Skip to main content

Together: A Movie That Really Sticks with to You

There’s a way of viewing this movie as some demented form of couples’ therapy for Alison Brie and Dave Franco. And it’s probably not entirely without merit.
The metaphor of two becoming one in the context of love or marriage is an age-old theme that, while having some social or religious connotation to it, has frequently been evoked with high romance. A profound ideal of compatibility and belonging, faith and companionship. That notion that the right other person will perfectly fit the gap in oneself and they will each be made whole as a result. I get the impression that director Michael Shanks, an Australian YouTuber here making his movie debut, had heard variations of this theme a lot -perhaps he’d been to several weddings- and made the natural leap that someone inclined towards genre filmmaking would, and asked ‘yeah, but what if that were real?’
Together isn’t an original idea. And I don’t mean necessarily to suggest it is a plagiarized script outright as it has been accused (however unlike in a lot of these cases, this one appears to hold water on several counts, including specific details of plot and theme). But it is a concept simple enough that it is not inconceivable multiple people could have dreamt it up independently. Romantic partners literally fusing together as apparent ultimate embodiment of love, but showcasing that for horror  -it’s an easy, digestible story as concept. In execution, it is anything but.
Following a couple through a rough patch in their relationship after Tim (Franco) hesitates to respond to a marriage proposal by Millie (Brie) just ahead of their move to the country for her teaching job, the movie foremost succeeds at presenting a perfect mess of a relationship. Tim gives off mixed signals between his apparent commitment issues and his fierce dependency on Millie, which she is unsure what to make of. And then on a hiking trip, they fall down a hole and while stranded drink from the water of an ominous-looking pool. And then the strange stuff starts happening. First their legs and then gradually other body parts become bizarrely temporarily attached, at the same time Tim finds himself inexplicably, instinctively drawn to Millie, unable to be away from her for any length of time.
Eventually of course this becomes quite graphic, in ways you might suspect and in ways you wouldn’t. And the movie earns some points in not leaving these effects entirely to the CG department. Perhaps the best is a prosthetic arm cast worn by Franco and Brie at one point when their arms have been fused together and they are forced to resort to a drastic measure to separate. There is also a rather vivid prop used in the most obvious scene of body parts attaching given the subject matter and the freaky homunculus stuff in the climax. The manner of these owe a lot to classic effects from movies like The Thing and An American Werewolf in London (a figure even appears that bears a conscious resemblance to the remains recovered at the beginning of The Thing). And such tangible components work well in tandem with the less convincing though interesting digital effects, whereby hands roam under each other’s skin as though it were a piece of clothing -bodies moving about within bodies.
There is no abundance of these sequences, Shanks is rather sparing as he builds the tension and focuses on the gestating physical and mental health effects for Tim in particular -who is prescribed merely treatment for panic attacks. And while there is altogether too much dismissing of the severity of what is afflicting Tim and Millie -both by them and others, the movie is right to hone in on this more relatable anxiety. Tim’s co-dependence on Millie is illustrated strongly, a guy without the same kind of stability (he is a struggling musician while she is a teacher) relying on her substantially for both economic and moral support, yet who is unable to return affection when she needs it, in some ways ignorant to her life outside of him. His vague understanding of his shortcomings here only fuels his desperation and debilitating fear that she will leave him. It is also interesting how she manifests as a demon of his nightmares -suggestive of what she really epitomizes to him subconsciously. Meanwhile Millie is at a crossroads in processing their relationship, comfortable but with a newfound wariness this situation only exacerbates. And through the movie her vulnerability is manipulated, both subtly (perhaps unconsciously) by Tim and more overtly by her colleague Jamie, played by a deftly creepy Damon Herriman -invested in the couple sticking together, literally. Moved through this situation by the influence and actions of others she is the greater bearer of tragedy -a potent illustration of what often befalls women in such toxic relationships.
Brie and Franco's evidently is not that, much as the making of this movie had to prompt some healthy psychological examination of it. They have an appropriately natural chemistry that perhaps brings out their best. I've not seen Franco so committed in a role, nor Brie so overwhelmed.  And it is clear the process of this movie was arduous on both of them. They are each actors best identified with comedy roles and though their performances here aren't extraordinary, they are proof of a little more range possessed than they've been typically allowed to show.
The direction this concept ultimately takes is an obvious one, though its framing is curiously ambiguous, in spite of the seemingly damning statement it appears to make on the relationship issue. It leaves open a consideration for the romantic, and Shanks on some level seems to buy into it, but the movie doesn't quite earn that sentiment; and it comes with some problematic baggage in terms of what it communicates about co-dependency if read in this context. That the whole fusion process, for its horror, could be a beautiful and liberating thing, is not something you are easily convinced of. And yet the last beat of the movie blurs things further, opening up an existential quandary Shanks bows out of having to confront. It is a tenuous resolution, though beyond some grotesque spectacle, not I think a satisfactorily thematically coherent one.
It is possible the makers of Together do not deserve the full credit on the story's content and concept and that will be a difficult thing to square however the lawsuit turns out. On its execution though, Shanks delivers his weird and freakish visuals while not depending on them or less convincing avenues of illustration. Focus is adequately maintained on the real basis for the conflict, and the actors do a good job bringing it to life. A vivid horror movie, and a fascinating one.

Labels:

Comments

  1. Farhan20 December 2025 at 10:48

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Farhan20 December 2025 at 10:49

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Stylish and Charmingly Reinvented David Copperfield

The Personal History, Adventures, Experience and Observation of David Copperfield the Younger of Blunderstone Rookery (Which He Never Meant to Publish on Any Account)  is the most important book Charles Dickens ever wrote. It is not the most famous or influential by any means (that would of course be A Christmas Carol ), but it is the book that is the purest expression of the authors’ style, identity, and worldview. It is his most personal work, semi-autobiographical in its story of the chronology from infancy to adulthood of a character who overcomes great loss and hardships to find a fulfilling life as a writer. To read David Copperfield  is to understand Dickens himself. Armando Iannucci knew this when he decided to make a new adaptation of the novel for a twenty-first century audience. He also knew that Dickens adaptations are ubiquitous at this point. Films are a bit rarer, but every few years a new television adaptation rears its head to keep the authors’ unique world an...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more