THE HOUSE OF YES (1997)

Written & Directed By: Mark Waters

Based on The play By: Wendy Macleod

Cinematography: Michael Spiller

Editor: Pamela Martin

Cast: Parker Posey, Tori Spelling, Josh Hamilton, Freddie Prinze Jr., Genevieve Bujold, Rachael Leigh Cook

A mentally unbalanced young woman – convinced she is Jackie Kennedy – flies into a murderous rage when her brother returns home to reveal he is engaged.


The only reason to watch this film is to see the performance of Parker Posey. As the storyline even feels more quirky than revelatory or making a mark. 

It’s a star-making turn if the movie was more successful and could match her performance. The film has a stern look and feel. As it is based on a play and feels like it. As everything feels staged. Which leaves no room for spontaneity. Where everything feels weird and quirky here just because. No real reason.

It also feels like every moment and line is planned. The characters are quirky but harmless. So that it comes off as more a work of literature than of the makings of a film.

Anytime worker paper is on screen. Which is lucky most of the time. She blows all the other actors away on screen. (Which is especially easy when it comes to Freddie Prinze Jr’s performance) when she is not around you miss her. As with the pink suit she wears throughout it is bright and really one of the few sources of color that cut through all the drab that surrounds it.

The reason I am writing so much about her is that there isn’t too much to say about the rest of the film.

Tori Spelling tries to gain respectability at the time. Showing she can act dramatically and here she doesn’t embarrass herself but she is given a role that while it is vital also comes off a little disposable by the end. Which also feels telling of most of her big screen roles at the time.

This is probably one of the better Freddie Prinze Jr. movies that he appeared in. As one can at least remember him here.

Looking at the grade you can pretty much guess the way I feel about most of his films. His character here starts off one and then makes an about-face. That is never really successfully explained or believable.

This is director Mark Waters’s directorial debut and he shows technical skills. One wishes he had chosen a better screenplay to debut with. Luckily after this, he had better chances to show a flair behind the camera. (MEAN GIRLS)

The film aims to be provocative and artistic which you can feel in every one of its frames but it feels like too much pressure in itself which it can’t contain. Nor can it escape its theatrical origins 

Rent this but a warning first. Only if you are a Parker Posey fan and want to see her greatness on screen. If not you can skip it 

Grade: D+

VANYA ON 42ND STREET (1994)

Directed By: Louis Malle
Screenplay By: Andre Gregory 
Based On The Play “DYADYA  VANYA” By Anton Chekhov
Play Adaptation By: David Mamet 
Cinematography: Declan Quinn
Editor: Nancy Baker 

Cast: Julianne Moore, Wallace Shawn, Lynn Cohen, Larry Pine, Brooke Smith, Jerry Mayer, Andre Gregory, George Gaynes, Phoebe Brand, Madhur Jeffrey 

An uninterrupted rehearsal of Chekhov’s “Uncle Vanya” played out by a company of actors. The setting is their run-down theater with an unusable stage and crumbling ceiling. The play is shown act by act with the briefest of breaks to move props or for refreshments. The lack of costumes, real props, and scenery is soon forgotten.


though you can tell it’s more performance, so stripped down and organic that it sometimes feels like the actors’ lives and drama might be bleeding into the performances. Keeping the audience on its toes and feeling magically

Though from time to time you can see the people watching. As an audience as well as the director. The film begins traditionally as the actors and director arrive to let us see the setup and give us a New York street view placing the location to a degree.

How it works, not such a staged production, but any distraction. No illumination. So that we are close in the middle of the action and relationships and characters as the camera stays close, rarely moving, and is always close in and tight on their faces. Feels like it is giving us intimacy with the characters.

Wasn’t quite sure exactly when the play started as it seemed more like a general conversation at first then all of a sudden moved on. Though serious it feels adventurous and experimental, open and free.

This is another collaboration that feels similar in spirit yet bigger and not as much of an endurance test. Whereas MY DINNER WITH ANDRE seems almost like a documentary of an intellectual dinner conversation between two friends that reflects so much personality and personality about the people involved. Though we know it is a put-on production, in reality, it was the actors using their real names and partial history but really two originally created characters. Here we have Andre Gregory break up the scenes and guide the audience a bit so that we are In New locations within the play.

Though we are with the camera and the theatrical viewers are right up on them they manage to establish being alone and to themselves quite well. So good it’s hard to tell the difference

Truly be amazing if done straight through act breaks need to explain what has passed and where we are at

Happy to see Brooke smith who over the years has quite a resume. Not exactly a star but a recognizable character actress over the years. Who has earned her success from small to significant supporting roles seems as if we can watch her grow up on the screen as I remember her early first role in THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. One of my favorite immoral films in junior high school and high school where I earned the nickname Hannibal the cannibal by fellow students and Jeffrey danger because of the similar first name and I was also quiet and unassuming. It’s always a surprise to see her even at first if she seems miscast like in BAD COMPANY.

Grade: A

THE OUTFIT (2022)

Directed By: Graham Moore
Written By: Graham Moore & Jonathan McClain
Cinematography: Dick Pope
Editor: William Goldenberg 

Cast: Mark Rylance, Zoey Deutch, Dylan O’Brien, Johnny Flynn, Simon Russell Beale, Alan Mehdizadeh, Nikki Amuka-Bird 

An expert cutter must outwit a dangerous group of mobsters in order to survive a fateful night.


The film makes a nice attempt at trying to breathe life into a throwback gangster tale. The cast is willing to throw their hearts and efforts into it to seem authentic.

The film takes place mainly in one location and is dialogue-heavy. So that it feels more suited for the stage rather than the screen. The constant twists the characters and story take will keep the audience’s interest. The double crosses galore. Which is one of the film’s strengths. As if not for that the film might have been more of a display in dress-up and been somewhat stiff.

What saves the film overall is the performance of the lead Mark Rylance who takes over the role and the film. As he stays focused and is so mesmerizing to behold that you wish the rest of the film was up to his level. 

This also leaves the cast just trying to catch up to him In Strength and charisma. Even if sometimes it feels like the younger cast members get lost in their costumes and various period-era accents. That places them more trying in the land of make-believe but good enough to keep the film going 

The film is more of a dark tale but never feels like it wallows in it. It is a nice presentation but doesn’t rise to the level overall that various parts of it do. So it feels unbalanced but a pleasant experience. 

Grade: B-

HURLY-BURLY (1998)

Directed By: Anthony Drazan
Written By: David Rabe (Screenplay/play)
Cinematography: Changwei Gu
Editor: Dylan Tichenor 

Cast: Sean Penn, Kevin Spacey, Robin Wright, Meg Ryan, Garry Shandling, Anna Paquin, Chazz Palminteri 

Hollywood movers and shakers dissect their own personal lives when everything seems to clash together.


Based on a play this film feels very theatrical. Though it never comes alive or feels vivid it more feels like everyone is going through the motions. 

Even as it shows the dark side of Hollywood as the characters aren’t likable at all. They never exactly redeem themselves. We just keep watching them torture themselves and others in this kind of well dressed he’ll

As the lead character of Eddie seems to be the only character who realizes that he should loath his actions and character 

While the trailer makes the film Look exciting and alive. Watching it feels drab and almost colorless. Strangely it feels like while there is a great cast most of them feel miscast. 

Again though originally a play. Being set in Los Angeles it feels like the movie should feel more open. The film sometimes leaves the apartment that is shared by the two main characters but not enough. As Los Angeles is a place where your home is kind of your sanctuary but it is also Hollywood and the characters are all involved in that life. Which requires being more social and going places 

It’s not a total loss as the cast are all serviceable in their roles. Most seem to try so hard to be out of their usual roles and onscreen personae they are known for. 

Sean Penn brings his usual immersion to the role and feels electrifying no one else feels that way except maybe Garry Shandling, that is more him playing a producer creep that feels inside of his wheelhouse.

Kevin Spacey is fine in his role but his dyed blonde hair is distracting. Meg Ryan is good in her role and quite natural but it also feels like stunt casting 

None of these characters would you like or want to really spend any amount of time with. Though they complain quite a bit. These are characters who work for a theatrical price because you stay for the acting and character more than the story and are more trapped with them in play form. If only for the amount you paid to see it and made an investment and are not going to walk out as easily. When it comes to film you care about acting and characters, but an audience usually mostly is interested in where the story is going and plot and if it doesn’t move it feels stuck 

Maybe if director Anthony Drazan wouldn’t direct it as he is more a theater director and he can refine the performances and lock but a different director might have tried to make it more visual and open the movie up even though admittedly as a theatrical piece the strength is in the script, performances, and dialogue. The film called for more of a director with flair visually. 

So this feels like an all-star cast wasted not on a project not worth their time but one that doesn’t live up to its pedigree.

Grade: C+

BEING THE RICARDOS (2021)

Written & Directed By: Aaron Sorkin 
Cinematography: Jeff Cronenweth
Editor: Alan Baumgarten

Cast: Nicole Kidman, Javier Bardem, J.K. Simmons, Nina Arianda, Tony Hale, Alia Shawkat, Jake Lacy, Linda Lavin, Ronny Cox, Clark Gregg, Nelson Franklin 

September 6, 1953. With Hollywood facing the ever-present threat of Joseph McCarthy’s smear campaign, Lucille Ball, America’s beloved redhead and star of the tremendously popular CBS sitcom I Love Lucy , finds herself confronted with the Red Scare hysteria. As the American columnist and radio personality Walter Winchell drops a bombshell at the end of his broadcast, Lucille and her Cuban-American actor husband Desi Arnaz must survive one long, overwhelmingly eventful week, as if navigating a rocky marriage wasn’t enough. As a result, in the following seven distressful days, scandalous gossip and ongoing infidelity will put the couple’s relationship to the test.


This is a film where you get what you expect for the most part. A look behind the scenes of the television show I LOVE LUCY in dramatic fashion. You get the gossip and some of the histories that made Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz such icons.

Though there are flashbacks most of the film takes place during a charged week of their lives. Where Lucille ball is in the papers for being an alleged communist. Dealing with all This backlash while we see how much of a perfectionist she is when it comes to the show and the comedy. Where she will stand up to the writers and the directors and for all her success she still has to ask her husband to put his foot down to follow her orders.

We also see her worrying about her marriage as more and more evidence of Desi’s wayward eyes become apparent and also dealing with the constant arguments of her co-Stars who always feel she is short-changing them. 

The innovative part of the movie is setting this all in one week and trying to give an overview of not a life but a certain period in the lives and exploring the culture of the day.

Even if at first weren’t necessarily that confident in the casting but while never quite looked like the real-life characters they are supposed to be playing. They do certainly come alive and make the characters their own and give them a familiarity that we recognize from watching the classic episodes.

The film certainly feels like Oscar bait and has a certain prestige. It certainly looks great and the actors give it their all.

When Not as impressed by their performances at least they follow or come into Their own when it comes to instinctually play up the dramatic motivations and character moments 

The only false moments are I. The end when they all start to get along and praise one another as heroes because of the uncertain nature, but what also saves that moment to feel a little more uncertain is a revelation that makes it not quite such a cookie-cutter ending.

While a captivating experience the film quite comes as alive as an audience might expect. As the direction is plain and never quite vivid. It certainly fits the material and makes the stages, offices, and studios come alive and seem bigger, studied, and a little exotic to give us pretty backgrounds to frame the action and actors. 

There are breaks in the action so we get to know the main characters’ pasts in pieces.

Also Rather than reading classic scenes, we see behind the scenes as we know why we liked her in the first place on the screen. It shows how much work Lucille Ball put in and how much control she strives to have to provide quality for the audience.

Writer-Director Aaron Sorkin finds a way for plenty of walk-and-talk shots and tries to throw more obstacles to be more impressive. 

Grade: B-

STATE AND MAIN (2000)

Written & Directed By: David Mamet
Cinematography: Oliver Stapleton 
Editor: Barbara Tulliver 

Cast: Philip Seymour Hoffman, Alec Baldwin, William H. Macy, Sarah Jessica Parker, Clark Gregg, Julia Stiles, Patti LuPone, Charles Durning, Rebecca Pidgeon, Ricky Jay, David Paymer, Jonathan Katz, Matt Malloy, Laura Silverman 

Having left New Hampshire over excessive demands by the locals, the cast and crew of “The Old Mill” move their movie shoot to a small town in Vermont. However, they soon discover that The Old Mill burned down in 1960, the star can’t keep his pants zipped, the starlet won’t take her top off, and the locals aren’t quite as easily conned as they appear.


A movie about the behind-the-scenes world of movie making and how it wreaks havoc on a small town and how the town gets seduced to a certain degree. While also throwing in a kind of love story in the middle.

The film’s heart really relies on Philip Seymour Hoffman’s Character a writer. Who is constantly having to change the script due to the whims of the actors, Star, or producer, and when controversy happens he has to decide to do the moral thing or be dishonest but help the production proceed. 

It offers commentary on movie stars and Hollywood at that time. While showing how easy it is to be corrupted and lead astray. How easily tot can get caught up in something you know is wrong for the supposed greater good. 

Yet very few characters seem to have actual emotions and just deliver one-liners at the ready. Especially his love interest played by Rebecca Pidgeon. Making it seem more stage or sitcom ready. Even as it tries to be a morality play but comes off as false. 

While a satire instead of coming across as biting, clever, or even cynical. It instead comes across at times as smug. As half of the humor comes across as an inside joke rather than inclusive. Showing who they prefer their audience to actually be for the film. 

It’s set in a small town yet nothing feels down to earth about it. 

Though when it does work it is on fire. As it works best when it is more of an ensemble. As it is entertaining with sharp dialogue. 

The film has a great cast. It just feels like a bitter pill too much at times, but funny a lot of times. It ends up feeling too theatrical to be natural. 

Though it seems like everyone tries to come off as cool and all-knowing. So it never comes off as exactly identifiable as it seems so practices and knowledgeable 

GRADE: B- 

HOLLYWOOD ENDING (2002)

Written & Directed By: Woody Allen
Cinematography: Wedigo Von Schultzendorff
Editor: Alisa Lepselter

Cast: Woody Allen, Tea Leoni, Treat Williams, George Hamilton, Debra Messing, Mark Rydell, Isaac Mizrahi, Erica Leerhsen, Aaron Stanford, Fred Melamed, Douglas McGrath, Lu Yu, Barney Chang, Marian Saldes, Tiffani Theissen, Greg Mottola, Mark Webber 

A director is forced to work with his ex-wife, who left him for the studio’s boss, bankrolling his new film. But the night before the first day of shooting, he develops a case of psychosomatic blindness.


This is where Woody Allen lost me after having a  period of disappointing films. At this point, I eagerly awaited every new film he had made since 1992. When I saw HUSBANDS & WIVES. Even though some were not as good as others I stayed loyal though I can admit to not seeing the previous two years’ films.

CURSE OF THE JADE SCORPION and SMALL TIME CROOKS even to the day that I am writing this review, but I took a chance on this film and saw it in theaters as I figured it would be a return to form in making fun of himself. That comes across as a tone-deaf parody of himself. 

Unfortunately, the jokes are stale and the situations Seem like a good setup but don’t ever come around to getting the best use out of them. It makes him seem out of touch to a certain extent and tries to portray youth he doesn’t exactly understand. Which is characterized by the character of his punk rock son who calls himself scumbag. 

There are plenty of Hollywood and anti-California Jokes but even the movie he is trying to make within the movie seems pretty bad.

The film feels almost like it was put together or written like a puzzle. Where it is trying to put itself together as it goes along. To kind of have a running theme and story.

It seems to try and spoof Allen himself with the preference of foreign-born cinematographers who speak little English. Which opens up the avenue of having to hire a translator. Who he confides in about his condition. Who pretty much is his confidante, but who he begins to have artistic conflicts with as the translator who is not into showbiz or movies. Becomes almost a co-director and has artistic opinions of his own. This could have been a great side story of giving more time to it, but sadly more wants to focus on past loves and mental trauma as well as blind director Jokes.

The film is one of the few of his films. At least at the time that felt like an assembly line production. He usually puts out a film a year, comes up with a story fast, and tries to build a screenplay around it without feeling it out or doing follow-up drafts. As it feels like he isn’t trying to have any interest in the material. This might have worked more in the ’80s or ’90s but when it came out it felt. I curated it without any nuance. Jaded for no real reason. Almost a Rushed homework assignment.

As always it feels like a prestige film but has little input and feels haphazardly put together. Especially when it comes to casting which seems very random. 

The romance in the middle of the film seems sloppy and unearned other than being entirely predictable. 

The film lives up to Its title, but overall the film deserved better and more. 

Grade: D

EMA (2019)

Directed By: Pablo Larrain
Written By: Pablo Larrain, Giillermo Calderon and Alejandro Moreno
Cinematography: Sergio Armstrong 
Editor: Sebastian Sepulveda

Cast: Mariana Di Girolamo, Gael Garcia Bernal, Santiago Cabrera, Paola Giannini, Cristian Suarez, Giannina Fruttero 

A couple deals with the aftermath of an adoption that goes awry as their household falls apart.


Watching this film is more of an experience. the base there always seems to be a running rhythm or one that the film as well as its Characters seem to be running On.

How a beat builds, how it takes many different elements put together to make not only A song but even a bear which is the Love force the heartbeat of the entity known as music. The same can be said of life, art  and That is how this film Works 

At first, it seems like the main character is acting irrationally and randomly but as the film goes along we see how she is putting everything together to get what she wants essentially any kind of reward for all of those with who she is involving without their knowledge as to the overall goal.

For a film that seems to be about Mostly dancing there are no sustained long-term dance sequences. As some of the scenes are edited more briskly With plenty of cuts more like a music video. 

You believe everything to be random out of freedom then in the third act a reveal happens that brings it all Together. 

This is one of the horniest yet not erotic films I have seen recently. As it is erotic but doesn’t exactly aim in that direction. Though the characters seem more exhibitionist and more Hedonistic. As it seems to open itself and showcase open and polyamorous relationships 

As the film presents sex and sexuality as non-judge mental more open and quite naturalistic and feral. As more matter Of fact 

Grade: A

HOLLYWOOD STARGIRL (2022)

Directed By: Julia Hart
Written By: Julia Hart & Jordan Horowitz 
Based On Characters from the novel STAR GIRL By: Jerry Spinelli 
Cinematography: Bryce Fortner 
Editor: Shayer Bhansali & Tracey Wadmore-Smith 

Cast: Grace VanderWall, Elijah Richardson, Judy Greer, Uma Thurman, Judd Hirsch, Tyrel Jackson Williams, Chris Williams, Al Madrigal, Nija Okoro, Sarayu Blue 

Stargirl Caraway as she journeys out of Mica into a bigger world of music, dreams and possibility.


while better made than the first film. As it seems to have a larger scope. it also seems to have lost a little of its heart. This one might be a bit better because you know what to expect throughout. 

As it tries to keep a positive and romantic tone. It still is paced morosely.

As even though it’s a kid’s film it feels like doom or the rig will get pulled under at any minute.

This one also benefits from a more well-known cast of supporting actors. Who gets more time to actually have their presence felt. Instead of the last film which focused primarily on the main couple. 

Star girl still seems to be a beacon of optimism And the guys she falls for seem to be the same type. Here she is not quite as mysterious. Not offering a surprising knowledge of music and classic hits. Though there are plenty of singing scenes.

Not quite a musical in the classic sense but more songs were performed without any choreography or dancing. The difference between seeing a performer and a show.

This film is also a romance but maybe as in the last film they spent more time on the romance and her doing the chasing while staying mysterious. This time around we get to know more about her and the romance just seems to happen. It’s sweet but doesn’t feel like it has as much depth this time around.

It pretty much goes through the numbers and is a sweet film. None of it is really believable but keeps your interest. Especially when it is more made to please its audience of Disney viewers 

Though everything feels rushed its pace is like molasses.

Grade: C

LISZTOMANIA (1975)

Written & Directed By: Ken Russell Cinematography: Peter Suschitzky

Editor: Stuart Baird

Cast: Roger Daltrey, Paul Nicholas, Ringo Starr, Sara Kestelman, Rick Wakeman, Fiona Lewis, John Justin, Veronica Quilligan, Nell Campbell 

Composer and pianist Franz Liszt attempts to overcome his hedonistic life-style while repeatedly being drawn back into it by the many women in his life and fellow composer Richard Wagner.


This is a movie it has taken me a while to finally watch and its legend has only grown over the years. It’s writer Director Ken Russell’s second collaboration with The Who singer Roger Daltrey as his star.

This is definitely a film of its time period a very experimental look at the composer Franz Liszt. A very hedonistic film and the character 

The film sets the tone early as we are introduced to the character in the middle of a sexual seduction with a married woman. Whose encounter is interrupted by her husband and a sword fight happens meanwhile Liszt is mostly naked throughout. 

After that we kind of fast forward into little vignettes of surreality that happen throughout the film. W see him perform to roaring crowds of teen girls who all cry and want to touch him as he plays. That is where we are introduced to many composers but mostly It’s Richard Wagner who will become important later in his life and this film. 

Next, we see him in domesticity with his wife the woman from the opening scene. Here we see their life played out like a silent film homage to Charlie Chaplin and his leading ladies. Though we know the road and his hedonism will tear away from this seemingly love story bliss.

The early parts of the film play more like a traditional biofilm as far as pace and l learning about the character. Once he decides to become an abbey and therefore more religious while still maintaining His monstrous libido. The film takes a strange turn that allows for the return of Richard Wagner as a kind of vampire. Who decides to build his own Aryan Frankenstein

At that point, the film becomes more of a surreal fantasy film with history and politics thrown in. As with most Ken Russell films you never quite know what you are going to get, but it will be original and quite shocking. As he is a provocateur. 

He made many biographical films about composers. This is one of the mroe outrageous ones. Where he tries to make it fun and a kind fi satire. Though can admit at the beginning it is kind of slow but as the film goes along he keeps building the scenes and sets. So that by the end you can’t help but watch in awe. He doesn’t always hit his targets, but he gets close often. 

It’s hard to believe but at a certain point, the film becomes somewhat predictable for the most part. Though offers plenty of homages and allegories 

The music throughout is actually Franz Liszt’s compositions only with added lyrics to make them mroe modern songs that express emotions. Which isn’t needed and doesn’t exactly work. As it is like trying to update masterpieces.

This film doesn’t reach the heights of TOMMY, maybe because this film is forced to stay within certain boundaries when it comes to facts. While it doesn’t seem to have as much Joy and deeper meaning as that film. This is quite a nice attempt at offering something different and artistic. Even with the melancholy sadness that the film Carries at times 

Grade: C+