Silver Linings Report
37.7
C
Beautiful visuals. An intriguing, timely concept. But a screenplay that offers a comically one-dimensional and downright boring take.
Watched in theaters on 16 October 2022.
Watch notes: “Sober. Second watch.”
Gestalt
6.5
of 10
I really appreciate that this was the first movie I reviewed on this scale, because on first watch I was actually confused whether it was good or bad. The answer seems to be that it was indeed bad—and yet, aspects of the visual design and the score really gave me a much more positive overall impression than the Breakdown would suggest.
Breakdown
(Scored out of 10.)
Concept
4.0
Execution
5.4
Character
1.5
Score
5.2
Meaning
2.8
The Details
(Scored out of 10.)
Concept
Idea
6
Pretty horrifying; does provoke some thought, especially in light of tie with contemporary online subcultures.
Structure
4
Good turn. Mostly predictable, but not tremendously poor plot; just very expected.
Novelty
2
This is pretty well-trodden territory, in my estimation. Perhaps not in its specifically Jordan Peterson–referencing instantiation, but thematically.
Execution
Directing & Editing
6.5
Could have been tightened a little. Actually some conspicuously good bits!
Writing
2
Ham-fisted; too direct; extremely cringe at many points.
Performance
3.5
Some good bits out of Catherine Pugh’s lead, good points out of Olivia Wilde. Chris Pine did a terrible job as the Jordan Peterson character; middling otherwise.
Cinematography
8
Beautiful. Conspicuously good at many points.
Foley & SOund
5
Nothing stands out either way.
Visual Design
7.5
Beautiful. Simple sets, but used to great effect.
Character
Dimensionality
2
Almost entirely flat. The lead character has maybe two attitudes.
Irrationality
2
Olivia Wilde’s character is somewhat interesting, but everyone else’s character is almost completely transparent as to motive.
Relationality
1
All relationships are almost stupidly transparent and one-dimensional.
Emergence
1
Nothing comes out from behavior that isn’t explicitly announced.
Score
Composition
3
Mostly formulaic, but with a few cues that showed good technique.
Memorability
4
No themes or motifs stick, but some gestalt from the heavily manipulated voices.
Integration
6
Quite good at some points (e.g., the car chase desert cut to near-silence)
Originality
7
Some genuinely interesting and conspicuously good use of mangled voices in a cool way; I look forward to this technique being used more.
Power
6
Really did get a good hit from the voices and big glissandos at points.
Meaning
Ineffability
3
A little bit. It feels like most of the message is reducible to the discourse of a freshman seminar term paper.
Significance
6
Does say something important and unsettling about these Incel-adjacent subcultures and their scary ramifications. Fits into a broader narrative about their integration into right-wing organizing online as a whole.
Endurance
2
Very tied to place and time. Some larger gender issues raised, but really with very little nuance.
Generalization
0
No. Entirely locked to the specific depicted topic.
N.B.: On revisit, perhaps I was a little harsh here.
Leave a Reply