Mouse (2026) opens Friday in Los Angeles

A petty thief  gets catfished by a lonely hearts pen pal...who is unaware that that the thief is not who he says he is.

See this film.

See this film and stay with it.

I say that because this is a film that this film, part film noir and part autobiographal confessional is unlike almost any film you've seen. It's not that what we are see is on the face of it anything new. We've seen stories like this before, however what sets this film apart is what writer director and star Kenny Riches does with the material. Reshaping the material so that we get characters and shadings we haven't quite seen before Riches has created a film that makes us lean in. We know this is not going to end well, but we can't look away.  We don't look away because there is something here that looks the right sort of different. 

I squirmed in my seat. I winced at some of the turns. I didn't want to watch this go off the cliff- and then...

Well, that will be telling.

I really liked this film. 

While I will not lie and tell you that this is the greatest film you'll see all year, I will say it's most certainly one of the more entertaining films of the year. It's a wonderful gem of a film- more so if you a noir film.

Recommended

Breeder (2026) opens Friday

A college student who is trying to save the bees but can't get the funding is given the oppurtunity to have his dreams made but a crazy dog breeder. There is of course a catch...

This is an uncomfortable black comedy/horror film that does what it does well but never truly finds its own way. We've been here before so we largely know what is coming.  A bigger problem is that there is a point about the half way mark where some twists and turns start dropping and they feel more for effected, either to make us laugh or to come out of left field to make us surprised.

I didn't hate this, rather I was more frustrated that this wasn't better or at least had a character I liked.

Nightcap 11/12/26 - the next few weeks.

Some random notes:

NYFF is done. 

There were some great things, I got a letter from Andre Gregory, I saw the new Godzilla -twice, discovered DAO, FATHERLAND and ONE MORE TIME, I managed to get the Hong Sang Soo piece up and out of my head.

That said for a variety of reasons NYFF didn't work for me this year. Some stuff having to do with life, some with the films and some with the changing face of film coverage. Mostly it was not enough time with my friends, sure I had a creak time wit Matt, Ed, Shahnaz, Hakan, JB, Hubert, Kurt  and the rest of you, but there just didn't seem to be as many people I knew as in years past and it made me sad since I go to the fest to see friends. It was the first fest in 35 years that kind of disappointed me

The only thing that I will say publicly about my grievances was I hated that the festival only seemed to let people load people into Alice Tully from the right side of the theater. It was annoying if you were on that end.

Please don’t do it next year.

----

I went to NYC Comicon this year and it made me sad.

The con now is all big corporate. It seemed less comic and more big media and social media.

I had not been to the con for a year or two- and the difference was glaring.

Not sure what the point of it is any more since any of the real creative stuff  has either been priced out or pushed to the fringes.

Probably won't go again because as much as the fans are lovely (I got in to a glorious discussion about Godzilla with a couple of random fans),  Reed Pop sucked the life out of it and is now just selling an incredible simulation of a convention made up of broken mop parts, sealing way and lint

----

DOC NYC is coming.

I don't don't think I've seen many films going in - I've reposted the films I know I've seen.

Beyond that I'm not certain how much I will cover. As Randi pointed out she can tell I'm burned out. She said much of my writing has suffered and she wanted me to close up shop for a couple of months. I can't do that but instead, with apologies to DOC NYC, I'm going to be pickier.

Keep reading to see if that actually happens.

--

Beyond DOC NYC the rest of the year is going to be freeform. I’m just kind of unfocused on film right now so I am putting things together as I go. 

I know the Thanksgiving week is all big budget all star films of the type they don’t make any more (for good reason). I have five films done. I may add a few more.

Look for Woodstock reviews this week (there are some fantastic films there), as well a film fromStiges and some other goodies.

I also have long interviews with Marq Evans about CAPTURING BIGFOOT and Patrick Meaney about THE VANISHING TOUR coming as soon as I tweak them a bit more

-----

A reminder HALLOWARRIOR hits Shudder Friday. 
Its not perfect but I loved it.

Double Dragon (1994)

Video game movies from the early-to-mid ’90s. Boy, what a great… no, not that. A solid… hmm, no, not that either. It was… a time. Basically, things didn’t really improve much until Mortal Kombat came along a couple of years later. Somewhere in the middle of all this was Street Fighter, notable mostly for riding the arcade game’s insane popularity. And, of course, for the stories of Jean-Claude Van Damme being a menace behind the scenes.

Unfortunately for Double Dragon, by the time it hit theaters in 1994, the hype surrounding the franchise had already begun to cool off.

Now, I can only comment on that so much. Double Dragon—the movie—arrived years after the third game hit the NES, which wasn’t as well received as the previous entries. I’m pretty sure there was another game somewhere in there, too. Needless to say, nothing was exactly turning things around.

Anyway, let’s get to the movie. Or let’s not, because it takes very little inspiration from those first few games. Hi, Super Mario Bros.

The story follows brothers Billy and Jimmy Lee, who find themselves protecting half of a mystical medallion from an evil businessman named Koga. Along the way, they team up with a gang of vigilantes, fight some mutated goons, and occasionally gawk at Alyssa Milano’s ass.

As for the setting, it takes place in post-apocalyptic times. Why? Gangs, I guess. And that's an easy way to introduce different characters and story beats. I mean, fighting was basically the whole idea behind the game. Scroll to the right, punch and kick everyone in the face. The movie does deliver on some action. It's not entirely entertaining, but the MPAA decided it was enough to slap a PG-13 rating on it, which I'm sure didn't help things in the long run.

Ok, so, characters? Check. Do they get their signature red and blue outfits? Well, it's on the poster, but it doesn't happen until the very end of the movie. Hi, Super Mario Bros. Do they get to fight one of those big, bald-looking villains from the game? Umm, sort of?

Ok, let’s just file that under “maybe not.”

Honestly, the one reason to watch this is for Robert Patrick as Koga. He is hamming it up, which makes it fun as hell whenever he’s on screen. Much like Raul Julia in Street Fighter, he’s very aware of what movie he’s in. 

Good for him for going straight from Terminator 2 to this steaming pile of... Hey, did I mention Alyssa Milano is here? Yep, she sure is. And the film loves doing that thing where our main duo keeps staring at her like, "You seeing this, bro?" Because we all know you watched Embrace of the Vampire. Ok, that came a year later in '95, but for joke purposes, roll with it.

Our two leads, well, one of them fits. Mark Dacascos. Legit trained in martial arts, he's convincing enough despite the silly script. He later went on to star in the highly underrated 2001 film, Brotherhood of the Wolf. And became The Chairman on the hit TV show Iron Chef.

Speaking of TV, that brings us to the other half of the Lee brothers. Scott Wolf, who rose to fame with the drama series Party of Five. I know of it, despite never watching a single second. So, I can't really comment on his acting ability in that arena. But in an action film, or a cheesy game-based movie, it just doesn't work. I'm not buying it.

The special effects leave a lot to be desired. But compared to the competition at the time, they were almost par for the course.

Funny enough, one of the screenwriters was Peter Gould, who would later go on to write for Breaking Bad and co-create Better Call Saul. We all have to start somewhere.

The film was released in November '94 and bombed. Critically and commercially. Street Fighter, which came out a month later, didn't fare much better with fans and critics alike, though it did much better at the box office. Again, apples to oranges. One property was red hot, and the other was only mildly warm.

Where does this rank on the video game movie scale? Despite its many flaws, I can't put it at the bottom because of how bad this genre has been. Especially with what came in the years that followed (see Uwe Boll's filmography). It's not overly memorable. It just sort of exists in this weird little vacuum of time.

Now here's a fourth wall-breaking scene with a Double Dragon arcade cabinet. That's at least worth 50 points.

Following Harry (2024) hits VOD Tuesday

While watching FOLLOWING HARRY I felt that we as a species have been lessened by the passing of Harry Belafonte. He was a man who in his almost 100 years changed the course of humanity for the better. He was man who put pretty much to shame. As one person says when he was 19 he was getting out of the army after fighting in the Second World War and then decided he had things to do to make the world a better place. While known for years as a singer and actor, he used his bully pulpit to speak about the need for change and the betterment of society.  When he retired from performing he threw himself in fighting the good fight and helping the younger generations to learn how to fight their battles.

OLLOWING HARRY is a mix of Belafonte speaking about his activist role and the remembrances of those who he was helping to continue his fight. It is a warts and all discussion of the battle where things are not all rose colored skittles and beer, but instead tough and brutal. It’s the story of a never ending fight against hatred, evil and darkness. It is a piercing light through the darkness of our times highlighting the fact that there are good people still out there.

I was moved…and made to feel kind of small at how little I’ve done. I expected that because no one was Belafonte.

This is a glorious film you need to see.

Miller Night Football (2026)

This is a portrait of the Monday night Football experiment of having Dennis Miller on the show.  It’s a short little film covering the arc of what happened.

For those that don’t know ABC thought Monday Night Football was getting stale. They hoped to revive rating by bringing in Dennis Miller who was super-hot at the time. It was a moved loved by some, hated by others but which got people to tune in because they just wanted to see what happened. The experiment lasted two years before John Madden was brought in and caused Miller and Dan Fouts to be fired.

Outside of the clips there isn’t much here. It’s a more or less straight forward telling that doesn’t do anything special. For me, I a former Miller fan this just proved that he has become kind of insufferable.

Ultimately, I liked it but even at roughly half an hour its too long.

Once Upon a time in the Middle East (2026)

This poster does not do this film justice

China's Oscar nominee kicked my ass. It shouldn't have done that because it is a messy, all over the place film, but it has an urgency and a heart that bleeds off the screen and grabs you by the throat and drags you along.  Sure, it can be an odd mix of humor and real-world horror but when the film reached its conclusion I started to cry tears of bittersweet joy.

This is the exact sort of film that I started Unseen Films to highlight. An off the beaten track wonder that is bumpy but heartfelt, and way more intriguing and wonderful than most films out there. 

The film has a Chinese chef returning to a (fictional) country in the Middle East (read it as Iraq). He hasn't been there in two decades. They want to know about his last time there, during the war when he was alleged to be part of a terrorist attack. The film then flashes back, and we see as he travels to the Middle East to run a restaurant for two years in order to pay off a debt. Not long after arriving a war starts with the US. As battles rage around them the chef and the people try to keep as many people as possible safe, particularly the kids in a local orphanage.

This is not a conventional war drama. This is a film about the pain and cost of war. It's a film that doesn't look away, and film that leaves no one unharmed.  Everyone either dies or is deeply scarred. There are no superheroes, only survivors.

Uneven in tone and style, watching the film can leave you with whiplash as comedy and tragedy merge, as do hope and heartache. The film is realistic at times and movie like at others. Some scenes play out realistically and others seem to be soap opera. It's a weird jumble that doesn't always work, but for the most part does.  If the film fails to get traction it will be because some audiences won't know what to make of it.

At the same time the characters and the underlying emotion click. The fact that we like a lot of the characters helps this film go. We don't want the people on the screen to die, but that isn't always possible. Emotionally this is a plea to end the insanity of war, and the film is going to make every effort to get that across. The result is a film that sneaks up on you and brings well-earned tears in the end.

What makes the film a must see for me is the fact that the film doesn't take the easy or familiar road. It's a film that is going to tell its story its way because that is the way it will have maximum impact.

No, the film isn't perfect, but that doesn't matter. It's alive with a burning desire to tell a story and to change minds and the result is a film that has reawakened my love of cinema after a tough slog through a festival where almost all the films were designed to look good and win awards. ONCE UPON A TIME... may be up for awards, but ultimately, it wants to save people's lives, which for my money is more important than having a shiny thing on a shelf.

Recommended.

The Man I Love (2026) NYFF 2026

It took me two tries to get through THE MAN I LOVE and it taught me two things.

First, I don't like Ira Sach's films. Say what you will about his stories, how he presents them does not work for me.

The other thing is that Rami Malek is a good but very limited actor. Every gesture and turn has been used before. There was nothing he did here that wasn't something that he did in pretty much every other performance. I thought he was coasting after his Oscar win but too many movies on I'm now certain he's a one trick pony and it's a kind of boring trick at this point.

The other problem with Malek in this film is he is much too strong a personality for it. Everyone else in the film is acting real and close to the vest and Malek is devouring the spotlight. He couldn't have warn a neon suit and been more noticable. It throws the whole film off.

Not that it really mattered because Sach's construction of the film never really worked. We have a series of random scenes about an actor getting back on his feet, his dealing with AIDS (in the 1980's) and the people who love him, but not a lot of details. correction there are details but only in a random line or look. The interesting tidbit is in each scene like a toy in a cereal box where you have to eat a whole box to get it- only it's just a piece of a toy and you have to eat another box of cereal to get the next line that means something. Things didn't feel like they flowed together. The result is that by the time the ending comes I felt nothing. I could have jumped from start to finish and gotten the same thing out of it. (Sachs arc isn't anything we haven't seen before).

I thought my negative reaction was from a blood sugar crash, a second viewing revealed it just isn't a good movie.

A major miss

Bitter Christmas (2026) NYFF 2026

Cult film director who works in advertising has a panic attack and decides to go away…

...however...

...she is a character created by  a film director writing a new screenplay for his first film in five years that is based on the people around him

Pedro Aldomavar returns with a good, but lesser by his standards, film that seems less a finished film then an effort to keep his regular trip to the festivals going (a point mentioned in the film). Honestly if it wasn’t Pedro this film would never have gotten into many festivals. (And I am pointing this out in a year I published a piece taking the NYFF to task about all the Hong Sang-soo films- because it clearly isn't just Sang-soo getting special treatment)

That should not be read as it being bad, it is not, more that the film is full of ideas, and scenes, but there is very little to tie them together. Even if the film with in a film doesn't all tie together, its being written as we watch, the real world should all hang together. It might have worked if there was an ending but there really isn’t one, just a place where it stops.

Part of the problem is that the “real world” characters feel less constructed. What we get from them is really from the film with in the film counterparts and that isn’t always accurate. I have no real sense of them other than as mouthpieces for Pedro’s words.

At the same time the ideas about grief, reality, creation are stunning. Pedro has a great deal to say about a lot of things; he just doesn’t have a narrative to hang them on.

I like the film, but as I said above this is a lesser film from a great director and exists just to get him into a festival.

Still if you are a fan it’s a must.

The Swallow (2026) Fantastic Fest 2026

In the tradition of X THE UN KNOWN, THE BLOB, The Raft section of CREEPSHOW 2, and STREET TRASH comes THE SWALLOW about a killer ooze that devours anyone who comes in contact with it.

The plot is simple, five friends go into the woods and decide to camp in a fenced off area just because. One of them goes into a "pond" and promptly is attacked by the ooze which won't let you go. As her friends try to free her they become victims as well.

While the film is entertaining on its own terms, the film is never going to be considered a great film. Sure the effects are great with the ooze being scary because there is the right amount of mystery around it, but the lack of information extends to the characters who exist simply to be offered up to the slime gods. There is no one to root for because we are not given people, just lambs for the slaughter.

I liked the film, but at the same time I hate myself for doing so since it's purely for the cool monster.

New York Shorts NYFF 2026

I was sent two films from the New York Shorts section of the New York Film Festival

THE HOUSE CALL
a Vet drives into the country to make a house call on a horse... and then it gets weird

I'm not going to lie- this one did not work for me- and I have no idea why this is at the film festival

A WOMAN'S PLACE EVERYWHERE
Two identical sisters are on the verge of eviction when their mother dies and the landlord wants them out.

More formal than engaging.

9 Temples of Heaven (2026) NYFF 2026

After a man is told his elderly mother doesn't have long to live, he takes his mom and several family members on a journey to nine temples in an effort to break the "curse" and keep her alive.

This is a mannered art film that is going to play better with those who like long takes, silences and things unfolding slowly.

I mentioned the pacing at the top because it made it so I really didn't click with the film. While I liked the familial battles and discussions, the pacing of the film had me wondering why things were playing out  so slowly. I know it was to reflect the grind of moving from temple to temple over the course of the cinematic day, but at the same time too much is left unsaid. I kept feeling that  there should be more in the silences or especially in the dialog.

While decidedly not my cup of tea, I fully expect this film to end up hitting a number of festivals after Cannes since this is the sort of film that art house programmers tend to love.

Sixteen Moments of My Life(2026) NYFF 2026

I have a love hate film with director Albert Serra. I tend not to like his films as a whole. I also tend to get pissed off at them.  AT the same time I love him because he makes films that engage me. He engages me more than almost any other director, so when almost every one in the press corps at NYFF was going to see CLUB KID, I went to see his concert film SIXTEEN MOMENTS IN MY LIFE, because I figured I would be more engaged.

Sadly, I was not really enaged.

The film is a performance by Ingrid Caven, Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s collaborator. Its largely a film of red lights and shadows. Its a film of ambient sort of music and nonsensical lyrics (one translated as "the cows say moo in German"). I loved the music and the moody lighting. I disliked the lyrics so much I stopped reading them because they were just disposable. 

Its a film you either go with, or you do what about half the audience did, and that was walk out about 15 minuted into the film. Honestly they didn't miss anything because what you see in the first 15 minutes repeats for the next 75 minutes but with different lyrics.

If you can go with that you'll be fine.

At the same time I need to state a couple of things clearly:

First as an Albert Serra film it doesn't engage. This is basically a recording of a concert and nothing else. You either accept the nonsensical and pretentious lytics or you don't. There is nothing to challenge us on an intellectual level. Unlike Serra;s ROI SOLEL, which was a recorded performance piece there is nothing  to ponder. There is nothing happening here intellectually. (And no I'm not missing the point of the lyrics since they are just nonsense with many songs begining about a little girl and then rambling into left field).

Second, as a concert film it is entirely unremarkable. It is no better than the vast majority of concert films out there. 

Lastly, that this film is playing festivals is due entirely to the programmers  blindly loving the work of the director.  This film was programmed simply because programmers wanted to suck up to the director. I don't mean that as a knock on Serra, rather it's simply to point out that there is absolutely nothing here that can be justified as taking a slot at any major film festival.

While I would love a recording of the music, sans lyrics, I have no need to ever see this film ever again.

Brief thoughts on For the Moon (2026) NYFF 2026

Portrait of students in a school for the blind.

This is a really good look at the kids in a school for the blind. It's a film that really brings us into what it's like to be blind without bells and whistles. We are moved simply because the film just lets us observe what it is like for the kids.

Its a solid film that is worth your time.

HANABI aka Fire Flower (2026) NYFF 2026

Buy a ticket and take the ride because you need to see this film and you need to see it big and in a darkened room/theater.

Ana Vaz uses Yoko Hasuke’s essay “Journal of a Radioactive Brain” as the narrative thread to link up ten years of images and thoughts looking at the state of the world and particularly Japan in the wake of the Fukishima disaster. It is film that ponders life facing an invisible danger.

Moving light years forward from her first film IT'S NIGHT IN AMERICA Vaz as made a meditative film that you get lost in.  One part essay, one part diary, one part experiment, one part travelogue the film's weaving of sound and image takes us not only into Japan but also into Vaz's head space.  This is very much how one person sees the world. 

Days after first sitting down to watch the film I find I am haunted by it. I am haunted not so much by what I saw or heard but what I felt. Watching the film in a darkened room I left my body and went somewhere. I felt things that I hadn't before. I was forced to consider life in a new way.

This is cinematic magic.

It is also a film more about emotion than words so  this piece is going to be much briefer than I would like simple because what I want to share with you are the sensations of watching the film, but they exist in a place without words so I can't share them

I will say that the images on a big screen are trippy. We get a fantastic sense of place. If you want to get lost and travel without leaving your seat see this film. Please see it as big as possible with as few distractions as possible,

I am not going to lie, this film isn't for everyone. Its not a big action film. There is a long beautiful sun set. You have to work with it. If you can't do that, stay away.

Dennis Lim and the programming of every film by Hong Sang-soo

Between 1969 and his death in 1982 Rainer Werner Fassbender had 10 of his 44 films play the Main Slate of the New York Film Festival. It was roughly a quarter of his films have played NYFF.  It's understandable since he was one of the giants of cinema and made a large number of classics and is famous the world over.

Jean-Luc Godard, who reshaped cinema in ways unimagined, was at the NYFF from first festival until the one the year after he died, a total of 63 festivals. The man who was a running joke that that the festival would run any of his films, had 27 of his 139 films play the Main Slate of the New York Film Festival- the final 2 shorts after he died. He is unquestionably one of the people who has defined what cinema is.

Hong Sang-soo has had 24 of his 42 films play the NYFF Main Slate in the last 22 years (see ADDENDUM below). 19 of them in the last 17 years- 13 of them since 2020 and 12 since 2021. He is a filmmaker that almost no one outside of the art house has heard of and someone almost no one watches outside of a festival. He is man who essentially makes the same film over and over, with the same cast over and over, so much so that his films could be cut together in random ways and make new films without needing to shoot new film. He is a man whose biggest move cinematically was to shoot a recent film out of focus.  

God bless the man who can spend his life making the films he wants and make a living doing so. Hong Sang-soo is truly blessed, especially since he would not have gotten the exposure if he didn't have Dennis Lim, the artistic director of the New York Film Festival, dying to play anything and everything that he produces at the festival whether it should be there or not.

If you want to see what I mean look at the spike in Sang-soo films at NYFF. See the 13 films in 7 years? That’s when Lim took over the festival and made the new NYFF joke no longer about Godard, but about his cinema god, and the man he literally wrote the book about, Hong Sang Soo.

And I do mean its joke since the big question among my writer friends since Lim started double booking Sang-soo films is not what films will play the festival, but how many Sang-soo films will Lim run? 

My objection to all of this is purely to Dennis Lim’s insistence that every film from the director deserves a slot at the New York Film Festival because no one makes that many good films and the past people in charge were smart enough to only do multiple films from a filmmaker under special occasions. Lim doesn’t care, and he has scheduled some of Sang-soo’s least films over the last half decade. Every year there is usually one good film and one film that clearly shouldn't be there.  It's the fact that at least one of the films shouldn't be there is what is getting myself and others annoyed.

The problem with the whole multiple Sang-soo's films gig is the fact that the plot and thematic elements of most of his films are just variations on a couple of ideas, usually having to do with relationships and middle class angst. Why are we seeing two variations on a theme especially when one is so much better than the other? The simple answer is because one man is in love with another man and his films.  Lim is too in love with the director (and too narrow minded as to what constitutes important film, but that's another story for another essay) to see that he needs to be curating what he is showing us.  Lim gives us everything Sang-soo does regardless of whether it deserves to be on the big stage at a major festival. I'm guessing he wants to make the man the equal of the great directors who went before him. But the way he is doing it he weakens the brand. He doesn't understand that you kill the desire to see the films if you run constantly run weak films, and NYFF has been doing that every year since the double dip started, with one film was infinitely better than the other. 

I find it funny that the man who has openly said that the festival is only interested in names and people who they think will put butts into the seats (See his intro to JANET PLANET in 2023) doesn't understand running multiple Sang Soo films is not going to get anyone to show up other than the pre-selected art house crowd, and even then they will walk away as he programs too many lesser films.  Its been six years, so how much longer before regular festival goers really notice?

Actually they have noticed since I am regularly asked "which is the good film and which is the bad one" by people going to the festival ( I don't know any more I stopped going because I don't know which film is actually worth my time)

The reason Lim can get away with this is that a large number of people who go to the Sang-soo films are the people who think that NYFF is a tastemaker.  Whatever NYFF is showing is to them is what is important. I've gotten in arguments with people about this over the last few years and their reaction to even a bad film has been but there has to be something there NYFF programmed it. No, programming is not always the best or most important, but what a festival can get, or in cases like the multiple Sang-Soo films, it is what is blowing up the skirt of a one of the programmers.

People have to realize that big fest like NYFF don't always get it right. Sometimes they make mistakes. Lim has to learn that just because he loves a film or a filmmaker it doesn't mean it's good for other people. There is only one him and 9 billion other people. Not everyone has drunk the same Kool-Aid. 

If Lim keeps insisting that they program multiple Sang-Soo film and people are disliking one or both he will end up killing the brand, not just of Sang-Soo but of the festival as well. If Lim truly wanted to be the prophet of the director, he would pick and choose the best even if he has to skip a year or two. I say this because I like Sang-Soo's films and I know he frequently makes some really good one.

 Unfortunately, Lim seems incapable of just picking the one good one. His inability to know what was good or bad is on view in his book on Sang Soo where he praises every film, even the lesser ones. He backs up his praise with over analysis that seems to be trying to prove a point that all his films are works of art of the highest order, which anyone who has waded into the 40 something films by the director knows is not the case.

Lim needs to be talked to; he has to be told that no one makes this many films worthy of a NYFF slot.

Yes, I know NYFF is no longer the great festival it once was. The last few years during which it shifted more to the art house has wounded its reputation in some circles. Under Kent Jones and Richard Pena and everyone else who went before, it was a festival with a wide net. Everyone from all sides of cinema was welcome. Under Lim the festival has shifted less toward all-inclusive and more toward the art house and big faux prestige films they can get money to show.  It’s become a festival that is less important than others because it is going so niche, particularly the niche of the programmers who now simply pick from the selections at  festivals like Cannes, Toronto, Telluride and Venice. 

Understand my anger at this is not because I hate Lim or Sang-soo but because I am angry that by double dipping other films that could get attention get none. This is something that echoed all through social media as people loudly complained about the films that NYFF didn't program (including several expected Oscar contenders).  

I have had arguments with people who said that arguing against the double dip means I'm against niche or smaller films. As someone whose web site is largely niche film that's clearly not true. My argument is purely that the double dip prevents other niche films from being seen. (If they need help picking films, I can give a couple dozen choices every year)

On the other hand, Dennis Lim doesn't care. As he said a few years ago, they are  only interested in those that fit his world view and he thinks are made by directors who can put butts in seats. (Again,this was in his intro to JANET PLANET where he shaded the director moments before she walked on stage by saying the only reason they ran the film that was Annie Baker was a name and people would go.)  They will take all the previously screened films with hype because they will do just that.

Equally  bothersome about Lim and the NYFF’s instance that they must play every film made each year by Sang Soo at the festival, comes from an interview that ran a couple of days before this year's festival started. He began by saying “ I think the state of the world is oppressively horrible right now. I just don't know who would dispute that. So of course, I think interesting filmmakers will want to tackle that." Its the pull quote that went across social media - and one that was so perfectly crafted that Lim repeated it at the introduction to the NYFF screening of NAZA and other films. And despite saying that he wants to show the difficulties of the world today, he still programmed two Hong Sang Soo films; films that reflect nothing about the world other than the navel gazing of a disconnected middle class. Why isn't he and the festival looking for another film like NAZA, films which are out there in spades? I know because I've seen them.

Why is he only taking the one film everyone knows on a difficult subject and not highlighting others? He should be bold and daring in a horrible world and play more challenging films that rock people's world and make them truly think.(I say it this way since other films at the festival like ALL OF A SUDDEN, which was the film everyone mentioned when I pointed out Lim's comment, is essentially a life affirming feel good film that doesn't rock you like NAZA. Outside of NAZA all the NYFF films this year are safe.)

If he truly wanted to highlight films that are dealing with the difficult issues of these trouble times, he would have found room for recent films that played Venice and Toronto such as NO PARADISE IF YOU ARE KILLED BY A WOMAN, which is in the Oscar hunt and is about a Kurdish woman in trying to rescue her sister from the Islamic State(it's one of my best films of the year). It’s a film that transcends its thriller structure by being a bone rattling exploration of what religious fanaticism does to women, or CUTE about a man trying not to give into his desire for underaged girls, DJINN WEDDING, a complex  family drama exploring the complexity of people’s expected roles in society that is infinitely more complex than any  Sang Soo film, CHILDREN OF THE MONKEY about the difficulty of raising a child who has physical issues  or I AM MARIO about the struggle of being a transman who finds himself pregnant. These are films that are attempting to engage with some part of this dark world. They, like the worlds they portray, are not safe. Compared to these films, Hong Sang Soo's work is painfully safe.  If Lim and the festival truly wanted to explore the world today without a safety net they would have one of those films or several dozen others that truly explored what is going on if life instead of running yet another look at the lives of some bourgeois people and their navel gazing lives. 

With the above statement it is clear that, despite lip service and the occasional (known) single title, or two, Lim doesn’t want to push the boundaries of cinema into the realm of truly challenging and thought provoking or even explore what is really going on in the world. He is a programmer who doesn't search out challenging films or new filmmakers from across the world that no one has heard of but simply picks films that other fests have chosen that have met with critical acclaim within his narrow view of what constitutes good cinema. Dennis Lim doesn't seem to want to find the next big thing but instead    wants to show case his view of what important cinema is by taking valuable slots away from films that just might change the world so he can showcase his cinematic crush in as many retreads of his earlier work as possible.

(ADDENDUM: The NYFF Twitter account said that Hong Sang Soo's films this year are his 34th and 35th features. If that is the case this whole thing of running every film truly is even more bull shit- No one should have over 2/3s of their films play a festival. And I mean that even about Pedro Almodovar who also has had a large number of his film at the festival- though he gets a pass since this piece is on multiple films every year)

Thoughts on GODZILLA MINUS ZERO (2026) NYFF 2026

A quick note:

Even though this is one of my longer pieces of late, this is shorter than the piece that was in my head. I say that because the piece I was planning on writing and which I started to write was a detailed discussion of the film and its plot. I started and I stopped because I realized that even though my piece would be going up after the New York Film Festival screenings, most people who want to see the film haven't remotely had the chance to do so. I could not spoil the surprises for everyone, so I rethought what I was going to do. As I mention in the piece, I was partly guided by the requests from Toho and GKids, with the exception of mentioning Ghidorah (they did not want the name used) simply because they used his cry in the trailer and he is named about 15 minutes into the film.

What follows are my thoughts on the film as an adult. I say that because the inner 6-year-old thinks this is the greatest thing since the last film.

I needed to see this film. 

I needed to see this film as soon as humanly possible. I wanted to go to the World Premiere screening with my brother and my friend and resident Godzilla expert Kim Lacanilao but the suits would have none of it. I managed to get a public ticket for the second screening...

But my inner 6 year old, the same guy who wrote to WPIX Channel 11 in 1970 that they had to run DESTROY ALL MONSTERS on a weekend afternoon because I was too young and not allowed to see an 8PM movie on a week night, was demanding I see it NOW so I had to consider the press screening.

I had no say and my 6 year old self demanded I get up at 2:30 in the morning, and  go out in a Nor'easter to begin standing on line at 5am for a 9am press screening. I was the only one there until 6am when my friend Matt showed up so that he could be in a safe place from the rain.

Yea, clearly some part of me needed to see this film.

When the film started I was sitting in the front row of the theater, as center as I could, and I opened up my heart and let my inner 6 year old out. That little guy had me literally sobbing and hyperventilating during the monster scenes. I'm not kidding I just couldn't believe the wondrous monster mayhem that was happening right before me. The 6-year-old me wanted to yell and scream and run around shouting at the top of my lungs about how F-ing cool it all was.

It was one of the best experiences an inner 6 year old could have... EVER!

On the other hand the adult me was a bit more distant. Yes, the monster stuff f-ing rocks, but there are bumps in the narrative. As much as being there for what was essentially the first public screening of a new Godzilla movie, was cool the film wasn't perfect. 

When I got home from my day at the NYFF and I saw the social media reaction to the film I was floored. Who were these people and why the hell were they calling it one of the greatest films ever made? What Kool-Aid had they drunk, and what ledge had they crawled out on to?

Now don't get me wrong, as a visceral monster fan level of pure emotion this film is a wicked little thrill machine, but I would not, and I cannot say it is one of the greatest films ever. Yes, the monster stuff is some of the greatest things I have ever seen on screen, but as a whole it's a great film, not quite among the greatest.

Nit picking, but it has to be said.

Okay I need to say that when we went in we were given a sheet with things on both side. The front was a list of information about the film and the embargoes. It was about half the page. On the other side was a list of things were "requested" not to mention. I will try to honor the request but quite honestly there is no way I am going to honor their requesting we not mention the name of the second kaiju in reviews when they put Ghidorah's roar in the trailer. It's not a secret since they let it out of the bag. Other than that, I will be trying to be as spoiler free as possible, despite word getting out from the three public screenings.

The film begins several years after the death of Godzilla, when a new kaiju has arrived, possibly from space. It is a dragon like beast called Ghidorah.  With conventional weapons seemingly unable to stop the beast the Japanese government tries to figure out a means of killing the monster. The rest of the film is an effort to stop Ghidorah.

I'll leave the plot there. That's all you should know.

At the same time I will be discussing bits of what happens because a lot of what I want to discuss are things the narrative does. If you don't want any chance of something being spoiled don't read any farther.

Thematically the film has a lot going on. The film is dealing with the notions of dealing with out pasts, how that affects the future, notions of guilt and how the defeated and conqueror interact. That last bit results in a great deal of tension as the Japanese have to dance around the American occupiers.

At this point I need to mention that one of the things that the film does badly is handle the Americans. I am not saying what we see them do is bad, but rather when they first show up it's the first indication director Takashi Yamazaki is very often an incredibly lazy  director. There is a half assed nature to the American sequences. The Americans are badly acted, cartoonish and there merely as a deus ex machina. It's clear that he has zero use for them, so he dresses them in bad Spirit Halloween costumes, with plastic helmets. Where every Japanese person we see has a sense of character, all of the Americans are cardboard. They are jokes to be laughed at.  That they are a joke  in a film that is essentially a thriller or a horror film, hurt the film. I say this not because I am or offended, or because I think their is a problem with their inclusion. I say it because it's clear Yamazaki simply didn't care, or hated the characters and had the actors behave in such a way that breaks the spell every time they are on screen. Its not once but every time they are on screen.

Related to this is the mad scientist sequence. I don't mind the idea of a scientist who has ulterior motive, but I am completely at a loss as to why Yamazaki resorts to literal wide eyed teeth gnashing on a level that we've only seen portrayed seriously in films like Dwayne Esper's MANIAC. This sort of insane behavior is almost never put on screen as anything other than a joke, unless the director is a complete moron, and Yamazaki is not that.  In a film where the horror of science is on full display and something we feel physically, the giggling mad doctor just cuts the legs out of the character and the tension. There is no reason  to have it happen, especially since we've already seen him in the rubble of Hiroshima. We should absolutely not think of him as joke because his reasoning for doing what he is doing is serious. It is, frankly, completely understandable... its so understandable that we would  actually side with him... except he's nuts.

Both of these things are indicative of a weird ass split in the way Yamazaki structured the narrative. Yes, the action/ monster sequences are perfect, seriously just ask my inner 6-year-old. however, the narrative around them is often soapy and frequently drifting into being a polemic. This is especially true towards the end when the drama is paused or stopped for a speech about the greater good (I've changed my plans....), the love we feel (we do this together), or imperialism (Americans are not to be trusted). Yamazaki pauses the narrative for an emotional moment or to make a point. While it provokes a reaction and there is a certain amount of emotional correctness, it isn't quite as good for the narrative since it slows momentum and bends the narrative just enough as to feel artificial. Yamazaki did this fleetingly in his first film, but it is much more pronounced here, and it helps to lessen the film.

What Yamazaki does correctly, and something many films in the entire run of Godzilla films fail to do and that is keep the people front and center. If you look at the best films in 70 plus year run, the best films are always the ones with the people up front and the kaiju in the background. the original film, the 2014 American film, SHIN GODZILLA and MINUS ONE all are about the characters first. Godzilla is a force of nature and while he is there, the focus is on the people. We stay watching because of the people, not just because of the Monsters. 

Here in MINUS ZERO the film is all about the characters. Yes, we get monster scenes, but mostly we get human beings interacting with creatures. In the opening sequence we have the monitors trying to get the film back to base; in  the bombing run sequence is on the pilots trying to make it work and the people directing them. Even the final battle is not so much told from the monsters' perspective, but rather the scientists trying to stop the creatures which are laying waste to Japan. The film works because we never lose sight of the characters we are connected to.

Truth be told the one thing I have heard people say negatively about this film is the same thing I heard about the 2014 film and SHIN GODZILLA, which is there isn't enough of the kaijus. And while on some level that is true, just ask my inner 6-year-old, the fact is that having more monsters wouldn't work here. The more the other films focus on the monsters the less they worked. (The exception being GODZILLA KING OF THE MONSTERS which somehow balances all the monsters and the human story. Though frankly the films that followed that don't work-- but that's another series)

As for the monster sequences they are all choice. As my brother said, the sequences are some of the greatest in the 70+ year history of the franchise. Brutal nasty and ugly. The film is actually rightly rated R in the US because of their brutality (along with the images of war dead and body horror). Like with the humans in the film, there is a cost. Blood flows. There is weight to what happens to them.

And weight is something the vast majority of Godzilla films don't have. More often than not its men in suits destroying things. Here, as in the best films in the series, there is a cost. People die... people we like die or are injured. When things happen there is a cost, more so when they go wrong. Actually, the fact that the characters are asked to pay a price is something that the vast majority of films never address. Sure, there is a "happy" ending, but at what cost? This isn't to give anything away, it is simply to say play out the story of what happens to the characters past the final fade out in your head and you realize they will only a degree of happy. 

God bless Takashi Yamazaki for understanding that the greatest satisfaction comes at high price. The result is a film that moves us in ways unexpected for a genre film.

I really like this film. I think its super because it tells a human story. At the same time, if you don't have an inner 6-year-old monster lover, when you see it go in with slightly lower expectations. Too many fans have been talking this way up and there is a good chance you may be disappointed. Yes, it is a great film, just maybe not the best Godzilla film ever made (Though its close)

A Statement (2026) NYFF

John Turturro is the reason to see this unremarkable telling of a 1980 conference's effort to try and get word out about CO2 emissions causing climate change.

The majority of this film is made up of recreations of the conference that took place on the eve of Ronald Reagan winning the Presidential election. The 20 people at the conference were together for 4 sessions over 36 hours and this film shows that. All of the dialog in the conference scenes are verbatim words from the transcripts. It's cut down scientific speak that gets the point across but is rather dry and it feels artificial since the sections feel like they simply jumped to the chase with no build up. The sequences are so bland that most people are not going to stay with it.

Not staying with it is a shame because the best sequences in the film are the largely fictional ones. Anything outside the conferences is magnificent and alive as we get real people behaving like real people. John Turturro's nuclear physicist comes alive as he crashes a wedding happening in the hotel. He is so good the audience at the press screening cheered him, in the film, in the credits and at the press conference afterward. Everything that director Tom McCarthy thought was in the transcripts is in the made-up scenes and he should have had more of those because until we get them about an hour in we don't have real people on the screen. Once we get to know the characters, the film finally works.

Sadly, it's too late because like the final meeting, the film has run out of time. Additionally, once the film gets to the denouncement you'll be wondering why McCathy decided to tell this story since there is no drama only a lecture about the dangers of CO2. You'll wonder why we are taking this journey when we know they know they are right at the start. 

On the other hand, McCathy's trimming of the transcripts, like everyone's point of view, is garbled so this probably was always doomed. Things are doomed because McCarthy gives us almost no context. Sure, the conference is happening days before Reagan is going to be elected, meaning that he's going to change everything (Paul Giamatti's character is afraid of Reagan axing his department). Like the background of the characters, McCarthy gives us no background as to what was happening in America at the time. There was no effort to explain where the country was at that time. I lived through it, so I kind of knew, but the truth is there was more going on than the odd comment late in the game can explain. McCarthy said this is a microcosm for the period it occurred but he doesn't explain what that means. He was clearly way too close to the material and never realized no one is really going to understand what he is going for. He has made a film that is as fragmented as the conference it is trying to portray with the result being just as dire as what happened in real life.

Because the script is so messy most of McCarthy's stacked cast is given nothing to do until, maybe, they do at the end. Dylan Baker's character is supposed to be a big deal, and when he shows up late everyone is in awe, but he says almost nothing, and we have no idea who the hell he is. Amy Ryan has one speech at the end that's fine, but it just hangs there. Tatiana Maslansky also has one speech but is otherwise a non-entity even though she is someone the film frames as important. While we get to know Paul Rudd's and Evan Peter's characters, but everyone else is forced to exist simply because the actors portraying them have a force of personality or face that makes them register in our heads, but not an actual character.

While not bad, the late-night sequences at and around the wedding saves it because we finally get context and character, A STATEMENT is ultimately a perfectly okay film destined to get lost in the sands of time much like the conference itself.

Minotaur (2026) NYFF 2026

 France's Oscar entry is a scam. It's not that it's a film in Russian being put up by a French speaking country, rather it's an incredibly familiar infidelity tale dressed up with Russian war references and more than a passing reference to the corruption in that country.

The plot of the film has a married man with his business compromised by the Russian attack on an unnamed country. He finds out his wife is having an affair.... and things happen.

You've seen this before, any number of times. There is nothing remarkable about the infidelity tale other than its artily done. It's so uncomplicated and by the book odds are you'll want to watch one of the infinite direct to video tales just so things are ever so slightly more interesting.

What got the film noticed by the programmers was its references to the Russian war. People fleeing to other countries is making our hero's business difficult, as is the fact he has to pick 14 people to be drafted. None of it really has anything to do with the main thrust of the story. It's just there as window dressing and to make the film seem infinitely more clever than it is. It's a film for people who haven't watched a film like this since Jacques Rivette died. 

To be completely fair, the film isn't bad. Yes, its about 30 minutes too long, but it isn't bad, it's just something we are 47 steps ahead of.  We are so far ahead of the film that a certain well-done sequence that takes up a chunk of the last third of the film kind of lays there because we know how it's going to go and generates zero suspense.

Worth a shot if you don't mind well-worn tales, but you'll still wonder why its winning awards.

NYFF 2026- Spotlight shorts

I was sent two of the four films playing in the SPOTLIGHT SHORTS collection at NYFF

MASAO ADACHI TAKES A PASSPORT PHOTO 

A filmmaker, who never had a passport, poses for a passport photo  whilst the widow who runs the studio has to deal with the printer

This a low key film shot by Neo Sora for director Kamal Aljafari that is very low key and dry. It's slow nature didn't work for me.

A STOLEN MOVIE
Director Camilo Restrepo couldn't afford to shoot a movie and instead took a film about the infamous Corvair cars traveling across Central America and added a narration.

This is an interesting film that reminds me of all the great Avant Garde films that played NYFF years ago when they had their own section and forced us to rethink what we were seeing.

Fatherland (2026) NYFF 2026

In 1949 accompanied by his daughter, writer Thomas Mann returns to Germany on a speaking tour and with the hope of recommenecting to his son.

This is a a super film. Its a look at a stern man trying to come to terms with a world still in turmoil after the war. Both he and his daughter are also dealing with a fractured family. Mann's son is a famous novelist who broke with his father and is scarred by it and the war. 

The film is also a deep exploration of man's search for something. Built around speeches involving Goethe, including references to his Faust, the film ponders what people have done or will do to get what they want. Its is a film that also ponders that in the wake of the war where the Manns encounter former Nazi's who now act as if nothing happened just a few years before. The two themes come crashing in when the ex husband of Mann's daughter shows up. He was the actor who serves as the source of the novel, and later movie Mephisto, about the greatest actor in Germany who sold his soul to Hitler.

While there is seemingly not a lot going on the truth of the matter is that there is a lot going on.

I'm going to say something that may turn some people off, which is the more you know about the time period in the film and the people mentioned, the better it is. The film is telling a story and while you may not need to know the history and references, the truth is that the more you know the better this is going to play. The script doesn't stop to explain anything so there are several levels to the film, those that know the references and those that don't. Even if you don't know the history this is a great film,  but it's greater if you do.

When you see FATHERLAND  you must stay to the end.  Its a short movie, running just 82 minutes, but you need to get to the end for it to hit you in the face. I say that because the end of this movie is quite simply one of the best endings of any film this year. The mix of sound and image click so perfectly that I, and several other audience members were wiping tears away as the end credits began to roll.

One of the best films at this year's NYFF, FATHERLAND is a must see.

Very brief thoughts on What Can't Be Mentioned (2026) NYFF 2026

Sequel to the film UNSPEAKABLE ACT has an older Jackie sabataging her own life by not dealing with her feelings for her boyfriend and the fact that her brother is having a child.

I did not like this much. Its a main character I wanted to hit behaving not only badly but unbelievably.

I'd take a pass.

I Rarely Wake Up Dreaming (2026) NYFF 2026

 

There is a moment about five minutes into the film when one of the characters shifts their gaze from tombstones and looks into our souls. It's a simple shot, with nothing special, but the look is delivered with such intensity that it made me talk out loud. It was the moment where I RARELY WAKE UP DREAMING grabbed me by the throat and pulled me in. I was willing to go wherever the film was going to take me.

I say this up front because even if I RARELY WAKE UP FREAMING wasn't as good as it was, this was one of the few festival films I have seen this year which made me feel connected and part of the film. Too many films of late have lost their connection to the audience and to humanity, that when you find something special like this you want to hold on to it and treasure it.

Set in the days before the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the early days of the war, the film begins on New Years Eve when Oleh receives his new passport which lists him as male, his transition to male now complete. As talk at the party spirals into talk of an impending Russian invasion Oleh and his girlfriend Olya retreat. However, when the invasion comes the pair must navigate what to do and how to handle the situation since Oleh can now be drafted.

Based on the true story of the director's friends, I RARELY WAKE UP DREAMING is more than a queer story of the war. While the people at the center are queer, they are also human. What happens to them is a story for everyone. It is new look at Ukraine, and war, that hits home and hits hard because having Oleh and Olya at the center forces us to consider what we are seeing. We see war and the war in Ukraine in new and deeper way. The pain we feel when Oly screams about wanting to break her husband's legs so he cannot serve is very real. We feel deep in our gut what it is like to be in a country at war and wanting to protect the thing you love at any cost.

More importantly the film also speaks volumes about being queer in a society that doesn't really understand or accept it. Being a straight male I don't feel fully qualified to speak on certain areas of the film, but I was rocked by the characters' anguish that results from living in a society and with loved ones that didn't fully understand who they are. One does not need to be queer to be an outsider, and the film uses that on that to make those of us who are straight better understand what Oleh and Olya are going through.

This is a stunning achievement that will make you feel and connect to life and the world.

Highly recommended.

All of a Sudden (2026) NYFF 2026

Ryusuke Hamaguchi"s ALL OF A SUDDEN confuses me. It confuses me because the film is not so much a drama or narrative as it is a polemic and a position paper on the correct way to treat people with dementia and cognitive decline. It is wildly over long. While it is a good film, I am confused by the outpouring of love the film has in some corners.

The film follows Marie-Lou, a woman who is trying to reshape the adult care facility she works at into a more humane place. There is a push back from some staff who feel her way will take up too much of their time and cause the patients to be in danger. She argues that in the short term it may, but in the long term they will have better results. Marie-Lou meets Mari , a Japanese theater director and they strike up a friendship. 

Based on a series of letters between a philosopher and a medical anthropologist the film is structured around several long conversations between the two women. It's a series of discussions about life and how we view it, as well as how we should treat people with cognitive decline. While the performances of Virginie Efira as Marie-Lou and Tao Okamoto as Mari make the friendship real, you believe that they would suddenly fall into a deep friendship, the issue is that since almost all of the discussions are focused on ideas. The discussions so front and center the characters leave food and drink scattered across Paris and Kyoto as they stop talking to speak of important things.  While the characters are there because the ladies are so good, the truth is focus of the film seems to be more about the ideas than then the people. They both frequently say, "I don't really know you" and they don't and neither do we. We only know the leads minimally.  While this is frequently what happens when we meet someone new. the concentration on the pure discussion of ideas leaves very little room for human drama except in the fringes. Most of the truly fully formed characters are the people around the leads. Frankly, even though it's based on one of the writers of the source letters, the fact that Mari is dying, the title being a reference to her being fine until all of a sudden, her march to the grave would happen, seems like a constructed effort to bring humanity into a film that is lost in ideas. What annoyed me is that for the most part of the film there is no real moment where they shoot the breeze and open up for minute. Almost anything we learn leans into one of their ideas and another teaching moment from the director.

The discussions are interesting to a point (even if they are repetitive) but the film lost me during the first long discussion between the women occurred, not because it was hard to follow or that there was anything wrong with it, but more that the discussion about Capitalism and its problems comes from outside and has almost no real bearing on the rest of the film.  It comes out of left field as if  the filmmakers felt they had to make that point at that moment. Where it comes from and why it's there was lost on me. Additionally, the fact that the film is constantly presenting the same arguments over and over again weakens the film. The film works best, as in the later half when we see how the techniques are actually making a difference. (There should have been more of this)

Don't get me wrong, the film isn't bad, with the cast gloriously selling what we are seeing, it had to be good. However, at the same time the film feels like an over long lecture rather than a drama. I feel that a restructured film that lost about an hour would have a greater impact and feel like a polemic. 

Overt Listening (2026) NYFF 2026

A landscape film exploring the battle field of 1949's Battle of Guningtou in Taiwan.

Images of the battlefield mix with portions of text, to make a film that is trying to explore the legacy of the Chinese Civil War and how we view the past. It's a film with a wonderful sense of place.

As engaging as the film is at the start there is a point where the feature length works against it.  While I would have no issue  Wandering around the battlefield all day there was a point where I started to drift at the forced perspective. Honestly I would have liked this better as a long short.

That said the images are compelling and this is worth a shot if you can see it on a big screen.

Brief first thoughts on DAO (2026) NYFF 2026

There is three parts to this film:

The first is a meta series of interviews with the actors, both cast and uncast, as they discuss their lives and why they want to be in the film.

The second is a memorial service in Senegal for the father of the nominal main character.

The third is a wedding of the daughter of the main character a year later.

All of the pieces are intercut.

I have no idea what to say but I was quietly sobbing in the theater, not because the film was tragic or anything bad, but simply because I was witnessing a film, I had shown me things I had never seen before. 

I had never seen anything quite like this on a technical level. How everything is cut together is perfect. I have no notes.

I had never seen a film that represented life on screen where it didn't feel scripted or constructed. I wasn't watching a film, despite knowing they are actors, but I was watching life unfold, with no good guys or bad guys or fake drama. I was simply in the middle of these wonderful people. 

This was the first time I had ever seen any part of Africa, in any film that didn't look like a movie. Seeing Africa as a place, like any other place anywhere else in the world moved me. It was a first time I've ever felt that I was just in a place with people and not someplace other. The people in Paris were the same as Senegal.

Seeing all these these things moved me.

Seeing life as lived moved me to tears.

My God this film is glorious.

For now, that's all I can say. This film is wonderful (okay maybe it is too long at 192 minutes - but that's a quibble.)

Highly recommended.

This is one of the best films at this year's New York Film Festival and probably 2026.

Brief thoughts on AT NIGHT (2026) NYFF 2026

We watch women in Paris over the course of a night.

This is a super film. One part drama, one part documentary, this is a film that you fall into and travel across the city. Made up of great bits shot to look amazing, the film dosn't so much introduce us to characters, but a bunch of new friends. Its a film that opened up my eyes to what it's like to be a woman today.

When I was done, I emailed some friends to see this film.

One of the best films in NYFF's Currents section this year.

My Omaha (2025) on Indepentent Lens October 5

Nick Beaulieu was always close to his father. However over time he drifted to the left and his father drifted further to the right. In the wake of Trumpism and Black Lives Matter protests in his home town Nick tries to open a dialog with his dad and find some middle ground.

MY OMAHA is a stunner. You may think you know where this is going or how it's going to play out and you'd be dead wrong. Beaulieu has mad a film that is vital and alive and that doesn't even attempt the easy answers.  Life is messy and complicated and it has a way of throwing things at you the mess everything up. This film wonderfully lets that all shine through.

What makes this film so important is that Beaulieu doesn't try to shape the discussions, he lets the words come out. This isn't a film where we get an us and them, black and white mentality but we get to know why people feel as they do. It doesn't always makes sense to us but it makes sense to them which is the important thing.

Watching the film I wasn't certain what I was thinking or feeling. I kept wanting to interject and say something, but I couldn't, and it's better that way. I say that because trying to engage with this film until it's done is pointless. This film is going somewhere and until it finishes you just have to go with it. When I got to the end I wasn't sure what I thought of it all but I knew that I was going to have to think about it long and hard.  I stopped going through Slamdance films and just sat with it a while- and then I went back and finally started writing on it several days after seeing the film.

This is a staggering work that truly gives us an insight into the seeming chasms in America, that are actually bridged by love and emotion.

Don't expect answers, but expect to be moved.

Highly recommended