Reviews

WILDCAT, based on the stories of Flannery O'Connor, was even worse than my worst fears! Flannery O'Connor is one of my favorite writers, so I was thrilled that somebody was making a movie of her short stories. Previous attempts to film her work have yielded mixed results. (The best was WISE BLOOD with Brad Dourif and Harry Dean Stanton; most notorious was the TV version of "The Life You Save May Be Your Own" with Gene Kelly and a tacked-on happy ending.) This one takes on O'Connor's life after she has been diagnosed with Lupus (the disease that killed her father) and is frantically trying to write her very best before her death at age 39. Interspersed with the biographical episodes are vignettes from some of her short stories, which make no sense when removed from their contexts. It's an incomprehensible mess (starting with the title-there are no wildcats in O'Connor's work and she, a fanatical Catholic girl, could hardly be called one), with the same actors portraying real people Flannery knew and the characters she based on them. If you are not familiar with O'Connor and her work, I doubt this will make any sense at all. Top it off with the cringeworthy attempts at Southern accents by most of the actors. I enjoyed a few moments of it, but that's primarily because I had a frame of reference. Flannery's fans tend to be very possessive of her. I am no exception. I thought this was heartbreakingly bad.

Maybe it's just me, or maybe it was the mood I was in, but I thought this was a wonderful movie. It takes place in a country that's on the verge of collapse (Argentina in 2002). Nobody has any money and frustrated people want to leave. But no one can get his money out of the bank because the government has put a restriction on how much money they can withdraw. People are losing their jobs and their homes, businesses are going bankrupt, and families are falling apart.

The story concerns a man in his forties or early 50s who wants to emigrate. It CAN be done, but it's extremely difficult. He and his wife (or ex-wife-I wasn't sure) no longer live together. Their 14-year-old daughter lives with her mother. His store can't get the necessary stock; people owe him money, but are unable to pay. He used to make money on the weekends playing in a tango bar/restaurant, but the restaurant's business is now so poor that the pay is no longer in cash, but in a few empanadas a night. The movie begins with a female taxi driver (who will lose her job if anyone finds out she doesn't have insurance) running a red light and wrecking his car, which leads to a series of attempts to recover his losses. In a vain hope of replacing the band's singer, the man persuades a former singing star to come out of retirement and join them. Alas, the poor old singer's memory is no longer very good and he has trouble remembering song lyrics. This all sounds like a big downer, but it ends up being a very sweet, wistful, and ultimately wise film. I found myself weeping several times in the movie, but not because of anything particularly sad, but the small moments that illuminated the characters' internal lives. The big ensemble cast were all able to make a strong impression, even in the smallest roles. In a lot of ways, it's Chekhovian. And remember, Chekhov called his plays comedies. I give it a 10.

With COUP DE CHANCE Woody Allen is reborn as a French filmmaker, with a film made in France and in French with an excellent French cast. The story concerns Fanny, a charming and intelligent young woman who works for an expensive art auction house. She has recently entered her second marriage after an unsuccessful first one. Her new husband, who is filthy rich, adores her. (She is his "trophy wife.") And she loves him. BUT, she finds his social milieu of shallow rich people boring. Then one day, quite by chance, she meets an old high school acquaintance on the street. He confesses that he always had a crush on her and they have lunch together. He has become a writer and has lived in several interesting places. They begin an affair, which she hopes is a temporary fling. But it is not. And she does not want to leave her husband. Her husband begins to suspect something and hires a private detective to find out (in a scene reminiscent of JULIET OF THE SPIRITS). It also turns out that her rich, handsome, and charming husband is the subject of some unpleasant rumors about his former business partner's mysterious disappearance. And that is the situation. I want to avoid spoilers, but there are complications and unexpected events, not to mention a healthy dose of karmic irony. I haven't seen all of Allen's movies, but I'm sure I've seen at least 80% of them. There are vestiges here that are reminiscent of CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, MATCH POINT, and BULLETS OVER BROADWAY. Overall, I say this an intelligent and suspenseful movie that I would rate in the upper 10% of Allen's oeuvre. I was unfamiliar with the French actors; I haven't followed French cinema in at least 10 years. These people may be big stars in France, but I did not know any of them. I suspect, however, that we will be hearing more from Lou de Laage, who plays Fanny and Niels Schneider, who plays the man from her high school days. I enjoyed this film enormously, and would recommend it to thinking people. This is not a comedy or an action film. Look elsewhere if that's what you want.

A famous woman writer's husband is dead. He appears to have fallen from an upper window of their chalet in the mountains. But those wounds on his head were inconsistent with a mere fall. He appears to have been hit with a heavy object. There's an inquest. She is charged with murder. The investigation reveals that the couple were not as happily married as the story they gave out would have it. There were a lot of resentments and recriminations between them. She was a successful writer; he was an aspiring writer who never got anywhere. And whose fault is it that their son is half-blind? Was the husband a domineering manipulator because he was jealous? Was she just a true monster who blamed him for their economic problems, and then stole his ideas? It looks bad for the wife, but she keeps maintaining that she is innocent. She's very believable, in spite of everything. But there's a nagging feeling she's just a good actress who's got people fooled. That's an extremely oversimplified precis of the basic situation. So then what happens? The media virtually crucify her, overcomplicating the situation. This is a compelling and suspenseful film with interesting actors-potentially international stars. I had put off seeing this movie because of its length (2 and ¾ hours!), but I was very involved in it and it really did not seem excessively long. I enjoyed this movie. It is mostly in French with subtitles, but there are hefty sections in English.

It was never easy to be a good teacher, but it's even harder today with virtually everyone having a political agenda. A young teacher has a series of thefts in her class. She reports it to the administration, but they only make things worse. She discreetly tries to get to the bottom of it herself, only to make things still worse. Lots of fingers are pointed in a lot of different directions. Anyone who has ever been falsely accused will find this a very disturbing movie. It is so well acted that it seems like a documentary, rather than fiction. This film and AMERICAN FICTION both show what horrible little prigs today's young people have been turned into. They are basically good and want to do the right thing, but they know in their heart of hearts that they are morally superior. This movie made me glad that I am not a teacher today. This is a rivetingly suspenseful movie that is quite harrowing at times. It asks some disturbing questions and doesn't provide easy answers. This is easily one of the year's best films in a year of strong contenders. This is a German film in the German language, but it could just as easily take place anywhere in the Western world. This is a movie that thinking people can appreciate.

There are some interesting ideas in this movie, but there is also much that is puzzling. There doesn't really seem to be a consistent point of view. On one level it looks like the 19th Century, but it seems to be populated by beings from another universe-animals that are both avian and mammalian that have more than four legs. Rex Reed deemed this movie pornography. I can see where he gets that. There's a lot of full-frontal nudity, both male and female. There are a lot of depictions of sex acts that are definitely in the TMI category. However, pornography is supposed arouse erotic feelings in the viewer. This is more likely to repel them, I think, than stimulate them erotically.

The main character is "Bella," played by Emma Stone. Her story is that her unhappy mother jumped off a bridge to drown herself, but was fished out of the water by a mad scientist (Willem Dafoe) whose own body looks like it was stitched together by Dr. Frankenstein himself. Thrilled to see that she was pregnant, he then removes the foetus's brain and transplants it into her dead mother's body. Then he miraculously re-animates her and educates her. In some ways, she's like Voltaire's CANDIDE in her innocence. She's a direct descendant of Terry Southern's CANDY (which was itself a 20th Century updating of Voltaire's story) updated to the 21st Century. The primary interest seems to be her sexual education. Young Bella discovers sex by having an erotic experience with a strategically placed (what looked to me like a) grapefruit. Then she branches out into other things, discovering along the way that men will pay her well for sex. She learns manipulation skills. Men fall in love with her, men become obsessed by her. It's a strange movie. I probably would have loved it if I had seen it done by some Avant Garde theatre group in the East Village. But is this really entertainment for the masses? (Imagine Ross Hunter remaking ERASERHEAD.) One of the big intellectual dividing lines is recognizing satire. I fear that most of the audience will not.

I'd heard good things about this film and it is frequently listed on websites as one of the year's best films. I was expecting too much. The story is about 2 children in Korea 24 years ago. A boy and a girl, they played together and competed against each other. The girl's family emigrates to North America where she grows up and allegedly becomes a successful playwright. She marries another allegedly successful American writer. The boy stays in Korea. 12 years later they reconnect over the Internet. They say hi and go their separate ways. They reconnect via the Internet a second time another twelve years later. The boy, after a tearful breakup with his girlfriend, goes to America to see the girl who was his childhood friend. They wonder what might have been if their pubescent "dates" had turned into a real relationship. But they accept their fate as being just friends. That's very over-simplified, but that's really all it is. This is a very small, very slow-moving film. I don't understand the accolades it has gotten. I did not believe the script at all. I know lots of professional writers and playwrights in New York. None of them makes a living at writing their novels and plays. Their plays get produced and their work gets published, but most of them survive by writing technical manuals, articles for business magazines, or advertising copy. The playwrights have teaching gigs. Their annual royalties are only a few hundred dollars a year. So, I didn't believe it that they were successful writers. I know what I'm talking about. Technically, this movie is pretty basic. Where it falls short is the art direction. Real writers and theater artists have framed window cards of their works on the wall and writers have their books' cover art on display. Real artists have big egos and their environments reflect that. The set of this couple's apartment is pretty generic. It could just as easily have been two accountants' apartment. Despite the good actors, the movie is not really very interesting. I give it a "4."

I had deliberately avoided this movie after seeing the trailer, which made it seem like a "Hallmark Christmas Movie." But I've heard good word-of-mouth and it looks like it's about to be yanked from the theatres any day, so I decided to risk it. I really liked this movie a lot. Oddly, what it reminded me of most was Fellini's NIGHTS OF CABIRIA. It's not really an easy movie. There are a lot of things, especially the language, to offend a lot of people. This is not a movie for kids or the Sunday School set. But what it's got going for it is its intelligence, its humor, and its soul. The story is about a nerdy old bachelor teacher, Mr. Paul Hunham, who has one eye that looks in the wrong direction. He also smells bad because of a medical condition. He's also probably a virgin. He's a dedicated teacher who is passionate about his work, but his students, for the most part, loathe him. Why? Because he insists on excellence and won't just pass them because their fathers give the school money (which makes him very unpopular with the school's administrative board). I should add that the school is an expensive New England prep school whose students are rich and spoiled. The story takes place over the winter of 1970-1971 when the Vietnam War was raging. The ones who could afford it enrolled in college to evade the draft; those who couldn't afford it were sent to be cannon fodder in Vietnam. One such piece of cannon fodder was "Curtis," the son of the school's black kitchen supervisor. Curtis's ghost hovers over the picture as a constant reminder that Life is not Fair. This year, it's Mr. Hunham's lot to basically babysit for the students who have no place to go for Christmas holidays. Among the "holdovers" are the Korean student whose home is too far away for a holiday visit, the Mormon whose parents are away doing missionary work, and Angus Tully, whose mother has recently remarried and would rather go on a tropical honeymoon with her new husband than see her son. None of the students is "nice." They all think they're entitled. And yet, out of this cast of unlikeable characters, director Alexander Payne has created a deeply affecting film that brought a lump to my throat several times. The cast, led by the always excellent Paul Giamatti, all give vivid, detailed performances that you won't easily forget: Dominic Sessa as Angus, DaVine Joy Randolph as Curtis's grieving mother, and Carrie Preston as a nice lady who works as a school secretary (moonlighting during the Christmas holidays at a restaurant). This is not a film that spouts pleasant little homilies to warm your heart at Christmas. It's a cold look at those who are unappreciated. This is far and away the best film of 2023 that I have seen (and I see all the serious contenders for the prizes). I rate it a solid 9.

I thought this movie absolutely soared with brilliance up until the last two minutes, when it crashed with a thud. This was a real heartbreaker because up until that ending, I thought I was watching a masterpiece. It reminded me of when I was a kid reading a Superman comic book and being really absorbed in the story, only to find at the end that the whole story was something Lois Lane dreamed after she ate ice cream and pickles. Basically, the story is about a black college professor and novelist whose work is ignored because it isn't "black" enough, meaning it's not about drug addicts, pregnant teenagers and racist cops. As a joke he writes the kind of book that publishers want under a pseudonym. The book becomes a smash hit. He'd like to just stop the whole hoax, but his mother is stricken with Alzheimer's and needs round-the-clock care, which is extremely expensive. He needs the money. Up until the dud ending, this is a wry and sly work of social commentary that I thoroughly enjoyed. It's still worth seeing, but could have been so much more. The script is intelligent and compelling (up until that awful ending). Acting, direction, and technical elements are all first rate. Jeffrey Wright as the professor, gives a standout performance in the kind of role we virtually never see in a movie. Also excellent are Leslie Uggams as his mother, Myra Lucretia Taylor as their maid, John Ortiz as his agent, and Erika Alexander as his girlfriend. Actually, the whole cast is great. Because of the ideas involved, I'd say the movie is worth seeing. But be prepared for a disappointing ending.

The rule for any biographical movie is "Would this be interesting if you didn't know who this person was?" And that pretty much is the "Problem" with this movie. Bernstein fans will dote on every word; those who have no idea who Leonard Bernstein was will be bored stiff. For those who don't know (and there are many, so don't scoff), Bernstein is considered the first great American conductor of classical music. But that was only one of his talents. He was also a gifted composer who wrote both "serious" music (like symphonies, concertos, etc.) and the scores of such diverse Broadway musicals as ON THE TOWN, WEST SIDE STORY, and CANDIDE. All the film's musical scoring is taken from his compositions, which is a bit jarring when used out-of-context. The film concentrates on Bernstein's relationship with his wife who was a Jewish stage actress from South America. They did have a lot in common in that they had similar cultural backgrounds and were both artists. But it's hard for a heterosexual woman to have a relationship with a man who not only is basically narcissistic, but also has an eye for the fellas. And that's "sort of" what the movie is about. His gay relationships are very discreet and mostly only hinted at in the movie. You get the idea without going into much detail. Were these just sexual relationships? Or were there emotional and intellectual aspects, too? The movie never tells us who these shadowy lovers are or what they saw in each other. There surely were more interesting things about Leonard Bernstein than his being bisexual. I hope so, because although I am in awe of Bernstein's achievements, I didn't think the movie was very interesting, despite being beautifully acted by the two leads, Bradley Cooper (who also directed) and Carey Mulligan as his wife. The movie is at its best (for me, at least) when the style has elements of fantasy, like when the characters dance and seem like participants in one of Bernstein's stage productions, but too much of it is rather like a plodding TV show. That's the second biggest "problem" with the movie. There isn't really a consistent point-of-view. Some of the movie is in black-and-white and then turns to color, but for no particular purpose. It's not like opening the screen door and stepping into Oz; it just means that time has passed. The whole story is shot in the screen ratio of pre-Cinemascope. Although it changes from black-and-white to color, the screen never widens. I came out of the movie not knowing any more about Bernstein than I did when I went in. If you're a fan, that won't matter. But if you're not, well...

I was hoping for more. In this movie, the great events of history are just background material for a trashy soap opera. The producers spent a lot of money on sets and costumes and the obligatory battle scenes. But why? The character of Napoleon doesn't seem to be terribly complex. There is no character development. As depicted here, he's just a popular guy in the right place at the right time. Perhaps the actor Juaquin Phoenix's performance is a contributing factor. Even though he's also credited as an executive producer, he is, first of all, at 49, too old for the role. Napoleon died at age 51. The events of the film took place when Napoleon was a much younger man. For me, Phoenix is in no way convincing as a person of the 18th Century; he is a 21st century actor behaving in a 21st century way. His posture, his body language, his weakly-enunciated speech, even the way he wears the costumes, all scream 2022! I think this is pretty much the problem I had with the whole movie. The film wants to show the Napoleonic Era though the filter of contemporary American attitudes. Were the upper echelons of Parisian society really so multicultural back then? Did the wealthy people of the Napoleonic Era really do dances simulating copulation at their elegant soirees? Of course, I was not there, but I'm skeptical about this. I wasn't really bored, but I didn't really care, either.

I knew absolutely nothing about this movie before I saw it. I only saw it because I just returned from a trip to Spain's Basque country (which I loved) and a "Basque Film Festival" was playing in my New York neighborhood. I thought this movie was terrific. At first, I thought it was going to be yet another whine about poor misunderstood and underappreciated women that the New York "non-profit" theatre has turned into a cliché. How can the poor put-upon thing handle all the stress? But, as it turned out, that's not what the movie ended up being. A young woman with a promising career has just had her first child by a man to whom she is not married. He has a promising career, too. The couple are happy, but she already feels the stress of trying to balance a relationship, a career, and a new baby all at the same time when her mate receives a lucrative job offer in another city. He thinks they can make it work, but she doesn't want him to take the job. But he does. The baby cries incessantly, despite her giving it constant attention. She goes to a coastal town to get some emotional support from her parents, but that turns out to be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire, as a load of new responsibilities tumbles down upon her unexpectedly. I can't tell more without giving away key plot points, but let's just say that it would be a challenging position for anyone to handle.

Cast and direction are excellent, with especially fine performances from Lala Costa as the new mother and Susi Sanchez as HER mother. Both ladies give Oscar-worthy performances. This movie has a lot to say about strength of character, where it comes from, and how it works. If you want car chases and explosions, look elsewhere. This is not that kind of movie. But if you're looking for an intelligent and sensitive film about what it is to be human in today's world, pounce.

I saw OPPENHEIMER in 70-millimeter format. I wish I had liked it better, but I didn't. What I disliked most about it was the soundtrack. There was INCESSANT background noise that rumbled and roared and thudded (with a lot of Sensurround-style vibration) throughout the film. Sometimes it drowned out the actors, several of whom were hard for me to understand in the first place. The style of the photography was also off-putting. To make it seem like a documentary or a period-piece, sections of it were filmed in black-and-white or used filters to deaden the colors. I think all these gimmicks were there to disguise the fact that the script wasn't really very focused and was 3 hours long. The script is based on true historical events, and reality isn't easily shoehorned into a coherent plot. It was never clear to me exactly what the point was. There are a lot of good actors in this movie, but I didn't know who they were until I saw the credits! I still think of Matt Damon and Robert Downey Junior as young men, and they're NOT! I thought Downey gave the best performance in the film, though. The art direction and costume design seemed to accurately depict the period, although thanks to the cinematography, we'll never know what the true colors of anything were. (I wonder if the film-maker told these people that he was going to use stylized cinematography beforehand, or whether they found out when they saw the film.) I admire the film's ambition, and I think the issues it raises are things that people should think about, but I wonder if it would have been better if they had just told the story.

THE LESSON is a terrible title for an excellent film. It's an economically made film. It utilizes a small cast with only a handful of speaking roles. There are only two locales-a country estate (about 95% of the time) and a TV studio (the other 5%). The soundtrack orchestra is composed of only a few instruments. But it nonetheless comes off as rather classy. The situation is that a revered writer and his wife hire a tutor for their son whom they feel MUST be accepted by a prestigious college. The couple are both domineering. When they speak, it's an order. Their son is brilliant, but an emotional mess. The tutor is a handsome and articulate young man of mixed-race, who comes with sterling credentials (and is also an aspiring writer). The tutor lives in the house and sees a lot more than he would like to of the couple's private life. It turns out that a tragic event happened in this family five years earlier. What really happened and why? Gradually, one begins to see the complex web of relationships among the characters. Whose point-of-view should the viewer believe? This is an intelligent and challenging script, at times evocative of Tom Stoppard or Harold Pinter. The screenwriter, Alex MacKeith, is the real star of this movie. The cast are all fine, but I was a big Richard E. Grant fan to start with. He does not disappoint. Where I think the film falls short is in the pacing. It's a little flat. Every scene is played at the same level at the same pace. It could have used some peaks and valleys. It looks gorgeous though, with great art decoration and cinematography. Isobel Weller Bridge's musical score is just right.

The movie also has a lot of ideas about writing and writers. As Richard E. Grant's character says, "Good writers borrow; Great writers steal." There's a lot to this movie, but I don't want to spoil anything in this review. It would make a great double-bill with the documentary UMBERTO ECO-A LIBRARY OF THE WORLD. If you like Harold Pinter and Tom Stoppard, you would probably enjoy this movie.

I enjoyed this movie, but I doubt that many other people will. As a New Yorker who has worked in the arts, I know something about the milieu and the people depicted, so I had the background to appreciate it. But to most people, I think, it will be unintelligible. Basically, the situation is that a young and inexperienced would-be artist ("James") is hired to be an assistant to elderly surrealist Salvador Dali (Ben Kingsley), once an enfant terrible of the art world, now generally regarded by the cognoscenti as a has-been and a hack, despite being known and loved by the hoi polloi and a darling of the paparazzi. The assistant's duty is to keep Dali working. Dali is easily distracted by the constant bohemian circus going on around him. Dali's wife Gala (well-played by Barbara Sukowa) is really the one who pulls the strings. She collects and counts the money. She is also a horny old lady with a taste for beautiful young men. James (who is indeed a beautiful young man) is warned NOT to sleep with her and NOT to offend her. Dali, it turns out, doesn't really engage in sex himself. He is basically a voyeur and a masturbator. But he adores and depends on Gala. Gala's current paramour is an actor named Jeff Fenholt, who is playing the title role on Broadway in JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR. There are other issues going on, like forgery and fraud, and money-laundering. It ought to be more interesting. But it's not. I think the main reason it doesn't work is that it's unstructured. Virtually everything is given the same weight. What's important doesn't stand out, but blends in with the scenery. Acting (especially Sukowa, Kingsley, and Chris Briney as James), art direction, cinematography, and music are all excellent, but who cares?

This film is in the Irish language and has subtitles. I thought it was great. It's one of the best films with a child protagonist that I've ever seen. Briefly, a young girl goes to live with relatives until her pregnant mother gives birth. I'd urge you not to read any synopses or detailed reviews, because certain elements of the story are only gradually revealed. So I'll just say that it has an excellent screenplay, is beautifully acted, and is gorgeously photographed. It's an original story but shares certain elements with LIVING and DeSica's A BRIEF VACATION, although it isn't at all LIKE those movies. This is a very understated, but incredibly emotional film. I found it tremendously moving. One of the advertising blurbs said something like "already a classic." Usually I'm skeptical of blurbs, but in this case, I'd say it was right on.

It probably helps to understand this film if you know something about Moroccan and/or Muslim culture. Morocco is the most liberal of the Muslim countries, but we still get an idea of the repression when early on in the film the husband and wife are hassled by the police on a "routine inspection." The police want to know if they are married. When the husband says yes, the police want to see their marriage license. It goes on. This childless husband and wife, who seem to be around 40 years old) have a shop where they produce expensive, handmade clothing for upper-class Moroccan ladies. The man is an artist at what he does, especially his work with gold filagree. (Over the course of the movie, the man will create his masterpiece, the title garment.) The wife is rather feisty for that society, which may be the reason they were stopped by the police. Earlier that evening on their way home from another function, she asked her husband if they could drop into a café for a cup of mint tea. He agreed, albeit with a subtle reluctance. In general, cafes in the Muslim world are all-male affairs. Although Morocco is more liberal, it's still somewhat rare that a woman sets foot in one, and then only in the company of her husband. While she's there, she also (somewhat surreptitiously) smokes her husband's pipe. It was on their way home from the café that the police stopped them. Was there a connection? Who knows? That's life in modern Morocco. The husband seems to be very indulgent with his wife, but also somewhat aloof. For medical reasons, they need money and therefore need to produce more goods at work. In order to do so, they take on a young man as an apprentice. An unspoken, but palpable, affection arises between the men. The wife begins to perceive the young man as a threat. Mind you, none of this is ever said. It's all conveyed through looks, attitudes, and body-language. Homosexuality is a crime in Islam. (In Saudi Arabia, the penalty is beheading. It's probably not that severe in Morocco, but I would guess jail time at the least.) There are several scenes that take place in a hammam (public bath house where there is no total nudity) which imply that the husband seeks sexual gratification there. But the story is really about the husband and wife and the great love that they have for each other.

This is a subtle and poetic film in which the three principal actors are all excellent. Ayoub Missioui as the apprentice is able to convey youthful passion very subtly and sensitively. Saleh Bakri as the husband is remarkable in his ability to seem completely masculine while sewing or admiring his apprentice. His performance is brilliant underplaying. Lubna Azabal as the wife has the script's flashiest role, and she certainly rises to the occasion. These three performances are among the year's best. The film, however, is slow-moving and requires patience on the part of the audience. I'm not so sure that it's the pace that seems slow, or that all the scenes have the same rhythm. There are no really big moments. Every moment is given equal weight, which tends to "flatten out" the script. I did not like the cinematography. The scenes all seemed to start blurry and then adjust to a sharper image. The lighting was too dark much of the time, too. Despite these reservations, I admired this film and would recommend it to those who like art films and foreign movies.

I knew very little about "Magic Mike" other than that it was a successful comedy about a heterosexual male stripper. And this was the sequel. I was not prepared for it to be what I would call "softcore pornography aimed at women." I was a little shocked, but that was primarily because I wasn't expecting it. "Magic Mike" is not just a stripper; he's a male lap-dancer. A male lap-dancer basically strips down to little clothing and rubs his body on a clothed, sexually-frustrated woman. So the "Last Dance" of the title is a lap dance! Camera angles, music, and lighting are manipulated to emphasize the erotic. The story is a bit confused and doesn't really warrant an attempt at explanation. It is basically a series of excuses for another lap-dance scene. The screenplay is a mess, not to mention padded-to-the-gills. There is a lengthy prologue in which the two leads address the camera directly and let the audience know that this is the THIRD installment of the franchise. About half an hour into the pic, a previously silent narrator suddenly intervenes. Once in a while an interesting idea would arise, only to be instantly dropped. For example, at one time I wondered "who is manipulating whom?" Is the manipulator the rich woman who always gets her way? Or is the manipulator the sexy guy who knows what turns women on and uses that knowledge to exploit them? But those ideas was never developed. Sometimes it's reminiscent of GLASS ONION, in that it deals with shallow, extremely materialistic people and drops in an occasional Marxist criticism. But say what you will, the whole thing is performed with good humor and charm by a game cast. I thought they were all fine, especially Mr. Tatum. I think this movie could be very popular with women. But I think men will avoid it.

Although I saw this at the cinema, it is very much a television program for PBS. This could have been really great, but it was pretty much fan mag stuff all the way through. I enjoyed it, but it didn't really go into much depth. I liked the way it stressed young Sarah Colley's early ambition and the steps she took to achieve it. I wish they had gone into more detail about HOW Sarah created and developed her alter-ego "Minnie Pearl." Despite the hick character, she was quite savvy. Her career didn't just happen by accident. Basically, this film is a broad outline of her Sarah/Minnie's story interspersed with testimonials from such country music stars as Garth Brooks, Dolly Parton, Rheba McIntyre, Tanya Tucker, and Brenda Lee, among others professing their love and admiration for her. But because this is PBS, you can bet your bottom dollar that before it's over that Minnie will have morphed into "Super Minnie, Crusader for Social Justice." She's a friend to people of color and to gay people, too. (This is attested to by k.d. Laing and one of the show's producers, a pretty young woman who describes herself as "a queer person.") Minnie is inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame before being diagnosed with breast cancer that proved to be fatal. She left money for a breast cancer hospital which was named in her honor. The final segment is mostly a song performed by Rodney Crowell that has a lyric that alludes to "Jesus and Buddha and Krishna and Minnie Pearl," which serves as a kind of apotheosis. I found it unexpectedly moving.

I enjoyed this show, but it's quite superficial and omits a few things that were basic to Sarah Colley/Minnie Pearl. There is very little mention of her deep and abiding Evangelical Christian faith. Perhaps this is why there is no mention of the only movie she starred in, THAT TENNESSEE BEAT, in which she played a lady preacher. I've always wondered why that character was in a wheelchair. Was it written that way? Or had Minnie broken her leg before filming started?

Fans of Minnie Pearl and/or "rural comedy" will certainly like this film.

I liked this movie a lot more than I thought I was going to. It's a compelling story splendidly acted by a dynamite cast. The major problem with it is that it is based on a play, which was obviously one of those modern box-set, small cast affairs. It still has the claustrophobic feel of being shut up and isolated from the outside world. However, that may be a directorial choice to emphasize the central character's dilemma: he is so morbidly obese that his body has become his prison. The ending also has the feel of a stage play where everything is neatly tied up and explained. The theatre is about language; movies are the visuals. But nonetheless, the film is quite moving in many places, thanks primarily to the fine actors. Brendan Fraser as the central character, an obese English professor who teaches an on-line class in effective writing, and Hong Chau as his caregiver have both earned well-deserved Oscar nominations. It's a pity that there could not also be nominations for Samantha Morton as Fraser's bitter ex-wife, Sadie Sink as his bitter estranged daughter, and Ty Simpkins as a sweet religious fanatic, as they are all splendid. The most "shocking" scene is right at the beginning of the movie when we see the disgustingly obese Fraser masturbating while watching gay pornography on his laptop. It sounds disgusting, but it quite economically communicates the central issues confronting the lead character, especially when he is caught in the act by a well-meaning fundamentalist missionary. Director Aronofsky is to be congratulated not only for guiding the actors, but for keeping the viewer interested in what happens next. This is no mean feat, given the set-up with very limited options. This is a good movie, worth seeing.

I had no interest in seeing this movie (I'm usually more of an art film fan) until it was nominated for Oscars in several important categories. And it's playing in my neighborhood, so I decided to check it out. Boy was I surprised! TOP GUN MAVERICK is the kind of movie Hollywood is famous for: glamorous people doing exciting things while giving the audience thrills and chills and suspense with an upbeat ending. Hollywood has been in love with aviation from the very beginning. The very first Oscar for best picture was WINGS, about pilots in World War I. Audiences were thrilled by its daring arial photography. With the technological advances of 95 years, the arial sequences of TOP GUN MAVERICK are even more exciting. The story is one that has seen many incarnations over the years: the old timer is called back to action in order to teach the young people how to do it. But has he lost his chops? Will he win the trust of both his superiors who are almost hoping for him to fail, and the young people who consider him a bitter has-been. Yeah, we've probably seen it before, but never as spectacularly thrilling. It's also a movie that the whole family can enjoy. The movie has been a record-breaking box-office success worldwide and it's easy to see why. It's nothing terribly profound, but extremely entertaining. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

ARGENTINA, 1985 is a political thriller in the tradition of Costa-Gravas's "Z," and perhaps ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN, with a dash of THE OFFICIAL STORY thrown in. It tells a rather complex story in an easy-to-understand way. For that alone, I'm impressed. Three screenwriters are credited: Mariano Llinas, and Francisco Bertin. I don't know who is responsible for what, but, taut and suspenseful, it works. Argentina has had a turbulent political history from the start of the Spanish conquest, up through the entire 20th Century, with military dictatorships being the principal form of government. Democracy was (at least in name) instituted in 1983. Does the new democratic government really have any power? Is it really any different from its predecessor? The new government wants to prosecute the previous regime for its horrendous crimes, but powerful people are warning them not to do it, or else face the consequences. The prosecutors are their families are menaced at every turn. There is even at least one assassination. Most of the film is taken up with the investigation and the gathering of overwhelming evidence, in spite of serious threats against the investigators and the witnesses. A lot of the testimony is horrifying and heart-rending. Convincingly acted in real locations, it sometimes has the feel of a documentary, albeit a suspenseful one. I suspect Hollywood is already calling director Santiago Mitre, who obviously has a big future ahead of him.

AFTERSUN is an art film. It's basically a 2-character film that depicts the relationship between a young father and his 11-year-old daughter. The man and his wife are divorced. In the summers he takes his daughter on vacation (or vacations-I wasn't sure whether it was one trip, or memories of several). He teaches her to play pool and water polo. She's also reading LOLITA. (It doesn't say that the child is a genius, but I just don't think there is any way an 11-year-old could understand LOLITA. There are a lot of literary references in it that an 11-year-old hasn't lived long enough to read.) Nothing much really happens in the movie, other than that the father and daughter get to know each other a little better. The actors (Paul Mescal as the father and Frankie Corio as the daughter) are both wonderful and give very moving performances, but there's no real story. Parts of it are mock cinema verité photographed mostly by a shaky hand-held camera. There are also a lot of rapid cuts that made me slightly nauseous. People prone to seizures should either not see this movie, or close their eyes for extended periods of time. The actors have Scottish accents that at times made me wish there were subtitles. This is a sensitive and fragile film that requires patience. There are scenes in this slowly paced movie that are undeniably moving, but that was not enough for me. I need a real plot.

CLOSE is a story of pubescent friendship in the 21st Century. Two boys are inseparable. They spend their days and nights together, running, cycling, and playing video games. Remi is artistic. He draws and plays the oboe. Leo is athletic. He plays ice hockey. They have fun together and have frequent sleepovers. When they are put in the same class at school, their closeness is noticed by their fellow pubescent classmates, who ask them if they're "a couple." And thus begins a dramatic change in the boys' friendship. This is a very sensitive film with fine naturalistic performances by a cast that makes it seem at times that we're watching a documentary. Especially impressive are child actor Eden Dambrine as Leo and Emile Dequenne as Remi's mother. It's an odd film in that a lot of details, as far as the events are concerned, are missing. There are a lot of unanswered questions. But the emotions are vivid and extremely detailed. This is a sad yet provocative film that is well worth seeing.