johannes2000-1

Someone must have thought it a brilliantly original horror-concept: an evil-infested deadly classical concerto. Seriously?? Yes, seriously! As anyone could have guessed beforehand, the idea totally fell flat. To begin with: classical music and horror-movies do not mix well together, each having very different aficionados. To make the pivotal demonic tune sound like an almost angelically innocent ditty didn't really help to evoke the intended creepy apprehension. And after hearing that same little tune for the 67'th time you just want to smother your soundbar!

Most disappointing of all was the bad writing: what a silly, uninspired and chaotic story this is! Apart from Julian Sands, who gave his usual professional performance (this by the way being one of his last pictures), the rest of the small cast didn't really seemed to believe in the project themselves, everyone acts so lackluster and contrived. The final scene presents the usual cliché (the evil hasn't ended...) and thus fits the rest perfectly. In short: a failed, unscary and not even slightly entertaining attempt at making an original (wannabe) horror flick.

I read Patricia Highsmith's novel several times, and thought the 1999 movie with Matt Damon spot-on. But I really think that this new one has surpassed it. Of course, with eight one-hour long episodes, it has the advantage of extensively taking the time to picture all the details of Highsmith's perfectly crafted plot: details that emphasize not so much the crimes itselves, but especially all the hard work and toil of Tom to get away with it. It results in a very slow-paced, but extremely intriguing and involving film.

Andrew Scott is a bit older than I expected of Tom Ripley, but he was absolutely perfect as the unobtrusive guy-next-door, with his vague smiles and sparse dialogue, the one person of whom no-one would expect anything bad. Dakota Fanning also did a great job as the suspicious Marge, who cautious but stubbornly (and in vain) kept looking for cracks in Tom's composure. And I loved Maurizio Lombardi as the imperturbable Italian inspector Ravini.

But what stands out even more is the stunning cinematography: it's simply amazing how director Steven Zaillian and photographer Robert Elswit created such a wonderful atmosphere, filming it in black and white. The latter could impress as a whimsical mannerism of the makers, but here it's totally functional and in place, I guess it worked even better than full colour. There are so many stunning images (the close-ups of classic statues, the narrow cobbly Italian streets, the Via Appia by night, the raging waves during the ferry-trip to Palermo), that thanks to the black and white got an extra meaning, full of heavy forebodings. And kudos to the art-direction too, for so flawlessly evoking the 1950's!

In short: an amazing production, close to perfection!

Yet another exorcism horror-movie (for some reason they keep being popular), and (yet again) "inspired by true events", this time apparently a trustworthy claim, in view of the closing texts that tell us what happened afterwards to the main characters. It's basically a familiar exorcism story: a woman (Lara) who behaves strangely, is considered by her rigidly religious husband Ron and his zealot Christian congregation as being possessed by the devil; an exorcist is called-in to free her; and then we witness a tumultuous and ill-fated exorcism.

What lifts all this above the level of worn-out clichés, is the dark, very harsh and cynical atmosphere, and the excellent acting by Georgia Eyers as the afflicted victim, Dan Ewing as the deeply caring, exasperated husband, and Tim Pocock as the relentlessly fanatical exorcist.

Different from the usual exorcism flicks, the story strongly suggests that the erratic behavior of Lara has not so much to do with supernatural or demonic influences, but is caused by a post-traumatic psychosis, due to some years earlier witnessing how her first husband and little baby burned before her eyes in a car-crash. Knowing this, it makes the attitude of exorcist Daniel even more appalling and cynical: although he directly causes Lara's death by his almost sickening aggressive actions, he keeps pretending that she will rise again after three days ("you have to be dead, before you can resurrect!"), and when that of course doesn't happen, shouts out to everyone (including the grieve-stricken husband) that she probably didn't want to come back to this degraded mortal existence. Quintessential cognitive dissonance, I would say. Or plain self-deluding arrogance.

So don't expect the usual supernatural-oriented exorcism movie, but something far more intense and dark. Not a pleasant watch, but absolutely worthwhile!

Usually I like Marco Berger's films, albeit mostly the ones where there are just a few characters, and the story is about the subtle, sensual tension between two guys (like "Hawaii" or "The Blond One"); these films are often extremely slow-paced, with sparse dialogue and an almost dreamy atmosphere. In this "Horseplay" however the atmosphere is everything but dreamy. We see a large group of loud, basically heterosexual guys, gathered in a sun drenched villa (in Argentina, I guess) for the holidays, doing nothing but yelling and boozing and bickering and fooling around, the latter for some reason constantly in the vein of imitating gay situations (riding each others back, touching and fondling, walking around naked) and then roaring with laughter about it. Hence probably the English title "Horseplay".

The original Spanish title "Agitadores" means by the way something slightly different: "agitators" or "troublemakers", so apparently Berger intended not so much to picture careless playfulness, but a deliberate stirring of the emotions. Such an intention could easily have resulted in an interesting movie, maybe if there had been fewer characters and longer, more serious dialogues and interchanges. But now the whole movie is made up by very short bits of conversations, with only vague hints of an interesting topic, and all ending as blank as they are started and leading nowhere. Sure, there are some innuendo's of greater issues: homophobia, machismo, promiscuity, fear of coming out as gay, but they never come to anything conclusive and keep dangling in mid-air, overblown by all the juvenile pranks and tiresome fooling around. There's, as usual in a Berger movie, lots of naked male skin to enjoy (if you're into that, and I humbly confess I am), but that doesn't help making it a good movie. In fact it impressed me at many times as redundant and just added to titillate or provoke the viewers.

So summing up all the above: a disappointing experiece.

It more or less impressed me as a horror-"lite": reasonably amusing, with some well-done killings (albeit a bit repetitive), but for the rest no serious gore, hardly any scares, and a pretty simple story in which two teen girls were the main characters. Somehow the word "sympathetic" kept popping up in my head, probably not the best praise for a supposedly horrifying demonic horror flick.

The four members of the murderous gang behaved almost caricatural, like a bunch of bickering dumbos. And when, through a modest but somewhat forced plot-twist, we found out in which body the demon resided, they never granted us the pleasure of seeing it transformed to its true terrifying self (probably due to an insufficient VFX -budget). Its demonic powers seemed hardly impressive anyway, restricted to slamming doors from afar and mind-controlling the already most insipid gang-member; killing someone didn't seem to be in it's job-description, and its levitation-power had an almost endearing Mary Poppins-like vibe to it. Anyway, the acting of the cast wasn't that bad, and as said, it was all reasonably amusing, just don't expect anything more.

I always like revenge thrillers, especially the more brutal ones, chockfull of adrenaline-fueled action by a sympathetic, wronged and relentless hero. Well, as far as the action goed, they certainly delivered, although it took almost 50 minutes to come to that point, after a rather tame, on the brink of tedious ouverture.

But they went totally in overdrive after that: the way Brian (Joel Kinnaman) singlehandedly shoots dozens of heavy armed thugs from out of the window of his racing car, or on a long stairwell going up, amidst showers of bullets, was a tiny bit unrealistic, to put it mildly. As were the actions of the police detective (actor Kid Cudi) who followed him, all alone, without any back-up, although he knew that he would get in the middle of a heavy gang-fight. It was hard to sympathize with main character Brian anyway, the grieve over his dead son was of course relatable, but the way he treated his equally grieving wife was appalling. So my advice: wind on to 50 minutes in the movie, and then enjoy the subsequent violent ride without thinking too much.

As a supernatural mystery-show it totally works: the atmosphere in this isolated dilapidated village is claustrophobic and creepy, there are some very scary things going on, and the weirdness is growing with every new episode. As in any ensemble series there are multiple characters and story-lines, but they are all connected by the knowledge of everyone being trapped, besieged by rapacious nightly monsters, and mind-controlled by incomprehensible influences.

Maybe it's all a bit (too) much, and after two seasons in which the weirdness just piles up episode after episode, the series badly needs at least some hints at reasons or causes. And if possible a bit less domestic family-affairs, that apparently have to fill up the time between the scares; there's a lot of unnecessary talking anyway, which makes the pace drag now and then. But the acting of all of the cast is fine, and you're bound to get more and more intrigued, hoping for the long awaited answers, so I sure am game for season 3.

I watched this 1971 gay cult film for the first time (a 100 years ago!), when I was still hovering in the closet as a gay newbie, and I remember being totally enchanted by the dreamy, highly sensuous atmosphere, as well as enamored with the angelic lead (Bobby Kendall). Watching it recently again, it's as well a melancholy trip down memory lane, as a bit of a disappointment, because in the cold, critical light of 2024 the flaws are painfully visible.

On the good side: it has, in spite of the provoking sexual content, an unmistakable sympathetic feeling, thanks to the careful art-direction of maker James Bidgood. Knowing that he himself created, in his tiny apartment, all the settings and costumes and all the visual effects, it's absolutely amazing! Even now some of these settings, with artificial trees and flowers and moonlit skies, are still astonishing.

On the downside: what immediately annoys is the extremely slow pace and the endless repetitiveness of the images. This aimlessly meandering of the camera over card-board sceneries and close-ups of beautiful faces and naked skin, may be intended to create a dreamlike atmosphere, but for a movie that lacks every hint of a narrative to begin with, this at times gets almost soporific. The few actors are all extremely handsome, but the way they move is so extremely choreographed, that it looses every sense of reality. It's clearly aimed at maximizing the erotic effect - and it does, no doubt about that! - but it all adds to the feeling that you're not watching a movie, but you're drenched in an erotic work of art.

So to resume: for a serious movie it lacks story, coherence and urgency, but as a piece of singlehandedly made and sensuous art it's still a worthwhile and amazing tour the force.

The story of king James I and his male favorites is probably not a familiar one for most people (including me), so this mini series is as well informative, as original. But there's more to enjoy: it has a good pace, some surprisingly steamy and daring (same-) sex scenes, the settings and costumes are beautiful, and the acting of almost all of the cast is great, especially that of Julianne Moore. I'm not always a Moore fan, at times she can be so dominant in a production that it turns into a Julianne Moore show (like in the 2021 miniseries "Lisey's Story"), but here she's absolutely excellent as the authoritative, scheming mother who'll do anything to promote her son's (and her own) position.

I was slightly disappointed with the part of Nicholas Galitzine, he acted (or was made to act) as an insecure upstart through all of the seven episodes. That was maybe realistic in his first encounters with the king and the court, but surely, after several years as Duke of Buckingham, residing in the highest ranks of the kingdom, he would have gained some self-composure and authority; his continuous awkwardness just didn't feel realistic.

As always in history-based movies, there's some juggling with the historical facts, and the way king James comes to his end in the last episode is definitely fictional, but it fits the story fine. It was a pity however, that after that the story rushed in hardly 10 minutes to a totally abrupt ending, with a sudden leap in time of some 3 years, and without any information of how we got to that point (like for instance how the relation between George and the new king Charles developed). It felt a bit as if the writers had gotten weary, or the budget ran dry.

But for the rest: absolutely worthwhile!

While watching this movie I kept checking the year of production, but it's really 2020! The story takes place in the 80's, with all the appropriate retro settings and styling (why that is, is by the way a mystery to me, the story would have been exactly the same when it would have been situated in the present!), but even cinematographically this movie looks like 40 years old: the colors, the grainy images, and especially the snail's pace! Maybe the makers aimed for a true homage to 80's horror flicks, or for an ultimate feeling of authenticity, but if so, it definitely went at the cost of the enjoyment of a nowadays audience.

Add to this the fact that the story itself wasn't really that exciting, at least for an intended horror flick. It actually took 45 minutes of endless talking before the first remotely serious action kicked in (that's when the first kid went to the phone), and after that the goings-on were hardly horrific or even suspenseful: we saw some reminiscences of past traumas and sins come to life, some well done creepy make-up, and one CGI-crafted scary monster, but that was about it. The conclusion fitted the rest: no climax, just the screen that went black: the end...!

The acting of the kids seemed somewhat subdued, as if that had to resemble the amateurish acting of 80's kid actors in a B-movie. Only trustworthy Lin Shaye and Tobin Bell really stood out as the sinister and vindictive old couple. And Chester Rushing was cute as a puppy. But that's not enough to make for a good movie. I would say: sympathetic, but failed attempt to revive an 80's horror flick feeling.

Although a swimming pool as a source of evil suggested at least a reasonably original horror movie, it turned out as generic as any other: a nice family that moves in a new home with a seemingly attractive pool, where in fact some dreadful things have occurred in the past; then they experience some weird and unaccountable happenings, and see apparitions of in the pool hovering ghosts; and a vague ancient story to (remotely) make the supernatural powers of the pool understandable - it's all there, and not really different than in comparable horror flicks.

The acting of the main cast was fine enough, and the goings-on in and around the pool, with all the well done under water scenes, did make for some suspenseful moments, but eventually it all turned out as a bit disappointing and tame: no killings, no gore, just a constant building up of the tension that hardly led to anything, until the very end. That end by the way even became a bit laughable: are we to understand that a whole body evaporated or dissolved in the pool, or was sucked-in in the pool's drain?!? Anyway, with some more inventive writing and some bigger budget for VFX they probably could have done way better with the in itself promising premise.

"School of the damned" is a pretty promising title for an intended horror movie, but they didn't in any way live up to it. It fails on the most basic aspects: the story is shaky and goes all over the place, the atmosphere isn't a bit scary, and the acting is below par. With the exception of attractive and sympathetic James Groom, who plays main character Tony, the new teacher who unknowingly enters this weird school, he's the only talented actor in the cast and does his best, but cannot help drowning in the silliness and amateurism that surrounds him. The children that are the sources of all evil are supposed to look extremely menacing and sinister, but cramping your face as if you're constipated doesn't really do the trick. The only thing I liked was the way all the scholars immediately, as a drilled army platoon, responded on the tapping of the staff of the headmaster, that was a nice find. But for the rest: disappointing and totally superfluous.

It starts as one of those familiar thrillers in which a seemingly romantic date turns into hell when the guy starts stalking and harassing the girl. Up to halfway in the movie I kind of liked it: the pace was high, the predator guy Ethan (Pilot Asbaek) was an impressive menacing creep, there was some serious violence, the deadly fear of runaway Cherie (Ella Balinska) was completely relatable, and you kept hoping for her to somehow outsmart him. But then suddenly there was this unexpected twist: Ethan shows her who he really is: a zillion years old ancient demon, apparently with a weird sexual grudge. So we tumble from a pretty decent thriller into a supernatural horror movie, with a ridiculous and farfetched premise. It gets even worse when Cherie by sheer luck stumbles over an equally ancient female angel who, with her flock of assistants (all female: hurray for women power!), is for ages trying to eliminate demon Ethan. With Cherie as reluctant but brave bait they go at it, and guess what: they succeed! The end.

The acting of Asbaek and Balinska was pretty decent. My main problem however was, that the whole supernatural demon premise was based on hearsay, we never ever get anything to see of it: the horrifying date where Cherie gets molested takes place literally behind a closed door, and the transformation to demon with which Ethan proves his true self is also outside the camera, we only see Cherie's look of horror. Was this a budget thing?? So what remained is an attack-, run- and chase movie of which we have to assume that it's all supernatural because of the context. For a supposed horror movie that's pretty lame. Just as lame by the way as the repeatedly showing of the word "RUN" in big brazen letters in the middle of the screen, as if we weren't in a serious thriller but in some comic book movie. A curious and totally redundant whim of the art director, I guess.

It's not the best action-thriller ever, but it's definitely entertaining. The action kicks in pretty early in the movie, and with a pleasantly high pace it goes on till the (rather redundant) epilogue. Since there's a whole bunch of girls under attack, we get a serious amount of casualties, and the various killings are well done, mostly with the appropriate jump-scares. Maggie Q as the taciturn Iraq veteran Tess turns out as a relentless adversary to the thugs, who by the way are, for the most, irrelevant nincompoops, obedient to their more menacing ringmaster. While the last remaining girls turn into ferocious avengers, Tess has a final, short but rewarding showdown with the head-villain. A perfect conclusion, one would say, but then they came up with an epilogue (even announced as such with a textcard!), that didn't add anything to the story and thus provided a bit of an anticlimax. But for the rest: not bad at all!

It's a clearly low-budgeted little indie horror flick, but they really got the most out of the moderate means. The premise is not that original (a group of not so bright youngsters who want to make it in the world of internet vlogs go on a ghost-hunting trip), it's a bit like Ghostbusters with a camera, or a Scooby-Doo episode without Scooby-Doo. But they still made a pretty decent story of it, with a serious sinister undertone and a creepy atmosphere. The few VFX were convincing enough, it has a good pace, and the acting was fine (although the annoying August character went way over the top!). Just a pity that the actor they used for the killer didn't look in any way as menacing and horrifying as was intended, in spite of covering his face with blood smears; the sunglasses and cigarets made him look almost cute, like some defiant teen.

If anything, the writing was a bit unbalanced. The dead, but still haunting serial killer didn't get any serious background or motives for his acts. The unfortunately killed Hutch seemed to be forgotten by everyone, including the writers, as was the sister of Baby Blue who apparently still hovers in that house (or I missed some clue). Her sudden change of sides from obedient daughter to the savior of the victims came totally out of the blue. And the very last scene in the car impressed as an afterthought of the writers: hey, let's throw in something that we could use for a sequel! But there were some pretty strong scenes too: the blinded guy in the basement looked great, and the whole sequence with the deranged mother from hell and her milk-obsession was absolutely top notch!

Well, the premise certainly is original, there's a seriously creepy atmosphere, the colossal ancient building and the cellar give an almost gothic feel, and Freya Allan and Jeremy Irvine both do a fine job. And the CGI of the bag-person (witch or demon or whatever) in her various horrifying appearances is very well done. But I had also some reservations. The sound-bursts to accompany the intended jump scares were almost deafening, I left the cinema with my ears popping. And at times the logic behind the use of the bag-headed lady eluded me, like the two-minute rule that constantly got violated without immediate consequences, or the strict rule never to enter the hole in the brick wall, but Iris did so unharmed. Or why couldn't she simply sell the house so that the curse would fall on a new owner, surely real estate investors would have jumped on the occasion!

Resuming: not bad at all, but with some flaws.

Who did they think to please with this?!? It's 97 minutes of nothingness, of which 80 minutes are wasted on seeing a bunch of unattractive people (supposedly professional dancers) jump like crazy up and down in some dilapidated school hall, on a nauseating, full blast electronic sound drone. Apparently someone spiced their sangria with LSD (seriously!) so this results in an increasingly orgastic frenzy of ecstasy and violence. Well, that's at least what the synopsis suggested, labeling it pretentiously as a shocking intense experience. If so, I totally missed it, probably because of yawning too much. It's endlessly the same tedious yelling and grabbing and jumping and sexing. In between we hear (as far as the over-loud music allows) various people exchange various incoherent titbits of gossip, flirtations and insults, and then we see them going at each others throats. But some kind of narrative is nowhere to be found. There's even a cute little kid dragged into all this, who in the wake of the drug-infused insanity is misplaced and locked in a closet. I wonder what child welfare would have thought of that. So to sum it up: a ludicrous pretentious bore. Avoid!!

Some years ago I read Philippe Besson's book, and thought it a bit too sentimental, on the brink of larmoyant. But this movie-adaptation is excellent, it doesn't thrive on emotional effects, but tells the story in a very sensitive, almost restrained way, making it all the more poignant. It's intelligently done, the present alternating with flashbacks, and the harsh truth very gradually, with every new scene, dawning on main character Stephane.

The nostalgic atmosphere is wonderful, the 80's setting in the flash backs are convincingly done, and both young actors Jérémy Gillet and Julien de Saint Jean do a fine job. But the stars of this movie are Guillaume de Tonquédec as the middle-aged writer Stephane, who comes back to his hometown to evoke the memories of his first great love, that back then so mysteriously dead-ended; and Victor Belmondo as Lucas, who lives with a distorted memory of his father and now finally gets to see him in a very different light. Both actors are totally convincing, and the way they play the pivotal scene, in which Stephane holds a long impromptu speech for a posh gathering, but in fact for the sake of Lucas and the memory of his dead father, is deeply moving.

The point that is made here is comparable with that in Brokeback Mountain: how the shame and fear of showing your true (gay) self to the world can poison and waste a whole life. It's so true, and unfortunately still as relevant as ever.

The synopsis made me expect some sort of sexy, gay-themed body-horror flick, but it turned out different, and certainly better than I expected. I wouldn't call it horror, it's more a thriller, and when you can get passed the rather unsavory premise of watching a guy, who swallowed drug-packages, to reproduce them again under force and with manual (rectal!) help, then you'll have a pretty nerve-racking time. After a slightly unbalanced beginning the tension is effectively being built up, with an increasingly oppressing and unsettling atmosphere, resulting in an almost hard to watch, very intense middle section of the movie. After that there's a cautiously staged, equally intense finale, in which the main character plans and executes his revenge.

Sure, there are some improbabilities. There seemed to be like a dozen moments where villain Rich (Mark Patton as an aged, bitchy queer from hell) could be easily overpowered. And when drug-packages slowly make their way through someone's intestines, they are definitely not manually reachable from below! But that didn't mar my appreciation. I was especially impressed by Cooper Koch, he not only has a very interesting face and real charisma (and yes, also a great body, that he is allowed to amply show!), but his acting was excellent, and he really moved me when he mourned over his friend.

So to resume: an unusual and unnerving movie with a tacky subject, but surprisingly well executed.

At the moment that I write this review, there are eight earlier reviews, of which no less than seven rank it a 10 out of 10, all with jubilant texts and such hyperboles as "brilliant", "extraordinary", "terrific", and even twice "masterpiece". I'm seriously dumbfounded: did they really watch the same movie as I did?!? Because it's (in my humble and down to earth opinion) simply terrible. It's totally uninvolving, repetitive, tedious, and my 4,95 euro to stream it were the only reason that I sat the whole thing out.

There is a total lack of any narrative, it's just 85 minutes of watching three persons having sex, smoke, using all sorts of drugs and totally flipping over it, having sex again (and again and again), screaming and yelling at each other, and behaving as erratic as possible. All this in the uninspiring setting of a crummy apartment. Main character Guy (Israel Ogalbo) is at least remotely sympathetic, but his BFF Joy (Moran Rosenblatt) is extremely obnoxious and completely hysterical, every scene with her made my ears pop. And Dan as the mysterious outsider is just weird and creepy. Towards the end something (meant to be) horrendous happens, but it was so amateurishly staged (so you see her, so she's - whoosh! - gone!) that the effect was simply ludicrous.

There's a lot of gay sexual content (being gay, I admit that's what attracted me in the first place), but it was all way less provocative than the synopsis suggested: it's a lot of bare bottoms, but that's about it, so even that didn't make this experience any more bearable. The end suited the rest perfectly: Guy waggling naked and in some kind of drugs-induced stupor along the street to whatever profound concluding moral the makers may have had in mind. I heaved a deep sigh of relief and exasperated waggled to my bed.

I expected a modern teen-version of the famous Dostoevsky novel, but it turned out as something different. What did remain from Dostoevsky were the pivotal murder and the subsequent oppressive feeling of guilt, forming the core of this unusual, fascinating film noir, that hardly shows its age of almost 25 years. It's made with great care, almost restrained, without any striving for dramatic effect, and with that it feels all the more realistic and authentic. The format is original, with the different chapters, and a narrator, who is emotionally involved but at the same time functions as an outside observant who analyzes the goings-on and the motives of the various characters. He even provides a solid closure in the form of an epilogue, where we learn what has become of everyone. With so many open ended thrillers nowadays, that's actually quite refreshing.

The acting of the young main characters is surprisingly good. Monica Keena is beautiful and convincingly plays the exasperated and abused (step)daughter, who turns into a resolute but afterwards guilt ridden avenger. Vincent Kartheiser is excellent as the mysterious, nerdy but loyal observant (and is extremely cute to boot!). And James DeBello is spot-on as the gullible hormone-driven quarterback, who is used and played with by the machinations of his girlfriend. Ellen Barkin and Michael Ironside as the (step)parents are as usual great.

There are many horror flicks with evil-infested dolls or puppets, but you keep hoping for something different. Alas, this "Imaginary" is as generic and predictable as they come: the little kid in a home with some complicated family-dynamics, the house with a creepy history, the cute doll (here a teddybear) that we at times (oh horror!!) see turn his head and that more and more gets a supernatural hold on the kid, and a climactic finale in which the evil finally shows its true terrifying shape. It's all there.

Well, even predictability doesn't have to be bad, if it's well done, with some decent special effects and a solid story. But unfortunately all this was not the case here. The story is shaky and unnecessary complicated, and direction and editing are disappointing: the whole movie is way too talkative and explanatory (especially from the moment the old neighbor lady steps in), and for a supposed horror movie it's way too low on serious scares. Teddybear Chauncey is definitely no Chucky or Annabelle, until the final showdown he doesn't cause any deaths or destruction, even the obnoxious boyfriend (in most horror movies a number one candidate for a gruesome killing) got away in one piece. There's an inventive plot-twist halfway in time, and the supernatural Escher-like labyrinth, in which the family in the end gets trapped to fight the evil, is well done, but that couldn't save the movie. A pity, since the acting was pretty good. The cast had earned a better vehicle to ride in.

It's hard to take this wannabe horror flick serious: it's just so totally lame and unscary! The story is chaotic, the writing is lazy, the direction and editing thrive on cheap effects like flashing images and constant sudden sound-bursts, and the goings-on got rather repetitive and with that even tedious.

Asa Butterfield plays the lead character, I hold him in high regard since Sex Education, but his appearance here is a serious lapse of judgement. They gave him a weird hairdo, made him talk with a heavy American accent, and worst of all: let him walk through most of the movie like a robotic zombie, with piercing eyes and a develish grin, trying very hard to look like someone possessed by a 17th century Salem-witches curse. To no avail, the effect was just ludicrous. Maybe it all would have been reasonably palatable, if they had made it into a horror comedy, but alas, it was all meant to be dead serious. I'm sorry for Natalia Dyer, who did a fine job. And as far as Butterfield is concerned: let's quickly forget this unfortunate mishap.

I had some reservations with part one, but here in part two things go into the highest gear, and a 3 hours long, truly epic spectacle unfolds. The CGI and VFX are stunning, as are the various settings, and the thrilling score by Hans Zimmer is absolutely brilliant. Thimothée Chalamet's Paul finally becomes a real character, gets depth, and his evolution from homeless refugee to the victorious usurpator of the empire is totally convincing. But there are so many other actors to praise: like Stellan Skarsgard as the monstrous Baron Harkonnen, Dave Bautista as the beastly Rabban, and an almost unrecognizable Austin Butler as the hair-raisingly scary Feyd. In my opinion the part of Zendaya was less pronounced, she wasn't given much to really put her teeth in.

If anything, I'm not so keen on the almost religious veil that lies over the story: the downtrodden that await and finally hail a messiah, with all the ecstatic jubilations and so on. But that's Frank Herbert's due of course. As is the Fremen's complicated language, which becomes a bit tiresome after hearing it for three hours, being forced to endlessly read subtitles. Poor actors, who had to learn all this by heart!! Why not let everybody speak English, they make us also believe that the Harkonnens and the Atreides speak flawlessly 21th century English, which is just as improbable.

I didn't read the book, and I didn't see the movie, so I guess I'm pretty much biass-free. Well, I really liked it. The format is very original, and for me it totally worked. As so many reviewers mention, this unavoidably means that you are constantly forced to fill in the gaps between what happened at the end of the former episode and the start of the next. But that proved to be no problem at all, it's actually a sort of economic and intelligent way of storytelling.

Many reviewers also claim that the two main characters are such an unlikely pair, but to me that was the whole point of the story: it's because of these differences that they don't immediately plunge into a sexual (and probably short-lived) relationship, but in stead keep a distant, more and more reliable friendship, that only through many years of living their own different lives, with all the different major and minor hardships and successes, finally brings them to the insight that they are meant to be together. It's in fact a hopeful message: true and lasting love can still turn up when you don't expect it anymore. Of course the end broke my heart, but it's so beautifully done: no melodrama, "just" harsh but real Life, that simply tells you to go on, and that, with the support of some loved ones, you can do just that.

Ambika Mod and Leo Woodall both are excellent and have great chemistry. But virtually every other actor of the cast, up until the tiniest part, is absolutely great too. The dialogues are great, the pace is, thanks to the chosen format, pleasantly high, and the musical score is wonderful.