Vox Lux (2018) Poster

(2018)

User Reviews

Review this title
207 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Vox Lux (2018)
rockman1829 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Didn't know a whole lot about this film, so this was basically a film that benefited from the AMC stub list membership. Decided to go in completely blind; no trailers, no reviews, just that poster of Natalie Portman in blue glitter. From that, i was expecting some type of sci-fi futuristic musical. That's not what the film is, as you will find out within the resounding first five minutes or so. I found this film to be a bizarre mess that doesn't exactly know what its doing.

The film is about a teenager who is a victim of a school shooting. From that event he and her sister gain popularity from a musical performance at a memorial service which eventually molds into a music career. Soon, Celeste (the adult lead played by Natalie Portman and Raffey Cassidy in her youth) falls into the pitfalls of super stardom which includes promiscuous behavior, drugs, and mass interaction with an unrelenting media. The film also stars Stacy Martin (who I loved in Nymphomaniac), and narrated by Willem Defoe.

The film starts off with a bang and the first twenty minutes or so are rather incredible in its build because of its mix of shock and intense drama. However, when Celeste starts her rise as a pop star the film starts losing its soul much like Celeste in her career. Oddly, enough as soon as Celeste the star grows up and Natalie Portman enters the fray, the film starts losing its plot and derides itself into a messy piece that doesn't connect with its viewers. The acting is great all around, especially from Portman but she is let down by a script that doesn't know what its trying to be or what its trying to prove.

I left the theater kind of bewildered by the end product. I may have preferred a futuristic musical space opera then what we got. I think there will be a crowd out there that will go to bat for this work but it doesn't resonate with me unfortunately. The positive that comes from this film is that now I can use the term Vox Lux as a word the way I want. I have truly been luxed by this experience.

6/10.
84 out of 105 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
So much wasted potential
juliaeckelkamp29 March 2021
This film showcases the personal evolution of someone thrust into the spotlight through dramatic events and dealing with the new trauma that comes from fame. There was so much potential to make this film an unapologetic critique of how the media treats celebrities (particularly women) and the mental toll it takes on said celebrtities but instead ends with a ten minute concert and no real stances or closure. The entire cast is incredible and the cinematography beautiful. It's worth a watch, just know you won't be satisfied.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Fame - what is it good for?
kosmasp3 August 2019
Especially when it comes through being a literal survivor of a despicable act - something I had no idea was going to happen, but sets quite the mood for the movie. We have different stages here and this might work as a good double bill to a documentary called "F... Fame". Well I don't think I have to spell the F word out for you to understand.

This works as criticism about how society views celebrities, fame and how this might change everyone involved. But it is quite slow in its pace and it is rather subtle in its message too. So while the performances might seem over the top at times, that does not go for the understanding of the movie or what it represents. Which might and will feel frustrating to watch for quite a few people - I'm split too on my verdict as you can see. Can't blame the actors who really do their best
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sell your soul and become a big pop star.
TxMike10 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this at home on DVD from my public library, my wife chose to skip. What does the title mean? We find out it is the name of her next album. "Vox" refers to musical vocals, "Lux" is a reference to illumination. Maybe "brilliant vocals"?

One only needs to read a few reviews and realize this is a very polarizing movie, but the many "Avoid this movie" comments and ratings of "1" or "2" are simply bogus, probably from very shallow viewing. Portman is amazingly good in her role and the story strikes a chord, but one has to pay attention all the way through. You can't watch this while reading and sending text messages to friends. The story is probably a lot closer to reality than we want to believe.

I have been a Natalie Portman fan ever since her first role in "The Professional", I like everything she does, although I like some more than others. Here she is the grown up Celeste in 2017, but the story starts in 1999 when she survives a school shooting in the very first scene. Her infamy plus a simple song catapults her to international stardom but as a 30-something has changed drastically. Does fame just harden you, or is there more going on?

The following comment may represent a SPOILER so read cautiously. At one point to an audience she says "I used to believe in God also" and later we find out in her near death experience at 14 she says she made a deal with the Devil, she would live and be successful but she has to do so under those conditions. And it seems to be an indirect reference to perhaps that is the way many pop stars become successful, by figuratively selling their souls.

To me this is a really good movie but not for shallow viewing.
27 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Edgy, allegorical depiction of social decadence
PotassiumMan11 December 2018
Natalie Portman stars in this very unusual, intriguing but flawed film that explores several different genres in tackling pop culture and its sordid grip on the national consciousness at the dawn of the new millennium. Is this a satirical bombardment? One could argue. Is it a tragic indictment? Definite possibility. One thing it is not is straightforward.

This film gets by on the strength of its performances and its committed portrayal of the poisonous celebrity lifestyle and the emotional toll it exacts. Portman is explosive as the grown-up pop star who came from humble beginnings and found her survival of a horrific school shooting catapulting her into national prominence when she performed a song at a televised vigil. Jude Law is sharp as her gruff, street-smart manager who early on helps transform her from a victim of tragedy into a gaudy, commercialized monstrosity. Raffey Cassidy shines in dual roles as the pop starlet in her younger days, and as her teenage daughter in the film's second half.

There are drawbacks. A dry, detached voiceover narration by Willem Dafoe is more often a glaring distraction than an enhancement. And the film's simplistic juxtaposition of acts of terrorism and concert tours only tentatively conveys the theme of the intertwining of tragedy and pop culture. The film is obviously trying to echo its plot thread that takes hold in the beginning but it seems so faint by comparison.

Thought-provoking but more for the thesis that it tackles than for its actual achievement, this film is worth watching. How well it succeeds depends on how you view Portman's performance. Does she eviscerate the entertainment industry as immoral with a lightning-rod portrayal of wasted youth? Or does she dilute the film's impact by giving a performance that is too much of a caricature to constitute an allegory? Decide for yourself.

I freely admit that this film is not for everyone while acknowledging that I myself found it quite compelling. Finally, a splendid array of well-performed songs and a sterling soundtrack add to the film's favor. Recommended.
55 out of 88 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
8 stars for the first 80 minutes. 2 stars for last 40 minutes.
MovieFan-9131923 February 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Was remarking to myself how innovative and compelling the cinematography was early in the movie. The long shot of the teacher before the violence was striking and extremely memorable. Middle of the movie was very engaging story about the rise of a pop star. Then jump to 2017. If I squint my eyes, maybe I can pretend that making a bad movie for the last hour is some kind of representation of the decline of man or maybe abandoning your own story is a social commentary? Maybe destroying your own film is akin to terrorism? And then you show a 20 minute pop concert, at the end of which, your narrator implies a pact with the devil? I just started laughing when I realized this was how the movie was going to end.
82 out of 96 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Interesting, Artsy Drama Headlined by Natalie Portman
bastille-852-7315477 December 2018
The reviews and trailer for this film promised a strong performance by Natalie Portman as a troubled pop star. While some of the praise for her role in "Vox Lux" may be somewhat overhyped, she does give a generally good performance in this drama directed by Brady Corbet. She plays Celeste, a now-famous pop star who survived a school shooting in 1999. The film gives viewers a grip on how those who get too all-consumed in the superficiality of pop music culture can lose control over their lives, although sometimes the dialogue and writing during these scenes can sometimes feel almost too on-the-nose to be truly impactful on the viewer.

The film is stunningly shot, and its score is often stirring and potent. Jude Law's supporting performance is outstanding, providing a powerfully subdued complement to the main narrative as Celeste's manager. With the exception of the memorial song sung by a young Celeste at a vigil for the shooting victims about ten minutes after film's commencement, the rest of the film's songs (which are pop-based) are generally not too appealing. However, this is likely intentional, as Corbet's direction is intended to make the viewer critique popular culture and its effects on music and society, as well as the possibility that our social obsessions may breed tragic and wretched acts. Despite such potentially-thoughtful commentary, it's not clear by the end of the film what Corbet really wants to say or offer as a message to the narrative besides simply saying that excess tackiness is bad. While superficiality is an important topic, for a film that poses far deeper, existential and angst-filled questions, the film's attempts to thread loose ends of its messaging before the film's finale (a pop concert) feel somewhat skimpy. The film's stronger elements would make it worth of recommending to those who like Natalie Portman and can appreciate sometimes-audacious and challenging films. 7/10
34 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Yikes - starts really well - a narcisstic mess by the end
peedur12 December 2018
This film suffers from the same kind of poor choices which would cause someone to, say, make a 9/11 disco musical. It wields an enormous subject and chooses to focus on the most irrelevant aspects of any reaction to that subject.

It doesn't really matter what you want to say - the bizarre, unresolved context for the setup feels faintly obscene and eventually bankrupt. If the point of the film is to illustrate the shallowness of reactions to terror and violence, then it failed to say that. Instead, it looks more like a statement about the parallels between self-expression, terrorism, self-obsession, or losing your identity to celebrity, or something... By the end of the film I was deeply annoyed.

Hats-off the all of the professionals who clearly know how to make an impressive film here. But this story however, is a mess of intensity looking for a point. I believe that it fails eventually because of the indigestible premise.
238 out of 294 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
"Vox Lux" is actually a parody, but seemingly nobody but the writer/director realizes it
petrelet13 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I am actually pretty convinced of this.

You can call this a conspiracy theory if you want, but I think it's the explanation that makes the most sense. It's a send-up of a movie about a pop star, just like, say, "Talladega Nights" is a send-up of a movie about an auto racer. The stuff that's over the top, or weird, or flat, or badly written - it's all that way deliberately.

If I'm write, it's a pretty impressive feat. It's the first (? OR IS IT?) "gnostic comedy" - a comedy whose comedic nature is understood only by writer-director Corbet and a few others of the "initiated". But was that the plan from the beginning? Is Corbet laughing now because of how well his private prank has fooled everyone? Or is he bitterly frustrated because what he hoped would be a successful comedy has been misunderstood by everyone as a controversial or quirky or just unsuccessful drama?

Well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so excuse me while I go through some of the parts that (after a couple hours' mulling) gave me some confidence in my theory.

(1.) First and foremost, there is the weird narration voiced by Willem Dafoe which starts at the beginning of the movie and continues through the end. It is so badly written, so pretentious and so determined to use the wrong words, and so consistently off-key, that it literally must have been written that way on purpose. It's like an Onion editorial. Early on I thought that "okay, this movie is about the price of fame, so part of the price of fame is having this kind of laughably rubbish narration used in your biopic." But eventually I concluded that this is the real magic key to the movie. Corbet is giving us narration that can't possibly be taken seriously, and this is his way of telling us how to watch the rest of the movie.

(2) The school shooting and its aftermath just have too many over-the-top elements, some of which are clearly "samples" from notable real-world horrors. The shooter is named "Cullen Active". Who the hell is named that? I just this second realized that this is because he's an ACTIVE SHOOTER. I mean, case closed right there!!

(3) The song which Celeste writes for the memorial service is just a weird song, addressed to .. God? ... and full of bondage fantasy. Nevertheless, Dafoe assures us that this became the "anthem for a nation."

(4) The Twin Towers make an early appearance in the film, clearly because this is the kind of pretentious thing that a bad writer-director of a bad millennial biopic would do, accompanied by a lot of images of Manhattan buildings and dark chords. Later on, the new One World Trade Center shows up the same way.

(5) Cutting ahead 20 years, we see that present-day Celeste is just horrible. We are made to see that she is horrible in every way; she's a big drug user now, she stashes her kid Albertine with her sister Ellie all the time, then viciously berates Ellie, repeatedly using the R-word ("ret**d"). It's so bad that it's a parody.

(6) In the course of a press conference, she frustrates her team by throwing out remarks about how these other random terrorists should become atheists and worship her instead. This is also a "sample", this time of remarks by John Lennon.

(7) The climactic performance is not good. The music isn't good, and the dancing basically consists of the same dance step Celeste learned at the beginning of the movie. Nevertheless, the crowd cheers uproariously, it is a great triumph, and Ellie and Albertine, in the audience, are transported. It has all been worth it!! Meanwhile, Dafoe tells us some bizarre anecdote about how the Devil let her return from death so that she could make history or some such. This only makes sense in my parody theory.

So, just to be clear, I am not giving this movie bad marks and sarcastically saying that only a parody could be this bad. I am literally saying that Corbet deliberately wrote, directed, and presented this movie to us as a parody. The funny thing is that the word "parody" appears in a lot of reviews - the movie descends almost to parody here, her accent is a parody there - but I haven't yet seen anyone who went all in on the concept that it really IS a parody, but I think it's really true. I mean, he's an ACTIVE SHOOTER.

I am curious to know how many people are going "Well, you are late to the party, my dude, everyone in the world knows this."

So, given this perspective, how successful is it? My opinion of this movie has gone up a couple of stars just while writing this. If I had seen this movie described as a parody before watching it, I probably would have enjoyed it more. Certainly the acting can't be faulted, and the production values that seem spotty when you think it's a drama become much better when you know it's a parody. Not everyone will like it that a parody treats massacres ironically, but it's not the first. Anyway, that's my take.
56 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Haunting Version of A Star is Born
ThomasDrufke19 December 2018
I waited nearly 4 days to write this review/reaction because I genuinely wasn't sure how I felt after seeing Vox Lux. I'm not the first one to say this but it's quite the pairing with A Star is Born for what could be the best double feature of 2018, with both portraying such a vastly different take on rise to stardom. Much like other 2018 films Hereditary and 22 July, there are a few scenes in Vox Lux that I will never forget in that they are some of the most haunting and terrifying sequences I have ever seen on film. However, a film like 22 July had an easier plot to follow and a much more direct narrative, whereas Vox Lux is a dark interpretation of fame, and an interpretation that doesn't give the clearest clues as to how your supposed to feel after viewing. The performances are extraordinary, including yet another star-making turn from Raffey Cassidy and expectedly great turns from Jude Law and of course, Natalie Portman. Even if I'm not totally sure on how I feel about this film, I know that I want more films to be this bold and daring.

7.4/10
43 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A Wasted Opportunity
usernamewithheld20 December 2018
The subject matter and overall meaning behind this story is great; a girl who is involved in a terrible, topical tragedy and finds unexpected fame as a result. It's a wonderful story to examine and discuss fame, pop culture, etc, but unfortunately the overall presentation of this idea falls flat.

The performances were strong, especially and expectedly from Natalie Portman (although I don't agree with casting the same actor for multiple parts). That's kind of where the positives stop. The inconsistent pacing and 'throw everything at the wall and see what sticks' mentality made engaging in the movie difficult. One could argue that the hectic nature of the film is representative of Celeste's thought process, but the execution seemed unintentional and rather unnecessary at times.

I wanted to love this film, and I give kudos to Brady Corbet for exploring this story, but I feel it had a lot to say and ended up not saying much.
112 out of 143 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Irreverent and dynamic; the picture it paints of the increasingly indistinguishable divide between celebrity and notoriety isn't pretty though
Bertaut25 May 2019
A story about popular art born amidst violent trauma. A thriller about the remorseless and cannibalistic machinations of fame. An allegory for the calcification of celebrity-obsessed American society. A study of the interactions between pop culture and global terrorism. A bildungsroman about the possible consequences of a troubled childhood. A dark fairy tale about the music industry. A threnody for a pre-Columbine and 9/11 world. The bold, wildly ambitious Vox Lux is all of these. Written by former actor Brady Corbet and his partner Mona Fastvold, and directed by Corbet, the film takes the basic A Star is Born template, and gives it an angry 21st-century makeover, mercilessly torpedoing Bradley Cooper's whimsical paean to Old Hollywood romanticism into neon-soaked glitter-adorned oblivion. As a director, Corbet exploded onto the scene with the sensational The Childhood of a Leader (2015), a visually stunning examination of the birth of 20th-century fascism from 19th-century aristocracy, and with which Vox Lux has much in common - both examine troubled formative childhood years intertwined with global tragedy that ultimately produce less than admirable adults; both use the specifics of a small group of people to synecdochally engage with larger socio-political issues; both unapologetically indict a culture in its death throes. And whilst Vox Lux could be accused of relying too heavily on voiceover, straying into cliché on occasion, and walking a very fine line between portentousness and pretentiousness, all things considered, this is another superb film from a director who, at only 30, is already a unique and exciting cinematic voice.

Divided into four parts ("Prelude - 1999"; "Act I: Genesis - 2000-2001"; "Act II: Regenesis - 2017"; and "Finale - XXI"), Vox Lux begins in 1999 when teenager Celeste Mongomery (Raffey Cassidy) survives a school shooting. Along with her sister, Eleanor (Stacy Martin), she composes and performs a song for the victims, which catapults her to stardom, under the watchful eye of a talented, if not entirely scrupulous, manager (Jude Law). With Act I concluding with 9/11, the film then jumps to Croatia in 2017, as a terrorist group open fire on a beach, wearing masks similar to those worn in one of Celeste's first music videos. A neurotic, self-obsessed, and barely functioning alcoholic, the adult Celeste (Natalie Portman) is now mother to a teenage daughter of her own, Albertine (also played by Cassidy), and, struggling to finish an album and put together a tour, the last thing she needs is to be associated with more violence.

Aesthetically, as one would expect from the director of Childhood, there's all manner of things to be fascinated by in Vox Lux. The film's temporal structure, for example; whereas the Prelude and Act I cover about two years, followed by a 16-year gap, Act II and the Finale take place over the course of roughly eight hours. Or the existential, adjective-heavy, and almost "once upon a time" like quality to the voiceover narration (provided by Willem Dafoe), which is the very definition of purple prose, but which works magnificently in context, serving as a kind of omniscient chorus on events. Also aesthetically important is the music. The unashamedly over-produced and plastic songs sung by Celeste are all written by Sia (although they're performed by Cassidy and Portman), whilst the score is provided by the legendary Scott Walker, whose music so elevated the grandeur of Childhood of a Leader. He's more restrained and contemplative here, but it's still an exceptionally important component of the film.

Thematically, the film's most salient concern is a cynical deconstruction of celebrity and fame, specifically the 21st-century post-reality TV incarnation of such (there's a reason the closing credits give the film the subtitle, "A Twenty-First Century Portrait"). In an era whereby one can become famous for virtually anything, the film is painfully of its time, saying as much about celebrities and the machinery of fame as it does about celebrity-obsessed culture. Important in this is that there's no real attempt to make adult Celeste likeable or sympathetic. Sure, she's very much a product of her time, and she's been forced to live her entire life within the parameters of what happened when she was 13. But she's also emblematic of some of the worst components of her time, and Corbet is unconcerned whether the audience empathises with her.

Of course, much of the film's biting satire is tied into the plot itself, with Celeste building a career based off a massacre; gun violence used to sell records (a nice visual representation of this is that Celeste turns the neck scarf she has to wear post-shooting into a glittery accessorised part of her brand). She is literally the beneficiary of tragedy in a world where mass shootings have become so commonplace they can serve as launch-pads for musical careers. Celeste herself articulates an important element of the connection between pop culture and mass murder when she says, "nihilist radical groups perceived as superstars. If everyone stopped talking about them, they'd disappear", which is very reminiscent of the main theme in Natural Born Killers (1994), and which is an even more pertinent sentiment today than it was in 1994. By way of illustration, think about how most people know the names of the Columbine shooters, or the 2012 Aurora shooter, or the 2017 Las Vegas shooter, or, to get away from the US, the 2011 Utøya shooter. Now think about how many victims from any of those tragedies we can name off the top of our heads.

Vox Lux doesn't provide any answers to the question of the crossover between pop culture and terrorism - how one might lead to the other, or how both provide opportunities for fame - but that's because there are no easy answers. It's simply the way things are, and Corbet's cynicism emphasises that just because this is the way things are, doesn't mean this is the way they should be. And the irony at the heart of the film is that in 1999, a mass shooting shaped Celeste, but in 2017, Celeste shaped a mass shooting. This is the nightmare of the 21st-century celebrity wheel of time.

There are more grounded engagements with celebrity as well. An early scene, for example, sees Celeste proudly declare that she's "in command of my own destiny", followed immediately by a scene of her vomiting into a toilet after drinking too much. Another aspect of this, and something the film has in common with Cooper's A Star Is Born (2018), is that as time goes on, Celeste moves further and further away from her stylistic origin point. Introduced as a good Christian girl into folk music and gentle ballads, when we meet her as an adult, she's an autotuned, silicon amalgamation of Madonna, Katy Perry, and Lady Gaga, with her music just one step above boy band quality (as she herself says, "I don't want people to have to think too hard. I just want them to feel good").

In terms of problems, there are a few. Obviously, any film with such lofty aims as mapping the ideological decline of 21st culture onto the rise and fall and rise of a pop star is setting itself a huge task, and at times Corbet's ambitions exceed his reach. Parts of the adult Celeste portion of the film definitely stray into melodrama, and the fact that the first act is so good does make the second seem a little prosaic in comparison (although the Finale is mesmerising). And although the totality is satisfying, I couldn't shake the feeling that the first act seemed to be setting up for something upon which the second fails to deliver.

Nevertheless, this is a vicious, deeply cynical, and deeply ironic dissection of contemporary culture and the forces that drive it. However, although finding much to criticise in the millennial pop landscape, Corbet is never nihilistic, mainly because Celeste may have lost her soul, but she is still able to make millions of people happy, even if only transitorily. Both a victim of her time and its desensitised apotheosis, through her, much as he did through Prescott in Childhood of a Leader, Corbet explores questions relating to the interaction between the private and the public. Where are we as a society? What does our obsession with celebrity say about us? What is the cost of fame? Is there any real difference between fame and notoriety?
45 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A pretentious failure, saved only by Portman's performance
siderite10 March 2019
The subject is intriguing: an exploration of the current age, focused on artificial fame and mass shootings. When I heard about the basic plot of the film, I thought it would be the counterpart for A Star is Born and therefore I was expecting quite a different story. But no, the occasional emotional moments are blown apart by the unnecessary and overly cerebral narration, the plot goes all over the place, the split in four acts only shows how pretentious the whole thing is while it is basically saying nothing. And the ending? Having to watch Portman sing several pop songs was painful. Not because of her, but because of the awful music.

The thing is, Natalie Portman is fantastic! She portrays her character perfectly. Unfortunately, that's the only good (and short) part of the film. The young actress first gives me great hope, then she's replaced, Willem Dafoe's narrator is superfluous at best and Jude Law was wasted on his role. In the end it just feels like someone tried to do something very deep and intelligent without actually using their brain.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What was Portman thinking?
jeremyniles20 January 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Honestly all I can say by the end of this film is: What was Natalie Portman thinking? If someone had come to me with this script I would have told them to go away and work on it some more. The story made no sense. It starts off as a moving story of a young girl who faces the trauma of surviving a school shooting and from this her musical career takes off. It then jumps 15 odd years into the future where we see the girl, is now a spoilt rock star with no regard for anyone's feelings including those of her sister and daughter. This isn't so bad but nothing is resolved, nothing happens and it has this bizarre ending with watching her sing song after song at her rock concert. Admittedly Portman's performance is brilliant. But there really is not point to it at all.
104 out of 142 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not a great movie but a good commentary on celebrity in modern times
jmvscotland28 February 2021
This was far from a great movie but, as a commentary on modern day celebrity, where celebrity is much more important than either worth, or talent, it was pretty effective. So much these days that is popular is, to this reviewer at least, of little or no worth or value.

The movie portrays how easily celebrity comes to some nowadays and how little substance there might be in the shadows off stage.

JMV
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Nothing makes much sense in "Vox Lux"
alvesmarceloalves-7375114 January 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Seeing the trailer shortly before its release, "Vox Lux" seemed to me a cross of "Black Swan" (2010) with "A star is born" (2018). The allusion to the first film was clearly related to the fact that it also starred Natalie Portman as an artist. There, a ballerina. Here, a pop star. Already the comparison with the second film came more for the subject of talking about a pop singer.

"Vox Lux", however, talks more about the decay of a star, while "A star is born" is more about the rise of a singer in the midst of the fall of her boyfriend also singer.

Roughly speaking, that's what the movie is about. The difficult thing is to find in Brady Corbet's work a narrative structure beyond this cliché vision. And also a reflection on what the director intended to say with all the elements he gathered in this film.

Lack depth to "Vox Lux". What did Corbet mean by associating attacks and the brutal violence of terrorism and mass murder with the story of a girl who soon became a pop star? Is Celeste the result of violence for being in a school attacked by a boy in the same mold of Columbine? Is that why you want to become a pop star? To bring joy to the fans in the midst of the violence?

Violence is always present in your career. The beginning of the attack on the school, the middle during the attack on the twin towers of the World Trade Center in 2001 and the rebirth when it has to deal with an attack in Croatia that closely resembles that of a Tunisian beach in 2015. And what this all has to do with a young star who turns into a very young mother and becomes an inconsequent adult, drugged and alcoholic, but at the same time a pop diva full of fans?

Corbet is not clear on what he wants with his film. And it is not even intended to leave on the air subjects for the spectator to reflect for itself. In fact, "Vox Lux" is a big mess that does not point in one direction at all.

Meanwhile, Natalie Portman tries to defend her character with claw. We've never seen her so full of trifles. Her Celeste is a caricature of the pop stars, but the way of the sarcasm seems only taken by her and not accompanied by the film, that still counts on a Jude Law rarely apathetic in the paper of the manager of Celeste.

"Vox Lux" still ends with a long take on a show, which reminded me of the embarrassing ending of "Bohemian Rhapsody". If there was any message to give at that moment, whether through the performance or the messages on the big screen, they were not clear. Or even symbolic. It was a big nothing.

The feeling that remains is exactly that void that "Vox Lux" has passed. It could have been better, but it was a waste of time.
58 out of 84 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Love the Theories; The Film, Not So Much...
derek-duerden17 November 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Here and elsewhere there are lots of AntiChrist theories being explored as to the meaning of what happens in this film - which is quite interesting, and more so than the film itself, in my view. As such, having Willem Dafoe (star of AC) do the voiceover is either a total coincidence or a very nice touch...

However, at face value, I struggled a bit with this and was left quite deflated by the ending - having been pretty irritated anyway with the over-the-top nature of Portman's characterisation of the older Celeste. Obviously, Portman was overacting for effect but for me the quick transition from "so out of it she can't walk" to leading a choreographed show was just too unconvincing - like her supposedly auto-erotic performance in Black Swan, which nevertheless I enjoyed more than this...

Jude Law is good, as are some of the other supporting characters, although I'm not sure about the decision to have the same actor play young Celeste and the older Celeste's daughter.

As a study on the modern nature of fame, it makes some good points about the commodification of life and draws interesting parallels with some real-world exemplars, but it could have done with a better ending at least, I think.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Total Dud
evanston_dad28 May 2019
Dud of a movie that stars Natalie Portman as a pop star whose life is in a shambles but who is idolized by millions despite the fact that her concerts look like the child that would result if ABBA and "Starlight Express" got drunk at a party and had unprotected sex in the bathroom.

The gimmick is that the actress who plays Portman's character as a young woman plays Portman's daughter later in the film. Portman's character was the survivor of a school shooting, which somehow impacts the person she becomes and presumably accounts at least partially for what a total raving nut job she is, but the movie is so ineptly made that it's never made clear how or why. The film also brings in themes of terrorism and the responsibility famous people have to account for real-world actions they may have a role -- whether intentional or not -- in influencing. This is actually an interesting idea to explore further, but I guess we'll have to wait for a different movie to do so. This one is too preoccupied with following Portman around as she competes for the title of Most.Aggravating.Pop.Star.Ever and dares us to keep a hold of our patience and composure while we do so. Seriously, do people in the entertainment industry thing having talent and being addicted to drugs is enough to make people interesting? They're not, and watching Portman aggressively try to act like she's having a non-stop nervous breakdown for an hour and a half is about as tedious as it sounds. Nothing is helped by the fact that Portman doesn't have the acting chops to pull this character off. Maybe she just needs better direction, because Darren Aronofsky managed to make her convincingly unhinged in "Black Swan." Here she isn't remotely believable for one second as an aging pop star.

I would say I want my money back if I had actually spent any to watch this.

Grade: D
24 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A modern classic
KarenYVR8 October 2018
Young writer and director Brady Corbet, delivers a magnificent and terrifying craft with Vox Lux, as it follows a dramatic rise to a stardom of a teenage girl who is a survivor of a school shooting. The unusual circumstances that can turn a victim into a cultural phenomenon with millions of followers. The film is so brutally honest in its portrayal of the modern pop trash culture that its painful to admit but so hard not to follow. Overall weirdness and art-housey approach of the film may scare general audience off and derail from wider recognition by shutting down any chances for the film's commercial success. Natalie Portman, who plays the superstar Celeste in the movie, is deserving of her second Oscar more than ever.

Director knows exactly what he is aiming for with his skillful directing and insightful writing, unafraid to take risks. Having Willem Defoe to gradually narrate your story into a Sia song is a guaranteed classic alone. Brady Corbet never puts a foot wrong with either the visuals or the music, making Celeste's story feel like the story of modern America. Truly one of the highlights of the recent years.
112 out of 210 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not great, but memorable
jstick882 June 2020
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is not great. While it does not deserve a perfect 10 it also deserves significantly more stars than one. People rating this movie a one wanted to hate it, or were very offended by the content at the beginning of the movie. I can truly understand why some did not like it. Arguably there should be a trigger warning for the first 15 minutes of the movie. I can understand that the shock value would not have been there had viewers been warned but then the director needs to ask, was it worth it? The first 15 minutes of this movie are intense and could have a truly negative impact on viewers.

Regardless, it was effective. The movie was captivating in a terrifying way and I was definitely watching. Even so, the execution was not perfect. I do believe I understood the intent of the movie. It was meant to confuse, contradict and, overall, make the viewer uncomfortable, or at least not create any allusions that they wanted the viewer to be comfortable. Well done there. I just don't believe the movie pulled it off 100%. I've seen this film compared to Lars Von Trier films, a truly intense director if you've never experienced one of his movies. I completely agree and actually had the same thought while watching Vox Lux. Vox Lux even features Stacy Martin, who has appeared in a few Lars Von Trier films.

The first half of this movie was watchable and interesting but it seems to lose its way throughout. This could be intentional but even if it is, to me it did not work. I was actually very disappointed with Natalie Portman's role as she is an actress I admire. I did not find her character believable. While you were meant to dislike her character, and they were effective at that, it was painful to watch because they didn't quite pull it off. I think they needed to bridge the gap better from where the main character starts off as a young teenager to the 16 year jump ahead where they transition to Natalie Portman. The two characters, young Celeste and older Celeste, are so contradictory to one another, no matter what amount of time has passed or events have taken place, the transition is just not believable. On the other hand, both Stacy Martin and Raffey Cassidy were excellent. I was very impressed by their portrayals in this movie and really enjoyed Raffey Cassidy's singing abilities.

That brings us to the music, which was, surprisingly, overpowered by the other aspects of this movie. Considering Sia provided original songs for this movie, and the music was excellent, in my opinion, it was disappointing that this movie did not get the attention it deserved, in that regard.

The first time I watched this movie I agreed with it's overall IMDb rating of 5.9/10, which is pretty uncommon for me. However, it has been a few weeks after I watched this and I'm actually giving this movie a 7/10 because I cannot get it out of my head. Scenes keep coming back to me, and not in a bad way (as in the graphic beginning of the movie is not necessarily what stuck with me). After letting this movie sink in for a while I have realized its affect is there. I don't necessarily want to see it again right now but the fact that I am still thinking about it weeks later says something. But more than anything I want to revisit the music, especially the song that launches the main character into Pop-stardom, "Wrapped Up". If you are even remotely intrigued by what this movie is about you should watch it but please know it is not a clean, tightly wrapped movie that will give you satisfaction in the end. The beginning is horrific. There's no need for me to spoil the reason why; if you really want to check before watching I suggest you google it.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Do not fall for the hype, completely worthless film
kregmcm11 December 2018
Brady is a handsome fellow, he is no sort of director, and this movie proves it, how he got any of these actors involved with such drivel is beyond me, not everything that glitters is gold, and here all you get is fools gold, sloppy, irregular and not an enjoyable film, not because of the subject matter but the film itself, one gigantic mess.

wait to rent it if you must pay to see it, otherwise do yourself a favor and skip this one, you're not missing out.
72 out of 118 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A brilliant misunderstood masterpiece
seanmb-9327728 July 2020
Warning: Spoilers
A masterfully and meticulously crafted SATIRE on the music industry. With incredibly powerful performances by Natalie Portman and Jude Law. I spent this entire movie confused, lost and irritated until the final scene (the concert) when it all clicked into place and I literally laughed out loud. I don't want to give too much away but understand that if something is bad or doesn't make sense (like the music/choreography for example), it is intended to be that way. Don't focus too much on the terrorism, it's not a metaphor or a focal point of the movie, it's just a thing that happens to make the plot more interesting. Probably a play on the Manchester bombing at the Ariana Grande concert. Which would make a lot of sense as they are clearly channeling many different pop stars throughout the film. When she is an unstable, estranged mother, she's channeling Britney Spears. When she's dealing with the terrorist attack, it's Ariana Grande. When she's having her drugged out breakdown, she's Demi Lovato. When she pulls through it all and goes out to perfectly perform a cheesy, not great performance to a crowd of roaring, brainwashed fans, the joke of it all finally comes together. Having said all that, I can't say that I really LIKED the movie. But it not meant to be liked. It's meant to make a statement about the absurdity of the music industry and what it does to people. I think people who feel that it was convoluted or didn't have a point, simply missed the point. In my opinion, every second of this film was 100% intentional and the point of it all was quite clear and well, poignant.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Great production but the plot got lost
Gordon-1127 February 2019
This film tells the story of a young girl who becomes a superstar because of a tragedy that grips the nation's hearts.

Celeste is very likable and innocent to start with. Then half way through the film and fast forwarding a decade, she becomes a super unlikable person. She is so horrible to everyone around her, that every bit of me feels repulsed by her. The ending concert scene is spectacular, but I find it rather unnecessary. It is there to sell the soundtrack album, and it is not there for the story. I actually got a little bored by the three full songs that I was subjected to, despite the visual feast. To sum up, the production is great, but the story got a bit lost.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Portman great. Movie not nearly as much.
garymathe-761736 March 2019
Portman's fantastic performance distracts from the mediocrity of this movie. It's not bad, but not good either. Tries a little too hard to be relevant social commentary.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A complete utter mess
bliam1388 March 2019
Definitely the worst film of of last year and in the running for the worst film I've ever seen. Complete amateur hour. I'm really shocked a talent like Natalie Portman was involved with this. She should have won the razzie. For real, avoid this mess.
17 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed