Stars at Noon

Seems most of the reviewers missed the point of this film. Or perhaps they've seen/ read the previous material it's based on and had some expectations. I came upon this film without any knowledge of prior material or expectations.

This little film is great as an exploration of how human attraction and bonding works.... when it's put into an accelerating circumstances of life threatening situation. And as a look at sudden intimacy, even codependency, between the "last two people on earth" (well not really, but there's that feel to it) it's actually achieves a lot of depth and freshness, probably because the director is a European woman.

However I can see how some could expect something else from it. The director almost completely disregarded a coherent explanation of what's really going on in the country that puts them in danger. Like yeah the main male character is doing something shady or that's what CIA wants you to think, during tough tumultuous times in a Central American country and gets in trouble for it, but that's practically it. Perhaps she felt it's not important because that's not what she's focusing on, and perhaps if she had focused more on that the film would be more of "casserole" lol and that would not necessarily work or help... But I must agree with some reviewers that the way it's presented now in the film it kind of does give off colonial or even white European/ American colonial vibe. Like, times have changed since the 80s when the original came out (or was it the book that came out then? Not sure), and Americans and Western Europeans are not necessarily seen as the nice guys anymore, and she kind of tried to present too, but it fell flat somehow. Not sure why though... was it the fault of the source material that came out in the 80s or is it the result of Western European sense of elitism, even superiority that they still have? I can't quite put my finger on it yet.

I get that Claire Denis may have meant well, socio-politically speaking, to have adapted this story, but I'm afraid her adaptation totally falls short of doing justice to the actual text. In my opinion, the author's intention was to portray a revolution taking place via the narrative of an affair between two characters (even unnamed, as they were that insignificant to the whole point of the book) While Denis's version recounts a tryst, with a revolution taking place in the farthest background. Despite Margaret Qualley's strong performance, the magnificent score written by Denis' long-time collaborator Tindersticks, as well as the somewhat documentary-style cinematography, the film failed at convincing me as an audience to care about either the characters or the nation acting as extras.

... one reviewer asks why-the-masks, as they had been in the country in 1984 and no one had been wearing Covid-masks... it's that kind of film requires some reading before-after watching for some insights

... a well-made (even if was not in 'that' country), and well-acted film.. Margaret Qualley has the MacDowell acting chops of her mom and here in this production it's hard taking eyes off her.. she shines brilliant, even covered in sweat and mud much of the time

... not an entertaining film in the normal sense watching, you just have to go with its raw qualities, feeling like you were there evidencing the happenings... not all questions get answered.

At the beginning we are introduced to the main character of the story who is suppose to be an American journalist in Nicaragua. She is a drunk and sleeps with men to earn money to buy shampoo !! She meets a British character and again sleeps with him for $50 !!

For the next two hours we are suppose to believe her romance with this guy and feel thrilled by their cat and mouse activities with authorities in this country. This film does not have a romantic angle nor a political intrigue to it. You have to insure long sex scenes and useless terrible story line that doesn't go anywhere. I don't understand what was Denis had in mind making this film, probably she loved the book and didn't realize 80s South America doesn't translate good to 2020s. At least she could have spend some time going through the politics of the country or the region. Once again Cannes Film Festival showed they give out their prizes based on whose turn it is to win rather than the quality of what is presented.

Claire Denis once again delivers a film of nuance, sensuality, secrecy. We are treated to excellent performances by Ms. Qualley, & Mr. Alwyn. Supporting roles by Mr. Romano, Mr. Ramirez, & Mr. Safdie contribute well. This world is one of heat, sweat, ruins.

Our protagonists are desperate people. There is subterfuge. There is danger. There's sex. There are secrets. There's heat, in the air and in their touch.

Qualley is riveting. She's on the move. Desperation emanates from her skin. Her glib retorts belie the fear darting from her wide eyes. She is relentless in her ability to look for allies.

Alwyn is at first slow, measured, calm. Later, there's anxiety building within his edifice of control. He is abandoned. He is left.

These are two people caught up in circumstances beyond their control. Each has lost their moorings. Needing each other, yet hesitant to fully trust. They are in their own singular world for which they are ill equipped & poorly prepared.

Sex brings comfort; momentary perhaps, yet with a sense of intimacy and security. They are thrown together on the run.

Denis creates a milieu of darkness, where one cannot see well. Then there cracks letting streaks of light in. Could it be love?