Let me start by saying that Jacques Audiard is a filmmaker I respected enormously; "A Prophet" is one of my favorite movies of the century; and "Dheepan" is a beautiful refugee drama.

I say this to explain why I finally watched the unhinged musical "Emilia Pérez" after successfully avoiding it two Oscar seasons ago: I didn't follow the award circuit closely and never imagined Audiard was the name behind the film that got tons of Oscar nominations plus an entire country against it.

It wasn’t until yesterday, when "Emilia Perez" popped up on my screen, that I realized Audiard had directed it. So I pressed play, ready to prove the haters wrong. Well, of course they were right, and now I can see why Mexican viewers had such strong objections.

Audiard’s genre-blending mess of a movie displays cultural carelessness at best and inhumanity at worst. I got the impression that Audiard, as a filmmaker, thought he was creating a fantastical version of the country of Mexico, but this isn’t Oz. His dramatic material draws on the real suffering of real people whose lives he didn’t bother to understand.

The more I think about the plot, the more absurd Audiard’s decision to build an original movie musical around cartel violence and gender identity seems. I could perhaps respect the sheer boldness of it if the execution hadn’t been so crappy AND if Audiard had found a way around the film’s central moral problem: the extraordinary generosity it extends to the lead character.

Let me recap. Karla Sofía Gascón plays Manitas, a drug cartel boss whose greatest wish is to transition in secret while faking his own death to escape this extremely violent and macho background. A few years after transitioning, now living happily as a Emilia Pérez; she contacts the lawyer played by Zoe Saldaña, who aided her at the beginning, to go back home.

Anyway, with the softer heart Emilia now possesses, she decides to try to make amends to the cartels’ victims and establishes an organization to help locate missing people. The movie frames this as wonderful work, but in the context of the real-world Mexico, we are talking about a staggering scale of cartel violence—the victims aren’t just people involved in drug trafficking, but also children, women, ordinary citizens—and thousands of families searching for missing relatives or just waiting for their remains to be found.

And what’s being proposed here is that this fictional character who has VARIOUS real-life counterparts and would presumably have been responsible for hundreds (maybe thousands) of murders can suddenly escape her past and emerge happy, at peace with herself, with ALL the money accumulated through criminal activity—naturally, without answering for any of those crimes. The suggestion, then, is that this attempt at making amends is enough.

At a certain point, Emilia allows her more violent self to resurface. (The movie, which also drew criticism from trans viewers, seems to treat her former identity as Manitas as a kind of “split personality.”) This final eruption of violence results in a tragedy from which Emilia emerges—wait for it!—sanctified. No, I’m not speaking figuratively. And that was all, the movie was over.

What did I even see? I don’t even know how to wrap this up except, I guess, by apologizing for reminding everyone that this film exists, and for ignoring the warnings of those who encouraged me and the world that it was not worth it.

I didn’t get this at all. I’m aware it’s been considered a bit of a flop in terms of the box office but figured that was just poor marketing. The cast is fantastic and Inarritu is capable of being fantastic too. I’d carefully avoided reading anything about it, despite so many of you putting near-spoilers in the titles of threads. I was really ready to go in blind and enjoy this.

For the first 40 minutes or so it felt like more of the same ham-fisted, on-the-nose, SNL-style “satire” that we’ve seen so much of over the last few years. It was painful watching Sandra Huller and Riz Ahmed, who I absolutely adore, doing these awful accents and playing these (barely) one-dimensional characters. Tom Cruise delivered some of his lines in a very funny way but the whole premise felt incredibly stale and more like what a conservative might imagine of an idiot liberal’s idea of satire.

Then the first reveal happened and suddenly it made sense. That’s not the real film. They’re not going to make us watch this bullshit for the entire run-time…

It’s already tired and pointless trying to tear down the establishment with these sorts of caricatures. Inarritu isn’t simply trying to be Lanthimos or Ari Aster or Ruben Ostlund or even Wes Anderson, he’s mocking these clunky style-over-substance black comedies that imitate them and don’t go anywhere or have the balls to really make a statement.

And then we just continued to watch that same god-awful movie for the next 90 minutes anyway.

Occasionally we’d dip out of it and get some sort of equally clunky meta-commentary, a bit of Birdman, a bit of Charlie Kaufman, but mostly it was just watching Tom Cruise channeling Uncle Baby Billy from The Righteous Gemstones and John Goodman doing not-Trump with a sore arsehole.

I don’t get it. I felt like the film openly acknowledged this was all complete drivel - that’s what the big reveal was, yet we have to continue watching it anyway?

Digger questions the integrity, accuracy and writing of the project, but then Jessie Plemons fixes everything with a rousing speech (and another fun reveal!) and oh, Digger has a daughter by the way and she’s in peril, due to weather, but she’s okay now so that’s nice.

What was the point? “The establishment” are bad? Okay. Liberals mocking them and not focusing on the real problems are bad too? Yeah sure. The world is burning? Who is this aimed at?

Was it Jessie Plemons’ (who was also great) speech about the story being dumb and fun and OTT and that’s fine? Was that the point? That none of it matters and we should just enjoy being spoon fed bullshit like in The Menu? I watched the video about cinema being a bit broken by the endless analysis and need to decode the true message of film etc. but what else is there to this movie? You can’t beat people over the head with (what is normally) sub-text and then pull the “it’s not that deep” line.

I did see one thread title on here that the film wants to have its cake and eat it too. I assume that’s what this was referring to but I’ve avoided reading any other opinions.

Why were the obnoxious music and quirky cinematography so prominent if they weren’t expected to be enjoyed in earnest? At a point it felt like Inarritu jabbing at other filmmakers, but I don’t believe that would be the intention. Why was this such a feature? Because it’s easy to churn this stuff out now, that it’s easy to imitate something that was previously quite original? We've certainly seen many of his techniques from Birdman (which I loved) absolutely flogged to death, often with no tie-in to the core of the material, in the last 10 years or so.

What am I missing? Did people sincerely enjoy the way the ‘play’ within the film was put together? There were isolated moments of entertainment in there, some good performances and some very inventive visuals at least.

I don’t want to shit on the film unnecessarily. I’d like to understand what he was trying to do or if I missed something fundamental to other people enjoying it. As ever, I find a film that is almost good much more frustrating than one with nothing to offer at all. I could understand Inarritu pointing the finger at all of the above and saying it’s a load of shite, but then don’t ask us to suffer through it for over 2 hours. To me, it feels like this should have been a 15 minute SNL sketch.

I have just watched Bones and All and I fell in love with this movie. I am very impressed by the range of Luca Guadagnino as a director. He has a gift for telling horrific stories in a gentle and beautiful way.

While watching the film I thought "This is a coming off age story!". Bones and All is a shocking film. I was disgusted and moved at the same time. But the gruesome subject matter is told with so much gentleness and beauty. It made me reflect on society and my own struggles as a young adult.

I want to emphasize that Mark Rylance is giving one of the most creepy and mesmerizing performances that I can think of. There are only 3 big scenes with him, but each is hypnotic and tense, culminating is the creepiest drop of saliva in movie history. But it would be a shame not to mention Michael Stuhlbarg, who also has an incredibly scary scene at the campfire. A scene that lends the film its title.

Many people seem to believe that the cannibalism is a metaphor for addiction. I was rather seeing some criticisms of modern capitalistic societies. A system that forces people to play by the (exploitative) rules of capitalism, which has to grow and be fed constantly to function. A system that "eats" a large amount of its people, the poor and unfortunate. But that might quite well be a false interpretation. What seems to be clear though is, that the cannibalism stands for growing older and accepting (or not!) the compromises of the real world. I myself kept thinking of my own life, how I had dreams that I could never fulfill. "We have to do it" Lee says. Like I had to come to terms with life, find a job, earn some money and play by the rules - giving up some of my own freedom. "eating" some of my own dreams and desires. Lee and Maren decide to try to live like normal people. Shedding those desires (hunger, greed) and only do, what makes them happy and be free.

And there comes Sully, deformed and twisted by all the hunger and loneliness he had to endure. He knows how to survive - but not how to form a meaningful relationship.

"Friends call me Sully". And he is the only person calling himself Sully, speaking of himself in third person, because nobody else does. He is his own and only friend. His feelings get mixed up with his hunger in the end. Eating somebody (especially an eater) you love seems to be the highest spiritual sensation an eater can have. And I do think that Stuhlbarg and Brad were planning on eating Lee and Maren - Bones and All.

And I do think that her mother had the same uncontrollable urge to eat Maren. Again, the confusion of love and hunger. "A world free of monsters". Her mother saw herself as a monster, not because she was an eater, but because she knew she was gonna eat Maren, if she doesn't disappear.

Before I conclude, I want to also praise the music by Reznor and Ross. The intensity of the scene where Maren finds out the secret of Sully in the old ladies home is also a result of the hypnotic percussion that supports the acting - again, masterfully played by Rylence.

Even days after I have watched this film, i still can't get it out of my head.

"Beautiful, beautiful brown eyes..."

I remember this film being a real event. Based on a bestseller, Fincher directing, Affleck’s renaissance and a starring role for the mysterious Rosamund Pike.

And it didn’t disappoint. It felt like a truly high-end thriller. Clever, witty, dark, daring and with multiple twists and turns.

It’s 2.5 hours but feels like half that with the great pacing. I love that early scene when Det Rhonda Boney and her assistant are examining the house and asking Nick various questions. The police work is very satisfying and just how much do they suspect Nick? How much do [i]we[/i] suspect him? The film keeps your imagination so alive the whole time.

New awesome characters keep popping up - Tyler Perry as the ace lawyer, Sela Ward as the sympathetic talk-show host, Ratajkowksi as the student with the huge naturals, Doogie Howser as the creepy ex with a very memorable… fate. The guy who plays Amy’s previous victim is wonderfully sad and sympathetic. The gross trailer-trash couple who try to steal from Amy. Everyone nails their role.

The whole mood is delicious - Fincher’s sleek visuals and Reznor & Ross’ dreamy score combine to create a kind of perfect hell. You get totally lost in the film’s sexy macabre universe.

When was the last time you saw a top class Hollywood thriller with big stars and a decent budget. For me that was twelve years ago with Gone Girl.

I don’t understand why Fincher has been relegated to Netflix. He’s one of our greatest living directors and he should surely be cranking out more of these great thrillers - they’re awesome, everyone loves them, and they make bank 🤷🏻‍♂️

I did not love the movie when it came out but I still really respect its craft. But I do think it’s one of those movies that work better in your mind as a concept than as a movie. Though in the future when people aren’t really as familiar with the Backrooms then the movie could be mindblowing. The acting is all well done, I don’t like the writing but I think it can work in it’s favor for cult class.