naq-1

This is such a disappointment for me, having been an absolute huge fan of Todd Haynes' previous work on the brilliant "Poison" and "Velvet Goldmine" but somehow seems to be losing all his creativity with the latest films. (I felt a letdown after seeing "Safe" since I thought the film had no real emotional attachment to the subject matter.) Then, when I saw "Far From Heaven" I thought that Todd was able to capture something of a throwback to the films of the 1950's and bring his creativity to a subject that seemed to be a bit tedious and made it somewhat more interesting. But Todd stopped there. His attempt at innovation in "I'm Not There" just seemed more like a case of stunt casting than anything really creative.

After that attempt, I just avoided all the rest until The Velvet Underground, which was an utter disappointment from a band that was in itself a total phenomenon in music. But the film somehow didn't reflect that, and left me cold.

Now, I feel that Todd has lost his creativity and gotten himself stuck in the 1950's and cannot seem to extricate himself from the morass of telling stories that are in the vein of something from the past. What seems missing here is the moral compass of the lead character played by Natalie Portman, who comes off as being braindead to the subject that she is portraying in a new role -- which is difficult to imagine, since Natalie is such a good actress.

The other characters bring a minor amount of substance to their roles, and Julianne in the role of a paranoid middle aged woman married to a younger man seems to embody some of the contradiction of the character. Her younger husband seems to be a cardboard cutout, and the only complexity he seems to bring is a difficulty in accepting the role of a father. Perhaps being in a relationship with an older woman has caused him some dilemmas, yet it is unbelievable the kind of inept emotion he shows to his wife and child.

Overall, it was a very boring and tedious exercise in storytelling from a formerly brilliant filmmaker that makes me wonder if he has lost touch with the kind of inspiration that he had in the beginning of his career.

Don't get me wrong, I happen to be a huge fan of Ondi Timoner. But this one is really unbearable to watch. The topic seems to be that the system that investors use is vulnerable to abuse, so why not abuse it? There is no moral to the story. It is just a long list of abusers telling all of us why they do it, what kind of a high they got by doing it and when they get their fix, how good it feels to get it again and again.

The high that the many subjects get from investing and pushing bogus stocks up and up is a strange form of psychosis -- they remove themselves from humanity, and even a mother of small children seems to get more emotional satisfaction out of referring to her endless streams of stock investments than she does from her kids playing somewhat ignored just a couple of feet away from her gigantic screens.

The odd thing that happens is that somehow the investors speed freakiness seems to permeate the storytelling so that the whole experience is one in which everything being displayed has to be shown in milliseconds and then suddenly vanishes before we have a second to grasp whatever it is we are watching.

The parallels between the structure of the film and the content of the interviews is such that one constantly seems to be trying to obscure the other, the visuals try to one-up the talking, and vice versa. Neither one is given even a moment to consider, to evaluate, to understand if there is any meaning to the process of investing in something regardless of how inane the product or company is -- as illustrated by the pumping up of GameStock, a totally insignificant dealer of video games, into the stratosphere, "just because we can."

As much as I wanted to enjoy this, I cannot recommend it, and so I have to caution anyone who thinks, as I do, that Ondi is a very competent and accomplished documentary filmmaker, but has utterly missed the mark on this one.

After watching almost every feature film nominated for Best Film of 2023, I am astounded that there is one film that should have been nominated, and this is it. It is lightyears better than any other I have seen so far this year, including all of the name brand nominees. The film is absolutely gripping, the characters are all dynamic, and every single shot is beautifully executed. The editing is tight and deserves an award as well -- every cut is brilliant.

Although the plot is very contrived, it becomes quite revealing at the end, in which most of the lose ends of the previous character motivations become apparent. I was thoroughly impressed with the skill that is evident in the writing and the direction, as well as the cinematography and all of the rest of the technical credits. I only hope that the filmmakers will get the recognition they deserve for pulling off such an effective thriller.

I would outline the plot, and attempt to summarize all the various subplots of the different character arcs that happen during the film, but rather than add any spoilers, I will leave it to the viewer to discover it as I did, not knowing anything about the plot or the storyline, and feeling the satisfaction of uncovering a true gem buried behind the wall of the splashy blockbusters that the major film studios and the internet tech gods and social media streamers throw at us. What I will say is that if you give this film a chance, you will not regret a minute of your time to watch it.

This is an Icarus tale -- the inventor of the Blackberry didn't know his mistake until he was already at the highest level of an achievement that he could possibly attain. It is a very Shakespearian concept as well, since the ones who got away with the spoils of war are the same ones who controlled every one of the underlings.

In a nutshell, the inventor of the Blackberry device, Mike, together with his friend Doug, became a huge success at one point in their life, due mostly to the intervention of a Harvard-educated, swarmy businessman, the evil-tempered Jim. Mike is a well-meaning inventor, and knows his shortcomings, and by adding Jim into his orbit, is able to take control of the most important part of the cellphone market. What Jim does makes the Blackberry a household name, and propels the company into the stratosphere, but he is singularly toppled by his own hubris.

At one point, the Blackberry owns 45% of the entire market share. The company is an absolute gold mine, and Mike sublimates his own share to the will of Jim, who turns it into his own private fiefdom. He hires several of the world's most brilliant software engineers, and does so under illegal contracts. Doug is tossed out, and Jim is now running the entire operation as if he is the genius of Waterloo (the town where the company started and maintains its headquarters, a very interesting coincidence with the end of Napoleon's reign.) Jim's own greed takes him into the realm of the most damaged lords of Shakespeare's kingdoms.

With the launch of the iphone, the entire Blackberry Empire is brought down into a sputtering halt, and loses the entire market. Now the only way out is for the rats to turn on each other to escape the sinking ship. When the company spirals down, Jim manages to rescue his own hide, and Mike is left headed downstream without a paddle. How does the worst of them, Jim, survive? That is the most engaging part of the story -- and a viewer will have to watch to the end to find out.

This is one of the most surprising statements that I would ever have thought I could write -- Zac Efron is really an amazing actor. He is one of the most sympathetic characters I have seen in any film in a long time, and is astounding for his ability to transform from a mere pretty-boy teenager type (i.e., "Baywatch") into a complex, mature, and extremely sensitive man. He becomes a center of the film in many ways, as the one who is the inheritor of the mantle that is being given to the 3 brothers who become part of the Von Erichs Wrestling Team, and the only one to survive the grueling pace that they have to meet.

In the story, we watch as the brothers try to compete to win the adulation of their tyrannical father, Fritz, a world-class wrestling star who never won the heavyweight title. Each one attempts to take on the role, and one by one, are handed a defeat after which they are utterly distraught. Their deaths soon follow. After 3 of them have tried and missed the goal, Kevin (played by Zac) has to face the conflicting pressure of attempting to make good on his father's mission, or to bow out and make sure he is able to attend to the needs of his Veterinarian wife and his infant children. This conflict is embodied in Zac's ability to act as a frustrated athlete while internalizing his own need to be a husband and father.

However, overall, the most astounding factor is Zac's ability to transform his looks from the previous teen idol into a full-fledged masculine man -- the result of an unbelievably stringent workout routine and extremely strict diet -- which is emblematic of some of the most highly esteemed actors in this generation. If for no other reason, he should be awarded at least a nomination, if not more.

This is a brilliant, moving, audacious documentary from an extremely talented videographer and team, and deserves at least an Emmy and, even more preferably, an Oscar, but awards are not enough for this exceptional work.

This is a rare, you-are-there experience, in which you are immersed in the Russian takeover of a city in the Ukraine, and where you feel every emotion that these poor beseighed people feel.

The documentary starts on the week of March in which the Russian oligarch Putin (not the President, which would mean that he was elected) announces to the people of Ukraine that he is about to invade the country, and within moments, actually does launch a full-scale invasion, and we watch it happen almost moment by moment. Bombs fall on Soviet-style apartment complexes at a rate of hundreds a day, and the entire landscape soon begins to resemble the aftermath of Hiroshima.

But what is most dynamic is the actual impact on the people themselves, many of whom do not know who is bombing them. Astounding. Watching children, pregnant moms, and hospital workers taking the worst beating of all is utterly depressing, but, like all medicine, needs to be taken and swallowed whole.

Overall, this documentary is one of the most heart-wrenching, devastating, tear-jerking experiences ever. You owe it to yourself to see this to get the full effect, since words can never describe how much of an impact it will have on you.

It is a shame that it would only be available on PBS, since that will alienate at least 95% of the population that needs to watch it, but if there is even a smidgen of justice left in the world, the few who see it will tell everyone they know, and hopefully, something will come from it.

Thanks to the brave filmmakers who told this shocking story.

This is an astounding piece of work, in that it deals with a subject that seems almost impossible to re-create: the crash of the plane in the Andes mountains in October, 1972, carrying a male football team from Uruguay. The young men who are cast in the roles of the surviving members are all amazing actors, and hold their characters in ways that are beyond imagining, as they would have to maintain the same character throughout the time that they had to film in the confines of the wreckage.

As a minor critique, I had a hard time distinguishing between the team members themselves, and lost track early on of which one was telling the story -- apparently I somehow could not associate the voiceover with the particular actor, and so I got slightly confused after trying to keep track of which cast member was the main protagonist.

What seems to be most astounding is how many of them were able to survive in the harshest of all climates, and to maintain their mental state in a situation that seems hopeless to say the least. This is a brilliant re-creation of the event and the outcome is equally astounding.

Everything about this film says that it is an Oscar-worthy project, and certainly deserves to win, with only one minor exception (as evidenced by my 9 instead of 10): the film is slightly too padded, and by removing something like 20 or 30 minutes (at least), the project would then become perfect. I know that the Director has his own viewpoint, but he should sympathize with those of us who are confined to squirming around in our seats after the first 90 or so minutes, and need to get out of the torture of watching such an ordeal without a break. But if that's done in order to emphasize the frustration felt by the team players, it succeeds tremendously.

This is one of the most boring, ridiculously conceived documentaries I have ever seen. It deals with a subject matter that is completely inconsequential, and tries desperately to make us care, but in the final stage, misses the mark. The concept is to somehow present Sam's mission to find his missing mother a universal statement of something, but no one who is interviewed in the film has any reason to believe that there is something of a significance to the entire experience. We wait patiently, wading through endless inane footage of a teenager creating lame tributes to his favorite sci-fi type movies, with idiotic plots and acting that is embarrassing to the filmmaker, and then reaches a climax midway through the film -- and then it's all downhill. The ending is utterly pointless. Nothing happens in this film, and so I am baffled as to why it is being presented as part of the Independent Lens series, which seems to be sinking to a new low. After a pointless 90 minutes, I couldn't wait to get out of the screening. I honestly cannot understand what in the world the other reviewers see in this piece of trash.

This is going to be a huge blockbuster, hearing the usual responses from fanboys going "Hell, yeah, that was rad!" not knowing a single thing about what they just watched. But it will make twice its budget and then go on to be a blockbuster, selling out all the theaters on the first weekend. Then it will disappear.

What is happening is that the Director and Writer(s) are doing everything necessary to bring this inconceivable story to the screen, and adding as much CG as is possible to avoid any kind of intelligent discourse. So AI has gone so far as to take over humanity in the 2060s and so there is a Third World War of sorts to take out the AI.

But in reality it is a metaphor for the US in Vietnam, where we bombed villages arbitrarily in order to eliminate the Communists and so the AI now stands in for Communists, and they infiltrate the innocent villagers just the same way as it was in the Vietnam War, and so we are re-creating 'Apocalypse, Now' in this sci-fi overblown Special Effects Extravaganza. And the fanboys are gonna love it.

There's little point in dwelling on the plot points, as it is pointless to recount the number of things that don't make any sense, but who cares? We get to see lots of explosions, and things seem to be slanted against the Americans, Who are attempting to bomb the Vietnamese Communists, oops, sorry, the A. I. 'Soldiers' out of existence. Then we are coerced into accepting that the fact that the projector is throwing images on the side walls ("Screen X") which is another exciting innovation -- and it is hammered again over and over ad nauseam, just so that we don't forget it. So we don't get even the slightest ability to use any sort of intelligence to judge the accomplishment, just watch the fact that we can now put more bullets and killing in every frame.

But Mr. Gareth Edwards is of the elite circle that now has the support of the film industry to put anything in front of us, and we willingly bow to his superior will. Thank you Master, for showing us how great your so-called vision is, and please punish us with it again.

A boring tedious story that seems to be lost in it's own private world. Irish Divorced Mom Flora tries to relate to her son, who is a budding while rapper, and takes guitar lessons from an American Musician (Gordon-Levitt) who basically is a failure as a musician/songwriter.

The storyline meanders around, with Flora getting pissed off at her son and her son getting pissed off at her, and she getting pissed off at her ex-husband, and he subsequently throwing back her attitude. Everyone seems discouraged with their everyday life in this dull storyline, and Gordon-Levitt does his level-headed best to keep it at a professional level, even when Flora attempts to seduce him over the internet (after all, they are only 6000 miles apart). Then Flora tries to fix up his one half-decent song by adding another verse, but it get incredibly tiresome to hear the same boring song again a couple more times.

I had to get up and leave after listening to the silly rap song that Flora and her show-off son write together, accompanied by the most pathetic video that anyone has ever shot for a rap song. Awful. Hard to believe anyone could waste any time on this kind of boring, repetitious film.

Two stars for the presence of Gordon-Levitt, who does add a bit of class to the project, but even he seemed to be bored out of his mind playing the role.

Saw this at a local Film Festival in the LA area. It was quite a surprise, the film is head and shoulders above the rest of the indie fare out there these days, most of which is exploitative and seems like one silly horror film after another.

This one had a real plot, actual scripting, and above all, a Lead Actress that I couldn't take my eyes off of, no matter what else was going on in the shot. She is one of the most beautiful and charismatic women that I have ever seen in any film, and the fact that it was in a low-budget project says a lot for the Director and Producers of the film. If there's any justice in the world, this woman is going to be a Bond Girl for the next sequel coming down the pike.

The entire film takes place on a boat in the Nile River, which is another great asset to the production -- it makes me wonder why more people aren't taking advantage of these kinds of tours, where you get right down to experiencing the actual local people and locations, and exploring the temples and statues of Egypt up close -- more than just the Sphinx and Pyramids.

Kudos to the Director who seems to know how to make the most out of a budget and takes us on an amazing journey to a completely unknown culture, and an experience unlike any others on the screen. It compares very favorably to the other big release which it will inevitably be compared to, Death on the Nile, with its expensive cast, but this little scrappy project packs a lot into a very well-executed package.

This was a total disappointment from the start. The entire conceit, that it is a film within a play within a film is completely without interest. It seems to be a formal exercise in how far one can push a metaphor to the point where it has lost any meaning.

I found myself falling asleep to it at one point when all the characters, each one looking into the lens, emote their lines without any emotional commitment whatsoever. The only one who seems to have any desire to project an iota of emotion, Scarlett Johansson, does her best to keep her audience interested, but even her attempt falls flat.

There are numerous A-list cameos that have no reason to exist except to lend credence to the Auteur that Mr. Anderson has become. His obsession with proclaiming his own superiority leaves most of the cast cold, and even the best efforts by Tom Hanks and Adrien Brody cannot redeem what little story there is.

The actors simply phone in their performances, particularly Jason Schwartzman, oddly enough, portraying a widower who does not grieve in front of his mismatched children, none of whom seems to notice their missing mother. Kudoes go to the three little girls who portray his daughters (blonde and blue eyed?) but who handle their roles like pros.

Not much can be said for the rest of the cast, all of whom show up and portray their cardboard characters as best as they can, and the entire thing is missing any kind of heart -- it lasts way too long and by the time we have reached the anti-climax, we feel cheated out of any kind of feeling whatsoever.

"Moon Garden" is in a class all by itself. It has some of the feel of early David Lynch movies, as well as some by Tarsem. It is definitely one of the most unique and utterly mind-blowing films I have seen in decades. The little girl who plays the lead role is amazing. How she was able to handle what was required of her is in itself astonishing. And the effects are beyond anything I have ever seen in a low budget film of this type.

Suffice it to say, Mr. Harris is a genius of filmmaking, and has a fantastic career ahead of him. He is poised to become a legend, after only one feature that seems to be on his credits, and should be allowed to go in whatever direction he desires, but the cynic in me is convinced that he will get talked into doing films for Marvel or DC, and all the creative juice that he brought to this will be lost for good.

There are no other words that can sum up the incredible job that Harris has done, and the fact that he was able to get such a devastating performance out of a minor is beyond anyone's imagining. Rather than belabor the point, all I can add to sum it up is that you will be utterly speechless after you see this film.

The film "Wildcat", we see the ultimate evolution of Reality TV in the inner workings of a non-profit that is set up to rescue animals and return them to the wild after being traumatically separated from their parents, and interwoven with the idea that people with anti-social tendencies can be just as difficult to re-enter civilization.

To be fair, the two main characters of "Wildcat", Harry and Samantha, are well-meaning, altruistic people who's only goal is to re-introduce orphaned animals back into their own wild worlds. The fact that they are able to accomplish the goal of re-introduction of the animals does not extend to themselves. They both remain distant and aloof from the rest of the world-- Harry with his PTSD from being a soldier during the war in Afghanistan, and Samantha for her father's alcoholism.

Now the stories of Harry and Samantha are intertwined with the story of taking an orphan Ocelot and training it to be a wild animal--not just one time, but twice, almost as if created by a talented Scriptwriter. The parallel stories of the Ocelots with Harry are so clearly enunciated, they might as well have been a scripted Reality Show.

Every moment in the film is heartfelt beyond the standard of the usual documentary, so it is amazing to think that this is merely spontaneous, as each element of the plot serves to fit a 3-act structure. The storyline is almost a character in itself -- it seems to signal the twists and turns with almost uncanny precision in advance.

But ultimately, what results is a satisfying climax. It seems to allow the protagonists to have a mythic quality --these people are more than mere mortals, they are the embodiment of humanity's idealism.

The policy of "Don't Ask..." was in effect when the movie was conceived -- and it serves as a time capsule of the ramification of that policy. In the event that a gay man is able to become a member of the armed forces, he has to contend with any number of abuses that are heaped up upon him in the name of discrimination. In the case of this film, it is doubled as the lead character is not only gay, but also black.

The issue at heart is whether gay people are an asset to the military; for some reason, it was never a significant issue until recently, with the advent of Desert Storm. With the passage of the policy, the military has no right to refuse a gay person, which therefore leaves the gay man to become a pariah in his own platoon. Here, he is subject to a number of abuses by the rest of the squad, as he is treated with disdain by the Commanding Officer (who coincidentally is also black) and is beaten up by his fellow recruits, and has to fight back to be able to achieve a level of respect.

Even though some of the film is somewhat "by the numbers," and has a character who is Muslim and therefore is also discriminated against, the film never resorts to cheap sentimentality; the Marine recruit never reconciles with his mother, who rejects him for being gay, which would be an absolute requirement in a Hollywood-ized version. He also is never given any chance of finding a sympathetic ear, despite every effort to do so. That is another reason why the script does not adhere to the standard Hollywood versions of gay themed dramas.

Overall, this is an exceptional achievement, as it free of any simplistic view of a gay character. For that reason alone, it towers way over the run of the mill gay themed drama. Kudos to the Director and the main Actors for having the courage to break the rules in making a film that is so realistic, it could almost be a documentary.

The story behind this documentary is rather complex, and to do a summary will never be enough to explain all the ramifications of the story--it is the tip of the iceberg in terms of government corruption, where every major public official is in some way connected with the death of one of the only journalists who dared to expose them.

The Journalist, a young man named Jan, and his girlfriend, Martina, are found dead of gunshots point blank in their simple home. The police chief begins by saying that there will be a full investigation, but every other journalist in the room knows that something very fishy is going on here.

Bit by bit, the story unfolds, and by the time we find out who actually committed the murder, it is a little more than one-third into the film, thus comprising the first act. However, the second act is much more complex, because the other journalists jump into action, finding out more and more details of what happened behind the scenes to cause this killing to be ordered, by whom and for what.

The details are very complex, and as such, it is a bit confusing to sort out everything that takes place after the culprit is arrested --in particular, one needs a scorecard to keep track of every player in the game -- but that is essentially where the story really begins, since it is an indictment of the entire Serbian government, the senior members of the police and practically every one of the members of the controlling elite.

The story also incorporates the trial of all who were responsible for the killing, delving into the incredibly corrupted system that has maintained control over the entire population--and even extends to the Justice system. It is mind-boggling how far up the chain it goes. Not a single member of the Serbian elected and appointed officials is exempt from the conspiracy.

The third act incorporates the trial of the main antagonists involved in this organization, and the only name that can be given them is a Mafia. These people make the Italian Mafia look like a bunch of kindergarten bullies by comparison -- much much more sophisticated and much much more vicious.

The one shortcoming of the film is that the filmmakers know the players so well that they somehow ignore the fact that we cannot keep all the various names sorted out in our heads, and so the entire project suffers from a lack of a Narration to keep up with what is happening and who is accused of what.

The main lesson that we can come away with from the experience is that we, in this country, are not exempt from the same thing happening here.

The idea of a Music Icon thrashing around and getting drunk and coked up endlessly should not be any big news or any groundbreaking sort of plot. But oddly enough, some studio execs thought that it was a big deal that Coleson (aka Machine Gun Kelly) was the lead was willing to be the messed-up character, that they had to put some unfortunate money behind it.

The result, as expected, is to make him out to be a total relentless asshole to everyone in his eyesight, especially the sweet and patient Assistant played by Maddie, who deserves as much credit as she can get for her acting chops in realistically portraying someone in the position of having to deal with the ridiculous antics of the spoiled "genius" she has to babysit.

The most hilarious scene which gives a realistic example of the so-called musical genius turning into a foul-mouthed child, throwing a tantrum in a TV interview studio, where the techs and the makeup people all scatter while Cole (his real name is the same as the character) yells and cusses out everything the poor girl does, for no reason--and then she quits, only to be combing his ridiculous ratty hair in the next shot.

The entire film is set up to somehow make us sympathize with the Cole character, only to leave us utterly cold as he is utterly devoid of any sort of sympathy for anyone, including his little 4-year old daughter. God only knows how that kid could ever mistake this man-child for a father.

This movie is pointless and is really only required viewing for that cross section of the audience that admires this kind of spoiled, egotistic, and vapid mentality.

It was disappointing to watch what should have been a worthwhile project. In terms of the footage presented, we see way more outtakes than the actual controversial enactments of the staged "riots" for the benefit of an audience of Generals and Politicians.

The one thing that seemed to be a revelation was that the idea of Snipers was actually one which was fabricated by the police in order to show that they should bring in heavy artillery, but the reality is that the snipers were just police plants shooting wildly, even at each other to invoke a response -- there was only one case of an unknown sniper who attempted to shoot at the police while drunk, and so the sniper missed every target.

But the problem with the documentary is the frequent use of non-essential footage, "padding" the scenes with news commentators prattle, and often playing TV logos and even a commercial or promotional tape in order to add commentary on the alignment of the news media, only to miss the target much like the sniper -- the commercials, as much as they are nostalgic and naive, are wasted material in the otherwise over-long project. Cutting out 30 minutes of this wasted footage would have better served the filmmaker's goal.

Of course, then it would not be considered a contender for a Feature by the Academy, which one senses is the filmmaker's attitude in this presentation -- as evidenced by the use of overly dramatic voice-over consisting of poetic nonsense.

Since the filmmaker sees the found footage as so extraordinary, we are intrigued by the idea that we might then be able to see the actual riot footage of the real events, such as the Democratic National Convention in 1968, but none of this happens, and instead we are given a somewhat watered down version of the event at the Republican National Convention the same year when Richard Nixon was nominated -- and the protest by a small group of black ghetto denizens was a complete and utter failure.

(Note: this review is from a huge fan of Andy Warhol, the films of Gerard Malanga, Mary Woronov, and especially, Laurie Anderson, Nico, and Todd Haynes. This is particularly sad to have to write a downer review about a band that deserves some respect, but without all this extra added grandstanding.)

As to be expected, the documentary about the Velvets is overrated, boring, too 'over the top' and frankly doesn't say anything about the band that anyone listening to their records wouldn't already know. There are way too many scenes of some disembodied voice dramatically overestimating what significance can be attributed to some meaningless vocal track, accompanied by a mishmash of incoherent images taken from various and sundry unrelated movies shot with 16mm black and white as examples of film school art in the 1960's and then the music overtakes the interview so we never find out who said what about whom and why should we care, just like this rambling pointless sentence. It's all one big mess. But it's an art mess. A mess of art.

Unfortunately, all the hype behind the project is simply enough to make it sound like the second coming, when all it turns out to be is just a slap-dash attempt to look ultra cool and show up the rest of the class. Everything Todd Haynes has done in his life up to this point has proven his ability to come up with unique angles on even the most routine plotlines; however, in this case, he completely loses his way trying desperately to look like a member of the band-- and the sycophantic cadre of Producers, co-Producers, Associate Producers, and other Producers does nothing to step in and straighten out the confusion. Even Christine Vachon, the goddess that she is, Producer of all that is unique and daring, cannot provide a voice of reason, and so she just goes along with the gang--"whatever you say, Todd."

So the film drones on, just like the Velvet does, in one of their infinite self-absorbing interminable solos, and we try to act interested as if we really think there is some significance to any of this, when in reality we are just checking our watches to see how much longer this entire exercise in over-indulgence is going to last. Two hours? Oy.

There is a significant reason to watch the documentary about Reality Winner -- the fact that the justice system, in its unbelievable lack of insight, is willing to sentence her to serve a 5-year prison term says volumes about the insidiousness of our twisted democratic ideals.

In Reality's case, when she found out that there was a definite attempt to manipulate the election by Russian insiders, her actions should be rewarded with a medal of honor -- instead, she was vilified and chastised for telling the American public that our country is being decimated by outside forces. What could possibly be more honorable? The mere suggestion that she was un-American is completely manipulated and false. Her intentions were nothing but selfless and attempts to rescue our democratic way of life.

But the Justice system does not see this case for what it is, a blatant attempt by the multi-headed hydra that is the Trump-era brand Republican movement to silence anyone that could be antithetical to the dictatorial regime that they would like to impose. So Reality had to be shut away from any news media, from anyone who could even give her any support, including her own family.

The documentary centers on Reality's Mom, Billie, who shows herself to be as selfless as her daughter and who works night and day to see that the case against her daughter is reversed, to no avail. Finally, we watch as Reality is silenced again and again, and the futility in Billie's face and voice is almost too difficult to witness.

Kudos to the micro crew that brought her story to the public, and the film is well put together, with only a couple of minor flaws. When Reality calls in (which is the only way we can hear her voice, since she is forbidden from talking to the media), we sometimes miss some words as a result of the tinny phone speaker. This is a minor issue, and could have been easily dealt with by adding some captions to the video.

One other, very minor point -- the name "Reality" is explained quite late in the film -- as one of the big questions in everyone's mind is, how did she ever win such a great name? Was it a trick of fate, or was she destined to be remembered for the amazing person she turned out to be?

This is a very un-typical addition to the gay themed film genre, a story that takes place in the USSR during the years between the Cold War and the war in Afghanistan, thus placing it early in the genre -- the protagonists are two men, one (Sergey) a young naive private in the Soviet Army and the other (Roman), a slightly higher ranking pilot in the Air Force. The story line revolves around the two of them and their interaction with a young woman (Luisa). When the two men recognize their attraction to each other, a love affair begins and is almost squelched entirely by the Soviet Army, which has a law against any form of homosexual behavior, resulting in banishment and even imprisonment as a crime. The two men meet clandestinely, and, as to be expected, are given a warning by the Commanding Officer -- however, the attraction is stronger than law. The results are both painful and rewarding to see.

Finally, a gay-themed love story that has a serious consequence beyond just being a one-night stand with its typical predictability. It has several twists and turns, and the ending is quite moving. As it is a true story, the result is even more bittersweet than if it was fictional, but there seems to be something of a feeling that such a story could not be summed up in a short synopsis -- it is much richer and far more devastating in its consequences.

This film won the award for Best First Film at the SF LGBTQ film fest awards, and seems to be deserving of a much bigger stage than the minor LGBT festivals where it is being shown. It should be on a world class stage, and be a contender for the Palme d'Or, the Venice Golden Lion, or some other significant award. One can only hope that the world can accept a quality piece of work such as this and welcome it with open arms.

The Writer-Director of Lapsis, Noah Hutton, is the savvy heir to the throne of Tim Hutton and Debra Winger, two of the Hollywood elite of the last generation. Therefore, it should by all means disqualify him from achieving any success as a Writer or Director. I should write a negative review just in the hope of stopping him from taking on a bigger and more influential presence in the film industry.

In this case, however, he is redeemed substantially by providing us with an original concept, a well-written screenplay, unknown cast and a troubling alternative universe. None of this should have happened, but because it did, Noah Hutton deserves praise for a job well done and congratulations for his bright future in this industry.

In another life, Noah might have played his parents' connections to the extent that the result would have been worthless. However, he has exceeded that level of achievement and is the pleasant recipient of an indescribable satisfaction, the kind of result that comes from a deep understanding of the nuances of story and directing, a rare achievement for a young person of any lineage.

Since I had no preconceived notions about the storyline, I went into this blindly, and was amazed that I felt as compelled as I did to follow the main plot to the end. Although none of the actors was recognizable, everyone performed their roles well, and every word that was uttered seems to have been arrived at naturally.

The basis of the story is that there is a technology known as "quantum computing" that is similar in some way to 5G and the population is similarly paranoid about it as many are about 5G towers. The way the Quantum tech is executed is through having ordinary people string cables through miles of wilderness areas to provide the access to the so-called "quantum" technology and it is up to desperate people to run the miles of cable through the wilderness to various cubes of this unknown technology -- again, very similar to 5G, albeit much more insidious.

The central character, RAY, is a chubby schulb who is hired to run cable through miles of forest, and finds out halfway through that he has been given a false name to use on the job which causes everyone to distrust him. Thus, the mystery is born. What is the significance of the name? What is the hidden cost of the technology? He undertakes a mission with a high payout, to run cables for many miles, and is slowly educated by a woman he meets on the trail named Anna, who reveals some part of the mystery what the name he was given really means.

All through the screenplay we are left trying to decode the various clues that are dropped without much success, until we reach the point where several loose threads are tied together near the end. There is a moment of triumph, but in the back of our minds, the triumph is very much a false one. The corporate entities that are the villains of the story are there, and. as in real life, they have a stranglehold on the brave new world of Lapsis.

For a first time filmmaker, this was an amazingly accomplished achievement. The director takes a familiar plot, and, by making it with talented actors and actresses, controlling the camera work, and keeping the focus on the story, is able to rise above the usual insignificant debut by most of Hollywood's typical boy wonders.

The central plot revolves around a married couple (Nick Cage and Gina Gershon) who had a surrogate birth and have been trying to add another child to the family, and decide to utilize a woman played by Nicky Whelan to carry the child. Of course, the complication that results is the conflict between the two women as to who will be the real mother in the end The audience is left with a dilemma regarding who is the ideal mother, the one who is wealthy and stable with a problematic ovary (Gina) or the one who is a cunning, manipulative, abused woman who can carry the child to term (Nicky)?

Casting Nick Cage and Gina Gershon as an upper class married couple is the first step in the right direction, and it is followed by a cameo by none other than the most accomplished actress of her generation, Faye Dunaway, as Nick's mother with a suspicious attitude and a need to watch out for her son and daughter-in-law. The other two main characters, who are not as well known, are played by two substantial actresses as well, particularly the character played by Nicky Whelan.

The entire film has a sophistication that is unusual in most low-budget types of films, in that every shot and every move has been carefully constructed into a consistent theme -- the idea is that the two lead women played by Gina and Nicky are both in need of some fundamental solution to the missing center of their lives. In Gina's case, the balance between having a child and being a professional doctor and in Nicky's case, the loss of her ability to feel any emotion beyond a need to be a mother, regardless of the consequences of that decision. It is not an easy story to tell, as either could be a protagonist or antagonist depending on one's viewpoint.

Add to this a pair of precocious children who are able to handle the demands of their roles easily as well. Not once did either child fail to come across seamlessly as a part of the family unit. The music score was also one more element that added to the overall effect without being distracting at all.

Regardless of the POV of this so-called "documentary" -- which I still cannot fathom--there is one salient point to learn: the amount of acclaim a particular documentary achieves is in direct correlation with the number of highly positioned Producers attached to it.

How many? 16, count 'em, 16!

Among them: the two women responsible for most of what is funded on PBS, the commissioning editor of BBC (Chinese, naturally) and several other name personalities who are obviously in cahoots with the filmmaker. Does this mean that the project is a good one?

Hardly.

But maybe it was something I missed, since I fell asleep because I was so bored halfway through. I guess there must have been something other people saw in this that I didn't see. I couldn't stand watching the same argument being repeated over and over again -- the Chinese Communist government, bad; people want sons, not daughters, bad; women were forced to have abortions, bad, over and over. Don't bother to mention how badly overpopulated China was becoming.

I just cannot bring myself to watch whatever else is going to be not to this woman's liking. She obviously does not see the problem with overpopulation, it's subsequent effect on climate change, and the resulting selfishness of her own argument. This is not a documentary. It's a muddled, pointless mess of an opinion.

Want to waste a couple of hours and then hate what you just saw? Welcome to hell. It's a particularly grating hell, because it sums up what everyone really hates about all pretentious artists, films, and films about artists.

This one in particular glorifies a talentless French wannabe artist, Mr. Brainwash, ("MBW" for short, aka, Thierry Guetta) whose one claim to fame is that there are two other artists faking glorified reviews of his so-called art, which is just ripping off of many other more talented artists.

He is undeniably the least talented of the bunch of artists portrayed here, a bunch of street artists who suddenly became famous when one of them, Shepard Fairey, did an iconic portrait of Obama during the run up to the election in 2008. Since he and Banksy both vouched for Mr. Brainwash, that was enough for the entire Los Angeles art scene to fall all over themselves gushing praise about his so-called art.

The first half of the film is pretty useless, and overly padded with the worst footage of Thierry's home movies, and the only word to describe them is Unwatchable. Then what follows is a long section of MBW, still named Thierry, following a lot of street artists as they do their illegal tagging, nearly getting caught, and even at one point being held by the police at Disneyland. Quelle Suprise!

The last part of the film is the worst statement about art and the garbage that passes for it in the Los Angeles scene. It sets up the city to be full of mindless sycophants, all of whom have no idea what they're looking at, and to add to their gullibility, pay enormous amounts for the privilege of owning a piece of the garbage. I cannot for the life of me understand what in the hell made this piece of crap film so worthwhile that it got an Oscar Nomination, but my guess is that Banksy's publicity machine may have had something to do with that.