Sorry/Not Sorry Review


A documentary that sheds a dangerously truthful light on a comedic icon, Sorry/Not Sorry follows a trail of fame, patterns, and defamation. The #Metoo movement goes to the depths of honesty in a haunting matter in this film. Its focus is comedian Louis C.K. and the allegations against him regarding sexual misconduct. The title speaks for itself. I have seen Louis perform live three times in 2015, 2016, and 2021 (after his allegations and post-covid). Each of those times always left me with a different feeling of laughter. Sorry/Not Sorry linked me back to many of the times where I had once adored the works of C.K. and brought on some reflection.

Sorry/Not Sorry is a detailed documentary including many interviews with comedians and critics on the allegations against Louis C.K. The trend of what is hard to accept with Sorry/Not Sorry is that the weird events of Louis did in fact happen. The film jumps back to his comedy moments of him telling many of his jokes. The depiction captures him being very open and detailed about contentious stuff in his material. It then dives into events and scenarios leading up to the controversy around Louis.

It is all hard to watch. Normally with Louis, I would be used to laughing until my lungs hurt, yet Sorry/Not Sorry is not in that zone. These are true events not jokes.  The interview with Jen Kirkman is what haunted me the most, as she explains her early days as a comic and how she worked with Louis. The documentary presents a challenge in its storyline of the events of Louis C.K.  Its presentation seems to be one of disgust at how quickly tings can be forgotten when fame and money are involved.

The aspect of his material is a two-way street in Sorry/Not Sorry. Why would Louis go into detail about sexual topics within his acts after everything he went through? How does the funny feel good with the presence of the shocking realism of the surrounding topics? All are too graphic to go into detail, but the world knows his actions. The hatred vibes swirl here. Sorry/Not Sorry is a heartless documentary that throws buckets of despise to the max. 

The interviews though, do shine a light on the talent Louis had. That is his observations of messed up moments and life scenarios. The truth of which guts the audience. It is the fact that he admitted to the allegations against him. The film does dive into fame and brilliance, and then dives into questions. How did Louis get away with his actions? How was he able to rise backto fame? Sorry/Not Sorry is a dark documentary of admittance, failure and a questionable comeback.

This is not a film that is easy to take in. It is difficult to absorbas its delivery is filled with a lot of heavy material from victims and those who basically dismiss the accusations. I found the documentary to have patterns of anger and frustration going in a spiral. Sorry/Not Sorry is a title of admittance, but there is context that dives deeper than audiences realize. It keeps its calm approach to feel light-hearted. The film itself still aches from the harsh reality of truth with too much binding of emotions in a form that continues to be unnerving. Two out of four stars for Sorry/Not Sorry.

Touch Review


How long does love last? How many miles can be between people in love? How many memories does love inspire? Touch is a moving portrait with invigorating elements. Written and directed by Baltasar Kormakur, the film is based upon the novel by Olaf Olaffson. Touch is a journey of one young lover where reconnection creates a journey of compassion. Touch is mesmerizing and beautiful. The scenery in a place of escape filled with many memories boils over with positive feelings. Touch is culturally rich in the way it explores love and disconnect—finding moments of bonding that were once lost.

It is love at first sight that is enduring in a cinematic sense. The direction is authentic as is the film’s diverse writing. The direction begins with two young individuals, Kristofer and Miko. Palmi Kormakur plays Young Kristofer, Koki plays Young Miko, Egill Olaffson plays older Kristofer, and Yoko Narahashi plays older Miko. Most of the film is focused on Young Kristofer and Young Miko, and then Kristofer once he is a grown-up. Young Kristofer takes a job in an Asian restaurant at a young age, and he finds love while working in that restaurant. Miko becomes the love of his life. They become star-crossed lovers sharing true compassion towards one another.

It is fifty years later, and Kristofer spends his life in Iceland. The scenes take place just as Covid is heightening. Thoughts of Miko consume his mind. The focus of Kristofer crossing paths with Miko again delivers significant meaning in Touch. It is a vivid portrait that moves its audience. Touch is a title that may seem generic. Once the film is experienced, however, the title highlights the euphoric aspect of the word’s meaning. The film demonstrates how love and resilience have unique patterns, yet love can come most unexpectedly.

When Kristofer finds connectivity and learning in a new environment while he is young, many wondrous doors open for him due to his love for Miko. During an era in his life when things are shifting, Kristofer quits school to work in a restaurant. While he possesses a clever mind, he prioritizes his relationship with Miko. Their love is like a light turning on indicating good vibes moving forward.

Touch is simply wonderful. The film takes viewers on anexciting ride where love that was once lost is found again. Kristofer’s journey does not stop until he finds Miko again. Touch is one of the most breathtaking films of the year. Although it is subtle, the story successfully portrays continuity between the past and the present. Three-and-a-half out of four stars for Touch.

Fly Me to The Moon Review


A film that gears on NASA tends to have components that are multi-step. There is the subject of space, science, and politics. It is all about how those aspects move around its theme. Fly Me to The Moon is one-of-a-kind to that extent. Directed by Greg Berlanti, Fly Me to The Moon is subtle with certainty. Its beginning brings historic value to the era of NASA. Its characters are just too rich for the film itself.

From my saying, “Its characters are too rich,” the intelligence side does not mend smoothly. Fly Me to The Moon is created more for the commotion of its high-profile celebrities in a NASA storyline. The layout is stimulating. The project itself is perplexing. Blasting from amazement has a generous number of blockades.

The film begins with Cole Davis (played by Channing Tatum). Cole is a director for NASA. The opening brings in a great deal of NASA feeling undervalued. The place has deficits in supplies and staff. The assistant to Cole is Henry Smalls (played by Ray Romano). Cole is by the book and believes his own political beliefs. Henry tries to go with the flow and deal with the turmoil (since it is unbearable).

For clarification, the performance of Tatum is the one to take earnestly. He delivers that presentation of authority to have a purpose. The performance of Romano is inadequate. If audiences expect to see Romano in a role of accomplishments, his is below the surface level. Expect success from Tatum and Romano being a benchwarmer in Fly Me to the Moon.

The marketing direction in the film’s context is the bigger picture of Fly Me to The Moon. The audience will not be flying into space. They will be diving into the advertising aspect of Fly Me to The Moon. This approach is when the exaggerated traits of characterizations evolve. Kelly Jones (played by Scarlett Johansson) swings into the life of Cole. She has that vibe where she rocks the planet. She does it all day, every day.

Cole and Kelly find themselves having to work together. Cole’s mission is to get astronauts to launch into space. The conflict is politics…a gray area. The promotional aspect is what lies in hope. With Kelly handling the marketing, they both start working out strategic plans to deliver the media that can spark attention to the mission of space for NASA. That all faces risks also. The individual Moe Berkus (played by Woody Harrelson) is on the inside of what is true and false. It is the time when lies lead to more publicity. Hence why the characters are overly characterized. Their personalities all have forms of egos with over-done make-up. The realistic and inspiring aspect is lacking in Fly Me to The Moon.

The dynamic of the performances with Tatum, Johannson, and Harrelson is the compelling aspect of Fly Me to The Moon. There is that motive of intelligence questioned. They all play the cards accurately. It is just hard to take them seriously. Too much make-up and overhype. They may play the parts right, but the writing of their roles is out of focus.

With the advertising and profits side of Fly Me to the Moon, the film gives a lot of detail to Omega watches. The products worn by astronauts drive faith in the production. That is because it is looking for its accomplishment. What matters more? Products selling? Are astronauts making it to space? Are astronauts coming back from space? The two-sided factor of advertisements and a space mission remain in their lane.

Fly Me to the Moon is a joyful flick for a two-hour escape of laughs and minor seriousness. The era may have sits, giggles, and historical factors. Fly Me to the Moon is just average. I feel that there are more NASA factors of moving foundations in The Right Stuff (1983), Apollo 13 (1995), and Hidden Figures (2016). Fly Me to the Moon has leads of connection with a more apt meaning, but these three prior films make me soar with inspiration and imagination to many more heights. I rate Fly Me to The Moon at two-and-a-half out of four stars.

Treating cinema in many forms of art!