Reviews

After the popularity of analog horror waned, it's funny to see elements of this once popular style from the internet on a movie for the big screens. Although it does not part ways with conventional narrative traditions, "Late Night with the Devil" delivers on some analog horror particularities that are noteworthy (the retro style; the use of glitches and intermissions; and putting reality into question - but I won't go into details to avoid spoilers). Obviously, it also borrows from 80's horror, as it's inevitable to incite comparisons with movies like "Videodrome" (1983) and "Ghostbusters" (1984) - but I'll leave it up to your imagination as to why, or, alternatively, you could just go and watch "Late Night with the Devil". I am, after all, writing this review to encourage you to watch it!

Besides that, as I mentioned, the film sticks to a regular story but places all bets on its gran finale, just like a magic trick, which, on more than one occasion, is the subject of the discussion between the characters, thanks to the skeptic guest that puts into question every (possibly) supernatural occurrence on the show. Aiming to expose any trickery that might swindle us viewers, the skeptic is our ally, playing the role of reason that often eludes horror movies (going as far as saying that "the viewer at home" is extremely suggestible - and isn't he right!). As such, the movie also exposes itself for all its trickery, but, very intelligently, leans into it, making a true spectacle of its horror (as I'm sure was intended, considering its theme of sensationalistic TV). Consequently, "Late Night with the Devil" is not exactly horrifying, but it does deliver on the thrill of its spectacle - with a whole lot of tension!

The Greatest Beer Run Ever deals with its subject matter so lightly, so nonchalantly, that it feels not only superficial, but detached from any semblance of humanity. It felt to me almost as if AI wrote the script (and it wouldn't surprise me if that turned out to be true). It especially feels like AI because it's uncanny how I saw what they wanted to get through in each scene, and EVERY single time it missed the mark.

Anyhow, the film is indeed nicely structured and competently acted, which gives dialogue more credibility, even though it deals with highly unlikely scenarios. These scenarios are treated as either humorous or emotionally charged but rarely affected me in any way. All in all, its final product is, albeit even, very out of touch with reality - a funny thing to say about a "true" story.

I've noticed it has become quite common for art produced in the 21st century to play it safe. Be it by being PC or by settling for the same old formula of the genre it's trying to replicate, but being self-conscious about it. X does both, but with the confidence of a superior art form.

The result is a contradictory movie: it attempts to comment on social issues (but achieves nothing more than a couple nods at certain general themes) whilst following in the steps of its exploitative predecessors. Due to that, when Ti West (writer and director) presents us with the themes he is supposed to tackle, it's not clear what he wants to say about them (except in regards to sexual liberation, which is undeniably essential to human happiness and even makes us better people, according to X).

Basically, the script of X can be summed up to a couple nods at social commentary and a couple more nods at slashers from the 70's and 80's. Meanwhile, when it attempts originality, it accomplishes nothing more than relishing in unapologetic sexual exploitation, posing self-involved catchphrases as virtue statements, intended only to criticize "prudish" people and the religious alike.

While the camerawork, direction and editing are quite clever, it feels heavily self involved, because the contents of the film do not justify such convoluted technicalities. The soundtrack makes up for a pretty good playlist, but that is nothing more than a cheap trick to make the viewer feel some unearned affection for the movie. All in all, form does not elevate the content. If there is nothing to be said, it doesn't matter how beautifully you say it, it is still nothing. X is basically the cinematic equivalent of a rebellious teen using empty pretentious discourse to criticize that which doesn't please them.

The Lost Daughter takes a pseudo-intellectual approach to maternity problems, while paradoxically showcasing its directionless anthology of explorative moments with a very melodramatic cinematography (filled to the brim with close-ups of contorted faces). Most of these moments hold some truth to them and give the characters some life. Leda is a guilt-ridden mother. Nina is a young mother unsatisfied with life. Both of them see something of themselves in each other. That thing is the moving force of their life choices: selfishness. Their concern with life is their own happiness and contentment. For that exact reason they are unable to find neither happiness nor contentment. That's my view and interpretation of what the movie explored, but I'm pretty sure it's self evident. Nonetheless, that's just one the film's many plot threads, and even though it's the main one, it gets buried underneath uncanny sexual tensions and unjustified conflicts (that lead nowhere) in the second half of its overlong 2 hour running time.

What really intrigues me is: after the nostalgia session most of the movie is about, how come Leda never learnt a lesson from all that? Every memorable (good or bad) moment of our lives instills in us some kind of prejudice. We live through complex situations, and to take something out of it to use again in similar situations, we have got to simplify the lesson learned. Much like the movie narrative structure, Leda too was a passive observer of her own life.

After the film tells us Leda and Nina are alike, there is no more development. Leda felt - and quite possibly, still feels - like Nina regarding life, and through the years learnt nothing at all, reaching the point of their encounter where the only connection between them is this flimsy excuse - that they feel discontent with their lives (oh, and they both have daughters). There is no point to their relationship, rendering the movie pointless as well. It's like the director wanted to explore the subject matter without interfering and taking a position, but made the mistake of telling the story through a character's eyes, making it seem like the character herself also didn't have an opinion on what transpired in her life. She knew she did something wrong but didn't know why.

In short, The Lost Daughter is, quite simply, an odyssey of selfishness and immaturity with no real conclusion.

The photography in La Enfermedad del Domingo will capture you from the moment the movie opens up. It won't be for another minute and thirty seconds until the movie cuts to the next scene. That scene alone sets the somber tone the rest of the film will be silently brooding over. And that scene alone will tell you if you should watch the remaining hour and fifty minutes of this motion picture. From this moment onward, the rhythm never picks up.

Having said that, know that a ruminating paced movie is no foe of mine, and through its mystery (and misery) that pace was fully justified. However, halfway through its run time, the mystery gave way to a more melodramatic approach that did not stick well. At that point, the film did not make space for new questions, neither did it answer previous ones. Its somber, brooding status felt suddenly distant and empty. La Enfermedad del Domingo superfluous and fleeting characterization only worked with the additional threatening atmosphere of the unknown capabilities of a bitter human in pain. The vengeful victimized soul and redemption-seeking, guilt-ridden duo had unspeakable force driving the movie forward from the get-go. When that was lost, the film also lost its edge and started ruminating on the simplistic causal effect of lost years and abandonment. From that point onward, the only thing that sustained my interest was both actresses pressure pot of emotional turmoil performances.

Coming up on the finale of the mother-daughter cathartic retreat, nothing the movie constructed insofar indicated such staged pseudo-arquetypical conclusion. It felt removed from the continuum of the narrative and succeeded only in being pretentious. Even so, I don't consider the film, overall, bad. La Enfermedad del Domingo has some masterful camerawork and photography. Noteworthy performances. And an idea that did not bloom into catharsis or something of substance. But it's a good idea nonetheless.

The brand new hype series of the season. Is it any good? With so many commenting about it and the massive number of positive reviews on this website, I dare ask the question everybody feels so confronted when asked: why? If you have seen the show and enjoyed it, please take a minute to consider the reasons for that. I feel like "Squid Game" has been given too much credit, and I will try to explain why without spoiling for those who still consider watching it.

A few users on IMDb have already pointed out many incongruities in the story, unresolved plot points, character inconsistencies, unexplained details and while all of it is valid criticism, I could easily nitpick any number of flaws with the story, dialogue and characters, and not make a point. Aside from the fact that I don't want to spoil the series, I think it's more important to highlight the general idea of the show and why most plot holes, from small to gigantic, were a problem, instead of just listing them.

To begin with, the premise is preposterous and nobody would think that to be feasible, therefore it's unreasonable to criticize the show for being unrealistic. We take what is given to us and suspend our disbelief until further notice. And that's where the issues begin. I can happily ignore certain details about HOW all of it came to be, if those details are never mentioned again. However, "Squid Game" takes an approach to its story that confronts the whole idea of its premise, setting it against rational inquiry of the facts shown to us. Simply put, its an absurd story trying to be realistic. Is that a problem? Not necessarily. Take "The Platform" for example: The absurd premise is justified by the bigger picture, a metaphor. "The Platform" doesn't dwell on the details of HOW it all came to be, or WHO is behind all of it. It doesn't matter, because the narrative structure only serves as a parallel between our's and the movie's reality. Then how does "The Platform" differ from "Squid Game"? In favor of reliable (read: cliché) plot conflicts, the metaphor aspect comes crashing down in "Squid Game". For example, when the masked game enforcers are shown as human, it naturally begs the question: HOW did those people end up there? Now these characters are not an idea anymore, they are people, and people need stories. And guess what? They never get one.

That problem repeats itself a number of times, most notably with the main characters' decisions, as they repeatedly take actions that are not in accordance with their already established characteristics. When they break character, it is in favor of a simple and predictable resolution to the problem faced. If they were to act accordingly to themselves, the story wouldn't go the authors' way. That would create conflicts the writers wouldn't know how to solve, therefore they end up relying on clichés to save themselves from that trouble.

The way I see it, a story like this should have taken one of 3 approaches: realistic, fantastical or metaphorical.

As a metaphor, "Squid Game" could've worked not unlike the aforementioned "The Platform", drawing parallels with the elements of the show and our reality.

As a fantasy series, it could have gone down the same path as "Alice in Borderland". The realism wouldn't matter then and the mystery would be stronger.

As a realistic show we would have something like "Saló or 120 days of Sodom". And it should've felt just as disturbing, after all, both stories are about powerful people playing with the lives of unfortunate souls. But that doesn't seem to be the point "Squid Game" wants to make, after all it puts us in the same place of the evil powerful men in masks: sitting comfortably in our sofas, relishing in the spectacle of violence, anguish and pain. But hey, that could be the point the show is making, right? You are just as bad as those evil men! You are enjoying this show too! But no, "Squid Game" doesn't confront you with that notion, like Michael Haneke did with "Funny Games". You are to mindlessly enjoy the carnage and ask no further questions. Are you satisfied? Don't worry about answering that. Keep yourself busy. Watch another episode before you have time to ask yourself another silly question.

You've seen this story before. I can assure you there is nothing innovative about the plot of Tomorrow War: All-around normal dad living in the suburbs with a military and scientific background gets drafted into a special operation to save human kind from evil human-eating aliens... unending ammo gunfights and over the top explosive destruction ensues.

The old "I love my family but I gotta save the world for them to be safe" formula is rehashed in this film (looks like we haven't had enough of those!), but with a very Disney twist: jokes. And I don't mean fully developed, clever and well-placed jokes. I mean out-of-place, insert-here pun's. I won't say I didn't chuckle a couple of times, but I'm no monster, I have a good sense of humour. That doesn't make the jokes any less lazy and misplaced. Most of them just break the tension, or don't work at all. It makes you wonder, why are they there in the first place? Almost every action blockbuster had them since the 80's, but somehow nowadays it's become mandatory to have one every 5 minutes, otherwise your audience will lose interest in the movie.

Because of these formulaic constraints, "The Tomorrow War" crutches onward with only cheap catchphrase dialogue and predictable generalized character motivations and conflicts. In the end it does check every box, but the tasks solutions are superficial and unimaginative.

By no means it's a horrible movie, however it won't be leaving a mark either. You could say it's entertaining, but when you've seen the same old story a thousand times before, the joke starts to become old and it's just not fun anymore.

Saying your film is bad, doesn't excuse the fact that it is bad. A Classic Horror Story knows what it is, but doesn't make anything out of it, just sits on top of the pile of superficial genre defining clichés horror fans are so acostumated with and looks at you for 90 minutes.

The movie really thinks its being clever by giving us a convoluted amalgamation of horror tropes and telling us how bad it is. I'm sorry to break it to you, but that's not intelligent. That's lazy.

Whatever A Classic Horror Story tried to do, was already done (with much more finesse) by The Cabin in the Woods (by director Drew Goddard). Not even in cinematography, audio mixing, editing or photography there was any noteworthy accomplishment. I guess the acting was good, but it's what you half expect from a horror movie: people screaming, shouting and crying. Their performance sells the stupitidy of the plot to a certain point but by the end, its past the point of salvation.

As a thought challenge, Primer succeeds. As a movie, it commits the worst of all sins: it's boring. Primer is not hard to follow for the reasons you expect. It's hard because it fails to invest you into the story. It naturally involves your curious side, but only to the science's merit. As a narrative, primer has no punch.

In a vain effort to disguise the bland story, the convoluted way Primer is presented makes it seem more complex and intelligent than it actually is. That's pretty clear right from the start, as the first few minutes of the movie are: incoherent technical jargon being spouted left and right in a montage that adds absolutely nothing to the development of characters or story.

At very least, Primer is commited to its style and stays true to it throughout its duration.

Punch-Drunk Love resembles a common rom-com, but all of its narrative beats are out of synch. But not by much, so it keeps you invested. It's a story you know very well, but it is presented in a way that makes you question your ability to predict what will happen next.

Every scene is accompanied by a uneasy feeling, a twinge of discomfort, even when it is making you laugh at the sheer absurdity of it all. Or rather, the absurdity of the characters actions. Most of the actual narrative is tradicional, but it is in how Anderson's characters navigate through this ordeal that the genius of Punch-Drunk Love shines through.

Punch-Drunk Love somewhat reminded me of the Eric Andre Show, and oh boy, I love it. It is fun. It is riveting. It is complex. It is agonizing. It is absurd. It is satisfying. And it is damn well worth it.

"The Golden Glove" shows a series of events but doesn't tell any story entwined with these events. All the faithful recreation is just that. An recreation of events. Like a slide show of pictures depicting each and every grisly detail of what took place during that time, it stands as a sequence of facts, shown for no purpose whatsoever. It is pointless, bland and tremendously tasteless. To one whom horror and gore isn't anything new in movies, "The Golden Glove" doesn't even have shock value.

It could've been a character examination. It could've had a message. However, it ended up being no more than an empty shell of cinema. Props for making not only the actor look and act as similar as the real Fritz, but also for recreating that little disgusting attic, in which he lived, to such a chilling degree. But that's all there is to "The Golden Glove".

Ad Astra reveals little of the underlying complexity it tries to convey. It, again, tries to do so through amazing direction, cinematography, photography and sets. A true feast for the eyes. Though it's undoubtedly marvelous to look at, the scenes signify close to nothing at all. The moments where introspection is portrayed, don't incite reciprocal action on the viewers part, because Ad Astra offers almost no content to be digested. Whom is to blame? Out of place action scenes indicate a great contradiction to the main plot of the story, though it might be a conscious choice (to have grandiosity overshadowed by common, intrinsic human nature and need), it wasn't neatly tied together. Therefore, the pieces of the script ended up loose, hanging only by a thread, a thread named Brad Pitt. A stunning performance hindered only by the aforementioned lack on content. It's a simple conflict the movie offers, with intertwined sub-plots that never reach any semblance of conclusion or real connection to the main plot. In conclusion, the movie comes through as a lazy adaptation of a deeply complex novel. A very sumptuous one, nonetheless. A Space Odyssey wanna-be, if you will.

Ironically, "Burning" is... Cold. It's a cold depiction of a set of events. It could - and should - have been more emotional, more impactful. It should've pulled on some heartstrings, but it didn't. "Burning" is a slow-burner (yeah, again with the pun. I know it ain't even funny, but it's true, so don't judge me ...) and that in itself isn't a problem because it does use its time meaningfully. However, it's not meaningful in the way it should have been to make the way things played out worth your while. The movie starts off much like a simple drama, but delves into a picturesque character study sort of film. Still using the same methods of direction, the movie then morphs into a mystery-thriller. (The mystery happens because, as character study, the film simply shows us hints of what is on the mind of the character, but with too many hints it allows anything to be interpreted; therefore, creating mystery). The looking-from-afar style makes it impossible to connect emotionally when the thriller is at its full-blown sequence, especially when the motives for said tension to escalate were disregarded to begin with. It's actually more confusing than infuriating. When you realise: "Oh, so that happened..." you're left more than a little underwhelmed.

"Beoning" is beautifully shot and perfectly written. There's nothing I would change about that, neither would I'd want the acting to be any different. I just question the directors choices, as it could've allowed a emotionally devastating masterpiece to exist.

About all the social-economic-gender-politics nonsense some people see in this movie, I can't say for sure that it wasn't Chang-Dong Lee's exact thoughts on this whole movie. However, you'll see that exactly what I said earlier about the construction the plot being too impersonal is what allowed these people to see whatever they wanted in the cold-hard presented in the movie. Sure, Lee Jong-su's narrative can't be trusted. Sure, I considered it all to be a figment of his imagination. But let's be realistic here for a moment: how many movies have already done that kind of plot twist? It's, honestly, quite idiotic. It would have too many plot-holes. Sometimes simple is best, and otherwise wouldn't work anyways, so why consider all the other possibilities? The movie is what it is. Simple and straightforward. Whatever else you see there is just you doing what you thought the protagonist was doing; it's you projecting your own fantasies and beliefs into this movie. But then again, I don't know what Chang-Dong Lee was thinking when he made this movie. It could be that the ambiguity is there to have this exact kind of impact.

Nonetheless, I believe movies shouldn't be political statements. A film should be an art form, and art should be felt. Doesn't stop it from having social commentary of some sort, however "Beoning" failed to make me feel just about anything, so, despite having a cast of enormous talent and having hit all the right marks on the technical aspects, it failed to do what matters most; it failed to carry emotions with it.

My dearest father... "Apostle" opens up with Thomas' kidnapped sister's letter to their father, pleading for rescue. The kidnappers: a creepy cult. What they want? Ransom money. Wasting no further time with explanations, alongside Thomas, we are thrown in a quick journey to the island where the cult is situated. Away from the heinous dominant civilization. Things quickly take a turn for the creepy (and not the worst, for now) when we learn of the devout's behavior. But it is too late to turn back. And Thomas has a mission to complete.

I'd say the movie is divided in 2 parts: the build-up and the resolution. The first part tries its best to create some sort of sympathy for characters, but fails miserably, for writing is not ours dearest Mr. Evans strongest suit. He should really just stick to directing. He's freaking good at that. Every single dialogue is terrible in this movie. It's not even that it feels... out of place, it is straight up a mess. It's incoherent, cliché, soulless and unnecessary. Lucky for us, there isn't a whole lot of dialogue. It really kills the story, because it impedes us from connecting with the characters, and them with each other. One bad guy is made to look good, and the other simply turns sadistic at random. Considering the "gadgets" the religious community had in store, I wonder why the hell the cult leader morally wavered at a certain point. The actors are great, but they have terrible lines. And they try. I mean, they have so much more to offer, and so does the director. It's a shame they didn't give the script to someone more knowledgeable in writing.

When the climax kicks in, all the mechanisms used to push this latter part of the movie forward weren't explored in the first segment. For that reason, the shift in tone feels drastic, also failing in sticking together beginning and ending. However, because the second segment unravels predictably, it maintains a good balance on both sides, succeeding in not losing the viewer midway through. It also helps that the film has a great atmosphere, thanks to the sets, costume design, make up and photography.

In short, the slow burning build up doesn't work. We don't get attached to the characters. But then the real horror starts. That's when the movie shines. In a mix of Outlast and conventional horror, "Apostle" delivers in a wildly violent and tense fashion everything we were hoping for. It does surprise a bit in how it goes about in doing so, but it's mostly a standard horror movie, beautifully gory.

1922 was a long year, for the characters and for us watching this movie.

I wouldn't call "1922" a horror movie. Even though some elements in it resemble the genre, I'd say "1922" is a drama. To put it simply: The greed of a man puts the lives of everyone around him in jeopardy. From the start we have the facts narrated to us through the voice of Wilfred James, for he recalls the consequences of his greed in the year of 1922.

Far from groundbreaking, this movie only surprises in steering clear from common horror and thriller tropes, maintaining a steady pace in its chosen form: drama with psychological aspects. Even though "1922" doesn't fails its step into any paradoxal mistakes, there is one unforgivable movie sin we all hate that "1922" does commit: being boring.

Do I have a problem with slow burning thrillers? Do I like stupid shoot out actions sequences with big explosions and little to no meaning to them at all? NO. I do not. I love, for example, Breaking Bad. And we know it can be a little boring to young fidgety minds. So how's "1922" any different? It doesn't deliver. It tells its tale. It ends. And that's about it. There isn't any hysterical emotional breakdowns. Filthy violent repercussions. It's not a pertinent movie.

"1922" drags out its slow burning premise, saved by close call by the narrations, which picks the movie up at just the right times. Even then, it still leaves something amiss. I'm not one to tell how movie is made, but surely it needs SOME kind of impact (surprising, shocking, thrilling, sad, happy) to leave a mark on its viewer. Even a scare would be fine. However, the horror elements are turned into more fuel for the drama - but the mechanism doesn't work, so the fuel is wasted and we are left with an emotional wasteland of boredom.

I really wanted to like this movie, but it was just too tidy to be worth remembering.

"So when the Devil wants to dance with you, you better say never Because a dance with the Devil might last you forever"

I must admit the concept is interesting. Who would've thought about having a fake kidnapping company? Nonetheless, however interesting the premise was, the plot is seriously lacking. All the twists and turns it would take, were already on my mind by the 20-minute mark (I'm just guessing that number... though I maintain I've predicted pretty much everything that would happen in no time). To compensate the lack of originality of the script, the directors work would have to be of utmost unpredictability. And, yes, the director accomplished that. The diverse rapid shifts in tone, from thrilling to comedic to sexually ambiguous to sardonic and to emotional, to name just a few, where scattered across the entirety of the movies duration, granting life to the stale screenplay. Obviously, none of that would have been possible without these amazingly authentic characters and fascinating performances by the lead actors. Maybe all this shifting could've made the characters, and evidently enough, the film, a little bit unstable and consequently a trifling and vain experience, however the director didn't push it too much, marking more the comedic side of such sudden transitions.

It's, overall, a decent movie. Not at all innovative, but entertaining enough to wrap up a tiring week with a couple laughs.

Thelma allows too many genres in it, not focusing in one, but rather, blending them all together. Take it as you will: be it as a mess or as a nice mix. Photography is undeniably stunning, much like Thelma's character, played by Eili Harboe. The actress does a fantastic job of carrying the movie by herself, as other actors are very forgettable. The shot at symbolism in this movies is incoherent and shallow. Most of what the movie wants to evoke, question and state, is already pretty obvious by itself, making the whole supernatural drama a unnecessary whim. There is little to be said about what Thelma is. It mostly deserves praise for how it is shown.

What starts as a regular drama, really surprises towards the end, when things take a different turn. Consider yourself warned if you aren't a fan of surreal film.

Buster's Mal Heart is really slow, but it develops nicely, without feeling dragged on. There are mainly 2 time lines. Present and Past. We see Buster as he is now, and throughout his days, we experience his memories. At times, there are a few dislocated scenes, not adding up to the story, though, they add up to the nightmarish feeling of the movie. The director is actually very good at playing with that feeling of underlying dread of a bad dream, and she does so more prominently at the end of the movie. Between the dramatic sequences of Buster's Mal Heart, there is a solid performance by Rami Malek, and later, his work remains consistent with the strangeness of the last segment.

However, not all is great about this film. The biggest problem is that all of the movie conjectures feel too loose to be tied up by the end. Most of the keys to unravel the story being touched upon too superficially to impact harder or stand out. A lot could've been explored further, and rather than playing at being something else, from the begginnig the movie should've been blurring the line between memory and delusion. Some other aspects of the story were predictable, leaving even more to be desired. Nonetheless, the experience was worth it, and most of the mistakes were covered by the grand finale, definitely recommend it for the right people. If you know what to expect, go for it.

I can understand why this movie is so highly regarded by critics. But deep down, I'm just your average movie enthusiast that still loves stupid movies with badass guys shooting bad guys with big guns. Sure there are time I'm really into some cult movies, but they are cult for a reason and that's because most people don't enjoy them, because most people love stupid movies with badass guys shooting bad guys with big guns. It's unfair, but that's how it goes. When watching The Duke of Burgundy I never expected it to be a mainstream movie, but even so I can't help feeling let down. However, let me start by what's good in this movie: The first thing I noticed was the atmosphere. Dark but ironically so, colorful. The slow unravel of the relationship's intricacies and, yet again, slow build up to the inevitable emotional breakdown, were carefully crafted, that is obvious talent right there. Nevertheless, personally, it failed to deliver the emotional impact it promised, leaving no lasting impressions or afterthoughts on the subject the movie was centered on. There was a surreal dream sequence that, in my opinion, did not fit the movie, and even if you can have an interpretation out of it, it felt misplaced and pretentious. On some levels, this movie reminded me of Shame, but where shame got it right, this one felt bland and unclear. As far as enjoyment goes, this movie failed me. It was boring. Good but boring.

Dunkirk has no substance. Even if many movies do well with little dialogue, this one couldn't escape unharmed. The large cast and unfocused narrative left little screen time to develop characters, as a result of that approach, the viewer can't connect with any of the many soldiers and civilians shown in this film, so their deaths end up being as shallow as their personalities. It crossed my mind that this could be an issue, taking into account the movie is only 1h 46min long. I was right. Besides that, all technical aspects of the film are top-notch. Direction, photography, soundtrack, and whatever the rest may be are incredible and really add up to the tension, its only redeeming feature.

"Out of the furnace" starts off with big potential, exhibiting a cast that promises much more than what it delivers. The problem is not with the actors, nor with the director, per se. The problem is that all these fantastic actors did not get any space to develop in the movie. What we're shown are two broken brothers, forsaken by society, living with the bare minimum (but a pretty good house they have there, don't you agree?). Casey Affleck plays the younger brother that is already beyond repair, and, sadly, doesn't get enough screen time to develop any further. On the other hand, Bale, our protagonist, is the focus of this story. Throughout the movie he is slowing being broken, to a point that leads to the final climax of the movie. Now I should commend the fantastic and tense build up the movie makes, however, I'm on edge here. I really want to rant about the ending. Without spoiling anything, after all the good work done through, "Out of the furnace" spirals down to the same old recipe of an ending, being ridiculously stretched out and overly melodramatic. The movie set a tone of realism in the beginning (with a touch of social commentary) but failed to sustain the same style through to the end. All other side characters are left aside, playing small roles that don't allow any development. It's a shame. It's a waste. It could've been a lot more and that's what really kills the movie to me. It could've been a lot more.

Hot babysitter turns out to be part of a satanic cult that kills people as sacrifice. Pretty standard stuff, right?

It turns out that the movie starts with a "boom": funny, well paced, well edited and actually smart for once. Cinematography, lightening and, again, editing were innovative and riveting (somewhat remembered me of Nicolas Winding Refn) but the cutting-edge aspects died down as the movie stalled through the common route taken by many other horror movies. Along that path, absurdity grew as the originality diminished, resulting in a predictability, but once again showed improvement in the last few minutes of the film.

Still, it's worth remembering the whole experience was very enjoyable and funny. Sometimes even edge-of-your-seat tense. The few jumpscares weren't effective in the least, even though a shame, it was to be expected and did not affect my entertainment (and should not affect yours either).

This is the definition of late night flick. It's not bad enough to make you cringe, not complicated enough to give you headaches, but rather gory and funny enough to make you relax and enjoy your evening.

Two episodes in and I'm already hooked. Technically speaking, this series is very good (it's directed by David Fincher, of course it's good) and it stays true (so far) to the real-life crimes it was based on. I can't say the same for the characters, and how close they are to the people who really did this work, but considering their names are different and the book they adapted wasn't some sort of biography, most of their personal (love) lives must be fictitious or at least overtly dramatized.

You see, this series here isn't some kind of good cop, bad cop chase villains and shoot and explode a lot of stuff and at the end of the day (or episode) they go back to their wives and sleep like babies. No. There are way too many series like that, so search elsewhere if that's what you want, because you won't find that here.

Mindhunter is slow. Very slow. At first it might look like an simple thriller but actually it tells the story of two FBI agents in their pursuit to, as very precisely said by Holt McCallany's character, "understand how crazy thinks". But that doesn't come easily. Crazy is crazy. You gotta be crazy to understand crazy. But that doesn't stop naïve Holden Ford from interviewing the most despicable real-life psychopaths alive in America in the late 70's to develop the ideas that will become the tenets of the criminal profiling system.

As I said before, Mindhunter is directed by David Fincher, and as expected from his work, it's impeccable, both pacing and cinematography are top-notch. At the end of the episode you will be like "wait, that's it?" as the credits roll and the song keeps playing like the story is still going on. And somehow you are watching the next episode.

Writing and dialogue are great too. All very natural and haunting. Damn psychos could very much be the real ones. And that gets me to the acting, from what I've seen there's enough to say it's fantastic. The characters are brought to life by the actors. Also, the chemistry between characters Holden Ford and Bill Tench is incredibly real and sometimes, even through the bleakness of their work's nature, hilarious.

To finish off, I'll just say the biggest review cliché: Mindhunter is not for everyone. I know you know everyone says it, but it's truer in this case. If my review and the trailer got your attention, you gotta watch it. If it didn't, you'll probably hate Mindhunter. That's how it goes.

--- Minor Spoilers ahead (but don't worry too much, as I've wrote down the next line, I don't know much to give it away) --- 3 episodes in is not much, so I'll make this quick.

The story revolves around Jean, this psychologist who is married and has a little trans girl. Love how they approach the subject like: "It's complicated, but hell, it happens." And then it moves on to the main story: Jean is "effing" crazy. Well, not so much. She has anxiety issues and for some reason, starts entering her patients' acquaintances (or family, or whatever) lives, and it really makes no sense (to me) as to why is she doing that, because we aren't given much on her state of mind. We only know about what's on her mind when she's thinking of Sidney (Yes, that's a girl, and yes, it's quite gay what they have there). Sexual tension ensues. Besides that, we get to see Jean's day-to-day life. And it's quite boring. Sure, the series has potential, but I have a feeling that the "Thriller" tag on IMDb is a little bit (completely, as of now) off. It's simple cheesy melodrama. Buuuut, I'm still hoping it will spiral down to hell with this little bullshit she's doing (meddling with patients lives). However, I enjoy when suddenly all characters are in a room with a gun in their hands, each pointing to the next and before you know it, blood is everywhere. That's my kind of movie (or series). And that's what I'm hoping for here, so I'm biased when it comes to guessing an ending that is not terrible. For those of you who don't like that gory, tense, climax thingy, rest assured, I doubt it will happen. I'm even starting to hope for a happy (and gay) ending! But given the circumstances, it's kinda hard to believe it will go so smoothly.

The opening and ending sequences tracks are fantastic (so far), and I can't wait for someone to upload the soundtrack to YouTube, so I can listen to it and reminisce about the series. And preferably, cry in a corner while doing so.

Hmm... what else?

Naomi Watts is great as always, but I'm afraid Billy Crudup just can't keep up. He has this face, that no matter how mad he's supposed to be, his eyes make it seem like he's having a great time at a party in a Bahamas beach. While on ecstasy. I don't even know why I thought (or wrote) that. Anyways, the little girl is cute and is fantastic. I see a future for her. Or not. You know child actors. Sophie Cookson and Karl Glusman are given lesser roles but they nail it nonetheless. The others non-important characters are also great, specially the pill addicted redhead that doesn't show up much. I expect great things from her.

About the technical stuff, there isn't much to say, it's quite straightforward and by the book, and I wouldn't want to bore you with details. Let's just say it's good.

Concluding, Gypsy gives off a psychological thriller vibe, but doesn't push that aspect throughout the series (or rather, the 3 episodes I've watched) degrading itself to a simple melodrama ("Should I cheat or should I go?"). Nonetheless, it's very intriguing, to the point it's rendering me unable to stop the classic (is it classic already?) Netflix marathon.

Watch it. Give it time. And then we'll see. Or not, because if you stop watching it, it's only gonna be me seeing it...