CRUSH (2022)

 Directed By: Sammi Cohen 
Written By: Kristen King & Casey Beckham 
Editor: Melissa Remebalich-Aperlo

Cast: Rowan Blanchard, Auli’i Cravalho, Isabella Ferreira, Tyler Alvarez, Teala Dunn, Rico Paris, Aasif Mandvi, Michelle Buteau, Megan Mullally, Addie Weyrich

An aspiring artist and high school student who is forced, against her will, to join her high school track team. However, the situation isn’t entirely bad, as it gives her an opportunity to pursue a girl that she has had a long-term crush on. However, things get even more complicated when she finds that she is falling for another teammate entirely. Soon she will see what real love feels like.


This is the most agreeable teen film I have ever seen. As it seems most of the characters have open sexualities. Though this movie is definitely centered around the teen LGBTQ community or at least the characters. Most of the characters are teenagers and the few adults seem more quirky and horns than anything. So they never come Off as imposing and definitely not in control. 

Especially Megan Mullally who is the main character, an enthusiastic oversexed sex-positive mom. Who seems similar to Emma Stone’s parents in EASY A. 

Nice to see Rowan Blanchard back on the big screen and in a leading role no less. She is not as out there as she was in the show GIRL MEETS WORLD, but here has a more solid character to play. Who you root for throughout the film. 

It is a wonder why the main character is so shy when it seems like every character is supportive throughout the film. This school seems to have no bullying or even a social class system. As everybody hangs with everyone and the worst thing that can happen is not being LGBTQ but into a renaissance.

Even the straight kids seem to be the minority. Speaking of which it is noticeable that this film is diverse. As most of the cast is made up of different races and it is never brought up. So that it feels like a breath of fresh air 

The film is predictable as a girl meets a girl tale and while trying to go after her crush realizes she is more compatible with someone. She never expected and luckily the crush isn’t some kind of evil or vapid character, just not who she wants when she wants her. 

The film moves fast and is so good-hearted and cute it is hard to be mad at it. It keeps you fully entertained while you wait for the inevitable and makes you care when it hits the familiar beats. Where you want everything to work out for everyone. 

Even the characters who seem or come off as stereotypes prove to have some depth and character.

While this film matches the good-hearted romantic comedy teen movies that have become a growing genre on streaming. This film is one of the rare ones where it feels like this could have been released in theaters and found a loyal audience. It’s not as strong or dramatic as some of the others and not as believable but it does entertain and offer characters to either identify with or wish you had in your life.  

Grade: B-

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-

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+

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+

PUMPKIN (2002)

Directed by: Anthony Abrams & Adam Larson Broder
Written By: Adam Larson Broder 
Cinematography: Tim Shurstedt
Editor: Richard Halsey & Sloane Klevin 

Cast: Christina Ricci, Hank Harris, Brenda Blethyn, Dominique Swain, Marisa Coughlan, Sam Ball, Harry Lennix, Nina Foch, Caroline Aaron, Melissa McCarthy, Julio Oscar Mechoso, Michael Bacall, Erin Bartlett, Amy Adams, Michelle Kruseic, Shaun Weiss 

Perky, perfect Carolyn and her Alpha Omega Pi sisters plan to win Sorority of the Year by impressing the Greek Council with a killer charity: coaching mentally challenged athletes for the regional Challenged Games. When Carolyn’s assigned to coach Pumpkin she’s terrified at first, but soon sees in him something she’s never seen before: gentle humanity and honest clarity that touches her soul. To the horror of her friends and Pumpkin’s overprotective mother, Carolyn falls in love, becoming an outcast in the process. As Carolyn’s “perfect life” falls apart, Pumpkin teaches her that perfect isn’t always perfect after all.


This film tries to be subversive in that it tries to satirize 1950s forbidden romance melodramas. While also trying to be one with a few modern sensibilities. As well as more humor that tends to be cynical at times.

Where it seems like the whole world will be shattered because of this romance between a sorority college girl and a mentally challenged man she meets while trying to do charity work.

That at times can be seen as in bad taste, but ultimately remains sweet. 

Most of the characters here come across as stereotypes at first until the film allows them to show more depth. At first, it seems fairly typical but then becomes more subversive.

Though there is sex it is delivered in a more subdued manner, Except for one scene.

The film plays more like a teenage melodrama. Though too mature for them. So it might appeal to college-aged audiences. It is also a film full of bright colors 

The film seems to try to be naughty and a little controversial to gain more interest. Almost like a stunt, but as it goes along proves itself to be a little more conventional.

Though it does show a nice transition for the characters. From living their lives in a kind of young dreamworld and then being awakened to the harsh truth of reality and the world outside of college.

The soundtrack is very catchy and achieves a life of its own. As I was obsessed with it and one particular song immediately after watching the film. It ended up being the thing I remember most about the film:

The reason I discovered it was the cast. Especially Star Christina Ricci. As this was a time when she seemed to be the independent film girl. After BUFFALO’ 66 and THE OPPOSITE OF SEX. Though this doesn’t rise to the same level as those films. Here she gives an earnest performance. As most of the film is built around her character.

This feels like a film that is missing writer/director John Waters’ touch as he might have made it a little more sharp and grotesque to a degree. Though the filmmakers here seem to win for his territory with a little more modesty and sweetness, that can be bitter, with touches of bad taste. Lacking the camp needed. As a throwback to simple times and exposing the ridiculous class traditions with humor 

GRADE: C

I CARE A LOT (2020)

Written & Directed By: J. Blakeson 
Cinematography: Doug Emmett 
Editor: Mark Eckersley 

Cast: Rosamund Pike, Peter Dinklage, Eiza Gonzalez, Dianne Wiest, Alicia Witt, Chris Messina, Isiah Whitlock Jr., Macon Blair, Damian Young, Nicholas Logan 

A crooked legal guardian who drains the savings of her elderly wards meets her match when a woman she tries to swindle turns out to be more than she first appears.


This can easily be a polarizing film. On the one hand you have a savvy businesswoman who makes her career conning people out of their livelihood. So no one was ever going to find her likable or an adequate anti-hero.

Though we have seen films before where we have male protagonists who do the same thing and are more remembered and celebrated by audiences. Even if they are more disposable and waste the money on frivolous luxuries and vices.

What is more upsetting for an audience here is that not only is the protagonist doing this female. Where usually films treat female characters like her as damaged or coming around at the last minute or femme Fatales who get a comeuppance. More or less she keeps striving no matter the challenge or difficulty and ultimately what she traps comes back to her in worse ways. The same is never made of the antiheroes who are male in other films; they get a snack down but never so severe.

Though truth be told those movies are usually more based on specific people and cases. Here this is a made-up story of a very real cool. Games that are happening more and more. Only for intents and purposes here do we get a face with this type of crime. As well as more of a story.

What also might be upsetting is that in real-life cases there are faces and representatives of the victims. Usually late in the films when they are winding down. For us to realize the destruction and evils of the character even if not planned what the end results of their con games are for some. Here they are picking on the already defenseless the elderly. Which is the equivalent of kicking or torturing an animal on screen these days. Instantly turning the audience against your protagonist. Especially if they were being attacked by them.

So this film already gives you an unlikeable protagonist but also the film is filled with unlikeable characters. Even when you might start to feel for some of them. They show their true colors and you go right back to hating them.

I applaud throwing the audience off but when there is no one to root for. As the characters seem to compete for who is the worst and trying to make excuses for their behavior. It’s not really enjoyable even for a dark comedy.

The film is trying to tackle a subject and knows the best way to inform the audience is from an insider. As the film might be cynical but doesn’t offer false notes. As everyone is flawed and there is no heart of gold that comes through. This film presents a more scrubbed clean dog eat dog world. That is all about survival above all else.

It’s not necessarily an enjoyable film but like the characters it tries to make you as comfortable as you can be while watching these events unfold and tries to add some humor to the proceedings 

Rosamund Pike is excellent in the starring role. Even though it seems every few years she plays this type of role. A character who at first seems like a pushover but then reveals herself to be a shark. So it’s refreshing to see her play such strong female characters every so often. Making you wonder why she isn’t offered more roles. It might be as in these roles she comes off as threatening usually to male protagonists. Some might feel uncomfortable casting her in easier or less challenging roles?

Though at least the film is thought-provoking and wouldn’t expect anything else from writer Director J. Blakeson, Especially after his film THE DISAPPEARANCE OF ALICE CREED 

The film is upsetting for anyone looking for good to conquer evil. It is a dark and cynical comedy with heavy overtones. Though it isn’t bad or disappointing, just unlikeable.

Grade: B-

THE COLUMNIST (2019)

Directed By: Ivo Van Aart 
Written By: Daan Windhorst
Cinematography: Martijn Cousijn 
Editor: Irme Reutelingsperger & Yamal Stitiou 

Cast: Katja Herbers, Achraf Koutet, Genio De Groot, Rein Hoffman, Claire Porro, Bram Van Der Kelen, Medina Schuurman, Harry Van Ritjthourn 

A columnist must continuously deal with threats and negative comments on her social media pages. One day, she has had enough and decides to hunt down her trolls.


The film wastes no time in getting right to the point and its actions. The film ends up going down like candy-sweet and quickly with very few complaints. 

The film comes off very dry and seems to have no real sensations at all throughout the film. Especially when it comes to presentation.

Feels very lightweight for such a dark comedy. Almost like a TV movie level. Only with plenty of language and violence.

It might have been stronger if at any point she really has faced a true challenge or more of one in her killings or the immediate aftermath. 

The only other being she seems to face is the older gentleman who at first seems like he could be the easiest.

As she became too common too fast and with very little investigation into these Crimes. So there feels like an absence of any real depth. Especially when the film offers opportunities for it to be more interesting. Like having the daughter act impulsively when thinking her mother’s boyfriend is the killer or having her kill him when believing him to be the killer. Then found out she was wrong when the kills keep happening and then finding out it was her mother or ending the film with the daughter’s Mistake.

In the middle of the movie is the only town where the police really have any questions and she gives them motive and a bit of evidence to build a case if they bothered to really investigate her. 

The killings soon become an obsession. So much so that it takes over her regular responsibilities. Truly shows her character’s transformation. The more she kills the more it relieves her mind as it clears her head and gets more writing done. In essence, becoming more successful.

As it seems she is all for freedom of speech until it is used against her then she becomes the ultimate censor. At first, she is bullied into being a killer. 

Though without controversy there is less of an audience. The end is a little outlandish as it seems meant to be a message. As the film does have one in a worst-case scenario version. That could be reworked but makes itself loud and clear. 

At first, it seems Like it will be open-ended but proceeds especially as there are plenty of witnesses though goes for shock and sensationalism with a warning. 

Her speech might help her and the film to realize what she says about herself goes to the victims also. 

Just her boyfriend who dresses freaky to get attention as fashion is the more normal put-together individual. Whereas she comes off as the more so-called normal one is the crazed killer.

In the end, the film feels disposable and hassle-free.

Grade: C+

28 DAYS (2000)

Directed By: Betty Thomas 
Written By: Susannah Grant 
Cinematography: Declan Quinn
Editor: Peter Teschner 

Cast: Sandra Bullock, Elizabeth Perkins, Viggo Mortensen, Dominic West, Margo Martindale, Diane Ladd, Reni Santoni, Alan Tudyk, Azura Skye, Steve Buscemi, Michael O’Malley, Marianne Jean-Baptiste, Susan Krebs 

A big-city newspaper columnist is forced to enter a drug and alcohol rehab center after ruining her sister’s wedding and crashing a stolen limousine.


This movie is charming in its own way.  As it is primarily a comedy but it gets deeply dramatic and doesn’t always provide a happy ending. 

This movie marked a difference In Sandra Bullock’s career. Where she seemed more interested in trying to stretch past her girl next door image and have more edge to her but also kind of realized her limitations. So she was trying to have a middle ground here. 

The film is too light to really be too hard-hitting, but gets to the emotional landscapes that it needs to and hits those aspects hard.

It’s a relief to watch a film where there is a hint of romance but treats it more for what it is a connection that can easily be read as a distraction from your true problems. 

While Sandra bullock is engaging it’s the side characters that really pepper the film

And make it spicy. They are also more the heart and dramatic pulls of the movie. Luckily though Sandra bullock is clearly the star. She lets the supporting characters breathe enough for us to care about them. Even if some stay one-dimensional.

Even though in hindsight the plotline with Azura Skye’s character would have been more recognizable and maybe a more informed outcome. Though she is one of the more heartbreaking. Elements of the film And definitely memorable characters. 

Though Viggo Mortensen comes into this film Like a true movie star and makes his presence felt he still feels more like a minor element to the film As a whole. Whose most dramatic and Piercing scene is a throwaway one at a gas stop. Though throughout the oozes charisma.

Though when the film hits her dramatic past. It does feel right and strong. Yet luckily never quite overdramatic. 

When I first saw the film I wasn’t prepared as it seemed to ride the middle as far as genres and quality. Watching it again recently though it might not have a typical happy ending film Makes you feel comfortable. As the film is infinitely rewatchable.

The only problem with the film Might be that In trying to be so many different things instead of going in-depth it kind of flirts and gives a bit, little too passable when it comes to everything. 

We are just given enough to feel or be informed about characters, situations, and the road to recovery. While feeling a bit spiritual but not the hokey hippie kind.

In the end, it shows the power and charisma of Actress Sandra Bullock that lasts to this day. As she is one of the last true stars of the big screen. Where audiences follow her no matter what genre of film she stars in and is still usually a hit of some kind. Yet she never comes across as the stereotype of a star. 

Grade: B-