Portrait of a Lady on Fire: A Fiercely Feminine Tale

Portrait of a Lady on Fire is written and directed by Celine Sciamma, and has a small cast comprised of four women. There are a few men who pop up at the beginning and end, but they are not important. Instead, what we get is a swoony and beautiful two hours of deeply feminine cinema. I'm sure plenty of people have watched the trailers and snarkily summarized it as "the French lesbian movie," but don't fall into that trap. This movie is an ode to all women and their feelings and the gears that grind below the surface. Despite being a period piece set in late 18th century France, these women feel like our contemporaries, incandescent with rage and chafing to live their own lives and be free. In a week when much was made about Elizabeth Warren's debate performance and whether women have the right to show their anger, this is an excellent movie to showcase how little we have moved away from the time when we were corseted and sold into marriages. Sure, we might have more choices now, but nope, we still don't like our women to be angry.

Noemie Merlant plays Marianne, a painter who has been commissioned to paint a portrait of a young women named Heloise (Adele Haenel), which will be sent to a Milanese nobleman that Heloise is destined to marry. When Marianne arrives at the family's house on a remote island, she is informed by Heloise's mother (played by the marvelous Italian actress, Valeria Golino) that she is to serve as Heloise's companion on walks and observe her secretly so she can then paint her portrait. Heloise doesn't want to be married and refused to pose for a portrait the last time a male painter was hired, ergo the subterfuge and need to hire a female painter to act as her companion instead. Marianne agrees, and what follows is a gorgeous movie where the two women walk along cliffs, by the beach, exchange long glances, slowly get to know each other, and eventually embark on a passionate love affair. In the midst of all this, we also have the wonderful Luana Bajrami who plays Sophie, the young maid in the household. She is quiet and competent, and somewhat fascinated by the independent Marianne and her beautiful aristocratic mistress, and the trio quickly bond and form a fast friendship. No catty women here; these women are loving and supportive and full of dreams and ambitions, none of which they will get to realize because of the constraints of their gender and the time period.

Like many women, this is a quiet and passionate movie. There isn't much of a background score; instead, you will hear the waves crashing upon the shore, you will hear embers crackling in a bonfire, you will hear Heloise breathing, you will hear the charcoal on the canvas as Marianne sketches. You will want to reach out and touch the velvety folds of the green gown that Heloise wears for the portrait, you will want to feel the wind on your face, you will want to eat the warm stews Sophie serves up for the ladies every night. The art is astonishing, and there are many scenes when you watch the portrait slowly come to life (in those scenes, you are actually watching the hands of artist Helene Delmaire, who spent sixteen hours painting every day while this movie was being filmed). But there's also the industrious needlepoint embroidery that Sophie is engaged in, a more domestic and less "prized" art form, but beautiful nonetheless. There are bouts of music that surprise and move you when they happen, because otherwise the world that these women inhabit is so silent. The costumes by Dorothee Guiraud are sumptuous: each woman essentially has one outfit for the entire movie, but the number of layers one is wearing at any given time can vary and tells you a great deal about how comfortable they are in any given situation. And finally, the cinematography by Claire Mathon makes every frame feel like a work of art. These women look like they have stepped out of portraits, the scenery is wild and beautiful, the candelight flickers and lends everything it lands on an ethereal glow. The entire movie is breathtaking to behold.

Portrait of a Lady on Fire won the Queer Palm and the award for Best Screenplay at Cannes. I did not think I would enjoy this movie at all - I thought it would be overblown, artsy French fare that would fail to emotionally resonate with me. As you can see from this review, nothing could be farther from the truth. There certainly were moments of dialogue that felt patently French and existentialist, and I did not care for those. But the majority of this movie takes place in silence and is truly cinematic. It captivates you and envelops you in its world and makes you feel great affection for these women. Unfortunately, like the women of this film, you can only experience some stolen moments of joy before the real world intervenes. So enjoy these two hours in the theater and then head back out to see what new battles feminism has to fight today. 

Birds of Prey: Ladies Take Over Gotham

I didn't love Birds of Prey, but it is certainly the best possible movie you could watch on Valentine's Day when you've just been broken up with and hate all men. As denoted by its subtitle, this is a movie about "the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn" after she is dumped by the Joker, and watching her psychotically take down a bunch of villains in Gotham City alongside the women who will eventually team up to become the Birds of Prey offers up quite the catharsis. I don't want to worry anyone, but given that I live in New York City, which is the real-life Gotham, you might want to watch out for me slathering my face in colorful makeup, and going on a crime spree to really purge my soul.

There isn't much plot to speak of in this movie - there's a diamond that everyone wants, Harley Quinn (played by the inimitable Margot Robbie) is determined to get it, and along the way she runs into the Black Canary (Jurnee Smollett-Bell), the Huntress (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), and a jaded cop named Renee Montoya (Rosie Perez). The villain of the piece is Roman Sionis (played by a terribly menacing Ewan McGregor). It's a fantastic, diverse, kick-ass cast, and watching them come together is a lot of fun. But the story itself is rather bland and insipid, filled with meandering action sequences, which, while terribly well choreographed, are overlong and don't propel the story forward in any meaningful way. There are plenty of attempts to inject humor into the proceedings so that it isn't a leaden slog like most DC movies, but unfortunately the plot by screenwriter Christina Hodson is too generic to command your attention.

What IS compelling however, is the visual style of this movie from beginning to end. It is an absolutely bewildering riot of color and I couldn't tear my eyes away from the screen. Every costume, no matter how deranged, was something I immediately wanted to wear, because they were all so eye-catching and glorious. Kudos to costume designer Erin Benach for putting together such a feast for the senses. Similarly, Harley Quinn's makeup, while extreme, is so much fun, and at one point I legitimately wanted to draw a little heart-shaped beauty mark on my cheek. Director Cathy Yan completely leans into the visual aesthetic of this film, with every frame suffused in all the colors of the rainbow and every action sequence offering up a spectacle. Yes, the story is dull, but the setting is endlessly fascinating.

Birds of Prey is a mediocre movie, but it is indisputably a work of art. Crafted by a bunch of women (it is directed, written, and produced by women, as well as boasting a predominantly female cast, apart from the villains, natch), it is a reminder that women can be allowed to make mediocre superhero movies too, and at least when they do it, they do it with style. Harley Quinn is a sociopath, but watching her take on the scum of Gotham City is a whole lot more fun than having to watch the Joker origin story last year. So DC, please give us more of this colorful psychosis rather than the bleak sagas of men seeking vengeance. It makes for far more compelling cinema.

And the 2020 Oscar Goes To...

This is the seventh annual Pop Culture Scribe Oscars post. Lucky number 7, but given the nominations and how awards season has been going so far, I fear this may be yet another disappointing year in terms of who actually wins. But there were a lot of phenomenal films, and in this post, I shall reward the ones that won my heart, while conceding that they will likely lose to movies that sucked (yeah, I'm talking about you, Joker). Let's get into it.

Best Picture: The potential frontrunner is 1917. It won the Golden Globe and Producer's Guild Award, has a lot of buzz, is a technical marvel in terms of cinematography but also has the emotional resonance and riveting tension of a World War I plot. Awards voters love British war movies, so this seems inevitable. But then we have Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, a movie that is quite literally about Hollywood, which awards voters love more than anything. I thought it was long, dull, and full of itself, so given a choice between the two, I would pick 1917 every time. But wait! There's also The Irishman, a movie that should be catnip to the old, white, male voters that make up the majority of the Academy. Yet another movie I did not enjoy (big surprise), and which has not been winning any awards so far, so it's probably not a favorite. Surprisingly, the Oscars chatter seems to be heating up for Parasite, one of the rare foreign films to make the leap to the Best Picture race. There's an interesting argument that given the Oscars' preferential voting system, enough people might select Parasite as their #2 pick, which could then ultimately lead to a win. That would be a pretty thrilling finale for this movie season. Parasite is a brilliant movie (if you haven't seen it yet, what are you waiting for?!) and fully deserves the kudos. Unlike Joker, which led the pack with eleven nominations, but I am not going to waste my breath. That movie should not and will not win the Best Picture Oscar. Period. The remaining contenders are Ford v. Ferrari (a super fun, competent film that is great, but will not win the top prize), Marriage Story (a splendidly emotional, well-acted, masterpiece of a film that will also not be winning), Jojo Rabbit (the most unconventional out of all the nominated films, I loved it dearly, but it is far too divisive to win) and Little Women. Oh Little Women. I would give every Oscar in the world to Little Women if I were in charge. But I'm not, it isn't going to win, and it's an absolute travesty that more people haven't recognized this film for the utterly beguiling and splendiferous marvel it is. So anyway. The nominees for Best Picture are mostly great, but there are some real clunkers in there that reflect there's still much work to do before we stop handing out nominations to any white man with a camera. I will be rooting for a Parasite/Little Women upset, and then politely clap when 1917 sweeps the awards.

Best Director: Let's all agree that this Oscar should go to Greta Gerwig for Little Women. But she isn't nominated, so who should get it instead? I would love for Bong Joon-ho to get it for Parasite. But far more likely is Sam Mendes for 1917. Which is not terrible, but I think that movie is less about the direction and more about Roger Deakins' incredible cinematography to pull off that one-shot trick. The other white men in contention are Quentin Tarantino for Once Upon a Hollywood (he has never won for Directing so might get an Oscar just for that), Martin Scorsese for The Irishman (no, he doesn't need an Oscar for this tedious film), and Todd Phillips for Joker (No. Just NO, goddamnit.)

Best Actress: Renee Zelllweger is the odds-on favorite for her performance in Judy and I shan't quibble with that. It was an impeccable performance that elevated an otherwise so-so biopic. One could similarly describe Cynthia Erivo's performance in Harriet, but given the lack of awards buzz around that film, she will likely remain honored to be nominated. Charlize Theron's uncanny performance as Megyn Kelly in Bombshell was fantastic, but that is more likely to garner a Best Makeup & Hairstyling Oscar than Best Actress. Scarlett Johansson was brilliant in Marriage Story, but ultimately that isn't enough of an over-the-top and sweaty performance that gets Oscar love. And finally, we come to Saoirse Ronan, playing my heroine Jo March in Little Women. This is Ronan's fourth Oscar nomination, but she has yet to win one. I cannot wait to see her finally get a statue because I have been in love with every performance of hers since I first saw her in Atonement. Overall, this is a stacked category, and Zellweger is a deserving winner, but boy would I love an upset by Ronan.

Best Actor: This is guaranteed to go to Joaquin Phoenix for Joker. Which...ugh, but fine. No one who saw that man's ribs poking through his skin in that movie would deny him a statue so that he can just get back to eating cheeseburgers and take acting a bit less seriously. My personal favorite performance in this category is Adam Driver in Marriage Story, which wrecked me in the best way possible. In two hours, that man demonstrated the full range of his acting (and singing!) talent, and it was wonderful. As for the other nominees, I didn't love Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, so I won't be handing any awards to Leonardo DiCaprio, though it was a perfectly serviceable performance. Jonathan Pryce in The Two Popes was splendid, and at the age of 72, this is his very first Oscar nomination, which is quite sweet. Let's hope he gets another one soon. And Antonio Banderas, I'm so sorry, but I did not see Pain & Glory. So potentially, your performance (also a first nomination!) might be the greatest thing ever captured on film, but I cannot opine.

Best Supporting Actress: This appears to be a shoo-in for Laura Dern who plays the world's most seemingly kind and then cutthroat divorce lawyer in Marriage Story. That would be a well-deserved win and will likely result in a fabulously political acceptance speech that I will enjoy. Her Marriage Story co-star Scarlett Johansson is also nominated in this category for her wonderful work in Jojo Rabbit, which is a lovely and warm performance that I thoroughly enjoyed. Margot Robbie's nomination for Bombshell is equally well deserved, as her performance was the most emotionally resonant and devastating aspect of that film. Florence Pugh's nomination for Little Women is perfect as she singlehandedly redeemed Amy March, a literary character we have collectively hated for hundreds of years. And Kathy Bates was terrific in Richard Jewell, lending so much heart and depth to that movie. So again, a completely stacked category, where it truly is an honor for all these women to be nominated.

Best Supporting Actor: This is a bizarre category filled with a who's who of men who have been at the top of the acting game for decades. The frontrunner is Brad Pitt for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and look, I'm not gonna begrudge the man his award. The scene in that movie when he is shirtless on a roof, basking in the California sun, is indelibly burned into my brain. Sure, give him an Oscar for "acting." Al Pacino and Joe Pesci are obviously great actors, but The Irishman was boring and they will likely split the vote between themselves anyway, so let's move along. Anthony Hopkins was fine in The Two Popes, but given that he basically sounded Welsh instead of German half the time, I am happy to skip him. Which brings us to Tom Hanks, who is the person that clearly deserves this award for his portrayal of Mr. Rogers in A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood. He disappeared into that character and made me weep multiple times. Much like I would give Little Women all the awards, give Tom Hanks everything.

Best Original Screenplay: This might go to Parasite, which would be perfectly correct. But I am secretly rooting for Knives Out, because as a fan of murder mysteries, this was the most delightfully well-constructed mystery written for film. Marriage Story was also a devastatingly good film that I would support. But a win for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood or 1917 would be terribly dull because none of them felt that original and wowed my brain like the other nominees.

Best Adapted Screenplay: All I can do is pray that this is where Greta Gerwig at least wins something for Little Women. And how deserving - she took a novel I have been reading my whole life and made it feel fresh and contemporary and even more meaningful. The screenplay for The Two Popes is not much competition, Joker is not going to win (because I absolutely refuse to let it), and likewise with The Irishman. However, the potential upset comes from Taika Waititi for Jojo Rabbit. In any other year, I would be rooting for that bizarre and wonderful Jojo Rabbit screenplay, but no, Little Women for life.

Those are my thoughts for the major categories. Some other predictions/wishes: Best Cinematography is a lock for Roger Deakins for 1917. Parasite is 100% winning Best International Feature Film (formerly known as Best Foreign Film), which is going to make it even more stunning if it also walks away with Best Picture. And Jacqueline Durran thoroughly deserves the Best Costume Design Oscar for her meticulous work in Little Women. Thomas Newman is nominated for Best Original Score for 1917, and this is his fourteenth nomination. He has never won, and I have been in love with his film scores ever since his first nomination in 1994 for Little Women (I know, we come full circle!). I would be so delighted if he finally won this year, but the frontrunner appears to be Hildur Guonadottir for her Joker score. Which...sigh.

So that's the 2020 Oscars in a nutshell. I had a great time at the movies this year, but as usual, I'm not holding out hope that the ceremony will award much of that greatness. But maybe we will be surprised. I always go into the Oscars with a combination of weary resignation and a flicker of hope, and sometimes they do something wild to make up for the fact that they didn't nominate any female directors. Fingers crossed! And then we'll regroup on Feb 10 to collect suggestions for 2021.

Cheer: Pain & Perseverance

When I started watching Cheer, I had no idea what I was getting into. I thought it was a simple documentary about an ambitious college cheerleading team. When I watched the final episode, I sobbed like a child, thoroughly invested in these kids, their dreams, and their insane journey to the Grand National Championships.

The show is a six-part documentary series that follows the 2019 Navarro College cheerleading team. Navarro is in Corsicana, Texas, a tiny town in the middle of nowhere, that has become renowned for its elite cheerleading squad. This is mostly thanks to Monica Aldama, their cheerleading coach who took over the program in 2000 and turned it into a dynasty through her innovative routines, perfectionism, and tough love. Emphasis on the "tough." The kids on this team worship this woman (she is known as "the Queen") and you'd get drunk pretty quickly if you took a shot every time someone said "I would do anything for Monica." However, sometimes that entails suffering through incredible pain and pushing through horrific injuries.

If by “cheerleading” you’ve been picturing a bunch of women on the sidelines with pom-poms, you are sorely mistaken. This is a demanding sport, requiring unsurpassed athleticism, gymnastic skill, and brute strength. The men are lifting and tossing the women all over the mat, while the women are flipping, tumbling, and flying through the air like angels. Unfortunately, they don’t actually have wings and you will rapidly lose track of the number of injuries as people plummet to the ground. No other sport is so heavily reliant on the notion of teamwork - if your teammates do not catch you, that could very well be the death of you. And so these kids are constantly forced to communicate and bolster each other, and work through their complicated adolescent drama for the sake of the team.

And there is so much drama. Cheerleading is an expensive sport, but Monica has a tendency to recruit kids who come from difficult backgrounds. And what this documentary does masterfully is slowly parcel out the back stories of some of these kids and get you invested in their personal struggles. The common refrain is “Cheer saved me.” These kids came from broken families, with histories of abuse or neglect, but being a part of this team has given them a sense of self-worth and confidence. Many of them view Monica as a second mom, and she is an exacting disciplinarian. She understands that cheerleading is not something these kids can do forever and insists that they also get good grades and develop life skills that will serve them well into adulthood. She has very traditional values, but at one point she talks about how she has had talks with her pastor about how there is nothing wrong with the gay boys on her team. She fights for these kids and supports them, but if they step one toe out of line, it's game over. After six episodes, I still don't know if she's a hero or a villain (I think the correct answer is that she's just a human being). But what I do know is that the kids are incredible and I rooted for them with every fiber of my being.

Cheer will play on every emotion you possess. Director Greg Whiteley is a consummate filmmaker and knows how to tell his story well. Like any good sports documentary, you develop a thorough appreciation and love for this high-octane and demanding sport. But you will also fall in love with these kids, who can alternately seem so wise and introspective and then so troubled and helpless. It is an apt summary of the human condition and is one of the most moving and powerful shows you can expect to see this year. You think you have no interest in cheerleading? Think again.

The Two Popes: Who Is Fit to Lead?

I'll confess (ha!) I was dreading watching The Two Popes and only did so because it got nominated for a bunch of Oscars (oh the things I go through for this blog). But I was pleasantly surprised, and once I was done, I fully understood the nominations for Best Actor and Adapted Screenplay (Best Supporting Actor not so much, we'll get into it). So if you're at home this weekend and feeling bad because you haven't seen any of the Oscar nominees, you could do worse than to turn on Netflix and settle in for this movie.

The movie begins in 2005 with the election of German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI (Anthony Hopkins). During the papal conclave, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Jonathan Pryce) receives the second highest number of votes after Ratzinger but he has no desire to be Pope. In fact, we follow him over the next few years and get to 2012 when he decides to resign, feeling like he can do more good as a parish priest than the Archbishop of Buenos Aires. It probably does not help that the church is in the middle of the Vatican Leaks scandal. However, when he tries to deliver his resignation to the Pope, he is continually rebuffed. The two have a long conversation, covering a breadth of topics. And in the end, well, you know what happens.

There's obviously no twist to this story: we all know that it will end with the resignation of one Pope who was traditional and mired in controversy, and the rise of our current Pope Francis, who was a reformer, expected to bring disillusioned Catholics back into the fold. But the dynamic between these two men is what makes this film such a pleasure to watch. I felt like I was watching a play, and then discovered that this movie is actually based on a play, which was adapted for the screen by its writer, Anthony McCarten. Once I finished, I immediately wanted to know what the play was like, because while the conversation between the two popes is obviously easy to imagine onstage, the movie employs several flashbacks to tell us about Bergoglio's early days in Argentina, and I'm not sure how the play pulled that off. Also, no stage could do justice to the remarkable replica they built of the Sistine Chapel. The two actors spend a significant amount of time alone in the Chapel and it was mesmerizing throughout.

Jonathan Pryce does a simply magnificent job as Cardinal Bergoglio. He looks eerily like the man, has nailed the Argentinian accent, and moves and talks with a humble, easy grace. This movie is absolutely a hagiography of Pope Francis, but I'm willing to buy it all, because I like to think that good men like him still exist in the world today. We have a lot of insufferable world leaders - one who likes to advocate for the poor and is fully cognizant of his own evolution and prior faults is a refreshing change of pace. On the flip side, we have Anthony Hopkins, who does a perfectly fine job as Pope Benedict XVI. But the man isn't even TRYING to be German. Both Pryce and Hopkins are Welsh; you'd never know that from listening to Pryce act in this movie, but you'll certainly know it from listening to Hopkins. While Pryce disappears into the role, I was aware throughout this film that I was watching Anthony Hopkins, so as far as I'm concerned, that was a waste of a Best Supporting Actor nomination. But at least he gave Pryce something to work of off.

The Two Popes was directed by famed Brazilian filmmaker Fernando Meireilles, and you can certainly tell he paid more attention to getting the South American scenes exactly right while minor details like German accents could fall by the wayside. Of course, one could ask why he didn't cast a Latino in the lead role, but at least he got Juan Minujin to play the young Bergoglio for the flashbacks that were mostly in Spanish. In fact, a lot of this movie is subtitled, which I was not expecting but did enjoy - I haven't heard conversational Latin since my sophomore year of college. The end credits of this movie also surprised and delighted me and felt like something only a Brazilian director would think of. This movie never feels ponderous; it tells its story compellingly and efficiently, makes you root for Bergoglio but feel some mild sympathy for Ratzinger, and shines a light on the debate between the traditional Catholic church and the need for reform. That's a lot for a movie to accomplish in two hours, but thanks to a great leading man, deft direction, and a zippy screenplay, you'll get a good history lesson, as well as some musings on religious and moral philosophy. That's a worthy investment. 

1917: Another Reminder That War Is Hell

In the tradition of all great war movies, 1917 is a brutal watch. The fact that it is shot and edited so that the entire movie enfolds as one single, unbroken take, means that it is even more brutal than usual. It's a marvelous conceit to get the point across, but as an audience member, it is an unrelenting reminder of the horrors of World War I.

Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay star as Lance Corporals Tom Blake and Will Schofield. Stationed in northern France in April 1917, they are given a mission to carry a letter across enemy lines to the 2nd Battalion of the Devonshire Regiment, who are currently headed into a trap. They think the Germans are in retreat and are planning to attack them, but instead, these 1600 British soldiers are headed straight for an ambush unless Blake and Schofield can get to them before the morning and call off the attack. As if the stakes couldn't be higher, Blake's older brother is serving in the 2nd Battalion, so he has an added incentive to ensure he can call off this attack in time. 

That's all the plot you need to know. What follows is a nail-biting two hours as you follow these men on a perilous journey across no man's land, dodging planes, snipers, rats, bombs, and all manner of horrors in their dogged determination to get this letter to their fellow soldiers on the front line. It is visceral and claustrophobic - at the very outset, Schofield injures his hand on some barbed wire, and before he can even wrap up his hand in some gauze, he falls over and plunges his hand into the body of a dead, decomposing solider. There are rats in the trenches, everyone is covered in mud, wounds are festering, bodies are indiscriminately piled up on battlefields. You are only focused on the journey of these two men, but around them, the bloody business of war keeps carrying on and it is barbaric and sickening. 

Director Sam Mendes (who co-wrote this film based on stories he heard from his grandfather who served in WWI) has done a brilliant job of capturing both the humanity of war in his two central characters, as well as the utter inhumanity of it all as you watch them make their way through trenches, battlefields, and ruins. Cinematographer extraordinaire Roger Deakins certainly deserves his sixteenth Oscar nomination for making the one-take trick feel so effortless and granting so much urgency to the piece (kudos to editor Lee Smith are also needed for seamlessly blending these shots together). The use of natural light in this movie is extraordinary and further brings home the incongruity of war in the midst of a peaceful sunrise and the sounds of birds chirping in the woods. And production designer Dennis Gassner certainly had his hands full. In fact, throughout the movie, I was struck with how much activity was happening in the periphery. Hundreds of extras are milling about, there are so many props littered everywhere, and even though you are focused on the movie's central mission, it would mean nothing without the bleak atmosphere and palpable distress emanating from everything else taking place on the screen. 

1917 is a cinematic tour-de-force, an example of every single department coming together to create an extraordinary movie that captures one of the most brutal periods in human history. The plot is very Hollywood, but at no point does this film shy away from the horror and pointlessness of war and the toll it takes on soldiers and civilians. It is stark and unflinching, and given current geopolitical events, yet another much-needed reminder that war should always be a last resort. 

Uncut Gems: Tense & Thrilling

I don't think I have felt more clenched as I did during the two hours I spent in the theater watching Uncut Gems. It is an excellent movie but probably not great if you have a heart condition. A sensory onslaught from start to finish, this movie is relentless, constantly upping the ante and making you bite your fingernails as you wait for everything to either go horribly wrong or horribly great. And until the last minutes, you have absolutely no idea what kind of ending you're going to get.

Directed by Josh and Benny Safdie (aka the Safdie brothers), based on a script they co-wrote with Ronald Bronstein, this is a story about Howard Ratner, a man who owns a jewelry store in New York's Diamond District but also has a gambling problem. As you can imagine, that is not a good combination when you have easy access to jewels that you can pawn off to make terrible bets. Ratner is played by Adam Sandler, and you may have heard this already, but this might be the best performance of Sandler's career. It's a dark, twisted character--no goofy SNL hi-jinks here--but his comedy timing helps enormously in the moments when the Safdies decide to give the audience a bit of a break and inject some humor into the proceedings before the next pulse-pounding sequence begins.

The movie takes place in 2012. Howard owes money to a lot of people who are starting to send increasingly violent collectors. However, he thinks he has hit upon the perfect bet when he lends a rare black opal to Kevin Garnett (yes, THE basketball player Kevin Garnett, who has a whole Supporting Actor-level performance in this film and is astonishingly good). Howard also has family drama; he has been cheating on his wife, Dinah (the fabulous Idina Menzel), with his employee Julia (the remarkable Julia Fox, in her first acting role), and as the movie proceeds, we see the dangerous toll his behavior could take on his wife and kids.

The plot is twisty and so compelling, and despite knowing nothing about basketball sports betting, I was thoroughly engrossed in the machinations of Howard's bets and found myself rooting for his teams and his players as feverishly as he was. If you've ever been disdainful of gamblers and wondered how they could take the risks they do, this film will steep you in their psychology and make you understand why this is such a debilitating addiction. Everything about this movie is loud and overwhelming: the dialogue is fast and furious with people constantly talking over each other and yelling, the score by Daniel Lopatin is always thrumming in your veins, never giving you a chance to breathe, and the cinematography by Darius Khondji is vivid and filled with extraordinary colors that reflect the black opal that has set off all this mayhem.

Uncut Gems is an audiovisual feast that genuinely feels like a cinematic rollercoaster. You feel a little bit sick while you're on the ride, but the twists, turns, and thrills make it all worthwhile. Everyone is perfectly cast (listen for some fun voice cameos from Natasha Lyonne and Tilda Swinton!), the story is propulsive and sucks you in, and as a New Yorker, there's of course that added joy where I can recognize the locations, and say "hey, I know that bus stop!" It's a chaotic thriller that injects itself into your veins and you will stumble out of the theater feeling a little bit worse for wear, but so glad you chose this adventure.