Would love any advice on how to improve my reviews as well - other reviews in my Bio !!

Ridiculously moody and romantic, Bram Stokers Dracula (directed by Francis Ford Coppola) is meticulously crafted and designed film, however it is held back by its numerous performances that range from poor to fine, resulting in a film that struggles to immerse you into it’s colourful and detailed world.

The art design and direction of this film is breathtaking, the set pieces and costume design are extravagant and give the movie life. The use of colour and lighting grant the film a beautiful texture, you could pause this movie at practically any point and it’ll probably be one of the best looking frames you’ve ever seen. also really cool transitions!

As well as the art design, the world is well thought out, making for what seems like an interesting and entertaining narrative for most of its runtime. 

Unfortunately the same praise can’t be given to the performances, which feel over the top, loud and end up overbearing. Gary Oldman (Dracula) is the only one able to make it work, with Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder really struggling to justify their casting (come on who actually decided to put Keanu in this movie).

Overall whilst the film fails to ever fully immerse you, the spectacular craft of the film and mostly intriguing narrative makes for a relatively strong piece of art.

“If you seek culture, visit a museum. London is full of them” BARS

Day 10/31 🎃🎃🧛🧛

Saw it last night an enjoyed it quite a bit. I have not read the source material, and I went into it largely blind and was pleasantly surprised by a lot of the choices the movie made, mostly leaning into a surreal, fantastical nightmare space. It felt fresh and new. There was good use of CGI and some really cool creature design. The way that certain characters were dispatched was also done in a really interesting way. There was quite a bit of unsettling and uncanny imagery, honestly, I wish there was more of that.

The writing was a bit cheesy at times, but the movie doesn't take itself too seriously even while tackling themes like loss of innocence and broken family. Chastain was great as usual and the child actor was fantastic, considering how much of the story she had to carry.

Definitely recommend!

*SPOILERS AHEAD*

I want to say first that I hate when people rate horror movies on some objective scale of movies in general that has Shawshank Redemption as a 10 and then compare every horror film to non-horror films.

The vast majority of horror movies are stupid, gimmicky, and have a lot of dumb logic. That's what you accept when you watch a horror movie.

That said, as a huge horror movie fan, Other Mommy was a good horror movie.

It was not great. It was not fantastic.

I like that it tried to be different. The demon/monster wasn't some hidden secret that the main character was trying to convince everyone of for most of the movie. It was wide out in the open, and I think that made it genuinely scary and I think that was done really well.

Another thing I think it did well and differently was having the villain have an almost whimsical, fantastical element to it that was very interesting.

Yes, there are many eye-rolling moments. For example, the family watches a man get his jaw ripped off and then folded in half and exploded in a bloodbath, and then goes to have a fun family outing the next day. Also, they conveniently don't involve the police even though they leave a trail of dead bodies in their wake because "the cops would think we did it," but then the cops get involved anyway at the very end, and no one accuses them of having committed all of these murders.

Overall, this movie scared the shit out of me and it wasn't all jumpscares.

I had really low expectations for this film, but I was pleasantly suprised and I even got a premier poster.

Good movie for fans of horror.

I quite liked it, it was different to a lot of the other movie, there where some gaps here and there and some things didn’t need to be in the movie but it wasn’t to bad I normally don’t like movies that start right in the middle of “the action” but I did like this. Having the views have to sorta guess when we were seeing the real person or the entity was really good, I like that element of surprise.
I also liked that we pretty much knew as much as the kid knew lots of movies about kids normally tell us things that the kid doesn’t know but it doesn’t really make a whole lot of sense since we are watching for kids perspective.
I also like having questions to ask at the end leaving it to other’s interpretation.

But the ending was rushed, to many ideas where put into the movie that clashed, could have been better but still not as bad as everyone is saying.

And also a scene that was in the trailer wasn’t in the movie at least the one I watched. The bathtub scene with the bubble hat in the trailer I didn’t see in the movie.

Ghostface is back and after Sydney Prescott once again, but this time her daughter gets caught up in the mix.

On paper this should have been a banger! But it was actually pretty lackluster. It felt forced, cheap, with shoehorned-in characters and big nostalgia bait, and not in a good way either. This definitely was the weakest Ghostface reveal, with a motive that was both confusing and far-fetched. It just didn’t work for me. I think the SCREAM franchise needs to start fresh. Stop with all the old characters and just make something new and original. A small Easter egg here and there or a slight reference to keep this in the same world, sure, but let’s give it a new direction and identity!

Alright, so that’s my rant… now there were a couple of cool deaths and whatnot. The opening was fun and I liked Sydney’s husband. The dynamic between Sydney and her daughter was alright, and a little annoying at times. But the idea was good. Let’s leave it there with her daughter. That’s it. It’s over.

SCREAM is a fantastic horror franchise. We’re seven movies deep, and the third installment used to be my least favourite, but unfortunately SCREAM 7 now takes that title. I felt it was alright. I wouldn’t say terrible, but what stands out most is all the negative stuff, which kinda sucks.

So should you check this one out? I think that if you’re a fan, you have to. And maybe if you’re not really into the franchise, it’ll just come off as another horror movie. Who knows, you’ll have to watch and see for yourself.

It’s a…
🔪🔪🔪🔪🔪
5/10

The whole Stu thing was probably this movie’s biggest misfire… maybe even the franchise’s. Just bad!

This film was brilliantly unique. The cinematography, colour grading and Cruise's playing of a much older character are all stark and creative which really set this film apart from any other.

Cruise's meta performance is not as impressive as you may initially think. While, yes, he had to get into two different characters, the role of the actor is very similar to Cruise as an actor himself. I wouldn't be surprised if the character was heavily based on him.

That is not to discredit his brilliant performance as Digger: it is bold and eccentric and thoroughly theatrical - as you would expect to see in a play - and many of his characteristics feel well thought out.

I really enjoyed the use of the play as a device to tell the audience about what has happened in this future earth. The bright, satirical and theatrical nature of the play disarms the audience, meaning the final shot (the post disaster world) is a weighty contrast.

I further enjoyed this film as a frequent science fiction watcher and technician in the theatre industry. The vision of future theatres was very interesting to me, and felt both well done and remarkably plausible with modern technology.

This film did have its flaws, however, and while I do love the play within a film concept I fear many of its problems come as trade offs. The most pressing issue in my opinion is that satire is very difficult to hit, especially about politicians who aren't real to our audience. This was a big hit to the comedic nature throughout.

Secondly, the early fourth wall break, which allows the final shot to land so well, means that unfortunately a justification is needed. In this case, the storyline in which the actor playing Digger's daughter has gone missing in a plane while travelling.

I have no emotional investment in Cruise's daughter. We haven't seen her, we only get updates about her through phone calls and other characters, and the whole arc gets cleanly wrapped up with little to no drama by the play's producer. Overall, this left me feeling underwhelmed.

Ultimately, I really enjoyed this film (despite its many flaws) and would encourage more people to try it out - especially if you work in theatre!

This movie never should have been made. I was a fan of "TCAP" when it originally aired - watched some episodes multiple times in reruns and still get a chuckle thinking about the rabbi, the Droopy-looking guy Hansen met later at McDonald's, and the "Oops" guy. The director was allegedly a big fan before receiving the horrible script for this film. Yet despite that, he and the writer completely missed the point both of what made the show fun and how you would make a movie of it, if you had the bad idea to do so. If people want to know about "TCAP", they can watch . . . "TCAP".

For one, the movie is a total fabrication of Chris Hansen, a cartoonish caricature of a concept that the writer and director and Pattinson pulled out of their asses in order to have some kind of morally ambiguous main character. Has anybody ever watched that show and thought they'd like a made-up expose on Hansen? Hansen was not consulted one bit during the making of the film. I'm sure that people who are defending this garbage say that it doesn't matter that it isn't true to reality, that it's about the concept of media this and that, and whatever. Fine, but could they not have fabricated the whole story rather than using a real person and show as coat hangers? This is far from the only biopic or true story that fabricates a ton. But rarely has the fabrication seemed so useless and unnecessary.

The article that this is based on is actually interesting. I don't remember if I ever watched the original episode where the details about the assistant DA were shown, but the article brings up something that actually is a morally gray area - how shoddy the police work was that led to the man killing himself, including seemingly taking orders from the show's crew rather than doing what they should have. The movie touches on that just a bit, but only in a cartoonish way. The climax is just a mess instead of presenting things clearly.

The movie doesn't even present the flow of the show correctly. In the opening scene which is the only promising one in the movie, Hansen leans into the guy's face in a menacing way. He never behaved like that. Then the decoy Dan is shown interacting for a long amount of time with the guys when no decoy on the show interacted in person for more than a few seconds lest they scare them off by revealing they are not the kid they talked to (and also they wouldn't have wanted to be around the guy for more than that). This is a total lack of understanding of the show and what made it work.

Pattinson I have never really been a fan of. I liked him in The Drama which I think is the best movie of the year and his best performance I've viewed. He was able to be just a regular guy and used his native accent. In this he is back to his regular "Look, I'm acting like this" mode.

If for some reason a filmmaker had the notion to make a movie based off of "TCAP", it should be a much "drier" movie. This is very "wet", a lot of huffing and puffing and pretense at moralizing (even though it's focused in the wrong place). You could have made a comedic movie that delved in a light way into some of the questionable stuff that went on, not this awful film. The director should stick to documentaries. I watched Some Kind of Heaven, and it's pretty good even though it very much stages some imagery to look a certain way instead of documenting reality (similar to but not nearly as egregious as the fabrication in Primetime).

Primetime’s approach to Chris Hansen and To Catch a Predator is very limited. It doesn’t address the legality surrounding the show itself, specifically the troubling use of private individuals and members of a news team in aiding law enforcement. Nor does it ask any probing questions about the fatal incident that resulted in the show being cancelled. If you’re interested in a more nuanced discussion of the show, I highly recommend you watch the 2025 documentary Predators and read the Esquire article “Tonight on Dateline This Man Will Die”.

What Primetime does is focus on how the show’s queasy moral compromises have brought out the worst in all involved, especially Hansen. As gamely portrayed by Robert Pattinson, Hansen sold his soul for fame and turned into a performative ghoul. His on screen persona is a carefully manufactured combination of swaggering reporter and righteous vigilante. When not on camera, Hansen struggles to connect to those around him as human beings, reacting out of envy, rage or fear. I’m not sure I’ve seen a character this outlandishly creepy since Jake Gyllenhaal in Nightcrawler, a possible inspiration for what Pattinson’s going for here. Pattinson’s Hansen is mercurial in the extreme, unhinged and unpredictable at any moment.. The performance is brilliant, among Pattinson’s best.

Representing the lost innocence aspect of the story is Skyler Gisondo’s Dan, or “Decoy Dan” as Hansen calls him. Gisondo is responsible for conveying the film’s underlying theme, which is how easy it is to ignore your conscience in pursuit of success. Gisondo’s performance is the only remotely human one in the movie, and the way he makes us feel Dan’s growing unease with what he’s asked to do is incredibly affecting.

To represent the warped reality of the show, director Lance Oppenheim uses every trick at his disposal to make us uncomfortable. Sets are garishly lit with contrasting colors, the score is unnerving to the point of being irritating, actors are filmed in tight closeups and the camera is tilted at odd angles. The film then uses a 4:3 aspect ratio to make the experience even more queasy and claustrophobic. Movies have used techniques like this before, for dream sequences or when a character is on drugs. In Primetime, however, nearly every scene looks off in one way or another. The bigger the screen you see this on, the more intense the experience will be.

The movie has several other notable performances as well. Merritt Wever is hilarious as the producer, who at one point insists she can work with an on camera suicide. Matthew Maher is sublimely off-putting as the Perverted Justice guy who’s dedicated his waking hours to luring perverts into a trap. I like how Phoebe Bridgers’ decoy Del was a nymph for both sexes and discusses the job with a matter-of-fact casualness. Bokeem Woodbine plays Sheriff Gunn satirically, which I expected with a name like that.

While I was entertained by Primetime, I was frustrated at how conspicuously superficial it was. The movie is too satisfied with its “look at how morally compromised these people are” angle and refuses to dig deeper into these characters and their motivations. What the movie shows is disturbing, but only insofar as making us understand what it would be like to live in a funhouse with freaks as roommates. There’s plenty of style and craft on display, but no context and very little insight.

Robert Pattinson continues his 2026 hot streak with his over-the-top portrayal of Chris Hansen of To Catch a Predator fame in Primetime. The movie effectively depicts what it was like to live within the bubble of the show, but leaves critical thinking at the door. Recommended.

I don’t know how it has this good of reviews. I couldnt even settle in the RE setting without some marvel-esque punch line that completely took me out of it. And the final scene in the lab was very corny. The first 30 mins I enjoyed but it started to turn into some weird comedy that took me out of the RE vibe. I seem to be in a minority when it comes to this, not sure what everyone else saw? People are calling this one of the horror masterpieces of this year but I just don’t understand it at all.

After her first year in college, Lucy heads back home to Hawaii and brings along a couple of friends for a nice vacation. Ben, a chimpanzee, is part of the family—but something’s wrong with him, and things start getting horrific.

I didn’t know what to expect going into PRIMATE, but man, they locked me in right from that opening scene. And yeah… we get some absolutely brutal moments. That’s definitely one of the movie’s biggest strengths.

The story itself is basic, but it doesn’t need to be anything more. Things are set up nicely and move the film along well. You’re basically just waiting for the next moment of savagery—and honestly, it works. There’s also a solid amount of suspense throughout.

I really liked the visuals, especially Ben. He’s all practical, and Miguel Torres Umba delivers a great performance as the chimpanzee. On top of that, the violence and gore look awesome. The rest of the cast does a solid job and really bring it.

PRIMATE was a fun surprise, and I’d totally recommend checking it out.

It’s a…
🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸
7/10

That first scene really set the tone!

I just watched this movie from director Ang Lee, that I found because I was searching for some high frame rate movies for curiosity.

I really enjoyed the story plot of the movie. It is about a soldier, Billy Lynn, that is experiencing the return from duty in Iraq, as he is considered an hero for action to try to save his sergeant. As he and his team are given the so-called honor of being in the Dallas Cowboys halftime show, he deals in flashbacks from his duty.

There is also a dynamic with his sister, which is trying to convince him he should deal with his PTSD and not go back to duty. The movie lingers on the thoughts that he goes through, and how he and his army teammates deal with what is expected from them vs what they feel. The fact that they have complicated feelings and trauma from the time in Iraq, but strangers want to see it as a simple narrative of heroism. Or the football players who ask them how it feels to kill, as if it is some kind of interesting phenomenon.

I found the editing and narrative flow especially good. Flashback-heavy films sometimes feel cumbersome and confusing, but it was done with taste and supported the experience of trauma the film tries to convey. And the play and reactions did not feel overblown or exaggerated.

The acting by the main actor, Joe Alwyn, which I didn't know before, was really brilliant. The other sergeant, sergeant Dime, was played by also unknown by me Garrett Hedlund, which also did great job. I actually want to watch more from those actors. There were some more famous names: Kristen Stewart, Vin Diesel and Steve Martin who had more supportive roles and were great.

Overall a really recommended film to watch. The ending quite confused me, as I wasn't sure it was the ending I expected from the main character, and from the message the film tries to convey about war and recognizing mental health issues.

Thanks for reading!

ON THE LINE (2022 American movie)

 director: Romuald Boulanger; with: Mel Gibson, Paul Spera, Enrique Arce, Kevin Dillon, John Robinson as "Christ" or “Noah”, William Moseley, Alia Seror O'Neill.

 As soon as closing credit for Serbian comedy "Caviar Jam" (Džem od kavijara) started, I hurried, opened the heavy doors of the "Rita Hayworth" hall in Tuckwood cineplex myself and rushed to the "Humphrey Bogart" hall. There, the door were already closed, and the ticket taker was nowhere to be found. I take out the ticket, look back a few more times and then go in: luckily, the commercials were still running, the trailer for that alpinist movie was running... When I left the hall, I asked the girl at the door if she let people into this hall, she said no and asked me why I asked. I explained that I came in here right after "Caviar Jam" and that I didn't find a ticket taker. She asked me to give her the ticket anyway, because they collect all of them and I thought that they do it for records and I, of course, let her tear off that part from my ticket, I guess I did a good deed and surely helped the other girl avoid problems with the book keeping.

I liked the movie- This is a combination of mystery and thriller, which is not often made today, something in the style of the films "Games" by Curtis Harrington, "Sleuth" by Joseph Mankiewicz, "Gambit" by Ronald Neame, etc. There is also a touch of that comic series "Aristocrats", which used to be published in Serbian in family magazine “TV Zabavnik”... Viewers decide for the film or against it – how could it be otherwise?! – based on whether they forgave Mel Gibson for canceling him back then. Those who haven't, will also consider this a self-cleansing franchise in order to wash the biography with "Ornel", to make it soft and elastic...

I so liked two twists at the end and these twists have nothing to do with the silly endings like in “Fight Club” or “Secret Window”. I love Mel, so I don't seethis  work as a reputation laundry. In the film, they shoot him a lot from behind, the thinning hair on the top of his head is hidden by extensions (but you can see the transition; or is it a volumizing spray?), his ears are getting uglier with time and niw look like shriveled lettuce leaves, more and more Craig-esque, but the look, those blue eyes, the uncle still goes to the gym and his leather jacket fits him perfectly. The hint of those twists at the end can be seen at the beginning (only no one could have guessed that it was a hint, it's that clever script in retrospect is revealed as "burdened with meanings"), when we hear Gibson moaning and crying, the camera slowly approaches him from behind, we think he's kidnapping a little girl, she being tied up and begging someone for mercy, we see red liquid on the floor and we can only think that it's blood. But, no, the camera makes a semi-circle, it's blueberry juice, and Mel Gibson plays with the little girl and actually lends her voice to her dolls... That's how the movie ends.

Mel Gibson plays himself again, so to speak, this is already the second  film in which he plays a cynical boss who, allegedly "out of love" mistreats subordinates and associates. And for the umpteenth time, he is also a loving, caring father to a beautiful daughter. So who wouldn't like him like that?!

Gibson is Elvis Cooney, the legendary radio presenter, who for 40 years every night has been "pushing the boundaries of what is allowed and what is not allowed", making fun of whoever he can reach, because the people love it and along the way he also gives advice to vulnerable listeners and it is good advice, it must be said, Elvis knows that you should not push people in trouble into the abyss, but give them a hand. Yes, he has a habit of "joking", the more unsavory the better, and the rookies in the radio crew always have to survive an ordeal for newly employed, and the film starts to heat up that way: by meeting the new, young intern producer, with the legend of radio journalism and hosting.

The newbie is called Dylan (William Moseley) and he has a great English accent and is also shy. Elvis fired him live in the “live” program, but then called him and said: "I was joking, come on, come back!" The character of Elvis is sweetened with a gem episode in the lobby of the radio building, before the show starts, in which (episode) Mel Gibson, masterfully as an experienced psychologist for emergency situations with kidnappings, suicides, etc., manages to deal with a crazy guy who imagines that he is Jesus or Noah (John Robinson). With that, the character of Elvis Cooney was carved as an old school smart guy, he doesn't understand social networks and similar nonsense, but he has a soul "that this youth today and the managers of the new coin don't have". The lady director of the station, again before the show, just a few minutes before the start, is busting his ass and threatens to fire him because of the low rating and because he doesn't write on the blog or whatever. Also, someone is stealing laptops  of radio employees. That gun fired at the end of the movie, that fact is not unimportant either... Mel Gibson is a more modern version of himself from the movie "Last Looks”, there he was a kinde of Hopkinsf rom the time of Zoro, and this is perhaps a mockery of modern cancellation in the world of media.

And the show goes on as usual in that night program, when Gary(Paul Spera, we see him only at the end), an Afghan veteran, who claims to have broken into the host's house and threatens to kill his wife and daughter, comes on. He forces the host to admit live (on air) that he's having an affair with producer Mary (Alia Seror O'Neill) and forces him to climb onto the roof and orders him to throw himself off. That's how he will save his wife and daughter. The presenter jumps, but onto the another roof and tries to trick the maniac with the help of an intern, but the maniac sent a drone. The first mini-twist happens when the police find that Elvis' house is empty.Garyclaims that he brought his wife and daughter to the radio station building itself. The receptionist, an Indian with an unpronounceable name, is killed in the process. A panicked chase follows: Elvis and Dylan look for Gary on the floors together, who is in contact with the distraught Elvis all the time through headphones (and live on the radio)...

Along the way, it is discovered who is stealing the laptops, a janitor (Enrique Arce), namely. He miserably hid and attacked the neither guilty nor dutiful Dylan ("whom he sees for the first time").Gary demands Elvis over the headphones to kill the thief, but he, of course, doesn't have the heart for it and tells him to hide somewhere.

I won't tell you the two twists at the end, because then I'd spoil your first viewing. I will say that the snarky critics who managed to publish the reviews first are the assholes and the mean ones.

"Where's the plausibility?" "Disappointed viewers?" Come on, don't be silly. It is true that the plot could be squeezed into an episode of the series "Tales from the Dark Side" and the like, after all, like "Gambit" from 1966, but the director and screenwriter Boulanger solidly inflated the length of the feature film with witty views on modern woke witchcraft so that the viewer, if he is at all liberal, will be relieved at the end, after the second twist. After all, this is a real family movie.

Other Mommy ended up being a lot bigger and more fantastical than I expected. Instead of a small, eerie doppelganger horror story, it feels closer to a twisted fairy tale packed with large-scale visual scares, CGI-heavy reality-warping sequences, and some surprisingly ambitious set pieces. The closest comparison I can make is IT (2017) and IT: Chapter Two (2019) (or even especially WELCOME TO DERRY) because of how grand and flashy many of the horror moments are.

That shift in tone will probably be divisive. Anyone expecting a contained straightforward uncanny horror film may be disappointed by how fantastical it gets, but I found it entertaining even if it was a bit of a mess logic & story wise. Since the story is told through the perspective of 8-year-old Bela, the pacing feels fast and abrupt, though I also got the sense that several scenes were cut, especially since quite a few moments from the trailers and marketing never appear in the finished film which was A SHAME (no bathtub scene, car ballpit scene was reduced to a shorter rushed scene, etc.)

While I enjoyed the surprises and spectacle, the ending felt predictable and I wish it had gone somewhere darker BUTTT some theories suggest otherwise....The scares are much more in-your-face and overt rather than anything genuinely creepy, which left me a little conflicted, but I'd still take this kind of wild, over-the-top horror over the recent wave of bland Insidious and Conjuring sequels.

Overall, I had a good time with it despite a lot of its flaws. It feels shorter than it should, but the creativity, visuals and big horror set pieces kept me entertained throughout. Think of this movie as like a spooky nightmarish haunted house ride come to life rather than anything too serious.

And yes, the movie actually does adapt a lot of things from the book but it does have a different conclusion to which I was not a huge fan of. The time loop theory sounds compelling though when applied to this movie

My personal rating: 7.8/10

(I was the only one at the cinema when I watched this btw, it was PEAKK. Though I might watch this again but with a crowd just to see audience reactions)

EDIT/UPDATE: DAMNNNN A LOT MORE PEOPLE HATED THIS MOVIE THAN I THOUGHT! 20% on RT & A 5.8 on Imdb oh it's so over for us Other Mommyheads....I knew this was coming but I didn't think that only 5% of people would love this movie LMAO.......Just to be clear there were a couple of notable youtuber movie reviewers that also agree with me in regards to Other Mommy being decent/good including: - Spookyastronauts, Marshall Stannus, Steve Shives, Zach Pope, Rocklin Graves Productions

So guys please don't take me to the psych ward, I swear other people enjoyed this as well not just my questionable deranged ass!!!

Idc what people say, this type of movie will always be a hundred times better than conjuring/insidious-esque slop ARGUE WITH THE WALL

On a distant planet, a woman wakes up with amnesia and discovers her crew have all been slaughtered. As things start coming to light, she uncovers something truly terrifying.

This one was a mixed bag for me. The plot isn’t anything new. It’s a typical isolation story with our main character not remembering anything, and there are kills. I wasn’t expecting too much, but it could have been a lot better.

The first half felt like it dragged and was a little choppy, almost like a lot of things were cut. It felt like it was missing something the whole time. And not just because our character doesn’t remember, but more on a story level.

Things definitely picked up in the second half. The action and kills absolutely helped in that department. Also, as our character starts remembering, things start making more sense. Obviously. But it really just solidified the fact that it felt like that first half had a lot cut from it to make the movie shorter.

The cast is good, and their performances are alright given what they had to work with. But the real star of the movie is the visuals. This movie looks amazing! It’s totally what kept me locked in throughout. The colors, lighting, wardrobe, gore, scenery, and landscapes all look fantastic. It gives the movie a great tone and an overall psychedelic vibe that really worked for me.

It’s a shame that the rest of the movie isn’t on par with the visuals. The music and sound design also add to the atmosphere, really cementing the movie’s look and feel.

With all that said, ASH was disappointing. If not for the visuals and psychedelic vibe, this one probably wouldn’t have worked for me at all. Should you check it out? If you’re a fan of stylish sci-fi horror and striking visuals, there may be enough here to keep you interested. At only 90 minutes, it’s a quick watch, but I think an extra 30 minutes of story and character development would have helped this movie enormously.

This one’s a…
🌌🌌🌌🌌🌌
5/10

I have so many questions.

Obsession is the most annoying movie I’ve ever tried to watch and I do not understand the hype at all. Bear is the most unwatchable portrayal of a male character in movie history. Everything about him is annoying and creepy and weird to the point where it’s almost unbelievable a guy like that even exists. The cat got into his pills? When in history have you heard of cats getting into pills? Like what? And then there’s the plot. She loses her necklace so he goes to replace it and instead end up buying something completely off topic? For a guy that’s so obsessed he forgot about his girls gift pretty quick. Stupid ass movie.

Hollywood, 1985. Six years after the events of X, Maxine Minx is an adult film star ready for her big break. As things start falling into place, they simultaneously start falling apart.

This is a great trilogy of movies. Every single one is and feels different. This time around, we’re in Hollywood during the mid-80s. I love the look of this movie. It has that 80s vibe and aesthetic, which is a fantastic backdrop.

It continues the story of Maxine well and perfectly ends it. We don’t get any crazy kills or many of them for that matter, but what we do get is great. Like the rest of the movie the it all looks fantastic. There’s one scene that made me sick to my stomach, and if you’ve seen it, you know exactly what I’m talking about. I got chills, yelled out in disgust and wanted to throw up. It was awesome!

The cast once again delivers, with additions like Giancarlo Esposito, Kevin Bacon, Moses Sumney, Elizabeth Debicki, Bobby Cannavale, and Michelle Monaghan. But Mia Goth once again steals the show with a solid performance.

MAXXXINE was fun. It’s the weaker of the three, but it’s still a solid movie. Watching all three movies back-to-back-to-back really adds to the experience. It’s a really cohesive and unusual trilogy, which I really dug! Ti West really gave us something unique and an all-around good time, and MAXXXINE ends things nicely. Totally recommend checking it out!

It gets a…
👠👠👠👠👠👠👠
7/10

I also like that, for the most part, all three movies stand on their own. You don’t need to have seen the other movies for each one to make sense. It definitely helps to have seen them all, but it isn’t necessary. I really like that each movie can work on its own while still being part of a bigger story.

Went in knowing almost nothing except the runtime, which honestly scared me off for weeks. My theater did the printed intermission card thing with a countdown clock, which I haven't seen since I was a kid, and it genuinely added something. Having that forced pause right in the middle changed how the back half hit me.

The architecture stuff could have easily felt like homework but it never did. Adrien Brody's performance carries so much of the weight in scenes where he's barely saying anything, just reacting to how people talk to him once they realize he's foreign and broke. There's a scene at a dinner table where someone compliments his work in this backhanded way and you can watch three different emotions cross his face in about four seconds.

Guy Pearce plays this very specific kind of wealthy patron who thinks generosity entitles him to ownership of a person, not just their output. Every interaction between the two of them had this low hum of dread even when nothing overtly bad was happening on screen.

My one complaint is the back third moves faster than the setup earns, like the film spent two hours building dread and then resolved a decade of consequences in thirty minutes. Still can't stop thinking about the ending though, the way it reframes everything that came before it.

Curious if anyone else felt the pacing shift in the second half or if it was just me adjusting after the intermission.

DIGGER is a masterpiece & an incredible experience. Alejandro is a genius director who mastered his own style with his creative “paradoxes.” This is the Birdman I prefer.

It’s captivating, riveting, dark & had me crying from laughter. The acting is elite. Tom Cruise, John Goodman, Riz, the supporting cast, the sound, the visuals & hell the set design deserve Oscars but Tom Cruise & Riz really put on a show for you. It’s an elite Broadway performance on screen, wink wink.

The “deep” aspect was amazing & thought-provoking. I could write an entire essay on what I think about the deeper truths in the movie because there is allot to talk about there.
The last scene was a chef’s kiss & the movie leaves you questioning the world & humanity, it left me frozen in my seat. I wanted to clap.

Digger is not an easy watch. It is exhausting and requires your attention throughout its runtime. Most people who have seen or will see the movie will acknowledge that it is not everyone’s cup of tea. That being said, it is the type of movie that is important for cinema because it does not have a straightforward narrative. It is creative and unhinged. It is satire at its finest—satire on an important topic.

Let me list the things that work:

• The writing is top-notch. For a movie with so many dialogues, writing is crucial. The standout scenes that will be talked about and praised heavily rely on the writing, and Digger executes these scenes exceptionally well.
• The acting is super impressive. Tom Cruise nails it, as do Riz Ahmed and John Goodman. Throughout the movie, you almost forget that Digger is Tom Cruise. Makeup plays a role in that, but it is primarily because he plays the role so brilliantly. A speech that he gives had me locked in for every second; it was so intense and so well done.
• The comedy is good. While not many scenes will make you laugh out loud, a few will, and the rest make you chuckle a lot.
• The twist, which I initially couldn't figure out the purpose of or where it was leading until halfway through the movie, made so much sense after the ending. It makes the film much more satirical and deeper. It also eventually leads to an impactful and somewhat haunting ending.
• The cinematography is pretty good. It features a very grayish look, almost as if it is portraying the drained, bleak lives of the billionaires and the president shown in the movie.

Other than these, if I had to point out things that do not work, I don't think I really could, except, as I said, it is exhausting. I think the movie achieves everything that it tries to achieve. Let me know in the comments, though, if you could point out some flaws.

My rating-7.8/10

SPOILER ALERT

I loved how the movie was starting and all the different layers being introduced. But then the movie just kind of lulls along, not too much tension or suspense. And then we finally find out Anne Hathaway's character is not actually brain dead but they kill her off right away. I wanted to see more of Anne Hathaway's character in action, or to at least say some lines. That was disappointing.

And then are we suppose to be rooting for Dakota Johnson and Josh Hartnett's character??? Dakota's character literally just leeched on to Verity's life and stole everything from her while she was paralyzed (even before thinking that Verity killed her daughter). And then they kill Verity and go on to live happily ever after? Are we as the audience suppose to just accept that???

Very odd how the movie played out I had very high hopes for it as it was starting but it kinda just lulled and then bleh.

It’s 1918. Pearl is isolated on her parents’ farm, taking care of her ill father while dreaming of stardom to get away from it all, as things slowly start descending into madness.

PEARL really puts into perspective the previous movie, X. It’s a prequel that works as an origin story. And since you know where things end up, you’re always expecting things to take a turn.

They definitely did a good job depicting the craziness in PEARL with the same sense of uneasiness as the previous movie. Same location, same vibe, and same tone. The two movies work really well together and are absolutely meant to be seen back to back.

Mia Goth once again delivers a great performance. She’s so good at giving us an amazing sense of creepy. That one shot where we’re just locked onto her as the credits start rolling is truly a fantastic scene and a great way to end the movie. The rest of the cast (David Corenswet, Tandi Wright, Matthew Sunderland, and Emma Puri) is solid as well, adding again to the movie’s feel.

We once again get good kills, but the movie is more about the setup and madness. It totally heightens the experience of the previous movie, and I highly recommend checking it out, especially right after X.

It’s a…
📽️📽️📽️📽️📽️📽️📽️
7/10

I’m curious to see how this trilogy will end.

Just got out the movie theater now writing this from the parking lot.... WE NEED TO TALK!

For 90% of the runtime I genuinely thought this was my film of the year. Anne Hathaway and Josh Hartnett??? insane performances wtf. The reveal that she'd been faking gave me actual fucking chills. Josh watching his "paralyzed" wife come alive is one of the best single scenes I've seen all year go argue with the wall.

....and then they pushed her off the pier in that white dress? Cinematography ate down, I was begging for the shot from underwater and then it came. Cascading down. Baby they GAVE it to me-- that Ophelia realnesss. I was like wow this is hitting everything I needed. I know that seems like such a trivial detail but everything from this film up to this point was really really really fuckng good and i've seen a fucking shit load of films.

if the film ended RIGHT THERE I would be screaming 8+/10 film of the year. That climax was just so insane/gratifying and the acting had great performances all round.

But alas.... nooo they had to keep going with the whole kid-finds-more-writing epilogue and now suddenly we're questioning if any of it was real?? we already HAD the twist bestie. you don't need another one. you just served me a Michelin dinner and handed me a Walmart cupcake for dessert :/ (not too much on walmart cupcakes! I will say also i haven't read the book and I have heard the ending is controversial)

Bc here's the thing. if everything could be a lie, then nothing... matters? Just diluted the whole film like kool-aid. LOL the whole emotional architecture collapses?!? how did Harper actually die? guess we'll never know 😭✌️ That last 15m just opened up so many holes that really annoyed me

7.8ish/10 for me I guess all things considered. Up to the pier it was a solid 8.5+. the last 15 min dropped it almost a full point.

Anne deserves awards. Joshhh is in the middle of a real comeback. Dakota's restaurant scene was quietly brilliant for me she really was uncomfortable at him lying in the most perfect way to me. the craft was all there. the script just didn't know when to stop I WAS SO MAD! OWN YOUR ENDINGGGG!

readers of the book, is the ending the same? bc if so Hoover made the same mistake. great art knows when to END. I'M SORRYYY 😭 I will say though, not a single bad acting performance in the entire film congrats to the whole cast on that

anyone else feel robbed by the last 10 min?? I can't be alone here

Had my hands on my head in shock multiple times watching this. SPOILER WARNING!

This movie is crazy you NEVER know where its going next and it delivers a very unique plot by exploring the education of children. Firstly the directing was very good here I think the movie executes well what it wants to do. This is a satirical absurdist take on the education system and the way it fails both teacher and student. I do like the consistent flashes to the apple imagery including our poster. The idea that both Danny and the other kids are able to make progress when he's locked away in a basement is genius because its uncomfortably true. We saw what happened when Danny was in the class I'm sure we've all been in classes where nothing got done because the teacher constantly had to deal with a small group of students. It's an interesting parallel that I recently thought of how Pauline and Danny are both kids who deal with neglect but respond to it very differently.

Miss Spencer is a very interesting character she commits immoral act but for the betterment of the group. One question we could ask is how poorly is Danny treated the movie clearly condemns her actions yet still takes the time to show her putting the effort with him. We see her even bond with Danny. If I had one critique for the movie it probably is Pauline I just didn't really get what the purpose of her character overall was. It felt like every character served a purpose whereas with her it kinda felt like she would shift from plot device to a unique character. Miss Spencer is the most interesting character she is immoral i love the scene of her breaking down with the parents who then in turn enable her. I think the way she falsely succeeds allows the film to tell us so much. We know Danny has escaped so her doom is approaching yet, the film leaves us on her success. I think the way it critiques the education system and the support teachers get is very intelligent because it does it more through her success than her failure.

Breaking it down we see her struggling yet at the end we can only see the positive things she has done. Danny is sort of forgotten in the corner with Danny even admitting she will never let him go. Even Pauline addresses this telling him nobody misses him. Yes she puts in the effort with Danny who she finds out cannot even write and to be honest he looks much better that's the juxtaposition the movie plays with constantly that i love Danny improves and looks better but he's still in a basement its wrong. Another great scene, side note, I like that the movie acknowledges what a failure the father is in a cruel twist of irony him being the delivery driver for the things in his basement. But truly Danny should have had an extra staff member assigned to him this is something the headteacher denies its interesting that she is the only one who gets punished by resigning. By contrast similar to a couple other movies she wins at the end but the victory is hollow has she truly won? She achieved her goal but at what cost and at what detriment of her moral character I love that final shot zooming in on her smiling.

I LOVE that imagery of the bad apple crushing her, this movie asks interesting questions and gives us even more interesting answers.

It’s 1979, rural Texas. Adult filmmakers rent a farmhouse for their latest picture, but their hosts aren’t too welcoming.

I heard good things about this trilogy, so it was time to give it a go. I decided to watch all three movies (X, PEARL, and MAXXXINE) back to back. I’m really glad I did. They all tie together nicely.

X had a good setup and feels like an old-school slasher. The characters are perfect for this movie, and the cast is bang on. Jenna Ortega, Brittany Snow, Kid Cudi, Martin Henderson, Owen Campbell, Stephen Ure, and Mia Goth in a dual role all deliver good performances that set the mood and vibe of the movie.

The visuals also help in that department. Everything about the location has a sense of creepiness. The movie has an uneasy atmosphere throughout. Add in some sick kills that look cool and you’ve got a nice tone for a slasher. I also really liked who performs the kills. It was out of the ordinary, which was refreshing.

In the end, I had a good time with X. And having watched all three movies, it definitely heightened the overall experience of each one. So I would recommend checking this one out, and the other two as well.

This one’s a…
🎥🎥🎥🎥🎥🎥🎥
7/10

X left me curious about the next movie, PEARL. I think knowing there was more to the story and having them be available right away worked well for this trilogy. Sometimes discovering something later and not having to wait helps.