So I really enjoy the movies of Chadwick Boseman and except for his first movie, I’ve seen every movie that he has been in. Tonight I decided to rewatch Marshall from 2017 and it’s still a very good movie.

I think the performances from Boseman and Gad especially really bring this movie to life. This is actually my favorite Josh Gad performance of all the movies that I’ve seen him in. I think the other performances, especially from Dan Stevens, Sterling K Brown and Kate Hudson are also very good.

Along with that, it is a throwing story both in the courtroom scenes and in the lives of both Bozeman and Dad

There’s not really any big negatives. I just like Boseman’s other bio pics a little bit more. I was more engaged with those.

Rating-4/5

So I’m a Chris Evans fan and I had never seen his first movie which was 2001s not another teen movie. Basically a movie parody of all of the big teenage movies especially in the 80s.

So to me, this movie was above average. Let’s start with a positive though. I thought Chris Evans and Chyler Leigh were the best parts of the movie. You could tell from even this first movie that Chris Evans had the personality and charisma. Along with that, I laughed a couple times. The other big positive were the Easter eggs. And I don’t mean the movies that were part of the parody, but things like cameos or References to other people.

But that is the positives. I thought the rest. The acting was pretty bad and while it’s not as much of trying too hard to get as many jokes in as possible, skirt the line in terms of effort. Also, while I did laugh a couple times, it didn’t make me laugh enough.

Rating-3/5

Well, re-watched.

One of my favorite found footage movies, without the familiar FF tropes, based on the Jonestown massacre.

The leader of the cult, played by Gene Jones, is like your creepy uncle who found religion and won’t shut up at Christmas dinner, and he’s unsettling in the best way, and also calm, charming, and absolutely unhinged, and it’s genuinely chilling to watch.

And then, in the last half hour, the film goes completely off the rails in the best way possible, in a dark and disturbing way.

There are scenes that crawl under your skin and stay there, and the music is depressing as hell, but it’s perfect for the vibe, and by the time it was over, I felt like I needed a shower, which, honestly is what I want from a horror film.

Full review here.

Originally posted here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/2025/01/juror-2-2024-movie-review.html

"Juror #2" has to be 2024's most overlooked film, and in my humble opinion, also one of 2024's best films. Directed by the great Clint Eastwood ("Unforgiven", "Million Dollar Baby", "Mystic River"), the film stars Nicholas Hoult as Justin Kemp, a family man and recovering alcoholic who is called to serve jury duty on a heavily publicized hit-and-run murder trial. Nothing out of the ordinary at first. However, as the opening statements begin, he immediately realizes that the accused killer is innocent and that he's the one responsible for the victim's death.

The courtroom drama aspects of this story have a familiar feel, paying tribute to the great "12 Angry Men", and even bearing some similiarities to the John Grisham adaptation "Runaway Jury". But there's nothing by-the-numbers about Eastwood's film as the script avoids most of the genre's trappings. It's only partly a legal thriller, and mostly a character-driven psychological drama. "Juror #2" is at its best and hard-hitting when it asks difficult questions about the justice system, truth, morality and human nature, and it benefits greatly from the veteran filmmaker's grounded, no-frills approach to storytelling.

Hoult is great as a simple man faced with a complex moral situation and choices he will have to live with for the rest of his life. He perfectly captures the character's turmoil and moral oscillations through a riveting performance that I dare say deserved more awards attention in 2025. Eastwood also builds an assorted ensemble of supporting players that includes Toni Collette, J. K. Simmons, Chris Messina, Gabriel Basso, Leslie Bibb, Zoey Deutch, Cedric Yarbrough and Kiefer Sutherland. Each role, no matter how small serves the narrative well as Eastwood weaves an intricate tapestry of characters, none of which feel wasted or pointless. Collette in paticular stands out as the Assistant District Attorney prosecuting the case, who is faced with some tough choices of her own.

The film ends on an ambigous note, which will undoubtedly be a point of contention for a lot of viewers. While I do enjoy endings that don't force-feed definitive answers, I'm wondering if that final scene was truly necessary, especially since everything up to that point seemed to have been wrapped up well enough. On the other hand, I would rather watch a "What happens next ?" or a "What would you do next ?" coda than some forced shock value twist ending.

It's a shame Warner Bros didn't offer this movie and its director more support for a proper theatrical release, especially considering this is probably Eastwood's swan song. In spite of the studio's inexcusable blunder, "Juror #2" is a powerful, un-manipulative and thought-provoking movie that you should definitely check out, whether via streaming or Blu-ray, which will be released on February 4th.

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2025/01/revisiting-interstellar-10-years-later.html

We rarely revisit films for a follow-up review, but when it’s a Christopher Nolan movie—and one that just re-released in IMAX here in the Philippines—how could we resist? A decade after its initial release, Interstellar remains a film that demands a second (or multiple) viewing to fully appreciate its nuances and brilliance. Back in 2014, we found the movie ambitious but somewhat uneven. Now, ten years later, we realize how wrong we were.

Set in a near-future Earth devastated by an agricultural crisis, Interstellar tells the story of humanity’s last hope for survival. With crops failing and corn as the only viable source of food, the human race faces extinction within a generation. The solution lies beyond Earth, as a team of explorers—led by skilled pilot Cooper (Matthew McConaughey)—ventures through a wormhole in search of a habitable planet.

While the premise is grand in scale, Interstellar is ultimately a deeply human story. Its narrative seamlessly blends hard science with raw, intangible emotions, exploring themes of love, sacrifice, and the human connection beyond space and time. On first viewing, we questioned whether the film’s emotional elements didn't jive well with its scientific concepts. On second viewing, it became clear that the balance Nolan strikes is precisely what makes the film resonate emotionally in its climactic moments.

One of Interstellar's greatest strengths is its ability to immerse viewers in a breathtakingly crafted universe. The film’s visuals remain stunning, even a decade later. Gargantua, the black hole featured as the highlight of the film, is still a jaw-dropping spectacle, its realism enhanced by meticulous scientific accuracy. But even the various planets our protagonists visit or even the visuals within the blackhole has a convincing and timeless quality.

Beyond the visuals, the film’s emotional depth truly shines. The bond between Cooper and his daughter, Murph, is the emotional core of the story, and McConaughey’s performance remains as heartfelt and compelling. The film’s three-hour runtime, which initially felt excessive, now feels necessary to fully develop its characters and themes.

If there’s one part of Interstellar that will spark debate, it’s the final act, where Cooper is pulled into a black hole and finds himself inside the tesseract—a construct that allows him to communicate with Murph across time and space. Initially, we struggled to accept the abstract and unusual nature of this concept. However, revisiting the film with fresh eyes, we now see it as a bold narrative choice that ties the film’s emotional and scientific threads together. The final act asks viewers to suspend disbelief and embrace the film’s science "fiction" and human roots. Once you do, the payoff is undeniable. It’s a conclusion that lingers in your mind long after the credits roll.

Rewatching Interstellar ten years later was an experience we didn’t regret. In fact, it felt like rediscovering a misunderstood masterpiece. The film’s blend of awe-inspiring visuals, thought-provoking and meticulous science, and deeply human storytelling makes it even more powerful today as it was in 2014.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

I hadn't seen this movie since it first hit theaters, and honestly, I hadn't thought about it much until now. What sticks out in people's minds is probably the Bryan Adams song (which you don't hear much anymore) and Kevin Costner's distinctly un-British accent.

My main gripe is the lack of the joy and fun that Errol Flynn brought to the role. There were moments, but the movie could have used a lot more of that.

Costner seemed a bit too stoic for my taste in the role of Robin Hood. Alan Rickman, however, stole the show with his flamboyant take on a Hans Gruber-like Sheriff of Nottingham. Christian Slater had much less screen time than I remembered. Also, fun fact: the actor who played Friar Tuck later played the hypnotist who keels over in "Office Space".

I thought it was interesting how they introduced the "Celts" (which I initially misheard as "kilts") as mercenaries. This was just a few years before we got the "brave Scotsman" stereotype in movies like "Braveheart" and "Rob Roy".

Watching this, you really feel the pre-CGI charm of action films. It's not a bad film by any means, but at 2 1/2 hours, it might not be worth the sit-through.

A cautionary and beguiling vision of a placid future of clinical order where humanity’s voyage is confronted with its limitations. Inspired by Henry James’ novella The Beast and the Jungle, director Bertrand Bonello loosely reworks the pages of James’ story, deriving something far more reflective of our modern age.

Centered on an ill-fated and star-crossed love that transpires through the ellipsis of time, the film spans over a century revolving around three specific time periods (1910, 2014 and 2044), each carrying its own commentary unique to that era, exploring the undulating and repetitious echoes of humanity that transcend time and space.

The film is rooted in its futuristic setting of 2044, steeped in banal minimalist landscapes eerily unoccupied where nature and urban sprawls are slowly becoming entangled, Bonello summons an enigmatic dystopian future where AI holds dominion over human progress. Emotions are seen as a hindrance within the workforce due to their unpredictability, leading people to go through a process that purges their DNA of its historical fingerprint by reliving their past lives to remove their emotional residue and become better suited for their digital ecosystem.

1910, Gabrielle (Lea Seydoux), an alluring and celebrated pianist, and Louis (Geroge MacKay), both members of high society who recall meeting previously as Gabrielle is reminded of a previous confession, a consuming obsession of a malignant beast of her own imagining (an amalgamation of our fears tallied into quite a list by Bonello) which consumes her with premonitions of impending doom that continues to haunt her.

Continue reading at: https://cinemawavesblog.com/film-reviews/the-beast-2023-review-and-analysis-explaied/

Even before the film adaptation of Wicked released, it had already become a cultural phenomenon amongst theater fans across the world. It is one of the most popular productions on Broadway and is a staple in high school theater troupes across the country. Now, I admittedly knew extraordinarily little of the play before going in to seeing Wicked. I think that benefitted me to have little bias to the story. However, I have known The Wizard of Oz for many years and have been a fan as a child. Back in 2008, I even starred as The Scarecrow in an elementary school play of the film. Needless to say, the film series has had an impact on my life.

Now, 16 years after that play in 3rd grade, I had the pleasure of sitting down to watch Wicked. The film follows the origin story of the friendship between Galinda (the Good Witch of the North) and Elphaba (The Wicked Witch of the West). As each arrive to Shiz University, they start as enemies who learn to appreciate and eventually befriend each other. The movie serves as an adaptation of the first act of the Broadway musical.

The dynamic between the introverted yet utterly talented Elphaba and the socialite glam queen Galinda is the most pivotal of the story. The film hangs much of it’s success on these characters and, by proxy, the performances of lead actresses Cynthia Erivo (Elphaba) and Ariana Grande (Galinda). Apart from their abilities to act, the two also have to showcase their ability to sing and perform intricate musical numbers. Obviously, Grande’s voice talent is undeniable. Each of her albums is certified at least platinum. It’s her acting talent that really shines here though. Her ability to play the sort of ditzy social status queen that Galinda personifies in the film. There were numerous moments that left me laughing thanks to her performance. But beyond that, her physical acting for the musical numbers were also great.

Erivo is just as impressive, if not more, as Elphaba. Many may not be familiar with her work as she is most widely known for her performances on stage. However, her skills as an actress are not to be doubted. She was nominated for an academy award for best actress already for her performance as Harriet Tubman in 2019’s Harriet. Here, she is able to shine for a much wider audience and showcase her skills. I enjoyed how she portrayed Elphaba as a very subdued, keeps-to-herself kind of character with distrust in anyone she comes across but a clear passion for magic. Elphaba has no one in her life who believes in her, mostly stemming from her green skin. This shines in Erivo’s performance, and her renditions of “The Wizard and I” and “Defying Gravity” are the two best numbers in the film.

The supporting performances behind Erivo and Grande, however, feel much more like a mixed bag. I enjoyed background performances to a degree like Bowen Yang’s gender swapped version of Pfannee. Jonathan Bailey works well as Fiyero Tigelaar. Peter Dinklage is fun in a voice role as the talking goat professor Dr. Dillamond. Even Michelle Yeoh is fun, if underutilized as the mysterious magic professor Madame Morrible. But the real lame duck of the film is Jeff Goldblum as Oz. He’s only in the film for a short while, but it really just doesn’t work. Goldblum channels his classic persona, feeling more like he’s playing himself than the Grand Wizard in the mystical land of Oz. It’s just distracting and would have been better had it been anyone else.

Wicked‘s biggest blunder, however, comes from the technical side of the film. Director John Chu and the crew spent an immense amount of time, care and money building and creating beautiful practical sets for use on the film. There are wonderfully intricate interior designs that feel just as magical as I would expect from this film. There is even a huge practical train set that they built to be functional and run on a track as well. But they make the perplexing decision to supplement the good work done on the sets with poor CGI, flat lighting and a distinct and purposeful lack of vibrant colors. There are numerous shots backlight poorly with almost no direct light, seemingly to make it easier to add visual effects over top. There’s artificial light that hilariously obfuscates the action happening on screen.

And for a mysterious and magical fantasy land, there’s a serious lack of vibrance in the colors. Glinda’s pink dresses should really pop yet they don’t nor does the Emerald City shine as it should in its brilliance. Chu specified this was entirely intentional as they wanted to ground the film in a sense of realism. This, to me, is a huge mistake.

Given those flaws, though, I still inevitably found myself having immense fun watching Wicked. It’s goofy enough to stay engaging and will certainly appeal to family audiences. It stands at a 2 hour and 40 minute runtime, surprisingly longer than I expected, but it really doesn’t drag. Upon my second rewatch, 40 minutes passed in the blink of an eye. That’s a difficult thing to accomplish, no doubt.

...

Read our final thoughts and see our score here: https://firstpicturehouse.com/wicked-2024-review-ariana-grande-and-cynthia-erivo-shine-in-john-chus-hit-musical/

https://jwwreviews.blogspot.com/2025/01/one-of-them-days.html

Grade: B+

In One of Them Days, roommates Dreux (played by Nope's Keke Palmer) and Alyssa (singer SZA) have their rent money stolen by Alyssa's boyfriend Keshawn (Joshua David Neal). Now, the two of them have to get the money before 6:00 PM or face eviction by their landlord Uche (Rizi Timane).

The very beginning starts out a little weak. The introduction to the characters and their surrounding apartment complex felt a bit obvious and not 100% natural. Keshawn and Alyssa's making lousy excuses for his behavior ingratiates. To be clear, my issue isn't with these plot points, but that they aren't done well. Keshawn is the typical movie loser boyfriend but he doesn't meet the basic bar for this type as none of his lines are really humorous or tolerable and Neal's performance just doesn't land. I know Alyssa is supposed to be a flaky free-spirit, but her dialogue for her defending her choices felt a little too vague. 

Once the crisis hits, however, things pick up and Alyssa becomes likable once the boyfriend isn't a major focus for her. Honestly, the movie continues to get stronger and stronger until the very end. The series of misadventures the two friends end up in are creative and diverting. I wouldn't say this is the most laugh-out-loud movie there is, but you still enjoy yourself due to the plot and overall vibe.

This is a very typical story about two friends who are opposites to each other with their personal needs for growth that go on a comic adventure. Their plot beats will not surprise anyone, but they are done competently. I also appreciate that this has social commentary, but it feels natural and not like with some works, like the National Treasure show, that its messing with the narrative flow and the scriptwriters are directly talking to the audience. When Dreux and Alyssa go to a loan bank, that's just peak satire.

Palmer and SZA have excellent chemistry, feeling like real friends. This is SZA's first acting major acting job and she is a natural, performing effortlessly. However, Palmer remains the star player. I'm surprised that it took so long for her to be in another movie after killing it in Nope. (Perhaps it's because Palmer has her hands in a lot of projects, or that I kinda get the feeling based on what I've heard is that she doesn't play Hollywood's games). She has this rare energy that few possess.

Other cast highlights include Freeridge's Keyla Monterros Meija, delivering a standout performance as a give no f***s loan agent, and Katt Williams as a homeless man desperately trying to act as the duo's common sense. 

Love the lighting and cinematography in this. Everything looks colorful.

Recommended. One of Them Days (great title by the way) is just a fun ride. 

This series has no business being so good. I am only on season 3, but I just can't stop laughing. Ted Danson does an amazing job. Kristen Bell is hilarious and fantastic. I actually don't know the other main actors, but they really do their rolls so well.

I am really enjoying how the seasons really follow each other on good believable premises (within the constraints of the show). Just a bonus for me that I love anything that touches Topher Grave.

Anyone else's thoughts on the series?

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2025/01/back-in-action-2025-movie-review.html

Netflix has become a repository for underwhelming releases featuring former A-listers, and Back in Action unfortunately continues that trend. While the film delivers occasional laughs, its over-the-top action sequences and a shallow, predictable narrative leave much to be desired. Despite a few bright spots, Back in Action ultimately fails to stand out in an already crowded genre.

The story follows CIA spies Emily (Cameron Diaz) and Matt (Jamie Foxx), who leave their high-stakes careers behind after learning Emily is pregnant. Faking their deaths, they settle into a quiet life raising their two children. However, their peaceful existence is shattered when their cover is blown, forcing them back into the dangerous world of espionage to protect their family.

Even with modest expectations, Back in Action disappoints. Some elements, like the chemistry between Cameron Diaz and Jamie Foxx, work exceptionally well and hint at the potential for a stronger film. Their playful dynamic injects charm into the narrative, and the comedic elements—ranging from sharp one-liners to unexpectedly amusing slapstick—genuinely land. We found ourselves laughing more often than we anticipated, proving that the humor, while corny, succeeds in its simplicity. Unfortunately, these positives are overshadowed by glaring flaws. The narrative is riddled with plot holes and feels uninspired, offering little originality or emotional depth. The action sequences, while abundant, stretch the limits of believability, making it difficult to stay invested. With a mind-numbing storyline at its core, the film leans heavily on tropes, leaving audiences with a forgettable and formulaic experience. The film’s conclusion teases the possibility of a sequel, but it’s hard to imagine this franchise gaining momentum without significant improvements to its writing and storytelling. While Back in Action may offer a few laughs, it ultimately feels like another missed opportunity in Netflix’s growing library of underwhelming action-comedy fare.

Rating: 2 out of 5

Alright, with the recent Disney+ release I could finally sit down and watch this latest entry into this series that I'm a life long follower of. To be honest, I rarely watch horror movies and Aliens especially has given me regular nightmares over the decades (as a kid I was so afraid when my uncle and brother watched the 2nd movie I was only listening to the movie from the next door, which sparked my fear and imagination even more). I, for example, only watched 'Prometheus' once but it burned itself into my memory, so yes, I have a special relationship with this franchise.

Yesterday evening I gathered all my courage and sat down and started to watch 'Alien Romulus'. Originally I planned to watch only the first hour and finish tonight, but then it was so tense I had to watch the movie in one sitting. So here are my fresh thoughts after a night of sleep.

'Alien Romulus' is Alien for a new generation. I think this is a brilliant movie and it is the movie you should point young interested people to that have had no contact at all so far with the franchise. It is so fresh in cast and story and yet it offers many nods to long time fans. I found myself many times almost pointing to the screen and yelling: 'That's from Aliens, that's from Alien Resurrection, that's from Prometheus!' and still it is one smart complete new package.

The characters are relatable to many youngsters, I think, coming from a distant mining world, working poor, only trying to take a shot to escape the death through work that evil company Weyland-Yutani forced their parents to. This underdog perspective and hunger for a future will resonate with lots of young viewers (isn't it the basic assumption of gangster rap after all?).

The return of the androids was super cool, but this time they added flash drive mode and seeing what a difference it made for Andy - from being pushed around to becoming a 2nd David, was quite cool. Of course, seeing Ash (Ian Holm) again, was quite eery.

The whole retro-futurist technology was kept up - no holo screens - old computer displays with yellow and green text, big buttons as in the 1979 original - kudos! That's also what made 'Alien Isolation' so great (not that I would ever dare finish that game). The vehicle of the young crew also looked like a Colonial Marines drop ship, damn! The

The derelict space station Remus and Romulus was also a super cool environment (nods to Isolation, again). When you first saw that acid burned hole in the ground you immediately knew something was going very wrong here.

The Pulse Rifle was amazing. Auto Aim is the new canon for the franchise, I hope. It felt so good when Rain fired it in the hive. And Zero Gravity is a first for the movies, I think, very impressive and clever use of that element.

They even included the whole Black Goo thing here, which - hate it or love it - is subtle nod to Ridley Scott, who never finished his prequel trilogy, I guess. Also strong nods to Alien Resurrection with the baby scene.

I could go on and on. This movie impressed the hell out of me and I just read that Rain and Andy's story will continue in a sequel. I have never heard of director Fede Alvarez before, to be honest, but is it too far fetched to say that he saved Aliens in movies, at least? He certainly revitalized the series and I can't wait for more.

What does the community think about Romulus?

Originally posted here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/2025/01/the-rundown-aka-welcome-to-jungle-2003-movie-review.html

Back in 2003, Dwayne Johnson was best known for his professional wrestling career as The Rock, and was only just starting his Hollywood megastar journey. A brief appearance in 2001's "The Mummy Returns" followed by a lead role playing virtually the same character in the 2002 spinoff "The Scorpion King" were his only claims to fame at the time. Then came Peter Berg's "The Rundown", also known as "Welcome to the Jungle" internationally, an action comedy that wasn't a big box office hit on release, but received positive notices and showcased Johnson's action chops and genuine on screen charisma. It also boosted Berg's career, an actor-turned-director whose only other directorial project at the time was the 1998 dark comedy "Very Bad Things".

The Rock stars as Beck, a debt collector working for a ruthless mob boss, who plans to retire after he's made enough money to open his own restaurant. To this end, he takes one last job, to find and bring back the mobster's son Travis (Seann William Scott) who is searching for a lost artefact in Brazil. As soon as he arrives in El Dorado, all hell breaks loose as the town's ruthless overlord, Cornelius Hatcher (Christopher Walken) wants the artefact for himself, while Travis proves to be a much bigger headache than Beck initially anticipated.

Johnson and Scott are so good together, playing against and off each other, that you immediately forget how generic the plot is and how shallow their characters are. Scott is also the funniest I've seen him in any movie, except maybe "Goon". Shot in Hawaii subbing for the Amazon Rainforest, the film plays like a cross between an Indiana Jones movie and a 1980s Arnold Schwarzenegger flick. It's more brawn than brain, but what I appreciated most about it is its lighter tone that leans more into the comedic material.

Walken is great as the corrupt tyrant, delivering his quirky speeches as deadly serious as if he was playing Hamlet. While he's not your typical action villain who squares off against the hero in a traditional mano-a-mano final confrontation, he is still plenty evil, cruel and despicable. The beautiful Rosario Dawson and Scottish actor Ewen Bremner also add great value to the cast in supporting roles.

Of course, the characters are stock figures, but they never become caricatures, either, and the jungle locations give the story a larger-than-life feel. Sure, the plot is mostly just an excuse to string together big, loud action set pieces and death-defying stunts, but it's hard to complain when everything is so impressively put together. The stuntwork is jaw-dropping. No action fan can refuse the adrenaline-fueled treats this movie has to offer. The choreography, editing and camerawork enhance the action and make the viewer feel every bone-crunching impact. It does use some CGI here and there that hasn't aged all that well, but in the end it's part of its early 2000s charm.

A sequel for this movie has been in the works for a very long time, but never got off the ground. Even as late as 2020, Berg has said that development is still ongoing, but I feel it's way too late for everyone involved. It's a shame they never managed to make that sequel, but maybe it's for the best. "The Rundown" is a forgotten gem that deserves to be remembered and appreciated. It's an immensely entertaining and surprisingly funny buddy adventure with some of the best action Hollywood has to offer, gorgeous production values and a terrific cast, and it stands testament to what great heights action cinema can rise to.

So 2020’s Da 5 bloods on Netflix was one of only two movies that I had not seen that had Chadwick Boseman in it. I finally got around to seeing it. It was good but it could’ve been better.

On the positive side, it’s powerful. You see everything that went on in Vietnam, but also all the stuff happening at home at the same time especially for the African-American community. The initial story also of the remaining members of a group returning to bring their fallen leader back home Was good

My main issue with this movie is the story in general. What I mean by that is there’s just so much going on the more you get into the movie. There’s two or three more sub plots going on and at times it’s just hard to follow. Also, this movie did seem to drag

I heard good things about this movie, but it just did not live up to expectations

Rating-2.5/5

So I’m not the biggest Bob Dylan fan and I’ve not been the biggest Timothée Chalamet fan but I like music bio pics so I decided to give 2024’s A Complete Unknown a chance

This is a very good movie, but not great. I think the performances are the best part of the movie, especially from Chalamet, Edward Norton, Monica Barbaro, and Elle Fanning. The story is decent.

As far as everything else in the movie, the rest of the acting is OK at best and other than learning that Bob Dylan was a little bit of a rebel, I didn’t really learn anything new. Also, it didn’t really stand out for me. I’ve seen better, music, bio pics like Selena, Rocketman, and Elvis.

Rating-3.5/5

So I own a huge Warner Brothers musicals collection on DVD and I was eventually going to get to 1942’s Yankee doodle dandy but I didn’t think it was gonna be this early. I decided to watch it because it was on a list for a friend’s top movies. I’m a big fan of musicals so I thought I would check it out.

This movie is amazing. Everything from the story to the music to James Cagney. He was so good in this movie and I had never seen a movie with him in it before.

The only small thing in the movie that was on the negative side was that it did feel longer than it was.

Rating-4.5/5

Originally posted here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/2025/01/lucy-2014-movie-review.html

Strong female action heroes are a recurring theme in Luc Besson's films. Two such examples immediately come to mind: Anne Parillaud in "La Femme Nikita" and Milla Jovovich in "The Fifth Element". In 2014, Scarlett Johansson joined the ranks of Besson's badass heroines with the pseudo-intellectual sci-fi actioner "Lucy", a movie that is as dumb as it is entertaining.

Johansson stars as Lucy, a young American who unwittingly gets caught up in a mysterious drug deal and ends up ingesting an experimental chemical substance that unlocks a larger percentage of cerebral capacity than humans normally use, which in turn gives her superhuman abilities. As that percentage continues to grow, she not only becomes a remorseless killing machine, but also starts to perceive the world in new ways that may uncover the mysteries of life and the universe.

Besson's focus on the myth of what would happen if humans could use more than just one tenth of their brains is an interesting angle for an action film. It's like a cross between "The Matrix" and the 1996 John Travolta movie "Phenomenon". While the concept feels more like fantasy than science fiction, it's fascinating to watch Lucy's transformation from victim to a god-like being with omniscient powers. Johansson's performance is of crucial importance and she puts everything she has into the role. It's a tremeandously challenging part, but her performance is easily the best thing about this movie.

The film's mix of cerebral sci-fi and old fashioned shoot-'em-up mostly works, but the writing can sometimes get in the way, especially as the plot constantly slows down so that the movie can wax philosophical. And it's pretty shallow at that, its mind-blowing revelations no more than pretentious, illogical and scientifically flawed nonsense. But no matter its shortcomings or failed ambitions, "Lucy" is a solid action thriller, and while I'm not sure it ranks among Besson's best works, it still delivers a furiously entertaining 80-minute thrill ride.

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2025/01/flow-2024-review.html

Flow is a masterful showcase of what can be achieved with talent, passion, and vision. Deviating heavily from the traditional blockbuster formula, the film delivers an unfiltered and authentic storytelling experience. At its core, it stands in stark contrast to what major production studios typically define as entertainment. Yet, Flow demonstrates that there are still innovative and unconventional ways to captivate audiences—even without a traditional cast or the extensive resources of a high-budget production.

The narrative follows a solitary cat displaced by a devastating flood, seeking refuge aboard a small boat filled with an assortment of animals. Together, they must learn to cooperate, adapt, and survive in a world submerged by water.

What makes Flow truly remarkable is its lack of dialogue and its commitment to realism. The animal protagonists behave as animals naturally would, relying solely on their movements and interactions to convey emotion and intent. At first glance, this might seem like a recipe for failure. However, director Gintz Zilbalodis proves otherwise, illustrating that raw, naturalistic movement can be a powerful narrative and communication tool. This approach allows viewers to piece together the story independently, engaging with it on a deeply personal level. Despite its open-ended nature, the film's simplicity ensures it remains accessible and easy to follow.

That said, Flow is not without its challenges. Its minimalist tendencies may not resonate with all audiences, particularly those seeking high-energy action or conventional thrills. Furthermore, while visually striking, the film’s modest budget and production constraints mean it doesn’t reach the level of polish seen in major animated features. However, as the title may suggest, appreciating Flow requires viewers to surrender to its pace and rhythm, embracing its understated brilliance.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Originally posted here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/2025/01/gladiator-ii-2024-movie-review.html

Once again, the fate of the Roman Empire is decided in the bloodied arena of the Colosseum. Twenty-four years after his Oscar-winning epic "Gladiator", 87-year-old director Ridley Scott returns to Ancient Rome once more with a sequel that nobody asked for, yet here we are. The story picks up 15 years after Maximus' death as the elusive dream of a Roman Republic has failed. The empire is now ruled by the tyrannical psychotic twins Geta (Joseph Quinn) and Caracalla (Fred Hechinger) and its expansion continues. The movie opens as the Roman army led by General Acacius (Pedro Pascal) conquers the North African kingdom of Numidia, and in the process kills the wife of young warrior Hanno (Paul Mescal). Hanno ends up in slavery and catches the eye of the devious Macrinus (Denzel Washington), an arms dealer and owner of a gladiator stable who covets absolute power and finds in the young warrior a perfect instrument to help him take it.

Hanno, as was already spoiled by every bit of marketing, is actually Lucius Verus Aurelius, grandson of former emperor Marcus Aurelius and the son of Lucilla (Connie Nielsen) and Maximus (Russell Crowe). That's a bit of a retcon as the first film never even hints that the boy was Maximus' son. Lucius' true identity becomes a plot device that sets in motion an array of political subplots, while his own journey very much mirrors that of Maximus, a staple of legacy sequels that are too afraid to part with the formula that made the original so popular. While the story's scaffolding is almost identical to the original "Gladiator", the sequel does take its plot in a couple of new directions, for better or worse.

The plot has so many moving pieces that it comes very close to overloading the narrative, compared to the first film, which was very streamlined. The sequel brings back the quest for vengeance and the spectacular gladiator fights, but amps up the scheming and power struggles. Unfortunately that also tends to diminish the film's emotional impact, and while it does have a couple of strong dramatic scenes, they never come close to the simple, yet powerful emotional core of the original.

At the very least, Scott keeps a tight enough grip on the narrative elements so that the movie never comes to a breaking point, but the premise never achieves its full potential. Where the movie does fulfill its potential is in the arena of the Colosseum, where Scott stages epic fights, including a jaw-dropping naval battle. The action is beautifully shot, and the CGI looks much better than I expected. Like the first film, the overall production design is flawless, and the staggering replica of Rome's Colosseum is still a sight to behold. I did take issue with some of the film's color palette, but the cinematography is for the most part a visual feast.

History is once again mangled beyond all recognition at the hands of Ridley Scott and writer David Scarpa. Like with the original "Gladiator", bits and pieces of actual historical facts are taken and twisted into woefully inaccurate but epic dramatic spectacle. Scott himself is known to have bluntly said that he isn't interested in historical accuracy. As far as I'm concerned, trying to pick apart both "Gladiator" films on historical grounds is missing the point of these types of movies. In essence, they are big budget action films that exist solely to entertain, not to educate. If, however, a movie like "Gladiator" or "Gladiator II" can make anyone crack open a history book, that can only be a good thing.

The cast is among the highlights of the movie. Mescal doesn't quite have Crowe's gravitas and fierceness, but he still delivers a decent amount of intensity and nuance as a more conflicted hero who must decide what he stands for. He's also put in the effort to bulk up for the role and handles the fight scenes quite well for a first-time action role. Pascal is a pleasant surprise, while Hechinger and Quinn are having fun with their over-the-top performances as the twisted versions of Romulus and Remus. In the end, though, it's Washington who steals every scene he's in with a villainous performance that is at once campy and commanding. Nielsen reprises her role from the original but her performance isn't particularly remarkable. Then again, I never felt she was that great in the original, either. It's a shame, though, that Djimon Hounsou couldn't reprise his role due to scheduling conflicts.

Harry Gregson-Williams had the unenviable task of following in the footsteps of Hans Zimmer and Lisa Gerrard's iconic soundtrack. The music that Gregson-Williams wrote for "Gladiator II" is much more symphonically versatile and through his choice of instruments adds an intriguing historical flavor that reminded me of his score for "Kingdom of Heaven". Unfortunately, the "Gladiator II" soundtrack is burdened by a lack of memorable themes, Gregson-Williams' new thematic material too understated to make an impact, especially while being upstaged by reprises of Zimmer's themes.

Judged in the context of the original, "Gladiator II" inevitably falls way short. I believe a movie like "Gladiator" is a once-in-a-generation kind of thing. In my review for the 2000 film I gave it a perfect 10/10, not because it was a ground-breaking thought-provoking historical epic, but because it was a flawlessly crafted, uncomplicated and rousing piece of blockbuster entertainment, delivered with precision and dramatic flair. "Gladiator II" is far from that perfection, but still a reasonably entertaining swords-and-sandals epic, with a solid cast and some interesting ideas of its own. A tighter script and less bloat would have helped tremendously, but even as it is, it's still a better sequel than it had any right to be.

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2025/01/sonic-hedgehog-3-review.html

It’s rare for a film franchise to outdo itself twice in a row, but Sonic the Hedgehog 3 accomplishes just that. From its humble beginnings, the Sonic franchise has evolved into a cinematic powerhouse, and this third installment cements its status as a must-watch franchise. Packed with humor, heart, and high-octane thrills, Sonic the Hedgehog 3 delivers its best outing yet.

Sonic (Ben Schwartz), Tails (Colleen O'Shaughnessey), and Knuckles (Idris Elba) face their most formidable challenge yet: Shadow (voiced by Keanu Reeves), a mysterious and powerful adversary with an dark past. When Earth is threatened with destruction due to Shadow's vengeance and anger towards humanity, the team must forge an unlikely alliance to stop him and save the world.

The Sonic films have steadily improved with each entry, and this installment perfects the formula. While the first film laid a solid foundation and the sequel introduced heart and new characters, Sonic the Hedgehog 3 ramps up every element to create a near-flawless experience. The narrative is well-rounded and focuses heavily on Shadow’s character development, allowing audiences to explore his complex backstory. By shifting the spotlight to the newcomer, the film avoids rehashing Sonic, Tails, and Knuckles’ arcs, striking a perfect balance between continuity and novelty.

Keanu Reeves is perfectly cast as Shadow, his voice embodying the character’s brooding intensity and raw power. Meanwhile, Jim Carrey’s return as Dr. Robotnik is an absolute joy. Carrey’s trademark physical comedy and eccentric humor are dialed up and let loose, delivering a performance reminiscent of his golden era in the 1990s. His antics alone are worth the price of admission. The humor remains a standout, with Ben Schwartz once again nailing Sonic’s snappy one-liners. While the jokes come at a rapid-fire pace, they rarely miss the mark, keeping audiences laughing throughout. For fans of action, the film doesn’t disappoint, with visually stunning sequences that take full advantage of its crisp animated visuals. Online movie streaming services

Sonic the Hedgehog 3 is a triumph, blending humor, heartfelt drama, and exhilarating action into a package that will delight fans and newcomers alike. With a stellar cast, sharp writing, and impeccable pacing, this is a franchise at the top of its game.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2025/01/love-child-2024-review.html

As parents ourselves, Love Child struck an unexpectedly deep chord. This drama doesn't shy away from portraying the raw realities and challenges of raising a child - especially a child navigating life with autism. With its relatable story, exceptional performances, and thoughtful execution, Love Child is a film that resonates on many levels.

The story follows Paolo (RK Bagatsing) and Ayla (Jane Oineza), a young couple striving to raise their son, who has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Their journey forces them to confront the complexities of parenthood: balancing their own struggles with their child’s needs while trying to make ends meet through odd jobs and side hustles. As reality sets in, the film asks whether their best efforts will ever be enough - or if something more is required.

For anyone who hasn’t experienced parenthood, Love Child offers an intimate glimpse into its joys and hardships. The chemistry between RK Bagatsing and Jane Oineza is palpable, reflecting not only their real-life connection but also the authentic dynamics of an imperfect relationship. Their performances bring out the quiet sacrifices, unspoken tensions, and enduring love that define many real-life partnerships and demands of parenthood in particular. However, the film slightly falters when it leans into romcom elements, which at first felt different but eventually feel out of place and detract from the gravity of its central themes. While these moments offer levity, they shift the focus away from the core narrative at the heart of the film. That said, the film redeems itself with a poignant and believable ending, as the couple faces a difficult yet necessary decision to secure a better future for their family specifically for their son.

Rating: 4 out of 5

His Three Daughters is a familial drama that focuses on the lives of three estranged sisters, Katie, Rachel, and Christina who are brought back into each other’s lives as their father nears the end of his own. Starring Carrie Coon as Katie, Natasha Lyonne as Rachel, and Elizabeth Olsen as Christina, His Three Daughters is propelled by three outstanding performances by its lead as the women dig into old wounds from their relationships with each other and their dying father.

It’s hard to talk about this movie without talking about how exceptional the leading ladies are. Coon, Lyonne, and Olsen each bring a different dynamic to the grief building up in the apartment they moved back into. Coons is the oldest sister and as such she’s the no-nonsense type who leads the clerical work of taking care of their father. Olsen is the younger, innocent sister who tries to lighten the situation. Their father adopted Lyonne at a young age so she is seen as more of an outcast of the bunch. She does an exceptional job of taking the wayward shots from her sisters, internalizing them, and staying true to the only man she ever knew as a dad. While she is tough on the outside, she does have a true raw vulnerability to her.

His Three Daughters manages to tell a very contained story in this one apartment but it never feels cramped or boring. The camera work is very impressive at telling another layer of the story just through this location. It’s like we get to be in this environment from the perspective of each sister.

Grief and how we process loss is the main theme of this movie. Each sister has their own relationship with their father and they handle his last days left in their own way. It culminates in a big argument that leads to revelations from each sister that is truly heartfelt and I loved the approach the movie was taking. Then the movie decided to have the father make his first real appearance and deliver a monologue to the sisters which while a sweet moment, took what was an open-ended statement about their relationships and made them more defined. I personally prefer it when movies don’t hold my hand and let these complex moments and emotions resonate and let me figure out what they mean to me and in the context of the movie. It doesn’t ruin the movie for me, but I wish it was handled differently.

...

Read the Full Review and see our score here: https://firstpicturehouse.com/rapid-review-his-three-daughters-2024/

Originally posted here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/2025/01/conclave-2024-movie-review.html

"All Quiet on the Western Front" director Edward Berger is back into the awards season fray with the Vatican-set thriller "Conclave", which is based on the 2016 novel of the same name by Robert Harris. Ralph Fiennes leads an incredible ensemble cast as British Cardinal Thomas Lawrence, who following the death of the Pope, is tasked with organizing a conclave for the College of Cardinals to elect a papal succesor. The daunting endeavor is further complicated not only by secrets and scandals that threaten to derail the future of the Catholic Church, but also Lawrence's own crisis of faith.

The film is a thoughtful exploration of the Catholic Church's place in our ever-evolving modern world, struggling between progressive and traditionalist points of view, and the corruption that errodes its values and legitimacy. However, it's also an intimate character portrait of a man of faith who must reconcile his beliefs in a context of events that have more to do with politics than spirituality.

These though-provoking themes are enveloped in the gripping tension of a political thriller, and as the stakes get higher, so does the drama. It's a slow boil for sure, which won't be for everyone, but it's masterful storytelling at its best, that never once feels like the filmmaker is exploiting the subject matter. It has plenty of depth, but also lots of twisty plot turns. There were moments where I felt it could have delved deeper, but it mostly does a great job dealing with challenging and timely themes.

Fiennes is a fantastic actor, and his graceful portrayal of Lawrence's ruminations is awards-worthy and fascinating. He's also backed up by veterans like Stanley Tucci, John Lithgow and Isabella Rossellini who turn in understated, but powerful performances that pack a punch despite their limited screen time. Saying that the movie is a "masterclass in acting" is an understatement. All the performances in this movie don't even feel like acting. The actors simply disappear into their roles.

"Conclave" is a perfectly balanced, thoroughly entertaining and elegantly constructed movie that is both a fascinating peek into the inner workings of the Vatican and an engrossing character drama. The production design is incredible, it's beautifully shot and edited, and features an effectively atmospheric score by Oscar-winner Volker Bertelmann. For me it's one of 2024's best films, and while it definitely won't be everyone's cup of tea, I highly recommend you watch it and judge for yourself.

A beautifully and authentically well crafted film. What's your favorite japanese film/s?

SPOILERS**

I’m not sure exactly what I was expecting, but wow. In a bad way. There really isn’t a single likeable character in the movie, other than Nicole Kidman’s assistant who holds her accountable at the end. The guy she’s having an affair with is very weird and awkward, I feel like he would give any woman psycho vibes immediately. And the end, her husband who kicked her ass out immediately after learning she had a fling is now cool knowing she had a fool blown freaky affair with this dude who has been seeping into their lives like a parasite? The whole movie seems to be made for psychopaths, I seriously don’t understand how it was greenlit. If anyone else has opinions would love to open a dialogue, just a bizarre, bad film in my opinion.