darkreignn

If I hear the words "The Pink Opaque" one more time in my life, I might lose my mind. "I Saw the TV Glow" could have been a thrilling dive into retro TV nostalgia, but instead, it felt like a relentless, never-ending chant of the words "The Pink Opaque" - a phrase that now haunts my nightmares. (On a side note, if you're looking for a fun drinking game, take a shot every time you hear "The Pink Opaque." I guarantee you'll be hammered in five minutes and calling an ambulance before the halfway mark).

How to explain "I Saw the TV Glow?" To be honest, it's tough. The IMDb synopsis is: "Two teenagers bond over their love of a supernatural TV show, but it is mysteriously cancelled." And while that's accurate, it's also vague and unspecific. Starring Justice Smith (who has never really impressed me) as Owen, and Brigette Lundy-Paine (who likewise did not impress me in the film) as Maddy, "I Saw the TV Glow" follows their relationship as Owen - clearly - has a big crush on Maddy, who is a self-proclaimed lesbian. How does Owen try to win Maddy's affection? Simple: by bonding over their shared interest in a TV show called "The Pink Opaque." And what begins as a series of sort of cute, slightly awkward interactions between Maddy and Owen soon devolves into painfully awkward and super cringey sequences where all they do is talk about "The Pink Opaque."

I cannot overemphasize this: this film mostly consists of people talking about "The Pink Opaque" (and for the good of my mental health, I need to stop tying those three words out). Maddy and Owen are seemingly obsessed with the show, and are constantly watching it, thinking about it, or talking about it, to the point where the movie becomes embarrassing to watch. I was writhing in discomfort while watching Maddy and Owen spend every waking moment speaking about this fictional show; and because of this, watching "I Saw the TV Glow" feels like listening to someone passionately ramble about a topic that you couldn't care less about. And sure, listening to conversations about the show might have been interesting if the movie spends any time setting up why you should care about the show, or the film's characters, but it really doesn't - the film immediately rushes headfirst into endless dialogue about the show with little context or buildup; there's no effort to explain exactly why the show is so compelling or why the characters are so invested in it - we're just expected to dive right in and keep up, which makes it hard to feel any investment or connection.

And speaking of embarrassing, the film makes some creative decisions that are, quite frankly, baffling. For example, the film starts with Owen as a seventh grader, played by Ian Foreman, who looks appropriately young as a 12-year-old actor. Then the film jumps forward two years, depicting Owen as a 14-year-old ninth grader. And who plays ninth grade Owen? Justice Smith, who is a 28-year-old man. It was unintentionally hilarious to watch Justice play someone in the ninth grade; there's a scene where Justice as Owen asks his parents if he can stay up past his bedtime, and it was just so ridiculous that I almost considered getting up and walking out then and there. At one point the film jumps forward another eight years, and Owen is still played by Justice Smith, who looks exactly the same as he did when he was playing a 14-year-old. So, the question becomes, why didn't they cast someone else to play ninth grade Owen, or better yet, stick with Ian Foreman? Your guess is as good as mine.

Advertised as a horror film, "I Saw the TV Glow" does have its fair share of eerie sequences, mostly toward the end of the film. Are they worth sitting through 80 minutes of people talking about a certain television show to get to? Definitely not, especially as the film makes another baffling choice to end right when it finally feels like it's starting to get going. The ending is so abrupt, so anticlimactic, that the trailer actually shows the last shot of the film - just let that sink in. I'm not even spoiling anything, because the trailer already spoiled it for you! A terrible decision, for an equally terrible film.

Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit when I call the film "terrible," but it is certainly not good. At one point, about midway through the movie, I thought to myself, "Okay, now things are getting interesting." And then, like clockwork, the movie just made another creative choice that evaporated any goodwill I was starting to have. From the endless monologues about "The Pink Opaque" to two random musical performances that are inserted in the middle of the movie that do nothing except take up valuable running time - and so much more - "I Saw the TV Glow" is an underwhelming coming of age thriller that doesn't thrill, and barely allows its characters to come of age. The narrative stumbles through awkward scenes and questionable creative decisions, leaving viewers with more questions than emotional engagement. And in the end, the film feels like a missed opportunity, failing to deliver on all of its promises.

I don't necessarily feel compelled to write a review of "Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire," as it seems that most reviewers have already echoed my thoughts: the monster battles are cool, the human element is not. However, and much to my displeasure, while watching this film, I even found the action to be underwhelming - and believe me, I never thought I'd say that.

"Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire" seems to be giving viewers what they expect - audience scores are strong, and word of mouth seems to be positive. And I am honestly more than a bit shocked by that considering that, in my opinion, this film features the weakest action scenes of the series by far. Sure, if you enjoy this type of film - and I do - there is enough creature-feature CGI spectacle to quench your kaiju thirst; in fact, there are prolonged sequences of just Kong, or just Godzilla, as they are going about their business, and that was a nice touch when compared to previous films that focused almost solely on the human characters. But, while this film does increase the focus on its titular monsters, it somehow has the least amount of action when compared to the other installments.

Listen, I enjoy watching Godzilla and Kong fight to the death as much as the next person; that's all I was really looking for here. So imagine my surprise when the first real action scene takes place around half way through the film; imagine my surprise when the main villain is the least intimidating looking and acting monster known to hollow earth; imagine my surprise when the climactic battle between Godzilla, Kong, and the main villain was underwhelming and way too short, lacking the sense of immense scale that was built up so carefully in the other movies in this franchise. I mean, I don't really know what to say - the action was just missing something. And so, because the action was so sparse and lacking, what was I left with? You guessed it: the human characters.

I don't even want to waste time writing about the human element in this film, because you already know that it's as boring as boring can be. I like the actors well enough, but their reliance on cheesy comedy brought the movie down for me, especially since I just didn't find the comedy all that funny. Additionally, and as usual, the film does spend the majority of its running time focusing on the humans, which meant that, for a majority of the running time, I was very, very bored.

"Godzilla x Kong" is fine. It's not a travesty, but it's really not all that good, either. There is some fun action, but in my opinion it was all too little, too late. But who knows! Maybe in the next film they'll learn their lesson...

A found footage-esque thriller, "Late Night with the Devil" is one of the most creative possession movies I've seen in a long time. Starring David Dastmalchian as talk show host Jack Delroy - who is desperate for ratings amidst fears of his show being cancelled - the film takes place as if being aired on a late night talk show. And while I didn't find this movie to be particularly scary, it is a whole lot of fun, and I think that's the tone that they intended.

From schlocky so-called psychics and mediums to skeptics who seek to debunk said spiritual communicators and, ultimately, a little girl who is seemingly possessed by a demon, "Late Night with the Devil" is surprisingly immersive as it takes viewers through a series of guests and segments until all hell breaks loose. The presentation is admittedly creative, and led to a lot of my personal entertainment value - however, I can see those seeking a more straightforward horror film to find this style frustrating, as the horror aspects don't really kick in until half way through the movie. That said, I really enjoyed the build up as a means to slowly increase tension. And, well, I just had a whole lot of fun watching Jack interact with his various guests.

Yes, David Dastmalchian is a standout here, proving that he is certainly leading man material, however I was even more impressed by Ingrid Torelli as Lilly, the girl who may or may not be possessed. Immediately unsettling, her performance is at once charming and off-putting and while watching her, you'll find herself wondering if she really is being taken captive by a demonic spirit or if she is simply playing it all up for attention - much as the characters in this film are wondering, also.

Now, how is the horror? As I mentioned, this really isn't a scary movie, and I don't think it was really trying to be one. Those who are sensitive to possession films might find certain sequences to be disturbing, but the movie never focuses too heavily on any one aspect for it to be completely terrifying. Because, as I mentioned, the film moves from one guest to the next, from one segment to another - and so, while you may find Lilly to be horrifying to watch, all you have to do is wait ten minutes or so until Delroy moves on to another topic. This seeming lack of focus doesn't lend itself to much concentrated horror, but it does make for a consistently entertaining, never boring, and fast moving film.

I had a great time with this movie - I can say that, for once, the glowing reviews are correct. I would wholeheartedly recommend checking this one out, and I'd say that you don't even need to be a fan of horror films to enjoy it.

"Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour." Unfortunately, that bible quote is scarier (depending on your own personal religious beliefs) than anything that "The First Omen" has to offer. But I don't want to get ahead of myself yet, so let's slowly work our way there, together.

"The First Omen" has all the hallmarks of a great movie - notably, excellent visuals, competent acting, and slick direction (and not to mention, an attractive cast). And admittedly, when the film first started I was captivated by its look and feel. You can tell the movie is trying to lean into so-called elevated horror, and from a visual perspective, it really works; this is a pretty movie to look at, made even prettier by Nell Tiger Free in the leading role.

Nell is pretty perfect here, basically carrying the entire film on her back with a performance that is genuinely riveting and especially thought provoking if you're one who enjoys depictions of faith in film. Going through her own personal little journey of Christian belief, Nell's character is a true believer who genuinely wants to serve the Lord - and what better way to do that then in Rome? And so, the film offers you all the eye candy you could ever want from its gorgeous actors and the gorgeous setting, all carried by a strong lead performance that is arguably awards worthy. Sounds pretty good so far, right?

Unfortunately, my positives kind of end right there because, while I didn't outright dislike this movie, I can't say that I liked it either because, well, in "The First Omen," not much happens - and the worst sin of all? The movie isn't scary. What is the IMDb synopsis? "A young American woman is sent to Rome to begin a life of service to the church, but encounters a darkness that causes her to question her faith and uncovers a terrifying conspiracy that hopes to bring about the birth of evil incarnate." With a plot descriptor like that, you may or may not be surprised to hear that this film plays out more like a Dan Brown novel than a horror film (complete with an exposition explainer of said conspiracy not once, but twice, just in case you missed the extremely obvious explanation the first time around). The movie feels like "The Da Vinci Code" with characters trying to unearth secrets that just don't feel very secret due to how obvious they are; when the audience knows exactly what's happening at the start and the characters are just beginning to figure it out when there's 45 minutes left in the movie, there's a problem.

A slow burn to its very core, this film takes forever to get going, which I'm not opposed to as long as the build up is, well, building up to something. And even though this movie does gradually lead viewers to a specific climax, it just doesn't feel earned or worth the wait. The movie spends over an hour setting up and knocking down its pieces; when secrets are revealed, the film really thinks that it's shocking its viewers with revelatory information... as if the plot wasn't immediately obvious from the very first scene. And so, the entire film I was waiting for something to happen that was contrary to what I already knew was going to happen - but nope! And complete with an equally as predictable ending, when the credits rolled I audibly uttered, "That's it?"

"The First Omen" is beautiful, and unfortunately, that's all it is. With an extremely predictable plot and a pacing that's too slow for its own good - all leading to an anticlimactic and underwhelming ending, this movie disappointed me. There is a chance I'd watch it again one day due to its striking visuals and great performances, but when you release a horror movie as un-horrifying and as predictable as this one is, it's worth asking yourself if the viewing experience is even worth it in the first place.

Cinemark has brought back its Secret Movie Series, and having never been to such an event before, I found myself intrigued and, for the low price of $5, I simply couldn't resist buying a ticket. I was one of six people in the theatre - clearly, a secret movie experience is a hard sell. However, I was excited at the prospect of watching something without knowing exactly what it would be. And after the trailers concluded, the lights dimmed and the film began to roll - to my delight, the secret movie was "The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare."

As a Guy Ritchie fan, after having seen the trailer for this movie, I knew I wanted to see it - although, admittedly, I didn't think the trailer was especially striking. However, I like Ritchie, and I love Cavill, so I was pleasantly surprised at the reveal of this film being the secret movie. And you know what? This is actually a pretty fun flick.

Yes, there is nothing too innovative at play here - this is standard Ritchie fare, except more nuanced and less extreme in its directing and editing choices than, say, Ritchie's King Arthur film. "Ministry" plays out more like a typical action adventure movie with flares of Ritchie's signature style coming out here and there; and this more subdued approach actually works to the movie's advantage to highlight some of the more dramatic and intense moments. But if you're going to see this film, you're most likely going to see it due to the action that the trailer promised you. And how is the action? In a word: Great.

My only complaint about the violence in this film - not to sound too bloodthirsty - is that it is surprisingly bloodless for an R-rated movie. I was really expecting something akin to Quentin Tarantino, with huge spurts of blood and gory deaths, but Ritchie, once again, takes a more subdued approach, choosing not to showcase a lot of blood or grisly images. That said, the action in this movie is still FANtastic, playing out an intensity that is simply missing from most modern action movies. There are plenty of shootouts - both with guns and with arrows; there are knife fights and axe battles; there are hand to hand combat sequences; basically, all of the WW2 action you can imagine is in this movie, and it's filmed wonderfully, without shaky camera or quick cuts. Sure, I would've preferred a bit more blood when Nazi's were punched or shot or sliced, but I can't knock Ritchie for choosing not to include that for the sole reason that the action is filmed so freaking well. It's nice to watch an action movie that has two things: 1) a lot of action and 2) clearly filmed action. Luckily, "Ministry" has both of those things, and because of that, will be sure to satisfy even the most jaded action junkie.

In Ritchie films, both the plot and the actors are always standouts, and it's no different here in "Ministry." Cavill and his band of ungentlemanly warriors are all super entertaining to watch, their chemistry leading to many laugh out loud moments. Additionally, the plot - as IMDB puts it, "a small group of highly skilled soldiers strik(ing) against German forces behind enemy lines during World War II," offers a lot more meat to chew on than you might expect. There are a lot of things happening concurrently, which leads to storylines converging in a pretty satisfying way. There are also a few unexpected moments that force the plot to go in directions I didn't expect, but certainly enjoyed watching. The plot isn't anything phenomenal, but it kept me engaged and was a great vehicle for its characters and action.

"The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare" is a good time at the theatre. This doesn't necessarily offer something that you haven't seen before, but in a genre as tired as WW2 action is, "Ministry" shakes things up just enough in terms of its colourful characters and explosive action that you can't help but have fun watching this. And if you're a fan of Guy Ritchie? Then going to see this is really a no brainer.

From "The First Omen" to "Monkey Man," "Sting" and "Civil War," it seems that there is something in the air during April of 2024 that is causing Hollywood marketing professionals to falsely advertise their movies. "The First Omen" is more slow-burn drama than horror; "Monkey Man" is barely an action film; "Sting" is basically a coming-of-age children's thriller; and "Civil War" is by no means the explosive, politically charged, and action packed war extravaganza that A24 would have you believe it is. And typically, I wouldn't mind this expectation subverting style, as long as the movie had a tight, taut script, interesting and nuanced characters, refined performances, and a riveting plot. "Civil War" has none of these things.

A24 has a reputation for publishing thought-provoking, artistic pictures that - yes - subvert audience expectations. More than that, A24 films typically have razor sharp scripts and humanistic dialogue that draws viewers into the world, engrossing them in the (often brutal) struggle of the characters that are inhabiting the screen. And oh, how I wish that "Civil War" followed this trend that A24 has been so consistent in practicing.

Directed by Alex Garland, "Civil War" both looks and sounds great. With sound design that sends shockwaves down theatre seats, each and every gunshot borders on deafening to the point where I saw my fellow movie goers covering their ears at points; needless to say, it's effective, adding a certain intensity to the action scenes that is simply missing from other, even more expensive, action films. And from a visual perspective, "Civil War" is a pretty film (a forest fire sequence is especially striking) that also isn't afraid to immerse viewers in the type of grotesque imagery that one would expect from a movie that is depicting a modern-day war torn America. From street bombings to point blank executions, this isn't an easy movie to watch from a thematic standpoint, but man, it sure is easy to look at with the type of lush visuals you'd expect from an Alex Garland film. And if you're coming for action, you'll get it... kind of. The last act is, frankly, mind blowing, following a prolonged action sequence that is certainly exciting, albeit disturbing given the context of, well, a civil war in America. That said, the build up to this sequence is full of, honestly, not much.

Starring Kirsten Dunst as a wartime photojournalist, "Civil War" follows Kirsten and her merry band of psychopa- sorry, of photographers, as they road trip from one atrocity to the next, taking snapshots with the tenacity and glee of a TMZ reporter. Kind of echoing the Jake Gyllenhaal film "Nightcralwer," in "Civil War," Kirsten dons the same blank, lifeless expression as she photographs dead people, dying people, and people who are about to die. Her colleagues do the same thing with varying levels of enthusiasm - some are at first disgusted at the sight of violence, while others literally proclaim "What a rush!" after a fire fight. Many seem to think this film is a glorification of journalism, but I disagree; mostly every character is un-empathetic to the extreme, bordering on inhuman, as they photograph atrocities and never once think to themselves, "Huh, maybe I should step in and help." So on one hand I understand what Garland was trying to say; on the other hand, the characters were so unlikeable that I absolutely hated watching them.

However, and as I mentioned, the film "Nightcrawler" deals with similar themes - the difference is that movie is well acted, and extremely well written. On the contrary, "Civil War" is just bland. The performances are mostly all one note, and the dialogue is so, so silly, with every character acting so unrealistic that I couldn't help but roll my eyes with every word that exited their mouth and with every action they took that no one in their right mind would take. Characters act so silly, and their dialogue is so ridiculous, that it's a wonder they've survived so long in the world they're inhabiting. And it's a shame, because where this movie truly had to shine to succeed was in its characters and script, and both of those things are just not up to par.

This review is a little too long winded at this point, so I feel like it's time for me to quit writing and simply say that "Civil War" is not a mainstream movie, and that's okay. What's not okay is the fact that the movie is full of boring characters, boring dialogue, and a boring plot. The sound design and visuals are incredible, in typical Garland fashion; the rest of the movie is just kind of there. This is not a bad movie by any means, but it's also not that good, and by the time it ended both myself and my movie going partner felt the exact same way about it: Ehh.

I saw "Sting" in a mostly empty theatre; at first, it was just me, sitting towards the front, and a random man who decided to sit in the very back row. And then, as the movie was beginning to start, something unconscionable happened: a mother and her young daughter - no older than ten years old - walked in and sat in the same row I was sitting in. I was annoyed, yes, that out of every other empty seat those two decided to sit next to me, but I was also worried - could that young girl handle this supposedly gory and rated R horror film? As the lights dimmed and the film began, I braced myself for this mother and daughter duo to hurriedly exit the theatre at the first sight of blood. So I sat, started to watch, and before I knew it, something curious happened; "Sting," advertised as a violent slasher, surprisingly evolves into a sort of coming-of-age narrative, focusing on a young girl's journey to understand herself and her place in the world amidst the complexities of the people around her. And I realized that, maybe at the end of the day, this was the perfect film for a mother and her daughter to bond over.

Alyla Browne plays Charlotte, a young girl who, upon stumbling on a small spider, decides to keep it as a pet before discovering that, the more she feeds the little guy, the bigger it grows. And, in typical horror movie fashion, the bigger the spider grows, the hungrier it gets, and the more it wants to eat. And, as the star of the show, Alyla - armed with a water gun full of mothball water - will stop at nothing to hunt the spider down, save her family, and end its rain of terror. And amidst this chaotic ordeal, she also grapples with her relationship with her mother's new boyfriend, all while her biological father remains absent. Juggling familial drama and a battle against a giant spider, Alyla's character faces double the struggle... and now can you see why I said that this film turns into a coming-of-age tale?

"Sting" is not what you're expecting; heck, it certainly wasn't what I was expecting based on the brilliant first trailer that sold an eerie, stark horror setting akin to "Evil Dead Rise." Walking into the theatre I thought for sure that I'd be treated to a gross, gory film that would really let its premise run wild. And while there is a disturbing kill in the middle of the film that almost satisfied my increasing appetite for horror violence, after watching the film to its completion, I am almost getting the feeling that the shots of violence were afterthoughts because, as a whole, "Sting" is less a horror film and more of a children's thriller. And with that said, if you can brush off any initial disappointment that you might be feeling from that, there is some charm to be found here if you're willing to look for it.

Besides the occasional bloody image, and the aforementioned death scene, "Sting" is a tame and campy little tale that mostly focuses on Charlotte's familial drama, wrapped around this back drop of an ever-growing spider. Typically, this bait and switch would have annoyed me (and in ways, it kind of did, as I was really looking forward to an explicit, violent slasher), but where "Sting" succeeds is in its performances, specifically that of Alyla Browne. I can't recall if I've seen her act in anything before, but based on her performance here I hope that she works for years to come because, man, she was unbelievably good here. Where other child actors would over act, or overreact, Alyla always acted with pinpoint precision, never becoming unbelievable or embarrassing to watch as most child actors are. She was so good, in fact, that I started to become invested in the drama, more so than the horror. I enjoyed watching the bond between Charlotte and her mother's boyfriend, and when the relationship started to struggle, I wanted to see them mend their wounds and become a true family - and that's not something I expected to feel walking into a cheesy creature feature. However, if you find yourself walking into this cheesy creature feature, too, will you get what you're looking for? If you're purely looking for spider on human violence, unfortunately, you'll leave disappointed.

As much as I enjoyed watching Alyla's performance, I was still disappointed by the lack of blood and gore; I know that might make me seem a little bloodthirsty, but, I mean, in a movie about a giant spider terrorizing people in an apartment complex, can you blame me for wanting a little bit more action? Most of the spider's kills were offscreen teases instead of onscreen blood baths, with the singular and most disturbing kill taking place (I believe) midway through the film. It's a long wait to get to it, and afterward you're never treated to anything similar unless you count one burst of blood that could easily be fit into a PG-13 movie. And due to this lack of violence and focus on Charlotte, it truly feels like "Sting" was originally going to be more of a kid's film before, and for some reason, being turned into an R-rated horror flick. I'm not sure if this is the case, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was.

At the end of the day, "Sting" isn't the slasher it advertises itself as, and honestly, it is barely a horror film. Due to the dismal audience reviews, I can see that many were led astray by the film's marketing - as was I. However, the performance of Alyla Browne managed to draw me into the plot that the film was presenting; additionally, the movie does look really good, and the spider is appropriately creepy if you are phobic, as I am. And so, "Sting" is just an average little thriller that's fun enough for a late night watch, only elevated by the strength of its actors. If it really leaned in on its premise and became a full blown slasher then I could see it becoming a cult classic. As it stands the way it is, though, I can see it becoming an introductory horror film for curious young viewers, as it may have been for the mother and her daughter who walked in during my screening.

"Monkey Man" seemingly stands on solid ground. A dark (both literally and figuratively), gritty revenge thriller that emphasizes both style and substance, Dev Patel takes a fresh take on a familiar topic by grounding it in the current socio-economic culture of India, unafraid to cover topics that other wide release films would shy away from. Additionally, the movie is admittedly slick looking, with a great sense of visual identity that casts a sort of grimy, sickly feeling over the setting. And the soundtrack compliments the visuals perfectly, injecting the movie with an infectious energy; one thing is for certain - you've never seen an action film that looks and feels quite like this one. And that's somewhat ironic considering that where "Monkey Man" falters is in its action.

When people are engaged in the high octane battles that "Monkey Man" depicts to its audience, you can tell that there is real competency behind the scenes in terms of action choreography. There's also some truly creative decisions made when it comes to how the Monkey Man's enemies are dispatched; a knife fight in an elevator is especially striking, as is a third act fight in a kitchen that is masterfully executed and skillfully shot - truly, the best action sequence in the entire movie. Yes, the action seems to be planned with pinpoint accuracy - which is exactly why I wish I could've actually clearly seen the action when it was happening on screen.

Besides for the aforementioned kitchen fight sequence, every other action scene in "Monkey Man" employs the use of close-up shaky camera, and that is this movie's death knell. Almost as if Dev Patel wanted to emulate Paul Greengrass or Olivier Megaton, I am not exaggerating when I say that the majority of the action in this movie is ruined due to the decision to have the camera not only shaking constantly but also as close up to the actors as humanly possible as they're engaged in hand to hand combat.

The incessant shaking and extreme close-ups during hand-to-hand combat scenes are not just distracting and nausea-inducing, but they also render the action completely unintelligible. It's a frankly baffling decision that severely detracts from the overall viewing experience, especially since you can tell that the action was well choreographed and artfully put together. And honestly, I am in a state of shock due to this decision to present the action in this manner; you can't see it clearly at all, making it near impossible to appreciate the choreography or follow the flow of the fight sequences. And, to put it simply, if the action in your action movie sucks, your movie sucks.

While I appreciated the decision to craft "Monkey Man" into a dark, emotional drama first and an action movie second, doing so also throws off the pacing of the film. For example, the first real action scene in this movie takes place 40 minutes in; after that, you don't get another substantial action sequence until the final 25 minutes. What do you get? Honestly, not that much.

The build up to the first sequence is kind of tense because, as a viewer, you're waiting and waiting, knowing that, eventually, something is about to happen. That said, the build up is slightly neutered due to the fact that the movie doesn't reveal much information in the way of rationale until the second half of the movie. And so, while you may find yourself enjoying the initial scenes of action, the lack of an emotional hook had me feeling detached. And once that initial sequence is over, you're thrown back into the film's snail pace, once again waiting for something - anything - to happen. And this wouldn't be a huge problem if the payoff was good, but because the payoff is full of incomprehensible action, viewers are left feeling as though they started with nothing, endured a movie of nothingness, and ended with nothingness.

"Monkey Man" is a colossal disappointment that I cannot imagine fans of action movies enjoying due to the fact that you cannot see the action when it is on screen. There's no denying that Patel is talented but perhaps next time, if he chooses to direct another action film, he should make a conscious effort to clearly depict the action - a sign of confidence - instead of obscuring it with quick editing, a shaky camera, and claustrophobic close-ups. My conclusion: See this if you're an action junkie, but temper your expectations.

Admittedly, I was looking forward to "In the Land of Saints and Sinners" although, these days, being a Liam Neeson fan feels like being the victim of Stockholm syndrome in as much as no matter how much physical, mental, and spiritual pain his recent movies have caused me, I keep coming back for more. And in the case of this movie, as I was walking into the theatre I honestly did think that I was delivering myself into the hands of my captor - in this case, director Robert Lorenz. You see, Lorenz directed one of my least favorite Neeson films, "The Marksman," a terribly dull thriller that managed to put me to sleep with its dry subject matter, both on the script and on the screen. So, when I realized that Lorenz also directed this movie, well, you can imagine that my excitement, while high, was slightly tempered. It turns out that this caution was misplaced, because "In the Land of Saints and Sinners" is a very high quality film.

Liam Neeson is back, baby! After a myriad of mediocre thrillers, Neeson finally returns to form with this drama first, action second suspense film. Taking place in 1970s Ireland, "In the Land of Saints and Sinners" carefully engrosses viewers in the political and social turmoil that was taking place at the time, complete with a bombastic opening that had my jaw on the floor due to its sheer intensity. And the opening sets the stage for things to come as we are introduced to Neeson's character, one Finbar Murphy, who has a particular set of skills that he'd rather not exercise anymore. But wouldn't you know it, other people have other plans - eventually, characters collide, intentions are made clear, and in typical Neeson fashion, guns go off. All of this may seem like something you've seen before - and in ways it is - but where "In the Land of Saints and Sinners" differs is in its confident script and competent filmmaking.

This movie is deliberately paced - some might even call it slow - a feature that has been a common trait of many of Liam's recent films. The difference here is that "In the Land of Saints and Sinners" packs its script with great dialogue, and packs the screen with great actors, both of which combine to create a truly riveting experience. Additionally, "In the Land of Saints and Sinners" looks drop dead gorgeous, and how can it not when it's set in the Irish countryside? So where previous Neeson films have been boring to both look at and listen to, this film treats its viewers to stunning visuals and taut, tight dialogue - all wrapped around a story that slowly builds until its inevitable explosive climax.

Listen, I loved this movie - from beginning to end I was completely immersed, and I'm not even joking when I say that I was so engrossed that when I got up midway through to visit the bathroom I was, for a split second, surprised when I exited the cinema and found myself in a dingy movie theatre hallway and not the lush Irish countryside that the movie depicted. After many, many, many mediocre action films, it's nice to finally see Neeson in an old fashioned suspense thriller that is truly suspenseful and truly thrilling. My conclusion: If you're looking for a non-stop action spectacle, this is not it - but if you're looking for a good movie, you just found it.

Back in 2021, at the height of the coronavirus pandemic, HBO Max (now known as simply Max) released Denis Villeneuve's adaption of "Dune" the same day that it was released theatrically. So, I decided to sit down on my couch and give it a watch. Perhaps influenced by the horrendous streaming experience - with constant freezes, bufferings, and drops in quality - I didn't much enjoy "Dune." Cut to March 1, 2024. I planned on seeing "Dune: Part Two" in theatres. Before doing so, in order to refresh my (alcohol-influenced and shockingly poor) recollection, I decided to watch 2021's "Dune" again, this time on 4k Blu-Ray. And even though the viewing experience was far better than the one I had watching it many years ago on HBO Max, to my surprise, my opinion remained the same - "Dune," to me, was a visually stunning but emotionally hollow and surprisingly cold feeling film. Its lack of characterization and flimsy script didn't allow me to invest in the characters as much as I found myself investing in the world building. However, with "Dune: Part Two" on the horizon, I suspended my judgement until I was able to see the complete story that Villeneuve wanted to tell. Now, after watching this second installment, unfortunately, my opinion hasn't wavered.

Denis Villeneuve always crafts a stunning looking and sounding film, and "Dune: Part Two" is no different. Its use of CGI is second to none, with effects so good looking that you'll find yourself forgetting they aren't real. The sense of scale is immense, with vistas, settings, and scenery that will make your breath catch in your throat at the sight of them. Also, a specific black and white sequence is especially striking, and almost had me wishing for a second edit of the film that completely loses all colour. To be sure, "Dune: Part Two" is a visual and auditory fest; and if you're going for that, and only that, you'll have a lot to love here. Where the film falters, however, is in its lack of characterization.

For as gorgeous of a movie as this is, I wish that the script writing and character development was as strong as the visuals. Similar to the issue I had with the first film, "Part Two" continues with characters that are, frankly, flat and dry; this seems to be a trend in Villeneuve's films, so I imagine that these performances were requested by the director. And, in some way, I do understand where he may have been coming from - the world of "Dune" is alien, and might call for appropriately alien performances. So, I get it, but I don't like it. The actors do seem to be making the most out of what the script gives them, with Rebecca Ferguson and Javier Bardem giving standout performances - Javier especially looks like he's having a lot of fun. Timothée Chalamet, an actor that I admire, remains serviceable as Paul Atreides, but undergoes significant tonal shifts in his performance that I found not as believable as I think the filmmakers wanted these shifts to come across.

The characters of the film do deal with some themes I found extremely interesting, themes of religious prophecies, faith, doubt, control and the measures people will take to attain it, and more. In that regard, I enjoyed watching how the characters that inhabit this movie all have differing opinions on the above - some think Paul truly is the one, while others regarding the prophecies as nothing more than tales meant to oppress the masses. It's really quite bold for a mainstream movie to deal with these types of topics; and while I wish Villeneuve pushed things just a bit further, I recognize that a potential third film may be going in the direction that I am hoping for.

"Dune: Part Two" is an achievement, and begs to be seen on the biggest screen possible (or the closest seat possible, if you find yourself watching it not in Imax, but on an ordinary theatre screen, like I did). In terms of visual storytelling, the movie shines, and I imagine many high scores are being influenced by the film's razzle and dazzle. In terms of character development and strong scriptwriting, the movie faltered for me, not offering that emotional anchor necessary to invest me in the characters as much as I was invested in the world. All of that said, the world building at play truly is astounding, and I am hoping for a third installment if nothing else than to immerse myself in the universe that Villeneuve has put to film.

With a current 13% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 3.8 out of 10 on IMDb, I walked into the theatre to watch "Madame Web" fully expecting a cinematic failure on every level. And in fact, I walked into the theatre stone cold sober, because I wanted to be coherent and present as I watched this so-called train wreck unfold. But then the movie started. And I'm going to be so honest with you - I don't think this film is as bad as the critics say.

When you walk into a movie titled "Madame Web," there's a certain level of quality that you should expect; i.e., you should probably expect the movie to be god awful. And that's exactly what I was expecting. And maybe my rock bottom expectations actually made me enjoy the movie more than I thought I would, because not only didn't I think that the movie was awful, but I also thought that it was a pretty high quality film based solely on entertainment value. Because I'd be lying if I said I wasn't entertained.

After a shaky opening scene that did have me regretting every life decision that I've ever made that lead up to the moment I bought a ticket for this movie, I started to notice something curious: "Madame Web" actually had some competence behind the camera. The kinetic editing and camerawork caught my attention immediately, as it wasn't something I was expecting from a movie rated this poorly. And so, I continued to watch with slightly higher expectations at this point; and then Dakota Johnson appeared on screen - and she was actually giving a good performance! At this point I was shocked; reviews criticized Dakota's acting, as well as the script, but I just wasn't getting that overtly horrible feeling that others seemed to be. And so I continued watching - and I started to have... I started to have... fun.

Less a superhero film and more of "Final Destination" lite, "Madame Web" turns into a chaotic adventure film of sorts, following four women who try to avoid death at every turn, complete with premonitions of impending doom and elaborate getaways. I started to really enjoy the loop of the film so to speak, where Dakota would have her visions of a potential future death and then get to work on changing said future - it's nothing innovative, but I haven't seen something like this done since the last "Final Destination" movie, and as a big fan of those films, I was having fun with what "Madame Web" was doing. And I was also having fun with its characters.

The trio of Sydney Sweeney, Isabela Merced, and Celeste O'Connor had a lot of fun chemistry together, and not to mention, are eye candy to the extreme, and so I enjoyed watching them play off each other. Sure, they aren't believable in the slightest as high school students, but I really didn't care because of how much I was enjoying watching them on screen (and yes, their beauty may have something to do with that). But besides that, I did have fun with their interactions with each other and with Dakota; once again, critics mentioned how horrendous they thought these three actresses were and, once again, I just failed to see that. (I also really enjoyed a sequence with all of them and a certain Britney Spears song playing - it was so much fun!).

And I'd be amiss if I didn't mention, once again, the competency behind the camera, because I legitimately really enjoyed the direction and editing here. I found it to be surprisingly kinetic, with a really great sense of urgency and energy. I expected this movie to look and feel like a direct to DVD movie, but it really didn't.

Listen, I fully thought I would hate this movie, but I didn't. I liked it. This isn't a great film, this isn't a cinematic classic, and it isn't even high cinema, but it is a good time at the movies. And that's all it needed to be.

Good coming of age movies leave you feeling hopeful for the future of the characters that inhabit the world of the film; great coming of age films have the confidence to leave its audience conflicted - perhaps things will work out well, but perhaps not, and only time will tell. "The Starling Girl" is a great coming of age story that manages to be heartwarming while simultaneously leaving viewers feeling slightly apprehensive as to what will happen to its characters going forward.

Starring Eliza Scanlen as Jem Starling, "The Starling Girl" follows Jem as she traverses a sort of hazardous upbringing; you see, Jem lives in present day Kentucky, but as her parents are fundamentalist Christians, you'd be forgiven for thinking the movie takes place in the 1970s, at least at first. Jem is allowed no cell phones, no computers, and, no freedom. For all intents and purposes, her life revolves around her church and her faith. And besides little annoyances or two from overzealous church members, Jem doesn't seem to mind this lifestyle. That is, until Owen Taylor, played by Lewis Pullman, comes into the picture. The newest youth pastor, Jem quickly finds herself having a small crush on Own that develops into a full-fledged romance - this is particularly troublesome, given that Own is a married man. From here on out, "The Starling Girl" follows Jem as she navigates the treacherous waters of adultery, abusive parents, and the fight for newfound freedom from fundamentalist Christianity.

"The Starling Girl" was right up my alley, as I have an affinity for both coming of age movies and depictions - both positive and negative - of faith in film. Admittedly, it is easy to nitpick movies that perhaps don't cast the best light on Christianity; however, I feel as if "The Starling Girl" was fair in its presentation - not every member of Jem's church seemed to be as strict as her parents (or to be more accurate, her mother). However, because Jem's parents are so strict, the film is absolutely riveting as Jem tries to juggle her faith with her romantic feelings toward Owen. It's a really intense build up as they both slowly fall for each other, and by the time they share their first kiss? Oh boy - "The Starling Girl" just gets even more gut-wrenching from their on out.

It's hard for a coming of age drama to have me gripping my seat as much as an action movie would, but "The Starling Girl" is absolutely white knuckle. As Jem and Own fall deeper into the rabbit hole of lustful thoughts and actions, things start to spiral out of control through a series of events that had me literally holding my breath at points. I'm telling you, not since "Whiplash" has a drama effected me this much. And the performances only add to this effect, as everyone in this movie is pitch-perfect, portraying an entire range of human emotions as relatabley and effortlessly as possible.

My only complain, as I mentioned in my opening paragraph, is that the ending isn't as clear cut as I'd have hoped. Things may work out well for Jem, but they very well may not. That said, I completely understand what they were going for, and the apprehension I feel is completely within the realm of reality; nothing in this movie feels like a fantasy - it all feels real, including the ending. And ultimately, I loved this movie. "The Starling Girl" is one of the best movies I've watched in 2024 so far, and I am actively looking forward to watching it again.

I find it very, very interesting that a large number of highly-rated reviews of "Fast Charlie" have been written by "users" (a.k.a, Chat GPT) who have only been members of the site for four weeks. What are the odds that people are coming out of the woodwork to rate this little flick 10 stars out of 10! It's almost like the studio started some sort of guerrilla marketing campaign to trick unsuspecting viewers into renting this movie for $5.99 due to the positive reviews. For better or for worse I was one of those unsuspecting viewers who only took a cursory glance at the scores before deciding to settle down for the night and watch this movie. And you know what? While half of the current reviews on IMDB may be written by artificial intelligence, they are actually doing "Fast Charlie" a disservice by advertising it that way because - coming from a real person - this movie isn't bad.

I watched the trailer for "Fast Charlie" a few weeks ago, being utterly convinced that it was just another old man action movie, akin to what Liam Neeson has been putting out for the past decade or so. Luckily for me, the trailer actually undersells this movie. "Fast Charlie" is an action film, but it's also a romance, a black comedy, and a vehicle for Pierce Brosnan to sport a southern accent while driving around New Orleans, hunting down those who did him wrong. It's a simple enough premise, but I couldn't help but enjoy both the setting and the character of Charlie Swift.

Pierce Brosnan is as charming as charming can be here as a somehow lovable hitman with a southern charm that manages to be somehow both unassuming and threatening. Charlie is a killer - no doubt about it - but one that has managed to maintain his humanity. So, it's fun to watch Charlie dispatch his enemies, but it's equally as fun to watch Charlie fall for one Marcie Kramer, played by the gorgeous Morena Baccarin. Pierce gives a multilayered performance that combines stone-cold killer with southern beau, and it works in a movie that plays itself seriously enough to convey the stakes but not so seriously that it comes across as the 100th "Taken" ripoff.

To its credit, "Fast Charlie" is trying to do something different - and it does, as this is not as straightforward of an action movie as the trailer portrays itself as being. Sure, Pierce does engage in a plethora of shootouts, but the film cares less about action and more about the interactions between the characters; luckily, this is a nice change of pace, as Pierce and Morena are pretty great in their roles and really entertaining to watch as they stomp around the southern U. S. The movie is also surprisingly funny, ensuring that viewers get moments of levity among the blood-soaked gunfights. However, as this is a low budget picture, keep your expectations in check: You're not going to get as high octane of an action film as you may expect, as everything is played slightly subdued here, most likely due to Brosnan's age. That said, "Fast Charlie" works very well for fans of Pierce, and for fans of lower budget action thrillers. This might not be the freshest or most innovative film, but it is certainly entertaining enough to warrant a viewing or two. And if you're a fan of Brosnan? Well then, you may have found one of your newest favorite films.

I am not a fan of David Ayer, but I am a fan of Jason Statham, and so - also being inspired by the positive reviews - I decided to drag my dad to the theatre with me to watch this movie. And on one hand, I enjoyed it as a Statham action vehicle; on the other hand, this film is chock-full of virtually every single David Ayer cliche that you can imagine.

Is there near-constant cussing in this movie because of script writing that would make middle school students blush? Yes, there is. Are there a large number of ridiculous looking and absurdly dressed characters that you cannot envision being in anything other than an Ayer picture? Oh, you better believe it. And is there over-the-top violence that has absolutely no business being portrayed as anything that would remotely even take place in the realm of reality? Of course! It's all standard Ayer fare, and while I am not too much of a proponent of that, I found "The Beekeeper" to be as entertaining as it was thanks, in part, to those creative decisions.

As much as I would've appreciated a more straightforward, grounded take on the action genre, I'd be lying if I said that the ludicrousness of it all wasn't entertaining, because it was. From the constant bee puns and the hilariously energetic villains that would give Jordan Belfort a run for his money to Statham's stoic and almost inhuman performance and all of the horror villain-esque violence that he delivers upon his enemies, "The Beekeeper" is straight-laced farce. This is a movie that's dumb, and knows that it's dumb, but plays itself as serious as humanly possible. Because of that, you'll find yourself laughing with the movie while also finding a great deal to enjoy from the action sequences.

"The Beekeeper" features Statham at his most brutal, perhaps ever, employing a range of tactics that dispatch the film's villains in increasingly violent manners. Statham is a force to be reckoned with here, more akin to The Punisher than John Wick, and it really works. It's all very silly, but the brutality is fitting, especially since the villains are so despicable. You really want to see the villains get what's coming to them, and you get that through a series of action sequences that are each more elaborate than the next. I cannot emphasize enough how stupid the movie is, but I also can't emphasize enough how fun it is to watch on the silver screen.

I am still not a fan of David Ayer after watching this movie, but I am impressed about how entertaining "The Beekeeper" managed to be. As I said, I would've preferred a more gritty, serious action movie than this was, but for what it was, this was fun, and I will definitely be adding this to my physical media collection.

"Lift" is nothing you haven't seen before, and it's nothing you haven't seen before done better. That said, it's an entertaining enough film for a late night watch, especially if you had a few adult beverages beforehand (or during, or after). By all intents and purposes, this is a simple, turn your brain off feature that is by no means meant to challenge its audience; this is formulaic heist-fare, complete with: An opening theft, team introduction, elaborate planning sequence of the main heist, and an equally as elaborate execution of said heist. Like I said, it's nothing you haven't seen before... for better or for worse.

If you're a fan of heist movies, or of Kevin Hart, you'll most likely find something to enjoy here, even though "Lift" is about as basic as basic gets. Yes, everything you expect from a heist movie is in this film, however, it is all done without the style, flair, and energy one looks forward to from these type of movies. Nothing is really all that clever here, with everything, for the most part, just kind of happening exactly as explained. Sure, there are a few twists and turns along the way, but even they are portrayed as status quo happenings that are easily navigable instead of best laid plans going awry.

With this in mind, I wish that the opening heist was a lot more clever than it ended up - it started slick enough, but quickly devolved into your average adventure-sequence with vehicular chases and unimaginative getaways; this is similar to the main heist, that is depicted in just a kind of bland, matter-of-fact manner. Where is the creativity? Where is the playful editing? Where are the character interactions? Heck, the movie takes place mostly in a huge airplane, and there's barely anyone flying in it! It's like the filmmakers were too lazy to think of anything that would propel "Lift" past its basic premise.

Okay, now that I got that out of the way, let's finally talk about why I said that "Lift" is entertaining, because it is. Sure, there's absolutely nothing creative at play here, but as long as you're not looking for that, then this gives you what you want. Kevin Hart, who I enjoyed here as a kind of stoic team leader, is always fun to watch, even in this more serious role than he typically plays. It's not necessarily too believable when you see him engage in fist fights and action extravaganzas, but if you like Kevin Hart, you can look past any lack of believability the film has with his character. Is the action in this movie good? I mean, it's fine. I've seen better, but I've also seen far worse. The film is competently directed, it just lacks energy or style or that je ne sais quoi that I feel like this needed to truly stand out from the pack. But like I said, if you want a basic heist movie, that's what you'll get; in that sense, "Lift" delivers exactly what it advertised to viewers.

Simply put, "Lift" is a direct to streaming heist movie that is just fine - nothing more, and nothing less.

"Ferrari" is getting mixed reviews from audiences and critics alike - and while I enjoyed this movie more than I thought I would, for once I can't say that I necessarily disagree with the negative reviews. Because, to be honest, I agree with the criticisms. Yes, "Ferrari" is an ironically slow moving movie given its subject matter. And yes, the film is less about racing and more a character study about Enzo Ferrari and his wife, Laura (played by Penélope Cruz). You don't get an overarching story about the founding of the company; instead, you get a year in Enzo's life as he navigates his marital strife, business problems, and desire to win the Mille Miglia race. For some - and no doubt, for many - all of the above are negative traits of Michael Mann's newest picture. And while I'd be lying if I said that I wouldn't have preferred a more brisk, fast-moving picture (perhaps something akin to "The Social Network"), I can't help but have enjoyed "Ferrari," flaws and all.

Let's start backward: With terrific sound editing that lets you hear and feel the aggressive vibrations of roaring engines juxtaposed against sequences of humanistic turmoil, the film seeks to immerse viewers in relatable and real drama before the more action-oriented climax that offers all the racing one could ever want. And the climax is incredible. The final 30 minutes or so of "Ferrari" are excellent; gripping and emotional, the last act contains thrilling racing sequences and harrowing drama that had me (and my mom, who I watched the movie with) in tears at points. And in fact, so effective was the end of this movie for me that the finale itself upped my personal score.

The build up to this, however, is where many people are having problems with the movie - myself included. As much as I loved the last act, the first hour and a half of the movie is slow, and no one can argue against that. Both in content and in how said content is portrayed, the first two acts include almost nothing except long scenes of people talking to one another. Now, that's not to say the conversations they are having are uninteresting because (depending on what you find interesting) they are. Following Enzo's business dealings and personal relationships - including discussions with his wife and his mistress and the obvious discussions that would occur between all three people when it comes to such a topic - "Ferrari" is mostly about Enzo the person, not Enzo the car manufacturer. I understand why people didn't like this stylistic decision, but I honestly did, thanks in large part to how good Adam Driver is in the role.

Adam Driver, and especially Penelope Cruz, are pretty exceptional in their roles as a husband and wife who are clearly no longer in love; both of them share some of the film's most intense and emotionally resonant sequences, as do Driver and Shailene Woodley, who I also enjoyed in the movie. It's really the acting in this movie that carries it from point A to point B - and while I would've preferred a drama akin to "The Social network," complete with tight and intense editing, "Ferrari" is a still a very methodical, deliberately-paced movie that takes its audience on exactly the ride that it intends to go.

I truly understand why mass audiences aren't enjoy "Ferrari" as much as they expected or wanted to, but a week after watching this movie, I can't stop thinking and appreciating it. If you're expecting an all out action extravaganza, this is not the movie for you; but if you're ready to watch a drama first and a racing movie second, you just might find that "Ferrari" has a whole lot to offer.

Seeing "Saltburn" in theatres is a mistake. While the lush visuals, stellar sound design, and euphoric soundtrack may, at first, trick you into thinking you made a good decision watching this on the silver screen, there's something else you must take into consideration: the reaction of the audience that you see it with.

In all my years of moviegoing, never have I heard such outright and utter shock at a myriad of scenes and sequences that "Saltburn" decides to show to its audience; from a moonlit-backdropped romp between two maybe, maybe not lovers, to a scene that has been now aptly dubbed The Bathtub Scene, "Saltburn" seeks to simultaneously disgust and arouse its viewers. And you know what? It worked for me.

"Saltburn" is genuinely daring, complete with scenes that have never before - and never will - grace cinemas again. Eroticism stays thick in the air, enveloping audiences in a rich tapestry of sensuality that explores intense homosexual tension, heterosexual encounters characterized by a dynamic that teeters on the edge of dominance and submission, and fleeting romantic liaisons that blur the boundary of enthusiastic consent. All of it can be challenging for some viewers to watch, but it's also surprisingly sexy, even with certain qualities that can be called nauseating, manipulative, or abnormal. And for some, this can will deter them from enjoying or even watching this movie in the first place, but for others, these elements will prove to be highlights, especially in the case of "Saltburn's" overall plot line.

Wildly original and hypnotically captivating for the first 85% of the running time, "Saltburn" suddenly loses steam and creativity as it devolves into a rehash of a very specific 90's film for the final 15% of the movie. This is disappointing, especially as "Saltburn" goes out of its way to be nothing but something you have never seen before, at least at first. That said, its ultimate derivative nature is certainly overlooked by the sheer originality at play when it comes to how the story is told. The specifics mentioned above should clue you in a little bit as to the kind of movie that "Saltburn" is, as should the meticulous attention to detail in every aspect, both in front of and behind the camera. Yes, the movie is gorgeous to look at and listen to, with a special mention to the beautiful, purposeful editing. All of the acting is also top notch with shameless and brave performances that truly draw the viewer into the sick world that "Saltburn" portrays; Barry Keoghan and Jacob Elordi must be mentioned here, as they are the heart and soul of this movie, and boy do they carry the film wonderfully.

So yes, "Saltburn" may not be the most original movie, but it is mesmerizing in every respect, unafraid to invite its audience to places they've never been before. And while the ultimate destination may not be as satisfying as you'd have hoped, the journey is certainly worth your time.

Let's just get this out of the way now - when it comes to writing this review, I'm probably a little bit biased (and a little bit drunk, currently, but that's besides the point). You see, I have an affinity for indie coming of age movies, and "The Holdovers" is basically an indie coming of age film, so it may - or may not - come as a surprise to you that I absolutely adored this picture. So, with that little preface out of the way, it's time for me to gush over this movie.

Starring none other than Paul Giamatti as Paul Hunham, Giamatti plays a professor at an all boys boarding school where, over Christmas break, he has the misfortune of looking over a group of boys, one of whom is named Angus, played by Dominic Sessa. After a rocky start, where Paul clearly doesn't get along with any of the boys, making his disdain clear and evident, he eventually finds himself alone with Angus - as well as with the school's cook, Mary Lamb, played by Da'Vine Joy Randolph - in an unexpected chain of events. What occurs after is a slice-of-life style piece of cinema that allows broken people to find comfort in each other's company.

"The Holdovers" is, without a doubt, one of my favorite movies of 2023, as well as probably one of the best movies of the year, as well. This Christmas-themed gem doesn't hold back on the drama, delivering a thoughtful blend of comedy, coming-of-age storytelling, and a touch of romance - all wrapped around a very raw, human plot-line that virtually everyone can relate to. I'm no spring chicken myself, but I found myself deeply connected to both main characters - one who is older and basically dejected with life as he knows it, and one who is younger but who feels lost, aimless, and disconnected from both family and friends. And admittedly, not everyone will have a direct parallel to these experiences, but even if you don't, you're in for a story that's bound to tug at your heartstrings... and make you laugh out loud in the process.

This is a high-quality movie - from the impeccable acting to the beautiful on-location cinematography to the relatable, thought-provoking plot, every element is executed with pinpoint precision and finesse; it's a testament to the art of storytelling on the silver screen. Director Alexander Payne knows how to create an artful film, and "The Holdovers" is no exception. It's at once indie and art-house while simultaneously being mainstream and easily accessible; in short, it's a film for everyone that actually feels like a genuine crowdpleaser instead of a pandering mess.

I'm having a difficult time describing what I liked about this movie, and the reason is because I liked almost everything about this movie. So why the 9 out of 10 rating instead of the perfect 10? Literally the only thing that's holding me back is because I would've liked a touch more romance; yes, there was romance here, but a bit more would've pushed me over the edge into 10 out of 10 territory. Besides that, this is basically a perfect film, one that I loved, and one that has become one of my favorite movies of the year, if not of all time. I am genuinely looking forward to rewatching this, and I can't wait until it becomes closer to Christmas so I can view this on my own TV, cuddled under blankets, with a glass of whiskey, and bask in the absolute heartwarming experience that is "The Holdovers." My recommendation: Do yourself a favor and watch this as soon as you can - you won't regret it.

I'll be honest. I don't think that "Freelance" is a good movie. In fact, I know it's not. But I want to ask you a question, first, before I continue on with this review. Based on the poster, the star power, the director, and the trailer, what kind of movie do you think that "Freelance" is? I mean, it's made by the director of "Taken!" Surely this must be a hard hitting, seriously, gritty action movie... right? Wrong! In fact, "Freelance" is anything but.

Let's just get this part of the review out of the way - if you're going to see "Freelance" and in any way, shape, or form think you're going to get an action film, erase that thought from your memory as fast as possible; because "Freelance" is not an action film. Yes, there's some action in it, but it makes up maybe five minutes, if that, of the entire running time. And how is the action when it hits? Not very good. And that pains me to say with Pierre Morel behind the camera, because we have evidence that he knows how to direct good action. Now don't get me wrong: "Freelance" does have spurts of action brilliance - by spurts, I mean that there is maybe ten seconds of innovation at play here. Other than that, it is crystal clear that everyone in front of and behind the camera could have cared less about the action, as the film doesn't even give its audience the pleasure of a violent pay off with the main antagonist.

So the action sucks; what type of movie are you getting, then? Well, "Freelance" wants you to think it's a comedy. The problem is that it isn't funny. Scratch that; my dad was laughing, but he's about 63 years old, so take that as you will. I'm in my 20s, and I laughed - nay - I chuckled, perhaps once or twice. Besides that? I was fighting back sleep. Maybe a shot or two (or three) would've enhanced my enjoyment, but I was unfortunately sober while watching this (I am not while writing this review, however). Regardless, "Freelance" tries to portray itself as a light hearted comedy while not actually telling any funny jokes. Sure, Cena and Brie have some banter, but they're not actually saying anything funny to each other. Similarly, Cena and Brie and Juan Pablo Raba share some silly moments, but none of them are particularly laugh out loud comedic.

There is one scene with Cena and Brie that is surprisingly sexual, which was shocking for a movie of this nature. Admittedly, I did enjoy said scene for what it was, but I couldn't shake the feeling of how out of place and unnecessary it felt, especially when it didn't lead anywhere interesting. However, Brie is extremely attractive, and if you are one of many people who are attracted to her, you may find at least one scene to enjoy here.

All of my complaining aside, I didn't hate this movie. But I didn't really like it either. It went by quickly for what it was - and what it was, was a light, breezy, direct to DVD movie that is, for some reason, being released in theatres. I do have to say, though, that I'll probably never watch this again, and nor do I want to. Do you plan on seeing this at the cinema? If so, my advice is to prepare yourself - drink heavily before seeing this movie. You will definitely enjoy yourself more than I did.

"Killers of the Flower Moon" is getting rave reviews from critics and audiences alike. People are hailing this movie as one of Martin Scorsese's best films, with standout performances from both Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro. "Masterpiece" and "a sprawling crime epic" are just a few of the praises "Killers of the Flower Moon" is receiving, and as a fan of Scorsese's work myself, I was beyond excited as I headed down to the theatre opening night to go watch this movie. And to be quite honest, I wasn't as big a fan of this film as I thought I was going to be.

"Killers of the Flower Moon," admittedly, follows a group of criminals as they engage in said criminal behavior, a common trait of many Scorsese films. Where this movie differs, however, is in the way it handles the material. In stark contrast to other films of a similar genre, "Flower Moon" makes little to no effort to have its audience sympathize with its villainous protagonists. On one hand, this is appreciated, as the protagonists are truly some of the worst, most evil people ever to grace the silver screen. On the other hand, this lack of characterization makes for one-note characters that start and end the movie in the exact same emotional headspace. And maybe that's how everything happened in real life, but for a film, I would've appreciated a little bit of nuance or dramatic heft.

As characters engage in their killing spree, you'd be hard-pressed to find any of them undergoing any type of moral quandary or emotional turbulence, or really any type of second guessing as to the morality of their actions. And again, perhaps in real life every single murderer just happened to be a cold-blooded psychopath with zero sense of remorse, but for the sake of the film, it would've been nice to see at least one person question their actions. But because you don't get that, everything feels surprisingly dry even as the scale of the killings increase; the perpetrators are consistently aloof to the destruction they're leaving in their wake, to the point where, eventually, the movie started to get kind of boring.

While Scorsese always brings a sheen of professionalism to his films, I also found "Flower Moon" to lack the cinematic feel of his previous movies. Something about this movie just felt cheap, despite the $200 million budget. The editing was also jarring at times, lacking coherency, just making the entire movie feel more like a direct-to-video release than a theatrical one. And when it comes to the ending of this movie, whoah man. I won't spoil anything, but let's just say that Scorsese pulls a move directly out of Wes Anderson's playbook with an epilogue that is, simply put, ridiculous, almost as if they didn't really know how they should end the film.

Overall, I was disappointed by this movie, and didn't find much to like. I will say that the length - practically a 3 hour and 30 minute runtime - wasn't a problem for me. The problem, for me, was in the lack of characterization and one-note performances throughout. Will you enjoy this movie? There is a strong possibility you will, considering I seem to be in the minority; however, my recommendation would be to temper your expectations, and be prepared to take a bathroom break or two.

After one of the most shocking events in American history - last year's release of "Halloween Ends" - I had below rock bottom expectations for the David Gordon Green directed "The Exorcist: Believer." Also directed by Green, as I sat down to watch this film with nary an alcoholic beverage to be seen, I found myself tempted to walk out and leave the theatre as soon as the movie started to save myself the agony I believed I would be subjected to. Alas, against my perhaps better judgement, I decided to stay and watch the film to its completion. And you know what? I'm glad I did. Because "The Exorcist: Believer" is actually a good time at the movies.

"The Exorcist: Believer" is getting demolished by critics, and on one hand, I kind of understand why. Because, you see, exorcism movies, by nature, are cheesy and ridiculous - and this movie is no different. No matter your individual religious beliefs or lack thereof, almost every exorcism movie is filled with the exact same tropes and cliches; and "The Exorcist: Believer" has those tropes and cliches, and has them in full. From the supernatural perspective, there really isn't anything unique here except that - for some reason - the supernatural elements are miraculously downplayed to an almost astonishing degree. So what then, you may find yourself asking, does the film focus on? The answer is: the drama.

Where this movie differs from other supernatural horror films is that it decides to first and foremost focus on the horror of what happens when children go missing, and on the horror of what happens when they return. It's an interesting spin on an exorcism movie, as the first 45 minutes or so are decidedly not supernatural. More "Prisoners" than "The Exorcist," I found myself enthralled in the all too relatable struggle of a parent feeling helpless in the wake of their child's disappearance. That scenario is scary in and of itself - but when the kids finally return is when the true horror begins, and I'll be honest - this movie scared me.

As I get older, I find myself becoming more afraid of horror films, so keep that in mind as I continue my review; that said, I do have to say that "The Exorcist: Believer" had some absolutely immaculate jump scares that had me recoiling and covering my face in terror - and the last movie to do that to me was one of the "Insidious" sequels. As I mentioned, this movie doesn't really have anything that you haven't seen before, but that didn't stop me from getting immersed in the fear that the film is trying to convey. I'm not sure why, but it worked for me, as subdued and restrained as it was when compared to other movies in this same genre. And plus, I really think the ending of this swayed my opinion more to the positive side, as the ending shocked me in the best way possible.

I always say that the best horror films are dramas, and "The Exorcist: Believer" is a drama first and a horror second, and it's all the better for it. I'm not going to lie and tell you this is the scariest movie of the year, and in fact, the person who I saw this movie with didn't like it at all, but I still found a lot to enjoy here, and was pleasantly surprised that David Gordon Green was able to restrain himself and offer a film that is more of a serious dramatic piece and less of a cheesy horror picture.

"Expend4bles" is getting decimated by critics; with a current 5.2 out of 10 rating on IMDb and a 16% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes, "Expend4bles" seems to be the worst action film since, well, the third film in the franchise. But, when compared to the third film, this fourth iteration is changing things - going back to basics, you could say. How? By bringing back the coveted, much desired R-rating. A ha! That should do it! I mean, blood, gore, cussing, pole dancers, and Megan Fox wearing a tight, white tank top? That's what everyone wants out of this series..... right?

Here's the thing: "Expend4bles" is by no means a game changer, nor is it a harkening back to the glory days of the first two movies. The R-rating does return - and the slightly over-sexualized tone is a welcome addition when compared to today's trend of making every action film as asexual as possible - but none of it really lives up to the heights of the explosive climax of the first film or the bombastic introduction of the second. From the opening scene, you can tell that "Expend4bles" is made on a budget; the film looks almost like a direct-to-DVD movie, with constantly CGI blood, shoddy green screen, and slight (though not excessive) shaky camera. The dialogue is incomprehensible at times due to mediocre sound mixing, and the film only has a handful of locations compared to its globe-trotting predecessors. Megan Fox isn't the most believable actress, and everyone else, except for Statham, looks like they rolled out of bed directly on set to read lines directly off a script. All of that said, though, I'd be lying if I said I didn't have fun with this!

Look, if you're going in to see the fourth film in a popular action franchise, then you should already know what you're going to get. And here, what you're going to get is practically two hours of mindless action - and that's all I wanted. Jason Statham blowing people away with assault rifles and slashing people's throats open with huge knives; Sylvester Stallone taking aim at people from the skies while flying a military-grade airplane; Megan Fox wearing revealing clothing while engaging in a suggestive "Mr. And Mrs. Smith"-esque fight scene; Andy Garcia dressed to the nines, chewing tooth pics, and shooting people in the face. Everything in this movie is bigger and more ridiculous than you can possibly imagine, but man oh man is it just so much fun to watch on the big screen.

I'll just say it: I spent $18 on two movie theatre hot dogs and a giant bottle of water, sat down with my mom, chowed down, and enjoyed watching action scene after action scene after action scene for two hours. The plot? Who actually cares about that. The acting? You've seen the other films in this franchise - you already know the acting is the thing that actors care least about when filming this movie. The action? That's what this is all about! And "Expend4bles" doesn't disappoint with a near non-stop barrage of bloody violence. Bullets, knives, grenades, hatchets, and spike chains are just a few of the weapons in people's arsenal in this movie, and you'll be privy to a multitude of ways that people meet their end. Sure, the shaky camera is there, but it's nowhere near as bad as it was in "The Expendables 3" - in that movie, you literally could not tell what was happening or who it was happening to; here, the camera may shake, but the action is shown clearly. And sure, the CGI sticks out like a sore thumb, but at this point the bad CGI is 100% a purposeful choice to not only save money but also poke fun at old 80s action movies. Everything in this movie has been custom built for you to have a good time watching it, and I had a great time watching it.

The critics may be hating on this movie, but that's just one more reason for you to go and watch it. This is an action movie, and it delivers basically constant action from beginning to end. If that's what you want to see, then you'll enjoy yourself.

"A Haunting in Venice" is the third of the Kenneth Branagh directed Hercule Poirot films, starting with "Murder on the Orient Express" and then "Death on the Nile." I haven't seen "Orient Express" since it originally came out in 2017 (I know, I know, I need to rewatch it at this point) but I remember not being too big a fan of it. That said, I recently watched "Death on the Nile" only a few weeks ago, and I absolutely fell in love with it. So, I found myself pretty excited to go see "A Haunting in Venice," for a variety of reasons, with the first and foremost reason being the sheer beauty and meticulousness of Branagh's direction.

Listen, if there's one thing Kenneth Branagh doesn't do it's direct boring looking movies, which is appropriate because "A Haunting in Venice" is dripping with style; a graceful, classical, beautiful film, "A Haunting in Venice" is visually stunning and constantly engaging to look at. I mean, from start to finish my eyes were glued to the screen in awe. But as anyone knows, good looks can only take a thing so far - what's most important, in people and in movies, is the substance. And there is certainly substance here.

A murder mystery through and through, "A Haunting in Venice" kept me and my mum guessing. With many twists and turns, and multiple interesting reveals, the film lets viewers revel in its mystery with a methodical, purposeful pace. After attending a seance, Poirot experiences things he can't quite explain, and it's interesting to watch him interrogate suspects, experience so-called supernatural events, and slowly get to the bottom of what is going on - all wrapped around the claustrophobic, creepy setting of a mansion in Venice.

Branagh is excellent as the titular detective, and gives a performance that you can't help but get giddy watching. With his wry, clever one-liners and masterful explanations of just what exactly is happening, and why it is happening, he's an utter joy to watch on screen; Tina Fey, Kelly Reilly, and Jamie Dornan were also standouts, each giving magnetic, layered performances.

Honestly, before writing this review my rating was at an 8 out of 10, but as I was writing this review my rating jumped up to a 9 due to the sheer entertainment value that "A Haunting in Venice" provides. I just really enjoyed this movie - from the visuals to the performances to the mystery, everything was working for me; coupled with Branagh's classic yet kinetic direction, I honestly couldn't look away from the screen. This isn't the horror film some may expect, but it's a creepy whodunnit that is a great way to ring in the fall - especially if you're a fan of the previous two films.

I typically don't enjoy going to see comedies in theatres - call me a scrooge, but I just don't find most comedies very funny. In the case of "Strays," however, the concept of talking dogs making sex jokes and screaming obscenities kind of tickled my funny bone, so a few weeks ago I went down to my local theatre to give it a go. And I'm glad I did because "Strays" is one of the most fun times I've had in a theatre this year.

Listen, this movie made my laugh like an absolute idiot, and that's really all I wanted from it. There's not much to say here: "Strays" is about talking dogs that swear and make inappropriate jokes - if that doesn't sound appealing to you, then you won't like this movie. If that does sound appealing to you, then you'll probably like this movie.

This is the definition of a turn your brain off film; the plot is ridiculous, as is the basic premise, but it's so ridiculous that I found myself constantly laughing at everything that was occurring on screen. And with the short runtime, nothing ever felt stale or like it was dragging on too long, making this a fun, breezy, Saturday afternoon watch.

I can't really continue with this review, because I said all that needs to be said: "Strays" made me laugh, and I enjoyed it.

It seems like everyone and their mother on the Internet wants you to believe that "The Last Voyage of the Demeter" is a diamond in the rough. I've seen Reddit thread after Reddit thread, YouTube review after YouTube review, explaining how this is an excellent, nuanced, horror film. Ha! I wish. "The Last Voyage of the Demeter" is horrifically boring, and if there's one thing you should take away from this review, it's to absolutely never trust any online astroturfing.

Listen, this movie is, basically, people talking on a boat for two hours, and that's it. Sure, you get small glimpses of Dracula attacking people here and there, but all of the sequences are dimly lit and short, unsatisfying and oddly bloodless - everything I don't want in an R-rated vampire film.

Have you ever wanted to watch people engage in boring conversations inside of a boat? What about on top of a boat? Then you found the right movie for you!

Listen: Literally, what more is there to say? This movie was beyond boring, and the only reason I'm giving it a 3 out of 10 is because the initial scenes of bloodshed were promising. Besides that, I found absolutely no enjoyment with "The Last Voyage of the Demeter," and I doubt you will, either.