A man’s journey that starts during his years as a college student and leads to a stint as an Army medic in Iraq, a suffering drug addict, and eventually an armed robber is told in “Cherry,” a film by the Russo brothers. Based on Nico Walker’s 2018 novel of the same name, this semi-autobiographical story is like an encyclopedia of bad decisions that focuses too heavily on portraying another American tale of opioid abuse. It’s a shame because this atypical coming-of-age movie could’ve been something so much better.
Cherry’s (Tom Holland) life seems normal enough. He’s an average guy working average jobs and doing well enough in school. He’s become smitten with beautiful co-ed Emily (Ciara Bravo), and it’s soon clear that she’s “the one.” After a breakup leaves him in agony, Cherry hastily decides to drop out of college and enlists in the Army, which brings Emily back into his life. The two get married before he’s sent off to basic training, and eventually Cherry is pushed into combat in the Middle East. While serving in the medical unit during the war, he sees the horrors of humanity first-hand, and comes home a changed man. Unable to function and with his marriage crumbling, he begins popping Oxycodone. This turns into an addiction spiral that eventually leads to a debilitating heroin habit that leaves him no choice but to start robbing banks for drug money.
It’s an interesting (if sad) story, but it’s not well told. Directors Anthony Russo and Joe Russo throw in too many gimmicky devices that are all over the place, creating a chaotic potpourri of annoyance and exasperation. Not only are many of the scenes scored with opera and the lead character breaks the fourth wall to directly address the audience, but the whole vibe of the movie is so disorderly that it makes me wonder if the Russos refused to make any edits to the hurricane of ideas in their heads. It’s as if they stuck anything and everything that came to mind into one two hour feature, and it’s like a headache come to life.
The basic training segment is the strongest part of the film, as is most of the material set during the war. Once the story shifts from Iraq, everything falls apart and it turns into another tedious addiction movie that’s not fun to watch. Seeing a couple strung out and shooting heroin to get through the day isn’t compelling, especially when it’s continuously repeated and every other scene serves little purpose other than to make you think “oh, how awful.”
It is horrible to see a young veteran who is consumed by an addiction that is a result of his paralyzing PTSD. It’s sad to see a man who can’t get help dealing with his psychological problems as he relives the worst horrors of war. It’s understandable that he and his wife become addicts who will do anything, including robbing banks, to score their next fix. But it’s the same old, same old when it comes to strung-out druggie movies, and the Russo brothers don’t present any fresh ideas or views on the topic.
The story is told from Cherry’s perspective, and screenwriters Angela Russo-Otstot and Jessica Goldberg don’t neglect the specifics of the man’s worldview (the film’s authority figures, for example, are introduced as anonymous figureheads like Sgt. Whomever at the Army enlistment office and Dr. Whomever, the Oxy-pushing counselor). The casual writing fits the material well, with vivid, descriptive writing and dialogue that’s wonderfully detailed.
All of this is brought to life through a career-best performance from Holland. He shows off his range and is terrific in the lead role. It’s a far cry from his “Spiderman” days, and Holland is growing as a big screen talent that will be one to watch for years to come. He’s not falling into the trap of agreeing to roles that will pigeonhole him, and his level of risk taking should be applauded.
“Cherry” is a mess of a movie that tries to do too much. Despite the film’s positive elements, I can’t get past the unnecessary excess.

Tom Holland and Joe and Anthony Russo have teamed up again but this time on a project which is about as far away from the Marvel universe as possible. Based on the book Nico Walker; “Cherry” is a compelling tale told in segments that depict a different style and phase of the main character’s life.
Holland stars as a young man who is trying to find a direction in his life. He meets a young girl named Emily (Ciara Bravo), and soon begins a relationship with her. This phase of the film plays out as a Young Romance film and the audience is given a good look at their world.
When Emily decides to move to Montreal to go to school and escape the issues she has’ Cherry goes into a downward spiral and enlists in the Army as a way to escape his pain and to try to find direction.
The film takes a dramatic turn at this point as Emily and Cherry reunite and marries but he is facing his pending military service which will split the couple. The film then pivots and becomes a war movie as we see Cherry go through Basic Training and then is deployed to Afghanistan as a medic. The horrors he experiences during his two years in the service traumatize him and he returns home to Emily with a severe case of PTSD which complicates their life and relationship.
The film then pivots again to show a descent into depression and drug addiction as Cherry and Emily fall deeply into the spell of drugs which causes Cherry to become more and more desperate to fund their habit which soon includes bank robbery.
While the film is deeply dark and depressing; there is a thread of hope throughout the film as despite their numerous issues; the bond between Emily and Cherry remains despite challenges well beyond what any normal relationship faces.
The honest and brutal nature of the story is amplified by the fact that this is a true story based on the life of Nico Walker. There have been films that depict the challenges facing Vets such as “The Deer Hunter” “Coming Home”, and “Born on the 4th of July”, which underscores the struggles that Vietnam Vets faced after their service. While “Cherry” looks at a modern conflict; it underscores how Vets are still struggling to get the care they need as many survivors to return broken and unable to resume their lives.
Holland and Bravo have solid chemistry with one another and the story is gripping and engaging throughout. Seeing Holland in a much more mature and darker role than we are used to seeing him in shows that he has a range of talents and is very capable of taking on a variety of parts.
Joe and Anthony Russo moved well from their recent Marvel films to a deeply personal and troubling story and the fact that they cover the multiple genres in each of the film segments shows they are very talented filmmakers with a bright future.
Do not be shocked to see “Cherry” come up at the next awards season as it is a film not to be missed and you can see it on Apple TV on March 12th. and cinemas on February 26th.
4.5 stars out of 5

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
I've been an advocate for Apple TV+ since I saw Servant. I genuinely believe it's the most underrated streaming service out there, especially in my country. Even though I've only watched one TV show, I've yet to seriously dislike a single film (Wolfwalkers, Palmer, On the Rocks), which only elevated my already high expectations for Cherry. I sincerely appreciate the magnificent, genre-defining work that the Russo Brothers did in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, mainly with the last Avengers flicks, so I'd always be interested in seeing how they handle things outside of the MCU. Cast Tom Holland (The Devil All the Time, Onward) as the protagonist, and you've got yourself one of the most anticipated movies of the first half of 2021.
One of the best attributes of the Russo Brothers' filmmaking style is their incredible capability of tackling an overwhelming amount of distinct storylines and characters without ruining the film's pacing, tone, and narrative structure. "Less is more" is not exactly a guideline followed by these directors, which is far from being an issue in the superhero genre. However, when it comes to a smaller movie like Cherry, the combination of genres and different narratives deeply hurts the overarching story. What starts as a simple, cute love story transitions to a heavy war action-drama and ends with a monotonous, dull, slow-paced plot surrounding drug addiction, PTSD, and bank robberies.
These three storylines have served as individual premises to hundreds of films throughout cinema history. This doesn't mean they can't be developed in a single movie, but Angela Russo-Otstot and Jessica Goldberg's screenplay needed to be better structured. The first half of the film is quite captivating and entertaining, to say the least. Cherry (Tom Holland) and Emily (Ciara Bravo) are two compelling characters who get emotionally attached naturally, making the eventual dilemma that leads Cherry to join the army pretty convincing, besides being a reasonably common situation. In this first genre shift, the tone changes without issues, and the entire war plot is definitely worth the viewer's investment.
This portion of the movie is where the directors shine. High production value goes into creating riveting action set pieces, and Newton Thomas Sigel's energetic camera work elevates every major sequence. Marvel fans will surely be delighted during this subplot, but the film's biggest problem comes with its second half. Featuring an extremely abrupt genre transition, Cherry goes downhill throughout its last 80 minutes or so, drowning itself in a pool of taboo subjects. From the drastic drop in pace to the dismal tone, Cherry and Emily go through a painfully repetitive, cliche drug addiction story. Adding PTSD and silly bank robberies to the mix doesn't work at all.
Overall, it's an incredibly messy screenplay that tries to do too much, but the Russo Brothers' overwhelming directing method also doesn't quite work for the movie. Excess of slow-motion, an all-over-the-place score (Henry Jackman) - it's actually quite good, just not used appropriately - and numerous camera angles that, despite delivering gorgeous shots, distract the viewer from the actual story, which should be the main focus. Cherry feels like a showcase for what the famous brothers can do with a smaller budget. While they're successful in demonstrating their talent behind the camera, it's not something they needed to prove to the audience, who just wants to watch a film with great story and characters, not be confused by technical wonders that have no place in this movie.
In the middle of the directing and writing chaos, Tom Holland sweeps in and delivers his career-best performance. In my humble opinion, I strongly believe he could be an Oscar-winner by the end of the decade. At 26-years-old, Holland shows an exceptional emotional range, particularly powerful in interpreting the most solemn emotions. Add a fantastic physical display, and you've got yourself an actor who can basically do anything. With this role, Holland deeply explores his acting skills, performing shocking scenes that everyone will find hard to watch due to his all-out commitment. Ciara Bravo might start as just a "pretty face", but the problematic second half actually helps her get out of her shell and step up her game. Excellent portrayal, surprising even from someone who doesn't have that big of a feature-film career.
Cherry is an indisputable mess, but it hangs on due to a captivating first half, a career-best performance from Tom Holland, and an overall well-shot film. The frustrating, damaging mishmash of genres might originate from the rumpled screenplay, but the unnecessary directing showcase for the Russo Brothers also hurts the multiple-narrative movie. The generic yet accurate "less is more" motto wasn't used during the making of this film, something proved by the sumptuous yet distracting camera angles, a gripping yet all-over-the-place score, and an impactful yet excessive use of slow-motion. The first part boasts a compelling, entertaining storyline featuring an authentic love story and a war drama packed with outstanding action set pieces. However, its other half heavily drops the pacing and depressingly changes the tone, leading the viewer into a tiresome, formulaic, much less interesting storyline. Despite all that, Holland's impressive interpretation will leave no one indifferent, grabbing the audience’s attention until the very end and elevating every single scene. Ciara Bravo works beautifully as the female counterpart, delivering a surprising performance. In the end, I do recommend it, even though I expected a lot more from the people involved.
Rating: B-

> What if your plan is a small part of someone's big.
I wanted this film since it was out, only now I managed to see it. I haven't seen so many Spanish films as I did for French and German. I don't want to get disappointed, so I'm choosy and that is how it got delayed. That is the another reason why you don't see my low rated ('bad' and 'ignore' in my verdict) movie reviews. I don't want to waste my time to review bad films. Better late than never, and now, I don't regret for the wait. Anyway, the film was good, I enjoyed it and I wanted it to be one of my favourite from the year it got released, but a few things stopped me to consider that.
Okay, first of all, it was a casual start like any thriller flick. Slowly letting us know what it's all about, introducing the characters in order in a simple manner and then intense suspense emerges. The pace picks up when more and more puzzle pieces dropped on-board. By then, as a viewer you would begin to figure it out, applying theories you got. But it's not that easy to crack, because the film is not that stupid to give away any hints. Nowadays a certain section audience is a little extra cautious, especially since 'The Sixth Sense' and 'The Shawshank Redemption'. So this narration carefully maintains the tense parts.
> "I close my eyes and you're still with me."
Not until the film reaches the final act, where the twist happens and you will realise that you were nowhere near. Because the first two acts and the final were totally parted in narration except connected with the characters. The entire film revolves around a disappearance of a dead body from a morgue. The husband of the dead woman, a cop and others tries to solve the mystery in an overnight. And a few flashback pieces give us the necessity stories when the ongoing situation getting more tense.
I thought 'Gone Girl' was inspired by the first half of this film. After a little research I got to know that movie was based on the book of the same name that released around the same date when this film came out. But a very similar one, only the finale diverted to the other path and so the meaning of whole film changed. As a movie fanatic, I had collected some flaws for my review, but the movie took till the final dialogue to keep it that way and then solved it, leaving me empty handed.
So there are no second and third thoughts about the end, because that was separated from the rest of the movie and very clear to declare what has to be done. That means you don't have to go looking for defects, other than accepting as it is. The only choice you have to make is to express whether you liked the movie or not. And like I said in the first paragraph I enjoyed the film, but not the favourite one and I believe I explained the reason for that in other paragraphs. I absolutely recommend it for those who are looking for a suspense-thriller.
8/10

You probably would expect a film about the origins of a simple stacking block computer game to be bland and dry, but director Jon S. Baird and writer Noah Pink give “Tetris” the glossy Hollywood treatment. The movie tells the unbelievable true story of how one of the world’s most popular video games found its way into the hands of players all over the globe. It’s a story of greed, lies, manipulation, and control, playing fast and loose with the facts in order to create an embellished espionage thriller.
After video game designer and publisher Henk Rogers (Taron Egerton) discovers TETRIS in 1988, he sees a lot of potential. Henk tracks down the inventor in the Soviet Union, Alexey Pajitnov (Nikita Efremov), hoping to become partners to bring his game to the masses. Putting everything on the line, Henk travels to Russia during the height of the Cold War and isn’t welcomed with open arms. When big money players like Nintendo and Atari get involved, his mission becomes even more complicated. Even worse, Henk attracts the attention of the shadowy KGB, who want to secure the rights to TETRIS for their home country.
The elaborate story is far-fetched and silly, and it goes to unexpected places because the history of TETRIS is turned into a crazy circus of a thriller. There are so many twists and turns that it’s exhausting to keep up, but the film keeps things interesting by raising the stakes with fictional scenarios. After all, there are only so many talky negotiations, licensing, contracts, business deals, and under the table government conversations that one can endure without a few harrowing car chases or scenes of our hero being harassed by KGB men in black. The result is a narrative that’s complicated, with everybody lying to everyone else while they argue over the rights to a computer game.
Baird’s directorial choices may feel questionable to some, but I found his use of retro 8-bit animation to tell parts of his story to be breezy and fun. There is a good sense of comedy too, which breaks up the more monotonous aspects of the movie. And while the action and thriller elements are admittedly corny, most everyone loves a story of an underdog taking down “the man” with a bit of Cold War espionage thrown into the mix.
Egerton holds much of the film together, and he gives a solid, enjoyable performance. He’s an understated actor with a ton of unexpected charisma, and he’s well-suited to the leading man role.
If you don’t know the story behind the birth of TETRIS, this film is an interesting way to get a decent outline of how it came to be. You’ll want to research what really happened, of course, and spoiler alert: you are going to be disappointed by just how much of the story as presented on screen is fiction. But if you’ve ever played one of the most addictive puzzle games in history (and even if you have not), you’ll find “Tetris” not only interesting, but a lot of fun, too.
**By: Louisa Moore / SCREEN ZEALOTS / www.ScreenZealots.com**

**_Great island locations but the story is essentially a..._**
Two newlyweds (Steve Zahn and Milla Jovovich) set out to enjoy their honeymoon hiking the incredibly scenic Kaua'i, Hawaii. Unfortunately they catch word that a crazy murderous couple is on the loose and they become seriously suspicious of other hikers (Timothy Olyphant and Chris Hemsworth, amongst others). Will they escape their honeymoon alive?
"A Perfect Getaway" (2009) is worthwhile if, like me, you enjoy island-adventure movies like "Mysterious Island," "Robinson Crusoe" and "Six Days Seven Nights." The film was shot at Kaua'i, Puerto Rico and Jamaica (the sea cave sequence) and these locations are spectacular.
Also, the character played by Timothy Olyphant and his woman (Kiele Sanchez) are likable and you can't help but start to root for them by the time the third act roles around. Olyphant is "outstanding." Chris Hemsworth (Thor) is also impressive as a grim/laconic badaxx hiker in a glorified cameo. Marley Shelton easily wins the Best Beauty award, but her role is too small and the filmmakers fail to take advantage of her presence.
Everyone knows by now that this is a 'twist' film and consequently the story takes a jarring turn in the final act. I'm not going to spoil it for you if you haven't seen it. I recommend seeing "A Perfect Getaway" if you like island flicks or films with surprising plot twists (or both). See if you can figure out the twist before it happens. I did and will explain below why it was easy. However, let me humbly add that I didn't have it figured out 100%; I just suspected the twist and that's how it turned out.
The film is good for what it is, but there are a couple of things that turned me off. One has to do with the twist, explained below. The other has to do with the film being a whodunit thriller. By it's very nature the story has to cast suspicion on several characters and, as such, they are often portrayed in a negative or weirdo light, which doesn't change until the last act when the real murderers are revealed. In short, there's just too much negative energy amongst the players, but this is somewhat offset by the impressive redemption of a couple of the characters in the third act.
The movie runs 1 hour, 38 minutes.
GRADE: B-
**_SPOILER ALERT_** (Don't read any further unless you've seen the film).
We discover in the third act that the main protagonists played by Zahn & Jovovich are the murderers and that they're actually impostors of a recently murdered newlywed couple. The reasons I was able to figure this out was because (1) I knew beforehand there was going to be a plot twist and so was looking for it and (2) in a murder-twist scenario it's usually the most innocent/vulnerable persons who are guilty (e.g. "Howling V: The Rebirth").
Twist films like this have now become so common that they're no longer even surprising. What would really be refreshing and 'cutting edge' is if the film simply played it straight, i.e. the people we think are the protagonists remain the protagonists throughout and the suspicious/evil people get their comeuppance ("Cape Fear" is a good example).
My problem with the twist is that it makes the whole story a lie -- the very people we come to care about and root for in the first hour end up being despicable criminal scum of the lowest depth (at least Zahn's character anyway) and the suspicious characters that we're led to believe are the murderers wind up being the protagonists we should care about. To the film's credit we DO end up caring about Olyphant's character and his mate by the end of the story.
Yes, I realize that, in a way, the film isn't lying to the viewer once the characters played by Zahn and Jovovich are understood to be the murderers. When this is understood, most (maybe all) of their conversations are authentic as the impostors/killers but not as the innocent newlyweds, if you know what I mean. It's all a matter of perspective. But, still, this doesn't take away from the fact that the viewer has essentially been baited and switched -- the very people we think are the innocent/vulnerable protagonists end up being the guilty/malevolent scum bags. Consequently, the viewer can't help but feel hoodwinked at the climax.

**_Unexpectedly emotional, with a towering central performance_**
> _I had never known anything but up in my career, had never received even one of those formatted no-thank-you slips that successful writers look back upon with triumphant jocularity. And I regarded with pity and disdain the short-sleeved wage slaves who worked in offices. I had no reason to believe life would get anything but better. I had had no experience failing_.
- Lee Israel; _Can You Ever Forgive Me?: Memoirs of a Literary Forger_ (2008)
Directed by Marielle Heller, with a screenplay by Nicole Holofcener (who was originally attached to direct) and Jeff Whitty, _Can You Ever Forgive Me?_ is based on Lee Israel's 2008 memoir, _Can You Ever Forgive Me?: Memoirs of a Literary Forger_. Taking the form of a buddy crime caper in which two mismatched rogues are thrown together by circumstances and set out to stick it to a system, if you strip away the easily-digestible/easily-marketable surface, you'll find that _Can You Ever Forgive Me?_ is a surprisingly moving study of loneliness.
Funny in places, the film is very much anchored by its two leads - Melissa McCarthy as Israel herself, a broke unemployed 51-year-old lesbian alcoholic who is pouring her time and energy into a book no one wants to read, and is unable to even pay her beloved cat's vet fees; and Richard E. Grant as her (fictional) friend Jack Hock, a promiscuous homeless homosexual junkie. On paper, these are not the kind of people you'd want to spend time with, nor the kind of people you'd expect to care about. But Holofcener and Whitty's script is so good, Heller's direction so subtle, and the performances so nuanced and layered that you do come to care for them. Rather deeply in fact. Indeed, there's a scene about three-quarters of the way through the film that's one of the most devastatingly succinct depictions of utter heartbreak and physically manifested grief that I can recall seeing on screen. The film is presented in such a way as to show us that behind the acerbic façade these two people have constructed for themselves, they are vulnerable, lonely, and scared, and although neither would admit it, they are both crying out for meaningful human companionship. There's a lot of pathos in that, and Heller makes sure to mine every single bit of it in what is an unexpectedly exceptional film.
Set in New York in 1991 against the backdrop of the AIDS epidemic, the film tells the story of Lee Israel (McCarthy). Once a celebrated biographer, her books _Miss Tallulah Bankhead_ (1972) and _Kilgallen: An Intimate Biography of Dorothy Kilgallen_ (1980) were both well received, with Kilgallen placing on _The New York Times_ Best Seller list. However, her 1985 book, _Estée Lauder: Beyond the Magic_, was a critical and commercial failure, and she is subsequently unable to generate interest in a proposed biography of Fanny Brice. By 1991, finding herself out of touch with the current literary vogue of prolific and trashy celebratory authors such as Tom Clancy, she has become so irrelevant that her agent, Marjorie (Jane Curtin), is reluctant to return her calls, ultimately telling her she should find another line of work. Financially crippled, Israel is unable even to afford the vet bill for her beloved cat, Jersey, and so she begins to sell her belongings, including a letter from Katharine Hepburn. Whilst continuing to research her Brice biography, she happens upon an original letter from Brice folded in a book. Taking it to a local book-seller, Anna (Dolly Wells), Israel is told that the more interesting the contents of a letter, the more it will sell for. With this in mind, she begins to forge and sell letters by deceased celebrities such as Edna Ferber, Dorothy Parker, Ernest Hemingway, Noël Coward, Marlene Dietrich, Lillian Hellman, and Louise Brooks, ensuring they contain intimate details so as to command a higher price. Meanwhile, Israel develops a friendship with Jack Hock (Grant), who is eventually pulled into her scheme. However, when the forgeries are discovered and the FBI become involved, both Israel and Jack find themselves in over their heads.
The film was originally announced in April 2015, with Julianne Moore as Israel, and Nicole Holofcener (_Friends With Money_; _Please Give_; _Enough Said_), set to direct from her own script. In May, Chris O'Dowd was cast as Jack. However, in July, Moore dropped out due to "creative differences", and was soon followed by Holofcener and O'Dowd. In May 2016, Melissa McCarthy was cast as Israel, with Marielle Heller (_The Diary of a Teenage Girl_), directing from playwright Jeff Whitty's (_Avenue Q_; _Head Over Heels_) rewrite of Holofcener's original script. The phrase "_can you ever forgive me_", which is also the title of Israel's memoirs, is taken from a line Israel used in a forged letter from Dorothy Parker. The real Israel began writing in the 1960s for _The New York Times_ and _Soap Opera Digest_. In 1967, she wrote a piece on Katharine Hepburn shortly after the death of Spencer Tracy that was published in _Esquire_. In 1972, she published _Miss Tallulah Bankhead_, and in 1980, _Kilgallen: An Intimate Biography of Dorothy Kilgallen_, which made it onto _The New York Times_ Best Seller list.
In 1983, Macmillan paid her an advance to begin a warts-and-all Estée Lauder biography. Lauder herself tried to block the biography, with Israel claiming that Lauder repeatedly offered to pay her off to stop writing. When Israel refused, Lauder began writing her own memoirs. Both were published in 1985, but Israel's was critically thrashed and a commercial failure. Israel later wrote,
> _instead of taking a great deal of money from a woman rich as Oprah, I published a bad, unimportant book, rushed out in months to beat hers to market._
With the failure of the book, Israel's career went into rapid decline, and she was soon on food stamps (which isn't shown in the film). Upon beginning her letter scam, Israel went to extraordinary lengths to make her forgeries difficult to detect - she obtained old typewriters appropriate to the era in which the letters were supposedly written, with each typewriter assigned to a different person; in order to match the paper to that used in real letters, she would tear out blank pages from the back of contemporaneous periodical journals, or, when that wasn't an option, she would bake paper to age it; she read real letters from her subjects to better ensure that the cadence of her forgeries was appropriate; she would trace over signatures by placing pages on an upturned TV. According to Israel, she either altered, forged, or stole over 400 letters in total.
Fundamentally, _Can You Ever Forgive Me?_ is not about Israel's scam; it's about two exceptionally flawed people. Just as she did in her debut feature, Heller presents fully dimensional portraits of such people within the larger framework of a vibrantly realised milieu; in _Diary of a Teenage Girl_, it was the sexual liberation of San Francisco in the 1970s, whereas here it's the AIDS epidemic of New York in the 1980s/1990s. However, just as _Diary_ was not about an epoch, but about a specific person within it, such is the case in _Forgive_, where AIDS is always present, but rarely foregrounded; it's the backdrop of the story, not the subject. Credit must also be given to Holofcener and Whitty's script, which vividly represents some extremely unpleasant aspects of Israel and Jack's loneliness (Israel's apartment, for example, is infested with flies, which isn't the most subtle metaphor of all time, but it is effective). In this sense, the film fits very much into Holofcener's _oeuvre_, and it would have been very interesting to see what she'd have done with the material had she remained on as director.
Cut off from virtually all human contact, grouchy and bitter, Israel only ever seems at ease when buried in research or lying in bed with Jersey. However, in contradistinction to most narratives about this type of acerbic personality (think films as varied as Peter Berg's _Hancock_ or Alexander Payne's _Nebraska_), there's no real attempt to humanise or redeem Israel, and even when the story reaches its emotional apex, there's no real sense of the moment being instructive or a watershed. Even when she goes on a date, she is afforded very little humanity, as she purposely sabotages the encounter moments after realising she is beginning to open up, as if she's ashamed of herself for showing vulnerability. Indeed, in practical terms, Israel has very little arc; she's a little softer at the end, but not much (in her final scene she laughs about being in a bar when she's supposed to be at an AA meeting, and jokes about tripping up an AIDS patient with a crutch). Furthermore, the film never excuses her crimes. It does rationalise why she started forging letters, but it never celebrates or condones her activities.
Absolutely committing to her performance, Melissa McCarthy completely immerses herself in Israel, in what is easily her best role to date. Helped in no small part by the frumpy costume design by Arjun Bhasin (_Life of Pi_; _Love is Strange_) and the less-than-flattering hairstyling by Linda D. Flowers (_Captain America: The First Avenger_; _The Hunger Games_; _Furious 7_), Israel seems organically fused to the production design of Stephen H. Carter (_The Bourne Legacy_; _Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)_; _Spotlight_), with her world one of dirty browns, dark beiges, and neutralising greys. Both the film and McCarthy lean into the fact that Israel is such a contentious, contrary, and unlikable individual. In an early scene at a party, for example, Israel steals toilet rolls, some shrimp, and someone's jacket. At one point, an exacerbated Marjorie tells her, "_you have destroyed every bridge I have built for you_", explaining, "_either become a nicer person or make a name for yourself. As an unknown, you can't be such a bitch._"
However, what makes the performance so good is that no matter how cruel Israel is, no matter how irreverent and combative, her loneliness is always there to see, making it difficult to dislike her as much as we should. McCarthy touches on everything from friendship to creative insecurity to heartbreak, so as easy as it is to view her antagonistically, it's almost impossible to really condemn her. Yes, her exterior is prickly and calloused, but it serves to cover up not insignificant pain. Yes, she can be unjustifiably misanthropic, but she's also extremely vulnerable. McCarthy plays Israel as her own worst enemy, a deeply sad woman, whose acerbity is both a cause and a result of her situation. Where the performance really excels is in the subtle ways McCarthy shows us Israel's buried humanity, demonstrating how much she craves companionship – we see it in how she is when alone with Jersey, we see it in how she gravitates towards Jack, we see it in the early parts of her date with Anne, we see it in a brief scene when she meets up with her ex, Elaine (Anna Deavere Smith).
McCarthy is perfectly matched by Richard E. Grant, who plays Jack as a rouge's rouge, difficult to pin down (when Lee asks him what he does, he replies, "_oh, this and that. Mainly that_"), a mischievous shark-ish smile permanently on his face, never one to let minor things like homelessness or drug addiction get him down. Their chemistry is perfectly modulated, and their scenes together (which take up about half of the film) are so well written and performed, so hilariously denigrating and quick-witted, you'd be happy to sit there watching them all day. Like McCarthy, Grant is well aware of Jack's flaws, and like McCarthy, he emphasises them rather hides them. Jack actually has a more conventional arc than Israel, and two scenes in particular really push the audience's ability to view him sympathetically. Whilst Israel remains on a relatively even keel throughout, with her worst characteristics on display from the get-go, Jack's core is revealed more slowly, and towards the end of the film, his choices show his character in a different, and not especially flattering, light. With this in mind, it's a testament to Grant's performance that Jack remains so demonstrably human throughout.
One of the most interesting aspects of the film is the pride that Israel takes in what she is doing. Yes, it's criminal, but she takes the work very seriously and is proud of the results. In her book, Israel argued that the forged letters were the best work of her career, far surpassing her three biographies, proudly claiming, "_I'm a better Dorothy Parker than Dorothy Parker_". When Jack mentions what she's doing is not dissimilar to the _Hitler Diaries_, she momentarily beams with pride. At a later point, when Jack expresses disdain for the importance of the forgeries, Israel chastises him, telling him the letters are "_a portal into a better time and a better place when people still respected the written word_", following this up with the curt, "_respect what you're selling_". She may be a criminal, but she has reverence for what she does.
In reality, Israel had struggled for decades to find her place in New York's literary scene, unsuccessfully (of course, it didn't help that she despised everyone in the industry). She had spent the 1970s and 1980s writing biographies, but by the early 90s, the scene had changed, and she had failed to change with it. Who can blame Marjorie for not being especially interested in a biography of Fanny Brice when she has someone like Tom Clancy as a client? Sure, he's a hack who churns out variations on the same story over and over again (think a slightly more talented Dan Brown), but his books sell millions, whereas Israel's most recent work was marked down by 75% only weeks after going on sale. Indeed, the film takes a particularly funny swipe at Clancy (although he's never mentioned in the memoirs). He is shown at a party (played by Kevin Carolan), wearing the most pretentious polo-neck I've ever seen, and conceitedly telling a group of hangers-on,
> _writer's block is a term invented by the writing community to justify their laziness. My success is nothing more than that I have the dedication and stamina to sit and get the work done._
Of course, the fact that Israel's forgeries proved so successful highlighted two extremes of her ability; yes, she could be genuinely creative, but only when imitating someone else's voice. This is why she was such a good biographer - apart from being a diligent researcher, the most important skill for a biographer is the ability to place the reader in the head of the subject, i.e. to imitate them. The letters proved that Israel could do this with unparalleled success (much to her amusement, two of the letters she forged from Coward were actually published in the first imprint of Barry Day's 2007 book, _The Letters of Noël Coward_, although they were removed for the second printing). They also demonstrated that she had a keen and caustic literary wit, although it was a talent of which she unsure what to do for most of her life. Interestingly, in the book, Israel says she was uncomfortable with the fact that due to increased scrutiny on the part of buyers, she had to start stealing real letters from archives, replacing them with forgeries, and then selling the originals. Not only does outright theft violate the sanctity of the written word which she holds so dear, but, perhaps more importantly, the creative element of her work was now lost - all she was doing was copying from one page to another. Indeed, when the film depicts this phase of her forgeries, it does so dispassionately, void of the sense of fun which had been very apparent up to this point.
Aesthetically, the film is gorgeous in how drab it looks. I've seen numerous critics talk about how evocative it is of a New York that's long since gone, and, having never been to New York, I'll have to take their word for it, but I'll certainly agree it exudes an evocative sense of place, reminding me of something like the New York of Spike Lee's _25th Hour_ (2002) or the Tokyo of Sofia Coppola's _Lost in Translation_ (2003). I've already mentioned the production design, wardrobe, and hair, but equally as impressive is the cinematography by Brandon Trost (_Crank: High Voltage_; _Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping_; _The Disaster Artist_). It's rare that you see a film where it doesn't just look cold, it literally feels cold, as if the weather has somehow gotten into the texture of the celluloid. This damp and dreary New York is a million miles from the more romantic depictions of the city we're so used to seeing. It's a place where people still smoke in bars and workplaces and do cocaine in public toilets, where there are warm, cosy bookshops on every street corner. Again, I can't attest to this myself, but I'm told the venerable old-school New York bookshop is, sadly, a dying breed, an analogue institution in an increasingly digital world. The point is, the world of the film feels lived in; from Israel's horrific apartment with its cat faeces and fly infestation, to the bookshops, to the gay bars she and Jack frequent - everything feels like it was just filmed as is, without an art department finessing it, even extending to the props, which prove so important once Israel has acquired multiple typewriters.
It's rare I write a review in which I legitimately struggle for something to criticise, but this is such a review. Aside from Israel lacking an arc (which I personally don't see as a problem, but some definitely will), the only other thing I would bring up concerns the tone of the story, which remains detached, and which some will probably find too impersonal. I guess some people might find the story a bit dull as well.
This is a film about fundamentally broken people trying to put themselves back together, about people on the edge trying to chart a course to the centre, about scavengers trying to find something life-changing in the wreckage. It asks the question (although never explicitly) how such a talented writer as Israel could have gone unnoticed and ended up as she did. With the industry what it is today, this is an even more pertinent question than it was in 1991 (or 2001. Or 2011 for that matter). What is on the surface (and what is being marketed as) a caper dramedy is, in fact, a much deeper and more observant study of human frailties and failings, a paean to the importance of friendship, and (cliché alert) the importance of love (even if it's only of the feline variety). Melissa McCarthy gives a monumental performance in a role that, in any other year, would have made her a favourite for Best Actress. This year, she's competing against Olivia Colman for her performance in Yorgos Lanthimos's _The Favourite_, which means she hasn't a hope in hell of winning. However, hopefully, this will lead to more dramatic roles down the line. She certainly deserves them.