You Were Never Really Here (2017) User Reviews (883)

Don't wait to see Joker, Joaquin already brought his "A" game!

[WalkdenEntertainment · 8/10 · 14 November 2018]

Joe (Joaquin Phoenix) is a man you hire to track down missing people. Joe is also a skilled ex veteran who is permanently traumatised by his dark past. When Joe works, he walks around with confidence and has no problems using violence in order to get the job done. After getting the job done and collecting his pay, Joe comes home to his elderly mother who he takes care of.

After completing a recent job, Joe is soon offered a new mission from a New York senator. The mission is to find and rescue the Senator's 13 year old daughter who may have been captured.

I enjoyed the fact that Joe as a character is no 007. It's clear that while he is skilled, he's also a man with a horrible past, but in the end... he is very capable for any task. To the audience, we feel Joe does what he does to distracts himself or perhaps occupy to his thoughts from dwelling on his own personal hell.

The film is loaded with tension, but to my surprise it's also all shot beautifully. When Joe is on a mission, we don't do see the smashing and bashing. The director here gives us enough understanding to know what Joe is doing each step of the way without needing to show us every single detail. Other scenes are filmed creatively, allowing us to see Joe's mind and thoughts. These scenes can come across like a dream sequence and viewers might possibly find this slow and boring. Others may lock into what we see of Joe's world and be thankful for how much we get to see of his personal life. For me personally, I loved how creative this film was. Showing different camera angles and Joe's mind in depth only helped me to gain greater understanding of the situation and the characters. Naturally it's these types of moments that also build the suspense!

From a performance level I loved Joaquin Phoenix. While I understand the actor has kept himself busy on screen, I personally enjoyed his work here more than anything else I've seen of him recently. The actress of the 13 year old victim (actress Ekaterina Samsonov) also acts incredibly and provides perfect screen chemistry with Joaquin Phoenix's character. I personably enjoyed seeing these two work together as the story built up.

Overall, I found this film rather surprising in a positive way. The film is dark, gritty and loaded with tension as it progresses, but we also gain a greater understanding to Joe's thoughts and his mind. We are given plenty of creative detail thanks to the awesome work from the director. That being said, I feel many will enjoy the film's creativity while others might start to look at their watch during the film. For me, I loved it, and it was great to see something new and fresh in 2018 with yet another solid performance from actor Joaquin Phoenix. Worth a look!

8.2/10 Walkden Entertainment

Incredible performances and cinematography, but has a weak uninteresting plot

[Michaelayeve · 6/10 · 10 April 2018]

I'm a huge fan of art films. This film is definitely inspired by taxi driver and that's one of the reasons why it caught my attention as I love that movie, but this film is a huge let down. It's not good. The acting is 10/10, the cinematography and camerawork is 10/10, but the plot is horrible and boring. Take blade runner 2049's slow (but awesome) pacing and slow it down, throw in an uninteresting predictable repetitive recycled plot we've seen a billion times which could have been told within 20 minutes, give the main character psychological traumatic issues and show us random crap that's going on in his mind, and you have this movie. It brings nothing new to the table and is done in a way that simply bores you. I love dramas, I know this movie is one, an art drama film, but there Wonder, no suspense, no clever conversations, no anything really. I felt like I was watching a long video demonstrating Joaquin Phoenix's phenomenal acting.

In a nutshell this film is a drama with your typical basic story line with phenomenal acting that you will forget within a couple of days. I can only recommend it if love movies with beautiful cinematography and are a huge fan of Joaquin Phoenix, but if you're looking for an original unforgettable drama, a crime revenge film, or whatever else you were expecting, I recommend staying away from this.

Joaquin Phoenix is at his best

[hashimoto3214 · 8/10 · 31 October 2018]

Please beware there may be spoilers.

I was moved by this movie. As others have said certain aspects seemed weak, the plot for example. The story however was so strong and so badly needed to be told. Phoenix gave such a passionate, all or nothing performance that honestly this is one of my favorite films of his as far as the artistry and acting.

He connects so strongly with the young girl that its palpable on the screen. This felt so incredibly real, without the fluff that seems to usually come with these types of movies. Injuries seemed realistic, the pain of the characters, the agony of the story. All in all give it a watch if you can handle the subject matter

Not what it appears

[FrostyChud · 7/10 · 29 November 2017]

If you thought this was a film about a disturbed loner avenging an innocent, you got snookered.

The only way to understand YWNRH is through a Freudian lens.

The theme of this film is not father-daughter incest as it appears, but rather mother-son incest.

Joe has an incestuous relationship with his mother. "Stay with me a little longer," she says when he puts her to bed. In the next scene, she is trying to cajole him into coming into the bathroom where she is naked. The multiple references to PSYCHO are not a coincidence: this too is the story of a man transformed into a serial murderer by his obscene mother.

The story proper is nothing is a paranoid delusion: hence the title of the film and the mysterious "invisibility" of the main character.

The true story: Joe, as a child, is dragged into an incestuous relationship by his mother. His father, whose job ought to be to prevent this regressive fusion, does not have the authority to separate them. He is too violent, too weak, or too absent: we never find out. All we ever see of him is a hand holding a hammer. This scene must be understood as a metaphor. Father discovers their relationship and explodes; as he rages impotently with his hammer, mother and son exchange a complicit glance under the bed. Translation of the mother's wink: "He's impotent. You're still MINE." On mother's credenza is a photo of her as a young and beautiful woman and a photo of her son. Father has been eliminated from the picture.

Joe rescues abused girls. This is a fantasy. No abused girl ever existed, only an abused boy. Joe invents the story of a girl abused by her father as a displacement of the true abuse: a boy by his mother.

What actually happens in the movie, and what is fantasy? What actually happens is very simple. Joe murders his mother. Joe commits suicide. Perhaps the homosexual encounter in the sauna and the drugs are true. Everything else is a delusion that he creates to escape from the horror of the truth. In Joe's fantasy, he is a powerful man and not a victim. He has a benevolent father figure (McCleary). He makes ample use of the hammer which appears to be the only trace of a paternal legacy. The Nina character is how Joe sees his mother: as a beautiful, innocent, prohibited object of desire. Joe's delusion is simultaneously an attempt to understand the truth and an attempt to flee the truth. David Lynch uses this technique more explicitly in LOST HIGHWAY, MULHOLLAND DRIVE, and TWIN PEAKS. It is very effective on film and Lynne Ramsay is right to exploit it. In Joe's delusion, the father (represented by the two- dimensional Votto and Williams characters) takes "illegal" possession of his daughter. In reality, this is how the young Joe perceives his father's possession of his mother: as an unbearable crime that must be punished. Did Joe murder his own father? It is possible. Note that in all of Joe's traumatic flashbacks, women are being murdered, not men. These flashbacks are not real. They are irruptions of Joe's deepest fantasy: murder his mother. He never went to Iraq.

One day, like Ed Kemper, Joe finally kills his mother. He is the one who shot her in the head. To exculpate himself, he flees into an unbelievable political conspiracy fantasy in which all symbolic fathers are pedophile criminals. Why is Joe so protective of his mother's privacy? Because he doesn't want anyone to find out what is going on between them.

I wasn't sure the director understood her own story until the moment she replaced Joe's sinking mother with Nina. Here she could not be clearer: Nina is just a fantasy screen for Mother.

In reality, Joe really does shoot himself in the diner. The fantasy of a happy future with Nina is just a screen.

I have read Jonathan Ames before and the theme of maternal incest is often implied (his fascination for transsexuals is further proof of an Oedipal thematic).

Good movie.

A PTSD filled drama

[theoledoux · 7/10 · 3 August 2020]

Probably the strangest movie I've seen in a while... It's hard to describe the feeling you get when you finish this film. The best way I can say is; there could have been more. It kind of ends on a bittersweet note, and it will piss off some, that is for sure. Overall though, it does a good job of showing how a traumatized man views the world. One word that sums up this movie would be PTSD. The film essentially is a PTSD fest. Throughout it's 1h30 runtime you aren't sure if what you're seeing is actually happening for real.

Story is about the life of two abused and tortured souls

[Horror_Flick_Fanatic · 9/10 · 20 February 2019]

The story is about the life of two abused and tortured souls revealed from opposite ages and genders. Both Joe (Joaquin Phoenix) and Ekaterina Samsonov character have been victimized by society. Joe bares the physical scars by his abusive father who wanted him to become a straight male by beating his homosexual preference out of him. Then there is Ekaterina who has been sold as an underage sex slave to the wealthy and powerful sexual deviants such as top politicians. Joe is still trapped by the mental cell his father has left him with. He takes on "manly" jobs such as a hired gun to support himself and his elderly Alzheimer afflicted mother who is completely unaware of what he does for a living.

Joe is eventually hired by a wealthy man to find his kidnapped daughter and bring her back. But a twist in the film reveals he wasn't aware of the total circumstances behind her kidnapping. He finds himself being hunted.

Joaquin Phoenix does what he always does best. He becomes the character to the point it no longer feels like we are watching an actor play a role in a film. He really wraps himself up in the character and provides a fabulous performance. He does the subtle nuances of a man in strong conflict with his himself and the image his father had tried to project on him. The film does have a slow pace, but that is intentional. Phoenix takes his time to develop the character very well on screen. This is his hallmark and what makes his film so great. He puts in the hard work to make us understand Joe. Unfortunately, many of today's instant gratification generation don't have the patience to experience real storytelling. I wish more actors took this art form to the heights that Joaquin Phoenix does. He is truly one of the best actors in Hollywood.

Ignore Negative 5 and Under Reviews

[lempkecoleton · 7/10 · 28 January 2019]

I saw mixed reviews for You Were Never Really Here and it made me put off watching this film for 2 years. That was a mistake to say the least. YWNRH is a fantastically shot, gripping stray away from your typical blockbuster crime drama. While this movie isn't perfect, most negative reviews I've seen for this movie are nonsense. This movie is more than worth the hour and a half runtime regardless of whether or not you're typically drawn to the genre. Without spoilers, this review will tell you what you can expect, give you pros and cons, and debunk the faulty overwhelmingly negative reviews some people gave it.

Don't believe the reviews saying there is a "nonexistent, boring plot". The people who think that are the people who need a plot spoon fed to them with in your face exposition and unrealistic, unnecessary character dialogue so they can follow along without having to pay attention. Not only is the plot very clear, it's also very well written. While I'm not sure I would call this movie a thriller, it is a gripping, gritty, crime drama. The plot, despite not being battered into the front of your brain, is straightforward and easy to follow. A man suffering from several traumatic life experiences bides his time finding, and avenging missing girls in an attempt to find peace within himself. Initially, you are left in the dark regarding the main character. His character is developed throughout the story via fragmented displays of flashbacks chopping up his daily life. Through this you simultaneously gather information regarding his daily life, his occupation, his past, and his motives. I believe the way these flashbacks are used are why some people incorrectly believe there is a weak or incomplete plot, but to be frank they couldn't be more wrong.

The use of flashbacks in this movie is not only masterful, but incredibly unique. They are not given to the viewer in their entirety, and they are not meant to give us the entire picture on Joaquin Phoenix's background. They give you enough to understand him, but serve to convey a more important point. The use of these choppy, fragmented flashbacks seen from the main characters perspective convey the hardships of daily life for someone suffering from traumatic experiences. Constantly being reminded of something they'd like to forget, but can't. The seamless and uncontrollable drift from present to the past triggered by random occurrences encountered in day to day life that takes a toll on a person. The director did a phenomenal job conveying this with her technique, while also creating a complete character.

This film is also incredibly well shot. While I'm sure someone could reference several influences this movie draws from I was taken aback at how unique each scene is in how it is shot. This movie strays from the norm and does it extremely well. This individuality not only creates very powerful, gripping, exciting scenes, but makes it easy to focus on less exciting, build up scenes as well. If only based on cinematography I would give this film a 10/10.

While the pros of this movies far outweigh the cons, no movie is perfect. One critique I have is that some of the audio during Joaquin's flashbacks is so quiet I would've completely missed it had I had the subtitles off. Because, as I referenced earlier, the flashbacks are incredibly fragmented each second really counts when establishing the main characters background. Without subtitles, while the quiet, layered audio creates a nice effect to describe the feeling in the main characters head, you lose some relatively important exposition to truly help you understand his past. It's not major and doesn't take away from anything, but it's a critique nonetheless. Same goes for dialogue in a few important character interactions. You really can't fall asleep for a second during this movie if you want to get every detail. I had to rewind another scene that wasn't a flashback just because I missed someone's name. Again, not a deal breaker, doesn't change the plot, but would slightly change your understanding if you missed it.

Overall I give this movie somewhere between a 7/8 out of ten. The only thing holding it back from a 8/9 or a 9/10 was a few minor plot holes at the end. Nothing major, especially when compared to the gargantuan plotholes most Hollywood blockbusters ignore these days, but I'm nitpicky and watch too much CinemaSins on YouTube. Great movie I would highly recommend to anyone.

Unconventional at it's finest

[dragoncherie · 9/10 · 5 December 2019]

Yes I am aware that many thought this film was slow. However, it the slow and thoughtful burn of this film that makes it so unique and well done. It is, overall, a story about trauma and how this trauma has afflicted the protagonist. This is what trauma looks like. I already loved it but could further appreciate it after viewing a video by screened titled " How to Show Trauma" Just watch this video and then decide for yourself. Everything about this film was very much intentional and for good reason.

some good work from Joaquin

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 7 March 2019]

Joe (Joaquin Phoenix) is troubled living in New York City caring for his elderly mother and asphyxiating himself for comfort from a troubling past. He is hired to recover State Senator Albert Votto's runaway young daughter Nina from an underaged girls brothel. He buys a hammer and smashes his way through his crusade. He saves Nina but are confronted by murderous corrupt cops. It's the tip of a dangerous conspiracy leading all the way to the governor's mansion.

The first thirty minutes is a bit rough. It's an artsy meandering slow disjointed slice of life into Joe. I get it but it could be clearer. It does give a feel for the guy. It would be great to have a more complete flashback to his military or policing days instead of short flashes of everything. Once he gets hammering, the movie goes like a freight train with Joaquin driving hard. He delivers a great performance as usual. There is a shock ending which I don't like. Indies like to punctuate the end of their movies with a gunshot. It's a bit cheap and feels amateurish. Overall, there are some great work with a few flaws.

Boring and frustrating

[billy_dan_courtney · 3/10 · 8 April 2018]

Just had me fed up about half way through. Really tried to like it. The shots were needlessly artsy and the music score often inappropriate. One could gild the lily all day with this and try to make it into something deeper than it is. In the end I just felt like fastforwarding it. Pretentious and ultimately painful to finish.

You Were Never Really Here

[arminbilefield · 9/10 · 8 April 2018]

Contains Spoilers:

What a beautiful piece of art, the good goes against evil in this film. The good being Joe and the bad being a lot of other people. The film has a lot of similarities with Taxi Driver, but while it carries the similarities with itself, it delivers it's own original identity in a flawless way. Lynne Ramsay's script put together with Joaquin Phoenix's performance and Johnny Greenwood's absolutely superb soundtrack, delivers to you one of the most beautiful movies of the decade, for your own and this movie's sake don't jump to conclusions with this one and give it time; for me the movie really took life in the water sequence where Joe tries to commit suicide while drowning his mom's body, but as he is in the middle of drowning he suddenly sees Nina, drowning with him. Noticing that drowning himself would automatically drown Nina too, since she has nobody to save her, and thinking she isn't strong enough to do it herself. He goes back for Nina, he kills the security guards goes inside but sees that Nina saved herself, what he may not notice at that moment was that he was the one who gave her the power to fight back and save herself, but he thinks that he just added another not-so pleasant event to the girls life making her kill someone but she assures him "It's okay Joe, it's okay". Because Joe might not notice it but Nina seems to notice that Joe is a nice guy, actually he is a sweetheart, he holds the hand of the guy that killed her mom when he's dying and is scared, for christ's sake. Both leaves the house not knowing after all of this disturbing events will they be able to just get on with their lives? that thought is seen in the diner, where Joe shoots himself in the head while shedding two tears (a reverse type of De Niro's famous scene at the end of the Taxi Driver where he has a smile on his face a few moments before his death). If the movie ended there, Ramsay would imply that in between all of this darkness there is no brightness, it can't be found. But the movies tricks you, with Nina coming back we understand that Joe's asleep and that scene was simply just a dream, and with Nina's dialogue "Let's go, It's a beautiful day" Joe wonders, maybe it is a beautiful day, maybe he can put the disturbing past of his childhood with his abusive dad and the incidents of his work away. And when he sees that even if there is all of this darkness in this world you can still see the light, because you are the one who has the power and you are the one who chooses and understands without all of this darkness, the brightness would not have any meaning; and he confirms Nina, "It is a beautiful day outside" creating one of the most beautiful endings of cinema. . . . . . . . EDIT: But you know what, that incestuous theory makes sense too...

Taxi Driver revisited

[rubenm · 6/10 · 17 October 2017]

It's hard to review this film without mentioning 'Taxi Driver'. Both films are about disillusioned war veterans, moving through the urban jungle, loathing the decadence of modern society, and rescuing a young girl from a brothel. Also, both films feature an aspiring politician during an election campaign. It's simply impossible to ignore so many similarities. But it's extremely difficult, not to say impossible, to make a film that can stand up to the iconic Scorsese classic.

Joe, a silent war veteran played by Joaquin Phoenix, specializes in difficult operations like rescuing young girls who have run into trouble. So he doesn't hesitate when an influential politician asks him to search for his daughter. The man doesn't want to involve the police, because he fears for his reputation.

Finding the girl turns out to be remarkably simple. But after having saved her by violently eliminating everyone standing in the way, things go wrong. There is more violence, more blood and more killing. In the end, Joe seems to emerge victoriously, but there is nothing to be happy about. 'Where do you want to go?', he asks the saved girl. 'I don't know', she says. 'I don't know either', is the desperate sounding answer.

Lynn Ramsay explains Joe's state of mind by inserting lots of short flashes, sometimes almost subliminal. It adds to the general mood of darkness and looming danger. All kinds of unpleasant things are going on, but Joe nor the viewer know exactly what. The only way to deal with it, is with ruthless violence.

But is this one man rescue mission enough to carry a whole film? I have my doubts. The first time Joe rescues the girl, the action is filmed in a very original way. We see everything happening through the images of the surveillance cameras in the building. This is exciting cinema. But at the end, Joe is filmed in a conventional way while slowly moving through a large villa, suspecting danger around every corner. This is a scene like so many similar scenes from other movies.

After leaving the cinema, I felt I had seen a bit too much violence and too little storytelling. But without doubt, this is a personal feeling: perhaps the lack of story elements is what makes this film stand out from others.

So much potential that never gets going

[harrylosborne · 5/10 · 8 April 2019]

Joaquin Phoenix moves from strength to strength these days, truly moving into elite acting company via lead roles in highly regarded (whilst not heavily publicised) films throughout the 2000s. Unfortunately, You Were Never Really Here doesn't quite meet the expectations that the trailer promised - more of a slow-burning, passive crime film that doesn't ever satisfy the viewer. The film starts with a bang, immediately giving insight into Joe's (Phoenix) murky life as a pseudo-hitman with some dramatic and gruesome violence. From this point on, the initial highs are then never reached again - the plot becomes formulaic, and the characters do not evoke emotion as they apparently should do.

Artistically, this movie does push the boat out: camera angles are used effectively, with long sweeping shots accompanying the use of sound for a more complete experience. Colour is also vivid, with scenes suitably reflecting the dark tones constant throughout the film. However, this isn't enough to elevate the lacklustre storyline to the standard Phoenix's projects are now associated with.

You were never really here. Yeah, that'd would've saved a fiver.

[danren121 · 7/10 · 19 March 2018]

This film may draw some crass and unwarranted comparisons with Taxi Driver, but very much in the spirit of a review of this film in the Time's newspaper which lauded much praise, this isn't that movie. This is a film that intends to be substantial without actually having much substance so in some respect it is quite contemporary. The protagonist walks around with a hammer hurting bad people. Of course theres way more to it than that, but is there really? On a visual level this is a picture that easily holds its own and some, the ponderous direction doesn't quite become pretentious and there is a coherent aesthetic. Yet the film's reception doesn't seem fair considering what is on offer. The telegraph called it a film that will blow you away, yeah, one slow shot at a time.

Great acting....poor plot.

[iyadadimi · 7/10 · 21 September 2018]

I've been waiting to watch this movie for a while now. Now that I did I'm a little bit disappointed. Joaquin did it again. Amazing acting skills. The only problem I had with this movie is the plot. I know it's an indie movie, and I love indie movies but this one just didn't grab me nor my attention. I feel like I should read the book, and maybe my opinion would change. It is a movie I would watch once but not more. I think I'm not the only one that feels the same way.

Nightmarish trauma

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 5 August 2018]

'You Were Never Really Here' compelled me to watch it from the start. The fact that people were describing it as an unconventional thriller interested me, there are not many of those these days (speaking as a fan of thrillers), and then you have an extremely talented actor in Joaquin Phoenix in the lead role. The positive word of mouth and cool advertising added further to the promise.

Seeing it, 'You Were Never Really Here' came over as very good and very impressive. Can totally understand why it is divisive here and it is not surprising that some were alienated by it and not used to a thriller being done differently. It's hardly the first or only divisive film from 2018 so far, 'A Quiet Place' and 'Hereditary' were very different horrors that were critically acclaimed but polarising with audiences, personally loved both, especially 'A Quiet Place'. For me, that it was unconventional was a large part of why 'You Were Never Really Here' worked as well as it did. It is not quite a masterpiece and it just falls short of being one of my very favourite films of the year (though it is still towards the top).

It is not perfect. 'You Were Never Really Here' does have moments where the story could have done with more clarity, the vagueness did cause a little confusion at times.

Would have liked much more development to the supporting characters, while the protagonist is splendidly drawn the rest are sketchy.

However, there is so much to like about 'You Were Never Really Here'. The production values are extremely stylish with some very creative shots and film techniques, the rescue is particularly gritty and purposefully grainy in a security camera way. The minimal dialogue was a good choice, it let the atmosphere fully sear and the uncompromising brutality and unsettlement ensures plenty of deliberately slow-burning tension which helps make the story absorbing.

Lynne Ramsay directs cleverly, with a keen eye for visual style, letting the atmosphere speak for itself and never letting the deliberate pacing to become dull or self-indulgent. That's personal opinion, just to make that clear to anybody who will vehemently disagree. 'You Were Never Really Here' is successful in avoiding clichés and having the action scenes brief, not frequent and mostly off-screen provided to be a bold and good move. Joaquin Phoenix is excellent in the lead role, the intensity dripping off him at every turn. The rest of the cast do well but not to the same level of Phoenix, but only because he is something else.

Altogether, very good but so many great things. With better fleshed out characters and more clarity in some of the plotting, it would have been even better. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Extremely violent but effective

[antoniotierno · 7/10 · 26 November 2017]

A kind of 21st century riff on "Taxi Driver" that turns, by the end, into a sort of remake of "Logan" — and an odyssey across New York hellscape combining formal elegance, humor, but also unsparing violence."You Were Never Really Here" is only her 4th movie in the 18 years since her brilliant, Cannes-premiered debut feature, "Ratcatcher." Her return seals her standing as one of our most fearless and forceful filmmakers, if not one as prolific as she deserves to be.

You Were Never Really Here - Review

[maurice_yacowar · 10/10 · 21 April 2018]

The film is framed with montages of apparently overheard conversations, chat with no apparent purpose, theme or coherence. If there is meaning to that collection it is elusive, especially when so many phrases are indecipherable. That also describes the film, a powerful but elusive narrative centred on a compelling, damaged hero. Ex-GI Joe completes a mission to retrieve a senator's 13-year-old daughter Nina from sexual enslavement. But it's not quite a character study and it is too enigmatic for a clearly defined thriller. I'd call it an expression of the spirit of the age, especially as it references today's callous nexus of sexual and political exploitation in America. It's the perspective of Scottish writer/director Lynne Ramsay. A governor seeking re-election wastes many lives to recapture his favourite sex slave, the underage Nina. That corruption costs the lives of his supportive senator friend (Nina's father), along with Joe's boss, Joe's contact, Joe's frail mother and several incidental thugs. While sensitively caring for his mother, Joe slips in and out of memories of his traumatic past, both as a Gulf War soldier and as the victim of an abusive father. His physical scars point to his psychological. His bare-chested scenes show Joe to be a massive physical presence, not muscular but bulky. His build is augmented by the bulk the beard gives the already intense Joaquin Phoenix. It leaves him virtually no face to read. Joe's physical bulk is the opposite to Nina's pre-pubescent frailty. But they share a common absence. Paradoxically, the very physical Joe is "never really here." He is emotionally detached from his existence, paralyzed by the past traumas which he has attempted to flee in self-asphyxiation. Similarly, Nina retreats into the silence and removal of a drugged stupor so she is "never really here" either. Both Joe and Nina count backwards as if their retreat from consciousness were anesthetically induced. Telling details abound. In a miniature of Joe's emotional confusion, he finds a green jelly-bean, his favourite, then crushes it. Buried in a lake, his mother's long white hair escape the bag and float elegantly underwater. To bury her, Joe - suit and all - fills his pockets with rocks to deliver her to the bottom of the lake. The pedophile governor fingers the furnishings of a toy dollhouse, even setting in motion a rocker (like the one he's off?). His luxurious mansion has a classical painting of a seductive woman with one breast exposed. The classical art is a cover for male-centred pornography, as the exposed woman is a cover for his obsession with the flat-chested girl. The violence is both ubiquitous and tempered. Most of Joe's assaults are off-camera or shown obliquely through a security system. But we see him rip out a painful tooth, bloodying himself. As they chat, his agent litters his desk with tissues bloodied from his nose. In this world breathing means blood. In this lawless America the only police we see are the ones who steal Nina from Joe, killing the hotel manager and Joe's connections. The governor has the power to commit and to hide his corruption. An elected government official assumes he is above the law - and his officials support that warping. (It's only a movie. Right.) If the villainy is current America so is the trace of hope. The big macho hero doesn't save this day. The small abused teenage girl does. This is Me Too with a vengeance - and a political impact. After Joe entertains the despair of suicide, she returns trim and possessed and takes command: "Let's go." The last shot is of the diner table Nina and Joe vacated. It's an image of calm, symmetry, a pallid assurance a world away from all the film's splattering. The victims have survived, escaped, saved themselves. As America yet may.

Slow and a little confusing

[robertasmith · 6/10 · 21 February 2020]

Why is it whenever a potentially good film is spoiled by plodding direction, critics try to rescue it by calling it an art house film? I also think there is a tendency for many actors to mumble a bit in an attempt to show they are better actors than they are. I like Mr Phoenix a lot and I also think he is a very good actor capable of great subtlety but in this very slow and confusingly written film I fear he adds to the problems.

For the rest of the cast there is no real opportunity to show their talent and the film just comes to a very strange incomplete end.

How was this movie not as good as I wanted it to be?

[isaacsundaralingam · 4/10 · 23 October 2021]

This movie has been in my watchlist for a long long time, and finally when I had some time to spare, and that too on my birthday, I decided to watch it. And man, was it such a disappointment!

You Were Never Really Here is well acted and well filmed. The movie looks absolutely gorgeous. But that's all there is to it. 'Gorgeous' is enough to grab your attention, but not to carry a movie. Everything besides the acting and the visuals were so pretentious it makes me nauseous. And I'm more than willing to blame it all on the writing, cos the writing in this movie just straight up sucked. It was like the whole movie was on its knees begging us the audience to believe that it's some sort of overly sophisticated work of art.

When you have a plot that ends up being so stupid with even the slightest bit of examination into the specifics, with a main character written to have literally every art-house 'tormented individual' cliche, and with dialogue like "Let's go because it's such a beautiful day" uttered with a straight face in any context and expected to be taken seriously... Yea, that's where I'm comfortable disregarding this movie altogether. No amount of long shots, silence, close-ups and deadpan facial reactions can make something appear "deep" when there's no meaningful substance to back it up.

And this so disappoints me, because I was really hoping for it to be amazing. I've heard nothing but good things about this movie, and I never would have thought it would be as pretentious as it was. Man, I miss the version of this movie I had in my head before I actually watched it.

Quite jarring, think that's intended.

[shinemercy-645-647631 · 8/10 · 17 December 2018]

I'm still processing this. The comparisons to "Taxi Driver" are fair: the performances, the director's vision and exectution, the understated script..... those are some of the similarities. The major differences, for me include the depth to which the protagonist's trauma is not played out for us to view as observers, but drip-fed in increasing doses, often from a first-person perspective, which in my watching felt more like we were experiencing Joe's trauma with him, rather than seeing it played out for us. The film also has a lot of relevance to current discussions of modern masculinity, and here the gendering of social roles is presented very much more as a question than a statement.

If you prefer to finish watching a film with your friends and be able to agree pretty much without discussion on what it was about, then I suspect you might find this film pretentious or light on plot. If you're the type who enjoys discovering what your friends think they just saw, and don't mind spending a lot the movie time watching Joaquin Phoenix' face doing some really admirable acting, then this film might be as worthwhile for you as it was for me.

Violence. Depravity. Loss of innocence. Public illusions.

[Kyle_Eason · 7/10 · 9 August 2020]

Joaquin Phoenix give a captivating performance as a traumatized man-child - survivor of a violently abusive childhood and the inhuman punishment served up by active military service in the Gulf War. He's found a niche - albeit one that feeds his dysfunctional coping lifestyle - in the form of a "hired gun" whose job it is to retrieve young girls from the depths of hell in the form of child sex trafficking. The film is compelling. The issues are relevant. Explored, also, are the sometimes sickening disconnections between public achievement and dangerous personal traumas.

I wish the film would have provided a bit more commentary on how Phoenix' character went on to process the madness, but, as with other decisions in the film, those realizations were only subtly told to the viewer as images or intimations.

All in all, this is a solid film. Congratulations to everyone involved. Creating a work like this is not easy.

Irritating piece of self indulgent cinema

[gcarpiceci-73268 · 2/10 · 9 November 2017]

When I read on the posters « The Taxi Driver Of The XXI Century » I put it immediately on my watch-list; well, after seeing the movie, the comparison is almost blasphemy. Despite the strong performance delivered by Phoenix and the good cinematography, the movie is a total downer. Instead of a plot, what you have is a series of disjointed fragments which you try desperately to make sense of, but the task is hopeless. To add to it, as if it were needed, the director injects more fragments of flashbacks which hardly relate to anything happening in the present. Maybe I just grossly missed the whole thing, but I found this an irritating piece of self- indulgent cinema.

Not sure what to make of it.

[kcrateau · 7/10 · 6 February 2021]

This was a good slow burn kinda drama, but I never really understood the back story and the pain that Joe was trying to live through. Understand that the first part drags a little but is building on something, but just didn't enjoy the ending and how several plot lines never lined up.

Should have been better

[Amin73 · 6/10 · 3 April 2021]

The movie has a good plot followed by a great performance by Joaquin Phoenix and fine cinematography but the main issue with this movie is the way of storytelling that is confusing, backstories could have been better told, the soundtrack is annoying but with all these issues it's a movie well worth of watching.