To live or to die is a decision many of us are probably reluctant to address. The fear of this great unknown is enough to keep the notion at bay. But what if we were to find ourselves dealing with a terminal illness with little hope for the future? Would we be willing to nobly soldier on, knowing that our circumstances are only going to get worse, or would we choose to transition to what’s next on our own time and under our own terms? Such is the scenario involving two old friends, Martha (Tilda Swinton), a former war correspondent who has lived a rich, full life but is now afflicted with terminal cancer, and Ingrid (Julianne Moore), a successful author who recently penned a book detailing her personal fear of death. When Martha’s condition takes a turn for the worse and her joy of living rapidly begins vanishing, she decides she wants to pass on before she significantly deteriorates. She willfully chooses to die with dignity in a comfortable and beautiful setting of her choosing. But she doesn’t want to be alone when the time comes: She wants to be in the presence of a compassionate soul in those final moments, someone not to act as a facilitator but who can provide company, comfort and support “in the room next door” as she slips away. And so it’s indeed ironic when Martha asks Ingrid to be that person. It’s a proposal about which Ingrid has serious reservations, but she also recognizes that she can’t in all good conscience turn her back on a friend. These circumstances also provide her with an opportunity to face firsthand the fears she’s just written about. But, those well-intentioned considerations aside, how will matters unfold for all concerned when events are no longer theoretical and turn real? That’s what writer-director Pedro Almódovar explores in his latest feature offering, providing viewers with a thoughtful, profound yet practical and eminently moving take on a controversial subject, one that’s been surfacing more candidly and more frequently in public discourse than it once did and that carries myriad ramifications ethically, emotionally and legally. While the film periodically veers off onto somewhat unrelated narrative tangents and occasionally becomes a little too talky for its own good (qualities that often encroach upon Almódovar’s works), this is arguably one of the filmmaker’s finest efforts both in terms of the sensitivity employed in the treatment of its subject, as well as in raising questions about the validity and propriety of right to die matters. It’s particularly noteworthy for the superb performances of its two principals, both of whom turn in some of the best work of their careers, as evidenced by Swinton’s Golden Globe Award nomination for best lead actress in a drama. It’s long been believed that none of us will know the time when we’ll pass, that it’s something left up to fate. But must it be that way, especially if we deliberately put our minds to our circumstances? “The Room Next Door” gives us much to ponder in this regard, showing us how leaving matters to chance ultimately might not be the wisest or most fulfilling course for all of us to follow.

Bold as always, Spanish master Pedro Almodóvar elegantly tackles the touchiest of subjects for his first English-language feature. And it's a film that could change your mind about euthanasia.
_The Room Next Door_ peels back the very layered onion of the right-to-die movement with an emotional heartbeat that’s truly rewarding to watch. It’s strong, yet wonderfully nuanced; it features two sublime actresses at the very top of their game; and – dare we say it – this so-called tragic drama even has its laugh out loud moments.
If this were another drama (or a Hollywood weepie), you might expect Ingrid to plead with Martha to reconsider. Instead, Almodóvar introduces far more interesting thought bubbles. When they begin to have minor disagreements, it feels like small scabs being picked off a much bigger wound. There’s a shadow living with them – an elephant in the room next door, lying in wait to land a crushing blow.
_The Room Next Door_’s final act is a thought-provoking look at the right to die, and the uneasy ways this moral argument grinds its cogs alongside the laws we’ve created. Technically, Ingrid commits a felony - but Almodóvar is asking, _did Ingrid do anything wrong?_
With its gentle quality, it’s hard not to take _The Room Next Door_ home with you. Yes, it’s a death-affirming story. And yet by probing the delicacy of our short lifespans – time spent writing about warfare, and painting, and breathing mountain air, and making love – it’s also a deeply life-affirming one.
Read our full review at https://good.film/guide/the-room-next-door-could-change-your-mind-about-euthanasia

Successful writer "Ingrid" (Julianne Moore) is signing some books when one of her friends informs her that old pal "Martha" (Tilda Swinton) is suffering from cancer. Upon visiting her in hospital, she discovers that things aren't looking so good and over the following days the two start to become closer, sharing confidences and becoming quite inter-reliant. When an experimental treatment fails to deliver, the former war reporter "Martha" makes quite a bold proposal to her friend that will require them to retreat to a quiet residence in Woodstock where she will take matters into her own hands. Initially quite wary of this plan, "Ingrid" must decide whether or not she wishes to help - with all the moral and legal ramifications that involves, and so she turns to both of these women's ex-boyfriend "Damian" (John Turturro) for advice as she wrestles with her conscience. The concept here is really quite poignant, especially in light of reinvigorated conversations here in the UK about the rights of the terminally ill to make their own choices without fear of those they leave behind being persecuted by either the law or the zealous but I can't say I loved the presentation or the style. Far too much of the dialogue between the two women seems more aimed at filling-in the audience rather than on building a rapport between them. Things that they would have to have known about the other are presented in all too sterile a fashion, and at times I wondered if there wasn't a fair degree of dubbing going on too. Indeed, the whole thing deals with some seriously emotional issues in a remarkably sterile fashion. Both actors deliver strongly, but their dynamic isn't convincing - well, it wasn't for me, and the surfeit of verbiage rather suffocated the emotional impact the film could have made. Alex Høgh Andersen sheds his Viking leathers to remind us briefly of the ghastliness of the Vietnam war but otherwise this is largely down to the two characters dealing with a scenario we all dread, just not terribly convincingly.

Babygirl (2024) is yet another attempt at making a “provocative” drama that leans too much on surface-level shock value rather than compelling storytelling. The plot, if you can call it that, revolves around an imbalanced relationship dynamic that lacks any real emotional depth. There is no real buildup, no effort to make the audience care about these characters beyond their physical interactions, and certainly no originality. The film tries to be daring, but instead, it feels like a predictable series of events with little payoff.
The directing is uninspired, relying on overused shaky cam techniques that have no business in a drama like this. The cinematography does nothing to elevate the story, and at times, it feels like the camera is as lost as the script. The only real standout performance comes from Antonio Banderas, but he’s barely in the movie. Nicole Kidman, despite her talent, is stuck in a role that feels more about aesthetics than substance. And of course, we have the usual over-the-top praise for a “bold sexualized performance,” the same kind of overhyped reaction we saw with Demi Moore in Substance, as if established actors being in explicit scenes somehow qualifies as groundbreaking cinema.
The script is painfully weak, with dialogue that does little to make the characters feel real or relatable. The film spends too much time trying to push a message without taking the time to craft an engaging narrative. There are moments where it seems like it might go somewhere interesting, but then it falls back into the same repetitive themes. The pacing is another issue, dragging through unnecessary moments while rushing past anything that could have added depth.
The score is outright annoying. It doesn’t complement the film or enhance any of the scenes, it’s just there, adding to the discomfort in all the wrong ways. In the end, Babygirl tries to be provocative but lacks the intelligence or creativity to make an impact. It’s the kind of movie that confuses shock value with substance, leaving you wondering what the point of it all was.

Babygirl is the story of high-strung CEO who secretly desires to be dominated and controlled. She instead gets into a weird relationship with a young intern who kind of is interested in the same thing, but also just is worried about how much milk she is drinking? There relationship develops throughout the movie but not in any interesting way. At one point he makes her stand in a corner and the music is weirdly intense for no real reason.
Also we are expected to believe that she would cheat on Antonio Banderas with this weird looking lanky kid that doesn't know how to comb his hair?

'Babygirl' is sex and bugger all else. It features two of the more freaky characters in cinematic history, they both kinda creeped me out I'm not going to lie - I will never look at a tie in the same way again, or a glass of milk for that matter. Kudos for creativity, I guess!
Nicole Kidman and Harris Dickinson do commit to their respective roles, some of the noises coming out of the former were quite something to witness. In fairness, if this is what they were going for then both actors do a fine job. Antonio Banderas is at least there to add sort of normality.
Impressively, aside from a few nips, there isn't much nudity in this, how you show so much without showing barely anything is actually quite the thing. I'm not against seeing films of an erotic nature, I just personally need a bit more substance attached to it. I'm fascinated to see the reception this got, I've no idea.

Business executive "Romy" (Nicole Kidman) is initially impressed with the dog-handling skills of "Samuel" (Harris Dickinson) but when she discovers that he is to be an intern in her e-packaging company something else starts to draw her to the man. We already know that though happily enough married to "Jacob" (Antonio Banderas) she's not exactly fulfilled in the bedroom department, and "Samuel" seems to sense that it's an area that maybe he can help with. Were not just talking sex, here - oh. no. This is about a lady with fantasy of being dominated. About her surrendering control completely, and if you're going to do that at all, then why not this tall, handsome and mischievous bit of rough? Of course, like any addiction - it starts to get out of control as the relationship dynamic changes quite profoundly and others start to put two and two together. At times this is quite funny, and milk seems to play a central role from time to time, but as a cinematic version of something akin to tantric, it doesn't really work. Neither of these actors are afraid to get naked yet neither do, simultaneously, here. Indeed I'm sure I saw his black Calvin's shining from under the sheet when the intimacy consultant was at their busiest. I didn't need nudity to augment their unique sort of passion, but I did expect something way more natural, visceral even, and I didn't get it. It's filmed in such a disjointed and bitty fashion, there's no attempt to characterise or contextualise either of these people and in the end I felt like this was little better than a titillation for it's stars that didn't really aspire to engage those watching any more than age-related porn might. Dickinson isn't remotely charismatic and the premiss falls flat quickly, especially when the quite aggravating intervention of "Esme" (Sophie Wilde) rather summed the shallowness of the whole thing up. "Eyes Wide Shut" (1999) or "Beach Rats" (2017) showcase both their talents amidst a sexually charged environment far better: this is all forgettable, over-hyped, stuff.

It's the most anticipated film of this first part of the 81st Venice International Film Festival. And after the first viewing you immediately understand why.
It pushes the boundaries of sensuality, sex, sound, ambition, morality and feminism.
All this is possible thanks to a captivating Nicole Kidman, an intimate script and direction by Halina Reijn and a production by A24, which as always never disappoints.

'Transformers One' is pretty cool. I found it really interesting to see the origin story of how Optimus Prime and Megatron became what they became. Chris Hemsworth and Brian Tyree Henry are perfect for those aforementioned roles, Henry particularly impresses as the latter.
Keegan-Michael Key, Scarlett Johansson and Jon Hamm manage to standout too, I'd say this definitely has the best performing cast of the Michael Bay-involved flicks from this series (I'm aware this is not officially part of the live-action franchise, but with Bay attached it practically is).
The animation style is terrific, there are some gorgeous visuals in there; the backdrops, specifically. The score is also noteworthy, as is the humour actually; Key, though not exclusively, is naturally at the forefront of that department. I don't have complaints with this film, evidently.

Transformers One is an animated origin story that offers a fresh take on the beloved franchise. My experience watching it was quite enjoyable, as the film combines stunning visuals with a heartfelt narrative that resonates with both new and longtime fans.
The voice acting is exceptional, bringing depth to characters like Optimus Prime and Megatron. The animation is visually striking, enhancing the action sequences while also allowing for moments of genuine emotional connection. I appreciated how the film explores themes of loyalty, leadership, and compassion, which adds layers to the story beyond just robot battles.
However, while the film is accessible and entertaining, I found that it might not satisfy hardcore fans seeking a deeper lore or complexity. The plot is straightforward, with the Matrix of Leadership serving as a central McGuffin, which may feel simplistic for some viewers.
Overall, Transformers One successfully blends action and emotion, making it a must-see for those looking for an engaging family film. It left me feeling optimistic about the future of the franchise, appealing to both a new generation and nostalgic fans alike.
If you liked my experience, then check out the Latest Movie Reviews.

After the original orgasmatron, we find ourselves back at the very start of the transformer's history with all of the "Prime" contraptions having been destroyed in a war and now only "Sentinel Prime" exists to lead the bots in a self-perpetuating existence of mining for the fuel that allows them to continue to mine for the fuel. You get the drift. Many of the robots don't have the cogs in their chests necessary to do any transforming, and that includes the lively "Orion Pax", his pal "D-16" and their feisty supervisor "Elita-1", but when a series of incidents occur that sees them escape from their mine onto the forbidden surface they discover an whole new truth that questions not just the history that's been drummed into them, but the very integrity of their leadership. Thing is, can they do anything to thwart a dastardly plan the could ensure the bots stay slaves for ever? As origin stories go, this is one of the better ones. Plenty of action throughout sets a story that doesn't rely (too heavily) on your knowledge of the Hasbro universe, it just allows you to root for the good guys as they battle the menacing and overwhelming forces lined up against them to ensure the new status quo endures and the dead stay exactly that. The story deals with the usual aspects of brotherhood, loyalty, ambition and though there's little actual jeopardy throughout - and, less face it, it's part of an ongoing franchise that's going to run, and run, and run - there's plenty to enjoy as it sets the scene for what's to come. It probably does need a cinema screening to get the best from the grand scale animation and visual effects, and the story and characterisations are not half bad, either.

Pyper Braun merits praise, 'Imaginary' otherwise falls flat.
I was never locked into the story and I didn't really care for the characters at any point, even Braun's Alice isn't all that interesting despite a rather great performance from the young actress. DeWanda Wise is a bit dull, while Tom Payne disappoints somewhat - I mean he only has a small role, sure, but his acting is unconvincing... and I know he can actor far better, as seen during his time on TV's 'The Walking Dead'.
The antagonists in this are poorly utilized, the poster bear is prevalent but very boring. It needed a Chucky-esque portrayal, rather than the blank stare we get every few minutes. The ending also drags, I thought it was going to end sooner a few times but it kept finding new ways to stick around; nothing majorly grating, granted. The score is at least OK.
It also, amusingly, took me ages to work out what the bear's name was. I'm not familiar with the name "Chauncey", so genuinely for the longest time thought the name was either "John C" or "Shaun C". It was only when I finally noticed it written down visually that I realised! 😂
In conclusion, credit to Braun but everyone else onscreen and off it could've done better in my opinion.

Anyone remember an half-naked Tom Payne getting pulled into a barrel of hookers by Stellan Skarsgård in "the Physician" (2013)? That vision might just have forgiven this film had he featured a bit more, but clearly he had read the derivative script and decided it only merited one filming day - hence he hardly features at all. What does feature is the usual dysfunctional family malarkey with him newly married to the well-meaning animator "Jessica" (DeWanda Wise) who is trying to stay on friendly terms with his two daughters - the teenage "Taylor" (Taegen Burns) and the younger "Alice" (Pyper Braun). The family decide to move into her father's house - he is now in a care home - and quickly the youngest discovers a bear. Yep - a teddy bear. What can go wrong? Well it isn't a very nice bear, indeed it's distinctly malevolent and is soon trying to lure all of them (except Tom who has fled the proceedings by now) into a parallel reality with lots of rooms containing lots of scenarios. Some benign, so less so. Poor old "Jess" is soon at her wits end but fortunately neighbour "Gloria" (Betty Buckley) is on hand with some pearls of wisdom that might help them through this rapidly menacing quagmire! Or will they? This film plays out exactly as you would expect. There isn't an original bone in it's body, the acting is mediocre at best - but wait, it's nowhere near as banal as the extracts from the Janet & John book of horror film writing. Some of the dialogue here really does have you staring at the cinema ceiling in disbelief. It's another standard Blumhouse offering that passes the time without you having to engage your brain in the slightest - in fact, you could just watch the last ten minutes and miss very little from the rest of it.

_The Acolyte_ brings a refreshing change of pace to the Star Wars universe, blending a murder mystery with horror vibes and featuring a diverse cast. Here's what stood out:
Jodie Turner-Smith's performance was captivating and brought a fresh energy to the series, making her character one of the most engaging. Carrie-Ann Moss, as always, delivered a powerful and compelling portrayal, adding depth and gravitas to her role. Manny Jacinto's charisma and acting skills were a standout, making his character one of the highlights of the show.
The fight choreography was expertly crafted, providing thrilling and dynamic combat scenes that kept me on the edge of my seat. The innovative and visually stunning use of Force powers and lightsabers added a unique flair, enhancing the overall excitement. A Wookie wielding a lightsaber is a fan's dream come true, adding an extra layer of excitement and novelty to the series.
However, there were elements that fell short. Vernestra's character felt underdeveloped and directionless, making it hard to connect with her. It would have been more engaging to have Indara in her place. I also struggled to care about Osha and Mae, as these characters failed to evoke empathy or interest, detracting from the emotional weight of the story. Due to the lack of connection with Osha and Mae, moments meant to be tense felt hollow and unimpactful. Certain parts of the script and episode structure lacked the strength to create a fulfilling narrative arc, resulting in a disjointed experience.
Despite these drawbacks, _The Acolyte_ manages to carve out its own identity within the Star Wars franchise. The fight scenes are exhilarating, and the thought put into the story is evident. However, some scenes with CGI don’t feel cohesive with the ADR, and at times, they seem lackluster compared to the rest of the Star Wars franchise.
While there are weak points in character development and script, the series still offers a lot to enjoy for Star Wars fans. Its unique blend of genres and strong performances make it a worthwhile addition to the Star Wars saga.

This series is a shame, a shame to Stars Wars and its fans, it brings nothing new and destroys everything that has been built.
The series continues on the path to the destruction of the character of Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader, the face of the Saga
Episode 9 in particular had largely destroyed the character and everything he represents for the Star Wars universe, this series comes to plant the last stabs... We wonder how Star Wars "connoisseurs" have could come up with such scenarios
It is by far Disney's worst creation in the Star Wars universe with the last trilogy and in particular its episode 9

Yes, I want entertainment. I repeat, I want entertainment. Is it really that difficult? Simply awfully bad, bad and bad! With this abomination Star Wars should RIP for good.

"Star Wars: The Acolyte" is a gripping addition to the Star Wars saga, exploring the darker side of the Force in an era set before the prequel trilogy. Directed by Leslye Headland, the film delves into the rise of the Sith through the eyes of a young acolyte, played brilliantly by Amandla Stenberg. The movie stands out with its rich, atmospheric visuals and a compelling narrative that balances intense action with deep character development. "The Acolyte" offers a fresh perspective on the Star Wars universe, captivating both long-time fans and newcomers with its blend of mystery, intrigue, and dark fantasy elements.

In the eyes of this reviewer, awful, simply awful. Is that enough words, because I'd rather not waste too many, on whatever this is.....

#MovieReview #MeanGirlsMusical #MeanGirls2024
Having never seen the original film before watching this new adaptation, I approached it with an open mind and fresh perspective. As such, I won't be comparing it to the earlier version.
Firstly, the cameo appearance from an original cast member was a nice touch, though it didn't elicit the same level of excitement for me as it might for die-hard fans. Now, onto the movie itself.
"Mean Girls 2024" is a hit-or-miss experience, depending on your perspective. Dedicated fans of the franchise will likely appreciate it for what it is. As someone who enjoys musicals and appreciates a variety of music genres, I found the film to be enjoyable.
Reneé Rapp's portrayal of Regina George showcases her stage background, but she eventually settles into the role as the movie progresses. Although her casting may initially seem odd due to her towering height, she brings energy to the character. Her catchy solo song stands out, showcasing her vocal talent.
The dynamics between characters, particularly Regina and Cady, felt a bit off to me, given their stark height difference. However, both actresses deliver strong vocal performances. The portrayal of Gretchen and Karen also adds to the mix of characters, each bringing their unique quirks to the screen.
The movie delves into LGBTQ+, transgender, and sexual themes, though without nudity, making it a film geared towards a younger audience. While these themes didn't bother me personally, they are prevalent throughout the movie.
Though I wasn't a fan of the casting choice for Damien, finding him too eccentric, I appreciated the performances of the main characters. The male lead, though not heavily featured, serves his purpose in the storyline.
Overall, I would consider watching "Mean Girls 2024" again, but perhaps not in theaters. I'm uncertain if I would allow my son to watch it due to the mature subject matter. Fans of the original "Mean Girls" or musical enthusiasts are likely to enjoy this adaptation. For those with a more casual interest in movies, it may be a good watch but not one that demands an immediate rewatch.

Too similar to the original, though the musical moments do help alleviate that.
I didn't necessarily like any of the songs performed in 2024's 'Mean Girls', but none of them grated on me - which is always a plus when it comes to musicals. I could've done with a slightly shorter run time, though the humour is decent - if a bit hit-and-miss.
Angourie Rice is a bit meh in the lead role, certainly a downgrade on Lindsay Lohan. I guess most of the cast are inferior comparatively, but I did enjoy the performances of Reneé Rapp and Jaquel Spivey... Auliʻi Cravalho too. Good to see Tina Fey and Tim Meadows back again, whilst there's a great cameo at one point.
All things considered, it's fine. Can't wait for the 2044 remake.

There are flashes of wit here, and a decent sound-track but for the most part it's a complete non-story. "Cady" (Angourie Rice) arrives as the newbie at the North Shore High School where she is shunned by all but the gay/rebellious combo that is "Damian" (Jaquel Spivey) and "Janis" (Auli'i Caravalho). For a bit of mischief, they decide that "Cady" should infiltrate the trio known as the "Plastics" - dominated by "Regina" (Reneé Rapp) whose leather clad frame has the whole school under her spell. She manages to ingratiate herself with this group of pretty vacuous airheads and report back to her "real" friends each day as the story gets thinner and thinner until it's needs the mother of all toupés. It's about bitchiness, friendship, duplicity, shallowness and then there's the floppy-haired eye candy "Aaron" (Christopher Briney) whom she and "Regina" squabble over - whilst he has all the loyalty of a goldfish; but none of it is really very original or funny. Writer Tina Fey appears as the calculus teacher but fails to impact much as the thing just meanders along ticking every box and beating just about every stereotype to death before the anthesis of all things obnoxious - a spring "prom" - brings things to an inevitable conclusion. Rapp can sing, and she knows how to take this stage-suited concept and belt out a song or two, but the rest of this really does remind me of one of the latter editions of the tired "Glee" project. I get I'm not the demographic, but I struggled to see the point of this.

You know...this movie is kinda dumb. Maybe really dumb. But I was genuinely creeped out. Seems to be a pet project of the director. Genuinely creepy bits. If you want creepy water stuff, dive in. If you want sense and sensibility, get out.

A passable supernatural horror.
I had a fine time viewing 'Night Swim'. It brings nothing new to the genre and takes plenty from other productions, though it honestly flew by for me and I enjoyed the horror elements alongside some solid onscreen performers. It does feel like it's missing something, I admittedly can't put my finger on exactly what, but that thought doesn't hinder how I see the flick post-watch.
Wyatt Russell and Kerry Condon are good in the lead roles, the latter is the stronger but well cast they both are. Younger cast members Amélie Hoeferle and Gavin Warren are decent, as are those supporting behind the main four. They appear in some solid scenes, which kept me interested in what I was watching - and with a run time of roughly 90 minutes, I was never bored of the portrayed events.
It isn't anything truly memorable, though I'd happily rewatch it if needed. Or perhaps I have bad taste, who's to say?

Wyatt Russell is former baseball star "Ray" who has been diagnosed with MS and is now looking for a home for his wife and two children that he can more readily navigate. They alight on a rather run-down property that has a large swimming pool and that's that! In they move and after having had some fairly toxic looking gloop removed from the pipework, discover that it is fed directly from an aquifer and could contain minerals to help his treatment. Boy, does it help! After a few swims his health is improving no end, but his family start to believe that the water is the source of some wickedness. They each experience a malevolence that drives his wife "Eve" (Kerry Condon) to track down the previous owner who eventually and rather menacingly confirms what she has already discovered on Google! It appears that this pool has a benevolence but in return requires an horrific sacrifice - whether you agree it's term or not! It's quite a well paced little horror film, this, with no attempt to create much by way of special effects. The audio, flickering lighting and the frequently murky water do all of the heavy lifting as we gradually realise what's going on. The acting isn't really up to much, nor is the standard of the writing, but I still found it at the slightly more threatening end of the Blumhouse scale of scary stories. It will work better in a big dark cinema - on television it will be completely unremarkable.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://fandomwire.com/night-swim-review-yet-another-forgettable-january-horror-flick/
"Night Swim fails to rise above the limitations of its generic horror foundation.
Despite commendable performances from Wyatt Russell, Kerry Condon, and the emerging Amélie Hoeferle, Bryce McGuire's reliance on exhausted tropes, predictable jumpscares - even if well-executed - and underdeveloped themes and characters ultimately sink the movie under the weight of its own uninspired narrative choices, namely the rushed ending with frustrating messaging.
Sadly, it's not the film I wish I could use to counterargue the idea that January can't have memorable horror."
Rating: D+

The first major release of 2024 has arrived in the form of “Night Swim” and the Blumhouse production looks to follow on the success of “M3gan” and
their other recent hit “Five Nights at Freddy’s”.
The movie stars Wyatt Russell and Kerry Condon as Ray and Eve Walter; a married couple trying to raise their two children and deal with Ray’s M.S.
diagnosis. Ray is a former Major League Baseball player and holds out hope that he can overcome his situation and make a return to his profession even if those around him do not.
A life on the road has caused Ray to miss many events such as the birth of their daughter as well as be distant from their son. A new job at a prestigious school offers Eve a chance to have the needed insurance for Ray and work to do while she completes her degree.
The family opt to purchase a home with a pool versus renting as the ability to finally have some stability and use the pool for therapy is a welcome combination. This is enhanced by the discovery that the pool is
actually filled by a natural water source which Ray believes is healing him and rapidly putting him on the road to recovery.
Things are not as they seem as the pool holds some dark and deadly secrets that go back for decades and the family soon finds themselves dealing
with forces beyond their control as they desperately try to survive.
The film has an interesting premise though at times I did think about various other films and some of the shock moments failed to get me as they did others in the audience but I am not one who startles easily.
The cast was strong but at times I found myself not caring as much for the outcomes of certain characters as I was more concerned with the overall
explanation behind the supernatural elements of the film.
Despite this, it was an enjoyable watch that provided something a bit different than the usual monster or psycho on the loose horror film and Co-Writer/ Director Bryce McGuire has adapted his short film well into a
film which provides just enough of what the core audience wants to make it an effective horror entry.
3 stars out of 5

"Wolfs" is a rather downbeat crime thriller, that doesn't quite make the most of its potential.
Perhaps, my biggest gripe with this film is it tends to dismiss its actually quite interesting, peripheral characters, in favour of its big stars, in this case George Clooney and Brad Pitt.
My wife who sat and watched this with me, said in essence it was a dissatisfying experience and I'm inclined to agree. Yes, there are instances in cinema where someone "steals the show" with a stand out performance but more typically, its the whole cast who make a film shine. The failure to extend the role of interesting secondary characters is a shame and I, for one, felt this film would have been better, had that been the case. The end results a film that's still quite watchable but also feels somehow abrupt and incomplete.
In summary, "Wolfs" doesn't quite make the most of its potential by making decisions that actually limit the films scope and depth. The results mildly entertaining but by no means remarkable.

Unwatchable.
The brightness throughout the movie is at like 15%,so get ready to guess what's happening, as you can't see a goddamn thing.
The plot is also ridiculous, the script lame, and the jokes unfunny. If it hadn't been filmed and produced by blind morons, it'd be a three, but since you can't actually see anything, it's a zero.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://movieswetextedabout.com/wolfs-review-george-clooney-brad-pitt-and-endless-entertaining-banter/
"Wolfs is one of the most recommendable films of the year. Though it doesn’t reinvent the wheel in the action-comedy genre, it stands out for the undeniable chemistry between George Clooney and Brad Pitt, who elevate a generic yet incredibly entertaining script.
Jon Watts keeps the pacing agile and fun, capitalizing on the never-ending banter between the protagonists to offer moments of sarcastic, ironic enjoyment. Austin Abrams also deserves recognition as a pleasant surprise, perfectly balancing naivety and comedy.
Ultimately, it’s a light, accessible movie for all audiences."
Rating: B+

The 2024 reimagining of The Count of Monte Cristo is a cinematic triumph, setting a new benchmark for adaptations of the beloved Dumas classic. Directed by Jacques Bernard, this latest French interpretation is nothing short of spellbinding, with Pierre Niney delivering a portrayal of Edmond Dantès that feels both deeply authentic and timeless. From Dantès’ naive beginnings to his calculated, unrelenting vengeance, Niney embodies the role with a level of intensity and depth that captivates from the very first scene.
Visually, the film is breathtaking. The cinematography paints each setting—from the claustrophobic depths of Château d'If to the grandeur of Parisian society—in vivid, atmospheric detail. Every shot feels like a piece of art, masterfully capturing both the story’s drama and its rich historical backdrop. The film’s use of real locations transports viewers to the story’s world, making each moment feel hauntingly real, a rare achievement in period cinema.
Adding to the experience is a lush, evocative score that amplifies the film’s emotional power. The music captures Dantès' inner turmoil and triumph with remarkable sensitivity, lending every high-stakes scene an added layer of tension. It’s a soundtrack that will stay with you long after leaving the theater, a perfect companion to Dumas' tale of betrayal and redemption.
The film’s costumes, masks, and makeup are absolutely spectacular. Every detail—whether the intricate designs of Dantès' masquerade attire or the worn expressions on characters weathered by hardship—feels perfectly tailored to the time period. The masks, in particular, add an air of intrigue, shrouding key characters in mystery and creating a rich visual metaphor for the story’s themes of deception and disguise.
At a generous three hours, The Count of Monte Cristo thoroughly explores Dantès' journey, though I found myself wishing it were even longer. An adaptation of this depth and quality could have easily been extended to a two-part epic, much like last year’s exquisite French rendition of The Three Musketeers, with an expanded runtime of four or five hours to fully savor each intricate turn of Dantès' revenge.
In every respect, this 2024 version is a masterpiece and, without a doubt, the definitive Monte Cristo for a modern audience. It balances faithfulness to Dumas' original with bold, cinematic flair, capturing the story's essence in a way that is grand, poignant, and unforgettable. This is a film that will surely stand the test of time.