mfoxartist

I thought all three seasons of this Belgian/Dutch series were quite good, even though the undercover agent (Bob, played by Tom Waes) is a deeply flawed officer who is a little hard to root for. But despite recurring frustrations, you do end up rooting for him and the storylines of each season are well constructed and feature plenty of action. The third season took a few episodes to really get rolling, but when it did the series may have hit its peak. And we see Frank Lammers (as Ferry) really show the full depth of his acting talent.

My favorite sidekick for Bob was definitely Kim (played by the captivating Anna Drijver), a major character in the first season and shown in guest appearances in the second season. Overall, I think the first season was the strongest, but all three are very watchable. There were a fair amount of TV tropes in the show, but also some nice twists and unexpected developments that kept the series interesting.

Bob is the main star of the show, but Ferry was the breakout character and Elise Schaap (as his wife Danielle) was also terrific. No surprise that these two went on to star in a prequel movie ("Ferry") and a prequel TV series ("Ferry the Series"), which were even better than "Undercover." I look forward to seeing more of them in future episodes of their new series, but would really like to see them in another new series that's based on what happens to their characters AFTER "Undercover" instead of before.

"Dark" has an excellent overall score here so I was excited to get started on it. It took a few episodes of season 1 to get into it, but I've experienced that with other "large-cast" programs that I ended up loving, so it's all good. But as the episodes and series wore on, I was increasingly frustrated by the show's decisions. By early in season 3, I'd had enough, but I kept plowing through to the end.

It's understandable that time travel is an enormously popular theme in entertainment, and we have a long history of successful shows that incorporate it. "Dark" does a good job putting its own twist on the concept, but the writing, plotting and direction end up failing to deliver.

Unlike shows with related themes, like "Lost," (the first few seasons) "Stranger Things" or "Fringe" (which took a while to really get rolling), "Dark" isn't well constructed. Any show that conveys a very complex story should strive to tell it straightforwardly and efficiently. Instead, "Dark" has a multitude of characters asking direct questions (like "who are you?" and "what is going on?") that are never answered by the person they're asking. With multiple worlds, alternate universes and rapid-fire time travel, it just becomes a confusing mess.

The death of any particular person becomes nearly meaningless because they can (and do) come back frequently in different timelines, making it very hard to become invested in the characters. And the frequent repetitiveness of dialogues, situations and themes becomes tiresome. The science behind the science fiction is poorly conveyed and time travel is already one of the most challenging themes to convincingly portray. Having four versions of the same person in the same room conversing with each other just pushes the envelope too far.

But there are some positives to "Dark." The acting is good to very good, and the series gets points for set design, cinematography, casting, score and sound design, CGI and effects, production values, and makeup and costume design. That's a lot of good stuff that keeps a viewer intrigued and entertained. I actually quite liked season 2 and the series finale wasn't bad (raising my score from a 5 to a 6). But with a sometimes-terrible script and poor plotting and direction, and a final season that was really just a chore to get through, there are huge gaps between "Dark" and greatness.

I recently watched a 2022 French series about time travel, "The 7 Lives of Lea," that was renewed by Netflix and it was an easy watch and I never felt it was too long or moved too slowly. It's also a fairly complex story with a different twist on the time-travel theme, but it was easy to suspend disbelief and buy into that show. I look forward to a second season of "Lea" but I already regret investing so much time with "Dark."

Some people may fall into a category that fully comprehends "Dark" and they are among the legion of fans giving it 9s and 10s. I can't criticize them and I can see how they fell in love with it. But I'm not one of them and I don't think most people are.

I've always had a tough time taking time-travel movies and series seriously, as science has firmly established that actual time travel is one of the most far-fetched theories around. Time travel is probably impossible, and if it could EVER happen, we'd probably be pretty aware of it by now since a lot of people would be visiting the past already and the entire world would be upended. Can you imagine if someone went back in time and killed Hitler when he was in his 20s and just a nobody? You can bet that if time travel was possible in the future, say in 100 or 200 years, someone would've already gone back and killed Hitler. Multiply that scenario by several million and you can see that time travel is the LAST thing we would ever want to happen.

Even so, since "Back to the Future" some 40 years ago, we've all been enamored with time-travel movies, and "The 7 Lives of Lea" managed to snare me in for the full run.

The series is terrific and an easy watch, and I never felt it was too long or moved too slowly. Raïka Hazanavicius is our protagonist, Léa, and helps get us on her side with an accomplished performance. Khalil Ben Gharbia, as Ismaël, also delivers a compelling character and we're rooting for him to survive all the way. The rest of the cast provides effective support for a fairly complex story that has a different twist on the time-travel theme.

I share some critics' viewpoint that some of the characters -- including some that we're supposed to root for -- weren't exactly nice people and their selfishness made it a little tougher to like them.

And a couple reviewers mentioned the butterfly effect, but they don't have a full grasp of the concept. The butterfly effect, as it applies to time-travel movies, essentially means that a small change in the past can be the cause of much larger consequences. In "The 7 Lives of Lea," the volume of changes initiated by Léa 30 years in the past would have enormous effects that would change hundreds of people's lives, if not thousands. (And killing Hitler in his 20s would've affected hundreds of millions of people.)

It's part of why I have a tough time with time-travel films and series. But like so much of the entertainment we consume, I just suspend disbelief and buy into the show. And with my beliefs judiciously set aside, I found "The 7 Lives of Lea" thoroughly entertaining and look forward to the second season, which is apparently going to happen this year (2024).

I found this to be a fairly compelling series that surely looks like it's headed for a second season. There are essentially three intertwined narratives going on here, the primary one being the kidnapping of a young girl who is held captive for nine years. Another is the continuing proliferation of pedophilia and child pornography, with the third being Miren (the journalist and protagonist), who is investigating and writing about the crime while also dealing with the aftermath of the gang rape she suffered a couple years before the kidnapping.

The acting, directing, cinematography and production values are all quite good and help keep the story moving, even when the script and the plot get bogged down in a few clichés. Miren (played stoically by Milena Smit) is a bit reckless, rude and either brave or stupid, depending on your viewpoint. But as a gang-rape survivor, you can sort of understand her rash behavior because she may not care about her own safety when it comes to saving a young female victim.

The kidnapping is neatly wrapped up in the six episodes, but the repercussions from Miren's gang rape are ongoing and could lead to a second season.

The child pornography may or may not be a recurring plot line as well, though some of it was resolved within the series. I found the show's treatment of pedophilia to be quite realistic (relax, there is no explicit depiction of pornography).

As a jailed pedophile explains the phenomenon of rape and pornography to Miren in one episode: "You're not fighting against people here. You're fighting against reality. I'm in jail. Did rape numbers go down? The amount of child pornography? It wouldn't matter even if you locked us all up. There will always be people doing the same thing. There's no one in charge. It's the system. The reality is it's just how things work. There are no bad guys. That's just the way the world is. And it will destroy you. Regardless of what you do, you've already lost."

Sadly, he's right. Of course it doesn't mean our society should give up fighting against sexual violence and depravity, but there is no way to change human nature. We'll be battling these issues forevermore.

"The Snow Girl" is far from perfect and I agree with the critics who declare that the police (while decently played by the actors) do a terrible job investigating one very obvious lead (the kidnapped girl's mother's clients and patients). Talk about letting nine years go to waste! But poor police work is nothing new to TV shows and here it's critical that Miren discover the roadmap that leads to the kidnapped girl. The mediocre police work isn't too distracting and barely makes a dent in what is a pretty solid series.

It's not as funny as it thinks it is, but there are a few good lines that elicit some laughs. Many of the scenes presented throughout the series are preposterous and absurd, which was clearly their objective regardless of the show being "based on the life" of Clark Olofsson. They got the broad strokes relatively close to Olofsson's life, but the details are rather overblown for comedic effect.

As for the sexcapades, it's fine and I always discount the opinion of anyone who complains about sex scenes. While sex is a significant factor here and integral to Clark's character, it's hardly overwhelming or anything. I find it funny that Clark, who's almost always just three thrusts from being finished, thinks he's the greatest lover in the world.

High marks for it's kinetic energy and fast-moving pace. Bill Skarsgård is very good in the role but the plot does get a bit repetitive, which plenty of other reviewers have stated. The supporting cast is okay, but some of them could've been better...Skarsgård carries the show here and he clearly had a blast acting in this.

Give the first episode a shot. If you like what you see, you'll like the series. If you don't like the first episode, just give up on it because it will be more of the same. I liked it enough to watch it through to the end, which was worth sticking around for.

Not the first time a series has featured unlikable characters (and we still loved the series), but usually there are at least a couple of major characters that are quite redeemable. "Clickbait" has virtually none and I disliked everyone in it.

The story, as it goes, is pretty decent, but I agree with those that opined that the final episode derails the overall impact of the series. Just a weak turn of events that seemed entirely implausible on multiple levels. I'll give it points for decent acting, solid cinematography and production values, and a general sense of mystery about who committed the murder.

I thought the score was very generic and the direction and screenplay were pretty bad. Plot holes and unresolved ancillary plotlines were abundant and detracted from the final result. At no point was I watching "Clickbait" and think, "wow, this is a great show!" It simply isn't. Run of the mill and deeply flawed. There are plenty of better choices out there!

This is a solid action flick that offers an unbeatable woman who takes on a battalion of bad guys to rescue her teenage son, who has lived with his step-parents all his life. Our superhero is Nina Nowak, a former special ops agent played by Agnieszka Grochowska, who gave up her son to protect him from her inherently dangerous lifestyle. Despite her sacrifice, her son Max (played by Adrian Delikta) is kidnapped by the bad guys and used as bait to lure Nina out in the open. Their maneuver works, much to their regret.

The confrontations are swift and violent and Nina's fighting skills are top notch, but she doesn't win every battle...but we know she's going to win the war. I like that Nina actually suffers a variety of bloody injuries during her conflicts, which aren't always realistically portrayed but at least the film gives a nod to combat consequences.

Inevitably and forevermore, "Mother's Day" will be compared to "The Mother," a film starring Jennifer Lopez that was released just months earlier and has a very similar plot. "The Mother" is weak sauce compared to this Polish production and Lopez (who I actually like) doesn't hold a candle to Grochowska when it comes to gritty action heroes. Lopez always looks like a runway model -- an aging one, but still in bloom -- even when she's in the midst of a brawl. Grochowska sustains all the aches and agonies you'd expect from so many battles and skirmishes.

I gave "The Mother" a 4-star review but "Mother's Day," skillfully written and directed by Mateusz Rakowicz, is worthy of its 7 stars. It's one of those movies where you need to completely suspend your disbelief to enjoy, but if you relax and don't pick too many nits, you're bound to have a good time.

I don't usually write reviews for films that already have hundreds of reviews, but "Things Heard & Seen" deserves much better reviews and a higher rating than it has received. I was intrigued by the whole movie from start to finish and didn't find it boring at all. Amanda Seyfried and James Norton were both terrific and Rhea Seehorn demonstrates her exceptional skills in a supporting role. In fact, much of the supporting cast were excellent and the production values, screenplay, direction and cinematography were great.

So why are there so many negative reviews? I have no idea. I rarely chastise people for their own opinions or reviews, but it seems like a lot of them just missed the boat on this one. It might help to read some of the other positive reviews to wrap your head around the film's conclusion. I agree with the interpretations of allegory and that Norton's character George is doomed to damnation for his heinous actions. Norton plays the role brilliantly and it was compelling to see George gradually sink lower and lower as he loses his grip on reality (and even his sanity).

So give it a shot and stay open to what the movie is showing you rather than judging it like a more conventional story. It's worth your time if you appreciate movies that aren't always so literal.

Like Carla Gugino, who I just reviewed in the "The Fall of the House of Usher," I'll watch just about anything Benicio del Toro has been in the last 25 or 30 years. Reptile is a pretty good detective story with a great cast and escalating dramatics that is easy to watch for a couple hours.

I loved seeing Alicia Silverstone and Frances Fisher in their supporting roles...Silverstone is especially effective as Judy, the wife of Tom (del Toro). Special nod to Owen Teague as Rudi Rackozy, a role that could have been easily overacted but Teague played it with just the right amount of poignancy and tension.

Plenty of others have summarized the plot and the film has its detractors...and they have some good points because several key aspects in the story were dropped as if they didn't exist. Those details didn't detract from the impact of the story, and I scarcely noticed them until they were raised by other reviewers ("oh yeah, what about that?").

Bottom line, I found the movie very entertaining and enjoyed watching the gears shift in del Toro's face whenever he was struck by something that came to light. Despite the plotting gaffes, there was scarcely a sour note in the film because of all the strong performances, solid score, spot-on production values and effective direction.

Oh, I'd watch anything with Carla Gugino in it, as they're always terrific movies and shows...or at least very watchable. So I was a sucker for The Fall of the House of Usher (TFHU), and it certainly did not disappoint.

I think the references many have made to the Sackler family -- of OxyContin infamy -- are obvious and unavoidable, but Netflix already produced a documentary about the Sacklers ("Painkiller") and the TFHU serial is certainly a much broader dramatization. The alignment with Edgar Allan Poe's work is much more direct and voluminous, and even for someone who is not a huge fan of Poe's, the references to his work is amusing.

Bottom line, I just took the serial at face value and really enjoyed all eight episodes. Bruce Greenwood and Mary McDonnell are excellent in the leads, but I was a bit disappointed that a couple of my favorite characters, including Tamerlane (Samantha Sloyan), were killed off relatively early.

An impressive story that is well paced and rarely drags, which is saying something for anything that runs more than eight hours. I hardly need to recommend you watch this, as it is one of Netflix's most popular shows and you'll either have an interest in it or not. But I thought it worth my time to chime in with those who are lauding its merits. It's every bit as delightful as its fans are saying.

I get some of the bad reviews here, but for me The Killer was a good film; clean, direct, sobering. It's portrays how I imagine a high-paid hit man would actually think and behave, and Michael Fassbender is excellent in the role. The action sequences, while sparse, were well designed and exciting. The story moved forward at a steady pace and while some of it was quite predictable it was all beautifully executed.

No, it's not a classic. It's not unique. It's not surprising. And for David Fincher, that's a bit of a letdown. But it was still so easy to watch I had a good time. Fassbender's monologue throughout the movie definitely set a specific tone and it stayed focused on that tone until the end.

Tilda Swinton, Arliss Howard and Kerry O'Malley were terrific in supporting roles (the first two were practically cameos, though). If you enjoy movies of this genre, I certainly think you would enjoy this one, too.

I haven't given any movies the full 10 stars and while I've rated a couple hundred movies on IMDb (on my way to a thousand), this came as close to a 10 as I've seen. After watching it, I dug into the career of writer, director and lead actor Shawn Christensen and he's a little bit of a genius and something of a Renaissance man. Small wonder he's acting and directing in podcast video now (and working with some of the best, including Jon Hamm, Rami Malek, Parker Posey and Carey Mulligan).

He is brilliant in his role as Richie, the down and nearly-completely-out, drug- and alcohol-riddled loser, who is saved from his own suicide by a phone call from his sister, Maggie (Emmy Rossum, also one of my faves). Maggie needs -- REALLY needs -- her estranged brother to pick up her daughter from school and watch her until she can get out of jail and come home. And Maggie, a razor sharp and successful business woman, is simply not the type who easily lands in jail.

Two great roles there, but the break-out star of the movie is really Sophia, Maggie's eleven-year-old daughter, played by Fátima Ptacek. Sophia doesn't really take to Richie, but over the course of the day and night she grows to appreciate and care for him. There are side stories and adventures galore, the primary one being the running theme of Richie's girlfriend, Vista, who has disappeared from Richie's life.

The film is exceptionally well directed and for a low-budget movie it looks terrific. The plot is pretty solid and except for a side story that I wish had been completed (what was the outcome for Gideon and Bill?), it wraps things up in a full circle. Outstanding movie that I'm sure to remember and will watch again when the mood strikes.

I was enjoying the movie up until the last 10 minutes or so. Was it absurd that the protagonist rich dude, Chris, would allow the villain Sky -- a complete stranger who's living in a motel -- into his multi-million-dollar mansion within an hour meeting her? Absolutely. But even rich people are stupid and the movie has to make that happen to advance the plot.

But outside of that, the premise was promising, the action was solid and the tension actually was building up pretty decently. I've always liked Cameron Monaghan and was a fan of "Shameless" (for the first few years until it started driving me crazy). I thought Lily Krug did a good job as Sky and I don't get all the ragging from other reviewers about her acting. She was fine and of course she is beautiful.

But then the film violated my no. 1 rule about thrillers and horror movies: When the protagonist gets the upper hand on the killer by partially (or totally) incapacitating them and has a clear opportunity to kill them, but instead runs away for any reason, the movie loses me. Not only did that happen here, but the protagonist left the killer with a gun, which was later used by the killer. This moronic choice cost the protagonist, his wife, and his child serious injury and/or lifelong trauma.

So I had to dock the movie two or three stars for this idiotic plotting near the end. It was never going to be original or brilliant enough to be a great movie, but it wasn't THAT bad. But thanks to breaking the cardinal rule, I'll never watch this stupid film again.

This was yet another European film that tread where no US-made film dares to go. It does remind me a bit of HBO's "Euphoria," but there are many scenes and situations here that simply wouldn't get made stateside, and I don't expect that will ever change...at least in my lifetime.

Playing the lead characters, Flora Li Thiemann and Emily Kusche demonstrate promising acting skills that will surely mature over the coming years. Is the movie a bit melodramatic? Sure, maybe it bites off a bit more than it can chew, but at least things HAPPEN in this movie. So many films (both inside and outside the US) just tread water and barely anything evolves, yet we're expected to be moved by an ending that features someone standing alone in a field at night for three minutes.

I found Tiger Milk very entertaining and while at times I really disagreed with some character choices and actions, I knew they had me hooked when I became emotional during the final scenes. If a movie can elicit the welling of tears from a veteran movie buff like myself, it's doing something right.

I've rarely had less sympathy for a protagonist than I did for Nina, whose self-centered narcissism was quite annoying. But importantly, my sympathy (and empathy) began to improve about 3/4 through the movie, beginning with her sad reaction to the bullfight. Since others might find her more sympathetic from the beginning, maybe they'll find her more engaging.

Like others, I did feel like this was a coming-of-age story, which gave me even greater hope for Nina's future. But even after she became more likable she was making immature decisions and taking selfish actions that derailed my feelings for her.

But at least she wasn't Morad, her love interest, who I found thoroughly detestable for the entire film. Talk about self-centered! Morad is someone who will be stuck in the same town doing virtually nothing with his life until he finally keels over. At least Nina has a shot at making something of her life. You can see the glimmer of hope glowing inside her in the final scenes.

Performances, direction and cinematography were all pretty good, which made the film quite watchable. The last third of the film elevated my score, but the entirety of the plot and emptiness of the characters were just not endearing for me.

That line from our lead protagonist, Camille (Lola Créton), comes about 2/3 into the movie, and describes her unshakeable love for the very mundane -- but handsome -- Sullivan (Sebastian Urzendowsky). It sums up her feelings quite well and is, at least in part, attributable to Sullivan being the first love of her life, as well as the heartbreak she suffered when their relationship ended.

The film covers phases of Camille's life across eight years, from age 15 to age 23. In the first year, Sullivan drops out of college and abandons her to go off on adventure to South America, breaking Camille's heart. He is gone from her life for eight years. For several years, Camille is celibate, until she meets and falls in love with the thirty-something Lorenz (Magne Håvard Brekke), a professor and architect. Frankly, I was rooting for Lorenz, a smart, talented and successful professional, after he fell hard for Camille, but writer Roselyne Bellec and director Mia Hansen-Love take a different path.

Sullivan's return to 23-year-old Camille upends her life with Lorenz, and she is quite brazen in her cheating, inviting Sullivan to the home she shares with Lorenz to make love. Sullivan falls head-over-heels for Camille again, and despite the cruelty he showed her eight years prior, she's right back with him. "I have you inside me like a disease," she says, and that joins the quote in my review title to encapsulate this story perfectly.

Performances across the board in Goodbye First Love are excellent and the movie is exquisitely shot and seamlessly scored. It's a small story, not a deeply meaningful epic, but it's very enjoyable despite the choices Camille makes that drive me batty. But that's first love, for you. It is either a joy that becomes a sentimental memory or a plague that you never get over.

This is another one of those films where I strongly dislike the lead male character (in this case, Ben), and have deep sympathy -- or even affection -- for the female characters, especially Audrey (Ben's wife). Presumably this is exactly what the film's writers and producers intended, and it worked!

The tragedy for Ben, who is a talented, intelligent, middle-aged man, is his unrelenting fascination with Chekhov's "Lady with the Little Dog," a short story of adultery that deeply influences his life. The choices he makes as Gurov and Anna unfolds are, rather obviously, the worst possible choices he could make for his long-term happiness. They feed his implicit nature for secretiveness and inevitably increase his destiny of isolation. And you end up hating him for it. Especially for how his choices affect Audrey and their two daughters.

Of course, he couldn't have made many of these choices without the complicity of his student, Mercedes, an utterly charming young woman who fits into Ben's fantasy oh-so-perfectly. Unfortunately for Ben, Mercedes is very young, just a college student still finding her way in life. For her, this fling with her professor is temporarily exciting and sophisticated, but it dawns on her -- as well as us -- that it's merely a transitory phase that will be a small fraction of her life story. But for Ben, their affair has become a life-consuming obsession...just like with "Lady and the Little Dog."

The performances from the small cast are uniformly excellent and the direction and cinematography are spot on. This is a terrific film where we can enjoy the churning plot and gripping performances while detesting the man who's stirring the recipe.

This movie was pretty bad. It's about Sara and Andrea, two girls who meet in high school. They strike up a friendship and then it turns romantic. Not sure how, since their first kiss has no build up and we have no idea who initiated the kiss...they're just suddenly shown kissing in Sara's bedroom.

After a short time, they break up when Sara declares she fears they will be outed as lesbians if they keep seeing each other, so Andrea gets mad and says okay, f__k you, let's never see each other again. The entire break up happens with nothing but a voiceover and ZERO on-camera action or reaction.

Shortly after that, they get back together with no explanation of why they do, or resolution about Sara's fear of being outed. Then they go to a gay bar together. Not sure how two high-school girls in the closet found out about a gay bar in El Ecuador, but they do.

After that fun night, Sara says there are "pictures everywhere on the internet" of them together. How? Why? Who takes pictures of two nobodies in a crowded gay club and posts them on the internet? We never find out and you'll never see a camera anywhere in this movie. Are there any school consequences or outcasting after this calamity? I have no idea and you won't either if you watch the movie.

I won't spoil the ending, but it is about as lame, pointless and poorly presented as the rest of the plot. I wish I had found a hidden gem in this movie, but I only found endless banality and stupidity. Decent camera work, though. And Andrea's pretty cute.

There is scarcely a wasted moment in this beautifully acted, directed and edited film about two teenage girls (Charlie and Sarah) going through bouts of jealousy, obsession and seething cruelty. Within 15 minutes we've bought into their budding friendship and for 10 minutes we luxuriate in it. The opening half hour is exquisite, with snippets of brilliant writing and the entire cast delivering it with an air of nonchalance.

The first fracture in their friendship is subtle but distinct, when Charlie (Joséphine Japy) introduces Sarah (Lou de Laâge) to an old acquaintance as her "classmate" instead of as her "friend." It's not all downhill from there, but it's a bumpy ride, with a playful -- but hurtful -- slap, a slight disconnect at breakfast the next day, and then Sarah abandoning Charlie to take a plane ride with an old acquaintance of Charlie's.

While some other reviewers seem to blame Sarah for most of what went wrong with the friendship, I hold Charlie responsible for a great deal of it, especially when she secretly followed Sarah home and spied on her having an awful episode with her drunk mother. The next day, Charlie was quick to tell Sarah what she'd learned about her as if that invasion of Sarah's privacy meant nothing. Charlie didn't even expressly admit to snooping on Sarah and just acted like "it's no big deal, I found out more about your private life by spying on you." I don't blame Sarah one bit for being pissed about it.

After that, the friendship is broken and Sarah turns up the animosity and cruelty towards Charlie. Charlie just blows off all of her friends because she's become obsessed with Sarah. I won't spoil anything that happens in the latter half of the movie, but it becomes increasingly tense and fraught with emotional pressure.

Great job by Mélanie Laurent, barely 30 years old when she co-wrote this screenplay with Julien Lambroschini and directed her second feature film. Outstanding job by everyone involved with this scintillating and impressive movie.

Playback is about a sad, warped father/daughter relationship portrayed after the police find her nude corpse in bed, having died suddenly and far too early in life. Much of the story is told in flashbacks, as well as videotapes that the daughter, Stephanie (Tiffany Bowyer), recorded of her sexual escapades. The father, Steven (Rob Terrell), is a detective who is called in to investigate her death before it's even known that she is his daughter. He then insists on investigating it on his own without his cop partner. After a while, we understand the reasoning behind his insistence, and it's not just because he's a heartbroken father.

Playback is rather frustrating to watch, since a fair chunk of the movie is out of focus (including the entire opening scene) and there is plenty of herky-jerky camera-work. But it's a unique film that presents a family dynamic that isn't often shown in films from this sub-genre. A dynamic that is probably far too common and very rarely given exposure.

You're likely to begin developing a rage towards Steven as his actions during the investigation indicate a heinous outcome, but there is a twist yet to come. It won't make you feel much better about Steven, but at least you know he gave himself a good look in the mirror.

I gave this an extra star for having the balls to do what it did, but it could have been so much more if the premise was developed, written, and directed with more clarity. The acting performances are fine for what they were given and directed to do, though the only one who really enjoyed a long career in film is James Duvall (one of the four main characters).

James Avallone wrote, produced and directed (I was one of the few who loved "Mad Cowgirl," where he was cinematographer). Playback is well worth a watch if you can overlook the sometimes-terrible...or at least ill-advised...direction. If you're ready to abandon the movie after 20 or 30 minutes, I don't blame you, but first skip ahead to one hour into the film, where you'll find it begins to spill its beans.

Based on the true story of the "murder of Joanne Witt" (look that phrase up and you can read all about it), this film was reasonably performed but had enough flaws in the characters' behavior, the acting, and the script to deflate it to just average.

The mother, Joanne -- blandly played by Kelly Sullivan -- was no saint by any stretch. She beat her daughter up when she was five years old (in the movie they changed it to 10), losing her for six months to foster care, and they had a contentious relationship their entire lives. In real life Joanne was emotionally unbalanced, had a violent streak, and was a controlling, awful mother, and that was only halfway portrayed in the movie.

The daughter, Tylar, inherited her mother's personality, except it was all twice as severe for her...and maybe more than that. Leigha Sinnott was decent in the role but couldn't raise that sense of simmering fury and twisted passion that Tylar's character required. In real life she was 14 when this happened, and Leigha seems every bit of 17 here...which only makes you wonder why she did what she did because in a year she would've been free of her mother anyway. The filmmakers should've kept her 14 and it all would've been more plausible (and more frightening).

Tylar's boyfriend, Boston, was deceptively crazy and harbored a violent nature that was actually a little hard to believe as the character was portrayed. Played by Zacharay Roozen, he wasn't terrible, but he was the weakest of the three leading characters, considering the frenzied savagery he eventually unleashed. But the weakest link in the movie was the neighbor Val, played by Alicia Ziegler, who was just a painful stereotype and a terribly self-righteous friend of Joanne.

There were a couple of fairly demented scenes (including a wild sex-and-blood scene that was all too brief) towards the end that elevated the movie, but it still basically fell flat because it didn't capture the demented perversion of the characters and seething hatred between mother and daughter. Still, it's worth a single watch, mostly because it's based on a true story and doesn't veer wildly off base.

Tylar Witt was paroled in August, 2022 at the age of 28 and is a free woman today. Boston got life without parole...and he deserved it.

The two protagonists, Petr and Hana, fail to communicate honestly with each other at critical moments during their experiment with an open relationship. Hana doesn't let Petr know she broke the rules by seeing someone else more than once (because he was really good at sex), and Petr never disclosed his true feelings about his girlfriend having sex with other people until it was far too late.

But the most egregious liar was Petr, by far, because he felt that way from the beginning and hid it from Hana. If only he'd been honest with her every step of the way, they never would've gotten so far down that rabbit hole. He was also quite selfish, indulging in the open relationship when he saw fit without a guilt in the world, but judging Hana for doing the same. She didn't tell him the truth one time, but she was otherwise amazingly open and honest about her escapades whenever they talked afterwards.

The movie has a small cast, but they were all very good in their roles and the critical roles of the two protagonists, who dominate the film, were very well played. It's a slow-moving film and some things didn't work for me, like the endless close-up cell-phone filming between Petr and Hana (a little bit of that would've sufficed), and the too-heavy, too-slow focus on Petr towards the end of the movie. But overall, an effective movie...I can't quite say enjoyable or entertaining because it's a downer of a film despite a fair amount of eroticism.

Lately we've seen a slew of anthology movies released into the market (there were about a dozen such films in the first 40 years since they debuted in 1916, but more than 40 in the last 40 years). Horror is one of the favorite topics of anthology films, and Twisted Fiction is a cut above the usual junk we might anticipate from a low-budget movie.

There are three tales of terror in this flick, the first being about a man parading as a stage-show hypnotist who's spell-casting turns out to be much worse than hypnosis. The second involves a young woman who goes WAY too far with her sexual escapade in a motel (and pays the price). The third features a movie producer who gets his just desserts for his criminal sexual behavior with aspiring actresses.

I'm sure everyone will be able to pick out their favorite of these three, as well as the weakest of the trio, but there's really not a clunker to be found here. I think the winner is the finale of the set, which is the most modern of the stories and provides a fraction of the revenge that women in Hollywood have earned after decades of Weinstein-like atrocities.

The acting, direction and production design are all pretty solid, while the special effects are hit-and-miss. But it's likely you'll find entertainment in at least one of these three stories, and with online movie-watching powers, you'll find your time (and mouse-button finger) well spent with Twisted Fiction.

I get it, there's plenty of people who couldn't get into this movie. They're not my kind of people. And they're not Rob Zombie's kind of people either, so he still sleeps well at night.

For the rest of us (and there are plenty), this is the kind of film that reverberates well after the credits roll. Sheri Moon, Bruce Davison, Jeff Daniel Phillips, and Meg Foster shine in their roles...and Sheri Moon is the only one of those that really needs defending. The critics have been harsh on her over the years, but in this role she delivers her best career performance.

Sure, like any movie, there are flaws. When I said "perfectly evolving" in my review title, that may have been a bit of hyperbole. You could cut 8 or 10 minutes from the film and not have lost anything, but the build-up remains very effective and Sheri Moon's Heidi descends into her tragic destiny compellingly.

It's a very distinct, slow-burning Rob Zombie film. He hasn't made one quite like it before or since, but he swung for the fences here and hit a home run.

This was a terrific movie that kept me interested for the entire running time, which for me is a feat because I watch a lot of movies in 20-25 minute clips before taking a break and then coming back for another 20 minutes. Here I was engrossed with the story and emotionally invested with the main characters the entire time.

I'm not religious at all and have a lot of issues with organized churches, but the religious theme of this movie didn't bother me at all because it wasn't overtly preaching. I'm not a huge fan of Shyamalan but I've enjoyed some of his movies and others were pretty average. Yet I thought this was a great film and the ending was heart-wrenching.

But I almost skipped it because of all the bad reviews here! I get it, some people will never like Shyamalan and some think he'll never recapture his old glory. And I'm sure there are latent homophobes who don't think they're anti-gay but they sure weren't comfortable with the two dads as the two protagonists. And some critics don't fit into either category and they just didn't enjoy the movie! And that's fine, I can never dismiss anyone's opinion...unless I learn more about the crazy reasons they have that opinion.

But for me, this is a very entertaining movie that a "normal film fan" will love and might even move them to tears. I'm certainly among them and my respect for Shyamalan has grown enough to almost label myself a "huge fan."