Connect with us

Movie Reviews

The Trouble with Jessica movie review (2025) | Roger Ebert

Published

on

The Trouble with Jessica movie review (2025) | Roger Ebert

The title and theme of “The Trouble with Jessica” echo one of Alfred Hitchcock’s lesser films, “The Trouble with Harry,” better remembered now for Shirley MacLaine’s debut performance and the gorgeous fall scenery than for its chilly dark humor about a dead body that keeps being moved around. Here, the title character, Jessica (Indira Varma), is dead for most of this film, and it is also darkly humorous, sometimes lacerating, but not at all chilly. The tone is heightened and the stakes are savage as the score turns from classical to urgent, dissonant jazz.

Like “The Menu,” “Death of a Unicorn,” “Triangle of Sadness,” “Mickey 17,” “Glass Onion,” and other recent eat-the-rich-themed films, “The Trouble with Jessica” gives us wealthy, privileged characters faced with dire circumstances that expose their hypocrisy, cluelessness, and willingness to jettison morality at the expense of those with less power. It is divided into segments separated by arch chapter titles: “The Trouble with Friends,” “The Trouble with Neighbors,” “The Trouble with Rich People,” etc.

As it begins, Sarah (tiny, husky-voiced Shirley Henderson) and her husband Tom (Alan Tudyk) are getting ready for a dinner party in their spacious and luxurious London home. Tom is making his specialty dessert, a sort of French cherry pie called clafoutis, which will play a major role throughout the evening. We will learn that Sarah is under a lot of stress and that this dinner will be their last party in the house, so it is especially important to her.

The guests they are expecting are their closest friends, Richard (Rufus Sewell) and his wife, Beth (Olivia Williams), who call just before arrival to say that they are bringing Jessica with them.  Shirley is very annoyed. She calls Jessica “Little Miss ‘Aren’t I Fascinating’” and complains that she shamelessly flirts with Tom. Jessica has just published a best-seller Shirley describes as “400 pages of confession porn.”

The friends have known each other since college, and in Tom’s home office, there is a photograph of the five of them in cap and gown at their college graduation. When they sit down to dinner, the conversation reflects a deep history and understanding of each other’s vulnerabilities, some of which inspire sympathy (Beth is protective of Jessica) and some reflect long-standing arguments. Richard and Beth spar over his career as a lawyer representing men accused of rape. He admits he hates cross-examining the victims and does not like his clients, but he is good at it and it makes him a lot of money. Beth, who counsels women survivors of domestic violence, has the privilege of feeling that she is morally superior while she benefits from the money Richard makes by not minding a bit of moral compromise. This is clearly a persistent source of conflict in their relationship, but compared to what comes next, their discussion is a simmer, not a blast.

Advertisement

The blast comes from Jessica, who is sharp-tongued and manipulative. She tells Richard he is a charming amoralist and Beth she is “a po-faced do-gooder.”  She accuses the couples of being boring and unfairly lucky. This prompts Sarah to tell the group that Tom’s most recent architectural project has gotten them into such a dire financial bind that they have had to sell the house and are desperately hoping to close the deal immediately. This is the first, but not the last, time someone in the film will say that if things do not go well, it will “end me.” 

The one who is ended, though, is Jessica, who steps out into the garden and commits suicide. Sarah’s first reaction is that if they call the police, the people buying their home will cancel, and their last hope of financial stability will be gone. She is the first to show us that under pressure, even people who like to think of themselves as “good” will realize that they are more selfish than they allowed themselves to admit. Sarah’s view is that it does not matter where Jessica died, so why not move her? When Tom objects, she barks, “You don’t have the luxury of a conscience right now.”

At first, Tom, Beth, and Richard are horrified and want to call the police immediately. But as the evening wears on, and the doorbell keeps ringing with unexpected visits, we discover more about the characters’ history. And we see the ethical tipping points that end up with a farcical but still genuinely tense effort to move Jessica’s body. 

The script, by James Handel and director Matt Winn, is tightly constructed. The surprise visitors that keep showing up prevent it from getting too talky. When they do talk, the characters’ long history, including support for each other in difficult times, gives them exactly the ammunition they need to provoke and push each other. Seeing how quickly they burst through the thin veneer of cozy comity and unleash utter ruthlessness is unsettling but bracing. At first, we lean forward, trying to figure out who will jettison sensible rationality. By the end, though, we are left wondering uncomfortably what our own tipping points might be. 

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movie Reviews

Movie Review – SHAKA: A STORY OF ALOHA

Published

on

Movie Review – SHAKA: A STORY OF ALOHA
SHAKA: A STORY OF ALOHA is shared with the audience by investigator Steve Sue in a calm and charming manner, but this documentary tells a powerful, positive and fascinating story. The “hang loose” thumb, pinky sign that originated in Hawaii and carries many meanings is the focus of this film. I just learned this gesture is called a “Shaka” and has a worldwide impact.  And, there are Shaka Contests.  Who knew? And how do you throw a Shaka? For me, […]
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: “I Was a Stranger” and You Welcomed Me

Published

on

Movie Review: “I Was a Stranger” and You Welcomed Me

Just when you think that you’ve seen and heard all sides of the human migration debate, and long after you fear that the cruel, the ignorant and the scapegoaters have won that shouting match, a film comes along and defies ignorance and prejudice by both embracing and upending the conventional “immigrant” narrative.

“I Was a Strranger” is the first great film of 2026. It’s cleverly written, carefully crafted and beautifully-acted with characters who humanize many facets of the “migration” and “illegal immigration” debate. The debut feature of writer-director Brandt Andersen, “Stranger” is emotional and logical, blunt and heroic. It challenges viewers to rethink their preconceptions and prejudices and the very definition of “heroic.”

The fact that this film — which takes its title from the Book of Matthew, chapter 25, verse 35 — is from the same faith-based film distributor that made millions by feeding the discredited human trafficking wish fulfillment fantasy “Sound of Freedom” to an eager conservative Christian audience makes this film something of a minor miracle in its own right.

But as Angel Studios has also urged churchgoers not just to animated Nativity stories (“The King of Kings”) and “David” musicals, but Christian resistence to fascism (“Truth & Treason” and “Bonheoffer”) , their atonement is almost complete.

Andersen deftly weaves five compact but saga-sized stories about immigrants escaping from civil-war-torn Syria into a sort of interwoven, overlapping “Babel” or “Crash” about migration.

Advertisement

“The Doctor” is about a Chicago hospital employee (Yasmine Al Massri of “Palestine 36” and TV’s “Quantico”) whose flashback takes us to the hospital in Aleppo, Syria, bombed and terrorized by the Assad regime’s forces, and what she and her tween daughter (Massa Daoud) went through to escape — from literally crawling out of a bombed building to dodging death at the border to the harrowing small boat voyage from Turkey to Greece.

“The Soldier” follows loyal Assad trooper Mustafa (Yahya Mahayni was John the Baptist in Martin Scorsese Presents: The Saints”) through his murderous work in Aleppo, and the crisis of conscience that finally hits him as he sees the cruel and repressive regime he works for at its most desperate.

“The Smuggler” is Marwan, a refugee-camp savvy African — played by the terrific French actor Omar Sy of “The Intouchables” and “The Book of Clarence” — who cynically makes his money buying disposable inflatable boats, disposable outboards and not-enough-life-jackets in Turkey to smuggle refugees to Greece.

“The Poet” (Ziad Bakri of “Screwdriver”) just wants to get his Syrian family of five out of Turkey and into Europe on Marwan’s boat.

And “The Captain” (Constantine Markoulakis of “The Telemachy”) commands a Hellenic Coast Guard vessel, a man haunted by the harrowing rescues he must carry out daily and visions of the bodies of those he doesn’t.

Advertisement

Andersen, a Tampa native who made his mark producing Tom Cruise spectacles (“American Made”), Mel Gibson B-movies (“Panama”) and the occasional “Everest” blockbuster, expands his short film “Refugee” to feature length for “I Was a Stranger.” He doesn’t so much alter the formula or reinvent this genre of film as find points of view that we seldom see that force us to reconsider what we believe through their eyes.

Sy’s Smuggler has a sickly little boy that he longs to take to Chicago. He runs his ill-gotten-gains operation, profiting off human misery, to realize that dream. We see glimpses of what might be compassion, but also bullying “customers” and his new North African assistant (Ayman Samman). Keeping up the hard front he shows one and all, we see him callously buy life jackets in the bazaar — never enough for every customer to have one in any given voyage.

The Captain sits for dinner with family and friends and has to listen to Greek prejudices and complaints about this human life and human rights crisis, which is how the worlds sees Greece reacting to this “invasion.” But as he and his first mate recount lives saved and the horrors of lives lost, that quibbling is silenced.

Here and there we see and hear (in Arabic and Greek with subtitles, and English) little moments of “rising above” human pettiness and cruelty and the simple blessings of kindness.

Advertisement

“I Was a Stranger” was finished in 2024 and arrives in cinemas at one of the bleakest moments in recent history. Cruelty is running amok, unchecked and unpunished. Countries are being destabilized, with the fans of alleged “strong man” rule cheering it on.

Andersen carefully avoids politics — Middle Eastern, Israeli, European and American — save for the opening scene’s zoom in on that Chicago hospital, passing a gaudily named “Trump” hotel in the process, and a general condemnation of Syria’s Assad mob family regime.

But Andersen’s bold movie, with its message so against the grain of current events, compromised media coverage and the mostly conservative audience that has become this film distributor’s base, plays like a wet slap back to reality.

And as any revival preacher will tell you, putting a positive message out there in front of millions is the only way to convert hundreds among the millions who have lost their way.

star

Rating: PG-13, violence, smoking, racial slurs

Cast: Yasmine Al Massri, Yahya Mahayni, Ziad Bakri, Omar Sy, Ayman Samman, Massa Daoud, Jason Beghe and Constantine Markoulakis

Advertisement

Credits: Scripted and directed by Brandt Andersen. An Angel Studios release.

Running time: 1:43

Unknown's avatar

About Roger Moore

Movie Critic, formerly with McClatchy-Tribune News Service, Orlando Sentinel, published in Spin Magazine, The World and now published here, Orlando Magazine, Autoweek Magazine

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘The Tank’ Review: A War Film More Abstract Than Brutal (Prime Video) – Micropsia

Published

on

‘The Tank’ Review: A War Film More Abstract Than Brutal (Prime Video) – Micropsia

The Tiger Is the Tank. Or rather, the type of German tank that gives the film its international title—just in case anyone might confuse this war story with an adventure movie involving wild animals. The tank itself is the film’s container, much as The Boat was in the legendary 1981 film it openly seeks to emulate in more than one respect, or as the more recent tank was in the Israeli film Lebanon (2009). Yes, much of Dennis Gansel’s movie unfolds inside a tank called Tiger, but what it is ultimately trying to tell goes well beyond its cramped metal walls.

This large-scale Prime Video war production has been described by many as the platform’s answer to Netflix’s success with All Quiet on the Western Front, the highly decorated German film released in 2022. In practice, it is a very different proposition. Despite the fanfare surrounding its release—Amazon even gave it a theatrical run a few months ago, something it rarely does—the film made a far more modest impact. Watching it, the reasons become clear. This is a darker, stranger movie, one that flirts as much with horror as with monotony, and that positions itself less as a traditional war film than as an ethical and philosophical meditation on warfare.

The first section—an intense and technically impressive combat sequence—takes place during what would later be known as the Battle of the Dnieper, which unfolded over several months in 1943 on the Eastern Front, as Soviet forces pushed back the Nazi advance. Der Tiger is the type of tank carrying a compact platoon—played by David Schütter, Laurence Rupp, Leonard Kunz, Sebastian Urzendowsky, and Yoran Leicher—that miraculously survives the aerial destruction of a bridge over the river.

Soon afterward—or so it seems—the group is assigned a mission that, at least in its initial setup, recalls Saving Private Ryan. Lieutenant Gerkens (Schütter) is ordered to rescue Colonel Von Harnenburg, stranded behind enemy lines. From there, the film becomes a journey through an infernal landscape of ruined cities, corpses, forests, and fog—a setting that, thanks to the way it is shot, feels more fantastical than realistic.

That choice is no accident. As the journey begins to echo Apocalypse Now, it becomes clear that the film is less interested in conventional suspense—mines on the road, the threat of ambush—than in the strangeness of its situations and environments. When the tank plunges into the water and briefly operates like a submarine, one may reasonably wonder whether such technology actually existed in the 1940s, or whether the film has deliberately drifted into a more extravagant, symbolic territory.

This is the kind of film whose ending is likely to inspire more frustration than affection. Though heavily foreshadowed, it is the sort of conclusion that tends to irritate audiences: cryptic, somewhat open-ended, and more suggestive than explicit. That makes sense, given that the film is less concerned with depicting the daily mechanics of war than with grappling with its aftermath—ethical, moral, psychological, and physical.

Advertisement

In its own way, The Tank functions as a kind of mea culpa. The platoon becomes a microcosm of a nation that “followed orders” and committed—or allowed to be committed—horrific acts in its name. The flashbacks scattered throughout the film make this point unmistakably clear. The problem is that, while these ideas may sound compelling when summarized in a few sentences (or in a review), the film never manages to turn them into something fully alive—narratively, visually, or dramatically.

Only in brief moments—largely thanks to Gerkens’s perpetually worried, anguished expression—do those ideas achieve genuine cinematic weight. They are not enough, however, to sustain a two-hour runtime that increasingly feels repetitive and inert. Unlike the films by Steven Spielberg, Wolfgang Petersen, Francis Ford Coppola, and others it so clearly references, The Tank remains closer to a concept than to a drama, more an intriguing reflection than a truly effective film.


Continue Reading

Trending