It's hard to quote tweet without risking giving something away but I'll just mention that Tee refers a possibility about the true nature of the apartment. One of the things that I really like about this film is that even though that interpretation might not make sense, it doesn't hold one back from experiencing and reflecting on it.
I share the reservations about when exactly the genre shift begins, which might be the one thing that holds me back a bit. There's something maybe not as dialed in as it could be. But a powerful film. Haven't stopped thinking about it.
All of Us Strangers reviews
Re: All of Us Strangers reviews
"How's the despair?"
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: All of Us Strangers reviews
Start with the bottom line: this is a very affecting, heartfelt, well-written and extremely well-acted film. It reminded me of how much I liked Haigh's 45 Years, and it shares some elements: focusing on important primary family relationships, within a framework that skirts other genres (45 Years had the structure of a detective story, and a few tropes that suggested horror films; this effort clearly steps into sci-fi territory). I've heard a few people describe All of Us Strangers as sentimental, but I'd argue there's a distinction to be made between films of sentiment and sentimental films. The latter use emotional hooks to try and provoke often unearned -- at least lowest-denominator -- responses. The former deal with elements that evoke emotional response, but they do so with rigorous enough honesty that the experience feels genuine, not rigged. I'd say this film falls clearly into that second category.
All that said, there's a little bit of narrative dissatisfaction with the film in toto -- at least, that's what i felt, and what I infer from the "I need to think it over/digest it it more fully" thoughts being expressed here. I think there's an explanation for this, and there's no way to explain it without plunging head-on into spoiler territory. So, anyone who doesn't want to subject themselves to such should leave the building immediately.
SPOILERS FROM HERE OUT. I SAID, SPOILERS! YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!
The film clearly relies on surreal elements, but I think it can be confusing/difficult, on first viewing, pinpointing exactly where those surreal elements kick in. Putting it simply: at what point do we enter the Twilight Zone?
While watching the film, I initially assumed that the scenes in the near-vacant apartment building -- the fire drill, first encounter with Mescal -- were reality; that all scenes with Foy and Bell at the old homestead were surreal; that the later courtship scenes with Mescal were again reality, interrupted only by the trips back home; that the sequence of Scott dragging Mescal to view his parents was an attempt to bridge the two worlds. The film was about Scott finally facing up to his grief about losing his parents at such a young, hard-to-process age; finally learning to let unresolved feelings go -- and, in the process, opening himself up to a love he'd never before allowed to enter his life.
But then I got to the film's coda, and these assumptions of mine were thrown over. I have to confess, I was so unready for this late development that I thought the film had somewhat lost its way -- ending with a plot turn that had some thematic relation to what had preceded, but didn't feel earned in plot terms. I didn't exactly rebel against this wind-up, but it left me a bit unsatisfied, and made me feel, like dan and Sabin, that I needed to think the film through before solidifying my opinion.
This thinking -- and, I'll own up, reading what some others have written about the film -- persuaded me I may have been dense about this climactic section. Someone pointed out that the Ghost Mescal is wearing exactly the clothes he was wearing during his first knock at the door -- and, of course, the empty bottle (with which he has presumably drunk himself to death) is precisely the one he was carrying in that opening scene. All this suggests Mescal was dead immediately after the night Scott refused him entry; that the relationship between the two never existed (in retrospect, it's pretty fantasy-fulfillment that a handsome, considerably younger guy would turn into a dream lover more or less on the spot); that the imagined reconciliations with his parents were in fact Scott's way of owning up to how he failed Mescal in that one scene -- not that he was responsible for Mescal's demise, but that his closed-off approach to life has made him incapable of being there for another human; something which he has corrected by film's end.
There are hints along the way of these things --Mescal turning down the drink when he is invited into Scott's apartment; Foy warning that Mescal will need care. The more I think about it, the more this seems the strongest way to interpret the film.
But, as someone has suggested, you could take it even further: what if this bizarre apartment building -- empty but for these two residents -- is itself part of the afterlife? Maybe Scott and Mescal are already dead when the film starts. Perhaps they're victims of AIDS who, like Foy and Bell, died before their natural time, and are floating around waiting some kind of resolution. I think that, too, is a reasonable interpretation.
Whatever of these you choose, the film has a power and beauty. The four actors all work at the highest level, and they have dialogue that serves them well. The scene where Scott comes out to Foy breaks the heart because his mother ISN'T the understanding nurturer one would hope for -- she's only as accepting as a woman with her background (and awareness level) could be. The beauty of Foy's performance is that she doesn't signal to us that this woman is ignorant and easy for us to feel superior to. She's, in fact, a good and loving mother -- with a blind spot. Same with Jamie Bell in his big scene. Acknowledging that he'd probably have bullied a boy like Scott in his youth is devastating in its way, but it makes his acceptance in the moment feel that much more genuine.
As for Paul Mescal...I was perfectly fine with his work in Aftersun, but this is the first film performance of his that reminds me of how much I loved him in Normal People. There's an incredibly vivid quality to his acting, which is something that can't be taught; he floods the zone with feeling. I'll stand by my thought (from Normal People) that he has much the quality of Montgomery Clift -- such a quivering intensity about him that it can't help displaying itself, whatever he's saying or doing.
And Andrew Scott is simply remarkable -- sustaining a level of emotional vulnerability that you'd think would be painful. (My only problem with him was not in his work, but the fact I could never get a fix on just how old he was. The script suggests he lost his parents in the 80s, and, lo and behold, Scott is about the right age for that. But he looks so damn good for that age, you could believe he was somewhere in his 30s. At the very least, he doesn't look 20 years older than Mescal.) In any case, a wonderful, open central performance that carries this deeply-felt, impressive film.
All that said, there's a little bit of narrative dissatisfaction with the film in toto -- at least, that's what i felt, and what I infer from the "I need to think it over/digest it it more fully" thoughts being expressed here. I think there's an explanation for this, and there's no way to explain it without plunging head-on into spoiler territory. So, anyone who doesn't want to subject themselves to such should leave the building immediately.
SPOILERS FROM HERE OUT. I SAID, SPOILERS! YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!
The film clearly relies on surreal elements, but I think it can be confusing/difficult, on first viewing, pinpointing exactly where those surreal elements kick in. Putting it simply: at what point do we enter the Twilight Zone?
While watching the film, I initially assumed that the scenes in the near-vacant apartment building -- the fire drill, first encounter with Mescal -- were reality; that all scenes with Foy and Bell at the old homestead were surreal; that the later courtship scenes with Mescal were again reality, interrupted only by the trips back home; that the sequence of Scott dragging Mescal to view his parents was an attempt to bridge the two worlds. The film was about Scott finally facing up to his grief about losing his parents at such a young, hard-to-process age; finally learning to let unresolved feelings go -- and, in the process, opening himself up to a love he'd never before allowed to enter his life.
But then I got to the film's coda, and these assumptions of mine were thrown over. I have to confess, I was so unready for this late development that I thought the film had somewhat lost its way -- ending with a plot turn that had some thematic relation to what had preceded, but didn't feel earned in plot terms. I didn't exactly rebel against this wind-up, but it left me a bit unsatisfied, and made me feel, like dan and Sabin, that I needed to think the film through before solidifying my opinion.
This thinking -- and, I'll own up, reading what some others have written about the film -- persuaded me I may have been dense about this climactic section. Someone pointed out that the Ghost Mescal is wearing exactly the clothes he was wearing during his first knock at the door -- and, of course, the empty bottle (with which he has presumably drunk himself to death) is precisely the one he was carrying in that opening scene. All this suggests Mescal was dead immediately after the night Scott refused him entry; that the relationship between the two never existed (in retrospect, it's pretty fantasy-fulfillment that a handsome, considerably younger guy would turn into a dream lover more or less on the spot); that the imagined reconciliations with his parents were in fact Scott's way of owning up to how he failed Mescal in that one scene -- not that he was responsible for Mescal's demise, but that his closed-off approach to life has made him incapable of being there for another human; something which he has corrected by film's end.
There are hints along the way of these things --Mescal turning down the drink when he is invited into Scott's apartment; Foy warning that Mescal will need care. The more I think about it, the more this seems the strongest way to interpret the film.
But, as someone has suggested, you could take it even further: what if this bizarre apartment building -- empty but for these two residents -- is itself part of the afterlife? Maybe Scott and Mescal are already dead when the film starts. Perhaps they're victims of AIDS who, like Foy and Bell, died before their natural time, and are floating around waiting some kind of resolution. I think that, too, is a reasonable interpretation.
Whatever of these you choose, the film has a power and beauty. The four actors all work at the highest level, and they have dialogue that serves them well. The scene where Scott comes out to Foy breaks the heart because his mother ISN'T the understanding nurturer one would hope for -- she's only as accepting as a woman with her background (and awareness level) could be. The beauty of Foy's performance is that she doesn't signal to us that this woman is ignorant and easy for us to feel superior to. She's, in fact, a good and loving mother -- with a blind spot. Same with Jamie Bell in his big scene. Acknowledging that he'd probably have bullied a boy like Scott in his youth is devastating in its way, but it makes his acceptance in the moment feel that much more genuine.
As for Paul Mescal...I was perfectly fine with his work in Aftersun, but this is the first film performance of his that reminds me of how much I loved him in Normal People. There's an incredibly vivid quality to his acting, which is something that can't be taught; he floods the zone with feeling. I'll stand by my thought (from Normal People) that he has much the quality of Montgomery Clift -- such a quivering intensity about him that it can't help displaying itself, whatever he's saying or doing.
And Andrew Scott is simply remarkable -- sustaining a level of emotional vulnerability that you'd think would be painful. (My only problem with him was not in his work, but the fact I could never get a fix on just how old he was. The script suggests he lost his parents in the 80s, and, lo and behold, Scott is about the right age for that. But he looks so damn good for that age, you could believe he was somewhere in his 30s. At the very least, he doesn't look 20 years older than Mescal.) In any case, a wonderful, open central performance that carries this deeply-felt, impressive film.
Re: All of Us Strangers reviews
SLIGHT SPOILERS...
All of Us Strangers is one of my favorite filmgoing experiences this year. It’s a romantic fantasy about life out of order in a way that I don’t think I’ve seen before. Parents are younger than children. The experience of age is flattened. A forty-something-year old man can be a child in a moment. Ghosts that both know and don't know they are ghosts. Home is just as you left it. Home can never be returned to. But also it depicts life out of order in subtler ways, in how love is offered and retracted depending on sobriety. You watch this film and understand how healing seems impossible. But even though it's sad, it's not depressing. All of Us Strangers feels drunk on sensory experience and life. I think anyone can watch this film and experience something akin to closure about something unsaid or lost in one’s life. It's like a portal for grief and reflection. Despite a few elements that I bumped on or found disorienting (like how quickly Adam begins his journey of going home — but not the beautiful ending), I was very taken by it.
I want to sit with it just to see if there's something else I wanted or needed from it but... I don't know. Beautiful film. Definitely for the big screen.
Andrew Scott will get nominated if enough people see this film. He'd be my choice for Best Actor. The whole tenor of the film pivots around just how scared he is to question too much what he’s seeing, or if he's making everything up and getting lost in it. When he does cry, it’s gutting. Bell, Mescal, and Foy are all great. I also really loved Bell’s portrayal of Scott’s father. Just a very guarded, old school kinda guy who reacts to seeing his now-older son so matter-of-factly. Probably not a big enough role for a nomination. Foy probably has bigger, more showcase-y moments but for me really this is really about Andrew Scott.
All of Us Strangers is one of my favorite filmgoing experiences this year. It’s a romantic fantasy about life out of order in a way that I don’t think I’ve seen before. Parents are younger than children. The experience of age is flattened. A forty-something-year old man can be a child in a moment. Ghosts that both know and don't know they are ghosts. Home is just as you left it. Home can never be returned to. But also it depicts life out of order in subtler ways, in how love is offered and retracted depending on sobriety. You watch this film and understand how healing seems impossible. But even though it's sad, it's not depressing. All of Us Strangers feels drunk on sensory experience and life. I think anyone can watch this film and experience something akin to closure about something unsaid or lost in one’s life. It's like a portal for grief and reflection. Despite a few elements that I bumped on or found disorienting (like how quickly Adam begins his journey of going home — but not the beautiful ending), I was very taken by it.
I want to sit with it just to see if there's something else I wanted or needed from it but... I don't know. Beautiful film. Definitely for the big screen.
Andrew Scott will get nominated if enough people see this film. He'd be my choice for Best Actor. The whole tenor of the film pivots around just how scared he is to question too much what he’s seeing, or if he's making everything up and getting lost in it. When he does cry, it’s gutting. Bell, Mescal, and Foy are all great. I also really loved Bell’s portrayal of Scott’s father. Just a very guarded, old school kinda guy who reacts to seeing his now-older son so matter-of-factly. Probably not a big enough role for a nomination. Foy probably has bigger, more showcase-y moments but for me really this is really about Andrew Scott.
"How's the despair?"
Re: All of Us Strangers reviews
I saw All of Us Strangers a week ago, and am still digesting it. I look forward to more people on this board seeing it, as it’s difficult to fully discuss without getting into spoilers, which I won’t do here. I will just say that it is a film that contains incredible beauty in its expressions of loss, loneliness, healing, and intimate connection. It’s a film I definitely need to see again, and soon, for it is a bit of a puzzle that should be easier to decode on a second viewing, or so I imagine. There are a couple of things I struggled with but overall this is a wholly original film that contains some exquisite bits of writing, is brilliantly acted, and is emotionally cathartic.
Andrew Scott is the center of the film and is just a revelation. His character is emotionally guarded yet he expressed an incredible depth of feeling. It’s truly an Oscar-worthy performance. Given Mescal’s rising star status I’m not sure why he isn’t getting more buzz for a supporting actor nomination. He’s as great here as he’s shown elsewhere. Of the two parents Foy has the showier role and is probably the most likely of the three supporting players to get nominated. She also provides some needed comic relief. For me, though, I really loved Jamie Bell’s portrayal of the father. There is a dialogue between him and Scott’s character that just floored me emotionally.
I hope this gets wider release soon.
Andrew Scott is the center of the film and is just a revelation. His character is emotionally guarded yet he expressed an incredible depth of feeling. It’s truly an Oscar-worthy performance. Given Mescal’s rising star status I’m not sure why he isn’t getting more buzz for a supporting actor nomination. He’s as great here as he’s shown elsewhere. Of the two parents Foy has the showier role and is probably the most likely of the three supporting players to get nominated. She also provides some needed comic relief. For me, though, I really loved Jamie Bell’s portrayal of the father. There is a dialogue between him and Scott’s character that just floored me emotionally.
I hope this gets wider release soon.
Re: All of Us Strangers reviews
I saw All of Us Strangers yesterday.
This film is an absolute masterpiece. One of the most real and genuinely stunning depictions of loneliness, grief, love, and longing that has ever been put onto film. Bring a BOX of tissues. There are major plot points that occur in this film that are not even hinted at in the trailer, so I wouldn’t assume you know what you’re going into when you see it.
It would be almost cruel to try and pick who is the best in show because the four main actors are all just so, so good, but, for me personally, Andrew Scott and Claire Foy deliver career-defining performances that I am still gutted and haunted by a day later.
Andrew Scott should win the Oscar for this. We should not even be debating whether or not he’s being nominated. He will be and he is win-competitve.
This film is an absolute masterpiece. One of the most real and genuinely stunning depictions of loneliness, grief, love, and longing that has ever been put onto film. Bring a BOX of tissues. There are major plot points that occur in this film that are not even hinted at in the trailer, so I wouldn’t assume you know what you’re going into when you see it.
It would be almost cruel to try and pick who is the best in show because the four main actors are all just so, so good, but, for me personally, Andrew Scott and Claire Foy deliver career-defining performances that I am still gutted and haunted by a day later.
Andrew Scott should win the Oscar for this. We should not even be debating whether or not he’s being nominated. He will be and he is win-competitve.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19341
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: All of Us Strangers reviews
Could be the year's come-from-behind one to watch. Year-end critics' awards for Andrew Scott, the criminally ignored Jamie Bell and Claire Foy, and maybe even last year's come-from-behind Oscar nominee Paul Mescal could elevate it to a likely Best Picture nominee.
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
All of Us Strangers reviews
Very strong praise across the board, with Andrew Scott the focal point.
https://variety.com/2023/film/reviews/a ... 235705668/
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie ... 235576072/
https://www.indiewire.com/criticism/mov ... 234901327/
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/s ... ew-romance
https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/all ... 85.article
https://variety.com/2023/film/reviews/a ... 235705668/
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie ... 235576072/
https://www.indiewire.com/criticism/mov ... 234901327/
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/s ... ew-romance
https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/all ... 85.article