"Return to form," which is used in one of its variations by some of the user reviews here, is an interesting phrase that raises the question of, what is the form being revisited.
For example, if I were to say a Hal Hartley movie were " a return to form," I would mean he had recaptured the magic of early films like Trust and Surviving Desire.
On the other hand, some of those are lauding this film as a return to the form of movies that I consider among Hartley's worst, like Flirt and Book of Life. And yes, if that is your gold standard for Hartley, then Meanwhile is a return to form.
Not much happens, the dialogue is forgettable, there are many moments that don't add anything or even make sense. It's just the story of a guy wandering around interacting with people, and while the lead actor is quite good, the interactions are rarely interesting.
While not as execrable as Book of Life, this is in no way a return to what I consider Hartley's proper form. To see my idea of a return to form, go watch Ned Rifle. It's pretty good.
For example, if I were to say a Hal Hartley movie were " a return to form," I would mean he had recaptured the magic of early films like Trust and Surviving Desire.
On the other hand, some of those are lauding this film as a return to the form of movies that I consider among Hartley's worst, like Flirt and Book of Life. And yes, if that is your gold standard for Hartley, then Meanwhile is a return to form.
Not much happens, the dialogue is forgettable, there are many moments that don't add anything or even make sense. It's just the story of a guy wandering around interacting with people, and while the lead actor is quite good, the interactions are rarely interesting.
While not as execrable as Book of Life, this is in no way a return to what I consider Hartley's proper form. To see my idea of a return to form, go watch Ned Rifle. It's pretty good.