Change Your Image
Maddie_Zadvinskis
Reviews
Over the Top (1987)
Needs More Arm Wrestling!
For a film with an arm wrestling move/technique featured in the title, you'd think that arm wrestling would be more at the forefront but unfortunately not. My boyfriend recently got into arm wrestling and is always in pain anytime he goes to practice. I haven't gone to any of the matches and tournaments he's competed in yet, but the whole sport and culture of arm wrestling seems pretty niche and I think is underrepresented in media. You'd think that a film that features Stallone being an arm wrestler would lead to a boom in arm wrestling (which it did briefly). However, I think a big part of that boom in arm wrestling was the marketing surrounding the movie at the time and the nostalgia that men who grew up in the 80s and 90s have for Over The Top and Sylvester Stallone movies in general. Over The Top barely features any arm wrestling up until the end during the Vegas tournament. It is not that good nor does it even fall into so bad it's good territory that I was kind of hoping for. Just from judging by the clips from this movie and even from the poster, I thought it would be a so bad it's good film. It wastes so much time with Stallone trying to reconnect with his bratty son who ends up in a custody battle with his son's rich and selfish grandfather after his estranged wife dies. Sure the family drama aspect does sound interesting for a drama but the way it is played out is so boring. If the film was just the entire Vegas arm wrestling tournament and it was more like Bloodsport, it would be so much better.
This movie also has every single 80s movie cliche that you can think of (annoying awful child that the main character is the parent of and has to win back their love, includes songs in the soundtrack written specifically for the movie, bad and cheesy dialogue, stars a macho action star that was big at the time, a rich jerk being the antagonist, etc). If you've seen any Hollywood movie from the 80s, you basically have seen this movie already. 3/10.
Australia (2008)
Baz Lurhman's Attempt At A Historical Epic
The first time I saw this film, I was in middle school and I thought that the visuals were great at the time (this was before I really knew what was considered good cinematography). I didn't really remember all that much from it other than the visuals and the crazy third act of the film where it basically becomes a war film. Though this film is not great by any means, I definitely do find some enjoyment out of it.
It's been awhile since I've watched any Baz Lurhman movies other than Elvis (which I found to be atrocious for the most part). This was one that I had wanted to rewatch for quite some time since I hadn't seen it since it was in theaters and I feel like no one talks about it.
The editing and Baz's style in the first act I found to be quite annoying and it really detracted me from absorbing the scope and scale of the sets, cinematography, and even a grasp as to what was happening in a scene and how I should be feeling during that scene. The ADR was also terrible in some scenes. The writing was also very shallow in the first act of the film. It attempts to throw in so many different themes and information surrounding Australia's history, its' native people, the mysticism surrounding its' nature, and its' role during the lead up to WWII. I can appreciate a film trying to show all of this because I feel as though I barely know much about Australia's history and culture. However, everything is so crammed in, it's hard to really allow these themes and storytelling to be fully flushed out in this film, especially with the long runtime. Nicole Kidman's character is basically a white savior in the film and it's very hard to overlook that. This film is a bit crazy as hell because of how many cuts there were in scenes and just how quickly it jumped through the exposition.
Aside from some funny bad scenes, and as the film progresses, the editing and the writing does seem to be handled a little more competently, though not perfect. The acting, dialogue and even some of the production design does a good job at capturing the emotions and likeness of many historical epics from the Classic Hollywood era, though it is a little cheesy. The scenes that were actually filmed outside in Australia do look really good (though the green screen shots don't look good). Unlike Elvis, I didn't think the pacing was really dragging at all despite its' runtime. I found myself to be more engaged with the story despite how shallow and poorly developed it is. Maybe it's because Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman make much better and more compelling leads than Austin Butler and Tom Hanks. I also appreciated that there weren't any weird soundtrack choices thrown in the film itself which Baz Lurhman did in Elvis and it really threw me off and left me baffled.
It might not be everyone's cup of tea and it's seemingly to be the most forgettable and least talked about amongst Baz Lurhman's filmography. I think it's worth checking out because I do think it's entertaining and funny at times. And if you're a fan of Nicole Kidman, Hugh Jackman, or even historical epics of any sort, then I would recommend this. I am giving this film a 4/10 (closer to a 5, than a 3).
Jezebel (1938)
Bette Davis' Butterfield 8
This was a bit of a disappointment for me. I feel like this is Bette Davis's Butterfield 8. She should've won an Oscar for a different film instead of this one and she's definitely the best thing about it. From the movies I've seen her in, Bette Davis always has a very commanding and incredible stage/screen presence. Her acting is phenomenal and you can believe her character from how sincere her facial expressions are.
The movie itself is not that great, however there are some aspects to the story that I found somewhat interesting. I do like how there is this commentary on how many people (especially high class people) don't take a pandemic/virus seriously and just recklessly carry on with their unnecessary parties and events. There is also a little bit of commentary on how high class women are often expected to uphold these etiquette traditions and must act ladylike and proper in order to be accepted. In a lot of ways, it reminded me of Daisy Miller. However, Julie (Bette Davis) is a lot more pitiful and less sympathetic than Daisy in Daisy Miller. I've been seeing a lot of other reviews on this film comparing her to Scarlett from Gone With The Wind but worse.
There was hardly any chemistry between Julie and Preston (Henry Fonda). Henry Fonda was not good in this film. He was very boring and one note besides for maybe a couple of scenes. It almost reminded me of Don't Worry Darling, where Florence Pugh is just acting circles around Harry Styles.
The portrayal of slavery in this film was incredibly cringe and made for this film to be a difficult watch at points. Jezebel definitely romanticizes slavery. I can't even begin on how terrible it is. It's gross. I understand that it was from the 1930s and with films from that era that feature these types of subjects, I need to look at them with more of a historical lens. However, it's still super hard to watch anytime there's a scene where any of the slaves are featured. They act like they are absolutely happy to serve any of the main characters..
I also felt like the actual film itself did not live up to the synopsis. I thought that this film was centered around a very manipulative and temptress-like woman, which Julie does somewhat display those traits but it's more out of the anger she feels being a part of this southern high society in the 1850s rather than those are her actual traits. I think perhaps if this were a little more character study focused, it could've been better or else had the "Yellow Jacket" pandemic be more at the forefront of the film rather than having it in the third act.
I probably won't watch this one again. With the exception of some of the underlying themes and Bette Davis's performance, it was boring in some parts and the portrayal of slavery was very cringe and hard to watch. 4/10.
A Woman Under the Influence (1974)
Struggling With My Stance On This One
This is the second Cassavetes film I've seen. I definitely enjoyed this one a lot more than Faces. However, there are some aspects of this I sort of struggled with. I can get behind this type of improv yet rooted in realism type of style of filmmaking that Cassavetes is going for, but I think this film needed a little more of a foundation and story structure. It relies a little too much on the performances (which are great, especially Gena Rowlands and Peter Falk). I wish that there was more exploration on the roots of Mabels' mental breakdown. We do get a sense of what is causing it to escalate (her lack of control in the household, her husband not giving any care to her or just being ignorant of her condition and just wanting her to take care of the kids and things in the house), but I just think there needs to be more of a focus on it since that's essentially the biggest conflict in the film. Mabel's behavior definitely leads to more questions (Is there a history of mental illness in her family? Does she have an eccentric personality? Is it all because of the abusive dynamic between her and Nick?). It seems like she's constantly fringed and on edge and is never calm.
This film is also just a bit too long. Although it's nowhere near as bad as Faces when it comes to being repetitive and slow in pacing, there's still a quite a bit of repetition to the scenes and there's a lot of meandering. Sometimes I think the character that is focused in certain scenes should be focused on a different character.
Despite my criticisms, I would recommend this film. Unlike Kramer vs. Kramer, I think this film does a better job at demonstrating nuances on the degradation between husband and wife. The protagonist vs. Antagonist element of the film is a little bit blurred which definitely presents this crumbling relationship with more of an interesting dynamic and you clearly see the faults in both sides of the relationship and parenting between Mabel and Nick. Whereas in Kramer vs. Kramer, Meryl Streep's character is clearly the "antagonist" of the film, though her character isn't evil and left Dustin Hoffman for more than understandable reasons. Mabel and Nick definitely remind me of some couples that I personally know and they feel like authentic people in this world. There are many individual scenes and dialogue that are quite compelling and even heartbreaking and a little bit disturbing.
I'm not entirely sure if Cassavetes films are for me since I didn't like Faces and I'm struggling a little bit on my stance with A Woman Under The Influence. I'm willing to check out some of his other films and give him another chance but we will see.
As of now, I'm giving this one a 6/10. I might rewatch this one in the future at some point.
The War of the Worlds (1953)
A Product of the 1950s
Definitely a product of its' time. I'm sure this was released as a serious film at the time and I'm sure it scared many people who went to see it, but it has more 1950s B movie feels. It's just as goofy as Mars Attacks!. The dialogue is not very good, the characters aren't that interesting, there's a lot of moments in this movie that leave me baffled and laughing. For instance, in the beginning when the aliens first come to Earth by meteorite, people investigate it and the main character Dr. Forrester, are walking around it. Dr. Forrester even has a geiger counter and detects that the meteorite is radioactive but isn't wearing a hazmat suit.. someone even tries to dig into the meteorite for gold.. Or when the army plans to bomb the alien ships with a big bomber plane, there are crowds of people on the hills sitting around peacefully not trying to hide while trying to get a good look of the aliens being bombed. The narration and footage throughout the film (especially in the middle) reminds me a lot of Threads but nowhere near as impactful. In fact, the narration in the beginning of the film, is kind of funny. When the narrator talks about how the aliens were looking to invade the other planets in our solar system, the narrator even includes a brief description of each of the planets' characteristics and conditions. It sounded like they were reading straight out of one of the books about the solar system that I would read in elementary school.
Despite how dated it is, you can't deny its' impact it has had on the film industry, especially in the science fiction genre. I see so many influences from this film in countless other science fiction and alien films I've seen before. The effects for the most part are dated but I very much admired and appreciated the effects with the alien ships and the alien design itself. Though the aliens in this adaptation are goofy looking, I actually like how they look more in this one than they do in Spielberg's adaptation of War of the Worlds. This film is also pretty short (under 90 minutes) and is entertaining for the most part besides where it mostly focuses on the people before the aliens start to attack.
The film as a whole isn't that great and there are a lot of aspects that are kind of stupid, but I would recommend checking it out, especially if you're into B movies and even film history. I'm giving this one a 5/10.
Átame! (1989)
Interesting Spin On A Love Story
An interesting one to start 2023 off with to say the least...
I've seen two other Pedro Almodovar films: Women On The Verge Of A Nervous Breakdown and The Skin I Live In. Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down, is essentially those two films combined. The production design, cinematography, the costumes, and some aspects of the score are very similar to Women On The Verge Of A Nervous Breakdown (along with a few returning cast members from that film are in Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down). The imagery, Antonio Banderas's character (though in this one his character doesn't come across as sinister), and some themes and plot points surrounding Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down are very much echoed in The Skin I Live In.
Despite its' title, plot synopsis, and it's' NC-17 rating, Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down isn't nowhere near as kinky, pornographic or risqué as you'd think it would be, besides for a couple scenes. Hollywood films like Basic Instinct and Fatal Attraction that came out around this time (late 80s through the early 90s) I think are a bit more pornographic than this film to be honest. It's still a bit bizarre and the subject matter and its' ending is definitely controversial. The characters are interesting and have more nuance than you'd expect. Also, this film isn't afraid to put forth a very disturbing and messed up take on a love story.
I very much admire a lot of what this film is going for and what it's trying to accomplish (though I do not agreed or hold a view that a woman should be with their kidnapper). The acting is great and many technical aspects of this film are quite phenomenal (I really love the score with Ricky in the beginning of the film, it very much reminds me of 80s slasher scores). However, I didn't find this film as enthralling or wild as Women On The Verge Of A Nervous Breakdown and The Skin I Live In. I was much more invested in the story of those two films compared to this one. Though I still enjoyed it, there just wasn't enough exciting high points and tense moments for me to be completely invested in the film. I think if we had more tension, suspense and buildup in this film, it would definitely have been a more memorable and predominant one in Pedro Almodovar's filmography.
Though at the this point, I've only seen three Pedro Almodovar films, I am very much looking forward to see more from his filmography. I find his writing, his characters, and approach to themes to be very fascinating.
I'm giving this one a 7/10.
Julia (2008)
Before Howard Ratner, There Was Julia...
For the most part, this was a very stressful film... but in a good way. It reminded me very much of Uncut Gems and weirdly a little bit of Monster (2003), especially with how things escalate and with the constant lying and bad decisions made by Tilda Swinton's character Julia.
Tilda Swinton gives a great performance as always. I don't really think there are very many actresses or actors working today that are on the same caliber of talent and commitment to their role as her. She is the best thing about this film and mostly carries this film on her own. The other actors in the film are fine but aren't given all that much to demonstrate their acting, besides maybe Kate del Castillo who plays Elena, the mother of the boy who Julia kidnaps. I think her character deserved a little more screen time.
The script for the most part is decent. There isn't really any cheesy dialogue and it seems sort of realistic to an extent. I really did enjoy the story and how things with the situation at hand kept constantly escalating and becoming more insane and stressful.
There are a few things that are holding this film back from being more memorable and more outstanding. The cinematography and the score aren't all that amazing. They're fine but I think if the presentation of this film was pushed a bit more, I think it would improve the film overall. The biggest thing that's holding this movie back is the pacing. I don't think the 2 hour and 24 minute run time is that justified. I think a good 25-30 minutes could've been cut from the film. The third act is where things start to lose some steam and I'm starting to wonder how much longer the film is. Also, in the third act (spoiler), Julia and Tom end up going to Tijuana and come across some Mexicans who later then kidnap Tom from Julia. I thought that these characters came across as more of stereotypical caricatures of Mexican kidnappers and didn't seem realistic to me at all. They even come across as a little bit offensive.
Besides for the pacing and some issues I had with the third act, I would recommend this film, especially if you are a fan of Tilda Swinton and stressful films like Uncut Gems.
I'm giving this one a 7/10.
El espinazo del diablo (2001)
A Magnificent Spiritual Predecessor To Pan's Labyrinth
I've always enjoyed Guillermo Del Toro's films. The first film from his that I saw was Hellboy II: The Golden Army back when it came out in theaters in 2008. I was only 12 years old. I even remember seeing trailers for Pan's Labyrinth when I was younger and being intrigued, but my parents didn't let me see it at the time since it was an R-rated film. I didn't see it until around a couple of years ago and it's my favorite from his filmography. I've always admired his fantastical style, his creature designs, and the art direction in his films. I've seen all (except for his new Pinocchio adaptation) of his films post Pan's Labyrinth, but I haven't really been exposed to his earlier works other than Blade II.
Though Del Toro has stated that Pan's Labyrinth and The Devil's Backbone are sibling films, you can very much see footprints of The Devil's Backbone in not only Pan's Labyrinth but also even in Hellboy and Crimson Peak. I really enjoyed how this film wasn't afraid to confront the themes of brutality, the ripple effects of violence and war, along with greed, especially when children are involved. Though the marketing and even the posters of the movie covey that it's a horror film. I don't really think it as a horror film but more as a drama thriller with a little ghost story stirred in. I admired the setting, the cinematography (especially with the contrast between yellow-orange and blue lighting in many scenes), the score, and the performances. I really liked many character dynamics in this film, especially between Carlos and Jaime and Carmen and Jacinto.
I only have a couple of complaints really. The CG surrounding the ghost is a little dated and there were moments where I thought that the sound design with the ghost seemed a little dated and cheesy as well. Other than that, I very much enjoyed this film. I definitely consider it to be one of Del Toro's best films. I would recommend.
I'm giving this one an 8/10.
Firestarter (2022)
One of the Worst Reboots Ever
This remake completely spits on Stephen King's novel and the original 1984 film. I had watched both the 1984 film and read the novel this past spring and I thoroughly enjoyed them both. Though the 1984 film is not perfect, it for the most part, captures the tone, the plot, and the characters of the novel quite well in my opinion.
Everything that made the novel and the original 1984 film interesting and memorable is completely sucked out of this horrible remake, with the exception of John Carpenter, Cody Carpenter, and Daniel A Davies' score. The score of the film is the only reason why I am giving this film a 2/10 instead of a 1/10. Their score at least somewhat captures the spirit of Tangerine Dream's score from the 1984 film. I wish their score was used in a film that deserves their talent instead of this trash fire.
None of the characters and their actions make much sense in this version. I get that they were trying to avoid just simply adapting everything from the novel and the 1984 film and wanted to add in something different to their version. However, instead of putting thought and effort into developing characters, creating interesting plot points, and writing memorable dialogue, it's very obvious they wanted to cut corners and just dump this movie out. I can't even begin on how much they've butchered all of the characters, especially Charlie and Rainbird. They made Charlie in this version to be one of the most unlikeable little girls I've ever seen in a movie. Rainbird is an absolute far cry from how he is depicted as a villain in both the novel and the 1984 film.
The dialogue in this film is absolutely painful and cringe. None of the scenes are interesting and the entire film looks so ugly and dark. I could hardly see anyones' faces in some scenes. The fire effects used whenever Charlie lights something on fire, my god... it's one of the most horrendous special effects I've seen in awhile. It looks worse than a Snapchat filter.
I recommend staying far away from this one.
Garden State (2004)
An Emotionally Hollow Film With Some Good Qualities
I've heard some refer to this as one of the quintessential indie films and that it even is a film for a generation. While there is plenty to admire about Garden State, much of it feels very hallow and empty.
The camerawork is decent and the cinematography is also pretty good as well. Whether the characters are about to jump into a warm pool, dry off near a big fireplace, or are walking nearby a sink hole in the woods while it's raining, you can get a sense of what it feels like to be there in those moments. I think those are the best qualities of the film. The color palettes in some scenes also were quite interesting to the eye.
I think for the most part, the script is good overall. But whenever there are moments that are supposed to be funny or heartfelt, I didn't laugh or really feel for the characters in those moments. I don't know if it's a lack of emotion from the characters or if it's the way the lines are delivered but it doesn't ignite the feels. Maybe the 2000s quirky awkward humor is starting to feel dated. There isn't much of a plot to Garden State but I think it would've benefited if there was more time allotted to the main character and getting more of a glimpse into their past.
The cast overall is decent. However, I don't find Zach Braff's character Andrew to be that likeable or compelling. While his character is someone who is dealing with depression and seems to be in a constant state of numbness, I didn't find him to be that sympathetic or interesting. It almost seemed like he was someone who just so happened to be in the situation of that scene and the supporting characters are the ones who are in control of the scene. Natalie Portman does do a great job at playing Sam, the character who basically kickstarted the whole "Manic-Pixie Dream Girl" trope. But at times, I thought that the quirkiness and some of the random things that her character would spitball got a little annoying and repetitive at times. Peter Sarsgard was good but he almost seemed a little out of place to be in the role of one of Andrew's loser friends that never left his hometown. Ian Holmes is severely underused and has under 5 minutes of screen time.
The coffeehouse/indie soundtrack also is really great and is something I'd listen to on my own. However, I don't think it really adds any emotional impact to the scenes. I think in a way, the use of the soundtrack can come across as a little bit manipulative.
There are definitely some admirable qualities to this film, but it falls short in evoking any type of emotion and comes across as a bit hollow to me.
The Girl Next Door (2007)
Very Boring For Trying To Be Shocking
This film is exploitive trash. I am baffled at the high ratings it received. I don't think this movie should've ever have gotten green-lit, not because of the disturbing content, but because the quality of this film is terrible. The acting is atrocious (besides from Aufforth who gives a brave performance despite the lack of passion in the performances surrounding her, that alone warrants a half star). The writing is so so bad, especially since it was based off of a true story. There is no explanation as to why Ruth is as sadistic as she is or why certain characters make the decisions that they do. It's also very boring for a movie that's trying to be disturbing. The characters don't do anything interesting besides the occasional bitchy line that Ruth says. Everything from a technical standpoint is also very boring. The cinematography and the way this movie was shot is very lackluster. The soundtrack is obviously a stock soundtrack. I would not recommend this movie to anyone.
Eraserhead (1977)
A Mad Mans' Masterpiece
I can definitely see how not everyone will like or even hate this film. It's full of nightmare fuel and some of the most bizarre scenes I have ever seen in a film. It's very abstract, not much dialogue, and there isn't much of a concrete theme presented in it. However, throughout this surreal and nightmarish madness, you can interpret or even make out some relatable themes presented such as parental anxiety and the horrors of the industrial environment. I won't be lying in saying that I don't fully comprehend everything in this film. But I believe I have somewhat of a grasp on what some of the themes of this film are.
Despite all of the madness and the vagueness of the story, there is a lot to praise and appreciate about it. In fact, I think it is a masterpiece in what Eraserhead is trying to be. The practical effects are a technical marvel, the cinematography and the way it's shot is phenomenal, the emphasis on the sounds and how it is used makes it absolutely creepy and help establish the nightmarish atmosphere. This is very much a film makers' and cinephiles' movie. I can see how David Lynch helped inspire many with all of the bizarre imagery, effects, and insane writing. Seeing how this is Lynch's first feature film and it's an extremely risky film to produce, there is no way that a film like this could be made today. It makes you appreciate movies from this era even more.
The Animatrix (2003)
Leaves Me Yearning For More
Each and every one of these animated segments are a work of art and they all collaborate together to fit as an excellent companion piece to the Matrix trilogy. In fact, it even helps elevate the sequels to the first movie. I am left in awe of the world building and the concepts brought forth in a majority of these segments. It only makes me just crave for more story from them. I wish that Warner Bros. Would've elaborated more on The Matrix series throughout the last couple of decades. I would've loved an animated series that took place in the world of the Matrix. It definitely leaves me looking even more forward to The Matrix: Resurrections.
The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020)
Pandering, Portentous, and Profusely Applauses Itself
For a story that has quite a spotlight in American history, Sorkin's interpretation of this case and the story around it doesn't leave me astounded or really satisfied. The script doesn't have anything memorable, punctual, or thought provoking unlike other courtroom dramas like A Few Good Men or 12 Angry Men. It doesn't really demonstrate any type of nuances surrounding this case and very much panders to a certain audience and/or side (given this came out in 2020, an extremely politically polarizing year). It's comes off as very portentous and it's quite obvious that it was fishing for Oscars as well, given that it received six nominations but no wins. Besides only a few of the cast members giving good performances (primarily Cohen, Rylance, and Abdul-Manteen II), there aren't really any outstanding performances in this film. Many of the performances are very flat which is disappointing given that the cast is talented and I've seen them carry out great performances in other works. I think it ultimately comes down to the writing as these characters were not developed very well. I think this story could've benefited if it were in a mini-series format. The cinematography and score are nothing that special nor does it make it distinct from other historical/bio-pic films. Besides only a handful of moments, I'm left bored and unamused. I think audiences would be better off watching a documentary surrounding this infamous case.
The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009)
Would Recommend as a Comedy
The pacing, the CGI, and the writing is awful. However, I was very entertained by the many misadventures and borderline psychotic decisions made by Bella (Kristin Stewart). It gets a half star just for making me laugh. Like Twilight, I saw this movie when it initially came out in theaters. Back then, I thought it was terrible and it's still terrible watching it as a twenty-five year old. However, unlike my initial viewing, I was laughing at a lot of the weird scenes. I would recommend watching it as a comedy or if you're somebody who has been exposed to the Twilight franchise in some way, shape or form, watch it as a guilty pleasure. It's on my guilty pleasures list for sure.
101 Dalmatians (1996)
Needs More Glenn Close
I saw this movie as a little kid but I didn't really remember anything else other than Glenn Close as Cruella DeVil. She is by far the best thing about this film. She's super eccentric and cartoony just like how her character is in the original animated movie. After watching this movie around fifteen years or so later, it is not as good as I remember it being. This film is riddled with typical 90s slapstick tropes we've seen far too many times. The score is nothing memorable and sounds too similar to other 80s and 90s family/feel good movies. CGI was used in some parts with the puppies and it has aged poorly. Though they did a good job with directing the actual animals in many scenes. I was impressed by that. Disney has always been cynical with their properties and tries to look for any opportunity to sell something. It's a little obvious with the scenes where Roger (Jeff Daniels) is having a kid test out a video game he designed is a product placement for Disney. However, I still don't think it's on the same level of cynicism compared to how Disney is today with their live action remakes. It's far from being the worst out of Disney's lineup of live action remakes, but it doesn't really have anything memorable about it other than Glenn Close's performance. However, this is a fine movie for children and their families to watch. It's entertaining for the most part. I enjoy every single scene with Glenn Close. Her performance alone makes it worth the watch.
Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
A Perfect Homage to Revenge Movies
I think this could very well be Tarantino's best movie. It's a fantastic homage to revenge movies. Revenge movies might seem a little cliche now, but Tarantino revitalizes this sub-genre with varying techniques that never get old and are always mind-blowing every time I watch it. The writing and dialogue is outstanding! The dialogue has such a sharp and biting edge to it and it perfectly coincides with the tone and themes of the film. The action is very well choreographed and I love how it shows that The Bride, our protagonist, is vulnerable, yet a badass when she's fighting and slaying away towards her path to revenge. Studios and filmmakers, please take note. This is how you do not just make a good action film but also how you appropriately write and make a movie with a strong female character... multiple in fact. Kill Bill Vol. 1 is easily a masterpiece in my book and everyone should watch it as long as you can stomach a lot of blood.
The Haunting of Sharon Tate (2019)
Someone Please Sue...
This is a bottom of the barrel type of movie. It's not even a movie that is so bad that it's good either. It's immoral, insulting, boring, and a complete waste of time. This film lacks everything: Creativity, craft, emotion, passion, and even a cohesive story. Hillary Duff and the rest of the cast are terrible and it's obvious everyone involved in this movie was only doing it for some type of paycheck. I'm honestly surprised that a studio would even allow something like this to be green lit. It's borderline unethical and it completely disregards and spits on Sharon Tate, Abigail Folger, and their friends who were with them on the night they were murdered. The Tate and Folger families along with others who have been affected by the Helter Skelter murders should sue.
Malignant (2021)
Malignant: Insane But Could Be A Work of Genius
Malignant is quite the concept. This is the latest work from James Wan, who is best known for Saw, Insidious, and establishing the Conjuring Cinematic Universe. James Wan has also taken on directing big blockbusters such as Furious 7 and Aquaman. He has both written and directed this film. All I gotta say is that it is an absolutely insane yet awesome experience.
Malignant focuses on a woman named Madison or Maddy. She had recently suffered from a traumatic experience which resulted in her miscarriage. She was pushed into the wall (brutally) by her abusive husband. Her head begins to bleed terribly. Later that night, a mysterious intruder comes into their house, murders her husband and pushes her around. After being discharged from the hospital and reconnecting with her sister, Maddy begins to see visions of people who she doesn't know get brutally murdered by this dark figure. Each time she has these visions, her head bleeds. She soon discovers that she is actually witnessing these murders take place in real time, when she is having these visions. She teams up with the local detectives who helped her with her case, to find out who this killer is and how Maddy is connected to these murders.
Malignants' tone is all over the place and is filled with numerous plot holes. Upon my first viewing, I thought that the tone was trying to be serious and tragic and was trying to relay the theme of trauma in some way, while dealing with some paranormal-like killer. I had gone in blind before watching this movie. I didn't really know what the general plot of the movie was. I was expecting something like Insidious when watching this. Madison's house looks so much like the first house in Insidious. In fact, each act of this film has different tones and pretty much changes genres throughout. The first act seems to follow James Wan's typical paranormal horror formula, then the second act seems to diverge more into the mystery/suspense thriller type of movie like Se7en, and then the third act is absolutely insane and well worth watching the movie. It's a twist that will just leave you either baffled, in awe, or else on the ground crying laughing. Basically it's like Insidious meets The Crow meets Shutter Island meets Orphan meets Stranger Things meets Evil Dead meet The Matrix. I was not the least bit bored when watching this movie. This is very much a film that does take some time to process with all of the insanity involved. I couldn't decide if James Wan was trying to have Malignant be something like his previous works or if he actually was trying to make it a ridiculously campy horror film like Sam Raimi's Evil Dead series. I'm thinking Malignant is more of the latter.
With all of the inconsistent tones, plot holes, lots of things being left unexplained, less than stellar acting, very basic and uninteresting dialogue, and bizarre story directions, it really works and I am trying to figure out whether or not this is a work of genius. Upon second viewing, I begin to notice some minor details that are used as a type of foreshadowing for the big twist and the overall themes of family doesn't have to be blood-related and trauma are strangely delivered but again, it also works really well. There is also genuine effort put into this movie, especially with the cinematography and the stunts. It is very well done. Though there are still many plot holes and things left unexplained. And in typical James Wan fashion, the ending does leave room for a sequel.
I know this movie has gotten a lot of mixed reception. I'm sure most people who were expecting something like Insidious or the Conjuring, thought it was stupid. I think the modern horror audience has forgotten or is not aware of the idea of camp. Camp can be a hard thing to pull off in movies, especially nowadays. I partially think the reason why we don't see these types of movies anymore is because of how our culture has been taking everything so seriously and is so quick to get offended. Notice how there are not very many comedies being made anymore or how mainstream movies seem to be reusing storylines and only making remakes of other works from the past? It is because the studios are afraid of offending audiences and taking risks. It is truly a shame because some of the best movies ever made are the ones that do take risks. I am glad that James Wan did make something so bizarre and insane and took a big risk in doing so. He has gained a lot of respect from me as a horror movie fan. I believe that it did pay off. I could totally see this movie becoming a cult classic in the future. I would love to see behind the scenes footage and interviews to get a better understanding of what the true intentions of this movie were.
If you love movies like Evil Dead, you will for sure like this movie. I would also recommend this movie to watch during the Halloween season with lots of friends and alcohol. I would also recommend this film if you are absolutely sick and tired of the same old tropes being used in horror movies and are craving for something different. Trust me, the entire third act is totally worth the watch.