Tag: DRAMA

PERFECT (1985)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: James Bridges

Written By: James Bridges and Aaron Latham

Based on Articles By: Aaron Latham 

Cinematography: Gordon Willis 

Editor: Jeff Gourson 

Cast: John Travolta, Jamie Lee Curtis, Marilu Henner, Jann Wenner, Laraine Newman, Anne De Salvo, Kenneth Welsh, Chelsea Field, David Paymer

Fed up with writing obituaries for a local New Jersey newspaper, the inquisitive and ambitious journalist, Adam Lawrence, finally gets his big break, when–as a Rolling Stone reporter–gets to interview a well-off entrepreneur accused of drug-dealing. However, one brief look at the tight-bodied members of a modern gym will have Adam itching to write an exposé on the latest craze of fitness and health centres, where aerobics instructors like the ferociously-astonishing, Jessie, are the absolute stars. But, Jessie, really despises interviewers. Will she ever let him into her sultry world of cool music, high-energy exercise, and perfection?

————————————————————————

One could see the appeal of this movie at the time. as more revolving around the romance between the two leads played by John Travolta and Jamie Lee Curtis. You need to fill the time of this movie that is way too long.

This film is over two hours long and the tale could’ve been told and 90 minutes. so instead of just a romance, the film also wants to talk about journalistic responsibility not only that but how to build a story.

As the film tries to show, yes there is a reporter trying to get the truth out to the people and tell a story, but also how the story is only the view of the reporter and might not tell the full story or is edited so that details are left out, and also the aftermath that the story can do two people who never intended originally to be victims.

One can see why John Travolta chose this movie as it’s by James Bridges, who also directed him in his head urban cowboy so this is another kind of down and dirty romance. Only this is given more of a flashy treatment as it is tying for rolling stone magazine, for which John Travolta is a reporter of and , the editor and chief of the magazine at the time Jan wiener even plays himself a version of himself under a different name.

The script was also written by written by the actual writer that John Travolta character is based on who wrote a story about sports clubs or aerobics clubs being the new singles club so it all feels like an in-house production.

I will say that Jamie Lee Curtis looks fantastic in the movie and her character is so cool and has such a fashionable look that you just wish her character was in a different and better film. 

John Travolta tries his best and makes his character charismatic and dramatic, but he doesn’t make him interesting.

That is the problem with this film at first, watching this film as a look back at the fashions and mentality of the times, but it moves along so slowly that even any campiness factor within the film slowly drains away until your hit with what is supposed to be drama but he just doesn’t seem in the right way that the film is hoping it will just want resolution as you’re wondering where is this movie going to go?

Seem to have a lot going for at first it has some unbilled cameos by Lauren Hutton and Carly Simon and it seems like a typically streamline film that was made to be tied into a fan, but then also tried to have some substance and that might be the problem is that that substance dragged down the film that not that it wouldn’t necessarily have been good Even without the substance, but it could be forgiven for naïveness

So give credit for at least trying to be worth something.

The film is fascinating to watch though after a while it’s feels a little monotonous, almost like a sitcom where you wait for the two leads to finally get together and then they do and then the show kind of runs out of steam as it doesn’t know what else to do or focus on , watching just to see where it’s going to go if you’re a Die Hard that’s what it feels like watching this film. It goes on for way too long and so many characters consequences and plots that don’t seem to go anywhere or are introduced but not more depth.

For instance, the Lorraine Newman character seems like the one chance for the film to actually have a character of death who has tragic ramifications around her and offers some traumatic consequences, but the film seems to hint at these prospects and then totally drops them so that just becomes another background character that we do with.

It’s not exactly the same with Mary Lou character who is Bill heavily but is given very little to do more than maybe be in the background of scenes even though she looks great too in this film as much as Jamie Lee Curtis, but other than just being another body in the background She doesn’t have much to do.

I’m sure this film has its fans and Jamie Lee Curtis and John Travolta still defended though this was a flop a big one for the studio and John Travolta who seem to not start another film for another four years after this film so he did kind of a hit though again I think everyone is proud of the film, at least attempted to even if it didn’t do it successfully.

I would say the warnings but watch at your own risk. It’s not the worst thing in the world, but it’s reputation proceeds and there is a reason for that there is some decent stuff in here, but you have to get through so much bad stuff just to get to it, including a ridiculously long aerobics scene where John Travolta just keeps thrusting his hips endlessly.

The one aspect of the film is that it has so many aerobics and workout scenes that this film under normal circumstances could’ve been a musical if you just take all the aerobic scenes and made them into song and dance productions it seems it wants to be a musical, but physically, it’s a romantic drama about reporting and aerobics.

Grade: D+

SUGAR BABY (1985)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Percy Adlon 

Written By: Percy Adlon and Gwendolyn Von Ambasser

Cinematography: Johanna Heer

Editor: Jean-Claude Piroue

Cast: Marianne Sagebrecht, Elsi Gulp, Toni Berger, Manuela Denz, Will Spindler, Hans Stadlbauer, Meret Burger 

An asocial, obese German woman lives in a large city. Unfortunately, despite her kind and intelligent personality, she has had a lot of trouble making a connection with people, until she gets a crush on a handsome subway conductor.

Though this film sounds more modern about an older person taking care of a beautiful younger person financially and them doing the ssmenin return socially and physically. The same happens here but it is more romantic and emotional. Same title different meaning. Oh how the times have changed 

Throughout this film I had the feeling that I had seen this film before. As it constantly felt familiar though I I had only learned of this film in the previous weeks. Then by the end a particular scene jogged my memory. I didn’t see this film exactly, but a televison movie name BABYCAKES starring Ricki Lake and Craig Sheffer. Which o found out was a remake of this film.

Only with a happier and less ambiguous ending. As this original is definitely more sexual and a bit more twisted, but still sweet and more direct. 

As this film goes the artistic route in It’s stark lighting and camera work that seems to go a bit haywire at times in romantic scenes. I am shocked this film hasn’t become a cult film with a following. 

The lead played by Marianne Sagebrecht comes off as lonely and sad but also smart and determined. As we watch in her determined pursuit of her crush. Who seems like an epiphany to her one day.

Their romance takes up most of the film. As they find salvation in one another. Even though he is married. Most of the scenes are of their courtship and romance and some sex. The main difference between the movies other than country of origin is in the remake she has a best friend who is jealous and kind of pulls the rug out from under the romance.

The main attraction of this film is that the female is older and overweight. Making her seem all the more desperate and like her pursuit is more of a dream of fairytale. As the guy is considered think or in this original rather average but skinny. So when she manages to get him it is joyous and a wish come true. So it truly feels like the underdog finding victory. Only unlike most romances we stay way past the victory lap and watch as they deal with reality and the world. Remeber You have to defend your title at times. 

As I saw the remake first I have to side with it as far as presentation of the story and offering up a happy ending. Even though the original is more truthful, artistic and focused. 

Grade: C 

LOVE IN THE AFTERNOON (1972)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Written & Directed by: Eric Rohmer 

Cinematography: Nestor Almendros

Editor: Cecile DeCugis

Cast: Bernard Verley, Zouzou, Francoise Verley, Daniel Ceccaldi, Malvina Penne, Babette Ferrier

The last of Rohmer’s Six Moral Tales. Frederic leads a bourgeois life; he is a partner in a small Paris office and is happily married to Helene, a teacher expecting her second child. In the afternoons, Frederic daydreams about other women, but has no intention of taking any action. One day, Chloe, who had been a mistress of an old friend, begins dropping by his office. They meet as friends, irregularly in the afternoons, till eventually Chloe decides to seduce Frederic, causing him a moral dilemma.

Though I knew most of the story beats, the film actually still lives up to the hype and still feels like a revelation as it is one of Eric Rohmer’s six Moral tales and I’ve only seen one previously. This definitely fits alongside it and is memorable.

Chris Rock’s version Is more gag-filled. You could see where there could be room for a bit more humor while trying to take a realistic look at a man in midlife crisis, not in a bad marriage but in a marriage where he’s standing bored and here comes temptation. Both versions are focused on a single narrative where things happen to shape the films and have a full cast. Though what allows the films to prosper is that no certain story ever rears its head, allowing the film to seem more random 

Zazou is perfectly cast as she appeared throughout the 60s and 70s and in many films. This seems to be the one that is the classic that she is remembered for so she does have that bit of a one and done screen present square she is just a goddess in this film, but not, like a I can if anything he is more the tease in there bombshell, but someone beautiful, but you could also see her as normal and it’s not only about. It’s the way her character comes across with her personality and her matter at first it seems more like she’s playing and then she actually does have a plan and admit to her feelings so it doesn’t always feel like she’s trying to con him and he is more the tease in their relationship and intimacy as she seems usually willing and he’s the one who’s always backing away in the moment or at the last minute

The film does offer some genuine, sexy scenes without actually showing any physical sexual scenes, but just the intimacy, the longing, the heat, the sexual energy, sometimes the blocking angles imposing, just add up to making this film, somewhat erotic even when it’s not trying to

Though through all of this, the film never feels quite horny. It has a sophistication, even though it’s clearly identifiable mainly Moore bourgeois and also offers the difference between being free spirited and responsible, running away in a fantasy and dream, but I also having to wake up to reality and responsibilities, the difference between what we’d like to do but in the end might be best for you. 

Shot by legendary Nestor Almendros, one can understand why, though at times the film takes place in closed-off, tight spaces. It still feels vivid and quite visual, especially when it comes to the angles.

This film more or less feels like a lighthearted, sometimes funny look at a midlife crisis of a man dealing with fantasy, desire, love and responsibility. It feels like a more serious, but not as overwrought Woody Allen film in the early stages of his career, as this film came along around the same time, so deals with a neurotic main character who seems more laid-back and tries to play it a little more cool when it comes to life in his decisions, 

after all he is and this film has more of European sensibilities of having emotions, but not being as hung up at least noticeably or visibly dealing with things as they come. Not treating life and people as something of pure fantasy. At least that is what the audience is led to believe by the cinema and on-screen pictures.

It’s much more formal and nuanced than most films with the same situations. Thigh, then again to heighten as a thriller or comedy, and here it is more or less presented for the characters and audience to decide where their loyalties lie.

It’s another film that seems more a study or a discussion piece while having full characters and not so much on action. 

When it comes to the character of Chloe, you can understand the temptation, but she is a bit weird as she is obviously beautiful, but at times or angles, looks more basic or normal. I guess it’s her personality, attitude and demeanor more than anything. Even though she is obviously attractive in her own way. As she is like a Monet, looks better far away, up close you see more of the cracks or the resentment.

In certain scenes, the film offers a hint of skin, touching, and flirting as the character slowly gets closer, she even declares to be in love with him as she can have him at any time, but she wants. He obviously wants her but resists. So that it is a constant tango between the two of them is sexy and sensual simply, but not gratuitous

The film is a middle-aged male fantasy that is granted and presented with the drama of the reality of it, especially when having second thoughts.

The film was remade. I THINK I LOVE MY WIFE, which was more comedic, but I liked when I saw it in theaters. I saw that film first before I saw this one, so this film feels quite familiar. Where is that film feels more like a crowd pleaser, both films, the main character, the main character comes across as a tease. 

The film is like a Woody Allen film without so much of the comedy and a much smaller cast. We’re only the leads are allowed to make moments.

PERSONEA (1966)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment


Written & Directed: Ingmar Bergman

Cinematography: Sven Nykvist

Editor: Ulla Ryghe 

Cast: Bibi Andersson, Liv Ullman, Margaretha Krook, Gunnar Bjornstrand 

A young nurse, Alma, is put in charge of Elisabeth Vogler: an actress who is seemingly healthy in all respects, but will not talk. As they spend time together, Alma speaks to Elisabeth constantly, never receiving any answer. Alma eventually confesses her secrets to a seemingly sympathetic Elisabeth and finds that her own personality is being submerged into Elisabeth’s persona.

A recent watch for the first time and out of the 3 I have seen, my Favorite Ingmar Bergman film.. So far. 

For me a truly perfect film. Believe the hype. Even though it surpasses it. 

A movie I probably would not have even given a second to watching what I was younger I like line I like to think that my Taste has matured overtime, truly appreciate films such as these and discovering them so later in life allows to look a bit deeper into the film and notice as well as study different aspects of the film and the film making as well as a bit of the filmmaker too

Plus, for such a legendary epic film, it’s kind of short by today’s standards, which I’m finding happens with quite a few foreign classic films. Maybe that should be a lesson to some filmmakers that you can say all you need to say and don’t need a three-hour running time, the irony here is that I am long-winded usually myself, and most things

It’s a film taught and shown in film schools and art appreciation courses. Some Look at it as an achievement, Some look at it as work. few have the same Opinion of what it is truly about 

Made to seem so easy and seamless, no one really knows the work that went into it 

this is one of those striking films where it’s been analyzed numerous times, and you can’t help but try to make sense of it once you finally see it 

That’s hard to give a proper review without putting a little bit of your own mindset or interpretation into it. You can tell people the basics, but it doesn’t do the film justice. 

as it’s a film, some people might find boring pretensions or too Artsy, but watch it. It’s revolutionary and revelatory to the senses just the way the stories told and filmed and acted that have one meaning as a viewer, but also another meaning, watching the characters and the performances.

it’s way of telling a story, but also each character story from their own point of view in a connection is that they have that slowly comes into focus the way which story is told not to mention not expecting the way it’s filmed the way it’s edited and the way it all comes together it’s a daring experimental style that might have been imitated but been done sufficiently or clearly as it is done here

it reminds you when cinema for the most part was not only more experimental, but also more willing to challenge the audience and maybe even the artist itself like most artist Director has their own style and here you get that Egmar Bergman loves characters more than anything even stories or plots but also to a certain degree it feels like a Director analyzed like David Lynch

where people tend to put meaning onto certain things in the film that might actually not have as much significance as they think, and might have actually just been a mistake, or just how things went in there, not really meant to at least Bergman is or was, more vocal than David Lynch has been in interviews 

This is a film that, if you are a film fan, and especially if you want to get into film in any way, shape or form, you must see. I saw it recently for the first time and truly appreciate it as it is now one of my favorite films of all time, but also might be out of the previous few films of Ingmar Bergman. I’ve seen my favorite. Maybe I’m jumping on a bandwagon or just with fans

As it says so much, not only back then, but still, what film can be what cinema can be what writing can be what acting can be what characters can be so it’s very inspiring as you amazement.

there’s nothing quite like this film, except what a shock to the system or disorienting it might be at times that the beauty of it is that everything is so subtle and compose given to you in a manner and which most films try to disorient and jar you to get the same feeling here it feels a little more elegant, calm, and simple 

this is supposedly the film where Igmar Bergman fell in love with one of the stars liv Ullmann even though from the beginning, it seems like actress Bibi Andersson is doing all the work while live omen is in insane but or in the background and listening, but as the film goes on, it’s more Andersson occupies the first half of the film and Liv Ullman takes over or they switch rules and away so that then it becomes live once. Though Ullman is it quiet and still has developments in the second half of the film, she more or less shrinks so the other can grow.

The beauty of the film is that even though I was majorly hyped as a classic, it still doesn’t prepare you for how much you’re going to like the film or how good the film is. It still comes across as a surprise by the time you finish watching the film, how far you’ve come, it seems like you’re in the same place

even the camera work, lighting, editing, and film production are just so composed. It’s an art form in itself. Not to mention, of course, the acting, writing and directing. 

not to mention filming it in black-and-white, as I’ve always said if the film is truly good or great, it makes it timeless in itself, as it’s obvious around what time the film is taking place or the years that the film is taking place. A story that could still be told at any time and still have the same meaning as these characters, will always be identifiable to the audience, if not for themselves, they know somebody similar, as well as seeming like they know these characters from somewhere, might even have the same issues.

Sometimes you should believe the hype as even the hype doesn’t do it justice. It’s a film that manages to make so much out of what looks like very little.

At times we all need to take a break from the world, I watch or try to watch classic films, and classic foreign films to me. It’s the cinematic equivalent of reading the classics seeing what inspired or seeing if these films are worth the hype usually they are full of so much depth And amazed that they still hold up and are better some of the modern offerings there’s a  deep to them and it’s not only because with black-and-white they come across as timeless manages to do so much and say so much and under 90 minutes that some films can’t even muster with an over two hours of the revolutionary time, but even-still while watching it

Sometimes you want to get lost in their worlds, even if just for a few moments, not necessarily fees, but a certain beauty  and amazement

Happy I took my time and finally watched it and experienced it at the right time when I could more appreciate it as if I had seen it when I was younger. I might’ve even liked it, but it wouldn’t have made as much of an impact on me. I don’t believe, as I might not have had the patience or recognized certain identifiable aspects of the film

This is an excellent movie, another one to add to my favorites of all time, definitely a must-see for any film lover or film student, as well as a writer.

Either way you shouldn’t be reading this until after you’ve watched the film 

GRADE: A

LE BONHEUR (*HAPPINESS) (1965)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Written & Directed By: Agnes Varda 

Cinematography: Claude Beausoleil And Jean Rabier 

Editor: Janine Verneau

Cast: Jean-Claude Drouot, Claire Drouot, Marie-France Boyer, Marcelle Favre-Bertin, Manson Lanclos 

François, a young carpenter, lives a happy, uncomplicated life with his wife Thérèse, and their two small children. One day he meets Emilie, a clerk in the local post office.

There is no way I can talk about this film without spoiling it, so if you haven’t seen it, check it out first and then come back for the review.

This is one of those films where I could give you a simple review, but this film wasn’t made for that if you want the simple review, it’s good watching, though I’m not sure a lot of people will appreciate it or like it, but in a long-term sense.

This is one of those films that’s meant to be experienced, but also discussed as different people will see different things in it, and have different opinions about and touch subjects that most of us have experienced or have witnessed, and have definite opinions from our point of view that might not match the film’s

First off, this is my first Agnes Varda film, the celebrated late Director, so I wasn’t exactly sure what I would get. 

Most of this film is a happy-go-lucky movie, but as you get towards the end, that is when the films seem to present itself.

This is a tricky Film where everything no matter what happens seems happy though there’s a subversive current going through it as we see this man who is perfectly happy just starting fair and fall in love so easily with another woman, even though he’s in a supposedly happy marriage and we never see any signs of stress or boredom within it he is willing to give everything to his mistress who doesn’t seem upset that he’s actually married.

After we watch how he functions with his wife and his marriage, and then this affair starts and then around the end of the second act, he finally tells his questionable wife, consequences that we are never 100% sure of as it is sad that she has drowned, seems rather questionable as to maybe she decided to end her life, especially after he has informed her of his affair and then expects her to be OK with it and makes love with her and Field, like his actions were a mere Infraction that he will Keep Doing but the story goes along.

Even though he told his wife that he loved the woman and her both, he is willing to end the affair and just be with her, but if she truly loved him, she would let him continue as he can still love both of them equally as long as they love him.

This would seem like a film made by a misogynistic man who wants to come across as romantic and sympathetic, but actually made by a female Director, trying to present this with a bow, but also expose the hypocrisy involved becomes all the more disturbing and basically replaces his late white with his mistress and everything seems to go back the same, and he never pays any consequences. 

Never seems to show any sorrow and gets exactly what he wants, and there’s no confrontation. There’s no real drama, which gives the film a kind of sarcasm, as the film seems to just let this man get away with everything and never pay any consequences.

which was a reality at the time, and unfortunately might still be in most cases, but also the fact that it seems to be having a commentary on how romantic films of this type played under the male gaze, where the woman always suffers, in the man gets exactly what he wants here. It feels like you should feel outraged over this, but unfortunately, there are no real problems for the character and it feels like an injustice.

Grade: A – 

CONCLAVE (2024)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Edward Berger

Written By: Peter Straughan 

Based on the book By: Robert Harris 

Cinematography: Stephane Fontaine 

Editor: Nick Emerson 

Cast: Ralph Fiennes, Stanley Tucci, John Lithgow, Isabella Rossellini, Brian F. O’Byrne, Sergio Castellitto, Lucian Msamati, Carlos Diehz 

When Cardinal Lawrence is tasked with leading one of the world’s most secretive and ancient events, selecting a new Pope, he finds himself at the center of a conspiracy that could shake the very foundation of the Catholic Church.

This film is continually fascinating as it should be about a simple subject, a priest trying to pick who will be the new pope. It becomes more like a political thriller, full of intrigue and double-crosses, as well as its fair share of twists and turns.

It keeps you on the edge of your seat wondering what’s going to happen next and the film manages to stay dialogue-heavy but be purely beautiful in a visual sense also.

As you watch all these men of Faith who have different ways of viewing and incorporating the religion they follow and are all supposed to be about the greater good quietly betray not only one another but seem to scheme and believe themselves to be holier than thou.

Some do actually try to keep closer to the religious tax and dogma and quarrel with their faith if anything, the film is identifiable as these men have taken a vow and spreading the word in which they believe, but acknowledge that they are only men and have Their weaknesses, fables and fails, but still try to stay as close as they do what they preach.

The film is not afraid to take on subjects that have plagued the Catholic Church and priests over the years and the way that they have tried to resolve solved deny the charges.

The film has strong and powerful moments and asks if certain things are forgivable for the greater good. It’s not a totally clean movie and has kind of a monkey wrench of an ending it shows there’s not always a clear answer. The film can be enjoyed by people of faith and those who might not.

Everything in this movie is excellent. The acting performances, script, visuals, production design, and costume design now it seem like it would of course be an Oscar because of when it came out but overall it’s just such a powerful film that seems to come out of nowhere that you wouldn’t expect that deals with religion, one of the strongest stay strong and thrilling and a PG-rated film

This is definitely a must-see film. if even you don’t like the subject matter just the masterful craft of filmmaking is something to behold.

A film is best seen on the big screen. 

Grade: A 

A REAL PAIN (2024)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Written & Directed By: Jesse Eisenberg 

Cinematography: Michal Dymek

Editor: Robert Nassau

Cast: Jesse Eisenberg, Kieran Culkin, Jennifer Grey, Will Sharpe, Daniel Oreskes, Liza Sadovy, Kurt Egyiawan, Ellora Torchia 

Mismatched cousins reunite for a tour through Poland to honor their beloved grandmother, but their old tensions resurface against the backdrop of their family history.

One wonders as he writes, directs, and stars in the film. If Jesse Eisenberg wrote this film specifically for Kieran Culkin and his talents or just a dynamic role and character that culminated easily fits. As he has played versions of this type before. Only here he has softer edges to offer the character. He still is good at playing these types of characters and roles. His performance comes off more natural not clearly scripted and more off of instinct. 

As it gives Eisenberg a perfect partner to bounce off of and play the exact opposite of. Eisenberg’s character is his usual nerdish, nebbish, and afraid of life. Overly polite and settled down with a wife and child. So he is responsible. who resents but is amazed by his cousin. Who is charming, resourceful, and troubled.

This trip is catching up for both of them. Not to mention an adventure. To honor their grandmother. 

As it goes along you wonder exactly what is going on. As the film and main character grow more Intense you wonder exactly what she is after and hoping to achieve. As it comes off more an intellectual’s adventure. Which is pleasant but always seems At odds. Even when there is no reason for there to be 

So that the film constantly ends up and feels like a mystery. That sometimes gets explained but other times, lets it flow and we hope will work itself out and find closure, but we will always wonder.

One can appreciate the end. As an ending an end to this adventure for both of these characters. Where they go from here we will have to wonder or at least wait and see. As it’s not clearly defined. 

Though have to admit for such a short film, it feels like it drags a lot of time and is a bit like the whimsical indie films of the early 2000’s. It tries to register characters in a foreign environment that is picturesque historical and oddly Poetic filled with conversations and tries to be on the wavelength of visual Poetry. 

Though from Someone who knows how to do it but feels way too Technical Than actually passionate.

Grade: B-

DIDI (2024)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Written & Directed By: Sean Wang

Cinematography: Sam Davis 

Editor: Arielle Zakowski

Cast: Izaac Wang, Joan Chen, Shirley Chen, Zhang Li Hua, Mahaela Park, Raul Dial, Aaron Chang, Chiron Cillia Denk 

In 2008, during the last month of summer, before high school begins, an impressionable 13-year-old Taiwanese American boy learns what his family can’t teach him: how to skate, how to flirt, and how to love your mom.

As one gets older, coming-of-age films seem to have less relevance. As we get further from that age nostalgia is as strong as it could be. It could be that these films recently set more when the older audience Were adults.

So while a nice look back, it might leave them with very little connection. No, I’m sure that they connect with certain audiences though are they made more for teenagers who can identify and are around the same age as the characters or more for those who were recently around that age and would have grown somewhat now can look back and identify

this film could’ve been set during modern daytimes even as the film timestamp seems to be the early 2000s and allows a look back at the burgeoning technology of my space flip phones, home video cameras, and America Online chat rooms. This might have been done so the film could be an autobiographical look for the writer-director or trying to make it seem more simplistic than today’s complicated technology rule times either way it fires not to be or not seem like a gimmick.

What ends up making the film feel universal is the awkwardness of the main character as he isn’t too clearly defined yet to us in the audience or even himself as he tries on different interests and identities that seem to go, but so far before crashing and making himself into what he believes others expect but always making a mistake and doing the wrong thing which he punishes himself for. He can’t be himself because he hasn’t quite figured that out.

This starts After being rejected and embarrassed by his friends when he is himself he lashes out at his family, particularly his mother who is having her own domestic problems, which he chooses to either close his eyes or not to truly acknowledge but she never wavers in her love for her son or her family. No matter how mean he can be.

She seems to be the one of the few who truly loves him unconditionally. as well as his sister even though they fight there seems to be a tough love there

The film is heartwarming overall even if it has its obstacles to get there, it does feel natural and fresh because there is an innocence, but never feels sugarcoated

The film, constantly states, awkward though one of a kind showing an Asian American family in this type of genre and most of the characters being of color and commonly Asian. It’s a nice film of culture that doesn’t make the whole film about that only even if the film is at heart about identity.

Grade: B

JANET PLANET (2023)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Written & Directed By: Annie Baker 

Cinematography: Maria Von Hauswolff

Editor: Lucian Johnston 

Cast: Julianne Nicholson, Zoe Ziegler, Will Patton, Elias Koates, Sophie Okonedo, Mary Shultz, Edie Moon Kearns 

In rural Western Massachusetts, 11-year-old Lacy spends the summer of 1991 at home, enthralled by her own imagination and the attention of her mother, Janet. As the months pass, three visitors enter their orbit, all captivated by Janet.

This film is a character study between a mother and her 12-year-old daughter. A coming of age story for both of them. 

One truly wants to enjoy the film as it takes objectivity to a certain level. Where we watch and wait. Yet little actually happens. 

The film seems to take place with the status and longevity of the mother’s relationships with different partners. These are usually romantic, though, never quite shown to be that way, nor do we see the more physical sides of these relationships, though they seem not to take their toll, but have some kind of meaning. 

Her mother comes across as not needing anyone but desperate for any outside relationship due to them, living in a more rural community and also seeking to have the company of another adult rather than just her young daughter. She seems to have an attachment to her mother and doesn’t truly desire too many relationships, friendships, or connections with too many others, which is already rare for her.

This film won’t be for everyone as it takes its time and is very detail-oriented. As bass and day-to-day life. Not necessarily its trivialities, but its blandness. As it also seems to find beauty in every day.

This seems to be the writer and director, Annie Baker’s interest and expertise as her plays are constructed in the same way. So that some will get into and admire it while finding meaning and others might find it a bit, dull and drowsy

However, in the end, it shows more of a daughter’s love for her mother than the other way around what we usually see in films like these.

It feels like a down-home, laid-back movie, that more exists on vibes and as a character study rather than plot. In the ’90s and 2000s would probably have won the Sundance Film Festival. 

It never feels like it quite gets started and by the end though you have traveled with these characters. You might still be wondering what happened exactly.

Grade: B- 

EMILIA PEREZ (2024)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Jacques Audiard

Written By: Jacques Audiard, Thomas Bidegain, Lea Mysius and Nicole Livecchi 

Based on the novel “ECOUTE” By: Boris Razon

Cinematography: Paul Guilhaume

Editor: Juliette Welfing 

Cast: Zoe Saldana, Karla Sofia Gascon, Selena Gomez, Adriana Paz, Edgar Ramirez, Mark Ivanir, Eduardo Aladro, Emilio Edmundo Hasan Jalil

follows four remarkable women in Mexico, each pursuing their own happiness. Cartel leader Emilia enlists Rita, an unappreciated lawyer, to help fake her death so that she can finally live authentically as her true self.

One of the joys of listening to the soundtrack of a musical early (even before you see the production)  Is seeing where the song will be used in the film And presented. Brought to life, visualized, and performed. See where they place It. 

Not necessarily advisable, as you might want to experience a first as you watch the film. Which can be a more magical experience. 

There is a lot to admire here visually. Jaques Jacques Audiard is a world-class director and makes everything dazzle here. Though it feels a bit empty, as for all the arresting nature of the film’s production. In the end, it feels like it lacks heart. Making it ultimately feel like a shallow exercise.

As the spectacle and mood take over. Even though most musicals seem to be about the numbers the story is there to link them all together and usually suffers in believability. Here is the story which could be interesting. It doesn’t naturally mix with the musical numbers and as this film tries to be so many things at once. It comes across as quite confusing. As it is roasted in stages or at least that is the best way to consume it.

This feels like another director trying to invade or emulate another director’s style. This film feels more like a Pedro Almodovar film. Who would know how to connect and meld everything together better as it would be more his style and territory in theory? 

It’s a spectacle That is at times political then goes back to age-old melodrama at its heart. Yes, An artistic achievement. Through It seems to be more about style. Yet, it is a crime story that the director is known for 

Selena Gomez is one of the biggest names appearing in the film. Giving the film some star power next to Zoe Saldana and she is given the least to do. She does have at least two songs of her own to sing and perform. Most of her scenes involve her either crying or screaming. It seems she is here for some artistic cred for herself and to help the box office for the filmmakers. 

It’s like going full special needs. It’s devotion to calling attention to itself with genres that Don’t naturally blend. Not to mention it gives us a Trans Character but gives her little depth, nor explores her experiences or being in this new world in a different body. It gets about as deep with her as Caitlin Jenner does with other trans people in life. There is something to say about identity, but the film barely explores it. 

Zoe Saldana is the only one who manages to make it through the film unscathed. She gives a strong performance does everything the film and filmmakers ask of her And maintains a glow throughout.

Maybe the fact that it has four screenwriters is the problem. Each one brings their talents, and ideas that seem to work with one another but become quite different as the film goes along. 

Grade: B-