This movie sort of threw me; weeks after seeing it I’m still not sure what to think of it.  Written by Mike White, it follows a holistic healer, Beatriz (Salma Hayek), who is invited to stay at a fancy dinner after her car breaks down.  And while Beatriz is welcome at the home of Cathy (Connie Britton) and Grant (David Warshofsky) as a massage therapist, it is made crystal clear very early on that lower middle-class Beatriz just does not mix with their other guests, especially billionaire real estate mogul Doug Strutt (John Lithgow), who employs Grant.  If Bette Davis were attending this shindig, she would advise everyone to fasten their seat belts, for it is going to be a bumpy ride.

Miguel Arteta’s film is ostensibly about treating people equally, with respect.  Beatriz doesn’t receive that respect as the evening begins, and her clashes with Strutt relegate her to outcast.  Yet White’s script doesn’t fault Beatriz; indeed, everyone else at the dinner seems to be grasping desperately for wealth and relevance, while Beatriz seems content being able to help people whenever or wherever she happens to be.  That’s fine, and even good, yet the film’s concluding act forces Beatriz to question everything about the world in which she lives, and she finds it wanting.  Her final act is tragic for someone at that dinner party.

I felt the unease and dread throughout the story; I did not want Beatriz to be there because the film conveys the unspoken distaste that the other characters have for her (or, rather, for her perceived status).  Then the film turns really dark, as Beatriz considers making a fateful stand for her home community in Mexico — promised wealth and jobs when a resort opens and then later abandoned when it fails — and the film becomes sort of a morality play: will she or won’t she, and should she?  And then, at the very end, it turns darker still, because a choice has been made, and it is one of surrender.

Critics seem to love this film but I continue to have issues with it.  It is well acted but I found it somewhat over-written and certainly dubious in its moral conclusions.  It certainly isn’t “entertaining” in a normal sense and I hated the ending, even as I could feel it coming.  It’s kind of like a Woody Allen movie without the comedy; Allen’s one-liners and absurdities can make any off-putting subject seem palatable and even illuminating.  Here, without the laughs, human foibles, insecurities and power plays are ugly and repellent.  ☆ ☆.  29 July 2017.