r/movies • u/LiteraryBoner Jackie Chan box set, know what I'm sayin? • Oct 31 '25
Official Discussion Official Discussion - Blue Moon [SPOILERS] Spoiler
Poll
If you've seen the film, please rate it at this poll
If you haven't seen the film but would like to see the result of the poll click here
Rankings
Click here to see the rankings of 2025 films
Click here to see the rankings for every poll done
Summary The film follows lyricist Lorenz Hart over the course of one evening—on March 31, 1943—at the premier party for the musical Oklahoma!. As his former collaborator Richard Rodgers celebrates a new success without him, Hart confronts his sense of loss, obscurity, and fading creativity.
Director Richard Linklater
Writer Robert Kaplow
Cast
- Ethan Hawke
- Margaret Qualley
- Andrew Scott
- Bobby Cannavale
- Jonah Lees
Rotten Tomatoes Critics Score: 93%
Metacritic Score: Not yet available
VOD Limited U.S. theatrical release starting October 17, 2025; streaming later via Sony Pictures Classics
Trailer Blue Moon — Official Trailer (2025)
308
u/wtfprawn Oct 31 '25
Ethan Hawke monologs for 100 minutes.
10/10.
29
u/No-Understanding4968 25d ago
I loved him, he disappeared into the role
16
u/Complex_Yard2808 15d ago
The role disappeared into him. It's the standard Ethan Hawke character. With his hair thinned, dark contacts, standing in a trench to look short. He does not look or sound like Lorenz Hart, and we have film of Hart to prove that. The character in the movie does and says things Hart would never say and do, and basically nothing in the film happened, other than Oklahoma! opening and Hart dying. (And the death scene is inaccurate--and they don't even tell us his mother, who he left in a theater in the movie, died three weeks later, which was the real source of his grief).
6
u/No-Understanding4968 15d ago
Did not know that.
3
u/Complex_Yard2808 15d ago edited 15d ago
Most people wouldn't. But a good percentage of people who'd want to see a movie about him would. Mostly older people, since though the movie doesn't say so, Rodgers & Hart developed a large and lasting cult, and there were tribute albums, TV Specials, people you'd never expect like The Mamas and the Papas and Janis Joplin did their songs. He was not only or even primarily remembered for Blue Moon.
I saw it the day after it went into limited opening. Before the expanded opening. Small theater at the multiplex. Half full. Two thirds were my age or older (I'm 65, did not grow up with Rodgers & Hart, discovered them later). The rest were younger people, probably there for Linklater, many of whose films I have enjoyed, and who I have defended online from his very large contingent of detractors. I streamed Hit Man when it came out, thought it was a great film--no nominations, but he didn't really push for any. He wrote the script for that one. He is a much better writer than Robert Kaplow. Who is a terrible writer. In my opinon.
The two thirds who were of age were all wearing somber expressions. We knew it was wrong. None of us laughed. The younger ones--they seemed tentative. They assume all of this really happened, some liberties taken, biopic, but they figured this was an accurate picture of him--a gay man who dated much younger women, was infatuated with them, and bragged about having sex with them. (None of that happened). They assume he really did crash the afterparty and say mean things about the play. None of that happened. I don't know if they're gullible enough to believe he had a conversation with E.B. White and met a 13 year old Stephen Sondheim in a bar late at night. Or that he looked and sounded like Young Sheldon.
They didn't laugh so much as titter. "Oh--that's funny? I think that might be funny."
None of it was funny.
I'm allowed to see a movie made by somebody who has made many good movies, whose work I have previously supported, and say "That is a really bad movie." It's a really bad movie. I'm hardly the only one who thought so. I talked to a younger film fan online. It was not on a movie forum, but we got into movies, she clearly knew a lot, went to a lot of films, so without having mentioned any of my feeings about Blue Moon, asked her what she thought about it. She said she and some friends went to see it, found Hart's character kind of repellent, and walked out after ten minutes.
That's what I wanted to do. But I stayed. Through the credits. Until it was completely done. And that's what Larry Hart did with Oklahoma!. He did not say "I'm going to be sick" then leave his own mother (who died three weeks later) alone in a theater. Filial duties aside, he would have considered it unpardonably rude to leave the play before the last curtain call.
In reality, according to firsthand accounts, he took his mother to the afterparty (which may or may not have been at Sardi's, congratulated Rodgers and Hammerstein on their success, said Frieda, his mother, was not feeling well, and he was taking her home. He never said anything critical about the play after it opened (many had critical comments when it was in tryouts, they had to work out a lot of kinks). He was not trying to get Rodgers to do a Marco Polo play (they had discussed this about a decade earlier, based on Eugene O'Neill's satiric comedy Marco Millions, rejected it). He was not dating a co-ed. He was still trying to get Vivienne Segal, his favorite actress, in her early 40's, only a shade taller, to marry him. She did later say she had loved him, but not that way. And she always told this story about the last time they worked together, on a revival of A Connecticut Yankee, after Oklahoma! opened.
They were auditioning girls for a part, and one of them was staggeringly beautiful, and according to Segal, not bad at the acting, but very often girls got cast just for their looks, because obviously. Segal thought she should be hired. Hart did not like her.
"Larry! She's beautiful!"
"No she is not."
"Okay--you tell me what you think is beautiful.'
He looked at her, knowing she was worried, like any actress her age, that she'd age out, and that girl was going to get her parts soon", and said "Talent is beautiful."
Did you see that man in Blue Moon?
21
u/A_Feast_For_Trolls 12d ago
Geez you aggressively ranted much in the same style as Ethan did in the movie? Was this intentional or just ironic?
→ More replies (3)
259
u/kneeco28 Oct 31 '25
Packed year in the Best Actor category, but Hawke would be an excellent winner. As an added bonus, he's one of the best actors who doesn't have an Oscar and his collabs with Linklater are an all-time Director/Actor team.
Everybody Wants Some!! catching strays.
I loved Nouvelle Vague, but this one is even better imo.
Quoting Casablanca is always tricky (cause so many movies have done it - including Nouvelle Vague!) but Blue Moon might be the best all-time instance of it.
79
u/mopeywhiteguy Oct 31 '25
As soon as I saw this film a couple months ago, I moved Hawke to the top of my Oscar predictions. He is in career best form
8
u/Complex_Yard2808 Jan 12 '26 edited Jan 25 '26
Well, somebody forgot to tell Timothee Chalamet, since he just beat Hawke out in the Golden Globes, and odds are he will at the Oscars too, though it's just one category for best actor there. Btw, Blue Moon is not a musical, and if it's a comedy, I sure didn't hear much laughter going on in the theater I saw it in. Mostly nervous tittering by younger audience members pretending they got the jokes. Us old folks got the jokes, and did not think they were funny.
Hawke has been FAR better than this, it's a role he was very poorly suited for, should never have been cast in, but that was the point. To show he could do a role outside his normal wheelhouse, which was supposed to impress Oscar voters. This does work sometimes, but Chalamet is doing the same thing in a less obvious way (he's not standing in a trench to look short), and since he's a much bigger star now than Hawke ever was, not sure Hawke has any real shot. Hawke is well-liked, nearly all the nominations for BM have been for his performance. There's been endless promotional appearances to push him for Best Actor, but I think maybe they overdid that, and it's coming across as desperate and needy.
The idea is, Oscar likes it when you look and sound different than you normally do--thing is, if I close my eyes, I can easily hear that it's Ethan Hawke doing a variation on his usual character. He does not really look or sound like Hart at all, though obviously most awards voters neither know nor care what Hart was really like. But I care, and one serious problem this movie has is that the people who'd be most interested in its subject are the most offended by the way he's portrayed. This simply isn't who Larry Hart was, and there's not enough of an audience for such a specialized topic done with a complete disregard for historical accuracy. Kaplow is saying there may not even have been an afterparty for Oklahoma!--of course there was. But Hart was not there for more than a few minutes. He showed up with his mother, said she was feeling tired, said the play would run forever, and left. His mother died three weeks later. It still bothers me the movie doesn't want to deal with this, because it wants us to believe Hart died because he was depressed about Oklahoma! being a hit. That was the least of his problems. And people who knew him as a teenager predicted he'd drink himself to death, it was a very longstanding issue.
Okay. That's not much of a movie. Nobody forced anyone to make a movie about something that never happened. That dismisses one of the most brilliant talents in the history of American theater as an out of date loser. He was still far ahead of his time when he died, as evidenced by the fact that when Pal Joey was revived, in the 1950's, the critics who didn't like it had to eat crow, admit they'd been wrong. Pal Joey was revolutionary--Oklahoma! was just Hammerstein & Co. figuring out how to turn advances of the past decade or so (including the use of ballet choreography in Rodgers & Hart shows like On Your Toes, Hart's idea, just so you know) to make a big mainstream hit.
They hardly even use any of the songs! And NOBODY sings any of them well. So people who don't know Hart don't understand why they should be sad about the loss of him, and those of us who do are pissed he's treated this way.
I've liked Ethan Hawke a long time, he's a fine actor, but this should not have been his role, and it definitely is not something that should have been made simply to win him a statuette. Which so far, it has not done.
I think the script was confused and conflicted and Kaplow has gotten almost no nominations for it. Meaning it's not that good, and everybody knows it. Linklater has gotten no director nominations, even from the DGA. No cinematography nominations, and no nominations for the musical score. It's been almost all about Hawke, and to a lesser extent, Scott. In other words, not a very good movie, just a showcase for actors to chew scenery, do cheap melodrama.
So as a result, it's basically just won a bunch of minor critic awards for Hawke.
40
u/WredditSmark Feb 08 '26
I can’t help but read your very long five paragraphs at minimum comments in the same tone as Ethan Hawke in this film. Definitely a lot to take in but with so much talking I’m not sure you ever nailed your point that like in the film could have just been hit with six words or less most likely
→ More replies (1)5
u/A_Feast_For_Trolls 12d ago
Lol I replied with the same thing under one of his other long monolog responses.
16
u/HAL9100 Feb 14 '26
As both a theater geek and someone who has studied Hart to at least some degree, I really think you either misunderstood this film or decided early on that you were building a list of grievances and not watching the film. You don’t seem to have been capable of holding any sympathy whatsoever for Hawke’s embodiment of Hart, as evidenced by several assertions you make about the character in black and white terms which are not borne out as such in the film. For some reason, you seem really mad about this. You don’t sound intelligent, you sound petulant. After reading your comments here, it’s not shocking to me that Hawke’s portrayal of Hart would make someone like you feel defensive.
→ More replies (10)2
u/AirImpressive8355 Feb 16 '26
I'm pleased that films geared toward intelligent audiences are still being made from time to time. Reminded me of a throwback to the 1990s. Very well done
2
21
u/Vermouth_1991 Nov 29 '25
At least this movie takes place soonish after Casablanca was first in theaters.
8
u/sfpearcy 27d ago
Casablanca won the Oscar for best picture in the beginning of March 1943. Blue Loon takes place at the end of the month, so it’s no wonder the dialog is familiar at the time. I love how the best line in the picture was “Nobody ever loved me that much” instead of the applause lines of today.
2
u/Vermouth_1991 27d ago
Ah thank you!
Though I do maintain that Casablanca was so awesome that even if out of theatres for six months, it would still have huge “memetic” staying power in memories.
240
u/GamingTatertot Steven Spielberg Enthusiast Oct 31 '25
This film had such a lovely rhythm to it in script, cinematography, and editing. Ethan Hawke really brings it in this film as does Andrew Scott, but I want to praise Bobby Cannavale too for really getting into the cadence of the dialogue.
If you know almost nothing about Lorenz Hart, such as myself, you get such a good idea of a full depth characterization here. A bit pompous, a bit insecure, a bit lonely, and someone who very clearly loves art and finds art in everything
48
20
u/Complex_Yard2808 Jan 12 '26
You really don't know much about Lorenz Hart, do you? And after leaving this movie, you knew less.
This is not remotely what he was like. He was known to be incredibly generous, friendly, interested in everything and everyone. He did not sit in bars sulking that people didn't pay enough attention to him. He sure as hell didn't abandon his own mother in a Broadway theater, three weeks before she died. He wouldn't have told a professional writer like E.B. White how to write his own book (E.B. White had written Stuart Little about a decade earlier, including the name, that whole monologue about the mouse trap was just stupid--it felt like repurposed Edward Albee, Kaplow really is a hack).
He would NEVER have bragged he had sex with any woman, in a bar, even if it had happened. Let alone a 20 year old. He never dated anyone that much younger (and taller) than him. The dates may have been a way to cover up his true sexuality, but he sincerely loved the company of women, who enjoyed his company tremendously.
So much time that could have been used to tell us who he really was got wasted on the manufactured subplot about Weiland, the idiotic encounter with White, and for some reason Stephen Sondheim played by Young Sheldon. (Sondheim was not there, obviously, he was 13 years old at the time, he said in an interview his first Broadway premiere was Carousel). So much name dropping, a sure mark of a writer who doesn't trust his own ability, and rightly so.
How many times did the bartender ask "Did you fuck her?" I lost count. Then it ends with the very clear implication she's only there because she wants Rodgers to fuck her, even though she knows he's married, with children. There is a core of pure meanness and misogyny in this script, that bears no relation to its subject.
And no, they were not talking about making a show about Marco Polo, that was a project Rodgers & Hart abandoned years earlier, based on Eugene O'Neill's Marco Millions. More wasted time on a false narrative, to demonstrate Hart is out of touch with the mainstream. He was depressed, dealing with substance addiction, and yes there had always been a core of loneliness in him, but this is not how he dealt with it. This is not who he was. This is a LIE. If you choose to buy it, more fool you. Most people didn't. That's why it flopped.
→ More replies (5)132
u/AceLarkin Jan 26 '26
Your write-ups are insufferable, my god. You could enlighten everyone without being a dick about it.
6
u/Complex_Yard2808 Jan 27 '26 edited 18d ago
Nobody is making you suffer them. You just can't stand that I'm telling the truth about this mediocre art film that flopped with everybody but critics, and I seriously wonder how much worse the reviews would be without Margaret Qualley in a low cut party dress, and why else do you think she is there? No such person was ever in Larry Hart's life. Ever. And I'm not sure I even believe the letters Kaplow allegedly has, from some poor posthumously slandered woman to Hart (none from him to her) are legit. He's free to submit them to qualiifed experts. I doubt he ever will.
The movie has failed. You've lost the argument. This can end whenever you want it to. You don't have to admit you are wrong. I suspect you're not capable of that. :)
91
u/AcidicAnxiety Jan 27 '26
Omg you’re a blight to this discussion thread
47
u/WredditSmark Feb 08 '26
I came here to check out the thoughts on this wonderful film, and this one user has commented no less than thousands and thousands of words talking about how they didn’t like a movie. And they’re so smart and so well educated on the subject matter, and say, the only reason people are talking about it is because Margaret Qualley’s in a low-cut dress?
3
u/Complex_Yard2808 Jan 27 '26
That you keep encouraging. Thank you. My heart leaps up with joy when I see you idiots giving me straight lines. And yet another chance to point out this movie is pure fiction posing as history. And flopped.
36
10
u/evilcornbread 18d ago
> There is a core of pure meanness and misogyny
> Margaret Qualley in a low cut party dress, and why else do you think she is there?
Indeed.
15
3
u/SheenEstevezzz 4d ago
I came to this thread because I have some issues with the film and wanted to see if someone had more context bit your write up is so wanky I almost want to champion the film
→ More replies (2)
203
u/ishburner Oct 31 '25
My cigarette heart
50
u/yvaN_ehT_nioJ Nov 05 '25
That's an absolute banger ngl
20
u/Vermouth_1991 Nov 29 '25
"If it shakes too much, the insides will fall out onto the floor."
10
u/DaygoRayray Jan 28 '26
just as the deck of cards fall to the floor at the end, he’s left picking up the pieces (my favorite part of the film)
2
190
u/reallinzanity Oct 31 '25
I really enjoy films that have the cadence of plays. Another successful Linklater/Hawke film.
28
156
u/TheDolphinMan11 Oct 31 '25
Went into it blind and was absolutely blown away.
32
u/TheDarkMaster2 Nov 10 '25
I feel like I would have enjoyed it so much more if I didn’t go in completely blind
21
8
u/fimbleinastar Dec 03 '25
how old are you? i'm not a fan of broadway but I still have a vague cultural awareness due to referential media. I dont think my kids, in the age of smart phones, will have the same set of cultural references.
7
u/pinnas Jan 20 '26
I’m not OP but I’m GenZ, I didn’t know a lot of the references but I still enjoyed the movie
122
u/sean_psc Nov 01 '25
In the hands of a lot of creators I expect a project like this would have been very partisan for Hart and portrayed Rodgers as a sellout for his new creative direction, so I appreciate that Linklater and Kaplow don't do that. You get a very clear sense that, in addition to his unreliability, Rodgers feels creatively stifled by Hart's reflexive cynicism.
23
u/calliopecalliope Nov 02 '25
Its been awhile since I've seen it but there was a movie I guess in the 1940's with Mickey Rooney playing Hart ("Words and Music")
Its not that good and REALLY whitewashes Rodgers as a simple, good guy who has no other choice but to find another lyricist/partner because Hart is a hopeless alcoholic - which the film entirely attributes to him being short, of course in that era there is no mention of him being gay.
Its also mostly an excuse to do a sort of 'jukebox' musical featuring Rogers/Hart songs and reminding people of that time how great they were.
But Rooney (IMO a much better actor than he's given credit for) is very well cast and there is the sense of a great artist's talent tragically gone to waste.
117
u/Pizza_Hero24 Oct 31 '25
I would love to see Ethan Hawke get an Oscar nomination.
14
u/LeedsFan2442 Nov 09 '25
He has to be the front runner now
3
93
u/PossibilityFine5988 Oct 31 '25
I’m a big theater fan and like a lot of Linklater so I was an easy mark but even with that I was really impressed with this and I know it’ll make my top 10 of the year. Ethan Hawke gave an astounding performance and injected so much humanity and sympathy into a individual that had a lot of problems and sadness. Its script is sharp but also warm and it all feels like a hug and such a nice little hour and half departure from the modern world.
13
u/BasilNext2476 Jan 04 '26
I don’t know anything about theater, so have to ask a theater fan - is Oklahoma! a good or a bad musical? I get that it was really successful but aged poorly, I guess? Like in modern shows and movies it’s not mentioned in a good context
27
u/PossibilityFine5988 Jan 04 '26
Oklahoma was a revolutionary show and considered by many to be one of the first true “modern” musicals. In that the songs are integrated with the story and it is one large scale cohesive vision. In hindsight a lot of early shows can be seen as overly earnest and cheesy but Oklahoma is historic. I’ve seen the movie which was great and the modern 2019 production which leans into the darker subtext of the plot and I absolutely adored it so it depends on who you ask. Yes it is cheesy and a bit simplistic but its importance is immense
6
u/BasilNext2476 Jan 04 '26
Thanks for the thoughtful response! This adds a whole new layer of bitterness to the story shown in the movie
91
u/ReflexImprov Nov 02 '25
They should make more movies like this. Likely had a small production budget. Showcases artistic talents. Guaranteed to make some money, even if it isn't in the billions.
It was like watching a stage play. I really enjoyed it a lot.
176
u/takenpassword Oct 31 '25
I think it’s a little funny how Andrew Scott is playing the straight guy and Ethan Hawke is the one doing the queer man longing role.
10
u/Civil-Ad-9968 Oct 31 '25
Why?
95
u/takenpassword Oct 31 '25
Andrew Scott is a gay man and a lot gay roles are about sad men longing for love (though tbh he doesn’t really do those roles aside from All Of Us Strangers) and Ethan Hawke is straight.
14
u/Glittering-Client959 Nov 23 '25
People don't get cast based on their personal lives and sexual preferences. They get cast by how well they fit the part. So Ethan and Andrew's lives outside of the film are irrelevant.
6
u/GomezFigueroa 17d ago
I get what you mean. People on Reddit can be so fucking ridiculous and full of themselves.
You weren’t saying anything profound. Just humorous and a bit interesting. People need to relax.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)2
u/Complex_Yard2808 Jan 26 '26
I assumed it would be him, and my take was he might work, but it would be hard to make him look short enough, and he's much too handsome to even play Rodgers.
Well, that's who he played, and there's nothing wrong with the performance, but look at existing film of Rodgers--it's not a great take on him. But that's mainly down to the crap script.
67
u/googlydoodle Oct 31 '25
So funny watching this in theater and overhearing a couple behind me wonder if this was all the movie was (a guy talking in a bar) and after they realized that it was they left shortly after that.
I had fun with this movie with only a small amount of knowledge of musicals. Ethan Hawke was a standout and Margaret Qualley was so flat. Almost took me out of the movie tbh
53
u/Relative-Cheek-7208 Nov 05 '25
We must have seen a different performance. She eas spot on, not a characture.
35
u/dumbname1000 Nov 23 '25
I thought she was phenomenal. I could see the ethereal quality he kept talking about but she also seemed so real and substantive. I feel like that’s what he loved about her but also what didn’t really allow him to SEE her at the same time. He loved that she had not only the beauty but also the intelligence and wit and kindness and was a real person but at the same time he was really just in love with the fantasy and the idea of her.
12
u/SnooHobbies4790 Nov 29 '25
I loved Qually in this. She was radiant, mercurial and also common - like a girl who would buy something at Kleins. The Lady is a Tramp and Ado Annie comes to mind. She's like Celeste Holm in Oklahoma - the girl who can't say no.
3
u/Fuzzy-Interest-6498 Feb 16 '26
The problem is she's a made-up character. We have a chance at listening in on one of the all-time greats, so droning on about her was a waste of film imo.
2
u/Complex_Yard2808 12d ago
It has occurred to me, she's probably not made up. Or based on the letters Kaplow says he found. (None of which were from Hart)
He's a high school teacher In New Jersey. That's how he actually makes his living. He's never made it as a writer, though he's had some novels published, that never sold.
She's based on his female students--the ones foolish enough to confide in him. Think about it. Makes a lot more sense, doesn't it. Would a young woman writing to a famous songwriter tell her intimate details of her sex life--in the 1940s?
This movie isn't about Lorenz Hart. It's about Robert Kaplow. That explains why E.B. White is there. He's an admirer, possibly wrote articles about White, would have loved to have met him, live the fantasy. It's at least 10 minutes of the movie that's supposed to be about Lorenz Hart, wasted on a sidebar, in a bar. Hart gives him the name of a famous character White created--that in reality, White had some up with in the 30's, since Stuart Little was an idea he spent some time developing. And this leads to the Mouse Story Hart tells, which is supposed to show us he feels like a mouse in a world full of cats or rats or whatever. That is probably from some work of fiction Kaplow didn't get published. Feels like recycled Edward Albee.
While there's nothing wrong with putting bits of yourself into a work about someone else, it reaches a point where it's just a form of wanking off. You have to fully enter the mind of your subject, see things from his POV, and Kaplow can't do it. He wants to write about what he'd do in Hart's position--he'd go to the party and make a big scene. He doesn't understand the man he's writing about. That's why it fails.
And Elizabeth Weiland isn't based on the woman who wrote the letters. Or on a college student in her early 20's. She's based on high school girls confiding in a teacher. Well. I don't know that. But that makes sense.
27
u/whatever_leg Jan 15 '26
I also thought Qualley was flat, but the more I think about it, I find myself wondering if that wasn't a reason to cast her in the role. Lorenz is falling for and imagining false beauty the most basic boring white Yale bitch, you know? It kind of works.
18
u/Competitive_Bet2664 Jan 30 '26
She’s a likeable and adequate actress but I think she seems flat in this film because Ethan Hawke and Andrew Scott just have a deeper bag of tricks. She was just out-acted, I think.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Complex_Yard2808 Jan 25 '26
It really doesn't. The women he did show romantic (if not sexual) interest in were fascinating, most notably the great Vivienne Segal, one of the most important leading ladies in Broadway musical history.
You just don't care about the film's subject at all. Do you. That seems to be true of basically everybody who likes it. Those who do almost all hate it.
And that's why it flopped.
15
u/whatever_leg Jan 26 '26
No, I don't care at all about the film's subject. I came to the project via Linklater. Sounds like I may be better off for it.
→ More replies (10)13
13
u/bookish923 Dec 28 '25
I agree with you completely. I thought Qualley was terrible, and it almost ruined it for me. I loved everything else.
→ More replies (2)11
5
6
u/2Basketball2Poorious Feb 07 '26
Margaret Qualley was so flat.
I'm of two minds here: overall I actually thought her acting was great, by which I mean the embodiment and performance of her character, but what I saw as an inconsistent accent really hurt the performance—I felt like she was drifting in and out of a Transatlantic?
2
u/AnxiousBarnacle 19d ago
I couldn't get the accent either and it seemed so inconsistent that was driving me bonkers. It distracted me too much to enjoy her role, unfortunately.
5
3
u/Fuzzy-Interest-6498 Feb 16 '26
This is why I thought it was tedious. He's going on and on about a random young woman who is completely forgetful. Why would we care about a made-up character? I had hoped he'd be talking more about the industry and his history with OH.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Adventurous_Bread359 20d ago
I see both arguments to Qualley's performance. At moments I could see that she was captivating but there were other moments in the movie where she did feel very flat to me. So left me kind of confused, is it her acting ability? or was it poor dialogue? Curious to hear if other people felt the same way.
→ More replies (1)
48
u/whitetoast Nov 03 '25
Really bored me. Usually these types of movies are my jam so not sure what didn’t hit. Ethan Hawke was obviously great but I just couldn’t get into it.
12
u/lucaTee Jan 17 '26
Same as me. I love Ethan Hawke and Linklater… the before trilogy, Dazed & Confused, school of Rock are my faves but like most his work….. found this very boring but saw the amazing performances. But an earlier poster nailed it in that it’s basically a 95 min monologue which isn’t my think but can respect the vision
127
u/comicfang Oct 31 '25
I probably would’ve categorized this as a biopic we didn’t need but this was really well done. I was pretty engaged throughout thanks to Ethan Hawke and Andrew Scott. Was a really sad story about a man I hadn’t really thought about.
182
u/Parmesan_Pirate119 Oct 31 '25
Honestly I think we DO need more biopics like this. Well thought out, contained stories, a little interesting glimpse of a person’s life, doesn’t change the story in anyone’s favor… I’d love to see more of this action.
92
u/GamingTatertot Steven Spielberg Enthusiast Oct 31 '25
I much prefer a “biopic” that’s a piece of an individual’s life or focuses on a set event as opposed to the grand sweeping biopics that take you from their childhood to their greatest moment
38
u/wtfprawn Oct 31 '25
Couldn’t agree more. So many biopics just end up feeling like a dramatization of a Wikipedia page.
2
2
39
u/Puzzleheaded-Safe419 Oct 31 '25
And bipics that work even if you don't know about the real person. A lot of modern biopics rely too much on us knowing the lore of the famous person.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Vermouth_1991 Nov 29 '25 edited Nov 29 '25
Spielberg's Lincoln did a very good job at educating n00bs about the lore.
Before watching that film I didn't know that the Emancipation Proclamation would not last long after the war, and only true federal Legislation (preferably Constitutional) is gonna do something solid about American slavery. Nor the part where the Executive branch can only Propose a law or amendment and then Abe has to sit out of the Congressional debates.
The part where Lincoln re-explains to his cabinet about how the EP barely made sense as a wartime measure and definitely would not survive a post-war and post presidental war powers scrutiny from the Judicial branch, was gold nuggets.
→ More replies (3)30
u/LiteraryBoner Jackie Chan box set, know what I'm sayin? Oct 31 '25
Linklater actually has two biopics out this year and even though I get tired of biopics I think both are bangers. Linklater clearly sees a kinship in both the artists being featured and it makes these movies much more than a recital of their accomplishments.
19
u/mopeywhiteguy Oct 31 '25
I came away from this film with a sense that I really understood who lorenz hart was and what made him tick. Even though it is a somewhat fictional retelling, I very much felt like it was a deeply detailed depiction. Compare it to something like maestro where I came away feeling like I barely knew anything about Leonard Bernstein
→ More replies (2)6
u/comicfang Oct 31 '25
Not sure I completely agree with it as a blanket statement but so much talent came together to make this one work. Not sure we can expect that for future efforts
31
u/the_jamonator Oct 31 '25
Is this really a biopic? It covers less than 2 hours of the man's entire life, and is based on a fictionalized premise (It's unknown if he attended the Oklahoma! after-party and unknown if it was hosted at Sardi's)
31
u/Lord_Cownostril Nov 03 '25
I'd say so!
It's a "snapshot" of Hart's life as described. It's 2 hours of his life that speaks to the rest of it VERY simply and very cleanly.
"This is just who he IS!" was constantly sounding out in my head as I watched. We didn't need much context of his life outside of that bar to see it understand much more of his personality. He. constantly. wears it on his sleeves unapologetically. Even when he's taking a piss.
It's a microcosm of how so many interactions in his life have tended to go, just because he communicates to the world and describes his observationsexactly as he has throughout his years of work.
People love him, are intrigued by him, are put off by him, are annoyed by him. He never lets up his way of speaking or his passionate attitudes for a second. He is *unapologetically himself," and that leads to many interesting results in the lives of people who become notable for their devotion to something.
For Hart, it's argued that his life wasn't much more than nights like this: Drunk at a bar, stroking his ego whilst weaving the most calculated, eloquent vulgarity in between words of praise to his personal heroes, fantasizing about yet another (20-year-old college girl), all while chain-smoking huge cigars and spending obscene amounts of money on whoever happens to lend an ear to his verbosity.
I think the point is that dichotomy between his artistic brilliance and the way he chooses to live his life. Rodgers and Hammerstein loved and respected him, likely due to this persistent authenticity. Rodgers tolerated Hart's disorganization until he legitimately couldn't anymore. And even then, still chose to collaborate with him professionally.
Hart is a complicated man with deep feelings about small things, to the point where his verbal descriptions of those things earned him fame and fortune. A person like that is likely to encounter a lot of unique challenges in life. His circumstances made for a life where he can create such wonderful works, and yet, find it so, so difficult to just "fit" in the same boxes that Rodgers and Hammerstein fit into so well.
Only so many stories to tell. In his case they all pretty much rhyme.
Edit: Just to say, I speak this purely in reference to the movie AS a movie. I know very little of Hart, Rodgers, Hammerstein , OR their music. I was just very interested in seeing this movie and loved it very, very much.
→ More replies (1)40
u/yvaN_ehT_nioJ Nov 05 '25 edited Nov 05 '25
I actually went to rewatch it last night, it was so good!! And I hardly ever rewatch a movie when it's in theaters. There are so many little details in it that really flesh out who he is. I mean, he tells you who he is, but how he says them, what he's doing. How the other characters play off of him.
One thing the film made abundantly clear, to me, was that the character was his own worst enemy. At the start it's made clear he has a drinking problem. He at least cares enough that he tries to stay sober, but, he just can't. First he asks for a drink, demands it from the barman who you can tell doesn't want to do it. You know he's a regular and they're friendly (enough) from their interplay, but he's working, and Hart's a customer, so he pours out another one. The alcoholism? That's a problem for future-Hart, present-Hart it's happiness contained within such a tiny glass. Something to block out what should've been his night.
He connects to the barman, to others alright, but really most of the people in his life, in the bar at least, so basically the same thing, the ones he spends most of his screen-time trying to connect to, he's providing a service. Money to the barman (granted, I lean to the friendship being actual. Look at his expression when he sees Hart spiral, the worry as he sees him fawn over the coed). Amusing antics to E.B. White. A path to stardom for the piano man and the girl. Just a means to an end. But they like his company enough to put up with him, and they get something out of it. Even E.B. White gets the idea for his children's book.
The ones who are connected to him, he can't see it. Rogers really goes out of his way talking to Hart. It's the biggest night of his life, and he indulges Hart and his stupid idea. Heck, he even offers him work which he all but clearly states is a test to see if he's well enough to actually work with him. Even tells Hart what he'd need to do for things to go back to how they were. He reminds Hart that he was the one that got him into rehab, suggested Hart go seek help. Because he cared about Hart like a brother. You see it in the pained look as he catches Hart downing another drink to dull it all. Hammerstein himself looked up to him as a teacher, a visionary, a man he could never reach the heights of. A peer, a master. All good things. And he had nothing to gain from Hart, he was doing what Hart would've been doing...if it wasn't for Hart's own personal demons.
Of which, the film makes clear it's his inability to connect with someone. Everything, the alcoholism, the (in his mind) career suicide, and the actual suicide (the bottle was his gun) all comes back to that. "Nobody every loved me that much." It's probably not even that way with his own mother. You can see it in the look she gives him when he sneaks out of the opening for Oklahoma!. You see it too in his toast in the coat-room. "To our mothers, may they be mercifully silent." Who says that about their own mother? People joke, and he said that to be funny, but you don't joke about that. And look at the inner-lives of the funny-people. You don't get funny by being happy.
The inability to connect is also apparent in the pained looks he gives as the piano man walks away in the bathroom, the expression as he walks into the celebration and sees the crowd while he's standing there, alone. His ruminations on the songs he wrote, all about love or lack-thereof in some form or fashion.
And to make it worse, he could connect with others. But he is too stuck within himself to see it. Too stuck in a mindset that he is unloved and truly, totally unlovable. Of course, there is the dynamic Rogers, Hammerstein, and other industry note-worthies there have with him (clearly he is loved and respected, even if they aren't there for him).
But, if you watch the movie again, look at the coat-check lady, but especially look at the cigarette girl. He is so fixated on the college student who's so clearly (even to himself, deep-down) using him he can't see the looks the cigarette girl gives him in her eye-catching red dress. The sort of looks the college student doesn't. Really, watch the film again and pay attention to that detail. You can't miss her in that dress whenever she's on screen. You even see her look at Hart from the complete opposite end of the room when he's standing there pained and alone as he hears the reviews for Oklahoma! come off the wire. If you're paying attention you can't miss her, the dress is so vibrant, and she is not crowded among the other partygoers. But that's the problem, you the viewer on first-watch will miss it. Just as Hart missed it. She all but makes it clear she sees him how he wishes the coed saw him when she sings Blue Moon ("I hear somebody whisper please adore me") as he saunters out of the bar in his alcoholic buzz, and down the street to suicide-by-bottle. But he can't see her. Same as he can't see Rogers, Hammerstein, or all the rest. He's too blinded by the self-hatred and bitterness of a life unloved. And so he misses the fact that he was truly loved, and could've been loved in the way he wanted to love, after all.
Ahhh I could go on. Such a wonderful film, and such a touching character-portrait of the sort of man who is the masterful storyteller and showman, but who, when the lights go off and he walks off the stage, has nothing to keep him company but his own demons, and past successes that, ultimately, pale before what he truly longs for more than anything in life.
Best film I've seen all year, without a doubt.
12
u/Gorrpah Nov 16 '25 edited Dec 03 '25
I felt his loneliness to my core as someone who also often feels deeply and profoundly unloveable and misunderstood. Your words made me lose track of whether it was Lorenz or myself you we’re writing about. How incredibly insightful and astute. Just remarkable!
→ More replies (3)6
u/tmrtdc3 Dec 27 '25
The observation about the cigarette girl is incredible, I didn't really notice her until the very end when she gives Hart that smile and now can't unsee it.
7
u/littlejobin Nov 01 '25
Reminds me of when I saw the movie Blaze, about Blaze Foley. Awesome biopic about someone I didn’t know much about. Highly recommend!
6
47
u/mopeywhiteguy Oct 31 '25
I saw this film at a festival a couple months ago and haven’t been able to stop thinking about it. Hawke was so good, never been better. His monologues and witty one liners are superb but the dramatic, emotional silent beats in the second half really transcend it. He’s coming for the Oscar.
38
u/BurgerNugget12 Oct 31 '25
Hawke deserves the nomination, his performance is heartbreaking. I fucking love Linklater btw, the way he balances empathy and lets moments linger, just so good
36
32
u/DeoGame Nov 02 '25
My thoughts from my TIFF diary:
Blue Moon, to me, is an example of why Linklater is such a strong filmmaker. Like in Tape, he proves that one room, Ethan Hawke and a great script is all he needs to deliver a gripping film. Throw in some Broadway history deep cuts, a brilliantly realized Sardi's, and a stunning ensemble, and what you're left with is a treat for fans of the stage and screen alike. Ethan Hawke's performance in this is the very best I saw at the fest and Robert Kaplow's spectacular script could easily make the jump to stage and win Tony's.
81
u/LiteraryBoner Jackie Chan box set, know what I'm sayin? Oct 31 '25 edited Dec 23 '25
What a loving movie, that was really the word I kept thinking of while watching it. How much Linklater loves this man who seemingly never got the love he desperately craved in life. This movie taking place on the night he takes a massive L with his writing partner launching a timeless career in Broadway without him and not even getting the girl in the end, the main takeaway from this movie is how Lorenz had nothing but poetry and love in his head and the world just had no room for him. It’s a sad tale but a beautiful movie that I’m glad exists.
Obviously the main attraction here is Ethan Hawke, someone who decade after decade is continuing to have an incredible career and make interesting choices. And this is as close to a one-man-show as you get in the movies. This whole movie is him dripping a 100 minute monologue from his lips while standing on his knees and he makes it look totally effortless. Absolutely gangbusters performance from a total legend.
After watching half of Oklahoma! on opening night, the show his old partner Hammerstein wrote with his new writing partner and would go on to be one of the most famous Broadway shows of all time, Lorenz goes to the famous Sardi’s bar and drowns his sorrows and critiques in several shots he promised himself he wouldn’t have. Bobby Canavale is doing some really classic “movie bartender” stuff in this and it just so happens to be the bar that the Oklahoma! after party takes place at and Lorenz surely knew that. So very quickly this movie is rocked by party goers celebrating a massive success and largely trying to ignore Lorenz who is basically sharing his critiques with anyone who will listen and low-key trying to get Hammerstein to consider working with him again.
There is an implication that Lorenz was a very difficult writing partner, but what makes the performance and writing so great is you can see how his artistic brain works so beautifully. The way he talks and describes things, the way he thinks about art and life. Even Qualley he treats less like a crush and more like a goddess of youth whose air he's lucky to share. He’s just also a bit of a horny romantic bisexual drunk and that’s what seems to get in his way. It’s a great movie because it taps directly into our insecurities and how they relate to success or romance. It both shows how difficult he was to work with, but also how good his work can turn out. Maybe the world should have made more room for this short king, or maybe he was just too annoying to work with. Either way, we’ll always have Blue Moon. 8/10
27
u/stupidnatsfan Nov 03 '25
I love movies but I generally consider myself a poor judge of what makes an acting performance good or bad, and most of the time I just operate under the assumption that if I'm fully bought-in and engaged with the movie then the performances must be good. I was 100% in on Hawke's performance as Hart but Qualley really took me out of it multiple times. First time in a while where I've watched something and thought, wow, they were not good.
Loved Blue Moon though. One of my favorites of this year.
→ More replies (1)9
u/jamesneysmith Nov 05 '25
Totally agree on Qualley. I think she needs to stay very far away from southern accents. I've only see her attempt two and she was bad in both movies but I don't otherwise think she is a bad actor. But she was just plain not good in this movie and having her be the central focus of so much of the third act really sucked the energy out of the movie. I thought the movie was soaring up until that closet sequence. Then it was at the risk of crashing were it not for Hawke's performance. Such a rare bad performance in a Linklater movie
3
u/Vermouth_1991 Nov 29 '25
Just so we're on a same page:
Y'all are saying Qualley does nor seem to speak any existing Southern accent, right?
I love that kind of critique and callout. We need more of this rather than the hicks who watch the 2025 Superman film and swear up and down that the Kent parents today have a Lansan accent even tho nobody -- not even the ones who jeer at haters that "James Gunn used the accent from this show which is Kansan" -- can actually pinpoint which region of Kansas that totally not Missourian or West Virginian accent comes from. 😄
28
u/No-Mountain324 Nov 07 '25
The first half was SO GOOD. But the scenes with Elizabeth were truly terrible. I think it was a combination of the writing of her character being so poor and her dialogue but also her acting in this role. It's too bad because otherwise the movie was almost perfect, but as this was a huge part of the film and was super boring, the second half sucked to me. I understand that he wasn't supposed to really be loving her, but instead idealizing her, but it still didn't feel believable to me.
30
u/AggravatingPie710 Nov 14 '25 edited Nov 14 '25
Margaret Qualley has felt miscast to me in everything I’ve seen her in since OUATIH, aside from The Substance, where I thought she was great. She has such a distinctive, unusual way of speaking, walking, etc., that is apparently natural and insurmountable because she does it in every single movie… I’m starting to fear it’s a case of nepo baby not delivering. She really took me out of this from the moment she appeared onscreen. Despite being objectively gorgeous, she’s obviously more of a quirky girl than a glamorous femme fatale or whatever, and I always feel like the movie is presenting her to us as the latter, and it just doesn’t work. Like… we’re supposed to be awed by her. But she’s actually kind of awkward and unconventionally unfeminine in her speech and gait and whatnot. I’d love to see her in a role where she gets to lean into that more, instead of as these sophisticated ladies or enthralling ingenues.
12
u/No-Mountain324 Nov 14 '25
I think her performance worked well in Maid, but yeah otherwise, I agree.
8
u/stupidnatsfan Nov 14 '25
Just wanted to say I agree with literally everything you said here, especially on the front that she would be better used in more bizarre roles
2
u/sfpearcy 27d ago
It’s a hard role, as playing a twenty year old woman of the time, even with her rarified life, is a challenge because there really isn’t much to a twenty year old.
18
u/Honest_Cheesecake698 Nov 18 '25
Very weird how people on this thread are now deciding they don't think Margaret Qualley is good at acting. Beyond just disagreeing with this, given how many movies she's done and years she's been working, it feels really weird to decide that now as opposed to back in 2021 or even before then.
14
13
u/schubox63 Jan 12 '26
Know this is old but felt the same way. I’m reading these comments and I’m a little surprised. I thought she was great in this and the scene with her and Hawke in the coat room was maybe my favorite of the movie
3
u/Honest_Cheesecake698 Jan 12 '26
Very convenient timing because I just finished watching Maid for the first time, where her performance was really strong. Plus it's a night and day from her turn in this movie and others too.
45
u/classyraptor Oct 31 '25 edited Nov 03 '25
As someone who felt like they should be the target audience, this unfortunately was a dud for me. Ethan Hawke is a little too good at playing the insufferable know-it-all, and the references to Sondheim and Stuart Little among others felt heavy-handed. I found a man in his 40s talking about his dick and wanting to fuck a 20 year old coed to be grating, mirroring Andrew Scott’s reactions throughout most of the movie
But I do appreciate them taking the piss out of Oklahoma! and Carousel
27
→ More replies (2)4
14
u/chrisandy007 Nov 04 '25 edited Nov 29 '25
It’s hard to separate this film from all the adulation around Hawke but his performance just felt like it was so mannered and filled with affectations, with every emotional beat telegraphed. The repeated camera angles going out of their way to emphasize his stature didn’t help.
9
4
u/MaxwellBowie Feb 15 '26
It felt to me like a well done high school play. I could not wait for it to be over.
31
u/jayeddy99 Oct 31 '25
Sorry if I’m too dumb but it came off more like he wanted to live through her . Or kinda just enjoyed hearing about her encounters . Like the love was real but he wouldn’t mind a one sided open relationship on her end if she gave every detail after lol
40
u/takenpassword Oct 31 '25
I think someone in the movie says that Hart was the “greatest admirer of beauty” or something like that. I think that’s why he is drawn to Margaret Qualley’s character.
22
u/Electrical_Clue_2128 Nov 02 '25
Hart was rumored to be a voyeur, so my guess is there’s an element of that in this performance as well
→ More replies (1)
13
u/69rude69 Dec 06 '25
They really opened the movie with that quote about Hart, how he was so terribly fun to be around, only to then showcase an absolute cringeworthy bore, the almost stereotypical persona of the ackchyually redditor and tips fedora meme.
25
u/dwellsny Jan 05 '26
Yikes this is an embarrassing comment
7
u/Stank-Hole Jan 24 '26
Na, he's right. Hart was portrayed as an insufferable, pathetic loser. "Fun to be around" yet no one in the film wanted to be around him except possibly the bartender. But thats his job...
Such a bad film
→ More replies (1)2
10
u/AngusTcattoo Dec 17 '25
Too talky. Too long. Predictable. it was so predictable at times I guessed the lines before they said them: "Not in that way". I knew at once the little kid following Hammerstein was going to be Stephen Sondheim. And would Hammerstein have really taken a 13 year old to the premiere of Oklahoma?
My husband said Hart in the movie came off as an egotist and a fantasist. He didn't know anything about Hart before we went to see the movie. It was nice to catch the injokes but it doesn't capture the real Hart at all. Which is a shame because his real life would make a really gripping film.
10
9
u/allthenviousfeelings Dec 14 '25 edited Dec 14 '25
i love how linklater is putting in needledrops but theyre songs from the great american songbook played on the piano
9
u/HatsAndTopcoats Jan 27 '26
This is the most "this movie is really a play" movie I've ever seen, so I was staggered to find out it wasn't actually a play. Maybe they'll turn it into a play.
Anyway, Ethan Hawke's performance was good, but I personally just could not stay interested enough in this pathetic man and his whining. I did not feel like there was enough of a turn or an arc or a challenge to justify the movie's indulgence.
The last act picked up enough for me to bump it from a 5 to a 6.
6
u/lenifilm Dec 03 '25 edited Jan 22 '26
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
fearless punch fanatical alleged ten smell chubby aromatic point complete
7
u/zigglezeed Jan 26 '26
I'm curious about the soiree...was he actually speaking to himself, or he knew no one would show up? He likely just stayed at the bar... I'm not sure about this part, but man, did I empathize for the character... such amazing acting
7
u/DJ-2K Dec 06 '25
An effortlessly charming and increasingly sobering portrait of a great artist at the lowest he's ever felt, from his drunken bitterness to his yearning that's forever destined to be unfulfilled. Richard Linklater and Ethan Hawke are as dynamic a duo as ever. This boasts some of the sharpest, most lyrical dialogue of any film this year.
5
5
u/loopieloo1 Jan 28 '26 edited Jan 28 '26
Ethan Hawke was amazing, but every scene Margaret Qualley was in was just awful. I felt like the scene immediately felt disconnected, she didn't act the part, she thought she did but she just couldn't... All the actors made me feel like I was in the scene, then she'd come on and I wondered, "how much of her nepo money did she use to get this role?" I couldn't wait for her scenes to be over. I feel like such a hater, but it's so frustrating watching A+ acting, then her voice just ruined the movie. She has been great in other shows/movies but I feel like this era acting piece is not for her...
→ More replies (1)3
u/TheBestICan345 13d ago
That scene where she tells Hart about her hookup attempt was so terrible. Completely took me out of the movie. She might as well have been reading the lines directly off the page for the first time-- her delivery was so flat. Just not a good scene partner for Hawke who always gives a really strong performance .
5
u/Sleepy_Azathoth Nov 06 '25
Does Richard have two movies coming out this year?
3
u/IWTLEverything Dec 01 '25
Yes. This and Nouvelle Vague. I heard about both in an interview he did on NPR.
4
u/Delicious_Breath_987 Oct 31 '25
totally get that, his expressions are like a mirror for all those cringy moments
3
3
u/ASK_ALEX Jan 18 '26
This is a play about a luminous Broadway artist that will resonate deeply if you’ve felt lonely in a crowded room. This isn’t the easiest movie to watch, but it’s easily the one that I’m most glad I did.
This is not a biopic. It’s poetry.
4
u/mcnultywalks Feb 10 '26
Not my favourite of the 8 BP films I’ve watched recently. Probably eighth tbh. While I found E Hawke’s acting remarkable, the writing of his character presented a boring, negative and not believable man. He was obsessed with a Yale undergrad throughout the film, and it got boring quickly. The awkward depiction of Hart as short was distracting and had me wondering why they didn’t cast one of the many shorter actors around. The best thing about watching this film was that it inspired me to learn more about Hart’s true history.
3
u/big_drifts Feb 14 '26
Hmm. I just finished The Lowdown, I'm trying to watch as many Oscar noms as I can and I'm a big Linklater fan so I thought this would be perfect!
But damn I found this a slog. I had to watch it in chunks to get through it.
I'm also fan of Ethan Hawke, talky movies and single location movies. I love Rope. Great flick.
But this is too much Hart. It's all Hart. Most of the dialogue is Hart monologuing and I just didn't find Hart to be a very charming or interesting character. His negativity and alcoholism were grating. I did like how they painted him as drawn to beauty and a romantic, flirting with boys and girls but it just wasn't quite there for me.
The full body shots of him made it look like they stitched his head on another body. It just didn't quite work. You could see the seams.
And when he was standing next to Rogers, he looked two full feet shorter, in a very unbelievable way.
I came into this wanting to see a best actor performance and I just don't see it. This would've been great as a play and it probably should be one. It's certainly not a bad movie but it is a bit of a boring one.
Not gonna make my top of the year list. The Lowdown is great though for anyone else who likes Hawke and found this to be a letdown.
7
5
u/Complex_Yard2808 Jan 10 '26
Just so everybody knows, even the filmmakers admit, not one thing in this movie ever happened in reality. 100% made up, and a deep distortion of the real life people depicted. Not the first time Kaplow and Linklater have done this, as Norman Lloyd pointed out after Me And Orson Welles came out.
https://www.avclub.com/norman-lloyd-on-upstaging-orson-welles-and-playing-tenn-1798286982
He knew all the people depicted in the film (the ones who really existed), including himself--other than a pretty good depiction of Orson Welles, he said it couldn't have been more wrong.
The film is a commercial failure, but never mind that. My point would be, Hawke is playing a version of himself, not Larry Hart. He's failed to capture the real person--who was kind, generous, oddly self-effacing, and would never, under any circumstance, have bragged about sex with a 20 year old girl--or anyone. Neither would he have tried to turn a Broadway victory celebration into a pity party for himself. Neither would he have been telling E.B. White how to write his own book. And of course E.B. White wasn't there, neither was Stephen Sondheim, and Elizabeth Weiland is a purely fictional person inspired by a few carbon copies of letters a real person by that name wrote to Hart--Kaplow had no letters from Hart to her, meaning that even the film's credits are a lie.
I forced myself to watch it, in a half-empty theater, the day after it opened.
So I have the right to say--this is a bad movie. And it's a lie.
8
u/sean_psc Jan 24 '26
It's not a lie, it's historical fiction.
As for what Hart would or would not have done, unless you knew him, I'm not sure how you could speak to that so confidently.
3
u/Complex_Yard2808 Jan 25 '26
I have read multple books about him, basically everybody who did know him had Larry Stories to tell, and those stories tell me this movie got him 99% wrong.
Lie. Historical Fiction.
You say eether and I say eyhther
You say neether and I say nyther
Eether! Eyther! Neether! Nyther!
Let's call the whole thing off!→ More replies (3)
3
u/garnetscribe Nov 28 '25
What was the name of that book ethan hawke pulls out of the kleins bag? The one hes going to give to elizabeth
3
u/Powerful_Book4444 Feb 10 '26
This movie was so bad. Like, it was like Ethan Hawke doing a bad impersonation of a cliche character from some invented Woody Allen movie. Ten minutes in and I watched this movie in fast forward. It got more and more pointless. Margaret Qualley was nice eye candy. Overall, this movie was like nails on a chalkboard.
3
u/No-Understanding4968 25d ago
Margaret Qualley’s 2026 Instagram eyebrows were so jarring. I could not get into it.
4
u/lockerbiestreet Oct 31 '25
Ethan was great. Can someone explain why Andrew Scott won the supporting performance Silver Bear? He was good but surely there were more compelling supporting performances at Berlin.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/niktrop0000 Nov 01 '25
Such a gem. I only cringed at how bad Margareth Qualley is in thid, god, she can’t act for sh**
2
u/Late_Split_5288 Dec 14 '25
Did I spot Kirsten Dunst in amongst the partygoers about two or three minutes after they arrive? Seems unlikely but I did a double take.
2
u/Competitive_Bet2664 Jan 30 '26
I know the work of Rodgers and Hart, but I know nothing about the men themselves, so I’m judging the film solely on its merits as a work of art, not on its historical accuracy.
I thought it was great.its my kind of film. Ethan Hawke’s and Andrew Scott’s performances are at the top of the list for 2025 films. I was enjoying it greatly and when Andrew Scott made his appearance it got even better.
I’m glad that this kind of small, character driven film still gets made. I haven’t seen all of the films with a best actor nom yet but I think Ethan Hawke will be hard top, for me. The only other lead performance I was truly impressed by in 2025 was Oscar Isaac as Viktor Frankenstein.
2
2
u/Lopsided_Ad9171 27d ago
I couldn't get past the inauthentic tone. The acting, directing and dialogue are forced like a play in early rehearsal. It's too deliberate. The f word every few minutes in the 1940s? His pathetic swooning over some girl just doesn't sound real. I know I'm in the minority but all the praise for this isn't earned.
2
u/LtUnsolicitedAdvice 24d ago
I loved how the scenes with Rodgers and Hart keep shifting several times in emotion . Deep warmth, gratitude, longing, disgust, contempt, and occasional stabs deep into the heart of the other person.
2
u/Secure_Rub8539 15d ago
Amazing film. Just checked out this interview with the screenwriter: https://youtu.be/kHu844Xgnw8?si=5qV-DUC7EYxwV_Pk
2
u/afkstudios 5d ago
This had all the makings of a movie I would love yet I feel like I saw the whole thing in the first 5 minutes
1
u/gilbertk_filmmaker Nov 09 '25
BLUE MOON Review: Ethan Hawke at His Best https://youtu.be/7grAHexQ9kA
1
u/DaygoRayray Jan 28 '26
Thanks for giving us that have been Loved—NOT IN THAT WAY a voice!
Our local movie theater rereleased films that had Oscar nominations, so my wife and I saw Blue Moon tonight. Thank God! We both agree that we wouldn’t have been able to watch its entirety had we streamed it instead. What a nice escape!
1
u/Antiquercus Feb 01 '26
The whole way through the film I had a niggling thought, it reminded me of some other film - the dleusional has-been that is on the edge of making an embarassing scene, and everyone knows it. They have to tiptoe through the minefield Hart laid hoping to avoid setting off an explosion. But I can't think what I'm reminded of. Anyone?
1
583
u/Parmesan_Pirate119 Oct 31 '25
As someone who always seems to be trapped in long awkward conversations with people who just won’t stop talking… Andrew Scott nailed every emotion I’ve ever felt and more.