Directed By Max Barbakow

Starring – Andy Samberg, Christin Milioti, J.K Simmons

The Plot – While stuck at a wedding in Palm Springs, Nyles (Samberg) meets Sarah (Milioti), the maid of honor and family black sheep. After he rescues her from a disastrous toast, Sarah becomes drawn to Nyles and his offbeat nihilism. But when their impromptu tryst is thwarted by a surreal interruption, Sarah must join Nyles in embracing the idea that nothing really matters, and they begin wreaking spirited havoc on the wedding celebration.

Rated R for sexual content, adult language throughout, drug use and some violence

POSITIVES

– Lovable leads. Without question, Samberg and Milioti were made for each other. I say that on and off-screen because their chemistry in “Palm Springs” is among the very best that I can remember from a romantic comedy , a genre that usually stitches together two people who couldn’t be worse for each other. Their believable bond very much elevates an already exceptional first effort from Barbakow, delivering the easiest 85 minutes of cinema this year because of the time spent with these delightfully hilarious leads. On the acting front, Samberg is still very much the cherished comedian that he is in every project he takes on, but there’s an element of dramatic depth to his role as Nyles, which makes this stand out as a career best for him, and supplants a balance of depression and regret that preserves a fine line of empathy for the character. Milioti is easily the showstopper, however, playing Sarah as the eyes of the audience experiencing this world for the first time, all the while conjuring up a sarcastically dry delivery that outwits even one of comedies best in her co-star. Milioti goes beat for beat with Samberg, and does so as an imperfect protagonist who satisfyingly grows and learns with the twists and turns of the plot, producing one of the more honest silver screen portrayals of characterization that we’ve seen in quite sometime.

– Consistent humor. I am not an easy audience when it comes to what the 21st century has deemed hilarious, but the material from screenwriter Andy Siara struck a resounding chord in me that resulted in several long-winded belly aches. There’s a fine balance of raunchy and light hearted that blends together surprisingly well in a world where anything feels possible, but more than that it’s the way that Siara writes towards the best of each of his talented leads, knowing how to craft dialogue that feels uniquely belonging to each of them. The comedy does eventually subdue to a romantic side of the movie’s second half, but the easily quotable zingers of the story’s brash introduction into this world demands repeated watches so that the ingenuity of the material plays an entirely different way once you know everything at stake, and makes Siara a force to be reckoned with for what I hope is decades to come.

– Unpredictable. For every time that I felt I knew where the movie was heading, a twist was thrown in the compactor that constantly switched things up, and made me uncertain of the character’s fates even up to the final moments of the movie’s closing narrative. It helps that the gimmick is able to keep itself fresh with days deviating in a different direction with the actions of the dual protagonists (More on that later), but there’s a lot of surprising secrets and underlying conflicts to this intimate wedding group that, like time spent with them, we learn more about with each passing scene. It keeps the heart of the gimmick fresh, and gives plenty to bounce off of Nyles and Sarah that cements this bubble as the least of their problems, on their way to confronting what about them they would change if they had the chance to over and over again.

– Gorgeous style. In setting this story at a lavish resort in Palm Springs, the cinematography from experimental visionary Quyen Tran is able to soak up and absorb as much exotic neon’s that gives the film’s aesthetic punch an almost technicolor stroke of vibrancy. The sunbaked sets and surrounding deserts as far as the eyes can see preserves a natural lighting scheme that allows a naturalistic beauty that feels untouched by post production hands. Likewise, the sparkle emanating from the crystal clear water seduces and immerses us to the point where it feels like we can reach out and touch it. Collectively, these elements and more grant us an enchanting invitation into the textured lifestyles of upper class encapsulation, doing so while holding the snobbery of the guests in favor of the indulging intoxication of the breathtaking scenery that swallows us whole.

– Formulaic deviations. What makes this film stand out and even set a new precedent in the time loop subgenre that has gotten crowded over the last five years of cinema are the quirks of originality that makes this example feel like a freshly updated spin on an ages old scheme. For one, there are more than just one person locked inside of the bubble, there are three. This makes every reaction and subplot different, and keeps much of the story free from redundancy that could test its pacing. In addition to this, we are on the same learning track as Sarah, so Nyles already feels leagues above what we know initially about the matters being thrown at us. With most time paradox movies, a character is thrown into the fold, and we learn at the same speed that they do. But this direction encourages trial and error in a way that is not only humorous for the learning curve, but also alluding to the things we might have missed the first, second, of forty-fifth time around.

– Science of the idea. As strange as all of this plot may seem to the audience watching at home, science advisor Clifford Johnson, a respected name in the field of science, was brought on to approve and deny what about the time paradox in the movie worked and did not. This proves care and even responsibility in a plot that is every bit as far-fetched as something like “Hot Tub Time Machine”, but the steps taken provide concern for something that could easily excused as cinematic fiction. Instead, we get a screenplay that values what is happening to characters instead of the why, but one that works because the answers given are definitive enough in explanation without attempting to boggle down the entertainment factor of the on-going narrative with littered details.

– Sharp technical production. Some of the most expressively rewarding elements of the film’s presentation comes from an editing scheme that instills intensity to the mundane process of repetition. This results in a few more musical montages than I would prefer, but is easily forgiven with tactical pasting of these sequences that breeds consistency from one scene to the next. For example, one such transition involves the characters paying homage to “Groundhog Day”, and offing themselves in a way that feels like something for more therapeutic than just the depression that stems from reliving the same day over and over. The cut in editing comes at the moment that bleeds into the next scene, and even inspires the character in frame to react in a way that still resides in the former day before the realization of the current one coming to fruition.

– My personal metaphor. One aspect of this gimmick that I thought was creative whether it was intentional or not, was a bigger picture that compliments a cerebral side to Barbakow’s intelligence as a filmmaker. You have these two (Well, three people) plagued to live in a world where time literally pauses around them, and they are forced to learn more about each other, and eventually blossom into something that neither of them seriously expected. This is a sentimental metaphor for something like love, where all time and matter halts around what is most important, and the idea of two against the world gets a supercharged acceleration in the face of the world who doesn’t factor into them. This touches a note of meaning and sentimentality in the deep-seeded romantic within me, but saddles “Palm Springs” with a theoretic spin that could help prolong the lifespan of this film long after legions of people see it. As far as I’m concerned, it deserves it.

NEGATIVES

– Stilted storytelling. The lone offense that I have to this brilliant screenplay is the vast amount of flashback sequences that ask us to pause progression a few times too many, particularly in a second act that follows the highlight first act of the movie for me. This isn’t a problem in expositional circumstances, because it’s telling us what is being mentioned in the foreground of the story between our characters, but from a presentational one, it forces us to halt progression each and every time curiosity gets the best of our characters, and it doesn’t always result in something that is a necessity to the film’s importance. A couple of these shows depth in this movie’s world building, but too often ruins what about the breezy pacing that compliments the poolside atmosphere.

– Romantic comedy tropes. Even though much of the time paradox cliches evolve and emit originality for a new take on an ages old formula, the romantic side of the story still feels very much derivative of the films that came before it. There’s the obvious third act distancing which leads to each character seeking the clarity from within to define what is important to their lives, the quirky supporting characters who are often too braindead to hate, yet too selfish to walk away from our focus, and of course wacky wedding hijinks that feels like a forced reason to include said supporting characters from being forgotten. I wish there were slightly more deviated avenues for a movie that feels enriched in breaking down conventions, but as it stands “Palm Springs” might be a bit too ambitious in the many genres and subgenres it tries to simultaneously attack.

My Grade: 8/10 or B+