Taking the ridiculous to a new level, the disaster spectacle “Twisters” falls short in delivering a compelling story to match its go big or go home premise. Directed by Lee Isaac Chung, the movie plunges viewers into a relentless tornado “outbreak,” setting the stage for a half-baked sequel that’s so stupid, it’s actually a challenge to suspend disbelief.
Former storm chaser Kate (Daisy Edgar-Jones) is haunted by an encounter with a killer tornado while she was in college in Oklahoma. It was a disastrous day, and she continues to live with survivor’s guilt years later. Now living in New York City, she is lured back into the field by her friend Javi (Anthony Ramos) with the promise of testing a groundbreaking new storm tracking and mapping system. The science-minded pair meet the reckless, renegade storm chaser and social media superstar Tyler Owens (Glen Powell), who seems more concerned about getting views and likes rather than contributing anything meaningful. But as the storm season quickly intensifies, there is a scary proliferation of deadly tornadoes that leave nothing but devastation in their path.
Amidst it all, Kate and Tyler find themselves competing to be the first to document each funnel for entirely different reasons. All of this is so dumb. There’s no reason for these people to be racing to get to the tornado first, but Chung tries to create a sense of urgency and drama by pitting them against each other. The plot is straightforward: see tornado, chase tornado, repeat. While this tried-and-true formula offers fleeting thrills, it quickly becomes tedious. There’s only so much humans can do to fight back at killer forces of nature, and there are laughably idiotic scenarios like a character shooting fireworks into the funnel of a tornado just to see if he can.
Most of the film is divided between show-stopping tornado “attacks” and Powell making lovey-dovey eyes at the camera (we get it: he’s good looking)! I suppose there’s no arguing the fact that everyone loves an easy-on-the-eyes tornado wranglin’ hunk, but even his charm can’t carry the movie.
The film’s science is absolutely laughable, with tornadoes depicted as nearly sentient forces capable of reducing buildings to rubble in seconds and sucking humans into the sky while somehow sparing people’s hats.
The special effects, and especially the sound design, are impressive, creating a visceral experience of the storms’ fury. The action sequences may be visually striking, but they lack the originality and impact needed to make them memorable. What’s fun about seeing people’s homes destroyed and lives ruined?
Disaster film fans may be a bit more lenient in unearthing more to enjoy about “Twisters” than I did, because I found it to be big, loud, and dumb. Those attributes can be satisfying if they’re executede well and the story at the core of the movie is good, but this one is not. It’s heavy on the mindless, light on the fun.
By: Louisa Moore / SCREEN ZEALOTS

Did you know that this movie had a diverse cast with a strong female lead? I didn't... and when I say that I mean I sat through the movie, left the theater, and didn't know it had a diverse case with a strong female lead until my wife pointed it out.
But wait, there is more.... I didn't want to see Twisters. In fact I rolled my eyes at that... until the director said that they weren't going to make it about Climate Change. I mean, that really got my hopes up. That made it sound like it was just going to be a movie about tornadoes.
So, I figured I'd give it a shot and.... it was just a movie about tornadoes.... seriously. It was like the first one, and let's face it, you didn't see the first one because you thought the plot was interesting, you saw the first one because you wanted to see a movie about tornadoes destroying a lot of crap and that is exactly what it delivered.
And that is exactly what Twisters delivers.
Is there political lecturing? No. Is there lecturing about climate change? No. Is there lectures about being Gay? No. Is there lectures about diversity? No. Is there lectures about feminism? No. Does it make a point that all white people are evil? No. Does it make a point that all men are evil? No. Does it make a point that Christianity is evil? No. Does it have a villain that is supposed to be Donald Trump? No.
WOW... Just WOW. WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW. I haven't seen a movie that didn't check off that many boxes since 2016.
It says NOTHING. It's a movie about... Twisters and that is all. Seriously. It's just a fun entertaining movie.
It gave me everything that I want in movies. It his my two most important check boxes.
Is the movie fun? YES!!!!
Is the movie Entertaining? YES!!!!!
Those two things are all twisters gave me and that is all I ever ask for. They made a movie I want to watch, I want to watch movies like this so I can be entertained, and the movie entertained me.
THANK YOU, now make more movies that actually try to entertain people. DOWN WITH LECTURES, UP WITH ENTERTAINMENT! GIVE US ESCAPISM!!! GIVE US FUN!!!! MAKE MORE MOVIES LIKE THIS!!!!! We will give you money for it.

A tragedy forces meteorologist "Kate" (Daisy Edgar-Jones) back into the office where she spends her days monitoring weather events and advising on whether or not twisters may emerge and issuing any necessary alerts. Another of her erstwhile coleagues, "Javi" (Anthony Ramos) shows up with some military-grade technology that can be used to 3-D plot the phenomenon and that gets her back out into the field. That's where she encounters "Tyler" (Glen Powell) - he's a "tornado wrangler" who uses his guts to drive as close as he can to get great images for his lucrative You Tube channel. Her designs are more altruistic, though. She wants to map the things so she can develop a plan to seed them with super-absorbent polymers that will hopefully stop them in their tracks. A gently competitive scenario now develops between the two, but that is soon changed when she discovers that one of their backers in really in it for the fire-sale value of properties devastated by the sheer power of the twisters, and - of course - the remainder of the plot follows lines way more predicable than that of the whirlwind. It's really more of a whirlwind of another sort that takes over and that's a bit of a shame as it shows up the limitations Powell as an actor. Sure, he's the boy next door you wouldn't kick out of bed for eating Pringles, but here he's about as wooden as a washboard. Edgar-Jones isn't a great deal better and the writing seems uncertain as to whether we are to watch an action-packed adventure film or a cheesy romance with some contrived moralising thrown in for good measure. To be fair, there is an attempt at bringing some science into the story and the visual effects are genuinely exciting to watch as these amazing forces of nature wreak their havoc despite man's best efforts. It's a bit on the long side, but it's still perfectly watchable especially if you can appreciate the visual on a big screen. It's just a bit disappointing.

In the interest of full disclosure, I must confess that this long-delayed sequel to its 1996 blockbuster predecessor is not nearly as awful or hokey as I thought it would be. As a prototypical summertime popcorn movie, director Lee Isaac Chung’s latest hits every item on the checklist of requirements for what such a release should do, and, in that sense, it’s admittedly rather fun – to a point. With that said, however, there’s only so much belief that one can realistically suspend while watching this often-preposterous tale, one that frequently pushes the limits of silliness and credibility. As expected, the tornadoes are the real stars of this picture (and, arguably, justifiably so), while the film’s clichéd, largely monodimensional characters and often-clunky, highly implausible narrative take a dutiful back seat to what clearly (and deservedly) lies front and center. That’s not to say these other elements are completely overshadowed, but their inherently predictable qualities and general lack of imagination fail to set this film apart as something genuinely different, particularly from its precursor. That dearth of innovation is especially apparent, for example, where good ole boy storm chaser Tyler Owens (Glen Powell) is concerned, whose testosterone-soaked persona makes him look more like a reckless, simple-minded yokel than a character to be legitimately taken seriously as someone who might actually know something about cutting-edge meteorology. At the same time, though, by employing these qualities where Powell’s character is concerned, I’d contend that maybe the film should have played them up more, transforming this offering into more of a campy romp, an approach that might have helped to distinguish the picture more than haplessly trying to make it into something to be taken so seriously. In any event, “Twisters” may not be the disaster that it could have been, but, as disaster movies go, it could have been better with a little less predictability, a lot less cliché and considerably more originality.

'Twisters' is about what I expected, it's one I enjoyed.
I'd say the action is an (albeit minor, relatively-speaking) improvement on the original, though I do think the characters and cast aren't quite as strong this time out. Overall, comparing the two, they probably level out to be honest, which is actually a good thing when you're talking about a sequel.
Despite the aforementioned about those onscreen, I did still like the performances of Daisy Edgar-Jones and Glen Powell - the latter is the best performer, in my opinion. With that said, hopefully Powell can get himself out of this typecast of 'overly cocky guy turns out to be sound' as it's getting a bit tiresome, even though I do really rate him as an actor.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://fandomwire.com/twisters-review-delivering-exactly-what-fans-crave/
"Twisters is exactly what one expects from a disaster flick: a visual spectacle full of action and adrenaline, with a predictable yet effective narrative.
Daisy Edgar-Jones and Glen Powell stand out as protagonists, bringing charisma and chemistry to characters with some emotional depth. Dan Mindel's cinematography and Benjamin Wallfisch's score add to the immersion layer of the summer blockbuster.
It doesn't bring anything new to the genre, nor does it need to, as it fulfills its sole, valid purpose of entertaining its target audience while still respecting the victims of natural disasters, reminding us of the importance of humanity and altruism in times of crisis."
Rating: B-

A Game of Love, Rivalry, and Resilience
The Challengers, directed by Luca Guadagnino, serves up more than just a tennis love triangle—it’s a story about passion, ambition, and the lengths we go to reclaim our sense of self. Zendaya shines as Tashi Duncan, a once-dominant tennis star turned coach, whose life is as complex and intense as the sport she mastered.
This film takes the audience on a whirlwind of emotions, following Tashi’s journey as she navigates a challenging personal and professional dynamic between her husband, Art, and her ex-boyfriend, Patrick. What starts as a sports drama quickly evolves into a tale of love, loyalty, and the complicated ties that bind us. Guadagnino’s direction brings the tension of a tennis match to every scene, where every glance, word, and play feels like a volley in an emotional game that none of the characters are fully prepared for.
At the heart of The Challengers is a powerful message about resilience and the relentless pursuit of purpose. Tashi’s return to the court—albeit from the sidelines as a coach—is emblematic of her unwillingness to give up, even when her own dreams seem beyond reach. She embodies the law of assumption, believing in the possibilities that lie ahead, even when the present seems tangled in a web of broken relationships and lost potential. By daring to assume victory, not only in the game but in her own life, Tashi embraces a future filled with the abundance of second chances.
What makes this film so compelling is the complexity of its characters, all of whom are struggling with their own vulnerabilities. The tennis matches are metaphors for life’s battles—hard-fought, full of unpredictable twists, and always demanding more than expected. It’s in the emotional back-and-forth, the moments of doubt and the sparks of hope, that The Challengers truly comes alive.
Ultimately, The Challengers is about the fight to reclaim one’s identity and the power of belief—belief in love, in oneself, and in the idea that we are always capable of bouncing back from life’s toughest setbacks. It’s an inspiring, beautifully crafted film that reminds us, whether on the court or off, that every challenge we face is an opportunity to grow stronger.
If you’re looking for a story that blends high-stakes competition with profound personal growth, The Challengers is a must-watch. It serves up drama, passion, and the belief that, no matter the odds, we always have the strength to rise.

Challengers presents an intriguing story centered around an unconventional love triangle with a twist. The film is well-crafted, showcasing impressive performances, direction, editing and cinematography.
The plot of Challengers revolves around the complex relationships between the three main characters, exploring themes of love, rivalry, and redemption. The story is engaging, with a narrative that keeps the audience invested in the characters' journeys.
Mike Faist and Josh O'Connor deliver solid performances as Art and Patrick, two friends whose relationship becomes strained. Their chemistry feels authentic, adding to the film's emotional weight.
However, Zendaya's performance as Tashi is the film's standout element. She commands every scene she is in, bringing depth and nuance to her character. Her portrayal of Tashi's internal conflicts and external manipulations is both compelling and believable.
The film's technical aspects are equally impressive. The cinematography beautifully captures the film's mood, using lighting and framing to enhance the emotional impact of the scenes especially on the court. The editing is top-notch, ensuring a smooth narrative flow and maintaining the film's pacing. The seamless transitions between past and present help to build suspense and deepen the story.
Challengers is particularly appealing to younger generations and aspiring filmmakers. Its fresh take on a classic trope, combined with high-quality filmmaking, makes it a standout in contemporary cinema. The film's exploration of modern relationships and personal growth resonates well with a younger audience. Additionally, its artistic approach provides inspiration for filmmakers looking to push the boundaries of traditional storytelling.
Overall, Challengers is a well-made film with a compelling story and strong performances. Zendaya shines as Tashi, supported by the solid performances of Mike Faist and Josh O'Connor. The film's technical excellence, from cinematography to editing, enhances its overall impact. This movie is a must-watch for anyone interested in a nuanced and emotionally rich narrative, as well as for those who appreciate high-quality filmmaking.

A story about a sociopathic, egocentric, racist narcissist who - not knowing what love is - treats two young men who both fall in love with her as pawns in a twisted game of life.
The havoc she wreaks, and the lives she break, are of no concern to her, as she continues on and on trying to satisfy her quench for power, control, and admiration.
It's not that I necessarily have a problem with films spun around an antagonist, or with demonic female characters, there's just something about the way it is on display in this film that makes me nauseous and tired. Perhaps it's the poor writing, or the lack of any real protagonist, as the two who are supposedly our protagonists are really willing victims, so it's hard to feel for them. Maybe it's the disorganized structure of the script. And pairing it with an atrocius score certainly doesn't help.
Oh, and the supposed "tennis" they're playing is so far detached from actual tennis that you can't help but laugh out loud at times when the film is trying to be very dramatic. Quite unfortunate.
I do think the three main actors do a good job, and I'll gladly watch them in something else in the future. Especially our antagonist (assuming she has other facial expressions than sulking) and the dark-haired protagonist.

While I have found Zendaya to be an attractive and stylish young woman, I haven't really warmed up to her as a serious actress all that much. She was fine in the "Spider-Man" franchise since it didn't require any great stretches for her. I feel that in the "Dune" series she is overshadowed by other, more talented actors. And in the more serious "Malcolm and Marie" she was in over her head in the cheap imitation of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?"
"Challengers" is a big step for her as an actress. And while I do still feel as though her two co-stars were more convincing, I think that this part is a brave move into meatier and more challenging roles.
The film is told over a thirteen year period. Zendaya plays Tashi a rising star in the tennis world. She seems to be the next great thing. At one of the tournaments she meets Art and Patrick, played by Mike Faist and Josh O'Connor. They are also competitive tennis players and best friends. And they both fall for Tashi. Who wouldn't?
Over the next several years they each start a relationship with Tashi. Not surprisingly they grow apart, but their stories continue to intersect as they both move closer to an inevitable confrontation...both off and on the court.
It's the kind of movie that Hollywood rarely makes anymore. It's about people and their feelings, and their ambitions. It's not a sequel or a remake, or comic book. This is why I find stories about real human emotions to be so much more exciting than the latest, generic action retread. The plot is advanced by the things the characters say and how their emotions guide their futures.
The film offers ambiguous motivations. On the surface we see them caring for each other, but what lies deep beneath is a much more selfish reality that put them in a survival mode. Each of them is a well written being. There is no hero to the story...nor a villain.
While Zendaya holds her own, Faist and O'Connor are the best part. They move the story and are also the central interest to me. This is, after all a love story, but we don't really understand early that it is also an unconventional one between the two male characters as well. All three of them hold a certain amount of sexual tension between them.
If I was to have a small gripe, it would be that the last twenty minutes is stretched too long. I'm glad that the filmmakers didn't rush it like many films do, but...they do milk the final in too many slow motion and trick shots. It adds tension, but it gets close to making us lose a bit of interest as well. Just get on with it!

Tennis playing "Art" (Mike Faist) and "Patrick" (Josh C'Connor) have been best mates since school but there's a fly in the ointment of their bromance. That's the upcoming superstar that is "Tashi" (Zendaya) - whom both of the boys take a shine to. A shared beer in their hotel room and she declares she's no home wrecker - but as this story progresses we arrive at a scenario that sees her own career aspirations tragically thwarted and rather vicariously transferred onto now husband "Art" whilst her ex-boyfriend "Patrick" and he now barely speak. Having won six slams, "Art" is running out of steam - but his unfulfilled wife is not ready for him to quit. Can he win an elusive US Open? For that matter, can he even win a confidence-building Challenger event in which he must beat his former friend. It's this match that serves as the conduit for the story as we dance about the timelines delivering a story that I felt was rife with pretty toxic ambition. Zendaya handles her really ambiguous, sometimes quite cruel and selfish, role here real quite unnervingly well as Luca Guadagnino allows all three actors to develop characteristics that vary from the engaging to the detestable - and he lets us be the judge. They are all flawed individuals spurned on by hormones, desire and the highly charged and competitive nature of their touring existences makes for quite a compelling look at just what makes these guys tick! After his appearance in "Mothering Sunday" (2021) O'Connor has no issues getting naked, the others prove a little more restrained as the sexual chemistry becomes more palpable and destructive and by the denouement - well who knows what will happen? I like that uncertainty - and I know what I wanted to occur... If you can't like yourself, can anyone else?

A lot of fun, is 'Challengers'.
First of all, I gotta say, the proper poster is so good! Thankfully, the movie matches. I enjoyed my time watching this one, I do have some (very) minor issues with the pacing and music (that blaring club track is a bit much) but in truth they evaporate given how high quality the rest of the film is.
The cast are great. Zendaya is the obvious star of the 131 minutes, she is top notch throughout. Josh O'Connor and Mike Faist are just as impressive though, they more than hold their own alongside Zendaya. I've seen O’Connor before in TV's 'The Crown' so I'm not all that surprised or anything, though this is the first time I've see Faist act.
Aside from the earlier noted track, the music is overall excellent though. I also like how the tennis is portrayed, I'm only a casual viewer of the sport but it all felt believable in that regard. I think the run time could've been trimmed a tad, while the amount of different timelines is perhaps a little excessive. Again, mind, these are not major concerns of mine, just worthy of noting.
A terrific flick, no doubt!

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://movieswetextedabout.com/challengers-movie-review-luca-guadagnino-goes-deep-beyond-the-baseline/
"Challengers transcends the limits of its tennis-centric premise to delve deep into the complexities of human relationships and personal desires.
Luca Guadagnino’s meticulous filmmaking and metaphoric storytelling, coupled with the stellar, fervorous performances of Zendaya, Josh O’Connor, and Mike Faist, propel viewers into a world where the lines between love and competition blur with tantalizing intensity, sexual tension, and an electrifying score.
With its potent blend of passion, intimacy, narrative and character depth, the film never stops reminding us that the most captivating stories lie beyond the boundaries of the tennis court."
Rating: A-

I have seen both amazing and terrible Ghostbusters films in my lifetime, and this one falls somewhere in the middle. It doesn't reach the heights of the original, nor does it plummet to the lows of the less successful installments. I would rank this film slightly below Ghostbusters II. While it’s fun, it suffers from a messy story and too many characters.
The film's main issue lies in its sprawling narrative. With too many characters vying for attention, the story becomes a bit disjointed. For example, the original Ghostbusters worked so well because it focused on a tight-knit group of protagonists, allowing for rich character development and clear, coherent plot progression. In contrast, this film tries to juggle multiple subplots and character arcs, leading to a lack of focus.
While the movie has its enjoyable moments, the story feels scattered. Key plot points are often rushed or underdeveloped, leaving the audience wanting more depth and cohesion. For instance, a subplot involving a new character’s backstory is introduced but never fully explored, making their motivations and actions feel superficial. This scattered approach detracts from the overall narrative impact.
Despite these flaws, the film does have its charms. It’s a fun addition to the franchise and includes plenty of moments that fans will appreciate. The humor, special effects, and ghost-hunting sequences are all entertaining and Paul Rudd shines throughout.
However, it lacks the nostalgic appeal of Ghostbusters II. The second film, despite its own flaws, managed to capture the magic and charm of the original. This new installment doesn’t quite evoke the same feelings. It feels more like a modern reboot than a continuation of the beloved series. For example, the nods to the original films are present but often feel more like fan service than integral parts of the story.
While this latest Ghostbusters film is not without its faults, it is still a fun watch. It doesn’t quite capture the nostalgia or coherence of the earlier films, but it adds a new layer to the franchise that fans might enjoy catching on TV. It’s worth a watch for its entertainment value, even if it doesn’t fully live up to the legacy of its predecessors.

Whilst not as awful as its 2016 counterpart, the latest instalment in the Ghost Busters franchise, is hardly noteworthy either.
Frozen Empire tries, in vain, to recapture the vibe of the first film from 1984. There's an earnest effort to re-establish the off the wall, goofiness of the original. Even bringing in old cast members to help things along. Sadly the wry wit and humour that defined the old flick, not to mention the remarkably deep characterisations, is largely absent.
What you are left with is empty mimicry that's none too inspiring, backed by a story and action that's not awful but really feels like its going through the motions. On the subject of the story, I will give kudos to the fact it is, at least, a little original and imaginative.
Regrettably whilst this film is superficially watchable its also instantly forgettable, having none of the blockbuster potential found in the first film, way back when. That said and again, in fairness, society has moved on from Ghostbusters. Its unsophisticated by modern standards and is never going to be the kind of hit it was in simpler, cinematic times.
I think the final question then, is why keep trying? Is Hollywood really so bereft of new ideas, that reinventing the past is all it can aspire to?
In summary, tries to wring the last drop out of a well worn and frankly, worn out franchise, that's long since, had its day. Superficially watchable but also readily forgettable.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://talkingfilms.net/ghostbusters-frozen-empire-review-a-step-back-that-still-holds-enough-entertainment/
"GHOSTBUSTERS: FROZEN EMPIRE falls short of its predecessor, but the members of the classic and new cast inject enough energy, charm, and emotion to compensate for the narrative inconsistencies and pacing issues.
Mckenna Grace's remarkable performance carries the film, but putting all the narrative, thematic, and emotional weight on a single character generates inevitable problems.
It's unlikely to become the favorite installment for fans of the franchise, but it's still an adventure with enough entertainment to satisfy families around the world."
Rating: B-

Though it does sort of get going in the last twenty minutes or so, the rest of this is a really slow family discord drama that features hardly any ghosts but is more of a finding herself exercise for "Phoebe" (McKenna Grace) that involves her coming to terms with psuedo-father "Gary" (Paul Rudd) and relating to her very own chess-playing version of "Moaning Myrtle" - only this one's called "Melody" (Emily Alyn Lind). When we do actually focus on things mystic, the story revolves around a brass sphere that is covered with ancient hieroglyphics. This comes into the possession of 'Stantz" (Dan Aykroyd) who takes it to the team for further investigation. Needless to say, that causes quite a bit of mayhem whilst, meantime, the mayor (William Atherton) is after the "Ghostbusters" for causing expensive havoc every time they trap a ghost. That contretemps will question the very existence of their firehouse operation and of their ongoing mission to boldy go... Anyway, as the plot lurches along we get the odd opportunity to see some proton packs in action; the old car gets put through it's paces and the original "Bibendum" ghosts get an outing or two, too, as a sort of bellwether for impending doom. That impending doom is all delivered, frostily, too little and too late to rescue this entirely derivative two hours from the cinema doldrums. The original cast - Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts and Aykroyd really need to stop appearing to legitimise these sequels - they are not patch on the original and really do smell, strongly, of flogging the dead horse. I would recommend a cinema viewing, though - at least that makes the most of the visuals. This will look distinctly mediocre on the television.

I found it to be a well-crafted film.
The cinematography was commendable, with visually engaging scenes that were thoughtfully composed. M. Night Shyamalan's direction was solid, delivering a coherent narrative while showcasing his daughter's musical talent on stage, a personal touch that added depth to the project. The score complemented the film effectively, enhancing the overall atmosphere.
While not groundbreaking, the film's execution was undeniably competent, making it a noteworthy addition to Shyamalan's body of work.

What a great movie. Not a single moment in this movie was boring. Nowadays it's really rare to make movie so interesting and also clean from woke propaganda. Definitely deserves high ratings from me.

Truly Dreadful. I didn't realise that the main theme of this film was explicit nepotism until I saw that Shamyamalan cast his own daughter as the female lead / singer / star in a somewhat vain attempt to launch or boost her career. But apart from that, this film just does not make sense. At all. Ever. The dude who spills the beans (no spoiler as it's in the trailer) .. I mean .. how on earth does someone have to be that unaware ?? Also, just the actions and words of each character don't ever add up to what they would do or say in a similar (lol) situation. Doesn't anyone ever push back in the writer's room and say "listen, the character x has just discovered ... and the first thing we've written they do is ...???!".
Let's just take a tiny moment in the concert. At one point, a guest singer comes up in the middle of the floor on a lift RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FLOOR CROWD ! And they leave the hole just .. literally ... gaping for anyone to fall into etc. Did any of the writers actually ever go to a concert before or are they always in the back VIP section ?
Anyway, enough from me. Like and subscribe (joke) for more reviews.

The first half of the movie was suprisingly good, the plot, ambiance, music and suspense. Then it totally changed into a commercial thrill movie with expected twist.

Did M. make a whole movie just to promote his daughter's music career? Maybe. Do I mind? Not so much. Makes him a better father than Jackie Chan. I take offense to the movie being hilariously bad though.
I'm disappointed because I thought this was a horror movie. The tagline is misleading. It should read "A father takes his daughter to a concert, only to realize they're at the center of a dark and sinister event." because his daughter didn't realize anything.
I'm also disappointed because I really thought Alison Pill was his secret accomplice. This is a bit of me typecasting her after her psycho role as Betty in Them (2021). I need more Alison Pill in my life.

Over the years I'd say my personal opinion of M. Night Shyamalan‘s work, is somewhat mixed.
Trap however, leaves no room for compromise. In my opinion, its simply poor. Why? Its scripting and associated characterisations, lack depth and intelligence.
Okay, the idea of a setting an elaborate trap for a serial killer, in a concert, is interesting.Yet, in spite of the fact the main character is apparently a highly successful, if that's the right word, cold and calculating killer, who has, thus far, evaded capture, then why does he behave like a clumsy amateur?
The ensuing litany of naff moves by our anti hero, combined with ham fisted plot twists and turns, leads to a tale that doesn't ring true or make a lot of rational sense. Suffice to say Trap is a disappointing watch, that quickly squanders any currency, it might have had.
Its a shame too, as there are definite upsides. Production values are above average, there are no issues with the quality of acting and a credible performance, as the concerts lead singer, is handed in Shyamalan‘s daughter. Its not my kind of music but its clear, she's genuinely talented.
In summary, strong production values, acting and performances, don't make up for a clumsy, less than subtle script, that left this reviewer feeling underwhelmed, by this ultimately dull, psychological thriller.

M. Night Shyamalan is a director that I've struggled to appreciate. Despite giving his movies multiple chances, I've found most of them to be lacking in some way. Even films like "Old" started strong but fell flat with their endings.
I continue to try to grasp Shyamalan's vision and goals in the cinematic realm, but his tendency towards over-the-top and confusing plots often makes it challenging to enjoy his work. Nevertheless, I decided to give his latest movie, "Trap," a chance and headed to the theater.
In this film, Josh Hartnett delivers a stellar performance that keeps you engaged from start to finish. Overall, I found the movie to be well-executed. However, the biggest flaw lies in Shyamalan's struggle to land a solid ending. Instead of choosing one direction, he incorporates multiple ideas, resulting in a convoluted and confusing conclusion that leaves viewers puzzled about the plot's resolution and twists.
"Trap" follows this trend, offering multiple endings that make you think the movie could have wrapped up several times over. Despite the extra 20 or 30 minutes of extended runtime, the film manages to remain decent. While it may feel lengthy at times, the overall quality holds up.

What a ridiculous movie. Cooper spends the entire time behaving in the most bizarre and suspicious way possible, the FBI and every other law enforcement agency have handed operational control (including storming in and tazing a suspect) to a profiler, and he's allowed to escape multiple times by the most breathtaking incompetence on the part of LEOs. Nothing about this movie is believable, the acting is completely OTT, and the plot is barely extant. Do yourself a favour, just buy the soda and popcorn and skip the movie.

I was hooked by the premise of Trap from the moment I saw the trailer. The idea of a serial killer bringing his daughter to a Taylor Swift-like concert, only for it to be a police trap to capture him, immediately grabbed my attention. I’ve always enjoyed M. Night Shyamalan’s films, particularly when he reveals the twist right from the beginning. With Josh Hartnett in the role of the serial killer, I was eager to see how this intriguing setup would unfold.
The premise of Trap is undeniably captivating, setting up a high-stakes thriller from the outset. The concept of a seemingly innocent concert turning into the backdrop for a police sting operation is both original and suspenseful.
Josh Hartnett delivers a terrific performance, portraying the serial killer with a chilling mix of charisma and cold calculation. His ability to switch between a doting father and a remorseless killer is unsettling and adds layers to his character. For instance, a scene where he interacts lovingly with his daughter moments before revealing his sinister intentions showcases Hartnett’s range and adds to the film’s tension. His portrayal keeps the audience on edge, wondering how far his character will go and how the situation will unravel.
Trap is a movie that requires some suspension of disbelief, as it occasionally stretches the bounds of plausibility. However, if you allow yourself to get lost in the story, the film is an intense thriller from beginning to end. The pacing is well-handled, with the tension building steadily as the plot unfolds.
That said, the film does have its share of plot holes and moments that strain credibility. There are a few instances where the suspension of disbelief is pushed to its limits, such as the police’s elaborate setup and the killer’s seemingly superhuman ability to evade capture. These elements can be distracting, particularly in the final act, where the film becomes somewhat redundant. The climax, while thrilling, feels repetitive and doesn’t fully capitalize on the strong buildup that precedes it.
Despite these issues, I walked away from Trap having enjoyed it enough to consider watching it again. The film is a fun, intense thriller that keeps you engaged throughout, provided you’re willing to overlook some of its more implausible moments. Josh Hartnett’s performance is a standout, and the film’s unique premise is executed well enough to deliver a satisfying, if not entirely flawless, viewing experience. If you’re a fan of Shyamalan’s work or enjoy thrillers that blend suspense with psychological drama, Trap is worth your time.

"Trap" is an intense thriller that keeps viewers on the edge of their seats with its gripping plot and unexpected twists.

Well the best bits of this are most definitely in the trailers! "Cooper" (Josh Hartnett) takes his daughter "Riley" (Ariel Donoghue) to see a "Lady Raven" (Saleka Shyamalan) concert only to find that when they are in the arena, the feds descend on the place like a ton of bricks and thanks to some secret information obtained from the guy who sells the T-shirts, we discover that it's all an elaborate trap to ensnare the "Butcher". As the name suggests, he's a brutal serial-chopper whom they know is at the concert. With the net tightening, we begin realise quickly who the identity of the murderer is and so now have to sit through an increasingly preposterous hundred minutes of cat and mouse with Hayley Mills hoping to catch her man. At times this does generate a bit of menace as he sees the openings to flee being systematically closed in front of him, and with his enthusiastic daughter in tow, his options are increasingly limited but in the end it's all peters out into a rather ridiculous ending that I found rather weak, implausible and disappointingly unoriginal. Hartnett just hasn't the manner to convince as the baddie and there's way too much concert-style material that suggests Miss Shyamalan asked her dad if she could have a film for Christmas. Too long and too feeble, sorry.

Quite the nosedive!
I actually enjoyed the opening chunk of 'Trap', everything at the music concert is fairly well done and kept the intrigue alive for me. However, once events leave the arena the movie absolutely bombs its way to the finish. The last portion of the film is terrible viewing, it felt like it just kept going and going and going.
There are plot holes aplenty, nonsensical 'twists' and character decisions/abilities. Cooper, played finely to be fair by Josh Hartnett, is absolutely some sort of big shot in his 'line of work', though makes some dumb mistakes. Though he is apparently capable of teleportation, based on one scene involving a limo.
I'm not someone who needs every inch of a movie to make sense, I can enjoy something that's simply an entertaining watch; even with poorly crafted elements elsewhere in the movie. This, unfortunately, ends up being just bad. That is a shame, because I honestly did like (albeit mildly) the stuff at the venue.
Very surprised to see the fairly good reception this has received so far on a few sites, I would not have predicted that but, hey, what do I know?

Writer / director M. Night Shyamalan‘s most annoying filmmaking traits are on full display in his latest movie “Trap,” a psychological thriller that initially promises an engaging narrative but ultimately collapses into the void of ridiculous twists and turns. This is far from Shyamalan’s finest hour, and the film rambles and sputters into one of his most unbelievable and absurd revelations yet, one that is so inanely dumb that it’s impossible to suspend disbelief.
The story follows everyday dad Cooper (Josh Hartnett) attending an afternoon concert with his teenage daughter Riley (Ariel Donoghue). Lady Raven (Saleka Shyamalan) is the hottest ticket in town, and Cooper splurged on floor tickets to make his little girl happy. Things seem fine until they’re not, and it’s revealed that Cooper is actually a serial killer nicknamed Butcher. Turns out the cops have set up a complex police blockade at the show with the intent on capturing him, and it’s clear he has no way out. Forced to use his wits to evade and escape, Cooper comes up with a series of clever distractions in order to keep his deep, dark secret hidden away from the FBI agent and criminal profiler in charge (Hayley Mills).
The first half of the movie is compelling enough, with a tense atmosphere and a buildup that hints at a plot that could have some sophisticated intricacies. It’s fun to watch how Cooper’s mind works, and it’s uncomfortable once you realize you’re rooting for a serial murderer to escape. This is done reasonably well and is the best part of the movie. The second half, however, derails spectacularly. The story becomes increasingly convoluted and nonsensical, introducing a series of ludicrous twists that undermine any semblance of coherence. This is bad even for Shyamalan.
Hartnett does a great job with his performance and is tasked with playing two men in one. He’s believable as the calm and goofy dad, but also switches to a dark psychopath on a dime. He’s by far the best part of the movie. Of course, while Harnett’s performance is one of the most enjoyable aspects, one of the film’s most glaring flaws is the weak turn from Saleka Shyamalan. I don’t want to pick on her as she is the director’s own daughter, but the forced nepotism reeks here. Saleka can’t act, she’s a mediocre singer and songwriter (a half dozen of her original songs are prominently featured during a majority of the film’s run time), and the movie comes across as being made solely to showcase M. Night’s kid while trying to make her a star. Her performance is as unconvincing as Harnett’s is credible.
With a contrived and nonsensical plot, bad performances, and an illogical twist that will leave you more frustrated than entertained, “Trap” is another disappointing effort from a director who could do so much better.
By: Louisa Moore / SCREEN ZEALOTS