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

FLUX GOURMET (2022)

Written & Directed By: Peter Strickland
Cinematography: Tim Sidell
Editor: Matyas Feketem

Cast: Makis Papadimitriou, Fatma Mohamed, Asa Butterfield, Ariane Labed, Gwendoline Christie, Richard Bremmer

Set at an institute devoted to culinary and alimentary performance, a collective finds themselves embroiled in power struggles, artistic vendettas, and gastrointestinal disorders.

This feels like almost self-parody and wanting to say something about artistic institutions.
Though it almost feels that with each new film Of Writer-Director Peter Strickland. He goes step by step away from conformity and genre with Jisnfilms and into his own interests and inspirations showing himself to be a true auteur with any care to please his audience

As his films are always visually Stunning and captivating as far as production especially when it comes to surreal visions and the same Goes along with costuming

Whereas previous films seem to take aim at breaking down genres. This film Feels like a satire and exploration of the artistic creation of his own imagination. As at least this is captivating instead of confusing even if only visually and thematically

It is always a film That will Appeal to Or repulse the senses. Also offering a look at the absurdity of it and creation and expressing it. So beautiful that the Film Looks like it is Constantly Taking Place during a photoshoot.

I Don’t Understand what was going on half the time but I liked it and its Visuals if looking for some sense exactly This might not be the Film For you.

The power struggles involved in collaboration the drama inside of it and how your creation is perceived by the outside world as well as directing and guiding it For the best way for it to be remembered.

How Much even when you Investigate and try to examine the art or get to the heart of it. how easily it can be pulled into the creation and become a part of it. As you have input me can help shape it even just by being a witness and spreading the word about it affecting its development

As journalists can do in profiling a celebrity becoming Part Of Their Lives for Short Periods of Time but still having that experience and bonding for short periods of time. Persuasions participation, Now even when trying to be a fly On the wall and just document you Can’t help But be pulled into the orbit and be part of that universe

Where the Audiences appreciation and feedback we barely get Glimpses of and are more like a sexual orgy. Getting more and more absurd, not as strictly Over the top comedy, but more detached and obscure as it Goes along even as we learn more information about everybody.

Though constantly Stays avant-garde and close To its art-house roots

The film Almost Feels Like a chronicle of a band at each other’s throats as they try to make their next album and all The fears coming to a head during the process, especially when trying

To work It out with others you know so well and need one another but also desire space though feel like you are the only ones who know and understand one another.

Done it plenty of times but this time feels different and somehow more important. Always on the edge of the perverse and even fetishism

Just as the head of the institute comes across as either the Producer or record exec trying to shape the product and collective themselves while Trying To Be part of the creative process thing offering nothing of more creatively and if anything trying to water down or Make it

More accessible which goes against everything the collective seems to be about. Even if it means using seduction to get insider information and flip a member to have a person on the inside and being able to use them To spread their influence.

Each act seems to focus on a different member of the group or so it would seem as one character barely Gets center stage but is always shown and in the background and the character who seems to Come To More Prominence in the second act soon seems To be a major focus event high in the front act barely Spoke

Though the third act is the shortest maybe it makes sense that the character who It seems To focus on feels underserved throughout but is the glue practically the middle child Also the most Melodramatic. While the doctor represents the old-school Patriarchy.

The filmmaker Exerts himself as a filmmaker of His own unique vision and view.

How in art you Seem To reveal Yourself though only when it feels Personal do truly Realize maybe you revealed too much or See how Power and jealousy are at the heart of everything

Cooking Food Is its Own Art It takes Steps In the form Of Recipes and you are always struggling to get it right and is Essential in survival and is used by most as an expression of Care for health. Yet also is A process in which someone can be kissed and can mean something to so Many Others who follow and Look at it for insight.

You Can Also look at it as an examination of the relationship between the artist, the enthusiastic backers and Money men, fans, critics, and The Audience

High concept and our reporter man on the inside all of this half the time Of more insight into his farts and stomach problems rather than exposing his findings.

This film Was definitely an experience. Where it makes little sense to me. Though I admire the craft & stays interesting. Peter Strickland goes more into his artistic interests and visions. I look at this as a film about creation. Almost like a band trying to finish an album and what they have to face to finish. To truly reach their artistic vision and breakthrough

A movie only director Peter Strickland could make, sticking to his vision, interests, and instincts. Displaying his talent and unwavering in his direction. Even when it seems the film will go for conventional methods, it resists. Though dealt with seriously the film can be seen as a comedy of sorts. It’s not vague but has many ways of looking at it and finding definition in the details

Grade: B

BREAST MEN (1997)

Directed By: Lawrence O’Neil

Written By: John Stockwell

Cinematography: Robert Stevens

Editor: Michael Jablow

Cast: David Schwimmer, Chris Cooper, Emily Procter, Matt Frewer, Kathleen Wilhoite, John Stockwell, Louise Fletcher, Terry O’Quinn, Lisa Marie, Amanda Foreman, Lyle Lovett, Julie McCullough, Rena Riffel, Raphael Sbarge 

Two doctors create breast implants. However, when success and money come their way, they separate and follow different paths.


An HBO original tv-movie made for cable when it came out. Using the formula of two popular actors not quite strong enough for a box office release. As the subject which you would think fills seats isn’t quite ready for the big screen. 

The film has a good handle on the subject by presenting us a story of characters who seem to have our attention and sympathies at first but then get affected by greed and sort of switch places but in the end are characters we despise.

Don’t know how exactly fact-based the film is but it stays sleazy as the characters and subject matter does. While keeping your interest. It is loosely based on fact obviously to keep it more dramatic and interesting and offer a more moralistic tale. 

As there is plenty of nudity on display which is understandable considering the subject, but obviously more under the male gaze most of the time. As well as having unnecessary sex scenes. 

As we have scenes where women offer their stories and confessions. Where we never see their face, only their breasts, as they talk.

So that it becomes more exploitive than maybe it was initially conceived or maybe that was the plan the whole time to mix the exploitive with the dramatic and offer some kind of poignancy.

As David Schwimmer’s Character goes from being a brilliant surgeon to more on the shy side and having an obsession with breasts and an idea on how to revolutionize plastic surgery on them. To begin, change by success and general greed. To where he seems to have lost his soul. When the consequences of these surgeries present themselves later and he finds no guilt within himself even when his mother is one of the people he performed the procedure on.

Chris cooper’s character at least shows having the most soul. At first not have faith in Schwimmer’s character then goes into business with him but goes their separate ways when Schwimmer feels he deserves more credit and copper’s character is more conservative and performs more for the elite. Whereas Schwimmer seems to perform for whoever as long as they can pay and alter the ethics. As They both reach cruel yet poetic justice ends.

One of the obvious problems of the film is the title says it all. How to tell this story delicately or at least tastefully and there isn’t.

As it is an interesting subject but unfortunately this story of discovery isn’t populated with worthwhile Decent characters. They are filled with characters who seem to want to do the right thing but money and success go to their heads.

In the end, it feels like a film that wants to be moralistic and a dark comedy with dramatic overtones. That unfortunately isn’t that funny and comes off as awkward and dirty.

Grade: C+

VIOLET (2014)

Written & Directed By: Bas Devos

Cinematography: Nicolas Karakatsanis

Editor: Dieter Diependaele

Cast: Cesar De Sutter, Koen De Sutter, Mira Helmer, Brent Minne, Fania Sorel

15-year-old Jesse is the only one who witnessed the stabbing of his friend Jonas. Now he has to face his family and friends form the BMX riders crew and explain the unexplainable – how he feels about it.


If not Into impressionistic and experimental films this is not the film for you.

As it seems as not much happens and everything happens as we watch a young teen come to grips with his feelings about witnessing his friends endlessly get murdered and we see how this murder affects those around him including the victim’s family but not much happens and everything happens

Obviously heavy emotionally we see the pain and feelings on others’ faces but the main. Teen is expressionless either trying to come. To grips with his feelings or trying to feel something as very one is expecting it but doesn’t know howS

If you look, For a more Plot centered film, this is not for you. If you want to watch a study in grief where the film keeps a slow pace and is more about the everyday this is for you.

There are some striking shots and visuals but that is all there is as the film feels simplistic but wants to show a certain depth. It achieves what it aims for and while some might be able to get something or at least what they seek out of it.

It personally leaves one cold. A slice of Life and a sort of coming of age that for a film that showcases life feels lifeless itself. 

As less like witnessing and just watching a bunch of shots comes together that might have been glorious b roll footage for another film. Though at least here it has some kind of meaning for you to take away. Define for yourself 

Plotless and lacking any kind of dramatics at least traditionally almost like improv where you are meant to assign what they are thinking or feeling by little clues as to their expressions or behavior 

Though an audience is left to see the film’s worth. As the film does try to connect but leaves you to pick up the pieces.

So it is almost like the lead character who will not give anyone anything emotionally but as we are connected to him as our protagonist we try to figure him out abs kind of put our own thoughts and concerns on display in our minds 

Some could easily call this lazy filmmaking but the filmmaker is more interested in getting a reaction from the audience that the film lacks by letting visuals and sound linger more than anything documenting with a cinematic flair rather than aiming the story or narrative in any particular way or direction.

Depending on. What you came to the film for Will predict your interpretation or any kind of entertainment/enjoyment you might get.

This is more of a film. To be studied and presented at a museum as an exhibit  than anything else traditional 

Throughout it seems that like the lead, No one Knows how to communicate really. 

Alas it feels like you are sitting around for a scene or a moment where it all makes sense or just idiots that you have been sitting through and it never comes 

A lot of lingering shots of nothing really happening that individuals come to nothing but as a whole might come together to mean something or at least that is my interpretation. 

A Movie that director Gus Van Sant would have loved to have made. A movie where it seems like the filmmaker wants you to do most of the work like CACHE.

As this is just a presentation and they want you to come up with what you think it’s about and connect things in your own way

Grade: C