You Were Never Really here is brilliantly shot, masterfully acted and perfectly paced. Joaquin Phoenix shines in his quiet yet expressive character, portraying far more than is ever said out loud. The film is laced with soft background music that fits well at first, but as the film went on it began to bother me that there were few truly quiet moments; sometimes the music took away from a scene. Director Lynne Ramsay clearly set out with a vision in mind for this film, and I believe she achieved that vision near perfectly. If you're looking for a dramatic, well paced and well shot piece of art, comparable to Drive, this is the film for you.
However, this film does not hold up so well in terms of actual substance. The plot is basic, and only the two main characters have any kind of development. The story is over before you know it, and little has changed. The title may be considered ironic, as when the credits began to role, it felt as if the film never really were. It fades to a close without much actual closure, and one is left wondering what it was all worth.
Initially this put me off the film, but all in all I think the simplicity of the film is part of what makes it enjoyable to me. It's not flashy and over the top, nor is it completely empty. It has character, and a very consistent one at that. The film is short, but to me this is a sign of a story not outstaying its welcome. The tale is told and then we move on, and I like that. The ending doesn't sit well with me, but I respect the decision made to leave it open. I worry that the tone of the film may have petered out if a "proper" conclusion had been reached, which may have left an equally uncomfortable taste in my mouth, so perhaps this film couldn't win either way.
All in all, I give You Were Never Really Here 4 out of 5 stars, because the aspects of the film that work, work very well, in a comprehensive and impactful way. The acting, direction and vision of the film are spot on, and deserve high praise, but the lack of certain story elements and an ending that doesn't do it for me, prevent me from giving this a 5 star rating. I recommend this film to any fan of Lynne Ramsay's other films, and other stylised films.

Wow, not what I was expecting...at all. I was expecting a Hollywood action/thriller movie and got euro art house. By the end I knew I didn't like it but none the less I tried to understand what I could of it. I respect the reviews that praise the film, but I think it's a film you will either "get" or, you won't "get". It's one of those films that tries to tell a story through imagery and experimental music, rather than dialogue. These types of films I don't like. It's too obvious that a director is directing and it's distracting. Every frame of the actors is more like choreography; how they move, how their movements and expressions sync with the experimental music, how the scenes are a juxtaposition of graphically designed images that also sync with experimental music in a choreographed way. The language of the film is different to what I'm used to, more akin to a stage production of physical theatre. Everything moves slow and is relentlessly grim. There's no change of pace and no sense of variety, directing wise. The style is abstract from beginning to end for two hours. Despite this, all the actors are great. Phoenix is a force in the central role, playing someone who wants to kill himself but struggles on, so he can take care of his mother with utmost commitment, sacrificing a future as a father with his own family. His only relief in life seems to be to kill bad people. With his greying beard and his asymmetrically shaped and scarred upper body, which is particularly muscular on his weapon wielding side, he is a man poisoned by his life. He is betrayed by his abusive father, a figure who is supposed to protect him. The sex trafficked girls are also betrayed by the system that's supposed to protect them, as some of the police are shown to be complicit in the trade, and Nina, the girl at the centre of the story, it's suggested, is betrayed by her own father, himself a politician, who allows her to be abused by another politician. What you realise is how truly alone he is because he alone has to live with the mental scars of the abuse. It's a constant unrelenting presence in his mind, much like an addict is never cured; it's no wonder he wants to kill himself. Thankfully there's some light at the end of the tunnel, and there is something to be said about the effective way this form of story telling gets some of its themes across. For two hours I had to live in the mind and life of Joe and it was very grim, sad and yet heroic, for the sacrifices he made for his mother. On reflection, I don't think the usual way of storytelling could have made me understand these themes as well as this film did. But as worthy as the story is, and as effective as it was in its way of communicating the themes of abuse, loneliness and betrayal, I think it's safe to say I won't be watching it again.

*No Spoilers here *
I will get to the point. The trailer does not paint the correct picture for this movie.

1). Do not expect to watch a "Courageous hero saves the day" movie and get a happy high.
2). The brutality in this movie is in context and gore is actually avoided unless absolutely necessary to the story. Most of the times, when other movies would enjoy showing you things, this tries to avoid it. It's done in style and you end up mostly seeing the aftermath.
3). You won't ever see a hammer hit anyone close up, just at distance so don't worry about expecting brains and stuff like that flying around.
4). This is the most important point. The movie is about looking into the life of a guy who's path has lead him to his disjointed life, earning money as an unpolished mercenary. It's about showing you how he ticks, how his mind is tormented with his past, how he sees death, how he wants to be dead and how the "Happy" world is always tarnished because he can't forget his past or the things he's seen. If you accept that, and accept he is constantly in limbo but, deep down, a caring person - you will appreciate this movie a lot more.

Simple as that.
Tense, stressful and sad but absorbing til the end.
I am writing this because, even though I knew what to expect, I have a feeling many won't as the trailer is misleading.

####### END OF REVIEW ##########

Films of a similar nature, in the sense that, they aren't spelt out to you and
sometimes you just have to accept "That's just how it was".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Skin (Will test any open mind but creepy and weird as it gets)

Magnolia - (Yeah, it rained frogs - the whole point of the movie is to say "Yes, on a specific day, luck/co-incidence happened - accept it)

It Comes at Night - Creepy, slow-ish but great scenes.

Hereditary (Err, you might need to read up about the ending - even now I'm not entirely sure)

The Witch (You need the patience of a saint with this one - too slow really)

Cloud Atlas (You can't just watch this once and appreciate it)

The Fountain (Three stories, Present time | A story his wife has written (and he finishes for her once he knows how) | Future where he finds a way to live forever)

Mother! (Why is this so hated?? It's just a really cool way of visualising God's vanity, the greatness of mankind in his image (not) and how Mother nature suffers. Probably one of the most stressful last 30 minutes in a film, ever!)

(Both The Fountain and Mother! are by Darren Aronofsky)

Was ok but very confused at times.

A bit too complicated and confusing !! But acted very well

This is an artsy work of cinema, and understandably won't do so well if judged as the retelling of a story in the medium of film. It's reasonable to expect a movie to make some sense right away, but this needed a bit of chewing over, rewatching, listening on best device available, with earphones, to get how the Jonny Greenwood musical soundtrack was woven into the impressions of Joe's (Joaquin Phoenix) mind and experiences, along with Paul Davies' sound design. There are different interpretations of this movie, but what I saw was a man, suicidal because of his suffering as a child and in war zones, tracking down abusers to rescue their victims, constantly reliving or in search of vengeance for his past, and finding himself involved with a truly hideous paedophile ring with high ranking bosses, one of them a state governor who has forced a senator, no doubt in return for power and influence, to allow his own daughter, Nina (Ekaterina Samsonov), to be subjected to the abuse. In trying to rescue her, Joe finds a kindred spirit, who may perhaps rescue him too - the two share a countdown you have to listen for, as if they're coming out of a trance or nightmare. Joaquin Phoenix is perfectly cast. I strongly recommend giving this movie some time - it's worth it - but if you're not for watching a movie multiple times or don't have the time, this might not be for you.

Phoenix is great here as a washed up and disillusioned private investigator whose specialty is rescuing young girls who have been trafficked or coerced into a life of prostitution. Without going into the plot too much, his latest case is to retrieve a young girl from an organised paedophile ring. Crunchy violence ensues but as events unfold it becomes clear he has stepped into a mire of corruption which extends out to some very powerful people who are prepared to go to any lengths to cover their tracks.

The direction is lean, allowing the story to unfold by itself, except for some clunky flashbacks put there to explain the lead characters motive. For me personally, it would have been better to omit these scenes and trust the audience to work it out for themselves. Especially given Phoenix is such a skilled performer and his scenes with the missing girl, plus the very moving scenes with his elderly mother speak volumes about a man who, on the surface, is violent and utterly ruthless.

...And gave up his acting career to become a hip hop star. This was all fake of course, as documented in the mockumentary 'I'm Still Here'.

Watching 'You Were Never Really Here' (coincidence that the titles are so similar? I think not.) I got that same kind of feeling, that this was a pretend movie and soon Joaquin would rip off his false beard and wink at the camera to show us that this tedious mess was nothing more than a feature length joke.

Alas, the more the film went on, with its incoherent excuse for a story and 'arty' camerawork at the expense of anything of interest, I realised to my horror that this was 100% a false hope.

The horrible truth dawned: this was actually supposed to a serious attempt at cinema, and all the pointlessly convoluted flashbacks and the pretentious nonsensical flourishes were meant to be taken at face value. Oops.

This being the case, what a atrocious piece of... cinema! For most of its length, we just see Joaquin silently staring at nothing in particular, as though to highlight his internal 'struggles'. Though not surely as much of the struggle of the unfortunate viewer to watch this unremitting tripe.

The people he kills along the way we either don't see the deed being done or we get a quick edit of their brutal slaughter, as though any highlighting of their murder would distract from the movie's own sense of worthiness. So the one possible respite we could get away from the tedious navel-gazing is denied to us as well. Thank you so much, Mr Director person!

There is also a uniformly bizarre soundtrack, which features garbled edits of obscure pop songs, and for some reason lots of montage of children counting. Let me tell you, I was the exact same way... I was counting every second until this pap was over, so I could finally log on here and warn you good people about it.

Let's hope my efforts aren't in vain! 3/10