Sees All's reviews

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.

I was very excited to see this movie a few days ago because it had just won the New York Film Critics' Circle Award for both Best Picture and Best Actor. I wondered if this would have the same impact as last year's Brazilian hit, I'M STILL HERE, did. I thought it was worth seeing, but I didn't feel very passionate about it. It was set at roughly the same time as I'M STILL HERE and touched upon the same subjects, but it took its time to build any momentum. It probably would have helped if I'd had a better background in the details of the corrupt Brazilian regime of that time, but I don't. For reasons I don't fully understand, the protagonist of the story finds out that there are two hit men who have been contracted to kill him. They've already killed his wife. He has a young son who lives with his wife's parents. He worries about their safety, too. He works in technology, which moves so fast that those scenes are primitive by today's standards. There's no Internet! (Or if there is, it's so primitive that we would deem it useless today. There appears to be no search engine!) He goes undercover and uses an alias, but they continue to close in on him. There's a lot of cold-blooded violence in this movie. Every time he thinks he has eluded them, they show up again.

I basically enjoyed this movie, but ultimately, I found it rather routine, despite many fine elements. It didn't really live up to the hype for me. It pales beside the great American crime thrillers of the 1970s and '80s. As for the lead performance, Wagner Moura certainly has a strong screen presence, with Latino good-looks and a natural charm. If his English is passable, he could have a big career here. The performance in this film is strongly aided by excellent makeup and hairstyling. (I have always maintained that most people confuse acting with makeup and I think this is a pretty good example.) I probably would have liked it more if I'd been expecting less.

Thanks to this movie I am now a bona fide member of the Josh O'Connor fan club. He's one of those actors that I really didn't know whether I liked or not, despite having seen him quite a bit. I first saw him in the TV series THE DURRELLS ON CORFU, in which he played Lawrence Durrell. I couldn't tell whether I found the character or the actor obnoxious. Then there was LA CHIMERA, a bizarre movie about tomb robbers featuring a lot of complex characters. Next was CHALLENGERS, the Luca Guadagnino film about bisexual tennis players. Tennis doesn't really interest me very much and I'm still fairly squeamish about bisexuality, so that one was difficult for me to like very much. Then came THE HISTORY OF SOUND. I basically liked that movie, but he co-starred with Paul Mescal. And let's face it: when Paul Mescal is onscreen, he's the one you're looking at. But with WAKE UP DEAD MAN, the third installment of the KNIVES OUT mysteries, I finally saw O'Connor's appeal, despite his flyaway ears that make his head seem shaped like that of a praying mantis. At last, his charm worked on me. His is an oddball character, a former boxer who killed his opponent in the ring (like John Wayne did in THE QUIET MAN), who is now a priest. It's hard to visualize O'Connor as either a boxer or a priest, but he manages to pull it off. The film is structured along the familiar lines of Agatha Christie's mysteries. Someone gets murdered, but it seems impossible to identify the culprit in a large pool of zany suspects who each could have a motive. In this case the victim is truly a horrible human being, even though he's a priest! The Church would love to find an excuse to get rid of him. His parish is hemorrhaging church members. He doesn't consider a sermon successful unless someone is offended enough to walk out! Those stalwart members who continue to support him are pretty horrible themselves. Enter the clever sleuth who manages to trick the culprit into exposing himself. It's the interaction between the suspects and the sleuth that fuels the plot. In this case, the sleuth is none other than Benoit Blanc, the hero of the two previous KNIVES OUT mysteries. Blanc, as endearingly embodied by that fine actor Daniel Craig, is part fool and and part hero. Surprisingly, he doesn't turn up until almost halfway through the movie! But then he takes charge. (Oddly I don't remember exactly how he came into the story and why!) The writer/director of this film is Rian Johnson, who is obviously quite a funny man. This droll script had me laughing all the way through. And at some of the oddest things! I loved the whole cast, although I do think Mila Kunis was too pretty and a bit too feminine for her role as a cop. (Let me add, however, that it wasn't completely preposterous like the old TV series about female cops featuring Loni Anderson and Lynda Carter as big-busted detectives.) I especially enjoyed Glenn Close as the parish major-domo. At times she seemed to be channeling Frau Blucher sans German accent. I thought she was a hoot. The whole movie was very enjoyable and I'd recommend it to anyone who's looking for fun at the movies.

Fictional stories about the life of William Shakespeare have been created for many decades, if not centuries. None other than George Bernard Shaw wrote a short play called "The Dark Lady of the Sonnets." I remember seeing William Gibson's play, A CRY OF PLAYERS, in the late 1960s with Anne Bancroft and Frank Langella as "Will" and "Anne." I read Anthony Burgess's novel, NOTHING LIKE THE SUN, about Shakespeare's alleged affair with the "dark lady of the sonnets" (who was an African in his version) a couple of years later. At the end of the 20th Century came Robert Nye's novel, THE LATE MR. SHAKESPEARE, about a homosexual actor in Shakespeare's troupe who played women's roles. In 1998 came Tom Stoppard's clever screenplay for the Oscar-winning film, SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE. I'm sure that there have been many others. The latest entry into the field is HAMNET, a best-selling novel (I have not read it) about the death of Shakespeare's young son, which has now been made into a movie. It is the weakest of the bunch.

I was expecting a great deal from this movie. It had a lot of positive hype: good reviews, film festival awards, fan buzz on the Internet. When I saw it yesterday, I was VERY disappointed. I found it to be a lot of cliches strung together in a rather lackluster way. I was surprised when I saw the credits that both Stephen Spielberg and Sam Mendes were the producers. If only one of them had actually directed it! The actual director, Chloe Zhao, has chosen to give every scene equal weight. There are no moments of heightened tension. It is all played at the same relentless pace. It is all flattened out into a uniform terrain. There is a lot attention paid to details. We get all the expected discomforts and gross visuals of childbearing and the deaths of close family members. It's all "this happens and then this happens" with no real cause-and-effect. The actors give it their best. I was unfamiliar with Jessie Buckley, who plays "Anne" nee "Agnes." She seems to have gone to the same acting school as Jessica Chastain, where they teach them to demonstrate what they're feeling. It grieves me to say that I felt sorry for that fine actor Paul Mescal. Any through-line for the character, he had to create for himself. It is especially grievous when it shows him playing the Ghost in HAMLET, which shows the Ghost's scenes with no context, just strung together. I'm sure that audiences unfamiliar with HAMLET were mystified or (more likely) bored. It doesn't help that the actor portraying Hamlet is just dreadful. I was very glad when this movie was over.

I was probably the ideal audience for this movie. I felt that it validated all the things I already thought about contact with extraterrestrial (or perhaps "intraterrestrial") beings. For me the film convincingly laid out a case for the beliefs that 1) we are not alone in the universe, that 2) beings from a far more advanced civilization than ours are keeping tabs on us, that all the rumors that such incidents as "alien abductions," and the crash of an alien spacecraft in Roswell, New Mexico are true, and that 3) the US government is on a mission to stigmatize anyone who claims to have witnessed such beings as "crazy crackpots." The film presents credible people who either have held important positions in the US government, or currently hold such positions (such as Senators Marco Rubio and Kristen Gillibrand). I found this a compelling documentary, even though it is just a series of interviews. Yes, the soundtrack did add an emotional subtext, but I see no reason to doubt the evidence it presents.

AUCTION is an entertaining movie set in the contemporary world of art collectors and art dealers. An ambitious and zealous agent for a major art auction house hears that someone wants to sell a painting by Egon Schiele. He's very skeptical and is virtually certain that the painting is a fake because it's common knowledge that such "degenerate art" (which included virtually everything that wasn't realistic) was all burned by the Nazis in a huge bonfire on Hitler's orders. But to his shock, it's authentic. Then there's the question of who is the rightful owner of the painting, the man who's selling it (it's been on his wall for decades. He is a young blue-collar worker who had no idea it was valuable), or the now-deceased prewar owner whose heirs are now rich and powerful Americans. Some of the characters only speak German and some speak only French. And of course, everyone wants to know how much people would be willing to pay for it. And virtually everyone in the cast has a complicated sexual and emotional life. The plot is complex with multiple story lines and a lot of characters who each have their own agenda. I was afraid at first that I would not be able to follow the plot, but I needn't have worried. I'm glad I saw it. My favorite characters were the young blue-collar worker (Arcadi Radeff), the female intern (Louise Chevillotte) who works for the agent, and the agent's ex-wife (Lea Drucker), who is nonetheless still supportive of her former husband (Alex Lutz). All in all, I thought it was delightful and full of that famous gallic charm.

I thought NUREMBERG was terrific on all levels. Most important is that it's solid entertainment, very well done. The script was intelligent, suspenseful, and provocative. It's basically a psychological game of cat-and-mouse between two crafty adversaries, top-Nazi (now that Hitler is dead) Hermann Goering versus the Allies' top psychiatrist Douglas Kelley as they try to prepare their testimony and cross-examination for the War Crimes Trial in the wake of World War II. They come to like and respect each other while at the same time trying win at any cost. For Goering his very life is at stake, for Kelley it's making certain that the Nazis could in no way be exonerated. They are both brilliant strategists who will do anything to win. The result is a gripping movie chock-full of great performances. There's Oscar potential for both Russell Crowe as Goering and Rami Malek as Kelley. They are given sensational support by Michael Shannon, John Slattery, Leo Woodall, and my old favorite, Richard E. Grant. Top notch writing and direction are by James Vanderbilt (whose previous credits I'm unaware of). The cinematography at first bothered me because of the use of a blue-green filter that was popular about 10 years ago, but it probably did make it easier to interpolate old newsreel footage. Also must mention the excellent music by Brian Tyler, which served to heighten the emotions without being obtrusive. For me, this is a 10-best movie I've seen in a long time and I'm a frequent moviegoer.

I have a passionate interest in musical theatre history, especially the post-World War II period. If you fall into this category, I think you'll really enjoy this movie despite the fact that it's not very cinematic. If, however, you couldn't care less about this subject, you'll be wondering what the heck was that? This is the story of the final days of wunderkind lyricist Lorenz Hart, who wrote the lyrics to some of the American Song Book's greatest songs, like "My Funny Valentine," "Where or When," "I Didn't Know What Time It Was," "My Heart Stood Still," and of course, "Blue Moon." Hart and composer Richard Rodgers had a string of hits from the 1920s into the 1940s. Both of them were heavy drinkers, but Rodgers was able to control his better. With the passage of time, Hart, according to Rodgers, became impossible to work with, so he found a new lyricist, Oscar Hammerstein II, who had already had a long career with other composers, including Sigmund Romberg, Rudolf Friml, as well as an especially fruitful collaboration with Jerome Kern. (When Kern died, Hammerstein also needed a partner.) Hart sank further and further into alcoholism. This film takes place on the opening night of OKLAHOMA, which ushered in a new era in the American musical theatre. It was a true landmark (although some might argue successfully that SHOWBOAT really did). The party takes place at Sardi's and Hart is there early talking to the bartender and the pianist, while waiting for the curtain to come down on opening night so the party can begin. He knows it's going to be a huge hit, bigger than any success he had with Rodgers. He's understandably envious. The fist half of the film is basically a monologue with Hart (played by Ethan Hawke, who is not ideal casting) recapitulating his history and his crush on a young socialite/college student who is also the daughter of one of the leaders of the producing powerhouse, The Theatre Guild. He gets drunker and drunker as he talks. The girl is played by up-and-coming actress Margaret Qualley (THE SUBSTANCE and HONEY DON'T). Her role is very minor up until the last half hour of the film, when SHE has a long monologue. As you can probably tell, this is not very cinematic material. It's more like a play by Eugene O'Neill where nobody ever has an unexpressed thought, especially when their tongues are loosened by alcohol. Hart adores the girl, but he is basically gay. And she knows it. And that's the gist of the film. If you're already a musical theatre fan you'll like this movie, but if you're not, you'll probably be bored out of your mind.

I think Luca Guadagnino is a good director and I haven't seen a Julia Roberts movie in a long time, and I'm a big fan of Michael Stuhlbarg (I've followed his stage career for 25 years), so I was hyped to see this. I also thought the trailer looked interesting. A movie exposing the evils of DEI and accusations of sexual harassment sounded timely and much needed to me. I'm going to be vague about this because I don't want to include any spoilers, but let's just say that I was quickly disappointed. I found this film very annoying. It was annoying mainly because I couldn't hear it! There are a lot of scenes that take place in public spaces and the crowd noises in the background were louder than the principal players. This was when I wished I could read lips. I was just guessing at the dialogue. There were also scenes where people send text messages on their cell phones. There were shots of their screens, but the writing was so small, I could not read it. I wasn't sure who these characters were and what their relationships to each other were. So of course, I found the story difficult to follow. At the beginning of the movie a woman goes to the bathroom but there's no toilet paper. When she looks in a supply cabinet, she finds an envelope taped to the underside of a low shelf. There is a note and a photo inside it. We don't know who put it there or who the intended recipient was supposed to be. She looks at the letter, reads it, and then tapes it back where she found it. I don't understand why that scene was in this movie. But the whole movie is like that. I thought all the actors were fine, but the script was incomprehensible to me. I wish all concerned better next time, but this one didn't do it for me.

KISS OF THE SPIDER WOMAN has in interesting history. It was originally a 1976 novel by Argentine writer Manuel Puig, then a popular film of 1986 that received 4 Oscar nominations, including Best Picture. It was a 1993 Broadway musical winning multiple Tony awards, including Best New Musical. The songs were written by John Kander and Fred Ebb, who had also written the hit shows, CABARET and CHICAGO (both becoming hit movies).

The early buzz on this film has been favorable, so I was eager to see it. My verdict: Mixed. It takes a long time to get moving and most of the musical numbers were boring to me. But after it finally takes off, it's pretty good. Its biggest asset is a sensational performance in the lead role by the mononymous "Tonatiuh," an actor I'd never heard of. I assumed he was a Latin American movie star, but according to the IMDb, he was born in Los Angeles! He's made a few movies, none of which I have ever heard of. It's premature to make Oscar predictions, but he's going to be hard to beat. It's a good role (William Hurt got an Oscar for it in the original film and the Canadian actor who played it on Broadway got the Tony for it.), but Tonatiuh also has the Latino good looks and the talent to pull it off. Other cast members were okay. Lopez did not look very attractive to me. I don't know whether or not it was intentional, but later in the movie when Tonatiuh was in drag, he and Jennifer Lopez looked alike.

This movie's fatal flaw is the script itself. The setup is good. The situation is strong. Actors and direction are fine, but there are too many unbelievable elements in the script. Would someone really burst into a meeting being held in a synagogue to humiliate an elderly parent? (There's chutzpah, and there's cruelty.) Would a TV news anchor go off script to tell a personal story? (Television bills charges to the sponsor by the minute.) Why should an attractive young woman announce that she is gay to an elderly woman? It is of no importance to the story. (They really didn't need to score any DEI points. There were plenty of minority characters as it was, since at least two of the major characters are non-white.) That said, this is one of those films that "mean well," but comes off as amateurish. The film's strongest element are the actors' performances, despite having to say, in some cases, some very improbable lines. June Squibb is a charmer and her performances in NEBRASKA and THELMA attest to her being a fine actress. But the most impressive performance in the film belongs to Rita Zohar, the protagonist's best friend who dies at the beginning of the film, but shows up in many moving flashbacks. I wouldn't say that this is a bad movie, but the script could have used some fixes.

This story of the Dreyfuss Affair has been filmed before many times, most notably as THE STORY OF EMILE ZOLA (1937) that starred Paul Muni. (Joseph Schildkraut won an Supporting Actor Oscar for his portrayal of Dreyfuss.) It was also filmed in the 1950s as I ACCUSE, with a screenplay by Gore Vidal and a starry cast that included Jose Ferrer (who also directed), Viveca Lindfors, Emlyn Williams, Leo Genn, Anton Walbrook, and Harry Andrews. This is a French film that is also given a classy production with direction by Roman Polanski and a cast led by Jean Dujardin (Best Actor Oscar winner for THE ARTIST). When it started, I was afraid it was going to be one of those talky period pieces so beloved by the elites and boring to general audiences. It gets off to a slow start, despite the first-rate production values and an exceptional cast. Polansky takes his time to build a solid foundation for what ends up being a rivetingly suspenseful film. Basically, we come to see that Dreyfuss, a career officer in the French army, who is a Jew, has been wrongly sentenced to life imprisonment on Devil's Island for the crime of treason. Higher-ups in the military have framed him to take the rap for their own guilt, and it wasn't particularly difficult because of rampant Anti-Semitism. Dujardin's character realizes the truth and fights to get Dreyfuss released, even though he himself is not particularly fond of Jews. He is blocked at every turn, but is determined to see Justice done. Historically, this case divided and polarized French society. (A big chunk of Proust's REMEMBRANCE OF THINGS PAST describes the effect of this case.) It was a traumatic and watershed event in French history, which is probably why it has been filmed so many times. Is this the best version? I haven't seen them all (there have been at least half a dozen versions, going back to George Melies's silent version of 1899); I personally have a lot of love for Hollywood's slam-bang 1937 version. But this one certainly has the best production values of any version I've seen. This film was released in Europe in 2019, but thanks to the Covid lockdown, it is only just now getting an American release. This is a good movie. I'm glad I saw it.

I'm an old man and over the years have had many gay friends (I worked in the arts). Most of them are not effeminate and most of them have served in the armed forces. The story I've heard repeatedly is that there is a lot of homosexuality in the military, but it is not acknowledged, even among the participants. This movie is sort of like that, too. The two lead characters do become physically involved, but they never really talk about their relationship. It's not the "love that dare not speak its name," but the love that dare not speak at all. That's why this movie is significant.

The story, which takes place in the early years of the 20th Century, concerns a farm boy (Paul Mescal) who also happens to be an instinctive musical prodigy and was gifted with perfect pitch. He can tell what key that roosters crow in. He meets a New England professor his same age (Josh O'Connor) who is impressed when he sings a folk song in a bar. They strike up a friendship and end up taking a trip together doing field work on collecting American folk songs, transcribing and recording them on an early recording machine that utilizes wax cylinders. The sex scenes are very subtle and are not sensationalized. I did not find them offensive. Their relationship is simple and full of mutual respect. When World War breaks out, the New Englander is drafted, but the farm boy is not because of his eyesight. (He wears glasses.) The war causes them to question what's next after it's over. The New Englander encourages the farm boy to go to Europe and sing professionally, which he does very successfully. They carry on a correspondence, but one day the letters stop coming. But life goes on. The farm boy becomes sophisticated and also has a love affair with a rich young British woman and they plan to marry. Revealing more would necessitate spoilers, which I don't to do.

The movie looks gorgeous. The American scenes in particular are reminiscent of the paintings of Andrew Wyeth. Art decoration and cinematography are beautifully detailed. The music is all based on American folk songs wonderfully augmented by evocative music composed by cellist Oliver Coates. All the actors, from even the smallest roles are pitch perfect. In the leads, both O'Connor and Mescal give powerfully understated and realistic performances. This is especially impressive because neither of them is an American. I was unfamiliar with the director, Oliver Hermanus, but I will seek out his other work. The work here is super. This movie is probably not for everybody, but those interested in folk music and American history will find it rewarding. I was tempted to add "gay studies," but I think that would be somewhat misleading. That is, however, the central issue, even though it never takes center stage. I think that's what makes the film so haunting.

I thought this movie was a delight from start to finish. It's a sensitive, yet very funny story of adolescent angst. The protagonist is Griffin, a precocious 14-year-old who writes plays and puts them on in his basement, with his stage-struck friends playing adult roles. His new play is obviously autobiographical. It's about his alcoholic mother and philandering father. He describes it as "WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF meets AMERICAN BEAUTY." Of course, his cast is composed of adolescents who don't really want to spend a lot of time rehearsing, which upsets him because is a project of passion for him. Into all this comes a 25-year-old youth named Brad, whom his mother has hired to do some work around the house. Griffin develops a crush on Brad when he finds out that the young man lives in New York and is a "performance artist." He fires his friend from the cast and replaces him with Brad, with hilarious and cringeworthy results. This could have turned into CALL ME BY YOUR NAME, but thankfully it doesn't. This is a coming-of-age story. And Griffin grows up a lot over the course of the film. This is a terrific feature debut by director-writer Nicholas Colia. I eagerly await his next film. To me, this film indicates that he's a major talent. It's a clever and heartfelt script and shows that Colia has a real ear for the speech of today's teens, and he gets wonderful performances from the whole cast. I especially loved Everett Blunck as Griffin and Kathryn Newton as Chloe (Brad's girlfriend), but they're all really excellent. Owen Teague as Brad probably has the most challenging role, but he carries it off splendidly. The parents' roles are smaller, but they are all fully realized. Bravos to all. I think this is going to be the sleeper hit of the year.

I thought this movie was absolutely fantastic, that I was watching something truly great and original: a modern-day noir with a great star performance at its center, a top-notch supporting cast, crackling dialogue, and perfect art direction. But it also contains lots over-the-top violence and unapologetic lesbian sex scenes. It certainly had my attention! Then it just abruptly ended with nothing resolved! What happened? What was the point? This was when we needed the old studio system where the producer would step in and demand rewrites and shooting additional footage that clarified things. This was a heartbreakingly wasted opportunity to do something great. Up until the "ending," I was ready to rate this one at least an 8, but I'm being kind to give it a 5. Sad. HONEY DON'T could have been great.

I'd been sitting on the fence about seeing THE PHOENICIAN SCHEME. Word-of-mouth spanned the spectrum from great to awful. This is not to mention that the last movie I saw at the cinema (FRIENDSHIP) was truly dreadful. But I wanted to get out of the house and this was playing nearby. I'm sorry I waited so long. I found THE PHOENICIAN SCHEME a very entertaining caper comedy that was reminiscent of those of the 1960s. (TOPKAPI comes to mind immediately.) Did it make sense? No, not really, but I didn't care. I enjoyed its offbeat sense of humor, and the story moved fast enough to prevent really trying to understand it. The excellent cast seemed to be having a ball and I enjoyed the ride right along with them. My favorite performance was from Michael Cera, which surprised me, but he had me laughing all the way through. He reminded me of Peter Sellers in his heyday. There's a lot of violence in this movie, but it's hard to take it seriously. Don't go expecting profundity or even coherence, and I think you'll have a good time.

I think this is probably the worst movie I have ever sat through in my long life. I almost walked out several times, but I decided to stick it out since I'd had to pay $17.00 for my senior ticket; maybe it would get better. It did not. The "story" (if you can call it that) is a farfetched saga of an obvious moron who is nonetheless married to a beautiful and intelligent woman and has a successful career in a consulting firm. He is such a jerk that it ought to be obvious to anyone that he is mentally incompetent. The film follows him on one unlikely adventure after another as he seeks to be "liked." It was an exasperating experience. I cannot believe that this thing got good reviews. The "star" was unknown to me and I plan to keep it that way. What an unappealing performer! I felt sorry for the rest of the cast for having to work with him. I'll think twice before I trust reviews next time. If it were possible, I'd give this one NO stars.

When is a crime not a crime? That seems to be a question French films are asking lately. Latest to explore this issue is Francois Ozon in his new film with the awkwardly translated title WHEN FALL IS COMING. The main story concerns a woman, Michelle, and the strained relationship with her daughter. The daughter right off the bat appears eager for her mother to die so she can inherit the lovely country home, even though Michelle has already given her the beautiful large apartment in the city. The whole film is beautifully photographed with the autumn foliage providing a spectacular backdrop. It's mushroom season. The daughter, an embittered divorcee, brings her young son to visit his grandmother, Michelle. Michelle and her grandson enjoy a very loving relationship. Michelle makes lunch featuring a sumptuous mushroom dish. After lunch, she and her grandson go on an outing together. They return to find that the daughter has fallen ill, apparently from having eaten a poison mushroom. The daughter accuses her mother of deliberately trying to poison her. The police investigate. The cops are sympathetic, but the daughter threatens to keep her grandson away from his grandmother. It turns out that Michelle has an unsavory past, which is at the root of her daughter's bitterness. Michelle's best friend is Marie-Claude, whom she accompanies to visit her son Vincent, who is imprisoned for some unstated crime. (At one point we see him going to a gay cruising ground.) Apparently, he's basically a good person who just has a lot of bad habits that get him into trouble. He loves Michelle, who has always been kind to him. When Marie-Claude dies, he becomes closer to Michelle and wants to help smooth things over between her and her daughter. I don't want to include spoilers, but things take a negative turn at this point, raising a lot of questions. The police become suspicious and step up their investigation of Michelle and Vincent. This is an intelligent and compelling film for adults. There are no car chases, explosions, or vulgar jokes. It held my attention all the way through, despite the unsensational approach to the material. Performances are all excellent, especially Helene Vincent as Michelle. (Who says that there are no good roles for older women? Maybe in Hollywood, but the French have given us a great one in this film.) The more I think about this film, the more I appreciate it.