Reviews

This movie has so many logic issues that it's exhausting to watch for two and a half hours. Many plots are roughly handled, and the ending feels rushed. After watching it twice, I can see what the director was going for, but it's not for most people. It's hard to give it a high score. It's average overall, but the love scenes are sweet and they brighten up the movie.

This movie was a real letdown. I hoped to see more Thai culture and traditions, but there wasn't much. The relationship between the two main female characters was pretty tame. I was expecting more daring stuff. And the plot was super boring. It was trying to say that people can help each other achieve their dreams, but it just didn't hit home for me.

People have really strong opinions about this movie. Some people love it for its culty vibes that remind them of "Hereditary," but others think it is too long and drawn out, the characters and their actions don't make sense, and the movie relies too much on the creepy atmosphere to keep things going. Personally, I appreciate the sincerity, but I don't think it's that scary.

This horror movie has a unique style, but the first two parts drag on and don't really get going. At first, it almost makes you think it's a detective thriller. The supernatural stuff finally shows up in the last part, but it's only hinted at, which leaves me unsatisfied.

This movie takes a different approach from your typical American gore flick. It goes for a more literary feel and a slower story. It tries to create a creepy and unsettling mood with all the visuals and sounds, like the cinematography, editing, and sound effects. But the plot is kind of weak and boring. It starts out promising, but then it falls flat. Some mysterious symbols are introduced early on but never explained, and the ending feels rushed.

Out of the three parts of this film, I dug the first one the most, then the second, and the third was my least fave. Overall, it feels like a really polished and pricey student project. The plot structure is a bit over the place, so the story can't keep up the momentum and just falls flat. But the actors are top-notch, and the cinematography and art style are dead-on, making the film shine. Still, considering the scale and production value, I'd say the story didn't quite meet its full potential. It's a bit of a "hit-or-miss" kind of work.

This movie has three different framing styles, and the trapezoidal one is pretty wild, which I liked a lot. It makes you feel like you're peeking in on the action. The movie starts with a close-up of the female lead's face, telling you right away that she's the only female detective in the story and that the story will unfold all from her point of view. The suspense is really well done, and the way the camera is set up is really well thought out. But some mysteries don't get solved by the end, which makes me think they might be setting up a sequel.

As Dev Patel's directorial debut, “Monkey Man” has its strengths and weaknesses. On the one hand, it's clear that Patel has put considerable effort into the action choreography and visual composition, and in the script, a desire to elevate the source material can be felt. On the other hand, his handling of pacing, editing, and narrative structure is still somewhat unpolished, leading to a disjointed viewing experience.

Calling this movie just a horror flick is a bit of a stretch. It's great at creating a creepy and gloomy vibe, and its visuals and sound are top-notch compared to other movies that came out this year. The film mixes in all sorts of stuff like symbolism, religion, family, and female storytelling, which gives it a unique perspective. But the problem is, marketing it as a horror movie kind of backfires because it sets up expectations that the movie doesn't fully deliver on.

The film's numerous close-ups, point-of-view shots, and shaky camera work in the action scenes made for an uncomfortable viewing experience. These stylistic choices didn't add to the storytelling. They, in fact, disrupted it. The film’s use of night scenes and lighting is meticulously done, and the set design is complex. I hope the director will consider using more medium and wide shots in the future to allow viewers a clearer overview of the scenes.

The idea's pretty cool, but how they pulled it off was just a bust. The part with the birthing screams didn't really hit me hard initially, but seeing Sydney Sweeney's face covered in blood made it all feel more intense and emotional. What really threw me off was when the leading actress just conveniently grabbed a huge rock right after giving birth. It was too far-fetched, making me think the movie didn't really capture the real challenges of pregnancy. It felt like they were just trying to sensationalize it rather than show women's experiences thoughtfully and respectfully.

Before I saw this movie, I was hoping it would be an adrenaline-pumping spy thriller, but it was more of a family-friendly film with a little bit of humour mixed in. The first hour was boring, and I even caught myself nodding off for a sec. The rest of the movie didn't have much going on in terms of drama or suspense. It was nothing like the heart-stopping excitement I was expecting.

The film strips away the layers of pretense in middle-class married life, exposing the tedious and vain existence that marriage can become, all devoid of spiritual connection or love. When Ingmar Bergman made this miniseries, he had been divorced four times, and his lifetime of experience is conveyed with sincerity and a harsh sense of realism.

As a sequel, this movie seems less creative or well-told than its amazing predecessor, but it's still a great watch. It reminds us that we should accept all our emotions, good or bad, and embrace them as part of who we are.

The film faithfully recreates the various stages of marriage, portraying it so realistically that it becomes almost brutal. The boredom and mutual resentment turn two people who once loved each other into strangers. There’s no background music, and the film is almost entirely set indoors, relying solely on dialogue and the actors’ body language, showcasing the director's remarkable narrative skills.

Compared to the first flick, this one doesn't bring many fresh ideas to the table. It feels more like an extension of the first one; even the Easter egg is just an extension of the one from the first movie. It tries to be funny about growing up but I wasn't amused. However, one message hit home for me: as we age, we get better at managing our emotions. We might not wear our hearts on our sleeves like we used to, but those feelings still define us.

It feels like I'm past the whole "Embrace all your emotions; it's what makes you unique" thing. Now, I just smile and keep it moving when hearing that kind of stuff. As far as the movie goes, it's pretty solid. Every aspect was well executed, and it seems they stuck to a tightly structured script. But the ending just didn't sit right with me. And for some weird reason, "Mickey Mouse Clubhouse" kept popping into my head during the film.

This is a heavy historical subject, and the lead characters are incredibly lucky to have survived. They do their best to protect others, but the love story feels a bit overemphasized. Perhaps only love can offer hope in such despair.

This movie is set in a motorcycle club and tells a heartfelt story about freedom, rebellion, and redemption. Tom Hardy and Austin Butler are amazing in their roles, showing the characters' strength and vulnerability. It's not just a pretty movie; it's also a deep look at real humanity. When you hear those engines roaring, you can almost feel the power of freedom and the heat of life itself.

The show is commendable for its depiction of many brutal details within the concentration camps, but the love story feels unconvincing against this backdrop. Compared to the many who lost their lives, the protagonists seem too fortunate to be realistic.