Saltburn - Review
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 лип 2024
- My review for 'Saltburn' from director Emerald Fennell.
00:00 Spoiler-Free Review
10:54 Spoiler Section
14:51 Closing Remarks
Follow Me on Twitter: / colebrax
Check Out My Podcast Wrong Reel: wrongreel.com/
Wrong Reel T-Shirts for Sale: teespring.com/stores/wrong-reel
#Saltburn #BarryKeoghan #JacobElordi - Розваги
Seen it twice at some previews and I love this film. Some scenes will no doubt cause a lot of discussion, but it kept me entertained. Emerald Fennell at our Q&A said the aspect ratio for the film was chosen to resemble a painting, so like the portraits in the house, although she did add that Jacob and Archie at both 6 foot 5 so you wouldn’t want to chop anyone’s head off. I also liked that she said she doesn’t have trailers on her sets, just a green room, so everyone mingles together. Oh and the last scene took 11 takes.
This appears to be an unapologetic modern adaptation of ‘Brideshead Revisited’, with an almost identical plot, but oddly this is not mentioned anywhere in its promotion.
They imply it in the movie. “Sounds like an Evelyn Waugh novel.”
I would say she definitely took some inspiration from "The Talented Mr. Ripley" as well. The filmmaker avoids any mention of inspiration, which made me feel uneasy.
Keoghan was also in "Green Knight".
He’s just been killing it in everything he’s in
Came here for your take because I fucking loved this movie. Once everyone sees it, I’m having a saltburn fancy dress party and everyone will dance naked to “murder on the dance floor” by the end of the night.
definitely dumpster of a movie
This past year I watched The Talented Mr. Ripley and I loved every minute of it. I definitely want to see this one after hearing your review. I’m digging the “Merchant Ivory but make it filthy” vibe I’m getting from the trailer.
Male Gaze is still an issue because it's so damn pervasive. Like we don't always need to see some woman's butt, especially in a movie that isn't about that (mostly see the 80s comic books that were specifically written for 12 year old boys who couldn't find porn). But it's nice to see that flipped with a Female Gaze. Also sometimes it's nice not to feel like the movie is being filmed with one hand.
Your analysis is on point, pretty much summarizes what I thought of the movie. I wasn't disappointed in the slightest with how the subplots interact with one another. I think it's well constructed, and the twists are great. A very solid movie, all in all.
I think it IS literally an eat the rich movie. I see it as a cross between Parasite and Brideshead Revisited. (You did a great job with the name pronunciation). You’re the only one I’ve seen make the Carol connection. This is one of the best reviews I’ve seen. This movie checks all my boxes. I’m an old gay man and Elordi is mesmerizing. Loved this film I’ve seen it twice in the theater and taken others with me. Definitely supporting it at the theater. I recommend seeing it on the big screen.
An eat the rich film made by a blood diamond heiress. Emerald Fennell spent a weekend watching Pasolini films while on her phone. This was horrid and far less intelligent than it thinks itself to be
There is so much subtlety lost when just watching TV. I don’t think a full analysis can be made unless people see it in theatres or have projection/theatre set up at home.
I don’t agree that it’s an eat the rich story. More a “The entire system is terrible as it rewards the worst of us the most” story.
I notice some people dislike that there is police or “justice” at the end. That would defeat the point of whole movie. They tell the audience at the beginning Oliver will “become The King” by the end. We get brainwashed into revering kings.
We see through the whole movie that Oliver is a horrible person. What does that say about other “kings” and wealthy “geniuses” and our system as a whole?
Just watched it - glad to see you have done a review. Going to check it out.
I absolutely loved this film, for a whole host of reasons, many of which you comment on. The stylishness and absolute GORGEOUSNESS of it is just the start. The acting, particularly from Keoghan and Pike, but really from the whole cast, is top notch, and the twists, turns, and reveals constantly kept me on my toes. I initially watched it because I was curious about all the controversy over how shocking it was, and I will admit that a few of the scenes did make my jaw drop, but I never felt like it was sensationalism for its own sake. The over-the-top insanity of those controversial scenes, in my opinion, all served to flesh out the depravity of the character, and really did help advance the story. What you DON'T mention in your excellent review is how FUNNY this film is. Fennell herself describes the film as a black comedy, and it's easy to see why. Rosamund Pike in particular is just wildly funny, and some of the dialogue had me literally cackling. What I really loved is how the film could whiplash me between hilarity and a DEEP sense of discomfort (including the absolutely brilliant lunch scene with the red lighting after the curtains close, which was completely cringe-worthy in the best possible way). Lastly, I loved the crackling sexual energy permeating much of the film - whether you're straight, gay, or bi, it's hard not to get intrigued by the sexual tension that is present practically from the beginning. Admittedly, this film is not for everybody, but I loved it.
I have confidence in your reviews, James. Thank you very much. Shrewd and frank.
I watched Saltburn on a whim, expecting just a casual Sunday viewing. I was not prepared for the strong scenes, but (as a gay man) I was wholeheartedly impressed by Emerald's bold directorial choices.
I do think the third act became somewhat cartoonish with the expedition dump. However 'THAT' scene was compelling enough to allow all to be forgiven.
Super grateful I saw this in a relatively packed cinema, the collective reactions were an experience.
What is Brett East Ellis's podcast called? When I looked his name up on Spotify, it says the most recent episode is from 2017
Unfortunately I believe it's behind a paywall
Dang. Thanks for replying though
Last weekend, the Irish Dubliners I spent time with said "Kee-ohg-ann."
the point that this is somehow a “ woman gaze“ movie because there are scenes where Felix is lounging with a shirt off or being “seductive.” Is completely wrong. When people are saying a movie is made for the male gaze. Most the time they mean that there’s just a pretty woman in the movie only to have attention because she is hot and have no other role other than to be seductive and look nice. That is not Felix’s role or Jacob Elordi’s role in the movie at all. Felix’s role is deeper than just him being pretty. That is one of Felix’s character traits. But that is not the only side of Felix‘s character.
I listen to the Bret Easton Ellis Podcast as well! 😀
Barry Keoghan was amazing in this film. I love the style. With that said, I think it is a very poor imitation of "The Talented Mr. Ripley" and "Brideshead Revisited". I have no problem with inspiration yet the director's interviews ignore this. It is a more modern, sarcastic interpretation, which I enjoyed. I just can't help feeling a bit annoyed that the filmmaker ignores her clear inspiration.
Edit: Now that I finished your review, I was so relieved that you also thought it was extremely similar. I love the play on the themes but I knew where it was going rather quickly because it was so recognizable xx
Finally watched it last night and found it to be an entertaining spin on The Talented Mr. Ripley.
Does Leave The World Behind interest you at all?
Good review James but dear lord have an opinion on stuff!
(All jokes aside, looking forward to this one and yeah, I'm all for hot people doing fun stuff on screen, bring it on!)
Jacob Elordi’s been a busy boy. Not looking good for Euphoria
I like the story well enough, and I appreciate its production, performances, and even its themes contrasting parasitic envy and the oblivious naivete of many in financial privelege, but the "surprise twist reveal" kinda ruins it for me. I respect and give a little extra credit to ambition because I appreciate anyone who swings for the fences even when it doesn't fully land, but it went from feeling ambitious to coming off like it was asking me to be impressed by it, particularly with a mystery that I didn't even realize was trying to be a mystery because what Oliver was doing just seemed obvious once he got settled into Saltburn. In fact, the only thing I was genuinely surprised by was the fact that Felix wasn't actually a figurative vampire like almost everyone else was in their own way (a self-aware comparison the movie also didn't need Oliver to say out loud to Venetia in order to get that point across). Not everything needs to be said explicitly. The fact the movie felt the need to scream all of the quiet parts out loud implies to me that the storyteller either doesn't trust or respect the intelligence of the audience enough to believe that they're capable of figuring some things out for themselves. That, to me at least, made the ambition of the story feel secondary to its attenmpts at being provocative. Maybe this is just a personal taste thing, but I think the better way to try to get people talking is by allowing enough ambiguity and enough questions left unanswered (at least explicitly) to get people speculating and discussing the story instead of trying to get people talk about how much shock value it was going for. The montage reveal was completely unnecessary and just made me feel like the movie wanted me to think it was more clever than it actually was when not explaining everything in intricate detail would have been the more clever and impressive decision. I'm not saying this to suggest that I think it was a bad movie by any means. The ending just me think the movie was really impressed with itself and begging me to feel the same way instead of letting everything that came before speak for itself, which rubbed me wrong way. I apologize if that wasn't the intent. I just think the way the ending was executed didn't help the rest of the movie.
It’s only a “twist “ to Oliver. He is an unreliable narrator. (Pathological liars tend to be.)
yup when i first saw the trailer the first thing that came to my mind was the talented mr. Ripley
Exactly my thought!!!
Barry Keoghan was the worst fit (not cast) Joker (the Batman) because he’s too disturbed to be the Joker. Barry Keoghan’s constricted affect with delayed responses just scream, “You got a fucked up script? Bring it.” 😆
Great review, very detailed. I made my own review of Saltburn if you wanted to give it a gander mate ☺
Talented Mr Ripley was executed better . I think there no needs to put all the cards on the table at the ending. I would be happier if he doesn’t do the murder she wrote recap Hehehe. Such a classy thriller which i have no idea of where it’s going until someone dies. I think all the pieces of the puzzle are there for the audience to put them together. It is satisfying that I don’t really like Oliver and turn out there are good reason for that. ❤
I find Barry difficult to listen to if he keeps his natural accent. I usually love the Irish accent but he sounds drunk to my ear and I struggle to understand what he is saying.
I stopped your review at the spoilers section. This looks pretty fun and it's a definite watch for me. Thanks for the heads up - I hadn't heard about this movie.
So, it doesnt criticizes the wealth, it criticizes arrivism. Perfect! I like an opinion in any form of art. Politics are everywhere man, is just unconfortable when is too blunt.
It criticizes the whole system.
This movie turned me into a homosexual.
This movie started off strong and just fell apart for me in the end. It seemed shoehorned with exposition and slow towards the end.
I do have to say it looked absolutely fantastic!!
Female gaze isn’t ubiquitous like male gaze is. I find many men find female gaze uncomfortable.
Like…it’s so ubiquitous most men don’t notice it. Like…notice you only mention male directors? Not to mention the misogyny in male gaze which Emerald’s first film critiques.
Keoghan looks both 14 and 50 at the same time. I first saw him in Dunkirk and Chernobyl. He does the whole “sweet unfortunate boy” really well.
So…you révéla the name and location of the real house and then say how the filmmakers couldn’t reveal the location and name of the owners. Once a person has the name of the house, it’s too easy to find the identity of the private owners. 😬
I wouldn't even call it 'female gaze'. It's Oliver's gaze, as the whole film is from his perspective. He bookends it with his own narration at the camera. It's how he views Felix. Really not apt to compare it to the male gaze, which is just implicitly there for no reason other than to objectify. Felix isn't objectified, if anything he's deified. A PG transformers movie has no reason for lingering shots of Megan Fox's ass, for example. A cert. 15 movie about gay sexual obsession and yearning told from the narrative perspective (and memories of) the lead with said obsession... it makes perfect sense for the story for the camera to be on sensuality/sex/Felix's body. It's just a false equivalence.
The female gaze isn't the same. Nice try though haha. This is an amazing film and as a gay man that's had to watch hundreds of heterosexual sexually driven films, I'm very happy this film exists. And if you're straight and are offended...get over it.
@MassageSamurai you totally missed my point.
@MassageSamuraiHe meant “if you’re straight and offended [at the gayness in the film]”. Whereas you’re speaking about “not connecting with the film”. As you yourself said it, there’s a difference, therefore what you’re going on about has nothing to do with the overall message in the original comment. His message applies ONLY to people who felt offended at the gay content, not at people who didn’t connect with it or disliked the artistry of the film.
Agreed on “the female gaze is different”. Unless he knows (or has taken the time to ask women and learn) what the female experience entails, he has no business saying it’s the same. The fact that he’s saying that tells me he doesn’t actually know.
Nobody really said the female gaze is the same as the male gaze. If course it's not exactly the same because men and women themselves are not exactly the same or interchangable. He was accurately pointing out the hypocritical double standard and saying that it's fine if filmmakers want to portray both beautiful and women being beautiful men and women. I'd be I retested to hear why you seem to disagree. Just tell me isn't on some nonsense "power plus pruvelege" logic to justify the double standard...
@@simplyrowenhe literally never said anything about it being the same, simply that the double standard invalidates that complaint and that filmmakers should he free to portray beautiful men and women alike being beautiful without judgment or hypocrisy.
Visually beautiful but disturbing and I can’t recommend
bffr you cannot talk about how the female gaze is ‘just as bad’ as the male gaze when misogyny runs our literal society…the female gaze is not even really a thing…women are systematically objectified in life and in media and that’s what the male gaze is. if seeing men objectified that way made you uncomfortable then maybe think about how women feel about being looked at that way, cause straight women (or just women who see that the use of nudity or whatever is misogynistic) have to watch shit like that all the time…this is just one instance of thirsting over a hot man in a movie 😂
Yes, and also, the character is male making his gaze male, regardless of the director
I have to be honest, watching the absolute garbage trailers in the theater prior to the start of the film, gave me a splitting headache. They were all bombasticly loud and edited like music videos from the mid 90's. In 3 of the 5 previews, white guys are being belittled, hit in the junk, talked down to, and made to look like weak, insecure morons. I get that the current trend is to hate on white males, but isn't that also just sexism? If youre truly above mistakes of the past, then move on from them and evolve. Needless to say, I didn't care for this film, and it has absolutely nothing to do with me being straight. In fact, one of my favorite films of the past few years is The Outwaters, a brilliant horror film created by and starring gay men. So for starters, I'm beginning to get annoyed by the use of wealth as it's own macguffin. I do understand that in this film the wealth is the tentpole supporting the lack of a real plot, but I did want to see the characters without this cruch. And it just never really happens. I especially didn't like how there's certain scenes that are only intended to gross out the audience, because no other character witnesses these acts (with 1 exception). This betrays the surprise twist because they're literally there for audience shock (in a way breaking the 4th wall) and serve absolutely no other purpose. In that regard, what makes it any different than say a Saw film? Because of that, it's rather shallow and serves only to indulge the director with its pornographic insinuations. Had it stayed true to the allure of the first act, I would've found it to be a much more interesting story. It's peculiar how this was also my viewpoint on Dream Scenario and Beau Is Afraid. Brilliant first acts that unravel by the third. Had all 3 of these movies gone full speed into the horror hinted at in their first hour or so, all 3 would be immensely more interesting than the end result.
I mean, yeah, there absolutely is a double standard when it comes to how no one cares if women sexualize men. Pure hypocrisy.
A secret homosexual