Sharper (2023)

 What do you get when you cross John Lithgow with Julianne Moore, Sebastian Stan, Justice Smith, and Briana Middleton? The A24 film Sharper (2023), a film that may or may not be an A24 Essential, depending on what Darren, Amanda, Nick, and Kailyn collectively decide. Tune in to our discussion, and stay with us 'til the end to see what The Wheel decides we should watch next!

Transcript

Speaker 0:13

Hey everyone, and welcome to another episode of A24 Care Gold. I'm your co-host Nick Bambach. Joining me are my co-hosts, Amanda, Darren, and Kaelin. I hope you're all doing well tonight.

Speaker 2 0:23

Yep. Indeed.

Speaker 0:26

Today is our fifth episode that we're gonna do like a deep dive into a movie from the A24 catalog. And this is actually, correct me if I'm wrong, guys, the very first film that we're doing on the show that is essentially a direct-to-streaming title. It had a few theaters it played in, but it was primarily on a streaming platform. Very limited release.

Speaker 1 0:50

Absolutely.

Speaker 0:51

So we're gonna be talking about the movie Sharper that has quite a cast, and I'm gonna let Amanda take it away to talk all about this movie, the production history, and uh lead our discussion.

Speaker 5 1:04

All right, so we're talking about Sharper. The director was Benjamin Karen, the producers are Eric Fegg, Jessica Switch, Julianne Moore, Bart Freundlich, Brian Gatewood, Alessandro Tanaka, Amy Herman, Jessica Switch, and Jodie Caron. The screenwriters were Brian Gatewood and Alessandro Tanaka. Stars are Julianne Moore, Sebastian Stan, Justice Smith, Brianna Middleton, and John Lithgow. Editor was Ian Miles. Cinematographer was Charlotte Bruce Christensen. The composer was Clint Marcel. And the budget was not really mentioned or available for this particular film. And in terms of box office numbers, it was only in theaters for about a week or so before it went to Apple. So no box office numbers for this one. In terms of the background for it, so the director Benjamin Karen said in an interview with the Hollywood reporter that he had been trying to make a film for about two decades. He said there had been a lot of wanting, willing, and praying that one day I'd get to make a feature film, and I got lots of practice in the world of television, and that world changed when I was in it. So I was making television shows that had the intention of feature films and a brilliant drama like The Crown, which I had the best time on, delayed my timing of making a feature film. He says, but after four successful seasons directing The Crown, I knew that it was time to leave and try to be in the running for feature films. Karen almost got another chance to make a film before Sharper, but COVID got in the way, and then he went on to direct a few episodes of Andor. He got the script for Sharper from his agent, and with Julianne Moore, Apple and A24 already on it, coupled with the fact that his agent represents Eric Fegg, who was a producer on it from Picture Start. Karen really liked it. And he eventually signed on and was told by Fegg that the film was greenlit and he would get to have control of the casting. Julianne Moore said to Metro Philadelphia on the script that I read it and was completely surprised. It was totally different from anything I had seen in a long time. I was excited. I agreed to meet with them, the writers, and I said, I want to play this character, Madeline. I love her. And Sebastian Sands said in that same interview that he'd always wanted to work with Julianne Moore. And he said, And it's a great movie with strength in the characters, it's unpredictable, and it was surprising and exciting in a way that I hadn't read in a script before. And just working with Ben was also very pleasing. Karen said that the film is less interested in crime and more interested in how people talk and flirt and lie and impersonate and connive in order to get what they want. The film takes place in New York, and Karen thought putting it there was central to the story. He relayed on the All of It podcast, their WNYC. I thought it was just a city that venerates and attracts hustlers and chances and grifters. And money equals success in New York. I just thought this film could only really exist in New York City. And Moore agreed, and she said in a separate interview that I think New York is a place where you have all kinds of socioeconomic strata and just the idea that all that exists in this very small place, I think is very much what the film is about. About these kinds of lives that are encompassed at the same time. There's also some anonymity. A24 and Apple were also on board with Karen shooting on 35mm, which he really wanted to do for his first film. And he in particular wanted to work with cinematographer Charlotte Bruce Christensen because of that. He said, if you want a film to look like film, I think you shoot it on film. And I don't know any other process that can do what film does. He says the randomness of the grain, the information and the empty space between your characters, the liquid texture of the light, there's something always going on in the frame. And in terms of the structure, it's in a vignette kind of style, but Karen also focused on the four seasons around the characters. He noted, for instance, when Sandra and Tom meet, it's springtime in New York, it's classically romantic season, and it's a perfect time to fall in love. He said, for me, that was about Tom embodying hope and new beginnings. Whereas when we come to Sandra's chapter, that takes place in the winter, which maybe gives a sense of the harsh realities of her life. Then we go to Madeline and Max, which is autumn. It's a time for the arts, it's exhibitions. Then finally we end up in summer where all the secrets are brought out into the light. So, in terms of the critical reception and a bit more on the production, Apple original films announced that they had acquired the script, the spec script, in June of 2020. And Julianne Moore was set to produce along with Friendly Gatewood, Tanaka, and Feg. And Moore also had another project with Apple that she was starring in and executive producing, which came out before Sharper, which was Leslie's Story, and that was a mini-series from Stephen King that premiered in June of 2021. A24 was a studio on the film, while Picture Start was one of the production companies on it. And most recently, A24 partnered with Apple on Eternity, which just came out last year. Sharper premiered in Limited Theatres on February 10th of 2023, and excuse me, and globally a week later on Apple TV on February 17th. And Apple was also coming off a big year in 2022 when its original film Coda had won three Oscars, including Best Picture, which IMDB said is the first movie produced by a streaming service to win that award. And so most of the critics on Rotten Tomatoes liked it well enough. Peter Travers, in particular, of ABC News loved Moore's acting. And he said that she turns Madeline into one of her boldest and most erotically adventurous roles since Boogie Nights and Shortcuts. And he says her performance was wonderfully wicked. And there were also a lot of people that didn't really love the film and didn't think it was really clever or original enough. Even Travers, as well as um Ross Magendo of Slant Magazine, mentioned that the ending just didn't quite hit. Endo seemed along for the ride, but in the film's kind of final ending of it, he said that it revolves around an incredibly silly standoff that trades sly confidence games for patomy shenanigans with billion-dollar consequences. And the New York Times also said that it's this film is feels less poker-faced than Prim about its characters and their behavior. And it misses some of the clinical bravado of some of the heist films that have come before it. And in terms of the audience on Rotten Tomatoes, some liked it while others thought it just wasn't quite as strong as films of the genre and mentioned issues with the writing as well as the ending. It was given a 68% by critics and had out of 142 reviews, and 73% of the audience liked it out of about 500 plus ratings or so. And on Letterboxd, 73,000 members saw it, and it had over 16,000 reviews, and the majority rated it three stars as a 3.2 overall. A lot of reviewers on Letterboxd also mentioned Sebastian Sand and his performance in this in particular. And on IMDB it has a 6.7 out of a little over 39,000 votes. So focusing on four different people in connecting vignettes, a bookstore owner con by a woman he's newly dating is just one small part of something larger. So I think this is a first time watch for everyone. I I thought that that was the case, but maybe I'm wrong.

Speaker 1 8:28

Oh yeah, definitely the first time for me. It's probably also the first time I've ever heard of it.

Speaker 8:33

Same. So I gotta level with you guys for a second. So when this movie came out, I guess it was October 2023, I added this to my Apple TV account, like the watch list. And then you know what happens when you're on a streaming platform, you just keep adding things, and then it just gets buried in the middle. So I laughed because when we were on the last episode and most of us had not even heard of the movie, I looked at my Apple TV account because that's the only place you can stream it, and it was towards the end of it. And I'm like, oh, that movie that I added two and a half years ago, and you will be watched today.

Speaker 5 9:12

You finally got around to it.

Speaker 4 9:13

That's good.

Speaker 9:14

I wasn't sharp enough at the time to watch it. Thank you for that, Amanda, for that introduction. I think you get a lot of great quotes that uh are there about the movie and things that I learned about it that didn't know until you mentioned them. Let's get on into the category. So, Kaelin, you're gonna be talking about the narrative elements of this movie. So take it away.

Speaker 2 9:34

Okay, so narrative elements is basically the plot and the director's vision and things of that nature. Story. What did everybody think of the narrative elements? I'm gonna save mine till the end because I have a feeling I'm going to possibly be in the minority on this one.

Speaker 9:48

So I'll start on this. I think that uh for me, I have a soft spot for thrillers and especially like heist movies and of that nature. So some of my favorite movies come from that world. I initially was very, I don't even know what the word to use about this movie. I didn't really know what to think of it. But as it went on, it kind of won me over because I thought it was very clever. And I think it's funny that the critics and audiences were so divided on it not being clever, or they felt like it was too surface level or didn't go deep enough. I thought it actually did because there's a lot of great thematic stuff happening here. I mean, you have themes of identity, greed, betrayal. They are themes as old as time. And I thought it was clever. And I enjoy a good con artist, con game kind of film. I don't know.

Speaker 5 10:42

Ooh, I I liked it in the beginning, but as it went on, I liked it less. It felt like a Russian like nesting doll where there was things inside of things inside of things, and I I really loved all the twists and turns, and I love how everything ultimately links up to Tom and his family and everything like that. But it didn't feel as if it really had an identity when I think it's John Litho's character, Richard, when he's sitting with Max in his office, they're they're in this kind of large New York office building. There's these shots of these buildings outside, and he's talking about his son Tom and saying how weak he is, and that he wanted a bookstore with his money and everything like that. And I just thought to myself, are we in succession? Like, where are we in terms of you know, the style, the story? And then when um Sandra and Max are driving together, there's a lot of shots of them driving at night, and there was this techno music that was playing over top. I thought, are we in drive? It just felt like we were in many different movies and things at one time, and that the film tried to be this sort of heist, maybe kind of neo-noir type story, but that it just was trying to imitate too many different things.

Speaker 12:03

But I think it's also a film that it kept me guessing the entire time, and I wasn't quite sure where it was going. And I think part of what works here is the nonlinear structure to the film, because listeners should have probably listened or listened, they probably should have watched the movie before playing this episode. But I think it's really interesting how when it's the way it's presented is not in the order that the events necessarily took place. And to me, I kept thinking, like, okay, when did this happen? And then that happened, and then I just I kept putting them together, and then after I uh watched the movie, I had to think about the ratings and scores from my notes, and I was like, Yeah, I was entertained, and I definitely thought that that is not the way I thought that the movie was gonna end by any means. So I don't know.

Speaker 5 12:54

Yeah, I I I was entertained, but every time we moved to a different vignette, I just kept thinking, what happened to Tom? Or what happened to that other character that we kind of left behind in the other story? I mean, we'll probably talk about this in the acting cat, but I I feel like Justice Smith was really underutilized in this film and could have been a much stronger character, but he just didn't have a lot to do. It did keep me guessing. It did keep me entertained, but it just felt like we were in so many different movies at once.

Speaker 13:25

I like those movies where you're just like throw everything at the wall and see what's next.

Speaker 1 13:31

Yeah, I think uh the nonlinear structure is absolutely essential to the way that this is set up. I mean, if you knew that character A was involved in character plot B from the start, like seeing it in linear order, then it wouldn't have been as effective. But at the same time, that the way that it's set up, where there's so few characters and the ones that survive to the end of the story. I mean, obviously this character who's disappeared from the other vignettes, obviously they didn't show us their story for no reason. So obviously they're gonna come back and once you've seen enough of these movies, it's pretty easy to plot the you know, piece the plot together. The screenplay is probably the big strength for me for this film on the acting performances. But I would say that like, you know, the fact that I've seen this so many times before and there's not really anything here that I haven't seen many different times. Uh the the tone kind of shifts a little bit and plot and storylines just kind of drop off, or you're supposed to fill in the gaps quite a bit. Like when John Lithgow's character dies, you're spending like a portion of the movie trying to figure out, well, did they kill him or what happened here or what what's going on with this whole John Lithgow situation? And it really doesn't mean anything because he just died. So I mean, it's never really addressed again, other than here's this money that's going to one person or to another. I thought that was uh a problem with the narrative, but um, I do like the structure. I love the nonlinear structure of this type of film. I think that it uh really worked for it. But I think as far as the delivery goes, it wasn't all that satisfying.

Speaker 15:00

You see, I'm gonna be, I guess, the advocate for this movie because I thought it was really brilliant in the way that it does performativity, in the sense that every character is essentially playing a different role or a different variation of their character. And I think that it's really interesting because the way it's presented, you're just thinking, like, oh, we're supposed to be sympathetic with these characters. Then you come to find out they're all shitty people and they're con artists, and like there's more that meets the eye. But I thought that the identity theme was like really very nuanced here. And I don't know if this was mentioned, Amanda, but it was one of the top uh screenplays that was not produced, I think, during COVID. So I think it's 2020 or 2021. This was I think the number one or number two movie that was not uh picked up by Studios that was ranked, and I forget who does that offhand with the publication, but that's why E24 pretty much picked up this movie because they're like, wow, this has some cadence to it, I guess.

Speaker 1 16:01

Um is it UCLA? I I think I want to say UCLA has like a department where they pick out the best screenplays that haven't been picked out or up or something like that.

Speaker 16:11

I thought it was the Hollywood Reporter, but now I'm but now I'm like genuinely curious. And listeners, if you know this, and I'm gonna Google this. Is it the blacklist that you're talking about? Yeah, it's the blacklist, and it's the survey by Franklin Leonard. And it only started 20 years ago. Wow, I would have lost 20. I thought it was more recent. I don't know what their associations are. I guess it's just an independent company. But anyway, I just thought that was really interesting with the characters, but I thought the performativity of it all was really interesting, and I thought that it was actually really interesting in how wealth is portrayed too, because it's kind of like this idea like the money is controlling these characters' lives and manipulating them and like they ultimately becomes the downfall for almost all the characters in one way or another.

Speaker 5 17:04

Yeah, I just also wasn't sure though that they went far enough on the class things. I I think the the character of Richard is so brief that we don't really get a lot of that, you know, and we don't really dig as far into maybe the other cons that these people have pulled and and and the other ways that kind of getting money as influence. I just feel like we didn't dig deep enough, but I did appreciate as you were saying, Nick, the kind of identity pieces of all of this, you know, with with Madeline and Max, they're basically two sides of the same coin where you never know if they're telling the truth about something or not. And I 100% believe Madeline was Max's mother until that scene when they kiss.

Speaker 3 17:45

And I thought, what am I watching now?

Speaker 1 17:48

I mean, they'll rule it out.

Speaker 3 17:49

Like, are we in Game of Thrones now? Um where are we going?

Speaker 17:54

My notes for this movie are nuts because I I wrote it down section by section. And then I wrote, Wow, that's his mother. Okay. And then I'm like, wait, what the hell? They kissed. And I'm like, oh, they're not, unless there's some weird Oedipus thing going on here. 100% believe that was his mother.

Speaker 5 18:08

So, you know, these people are very criticist at what they do, which I think adds such an as you're saying, like interesting level to this. But I don't know. I just think the wow thing just wasn't explored as much until Madeline actually had the money, and then we were seeing what she was gonna do with it.

Speaker 1 18:25

I find it amusing that cliffhanger star John Lithgow is the character least likely in this movie to say, forget the girl, get the money. So I think that was pretty cool.

Speaker 18:33

I don't know. I feel like the lack of originality or depth. I feel like does every movie have to always be like that either, per se? I don't know. I feel like it's almost like not too harsh on the movie. I just don't think that's maybe what it wants to do, if that makes sense.

Speaker 1 18:51

I mean, you don't have to be original or you know, particularly notable in anything, but I mean, if you want to stand out as a premium movie, you kind of have to.

Speaker 19:00

Yeah, but I mean, it's so hard to reinvent the wheel. Well, you know what I'm trying to say? There's not as many groundbreakers or bold, bombastic types of movies. See, this is my hot take, I guess, too, is that I don't know people are holding it to a higher standard because who's involved too? Like the cast, the crew, all that sort of stuff as well. Caitlin, we have not heard from you, and I'm just gonna do a wellness check on you. What is your take on this, Caitlin?

Speaker 2 19:26

It's actually kind of funny because I'm not in the minority here, so I'm actually pleasantly surprised. I pretty much wrote exactly what Amanda said. So the score, I was like, huh, this sounds a little bit like Drive. And then, huh, I really, really liked the beginning of this movie. Like, I fell in love with them as a couple, and I'm like, oh, I am so here for this. And then all of a sudden it turned into the Grifters meets a serious version of wild things. We've totally seen this story before, and it just gets unnecessarily convoluted just for the sake of shock. When Max does kiss his quote-unquote mom, who's not actually his mom, I was like, oh, to heck with this movie. I was just like, at this point, you're just trying to keep inventing twists just to keep us guessing. And it felt like by the end, there really was no payoff, and that we have seen this movie several times before. And I think a lot of people agree that the end of wild things kind of makes the rest of it worth it because it's so whacked out and stuff. But like this one, it felt like it was a lot of building up helium in a balloon and then just all like there was no like you see the ending coming, you know, he's not dead. Of course it's fake blood. And then I thought it was funny when she's like, oh, you know, it's not blood because it's not washing out that fast. And I'm looking at her sleeve, and whatever it was is still on her sleeve. It just, it was silly. And I feel like it started off super strong, and now we don't like anybody in this movie. Nobody's redeemable, they're all scumbags, and it's like, okay, well, I I was really like full bore into this for the whole first 10 minutes. And then after that, it just progressively got worse to the point where I usually very much enjoy Julian, and I did not really like her in this movie.

Speaker 1 20:58

It's kind of hard to have a con man story where someone dies suddenly and uh they don't like, you know, call the police and it's all of a sudden it's like, oh, I'm sure he's actually dead and not just faking it. It's not a con man movie or nothing, right?

Speaker 2 21:10

Exactly. Like, and by that point, you already are expecting everybody to pull the wool over your eyes. So you're just like, yeah, he's not dead. There was no impact to that whatsoever. So yeah, pretty much everything Amanda said was my opinion too.

Speaker 1 21:22

I wonder if they had such an easy time getting through airport security with clothes covered in blood because the people in uh TSA recognized that it wasn't actually blood.

Speaker 2 21:29

Oh, well, it's okay because it was only a spot on her sleeve. There was no blood literally anywhere else.

Speaker 1 21:35

Which is typical for gunshot wounds at that close of a range.

Speaker 5 21:38

I mean, I didn't see the ending coming. Maybe everybody else did. But I did like that it kept me guessing. But I just felt like the characters were stronger than the story around them. All the the stuff with Tom and his breakdown even before he meets Sandra, like that's really interesting. And I think, you know, Justin Smith plays it where you can tell there's something. More complicated going on with this character. I think Sonders' story is super interesting, but when we get little hints of these things, of these really layered characters and the con people in general, you know, with Bax and Madeline, that all of that is, I think, very unique. But also it it just felt like the story around it wasn't as strong as the people playing the characters and the characters themselves.

Speaker 2 22:21

Yeah, no, that's definitely what a pro the problem is because when the wheel picked this movie, I was like, wow, this is a stacked cast. Like, but how could we have never heard of this movie? Yeah, the cast is incredible. These are all people that you'd see them headlining a movie, and you're like, okay, yes, I am watching that movie. And then it kind of just fell apart. Definitely the characters were way stronger than the story they were given. And they tried. They like I give them props for connecting the dots because at the end everything does connect, but it just felt like they were trying so hard to make it so shocking. And by that point, I'm just I'm done. I'm like, no, bro, you have to make it worthwhile to be shocking. And it was just shocking for the sake of shocking. Like, did she really need to pretend to be his mom? I mean, I guess for the plot to work, probably, but it just seemed like that was a bridge too far for me.

Speaker 23:06

Like, you gotta do what you gotta do, Caitlin. It is so expensive to live in New York City. I mean, come on. Where was she living beforehand?

Speaker 5 23:14

That's the thing.

Speaker 3 23:15

Like, before she did this con to become Richard's girlfriend, where were all these people living previously?

Speaker 2 23:22

Yeah, there were a lot of things that just didn't make any sense. You just have to accept these are the people and this is what's happening right now, but a lot of it was just I felt not earned.

Speaker 23:31

So I have a question. This was a comment, but it applies to this category because we talk about the narrative. One thing that I thought was a maybe not a plot hole, and I like the movie. So this is, I guess, coming off a little strong on my part. But if you're gonna give someone nine billion dollars and put them in your will, you don't do like a background check or you don't do basic things like that to get to know who you are. Like if you have that much money in your hedge fund and in your account, you're not doing basic due diligence.

Speaker 2 24:04

We're just supposed to believe it's pure love. He left her all that money out of pure unadulterated love. And what were they dating for like a month?

Speaker 1 24:11

Well, that's the thing. We don't know how long they were together because the movie cuts that part out. You don't get like uh five years later or something, it could have been years, it could have been uh months. Who who knows?

Speaker 2 24:21

I was actually searching for proof of that in the movie, like if there was any evidence that they aged or anything, and like we were saying, with all of a sudden John Lithgow's dead, there was never any hint of possibly like he might have had cancer or something. Obviously, they had to know that he was dying or something for them to set this up, but then also is it just because he was old? Was it like an Anna Nicole Smith situation? We don't really know exactly what the whole motivation or what they knew that we don't, and it's kind of frustrating that to make the movie work, you kind of have to know what they know.

Speaker 24:50

Yep. But I feel like his character's just there to die. I know it sounds terrible, but like the way that the 100% story goes, he's like we're asking questions that I think is not really on the minds of the writers for this film or the director. I think it should have been no, but I don't think so because he just needs to die, and then that's it. Because if like nothing else happens without him dying, because at the whole point is they're trying to get the nine or ten billion dollar account or or the funds for it.

Speaker 2 25:22

I feel like in that case though, like why John Lithgow? You couldn't get somebody a little bit lesser like a steam for that role.

Speaker 5 25:28

But I think the same question of why wouldn't you do a background check is also the same thing with Tom and Sandra, him giving her $350,000 upon only ever hearing a frantic knock at his or her apartment and her saying that it was his her brother and not ever meeting her brother, not ever seeing photos or anything like that. It's just the same thing of why you should have a background check to give someone nine, but you should have a background check to give someone three hundred and fifty thousand dollars. You should even you'd only been dating her a month, and she literally said we're basically strangers. I know that was a ploy, obviously, to get him to agree to give her the money, but still you don't check anybody out, don't check she's actually going to NYU, don't check anything before you give her $350,000.

Speaker 26:14

Also, they made Sandra's character's like background with the academia way too hard for her to remember. Because I was dying of laughter when Max who Sebastian Stan in this movie he's trying to say, it's gonna be on English literature is your PhD, and it's on this very specific niche topic is your dissertation. And I'm so it works academia, I would be confused too. I'd be like, You're doing too much. Too much.

Speaker 2 26:39

Yeah, like why did he need all of that information just so that she could con a guy who works at a bookstore? Really?

Speaker 5 26:46

Too much. It's also so New York. He was listening, I think, to WNYC when she comes into a bookstore in New York and she's going to NYU doing a thesis on radical feminism.

Speaker 3 26:58

I'm thinking these are the most cliche New York things you could put. Like now something to eat.

Speaker 27:08

I have no money for this $15 book. Their eyes are watching God. And uh I'm thinking to myself, you know, $15. That's red flag number five out of the first time. If you don't have $15 for a book, that's why you don't have the money. It's crazy. I get what you guys are saying, but I don't know.

Speaker 3 27:30

I'm glad you liked it though, because then this gives great discussion if one person it won't be over as it went on.

Speaker 2 27:38

I was the opposite. I was over in the beginning, and then I was like, oh, screw this movie, but I feel like that's a common theme.

Speaker 27:45

No minute.

Speaker 1 27:46

It's interesting, but unfortunately, a lot of the interesting stuff happens between the scenes that are on camera. And you know, uh Sebastian Stan's character betrays his protege, and we don't see that. She just disappears from the movie.

Speaker 5 27:59

And they maybe hooked up, possibly in the guy's apartment or hotel.

Speaker 28:05

Yeah, maybe.

Speaker 2 28:06

I mean, who'd you blame her?

Speaker 28:08

They were dancing in the bar to dirty laundry.

Speaker 2 28:11

That was awesome.

Speaker 28:12

That was awesome. And then the fake cop at the apartment, like the Richard house or wherever. Then he starts dancing, like, oh, they got a fake cop here, too.

Speaker 2 28:24

Everything is fake except the money, apparently. And that's the other thing, too. They had the whole thing set up so that he would technically quote unquote get the money back. But didn't they put the money in a foundation so he still doesn't get the money?

Speaker 5 28:35

They put it in the foundation, but he's the trustee, I believe, for that foundation. So that's the money technically goes to him because he runs that's the rule that uh she had before she signed it over to him.

Speaker 1 28:50

So basically her access is now his access, and she doesn't have any access anymore.

Speaker 2 28:55

Right. Okay, because I was like, if it's going to the foundation, how the hell did he get the money back? And then if it does go into a trust, usually there's a time limit on those things. You don't just get to like the money is not liquid. So many things were just confusing and not clear on purpose.

Speaker 29:10

See, it was clear to me, but maybe I was a little inebriated watching this. So I'm kidding.

Speaker 2 29:14

You might have to be to understand more of it.

Speaker 5 29:16

I was also enjoying a glass of wine while watching it.

Speaker 2 29:19

I was having tea as is tradition.

Speaker 29:21

I I was having water and uh maybe something else. But anyway, Kaylin, is it time for the scores for this round?

Speaker 2 29:29

I do believe it is.

Speaker 29:31

So you do your thing and break my heart in the process.

Speaker 2 29:35

No, you'll be pleasantly surprised. I gave it a three because I did think that it was strong for what it was trying to do, but like I said, we've seen it before, and we've seen it in comedy form with wild things, and we've seen the whole she's his mom, and they're together, but actually not really this time with another movie that I won't spoil that I've said in the past in case people haven't seen it. So, yeah, we've seen a bunch of this before, but it was done well-ish. It wasn't great, but at the very least, it had me sold from the beginning. I would have watched a whole movie with just the two of them. It felt like medicine for melancholy all over again. But yeah, a lot of it I thought was strong, but a lot of it I didn't. So three. Let's popcorn it over to Amanda. Let's let the girls go first.

Speaker 4 30:15

Okay. I gave it a two.

Speaker 5 30:18

I liked the twists and turns. I liked how everything connected at the end. But as I said before, I just felt as if we were watching, as Caitlin was saying, things we had seen before. And I also just thought it was imitating other shows and whatnot that had done it better than this. And I think the characters are really strong, but the story just didn't hold up for me.

Speaker 2 30:40

I agree with you too on the succession thing. I was gonna write that down. I forgot about that part. It definitely had succession vibes.

Speaker 5 30:47

Okay. Darren, you can go.

Speaker 1 30:50

Probably the strength of the movie as the screenplay is definitely a highlight until it runs out of steam. But the grifters betraying each other trope has been done to death, and there's nothing notable about this particular movie that makes it stand out, so I'm giving it a three.

Speaker 31:02

Nick? The best for last, I guess. No, I'm kidding. I give this a four. I thought that this was clever. I like the episodic structure. The twist kept me really engaged. The themes and the overall story, it's not original or groundbreaking, but God forgive me. That's okay. Not every movie's gonna reinvent the wheel. So I really enjoyed what it was doing here. And I think what I appreciate the most is that the twists weren't just like going into these different things here where you're like, I don't know what is happening. It kept me at least knowing what was happening without it being too overtly convoluted. So that's why I gave it a four. Well, next up, we're gonna go to the actin and direct in category. I'm gonna keep it short and sweet because our co-hosts kind of mentioned it a little. I want to say that this is, I think, one of the strongest attributes of the film because, like we said earlier, it's a stacked cast. We got Julianne Moore, we got Sebastian Sand, John Lithgow, Justice Smith. There's one performance I did want to just give note to, and then I'll take it away to our co-hosts. Uh, if they want to talk about each of the performers, I was really impressed with Justice Smith in this movie. I'm gonna be completely honest, everything I've seen, man, he's good, but he never quite rises to level of greed. Like he's consistently there. But this one, I don't know why. I felt like I was really impressed by the performance, and I felt sympathetic for his character. And I mean, I thought he played the awkward role really well. So I don't know if you guys have thoughts on his portrayal of Tom.

Speaker 2 32:40

1000%. He was one of my favorite people in this movie. But also, too, I know from I saw the TV glow, that really changed my mind about him. I know you haven't seen that yet. So when you eventually see that, you will see how fantastic he is.

Speaker 1 32:53

Absolutely. Exactly. He's amazing in that.

Speaker 32:56

Yes, he is. I host an A24 podcast, and I still haven't seen I Saw the TV Glow, but I have a reason to when we get to the episode, it is not partially my fault, but it is kind of also too straight to jail.

Speaker 2 33:09

That will definitely change your mind about him if it hasn't already, because he's phenomenal. But yeah, him and Sebastian, I thought were the best in this. Well, the main girl, I thought she was pretty good too, but the the people that I expected to be blown away from, like John Lithgow and Julianne, they're always top-notch performers, and they were the weakest for me in this. I would forget that they were in this movie, honestly.

Speaker 5 33:30

Well, okay, I'll talk about Justin Smith first because I I do think he plays awkward really well, but he also has this strange magnetism to him. The way he portrays Tom is fairly confident. And as I said in our last segment, there is something going on a little bit underneath the surface that you can kind of tell with him because of the character's history. But yeah, I just think he's really great in this film. I I thought Brianna Middleton, who played Sandra, was really, really good just having to play the two sides to that character in terms of the just this cheeriness with with Tom and then this kind of coldness with the parole officer and with Max, I think is really good. Sebastian Sand was just teetering on the edge of either anger seduction, I feel like the entire movie, and you didn't quite know which way he was gonna go. Um so I thought that made him a very compelling character, and he played this really well. A lot of people in Letterboxd were comparing him to a Christian Bale in I don't know why I'm blanking on the American Patrick Bateman. Yes, American psycho. A lot of people were comparing him to like a Patrick Bateman kind of vibe. But Julian Moore I thought was really good in this from just the switches she had to do when she was Max's mother to the Madeline like con artist. I thought were really, really good, and you just never knew what she was gonna do, and she had to switch on a dime like Sebastian Sand had to do with his performances as well. So I really thought this whole cast was great, besides John Lithgo, because he didn't really have much to do. But I I have disagree. I thought Julianne Moore and Sebastian Sand were real standouts in this, and Brianna Middleton and everyone really.

Speaker 35:11

Shout out to Julianne Moore, she is one of our best actors, male or female, a thousand percent. Uh it's kind of shocking to think she's been around for over 30-ish years in movies, but I mean she had a whole career on soap operas because she was on as the roll turns, because that's how my mom first knew about her. It's a long story. My mom and my grandmother, who was alive, they watched a lot of soap operas and they were like, that girl's going places. They knew it. They knew it.

Speaker 1 35:38

Yeah, I think uh a lot of great performances. They got top shelf actors to play all of the roles, and uh, they got the great performances from them and they do their best with the material. Uh Julianne Moore is particularly good, as is Justin Smith. So Sebastian Stan is always reliable. Basically, when you have actors of this caliber, you kind of know what you're gonna get from them, and um, you know, they're always gonna bring a screen presence, and how they interact with each other is gonna be the key. And uh that aspect of the film works really well.

Speaker 36:06

I thought Sebastian Stan was also good in the role, but like Darren just said too, he's consistently good in everything. I've seen him and he he's one of those actors where he's good at everything, but he needs something else too. So, like a couple years ago when he was in those two movies, one of them is an A24 film that we'll do at some point. It really was the moment where you say, Okay, like this guy, he's been here, but he's going to another level. Then he got the Oscar nomination for one of the other movies, which uh we won't say, but yes, um, he's great at that movie.

Speaker 5 36:38

You can do so much more than just Marvel movies. I mean, granted, uh, Marvel is full of great actors, but you can't say that about all the people who do movies like that.

Speaker 1 36:48

Well, three-quarters of Hollywood is in the MCU, so yeah, you're gonna have good and bad.

Speaker 36:53

Last month, we're recording this in June, was the first month that it went a billion dollars for the month of May. And it was because of really an A24 film that's doing phenomenally well right now. But it was the first one without a Marvel movie that that's happened in many years.

Speaker 2 37:11

That's because people are starving for original content. That's why we love A24. They're the ones who take the chances, and if you take a chance and make a mistake, so be it.

Speaker 37:20

Right.

Speaker 2 37:21

That's why we love you, A24.

Speaker 37:23

I thought that the one of the strongest attributes was the performances, the direction I thought was really well done. I mean, like you said, Benjamin Karen worked primarily in TV and he wanted to make a feature film for like you said, with bandit, like two decades, which is kind of weird because it shouldn't take someone that long where they have the caliber of TV credits that he had in his uh filmography. But I mean, for bouncing a really non-linear, I don't want to say complex because it's really not if you think about it, but something that it definitely takes a certain bravado to do. I thought he handled it well for a debut film.

Speaker 5 38:03

I I mean we'll talk about this, I guess, more in the cinematography area, but yeah, some of the shots and just the feel of the film in terms of a lot of really dark lighting, kind of shadowy lighting on a lot of the characters. It really lent itself to what they were trying to go for in the film in terms of this heist, this like neo-noir, like who's gonna get the money kind of film. And I think he really does a good job of creating at least the vibe that he wanted to go for and and uh and the the the general direction of the of this film. And it's a beautifully shot film. I think doing it on the millimeter film that he did really came out well. Um, when you watch it's visually very beautiful.

Speaker 38:44

I gotta add something to that point because of the 35 millimeter. It makes a difference. You could tell when you watch it if you know movies, what is shot on digital versus actual film. There's a moment, I don't know if you guys caught this, this is what won me over with this movie, but I was thinking about it because I've rewound it. Remember the scene at the very beginning, it was probably the first segment where Justice Smith, the Tom, and Sandra characters are kissing in the park. If you look, it's a little blurry. Sebastian Stan is in the shot, he is watching them, and I didn't know who that was because he wasn't in the story yet. And I thought to myself, wow, that's really awesome that you're able to put these little Easter eggs and these little things in there. So that made me think, like, huh, is this a rewatchable film? Because you want to see how they connect. And then there's other moments in the film where they're kind of in the background or they're not really super present or whatnot, but you could see them a little. Uh, but that moment in the park, I was like, this is really impressive for a debut film from a director, even though he had TV credits and whatever. But I thought it was full clarity, and I thought the tension that he built was actually really good. Because again, I didn't know where this story was going. And yeah, I think it was like what, an hour and 15 minutes. So I didn't feel like it was too long either.

Speaker 5 40:07

Yeah, it definitely flowed well, I have to say. And I thought the through characters in each part you could follow everything and were kind of along for the ride of that. And even, you know, focusing on the seasons, I thought was a really interesting thing as well to just try to connect these characters and in their different emotional states too.

Speaker 2 40:27

It's funny because I didn't know anything about the director before watching this, and yet the way it was filmed, I actually thought at one point, like this could kind of be a TV show like succession. I think it was one of the parts where they were talking in the boardroom and Julianne Moore just gets up and goes to leave. And just the way that the camera followed her and the color, like the lighting of the scene, I'm just like, this could totally be the way they make TV now. It could be a movie or it could be TV. It felt like it could be a two-episode something. So I definitely got TV vibes from this. Good TV vibes, but TV vibes.

Speaker 1 40:55

Yeah, it seems like it could have been a four-episode miniseries or something.

Speaker 2 40:59

Yeah, for sure. Definitely.

Speaker 41:00

That's what I was thinking in my head too. This would be an interested miniseries if they did an episode on each chapter and expanded it a little bit more.

Speaker 1 41:08

Yeah, flesh it out. Yeah, absolutely.

Speaker 41:10

But they made it into only a movie, but maybe they'll have the TV adaptation spin-off. Who the hell knows?

Speaker 2 41:16

I wonder if maybe that was an original idea, and that's why there was a bunch of stuff that happens off camera that we don't see. Maybe there, maybe each person was supposed to have an episode or something, and then they'll be like, Yeah, just make it into a movie.

Speaker 41:27

That'd be interesting to see if that was the case. Like, what was the medium that it was actually made for? I actually thought too when I was watching this, I could also see this be in a play because of the way that it's structured in terms of you could see it in one location or maybe two locations top for each chapter. So you don't really need to have anything crazy for it to be in a theater.

Speaker 1 41:49

Yeah, the structure's definitely set up that way.

Speaker 41:52

Well, I think we covered almost everything about this category. It'd be good to do our rate-ins.

Speaker 2 41:57

Yeah.

Speaker 41:58

Okay, let's go. And I go first because I uh led this category. I gave it a four. Uh for me, this was one of the strongest attributes of the film. The performances were really great, and I think they help elevate the material. And it's not a perfect screenplay, it's not a perfect story, uh, but it's an example of Star Power doing some heavy lift in here. And I thought that the direction was really good for a first-time director, and uh, I thought it was uh well done. So that's my logic. Let's go to Kayla next. Kaelin, what is your rating for this one?

Speaker 2 42:36

I too gave it a four. I thought that the direction was kind of it didn't stand out to me because everything we said before about how we've seen this a million times, but the acting was just so strong and the casting was spot on, and everybody just did such a great job that I could not deny them a score lower than that. So, really the acting is what sold me and the casting on this movie. If you didn't have these people and these roles, it would have been more of your plain run-of-the-mill drek. And because it was a little bit better than that for me, that relies very strongly on who you cast. So four for me. Let's go to Darren.

Speaker 1 43:10

All right. Uh direction and acting is uh definitely strength among this film's categories, but not you know something of particular note in comparison with other films. The story relies on credible acting from its duplicitest characters and that shines through in the performances and from the very able capable cast. As for directing, I it felt to me like the type of film that could have been directed by any competent director. There's no signature look or style to it, and nothing about it that screams that it had to be directed by this individual. So I'm gonna give it a three.

Speaker 5 43:42

Yeah, I gave it a three as well. Uh I I th I thought the acting was super strong and really enjoyed all the performances. I agree with Darren. It it is a beautifully shot movie, and I appreciate all the elements that he was trying to do with it. But as Darren said, it just doesn't seem to have a Signature stamp of the type of director that he was going to be for this film. Whereas if you watch Episodes of the Crown thing or Andor things like that, there do seem to be more of those little hidden directoral Easter eggs from him.

Speaker 44:14

Great. Uh thank you guys for those uh ratings for category two. We're gonna put that to a close and we're gonna go to uh category three, which is about the technical and production uh aspects to the film, and we'll take it away to Darren.

Speaker 1 44:29

Okay. Our next category is visual and technical elements, which include cinematography, editing, special effects, costumes, production design, sound, and music. For me, the highlights for this film include uh cinematography and particularly editing, which is essential to the twisty nonlinear story. What does everyone else think?

Speaker 44:48

I talked way too much about this movie already, so I feel like I'll give it to one of the ladies.

Speaker 5 44:53

I agree with Darren. I I I think I've mentioned some of this kind of the outline of Sandra and Nax in in black as they're in the hotel room and they're doing kind of the first script, I think is is a really beautiful shot. There's a couple shots of Sandra in in Nax's apartment that I think are particularly beautiful. I don't truly know though why this film had to take place in New York. I I feel as if that was a thing they tried to justify with like everyone has a con, everyone has a grift in New York, which is why it had to be a New York film. But I also feel as if you could have put this in any other city and it kind of would have worked. I don't know what everybody else thinks, but that's just kind of my take. I don't I don't know why it had to be so New York specific, and I feel like they really tried to shoehorn a lot of New York things in there.

Speaker 2 45:39

Well, let's be fair. We only have bookshops and so host.

Speaker 45:45

You know what this movie reminded me of when you said it could take place in any city, Amanda was party, the Paul Thomas Anderson debut film. Because that takes place in, or I think it's Reno, and it kind of has a similar thing where like your mentor and a con artist, and basically everything that could go wrong goes wrong and more. Part of why I think it's in New York is because it's a city where anything could happen, your dreams could come true, and it you could create your own story, even if it's con and people out of billions of dollars potentially.

Speaker 4 46:17

I was just like, well, maybe like LA or or something, we could have maybe gotten the same story.

Speaker 46:23

I don't think you need a car though. New York, you could just get it a taxi or walk places. They walk in places, these people they're living their best lives on limousines or whatnot.

Speaker 1 46:34

And of course, in Birmingham, Alabama, you have to have accents, and that's just a burden. It's like you gotta hire the right guys who can do the accents correctly. So, yeah, New York, New York works.

Speaker 4 46:44

Even in Philly, you'd have those accents too.

Speaker 2 46:46

So I thought the exterior scenes could have been shot in like Chicago. It felt very Chicago to me for some reason.

Speaker 46:51

It could have definitely taken place in Chicago. I feel like that is true that everything seems to take place in New York or LA. It seems after a while, you're just like, there's other cities that exist too.

Speaker 2 47:02

Or it's Toronto pretending to be LA, as Scott Pilgrim has taught us.

Speaker 1 47:06

Or Vancouver, yeah.

Speaker 47:08

I thought the cinematography, I thought that was actually one of the best attributes. We talked a little bit about it in the last category. And he wanted Charlotte Bruce Christensen. She did a really excellent job of making this film look sleek and polished. I think it helped reflect a lot of the themes here. And like Derek said, I like the editing. I think because it's non-linear, you have to be really careful with how you put it together without it being confusing. And I thought it was actually maybe the best attribute of the film, besides the performances.

Speaker 5 47:38

Yeah, I think the cinematography that was very strong that I thought the editing flowed well as well. Uh and on the bookstore itself, Karen was saying that he said on WNYC that he wanted the bookshop to be somewhere where one of the main characters, Tom, was hiding away. That he was hiding away in this world of fiction, and that actually was a safe place for him. And he was kind of lost in this world and not really in the real world yet. And and so that's kind of where he wanted to start the film. And then he also bookends it at the end by having them come back there. But I thought that was interesting how he was making this location, this kind of physical representation of who Tom was.

Speaker 48:18

There is a name for the technical details I just want to give a shout out to because he does a lot of A24 films, and that's the composer, uh Clint Mansell. He worked most honestly with uh Derek Arandofsky. So he worked on Pi, Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain, The Wrestler, Black Swan, pretty much any Aronofsky film, really. And uh he is definitely someone that should get mentioned too because he also did a couple years ago, Love Lies Bleed in the Rose Glass film from A24. But just really interesting career because he was in the band Pop Will Eat Itself, and that was like an alternative rock band from what where were they from? Like the 90s or I guess like late 80s, early 90s. They had that song Get the Girl Kill the Baddies.

Speaker 5 49:02

I'm gonna Spotify afterwards.

Speaker 2 49:04

That's one name I will always remember though, because his score for Requiem for a Dream is one of my favorite movie scores of all time. Like that is just pure masterpiece. Claire Manzell is amazing.

Speaker 49:16

He's really he's very underrated. I mean, for someone that has worked with really big directors, he also works a lot with Ben Wheatley. So he did High Rise, Happy New Year, the new Rebecca. So he's just an interesting guy. So I want to definitely give him a shout. I thought his score was really good too. It helped add some tension again and a little bit of sophistication, like class it up a little. I mean, Julianne Moore is here, she classes everything up, in my opinion.

Speaker 5 49:42

But you know, when she appeared on screen, the film immediately reached that wealthy air that it was trying to reach.

Speaker 2 49:49

Yeah, I definitely think this is my favorite category of all of them. Like casting, definitely acting, but like I have not gotten the scene out of my head because you know I watched the movie as close as I can to the podcast, so it's fresh in my head. And I have had the scene in my head all day with Sebastian going into the apartment to the tune of slippery people. That was just so fantastic. And it was like they used needle drops so friggin' well in this movie because you have to have him be mysterious and dark and sexy. And between his uh costumes and the music that they would use to highlight his scenes, it was just it was so phenomenal. I thought that the needle drops here were just absolutely fantastic. That was my favorite part of the movie, was just the framing of the scenes and the music they used. And to Nina Samoon at the end, and the the dirty laundry scene was very cool too. That slippery people that made me so happy. I'm like, oh my god, talking heads.

Speaker 50:37

Did you guys see who is the singer that is at the party? It's a very famous uh RB singer, or uh Samara Joy. She's like a jazz vocalist. Uh, she I think offhand had won the best new artist Grammy a couple years ago. So when this came out, she was getting into predominance. And she's only, oh my god, like 26. So but she's amazing. She does those cold porter songs in the film. Like she does, I think night and day, but she's really good here. And I I thought the soundtrack that actually, I'm glad you mentioned it, Caitlin, because you're my needle drops uh companion on this. I thought it was really eclectic because you can hear a Buck Owen song, and that's country, and you hear the talking heads. I love that so much.

Speaker 2 51:23

That was very fun.

Speaker 51:24

Very eclectic use of needle drops here.

Speaker 1 51:27

Definitely a highlight for me, especially Talking Heads and Don Henley. Those really highlighted the scene.

Speaker 51:32

Those were my two favorite scenes, the entire movie. Well, let's drop the needle, Darren, on this category and give our Raiden. So, what is your uh take on this, Darren?

Speaker 1 51:42

All right. Um, as previously stated, cinematography and editing are the highlights for me. Uh, I don't think it really has a strong representation from some of the other technical aspects. Uh it's largely character-driven, script, uh, rather than reliant on special effects for atmospheric elements uh for this category. I'm gonna give it a score of three. Amanda?

Speaker 5 52:01

So I gave it a two. I I thought it was a really beautifully shot film. The the cinematography is really great, the lighting's great. I just uh brought it back to I didn't really know why it had to take place in New York, and then the music for me was good, but it it didn't necessarily sell me more on the film. So yeah, so I gave it a two. Uh Kaylin, what about you?

Speaker 2 52:24

I'm joining Darren, and I gave it a three because certain scenes you felt the wealth and the elitism of Julianne, John Lithgow scenes, and then you had to feel like the dark, sexy, mysterious scenes with Sebastian. And in the beginning with the bookshop, it had to be all warm and lovey dovey. So I feel like they conveyed that with both like lighting and costumes for the sexiness and all that. I feel like they conveyed that really well in this film. And just mood and atmosphere, I think they captured those things very well. So obviously there's like no special effects or anything, but I felt like for what it did have in it was pretty strong. So three.

Speaker 52:57

And I'll go last on this one. I thought the cinematography, the score, the edit-in, the production line, I thought they were all really competent and polished. And I think that uh it's an example of a film that it doesn't have the boldness of an A24 film. Like I get that, but I like a good heist con artist thriller. I'm just won over, I guess, by this movie, probably more than my co-hosts here. I gave this a four because I thought that it it all came together. And the needle drops actually helped me give this originally gave it a three, but then when I saw especially the dirty laundry one, I was like, okay, we gotta bump this up a rate in. I don't care.

Speaker 2 53:40

That's what bumped me up from a two to a three, those two scenes is the music.

Speaker 53:44

And plus it ends with Dina Simone. So, like, how can you dislike a movie that ends with uh Dina Simone? Well, let's uh put a close to that third category. Let's go to the final round, which is about cultural and social relevance. We're gonna take that away to Amanda.

Speaker 5 54:03

Yeah, so in this category, we're looking at cultural and social relevance, which looks at timely, enduring themes, social commentary, representation, and identity. I thought this was one of probably the weakest categories for the film. I I I caught some general themes in terms of you know, everyone has a con, everyone has a grift, everyone is out for themselves in some way. I th I think it's Julian Moore's character that maybe says we're all human, just doing the best we can. Somebody says that at some point in the film, and I I think that that sums up a lot of what these characters are going through and doing. I mean, you see evidence between uh Max and Sandra in terms of like be careful what you teach other people because it can be used against you. So there are some kind of general themes here but aren't that aren't particularly earth-shattering. And then in terms of social comedy, I just think that they uh miss some opportunities, as we talked about earlier, to really go in on wealth in class and really explore that a bit more. And I think that's because as we've said, there's just more of a shallow diving into of a lot of these characters where we don't really get to explore some of those, some of those heavier themes. Uh, but I'm curious what everybody else thought.

Speaker 1 55:19

Yeah, I kind of agree as far as the themes not being uh strengths of this movie, you know, the social relevances. I mean, it's about the individuals and um what they're willing to do to get what they want or what they need. So I mean, there isn't really any uh overarching social message that I can really detect or anything other than just um people suck.

Speaker 55:42

Are we forgetting that it's two people of color that ultimately prevail at the end of the narrative against these homogenous white people? I guess. I mean serious.

Speaker 5 55:53

I don't know. For me, that just didn't do much to sell. I think also because they make Sandra into this uh as a person of color, they make her into this kind of troubled, you know, individual who's in like juvie and other things. So I don't know. I I think I think they do a lot for for the people of color in the film, but then they also I think put them in a little bit of boxes too.

Speaker 56:13

But they prevailed the end though. So I feel like, yeah, they might have put them in these not stereotypes or these types of uh boxes or whatever, but I think the fact is that it begins and ends with them together. And I think that's pretty amazing considering now they got nine billion dollars from John Lithgow's Richard. Um his dad. Yes, his dad.

Speaker 1 56:40

Yeah, so he inherited the money he would have inherited anyway.

Speaker 56:43

Exactly.

Speaker 1 56:44

It's hard kind of hard to be sympathetic for somebody who grew up as a billionaire and spent his entire life as a billionaire.

Speaker 56:51

I mean, they have hard lives. I mean, some people don't know how to deal with money or fame, and I think that could also be the downfall of people. Like when you have almost too much, it's like you're not happy. And I think that is really what happens involved because he even says it in the film, like he runs the bookstore, the bookstore doesn't make any money. It's really just a way for him to be happy because he kind of failed as a father, so he's given him these things to try to help make him a better person. Um, because wealth does not always make you happy.

Speaker 1 57:24

No, but the reason he can fight back against the conman and grifters is because he has the wealth and the resources and connections to hire the people who take them down.

Speaker 57:33

But if someone tells you, Darren, like, hey, you got $350,000, uh like you tell your boyfriend or girlfriend, and they say almost unconditionally, yes, I will get you that $350,000. I am buried that person. I'm like, sign me up. Okay.

Speaker 1 57:50

Well, that's how the grift works. I mean, that's you know, you convince the urgency is the key because if you stop and think about it, it falls apart real quick. It's like, you know, well, you need $350,000 right this instant, the shortly after you just met me. Okay. Yeah, that's not suspicious at all.

Speaker 58:04

But he's also lacking self-esteem, and I think we didn't talk about this theme really, but this impulsivity and this idea like things can change in a second, that I think is really important to these characters. They just live for the moment, for the high, for the con. And it's really interesting for me. Caitlin, what do you think about this?

Speaker 2 58:23

So the one thing I did write down was that I kind of like the representation because I like the fact that Tom is mixed and they don't really talk about it. It just is like, yeah, he's mixed. The end, move on. Like there wasn't a plot point at all. And they don't have the token black character, they have multiple black characters, which I appreciated. Well, you know, mixed and black. So I appreciated the fact that there was representation. It wasn't just like, oh, look, all these white people are in trouble again. Like there was definitely some diversity there, which I appreciated, but that was probably as strong as this category got for me. There was nothing that was socially relevant other than that. It wasn't really culturally evergreen, like it's you know, it's a grifting con movie. Like it is what it is. There's nothing to take away from it that makes it quote unquote important. So yeah, I liked how they just treated it like, yeah, these are normal people. We're not gonna make the fact that they're of color a plot point.

Speaker 59:14

So I don't know if it's more about race as it is about class. That's also something that I noticed because it's this idea that it's not just money that I think these people are after, it's more like the access to the means of the money. I don't know if that makes sense. It's also avenues to get to be in the social standards and the places that they also want to be in. And I think that um is part of I think what's also happening here, because you were also saying, like, why is this a New York story? And I think that you have penthouses that are like 30 million dollars and and all these types of things. So I think for like the look of the film, they could only take place in New York, I think, if we're thinking about like how they center the sets and the scenes from one to another. But I also think class is maybe just as important as the race because it's a specific type of class, it's like this upper class, this uh elite status that we're seeing here from these characters.

Speaker 2 1:00:17

Uh yeah, I mean, I feel like this could take place in LA too. Like LA and New York are kind of synonymous with like, what city do you imagine where somebody would have a $30 million penthouse apartment? It's like, okay, either New York or LA. So that's why I think like in that sense, it couldn't take place in, say, a Chicago. It would have to be a Wall Street type thing or a Hollywood type thing. So in that way, it could work in either sense. But yes, I agree. I definitely think the class was the focus here, more so than race or even, you know, personality, really. It's all just about how rich or how high on the totem pole are you and how low are you, and how can you ascend or pretend that you're descending so that you can ascend.

Speaker 1 1:00:53

It's set in boisey, it's a potato type thing. Yes.

Speaker 5 1:00:56

One of the details I thought that was just very minor was when Madeline finally gets all that money and she's going shopping, and all these people are helping her pick out things, and she has her purse down near some jewelry, and you see her just take the jewelry and put it in her purse. So this idea that it doesn't matter really the level of wealth or the level of money that she gets to, that she's always gonna be looking for a con or always looking for the next thing, always looking for another angle. So I so I I th I thought in that way that was an interesting critique on on her like nothing is ever gonna be enough.

Speaker 2 1:01:32

But she even says too, like the minute she gets the money, oh, I'm gonna sell this apartment. This apartment is too much for me. Okay, well then where are you gonna go? Are you just gonna buy a bigger one?

Speaker 5 1:01:42

Like, so she can be more anonymous and go on to the to the next thing. It's uh just these people chasing this thing that maybe they'll get, maybe they won't. But it's just the idea of the chase that's ever present.

Speaker 2 1:01:55

Yeah, it's almost like the money doesn't even really matter. Like even in the whole movie, like nobody really cares about being rich. Like, you don't see them going out and enjoying their wealth. They just want to see if they can accomplish this thing and they accomplish it. And it's just the the thrill of like, can we get away with this? And they do. And that's that's the whole thing that keeps them going is the can we get away with this? Not really the money.

Speaker 1:02:15

That's my takeaway too. Um, because even the scene where Richard offers Max the $60,000 a month to leave town. By the way, if you offer me that much money to leave town, peace out, eight town down, I'm out.

Speaker 1 1:02:28

Just make sure you don't say yes after he says six thousand. Wait for the per month part.

Speaker 3 1:02:35

I like listening that guy was on drugs. He was gonna give sixty thousand a month to a guy that clearly had a drug problem.

Speaker 1 1:02:41

Sure, why not? You know, maybe he was hoping he'd OD. But also three-dimensional chess.

Speaker 1:02:46

The thing about the substance use, like with the heroin use with the Sandy character, I thought that was actually really well done too. How it was weaved into the story of how I mean we find out that it's pretty much a ruse. I thought the detox scenes were kind of crazy. If I was in love with someone and that person said, Hey, you know, we're you could stay in my apartment. As you recover, I don't think.

Speaker 2 1:03:12

No, thank you.

Speaker 5 1:03:14

I mean, Tom was very naive through that. He is an awkward character, but I also think he fancies himself maybe a more confident person than he actually is in terms of he does ask Sandra out first, he does make the first move in terms of he kisses her after the date and things like that. But he's also just incredibly naive and just uh seems to want to believe the best in people, especially this particular person, even though she's given him all of these reasons not to trust him.

Speaker 1 1:03:41

Well well, that's kind of the setup. I mean, she presented it in a way where he would have the opportunity to ask her, ask her out, and then that would seem like it was his idea. And that's kind of the art of the con. It's all designed to be like, oh, well, it's my idea to ask you out, it's my idea to take you on a date, it's my idea to do all of these things, and then you convince them that it's their idea, and then when you spring you know with a trap, everything looks like it was building to this, and uh it makes a lot more sense. That's why people fall for this sort of thing. She was very well uh trained to seduce him in this particular way.

Speaker 2 1:04:16

Overly trained with three people's worth of backstory.

Speaker 5 1:04:19

I think it's so convincing with very, very minute details.

Speaker 1:04:23

Well, I think is that everything we got for this category, guys? I believe so. Well, Banda, we'll let you start off because it's your category.

Speaker 5 1:04:34

I gave this a one. The having the people of color be the people that are victorious in the end, I think is great. But I think in terms of giving me themes and representation and everything like that that may have been a bit more impactful that just didn't really do it for me and didn't really say a lot for me that I felt like I couldn't get anywhere else. So that's why I gave it a one. Just wasn't really not feeling this film, and it's because they got worse as time went on. Anyway, Darren, what did you get for this category?

Speaker 1 1:05:04

Uh I think this is the weakest of the four categories in my opinion, as the general message seems to be never trust anyone, which doesn't particularly resonate with me. So I'm giving it a two. Nick?

Speaker 1:05:14

Y'all are killing me tonight with this movie. No kidding. Um, you guys want a sharper film, but we had a really sharp discussion of the film. I gave this a four. I know. I gave fours across the board, and I thought that it did really well going into the privilege, uh, wealth, social mobility, and really manipulation as like major themes to the film. And it felt like another A24 film that just came out this year reminded me a lot of How to Make a Kill In with uh Glenn Powell, which we'll talk about at some point in the show. I thought it was also really great that you saw people of color prosper at the end of the film. And again, a film that kept me guessing and it won me over. So that's why I gave it a four. And uh Kaylin, we'll let you go alas.

Speaker 2 1:06:06

Oh, don't worry, I'll bring you back down to Earth again. I gave it a two for the same reasons that I said. I just I th I really appreciated that they didn't make race a big issue, but other than that, I didn't think there was anything that would make it stand out as a hallmark for being a super important film down the line. So I feel like for most films we're gonna watch, this is gonna be the weakest category because it's like a lot of films just strive to be entertainment. They don't strive to be important or say a message or anything. So this is probably always gonna be one of the weakest ones. But yeah, that's generally why I gave it a two.

Speaker 1:06:37

Well, that completes our four categories that we use on every episode when we evaluate a film from the A24 catalog. And with that said, let's take it over to Darren for the final scores.

Speaker 1 1:06:52

All right. Based on the combined ratings for all four categories and the fact that only Nick gave the film a total score of 16 or higher, Sharper is not viewed by the reviewers of this podcast to be an A24 essential film, which requires three out of four reviewers meeting the threshold of 16 points or higher. Nick gave it a combined score of 16, Kaelin gave it a 12, Amanda gave it an eight, and Darren gave it an 11, giving it an average score of 11.75, which qualifies it as the second highest grade of almost essential. Overall, Sharper is the fourth highest rated film of the five films reviewed so far with a total score of 47. In comparison, the highest rated film overall remains Moonlight with a score of 77, and the second highest film, The Killing of a Sacred Deer, has a score of 61. The film ranks as the second highest rated film for Nick, finishing between Moonlight and Killing of a Sacred Deer. It ranks as the third highest rated film for Kaylin, ranking behind the killing of the sacred deer and between the killing of the sacred deer and the eternal daughter. And the film ranks as the lowest film rated film for Darren and Amanda.

Speaker 1:07:58

But it's above the lovers, that's all that counts.

Speaker 3 1:08:01

Everything the VM is gonna say the lovers was higher for me than this film.

Speaker 1:08:06

I'm really not shocked uh about the ratings at all for this one.

Speaker 2 1:08:10

I was actually cracking up because I started tagging my letterbox reviews with the A24 Caracold podcast so I could both keep track of it and then like maybe spread the word. And it was hilarious because I clicked on the tag just to see if I got all the movies that we've watched or not. And it was like, yep, I got all five, and it's in order of popularity. I did not sort it that way. And of course, Lauren's on the bottom.

Speaker 1 1:08:29

Yeah, that's that's not surprising. I think with this one, it doesn't surprise me that it was low-rated. Uh, it just doesn't feel like an A24 type of film. I mean Yeah, it doesn't.

Speaker 2 1:08:38

It really doesn't.

Speaker 1 1:08:39

It feels like it could have been pretty much anybody.

Speaker 2 1:08:41

It was the same as Eternal Daughter that way. It really didn't have an A24 mark on it, which is surprising.

Speaker 1 1:08:46

Yeah, I think Eternal Daughter definitely felt more A24. It felt more like elevated horror and more thematically in line with what you usually get from the from A24.

Speaker 2 1:08:55

That's fair.

Speaker 1:08:56

This one is probably the least A24-ish of the five we've done so far. But that's the way the cards were dealt when we evaluated the film. So it's almost essential, right? But it in that sense, okay. Again, higher than the lovers.

Speaker 1 1:09:13

So far, we have one essential, three almost essential, and one not essential.

Speaker 2 1:09:19

I am so curious to see if and how we ever get up to like moonlight standards, or maybe possibly surpass. I don't even know if we'll ever surpass it, but even if we can just get close, I'm surprised. I'm curious to see what the first movie is. We'll see.

Speaker 5 1:09:33

Yeah, we'll get there. There's a lot of A24 film.

Speaker 1:09:38

Okay, guys, are we ready for this big moment?

Speaker 2 1:09:43

We're gonna spit new, yes.

Speaker 1:09:45

We're gonna spin the wheel and make a deal. So we add any new ones, just one at the time of this recording. Uh the movie Backrooms, which broke so many records for A24. It made over 80 million dollars. It's gonna be definitely the biggest film, at least domestically and internationally. If it hasn't, it will definitely be by the time we release this at the end of the month.

Speaker 1 1:10:12

Oh, yeah. Probably like Tuesday of the week we recorded this. Like it debuted with 80 million, and the previous champ was Marty Supreme with 96. So I'm pretty sure with the Monday and Tuesday grosses, it probably is already at number one.

Speaker 1:10:27

Yeah, that was just all I was saying, that it's breaking records. Anyway, do you guys want to see what we're gonna discuss in July? Absolutely. Let's do a five, four, three, two.

Speaker 5 1:10:57

What the hell is that now? Is that the Robert Patents?

Speaker 1:11:00

No, so it's the one about the Holocaust, if I'm not mistaken.

Speaker 2 1:11:05

I guess we're getting all the ones we've never heard of out of the way first.

Speaker 1:11:08

Oh, Christopher Plummer's in it. Okay. And it was nominated at the Canadian Screen Awards. Okay, it's only an hour and a half. Now, the big question about this is is it Shreaman anywhere? So that is a big question.

Speaker 1 1:11:23

It is available for rent on uh Amazon and Apple TV.

Speaker 2 1:11:27

Oh, yay, since I just re-upped my subscription, I can watch that too.

Speaker 1 1:11:31

Uh well, you can rent it.

Speaker 2 1:11:33

Well, all right, that's fair.

Speaker 1:11:35

Never trust, by the way, listeners, never trust Roku channel because they lie all the time.

Speaker 1 1:11:40

They just aren't accurate on the just watch site, you know.

Speaker 1:11:44

And it's only $2.99 to rent it on Prime and Fandango at home, and it's $3.99 to rent it on Apple TV. So okay.

Speaker 2 1:11:52

It's like a film for him doing Fandango then.

Speaker 1:12:00

We're doing like shorter films.

Speaker 5 1:12:02

It's gonna be some interesting research probably on this one.

Speaker 1:12:05

I'm looking forward to it. Oh, it's Adam McGowan. He's a really famous filmmaker. So for listeners that don't know anything about Adam McGowan, he did the Sweet Hereafter Exotica. He's in quite a few A24 films, especially like the earlier ones, like The Captive with Ryan uh Reynolds. So, yeah, very predominant filmmaker. So, this is actually a really good one for us to do. We will remember that wink wink when we discuss the movie in July. So, thank you all so much for doing this episode with us tonight. It was a blast as always. You could follow the podcast at A24 CaratGold on pretty much any social media platform, almost too many to name, but places like Instagram, Facebook, Blue Sky, Twitter, all those places. We even have a letterbox page too, guys. So, you know, we're moving up in the world. And if you like what you heard, give us a rated or review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. That really helps people discover the show and all the work we do for a 24 carat gold. So just let us know what you think. And if you really like the show, you can support our Patreon with that same handle. With all that said, thank you all so much for uh joining me tonight. And thank you to our listeners for checking this episode out on Sharper. And I hope you all have a good night.