brittanystar-94340

The Holdovers is hopefully the catalyst needed for a resurgence in real nostalgic filmmaking. The film fully embraces the time period with care. (Hence all the gray heads in the theater trying to relive their heyday, haha.) Even forgoing the technical aesthetics, the set design and dialogue are fabulously crafted to resemble 70s culture. The film is rift with hilarious moments and a warm Christmas atmosphere. I definitely see this becoming a holiday classic later down the road. With that being said: the film is bloated. I sense there were way too many wandering voices on what the film wanted to say. Is it a buddy Christmas flick? A coming of age story? A drama showcasing the woes of transitioning after tragedy? Well, it's all three and the drama bears the brunt.

The film seemed unsure of how to effectively fuse all three genres without pacing issues. As I was in the midst of a chuckle, I had to anticipate someone on screen start to wallow in self-pity or an outburst. It seems each lead needed their moment to look right into the camera as a single tear rolled down their eye. It's a dramedy, so that's to be expected. However, it wouldn't come off as tedious if every lead didn't have some sort of baggage. It became emotionally redundant, especially since the film tries to connect with Paul Giammati's character the most. He is the heart of the story, but his arch feels less satisfying due to having to explore the other character's trauma.

With all that being said, I still think this is a spectacular film. The performances are phenomenal. Paul Giamatti steals every scene, and I wouldn't be surprised if this role takes him to the award circuit. His emotional and comedic delivery hits every beat and every heart string. I can't wait to watch this film at home with a nice cup of cocoa, but unlike in the theater, I can fast-forward the jejune moments.

I looked forward to this movie due to rave reviews. If you're looking for anything "high brow" or different, don't hold your breath. It's as formulaic as it gets. I'd consider this a B rated horror movie with a Hollywood budget. The misdirection is welcomed, but the plot is all over the place. There's so many questions left unanswered. Characters have no arcs and continue to lack common sense (including secondary characters). My main point of contention is one of the main leads. To be frank: he's a god awful character and of course, he's on-screen for 75% of the movie.

Scenes (especially in the beginning) feel excruciatingly LONG. It's further exacerbated with terrible cuts. The story's finally picking up? Oh well...time for a jump cut that won't be relevant till 20 minutes from now. To say it kills the atmosphere is an understatement. The movie was only 1 hr 45 mins but felt like atleast 2 hrs 30 mins. Despite reading other reviews, I still don't get why people like this movie so much. I forgot it already, and it's only been 30 minutes.

Also if someone could mention how the title is relevant to the film, that'd be great too.

On the Count of Three is the tale of two lifelong best friends who decide to end their suffering once and for all, and kill themselves. Labeled as a "dramedy" it's a solid attempt at finding some humor to such a dark topic. Yet the question remains...does it work? I think it's a step in the right direction, but there's much to be desired.

The tone is really where most of the faults lie. I don't think you can ever truly make suicide "funny." Bit of jokes are tossed throughout the movie, but the film is so stern it feels inappropriate to laugh at them. It also doesn't help that the chemistry between our two leads is a little stale. Despite being lifelong best friends, I never felt they cared about one another (or had anything in common, except being depressed.) Sure you see it in the film (with one life-saving scene after another) but to me it felt like damage control from the screenwriters to make up for the shoddy dialogue between them.

There was also too much plot for this film. I'd think killing oneself would be plot enough, but they go on a few goose chases to right their wrongs as well. (Not atypical, but the movie is under 90 minutes, so of course, it's rushed.) Thus the film actually doesn't end up saying anything extraordinary.

All in all: an interesting premise, an average execution. Not bad for a debut, but left me stolid.

Shiva Baby know how to take a premise and roll with it...to say the least. However, the issue is the ball never goes anywhere. For a movie under 90 minute it felt insufferable. I understand that's the premise to an extent- but when does the audience ever have a chance to breathe? It's simply 80ish minutes of Jewish caricatures parading around a Shiva, while an unlikeable protagonist avoids her sugar daddy and annoying ex. To make matters worse our lead is both detached and unlikeable. I can't sympathize with a privileged girl who apparently has no motive for her behavior? The film should have spent more time delving into Danielle as a character. It felt as though she was merely in the background of her own story (and the audience's too). If you want to see a film repeat itself four times in the span of 80 minutes, I'd recommend this film. Yet, if you want to see a film that actually does something, or understands the allure of conflict- I'd recommend any and everything else.

(Afterthought: The soundtrack was grating after twenty minutes. I'm not sure if there simply wasn't enough budget for a larger score, but it gravely needed variety.)