An Actor Ponders: My Quick Review of Noah Baumbach's JAY KELLY

When I think of the works of Noah Baumbach, my mind always goes towards scrappier indies like The Squid & the Whale or Frances Ha...and even if it may have had a bigger budget, Marriage Story fit right in line with the kinds of themes he often tackles. 

His last film, 2022's White Noise, which was based on a Don DeLillo novel, was a bigger scale departure for him that had a lot of people scratching their heads...even though I actually liked it quite a bit. 

Now that we've reached his latest effort, Jay Kelly, I feel like we have him diving back into a territory that seems more on brand for him, but the scale still seems a lot bigger. I keep talking about "the scale" and perhaps it may seem like I am on the brink of insulting his path of branching out to films that are not of his old indie vibe.

If there is any issue with Jay Kelly, it isn't the budget but rather not necessarily responding much to the script...but I am getting ahead of myself.

George Clooney plays our titular character, an actor who has been very beloved by the public for decades and he is reaching something of a breaking point when director Peter Schneider (Jim Broadbent), who gave him his first big break back in the 1980s, passes away. On top of this, he also struggles with the fact his youngest daughter is now 18 and preparing to go off to college. Considering he was always busy with work (something that affected his relationship with his eldest daughter a lot more), he is feeling a bit concerned about losing her without getting to connect with her.

After Peter's memorial, Jay has an encounter with Tim Galligan (Billy Crudup), a former friend he went to the same acting class with. While at a bar, Tim expresses an opinion about their past that leads Jay to finally spiral. Despite a film shoot beginning just around the bend, he insists to his loyal longtime manager Ron (Adam Sandler) and his publicist Liz (Laura Dern) that he is going on an excursion to Europe to try to connect with his daughter Daisy, who is going on a backpacking trip there before going off to college. 

Jay Kelly is the kind of film that feels like something that might've been more embraced had it come out 20+ years ago, but it does seem to be getting less of a positive response than many hoped for. I would say that I am definitely mixed on the final product. 

I viewed Jay Kelly as Noah Baumbach's (and co-writer Emily Mortimer's) modernish take on a Fellini film. While this film was nowhere near as surreal or exuberant as the work of Federico Fellini, I single out the legend because was a master at creating films around tortured souls (frequently artists) who were in the midst of a crisis. 

I certainly see elements of 8 1/2 and La Dolce Vita here, but I have to stress that I am not putting Jay Kelly on that level. As a script, I don't know if I truly got enough out of Jay's history to actually GET him or, frankly, even care. On top of that, we get Sandler's Ron having an arc as well which I would argue is maybe a tad more effective...but on the flip side, they do try to create a past between Sandler's Ron and Dern's Liz, but I am honestly amazed at how underutilized Laura Dern is in this film. She barely gets anything to do and when her character departs the narrative, I was like "Wait...is that it? Is she coming back?"

We do get to be witness to several flashbacks from Jay's life, with Jay watching them and relieving the happy times and also the difficult ones. To be fair, a lot of these are very well done and it must be said that this is film that does have fleeting moments of being truly engaging but for the most part, the interest level mostly remained at a level of mild interest. 

If I can commend the film for anything, it is the fact that an actor like George Clooney is the perfect choice to play our lead because he IS that beloved. He IS that charismatic. He IS someone who lights up the screen in a way very few actors can. I am not saying I would nominate him for an Oscar, but if the film has any real strength in getting you through, Clooney is the reason.

I would say Adam Sandler also does well here. I wasn't wowed by him in the same way I was with his work in Punch Drunk Love or especially Uncut Gems, but I do think one of these days, he will get the right vehicle to lead him to Oscar glory. I just don't think this role is it, but he could very well get his first nod with it.

Although the one I really need to single out is Billy Crudup, who is only on screen for maybe 8-10 minutes and manages to get the engine running for the film in a lot of ways as his big scene is the catalyst that leads to Jay snapping.

 I won't go too deep into spoilers here, but Crudup's Tim is no longer acting and had been presented as being the potential star of the class as he was the one who liked to be "method". Honestly, the flashbacks involving the acting class and the audition were maybe the most effective for me in the film and I actually wish we could've had more of Clooney and Crudup together.

To reiterate another point from earlier, I am so baffled by how little Laura Dern had to do in this. It wasn't like her role was as small as Crudup's, but it just felt truly thankless and a waste of her talent. 

As it stands, Jay Kelly was an easy enough watch, but I would argue that it's a concept I love more than how Baumbach brought it to light. It felt as though something was missing that made a lot of the emotion feel a bit too hollow.

I wouldn't say it is one you have to rush to watch, but if the concept of this storyline sounds intriguing, I would recommend checking out the two Federico Fellini films that I felt this film tried to flirt with: La Dolce Vita and 8 1/2.

JAY KELLY

Rating: 6/10

"Where Have All the Flowers Gone?" - My Review of Yorgos Lanthimos' BUGONIA (w/ major spoilers)

*This review will contain SPOILERS*

There are certain filmmakers that when you hear a new work of theirs is soon to arrive, you can't help but get hyped up. I think we officially have a very strong entry in that group of artists with Yorgos Lanthimos, the man who has given us the likes of Dogtooth, The Lobster, The Favourite, and Poor Things.

While Lanthimos has written some of his films, such as Dogtooth and The Lobster, he often will work with other screenwriters to bring their vision to the screen. With his latest film Bugonia, he works with writer Will Tracy, a brilliant satirist who had been a previous editor for The Onion and has worked on such shows/films as Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, Succession, and The Menu.

Tracy adapted Bugonia from Jang Hoon-hwan's 2003 Korean film Save the Green Planet back in 2020 with the intention of Jang coming back to direct this remake. Tracy still tried to keep this script as more of a standalone prospect than a beat-by-beat rehash, which also including the producing opting to swap the gender of the central character from a man to a woman.

When Jang dropped out due to health concerns, that is when Yorgos Lanthimos joined the film and brought along his muse Emma Stone to play the lead and Jesse Plemons to play the film's main antagonist.

Stone plays Michelle Fuller, a highly renowned and influential CEO of a pharmaceutical corporation known as Auxolith. When arriving back to her very sleek and modern mansion outside of Atlanta, she is kidnapped by two men: Teddy (Jesse Plemons) and his autistic cousin Don (Aidan Delbis, in his feature debut). They are convinced that Michelle is of an "Andromedan" alien species that has been terrorizing the earth for decades with the goal of eventually destroying humanity...with a particular focus on "Green" terrorism: killing honeybees. 

As a means to prevent Michelle from contacting her "mothership", they shave her hair as a means and cover her in an antihistamine cream as these are considered signal blockers in their eyes. Teddy wants to have a meeting with the Andromedan emperor and wants to use Michelle as a means to negotiate that meeting. His goal is to have their ship enter the Earth's atmosphere dealing a lunar eclipse so it will go undetected. 

*Sidenote: I love that when we see the Earth in the time elapsed interstitials, it appears flat. It seems wholly fitting for the subject matter and people we are dealing with. 

 Teddy is also revealed to be working for Auxolith in their shipping warehouse, and he actually has a direct connection to Michelle beyond the fact he works for her company. Via flashbacks, we learn that Teddy's mother (Alicia Silverstone, in a random cameo) was taking part in a clinical trial of one of Auxolith's new drugs and it leaves her all but catatonic and eventually comatose. 

With the plot in place, what did I think of Bugonia?

In the case of Yorgos Lanthimos, it is clear that with the content he makes, he is bound to leave a lot of people cold. I get the sense that Bugonia is not gathering a lot of passion compared to the likes of The Favourite or Poor Things. If I am being completely candid, I would rank as his 5th best film behind The Favourite, Poor Things, Dogtooth, and The Lobster...but that is no direct slam on Bugonia. It just means that Lanthimos has a pretty high bar and some films just won't reach that high.

Considering even Save the Green Planet! had something of a mixed response despite some passionate fans, it isn't shocking that Bugonia would face a similar fate. I still very much enjoyed it and appreciated the darkly sinister comedic tone that fits so snugly into the worlds that Lanthimos loves to take us into. 

As for the performances, Stone continues to work well as Lanthimos' muse as this is her 4th film with him...although if the film is stolen by anyone, I would argue it is Jesse Plemons as Teddy.

As something of an offbeat actor who has a truly unique screen presence that has made people take notice since his infamous and volatile turn as the villainous Todd on the final season of Breaking Bad, I feel like we are witnessing his best performance to date in Bugonia. I have already made comments like this for other performances, and I will do so here, too. There is still a good chance Plemons could slip into some acting races this year, but it does seem like he might be on the cusp considering Best Actor this year is far more competitive than it's been in a long time. I think it's a shame he doesn't seem to be more in the running as I would totally nominate him for this.

I also want to single out Aidan Delbis as Don. Much like how Stone's character was a gender-swap, so was Don. In the original, this character was a girl who had a very heated and passionate personality, and she took a liking to her partner in crime. Here, they made him a follower of his cousin whom he loves dearly and both Lanthimos and Stone (who served as a producer on the film) hoped to find someone who hadn't acted before to play the role. After his audition and screen test, they adored what he brought to the table and made sure he had all he needed to feel comfortable making his debut. His character is what you could argue is the heart of the film in many ways and considering the fact he is on the autism spectrum, it never felt like were forced to pity him. 

One thing I do appreciate about Tracy's script combined with the direction and performances is how well they work to trick the audience of the film's eventual reveal. 

Everything about a film like this screams that Teddy and Don are crazed conspiracy theorists who kidnapped an innocent woman...but thanks to the conviction of both Stone and Plemons and Delbis in their roles, there are times where you begin to wonder who is right and who is wrong. 

Stone does some of her best work towards the end when she does discover that Plemons' Teddy has captured and murdered multiple people whom he believed to be Andromedans. After pouring over all of his "work", she gives very passionate and descriptive monologue about the history of Andromedans and how they actually caused the mass extension of the dinosaurs and out of guilt, they are also the ones who created humanity and have tried for years to protect humans as a result...and it makes you wonder: is she somehow coming up with this on the fly based on his work she looked over or...was Teddy right all along?

Even the idea of her portal being in her office closet with a calculator being the means of making a signal seems preposterous...only made more convincing as such when Stone's performance screams of a person trying to be convincing that she is telling the truth but isn't. All that is further enhanced when Teddy reveals he is wearing a suicide vest that accidentally detonates and decapitates him. The image of Stone getting knocked unconscious by Teddy's flying head is a sight to behold.

However...Teddy WAS right, and we learn that she is, indeed, an alien.

Not only was he right, but even his spaceship model that he built is eerily similar to the actual ship. We see Stone teleport back to her ship and as she said to Teddy in her monologue, she feels they failed. Humans are, in their eyes, a disaster...so with the pop of a clear dome bubble, she kills human existence...with only animals remaining alive. We get a darkly humorous sequence where see humans lying dead around the world: kids in classrooms, people bathing on the beach, a couple mid coital, car pile-ups on highways...but dogs are roaming free which...yay for them living!

All the while, we get Marlene Dietrich's glorious rendition of the folk song "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?" while we see that honeybees are now alive and thriving again.

I don't know...I frankly was pretty pleased with the film. It wasn't perfect, but I do appreciate films that can take on these cynical but humorous tones and succeed. 

Oh, and do I have to call out the score of Jerksin Fendrix who also did the score for Poor Things and Kinds of Kindness. This is another epic piece of work by him that alternates between melodic and glorious to otherworldly and epic. Lanthimos gave him three words for inspiration: bees, basement, and spaceship...and with this, he came up with motifs that worked perfectly. I really hope he gets a Score nomination this year!

So yes, I was rather pleased with Bugonia! It is by no means a masterpiece, but it will likely end up being one of my favorites of 2025 at the very least.

---------

BUGONIA

RATING: 8.5/10 

Dream a Little Dream of Trees - My Quick Review of Clint Bentley's TRAIN DREAMS

*There will be some mild spoilers throughout* 

One thing I kept hearing about Train Dreams as reviews kept pouring in was how much the style of the film was invoking the vibe of Terrence Malick.

While I would admit that Malick's recent output hasn't been of the same level as films he's made in decades past, I do hold Malick's work in high regard: Badlands, Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line, and The Tree of Life are all truly stellar works and he manages to weave the most fascinating of stories; even turning something of a Harlequin Romance into a work of art (Days of Heaven).

Coming out of Sundance back in January 2025, Train Dreams was the follow up of writer/director Clint Bentley and his partner Greg Kwedar, who were behind one of my favorite films from 2024: Sing Sing. 

One word I keep hearing regarding the vibe of Train Dreams is that it's a "meditation", and yes, that is very much apt. These are films that can drive up passionate fervor with people saying it "broke me" and it left them thinking about their life...while others might say, "this is absolutely the most nothing and boring movie I've ever seen in my life".

There is even one review on Letterboxd I read that more or less conveyed that last thought above and then added: "So of course, it will likely win Best Picture!"

I am here to tell you that Train Dreams, great film or not, will not be winning Best Picture this year but there is a chance it could slip into the final 10. However, do I actually feel that it would be worthy of such a placement?

Here comes the contrarian, but no. I am not here to fully bash Trains Dreams, but I was sadly not as moved by this one.

Set in the early 20th century (with a significant portion of the film occurring around the timeline of the previously mentioned Days of Heaven no less), we follow the life of Robert Grainier (Joel Edgerton), a man who had been orphaned as a child and had an aimless young adulthood until he meets a woman named Gladys (Felicity Jones). They get married, build a cabin along the Moyie River in Bonners Ferry, Idaho, and eventually have a daughter named Kate.

In order to support his family, Robert begins working for the Spokane International Railway but becomes a bit unnerved when he sees a group of white men throw a Chinese immigrant over the bridge for seemingly no good reason. He begins having nightmares and visions of this man while also dreaming of getting hit by a train.

Robert then takes up seasonal work as a logger, which does take him away for long periods, but he is still shaken by the danger of the work and also when of his close colleagues Arn (William H. Macy) is eventually killed by a falling branch. 

I will leave the synopsis there, but the film does proceed throughout the many years of Robert's life but admittedly, I found myself not feeling as invested as I would've hoped. I am willing to watch as many moody and quiet and delicate and meditative films that come along...as I often state, my favorite filmmaker is Ingmar Bergman after all...but there is a fine line to making subject matter like this pop.

In terms of visuals, the cinematography is gorgeous, and I will say that Joel Edgerton does some truly beautiful work here. It might even be my favorite performance he has given, so to be fair, the film isn't without its high merits. I would even argue I feel a tad more positive about it now compared to immediately after I watched it a couple of days ago. 

I will say though that the film does have one aspect that I found particularly grating: a narrator. Bentley and Kwedar use character actor Will Patton as a narrator simply telling us the story of Robert but a lot of the time, I feel like the narration became intrusive or unnecessary. In many ways, I felt the scenes on screen spoke for themselves and it also seemed like an insult to Edgerton who didn't need the unseen Greek Chorus to convey to us what was going on in his mind. Even if the narration was to explain a bit more about his life leading up to adulthood, there were ways to do it without resorting to that trope. 

I do have to wonder if this is a film that would grow on me over time, because I did even admit that I feel a tad more positive towards since viewing it. However, I am just not sure this one was much of a success...but I will also gladly own up to the fact that I seem to be in the minority here.

I would recommend watching it for that reason because I do think films like this should be embraced even if they don't always work. At the very least, you get a truly wonderful Joel Edgerton performance to guide you and some of the best visuals you'll see in a film this year. Then again, film isn't just about pretty visuals...but thankfully the film does offer a little more than that.

TRAIN DREAMS

Rating: 6.5/10

If I Only Had Some Legs! - My Quick Review of Mary Bronstein's IF I HAD LEGS I'D KICK YOU

When one claims to be a film buff like me, you are prone to be more accepting of certain films than the general public. I get a great deal of excitement in a film that can elicit a true stark reaction out of me, and there can be nothing more thrilling than a film that challenges you even if in the end, you may admire it more than you actually love it...and odds are you'll never watch it again.

While not something I would even consider putting on the level of a film like Come & See, it is hard for me to think of many films in recent years that left me feeling as stressed or as tense as If I Had Legs did. 

Do I think the film itself was successful? Mostly...I guess?

The film revolves around Linda (Rose Byrne), a therapist who lives in Montauk and is caring for her daughter who is suffering from some kind of illness that is never addressed, although it seems to be causing her to have an aversion to eating. She is trying her best at juggling the routine to care for her while her husband Charles (Christian Slater) is away on a two-month work trip that seemingly grants him a lot of free time. As therapists need to do, she attends her own therapy sessions with her supervisor (in a rather surprising though solid piece of casting, Conan O'Brien) but the tension between them is rather uncomfortable.

Things take another drastic turn when Linda has to take her daughter to stay at a motel when a massive leak floods their apartment leaving a gaping hole in the ceiling. The motel's superintendent is James, who in another interesting bit of casting is played by rapper A$AP Rocky and he takes something of a peculiar interest in Linda and how she seems to erratically navigate her life.

I am not going to spend as much time on this one, and I apologize if that seems like a bit of a copout. 

As a film, I do greatly admire the ambition of Mary Bronstein, who also acts in the film as Dr. Spring. I do think the film is worth checking out for Rose Byrne at the very least because she is doing some truly strong work here.

Considering the amount of stress and tension that Byrne's Linda is feeling, Bronstein does a great job of making you feel that claustrophobic environment. It's as if you are breaking out into a cold sweat at times as the film flirts with being something of a fever dream. 

I do think the film is also very successful at making you understand her frustrations as her young daughter, whose name we never learn, and we spend most of the film not even seeing her face, is rather insufferable. Truthfully, this film made me glad that I don't have children and I wouldn't be shocked if it makes others go "Yeah, I will pass on that".

Although, I will admit that saying that is a bit harsh and also sells the ideas of the film a little bit short. This following paragraph will contain a SPOILER so if you haven't seen it and don't want to know certain developments, please skip to the next paragraph. Rose Byrne has an amazing scene...which is redundant considering how strong she is throughout the whole film...but perhaps her best scene is when she confesses to her unnamed therapist (O'Brien as you may recall) that she had an abortion when she was younger, and she struggles with it not so much because of the grief specifically but rather the fact she questions if she perhaps aborted the wrong kid and therefore totally deems herself unworthy and unfit to be a mother. 

Considering the kind of career Rose Bryne has had, it feels earned and long overdue for her to have a film vehicle like this. She was so dynamic acting opposite Glenn Close on Damages and was also a great comedic villain of sorts in Bridesmaids. She can do comedy, and she can star in a production of Medea at BAM. In that regard, I want to see her get more weighty film roles like this because she is, in some ways, a very underrated actress.

As it stands, If I Had Legs I'd Kick You succeeds in achieving that uncomfortable goal and for giving Rose Byrne a showcase that is worthy of Oscar consideration...not to mention the creative use of Conan O'Brien and A$AP Rocky...and it is certainly worth checking out. I wouldn't say either of the two men are giving an Oscar nomination worthy performance but at the very least, they do well with the material they are given. I would actually argue that A$AP Rocky had a better ability of blending in with reality, whereas with O'Brien, it still felt so unusual to see him in this setting. 

If I Had Legs will be a bit of a strain if you aren't in the best of moods...and I do admit that if I had watched it on a different day, I likely would've had a harsher reaction to it.

IF I HAD LEGS, I'D KICK YOU

Rating: 7.5/10

A Cold-Hearted Squeak - My Review of Jafar Panahi's IT WAS JUST AN ACCIDENT

*THERE WILL BE SOME SPOILERS IN THE PLOT SETUP, BUT I WILL NOT DISCUSS THE ENDING*

Back in 2010, Juliette Binoche won the Best Actress prize at the Cannes Film Festival for her work in Abbas Kiarostami's Certified Copy. During her speech, she shined a light on another Iranian filmmaker by the name of Jafar Panahi, who had begun his career working as an assistant to Kiarostami.

Panahi has been seen as a bit of a rebel for challenging the Iranian regime to the point where his films have been banned in Iran for their themes of challenging oppression and social injustice. Binoche brought Panahi up as he was imprisoned by the Iranian government even though he was supposed to be that year's Jury President.

Flash forward to 2025. Binoche is now the Jury President. Jafar Panahi had entered a film into the Cannes' competition called It Was Just an Accident, which he made in secret out of safety despite the fact that the bans had been lifted on him making films. 

Binoche and her jury made their statement. Panahi won the Palme D'or after many years and caused a bit of a rumbling in the film community as many suspected the top prize might've gone to the Norwegian film Sentimental Value. 

I think rewarding a film like It Was Just an Accident and a filmmaker like Panahi was a very strong choice. Not only was it a film of great artistic merit, but it also served a very savvy political purpose. However, it comes as no surprise that potential mainstream success will come to him as this is undoubtedly his most accessible film in many ways. 

Panahi's films always took on a scrappier approach that felt more in line with the Neorealist era and filmmakers like Roberto Rossellini or Vittorio De Sica. He was always willing to challenge the horrific oppression within Iran, such as in films like 2000's The Circle which goes into the sadistic treatment of women in Iran or 2003's Crimson Gold, in which a man is driven to madness by class disparity and turns to crime as a result. 

While Panahi does indeed dip into an accessible style with It Was Just an Accident, this is a perfect example of giving the audience an intense story and introducing them to a filmmaker who loves shining a light on the horrors of his country.

The film begins with a family driving in a car. The husband (Ebrahim Azizi) along with his wife, who is pregnant, and their young daughter. The road they are on is fairly dark and he ends up hitting a stray dog, which traumatizes the young daughter and leads to her mother telling her "It was just an accident". 

The husband takes the car to a mechanic, but this mechanic named Vahid (Vahid Mobasseri) seems to recognize the man by the sound of his voice and the squeak of his prosthetic leg. Vahid ends up stalking the man, captures him, and prepares to bury him alive in the desert. 

And why might you ask? Vahid is convinced that this man is "Eghbar" (Iranian for "peg leg"), a man who tormented him and many others while he was in an Iranian prison. However, when the man pleads that he is not the man he thinks he is, Vahid begins to have doubts but doesn't want to let him go. In order to be sure, he seeks out other people who were in prison with him and suffered at the hands of this man.

It Was Just an Accident is something of a revenge film, and I do think it takes the idea of that subgenre and gives it such a refreshing take. Panahi, despite his clear disdain for the Iranian politics, gives this ensemble the opportunity to express their beliefs and morals and concerns. One of the big themes that is brought up is if they actually want to fight violence with violence while others couldn't give a flying fuck about that high road.

I have stated in the past that nothing used to thrill me more than a good revenge story. I practically salivated watching Oldboy back in the day, and there was certainly an element of intrigue watching this story unfold and seeing if this man is who they think he is or if it would devolve into chaos because Vahid made a hasty decision with tragic consequences.

I think if there was any justice, these actors will get an Ensemble nomination at the upcoming SAG Awards (or Actor Awards as it will soon be called), because as a group, they are truly compelling. I actually want to single out two of the supporting players: 

Miriam Afshari, who plays a photographer named Shiva

Mohammed Ali Elaysmehr as Hamid, the resident hothead of the group

Both of them stood out to me as potential people I would personally nominate for an Oscar, but I do feel as an ensemble, they deserve to be recognized. 

I will admit that when the film began, it started to lose me a little bit. It felt a bit too plodding, but if you do have that feeling watching it, I highly suggest you try to keep going because once it picks up, the pacing and the structure and how Panahi builds the tension is sublime.

It is a literal example of a snowball rolling down a hill, but it never feels overstuffed or bloated. This film is only an hour and 40 minutes long, and it doesn't try to outstay its welcome. Panahi keeps everything taut and swift once the action truly hits and with that, he manages to imbue such dynamic character interactions.

I said I wouldn't discuss the ending, and I won't spoil it here if you haven't seen it, but...yeah. I could see certain people having some thoughts about that, but I personally loved the choice.

All in all, I would say that It Was Just an Accident is a success in so many ways, and I love that we will likely see the film and Panahi nominated for multiple awards. Considering what that man has gone through, I am definitely grateful that he never gave up and still insists on giving us such thought-provoking work.

IT WAS JUST AN ACCIDENT

Rating: 9.5/10

_______________________________________

ONE MORE COMMENT:

It was announced on December 4th, 2025, that Jafar Panahi was sentenced to another year in prison due to him making It Was Just an Accident. He has been on a bit of an awards blitz campaign having picked up prizes at various critics' organizations such as NY Film Critics and Gotham. 

I would recommend reading the following article from Variety to learn more but talk about absolute bravery and determination from this man!

Jafar Panahi Sentenced to One Year in Iranian Prison

"Love's the same old sad sensation..." - My Review of Richard Linklater's BLUE MOON

One of my favorite showtunes is "Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered", which is from the 1940 musical Pal Joey. The music was written by Richard Rodgers, but the lyrics were written by....well...

When most people hear the name "Rodgers" in the world of theatre, the thought tends to be followed by "and (Oscar) Hammerstein"...but prior to working with Hammerstein, Richard Rodgers was part of another long-term collaboration with Lorenz Hart. 

Hart, on the right, with Richard Rodgers

Rodgers & Hart's works felt more in line with the frothy fare that dominated Broadway of the 20s and 30s. Some of their most famous songs include "My Funny Valentine", "I Didn't Know What Time It Was", "This Can't Be Love", among dozens and dozens of others...oh, and of course, "Blue Moon".

Lorenz Hart's style was dripping with wit; he was very much in a similar vein to other lyricists of the era like Cole Porter...although there was always a strong sense of melancholy to Hart. So much has been debated about his true sexuality, but many suspect that he was a bisexual who also battled alcoholism and severe depression. Some also say that he leaned more towards homosexuality but did have a taste for voyeurism that could've swayed toward either sex.

His erratic and often snarky behavior paired with his alcoholic benders that would make him disappear for days on end would be the primarily catalyst for Rodgers teaming up with Oscar Hammerstein II to adapt the play Green Grow the Lilacs into a stage musical. This would go on to be known as Oklahoma!

Lorenz Hart was sort of being pushed to the side, and it is that snapshot of a moment that leads us into Blue Moon, Richard Linklater's long-gestating project that has had Ethan Hawke frothing at the mouth for over a decade to sink his teeth into. 

Set primarily within the confines of the bar at the iconic Sardi's, Blue Moon is a character study on that of Lorenz Hart and how he is handling the rapturous response to Oklahoma! on its opening night. Gone were the toe-tapping and whimsical melodies that Rodgers would pair with Hart's lyrics, now Rodgers was working with Hammerstein's earthier rhetoric...or as Hart would call it: "corn pone". 

Hart holds court at the bar which is tended by Eddie (Bobby Cannavale), the two clearly have a rapport down to them quoting lines from Casablanca at each other. Hart also takes an interest in the piano player Morty (Jonah Lees), whom he decides to nickname Knuckles. 

Using the term "omnisexual" to describe himself, he proceeds to flirt with a male delivery guy to the point of insisting he come to his apartment on Central Park West for a "soiree" while also boasting his infatuation with a 20 year old Yale student named Elizabeth (Margaret Qualley), an inspiring set designer whom he believes is his next love...even though it seems clear to us that she perhaps doesn't share that sentiment. 

The opening night festivities for Oklahoma! are about to begin and this is when the wunderkind Richard Rodgers (Andrew Scott) arrives and Hart tries his best to insert himself into remaining relevant in Rodgers' orbit...however, that sounds a bit more harsh than this situation may deserve.

Blue Moon is going to be one of those films that divides some people as to how much they respond to the content and how its presented. There is no denying that its static setting at Sardi's and the copious amount of dialogue and monologuing make this feel as though it was a play being adapted for the screen.

Shockingly, that is not the case. As written by Me & Orson Welles novelist Robert Kaplow, Blue Moon was mostly inspired by the letters Hart wrote to Elizabeth...along with firsthand accounts from the final months of Hart's life. In fact, the film opens with us seeing what led to Hart's death...which for those of you who aren't aware, I will refrain from discussing that here...but Hart's death only occurs 7 months after the events of this film.

While the ensemble of Qualley, Cannavale, Scott, and the rest do very solid work, this film is truly a showcase for whichever actor gets to revel in the complexities of Lorenz Hart. There is no denying that Ethan Hawke is a strong actor, but a role like this feels unlike anything he has played before. 

You always hear people proclaim how remarkable it is when an actor transforms and disappears into a role...and I will admit, this is a feeling I find difficult to obtain. I tend to always remember I am watching said actor and not as if I am watching the real person somehow.

One example of me coming close to this kind of hyperbole was Julianne Moore as Sarah Palin in the HBO film Game Change, but I would easily put Ethan Hawke's work as Lorenz Hart in that group.

What Hawke manages to mine out of this performance is nothing short of brilliant. Considering Hawke is 5'10 in real life, Hart was roughly around 5ft and Linklater stages everything so brilliantly to make Hawke's stature seem far for diminutive. In addition to that, Hawke's physicality with this makes the illusion all the more remarkable. Every single detail from his voice and mannerisms and the makeup/hair department giving him Hart's balding desperate combover helps create one of the more fascinating bits of character study on film in recent years.

We are basically watching a man filled with so much bravado and self-loathing try so desperately hard to hang on by a thread...and in turn, we are spellbound hanging on to every single word and tactic he says or does.

While some may bemoan that the film is nothing more than a vehicle for Ethan Hawke, I do think the script is very fascinating and filled with a lot of wonderful dialogue and that Linklater does well to maintain a great sense of space and not make us too claustrophobic...even if Hart himself is feeling everything close in around him. 

While I don't suspect it'll happen, this film should be in contention for Best Picture and Screenplay nominations, but if there truly is any justice, Ethan Hawke would be in contention for the win. I hope this comment ages poorly, but he seems to be on the cusp for a nomination and may very well miss it. 

Blue Moon is a beautiful and sumptuous little gem of a film that may have faltered if it weren't for the right casting, but thankfully, Ethan Hawke pulled off this difficult role marvelously.

BLUE MOON 

Rating: 9/10

Were You Changed for the Better? - My Review of Jon M. Chu's WICKED: FOR GOOD

*There will be some spoilers throughout this, so please be mindful*

Let me give you a little backstory on my history with Wicked as a musical property. I delved into it a little bit in my review for Part One, which you can find here...but I want to go into it a little deeper. 

I was a freshman in high school when Wicked premiered on Broadway and I would eventually end up seeing it twice: in 2005 (with Eden Espinosa & Megan Hilty) and 2007 (Julia Murney & Kendra Kassebaum).

Those who know me would automatically suspect that I might hold my nose up at Wicked. At the time, you could argue that I most definitely did. I was already a Sondheim fanboy and had spent that Broadway season championing Tesori & Kushner's Caroline, or Change and embracing the subversively sweet and raunchy Avenue Q.

I will gladly admit that there were certain songs and moments from the show that I was fond of pretty much instantaneously, but I think what truly hurt the show was the Book by Winnie Holzman. It always felt a bit rushed at times and suffered due to how key plot points (namely the scenes involving Dr. Dillamond or The Wizard) were presented...and I will address those a bit more within the review.

While there had been an extensive amount of people who attacked the first film for being very long and also lacking vibrant cinematography (not a criticism I latched onto), I was blown away by it. The team gave this story room to breathe and while maybe it could've been trimmed a tiny bit, I think the first film was mostly a resounding success. 

However...those of us who have seen Wicked onstage or at least to those who may have listened to the Cast Recording religiously, know that Act II is not as strong. That isn't unusual by any means; most musical fans know that Act II is usually weaker than Act I. Not everything can be Into the Woods in that regard. 

After seeing the first film, it was clear to me that Chu, Holzman, and Fox were going down the right path. If any part of the Wicked story could use expansion and development to reach a stronger potential, it was the second act.

One of the biggest signs of this was when the trailer dropped and it showed a glimpse of a scene that implied that Glinda was added to the song "Wonderful", which was originally just done with The Wizard and Elphaba. Not long before the film's release, a small clip of "Wonderful" was released to the public and it solidified my belief that the creative team found ways to deepen this material.

I am getting ahead of myself, though. 

These days, the hype train is a dangerous mode of travel. It ends up being subject to opinion, but for every film that meets the level of acclaim you are hearing (One Battle After Another), there is another that misses the station (Sinners). 

Wicked: For Good reactions from the first people to see it were rapturous with many deeming it superior to the first film and that Jon M. Chu stuck the landing and that we would likely see Erivo and Grande repeating their Oscar nominations...with many thinking Grande could actually WIN.

Once the critics reviews began to pour in, the response was drastically different. As of this exact moment, the film has a 70% on Rotten Tomatoes. To put this into perspective, recently maligned Oscar nominated films that have higher scores are Emilia Perez at 71% (the audience score at cheekily opposite 17% is far more fitting), Crash at 74, and Green Book at 77. 

Meanwhile - W:FG's audience score is 97%

If I am being honest, I really don't get the aggressive criticism. 

Despite its length more than double that of Act Two, W:FG does benefit from the time to breathe. While I do think some of the inherent issues with that act are apparent regardless, I do appreciate the power of seeing it deepened onscreen and some of the new changes they made. 

One of the biggest differences with this portion of the saga is that it is significantly darker, and I do suppose that there are people who may take issue with the tonal shift that weren't familiar with the material in the first place. 

I do very much love the world building here, and I would argue that the colors/cinematography are far more vibrant...which I do wonder if that happened after the vitriol towards how bland the first film often looked. While I did understand that to an extent, the amount of hatred it got seemed turned up to 11 and as if it was somehow a nail in the coffin it couldn't overcome; I didn't relate to it that intensely. 

What truly sells this film would be the glorious ensemble of actors. While Michelle Yeoh and Jeff Goldblum more or less do what they need to do, (although I would argue Yeoh mostly sleepwalks through a lot of the film) you really see the chops from Marissa Bode as Nessarose and Ethan Slater as Boq. While these two end up becoming fairly insufferable characters in a lot of ways in this portion of the story, I feel as though these two acted with such intensity that it made those scenes more powerful than I ever remembered them being onstage. Not surprisingly though, I did come away thinking more about Jonathan Bailey and, but of course, Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande. 

Bailey, who was recently crowned People Magazine's Sexiest Man Alive, does a very good job at showing the growth of Fiyero from a lackadaisical rich boy with no ambition to fighting for what he truly believes in. You could sort of compare that journey to the character of Younger Brother from Ragtime. 

As expected, his steamy duet with Ervio, "As Long as You're Mine" is rather effective in how timid she is and how passionate he is. Watching her come around and then matching his level of passion was a joy to watch and when the number ended, the theater broke into applause. 

Speaking of Erivo, it is truly remarkable how much she has given the role of Elphaba such a heavy emotional weight that I've never quite seen any other pull off. You could argue that is due to the fact we are watching her up close, but I still think the vulnerability makes me care about her far more than I ever had as a character.

Her new song, that she said she helped Stephen Schwartz write, is called "No Place Like Home". Much like the title, I will admit that it is about as bland and typical as you would expect. She sings it nicely, but the song is fairly forgettable. HOWEVER - the use of CGI animals is surprisingly affective in this and proved to be a key to making me a bit emotional at times. It is honestly quite a feat because the Animal Rights' concepts in the stage musical were some of the more awkward scenes...but I still think it's because watching a real actor comically done up as a goat to play Dillamond comes off as unintentionally comedic. For the film, it works rather well, and it makes you only want to side with Elphaba more.

Oh, and it must be said, Erivo's "No Good Deed" is easily a film highlight. Filmed amidst fire and fury with the aesthetic of burning charcoal, she sells it to the point that her eyes look as if they are bloodshot with rage and inconsolable regret. 

Then we get to Ariana Grande, the "Girl in the Bubble" (a song that was marginally better than Erivo's new song but not by much). In many ways, this film belonged to the character of Glinda more than Elphaba and a lot of that has to do with the character arc that Glinda goes down.

She is a puppet who is getting the power and attention she always craved, but now it is at the expense of her dear friend. She has no real magical power, and she is just as much an allusion as The Wizard is. I am most definitely one of the people who heard of her casting and was like "Oh god why?".

Keep in mind, I knew she had acting abilities. I actually found out about her years ago when she was featured in Jason Robert Brown's (horrible) Broadway musical 13. I knew she went on to act on Sam & Cat and became something of a modern-day Mariah Carey pop icon. 

It wasn't so much that I doubted she could pull of the vocals of the film, but I didn't know how well she could act the emotional beats convincingly. To her credit, she knew the gravity of what this role would entail. In interviews, she has stated how she cancelled a tour to go into prep for her audition by training with a vocal coach to properly sing coloratura soprano and also attended acting classes at Stella Adler. 

The results are on the screen...and even though she has seemingly gotten some rather mediocre reviews, I truly don't get it. I think she came out of these two films proving that she is just as worthy of getting plum acting roles just as Cher and Lady Gaga did before her. I would even argue that the potential Grande shows here makes me truly excited to see her take on more dramatic material or a very sophisticated comedy. 

There is one moment where a lot of the realities hit Glinda all at once and the camera focuses on her face while The Wizard and Madame Morrible in the background. Grande's tear-streamed face and her thought process felt so painful and genuine...and while there were a couple of times that I feel like the crying felt a tad forced, she was mainly believable in expressing that grief and the regret of how she has handled this whole situation. 

I do want to express two other facets of the film that have gotten some criticism. The first is one I referenced already, but I want to delve into it more: the song "Wonderful".

In the stage show, this is a song only performed by The Wizard with Elphaba only interjecting near the end...but in the stage show, I have always thought of as The Wizard as an afterthought character, and it doesn't help that with how rushed Act Two is, it makes you wonder how Elphaba almost seems to buy into his plea with little issue.

I think adding in Glinda to the song in the film was a masterstroke in many ways. Giving the scene a little more length makes it feel more believable while having Glinda there makes Elphaba perhaps more susceptible to caving under pressure. 

Considering the song's more "Tin Pan Alley" melody, it is stark contrast to the rest of the film which some have criticized, but make no mistake, the subtext of this whole song a lot darker with Glinda folded into it. Schwartz even changed Elphaba's only lyric in the song ("it does sound wonderful") to a lyric for Glinda ("Come and be wonderful") which gives off the feeling that she is willing to overlook so much as if she is in a cult. Add in that Glinda begins doing the Ozdust dance routine as a cherry on top and the scene is almost diabolical in its juxtaposition. Count me in on loving how this song was presented as in the stage show, it is an afterthought that was written to give Joel Grey another song to sing. I will also add that I loved the tip of the hat to Charlie Chaplin in The Great Dictator with the bouncing globe; something that was also touched upon during Goldblum's "A Sentimental Man" in the first film.

Although one of the more divisive bits of criticism we have is the shoehorning in of The Wizard of Oz timeline and how Dorothy factors into the proceedings. 

This was an aspect that is indeed a part of the stage show, but I think the film was wise to take out some of the more direct lines that felt a bit "wink wink/nudge nudge" to referencing that iconic film. 

I will admit that I was a bit bummed that the "we all can't come and go by bubble" line was moved to a different scene and done more earnestly instead of a snarky jab. I also missed Glinda's darkly humorous "a regime change!" comment after the death of Nessa. 

I think the other big issue with the inclusion of this property is that the timeline and character dynamics don't feel in line with The Wizard of Oz. Imagine Jack Haley's meek Tin Man ("Picture meeeeeeee, a balconyyyyyyy...") being the same one who is leading an angry mob of witch hunters...and when exactly does Dorothy interact with him and Fiyero, who becomes the iconic Scarecrow? Elphaba casts a spell to turn Fiyero into something to prevent him from getting killed when the other guards discover he is actually looking to help Elphaba rather than catch her...even to the point of threatening to kill Glinda to do it. 

When it comes to this aspect of the story, you really have to strain to try to fit it within the logistics of the 1939 film...but honestly, while it is a flaw of sorts, I think it is better to just avoid it and treat it as a whole separate entity. 

When it comes to the final moments, it is clear that Erivo and Grande developed a strong bond with one another in real life; all you have to do is watch their interviews for further proof of that. The song "For Good" has become something of a tearjerker for the ages (although I admittedly did not cry surprisingly), and I do think you can totally buy the love these two shared. Plus - the shot of the two of them on either side of a door was very effective knowing that Elphaba is about to meet her "demise".

For those who know Wicked as a musical, Elphaba stages her death and then escapes Oz with Fiyero. In order to protect themselves and Glinda, they have to let her believe that both of them are dead. 

With everything that has happened, Glinda is now essentially left all alone and has to do what she can to move on and truly become, as she has been posing, "Glinda the Good". When I first saw the musical 20 years ago, I actually told myself that Glinda knew they were alive because shockingly, I didn't want to think otherwise. Looking back on that now, I am a little surprised I had that response as I was already a pretentious film bro who embraced anything darker and depressing as being high art.

I am not claiming that Wicked is high art, but I do really love the idea of them surviving while Glinda has to cope with the grief...and with the final added touch that Glinda activated the Grimmerie (potentially with help from Elphaba) AND the fact that she lets the animals back into Oz as their own autonomous beings, the ending hit me hard. Plus, it did feel like a sweet touch that the final shot of the film was a tribute to the artwork of the Original Broadway Cast Recording.

I didn't cry, but the closest I came wasn't during them singing "For Good", but rather when we see the animals welcomed back to Oz with open arms, complete with Dr. Dillamond returning to his classroom. To reiterate, what was almost awkward and laughable onstage became far more potent on film. 

And that is Wicked: For Good...a film that I do think is surprisingly getting raked over the coals. I think in the grand scheme, the first film hits a little harder and works with better consistent material, but this follow up is a great example of "the whole is better than the sum of its parts".

The film also seemed to try a bit too hard in certain ways, as I felt the dialogue relied on more of the fantastical wordings and phrases. Like - in theory - I like the term "I'll be with you in a clock tick", but did we REALLY need them to reuse it a few times?? I don't recall it being used in the first film at all (I actually can't recall if it was even used in the stage version), so it just seemed strange that they relied on it so heavily in this. 

For what they were working with, I would say they got very solid results from the Act Two material...and when you factor in those two lead performances, I don't think you could've found two better people to play these roles at this time. 

Will this end up being on my Best of 2025 list? Odds are probably not...but I do suspect I will still revisit both films multiple times. 

It’s a product that might not hold up to a lot of scrutiny, but it just works on an emotional level..and sometimes that is enough. 

WICKED: FOR GOOD

Rating: 7.5/10