Reviews

This movie completely blew me away, it's so moving, so intelligently made and so superbly acted! It's just hard to find, apart from all such superlatives, the right words to try and describe it.

Maybe you could call it a kind of late-onset coming-of-age film, in which we see a 40-something gay man struggle to come to terms with a devastating and all-consuming sense of loss and subsequent loneliness. Writer and director Andrew Haigh uses a whole palette of cinematographic means to tell the story: harsh reality, flash-backs, figments of imagination, dreams and hallucinations; and only very gradually learn what's real and what not (which is even up to the end not an easy thing). All through the movie Adam has imaginary confrontations with his deceased parents that very cautiously brings them to a mutual understanding of each others flaws and feelings. In the meantime there's a neighbor who turns up at Adam's door, and Adam lets himself (or does he really?) submerge into a passionate love-affair, to finally and for the first time fulfill his desperate need for intimacy.

The acting by Andrew Scott in the pivotal and multilayered part of Adam is absolutely superb, there were so many times that he moved me to tears! As did by the way Jamie Bell as his father, their scenes together are extremely touching. Paul Mescal as neighbor Harry and Claire Foy as the mother are equally good.

This is not an easy story and not an easy film, and the pace is very slow. So one can only hope that they who start watching it don't let themselves be put off and give it all their focus and patience, the reward is a feeling of having experienced something of great depth and importance, a feeling that will last with you for a long time.

It's certainly not the best horror movie ever, but as something of a slasher-lite it's still reasonably entertaining. The masked killer looks pretty scary, the killings are well staged, and there are some effective jump-scares. Biggest problem however is the writing. The weird juggling with the identity of the killer didn't work at all. And for some reason they decided to throw in a supernatural scifi'ish element (a parallel universe, if I understood it correctly) that was way too contrived and didn't add anything to the story. If anything, it just spoiled what could have been a nice, non pretentious and down to earth slasher.

Jane Widdop as Winnie looks cute and is endearing as the hero in spite of herself. Jess McLeod as her side-kick does a fine job too, as does trustworthy Justin Long in his role as a self-absorbed and arrogant mayor. Unfortunately they gave Cassandra Naud (who recently had such an impressive leading part in the mystery thriller "Influencer") hardly two scenes and three words of dialogue - what a waste!

On the positive side: it's great to see being gay pictured so matter-of-factly and as a total non-issue: exactly how it should be (in an ideal world, that is!).

I was slightly misled by the cover of the dvd, which seemed to promise some sort of steamy male erotic arthouse film. Well, arthouse sure is what I got, but mostly of the dramatic kind, and so intangible that a lot of its why's and how's and whereto's eluded my too simple brain.

It's, as far as I could grasp it, about a disfunctional family: an embittered, unstable and castrating mother and her two young adult sons. They all have long and cynical conversations, bicker and yell, and in the meantime try to celebrate a family christmas dinner. The boys both have gay issues: Vicente is closeted, seeking anonymous and risky sex at cruising areas and feeling guilty and despondent about it; Borja revels at home in solo gay fantasies. This leads to a clash with each other, and eventually, when the mother steps in, to a sudden violent and fatal outburst.

We later see Borja emerging in the dark underworld of gay saunas, for yet another violent act. Is it a revenge for his brother? A kinky sexual fulfillment? A reckoning with his own being gay? We never know (or I totally missed it of course).

Interspersed throughout the movie is a lot of male sex and nudity, and one has to praise both young actors for their courage to go along with the need for realism that the director apparently strove after. It's a bit much and probably not everyone's cup of tea, but I guess functional for the story that the makers want to tell. Only don't expect a steamy sex movie, in that respect the cover definitely is used for tittilating PR-purposes only.

They advertised it as a (pre-historic) horror, but I would call it a thriller. It's rather slow-paced and the creepiness is mainly atmospheric: long scenes on barren hills and valleys and in dense woods, often in jet-black nights, where dead silence is interrupted by sudden mysterious shrieks or squeaks, filling this little group of prehistoric wanderers with fear. In between there are a few exciting outbursts of frenetic action in confrontations with what seem to be monsters; the relentless violence is impressively realistic. The cinematography is beautiful, but with so many dark scenes and with people who are difficult to tell apart since they're packed in thick layers of fur and have smeared faces, it's at many times hard to follow exactly what is happening.

All actors do an excellent job, especially since they are made to speak the whole movie through some ancient (made up?) foreign language. I suppose this was meant to enhance the feeling of authenticity, but I had some reservations too. It's a bit tiresome to have to read subtitles for 85 minutes, distracting me from following the images. I also kept thinking what a strain this must have been for the actors, having to learn all these incomprehensible words and sentences. Personally, I wouldn't have minded it when they had chosen for English dialogues. And by the way, how did leader Adem get such a perfectly shaven head, did they have back then some kind of trimmers?

There's a nice twist in the end, with even an existential message: how different people may outwardly look and act, inside they are basically the same human beings. So in spite of the rather cynical and violent conclusion, the movie ended with at least a hopeful touch.

This movie is a shrewd deception: they make you think that you're boarding on a serious psychological thriller, and then, three-quarter into the movie, they blatantly throw in the supernatural card. Even worse: the very last scene suggests that the whole set-up of the story was a sham, making the earlier 90 minutes in fact redundant. So calling movie and story unbalanced is putting it mildly.

The premise is potentially not that bad: somewhere in the woods, four friends drive an unknown girl dead, they find that she carried a duffle bag with 2 million in cash, and then they decide to run off with it. What unavoidably follows is a psychological game of greed, distrust and violence. Then suddenly a stranger pops up, claiming that the money is his. Even up to this point there were already tons of plot-holes and improbabilities. Like who are these four friends, what is their connection? Why didn't they search the dead girl for her identity or for some clou as to the origin of the money? Why didn't they ask the stranger instantly for his name, or how he knew so much about them, or search his pockets? Why not immediately try to kill him, or at least put a sock in his mouth to stop him from constantly taunting them and stirring up their mutual animosity?

But then, out of the blue, the already mentioned supernatural card is thrown in, and exasperated this made me fall back in my chair: come on, seriously?!? I guess the writer thought it a tremendously original idea, but to me it impressed mainly as tremendously lazy, and as an insult to my brain as well as to my dutiful watching this lame movie out.

What an extraordinary and moving film this is! Two young Roman students meet in 1978, fall head over heels in love, and then, by powers beyond their influence, loose each other, and the rest of their lives, in spite of new loves, they keep feeling the constant twinge of a great loss, of the reminiscence of what once was and what maybe could have been. Only at the end of the movie, after a lapse in time of more than 35 years, a weird chance (or Fate, if you will) brings them together again - I won't give away with what consequence.

It may not sound like anything special, or maybe even corny, but the direction by Ferzan Özpetek (who gave us in 2010 that other excellent gay-themed movie "Mine Vaganti") is so effective and sensitive, that it keeps you on the edge of your chair. Özpetek lets the story evolve without big turns or twists, in an almost natural way, but at the same time uses clever cinematographic effects, like changing from supposed reality to what in fact turns out to be a staged filmset (or the other way around), or the camera leaping seamlessly between scenes with Enea and with Pietro, or the very last scene, when the credits are already rolling, where we are granted a glimpse of how it could (should!) have been in an ideal world. Together with the beautiful last-but-one scene, these actually moved me to tears!

Both main actors Andrea di Luigi and Damiano Gavino do a great job, with palpable chemistry, and their required aging of 35 years is totally convincing. But also Luisa Ranieri as Titti, the authoritative cashier in the cinema Nuovo Olimpo is excellent, her character acting as an observant of the young lovers, with the voice of experience and wisdom.

If you don't mind a slow pace, then this carefully (and very caringly!) made film, that gradually totally incapsulated me, is greatly recommended!

Someone must have thought it a brilliantly original horror-concept: an evil-infested deadly classical concerto. Seriously?? Yes, seriously! As anyone could have guessed beforehand, the idea totally fell flat. To begin with: classical music and horror-movies do not mix well together, each having very different aficionados. To make the pivotal demonic tune sound like an almost angelically innocent ditty didn't really help to evoke the intended creepy apprehension. And after hearing that same little tune for the 67'th time you just want to smother your soundbar!

Most disappointing of all was the bad writing: what a silly, uninspired and chaotic story this is! Apart from Julian Sands, who gave his usual professional performance (this by the way being one of his last pictures), the rest of the small cast didn't really seemed to believe in the project themselves, everyone acts so lackluster and contrived. The final scene presents the usual cliché (the evil hasn't ended...) and thus fits the rest perfectly. In short: a failed, unscary and not even slightly entertaining attempt at making an original (wannabe) horror flick.

I read Patricia Highsmith's novel several times, and thought the 1999 movie with Matt Damon spot-on. But I really think that this new one has surpassed it. Of course, with eight one-hour long episodes, it has the advantage of extensively taking the time to picture all the details of Highsmith's perfectly crafted plot: details that emphasize not so much the crimes itselves, but especially all the hard work and toil of Tom to get away with it. It results in a very slow-paced, but extremely intriguing and involving film.

Andrew Scott is a bit older than I expected of Tom Ripley, but he was absolutely perfect as the unobtrusive guy-next-door, with his vague smiles and sparse dialogue, the one person of whom no-one would expect anything bad. Dakota Fanning also did a great job as the suspicious Marge, who cautious but stubbornly (and in vain) kept looking for cracks in Tom's composure. And I loved Maurizio Lombardi as the imperturbable Italian inspector Ravini.

But what stands out even more is the stunning cinematography: it's simply amazing how director Steven Zaillian and photographer Robert Elswit created such a wonderful atmosphere, filming it in black and white. The latter could impress as a whimsical mannerism of the makers, but here it's totally functional and in place, I guess it worked even better than full colour. There are so many stunning images (the close-ups of classic statues, the narrow cobbly Italian streets, the Via Appia by night, the raging waves during the ferry-trip to Palermo), that thanks to the black and white got an extra meaning, full of heavy forebodings. And kudos to the art-direction too, for so flawlessly evoking the 1950's!

In short: an amazing production, close to perfection!

Usually I like Marco Berger's films, especially the ones where there are just a few characters, and the story is about the subtle, sexual tension between two guys (like "Hawaii" or "The Blond One"); these are often extremely slow-paced, with sparse dialogue and an almost dreamy atmosphere. In this "Horseplay" however the atmosphere is everything but dreamy: a large group of loud, basically heterosexual guys gathers in a sun drenched villa for the holidays, doing nothing but yelling and boozing and bickering and fooling around; the latter for some reason constantly in the vein of imitating gay situations (riding each others back, touching and fondling, walking around naked) and then roaring with laughter about it. Hence probably the English title "Horseplay".

The original Spanish title "Agitadores" means by the way something slightly different: "troublemakers", so apparently Berger intended not so much to picture careless playfulness, but a deliberate stirring of the emotions. Such an intention could have resulted in an interesting movie, maybe if there had been fewer characters and longer, more serious dialogues and interchanges. But now the whole movie is made up by very short bits of conversations, with only vague hints of interesting topics, all ending as blank as they are started and leading nowhere. Sure, there are some innuendo's of greater issues: homophobia, machismo, promiscuity, fear of coming out as gay, but they never come to anything conclusive and stay dangling in mid-air, overblown by all the juvenile pranks and tiresome fooling around. There is, as usual in a Berger movie, lots of naked male skin to enjoy (if you're into that, and I humbly plead guilty), but that doesn't help making it a good movie. In fact it impressed me at many times as redundant and just added to titillate or provoke the viewers.

So summing up all the above: a disappointing experiece.

It more or less impressed me as a horror-"lite": reasonably amusing, with some well-done killings (albeit a bit repetitive), but for the rest no serious gore, hardly any scares, and a pretty simple story in which two teen girls were the main characters. Somehow the word "sympathetic" kept popping up in my head, probably not the best praise for a supposedly horrifying demonic horror flick.

The four members of the murderous gang behaved almost caricatural, like a bunch of bickering dumbos. And when, through a modest but somewhat forced plot-twist, we found out in which body the demon resided, they never granted us the pleasure of seeing it transformed to its true terrifying self (probably due to an insufficient VFX -budget). Its demonic powers seemed hardly impressive anyway, restricted to slamming doors from afar and mind-controlling the already most insipid gang-member; killing someone didn't seem to be in it's job-description, and its levitation-power had an almost endearing Mary Poppins-like vibe to it. Anyway, the acting of the cast wasn't that bad, and as said, it was all reasonably amusing, just don't expect anything more.

I always like revenge thrillers, especially the more brutal ones, chockfull of adrenaline-fueled action by a sympathetic, wronged and relentless hero. Well, as far as the action goed, they certainly delivered, although it took almost 50 minutes to come to that point, after a rather tame, on the brink of tedious ouverture.

But they went totally in overdrive after that: the way Brian (Joel Kinnaman) singlehandedly shoots dozens of heavy armed thugs from out of the window of his racing car, or on a long stairwell going up, amidst showers of bullets, was a tiny bit unrealistic, to put it mildly. As were the actions of the police detective (actor Kid Cudi) who followed him, all alone, without any back-up, although he knew that he would get in the middle of a heavy gang-fight. It was hard to sympathize with main character Brian anyway, the grieve over his dead son was of course relatable, but the way he treated his equally grieving wife was appalling. So my advice: wind on to 50 minutes in the movie, and then enjoy the subsequent violent ride without thinking too much.

As a supernatural mystery-show it totally works: the atmosphere in this isolated dilapidated village is claustrophobic and creepy, there are some very scary things going on, and the weirdness is growing with every new episode. As in any ensemble series there are multiple characters and story-lines, but they are all connected by the knowledge of everyone being trapped, besieged by rapacious nightly monsters, and mind-controlled by incomprehensible influences.

Maybe it's all a bit (too) much, and after two seasons in which the weirdness just piles up episode after episode, the series badly needs at least some hints at reasons or causes. And if possible a bit less domestic family-affairs, that apparently have to fill up the time between the scares; there's a lot of unnecessary talking anyway, which makes the pace drag now and then. But the acting of all of the cast is fine, and you're bound to get more and more intrigued, hoping for the long awaited answers, so I sure am game for season 3.

I watched this 1971 gay cult film for the first time (a 100 years ago!), when I was still hovering in the closet as a gay newbie, and I remember being totally enchanted by the dreamy, highly sensuous atmosphere, as well as enamored with the angelic lead (Bobby Kendall). Watching it recently again, it's as well a melancholy trip down memory lane, as a bit of a disappointment, because in the cold, critical light of 2024 the flaws are painfully visible.

On the good side: it has, in spite of the provoking sexual content, an unmistakable sympathetic feeling, thanks to the careful art-direction of maker James Bidgood. Knowing that he himself created, in his tiny apartment, all the settings and costumes and all the visual effects, it's absolutely amazing! Even now some of these settings, with artificial trees and flowers and moonlit skies, are still astonishing.

On the downside: what immediately annoys is the extremely slow pace and the endless repetitiveness of the images. This aimlessly meandering of the camera over card-board sceneries and close-ups of beautiful faces and naked skin, may be intended to create a dreamlike atmosphere, but for a movie that lacks every hint of a narrative to begin with, this at times gets almost soporific. The few actors are all extremely handsome, but the way they move is so extremely choreographed, that it looses every sense of reality. It's clearly aimed at maximizing the erotic effect - and it does, no doubt about that! - but it all adds to the feeling that you're not watching a movie, but you're drenched in an erotic work of art.

So to resume: for a serious movie it lacks story, coherence and urgency, but as a piece of singlehandedly made and sensuous art it's still a worthwhile and amazing tour the force.

The story of king James I and his male favorites is probably not a familiar one for most people (including me), so this mini series is as well informative, as original. But there's more to enjoy: it has a good pace, some surprisingly steamy and daring (same-) sex scenes, the settings and costumes are beautiful, and the acting of almost all of the cast is great, especially that of Julianne Moore. I'm not always a Moore fan, at times she can be so dominant in a production that it turns into a Julianne Moore show (like in the 2021 miniseries "Lisey's Story"), but here she's absolutely excellent as the authoritative, scheming mother who'll do anything to promote her son's (and her own) position.

I was slightly disappointed with the part of Nicholas Galitzine, he acted (or was made to act) as an insecure upstart through all of the seven episodes. That was maybe realistic in his first encounters with the king and the court, but surely, after several years as Duke of Buckingham, residing in the highest ranks of the kingdom, he would have gained some self-composure and authority; his continuous awkwardness just didn't feel realistic.

As always in history-based movies, there's some juggling with the historical facts, and the way king James comes to his end in the last episode is definitely fictional, but it fits the story fine. It was a pity however, that after that the story rushed in hardly 10 minutes to a totally abrupt ending, with a sudden leap in time of some 3 years, and without any information of how we got to that point (like for instance how the relation between George and the new king Charles developed). It felt a bit as if the writers had gotten weary, or the budget ran dry.

But for the rest: absolutely worthwhile!

While watching this movie I kept checking the year of production, but it's really 2020! The story takes place in the 80's, with all the appropriate retro settings and styling (why that is, is by the way a mystery to me, the story would have been exactly the same when it would have been situated in the present!), but even cinematographically this movie looks like 40 years old: the colors, the grainy images, and especially the snail's pace! Maybe the makers aimed for a true homage to 80's horror flicks, or for an ultimate feeling of authenticity, but if so, it definitely went at the cost of the enjoyment of a nowadays audience.

Add to this the fact that the story itself wasn't really that exciting, at least for an intended horror flick. It actually took 45 minutes of endless talking before the first remotely serious action kicked in (that's when the first kid went to the phone), and after that the goings-on were hardly horrific or even suspenseful: we saw some reminiscences of past traumas and sins come to life, some well done creepy make-up, and one CGI-crafted scary monster, but that was about it. The conclusion fitted the rest: no climax, just the screen that went black: the end...!

The acting of the kids seemed somewhat subdued, as if that had to resemble the amateurish acting of 80's kid actors in a B-movie. Only trustworthy Lin Shaye and Tobin Bell really stood out as the sinister and vindictive old couple. And Chester Rushing was cute as a puppy. But that's not enough to make for a good movie. I would say: sympathetic, but failed attempt to revive an 80's horror flick feeling.

Although a swimming pool as a source of evil suggested at least a reasonably original horror movie, it turned out as generic as any other: a nice family that moves in a new home with a seemingly attractive pool, where in fact some dreadful things have occurred in the past; then they experience some weird and unaccountable happenings, and see apparitions of in the pool hovering ghosts; and a vague ancient story to (remotely) make the supernatural powers of the pool understandable - it's all there, and not really different than in comparable horror flicks.

The acting of the main cast was fine enough, and the goings-on in and around the pool, with all the well done under water scenes, did make for some suspenseful moments, but eventually it all turned out as a bit disappointing and tame: no killings, no gore, just a constant building up of the tension that hardly led to anything, until the very end. That end by the way even became a bit laughable: are we to understand that a whole body evaporated or dissolved in the pool, or was sucked-in in the pool's drain?!? Anyway, with some more inventive writing and some bigger budget for VFX they probably could have done way better with the in itself promising premise.

"School of the damned" is a pretty promising title for an intended horror movie, but they didn't in any way live up to it. It fails on the most basic aspects: the story is shaky and goes all over the place, the atmosphere isn't a bit scary, and the acting is below par. With the exception of attractive and sympathetic James Groom, who plays main character Tony, the new teacher who unknowingly enters this weird school, he's the only talented actor in the cast and does his best, but cannot help drowning in the silliness and amateurism that surrounds him. The children that are the sources of all evil are supposed to look extremely menacing and sinister, but cramping your face as if you're constipated doesn't really do the trick. The only thing I liked was the way all the scholars immediately, as a drilled army platoon, responded on the tapping of the staff of the headmaster, that was a nice find. But for the rest: disappointing and totally superfluous.

It's not the best action-thriller ever, but it's definitely entertaining. The action kicks in pretty early in the movie, and with a pleasantly high pace it goes on till the (rather redundant) epilogue. Since there's a whole bunch of girls under attack, we get a serious amount of casualties, and the various killings are well done, mostly with the appropriate jump-scares. Maggie Q as the taciturn Iraq veteran Tess turns out as a relentless adversary to the thugs, who by the way are, for the most, irrelevant nincompoops, obedient to their more menacing ringmaster. While the last remaining girls turn into ferocious avengers, Tess has a final, short but rewarding showdown with the head-villain. A perfect conclusion, one would say, but then they came up with an epilogue (even announced as such with a textcard!), that didn't add anything to the story and thus provided a bit of an anticlimax. But for the rest: not bad at all!

It's a clearly low-budgeted little indie horror flick, but they really got the most out of the moderate means. The premise is not that original (a group of not so bright youngsters who want to make it in the world of internet vlogs go on a ghost-hunting trip), it's a bit like Ghostbusters with a camera, or a Scooby-Doo episode without Scooby-Doo. But they still made a pretty decent story of it, with a serious sinister undertone and a creepy atmosphere. The few VFX were convincing enough, it has a good pace, and the acting was fine (although the annoying August character went way over the top!). Just a pity that the actor they used for the killer didn't look in any way as menacing and horrifying as was intended, in spite of covering his face with blood smears; the sunglasses and cigarets made him look almost cute, like some defiant teen.

If anything, the writing was a bit unbalanced. The dead, but still haunting serial killer didn't get any serious background or motives for his acts. The unfortunately killed Hutch seemed to be forgotten by everyone, including the writers, as was the sister of Baby Blue who apparently still hovers in that house (or I missed some clue). Her sudden change of sides from obedient daughter to the savior of the victims came totally out of the blue. And the very last scene in the car impressed as an afterthought of the writers: hey, let's throw in something that we could use for a sequel! But there were some pretty strong scenes too: the blinded guy in the basement looked great, and the whole sequence with the deranged mother from hell and her milk-obsession was absolutely top notch!

Well, the premise certainly is original, there's a seriously creepy atmosphere, the colossal ancient building and the cellar give an almost gothic feel, and Freya Allan and Jeremy Irvine both do a fine job. And the CGI of the bag-person (witch or demon or whatever) in her various horrifying appearances is very well done. But I had also some reservations. The sound-bursts to accompany the intended jump scares were almost deafening, I left the cinema with my ears popping. And at times the logic behind the use of the bag-headed lady eluded me, like the two-minute rule that constantly got violated without immediate consequences, or the strict rule never to enter the hole in the brick wall, but Iris did so unharmed. Or why couldn't she simply sell the house so that the curse would fall on a new owner, surely real estate investors would have jumped on the occasion!

Resuming: not bad at all, but with some flaws.

Who did they think to please with this?!? It's 97 minutes of nothingness, of which 80 minutes are wasted on seeing a bunch of unattractive people (supposedly professional dancers) jump like crazy up and down in some dilapidated school hall, on a nauseating, full blast electronic sound drone. Apparently someone spiced their sangria with LSD (seriously!) so this results in an increasingly orgastic frenzy of ecstasy and violence. Well, that's at least what the synopsis suggested, labeling it pretentiously as a shocking intense experience. If so, I totally missed it, probably because of yawning too much. It's endlessly the same tedious yelling and grabbing and jumping and sexing. In between we hear (as far as the over-loud music allows) various people exchange various incoherent titbits of gossip, flirtations and insults, and then we see them going at each others throats. But some kind of narrative is nowhere to be found. There's even a cute little kid dragged into all this, who in the wake of the drug-infused insanity is misplaced and locked in a closet. I wonder what child welfare would have thought of that. So to sum it up: a ludicrous pretentious bore. Avoid!!

Some years ago I read Philippe Besson's book, and thought it a bit on the sentimental side. But this movie-adaptation is excellent, it doesn't thrive on emotional effects, but tells the story in a very sensitive, almost restrained way, making it all the more poignant. It's intelligently done, the present alternating with flashbacks, while we see how the harsh truth very gradually, with every new scene, dawns on main character Stephane.

The nostalgic atmosphere is wonderful, the 80's setting in the flash backs are convincingly done, and both young actors Jérémy Gillet and Julien de Saint Jean do a fine job. But the stars of this movie are Guillaume de Tonquédec an Victor Belmondo. De Tonquédec as the middle-aged writer Stephane, who comes back to his hometown to evoke the memories of his first great love, that back then so mysteriously dead-ended; and Belmondo as Lucas, who lives with a distorted memory of his father and now finally gets to see him in a very different light. Both actors are totally convincing, and the way they play the pivotal scene, in which Stephane holds a long impromptu speech for a posh gathering, but in fact for the sake of Lucas and the memory of his dead father, is deeply moving.

The point that is made here is comparable with that in Brokeback Mountain: how the shame and fear of showing your true (gay) self to the world can poison and waste a whole life. It's so true, and unfortunately still as relevant as ever.