Beau Is Afraid review: irritating and uncomfortable, by design
Joaquin Phoenix is on an existential search for his mother in Ari Aster's insufferable—but occasionally quite good—horror comedy
Film Reviews Is
There’s a certain kind of bad movie that reaches a special threshold of annoying. It’s a bad movie where every few scenes you have to admit that what’s happening right now kinda rules. If it was just bad all the way through, you could easily dismiss the whole enterprise. Instead, you argue with yourself about the part where one character does this and another character does that. “And the set design!” you think. “You gotta give props to that. Okay, this is not a total failure,” you conclude, “but please never make me sit through it again.” Then you come across it one day and say, “I hate this movie, but this bit coming up is great, hold on.”
The newest entry to this ignoble pantheon is Ari Aster’s Beau Is Afraid, an insufferable three-hour slog that would make Terry Gilliam say “reel it in a bit, would ya?” It is juvenile and pointless, loud and abrasive, and not anywhere as clever as it thinks it is. There are, however, individual moments sprinkled throughout that genuinely hum with greatness.
After a short introductory scene where Beau Wasserman (Joaquin Phoenix, at his most whiny and affected) has a therapy session with his warm and trustworthy shrink (Stephen McKinley Henderson), we discover that the world of this film is not our reality. Sure, one could say the exaggerated urban hellscape is just this delusional paranoid’s interpretation of city living, but if that’s the case we’re never given that third-person anchor. We’re inside Beau’s head the whole time, and while the over-the-top violence, chaos, and filth is certainly very funny (there are murder-hungry homeless zombies and plagues at every turn), it gets exhausting rather quickly.
Beau is planning a trip to visit his mother (Patti LuPone now, Zoe Lister-Jones in memory), but fate has other plans. When Beau turns his back on his luggage and his keys for three seconds, they’re snatched. Then he learns that Mom has been killed in a freak chandelier accident and he must return for a burial immediately. Every second he delays he is being a bad son.
A strange odyssey (with direct references to Homer’s The Odyssey) ensues, expanding out to punishing, maximalist lengths. Some scenes are quite good, like a tale-within-the-tale that mixes animation and clever stagecraft. Other sequences, however, drag on; an abrasive B-plot about an angry war veteran who wants to kill Beau strives to be the “Lone Biker of the Apocalypse” bit from the Coen Brothers’s Raising Arizona, but it cuts together like the noisy bedlam of Steven Spielberg’s 1941. The movie concludes with a slew of sophomoric dick jokes and hackneyed gags about an overbearing Jewish mother (For the record, my Jewish mother is very nice).
The main problem is this: Phoenix is acting his brains out and taking this all very seriously but when a movie is so untethered to reality there are simply no stakes. Aster and Phoenix bet the ranch that when the zaniness is paused and the chronically-afraid Beau expresses sadness or terror, we will connect with the drama. It’s very difficult to thread that needle, and Beau Is Afraid is not, unfortunately, a successful model. It’s different from cringe comedy; it’s genuine discomfort. Eventually you just have to shout “shut up, already!”
The movie starts with the volume cranked to 10, then never takes a breath. At three hours it is unbearable. Yes, this is meant to be a “bad trip” of a movie, taking you inside the experience of someone undergoing a crisis, but there’s a limit. And then it’s revealed that this grown man has mommy issues. For that you made me sit through all this noise?
It’s like the satanic speed metal band, Slayer. A Slayer song now and then really gets the blood pumping, but I have never been able to listen to an entire Slayer album. At some point I shout “enough!” and turn the friggin thing off. Beau Is Afraid is a Slayer album.
Ari Aster is a pretty clever dude, and Midsommar and Hereditary are well-respected movies. In a recent interview with GQ he showed that he’s well aware many will share my reaction to the movie. At the end of the day, a “big swing” is always better than a throwaway, and anyone who sits through Beau Is Afraid won’t forget the experience. Indeed, what should terrify a filmmaker most is having no impact on an audience. Of that, Aster has no reason to be afraid.
Beau Is Afraid comes to theaters on April 21, 2023
71 Comments
Tbf Midsommar was also no where near as clever as it thought it was.
I’m not sure Midsommar was really trying to be clever. It trojan horsed a toxic relationship/break-up story into a horror film rather successfully. Outside of that I don’t think it made any pretences about being clever.
yeah it was incredibly straightforward. it’s okay to just not like something.
What was supposed to be clever about Midsommer? It was just a rollercoaster ride of incongruous imagery and tone with a pretty straightforward plot. It had remarkably wide appeal because it wasn’t that clever and didn’t need to be.
To be fair, most main stream material that gets published for mass audience consumption tries to function at a level that’s not too clever for fear of not being understood. It’s the age-old if I can’t explain it simply, then I’m not an expert (I don’t believe in that but just using it as an example). So when I see the hot take that a movie is pretentious or trying hard to be smart and comes off whatever critic here, I give a side eye. Sometimes we’re just not in the mood for a movie. Sometimes a movie is intellectual, and we missed the point. Sometimes we got one point, but there were several buried under what seems like a simple plot, but some YouTuber could find out and deconstruct for all to enjoy. Sometimes a movie is over-analysed. I think you’re right, it may not have tried to be clever and a lot of hate can come merely from people misinterpreting shows don’t tell imagery and the massive amount of interpretations people get from symbolism in such instances. The Mona Lisa effect, where it’s simple to some, others complex. I guess where I’m going here is, people like to throw out the word pretentious, overrated, and so on before really digesting what they’re criticizing. Sure people can also do the opposite and say a popular A24 film or something is a masterpiece before really thinking because they wanna hit those ugh marvel fans or whatever with a “true cinema” critic cause a movie said something psychological. Overall, I find the take that a thing is overrated, irks me more, since so many hands are on a work before publication and I gather more often it’s becoming critically praised by a majority doubles down that the one screaming overrated is an outlier and may just not like the genre or film style/work, regardless.
It was just using the same Neo-pagan stuff that (the original, not the Nicolas Cage crap) Wicker Man did. And I think it assumed the viewer had seen that.
Blech. A few folk horror touches aside the middling Midsommar could not be more different from the timeless classic that is The Wicker Man. I saw these parallels in reviews at the time, which was one reason I was so excited to see it. (The other big reason was my love of Hereditary.) I was significantly let down by Midsommar. It’s beautiful and interesting in its own way but overly predictable and contrived.
irritating and uncomfortable, by design- The AV Club
This review genuinely made me laugh. Thanks for that.Though for something described as unbearable, C+ seems kind.I hated Hereditary but found it well-made. I loathed Midsommar until I didn’t (maybe a third of the way in?). I fully expected, to some degree, to hate this film. Thankfully when I stream it later this year I can at least turn the sound down.
That’s an awful lot of hate.
Hoofah. I just read a synopsis of this and it sounds mightily insufferable. I think I can wait until Tubi gets it.
Don’t let a synopsis stop you. It’s worth seeing.
Some people go to entire Slayer concerts….
I’m going to give this one a shot. Even if I don’t like it, I don’t think it’ll top this year’s Inside as one of the worst experiences I’ve had in the theater in a long time.
I liked Inside, if only because I was in an empty theater and was rooting for Willem Defoe to escape so I could go home. I’m also a sucker for heist movies and survival films. But yeah, it was a slog.
Ah man, Inside was great. I raved about it after by saying “Imagine if at the end of Castaway, instead of getting rescued, Tom Hanks goes nuts and becomes a shaman.”
I felt that way about ‘The Lighthouse’, which shares Defoe. That is also the movie I thought about in skimming the above review (I fear spoilers). I guess all I can say is ‘uh-oh’.
About halfway through Inside, I was thinking that it might be my favorite movie of the year so long as it even somewhat sticks the landing. But, well, uh…
Inside had great visuals and Wille DeFoe was great, but my God that ending was terrible, and I also couldn’t get over the fact that nobody managed to find him after he flooded the penthouse. A penthouse that size flooding would’ve triggered so many additional problems for the rest of the building, they would’ve been up there within 30 minutes (of course, this presume that DeFoe hadn’t already gone crazy and everything we see after minute 45 is a dying dream of some sort).
I agree with the comment about Midsommar. It was a pretty tepid movie. To be honest, I don’t even think Hereditary was great; I think it coasted on the performances of the actors and that one particular shock.I can’t really come up with a movie that is annoying because it’s so, so bad EXCEPT for this or that. I suppose Infinity Pool is kind of close. Mia Goth was UNBEARABLE in that—the whole whiny voice thing had me banging my head against the seat in front of me. (It was an empty theater.)Otherwise all I can think of are movies that are just really bad.
The Coen brothers’ The Ladykillers was pretty awful up until that final show with the dog on the bridge. If everything else had been at that level, it could’ve been terrific.
…er, “shot.” “…final shot.”
I LOVE Hereditary. Yeah, the particular shock is pretty impactful but for me the turn from one particular kind of horror movie to another kind of horror movie really cements it. I know not everyone is into that switch but for my money it turned it from a horror movie I was really enjoying into one I saw in the theater 5 times.(At this point I don’t know that it’s worth avoiding spoilers. Basically when it becomes clear that this isn’t a ghost movie but a demon/cult movie I give it my heart.)
I love that the demonology is legit. I mean as far as that bullshit goes. Paimon is an actual demon according to that. Most movies just make that shit up. Even the Exorcist (which uses a name of a Babylonian demon) just makes shit up about it rather than follow the established mythology.
In that it shares some of the appeal to me of The Witch. Reflecting real mythology will always take a story the extra mile in my eyes.
I Heart Huckabees and The Happening come to mind. Mark Wahlberg is a win for me in both, as is the opening stuff in The Happening. Everything else is a disaster. In Revolution Road Michael Shannon is awesome and the rest sucks. Talladega Nights? The first 30 seconds of the jokes were good. The next 90 seconds of beating the jokes into the ground made the movie interminable.
I’m more annoyed by movies that, if just a few things were changed, could’ve been good, if not great, but are just completely forgettable. Bad, bad movies at least give you something to talk about.
Infinity Pool was disappointing because it felt they didn’t have a good idea on what to do with the interesting premise once the first big homicide (not to mention the first 20 minutes are very, very similar to another movie where rich, white tourists accidentally kill a brown, vaguely Middle Eastern or Mediterreanean young kid and use their wealth to get away with it…for a time, called The Forgiven).
I liked Midsommar, but it reminded me of older movies where the protagonist(s) we follow, who are completely unencumbered physically, still decide to stay around people and in a situation that is clearly dangerous, yet it was played completely straight. That was frustrating, especially after they witnessed two old people voluntarily jump off a cliff to their deaths. Killing an animal during a hunt is one thing, but watching the ritualistic suicide of another human being in the modern day and staying? That’s a bridge too far, cultural curiosity or not.
“If it was just bad all the way through, you could easily dismiss the
whole enterprise. Instead, you argue with yourself about the part where
one character does this and another character does that. “And the set
design!” you think. “You gotta give props to that. Okay, this is not a
total failure,” you conclude, “but please never make me sit through it
again.”This is how I feel about Wes Anderson over the past decade
Slayer “Reign in Blood” is only 28 mins and kicks ass the whole way through.
Beat me to it. Sounds like someone’s attention span is the problem, not Slayer.
That is childish – insulting someone’s intelligence (in particular, attention span) just because they don’t like the same music as you do, come on…
Garcia could solo that long standing on his head.
It’s like the satanic speed metal band, Slayer. A Slayer song now and then really gets the blood pumping, but I have never been able to listen to an entire Slayer album. At some point I shout “enough!” and turn the friggin thing off. Beau Is Afraid is a Slayer album.I’m not sure what the Venn diagram overlap is between Slayer fans and Ari Aster fans, but I think you just picked a fight with those people.It’s too bad this didn’t work out. I still will probably check it out at some point (though maybe not in a theater); I do appreciate ambitious failures and maybe this will have a second life as a midnight movie.
I agree that it’s a little bear-baiting (see what I did there?). But I’m a metal fan and I loved Hereditary and I would say the parallel brought up in the review is interesting. I have similar feelings about Slayer, one of my least favorite metal bands that I nonetheless enjoy on occasion.(My two cents? Tori Amos’ cover of Reign in Blood is probably the best version of the song.)
Slayer’s 3 minute long cover of In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida is stellar.
I mean it’s got a 72% on rotten tomatoes so I wouldn’t say that “this didn’t work out” before seeing it. Even judging from the review, it seems like this will be more up to personal preference than firmly good or bad.
Right. I just read an extremely positive review of this film that felt like the reviewer was watching an entirely different film than the one described here, so given that I like the actors and director I’m willing to chance it.
Three hours is a pretty hard sell for seeing in a theater anyway.
i suspect my insufferable hipster ass is gonna love it.
update: this might be my favorite movie ever. loved it. felt like a chris elliott david letterman sketch stretched out to 3 hours directed by clockwork orange era stanley kubrick.
Joaquin Phoenix, seen here turning into some sort of elderly Fonzie.
At this point, whichever scab writer attempts a review of a movie on this site and chops a film down will make it a downright recommendation for me.I’ll wait till AA Dowd weighs in on Chron
First of all, the former writers of AV Club aren’t striking, so no one who replaced them (or is working at the site now) is a “scab.” Evidently you don’t know what that word means. But why are you even visiting the site at all? Your support of whoever you loved doesn’t seem to have enough integrity for you not to give the site traffic. In which case you’re just a bitter troll too cowardly to post under your own name who continues to visit a web site after the writers you say you love have left, to read articles you claim to hate so you can post mindless bile as a performative gesture. You should be really proud of yourself.
It’s weird to find a (former?) AV Club writer stuck in the greys. Don’t worry. I’ll let you out, man.
Instead of scab next time he should say “hack that uses ai to write their posts for them”
“At the end of the day, a ‘big swing’ is always better than a throwaway”No. No no no no no no no. Stop it. Enough of this fucking nonsense sentiment from arts critics of all stripes.
Safe and forgettable is better than bad and memorable, at least from a financial standpoint. But as a fan, I want to see something which leaves an impression…and which is hopefully also good.
I just can’t take that reversal. Good HAS to come first. Leaving an impression is a good thing, genuinely. But Neil Breen leaves an impression. The Polonia Brothers took “big swings”. Aster is a better artist in most ways but having a better eye for composition doesn’t make him a better storyteller.
my dear boy everyone is aiming for good first. it goes without saying.
But *some* viewers will accept bad if there’s some novelty at play and will even praise that about the experience. Which I find frustrating. I’ve never eaten a baked dog shit, it’s certainly a new experience and a “big swing”. It’s still a baked dog shit.
and some people genuinely love eating shit. acting like there’s some universal good to achieve sounds like a weird way to approach art. and yeah, i prefer someone trying something and failing to succeeding at mediocrity. but that’s just me.
Sure, but the shit eater generally does not try to convince the world that their enjoyment is a universal one. They know it’s an individual preference. Not “always”, as the review frames the “always” of a big swing.I’m sorry, believing in some standard for qualitative analysis is “weird”? Even if that standard is personal and subjective (though imo there are fairly objective metrics), it’s not “weird”. You even mention your own preference here. Is that not a personal standard?My frustration is that far too often someone frames their personal preference for novelty or filmmaker chutzpah as a universal marker of quality. And there’s nothing *actually* qualitative about that.
okay i get it. your issue is with the (para)phrasing ‘a big swing is ALWAYS better than not taking a big swing’.i suppose yes, nailing the basics first is always the most important thing before taking a big swing. to take the baseball metaphor to it’s conclusion, the form’s gotta be there first before you can even think about swinging.in general, though, i much prefer a weird failure to a generic success.using the star wars prequels as an example (because why not): i think they’re all bad movies in different ways, but the phantom menace is such a strange beast of a movie, and a movie that we’ll never get anything else like, that i get more pleasure out of watching its strangeness than the more means-tested, attempted crowd pleasing of the other two.
I just think it’s an odd critical position to prefer failure to success. And maybe part of the problem is in how people frame “success” vs “failure”.For me, the narrative structure of Phantasm is shitty. But I recognize that this structural weakness is purposeful, that Coscarelli wants the storytelling to feel “off” and illogical because he’s trying to create an impression of a dreamlike state. I love Phantasm and believe it to be successful but I’m never going to say the structure is “good”. In a similar vein, I find Beyond the Black Rainbow immensely frustrating and not a film I would go back to but once I read Cosmatos’ rationale for the utter lack of narrative cohesion and learned that he actually HAD a normal narrative that he completely filmed and then cut up to create the disjointed end result I got on board for that film being a successful effort. (I think it’s unfortunate that I had to go to such lengths to discover his justification but whatever, shit happens.) (Similarly, I found Skinamarink a slog but I can’t respect it the way I do BtBR because I know that Heck exists and is basically the same thing as Skinamarink but without wasting two hours of my fucking life.) (And if it’s not already painfully clear, I’m a heavily narrative-focused film person. So my views and opinions tend to be pretty focused on storytelling. To my mind, if you’re operating in narrative film you have a responsibility to the story first, everything else is secondary. I don’t care that it’s a visual medium. If you’re filming a script with a story you better tell that fucking story.)The review calls what this movie does a “big swing” and says that’s always a good thing. And that’s bullshit. Because a big swing can FAIL. It sounds like this one happens to succeed, that Aster wants the audience to feel as uncomfortable in their skin as Beau feels. I can admire that, although I tend to find such endeavors a miserable experience. And I question the necessity. Do we NEED to feel as uncomfortable as Beau to understand the character’s psychological state? To me, this is just a different form of William Castle bullshit. It’s a more artistically acceptable form of The Tingler seats goosing the audience.And I think such conversations/discussions can be enlightening and fun and engaging! I don’t need someone to agree with my position on something like that.And to be fair, I sometimes enjoy failure more than success as well. I have a lot of fun watching Neil Breen films. He makes me laugh like nothing else. I will watch a Neil Breen disaster before I watch A Good Person or A Man Called Otto or When You Finish Saving the World. But I would never try to say that Fateful Findings is a more admirable effort than A Man Called Otto, even though I definitely think FF is going for a LOT more thematic and narrative adventure than the relatively staid Otto.TL;DR – I don’t agree with your position but I see the merits and sometimes find myself in a very close position myself.
This is a lot of words for “I don’t understand visual storytelling” and “I am terrified to disagree with critical consensus.”
As opposed to your very efficient sentence that translates to “derp”?
This is very primitive attempt on your part to put a veil on a simple insult just because someone doesn’t like what you do. Childish and unwise as well. You don’t udnerstand manners apparently.
well, it’s not necessarily a ‘critical position’ because i’m not a critic, and i don’t feel obligated to think critically. it’s more just gauging my own feelings and what i connect to personally. i separate whether something is ‘technically good’ with whether or not i like it. and it’s not always the same thing. i love the fast & furious movies and have a ton of fun with them, but they are bad.ultimately i prefer something that i can have fun with, and i often have more fun with weird shit than straightforward stuff. but i’m also comparing, like, generic stuff here. C-grade stuff. if i’m watching a bad thriller, i’d much prefer it have nicolas cage making interesting choices and swinging for the fences than scott speedman making no choices. i’m not saying i’d rather watch bangkok dangerous over lawrence of arabia (which is also a big swing!)babylon is a good example of a ‘big swing’ that everyone hated and was largely rejected that i loved. i just found so much i connected with and loved, but i’m sure if i wanted to i could rip it apart critically. i’m just not compelled to.tl:dr i think we’ve come to largely similar conclusions from different angles.
It’s also fair to say that I have and do get caught up in the semantics. It does bother me that the word “always” got used there. But it’s connected to a broader sentiment about novelty, which is a significant bugaboo for me. Generally, though, I very much agree. I’ve watched the Pitt/Jolie Mr. and Mrs. Smith way more than The French Connection even though the latter is *clearly* the better film. I just enjoy the former more. (And in the other direction, I will never again voluntarily watch Citizen Kane. It’s amazing and historic and important and bores my tits off.)
mr and mrs smith / french connection would be a fun double feature.
Deleted.
Sounds like a terrific movie this reviewer didn’t connect to.Also, Midsommer haters are free to their opinion, but can also suck eggs.
I’m sure the ‘1941′ reference was supposed to make people not want to see this, but ‘1941′ is a favorite. Personally, I’ve always felt that there are some valid reasons to dislike ‘1941′, but the crowded plot isn’t one of them, except to warn people who can’t follow more than two or perhaps three clearly delineated plot threads at a time to stay away. It’s not like ‘1941′ has all that many, but it goes over three, which seems to be far too complicated for many film critics.The audience scores, and simply the continued awareness of a movie that’s well over forty years old, suggest that the average movie-goer doesn’t have that much trouble following it, though.
hackneyed gags about an overbearing Jewish mother (For the record, my Jewish mother is very nice).I bet she’s the assimilated type that co-workers say “I didn’t know she was Jewish”. But seriously, I love my mom, but there is a reason why Jewish mothers (and Chinese ones like my girlfriend’s) have that reputation. It comes from reality.
Not a fan of this new generation of filmmakers who feel the need to belabor how unpleasant it is to be Jewish.
2h 59m
And that’s where the movie lost me.
It’s like the satanic speed metal band, Slayer. A Slayer song now and then really gets the blood pumping, but I have never been able to listen to an entire Slayer album.That’s the best recommendation for a movie you could’ve written.I’ll watch it because I loved Hereditary and Midsommar. Ari Aster is a very weird man, so I expect the movie to be very strange.
I’ll be busy.
“but when a movie is so untethered to reality there are simply no stakes.”I actually can’t stand stories like this; there’s a lot of fiction I’ve read that employs things like this (see: The Last House on Needless Street) wherein the “reality” of the world/story is so tenuous that it’s very hard to actually care about anyone/anything. I actually find this same issue prevalent in “multiverse” stories, to an extent.
I remain unconvinced by Ari Aster. I feel like his films rely, like Tarantino and the like, on overt references to other films. I get the impression that for a lot of people, the extent to which they’re effective comes down to the extent to which they feel he is able to stitch those elements of other films together.
But the bigger and more fundamental objection I have is that I don’t really think he explores or elaborates on the themes of his stories in particularly inspiring or interesting ways, and even more fundamentally, the actual mechanics of his writing and directing really don’t hit the mark for me.I really think that the “writer” part of “writer/director” is particularly over-valued in American cinema at the moment: a lot of these guys really don’t seem to be great at writing – not terrible, but not great.
Ari Aster doesn’t really motivate his characters or his plots very well, he just hangs a lampshade on those omissions, either through ellipsis or a reliance on the genre premise (there are gaps in the motivation of Hereditary’s plot which come down to “its spooky shit ok? You’ll get it at the next info dump!”). The gaps in the characterisations in Midsommar are also framed, formally, as elliptical, presumably to give the impression that we’re just seeing flashes or glimpses of a bigger picture, but really he just ends the character moments abruptly to minimise the chance that you might notice how poorly-drawn the characters are. It’s an ok trick, but it is a trick, and part of the job of the director is to show these lapses as intentional to the audience, rather than tricks or shortcuts, and Aster doesn’t seem too concerned with how best to position his audience in order to achieve that.
In a good movie, leaving stuff out or offering a counterintuitive motivation for plot or character will feel like a deliberate and necessary aspect of how the story should be told – this is what I mean by positioning: “I didn’t tell you that because I want my film to be a mystery game you play with it” or “I want you to engage with the film in this particular mode, so I’m creating a tone that facilitates that, which means certain things have to not make sense”, etc. You’re deciding what to show and how to show it, in the hope that your film might have the relationship with its audience that you want it to (it never happens, nobody ever sees the film you set out to make, but that’s still the purpose of it all).
To put it another way, in a good movie the script justifies the direction and the direction justifies the script. In a less-good movie, where the material and the approach are not working in accord, it gives the impression that the direction is papering over the script instead of enriching it, and the script is leaving problems for the director to solve.
I really felt that with Hereditary, despite the writer and director being the same guy: there’s something like three seperate long-form info dumps in that film that don’t really position the audience particularly strategically, and the key shocking setpieces feel largely divorced from anything that is delivered in those infodumps. The writing and directing aren’t in concert.Likewise in Midsommar: I realise some people viewed this as a strength of the film but the general inability to integrate the relationship drama with the action of the plot just felt incongruous to me. It seems that there are any number of interesting thematic trough-lines by which you could connect the relationship dynamics to the plot scenario, and the film didn’t really try anything. It was just “You’re getting a relationship drama inside your genre film” and given that that seems to be the extent of Aster’s overall approach, it feels less like a decision than an incomplete idea, because it’s pretty standard to do that. Indeed, a key feature of many of the great 20th century American horror films is the use of the ‘interrupted melodrama’ plot device, and I find myself feeling a little cheated by the way Aster simply inserts toxic relationship dynamics into his films, and then they are framed as something more than this same melodrama device. Kubrick already did it, in any case.
(Whenever I make a comment like this, someone always interprets it purely as a complaint about a lack of originality and points out that there’s no original ideas, or that all filmmakers steal, as if that’s what I’m objecting to here, rather than the fact that sometimes the thefts are uninspiring and shallow)
I hope you didn’t make any money for this piece of shit review of a very good movie