A socially awkward young man kidnaps an aspiring actress with the hope that they will fall in love. A psychosexual noir that explores power dynamics between men and women.A socially awkward young man kidnaps an aspiring actress with the hope that they will fall in love. A psychosexual noir that explores power dynamics between men and women.A socially awkward young man kidnaps an aspiring actress with the hope that they will fall in love. A psychosexual noir that explores power dynamics between men and women.
Matthew Sean Blumm
- Nurse
- (as Matthew Blumm)
Michael Sharits
- John
- (uncredited)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
This story has all the right elements to be a new age cult classic, but some of the execution was so poor that it can't break past it. All in all the movie felt unfocused and the ending left something to be desired. Ideally the film would've needed another 30min added to its run time to give the movie enough time to fulfill the storyline and give the audience a better resolution. Although I understand the direction the movie was going for, it really didn't work with this movie in the slightest. Nat Wolff fit the "slightly off putting" character to a T, but as for his co star not so much. It's really unclear for most of the movie whether this is a case of Stockholm syndrome or if she is faking it. The line is very blurred and perhaps that was the goal, but it resulted in a very disorienting film.
Where can I begin. First off. The director did a lot with the little bit that she had at hand. She took relatively new actors like Johnny Knoxville and made them look like pros. Of course she could not have done it without their cooperation and effort so kudos to all involved. Second. The story is unique and believable at the same time. I do think the writing flowed well for the first 75% of the movie. I don't know if it was just my perception of it or if others would have the same experience, but it seemed like the writing took a turn down an ambiguous path and had me scratching my head. I felt like the flashbacks could have made more relative sense sooner in the movie. All in all this is a movie worth watching if you enjoy a unique story with good acting and direction. Make what you like of it and its ending. Whether you agree with the ending or not it was still a good story that you can get distracted from your everyday life by.
I honestly really didn't like rosy from the beginning of the movie. As soon as she inserted herself into a married man's life, I just couldn't look at her in any kind of positive way. She had some funny moments that made her a little less bad, but then it'd cut back to her with James and she'd just do some other irritating and unbearable thing. I get the movie probably wants to emphasize the whole age difference thing by making her seem immature and stuff, but instead it just makes me kinda pity James for having to deal with her, which I'm almost entirely sure was not the director's intention. Obviously we're supposed to feel bad for the girl in the situation cause she's with an older married man, blah blah blah, but it's so hard to actually care when she blatantly and intentionally put herself in that situation.
But the acting by Stacy Martin and Tony Shalhoub brought me up to a five. The editing with all the flash backs didn't help the plot and the script was horrible.
I can claim no familiarity with filmmaker Jess Bond, but if nothing else is true, the cast is very noteworthy. Tony Shalhoub is a big get, even in only a supporting part, and Nat Wolff has shown his capability; even Johnny Knoxville is swell when he turns his attention toward earnest acting. Above all, I was highly impressed with Stacy Martin in her major role in Lars von Trier's 'Nymphomaniac,' and frankly it was her involvement that drew me in to check this out in the first place. The premise sits somewhere on a spectrum between curious and questionable, but that's never stopped me before, and I'll try just about anything. To actually sit and watch 'Rosy,' however? To be honest, I'm a little taken aback. I understand what Bond was doing. In this instance, sadly, I just don't think it especially works.
This sits somewhere at the intersection of dark comedy, thriller, and romance as the title character is abducted by a man she's never met who wants her to love him. It's certainly easy enough to think of other films that start with a grim central conceit (similar or not) and play it up with a wry, cheeky sense of humor; that notion is bolstered here with a score and soundtrack that's emphatically, drily playful. In fairness to Bond, at one point or another all these facets rise to the surface, and there are moments when it seems like the movie is really hitting on something good. Out of place as irregular flashbacks first seem, they're gradually woven into the active narrative with demonstrative purpose. The problem is that there is no consistency. Just when one is inclined to think that there's a distinct progression, the tale veers off with another mood. Elsewhere one might praise a picture for being unpredictable, and being inventive, but that's assuming that it's otherwise sufficiently well done to particularly deserve praise in the first place. The simple fact of the matter is that the writing here seems too scattered to strike any tone that feels complete and appropriate, or for we viewers to get a solid beat on what it's trying to do.
Even if we suppose for the sake of argument that 'Rosy' maintained pure dark comedy airs for the entirety of its length, or pure thriller vibes, it seems for all of these ninety minutes as though it's teetering on the edge, barely keeping its footing, and the slightest nudge will cast all to ruin. Now consider that it wavers between a few different tenors at multiple points, then comes back at the end and says "nah, it was this all along." The movie tries to achieve a very delicate balance, and I just don't think it can manage it. With this in mind, I'm inclined to say that the actors give strong, admirable performances, as they absolutely have elsewhere. Firstly, however, there are times where they seem as uncertain of the production as I am, and secondly - if the film can't decide what it wants, then on what basis is the acting to be assessed anyway? Likewise for Bond's direction. Those behind the scenes definitely turned in good work all around, but all told, I'm not sure how much those contributions matter when everything else of more ready importance is so up in the air.
I don't think this is bad. I sort of had a good time watching, and I appreciate the effort from all involved. Somewhere between Bond's screenplay and direction, however, this needed much greater focus, and a more firm, guiding ethos, to provide a more significant sense of unity to the project. 'Rosy' sits at a middling divide in terms of quality specifically because it also straddles such a split in terms of its content. I look forward to seeing more from all who participated here, but I just don't think this 2018 feature quite cuts it. It earns a soft recommendation, perhaps, if you're a big fan of someone involved; just keep your expectations in check, and don't go out of your way for it.
This sits somewhere at the intersection of dark comedy, thriller, and romance as the title character is abducted by a man she's never met who wants her to love him. It's certainly easy enough to think of other films that start with a grim central conceit (similar or not) and play it up with a wry, cheeky sense of humor; that notion is bolstered here with a score and soundtrack that's emphatically, drily playful. In fairness to Bond, at one point or another all these facets rise to the surface, and there are moments when it seems like the movie is really hitting on something good. Out of place as irregular flashbacks first seem, they're gradually woven into the active narrative with demonstrative purpose. The problem is that there is no consistency. Just when one is inclined to think that there's a distinct progression, the tale veers off with another mood. Elsewhere one might praise a picture for being unpredictable, and being inventive, but that's assuming that it's otherwise sufficiently well done to particularly deserve praise in the first place. The simple fact of the matter is that the writing here seems too scattered to strike any tone that feels complete and appropriate, or for we viewers to get a solid beat on what it's trying to do.
Even if we suppose for the sake of argument that 'Rosy' maintained pure dark comedy airs for the entirety of its length, or pure thriller vibes, it seems for all of these ninety minutes as though it's teetering on the edge, barely keeping its footing, and the slightest nudge will cast all to ruin. Now consider that it wavers between a few different tenors at multiple points, then comes back at the end and says "nah, it was this all along." The movie tries to achieve a very delicate balance, and I just don't think it can manage it. With this in mind, I'm inclined to say that the actors give strong, admirable performances, as they absolutely have elsewhere. Firstly, however, there are times where they seem as uncertain of the production as I am, and secondly - if the film can't decide what it wants, then on what basis is the acting to be assessed anyway? Likewise for Bond's direction. Those behind the scenes definitely turned in good work all around, but all told, I'm not sure how much those contributions matter when everything else of more ready importance is so up in the air.
I don't think this is bad. I sort of had a good time watching, and I appreciate the effort from all involved. Somewhere between Bond's screenplay and direction, however, this needed much greater focus, and a more firm, guiding ethos, to provide a more significant sense of unity to the project. 'Rosy' sits at a middling divide in terms of quality specifically because it also straddles such a split in terms of its content. I look forward to seeing more from all who participated here, but I just don't think this 2018 feature quite cuts it. It earns a soft recommendation, perhaps, if you're a big fan of someone involved; just keep your expectations in check, and don't go out of your way for it.
Did you know
- TriviaDirector Jess Bond chose to release the film using her mother's maiden name as her father, Paul Manafort, was on trial for conspiracy against the United States, making false statements, money laundering, and failing to register as foreign agents for Ukraine as required by the Foreign Agents Registration Act the same week the film was released.
- How long is Rosy?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Runtime1 hour 32 minutes
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content