Summary of the review "We": what critics say



[ad_1]

The critics are in Jordan Peele's horror thriller Weand critics are generally positive about the director's follow-up by get out, with some caveats.

The film, written and directed by Peele, follows a family who met a group of doppelgangers during a beach getaway. Lupita Nyong & # 39; o and Winston Duke play alongside Elisabeth Moss, Anna Diop and Tim Heidecker.

Jason Blum, who produced Peele's first Oscar-winning film get out, Come back for a second collaboration.

For The Hollywood journalistJohn DeFore says the movie "is an extremely scary movie whose meaning is to be taken." In explaining, he points out that fans can look for a sociopolitical sense through a fantastic premise that "is not as easy to read allegorically as that of its shocking beginning get out"DeFore says that We "Stresses the obvious fact that, whether we are black or white, they are people who look like us and have made our world a disaster we can not escape." The critic goes on: "Perhaps we are doing the same thing, creating both a living hell for someone, probably without even knowing it.Maybe we are them and that they are we . "

Eric Kohn of indiewire said We proves that Peele get outThe surprising success at the box office "was not a coincidence". He also insists that the film can be very satisfying and give "viewers exactly what they want by delivering what they expect the least". Kohn describes Peele's film as a film offering "a satisfying dose of relentless and agonizing survival antics designed to keep viewers perpetually uncomfortable" and as "something that moves so quickly that they do not can take into account that the underwater currents deeper after the generic ". Kohn argues that the film can be described as Funny Games combining their strengths with "cronenbergian body horror and hitchockian suspense".

He also praises Peele for his "indelible imagery" rather than relying on the "obvious frights of jumping". Although the film offers a lot of frightening moments, Kohn repeats that it does not mean We is not "too nuanced in his quest to horrify and entertain at the same time," but rather Peele allows the audience to "understand how that adds up." He also suggested that the public should remember that "sometimes the most frightening truths hide in the sight of all".

Eric Vespe from collider is aware that get out Can be considered We"big brother", but he assures that Peele's new venture is a "different type of film". "There are similarities, but it is by no means the same experience and honestly, I can not predict how the masses will react to this situation," he writes. The twilight zone rather get out.

According to Vespe, Peele's new film is proof that he is "always so keen when it comes to throwing a subtext under his fun horror film". Another moment of celebration of the film? The performance of the distribution. Vespe congratulates Peele for his "talent for making complex and intriguing characters" in Nyong & # 39; o, Duke, Shahadi Wright Joseph and Evan Alex. In particular, Vespe said that Nyong's "eliminated that from the park" and that his work is "the most central and most important performance of the film". "And she nails him," he says.

VultureEmily Yoshida also draws comparisons between Get Outside and We, suggesting that the first had a clearer message than the second. "It's a messier film than get outin that he can never really say what he's trying to say, "Yoshida writes. It's not quite a bad thing; his disorder allows the film to spend more time preparing inventive warnings than to transmit a complete message in capital letters. "Nevertheless, the premise is fascinating enough that the slight excavation of the material leaves something to be desired.

Yoshida nevertheless sings the praises of Nyong's dual performance: "Nyong Red", as she is credited, is a feat on another level: a physical, vocal and emotional performance if surgical in its lack of firmness that gives the impression as if it could not be the work of a human in the flesh, it is an astonishing performance, just as its performance as Adelaide, and at the As the two confront each other and the nature of their bond becomes clearer, the latter deepens and freezes into something more terrifying. "

AT The edgeTasha Robinson argues that We is a "conventional modern horror" that Peele's previous film. "This follows a familiar narrative pattern … Coverage is sometimes frustrating and slow, especially when the audience does not learn anything about the characters, aside from the fact that Gabe is unaware of the past trauma of the movie. Adelaide and Zora and Jacob do not get along very well and the transition to a real horror is so abrupt that it's almost comical – as long as it's not, "writes she. Although the principle of doppelganger is familiar with previous horror films, she adds that the film becomes more and more bizarre as and when.

In the end, the greatest strength of We is the representation of the distribution of their doubles, she adds. While Peele "directs We With a masterful collection of horror film tricks, "Robinson eventually writes," his main asset lies in the performances, which turn an already scary premise into something very inhuman and annoying.

In The daily beast, Kevin Fallon writes that while We sees Peele comment again on American society via a horror movie, "he does not really manage to land this time." Fallon expresses some regrets for this prognosis "because the experience of watching the movie is such a nice one.This is a super popcorn blockbuster of the highest pedigree; a show that will please the crowd with enough DIY and caring to be governed will obviously be so successful. "

Fallon praises the evolution of Peele as a filmmaker, claiming that many plans could claim inclusion as #OnePerfectShot, and laments that "long explanations" of the movie's greatest significance are arriving in the second act. "There will be a lot of reflection and dissection about us, and he deserves it, but it is interesting to note that he is doing so well as a great thriller in itself, separated from any" importance "that will be attributed to him." , Fallon writes.

the A V. clubRandall Colburn agreed with the others in his conclusion that the ideas presented by the film fascinate, but never end up being consistent in a clear message. "Like a lot of second year efforts, he is ambitious and difficult to handle, jumping furiously from one idea to another without exploring each one of them adequately," he writes. . On the technical side, Colburn finds Peele's "Balletic", "writing",We Mark his most effective fears not with a stab or a scream, but from the near-imperceptible, the nightmare hides in the shadows. "

Despite the film's virtues as a horror film, Fallon ends up being disappointed by his attempt to make more sense of these alarms. We"The third act collapses during an exposure crisis that raises more questions than it answers, and its persistent twisting sounds with a palpable, resonant sound due to a central metaphor that seems like a not too transparent, "writes Fallon.

We will be released in cinemas on March 22nd.

We

[ad_2]
Source link