User reviews

Making a movie like "The Brutalist" is not easy nowadays. Epic period dramas are not very trendy and asking the audience to sit for three and a half hours, is not an easy demand. With that being said, I went to the cinema curious to see what Brady Corbet made. I have to say that the movie has a nice start and development. Even if the character of László Tóth never existed and this is in fact a pure fictional story, overall it is pretty believable, at least in the first half. We see the protagonist getting to America, slowly integrating in the society and finding his first important job: building a complex for the rich businessman Var Buren.

The characterization of the protagonist is incredible: we get to know him inside out, which is his backstory, his strengths, his weaknesses, his vices. A brilliant mind that accomplished so much in his home country, getting awarded for the buildings that he projected. The film does a nice job in contextualizing the historical period, through the tragic events that happened during the 40s and 50s in Europe. Screenwriters managed to create a compelling character that needed to endure many difficulties through his life, as he needed to re-affirm his name in the USA. The director is setting this as a biopic, therefore I was expecting to see all the main important parts of this fictional life. But unfortunately I feel that the movie lost its identity halfway through. I can pinpoint the exact moment where things went sideways: there is a scene set in Italy, where the overall mood completely changed and it seemed to watch a different film altogether. The plot never recovered from this mistake. The story is split into four different parts: the first three parts are following the life of László from the 40s until the 60s, and then there is an incredible time jump that brings us directly to the 80s, showing us all the work that the Hungarian architect did in the US. The problem is that the audience never saw what actually happened in those 20 years. The director focused too much on pointless details and it seemed that he remembered that he needed to actually wrap the film somehow. The ending feels rushed and messy.

The movie has good ideas, but it feels very unbalanced towards the end. It is truly a pity, because all the right ingredients are there: incredible cast composed by many great names, wonderful photography, compelling and overall well written story. I am also sure that some of the shots are pretty iconic. Potentially this could have been a modern masterpiece. I strongly believe that considering the nature and the length of the production, this would have worked way better as a limited series of maybe 4-5 episodes. Unfortunately, by the end a lot of things are left unanswered. My final mark is 6.5. I recognized that a lot of effort was made into this project, but potential was wasted.

'The Brutalist' never lets you breathe. The director builds it with such purpose that you see the care in every frame. He's a talented craftsman, no question, but also so crushingly serious. And that chokes out any real feeling. You watch the artistry turn into artifice. And, after a while, all that weight just presses down.

The film is so obsessed with being Art that it forgets to let you in. It's so heavy with its own importance that it starts to close in on itself so much so that eventually all you see is this polished facade, reflecting its own seriousness back at you.

It doesn't stay with you. It stands there, sealed off by its own sense of importance, and you're left outside.

The first half of "The Brutalist" slowly and beautifully unfolds in a way that feels like it's going to be the next "Godfather."

As the second half of the film came after intermission, I was hoping it would continue down that same trajectory, but instead the second half goes down a strange, confusing and puzzling path, which some viewers might find brilliant. When the end did come, I found myself laughing as I shook my head walking the razors edge in my mind, saying to myself, "Why did Corbet go down this path?" and at the same time saying, "that was actually kind of brilliant."

Art is subjective and some people might really like this strange and bizarre second half of the film. Perhaps it was even Corbet's middle finger to the audience saying, "You didn't see that coming, did you?" Whatever the case may be, I give the second half a 4 because the first half was so brilliant, and I really wanted the film to continue going down that same trajectory the entire way through.

In the end, the acting is terrific, the cinematography is absolutely beautiful, and the film is strange. But I give it to Corbet for the effort, making films are hard, and he went for something different with his artistic vision.

It is the kind of movie that is so hard to rate. Is it a masterpiece? Is it great or is it just another movie that just look at itself? He has all the elements of a great story of a great film and yet to me it does not deliver.

For three and half hours long there's only one question in my mind I couldn't shake : what is it about. And I could never answer that question not even at the end if ever there was one. The whole thing left me septic.

But in all honesty, there isn't much to say about it all. To me it's like I've been handed over a homework. If watching « this kind of movie », I want to feel an experience, be engulfed in the ambiance of a whole, I want to be caught in the prospect of what the delivery will be, I want to feel like I've been outsmarted in some ways. None of it here.

Brody is magnificent, so is Pearce. Jones too, surely. Cinematography is mastered without a doubt, editing is smooth, and for three and a half hours it is enjoyable if you're able to glean the little sparks that here and there will keep you hungry for more.

If it was trying to lead me into an underlying experience, meaning or point of view, well I didn't find the path, or maybe was it just too obscure to even grasp a fragment of what the purpose of it all was.

Yes, it works whatever it is about or whatever it thinks it is about. I doubt it will be a movie that's remembered. It not particularly bold. It makes an attempt at being powerful but it never strikes. It too clean, it's too plain. It makes you believe straight from the opening shot that it will be grandiose. But it doesn't hold it promise.

I feel a bit duped by what I've watched. Just because you write a movie about an « unusual » subject, just because you try an unorthodox approach at something that's already been said before, well it seems sufficient to make praise.

That is not enough for me. This didn't prove me anything. I think it is possible and achievable and somewhat too easy to make beautiful movies that will pass for profound when it is just a very well made movie without substance.

Rating - 9.1: Overall, a great epic that both pays homage to the time period and revolutionizes how we can tell stories, as it shows what can be done with such a low budget, all brought together by great filmmaking, profound writing, and an incredible performance from Adrien Brody.

Direction - Great: The direction on a macroscale is grand as this movie feels like an epic that emulates films from the time period it portrays; the direction on a microscale is great as the interpersonal scenes really paint who these characters are and the struggles they go through; the storytelling is great, it tackles many serious topics in an artsy way, and the movie really does feel like a modern-day Godfather with how they told this epic; they build tension incredibly well as you genuinely experience second-hand trauma from what you see these characters experience

Story - Great: The concept is amazing, as the movie is an epic that displays the hardships of trying to live the 'American Dream', as we see through the lens of troubled László Toth; the plot structure is very good, as it emulates epics that were popular from the time-period the movie takes place in; the character writing is amazing, as László Toth has many dimensions to him, especially with all that he experiences as he goes through this movie, and the supporting cast really does have many dimensions to them as well

Screenplay - Great: The dialogue is polished and profound; the symbolism is incredibly profound as the movie tackles many hard topics like addiction, trauma, and the immigrant experience to show the protagonist's shell-shocked experience of trying to live the 'American Dream'; the foreshadowing is great as it is used well in conjunction with tension to build a captivating climax

Acting - Very Good: Adrien Brody - Incredible (Feels like an extension of his performance from "The Pianist" as he accurately and profoundly displays the trauma and addictions this character goes through as he tries to navigate his "American Dream"), Felicity Jones - Very Good (A powerful performance, as you can tell the hardships she has to go through to come to America; she has amazing chemistry with Brody), Guy Pearce - Great (A truly commanding figure as you always feel a sense of uneasiness around him; he has good chemistry with Brody as their dynamic makes you feel very invested in both characters), Joe Alwyn - Good (The typical spoiled, rich son does a good job supporting the rest of the cast), Isaach de Bankolé - Pretty Good (Has good chemistry with each other as both do a good job trying to display the hardships of trying to experience the 'American Dream'), Alessandro Nivola - Good (Does a good job showing how his character is able to code-switch and assimilate with American culture as he seamlessly transitions from his past and present when interacting with Brody), Rest of the cast - Pretty Good to Good (Everyone does their job as everyone feels experienced in trying to progress the movie forward; the cast has very good chemistry)

Score - Great: Paints this movie as an epic and is used well to establish the tone of the movie

Cinematography - Great: Paints this movie as an epic as it makes this movie feel like an art piece with how grand it is; does so much with both film and a low budget; the imagery for the movie really does feel amazing

Editing - Great: Really makes this movie feel like an art piece as it is seamless and used well in conjunction with the direction and cinematography

Sound - Good: It gives the movie a 1960s feel; it helps build tension

Production Design - Good: It helps in portraying the time period and the world László Toth deals with

Costumes - Good: Helps portray the time period

Pacing - Pacing is good as it adequately goes through the 3.5-hour runtime to create this grand epic

Climax - Climax is executed incredibly as the final 40 minutes before the epilogue really feel captivating in a traumatizing way; the epilogue is fine, but does not really feel like it ends the movie as strong as the second part

Tone - Tone is traditional to epics from the time period, and at some moments the style feels like a modern-day Godfather

Final Notes - I saw a premiere at the Austin Film Festival in 35mm film; it does so much with such a small budget; I have never been so impacted by a movie emotionally as I have been with this movie.

This has a very nice cast and a great underdog premise, but feels a bit over the top with cheap emotional manipulation that detracts from what could have been an epic cinematic achievement.

It really started feeling forced after the halfway point with more and more implausibilities that just shook me out of the story.

The mark of a weak writer is melodrama and excessive salacious story elements, but then it could just be the producers that dictated the addition of the nonsensical scenarios that just had no basis in the reality they established.

The production value is there, the cast is there, the soundtrack is there, but then they had to trot out as many tropes as possible, and by then, the weak resolution is just background noise.

Excellent film that will leave you a little bruised by the end. Completely worth it, in my opinion, but I can see how the subject matter can be a downer to people... particularly the section after the 15 minute rolling-clock intermission. Hey, if you're giving us a 3 1/2 hour movie, I really appreciate the break.

Corbet gave us so much more than a retro-novelty to stretch our legs and use the bathroom, though. The Brutalist is what I want more of in movies: gorgeous cinema, challenging material, conflicts with perspective, and a story that asks us "why" again right after getting an answer to the previous question.

It helps that the lead character, a Hungarian architect escaping Germany in the mid-20th century for being Jewish, is played by Adrian Brody, the son of a Hungarian immigrant himself (and who grew up speaking the language). Brody is no stranger to stand-out performances, and this marathon outing is no exception.

We see so much more than just one man's journey or struggle, and I credit the director for delivering us art instead of relying on the safety net of a well-written story. Corbet has a talent for this, a freshness that I hope will continue to push the industry forward.

Movie Review: A Disappointing Experience

I had high expectations for this movie, but unfortunately, it turned out to be a disappointing experience. The pacing was painfully slow, making it difficult to stay engaged. Many scenes felt completely unnecessary, dragging the runtime without adding any real value to the story.

From an artistic perspective, the film seemed to rely heavily on overacting, which made the characters feel exaggerated and unrealistic. Instead of enhancing the emotional depth, the performances often came across as forced and distracting.

While the movie seemed to aim for a deeper, artistic message, it failed to deliver it in a coherent way. The narrative lacked clarity, and by the end, I was left wondering what the point of it all was. Overall, it felt like a missed opportunity that could have been so much more with tighter editing and more thoughtful storytelling.

It's hard to know how to describe this movie. Perhaps the title is apt. It's meant to describe the style of architecture its main protagonist employs - harsh, massive, cold concrete monstrosities of buildings. But it also speaks to the brutality of class-divided America, and perhaps of humankind itself.

Some think it's an epic drama of immigration to America by WWII refugees, and part one attests to that and promises much. The we have part 2 where the main character, Hungarian immigrant Laszlo Toth, finds a mentor in the rich but empty-hearted and ultimately cruel businessman Harrison Van Buren and his caricature family. A major architectural project for the local town alternatively promises much then falls apart, much like Toth's relationship with .. just about everyone. The movie falls apart here as it leaps blindingly from confused and often totally unnecessary scene to scene, wasting another couple of hours.

Then we have the epilogue, 20 years later, which is bizarre. It explains little and leaves a lot of unanswered questions. When the final credits roll (at a jarring 30 degree angle), the numbness and frank shock in the cinema audience was palpable.

Adrien Brody gives a fabulous performance in the lead role, although you are never quite sure whether you are supposed to be on his side or not. Felicity Jones seems miscast to me as his refugee wife, physically weak but mentally strong, to me she just doesn't look right for the role. Then there is Guy Pearce, one of my favourite actors, who is very good in the Van Buren role but not Oscar material as has been touted - his performance is just slightly too affected for that.

I'll give it 6 stars for the grandeur of vision, even if unrealised, as well as Brody's performance and the great musical score. But it will go down in my memory as yet another if these grand artistic Hollywood visions that don't really work, and descend into confusion and outright stupidity at times. Many will praise it and score it highly, like those who view a pretentious painting as a visionary masterpiece. You will have to make up your own mind after 3 and a half hours if this movie - thank goodness for the intermission!

This film is a mess. It pretends to be a true story but admits that important parts of the plot are made up. Harry Van Buren did not exist. The dialogue is weak and in many cases illegible. The film tries to be deep but, struggles to stay afloat in shallow waters. There isn't a moment of joy in it, the main character is an insufferable, ego maniacal, drug addict who is entirely unlikable. It does effectively teach a crash course in hand wringing over acting but never coalesces into a linear story you'd care about because none of the characters are likable. They're all one note stereotypes. At 3 plus hours, it's an indulgence in pretentious mediocrity. The fact that it's winning awards and being praised is further proof that Hollywood has lost touch what great filmmaking really is.

"Brutalist," much like the architectural style it's named after, is imposing, cold, and ultimately, quite boring. This film, which chronicles the decades-spanning career of an ambitious architect, aims for epic grandeur but instead delivers a bloated and convoluted narrative that collapses under its own weight.

While the film boasts a striking visual style, meticulously recreating period details and crafting impressive architectural set pieces, this commitment to aesthetic flourishes comes at the expense of a compelling story. We are presented with a series of loosely connected vignettes, each more ponderous than the last, detailing the triumphs and tribulations of a man more cipher than character.

The film's central problem is its length. Clocking in far too long, "Brutalist" feels like a never-ending tour of a building you've already seen every corner of. The complicated, multi-stranded plot, only adds to the confusion, leaving the audience struggling to piece together a narrative that feels unnecessarily fragmented.

Ultimately, "Brutalist" is a classic case of style over substance. It's a film that clearly prioritizes visual spectacle over emotional resonance, leaving the viewer feeling impressed but ultimately detached. It's a beautifully constructed edifice with nothing inside, a testament to the fact that even the most impressive facade can't mask a hollow core. This film is less a moving story and more an endurance test, a stark reminder that bigger isn't always better, and that sometimes, less is truly more. Save your time and admire a well-designed building instead.

I had no intention of watching The Brutalist, but I ended up going to the cinema unexpectedly. With a runtime of almost four hours, I was convinced I would feel the weight of time and eventually get bored. However, I couldn't have been more wrong-I was absorbed from the very first minutes and drawn into a rare and powerful cinematic experience.

The Brutalist is a dense, demanding, and meticulous film. It's one of those works that require a certain state of mind, and honestly, I know it's not for everyone. I completely understand those who might find it boring or excessive, but for me, it was the opposite. From the start, I was captivated by the masterful editing, which maintains an almost hypnotic rhythm without ever becoming monotonous, the outstanding performances that bring incredibly complex characters to life, and the breathtaking cinematography that turns each frame into a true work of art. The soundtrack, grand and carefully integrated, adds an epic layer to many scenes, contributing to the film's immersive atmosphere.

To illustrate how I felt watching this masterpiece, I recently had a completely different experience with Nosferatu (2024). Although they are very different films, Nosferatu is half as long, has more action, and yet I found it absurdly boring and soulless (like 75% of Eggers' films). On the other hand, The Brutalist, with its slower development, managed to keep me engaged in every scene, allowing me to form a genuine emotional connection with the story. In my view, cinema should involve me and evoke emotions, and The Brutalist achieved exactly that.

The story itself is relatively straightforward, but its depth lies in the themes it explores. Following the journey of a Jewish architect who emigrates to the United States in search of a new life, the film delves into topics such as immigration, identity, ambition, greed, and the desire to leave a lasting legacy. More than just the story, it's the characters that make The Brutalist so impactful. Each one carries an emotional complexity that unfolds layer by layer, and the performances are simply astounding. It's impossible not to feel immersed in the protagonist's journey, brilliantly portrayed by Adrien Brody.

It's not hard to understand, but it's an extremely dense work with much to reflect on regarding themes such as immigration, greed, ambition, legacy, and architecture. However, it's the depth of the characters and the remarkable performances that define each moment.

Despite all its strengths, the film is not perfect. For me, the biggest issue is the ending (well before the epilogue), which felt rushed and somewhat inconclusive for certain characters who played such a significant role throughout this odyssey. It's as if the film was building up to something grand but didn't quite know how to wrap it up in the most satisfying way. The epilogue tries to fill some of these gaps, but it still feels like a somewhat abrupt conclusion for a film that demands so much from the audience over nearly four hours.

Overall, The Brutalist is a film that requires patience and commitment but rewards those who allow themselves to be immersed in it. It's not an easy film, but it's a powerful and emotionally rich cinematic experience that encourages reflection on timeless themes in a visually stunning way. Without a doubt, it's a film that will stay with me for a long time. And this, my friends, is cinema in its purest form.

This movie is ambitious and has some big ideas, but ultimately too many big ideas that end up cancelling each other out. It's also very long. At the beginning of the film, I expected it to be a concentration camp survivor's story. And it is that, but it's also more complicated than that. The protagonist (played by Adrian Brody) is gradually revealed to have more layers to his personality than we thought. At first we see him as a refugee at the end of World War II doing grunt work in a relative's small furniture factory to survive, but then we realize that he has a brilliant and creative mind that functions on a much higher level than his worldly position would indicate. He's dependent on other people to survive. At first they appear to be kind benefactors, but then turn out to be really slimy individuals. If anything goes wrong, he's invariably blamed for it, and sent packing. He's given a bad time by virtually everyone. He realizes that, being an outsider, an undesirable foreigner, that he's at an extreme disadvantage. The kindness of strangers turns out to be not-so-kind, after all. But when his former prewar stardom in the field of architecture becomes known, suddenly those who despised him and treated him like garbage, start sucking up to him because they want the prestige of being associated with him. Then there is his sexual impotence, a nascent heroin addiction, and a wife trapped in Europe by the endless bureaucracy of the repatriation process. I don't feel that I could adequately give more details without spoilers.

This turns out to be like QUEER, in that it is highly episodic, and that the episodes do not neatly dovetail together. It's also like QUEER in that, rather puzzlingly, so many of the male characters can't seem to keep their hands off the Brody character, although he never reacts to it. This is a tough movie because there are a lot of good things about it, despite having a plot that simply doesn't hang together. Its biggest assets are the evocative art direction, photography, costumes, and the performances of Brody and the actress who plays his wife. (It's also true that they are given the best material; the other characters are right out of 19th Century melodrama-a sweet orphaned ingenue, a "friend" who leads good people into bad habits, and villains who do every dastardly deed but wear capes and twirl their mustaches.) On the whole, the movie seemed "undeveloped" to me. There's a lot of potential here that was simply unrealized.

This ambitious post-war American epic begins with a mesmerising long-take sequence which will surely stick longer than the 3:35 hours of running time. The 70mm format fits the setting while making the movie visually stunning alongside with audacious camera works and stunning photography. Blumberg's music adds on that so the theatre would definitely be its perfect habitat. The script delivers interesting characters - albeit the secondary ones are purely cosmetic - valorised by great performances from Brody and Pearce. The issue here is in the last hour, as the writers decided to insert unexplored subplots which will prevent the movie from having a proper conclusion thus leaving a bitter feeling of incompleteness and preventing this monumental project to achieve what was intended for.

In Brady Corbets 215 minute epic, only one word comes to mind; Stunning. The Brutalist looks stunning. The performances are stunning. The production is stunning. The SCORE is stunning. This is one miracle of a movie. One up until around the 200 minute mark I was convinced I was watching one of the greatest movies I've ever seen in my life. Until the ending. The ending didn't fully click with me. Not to say it's bad, but for how long we spend getting to learn these characters. It was rather quick? Nevertheless, The Brutalist is an unbelievable portrayal of immigrant struggle, and the dark side of the American Dream. Adrien Brody delivers personally my favorite performance of the year, and Guy Pearce will be eating every single supporting award up. He's unreal, along with Felicity Jones. The Brutalist is a movie that shouldn't exist, and yet it does.

It is stunning.

A Hungarian-Jewish architect manages to narrowly escape to America from post-WWII Europe in the hopes of building a new life for his family. In his new country, his struggling career has some bumps and detours before he is taken under the wing of a watchful, prosperous industrialist in Pennsylvania, who admires his work and who ends up employing him to carry out part of his own vision.

Adrien Brody gives one of his best performances ever as Laszlo Toth, the hard-working and determined immigrant who hopes to start a new chapter and rebuild his legacy, both literally and figuratively. But it is Guy Pearce who nearly steals the film with a ferocious and charismatic performance as the blue-blooded tycoon who gives Toth's work as an architect a second chance. He shifts from sympathy to vindictiveness with ease. Brody's protagonist is not a paragon of virtue, to be sure. He wrestles with drug addiction, sometimes doesn't respect the chain of command, teeters on the brink of madness and even turns on some of his closest friends in moments of high stress. In the end, he is sympathetic but complex.

Director Brady Corbet provides a rich sense of historical context. The only criticism of the film is that it offers only a vague idea of what this pioneering architect did over the long term. Its focus is overwhelmingly on his first and most ambitious project for this mercurial employer and all the trouble that came with it. Nevertheless, it's one of the best epics in recent memory and enthusiastically recommended for the superb work all around.

The Brutalist is a sprawling post-Holocaust Jewish immigrant story ostensibly as much about craft and artistry as the personal journey. There are plenty of ideas and moments to respect, but I found the film fundamentally whiffs its core elements.

I'll start with the good. In an echo to the titular style, the presentation of imagery and performances are stripped bare. The full opening credits return to form a tradition not often seen in modern cinema, artfully presented and appropriately setting the tone of the film, in this case as an enduring crawl of a timeline-like text. The score, certain cinematography/vignettes, and graphic design of title cards worked well too, all seemingly building up to something grand. If only the editing and remaining filmmaking followed suit. I may have liked it as much as everyone else seems to.

When it comes to sticking to Brutalism as inspiration, however, it felt like a film based on the misappropriation of the term to mean "brutal" (wiki: actually sourcing from the French phrases béton brut "raw concrete" and art brut "raw art"). This is a cynical, tedious, and unfocused tale. You will feel oppressed, like Laszló Tóth. In a way, that is a success for the film. At the same time, it fails to capture a very glib statement from that character that epitomized resilience and hope about his creations, surviving the carnage of the war he escaped. That statement is the closest we get to the spirit of Brutalism, however. I'm not sure about and trying to be careful of interpreting how the filmmakers are contemporizing these ideas with early Zionist beliefs expressed in the film. Be aware, though, there are implications to struggle through there too.

The journey we all have to trudge through in this story leaves one constantly wanting. It is full of characters that make rapid shifts without earned development, montages and stock reels that are excessive ornaments overtaking an inspiration that calls for efficiency and minimalism, and yet in all that overly extended runtime, we get constant denial of meaningful reveals. When you say we must be impressed by the quality of the conversation (an actual dialogue) instead of merely showing it, I'm inclined to only take it sarcastically, including with regard to the presentation of the film as a whole.

As a practitioner in architecture, I could write an essay arguing what is visibly presented as Brutalist architecture does not meet the right qualities. I'll narrow it down here to a distinct lack of evidence of "making." Monumentality and concrete alone are not enough. We should see repetition of elements, impressions of form work, the contrast of stark materials with wood, mixed proportions to relate back to human scale, specifically the humble tradesmen who made it. It discourages me that the production team has admitted to AI usage and very basic research on the subject. Yet again, a legacy built on resilience and progress gets metaphorically tortured down to its ugliest parts.

We end up with smooth, blocky masses of awkward scale built around a single, unimaginative moment. All other form seemingly denies its suggested purposes. In a way, it all undermines the foundations upon which we're supposed believe their merit. The filmmaking similarly wants us to believe in its craft. It only convinces me of self loathing.

After seeing so many people rave about this film and say it is the best of 2024 I was somewhat excited and intrigued to watch this. I have loved Adrien Brody as an actor since The Pianist and after watching the trailers for The Brutalist I figured this film would be that level of quality.

Unfortunately that is not remotely the case. While Guy Pearce and Adrien Brody give great performances, the film itself just does not work at all. It starts off great with beautiful cinematography and what seems to be a great story but it all just falls apart after the intermission.

Honestly to me at least it felt like two separate movies. The first half was interesting, unique and engaging while the second half felt like watching paint dry it was so boring. What makes it even more bizzare is the pacing feels like it goes from 0 to 100 and at the same time nothing really happens.

If you enjoy looking at buildings/architecture for nearly 3 hours and 40 minutes maybe this movie is for you. For me though this is one of those films that came out just to take home a ton of awards because it's "art".

It is ambitious and has some beautiful sequences, especially the opening sequence with the Statue of Liberty shot. Brody, as usual, is strong. The score is also strong. The movie has an epic sweep to it but also, I would say, some unnecessary scenes here and there. I didn't think all the sex scenes were necessary, or at least I thought they were too drawn out, and various other interstitial shots that felt excessive. I didn't like Pearce's performance so much. Although he's playing an unlikable character, true, there's just an artificiality about his delivery and mannerisms that I didn't like here.

The epilogue of the movie ends a little flat and on an odd note. It's just one of those "weird" endings, imo, but that's pretty typical for an a24 movie. I cared about Brody's character, but where did he REALLY go, in the end? Ask yourself that. He gets lost a bit, for me, with all the other side narratives and architectural explorations going on, and then it just kind of ends.

Thematically, the movie reflects the tension between artistry and capitalism well. Is it overlong? Yes, but the intermission dampens the impact of that. Would I want to see it again? No.

Greetings again from the darkness. Too many view WWII as just another page in history books, when in fact, so much changed around the globe because of that war. Almost 80 years later, the war continues to provide stories for filmmakers, and when it comes to storytelling, few do it better than this latest from writer-director (actor-turned-filmmaker) Brady Corbet and his co-writer (and romantic partner) Mona Fastvold. The two had previously collaborated on THE CHILDHOOD OF A LEADER (2015) and VOX LUX (2018).

This is an old-fashioned epic on a grand scale with a few specific features that deserve to be highlighted. At 3 hours and 35 minutes in run time, Corbet included a throwback intermission (with a 15 minute countdown on screen). The opening credits run right-to-left horizontally, while the closing credits run diagonally. For true film geeks, the film is shot in VistaVision to capture the period feel. Part 1 covers 1947 through 1952, while Part 2 covers 1952 through 1960, and the Epilogue takes us to Venice in 1980.

Oscar winner Adrien Brody stars as Laszlo Toth, a Hungarian architect who arrives in post-WWII America after using heroin "for the pain" on the boat ride over. Due to administrative and governmental red tape, Laszlo had to go ahead of his wife and niece, to whom he writes regularly. A familiar face from home greets him upon his arrival. Attila (Alessandro Nivola, FACE/OFF, 1997) has already been Americanized to the point where he's married and running a custom furniture business. He offers Laszlo a room to sleep and a chance to help design furniture. When Harry Lee Van Buren (Joe Alwyn, THE FAVOURITE, 2018), the son of a wealthy Pennsylvanian tycoon, contracts for a re-design of dad's library, Laszlo gets a chance to show his brilliance. It turns out, Harrison Lee Van Buren Sr (Guy Pearce) does not like surprises and tosses the workers out.

Soon, a cooler head prevails for the tycoon, and he tracks down Laszlo for a project of much larger scale - a massive memorial on a hill overlooking the city. The project builds an odd connection between rich Harrison and brilliant Laszlo - although the rich guy remains anything but stable, and his son flaunts his own arrogant annoying tendencies (an Alwyn specialty). Laszlo maintains one true friendship. He bonds with Gordon (Isaach de Bankole) after meeting him in the food shelter line. Despite the new World, Laszlo continues to struggle with poverty; however, one of Van Buren's lawyers is amenable to assisting with the paperwork for bringing Laszlo's family to the states.

Part two brings wife Erzsebet (Felicity Jones, THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING, 2014) and mute niece Zsofia (Raffey Cassidy, THE KILLING OF A SACRED DEER, 2018) to America. Erzsebet is wheelchair bound after nearly starving to death due to the war. She's a smart woman married to a creative genius, and yet the land of opportunity continues to toss hurdles in their path (not the least being Laszlo's continued use of drugs). The moments of hope include a trip to the stunning Carrara quarry to locate the perfect piece for Van Buren's project.

It should be noted that, despite the lead character's name, this is a fictional account of the period, and the journey is both physically and emotionally draining. That's also true for viewers, as I was exhausted by the end. Corbet uses the Epilogue to take us to Venice in 1980 for the first Architectural Biennal. It's a fitting end after watching the battles of Jews versus Christians, and Immigrants versus American born, all while the United States is booming. I wasn't ever able to understand the message Corbet was sending by exaggerating footsteps throughout, but I do recognize that Cinematographer Lol Crawley and Production Designer Judy Becker worked some magic along with Corbet and Fastvold ... and yes, Adrien Brody, who along with Guy Pearce, deliver some of the finest acting we've seen all year. This is not a film so much about the brutalist style of architecture, but rather a film about character and personality during brutal times - and finding a way to utilize one's true talent, while also remaining true to one's roots. This is a complex story and one that fully captured me right from the unconventional opening credits.

Opens in limited theaters on December 20, 2024 and wide in January 2025.