ryanpersaud-59415 Reviews

The Invitation (II) (2022)

In an alternative universe, this is an effective erotic thriller.

[5/10 · 27 May 2024]

I don't think The Invitation is in theory, a bad movie. I'm kind of surprised that a vampire film that comments upon classism, sexism, racism, and colonialism HASN'T been made yet (but I guess based on the reviews here, I guess I can see why).

If you can't comment on how WHITE an aristocratic, upper class British family is, what can you comment on about white people and how they tend to be? Are we so sensitive to race that we can't even acknowledge that a family that's generated wealth and power over centuries (and likely, on the backs of others - including OTHER white people) represents the pinnacle of white privilege? It's absolutely insane how simplistic the conversation has gotten, wherein even a mention of whiteness becomes an issue.

I think what the Invitation is TRYING to do is interesting. And I also think this is an objectively GORGEOUS movie with amazing sets, costuming, and well, PEOPLE. The three main actresses - Nathalie Immanuel, Sophie Cornieulessen, and Alana Boden - are stunning. The moments where the three of them interact and there's a heavily sensual nature of their relationship is when the film worked best for me. (Yes, I'm a straight man. Sue me) I felt like this was an angle was criminally underused.

And yes, Thomas Doherty's chiseled face and air of menace makes him the perfect (maybe?) Dracula; he almost doesn't look or feel like a real human being.

Unfortunately, I can't really say The Invitation is a good movie. It moves way too slowly; building up a romance that from the beginning feels inauthentic as we're given the obligatory jump scares that serve no other purpose but to remind us that we're watching a horror movie. Why they didn't just axe all of this stuff and make this a steamy erotic thriller is beyond me, but it stinks of studio interference. The movie goes out of its way to make things "creepy" to the point where it doesn't feel believable that Nathalie Immanuel's Evie would stay at this place.

Not to mention that this film is rated PG-13 and it's one of those instances where it REALLY hurts the movie. I think the ending could've been shocking and violent and really leave an impact on the audience. Instead, we get 2002 Van Helsing style action and violence that just feels like a cop out. (As well as an stinger with a truly bizarro tone that feels completely out of place)

It's a shame, because the bones of a good movie are here. For all its talk, The Invitation could've used a bit more seasoning.

Orphan: First Kill (2022)

Colour Me Surprised; It's Even Better than the Original.

[8/10 · 27 May 2024]

If you would've told me that one of the best examples of a horror prequel I've seen in YEARS (well, that would've been the case had I not seen The First Omen, but to be fair, this came out in 2022) was the prequel to ORPHAN, I wouldn't have believed you.

I mean, Orphan was a fun, memorable little fright flick from the 2000s, but hardly one deserving of a prequel, right? I think this film goes to show that the idea that a prequel is "unnecessary" only makes sense if the prequel itself does nothing to expand on the previous story. All prequels can work, look at Orphan: First Kill.

I think it's fair to say that this film has a lot going against it: straight-to-streaming, an older Isabelle Furman (respectfully reprising her role as Esther, the titular "orphan"), and the inherent skepticism audiences have towards horror prequels.

At first, Orphan: First Kill seems like it'd be a simple retread of the original, but thankfully, due to an excellent and frankly, brilliant twist, becomes something much better. I don't think it's an understatement to say that the film really re-contextualizes and humanizes Furman's murderous Esther. Watching this film and then the original, the story comes off as a tragedy more than a horror film; a story about a broken person whose existence really sets her up for failure from the outset. It's honestly heart breaking at times.

This is complimented by Julia Stiles, who plays Esther's adopted mother in the film, who gives (let's be frank) a deliciously evil performance here. I actually really loved the tense triangle between her, Esther, and her son Gunnar (Matthew Finlan - who plays one of the most despicable jerks I've seen in quite a while, but believably so). It made me feel like this series could go on for quite a few movies, with Esther potentially exploring different family dynamics (of course, it'd then stretch the limits of credulity).

Speaking of that, while yes, we have to acknowledge that Furman is a young woman and not a preteen, the movie does a really good job at using good ol' fashioned camera trickery, make up, and well timed stunt actors to convince you otherwise. I'm a little annoyed that some people have forgotten that an element of film is the suspension of disbelief; to say you hate the movie because "she looks older" is so dumb because the film makers did a lot to get around that problem. You may not have been convinced of it, but it's UNDOUBTEDLY a better decision than recasting Esther.

I was a little annoyed with the dreamy lighting the movie presents, especially towards the beginning, which gave it a somewhat cheap look. But honestly, this movie was surprisingly good. Like I'd recommend it to basically anyone and it's frankly, a lot better than even the original.

X-Men '97 (2024– )

Oh, We Are So Back.

[8/10 · 21 May 2024]

X-Men '97 could've been a passable reboot of the old Saturday morning cartoon series from the 90's, a series I hold near and dear to my heart as a show I loved growing up. Even if, I have to admit rewatching some of the episodes, it is decidedly "for children." X-Men '97 though, is so, so much more.

It feels like the original show but MADE twenty years later; I expected the gimmick to be a recreation of the old show in an old style, but that's not what we get here at all. To be honest, '97 is WAY better than the original series. It's an upgrade in basically every way and respects that audience's tastes have changed, creating a more complicated, nuanced, and mature take on the X-Men.

It's a show bold enough to question the central conflict present since the beginning of the X-Men franchise: what if peace between mutants and humanity impossible? What if tolerance is extinction? What if...Charles Xavier is wrong? The show doesn't force you to feel one way or the other, but it earnestly explores both options and frankly, feels more realistic and relevant in our politically polarized times and geopolitically tense times, as opposed to the optimism of the post-Cold War 90s. (It helps that we also have a phenomenal central villain who encompasses the central question of the season and genuinely feels like an existential threat.)

But this show is also...the X-Men and the weird, wonderful, and outright kooky elements are still there. The political and social intrigue the X-Men have always been known for are just the tip of the iceberg. We have everything from mad scientists to clones, to intergalactic TV hosts, humanoid robots, time travel, alien empires, demons...this show is bonkers and I absolutely love it. You can tell the people behind this series genuinely love the X-Men and mine their treasure trove of characters and storylines to show us all that they can.

Then there's the incredible animation. My God. This show looks absolutely amazing and has some of the most inventive and impressive action sequences I've ever seen with 2D animation. There's a fluidity to movement that you literally cannot replicate with live action without crossing into the uncanny valley. The show takes a lot of inspiration from Japanese anime in that regard and it feels appropriate to do. They do animated action the best right?

I wouldn't say the show is absolutely perfect. I feel like some of the voice acting is a bit too melodramatic for my liking and over-the-top, yet it does get better as the season goes on. (I'm thinking specifically on Storm and Cyclops, even a little Magneto if I'm being honest). Sunspot is definitely the weakest character here as well, he comes off as very annoying for most of the season too.

There are also some pretty bad pacing issues in the beginning; the show jams a lot into the first few episodes and it's a bit much. Entire storylines start and end within 30 minutes and to say it feels a little weird would be an understatement, but appropo for a Saturday morning cartoon, I guess, even if that's really not what this show is.

Overall, I really loved X-Men '97. It gets mostly everything right and is made with love and care. I think what I'm most impressed by is how excited the show got me for the MCU in general, something I can't say I've been too excited by since Avengers: Endgame.

To me, it's fairly obvious that the path the MCU should go is with the X-Men (also shout out to all the non X-Men Marvel cameos). They bring a dynamism and energy to Marvel that makes it wholly unique and there are so many possibilities, it's eye watering. Thankfully, I expect this is exactly what they'll end up doing and if so, X-Men '97 is a fantastic start. We are so back, baby.

Ricky Stanicky (2024)

Ricky Sta-Stinky.

[2/10 · 21 May 2024]

Having just watched Mother of the Bride on Netflix, my wife and I decided to completely swing the other "comedic" direction and watch what is decidedly a very bro-ey comedy on Amazon Prime. Maybe it isn't surprising, but these two movies actually have a lot of the same flaws.

They take a premise that is inherently unrelatable and try to mold the world around the premise to make it work. Yes, some people may have made up a kid at school to blame their bad behaviour on. The idea that grown men would continue to do that is funny, but it also stretches credulity to the point where every character is just so...DUMB. So uncurious, so willing to ignore basic common sense things, and almost goldfish like in their short term memory lapses. To say this movie isn't particularly flattering to women would be an understatement, because all of them here are exceptionally dense. (Not to mention, it of course continues that *fantastic* trope of two white guys and a minority friend group, where the minority character is clearly tokenized and gets by far the least screen time and is a lazy slacker with nothing going on)

There's also the nature of the humour; John Cena is funny and he has great comedic timing, but I found his casting to be truly bizarre. While I'm not saying it's impossible for a handsome and charming man to be a weirdo, there's a reason why casting is a delicate art: you need the right people to sub communicate traits to the audience. That's why this movie spends so much time making Cena as weird and outlandish as humanly possible: because they have convince us over and over again that something isn't right with the guy. Otherwise, he's just John Cena.

(One character even asks him how he can be an alcoholic and so ripped, to which he responds "a ton of roids." I mean, everyone knows that you still need to WORK OUT for steroids to work right..they don't just build muscle for you, at least I hope people know that.)

On that note, the movie does often feel like a early teenage boys wrote it and not just due to the copious gross out humour. There are just things in the movie don't work the way they're supposed to and it just takes you out of the film. Like...ketamine or venture capital or news media or relationships or really anything. It's just so thoroughly dumb from start to finish.

This movie also lacks any sort of heart or personality beyond the predictable but also extremely convoluted "feel good" ending. We never really get a sense of why Zac Efron and his buddies are the way they are or what they like about each other or why they feel the need to abandon their partners so often.

Sorry this is getting long, but like many of these straight-to-Netflix/streaming movies, it looks WAY TOO CLEAN. There's literally a scene when the boys leaving the front row of a bombastic EDM concert and when we see them right after, there's not a hair out of place or sweat stains or even a hint of drunkenness (despite them having a beverage in hand every other scene). It's little details like this that make it impossible to buy anything going on here.

Mother of the Bride (2024)

We can do rom coms better, right? RIGHT?

[2/10 · 21 May 2024]

Anyone But You was not a good movie and substantially, isn't THAT much better than Mother of the Bride. But, at least it had some ambition and attempted to make us buy the central relationship at the heart of the movie. It felt like it *cared* that we care about Sydney Sweeney and Glen Powell, you know?

Mother of the Bride did not care. In fact, this movie is so unbelievably lazy, poorly written, and baffling in its execution that I wouldn't be surprised if it was AI generated (unfortunately, this is the case with A LOT of these straight-to-Netflix movies nowadays). There's almost a fundamental misunderstanding of the human condition here that I can't get over.

The film is obviously an attempt to follow up or reference the classic rom com Father of the Bride. Whereas that film was about a father learning to accept his baby girl is grown up and moving on, an experience most fathers will have to eventually, this one is about...what happens when or if you meet your college fling thirty years later? What happens when you have a sponsored destination wedding and are torn between what you want and what a vague company wants for your wedding? What happens when you're a world class geneticist and your ex is the head of a VC company and you compete to impress your daughter with giving her as much as you can?

Comedies are about relatable scenarios and finding the funny is awkward or uncomfortable situations, but those situations have to grounded in some sort of reality to actually connect with people.

Not to mention the characters are just aimless and completely tropey; the gay best friend, the horny best friend, the "dashing" (but I guess also, completely checked out) love interest. All the while the film misses the most crucial aspect of a resort movie or show...the staff or other guests have to be interesting. Have these people not watched The White Lotus or Forgetting Sarah Marshall? You can't set a movie at a resort and ONLY focus on like five characters for the entirety of it?

That all being said, this movie is actually so bad it's enjoyable at times. My wife and I had a blast picking this thing apart. So...tentative recommendation?

Monster (III) (2023)

It's Been a While, But This Takes the TENET award for most annoying sound.

[3/10 · 21 May 2024]

I don't hate the idea of a film having no dialog. Monster is as simple as a concept as it gets, and realistically, dialog wouldn't be a major aspect of the story anyway. No, the biggest flaw with Monster isn't the LACK of sound, it's the EXCESS of sound.

I just saw Challengers and that was a movie where sound design and mixing were a major aspect of what made it great. This is an example of a movie where the sound design is truly awful. It was a droning, crackling score that initially had me wondering if my TV speakers were broken. (Thankfully, no...I moved to another TV to finish the movie and it was the same situation)

This droning score plays through the ENTIRETY of the movie and it's unbelievably annoying. Not to forget about the score, which is so melodramatic and intrusive that it veers into very corny territory. Music is so important because it can set or ruin a film's tone. Here, the over dramatic music and over use of a terrible score made this film feel cheaper than it needed to. The last time sound made me feel so negatively about a movie was probably Tenet.

As for non-auditory aspects, I think it's fair to warn people that Monster is a very dark movie that follows two children as they attempt to escape a child murderer. Given that...I do wish we did get SOME dialog. It's such a disturbing premise that some levity and humanity on screen would be welcome. Some explanation as to what's going on? What the larger story is here? Or even some of the motivations of the admittedly detestable adults we see in the film would add a layer of intrigue here aside from the relatively compact story we see on screen.

I generally like to support foreign films and go a bit easier on them, but I think Monster needed some tweaking to actually work. As of now, it's a forgettable and undercooked film.

Challengers (2024)

We Love a Great Sports Film, Don't We?

[8/10 · 15 May 2024]

If there's one thing Challengers gets definitively right, it's getting you hyped up for whatever's going to happen next. This movie masters a feeling of pulse pounding excitement and raw human intensity that any sports fan or athlete can understand immediately.

Typically, we associate a film's "energy" with its performances and editing, but I think what really stands out about this film are two aspects in particular: the cinematography and music/sound. Like a tennis ball, Guadanino and cinematographer Sayombhu Mukdeeprom really internalized the "camera-as-character" philosophy and let it nuts. If anything else, this film is a testament to the WAY a story is presented is what matters more than anything else. Some may be surprised by the sheer amount of tennis in the film, but honestly, it's when Challengers is at its most exhilarating. The camera whizzes and floats around, showing us perspectives of the action I'd frankly never seen before in a sports film.

Then there's the music. Challengers makes use of a pumping EDM soundtrack crafted by none other than Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. We're used to hearing this sort of score in action films, but to have it score a romantic drama/sports movie felt fresh and novel. I'm decidedly mixed on how I felt about the score in some scenarios. When people are talking and the music swells to the point of drowning out the dialog, it sometimes felt amateurish and reminiscent of a low budget Bollywood film (as someone who's watched quite a few of these, I can attest okay?). But from the perspective as the music representing energy: athletic, sexual, or emotional, that it BURSTS to the surface is quite apt. In any case, it's easily one of the most exciting and fun soundtracks I've heard in a while. I'll undoubtedly be listening to it for months to come.

I also really loved the structure of the film; its non-linear storytelling once again reminded me that it's HOW a story is presented, not the content of the story itself. The film is never boring and well written enough to the point that you can extrapolate what had happened and become interested in how we got there before we're actually told that something will be explained. The editing is pitch perfect too; there's one scene with two characters in a cafeteria discussing something while eating churros (a minor scene in the grand scheme of things) that was just executed so perfectly, I can remember it beat-for-beat.

Then, there are the performances. Josh O' Connor, Mike Faist, and Zendaya have excellent chemistry and their growth as characters and dynamic is absolutely fascinating. That being said...I didn't completely buy Zendaya's character or her performance. I felt like she worked as the "younger" Tashi, but fell a bit short as she got older. There's something about her that is so youthful that I felt it was difficult to buy who she became and her delivery of certain lines fell flat for me. Obviously not enough to ruin the film or anything, but a minor complaint.

I also felt the film takes a little while to get going and I didn't find myself emotionally invested until may 20 minutes in. That's sort of the drawback with non-linear storytelling, but it's especially so when I felt there was a dearth of dialog and a lot of random lingering shots that I didn't feel really added to much to anything, aside from the runtime. (The copious slow mo was not a problem for me though).

Challengers is a pretty great film. As an exploration of sexuality, relationships, athleticism, the pursuit of glory, and love itself, it manages to deliver a fun, stylish, and super entertaining take that I already know is going to age very, very well.

The Beekeeper (2024)

Laughably, and Enjoyably Dumb, But Takes Itself a Bit Too Seriously.

[3/10 · 7 May 2024]

I went into The Beekeeper knowing absolutely nothing. I expected a fairly run of the mill Statham action flick, and what I got was...much better. I'm genuinely shocked this movie actually came out in theatres; it looks, sounds, and feels like a straight-to-Netflix film (which is honestly an insult to some of the better action flicks on Netflix).

Statham looks quite tired and checked out here; he probably realized how absolutely absurd this film is and was happy to take a quick pay check. (Side note, he also wears a comically large cap that doesn't quite fit his head and it's absolutely hilarious - you'd expect a movie called the BEEKEEPER would have him kick butt in beekeeping garb, but no...more on that later)

This movie has below average performances and a truly terrible script. Characters will flat out say things in a redundant matter, spell things out for us that genuinely don't need to be, and are paper thin. The plot is like every revenge action film you've ever seen, except this time directed at scam call centres. The way these centres are depicted is...confusing to say the least.

Not only are they based in the United States, but look like Silicon Valley start up offices, and seemingly run by white tech bros, including one whom - I kid you not - is the son of the literal PRESIDENT of the United States. Yes, you read that right. (I guess Jason Statham beating up a bunch of Indians or Nigerians just didn't look right? It's weird.) The aforementioned SOPOTUS is played by Josh Hutchinson. He's clearly having fun, giving perhaps the hammiest performance he's ever given.

I feel like this movie needed a bit more panache and style, but never quite commits to the bit. It dips its toes in being a parody of revenge action flicks, but takes itself too seriously to genuinely be one. If it did, there would be at least ONE bee related kill. I mean, we all expected that, right?

But I have to admit, The Beekeeper is quite a lot of fun. Crossing into so-bad-its-good territory, it's a worthwhile drinking game film with some friends, for sure.

Late Night with the Devil (2023)

A Fun Time, But Certainly Not the Jaw Dropper the Internet is Saying

[6/10 · 30 April 2024]

There's a lot to like about Late Night with the Devil; the first being the absolutely fantastic performance of David Dasmalchian as Jack. He really nails the 1970s late night talk show host vibe perfectly and has a lot of wit and charisma, yet an underlying darkness that you know (or I guess hope) will come into play later on.

I also really loved the aesthetic for most of the film, with the grainy, multi camera look, excellent period costuming and hairstyling, and amazing aesthetic touches that drew me in immediately. The film makes great use of practical effects and while it may look a bit silly, I thought it had a charm that was appropriate for the era.

(Side note: The filmmakers opted to use AI for some of the transition cards in the film and it's caused a bit of a stir. To be honest, I don't think this is an application of the technology worth getting angry over. It's a low budget film, AI use is inevitable, and this was probably the least intrusive way to use it)

I also felt really compelled by the story and the structure of the film, which felt longer and meatier (at least for most of it) than it would seem. It moved at a quick pace and I was never bored.

However, I do think this movie wears its numerous flaws on its sleeve. The entire conceit - that this is an unaired episode - should've been stuck with. The movie confusingly switches between the gorgeous 70s talk show style to a baffling black-and-white handheld camera look, which I found necessary for the story, but ultimately confusing by the end of the film when it switches it up completely. Either this is supposed to be "found footage" or it isn't.

I also felt a lot of the performances were pretty subpar, especially the girl playing Lily (Ingrid Torelli) and the woman playing June (Laura Gordon). Torelli just...didn't have the screen presence necessary for the role and her line delivery was baffling. I couldn't make heads or tails of her character and maybe there was stuff left on the cutting room floor, because her character's "journey" through this film was utterly confusing and disappointing. Gordon just did not deliver her lines well. I just didn't buy her at all.

Then there's the ending...which...I can forgive to an extent for being "interpretable," but I can also totally understand feels incoherent. It's almost like when someone writes and essay and it's already 11 pages long so they rush the conclusion. There's no real satisfactory explanation for a lot of the questions you hope the film would answer, which made me wonder why they introduced some plot elements to begin with (i.e. Jack's backstory with the thinly veiled cult). It's not rocket science as to what happened; it's just not given the emotional weight it needs nor the explosive payoff you'd want.

I think this is a fine and fun movie that I'm happy I saw and I'd probably show other people. One question I have is...why on Earth was this released in March and not Halloween, when the film is set? It's bizarre.

Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire (2024)

A Serviceable Sequel, nothing more.

[6/10 · 28 April 2024]

At the risk of sounding pretentious, after seeing Godzilla: Minus One less than five months ago, my expectation for what a kaiju movie completely changed. Wherein that film was a thoughtful, exciting, and mature take on Godzilla, using the monster as a backdrop for bigger things, Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire...is mostly just monster stuff.

And hey, that's not necessarily a bad thing. People have been clamouring for an American kaiju movie that sets the human characters aside and focuses primarily on the massive creatures that destroy our cities. Godzilla x Kong: TNE does this pretty well; spending the vast majority of its run time in "Hollow Earth", a realm beneath our own where Kong now lives, full of fascinating (and gargantuan) creatures.

My favourite parts of the movie were where the monsters - mostly Kong - interacted with other monsters. It was a surprisingly good showcase of non verbal storytelling that naturally, gives this movie a lot of international appeal.

But, I can't help but feel this movie could be and should be...more? It really does feel like a Kong movie that Godzilla just happens to feature in; his inclusion almost feels unnecessary. Then, of course, there are the human characters.

Minus One PROVED that great human drama and characters are not only possible, but elevate kaiju movies. This one isn't bad; Rebecca Hall and Dan Stevens are fine; Brian Tyree Henry is on the verge of being annoying, but he works. The little girl is really terrible. Somehow, despite have zero spoken dialog, she can't properly convey the emotions she's supposed to be expressing with her face alone. Unintentional hilarity ensues.

There's also more people like her, who are weirdly and inexplicably mute, and in a movie with so much grunting and roaring, I felt that was an odd choice. The lore of the movie is pretty tacked on and doesn't leave much of an impression (it also doesn't make a lot of sense, but it's fine).

Overall, Godzilla x Kong: TNE is FINE. It's nothing particular special, and it's not bad. But I can only hope for the next one, we get a bit more ambition and creativity.

Fallout (2024– )

Lives Up to the Hype. Probably the Best Video Game Adaptation I've Ever Seen.

[9/10 · 28 April 2024]

I haven't played Fallout, but I'm fairly familiar with the lore, and my brother is a HUGE fan, so I've absorbed some of it. To me, Fallout feels like a special franchise with a lot of cool ideas.. I went into Fallout expecting the worst given that it's a 2020s era adaptation AND a streaming show (this time, on Amazon Prime).

I'm happy to say this thing really won me over. It took an episode or two, but man, I left this first season of Fallout feeling like this was quite possibly the best video game adaptation ever made. It actually makes me optimistic for the future of adaptation; if more movies and shows could do what Fallout did, I don't think audiences would be (as) miffed. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Fallout is so good that it almost seems effortless. Not only is the world building absolutely excellent, with the show drip feeding information at a perfect pace, but it LOOKS awesome too. Multiple times while watching this I jokingly said, "this place would be perfect for the Amazonworld theme park that's inevitably in the works." That's how good so many of these sets were.

The show is excellently paced; it doesn't feel like it's dragging its feet and while it's fairly obvious what the final episode will entail, Fallout manages to keep things fresh and exciting, going in directions I didn't expect. There's about four major storylines and they all intersect from time to time, in a logical and fun way that I felt was a masterclass in storytelling.

It also nailed its tone and never wavered from it, even when it got more intense and dramatic towards the end. It's overall a very funny show that doesn't take itself too seriously, but when it does, it really hits. I think it deftly manages comedy, horror, drama, and suspense really, really well and kept me engaged the entire time.

The characters are also great here, buoyed by some really great performances. Walter Goggins as The Ghoul is undoubtedly the show stopper of the season. He manages to be intimidating, but not comically, and a cold, brutal man who still want to see succeed. I love how by the end of the season, he's not changed all that much, but the context about him has and that makes you, the audience, see him in a new light.

Ella Purnell is also FANTASTIC as Lucy. I'd only seen her in Zach Snyder's Army of the Dead in a truly hilarious role, so I didn't have high expectations. But she's such a perfect and effective protagonist, with her naivety leading to some of the show's best moments. She grows a lot through the course of the show, yet, similar to The Ghoul, still retains what makes her the character we came to love. I also really liked Aaron Moten as Maximus; he has a nervous energy that I felt worked very well. He can be competent and capable, but not so much so where it feels alienating. He really is the closest to a "normal" person we meet the entire show, which might not be the highest praise, but I was always rooting for him.

There are just so many great choices in this series. I love how each of the three protagonists represents something about humanity: Moten's Maximus the well meaning everyman who, like most of us, will do bad things if it means survival. The Ghoul represents humanity lost, and the result when pure self-interest and cynicism take over. And Lucy idealism and civility; tested, of course, but still there at the end of the day.

Then there's the litany of fantastic side characters and bit roles; the amazing 50s aesthetic and music, the compelling mystery and oh, I didn't even mention Moises Arias and his excellent arc and character, Norm. (After the first episode, I kinda hoped that was the last we'd seen of the vaults, but man, they were some of the best stuff from this season) The whole mini story in Vault 4 was phenomenal; it's was a masterclass in foreshadowing and exploring theme, whilst giving us some hilarious moments and great relationship building for Lucy and Maximus.

As for complaints, I do think some of the CG is a bit shody. I didn't love how the Knights of the Brothers of Steel looked and there some moments of rubbery, ugly CG that took me out of the show. I didn't love Maximus's storyline by itself, but I found it left A LOT of room for more in the future.

Yeah, watch this thing. Just watch it. It's excellent. It won me over, and it makes me want to play the games. What higher praise for a video game adaptation is there?

Baby Reindeer (2024)

A dark, but fascinating and emotionally powerful autobiography put to screen.

[9/10 · 21 April 2024]

Baby Reindeer starts off like almost any other streaming true crime story does; with a compelling premise, flashy editing, and the promise of something greater. The story of Donny (Richard Gaad - playing a version of himself) and his stalker, Martha (Jessica Gunning) is by itself inherently interesting. But it's the auto-bigraphical, raw emotional exploration that Baby Reindeer becomes that I really fell enjoyed.

It's a show that isn't afraid to ask tough and complicated questions, and come up with uneasy and often taboo answers. It's a show that reminds you why the long form nature of miniseries is quite possibly the best way to explore people and their complicated interior and exterior lives. It's a show buoyed by fantastic editing, performances, and writing.

Richard Gaad is truly remarkable in this show, in what becomes an increasingly difficult watch as it goes on, knowing that a lot of this stuff is based on his own experiences. It's almost like sitting in on a therapy session and the show invites you to not just "root" for his character, but question him. Interrogate him. Hold him accountable. He certainly does and if self-deprecation isn't your thing, you'll most likely hate this show.

Jessica Gunning represents the part of the show I think most people will enjoy more, the more conventional aspect of the story, and my God, does she deliver. Martha is a tour-de-force in this show; a perplexing, fascinating, and sometimes terrifying character who will immediately shut up any person who assumes that it's "impossible" for men to be abused. She herself is treated with a surprising level of empathy and care and her presence is everywhere in this show, even when she isn't on screen.

I've seen some people complain that this show needed to be funnier, and I really disagree with that. It has the characteristically dry and sardonic humour associated with the United Kingdom; I think it's probably one of the best examples of how *different* British humour is from American humour. I also feel like that stand-up scenes brilliantly reflect that old adage: "in the US, the audience laughs to help the comedian out. In the UK, the audience needs you to earn that laugh."

I do think the show suffers from some pacing issues, with it packing more than it needed to into the final episode to finish everything off. There are a lot of threads that I think could've been explored more and some questions that I wish we got some answers to, particularly regarding Martha.

But, I can't deny that Baby Reindeer really evokes the feeling of a great auto-biographical novel put to screen. Even Donny's narration - something that typically doesn't work in film - really adds a lot of texture and context to everything we see. This is a series that needed it, and that's it's great to see that aspect of the story done well.

Best Episode: Four. I mean, come on. It's a brilliantly done, incredibly powerful episode that really transforms the rest of the show.

Worst Episode: Six. I just felt this one felt like a filler episode, and while cute, could've been a bit longer and given us more for the finale.

Monkey Man (2024)

Good Debut, But Lacking a Little Sauce

[6/10 · 15 April 2024]

Dev Patel is probably one of the most likeable actors out there and someone extremely easy to root for. I'm happy to say his directorial debut is certainly an impressive one; an ode to Western and East Asian action flicks with A LOT of Indian flair. Monkey Man isn't afraid to delve into the seedy underbelly of the world's most populous country, even if it's a bit thin on exactly what's going on (more on that later). I liked that dark and gritty vibe quite a lot.

Cinematographically, this translates to some very intense and brutal action scenes, with a couple of really stand out sequences (the kitchen fight sticks out to me). I've been told time and time again how violent and gory this movie is, but to be honest, I've seen far bloodier, even from India. Patel certainly gets his butt kicked and kicks a lot of butts though; this is not a John Wick style superhuman facing off against nameless thugs.

I also really liked the editing and needle drops in this movie; many of which felt so appropriate and elevated a lot of scenes. I didn't expect to hear 151 Rum by Jid in a movie set in India, and now that I have, I can't believe it hadn't been done before. The music is just excellent in this film overall.

Unfortunately, while I think Patel does a great job as our nameless protagonist and is clearly physically quite talented, the excess of shaky cam definitely bothered me and made it hard to understand what was going on a lot of the time. Maybe it was a budgetary issue and it certainly had to do with the overall "vibe" of the film, but it was quite distracting.

I also felt that despite this film being 2 hours long, the plot was a little too thin for my liking. Characters you hope to see a bit more (Alphonso being probably the first to come to mind) just sort of disappear into the background and while we get bits and pieces of the larger story at work, I wish we could've leaned even more into that.

For those unfamiliar, this film does not provide a flattering view of the Indian government and clearly takes a stance against the current Modi administration and his BJP party, widely characterized as a "right wing, Hindu nationalist" party. While I think the film wisely chose not to take the deep dive into that, I think some broader context as to what actually happened and why for the inciting incident would've been helpful. It kind of irks me when films want to be political, but then draw back at the last second.

Overall, I liked Monkey Man, but as someone who's seen many action films from India, I can't say it blew my mind. I wish there were some elements emphasized a bit more, I wish the plot was a bit thicker, and the cinematography more professional. But, Patel's debut is a fine one and I only think he can improve from here.

The First Omen (2024)

The First Omen isn't Immaculate, it's actually better.

[8/10 · 9 April 2024]

It's nice to see the Twin Movie phenomenon lives on (and apparently, is way more common than people acknowledge). Rarely though, are two films with EXTREMELY similar premises released so close together (Immaculate came out around Easter 2024, just a few weeks before this).

It's actually a fantastic opportunity to compare two takes on what is, essentially, the same story. I think Immaculate is a fine movie and the Sweeney connection and superior marketing will make it a larger success in the end. But, The First Omen, amazingly, is the better movie. Call it a surprise because rarely do these sort of movies - unnecessary entries into iconic 20th century horror franchises - really turn out well. (See, Exorcist Believer)

The First Omen, in contrast, feels like a worthy successor to the original Omen from 1976. Director Arkasha Stevenson has done something truly remarkable here; for the in-the-know movie nuts, the 1970s represents a unique and audacious era of American filmmaking that thankfully, we've begun to appreciate again. Stevenson doesn't just mimic the 1970s, but along with cinematographer Aron Morton and the entire team, RECREATES the style of 70s horror that the original Omen was such a pivotal part of. I love how we've begun to take the best aspects of the era and combined it with the technical sophistication of today.

Another thing I have to commend (and weirdly, a big issue I had with Immaculate), is the sound design. My God, is this movie worth seeing in a theater. The way the sound envelops you, the haunting whispering and chanting, the oppressive music...it feels like you're surrounded by evil and especially towards the end, creates and incredibly intense atmosphere.

That's really what this movie excels at; it expertly conveys a descent in madness and reflects the paranoia and terror of the situation extremely well. In no small part due to lead actress Nell Tiger Free, who, I have to say, blows Sydney Sweeney out of the water here with a passionate, physical, and (hopefully) star making turn. Again, especially towards the end, she does some truly amazing things. But, the entire cast is truly excellent as well; there's not a bad performance here - although I will admit the obligatory Italian friend Luz (Maria Caballero) does deliver some wonky lines here and there. Also, special shout out to Ishtar Currie-Wilson, whose relatively small role in this film is INCREDIBLE and terrifying.

As for problems with The First Omen, I do think the first half is undoubtedly the weaker one, and there are some unnecessary jump scares probably studio mandated to keep audiences "engaged." And while the final sequence of the film is amazing, the ending itself is a bit...well, let's just say, Marvelized. There's some unnecessary lore added to the Omen and a way-too-obvious reference that I just felt didn't need to be there.

In the great 2024 "nun horror" battle, The First Omen is undoubtedly the stronger movie. I think it conveys its themes of religious oppression and women's bodily autonomy better, it's scarier, it has better performances, and really captures the feel of the Omen. This is destined to be a Halloween classic.

Titane (2021)

Metal, Blood, and Bonding

[8/10 · 7 April 2024]

This movie is not going to be for everyone. I'm sure that a lot of people will have turned this movie off at a particular scene of human-automobile coitus and shrugged this film off as another "weird foreign movie."

This is not an easy watch; Titane can be disturbing, violent, gross, and uncomfortable at times. But it's also exhilarating. What I appreciate the most about French (and frankly, international) cinema is that there's comfortability with the uncomfortable. This is not a movie that aims to please everyone, but it has a story to tell and ideas to convey, some of which are complicated and messy.

And yes, the weirdness is integral to this; Titane seeks to break down and examine societal norms around family, love, identity, and gender roles, and the bizarre storyline is a vehicle (pun intended) that allows us to do that. What's the point of cinema if we can't explore things off the beaten path?

There's so much this movie is about and so much I could say; but it all starts with the truly INCREDIBLE performances, specifically from Agatha Rouselle as our anti-hero, Alexia. She conveys an appropriate alien like demeanour; clearly disconnected from humanity and unable to connect with others. She's such an incredibly complex and layered character with so many facets. What's remarkable is that she does this with very little dialog. Her two solo dancing scenes as well (I mean, all of the dancing scenes really, and the music) were such excellent ways to convey deeper aspects of her character. She's a person who, as cold and heartless as she is, clearly craves human attention.

In contrast, Vincent Lindon as Vincent the firefighter is the exact opposite. He plays a character BURSTING with emotion, someone warm and kind, yet troubled and lacking in so many ways. His performance is the heart and soul of this film and many of its ideas are conveyed through him. His character essentially provides the thesis statement for the ultimate message of this film: love is the answer. Stripped away from societal expectations, from changing bodies, from haunted pasts, love is a guiding force that can help us deal with change and those different from us.

Could Titane's two halves - not literally, but I mean, thematically - have had a BIT more connective tissue? Yes. It does feel like a somewhat disjointed film, that could've had a different first act and been the same film.

I also felt that while the message and ideas of the film are well thought out, it does forget one kind of huge aspect that I think most people watching this film picked up on without even thinking about it: justice. It's nice that Alexia is loved and accepted? Sure. Is it also true she murders at least three perfectly innocent people in cold blood for no reason and should probably be held accountable? Sometimes, love isn't enough, and I appreciate that the film doesn't ask us to agree with its statement (Vincent is explicitly portrayed as a DAMAGED person, especially in the scene with the forest fire), but the lack of justice does muddy the message a bit.

Overall though, Titane is a fantastic example of grown up, audacious film making. As odd and off kilter as it is, it's a great example as to why, even if not as commercially successful, French cinema is so valuable to the world. Check this out, and keep an open mind!

Immaculate (2024)

Sweeney gives it her all in this nice little ode to Giallo

[6/10 · 29 March 2024]

If I could describe what I liked most about Immaculate, its the film's tone and pacing. This is a movie that looks like a slow burn horror film of the 2010s/20s (think, the Blackcoat's Daughter or Saint Maud), visually stunning and very well shot, with a truly gorgeous set. Yet, it sort of has the pacing of a studio horror film, like you'd expect from Blumhouse. It was actually a nice surprise, as I was totally expecting the former.

I also really liked this movie's ambition as an earnest ode to Italian Giallo films and surprising goriness. This is a pretty messed up movie and I like that it actually *goes there*, you know? This movie more than earns its R rating and isn't some teeny bopper fare, despite the obvious marketing inclusion of Sydney Sweeney.

Sweeney, for her part, does a fine job here. I feel like she sometimes has an issue with enunciation. But that was mostly gone in this movie. Particularly in the first bit, she feels perfectly cast as this doe eyed, gorgeous, innocent girl about to be wrapped up in something sinister. Chronically online (mostly) women complain about her overuse of sex appeal, and yes, while I can confirm, the girls are out in this one (hallelujah), you have to give her credit for how...let's just say, de-sexualized she gets in this film. Just face it, Sweeney is a Hollywood archetype we don't see a lot of anymore, and I'm here for it.

The movie does fall flat in some areas though. One is weirdly, the sound design. Despite moments of truly fantastic sound design, towards the end the sound and music almost felt muffled and needed a bit more oopmh. Weird thing to criticize, but it was noticeable.

I also think - and this will be what turns most people off - the thin plot needs a bit of work. There's a pretty massive revelation in this film that is conceptually interesting, but so out there that it needs more than just a few lines of dialog to explain it. I don't think films need to OVEREXPLAIN things, but I felt like we needed a bit more time to sit with it before moving on.

There were also moments in this film that played with some of the surrealism associated with Giallo, but not enough in my opinion. A striking image (red, you'll know what I mean) could've been more prominent and become something kind of iconic.

Overall though, I liked Immaculate quite a bit. It has some interesting thematic elements, Sweeney gives a solid performance, it's messed up, it looks good, and at a sweet 89 minutes, it isn't a time sink. A pretty solid way to really start the 2024 horror calendar.

Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)

A Fitting End to Cinema's Most Iconic Trilogy.

[8/10 · 28 March 2024]

Return of the Jedi is widely agreed to be the worst of the original Star Wars trilogy. With forty odd years of this context in mind, I was struck by how much I really enjoyed this movie.

It all starts with the makeup and visual effects. My God. It's been striking seeing how Star Wars went from a clearly lower budgeted independent film to what would've been the pinnacle of movie magic in the span of six(ish) years. The Jim Henson partnership really paid off; this film has objectively some of the most convincing, well designed, and impressive animatronic puppetry I've ever seen. The makeup for so many of these alien characters gives the universe a lively feeling and a sense that there's so much more to the world of Star Wars than we get to see.

It's also a film chock full of fantastic action and set pieces, and I can't deny how much better a lot of the action is, even compared to the Empire Strikes Back. The opening stretch is iconic; full of kooky alien characters, giant monsters, a fantastic reunion between our characters, and the movie never really lets up from there. The final space battle and confrontation on Endor are great, as is everything between Luke, Vader, and the Emperor.

There's a lot to love about this movie. However, it does represent a tonal shift that I think threw a lot of people off. The Ewoks are...controversial for a reason, even if I didn't mind them initially, I could see how someone expecting the "sequel" to the Empire Strikes Back may find them somewhat grating and distracting. I mean, could we have cut down on them a bit to give us more of Yoda? Sure, and it'd probably be the right decision.

I also think the "reveal" of Leia as Luke's sister kind of went nowhere, and really only serves as a hall pass for Han to boink her without guilt - that's a funny sentence, I know, but realistically, that's the only thing that comes out of it in this movie.

And yes, we can't ignore the COPIOUS "updates" made to this movie courtesy of the 90s re-release. It probably has the most egregious example of this, right at the beginning (the infamous musical number, the obviously CG beak given to the Sarlaac). A lot of these added visuals simply don't match the style of the rest of the movie and unfortunately, original and remastered versions of this and the other two original trilogy films are really hard to come by. But, they're not all bad and in fact, I think this movie has the best example of the "retooling" process working right: including Hayden Christensen's Anakin at the end. It brings the entire saga together and actually makes a lot more sense thematically.

Despite its obvious flaws, I can't help but love this movie. This is all subjective, but this was one was my favourite as a kid, and I'm sure it was for a lot of other kids who saw these movies. At the end of the day, it's a film with so much legendary iconography, it perfectly wraps up the series (with an astonishingly simple story), and is just a joy to watch. What more could a young Jedi ask for?

Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

The Film That Truly MADE Star Wars. The template for a perfect sequel.

[10/10 · 21 March 2024]

It's 1980. For three years, you've been eagerly anticipating the sequel to Star Wars, a film that almost immediately becomes a fixture of pop culture. In this pre-internet age, all you can rely on are interviews given by George Lucas and discussions with other fans in basements, comic book stores, school grounds etc.

And then, The Empire Strikes Back comes out. I don't think it's exaggeration to say that without this movie, Star Wars wouldn't be what it is. Sure, the first movie is a masterpiece and transfixed audiences immediately. But THIS is what I think of when I think of Star Wars. The world George Lucas introduced us to in 1977 feels far larger, lusher, and more lived in this time around.

Whereas the first was undoubtedly a low budget, yet ambitious movie, this one feels BIG from the opening moments of the film. The costumes are better. The set design is better. The effects are better. The performances are better. The writing is better. Everything feels so much more elevated. It's also an objectively better shot movie; while the first has iconic moments, it doesn't have a ton of awe inspiring shots or imagery. This one? I think the final battle with Luke and Vader - especially in the beginning - is one of the most visually striking moments put to film.

The set design feels elevated as well; Hoth, Dagobah, and Cloud City show us so much more of the galaxy of Star Wars than the first one did. I also feel like the performances are way more confident; Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher have electric chemistry and their romance is so well done (also, note to the guys: all women like good men who can be scoundrels sometimes, it's not that hard). Mark Hamill gives a far more nuanced and complex performance this time around as Luke; you see so much more of his flaws as a human being, especially when contrasted with Yoda (whose first appearance is still his best).

And then, there's Darth Vader. Thematically, he almost feels like the main character. Vader was cool in the first one. In this one though, he feels like a character from myth. The way everyone looks at him with fear, the screen presence he carries, the power he wields. Darth Vader BECAME one of cinema's greatest villains because of this movie. And let's be real, the twist this movie provides (I don't want some kid who's never seen this movie to have it ruined via internet review - as irrational as it is) is probably the gold standard in cinema. Right? The single most iconic twist in film history.

If you couldn't tell, this is my favourite Star Wars film (not a radical opinion, obviously). To me, it encapsulates everything great about Star Wars and is truly one of the greatest sequels of all time. There's a reason why every great sequel is compared to The Empire Strikes Back. It expands upon the first, improves upon it, and leaves us wanting more. It's a perfect movie.

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977)

I mean, it's Star Wars

[9/10 · 21 March 2024]

I haven't actually sat down and watched the original (ish) Star Wars in years, but its probably - let's be honest, along with its sequels - the most culturally ubiquitous American film of all time. You don't need to have WATCHED Star Wars to know basically everything about it; every character, plot beat, costuming or set design choice is so beloved and iconic that it's sometimes hard to actually sit down and watch this as a movie.

Take yourself back to 1977, before Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader, Han Solo or R2D2 were household names. This is a genuinely fantastic action adventure film; the perfect mix of a rousing, exciting time and the promise of A LOT more. Yet, it's also impossible not to be charmed by how quaint this movie is; it was never a high budget film and you can tell. But there's so much creativity and energy on display here.

It's a sci fi epic with the energy of an indie movie and that's something honestly very special. I can't imagine a film on this scale coming out today with an equivalent budget and being as universally accepted. I also appreciate that this movie feels like a pastiche of so much of the pop culture that came before. Adventure serials, Westerns, samurai films, fantasy epics...it has elements from all of them and the sum is truly greater than its parts.

Luke (Mark Hamill), Leia (Carrie Fisher), and Han Solo (Harrison Ford )are the perfect filmic adventure trio and have undeniable chemistry from the get go. But I also think characters like Chewbacca, R2D2, and C3P0 (the latter two get way more screen time than I remember - essentially they're the focus for the first 10-15 minutes) add not only to the "spaciness" of the film, but imbue it with so much heart.

Honestly, it's easier to just pick out this movie's flaws than to go down a list of what it does right, because that's basically everything else. George Lucas has sort of robbed us of the ability to watch these movies in their original glory (enabled now by Disney) and I think it's an objective knock on the film. The first bit on Tatooine is rife with ugly and out-of-place CG and it definitely takes you out of the film. Case and point: R2D2 and C3PO are frequently dirty and covered with finger prints throughout this movie. This, ironically, makes them look more real and believable than the undoubtedly spotless version a CG creation would be.

Yes, the final fight between Vader and Obi Wan is kind of underwhelming. The choreography is objectively bad and it also doesn't make a ton of sense as to why it ends the way it does...let's chalk this up to George Lucas and co finding their footing.

Aside from that, what can I say? It's Star Wars. It's one of the most important films of all time and a genuine masterpiece. If you haven't seen it, we can't be friends.

The Voyeurs (2021)

Elevated Trashiness, But Falls Short With a Truly Terrible Final Act.

[5/10 · 18 March 2024]

Is this a good movie? Honestly, I'm not sure. The Voyeurs is in a lot of ways, a movie I'd like. Erotic thrillers are few and far between nowadays (at least from America), and having one that isn't afraid of nudity or taboo subject matter is an objective good.

Yes, I'll be the first to admit. Sydney Sweeney baring all for extended periods of this movie is a highlight; I think that's part of the story's messaging. A sort of meta textual commentary on how a lot of men in the audience saw that this was an R rated erotic thriller starring one of Hollywood's hottest young stars and immediately clicked for that alone. Or, that it proudly wears its sleeve and is as trashy as these movies are SUPPOSED to be.

When this movie is at its best, it's an interesting exploration of the morality of voyeurism; how much is too much? It also delves into the way we project upon other people when dissatisfied with our own lives and gender relations. We see Sydney Sweeney's Pippa fall deeper into a sexual fetish, while making her partner uncomfortable. I liked the subtext, even if the film is extremely unsubtle about the way it communicates the idea.

I think unfortunately, some of this is betrayed by a lack of tension, sexual or otherwise. There's something off about the way this movie is paced, by the romantic comedy-ish side characters, and I'm sorry to say, the generally poor performances of all four of our leads.

Sweeney plays a shy, awkward girl well...but has trouble making me buy the emotions she's supposed to portray. Justice Thomas, who plays her boyfriend, puts on a distractingly deep voice and his character kind of trails off towards the end. And the peeped upon characters, Brent (Ben Hardy) and Margot (Natasha Burdozzo) have barely any characterization at all, aside from the most basic things we could know about them.

Then...there's the film's twist. While it's not implausible and helps the narrative to an extent, it does seemingly come out of nowhere because there's no appropriate cat and mouse or mystery that would logically lead us there. The final act feels so divorced from the rest of the movie. What was initially an interesting film that challenges the typical narrative of the "Rear Window" inspired fable becomes cartoonish, as it stops being a movie for adults and genuinely becomes a silly Lifetime thriller.

As it stands, I'm happy this movie exists, and oh boy, is it better than the last Amazon erotic thriller I saw, Deep Water. But I do think it was a missed opportunity. (Also, why set your film in Montreal, Quebec and have NO French aspect to it as all? As one of the characters said, it's basically f-city.)

The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl 3-D (2005)

A movie so bad, it needs to be studied.

[1/10 · 16 March 2024]

Sharkboy and Lava Girl has achieved a level of infamy few other children's films really reach. This movie is so bad, so ugly, so tremendously incompetent that it's honestly worth studying. Look, I love Robert Rodriguez as a director. I think he's a man with a lot of passion, vision, and drive, and I respect his dedication to film and doing a lot of stuff himself.

But...it takes a special kind of hubris to take your child's insane ramblings (sorry, I mean..."dreams") and turn it into a full length feature film. To be fair, this film does feel like a child wrote it; it's so nonsensical and often, incomprehensible, I genuinely believe Racer Max Rodriguez (yes, his child's honest-to-God name) had a role in the writer's room.

The two worst things about this movie are its visuals and its performances. This thing is truly an assault on the eyes; it's got some of the ugliest CG I have ever seen and honestly looks like a parody film you'd find on YouTube. The backgrounds, the action, the CG characters all look unacceptably bad for a film from 2005 and come off sometimes actually horrific. (That Lava Girl-as-lava image is indelibly burned in my mind now)

Most of the time, the film's primarily child actors (except the boy who plays Linus - he rules) don't seem to understand what they're supposed to be seeing and acting against. It leads to some truly hilarious moments, like when Lava Girl and Sharkboy are looking in different directions while talking to the same person or the actors don't get what emotion they're supposed to convey.

To be fair, most of the adults are also pretty bad here as well; there's a scene where Kristin Davis and David Arquette (our protagonist Max's parents) are supposed to be giants and eating from..."the land of cookies and milk." Arquette holds the cookie in the palm of his hand and eats it, essentially confirming he had no idea what he was supposed to be doing.

This movie is so full of awkward and cringe inducing moments, yet you can't even give Rodriguez credit for being imaginative. This is such a predictable and paint by numbers story, and the world that we enter isn't even that interesting. We have...giant plug monsters and "trains of thought" and the aforementioned giant dessert world...is this really as creative as it could've been?

As it stands, this movie is truly awful. But so bad, it's genuinely hilarious. You need to watch it, preferably under the influence of something.

Anatomy of a Fall (2023)

A bit plodding at times, but overall a really good legal thriller and character study.

[8/10 · 11 March 2024]

Who doesn't love a good legal drama? Anatomy of a Fall follows Sandra Voyter (Sandra Hüller), a successful novelist living the small French village of Grenoble, with her husband Samuel Malesiki (Samuel Theis) and their son, Daniel (Milo Machado Graner), who suffers from blindness as a result of an accident. One day, Samuel is found dead outside of the home, and immediately, suspicion is cast upon Sandra. The film follows the investigation and court proceedings, and the impact this has the characters' personal lives and relationships.

Anatomy of the Fall is long, mostly subtitled (although there's a healthy dose of English, as Sandra - both in real life and her character - is German and her French isn't as good), and sometimes plodding. I can totally see people checking out of this movie, but I think it's one of those films that really rewards patience. It's about a lot of thing and interestingly, I could contrast this movie with May/December in that it examines and deconstructs "true crime" as a genre, just in a far more serious and dramatic way. We often forget these are real people with real lives that we're talking about.

This is communicated perhaps most potently by Sandra Hüller and Milo Machado Graner, whom are truly incredible in this. I was really surprised by Graner, who delivers a truly remarkable and powerhouse performance here, especially towards the end. To those who bemoan child actors, watch this movie. THIS is a child actor at his absolute best.

I also really loved how this film drip feeds information about the family and the story; the scene is set up pretty well in the beginning, with lots of little odd details that come into play later (best of which is the rendition of 50 Cent's P. I. M. P that has a surprisingly important role in the story). Just like any salacious trial of public interest, there are always twists and turns that come up and I felt the film captured that really well.

Also, for law nerds in the audience, I personally don't know if this is an accurate depiction of the French legal system or not, but it certainly is a compelling one. I found myself really interested in the more inquistorial aspect of it all; where the judges seem to play more of a "fact finding" role more than a "neutral mediator" role, more akin to the Anglo-American common law system.

Yeah, this is a really good movie; I do think it has some issues with pacing and takes a little while to get going. It's competently made and very intelligent, but to use a comparison to a film I mentioned before (May/December), I think a bit more stylization and energy would've benefitted it. But certainly a recommendation and one of those films that you couldn't really imagine being made in the USA nowadays.

Imaginary (2024)

The bones of a good movie and concept are here, the execution is not.

[4/10 · 9 March 2024]

Ah yes, it's the first quarter of the year, so naturally, we have low budget Blumhouse horror movies! Imaginary is the latest from the (historically) iconic horror studio, and like many of their recent films, I find it hard to totally recommend this one.

Imaginary has a lot of good and a lot of bad. There's a point in the movie (I guess you could call it a twist) where I think the film picked up narratively and the filmmaker's imagination (pun intended) is on full display. To be clear, while it's obviously a bit lower budget, I did generally like the final act of this film. It went from a paint by numbers haunted house movie to something far more interesting.

I have to give this film credit for making a teddy bear an intimidating horror icon. Laugh at me all you want, but this bear got creepy. And I could totally see a slew of good-to-bad sequels using this concept going forward. There are some strange and interesting ideas and visuals in this movie that I genuinely (and surprisingly) really liked.

However...I can't deny that for the bulk of this movie, it's pretty bad. The dialog is honestly terrible. Everyone just sort of states their emotions out loud and there's zero confidence in the audience to understand these objectively simplistic characters. It's also frankly...not scary. There was not a single tense moment in this movie, it overuses jump scares, and builds no atmosphere. The least they could've done was shoot most of the movie at night, but for some inexplicable reason, it takes place entirely during the day and just exudes no dread or horror at all. (Not saying you can't do that, just you know, Jeff Wadlow is no Ari Aster)

The performances also range from passable to actively bad; look, there are a lot of good child actors out there, and Pyper Braun isn't one of them. She seemingly forgot what tone she's supposed to convey in large parts of this movie; sometimes speaking in a way that sounds like she's just reading lines for memorization or conveying a completely different character from the prior scene. It's kind of funny.

There's also this woman played by Betty Buckley whose dialog, sound mixing, and performance were truly hilarious. Every time she spoke, she honestly sounded louder than everyone else in the movie, and huffed and puffed her way through every line. Glorious.

There's also a surprising amount of world building in this movie that could've been delivered a bit better. I can understand and respect the ambition, even if the execution is lagging. I can't see this movie doing well, but maybe with different people involved, we can get the imaginary friend horror movie we deserve.

Dune (1984)

Exudes the lameness of a 1980s sci fi geek, but has its charms.

[4/10 · 9 March 2024]

Dune (1984) is bad. Like truly bad. It's a mix of 80s corniness and Lynchian weirdness, with inexplicable, awkward decisions abound and on-the-nose, cheesy dialog that beguiles understanding. The pace at which this movie moves is absolutely bizarre; for example, Paul is accepted by the Fremen for seemingly no reason and falls in love with Chani just because.

People wouldn't accept a lot of the things that happen in this movie if it were from a film today. I firmly believe that a lot of the positive reviews here are solely because of nostalgia goggles. We're harsher on new movies. In short, Dune (1984) can come off as pretty lame; I can't imagine a 1980s boy taking a 1980s girl to this movie and having that be a successful date, you know?

It's the kind of movie that makes you realize why people were picked on for liking sci fi back in the day; you see, Denis Villeneuve's Dune films are objectively cool. They exude coolness. David Lynch's take on Dune exudes lameness. It's cheesy, it's strange, it's lame.

And yet...as a genre film geek myself, I can't deny there is some undeniable charm, mostly in the "so bad it's good" territory. Seeing the Harkonnens cackle like moustache twirling villains was absolutely hilarious. Seeing Stilgar immediately trust Paul and Jessica after a simple incapacitating self defense move, was also, absolutely hilarious.

A lot of the performances are just so terrible in this movie. I haven't read Dune, and maybe the awkward, stilted dialog is accurate. But the overly theatrical way everyone speaks makes it hard to take anything seriously.

There are some genuinely good things about this movie. For the time, it did a great job with the sets and much of the costuming. Yes, it's dated, but it's ambitious and i have to give it credit for that. The practical effects are also quite impressive, especially the sandworms and the um...big space baby? I don't know. I also can't deny at times, Lynch's sense of weirdness just works. His style is so esoteric and strange, it almost feels like an alien made this movie. For a sprawling, cosmic epic, it's a unique take.

But I also can't deny there's a lot of nonsense here too. I'm happy to say while I respect this movie, we have better on screen Dunes now.

Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom (2023)

Fun enough, but not good enough.

[6/10 · 4 March 2024]

Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom came out way too late and frankly, it was way too little to save the moribund DC Extended Universe. That being said, similar to the original, it's hard to really *hate* this movie. James Wan does a lot of things very, very well and I appreciate that unlike Marvel (although, I suspect this will change), his stamp is all over this movie.

There's one sequence where Aquaman (Jason Momoa) and his Loki-esque brother Orm (Patrick Wilson) are fighting in an undersea laboratory that reminded me a lot of 12 Monkeys. Moments like that make Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom worth watching. Wan and cinematographer Don Burgess have the camera whizzing and wirring all over the place in a style reminiscent of video games, and it works. For the most part.

This movie, like the last one, is at its best when its weird. There's a confidence to the movie that I really enjoyed; a film where Nicole Kidman acts alongside a giant crab man, where people's homes are made of reefs and skyscrapers are giant jellyfish. Where ancient zombie people left behind after the Sahara dried up and became a desert house undersea prisoners. When this movie is at its weirdest, it's a lot of fun.

Wan also knows how to keep it light and give us a feel good adventure movie, and I can't deny that Momoa and Wilson have excellent chemistry. I do acknowledge though...a lot of this was trodden by Thor and Loki from the MCU. It's very similar to the point of ripping it off.

Unfortunately, the problems don't end there. From Amber Heard (conspicuously and hilariously absent through most of this film, although I have to admit, she rocks that Meera outfit VERY well) to Dolph Lundgren (who's doing his best but comes off as a frat guy attempting a Swedish accent) to Yahya Abdul Mateen (who lacks the menace factor to truly make Black Manta work), the acting in this movie is underwelming.

Even Momoa, the heart and soul of this franchise, comes off a bit too dumb and goofy. They decided to go full Thor: Love and Thunder with him, and aspects of this movie actually make it feel like they didn't really care about the preceding events of other films. (For example, why does the movie rip off the classic ending from Iron Man again? In universe, EVERYONE knows who Aquaman is). I wouldn't say he's as bad at the last depiction of Thor, but he's not far off.

The CG is also quite choppy at times; sometimes looking fantastic and at other moments looking absolutely terrible. Anytime the characters are CG and doing something (specifically, I'm thinking of a part with Meera in this big underwater action scene in the middle), they look BARELY any better than Spiderman in 2002. It's mind blowing considering the budget and I'm probably a bit biased, JUST having seen Dune.

Overall, this is a fun movie that's worth watching, even if it feels like somewhat of a let down considering the original and what it represents, as the final DCEU movie. While I overall like Jason Momoa as Aquaman, I feel like he existed in an overarching franchise that didn't have enough direction to really do him right.