**An extreme desire for blood and flesh!**
Totally unexpected. I had no idea what I'm about to watch. Because usually I do small research of films I watch before the click play. I did not know it was even a French film or a horror. But it was not actually a horror in a sense. Seeing the initial set up, I thought it would be about a freshman medical student. Then things turned out strangely. Like it was decades ago when I was young, I have felt uncomfortable for those intentional film. For this, it felt all real. As the contents, I disliked them. But the film succeeded if that's what it's intended to give to its audience.
It lived up to what the title meant. But on the other hand, I thought it was making fun of vegetarians. You usually won't find many vegetarians in Europe, but this film's topic was bizarre. Because you know someone who has never consumed meat in his entire life, but then when he begins this new habit, it is like completely going out of control. It's not just one, but two from the same family. Something was very clear, that one not knowing the differences. Because they were never before used to it.
Justine is all set to join her sister to practice to be a veterinarian. Coming from a pure vegetarian family, she has to go through some of college traditions. From the beginning itself, it did not go well for her. It affected her health and body. A drastic change in a short period of time, forcing her to uncontrollable desire. Then on one accidental situation, it turns even worst. Ultimately, a conflict between the sisters arise. It takes them to unexpected paths and finally how it all ends were revealed with many uneasy events.
> -xX] An animal that has tasted human flesh isn't safe. [Xx-
I have seen many films like this, but this one was a stand-alone from all of them. I'm not saying it is a masterpiece, but they have got all things right just as they wanted. Obviously this is for grownups, though not all of them can watch without feeling disgust. Some of article, reviews says, people left the cinema hall halfway through. A very challenging film to watch. You might think I'm exaggerating for a simple cinematic performance, but that's what I really experienced. Only when you give it a try, you might get it.
A bit confusing as the story progressing. Like what kind of universe, it is set in. Because whatever happens around Justine, seems nobody caring. Where were the professors! So many doubts. It's just what it is. An imaginative perspective, what if kind of situation turned more uglier. But if you analyse it properly, the only issue was the cannibalism. Not that one showing a desire in consuming meat all of sudden. So, I appreciate the writing, direction and performances, but definitely it is not my cup of tea. Probably for most of you as well.
So this is not for all, but selected viewers. Films can be anything, only we have to assert whether we liked it or not. The maker knew what they were doing, the kind of subject they have undertaken for their film. Often a film like this hits the screen, and makes some noise among the film critics and film goers. I don't know on what merit one should decide to watch it. Because it is not for entertainment, nor an art, nor a message film. But I still think it is worth a watch. Just be aware of what you are going to watch.
_6/10_

Sex, drugs and rock & roll. What more could you possibly ask for in your "Fucked-Up-Coming-Of-Age" movies... Cannibalism? No dramas. _Raw_ has got you sorted.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

"While filmmakers and audiences tend to gag at the thought of ‘the other C-word’ onscreen, writer/director Julia Ducournau and her fearless leading lady Garance Marillier launch themselves teeth first into their bloody and occasionally brilliant cannibal horror pic..."
Read the full review here: http://screen-space.squarespace.com/reviews/2016/5/16/raw.html

The disappointing part is the build up towards the end. I'm also not quite sure who the blame falls to, but the scene where the lead cries in front of the tree, doesn't provide the despair that would have created the tension that the finale needs.
What it very confrontingly succeeds in is the rediculous premisis that being drunk is an invitation for sex. And I can only applaud the movie for that, but the story telling...is lacking. In hindsight, I felt the bond between the two childhood friends didn't come to life, because of the absence of Nina and this also didn't help the finale build up. Some editing goes from a crying Cassy to a fully in control one. No plan forming. No rage. And perhaps not nutty enough.
Its flaws are not enough to pass this one by though, because it is unique where it succeeds.
This is something you should show in high schools and probably throughout college, instead of abstenance or condoms on bananas.

ONE OF THE BEST INDIE FILMS OF LAST YEAR. FRESHMAN DIRECTOR EMERALD FENNELL CREATED THE BEST FEMALE REVENGE FILM OF ALL TIME. SHE ALSO WROTE THIS WITTY AND BRUTALLY REALISTIC STORY. CAREY MULIGANS MOST COMPLEX ROLE TO DATE. A MUST WATCH. (SORRY ABOUT ALL CAPS- KEYBOARD IS BROKEN)

not quite sure what to make of this revenge-thriller. A little heavy-handed at times but I liked Carey Mulligan in the lead and some scenes worked, though I saw one of the twists coming pretty early on. The ending is really dark and was at least surprising. Don't think it quite deserves some of the praise (not to mention a Best Picture nomination) but still worthy of a rental. **3.5/5**

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
Since Sundance 2020, everyone who saw Promising Young Woman never once stopped talking about it. From very early Oscar predictions to a guaranteed spot in numerous Top10 lists, Emerald Fennell's directorial debut of a feature film unquestionably impacted every viewer. As usual, I was able to avoid spoilers and managed to escape images, clips, and trailers. Right before the movie started, the only thing I knew about it was that it had a revenge arc. I didn't know what drove the protagonist to pursue this path or what type of revenge I was going to witness. Therefore, I was baffled by the amount of supposedly spoiler-free synopsis in well-known websites that give away so much of the character's motivations and overall narrative. I'm not going to do the same, but if you haven't seen the film yet, beware of these summaries.
I needed a good night of sleep to process this movie. Fennell's screenplay carries many undeniably impactful moments that left me confused about what I loved and what I didn't enjoy so much, so I waited for my thoughts to settle before I started writing this review. Fortunately, I stand on the positive side for the majority of the cases, most being related to Carey Mulligan's character, Cassie. Several comparisons have been made with the latest version of Arthur Fleck in Joker. While I understand where these come from, the two characters couldn't be more different. Both character arcs are triggered by our society's despicable behaviors, but the protagonists follow a tremendously distinct path.
One of the best examples is the depiction of violence in both films. Viewers will be surprised by the development of this topic throughout Promising Young Woman, contrary to the expectedly explicit murders in the comic-book movie. Fennell's film transmits a persuasive, eye-opening message about society's view of rape accusations and men's ability to somehow escape these troublesome situations partially due to the "innocent" compliance from our world. From "the woman shouldn't have been drinking" to "they were young and naive", these ridiculous excuses - and countless more - are inserted deep down into our society's mentality.
People tend to judge the same situation differently depending on who's involved: men, women, straight, gay, white, black, family members, strangers... Fennell's exceptionally clever script develops this idea in a brilliant fashion that never stops being extraordinarily interesting. The absence of lazy exposition scenes elevates every dialogue, giving these an authentic, realistic setting. Every piece of information regarding a particular character's past or a plot-associated revelation is never filmed with the goal of explaining it in detail to the audience but instead as a natural progression of the story. This method of storytelling proves effectively intriguing throughout the runtime, culminating in a shockingly impactful third act.
Once again, without spoiling anything, Promising Young Woman is one of the most unpredictable movies I've seen in the last few years. It hit me with a drastic turn every time I believed to finally figure out where the narrative was headed. Cassie is a fully-developed protagonist who sort of goes through a hero journey but doesn't really hold the characteristics viewers usually associate with that type of character. As I mentioned above, I needed more than twenty-four hours to interpret and decide which character actions I actually stand by and which go beyond the line of reason. Despite Cassie possessing emotionally compelling motives, some of her actions mustn't be taken as something that women should do.
Fennell has tremendous care with the messages she's trying to spread, but the inconsistent tonal balance hurts this specific task. To avoid an eventual misunderstood, this film is genuinely hilarious at points, but the transitions between lighthearted, humorous, even romantic scenes and dramatic, emotionally heavy moments are far from perfect. On par with the extremely divisive last ten minutes of the movie, these are my main issues. I could nitpick a few sequences concerning Cassie's vendetta, but honestly, these are so insignificant and irrelevant that I neither want nor need to. Though, I'd have loved to see one scene where things don't go as planned by the protagonist during her introductory act.
From the use of bright, rainbow colors - these pop off the screen - to the interestingly odd variations of popular pop songs, Cassie's arc is accompanied by an outstanding production design (Michael Perry), exquisite editing (Frédéric Thoraval), and a not-that-subtle soundtrack (score by Anthony Willis). Every technical aspect plays a vital role, including the excellent costume design (Nancy Steiner) and makeup work. Even the casting choices of actors who usually portray "nice guys" possess the significant purpose of warning the audience that dangerous people do not always look like dangerous people. However, Fennell and Benjamin Kracun (cinematographer) save the best for last.
A brutally shocking, unforgettable two-and-a-half-minute take will leave every single viewer stunned and in awe of such a challenging scene to film. I can't express by words how much it impacted my viewing of the time left after this particular moment. It's a beautifully shot movie, no doubt about it. Every camera angle has a purpose, as well as the length of each shot. Fennell delivers one of the most technically impressive directorial debuts I've ever seen. Her fascinating storytelling and clear vision are qualities that I hope she'll never lose. It's an extremely risky story that Fennell never gave up on, and that deserves to be acknowledged and complimented.
I could be here discussing everything and everyone, but in the end, Carey Mulligan is the most crucial non-technical element of the entire project. There aren't many actresses that could pull off this role as she does. In fact, she might be the only actress able to take Cassie to where Fennell really wanted. From her amusing facial expressions and funny one-liners to the emotionally draining, devastating scenes that Cassie suffers through, Mulligan shows a mind-blowing commitment to one of the best, if not the best performance of her career. If some viewers don't think her display was anything special, recall that two-and-a-half-minute scene I tacked on above? She did all of it, but that is just one of several reasons why she'll get nominated for every ceremony.
Promising Young Woman holds one of the best directorial debuts I've ever seen. Emerald Fennell delivers a fascinating, unpredictable story that impressively subverts the (rape) revenge subgenre by brilliantly approaching our society's compliant, biased behavior in these sensitive situations. Despite some tonal inconsistencies, the astonishingly captivating storytelling leaves no one indifferent, especially during the ruthlessly shocking third act. From the weirdly unique pop song choices to the colorful look of the film, passing through exquisite editing and powerful cinematography, every technical aspect has an unquestionable impact on the movie's success, including the smart casting choices. Carey Mulligan is able to be extremely menacing but also quite funny, offering a career-best interpretation of a fully-developed protagonist with emotionally resonating motivations, but also with a dangerously elaborated arc that could transmit the wrong message for some viewers. The last ten minutes are... well, you'll have to see it for yourself. A well-earned spot in my Top10.
Rating: A-

'Promising Young Woman' is an uncomfortable watch, but in the best way possible. It is a game-changer in every sense of the word, and I don't use that term lightly. It's an A+ thriller that doesn't shy away from talking about real issues that need to be confronted. Not only does it succeed with its story, acting and technical aspects, but it excels as a piece of social commentary, demanding change without spelling it out. It's not going to be everyone's cup of tea - it's made to ruffle feathers - but that's nothing compared to the way so many women around the globe are abused by men daily - and if you're uncomfortable with that, stand up and speak out.
- Chris dos Santos
Read Chris' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-promising-young-woman-nice-guys-no-more

"Master Li" (Chow Yun-Fat) asks his lifelong friend "Yu Shu Lien" (Michelle Yeoh) to take his legendary sword "Green Destiny" and deliver it to "Sir Te" (Sihung Lung) at the Imperial court. Turns out, though, that security there isn't so hot and the sword is stolen by a very able and nimble thief who only just escapes the pursuit of "Shu Lien" - who reckons she really knows whom the thief is. A visit to "Jen" (Ziyi Zhang) and the swift return of the sword seem to confirm her suspicions but then the sword is stolen again and aside from narking "Sir Te" this sets up a series of adventures for "Li", "Shu Lien" and "Jen" as we discover there may be a connection to the former man's nemesis "Jade Fox" (Pei-Pei Cheng). There is room, gradually, for a little romance but for the most part this is a quickly paced adventure that builds well on some beautiful cinematography with a solid story underpinned by some magical mythology and plenty of swordplay. Unlike many of the genre, the combat scenes are naturally choreographed and do not drag on interminably and repetitively. This has a more characterful narrative that involves us in the mystery, the vendetta - even the slowly simmering love story. For my money, this is easily the best film as yet made by Ang Lee and is well worth seeing on a big screen if you can find one.

Easily my favourite of Lee's films, plus this was a no-brainer for me to watch, since I love martial arts films and the three stars. Peter Pau's cinematography and Dun Tan's soundtrack deservedly won two of the four Oscars, amidst its ten nominations, but even though the production values and story were the reason that this, rather than more significant martial arts classics, such as 'The 36th Chamber of Shaolin' and other Shaw Brothers' masterpieces of the genre is that it stepped outside the box and became mandatory viewing for both genders and all cultures with its love story, in the same way that 'Rocky' isn't simply a boxing movie. Still fascinating watching today, and the scene in which the restaurant is destroyed is one of the most fascinating set-pieces I have yet seen.

"A Cinderella Story" has become an iconic franchise, with the version starring Hilary Duff standing out as a standout favorite. While Duff's portrayal alongside Chad Michael Murray brought a modern twist to the classic tale of Cinderella, subsequent installments in the franchise have failed to live up to the same standard.
The franchise seems to be struggling to recapture the magic of the original film, instead resorting to unnecessary side stories and deviations from the core Cinderella narrative. It appears that attempts to replicate the success of the Walt Disney and Roger and Hammerstein versions have fallen short, leading to a sense of fatigue and irrelevance surrounding the franchise.
Despite the star power of Selena Gomez in "Another Cinderella Story," the film failed to reach the heights set by Hilary Duff's portrayal. Similarly, Lucy Hale's "A Cinderella Story: Once Upon a Song" was criticized for its lackluster execution and departure from the essence of the Cinderella story.
"Sofia Carson's "A Cinderella Story: If the Shoe Fits" attempted to capitalize on dance elements reminiscent of "Grease," but ultimately fell flat, marking a low point in the franchise. Laura Marano's "A Cinderella Story: Christmas Wish" was deemed the weakest link in the series, solidifying the downward trend in quality.
As the franchise continues with new installments, the lackluster reception of recent films has dampened enthusiasm for further entries in the series. Viewers may find it challenging to engage with future releases given the disappointing trajectory of the franchise.

A good duo at the forefront of this thing, but I don't especially care for the half-assed documentary schematic or, you know... cops.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a _

Officers Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Zavala (Michael Peña) are LA beat cops, partnered up a long time. We watch them in action via a number of set pieces, and see that they're cynical enough to interpret the rules as necessary but still by a long, long stretch good and decent cops that will risk their lives in carrying out their duties at a moment's notice. Zavala is already blissfully happily married with a baby on the way, Taylor has just met a sweet Irish gal and over the course of the film we see their relationship blossom and grow. These two men are like the closest of brothers. It's all good to see. One day, their dedication to the job causes them to stumble in over their pay grade into a much larger drug cartel and human trafficking operation than regular beat cops would usually encounter. Homeland Security agents appear, having apparently already been monitoring the situation, and warn our boys that they've bloodied the wrong noses, and they'd better lay low.
I HATE a dumb actioner, and this ain't that. Well, it DOES contain all of the standard tropes and cliches (buddy cops, stumbling in over their heads into some drug cartel hoo-haa; the bad guys all being relentlessly bad 24/7, permanently scowling, growling and barking at one another, etc.), but done ever-so-well; reminiscent to me of how [REC] didn't contain anything new or fresh whatsoever, but did all of what it did very well indeed and it came across as fresh as a result.
It's shot mostly cinéma vérité-style, utilising a plotline in which officer Taylor is shooting a documentary piece for a student course he's taking. However, it switches between between first and third-person narrative a la Modern Family, but when it switches to third-person it retains a very documentary-like feel, so it all feels quite seamless.
It wilts a little just past the halfway mark but picks up enormously for the final third. Also, when it's violent (which isn't often), it's unexpectedly VERY violent.
I'd give it an 8/10 and recommend that it's worth at least a look. And I'm not a fan of L.A. guns/bloods/crips/gangs/urban/drugs/cops films.

We start with images of two rather brutal hoodlums who have robbed and massacred the staff at a roadside motel and then sort of follow them into a town where "Tom" (Viggo Mortensen) runs the diner. They stop by one afternoon, intent on causing a bit of mayhem, only to discover that their host is a bit more capable of defending himself than they'd anticipated. Quickly "Tom" is lauded as an hero, and wife "Edie" (Maria Bello) and kids "Jack" (Ashton Holmes) and "Sarah" (Heidi Hayes) are proud to have their dad at home. What he hadn't anticipated, though, is that the publicity would attract the attention of one-eyed gangster "Fogarty" (Ed Harris) who arrives and starts calling him "Joey". Who's "Joey"? Well we quickly find out that nothing is as it seems and we gradually begin to realise that the past always has an habit of catching up with you. This is a violent film, but oddly enough I felt it rather visually tame as the pieces start to fall into place and the arrival of William Hurt signals an escalation that cleverly marries the comically menacing with the somewhat predictable conclusion. There's not a great deal of dialogue here, though not quite on the Clint Eastwood scale, and Mortensen holds it together increasingly well as we move along. It's one of the few films that I feel could have added half an hour or so, just so we get to grips a bit better with the characterisations and concomitant baggage, but as it is - it's well worth a look.

Probably Cronenberg's most mundane work, but that's not even remotely a knock against _A History of Violence_. I hear tell that fans of the comic don't much like this big screen re-telling, but I've never read it, so I'm gonna go ahead and really enjoy it anyway.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

A really rather dreary depiction of two young people from pretty dysfunctional backgrounds who get together - with her baby from another relationship - and struggle through life. Ryan Gosling is "Dean" a working class man quite content to make his way as a handy man/painter whilst "Cindy" (Michelle Williams) is a nurse who has (slightly) greater aspirations for both of them, and her little girl. The story is delivered in threads that try to reconcile their separate, rather depressing, routes to their current predicaments alongside their prevailing issues. Certainly there was love, once, in their relationship but that has long been supplanted by resentment, frustration and even some jealousy before it all culminates with a rather disastrous "romantic" night in an hotel. The relentless inevitability of the story is writ large from the start, and although the film is well put together, it cannot elevate it from the realms of a rather drab, angry melodrama.

**It is a discreet film, which can go unnoticed, but very intense, realistic, believable and that can be difficult to see for many people.**
Romantic dramas aren't exactly my favorite type of film, but I recognize the quality of work done in this film, and the skill of director Derek Cianfrance. In almost every way, this film was a labor of love, drawing heavily on the director's personal experience who, as a young man, witnessed his parents' divorce. Although the film has a name that reminds us of the rosier side of love, the film actually does a very detailed dissection of a relationship, from beginning to end.
I can even agree if someone tells me that this film is not for everyone: it is a dense film, something slow, there are very monotonous passages, dialogues that seem to be there just to fill time, but that actually help us to understand the personality and way of acting of the two elements of the couple. In addition, the film does not have a linear narrative, making several setbacks and temporal advances, in order to intersperse the past and the present, showing us the evolution of the relationship and, also, its wear and tear. It's not a nice movie or easy to watch, and in large part this is due to the authenticity of what we see. That couple could be our neighbor, or one of us. It is a film that, for many people, can evoke painful memories of past and present courtships and marriages.
I really enjoyed the interpretation of Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams. Both actors were fully committed to the work, built a powerful chemistry and partnership, they are largely the soul of the film. Gosling played a romantic who absolutely believes in love and seems willing to do anything to try to make their marriage work. He's passionate, absolute and enthusiastic, the kind of man who doesn't mind taking risks, and has the self-confidence to run after the ones he loves. Williams made her character more reserved, tough, a little defensive, but full of personality and inner strength. Moreover, the actress would get an Oscar nomination for Best Actress with this work.
The film has a very well executed cinematography, excellent editing work and good production values. It's not a flashy film, it will surely go unnoticed by many people, and in fact it's not a perfect film or totally likable, but it's interesting, it's intense, and if we give it a chance, it's impossible not to feel sympathy for the characters. and suffer with the difficulties they go through.

Set amidst 1970s Detroit suburbia, this follows the ultimately tragic lives of five sisters who live with their teacher father (James Woods) and rather possessive mother (Kathleen Turner). It's narrated by one of their neighbours, a youth whom - along with his friends - has a bit of a crush on the girls. Disaster strikes early on when "Cecilia" manages to impale herself on the garden fence and what now ensues follows the family's quirkily poignant and entertaining evolution from this event. Things eventually come to an head when the girls plead with their parents to be allowed to go to a school dance whereupon "Lux" (Kirsten Dunst) and her all-American boyfriend "Trip" (Josh Hartnett) do the deed! Arriving home late, and alone, this causes ructions within the family and drives the young girl off the rails with ghastly consequences. There's a lot of nuance here. The performances from Turner, Dunst and a rather under-stated one from an increasingly effective Woods all help build this to a conclusion that is sadly, in my view, all a bit rushed. The effects of the isolation and loneliness on the all-but-incarcerated girls is there for us to see, but not really to appreciate fully enough and I felt that a shame. There is also quite a potent aesthetic here - the visuals offer us a subtle reinforcement of stereotype, ageing, maturity, comedy and indifference and I could have done with some meat on the bones of the actual story, the film gets better after each viewing.

***Artistic, profound, amusing, tragic, haunting coming-of-age in the 70s***
A 13 year-old girl from a Catholic family in a Detroit suburb commits suicide during the late 70s and its effects are shown over the course of the next year in the lives of her four sisters (e.g. Kirsten Dunst), her parents (James Woods & Kathleen Turner) and the boys of the community. Josh Hartnett is on hand as the school stud who’s interested in Lux (Dunst).
"The Virgin Suicides" (1999) was Sofia Coppola’s debut film based on the book by Jeffrey Eugenides; she would go on to great success with “Lost in Translation” (2003) and the underrated “Marie Antoinette” (2006). To be expected, Sofia’s style is similar to her father, as well as Peter Weir, but maybe more focused on feminine themes. The tone of the movie is artsy and deep, but not without a sense of humor. It’s haunting, mysterious, beautiful and impenetrable, reminiscent of Weir’s “Picnic at Hanging Rock” (1975). There’s also a great 70’s soundtrack featuring well-placed songs by The Hollies, Heart, Styx, Todd Rundgren and 10cc.
The subtext on parental legalism brings to mind “Footloose” (1984), but it’s clear that the blame can’t be placed solely at the feet of the parents, who are certainly overprotective but also clearly loving to a degree. Cecilia’s rash actions are the catalyst and the domino effect comes into play coupled with the oppression of stifling legalism and perhaps passive revenge. At the end of the day, though, it comes down to just a stupid decision by teenagers. Yet the movie’s about way more than suicide and its causes. It’s about coming-of-age, seeking identity & a voice, coming-of-death and the haunting reflections of those that remain.
The film runs 1 hour, 37 minutes and was shot in Toronto.
GRADE: A-/B+

A very different movie, enjoyable and engrossing but at the end of it you are left wondering what the point was. Is there a moral here? A life lesson? Or is the movie just telling a quirky story? I'm still not sure. This movie is well acted and is never boring, but it is puzzling.

I can see why some people would love this. They took all the story, all the characters, all the depth, and crammed it all into all of five minutes, and then upped the action and violence to 11.
The end result was the remake of a horror movie that had some head to it into a horror movie that you don't really need to pay attention to to follow.
In other words, they made it a mindless, soulless, action packed gory mess... unfortunately action and gore without a plot or characters is pretty boring to watch.

A place to bury our pets and remember them. I know it seems scary, but it's not. Perfectly natural, just like dying is natural.
Directed by Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer and written by Stephen King, Matt Greenberg, Jeff Buhler. It stars Jason Clarke, Amy Seimetz, John Lithgow, Jeté Laurence and Hugo and Lucas Lavoie. Music is by Christopher Young and cinematography by Laurie Rose.
Dr. Louis Creed and his wife, Rachel, move from Boston to Ludlow, in rural Maine, with their two young children. Hidden in the woods near the new family home, Ellie, their eldest daughter, discovers a mysterious cemetery where the pets of community members are buried.
Not as bad as I was fearing it would be, but is it really any better than the original film?. Itself a simply ordinary adaptation from what is a very good book, you would have thought the 2019 version would at least bring some fresh life to the story. Yet albeit that some changes have been made (one of which was moronically shown in the trailers), it's still a re-tread that has failed to entice newcomers to this world.
There's some good on show, though. Child actor Jeté Laurence is excellent, particularly in the latter part of the pic. The design for the Pet Sematary and the surrounding areas are splendidly eerie, with photographer Rose deserving a better film really. While the sound work out at the special place is also bang on the tonal money.
The ending has provided much division, but personally it was a change that I liked. Two writers and two directors came up with this adaptation, but they didn't get much right between them and the pic feels like a compromised cash cow. Stick with the book and get The Ramones album of the same name instead. 6/10

_**Not a patch on the book, and the new ending is awful**_
> _This place was thick with spirits; it was tenebrous with them. You could look around and see something that would send you raving mad. He would not think about it. There was no need to think about it. There was no need to –_
> _Something was coming._
> _Louis came to a total halt, listening to that sound…that inexorable, approaching sound. His mouth fell open, every tendon that held his jaw shut simply giving up._
> _It was a sound like nothing he had ever heard in his life - a living sound, a big sound. Somewhere nearby_, _growing closer, branches were snapping off. There was a crackle of underbrush breaking under unimaginable feet. The jellylike ground under Louis's feet began to shake in sympathetic vibration. He became aware that he was moaning._
> _(_oh my God oh my dear God what is that what is coming through this fog?_)_
> _Whatever it was, it was huge._
> _Louis's wondering, terrified face tilted up and up, like a man following the trajectory of a launched rocket. The thing thudded toward him, and there was the ratcheting sound of a tree - not a branch, but a whole tree - falling over somewhere close by._
> _Louis saw something._
> _The mist stained to a dull slate-gray for a moment, but this diffuse, ill-defined watermark was better than sixty feet high. It was no shade, no insubstantial ghost; he could feel the displaced air of its passage, could hear the mammoth thud of its feet coming down, the suck of mud as it moved on._
> _For a moment he believed he saw twin yellow-orange sparks high above him. Sparks like eyes._
> _Then the sound began to fade. As it went away, a peeper called hesitantly - one. It was answered by another. A third joined the conversation; a fourth made it a bull session; a fifth and sixth made it a peeper convention. The sounds of the thing's progress (slow but not blundering; perhaps that was the worst of it, that feeling of sentient progress) were moving away to the north. Little...less...gone._
> _At last Louis began to move again. His shoulders and back were a frozen ache of torment. He wore an undergarment of sweat from neck to ankles. The season's first mosquitoes, new-hatched and hungry, found him and sat down to a late snack._
> The Wendigo, dear Christ, that was the Wendigo - the creature that moves through the north country, the creature that can touch you and turn you into a cannibal. That was it. The Wendigo has just passed within sixty yards of me.
> _He told himself not to be ridiculous, to be like Jud and avoid ideas about what might be seen or heard beyond the Pet Sematary - they were loons, they were St. Elmo's fire, they were the members of the New York Yankees' bullpen. Let them be anything but the creatures which leap and crawl and slither and shamble in the world between. Let there be God, let there be Sunday morning, let there be smiling Episcopalian ministers in shining white surplices…but let there not be these dark and draggling horrors on the nightside of the universe._
- Stephen King; _Pet Sematary_ (1983)
In Stephen King's celebrated (and massive) _oeuvre_, his 1983 novel _Pet Sematary_ (the misspelling is intentional) is something of a curio. Although reasonably well received at the time, critics have never considered it worthy of the kind of attention lavished on work such as _The Shining_ (1977), _The Stand_ (1978), _The Deadzone_ (1979), _The Dark Tower_ series (introduced in 1982), _It_ (1986), _Misery_ (1987), _The Green Mile_ (1996), or _Under the Dome_ (2009). Fans of King, however, have long championed it as one of his most emotionally devastating and philosophically complex works, whilst King himself considers it the scariest novel he's ever written. And although on the surface, the plot is as schlocky as they come, buried underneath is an examination of grief and how it can compromise one's ability to act rationally. Much as _The Shining_ was really about alcoholism and a descent into madness, _Pet Sematary_ is about emotional trauma, guilt, the importance of family, and the question of what happens after we die.
Written by Jeff Buhler (_The Midnight Meat Train_; _The Prodigy_), from an initial script by Matt Greenberg (_Halloween H20: Twenty Years Later_; _Reign of Fire_; _1408_), who's credited with "screen story by", and directed by Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer (_Starry Eyes_), _Pet Sematary_ comes in the midst of something of a resurgence for the Stephen King adaptation industry. Recent adaptations include Nikolaj Arcel's risible _The Dark Tower_, Mike Flanagan's excellent _Gerald's Game_, Andy Muschietti's massively successful and massively overrated jump-scare-reliant _It: Chapter One_ (all 2017), with Flanagan's _Doctor Sleep_, Muschietti's _It: Chapter Two_, James Wan's _The Tommyknockers_, and Mike Barker's _The Talisman_ (amongst others) currently in production, whilst on the small screen, _Mr. Mercedes_ is entering its third season and _Castle Rock_ its second, with new versions of _The Stand_ and _The Dark Tower_ forthcoming. However, for me, much like _It: Chapter One_, _Pet Sematary_ doesn't really work. It's certainly better that Mary Lambert's 1989 filmic adaptation, for which King himself wrote the script, but it pales in comparison to the novel. Granted, most films suffer when compared to a source text; even Stanley Kubrick's _The Shining_ (1980), although a masterpiece as a standalone film, is a terrible adaptation of the novel. _Pet Sematary_, which relies far too heavily on jump scares, is especially disappointing in this sense insofar as it starts off very strongly, taking care to respectfully modernise the novel's themes and examine the characters' underlying emotions, before descending into absolute stupidity in the last act. King was fully on board with the film (he was fully on board with _The Dark Tower_ too), but Buhler changes numerous aspects of the story; some of these changes work very well, but many don't, with a new ending, in particular, substituting cheap shock for the lingering sense of psychological and esoteric hopelessness with which King's original so memorably concludes.
Louis Creed (the prolific Jason Clarke), a doctor from Boston, moves to the town of Ludlow, Maine with his wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz), their eight-year-old daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence), three-year-old son Gage (Hugo and Lucas Lavoie), and Ellie's beloved cat, Church. In the woods surrounding their house, Ellie finds a pet cemetery but is cautioned against exploring further by their friendly neighbour, Jud Crandall (John Lithgow). Several weeks later, Louis and Jud find Church dead, and Jud, who has grown very close to Ellie and doesn't wish to see her suffer, takes Louis to an ancient Mi'kmaq burial ground behind the cemetery, instructing Louis to bury Church. The next day, Louis is stunned when Church returns home, although considerably more aggressive than before he died. Jud explains that anything buried in that place comes back to life, although very different from how it was, with local legend suggesting that returnees are possessed or controlled by some sort of malevolent spirit. A few days later, the Creed family suffers an unspeakable tragedy, and guessing what Louis plans to do, Jud tells him not to return to the burial ground. Louis, however, has no intention of heeding his warnings.
King's _Pet Sematary_ is a very loose retelling of W.W. Jacob's 1902 short story, "The Monkey's Paw" from _The Lady of the Barge_ anthology, in which a man is given three wishes, setting off a chain of events that results in the death and subsequent resurrection of his son. When the film version was first revealed, there was a lot of online grumbling about the big change from the original - it's Ellie and not Gage who is killed in the film, and whom Louis decides to bring back (if this was supposed to be a twist, someone forgot to tell the marketing people, because it's right there in the trailer). Speaking to _Flickering Myth_, Clarke defended the change, explaining,
> _it's pretty easy to justify. You can't play that movie with a three-year-old boy. You end up with a doll or some animated thing. So you're going to get a much deeper, richer story by swapping for a seven-year-old or nine-year-old girl. The reward will come. People who are upset will hopefully see the benefit of it. But a lot of people didn't have an issue. Stephen King didn't have an issue with it._
He makes a good point. Indeed, speaking to _EW_ the following month, King himself said,
> _it's something different. They did a good job. Boy, I saw all the stuff that came online when people realised that it was Ellie rather than Gage that got run over in the road, and I'm thinking like, "Man, these people..." It's so nuts. You can take Route 301 and go to Tampa, or you could take Route 17 and go to Tampa. But both times, you're gonna come out at Tampa! You know what I'm saying? It didn't change anything for me. I thought, "Okay, I understand why they did it, because it's maybe easier to work with a zombie when she's a little girl than a toddler"._
Personally, I think the alteration actually improves the story - as in the novel, it's Ellie with whom Louis and Rachel have portentous conversations about what happens after we die, and having her be the one killed establishes a more coherent thematic through-line.
Speaking of themes, much like the novel, the film is primarily focused on grief. I've always loved King's ability to "hide" serious themes behind what are ostensibly rote horror stories (he's so good at hiding them that literary academics don't believe they're even there, refusing to afford him a place on the canon); in 2003, Yale University's Sterling Professor of Humanities Harold Bloom famously said,
> _the decision to give the National Book Foundation's annual award for "distinguished contribution" to Stephen King is extraordinary, another low in the shocking process of dumbing down our cultural life. I've described King in the past as a writer of penny dreadfuls, but perhaps even that is too kind. He shares nothing with Edgar Allan Poe. What he is is an immensely inadequate writer on a sentence-by-sentence, paragraph-by-paragraph, book-by-book basis. The publishing industry has stooped terribly low to bestow on King a lifetime award that has previously gone to the novelists Saul Bellow and Philip Roth and to playwright Arthur Miller. By awarding it to King they recognise nothing but the commercial value of his books, which sell in the millions but do little more for humanity than keep the publishing world afloat. If this is going to be the criterion in the future, then perhaps next year the committee should give its award for distinguished contribution to Danielle Steel, and surely the Nobel Prize for literature should go to J.K. Rowling._
In 2014, he told the BBC, "_Stephen King is beneath the notice of any serious reader who has experienced Proust, Joyce, Henry James, Faulkner and all the other masters of the novel_".
And yes, _Pet Sematary_ does feature a sentient zombie child, so it's unlikely to ever achieve the status of the fiction of, say, Virginia Woolf, but its core is the emotional trauma suffered by Louis and how his uncontrollable grief drives him to do something unspeakable. His heartache is such that his logic centre simply stops functioning; not only does he completely accept the fact that Ellie can be brought back, but he also ignores Jud's warnings that she will not be his Ellie. Like in the book, he's a man of science, who clashes with Rachel about what to tell Ellie regarding death - she wants to talk about an afterlife, he wants to focus on the finality of death as something natural and unavoidable. This is a smart choice by King, as Louis becomes the one who refuses to let death have the final word, with his conscious mind unable to accept the random tragedy that has befallen him, and whose entire purpose in life comes to be focused on the fact that Rachel was (at least in part) correct, that there is something after death. He must forget everything he has ever known about the corporeal world in order to travel the path down which Ellie's death launches him; this gives him an inbuilt arc, from a man of medicine to a believer in resurrection.
Rachel's arc, and again, this is excellent writing by King and well handled in the film, moves in the opposite direction to Louis's - she accepts the finality of Ellie's death, and reacts in horror when she learns what her husband has done. Her arc is rendered more complex insofar as she also suffers crippling guilt because of the death of her sister Zelda (Alyssa Brooke Levine) when they were still children. Suffering from severe spinal meningitis, Rachel couldn't help but look at Zelda as a monster. One night, whilst their parents were out, Rachel made dinner for Zelda, but because she was afraid of her, rather than bringing it to the room in which Zelda was confined, she used the faulty dumb waiter to send it to her, leading to Zelda falling into the shaft and breaking her neck (a hideous death unflinchingly depicted in the film). Whereas Louis's arc is more concerned with the question of what it takes for a rational man to abandon everything he knows to be unassailably true about the nature of existence, Rachel's looks at questions of survivor guilt and how one is supposed to come back from having one's life shattered (of course, it's the very fact that Rachel had this early-life trauma that gives her the tools with which to cope with Ellie's death).
This is seriously heavy, unsettling stuff, and it's how King engages with it that has made the novel such a fan-favourite. And for about two-thirds of the runtime, the film deals reasonably convincingly with these issues. Sure, it moves faster than the novel, but that's more to do with the nature of medium than anything else. Even after Louis brings Ellie back, the film is still fairly leisurely paced, letting us observe his disintegrating mental state (one especially good scene sees him lying in bed next to the newly resurrected Ellie, with Clarke playing him as a man trying to convince himself that what is happening is perfectly normal). Whereas Kubrick largely ignored the themes of alcoholism and abuse in _The Shining_, Kölsch and Widmyer go in the opposite direction - grief and guilt are really the only things on which they focus. At least up to the point when they seem to forget about them entirely, as the third act descends into a ridiculously campy series of murders, attempted murders, and all-round violence, reminding me of the end of Shakespeare's _Titus Andronicus_, where Lucius kills Saturninus because Saturninus killed Titus because Titus killed Tamora because Tamora had Lavinia raped because Titus defeated Tamora in battle.
The last half-hour or so of the film is as superficial and immature as anything in any King adaptation, and the new "twist" ending not only doesn't work on its own terms, it completely undercuts both King's original themes, and how well the film itself had handled those themes earlier on, replacing King's bleakly poetic _dénouement_ with something right out of "_horror clichés for dummies_". In general terms, I've no problem with filmmakers altering the end of a literary adaptation; the finale of Frank Darabont's _The Mist_ (2007), for example, is completely different from King's novel, but it replicates the tone and spirit of the original, eliciting similar emotions from the audience. However, if you're going to alter the end of an adaptation, you absolutely need something that works, both in the context of the adaptation itself, and in its relationship to the original. _Pet Sematary_'s new ending does neither. The whole point of the end of the novel was that Louis learns nothing from his experience bringing Gage back, convincing himself that there were tangible reasons it didn't work, and under different circumstances, Gage would have returned as the Gage he was in life. The tragedy of the novel is that, lost in madness and despair, Louis repeats his mistakes. The end of the film has none of this, with the final shot more of a silly "dun-dun-duuuun" moment than anything with any emotional complexity.
The new ending may be the biggest problem, but it's by no means the only one. Another is something common to many films - an overly idealised family. An especially egregious example of this was Jordan Peele's _Us_ (2019), and there's more of the same here; much more so than in the novel, the Creeds are a picture postcard family, where everybody just loves everybody else so much, dad is always cracking jokes, sister hates annoying little brother (but loves him really), and parents talk to their kids like they're already fully grown adults. It's easy to see why this trope is usually found in horror and revenge movies - the more idealised the depiction when everything is going well, the more heartbreaking it will be when things go wrong. But just because the purpose is apparent, doesn't mean it isn't a cliché, and the Creeds of the film elicit some serious eye-rolling. Another big problem is the aforementioned trailer, which not only tells us about the switch from Ellie to Gage, but which also gives away a major plot point from just prior to the finale, which, if I hadn't already known about from the novel, would have been ruined. Speaking of Ellie, she doesn't just get hit by a truck, she's flattened by a massive tanker that should have turned her into a pancake, but when Louis picks her body up, she's still whole, and when we see her in the coffin, there's literally not a mark on her. Why make the crash so spectacular in the first place when the body has to be intact for the rest of the movie?
The film also leaves out a lot (almost all) of the backstory concerning the burial ground. So, there's no extended flashback telling the story of Bill Bateman and what happened when he resurrected his son Timmy, whose body had been shipped home after he was killed in WWII, although Louis does briefly come across a news article about a Vietnam veteran named Timmy Bateman who returned from the dead many years previously. Additionally, the rich mythology of the burial ground and the role of the Wendigo (an evil necromantic spirit spoken of in Algonquin folklore) is mostly absent; Louis sees a picture of the Wendigo in a book (that's in the trailer too), but it's unnamed, and later, he thinks he sees something in the distance of the fog-shrouded forest, but that's as close as we ever get to the spirit that turns up a couple of times in King's mythology (as well as _Pet Sematary_, it also features in _The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon_). These changes aren't overly surprising, however, as they speak to the streamlining that all narratives must undergo when being adapted for the screen.
There is one extremely irritating omission, however. In the film, Jud is full of dire warnings about the evil of the burial ground and the danger of using its powers ("_sometimes, dead is better_"; "_that place has a power...its own evil purpose_"), which makes you wonder why he told Louis about it in the first place. The film tries to explain this by showing us that Jud doesn't want to see Ellie upset over Church's death, which makes not a lick of sense and is grossly out of character, evidenced by the fact that literally the day after showing Louis the burial ground, Jud is already warning him about its dangers. In the novel, however, he has a different reason. When his wife, Norma (absent from the film), has a heart attack, Louis saves her life, and in return, Jud tells him about the burial ground by way of thanks. It's still a poor way of having Louis learn about the site, but it's a damn sight better than "_I didn't want your daughter to be upset about her cat dying, so I'm going to tell you how to make a demon cat!_"
As a novel, _Pet Sematary_ is a study of grief and childhood trauma first, a horror narrative second. Investigating our psychological reaction to death, the book probes how far we might go to ensure a loved one never leaves us. As a film, _Pet Sematary_ seems to be charting a similar course, until it abandons this tack in favour of a shock-for-shock's sake ending. Much like _It: Chapter One_, there is an over-reliance on predictable and silly jump scares, and ultimately, what could have been a mature and emotionally affecting story gives in to the worst excesses of the genre, betraying both itself and the original novel.

The things that this 2019 _Pet Sematary_ add to the original may not strictly speaking be improvements, but at least it's not a shot for shot remake, which it was looking like it might have been based on the trailers. A couple of those additions I was not particularly fondof, one's a massive spoiler so I'll let that slide, but the biggest one I knew going into it, 'cause of the trailers, which is: As much as I appreciate John Lithgow, I really wish they had kept this guy (or an emulation of him, I more mean) on as Jud Crandall.
Unrelated sidenote, but when I was young (and I found out about _Pet Sematary_ overall through the Ramones song of the same name) my dad always told me that it was called _Pet Sematary_ and not _Pet Cemetary_ because Americans spelt it that way. That guy lied about... Just everything.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

Sadly, by 1981, Disney had run out of great stories around which to build their animation features. This is a loose adaptation of Daniel Mannix' tale of a fox cub "Tod" who suffers the tragic loss of his father at the hands of mankind and roams the countryside befriending all the animals - including a puppy "Copper" and an old widow - before becoming, himself, a target for the hunters. Necessity leads him to again team up with his now fully grown hunting-hound pal to stay ahead of the pursuing pack and shotgun!. The animation lacks the vibrancy of the studio's earlier hand-crafted work and the story/personalities are all bit pedestrian for me, I'm afraid. It looks good and Mickey Rooney, Corey Feldman, Kurt Russell and the dulcet tones of Jack Albertson (his final role) all light it up a bit but unfortunately the days of this kind of gentle fantasy adventure have long since seen their heyday.

This film was good. The acting was good. It was well written and had good plot twists. It did get a bit too predictable and over-the-top by the end.
★★★

Being a) the shortest boy in my class in my early years; b) the smartest; and c) adopted by parents of mixed ethnicity (which was a rarity in my small city at that time, the mid 70's), I was a natural target for bullies. At every conceivable instance (and a lot of inconceivable ones as well!), I fought all comers, often coming home black-and-blue, and exhausted--I may have lost some matches to bigger and older boys, but if they were going to win, they were at least going to pay for it, and feel the after-effects for a while. (Thankfully this ended when I was talking with my friend, who was carrying home his personal baseball equipment, when I was approached. I asked if I could borrow his bat for a second, and that ended that. I wouldn't recommend that as a solution to others, for legal reasons. Thankfully the bully's mom and mine were friends, and when he ran home crying and told her what happened, she replied, 'If Billy did that to you, then you deserved it.')
I don't often do so, but I watched the DVD extras before I watched the film (I usually wait until afterwards). Edgerton's impressive directorial debut here, as well as script, fulfilled (at least to my eyes) his purpose, that of making a psychological thriller along the level of his directing idols, Sir Alfred Hitchcock and David Fincher. The three main stars, Edgerton, Jason Bateman and Rebecca Hall (I kept thinking she was Anne Hathaway!), did very good work here. I never really went for Bateman's work when he was younger, but a good friend often watched 'Arrested Development' when I was over, a few years back, and I have grown to like his acting, but he really hits it out of the park here. Had this not been an independent production but a more big-budget affair (i.e., David Fincher), I think he could have gotten an Oscar nomination--he's THAT good here.
There was the occasional logical issue I had with the film afterwards, when I stopped and REALLY thought hard about it, but I have no problem with that kind of thing, if I enjoy everything else (which I did). Highly recommended. Definitely worth buying and rewatching--and I can't say that about most films made today. I hope that Edgerton doesn't give up acting, because he's definitely good at it, but I hope he also keeps on writing scripts and directing. Simply based on 'The Gift', he has an admirer in me for life.

> In a rage for revenge, the GIFTS can be our handy weapon.
Firstly, it was well written by Joel Edgerton as well debuted as a director with it. That is only because of comparing with other over hyped crappy mystery-thrillers. Frankly, to me it was a decent flick that I enjoyed watching. Flaws, loopholes, whatever you call them, this film had so many due to lack of revelation of the earlier occurrence. While I tried to raise the questions on the issues I found, I also discovered possible answers for them. So either way it covers up as a little smartly, but in reality that does not make any sense at all.
Kind of a revenge movie, but I can't reveal more than that about the theme as it may spoil if you have not seen it yet. It was about a young married couple who moved back to their hometown after losing their unborn baby. They encounter one of their high school friends in a shopping mall and the relationship grows intensely on one end where the other side was indirectly denied. So what might happen when the grown up guys caught in a state like this is what brings the crux of the story.
As usual Rebecca Hall was so hot, Jason Bateman in a convincing act and Joel Edgerton, who was in a key role exhibited his part decently. Pretty good title as well. In the beginning it looked so simple, but while story moving forward the meaning was intensely unveiled.
The narration was kind of brilliant, because it won't let you take a side when clash begin to happen. At a time not quite easy to predict the scenes. This mystery-thriller was too much dramaticed and presented at a slow pace. Especially avoids the serious violences, but still covers a few that obviously required to shape up the film. Like I said it was not a special movie, but worth to choose and for a few people it might be an awesome flick.
6½/10

Traditionally, horror films and psychological thrillers follow a predictable path in their themes of dot-to-dot suspense. Rarely does a suspense piece deviate away from the formulaic blueprint that make these types of flicks the familiar frightfests they are in conception. However, the crafty Joel Edgerton, as the juggling movie mastermind sporting directing, acting and writing credits, provides the mind-bending goods in the refreshingly titillating ‘The Gift’, an edge-of-your-seat chiller that definitely is worth unwrapping with nervous anticipation. The ambitious moments in ‘The Gift’ are golden especially when the twists and turns are considered a solid fixture in the film’s creepy conclusion.
It is understandable in assuming that ‘The Gift’ could have been yet another custom-made psychological thriller promoting the same hire-for-dire predicaments. Nevertheless, the insidious presence of Edgerton, along with co-stars Jason Bateman and Rebecca Hall, as the Chicagoan married couple settling in their aesthetic-looking LA-based home elevates ‘The Gift’ as a stalker flick with captivating smarts and attitude.
It is actually a homecoming situation for Simon (Bateman) as he returns to his California town courtesy of his job-related executive rise within his computer security firm. The mover-and-shaker couple Simon and Robyn (Hall) settle into their impressive, spacious window-friendly place with a modern innovative appearance. When the couple decides to head out and do some furniture shopping they bump into Gordon (Edgerton). Gordon identifies himself as Simon’s old high school classmate, something that catches the computer exec by surprise because he does not necessary recall the goatee-sporting Gordon right off the bat. The greeting is awkward but Simon politely acknowledges Gordon in an effort to appease him.
Unfortunately, jotting down the clingy Gordon’s phone number is opening up a proverbial can of worms. Soon, Simon and Robyn would be hindered by Gordon’s constant intrusive visits to their elegant home. Furthermore, Gordon adds to the creep factor by bestowing different degrees of generous gifts on the marital twosome. Gordon does not seem to take the hint that his unannounced visitations are smothering and rather bothersome to the lovebirds. The nervy gesture of Gordon hanging around is particularly worrisome because he seems to dominate Robyn’s attention and time as Simon is away at his lucrative job during the day.
The tension mounts for Simon and Robyn outside of the menacing interruptions caused by the mysterious Gordo. For starters, the pressure is on for the tandem to start a family as they hope to entertain the arrival of their first child. Secondly, Simon tries to best a rival at work to further his corporate ladder climbing into management. Thus, Gordon’s bizarre gift-giving tendencies and continual pit stops in the couple’s blossoming lives purely add to the stress and strain of keeping their marriage solid and conflict-free.
The Gift could have followed its road map to predictability and used the oddball Gordon as the doomsday dude that continues his twisted agenda without any rhyme or reason. Here is where Edgerton, as the aforementioned triple threat in directing, writing and acting, earns his creative stripes because he manages to flip the script on the viewers and causes them to comprehend the off-kilter motivations of this complex agitator. Is Gordon justified in his campaign to cause havoc for the corporate rising star Simon? Is Simon as squeaky clean as it appears? What is the backstory surrounding the nostalgic circumstances concerning Gordon’s and Simon’s past history as childhood classmates together? Can Robyn piece together the perplexing puzzle that involves the two men on different avenues to self-destruction?
It would be a disservice to reveal some of the shocking angles in ‘The Gift’ because the film certainly engineers must of its nerve-racking twists so cleverly to the point of describing too much of the dramatic layers may spoil the tension-driven surprise. The overall toxic message that is conveyed pretty much sums up Edgerton’s inventive and piercing thrill ride. Be careful how you mistreat or dismiss someone from the past on the way up because you very well could tangle with them as one’s fortunes could descend without a moment’s notice. Or to put it in simplistic street-wise terminology: karma is indeed a bitch!
The Gift (2015)
STX Entertainment
1 hr. 48 mins.
Starring: Jason Bateman, Rebecca Hall, Joel Edgerton, Allison Tolman, Busy Phillipps, Beau Knapp, Wendell Pierce and David Denman
Directed and Written by: Joel Edgerton
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: Psychological Thriller/Suspense and Drama
Critic’s Rating: *** stars (out of 4 stars)

'Another Round' is good.
The plot is a little predictable and its message ends up being pretty standard, with it very much being the performances that elevate this flick up for me. I found the characters cringey a few times as they act like teenagers rather than fully grown adults around alcohol, though I can appreciate what the film was going for. What wasn't cringe, however, was Mads' dancing - chapeau!
I've watched a lot of Mads Mikkelsen and a fair bit of Thomas Bo Larsen lately and found them to be highly reliable performers and here is thankfully no different, I really enjoyed them as actors throughout this 2020 release. The others merit props too, namely Magnus Millang and Lars Ranthe.