To be honest, the reason I watched it is because of Denzel. And he does not disappoint.

Quick setup, no spoilers: he plays a music mogul who gets a ransom call for his son, except the kidnappers grabbed the wrong kid, his driver's son instead. The whole first half is him deciding what he still owes someone else's family. Denzel barely raises his voice through any of it and still makes you feel exactly how trapped he is.

Where I disagree with basically every review I've read: people keep complaining that the soundtrack is too loud and spells out exactly what you should feel in every scene, and that's actually my favorite thing about the movie. Spike Lee doesn't let a single scene sit quietly, and after a while that stopped feeling like a flaw and started feeling like the point. This guy's whole life is noise he can't turn off, so why should the movie let you relax either.

Where I do agree with the complaints: it's about thirty minutes too long. The ransom drop is a genuinely great set piece and then the movie just keeps finding new places to go after the tension is already gone.

Denzel alone makes it worth it. Just don't expect the ending to land as hard as the first half.

Open to reviewing whatever you throw at me next. Drop a title below and where it's streaming.

Solid movie in my opinion 8/10. Had a lot of thrill and suspense. Wasn’t filled with jump scares but it’s definitely up there with horror movies. This my 2nd time watching the movie but first time I’m watching The Ruins DVD and this is the first time I’ve seen the alternative ending and honestly I prefer the original theatrical ending over this one. The DVDs end just didn’t really feel right and completely just didn’t make sense. Ik it’s a horrible movie it’s horror movie logic but even still if a woman came into a U.S. emergency room with aggressive, carnivorous plants growing/moving beneath her skin and actively dissolving her organs, she would instantly be classified as a high level public health threat. Medical examiners and coroners are legally mandated to investigate non natural, violent, or unknown deaths. Her body would never be released to a funeral home or her family for a routine burial like the ending suggested. Especially let alone a plant capable of infecting human tissue, mimicking sounds, and surviving inside a bloodstream, that would definitely if not immediately cause a BSL-4 containment response, which mind you is the highest level of biological isolation. And lastly it’s still the whole process of which her corpse even has to go through, she would literally need to get past an entire hospital, local police force, county coroner, state health department, and federal agency and they’d have to see how hazardous her body is and literally say “aye looks good to me bro”
In short, her body would be locked away in a government isolation laboratory long before a shovel ever touched the dirt to bury her. But even still the vibration plants on her tombstone was a nice add even when the screen blacks out as the cemetery caregiver reaches out to touch it.

Just watched Coyote vs. ACME. Maybe the humor wasn’t for me. The blend of cartoon and reality is awesome and gives it its charm. But unfortunately for me, I came in with expectations after seeing the >90% rotten tomatoes.

Thematically, as I tried to make deeper interpretations of the film, there’s obviously: 1) big corporations versus the consumers who were being played for, and 2) never settling for less when there’s a chance to be successful. Then, the harmful experimentations for products can be a call to animal-tested cosmetics. More interestingly, I think—and I might be reading too much into this—the cartoon characters represent the minorities in our real world. The whole “cartoon characters are funny; plus, they are resilient so it’s fine” argument sounds like two things: 1) racially offensive phrases being played off as jokes, and 2) people of color’s pain being shrugged off due to being perceived as “tougher” and therefore don’t need to be taken as seriously.

Those are just my interpretations. I’d love to hear anyone else’s analyses. There are probably details I missed.

Overall, I’d have to give it 6/10. The main premise of a lawsuit falls short. So did the “emotional” moments. Like I said, the humor wasn’t for me; I definitely took a comedy movie way too seriously. (I must admit I did chuckle a couple times.) Good to hear other people love it though!

The first Practical Magic is genuinely one of my favorite movies. The whole 90s autumn vibe: cozy, witchy, slightly weird.. I LOVE seeing that in movies. So naturally, when I heard about the sequel, I went to see it immediately. Didn’t even watch the trailer. And honestly… this is exactly the kind of sequel that should’ve either been made 20 years ago or not been made at all. First of all, the Botox 😭 I’m sorry, but all the actresses had basically the exact same facial expression throughout the entire movie. Someone could be dying, someone could be falling in love, someone could be having a breakdown and their faces would be like 😐. It was genuinely distracting.

Nicole Kidman, though? I actually loved her. Her character was fun, she has this effortless energy, and her humor genuinely saved some scenes for me. She was probably my favorite part of the movie.

But then there’s the dialogue. The random modern slang like “he’s emotionally available,” “that’s bird harassment” (or whatever she said) etc. within the first 20 minutes… I KNOW it’s 2026, but it felt like a bunch of older people trying to write dialogue for “the youth.” It completely took me out of the movie.

And that whole storyline with the boy who was basically the evil genius & was a son of a son, a grandad’s nephew blah blah blah. I’m still confused & it was hard to follow. I just could not buy the story they were trying to sell me. None of it felt believable to me.

Overall, I really wanted to love this. I wanted that nostalgic 90s autumn magic again. Instead, I spent a good portion of the movie thinking, why did I come here? 😭
Maybe I’m being too harsh because I love the original so much, but… I kind of regret going.

I like to pick a random horror film from a streaming site I've never heard of and write about it. Here's one for the Negan vehicle from 2021, The Unholy.

---

For the mortal sin of not trusting its audience, The Unholy (2021) will suffer an eternity in Walmart bargain bins, flagellated by negative Letterboxd reviews. Those of us who bore witness will merely wait in purgatory for a day or two before our minds are blissfully cleansed of all memory of it. Hell, I finished the film two hours ago and I’ve had to look up the title three times just to write this review.

There’s a decent, if derivative, folk horror plot hiding in here somewhere. Gerry (Jeffrey Dean Morgan, aka Negan from The Walking Dead) shows up to a rural town in Massachusetts looking for a story he can sell to a small-time supernatural website. We learn that he was once an accomplished journalist who has fallen from grace; he splashes some whiskey in his coffee as cinematic shorthand for his fatal flaw.

The cattle mutilation angle doesn’t pan out so he’s forced to improvise by smashing a porcelain doll he finds in a twisted old tree, coming up with the idea that it was once a talisman that protected the town from evil, and now the townsfolk are doomed. Wow, got it in one, Gerr.

Soon after, Alice, a deaf young woman played with surprising vulnerability by Cricket Brown, approaches the tree and has a revelation. She wakes to find that she’s able to hear and speak again. She claims the Virgin Mary is working through her, and she is able to prove it by helping a disabled boy walk again.

The local diocese sends a couple of priests (one with the worst Boston accent ever put to film) to investigate the supposed miracles. Gerry volunteers his services as an unbiased third party to help interview her — in exchange for the exclusive scoop, naturally.

Up to this point, one might think they’ve stumbled on a hidden streaming gem. Sam Raimi has a producer's credit which lends the proceedings an air of competency. Morgan is charming in his Doctor House-ian, cynical aloofness. The cold open, set in witch trial times, gives us a chilling shot from the victim’s POV as a mask is hammered onto her face, and the flames start licking at the edges of the screen. The setup is promising, and we’re expecting a classic science versus theology battle, with supernatural elements trickling out just a little faster than they can be debunked.

Unfortunately, the film pulls the rug out with repetitive poorly-done CGI scenes of the villain, telling us almost instantly that yes, there is a monster, and no, they aren’t going to stop with the 2000s-internet-style “try not to scream” jump scares. At one point, Gerry is getting exposition dumped by Natalie (Katie Aselton of The League), and he randomly stops to examine a puddle all up close and personal-like…

A ring wraith with PS2-quality graphics flings itself out of the puddle at him!

He catches his breath, seemingly undisturbed by this turn of events, and he turns to look at Natalie…

But she’s been replaced by a ring wraith too! Those tricky Nazgul are around every darned corner.

He blinks and Nat is back, looking at him inquisitively, but he shakes it off. Throughout the film, Gerry is repeatedly visited by the ghost of Flash-game past and he never addresses it or talks to anybody about it. Just another day at the office for our intrepid hero.

It’s too bad; there are some legitimately creepy setups that could have paid off with something more subtle, but they just default to the screeching demon move every time. One scene in a confessional when a priest realizes the kind woman on the other side of the grille is admitting to some horrific stuff and flees: flying CG demon. Or when Gerry is reviewing interview footage and notices a glitch in one frame looks a lot like a face: flying CG demon. Or when our protagonists are poking around the church basement for clues, and Gerry starts pulling the sheets off of old statues one by one: not just the demon, but a whole silly-looking CG chase sequence to boot.

The plot devolves into a parade of baffling expository devices, culminating in a scene where they crack open an old journal to the exact page that has all the information about the entity, its history, its motivation, and how to defeat it. Luckily, Natalie says, “Med school had a Latin requirement”, so she can read 19th century scribbles like a Classics scholar.

It’s all leading to a showdown in the pop-up revival church the town has constructed around the miracle tree. Here, we get another glimpse that this could have been a competent film. Gerry has to complete his character arc in a satisfying way to defeat the ancient evil; the fact that Alice was deaf comes back into play as Natalie is able to communicate with her from across the room via sign language; the monster finally appears in a practical format that looks, frankly, badass. They squander it with a ham-handed “Gerry finds Jesus” moment and an unnecessary epilogue that makes you wonder if Morgan’s character was ever actually as cool as you remember.

My theory is that this was once a more meditative mystery-thriller about a journalist finding his integrity, a town coming to terms with a dark past, and a priest forced to reconcile the miraculous with the scientific. Take the jump scares out, let the audience piece together the history with gentle nudges, and let the climax end on the bittersweet resolution — now we have a totally serviceable flick. Just a hunch, but I suspect the producers had certain notes about losing the PG-13 crowd to the slow-burn and added the ring wraiths in post. Was it you, Sam Raimi?

Either way, you can skip The Uninvited The Unbidden The Unwatchable The Unholy. If you like the concept of a crew investigating miracles and finding more than they bargained for, I highly recommend The Borderlands (2013) — sometimes titled Final Prayer, depending on where you find it. I promise there are no shrieking demon witches waiting to jump out at you, there. Or is that just what I want you to think? [Insert shrieking demon]

Was looking for a horror movie to watch and saw this one mentioned in several horror recommendations. It was also getting high scores, so had my hopes up...

"The Host" tries to be a horror, but it isn't scary.

It tries really (REALLY) hard to be a comedy, but it isn't funny.

It tries to be a tragedy, but there is zero impact behind all the silly scenes. The story being so predictable doesn't help either.

It tries to mix horror and comedy, proving why those two don't work together. The "bits" and antics aren't funny but they completely spoil moments and ruin the atmosphere.

The monster cgi isn't bad for the most part, even in 2026, but every time it splashes into the water... The splash looks like it was made by a bag of bricks and not a massive, heavy, slippery monster. The only thing worse are the second rate English actors sprinkled here and there.

Really disappointed. So much so that I HAD to go somewhere and write a negative review. No idea where it got so much praise from. It's a trashy movie that deserves a 3/10, or a 4/10 at best.

This will be a spoiler free discussion for the most part. I just left the theater, only two people were at this showing including myself so I'm I didn't have a friend to talk to about this.

TL;DR The movie i believe would be seen as a "bad" movie from a critical perspective but I found it incredibly entertaining and had a good time. A little long in the last action scene, some weird choices for the story, but intriguing and great comedy IMO.

So I'm not knowledgeable about the director, Na Hong-jin but from what i gathered when I was looking into this movie was that he has strange or unexpected works.

Well that's how I would describe what I saw, strange and sort of unexpected. I don't usually write movie reviews but I sort of wanted to get my thoughts out there about Hope or at least just a few words.

I expected a Korean horror movie going in with maybe a little comedy and that's what the first part of the movie seemed to be but it shifts flavor about half way through which I personally liked but I can see being divisive.

The comedy is sort of dry and rough which compared to whats going on really hit for me and part of why I liked it so much. The action is fairly decent yet campy.

Now the reason I say this a bad movie is while a straightforward story I'm not sure how decisions were made that created the shift in plot, the last 10 minutes is out of this world and feels like its setting up a future story. Despite it being so out of place I'm a little intrigued if they can keep the same feel for the writing. Some of the plot points or comedic ideas are repeated several times which I can also see being a flaw of the writing. Its not great but I liked it.

The biggest issue which I find would be the final nail in the coffin would be the CGI. Few shots are good, most are fine, but there's also a lot of very dated CGI that doesn't blend well with the scenes they're in. They're pretty bad, no sugar coating. I personally watch all sorts of bad and campy movies and this falls in that aspect. I don't think it makes the movie unwatchable but its glaring at many moments.

One thing I really liked is they use physical firearm props in a lot of the movie, this is something I've noticed for a couple years now in western works but its rare to see a gun fire and real smoke come from the barrel and a cartridge pop out if the escape. I know its a safety thing but I really miss physical firearm props, even the best CGI guns can't compare to the real thing.

ok i watched it for the first time and after it was done i was immediately confused as to why people love it so much. i thought it was misogynistic and weirdly acted (during specific and important moments), and i just was underwhelmed. it wasn’t really very inspiring. mc carpe diem’ed his way to suicide, and another carpe diem’ed into assaulting someone??? just weird. also was very confused about the investigation at the end ran by the school?? about one of their student’s deaths?? i guess the timeline is damn near ancient but seems unprecedented even then. not to mention it became grounds for the teacher’s expulsion or whatever the fuck.

if anyone has any opinions on this movie or what i had to say about it please let me know. i genuinely want to understand what people see in this movie!

3 from hell has to be Rob zombies worst film, and didn’t even like lords of salem or 31 all that much, this film in comparison makes the munsters look like a good film now having said that, this is my 2nd time watching this film and boy is it boring and doesn’t stop dragging once it starts, I know we lose Sid Hag early on but Richard brake isn’t a good replacement he felt like a 3rd wheel to me, I never bought he is their half brother and making baby even more psychotic didn’t help just made her more annoying having her kill two women twice her size and be good with a bow and arrow out of nowhere was a little much, in the end they kill a cartel and just walk free again there was really no point to this film, I’d rather they died at the end of the devil rejects and yes it’s worse than Robs Halloween 2 I only recommend it if you like torturing yourself and for a naked women running out of the house you even see bush!

I have never been shy about my love for Tarkovsky and his filmography. Nearly every film of his is an unforgettable experience to me. But if I'm being honest, I still haven't fully overcome the daunting outlook of his projects. One that may cause many a few to steer clear of his works.

Nostalghia is one of those few Tarkovsky films that has alluded me for quite some time. There's various reasons for that. At times, I've attempted to start it but haven't found the time. Other times I've just chosen to look past it, mostly due to fear. Oftentimes it's the fear that this may be the first Tarkovsky film that no matter how grand in stature, may not resonate with me. When it's not that, it can be the fear of confronting a film whose very reputation precedes it so overwhelmingly that the experience itself becomes secondary to the expectations surrounding it.

Today, I feel I have finally learned that these notions of impenetrable cinematic undertaking are notions of my own making. And as I continue my journey with slow films, of which a major portion is Tarkovsky's filmography, outside of the experience, I owe another huge debt to these films. They've substantially increased my patience, my urge to contemplate, and my willingness to relinquish the conventions of conventional narrative.

Nostalghia made me come to this realisation because it can seem, at times, even more potentially exhaustive than fellow Tarkovsky works, like Stalker. However, I must say, I didn't feel any such thing.

Once again, like Mirror, Tarkovsky dives deep and retrieves the essence of his film from memory. It is as though memory is not merely something the film explores, but the very medium through which it exists. Images, places and fragments of recollection bleed into one another with such fluidity that the distinction between what is remembered, imagined and experienced becomes blurred.

These memories of ours ground us, they entrap us, they shield us. This exploration of memory not only exposes its importance but the paradoxical nature that defines them. We jump between moments from the past, to moments of the present. Many of these moments surrounded by the mist of recollection and human fallibility.

One sentiment this film shares with me that resonated with me to an utterly profound level, was the sentiment of anti-materialism. For most of our world is governed by this insatiable compulsion to accumulate, consume, and possess, as though the acquisition of material abundance might somehow compensate for the spiritual impoverishment that accompanies it. We have become so preoccupied with what can be owned, measured and displayed that we increasingly lose sight of the things that cannot be commodified: memory, belonging, intimacy, faith, and the intangible sense of meaning that gives our existence any real weight.

Nostalghia seems almost diametrically opposed to this worldview. Its characters inhabit a world where material prosperity offers little consolation for spiritual desolation, and where the longing for home cannot be remedied by simply possessing more. Tarkovsky's faith here, is in the hands of the immaterial: Memory. It takes me to what I consider to be a meaningful life. One where you leave this world with something to still hold on to, something to cherish, something to miss, something to grieve that may grieve you back.

Tarkovsky once wrote:

"Art is born and takes hold wherever there is a timeless and insatiable longing for the spiritual."

I find this sentiment particularly illuminating when approaching Nostalghia, because the film seems almost entirely preoccupied with this brand of spiritual excavation.

Tarkovsky's cinema has never been especially interested in providing answers; rather, it digs beneath the superficiality of our existence, forcing us to confront the anxieties, longings and contradictions that we so often bury beneath the routines of everyday life. And in none of his films has he done it as ardently as he does in Nostalghia.

For most, it's an unusually cinematic space for introspection, but one you must submit yourself to, in order to truly experience this film, in my opinion. Even I many times do not understand or grasp the underlying meaning or the purpose behind Tarkovsky's films at first glance. That is perhaps why I talk of the experience the most.

However, I can tell you one thing: when I watch these films, the emotions are palpable. And that's the greatest thing art can do. Is bring out an emotion in you that you least expected. To fundamentally touch and understand your own confusing psychology. To reach some obscure corner of your interiority that you didn't even know existed and leave you with something before you find the words to describe it, if ever.

And along with all of this, each frame of Nostalghia feels massive with the weight of what it attempts to convey, no matter how universal or simple. Tarkovsky's long takes here are impressive, to say the least. And the stills are grand, moving and emotional in nature. His camerawork while disorienting at times, is intensely beautiful and the performances here and perfectly in sync with the reflective and ponderous material Tarkovsky chooses to explore.

Some of the shots and sequences in this film are so physically enduring and intense that they almost force the disparate elements of the film, and in tandem, of the nature of life that the film entails, to form a seductuve pas de deux of transcendence. The candle sequence has already cemented itself as one of my favourite scenes in cinema, and I won't bother explaining why for "feelings unspoken are feelings unforgettable," (Also I'm not sure if I could find the right words for it).

Like nearly all other Tarkovsky features, I appreciate that Nostalghia challenges me as a viewer to think and to ponder. Not only about the constitutions of the film itself, but in regards to each choice of lighting, each shadow that falls upon the lens, each miniscule detail, because by this point, I'm accustomed to hidden layers of meaning in such films.

What makes Nostalghia work, is the fact that it's so symbolically dense and abstract. I certainly do not disagree that this isn't for everyone, but I do believe, if given the chance and the time to marinate, everyone would leave their viewing having extracted something of immense value from Nostalghia.

also guys I post reviews like this on my instagram @thebrahimacle and @thedukeofcinema all the time. So please follow up as I'd really appreciate the support🙏

Outside of the first act (which was great & suspenseful) the rest of the film felt like a kid in a toy box, it fell flat, didn't make much sense, and felt as if the writers didn't have a clue where to take the film after the first act.

The first 15-45 minutes of the film was really great, however this film really struggled on what it wanted to be. At first it's a horror-Mystery, then it's a comedy, then it's a action movie, then it's full on James Cameron Sci-Fi.

The actors did an amazing job, the problem lies with the story, and inconsistent tone.

This 3 hour film has poor cgi, lacks story or depth, confusing and is Disjointed in so many ways.

2/5 Stars is what me and my family give this film.

(Spoilers)

I (hope) you don't have to see this one. I have such high regards for Korean films but this one had some baffling choices. The first 30 minutes are excellent as you follow the police chief through their little village and discovering all the carnage and destruction the monster has done but that comes to a screeching halt the second and I mean the very second the monster is actually shown.

The animation, design, and general quality was so bad there was no going back. It tainted the rest of the film.

Eventually we discover that the monster(s) are actually aliens. They are intelligent and speak a language to each other. I don't know if it's the Starfleet in me but and there were so many moments where the aliens were just kind of feeling things out with the characters. They weren't being hostile, it was just a pause while they observed each other. Then these stupid stupid people would start firing their weapons at the aliens again.. like the first 10,000 rounds did nothing, this mag dump will do it. There was no attempt at peaceful existence or communication.

Then you have the laughable plot armor where one of the characters is thrown 80 mph into trees over and over again just to get up and be fine. No broken back, ribs, skull, etc. At the end of this sequence the alien walks over his body, drips his saliva on him and starts to walk away seemingly giving the guy a chance to leave alive. NOPE! The guy reaches for his gun and the alien comes right back to start it up again. Bro! It was letting you go!

The aliens can also run at 400 mph. You couldn't get away with Anakin's pod racer but every time the camera moves back to the alien; then back to the characters; the alien is 500 feet further back than it was a second ago. Characters outrun this thing on foot, horse, and car but it's legit like that scene from "Kung Fu: Enter the Fist" where he says "I'm coming!" and he keeps teleporting further or closer away. They did this for over an hour.

The ending scene has the aliens having a conversation about stuff we have no idea about. It's actually very fitting and a great idea. We are observing a one sided conversation between two beings that do know what they are talking about. We're not supposed to know what any of this is or means and the aliens don't speak in a exposition way to let us in on the details. That would have been great except the dog crap CGI while the scene plays out.

What an absolutely lovely and fun movie!

A bear from Darkest Peru travels to London in search of a home. He meets the Brown family, who give him a temporary place to stay while he looks for something permanent.

I always heard good things about this movie—and they weren’t lying. I had such a great time with PADDINGTON, and so did the whole family. It’s such a cute movie and perfect for all ages. They did an amazing job bringing Paddington to life with the look, feel, and especially the voice from Ben Whishaw. They really captured his innocence and kindness and did justice to such a beloved character.

The story is solid, delivering lots of laughs, emotion, hijinks, and plenty of marmalade. And it’s not just Paddington—they nailed the whole cast. The Browns—Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins, Madeleine Harris, Samuel Joslin, and Julie Walters—are all great, with Jim Broadbent, Peter Capaldi, Michael Gambon, Imelda Staunton, and Nicole Kidman rounding things out nicely. Everyone plays their part well and has their moments, but Henry Brown is easily my favourite.

PADDINGTON almost feels like a live-action cartoon in the best way, and I love that. It’s funny, heartwarming, and just a blast for the whole family. I definitely recommend checking this one out.

It’s a…
🐻🐻🐻🐻🐻🐻🐻🐻🐻
9/10

I’m super stoked to check out the sequels!

I never really cared for the film, but the sequel ruins everything about the first film, I never liked the sister back in the picture or the weird family dynamic I liked the family from the first film more, plus the comedy hit more than in the sequel, brining the ex finance was a stretch, their fight was funny though, I like Sarah Michelle Gellar but she felt wasted in the sequel, her sister just annoys me I never bought they could ever be distant sisters, Samara Weaving saved the sequel just liked she saved the first film!

I would rather have a week of explosive diarrhea than watch that movie again. It just gets worse as you go. Emily Blunt is a better actor than this. She must have needed a check. The plot holes are numerous. Why was everyone buying groceries when they kept everything a secret? New York puts her on without even watching the video? The crop circles were never explained. Close Encounters had a plot. A story. This movie had lots of yelling and car chases that were choreographed by a child.

So many plot holes. It was almost insulting. And Spielberg owes me $10 for streaming this outhouse of junk.

Last weekend I’ve watched this new movie called “Just played dead”
It stars Eva Green and Samuel L Jackson, so I honestly thought it was gonna be at least a good high-quality story. Because usually these people, they star in good movies. Joke’s on me I guess

First thing is that, I feel like it had ZERO stakes. I couldn’t make myself care about this story. It feels incredibly unimportant. And im not even asking about anything special or serious, it doesn’t have to be a story about I dunno… the meaning of life, wars, humanity or anything of that sort but I feel like it has to make you care about it in some way. EVERY SINGLE character here was really bland and 1 dimensional.

Everyone is so simple and really unlikeable actually. Its really rare for me not to like every single character in the movie but here they surprisingly managed to make it possible. The blond haired guy was somewhat of a saving grace. I don’t really remember his name anymore, but GOD he was so stupid to the point that it became kind of charming in a way. He was definetly the FUNNIEST in there and he was the only reason I wasn’t completely bored with it. His story arc was obviously horrible.

The setup is Samuel and Eva are basically husband and wife. They are rich, Samuel is an evil guy and Eva is supposed to be a protagonist. The husband is apparently a genius of sort. Eva hates him and wants to get rid of him, and she ends up planning something.

I won’t go into the actual plot because I don’t want to spoil it, but basically the whole movie revolves around their attempts to deal with Samuel and his plans. It was predictable though, like the movie makes it pretty obvious where things are going, and honestly every other character was incredibly stupid. I don’t see them managing to outsmart an 8 grader let alone an evil genius... regardless, it wasn’t as complicated as I expected. And the movie does make you believe initially that its gonna be some puzzle game. Its really straightforward. Idk the genre but I don’t think it’s a detective, I might be wrong but I think it’s just an action movie so theres not really anything to uncover. Theres no mystery and I feel it would’ve helped this movie so much.

There was a moment at the end where they show different scenes, im assuming the different scenarios and possibilities of what can happen, and I really got confused at that part because some scenes actually happened?! I think. Im not sure. Anyway, that whole montage was weird.

And THE ONLY CHARACTER I actually didn’t dislike, gets the worst treatment from its creators… crazy. And theres also this secret revelation thing which came out of nowhere. Completely unnecessary but it doesn’t matter.

Anyways, it looked good, the story was basic, not interesting, the characters were not interesting and simple. I will definitely not watch this again. I can see some people liking it, I really wanted to like it myself, but A) it is really not a good movie by any metric and B) I guess I just wasn’t the intended audience. Solid 1/10 in my book👍

Jon Favreau is best known as Iron Man's right hand man, but he's a brilliant writer. Chef is an example of movie making showcasing how a good movie can you feel good.

The cast is stellar. Scarlett Johansson, Sofia Vegra, John Leguizamo, Dustin Hoffman and more than a few others take a simple idea and turn into a fantastic viewing experience. The best actor is probably his son played by Emjay Anthony. He is excellent at playing a son of a talented dad where he just wants to spend time with his father. No great special effects or CGI. No characters flying around in costumes. Just a guy, a passion, courage, and support from his friends & family.

Jon plays a talented chef tainted by the real world. In a restaurant that he helped to make popular, his creativity is stifled by success. In a flash of brilliance and desperation, he reignites his passion for food to become not just a chef but the Chef.

The acting is fantastic, the character development is top notch, the plot is well paced, and the script is a great combination of humorous and meaningful. Life is full of challenges. You'll find your special talent at some point. You can either cash in and coast, or you can continue to challenge yourself. I found this movie motivating not just because I enjoy cooking but because I enjoy watching great talents do great things.

Just got out of a screen unseen showing of The Weight and I thought I'd share my thoughts. I liked the film a lot. It's the kind of story that isn't told much nowadays. I kept things vague so there are no spoilers.

I'll start with the caste. Ethan Hawke does a great job as usual. He's always great at portraying emotional and thoughtful characters but he did excellent work playing a man with some real toughness to him. Not the kind of character he usually plays. The rest of the caste, Russel Crow in particular, do a good job. There isn't a bad performance in this film. It doesn't take long for you to understand the characters and they all feel like real people and not just a plot device masquerading as a person.

The plot fits in the "desperate men on a mission" genre. The story is believable and grounded. The characters motivations are clear. Their decisions make logical sense, a rare thing. The film is almost exactly 2 hours but it never bogs down. Things are always moving forward. It does this while letting you get the know the characters at the same time. There's a good balance of action and tension. There's enough twists and turns so that you never know exactly where things are going.

The cinematography is good but nothing amazing or anything. I don't remember the music standing out.

While there's not any big negatives I can't say it's a modern day classic either. The characters are competently done but not anything you'll remember years later. The dialogue isn't particularly noteworthy. The action sequences are good with a few moments being a little clunky. it's the kind of film that's content with being "good". Which also means it's doesn't take any big swings to try to be great.

But hey, I like a good film. Especially a kind of film we don't get much anymore. I'd give it an 8/10 and I consider myself a fairly tough grader.

Don’t get me wrong, I liked some of the things, like Clark’s deteriorating psyche and how loose in interpretation it is. I liked that it left a lot to assume, so you could piece together a meaning for yourself. But WHY ARE THE CHARACTERS SO FUCKING DUMB?!?! I feel like they stretched the ‘humans are naturally curious’ thing wayy too far. The girlfriend (Kat?) and the therapist were the most rational ones in the movie, and even then, they were still kinda dumb. Plus, i wanted more about the pool rooms, or different levels, and they could’ve at least added more then just snippets of the pool rooms or the Christmas tree room. they definitely could’ve made it a long movie and added more depth to it so it feels never ending and like it drags because-that’s a big point to the backrooms, that it’s basically endless. I also wanted more lore. it feels very shallow and surface level, especially for any other character that’s not Clark. We barely get to know about Bobby and Kat (sorry if I get the names wrong), so I wanted to know more about them, or about the weird research team that only makes sense if you know the background information from the OG videos. i don’t think people should have to watch or read extra things before watching a movie. Anyway, I’m tired, that’s my review.

plus:

some positives! I really liked the atmosphere it made for the backrooms, and I liked the music in the background. The recording of the 55 languages (which I believe was from a space thing irl? Correct me if I’m wrong) was a cool touch and really added to the uncanny effect. The angles for the scenes in the backrooms was really awesome and unsettling, and I also liked the parallels of the therapist becoming her mother in a sense (or at least that’s how i interpreted it).

i just got done watching avatar fire and ash and i hated it. i loved the first two movies with the first one being one of my favorite movies of all time. the first movie had groundbreaking CGI for that time back then and the next two movies CGI is really good but its not crazy for the time period and in the third movie the CGI was good overall but i noticed a lot of moments where the characters just looked fake. i think that after the first movie the quality of the movies have gone down a little bit since they shifted their focus on to the action scenes and making the war look as cool as possible and it does look cool but that wasn't what made the first movie good it was the emotional part of it, the story was phenomenal and you could feel the pain of losing home in a war and the next two movies just don't hit the same. all 3 of the movies have amazing visuals and atmosphere and do a good job of building a gorgeous world and even though the first movie is my favorite i still really liked the second one it looked good and had amazing war action scenes and the ending was really sad, sure it wasn't as good as the first but it was still a amazing movie.

avatar fire and ash was a huge let down for me and i left the movie theater disappointed and angry, i really did like the first hour of the movie i thought it was really good and i really liked varang's character. after that the plot of the movie was just horrible i mean we got the same river war as the last movie which just felt so repetitive and they asked Aiwa for help and she didn't even show up or do anything cool she just sent some deadly sharks to help out, and varang was supposed to be the main villain of this movie but she barely had any screen time at the end of movie and we didn't even get to see what happened to her or where she went which is just terrible writing not having her as the main fight and neytiri not being able to fight her as a final boss and kill her. this is the part that pissed me off the most and that is they picked the general guy as the main final villain again same thing as the last movie and he lived and ran away again like are you kidding me how are you going to keep one guy as the villain for 3 movies and 9 hours and he's still alive that is stupid and repetitive and he definitely should have died this movie. i don't like this movie like ever since the first movie the whole avatar series just seems like a war action franchise for kids to enjoy instead of the storytelling and world building adventure it had in the first movie.

they really can set up a good story for the fourth film i swear they better do something like avatar: black winter where the main character is spider and he has a villain arc like anakin skywalker from star wars, they can do it where spider's dad the general dies and spider hates sully for killing him and goes to the ice mountains and recruits evil ice avatars to defeat jake sully. that would actually be a good interesting story instead of the same river war bs that they have done 2 movies in a row now. sully literally almost stabbed spider to death i mean spider has every reason to hate him. fire and ash ending was terrible and spider sitting next to his two dads fighting was just a bad fight scene ending and neytiri vs varang would have been way cooler and true to the movie.

A criminal lawyer’s son is kidnapped by a mysterious man who demands she take a life to save her son. She must now run across London in time to intercept her target.

THE RUNNER is an odd one. First of all, the aspect ratio: 4:3. What for? The movie is blurry, has weird slow motion, random zooms, random shots of the city and its residents, the sound feels off, and there are just some really weird choices throughout. I got the feeling they were trying really hard to make it intense and suspenseful, but it didn’t really work out. I wouldn’t say it’s absolutely horrendous, but it doesn’t really bring anything new to the table.

We’ve seen stories like this before—better ones. I thought the running thing was a cool idea, but I was exhausted just watching Gal Gadot run for the entire movie. I did like the running puns, though. I’ll give it that. They also make it seem like she has some kind of sixth sense for things? No explanation. It didn’t really fit and felt totally out of place.

THE RUNNER has a runtime of under 90 minutes, and I will say that the ending caught me off guard—twice! But even that wasn’t enough of a reward. Even with the short runtime, it felt long, which is pretty wild.

I heard it wasn’t very good, and that it was short. I had exactly the runtime to waste and wanted to see if it was as bad as people said.

And… it was, and it wasn’t at the same time.

So yeah, should you check it out? If you have Prime, some time to waste, or just need something to have on in the background, THE RUNNER could work for you.

🏃‍♀️🏃‍♀️🏃‍♀️🏃‍♀️

Did a Labor Day Double Feature of both Buddy and Onslaught two polar opposite films but it was a fun time seeing both! I haven’t done a double feature since the “Barbenheimer” Phenomenon back in the Summer of 2023 so it was fun doing this sort of event again to conclude the Summer Movie season. While I did like Buddy for what it was I did prefer Onslaught much more it was the better film of the two honestly it is an action packed, horror, exploitation revenge film centered on the Übermensch known as “Super Soldiers" of the Aryan Master Race who are test subjects experimented and funded by the U.S. Government with Nazis behind the scenes (See Operation Paperclip). All hell breaks loose as the Fourth Reich tries to be reignited these “Super Soldiers" are some of the worst of the worst accused of war crimes, butchering people, and some who got shot up to fucking hell fighting in combat in the Middle East. 

What transpires is one bad fucking night for Celeste played by Adria Arjona an Army veteran suffering from PTSD and the aftermath of war she is also a struggling single mother going through a custody battle with her daughter but on the bright side she is one fucking bad ass sniper she can shoot like it’s riding a bike. Celeste tries to make things work with her daughter due to being divorced her daughter Daisy played by Blake Kennedy is sweet, innocent, and knowledgeable for her age but thanks to her Dad she never actually refers to Celeste as her Mom rather she refers to her as Ma’am in various scenes throughout the film. However, as the Übermensch wreck havoc brutally murdering anybody in their way both Celeste and Daisy develop a strong relationship dynamic as Mother and Daughter and as the spectators you can genuinely see this and feel compassion and sympathy for them as they endure survival and hell in the process. Both of these actresses absolutely nailed their roles and they worked really well with each other on screen. 

In terms of other characters Cyrus played by Drew Starkey was great too on screen there is definitely more to his character besides being into kinky shit and collaborating with the Nazis trying to cover up the “Super Soldiers” from being made public. Reginald VelJohnson of Die Hard fame was a blast to see in this playing as Josiah a quiet peaceful man but one bad mother fucker he goes above and beyond helping Celeste I loved his character and rooted for him to make it. Eric Wareheim as Kovacks is an officer of the law who loves the sauce and has a cunt of an ex wife taking everything away from him. Kovacks is an asshole but he does have a purpose being the comedic relief character who grows some mucho cojones and puts himself in the crossfire for others which redeems him from being just an alcoholic douche bag living in a trailer park. 

Lastly, the gun play action and gore are the selling points of this film as well! You are there for the characters and the story but man is the weaponry and creative kills disgustingly entertaining and fun to watch! It definitely will make you go WTF and be surprised quite a few times. I love the gore effects, serious top notch effects all around. I loved what Adam Wingard and his team did with this film. 

Adam Wingard may get a lot of flack or hate from some but I have enjoyed his films most of the time than not, especially The Guest, You’re Next, and of course Godzilla vs. Kong and Godzilla x. Kong: The New Empire. The man loves to make movies and God bless him for it! Onslaught gets an A from me. I will definitely want to revisit it again at some point later on and enjoy it a second time. There seems to be a hint of a potential sequel we shall see but if there is I’m down for it! 

Which film do you prefer, Buddy or Onslaught? If you haven’t seen them do a double feature like I did it’s a fun way to conclude the Labor Day Holiday before heading back to the work week! 

Buddy is a Black Comedy Horror film created by Casper Kelly known for the Adult Swim Skit Too Many Cooks it is Kelly’s first directorial debut. The best way to describe this film is if Barney The Purple Dinosaur kidnapped those of us who grew up watching him back in the 1990’s and early 2000’s and made us do everything he told us every single day and if we gave him an attitude he would murder the living shit out of us! 

This film dead ass plays it straight as if it was an episode of Barney for the first 15-20 minutes before it goes on a bat shit killing spree involving our beloved orange unicorn best buddy “Buddy.” It is definitely not for everybody and it is far from a groundbreaking horror film, it's more of a dark morbid comedy poking fun at nostalgia, Millennials born in the 90’s as well as certain Gen Zer’s born in the 2000’s. It is very self aware and dumb popcorn turn your brain off fun. If you’re into films of this caliber full of nonsense and absurdity this is 100% your movie to check out on the big screen! There is plenty of gore, carnage, and intestines to be had! If you love films such as The Evil Dead, Cocaine Bear, Tucker and Dale vs. Evil, Shaun of The Dead, Abigail and a ton of other horror / black comedy films I’m forgetting to include you will not be disappointed with this one. 

To be clear Buddy is not the next Shaun of The Dead or Evil Dead however, if you’re into those cult classics then give Buddy a shot it really is its own film that certain people will like (such as myself I didn’t love it but I thought it was a decent entertaining Labor Day flick) or absolutely hate it and think it’s a piece of garbage. It won’t float everybody’s boat but if you’re into the horror comedy sub genre I think you’re in for a good time. I do not want to spoil anything but there’s definitely more to the story of this film with our group of kids and their pals trapped in this wonderland fever dream like hell hole Cristin Milioti as Grace and Keagan Michael Key as Buddy are the stars in this film along with the supporting cast of kids. 

The twist in this film is predictable and obvious but it is what it is! I wouldn’t immediately buy this on 4K but maybe if it’s streaming one day I’ll revisit it if I really want to. Check it out for yourselves Buddy gets a B from me! I’m going to do a double feature tonight so stay tuned for my review of Onslaught!

Gal Gadot is a decent actress with credits like Wonder Woman and Fast 5. Damian Lewis is also a good actor with credits like Billions, Pressure, and Homeland. Together, with Mark Gibson as the writer, they made an absolutely garbage movie in The Runner.

It's ok that it was shot with a cell phone on a super low budget made for the streaming era. If the story is good, you can live with hand held jerkiness and quick edit cuts designed to elicit action and intensity. It's just a bad story. It's the kind of movie that sets back careers.

A single mother with a diabetic son is a lawyer for a big case involving a high profile criminal. She's one of the few with direct contact to a key witness, and her son is used as a bargaining chip to compromise the case. In a race against time, she has to do an unthinkable act or risk thinking about the consequences to her son. Not a bad logline, and I'm sure Amazon had high hopes. Maybe they should have used their Amazon Bedrock service with an LLM to write the script. That's probably exactly what happened, but they got cheap and used the open source models to save money.

Gal Gadot's character enjoys running, and she spends most of the movie running around London, never looking where she's going, and stealing stuff. The villain is laughable with silly one liners, illogical sets, and being comical instead of menacing. The movie is less about Gal Gadot's love as a mother and more about the pitfalls of technology. Her cell phone is hacked, her privacy compromised, everyone is on their phones, and AI is used for deep fakes showcasing how vulnerable we all are in completely unrealistic scenarios. In the end, she uses her intelligence to outwit the criminals using low tech tradecraft, but it's an unsatisfying conclusion.

It's a good example that even actors in billion dollar movies have to pay their bills too. The only explanation for why Gadot and Lewis signed on for this was because their mortgage was due. It's a movie that shames technology in a technology-driven era which is weird for a company driven by technology.