Synopsis

The wild journey of a disenfranchised young man from Ohio who meets the love of his life, only to risk losing her through a series of bad decisions and challenging life circumstances.

Review

Cherry is Tom Holland and the Russo Brothers' first collaboration outside of the MCU. We know all of them to be very successful at creating entertaining and interesting action films in the MCU. Even the Russo Brothers have found some success as producers in films like 21 Bridges and Netflix's Extraction. However, even Beyonce makes missteps... if you know what I mean. Cherry is a bit of a mess. An overlong, overwrought, and stylistically inconsistent mess. In an attempt to craft an epic tale, the Russo Brothers have created something that 1) should have been a miniseries and 2) is all over the place.

I could tell what they were going for: a film about the consequences of war and how the country fails to honor and support its veterans in the way it should. There are the makings of an interesting film here, though even if this were better, I still think it would've benefitted more from the miniseries format. The film has 6 chapters... SIX! Even Tarantino's films only have 3 or 4. This film is the perfect example of why most books are better adapted in the series format. This film is based on a semi-autobiographical novel of the same name, and I can't imagine that the filmmakers did the novel justice. 

The film is about a man that lives about 3 or 4 different lives over the course of his first 20-or-so years of existence, but there was too much stuffed into this movie. There could have easily been a breakdown of one chapter per episode or one situation (training, relationships, combat, addiction, robbery) per episode. That would have given the filmmakers more space to flesh out each part to allow the audience to better understand the characters, but in its current state, oddly enough, it seems incomplete. It's so weird, it's like there's too much, but not enough. 

The film is tonally imbalanced. There are too many different types of stories in this film to say what kind of film it is or what the tone is.  And the screenplay by Angela Russo-Otstot and Jessica Goldberg is too formulaic to invite anything interesting or new that gives the film any life outside of its action scenes. I mean, the film is not lifeless. Parts of the film are enticing, particularly the war scenes. Most of the film is overly intense. I would say the whole film is exciting but there are too many tragic moments to deem it “exciting”. 

Visually, there's also a lot going on. Because of the different chapters of the film, there exists a tonal imbalance and a stylistic inconsistency. There is one chapter - Chapter Two - that seems the most out of place visually. It is filmed in a 4:3 aspect ratio, unlike the rest of the film, and employs a Wes Anderson-level symmetry balance and use of central framing. It threw me off because 1) it is the second chapter, so it's relatively early in the film, and 2) it's the shortest chapter, so it just seemed wedged in there. The plot points that occurred made sense for the progression of the story, but the very specific and different visual style just didn't make sense. The film also uses a lot of slow motion, of which you can have too much. There are also some interesting color choices.

I also want to point out the film's odd use of the fourth-wall-break. In the trailers and promotions for this film, you see the film's main character break the fourth wall and narrate the action. That is present in the film, but it is wildly inconsistent. The fourth-wall-breaks occur very seldom and randomly and the narration isn't consistent throughout the film, as it usually should be. Sometimes, a one-off fourth-wall-break can be used very effectively, whether it be for comedic effect or something else, but don't establish it as a mode of storytelling and not use it as such. I usually love a good fourth-wall-break narration, but it just didn't fit with this. 

In terms of good things... Even though the script was lacking, Tom Holland does his best with what he has. I think he is the best he's ever been in this film and like you've never seen him before and had the film around him not been such a mess, I would say he should be proud of this. I think this was a good chance for him to diversify beyond Marvel and create another name for himself, but I ultimately think he missed it with this film. Now, he does seem a bit miscast. He and Ciara Bravo, actually. They are both just too young for this type of role. Like someone in their mid-30s would make more sense. Even though the novel is about someone his age (mid-20s), it just doesn't seem believable- AH! What am I doing, this is supposed to be good stuff... Anyways... I thought the bank names were humorous. The banks all have funny names (Sh*tty Bank) or meta-names that comment on banks themselves (Bank F**ks America). I also thought that Henry Jackman’s score was excellent.

Overall, Cherry is a miss and a mess, but at least it will give Tom Holland stans something to feast on for a while. Hey, you got 2 hours and 20 minutes of him now... I expect a lot of people to enjoy this film. I don't know why, but I just do...