Serena (I) (2014) User Reviews (128)

Astounding Downfall

[billygoat1071 · 4/10 · 6 March 2015]

Whatever resulted Serena can be enigmatic. Visually, the movie has a lot of beautiful shots. There's also great talents among the cast. The story seems like it is meant for a powerful tragedy, but these assets however lead to a rather dreary, unfocused drama, that doesn't quite live up to its ambition. Even with the looks of a grand and dazzling piece of cinema, the film doesn't come close with that worth. And it's a truly frustrating thing to look at a movie with such strong potential become a strange mess.

The story is basically an old fashioned American drama about a man, who manages a timber industry, oppresses his ambition that leads to numerous unfortunate events. The core here is a love story in which its romance is often nonexistent, we hardly get to see how they fully develop their relationship. But there is still an interesting growth within these rich details. But the movie is too scattered with various subplots that each takes over the entirety. There is too many conflicts, like they are mostly separated into a whole new different story, unable to say a single or definite point. The third act becomes a weird flood of consequences that doesn't necessarily gain any deserving depth.

There is so much going on with the story, the film also manages to shift it into several tones. It goes to art-house calmness, a showy drama, and then even has a preposterous climax. The worst of it indeed never fits in to its stunning production values. The film seems to be too reliant on what it has. It has captivating cinematography, impressive production, and even the actors are just doing what they believe they can do to make this movie work. Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper are the main attraction here, while they try to bring something to the table, the movie remains to be dreary for not letting the two have an actual engaging moment together. The pacing is reasonably slow, but sometimes it becomes an obligation than another moment to thoughtfully breathe.

Serena is a pretty strange film to encounter, one that has its best potentials fall apart into a surprisingly dull cinema. It's still fascinating to see what it has: great cast, striking images, richly defined context, and gripping drama (if only it has more time to actually develop them), but it really doesn't have an exact intention. And the story keeps on going, still failing to be actually engaging. This is an obvious lesson about creating cinematic drama, when things needed real definition on what's going on and who the characters are, than just throwing them away with stuff that could gloss over its half- baked narrative. Even the presence of the ever appealing Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper couldn't overlook the entire film's unimaginable flaws.

Disappointing adaptation:

[CharlieGreenCG · 4/10 · 23 October 2014]

Serena has had quite a hard time so far. Filmed in 2012, it has been shelved for over a year and half due to apparent scheduling. But finally, after all that time it has come to light at this year's BFI London Film Festival for a world-premiere! But it does raise the question, is it a hidden gem that we have been long-desiring? Or is it so bad that it has was hidden on purpose? Unfortunately it appears to be the later.

Considering that is has two A-list on screen regulars; Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper, the film is surprisingly dissatisfying. Set in North Carolina in the Depression era, the film accounts the perspective of George Pemberton (Cooper) and his wood-plantation empire. That is until he meets Serena (Lawrence), when he suddenly suggests 'we should be married' - and they immediately do. In fairy- tales this is expected, but in a reality period drama it is loose and leaves no belief in their relationship. As a result, throughout the events of the film we have no attachment to them at all.

Once on board with Pemberton's wood-empire, Serena does not want to just be a trophy-wife, but instead gets hands-on involved in the dirty business end and is not afraid to throw some axes.

Form there onwards the film repeats the same formula over again: Romance, wood-chopping, politics - repeat. It is a tedious cycle with the all-so often subplots appearing that have no registration to the already flimsy story.

Also featuring; Rhys Ifans (as the bearded hit-man), Toby Jones (as Sheriff McDowell) and Sean Harris (as a wood-chopper), the film shockingly concludes with a melodrama on misplacement and seems unsure of where it is going, or what genre it even is.

If there was one positive thing to be said about Serena, it would be the six sex scenes between Cooper and Lawrence. But even then, the chemistry between them is tightly bound compared to their previous on-screen duos (Silver Linings Playbook, American Hustle).

Directed by Academy-Award winning Susanne Bier and penned by Christopher Kyle, it is hard to find who is exactly to blame. Is it the direction of the story? Either way it is a disappointing adaptation.

Serena is a ferociously sloppy film that's misfires on all fronts.

[Sergeant_Tibbs · 4/10 · 26 October 2014]

Trainwreck is a strong word. Average is another strong word. Mediocre sounds about right. Serena isn't necessarily a film that Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence should concern themselves with burying, it'll be forgotten at the bottom of the bargain bin in no time, but it's not something to be proud of either. Director Susanne Bier, whose 2010 film In A Better World won the Foreign Language Oscar, just doesn't seem to know what to do with the material and it's a tonal catastrophe. Set in Depression-era North Carolina, the story focuses on entrepreneurial newlyweds George and Serena Pemberton, played by Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence respectively, as they struggle to maintain their timber empire in the face of betrayal from their closest allies. Life becomes complicated as Serena cannot bear children, but before they met George had already impregnated one of his maids. It's a power struggle of greed and corruption between all involved and leaves a startlingly bloody trail. Unfortunately, Jennifer Lawrence's performance is all over the place, up the walls and on the ceiling. However, it's not necessarily her fault. She has more understanding of Serena than Bier seems to have and ultimately she's at odds with how her character is presented. Lawrence plays Serena cold, robotic, calculating, to the point where she seems disinterested. She's a sociopathic and manipulative character. But Bier wants our hearts to ache with pity when she's on screen, emotions difficult to muster when it works better on a psychological level. A slight tonal adjustment more aligned to the way Lawrence is playing could make our skins crawl when we see her, and be much more compelling for it. As a result, Lawrence just feels way off. Random bursts of tears and screams don't help consistent characterization, not even fitting to the mould of the sociopath. The editing isn't her friend. The film is littered with continuity errors and she amusingly keeps darting across Cooper's shoulder. Their chemistry is as tender as ever, their sweeping romance is much less so thanks to skimming over every detail. The film would've been a decent (if mild) psychological thriller if it played its cards right and wasn't concerned with any sentiment. But would Lawrence have been better if the style was adjusted? Perhaps slightly. The complaints about her not fitting the time period are valid, but not glaring. As an actress, she's still unpolished potential, and has at least improved since she shot Serena, but Bier's direction fails her. Not to completely blame others, her character is a disaster on everybody's shoulders. However, in the film's third act it does come to its senses and finally realizes what kind of story it is, but the execution is still very weak, lacking any tension or spatial awareness on how to shoot its most kinetic scenes. It feels like there is a decent film buried underneath there somewhere with all its dynamics, maybe a couple more drafts away, maybe a couple more takes, maybe a more intuitive editor behind the wheel. But the potential is lost. Perhaps a road closer to Foxcatcher's gritty authentic realm would've made for a more engrossing film, but that tone is far from its interests and selling points. On the other hand, Cooper is solid. Nothing great, he too has evidently improved since the shoot. He's easy to buy as this character of someone who could have the power to run an empire, and be the type of person who would fall for Serena and eventually be manipulated by her. His acting process as he confronts his moral dilemmas is laid entirely on screen, given that the film offers many shots of him just thinking. But he's immersed enough in the character to make it work. He is a touch too unlikeable to invest in given his corruption, but he makes the whole thing a lot more watchable than it could've been. Alas, peripheral characters are starved of development. Most glaringly is Ana Ularu, ostensibly a key character as the mother of Cooper's child, and she's given literally nothing to do but share venomous glares with Jennifer Lawrence. Rhys Ifans is solid, but his character is written too idiotically to take seriously. Toby Jones toes a fine line between being too self-aware, but it's David Dencik who is the most radiant of the cast in his screen time. Not that he's a fascinating character, just happens to have the most convincing conviction of the ensemble. I want to time travel back to their set and leave the crew a tripod because if there's any way to devalue millions of dollars of (lovely) production and costume design it's giving the camera to Jimmy Tremble Fingers. It's like a Kathryn Bigelow film, constantly but only slightly shaking with the camera settings making the frame flicker every other shot. The film is void of any cinematic atmosphere. It's such a shame because when the second unit shoots the astonishing static vistas of the Smokey Mountains it gives me hope that it could be an attractive film. But there's no grace to be found otherwise. Serena is just a ferociously sloppy film. The biggest sin is how it enters dark territory without embracing it, feeling as though it's in denial of how brutal its story truly is. The attempts to be poetic in its imagery are laughable and the film often ruins decent moments with trite cringe- worthy lines. Nevertheless, it isn't an unbearable film, if 'not always bad' can be a compliment. There will be some people who can ignore these flaws and like it for what it is. It doesn't quite deserve the lashing it's suffered so far, but lets just quietly put it back on the shelf. 4/10

Surprisingly Bad.

[Jason_Stinnett · 2/10 · 13 March 2015]

I don't normally post reviews because one man's trash may be another man's treasure. However I don't see how many people could like this movie. I'm a big Cooper/Lawrence fan so I had lofty expectations. the first bad thing I noticed were the many many cuts. It was as if they were trying to piece a movie together from random 5 second snippets. the next thing I noticed was the very shaky cinematography. At times it was like cloverfield. OK not as bad but visually disturbing. Next was continuity. Bradley cooper's character has an unlit cigar in his mouth speaking to JLaw. Cut to her saying her line. cut right back to him and the cigar is lit and he's smoking it. Unlikely but plausible so I'll allow it. Cut back to her then right back to him and he's lighting the cigar. One of the worst cases of continuity I have ever seen. Well maybe until this. From the start Cooper has a thick accent. Spot on JFK to be exact. I'll buy it. 35 minutes into it his accent is completely gone. No accent whatsoever. I don't know if it ever cam back because I turned it off after that. Truly a black eye for two great actors.

IMDB Wannabe's Strike Again.

[jaimemedina-36288 · 7/10 · 29 May 2022]

I just picked this movie randomly on a Sunday afternoon. And no, it's not going to win any awards. But man, have the IMDB pseudo intelligencia come out in droves to lambast this one. I guess there was some sort of issue between its completion and release. And so I guess the lemmings were keen to pile on. To all those all those meandering wannabe insiders and frustrated industry outcasts I say - get a life.

The movie itself has stood the test of time. The adaptation is an interesting take, if somewhat predictable. The performances were solid. And the cinematography does an admirable job of reinforcing some of the symbolism of the original text.

You took 18 months to do about 2 months work producers!

[estebangonzalez10 · 3/10 · 3 December 2014]

"I've think you've taken nine months to do about six months work."

It's funny that Jennifer Lawrence was given this line in a film that took over 18 months to make during post-production because for what it is, this could have been edited much better in two or three months. The narrative feels choppy and instead of focusing on the characters in this period piece they move the narrative from one act to the next without ever giving the audience anything to chew on. This is simply a flat period romance with very little chemistry that misfires on all cylinders (editing, casting, and screenplay). You can't help but feel that there is another film in here somewhere that got lost in the editing room. Serena seemed to be a film aiming for Oscar gold because it had everything going for beginning from the romantic pairing of Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper after their incredible success in Silver Linings Playbook. Add the solid Danish director, Susanne Bier (In a Better World), and a script based on Ron Rash's 2008 novel to the mix and Serena seemed to be a sure bet. I had high expectations for it and many were already including it as a contender for next year's Academy Award even before it finished being produced. How could a film like this end up being so forgettable and predictable at the same time? I'd guess the blame relies on the producers who tried to cash in on Lawrence and Cooper's success by centering the film on the romance instead of focusing on the other interesting cast members. The romance never works here because the characters are never fully developed so there is no way we can invest in their relationship. The amazing chemistry these two actors had in their previous film is completely wasted here. Everything about this film seemed disconnected and I am sure it won't live up to the aspirations the producers and critics had for Serena.

I have genuinely enjoyed all of Jennifer Lawrence's performances up to this film. The setting in the woods reminded me of the first time I saw J-Law in Winter's Bone, a film so richly invested in character development that I was expecting her to deliver another outstanding performance. That comparison to Winter's Bone only ended up disappointing me. She is extremely over the top in this film and the emotional scenes she gets are never believable. The scenes where she breaks down and cries were painful to watch. Bradley Cooper loses his charm as well, but I guess the blame relies on the script. If you are trying to deliver a strong romantic period piece you have the right actors to do so, but the script doesn't help build the romance. Bradley Cooper's character catches up to J-Law on a horse and asks her to marry him and then they are married. The entire film felt sort of chopped up and fast forwarded to the key parts of the story without taking time to give the characters any depth. About 15 minutes into the movie I knew where everything was heading and it was a huge disappointment for me because I expected a lot more from this film. The secondary cast is interesting, but unfortunately very little time is given to these characters. Rhys Ifans, Toby Jones, and David Dencik are extremely talented actors and I wish the script would've given them more time. Unfortunately Christopher Kyle's script misses the mark at every turn. The only positive thing about Serena was Morten Søborg's beautiful cinematography.

Not that bad

[murphysmessage · 7/10 · 16 August 2021]

Maybe it's because I grew up in the South. Maybe it's because I expected a lot less after reading the reviews. Maybe a little choppy but the beautiful photography and excellent acting and characters... totally nailed the mountain man character. Very believable story. Said in the beginning she was damaged. What did you expect?

3/10

[Giacomo_De_Bello · 3/10 · 30 October 2014]

One of the most angry experiences I've ever had in a cinema. For a movie that is literally about nothing, that makes no point and had no dramatic core I was surprised that I could take at least a couple of things from it.

It does have a number of intense scenes that unfortunately stop making their way into the movie after half of the movie's duration. There is a very good reason for why these scenes have an impact and why the whole movie actually din't feel excruciating. That would be the cinematography. It is totally, absolutely gorgeous. The lighting is impeccable, the composition perfectly balanced and color is used to paint beautiful images. Thanks to this high-standard photography and the talent of its leads, "Serena" has the merit of bringing about 11-12 minutes to the screen of good material.

The remaining 95 minutes unfortunately are rubbish. When I'm saying that the movie has nothing to say I am 100% honest. It does not make any f**king statement. Moreover, there isn't a story, there simply isn't. I couldn't make heads or tails of what were they going for. It is so bluntly and arrogantly thinking its dealing with deep thematics and profound drama that it made me even angrier, I actually kicked the seat in front of me time and time again in desperation. The scirpt and the editing of the film are garbage. The first is melodramatic to the point of comedic, problem is it doesn't reach quite that level of exaggeration so instead of being so bad its good it ended up being plain out bad. The second is all over the place. Scenes are stringed together randomly and they don't take us to any place 90% of time. You'll be asking yourself "Why am I f***king watching this?!" infinite times. About one third of the movie is Cooper and Lawrence making out, having sex, looking emptily at one another or telling each other " I love you". I really had an overdose of the worst sentimentalism on the planet. The emotional and dramatic core of the movie are forgotten. Sometimes I thought that the director must have been joking with me in asking me to take seriously and emotionally this characters after the montage at the start. The score is as bad as everything above, it is manically manipulative and added a whole other significance to the word "cringe". Characters are in the movie for no particular reason and they are so badly defined that they made Cooper, Lawrence and Jones look bad actors. There's some talent there man! You're making single handedly look bad three of the best actors in the business. Hats off for that!

I hate this movie. The more I think about it angrier I get. Thank God, there were some very good scenes in there because with those missing and with no amazing cinematography I would have probably walked out of the theater for the first time in my life.

Better than the review scores

[Jas_11 · 7/10 · 22 July 2019]

I was nearly put off watching this by the low scores. Glad I watched it because your never disappointed with Bradley and Jennifer. Humbling storyline and lovely scenery. Tense in places and surprising in others. Didn't like the ending but won't spoil anything. Just a good film to watch...

Did they read the book first?

[BarbNY814 · 2/10 · 9 December 2014]

Having read, and enjoyed, Ron Rash's novel I am not sure what I saw on the screen. I don't know who is to blame -- the director, the editor or the screen writer. They did not stick to the book so if you liked the book, this film is not it. I blame the screen writer; what made him think he could write a better story and Susanna Bier for taking on this project and then dropping it for 18 months?

They added people not in the book or changed roles of those in the book and changed other details attributed to different characters, using up time that could have been better spent on real character development. Spent too much time on the back story when it could have been explained, as in the book, when Pemberton brings Serena home he tells of how they met and married. There did not need to be a scene.

The important theme -- jealousy -- was not developed. Jennifer Lawrence changes from one scene to the next, with no development of her descent into madness. The dramatic escape by Rachel and baby was hardly there and in the book it was gripping how she struggled to stay one step ahead of Galloway.

Surprisingly, there was little to no attempt at a southern accent except by Tobe Jones and by Rhys Ifans, no one else even tried -- Lawrence being excused.

Sean Harris, who is known to be real intense on a film set, acted like he could have phoned in his lines, making no attempt at channeling one particular accent and mumbling (probably too embarrassed to say the lines). He looked like he did not want to be there any longer than he had to be there. Cooper was not comfortable in the role and also looked like he would rather be any place else. When first cast, some predicted this would happen because neither Cooper nor Lawrence had any experience with a period piece.

I gave it a 2 because the actors showed up. It truly was awful, and I think they knew it. Why would they have not given Lawrence the screen time to slowly slip over the edge? The film's denouement is not what Ron Rash wrote at all. Read the book -- it is so much better.

This film cost $25-30 million to make (a decent sum) for a film with no set, barely. Obviously, no one who worked on the film read the book -- the screen writer certainly did not.

An iconic field that diverges from Hollywood formulas

[Blackbird013-1 · 10/10 · 27 January 2016]

To be honest I am only writing this review because the film has had such a negative reception. I want to make a few things clear.

This film rather than following the Hollywood formula is more true to life in the sense that some European films have been. Life isn't always exciting, sometimes it can be brooding rather than fast paced with flashy cars and "cool" props being used to polish up perception.

I would classify this as historical fiction in the sense that most films with a historical setting have a lot of flash and posturing. This film offers a view of the less glamorous times during the depression. It gives you a glimpse of the issues through the plot rather than show you first hand. Some elements are true to Hollywood such as perfectly clean main characters but conceptually this film seems like a simple slice of life.

One person said you ended up not liking anyone. I think that's the entire point of the film. It's dark, brooding, and it has things to say about the nature of people and life without offering the flash and allure of a visually stunning or fun filled film. Many can't understand the setting (the depression) and might not understand the hard choices people made between survival and dreams which still relates to current life in many ways.

I found the plot believable and think it's a good film for the deeper thinkers and realistic story lovers. Although poetic, it substitutes flash for substance. Instead of looking for something action packed or something to cuddle up with just accept it for what it is. It's unlikely to be pleasant for the light hearted.

Not as awful as I expected

[Red_Identity · 22 November 2014]

I mean, it's hard to even really think this is a good film, but considering all of the bad hype and the delay in the release of it prior to this, I think we all expected something along the lines of Grace of Monaco/Diana. Instead, it's not really that bad, certainly not in the funny way we all expected. So it's good that it's not a trainwreck, but it's not very good either. It's just way too all over the place to work, and seems to be going through the motions without any concern as to what it's trying to say. Also, it's a little dull. Still, it's not that bad and I do think Lawrence does the best she can with the material, although Cooper has no presence.

Film festival showing

[Connbee · 7/10 · 18 October 2014]

I saw the film today and while the performances were good and the look of the film from the sets to the costuming were impressive the flow of the film wasn't perfect and that felt like it was mainly down to the editing.

The tone shift half way through did feel jarring, it made the film feel oddly paced as the characters motivations were so emotional and fluid that I felt the viewer had to keep working out the reasons for such intense decisions and it not working at least sometimes for me.

Fans of the novel will notice big changes and I imagine the film works better for people who are unfamiliar with Ron Rash's novel as I was disappointed how different it was.

It's not a masterpiece but it's not a disaster, if any thing it feels too ambitious and doesn't quite reach the heights needed.

From hard shot of Appalachian shine into Mountain Dew

[josie-73768 · 1/10 · 11 June 2015]

Ron Rash's extraordinary novel could easily be described as a cross between MacBeth and There Will Be Blood. It is a deeply nuanced exploration of human compulsion, vicious ambition, and ultimately, evil. It is a multi-dimensional, compelling, profound and disturbing story by a man who probably knows the dark corners of Appalachia like no other living author.

So I approached the film knowing that the source material held the potential for cinematic greatness – a possible modern classic. What I found, unfortunately, was a totally vapid, dumbed down, politically correct attempt to turn the character Serena (truly evil and vicious from the get-go in the book) into an admirable feminist "macho woman" who comes unravelled as the result of a miscarriage. Various other story elements have also been manipulated and severely distorted in the movie to make Serena more likable and understandable, especially the ending, which is a totally mindless departure from the book.

The same is true of George, her husband. In the book, he is a completely egocentric robber baron, hell bent on destroying the Carolina wilderness for his own gain. He is enthralled by Serena's power, even though she ultimately turns on him. There is nothing soft or decent about him. He's entirely about power, domination and control (with the sole exception of caring for his illegitimate son).

These are characters with extreme personalities, of a type that today we'd call sociopathic and psychopathic. Today we'd consider them sick and put them on meds or lock them up. Yet, historically, these were the standard personality types that drove the robber baron mentality of the era depicted in the film. At that time (and farther in the past), society tolerated far more extreme public behavior from the powerful than we do today.

Unfortunately, both the screenwriter and director seem to be in way over their heads and to have totally missed this point. They've taken irrational human evil from a bygone era and tried to psychologize it into acceptable, understandable 2015-style human frailty. What Ron Rash courageously depicted with unflinching reality in his book, the makers of this film have gutted and diluted into a gorgeous soap opera. They've turned a double proof hard shot of Appalachian shine into Mountain Dew.

If I could give this movie half a star, I would. I give it one star for its wonderful production values and design, which are truly Oscar-worthy. Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper are totally wasted here. I hope they've deleted this one from their resumes

I laughed and I cried - becauce I watched the darn thing!

[ArchonCinemaReviews · 3/10 · 25 February 2015]

If a film has Academy Award nominated actors, is based off a New York Times bestseller, it can still be a crap movie. We present to you: Serena.

Serena is a bunch of melodramatic nonsense masked as a worthy Hollywood feature film – when in reality it is just a bigger budgeted soap opera set in a historical time period.

George Pemberton (Bradley Cooper) is trying to build a timber empire in North Carolina in 1929. While in the Northeast he meets a captivating woman named Serena (Jennifer Lawrence) and marries her. Together, the newly married couple return to North Carolina and pursue the venture together, Serena being the ever proficient business partner. Their saga and dramatics for success is the basis of the narrative within this film.

Anyone who has read the novel Serena by Ron Rash should be deeply disappointed by the film adaptation by screenwriter Christopher Kyle and director Susanne Bier. I'm disappointed and all I did was read the summary of the novel after watching the film, and all I can say is "woof, Cliffnotes, eat your heart out." Serena is a tragedy of editing, direction, screen writing, and acting all with a pretty paint job to delude viewers into thinking the drama is adequate.

With so much wrong in the film it is hard to differentiate whose shoulders must bear the brunt of the blame. Surely the starting point for the film is the script, and Kyle's is devoid of suspense, tension and drama. The dialogue does nothing to progress the plot in a feasible manner so director Susanne Bier must, like a magician, attempt to cultivate it from thin air. Not to say her attempt is admirable either, the gritty drama about greed set in the dense forest of North Carolina has no mood, no vision and is plainly shot with a vividity that exacerbates Serena's lifelessness.

Speaking of lifeless, moving on to the lead performers of this film: Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence. Neither both to develop their characters in any fashion. Both Cooper and Lawrence are hollow mannequins going through the motions – no greed, no hate, no love, no passion, no motivation, no flaws, no self, no soul. Admittedly, they are severely miscast for their roles but the level at which they falter is startling.

The only entertainment received from watching Serena is from laughing at this allegedly dramatic film that fails to engage its viewer. Serena is uninspired and dreadfully cliché – watch out for some hilariously poor sex scenes and side-splitting 'emotional breakdowns'. Serena is so poorly done, from all angles, its a marvel the film even managed an internet release in the States.

Please check out our website for full reviews of all the recent releases.

Could be more focused

[Gordon-11 · 9 February 2015]

This film tells the story of a timber tycoon in a rural place, whose life drastically changes after marrying a girl who lost her family to a devastating fire when she was twelve.

I watched "Serena" at once after getting my hands on it. The pairing of Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence could not be wrong, I thought. The plot is all about Serena, and is roughly in three parts, thee first showing Jennifer Lawrence in a confident mode, the second showing her in distress and the third showing her in callousness. Jennifer Lawrence does well to portray these qualities, but the main problem is that she's too young and beautiful to be in such a role. Think Nicole Kidman in "Cold Mountain".

On the other hand, Bradley Cooper is believable as a tycoon. Lighting effects are great as well. Story telling could be more focused though, as there are scenes which don't lead to anywhere, such as the scene where there's an accident involving someone slipping next to a tree. Overall, I think "Serena" is an OK film but it isn't as thrilling or engaging as it could be.

There will be wood.

[planktonrules · 6/10 · 23 September 2015]

With Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence in this film, I am sure folks immediately thought of their lovely romance in "Silver Linings Playbook"--and that's natural. However, when people saw that this was NOT a romantic film but a very, very grim and slow film, I am sure that alone turned off many fans. Regardless, folks were sure turned off and this went on to be one of the biggest money-losing films of the year. Despite this, is the film any good?

Well, yes and no. I'd say yes in that there are some very nice performances==particularly by Jennifer Lawrence. While she plays a thoroughly unlikable lady, she is able to convey a lot of emotions without actually saying anything. I was very impressed by her. As for Bradley Cooper....well, his character wasn't very interesting. The film also has some lovely location shots. What I didn't like, was that the film was too stark, too quiet and too god-awful depressing. Additionally, and this is a more minor quibble, but I HATE how in the close-up shots the camera NEVER remains still. I am sure some folks think it makes the film artsy, but on the big screen it probably induced nausea.

The story itself is about greed, corruption and amorality--themes that made me think of "There Will Be Blood", though without the larger than life leading performance. The Pembertons (Lawrence and Cooper) marry and move to the area which is now the Great Smokey National Park during the early Depression. Their goals are to eventually earn enough for a huge spread in Brazil--and both seem willing to abandon morality and decency to do it. However, Mrs. Pemberton is a lot like Lady Macbeth--the vicious woman pushing her husband to do ANYTHING to earn this fortunate. But when Mrs. Pemberton realizes that a woman in town with a small child is Mr. Pemberton's, this same vicious and amoral energy is about to be unleashed on the husband, child and old mistress.

This is a slow and unpleasant film...I'll admit this readily. However, I don't think overall that it's a bad film--even if it is a movie practically overflowing with nastiness! I see it as a film that STILL has an interesting story that could have certainly been much better. Giving the story some energy, some life would have greatly improved it. As it is, I just can't see most folks being very willing to watch this sort of unpleasantness.

Not Bewitching

[rcastl2335 · 3/10 · 23 April 2015]

Despite the oddly virulent reviews of Serena posted on this site, Serena is not a bad film, simply a dull one. Beautiful cinematography (it was filmed in the Czech Republic) and costume design can't hide the flaws of the director's decisions. The film is weirdly static, with no flow from scene to scene. Because of that, the actors aren't allowed to build their performances, actions seem simply to happen and no point of view is made or advanced. The famed Lawrence/Cooper chemistry is notably absent because of this directorial decision. There are births, deaths, accidents with no relation in the larger scheme of the movie. Lawrence is stunning in the period costumes, Rhys Ifans virtually unidentifiable in the best performance of Serena and Bradley Cooper continues his aversion to razors as the stubble-faced husband/owner of the logging company. (BTW: this appearance is notably out of sync for a period piece. No business owner in the first half of the 20th century would appear in public with a 2 day growth of whiskers.)Coming off the previous successes of the Lawrence/Cooper team, this film is a failure that can only be laid at the director's feet. It's a shame that their work is dissipated in this way.

Dark

[fluturoj · 6/10 · 15 August 2016]

A dark drama. Makes you think.

The real-life lesson- an amazing show of the result of actions fuelled by malicious feelings. Serena was jealous, this emotion triggered anger and the bad decision to kill they child. If she didn't threat the kid then George wouldn't have to give himself so that he can protect his family. If he hadn't given himself than he would not have rushed in that duel with the panther and got killed. So Serena's jealousy led to her misery. A great example of Karma I'd say. So, don't let negative impatiens trigger actions. Don't act on those emotions. Secondly, when a spouse endorses a negative action or even encourages it as did Serena when she encouraged George to kill his friend, they are a red flag and could be capable of wicked actions (like killing your child because they are too jealous and cant control it. The only thing that didn't seem to contradict my believe in karma, why when Serena saved the men from bleeding, her reward was her losing her baby and the ability to ever have kids (I believe that is due to riding). Shouldn't something good be rewarded with something good just as something bad with bad (which is shown in this case). One could argue that she saved a killer, she did more harm than good to the society but even if a killer or not he was a human being and if you can you should help. She did nothing wrong.

Character analysis: Serena-fear of loosing loved ones. She lost all the shoved when she was 12, she could not bear the thought of losing someone else she loved. Thats why jealousy took control of her. I always say that jealousy makes us mad because it scares us. I frightens us that we might lose those we love due to someone else or something else. It's fear. Its hard to control it.Thats why it usually ends up controlling you. In Serena case jealousy strengthened the fear of lost by a million. Thats why she felt she had to do something. Something to eliminate that fear. Serena's character is very realistic and extremely well developed. George-a typical man in love. When men are in love they get blinded. They stop to see how they friends are and believe whatever that woman of their dreams tells them. They do whatever might make that woman approve of him (such as killing his risk) and see him as a strong leader. They will have the pressure and the ego to do anything to make her feel like a queen (buying land). But they do have lines that they do not cross, even for this woman. They have situations they turn cold blooded even for this woman. So they won't do anything for this woman after all, very differently from woman in love ( Serena was ready to kill a child just so that she could never lose him). George's line was his child. And this is how it should be. People should not be ready to do whatever in name of love. There should be lines and thesis lines should be the threat or harm of the wellbeing of another person. Woman feel deeper. They shouldn't, not when it can lead to harming others. Men are smarter in this sense.

Plausibility: and excellent job here. The story is plausible and could happen in real life. The only thing implausible was the kids eyes. They can't be brown or dark if both parents had blue eyes. Unless the kid wasn't George's and all the drama happened for nothing.

Acting: very little to say here as well, both Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper are amazing and their chemistry is amazing too. Great casting for leads I'd say.

Storytelling: Slow in the beginning. Slow and boring. But in the end it turns out to pick up the pace and become more interesting that expected.

A Misfire of being a great movie

[MattBrady099 · 4/10 · 7 January 2015]

Talking about a big backfire this movie was, I mean just wow.

The story is about (Bradley Cooper) and his fiercely independent, entrepreneurial-minded wife Serena (Jennifer Lawrence) following a devastating miscarriage. A woman who isn't afraid to speak her mind and relishes the opportunity for manual labor in the forest, the enigmatic Serena subsequently grows intensely jealous of the woman who previously bore her husband a son, and quickly begins to unravel over suspicions that Pemberton is sheltering his illegitimate family.

Okay every year you always get that early Oscar Buzz in about I don't know February or March, of films that are not even out yet but people predict it's going to be great just by some little photos or the 20 sec trailer for the film. Movies like Jersey Boys, Into the Woods and now this movie, which this was originally suppose to get a lot of Oscar Nominations, but when the reviews finally came in... it get's nothing and hey I won't blame them, this movie is god awful.

Serena is a depressing, not very well acted, lazily edited movie with some weak directing. The movie doesn't really hold my interest at times because I almost nodded off with boredom watching this movie, and I think it's the way the movie is written, it's not really well written at all. With scenes of dialogue that feel flat and been done before in much better films than this.

The thing that made my jaw dropped with shock of how bad it was in this movie is the editing, I mean my god this is some of the worst editing I've seen in years. It's so chopper and scenes that just go by so quick, if I was watching this movie and then I dropped something on the floor and while I'm getting it and sitting back up I would think I missed about 35 minutes of this movie, but no it's just the rush editing that's all.

The director of this movie Susanne Bier doesn't really look like she give a damn about this movie, because they are loads of scenes that are easy to spot has mistakes and she just overlooked them, and yes there are many directors out there that miss a lot of mistakes in their movies, but in this with the messy editing and the very poorly written script, how can you miss all that?.

Now dose this movie have it's good and I can yeah (Only some): The way the movie looks is actually pretty to look at and the cinematography is just spot on great. The sets as well looked like it to for ever and probably hours to put together and I give them that for trying, but doesn't change the fact that this is pretty awful movie.

Overall Serena has I said before feels like a big misfire of being something great and worthy of watching, but no.

Nature Vs Civilization

[ajquintela-pb · 7/10 · 29 November 2014]

I think It's a great movie with a deeper meaning than just the first line story which is beautifully told with sensitivity and great performances. But besides the moral implications of their actions which are well portrayed (we understand Serena's personality through her tragic past life experiences; and her husband's blindness having found the love that matches his lifestyle and personal ambitions), the story is also about nature Versus civilization. George Pemberton's obsession with hunting down the adult panther symbolizes his quest for bringing development into a virgin forest inevitably by destroying trees and erasing nature. Nature is nowadays seriously in danger of survival and humankind cannot do so without respecting nature : the end scene between the panther and George both death-wounded is intended to mean exactly this.

A promising combination of cast and director, undone by a bland script that seems to care little for its characters.

[shawneofthedead · 4/10 · 31 December 2014]

As a movie, Serena had a lot going for it. It marks the reunion of Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper as an on screen couple, their talents and chemistry now turned towards drama rather than the comedy that brought them both plenty of critical acclaim. (See: Silver Linings Playbook.) The film is also directed by Susanne Bier, an Oscar- winning Danish director known for her tender, thoughtful treatment of domestic tragedy. In theory, the final product should soar. Instead, it sinks, drowning in a strange melancholy that does neither its characters nor its audience any favours.

In Depression-era North Carolina, George Pemberton (Cooper) struggles to keep his fledgling timber business afloat. His efforts are complicated by the arrival of his new wife, Serena (Lawrence). Smart, tough and resourceful, Serena refuses to give in to the casual discrimination of the many male workers in her husband's employ. Soon, she's alienated Buchanan (David Dencik), George's erstwhile right- hand man, and intrigued Galloway (Rhys Ifans), a local woodsman inclined towards the superstitious. Serena swears to George that his previous romantic dalliances mean nothing to her, but things take a turn for the dark and bitter when she starts to doubt her ability to bear her husband an heir.

For the most part, Serena is undone by its bland script by Christopher Kyle. The budding romance between George and Serena unfolds via shorthand: they meet and flirt on horseback and, suddenly, they're married. Thereafter, it becomes a little easier to see why George is enamoured of Serena - she stands tall in an unfriendly environment, and refuses to back down in the face of tradition and bias. But it's harder to see why Serena cares for George. Instead of taking the time to colour a little depth and complexity into their relationship, Kyle trades genuine, heartfelt conversation for frequent scenes of steamy sex.

It doesn't help, either, that the film hasn't really lavished enough time on turning its leads into credible characters before it veers into darker, more inexplicable territory. Serena morphs from feminist to femme fatale in a poor echo of what happens in Ron Rash's bestselling 2008 novel. In both instances, Serena's sanity is called into question when tragedy strikes. But, in the film, she comes off weaker - her actions and agency lost in her desperation to be the only mother to George's children. George fares little better, as he's betrayed by his friends, his wife and himself in equal measure.

Lawrence and Cooper are the main reasons many people will be watching the film - and they're the main reasons why it works at all. They play what little they're given very well, selling the marriage between George and Serena for everything they're worth. Lawrence looks great with her eternally perfectly-curled hair - highly unrealistic in the backwoods of North Carolina - but, more importantly, makes Serena live and breathe through the disappointing path her character takes in the final act of the film. Cooper provides able support, though he's somewhat hamstrung by a role that remains obstinately opaque despite his best efforts.

When it comes down to it, there's something missing in the grey, grim picture Bier paints of this heated but doomed romance. More intriguing is the thought of what could have been. If the script had been tighter and more faithful to Rash's novel, would the movie and its heroine have come off better? What would the final product be like if original director Darren Aronofsky and star Angelina Jolie had stayed with the project? Alas, we will never know. Instead, we'll have to content ourselves with a film that contains all the right ingredients for a hit, but doesn't manage to cook up something truly special.

Strong and remarkable

[Predrag · 8/10 · 7 November 2015]

I usually write a review only when my opinion drastically differentiates from what I find already contributed - when there's a dire need to tip the scale. And there is one here, to save this incredible film from the lynch mob.

This atmospheric dark period romance set in an unusual stage has a lot of human drama to offer. And this is what S. Bier is known at excelling. And pouring it on, which obviously irritates some part of the audience. But it is all done with a lot of taste for timing, with a good and fresh modern editing which disposes of most needless parts of the action and instead rather reserves that time for us to think about it all during the breaks of foggy Smoky Mountains scenery. (Obfuscation plays a leading role here, and this landscape couldn't be a better choice.)

Film is layered with appropriately somber music used/mixed with subtlety, and likewise its gorgeous photography has been wonderfully appreciated by the edit which understands its visual potential. This is one of those rare instances where a pattern of hand-held closeups doesn't seem gratuitous, but does manage to bring us closer to the characters. Beside this being the result of the strong characters themselves, it is also a combination of a slower, not-frenetic pace, with a lot of static masters too.

While there might be some unbelievable decisions the characters make in this story, we need to remind ourselves that instead of treating this as a negative, these are the emotional extremes we should be welcoming, in an emotional rawness which needs appreciation. At the end, it is an emotional and symbolic theater in which all the elements and symbols have and live to deliver their wonderfully intertwined meanings.

A quiet, slow burning watch starring megastars before they were real big-hitters

[FilmFestAsh · 7/10 · 7 August 2019]

In Depression-era North Carolina, Pemberton (Bradley Cooper) fights to keep his flailing logging business afloat in order to make enough money to start of new life in Brazil with his enigmatic new wife, Serena (Jennifer Lawrence).

The town sheriff is suspicious of Pemberton's dirty dealings and increasing pressure to mark the area a national park sees the ambitious businessman turn to his wife for increasingly destructive support and direction.

Serena is billed as a period drama centred around the bleak prospects of a small town and all those trapped within her but in reality it's a much more sophisticated character study of the deeply complicated title role herself.

The Depression era setting is really an extended metaphor for the inescapable darkness of Serena's damaged personality. Having suffered a soul stamping tragedy as a child and left unable to love (by her own admission) each new opportunity or friendly face is terminated by her manipulative neediness and, eventually, brute force.

Her one genuine connection is with the curmudgeonly Galloway (Rhys Ifans) an equally disturbed and quietly menacing character who tends to her every warped whim like a loyal lap dog. What at first seems a perfect union between Pemberton and Serena horrifyingly unravels as each turn to competitively desperate measures to get what they need.

Although both Lawrence and Cooper more than handle their complex roles, Serena could've been a big hitter with more established, serious actors in their place. A quiet, slow burning watch.

Emotionless ..

[MovieJunkie1976 · 4/10 · 1 July 2015]

**Warning! Spoiler Information Inside**

I have to admit the crowd rubbernecking the implied disaster this film was is what got my attention. After viewing this is my Review.

The DVD case has , well, "commentary" from industry insider individuals and media,that gives one the strong impression this film may be only a one star visual piece of celluloid worth viewing on "mute". Was this an attempt to lower audience expectation of the film? I cannot confirm. The special features section comes off as the actors clearly supporting their leader in this case Director Susanne Bier. Marketing Ploy? I am not certain.

Here is what I am certain of after three consecutive viewings. The only person at fault for the way this film turned out is Susanne Bier. After watching Jennifer Lawrence act this film with Brad Cooper , I can see, if she has a film career modeled after early professional male/female parings like William Powell and Myrna Loy , why she has pursed Cooper. If she is right, this film and many others will prove that truth in hindsight review. The performances of this team , for this film are as good as can be expected for this film. Toby Jones and Ryhs Ifans are good support. There is no interruption of the suspension of disbelief in this movie.

The Writing is fine , there really is nothing out of the ordinary for a piece set in this time, in fact there are some surprisingly deep areas of specificity that are enjoyable. The Character modeling is also up to scratch, not Oscar worthy but not a fail either.

The Flow is dreadful. it is a victim of this films fatal flaw. That either by editing or by the simple inability of the Director to capture one ioda of expression or moral emotion by lens, it completely undermines the entire project. I was in three viewings unable to generate one ounce for caring for Bradley Cooper as he faced the fact that his wife was attempting to kill his child in earnest. I have seen bad actors, this fail was not Cooper's or Lawrence's (who I thought gave her best sequence in that production , at that moment)fault acting wise.

For what ever reason technical or otherwise the project is unable to inspire the viewer through any available modern cinematic technique. When it comes to that broad of a failure the leader is to blame. I believe that Susanne Bier is capable of filming complex subjects of intense moral contradiction and stress. This film was a flat miss.

A good study on the importance of direction in film.

Two Stars(of 5)