home near where she encounters the enigmatic, egg-selling, “Sandra” (Sasha Calle). Next thing, well it seems that “Julius” has a sort of kindred spirit. What chance happiness for any of them, especially the decent is slightly pedestrian “Lee”? It does shine something of a light on societal attitudes to homosexuality in 1950s America, but not in any way that we haven’t seen many times before. The sex scenes look even more choreographed than you might have expected, with the Elordi/Calva scenes suggesting neither had cleaned their teeth beforehand and the former having the bed-sheets surgically Velcro’d to his waist. The story between DEJ and Calle isn’t really any more compelling nor characterfully played out and at just shy of two hours, I felt a bit short-changed by a concept that looked good on the tin but that was really just some A-list froth. Maybe that’s what to take away from this. The cast are at or on their way to the top in Hollywood so to play parts like this can only add some strings to their bows, but I found these to be selfish and rather unlikeable individuals portrayed by actors who imbued their personas with little beyond their own good looks. Very disappointing stuff, sorry.
Read full review
★ 6 / 10
An Unusual Romantic Triangle in an Evocative Mid-Century Melodrama
EUyeshima
Languidly directed by Daniel Minahan, this 2025 period melodrama felt true to the tale's mid-century setting with a clear nod to the overripe 1950's epics of…
Languidly directed by Daniel Minahan, this 2025 period melodrama felt true to the tale's mid-century setting with a clear nod to the overripe 1950's epics of Douglas Sirk. Only Bryce Kass' screenplay doesn't rely on a conventional romantic triangle at its emotional core but rather the clandestine parallel paths taken by two of the principals in pursuing each of their same sex proclivities. The plot starts predictably enough with Muriel and Lee, a young couple struggling to start a new life after his service in the Korean War ends. However, things get complicated with the unexpected arrival of Lee's aimless brother Julius. As embodied by Jacob Elordi in his usual smoldering fashion, Julius is charismatic and elusive as he heads to Vegas and embarks on a forbidden affair with Henry, a fellow gay casino employee. Meanwhile, Muriel keeps her own secrets, becoming an avid gambler and having a tryst of her own with her lesbian neighbor Sandra. That all leaves Lee in an awkward in-between situation but with a resonant level of awareness. Daisy Edgar-Jones plays Muriel with welcome subtlety and a subliminal fierceness, while Will Poulter portrays Lee with palpable empathy. The pacing felt slow until the last third when Minahan took a more elliptical approach in addressing the various character fates. Luc Montpellier's lush cinematography was a significant plus.
Read full review
★ 5 / 10
Pretty Bad Movie
cinemapersonified
Rating - 5.4: Overall, a lackluster, Oscar-bait period drama that is about characters exploring their sexuality in a time when it's taboo, but the movie does…
Rating - 5.4:
Overall, a lackluster, Oscar-bait period drama that is about characters exploring their sexuality in a time when it's taboo, but the movie does so in a surface-level way that provides no nuance to the issue and gives you no material to really care about these characters.Direction - Pretty Bad:
The direction on a macroscale feels very similar to other period dramas like this; the direction on a microscale is pretty lackluster because the actors are giving emotion to material that has no substance or nuance; the storytelling is not good because the movie shallowly discusses the topic and doesn't really provide stakes that engage youStory - Bad to Pretty Bad:
The concept is very surface-level and provides no nuance to these characters exploring their sexuality; the horse-racing storyline is poorly incorporated into the plot; the plot structure follows two parallel stories that intersect at points in the story; the two storylines do not really do a good job exploring the relationships of the characters; character writing is bad because it presents these characters exploring their sexuality in such a surface-level way that provides no nuance to why this was taboo in the 1950s, especially for Edgar-Jones' characterScreenplay - Bad to Pretty Bad:
The dialogue provides no substance as it is bland and boring; the symbolism is incredibly surface level and provides no nuance to these characters exploring their sexuality, especially Edgar-Jones' character; the foreshadowing is presentActing - Pretty Bad:
Daisy Edgar-Jones - Pretty Bad (Gives a very surface-level performance; she doesn't really explore the character's sexuality at all and does not really have chemistry with any other characters; In a role that really depends on having good chemistry), Jacob Elordi - Decent (Gives a very surface-level performance; does an alright job exploring the character's sexuality, but it feels very forced and presents no nuance to the relationship's taboo; has alright chemistry with Calva, but very forced chemistry with Edgar-Jones), Will Poulter - Decent (Just a very standard, 1950s husband being cheated on, character; he does not really have chemistry with anyone), Diego Calva - Bad (Feels very forced and does not provide nuance to the character; it has very surface-level chemistry with Elordi), Sasha Calle - Decent to Pretty Good (Probably the best performance for the movie, which isn't saying a lot, because her character is somewhat believable and you can tell the struggle she's going through; she tries to build chemistry with Edgar-Jones, but it isn't reciprocated on the same level), Rest of the cast - Pretty Bad (Just a bunch of formulaic period drama performances)Score - Decent:
Helps set the toneCinematography - Pretty Good:
The movie is well-shot and feels polishedEditing - Pretty Good:
Feels polished and well-editedSound - Pretty GoodVisual Effects - Pretty Bad:
The fact that they had to CGI the horses shows what is wrong with Hollywood right nowPacing - Pacing is very slow because it doesn't feel like anything is happening; I would have liked to have seen them add more time to explore these parallel storylines and provide more depth, or just cut one of the storylines altogetherClimax - Climax is decent for how heartwarming it isTone - Tone feels like a typical period drama that's Oscar-bait;Final Notes - Saw the U. S. premiere at SXSW.
Read full review
53%
TOMATOMETER
· 131 reviews
70%
AUDIENCE
· 50 ratings
6.0/10
7.2K
•••
How can you say it's not GAY when you have men kissing and women making out? Are you daft??