Reviews

May December didn't really do anything memorable or just simply move forward with its plot; I found that the biggest step forward it took in its story was with the assistance of a sex scene somewhere towards the end. This movie makes the tragic mistake of never utilising its talented performers and not transferring from its first act to second. I can enjoy a slow-burn drama centred alone on conversations between its characters, but I want to be able to care enough to feel captivated in the dialogue. Many movies do that extremely well, 12 Angry Men being the first in mind, but I'll forget this Oscar-baiting piece of women talking as soon as I'm done talking about it.

Firstly, you have missed opportunities. Alike almost every other film, May December has a plot synopsis: an actress arrives at the home of a couple whose tabloid romance shocked the nation two decades ago in order to do research on them for a film she's starring in about their past. Unfortunately, this is as far as the premise goes, because the rest of the movie drags out boringly doing pretty much nothing. You've also got the fact that it's basically a character study, but only done by Natalie Portman's character and not the film itself. I think this movie would've actually worked out quite interestingly as a character study, but the acting does overshadow that to an extent. This is where I thought the film really faltered, but there're still a few things I can respect.

Natalie Portman and Julianne Moore are those small shiny glimmers of hope you would see at the end of a dark tunnel, the dark enclosed tunnel being the script. If you continue to read reviews however, you'll find that many admire Charles Melton as the stand-out among the cast. Through his character, themes relating to childhood trauma and the effect it has on a person's life are able to surface, making for the aspect of the film that I found most interesting. Again though, May December could have truly been a masterpiece if it simply did something with its premise, and it would work even better if the characters were more fleshed out for viewers to understand them better.

If you liked this review, check out the full review and other reviews at aussieboyreviews.

Emma Stone is giving a daring performance, Yorgos Lanthimos is putting his strangely masterful vision on the screen and the entire crew from the production design to the supporting cast members are giving in their all. You've already heard everyone say Poor Things is not everyone's cup of tea, which despite myself finding it very enjoyable and well-made, the "not-everyone's-cup-of-tea" term is just a criminal understatement. From the weird plot to the very artsy execution, I can easily picture the average moviegoer having little appreciation for Poor Things, but most movie-buffs will see this as a very special piece of filmmaking and cinema.

After being brought back to life by the brilliant and unorthodox scientist Dr. Godwin Baxter, a young woman named Bella Baxter runs off with a lawyer on a wild adventure across the continents. Kicking the discussion off with the element I see tons of people begging the Oscars to award, performances across the board truly couldn't be improved in this movie. Emma Stone has amazingly pulled off this innocent yet crazy baby-brained woman learning about life, and she's done it with perfection. I also found Willem Dafoe and Mark Ruffalo to be exceptionally funny and kind of quirky in their roles.

In addition, movie-lovers will dedicate conversation to how creative and unique, yet completely bizarre the film's cinematography and visuals are. You have your extremely lengthy sections filmed in black-and-white, but my attention to the story would be taken to admire each of the colours, especially blue, which look so unusual and almost exaggerated when they show up. The cinematography is a similar yet its completely own story; some shots appear to be looking through the peephole of a door. There's something about the visuals that is so mystifying and baffling at the same time, to the point where it became a lot to handle for me personally.

Poor Things is a movie I can easily see myself watching again, if not many more times just to be able to appreciate every distinctive aspect and love it as much as others do. Because while I interpret it simply as both a simple and complex movie about discovery, life and humanity from the viewpoint of a young woman new to the world, the film honestly left me feeling kind of puzzled and disoriented. There were sequences where I could definitely feel the 141-minute runtime and others that kept me more entertained than I could've asked for. Overall, it's wonderful movie, but it's also puzzling, bonkers and extremely unusual.

If you liked this review, check out the full review and other reviews at aussieboyreviews.

Winnie the Pooh has finally entered the public domain, just for a talentless film crew with no passion for this project to shoot a clichéd slasher, and bring in those dollars based on the shock value of the popular childhood characters becoming misogynistic, blood-thirsty killers. Writer-director Rhys Frake Waterfield completely wastes the potential of the premise with terrible characters we don't care about, unnecessary scenes that drag out forever and ever, and the most disappointing CGI kills you'll see in a horror movie. At the very LEAST, Blood and Honey could've just been one of those fun-bad horror movies. But it's not even to the extent of being so bad that it's good; even Sharknado did better in that category.

If you care to know about the plot, Pooh and Piglet basically become these feral creatures with a taste for blood after Christopher Robin abandons them for college. Speaking on the positive side of things, the movie begins with an animated sequence in which a narrator keeps us up to date on how Pooh and Piglet have cannibalised their friends and returned to their animal instincts in order to survive after Christopher Robin left them. This opening being made as if it were for a kids' fairytale film, in addition to a few good shots and some nice lighting (it's still no Martin Scorsese film) is every compliment I can make about Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey, which is what scores it one point.

Unfortunately, these small factors are overweighed by huge disappointments or other obvious issues such as horrible acting, underwhelming gore, an atrociously bad script, and blatantly making a profit off of turning a beloved childhood character into a cold-blooded monster, which I think would be absolutely fine if it were done well. There's a completely useless stalker plot that does nothing for the story, the laughable soundtrack during some kill scenes sounds like music that would be played for clowns during a circus act, and the CGI deaths look unbelievably fake. The Terrifier movies, despite not being horror standouts, use practical gore effects which make them look so much better and end up being way more brutal. Why did Blood and Honey have to dispose its only decent elements like kills in a horrible execution?

A common trait we know plenty of horror movies share in their genetics is the element of characters making bad decisions, but in Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey, they're just downright suicidal and completely careless for their own or their friends' lives. There's a scene in which Piglet is attacking two of the girls around a pool, and once he attacks one of them, the other girl DELIBERATELY falls/jumps into the pool so it'll make it easier for Piglet to kill her once he's killed her friend. What in the actual f### were they thinking here? Are they asking to die at the hands of these masked murderers? "Ah yes! Scream so that Pooh and Piglet can know where you are!"

The film is way too drawn out just for the sake of being a feature length movie, every character's IQ falls out of their heads and transforms into a plot hole, and the third act of the film is so goofy that I just couldn't enjoy it. Blood and Honey overall is just a terrible horror movie with no redeeming qualities, although I can't promise that you won't have fun with it. I actually enjoy and have fun with lots of bad horror movies that I'd end up rating solidly, like The Nun, Halloween Kills and the endless Saw sequels. But this movie is not one of them; it's so appallingly bad that I couldn't even laugh or just simply have fun with it.

If you liked this review, check out the full review and other reviews at aussieboyreviews.

My expectations for Adventureland were slowly declining as the film begins as another generic romance comedy-drama focused on a very average guy who starts working at a theme park. What makes this movie so surprising and sole-stirring for me however, is the unexpected direction the film took in the second half and the third act. And one of the main reasons why it worked so well was truly as a result of its standout performances. Jesse Eisenberg plays a college graduate who takes a job at his local amusement park during the summer of 1987 in order to save up for a long-awaited trip to Europe. But he ends up learning about love, life and trust.

Firstly, I have to make a confession. Purely based on my own personal desires and appreciations, I will admit that Adventureland automatically scores a few solid points in my rating for one of its regular locations: an amusement park. An area in which the movie really shines is during its moments occupied in the park. Watching the characters as staff members interact with each other whilst they're on shift together makes for extremely entertaining and very sweet segments, and I personally would easily watch a 107-minute movie that's just that. It's not a casual supermarket or clothes store; people all around are having fun, playing carnival games and going on rides.

The lively location and quirked-up characters also brings me to discussing the comedic aspect, because despite a lot of attempts at jokes that don't land well, Adventureland possesses its hilarious moments and guarantees every viewer an audible chuckle somewhere. There's a fantastic sequence once Jesse Eisenberg applies and gets the job working in some of the game booths and stalls; he's taken around by a trainer who explains to him how all of these impossible-to-beat games are cleverly rigged. It's the perspective that makes these scenes such a hoot!

I would say the main criticisms I have for the film are only really present throughout the first hour. Adventureland kicks off as this very standard coming-of-age kind of narrative with quite a strong focus on romance and crushes, often falling for those drowsy clichés we've gotten bored of seeing. There's an overload of scenes in which the lead character, James, and the girl he's fallen in love with become closer, and closer, and it just becomes awkward and tiring. There's a point in which the romantic aspect does become mildly complicated and pressuring, but it's sort of just blown off, becoming nothing.

Where a step up in originality was finally taken is when the romance becomes a new form of complex drama that I never anticipated would happen after a very generic first hour. The film goes in a completely different direction that genuinely caught me off guard, and also impressed me. It's why I'd say that Kristen Stewart gives the most pronounced and compelling performance in the film. Adventureland centres on romance to begin with, but meanwhile, it's setting up another plot between her and another character. Her character slowly begins to become kind of off-putting, especially when secretive stuff is revealed about her character. I won't dive into spoilers, because I think that this movie is worth watching and it becomes very intriguing at a certain point. But it leads me to call it a romance movie with bits of comedy, but it's also a solid drama with good performances.

If you liked this review, check out the full review and other reviews at aussieboyreviews.

Paranormal Activity 2 is a convoluted, boring, terribly written and atrociously acted horror film pitting a dumb vlog family against a supernatural entity who likes to play pranks on them. After thoroughly enjoying the first Paranormal Activity and going into this film with the anticipation of watchable sequences and some good scares, I was immensely disappointed to find every horror cliché I could think of wrapped up in this messy borefest of a sequel to an effective paranormal chiller.

The film starts off with an overload of boring family footage in what's supposed to be a quick montage of the first year in which they bring their newborn baby home for the first time, the loving family members all hanging out together, taking care of their their baby, all because they never stop recording no matter what. You get the picture. It's basically the perfect home life, until we're all in shock at the sight of their home being completely trashed, leading them to set up multiple security cameras around their house. And there we go: a classic set-up for a Paranormal Activity movie. Fans can expect a very limited amount of effective nighttime sequences featuring very unsettling occurrences and demonic noises, but that's all there is to get excited over.

One of this movie's biggest issues is that it never feels like the plot is moving and nothing really exciting is happening for the first two acts. As expected, nothing suspicious is caught on camera for the first night; it's just a normal, breezy night in the neighbourhood. However, we get a stupid amount of nights where barely any activity is taking place. It might not be as big of a problem if the overlong daytime sequences filling the gaps weren't just footage of their completely boring everyday lives and raising their child. There is way too much boring family vlogging going on in this movie.

But when their cameras aren't recording the characters feeding, clothing, talking to or adoring their small year-old boy, all that remains is tired pacing and frustrating clichés. Ooh, the sister doesn't want to talk about her traumatic past because it's a forbidden subject and everything will somehow get worse by talking about it. Oh, all of these bad things are happening but everything's fine and we just shouldn't pay it any attention. The boredom and dissatisfaction I received from this movie is maddening. The acting is terrible, you don't care about the characters, the script is a copy-and-paste, there's plot holes everywhere, and the filmmakers ultimately made a trashy sequel that doesn't answer to its terrifying predecessor.

If you liked this review, check out the full review and other reviews at aussieboyreviews.

Despite Totally Killer's accurate writing and details for the 1980s, viewers expecting at least some degree of logical thought will find the film too Gen Z for the majority of its time setting, and the killer plot too silly to enjoy. Comedic and/or satirical slashers including Scream, Freaky and Happy Death Day basically meet Back to the Future for the very first time, making Totally Killer a totally ridiculous teen horror-comedy that might be worth excluding from your annual Halloween movie-spree.

Please don't get the wrong vibe though, because that's not to say that Totally Killer is a totally terrible joke-and-slasher-fest with nothing to enjoy. I find this movie to be quite a watchable late-night movie that I know some people will enjoy for its fun sense of humour and ultimate silliness. The writers totally knew what they were handling; all of the 80s references and even some of the small details remind you of the earlier time. Plus, the cast do a solid job with the material they've been given and the film as a whole is watchable for the most part.

But where the film really falters is in its direction, and I think it descends a little too far into absurdity. Please note that from this point, my opinion on these aspects aren't completely valid, as I didn't exist during the 80s. But in my personal experience, I never found myself to be transported to or feeling the vibe of the portrayed year. Regardless of some accurate writing, I still found the film's spirit and characters to be very "2023ish". However, my biggest issue was that I simply just didn't have fun with or enjoy its story a lot. I knew nothing about this movie going in, except I had the idea that it would be a fun teen slasher comedy. Some people will like it, but others such as myself did not.

If you liked this review, check out the full review and other reviews at aussieboyreviews.

Circle is an 87-minute observation of fifty strangers forced to vote off one person every few minutes, requiring them to decide on the one person who deserves to live. Despite being guilty of a number of shortfalls in major aspects such as writing, acting, cinematography and editing, this is an enthralling, entertaining and thought-provoking psychological thriller with deeper themes relating to human nature. The budget is low enough that the movie feels like something that fifty unknown actors and a film crew would team up to construct, but it's still a very effective thriller and it's worth your energy.

Firstly, the concept is very intriguing; fifty strangers awaken to find themselves in a darkened room, standing in two large inner and outer circles around a dome that becomes apparent to behold an electrical current. This electrical beam fatally shocks anyone who steps outside of their circle or receives the most votes from everyone else. Where the science fiction genre steps in is when the strangers discuss the fact that this situation is the result of alien activity, providing brief descriptions of the aliens and what they witnessed before waking up in this dark area. Don't worry however, the clichéd alien stuff doesn't play too much of a role in the film's plot. It's mainly a psychological drama due to its examination of human nature, desperation and survival.

All of the film's strengths are able to overshadow the many flaws. Every line of dialogue is elevated by very strong performances by cast members ranging from young to old; most of these unfamiliar actors deliver their characters wonderfully. If you're a sucker for visuals, the film is also nice and fairly clean to look at, regardless of some uneven lighting. In terms of pacing, the conversations between these strangers are always moving forward in one way or another. And with at least one death every two minutes, you get the idea that there's very little time for goofing. There's also plenty of surprises concerning character development and who continues in the game can be unpredictable, even though the ending feels pretty rushed.

Unfortunately however, imperfections still roughen some of the edges. The first few minutes feels like a big exposition dump as these people quickly figure out and explain to each other the circumstances, before the real "game" begins. Yes, there's already exposition very early on. In addition, there's also plenty of dumb decisions made by the characters, sometimes by everyone in the group. In one scene, they all seem to be naive enough to trust each other in making a certain vote amongst each other. But you need to forgive the film's flaws to enjoy Circle for what it is; if you're seeking a flawless masterpiece, just leave this one alone for now. It's just an example of some lack of creativity in the writing. However, it's made up for by the excellent dialogue and chatter between the strangers, to the point where at times, it almost feels improvised and unscripted.

But even with the film's intelligent points and clever ideas, it's still a low-budget film with issues in the editing, cuts and special effects. Most of the special effects play a role in the fact that there are many electrocution deaths, both on and offscreen. When a stranger being electrocuted by this dome is onscreen, the special effect is nothing to praise. It's not laughable, but it's nowhere near great either. However, the onscreen execution is much more preferable when you compare it to the offscreen executions, and there's a lot of them. As the camera focuses on other characters, you'll see a flash accompanied by the sound of a body lumping on the floor. Even if the camera focuses on and explicitly implies who is about to fall, it's often confusing and still doesn't feel right. The filmmakers obviously want to hide the poor effects, but it's much more reassuring when they're shown and not panned away from. Besides these mentioned issues and a few cuts that are a little off, Circle is a very recommendable and enjoyable psychological thriller.

If you liked this review, check out the full review and other reviews at aussieboyreviews.

Eli Roth's film is one that brings up brilliant conversation-starters around fatal and tragic incidents like a Black Friday shopping riot, but those points are ultimately wasted on a gory holiday slasher focused on a bunch of social media teens. If you're buying popcorn in the expectation and hopes of watching an enjoyable murder mystery with a ton of gory kills, even if it all follows that formula we've all seen before, this movie definitely delivers on those aspects. And that's exactly what this film is good for, because it's made by a filmmaker who clearly loves and appreciates the genre. But this is a concept that I believe could've been more effective, enjoyable and memorable if taken seriously, even if there's a vengeful serial killer running around.

Among the very early scenes of Thanksgiving, we witness a lengthy sequence featuring a Black Friday riot that ends with fatal consequences. Basically, a teenage girl and her friends enter a massive store owned by her father moments before a big Black Friday sale, which leads the aggressive crowd waiting outside the closed doors to stampede inside. Multiple people are trampled and killed during this sequence, all over a free waffle-maker. I wouldn't consider these as spoilers as they're the inciting incident to the plot, but it's a scene that whilst contains some fun gore and deaths, it's also worth discussing due to its realism and the greedy human pieces of trash who cause these deaths.

After that, it becomes an extremely gory and highly campy slasher with a murder-mystery thrown into the mix. You're suddenly expected to begin having a fun time with the film, even though the perfectly-executed and phenomenally-directed sequence we saw earlier was violently aggressive in the most powerful way possible. All of that is not to say that Thanksgiving is a let-down or a disappointment; it's just a missed opportunity for a mature movie is all. Because things like a giant riot at a Black Friday sale are things that could very easily happen in real life, and that's what I personally find scary about this aspect of the film's plot.

In terms of gore, this movie absolutely delivers; there are multiple beheadings, slashings and gory buckets of blood accompanying these terrific death scenes. I would also be asking "how's the fun little whodunnit going on at the same time?" But you already know what you'd be getting yourself into; it's watchable at the very most (not necessarily entertaining), but it's mainly just forgettable and predictable. The characters, humour, storytelling and finale are also nothing to get excited over. Besides the kills, I didn't give much care or sympathy to anything or anyone in this movie, but that's what I expected.

If you liked this review, check out the full review and other reviews at aussieboyreviews.

An addictive horror series with outstanding performances from the cast all around, an endless collection of gorgeously-shot sequences, and a storyline so enthralling, you won't want to turn it off. The Fall of the House of Usher is one of Mike Flanagan's most fabulous creations yet. Roderick and Madeline Usher are two ruthless siblings who build a family dynasty to secure their fortune and future, but dark secrets are revealed when their heirs begin to mysteriously die one by one. Every bloodline member of the Usher family is undeniably horrible, each subtly portraying a seven deadly sin if you really examine what they do, but their characters are so interesting to watch because of the performances from every single cast member, with other notable highlights being Carla Gugino as the show-stealing Verna, Mark Hamill as the family's lawyer, and Ruth Codd in another memorable supporting role. The series from the beginning lets us know that each of the Usher children have succumbed to gruesome fates, with each episode promising a further dive into their characters and beautiful cinematography when their death is nearby. It's not a straight-up adaptation of Edgar Allan Poe's work, and it's a very unconventional show that will confuse and divide many viewers, but it's a masterfully-crafted series worth all the time it takes to develop its slow-building plot.

If you liked this review, check out the full review and other reviews at aussieboyreviews.

If you're looking to watch a stupid-fun "horror" movie with no scares or thrills, and a group of sadistic killers with no motivations terrorising two of the dumbest characters of the genre, you'll get all of that besides the fun from The Strangers. After attending a friend's wedding reception, a troubled young couple retreat to their isolated family vacation home in the hopes of spending a relaxing weekend together by themselves. We feel that there's a lot of emotion and tension between this couple, but the story shifts when three masked assailants begin to terrorise them.

This movie has the same effect on you as counting sheep does on a cartoon character. I put The Strangers on hoping for something along the lines of a home invasion thriller with tension and suspense that would keep me entertained. However, I found myself falling asleep around the time where the characters in the film come under threat. When I turned it off to go to bed for the night, my levels of energy and awareness heightened again as I no longer felt tired. But when I put the film back on again, I began to feel drowsy as the rest played out in front of me.

The film's couple are played by Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman, both of which aren't given much material to work with. They're either just talking quietly between each other, screaming like idiots or acting on edge, things that the most talentless of asshats could pull off just as well. But the writing makes for the biggest issue in their characters, because they're probably the goofiest of all horror movie characters to exist. Just watch them wave their lives around on a stick and you'll desperately want to knock on their hollow little heads and scream at them, "why in the actual hell would you do something that dumb? Do your lives really mean nothing more than jack-s### to you?" It's not that the actors are doing a poor job, it's a result of poor writing.

The reason why it's not a downright disaster is because the tension between the characters that's set up at the start is actually kind of effective. In terms of cinematography, there's also a few shots that a horror filmmaker would die to include in his movie (one being the wide shot of an intruder standing in the darkness behind Liv Tyler). Unfortunately, this is a horror film that is completely lacking of tension, somewhat due to the fact that you don't give a s### about the characters; they become disposable when they start behaving stupidly. You want them to get killed off so the film will end. Until the ending however, barely anything exciting, interesting or necessary happens when these strangers begin terrorising them. So not only is the film extremely predictable, but it's also outrageously boring.

If you liked this review, check out the full review and other reviews at aussieboyreviews.

What made the FNAF games so terrifying were the chilling atmospheres, extremely creepy sightings of the animatronics and the nail-biting sense of danger, which would end each round with an accomplishing win or a massive jump-scare. This atrociously bad family-horror movie just abandons those factors and introduces us to a bunch of characters and situations we don't care about. Josh Hutcherson plays a security guard haunted by a troubled past who begins working the night shift at Freddy Fazbear's Pizza, a local family diner. However, he soon comes to realise that the restaurant holds dark secrets of its own.

When you look at the production design and the look of the animatronic animals, you're witnessing such incredible potential that the film should've dedicated more of its focus to. Freddy Fazbear's is a dilapidated building with so much detail cast upon every wall, floor and stage in every area. Freddy, Foxie, Bonnie and Chica are these giant machines that are super menacing when they're standing still, but unfortunately, they always seem less threatening when we see them moving around in their robotic states.

Running just a minute short of 110 minutes, it would've been reasonable to have 20-30 minutes of character development towards the start before thrusting our lead character into the position of the security guard, and dedicating the rest of the film to that. Unfortunately however, this movie just goes ballistic with the amount of character development and sub-themes. It ends up being a "drama" about a man's traumatic outlook on life, the abduction of a young child that took place decades ago, and a custody battle that's been tossed into the mix at the last minute; that's not what you should be saying about a new movie titled after and based off of the popular survival game series Five Nights at Freddy's.

Excluding the atrocious amount of time used to set up the main character and the story that lap over the movie we came to see, Five Nights at Freddy's is also extremely boring, and it has a major lack of terror and tension. The horror of most horror movies often consist of way too many jump-scares, but of course in the adaptation of a game that has a major focus on jump-scares delivered by the animatronics, there's only a few jump-scares in this movie, which will leave so many hard-core fans in immense disappointment. It's also worth noting that games weren't focused on extreme violence or gore; it was always the high levels of terror that made them so effective. But without any real suspense, it would've made sense to just throw in a fun gore-fest.

Perhaps one of the film's most annoying inclusions however, was something you knew would take place due to the trailers and marketing, is the fact that Josh Hutcherson's character is also responsible for taking care of his child-aged sister. This is something that should've been limited to the story taking place outside of Freddy Fazbear's, and you'd expect the kid to only have real value in that other plot. Unfortunately, the screenwriters have decided that this wide-eyed, fearless and creepy little girl who listens to no grown ups would be the source of bait for the animatronic animals. In many scenes, Josh Hutcherson and Elizabeth Lail will be having a conversation that's suddenly interrupted by this girl screaming like she's being attacked, to which they run out to save her, and it turns out that the animatronics are just being a little ticklish and goofy. These animatronics look awesome, the film is directed nicely, and there's plenty of references and details that fans will enjoy picking up on. But looking past all of that, all that's left is horror clichés, missed opportunities and the fact that they made another piece of garbage out of a game we love.

If you liked this review, check out the full review and other reviews at aussieboyreviews.

This is a weird story of obsession and declining mental health that's weirdly intriguing, with brilliant cinematography, top-notch performances and a concept that's plausible and original. If only we actually gave a f### though. Enemy is directed by Denis Villeneuve and stars Jake Gyllenhaal. Despite clear talent in front of and behind the camera, as well as many opportunities to interpret things differently, it just comes off as pretentious twaddle.

Jake Gyllenhaal plays and ordinary college professor who spots his exact look-alike in a movie, provoking him to meet his doppelgänger in real life, which leads to a complicated situation. With two look-alike characters who are being played by the same actor, Enemy falls guilty to being extremely confusing if you aren't devoting your full attention. Even their partners, both played by blonde actresses, are difficult to use as a method of telling the two apart. It'll make you ask questions like; is it a Fight Club kind of movie? Is there a big twist or reveal awaiting us? Will the ending make up for it all? Well... no.

It's very difficult to remain fully focused when the film's pacing is very slow, often in a boring way, and there's many extended sequences of silence. Although nothing like a silent film, there's a few conversations every once in a while, but we're mainly left with Gyllenhaal as he's walking around, researching or in a state of reasonable confusion. He's an extremely talented actor who has given some truly exceptional performances, and while he's completely convincing as his character here, your interest will become detached before too long after the intriguing first act.

The cinematography is reminding of David Fincher's movies; the camera angles, slow camera movements, and the colour tone bring a completely new sense of atmosphere to the film. But the truth is that it's a boring, convoluted and smug mess that you just want to witness the "grand finale" of and be done with. It doesn't invest you like movies such as Prisoners and Zodiac, both of which are an hour longer and are still paced better.

If you liked this review, check out the full review and other reviews at aussieboyreviews.

A vicious, brutal, feel-dirty and suspenseful remake of Wes Craven's 1972 original; definitely not for kids and not for the faint-of-heart. Telling the disgusting story of two parents seeking unforgiving vengeance on the criminals who kidnapped and assaulted their teenage daughter, The Last House on the Left is a movie that will turn a lot of audiences off due to its content. Those who proceed however, will be treated with a terrific revenge thriller.

For a film with a chunky runtime of 110 minutes and a story that takes its time to develop, never once does it descend into boredom and hell does it pay off by the end. The first quarter flies by very smoothly as we tag along with a couple and their daughter heading out on a vacation at their holiday house. Very shortly in the next quarter, the situation already formed becomes very gritty, fast and intense. As a result, the second half dives into a realisation and revenge plot that constantly feels climatic, dangerous and the group of antagonists deliver a major sense of threat.

The Last House on the Left is nothing short of a satisfying remake, mainly due to its performances, direction, constant threat and satisfying conclusion. Digging your fingers through the work of every cast member in this movie, everyone is extremely convincing as their characters and there's nobody who notably brings you out of the unpleasant story. Whenever the camerawork is shaky or features close-up shots, the techniques make you forget you're watching entertainment, and rather make you feel like an unspoken character witnessing all of the action. But this movie is much more of a thriller than a horror, so don't go into it expecting any demonic or spooky or creepy-looking rubbish. It's a riveting thriller that captivates you with its non-stop sense of danger. Despite the scenes of violence that's sexual in nature, it's a wickedly entertaining and enjoyable movie for adults.

If you liked this review, check out the full review and other reviews at aussieboyreviews.

Most of Ari Aster's Midsommar is set during extended sequences under broad daylight, but the bright hot sun doesn't prevent the film from being on a completely new level of traumatic, trippy, disturbing and surreal. A24 has distributed some of the most polarising and unique horror films of the 21st century, some of those said movies being The Witch, The Lighthouse and Hereditary. The writer/director of Hereditary returns with a new psychological hidden gem that may be just as, if not more divisive, featuring masterful filmmaking, unbelievably real performances and sequences of extreme gore.

Some will latch onto finding the plot reminiscent of 1973's The Wicker Man, in which Midsommar centres on a young woman grieving over a family tragedy who accompanies her boyfriend and his friends to a Swedish village for a mid-summer festival. However, it soon becomes apparent that this increasingly disturbing festival is set by the hands of a pagan cult. The film begins with a lengthy opening sequence which sets up the grief aspect and our care for the characters. Without spoilers, this opening scene alone is traumatic, and especially for people who deal with mental health issues, the literal question of whether you're in the right mental state or not will pass through your head during the long zoom-in shot just before the title card.

Florence Pugh's performance is almost unreal in this movie, and how Ari Aster directs her as well as the other actors is just brain-numbing to think about. Not only are her scenes of crying and grieving just so unthinkably real, it makes you desperately care for her and it feels like we're watching a real woman deal with grief and an unhealthy relationship. Her strained relationship with her boyfriend, played brilliantly Jack Reynor, builds another big theme in this movie. William Jackson Harper and Vilhelm Blomgren also form their characters to feel like real living people whose lives are unfolding in front of us. Will Poulter makes a nicely involved character who has several funny lines, but you couldn't really call him the basic "comic-relief" just because the humour that comes from his character never interrupts with the unsettling tone and the shocking violence of Midsommar.

But the best work is easily of Ari Aster's direction. It's not just in the way he works with his actors, but he also does a wonderful job working aside his cinematographer Pawel Pogorzelski (who has taken on the visual aspect in some of the director's previous films, including Hereditary). Midsommar contains several ritualistic ceremonies and shocking scenes throughout, but the impact is aided by the unsettling fact that the horror is taking place during the day or under the midnight sun. The film's bright location, the flowers and big dresses, and the violence is captured beautifully through the cinematography; the colour pallet for this movie is nothing short of immaculate! In terms of other technical efforts, the film's sound design and editing reaches the standards of perfection. Soundtrack is played only when it's absolutely necessary. People in this Swedish village play instruments, make vocal noises or hum. A breathtaking drug trip sequence that doesn't take its trippy effects too far occurs. The natural backgrounds of each shot look like they're breathing. If there's any issues with it, some of the shots are a little overextended, but this is a truly exceptional masterpiece from Ari Aster.

If you liked this review, check out the full review and other reviews at aussieboyreviews.

Buried is an exceptionally written and directed thriller that consists entirely of claustrophobic tension, quick-spoken phone calls and a career-best performance from Ryan Reynolds. And the plot is excitingly original yet unbelievably simple: an American truck driver wakes up to find himself buried alive inside a coffin with only a pen, a lighter and a cell phone. But as movies go, it becomes a race against time to escape this confined death trap.

Believe it or not, the film is stocked with gorgeous cinematography, brilliant dialogue and most impressively, the whole 95-minute runtime is set inside this coffin with our main character, played by Ryan Reynolds. Just by hearing this, it's safe to assume that the thrill factor and tension in this movie relies mostly on the claustrophobia of this confined setting. But even though we never leave this claustrophobic location, it still gives us plenty of oxygen to breathe as it jumps between sequences that keep us on the edge of our seats.

The big thing is, when you make a film set entirely in an enclosed location such as a box, the filmmakers and screenwriters have limited strategies to keep the audience entertained and riveted. In Buried, it comes down to the writing, dialogue and performances. As a justification for dialogue, the main character chooses to make phone calls with emergency hotlines and loved ones in an attempt to seek help with escaping. Despite being a very tense, often bleak movie, there are several undeniable lines of humour spoken over these phone calls.

At the same time however, some of these said calls can also be aggressive, stressed or even heartbreaking. During the third act when the situation is becoming increasingly dangerous and climatic, this is where the dialogue manages to be as desperate and intense as ever, aided by beautiful soundtrack and the masterclass cinematography capturing a range of different colours. But it's a remarkable and devastating performance by Ryan Reynolds that makes us care. During the phone calls, the voices we can only hear are very convincing, but it's the heavy-breathing and distressed Reynolds who deserves the ultimate credit. Buried will captivate audiences all around, but it's also a must-watch for aspiring filmmakers, screenwriters and actors.

If you liked this review, check out the full review and other reviews at aussieboyreviews.

If it means watching Pet Sematary: Bloodlines again, you probably won't wanna be buried in a pet sematary. Why not treat yourself this year for Halloween by avoiding this mess and taking the time to pick something else? This is one of those movies that you hear about, see the poster for and immediately ask: what were they thinking? Is this really necessary? Who in their right minds came up with the idea of this? Bloodlines centres on a young Jud Crandall, and tells the story of... well... a whole bunch of crazy stuff happening around him during the time period.

Coming from an unpopular opinion with no real hatred towards remakes, reboots, sequels, prequels or spin-offs, it's undeniable that this is a completely catastrophe of a movie, founded by an average idea. It's filled with so many ridiculous plot holes and dumb circumstances, that it becomes difficult to watch without wondering why the project was even taken up in the first place. For where credit's due though, the film actually has a pretty interesting first act that moves smoothly, and it's competently made in terms of how the shots look, how the camera works and the fact that the actors actually do somewhat of a decent job, but that's pretty much all that's good about it.

Everything wrong with Pet Sematary: Bloodlines can pretty much be summed down to most of the writing and whoever the hell came up with the idea. It feels very much like the writers had a bunch of "cool" horror movie ideas that they wanted to just put out there, but a bunch of stupid clichés crammed into one is how it turned out to be. There's also a few scenes where you can tell they're sort of trying to add some emotions with the characters, but those deeper feelings are never explored further, so all of the emotional crap feels very forced and unnecessary.

Remember how the original adaptation in 1989 and the 2019 remake both offer brief, yet multiple references to the events that occurred in the past of supporting character Jud Crandall? Well you can toss all of that aside; nearly none of it applies here or is given second thought, providing the film with even more logical issues and missed opportunities than it already had. This is a movie that's so bad, you can barely even have fun with it because it takes its stupidity staggeringly seriously. The characters are unlikable, there's nobody to care about, and overall, it's another classic example of Pet Sematary's quote of why "sometimes dead is better".

If you liked this review, check out the full review and other reviews at aussieboyreviews.

Chris Rock's idea of having a Saw spin-off/sequel that only really revolves around the investigation and law enforcement aspect could have made for a really effective movie. Unfortunately however, Spiral simply just doesn't achieve that. Even though there's a bunch of sadistic and grisly traps set up by a serial killer who has a similar motive to John Kramer, it doesn't make Spiral feel like it belongs in the Saw franchise. But it's too messy and flawed of a detective-cop story to rank among movies like David Fincher's Seven and Zodiac.

2017's Jigsaw was mainly focused on the police and medical examiners side of the story, but it did dedicate another large portion to five strangers waking up in an escape room scenario. This movie completely takes away the escape room survival plot, despite featuring some traps in sequences with the quick-cutting, sped-up editing. The Saw movie aspects come in when it encounters the themes of police corruption and court injustice, in which the officers set in this copy-cat killer's traps are all guilty of injustice in some way. On the topic of traps, most of them are pretty unique and distinguishable from one another, but these sequences are actually massively forgettable because the film just isn't engaging.

That brings us to Spiral's biggest problem, which is the constant adrenaline rush, fast pacing and yelling. A big mistake that the filmmakers made was having no laid-back or quiet scenes throughout the movie. It's an issue because it makes the more intense moments and twists feel very anti-climatic. The tension just fades out eventually. The best you can say about this movie is that most of it is fairly watchable. The cinematography, production design and the clear effort put into most of the set pieces is also plausible.

Rock's performance is honestly a huge miss in the movie however, and it's not necessarily because his voice immediately prints an image of a cartoon zebra in your brain. His character just isn't the kind of guy we grow to care for. Plot holes and logical issues are scattered everywhere; the locations of some of these traps are questionable. But there's also a decision made in what's shown on screen that makes the killer-reveal also fairly predictable. Not as gory as some of its predecessors, often kind of boring and never very climatic, you can easily just dodge this dull chapter from the book of Saw.

If you liked this review, check out the full review and other reviews at aussieboyreviews.

We still get our typical Saw plot of five strangers awakening in a room for a series of clever traps, but this one sheds more focus on the detectives and medical examiners. The franchise has been offering another single Saw movie each year from 2004 to 2010 before taking a seven year break and returning with Jigsaw, and it's fair to say that a fair bit has been changed between this instalment and the first seven movies.

So what's happening in the eighth Saw movie? Well, dead mutilated bodies are turning up around the city and this leaves the police at dead end. Also, there's a new group of people are being put to the test with a series of sadistic games. Fans will be completely familiar with this movie. After all, it's pretty much the same plot as the rest of the Saw movies; there's a police story and an escape room story both occurring at the same time. Unfortunately, there's still a few flaws from the previous films present in this movie, such as convolution within the plot and not all of the twists landing smoothly.

But Jigsaw feels much more fresh and cinematic, which is why the issues and plot holes are mostly passable. We have new-to-the-franchise directors Michael and Peter Spierig, as well as a fresh new cast with the exception of Tobin Bell whose role isn't as major as it was before. Generally speaking though, most of the performances are actually quite solid; the characters have good chemistry with each other, which makes it feel more realistic.

Some more changes this movie takes that makes it very easy to differentiate between its predecessors however, would be the decreased extremity of gore, who and where the spotlight is on the most, and the direction. Jigsaw is probably the best-looking and most updated in quality when you compare it with the rest of the Saw movies, mainly due to the big gap in between them all. The cinematography and production design are better than ever. The traps also feel very authentic, but there's a big restraint on the violence depicted in the film, because it's nowhere near as over-the-top gory as the previous Saws. Overall though, if you're a Saw fan and the investigation aspect is part of your enjoyment for these films, you'll probably like Jigsaw.

If you liked this review, check out the full review and other reviews at aussieboyreviews.

Kevin Greutert's so-called "final chapter" doesn't really try to do anything new, with the exception of crafting some epic 3D moments. But if you're a fan of the Saw movies and you've enjoyed every film the franchise has come out with, your opinion probably won't change with this one. Despite going out with a bang though, it's probably the best point for this gory, twisty horror movie series to finally retire. It was bloody good fun while it lasted, but seriously, that's enough now. You can even tell that the writers are becoming tired, because it kind of feels like a renewed copy and paste of Saw VI.

So Saw 3D... or Saw: The Final Chapter... or Saw VII... complicated much? Anyway, the seventh movie brings back the main cast from its recent predecessors, including Tobin Bell, Costas Mandylor and Betsy Russell, in addition to a bunch of new people we start to care less about, and it picks back up on its police/law enforcement story whilst a new victim must participate in Jigsaw's grisly games to save his loved ones. That's just how the Saw movies go.

As always, there are plenty of grisly traps that are very clever and make you wince, the escape room concept in which the victim "learns his lesson" as he's put to the test is fun and it feels like watching a man recieve karma, and the half of the film about Jill Tuck and Mark Hoffman is very entertaining. That's all the material that fans will need in order to get some popcorn and enjoy this movie. You don't need the 3D equipment and all of that technology to get the most out of your experience.

Even though the franchise has been really enjoyable, it's still packed with flaws. And unfortunately in this sequel's case, most of the issues actually stand out a bit more. The direction and editing has always been a hit-or-miss with each of the Saw movies, and nothing's changed here; viewers can expect more of the quick cuts and grim cinematography. Even though John Kramer is dead, it again feels like the traps and games are all going against his rules, which was also very much the case in the sixth film. But the biggest issue with this movie would have to be the absurdity of some scenes, as well as the return of Cary Elwes. He's a good actor and there's no doubt that his performance here is solid, but the menacing presence of his character, as well as how it all plays out with him just doesn't feel right. And with sequences such as the public trap, as well as the ending twist, the movie is kind of taking some unnecessarily absurd risks.

If you liked this review, check out the full review and other reviews at aussieboyreviews.

Due to its improvement on characters, script, development, sub-themes and direction, in addition to a brilliant new range of grisly traps, Saw VI is easily the best of the Saw sequels so far. Thank you director Kevin Greutert, for coming along and making a really good Saw movie, and thank you to screenwriters Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan for listening to the criticisms and writing a fresh story that improves its the predecessors.

Peter Outerbridge plays a greedy business owner who controls a corrupt health insurance company, who is thrusted into a series of games set by the Jigsaw killer that challenge his corrupt decisions and involve a bunch of kills. Meanwhile, FBI agents are drawing closer to Mark Hoffman, the successor to Jigsaw's legacy, as the culprit. Both stories playing out at the same time are engaging, suspenseful and balanced together perfectly. We get to feel the pressure on detective Hoffman's back as agents Dan Erickson and Lindsey Perez (yes, she returns) uncover more and more evidence. The 'voice recognition' scene being one of the best scenes in the movie.

If you're a Saw fan and you just want to see people being brutally tortured and killed in sadistic traps/situations, Saw VI features some of the most clever and memorable traps in the series so far, including the shotgun carousel, pound of flesh competition and the acid room. But this time, they're all very thematic and interesting to watch because no matter what, someone has to die in them. What this greedy business man does for work is he basically decides who lives and who dies from their terminal illnesses, and he's kind of forced to do the exact same in these games. There's plenty of moments featuring explicit blood, gore and torture that'll have you either wincing or wriggling around in your seat.

A big logical problem with the traps however, is the fact that they all go against John Kramer's moral value, because he is firm in his belief that "everyone deserves a chance" when it comes to life and death. Even though he's responsible for murdering and torturing people, the dude's got a moral code. Other than that, the hardcore fans will adore Saw VI. The direction, acting, cinematography and effects are all extremely commendable. And what's probably most important, it's entertaining as hell.

If you liked this review, check out the full review and other reviews at aussieboyreviews.

Steven Soderbergh's twisty drama about a court case, prescription drugs and fatal side effects may be one of the most unconventional films of the year. This review will not contain any spoilers or major plot points, but please note that this movie is so much more rewarding and surprising for those who go in knowing nothing. It's a very Hitchcock-like movie, with very little action and lots of talking. Lovers of movies should NOT skip this one.

This movie is just never what you think it is, and when you feel like you know where it's headed, it immediately changes direction and becomes much more fascinating. For a short while, the film is centred on Rooney Mara as a young depressed woman handling her husband, played by Channing Tatum, being released from prison after four years. We get some more development for the characters and story, with our inciting incident following behind, kicking off the main plot and shifting the focus from Rooney Mara to her psychiatrist, played by Jude Law, now dealing with a court case.

Side Effects is one of those films that will rivet and entertain some, while others will be bored out of their minds. At least 95% of this film is dialogue, arguing and many conversations between characters, with clever twists eventually coming around and giving this movie great rewatch value. If you need action every 10-20 minutes, this is not the film for you. Soderbergh directs this thing brilliantly, and what makes it work almost perfectly are the performances and the script. All of the dialogue is very realistic, and it's pulled of wonderfully by the actors.

Rooney Mara and Jude Law are absolutely fantastic in the movie. Channing Tatum takes on a very small segment in Side Effects and doesn't get much to work with, but he's convincing when he's onscreen. But another stand-out performance comes from Catherine Zeta-Jones, who plays Mara's previous psychiatrist. And although she doesn't show up as early as the three other characters, her work is absolutely mesmerising. But these aren't characters you're designed to take liking to, which is another very interesting aspect of the film. Overall, Side Effects is twisty, clever, engaging, and you should definitely watch it or at least check it out if you can handle slow-burning stories loaded with talking.

If you liked this review, check out the full review and other reviews at aussieboyreviews.

The fifth entry to this unpromising but entertaining franchise surprisingly still holds up strongly. Fans will really enjoy the woken-up-in-a-Jigsaw-escape-room concept, the grisly traps, and the many hints or suggestions related to events from the previous movies. But don't forget, even though the traps and escape rooms are always new, you'll still need to have seen the last four instalments to understand and be able to make sense of the ongoing story.

So Saw V is jumping through the law enforcement's role in the overall story when we're suddenly introduced to five strangers waking up stuck in the first trap of their free-of-charge escape room. Audiences who love this movie series will be dancing on the inside full of excitement when the introduction to these characters occurs. They don't know where they are, who each other are, but they all share a connection that brings them to participate in the game. These actors' performances aren't top-notch in skill or overly memorable, but their work still creates this brilliant chemistry between each of them. You just want to see these people team up and charge through these obstacles. Also, the actors who play Mark Hoffman and Agent Strahm look very similar and are difficult to tell apart, which makes for a lot of confusing scenes.

But this is the fifth addition to the Saw franchise, so you want to see people getting brutally butchered in traps and getting killed as a result. Don't worry; Saw V won't disappoint when it comes to that. Unfortunately though, despite the fun of the traps and escape room, that's where we approach the film's first flaw. Most of these traps are very clever, and the pendulum blade will go down as one of the franchise's best. However, most of the gore and blood effects are really cheesy and distracting, excluding the bloody gory guts of the first kill.

Jumping onto the main criticism, this franchise really needs to close up on its police detectives and law enforcement side of the story, or at least cut back on the importance of it so that it doesn't take up half of the 90-minute gore movie. Saws I, II and III are actually very entertaining, twisty and competent movies that are worth watching. The fourth movie becomes convoluted and dwells too much on the police aspects, and whilst this sequel hasn't completely erased general confusion out of the picture, it will make a lot more sense if you've seen the predecessors. If you're into gore and just the Saw movies in general, this film is directed just for the fans and made for you. It's not a long film and there are very few boring moments, although we're spoon-fed dumb verbal information in a number of scenes. But some might find this movie directed messily, which is totally fine and understandable.

If you liked this review, check out the full review and other reviews at aussieboyreviews.

Sausage Party is essentially just a giant "F### YOU" to anyone who says that all animations are for kids. Seriously, R. I. P to all of the naive parents who took their little children to this movie unaware of the crudely sexual and coarse dangers that awaited them, and found out the hard way that once you go taco, you never go back-o! It's vulgar, shocking, wild, funny and although not a brilliant film, it's definitely the last movie you'll ever forget.

Please note that whoever you are, whether you're male or female, black or white, religious or not, or whatever the f###, this raunchy comedy has the intention of offending absolutely everyone in the room, and spares no insult that comes to mind. Sausage Party basically just copies Toy Story, except it imagines if foods at our grocery stores and supermarkets could walk and talk. Of course however, they discover that the great beyond (kitchens) they're being taken to by the gods (us human shoppers) is actually where they meet their gruesome fates.

The film opens with a bit of explanation as to why the foods worship us humans, before heading directly into a song with the kind of lyrics that set you up for the kind of movie this is, and it's the first indication to the parents that they should be turning the TV off if they're watching it with their kids. The rest of the 90-minute runtime is just a flood swearing, discovery, swearing, drugs, swearing, running, swearing and sex... and more swearing. That's pretty much the entire movie. Explicit crude humour is all they were going for here. It's entertaining, animated nicely and the voice performances are plausible.

On the blunt side though, you would have to be an absolute f###ing nut-case to expect any mildly-serious themes or valuable messages from an extremely raunchy shock-comedy like this. Reading reviews from the critics or just the general audience, it's absurd to see a decent amount of people taking the film's statements on religion, beliefs and proof kind of seriously. Those topics might be of discussion if Sausage Party were a comedy with heart instead of what it is. But that's where the main complaint about the film lies; Sausage Party's goal is to be as edgy, offensive, crude and coarse as possible, leaving no room for anything rational or worth talking about. In fact, it's so explicitly rude and extremely coarse, that it's probably a movie best watching in seperate segments and having large gaps in between. The only thing you can tell people after this movie is that you'll never look at a hotdog the same way again.

If you liked this review, check out the full review and other reviews at aussieboyreviews.

The film has a set that's astonishing to observe, a screenplay that's ultimately captivating and an ending that will crush moviegoers alike, but it's all lead by an incredible performance from Rockwell who captures the overall feeling of insanity. Even if you're not that big of a science fiction fan, you don't have to worry about complex scientific nonsense that highlight the story. It takes place in a facility on the moon, giving the movie its simple title and genre, but it's a story of loneliness, isolation and a bit of mental insanity, too.

In moon, Sam Rockwell plays an astronaut who's nearing the end of his three year contract on the moon, working and interacting only with his intelligent computer assistant, GERTY, voiced by Kevin Spacey. But during his last few weeks in space, he has a personal encounter that leads him to discover a shocking truth behind his entire mission. This is definitely a movie you'll enjoy more if you have absolutely no knowledge going in, except for maybe a brief plot synopsis that doesn't detail the inciting incident. No trailers, no reviews and especially no content marked as containing spoilers.

Moon might be a cinematic masterpiece finishing off on quite a devastating note, and some will call it a slow-burner that finds itself in mild confusion towards the finale, making it a film you could watch twice. But if you're just an easygoing viewer looking for some fresh entertainment with good cinematography, intelligent screenwriting and a solid performance, this is the film for you. It might not provoke as many thoughts as some other sci-fi films, but it's still a very effective movie with a perfect runtime. The budget isn't very high and the story isn't overly complicated, but it's an amazing movie held together by it's performances and humane themes.

If you liked this review, check out the full review and other reviews at aussieboyreviews.

Probably not the brightest decision on the filmmakers' end to hire costume designers who do a flawless job, but take on a weak script that beholds no surprises or fresh ideas. If you're here just for the joy of seeing these four protagonists eating pizza, joking around and eventually teaming up against a baddie, you'll probably enjoy this movie a lot. Their goal here is to take down the evil villain known as Shredder, who's developed a plan to take over the world with his gang of teens. If that sounds appealing to you, then it probably will be appealing to you, especially if you're a fan of the cartoons.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles has an abundance of positives and notable talent that make it an enjoyable viewing, other than the fact that kids and most adults will find it very watchable. For example, it's well-casted; imagining an actress other than Judith Hoag as April and different voice performers for the ninja turtles and their rat sensei is kind of difficult. Humour is also sprinkled throughout, both for kids and adults, although not all of it lands very well. But the best aspect by far is obviously the effort that went into the costume designs for these humanoid turtles and rat, because they absolutely steal our attention when they're on screen. Unfortunately though, some of the voice syncing is way off and it can be very distracting.

However, if the creators of the live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie wanted it to be perfect or at least a film worth sitting through, it could definitely make use of feedback, mainly related to the script, concept and development with the characters and their stories. Yeah, the film technically has a plot synopsis, but it feels like it lacks story whilst you're actually sitting there and watching it. There is no character development and we never get to know much of their thoughts or ideas in their mind. As a result, we don't really care about them winning and eventually finding success. You could at least do the opposite with the villain and his motives, but no, Shredder is a very boring and forgettable villain who just ends up being defeated easily. In addition, there's also plot holes and bigger themes that they bring up, but never really dig further into. You don't need to worry about seeing this movie, even if you're a fan of the animated series. They could've made a really awesome action-adventure comedy for families, but TMNT is just not that.

If you liked this review, check out the full review and other reviews at aussieboyreviews.