In the interest of full disclosure, it pains me to write this, but I feel I must be honest. Legendary writer-director Francis Ford Coppola’s long-awaited epic cinematic fable is, regrettably, a major disappointment. After decades of stop-and-start development, the filmmaker’s metaphorical opus about a renowned, idealistic architect (Adam Driver) seeking to build an ambitious utopian development in a modern-day version of New York inspired by ancient Rome follows the protagonist’s often-frustrated efforts to get the project off the ground (not unlike the production of this movie itself). Thematically speaking, the picture addresses a number of thoughtful, significant issues about the roles of greed, corruption, politics and agenda-based motivations in matters of public welfare, as well as the importance of enabling the expression of inspired creative freedom. It also delves into the relevance of love and support in fueling the success of such ventures. However, these notions are severely undermined by an overwhelming abundance of narrative clutter and style over substance. While it’s true that “Megalopolis” is gorgeous to look at with its inventive and impressive cinematography and production design, these visual aspects become so dominant that they vastly overshadow the coherence and intelligibility of the story. Admittedly, a greater sense of clarity begins to emerge as the picture unfolds, but, unfortunately, by that point, it’s difficult to imagine almost anyone genuinely caring about what ultimately happens. There are also many less-than-subtle parallels between the plot of this film and the screen adaptation of author Ayn Rand’s best-selling novel “The Fountainhead” (1949), raising some questions about the authentic originality of this work. Given that this could well be Coppola’s final film, it’s a shame to see the director wind up his repertoire with such a disappointing and underwhelming effort, and some reviewers (myself included) have tried mightily to avoid being unduly unkind, perhaps delivering more generous ratings than might ordinarily be the case. Nevertheless, it would appear that this allegorical undertaking was more than the filmmaker could manage, and it shows in the finished product, quite a letdown from the director known for such classic offerings as “The Godfather” (1972) and “Apocalypse Now” (1979). Yet, if you’re determined to see it, in light of the stunning visuals, this is probably a production best viewed on the big screen, but don’t be surprised if you walk away from this one disappointed overall.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://fandomwire.com/megalopolis-review-admirable-ambition-meets-chaotic-execution-in-francis-ford-coppolas-epic/
"Megalopolis is an ambitious epic that attempts to examine numerous thought-provoking themes, but Coppola's vision of societal reconstruction reflects both its grandeur and the inherent flaws of its chaotic execution.
Despite immersive visuals and a talented cast, the narrative becomes overloaded with metaphors and philosophical analogies, resulting in an experience that, while provocative, feels confusing and scattered. The central conflict between Cesar and Cicero offers intriguing moments, but the richness of the ideas often gets diluted by the film's excessive complexity.
A frustrating disappointment that, even as the creation of one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, still falls prey to the common pitfalls of contemporary cinema."
Rating: C-

I'm always on the lookout for good horror. Oddity is almost "perfect". This could easily be a 7 or 8. Instead it's a 6, or maybe a 5. The final act just didn't work for me. The big reveal is fine, but what happens after the big reveal makes little sense to me.
There's also a bit before the big reveal - let's call it the small reveal - where the logic just falls flat too, but I was willing to ignore it at the time. Unfortunately, it was a sign of things to come.
SPOILERS AHEAD!
The more I think about it, the less sense it makes. Darcy learned the full conversation from Olin posthumously. How the heck did she not learn anything from Dani's personal effects? Furthermore, they really went ham on Ted's stubbornness for the climax. Ted now has at least six unexplainable events and he still goes playing with the thing?

I found "The Order" unsettling but perhaps not quite for the reasons you might think.
First off, whilst a lot of license has been taken here the bones of this tale of Neo Nazi's attempting to replace the US government in the 1980's really did happen. The facts of the tale have however been misconstrued in a way that makes the core antagonists look worse than they really were. The question then becomes, why? Its not as if they were especially nice people to start with, right?
In my opinion, its hard not to see a thread of contemporary politicking in this film. In essence the underlying message appears to be the US government are promoters of peace and stability, whilst anyone opposing them is a violent merchant of chaos. Its a simplistic perspective that ignores the real need for change in the USA. A nation that has made political corruption and destructive war, its core business. Moreover, its governmental system has a nasty habit of going after even peaceful, non radical reformers, as well as racist violent ones.
Putting this consideration aside, how does this stack up as a film? Well, I'm seeing Jude Law in a new light. I'd never taken much notice of him in the past but he hands in a top notch performance in the role of an obsessive FBI agent, with a troubled personal life. Indeed, broadly speaking, acting in this film is excellent and it breathes life into the wholly believable characters.
The story flows well too, starting off slowly and gradually picking up pace. I'm not especially a fan of "terrorists under the bed", style films so for me to say I enjoyed this, for the most part and found it thoughtful is quite the compliment.
In summary, excellent acting and a strong script bring this tale of violent political extremists, to life. That said, its worth remembering that not all political reform is bigoted and violent. In fact, sometimes its very much needed. As is the case in the USA and elsewhere in the West, today

I reckon it's quite a testament to the confidence of Nicholas Hoult that he's prepared to take on a role quite this odious. He's "Bob", an intelligent white supremacist who has splintered from an arian church scenario and allied with a few like-minded people. The arrival of "Husk" (Jude Law) to the area's long abandoned FBI office might put a fly in his ointment, though, as he befriends enthusiastic cop "Jamie" (Tye Sheridan) and both try to get to the bottom of the increasingly audacious crimes being carried out in the name of reclaiming the beautiful and unspoilt land of Idaho, and even the broader USA itself, from it's impure interlopers. It's a little slow off the mark, but once we have the battle lines set out and realise that both of these men are capable of playing cat and mouse ruthlessly, the drama gathers a pace that's well held together by the two protagonists. It shines quite a forceful light on the dangers of jingoism and also quite interestingly tries to present us with some modicum of the rationales behind what drives this innate hatred, or at least tolerates it. With an increasing degree of zealousness appearing once again in Europe, this serves as quite a well written and characterful lesson in just how easily traction can be found when fear and loathing are peddled together with ignorance or religion or, most toxically, both. I could have been doing without the agent's familial backstory. It seems we just can't hit the ground running with the story in hand without having to trawl through his past, his traumas and his excessive drinking habits; but I don't suppose that interfered too much as we headed to a denouement that's historical fact, and quite potently presented.

Okay, here’s the deal with _Venom: The Last Dance_. It’s like ordering your favorite burger and realizing halfway through they forgot the sauce. Tom Hardy? Still killing it as Eddie and Venom—his back-and-forth with himself is weirdly entertaining and even a little emotional. There are some genuinely fun and heartfelt moments that remind you why this duo worked in the first place.
But man, the rest? A hot mess. The plot is all over the map, the new characters are forgettable, and the villain? Weak sauce. It feels like the filmmakers just kind of shrugged and said, “Eh, good enough.” Sure, there are flashes of that buddy-comedy charm, but not enough to save the movie from feeling like it’s limping to the finish line.
If this is the final Venom movie (and I hope it is), I’m not gonna cry about it. It’s a mixed bag—fun in bits, but overall, it’s like Venom himself: a bit too sloppy to fully love.

I'm typically not a fan of the Marvel universe films. I find them over stated, not especially intelligent and oftentimes, quite repetitive.
"Venom" is the rare exception to this rule. For starters there's Tom Hardy, who is, by any measure, an excellent actor. Secondly, there's the interplay between Hardy and Venom which can be genuinely funny.
This latest and possibly last film in the series, "Venom: The Last Dance", is, I believe, the weakest in the line up. Unlike its predecessors, it feels a little bit rushed and somehow, anti climatic. That said, it still has its moments of engaging humour and not half decent action.
In summary, its a shame to see "Venom" shelved (if in fact that's the case) as its one of the better Marvel universe franchises, with great chemistry between Hardy and his other worldly alter ego, Venom. Worth a look if you enjoyed the other films.

I like all the Venom movies. The humour works. Fun to watch Hardy play a puppet.
Would have been a 10 without that blast door thing. Still a blast. No deductions for runtime.

Venom: The Last Dance expands on the chaotic relationship between Eddie Brock and his symbiote Venom with more depth, tension, and humor, while also introducing a menacing new adversary in the form of the Xenophages. But yet, this cartonish way ended while making its last dance, really it was kind of last DANCE even writer pen director direction couldn't go with it and make its end like Bollywood was pretty mid honestly ____ we didn’t see venom much for a movie that ends a highly loved trilogy. also I didn’t see the “MAIN BIG BAD GUY of DARKNESS ANNIHILATION EVERYTHING” do anything. THAT GUY and CODEX concept couldn't go through to see but no MORE BLACK symbiote...

Perhaps this was just one sequel too many as the story here is really rather thin, but there's still enough chemistry between "Eddie" (Tom Hardy) and his eponymous symbion to raise a smile or two. This time it's not just the pursuing human population that's a problem for them, but there are creatures from the homeworld of "Venom" homing in on their unique "codex" so that they can help free their leader from incarceration to wreak havoc on the universe. Along the way, they encounter the hippie "Martin" (Rhys Ifans) and his family and cadge a lift in their VW camper-van whilst offering a fairly tuneless rendition of some David Bowie. It all builds up to a fairly predictable denouement with humanity facing some tough choices, the seemingly indestructible aliens on the verge of success and our intrepid partnership having to consider the ultimate sacrifice. Yep, we've seen it all before and though the visual effects are pretty impressive, that's not really enough to sustain it as it rather procedurally rolls along. There is occasionally some wit in the script and Hardy looks like he's having fun, but Chiwetel Ejiofor is largely under-used and it relies far too heavily on repetitive combat scenes to really make it stand out amidst the surfeit of 2024 comic-book derivatives. It's all watchable enough, but it's not a patch on the first one from 2018.

The other two at the very least were enjoyable. This one, not so much.
The villian is forced, the movie feels so chopped up, there's no threat because the creatures and Eddie both just heal each other. It had bad dialogue for some scenes, and a weird sub plot about shoes.
Oh, and also, one of Eddie's flashbacks he wasn't even there for.

A solid enough send off for this 'Venom' trilogy.
'Venom: The Last Dance' is decently amusing and produces enough entertainment with its plot. I didn't personally find it overly funny, though the person a few seats across from me had an absolute blast - never a bad thing seeing people enjoy themselves!
Tom Hardy remains the key element of these films, they would be far less enjoyable without his presence. There's a nice montage of sorts towards the end, it admittedly didn't 'hit' all that much for me but I imagine it's effective for proper fans of the series. Rhys Ifans and Chiwetel Ejiofor stick out most from the other characters.

Could this really be the same Ryan Philippe who was in "Cruel Intentions"? Are things really that bad? Well now he's "Andrew" who runs a Christian missionary deep in the Kalahari. Forced to flee, they engage the rather untrustworthy services of pilot "Grun" (Emile Hirsch) and next thing they are amidst some wreckage in the middle of a wild game reserve with loads of hungry lions, hyenas, scorpions and a few heavily armed freedom fighters. Can they survive? There are some beautiful animals featured in this film and the Californian Vasquez Rocks National Park serves well enough as a location double, but the rest of this is all really quite poorly written and executed before a denouement that I could have done with half an hour earlier. There's nothing about the characters for us to care about, one being determined to smuggle artefacts out of the country whilst an other wants to indoctrinate the locals with a lifetime supply of bibles. Maybe he thought it was called "Pray" instead? It's not exactly predicable, it's not that structured - it sort of meanders along desperate to generate some sense of menace from it's arid and hostile environment, but all to underwhelming avail. Nope, nothing at all to recommend this to anyone, sorry.

**_Survival in the Kalahari Desert, physical and spiritual_**
A missionary couple in Africa (Ryan Phillippe and Mena Suvari) are forced to take a flight with a questionable bush pilot (Emile Hirsch). Unfortunately, they & several others end up stuck in the barren areas of Southwest Africa with plenty of lions and hyenas roaming about.
"Prey" (2024) was originally called “Kalahari,” but changed to the hackneyed “Prey.” The movie poster isn’t that far removed from the 2007 movie “Prey.” At heart, this is a modern take on “Sands of the Kalahari” and “Flight of the Pheonix” with a key element of “Conan the Barbarian” (1982) thrown in. While this is the least of ’em due to its low-budget, it works well enough for a slow-burn survival adventure wherein the gore is more implied than shoved in your face. I prefer it to the 2007 version of “Prey.”
There's a factual error (the medical treatment of a particular wound), as well as a couple of seeming plot holes, but one of them can be easily explained on the grounds that a stray bullet struck the radiator of the jeep. A better explanation is that the jeep wasn't even there since one of the Namibians said something about waiting for the jeep to come back, possibly with another vehicle to transport the prisoners. The other potential plot hole can also be explained with a little imagination. The writer/director isn’t obligated to spell everything out and respects the intelligence of viewers to put the pieces together.
This was the first time I’ve seen Hirsch play a bad boy and he’s convincing. I also liked the lowkey ideological struggle between good and evil, morality vs immorality, faith and atheism (or, at least, agnosticism), Christianity vs secular humanism. Speaking of which, it’s laughable that some people criticize the flick on the grounds of it being “Christian propaganda.” Two of the main characters are occupational missionaries, so it’s understood that God and faith will come up in a few of the dialogues. But, again, this is so light it’s hard to believe anyone would complain. The same came up in “The Grey,” but no one complained there.
As for a weather-related incident that occurs at the end, it doesn’t have to be attributed to a metaphysical source since freak things happen in the weather all the time. The film leaves you thinking about life’s heavy issues, like what’s your purpose? Is there a Creator? Is life a meaningless accident? Is there good and evil -- ethical and unethical -- or is everything relative? Is redemption possible for the morally compromised? Is there such a thing as self-sacrificial love (aka, agape)?
The movie runs 1 hour, 26 minutes, and was shot in the arid areas of the high country north of Los Angeles, such as SilverStrand Ranch, Castaic; Agua Dulce Movie Ranch; The Quarry in Semi Valley (for the sand sequence); MH Aviation in Lancaster; and Vasquez Rocks; as well as studio stuff done at Blackstone Entertainment, Azusa. A second unit filmed additional scenery and animals in South Africa, along with the use of stock footage.
GRADE: B-

> "I feel looked at."
This is a pretty solid directorial debut. The topic is heavy and very sad but a reality for many. I would say that I was surprised at how this story was told, but it does pack a punch even during slower moments where you don't expect it to. I recommend people read up on the real story to see how truly awful this person was.

Woman of the Hour is a crime thriller genre movie released in 2023, which meteoric rising American actress Anna Kendrick as a film director. True to the fiction of the movie, it was based on the horrifying story of Rodney Alcala, a serial killer to boot who guested in a 1970s show called The Dating Game. The story revolves around Sheryl Bradshaw in her dream to be an actress portrayed by Kendrick just to take Alcala out and eventually be killed by him.
The aspects of the film are related to the themes of misogyny and violence and how women deal with strange men. It captures a form of Alcala’s persona and dolled-out charm graphically presents the interactions he has with his victims, and highlights the various institutional deficiencies that enabled him to continue perpetrating his heinous acts despite complaints lodged against him.
When I looked back at my own life, I could connect to the vulnerability, but also the suspense in some scenes in the movie that might appear completely ordinary from the outside. It is most useful as a caution against the evils of talking to strangers since such incidents are still possible in today’s society. It is for these reasons and supported by a good plot and good acting, the film is not only entertaining but is a social relevance message too.
If you liked my experience, then check out the Latest Movie Reviews.

The Paiva family leads an ordinary life until one night when a knock on their door changes things for ever. Rubens (Selton Mello) was formerly a Labour Party congressman in Brazil but now that the military have taken over, he is suspected of ties with the outlawed Communists. He is taken away and shortly after his wife Eunice (Fernanda Torres) and their elder daughter is also taken in for interrogation. For the next twenty minutes or so as she spends an intangible time in jail, we are exposed to some of the most effective cinematic menace I've ever felt. There is no graphic violence nor very little angry dialogue. Indeed, there isn't a great deal of actual physical threat at all. Her imprisonment and her deprivation of information is the stick they beat her with and it's profoundly traumatic. When she is released a week later, she returns home to find nobody has or will disclose any information about her missing husband. As time goes by she and their family have to come to terms with both the emotional and the practical implications as they try to look to the future, unsure of what's in their past. It's perhaps easy to forget amidst the militaristic history of 1970s South America that Brazil also had it's junta and it's fair share of bodies disappearing and that threat is never far away as the film proceeds to slowly follow her attempts to get to the truth, closure and to regain a positive sense of her own purpose. Torres is on great form here. She manages to imbue her characterisation with a fear but also with a sense of defiance. It's not reckless - she has a family to consider, but it's a determined effort to get to the facts, however unpleasant and however long it takes. The intensity of the main plot is diverted, occasionally, by the family and it's own aspirations and problems as they too must come to terms without a father whom they genuinely loved and by the denouement I felt quite drained by just the mere observation of their experiences. To live in a land where routine and permanent disappearances are every day occurrences is unrecognisable to most of us in the West. This reminds us to count our blessings.

Films featuring dark political themes are an acquired taste for many moviegoers, but, when they tell personal stories within such a context, they generally become more accessible for audience members, even those who might not ordinarily gravitate to pictures in this genre. That’s a goal expertly accomplished in the latest from director Walter Salles. This superb fact-based offering tells the heart-wrenching story of former Brazilian politician Rubens Paiva (Selton Mello) who, in 1971, was seized by, and subsequently disappeared at the hands of, the military dictatorship that overran in the country at that time. Paiva, who was working as an engineer when captured, was taken because of his liberal-leaning politics, especially in his clandestine efforts to assist those opposed to the oppressive policies and practices of Brazil’s hard-line right-wing authorities. His seizure subsequently led to the detainment of his wife, Eunice (Fernanda Torres), and daughter, Eliana (Luiza Kosovski), in an effort to find out who their husband and father may have associated with, as well as what activities he may have engaged in. This harassment by officials, though, was not enough to stop the determination of Eunice and her family from trying to find out what happened to their loved one. In telling this story, the filmmaker not only relates a tale of high suspense, but also presents a compelling chronicle of a family committed to remaining hopeful and uncovering the truth, no matter how horrendous it might ultimately prove to be. In carrying out this mission, “I’m Still Here” successfully fires on all of its cinematic cylinders, perpetually engaging viewers in a gripping, emotionally charged odyssey, not unlike the films of famed filmmaker Costa-Gavras, most notably “Missing” (1982). In my view, this is the film most deserving of this year’s Oscars for best picture, lead actress (Torres) and international picture, hands down, not to mention a bushel of overlooked nominations in other categories. By all means, do not pass this one up.

Yes, we all needed another "girl boss" flick to spark our inner woke, didn't we?
What's that you say, "hell no", well then, read on. The Killer starts off with a main character, an assassin no less, who comes across as being about as tough and intimidating, as a bowl of warm mashed potato. But hey, she has a punch bag in her bohemian bedsit. Not to mention a handler who looks like he can, in fact, handle himself.
Indeed, the underlying strategy seems to be to use visually gritty characters and cues, to drown out the entirely non-threatening nature of the lead character. Its a bit like sitting a potted rose down with pots of cacti, in the hope people will inexplicably mistake one, for the other.
As you might expect, the results another absurdly unconvincing, predominantly exposition driven, affair, that would, I feel have only worked if re-imagined as a satirical comedy.
That's not to say this is the fault of the actors. Its a decent cast, who have found themselves mis-cast, no doubt, I'm guessing, so the script can play gender politics. Suffice to say, the quality acting, is one of the limited upsides, of this flick.
In summary, no amount of suspension of disbelief, will make this work.I personally wonder why they persist, when everything I see, seems to suggest the viewing public have thoroughly rejected, the DEI agenda, in favour of a return to traditional, sensible, entertainment.

This movie is laughably bad. Oh my goodness.
It's nice to see Nathalie Emmanuel outside of the Furiously Fast series and it's nice seeing Omar Sy and Sam Worthington again but this movie just steadily gets more campy and more cringe and more stupid as it progresses. The best scene is probably the club hit early on, and it gives you a false sense that the movie is going to be better than the poster - it isn't. In that respect, The Killer (2024) reminds me of Smile (2022). Folks went crazy for Smile. Smile went downhill after the opening scene and never recovered.
I watched Silent Night (2023). It wasn't horrible, but maybe John Woo should've stopped with that.
I don't care that the story isn't original, I care that the script is poorly written and the direction is lackluster. Zee is poorly written, Sey is poorly written, Jenn is poorly written, and Finn says "Kushala Daora" one-two many times. Jax is probably the best written character and he's on-screen for like 5 minutes total.
I got the impression early on that they were going for a Killing Eve (2018-2022) vibe, but yeah, no. It's just sad.
Can someone competent take this cast, this concept - this "Queen of the Dead" idea, and do it properly?
If you're looking for some female-led assassin action, check out The Protégé (2021) which wasn't a masterpiece but it was more entertaining than this, Anna (2019), Salt (2010), Red Sparrow (2018), or Atomic Blonde (2017).

I was hoping this was a Helloween 3 remake.
Way too much filler. Who needs to see bands performing? Monologues... It's deep but I wasn't buying.
Hellish ending. Really cool shots. Creepy shots. Well shot.

Told using a verity of storytelling techniques, this is a curious film that certainly has a potent point to make but somehow it just can't get there. It's all about the relationship between two folks on the periphery of society. "Owen" (Ian Foreman then Justice Smith) lives with his parents whilst "Maddy" (Brigette Lundy-Paine) abides with her indifferent mother. She's a few years older than he, and they initially bond over a television show called "Pink Opaque" that she has been watching for a few seasons, but it's on past his 10.15 bedtime. She makes it pretty clear that her sexual interests lie elsewhere but he, not remotely bothered, just wants to see the show. A sleepover starts the ball rolling on their enigmatic friendship that invites us to consider a range of issues surrounding sexual and gender identity, fluidity and the sometimes quite traumatic effects these can have on people emotionally and psychologically ill-equipped to deal with at a young age. The use of the television series is quite an effective conduit for the theme as it uses the super-natural to instil both an element of fear and an element of the ridiculous - especially the ice cream man and the totally non-menacing "Mr. Malevolent" whose purposes and dynamic evolve as the characters do throughout the narrative. Suddenly, she goes AWOL for ten years then returns to his life with questions to ask and to answer, but is she still the same person and are either of them any more at ease with whom they truly are? It has brief moments to lighten the mood, but for the most part it's quite an intense and slowly paced look at two characters that I just didn't feel I knew. I suspect this may resonate intensely with people dealing with gender identification complexities, but for the rest of us it pointed us in the right direction but then more or less abandons us to infill too much of the personalities of "Owen" and "Maddy" to fit our own expectations or aspirations for them. It's as if auteur Jane Schoenbrun has given us the edge of the jigsaw puzzle and left us to do the rest - without there necessarily being a right way to do it. It also has one or two goes at bringing things to a conclusion - or as much of one as we are to actually have, and that didn't really work for me. I didn't need "the end", but what we did get was a bit frail. It is an intriguing piece of cinema at times, but for me it lost it's way.

Necessity and Style, lacking Substance
‘I Saw the TV Glow’ offers an important message that is evidently hitting the hearts of the people who need to hear it, and the beautiful visuals bath it in emotional colour.
It would have been served with more depth, detail, and structure, but it does what it set out to do. If it doesn’t hit for you, you’re probably not the intended audience.

I was disappointed in the flow of the story in 'I Saw The TV Glow'. Despite this, the melancholy feel of the film is beautifully conveyed throughout, enhancing its themes effectively. The visuals are stunning, and the combination of top-tier editing and visual effects elevates the cinematography to an exceptional level.
The film’s melancholic atmosphere is one of its strongest points. This pervasive mood adds depth to the narrative, making the emotional and thematic content more impactful. For example, scenes depicting the isolation and struggles of the characters are visually striking, with a muted color palette and hauntingly beautiful landscapes that mirror their inner turmoil. The layered storytelling warrants another viewing to fully appreciate the intricate details and symbolism woven into the film.
The film also provides a profound look into the LGBTQIA+ community, offering perspectives that encourage empathy and understanding. After watching it, I felt compelled to have an open conversation with my sons about the importance of being able to talk openly about anything, assuring them of our unwavering support. This horror movie effectively portrays the harsh realities that no person should have to endure, making its social commentary both relevant and poignant.
The direction and performances were lackluster. Their portrayals are emotionally charged and authentic, bringing a raw intensity to their characters.
While Ian Foreman and Brigette Lundy-Paine deliver memorable performances, the supporting cast falls short. Justice Smith’s character, Owen, is particularly underwhelming. His character lacks depth and is only marginally more interesting in scenes with Lundy-Paine. The supporting characters are mostly forgettable, which diminishes the film's overall impact.
The TV show set within the film, The Pink Opaque, and its antagonist, as well as the overall antagonist of the film, are clearly meant to be metaphorical. However, the vague nature of these elements, while potentially serving as a good analogy, ultimately hurts the story by leaving too many questions unanswered. A bit more backstory and clarity would have enriched the narrative and provided a stronger connection to the metaphorical themes.
I Saw The TV Glow is a film with commendable visual and thematic depth but falters in its storytelling execution. The melancholy atmosphere, stunning visuals, and strong lead performances are highlights. The film is worth watching for its social commentary and emotional resonance, but it falls short of being a fully engaging cinematic experience.

After watching this piece of incoherent, unfocused rubbish, I would have much rather watched the TV glow instead. Writer-director Jane Schoenbrun’s incomprehensible smart horror offering is an absolute utter waste of time, not to mention the ticket price. This glacially paced story of two psychologically and emotionally troubled teens, Owen (Ian Forema) and Maddy (Brigitte Lundy-Paine), who bond over a cheesy late night 1990s young adult sci-fi/horror television series called The Pink Opaque struggles mightily to find its way. As Owen grows into an adult (Justice Smith), his cohort vanishes mysteriously when the TV series is abruptly cancelled, leaving him wondering what happened to her until she just as mysteriously reappears years later with a disjointed story that makes no sense from top to bottom. As the film’s narrator, Owen tries earnestly to explain, but his recounting of this experience is equally baffling, especially when he tells why Maddy has come back after her protracted absence. The result is an unintelligible tale that’s far from frightening (even metaphorically speaking) and ends up being a convoluted mix of 1990s teen angst, extended and inexplicably incorporated music videos, an exploration of sexual ambiguity, and a woefully wayward attempt at symbolically addressing issues related to personal disassociation and self-actualization. There are also numerous story elements and images that are included in the narrative that go undeveloped and unexplored. To its credit, the picture features a fine production design, intriguing cinematography, a good measure of campy comic relief (though not nearly enough of it) and a skillfully assembled soundtrack (handily this release’s best attribute). However, when a film’s musical guests receive greater billing than its cast members and the soundtrack ends up being its strongest asset, that doesn’t speak well about the production’s overall quality. To be honest, I get genuinely annoyed (and feel egregiously ripped off) when I leave the theater having screened a picture whose trailer and marketing seem to offer so much promise and end up failing miserably when it comes to delivering the goods, and that’s very much the case with this pretentious, sophomoric cinematic train wreck. Don’t waste your time or money on this one.

"Werewolves" squanders its potential.
Rather than focusing on being the straightforward, dive in feet first, kick ass, action horror film we all wanted, what we get is mostly a hammy, syrupy, woke "drama" that's a genuinely painful watch.
Action is in short supply and by and large, not especially well done. Creature effects are pretty uninspiring too, just adding to the sense of hopelessness, surrounding this production.
In summary, its okay to make a B action horror but does that mean it has to be poorly scripted and generally pretty crummy? Certainly there have been some excellent B films , occasionally even better than A rated productions but regrettably, "Werewolves" isn't one of them. A hard pass from me.

'Drive-Away Dolls' is a fairly fun time.
It's a pretty straightforward movie, one that moves along at a decent pace and tells its story well enough. Margaret Qualley and Geraldine Viswanathan give good performances, Qualley overacts a bit sometimes but as the film progressed I enjoyed her more and more. The editing is something I feel similarly about, some bits aren't the best imo.
All in all, it works. The relatively short run time is a big help, admittedly.

"Jamie" (Margaret Qualley) embarks on a road trip with her rather het-up friend "Marian" (Geraldine Viswanathan) to Tallahassee. A roadside puncture causes them to explore the boot for the spare tyre and let's just say what they find isn't quite the same thing - though maybe just as rubbery. Meantime, Colman Domingo and his two henchmen are quickly hot on their trail seeking that very thing. A few vaguely comedic escapades now ensue as the two women start to realise their relationship could be more than that of just friends and that there could well be an opportunity to make a few quid from their newly found treasure. Joey Slotnick and CJ Wilson try their best as the goons but otherwise this is a thinly stretched comedy that relies far too much on the supposed shocks or comedy from it's lesbian theme and nowhere near enough on any degree of originality with the script. It vacillates between the dull and crass, and neither Domingo nor Matt Damon make anything like enough of a contribution to make much difference to the well travelled path the story takes. If you're at all discerning about what makes you laugh then this won't be for you, sorry.

After reading all the bad reviews (some here) of Borderlands, I decided to give it a watch. To be brutally honest, I actually enjoyed it. It’s definitely not a movie I’d watch again, but it was entertaining enough that if forced to choose, I’d rather watch it again over any of the Ant-Man films. Michael Douglas and Paul Rudd just don’t do sci-fi well—especially Paul Rudd. I thought Cate Blanchett’s performance wasn’t bad at all, and frankly, some of the reviews here seem like pure trolling.

Brittle, boring and badly miscast, there is little to like in Borderlands.
Once witty, satirical, over the top and above all else, a colourfully fun gaming experience, in my view this film mirrors, what the Borderlands franchise has become. Dull, humourless, uninspiring, wooden exposition, that vacuously apes what once was.
For my money too, much of the cast just don't fit this kind of over the top action genre. As a result a good number of performances feel more than a little awkward.
Any upside? Decent production values, I guess.....
In summary, very little to like here. Bland, brittle exposition with a Borderlands make over, minus all the good things that made the original Borderlands games franchise, so appealing.