Sees All

I really wasn't expecting much from this movie. I only saw it because the weather is bad and I wanted to get out of the house, the cinema where it's playing is convenient for me, I've already seen the big films that I really wanted to see, and I do like Hugh Jackman. To my surprise, I found this movie tremendously entertaining and ultimately very moving. I know Jackman as a fabulous performer on the stage, but he's done some good film work, too, even though he's never really had a great film role. He's exceptional in this role of a home town entertainer in an upper midwestern city. He's one of several "tribute" entertainers who have acts in which they imitate famous people. There have always been gay entertainers who perform as Judy Garland and Barbra Streisand, but Elvis impersonators also became popular, ultimately leading to an army of ersatz James Browns, Michael Jacksons, Janis Joplins, and Beatles. In this movie, Jackman gets hired to be a fake Don Ho, but he would prefer to be Neil Diamond. He teams up with a Patsy Cline interpreter (Kate Hudson) and they form "Thunder and Lightning." They're a hit and get a gig opening for Pearl Jam. They also fall in love. This part of the movie is delightful. The big surprise here is Hudson, a performer I've done my best to avoid because I really didn't care for her persona and considered her to be a "nepo baby" who only had a career because of famous relatives. The Hudson-Jackman duo is a winner. Hudson is a fine actress. I thoroughly believed her as a real human being, rather than an actress demonstrating her art. I don't want to include any spoilers, but there are major obstacles to their happiness. The movie ends up packing a strong emotional wallop. I'm usually more of an arthouse movie fan, but I'm really glad I saw this movie and would recommend it strongly to just about anybody.

This movie makes no sense, but the director and editor keep things moving at such a frantic pace that the viewer doesn't have time to ask, "what exactly is going on here?" or "why is this scene in this movie?" It reminded me of a minor Scorsese movie from 1985, AFTER HOURS, in which the protagonist got mixed up with crooks and spent a lot of time running from them. There is a lot going on in this movie, but they are for the most part unrelated to the alleged plot. Chalamet plays a character who is a so-called professional ping-pong player who has to actually make his money as a shoe salesman. He lives with relatives in a rather shabby apartment. He owes money to virtually everybody. He also has a pregnant girlfriend he is trying to pass off as his sister. But he wants to get to Japan to play in a highly publicized game of ping-pong and win a huge monetary prize. He hangs out in a sleazy bar where minor-league hoodlums play ping pong instead of pool. (I've never heard of such a place. Have you?) He has also "invented" an orange ping pong ball. (This never fits into the plot.) He somehow worms his way into the life of Gwyneth Paltrow, who is a has-been actress trying to make a comeback. She has a rich husband who is backing her career. Chalamet meets her husband and talks him into promoting the game of ping pong and giving him the money to get to Japan to participate in the tournament. But there's a catch (the husband is a sleaze): In order to get the money, he has to play some rigged games first and lose, like TV Wrestling or Roller Derby. He also has sex with the actress (who is at least 20 years his senior) at night on the ground in Central Park. (She's a classy dame.) Somehow, he becomes involved with a dog named Moses that gangsters are fighting over for some mysterious reason. The director keeps adding new complications. But "situation" is not "plot." It ultimately adds up to nothing. There is also a lot of violence, as well as humiliation games. It's all rather pointless, even though the director pumps up the action like it was INDIANA JONES. The actors, bless 'em, give it their all and do fine work, especially Paltrow. The audience was ready to cheer at the end and they did enthusiastically. I can only attribute it to conditioning. It's hard to know which is the more over-hyped movie of 2025, this one or HAMNET.

There, I've said it right up front. Now. Within that context, it's pretty good for what it is. But it took me a while to get over being appalled. I'm writing this on December 23, 2025. It's been a tough week or so-a massacre of Jewish people celebrating Hannukah in Australia, the brutal murder of Rob Reiner and his wife, the assassination of 2 National Guards in Washington, D. C., and several other horrific murders and other violent acts. Then the way this movie starts with such violence and vulgar, low-class dialogue. This was not the movie for me to see at this particular time. If you also are fed up with such things, you might want to postpone seeing this movie until a later time, or maybe just skip it altogether.

This movie starts with a terrorist attack led by a young black woman who appears to have gone to Jocelyn Wildenstein's plastic surgeon. She starts yelling the F-word at least once in every breath while brandishing guns and shooting. In this movie, the terrorists are supposed to be the good guys! Everyone connected with the government is a far Right-Wing-White-Supremacist. I didn't walk out on it. The title alone should have told me something. I went to see it because one of the more intelligent YouTube movie reviewers gave it a rave review and thinks it will be regarded as a classic. I will ignore him in future. I thought all the actors were quite believable in their very unsavory roles, especially Sean Penn. I don't fault them. I really disliked the "music," which I found intrusive and distracting. Basically, this was just not my kind of movie, despite the fact that it has already made a fortune at the box office, and is set to earn even more. I realize that some people may like this sort of thing, but I'm not one of them.