Recensioni degli utenti

They say write what you know. What I know is this is perhaps the most ironic film I've ever seen. Many people may not know the director Emerald Fennell comes from a very wealthy family, went to private school her entire life (including Oxford), and got her start due to those private school connections. To watch her send up upper class privilege as grotesque and distorted is bizarre in its own right but even more bizzare is she is selling her satire for money.

The movie itself feels like a giant trope, more characature than human and almost cliche in its representation of money as all encompassing and all corrupting. My only theory is this film is mainly an apology from Fennell, trying to convince us she's one of the "good" privileged people for sending up the world she was raised in. But then I remember she's enriching herself by making this film, selling privilege to beget more privilege.

If there was an award for ironic film of the year, this would win hands down.

I liked Emerald Fennell's first feature, A Promising Young Woman, although it was a little left field and a touch disturbing. In this movie, she ramps up the disturbing with many scenes of repulsive behaviour which feel way too gratuitous - if the British aristocracy is really like this, the country is screwed.

The plot is essentially that of A Talented Mr Ripley but the script is nowhere near as good and the narrative is often disjointed and at times boring. The directorial style is dark and gothic, but a bit inconsistent - some scenes are too long, some are pointless and the whole movie could have been 20-30 minutes shorter.

There's occasional humour but it's offset by the depravity, which is really overdone. The acting is excellent however - Barry Keoghan plays the main character to perfection as an allegedly poor and lonely soul at Oxford who is desperate for the friendship of the handsome, popular and rich son of an eccentric aristocrat family. Rosamund Pike is also superb as the matriarch. A cameo by Carey Mulligan however is a complete waste of her talents.

The plot twist towards the end was somewhat predictable so hardly a shock for a movie trying to sporadically shock you with depraved behaviour mixed in with efforts to parody the British upper class - but with not much class.

If you like pretentious Arthouse films designed to shock the senses and you don't mind the disjointed script, then this movie might well be for you. But if you prefer to be allowed to concentrate on the unfolding tale of immorality without the shock and awe, then TTMR is a far better movie.

It doesn't take long to realist that there is nothing particularly original in the plot of this movie. More or less from the outset it promises to be a more debauched, British version of The Talented Mr Ripley, and ultimately it never strays too far from that tag.

Having thus tempered expectations, there is enough in the first hour or so of this film to offer some encouragement that the film could at least be watchable.

Our protagonist Oliver (Barry Keoghan) is a scholarship boy at Oxford. Initially ostracised from the in-crowd by his lack of wealth or social grace, he works his way into the orbit of the charming, dashing and rich Felix (Jacob Elordi), and is ultimately invited to the titular family home. There he is introduced to the bizarre world of the British aristocracy and the idiosyncratic characters that populate it.

Having established this fish-out-of-water narrative, and despite the sterling efforts of its cast, the plot then begins to drift. We are offered glimpses of what might have been - the relationship between Oliver and Felix's sister Venetia (Alison Oliver), in particular, briefly offers opportunity for real interest and intrigue - but the film eschews these in favour of a far more well-worn and unchallenging path.

As a consequence, the second half of the film - which is written to be rich in twists, reveals and shocks - becomes bland, predictable and - frankly - boring.

There are strong performances throughout the film - Rosamund Pike, as Felix's mother, is particularly engaging and amusing, and attempts admirably to carry much of the second half of the film. Jacob Elordi, though slightly unconvincing as a British aristocrat, looks nevertheless to have a bright future ahead of him. Richard E. Grant, as Felix's father, is good value as well, even if his character is a little one-dimensional.

And there are interesting characters who are never properly explored. Pamela (Carey Mulligan) is a guest at Saltburn who has overstayed her welcome, but is discarded as swiftly as she is introduced. Farleigh (Archie Madekwe) is Oliver's rival for Felix's attention and funding, and provides a character that is well-drawn, well-performed and interesting, but again disappears from view in the latter stages of the film. This is particularly disappointing as Archie Madekwe does a great job of balancing his character's contradictions: intellectual but belligerent, confident but desperate, charming but hostile.

The final result has some strong moments and some good performances, but ultimately fails to develop into a worthy film. At 2 hours and 7 minutes in length, it feels at least half an hour too long, and I confess it was ultimately a relief to finally be able to leave the cinema.

Oliver Quick, an awkward, insular young man from the north of England arrives at Oxford University and struggles to fit in. However, his situation changes when he befriends Felix Catton, born into wealth and very popular. One summer holiday Felix invites Oliver to the family estate, Saltburn. Now Oliver will get to see how the upper class live.

A film that had potential as an examination of class divides, and social differences in general, and also as a dark thriller. While there is some degree of both of these, it is quite the damp squib.

The setup takes forever, with many scenes that really don't add any colour to the characters or flesh to the plot. Everything takes forever to develop when it could have been done more quickly and engagingly.

After a point it is fairly obvious where everything is heading and when the main plot development arrives the aftermath is quite implausible (any further discussion would provide spoilers). Then, just to prove that the writers assume that the audience consists of morons, there is a huge "look at how clever we are" revelation scene which is hardly a revelation at all as that was what most of us knew or suspected all along.

I was hoping for one more twist that would have redeemed the plot to a degree but that never came.

Nothing to recommend about this film, ultimately. Don't waste your time on it.

Salt burn did not hold together for me and i thought the cringy moments which were extreme and frequent were gratuitous. There seemed to be no sequence or lead up to the twists and turns of the main character. It's as if the filmmaker had an idea but didn't have a deep enough understanding if human psychology to really draw me in and pull it off. Suddenly he was doing something i could barely watch.... and i just didn't believe it. It's was gorgeous, but it seemed all surface. I compared it to The Talented Mr Ripely. A far better film that leads up slowly. Giving us hints and and insight into Leonardo Di Caprio character Thus film did none of that. Frankly i really did not like this film i gave it 4 stars for the visuals and some good acting.

If you played drink shots for every Oxford/ Upper Class house cliché, you'd be drunk fifteen minutes in.

Maybe it works for under 30s, as it might appeal if you haven't seen or read this genre which covers a swag of well-made classics.

First cliche is the envious lower/class student masking his yearning for the handsome upper class gorgeous boy. Done to perfection Brideshead Revisited and Talented Mr Ripley thanks.

Then comes rich boy takes poor boy home to gaspingly beautiful rolling-lawns home with a Blue room and a butler. See above plus ...

Over the cliched meet the troubled family gathering, we naturally meet the languid cousin, the jolly father, slightly wafting mother, elfin daughter with slew of social problems etc etc. By this time would not have been surprised if Stephen Fry from "Peter's Friends", the skewed heir to a fortune and his flawed ensemble, turned up!

A loose script, character light acting and blatant concept lifting makes it "quite tedious Felix."

Spent most of the movie waiting for something to happen while watching boring rich university students do boring things. When it finally did happen i was left shocked that that was it.

"Meh" is the only way to describe this movie. I wanted it to be good which was probably where I went wrong. With all the great reviews and the social media reaction videos, I expected a gripping and somewhat disturbing movie. Only a couple short scenes could be classified as such but due to the rest of the scenes being so uneventful it really dimmed any "shocking" scenes.

The only positive comment that can make is that the acting, music and settings were well done.

"The Talented Mr. Ripley" meets "Brideshead Revisited" meets any number of homoerotic class-struggle prestige pieces. Given the advance press and buzz, I kept expecting something more, something better, but this movie doesn't go beyond the cliches. Even the "shocking" scenes that everyone talks about feel un-earned: gratuitous flashes of fetish in the middle of an otherwise paint-by-numbers exercise.

Jacob Elordi is pretty. Barry Keoghan does his deadpan thing, which was disturbing and compelling in "The Killing of a Sacred Deer," but here just feels blank. Rosamund Pike and Richard E. Grant are fun as stereotyped daffy British aristos, but the other supporting characters make no impression whatsoever.

The storytelling telegraphs every reveal in the first few minutes, and then feels the need for a "Sixth Sense" style flashback at the end to say, "Look! We surprised you! Bet you didn't see that coming!"

Pointless and disappointing.

A cross between Parasite and Brideshead Revisited (including teddy bear) which fails miserably despite boasting a cast of talented actors.

One fails to understand how this film has managed to receive so many nominations/awards.

The plot is absurd, the events depicted incongruous, the setting derivative, the characters stereotypical and the whole concept redundant.

A pity because the beginning looked promising but this soon deteriorated into a silly pastiche verging on the farcical.

One can only hope that this (obviously talented) director's next effort will be a worthier reflection of her ability and skill.

Who was he talking to at the beginning? Mr exposition? Makes no sense. Terrible character development...the main character has no personality whatsoever or motivation. Even the reveal with his family is lame. Gratuitous scenes for shock value only. Rushed lame ending. The actor dancing naked at the end... imagine if it was male director and female lead. It had potential but I guess the writer / director couldn't figure out what to do with it. Try making the characters three dimensional for a start. The rich family were cardboard cut outs. I just don't get the high reviews. What a pathetic film!

What was all the fuss about,not comfortable watching the next generation excesses, and the upper class oblivious to any human interaction, not based in reality,what was this script, 10 little Indians rewritten? Knives out 2 did a better job,an expose on the rich,not even funny,portraying social mores amongst the upper classes.

If this is what the new generation of directors,and scriptwriters consider as entertainment,then cinema is truly dead,still I would imagine generation Z or A1 whatever, would have their heads buried in their mobiles , and glancing up occasionally

Not my cup of tea, all it did was revive Sophie Ellis Baxtor's hit record at the very end.

Take two cups of "The Great Gatsby" and one cup of "The Talented Mr. Ripley." Add one half cup molasses to ensure that it will move slowly. Add a tablespoon of homosexuality and two tablespoons of any of the English Country Squire costume extravaganzas where everybody Dresses for Dinner. Simmer over low heat until the plot gets completely unbelievable. Then pour the whole mess down that wonderful bathtub drain.

If you need titillation, there are no female breasts. Sorry about that.

Be satisfied with nice male bottoms and a soupçon of a wagging penis, and a rather boring male-on-male semi-rape. Ah those upper-class brits; how do they manage to reproduce, anyway? .

Saltburn, orchestrated by Emerald Fennell, emerges as a pitiful, vindictive tirade against the upper echelons of society, teetering more on the brink of a desperate plea rather than a coherent criticism of any social stratum. It's a jumbled mess, rife with inexcusable plot contrivances and characters who tediously belabor points that begged for no elucidation. Oliver, a character both tediously elaborated and lackluster in portrayal, epitomizes unreliability, masquerading depth where there is none. His supposed social ineptitude is laughably unconvincing. The narrative teases with characters hinting at potential developments, only to abandon them in a script that seems to forget its own beginnings. The film pretends to weave a complex tapestry of class conflict and satirical takes on the British nobility, yet these themes have been explored with far more skill and subtlety elsewhere.

Under Fennell's direction, what she presumably considers provocative visuals-albeit captured through Linus Sandgren's stunning cinematography-merely function as a smokescreen. They delude the audience into believing they're engaging with a narrative of substance and sophistication, when, in reality, it's a superficial exploration of themes that barely scratch the surface. The movie drags its feet towards an agonizingly predictable and drawn-out conclusion, which, when it finally graces the screen, signals not the climax but the belated commencement of the film. The audience's patience is rewarded with eye-rolling disdain for the time squandered on this cinematic endeavor. Even the final attempt at a twist cannot salvage the preceding hours from being rendered utterly meaningless.

For those seeking films that genuinely challenge or critique the extravagances of the ultra-wealthy and elite, direct your attention elsewhere. Saltburn will only disappoint, presenting a tedious parade of insipid characters and pretentious dialogue that feigns intelligence, all while hiding behind the allure of visually appealing cinematography.

This was recommended to me by several people who consider themselves film buffs, but I know a fraud movie when I see one. Saltburn is nothing more than a movie shot with a clean and appealing 4:3 aesthetic that sprinkles a few scenes of shock value and a knowledge that their audience has a strong desire to feel relevant. The cinematography is pleasing, but not groundbreaking enough to make the ~2 hour viewing worthwhile. Barry Keoghan, Jacob Elordi, Rosamund Pike, all perform well enough, but even they couldn't carry this film.

The beginning is good, but the pacing is way too slow in the beginning. When you finally make it to Saltburn, the plot feels rushed and the characters and their motivations are too sloppy. Farliegh and Oliver's rivalry deserved a little bit more back-and-forth to build up the drama, and I think they missed some key opportunities to shape their dynamic in the buildup scenes at Oxford. By the time you make it to the big payoff at the end of the movie, everything just felt predictable and forced. The last scene was kinda funny, but I just walked away from this viewing experience feeling like the movie wasn't anything close to deserving the hype it's received. I'm 99% sure the people who claim to enjoy this movie want to be seen as the hipster it-crowd that understands this film and its value in some sort of higher form of art. Don't lie to yourselves people, the movie isn't good. People are craving another moment like Barbenheimer when it comes to cinema, but this just isn't it.

I am not even sure what it was . It was artistic and unique - it was not enjoyable at all and borders right on downright stupidity.

This film was set up for shock value , but the shock value became so high that it just leaves you uncomfortable and feeling slightly disgusted . Not in a good way where you want to ponder on the predicament that is human nature , but instead in a way that makes you want to fast forward the movie . Overall that is my take - I hated the story and I hated the characters and I was , frankly , shocked. Which for me is honestly very rare .

This gets a 4 instead of a 1 for a few reasons . I love a good mixed genre . I love knowing very little about a movie , having it start one way and making some assumptions to only be confused 30 min later, and then surprise it's something else entirely . I respect that in a film and this killed it in that are .

The second thing which was very positive was I felt the character development ( at least in a satirical way ) was fantastic - well developed , good acting and writing to get you to view each character in a very specific way to set the climax up correctly .

Lastly - it did keep you drawn in .

It was overly artistic , completely pretentious and pretty nasty . It was different , and it's one lots of people will be talking about for a long time - so maybe worth watching just for that . You decide .

It is a well trodden path. An outsider without means threatens courtly traditions; with a weak king, overseeing rebellious, dangerous courtiers jostling for position. It initially seemed like Barry Keoghan's character, Oliver Quick, a seemingly grounded Liverpudlian, would make an interesting foil for aristocratic eccentricity. Instead, as the film progresses, we end up with a mirage of sociopaths. The cast, as a whole, does very well to portray each character's flaws. But the interactions between them have undercurrents of spitefulness, in scenes designed to shock more than inform. The result is a narrative that distances the viewer and moves the collective film into the realm of absurdity. It lacks heart and soul, and by the end I simply did not care for any of them, Quick included. It's a shame. Pike, Grant and Keoghan, in particular, perform well in an appealing setting.