Tag: Romance

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.

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 – 

LA RONDE (1950)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Max Ophuls

Written By: Max Ophuls and Jacques Natenson

Based on the play “Reigen” By: Arthur Schnitzler

Cinematography: Christian Matras

Editor: Azar

Cast: Anton Walbrook, Simone Signoret, Serge Reggiani, Simone Simon, Daniel Gelin, Danielle Darrieux, Fernard Gravey, Odette Joyeux

Soldiers, chambermaids, poets, prostitutes, aristocrats are on equal footing in this multi-character merry-go-round of love and infidelity.

This is an excellent experimental film. When film was still finding itself and what it could be with such a wide net of imagination 

This film Feels like one of those Gary Marshall films Mother’s Day, Valentine’s Day anthology where the characters are linked together with a similar theme. LOVE ACTUALLY or the movies of Robert Altman. This is essentially a film about love, and in an ensemble where each character leads to the Max one and there’s a narrator. I guess you could believe it as a sort of Cupid.

The difference between this and the films is of course time and that this is actually artistic, and as I don’t know any of the stars of this film, you knew what to expect with the Gary Marshall cast

this is the film that you should only watch if you want to see something romantic and a love story and the many different ways, and which characters connect and find one another and almost feels like a book of short stories or at least short scenes as they all lead to another not that they make the best couples work and each one someone who might have been more of the victim and one story is the one in control in the next and vice versa

Like the merry-go-round that constantly comes up. The world spins and the characters move in and out of each other’s lives not the same story but the same subject involving love of some kind. 

As the film offers up the ups and downs of relationships and love different meanings of it, different motivations of it, and the different roles some of us play we can all identify with the character in each vignette  

At least the film gives its ensemble chances to shine in one way or another. 

The film feels experimental, yet magical, especially for its time when it seemed like the rules were still being written when it came to this new invention of film and cinema.

Which is why it kind of feels like a circus as it constantly feels like a show, which might be because this started out as a play or theatrical piece before being made into a film 

It’s also an identifiable fairytale that isn’t afraid to go into subject matter that those types of stories usually avoid but still manages to feel like a fantasy of sorts. Where is magic in the storytelling in visuals as well as the presentation?

Grace: B 

HAPPINESS FOR BEGINNERS (2023)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Written & Directed By: Vicky Wright 

Based on the novel by: Katherine Center

Cinematography: Daniel Vecchione 

Editor: Suzanne Spangler 

Cast: Ellie Kemper, Luke Grimes, Nico Santos, Blythe Danner, Julia Shiplett, Ben Cook, Shayvawn Webster, Gus Birney 

A year after getting divorced, Helen Carpenter, thirty-two, lets her annoying, ten years younger brother talk her into signing up for a wilderness survival course. It’s supposed to be a chance for her to pull herself together again, but when she discovers that her brother’s even more annoying best friend is also coming on the trip, she can’t imagine how it will be anything other than a disaster.

This has been a trend for Netflix recently releasing romantic movies that seem like they more belong on the hallmark network. That would seem like in the old days the type of TV- movie a network would put all of its show stars into one to win ratings for the night. Not to mention keep their salaries down by making them do the television movie rather than a big screen role that might be a hit and increase their asking price 

This film is simple enough and it’s romantic and heartwarming. So that it has its charms and laughs even though you never are in doubt as to where it is going. 

Happy to see Ellie Kemper in something. Though there are many things here that just nag you in the audience. The characters other than the roads seem to be one-dimensional they get mroe dimensions by the amount of screen time they have.

Most of the cast are good looking at least the ones who are either the romantic leads or might be distractions for them. 

Never quite understand why Kemper’s character would marry a guy who is such an idiot and has no chemistry with him. To set her characters ark and then when it’s obvious who she is supposed to be with they have moderate chemistry but still seem a bit put off. 

Despite the film’s many problems and situational humor. It still has a charm. It’s not impressive but it’s a nice enough viewing.

Grade: C

#STUCK (AKA THE MORNING AFTER) (2014)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Written, Directed & Edited By: Stuart Acher

Story By: Dana Waxman and Neil Pollner 

Cinematography: John Matysiak 

Cast: Joel David Moore, Madeline Zima, Abraham Benrubi, Jayson Blair, Joanna Canton, Joel Michaely 

A hot one-night stand turns into an awkward morning after when GUY and HOLLY get STUCK in a dead-stopped traffic jam. As they begrudgingly get to know each other, we learn of their sexually raucous evening and then they’re led to their surprising destiny.

One might label this an MTV version of the BEFORE SUNRISE films as we watch characters learn about each other only after they have had a one-night stand and are stuck in Never-ending traffic.

While there are plenty of conversations throughout the film. There are also plenty of cutaways of other passengers and flashbacks of the precious night. Where we get to see how they got together in the first place.

So that we learn about each of the characters. As they do, which helps us in the audience to become more invested in the characters and their fates. 

The film does tend to people in other cars stuck in the traffic jam as well. Though only for minutes that feel more like filler and some distractions to keep the film from being a two-hander. Even though in the flashbacks we do see plenty of others. However, it also makes the independent production feel bigger in scope to a degree. 

It’s a cute romantic indie film with plenty of humor and the leads will charm the audience. I enjoy both lead actors but really watched the film for Madeline Zima and wasn’t disappointed.

At times the film is a bit mroe risqué than expected year manages to stay sweet throughout. Even when it tries to be cynical. It still manages to leave you with a smile on your face.

Grade: C+

QUEER (2024)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed by: Luca Guadagnino

Written By: Justin Kuritzkes

Based On The Novel By: William S. Burroughs 

Cinematography: Sayombhu Mukdeeprom 

Editor: Marco Costa 

Cast: Daniel Craig, Drew Starkey, Lesley Manville, Jason Schwartzman, Ariel Schulman, Andra Ursata, Omar Apollo, David Lowery

In 1950s Mexico City, an American immigrant in his late forties leads a solitary life amidst a small American community. However, the arrival of a young student stirs the man into finally establishing a meaningful connection with someone.

This is director Luca Guadagnino’s second film released this year and while not making its mark as strong as his previous film of the year CHALLENGERS. It does offer another look into relationships and the destructive characters within them. It’s also another random adaptation for the director. Making a film from a legendary cult writer and book.

It was like going on a trip that ends up more as a journey and never quite knowing where it will Lead. Then being a guest in this limited epic. While witnessing a love story you want to see work, but ultimately see the cracks and the doom, but still holding out hope.

This film seems to be like the author of the book William S. Burroughs’s writings that could be episodic linear more stream of consciousness at times and little short stories that didn’t really have plots and were more like chronicles, but with all the names changed.

As the film works in different stages, either way, we get to know the lead character played by Daniel Craig, and the fact that he just seems lonely in various ways he tries to rectify that through the company of others, both physically emotionally, and socially. With excessive alcohol and always a pistol by his side, truly his only constant companion. He is also a functioning junkie in the first part of the film. We see his romance with a young man and all his longing for this young man and how it plays out it’s truly beautiful how he tries to court him when we see vague images of what he wishes, he could do to him alone like touching his face in a movie theater or stroking his hair.

The next part of the film seems to focus more on the drug addiction of the character. Now he has fallen in love with this young man, and the young man seems somewhat interested in him, but is emotionally absent to him that’s deepening his drug addiction. 

The next part is when they decide to take a trip together on the search for an elusive flower, and that journey into the jungles and Amazon, and how once it does, it provides quite a unique experience that deepens both of them, but also the rest of the film is more Jumps around and it truly starts to get into the more surrealistic images and hallucinogenic images where it goes more for the visuals and at this point either you’re with the film or you’re not.

This is an easy film to try and break down and explain you can bring up certain plot points, and things that happen and still never quite get to the point of the film or what you’re watching those films as an audience member you have to experience it and come out with your own meaning like it or not. As with its author and his writing, it’s not easily explained.

The film just seems to go along on its own journey, never rushed and never quite on the path you expect but at heart it is a love story that no matter what is timeless and easily identifiable.

The soundtrack includes a lot of the music of NIRVANA and PRINCE. One wonders if it is partially because of the past collaborations between the author of the book and the film is based upon William S. Burroughs and NIRVANA lead singer Kurt Cobain, but also a way to show they art can be timeless. Especially if it evokes a certain mood and atmosphere that is personal, identifiable, and universal in a sense.

Just like the title most of us know what Queer means to most, but here while it has its brushes with what most believe. It also goes out of its way to not be easily definable. It can be a title but never quite an entire identity. As so many have their own definitions of it. So just like the characters this film refuses to be one thing or ride along one wavelength. 

Grade: B 

PARACHUTE (2023)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Brittany Snow 

Written By: Brittany Snow and Becca Gleason 

Editor: Henry Hayes and Matthew L. Weiss 

Cast: Courtney Eaton, Thomas Mann, Francesca Reale, Kid Cudi, Dave Bautista, Joel McHale, Gina Rodriguez, Jennifer Westfeldt, Kathryn Gallagher, Lukas Gage 

Follows Riley, who has recently been released from rehab after struggling with addictions to food and body image. She meets Ethan and finds herself navigating the line between love and a new addiction.

This film is the directorial debut of actress Brittany Snow and it’s a very accomplished debut as you think it’s going to be a typical twenty-something romance, It reveals itself to be much more.

As there is a romance, it’s also a character piece. That deals with damaged characters throughout and the person who chooses to be with this character and it helps, but it’s not the healthiest relationship for either.

As the film goes along, we see what might have helped to cause Riley the female lead character  problems, and issues, and throughout we see her getting better, but also how she kind of sabotages herself and how the man who is in love with her might actually be hurting her and himself by enabling her

It seems like they might be good for each other, but at the wrong time and in helping each other, they’re only digging themselves deeper into their own problems as their romance is never defined though obvious to all.

We also see how her problems affect those around her friends, family, and even associates.

As what starts off as typical slowly reveals its depths and though it might only offer sketches of certain side characters, it does offer a reality and a look at all of their lives and how they affect one another 

The film is more nourishing than one might expect as you come for something lighthearted, and you get something quite heavy, and the performances of the leads are just so devastating Eaton. This is the first time that I remember her in a leading role and quite strong and affecting and Thomas Mann , who I remember from many teenage or of age films really steps into his own as an actor and his lead in the leading role of the suitor who buries his own misery, trying to help others, but only sinks himself, and the others even lower by not truly allowing himself to be happy. Teaching the power of letting go.

This is definitely a film to check out and really live with as it’s not typical even the ending isn’t typical, but it feels true and Its Own Way, Earnest with ambiguity and hope.

Grade: B+

WE BROKE UP (2023)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed by: Jeff Rosenberg 

Written By: Jeff Rosenberg and Laura Jacqmin 

Cinematography: Andrew Aiello

Editor: Stephanie Kaznocha 

Cast: William Jackson Harper, Aya Cash, Sarah Bolger, Tony Cavalero, Peri Gilpin, Azita Ghanizada, Kobi Libii, Larisa Oleynik, Eduardo Franco 

Longtime couple Lori and Doug break up just days before Lori’s little sister Bea’s wedding to Jayson. In order to not disrupt the fun, they decide to pretend they’re still together until the weekend is over.

This is The second movie I have watched with William Jackson Harper about an African-American breaking up with a white woman, but also played by a good underrated actress here played by Aya Cash. both of them can pull off this material in their sleep.

We’ve seen this type of story and film before a comedy-drama with romance where a couple is forced to attend a wedding and act like nothing happened to say face in front of family and friends and for the special occasion 

Like most relationships, the same in many ways, but are significantly special in the details, locations, and structures of their own

Going through the break up with one another, and so close to the time was all already sudden we are watching them deal with the ramifications and emotions while being forced to be around one another

The film is artistically, directed, and pasted while going for comedy or humor, but not too outlandish at times

It’s a joy to either of the actors and anything as they have shown their versatility and can be quite charming.

As it’s actually more enjoyable than expected, and it gets deeper as it goes along and offers a mature look at relationship relationships they will admit it is filled with sitcom situations and humor at times.

It’s a satisfying watch that will ring true for some viewers as it is the cast that pulls it across the finish line and makes it somewhat memorable.

Grade: C+