Blue Moon

This movie was very difficult for me. I was able to master it in two sets. I wouldn't say that I liked it, it's just that the movie is not for everyone.

First of all, the film is biographical and I didn't know Hart's identity at all. Ethan Hawke is noticeably trying, but again, I have nothing to compare it with, and I couldn't get into the character at all.

secondly, I didn't like the presentation itself. it's terribly tedious, almost intimate and with some kind of unnecessary chatter, where you quickly lose the very essence.

In general, it looks like an amateur.

A very pleasant performance film, where the whole plot is revealed through dialogues. This is a film about theater-goers, which is why it is logical to choose this format of a "play". And in this short period of time, we learn literally everything about the character, feel, sympathize, feel sad, laugh with him. You only need to watch it in the original, otherwise the wordplay, which is VERY much, will pass by, along with half the meaning, we laughed and were touched with all these linguistic finds. Quoting "Casablanca" is a separate charm. Thank you, Larry, for your opinion on what the ending of the movie is about ahaha
There are many historical figures in this film. Thanks to him, I found out who the creator of "Stuart Little" is.
I would like to mention Ethan Hawke's game separately. She's incredibly alive, you get inspired with the character, you live with his ideas, you envy his spark, how much he's in love with his calling. It's a pity that such films are not nominated for an Oscar. His charisma is right in his heart.

Warning: DUBBING IS GREAT. Everything was censored and CHANGED again. What is a "damage transfer"??? Where did Catherine Renard come from? There is no such character in Casablanca. And that's all, just not to mention the man. Everyone who watched the movie remembers how it ended.
Why even duplicate films in which "I'm not satisfied with the orientation of the character"?
I CAN'T, as much as I'm sick of this situation.

Watch movies with pleasure. And uncensored.
<3

It will be interesting for those who like long conversations about love and not only

I was fine, but I wouldn't recommend it.

It didn't work out for me. The whole film is based on dialogues and all the actions take place in one place. in general, I think it's not really my thing, so I watched it at 2x speeds later, the only plus in Ethan Hawke and Margaret Qualley, of course, I generally watched it because of her) I won't recommend it.

It's hard to describe this movie in words because it takes place almost entirely in one location and is filled with empty chatter. I would say that this is something like a play in which the main character speaks in high-sounding words and does not shut up for a minute. He talks about music, about life, about his former partner's new musical, about a young student he has fallen in love with, etc.

According to the trailer, it seemed to me that there would be some kind of love story or even a love triangle with Margaret Qualley, but there is very little of her in the film. It's an Ethan Hawke benefit. And there is almost no history here. There is only pretentious talk. Music is constantly playing in the background, and all this creates a unique vibe. Overall, I liked it. But I can't even imagine who this movie could be recommended to.

Of course, I like movies in one location.. But the match didn't happen here.
I also love Quollie.. But how come she doesn't play here.. Probably her worst job..
Hawk is good. But, he has too much screen time..

The film is for an amateur - and I, apparently, am an amateur, although I didn't know anything about the real personalities on whom this film is based. But he charmed me from the very first minutes, such "stuffy" men who can talk about different things in long monologues are absolutely my type. There is also the theme of unrequited love of a creative person, which is also close to me. So that dialogue in the wardrobe, where the heroine talked about her birthday, actually got into my heart, these feelings are so familiar to me.

But, again, I understand why such a rating is given - the film may seem boring to some, especially since it is a kind of performance where everything takes place in one location.

After my advice to watch this movie, former colleagues called it a “painful hat.” In my opinion, "painfully" is not equal to "hat": and especially if a movie triggers some experience from the past, it means it fulfills its task. It's a kind of horror, where instead of a screamer or a slasher, you have a feeling of pity and the deepest sadness. Moreover, if you don't include self-reflection, this pity can turn into a contemptuously condescending disgust for the character, and Link and Hawk seem to be consciously fiddling with this quite understandable human reaction.

I think that if the fear of being in the character's shoes, becoming irrelevant, insignificant, and condescending makes you invisible, it causes not only disgust, but even anger, when you want to run away from the hero, but also from the film, it's a great creative courage. And to make it believable is a great directorial and acting success. Hawke deserves all possible awards, although I doubt the personal courage of the same academics to be so unanimous on this issue.

Of course, such a provocation alone is not enough to consider it luck. The chamber-theater approach with the acting of the play, the excellent Quoll that radiates life in contrast to the fading light in the soul of Hawke's hero, the down-to-earth former colleague who tries very hard to be diplomatic and not flare up from the jokes of an old partner-teacher - everything is presented quite realistically.