Avis des utilisateurs

Seems most of the reviewers missed the point of this film. Or perhaps they've seen/ read the previous material it's based on and had some expectations. I came upon this film without any knowledge of prior material or expectations.

This little film is great as an exploration of how human attraction and bonding works.... when it's put into an accelerating circumstances of life threatening situation. And as a look at sudden intimacy, even codependency, between the "last two people on earth" (well not really, but there's that feel to it) it's actually achieves a lot of depth and freshness, probably because the director is a European woman.

However I can see how some could expect something else from it. The director almost completely disregarded a coherent explanation of what's really going on in the country that puts them in danger. Like yeah the main male character is doing something shady or that's what CIA wants you to think, during tough tumultuous times in a Central American country and gets in trouble for it, but that's practically it. Perhaps she felt it's not important because that's not what she's focusing on, and perhaps if she had focused more on that the film would be more of "casserole" lol and that would not necessarily work or help... But I must agree with some reviewers that the way it's presented now in the film it kind of does give off colonial or even white European/ American colonial vibe. Like, times have changed since the 80s when the original came out (or was it the book that came out then? Not sure), and Americans and Western Europeans are not necessarily seen as the nice guys anymore, and she kind of tried to present too, but it fell flat somehow. Not sure why though... was it the fault of the source material that came out in the 80s or is it the result of Western European sense of elitism, even superiority that they still have? I can't quite put my finger on it yet.

STARS AT NOON is a French romantic thriller that follows the story of an American journalist, Trish (Margaret Qualley), and a mysterious English businessman, Daniel (Joe Alwyn). Trapped in Nicaragua during the height of its civil war in the 1980s, they become embroiled in political conspiracies and must rely on each other to find a way out.

The film is a cat-and-mouse game where the stakes are high, and where tension is ever-present. The cinematography is stunning, with spectacular shots of Nicaragua's lush landscape and its turbulent political climate. Margaret Qualley and Joe Alwyn deliver powerful performances, convincingly capturing the desperation of their characters while still creating an intense and palpable chemistry.

STARS AT NOON is a slow burn - often too slow - that never quite reaches its potential. Though the story is compelling, the political intricacies of the era are not always clear, and the narrative fails to fully realize its themes.

Overall, STARS AT NOON is an ambitious and captivating thriller with moments of real beauty and insight. Though it could benefit from a more streamlined narrative and a faster pace, it's worth a watch for its gorgeous visuals and strong performances.

Claire Denis is a major, indeed cult-level director. Her films are always challenging and often enigmatic (as well as always full of sensuality), but" Stars at Noon" (screened at the 2022 NY Film Festival) is a little too much of all that -- enigmatic is one thing, but this one is outright flummoxing. It's a film about two people who seem to meet anecdotally (but, we soon realize, maybe not so much) in, apparently, Nicaragua (within Panama standing in for it), amid a dirty war. She's American, he's a Brit, and they instantly develop a passionate attraction (she's been turning tricks, and so their first engagement is transactional, but things go on from there). They each seem to have LOTS of secrets, which complicates their relationship (and befuddles viewers) no end, especially since these seem to be to cause a lot of bad guys coming, or at least seeming to come, after both of them, or maybe just after him, for reasons that remain frustratingly unspecified.

Claire Denis' ability to fill a screen with intensity is often here, but I was expecting a more textured expression of her lifelong engagement with the asymmetries of North-South interactions, so acutely deployed in films like "Chocolat" and "Beau travail". Perhaps because she's working in English (why?) and working in Central America instead of in the African settings in which she grew up, there is a disappointing lack of specificity here -- everything is generic and , surprisingly for this director, much of it verges on cliché. (And, just to make things even more frustrating, much of the dialogue, though in English, is indecipherable, especially that of Margaret Qualley, the high-intensity She in this She/He tale -- she slurs and garbles a lot of her lines, sounding almost like a non-native speaker with some slight but unidentifiable accent, though she's supposed to be an American -- something a native-speaker director might have been at greater pains to correct.)

In the Q&A this evening, Mme Denis emphasized how much she admired. Denis Johnson's novel, making it clear that this project had been in gestation for a long time (longer still due to all the well-known barriers to getting anything done during pandemic times). Though Johnson was dead before the screenplay was written, he is given a screen-writer credit -- Mme Denis was a pains to point out that much of the dialogue was lifted verbatim from the novel. That may be part of the problem -- she speaks reasonably good English, but she perhaps lacks the ability to spot (as surely she would in French) how wooden some of the lines are, and how unnatural much of the speech.

So, despite some trademark striking Claire Denis sequences, the applause at Alice Tully Hall was pretty perfunctory (for the film -- much more enthusiasm, deservedly, for her), and I'm guessing that, of the 1,000, more or less, people there, many, like me, left scratching their heads and wondering what that had all been about, and who was doing what (onscreen and in the opaque background) to whom, and why. Despite its Grand Prix at Cannes, this, alas, will probably not go down as a masterpiece, which, coming from her, has to be a disappointment.

I can't understand the low imdb rating! Dont trust the bad ratings!

Beautifully crafted and perfectly and nicely put together! Stunningly beautifully cinematography! A intimate, erotic, fragile, raw, deep and thrilling story about love, escaping and conspiracy! Amazingly filmed and edited! The work with light is amazing! Gorgeous visuals!

Deserves all its nominations and awards!

Great acting which feels very authentic. Manuscript is perfect with depth.

Acting is very good!

PURE CINEMATIC ART!

Unfortunately a bit too long maybe, the last hour is a bit boring.

I totally recommend this!!!!

... one reviewer asks why-the-masks, as they had been in the country in 1984 and no one had been wearing Covid-masks... it's that kind of film requires some reading before-after watching for some insights

... a well-made (even if was not in 'that' country), and well-acted film.. Margaret Qualley has the MacDowell acting chops of her mom and here in this production it's hard taking eyes off her.. she shines brilliant, even covered in sweat and mud much of the time

... not an entertaining film in the normal sense watching, you just have to go with its raw qualities, feeling like you were there evidencing the happenings... not all questions get answered.

Not only is the plot pretentious and feels pointless the characters are just as bad, i can't seem to like the main character... she's a stranded journalist in Nicaragua? Couldn't care less about what happens to her, the story is so boring and yet it leaves you confuse as to what it's even about. If you care to be entertained literally watch anything else? Anything at all. Every scene and everything about this film is pointless so don't waste your time. I feel like the critics are giving it good reviews on rotten tomatoes because of the actress but she's not even good in this she really made her character very annoying to watch.

Not a Sexy Political Thriller or anything remotely like one. Interminable at 2.25 hours. Nearly plot-free, with what plot there is badly updated from a novel that takes place in the 80s, during the Sandinista Revolution. Shot largely on flat, poorly-lit digital video. The leads are very good-looking. She in particular rises above the material a few times. His Englishman in an Off-White Tropical Suit is a nice ironic touch, given that Hulu's trailer markets this movie like it's John Le Carre or Graham Greene; but if that's what you're looking for (as I was), you will be both sorely disappointed, and very bored.

Claire Denis once again delivers a film of nuance, sensuality, secrecy. We are treated to excellent performances by Ms. Qualley, & Mr. Alwyn. Supporting roles by Mr. Romano, Mr. Ramirez, & Mr. Safdie contribute well. This world is one of heat, sweat, ruins.

Our protagonists are desperate people. There is subterfuge. There is danger. There's sex. There are secrets. There's heat, in the air and in their touch.

Qualley is riveting. She's on the move. Desperation emanates from her skin. Her glib retorts belie the fear darting from her wide eyes. She is relentless in her ability to look for allies.

Alwyn is at first slow, measured, calm. Later, there's anxiety building within his edifice of control. He is abandoned. He is left.

These are two people caught up in circumstances beyond their control. Each has lost their moorings. Needing each other, yet hesitant to fully trust. They are in their own singular world for which they are ill equipped & poorly prepared.

Sex brings comfort; momentary perhaps, yet with a sense of intimacy and security. They are thrown together on the run.

Denis creates a milieu of darkness, where one cannot see well. Then there cracks letting streaks of light in. Could it be love?

All about atmosphere Claire Denis is a heavyweight of French cinema and is out of her turf here

• here she operated in English in Nicaragua
• so we have a Bowlesian "Too Far From Home" tale
• we also have shades of Romeo and Juliet

Folks here in the comments occasionally bellyaching about structure narrative meaning; none of this here is about that; it is about mood; a sense of place; the feeling folks get when they are gringos in Central or South America or even Africa and the rules they operate along no longer apply; none of the points of reference work here; they slip anchor; they drift ....

THAT is the story here plus a bit of CIA backyard shenanigans they are loved the world over for ...

ps Margaret Qualley is excellent very charismatic and holding the viewers attention; the other players here are adequate but no better.

Ps2 the bedroom scenes were very very lame yawn-inducing.

At the beginning we are introduced to the main character of the story who is suppose to be an American journalist in Nicaragua. She is a drunk and sleeps with men to earn money to buy shampoo !! She meets a British character and again sleeps with him for $50 !!

For the next two hours we are suppose to believe her romance with this guy and feel thrilled by their cat and mouse activities with authorities in this country. This film does not have a romantic angle nor a political intrigue to it. You have to insure long sex scenes and useless terrible story line that doesn't go anywhere. I don't understand what was Denis had in mind making this film, probably she loved the book and didn't realize 80s South America doesn't translate good to 2020s. At least she could have spend some time going through the politics of the country or the region. Once again Cannes Film Festival showed they give out their prizes based on whose turn it is to win rather than the quality of what is presented.

The talented Claire Denis fails to move the plot or character fast enough to maintain your interest in this languid tale of people thrown together during times of civil conflict in Nicaragua.

This may have worked if a Soderbergh or some suchlike would have gotten hold of the story but this just meanders along.

Why is there so much of Qualley naked? I get it that she is a 'hooker with a heart of gold' but why is an American prostitute in Nicaragua during a civil war?

The problem is the pacing which doesn't drive the story along considering its an actioner about a 2 'lovers' trying to flee a war zone even though US/Nicaraguan forces conspire to stop them.

Margaret Qualley must be the most naked person in movies right now. She's like where Paz de la Huerta was ten years ago, before she nuked her career. Qualley's a better actress than de la Huerta, though.

"Stars at Noon" even shows her changing her underwear at one point. She takes off her dress, takes off her green panties, and puts grey ones on. Why was it necessary to show this?

"Stars at Noon" was made by Claire Denis, a director whose movies are more interesting than they are good. Typically they're odd, maybe a bit intriguing, frustrating because they don't give much away, and in the end, forgettable. "Stars at Noon" is no exception.

The trouble is the dialogue. It's just way too obscure, and it gets annoying. You're not sure whether to believe what the characters say or not. Typically whatever they say is contradicted by other characters and you never know who is telling the truth.

Also, perhaps the main problem: the movie is described on Wikipedia as a romantic thriller, but there's no chemistry between Qualley and the English guy who plays the male lead, and the movie is far too unwound and weird to generate any thrills at all.

I get that Claire Denis may have meant well, socio-politically speaking, to have adapted this story, but I'm afraid her adaptation totally falls short of doing justice to the actual text. In my opinion, the author's intention was to portray a revolution taking place via the narrative of an affair between two characters (even unnamed, as they were that insignificant to the whole point of the book) While Denis's version recounts a tryst, with a revolution taking place in the farthest background. Despite Margaret Qualley's strong performance, the magnificent score written by Denis' long-time collaborator Tindersticks, as well as the somewhat documentary-style cinematography, the film failed at convincing me as an audience to care about either the characters or the nation acting as extras.

Something of a revolution I going on. What precisely? We do not know? Who are the bad guys? We do not know. And ultimately we do not care. One things for sure Margaret Qualley carries this movie and states her clear intention to one day with an Oscar. Something of a revolution I going on. What precisely? We do not know? Who are the bad guys? We do not know. And ultimately we do not care. One things for sure Margaret Qualley carries this movie and states her clear intention to one day with an Oscar. Something of a revolution I going on. What precisely? We do not know? Who are the bad guys? We do not know. And ultimately we do not care. One things for sure Margaret Qualley carries this movie and states her clear intention to one day with an Oscar.

Unlikeable characters and cast.

Possibly would have been better with different lead actors?

Script seemed poor, and situations unbelievable.

But hey, you may like it? But it wasn't for me.

So, only to begin, I must paraphrase what another reviewer has posted: "(It) seems (as though) most reviewers missed the point of this film, or they have seen/read the material it's based on. I, on the other hand, came upon this film without any knowledge of prior material, and without any expectations."

As such, I genuinely enjoyed it. I had never seen Joe Allwyn in anything, and while he is no Al Pacino, he was okay. It didn't hurt that he's easy on the eyes, and although I hate to admit it, I wondered how many times Taylor revisits this film. I would, if I were her. He exudes a sexiness I had no idea he possessed, until I saw this. But, enough of that.

The real standout is Margaret Qualley in the role of Trish, an American journalist stranded in Nicaragua. Her acting and the abandon in which she tackles the various faces of her role, is stupendous.

The story is the thing I had the most problems with. As we already know she's an American stranded in Nicaragua, it isn't a spoiler to ask, did she not have other avenues through which to get home? Right off the top of my head, I thought of at least six or seven things I would do. That being the case, it took some suspension of believability, but all in all, it was entertaining.

So many questions and yet so too much time to answer them, but yet never answered!

The main characters are lovely to look at, and they do have some acting chops but as has been stated by other reviewers the chemistry is just not there. It's an extremely sultry film though because of it taking place in Central America, and the heat between the main characters is evident even if not the chemistry the film is incredibly long and instead of making it more clear I think it obscured it a bit. By the end of it I was lost as to whom did what and for why And it left me lost Still and all this is not a bad film. It's just not engaging enough.

I enjoyed the movie , the acting, the scenery and shots around the cities, which were not at all accurate. I spent 2 months in Nicaragua in 1984, with various journalists from all over the world. I was waiting to cross the border into Honduras when there was a raid by the Contras, and I barely escaped. I was very upset to see them wearing Covid 19 masks during the filming. Believe me, NO ONE wore any kind of masks during this time, with the exception of Contra forces, which were bandanas NOT paper Covid 19 masks. I would have appreciated it a lot more if they at least shot the movie without the masks. This time was a very dark time for Nicaraguan civilians, they had great difficulties in finding enough food to eat.