FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/opinion-pieces/what-do-both-dont-worry-darling-and-crimes-of-the-future-have-in-common
"Personally, I believe that cinematic narratives with multiple plot points and questions related to the world itself are too often confused and envisioned as character studies driven by a single protagonist.
Both Olivia Wilde and David Cronenberg complete their movies when the main character fulfills the minimum requirements of their arc, consequently renouncing all other equally significant issues worthy of in-depth exploration. In the case of Don't Worry Darling, one finishes it with an underwhelming feeling from an unsurprising conclusion, while in Crimes of the Future, viewers are left with several questions and interesting, half-developed paths about such a mesmerizing futuristic world.
Neither film explores its own world-building satisfactorily."
Rating: B-

It is no surprise that _Don't Worry Darling_ has been marred with public controversies and poor critic reception, but is it really bad as the media would want you to believe? While I admit, there are plenty of issues in the story department, like completely abandoning certain plot details as they are introduced or leaving certain character plots half-baked to name a few, the other aspects of this film really make this an enjoyable viewing experience.
Olivia Wilde's direction is actually really well done here. I could tell that certain shots and elements were done with the specific intent to create a romanticized version of the 1950's while still giving glimpses of something sinister hidden underneath. Although it is a shame that these elements didn't lead to much in terms of a reveal at the end.
The acting is a mixed bag here. Florence Pugh and Chris Pine absolutely carry this film. Pugh carries such complex emotions and is able to show her internal struggles while putting on a pretty face for appearance sakes. It is captivating and the audience can completely be resonant with her, this connection makes her character easy to root for. Chris Pine was really sinister in this role. I have not seen him as a villain in many shows and he does a fantastic job. For whatever reason, his mannerisms really reminded me of James Spader in Avengers: Age of Ultron, and that is a complement. Pine was not giving much screen time or character development, but he does the most with what he has. Olivia Wildes was fine, do not really have any complaints really, wasn't great but wasn't bad. Harry Styles' performance is hard to pinpoint. While I don’t think he did bad, but when he is constantly sharing the screen with Pughe, he is overshadowed a lot and his deficiencies show much more.
Overall, I was disappointed with _Don't Worry Darling_ and the potential that was there to be such a special film. But it was still a good film that I had a fun time in.
**Score:** _69%_
**Verdict:** _Good_

I thought this was great.
I only knew of the off-screen drama about 'Don’t Worry Darling', thankfully I hadn't read or seen anything at all about the plot - which, obviously, helped my enjoyment. As such, I was extremely interested in the first chunk of this. It builds up nicely, revealing details here and there. The ending isn't as strong but I still dig it, don't get me wrong.
The cast are terrific, even if Florence Pugh completely wipes the floor with her co-stars... and I don't mean that negatively on them one bit, it's simply a case of Pugh giving an outstanding performance. This is only the third film of her's that I've seen... gotta watch more!
Away from Pugh, I was impressed by Harry Styles. He can act. I will say, though, that Shia LaBeouf would've been greater in the role though. Elsewhere, Olivia Wilde (also dir.), Chris Pine and Gemma Chan do good things.
Is it a perfect film? Not at all. Is it entertaining? Sure is. Each to their own, but I thoroughly enjoyed this 2022 release.

So imagine the scenario. A boozy lunch with with some screenwriters who had just seen "Vivarium" (2019) and began to recall "Stepford Wives" (2004) and the "Truman Show" (1998). We know, say the assembled talent - let's write a pointless hybrid of these stories, making sure to avoid the best bits of any of them then get two gorgeous people to take part. We'll end up minted! Well they may well have ended up making loads of cash, but what they have provided for us is an heavily stylised story that goes nowhere fast. To be fair, Florence Pugh tries quite hard as "Alice", the increasingly disturbed wife of "Jack" (Harry Styles). They live in an Utopian desert community where the men all head to work for "Frank" (Chris Pine) in the morning and the women do the standard middle class housework, shopping and networking things. All is idyllic until "Alice" notices that one of their neighbours "Margaret" (KiKi Layne) is convinced that something is amiss amidst their perfect lifestyle. When an inexplicable tragedy ensues, "Alice" starts to have nightmares and soon her marriage and his career prospects are in jeopardy. Pine isn't the least menacing as the duplicitous "Frank" and though the camera really does love Styles, he has little here to demonstrate whether he can actually act or can just fill a perfectly tailored suit as well as Daniel Craig. That's really the problem here. The film looks good, but the plot is completely undercooked. We are delivered of a partially formed plot that is derivative and, frankly, rather dull. The last few scenes with the guys in red reminded me of a television commercial for Vodaphone and at just over two hours long, I was just unengaged with it all. Styles' looks will take him far and working with the likes of Pugh and Pine will only help him, but unless his people work harder on the scripts and characterisations, then he will just end up Zac Efron-light. This is a film for television in due course, I'd say.

"David" (David Naughton) and his pal "Jack" (Griffin Dunne) are taking a walking tour of the UK when they decide to stop off at a pub. They are about as welcome as a dose of the clap and after a few minutes banter with the natives decide they are better off walking. The thing is, those inside know how dangerous it's about to be out there - and the boys soon find out. It's "David" who wakes up in hospital, replete with some mysterious scratch marks, nightmares and claiming that they were attacked by a brutal hound. Nobody really believes him, and anyway his attention is quickly diverted by nurse "Alex" (Jenny Agutter) whom he visits for dinner and never leaves. Luckily she works nights, else she might have discovered that her beau doesn't just stop at a bit of gentle biting. With corpses piling up around London, he is at a loss to know where he goes at night (waking up naked in the wolf enclosure at the zoo might be the final straw) but try as he might, he can't engage the authorities with his claims. Maybe only doctor "Hirsch" (John Woodvine) believes that something unusual is amiss - but can he help before "David" does himself or anyone else more damage! Increasingly more often naked as he goes along, Naughton joins in with the spirit of this enjoyable comedy horror with enthusiasm. I wonder what might happen now if a naked man in a bush even mentioned a boy's balloons!? It runs out of steam a little at the end, and Agutter's acting never really evolved much from the "Railway Children" 1970) but the visual effects work quite well especially when the full moon rises!

An 80s horror classic!
The storyline was well written, the special effects were amazing, and Jenny Agutter was so sexy!
Although the ending was a bit rushed - just like the Wolfman, the main character dies, and the film ends, just like that!
What's more messed up is they play an upbeat song during the end credits, right after we see David's lifeless body.
The ending is my one critique. The rest of the movie was pretty good.

"Beware the moon, lads."
Still frightening and funny 38 years later.
The transformation scene was absolutely incredible, but also really painful. You literally hear every bone crack in his body, and all his organs reshaping and shifting. No other werewolf movie has topped that scene and never will. The song Bad Moon Rising is the icing on the cake.
Rick Baker make-up work is masterful. He's the real beast here.

**The best horror film of the eighties**
This is a gem, it really is. Alternately amusing and horrific - John Landis plays our emotions like a fiddle here. He is pulling all the strings and we are uncertain as to which string he is going to pull next.
From the eerie Yorkshire countryside of the opening scenes through David's _awful_ nightmares in hospital to amusing zombie chit chat and finally the climactic slaughter in London - this film never lets up.
How many films will you find Kermit the frog sharing a scene with throat slicing, machine gun wielding mutants dressed as Nazis?
- Potential Kermode

Well guess what? It's Woody Allen as "Isaac" - a man facing a series of mid-life crises whilst trying to write a book. He's not the only one. Ex-wife turned lesbian "Jill" (Meryl Streep) is planning on writing her own kiss-and-tell (or more likely a punch-and-tell) whilst still getting her alimony and her attitude isn't gonna change when he starts dating a woman less than half of his age. She is the impressionable "Tracy" (Mariel Hemingway) who is enamoured of her perception of this older man but whom we can quickly establish is going to end up disappointed. That might be because he sees little future in a relationship with a schoolgirl, and so turns his attentions to the journalist "Mary" (Diane Keaton) who just happens to be dallying with his married best pal "Yale" (Michael Murphy). She's a bit aloof and rather full of herself, but he is still determined to pursue - regardless, or perhaps because of the collateral damage this may cause to the relationships. It's all set against the hustle and bustle of an island that has provided him with the basis for his book, but with his personal life something of a maelstrom, will he ever get it written? Will he find love? Essentially I found this to be a beautifully photographed self-indulgence exercise that exposes a selfish and rather flawed human being to an audience without really bothering to get us to care about him. indeed, possibly the only character here worth a nickel is the idealist "Tracy" who is clearly out of her emotional depth from the start. Hemingway really does encapsulate the vulnerabilities and the optimism of the role well but the rest of this is a rather cynical evaluation of a societal obsession with seeking but never actually wanting satisfaction. The accompanying music from George Gershwin brings a classic 1920s feel to the monochrome imagery and the film undoubtedly looks and sounds glorious when we are not being bombarded by a slew of dry verbiage that tries it's hand at entertaining us now and again, but just misses the mark all too often for me. Art imitating life or vice versa? I didn't really care.

**In the shadow of “Annie Hall”.**
I decided to watch this film last week, after the visit that Woody Allen himself made to my country, with his jazz band and an interesting lecture at the National Cinematheque for invitations only. Despite having seen several of the director's films and not even considering him bad, he always seemed overvalued to me. He won the Oscar for Best Director and was nominated for the award a few times, but after “Annie Hall” he seems to have made several films using the same premise and based, exclusively, on couples with problems.
After seeing “Annie Hall”, I found it difficult to watch this film without feeling that Allen was plagiarizing himself and using the same formula to try to achieve the same success. For the intended purpose, it was a success, and it is difficult to find a professional critic who would say that “Manhattan” is poor, a chewed-up copy of a good film that earned Woody Allen the golden statuette. But that's what I feel, and professional critics and Allen fans forgive me, if they can.
In the film, Allen almost seems to play himself, in a similar way to what we saw in “Annie Hall” and which also includes, as usual, unorthodox humor and an apparent pleasure in talking about sex. Diane Keaton does a very well done job and is, by far, the best actress here, but even that ends up not being a complete justification for seeing this film instead of others, much better, by the same director. The auxiliary actors don't help much: they want to appear and be part of the project, and that seems to be enough for them.
Technically, the film has some points of value: considering this director's musical ear, it doesn't surprise me that the soundtrack is one of the points where Allen wanted to leave a mark of personal taste. And since he is a born New Yorker, it is clear that the film is a labor of love in which we see the affection that Allen has for his homeland, which he is prevented from visiting due to legal issues. Manhattan was lovingly treated, appearing in all its mythical and fascinating splendor, and George Gershwin's music could not be better chosen and more pleasant. All the editing works very well, even if the film is a little slow. There's only one thing I don't understand: why did Allen decide to film in black and white and with so much grain? The question remains unanswered.

Having seen this four or five times now since I was a kid, I can definitively say this is the best Woody Allen introduction for newcomers. Visually it's his best work (for those who don't know, the cinematographer Gordon Willis did The Godfather Parts 1 & 2 earlier the same decade, so it's no surprise). Not as insightful or engrossing as Hannah or Misdemeanors, but the writing's up there. Mariel Hemingway's a crown jewel and tears me apart. If you're a newbie and can watch this before Annie Hall I highly recommend it. It's aged much better and is _the_ Woody Allen litmus test

At first glance this film comes off as an extremely predictable horror flick, so the twist was clever seeing as I didn’t expect it until moments before it occurred but at that point… the film really started to fall flat for me. It peaked way too early and once we get passed the peak it started to come to a lull. The issue was that the movie seemed to be creating conflict not out of circumstance but out of boredom. The purpose of the protagonists got lost quickly.
Overall the film was a big let down for me. Seeing as this is from the director of MARTYRS, a horror gore masterpiece, my hopes were high for this film so I was definitely disappointed. The most redeeming quality of this film is the jump scares! Those were executed perfectly.
Sidenote: the antagonist character seemed to be casted to be a transphobic jab seeing as everyone referred to this person who was dressed like a woman as a “fucking man”, in a devisive way. Kinda tasteless.

Ghostland looks good but spins its wheels a lot narratively, especially in the second half, when it collapses into a pile of cliches from which it never emerges. If only the storytellers had cared about substance as much as style ... It'll pass the time but you can easily find something better to consume.

Straight up: I don't like this movie. It is a grotesque, bizarre horror movie. There is no real plot. The only thing this movie will do is make you feel uncomfortable. It makes you feel like in a bizarre nightmare. And this it does really well. I give it 3 stars for the artistic creation that it is and the effect it can create on the audience.
Disclaimer: I walked out of the cinema after 3/4 watching...

We believe that films should "make people happy" (euphoria). No, we believe it should. Of course, there were thorny issues in getting there.
I used to say that "movies are the art version of pornography" if there was even a hint of sexuality, and in middle and high school I mainly watched "erotic" movies ("A Clockwork Orange" being the first of these).
Looking back, I was a "foolish spectator." One day, however, a change came to me. I believe that an encounter with a movie can change your life, and the movie I encountered was "Mulholland Drive," which turned my view of movies upside down, saying, "I have never seen a movie like this.
Until then, to my surprise, I had never even heard of David Lynch (I'm embarrassed to say ‼︎).
From memory, between the ages of 12 and 13, I saw this surreal, showbiz-crazed entertainment at least a dozen times and was not only never bored, but drawn in. Isn't that amazing?
I mean, "It was a 'monumental' movie in my life" (my strongest experience in a movie theater was when I saw "The Return of the King"). ......
So I had to see this film by a great filmmaker. In comparison, "Lost Highway" was an insignificant film.
Honestly, I don't know, but it seemed to be well received by the public. However, this is a common phenomenon.
A friend says, "This movie is interesting," so I take his opinion and watch it, only to find that it is actually not that interesting.
Now it has become my "rule" and "motto" to "choose my own movies."
Even 'Blue Velvet,' which is considered Lynch's best film, was really bad." What is so interesting about David Lynch?" I am often asked. It is difficult to answer this question.
In fact, even if he had retired from the film industry after one film, "Mulholland Drive," David Lynch would still be revered as the king of surrealist cinema, but my "Lynch experience" ends there. However, it was "Eraserhead" that started my "Lynch experience" back to the classics, and that is where it should have ended.
This creepy, nightmarish film, which even psychotic patients can't hold (and if Lynch portrays psychosis, he certainly sucks at it), was released in 1978 and although it didn't gain immediate popularity, it did gain a cult following by being shown in drive-in theaters and elsewhere.
"What is this creepy movie?"
I was astonished to learn that this movie was made in 1977. There were few ups and downs in the story and no visual beauty.
It was just a dusty, sandy factory area. An alien obsessed with the "peculiar hairstyle" of the main character, played by Jack Nance, gives birth to a deformed child and is sexually abused by his stepmother.
It is the story of Mary, the "crazy fiancée" who gave birth to the deformed baby and abandoned him, her sexual neighbors, and the puppies who suck chubby titties from the female dog. The chicken at the table runs like clockwork.
The "deformed" baby cries and we dissect it. The "vomit" comes down our throats, and it's painful to watch. Frankly, it made me sick. Was it my fault or the movie? Was it Jack Nance's fault?
By the way, please don't assume that "Eraserhead" is super difficult to understand. To me, Christopher Nolan's films are esoteric, but David Lynch's films are not so esoteric if you are in a position to "watch" them. The images may be boring because they embody a world that could happen to anyone (e.g., insanity or psychosis), but Lynch would not want to make it "esoteric."
Eraserhead is, in short, experimental science fiction (not breathtaking "entertainment") only in the guise of "surrealism."
It begins with two shots of "Henry" and a "deformed child" drifting through "outer space," and eventually a creepy woman appears in "high places" and "deep waters."
The "factory zone" and "outer space" are connected until the creepy woman sings "In Heaven." The "Alien Child" is in "intergalactic union" with the man from "The Distant Star" and Henry Spencer.

Listen to the full review above!
"For anybody of a given age or someone who is a real cinephile... You only need to hear... David Lynch. The first impression I had was tension, then I watched it again... it's nightmarish." David M. Brown.
"It's one of those things that can only be described as a lucid dream come to life. It takes a certain caliber of person to actually put out work like that. And it's not crazy.... It's Genius." Sarah Peterson.
"Definitely a brain Burner. It was definitely the weirdest movie I've watched. I can't describe this movie in words... It's not of this earth. I want to go sit in a corner in a dark place and think. This is not a movie.... It's beyond a movie." David Veerkamp

**Serious harmonization problems.**
After the enormous success of Mr. Bean, it was reasonably predictable that, sooner or later, we would see Rowan Atkinson performing his usual antics in a film production. However, despite the actor's efforts, the truth is that it would never be the same, nor could it be, and sometimes the jokes are so forced that they simply lose their effectiveness.
In this film, Bean found work at the National Gallery in London. A job that is apparently safe, if we consider that the character gets into trouble even with the simplest tasks: he is a watchman and sits in a chair while visitors and tourists walk around. The problem is that, in the case of Bean, we know that things are going to get complicated almost by magic: and the gallery directors are very happy when the curators of a Californian museum acquire a remarkable painting by an American author and an expert to talk about her at a presentation ceremony: Bean is the one the directors most want to see behind her back, so they don't even hesitate. From here, disaster is waiting to happen.
Let's be honest: the film is funny and works reasonably well. It's a good quality comedy, and it was also successful at the box office (although that's not synonymous with quality, because it's also true that there are many much worse films, like “Ted”, which also sold well). We can't point out defects that it doesn't have at all. For me, the biggest defect of this film is the audience, which created very high expectations at the expense of the gigantic success of the fourteen episode miniseries that Atkinson created in the 90s. Anyone waiting to have the same experience with This film will always be disappointing. Things aren't the same, they don't work the same way and everything is a little more exaggerated and forced. However, it would be difficult for an American production to make a feature-length film with Bean any other way.
The film takes great care and attention with the sets, cinematography, costumes and effects used, but it is still within the “standard” of light films that the USA released at this time. It's nothing truly exceptional. Throughout the film, situations occur that attempt to recreate Atkinson's style of humor, as he does his best to avoid talking, but still has to do so occasionally. We can say that the actor made a huge effort, but that he also encountered problems adapting his recipe to the North American cinematic style. It's like trying to dress a child in an adult man's costume: it will look bizarre, disharmonious and ugly, but he's dressed.
In between, we also have to positively highlight the work of Peter MacNicoll, and of course, being a historian and an art lover, I have to congratulate the use of the occasion to make known to the general public a magnificent painting that really exists: Arrangement in Gray and Black nº 1. It was painted by James Whistler and can be seen at the Orsay Museum in Paris.

I must say I really liked this movie. I have a little girl too so it kind of hits home for me. This movie makes you think a lot about your own life choices and past relationships that you know you will never get back. It's weird.

A correct comedy. No big surprises, except that Ryan Reynolds is a decent comedies' actor.
The script is the expected and it is something perfect for a rainy evening in the couch under a blanket.

**As a brazilian, i can approve this movie as relatable**
As a brazilian, this movie i can agree with. I love the drama, the action parts are good. But best of all, THE POLICE. In Rio de Janeiro, there are favelas that have drugs. THE WHOLE COUNTRY IS RUN BY CORRUPTION AND GREED. If you are portuguese, download the app called Globo and read the news. There are a bunch of cartels, gangs, and worst of all: MAFIAS. They've spread to the U.S. In Brazil, you cant trust the police, nor the government. The president of Brazil (bolconario or whatever his name is) got arrested for corruption because he stole from the government! This movie is relatable.

**One of the best films that Brazil exported internationally.**
Being Portuguese, I believe that I know the realities of Brazil reasonably better than most foreigners. After all, historical and cultural ties connect the two countries to this day. For this reason, I am not at all surprised by the portrait that this film leaves us, about a world that rarely appears in the tourist magazines of Rio de Janeiro: the poor areas that, from the top of the hills, observe the noblest neighborhoods of the city.
I could talk a little more about these slums, called “favelas”, but the truth is that I don't know much about them. Until the first decades of the 20th century, the visitor walking the streets of Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo or other cities would observe that the poorest generally lived in very compartmentalized buildings, called “cortiços”, scattered throughout the old neighbourhoods of the city. From the middle of the century, however, we witnessed the renewal and gentrification of the urban centers, with the demolition of large degraded areas and the building of modern structures and even skyscrapers. Pushed to the periphery, the marginalized ended up building their homes freely, without a plan or project, using leased or unowned land, giving rise to chaotic and disorderly urban tissues that climbed the hills. Total poverty, which has always driven Man to crime, was soon associated with drug trafficking and consumption, and other crimes such as illegal gambling, arms dealing and prostitution, and led to the birth of criminal mafias, heavily armed, which took advantage of the geography and difficulty of entering some of these “favelas” to transform them into fortresses, where not even the regular police dare to enter.
Thus, the issue of favelas was, and still is, a serious social, urbanistic and human problem for Brazilian cities. I don't have reliable data, but as far as I know, there is a long way to go to solve issues such as the lack of infrastructure, the lack of security of the land and the construction of houses in unstable lands. I know that measures have been taken to resolve them, and above all to combat crime (the film reveals this, taking advantage of Pope Benedict XVI's visit), but to what extent are they effective? What I can say is that, for now, Rio and São Paulo are off the list of the most dangerous cities in Brazil, but there is much to be done in other cities such as João Pessoa, Fortaleza, São Salvador or Natal.
In this film, we follow the journey of two recruits on a course for an elite police force, trained to intervene in the most complicated scenarios: the BOPE. Each is guided by their own reasons, but they are united by a feeling of weariness at the impunity of criminals. The head of the recruit, Captain Nascimento, is also at the center of the plot, as he is discreetly looking for a replacement in order to retire and be able to dedicate the rest of his time to his family, and the little psychological sanity he has left. It is a very raw portrayal of the extremely violent training of these units which, however, prepares them for the authentic urban warfare they have to face. It also lets us foresee a little of the gravity of the problem itself: armie-like bandits who commit brutalities without thinking twice, and a police force that could go to war if needed.
With this film, Wagner Moura achieves one of the most outstanding and important works of his career. He was not, until this film, one of the great Brazilian actors, one of those that we always remember when we think of Brazilian drama. However, I had already been appreciating his quality in some TV works he did, and even so, it was quite impressive to see him here. And although the film features other talented actors, such as André Ramiro and Caio Junqueira, it is Moura who stands out and dominates the film. I also liked the work of Fernanda Machado who, in a much more discreet way, shows the somewhat utopian and dreamy way in which upper-class youngsters seek to cultivate a sense of social justice without knowing, however, how to solve the problems at their root.
Technically, the film stands out for its enormous realism. It's a work of fiction, the characters and situations are invented, but everything was thought to seem true and authentic as in a documentary. We observe this, for example, in the enormous amount of profanity and slang used in the dialogues, or in the careful selection of the filming locations used, which include some “favelas” in Rio. Another point of praise is the quality of the action scenes, worthy of a big-budget American film and filled with good special effects and sound. It is a film inappropriate for children or to watch with that narrow-minded granny, but very good, one of the best films that Brazil managed to export internationally.

Decent movie with lots of strongly violent action. It stands up because it is staged in Rio and created by Brazilians.
The plot is not very surprising but good enough.

I know this movie gets hyped without end, and I think, that has mainly to do with Liv Tyler playing the lead. I remember seeing this, as it first came out, and even though I enjoyed it, it didn't really stick with me. Nothing overwhelming, but a nice watch. Liv Tyler does a fine job here, but for most of the time she is alone in the house, and the movie becomes quite repetitive after a while. Once we get to the killers, most people were so excited about the reason, they did all this. Because 'Kristen' was home! Seriously? Who would have thought? Isn't that the same reason, why 'Jason Voorhees' kills people all around 'Camp Crystal Lake'? Because they are there? But I get it. The point is, that the killers have no other motivation than just to attack random people. There is no desire for money or jewelery... just the pure lust to take lives. But that is a motivation, most serial killers have, and therefore it doesn't seem all that special. When the movie becomes bloody towards the end, I really loved it though. It is nice, to see a movie like this acted by someone, who is as well known as Liv Tyler, and also Scott Speedman was totally fine. "The Strangers" is a fine little home invasion movie, but most certainly it doesn't deserve this extreme hype.

Upon first viewing, _The Strangers_ was one of only two films I'd seen that actually ever frightened me as an adult (well, a seventeen year-old, but close enough). To be fair, both films I'd seen in the same setting - alone, the middle of the night, in the aptly named "Suicide Flats", and what's more, I've since re-watched _The Strangers_ a couple of times and realised that both my fear, and my enjoyment, were perhaps a bit overstated on that first viewing. Even taking that into account though, and seeing it again almost a decade after that first time, I still honestly believe that _The Strangers_ is a good movie, with some pretty genuinely creepy elements.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

Paprika sprinkles its spicy originality across a sprawling vibrant fever dream. Dreams are windows to the imaginative capacity of the subconscious. Manipulating memories to fabricate worlds unbounded by the physical laws of reality. An endless wave of colours and possibilities, requiring no legitimacy for their existence. In psychology, dreams are a method for interrogating the mentality of its subject. Recurring nightmares could be a sign of stress-induced anxiety, fear or mental disorders. The late Satoshi Kon, in what was his last full feature, harnessed the concept of Tsutsui’s novel and challenged the limitations of Japanese animation once again.
Paprika is the equivalent of a hallucinogenic warped mind-bending drug-induced fever dream that tests the attentive abilities of its audience. This is as “anime” as Kon’s work gets. Bashfully bonkers. Colourfully confusing. And plenty of Paprika. Whilst ‘Perfect Blue’ is his most accessible feature for adults, Paprika tends to engage itself with fans of the art form instead. That’s not a derogatory trait to have, as it allows Kon to exercise his visionary ingenuity one last time, but the narrative requires patience. A quaint approach that resembles the personality of doctor Chiba, the head scientist of a revolutionary new psychotherapy treatment creatively entitled “Dream Therapy”. But when a dream recording device is stolen, a plague of nonsensical dreams start to merge with the realms of reality. A parade of dancing frogs, strange dolls, wiggling electronic appliances, colossal Shinto gates and golden cat statues just to name a few composites of the ominous fever dream that plagues the minds of unsuspecting dreamers.
Infiltrating such a cluster bomb of visual splendour would be no simple task for Chiba’s dream alter-ego Paprika, when at one point she is groped by a colleague who physically splits her fleshed shell in half (not nearly as traumatic as it sounds though...). Yet beneath the mesmerising dream-bending extravaganza is a narrative centralising on the sophisticated theme of control. Taking one’s life back. Detective Konakawa represents this exquisitely when trialling out the “DC Mini” device to treat his anxiety. The recurring nightmarish dream regarding his homicide case prevents him from being in control of his life, unable to watch films at the cinema due to past trauma in his childhood. The amalgamation of present and past within his dream perfectly illustrates the haunting abilities that our subconscious infects our mind with. From a non-scientific perspective, it’s a large reasoning for the development of mental disorders.
Of course, the underdeveloped affection Chiba has for her obese child-at-heart genius colleague Tokita somewhat negates the central narrative on psychotherapy, but still focuses on the action of taking control. She finally manages her emotions during a time of distress, and that’s exactly what Paprika revolves around. The whole dream within a dream concept, which apparently was inspiration for Nolan’s epic ‘Inception’, is just a science-fiction shell that enabled Kon to express his creativity without diminishing the novel’s sense of originality. Not to mention Hirasawa’s euphoric score which inventively utilised a vocaloid name “Lola”.
Will you fully understand the story on your first watch? Unlikely. Even with the occasionally clunky dialogue that explains the psychotherapy concept. This was the first anime feature film I ever watched (excluding the likes of Pokémon...), and now four watches later I finally understand every single detail of Kon’s cinematic piece of expressionistic art. It’s science-fiction at its most gentle. It’s psychology at its most cerebral. And it’s anime at its most “anime”. Satoshi Kon, you’re a legendary visionary, and always will be.

Dark slice of comedy pie from Carrey & Stiller.
As with everything in life, the internet also has its good and bad angles. Here with The Cable Guy, I myself salute the internet highway and in particular the many users of IMDb who have come forth to support this most divisive of movies. Lambasted on release by regarded critics and chided by many a cinema goer who went in expecting Mask & Ace Ventura like fluff, The Cable Guy was thought to be the death knell for Carrey's career. It wasn't of course. He would revert to pleasing box office friendly type the following year with "Liar Liar", and would continue to surprise with his choice of roles, and the performances with them, in the likes of "The Truman Show", "Man On The Moon" & "Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind". As a point of reference with his career overview, The Cable Guy stands up as a bold choice by Carrey, and one that serves notice of his willingness, and ability, to take on more challenging roles.
The film itself is a mixture of high Carrey comedy mixed with dark, almost horror undertones. The thematics of loneliness and the need for companionship makes for an odd bedfellow with the berserker antics of Carrey as he plays off of Matthew Broderick's ordinary Joe. Yet director Ben Stiller, the cop out finale aside, has achieved the cheeky fusion with much success. Utilising Carrey's energy as both a force of comic nature, and a bubbling under the surface desperado loony tune. Along the way, well before it goes real dark and gets edgy, we are treated to some delightful comedy moments. A Karaoke sequence and dinner at Medieval Times stand out, but the knowing jokes referencing movies and the TV infatuated world are also unheralded, and astute stabs of fun. Far from perfect it be, but it's a film that was badly timed, or even, misunderstood by the scribes of the time. Thank the lord for the internet for we can now find those prepared to admit they like much about The Cable Guy. Yes, I be one of those hardy souls too. 7/10

The science behind this may well be plausible - that cures for human ailments may well rest elsewhere in the animal kingdom. To that end Saffron Burrows ("Susan") enlists the help of millionaire philanthropist "Russell Franklin" (Samuel L. Jackson) to develop a cure for Alzheimer's using sharks captive in a converted offshore submarine refuelling base. When he arrives at the facility he meets the rather oddball crew including "Carter" (Thomas Jane") "Preacher" (LL Cool J) and "Jim" (Stellan Skarsgård) before quickly discovering that these genetically altered fish are tired of being the guinea-pigs in the lab and are bent on revenge. The film does not hang about; the effects are quite scary at times but the one great snag is given that the sharks are supposed to be super-intelligent: why did they agree to star in a film with the dreadfully flat Burrows - there are bits of flotsam in this film less wooden than her performance. Jane & LL Cool J have some fun as they try to evade their menacing foes and though it certainly isn't "Jaws"; it's not terrible...

**Peak corny shark goodness!** 🦈🦈🦈
Deep Blue Sea falls prey to every shark movie trope and has a blast doing it. Embracing its cheesiness makes this movie one is the all-time best shark flicks—a fabulous cocktail of 90s cheese, sharks, and surprising twists. If you haven’t seen this one, I guarantee you will be surprised by who survives and who doesn’t.

An engaging thriller with a mindless plot, Deep Blue Sea managed to keep me hooked throughout its loud 100-minute running time. A doctor and her team of researchers looking to find a cure for Alzheimer's in sharks in an isolated facility in the middle of an ocean - what more do you need for some sweet chaos while also supported by some unethical practices? Deep Blue Sea is not the most realistic shark film out there but it has a lot of cool action, suspense, the added pleasure of flooding sequences, and a protagonist that you love to hate. Go for it. (Grade B-). TN.

Great watch, would watch again, and do recommend.
This is probably my favorite shark movie. I know "Jaws" did a thing back when, but I like this better. It doesn't mean it's a better movie, the same way that more people like pizza than salad even though salad is a better food.
The biggest part of why I like it so much better is that it's a survivalist situation, in an isolationist setting, and the sharks are "intelligent" so they're actively hunting the humans so it becomes a killer creature feature too.
The cast is really good, and you should probably recognize about half the faces, whether or not they've been in Marvel movies.
The split story lines bother me a bit, and more when they're voluntary, but it works. And when someone gets eaten by a shark, everyone else greedily makes an opportunity of it in a good survivor's fashion.
This is a movie fueled by adversity instead of stupidity, as is a soft requirement for some movies. I guess the "stupidity" is creating the situation in the first place
If you like sharks eating people, or underwater bases ("Rapture"), or liked "The Meg" then give this a watch.