Reviews

This film is beyond fantastic. For everything and everyone. Denzel is amazing. This film is the best of the three. I thank the whole production for showing us this movie. Very creative plotting, high tension, wonderful dialogue, keeps you gripped on the edge of your seat. All the stereotypes of the Italian mafia are present, but with a touch of creativity. Director, screenwriter, actors: an amazing blend. The perfect closure to the Equalizer saga. In Italian the title is: Equalizer 3 - senza tregua, which in Italian means relentless. Yes, this adjective perfectly describes this beautifully entertaining film.

Sometimes it happens that, even if I didn't like the film I saw, I still like actors' performances. This did not happen with "Processor". The actors were pretty good, but the awfulness of this movie didn't allow me to enjoy anything. I don't know why they made this movie. A miscellany of things, all poorly represented. Obviously mental manipulation by means of technology, which leads to the annihilation of people's self, is the fil rouge of this film, but it's anything new and I suppose the writer and director wanted to go beyond this concept. Maybe Brandon Cronenberg had a clear idea of what he wanted to express, and he couldn't portray it, or maybe he didn't, and he put things together just to entertain the audience with blood. I don't think that whatever he meant, he would have needed so much blood. Blood, blood and blood, from start to end. Gore and splatter, and bit of chaos too, which very often are the logos of B horror movies. But maybe I had too many expectations. Sometimes I read reviews -referring to other movies- that say " this movie was a wasted opportunity". In this case, for me, it was just a waste of time.

I don't understand how an Oscar winner for Best Original Screenplay could decide to devote himself to writing and directing a film like this.

Not to mention the two leading actresses - one of whom is one of the best French actresses of today - who have lent themselves to interpreting a plot that develops in a way that is a compliment to define suitable for a B-series film.

First half of the film is decent (score: 6); the second cannot be watched: ridiculous twists that are very predictable and already seen plenty of times, and that in this movie are also unlikely.

Towards the finale then "Greta" reaches an apotheosis of nonsense, in which the characters in their actions compete with Lloyd and Harry from Dumb & Dumber.

I resisted stoically until 23:50 of the fifth episode, then unfortunately I capitulated.

A few holes can be tolerated, but I like too many only in the Swiss Emmenthal.

It is not the first time that good ideas have been badly developed. What a pity.

If you hate predictability in this type of film, you'll love Wrong Turn. It starts in a classic horror movie style, but a series of twists and turns along the way (the trail ...) keep you glued to your seat, until the end.

It could have been better acted, it's true, but Modine's presence ennobles all the rest. It is also sufficiently creative and non-trivial, with a (very slight) touch of social criticism and environmentalism. What else do you want? Nothing to do with the Wrong Turn saga? Who cares: it is a good entertainment.

You know what? If you don't like Xavier Dolan and/or don't appreciate his work, please do not watch this movie; and, above all, don't do reviews.

After watching this movie, I surfed the net - moved only by curiosity -to look for reviews. And, what I mostly found, even from the most qualified and acclaimed reviewers, is a sort of standardized analysis, gravitating around usual Dolan's logos (as unfortunately they use to say): Dolan always talks about his himself, mothers, homosexuality.

So what? Even if these items seem to be recurring in his works, couldn't they be considered as tools, keys he uses for opening the door of his inner world? Everybody use tools, why Dolan should not be allowed to use his? Why don't start from different angles in analyzing what flows before our eyes ?

If we look at things always in the same way, with the corrective lenses of prejudgement, we lose the freedom of observing things the way they are/could be, because we look at them only in the way we would like them to be.

This movie has a lot to say not only about the director himself- of course it does, he's one of the writers- (by the way, the direction is great and beautifully crafted, and emphasizes events and emotions; Kit Harington, Natalie Portman, Susan Sarandon and the kid, Jacob Tremblay, offer beautiful acting performances) - but also it tells a lot about ourselves, humans beings always looking for something to relieve our mal de vivre; always looking for others approval, always deeply involved in an unbalanced balance between joy and despere. Yes, mothers, gays, and children too -people - in a carousel of feelings and emotions.

I stop here. There are many things this movie talks about, many clues to investigate, many paths to follow: I leave you, sensitive people, the pleasure of discovery.

Reviews talk about this movie being a reboot of "The Invisible man", a 1933 movie directed by James Whale, based on H.G. Wells novel with same title. As a matter of fact, this 2020 film, rather than being compared to the '33 one, shows much more similarity with "Sleeping with the enemy", a 1991 movie, directed by Joseph Ruben, with Julia Robert and Patrick Bergin, adapted from a novel by Nancy Price: gist is the same, main difference is that in "The invisible man" the stalker is, obviously, invisible. So 2020 movie is a sort of combo between two good movies, the '33 and the '91 ones, but it does not succeed, unfortunately, to get to the level of either one, mainly because of the lack of creativity. Besides the great Elisabeth Moss performance, and some scary scene, everything is predictable - for me- and some part of the plot are without any logic or explanation, and, maybe, pace is bit too slow.

Xavier Gutiérrez is a very good actor, and his acting is credible; unfortunately the plot it is not. Second half of the movie is a series of embarrassing and obvious situations which, on the other hand, have been badly done.

I like Stephen and read many of his books and watched many movies; we know very well that many are bmovies but that's okay. It is not good, instead, to make a film as a sequel to a masterpiece, because the comparison is inevitable and it already starts badly. And indeed, it gets worse. If it wasn't for the sound of the popcorn muncher sitting at a couple of rows from me, I would have fallen asleep several times. Ah yes, some jump scares have helped me stay awake too, especially for the good quality and the very high volume of the speakers in the theatre. Most of the acting, including Ewan McGregor, who does not revive the lackluster character, is certainly not very bright. Rebecca Ferguson is good and animates a credible and powerful Rose the Hat; Mike Flanagan's direction is undoubtedly very good.