JOE BELL (2021)

Directed By: Reinaldo Marcus Green
Written By: Larry McMurtry & Diana Ossana
Cinematography: Jacques Jouffret 
Editor: Mark Sanger 

Cast: Mark Wahlberg, Reid Miller, Connie Britton, Gary Sinise, Charles Halford, Maxwell Jenkins, Morgan Lily 

The true story of a small town, a working-class father who embarks on a walk across the U.S. to crusade against bullying after his son is tormented in high school for being gay. Meanwhile, he realizes he is instead missing out on his son’s life back at home.


Though based on a true story it’s a movie that feels more ideal in its instincts to produce a message. Even as the exact message isn’t quite so clear and makes the film feel awkward about its own subjects.

As it is definitely a message movie that ends up being about the main character rather than its message. As we follow an all-American mid-west manly man the films seems to take aim at trying to court for the film. As he deals not only with his son’s sexuality but the lack of acceptance he offered which leads to tragedy and guilt that threatens to Tear him And his family apart.

So the film seems aimed at the character trying to Make amends for his past. What the film is trying to do, Spread the message of his cause and humanize it into acceptance. 

Especially with a tough guy action star Mark Wahlberg is sensitive and open emotionally. Learning the lessons of his wrongs while also learning to be accepting. Even learning to fight for it. Hoping to open more audience members eyes and hearts to teach them about being open to others who are not like them, but help and protect them against prejudice. 

Though for as honorable as the character might be. It shows how hypocritical the character can be and how damaged he is by guilt. Allowing for a complex character, but makes the film More about him Then the message.

Luckily all the performances are believable and strong. Which is a particular strength of director Reinaldo Marcus Green in his previous films KING RICHARD and MONSTERS AND MEN he usually Gets grounded performances out of the stars more than expected by burying them so deep that it never feels Like showboating or a stunt. 

The film manages to stay on message by trying to be poignant. It feels heavy-handed but that might be what is needed in trying to send this film’s message. As not to be some kind of saintly or martyred movie or make one of the wrong characters. Instead of trying to make it a character study.

The film is admirable, we see the main character break down and cry. We watch him as he goes downtrodden and even beat up.  

Connie Britton’s character is the strongest throughout. As she is no-nonsense and always feels truthful. She quickly becomes the film’s heart. As she always seems in the right place with most scenes built to get an emotional reaction.

The film shows the horror of bullying and the prejudices you face when being LGBTQ+ in a small and small-minded community and what is going Against them. 

The film also manages to show some good people in the world and that through it all. We are all Messed up and have our own personal problems, but we should try to help and support one another. That maybe you dislike or choose to hate, has nothing to do with them and says something more about you.

The film spells it all out in the third act. If you think it might be too subtle. Those you love let them know you love and support them. Accept them for who they ate or it might forever haunt you literally.

This is a good-hearted film that feels like it is pandering to a degree. As the story is more told in the aftermath. While literally showing is to don’t judge another until you have walked a mile in their shoes.

The film didn’t seem to ah e much attention upon release. It was on my radar to watch especially with mark Wahlberg trying a more dramatic socially conscious role. Which is a kind of relief from his other usual roles where there is always a certain comfort that can feel Smug or overbearing. 

Even if it feels hypocritical and heavy-handed at times. Especially the Ending. Where it really hits home. As a tragedy with flashbacks. Though have to go with the true story and try to inform. What might have happened on the road. As the film ends up being episodic more about dealing with guilt. That strays from

The message. Especially with speeches that seem not that special and just more short homespun wisdom That could be said at group therapy or an AA meeting. As they Don’t Come off enlightening just basic 

Grade: C+

THE BIRDCAGE (1996)

Directed By Mike Nichols 
Written By: Elaine May 
Based on An Earlier Screenplay By: Francis Veber, Edouard Molinaro, Marcello Danon & Jean Poiret
Based in the play La Cage Aux Folles by: Jean Poiret
Cinematography: Enrique Lubezki
Editor: Arthur Schmidt 

Cast: Robin Williams, Nathan Lane, Gene Hackman, Dianne Wiest, Hank Azaria, Christine Baranski, Dan Futterman, Calista Flockhart, Tom McGowan, Grant Heslov, Kirby Mitchell, Ann Cusack, Trina McGee-Davis

A gay cabaret owner and his drag queen companion agree to put up a false straight front so that their son can introduce them to his fiancée’s right-wing moralistic parents.


this film at the time was a little daring or a bit of a gamble for a mainstream audience. Though it was also self-assured because of the popular cast. Though behind the scenes you had a bunch of heavy hitters. Who managed to raise the bar on a familiar tale and still knock it out of the park. 

Which shockingly had some actors playing against type. Where we have a fun yet more restrained Robin Williams while playing more of a funny conservative grouch. Seeing gene hackman in drag is certainly different and new.

The film also tries to put in some satire of the political culture at the time and while camping up gay culture at least offers a glimpse inside of it and offers representation.

This film also is really the big screen introduction of Nathan Lane as Albert the drag queen lover who has been practically a mother to robin Williams son in the film. Playing a role that was abandoned by Steve Martin last minute due to scheduling problems. Thilough broadway star Nathan lane took it and made it a star-making Role.

Hank Azaria also makes his presence felt in his supporting role as the couples maid, assistant and cook. Who is also part of the slapstick laughs later in the film.

This is one of those films that came around at the right place and right time. As the film and play was already a hit In France and waiting for an American remake for years that never got made which might have been out of fear in the 1989’s to portray a gay relationship. non chalantly with mainstream big name actors. So that when it did come along the culture was a bit more relaxed and if made today might not even bat too many eyelashes.

Luckily it is still hilarious to watch even on this day and age. Even when the Jokes are a little more obvious they still make you laugh. As there is wit on display as well as physical comedy and just plain old slapstick in the third act.

Out of the cast if anyone is flat It’s the young couple looking to get married played by Claista Flockhart and Dan Futterman though in a film filled with flamboyant and over the top characters you need some to be more quiet and seemingly normal to even it out a little. though they come off a little dull and Futterman Looks way older than Flockhart 

While the film is a laugh riot from beginning to the end it also has character moments that come off more serious and dramatic. As even after the so called Macho lesson the scene where lane tries to act like a straight male in a suit is a thing of beauty and partial pain.

You can feel its theatrical roots throughout it truly strongly in The theirs act where everything comes to a head. What truly is amazing is that while it was dating at its time it plays off so cute that now it feels like a more modern comedic classic that the whole family can enjoy. Even if there are times when it feels overloaded with stereotypes. 

It is so styled yet feels so haywire. That while it might seem like it is filling turbulence it’s always smooth sailing. 

Though there is an overwhelming comedic quality with heart and care that had me going to see it in theaters more than once or twice. 

Grade: A-

MOMMIE DEAREST (1981)

Directed By: Frank Perry
Written By: Frank Perry, Frank Yablans, Tracy Hotchner & Robert Getchem 
Based on The Book by: Christina Crawford 
Cinematography: Paul Lohmann
Editor: Peter E. Berger 

Cast: Faye Dunaway, Diana Scarwid, Steve Forrest, Howard Da Silva, Rutanya Alda, Jocelyn Brando 

This is a mother and daughter tale and partial biography as it is more Christina Crawford’s story and memoir. 


This movie already has its own reputation. Mostly as a camp classic. Not that it seems like it was intended that way, which is what makes it more enjoyable overall is that this was done with an earnestness. Seeking to be a Hollywood tale based on a bestseller that qualifies more like gossip. More a supposed peek behind the scenes at a legendary actress that by today’s standards would have maybe been a tv-movie. This seems to be a blueprint for future films of this type.

One wonders if it was meant to be camp with Faye Dunaway’s look and some of the raised ridiculous melodrama of some scenes. It sometimes feels like an homage to the women of classic movies and the types of movies. Ms. Crawford made it throughout her career.

As his film goes behind the scenes but constantly seeks to have an aura of glamour. The film isn’t as grand as it presents itself. As it stays mostly indoors and feels like it takes place more on sets.

The film isn’t a biography of Joan Crawford, but more of Christina Crawford and her years spent with her adoptive mother. Based on her book which became a bestseller. As it is a gossip piece which I am sure has helped and hurt its reputation. These days there are so many books like this that they barely make an impact. 

What gives the film its luster is Faye Dunaway over the top but it seems pitch-perfect performance which has been the anchor and mascot for this film. It seems particularly when it comes to drag performers too. A sort of early inspiration. It might have partially damaged her career at the time, but she gives it her all and makes it memorable. As soon as you are done with the film. She is the one thing you probably won’t forget. She is at the center of it all.

No matter what happens or who she is in a scene with the film And scene is all about her. Diana Scarwid Co-Stars as Christina Crawford. Has to endure and stand up to her. She holds her own but is nowhere near as strong or powerful, but gets full credit for surviving and not backing down

So much so that you barely really notice a thing or anyone else. It is legendary in its own right as it is still talked about today next to her best-remembered performances in films such as NETWORK and BONNIE & CLYDE.

The scene that helped me discover camp and made me Laugh. While Christina is in boarding school and she ends up fooling around with a guy in a barn. (The teenagers are all played by adult actors who look too old) another girl discovers them and yells “I’m Gonna tell” is so ridiculous and the tone is so over the top. Almost what you would believe a 9-year-old would tell.

So many memorable scenes that are like the greatest hits of a sort with the forced haircut, the wire hangers meltdown, or the swimming race. 

The film is melodramatic, though as flagrant as she is her behavior is somewhat to be expected of what we know now 

While the film is fine at times it feels overwrought and downright dull as you wait for the next over-the-top thing to happen. 

Grade: B-

GOOD ON PAPER (2021)

Directed By: Kimmy Gatewood
Written By: Iliza Shlesinger
Cinematography: Giles Dunning 
Editor: Kyla Plewes 

Cast: Iliza Shlesinger, Ryan Hansen, Margaret Cho, Rebecca Rittenhouse, Beth Dover, Kimia Behpoornia, Matt McGorry, Alison Becker 

After years of putting her career first, a stand-up comic meets a guy who seems perfect: smart, nice, successful and possibly too good to be true.


this film has the right premise which is based on a true experience of the star of the film Ilza Schlesinger 

So that the high concept premise works but the scenes feel somewhat flat or trying too hard to be madcap but keep an emotional heft and explore the main character’s mentality that it is trying too hard and too much. 

Which then makes the film also play kind of more like a stupid comedy aimed at a female audience.

The film is obviously a star vehicle for stand-up comedian iliza who plays a version of herself and it explores her issues romantically and professionally. As she seems to always End up with good-looking jerks and this guy charms her more by seemingly being himself but then she discovers he seems To be a pathological liar.

The film then busies itself with her and her friend played by Margaret Cho trying to catch and expose him. Luckily Cho steals all of her scenes and you wish there were more of her in the film.

By the time we get to the third act, the film takes a turn of standing up against toxic masculinity. As the boyfriend character ends up being a fake nice guy and less of a misguided romantic and it has a message of wine supporting one another instead of being in competition in general and worse for the pleasure of men. 

All good messages. One just wishes it was told In a better project. As this one comes off as indulgent and has sparks of humor. That never quite catches fire. So that it feels monotonous and almost like a sitcom. Where you are left wondering. How much evidence do you need to be convinced and why are you still bothering? 

The Jokes and situations fall flat constantly and even the jokes seem more than a little grating and awkward. At least the film seems to know it’s low aiming and not that serious.

Ilza is an appealing actress and a humorous stand-up with a unique point of view but here it feels like the middle of the road, not enough bite or point of view to give it the stakes it seeks, and also the humor is too lightweight to make any kind of impression. It’s like having a Twinkie instead of the big cookie 

As this is a movie where mostly the secondary characters and bit role players are more interesting in their little amount of screen time over the leads who are in most of the movie. 

Grade: D+

SOMEONE LIKE YOU (2001)

Directed By: Tony Goldwyn 
Written By: Elizabeth Chandler
Based On The Novel “ANIMAL HUSBANDRY” By: Laura Zigman
Cinematography: Anthony B. Richmond 
Editor: Dana Congdon

Cast: Ashley Judd, Hugh Jackman, Marisa Tomei, Greg Kinnear, Ellen Barkin, Donna Hanover, Catherine Dent, Nicole leach, Peter Friedman, Colleen Camp, Mirelle Enos, Veronica Webb, Naomi Judd

After being jilted by her boyfriend, a talk show talent scout writes a column on the relationship habits of men which gains her national fame.


Way before the ADELE song on the same name. This movie came around when Ashley Judd was getting used to being a star. This was the film where it would really rest on her shoulders.

The problem is that this film is so generic. That even at the time it came out there felt outdated. It’s one of those films that came out in the 90’a and while you can tell it is a studio film it still comes across as no-frills. As there is no particular style everything’s made to look bland. So that when something that looks sharp in style and person. It is jarring. The film feels like it could have been a storyline on the television show FRIENDS rather than getting its own movie.

It also feels like everyone is too for their roles and especially to still have the character’s mindsets.

This film is disposable. So disposable I watched it recently and don’t remember much of this film. I know enough that I would never watch it again.

Hugh Jackson plays a cad who somehow becomes roommates with a co-worker played by Judd. She has recently broken up with her boyfriend and at first, they can’t stand each other (then why live together in the first place. It is New York after all so I guess desperate measures) slowly but surely, of course, they fall in love and he changes his ways.

I enjoy Hugh Jackman a lot. He is like one of those classic leading men from the 1940s and ’60s and at least the film in a scene shows why his character is so jaded and cruel as a ladies’ man. Though here he rarely has any chemistry with his female co-stars which really doesn’t help if you are making a romantic comedy. (Nor does the theory of double negative where the chemistry is supposed to be bad that it comes off charming eventually) Though there is something innately watchable about him.

Watching this film less for the romance and more for the comedy. As there is already little romance and more talk of it than anything. The comedy also never really comes other than some catty one-liners more from Jackman than Judd

At least Hugh Jackman seems to know he’s not in a necessarily good movie. He is just biding his time until each scene ends and is happy with the work. Not to mention a paycheck.

One can’t get mad at this film totally as it fits its conventions and lets you know what type of film it is. It doesn’t try to misdirect to make itself seem like it has more depth or one-of-a-kind filmmaking. Still even for its genre while competently filmed it is majorly disappointing in most aspects.

By the end, it also makes it obvious that the main character needed the break-up to happen for her to grow. As she would have been noted and settled into marriage with the wrong person in the first place and Even Though would have been happy. She also would have been bored and stuck 

The film is strictly painted by numbers and off the assembly line. I don’t even have that much more to say about it.

Grade: F

LOVERBOY (1989)

Directed By: Joan Micklin Silver
Written By: Robin Schiff, Leslie Dixon & Tom Ropelewski
Story By: Robin Schiff 
Cinematography: John Hora
Editor: Rick Shaine 

Cast: Patrick Dempsey, Kirstie Alley, Kate Jackson, Robert Ginty, Dylan Walsh, Nancy Valen, Barbara Carrera, Vic Tayback, Bernie Coulson, Kim Miyori, Carrie Fisher, Robert Picardo, E.G. Daily 

Randy is still unfocused after 2 years in college. His dad will no longer pay tuition and Randy gets a job delivering pizzas. Several cute cougars pay him $200 for pizza delivery and “services rendered”. Their husbands?


This is the final chapter in the unofficial teenage sex comedies starring Patrick Dempsey. That started with CAN’T BUY ME LOVE and continued with IN THE MOOD and this is the finale. Unless you want to count HEAVEN HELP US in which he had a smaller supporting role and SOME GIRLS. Which was much more dramatic.

This film is what one would consider a seat filler. As a movie that seemed more simple and meant to fill seats and hopefully win the box office for a week or two. Rather than any concerns about quality. As on face Value, this film seems rather simple about a college kid forced to work and who lucks into being a gigolo for older married women.

You would expect more a sex comedy that was more concerned with T & A, but surprisingly though it has it’s fair share of juvenile humor and cheap jokes. It surprisingly has heart also as it doesn’t focus so much on sex, but more on romance and making women feel beautiful and their full worth. That their husbands have seemed to have stopped or given up. 

One of the reasons that this film might be more intended for a female audience is that it has a softer touch due to the direction of Joan Micklin Silver who had directed more independent dramas before this and this film seeming her one chance at more of a mainstream big studio release.

While the film has Its laughs and a surprisingly stacked cast considering its premise. It also allows for aortic Dempsey to show off his physical comedy skills. Is more of a surprising romantic male lead with an atrocious dye job at the beginning of the film. 

I remember watching this film. In The theater when it came out. As I did with CAN’T BUY NE LOVE. While that film affected me more. As I couldn’t wait to see it based on all the commercials and being a fan of Patrick Dempsey this film was perfectly fine and keeps you entertained. It didn’t have what I was expecting but it offered a nice surprise. That actually manages to offer some substance and polish.

Grade: C+

SUMMER OF 85 (2020)

Written & Directed By: Francois Ozon

Based on the book “Dance On My Grave” By Aidan Chambers

Cinematography: Hichame Alouie

Editor: Laurie Gardette

Cast: Felix Lefebvre, Benjamin Voisin, Philippine Velge, Valeria Bruni Tedeschi, Melvil Poupaud, Isabelle Nanty 

When 16-year-old Alexis is caught up in the deceitful Normandy sea, David heroically saves him from drowning. And, this is how Alexis meets the person of his life. But, how long will this tumultuous, dreamy relationship last? Will the dream last for more than one summer, the summer of 85?


The film doesn’t go where you expect it to go. What keeps you guessing and mystified when it comes to his film is how it plays with time throughout and leaves you expecting the worse when things are mostly innocent 

It feels a bit similar to CALL BE BY YOUR NAME. As it is a coming-of-age love story between two males of intense feelings and obsession, but yet always feels a bit more of a thriller than a true romance. Though then again young love can be innocent and messy.

Even though nonchalant It’s not even truly coming out film. As it is all relatively handled with no big revelations. Though shows itself as a love story and not one of lust or dangerous obsession 

The film runs on expectations. So that as it goes along. You constantly feel a sense of dread. Always looking for clues, hints, or motives. 

All seems to go well until a girl is thrown into the mix. Even when she had the best of interests. Proving to be loyal to all.

The main characters are the rebellious carefree type versus an introverted romantic. At first, he believes it is all in his head and just an innocent friendship. Then he realizes he is being seduced. Even though the more aggressive character might be bisexual or a sensationalist, narcissistic and not prepared for his feelings. Especially being so young, not ready for the intensity.

By the end, you find instead of a thriller you have gone through a dark drama. That also feels like a string after-school special or a coming-of-age film that has thriller elements. 

Grade: B-

THRASHIN’ (1986)

Directed By: David Winters
Written By: Paul Brown & Alan Sacks
Cinematography: Chuck Colwell
Editor: Lorenzo DeStefano & Nicholas Smith Production Designer: Catherine Hardwicke

Cast: Josh Brolin, Robert Rusler, Pamela Gidley, Josh Richman, Sherilyn Fenn, Chuck McCann, David Wagner, Tony Hawk, Tony Alva, Brooke McCarter Jr, Brett Marx, Mark Munski

Two skateboarding gangs battle each other for supremacy, and a member of one gang falls in love with the sister of his rival.


Now I have to give a curve to this skateboarding movie. As it is nostalgic fun that I probably would have enjoyed if I had watched it when I was younger and when it had initially come out, but watching it now. 

It is funnier in unintentional ways other than just the styles of yesteryear. Though the film does raise some questions and gives way to many observations like… 

Why do the corporate sponsors and owners of skate and Nike companies in these 80s movies come across as pedophiles? As they are way too old and way too giddy to be around young people. 

The daggers are way too obvious in their sabotage. Especially laughing while their victim is getting stitched up. Right in his face. Is this a machismo thing? Or just I dare you to say something? 

Also, why is it a gang when it involves minorities but a crew or group of friends when all caucasian? In this movie and beyond. Nice to see Robert Rusler as the suave skateboard villain leader of the daggers. Even if his casting makes you wonder exactly how old these characters are supposed to be. 

It always amazes me to see Josh Brolin in early roles as until MOD SQUAD the movie I really didn’t start recognizing him from movies like THE GOONIES, but you know you’re in another era of movies. When the integrated skate park gang are the villains. 

The film has the usual teenage romance in between the skateboard drama as well as lame jokes. Though I am not a prude it is shocking how fast Josh Brolin and Pamela Gidley’s character hook up on their first date practically but I guess when it’s true love you just know. 

This is more a film for teen girls to watch and fall in love with probable hunky poster boys at the time, but strangely also a film that bypasses that audience making the film more advertised for teenage boys, who might be into the fad of the time skateboarding. Leaving a definite unintentional homoerotic charge throughout the film and in the scenes. As even the villain of the film seems more into his look and glamour above all else

The highlight of the film is the joust skate off and just how trusting and willing a female character is to hitchhike her way to California with random truckers, but hey this movie is presented all in good fun and in supposedly simpler times. 

And the RED HOT CHILLI PEPPERS are in this movie performing!!!! Some added cool points for the film. Though you will find them in quite a few films. It also makes it feel more like a teen movie by having a noted band in the film and their performance being a centerpiece almost.

If looking for a totally tubular nostalgic blast from the past check out this film. Even though for all of its ridiculous juvenile fun. I just couldn’t get on the same wavelength. 

Grade: D+

THIS IS THE NIGHT (2021)

Written & Directed By: James DeMonaco
Cinematography: Anastas N. Michos
Editor: Keith Fraase 

Cast: Naomi Watts, Frank Grillo, Lucius Hoyos, Madelyn Cline, Chase Vacnin, Bobby Cannavale, River Alexander, Max Casella, Steve Lipman, Method Man, Lenny Venito, Jonah Hauer-King

A teenager living in Staten Island during the summer of 1982 embarks on a quest that draws in his family members.


This is a sweet coming-of-age film. It is earnest and tries to give you an overview of the neighborhood, families, times, and atmosphere. So that it feels more natural. Which in a way only exposes how false it is at times. The problem is that it feels way too familiar for the audience.

It tells the tale of a family throughout two days that will come to define them. Each member of the family has to deal with a challenge and we see how they deal with it and overcome it.

Even if most of the film is the adventure of the youngest son and his mission to tell the girl of his dreams happy birthday and that he loves her. With plenty of traps and roadblocks along the way.

The film works as far as nostalgia taking us to STATEN island during the 1980s and while that is fun. Even putting at the heart of the film is the debut of ROCKY III. Which inspired and ties the films and its character together.

The film still feels way too familiar. It’snWorth watching if not necessarily a film fan or for a younger audience, but it offers no surprises nor any reason to really stay invested.

As even when young ladies are willing to sneak them into a bar and give them plenty of drinks out of nowhere. You can tell something is not right and it feels too much of a scene from the warriors.

So that by the end this feels more like an Italian American inspired television movie and while it might be more autobiographical for the writer-director James DeMonaco

It also feels more like a movie that has a checklist and makes sure it goes through the list one by one and on schedule. As the teen adventures Seem a bit like an homage to THE WARRIORS.

Even when it comes to the bully getting their comeuppance you can’t wait. Even if the film makes you wait a bit too long and his girlfriend gives him up a little too easily. It just makes her seem that much more innocent despite her father being the local heavy 

Even in the part that involves a character coming out of the closet while it’s Appreciated that the character is confused and not sure about who they are exactly. Was it necessary for them to do it in drag? Maybe that was the truth for the character and how they choose to express themselves, but it offers up a bonding Experience. It also feels a bit stereotypical.  Especially when it comes to acceptance from others who are just a little too quick. So the true film feels cookie-cutter. As everything is resolved in the end a little too neatly and finally.

The cast is impressive and the bigger names get a chance to show off in certain roles we might not expect. Especially Method man who seems like he is playing a minor role but is one of importance later on and as a known resident of STATEN island it is nice to see him represent. 

It could easily be seen as ironic that the film in question At the center of this film is ROCKY III, but it shows no matter what might be universally thought of Something. If you can identify with characters that bring you peace, pride, or inspiration that is all that matters, and how some characters are icons to communities and bring them together on the same wavelength. 

Though Bobby Cannavale is left with a more stereotypical role. That can be said of half the cast. Though Frank Grillo gets to play a more dramatic role it still has him involved in a fight scene. 

In the end, the film can be entertaining. It just feels like you have seen it before and has been built off of other films you have seen and never quite feels itself or fresh. Even if it has its heart in the right place.

GRADE: C

SWITCH (1991)

Written & Directed By: Blake Edwards 
Cinematography: Dick Bush 
Editor: Robert Pergament 

Cast: Ellen Barkin, Jimmy Smits, Perry King, JoBeth Williams, Lorraine Bracco, Tony Roberts, Bruce Payne, Lynette Anthony, Victoria Mahoney, Basil Hoffman, Catherine Keener, Kevin Kilner, David Wohl, Tea Leoni, Jim J. Bullock, Rick Aiello 

Steve Brooks is a sexist and the prototype macho. Unfortunately one day he is killed by one of his girlfriends. In heaven, though, there is no place for men like him and he is sent back to earth in the body of a woman so that he can see how women are treated by men like the one he once was.


Initially, it seemed this was a movie that was going to be a comedy of comeuppance and body-switching that had a kind of. Resurgence with moves like VICE VERSA, LIKE FATHER LIKE SON and 18 AGAIN or the teenage version SOMETHING SPECIAL 

This film is definitely outdated. The premise is Intriguing when it came out and caused some controversy when it did. It seems like a movie that is intentionally trying to be provocative and subtle In its own way. 

Watching it now it seems a bit tame but it does feel like a lothario male getting his come upance and Learning life lessons as having to go through life as an adult woman to try and get into heaven.

Learning through trials and tribulations. Though the film is trying to be pro-female and their rights. It still comes off as sexist. While allowing for plenty of sex scenes and nudity that it comes off as a sexual farce. 

The film does have Its fair share of funny scenes and Ellen Barkin is really Terrific in the lead role. Showing she has comedic timing and is thoroughly believable throughout. This is actually one of her better and more memorable roles. Where she isn’t necessarily the bad girl sexpot for a change. Normally this would have been more of a star-making role for her. As it is one of her unfortunately few leading roles in a film.  

Though the third act is rough. Having a child by means of drunken encounter pretty much seems at least as far as the character goes as date rape as she didn’t really give consent and finding a kind of happiness afterward with her best male friend who falls for him In Female form. 

Though ridiculous it doesn’t come off as physical or far-fetched as his previous movie SKIN DEEP. As here it seems that legendary writer/director Blake Edwards is trying and has invested interest in this film. Though he definitely seems to be trying to push some buttons when it comes to the subjects. While at times crasser than it needs to be. It definitely is more outdated than expected

There is still plenty of physical comedy throughout which is his specialty and some satire though towards the end it gets more serious and dramatic from its sillier early antics. 

Though this caused a bit of controversy at the time. This might have been a film that was made too early or too late for the times. As it is certainly a high concept and would have probably been more insulting than thought-provoking if made in the 1980s

The film also treats the killing of the main character so easily as flippant and more like a plot device rather than needed or really felt. As he never lied to these women so their murder seems madder at themselves for falling for him. Not only that but the film treats the fact that he was promiscuous as more his major sin and maybe his attitude towards women as we never Hear or even see him really treat any of the women. So the film generalized and tries to make a point figuring the audience will go with it 

Grade: C+