Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2024/11/the-substance-movie-review.html

In the wake of "Longlegs", "The Substance" emerges as another popular cinematic experience this year. Much like its predecessor, it meets high expectations in certain respects, delivering a grotesque, visceral, and shock-laden journey. Yet, while the film impresses visually, it somewhat falters in delivering a fully cohesive and substantial narrative.

As she turns 50, Elisabeth Sparkle (Demi Moore) confronts the harsh reality of ageism when she is unceremoniously dismissed from her long-running aerobics program. Reeling from this setback, she meets a young nurse who introduces her to “The Substance” - a mysterious drug that promises youth, beauty, and perfection to those who take it - albeit from a clone in which Elisabeth must exchange lives every 7 days.

Visually, "The Substance" is stunning in so many forms. From Demi Moore and Margaret Qualley’s commanding screen presence to the film’s vibrant yet grimy aesthetic, Director Coralie Fargeat crafts an unsettling beauty that will leave audiences rethinking everyday moments - like eating shrimp - in disturbing new ways. The body horror is expertly handled, eliciting genuine discomfort but the film truly excels when it showcases horror in the mundane. On the acting front, Demi Moore delivers a transformative performance, bringing both vulnerability and resilience to her role. Margaret Qualley and Dennis Quaid are strong complements to Moore, contributing compelling portrayals that further elevate the film’s unique backdrop. Where "The Substance" stumbles, however, is in its writing. While the rules of the drug are clear, the film leaves much about “The Substance” unexplored, such as its origins and intentions. At times, the film seems more intent on shocking its audience than providing a satisfying, more subtle approach to its story. Ultimately, "The Substance" is a visual and visceral feast. For viewers drawn to provocative imagery and bold themes, it offers plenty to chew on, but those seeking a tightly woven narrative may find it underwhelming.

Rating: 4 out of 5

My hands were feeling in the in-between stage of shaking and numb when I finished this movie.

This movie definitely made me feel anxious throughout nearly the entire thing. JK Simmons as Terrence Fletcher was the best kind of villain, where you see him as horrible for the things he does, but at the same time (at least for me) you get where he's coming from. He wants to push people past their limits, and that takes effort and he only has patience for people who are willing to go the extra lightyear. The movie also puts you, the viewer, directly into Miles Teller's shoes since he also wants to go the extra lightyear, even at the cost of everything else, his friends, family and even his sanity to a degree. It's probably the only movie I've ever watched where the main character gets into a car accident and my (as well as the main character's) major concern is that he's gonna be late.

The movie sorta reminds me of video game speedrunners, people who are aiming for perfection and don't accept anything less than that. It gave me new found appreciation for speedrunners since, unlike Miles Teller in this movie, their JK Simmons is entirely in their head telling them to be perfect and anything less is failure. Granted, not nearly as intense.

I saw the trailers for "My Old Ass" at the theater before some other indy film I recently went to see. It looked like something I'd like but didn't feel important or urgent--just the usual 'looks funny in an indy way' movie.

It's on Amazon Prime now and thanks to an alert "hey we got this movie you might like" email I ended up watching it the other night. This movie really, really caught me by surprise. The trailers make it seem sort of slapstick, sort of silly and "indie goofy", but what it turns into is genuinely hard to describe. It's an odd, funny and incredibly sweet film that turns out to be far deeper than the trailers let on. Coming of Age is definitely accurate, but doesn't feel like enough to really describe this film.

Maisy Stella (who is amazing in this) as Elliott is the center of the story--she's a young, gay woman (I only bring up her sexuality as it comes up later) living on her family's cranberry farm in Canada she is getting ready to leave for the first time to start her new life away from the family business and at college in Toronto, and she's wrestling with those changes-even if she doesn't seem to know it.

On a 'we have to do drugs and bond before I go away forever' camping trip with her girls, she tries mushrooms and has a very odd trip. She sees her friends having "drug moments" and doesn't think anything is happening to her --until she turns around and Aubrey Plaza is sitting on the log by the fire next to her. Obviously she's a little surprised but figures her 'trip' has started and starts asking the obvious 'who are you, old person, and why are you here?' questions. She is skeptical but eventually goes with it when Plaza explains she is the older version of Elliott, and she doesn't know how or why she's there either.

Neither are quite sure how to proceed, but the drugs mean the conversation between the Elliotts stays fairly light and humorous. Plaza isn't sure how much she should tell herself about the future ("neither of us know how this works" comes up more than once) so decides not to tell her much. Young Elliott makes a pretty good point of asking why she's even there if they aren't' going to try and make their lives better, so Older Elliott caves finally and gives her a vague, oddly specific warning of staying away from guys named "Chad". They hang out a while longer and talk and laugh and their conversation feels warm and genuine. The vagueness of it all certainly makes the entire experience seem like young Elliott assumes the next day--it was just a really weird trip but didn't really mean anything.

There is a moment towards the end of their meeting where young Elliott falls asleep and we see old Elliott pick up her younger self's phone and opens it. She starts looking through it as younger Elliott falls asleep (I loved that the movie doesn't even linger on this like 'will it work or wont it'--this is not a science fiction movie and it does not worry about those ideas at all--of course it opens because she's Elliott and it's her phone).

Young Elliott wakes up alone the next day (of course) and doesn't dwell on her weird drug trip too much aside from being jealous of her friends having had fun trips while all she got to do was hang out with herself. She doesn't think much more of it until later that day when she has a meet-cute with ....Chad. This obviously freaks her out a little and recalling the night before she has a vague memory of old Elliott messing with her phone. She pulls it out and searches...

The movie takes a turn at the 'drug scene' and the moment Elliott meets her older self. Up to that point we've only seen young Elliott. Elliott and her friends are self-centered and annoying and Elliott doesn't seem to care much about her family. It becomes obvious that is the point as the movie goes along --older Elliott points out that most 18-year-olds are self-centered a**holes by their very nature and yeah, she is 100% right. She even tries to convince her younger self to slow down and appreciate her family a little more (which of course makes younger Elliott worry this means something will happen to them). There are a few surprising moments where characters actually ask out loud questions we as the viewer think the movie is trying to tell us, since of course we've all encountered at least a few stories like this one, even at the age of 18. Just like our lives we try and guess what certain things might mean or where things might be going.

The movie really won me over as it went along --to eventually become one of my favorite movies of the year. It's interesting and genuine and has so much heart it caught me off guard. Everything I thought I knew about where this movie was going turned out to be incorrect. It's all the better for it. It makes surprising choices that I really appreciated. It is NOT a science fiction movie and doesn't bother getting wrapped up in what it all means or how it's happening. Is there an explanation that would be good enough anyway? Time travel is always a contrivance of the story but it is not THE story of this movie and it's better for not getting wrapped up in trying to explain it.

The performances are excellent. I did not watch "Nashville" so had not seen the younger actress in anything until this. I am a huge fan of Aubrey Plaza and the path her career is taking. Both actresses are fantastic in this. Maisy Stella was annoying at first then really grew on me, and that's a testament to both the writing and her performance as her character matures and grows over the course of the film. The most important thing is she (and her friends) feel real and genuine. They aren't overly (and ridiculously) clever like many 'coming of age' films tend to lean into, but they are silly and funny and evoke memories of real-life friends.

Aubrey Plaza is not in the film much (she has maybe 10 minutes of on screen time), but her presence is felt in every seen once she's introduced. She feels older and has that weariness that I can relate to almost every day. I doubt I would have any patience for myself at 18 and would likely just want to punch myself over and over again. You can feel the weight of her life without her having to explain it. Her final scene in this movie may be the best she's ever been in anything.

The rest of the cast is also surprisingly good. Chad, in particular, feels like a real character. He's not amazingly handsome (while not being ugly) in that way that most main teen male characters are in teen films. He's kind of funny without being overly clever or ever speaking in a way people don't really ever seem to speak (except in movies). You can really see that yeah, maybe he's not everyone's cup of tea, but there really is a goofy chemistry between him and Elliott and it works.

I don't want to say anything else about the plot from here, other than it it touching, surprising, funny and sad, and sentimental in a way that caught me off guard. Honestly this movie surprised me almost all the way around. I can forgive the trailers for seeming misleading, as this movie is really hard to pin down. It's probably easier to say what this movie isn't--it is not a teen coming of age comedy like American Pie or Booksmart (which I loved), nor is it a 'time travel romp' like Hot Tub Time Machine (the only one that came to mind right away)--it is completely it's own thing and is totally okay with that. One of the movies' overall themes is probably the best advice for anyone unsure about this film: Stick with it until the end--it's worth it, even if the ride gets a little weird along the way.

A couple of unspecific notes: I can't recall seeing too many movies set in Canada like this one. Usually if it's set in Canada it's going out of it's way to let us know and involves men with beards running from wolves and stuff. I kept forgetting until someone mentions something distinctly Canadian (as well as a few distinct Canadian accents) . I found that interesting. Also, I learned that cranberry farms are a thing and I guess they're mostly a thing in Canada. I'd never really given that any thought before either.

Originall posted here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/2024/11/why-me-1990-movie-review.html

"Why Me?" is such a strange little movie, a peculiar forgotten cinematic relic that somehow encapsulates the best, worst, and bonkers of the 1980s and the 1990s. Based on the fifth book in Donald E. Westlake's series of John Dortmunder novels, the film follows daredevil jewel thief Gus Cardinale (Christopher Lambert) who unwittingly swipes a sacred jewel called the Byzantine Fire and finds himself on the run from not just the LAPD, but also Turkish government agents and an Armenian terrorist.

After reading up on director Gene Quintano's resume it all started to make sense. The man previously wrote the scripts for films like "Police Academy" 3, 4 and 5. He later co-wrote and directed the 1993 "Lethal Weapon" spoof "National Lampoon's Loaded Weapon 1". I suppose does have some talent for comedy, but as is the case with all the aforementioned movies, his application of humor in "Why Me?" can best be described as scattershot. So too, is the plot, but don't worry, it's not the kind of movie where you need to worry about such trivial things as story, characters or logic.

The book's author co-wrote the script alongside acclaimed writer David Koepp, who is best known for writing blockbusters like "Jurassic Park", "Mission: Impossible", "Spider-Man" and "Panic Room", as well as both writing and directing one of my favorite horror films, "Stir of Echoes". For obvious reasons, Koepp is credited under the pseudonym Leonard Maas Jr. There are moments, ever so few and far between, when the writing feels, dare I say it, clever, and I suspect that's thanks to Koepp's involvement. Of course, something stupid almost immediately follows, reminding you what kind of movie you're watching.

Christopher Lambert is just not built for comedy. He tries his best, but his performance isn't funny. He's not without a certain charisma, but the kind of slapstick or farcical versatility required for this particular movie just doesn't fit him. Christopher Lloyd, however, is right at home playing Gus' nutty partner in crime. However, it's J. T. Walsh who absolutely steals the show with a dazzling (and puzzling) scenery chewing performance as the most unpolitically correct, foul-mouthed and over-caffeinated police chief you will ever see.

What else can I possibly say about a movie in which the Armenian terrorist (and member of the Armenian Liberation Party), played with manic comedic zeal by Wendel Meldrum, kills off members of her own family to pressure Gus into handing over the jewel. She reminded me of the Judean People's Front Crack Suicide Squad in Monty Python's "Life of Brian", and is a prime example of how random the humor in "Why Me?" can get. There is a kind of dumb innocence to how dedicated everyone is to getting a laugh out of the audience, and I can't deny that good comedic timing does exist in this movie. I guess that's worth something. Not much, but something.

In the end, I can't in good conscience recommend this movie. But, if you're looking for a mindlessly entertaining way to kill 90 minutes of your time and some brain cells, then you might as well give it a try.

This movie made me cry a lot. There were so many powerful scenes, especially at the very end when we see young Naoufel run on the beach with his arms out like an airplane. We saw an airplane when he attended his parents’ funeral, so maybe there’s a deeper meaning here. Maybe there was nothing to the way the child ran on the beach with his arms extended.

However, one scene confounds me. After Naoufel jumps to that crane, we see his hand starts retreating. I can’t understand this at all.

Another question: It’s not apparent to me that he had any guilt on his parents’ death. I know he was very upset. What evidence is there that he felt guilt?

Also, here are points that I’ve noticed, and I’d love your views as well:

• Towards the end, when the hand was using an umbrella to navigate, it encounters an astronaut which gives him guidance. The astronaut points the direction for the hand to go.
• The only time a fly was caught was when he had his hand severed. His severed hand briefly caught a fly, and then, the fly escaped.
• When Naoufel leaves Gigi, Gabrielle lays on his bed and explores his old personal space. Gabrielle also listens to his recording, and she smiles. This implies to me that she clearly had feelings for him, but it’s not apparent if they are romantic.
• The instance Naoufel has feelings for Gabrielle is while he was delivering her a pizza. She asked him if he was OK.
• Naoufel revisits the most auspicious and emotional place for him, and that’s on the rooftop by the wooden igloo. That’s where he spent a very special time with Gabrielle. He revealed his feelings of love to her basically. And that’s where he returned to reclaim his life, break free from his parents’ death, and maybe accept the loss of his hand and the loss of Gabrielle (I’m not sure about this, however.)
• It’s very peculiar that even Gabrielle doesn’t live with her parents. We never knew the circumstances of her parents.
• Naoufel meets Gabrielle, and we realize that Raof is his relative. I’m not sure if Gabrielle thought that Raof was boyfriend material. She may have found him sexy or charismatic.
• What illness does Gigi have? Gabrielle implied that he was sick.
• I am not familiar with the book “The World According to Garp,” but I have a feeling that there’s symbolism in that book. What do you think is the significance, if any, of this book?
• During Naoufel‘a parents’ funeral, we see Naoufel wearing a cast. There’s a man right behind him also wearing a cast. What does this symbolize? What’s this about?

So school ties from 1992 is a good movie. I didn’t know what to expect going in and it was better than I thought.

The best part of the movie is Brendan Fraser. He’s the one that you follow the entire time and he does an amazing job. Also the main story with the emphasis on pressure from different people is done very well.

I don’t know how much rewatchability this movie has, and while the rest of the acting is good, it doesn’t stand out

Rating-3.5/5

https://jwwreviews.blogspot.com/2024/11/time-cut.html

Grade: B

In this new Netflix movie, smart high school student Lucy (played by Outer Banks' Madison Bailey) happens across a time machine and is sent back twenty years ago to a before Summer (Ginny & Georgia's Antonia Gentry), the sister she never knew, and her friends were murdered by a serial killer.

There are going to be the natural comparisons to last year's Totally Killer, given that they have similar concepts (also it's super weird that the killers' masks look alike), but it appears that production on this film actually started first. Just one of those X-Men/Doom Patrol parallel ideas at the same time situation.

I admit that Totally Killer was more entertaining and had a better cast, but I felt this had the more interesting story. TC does some stuff I haven't seen done before with a "someone-travels-back-in-time-and-meets-their-younger-family" story. We've seen people interact with their parents as teens and learn more about them stories, but meeting a sibling you never knew is one I haven't really encountered. The relationship between the two sisters with contrasting personalities and personal problems, but they also work well off of each other, is really the backbone of this.

I'm pleased with the killers' identity. This isn't one of those movies where the killer is too obvious or the movie is forcing on one suspect so hard that it's obvious a red herring.

This is probably more for time travel fans than horror ones. This honestly feels at times more like suspense than slasher. Totally Killer, which was also a comedy, actually had more slasher action in it.

Recommended. I know this has been critically panned, but I felt it had a solid story and characters with some interesting ideas.

[spoiler free] it was so good. Suspense was built from the very beginning of Hugh Grants character on screen. The plot kept me on my toes the whole time wondering: what’s going to happen next?? Hugh grant did SOOO GOOD in this role!

Highly recommend

Originally posted here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/2024/11/the-misfits-2021-movie-review.jpg.html

Hoping to be the next "Ocean's Eleven", Renny Harlin's heist action comedy "The Misfits" is one of those rare irredeemable movies that starts bad and progressively gets worse. In a nutshell, the movie's plot follows a professional thief (Pierce Brosnan), who is recruited by a mysterious figure known only as The Prince (Rami Jaber) to lead a daring gold heist with political ramifications in the fictional country of Jazeristan. To this end he will have to work alongside a loud mouth bank robber (Nick Cannon), an explosives expert (Mike Angelo), a man-hating assassin (Jamie Chung), and his own daughter (Hermione Corfield) who shares her father's profession.

Harlin, a veteran of action cinema who directed films like "Die Hard 2", "Cliffhanger", "The Long Kiss Goodnight" and "Deep Blue Sea", still knows how to put together a decent action sequence, but that's hardly enough when there are so few of them in "The Misfits". The movie starts out with no less than 20 minutes of relentless exposition at the end of which I was utterly confused about what was going on and bored out of my mind. As soon as something remotely interesting happens, the movie stops for even more narration and exposition, which just drove me crazy.

The script by Kurt Wimmer ("Equilibrium", "Law Abiding Citizen") and Robert Henny ("Who's Your Caddy?") is a horribly convoluted mess of characters and motivations that are both ridiculous and uninteresting. For a 90-minute movie, it sure felt longer. The cast isn't helping, either. Most of them are horribly miscast, Brosnan looks completely lost, and Cannon's performance is the lamest and cringiest attempt at comedy I've seen in a long time. Even Roth as the movie's villain delivers a lifeless performance, and he usually relishes playing the bad guy.

Shot in Abu Dhabi and Dubai, the movie looks like a glorified UAE tourism infomercial, which no doubt helped keep the movie's budget down while ensuring a luxurious and exotic look for the movie. Unfortunately everything that isn't a famous location looks like a cheap B-movie set. The production values make those old made-for-TV movies look like $200 million blockbusters. The heist itself is beyond straining credibility, and feels like it was written by a grade-schooler. Meanwhile, the twists are so predictable, it's like having the ability to see the future.

"The Misfits" is a complete trainwreck of a movie. There is nothing salvageable about this movie at all ! It's an uninspired disaster from top to bottom and deserves to disappear into oblivion.

Just watched Reservoir Dogs for the first time.

As a young man with only a few QT films under my belt(Kill Bill Vol. 1 + 2 and Pulp Fiction), I was surprised I hadn’t seen this one yet.

For Tarantino’s first, it was a great debut film. The conversations, whether they be crucial to the story or just casual banter, kept me engaged. The characters, while some weren’t as good as others, were mostly interesting with their own unique stories. Specifically, Mr. Orange, Mr. Pink, Mr. White, and ESPECIALLY Mr. Blonde. That torture scene was so fucked up, and I felt awful for poor Marvin Nash. Even he was a good character.

The ending has to be the highlight of the film for me. Great tension, suspense, no music, incredibly well-acted, and a total downer ending. Just a wonderfully-written scene.

Overall, I give RD a 7/10. Not Tarantino’s best, but still a great time.

Don’t Move absolutely hooked me from start to finish. The tension just keeps building, and it’s not about cheap scares, it’s this unsettling atmosphere that creeps up on you. The movie makes you feel like you’re right there with the characters, stuck in this claustrophobic nightmare, and it gets under your skin in a way that’s hard to shake off.

By the time the credits rolled, I realized I’d been holding my breath through half of it. It’s intense, creepy, and genuinely effective at making you feel uneasy without overdoing anything. Definitely worth a watch if you love psychological horror thrillers that lingers with you long after it’s over.

Anaïs is a free-spirited young woman with commitment issues living in France. Her flawed understanding of love quickly reveals itself in her musings that being in love would automatically mean happiness. Her search for intimacy exposes an eccentric, scatterbrained person lacking essential social skills, yet possessing a certain aloofness that often sends her relationships and responsibilities spiraling out of control. I found her to be a fascinating, Rohmer-esque character study, though my focus remained on Anaïs herself, as her romantic pursuits felt secondary to her compelling personality.

A superbly unapologetic look at a genuinely unorthodox character who appears morally bereft or untroubled by principles, at times exhibiting traits of an antisocial personality, so finely woven into a love story that I was left unsure at times if it was by design. Finding herself in love for the first time with a woman who is knowingly the wife of her lover and twice her age, and only arriving there through lies and manipulation behind her lover’s back in order to cross paths with his wife, whom, until recently, Anaïs referred to as a “slut” before ever meeting her.

Continue reading at: https://cinemawavesblog.com/film-reviews/anais-in-love-review/

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2024/11/haikyu-dumpster-battle-movie-review.html

We're not going to lie - this was our first foray into the "Haikyu!!" franchise, and we approached "Haikyu!! The Dumpster Battle" with no prior knowledge of its history or characters. Still, the film managed to captivate us from the start, pulling us into the world of high-stakes volleyball with unexpected intensity. Much like a real-life match that goes down to the wire, the film builds momentum as it progresses, offering a thrilling blend of adrenaline, semi-realistic tactics, and exceptional animation that brings the energy of the sport to life.

The story centers on Shoyo Hinata and the Karasuno High volleyball team as they face off against their longtime rivals, Nekoma High, in the climactic "Dumpster Battle." This showdown between two underdog teams is charged with emotion, underscoring the passion and rivalry that fuel the players.

Having played volleyball ourselves, we were particularly impressed by how "Haikyu!! The Dumpster Battle" captures the essence of real tactics and strategy in its anime portrayal of the game. While some elements are exaggerated, the film’s commitment to authenticity is evident and resonates on a personal level (us being avid players of the sport). From casual viewers to dedicated volleyball enthusiasts, the movie has something to offer everyone, making the sport's thrill and complexity accessible to a wide audience. The animation stands out as one of the film’s greatest achievements. In one memorable sequence, the perspective shifts, placing the viewer in a player’s shoes. This scene is nothing short of breathtaking, delivering a truly immersive experience that realistically captures the intensity of being on the court. If there is one notable drawback, it lies in the film's pacing, particularly in the first half. The early scenes struggle to build a strong connection between the players and the stakes on the scoreboard, making it difficult to invest fully in the on-court action. Additionally, the sheer number of characters and their backstories feels somewhat rushed, leading to a scattered focus that detracts from the core narrative. Despite these minor setbacks, "Haikyu!! The Dumpster Battle" remains a compelling and immersive experience, capturing the spirit of volleyball with both passion and precision. It's a must-watch for fans of the sport, delivering an electrifying portrayal that showcases exactly why so many people love the game.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Originally posted here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/2024/11/abigail-2024-movie-review.html

Creepy kids are back in style. You've seen them before in movies, either as twisted psychopaths, conduits for evil, or the Antichrist himself. "Abigail" tells the story of a ballet-dancing child vampire (Alisha Weir) who preys on a group of unfortunate criminals who made the mistake of kidnapping her for ransom. Originally titled "Dracula's Daughter" like the 1936 film it's based on, the movie is part of Universal's classic monsters reboots, joining the ranks of films like "The Invisible Man", "Renfield" and "The Last Voyage of the Demeter".

"Abigail" spends at least the first 40 minutes of its running time pretending like the girl's true nature hasn't already been spoiled by every trailer, promotional photo or poster ever released. Those first 40 minutes are a bit of a slow burn, as we get to know the characters, a neo-noir bunch played by Melissa Barrera, Dan Stevens, Kathryn Newton, Will Catlett, Kevin Durand and Angus Cloud. They're all unlikable to various degrees, as they should be, so we can cheer on as they get their comeuppance, but they're also not much fun to watch. They're either overly obnoxious or painfully bland, and all of them stocked up with generic backstories. Barrera's character gets some glimpses of sympathetic traits, but remains an unengaging one-dimensional protagonist throughout.

While the charaters are only any good as vampire fodder, leaving us with no one to root for, Abigail herself remains the film's only standout. Weir is fantastic as the movie's blood-thirsty preteen villain, menacing and creepy, upstaging every other cast member. She chews scenery like the best of them and even does some of her own stunts in some cleverly choreographed sequences. When the carnage eventually kicks in, the movie is a lot of fun. It's still derivative of other vampire flicks, but there's plenty to enjoy, from the overabundance of gore and spectacular makeup effects to the wonderfully detailed art direction and atmospheric cinematography by Aaron Morton ("The First Omen").

"Abigail" is a slick and stylish production with lots of eye candy, ghoulish delights and some dark humor thrown in. Equal parts entertaining and silly, it's a step forward for "Scream" 5 and 6 directors Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett in proving that they are well versed in the genre. It's not quite worthy of the horror hall of fame, but it's a fun movie to watch during Halloween season.

Originally posted here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/2024/11/smile-2022-movie-review.html

The horror film "Smile" marked the feature writing/directing debut of Parker Finn, based on his own 2020 short film "Laura Hasn't Slept". As you may already know, the film was wildly successful when it was released in 2022, and it has already spawned a sequel. While "Smile" might become a long-running horror franchise that will go on for God knows how many installments, is it really worth all that hype ?

Sosie Bacon, daughter of veteran actors Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgwick, stars as dedicated therapist Rose Cotter, who deals with her own trauma caused by a family tragedy by throwing herself into her work at an emergency hospital. Her fragile life's balance is disturbed when a patient commits suicide right in front of her, with a big grin on her face, no less. After that, Rose begins to experience strange and disturbing visions that involve people with uncanny smiles that are either hallucinations, or supernatural attacks by an insidious entity. Spoiler: it's the latter.

Finn does a great job of mixing genre scares with deeper themes that pertain to trauma, grief, guilt, and their psychologically scarring effects. The film's first half is filled with mystery and anxiety-inducing tension. Sosie Bacon gives a tour-de-force performance that escalates in intensity as we witness her character's descent into madness. The score and sound design also add tremendously to the unsettling atmosphere. Unfortunately all that effort doesn't amount to much once the film turns into a run-of-the-mill possession story.

I really wish the movie was about something more interesting than just demons and viral curses, familiar ground already covered by much better films like "Fallen", "The Ring" and "It Follows". As "Smile" approaches its final act, it enters a more traditional genre groove, resorting to horror tropes like the one where the protagonist tracks down a survivor who offers crucial insight. The more we learn about this entity, the more the movie loses all suspense, which is why the second half is where my interest started to dip.

In the end "Smile" isn't all that original, but it's well-executed and well-acted. It's also not as gory as I expected, which is a big plus, but it does overuse jump scares. Lots of well crafted tension and disturbing imagery will satisfy genre fans, but it's far from the game-changer it hopes to be.

And… it's a mess.

Don't misunderstand me, it is a thoroughly enjoyable movie, but it has left me utterly bewildered. I've watched a Spanish copy of the film and I mean to search if, by chance, we got a botched cut of the film or something. It's as if Carpenter had shot three different films with the same actors and characters and then ended up mishmashing them.

For starters, the opening sequence shows us Egg Shen talking with a lawyer (Deep Throat from "X-Files" no less), asking him if he believes in magic, proceeding to narrate the story – we never go back to that scene. We don't know why Egg Shen seems to be in legal trouble or why is he speaking with the lawyer at all.

To my knowledge, Miao Yin, Dennis Dun character's girlfriend, never utters a single word in the movie. Also, the Chinese girl that Cattral's character is picking up from the airport just disappears from the entire movie, her failed kidnapping being described as "just the Lords of Death gang fooling around".

But I was more baffled that one second Wang Chi (player by Dennis Dun) dismisses Gracie Law (the lawyer played by Kim Cattrall) and in the next scene, out of nowhere, she just appears in the front door of Wang Chi's uncle house, as if she also uses to hang in there. We haven't ended with characters just appearing without any introduction: Margo Litzenberger, the journalist, just comes into scene with the briefest of explanations and then again disappears from the whole movie.

So, on the one hand I'm glad to have purchased the film, if only to remember being a child and overly excited when it came on TV. On the other hand, though, it seems to me that, from a critical point of view, the film is overly flawed in execution. That's not to say it's a bad film: it has some great ideas, like reversing the archetypical 80s action hero and his sidekick tropes or mixing martial arts, comedy, action and horror in one film.

I'm interested in knowing your opinion, because this is a cult classic film, regarded by many as one of the best action flicks of the 80's and I'm a bit let down after rewatching it.

PS: The Margo character appears at the end party, I just rewatched that, It seems, also in one line, that she's to be engaged to Eddie, Wang Chi's friend.

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2024/11/caddo-lake-movie-review.html

Mystery films that keep audiences guessing and reward them with surprising revelations have always held a special appeal to us, especially those that reveal hidden layers on repeat viewings. One of our all-time favorites in this genre is Christopher Nolan’s "The Prestige", a film that offers even more depth and satisfaction upon multiple watches. "Caddo Lake" aspires to fall within this category and does enough to satisfy our thirst - though it becomes somewhat predictable near the end. Despite this, its subtleties and layered storytelling make it a film that many viewers will likely appreciate more with a second viewing.

The story follows Paris (Dylan O’Brien), a young man haunted by his mother’s tragic death from a car accident caused by a seizure, and Ellie (Eliza Scanlen), a troubled teenager who leaves home after clashing with her mother. When Ellie’s eight-year-old stepsister Anna vanishes near Caddo Lake, dark truths start to surface for Paris, Ellie, and their families, intertwining their lives in unexpected ways.

Bolstered by strong performances from Dylan O’Brien and Eliza Scanlen, "Caddo Lake" draws viewers into a world where every detail feels meticulously crafted. The film skillfully plants clues throughout its runtime, and on reflection, these hints reveal a careful attention to detail. However, by the time the narrative unfolds fully, some of its mysteries have already provided enough context to make it somewhat predictable and making the eventual twist feel less impactful. Fortunately, "Caddo Lake" avoids major plot holes, a notable achievement for a film with an extremely connected narrative. A key limitation, however for the film, is its character development. While O’Brien and Scanlen deliver compelling performances, Paris and Ellie lack the depth to fully engage the audience. The film’s focus on supernatural intrigue often overshadows opportunities to explore the characters’ inner lives more deeply, making it difficult to become fully invested in their journeys. Despite its predictability and limited character exploration, "Caddo Lake" remains an engaging and well-crafted mystery. It delivers a unique viewing experience, blending supernatural suspense with psychological depth, and will likely resonate with viewers looking for a thought-provoking thriller that rewards a closer look.

Rating: 4 out of 5

For as long as I can remember, The Thing ended with two survivors who were going to freeze to death, and shared a drink and a laugh before it happened. But now I realize Childs (Keith David) was infected. Mac (Kurt Russell) was about to kill himself by drinking kerosene or gasoline from his JB whiskey bottle right before Childs appears with a flamethrower. When he instead hands the bottle to Childs, who takes a slug and no bad reaction. Mac laughs, and lays his head down a bit. Then Carpenter cuts to a wide shot of the camp, and there is a 2nd fire on the right side of the frame where there wasn't one right before the Mac/Childs scene.

So who burned who? Childs had a flamethrower, but seemed unaware that Mac suspected him. My wife says Carpenter just wanted us to make our own conclusions, so I wonder if anyone thinks it went the other way than I hope...that maybe the kerosene disabled the Thing, and Mac burned it.

https://jwwreviews.blogspot.com/2024/11/here.html

Grade: A

Here based on the magazine strip turned graphic novel by Richard McGuire is shot from the exact same angle and follows a spot of land and the house that is eventually built on it throughout history with emphasis on said house and the marriage of occupants Richard (played by Tom Hanks) and Margaret (Robin Wright). 

In recent years, Zemeckis' films have been more hit or miss and the last few in particular haven't been well accepted, but I felt this was a real return to form. It honestly feels like an old-school feel-good drama. Admittedly, some may feel the movie to be a bit maudlin, especially by today's more cynical standards, and the main sources of conflicts in Richard and Margaret's stories respectively may not feel quite like how these circumstances would play out in real life, but honestly this was still an entertaining slice-of-life film.

The slipping between timelines and the various vignettes is what really makes it work. You ever seen an educational video or animatronic performance at Disney World (World of Tomorrow is the best example)? It has that kinda feel, with sort of a lets have fun with the presentation kind of way. The stories work, heck most of the shorter ones are actually more interesting than the main story.

Zemeckis' does a solid job of transitioning between time periods, often in a way where things don't all change at once, and incorporates panels, being reminiscent of the format of the original comics. Hearing the basic description of this, you wouldn't think this would be fancy-looking giving the limited locations, but a lot of effort was put into making the background look like the appropriate time periods. The set design and props are also pretty effective at selling the era.

The deaging technology works really well and usually only seems odd if you're  specifically focusing on it. Zemeckis makes the wise choice of avoiding having the characters close up to the camera too often. I wished the movie had used makeup for old age instead of digital effects. There is a couple usages of that where it feels the most fake.

Hanks and Wright, not surprisingly, are solid. Yeah, Hanks does sound a little old if you listen to him long enough, but I did feel he intentionally put more energy into his younger performance. Wright manages to not sound old when playing her younger self. Honestly, some of the supporting actors here are even more entertaining. Paul Bettany as Richard's father gives a particularly lively and multifaceted performance.

The music didn't work for me. It was too 90's light-hearted and didn't feel like it appropriately fitted certain scenes.

Recommended. I know a lot of critics don't like this, and not to say there are no valid criticisms about the main story, but I thought this was a sincerely emotional, impressive, entertaining, and unique work.

So I was interested in watching the retirement plan from 2023 after I saw the trailer because I thought it looked interesting. To me this is a good movie.

On the positive side, I liked some of the performances, especially from Nicholas Cage and Ron Perlman. I also thought for the most part it was a good story with some good action.

On the negative side, though, I thought a lot of the acting other than those two and maybe even Ernie Hudson was not great and mainly it was a paycheck movie. Also near the end it got a little confusing with who’s on what side and all the different twists.

Rating-3.5/5

Originally posted here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/2024/10/beetlejuice-beetlejuice-2024-movie-review.html

Who knew that a sequel to Tim Burton's 1988 horror comedy classic "Beetlejuice" would end up being the director's best movie in years. Of course, that's a pretty low bar to cross with films like 2010's "Alice in Wonderland" and 2019's "Dumbo" burdening the filmmaker's legacy, but the hilariously titled "Beetlejuice Beetlejuice" marks a surprisingly engaging return to Burton's darker and quirkier fantasy films that built his reputation.

I won't go too much into the plot, because honestly, the damn thing is all over the place. Most of the original's cast returns, aside from Geena Davis, Alec Baldwin, and for objective reasons, Jeffrey Jones. The main players in the sequel are the three generations of Deetz women: Lydia (Winona Ryder), her stemother Delia (Catherine O'Hara), and daughter Astrid (Jenna Ortega).

Of course, afterlife-renowned bio-exorcist Betelgeuse, or Beetlejuice if you're trying to guess his name in a game of charades, is also back and once again played with unhinged energy by the ever-great Michael Keaton. The zany character was only on-screen for roughly 17 minutes in the original film, and Burton decided to give Keaton more or less the same amount of screen time in the sequel, as well. It's a brilliant implementation of the "less-is-more" concept, since the character's slapstick works best in small doses.

While Beetlejuice became a wildly popular character, it would be unfair to say that he was the only good thing about the first film. In "Beetlejuice", Burton built a vivid, hilariously macabre world populated with fun, quirky characters, and some surprisingly heartfelt moments. Keaton's Betelgeuse was just the cherry on top, the icing on the cake, the piece de resistance. The sequel pretty much carries over that same wacky charm, but is also faced with a new dilemma. Where can they take the story next ?

And, unfortunately, the story is where the movie kind of falters. It's not like the 1988 movie was some narrative masterpiece. It was relatively short and communicated plot points quickly and efficiently, but didn't stand out as a groundbreaking or profound narrative experience. The sequel moves just as fast, but is longer and more convoluted, branching out into several subplots that are fun in the moment, but add nothing to the overall plot. Also, expect lots and lots of callbacks to the original.

We have a villain, Betelgeuse's soul-eating (literally) ex-wife (Monica Bellucci), who returns to exact revenge on her former lover, but disappears for long portions of the movie. Willem Dafoe joins the fun as a ghost detective who is ultimately not relevant to the story and pretty much just a gag character. Justin Theroux is another new addition, playing Lydia's a-hole boyfriend/fiancee, a character written not so much as a villain, but as someone the audience can actively dislike. He too is completely wasted in the background of this overcrowded ensemble.

The whole narrative is incredibly erratic, and I think the writers were very aware of this, because at one point they have Ortega utter the following line: "I swear, the afterlife is so random". That's pretty much what I was thinking the entire time I was watching "Beetlejuice Beetlejuice". Still, there's a lot to appreciate about this sequel, including the fantastic cinematography, art direction, costumes and makeup, as well as Danny Elfman's darkly playful score. In the spirit of the original, Burton leans heavily into practical effects, deploying a wide variety of prosthetics, puppets and even stop-motion animation. A wonderfully retro black-and-white Italian flashback scene stands out as particularly memorable, and little touches like that make this film a treat for fans and cinephiles.

Despite its shortcomings, "Beetlejuice Beetlejuice" is a solid sequel, and a fun fantasy comedy. All the performances are great across the board, with Keaton and Ortega standing out, the production values are amazing, and Burton and his team deliver a wonderfully creative adventure that won't make a lot sense if you're trying to pick apart its story, but can be a lot of fun if you're willing to let yourself go with the movie's offbeat flow.

This movie is unabashedly French, to be honest. Bright, colourful, saturated and elegant but also grimy, dusty, loud and even gross. In short, a surreal dream; a hazy summer's day. I think it makes sense if you consider French society in real life. Typical of a European country, the ancient lives alongside and rubs shoulders with the modern, and true to that history, art has flourished and been experimented with so much that there's nowhere to go but higher than 'up'. I think we not only see the influence of melded periods of time but also that bonkers nature of achieving artistic greatness even when so much ingenuity has already been utilised. And I think that coming from a country whose critics established a New Wave of cinema, yeah, this is very much French in its bones, and you can tell. Adding to that is the international cast of recognisable faces, which if anything, helps make the movie's elements clash all the more and be so beautiful in their own madness. It's all wonderful.

So I went into smile 2 never seeing the first one because it didn’t look appealing to me. I wanted to see the second one because it looked interesting and I like everything that I’ve seen Naomi Scott in

This was a very good movie and it did its job. I think the stories very good because I was engaged the entire time because I didn’t know where it was going. Along with that, Naomi Scott doesn’t amazing. And this movie did its job in the horror aspect as well. I’m not normally a jump scare person and this movie got me multiple times. It’s also creepy and disturbing.

This is also movie though was a little too much in the disturbing factor and it’s a movie. I will never watch again. Other than that, it’s a very good movie.

Rating-4/5

I've never been a Star Wars guy. I watched the original trilogy on VHS a couple of times in the 1990s, and that's been the extent of my exposure to the franchise. Never saw any of the other movies or shows, never read any of the novels or comics, never played any of the video games. I am doing a trip to Disney World next year, however, and I believe that's what spurred me to finally familiarize myself a little further with the Star Wars universe. After twenty-five years of avoiding it, I decided to give The Phantom Menace a try.

Well, it wasn't great. I can see why even hardcore Star Wars fans were disappointed in it. None of the characters are particularly interesting, and few are well acted. The two Jedi Knights are largely devoid of personality. The little kid who plays Anakin is...a little kid, what can I say? There's only so much you can expect from a ten-year-old reacting to what I presume was a lot of green screen. Samuel L. Jackson is completely miscast as a calm guy who sits in a chair and never raises his voice. And I was surprised when the Queen took off her makeup and revealed herself to be Natalie Portman. I would have expected a much better performance from her. And then Jar-Jar. Oh my gosh, Jar-Jar.

I'm sure the pod race was radical in 1999, but it's not that impressive coming at it for the first time today. The locations aren't interesting, and I still don't have the firmest grasp on the story. What's the deal with the trade route war? How did taxes lead to an invasion, and why is Palpatine behind it? A New Hope has a thing literally called a Death Star that's going around blowing up planets, that's easy to understand. Why are we having a star war over trade routes?

I'm still planning on finishing out the prequel trilogy, but I'm not hoping for much.

So I’ve read a couple of Stephen King books, and I wanted to get into more so when I found out that they were making a remake of Salems Lot, I decided to read the book 1st to know when I was getting into. I just finished that book last night in anticipation for this movie.

This movie is awful. The only positive thing is Lewis Pullman as Ben. I thought he did a great job with the time he was given.

That’s where all the positives end. After reading the book, this movie was so different and not in a good way. They gloss over so much information and build up. I understand it’s a two hour movie there’s still chance to build up certain characters and things like that. Along with that, the acting from the most part is bad and Pullman is not in the movie enough

I had not seen the original, but I was looking forward to this remake, and it was very bad and very disappointing

Rating-0.5/5

Originally posted here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/2024/10/talk-to-me-2022-movie-review.html

In this age of Blumhouse assembly line productions, very little surprises me when it comes to films that deal with hauntings and possessions. And yet, along comes a little movie like "Talk to Me", the feature film directorial debut of Australian twin YouTubers Danny and Michael Philippou aka RackaRacka, that sets out to recalibrate the horror genre for the age of social media and taps into primal fears that resonate with a 21st century audience.

The film follows a group of teenagers who discover the best party game ever. Using an embalmed severed hand that has the power to conjure spirits, they take turns allowing the dead to possess their bodies for no more than 90 seconds. The supernatural thrill becomes an addiction, and eventually rules are broken and all hell breaks loose.

There's a certain purity to the filmmaking style of "Talk to Me" that reminded me a lot of Sam Raimi's "Evil Dead", David Robert Mitchell's "It Follows" and Ari Aster's "Hereditary". The chilling atmosphere of supernatural terror is enhanced by the use of practical effects and imaginative camerawork, but the Philippous never sacrifice character development for the next big scare, successfully walking the thin line between thrills and character development.

Themes of grief and isolation are explored through the film's protagonist, 17-year-old Mia (Sophie Wilde) who grapples with the trauma of her mother's death and a distant relationship with her father. Her entanglement with the spirit world has terrifying consequences, as the malevolent entities feed off her fears and hopelessness, and her grasp on reality starts to slip. This was Wilde's first lead starring role and it's one hell of a performance, effortlessly convincing and emotionally stirring. Her role and character are easily the best things about this movie.

The filmmakers cleverly avoid most of the genre pitfalls. They trust the audience to keep up and avoid burdening the film with forced exposition. Since the story isn't overly complicated with pointless subplots, the pacing remains tight and lean throughout. There are no hackneyed twists, no gratuitous jump scares or over-the-top exorcism scenes. Gore is used sparingly, making it all the more effective when the violence ramps up.

It's been said that the Philippous turned down the chance to direct a DCEU movie so they can work on "Talk To Me". I'm sure glad they did, because this movie is a rare treat, a finely crafted and original supernatural chiller that rewards both fans of the genre and the uninitiated, and deserves a place among the horror greats. It's a must-see !

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2024/10/dont-move-movie-review.html

At a brisk 92 minutes, "Don't Move" stays within the “Goldilocks zone” for thrillers—just long enough to grip the audience without overstaying its welcome. However, cracks begin to show, especially when the film’s more outlandish moments are scrutinized. As a straightforward, no-frills thriller, "Don't Move" delivers a quick adrenaline rush, but it doesn’t reach much deeper than that.

The story centers on Iris (Kelsey Asbille), a grieving mother struggling with the loss of her son, Mateo, after a tragic hiking accident. She returns to the site of his death, a remote forest, contemplating suicide. There, she encounters Richard (Finn Wittrock), a seemingly compassionate stranger who talks her out of her despair. Yet, when they cross paths again at the start of the trail, Iris discovers Richard’s darker side: a ruthless killer who injects her with a paralytic drug, setting her on a desperate fight for survival before she loses the ability to move.

With its intriguing premise, the film could have aptly been called "Can’t Move". Unlike many generic thrillers, "Don't Move" does manage to capture attention, though some of the antagonist’s antics unintentionally veer into self-sabotage. While horror movies often feature hapless victims making poor choices, here, it’s the killer himself who seems to seal his own fate with a string of reckless and clueless decisions. On the acting front, Finn Wittrock stands out as the charming yet menacing Richard, bringing depth to an otherwise straightforward villain. Kelsey Asbille, however, struggles to make her role as a paralyzed protagonist compelling, likely due to limited opportunities for dynamic expression and the basic, no-frills approach the film takes. The film introduces a few elements hinting at Iris’s character evolution, though these moments feel underdeveloped, leaving her emotional journey somewhat flat.

Ultimately, "Don't Move" doesn’t fully capitalize on its promising premise. While it’s entertaining enough to keep audiences engaged, it doesn’t deliver anything particularly memorable or innovative. Casual thriller fans may appreciate its brisk pace and suspense, but those seeking a more layered horror experience might leave wanting.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Originally posted here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-watchers-2024-movie-review.html

It seems 2024 was the year of the M. Night Shyamalan family. His daughter Saleka made her musical and acting debut in the filmmaker's new film "Trap", and earlier this year, her sister Ishana Night Shyamalan, made her writing and directing debut with "The Watchers", a horror film that her father produced. Unfortunately, despite a modest $30 million budget, "The Watchers" ended up being a box-office misfire, raking in just $33 million worldwide.

Dakota Fanning stars as a 28-year-old American artist who finds herself lost in a remote forest in western Ireland. She stumbles upon a bunker-like shelter and three strangers who have been stranded there for several months. She also discovers that every night, mysterious beings called the Watchers gather outside the concrete structure to watch them through a massive two-way mirror set up on the sanctuary's wall, as if they are part of a sick reality show. Whoever is caught outside the shelter at night will be killed, and escape from the woods seems to be all but impossible.

Based on A. M. Shine's novel of the same name, the film's premise sounds like it can sustain a decent amount of psychological tension and sinister atmosphere. However, around the half-way point, the fantasy-tinged mystery fizzles out, giving away too much about the creatures while trying to set up a third act Shyamalan-style twist, which is unfortunately very predictable.

There are scenes towards the end in which characters spell out the film's themes. There are good ideas in here that could have reinforced the psychological horror, but the metaphors and symbolism are hammered into the narrative without finesse or subtlety. Apparently, the filmmaker didn't trust the audience to get the point, without hitting them over the head with it. The creatures are also somewhat disappointing, both in design and lore, and shown way too often using assembly-line CGI.

Overall, the movie thinks its smarter than it really is. It's got a decent cast, and good production values, but it tries too hard to emulate M. Night Shyamalan's fimmaking style and makes too many unforced errors in the process that ultimately derail the movie. The result is a dull and predictable horror film without much mystery or suspense.

I was really looking forward to 1992‘s Bram Stoker‘s Dracula and after watching it, it’s just an average movie for me. There are some things that I’d like, but there are some major floss as well.

The first thing I liked is kind of weird, but I liked the way the title looks on both the cover and presented the movie because it’s a unique font. Also, I liked the opening scene because it gave you something different. Finally, I thought Winona Ryder was the best performance in the movie, followed by Gary Oldman.

There are definitely some performances in here that are not good. I think Keanu Reeves and auntie Hopkins give bad performances the biggest issue I have with this movie though is that nothing really stands out.

Rating-2.5/5

https://jwwreviews.blogspot.com/2024/10/sing-thriller.html

5.5/10

In this new short on Netflix, from the Sing franchise and featuring the popular Michael Jackson song Thriller, Buster Moon (voiced by Matthew McConaughey) and company head to a party, only for the guests of said party to be infected by a strange goo and transformed into zombies. 

This has a pretty good opening, but the rest is unimpressive. Stuff happens, but plot is minimal, and the short doesn't feel fun or visually interesting enough to keep one's attention.

This does manage to maintain several of the big name stars (and their impressive singing voices) from the original films, but no Reese Witherspoon, sadly.

Not recommended. I mean if your kids liked the movies, there's a good chance they'll like this. However, this won't have much of an affect on adults.