Reviews

The drama explores the many facets of human nature and is anchored by strong performances that bring depth and complexity to its characters. Still, it overuses slow-motion shots and empty scenic cutaways.

The premise is inventive and open to multiple interpretations, though the ending is handled a bit childishly. Its touch of comedy works in its favor, since both marriage and family ties can carry an absurd edge. The alien inherits the male lead’s mischievous streak, making his odd behavior oddly fitting.

The plot is average, yet the heroine’s quick thinking stands out—upon discovering her boyfriend is an alien impostor, she immediately tries to kill him, repeatedly, even if she can’t quite finish the job. The tension is handled well.

The humor is frequent and cleverly executed, blending exaggerated body language, expressive faces, and quick cuts effortlessly for effective comic timing. The gags are woven seamlessly into the plot, each one serving the story rather than interrupting it.

The film is visually outstanding, with every character distinct and memorable. The story is simple—a band of notorious crooks decide, by chance, to turn over a new leaf and become good.

As a typical low-budget chamber thriller, it should rely on a strong script and sharp performances, yet it offers neither. The plot lacks originality, the heroine is written as implausibly dim-witted, the action is unconvincing, and the villain is paper-thin.

This is a rough watch. Set almost entirely aboard a small plane with just three actors, it feels like a 1990s throwback in story, themes, and filmmaking style, right down to its dated audiovisual language.

The plot is both clichéd and implausible. Marketed as a charming campus romance, it quickly devolves into melodrama, culminating in a sudden terminal illness reveal and the male lead’s refusal to seek treatment. It inevitably reminds audiences of “Me Before You,” though that film’s logic and execution were far more convincing.

It plays like an American love letter to Oxford. The film boasts attractive leads with solid performances and a clearly established romance, yet the story is so formulaic it’s hard to warm to.

Beneath the veneer of an acopolypse, the film is really about surveillance, privacy, the struggle between individuals and the state, and the dangers of unchecked control over information. Still, the idea of a single family saving the world is absurd.

The pacing is brisk, with flashy displays of modern technology. The effects are competent for a low-budget production, and the way the aliens are defeated is clearly homage paid to the classic version—where the invaders are vanquished by microbes before, here, they succumb to a computer virus.

This might be the most conventional and uninspired exorcism film I’ve seen. From the protagonist’s hidden personal trauma to the mentor–apprentice dynamic between two priests to the crisis of faith, every element has been recycled endlessly since “The Exorcist.” Like many in the genre, it ends with black-and-white stills of the “real” people and events, adhering rigidly to formula of exorcism films.

Marketed as an exorcism horror film, it isn’t even remotely scary. The exorcism details are surprisingly thorough and realistic, making it feel more like a mockumentary. Though billed as a film based on a true story, online searches for the two protagonists yield only vague records, making its authenticity impossible to verify.

The first half is successfully captures both social realities and individual helplessness, yet the second half takes a sudden nosedive into all sorts of mutual understanding and selflessness between the two leads, and an unearned happy ending. The tonal shift is jarring and robs the story of dramatic tension. In today’s world, where material abundance and temptation abound, marriage is hardly a necessity.

I wouldn’t call it a bad film, but it left me disappointed precisely because it ended exactly as I had predicted. I especially disliked that the heroine was forced to choose between two men when it’s obvious she had other options. It’s frustrating to see her settle for one despite knowing neither relationship was truly satisfying, all out of fear of being alone.

By turning bodily transformation into a metaphor for emotional attachment, the film finds an inventive way to examine intimacy. While many dramas try to unpack the tangled mix of love and hate, control and dependence, acceptance and rejection, this one uses body horror to make those elusive, often unspoken feelings brutally tangible.

Many will immediately compare it to “The Substance,” and the parallels are clear—both use high-concept storytelling to explore themes of control and alienation. This one is surprisingly restrained in its gore, often sidestepping or softening key moments, yet it still delivers a strong visceral impact.

The film leans fully into its '80s aesthetic, echoing the tone and logic of the original 1988 "The Naked Gun." Even the villain’s brain-control scheme feels like a direct callback. Sadly, within the constraints of its absurdist comedy roots, the chaos never reaches truly epic proportions.

A clear homage to the 1982 series "Police Squad!", this new installment runs a brisk 80 minutes. What stands out is its delightfully retro style, complete with grainy film textures and a nostalgic portrait of Los Angeles beneath palm trees and neon-lit skies.

The performances are remarkably nuanced, bringing the inner lives of the characters vividly to the screen. The story goes beyond entertainment, inviting reflection on deeper philosophical questions—though its tendency to moralize occasionally weighs it down.