I’m a huge Scorsese fan and have seen most if not all of his films several times, except this one.

Generally I’m not a huge fan of period dramas particularly ones about 19th Century upper classes. I don’t know why really, it just doesn’t really appeal to me. Plus I’m not the biggest Winona Ryder fan. It just didn’t feel like a film I’d enjoy.

But for some reason last night I decided to finally fill the gap and OMFG what an incredible film this is. It genuinely might be in my top 5. It’s fantastic.

First of all, it’s the most visually sumptuous film I might have ever seen. Absolutely insane levels of detail in every piece of clothing, every object, every background setting. It is unreal how beautiful this film is.

Second the cinematography is wonderful. Barry Lyndon levels of composition but combined with Scorsese dynamism. An unusual combination and I’ve never seen anything quite like it.

And the story and dialogue thanks I assume to the novel it’s based on are also gorgeous. I was expecting a typical love triangle romance but without spoilering, it wasn’t. A much more subtle and nuanced narrative than I was prepared for. Brilliant.

Round all that off with the performance you’d expect from DDL and surprisingly solid support from Pfeiffer and yes, Ryder, and I’m comfortable calling this a masterpiece that I’m a bit embarrassed to have avoided all these years. Wonderful.

I wanted to enjoy 1978’s drunken master because it featured kung fu and Jackie Chan but I did not like this movie at all.

Why does feature the two things that I mentioned in terms of Jackie Chan and kung fu, there was so much bad about it. I’ll take into account that it was made in the 70s, but the voice acting and acting in general was not good. The story was just OK. The biggest issue I had though was with the action. They never seem to be a flow. It seemed very staggered and there were other movies in the 70s that had action that actually flowed.

To me, this was a disappointing movie because the execution did not meet the expectations

Rating-1.5/5

https://jwwreviews.blogspot.com/2024/11/hot-frosty.html

Grade: B-

In this new Netflix Hallmark-esque romcom, a snow sculpture named Jack (played by Schitt’s Creek’s Dustin Milligan) is brought to life by a magic scarf and falls in love with the widowed Kathy (Mean Girls’ Lacey Chabert).

This movie has garnered itself a bit of attention with its basic premise of what if Frosty the Snowman was hot (and heterosexual and bi ladies and gay and bi men, the advertising is not false; you briefly see Milligan shirtless, and he does not skip gym day). Writer Russell Hainline (who has 3 different Xmas romcoms made from his scripts this year; good for him) runs with this silly idea with a decent script by the standards of these of these films.

The romance is standard, but the script is having more fun than you would expect. Honestly, Jack’s interactions with the local townsfolk are more entertaining than his courtship of Katie.

There is more comedy than expected with one joke that made me chuckle a little. They hired a couple of comedy veterans to play the comic relief: The Office’s Craig Robinson and Brooklyn Nine-Nine’s Joe Lo Truglio as the town’s ego-driven sheriff and simple-minded deputy, respectively. They really are the most entertaining part as they do the most with their characters and have the best delivery.

Milligan was prime casting: a handsome guy who knows how to do comic delivery. Chabert, however, is just okay, doing a basic performance.

Kinda recommended, if you don’t like Hallmark-style films at all, this will not do much to change that, but I do feel it is stronger faire for what it is, and effort was put into the setting and humor.

Just watched Princess Bride for the first time ever

This movie has no right to be as good as it is! I’m 27 years old and it was the first time I’ve ever seen it and here I am sitting with teary eyes. This movie truly is a testament how certain topics and values will never get old and never loose meaning no matter how old a movie or the person watching it is. The cast is top notch, wonderful music, great humour and it’s so enjoyable even as an adult. I miss movies like this. Oh and the scene where Inigo Montoya gets his revenge is way too badass. Definitely on the list of rewatchable movies.

https://jwwreviews.blogspot.com/2024/11/red-one.html

Grade: B+

In this new Christmas movie, Santa Claus (played by J.K. Simmons) is kidnapped. His bodyguard Callum Drift (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson) is forced to team up with underworld tracker Jack O'Malley (Captain America's Chris Evans), who was used to locate Santa’s location, to find him.

This is sort of like the movie Constantine. It sounds like a concept that will be done in a very basic manner, but you are surprised to find out that the directors/writers put more effort into it than expected.

Director Jake Kasdan, who directed the recent Jumanji movies, brings the kind of energy he brought in those. The action scenes are well choreographed, and the movie is well placed. Also, the build up to final bad guy is built up to surprisingly well.

More importantly, it feels like Kasdan and the writers had fun with the idea of juxtaposing an action/spy movie with a Christmas movie, with ideas that could've been too obvious in theory that work in practice. What I liked best about this is that instead of going with a more colorful children's type of film, that could've had candy cane fighting staffs, a Santa's village with bright colors and traditional-looking elves in security outfits, this feels a lot more inspired by classical/mythological Christmas that's been getting more popular with the spread of Krampus. I appreciate that this includes a Christmas-related folkloric being that hasn't really been given emphasis in film before, and not just go with only Krampus again (there are actually a lot of other anti-Clauses and other Christmas-related figures throughout world history than you think; Alsac Lorraine has Hans Trapp, a scarecrow that eats children, for instance. No, he isn't in this. Yes, I'd like to see that one day, too).

The "guy-on-the-naughty-list-finds-his-Christmas-spirit-and-his-humanity-again" has been done plenty of times, and I cannot lie that Jack's character progression isn't the most obvious and least entertaining part of this, but I do give the writers credit for realizing that. Red One is kind of the movie Chef in that the redemption story is lean and mean and doesn't bog itself down with obvious "the-character-has-briefly-turned-away-from-what-he-has-learned" tropes. Also, Callum as Jack's conscious honestly gets through to him using some discussions that haven't been done in these films before.

Evans is a highlight of this, as he’s always good at playing the cocky guy. It is also appreciated that while he’s a criminal, they do make him three-dimensional enough and his apathy understandable instead of an over-the-top Ebenezer Scrooge-type.

Johnson on the other hand doesn’t fair as well. He’s being “serious Rock” here and not “charismatic Rock”. He feels wasted, and also it feels a little odd that his character, for a morally good person, is so unpractically aggressive and threatening to Jack, before he even has the chance to refuse to spill information.

The best part of this is the look. The movie’s takes on Santa’s sled and the reindeer are solid reinventions. (Not loving the elves, but it is a choice, and I give the filmmakers props for trying something new). Going back to this being more mythological Christmas-inspired. This has one of the most traditionally cozy-looking Santa villages (remember when they used to make Christmas-themed buildings for model trains? It is like that), and honestly I feel it is one of the best renditions.

The editing can be a little choppy at times, but it isn’t a deal breaker.

Recommended. Admittedly, having to go through the “message-of-the-film” moments again may kill the rewatch value, but this is a fun time. If you liked the recent Jumanji movies, you will probably like this.

Does the real junior ever meet the real hen throughout the movie? Like I know when junior comes back and sees his clone and the fact that hen loved the clone.

But is it the real hen that danced in the rain?

All of the piano scenes were with the clone junior? Like when he just sat beside her and apologized.

Also why was hen sad that he’s( the clone) „leaving“ when she knows its a clone and real junior left.

Terrance interviews and idea offering were with the AI junior. But was it to show the real process of idea introduction for the real Junior?

Im so lost , Im aware that they fell in love with the clone versions. But Im so confused when it comes to the timeline.

Originally posted here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/2024/11/thanksgiving-2023-movie-review.html

As far as I know, there have been no Thanksgiving-centric horror films until Eli Roth decided to carve out his name in cinema history with the aptly titled slasher flick "Thanksgiving". The movie kind of took everyone by surprise, and I have to admit, despite not being a fan of Roth's films, it might just be his best work to date. A short-lived victory followed by this year's "Borderlands". Like "Hobo with a Shotgun" and "Machete", "Thanksgiving" is a feature-length adaptation of a fake trailer from the 2007 film "Grindhouse".

The movie's opening sequence, which features a Black Friday mob getting violently out of control, immediately tells you what kind of movie it's going to be. The 15-minute scene sets the biting satirical tone and gives the viewer a taste of how brutal the gore is going to be. It's the perfect opener. The plot resumes one year later, when a mysterious killer dressed up as a pilgrim and wearing a John Carver mask, terrorizes the good people of Plymouth, Massachusetts and appears to be targeting those involved in the Black Friday massacre.

The plot is simple and straightforward, and I was relieved that the filmmaker avoids overly convoluted subplots and goes straight for the jugular. He wastes no time between kills resulting in a lean and tightly paced movie with some exceptionally crafted kills that are gory as hell. Roth intensely channels 1980s slashers with a touch of Wes Craven's "Scream". It's not as meta as the latter, but there's plenty of satirical bite present. It's also delightfully mean-spirited, which is a nice counterpoint to the holiday's commercialization and faux sentimentality. On the other hand, the acting is nothing to write home about and the characters are stock. However, Nell Verlaque does turn out to be a decent final girl, and Patrick Dempsey gets a couple of great scenes. Everyone else is just fine as axe-fodder.

Meanwhile, the 1980s influences are omnipresent. The heavy use of practical effects, the horny teenagers, the dark sense of humor and cheesy lines like "This year, there will be no leftovers!", not to mention some vintage needle-drops, make this movie a true '80s time capsule. Brandon Roberts' score, however, hews closer to the operatic orchestral style of Marco Beltrami's "Scream". It's not a coincidence, considering that Roberts previously collaborated with Beltrami on films like "The Drop", "The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death", "The Giver" and "Underwater".

"Thanksgiving" is not a complicated movie, nor should it have tried to be. It's a throwback to simpler times in the genre and stands apart with its gruesome charm as a refreshing palate cleanser for those tired of the holiday offerings and those who've always wanted a Thanksgiving horror film to watch on the occasion.

Call Yorgos Lanthimos’s newest work many things, but one thing you cannot say about this ambiguous film is that its interpretations will be agreed upon. It occupies that nebulous space where concepts, ideas, and interpretations are an ever-evolving, transmutative, open-ended mass. I am confident that in my strenuous attempt to make sense of the film, I am most certainly way off course as my personal approach accompanies a myriad of dashed attempts further to vomit an intellectual point of view upon the internet while aiming for Earth and ending up on Neptune.

Kinds of Kindness is a salacious anthology of parables that issues a sardonic subtext on authority, obedience, religion, and the human condition. It underscores the symbiotic cycles of abuse that thrive and emanate in these microcosms, more specifically, our everyday lives and the dissolution that inevitably follows—from exclusive cult hobbit holes to our contemporary and domestic domiciles, highlighting the endless pursuits of happiness and validation. The chronicling of how commonly these acts morph into perverse dysfunction reflects upon our sociological spheres. Desperation and eagerness for acceptance represent one massive gradient that are symptomatic hallmarks of the modern world. Frolicking in its dark compendium, it questions how well we really know each other, the limitations of our principles, and our need for belonging.

Presented in a series of 3 shorts with every central cast member assuming a different key role in each sequence, appears an enigmatic interconnected set of character arcs and stories with only one recurring character that never changes, RMF, serving as a visual cue and connective tissue of a cryptic puzzle of exposition.

Continue reading at: https://cinemawavesblog.com/film-reviews/kinds-of-kindness-review-analysis/

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2024/11/moana-2-movie-review.html

This year has seen a number of standout animated features, from "The Wild Robot" to "Transformers One" to "Inside Out 2". However, despite its stunning visuals, "Moana 2" ultimately falls short of the high bar set by its predecessor. While the original Moana (2016) resonated with audiences through its emotionally rich story and memorable characters, the sequel fails to replicate that magic, offering a beautiful yet largely unnecessary return to the world of Motunui.

Set three years after the events of "Moana", the film follows the titular character (voiced by Auliʻi Cravalho) as she receives a vision from her ancestors. They reveal the fate of Motunui, which is at risk due to a curse on the island of Motufetu — a lost island that once connected the peoples of Oceania. To break the curse, Moana assembles a crew, Loto (Rose Matafeo), an inventor whose creations help her craft the perfect boat; Kele (David Fane), an experienced farmer who provides sustenance; and Moni (Hualālai Chung), who possesses extraordinary strength. Along the way, Moana reconnects with Maui (Dwayne Johnson), the mischievous demi-god who agrees to aid them in their quest to break Nalo's curse.

While "Moana 2" excels in its animation, it struggles to live up to the storytelling and character depth of the original film. The animation is a definite highlight, with the vibrant, semi-realistic rendering of both the island landscapes and the shimmering waters standing out as a visual feast. The attention to detail in the setting, particularly the depiction of water, is breathtaking, ensuring that the film remains visually engaging throughout its runtime. Younger audiences, in particular, will likely be captivated by the colorful and immersive world alone. However, for older viewers, these stunning visuals can only do so much to mask the film’s deeper issues.

The primary flaw in "Moana 2" lies in its story and character development. The plot, while serviceable, feels simplistic and predictable. Moana’s journey through uncharted waters offers few surprises, and the stakes never feel as high as in the original. The new characters introduced in the sequel — in particular Moana’s crew — largely feel like unnecessary additions, existing more as comic relief than integral to the plot. Loto, Kele, and Moni have little impact on the overall story, and their presence in the narrative does little to advance the central conflict. Their contributions are minor, and one can’t help but feel that the film could have benefited from a tighter focus. In terms of pacing, "Moana 2" runs for a reasonable 100 minutes, but it occasionally feels longer than it needs to be. Another major drawback is the music. While the first film was known for its unforgettable songs, "Moana 2" fails to replicate that same level of quality and emotional depth and the absence of a truly anthemic, heart-stirring song is one of the film's biggest missed opportunities.

In conclusion, while "Moana 2" is visually stunning and offers some entertainment for younger audiences, it ultimately falls short as a sequel. The lack of character development, the predictability of the story, and the underwhelming music prevent it from reaching the same heights as its predecessor. While younger viewers may enjoy the adventure and the vivid animation, older audiences may feel that this sequel could have been left unexplored.

Rating: 3 out of 5

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

A movie directed by Sam Raimi is usually a cinematic treat. A movie produced by Sam Raimi can be a coin toss, resulting in good films like "30 Days of Night", "Don't Breathe" or "Crawl", but also clunkers like "The Grudge" and "Poltergeist" remakes, "The Unholy", "Umma" and "65". The latest Raimi production is the Netflix survival thriller "Don't Move", which tells the story of a grieving young mother (Kelsey Asbille), who must do everything in her power to stay alive after a serial killer injects her with a drug that induces paralysis.

This all happens after roughly 15 minutes of setting up the two characters, followed by a series of different scenarios involving a ticking clock element as the paralytic agent takes 20 minutes to fully kick in. As juicy as the premise might sound, the execution is surprisingly flat and unsuspenseful. Despite a committed lead performance from Asbille, the movie lacks narrative impact. It's predictable and leans hard into plot conveniences. However, it's gravest sin is how utterly generic it is.

A lack of clever camerawork and unimaginative use of the forest locations (shot in Bulgaria), boring dialogue, bland characters with blank personalities, and some serious lapses in logic ultimately drag the movie down. Finn Wittrock is a capable actor, but he isn't given much to do. His villain is paper thin and woefully unintimidating, which undercuts the promise of deeper psychological horror. He's not even an interesting psychopath because there's no real depth to his madness. It's just a plot requirement.

"Don't Move" is a predictable and unremarkable cat-and-mouse thriller that perfectly fits the bill of typical streaming fodder. At least it's mercifully short, but don't even bother with it unless you already own a subscription.

For me, the movie was like a deathbed scene when we start to remember all those memories like film projections, fading in and out, the good and bad ones nonlinearly.

I loved watching Florence Pugh and Andrew Garfield on screen together and their characters Tobias and Almut. How they complement, fix and adapt to each other’s habits -how to break eggs, note taking, stress eating cookies. At times they both don’t even need words, just simple looks and nods conveys a lot more than words does. When the movie began, my first intuition about the movie was that we are going to witness this couple, like somebody has shot these important moments from their lives and we got a copy of those videos put in disarray.

Tobias Durand is going through a shitty phase in his life in the beginning of this story. He is in a total mess, depressed from the imminent divorce and hating his job, working in Weetabix- pen leaking in his shirt’s pocket and dripping faucet, he is in the bathtub stress eating his favorite cookies. He wants to put his signature on the divorce papers in a rush and get it done with. So, he rushes towards a store in the middle of the night in a bathing robe. That’s when he is getting hit by a car run by Almut, who he is going to fall in love and spend the ‘rest of his life’ with, poetical indeed. “You must be very regular” is the first comment made by Almut about Tobias’s life. But later this regularity and consistency has made Almut’s life so much elevated. But we don't really know much about Tobias, we only know how good a partner and family man he is. We don’t know what he does other than taking care of Almut and their kid, while we know who Almut is personally and professionally, what are her fears, her ambitions and aspirations. This is ultimately Almut’s story, because for obvious reasons. Tobias might be having a lot going on with his life all that while that we are unaware about, other than just the conflicts with Almut’s cancer, their pregnancy, the kid, her wishes and eventually her death. I would have personally preferred to see more shades of Tobias as a character.

Almut has a strong persona. She knows what she wants and she is afraid of getting forgotten and her life to be defined just on the terms of her personal life. “Quite so competitive” is what Almut describes her achievements and she knows she could be perceived as ambitious. Through the difficult phases of her life, she moves forward strongly until the very end. In the end there she swishes forward in the ice rink, while Tobias and their little girl stands still in astonishment, she stops and waves her hand at them, a departure. In the next scene, the house is silent and rooms feel empty indicating her death.

I’m totally in awe with the acting of Florence Pugh. The monologue when she explained she don’t want her life to be solely defined by her decline to Garfield, I got the chills. Overall a good watch.

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2024/11/gladiator-ii-movie-review.html

It’s no small feat to follow up a cinematic titan like "Gladiator", a film that won Best Picture and left audiences feeling its story was complete. "Gladiator II" steps boldly into this space, and while it doesn’t entirely justify its existence, it delivers a visceral and visually stunning spectacle that is still undeniably entertaining.

Set 16 years after Maximus’ death, the sequel plunges us back into the political turmoil of Rome, now ruled by the volatile twin emperors Geta and Caracalla (Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger). Paul Mescal takes the reins as Lucius, the son of Lucilla (Connie Nielsen), whose journey from exile to the Colosseum forms the heart of the narrative. While the plot struggles with pacing and underdeveloped subplots, the raw emotion in Lucius’ rise to become Rome’s savior is compelling enough to keep viewers invested.

From the opening scene, Ridley Scott reminds us why he’s so good at crafting historical epics. The production design is immersive, transporting us to the grandeur and obscenity of ancient Rome. The gladiatorial combat is a visual feast, each battle uniquely choreographed to dazzle and thrill, even if some CGI moments feel a bit heavy-handed. The performances are a mixed bag though. Denzel Washington shines as Macrinus, commanding every scene with unique gravitas and nuance. Pedro Pascal leaves a memorable impression as expected from his previous films. Paul Mescal, while earnest, doesn’t quite carry the weight needed to anchor a film of this scale, falling short in delivering the charisma and intensity of a leading hero.

The film’s weakest link lies in its writing. Despite a rich premise, the supporting characters are underdeveloped, and the twin emperors - ripe with potential for intrigue - never rise to the menace required of great antagonists. The lack of a clear, compelling villain until the final act diminishes the stakes and urgency of Lucius’ journey. That said, "Gladiator II" is far from a disappointment with action sequences alone that make it worth the price of admission. While it may not capture the same emotional depth or narrative cohesion as its predecessor, it succeeds as a grand, escapist spectacle.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Star Trek: TMP is one of my two most disappointing movie experiences (the other being The Shining). High expectations was a big part of that.

But it’s amazing how little I remember. The plot was thin and would have made, at best, an average tv episode, albeit with great special effects.

The thing that might have made it traumatic though was not just the endless tour of the Enterprise. Seeing it again revealed an embarrassingly long staring contest at the V-ger on the viewscreen by Kirk and the rest of the crew in the bridge. I had to blink first, it was so hard to take.

Do other fanatic fans feel that our deep affection for the film may have caused us to forget as much as possible out of love and an act of protection (for the series and our memory of it)?

https://jwwreviews.blogspot.com/2024/11/gladiator-ii.html

Grade: B-

In this sequel to the 2000 hit, Lucius (played by Paul Mescal), now grown up, is captured and sold into slavery as a gladiator after his wife is killed and his city conquered by the Roman Empire. Like Maximus before him, Lucius vows revenge.

The movie starts slow for the first two-thirds. It also feels like it's copying plot points too much from the first, such as the enslaving, the political intrigue against the current ruler, and especially the wife death, which just feels a little like a cheap trope the second time around and a little misogynistic that you need to kill a woman to spur a man's storyline. (When Casino Royale came out we were like "Oh, a Bond girl death. It's been a while". When Quantum of Solace came out we were like "Oh, the Bond girl death again, well it's still kinda effective". When Skyfall came out we were like, "Seriously? This one went real nihilistic, man".)

This felt rather like Gladiator-light, as the events don't feel quite as grounded as the original. Characterization is not as strong. Lucius' fellow gladiators do not get a lot of screen time and there is not a natural time line of them warning up to him, they just start working with him. (Also, the movie makes a mistake of having Lucius interacting with few people he likes and too many people he has got a beef with. I like Lucius, but he could have been given more time to really shine as a leader and a person people will follow.)  

Some of the deaths feel like overkill as well. Plus, this goes for the "ending of the last film meant nothing and things went bad" trend that a lot of sequels made decades after their predecessors have been doing. You know that you can have characters doing alright and then set up a new threat/conflict, right?

But there are also some good ideas, lines, and moments in this sprinkled througout. This is a Ridley Scott movie, and though I would not say this is the best of his in terms of visuals, they have been his strong point and he he will catch your eye at times, including some creative kills. A great idea is to have this Rome be more of a fancy-looking, corrupt decadent type of Rome.

It is when the third act comes and everything comes to a head, and we do not have to wait anymore, that things get interesting. Some of the best parts are here including some legitimate surprise moments (including one truly earned scene of melodrama) and the type of epic final battle that the audience wants to see. Though the movie starts out like the original, it definitely tries something different here.

The best part hands down is Denzel Washington's character of Macrinus, the gladiator owner who purchased Lucius and a master schemer who climbed up the ladder from the bottom. He gets the best lines and Washington gives one of the liveliest performances he's ever given in a style I dub "restrained flamboyance". His body language is killing it here.

Mescal is no Crowe (though, the script is not giving him any favors), but he ain't half bad. The character of Lucius is a little dull at first, but Mescal gets a chance to show his ability as the angrier and fed up he gets. You're rooting for Lucius as he wants to burn all the awfulness he encounters to the ground.

Though I felt the emperor in the last film was a little overwrought, he had better characterization than the twin emperors here. They given could have been given more backstory, personality, and stuff to do, but, as spoiled/foppish sort of rulers, they definitely have some fun scenes. All credit should be given to Fred Hechinger as Emperor Caracalla, the more juvenile of the duo. He IS the character, providing some great facial work.

Pedro Pascal is the head general of Rome, and I am sad to say that this is one of his less impressive performances. He feels so low-energy throughout most of this film.

A light recommendation. It is not as strong as the original, but when it works it works, and I truly enjoyed the finale. Honestly, some will find this too long and a little dull, while others will enjoy the action and grandeur of this all, and I feel a lot of Gladiator fans may be more forgiving of this than me (I honestly did not love the original as much as some).

Okay, it wasn’t terrible…but what’s with all the good reviews for this movie? Are people just really easy to please now?

While it wasn’t terrible…it was still pretty bad, especially the acting. With the exception of Glen Powell, all the other characters were just VERY boring. No energy. No charisma. Just felt like these actors were just there to get paid.

I’m not even sure writing was the issue. Sure some of the CGI was over the top, especially at the end. And they crammed way too much into the storyline. But I thought some of the scenes were actually written pretty decently, for being a cheesy tornado movie.

Idk…what is with acting these days? They’re just so bad. The entire time I was watching it I just kept thinking about how great the young actors were in Twister (young Helen Hunt, young Phillip Seymour Hoffman). I mean, they just delivered great performances even though the plot concept was cheesy, which made it very watchable, and rewatchable. Twisters also has cheesy concept, but since the acting was so bad…it made it hard to get through, and I’ll never watch it again.

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

I watched "The Silent Hour" without knowing much about it. I had no idea who directed it, and all I knew was that it starred Joel Kinnaman. You could say I stumbled upon this movie, since it was more or less stealthily released in select theaters a month ago, then immediately dumped on streaming. During the end credits I discovered that it was directed by Brad Anderson, a talented genre filmmaker whose credits include films like "The Machinist" "Transsiberian", "The Call" and "Stonehearst Asylum" (aka "Eliza Graves"). Unfortunately, "The Silent Hour" does not rank as one of his better films.

Only a year after starring as a mute vigilante in John Woo's "Silent Night", Kinnaman plays a Boston police detective who loses his hearing while on the job in Anderson's new thriller "The Silent Hour". Sixteen months after the accident he's stuck behind a desk, but reluctantly agrees to help on a case involving a deaf murder witness (Sandra Mae Frank) only to find himself having to protect the young woman from a gang of killers sent to take her out. Set within the confines of a mostly abandoned apartment building, the movie mixes classic "Die Hard" tropes with the unique twist of having hearing impaired protagonists fighting for their lives.

It's a clever premise, perfect for generating suspense and branching out into themes of coping with and overcoming afflictions. Unfortunately the movie comes short both in delivering tense set pieces and emotional payoffs. It's generic and occasionally downright dumb, and despite a solid start, the story becomes extremely predictable and cliche-riddled. Casting Mark Strong in a supporting role pretty much spoils one of the film's big twists from the start. If you're trying to keep the surprise under wraps, maybe cast a different actor who doesn't have a particular typecast reputation.

The villains are morons who would fit in better in a "Home Alone" movie, the action is as unremarkable as any of Liam Neeson's recent flicks, and the location, while undoubtedly cost-efficient, is a bland eye-sore. At least the lead performances are solid. Kinnaman is a likable enough protagonist and brings more emotional depth than the movie deserved, and Sandra Mae Frank ("New Amsterdam"), who is deaf in real life, steals the show with a spunky performance that works well against Kinnaman's morose hero.

It's disappointing to think that "The Silent Hour" could have been much more than just typical streaming fodder. Anderson's filmmaking experience isn't enough to save this film, but it is somewhat watchable as B-movie entertainment. Just don't expect too much from it.

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

Before watching "Miller's Girl" I did a little reading up on it and found myself confused about what kind of film it's supposed to be. It's usually described as either an "erotic drama", a "romantic thriller", or worse, a "comedy" according to IMDb and Amazon Prime Video. Upon seeing it for myself I have concluded that it tries to be all of it (except a comedy, that's just ridiculous), and ends up not much of either. It's a movie that is as confusing as it is confused.

The premise is a disturbing one and it involves a potentially inappropriate relationship between senior year high school student Cairo (Jenna Ortega) and her creative writing teacher Jonathan Miller (Martin Freeman). The film is structured almost like a play, moving the story forward through dialogue, and the Lolitaesque psychological conflict makes for an intriguing first half. It's also helped along by strong performances from both actors. Unfortunately, the latter half devolves into an unfocused mess, giving us no real insight into these characters and squandering its strong buildup and provocative themes as it trips its way to the finish line.

Despite its relatively short running time, the movie felt like a slog to get through. I can understand why Ortega chose to be involved in this project. It's the kind of edgy role a young, up-and-coming actor would seek out to play in order to break out as a real actor's actor. It's an unfortunate shame that Ortega and Freeman's admirable efforts are wasted. The movie probably looked good on paper, an intellectual drama with lots of sexual tension and complex issues to ruminate over, but nothing comes together as it should.

The frustrating thing is that I could feel a good movie buried underneath the loose narrative and messy character development. It's chock-full of potential, but falls way short of its ambitions and becomes a thoroughly unplesant and unsatisfying viewing experience. I wish I could recommend this for the performances alone, but honestly, they're not enough to salvage this rambling mess.

Holy shit, what a twist. Truly one of the greatest twists in cinema history. Even though I sorta had an idea of what it was going to be, thanks to Scary Movie, I still appreciate how the movie misdirected me by making me believe it was Keaton. That shit caught me off-guard.

I liked almost all the characters. McManus was definitely one of my favorites. He was just funny and had a lot of character to him. Same thing with Keaton and Kobayashi. Of course, the smartest and most interesting is Verbal Tint, aka Keyzer Soze. An incredibly smart man who was one step ahead of everybody, and very manipulative with great dialogue. Kujan also kept me entertained.

Seeing how Soze was pulling the strings and setting everyone up was fascinating, the deaths that resulted from that helped serve the story, and I truly felt sad seeing the protagonists die off one by one.

The ending is truly one of the greatest endings ever. You think everything’s resolved, only for the film to pull one last trick that completely changes everything. How much was real? How much was fake? The use of an unreliable narrator was brilliant for this film. Definitely gonna have to watch again.

8/10

So I finally saw red one and it was better than I expected. It hadn’t gotten a lot of great reviews, but I wanted to see for myself how it was.

Let’s start with the negative. The biggest negative and this was the overarching narrative from people and it makes sense is that it’s your typical/generic action comedy. Not necessarily a horrible thing in my opinion, but it doesn’t do anything special. Along with that, the villain has unique motives, but all in all is not as creative a character. Finally a normal thing when it comes to Dwayne Johnson, but he does play the same character in every movie but I’ve enjoyed a lot of movies he’s been in.

Now, as far as positives go, I liked the chemistry with Johnson and Chris Evans. I also thought there were some good action and humor. Finally, I was entertained even with the ridiculousness and the multiple twists. That was the ultimate goal for me. I just wanted to be entertained.

Rating-3.5/5

Absolutely insane film, absolutely loved every second of it and I'm not ashamed! It's an absolutely beautiful film, the VFX look pretty fantastic, the acting is great it's absolutely insane and all over the place but I love it and it was super cool and very unique and I loved that about it. It was weird like me and I loved it. I have watched some of Francis Ford Coppola's films and they were great! Is this like an amazing film? Not necessarily but am I gonna watch it again and love it? Absolutely! It's also a filmed that's not ashamed to be weird as fuck and it's just Coppola having a ball and making the movie he has always wanted because he had the money and I respect that so freaking much and I'm not even like a massive fan I just liked the other films I saw of his. We're there points where I had no clue what was going on? Yep! But I didn't care I was just enjoying it so much. Eventually I figured it out after watching but yeah that's my review from a critical standpoint it would have been a 4/10 for a lot of people but for me who just had an insanely fun wild time and loved the film 9/10 peak cinema. If u wanna hurt ur brain in a good way watch this film. Also I am being dead serious and I absolutely understand the problems with this film please don't eat me guys just wanted to tell y'all I liked a film not many other ppl did🥺

I don’t know how to recover from this godforsaken film😭 It started out fine and i thought a bit too cheesy for my liking but still good. It wasn’t until they started killing people inside the store my interest started to peak. But what I really want to discuss is the ending. How on earth am I to recover from this ending? Had he waited at least a minute everyone would’ve been saved! If I were him I’d yank a rifle of an army person and kms. How did everyone feel about this movie, more specifically the ending?

How can a picturesque village that seems to touch the canopy of the heavens feel absent of God’s touch? Is life’s creation merely a means to suffer at the hands of others? Where is the beauty in God’s creation if it is solely to be observed, tempting us with its beauty while we exist in a state of unyielding despair brought on by those who serve Him? – These are just a few of the questions posed by Reha Erdem’s 2006 film Times and Winds, which uses cinema to explore classic themes including moral struggles and hypocrisy. 

In the coastal mountainous landscape of northern Turkey, three maladjusted adolescents endure the hardships of rural living through patriarchal and cultural bondage. As their youth converges with adulthood, the loss of innocence is a theme interwoven throughout the film. But we soon discover that the loss of innocence has already occurred, and we are observing the aftermath of youth who are hard-pressed to find even life’s simplest pleasures and have little to dream of or look forward to. Whether they are punished with impunity for what are seen as infractions, revealing the ubiquitous parental sadism masked as guidance, or resemble mere servants and surrogate adolescent parents rather than children nurtured from unconditional love and affection, it is these children who represent the ugly truths of humanity and reflect a byproduct of favoritism and social orders conveying a message that we are merely animals governed by superstition and sadism.

Continue reading at: https://cinemawavesblog.com/film-reviews/times-and-winds-review/

If you enjoyed this review, you can read more here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/

As a kid I've watched quite a few of the Japanese Godzilla movies, but I never was much of a die-hard fan, so I wasn't that offended when Hollywood started making their own big-budget versions featuring the legendary kaiju. I don't have a problem with Roland Emmerich's schlocky 1998 flick, even though that one is more of a "Jurassic Park" ripoff than a Godzilla movie, quick to cash in on the CGI monster craze sparked by Spielberg's dino franchise. I still love Patrick Tatopoulos' creature design, even though it's a radical departure from the classic look. Then we have the newer Godzilla/Kong movies, which can be undemanding fun, but Warner Bros' insistence of making a Marvelesque Monsterverse is becoming increasingly tiresome.

For those disappointed by Hollywood's handling of this iconic franchise, look no further than Toho Studios' "Godzilla Minus One". The new kaiju movie bears no connection to the 2016 reboot "Shin Godzilla", but is a prequel to the original 1954 film "Godzilla". Set in post-war Japan, the film is heavily focused on the idea of loss as we follow a cast of characters who have already suffered immensely during WWII, and must now face a new devastating threat to their existence. Their crisis becomes a symbol for the post-war situation that Japan founds itself in, the need for people to come together and overcome adversity, while the monster basically embodies the fear and despair that the nation faced at the time.

What immediately jumps at you while watching this movie is how real the charcters feel. It's standard fare when talking about monster movies to point out how cool the creatures look and how awesome the chaos and destruction are, but it's a genre that rarely gives its characters any thought. Well, "Godzilla Minus One" is one of those rare movies where the people are not upstaged by the visual effects, and they are constructed as three-dimensional human beings that we come to care about. I love that writer/director Takashi Yamazaki devotes ample time to their stories and interactions, and I was surprised at how emotionally satisfying this movie is. The cast is universally great, with leads Ryunosuke Kamiki and Minami Hamabe offering a couple of very powerful scenes. The powerhouse score by Naoki Satō also helps increase the film's dramatic potency with epic orchestral swells.

The action and Godzilla's ferocious attacks are spectacular, and the filmmakers really do a great job making the kaiju feel like a terrifying and unstoppable force of nature, not a CGI cartoon. They also avoid overloading the movie with non-stop mayhem and destruction which would have diminished the breathtaking presence of the monster. It's the lesson Steven Spielberg taught us so many years ago with "Jaws". Less is more.

Yamazaki was also a visual effects supervisor on this movie, and it's impressive how good it looks, especially considering it only had a budget of $15 million and a small team of only 35 VFX artists. I can say that "Godzilla Minus One" towers above much more expensive Hollywood movies. The water simulation, Godzilla's highly detailed texturing, the miniatures and breathtaking sense of scale in particular are awe-inspiring. This was the first Godzilla film to be nominated for an Academy Award, and the first Japanese film ever to receive a nomination in the Best Visual Effects category. It went on to win the Oscar, a historical and well deserved achievement. The sound team, however was snubbed, and I feel they deserved more recognition for the movie's intricate and immersive sound design.

"Godzilla Minus One" is a historical landmark in the franchise. It surpassed "Shin Godzilla" as the most successful Japanese Godzilla film, and it arrived just in time to remind audiences what a good creature feature looks, sounds and feels like. It's a movie I can absolutely recommend even to those who are not necessarily Godzilla fans.

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2024/11/wicked-wicked-part-1-movie-review.html

As huge fans of musicals, "Wicked" was one of our most anticipated films of the year, and under the direction of Jon M. Chu, it delivers an outstanding adaptation. This big-screen retelling honors its award-winning source material while expanding its emotional and visual scope, offering powerful performances, breathtaking set pieces, and stellar choreography that showcase the unique possibilities with the proper use of film as a medium.

The story follows Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo), born with green skin and ostracized for her appearance, and Galinda (Ariana Grande), a popular and ambitious sorcery student. Despite their stark differences, the two become room mates and forge an unexpected deep friendship at Shiz University. However, when Elphaba’s extraordinary talents attract the attention of the Wizard of Oz (Jeff Goldblum), their bond is tested, and their paths diverge in unexpected ways.

Initially, the decision to split "Wicked" into two parts raised concerns about pacing and narrative satisfaction. Yet, the first installment, at three hours long, feels neither incomplete nor overextended. The film strikes a balance, building to a thunderous finale that leaves audiences both fulfilled and eager for more. Chu also successfully retains the essence of the stage production while enhancing it with cinematic nuances impossible to capture in live theater. These changes are not too drastic which some could perceive lacking but for us it wasn't at all.

Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande deliver career-defining performances, embodying their characters with depth and authenticity. Their portrayals bring unexpected emotional and dramatic resonance, while their vocal performances add a fresh yet faithful take on the iconic songs. Both actresses create a dynamic chemistry that anchors the film, drawing audiences deeply into their relationship.

While this first chapter does not provide the full story, it offers enough material to stand on its own, creating a thrilling and emotionally rich experience regardless of its completeness. "Wicked" is not only a testament to the enduring power of its source material but also a shining example of how adaptations can elevate storytelling further in the proper hands.

Rating: 5 out of 5

Originally posted here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/2024/07/young-woman-and-sea-2024-movie-review.html

After co-directing films like "Kon-Tiki" and "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales", director Joachim Rønning is back with a new high seas adventure. "Young Woman and the Sea" depicts the true story of Gertrude "Trudy" Ederle, the American swimmer dubbed by the press as "Queen of the Waves" who became the first woman to swim across the English Channel in 1926.

The film arrives on the heels of another inspirational true story swimming drama, 2023's "Nyad" which earned Oscar nominations for Annette Bening and Jodie Foster, and brings back the high spirited vibe of Disney classics like "Miracle", "Iron Will" and "Cool Runnings". Of course, the movie plays fast and loose with historical facts, as biopics usually do, presenting fictionalized versions of some events for dramatic effect, while other real-life facts are curiously ignored.

Daisy Ridley effortlessly commands the screen and carries the weight of the film with staunch determination. This is easily Ridley's best performance, and a solid step forward towards breaking away from her "Star Wars" past. There are also good supporting turns by Jeanette Hain as Trudy's mother, Stephen Graham as Bill Burgess, the second swimmer to have successfully crossed the Channel, and Christopher Eccleston as Jabez Wolffe, a sexist swimmer and trainer who is more or less the movie's villain.

Thankfully, Rønning's movie flows smoothly, and while the plot beats will be familiar to anyone who's ever watched more than one inspirational sports drama, it's all very entertaining and rousing, particularly the triumphant and emotionally-charged finale. Production values are decent, but not spectacular, and nothing really pops out visually other than some noticeable CGI and fake-looking sets. However, the emotional powerhouse score composed by Amelia Warner does help amp up the drama considerably.

Overall, "Young Woman and the Sea" is a cozy biopic and a solid underdog story, and I honestly believe Disney should have given this a wide theatrical release. It's definitely superior to the Disney+ drivel, and worth checking out.

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2024/11/hello-love-again-movie-review.html

"Hello, Love, Again" offers moments of genuine surprise, exploring themes of distance, ambition, and the challenges of sustaining love against life’s unpredictability. The film shines when grounded in these relatable elements, particularly its depiction of how even the strongest relationships can fracture despite the best intentions. However, its reliance on clichéd tropes prevents it from matching or surpassing its predecessor.

Set five years after the first film, Joy (Kathryn Bernardo) has left Hong Kong for a new life in Canada. Distance and time have strained her relationship with Ethan (Alden Richards). Now pursuing even bigger dreams of moving to America, Joy is unexpectedly confronted by Ethan’s arrival in Calgary, stirring emotions and unresolved questions from their past.

One of the film’s standout elements is Kathryn Bernardo’s performance. Her portrayal of Joy’s maturity and growth is captivating, making her the emotional anchor of the story. The narrative structure, revealing the reasons behind Joy and Ethan’s breakup throughout the film's running time, adds intrigue and keeps the audience engaged as it slowly unveils its secrets. However, this freshness is undercut by an ending that feels clichéd and unsatisfying, failing to effectively balance traditional romantic formulas with the film's bolder storytelling approaches. Another shortcoming is the excessive focus on side plots and supporting characters, many of which are left unresolved, creating a sense of clutter and detracted from the overall experience. Despite these flaws, "Hello, Love, Again" still delivers an emotional and entertaining experience, even if it lacks the cohesion and impact needed to stand out as a sequel.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Originally posted here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/2024/05/gladiator-2000-movie-review.html

Ridley Scott's "Gladiator" was a box-office breakthrough for a genre that was thought long dead, grossing $465 million worldwide. Since then it has become a sort of blueprint for historical epics, although very few, if any, have really matched the level of craft and mass appeal of this simple, but highly effective crowd-pleasing tale of a general-turned-slave-turned-gladiator-turned-revolutionary.

Of course, many forget that Mel Gibson's "Braveheart" paved the way for "Gladiator", however Scott's epic was shinier and more popcorn-friendly, which made it more profitable business-wise. The movie boasts amazingly crafted action set pieces wrapped around a revenge story peppered with ancient Rome politics. No doubt the big Colosseum fights were the main selling point and they don't disappoint.

Historians beware, this movie fiddles with history in ways that will keep you up at night. The writers took bits and pieces of true historical facts and used them to concoct an alternate history, not too dissimilar from Quentin Tarantino's approach to "Inglourious Basterds", but definitely less wacky. This movie requires a total suspension of disbelief and historical knowledge. Once that's out of the way, prepare to be amazed.

From a technical perspective, this movie is incredible, and still stands up today. The cinematography is breathtaking, with every frame looking like a painting, the sets and costumes pure eye-candy, the sound design immersive and dynamic, the visual effects more subtle and convincing than today's overly-expensive and cartoonish CGI, and the fights expertly choreographed for maximum enjoyment.

The score by Hans Zimmer and Lisa Gerrard is gorgeous and exhilarating with a modern edge that heightens both the quiet emotional scenes, and the frantic action set pieces. If you listen closely during the battle scenes, you can hear the structure of what would become the "Pirates of the Caribbean" score two years later.

Fans of old-school cinema will revel in the wonderful performances of Richard Harris, Oliver Reed and Derek Jacobi, while Russell Crowe's commanding presence reminds me of a young Christopher Plummer. This is the performance that made Crowe a star and earned him an Academy Award, and it truly is a role for the ages. The "My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius" scene alone is pure cinema history. And let's not forget Joaquin Phoenix's vile, pervy and sadistic turn as Commodus, a perfectly despicable villain for our wholesome hero.

The plot is uncomplicated and straightforward, despite it involving politics, the script is focused and well-balanced, and the dialogue is very quotable. The extended cut does feature some more political backstory, but it's easy to see why it was cut from the theatrical version as it slowed the movie down considerably. Same goes for a couple of deleted scenes showing more of Phoenix's Commodus acting crazy and evil, which are fun, but redundant.

"Gladiator" is not a complex thought-provoking historical epic, and it wasn't intended as such. It's electrifying blockbuster entertainment delivered with operatic gusto by a filmmaker at the top of his game. "Gladiator" has rightfully earned its place among the greats.

• While I had a great time, I can't help but have some mixed feelings. I absolutely adored how it looked aesthetically, shit was incredible really. The opening scene I was blown away. But man I was a bit disappointed in some of the performances mostly due to not being given good enough dialogue to work with.
• Denzel as Macrinus, my favourite part of the movie. I can see it not sitting right with some people, but he brings all the energy to the film, and I was far more interested in what he was up to. There is a line that made me laugh out loud towards the end, when he's like "That's politicsssssss" as the other guy laughs, and he smirks in smugness of his great plan.
• I was a bit disappointed in Mescals performance, but I blame this mostly on the dialogue he was given. He had some great moments especially during the battles, but I wasn't really a fan of what he was going for in the more subtle moments of the film. Hmm.
• I was also slightly disappointed in Joseph Quins performance as Emperor Geta. As soon as I saw the trailers, I absolutely loved the idea of these two golden dimwits sadistic dimwits ruling Rome, but they just didn't do enough for me. They didn't have enough lines or interesting writing to work with IMO. Fred Hechinger as Emperor Caracalla similarly.
• Pedro Pascal as Marcus Acacius was pretty strong I thought. Just a great actor who can own scenes. Wish they did a bit more with his character.
• They had it all, the cast, it looked amazing, Ridley... but I was disappointed in the general creativity with the story, the writing for the dialogue had more potential, the flashbacks/connections to the first film felt a bit weak and didn't really land & there was a lack of chemistry with some of the actors. I still enjoyed it though.
• Also MATT LUCAS as the speaker in the Colosseum killed me lol

Originally posted here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/2024/11/it-ends-with-us-2024-movie-review.html

"It Ends With Us" stormed the worldwide box-office this year, raking in a ton of money, even giving "Deadpool & Wolverine" a run for its money. The film is based on the 2016 best-selling novel by Colleen Hoover, which became an even bigger success thanks to TikTok. I haven't read the book, so I can't speak to the movie's faithfulness to the source material, but what I can say is that the big screen adaptation is exactly what you'd expect: an average sappy melodrama.

The protagonist of this romantic drama is Lily Bloom (Blake Lively), a woman dealing with a traumatic past who falls in love with a dashing neurosurgeon (Justin Baldoni) only to discover a darker side to him that makes her question their relationship. Complications further arise when Lily's first love (Brandon Sklenar) enters the picture. The casting of Lively and Baldoni sparked some backlash because the actors are much older (37 and 40 respectively) than the novel's characters (23 and 30). The reason for that is the author was trying to write a book for the YA crowd but didn't realize that it takes a long time to become a neurosurgeon. I'm not sure how to feel about an author who doesn't do proper research, but I suppose since it's basically YA romantic fantasy, realism isn't necessarily something you should expect.

Even though they "fixed" the age issue, the clunky dialogue mostly sounds like teenagers pretending to be adults. The biggest problem is that the movie doesn't feel set in the real world. It's a glossy alternate reality filled with gorgeous people and trendy fashion statements, so when the story tries to veer into serious territory with themes pertaining to trauma and domestic abuse, it doesn't feel sincere. The best I can say about it is that the movie knows exactly what it is and leans unapologetically hard into the melodrama.

The cast for the most part is okay. No Oscar-worthy performances here, but honestly not as bad as I expected, either. The leads have sufficient chemistry if you mute the dialogues, and I enjoyed Jenny Slate's brief, but charming contribution. I was also impressed by newcomer Isabela Ferrer, a dead ringer for Lively who plays the teenage version of Lily Bloom in flashbacks. When she first appeared it took me a second to realize it wasn't Lively on screen.

"It Ends With Us" occasionally feels like a Blake Lively vanity project but it is reasonably watchable. It's about as deep and realistic as a Lifetime movie, but still competently put together without being groundbreaking or original. It's a movie strictly for fans of the book, or anyone who enjoys an unpretentious tear-jerker.