rklein123

After watching this, I was surprised by all the super positive reviews I found on IMDB. I suppose there is the aspect of "other," of "alien." But the film didn't blow me away the way it apparently did others.

I found one of the two main characters, Peter, to be so offensive and nasty that I couldn't wait for the film to end. Okay, I get that being an outsider and an oddball can make one bitter and resentful.

Sure, he longs to be like other people, and have satisfying relationships with other people. It was made clear that he sought a sexual experience - and he certainly chose well in Hamish Allan-Headly's character. But right from the start, and all through the movie his nasty tone and angry attitude wore very thin.

Maybe I was bugged by the logistics surrounding the car, too.

There's a character who travels with the pair for a short time, but how does she get back to her own car?? And would the pinkmobile ever have been returned had Peter not gone along for the ride? Those questions bothered/distracted me while watching.

Sarah Hay did an excellent job with her role. I don't know if Matthew Jeffers was an issue for me because of his acting, or more likely the script he was given to work with. I realize that the point was to create a frustrated and angry character, but I didn't need to be hit over the head repeatedly with that to get the point. He wasn't even vaguely sympathetic as a character in the film - at least not for me - at any point in the movie. Rather, I think his character served to drag the overall experience of the film down, making it just plain tedious.

If someone were to ask me if I recommended this movie, I'd tell them they could better invest their hour and 40 minutes better elsewhere.

This is a sweet, touching story about two men who take a train on their way to spread the ashes of a friend and a husband at a peace monument in the Swiss Alps.

Elements of the men's stories, personalities and their lives are revealed through their interaction with each other and with others along the way to the Paxmal monument.

It's beautifully filmed and very well acted. The production quality shines through from start to finish. The beautiful scenery adds to the pleasure of watching this film.

The movie is about death, grief, and about letting go and living.

This movie runs less than twenty minutes, and well worth watching.

The concept behind this story is really good, and the plot twist takes you by surprise.

But the little girls, especially Lucy, are SO whining and annoying that it really drags the viewing experience down. WAY down.

The sets and the camera work were excellent. Much of the acting was very good. But those kids! It's as if they were stuffed into the movie to make you hate it!

There were a number of holes in the story, and I suppose you're just supposed to suspend your sense of logic, or be distracted enough not to question them.

Parts of this reminded me of old westerns where the hero is never shot, despite the odds. Here, there is a platoon shooting down a narrow train platform and not one of the 50 or so shooters with their rapid-fire guns can seem to hit their unshielded target.

Five stars for the story and cinematography. Five stars off because those kids were so incredibly annoying.

Wow! This was a wild ride. Lotsa cursing, pretty raunchy, so if that's not your taste, you should shop elsewhere. But if you enjoy a good story and terrific animation, and you like to laugh, this is a good buy.

So many clever plays on product names, ethnic foods, and the moral breakdown of decency on otherwise neatly arranged supermarket shelves.

There's enough here to outrage any ethnic group and decent people everywhere. Not even Stephen Hawkins was safe. But it's sure a gas to watch.

All I know is that I'm going to rush down to my local supermarket first thing in the morning and see if they sell bath salts! I never knew you could enjoy them without filling the tub!

In the first few minutes of this one, I thought we'd really made a mistake choosing it. I was thinking... "Damn. And hour and a half to go!"

And then, it got GREAT. The movie turned a corner and went from silly, sophomoric fluff to something entertaining, intriguing, funny, and wonderful.

The twisted tale was funny, and quite moving. The house? Well that was fantastic!

I've watched The Barbie Movie, Oppenheimer, and Maestro. This is a lighter movie, to be sure, but I thought the performances of Zachery Quinto, and Lucas Gage were as good as the any Best Actor nominee this year. I really enjoyed Everything, Everywhere All at once. But if you ask me, Jaime Lee Curtis had nothing on Judith Light's supporting actor role performance in this movie.

As absurd as the events in this movie were, the actors and director pulled it off so well as to make it believable and entertaining. And even moving. 👍🏻👍🏻

Basically, this is a two-character movie, built around on-line Spanish lessons. From the start, the mood is authentic, and funny. As the film progresses, the color darkens a little and becomes more serious.

Most of what we see in Language Lessons is the online interplay between 2 people, and a growing intimacy between the characters, who begin to see each other as individuals - as people - rather than teacher and student.

The script and the acting are so good. Everything feels honest and spontaneous as they begin language lessons, but then begin to learn and explore more of each other's lives.

Seems like the rare film where this kind of development of a relationship doesn't involve the physical, and that's a strong point here.

Not a typical romance film. But rather an exploration of emotional intricacies that can develop between two people, even though they are basically strangers in different countries. They begin to care for each other, but distrust and defensiveness keep them at a distance.

This is only the second movie I've seen starring Mark Duplass. I thought he was excellent in both. It's the first movie I've seen starring Natalie Morales, who I thought was equally perfect in the role. They have a beautiful rapport that oozes right off the screen, even when tensions begin to develop between them.

This movie doesn't have lasers, explosions, car chases, or even the ubiquitous firearms. But if you can find enjoyment in exploring the struggles and pleasures of human relationships, this film is a good choice!

It's a theme we've seen many times before. Scientific advances can carry significant and disastrous consequences when used for bad purposes - such as weapons of war and mass destruction.

What responsibility do the inventors and purveyors of such technology owe to the future? And who will be making the decisions on how the technologies will be put to use?

The film manages to establish a good sense of mystery and other-worldly goings on. Considering that most of the film takes place inside an airplane, this is an accomplishment.

Craig Hill might be the biggest star in this feature, but I'd never heard of him. Surprising, considering his Robert Conrad-like good looks. But all the acting is good.

There's a lot of exposition going on here, establishing the characters, and the interesting coincidence of having three accomplished professionals in the fields of science, engineering and mathematics on the same flight, heading to a meeting in Pentagon Washington DC.

The message is a little heavily-handed in its other-worldly delivery, but I think this was characteristic of the time. It was made in 1961, when nuclear weapons were considered an imminent threat to humanity. (They still are, but we seem to have gotten more used to them.) But, I think the overall look and feel of the movie seems like it could have been made in the 1940s.

Overall, it's not too thrilling or insightful, but it IS interesting.

I admit I have not seen this movie since the 1980s. But it is a film I still think about after all these decades.

I thought about it today, reading about the rise of workplace violence in healthcare - doctors and other health care providers being attacked by patients or their families. I also think of it when I read about the ludicrous and inexplicable behavior of passengers on airliners toward flight crew or each other, school or store shootings, and people on the subway being pushed into the path of an oncoming train.

The unexplainable rise in violence in America is presaged in this movie, which was produced at a time when such behavior was quite unthinkable. Perhaps that makes it all the more shocking.

Apparently, people harbor strong impulses to commit crimes, to act violently, to let civility just fall by the wayside and realize their innermost urges and hidden drives.

The film is an artistic depiction of what happens when our civilized, societal controls are removed or overridden.

It's a frightening picture, and it seems to have come home to roost in our world today.

Tainted water? Or fake news, politicization and divisiveness purposefully cultivated by social media and propaganda?

Doesn't matter. The end result is the same.

This film should stand as a warning. Maybe it will serve to somehow wake people up to the loss of control - both personal and societal - that we are facing today.

That alone makes this film worth seeing.

I see reviews describing this as a "B Moive." Not sure what defines a B Movie, but I think the term disses this film.

The start of the movie is a little weak, but once you get to the hospital, it really picks up the story, and gets rolling in earnest.

Effects are excellent. Like, REALLY excellent. The movement of the arachnid are right on! Acting is better than some I've seen lots of other films. There are some "jump" scares here, and some good laughs.

I thought José (Lombardo Boyar) was the real standout character and actor in the movie. The character of José was great, and Boyar pulled him off really well.

I just watched the 1953 version of 'War of the Worlds' this week. It was good, but if the character of Sylvia had been more like José, it would have improved the movie tremendously!

The movies got thrills, chills, and lots of laughs. Made for a fun movie time!

This movie absolutely ROCKS!

Run, don't walk to your television and see how the future looked from a 1938 perspective. This is a brilliant film about a man who is thrown forward in time by the War Department on special mission in hopes of preventing the rise of Hitler and the Second World War.

There's a brief introduction by Niel DeGrasse Tyson, the famous astrophysicist, describing how this film emerged.

The dialog is excellent. Quick, smart, snarky. The quips are fast and stylized, reminiscent of such classics as "The Philadelphia Story," and "Dinner at Eight." The movie is utterly engaging and entertaining from the opening credits to the final "The End" that closes the film. This is a real gem!

It has flavors of the movie "Just Imagine," a 1930 sci-fi musical view of the New York of 1980, and the General Motors "Futurama" ride at the World's Fair in 1939 predicting a future of soaring skyscrapers, fabulous cars, and a bright future. If you enjoyed the old, fanciful Jules Verne movies you'll love this.

There are plenty of predictive revelations in the movie that have actually come to be. Well, more or less. Wireless picture phones? Check. Texting? Yep. The 24 hour news cycle? It's here. But none of it looks quite the way it was predicted.

Acting and story are first rate.

Cinematography and special effects are good, especially considering it's a 1938 film!

The movie has a cartoon-like quality to it, which works very much in its favor. And if you want to know the answer to the riddle, "What do you wait for, but never want, and follow by stopping," you'll have to watch the movie.

I thiought this film was wonderful. It certainly veers into a surreal realm, which is nicely done and very effective.

Easy to fall in love with Kentucker Audley as the dull government bureaucrat from the tax department. He, along with just about everyone else in the film, creates a very interesting character, lost in an interesting story.

It's not an MGM or a Universal Studios production, so expect a lower budget look. But it's not compromised by the budget. Rather, it's imaginative, colorful, and intelligently worked throughout.

Visually, it's "The Nutcracker" meets "Brazil." Excellent costuming, using some very effective and wonderful masks. Overall, the effects are just wonderful, and bursting with imagination.

The story line is certainly interesting, once you catch hold of it, and very effectively portrayed on screen.

When this film was suggested to me, I have to admit that the title, "Strawberry Mansion" wasn't particularly appealing. I thought it sounded like a Disney children's movie.

I wonder if the film might have been better received if it'd had a more appropriate title.

Nice camera work throughout. Well done film worthy of praise for its originality and imaginative approach to storytelling.

Order a bucket of fried chicken, and enjoy this excellent film! It's really finger lickin' good!

I'm not that big on Christmas movies. And the little summary on the streaming site said everyone dies in the end. Well, they sort of gave away the ending, didn't they?

Let me start out by pointing out that if you're looking for a Christmas horror story, this ain't it. See Violent Night instead.

If you're in the market for a Christmas comedy, you won't find many hearty laughs here. See Violent Night instead.

After reading the description, I wondered if this was this going to be some sort of murderous Christmas tale? Or an environmental tragedy?

Turned out be a rather effective dark comedy. It was beautifully done. Excellent acting, directing, and camera work. There are scenes where it turns on a dime from light and ha-ha funny to deadly serious. And does it very effectively.

Nowhere in the film does it drag. Not for a moment.

As guests were wending their way to an English country estate, and arriving at the beginning of the movie I was thinking this was going to be an annual family holiday get-together that everyone dreaded attending, where they all dislike everyone else through their forced smiles. A tired plot line. But after the characters (and we) sort themselves out, everything starts to settle in. There are some very effective scenes to help us see the interconnections, jealousies, and affections among the attendees.

The veneers on the people who seem so surface and insincere at the start of the film begin to drop away, and while the theme is, indeed dark and serious, you barely realize it. There is a lightness to the film that keeps you engaged and interested in these odd characters, doing their best in uncomfortable circumstances (to say the least!).

It wasn't until a comment about the Queen, who'd given an address on television that I got a hint of what was actually going on. And then the plot really starts to percolate.

There are plenty of good chuckles and and even some laughs, even as the film takes a more serious turn.

There is some really good acting going on here. Even the kids. And I rarely like kids in Christmas movies.

There were places where I got choked up, even though I was laughing just a moment before.

Others have explained the plot, and far be it from me to give away the ending.

But this isn't a run-of-the-mill holiday movie. And maybe it's not a feel-good film to put you in the holiday spirit, but it's sure worth watching! Just maybe not for Christmas.

It's tough to categorize this film, because it's unusual and innovative style defies simple categorization and description. It blends storytelling with acting, music and animation in a beautiful, colorful visual delight.

It weaves a tapestry of stories about love and relationship - told in a beautiful and direct manner. The actors, who are beautiful to watch, and to listen to, speak directly and so naturally to the camera, interspersed with color and fantasy that are nothing less than delightful. The spoken language changes here and there, but I found listening to the voices and language to be an integral part of the pleasure I found in this film. The prevailing Arab flavor of the film was so interesting and enjoyable to watch.

I loved the straightforward presentation of gay life, and gay relationships. There is something very authentic in the presentation, although they may be wrapped in a somewhat convoluted package.

The theme of the film could be interesting. COULD have been interesting. But the screenplay is pretty tedious. Large swaths of the movie are just plain boring.

The movie revolves around a small group of friends who seem like a bunch of bored losers. Ryan, the main character, clearly doesn't care a wit about his work. He plays video games, smokes weed, and watches movies with his friends. And occasionally signs onto a web sex site.

If you enjoy watching a few 25-30ish year olds watching old movies, and asking each other if they're going to this party, or that house to watch TV (and mostly responding with "I don't care") you'll likely really enjoy this film. I'm not sure if the point was to show just how boring the lives of this little clique of friends was, but it sure made much of the moving boring to watch.

The acting is fine. Not exceptional by any means. The sound mixing is pretty terrible, with scenes where the background music overshadows and obliterates dialog. (Hint: turn on subtitles if you want to know what people are saying throughout the movie.)

I don't think I'm giving anything away by saying that Ryan "grows closer" to a friend's boyfriend, since that's in the description for the film. But until they meet and start to explore their relationship - and each other - the movie is really quite boring.

Ryan's character, and the movie itself only show signs of life when the guys are alone together.

But at some point, Ryan will have to come to terms with who he is, or choose to just continue along his life path of a boring existence.

Just a personal opinion, but I think this story could have been told better. A much tighter screenplay would have made it a lot less tedious.

If you don't expect much, maybe you won't be too disappointed.

The acting is better than the plot or the script. There are few discrepancies in the technical end, like the fact that everyone carries torches into the tomb, but when they go out, there's still plenty of light. Or the sheer amount of words that can be deciphered from just a few, scant hieroglyphs on a cartouche.

The story is mighty thin. The mysterious brother and sister are... well, mysterious. Who, exactly, are they as the movie wraps up?

No spoilers in this review, so you'll have to figure it out for yourself. Suffice to say that the disappearance of a mule, and the water supply for crossing the desert are mysteries that never seem solved. As is reconciling the curse of the tomb with the blood being sucked from another mule. Not at all in keeping with the ancient hieroglyph explanation.

For a film made in the 1950s, it's not particularly sophisticated. Probably less so than those horror films that preceded it in the 1930s.

It could have been a lot more interesting to watch if it had a more involved and interesting plot.

Let's start with the "official" description of the movie. "Two men stumble into an old mansion, and get involved with a crazed scientist, torture chambers and sinister medical experiments."

It might have been written to describe another film, because none of it actually pertains to this one. That was the first disappointment. The second was the movie.

Even for 1936, the acting seems pretty simplistic, and 2-dimensional. The gangsta from Brooklyn was the best actor. He was the only one who seemed to have any context to his acting. Everyone else is just reciting lines.

There are major gaps in the story that make one wonder if it was edited, and important plot points were deleted. What happened to the guy who accosted the lovely lady at the start of the movie? Never seen or heard from again. What was he even doing in this story?

The lovely lady tosses her purse off a boat into the English channel because... Uh, your guess is as good as mine. It's one of the secrets of the movie that go along with the house.

I watched this on Amazon Prime, and the copy was terrible. Probably made from an old VHS copy of a copy after the copyright expired.

If you have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do, and need to kill a little more than an hour in the middle of the night, this might be your ticket to dreamland.

This film reminded me of Firesign Theatre's Giant Rat of Sumatra. But sorry to say, not nearly as good.

At first, I thought this was a little too artsy for my taste. A series of seemingly unrelated scenes. A man walking thought fields of wheat. A man touching a tree. A man looking at a grasshopper.

But it all came together at about the halfway point, when all the scenes became clear, and the story started to come into focus.

A touching, sad story about a man returning to a place of his younger days, and reminiscences of bygone times.

At that point, the makeup on one of the men takes on a meaning that I didn't realize before, making the film all the more touching.

Sad, nostalgic, romantic, and touching.

As others have noted, the movie is derivative. The acting was good. Even the direction was good, but the movie fell flat for me. It's got a suspenseful feel to it. It sports a slow burn surprise ending, but I, for one, didn't find it a satisfying one.

The movie takes a turn to the dark side, at which point it becomes a bit absurd. From some of the other reviews, I don't think I was the only one who had this reaction to the movie.

It starts off interesting, stimulates your curiosity, but it veers off into a disappointment toward the end. I don't think they really made a concrete case for the historical underpinnings of this quiet little southern town. But it certainly seemed familiar.

Pray for Robert's Baby.

This is not the run of the mill movie. It barely has a plot. In fact, until the director of the film mysteriously disappears, I'm not to sure there was a plot. After the disappearance, the police investigation finally begins to allow a plot line to emerge.

Enter Jean-Charles de Quillacq as the handsome inspector, and suddenly the film starts to take form. Too bad this is almost half-way through the movie. There is also what seems to be a subplot, centered around the lost representatives of the funeral company dispatched to pick up a corpse.

There are certainly some rather funny scenes, most of which I thought centered on the funeral reps.

The acting certainly seems free-flowing in this movie, which adds to the interest. Can't say I enjoyed some of the jagged camera work with its bouncing, lurching style.

Certainly, this was not the best 2 and a half hours I've spent in front of a movie screen. I'm not even sure I'd commit to saying I liked the movie. But it's interesting to watch (once a plot actually begins to emerge).

I think there's a moral at the end of the movie. If there is, it's probably the very last line - so hang in there if you decide to invest your time in this one.

I was surprised that this is categorized as a comedy. I found it to be a serious and emotional film about homosexuality in Yorkshire, England in 1953. Two men, Eddy and Tommy, who have known each other since early boyhood, are in love. But their relationship is shrouded in secrecy and shame. Homosexuality was illegal at the time in the UK, and one scene involving the police gave a hint of how difficult gay life could be at that time in a small mining village. But there is a reckoning during the annual village holiday, when Eddie finally decides to take a stand.

Apparently, it's based on a true story of Eddy Corkhill and Tommy Price, who became outspoken LGBT activists. I'm glad to have learned that bit of LGBT history from the film.

It's a story about shame, tough decisions, and about courage.

It begins and ends in the 1980s, in the midst of the AIDS crisis, where the story of 1953 is being told among a group of gay characters gathered together for mutual support at a time when no outside support was forthcoming for people with AIDS.

The casting, and the acting on the part of all the characters is excellent, and while I found the strong Yorkshire accents sometimes very difficult to understand (and I was unable to find any subtitle setting on this movie), I found it a well done, engaging, and quite powerful film.

There are some funny lines, and a couple of chuckles here and there, but I wouldn't call it a comedy. Expect a deep and dark, moving drama if you decide to watch this movie.

I suppose the film is supposed to be the dream of a young child, but were the script writers little children?

If you can only watch ONE version of this movie, put your money on the original 1953 version.

There may be reasons for David, the kid at the center of the film, is portrayed as a hero, and leading the Marines into battle (that being it's his dream). But I'm at a loss as to why a good movie had to be remade in a silly imitation of itself.

Maybe it's an 80s thing. Surely, there must have been some good films made in the 80s. But this isn't one of them. It's little nods to earlier films, and too clever references to science fiction history just doesn't work. At least not for me.

The original film wasn't Gone with the Wind, but (maybe with the exception of the fact that you could see the zippers on the alien's costumes) it's much more of a classic Sci-Fi horror movie than this.

If you have seen the original, and are in the mood for a satire of it, or just enjoy campy Sci-Fi, this is okay. But the original beats it by a mile.

From the title, I wasn't expecting so much from this movie. I wonder if it would have been more popular with a different title.

But once inside the movie, I really, REALLY liked it! The movie is about relationships, and about growth. A mom, whose relationship with her husband has gone stale and lifeless. A son, who is gay, running a failing restaurant he inherited from his uncle. A neighbor who is kookie and free-wheeling. And a guy who has an interest in the restaurant owner.

Everyone is struggling with their relationships, and growing a bit in the process. I thought that film was a real charmer. I thought Sharon Omi as the mother was absolutely TERRIFIC. Her emotions are so subtly transmitted, but unmistakable. She is an excellent actress for this role. And Teddy Chen Culver was excellent, and yeah, cute too.

There are some compromising scenes that push the mom to the wall - like realizing that her gay son is actually shacking up with people. But there are lessons to be learned by everyone, when they are given the space to grow.

The film doesn't hit you over the head by over-explaining. It respects its audience enough to let you interpret. Just one example is an opening scene where the husband/dad complains about a wedding ring giving him a headache. The next is a scene of the mom on a train. It didn't need any drama in between to let us know what was happening, and why. A little transmits a lot when it's done right.

It's a sweet, SWEET film, and I thought t he ending was perfect! The little box of sweets at the end, in case anyone wanted dessert, was just charming - if one took notice of mom's comment about the bakery she liked to visit! And so was the sriracha! Delightful ending.

I could feel the dopamine flowing as I was watching this movie.

The second Sun is a bittersweet, somewhat dark, but interesting examination of two lost souls - or some would call them losers - who bare themselves over the course of a long night. Each shares their histories and secrets, slowly revealing their respective pasts and pain. The story examines intimacy, vulnerability, and trust.

It reminded me of the Terrence McNally play, Frankie and Johnny in the Clair de Lune. Two people share intimacies, slowly and carefully open up to each other, and get to understand the fears and vulnerabilities of the other.

In The Second Sun, the first meeting between the two protagonists occurs in a purely impersonal way, as Max serves a woman, who he later finds is named Joy, at the little café where he works. Then, by coincidence, they meet, late at night, at an otherwise mostly empty bar.

Max believes their meeting is more than an accident. But Joy keeps wishing he'd leave her be. But while she could leave, she doesn't. She's lets Max repeatedly draw her back into conversation. She needs to know more about the man's past. And she needs to share her own past, and a repressed pain she holds deep inside.

Basically, the film unfolds like a 2-person play. There are other, incidental characters who round out the story, and help reveal and illustrate the past. I've seen criticisms that say the film is too "theatrical," too much like a play.

What's wrong with that? Plays are what drama is all about. And this one distills the drama of two lonely, desperate, but star-crossed people quite well.

The stage-like performances bestows a deep intimacy to the action. The sepia toned flashback scenes provide context and tone to their personalities. Very nicely done.

If you're looking for a movie with lasers, explosions, and car chases, this ain't it. But if you're in the frame of mind to watch a story about romance and nuance, this just might be the ticket.

If I have one criticism of this movie, it's that at one point there is a revelation about a tattoo from Auschwitz. It looks like it was typed on an arm using a typewriter, instead of the crude, hand-drawn numbers that authentically marked victims of the holocaust at this camp.

Someone on the production team, I'm afraid, was woefully unaware of their subject material when it came to this important detail.

This is a real snoozer. The beginning - like the first 30 minutes is so repetitive and tedious! There's no dialog, and nothing to tip you off to why you're being subjected to the same scenes repeated over and over and over and...

The film starts out with music. Or maybe just a sound effect. It's a pulsing sound that literally made me cover my ears. Painful. And it went on just MUCH TOO LONG. I imagine it was supposed to add a sense of the supernatural. It didn't.

There are some unintelligible voices that start to appear in some scenes, but since you can't actually hear what they're saying, they're not helpful hints to any plot. Just another annoyance, as in "WHAT are they saying?"

And then, FINALLY, there's a voice. It's Sylvia, who has a role to play, a job to do, to extricate a ghost from a family's house (though no evidence of the family is suggested in the film). And Sylvia sounds as if she's reading back someone's dictated letter from a steno pad. It's incredibly unemotional, and she is not convincing at all as a caring, helpful character.

Overall, the dialog is stilted on the part of the two main protagonists -the ghost, Emily, and Sylvia, the ersatz exorcist.

The concept behind the story is interesting, for which I added some stars, but because the movie is so incredibly tedious, the payoff at the end just isn't worth the time, or the considerable effort required to sit through it.

The end left me hanging. Interesting, but very unsatisfying.

Frankly, I'm pretty surprised by the number of great reviews here for this film.

If you've got time and taste for one ghost story, "A Ghost Waits" is far superior than "I Am A Ghost."

Hello Again was interesting, and visually enjoyable. It's a series of vignettes showing different pairings of lovers in different, and non-chronological time frames. So the action might jump from 1912 to 1968, and then to 1956.

Each, I suppose, stands on it's own as a short story. Sometimes, an actor would smoothly glide from one into the next, but they didn't play the same character, because the story might be years or decades apart in time. Most often the actors were different in each story.

What I was unable to decipher was what the relationship between the stories and the characters was. There are subtle, and not-so-subtle hints here and there to suggest they are not separate and unrelated.

There are symbols that show up in most of the stories, like the neon image of a diamond-like gemstone. In one scene, it's an electronic biometric reader. In other scenes, it can be seen outside of apartment windows. A jeweled bracelet and a jeweled brooch also seem to make their way into different stories.

As far as I could tell, all the stories, except the Titanic scene (on its way to NY), took place in New York, which is one reason I believe the characters were interrelated.

The music was interesting, but sometimes I thought it became repetitious and a bit tedious.

Some of the stories were better than others. A scene on the Titanic, for example, and a fundraising party for a Senate hopeful were very interesting tales.

Fine acting throughout, and nicely directed and filmed. I thought there was a tie-in between the first and the last story sequence, because of the similarities between certain characters, and the return of the jeweled brooch that started the movie. A story taking place in a movie theatre didn't give me any clues of being interrelated.

I can't help thinking I must be dense, and missed some obvious line running through the movie. Maybe you're more perspicacious, and will have better luck figuring it out.

The off-Broadway production and the film are based on a French play titled "La Ronde," which means The Round. So, I'm sure there is some circularity to these stories. Not to mention the title of the movie, "Hello AGAIN."

The actor from whom the brooch is taken, and the actor to whom it is returned is a definite clue.