THE TWO JAKES (1990)

Directed by: Jack Nicholson 
Written By: Robert Towne 
Cinematography: Vilmos Zsigmond 
Editor: Anne Goursaud

Cast: Jack Nicholson, Harvey Keitel, Meg Tilly, Madeline Stowe, Eli Wallach, Ruben Blades, David Keith, James Hong, Frederic Forrest, Richard Farnsworth, Tracey Walter, Joe Mantell, Perry Lopez, Rebecca Broussard, Van Dyke Parks

The sequel to Chinatown finds J.J. “Jake” Gittes investigating adultery and murder, and the money that comes from oil.


When the film was coming out I remember all the advertisements for the movie as a kid and always being impressed by its poster artwork. At the time I had never seen or heard of CHINATOWN the movie, but knew this was a sequel to something and really only interested because Jack Nicholson was in it and this was right after BATMAN and I remember him from the movie THE WITCHES OF EASTWICK. 

This sequel or update of the film classic CHINATOWN tries to continue the look and style.  It even has some returning cast members and characters. While employing some great character actors. So by all rights, the film should be noteworthy. As it has some great shows to fill.

Though it falls short very short that barely stands in the shadow of the previous film. It has a similarly twisty and twisted storyline that ends up being easy to figure out. Not to mention not as devastating. As it doesn’t pull the audience in, as much to care. It stays at arm’s distance. Not that the first film was all that warm and cuddly but it kept you on your toes. Especially when it came to the mystery. Here you just wonder how everything fits. 

This film also lacks any memorable scenes or revelations. It’s pretty mundane as it seems to try too hard. You want it to be better than it actually is. As the material is there it just feels misrepresented.

Madeline Stowe at first seems like she will be a femme fatale and be more important to the overall story. Though after awhile she seems to be here for no real reason other than as pretty dressing and more of a distraction.

The cast seems to be playing more into the mood of the movie. Which is always gloomy rather than characters. This film has no spirit really it stays flat and simple.

The film tries but it comes up as rather dull and just going through the motions. As it never takes a definite direction or offers any real distinctions.

Knowing this film had a full share of behind-the-scenes dramas between screenwriter Robert towns, Producer Robert Evans and star/director Jack Nicholson, Evans was upset after hoping to play the role of the other Jake Played by Harvey Keitel, but not only not being strong enough an actor but getting bad plastic surgery right before filming began. Then Robert towns dropped out of directing and the film was postponed until Nicholson took the reins of the project. As this was supposed to be the second of a trilogy. 

You can see what they were trying to do and attempting before time ran out, but this might have been better off than what could have been. 

Grade: C+

THE EVENING STAR (1996)

Written & Directed By: Robert Harling 
Based on the Novel by: Larry McMurtry
Cinematography: Don Burgess
Editor: David Moritz and Pricilla Nedd-Friendly 

Cast: Shirley McClaine, Juliette Lewis, Bill Paxton, Miranda Richardson, Mackenzie Astin, Scott Wolf, George Newbern, Jack Nicholson, Ben Johnson, Marion Ross, Donald Moffat, Jennifer Grant, China Kantner 

Continuing the story of Aurora Greenway in her latter years. After the death of her daughter, Aurora struggled to keep her family together, but has one grandson in jail, a rebellious granddaughter, and another grandson living just above the poverty line.


This is a follow-up to a classic that no one would have ever been completely satisfied with, but seemed to be made to satisfy an audience who might have been wondering what ever happened to the characters. Even though in the end it truly never needed to be made. 

It’s disappointing on many levels as a sequel and even as a movie. It just seems telegraphed to be melodramatic. 

The film takes us through what happened to the kids of Debra Winger’s character from TERMS OF ENDEARMENT. After having been raised by Their grandmother played by Shirley McClaine 

They all have their troubles though it seems like the daughter played by Juliette Lewis is the one she is having the most problems with. Her character and performance are way too over the top throughout. As one of the sons is serving a jail sentence and the other seems like a pushover. 

The film plays more like a melodramatic television movie. That has graphic undeserving sex scenes and plenty of bed-hopping. As McClane’s character seems irresistible to most men in the film. Giving her a younger lover who is also her psychiatrist and an adversary to compete with him. Until she learns the true reason for his attraction. Though it is nice to see Bill Paxton play a kind of romantic lead. with Scott wolf around more to be eye candy, Fantasy, and lover for all the ladies in the film

The film is over the top with sentimentality. That it seems as it gets towards the end it feels empty. 

The only truly interesting scene is Jack Nicholson’s cameo. That is when the film comes alive even for just a few moments. 

Even original writer and director James L. Brooks isn’t even back. It feels like the film tries to fit too many trends into the story that goes nowhere. 

This is a film aimed more at female movie fans and of course fans of the original. As the film feels like there is too much emotion on display.

While the main story seems to be to keep McClaine’s character constantly busy. While adding mini-aggressions for her to deal with. 

The film is missing the mixture of sharp comedy, drama, and tragedy that made the first film such a classic, noteworthy and one-of-a-kind. All this film does is remind us of how good the first film was and also desecrate Its memory with a big all-star cast. 

The film just feels secondhand with a pinch of nice dressing. 

Grade: D

THE KING OF MARVIN GARDENS (1972)

Directed By: Bob Rafelson
Written By: Jacob Brackman
Story By: Bob Rafelson And Jacob Brackman
Cinematography: Laszlo Kovacs 
Editor: John F. Link II 

Cast: Jack Nicholson, Bruce Dern, Ellen Burstyn, Julia Anne Robinson, Benjamin “Scatman” Crothers, Arnold Williams, John Ryan, Sully Boyar, Josh Mostel 

A daydreamer convinces his radio personality brother to help fund one of his get-rich-quick schemes.


Will admit it took me quite some time to finally sit down and watch this film. Once I did it was probably brought upon by the director of the film. Which is a shame as this is a very powerful film. Not perfect but astonishing fun in what it achieves and also tries to do. 

Stories keep going on with no endings as they lead to another one. Yet never drop what came before. This film isn’t so much plot-oriented as character Oriented and the film allows for each of them to have their own little stories and dramas going along with one another and the narrative. 

Jack Nicholson here playing against type. As here he is more subtle, quiet, and sad as a character. He is the thinker of the two brothers. Even though they are both storytellers. Bruce Dern plays the more loud charismatic one. The problem is that they both tend to believe each other’s stories too much and soon find themselves in over their heads.

The film allows Jack Nicholson to show his range fully. 

Some might find this film slow or maybe even dull, but there are moments when the film comes alive. Though the other moments that are slower, bear more character building and help to build and showcase the characters’ dynamic. As well as illustrate the story. 

The film does offer an unexpected ending. Not much of it or the film is too predictable, at first but seems to like to throw misdirection.

Like Bruce Dern’s character. As none of the characters seems to really want to admit to what is happening or truly talk about it. 

This film is an increasing rarity of acting indulgence and taking chances with professional actors. Where they get to develop a character. As this film is more of a character study with a story to guide them to their fates. 

So that we can see their full emotional spectrum. As well as their true colors by the end. 

As the film is made up of simple moments that are lived in. 

A scheme that seems to be an ideal built of their mutual dreams. A palace or idea that they keep feeding into and want to control. A pipe dream to escape into to break up the monotony they are trying to escape.

Slowly getting seduced against better judgment and dragging two females along who are eye candy and intimates. Dangling sex and partnerships in front of the other brother, but have their own drama going on. So that the situation seems like a cult at times.

Ellen Burstyn’s Character slowly has a mental breakdown. As she realizes she might be being pushed aside for the younger model. 

The illusions drift, as both brothers are natural liars. Storytellers of some sort, one does professionally one does naturally to survive. Though all built on lies. Only one chooses to believe his own until the end. While others around them fall for it almost. As that is how charming and strong their devotion is.

The film is almost a ghost story. As these characters are free yet seem bound to their surrounding which is Atlantic City before it got renovated. So everything looks worn and beat down like the character’s Souls

An added bonus to The film is watching now legendary Actors we are used to seeing older in their younger days here.

Grade: B-

MOONRISE KINGDOM (2012)

Directed By: Wes Anderson 
Written By: Wes Anderson & Roman Coppola 
Cinematography: Robert D. Yeoman
Editor: Andrew Weisblum

Cast: Jared Gilman, Kara Hayward, Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, Harvey Keitel, Frances McDormand, Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman, Tilda Swinton, Bob Balaban, Lucas Hedges 

Set on an island off the coast of New England in the 1960s, as a young boy and girl fall in love they are moved to run away together. Various factions of the town mobilize to search for them and the town is turned upside down – which might not be such a bad thing.


This film has quite a strange mix as it is more of a children’s tale as they fill out the cast but it also has some rather risqué scenes and material involving them. That fits the rebellious nature of the characters and the film. General,  it also as the film has an innocence and wholesomeness that is timeless. You never quite feel that there are any dastardly hidden levels or messages. It is all on the up and up. As the film is full of characters who all have character. 

As even the few villains that might be in the film. Aren’t malicious, they are just doing what they are supposed to despite the various facts and factions that might require them to abandon the rules.

As the film tries to be an ensemble it feels like the characters are in a dollhouse of sorts. Where they are all connected and there is melodrama but the film never gets bogged down and stays quite lively. Even if it feels at times mroe that everyone is on a playground and they have a connection. So that they constantly affect one another like dominoes being set up. When one falls it falls into another and changes its trajectory.

So while we have the young adult couple as the leads. We see how running away affects the status quo and the adult characters.

That rebellious nature is through the film as it offers some new wave filmmaking influences, moments, and obsessions. which are radical while it focuses on the first love between the main characters. Especially as two outsiders who find solace in each other at random. 

Though luckily for all of the influences on display here. The writer/director manages to make them his own original 

The movie is beautifully filmed. Which makes the scenes simple yet effective with constructed shots and angles. With sharp attention to detail and the time period are amazing, but are a few of the things writer/director Wes Anderson’s films are noted for.

As the film feels like a storybook throughout. As we constantly feel like we are in a fantasy or dream of a child. Even as the films show some maturity and a bit of sexuality. Which is dealt with so simply and carefully that thankfully it. Ever feels exploitive.

The film tries to give a view of the disappointments and sometimes tragedy of adulthood. Like you are missing something or have lost a certain perspective and quality of yourself. As the world is still cruel, but you Don’t know how to deal with it. You don’t challenge it or morph it to your sensibilities. It has morphed you and you realize it as you try to rational ways to deal with or distract from that revelation. 

The film is filled with whimsical cuteness. From a cast that seems more willing to let the harder edges of their performances that they usually bring and let themselves go and be softer and gentler. Surprisingly Bruce Willis is the most memorable in the supporting cast. One of his last memorable movie performances before returning due to health issues. 

The novice performances add to the innocence of the characters and situations. Even as they act older than they are, but are still kids at heart. Which makes their story a little more romantic and the adult ones are messy and sad. Yet can’t totally understand or are more envious and want to break it up. As if they can’t have one, why should they? 

The more you watch this film the deeper the appreciation of it begins. 

In the end, the film is charming and offbeat as it offers the hope and magic of romance. Dependent and understood only by the two involved. A belief that anything is possible when powered by love. As it is the two of you against the world and how relationships are adventures in of themselves even if just emotionally. Only here it is done more physically 

Grade: A+

BABY, IT’S YOU (1983)

Written & Directed By: John Sayles
Based on a Story by: Amy Robinson 
Cinematography: Michael Ballhaus 
Editor: Sonya Polonsky 

Cast: Rosanna Arquette, Vincent Spano, Matthew Modine, Sam McMurray, Tracy Pollan, Frank Vincent, Robert Downey Jr., Caroline Aaron, Fisher Stevens, Joanna Merlin

In a 1966 New Jersey high school, Jill and new student Sheik from the other side of the tracks make their way into a first love romance.  


A romantic epic. That is well-traveled.

a perfect representation of first love as it spans across the early years of your development from your teens to slowly becoming an adult. Though it only covers a few years. It feels like a love story across decades. Though at least It isn’t presented as instant more than organic.

Almost like a kitchen sink drama mixed with a young adult novel. 

This is a film that seems like it’s Going to be slight or more melodramatic but ends up being actually deep and partly devastating.

Neither of the two main characters played by Vincent Spano and Rosanna Arquette. Are perfect. As they both have their strengths, weaknesses, and flaws. Yet you find yourself pulling for them.

Rosanna Arquette’s Character is annoying quite a few times and Vincent Spano gives a performance that has tinges of tragedy. As he seems to have a stubbornness about him that can be seen as confidence yet also expects too much. As you know he’s a dreamer you find yourself rooting for him. 

The film smartly involved petty betrayal and seduction and finding yourself even once they are split then finally resuming their relationship. They still need each other as they are stranded and the only people who seem to understand each other. As we don’t see them when they are sorted only when together or on the verge. So we get to see a kind of greatest-hits version of their lives 

The power shifts between them become fascinating. As we watch as the relationship becomes all about growth and maturity as well as how it comes apart and goes back to childlike immaturity.

It’s one of the few times Matthew Modine has been sued in the right way. He seems to be good at playing yuppie upper-class men. It’s Fun spotting a bunch of character actors in early small roles.

It’s a film that is almost kind of like PEGGY SUE GOT MARRIED. Only it’s not from the future looking back and getting another chance to correct past mistakes 

Here the story is told mostly as a doomed love story between two characters where we follow their ups and downs from high school to adulthood and always manage to find their way back to each other. Even when in different romances and away from one another 

It also shows how in this oboe Sorry there is the fantasy and romantic early days to the rough parts and the truly hard parts towards the end and after where reality truly steps in 

Just as the characters’ hopes and dreams for their futures are attempted but also must be checked at certain times by a harsh reality and circumstances they set themselves up for

Coming from writer-director John Sayles you expect more of a humanist point of view and presentation. That isn’t too sensationalistic or aimed at any particular genre. This is also one of his films that stays with you like BROTHER FROM ANOTHER PLANET, LONE STAR, and CITY OF HOPE. They are inventive and have a bunch of great ideas.

He is a director I admire as an independent filmmaker who usually has excellent character studies like this one. I admire that he started out writing B-Movie scripts PIRANHA, and ALLIGATOR. Who makes a living primarily by being. A professional rewriter, using that money to help fund his own productions and help other independent filmmakers.

Amazed at how the filmmakers got such a great soundtrack. 

Grade: A-

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

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-

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