“Regretting You” - Took the words right out of my mouth.

Regretting You is now the second Colleen Hoover novel adaptation I’ve seen, after last year’s It Ends With Us. I hope there isn’t a third adaptation because neither of these movies were what one might describe as “good” or “entertaining” or “worth it.” And like with It Ends With Us, I did not take anyone with me to Regretting You because it’s far funnier to be one of four men in a theater packed with women, watching a movie best described as what if the Lifetime Channel got drunk and fell down the stairs?

By the way, I knew what I was getting into when I RSVP’d for the screening of Regretting You. Not the story itself - I don’t hate myself enough to read a Hoover novel on purpose. But I read the synopsis blurb and saw the movie poster and figured I apparently do hate myself enough to spend two hours in a theater watching another Hoover adaptation.

Hey, all you Hoover fans - are all of her books as depressing as It Ends With Us and Regretting You? Do all of her books include a lost teenage romance, domestic abuse, infidelity, melodramatic happy endings that are only possible after worst-case scenarios, or all of the above? Is this why you drink so much wine in your book clubs?

If it sounds like my cynicism meter is in the red, you are correct. It’s been in the red since roughly five minutes into watching Regretting You. The film starts with high-school aged Morgan (Allison Williams), Jonah (Dave Franco), Chris (Scott Eastwood), and Jenny (Willa Fitzgerald) at a party. Morgan and Chris are a couple, Jonah and Jenny are a couple, Morgan and Jenny are sisters, and all of them are friends. This party scene only lasts a couple of minutes, but it’s painfully obvious that Morgan and Jonah love each other (but do nothing about it) and Chris and Jenny are definitely cheating on Morgan and Jonah with each other. And the scene ends with Morgan telling Jonah she’s pregnant.

Seventeen years later, Morgan and Chris are married with their now seventeen-year-old daughter Clara (Mckenna Grace). Jonah and Jenny have recently reunited and have a new baby themselves. While celebrating Morgan’s birthday, Morgan casually remarks how the baby looks exactly like Clara when Clara was a baby. Got it...the baby is the result of Chris still cheating on Morgan with Jenny (Jonah and Morgan don’t figure this out until much later in the film). That sound you hear is the Lifetime Channel doing a keg stand.

The next day, Morgan and Jonah are independently summoned to the hospital, surprised to find each other there, then told that Chris and Jenny were killed in a car accident. Jonah quickly realizes Chris and Jenny were having an affair and Morgan demands Jonah keep it a secret from Clara. To add to the drama, Clara blames herself for the accident because she thinks Jenny was texting and driving while texting with Clara. Oh, and their conversation revolved around Clara liking a boy named Miller (Mason Thames) and Jenny warning Clara not to be the other woman. That sound you hear is the Lifetime Channel hitting the banister at the bottom of the stairs.

Now that Jenny and Chris are out of the picture, it’s only a matter of time before Morgan and Jonah confess their lost love for each other. And it’s only a matter of time before Clara finds out about Chris and Jenny’s affair. And it’s only a matter of time before Clara and Miller bone because they’re seventeen. Nothing in this movie is the least bit surprising and now the Lifetime Channel is now lying unconscious in a pool of its own vomit.

The story isn’t the only thing that made this movie a terrible watch. The acting ranges from a solid Grace, to a very uneven and uncommitted Williams, to mostly literal jaw-clenching from Thames, to a wildly miscast deer-in-headlights Franco. And shoutouts to Eastwood, Fitzgerald, the criminally underutilized Clancy Brown (as Miller’s grandpa), and the criminally overused Sam Morelos (as Clara’s friend) for collecting a paycheck by appearing in this dreck.

On top of that, the tone of the film is all over the place. There’s practically zero consideration of the affair beyond it being a convenient excuse for Morgan and Jenny to barely care that their significant others are dead. Just kick a car a few times, throw a few eggs at an ugly painting, abandon a baby for a couple days, and kick a hole in an annoying door and everything will be right as rain. Even Clara barely grieves for her dead relatives before moving on to a bunch of AMC branded movie dates with Miller. It’s like the movie knows emotions are a thing that exists but has never actually felt any of them.

The moral of the story - mine, not the movie’s - is don’t take a date to see this movie. Or any Hoover film adaptation. And probably don’t read another Hoover book. But do please help the Lifetime Channel get home. They don’t look good.

Rating: Ask for all of your money back and another glass of wine.

“Good Fortune” - How do angels get their wings?

Good Fortune, a movie featuring Aziz Ansari and Seth Rogen - and Keanu Reeves as an inept angel - seemed like exactly the kind of movie I was craving. Something light-hearted and goofy because I just wanted to laugh for a couple hours. To forget about real life for a while. Definitely not to be depressed and pissed off at society at the conclusion of the film. You had ONE job, funny guys.

Arj (Ansari) is a gig worker living in his car. His gigs include being paid to stand in line for hours to buy a bagel, sorting crap in someone’s garage, and doing somebody’s laundry. This isn’t some new career invented in the last decade, by the way. People like Arj used to be referred to as assistants, maids, servants, or butlers. The difference is those people were typically employed full-time by whomever they were serving, sometimes being housed by those same employers. Think Downton Abbey or The Help or The Devil Wears Prada, but way, way more depressing.

After completing a gig for rich, tech-bro, venture capitalist Jeff (Rogen), Arj convinces Jeff to hire him as a full-time assistant. Everything starts to look up for Arj and by up I mean barely making enough money to live in a disgusting motel instead of his car. Unfortunately, Arj gets fired for using Jeff’s corporate credit card to pay for a dinner date one night, despite promising Jeff he would pay back the money. Arj soon finds there’s an even deeper rock bottom when his car/house gets towed. Hilarious, right?

Observing all this is an angel named Gabriel (Reeves). Not to be confused with the archangel from the Bible who serves as God’s messenger, Reeves’ Gabriel is entrusted with the responsibility of subtly alerting texting-while-driving humans into avoiding imminent accidents. Gabriel took an interest in Arj when he noticed Arj texting about having nothing to live for and believes Arj is a lost soul that needs to be saved. Despite Gabriel’s boss Martha (Sandra Oh) telling Gabriel not to stray from his assigned duties, Gabriel decides to Trading Places (or Freaky Friday for the gig generation) Jeff and Arj.

Gabriel thinks that if Arj spends a few days in the shoes of a rich person, Arj will realize his old, destitute life was worth living. Clearly, Gabriel is woefully naive, if not a complete moron. As Arj puts it a few days later “being rich solved all my problems.” Yeah, of course it did. That’s why rich people never give away all their money. The problem Gabriel now has is that he can’t restore Jeff and Arj to their former lives until Arj wants to go back. And, of course Arj doesn’t want to go back. And Jeff definitely wants his life back after trying and failing to live in Arj’s shoes for a few days.

Instead of using all of this setup to steer us to ha-ha land, writer/producer/director Ansari decided steer us in the opposite direction by focusing film on a bunch of social issues. Which for the record, is very admirable; our society is pretty messed up and getting worse much faster since the 2024 election. On top of the overt commentary regarding the plight of gig workers and the gig economy in general (including the desperation for good ratings in the apps used to hire gig workers), Ansari dives into unionization efforts, privileges certain people are born into, people working three jobs just to survive (living wages), and the callousness and ignorance of people who say idiotic things like “they can just get better jobs if they don’t like it.”

The messages do get across, but they are softened, if not altogether blunted, by the inclusion of the clueless Gabriel. After Gabriel’s colossal screw up, Martha fires him and makes him human (though says she will reconsider if Arj chooses to go back to his former life). Many of the messages Ansari wants to get across come via Gabriel, which makes the poor versions of Jeff and Arj redundant. And Gabriel steals the show every time he reacts in surprise to a first human experience. Eating a hamburger, sweating, or expressing disappointment when he sees how much of his first paycheck isn’t going into his pocket are all given the same weight in the screenplay. It’s funny unless it’s tragic.

Good Fortune isn’t a bad movie, but it is very confused about what it’s supposed to be. The entire cast, including Keke Palmer as Arj’s love interest Elena, do what they can to lift the film, but the screenplay can’t get of its or their way. There are occasional moments of comedy, but they are dwarfed by the serious issues in the film. And all muddled by the inclusion of angels doing menial tasks. Which might be an even sadder existence than the life of a gig worker.

Rating: Ask for twelve dollars back and remember to give me a good review.

“Tron: Ares” - We used smaller words this time.

It's been fifteen years since Tron: Legacy came out and about a hundred years since the original Tron released, based on how much Jeff Bridges appears to have aged. So, if you forgot everything about both Tron movies like I did, that’s ok. I watched Legacy again prior to screening Tron: Ares and you definitely don’t need to. Not only is Ares a completely different story, but Ares even takes a moment to explain what you’re seeing using words with fewer than four syllables.

Raise your hand if you know what an isomorphic algorithm is or means. One of you, maybe? Unless you have a degree in computer science or memorized a dictionary, Tron: Legacy was very confusing. How about this - when you watched Tron or Tron: Legacy, did you understand that everyone and everything you saw in the grid (the computer world) was anthropomorphized computer software and hardware? You’re lost again, aren’t you? Well, I’ve got good news for you. Tron: Ares still features software depicted as humans and machines and stuff, but now you don’t need a background in programming to understand it.

Ares (Jared Leto) is a security program designed by Julian Dillinger (Evan Peters), CEO of Dillinger Systems. Julian’s company has figured out how to bring anything from the grid into the real world using lasers. Tanks, airplanes, guns, Ares...anything. Think 3-D printing, but way cooler. Dillinger is hoping to convince the military to give his company contracts to create an infinite supply of weapons and soldiers. The catch is that those same weapons and soldiers disintegrate after twenty-nine minutes. To resolve this problem, Julian needs the permanence code. Yes, that code does exactly what you think it does.

Also searching for the permanence code is Eve Kim (Greta Lee), CEO of ENCON International. Eve’s company has also figured out to bring anything from the grid into the real world using lasers. Eve is trying to find the code in order finish her sister’s work (her sister died from cancer), which was to use the code to cure cancer and solve world hunger (also using that laser technology). In case you’re not sure who the good guys are, the bad guys are the ones wearing red.

Well, except Ares. He starts out as a bad guy, but it’s pretty obvious early in the film that Ares will become a good guy. You see, this movie is mainly about artificial intelligence because all the Tron movies are about artificial intelligence. And in movies, artificial intelligence always evolves beyond its original programming. In this case, Ares evolves to understand empathy by observing Eve and Dillinger. Eve shows empathy and Dillinger shows a lack of it. Ares agrees to help Eve in exchange for Eve adding the permanence code to Ares so he can escape from Dillinger’s grid forever.

Got all that? It might sound a bit complicated, but it boils down to a race for a MacGuffin to turn Pinocchio into a real boy, cure cancer, and feed the hungry or...make lots of money by promoting war. And it’s a really fun race because Tron movies are quite entertaining when you get past all of the philosophical mumbo jumbo.

Like Legacy, Ares features great special effects, great action sequences, and a killer soundtrack (this time from Nine Inch Nails). Visually, the coolest thing Ares does is mix some of the digital world stuff into the real world. Picture one of those flying, blocky arch things crashing through real-world buildings. Or a lightcycle battle through the streets of a real-world city. Don’t worry - there are also some fantastic action scenes inside the grid. And for you weirdos that loved the look of the first Tron, Ares even includes a sequence of scenes that take place in creator Kevin Flynn’s (Jeff Bridges) original grid, 1982 special effects and all.

Even better is the music. I enjoyed Daft Punk’s music in Legacy, but Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross of Nine Inch Nails created something really special for Ares. Every bit of music seemed to perfectly fit each scene and hearing and feeling it in IMAX was exquisite. It’s the kind of thing that makes you want to tell your parents “I told you so” (if, like me, you grew up when Nine Inch Nails peaked in popularity).

Given how long it’s been since Legacy, it was a bit of surprise to find out a new Tron movie was even coming out. I wasn’t sure what to expect, but I’d be lying if I said my expectations weren’t very guarded. I’d also be lying if I told you I didn’t notice a couple of flaws. Even in this much more streamlined and simplified story, there are a couple of plot holes that are worth an eyebrow raise. And Gillian Anderson (playing Dillinger’s mother) choosing to affect a thick English accent despite nobody else joining her was worth raising both eyebrows. Not that I blame her - her role is almost comically thankless.

But the film as a whole more than made up for those things, including supporting performances from Jodie Turner-Smith as Ares’ subordinate Athena and Arturo Castro as Eve’s fellow programmer (comedic relief). By focusing and improving on the things people really liked in previous films and dispensing with nearly all of the computer jargon, Ares is a neurologically pleasing technical and aesthetic achievement. Or to put it in words you (and Kevin Flynn) would understand, the film is rad, man.

Rating: Don’t ask for any money back, digital or analog.

"The Smashing Machine" - Who dis?

I noted in my review of One Battle After Another that I had seen exactly none of director Paul Thomas Anderson's previous films. That is nearly the case with The Smashing Machine's director, Benny Safdie. I’ve seen exactly one of Safdie’s films - Uncut Gems. And I hated Uncut Gems. A lot. Apparently, I hated it so much that I my subconscious made me forget to include it in my 2019 Year in Review.

I didn’t know Safdie was the director of The Smashing Machine until after I watched the movie, so I wasn’t biased going into it. In retrospect, it makes total sense that it was directed by Safdie (this time directing solo). Uncut Gems came off like a naked attempt to see if Safdie (and his brother and co-director Josh) could yank an Oscar-worthy performance out of Adam Sandler. Many people thought they had, but I found the performance insufferable because I don’t enjoy watching someone scream-act their way through a film. The Smashing Machine also comes off like a naked attempt to see if Safdie can extract an Oscar-worthy performance, this time from Dwayne Johnson. Yes, that Dwayne Johnson.

I’m not alone in wondering why The Smashing Machine is a feature length film. I’m not even alone in wondering why it’s a film at all. It’s a biopic of a mixed martial arts (MMA) fighter named Mark Kerr. Wait, who? Mark...something, who might be the most who? of MMA fighters ever. Everyone exiting the theater had the same question - why Mark Kerr? Wait, who? Something...Kerr? Exactly. Imagine someone making a movie about second baseman Marty Barrett of the 1986 Red Sox. Who indeed.

Kerr (Johnson) was an MMA fighter in the earlier days of MMA and the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC). And by earlier, I mean 1997-2009. The film focuses on the middle part of his career from 1999 to 2000, specifically two tournaments in Japan, as well as his personal life. It’s the point in his career where he was at his peak, then saw his career begin an unremarkable downward journey experienced by a million athletes before him.

The title implies that we’re going to get to see some of Kerr’s fights where he demolishes other human beings. And at first, we do. Briefly. In a shaky-cam, outside-the-ropes montage of Kerr fighting his way to an 11-0 record. Complete with commentary telling us how devastating he is because the footage showing it to us is hardly convincing. I expected to see Kerr standing over the bloody pulps of his vanquished foes, but instead we saw the same sweaty, mildly bloodied fight endings of most modern MMA/UFC fights. What we could see through the ropes, that is.

I thought maybe Safdie chose Kerr because Kerr was instrumental in the UFC gaining popularity, especially since this was during the time Congress and most states were trying to ban UFC and MMA fights altogether. But nope. The film makes a point of showing Kerr actively reject fighting in the UFC because Pride offered more money. Inspiring, no?

Maybe it was Kerr’s personal life that made him an intriguing sports subject? Again, not even close. As Tom Hanks’ character laments in That Thing You Do! - “it’s a very common tale.” Kerr is in a rocky relationship with his girlfriend Dawn (Emily Blunt). Dawn seems bipolar, her emotions swinging wildly from doting and caring to gold-digger to instigator to suicidal. Mark seems like a gentle giant, saving his anger for the ring and straining not to punch Dawn into another timeline every time she picks a fight with him. And they fight. A lot.

Mark is also addicted to painkillers. Big surprise, right? We don’t know for how long he’s been addicted, but it’s definitely months, if not years, prior to his first failure in the ring in the first of the Japan tournaments we see. After that fight, his addiction spirals so much that he ends up in the hospital after an overdose. After recovering, he goes to rehab, gets better, and it’s back to fighting. That’s it. No real drama, no suspensions or sanctions from fighting, no match where he starts spasming and collapses into a pool of his own vomit while forty million people watch on Pay-Per-View. Just your typical, run-of-the-mill drug addiction quietly conquered by your typical, run-of-the-mill rehab. Like a million people before him.

So, seriously, why Mark Kerr? Best I can come up with is Kerr is such an aggressively average and uncomplicated human that Safdie was confident Johnson could definitely handle the range required to portray Kerr. Doesn’t hurt that 1999 Kerr and Johnson share the same body physique, though the prosthetics and makeup applied to Johnson’s head and face to make him look more like Kerr (and less like Johnson) was far more of a distraction than anything it might have added to the realism. It also didn’t help Johnson that Emily Blunt was brilliant, overshadowing Johnson in every scene, and made Dawn a more intriguing character than Kerr. Even the character of Mark Coleman (Ryan Bader), Kerr’s longtime friend and fellow fighter, was more interesting than Kerr. Coleman’s story follows the standard sports movie formula. He’s the grizzled, older underdog making a comeback – and unlike Kerr, Coleman wins.

As it turns out, this isn’t even the first film made about Kerr. This film appears to be a remake of a 2002 HBO documentary also titled The Smashing Machine. That documentary also focuses on the same time period (1997-2000) and hits the same beats, including Dawn and painkillers. However, the documentary was just 78 minutes long, whereas the new film is 123 long minutes. Even 78 minutes feels too long. This story is barely enough to fill an ESPN 30-for-30 episode (60 minutes) and it would be a very run-of-the-mill 60 minutes.

Rating: Ask for half of your money back, just like a million other people before you.

“One Battle After Another” - Let me tell you how it’s not.

Early critical remarks on One Battle After Another are predictably calling it a “modern masterpiece.” Predictable because it’s the tenth feature film from director Paul Thomas Anderson and he’s one of those directors that get referred to as an “auteur” by people who can’t help but slobber all over his every film. And that’s fine. I’ve slobbered over my fair share of films, too and I’m guessing you have as well. Of course, I’ve never used the phrase “modern masterpiece” because I still have some dignity. And I certainly wouldn’t use it to describe One Battle After Another.

I’ve never seen any of Anderson’s films, so I have absolutely no opinion of his filmography. I’m certainly aware of all his films. I even had intentions to see a couple of them. So, you can trust that I have one of the least-biased opinions of One Battle After Another. And it’s...fine.

If you know me, you know I’m first and foremost a plot guy. The plot in this film is not tight. Not tight at all. The film begins by introducing us to a revolutionary group called the French 75. They free detained immigrants, blow up buildings, knock out the power to whole cities, and rob banks. Why are they doing this? Beats me. Best I came up with is “damn the man.” Eventually the authorities, led by Captain Lockjaw (Sean Penn), catch up with them, arresting or killing some of them while the rest escape and go into hiding. 

Sixteen years later and Lockjaw is back to finish the job. Actually, he’s looking for the girl he thinks might be his daughter. Back in the day, he was having an affair with one of the revolutionaries, Perfidia (Teyana Taylor), an affair that is the most unsettling film relationship since The Shape of Water. The problem is Perfidia was also in a relationship with fellow revolutionary Bob (Leonardo DiCaprio), so there’s a chance Bob is the father.

On top of that, Lockjaw is also trying to join the Christmas Adventurer’s Club, a Klan analogue that would definitely have an issue with Lockjaw having a mixed-race child. Lockjaw’s plan is to find and catch the girl, Willa (Chase Infiniti), and run a DNA test to determine if he’s the father. Keep in mind that Club racism and the French 75 have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. And in the present, French 75 is nothing more than a memory to a handful of people.

It's also notable that Perfidia abandoned Bob and Willa right after Willa was born and literally exits the movie before the sixteen-year jump forward, never to be seen or heard from again. This is one of the many creative decisions that I’m not sure how to feel about. On one hand, Perfidia is a terrible human being and I’m glad I didn’t have to spend the full two-hour-and-forty-one-minute runtime with her. On the other hand, it’s weird to introduce and focus so hard on such a colorful, explosive character only to drop her completely from the narrative.

Which brings me to my biggest question - what kind of movie is this supposed to be? And what message was it trying to convey? It's hard to tell what was more important to Anderson - the social commentary or the story. For example, Bob doesn't matter to the plot at all. The plot is to protect and rescue Willa, something that Bob never actually does. Bob spends most of his time running to evade his own capture while also trying to get to a rendezvous point to meet up with Willa and her protector, former French 75 member Deandra (Regina Hall). Bob never takes out a bad guy and is even captured at one point due to his own clumsiness. Take Bob out of the movie and everything that happened to Willa unfolds in exactly the same way. Bob’s only real importance to the movie is comic relief (we’ll come back to this in a moment).

The social commentary is just as disjointed as the story, but for a different reason - there’s so many different topics that none of them get enough attention to become the focal point of the film. What are we supposed to take away from the revolutionaries? Is immigration and the way immigrants are treated just a background prop or did it get two separate scenes for a real reason? Is abject racism funny or serious? Is the military corrupt or is it just a few bad apples? Is the government all controlling or wildly incompetent? This is why Bob is always smoking weed - there’s just too much to think about. Oh yeah, something about marijuana and alcohol abuse, too.

There are plenty of smaller details that just get dropped off the map, too. There are skills shown early that never come back to be used - Willa’s karate and Bob’s knowledge of explosives and electronics. For that matter, are we really supposed to believe that the ultra-paranoid Bob just forgot to booby-trap his own house? The same Bob that dug an escape tunnel under his house? The same Bob that ardently insists Willa always carry her little trust device to signal when a fellow revolutionary is near? Oh, and on the topic of that little trust device, I was certain it was going to start playing its music at some point during the climax to give Bob a helpful pointer. But nope. That would have made way too much sense. And if the French 75 was effectively disbanded sixteen years ago, why would their emergency hotline still be active? Oh right...comedy.

In between the seriousness of bombings, the military violently rounding up immigrants, school raids, riots, and murders, this film is also a comedy. Most of the comedy comes in laughing at Bob's ineptitude. To be fair, some of the comedy does land pretty well, serving to break up the frantic action. There is a long-running gag about a secret code that Bob can’t remember. Bob’s constant attempts to charge his phone while trying to evade capture also works quite well. Benicio de Toro also delivers some great lines as karate sensei/immigrant helper Sergio. Even Lockjaw provides comedic relief as a caricature of a neo-nazi who never turned down a proffered steroid.

But it's too much of a contrast in a movie where one of the revolutionaries is murdered by Lockjaw in the initial crackdown (we see the person's head get blown out). Where there's the grossest affair imaginable between Perfidia and Lockjaw. Where a mother abandons her family. Where soldiers are interrogating children at the school itself (really no parents or faculty anywhere?). It’s jarring and it was definitely intentional.

I recognize what Anderson was going for in this film, but it just didn’t land with me. I completely understand why it landed for other people though. If nothing else, the performances from the cast were excellent. Penn’s Lockjaw is exceptionally detestable. DiCaprio’s Bob is impossible not to feel sorry for, if not outright root for, despite Bob definitely not being worthy of it. Del Toro’s Sergio is absolutely delightful and easily the second-best character in the movie. The first best is Infiniti’s Willa, a force of nature like her mother, but very likeable, unlike her mother. But performances aren’t enough to completely cover for the meandering and sometimes chaotic plot and conflicting tones of the film. The performances are what make this movie just...fine. But modern masterpiece? Wipe the slobber off your chin.

Rating: Ask for seven dollars back because “just fine” is never worth full price.

“A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” - The magic of time and place.

I like weird. Weird music, weird books, and definitely weird movies. The Lobster, The Fountain, Labyrinth. The weirder, the better. Well, maybe not The Shape of Water weird. I have a line - fuzzy as it may be - and that movie crossed it. On the other hand, A Big Bold Beautiful Journey landed right in my sweet spot.

Life is all about doors. The doors you open and walk through and those you don’t. Journey asks its two main characters to open and walk through a bunch of doors and for us, the audience, to follow them. And the doors are so weird.

David (Colin Farrell) walks through a door into a very large room containing two rental cars. Two people sitting behind a desk urge David to come all the way in. The woman (Phoebe Waller-Bridge) peppers him with questions while the man (Kevin Kline) casually observes and agrees with her. In the end, she convinces David to rent the GPS to go with the 1994 Saturn he will be borrowing.

David makes his way to a friend’s wedding where he meets Sarah (Margot Robbie). The two of them have a very weird conversation, the wedding ends, and they separately leave the wedding. Shortly into the drive home, the sultry GPS voice asks David if he would like to go on a big, bold, beautiful journey. At first, David is confused that a GPS is having a conversation with him. But his life is quite dull, especially at that moment, so he answers yes. The GPS directs him to a fast-food rest-stop and tells him to order a cheeseburger. Question, dear reader - what would your answer to the GPS have been?

Sitting in a booth and eating his food, he spots Sarah two booths away. Weird. Sarah joins David, they chat for a while, then they walk to their respective, identical 1994 Saturns. More weird. When Sarah’s car won’t start, GPS tells David to offer Sarah a ride. He does. This is not weird, just polite. After some time and distance have passed, they reach a new destination. They walk into the woods and find a bright red door standing alone. With caution, they approach the door and David decides to walk through. At this moment, we are seeing the door from the side and we do not see David pass through the frame. Sarah joins him and the two find themselves in a lighthouse David once visited. Excellent and so very weird.

The rest of the film unfolds this way, Sarah and David walking through random doors into different moments of each other’s lives. And they aren’t just watching these moments play out and reminiscing about them. These are interactive moments where David and Sarah are their younger selves (or their parents) and can make different decisions. Where they can say things they wanted to say or not say things they did say.

But it’s not a Mr. Destiny thing where their present is altered if they make different decisions. These are all introspective interactions. They get to see how that moment plays out if they choose a different action, but when they walk back out the door, their lives are the same. These are learning moments for them and not just about themselves.

Don’t forget, this is also a romantic story. That initial wedding conversation is David and Sarah’s meet-cute. The door adventures are their dates. They even go through the cliched event that separates the two, though in their case it’s not an inane misunderstanding. All of this is clever character building while also developing their relationship with each other. And we even get to see them sing a little bit.

 

We watch a relationship blossom in real-time over a couple of days, while witnessing the kind of introspection, revelation, and vulnerability that comes over the course of a long-term partnership. A life partner sees you at your worst, relives your stories of pivotal formative moments, and holds your hand as you navigate through those latent emotions. This movie illustrates a wonderful allegory of how a lifelong partnership intertwines both past and future growth, and how the accidental elements of time and place can intersect to create magic.

In addition to being a big fan of weird, I’m also a big fan of Farrell and Robbie. Both have plenty of experience with weird, as anyone who has seen The Lobster or Birds of Prey can attest to. And both of them deliver very satisfying and convincing performances. Even if you aren’t a fan of the weirdness, you’ll be a fan of David and Sarah by the time they return their Saturns.

Rating: Don’t ask for any money back and stay weird.