Davalon-Davalon

I have only seen the first episode of this, so my feelings may change as I work my way through this series.

Richard Gadd (as "Donny") has an incredibly vulnerable face. In his eyes you can see a lot of real life pain. He does not strike me as ever having been a comedian, because he seems to have an inner well of sadness. But, since he is an actor, that might just be a nod to his acting talents.

That said, I started to watch this because, like "The Queen's Gambit" (which I thought was brilliant), "Baby Reindeer" has had such an overwhelming response, I thought I should check it out.

First off, I am completely unclear why "Martha" (Jessica Gunning, brilliant) is calling Donny "baby reindeer." I don't get it. Second, Martha kept saying that she was a lawyer and worked with top clients, so how is it that she could not afford a cup of tea in a pub? Why is it that Donny doesn't question her once directly about that? He has a distinct opportunity to question her when the two of them go to the cafe for a coffee. By the way, Donny only orders a coffee. Martha, after first saying she'll only have tap water, orders up a hearty round of pastries once Donny says he'll pay for it (instead of saying, "I thought you said you were a lawyer. Why can't you afford a cup of tea?). However, when the waitress returns with the order, she puts a plate of food down in front of Donny -- but he didn't order any food.

Also, while perhaps Martha does clue in that Donny is a survivor of some kind of abuse, and perhaps that touches Donny in a unique way, why does he take things further? After seeing her have an episode of rage in the cafe, and after doing some online research, discovering that she has a record as a stalker, including being imprisoned for it, why on God's earth would he accept her friend request on Facebook? It makes no sense to, none.

I did not find this to be the stone cold brilliant show that everyone is raving about, but I did find the two leads intriguing. I just wish I could understand some aspects of the show better.

It's hard to go wrong with Rooney Mara and Vanessa Redgrave. Their presence on the screen is always mesmerizing. But this story, which attempts to weave the past and the present of one troubled woman's life through voiceovers and flashbacks, doesn't fully succeed.

Vanessa is the "older" version of "Rose," played by Rooney Mara as a young woman-- but there is not one bit of physical resemblance between them. But, okay, let's look past that. We hear Vanessa's voiceover (in a voice that does not sound as Irish as Ms. Mara's) and we are swept back into the 1940s where a young Rose works as a waitress at her aunt's cafe. Because of her youth and beauty, she is wanted by every man in town, including the troubled priest who somehow thinks that Rose belongs to him. The priest, in a jealous rage, sets in motion a series of consequences which Rose will suffer from for her entire life.

It is sad, it has powerful moments, but the time-switching, the huge gap between Vanessa's voiceovers (Oh, wait, maybe we should put one in here so people remember that she's still part of the movie), and other coincidences combined to create a sort of muddled, unbelievable drama.

Rooney Mara gives her all and she is always watchable, but as the film goes on you will start to question things and at the end, which is hinted at broadly, you may feel some pang of emotion for all that Rose has suffered through, but you also might be shaking your head at what seems to be an absolutely improbable conclusion.

The premise for this film was unique, no question. "Zack," a young man with Down Syndrome has been abandoned by his family to live out his life in a nursing home. He is obsessed with a wrestling video and wants to be a pro wrestler.

Zack, with the help of Bruce Dern (in a great cameo) manages to escape the nursing home. The story somehow manages to get Zack connected to Tyler (Shia LeBeouf), a troubled man on the run, while Zack's careworker, Eleanor (Dakota Johnson) goes on the hunt to find him.

The unlikely "family" that these three create eventually makes sense in a roundabout way.

But while the set-up was indeed unique, the story devolves into off moments of scenes stitched together to give us the illusion of a real movie and ultimately I stopped caring because little made sense.

Dakota and Shia definitely have movie star charm and presence, and the young Down Syndrome actor (also named Zack in real life), gave a full-on performance. But I still felt a cohesive story was lacking.

A lot of small parts must have been played by local actors, and all of these people were really colorful. In fact, in many ways, I enjoyed seeing them and following their lives more than I did the main characters.

I can see this movie was made with love, but I don't think it was made with a lot of clarity, though I am sure others would be to differ.

This story is no doubt one that demanded to be told. And there a number of powerful scenes that force you to pay attention. In this way, the movie was successful. But despite overall strong performances, especially from Carmen Ejogo as "Coretta Scott King" and David Oyelowo as "Martin Luther King," there is a point in the film where I felt all the energy disappear.

When Martin finally prevails in being able to march his people across the bridge in Selma, at the last minute he retreats -- as do his people (at this point, white people had joined the otherwise Black crowd in supporting King). This indeed may have been what really happened, but all it did was create a situation where more scenes had to be added to convince King to get back to the bridge and walk over it. Which was finally achieved, but the moment had passed, so to speak.

There are tons of characters in this movie and while Ava DuVernay handles her director chores well, I was struck at how the story could have been made more simply had the army of supporting characters been reduced. It forced the viewer to try to understand who was who and to remember everyone as the story unfolded.

There is a fair amount of violence and cruelty and for anyone who isn't a hateful bigot, it is easy to see how members of the Black race have been egregiously wronged ever since they were captured and forced into slavery. The repercussions of this heinous act still resonate today (2024), and thus "Selma" has its place and its purpose. But ultimately I felt some trimming and refocusing would be in order to gain a higher rating.

If you do not know who Hannah Arendt was, then watching this film is essentially a waste of time. We ordered the DVD by accident, and we found it a tough film to sit through.

Barbara Sukowa makes a valiant effort to bring Hannah to life. Since I do not know what Hannah was really like, I only had this performance to rely on.

In brief, Hanna was a historian, writer and professor. She had been tasked by The New Yorker magazine with covering the trial of Nazi Adolph Eichmann. Her subsequent writings about this trial are the main thrust of this film.

That said, one must really have a fairly strong grasp on these things because without them, the movie is basically a lot of scenes of people putting on and taking off their eyeglasses, smoking non-stop and talking at each other with various degrees of loudness.

The movie is well made and obviously had a substantial budget, considering its subject matter. Even so, I felt we were constantly being dragged back and forth between Israel and New York City, with homes, campuses and bus rides in between.

There is little in this film that makes sense. An emotionally unbalanced young man (Rick) forces a young woman (Emma) to take him to "the border" because he "accidentally" killed his wealthy father in a fit of rage. While Emma has multiple opportunities to escape or fight back, she doesn't, because Rick is holding her at knifepoint -- a knife that looks like a rubber toy.

This story is interwoven with the Emma's mother and a variety of detectives and police as they try to figure out where Emma is.

There are multiple laugh-out loud moments, despite the actors doing their best.

The best actor in the movie is Lisa Long, who plays the manager at a cheap motel where Rick and Emma spend the night (with neither of them ever having to use the restroom or eat). Lisa has the great face of a character actress; she delivers her lines with the savvy that only comes with years of being a pro, and she gives the movie its only worthwhile scenes (and the reason I rated this 2 stars instead of 1).

A whole convoluted backstory about Emma being a dancer and wanting to give up college, putting her at odds with her mother, making her move in with her best friend (or some friend), where she meets Rick -- this whole story was absolutely unnecessary.

Later, when Rick is getting desperate after almost running over the motel manager, he decides he has to get a new car and accesses his phone. The woman sees him tap in his passcode. Now quite honestly, it's unlikely that she could really see what he tapped in, but, to make it clear to everyone in the universe that she did see what he tapped in, she must tap out the sequence on her leg. Because. That's what you'd do, right?

Then, later, the Emma's mom and one of the detectives question the manager (who was nearly run down, but now looks fine) about which direction Rick drove off in. The manager says with surety, "North."" Since the manager was knocked out on the ground, cold, how would she know which direction they went? This was one of the many laugh-out loud moments in this god-awful joke of a movie.

As the film goes on, the female detective becomes one of the most important characters in the film. It just doesn't make any sense. At one point, instead of immediately alerting the dispatch center, the detective launches into this insanely long story about a murderer who kidnapped (catnapped?) a cat, while the mother stares at her. I mean, it was insane.

Then, while the detectives are having a pow-wow, the mom "sees" "blood" on a parking lot, because she can determine "blood" from ketchup or god-knows what else. This leads her to find Emma's huge black SUV, which she could have seen if she had just looked up. The car is not checked for fingerprints and the detective just keeps telling the mom (who basically has about three facial expressions, and that's pushing it) that "We'll find her soon" -- as if that makes everything okay.

Then we have the big race where everyone is chasing each other, and the rocks to the head (which achieve nothing) and the knives to the throat and the mom who tries to gentle talk Rick into dropping the knife from Emma's throat. Which he does. Emma runs into mom's arms, Rick, on the detective's cue, flings the knife aside (it's obviously rubber or a really cheap-looking "knife") and we are back in a horrid nightclub where Emma has now achieved her dream of dancing on the "stage" of a cheap club while mom looks on with pride.

Although the actors did their best, this was a failure from the first to the last scene. An absolute no.

Unlike most God-awful Lifetime movies, someone shelled out a bit of money for this and managed to land an impressive location: what seems like a legitimate European castle/university for young women. (But it must have been somewhere in Canada because it's cheaper to film there.) Between the students' rooms, the cafeteria, the staff offices, the library, the stairwells, the outside gardens, some "unique" camera angles and basically wall-to-wall dramatic music, TBSM comes across as much grander than it really is.

As soon as the first (and only) murder has been committed, your mind will automatically start narrowing it down to who could have done it. Still, I was a bit surprised at the end.

The director and screenwriters obviously made choices to provide "thriller beats" to many scenes, but none of them were really that thrilling. The most exciting thing that happens in this 90-minute film is when four of the main girls get into a fistfight-hairfight-foodfight in the cafeteria. It simply wasn't long enough. If they had had 90 minutes of just that, this movie would've probably scored a ten.

Hannah Galway, as the "troubled" lead "Frankie," makes a valiant effort to carry the whole film on her shoulders. But the script imprisons her with an endless series of breaking into people's rooms, walking down hallways in an ill-fitting school uniform, constantly calling her former foster care buddy back in New York to report on the odd goings-on at the university, and offering snappy comebacks to a supposed detective who comes across as creepy, strange and cliched.

There were several lines of dialogue that were well written, almost impressive, but unfortunately, not enough to warrant watching the film. And despite attempts to heat up the suspense, I found myself bursting into gut laughs every five minutes.

So, kudos to the production company for scoring this major location and actually hiring more than their standard seven characters. That said, it didn't make that much of a difference because the story was lacking.

Although I'm a Barbra fan, I never got around to seeing this film. I had read many reviews that were not favorable, and I wanted to remember Barbra from her magical heyday.

But after reading Barbra's bio, and being reminded of this film, I decided to watch it with my husband.

Although the story is a bit awkward and forced and although you could pretty much anticipate the big reveal at the end, Barbra proved that she had and has always had great comic timing.

It made me wish that she had done more comedies (which she excels at) instead of trying to do these big dramas. Barbra has always seen herself as a "serious" actress, but the truth is she's a comedian at heart. She really gets how to deliver lines for a laugh. And I feel she actually cheated her fans out of tons of opportunities through the years while she pursued some other vision of herself, all of which pale in comparison to her comedic talents.

Seth Rogen plays "Andy Brewster" and Barbra plays his mother "Joyce." While it is not stated, it is obvious that these characters are Jewish. And Barbra proves again that she was/is/always will be the original (and best) Jewish Funny Girl. No one can beat her; no one.

Seth is not an actor. He doesn't know how to be subtle. I feel like he decided who the character was and how he could move and act and speak, and was unable to change any of that. Whereas Barbra felt natural and funny and jokey throughout.

The story itself really isn't that interesting, but it was fun watching Barbra being a nagging Jewish mother for almost the entire film.

While Montana "co-stars" in this "wilderness thriller," and while there are shots and scenes of great natural beauty, it doesn't matter as none of it enhances what is an extremely talky, slow-moving "Lifetime" movie.

The plot, such as it is, is extremely convoluted due to a bizarre backstory between Craig (Justin Berti) and Jackson (Matt Pohlkamp). The story is divvied out in bits and pieces as the movie unfolds, but it doesn't make any sense at all. None. As such, the whole movie doesn't make any sense.

There are numerous scenes of people just sitting and talking. Yes, there a few shocking/surprising/thrilling moments, but mostly I found myself laughing out loud.

The film asks us to believe that Craig, after being shot through the leg with a steel arrow, nearly bleeding to death, stumbling and falls multiple times, and his wife Sarah (Laurie Fortier) accidentally (on purpose?) leaning on the wound, still has the strength at the end to stealthily walk up (on dead leaves, dirt, twigs and stones -- you know, the kind of ground you can hear from 20 paces away), shoves Jackson to the ground before Jackson "arrows" Sarah and daughter Regan (Veronica Ramirez) and cub ranger Jude (Abner Lozano).

And yet, five minutes before that, we see what is essentially Craig's death scene.

There's lots of driving and lots of talking, but because the backstory is simply too convoluted to process, none of it makes any difference.

One star for the location, one star for Veronica and Abner, who both show promises as actors, but who were unfortunately saddled with this substandard screenplay.

The movie could have more fully embraced the fantastic scenery of Montana and really showed people struggling against the elements, but this is another in a string of low-budget movies and hence, this is as good as it's going to get.

I did not realize that this story was based on the British mother, not the American mother. The American mother was definitely given more screen time, but then, it was Hilary Swank. The British mother was Brenda Blethyn, who can basically do anything.

The two lead actresses do their best in an awkward script that tries to connect their lives via the tragedies of their sons, lost to malaria.

While no doubt the heart of this story was in the right place, it never once asked the question: "Why isn't the government of Mozambique doing more to fight malaria, and/or contacting the US for help?"

Instead, what we have is a story of a very rich white woman (Hilary) who makes an insane decision to take her bullied son out of school for an "adventure," goes to Mozambique, expects people to serve her son pizza when he can't eat the local cuisine, seems totally oblivious to the dangers of living where she chose to live with a young child (hello, hospitals hours away?), and apparently had lots of money to always have a driver and people carry her things.

When her child dies of malaria, we're forced to see Hilary staring blankly out into space while she suffers.

I could go on, but to be honest, this was not a movie; it was an imitation of a movie. It was forced and manipulative, and if the people behind this really wanted to make a point or raise awareness about this issue, they would have made a documentary (which they may have made, I don't know).

It's really not worth the time.

There is very, very little in this story that makes any sense. A house cleaner who is wandering down some country road in Canada, trying to find the place she's going to clean (instead of using an Uber, which she uses at every other opportunity throughout the film) finally finds the house. It's huge. She starts cleaning. There's a pitcher o' somethin' with a note, "Help yourself" in pretty feminine writing (this will come back later). So, of course house cleaner drinks whatever is in the pitcher. It's drugged. She passes out. When she awakes she discovers that someone is dead in the pool of the house she's cleaning.

Instead of calling the police, she bolts. Reason: she recently got out of prison for vehicular manslaughter (her husband).

(Did I mention she's a single mom? While she's in prison, Rich Grandma takes care of house cleaner's son, "Tate.")

House cleaner thinks she might be a suspect in the murder of someone at the house. She ends up bolting from the house, trying to steal someone's car, who ultimately stops her (a hot single guy), and all of the sudden, they're enmeshed in each other's lives.

There are other pointless hijinks, forced "drama" and "suspense," all "highlighted" by "dramatic music" that's probably been recycled from another so-called "Lifetime" movie.

The big reveal is that Rich Grandma has been setting up house cleaner to fail big time so that Rich Grandma can give grandson everything. But since house cleaner keeps showing up like a bad penny, Rich Grandma (who also doesn't hesitate to drug or violently injure anyone who gets in her way) decides that house cleaner has to be taken out -- by a couple of the stupidest "crooks" on record.

It was impossible to watch this in continuity, but when I decided to turn it on, I did my exercise, since it was one way to keep myself awake.

An absolute disaster and waste of time. I watched it for my job, not because I wanted to.

On one level, the scope of this story, about a family trying to flee an oppressive Hungary, is vast. The film does a fairly good job of hinting at the hell that certain citizens faced, and, as in Nazi Germany, the extremes people would go to, to escape, in this case to the U. S. (which at the time was still welcoming to immigrants, unlike now).

In this story, because of circumstances that weren't clear to me, the family (Natassja Kinski as Margit and Tony Goldwyn as Peter) is forced to leave behind the younger of two daughters in order to flee.

The younger daughter ("Suzy," played beautifully by Kelly Endresz Banlaki) is placed with loving foster parents and has a pleasant childhood with them, believing them to be her parents. Finally the family in the states is able to send for her.

Needless to say, Suzy must face a period of adjustment. We eventually get to Suzy's teenage years, where she is now Scarlett Johannson.

Scarlett was actually a teen, so it worked well. However, she did not have a remote sense of being someone else. She was a typical self-involved rebellious teenager. Also, there was no remote trace of an accent, none. Nor was there a trace of accent in the case of her older sister. I suppose it's possible that children could lose their accents, but it did not seem realistic to me.

The story plods on simplistically, with almost every scene fading out too soon. Suzy has no respect for her mother and since the father agreed that she could go back to Hungary when she was ready, well, she's ready. He sends her back. It's clear that teen Suzy believes she's going to find the missing piece to her identity.

What she discovers, after meeting her maternal grandmother, is the nightmare that her mother (Natassja) had to live through and why she went to the US and why Suzy was not able to join them.

Suzy comes away from this experience with a newfound respect for her mother, and returns a "changed" person who is now fully able to call her real mother "mother."

The parents, the foster parents and the grandmother do not age one day in 10 years. Not one. This makes no sense. Also, the older sister plays a horribly cruel joke on Suzy (when she's still a child), and also insults her and berates her and treats her horribly.

Considering that this family (the parents and older child) would realize and understand all the suffering they endured to be able to live the life they are now living, I found it odd that the older sister acted like an inconsiderate obnoxious brat. It was extremely upsetting.

As for Scarlett: the producers felt compelled to make her do a VO at the top of the film so that the viewers would "understand." It was absolutely unnecessary and was in fact the only VO in the film. Also, yes, we can see how beautiful Scarlett is turning out, and while I will happily watch a film with her in it, her speaking voice at this point was flat and dull and essentially emotionless. She did not give a layered performance, and I never for one second believed that this child had been born in Hungary and spent her formative years there.

As this was the true story of Éva Gárdos, who wrote and directed the film, I can appreciate that she wanted to share what had happened to her. But honestly speaking, I mostly did not find this film engaging on an emotional level, and the lack of a hint of an accent, plus zilch aging by all characters, didn't help.

There is no question that Sandra Bullock has comedic timing. That said, looking at her career trajectory, other than a paycheck, I cannot imagine what drew her to this third-rate jungle adventure story.

The trailer is funnier than the movie, that's the first thing you should know. Second, Sandra has already done her "rom-com" films. To go back to one at this point, especially one of this poor quality, was a terrible decision.

I'm not going to detail the plot because basically it's pointless. I'll just say that if someone important in your life dies, if you are still depressed and unable to function five years after the fact, you need therapy. You don't need to be sitting in a chair or bathtub, staring out sadly at the world.

Channing Tatum, while quite attractive, and whose bare posterior might even be more attractive, seems clumsy and awkward and doltish throughout.

Brad Pitt makes a riveting cameo and he is the only thing in this misbegotten mess that is worth watching. In fact, when he's "taken out," the movie is essentially over. You'll think you're supposed to keep watching it; trust me, it's over.

Yes, there are jokes; there are several that I laughed at for several minutes; those jokes should just be made into a short reel, because they are the only things worth seeing (well, those and Channing's defined behind).

Sandra... please. You need not do these movies anymore. Or if you do, then get a better management team who can find you better material. I felt like someone said, "This is funny! Let's get Sandra." Sandra looked at her calendar and said, "Yeah, I'm free for 10 days next month; let's do it." And that was the end of the discussion.

A complete and total misfire. The 3 stars are for the jokes and Channing's bottom.

I saw the trailer and it spoke to me quite powerfully. I felt compelled to watch this film. That said, it did not entirely impress me, although it touched my heart several times.

Kol (Elias Anton), a teenaged boy of mixed ethnicity, seems to have only one friend, Ebony (Hattie Hook), his (white) dance partner, who is an absolute mess and who blames everyone for her bad luck in life. Because Ebony got wasted on drinks and drugs, she wakes up on a beach somewhere in Australia on the day of "dance finals." She has to bum 40 cents off some poor woman on the street and calls Kol to save her. (This supposedly takes place at the end of the '90s, so the common person does not yet have a cell phone.) In order to do this, Kol eventually has to get Ebony's brother involved, Adam (Thom Green), who is leaving the next day to start his PhD in another country. Adam drives Kol to some town in hopes of finding Ebony at a phone booth, and then, if they can make it, straight to the dance finals.

They can't make it, because Ebony messed everything up. But during the long drive to find her (it seems endless), the closeted Kol discovers Adam is gay and has to fight his attraction to him.

Later, as the story progresses through an absolutely awful party at the home of some horrid, racist woman, Kol shows up to support Ebony and is basically treated like garbage by the mainly (not entirely) white crowd. But suddenly Kol is surprised to find Adam there.

This leads to them driving off together to see a sunrise somewhere, and then, as the armor falls aside, Kol succumbs to Adam's touch and they have an amazing experience in the back of Adam's car.

The story did not really come alive until it became clear that the closeted Kol had developed powerful feelings for the bright and vivacious Adam. And when they connect physically, it is absolutely entirely believable. The actors have strong chemistry and I was deeply saddened that the story did not resolve in their favor.

But that is how life is. We meet someone, there is a powerful connection, then either life or family or fate takes us away, and the connection only remains a memory.

Ten years later the men meet again. It's quite clear that Kol has never ever loved anyone else but Adam has moved on.

It's deeply sad, and when Kol crumples into Adam's arms and later, in a hotel room, when Adam says he wants to hold Kol -- all of it was believable and deeply moving.

There was a lot of music (too much); the director/writer obviously felt that they had to have certain songs in the film and I guess they must have had a large budget to pay for them, because some were fairly famous.

There were tons of close-ups, but most of them worked well. What I loved was that Elias Anton was the most authentic and natural looking person I've ever seen in a lead role. He has (or had) bad skin at the start of the movie (it looks better in the "10 years later" part), and because the production didn't try to hide it, he came across as totally real.

Thom Green has a charming smile and dark, expressive eyes (as does Elias Anton) and you could see why it would be easy to fall in love with him.

I was praying for a happy ending, because it was easy to see how isolated and shunned and disconnected the character of Kol was. He was just trying to survive with a scarred heart and when he sees Adam after 10 years, it's almost too much for him.

Unless you've lived through this kind of overwhelming passion, it might be difficult to understand, but for me, it was crystal clear.

I do think that the script would have benefited from several mentors and that vulgar language was used a bit too often when it really wasn't necessary.

But when Adam and Kol are alone, the feelings are palpable.

I looked at some of the unbelievably hateful reviews about this film. All of them were cruel and did not see the work of art on the screen.

I rarely give a move a 10, but the layered performances of Ben Kingsley, Jennifer Connelly and Shohreh Aghdashloo left me no other choice.

This is an example of a limited cast, limited locations and a compelling, riveting story.

No one will read my review for the plot, so let me just say that the level of tension is high. They are a number of unexpected moments, shocking ones, and emotions will grab a hold of you and you might be in tears.

The soundtrack was also a character in this film, because it was deeply moving. I felt it pulling me into every scene and I felt like I had stumbled into a forest at night and couldn't find my way out. As the story unfolds, it is clear why some of the characters made the choices they did.

This is a deeply sad and profound film. Do not watch it hoping you will be uplifted. You will not be. You might, however, become very depressed, because the story makes clear that human beings cannot seem to get along with each other, cannot seem to come to terms with their past, cannot control their addictions, and do not have realistic visions of themselves, their lives or much of anything else.

Hats off to all the actors, but the principals in particular were outstanding.

There are so many characters in this discombobulated mess that it is nearly impossible to keep track of who's who.

The dialogue is supposed to be street-smart, hip, cool and contemporary. It doesn't matter; it stinks.

I'm not going to waste my time trying to detail what this story is about because it is a convoluted dumpster fire of ideas that do not connect. I did not feel one real emotion for any person throughout this endless chatfest interrupted by some solid gospel singing.

If this had been a documentary about gospel singing, and we were treated to just the great gospel singers in this movie, I would have given it a 10. But we are forced to wade through this emotional gobbledy-gook by someone who neither knows how to write or direct.

I am convinced that the lead actor Boris Kodjo (who, yes, is stunningly handsome) did not sing his church music. And the fake R&B hit he supposedly sang was so lame and the choreography so pathetic that it was laughable. In fact, the 1 star is only for some great, unintentional laughs. Otherwise, this "movie" should be evaporated into the ether, never to be heard of again.

At first I didn't know what all the hysteria was about. There is a lot of talking at the top of the film, way, way, way too much.

But if you are paying attention (and most people are not), you will clue in that something is terribly, terribly wrong with this acclaimed maestro's life. And it takes a good portion of the movie before that becomes clear.

As another reviewer said, "Tár" does not hold your hand through the "expository" scenes. You have to connect the dots all by yourself. Which, as I say in the title of this review, is challenging.

But soon enough you will get sucked in. Cate Blanchett, as usual, gives a masterful performance in the lead role. She is what I call an "actress" -- she is not afraid to go sans make-up, or go completely glam-free to convey the depth and tragedy of this brilliant, troubled conductor.

You do have to get past tons of dialogue (especially at the start), and lots of locations (and back and forth), but it doesn't matter in the end because the character of "Lydia Tár" is brilliantly conceived and executed.

I almost never give a movie a 10, but despite what other people may think of as its flaws, Tár deserves all its accolades.

This is a simple story about a young woman who wants to keep her late mother's kimono shop running, but with the world changing, and competition from other distractions, it's become more difficult. A half-Japanese male "consultant" is recommended to her. He makes suggestions that seem to increase foot traffic amongst foreign customers, and in the process he and the young woman fall in love.

There are hints at other storylines, but they don't really go anywhere. It doesn't seem any of the actors are professional, although the two leads were quite appealing.

Although it is a "modern-day" story, something about it felt like a a wistful, nostalgic observation on a time that has passed us by.

There are lots of lovely shots of nature and the soundtrack is generally traditional Japanese music (except when it's inexplicably punctuated by "modern" music--all of which distracted from the film).

There were some uneven moments and uneven transitions, but it seemed clear that writer/director Felicity Tillack has a deep love for Japan and a deep sensitivity to its people.

This film does have some charm, but the stakes are not high enough to be truly engaging. But there is a hint of promise in the filmmaker, especially when it comes to capturing beautiful nature shots.

This is clearly made for Lifetime, with all the obsession, stalking, drugged drinks and poisoned pies you could hope for. It moves quickly from start to finish and there are lots of great, funny lines.

The cast is excellent, especially Alissa Filoramo as "Violet," whose undying obsession with her high school boyfriend, twenty years after the fact, drives the narrative at a zippy pace. Also, Andrew Ghai, as conman "Oliver," has excellent presence, and switches from bitter ex-con to smooth-talking fraudster in nanoseconds.

Director Doug Campbell, a veteran of these movies, knows all the angles and details and delivers on all points.

Wasn't sure I was going to enjoy it or not, but I quickly got swept into it, sucked into it, and stayed with it until the end. Bravo!

Both lead actors Julie Christie (Fiona) and Gordon Pinsent (Grant) do a great job as a married couple that are coming apart at the seams due to the wife's advancing Alzheimer's disease.

In short, Grant puts Fiona in a nursing home where she can be watched over with care. Fiona soon meets Aubrey (Michael Murphy), a troubled (mute?) man (also a patient at the home), and forms an attachment to him, one that Grant cannot understand.

Grant tracks down Aubrey's wife, Marian (Olympia Dukakis) to try to understand what's happening. Marian at first isn't interested, but then develops her own attachment to Grant (although I never became convinced that he felt the same way about her) despite calling him a "jerk" after closing the door soon after his first visit. (This made no sense whatsoever.)

Fiona continues to deteriorate and is moved "upstairs" where the Alzheimer cases are more severe. Grant apparently decides to spend his time with Marian, closes up his home where he spent the majority of his life with Fiona and (I guess) decides to spend more time with Marian (who appears to be of sound mind).

Before he says his "last" goodby, Fiona suddenly regains all her faculties and asks when they (she and Grant) will be leaving and returning home.

Grant was warned that something like this might happen, and it did. Grant, throughout the movie, doesn't want to be away from Fiona, but in a relatively short period of time, apparently agrees to have sex with Marian to kill the loneliness. It didn't make sense, based on his overwhelming desire to be near Fiona. I just couldn't understand it, but perhaps it was something that made sense to them in the moment.

All actors did a good job, especially Julie and Gordon. You could sense the sadness and the deterioration, and it does make one feel: what is the point of life if that is how some of us will end up?

There were lots of shots of Grant driving to and from from home to nursing home, lots of shots of Grant and Fiona skiing (or ski-walking) in front of their huge home (guess they never had kids), lots of shots of Fiona walking down hallways, lots of shots of people eating in the dining room -- in other words, there were many repeated beats.

Some lines and observations were great; most of the acting was great. But as to whether this is an "authentic" story about Alzheimer's, from reading the reviews, it appears it is not.

However, you'll be able to enjoy Julie Christie and Gordon Pinsent, just keep in mind that there is nothing about this film that is going to bring you any joy, unless you revel in the suffering of others.

This is the "movie" version of the series of the same name. It follows the lives of two pathetically closeted gay men who are incapable of showing each other even a soupçon of affection, except for the very last nanosecond of the film, where they barely touch fingers to make it clear to the audience that they are a "couple."

Shiro is a lawyer and Kenji is a hairdresser. They live their dull lives in a modest apartment where they spend a lot of time talking about food, and where Shiro shows off his culinary skills, sometimes with the help of a gay-friendly female acquaintance.

There is a lot of cutesy music, and once it's introduced, you can be sure it will be heard again, as obviously there was a limited budget for music and the cues are repeated ad nauseam.

I understand that this film is based on the TV series which was based on a popular manga, so, perhaps the story is doing justice to the original concept, I don't know. But even if it was, you would think that after doing a complete TV series where the biggest physical thing the actors were asked to do was to fake a kiss which faded out before it could be completed, maybe something more than touching hands was called for.

Yes, there were funny moments. Yes, the actors do a good job of doing what is asked of them. The majority of the supporting characters were irritating, obnoxious, loud and useless. The only two people in the film, other than the leads (who both have charm and understand humor) were the man who was in jail (a side story that showed Shiro's "lawyering" skills) and the woman who played Shiro's mother -- who seemed authentic, warm, sensitive and kind.

As a gay man who is in a long term relationship with a Japanese man, I applaud anyone for attempting to show a middle-aged Japanese gay couple go through their daily life. And despite Kenji basically being a slightly queeny stereotypical hairdresser, and despite Shiro being the heavily closeted "straight" gay man, they had their appeal.

But for reasons only known to the producers, writer and director, they were not allowed to hug or kiss or put their arms around each other. And if they were in fact a couple, in the privacy of their own home, they'd naturally touch each other, and I mean, hug, hold, embrace. The idea that these two men had ever or would ever have sex is scrubbed clean from the story. So, yes, it's great to have some gay characters on the screens in Japan, but it's not great to reduce them to one-dimensional puppets that the creative team used to wring laughs out of the audience.

I have heard about this movie for 20 years. It has been referenced almost non-stop in multiple screenwriting articles. I just never thought the idea of watching a film about "Mean Girls" sounded interesting. I didn't want catty, bullying, cruelty and whatever it was I imagined would be on display.

I was wrong on all counts. This is a brilliant film about high school cliques. Lindsay Lohan is letter perfect as "Cady Herron" (a constant running joke that her name is pronounced Kay-dee did wear thin), the home-schooled girl who spent the last decade in Africa with her parents and will now enter a real school.

This is where Cady, and her two new outsider BFFs (Lizzy Caplan and Daniel Franzese), warn her about "The Plastics," a clique of three self-centered girls led by "Regina" (Rachel McAdams, also letter perfect).

You'll fall into the movie really quickly. I guess I'll see the new version, but honestly, most remakes do not improve on the original, and this original version of Mean Girls is fantastic.

I went into this film wanting to love it. I was a huge Schitt's Creek fan and thought that Dan Levy could do no wrong.

Oops.

This is a long, slow, depressing slog. There are moments of humor, there are moments of insight and there are moments of brilliance. But there are not enough moments to warrant an hour and forty minutes of movie.

I'm unclear how or why that Dan Levy thought that anyone would want to wade through what amounts to a group therapy session for rich, entitled single people (or recently widowed people), their lives consumed by themselves and their problems, unable to relate to others or accept that not everything in their fabulous little worlds is going to go perfectly.

There was way, way too much talking. And, perhaps more importantly, I had to accept the fact that Dan Levy cannot act. I mean, not at all. He knows how to deliver a punch line, and he knows how to be funny. He really gets humor and that is his strength. I realize that he probably wanted to do something vastly different from 5 years of constant comedy on the Creek series, and "Good Grief" (a very clever title) is different, but not in a good way.

The only person I liked in this film was Arnaud Valois as "Theo," a man that "Marc" (Dan Levy) meets when he goes to Paris to spend the weekend with his friends "Sophie" (Ruth Negga) and "Thomas" (Himesh Patel) at the apartment of his now dead husband "Oliver" (Luke Evans).

I could explain the plot, but to be honest, it would be exhausting to, just like it was exhausting to watch this film. I could have watched an entire film of Arnaud Valois being honest and truthful and sexy in a way that few men are (maybe because Arnaud and the character "Theo" felt like a real, authentic person).

Lots of pretty shots of Paris, lots of fun music, way too much talking. I felt like Dan had made a colossal miscalculation in thinking that the audience would care about a single thing that happened to any of these people. I know he got some huge deal with Netflix, but I guess Netflix just assumed that Dan was going to bat it out of the park again. But he didn't. Not even close.

It must be nice to receive huge sums of money to basically do whatever you want to, without really having the skills to do it. Dan has talent, and he's very clever, but he should focus on his strengths, not his weaknesses, which are all too apparent in this film.

There is an abundance of talent in this movie. Oscar-winning actors, A-list actors, famous TV actors -- you name it, they're all in this.

Does that mean that therefore you should watch it?

I regret that I saw this film because there are deeply disturbing images. Not only images, but every single storyline was filled with hopelessness. I felt like I had been submerged in an isolation tank and someone forgot to open it up for 24 hours. I felt trapped, sickened and ready to start downing anti-depressants.

It cannot be denied that there were definitely a number of very powerful moments in this film where the truths of people's lives resonated. We've all been there: childhood trauma, dead-end jobs, teen angst, being dismissed from a job where you felt secure; relationships falling apart; the pointlessness of everything, and yes, feeling detached from it all so you can just get through the day.

That said: was it truly necessary to make this movie? So we could see our misery mirrored back to us?

So, great performances and powerful vignettes, yes; worth seeing? I'm not sure. I wish I hadn't.

I was really rooting for this series, especially after what I felt was a disastrous Season 5. Regrettably, despite some great moments, Season 6 did not right all the wrongs.

It did, however, prove that Elizabeth Debicki, as Princess Diana, has the stuff of a major movie star. As opposed to Season 5, where I felt she was a great mimic, in Season 6, I felt she inhabited Diana. I felt like Diana had come back to earth and spirited herself into Elizabeth's body. She was outstanding.

I also felt like Dominic West as Prince Charles came into his own. I felt he made an extraordinary effort to give the sense of the real Charles, and we got a window into Charles's humanity, which made him a lot more three-dimensional.

Obviously, as the show understands, the arrival of Diana completely turned the world of these very dull, isolated "royals" upside down. But, as is well known, instead of embracing her, they expected her to be dull, boring and dowdy like them. We also know how that ended.

Season 6 spent a lot of time focused on Diana's ultimate demise, her children William and Harry (William, in particular, played Ed McVey), and/or, perhaps more importantly, the relationship between William and Kate Middleton (Meg Bellamy).

We could see that with Diana gone, the paparazzi were going to focus on Will and would be relentless, all over again. It was quite sad.

And finally, the whole reason I had any interest in watching the show in the first place: The Queen.

Again, as I was in Season 5, despite Imelda Staunton's many gifts as an actress, her very pinched face and her very tiny stature did not lend herself to the Queen, who had real presence when she walked into a room, much like her previous incarnations, Claire Foy and Olivia Colman. So, while I enjoyed watching her as an actress, I could not stop thinking that she resembled an antique doll. It was sad.

The other standout was Lesley Manville, as Princess Margaret. In her big dying episode, she was fantastic. You could sense that this woman had lived this incredible life. It was powerful.

Ultimately, though, I came away from this not understanding why we have "royal families" anymore, and, more importantly, that these people were human beings. And they are susceptible to all of the problems that the rest of us are, but they can dress it up better than we can.