Reviews

Anyone But You (2023) isn't a film I'd typically choose for myself, but it proved to be a good pick for watching with my significant other.

The film is lighthearted, filled with intentionally over-the-top moments and absurd situations. Nothing is meant to be taken seriously, yet the creators manage to avoid going completely off the rails, keeping the film somewhat grounded in reality.

Production values evoke romantic comedies of the late 90s and early 2000s, but with stunning Australian vistas and an abundance of beautiful people, both clothed and unclothed.

While life is obviously more complex than the story, if you're willing to let go and enjoy the emotional journey with the characters, the film will leave a pleasant, short-lived impression.

However, this film is best viewed with someone who makes your heart skip a beat. Watching solo, surrounded by all these attractive people and their seemingly perfect lives, might sting.

'Golda' was a slow and somewhat disheartening film, not because of the subject material, but rather due to all the wasted potential.

Seems like most of the possible emotional interactions and dialogue scenes were swapped with obvious and sometimes artsy symbolism and metaphors. Some scenes are so stylized just for the sake of being different it's insane.

Although the format suggested episodic nature (with the first scene), they still limited the film to one particular time period, and it kind of seemed like it wasn't really about Golda either, but rather the war. Surprisingly enough, we get no flashbacks or connections, so it's just a straight story in which you are brought right away. If you're watching this film it's assumed that you have the basic knowledge of the persona. Golda is portrayed miserable and barely holding it together, which is fine given the context of her health and the situation. Yet a biopic about her should probably devote some time to her better and stronger days, so the viewer could fully appreciate her resilience and wisdom even in the dark times.

Overall, I'd say that the film definitely had interesting scenes, dialogue, good music and messages to reflect on (and great quotes by Golda). But for me it was buried under lots of weird stylistic choices and ramping drama up to a comedic levels, which wasn't even funny given the situations they were in. A cheap and basic way to transfer emotional state wasn't suitable for such a subtle film.

Not a horrible film for someone who is not that familiar with Golda and her deeds, but trades too much of the lack of grounded and relatable real-life scenes for artistic distractions.

First of all, you need to have a solid background in the history of Argentina to understand the setting. The film expects you to know the basics of the time period and the political and military agendas in the country.

Second, the film seems to be lacking a coherent structure. The introductory scenes are not really introducing anything besides shorts of the characters we don't know, lots of names that are hard to connect and unclear motivations. Some characters look similar to each other, so you have to pay a lot of attention to be able to distinguish and them from one another and overall understand what is supposed to be going on.

Furthermore, many scenes are either unclear or misplaced, making the viewer constantly wonder why the things shown are important. They probably wanted to make a combination of a gritty detective buddy film and a pseudo-documentary, since lots of things are supposedly based on a real story. But the blend didn't go well for sure.

So when it turns out that the real story isn't that unique or interesting, the crime itself isn't that special or engaging, the poorly shot final reveal provokes no emotions and there's another reason for that. The reason (and the most glaring issue) is - the were no characterizations in the film. The characters don't reflect on what's going on, so there is no way you can get engaged in the story. They work and have minor interpersonal relations, that is pretty much all there is. I'd say that most of the scenes in the film felt like a videogame cutscene, but videogame cutscenes tend to have more interesting interactions than this film had.

Around 30 minutes of the film could've been cut, but was left in. Many scenes are way too detailed for no reason, and the pace never changed. They tried to include a sense of urgency, but there was never any tension. It just felt like someone with no prior experience wanted to make a film, but had missed all the important elements of a crime investigation thriller/pseudo-documentary.

Some of the acting and dialogue pieces were also very unconvincing, and extras in many scenes felt like they were edited in from a 80ties low-budget police detective series.

Overall, I'd say that this film was unnecessary long, not particularly interesting or engaging, lacking in characterizations and character development, structure, editing, acting and dialogue. It was forgettable, and I had gained no enjoyment from watching it.

I cannot recommend this film.

Limbo was an ok film that was heavily lacking in terms of details and substance.

It had the atmosphere, the dialogue and the characters overall felt realistic enough to believe in them. The atmosphere was all present, including a couple of metaphors here and there.

The idea of making it B&W didn't make too much sense for me, maybe it had something to do with the theme of the film, maybe it was made this was purely for the artistic purposes, but I'd appreciate it more if it had colors, just washed out or muted.

The detective concept worked fine, you could easily follow the story with the main character, understand what he was thinking without him directly explaining it. Many things in this film were understandable without direct expository dialogue, which is surely an achievement. Although, I'd appreciate more details and more of actual story. Seems like in real life things might be a little more complicated. The small amount of story the film had was still delivered and the ending was perfectly fine, although the main character's backstory and motivations of some characters were left behind.

So, as a one-time watch it's still perfectly fine, but more depth and real human emotions would've improve it for sure, since the story was either simplistic to begin with, or was simplified in the process.

The concept of Master Gardener wasn't new at all, "a man with a troubled past tries to restart his life and so on". I still wanted to give it a try, since the cast and the director ensured some potential.

After the credits hit there was only one question left, what was it all about? There wasn't even that much dramatic stuff happening in the film, to be hoest, and since the characters are barely transofrmed by the situations they find themselves in - there was no noticeable arcs or transformations. In the end everything stayed almost exaclty the same, including the characters.

It felt like just a recollection of a couple of weeks from these peoples lives, including long, stretched scenes of driving around, eating, narrating diaries and so on. Almost like a basic pointless re-enacted documentary.

Scenes just dragged and dragged, slowing it down as much as possible. So when it felt like the movie is going to end, I wasn't sure what story is left to wrap up, since nothing really happened. The main character changed slightly in terms of coping with his past, but didn't really change that much.

Besides some basic people-flower metaphors, there was nothing of interest in this film, so in the end, indeed, this was a waste of my time.

I had anticipated a more straightforward, character-driven study of the man who helped to develop the atomic bomb, but instead, I was met with a 3-hour long summer blockbuster and a possibility of hearing loss.

Thinking about this, I feel guilty for not understanding Nolan's summer films since I've seen all of them except Memento. Now it is clearer that this (Oppenheimer) is exactly what I should've expected, but for some reason, I didn't.

So now, understanding that I went to see it with a wrong impression or a misunderstanding of the director's style, I'll give my two cents on this one.

The film's editing was particularly problematic. The director is known for his use of quick cuts and jarring transitions, but in Oppenheimer, this style felt overused and gratuitous. The film's many plot threads were constantly being cut away from, making it difficult to follow the narrative up until the very end. Not much complaining can be done after Tenet and Dunkirk, but again, I expected something different for a bio-drama.

The sound mixing was also poor, with the dialogue often being drowned out by the music. This was especially frustrating during the film's tensest moments when I was desperate to hear what the characters were saying. Again, this was my IMAX experience. Maybe yours will be different.

Another problem is that there's just too much story. Oppenheimer wasn't a short film by no means, the creators wanted to make a deep dive into the political and historical background of some of the major characters, and there were so many of them. I don't think making this a solo film was a good idea, but a Chornobyl-style mini-series - would've worked great. They had so many good actors, but they were forced to fly through the scenes on an airplane bomber since they were limited by the runtime.

Despite these flaws, there were many redeeming qualities to Oppenheimer. The film's performances were all excellent, much so I cannot single out a particular one. The film's visuals were also stunning, with Nolan's trademark use of IMAX cinematography creating some truly awe-inspiring images. The soundtrack was plain gorgeous, and very memorable. Too bad that it was mixed into scenes where it shouldn't have been, and it also had some weird cuts, almost like clipping, ruining the tone. Like it was artificially cloned and stretched. Maybe I'm making this up.

Ultimately, Oppenheimer is a film that is both ambitious and flawed. It is a film that attempts to grapple with the weighty subject matter of the atomic bomb, but it ultimately fails to do so satisfyingly for me. I would recommend watching the film at home, where you can adjust the volume and take breaks as needed.

P. S. I also want to thank the creators for finally giving me an understanding of what to expect, and saving me from later disappointments.

Sharper's base isn't fresh or new. There are tens or hundreds of similar films.

The writing is relatively smart, but you still have to suspend your disbelief a lot, and you're expected to buy some things as realistic.

What saved this film was the A24 treatment, mostly in the looks and feels. I can guarantee that if it was shot like a TV series with default shots and the story was delivered in a straightforward manner - this would've been a disaster.

The other thing - acting. It was actually better and smarter than you would think in the first place. At times you catch some bad performances, but as it turns out - this was intentional, and I loved that.

Besides the looks, the best thing for me was the story's overall plausibility. They didn't pull the twist out of nowhere, and even though it wasn't that twisty - they had some details sprinkled in order for the twist to feel realistic. I hate films that show you one thing and then, in the end, change everything, fooling you straight up. This one was fair in this regard.

Overall, I'd say that it's a 7/10 ok con film. Not memorable for anything besides some atmospheric shots and music. Qualifies for a weekend evening watch-and-forget.

Hypnotic was a bland and mediocre film inspired by a concept that wasn't really that new.

While watching it, I constantly felt like they just couldn't handle the idea. And it's not the budget. It's the overall delivery of the story. All the characters just spat out exposition, and due to questionable editing, the film felt more like a cutscene in a video game.

They were probably afraid that the plot would confuse people, but there are ways to handle this with less explanation done by the characters. There's nothing to care about in its current state since everyone just explains who they are and what they do or have to do.

All the action was shot poorly and way under the standards of excitement today. The interesting scenes were mostly horror-themed ones, like a chained dog cop buddy and the scissors one. It has plenty of nods and homages to other films, which are easily spottable, but not in a fun way.

All the other technical stuff wasn't good, weird shots, clunky editing, and very uninspired and bored acting. Affleck looked happy only in the last scene, maybe because of his celebrating that it's over now (or maybe something I cannot spoil).

Building "twists" upon "twists" in such a film just adds nothing. There should be rules, and the twists can be surprising only if the film feels real while fooling you. If you're watching under the impression that anything can be fake, it devalues the twists.

Even if you buy the magic aspect of the film, the whole concept of the governmental program is just as implausible as possible. There's no need to try to break it down to understand that such an undertaking would just bring absolute chaos, and nobody would care about the mission they've tried 12 times for some reason.

Overall, I'd say that Hypnotic was a mediocre B-movie with an idea they didn't utilize seriously or in a comedic way. It's something in-between a cheap action film and a supernatural horror drama, not reaching any of these completely. Not sure why Affleck was there, but he didn't seem to care anyway.

"I Wanna Dance with Somebody," the biopic about Whitney Houston, is a technically proficient movie that goes into great detail about the events in her life. However, it falls short on delivering a compelling story as it primarily consists of a series of micro-stories that lack a definitive ending and connection to the overall picture.

Although the actors portrayed their characters well, the odd editing and mixed order of scenes made it difficult to establish a tangible connection between them. Furthermore, the film tries to remain neutral and safe by avoiding any characterizations or conflicts, resulting in a sense of detachment from the ending.

The lack of a clear sense of time progression also contributed to the overall confusion. While the costumes and sets were accurate, the color correction and high-quality digital images made it difficult to discern the change of decades. Even though the music was great, there was a notable lack of character involvement and interpersonal emotion.

Overall, "I Wanna Dance with Somebody" was technically sound and the lead actress did an excellent job with the role. However, it felt more like an accelerated theatricalized documentary rather than a captivating biopic, which made it easy to get lost in the middle of the film without a documentary-style voiceover. Despite its shortcomings, the film is still worth watching for its music and technical execution.

Three Thousand Years of Longing (2022) is an interesting and original tale about tales, choices, people, fates and wishes. Wishes we crave, wishes we make for ourselves, and where deceptive desires can lead us. Consciously or not.

The film packs quite a lot in terms of characterization, mainly by having lots of characters, with only some having actual substance and most of them being stereotypically stereotyped (intentionally, I guess). Probably this was done to show how simplictic humans can get even in they pretend to be overcomplicated.

I don't know, this film is full of themes, there's literally so much the creators probably confused themselves while making it. I'm saying this because at some point it felt like they got consumed by all the variables and sides they wanted to cover. So they just let go and went full into it. Thus, tonally the film is all over the place. Again, sometimes intentionally, since some of the ideas are so miserable and depressing, you really need a funny moment to look away.

I can go on and on about the different implications and senses, present in this film, but this will take too much time. Maybe try watching it for yourself and see what you'll get out of it. I was enjoyably confused by the end of it due to thematical overload, bizarre storytelling (which perfectly suits the film), and captivating performances. The visuals are also interesting since the more we progress into the stories, the more dreamlike becomes the "reality" (or current time).

I'm glad I finally saw this film, and I'm confident that a second viewing will yield different results, so I'll give it some time and get back to it later.

With all its flaws, it still felt like an experience, like a real film of which we don't have so many in these days of corporate products.

Knowing nothing about this film works great. I haven't seen any promotional material and gave this film a go solely based on this site's recommendations. It worked nicely since you can put yourself in the main character's shoes and be as confused as her, trying to uncover what is actually going on.

Overall the film was good but very uneven in its parts. The structure was quite interesting, the beginning was intriguing, and we almost concluded the main character's story. Still, then the movie like restarted and introduced us to another one. That confused me, but it all made sense in the end.

I think the idea was to trick the audience into thinking this was a standard gory torture thriller (again, I haven't seen the trailer). But instead, it turned out to be a tale about trusting people buffed by spelled-out social commentary. It was a little too obvious but effective enough, and the characters worked for me. If you try to understand their motivations, their decisions don't seem that stupid, and the opening scenes are reasonably well-developed.

The ending felt a little too comical, even in how it was shot, but still good enough.

Overall, if you buy the somewhat questionable premise, everything else fits into the film's overall theme. Great horror? Probably not for horror fans. Good mystery film? Yes. Social undertones? More like loud overtones, but still ok.

Not great, not terrible, but it felt more like a real movie, not generic content to fill watching hours. They knew what they were doing, and it worked for me.

Vesper is a fine dystopian drama made for...I don't know, maybe young adults. It doesn't take things too seriously but looks like it rather wants to attract younger audiences.

The production was top-notch, and the film packed many familiar emotions and themes. The world was set up, but not much seems to have happened if anything at all. Lots of questions were left unanswered. I understand ambiguous endings, but you shouldn't just abandon the things you've set up. What's with the caterpillar? What's with the scavengers? What's with the mother? Is she the rotting corpse from the lab? Why would one citadel need the codes for other citadel seeds?

This was probably the biggest issue with this film. It got many things right, almost everything but an interesting story. There's little to no progression. It just makes you wonder why wasn't this a series. Just split this film into two episodes and develop the characters we can surely familiarize ourselves with.

Instead, they provided tons of great atmospheric sequences with nice music and environmental messages with hints of family bonds here and there. But almost nothing happened with the main story. The ending does not solidify Vesper's path. She could've ended up there without all the things happening.

It's slow and theme-heavy, but the production kept me watching. 20 minutes till the end, I started to suspect that we were not getting anywhere. Maybe this is only the first installment. If so - I'd love to get back to the sequel. I just hope this doesn't vanish.

I still can give this film 7/10 for the production and the relatable scenes well-handled. The action was mostly messed up, but I understand the limitations of filming kid violence.

P. S. I also think that Camellia could've got a better resolution other than a Terminator 2 ending homage.

Eight minutes and 50 seconds, to be exact. That's the exact number of quality scenes in the entire first season. With all of them condensed into the last episode (mostly being Galardiel - Halbrand* by the river scene).

Overall, I can't say I'm disappointed. There was so much silliness, bad acting, and virtue signaling in the first season that by the end of it, I had learned to mostly ignore or laugh it out.

I don't know why so much screen time was spent on the Harfoots and all those scenes other than trying to build up a weak twist. The last-minute Sauron twist wasn't believable at all, and even a non-fan would never be confused by that.

Describing the season as a whole, it could have turned out pretty good if it was 5 episodes instead of 8. If they hadn't wasted so much time on nonsense. If the dialogues had been interesting. If some of the important scenes were not directed in a laughable parody manner.

Overall, I would rate the first season at 6/10. The last episode was failure-proof, or at least hard to mess up. It also looks like somebody is helping with the dialogue, because in some scenes it feels like 200% better than on average. Maybe there is something to this.

If you subtract the visuals, it's 4/10.

If you are a more hardcore Tolkien fan (which I am not), 2-3/10.

Getting closer to the end of the first season, some things did start to happen.

Considering that in the previous two episodes, the ships were trying to sail out of the harbor and couldn't because of incomprehensible stupid complications, we're on the right track.

There are quite a lot of action and comedic moments in this episode. Little of what's going on makes sense; again, it's unclear why there are so many unnecessary scenes. The dialogue is still weak, but occasionally a couple or two good conversations make their way through. The choices the characters make are still not entirely clear, though. Galadriel is trying to control her eternal rage, and Halbrand is rewarded for not wanting to go and do anything, essentially with crowning. It's okay, but it saddens me since Aragorn had to endure much more to earn his title.

It's not clear at all why the peasants decided to take the fight, given that they had what the orcs needed and were allowed to leave. The twist is, again, stupid, but it at least led to something of scale happening.

The orcs also behave pretty strangely. It's not clear exactly what level of threat they pose. The defense scene in the village, in general, looked like a spin-off to "Home Alone" but with orcs. Lots of comedy especially shining through the tavern defense scene. I'm not sure why the orcs didn't just burn it down and find the thing they were looking for.

Many scenes from "Two Towers" are replayed, which does not work well because there is no particular empathy for the characters. And the stakes were minimal.

The action scenes were done well, and the Arondir&Brownyn music theme always gets me. Too bad their relationship doesn't play.

I'd say this one is slightly better in all respects but the dialogue and lame twists.

Again, as I've mentioned, the virtually static storytelling tempo continues. I guess it's fine for a series, but we're 3 episodes short of the season's end, so once again, as I've mentioned, this is going nowhere but to an "intriguing" cliffhanger.

The entire season seems to be aimed at introducing the characters. Too bad that 90% of the characters are either dull or annoying. Since the story has many branches, not all of them have been sufficiently developed in this episode.

In this episode, the writers keep introducing pointless conflicts and twists that don't add anything to the story but just make the characters constantly change their minds and feel inconsistent. Perhaps it would be easier to perceive even Galadriel's stubbornness if she spoke and acted like an elf rather than an actor in an elf costume. But this is not the case since the dialogue is so unnatural and modernized.

All in all, I went around in circles again, spending an hour watching the characters overcome made-up difficulties and constantly changing their minds. Already you can see that no characters are well-written, and most likely, there is no concrete vision of what they should become at the end since there is no clear understanding of the story's beginning and end.

So it is quite understandable why history is stagnating because it simply has nowhere to go. We don't know what to expect from the characters as they always act differently and change their attitudes at the last moment. That is, we know who they are supposed to become in many years and their future merits, except that what is happening now has nothing to do with the established personalities in the universe.

Thus, by episode 5 of the first season, the writers themselves have written out all the characters from the universe, making them more modern and completely different from expectations. If before, you would have thought that their way to the characters we know would be interesting, and we would understand why they became as we know them now so many years later. After this episode, given the pace and the approaching end of the season, I am fully convinced that the whole series is driven by completely different heroes, having nothing to do with the universe or Tolkien, who just put on fancy suits to do an amateur acting routine on expensive sets.

The problem is that the creators don't want to tell me a story to interest me, to intrigue me. They want me to watch it. They want me to spend time watching content. All the effort is invested in the process, not the substance. It's a beautiful empty shell, but what's the point?

Ep. 4 is perfectly in line with the others, except the ending suggests something is finally going to happen.

It would be easier for me to continue watching if the leads were relatable and the introduction had more stakes.

But since the first three showed everyday life, trying to add fluff to salvage lousy dialogue and unlikable characters, you must consciously decide to force yourself to continue watching.

Still no immersion, though. But my favorite confused extras looking straight into the camera are in place.

What makes this funnier is that there isn't much to review. The characters are being unfolded not through their hardships but their everyday routine. And the story is getting messier each episode, not even in terms of lore inconsistencies which are plenty, but through immersion-breaking reactions. Galadriel is now officially an utterly different character I have no sympathy for, but they are writing the show as I should have. She's just starting to get annoying with her persistence, which she validates. That said, most plot twists are based on the characters constantly changing their minds. It's as if they're working under the viewer and creating false expectations for the sake of false expectations, well, and based on their stubbornness, I guess. Imagine them getting into real trouble.

I've watched four episodes and still haven't figured out who I'm supposed to empathize with and when something will start happening (probably never). But I get baited every time.

This episode still manages to kill immersion every time I try to believe in what's going on. How can a pennyworth Mythica be 100 times more immersive than a major billion-dollar production?

As I've mentioned in my previous LOtRtRP reviews, the dialogue is a weird mix of contemporary and fantasy elements. It feels so weird when the characters talk about information, migration, and de-caravaning (don't get me wrong, Jackson's LOTR had those as well, but minimized).

Exposition delivery is also messed up, the queen doesn't know who her new captain is, and Galadriel asks stupid questions about the poisoned food (why would anyone save stranded people at sea only to poison them hours later).

Everyone is super racist again, but I'm not sure how this works. Like how can random people tell if Galadriel is an Elf when she's just walking by? They also emphasize her hiding her ears, so people just randomly check for ears even though Elves are not welcome on their land. I thought they would be more surprised than disgusted that an elf showed up. And since the queen saw this coming, her initial reaction made no sense.

I got some fun from watching confused extras standing clueless not knowing how they should react (especially the guards), entertaining.

The production is also a mix of ideas lacking coherence, everything looks beautiful and the CGI is very expensive and high-quality. But when it comes to design, we get a prison that looks like an art museum. Well, maybe it's Elven legacy.

Story-wise most of the episode is stretched with useless complications, like blacksmiths crest, front/back caravan, and more. So it seems that the show was planned to last at least 3-4 seasons. Every story branch moves as slowly as possible with lots of barriers that shouldn't have been there.

In a typical series format, the best scene in this one is at the end. I kinda enjoyed Elven kung-fu. The last 2 minutes are dynamic and fun. And of course, Arondir's music theme is amazing. I can still hear it playing in my head (although the main theme is lacking).

Even though the immersion-breaking dialogue and production design make this feel like a huge and expensive cosplay event, I can see myself continuing to watch this only (of course) to be disappointed over an empty cliffhanger of Season 1.

Ep. 3 shined by giving some screen time to Harfoots, introducing Elendil, who is my favorite now since the leads are so unlikeable, and providing an intense kung-fu scene. At the same time, it also brought all the problems of the previous episodes, as I predicted.

Overall, the series continues in line with mediocrity with the first episode (eventually shining here and there) and is likely doomed to be average, to be forgotten faster in history, never becoming a legend, and ever reaching myth.

The second episode included all the negatives, which I assumed would be the theme - the absence of any immersion and the confused acting.

They had a little more to show this time, and the dwarves were kinda cool. But closer to the end, red flags started showing - the pacing in some scenes made me want to fast-forward since there was nothing to latch onto.

I gave this series all I could at this point, and since it could not hook me in two hours, I don't think I should continue.

Don't get me wrong. I do not just hate for the sake of hate. I came open-minded and ready for something different, but there is nothing here.

This series has everything money can buy but talent, immersion, interesting characters, and mysterious adventure.

The pilot felt uninspired and mediocre at best.

If there ever was meant to be any immersion, it was destroyed by acting and overall little to no characterizations. The characters are shallow and mostly either completely hateful or slightly aggressive toward everything. So it's hard to find someone to root for, maybe except the harfoots.

The uninspired acting is solidified by random dialogue ranging from actually good to painful.

The pilot had strong production value but a rather weak art counterpart, with the best thing being a couple of memorable music tracks. The Arondir theme was amazing, pretty much helped me to get through his boring scenes.

Overall, I'd say my initial impression was spoiled by the amazing work of Peter Jackson and his art crew.

This one just feels not different, but soulless in comparison.

'Eight for SIlver' or 'The Cursed' isn't something you see often, or is it?

The film stands out among other horror films in that with a fairly basic plot and a simple story, it is shot in a way that makes its generic writing less noticeable. It's comparable to the last Star Wars film, it moves so fast your brain just cannot process enough information. So, I'd recommend watching this on x0.5 speed.

The film has lots of positives. It is well-produced (although limited in locations), feels rather authentic if you don't nitpick, has interesting looks and atmosphere, and has a rather good cast.

But it also has lots of negatives. The color correction needed more work since sometimes the picture is too dim and causes eye strain when you are forced to squint most of the time (even on a TV). The editing felt like it was done with a lawnmower. I often found good and rich scenes lasting 3 to 5 seconds, never to come back. Such editing doesn't give the characters a chance to unfold. They barely have any time to talk, and when they do, it's the third act, and we expect a tense ending, which is very messy btw. Maybe they were trying to mimic the dry editing of Exorcist III. We cannot be sure.

I can dig up more downsides, like lots of inconsistencies between shots (daylight/night switches, inconsistent scenery with flat ground/grass), but these things are not so essential, although very noticeable. Well, except for the 'thicc' unidentifiable accent from a side character, that was downright distracting in the end.

Even if you turn away from the editing and adjust to constant dimming, your brain will still look for scenes of particular meaning. Scenes should mean something. They are meant to establish or resolve things that can or do happen. Well, not in this one. Stuff happens. Some of the characters seem to have basic backstories, but ultimately their thoughts and motivation rarely connect.

So while I enjoyed it to a certain extent, I never felt like I was living through a story unfolding. More like a dry procedural early 20th-century spooky tale was being shown to me.

Overall, I'd say it was watchable and semi-well-done. If they would go easy with the editing and let these scenes breathe a bit, settle, let the characters talk, you know, this would've been a great spooky tale reminiscent of 'Le pacte des loups' (2001).

Just imagine describing the chain of events of this sci-fi horror parody mystery satirical comedy western drama to your friends. Just try to catch the moment when your friends realize you're playing a joke on them, making up incoherent nonsense.

This exercise of mindless self-indulgence lasts for two hours and consists of rather incoherent scenes of different genres all mixed up and loosely connected. Everything is all over the place. This approach was surely intentional and thus indicates either an egocentric approach and admiration for one's talents or an attempt to revolutionize the genre simply by piecing together all the genres.

To be absolutely fair, the film was interesting for about 30 minutes, when it tried building up something. Some decent scenes snuck in, and it almost felt like it was going to be interesting. But then a CGI monkey edited itself into the film, and everything went downhill.

If they had focused on building up the mystery with the good scenes, it could've ended up being cool. Instead, they tried to make every next scene more bizarre than the previous, nothing more.

4/10 for some good ideas and scenes.

The emotional core of "Vengeance" is strong despite the film's simplicity. The film features many emotional states, shattered stereotypes, funny situations, and reflective moments. It covers a wide range of topics, so you'll find food for thought here regardless of where you stand on any given issue.

The dialogue was well-written, but the story dragged a bit (closer to the end); more time should have probably been spent "unpacking" the family. But it was still fine as it was. I enjoyed the ending, although it wasn't too realistic, and the acting in the tent scene felt a little restrained. But hey, it's a film.

It almost had that documentary feel, which reminded me of Borat (albeit not as satirical). Thematically, it reminded me of "Everything Everywhere All at Once," though this is a matter of taste. It could just be me.

I think you'll find 'Vengeance' to be an engaging exploration of our nature and the values we hold dear. Not too deep and not oversimplified. Balanced and enjoyable (and a little long).

7.5/10.

Overall, 'Day Shift' was an enjoyable film or product to watch. The aesthetics were pretty good, and the vampire battles were exciting and dynamic. After the first scene, I thought this would be something bizarre like Carpenter's Vampires, but it turned out to be a generic unfunny 'supernatural' buddy-comedy with well-shot stunts.

Vampires were mostly superfluous to the plot; they're just your average evil guys and gals, so they might as well not even be vampires. They provided some lore here and there, but it was unessential, and even the characters seemed like they didn't care much about the breeds and the hierarchy.

The plot and the characters' dynamics were quite simplistic, adding little to the film. Numerous other films have presented a similar scenario better (MIB, RIPD, Hellboy); the antagonists were interchangeable for goons, demons, vampires, whatever. Sometimes the supporting characters were thrown into the film and then just walked away from the scenes since they had no reason to be there (rather just for the lame gags or stunts). No reason to dive deep into the story and try to understand it.

Perhaps I'm getting too old for this sort of thing, but all the jokes and comedic acts made me feel like opening the Lost Ark in the first Indiana Jones film. All the Blade 2 references, internet memes, background BTS and stuff, I don't know. It's subjective.

Maybe this would've worked if it was more subtle and severe. Perhaps the jokes would work being so out of place for a serious, gory film. But not this time.

Final rating - nice stunts out of 10.

The Innocents started quite well. Pleasant visuals, interesting cinematography, ambient soundtrack. They try to slowly reveal the kids' powers through a couple of unpleasant but effective scenes. I did not have a particular problem with the cat scene because I knew why it was here. The kid acting was ok. You can't expect more from younger kids.

The film started having problems fast, though. The pacing never changes. It didn't feel like it was building up to anything significant, and the ending scene proves this. So it was just a scene after a scene. Some of which were very similar.

Sadly, they didn't focus on a lead character, and the awaited reveal of her power was disappointing.

So when it felt like it was trying to end, it just ended. They pushed a vague message of family or sistership, but that ultimately did nothing for the story, just common sense.

Probably a deeper dive into Ben's character would've made this better. But it was still good, not excellent, but original and well-made.