Stars at Noon

... 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.

Unlikeable characters and cast.

Possibly would have been better with different lead actors?

Script seemed poor, and situations unbelievable.

But hey, you may like it? But it wasn't for me.

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.

The talented Claire Denis fails to move the plot or character fast enough to maintain your interest in this languid tale of people thrown together during times of civil conflict in Nicaragua.

This may have worked if a Soderbergh or some suchlike would have gotten hold of the story but this just meanders along.

Why is there so much of Qualley naked? I get it that she is a 'hooker with a heart of gold' but why is an American prostitute in Nicaragua during a civil war?

The problem is the pacing which doesn't drive the story along considering its an actioner about a 2 'lovers' trying to flee a war zone even though US/Nicaraguan forces conspire to stop them.