Station to Station (2021) User Reviews

Excruciating watch

[bwbradwalsh · 1/10 · 3 March 2024]

The acting is... terrible. I'm talking worse than community theater. Worse than a middle school play. I'm not trying to be funny. It's embarrassingly bad. Not one person in this is a good actor. Not a single soul on screen is meant for this.

I am the exact target demographic of this movie, if you know what I mean, and I have plenty of favorites in my collection of "so bad it's good" campy movies. This is not that. This is just really, really bad.

EVEN if you just want to watch it for the eye candy, it's about on par with fruit stripe gum. You'll only get about 30 seconds of flavor out of it.

And it's over two hours long. Could use a HEAVY edit. But then it might only be about half an hour.

Dreadful

[mw_dc · 3/10 · 29 December 2023]

This is what happens when there is no editing. A film that is about twice as long as it should be with the longest scenes shot with the worst of the cast (Jordan Getty and Cate Luna). I haven't seen such awful over-acting in a long time. I actually had to fast-forward through most of their extended scenes. If Jordan pursed his lips or cocked his jaw one more time, or Cate over-gestured her way through one more scene, I would have shut it off. Was there no director on set to tell them to chill out, or try to act a bit more natural? They were just too unbelievable and because they were in far too much of the movie, it ruined the decent job the rest of the cast did. Other than that, thanks for Eggers crotch shot.

Horrible, disappointing movie

[jaubreys · 1/10 · 20 January 2024]

I never write reviews on films, but I felt this was necessary to warn everyone. What a horrible, waste of time movie that was excruciatingly unbearable to the end, in hopes that something good would happen. The bad acting, the bad Soundtrack and stupid story line needs to be announced to future victims of this movie. I can't believe it was even accepted for Production and then, suggested by Amazon prime. I would be embarrassed to show a film of this low caliber. This waste of my time will definitely make me think to check reviews before wasting another two hours of my time. I hope this review will save others from this excruciatingly horrible film.

AI Generated Movie

[egibson-2 · 1/10 · 18 February 2024]

This is what happens when you use ChatGPT to write your script, DALL E to generate your characters and an 80s Casio keyboard to compose your music. The only thing worse than the music is the acting. The only thing worse than the acting is the script. You could see the lips move as they were reading the script. You could see the writers using a thesaurus on every sentence. The sex scenes were so stilted they should have just posed Ken and Barbie dolls.

Probably could be nominated for one of the worst movies of all time. I'm being generous. There is exactly ONE scene worth looking at. And we all know which one.

Drudging and Sad

[prmanalive · 2/10 · 10 January 2024]

Everybody in this entire film are full of drama and not able to act it out. The dialogue is plodding. They must have fired the editors to keep the budget low, because there is so much dead space you could collapse a black hole in it. I love gay friendly films, but this is viewer unfriendly. If I wanted to see something sad and depressing, I would just look in the mirror. I watched "High School Musical" today, and it was insipid and silly. Still, it was leagues beyond this tragic, self-absorbed, snooze fest. If you want to paint a sad picture of gay porn websites, you could probably do a documentary that would be better, and more worth watching.

Not what you think it is, but something much better

[BeoBaxter91 · 9/10 · 9 November 2021]

I am not sure what I expected going into the movie (I was asked to be a test audience member two months ago) but it wasn't what I thought, in all really good ways. It's really hard to describe this movie without either giving too much away or giving people the wrong impression, so I think I'll just say it's a really well-done drama about a young man who has a lot of growing up to do, and a bit of a chip on his shoulder, who runs to Las Vegas rather than face his issues at home, only to find and create new issues there.

The film kind of follows him for 6-9 months as he interacts with friends/lovers/colleagues/family, and while he learn a lot about them, the audience learns a lot about him (and wonders if he's actually learning, too). In that way, the film is a lot like Richard Linklater's Beyond trilogy, and I think some reviewers have said that. But I think the other comparison they make, to Paul Thomas Anderson, is better.

Mostly because of the way the film makes all the psychological drama really watchable instead of depressing or boring. The two hours mostly flies by and it does a neat trick because by the end, you realize you had no idea where the movie was going, pretty much at any time, let alone somewhere so powerfully dramatic. I think that made it really satisfying to me. I am glad I didn't assume the end in the first half because the setup was for something else.

I think there will be lots of comparisons to Boogie Nights, but I think that's mostly due to surface similarities. Boogie Nights was bigger, more salcious for show, and wrapped up in a really predictable and old-fashioned way. This does a bunch of stuff I wasn't expecting and treats its characters as unique, not tropes and that's a movie lovers dream, in a way.

In a different review, for a different film, I said you could just watch the acting only and still be ertained, because all the leads were so good. That is 100% true here. The casting on this film, especially for all the main characters or the ones with big moments is incredible. I wouldn't be surprised if any of these new faces break out, but I hope if they do, they don't lose the raw parts of their performances in this film.

I don't usually give 10s, so I gave the film a 9, mostly because it's amazing they made this to this level of quality, on both a limited budget and during the pandemic. Without those challenges, it's obvious this would have been a 10, and that's a pretty big compliment from me. But maybe the more useful compliment is that I spent money to buy a ticket to see it again at a festival tonight when I already got to see it for free!

A lot of good with just a few challenges. What indie film should be, IMO.

[marross-34479 · 9/10 · 12 November 2021]

This is my first review, so apologies if it's not critic-y enough. I'll go through what worked best, what didn't work as well, and why I thought that, but I guess a good place to start is why I came on here to write a review in the first place (besides the fact there aren't any comments on reviews, lol): I keep turning over this film in my head and coming back to it and that's really unusual for a random indie at a local film festival. Second, I think a lot of people are going to have opinions on this film, because that's that's what we do as a culture these days when art doesn't fit our boxes or, like this one does, challenges our stereotypes and judgements about others, and groups of others. Also, as Americans we tend to get weird about things like sex and nudity (especially in the midwest, where I live), if by weird I mean "running around acting like the sky is going to fall down," and I do.

So yeah, let's put that out there first. I'm surprised the other reviewers haven't mentioned it. This is a movie set in Las Vegas, with a bunch of 20 somethings. There's sex and nudity in the film. It's not an erotic film, and it's not a salacious film (by objective standards), and the sex and nudity (which, to be fair, is a few butts, some side boob, and a lot of implied nudity, with a couple brief full frontal shots) makes sense for the characters, the premise, and the stories, journeys, and struggles they're dealing with. But let's be honest. Some folks will hear there's a male full frontal shot (it's not in a sexual situation) and immediately find a bunch of different things "wrong" with the film. I've been here long enough. So maybe the upfront disclaimer is if that kind of thing isn't your thing, just don't see the film. But if you don't sweat that kind of thing, I really, really recommend it.

Because there's not much wrong with this as an actual film and it's kind of mind-blowing (save one thing--the reason I have it a 9 and not a 10) that a first time writer-director and bunch of unknowns made something this careful, constrained, and affecting. It doesn't subscribe to any tropes, doesn't feel the need to move any faster or slower than the story and characters require, and boy does it all pay off at the end with some of the best acting and climactic pacing I've ever seen.

The reason I can't give it a 10 is that it is obviously not a polished studio production, though it comes REALLY close, you do have some little tells like inopportune camera shake here and there (which, also to be fair, is used intentionally and to really strong effect in other parts of the movie, where you feel like you're right in there with the people) or a scene or setting that's a solid 9, but you know would have gone from a 9 to a 10 if they'd had the money to open up the world a bit, or shoot in more exotic or challenging locations. But that's splitting hairs in a bit, because anyone who goes to see this is going to know they're seeing a human, character-driven indie. While it would be nice to see more location shoots in Las Vegas casinos, or on the Strip (there are some!) just to really celebrate and immerse ourselves in the place, it's understandable why we didn't for financial and maybe story reasons. I will say the locations do become almost like characters themselves, and watching them change over time of day, etc. (sunlight is really a big factor in this film as it is in Las Vegas) is so interesting and that wouldn't have happened with more settings and use of more familiar flashier places, so, who knows?

How will you know if you like it? I'd say if you find movies that push boundaries and convention a bit, this is a great movie for you. If you like movies that do melodrama, but in a grounded, believable, relatable way, this is definitely a movie for you, especially by the third act. If you like seeing characters who represent different sexualities, races, ethnicities, etc. In a story where those things have almost nothing to do with the film (they just are), this is a good film for you. And if you like films about people who mess up and make wrong calls and are trying to figure out who they are with a mix of family of origin and choice, this really delivers on that front, too.

I suspect some people will try to limit it or characterize this as a coming of age drama, or an erotic drama (again, it's not, it just has bodies and sex, but not in a particularly erotic context), or even an LGBT drama, an I think all of them are true, but none of them describe the movie, truly. This is an interesting drama, an ensemble piece that showcases some really good acting, and it's set in a very specific word, with very specific people, but has little to do with those specifics as a story point, the setting and the characteristics are the jumping off point for some characters you won't be able to forget about when you leave the theater or turn off your computer, which is sort of where I am this morning, writing a review on IMDb...

The easy comparisons here are to BOOGIE NIGHTS or SHAME but that just, again, I think is because we have so few films told about male protagonists like this. It definitely shares elements with these, but if you want a better parallel in general, I'd go with Steven Soderbergh's debut film, Sex Lies & Videotape. That's the comparison--a new director, a cast of characters and actors you can't stop watching or thinking about, and a story that moves slowly and deliberately, but you really feel delivers something in the end. Like you got what you needed, if not what you thought you were coming for, as a film, if that makes any sense. But in the end, I don't think this movie can be easily described, which is a pretty good compliment for a first time writer director and a bunch of unknowns!

Left me thinking all the next day

[shapet99 · 9/10 · 12 November 2021]

I saw this film at the Las Vegas International Film and Screenwriting Festival on the first night. Like most of the films at these festivals, I hadn't heard of it before and I found the description was intriguing, but vague (intentionally so, when you think about it afterward).

But I am glad I didn't know anything going in. I don't really think any description could describe it, but if I had had it described to me, I might have watched it in with some preconceved notions and assumptions, which as it turns out, is the entire point of the film, or at least a big part of it.

All I know is I spent the next day thinking about it, about the characters, and some of the convos they have with each other. This film is really well acted and the best work is in the quiet back and dorths with each other, which happen in a way that starts the wheels turning in your head It got me thinking about a lot of the ways movies don't do that now and that made me realize how hungry I was for the kind of conversations and characters we see in the film, which is a modest attempt at making a blockbuster Hollywood film, but an A attempt at making an indie like this.

I really loved this

[DerrNovot · 10/10 · 4 March 2022]

This movie was unexpectedly moving for me. It's weird, because I don't actually know why. I keep coming back to it in my head and thinking about different characters and scenes (they are almost like little short films with the Las Vegas "Boy Bunker" setting and main character "Major Tom" as the common elements). It's this really adult, conversations-based film where you learn about these characters from all these different walks of life and circumstances and each of them either really resonated with me personally or helped me see other people in those circumstances in a different light. I liked that a lot. There was a really good mix of "show" and "tell" and the dialogue was really, really good. I like that the lessons and that experiences are the journey, not a contrived beginning, middle, and end. Like you spent this time with these people and then it's time to go home, but you know there's more still to come for everyone.

This movie also "gets" a lot about being young and male in 2022, with the freedom in many ways to do what you want, act how you want, sleep with who you want, and do a lot of it online, but really crave a sense of family or "real" connections and how forgetting how to really do those things, or that the responsibilities that come with being in a "family" (even one you pick) or friend group are important, can hold you back.

I don't know how to describe or even review this film, but I think its worth seeing. It's definitely got the sex and nudity and big dramatic stuff it builds up to in the end (the intense end is so different from the way it starts, you realize you were really taken on a journey and surprised at the end. Thats another thing I liked, not being able to predict anything) and if you don't like longer, character driven scenes maybe not good for you?

But I really recommend it. Enough to come here and write a review to encourage other people to watch it, since I don't think it had a huge advertising budget. It just really sticks with you.

Big surprise

[bizzymarpol · 10/10 · 6 April 2022]

I thought this was a comedy b/c I'd only seen a funny clip before and got the wrong impression, but this movie blew my mind with how good a drama this is. It's so good! The acting, the writing, the way it looks, and the beautiful messages it sends to the audience. The main character and actor who plays him are really interesting.

Wonderful film with beautiful insights on adulthood (but okay if you just want to ogle, too)

[shteachtx · 9/10 · 19 November 2023]

Set against the backdrop of Las Vegas, the film follows a young man named Major Tom Ryan (that's his legal name; it's explained in the film) as he navigates a complex time of self-discovery. The movie is deliberate and very compelling, and told through a series of extended conversations, full of genuine philosophical insights, that Tom has with various people he meets - ironically - through his association with the malevolently charismatic owner of a Vegas adult entertainment enterprise named Jordan.

Tom is a kid from Long Island on the run from his very real, but decidedly first-world problems, and through these conversations, he learns a lot about how the real world looks, gains perspective, and moves a little closer to being a fully realized adult. And, yes, in the meantime, he gets caught up in a lot of fun hijinks, faces some (often literally) naked truths, and has some interesting, and frankly entertaining, sexual encounters (all of which, believe it or not, are 100% story and character relevant).

There's a pretty intense series of tragic events in the last part of the film, and that's good because it feels necessary to bring the stories full circle, get Tom (and a couple of other characters) across the finish line, and I think that works well to balance out the tone of the film, making even its most indulgent and hedonistic elements justified building blocks in the film's narrative. The best part, though, is that all of these events are rooted in the psychological issues and concerns of the characters, not their alternative orientations or work in adult entertainment. The film is very modern and non-judgmental in this way, which I really appreciated. The folks who'd be messed up in any profession or situation are messed up here, and the folks who are decent and good are the same.

Notably, the film balances emotional depth with physical appeal. The diverse male characters are portrayed in ways that will absolutely cater to scopophilic pleasures (the female and gay male gaze), with instances of nudity and physicality that are not only justified within the narrative but necessary to telling the story, with its moral insights and ethical messages. This approach integrates a physical representation within the larger narrative, ensuring that characters are seen as complete individuals, even when they aren't wearing very much.

I want to mention, too, that the emphasis on emotional depth challenges traditional narratives and portrayals of men in films, offering a more nuanced and introspective view. The film succeeds in providing empathy and understanding for its characters.

I'm giving the film a 9, not a 10, because there are a few elements that could have made this film revelatory and near-perfect, but I agree with an online critic who noted the few weaknesses in this film probably result (either directly and directly) from the film's limited budget and the fact that it was shot during the COVID quarantiine. The film's American-auteur style, reminiscent early Linklater, Burns, or Anderson may not align with all viewer preferences, but it's a film worth seeing and I highly recommend it! And if long conversational scenes aren't your thing, the youthful hijinks, plentiful flesh (the eye-popping frontal nude scene from the star is probably best known, but it's just the start) and diverse hook-ups just might be. This balance means "Station to Station" has a little something for everyone, from those who like to analyze movies to those who just want to ogle them.

In conclusion, "Station to Station" is a significant step forward in the evolution of the female and gay male gaze in cinema. Its thoughtful integration of physical appeal with emotional depth and narrative complexity offers a more inclusive and empathetic cinematic experience. Whether one appreciates its literary qualities or focuses on the visually-driven scenes, the film stands as a meaningful contribution to diverse perspectives in film.

I figured out why the reactions to this film are so strong (and mixed)

[luckylinden · 10/10 · 16 November 2023]

I rewatched this yesterday because I was was fascinated by how "Station to Station," an impressive debut from writer-director Benjamin Bryant and actor David Eggers II (as a leading man) has stirred divergent reactions among viewers. On one hand, critics reviews are pretty uniformly impressive, with those and many user reviewers giving the film high praise for its nuanced dialogue and deep thematic exploration, earning it comparisons to the works of auteurs like Richard Linklater, Tennessee Williams, and Noah Baumbach. That's no small praise! These reviews and comments tend to focus on the film's rich, dialogue-heavy scenes, which delve into profound human experiences and societal issues, and explore the film's merits as a serious, contemplative work of art.

On the other hand, there's a segment of the audience that declares "Station to Station" to be "too talky" or "boring," seemingly surprised by its emphasis on extended conversations and character studies given it's subject matter, setting, and the premise of the film. Many of these folks give the film middling or even punishingly low ratings, as if they were angry at it! (Look, there's no way this is a 1- or 2-star film, even if it's not a person's cup of tea.) That disparity fascinated me and led me to want to do a rewatch, both to understand it and maybe help a potential viewer go in with a realistic expectation of what to expect from this film.

I think the negative reaction can be attributed to expectations set by the media attention given the film and public perception based on blogs and discussion threads, which have heavily focused on its more sensational elements: the Las Vegas and adult entertainment setting, the copious inclusion of nudity (particularly unusual-for-American-films male nudity, including VERY memorable frontal nudity from Eggers) and diverse sexualities and situations shown onscreen. These aspects, while, absolutely integral to the narrative and character journeys, have potentially led some viewers to anticipate a film primarily centered around these elements. Trust me, they are prominent, impressive, and frequent in the film (there are no one-second flashes here or there requiring you to pause the screen. It's all there and spectacular, lol), but they aren't the only thing this film is intent on delivering. This is a FILM and as good as any of the early auteur work of Linklater, Baumbuch, Williams, or Ed Burns, and that means you get an auteur film, too.

The divergence in audience reception stems from this juxtaposition of deep, theater-like dialogues with the unfiltered portrayal of the adult entertainment world. While the film is indeed a really naked, really sexy film, it's also a bold exploration of 20s masculinity and relationships in 2023 and the digital age, exploring themes like faith, income inequality, domestic abuse, race-based fetishization in entertainment, and addiction. All while it doesn't shy away from presenting the realities of its Las Vegas setting and characters. As a different IMDb user reviewer noted, the film is reminiscent of Linklater's Beyond trilogy in its character-driven approach, yet it also embraces the rawness of Paul Thomas Anderson's storytelling in "Boogie Nights," (with one big difference: Eggers puts Boogie's Eddie/Dirk to shame and Eggers isn't wearing a prosthetic in his scenes, which thankfully don't require one waits until the end of the film, but are woven throughout for narratively justified reasons.)

This makes for a unique cinematic experience.

"Station to Station" thus straddles two worlds - the intellectually stimulating and the viscerally engaging - and does so with remarkable finesse. Eggers' performance is a standout, embodying the film's commitment to raw and vulnerable storytelling, as he navigates heart-to-heart scenes that ponder life's complexities. The film's ability to balance profound dialogues with explicit content is a testament to Bryant's careful, deliberate script and talented direction and the cast's versatile performances, which have been lauded for their authenticity and relatability.

To put it simply, "Station to Station" is a film that demands open-mindedness from viewers coming at it from both camps -- the ones who want a fun, sexy boundary-pushing romp AND the ones who want a quiet, powerful arthouse triumph -- with a willingness to embrace its dual nature. It's a movie that can be appreciated for its artistic depth and its unapologetic portrayal of adult themes.

At last I've figured out why the film has found both critical acclaim and awards recognition, while also provoking mixed reactions from a wider audience. This duality is what makes "Station to Station" a unique and thought-provoking film, worthy of attention from those who seek either or both of its core elements.

As if people are watching two different movies!

[twocivman · 9/10 · 5 March 2024]

I liked this film. I am a big fan of arthouse type indie films in general and I am always impressed when folks make something without the advantages of studio backing or a budget. So many films are considered "indie" now (most star name stars, cost millions to make, and have access to top editors, marketing, and distribution, now) but people forget the magic of discovering a true indie - made for a shockingly low amount by people who wear multiple hats but are willing to do what it takes to get the art made.

The best arthouse used to be like a good homemade pie: definitely imperfect, not always great looking, but made with love and delicious to share with family.

But here's the thing: if you don't like pie, you're not gonna like pie, and I feel like that's what it comes down to with this movie. It's a thoughtful, talky indie film (the kind of film Ed Burns and Linklater used to make in their true indie days) in many ways, feels like a play, and, yes, runs as long as a play, too. It's told over a series of two-person conversations with the main character, Tom (whom I found both fascinating and frustrating at the same time, which I I dug) as the connective tissue. Things build up to a very tense event in the third act, and ultimately a major paradigm shift. Nothing is resolved in a pretty bow, but each of the main characters is positioned to be better (or not), and whether we think they do (or not) has a lot to do with the perspective and experience we brought in with us in the first place. Yes, it's that kind of film and does not pretend to be anything else.

Which is why the extreme reactions, where people seem to either LOVE this film or HATE it, is so confusing to me. The people who love it write essays about how it moved and affected them and the people who hate it declare it the longest, worst, most terribly acted, boring film they've ever seen. You even have folks declaring they'd "never reviewed a film before but had to to warn people," lol. So here's what I have to say if you're undecided.

The film is OBVIOUSLY not bad. While we can debate the quality of festival juries, I was impressed it won the audience award at a respected film festival (from real people who bought tickets) and the professional critics reviews are favorable. I personally also thought it had great costumes and music, too. But it IS micro budget and it WAS shot during the pandemic on location right after Vegas shut down, which means unknown actors, less experienced folks like editors, and limited sets. It feels like a $2-3 million dollar film, for better or worse, and that's especially impressive since it was made for less than $50K.

It's also a talky, arthouse film and it is exactly what you think that will mean. Yes it is partially set in the world of adult entertainment, yes there's sex and nudity, and yes there is one now-famous funny and sexy scene, but it's not meant to be a sexy, glossy "Boogie Nights," nor a frivolous, naughty "Eating Out" style romp, which is unfortunately how a lot of blogs (and all the attention given the nudity) sort of position the film, leading a lot of people to be bored and disappointed (and apparently angry?) at the film for being exactly what is said it was.

So I can't tell you it you'll love or hate it, it seems to be very specific to what you want from your indie films and this one, specifically. But go into it with a realistic understanding of what the film is. If you like to go out to see arthouse films or plays that are dialogue rich and near exclusively character driven, you'll probably like this, and if you just want the sex and skin, here's my tip: that stuff seems to happen every 20-25 minutes or so once the film gets started, so make use of your fast forward button and enjoy the film on your own terms. Or skip it altogether if neither appeals.

But I really liked it and will definitely watch it again.

Not what you'd expect based on these reviews..

[DevonCee · 10/10 · 29 April 2024]

I'm not sure if I watched the same movie as some of these other reviewers, but I thought this was an interesting & very thought provoking film. The lead was cast well and I think he gave a lot of depth & range to the character that kept me intrigued to learn more as he opened up as the film progressed.

While I can see how some may perceive it as having left a lot of loose ends, I didn't walk away from it sharing that sentiment. I enjoy movies that leave the viewer to draw certain conclusions which allows you to reflect on the movie long after it's over, and this film is no exception. This was very well made & I'd both watch it again as well as recommend it to others to watch, going into it with an open mind & no preconceived opinions.