53 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Civil War (2024)
9/10
A grim jaunt across divided America
17 April 2024
For those curious about what this film is and is not, here's a quick summary: It is a war movie, but it's not about the military.

It isn't action packed, though it has its moments.

It's not a great date movie, a big end-of-the-world movie or a fun-filled buddy adventure, although it has some good visuals and lots of character building moments.

It's political, but not like you'd think, in that parties or factions are not clearly venerated or condemned-it's not the goal of the film at any point to make a clear statement of this kind.

It's bleak, hard, disturbing, occasionally fun, often visually fantastic and sometimes very quick and/or detached from its own "reality".

It's a movie that isn't meant to be so much enjoyed as experienced, and it is, in my opinion, a compelling enough experience as a story to merit a good rating as a result.

Dunst plays cold and jaded veteran photojournalist aiming for a pinnacle moment for both her career and her country. Moura offers a fitting (and much appreciated) counter to her often emotionless, dismissive mannerism. Spaeny, playing a younger version of Dunst's character, provides a window into innocence and the slow degradation of same innocence owing to the brutality of her circumstances. McKinley-Henderson does a fine job of mostly being himself. You've seen him on film, and that's who he's cast as, for the most part. His character, as an aging journalist, is like a thickening agent that allows this ragtag press team to feel like a complete recipe.

Throughout the film, Garland keeps a steady pace, unfolding a story that, as it progresses, is often predictable, but not in a negative way. Rather than twists and surprises in the overall world plot are less interesting than the encounters faced along the journey. He masterfully crafts an ongoing series of situations that effectively incriminate America as a whole, rather than aiming at a faction. His critical lens isn't reserved for the government, or for rural America, but extends into the main characters, provoking hard questions about why we do what we do, what we are fighting for, and ultimately the consequences of that battle on our souls.

It's a difficult movie to watch. I was prepared for some kind of scathing anti-Trump agenda or for a hardline defense of the importance of the press, neither of which were true. I find it difficult to compare, as it certainly has aspects of a good war movie, with pummeling battle sequences, trauma-inducing tragedies and the various terrors which accompany war. But, often, it feels less like a war movie and more like a quest in the guise of a war movie. A quest for a purpose-be it a victory, a photograph, a destination or something to link the threads together-something to give an end to the means of the awful circumstances.

I'm not an Alex Garland fan, nor would I recommend this movie to everyone, but if you are the kind of person who values a critical look into our culture via pure fiction that is, at times, painfully relatable, and if you are someone who doesn't mind a pinch of journalistic integrity, which is to say a lack of clear bias in many cases, this film provides a beautifully harrowing cautionary tale that might make you thankful it's just a movie. Or is it?
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Mission (2023)
4/10
Meh, a non-committal mess
15 February 2024
First, to those complaining this is "too Christian", it's anything but. This documentary tries to ride the line and show multiple sides, but it leans heavier to the "he was misguided" side with some strong digs toward evangelicals and missionary work in general. It is anything but sympathetic to mission work and goes out of its way to highlight all the "damage" done by missionaries, or at the very least, the wasted efforts (by interviewing a missionary turned atheist).

I appreciated the various points of view and the attempt to be impartial, but several things gummed up this documentary.

The animation was not appealing to me. I would have preferred re-enactments or a different animation style. It seemed cheap and cheesy at times, though still effective and better than nothing.

The editing was confusing, leaving me wondering what the point of the documentary was. For a documentary about such a focused and driven (misguided or not) young man, the film it self was far less confident and focused, meandering from non-commitment, to moments of sympathy, then on to scathing appraisals of disagreement, and finally landing with an awkward sense of off-balance closure with a religious, but non-Christian, poem by the dad.

I felt like this film tried to be something everyone could appreciate, but ended up being something that probably won't please the skeptics or the believers. We might assume that's the expected outcome of neutral journalism, but it felt too cobbled together and forced to seem relevant.

The information was fascinating, but the film, for me, was disappointing.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Life (I) (2017)
8/10
Smooth entry and landing. Almost rehearsed.
14 February 2024
Warning: Spoilers
First, let's address the obvious: this movie will be compared to Alien, just as every other space horror film justifiably will be for time immemorial. Alien is better. There, now can we talk about how this movie is mostly awesome?

Casting is spot on with every main being capable and convincing in their performances across the board. None of them are winning best actor in this, but it's not the kind of movie out for those accolades. This sci-fi thriller is about survival and the fear and ruthless energy that drives us to fight for that right. The characters bring a suitable range of emotion, friendship and sparse humor (guess who that role falls on).

Where this movie excels is acting, production and tone. It's solid on every level in those areas. Where this movie suffers is writing, and here's why: the plot and some of the biggest build ups and tension are things we've seen before. Sure, Alien, but also Gravity, Event Horizon, Sphere. Pandorum, etc. Were this my first foray into the space horror genre, I'd be blown away and raving about the merits of this film, but this song has a suspiciously familiar tune, and the lack of originality is, at times, a tone-killer. It feels like the actors are doing their jobs, the crew is doing their job, and everyone is doing a good job, but all those individual notes add up to a cover song of something we've already loved from another artist.

But, let's set aside the lack of originality and concede that this film has gall, and it starts early flaunting its lack of adherence to what you expect. The death of Reynolds's character early on signals a vibe shift to a more sinister, high stakes movie than the early shenanigans imply. No one is safe, and we quickly come to suspect that this might be one of those movies where no one gets out alive. As the Alien(1979)-esque escape and venting of Calvin unfolds, it looks like we might be in for another Ripley ending, but it isn't clear who Ripley will be.

Unfortunately for the crew in this film, there is no Ripley. The flame thrower doesn't work. The airlocks don't always work. Throwing the creature into space doesn't work. Shocking it doesn't work. Suffocating it doesn't work. The crew is woefully incapable of killing, or even harming, this little face hugger-meets-Men In Black-squid-thing. Calvin isn't dying, and despite the valiant attempts of everyone on board, we quickly begin to see that they will need one of those epic long shot plot holes to finish this creature, which comes in the form of an escape pod.

And let's talk about the ending, because...the ending is straight out of Night of the Living Dead and I kind of loved it. It was insanely noir and unsatisfying in a boldly horror-film way. The switched escape pod twist wasn't something I saw coming until the camera started lingering a bit too long on the landed module. Then I suspected it was just a suspense grab, but no, he went all in and did it.

It's not a film for everyone. It's not incredibly original, but this is a film the cast and crew should be proud of, although the writers might want to work on their idea thieving skills because we caught them red handed one too many times on this one.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Night Swim (2024)
7/10
Smart premise, watchable, but missing something
24 January 2024
I almost didn't watch Night Swim due to the rough ratings, but decided to give it a try. I immediately felt like the bad ratings were unjustified. I was engaged and enjoyed the movie through the first and second act, but the third act lost some stars, although it might be completely subjective on my part.

It's a light horror with a strong emphasis on the characters and family dynamics, so if you're looking for action sequences or long chase scenes, skip this one. If you like a believable cast and characters who aren't overacted or wildly stereotypical, you might like the fairly normal and non-remarkable Waller family who are going through a rough time right now, but not the typical horror recovering from a death in the family cliche.

A creepy pool with a clever back story is a welcome switch from some of the more bland horror fare recently, and I didn't mind the slow pacing. The jump scares were fine and effective enough to keep me tense (I'm not a horror novice), and execution was solid throughout. But...

I started disconnecting during the third act as certain aspects of the plot began to feel inconsistent and too convenient to the desired outcome. The rules and the stakes felt iffy, which took me out of the moment and left me feeling like the movie chose to stay in the shallow end when it could have done something better.

However, I loved the acting throughout. The characters were understated and moderately played, which felt like a nice change. The emotion and the chemistry seemed good. The CGI left something to be desired (a la What Lies Beneath, which was made a LONG time ago).

Fun movie some of the way, confusing at times, with an ending that annoyed me and felt rushed and/or rewritten to provide more emotional weight, but fell flat for me.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Shift (II) (2023)
7/10
Big idea, amateur execution, but not the ending I expected
6 December 2023
I went in knowing nothing about this movie other than a two sentence summary in the Cinemark app, but I figured I'd give it a try. It was apparent early on that it was a low budget b-grade sci-fi flick, but the beginning caught my interest. It rapidly showed signs of having religious undertones, which I can tolerate if done well, but I admit made me suspicious of the content to come. By the end I felt like it was a small scale, streaming level quality storyline with little known actors (save Sean Astin and Neal McDonough) that could have been a TV show from the early 2000s.

A man with some history of family trauma is stuck in a multiverse with a (not so) mysterious figure ruling in a dystopian alternate version of his life. He must find a way back to his world-one where he can be reunited with his wife and fix their marriage.

The plot plunges into overt Christian themes early on, which I didn't expect. Slowly it begins to be clear that there's an allegory here about the book of Job, but it's creative enough that I wasn't sure what to expect of the ending.

I'll pause here and readily admit that most religion driven films annoy me, although I identify as someone who is religious. The underlying themes often remove any sense of stakes or risk an otherwise secular movie would have, since it's obvious God is going to fix everything in the end. This movie works to subvert that to a certain degree, and succeeds, in my opinion.

The mood, set, filming, acting-all consistent with TV quality, but still done well. McDonough does a great job with the material he's given. The pacing leaves something to be desired, with painfully slow points that feel as though they are meant to be emotional, but happen too frequently to land effectively, and end up feeling overlong. There are definitely a few emotional hits along the way, culminating in an ending that did not go as I expected, and I'm still not sure how I feel about it.

That being said, I much prefer the ending they chose than the one they led me to expect earlier in the movie.

All in all, it was inspiring and interesting, if not incredibly clever or masterfully executed. Still a good evening in the theater with a little more soul than I went in expecting.
2 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Struck the right chords for me
8 November 2023
I'll offer some fair criticism here, but also freely admit that I just really liked the blend of faith, edge, ethics and suspense this movie juggles, for reasons not purely "critical". As someone who's worked in churches, I appreciated that this rather traditional "catholic horror" take provided a nice balance of skepticism and transparency into the flawed nature of the clergy, without sacrificing power in the delivery. Bana and Ramírez are stellar, with Bana in particular giving a gripping and flawless performance front to back.

The chemistry between Bana and McHale makes the movie for me, providing numerous moments of levity and fun, without sacrificing the grit of this relentless dark movie (does it ever stop raining?). McHale is always fun on screen, and the three main male characters bring strong, distinct roles into every frame.

The plot isn't shockingly unique on paper, but the directing and editing makes it feel different, and the cop "whodunnit" angle glosses over the sometimes cut and paste menagerie of borrowed material. In my opinion, if you're going to borrow, this is a decent way to do so and still produce something that can stand on its own.

I haven't read the reviews, but doubtless this will get some comparison to David Fincher's Seven, in tone and in setting, although obviously the exorcism shtick differs. Seven it isn't, but I was glad it didn't try to duplicate or one up that movie, but rather borrow some of the vibe. It has easy comparisons to traditional exorcism movies in many ways, blending some Conjuring-esque plot points and "your never home" inspiration from things like Rosemary's Baby.

In summary, it's an effective vibe, solid acting, a decent plot, good directing and enough gore and jump scares to qualify as more than just a thriller.

Better than most of what you'll find on streaming in the horror genre, and touching at times as the actors give relatable and heartfelt performances.

A new sleeper favorite for me, though somewhat for personal reasons, so I don't expect others to rate it quite this high, and I won't fault them for that.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Creator (2023)
8/10
Science fiction has a new classic
11 October 2023
Sometimes a film making team checks all the boxes. The directing, the acting, the writing-I'm not sure what I would change about this movie, save a few plot conveniences that, in my opinion, are passable given the quality of this film overall. This is destined to be one of those films that every Sci-Fi connoisseur will watch eventually, as it takes all the elements of beloved science fiction films and does them well. That being said, there is a good deal of imitation, which some might not find flattering, in this epic of a film. But, and this is a big but, I felt like it executed them well, delivering on the material, the genre, the pacing and sometimes out performing other films which seemingly inspired it.

There are pieces of great science fiction here, like obvious remnants of Blade Runner, Star Wars, District 9, Dune, I Am Robot and even some less mainstream fare, like Gattaca, seemed to contribute to the inspiration. It's not a ground breaking movie, nor is it superior to all those movies across the board, so why a high star rating?

Because it's solid from start to finish. It has heart, scale, sets, environment, intrigue and essentially rounds out a squarely delivered, masterfully packaged chunk of beautiful screen fiction in every way. It lacks the wit of Blade Runner, the humor of I Am Robot and the swashbuckling adventure of Star Wars, but for those of us who love brooding, emotionally sensitive and expansive science fiction, this movie hits the high notes.

Washington plays a convincingly jaded ex-military man haunted by the loss of his love, and carries that character arc through to completion with some lovely imagery along the way, but it's Madeleine Yuna Voyles who really shines, giving some gripping scenes, especially for her age, and making a fantastic entry into the child sci-fi star slot.

My biggest complaint is the lack of clarity around the child's abilities. I found myself taken out of the moment toward the end as I tried to understand why the power could affect one thing and not another, and never felt it was properly explained.

However, I just enjoyed the movie, and think that if you're a science fiction fan, it will be easy for you to do the same. It's good. It's very good.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Nun II (2023)
6/10
Maybe I need more faith to believe this plot
27 September 2023
I went in thinking I would like this, and I did for a while, then I started to hate it, but I ended up more or less fine with what I got. First let me explain the hate.

The movie starts well, has creative scenes and suitable jump scares early on with solid acting and silky cinematography, but then you get the creepy feeling that you've seen all this before...the slow pans, the light flickers, the sudden drop in volume leading into a jump scare...and not even in other movies-just a few minutes earlier, in this movie. The first rate performance of Farmiga began to be eclipsed by the redundant use of fear tactics, despite the lovely locations and masterful camera work. Couple that with some frustrating inconsistencies in the risk factor the characters were facing, and it began to pull me out of the moment.

The plot, let's be honest, is only salvaged by the convincing actors and the pacing and scares, but that's not terribly uncommon for possession movies. Read it off a page and it sounds hokey as all get out. Throw it into scenes and it sometimes works, sometimes just feels like horror-flick fodder from the recycle bin. But the real sin, to me, was how powerful these spirits were, until it mattered, and then suddenly they can't seem to effectively hurt anyone. They can chase a hidden relic across multiple countries by what? Intuition? But can't locate a loud group of people hiding in a silent building two feet away?

Character development was minimal and some true ex-machina was required to stitch up the plot, so much so that we get a flashback montage at some point near the end that is supposed to explain something, but felt woefully lacking.

But, let me digress from the hate and explain why this is in no way a 3 star movie:

First, there's Taissa Farmiga. This woman has skillful mastery of emotion on screen and acts with a frenetic energy that pulls this convoluted plot along nicely. The urgency and piercing cadence of her on-screen persona feels to riveting and authentic that I'd gladly return just to watch her in another installment and I'd recommend the movie just for that. She reminds me of what i loved so much about Eddie Redmayne in the movie Black Death . The other actors lent their own skills to varying degrees, but Farmiga was the star for a reason.

Then, the filming. The locations, lighting, camera work and sets were all rich and expertly crafted, immersing the viewer in the dusty glory of post-war Europe. Visually, the movie was very effective and up there with anything that's come out in the last few years. I enjoyed watching it, in the literal sense of the word.

Also, I like catholic horror, and despite the quirky plot and weird risk inconsistencies, the general vibe of the film was something I enjoyed, although that is very much a preference, as sometime who consumes a lot of these kinds of films.

So, maybe I'm being too harsh. Maybe I just need a little faith and shouldn't have to explain things, but man, these demons are so limited by plot convenience it feels like the devil himself can't foil this lazy writing, much less sniff out sobbing school girls in small confined areas, and no matter how many times you get choked, burned, slammed against stones, bashed in the head or casually tossed across a castle, if you've got God (AKA plot) on your side, you won't even limp in the next scene. Maybe I missed some important point about how God works that the movie explained during one of my long eye rolls.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fractured (I) (2019)
7/10
Clever thriller and better than the ratings
23 September 2023
Sam Worthington pulls his weight in this excellent low budget psychological thriller. As a thriller, the pace isn't breakneck, but the intrigue and mystique is thick throughout, leading you toward conclusions, then creating doubt.

By the time I reached the grand finale, I had "figured it out" three times, only to be mostly wrong (I got a few things right). Well shot, well acted, well written, this is truly a strong entry into the genre, although not entirely groundbreaking.

The tension is steady and deep enough to keep you locked in until the end. Not dependent on nail biting or corner jump scares, so much hinges on the nuanced facial acting of Worthington as we follow his character's (Ray Monroe) journey through trauma, confusion, clarity and devotion to his cause.

I would have been happy to see this in theaters, so it's most certainly Netflix worthy. If you like mystery, psychological thrillers and Sam Worthington, you'll not be disappointed. And if you think you know the ending, you're probably wrong.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A grim film with a daunting task
14 August 2023
I've read Dracula multiple times. I'm a huge fan of the book and have watched dozens of variations of the tale told by numerous directors, writers and animators. It's a classic. So, you'd think I would have been excited about this movie when the trailers surfaced, but I wasn't.

Dracula is hard to get right. Everyone wants to put their creative twist to it, and I respect that, but the source material is so rich and layered, and usually writers are forced to cram and hack it into a bite-sized script, or doctor it up with modern sensibilities. As a long time Dracula fan I've learned to NOT be excited about new adaptations. They mostly suck or bother to pay only a passing homage to the genius of the original book.

The voyage of the Demeter was a haunting portion of the book for me, and when I saw an adaptation in the works, I was skeptical. After all, I already know the story, I know how it ends. It doesn't even include the main characters (other than Dracula) and it seemed like a bold endeavor that was destined, like the voyage itself, to end up on the rocks. It's an obscure chapter in the book that, while brilliant, is generally overlooked in favor of the romantic Dracula galavanting around London or the ominous recluse in his castle.

But, they did it. This was a very good movie. I'm giving it a high rating not merely on its own merit, as it doesn't break ground in any cinematic ways, but because it strikes what I believe to be a beautiful balance between respect for the original source material and some creative gap-filling by the writers. The acting is effective, the mood is chilling, the pace, while not breakneck, is snappy enough that it feels consistently interesting and the overall effect is a solidly crafted ship-based horror/thriller that will please readers with its many straight-from-the-page moments of character dialogue, narration and subtle details.

On the other hand, you might not enjoy this if (1) you like your movies with a certain level of levity, (2) you prefer a suave, romantic style vampire (hello Brad Pitt) or (3) you like high-paced action horror. It picks up near the end, but it's not a fast movie overall. It takes its time to build and provide character interaction.

It's worth seeing, and it earned a high rating from me because I'm a Dracula lover, so I'm hard to please. Well done all around. A much appreciated entry into the thick library of Dracula adaptations.
7 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
This movie has a little spirit in it after all
24 May 2023
If you like exorcism flicks or like horror or like Russell Crowe, see it. It's a well done, well acted, middlingly written, nicely filmed trip back a few decades with refreshingly relevant ideas packaged in moderately predictable structures.

It's good. Not great, unless you count Crowe's performance, but good, dependable catholic horror, filled with enough action, tension and stuff flying around to void the "slow burn" category. It isn't incredibly scary, but doesn't try to have overly pretentious jump scares and sticks with on-screen violence and shock rock demon dialogue (demons say the darndest things).

All the tropes are here, but done well. All the cliches are served up properly. Crowe shines on screen, like you'd expect, and the rest of the cast do well enough, although the kid's parts smell a bit stereotyped and overplayed at times. FX are solid, set is cool. What's not to love?

This movie won't change the genre or win any awards, but it's good. It deserves a watch, so if you're reading this and you're on the fence, watch it.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I See You (II) (2019)
7/10
Whoa! You got me with that one...
5 April 2023
It isn't what I expected. It isn't like many others I've seen. I went in with little or no knowledge of the plot and I recommend you do the same if at all possible. Having seen it, I worry that trailers would have tipped me off to things the movie reveals carefully and methodically.

This is a thriller, through and through, and it is solid at every turn. It's not an action thriller, but it has its share of jumps, tension and a bit of action here and there. Primarily though, it's a thriller. A whodunnit. And it does it well.

Follow a family in disarray as they sort through the aftermath of infidelity and begin to experience strange occurrences around their home. As this happens, a strange case of disappearing children plagues the town. The father, also the Sherrif, struggles to unravel the mystery as we are constantly torn between suspicions over the cause of the issues.

The director does a standup job of delivering on the genre. The actors, none of which are over-the-top, provide quality performances. The filming, editing and sets all work together well.

It will leave you intrigued at some points, frustrated at others, and completely surprised at still others. Characters are believable, writing is sparse and effective, scenes are paced well, if not a bit slower than some thrillers, but I really liked the pacing. Sound design is good.

Well worth a watch if you like mystery, intrigue, fear and twists. Will not disappoint.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cocaine Bear (2023)
7/10
This is what cocían does to you, kids
1 March 2023
As other reviewers have mentioned, the title aptly describes the film. It rides the edge of multiple genres. It is comedy, gore/horror and suspense. It is essentially a slasher flick comedy about drugs and country living where death comes in awful, if bizarrely humorous, ways and the jokes are constantly crass.

It's not my kind of movie, to be honest, but I'm giving it a decent rating because it lives up to its claim. The humor and violence here are gratuitous and just downright gross on several levels, the characters are good and the story progresses briskly, however, fair warning:

It is violent. It is obscene. It is a bit ridiculous. If you're cool with that, you may really enjoy it.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
So Snyder, but not in the best way
22 February 2023
Warning: Spoilers
No spoilers yet, but I'll warn you ahead of time. I like Snyder films, for the most part. He often prioritizes visuals and atmosphere over writing, and I expect that, but his visuals are so stunning that I can often forget about his weaknesses, which is true up to a point in this film.

You'll be wowed by the stylistic way this film brings zombie vegas to life, especially in the memorable opening credits. You'll have moments of "dun dun dun" as bokeh infused light and billowing fabric heralds the slow motion entrance of a villain or hero. You'll feel a certain sense of awe at the post-apocalyptic landscape of Vegas.

But, unless you're new to the zombie genre, or the heist genre, or Zack Snyder, or big budget action movies, you're probably going to get the nagging sense that you've seen and heard all of this before, and in better films. But that isn't the cardinal sin in Army of the Dead. Recycling material can work sometimes. The big issue here is story. I can't remember when I last watched a movie with a budget this big and a premise that seemed this fun which turned out to feel so hollow. Spoilers to follow.

-----

As zombie Las Vegas is set to be nuked, this ragtag team of mercs are hired by a rich casino owner to steal 100M from his zombie sieged casino. It seems simple enough as a heist premise, and a fun idea to boot. But as the story progresses, the characters feel derivative, spew cliches and make staggeringly stupid decisions-to the point of even prophetically warning themselves of their own doom.

But the most hollow aspect of this bloated gore fest action heist is that the premise-the stealing of the money-is pointless. The money isn't even the point of the heist in the end, but rather a blood sample of a "smart" zombie. A feat which could have been achieved within the first five minutes of them entering Las Vegas, while the team was fully assembled. If the stealing of the queen's head was the important thing, it would have made more sense for Tanaka to hire Ward and the team to do this, rather than wasting their time and talents on a job he didn't care about merely as a smokescreen to have his incompetent traitor Martin do the work mostly alone. This is a stupid premise, and once we realize this is the case, it makes much of the plot seem unnecessary.

To add insult to injury, we are inundated with interesting information about potential aliens, diverging timelines, intelligent undead, robot zombies and Area 51, only to have all of that brushed off and ignored. Instead we get long dialogue scenes and useless info about safecracking for a slow last half of the movie of which the lynchpin is supposed to be speed.

Who is the bad guy? Zeus? Tanaka? The government? Who knows. Who cares. Does the money matter? Apparently not. The setup looks as though Ward may become the next start zombie, but then Kate kills him. The confusing and frustrating conclusion is that Vanderohe magically escapes the vault, survives the nuke, gets the money and finds out long after the fact that he's infected, which makes no sense. Why did he take so long to turn? Why did Zeus need the queen's head? Why were only some zombies intelligent? Who is Tanaka?

Snyder doesn't care. The writing is lazy and predictable, the pacing is sometimes frustrating and the end result feels devoid of the fun which the opening credits promised. It felt like a potentially awesome Zombieland meets Oceans Eleven meets I Am Legend, so why would I rather see any one of those than this film again?

It's ok to watch. A little stiff and bland. Bautista does a decent job, Pernell is straight up annoying and Guzman, who is the most fun, dies. I'd personally have rather seen an action comedy of Guzman and Chambers fighting zombies for YouTube fame, or Bautista launching a food truck business, than this convoluted mess of a plot with a stale script and a VFXed Notaro.

Oh well. Snyder wins some and loses some. This was a loss.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Watch it, but...
18 January 2023
Seeing Avatar: The Way of Water is almost required viewing, if only for the predictably ground-breaking special FX and nostalgia of the blue people's world. If you liked the first one, you will like this one. And if there's one criticism that sticks out most to me, that is it: it caters completely and wholly to its original audience.

Sure, the visuals are STUNNING. The incredible world building here is worth the price of admission, full stop. Emotionally, thematically, it feels like it fits behind the original with characters coming through as you'd hope they would. But, and this is a big "but", you've seen a lot of this before. Which may not be a bad thing if you want to see it all again.

Beautiful new environment? Check. New creatures they must learn to bond with? Check. Even one big creature that is a defining part of the climax? Check. Bring back previous cast (even in ridiculous ways)? Check. Humans are still (mostly) greedy and stupid? Check. Political leanings all here? Anti-colonizing, eco-friendly, anti-government, anti-military, anti-fishing industry, dominant white people evil (unless they begin taking on the forms and traits of the indigenous)? Check. Some stunning action scenes? Absolutely. Did it make me cry? More than once. Did it have a heart-warming central theme? Yes.

It's good. It's well made, predictable and bankable. Watch it.

But...

Visuals aside, it's chock full of plot oddities, retreaded material and sometimes highly stereotypical characters. The choice to use Weaver's voice for multiple characters gave an "uncanny valley vocal" feel to the performance, and there's not a lot of surprises (a few, yes) along the way in terms of writing and performance.

I somehow felt like I was watching a 2023 remake of the original, with different environments and larger cast.

There's a lot to love here. A lot to praise for a cast and production team full of ground-breaking everything. It's awesome. But it suffers from something that movies like The Matrix struggled to overcome, which is that the original was so groundbreaking, so different-mostly visually- that's it's nearly impossible to recapture that vibe in the sequel. It feels like a derivative of itself.

I was happy to see them focus on family dynamics and work a little harder on character building this time out, but if you want to be truly surprised, this isn't the movie you're looking for.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
M3GAN (2022)
8/10
Delightfully clever camp, with layers
18 January 2023
Nothing about the premise, either on paper or in the trailers, appealed to me, but I'm a dedicated horror fan and figured I would kill a week night on a low grade b-movie so I could chuckle about it later. I was pleasantly surprised.

Yes, this film is about a demented toy and AI gone wrong, both topics which have been tread and retread since the 80's, but rarely has it been this fun.

What I didn't expect was how this film managed to deal with complex topics, like AI sentience, death, human relations and tech addiction, all while wielding these topics whimsically at times, hilariously at others and sprinkling in a few nearly tear-jerking scenes. Williams gives a solid leading performance as a smartphone generation silicone valley inventor trying to revolutionize the world, or at least further the technology, without enough life experience and wisdom to foresee the consequences.

There are soooooo many metaphors layered throughout this film, which are by no means something you are required to "get" in order to enjoy it, but for those who do, it is a surprisingly poignant little suspense flick.

A tech absorbed millennial career girl has parenting unexpectedly thrust upon her by way of a tragedy. She's brilliant, ambitious, but not particularly familial or even socially adept, as she's better with computers than humans. Her crowning achievement, an AI toy, has the potential to be better at parenting and, well, better at everything a child needs, than she does-a trait which, at first, seems like a blessing. As time passes, she must grapple with whether it's healthy for her new ward Cady (Violet McGraw) to be more attached to a device than to other children her age, even if the device is giving her factual, helpful information.

As M3GAN learns and progresses, you will easily see how this plot will unfold, but although the overarching story is obvious, and intentionally so, the predictability doesn't diminish the thrill of the ride. If anything, it seems to acknowledge that we as the audience will see things coming, which still managing to slap us in the face with how our modern habits have bequeathed so much of nurture and learning on our devices rather than other humans.

Well executed, witty, and timely in many ways, M3GAN is one of those unexpectedly interesting theatre finds that you may find more interesting in practice than theory. It's more than a glossy Child's Play update or a dumbed down Ex-Machina, it's a light-hearted (can I say that about a horror?) and sometimes profound investigation of our relationship with machines, and the pitfalls of confusing our "network connection" with our connection to our community.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Gorgeously annoying
5 January 2023
I've been mostly pleased with the series up to this point, and I will say that the vibe and premise of this episode was sleek, unique and promising from the start. With hyper loom anamorphic light flares, over saturated colors, vintage grain and a throwback setting, this had all the makings of an uncommonly artsy gem amid a bit more common horror fare.

So much of plot is a magicians sleight of hand, telling you to look one way, then surprising you from another direction. We like to be fooled. What we don't like is to be duped into disappointment, so when you promise us a vanishing act, give us...something.

Unfortunately this episode is 90% promises and almost no delivery. With a slow burn (which I usually love) and a decent concept, this manages to be a soulless drudgery of an episode, punctuated with fantastically imaginative stylized filmmaking.

The writing was subpar at best, with blandly obvious dialogue, half-heartedly delivered through fumbled accents. Half the time I felt like a good deal of the initial draft must have been cut to "get to the chase", since characters frequently rush into actions and dialogue that feel unearned given what we know. However, the run time is long enough that can't be the case. I'm left to assume writing was just not a priority here. When strangers don't have time to ask "why am I here" but skip right to "I have a huge void inside me and I'm anxious about my work life", you've lost me.

Acting was mediocre, with Weller being a grand exception, of course. Most characters felt cardboard or forced.

Plot, ending, creature-nothing special here. Lovecraftian, yes, and with potential, but oh so painfully slow and confusing.

This episode felt like an inside joke that I needed more context for.

I commend the creative ideas and stylized look, but I wish more time had been taken to do it justice.
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Smile (V) (2022)
8/10
Prepare to do anything but smile
2 November 2022
I wasn't excited when I saw the trailer, which felt overly campy and too cheesy to deliver much terror, but I'm a devoted scary movie fan and knew I'd see it anyway.

And it was worth it.

A mark of good horror, I think, is not that it surprises you (a la jumpscares) but that it disturbs you in some primal way, so that even when you know what's coming, you still aren't prepared for how frightening or unsettling it will be. I felt like Smile showed too many cards in the trailers, but even though I had some expectations going in, I felt like the frights landed suitably hard, even when you expected them, and kept you feeling unnerved on several levels.

In the most basic sense, it could be a narrative on surviving trauma (which is common in horror), but more than that, it was an effective character transformation which Caitlin Stasey embraces and excels at. Her acting shines, which is vital as everything in this movie hinges on the believability of her depiction of Laura Weaver, a haunted, overworked therapist struggling with her personal life.

Smile makes you feel many things. It isn't always breaking new ground with the material, but it knows how to handle the material confidently, and does justice to the genre with a very watchable and thrilling journey through the human mind.

Yes, it's psychological (the main character is a shrink after all) so yes it has some commentary on mental health issues, but it plays out in a relatable way that creates empathy between the viewer and the character in a way many horror movies do not.

Worth the watch, but it won't make you Smile.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Derivative, middle of the road low budget horro
2 November 2022
If you're looking for a suitable entry-level supernatural horror that checks most of the basic boxes of moodily lit, jumpscare laden catholic exorcism, this is a not too serious, not too scary PG-13 piece of work.

If, however, you are looking for something more technically mature, and you are at all familiar with the genre, you're going to feel like you've seen all this somewhere before. Maybe even several somewheres. It's still worth clutching a significant other and gasping at, but you may also find yourself chuckling at the wrong moments as this cast of half-hearted priests and nuns slog through a mostly by the numbers exorcism film where everything happens just like you expect it will and the plot doesn't have to make too much sense.

Jacqueline Byers.gives a muted performance as a tortured young nun with a flawed history, providing the odd tear here and there, but staying mostly on an emotional baseline, despite the ostensibly fantastic events occurring around her. Christian Navarro compliments her performance with much of the same, although he seems somewhat more genuine at times. Colin Salmon definitely takes point with tried and true acting chops, although he's relegated mostly to dialogue and exposition with little action.

Without spoilers, this movie borrows possession tropes from all the big exorcism movies, dishing them out almost predictably, the most creative of which you can see in the trailers.

The special FX are tame, and while the cinematography and lighting are solid most of the time, there are surprisingly odd flaws, like obvious drone shadows in the aerial shots, that really detract from the sense of being in a real theatre watching a major motion picture.

Plot wise, you can guess this all the way through, and don't think too hard about things like how you can tell the difference between mental health issues and possession, how you can tell if an exorcism works or not, what exactly an exorcism requires or what the demon actually wants to accomplish by possessing someone. The movie doesn't bother to explain any of it, but acts like it does. Characters do mind-numbingly foolish things, walk into all the dark hallways go forward when they should run away, and even experience some consequences for the actions, and yet the movie seems content to leave our leads cluelessly naive and dull at each new turn of events.

The moral/ethical subplots are muddy at best, making a case for women in traditionally male roles, then seemingly reinforcing why that doesn't work. It also makes a convincing argument for traditional Catholicism, then snubs it's nose at the same traditions as if unnecessary. Our heroes are mostly unsuccessful in their efforts, yet we are supposed to be on their team as they bumble through doing it their way against all better advice. In the end, I felt like the directory and his writers must have argued heavily over the religious and moral plot points, and compromised by not making any real statements or taking any sides, leaving a vacuum of blandly mixed signals that don't commit to anything other than a veiled hint that we are responsible for freeing ourselves from our own demons, but only through a confusing blend of faith, psychology and a bullheaded willingness to disregard them both and do whatever we feel like.

It's a bit of a confusing mess if you want meaning, but it delivers on some jumps, some possessed characters, some inexplicable electrical failures, shadow grabs, etc.

So don't be afraid to take your boyfriend and squeal on occasion, but don't expect any divine revelations. It's less like a blessed chalice of holy water and more like a stale glass of tap water.
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Cursed (2021)
7/10
Fresh blood in a neglected genre
28 February 2022
In a cleverly crafted blend of desaturated period piece horror and gore-infused 80's creature movies, The Cursed cuts to the quick with tension and drama which it delivers on often enough to keep the blood flowing.

When town leaders make dark choices, the land finds itself embroiled in danger from a fanged stalker-a curse, which mystifies everyone but the roaming "pathologist", who slowly unravels the clues over the course of this bloody, dark and foggy walk in the woods.

Reminiscent of the 80's noir monster jaunts, where a hulking shadow lurks in sufficient darkness to obscure the low budget, this tightly finished little flick makes the best of its run time by using sound, atmosphere and well placed creature appearances to ratchet up the suspense and dread. It has a few gut-wrenching moments that aren't easy to watch, and a few homages to movies you seen before.

I was reminded of Black Death at times (minus Eddie Redmayne's superb performance), the Howling at other times and more than a few scenes left me thinking that The Village went down this path without delivering on the scares or the horror this movie brings.

Well worth the price for any horror fan, though maybe not a film for the faint of heart.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Uncomfortable, riveting and powerful
12 January 2022
I wasn't interested in anything about this movie based on the title, description or cover on Netflix. I watch a lot of horror and this looked like another teens stumble into a creepy country house cliché. I was all set to pass right over this until I saw a swath of high star ratings here on IMDB. I'm not one for reading reviews or spoiling the fun, so I skimmed some of the headlines touting it as "psychological" and "genuinely scary". I was sold. I pressed play expecting maybe a little more than a Texas Chainsaw Massacre homage or a Last House on the Left nod.

The credits just rolled, and while this movie had some flaws, it really executes impressively well on so many levels. I came away disgusted and impressed, feeling as though I just watched both a solid horror film and an impressive meditation of trauma and the mind's response to that trauma. Each of the leads pull their weight and then some, delivering emotion which is sometimes over the top, but never lackluster in roles which demand nothing less than pure terror and extreme emotional stress. Minus a few moments of low-budget glaring through the otherwise polished production, everything is on point, pacing is good, acting is great and sets are suitably creepy and atmospheric, but above all the writing and story are memorable and gripping.

I was surprised, shocked, frightened at times, terrified and frustrated. I feel traumatized after seeing this film, and after so many horror films, that's saying something.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Encanto (2021)
10/10
What makes Encanto different makes it special
27 December 2021
Like you, I grew up on Disney of one sort or another and have enjoyed a good many animated movies in my time, but I don't review them. I generally review brooding suspense dramas or horror movies, but, here it goes; my first Disney animated movie review, and I think the reason this one caught me off guard and charmed me so much was how it stands in stark contrast to so many of the other animated movies I've seen (and enjoyed) over the years.

I wanted two things from Encanto: 1. I wanted it to be heartwarming and 2. I wanted to be transported into Latin culture in every way. Being a Disney movie, I figured these were reasonable expectations. I went in knowing nothing other than the trailer. I read no reviews and didn't even know who the voice actors were, and I was soon completely in love.

Full disclosure: I'm 40 years old and I've seen a ridiculous amount of Disney movies. I've reached the point where I shrug at the next big Disney animated blockbuster because I've lived through so many of the good ones. I've grown cynical and more than a little disenchanted with over powered villains, rebellious kids doing the Disney version of puberty and cute side characters. Princesses, knights...yes, very cool. I've seen them. I've loved them. I'm starting to feel like each new Disney fill is a chance for me to scowl at how the writing quality, moral integrity (or whatever) isn't the same today as when I was a kid. I'm hard to wow.

Encanto, to my delight, showcased family in a deep, powerful and splendid way. No Dragon's, no big villains, no dynamic fight scenes, no explosions...just incredible visuals, engaging characters and the integrity of the family front and center from start to finish, and all Latino, from the cast to the music.

I felt like I was watching something close to the heart of why Walt Disney chose to make the mouse house rather than a grind house production company: he loved family. He wanted it to be for and about family, and fun.

Thank you Disney for glorifying latinoamerican culture. Thank you for showcasing family values and not sacrificing heart for cheap thrills or violence. Thank you for making us all cry with simple, realistic scenarios brought to life in magical colors.

Can I have more of these, please? Less cutting edge. Less progressive, modern, hi-tech, big battle movies and more beauty, love and family?

Please and thank you.
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dune (2021)
9/10
The kind of sci-fi I adore
24 November 2021
I get the low reviews. Yes, it's long and not as fast-paced as, say, Avatar or Aliens, but this kind of movie is exactly what I love about grand science fiction cinema, and, after watching Eternals, I felt like Denis did all the things Chloe did not in terms of allowing time for character development, world-building, scene setting and backstory.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I've never read the book, so I can't compare. I am ok with slower paced movies.

Allow me to address the criticism: I get it, and I want to acknowledge this is a slow paced movie (most of the time) and a complex story being unfolded. If you're looking for something like Star Wars, this is definitely NOT the movie for you. However, if you liked Alien, Blade Runner and larger, slower science fiction epics, you will find a lot to like in this movie. It isn't the kind of movie the masses will be drawn to, but I'm encouraged that a director and studio green lit it anyway and didn't sell it short in order to make a fast-paced action film. I felt like that really hurt the Eternals movie, Ender's Game and other would-be great stories that were rushed or half-done. This is going to be thorough in its scope.

What I loved: The characters. Characters are often on the top of my list for what I want in a movie, and I immediately liked the leads. Paul is moody and dark without a lot of range right now, similar to teen Anakin in the Star Wars series, but it feels fitting to me. I really liked his father and mother's characters. I just felt like the characters were REAL in their integrity and not just stereotypical (comic relief, shifty traitor, absent dad, rebellious teen, etc).

The visuals: I mean...yes. This is an area if the low reviews agree on. This movie is huge, beautiful and in keeping with what I expect from this director.

Pacing: There were little moments where we see Paul observing or having minor interactions, during which I feel the details of the story are being fleshed out in ways many movies would brush past in favor of louder, faster moments. Personally, I find this refreshing. After so many marvel movies (which I really enjoy), I like to see some thoughtful, patient filmmaking on this scale.

Plot: Having not read the book, I'm really interested in it more than I expected after seeing this first movie. I feel like it is a large scale concept with an underlying moral clearly pointing to how we conduct ourselves in the face of power and responsibility.

I'm enjoying this movie right now, and I just don't resonate with the low reviews all about how slow and boring this is. To each his own, but I feel like this is the symphony of film, not the pop hit. It's going to go over a lot of heads.
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Eternals (2021)
4/10
More forgettable than eternal
17 November 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Eternals gets it wrong on many levels. It brings a great cast, nicely done visuals and exciting action sequences to cover its numerous plot holes. Unfortunately, it is a bandaid on a shotgun hole of a script.

If Eternals were a song, I'd say it has all of my favorite instruments played by all of my favorite artists, poorly equalized, shoddily mixed, and the resulting sound is a muddled confusing mess of melodies that leave me scratching my head as to how all of these great elements could result in such a lackluster final product.

Like many of you, I wanted to love this movie. What's not to love? But after the credits (and the post credits), I found myself more frustrated and disappointed than I thought possible, given the talent involved. But, before I talk about my objections, allow me to issue some praise.

The cast were good at their job. The actors delivered in many scenes with believable chemistry, emotion and humor. The directing didn't allow them a lot of personality, but they still provided enough feeling to sell some of the key scenes.

The visuals were fun, if a bit Doctor Strange-esque and unoriginal. The CGI was solid. The atmosphere and cinematography was really good. The sets were elaborate and visually delightful in some cases.

But I'm not rating this low because of what I loved. Let's talk about the problems.

The plot. The plot, which was straightforward enough in theory (Celestials farm beings on planets to birth new celestials using Eternals, who fall in love with humans and decide to prevent their destruction and fight back against their makers) turns out to be increasingly convoluted and philosophical as the film trudges on, with so much left unexplained, despite the long run time. A few extremely confusing examples:

Why do celestials create Eternals with fake memories and deceive them about the process then wipe their memories after each planet? Why not just create Eternals who know the truth and do their jobs correctly?

Why do celestials need sentient beings to be birthed at all? When the celestial is being born at the end, the humans aren't killed, he just emerges from the planet itself. It doesn't appear his emergence required sentient life in any way, just a planet.

If celestials can just swipe up Eternals from a planet when they disobey commands, why not just swipe up deviants as well when they go rogue?

Do deviants multiply? Do Eternals? They seem to have sex, but can they have kids? If they don't multiply naturally, why would they be programmed to have sex and fall in love?

Why are Eternals programmed with various human dialects, traits and even disabilities that won't develop in the human race for millions of years? I mean, do they really need Scottish accents, need to look like undeveloped adolescents? What are the advantages to that?

And then let's talk about the philosophical questions brought up, but not addressed well, of which there are many.

The movie very specifically brings up major philosophical issues, such as the problem of evil, the trolly problem (how many lives is one life worth), the nature of free will, the meaning of life, consequentialism, mora subjectivity...the list goes on and on. The problem is, the director doesn't know what to say about these issues, and seems to repeatedly contradict herself or question herself in her own endeavor to bring the story to a close. Is God bad? Yes...uh...maybe? Is it right to save earth? Perhaps, but maybe only from a low level humanistic view? Is it right to follow your heart? Yes...Er...unless it turns out wrong? What's the best course of action for an unredeemable character? Suicide...apparently.

We should be proud to be who we are, no matter who we are, so long as we aren't too loyal to our deity, so in love that we make poor choices, so devoted to our worldview that we refuse to be involved, so committed to non-violence that we don't go to war when needed, so compassionate that we lie to protect...omg

I can't with this crazy, non-committal mess of a script, forcing you to second-guess your second guessing and wrapping up plot lines so hastily as to not even bother explaining them.

Sentient deviant? Nevermind. He just dies in the end.

Sprite loves Ikarus? He commits suicide and she barely expresses remorse.

Special Eternal dagger given to a kid in the opening scene? Turns up later and seems like an important artifact, but you'll forget about that until after the credits, then wonder why.

Emerald tablet? I don't know. Why was that important?

Thena's disease? Still there, but it's real memories. I guess she's safe to wield her blade around children by the closing scenes.

The boyfriend? Yeah, no. They won't explain him.

There must be deleted scenes explaining these things, but the movie doesn't care. It doesn't know what it wants to say or who was doing the right thing, but earth is saved. For now.

Ugh. I haven't been this frustrated at a hero movie since The New Mutants, which was an absolute train wreck, but whereas that movie was a paper thin plot with cliche writing, this movie is a bloated behemoth of a plot which refuses to commit to its source material or deliver on its moral and ethical questions.

It's too morally shy. It's too philosophically unsure of itself. All it knows is that it's family focused and we should stick together. Unless you make a mistake. Then suicide might be a good option. Just don't trust the omniscient, all powerful God. Better to figure things out with your own faulty short-sighted memories and limited perspective.

Ok, ok, I digress. You get it.

Go see it. I'd love to hear what you make of it.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Antlers (2021)
8/10
It's what you want it to be and nothing more
3 November 2021
I attempt to be as uninformed as possible when viewing a movie for the first time. This allows me to be pleasantly surprised in many cases. And I've learned to never trust a trailer. If you trust a trailer in the horror genre, you will think every horror movie is a high octane thrill ride. I never know when I'm stumbling into the next Witch or Midsommer (both of which I enjoyed), especially judging by the marketing.

Antlers delivers on a range of fronts that, I think, merit a high rating. While it isn't overly original, it's simply a good solid horror movie on all counts. The characters get some development, the acting is very good, the cinematography is lovely, the pacing is enjoyable and the scares are well done. All things considered, it's a strong representative of the genre, with moments of true dread, a few clever jumps and loads of underlying themes material to please those of us who appreciate something more refined than the average Saw movie.

Jeremy T. Thomas, while playing a very muted character, holds down the lead as a believable impoverished country boy who is tired, scared and mentally scarred. Russel and Plemons have decent chemistry as siblings working through unresolved trauma.

The monster aspect of the movie delivers as well, although in a low-budget kind of way, wisely saving it's FX dollars for high impact scenes. Much of the creepiness is cloaked in shadow and darkness, and the director uses this to his advantage, however I still felt like they showed enough as the movie progressed to keep me from feeling ripped off in this regard.

I enjoyed it. I have no problem calling it horror and, what's more, I'd be happy for it to represent the genre in a general way, presenting gore, jump scares, atmosphere, monsters, real world evil and disturbing content, all without sacrificing plot or without being gratuitous in any of those areas. Everything serves the film, and it comes together nicely.

Not original, not groundbreaking, not Life-changing, just good, well made horror.

Go see it.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed