Reviews

Vincent Gallo is back after launching his career with Buffalo '66. Say what you want about the man, he's different, always mad, says a lot of things but his movies deliver. The Brown Bunny seems more like a self portrait of Gallo's life - in theory. Watch Buffalo 66 first then watch this. Everybody pans this movie, I mean Roger Ebert originally hated it but then he changed his mind. Gallo plays a lead character who makes some disturbing choices and soaks in sulk about something that has affected his life. Stick around to the end to find this out - I had to rewind the ending because I didn't expect the movie to end that way. Chloe Sevigny takes the co-lead role but it would've been Jennifer Jason Leigh's had she not been in a relationship at the time. Not surprised. The "scene" that happens is as detailed as it is described. Could've done without it? Yes probably but this a Gallo movie, take it or leave it. Ignore the fans and critics on this one. The ending will keep you awake, stick around for it.

Ang Lee's Hulk came out all the way back in 2003 and yet I never got around to watching it. The movie lives in the past and it's relevance to today is nonexistent. The plot is straight forward, however, a bit messy in delivery. The main focus is Bruce Banner and the serum that makes him the Hulk, and how the army is after to get him along with a lunatic who wants the serum for himself. Banner's father played by Nick Nolte is also a part of the madness. His story is tied in with Banner's grim childhood and then how Banner seeks revenge against his father towards the end, the final fight, cloaked in extreme darkness and hard to make out the action sequences. Eric Bana plays Bruce. Truthfully, I have never heard of Eric Bana, before or after this movie came out. Similar to Brandon Routh playing Clark Kent, they are both fine in their roles. They don't do anything wrong or perfect, but neither actor is mainstream. Jennifer Connelly as Betty and Sam Elliot as the General and Betty's father. I didn't find that there is a lot of chemistry between them and Betty's constant blank stare and gazing on the screen gets old really quickly. Neither, Connelly or Bana are given a lot of dialogue and their chemistry also comes off as distant. Hulk himself is well done. My favourite scenes are of him evading helicopters and taking massive leaps around beautiful scenery backdrops. The score by Danny Elfman is ok and effective at times. Hulk 2003 does have some moments to pick from but as a package it's not a great movie, it's just above average. There is no point to seeing this movie if you haven't already.

Horror movie that gets portrayed for being original but it's really not. Very easy to follow. Sudan refugee couple comes to England and are on bale so they get chosen to a house to live in. The house is torn and in a very rough part of the city. Soon, we see there is something wrong about the house, the husband especially can't sleep at night and eventually he can't be in the house at all. Turns out something followed them to there house, but it's HIS HOUSE so he's not gonna move. HES GONNA DEAL WITH IT, IN HIS HOUSE. The man makes that point very clear. The wife has a dream about being back in her native country where more scary things happen. Why do these things happen? You'll learn it has to do with their daughter and you learn about their background later in the runtime. The ending is anti climactic. Not a great movie. A lot of jump scares, monotonous horror elements, it's not a clever or original plot. It is very easy to watch, moves along fast, not at all boring. It's alright.

Do me a favour, watch this movie. American friends, leave those subtitles on! A great movie is a great time, and that's what this. I haven't seen Tom Cruise's Vanilla Sky and I don't care to if I'm giving Open Your Eyes a 10/10. From the opening, to the climatic plot that only gets better, to the outstanding and I mean phenomenal acting, and to the ending that leaves you wanting more. It's a ball of gold. There is this feel that everyone and everything involved in this movie clicked from the onset and major props to the director bringing it all together.

The films plot in detail is hard to explain but there is a line between dreams and reality. Are you someone who dreams of a better reality? I'm sure the idea isn't frowned upon. Finally, this is a mind player movie, fortunately if you're having a hard time following it all makes sense in the end. Re-watching is highly recommended!

The reality is, how good this movie is! I can't express it enough.

This is an excellent series of movies directed by one of my favourite directors Nicolas Winding Refn. One of his first films was Pusher from 1994 (7/10) that follows Frank. It's a good introduction movie but probably my least favourite of the three. Pusher 2 follows Tony who is featured a lot in Pusher. Pusher 2 was made after Refn was losing money and needed a film to keep his career alive. Mads Mikkelsen takes it up another level as our main character Tony and leads the plot, though comes across a bit cliche there are some really fine moments of realistic drug dealing cheek in tongue that propels this series 8/10. Lastly we have Pusher 3. I have heard this sometimes is viewed as the least favourite of the movies but I thought it was the best. Milo is our main character now, who is in every movie, albeit with no big role in Pusher 2. Pusher 3 is very graphic to another level. Milo loses control. Without spoiling the plot. This movie tunnels through a few different paths and introduces a lot of characters and the story dynamic comes together amazingly. My only gripe might've been the ending but it still absolutely works and it's appropriate, maybe it was played a bit safe. This review is for the whole series. Great acting, stories, none of the films directly tie in with one another but obviously I would still recommend watching all 3 movies from this great director, Refn. Enjoy!

All I see is pure ignorance from the people rating and reviewing this movie. If this film came out during a different generation, such as the early 2000's that did lots of experimentation, I would hope it would be viewed differently. You can't see "Drive" and expect another Drive knockoff, let's make that clear. You are kidding yourself if you complain about the movie being slow and boring, todays appreciation for art is severely lacking. Immerse yourself in the culture, take in what the movie gives you. The plot is very basic and incredibly easy to follow. The setting is beautiful and absolutely necessary for the film to work. The score is also breathtaking and makes you feel that you're away from wherever you may be. There is fine beauty to be found here. Todays lofty expectations of film being forced fed into you without requiring much brain power to understand, as well as originality becoming near obselete is why movies like this can't be successful. I've said this once before and I'll say it again, the wrong people are watching and rating this movie. 8/10.

"Zombie" says the man on the station wagon...is the first time this word is ever muttered in cinema. All the way back in 1932. If you are a zombie buff then White Zombie is for you and worth seeing. There are some other cool trinkets as well like: seeing people in a zombafied state, eye catching landscapes, and Bela Lugosi playing the lead, Murder. There is something about this movie that is very cool even if it is very outdated. Being that is public domain, there are a lot of copies that exist and are unique in their own ways. Some versions have jump cuts, lost footage, found footage, there is a colourised/audio enhanced version. Even then, White Zombie isn't really a great movie. For me and I'm sure anyone else, you need to watch with subtitles as most of the cast is hard to understand. Still, the plot is completely all over the place and lacks direction. It's sort of sad to see Lugosi in this movie especially during that time where if he made better role choices then his career really could've taken off. White Zombie at its time, did poorly and the entire cast of actors are unknown as well the production, minus Lugosi. The praise and cultural effect as long with it's more recent cult following for any horror fanatic is what keeps this movie alive and relevant. Big props to Rob Zombie. Not a great film but highly recommended for a one time view.

In this creepy portrayal, De Niro plays a memorable movie character, Max Cady, who is looking for revenge on a defense attorney who failed him 14 years ago. The actions he takes, the length he goes to do it is no less then staggering. I like how there is a blend between horror, drama, thriller, and at times some dark comedy including a bizarre scene where Max Cady breaks the third wall and talks to us like he's supposed to be Ferris Bueller. It may sound like this is a must-watch movie, and in a sense I think it is, but it's not quite great. De Niro is on point, when he's on screen it's must watch but he's actually not on the camera as much as he should be - minus the seduction scene and the climatic ending. The young Juliette Lewis is another very good acting performance in this movie as well. Most of the time, you're just going to have to wait for something climactic to happen. The dialogue nearly put me to sleep. I wasn't crazy about Nick Noltes performance or his story, you could nearly skip all his scenes and it wouldn't mean much to the overall plot, it's just filler backstory. Sometimes the film just casually roles along. I didn't love the writing all that much and it has a very outdated 90s feel to it in which I would debate it doesn't hold up today. And as much as the ending is memorable, I'm not sure if it was the right call to go into such a Jurassic Park style action packed ending. It was entertaining but seemed out of place. It's probably worth seeing this movie, just once, no reason to go back afterwards but Martin Scorsese has made much better. 6/10.

Ed Wood is such a cultural phenomenon now that we no longer bear the question, who is Ed Wood? In case, you didn't know, he's made some of the most infamous movies that have gotten a lot more traction over time starting with Tim Burton's 1993 cult classic "Ed Wood" - a fantastic watch. From weird sci-fi to borderline pornography films and strange biopics, Wood has covered many of the genres.

None of his movies are good per say, but expecting the worst is the fun of watching his films. However, the hilarious title of Glen Or Glenda might be his best movie. This strange biopic is about Wood's fascination of dressing in women's clothing while seeking approval from his wife. The movie is told in a narrative style detailing thoughts of what Wood was probably going through during that period of his life: confusion, acceptance, out of place with society, etc. The first half of the film is surprisingly pretty effective and it had potential to be a good movie outright but the second part takes a tumble and it's a real struggle to finish watching this as it absorbs into a psychedelic trip of sorts that completely abandons the source. This movie might've been received poorly since it was a brave movie to make during its time, there's no doubt that plays a part. I enjoyed it and it's efforts. It has it moments and if you want to watch an Ed Wood film that's almost good while interesting nonetheless, then start here.

This might be the most infamous movie of all time. It's truly hard to write review about this film other then warning the viewer what they are about to get into. Obviously this movie is infamous for one scene in particular and before it happens you probably wouldn't see it coming, as I did not. The film takes you through a backwards narrative into a pitch black dark tunnel with no light in sight until the movie ends, which makes sense as the film goes along. But my God, what an indescribable feeling this experience is. Good getting through this film and if you finish it, good luck erasing certain scenes out of your mind. I'll say it once: you've been greatly warned. Approach with extreme caution.

Greta Gerwig usually gets it right with Noah Baumbach, but not this time in Misstres America. A rather simple yet unprovoked film, I had to force myself to make it to the end of this movie. The acting is good, the script is funny on occasions, and the setting works but combine it all together and there's still a lot missing here. I think the story itself bounces to too many themes and directions that it doesn't give the viewer the proper recognition to feel inspired. I liked Gerwigs acting here but her performance comes off as strong and much more thematic then the rest of the cast, and that hurts the movie. Tracy is a missed opportunity, most notably because she could've been a great anchor for the plot if her character was given a more detailed script. I really wanted to like her, instead she falls into the shadows. Tony provides the comedic pokes at the movie, having me laugh out loud a few times. Not much more to say otherwise. A forgettable movie. Gerwig and Baumbach strike out having normally get it right most of the time.

This is a really good piece of work by the brilliant Kevin Smith but I didn't fully appreciate that until the second time watching this movie. I'm glad I did. I missed out on it's significance and even it's cultural importance. I was admittedly thrown off by Joey Lauren Adam's voice, i saw it as distracting and I had to get over it, something like that shouldn't hinder the viewer but it did for me and it played a factor the first time watching.

Her and the rest of the cast are great. She is brilliant as Alyssa with a lot of gut impacting scenes. Ben Affleck and Jason Lee star opposite to her. Affleck is convincing and Lee is immaculate as Affleck's best friend, roommate and comic book artist who has a lot of memorable moments as a side character.

The theme of the movie might've been a bit groundbreaking for it's time as it explores sexual endeavours of the triangle between the 3 characters. The curiosity is compelling and it works and the best part is, it leaves the questions without solidarity answers. All this, and it still manages to feel like Kevin Smith's movie - lots of crude jokes and comedic value.

Just behind the Clerks series and maybe Zack and Miri, Chasing Amy is absolutely worth seeing.

Katie Holmes splits herself into the acting realm, writer and into the directors chair for this movie, Alone Together; also staring Jim Sturgess.

It was a fine effort but this film will be easily forgotten, if it hasn't been already.

The entire movie comes with a COVID-19 backdrop and works as somewhat of a time capsule movie. While I understand the use of the theme, it becomes redundant very quickly and that we don't need constant reminders about the dangers of COVID. The movie also contradicts itself from COVID practices in ways I won't spoil, that questions why the COVID theme had to be explored at all. It was probably unnecessary that Holmes had to make this such a central part of the film.

The acting is okay but sometimes a little too messy. I sensed some typecasting problems. Jim Sturgess is a good actor, but he doesn't fit the role of Charlie. Holmes overdramatized a lot of her sequences and further proves that she's not a very good actor, the lead could've been just about anyone else. Derek Luke is bland and Melissa Leo is probably the best of the bunch but that's not saying much.

I did like the writing. It's very predictable but it was mostly good enough to get by minus all the unusual amount of cuss words that were thrown in.

I'll give Holmes credit in some areas, there we're some nice moments. This movie is raw so if Holmes were to direct again then there's a lot of things that need improvements but a nice first step nonetheless.

As a casual viewer of Marvel movies and TV shows, I was persuaded by the trailer to see Werewolf By Night. I thought Marvel was going to jump on a different wagon and pay homage to classic monsters from Universal, however that didn't really happen.

I didn't see much appeal here. I thought right from the very beginning to the end, this picture was a complete snooze fest. The plot is basic and unoriginal, the writing lacked craftsmanship (and requires subtitles because everyone is speaking gibberish folklore), and the putrid Marvel comic relief still found its way in this mess of a feature. A lot of what happened was crammed, and there's no attachment with any characters. About 25 mins alone is action and fighting, typical to Marvel standards. It's extremely redundant by this point and it's hardly executed to an exciting level.

The main piece is the man turning into the Werwolf, hence that's what the lead up is all about. If I am to say I was breathtaken by his transformation, then call me a liar. It was done so quick that it just blends in with the rest of the movie. For contrast, Pete Wentz' blood sucking Vampire personality transformation from the A Little Less Sixteen Candles, A Little More Touch Me (Touch Me) music video was pulled off MUCH better, and I'm sure the budgets don't have any comparison. They also could've done some research on Bigby Wolf and carbon copied his progressive transition into The Wolf and payed off the copyright infringements to rack up a bigger budget for The Wolf Among Us 2.

On a side note, I'm not sure if the main character was made to pay tribute to the legendary actor, Boris Karloff, his makeup looked very similar to Karloff's from The Mummy.

On another side note, I'm sure if Elsa were to slowly unzip her jacket and pulled a circle pit belly dance then that would've had Ed Wood coming out of his grave and Tim Burton strongly considering another Ed Wood tribute movie to the late director.

Werewolf By Night, is as Marvel as you can get. There are better ways to kick off the start of the spooky month, surely.

This is simply a movie worth watching if you've ever wanted to see Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff together on screen. Undoubtedly, I saw a lot of chemistry between the 2 actors and works great throughout nearly the whole run time. I'm not exactly sure what the plot entails, as it's hard to follow and there are a lot of different scenes where things happen that get confusing. If you can bare that, then watching The Black Cat shouldn't be a problem. This movie has an extremely short run time, fortunately Karloff and Lugosi hold it together so well that the viewer doesn't have to entirely suffer. This isn't a Universal Classic nor should it ever be but it's place in history is the fact we see Karloff and Lugosi together on screen in a forgotten film during the 1930's catalogue.

Looking for Mr. Goodbar is certainly a movie that was not made for it's time. It's a dark, graphic movie that explores scenes of violence and double life that I'm sure audiences weren't accustomed to yet.

The movie stars a few familiar faces such as a young Richard Gere, Tuesday Weld, Tom Berenger and William Atherton but none can't match the incredible performance put on by a secducing eye catching Dianne Keaton. She plays a teacher for deaf students by day and a uninspiring prostitute by night. Keaton, for me, was what ultimately decided my rating for this film.

This movie is very sexual, and while it may attract your curiosity and hold your attention, it's extreme mundane themes aren't for everyone, and there are a few scenes that were hard to watch, one in particular was daring. Some plot holes are evident and a few things don't add up but at the very least Looking for Mr. Goodbar is entertaining and a must watch movie experience if you are to dive into the depths of the unknown.

Great acting, for one. Very powerful performances by Johansson and Driver. Written and directed by the excellent Noah Bambauch. Not his best movie in my opinion but it's very easy to distinguish it as his film and it comes with some fine moments such as Alan Alda playing the first lawyer, a nice sequence that was. I think it's naturally difficult to make a movie that's intriguing that revolves around marriage, parenthood, and divorce. It felt boring at times, some scenes acted more as fillers instead of compelling plot points. Again, it's a tough task grabbing the viewers attention when the story revolves around things that happen in daily life that aren't exactly appealing. A good watch in the Baumbach catalogue; check out Frances Ha or Greenberg if you enjoyed this movie. 7/10.

Pretty good movie but the story is cliche as ever. The formula is recycled. Nothing really surprised or excited me but its a nice family film. I felt that the deaf theme of the movie was a nice touch but it didn't embrace itself well to, say, The Sound of Metal, which I prefer. Not bad. Nice light watch and can be enjoyed by anyone. I don't classify this as an "award winning" picture, though.

A friend of mine at work has a horrible taste in movies. He enjoyed Morpheus, and now he recommends this whole series to me. I haven't heard anything good about this series. Frankly, I have no idea why we're looking to make this is a series, and that applies to basically any movie for that matter. Any commercial movie now a days is either terrible, overrated or both. I find it hilarious that grown ups will go watch movies like this. Save your money, stay home, do some research, watch, learn, and expand.

Based off one of the most incredible true stories of its time, Danny Boyle makes magic with 127 Hours. If the story of Aron Ralston alone doesn't draw in your curiosity then let the movie speak for you. Danny Boyle does an outstanding job of capturing the mood of the entire movie and making each scene to the next all the more interesting as the train never stops rolling. The cinematography is a huge reason why this movie is so spectacular. The story and setting is very basic so it's important that the viewers get drawn in as much as possible. The score, composed by A. R. Rahman, is just more of a reason why you should be hooked. It adds more juice to the picture and helps capture the emotions of Aron. Coming in at a perfect run time of 1 hour and 34 minutes, 127 Hours and it's incredible true story should never go unnoticed. This is one of few movies I consider...perfect.

You can only do so much to a story told so many times, yet the audience gets drawn in and excited for the next generations remake. I wasn't too keen on seeing Batman, I felt it was done right and sealed with Christopher Nolan, but what we have here was a creative attempt at was otherwise just another Batman movie.

The whole drawing in of Batman was how edgy it is supposed to be. To the average viewer, this movie can easily be an outcast from other traditional hero movies. Saying that, the expectation is there that you still have to make it appeal to a wide audience and certain boundaries can't be crossed. When will they ever be crossed? Maybe never. To my viewing, this was still an incredibly safe play coated with dark layouts and haunting voice overs. The day I would ever see a true 18A Batman movie or something so off-putting will be the day that I'm convinced that Gotham is a complete hell-hole. Wishful thinking.

The acting was strong, with the material they had to work with, each character absolutely did what they could. The script and writing seemed a bit raw. This movie focused on a lot of visuals to fill in the long run time of 3 hours and, heck, this did feel very long at times. This was do to the boring slow tone and uneventful writing for most of the movies meat and potatoes.

Robert Pattison takes the task of being our Batman for the next how many years. I have mix feelings. Firstly, I didn't like his costume, his mask seemed like it was bought at a store a day before shooting and nothing particular stood out about it. Pattison's Bruce Wayne could use some work. To some, he's emo and edgy and he's "cool". He's like our counterculture hero of the fictional world - one that often doesn't get portrayed too often. To others, including myself, he looked like some Machinegun Kelly rip-off look a like or the dude at the start of the Black Parade music video. Ultimately, it's an attempt to portray a different version of Bruce, one that I can at least applaud to, but with some work to be done.

With how experimental and unpolished The Batman felt, it does just barely enough to not completely disown. Will see how the sequels compare.

I had this movie recommended to me off a Reddit sub. I like "dark" themed movies and originality, but I'm not a fan of sci-fi all the time. This movie is divided into some decent moments, with some eye catching themes, some interesting plot concepts such as: memory, escape, and the real world mixed with sci-fi that almost resembles a clone of Gotham City. While I enjoyed some moments, the story as a whole isn't as attractive. The script and scenes aren't put together coherently. There is a lot of scene jumping and a lot of quick scenes and because most of the background looks the same, it becomes hard to follow where the movie is taking place at times. The plot feels more experimental and rough then it does polished and complete.

The acting is okay, overall. I especially enjoyed Kiefer Sutherland as the Doctor. Our other main cast composes of Rufus Sewell, William Hurt and Jennifer Connelly. Connelly is as attractive as ever, but her performance feels abandoned. She comes off as more of a footnote and I wish she had more screen time. Sewell, who plays the lead John Murdoch, didn't convince me at all. His character is completely stale and he looks exhausted every time he's on screen. I truly thought his showing was well below average.

With portions of the movie being unique and creative, Dark City may apply to outside thinkers but even the most sci-fi heads of them all will struggle to call this a classic.