Director: Neil Jordan

Writer: William Monahan

Stars: Liam Neeson, Jessica Lange, Diane Kruger, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje

Synopsis: In late 1930s Bay City, a brooding, down on his luck detective is hired to find the ex-lover of a glamorous heiress.

When will Liam Neeson ever make a good movie again? I had hoped that it would be the case with Neil Jordan’s Marlowe, as Neeson reunites with the director who crafted one of the best films (and performances) of his career in- Michael Collins. The severely underseen Golden Lion winner contains stellar performances from Neeson, Alan Rickman, and Brendan Gleeson and needs to be seen by anyone who is a fan of the three actors named above. Reuniting with Jordan seemed like a step in the right direction for Neeson to move away from his “particular set of skills” action pictures that I frequently dubbed as our generation’s Charles Bronson in his Cannon Group era. Disposable plot, horribly shot and edited action, and a sleepwalking performance from Neeson who sees the paycheck at the end of the tunnel. 

However, Marlowe is yet another “particular set of skills” movie, only set in 1930s Hollywood with Neeson frequently reminding audiences that he’s too old for this. There’s the old “light slapping” he gives to henchmen who deserve his “particular set of skills” after a rather simple case overcomplicates itself in tedious ways. Neeson plays Philip Marlowe, who, after receiving a visit from Clare Cavendish (Diane Kruger), investigates the whereabouts of Nico Peterson (François Arnaud), who is rumored to be alive, even if he has been pronounced dead. Was the wrong man pronounced dead? If so, who’s in on the conspiracy? What happened to Nico’s sister, Lynn Peterson (Daniela Melchior)? Who knows? 

Running at 109 minutes, Marlowe is both amazingly breezy in going from one place to the next without placing the cards on the table and terribly languishing in pace. There’s not a single scene that contains an ounce of riveting dialogue. They’re all haphazardly delivered by A-list actors, such as Jessica Lange, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Danny Huston, Colm Meaney and Alan Cumming. Only Adewale seems to care about the material, and has a few scenes ,where his chemistry with Neeson shines ever-so-slightly, but does Jordan’s direction have to be so lifeless?

Any noir detective thriller should theoretically start out small and progressively reveal something bigger at play. Marlowe starts out small, but quickly goes “big” and introduces a wide array of characters who don’t have much importance to the main plot of the movie. It quickly starts to lose audiences by the ten minute mark, and never once recovers. The case (and screenwriting) is not interesting enough to hold people’s attention. And once the “big reveal” occurs (although there is a smart move from Neeson during that moment which made his performance slightly memorable), it’s the least surprising reveal of all time. As soon as this particular character enters the frame, you immediately know he’s the main villain by how he dresses. They never once try to hide it, which makes Marlowe’s circling to Clare’s mother (Lange) and other minor side characters feel utterly pointless. 

The movie also doesn’t even have a sense of atmosphere. Cinematographer Xavi Giménez tries to make every shot look interesting (there are a few neon-colored splashes that are fun to see on the big screen), but Jordan’s direction is so bereft of any energy that it has no emotional impact whatsoever. What’s more, tight action scenes are hampered by the most ridiculous elevator music possible. Neeson fighting two henchmen in a claustrophobic setting? Why don’t we put some smooth jazz during that scene. Or how about the sound of birds tweeting you’d hear in Looney Tunes cartoons after a character gets hit in the head with a hammer and is dizzy, but this time used when a character gets Tommy gunned to death? Yeah, it’s very bad. 

At this point, I don’t ever think that Liam Neeson will make a good movie again, even with a director like Jordan at the helm. The scripts he picks are easy roles for a paycheck, but they’re so tedious to watch you wonder why he even bothers making those films. He’s unfortunately been typecast in these basic action films, but he needs to get away from them. Marlowe could’ve been his way out, but he and Jordan retread the same elements from his dull action pictures. I guess we’ll never see Neeson make another good movie again. 

Grade: D-

Director: Jonah Feingold

Writers: Jonah Feingold, Maria Hinojos, Giovanni M. Porta

Stars: Monica Barbaro, Diego Boneta, Anders Holm

Synopsis: At Midnight is a romantic comedy about two people who have made the “safe” choice not to fall in love.

Jonah Feingold’s At Midnight has been done time and again in Hollywood, and it’s time for studios to stop greenlighting the same variation on the same theme. A popular (but typecast) Hollywood star (Monica Barbaro) in love with another bigshot star (Anders Holm) break up after Sophie (Barbaro) sees Adam (Holm) kissing an assistant in his trailer. However, the two have to go to Mexico to finish shooting their film. 

There, she meets the nicest boy in town, junior hotel manager Alejandro (Diego Boneta). After Alejandro accidentally finds her naked in the bathroom while arriving with towels, he apologizes and makes it up to her during the evening by cooking a meal for her. It’s there that they will fall in love, and a predictable structure ensues. From there, you pretty much know what’s going to happen. They fall in love, they go through many romantic escapades, there’s going to be a falling out, until one of them confesses deeply of their love for the movie to end on a happy note. It would’ve been fine if the script wasn’t so boring and didn’t retread tired clichés from every other romcom out there, but alas. 

The only reason why the film is worth watching is for Barbaro’s lead performance. As Sophie, she infuses enough charm for you to care about her journey with Alejandro, even if Boneta delivers his lines in the most stilted, unnatural way possible. Barbaro arrives fresh off of Joseph Kosinski’s Top Gun: Maverick, which was nominated for six Oscars, including Best Picture. At Midnight seems like a stepdown for Barbaro, especially with how talented she was in Kosinski’s film. But she remains the best part of the movie, as she seemingly is the only one who seems to care about the whole thing. Holm is also pretty decent as Adam, but he’s always been good at playing antagonistic characters, for some reason. He’s quite comfortable playing someone who we love to hate and want Sophie to get as far away from as she possibly can. It’s as if he does it in his sleep.. 

However, Boneta isn’t charming. His performance is too glossy for its chemistry to feel natural between the two stars. Since the dialogue is so clichéd, it doesn’t necessarily matter if they have good chemistry, because you know exactly where this thing is heading. They’re going to fall in love, have some adventure together, and then fall out, quickly break up until they realize they won’t be able to live apart. It’s written on the wall as soon as they meet. 

At Midnight also tries to spice things up through its script by offering a commentary on our superhero movie-obsessed culture, which doesn’t work. A haphazard line that superhero movies are “according to Scorsese, not cinema” after commenting on a cascade of content from both Marvel and DC (though, good news, they appear to be slowing down) and a jumpscare of a cameo from Supes (yes, that Supes) barely allows At Midnight to craft something tangible that makes us care about the romance and what it has to stay on the endless barrage of superhero films and television series audiences are getting. 

Because of this, the movie fails to deliver a genuinely heartfelt romance anchored by two great stars. Barbaro is a star, and her performance is the best part of the whole affair. She seems to be excited at the prospect of starring in more movies after Top Gun: Maverick, and justifiably so. However, she should star in roles that better take advantage of her talent than inside a soulless, Hallmark-lite romance with a lead who has barely any chemistry with her. Her on-screen pairing with Boneta is so dull that you’ll quickly wish the movie was over. Thankfully, the runtime flies by fast, but at what cost? You’re better off watching Magic Mike’s Last Dance in cinemas, the best romance of 2023. 

Grade: D-

Director: Benjamin Caron

Writers: Brian Gatewood and Alessandro Tanaka

Stars: Julianne Moore, Sebastian Stan, Briana Middleton

Synopsis: Motivations are suspect, and expectations are turned chaos, as a con artist takes on Manhattan billionaires.

Leaving aside the subjective factor of quality, Apple TV+ is, by some margin,- one of the less popular streaming services. All the others have well-known franchises with large fan bases, so, naturally, these have more subscribers and, consequently, more buzz around them. That said, Apple TV+ strives to focus more on quality than quantity, a mindset that has proven to be right given the success of its original films and series. Sharper is their latest movie and holds numerous reasons to catch the attention of viewers even before they press the button.

Julianne Moore and Sebastian Stan stand out from the cast, but Justice Smith and Briana Middleton are the ones who impress the most. Leaving the performances for later, the truth is that what made me gain tremendous interest in the film was the director, Benjamin Caron. It might be his feature film debut, but Caron is responsible for some of the best episodes in series like Andor, Sherlock, and The Crown.

And in Sharper, Caron demonstrates all his talent behind the camera. In a character-driven screenplay – written by Brian Gatewood and Alessandro Tanaka – Caron creates a unique atmosphere for each of them, arranging stunning shots for virtually every scene and offering the spectators an extra reason to feel captivated. The narrative is divided into chapters explicitly marked with title cards with the names of each character: Tom (Smith), Sandra (Middleton), Max (Stan), and Madeline (Moore).

However, unlike other films that use this storytelling method to repeat the same events through distinct perspectives, each section of Sharper depicts a different part of the narrative, either advancing the main storyline or exploring the characters’ past. Such a change to the common formula allows, in theory, to add unpredictability to each chapter, as the public no longer holds prior knowledge about the respective conclusions. Caron manages to move from theory to practice with some success during the first half of the movie, but even before this point, the biggest problem with the screenplay arises.

Sharper is a slick film loaded with multiple twists that supposedly should increase the levels of enthusiasm as well as bring shock value to the narrative. Unfortunately, viewers quickly find themselves one or more steps ahead of all the characters, removing any surprise factor in moments that rely immensely on that very thing. Obviously, knowing what’s going to happen in advance doesn’t mean it’s not possible to enjoy the execution of such developments and appreciate the respective entertainment value.

And this is where the performances contribute tremendously to Sharper. Moore and Stan use their experience to interpret mysterious characters, which are difficult to trust, with the latter demonstrating a certain aptitude for this type of role. Surprisingly, Smith, and especially Middleton, are the ones who steal the spotlight by delivering phenomenal performances. The actor has the opportunity to finally show a more convincing dramatic side than his earlier roles, while the actress left me blown away by her expressiveness and emotional range.

Sharper doesn’t deepen the various themes related to social classes, commodities gained from wealth, or the redemption arcs present in the film, ending with an abrupt sequence of events distant from the grounded narrative developed until then. Particular character decisions generate doubt about their true intentions, which can cause some contradictory sensations for viewers, as the movie itself doesn’t completely justify these same actions.

In the end, it’s a psychological thriller full of twists that I recommend to fans of the genre, but let it be known that the ending holds enough potential to somehow spoil the overall experience if it doesn’t work for you.

Grade: C+

Director: Robbie Banfitch

Writer: Robbie Banfitch

Stars: Robbie Banfitch, Angela Basolis, Scott Schamell

Synopsis: Four travelers encounter menacing phenomena while camping in a remote stretch of the Mojave Desert

Embracing the found-footage horror subgenre tropes and nodding to its predecessors (primarily Cannibal Holocaust, The Blair Witch Project, and As Above, So Below), Robbie Banfitch’s The Outwaters has a slow start that follows a familiar layout and tests your patience, but it is all worth it once the disorienting grisly finale, with an exploitation twist, arrives. 

The found footage horror subgenre has haunted the big screen with its stylized POV cinematography since the early days of exploitation and grindhouse cinema. Ruggero Deodato shocked the world in the 80s with his film Cannibal Holocaust, where a professor stumbles across a lost film shot by a missing documentary crew that “studied” the Amazon Rainforest’s indigenous cannibalistic tribes. People were so stunned by the movie that Deodato had to go to trial and prove in court that the actors didn’t get killed during the shooting. Although its main point was to get a reaction from the crowd via its depraved and exploitative nature, Cannibal Holocaust meant to scare the audience watching in a unique way, switching their expectations as the runtime flows and the gruesome violence rises. The film was a trendsetter whether you liked it or not. It made people believe that the people in the movie were actually seeing these events transpiring. 

A year later, Umberto Lenzi released Cannibal Ferox, which is slightly better than Deodato’s picture but is, in essence, almost the same film. Nevertheless, it paved the way for Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez’s The Blair Witch Project, which popularized the subgenre to the point where everybody wanted to replicate it. The problem with this subgenre is that it is not easy to get a hold of it, and things can go bad rapidly filmmaking-wise. Out of the subgenre’s eclectic selection, only a few are effective – Jaume Balagueró, Paco Plaza’s REC (and REC 2), Man Bites Dog, and Host, just to name a few. Now, you can add Robbie Banfitch’s latest film, The Outwaters, to that short list of compelling and thrilling found-footage horror films. While Banfitch takes inspiration from the aforementioned films (and others), he forges his vision; he delivers a story we have seen before by welcoming the subgenre’s cliches, later to make a descent disorienting and nightmarish hell with a finale to remember. 

The Outwaters begins with a distressing 911 phone call, in which there are people in the background screaming for their lives, and the phone operator tries to calm them down and repeats her questions to help them out. But it is too late; nothing can be done to help them at this point. The film later switches to showing some footage, which was said to be found in the middle of the Mojave desert, of an expedition a couple of friends made to make a music video for an indie folk singer. It is divided by the found camera’s three memory cards, using a three-chapter arc to split its descent into madness. The first card is focused on introducing the characters, so we get to know them before tragedy strikes and understand their reasoning for why they are going into the desert. But, in classic found footage fashion, this attempt to do some character development doesn’t work as, in the end, you don’t actually care what happens to them (which is one of the faults this film has). 

There are a few moments in which you feel that the characters care for each other due to the cast’s chemistry. Yet, when tragedy strikes, you are not emotionally impacted by their loss, unlike REC and some of the characters in The Blair Witch Project, where you are aching to see them get away from those situations as they escalate. The second memory card is focused on the exploration of the deserted plains. This is where Banfitch begins implementing horror elements and the subgenre’s tropes into the narrative. He plays mostly with sound to heighten its atmosphere, making us think something weird about their locations, and a creature slowly follows them around. The viewer begins to feel involved during this second act after The Outwaters’ unhurried commencement. It takes time to prompt shocks and frights, which might feel tedious due to the slightly off-writing and lack of engagement with the characters. However, when the third memory card (aka, the movie’s third act) arrives, that’s when things descend into unhinged freaky hell in the best way possible. 

This is where The Outwaters succeeds; the last couple of minutes are a full-tilt into inescapable gonzo horror, in which Banfitch picks and chooses elements from different subgenres – tentacles to embrace the cosmic side of the genre, guts being ripped out to deliver body-horror provocation, disorienting cinematography with constant flashes to enter in the psychological realm, amongst others. Many might tune off because all of this arrives without much explanation. The film never explains what is happening; the only thing the viewer can do is form theories about it. Much like the lead holding the camera, we are perplexed. However, it adds to the hellish experience because it is outright polarizing and constantly striking. Banfitch focuses on crafting a unique and experimental experience rather than drowning the film in scenes whose purpose is to deliver plot expositions. While The Outwaters might not be the best found-footage horror film out there, its background is very impressive. 

Not only did Banfitch star, write, direct, and produce the film, but he also did the cinematography and helped craft the special effects and sound design. It is fascinating that he managed to pour his entire vision on-screen, on his own terms, and have a hand at all of those filmmaking facets – a horror version of Steven Soderbergh almost. Sure, the film’s first half meanders way too much for its own good as the characters wander through the desert doing, for the most part, nothing. During those first two acts, a couple of minutes could have been trimmed to make The Outwaters “cut to the chase” and not feel bloated. Regardless, it is all worth it, thanks to that grisly unsettling finale where blood is splattered, and you don’t even know where it is coming from. I hope to see more of Banfitch in the future. 

Grade: B-

Director: Steven Soderbergh

Writer: Reid Carolin

Stars: Salma Hayek, Channing Tatum, Jemelia George

Synopsis: Mike takes to the stage again, following a business deal that went bust, leaving him broke and taking bartender gigs in Florida. Mike heads to London with a wealthy socialite who lures him with an offer he can’t refuse.

It’s hard to describe what perfection looks like. It’s going to be different for each individual person. Yet, what is the same for all of those that seek it is a meticulous drive. There’s something beautiful in that process of seeing the “aha” moment and then a translation of it in the final product. Steven Soderbergh loves to delve into the minutiae of planning and into a craftsperson seeking perfection.

This makes sense because Soderbergh is a meticulous filmmaker himself. He’s so meticulous even that he’s chosen to be his own cinematographer, camera operator, and editor; all of which are credited under pseudonyms. It makes sense that such a meticulous filmmaker would be drawn to the Magic Mike story. Mike is a person who cares deeply about what he does no matter what he does. He’s measured, thoughtful, and passionate. As much as Magic Mike’s Last Dance is about tease, titillation, and a terrific… climax, it’s a story about people with vision.

And what a vision it is to see so many beautifully sculpted men. These dancers are just phenomenal. Soderbergh knows just the angles to bring out the best of each sequence. Even the rehearsal scenes and the audition scenes are beautiful to watch. Yet nothing compares to Mike himself. The opening sequence will make you fan yourself. The closing sequence might push you to the verge of tears with its beauty… and then make you fan yourself with its daring.

All the sequences of the show they put on within the film are a part of the Magic Mike stage show, but the closing sequence is a real cinematic experience. While the dance progresses, we achieve our emotional catharsis. Between hoots of the crowd, are edited scenes of the emotional arc of the film and they are made to match the intimacy and beauty of the original lap dance. It’s a superbly created sequence that shows the density of feeling throughout the film.

That emotional arc wouldn’t have worked as well as it did if not for the powerhouse presence of Salma Hayek. She breathes fire and passion into Max, imbuing her with an indomitable spirit, until she shows us Max’s vulnerability and soft side in devastating detail. Hayek brings her ferocious talent to Max and it’s invigorating to watch.

Though stripped of its bros and wolf whistles, Magic Mike’s Last Dance is just O.K. The script leaves a lot to be desired. More often than not it feels like Reid Carolin’s script was a rough outline and they rewrote everything on the fly. It makes a lot of scenes uneven and stilted. Without a constant stream of dance all we have is a very ho hum relationship drama. It’s good that Mike is a fully realized character, but it would have been better served with a more interesting story.

Soderbergh has elevated the Magic Mike franchise beyond where it ever needed to be. He’s a filmmaker who throws himself into projects and with this film he proves that to be too high minded about what you express yourself with is to miss out on something that can bring joy to another person. Magic Mike’s Last Dance is a fun time at the theater, especially if the crowd gets into it. Bring the people in your life who like the eye candy and who aren’t afraid to be teased. It’s a film not to over analyze, but to appreciate that a craftsman put everything into making it.

Grade: C

Director: Jason Moore

Writer: Mark Hammer

Stars: Jennifer Lopez, Josh Duhamel, Jennifer Coolidge, Cheech Marin, Lenny Kravitz. 

Synopsis: Darcy and Tom gather their families for the ultimate destination wedding but when the entire wedding party is taken hostage the bride and groom must save their loved ones–if they don’t kill each other first.

The red flags were on Shotgun Wedding as soon as Lionsgate sold the film to Amazon Prime Video in March of last year. And after seeing it, yeah, it’s as bad as you think a January slapstick comedy is going to be. There are a couple of entertaining moments that are bound to “break the internet,” but most of the film is a lame, tired, and cinematically unengaging comedy in which most of the plot is seen a mile away and its main drive, the stars, and the action scenes, are boring to watch. 

Jennifer Lopez has always been the one to star in comedies with a zany plot, but most of them have failed (Gigli, anyone?). While it’s not as egregious as that, Shotgun Wedding is still filled with so many clichés that it’s hard to engage yourself in anything that’s going on. But Lopez does have decent enough chemistry with Josh Duhamel, who is arguably the best part of the whole thing. The two are getting married on an Island in the Philippines. However, on the day of the wedding, Darcy (Lopez) gets cold feet. But a more pressing problem arrives when Pirates overtake the island and take the entire family hostage. 

It’s now, of course, up to Darcy and Tom (Duhamel) to repair their wedding and save the entire party. Of course, there will be some friction happening between the two before the wedding day, and the entire adventure on the island as they try to rescue the hostages will be a guise to reconcile their differences, come together to save the day, and get married. As soon as it starts, you know how it’ll wrap up. And even if there’s a plot twist that tries to spice up things near the end of the movie, it arrives too little too late and unfortunately doesn’t provide the depth it needs to make the film more fun, or at least more engaging. 

It also doesn’t help that most of the film is unfunny – there’s a lot of crass slapstick humor that’s used to make the audience laugh, but none of it works. Lopez isn’t funny, and her comedic timing does not work, alongside Duhamel who seemingly has the most fun among the bunch, even though the material he receives is poorly written. As much as audiences enjoy Jennifer Coolidge’s contributions to The White Lotus which have dubbed her an icon, she plays her character exactly the same way here, and her schtick gets tiresome extremely fast. It’s not her fault – it’s the screenplay’s fault. Everyone, as talented as they are, spew the most predictable and unengaging lines. So even if they want to give earnest performances, the material gets hampered amazingly quickly that they’re unable to hold our attention. 

The same can be said for the action scenes. In an action comedy, you want the action to balance out the comedy on display, and the action scenes to be funny in themselves. There’s one effective physical gag that I won’t spoil, but the rest of it is amazingly standard, sloppily edited, and contains poor CGI. Our suspension of disbelief isn’t there, and there’s practically no catharsis. The R-rating should allow the movie to craft some bloody and creative action (isn’t that the point of a film titled Shotgun Wedding?), but none of it is interesting, even when Coolidge grabs a machine gun and starts firing at everything everywhere. 

This year, January has been quite good to us, with films like M3GAN, Plane, Searching, and Pathaan. I thought for once that “the dumping ground of movies” no longer exists. However, it seems that the “bad” January movies will now be relegated on streaming services, as the good ones will be released in theaters. If that’s the case, that means the tide has turned, and for the better. Here’s hoping that Shotgun Wedding will not be remembered by virtually anyone in a few days from now, and be buried in Amazon Prime Video’s ever-evolving algorithm. 

Grade: D-

Director: Calmatic

Writers: Jamal Olori, Stephen Glover

Stars: Jacob Latimore, Tosin Cole, LeBron James, Kid Cudi

Synopsis: From New Line Cinema comes your VIP ticket into the hottest event of the year: “House Party,” the remix to the fan-favorite ’90s classic.

From the very minute Calmatic’s House Party starts, there’s a glimmer of hope. The old New Line Cinema logo appears to signal how this movie will throwback to Reginald Hudlin’s 1990 original. And while there are a few callbacks to that film, the 2023 version also impressively stands on its own as a modern reimagining of House Party. However, by doing so, the filmmakers strip the sole thing that made the original great in favor of extensive physical comedy and crass jokes that don’t work. 

The first House Party is a masterpiece. It keeps its celebration simple, while focusing on the characters that populate its world. That’s why, when Kid n’ Play (Christopher Reid and Christopher Martin) dance off against Sydney (Tisha Campbell) and Sharane (A.J. Johnson), there’s a sense of spontaneity in their dance, and in the way the sequence is shot and choreographed. It naturally feels exuberant and fun to watch, and it’s part of the reason why the film is so significant. 

The sequels weren’t so great because they forgot to keep everything simple. It was all about “bigger” and “better,” and it wasn’t so much better. Given the signal of the original logo, you’d think that Calmatic understands that the best House Party is the one that starts out “small,” and gets more rowdy as the celebration reaches the middle of the night. But he immediately wants to make it over-the-top by having their protagonists, Kevin (Jacob Latimore) and Damon (Tosin Cole) host their party at LeBron James’ house. That means that there will surely be massive cameos from high-profile celebrities, including, of course, LeBron himself. 

LeBron’s house is, obviously, massive, which means that their party isn’t small, or simple. It needs to be as flashy and epic as possible, which hinders any attempt at reimagining what made the original great in a way that celebrates and expands upon it. 

There are too many scenes in which the focus is on the scope of the party, rather than the characters themselves. Here’s Vic (DC Young Fly) smoking weed with Lena Waithe and a puppet Koala (in this case, practical effects are far more effective than CGI), who then goes on an attack rampage when Damon gets beaten up by the film’s bullies. Calmatic retains two things from Hudlin’s original: the bullies and the dance-off, and both of them aren’t very good. First, the bullies don’t possess Full Force’s comedic skills (the writing is also pretty terrible, but that’s another problem), especially regarding physical comedy. Plus, They’re nowhere near as quick-witted as Full Force. 

Secondly, the dance-off misses the boat on why the 1990 film’s version was so special. Instead of, again, keeping it simple, Tinashe shows up and starts to dance with the protagonist. That removes any attempt at capturing the essence and exuberance of the 1990 film’s dance battle, even if that includes inserting Kid ‘n Play’s famous kick step. Speaking of Kid n’ Play, in behind the scenes videos of the movie, Calmatic explained that “You can’t have a House Party without Kid ‘n Play.” While that may be true, the way he integrates Kid ‘n Play into the story may be the most eye-rolling cameo of the year. 

In actuality, the ending of this movie comes out of nowhere. I won’t spoil it, but whoever thought it was funny should never make a film ever again. It renders the whole experience completely offensive, and strips away everything that made the first film so great in favor of gross-out jokes, shock humor, and badly delivered lines that reference our current era instead of something as smart and quick-witted as the original House Party, and, to some extent, its sequel. While imperfect, House Party 2 still managed to convey a positive message by the film’s end, compared to whatever happened in its subsequent sequels. As much as House Party (2023) wants to celebrate the House Party (1990), it’s as mean-spirited as House Party 3 and House Party 4: Down to the Last Minute. And that’s not something you want to compare your film to. 

Grade: D+

Director: Aline Brosh McKenna

Writer: Aline Brosh McKenna

Stars: Ashton Kutcher, Reese Witherspoon, Tig Notaro

Synopsis: Two long-distance best friends change each other’s lives when she decides to pursue a lifelong dream and he volunteers to keep an eye on her teenage son.

This is a good week for fans of romantic comedies. Despite Magic Mike’s The Last Dance not exactly fitting into this genre, the target audience is similar. The film will occupy theaters, while Somebody I Used to Know (Prime Video) and Your Place or Mine (Netflix) will take care of home viewings. The latter puts Aline Brosh McKenna (writer of The Devil Wears Prada) in the director’s chair for the first time in her career, just like Ashton Kutcher (Vengeance) and Reese Witherspoon (A Wrinkle in Time) who had never worked together before.

The evolution of streaming has allowed for an increase of rom-coms, something that, like everything else in the movie industry, has its benefits and drawbacks. The constant influx of narratives of this type dampens enthusiasm for new films, giving the impression of simply rewatching the same story with different characters and actors. However, there are so many opportunities nowadays that, eventually, movies emerge that warrant all the attention in the world. Your Place or Mine doesn’t quite reach that point and doesn’t escape the predictable genre boundaries, but it manages to avoid some formulas that are often overused.

Honestly, I don’t remember a rom-com where the protagonists rarely spend time together. In Your Place or Mine, Debbie (Witherspoon) and Peter (Kutcher) don’t even share five minutes of screentime with each other… physically. The first reaction to this observation raises, as expected, a lot of questions. How can viewers care about a potential love affair between two characters who have virtually no interaction with each other in person? Is it even possible to get emotionally invested in Debbie and Peter if one never sees them together for most of the film?

Surprisingly, the answer is “yes”. McKenna presents and develops the profound friendship of the protagonists through several phone calls, which, theoretically, have every opportunity to go wrong. However, with excellent editing and camera work, Your Place or Mine splits its screen in half, showing Debbie and Peter living their individual lives in distinct places while communicating with each other, as opposed to the typical cut-line-cut in this kind of situation. In addition to being a clear sign of how close they are emotionally, that line in the middle becomes less and less visible to the viewer.

I believe the chemistry between Witherspoon and Kutcher is fantastic, but in Your Place or Mine, the actors must convince the audience that their characters are unquestionably in sync without actually acting off of each other… and they succeed. Debbie and Peter have moved on with their lives, but their 20-year friendship is marked by constant contact and concern. McKenna’s script may follow an extremely predictable path with character arcs seen a thousand times before, but her storytelling method is both smart and captivating.

The rest of the cast also stands out. Tig Notaro and Zoë Chao bring a lot of humor to more uneventful moments, but it’s the young actor Wesley Kimmel who impresses with a very mature performance. Despite McKenna’s “tricks” – she demonstrates much potential as a director – Your Place or Mine is nothing more than an “auto-pilot experience”, that is, there’s no exciting phase or a riveting moment to stun viewers. It’s a light, inoffensive viewing, but also not particularly memorable or impactful.

Furthermore, Your Place or Mine lacks a more innovative message. Formulaic narratives and generic developments are one thing, but a movie’s essential message must always have an impact. “It’s never too late to go back” or “we should enjoy every second of our lives” are phrases with their due importance, but they feel underwhelming in the context of the story, especially when Debbie is a single mother of a boy with several health issues – which, surprisingly, never have any kind of impact on the course of the film – and Peter is a man who has been with dozens of women.

Your Place or Mine is a more than satisfying rom-com. Aline Brosh McKenna manages to elevate the genre’s narrative formulas with her personal, intelligent storytelling, offering an unusual point of view for the emotional growth between two protagonists separated for practically the entire runtime. Reese Witherspoon and Ashton Kutcher deliver good performances, along with the rest of the amusing cast, taking advantage of the long takes to flex their acting muscles. Predictable and lacking memorable messages, but I couldn’t recommend it more for fans of the genre.

Grade: B-

Director: Eric Gravel

Writer: Eric Gravel

Stars: Laure Calamy, Anne Suarez, Geneviève Mnich

Synopsis: Julie finally gets an interview for a job where she can raise her children better only to run into a national transit strike.

Almost two years after its premiere at the 2021 Venice Film Festival, Eric Gravel’s sophomore feature, Full Time (À Plein Temps, in its original French title), is finally here. The film is a moving and empathetic portrayal of slowly deteriorating working-class life. It plays like a thriller on occasion while remaining grounded in its dramatic sensibilities, anchored by a striking Laure Calamy in the lead role, who received a César nomination for her performance. 

Full Time (À Plein Temps) follows a single mother of two kids named Julie (Laure Calamy), who lives in the suburbs of Paris but comes and goes into the city for her job as a chambermaid in a five-star hotel. She’s having a hard time balancing her work and home life due to her struggles in making ends meet. Julie is waiting for her ex to pay alimony, and she doesn’t see her children, as the nanny takes care of them while she’s working. This isn’t the ideal situation in which she wants to be. Her constant sway from the suburbs to city life while dealing with other issues in her personal life has a toll on her. But she’s a warrior. Julie doesn’t give up that easily. She holds her head high and posture straight as she prepares for another hectic day. However, a double-edged sword of hopefulness arrives. 

One side comes in the form of a job opening at a marketing firm, which would suit her skills better than her current occupation, as Julie has a master’s degree in economics. The second side is the one that will hurt; a citywide transit strike is called into action, causing delays in her travels because she’s dependent on public transportation to get to work and back. This is where the thrilling aspect of the film’s narrative arrives. Director-screenwriter Eric Gravel shoots these scenes where Julie is running from her job to the interview or home like a chase movie, sometimes with a pacing that resembles the energetic Tom Tykwer’s Run Lola Run (1998). These nine days the film sets itself in are equally stress-inducing, saddening, and filled with hope. One minor disruption in Julie’s life paves the way for an eventual crash. The intensity of her crises increases, developing detrimental outcomes in both her work and personal life that she must try to bypass before everything comes crashing down. 

It reminds me of the works of Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, where they authentically capture everyday life while also implementing some exhilarating facets into their stories that give them a rush or kick, seen more profoundly in their latest work, Tori and Lokita. In other films, this approach might take you out of the grounded experience because it switches its tone to create more tension in these daily life situations. Yet, in Full Time, it doesn’t; it causes the viewer stress and anxiety, eventually feeling exhausted, because you believe in the character and wish everything goes right for her. The strive for eventual success fuels her constant motion, whether she’s running from one place to another or asking for rides on the street. This happens mainly because of Laure Calamy’s terrific compassionate performance and the film’s sharp screenplay. 

Gravel captures these situations, the trials and travails of a working class citizen, with empathy and care for the character, to the point where we begin to think that it is a documentary or a film based on actual events. The events that transpire throughout Full Time’s entirety have happened to many people worldwide. It feels as if the world doesn’t want her to succeed in the end. And it actually does not. Once you start searching for better and more opportunities, people set you aside because they don’t want you to be better than them. It is impossible to live in that manner, and the film brings those struggles to life, like Julie trying to celebrate her son’s birthday party with little to no money or time or trying to get to her interview in time. The miserable life of working a draining job while trying to maintain the world around you intact without collapsing is something that many of us might have experienced in one way or another. 

Full Time is one of the few movies that captures such a sensation of haste and vigor properly, with the exact amounts of suspense and pressure we might experience if it happened to us. Like in his previous film, Crash Test Aglaé (2017), Gravel shines a light on social topics centering on working-class women. However, unlike his other movie, he elaborates on those topics in a more touching and detailed way that captures the viewer’s heart. While it may have some slight problems as everything is going downhill for Julie, the film always remains captivating and relatable. 

Grade: A-