josephbrewster-88279 Reviews

Blink Twice (2024)

Wickedly sassy thriller

[9/10 · 2 September 2024]

The story begins to unfold to some fun and craftily constructed sound design coupled with unconventional cuts and framings. I was quickly hooked, and found myself satisfied throughout the film with the refreshing way it worked the subject matter and unfolded the mystery.

Everything here is well done, crisply paced and suitably twisted to keep you guessing what is going on and what might happen next, with Ackie and Tatum both owning their roles with gusto.

A down and out pair of girlfriends working kitchen for a tech mogul sneak out into a gala and catch the eye of the rich King (Tatum), garnering an invite to his picturesque island of paradise. From there, things spiral out of control on several levels thanks to some illicit substances and a rowdy, carefree daily schedule. It's all too good to be true, and we know it is, but how and why isn't made clear at first.

As the story unfolds, I was glad to see the material treated with wit, satire and precision, playing almost to your expectations, while subtly flipping them and unveiling clues that confuse and mislead your intuition. Overall, the plot isn't what I'd call subtle in any way, but Kravitz is determined to make getting there exciting, unpredictable and, dare I say, even fun.

And, as a guy, I know the men will be the villains here, which is to be expected, but I didn't feel like the movie dealt those cards to the whole of mankind, unlike other movies I've seen of this sort. It was squarely aimed at a particular kind of person, which Kravitz treats with a fair bit of much appreciated nuance.

As a thriller, it keeps enough up its sleeve to maintain the tension and curiosity, and stops short of over-explaining, even when there are reveals, so that we have plenty of room to read between the lines.

Visually, the style and editing was bold, taking chances and digging hard into the "show, don't tell" rule for most of the movie. It just worked.

A solid delivery for Kravitz that's fun, brave and viscously focused on its central moral.

Young Woman and the Sea (2024)

Brilliant lead muffled by bland stereotyping

[6/10 · 31 August 2024]

Ridley does a phenomenal job representing Trudy Ederly, a passionate young woman determined to swim, regardless of what the world (mostly men) say. Her determination and resilience is well played throughout the story, sometimes in tearjerking scenes of struggle, other times in quiet moments of stubbornness and strength. Props to the cast for a stout performance all around.

That being said, I couldn't love this movie and felt repeatedly taken out of the moment by the relentless preachy nature of the writing and the stereotypical male characters. While the key component of this story is a woman overcoming physical and cultural obstacles to perform incredible feats of athleticism, the male characters are often so exaggerated in their misogyny and incredulity that I often felt I couldn't relate to any of the males. They were either so unbelievably simple and played up for comic effect (the suitors the father brings the girls), unjustifiably rude, even given the cultural norms of the time, bombastically obstinate (the father) or they were outright malicious. This treads far beyond the facts of the true story of Trudy, making grand presumptions about how hated she was by the men of her time.

Don't get me wrong, she was dealing with sexism and cultural inequality, and the film NEEDED that to cut through to give power to the character arc of Trudy, which I understood. But the authenticity and nuance which shines through in Ridley's performance is often overshadowed by single-dimensional, poorly written male characters with little or no redeeming quality.

I loved watching her journey and I'd watch it again, but hated how the males were misrepresented and maligned consistently throughout the film.

Trap (I) (2024)

Wickedly clever and bland

[6/10 · 21 August 2024]

Ah, M. Night. I hate to love you.

No one does cinema like M. Night Shamalan. A fact which we all universally agree on, and yet may debate whether or not that is a compliment or a condemnation. I'm committed to seeing Shamalan movies because the director relentlessly explores themes and character narratives that I resonate with and find fascinating. Like many, though, I'm tormented by the shortcomings of this ultra-talented, but stubbornly predictable director, who doesn't know when to quit. When to quit directing, that is. And who also doesn't seem to trust an audience to figure things out for themselves.

A fantastic first half of this movie will keep you riveted, if not entirely scared, as we follow the main character's attempted escape from the concert. The contrast in mood between daddy/daughter and fugitive is refreshing and delightful, with a few missed attempts. When the show is over, the movie should be wrapping up, and yet it can't, because it's being directed by the inimitable Mr. Shamalan, who simply can't let a great plot stand on its own without padding the runtime with excessive exposition and tedious explorations of the human experience.

Despite my familiarity with his work, I thought the movie was ending at least twice before it finally did, in more of a puff of smoke than going out with a bang. It's the sort of film that feels like watching your favorite team carry the lead into the half, only to lose late game due to multiple fumbles or player errors. It was close to being a really, really good movie. It's too bad that Shamalan seems committed to total directorial tyranny, as any decent editor or studio executive could have mended the minor shortcomings that turned into major runtime powernaps.

Still, I have to praise the originality and the cleverness. So cheers to M. Night, the greatest director to ever get in his own way during every film. Someone help this man. His ideas are incredible and his insight into humanity is borderline brilliant. Just ease off the exposition and end your movies when they're over.

Alien: Romulus (2024)

Somewhere in the Alien timeline...

[8/10 · 21 August 2024]

Did you love Alien? Go ahead and buy the ticket. It's worth seeing in theaters. Not familiar with the franchise? It's ok, you will be able to keep up with 80% of the film, while wondering about the significance of the other 20%.

Recapturing the claustrophobic dread that defined the original *Alien* while expanding the franchise's rich lore, Romulus is sure to please the long time fans in many regards, while retaining enough of the Prometheus-esque philosophical side notes to keep the rumor mills milling. The film, directed with meticulous care, serves as both a reverent homage and a (mostly) original continuation of the saga, nestling itself quietly within the existing timeline in ways the casual fan might not immediately recognize. The narrative, while familiar in its primal terror, introduces fresh horrors that feel both inevitable and fresh, for the most part.

The acting is uniformly good, with the cast delivering performances that ground the cosmic horror in a grim, relatable reality. I wasn't a fan of the anti-synth gangbanger character, but I suppose a stereotypical character is excusable. There are some Deja Vu moments for sure, with this cast making mistakes you've seen before in this franchise, but the derivations are mild enough to also be excusable, I thought.

The film's use of body horror is both a nod to the franchise's roots and a continuation of its exploration of the grotesque artistry of H. R. Giger. The unmistakable fusion of macabre, sexual imagery and alien biology has never, I think, been pushed harder than in Romulus. Here, the body becomes not just a vessel for terror (AKA chest bursting) but a canvas of unsettling insinuations and unholy film magic. I was uncomfortable at several points, in ways I haven't felt in other Alien movies, albeit the themes weren't entirely new.

Overall, Romulus is a worthy addition to the Alien canon, a film that honors its predecessors while carving out its own identity. It thrives on its atmosphere-a brooding, oppressive vibe that echoes the best of the franchise-while at times retreading familiar ground when I wished it had gone outside the box, but that's just me. It may not redefine the genre, but it certainly reaffirms why this universe continues to captivate and terrify in equal measure, and it really doubles down on the uncanny, unnerving and yet beautifully dark imagery of Giger.

Cuckoo (2024)

Tilman Singer's bizarre aviary of imagination

[7/10 · 21 August 2024]

Strange. Weird. Unique. It's a film that resists easy categorization, hovering between the realms of psychological horror and surrealist fantasy. As with his previous work, Singer displays an audacious commitment to mood and atmosphere, weaving a narrative that is perplexing and hauntingly immersive. The result is a film that, while imperfect, demands attention and refuses to be easily dismissed. Personally, I enjoyed it, and would recommend it to those bold moviegoers looking for something off the beaten path of both standard cinema fare and horror fare.

The film stars Hunter Schafer, who delivers a solid performance as Gretchen, a young woman entangled in a web of unnerving events after moving to a remote mountain town. Schafer's portrayal of a rebellious, but emotionally fragile, teen is aptly ragged and believable, reminding me of Anya Taylor-Joy in The Witch or Florence Pugh in Midsommar-performances that similarly elevated the surreal with an indelible sense of genuine human emotion and anxiety.

Cuckoo thrives on its atmosphere, with Singer employing a visual and auditory palette that is both minimalistic and richly textured. The film's sound design plays a major role in the vibe. There are visually confusing moments, times when I honestly wondered if the film were playing back properly from the booth, and it felt refreshing to see the visual risks Singer took at certain points, even if they felt unjustified or unexplained in the long run. Cuckoo truly excels is in its unapologetic weirdness.

A slog at times, the pacing may deter some, but I found it mostly acceptable, with a few moments during which I wished the director would simply get on with it. That said, the movie stands out for its willingness to take risks, even if not all of them pay off.

Is it "scary"? I thought it certainly had its moments, though by no means a cover-my-eyes type of scary movie. It meddled mostly in thriller territory with enough violence to provide physical horror, but not caught up in the grotesque. Jump scares were few and far between, with the director preferring extended scenes of lingering threats or ominous imagery.

It is not a film for everyone. It is challenging, at times perplexing, and unabashedly strange. But for those who appreciate a horror film that dares to explore the boundaries of the genre, it offers an experience that is as unique as it is unsettling.

I enjoyed the attempt more than most b-grade horror. It wasn't a masterpiece, but it was different, and sometimes I feel like different is good.

A Quiet Place: Day One (2024)

No wonder everyone was disappointed

[8/10 · 3 July 2024]

This is another sad case of death by trailer for a very good movie. The unfortunate reality is that, while I loved the film, the trailer that would have done it justice wouldn't have sold many tickets. It was a lumbering, soulful movie with a pacing and plot far removed from what the trailers implied. I don't feel it's fair to judge a movie by the trailers, which I try to avoid, but audiences are rightfully frustrated with some of the big misconceptions the trailer sets us up to arrive with.

Trailer aside, this was a movie I greatly enjoyed. I initially read some of the ratings and was skeptical about the final product, but I'm glad I gave it a chance and didn't go strictly on the ratings. Caveat: you will probably not enjoy this movie if you are looking for an action-packed horror movie. It does have action, but that gives way too long stance And slow plot development, which is a common theme in this particular movie franchise. The lead actors, as other reviewers have pointed out, are phenomenal in their roles, and do a stellar job emoting whether they are able to use dialogue or not. The city scenes are beautiful, the monster shots are epic, and there is, sufficient silence in this movie to make you feel as though you know what you're watching, however, loud it begins as.

There are one too many close calls for my taste, and a few moments that I felt were difficult to believe, whether it be with the cat or with circumstances that certainly felt as if someone should have died and they didn't, however, overall I felt this movie was a beautiful addition to the franchise that should not have been marketed the way it was

If you are looking for answers to the origin of these monsters, you will be disappointed. If you are looking for A standard "escape from New York" story about people in danger you will be disappointed. If you are interested in good filmmaking a unique, screenplay idea, and a meaningful, I'll be at sparse, script. This movie delivers beautifully.

I recommend seeing this in the theater as the silence and the punctuated loud noises in the sound design are far more effective in that large setting and may be difficult to hear if you were watching this movie in your living room or on a dominative speaker system.

The deeper meetings tucked away inside of this movie's script were, I felt, fascinating and well flushed out by the leads along the way. The themes of life and death, while always presents in horror as genre, we're given an extra layer of importance in this moviethat I am not always accustomed to seeing. The cinematography was fantastic with lighting and sound design, adding greatly to the atmosphere overall of a post apocalyptic, New York landscape and The creepy, but ethereal set opportunities that provides.

As a standalone spin off story from the Quiet Place universe, I enjoyed this. This is in no way the summer Blockbuster you are looking for though so come in aware of what to expect and please ignore what they sold you in the trailers because wild this movie is fantastic. It is none of that and you will have felt as if you saw all the best parts in the trailers. I personally prefer the character development and love the silent moments and the psychological and emotional flavorings that the trailer cannot provide.

The Watchers (I) (2024)

Maybe clever, but consumed by its reflection

[5/10 · 12 June 2024]

A group of random strangers caught in a spooky wood where strange creatures watch them. Creatures that only come out at night and appear to be endlessly fascinated by them doing...nothing in particular. The eventual unfolding of the backstory for these creatures is rather fun and unique, and the setting has promise, but the movie overall is hardline average at best, often squandering its premise in lumbering exposition, clumsy attempts at emotional expression and a constant stream of mind-numbingly stupid choices by a mostly wooden cast of actors.

As a first film for a young director, I say bravo. This is an ambitious endeavor for an unseasoned young director, and not a bad first swing. As a big screen film, this fails to claw its way up out of the burrow past other recent efforts in the horror realm, hampered mostly by its lifeless cast and self-absorbed importance. The climax could have been more effective, but comes off as a miraculous and undeserved redemption that might have landed better as a tragedy.

What I do like about the Shyamalan clan movies, is that they attempt (if awkwardly at times) to blend terror with human themes, with the emphasis on the theme rather than the terror, and they aren't afraid to infuse their horror with uplifting themes and happy endings. If we can make that happen with less pomp and more pizazz, less in-your-face message and more in-your-face filmmaking, and perhaps a bit more range in the actor performance, I can be onboard with this style of horror.

Civil War (I) (2024)

A grim jaunt across divided America

[9/10 · 17 April 2024]

For those curious about what this film is and is not, here's a quick summary: It is a war movie, but it's not about the military.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not an Alex Garland fan, nor would I recommend this movie to everyone, but if you are the kind of person who values a critical look into our culture via pure fiction that is, at times, painfully relatable, and if you are someone who doesn't mind a pinch of journalistic integrity, which is to say a lack of clear bias in many cases, this film provides a beautifully harrowing cautionary tale that might make you thankful it's just a movie. Or is it?

The Mission (2023)

Meh, a non-committal mess

[4/10 · 15 February 2024]

First, to those complaining this is "too Christian", it's anything but. This documentary tries to ride the line and show multiple sides, but it leans heavier to the "he was misguided" side with some strong digs toward evangelicals and missionary work in general. It is anything but sympathetic to mission work and goes out of its way to highlight all the "damage" done by missionaries, or at the very least, the wasted efforts (by interviewing a missionary turned atheist).

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

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

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

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

The information was fascinating, but the film, for me, was disappointing.

Life (I) (2017)

Smooth entry and landing. Almost rehearsed.

[8/10 · 14 February 2024]

First, let's address the obvious: this movie will be compared to Alien, just as every other space horror film justifiably will be for time immemorial. Alien is better. There, now can we talk about how this movie is mostly awesome?

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

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

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

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

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

It's not a film for everyone. It's not incredibly original, but this is a film the cast and crew should be proud of, although the writers might want to work on their idea thieving skills because we caught them red handed one too many times on this one.

Night Swim (2024)

Smart premise, watchable, but missing something

[7/10 · 24 January 2024]

I almost didn't watch Night Swim due to the rough ratings, but decided to give it a try. I immediately felt like the bad ratings were unjustified. I was engaged and enjoyed the movie through the first and second act, but the third act lost some stars, although it might be completely subjective on my part.

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

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

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

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

Fun movie some of the way, confusing at times, with an ending that annoyed me and felt rushed and/or rewritten to provide more emotional weight, but fell flat for me.

The Shift (II) (2023)

Big idea, amateur execution, but not the ending I expected

[7/10 · 6 December 2023]

I went in knowing nothing about this movie other than a two sentence summary in the Cinemark app, but I figured I'd give it a try. It was apparent early on that it was a low budget b-grade sci-fi flick, but the beginning caught my interest. It rapidly showed signs of having religious undertones, which I can tolerate if done well, but I admit made me suspicious of the content to come. By the end I felt like it was a small scale, streaming level quality storyline with little known actors (save Sean Astin and Neal McDonough) that could have been a TV show from the early 2000s.

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

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

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

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

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

All in all, it was inspiring and interesting, if not incredibly clever or masterfully executed. Still a good evening in the theater with a little more soul than I went in expecting.

Deliver Us from Evil (I) (2014)

Struck the right chords for me

[9/10 · 8 November 2023]

I'll offer some fair criticism here, but also freely admit that I just really liked the blend of faith, edge, ethics and suspense this movie juggles, for reasons not purely "critical". As someone who's worked in churches, I appreciated that this rather traditional "catholic horror" take provided a nice balance of skepticism and transparency into the flawed nature of the clergy, without sacrificing power in the delivery. Bana and Ramírez are stellar, with Bana in particular giving a gripping and flawless performance front to back.

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

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

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

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

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

A new sleeper favorite for me, though somewhat for personal reasons, so I don't expect others to rate it quite this high, and I won't fault them for that.

The Creator (2023)

Science fiction has a new classic

[8/10 · 11 October 2023]

Sometimes a film making team checks all the boxes. The directing, the acting, the writing-I'm not sure what I would change about this movie, save a few plot conveniences that, in my opinion, are passable given the quality of this film overall. This is destined to be one of those films that every Sci-Fi connoisseur will watch eventually, as it takes all the elements of beloved science fiction films and does them well. That being said, there is a good deal of imitation, which some might not find flattering, in this epic of a film. But, and this is a big but, I felt like it executed them well, delivering on the material, the genre, the pacing and sometimes out performing other films which seemingly inspired it.

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

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

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

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

However, I just enjoyed the movie, and think that if you're a science fiction fan, it will be easy for you to do the same. It's good. It's very good.

The Nun II (2023)

Maybe I need more faith to believe this plot

[6/10 · 27 September 2023]

I went in thinking I would like this, and I did for a while, then I started to hate it, but I ended up more or less fine with what I got. First let me explain the hate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, maybe I'm being too harsh. Maybe I just need a little faith and shouldn't have to explain things, but man, these demons are so limited by plot convenience it feels like the devil himself can't foil this lazy writing, much less sniff out sobbing school girls in small confined areas, and no matter how many times you get choked, burned, slammed against stones, bashed in the head or casually tossed across a castle, if you've got God (AKA plot) on your side, you won't even limp in the next scene. Maybe I missed some important point about how God works that the movie explained during one of my long eye rolls.

Fractured (I) (2019)

Clever thriller and better than the ratings

[7/10 · 23 September 2023]

Sam Worthington pulls his weight in this excellent low budget psychological thriller. As a thriller, the pace isn't breakneck, but the intrigue and mystique is thick throughout, leading you toward conclusions, then creating doubt.

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

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

I would have been happy to see this in theaters, so it's most certainly Netflix worthy. If you like mystery, psychological thrillers and Sam Worthington, you'll not be disappointed. And if you think you know the ending, you're probably wrong.

The Last Voyage of the Demeter (2023)

A grim film with a daunting task

[9/10 · 14 August 2023]

I've read Dracula multiple times. I'm a huge fan of the book and have watched dozens of variations of the tale told by numerous directors, writers and animators. It's a classic. So, you'd think I would have been excited about this movie when the trailers surfaced, but I wasn't.

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

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

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

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

It's worth seeing, and it earned a high rating from me because I'm a Dracula lover, so I'm hard to please. Well done all around. A much appreciated entry into the thick library of Dracula adaptations.

The Pope's Exorcist (2023)

This movie has a little spirit in it after all

[7/10 · 24 May 2023]

If you like exorcism flicks or like horror or like Russell Crowe, see it. It's a well done, well acted, middlingly written, nicely filmed trip back a few decades with refreshingly relevant ideas packaged in moderately predictable structures.

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

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

This movie won't change the genre or win any awards, but it's good. It deserves a watch, so if you're reading this and you're on the fence, watch it.

I See You (II) (2019)

Whoa! You got me with that one...

[7/10 · 5 April 2023]

It isn't what I expected. It isn't like many others I've seen. I went in with little or no knowledge of the plot and I recommend you do the same if at all possible. Having seen it, I worry that trailers would have tipped me off to things the movie reveals carefully and methodically.

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

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

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

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

Well worth a watch if you like mystery, intrigue, fear and twists. Will not disappoint.

Cocaine Bear (2023)

This is what cocían does to you, kids

[7/10 · 1 March 2023]

As other reviewers have mentioned, the title aptly describes the film. It rides the edge of multiple genres. It is comedy, gore/horror and suspense. It is essentially a slasher flick comedy about drugs and country living where death comes in awful, if bizarrely humorous, ways and the jokes are constantly crass.

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

It is violent. It is obscene. It is a bit ridiculous. If you're cool with that, you may really enjoy it.

Army of the Dead (2021)

So Snyder, but not in the best way

[5/10 · 22 February 2023]

No spoilers yet, but I'll warn you ahead of time. I like Snyder films, for the most part. He often prioritizes visuals and atmosphere over writing, and I expect that, but his visuals are so stunning that I can often forget about his weaknesses, which is true up to a point in this film.

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

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

-----

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh well. Snyder wins some and loses some. This was a loss.

Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)

Watch it, but...

[8/10 · 18 January 2023]

Seeing Avatar: The Way of Water is almost required viewing, if only for the predictably ground-breaking special FX and nostalgia of the blue people's world. If you liked the first one, you will like this one. And if there's one criticism that sticks out most to me, that is it: it caters completely and wholly to its original audience.

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

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

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

But...

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

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

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

I was happy to see them focus on family dynamics and work a little harder on character building this time out, but if you want to be truly surprised, this isn't the movie you're looking for.

M3GAN (2022)

Delightfully clever camp, with layers

[8/10 · 18 January 2023]

Nothing about the premise, either on paper or in the trailers, appealed to me, but I'm a dedicated horror fan and figured I would kill a week night on a low grade b-movie so I could chuckle about it later. I was pleasantly surprised.

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

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

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

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

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

Well executed, witty, and timely in many ways, M3GAN is one of those unexpectedly interesting theatre finds that you may find more interesting in practice than theory. It's more than a glossy Child's Play update or a dumbed down Ex-Machina, it's a light-hearted (can I say that about a horror?) and sometimes profound investigation of our relationship with machines, and the pitfalls of confusing our "network connection" with our connection to our community.

Guillermo del Toro's Cabinet of Curiosities: The Viewing (2022) Season 1, Episode 7

Gorgeously annoying

[4/10 · 5 January 2023]

I've been mostly pleased with the series up to this point, and I will say that the vibe and premise of this episode was sleek, unique and promising from the start. With hyper loom anamorphic light flares, over saturated colors, vintage grain and a throwback setting, this had all the makings of an uncommonly artsy gem amid a bit more common horror fare.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I commend the creative ideas and stylized look, but I wish more time had been taken to do it justice.

Smile (V) (2022)

Prepare to do anything but smile

[8/10 · 2 November 2022]

I wasn't excited when I saw the trailer, which felt overly campy and too cheesy to deliver much terror, but I'm a devoted scary movie fan and knew I'd see it anyway.

And it was worth it.

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

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

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

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

Worth the watch, but it won't make you Smile.