Cast: Awkwafina, Sandra Oh, Holland Taylor, Will Ferrell, Tony Hale, Jason Schwartzman, Tawny Newsome, Angela Trimbur, Charlie Talbert, Jon Park,
A game-show-obsessed woman and her estranged sister work together to help cover their mother’s gambling debts.
At first, I thought this was based on a true story. Though watching it is as outrageous as it gets. It still manages to be identifiable.
While the humor at times is more sitcom level. The film manages to have heart. In the first half of the film, seems to be relying on more comedy to drag it through, but what it effectively does is set up the characters, their issues, and the world they live in.
Then in the second half of the film, the heart comes in and it becomes more about family.
The two stars are Awkafina and Sandra Oh. Give it their all and while sometimes the script fails them In pushing the comedy and absurdity further. They are still memorable overall. Truly the All-Stars of the film. With some nice support.
What works is that this is a film starring two Asian American actresses playing against type and directed by an Asian American woman. Though it isn’t the main point of the film. In certain Jokes, there is racial humor, but for the most part, it offers characters that are universal and could have been played by anyone of any race. The film doesn’t rely on that factor.
Will Ferrell’s small role is essential though a nice performance as he reins it in. To create a beloved patriarch.
By the end, you just wish it was a bit funnier. A lot of the film and your enjoyment of it is based on the goodwill of liking the actors and some of the situations. Not necessarily the script.
As in the wrong hands, this could have been another unmemorable paint-by-numbers bland studio comedy. Harnessed to a comedy star to either let their comic personae take over or be a random buddy comedy with another actor. Looking to make a quick dollar.
It even has a bittersweet cameo of a recently deceased well-known icon.
Directed By: Bill Burr Written By: Bill Burr and Ben Tishler Cinematography: Sean McElwee Editor: Patrick J. Don Vito and Adriaan Van Zulu
Cast: Bill Burr, Bobby Canavale, Bokeem Woodbine, Katie Aselton, Reign Edwards, Jackie Tohn, Rachael Harris, Miles Robbins, Natasha Leggero, Bruce Dern, C. Thomas Howell, Paul Walter Hauser, Katrina Bowden, Josh Brener
Three best friends become fathers later in life and find themselves battling preschool principals, millennial CEOs, and anything created after 1987.
if you are familiar with the stand-up comedian Bill Burr. Who stars, co-writes, and directs. This is just a visual guide to the subjects he usually talks about, dismantles, and pokes holes in. Which is the sensitivity and over-the-top nature of modern-day society.
This film almost comes off as a rant with characters and situations. As it stays pretty much on note. Only here he humanizes the characters trying to relate to a modern world. As his usual targets are here front and center.
The film has a thorough line and points to make. Even in the end, the character learns to lighten up a bit to fit in for the good of his family. Which is the film’s main point is that doing the best for your family is what is the most important thing.
While the film has a likable cast surprising cameos and its stronger moments. It comes across as basic and a little disappointing. Though I am sure Burr’s fan base will love it
Unfortunately, the film offers very few surprises and less finesse. As it feels like it hits you over the head with the points it tries to make.
Though the tough talk and sense of the blue-collar values and humor that is more inclined with time before the 1990s. It also feels like a natural extension of burr’s Animated series F IS FOR FAMILY. It also feels like a natural home for his fans.
The random casting does remind one of the movies from 2004 MY BABY’S DADDY. Bokeem Woodbine steals the show. Though this film is much stronger and put together than that film. So this isn’t a failure but hopefully just the start of a bigger and better
Cast: Bert Kreischer, Mark Hamill, Jimmy Tatro, Iva Babic, Robert Maaser, Stephanie Kurtzuba, Martyn Ford, Jessica Gabor, Rita Bernard Shaw, Oleg Taktarov
Bert’s drunken past catches up with him 20 years down the road when he and his father are kidnapped by those Bert wronged 20 years ago while drunk on a college semester abroad in Russia.
While this is another comedian Bert Kreischer taking from his stand-up and making a movie out of it, or at least part of his stand this one actually kind of works a little deeper as a presents itself as a sophomore, action comedy. At times the humor is juvenile, but in the end, it’s all about taking responsibility and trying to do the best for your kids. Not to mention the complicated relationships families can have. Especially when trying to either honor or prove yourself.
it also focuses on a father and son relationship and bonding that I’ve done well, I am a sucker for. Which, at least, gives this film some kind of depth.
So, while the action scenes are serviceable and not entirely impressive, they do help break up the film and add a little bit more excitement to it.
As Director, Peter Atecino is more of a noted comedy Director. He does OK with the action sequences.
It’s nice to see Mark Hamill on the big screen and not only doing a voice acting role or just some extension of either playing himself or a Star Wars movie
I will admit to being a partial Bert Kreischer fan as I have seen many of his online antics. I have listened to his podcast. I’ve read his book and he just seems like the type of guy you might wanna hang out with or if you do, something memorable who just seems to collect those moments
It’s cloudy how his drinking superpowers sort of make him invincible in flashbacks. It just shows I’m taking off her shirt and getting drunk and not performing any particularly that define hacks, though it does seem like if anything it just gives him more drunk courage which, in the end, helps him out as an adult, living up to the legend And being not work.
He and Mark Hamill have great chemistry as Burt plays a version of himself that makes the film a little meta–
Not to mention have to give credit to a found that feels like a 1980s over-the-top action comedy with a scene right out of a Schwarzenegger movie where he literally uses a machine gun just to light his cigar in the middle of a battle. I can imagine Arnold Schwarzenegger watching that and thinking why didn’t I do that makes me a little jealous.
It’s a Film worth taking a chance on, it’s entertaining, and it’s not gonna change your world. If you’re a fan of Hays, you should enjoy it but it’s not something that is going to lay in your memory for a long time, it’s a Film for his audience or a nice introduction to who he is.
In the end, the film is more silly than anything else
A group of vigilantes called the “tobacco-forces” is falling apart. To rebuild team spirit, their leader suggests that they meet for a week-long retreat, before returning to save the world.
I keep watching the films of Quentin Dupieux because I really loved his first film RUBBER and keep hoping that each new film of his will be as good as that one. While I usually love the soundtracks/score I am A fan of the surreal
Absurd dry humor and the ideas used seem to be there.
The film is never quite seen to rise to the occasion of their potential some are better than others but most end up somewhat disappointing until Now.
As this is one of his films that seemed to have the silliest and most ridiculous plots and I thoroughly enjoyed this throughout.
Maybe because the wraparound spoof of Power Rangers shows their cheesiness and spreads morale or message and somewhere in there the film becomes an anthology of short stories or ideas the director seems to just pull out and try out with no rhyme or reason.
The tobacco force is where each member represents an ingredient in cigarettes. Together they produce a vapor that makes their enemies explode from the cancer they give them. They also have a robot sidekick and a mentor who gives them their missions shown to be a womanizing rat puppet who always seems to have green slime coming from his mouth.
That somehow works as you keep wondering where the film Or stories that make half the film that is being told as a group bonding exercise are going, if anywhere
By the end, I actually wanted more and was disappointed the film was so short. Which Is usually the opposite of the effect some of his films have had.
The films can be hit or miss thought they are original and Definitely memorable. The film humor tends to be deadpan and dark
I wish he was still doing the scores for his own films. As he had done when he made his early Films. Which made them a bit more worthwhile overall.
Viewers beware his films aren’t for everyone and are not Like anything most have encountered they are experimental, absurdist, and surreal that employ practical effects, and can be a bit disgusting at times they are usually comedies
He is a filmmaker I will always be interested in what he is working on or is coming out but it seems the stars have to align or he has to be on a certain random wavelength for the films to truly work to his advantage as well as the audiences.
Though I won’t lie and will admit Oulaya Amamra being in the cast certainly helped convince me to watch this.
Cast: Gregorie Ludig, David Marsais, Adele Exarchopoulos, India Hair, Romeo Elvis, Coralie Russier, Bruno Lochet, Raphael Quenard
When simple-minded friends Jean-Gab and Manu find a giant fly trapped in the boot of a car, they decide to train it in the hope of making a ton of cash.
This film should have worked. One really wanted this one though unfortunately can only point out a few highlights that help the film stay watchable.
It’s a buddy comedy along the lines of DUMB & DUMBER with a little crime narrative of THE BIG LEBOWSKI and involving a gigantic fly that the two friends try to use as a pet and a way to riches.
Somehow doesn’t exactly connect with an absurd plot element that should have been the highlight of the movie.
Instead, the saving element of the film is actually the performance and character played by Adele Exarchopoulos who is hilarious and only in the movie for 30 minutes. Even though the movie is under 90 minutes. Once she arrives she is what the movie needs and once she leaves she is definitely missed. The energy of the film seems to go with her. You wish that the film had mostly been based on her character
Which shows that the movie’s humor is more character-based. That should be more the inspiration, though that feels like the only genuine spark of originality of that kind. The main characters are boring and the one fantasy element becomes common so fast. That it feels cheapened.
The film then seems to settle into punchlines of Jokes that were set up earlier.
You can tell the movies the film was influenced by. As truly the comedic elements here are the more out-there elements such as the big fly and the brain-damaged woman. Who is suspicious of them? Yet the so-called regular characters believe they are stupid but okay.
In the final act, the only true comedy is their delivery and what it ends up being. That feels like much ado about nothing.
Directed By: Rory Kelly Written By: Duane Dell’Amico, Roger Hedden, Neal Jimenez, Joe Keenan, Rory Kelly and Michael Steinberg Cinematography: Andrzej Sekula Editor: David Moritz
Cast: Eric Stoltz, Meg Tilly, Craig Sheffer, Lewis Arquette, Todd Field, Parker Posey, Vanessa Angel, Susan Traylor, Dean Cameron, Thomas Gibson, Joey Lauren Adams, June Lockhart, Adrienne Shelly, Alexandra Hedison, Quentin Tarantino
Sarah, Joseph, and Frank are BFFs. Joseph and Sarah get married but the evening before she tells Frank with a kiss that it could’ve been him. Frank continues to have a thing for Sarah.
Six different writers wrote a scene each of this romantic comedy featuring the marriage and turbulent relationship of Joseph and Sarah, with Joseph’s best friend Frank trying hard to cope with letting the love of his life marry his best friend. An interesting experiment though it might also explain why it
Seems like a bit of a mess. That seems endless and single-focused. After a while it feels like small talk, about a lot of things said but nothing of any depth that can be called interesting. It might have worked better as a play.
A 1990’s relationship drama with some very little comedy thrown in. It seemed dated even when it came out. It feels like a dramatic episode of the television show FRIENDS.
The film involves a group of friends who are all married and/or in serious relationships and only seem to hang out with each other. They are still young and hip with no kids in sight.
So, of course, they have only one friend who is single and this film Explores all the different couplings in relationships. The one that gets the most attention is Meg Tilly who is usually a joy to see on screen. As she is rather obscure. Whose character is engaged to Eric Stoltz’s character. Who is kind of a ladies’ man whose best friend, played by Craig Sheffer with some Ill-advised facial hair and even worse hippie wardrobe is in love with Tilly’s character and she knows it.
She comes across as cruel because she knows yet every time he brings a date to their get-together. She interrogates and then insults them.
When she suspects her fiancé of cheating she sleeps with Sheffer’s character out of spite and when he thinks they have started a relationship she begins to feel bad and have feelings. When Eric finds out and informs her he didn’t cheat. So now the two guys are competing for her.
Imagine the Andrew McCarthy-Ally Sheedy-Judd Nelson love triangle from ST ELMO’S FIRE. Only if Nelson didn’t cheat and it was the main part of the movie, only more dramatic and you are on the same page as this film.
The film tries to be a broad comedy type of movie played subtly seriously. It comes across as a bunch of self-important characters. Who think they are cool but aren’t coming to grips with growing up and making it seem more dramatic and meaningful than it actually is.
It’s a shame as the film has a good cast and could have really been good under better circumstances.
Somehow here the direction just seems to drain all the fun and interest out of not only the scenes but the characters. The script seems fine if not indulgent and self-important.
One only wishes for a more skilled director. Who could have better handled the material and made the scenes a little more vivid and exciting. At least give it a kind of sense of humor about itself.
Maybe also allowing the film to be more of an ensemble and not focus so much on the leads and give the side characters more nuance and more to do. So the love triangle could have been more of a side caper or we see how it affects the dynamics of everyone in the group.
After a while though it seems Like every woman throws themselves at Stoktz’s character. This is easy to see when Sheffer’s Comes off more as creepy and he is the single available one. Who seems to mess up any chance he has with other women. While Stoltz’s Character is already married has nothing to lose. As he already has a wife. So he can talk to these women without seeming like he wants to bed them Or looking for something. Which in turn seems to make him a challenge for them
The only true noteworthy scene is the cameo by writer-director Quentin Tarantino giving a rant or his theory on how the movie TOP GUN is really a movie about a man’s struggle with his homosexuality. (This was before the internet introduced many people’s wild outlandish film and television theories)
In fact, that is one of the only reasons I watched it. The other is Eric Stoltz and Parker Posey, actors I am a huge fan of.
Directed By: Donald Petrie Written By: Sara Parriott and Josann McGibbon Cinematography: Tim Shurstedt Editor: Harry Keramidas
Cast: Harley Jane Kozak, Elizabeth McGovern, Bill Pullman, Brad Pitt, Ken Wahl, Larry Miller, Holland Taylor, Kim Walker, O-lan Jones, Mindy Sterling, Heather Morgan, Claire Stansfield
With a 15-year reunion coming up, Kathy has sexual fantasies of her high school sweetheart. She’s married, so she sends her BFF to check him out and report back. Things get complicated.
This is a film I remember seeing the commercials and trailers for all the time when it was coming out. It was also heavily featured in the movie magazines I was reading then. Though never enough to get me to watch it.
Even at the time, it seemed like a seat filler. A film the studios put out and find that is kind of disposable but has enough of a concept that if it’s a slow week. It might be number one at the box office that week or at least make its money back and place within the top 5. Hoping for longevity.
The cast was another reason that I was interested. The film was more marketed as a film for women to see. As it offered three hunks to choose from as love interests. Brad Pitt, Bill Pullman, and Ken Wahl. Though more based on the up-and-comer Brad Pitt. As he is also the only male character to have an extended scene with his shirt off.
This is an example of a 90’s female buddy comedy. Where the two leads work well together but one is so insufferable and selfish. Thought is made out to be a frustrated housewife who has fantasies of what could have been. Now these films are a dime a dozen when it comes to men having midlife crises. So I can’t complain too much.
Throughout the film, there are setups of misunderstandings that keep happening that keep the story going and give the characters reasons to keep running into one another. It tries to be slapstick but isn’t that funny or strong.
Not to mention for a movie that Runs on a sexual premise there isn’t that much. The few times that it is funny is in a birthing class that could ag e been bigger and longer and from Bill Pullman’s character. The scientist and middle-aged father and husband. Whose attempts to romance his wife are cute and a bit sad.
These are the roles Bill Pullman has a tendency to play in romantic comedies. Usually the boring yet dependable mate or The quirky suitor. This is disappointing considering he began his career in RUTHLESS PEOPLE as a dumb hunk helping with a blackmail scheme or his lovable loser in SIBLING RIVALRY.
Elizabeth McGovern is an actress who is rare to see On The big screen. So one would think she would be pickier with her roles and one can see why she would want to play this type of character at the time. Even though it doesn’t leave her with much to do comedy-wise. Whereas Harley Jane Kozak gets to do all the scheming, running around, and physical comedy. Even if her character becomes unlikeable.
Which is inductive if the problems of the film. The cast is way better than the material. They all deserve better. The film looks low budget in every manner, especially for a stupid film.
It’s Directed by Donald Petrie. Who can be hit or miss with films? At times he is gifted and makes a film that is memorable (MYSTIC PIZZA, MISS CONGENIALITY) or they come across as bad misfires like this (RICHIE RICH, HOW TO LOSE A GUY IN 10 DAYS) though even those films have a gloss to them. This looks like an independent film that decided to get a studio behind it.
Ken Wahl at least gets to barely be in the movie but is the character who is talked about the most. By the end though it shows that he might be better off as a fantasy.
Written & Directed By: Ari Aster Cinematography: Pawel Pogorzelski Editor: Lucian Johnston
Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Nathan Lane, Amy Ryan, Richard Kind, Patti Lupone, Parker Posey, Stephen McKinley Henderson, Zoe Lister Jones, Kylie Rogers, Denis Menochet, Hayley Squires, Bill Hader
Following the sudden death of his mother, a mild-mannered but anxiety-ridden man confronts his darkest fears as he embarks on an epic, Kafkaesque odyssey back home.
This review isn’t a total explanation, as there is no such thing, but what at least as an audience member I came away with.
The film and the director Ari Aster, Take a swing at the fences in subtle ways. In the same style as most of his previous films. Though here it is more in your have. Yet still shocking as it is taking place in surroundings you wouldn’t necessarily expect.
Though the film does have a voice. It’s tough to determine if the audience speaks Its language fully. Though after a while it does become blunt with only a thin layer hiding the weapon.
Though it feels like a film made more for the director to enjoy and decided to share with an audience. And becomes a Film That others believed in and a film that could only be made when one has the power to write their own check. Their big swing at a dream project almost.
The first 40 minutes stay fascinating that it could be its own adventure. After that, it seems to become a little more maddening. As it moves along it stays unpredictable and becomes a road movie.
Whenever it gets to the next setup In this odyssey. It’s just as off the wall but feels more weird domestically than anything though it never quite feels as dangerous instead it just feels creepy.
As in the beginning, the character is on a journey physically unexpected just as he ends up on. emotionally. The tone becomes Unflinching, Surreal and ends up becoming the Ultimate guilt trip. While exploring Intimacy and lack of it. While being Terrorized by Anxiety and exaggeration. As All That he sees is danger.
No one can ever truly be trusted. Even those nice to him never feel comfortable exactly. So that he and the film stay obscure and unhinged.
It explores how we all can be easily dismissive. Not to mention Generational trauma, Mental illness as a kind of entertainment.
The film becomes Episodically violent at times. That is A punishment or torture. That seems preferable to the emotional violence that the main character goes through. As well as supporting characters.
It seems mundane and skewed but keeps raising the stakes and then when it seems to calm down it becomes random Again and manages to shock. So it keeps building though for some in the audience it might feel like it is either showing off or they get used to the wackiness and shock and it’s hard to reach a level within again as it seems par for the course. It might have its reasons to back it up, but for some, it might still make little to no sense.
Can see why some might not like the film as it can be a chore or a challenge to sit through. Some might see it as brilliant others might actively hate it or some might appreciate it yet not think it was all that. This is one of those films where many will feel different and take it differently. Though it will keep them talking.
As this is a film billed as a comedy that is easy to come back to and try to dismantle, explore and examine.
Through his travels to his apartment and to the store across the street. Have some of the most creative action sequences on such a small scale.
SPOILER ALERT
How I saw it is that his Big balls represented pent-up animosity and feelings. Showing his father as a penis monster in the attic meaning that to his mother his Father was insignificant and just a dick. Him always being defensive to a degree is how Defense was the last shred of his self-esteem and self-respect. That his Mother’s issues and has filled him with fear of the outside world. As he has this fear he constantly doesn’t
Know what was real or not. Was it a fantasy of projection or was it as it was presented and experienced?
Some might say that the ending is Warped and that he did die during sex and everything after are fantasies or illusions of his dying mind. Kind of like people who have their theories about the ending of TAXI DRIVER.
Though it does in some weird way come off as a more disturbing version of DEFENDING YOUR LIFE mixed a bit with THE GAME.
Written & Directed by: Jean-Luc Godard Based on the short story “LA AUTOPISTA DEL SUR” By: Julio Cortazar Cinematography: Raoul Coutard Editor: Agnes Guillemot
Cast: Mireille Barc, Jean Yanne, Jean-Pierre Kalfon
A supposedly-idyllic weekend trip to the countryside turns into an endless nightmare of traffic jams, revolution, cannibalism, and murder as French bourgeois society starts to collapse under the weight of its own consumer preoccupations.
Throughout this film, we follow a truly unlikeable couple on an endless journey/trip. Who terrorize or are terrorized by all they come across. It gets a bit meta as they know they are in a film. They continually wander into different narratives, scenes, or stories.
They keep coming across more dead people throughout the road and it feels a bit post-apocalyptic at certain points.
The film is episodic that stays with the couple and their various interactions with others. It gets continually ridiculous. As it feels like a stylistic comedy with deeper ramifications with plenty of unexpected philosophy and what feels like satire.
Thought this would be one of his more divisive movies. Where it’s an experimental concoction, but this ends up becoming an almost film. As it was one of Jean-Luc Godard’s films I might actually like and dare I say almost enjoyed it completely.
Though his films fascinate me and keep me coming back to discover. As he or the films usually have something to say or present.
Either that or more commonly he and his films fit the case of the tale of the emperor’s new clothes. Where there is nothing really there, yet people pretend there is, which can be said of a lot of celebrated directors by many people.
One can admit to being more of a fan of Francois Truffaut’s films. His fellow film enthusiast, reviewer, and co-worker at the legendary film magazine Cahiers De Cinema.
Godard is a director I can truly call an auteur. As no matter what there is a discussion to be had at the end of his films and no one can call them simple. There is no other director like him though many have tried. one can see how he has inspired so many.
This film actually feels playful and fun despite the absurdity. As it is most and tends to turn in a dime at times. The first hour has so much craziness but keeps you engaged that when the second half comes along with that same craziness but it starts to feel like a philosophical lecture. Even if he leaves it to the audience to figure out or read into it.
As always this happens just when I was ready to accept and enjoy. He then pulls the rug under you.
Like the recent film TENET at times the soundtrack is louder than the dialogue. Thankfully there are subtitles throughout. Though if they were left out it would rise to the challenge the director seems to desire.
The opening scene is certainly erotic with just the power of words and suggestions.
The film Of course has the legendary amazing tracking shot of the endless traffic jam and what various cars and people are all doing during. While the main couple’s car tries to get along the way. Where there is violence and games It ends brilliantly.
Born in a regional city, a young girl named Ai is sent to a cult commune by her religious maniac mother and lives there for seven long years. After the cult is exposed by the police, Ai starts a new, normal life going to a regular middle school, but can’t find a place to fit in normal society. Ai drops out to continue finding her path in life, first living with a rock-bottom delinquent family, then moving on to be part of a middle-class family, all along trying to find her place in this world. The only person who understands Ai is Ryota, another drop-out and cast-off from society. Ryota finds his path in a shady world of delinquents while Ai ends up working in the sex industry. Two teens’ purity gets swallowed up by the urban jungle of a big regional city. A black comedy depicting the lives of modern youth and their struggles in a place where there is no way out.
This is a film best to go into blind though even if you know the plot it still isn’t the easiest to explain.
The cast is mostly newcomers to the screen who come off expertly, but also excel in raw talent on screen and seem untrained. Even though Lead Actress Sairi Ito goes through it all on screen and deserves special Acclaim.
This is the third film by the writer/ director Eiji Uchida and I can definitely say that his films are original and you never know quite what to expect and that mystery makes the films exciting. Not to mention showing a bravery that has been missing from cinema In a while definitely not the most mainstream but so Indie and aiming more for a cult audience that it makes his films admirable no matter how controversial for some they might be.
As they focus on Characters more on the fringe of society and so far In Their own way has been films they are coming of age stories no matter what the ages of the characters
A film Mainly about the loneliness of youth so that they find camaraderie and family wherever they Can.Though as they try to support one another the film shows that the only way for them to grow and find their own paths is truly as individuals. They might meet someone who helps them align and who ultimately they end up with but first must go through many things alone
Throughout though many adults seem to mean well. As major influences they either screw up the kids more through actions, abandonment, or both. As we see even their peers sabotage them through jealousy
Some have compared this film to the epic film LOVE EXPOSURE by Director Sion Sono and it has that same kind of off-kilter feel that feels a bit fetishistic at times. That film had more than enough time to fulfill its story being 5 hours long (but truly never felt that long) not to mention that film was fully devoted to exploring fetishes and the characters who live that lifestyle. Here we get snippets of it.
Here though the stories stop for certain characters at times that feel like fragments you get the general idea, Throughout. In that other film, there is an innocence there the entire film tries to be a romance. Ultimately this one feels a bit more tawdry though with a love story
They are both coming-of-age stories though this one has its own rhythm that if you can get along with the best this film will be worthwhile if not it will just stay strange to you
The film is very composed, especially in its shots and bright colors. That almost makes the film feel illustrated at times.
It has a slightly diverse cast and nothing is ever said of their origins, though is clearly noticeable and a bit mysterious.
The film shows that Love can be like a cult as it is mainly two of you at the center but you must get to know and hang around each other’s friends and families even if you have nothing in common with them and become sort of the crew, a kind of second or third family. You take on Each other’s characteristics slowly and interests. How they Make sacrifices and little donations of time and money.
