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

One More Time (2026) NYFF 2026

Almost sixty years after they first performed Beckett’s Endgame Andre Gregory decides to direct and film excerpts from the play featuring his long-time friends Gerry Bamman , who has severe mobility issues and Larry Pine, who is suffering from Alzheimer’s and memory Issues. They are only filming the parts of the play featuring Ham and Clov.

What started for me as a goof, becames a crushing examination of the end of life. Yes, the film is one of the more brilliant dissections of the play that I’ve seen in recent years, but the weight of the play is in how life and the play merge. There is a majesty and glory to continuing the good fight, which everyone on screen is aware is coming to a close sooner than later. This is an examination of life’s endgame.

I was staggered. I still am. As someone who is very aware of my mortality and aware that I only have a brief time left, I could feel what I was seeing on screen in my soul. The plays portrait of people still living despite the world ending speaks volumes about not giving up. For me watching Larry be better when working and knowing  that Andre came alive when directing spoke volumes about our need not to slow down or stop because society and the calendar says we should. We must remain engaged at all times and not become lumps on a couch.

I don’t know how this film is going to work for those in their 20’s or 30’s, but anyone who is older or who has limited time left is going to be rocked. I was so rocked that I babbled at the PR person trying to get my thoughts.  I wanted to politely tell her that I had no words because I was broken and shattered in the best sort of way and that I was too busy to say anything simple, like its good.

This is not to say the film is tragic, simply that it is very bittersweet as we watch several friends walking boldly and with heads held high into the good night.

I am not doing this film justice-maybe later- I need more time to sit with it and ponder.

This film is a masterpiece.

As I said after the film, I had seen 20 something features for NYFF when I saw this and its only one of two that I would recommend or want to see again.

Highly Recommended

IDDA(2026) Toronto 2026

Adele (Tecla Insolia) and Sofia (Romana Maggiora Vergano) are two friends who meet after years apart. They are going to climb Mount Etna together and try and reconnect. But time has changed both or them and the past isn’t that far behind them.

This is a beautiful and beautifully acted film. There is an ethereal quality to much of it. The landscape is another member of the cast. It is a film that often operates in the realm of what isn’t said with looks and silences say more than words. Sometimes we remember things better than they were until we realize that there were reasons for the long separations.

I was haunted by this film. Seeing it in the middle of a wave of NYFF films I was wondering why this small gem of a film hadn’t been chosen for my local fest, especially since it hung with me hours and days after viewing. This is not a film that hits you right up at first but one that gets under skin and doesn’t leave for days after you see it.

Images dance behind my eyes.

If you want a film of quiet power, that will haunt you, give IDDA a try.

TOMORROW A LONG TIME AGO (2026) NYFF 2026

As Germeny reunifies a woman is fired from her job, begind to collects things, has an affair, wanders into the forest and shifts through time.

Director Luise Donschen makes her first feature and it's as etheral as her short films. Its a film of silences and feelings. It's a film of mood.

Having seen some of the directors earlier films I found my self intrigued for a while, but there was a point where I started to drift off. Her etherial style of story telling worked better in her short films. There wasn't quite enough here for me to stay connected. It's not bad, there just wan't enough here that I found compelling

Worth a look if the film sounds interesting, but I don't think this is going to work for most people.