Reviews

Blumhouse rhymes with so many words, like 'Dumbhouse'. Yes, I know it's childish to say such things, but if you had invested as much time as we have into believing the horror production house was on the verge of pulling off something great, you'd be in an adolescent mood too.

Its minimalist approach to trailers and media outreach beckoned viewers to give it a go. But its downfall was that it became the opposite of everything its trailer promised.

The film becomes a parody of itself, with the cast seemingly betrayed by the director, who paired some great actors with some not so experienced ones.

McGuire is perhaps better suited to shorts, and instead should licence out his ideas to better writers, and directors who understand the process of filmmaking. This movie turned out to be a case of trailer is better than the full length feature.

Three hours of boredom, yes, that's right-three hours of clock-watching boredom, wondering if you need to take a whizz.

"Dune: Part Two" is essentially driven by hype and Denis Villeneuve fans who truly haven't grasped that his work, though spectacular on the cinematography front, is limited in terms of dialogue and character building, shielded by an aesthetic that gives the impression that such projects are impressive.

"Dune: Part Two" is laden with lazy CGI, wooden acting, and poor casting choices that drive this movie further into the ground. The screenplay and pacing are banal, and certain scenes are poorly planned.

There is little to be excited by, and you don't need to have read the book to have a take on this, given that is the point of adaptations.

" "The Ring" is generally thought of as a horror movie, and it is. However, there is much more to it than just genre pigeonholing. It is a story of life, loss, and the knock-on effects they may have. Loaded with metaphors, fragmented psychological details, and foreshadowing pushed to its utmost (though tastefully implemented) threshold, there is no shortage of "I wonder what that could mean" moments when diving into this movie.

From start to finish, its atmospheric canvas weaves together a profound sense of foreboding, leading many to question the story's lore beyond what the director has already divulged. Its standout feature has to be its exquisite cinematography, marked by intelligent and purposefully planned storyboards. Furthermore, its location scouting is perfect. In fact, you could watch this movie without a script and still be captivated by its enchanting visuals, which in still form, resemble works of art.

But don't let me spoil it for you. Perhaps consider renting it? However the Blu-Ray edition provides additional content that you won't want to miss."

"What is it like?

Aside from Lidya Hewett's performance, the rest of the cast underwhelmed through a script that felt like it was written on the back of a throwaway storyline. The plot consists of a disastrous narrative that follows the same ambiance as "Halloween Ends (2022)" (awful), with injected moments of CGI that remove the viewer from an already depleted atmosphere, thanks to it hinging on the back of 'remember that?' imports from the initial instalment of Willem Friedkin's adaptation.

Full of lukewarm plot mechanisms and unnecessary harks back to its original origins, thanks to copy-and-paste tactics, David Gordon-Green fails yet again in the horror genre. I guess we can say he tried. Even that is a stretch. In short, it's terrible."

"...this movie wins for its visuals. Ridley Scott, renowned for his epic films like "Blade Runner" and "Alien," brings his expertise to the table in the battle scenes and pageantry. The film eschews an over-reliance on CGI, opting instead for full-scale battle reenactments that are both exhilarating and impressively realistic, capturing the chaos and grandeur of Napoleonic warfare with remarkable clarity."

"While "Napoleon" is worthy of the big screen, it ultimately falls short in its ideas of its central character. Phoenix's lacklustre performance combined with a hodge podge of accents undermines the film's potential."

"It's a movie worth watching for its large scale battle scenes and costume design, but it's unlikely to leave a lasting impression or inspire much discussion beyond a first watch. It is an example of a film where style triumphs over substance, delivering loud, but missing the mark in capturing the essence of one of history's interesting figures."

"...Midthunder was an excellent choice, her colleagues too and the inclusion of Comanche dub is first class. I'd have preferred the movie to have been completely shot in Comanche, considering dialogue does not completely fill this movie.

Unfortunately, the inclusion of too much in too little was the problem here, and Amber Midthunder deserves better than to be included in what felt more like a director recreating a lacklustre effort in his head but not fully understanding how to do it. If Disney wants things to go right, they need to recruit the right director to ensure flawless production and offer enough time to pull it off."

"Hopes were high in the lead up to its release with flawless PR deployed to raise its profile (albeit its frustratingly annoying Twitter profile). It isn't often we get a film with an original story, and although it isn't the first of its kind, the aesthetics on show in just the trailer proved to be above acceptable. A blend of CGI and practical effects struck a good balance with largely unknown actors and actresses on show."

" In a sense, if it weren't for its blend of striking animated and practical effects it would have faired worse. Beginning as a four, it slowly declined to a two with a tame offering for what was billed as a horror. We were told it wasn't going to be like Chucky, but it turned out like Chucky and ultimately, Megan was more sci-fi thriller than horror. At the time of watching I can think of better things I could have been doing, so maybe boredom will make this movie better."

The most notable problem with the film is its pacing, which is undeniably, one of the stand-out features of the movie that makes it hard to continue. Scenes often linger for too long, leaving the audience waiting for the story to progress. Furthermore, there is little to keep you engrossed, as the narrative feels disjointed and lacks clear direction. It's a meandering journey testing your patience, before it plunges into a finale that yearns for an audience's gasp, yet, will more likely make you squint and think expletives.

"Bad Lieutenant" is a film that is worth watching, if only to say you've seen it and to form your own opinion about its unconventional storytelling and Keitel's lacklustre performance. However, it falls short of being rewatchable due to its pacing and the overwhelming intensity of the central character's unravelling. In the end, it's a polarising cinematic experience that leaves an impression, but may not be one to everyone's taste.

The movie tries not to take itself too seriously, and seems to understand its place in the horror genre. It doesn't aim to reinvent but rather to entertain, embracing its identity as a fun, slightly campy horror flick. This approach makes it accessible to a wide audience, appealing to both traditional horror fans and those looking for an enjoyable, yet, thrilling movie experience.

It's a film that offers a fun, albeit not particularly innovative, addition to the horror genre. It's a movie best enjoyed without overanalysing, a tribute to the classic era of slasher films. Eli Roth and horror fans will find it an entertaining film with a classic touch built for "Thanksgiving", all in all making it a satisfying watch.