Read more reviews here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/

Denis Villeneuve returns for the epic finale to his acclaimed sci-fi epic "Dune: Part One" (read the review here). If you found the pacing of the first film to be too slow, the final chapter hits the ground running and doesn't let up. While the first film was decently paced in its own right, it did have to deal with a ton of introductory exposition and set up, and lacked a proper third act, ending on an anticlimactic note. With all that out of the way "Dune: Part Two" gets straight to the good stuff.

Picking up immediately after the end of "Part One", it moves at a brisker pace, following Paul Atreides' path to vengeance against the brutal Harkonnen which will ultimately determine the fate of universe. From desert guerilla warfare to tightly choreographed fights, fremen riding sandworms and an explosive third act battle, "Part Two" offers the eye-popping, glorious spectacle that the first film lacked, and wraps up the story in a satisfying manner. Fans of the book, however, might dislike some of the divergence from the source material.

Once again, nothing but praises for the cast. Timothee Chalamet comes into his own as a commanding leading man, and his transformation from a sympathetic young man to a strong leader and potential tyrant is fascinating to watch. Zendaya didn't feel like the best choice for Chani, but she does turn in an engaging performance. However, she doesn't share much chemistry with Chalamet, which results in a flat romantic subplot. The real standouts are Javier Bardem as the sage mentor archetype Stilgar, and Austin Butler as the psychotic Feyd-Rautha, Baron Harkonnen's nephew and Paul's nemesis. No kidding, Butler is fantastic, a chilling departure from his Elvis persona.

On a technical level, this movie, like its predecessor, is superb. The cinematography and art direction are brilliant, and the visual effects have improved compared to the first film, although the CGI is still not 100% convincing. It's a real shame that they never used any miniatures in the making of these movies. Just think how great "Blade Runner 2049" looked because of miniatures, not to mention the "Lord of the Rings" movies. "Dune" would have looked amazing with CGI enhanced physical models.

Hans Zimmer's score also sounds slightly better this time around. He's toned down some grating motifs from the first film and finally delivered a memorable theme, a love theme for Paul and Chani. That doesn't mean the soundtrack isn't still grating in parts, while the rest is mostly genetic ambient electronica. In my humble opinion, Brian Tyler's "Children of Dune" is the best "Dune" soundtrack ever composed, with Toto's 1984 soundtrack a close second.

"Dune: Chapter Two" is a solid sci-fi epic, a good adaptation and an entertaining visual spectacle. Villeneuve's passion for "Dune" is obvious, and his version is vivd and grand, although purists of Frank Herbert's seminal classic might still prefer the miniseries for its faithfulness to the author's vision. Regardless, Villeneuve's Dune: Part One" and "Dune: Part Two" are a great introduction for a new generation into an amazing sci-fi world that is still incredibly resonant almost 60 years after its inception.

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2024/12/conclave-movie-review.html

Can we ever truly know the accuracy of "Conclave's" depiction of the intrigue and self-interest within the papal conclave? Likely not. But Edward Berger’s gripping take on what might unfold behind the sealed walls of the Sistine Chapel feels remarkably plausible, offering a window into how flawed humans could behave even under divine scrutiny. From stellar performances to visually captivating scenes, "Conclave" delivers a unique blend of restrained tension and dramatic intensity - arguably one of the most understated yet hyperactive films in recent memory.

The story begins with the death of the Pope, prompting the commencement of a papal conclave to elect his successor. Cardinal Thomas Lawrence (Ralph Fiennes) is tasked with organizing the event, but he soon uncovers a web of secrets and scandals surrounding the candidates, particularly those favored to ascend to the papacy. As tensions mount and dark truths are revealed, the question becomes not just who will lead the Church, but whether the conclave can overcome its internal corruption to make the right choice.

Atmosphere is "Conclave’s" most potent weapon. From its haunting sound design to its breathtaking cinematography, the film creates a world where every frame feels deliberate and every note of the soundtrack heightens the stakes. A standout moment sees cardinals marching solemnly through the rain, umbrellas in hand. The score’s bold use of classical instruments adds to the tension, transforming scenes into works of art. Ralph Fiennes is the film’s beating heart, delivering a nuanced performance as Cardinal Lawrence. His portrayal captures a remarkable transformation, from an impartial, idealistic figure to someone subtly consumed by the very power he seeks to manage. His quiet intensity grounds the film, elevating even its weaker moments.

However, "Conclave" falters in its narrative. While the first half is compelling and believable, the revelations in the latter half steer the story into silly territory, undercutting its carefully built realism. This abrupt shift makes the ending feel less impactful and diminishes the resonance of its themes. Despite its narrative shortcomings, "Conclave" succeeds in its exploration of humanity’s frailty - even within a context as sacred as the Church. Its striking visuals, gripping performances, and thoughtful portrayal of moral and personal conflicts make it a memorable cinematic experience.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2024/12/mary-2024-movie-review.html

Sometimes, you can’t help but wonder why. Why did a film like "Mary" need to be made? Unfortunately, Netflix’s latest release fails to answer that question. Despite its high production values, "Mary" struggles to find its footing, leaving viewers perplexed throughout its runtime.

The story begins with Joachim and Anne, who, after years of praying for a child, are visited by the angel Gabriel. He informs them they will have a daughter but at a cost - they must dedicate her to the service of God. As Mary grows, she is sent to the Temple in Jerusalem to prepare for her sacred purpose. Mary (Noa Cohen) learns that she is destined to bear the son of God, Jesus. However, as news of her miraculous pregnancy spreads, King Herod the Great (Anthony Hopkins) becomes paranoid, fearing a threat to his throne.

While the premise holds promise, the execution leaves much to be desired. Even Anthony Hopkins’ seasoned performance cannot salvage a film that feels unsure of its target audience. As Catholics, we found some of the interpretations jarring, and it’s likely other Christian demographics might feel similarly. The characterizations of Mary, Joseph, and her family lack depth, and the narrative struggles to maintain momentum, resulting in a disjointed and unengaging experience. That said, "Mary" isn’t without its merits. The gritty tone and action sequences bring some unforeseen energy, offering moments of entertainment through their intensity and dare we say, brutality. The portrayals of Gabriel and Lucifer also stand out - both characters are intriguingly unsettling and inject a fresh, if unconventional, interpretation on these figures. However, these highlights are not enough to compensate for a story that fails to connect emotionally or thematically. In the end, while the production values are commendable, and there are glimpses of potential in its darker elements, the film’s overall lack of focus and character depth makes it an easy skip. Even with Anthony Hopkins’ committed performance, this adaptation of a familiar story falls short of its ambitious intentions.

Rating: 1.5 out of 5

I have to say that I enjoyed 2012’s here comes the boom a lot more than I thought I would. Going in I thought it was gonna be average because comedies are hit and miss for me, but I am also a sports movie fan so I wanted to give it a chance.

I thought Kevin James is great in this movie and it might be my favorite movie of his. I liked the story and some of the other characters as well.

Rating-4.5/5

So I just re-watched the Green Mile to talk about it on a podcast episode and it is an amazing movie.

First the performances. You have great performances from Tom Hanks and David Morse along with Michael Jeter and James Cromwell. The stand out though is Michael Clarke Duncan. He is the main focus of the movie and he brings the emotion and the gravitas that the movie needs.

Along with that, you do get some despicable characters in there, but they are played great. You also get a lot of great chemistry in here between Hanks and Duncan, but also Hanks and Cromwell.

Finally, this has so much range in terms of emotion. You are angry at times and happy and then you get in your feels and devastated by the end. I say is that it is over three hours long but it needs it. There’s no scene you could cut and it fills the run time

On a side note, Michael Clark Duncan should’ve won the Academy award for supporting actor in 2000

Rating-4.5/5

Read more reviews here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/

Frank Herbert's "Dune" is one of the greatest sci-fi novels ever written. It also gained a certain reputation as being impossible to adapt. That hasn't stopped filmmakers from trying. David Lynch gave it a shot in 1984 and the result was a wild, often puzzling epic that has since gained a cult following of sorts. Then there was the 2000 5-hour TV miniseries, which was very faithful to the source material, but the low budget and Sci-Fi (Syfy) Channel production values held it back from greatness. I've read the book, watched all the adaptations and played all the video games several times throughout the years, and I have to admit some "Dune" fatigue did begin to settle in. Denis Villeneuve's "Dune", however, proved to be a refreshing new take on Herbert's sprawling epic.

I won't even attempt to synopsize the plot, because that would turn this intentionally short review into an essay. At its core we have the quintessential hero's journey mixed with a great deal of political intrigue in a very unique sci-fi setting. To Villeneuve's credit, he does a wonderful job condensing the book's plot without relying too much on exposition dumps or drawn out scenes of dialogue. Some of Herbert's world building is absent, a necessary sacrifice to keep the story accessible to those unfamiliar with the source material. It's an incredibly difficult juggling act, but Villeneuve and co-writers Jon Spaihts and Eric Roth do a great job and deliver a narrative that is lean, clean and efficient, even though some characters don't get as much development as I would have liked.

The casting choices are superb. I had my doubts about Timothee Chalamet as Paul, but they were quickly dispelled by the young man's impressive acting chops. Rebecca Ferguson and Oscar Isaac also deliver strong performances, while Stellan Skarsgård is appropriately creepy but underused as the villainous Baron Harkonnen. Don't expect to see much of Zendaya or Javier Bardem in this one because their roles will be much expanded in "Part Two".

Visually the film aims for less flashier, minimalist designs, which give the world a sense of scale and realism. They can also also feel a bit bland, and I sometimes missed Lynch's eccentric designs. Regardless, this adaptation towers above all the rest when it comes to technical prowess, with immersive sound design, gorgeous cinematography and editing that helps set the pacing and keep the action coherent. The visual effects are pretty good, but not groundbreaking. Sometimes the CGI wasn't the best, especially when things blow up and during flight sequences. Can we please bring back miniatures ?

Then there's Hans Zimmer's score. First of all, I have to say I greatly respect both the man and his work. Which made it especially disappointing that his score for "Dune" features some of the most abrasive and obnoxious sounds I have ever heard. Aside from the lack of memorable themes and human warmth, the music constantly blares, bangs or screeches its way into the forefront of scenes, creating an irritating soundscape that substitutes originality with loudness. "Dune" deserved more complex and nuanced music, Zimmer instead opting for a disappointingly generic soundtrack that is unlistenable both in the film and on album (and believe me, I've tried).

Because it only tells half a story, "Dune: Part One" lacks a satisfying resolution. Many things throughout this movie feel like set up for Part Two, which is fine if you're doing a miniseries, but as a feature film, the lack of a traditional three-act structure doesn't work very well. It also bothered me that the emotional beats rang hollow, which is surprising from the director of films like "Arrival" and "Prisoners", and most likely a result of having to squeeze in as much of the book as possible into the movie. Unfortunately, this hinders the viewer's investment into the story and characters.

Although visually stylish and masterfully put together, "Dune: Part One" isn't completely without its issues. It's nowhere near the greatest sci-fi film ever made, but it's a competent adaptation. However, fans of the book might prefer the miniseries instead.

There is little doubt that Francis Ford Coppola is one of the greatest filmmakers ever. When you make The Godfather and Apocalypse Now, you get to carry that distinction. However, it is also a fact that Coppola’s work no longer has the immense draw it once did. Every film he has released since 1997’s The Rainmaker has either been critically panned or a box office bomb. Combine the two and you get 2024’s Megalopolis, Coppola’s first film in 13 years, and also one he has supposedly been working on since the early 1980’s.

So what is the culmination of the esteemed director’s near 40-year journey that included multiple studio rejections, self funding ventures and years of table reads? Frankly it’s a confusing, misdirected, yellow-hued mess. I understand why studios were consistently passing on production of the film. I also understand how, after it’s screening at film festivals, many studios were hesitant to pick it up for release until Lionsgate snatched it up a month after it’s Cannes debut.

The basic premise of Megalopolis – if you can even call it basic – follows the story of Cesar Catilina (Adam Driver), a patrician architect of the city of New Rome. New Rome, located in an alternate version of the United States, blends modern day societal elements with classic Roman language and styles. Cesar wins the Nobel Prize for inventing “Megalon”, a building material that revolutionizes the world. But, while Cesar wants to use the materials to create the utopia “Megalopolis”, his rival Mayor Franklyn Cicero (Giancarlo Esposito) is focused on present day gains, wanting it to open a Casino in New Rome.

It’s a fairly interesting premise muddied by literally every other facet of the film. The story simply becomes far too confusing as the Megalopolis progresses. By the end of the 138 minute runtime, I honestly had little following of the story’s structure. And the film ends so abruptly that, after over 2 hours, I thought “that was it?”.

It’s obvious though that some elements of the film seemed to have just been made up and tossed in over the long years Coppola spent with the script. Aspects like Cesar’s ability to freeze time, Aubrey Plaza’s Wow Platinum marrying the bank owner to control Cesar’s funds with little narrative consequence, and the way each character flies in and out of Roman dialect at will are just entirely too confusing and feel out of place.

What really hurts Megalopolis though are the absolutely bizarre directing choices being made. There are line reads that are just so bizarre and cadences that have no business working in a film. Normally, this would be an issue with the actors, but not here. The issue is so widespread across every character and with so many talented actors in the cast, there’s just no other common denominator other than direction. Moments like Adam Driver and Nathalie Emmanuel’s “Go Back To The Club” scene are just rampant and take you out of the experience entirely.

The fact that the film looks putrid also doesn’t help. Visual effects feel completely unfinished and there’s a disgusting yellow/gold hue to everything that looks disgusting. I get the symbolic nature of everything shining in gold to represent the prosperous city contrasted with the ugly nature under the surface. But none of that symbolism matters when the film is ugly to look at.

...

Read our Final Thoughts and See Our Score Here: https://firstpicturehouse.com/megalopolis-2024-review-francis-ford-coppolas-decades-long-flop/

It was honestly way better than i expected.

The beginning was kind of a fevor dream. I had no clue what was happening, but once the movie went on, i finally understood what was happening.

At the end of the movie, i feel like there could've been a waaayyy different ending like "what would've happened if he did this?" Or "he probably could've done this and gotten a better result"

Either way, I'd rate the movie probably around a 12 out of 15.

It's a perfect movie for what it is!

It wanted to be a grounded easy to approach, but truly terrifying experience that doesn't tire you out by keep going forever! They did their job the best way they could in this scope!

It was actually scary even for me, who got used to horror for decades now (Hereditary, Sinister, Dead Silence -were the best in horror I'd ever seen! Now Host made the list!)

I couldn't believe how effective the buildup, and the jump-scares were in this short time!

All that happened on-screen free zoom call length (under an hour)! Such a cool unique semi-original idea that will only work once in a lifetime! COVID! Relatable for the people who lived through that time too, like it had all those little zoom tricks we used to do to make quarantine less unbearable back in those days! Ahh...the nostalgia. Those were the days!

If you like on-screen movies, Searching is also pretty great movie, and Missing (which I heard is good, haven't watched yet).

99% Certified Fresh Rotten Tomatoes Critics Score even after 4 years, is SHOCKING for a horror movie! But man, after watching, I'd say, very well deserved!!

This article below was interesting! The science made sense to me-

Host is the scariest horror movie ever according to science

Overall, Host is really well-made horror that you'll actually have a good time with. Even if you don't like it, it won't waste too much of your time! Highly recommend it!

Read more reviews here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/

Did we really need a "Road House" remake ? This is apparently the kind of question Hollywood never asks, so we get movies like these. Now, the original wasn't some groundbreaking masterpiece. It was a silly 1980s action flick of the "So Bad, It's Good" variety. Remakes almost always attept to update the story for a modern audience. Did the 80s charm of the original survive the transplant ?

"Mr. and Mrs. Smith" and "The Bourne Identity" helmer Doug Liman does his best, but that old-school charm is mostly absent from this remake. Liman tries to replace it with a much more exotic backdrop for the club and fancier visuals, but it never quite works out. This isn't "So Bad, It's Good". It's just ... meh!

The plot is paper-thin and over-the-top ridiculous, but that comes with the territory. The original was no "Citizen Kane", either. Obviously, the main attraction here are the fights, and they're fine. Nothing to write home about. Just okay. They're competently choreographed, and they don't edit the hell out of them, which is nice. The camerawork, however, can feel a little strange. While they're easy to follow, the brawls look like they were shot by a fly buzzing around the fighters, which makes everything feel artificial. They even use CGI during the fights, which is a little weird, especially when it becomes noticeable. There's also some pretty distractingly bad CGI in other action set pieces throughout the movie. At times the movie looks like it was shot as a TikTok video.

Aside from Gyllenhaal who delivers a committed performance especially from a physical perspective, most of the supporting cast alternates between bland, misguided, or just plain bad. Daniela Melchior is an especially confounding choice for the love interest. Her line delivery is painfully fake and she lacks any chemistry with Dalton. The character Melchior plays is mostly just used as a plot device to move things along. Billy Magnussen is more comic relief than villain, and not very funny at that.

Then there's Conor McGregor. I don't know what McGregor was doing. Maybe the director was afraid to give him any direction for fear of getting his ass kicked. McGregor is physically fit for the part, no doubt about it, and he does seem to be enjoying himself as the psychotic brute, but he doesn't come across as intimidating as he should. The filmmakers seemingly wanted him to be less frightening and more cartoonish. And he has the least intimidating voice I've ever heard. He sounds like he's auditioning for a "Leprechaun" movie.

Reportedly, the movie cost around $85 million to produce. The original cost $15 million, which adjusted for inflation is around $37 million today. Did they really think an overpriced blockbuster was the way to go with this story ? Everything they changed or added to the original's bare-bones plot only helped inflate the budget, but adds nothing to the overall experience.

Liman was really upset that the film wasn't going to be released in theaters. Why ? The movie is easy on the eyes, but there's nothing here that would look better on a bigger screen. There's a mid-credits scene that teases the possibility of a sequel. I sure hope they don't do that. This remake is not franchise material.

How can you sit on a jury knowing the crime you’re listening to is a crime you’ve committed?  In what is likely Clint Eastwood’s final directing feature, Juror #2 paints this picture in a tense courtroom procedural. Nicholas Hoult plays Justin Kemp, our titular juror #2 who sits on a case where a man is accused of killing his ex-girlfriend when Kemp believes he accidentally killed her. W Juror #2 is a thrilling procedural with outstanding performances by its ensemble cast.

With this movie, before even getting into the review, we have to start by saying it is shameful that Warner Bros took this movie, gave it almost no marketing, put it in only a handful of theaters in a couple of states, and then buried it on Max. Let alone this movie rocks and would have had an audience in theaters, but to give the legend that is Clint Eastwood the cold shoulder and disrespect is embarrassing. Even if you don’t believe the movie will make a profit, what Clint Eastwood has done for the industry deserves respect, especially having his last picture on a large scale for everyone to see. It is embarrassing for the higher-ups at WB to have to be bullied into adding more theaters and campaigning for awards thanks to positive audience reactions. Will they ever learn? Probably not, but hopefully studios will give directors and creatives the respect they’ve earned and deserve.

Rant over, now back to the movie.  

What really worked for me with Juror #2 is how the story is told. Even with all the marketing of this movie telling you that Hoult’s character committed the murder he was sitting on trial for, the movie slowly drip-fed us information about that night that gave us more context. I liked that with each witness, each time that Justin thought about that night, we got a new angle on the incident from a new perspective. 

Nicholas Hoult fills this role perfectly. Justin Kemp is, by all accounts, a good person with his demons who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. His internal battle wears heavy on him, and he plays it perfectly with his eyes. He is caught between trying to protect his growing family and the guilt of sending an innocent man to prison for a crime he committed. Throughout the movie, the guilt weighs heavier and heavier but so does the pressure of becoming a father and his wife needing him to be there. 

There is this theme that Mike Flanagan put well on Letterboxd, saying “Good people can do awful things, bad people can still be innocent; people can indeed change, but that change doesn’t eclipse their responsibility… justice isn’t simple.” This movie lives in that grey area but is set in a courtroom, where there is no room for anything that isn’t black or white. Each character blurs the line of right and wrong to various degrees. It helps to externalize Justin’s internal conflict

...

Read The Rest of the Review and See Our Final Score Here: https://firstpicturehouse.com/juror-2-2024-eastwoods-likely-send-off-is-one-of-the-best-dramas-of-the-year/

I am always interested in learning about people and events and 2024 has definitely been a year that I’ve gotten more into documentaries especially about famous people. The newest example of that is Megan Thee Stallion: in her words on Amazon prime.

Megan Thee Stallion: in her words is Megan‘s accounts of what her career and her life has been up until now, mainly focusing on her start and with a lot, focusing on the shooting incident that she was involved in with a former friend in 2020. In this documentary, you get to go behind-the-scenes and , be there with her as the camera person as she goes through her roller coaster life in dealing with her successes, but also many negatives in her life and involving loss and how she is perceived by people.

Before seeing this documentary, I knew of Megan Thee Stallion and I’d heard some of her songs, but I was always attracted to her for her looks. This gave me a whole new perspective and a chance to see who she really was. Another aspect that I liked about this documentary that I’ve seen with other documentaries is that it’s more of an interview style instead of just a narration. You get to see the real emotions and accounts from her and that has more depth to her story

If I had to say negative, it might be that it is essentially a one time watch. I don’t know how much you would gain from watching it multiple times.

Rating-4/5

So, okay, the movie was really good, great in fact. But, um, it really didn’t age well. It really felt groomy. She knew the Chairman since she was a child and he knew the entire time and basically made her a geisha to hopefully be with him. Of course Nobu got in the way until the end. The kiss at the end made me feel uncomfortable. He basically made her for himself. Is that not grooming?

Anyways, besides that creepy aspect it was an amazing movie. I enjoyed learning about geisha and that side of Japanese culture. The acting was good and the cinematography was definitely Oscar winning worthy.

I give it a 8/10.

Originally posted here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/2024/12/hit-man-2023-movie-review.html

Glen Powell is on a roll. After spending two decades trying to catch that big break, in the last two years, the 36-year-old actor has racked up big hits like "Top Gun: Maverick", "Anyone But You" and "Twisters". Richard Linklater's "Hit Man" is another breakthrough for Powell, offering him a chance to flex his acting muscles in a movie that is both mainstream-friendly (some might say it doesn't even feel like a Linklater film) and auteur-driven at the same time. Not only that, but Powell also co-wrote the script alongside Linklater.

First things first, although inspired by a true story and a real person, this is not a biopic. Roughly based on Skip Hollandsworth's 2001 Texas Monthly article "Hit Man", the film is a fictional account based on real-life college psychology professor Gary Johnson (Powell), who enjoyed a flourishing career as an undercover fake hitman for the police in the 1980s and 1990s, assisting in more than 70 arrests. The movie's premise is real, and the cases depicted are mostly fact-based, but everything aside from that is pure fiction, especially the part of the plot in which Gary falls in love with a suspect from one of his cases, played by Adria Arjona.

The film is a lively genre mash-up, oscillating between romantic comedy and neo-noir, and it manages to be funny without overplaying the humor of Johnson's wild undercover personas. The idea of a man undergoing an existential crisis, whose life becomes more interesting when he's pretending to be someone else adds mischievous depth and layers to this dark comedy that make room for some philosophical exploration into concepts like self, self-change, ego and identity. It's the kind of heady material you would expect from Linklater, and it's nice to see a movie that isn't afraid to be amusing and thought-provoking at the same time. It never goes overboard in either direction, striking a strong balance at all times.

This movie really is Powell's show, who shows tremendous ability as both a dramatic and comedic actor. He has a lot of fun transforming into all kinds of colorful characters for the undercover stings, and he has a playful, easygoing charisma that keeps us invested in his character even as the story enters much darker territory than you would expect. In fact, the third act goes really dark with a final twist that I still don't know how I feel about. Arjona is also well cast as the femme fatale, and there's a playful chemistry between her and Powell that lights the screen on fire.

It's not really a perfect film. Is there really such a thing as a perfect film ? In the end it's up to the beholder to judge for himself. I for one found the film to be a fun and entertaining noir comedy with a twisty and witty script as well as an engaging cast, and I appreciated Linklater's effort to deliver something new and different in today's dreary cinematic landscape populated by tired tropes and cliches, sequels, remakes and comic book CGI-fests. A big enthusiastic thumbs up for a rare original movie.

Long-distance relationships in college are hard and sometimes the best thing to do is end things so everyone can be happy. Well, breakups can be hard if you don’t have your best friend at school with you who is also going through the same thing. Sweethearts is a comedy that follows friends Ben (Nico Hiraga) and Jamie (Kiernan Shipka) as they realize they must break up with their high school sweethearts over Thanksgiving break. With the support of their friend Palmer (Caleb Hearon), the pair embark on a journey to find a way to civilly end their relationships without crossing any boundaries. 

To start with some positives, I thoroughly enjoyed the pairing of Shipka and Hiraga. I thought their friendship felt truly authentic like they had been friends for years before they got together and started filming this movie. They display a level of comfort with each other that helps make this type of story work. It’s a very low-stakes story, there are no real hijinks or crazy hoops Ben and Jamie have to jump through to get from college to home. I think it works well to keep this as grounded as possible and let these two carry the movie with their charm. And they do, specifically Shipka. I haven’t seen much of what Hiraga has done but I am very familiar with Kieran’s work. She is incredibly adorable in this movie, yet she dominates the screen. 

But to me, the real star of this movie is Caleb Hearon. While his role is pretty disjointed from the main storyline, his subplot probably carried the most emotional weight. He is coming home from time in Paris and is getting ready to formally come out to everyone he knows. Living in Ohio, it is not an easy time to be gay, even in the modern day. He plans this whole extravagant event to flaunt himself for everyone to see, but the high school football coach of all people is the one to show him a different side of his town and a different side of himself. This was the part that stuck with me. He let himself be vulnerable and it added a depth to this movie that it had no business having.

Comedy is subjective, and unfortunately, I didn’t connect with a fair amount of the jokes this movie offered. The raunchiness of this movie is nothing new, but was still enjoyable nonetheless. 

It is kind of funny that this movie focuses on the friendship of Ben and Jamie and not the romance at all because I didn’t feel any sort of sexual tension between the two. I’m not going to spoil the ending but the romance was incredibly light, to the point where I don’t know if this is even a rom-com or just a straight comedy. I would rather there be no romance at all than forced so I’ll give the movie a lot of credit for calling its shot and not giving in to all the tropes, even though most of the story does.

...

Read our Final Thoughts and See Our Score Here: https://firstpicturehouse.com/sweethearts-2024-review-i-wish-i-liked-this-more/

I actually really enjoyed the film. I was surprised to see how bad the critic reviews were. I won't pretend that this was a masterpiece, but it was a fun Christmas movie with some really good jokes. If you want a nice Christmas watch, I'd recommend giving this one a shot.

Transformers One marks a change for the franchise away from the big budget, live action, CGI explosion fests that were the Michael Bay films. Now, the series has reverted back to animation and explores the origins of Optimus Prime and Megatron. And, as someone who never really got into the original animated series or the live action films, this movie was an incredibly pleasant surprise.

In Transformers One, director Josh Cooley takes the iconic robots in disguise back to their roots. Instead of opting to tell a story in the midst of the famed conflict between Autobots and Decepticons, Cooley instead goes all the way back to the beginning. Optimus Prime and Megatron, known at the start of the film as Orion Pax and D-16, are simple miners on the planet Cybertron. They spend their days mining for Energon, a highly valuable resource that has become scarce since the Matrix of Leadership, a key cog in the machine that makes Cybertron work, was lost.

Both Pax (Chris Hemsworth) and D-16 (Bryan Tyree Henry) are without cogs, like all the other miners, meaning they are unable to transform. But after a series of mishaps the two, along with the strange loner bot B-127 (Keegan Michael-Key) and Elita-1 (Scarlett Johansson), set out to find the Matrix of Leadership and restore balance to Cybertron forever.

I admit that Transformers as an IP has never really interested me. As a child there was never really anything that appealed to me about it other than the action figures were fun to play with. But I appreciate the approach the filmmakers took to make this film as accessible as possible for people unfamiliar with the franchise. With a standard franchise entry (Transformers: Rise of the Beasts) having arrived just last year, I like that this film gives a chance for a reset and for a newer, younger audience to once again invest themselves in the robots in disguise.

It helps too that Transformers One is incredibly well voice acted. Chris Hemsworth once again is proving his skills in such a diverse range of roles. From Furiosa earlier this year to now, Hemsworth is excelling in roles outside of the Marvel Cinematic Universe in ways that some of his counterparts (Chris Evans) are not. Same goes to Scarlett Johansson, who really steps into her role as an uptight, well intentioned robot manager.

I was most impressed by Bryan Tyree Henry, though. Playing a famous villain like Megatron was always going to be challenging. But also making that same character a sympathetic hero whose tragic downfall feels incredibly significant. A lot of that comes from Tyree Henry’s strong performance, which feels unsurprising with him coming off an oscar-nominated performance in 2022’s Causeway.

Even when you open the hood of the film and look underneath, the technical aspects left me impressed. The script is tight and doesn’t waste any time while developing a believable friendship between Pax and D-16 while establishing some of the characters we recognize from the eventual rivalry between the two. On top of that, the animation is very good, which feels important given the suedo-renaissance that animation styles have gotten in recent years.

Final Thoughts

Transformers One is an excellent entry in the famous franchise. It works well as a reset to for returning audiences and also allows for younger audiences to have a solid, family friendly way to get introduced. It’s well voice acted, looks great, and tells a fun story that works on a lot of levels. This will certainly make for a good family movie that anyone can watch and enjoy.

4/5

...

See More of our reviews and other articles here: www.firstpicturehouse.com

Where should she turn when Laura Franco struggles with self-worth and is at her lowest? How about the monster who’s been hiding in her closet all along? Your Monster is a romantic horror comedy starring Melissa Barrera, Tommy Dewey, and Edmund Donovan. The story follows Laura recovering from cancer and a break up trying to find her confidence and a role in her ex’s play. She is greeted at her lowest by a monster who has been living in her house all her life and who helps her discover her self-worth. Barrera delivers her best performance yet and Your Monster delivers an emotional ride of a movie.

Barrera has had a roller coaster of a year. After being unceremoniously removed from the Scream franchise, she delivered in the fun action-packed vampire thriller Abigail. Here she gave a more emotionally driven performance that embodied the real-life experiences director Caroline Lindy went through while she was sick. She displays her incredible range, her incredible stage presence, and her voice. She brings strength to a character who is going through hell and by the end, she learns exactly 

As I was watching, obviously my mind kept making the comparison to Lisa Frankenstein, the other monster rom-com that came out this year. These two movies have their similarities but ultimately are vastly distinct, making for a very delightful double feature. Your Monster is more emotionally grounded. I interpreted the Monster as Laura’s repressed aggression which only appears when she allows it to surface. As she goes with the flow, living her life with a friend and boyfriend who doesn’t care for her, she doesn’t notice him. But when she’s left all alone, he’s there. He feeds into her angry thoughts but he reminds her that she is better than what she is now. She is worthy of being loved. By the end when she is standing tall above the person who has made her feel so small, he is gone again. 

Now, this movie does move itself incredibly fast. The movie opens with a montage to give us all we need to know about how Laura got to this low point and from there we do not slow down. As a result, I believe characters outside of Laura and the Monster are not developed much at all. I also felt as if the story itself wasn’t given enough time to breathe. But what mattered to me was how they created the relationship between Laura and her Monster and that truly was the movie’s strongest aspect outside of Barrera’s acting. What worked so well for me was that the romance between the two was slowly built up, and we got to enjoy their friendship first. It worked for me that their romance never felt forced.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Your Monster is a great movie that tells a personal story with its fantastical elements. Melissa Barrera delivers her best performance yet and brings such an emotional edge to this funny movie. While not perfect, Your Monster delivers everything you could want, and I highly make a night of a Your Monster x Lisa Frankenstein double feature. A movie where Barrera ends up in blood can never not be good.

3.5/5

...

See More of our reviews and other articles here: www.firstpicturehouse.com

Originally posted here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/2024/12/black-widow-1987-movie-review.html

It seems like the 1980s are an almost endless source of overlooked classics. Such is the case with the 1987 film "Black Widow" directed by Bob Rafelson, who is best known for the Jack Nicholson movies "Five Easy Pieces" and "The Postman Always Rings Twice". This was Rafelson's first film after a six year hiatus, and the script is penned by Ronald Bass ("Rain Man"). The steamy neo-noir thriller follows Justice Department agent Alexandra Barnes (Debra Winger) who is hot on the trail of a serial killer (Theresa Russell) who marries wealthy men who have a habit of turning up dead from natural causes despite seemingly being in good health.

The movie's pacing is typical noir slow-boil pacing, which at first might discourage some viewers, but while it does take a while to get going, the halfway mark is where things become really interesting. The cat-and-mouse game between the two becomes a twisted psychological entanglement as Alexandra's obsession with catching the black widow has more to do with her own unresolved issues and a profound fascination with the killer than serving justice. The closer she gets to her target, the greater the stakes for both women.

Winger and Russell are strong leads, delivering intense, riveting performances, especially when they play off of each other. The characters are surprisingly complex and the script invites reflection on some interesting themes relating to sexism, which are handled with a perceptive touch without turning the film into a feminist manifesto. Russell's femme fatale remains a mystery throughout, which is the smart thing to do, because over-explaining her motives would have completely ruined the character.

My one big complaint about the movie is that at times the story feels telegraphed, jumping from one plot point to another a little too quickly, which is ironic given how slow the build up is. Regardless, Rafelson's direction never wavers and he sees the film through to its wonderfully twisty finale.

At a first glance you could easily be fooled into thinking "Black Widow" is just another unremarkable psychological thriller, but it was way ahead of its time by featuring a female protagonist, which is a rare occurance in noir, and elegantly subverting noir tropes. This is an overlooked, underrated and misunderstood gem of the 1980s that deserves a closer look.

https://jwwreviews.blogspot.com/2024/12/family-guy-gift-of-white-guy.html

Grade: B-

In this Christmas Family Guy special on Hulu, Peter Griffin (voiced by show creator Seth McFarlane) has to find a gift for his company’s white elephant gift exchange, and Stewie (also McFarlane) tries to turn over a new leaf, so he can stay off the naughty list.

Just like the Halloween special, this appears to be a regular episode that was arbitrarily called a special and put on streaming.

This is a somewhat stronger entry than the last one.The Brian (again McFarlane)/Stewie b-plot was stronger and more unexpected than they usually are. There are a couple truly funny moments. Also, Peter’s logical-minded boss Preston Lloyd (The Orville’s Peter Macon) is in this, and he is always fun. (It has occurred to me that he is Peter’s fifth boss, man, Peter has gone through a lot of them).

However, this does have another worn out Peter/Lois (MadTV/The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel’s Alex Borstein) storyline where it does not really focus on their relationship, but it still feels toxic and worn out.

Also, this wholesale recycles a subject for a joke from an earlier Christmas episode and not as well.

Recommended if you are a fan of the show that still watches, but not a standout or entry point.

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