THE GOOD:
1) It's funny
2) Got good action
3) The music video is awesome
4) It stars Will Smith and Kevin Kline
THE BAD:
1) It didn't live up to the original series
2) Over the top storyline
3) I hate spiders!
THE UGLY:
1) This rating right here!

I felt entertained by this.
It is a very bonkers film, though it actually works stupidly well in my opinion - the steampunk theme helps it of course. Will Smith and Kevin Kline are a good pairing as West and Gordon. Kenneth Branagh (Arliss) is amusing, I rate his character's design too.
I will say the effects around Smith and Kline haven't aged gracefully, but for everything else around them it still looks quite nice. I enjoyed the train shenanigans in particular. Salma Hayek (Rita) is kinda pointless in this, she's basically just there for gratuitous sexual reasons.
The film does also try to cram in an (obviously positive) message regarding racists and the such, which doesn't really fit and isn't as developed as could've been. 'Wild Wild West' is at its best when it's being amusing.
A brainless watch. I'd, personally, recommend it - though a lot of people would evidently disagree with me.

Steampunk Blockbusterdom!
Barry Sonnenfeld's Wild Wild West is a film that I have avoided for over 15 years. I have no frame of reference with the source materials, but even though I'm a big Westerns fan, it wasn't this, or the critical pounding it got on release, that kept me away. It was the original trailers for it, it just looked like a garbled over budgeted mess - which it kinda is.
However, that's not to say there isn't fun to be had, because for all its many failings (poor effects, poor script, waste of a strong cast, superficiality), there is some verve and swagger, excitement, Will Smith's likability and some splendid gadgets. Having very low expectations no doubt helped me out, but I would hardly call this a 1/10 type of film. I say chill out with a beer, turn the home cinema speakers up and just roll with it, because thinking about it too deeply could possibly make you angry... 5/10

This time it's the Frankenstein story that gets the Tim Burton treatment delivering us an hybrid of "Edward Scissorhands" (1990) and Karloff's "Frankenstein" (1935) with a little pooch throw in for good measure. It's the eponymous mutt that gets hit by car whilst fetching a baseball hit, surprisingly, out of the park by his young master "Victor". Distraught, the scientifically minded youngster concocts a cunning plan to use the attic windows, some toy seahorses and loads and loads of lightning to bring "Sparky" back from the dead. What now ensues is quite a fun series of escapades as the young man resurrects his friend and tries to keep it a secret from his schoolmates ahead of a looming science fair that causes his friends to try to mimic his skills and create monstrous mayhem en route. The monochrome stop-motion animation (especially their eyes!) and typically fun Danny Elfman score make for an effective comedy-horror and it is hard not to engage with the reincarnated patchwork puppy. Their rather menacing science teacher "Rzykruski" reminded me of Christopher Lee, too. It's a quickly paced and engaging tale with a gentle morality to it - love, loyalty, friendship all feature strongly in a narrative that goes some way to illustrate how, illogically sometimes, people can become attached to their pets. Good fun, this film.

Good stuff, unmistakably Tim Burton.
Frankenweenie is a solid stop-motion horror film from Disney. Interesting plot, coupled with a suitable cast and untypical animation. It's also in black-and-white, which doesn't hamper things at all - I, in a weird sort of way, kinda forgot it was b/w for vast portions.
Charlie Tahan voices the lead character, Victor Frankenstein. You also have well-known names in Winona Ryder (Elsa), Martin Short (Edward) and Catherine O'Hara (Susan). I also liked Martin Landau as Rzykruski. There's decent humour amongst those characters, too.
Worth a watch, for sure.

"Anna" (Naomi Watts) in the well meaning midwife who wants to repatriate a recently orphaned child with the family of it's deceased mother. All she has to go on is a diary, in Russian, so she takes it to her uncle "Stepan" (Jerzy Skolimowski) who doesn't really want anything to do with it! There's another clue, though - a card that leads her to a restaurant where she meets "Semyon" (Armin Mueller-Stahl), his rather obnoxious son "Kirill" (Vincent Cassel) and his henchman "Nikolai" (Viggo Mortensen). She gets the older man to agree to do some translating for her, but in the meantime her uncle has also decided to have a go after all - and what "Anna" soon discovers sends a shiver down her spine! She now has an idea as to the paternity of the child, but given what she is now experiencing, she faces quite a quandary in knowing what is best (and safest) to actually do. As she and her own family become more embroiled in the perilous antics of London's gangland activities, it might be that she needs to rely a little on "Nikolai" - the only piece on the board that might be able to help. What now ensues is a well acted and scripted story of power, violence brutality and family - and woe-betides anyone who crosses the hierarchy from the mother country. Watts is on good form here and of the men, Mortensen competently takes the top billing - but it's Cassel - usually a good character actor - who stands out here as the vodka-swilling and truly odious brute, and as the denouement looms the tension is palpable and the conclusion anything but predictable. This works better on a big screen if you can as that evokes a better sense of a London with an evil underbelly, but either way it's still at the better end of the vicious crime genre.

Really dumb boring movie. I'm just glad that I got this movie for free and didn't have to waste money on this garbage movie.

"Patience Philips" (Halle Berry) is an artist pretty much afraid of her own shadow who finds herself embroiled in a scheme by her cosmetics company employer with plans to distribute an unique anti-aging formula. Luckily for her, though, she also encounters Frances Conroy "Ophelia" and is soon in possession of some amazing powers giving her a ninja-like athleticism, strength, and flexibility - just like, well, a cat! The story itself it pretty lame, Sharon Stone is "Laurel", the scheming boss and Hollywood's flirtation with the totally hopeless Benjamin Bratt "Tom Lone" was still in full tilt as we embark on a truly comic book exercise in expertly choreographed but totally sterile set-piece action sequences. Halle looks great, lithe, supple and I like to think she was in on the joke all along; for a joke this definitely is.

**Catwoman shocks at every turn proving it can invent new ways to get worse. A true masterpiece of terrible nonsense.**
Oh my… there does not exist a proper combination of words to describe the insane ridiculousness of this film. Catwoman is the most 2000s movie to ever 2000. The grunge soundtrack, the leather costumes, corporate greed, the non-existent plot, and the spastic editing all explain this movie claiming 4 Razzies and three additional nominations. It’s hilariously bad at every level. The basketball scene is iconic for having dozens of cuts in a matter of seconds, almost causing motion sickness. Halle Berry tries her best, but nothing can salvage this wreck. Honestly, it’s worth watching to live in awe that this movie actually exists.

Scots-born Gerard Butler ("Gerry") sports an American accent and comes from Ireland so maybe this isn't going to be the most plausible rom-com? He has a fiery but loving relationship with his wife "Holly" (Hilary Swank) who can't decide if she wants kids or not. Sadly, his active role in the film is cut short and she is left to deal with the consequences of widowhood. She's not alone on her new journey, though. "Gerry" had anticipated her predicament and left some letters to help her get through the grief and set off on a new path - however reluctantly she might want one. At first it's a cake for her birthday then as more arrive we start to appreciate more about how they met and fell in love. Some disastrous karaoke, temper tantrums and his downright hostile relationship with her mother "Patricia" (Kathy Bates). A trip to Ireland helps her to recalibrate though, and a meeting with local musician "William" (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) makes he realise that her life has plenty of legs in it yet. At home, lifelong friend "Daniel" (Harry Connick Jr.) presses his suit and makes her think even more about her future. Can she find love again? Connick is on decent form as is Bates, but the remainder of this is just a bit too sentimental for mea and the humour doesn't land often enough. There's little by way of chemistry on display and though the letter-writing concept is quite original, the execution becomes just a bit too episodic and Butler tries too hard to make this work. It's perfectly watchable, but is too workmanlike to be memorable.

Now there graduated, and working jobs that they are unhappy with. They get get bored with life's everyday mundane things. They get asked to perform again and the group accepts.

**Pitch Perfect 3 cranks up the crazy for a hilarious send-off that also knows how to appreciate its characters and what made the franchise so fun.**
The Pitch Perfect movies are all over the top goofy, but that goofiness reaches new heights - and I loved it! The same outrageous zaniness of all these colorful characters continues, but this time, their circumstances are even more ridiculous than before! There are riff-offs, yes, but also action sequences, animal attacks, explosions, and more, all wrapped in a heartfelt story of friendship and a loving send-off of these lovable misfits. The Pitch Perfect movies became a fantastic way to disconnect and laugh at the nonsense for an hour and a half. I am glad that they concluded the series with a fun farewell that honored the characters and stayed true to the wacky personality of the franchise.

Almost poor, but 'Pitch Perfect 3' has just enough about it to avoid it being a chore to sit through.
I didn't enjoy it, it's definitely the weakest of the series. With that said, there is somehow still narrowly enough there to stop it becoming bad - just. The shorter run time helps, while the musical numbers are a step up on 'Pitch Perfect 2' in my opinion; the Toxic end is fun.
Anna Kendrick (Beca) and Rebel Wilson (Fat Amy) remain the pick of the onscreen talent. None of the other regulars stand out, nor do any of the newcomers - though it's always cool to see John Lithgow (Fergus), albeit with a dodgy accent, while 'Timeless' star Matt Lanter (Chicago) also appears.
The plot is very lame, yet I honestly didn't dislike it - almost, but not quite.

First of all, I just went to watch this because I've seen the other two, which I kind of enjoyed, but I didn't have much expectation when I went to see this. And I was still disappointed. I felt like the plot was very weak and I was confused about what they were doing most of the time. There was plenty of singing and dancing, obviously, which was good for the most part. But it wasn't as good as the other films. Probably my biggest complaint would be about Fat Amy and her dad. Now, John Lithgow is a great actor in my opinion, but as an Australian, I was a big taken aback when he was cast as an Australian. His Aussie accent was hit and miss and after the movie all I was thinking was the possible Australian actors that could've been cast in his place. John Jarratt comes to mind (joke). Also, why do people keep casting Ruby Rose. No offence, but she just can't act. And she did an American accent in this so that was a bit weird as well. Overall, I wasn't expecting much from this movie and I got what I expected. I'm probably glad they're not making these movies anymore. I give it a low score for the lack of plot and it just felt like the same movie but worse.

**It's not a hateful or forgettable movie, but it's far from being lively or happy.**
Despite its weaknesses, I confess I liked this film, and that maybe comes from the fact that it touched me personally. Being a film that is so focused on the pain of losing someone dear, on how a person faces situations of suffering and manages to digest it, it was a film that cost me a little to watch because I also lost a very dear person recently. I expected a more cheerful film with a more lively tone. That, yes, partially frustrated my expectations, and I believe that other people will also say the same. However, I cannot say that I hated what I saw.
In fact, the script focuses on a young teenager who has to live his day-to-day life, at school and at home, while mentally and psychologically preparing himself for the imminent orphanhood, as his mother is very ill and, we know it, will die soon. And in the midst of all this, he ends up imagining, in a very realistic way, a big monster that comes to visit him and that forces him to deal with the feelings he is feeling, and to deal with situations, and also with a grandmother with who has relationship problems.
Directed by J.A. Bayona is a relatively average film. The script is predictable, the "monster-tree" is something we've seen in other films, but it's always a good idea, especially if it's supposed to be a wise and ancient monster, as is the case here. Lewis MacDougall is the young man who will have the lead role in the film, and he does it quite well, even though the script is not very demanding on him. I also enjoyed Felicity Jones' performance, even though the actress doesn't really have much to do. And I feel sorry for Sigourney Weaver, because she's a good actress in the wrong role. It was a massive casting error, and it would have been preferable to cast a genuinely British actress in the role, rather than an American with a notoriously faked accent.
Technically, the highlight obviously goes to the CGI, which is good enough and does an interesting job, especially in the scenes where the tree “awakens” to move and reveal its real appearance. I also liked the soundtrack, even if it's not the most memorable or interesting, and the cinematography, which does its job flawlessly. Liam Neeson was, once again, responsible for the voice of the monster. The actor is already a veteran of dubbing and has given voice to many fantastic characters in other films, so it was a sure bet for the production.

This is a very enjoyable tale. It's targeted to younger viewers, and therefore the characters are not at all complex. In spite of that shortcoming from an adult's POV, the overall effect is wonderful and emotional. Definitely worth the time.

**An alternate way to confront the reality.**
Based on the British novel, made by a well known Spanish director. This film might remind you the titles like 'Finding Neverland', 'Where the Wild Things Are', 'Neverwas' et cetera, but still it is unique. Particularly for the message it carried out. Many lines were awesome, inspiring for those whose world are crumbling down. Emotional, as well as one of the best recent children's films.
The story of a boy whose mother is severely ill. He starts to have weird dreams, following, an appearance of a tree-monster from the nearby cemetery. The monster is to tell a few tales and at the end of it, he has to tell the truth about his nightmares to him. So as the days go by, it becomes more challenging to him to confront the reality. He can't run away from all, but to face it and those are the remaining narration.
While being a kid, they believe every fantasy tale have narrated to them. Even a picture of those tales would influence to have an imagination in their daily life activity. This film does not hide anything from the viewers just to bring a breathtaking twist at the finale. So, you would know what's happening, but why, is the puzzle to solve. Even that is not a hard nut to crack. Though the purpose of the film is to reveal how some children cope a tragic event in their life, like perhaps the film 'Before I Wake', with misunderstanding the words said by the grown ups to them. This is really a wonderful film for kids, as well as for adults. I Hope you won't miss it.
_7/10_

If you like the 1960s Mod culture and music, and maybe Soho in particular, as well as morality tale horror elements, great dialogue, unique and interesting characters, ghosts, seamless editing, and beautiful inner city photography--or maybe just one of these elements--then you'll love this foray into the mind of a 21st century girl who idolizes everything 1960s, even to the point of designing clothes that harp back to the era of Petula Clark, Sean Connery, the Kray Twins and their ilk, and everything else that made up that portion of the Post-War Dream. Great effort by all and fantastic payoff. More from this director, please.

Edgar Wright takes the audience on a journey back and forth from present day to the swinging sixties in this wonderful psychological thriller. Due to Eloise’s ( Thomasin McKenzie ) upbringing by her grandmother ( Rita Tushingham ) she is obsessed with the 1960’s fashion and music. After being accepted onto a fashion course at a leading London college, Eloise moves into student accommodation and shares a room with another girl on the same course. Unfortunately the two girls are polar opposites and Eloise quickly relocates to a bedsit on Goodge Street in the heart of London. The landlady Miss Collins ( Diana Rigg ) welcomes her to the property with the house rules that include no male visitors. From this position in the heart of London Eloise manages to secure a part time job and has easy access to vintage dress shops and local landmarks.
However from early on we are shown that Eloise has a form of psychic gift or illness that allows her to see and communicate with her dead mother. This affliction becomes even more stronger once Eloise has settled into the bedsit. After she retires to bed Eloise is almost immediately transported back in time to sixties London and becomes a character called Alex who changes her name to Sandy. Sandy ( Anna Taylor-Joy ) has also just arrived in London looking for fame. A talented singer, blonde, beautiful and full of confidence, Sandy transports Eloise to the nightclub scene of Swinging London where she encounters sixties star Cilla Black performing in front of an audience. Jack ( Matt Smith ) a handsome, playboy talent manager spots Sandy and the two quickly form a relationship. However as the evening draws to a close and Sandy and Jack passionately embrace, Eloise is abruptly awoken by her alarm and is back in her own bed. Initially what was perceived as just a dream becomes more unnerving when it is pointed out to Eloise at college that she has a love bite on her neck. Each evening Eloise is transported back in time as both observer of Sandy and Sandy herself. As Eloise becomes more obsessed with sixties London and the fun loving Sandy, Eloise in the present day, begins to change her look and style to copy that of Sandy. The toxic relationship of Sandy and Jack intensifies as Eloise discovers Jack wasn't a talent agent but only looking to recruit another girl into prostitution. As the seedier and more dark side of Soho London in the 1960’s begins to emerge, Eloise finds herself embroiled in a nightmare that threatens both her sanity and life.
Anna Taylor-Joy is outstanding especially during the audition and earlier nightclub scenes. The soundtrack is littered with 1960’s classic hits and as Eloise’s mental state deteriorates and her actions become more erratic the music perfectly reflects action on screen. There is a very satisfying conclusion that allows the late Diana Rigg to shine and she gives a strong and extremely memorable performance as the sinister landlady.
In conclusion “Last Night In Soho” is a very satisfying and enjoyable horror, thriller that until the final chapter has the audience guessing what is real and was is not and who is the actual antagonist.

Edgar Wright's most recent film is... very good!
I don't love (but still like) the ending as much as the rest of it, though 'Last Night in Soho' is an extremely enjoyable psychological horror flick. The film's aesthetic is top notch, while the performances of Thomasin McKenzie and Anya Taylor-Joy are brilliant; the way their story is portrayed is real nice. Diana Rigg, Matt Smith and Terence Stamp are involved too.
I do have a few lesser things to mention. The fashion college classmates being hella cartoony is one, though the only main one is the end reveal... it kinda underwhelmed me, even if there's nothing inherently wrong with it. As it happened I was just like "well, OK...". I think I expected greater based on what precedes. It's a 'good' conclusion, still.
All in all, it just falls short of being something I'd consider as 'great' but I still had a positive time with it and would happily revisit it. As for its standing in my Edgar Wright ranking, it's top three... though, to be honest, all of his movies - 'A Fistful of Fingers' aside - are good.

**Last Night in Soho seemed like a terrifying innovative horror flick but didn’t deliver.**
Last Night in Soho promised a completely original fresh new horror film from the brilliant mind of Edgar Wright. The trailers were unnerving, tense, and scary, but unfortunately, that was where the horror stayed. The sequences set in the past were interesting and well done but as the murder mystery began to unfurl, so did the movie. The twists weren’t satisfying, and the terror didn’t measure up to its promise. The creativity of Last Night in Soho had so much potential but fell short.

I found that Last Night in Soho took its sweet time getting me hooked, but as the first act was coming to a close, I was locked in. The movie constantly had me thinking what was to come next, trying to decipher what was the connection between the main characters were and why this was happening. There were scenes in this film that really had me on the edge of my seat, and I have not had that experience in a long time. I did not know much coming into the film, so I expected Anya Taylor-Joy to be the lead, but I was pleasantly surprised at the power performance that Thomasin McKenzie delivered. She really displayed the full range of emotion, showing shades of a shy timid and unsure girl to being a powerful and confident mistress of the night. But not only did these dueling personalities take center stage, but her ability to capture the horror and terror her visions continued to bring on. It was an amazing and I will definitely be tuning in to more of her films. I found the plot to be very good, on the surface it is somewhat simplistic, but it is delivered very well with each piece of the puzzle slowly being hand delivered by Edgar Wright. But by the third act, the twists are predictable, and the ending does not deliver as much as I would have liked.
**Verdict:** _Excellent_

Full review: https://www.tinakakadelis.com/beyond-the-cinerama-dome/2021/12/28/for-a-dollar-name-a-woman-last-night-in-soho-review
The plot follows shy, ‘60s-aesthetic-loving Eloise (Thomasin McKenzie) as she leaves her small country home and heads to the big city of London to attend fashion school. After one bad night in the dorm, she decides to move into a room offered for rent by an older woman, Miss Collins (the late, great Diana Rigg). On her first night in the new room, Eloise dreams of Soho in the fabulous ’60s through the eyes of aspiring lounge singer Sandie (Anya Taylor-Joy). That first dream, in which a wide-eyed Eloise watches the confident Sandie secure an audition from Jack (Matt Smith), is a true marvel. The swapping between Eloise in her pajamas and Sandie in her flowy go-go dress as they twirl with Jack is a beautiful technical and choreographic achievement. The flawless re-creation of the flashy lights and neon signs of Soho in the ’60s deserves immense praise. Presented on its own, that first dream sequence is a delight.

Not a big fan of Edgar Wright compared to some (fine filmmaker but don't get excited when a project of his is announced; and to be fair, same really goes for Christopher Nolan as well lately), but this one does feature some good 1960s-era music and the performances from both Thomasin McKenzie and Anya Taylor-Joy (whom I am a big fan of) were great and some fun mind-twisting scenery and visuals, though in the end felt it was fine as whole. Worthy of a watch, though. **3.5/5**

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/last-night-in-soho-spoiler-free-review
"Last Night in Soho is incredibly captivating throughout the entire runtime, but Edgar Wright's all-in in the insane third act is definitely going to generate a divisive response.
Story-wise, the compelling protagonists - brilliantly interpreted by Thomasin McKenzie and Anya Taylor-Joy - follow intriguing arcs holding unexpected revelations that ultimately make sense with the overall narrative. Stunning cinematography and production design come together to create a visually jaw-dropping 1960s London, which becomes an even more entertaining place to visit due to Steve Price's addictive music.
However, the last act feels a sudden hurry to tie every knot through overwhelming editing, hasty pacing, and careless transitions, which work against what the film had been until that point.
I commend Wright's commitment and extreme dedication to his vision, but the restraint shown previously should have also been part of the conclusion."
Rating: B+

It's a prayer log...but it don't work too good.
First off this movie have good moments and dark moments, be ready for this roller coaster cause it'll be a ride.
I love how they have the author of the book being the narrator for this movie.
Saints becomes sinners and vice versa without even knowing it.
Between the performance of the cast and how this whole story unfolds, it is a journey of evil, faith, religion, and power among all who are living in this rural area.
I must say this is worth watching but man, it is soul wrecking darkness.
Just be prepare for this watch.
Pairing this with soul wrecking tough watches like The Nightingale (2018) or GWEN (2018) comes to mind.

_**Drearily fighting… the devil all the time**_
In backwood towns of West Virginia and southern Ohio during the mid-60s several characters converge around a disillusioned orphan (Tom Holland) devoted to protecting those he loves.
“The Devil All the Time” (2020) is a slow-burn Southern Gothic psychological drama with crime thrills in the mold of "Undertow" (2004) mixed with the dismal rural tone of, say, “Winter’s Bone” (2010), “Mud” (2012), “Joe” (2013) and “1922” (2017).
The bleak story emphasizes the deep mysteries of life, like man’s brutality to fellow man, premature death, unanswered prayer, religious misbelief/error, justification of sin, corrupt authority figures, the downward spiral of a criminal lifestyle, divine justice (whether you perceive it or not), hope and, maybe, redemption.
Some complain that it’s ultimately pointless, but it’s not. It may be meandering and ambiguous, but it’s not pointless. You just have to be braced for a slow drama, degenerate characters, lots o’ narration (by the author of the book), time jumps, convoluted storytelling and a muted emotional payoff. Another thing to consider is that the story doesn’t become compelling until the last 50-55 minutes.
The movie doesn’t ridicule people who believe in Christianity, as some have criticized, but rather realistically shows how certain individuals with mental issues can misinterpret the Scriptures or the Spirit’s leading, as well as use their position to serve their carnal interests rather than serve people.
There are weird and disturbing aspects that are gut-wrenching or disgusting, but the author based these things on real-life cases.
It’s a quality production with convincing acting/costuming/sets/locations, but the snaky downbeat story isn’t for everyone.
The film runs 2 hours, 16 minutes and was shot in Alabama (Anniston, Montevallo, Birmingham, Oak Mountain State Park and several other points in the area).
GRADE: B-

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
Netflix has been able to deliver films with all-star casts pretty regularly. Whether people like the movie or not, that’s a whole other subject, but as a convincing argument to make people want to watch a film, this type of casting is perfect. Almost every actor in The Devil All The Time is a fan-favorite due to their presence in cinematic universes, iconic sagas, or Oscar-winning flicks, so it’s no surprise if this aspect alone gets audiences to sit in their couches for a movie with an almost two-hour-and-a-half runtime. This is my first time watching an Antonio Campos’ film, and my expectations were moderately high, having in mind the synopsis and the genre itself.
I didn’t know what the movie was really about since the synopsis doesn’t really shine a light on what the main narrative truly addresses. I only watch the first official trailer *after* I watch the film (so I know what I can write in my reviews), and to be honest, it’s a bit misleading when it comes to the time certain actors are actually on-screen (Holland only shows up after forty-five minutes, for example). So, for the first hour-and-a-half, I found myself struggling to understand where the story was going. There are more than a handful of relevant characters and storylines, being this my main issue with the flick, but I’ll get there.
I’ll start with the cast and their characters. The former group is impeccable, as expected. Tom Holland is undoubtedly the biggest surprise by delivering a part of him that no one had seen so far. Arvin’s personality is shaped based on his traumatic, tragic, violent childhood. Transitioning from the friendly neighborhood Spider-Man to such a haunted character is not an easy task, but Holland finds a way of dealing with the emotionally overwhelming, dark path that Arvin walks. However, this is a long movie where every character has an important role to play, even those who barely impact the story until the last few minutes.
Bill Skarsgård plays Holland’s father, seamlessly incorporating a man whose blind faith in religion sets not only a horrible chain of events, but it also establishes the overall theme for the film. Riley Keough and Jason Clarke play a weird couple with a disturbing modus operandi, but the former is genuinely impressive. She’s becoming quite an interesting actress by picking unique roles in unconventional movies. Everyone else is great, Robert Pattinson, Eliza Scanlen, Sebastian Stan, you name it, but Holland, Skarsgård, and Keough are my absolute standouts, as well as their characters. They’re definitely most developed across the runtime than the others, which takes me to one of my negatives.
With so many characters, the balance between the numerous storylines fails to be consistent enough to keep me engaged throughout the entire runtime. Antonio and Paulo Campos offer every character a good chunk of time, giving the viewer opportunity to understand the motivations behind said characters and connect with their story. Excellent storytelling method, no doubt about it. However, by the end of the film, some characters have close to zero impact on the narrative in retrospect. Contrasting with my standouts, a few characters feel one-dimensional, used merely either as a plot device to make the story go forward or as an object for gratuitous, gory, bloody killing.
That last aspect might be a no-go for tons of viewers. There are dozens of sequences where a character is brutally shot or beat close to death, so you have my warning. It can go from entertaining to excessively gruesome in a matter of seconds. Nevertheless, the thing I love the most about The Devil All The Time will be the exact same many viewers will definitely hate: its take on religion. Similarly to Darren Aronofsky’s mother!, this is a movie that doesn’t shy away from depicting how blind faith in hardcore religiousness can be dark, somber, sinful, and take people through the most terrible of paths. It’s the overall theme that connects every storyline.
Throughout the film, almost every character’s decision is made based on their religious beliefs in some shape or form. If they believe praying is the solution to cancer, they’ll pray for days in a row and make sacrifices. If they believe God is giving them supernatural powers, they’ll do everything to test his will. If they believe God is telling them to make the most illogical decisions, perform inhuman actions, and sin in the most awful way possible, they’ll do it in the blink of an eye. This religious manipulation is depicted in such a realistic manner that it transforms The Devil All The Time into a pretty tricky viewing. For me, it felt so authentic that I can easily connect it to the state of the real world.
From the moment I realized this underlying theme, the second half of the movie became much more interesting. Character arcs start to intertwine, previous questions being to receive their respective answers, and everything falls into place in the last thirty to forty-five minutes. However, the runtime still feels way too long, and even though Antonio and Paulo Campos do a remarkable job by coherently joining the several storylines, some of these simply don’t add anything to the narrative or to the protagonist’s arc. Technically impressive across the board, standouts being Lol Crawley’s lingering cinematography and the sweet score from Danny Bensi and Saunder Jurriaans.
The Devil All The Time is destined to be incredibly divisive. Antonio Campos and Paulo Campos conjured up a somber, dark, extremely violent screenplay, packed with numerous storylines and an underlying theme that’s going to cause some controversy. With such a stellar cast, it’s impossible not to have outstanding performances. The entire cast is impeccable, but Tom Holland (the absolute standout), Riley Keough, and Bill Skarsgård deserve the shoutout due to their genuinely impressive displays. However, the high number of characters and their respective arcs unnecessarily overextend the runtime. Too much time is given to characters who, in retrospect, barely have an impact in the narrative or in the protagonist. Some are used as mere plot devices or kill targets for the sake of entertainment. Nevertheless, the narrative’s focus on religion is bold and audacious, showing how blind faith can negatively influence people’s lives, taking them and others through the most painful paths. Depending on each person’s view on religion, on how open the mind can be and the sensibility to bloody violence, I leave my warning that this film might not be for everyone. But, if it is for you, it will be hard to forget.
Rating: B+

**A good example of a film that was extremely notable in its time, but that is not very relevant today.**
This film is considered by some to be one of the best that US cinema has given us. It is also the film that catapulted to fame the discreet Dustin Hoffman, one of the most consistent and solid actors of his generation. There is no doubt that he deserved the status, in this and other films that followed. However, considering this film as one of the best ever made in the USA doesn't seem fair to me: the film is satisfactory, it was a huge success at the time and had an impact on pop culture, but it has aged poorly, and today it seems like nothing more than a minor work.
The script is, perhaps, the key point to understanding the film: a love triangle between a young man inexperienced with women, a seductive older woman and her young daughter, with whom he falls in love. Released in 1967, in the wake of the Sexual Revolution and a growing challenge to society's values and morals, it is a film with a strong focus on the characters' sexuality and which places women in the role of seductress before a beardless, clumsy male figure. The sexual evocations are discreet in our eyes – we are too used to films with explicit sexual content – but enough to shock and excite people at the time and give the film a huge success at the box office.
However, let's be honest: watching the film today, it's forgettable. I understand the impact it had and the way it was viewed, but it has aged poorly and seems somewhat dated, uninteresting and conventional. On the other hand, there is a huge lack of morality, an implicit nihilism that is only rebutted when Hoffman's character fights for love, finding a meaning that goes beyond carnal attraction, even though the story between these two characters seems totally unbelievable.
Technically, the film has nothing special, and takes on a conventional aspect as it bets all its chips on the story told and the performance of the cast. There is only extra care in some details, such as the excellent soundtrack, with songs by Simon & Garfunkel, made specifically for the film and which are now known even to those who have never seen it. Dustin Hoffman deserved all the attention he got: he carried the film on his back and wisely took advantage of the opportunity to boost his career. However, he is the only interesting actor in the film. Anne Bancroft fulfills what is required of her, but does not go beyond that, and Katherine Ross is not well used.

Dustin Hoffman is great in this as the impressionable twenty-one year old "Ben" who falls prey to the wiles of the woman immortalised by Simon & Garfunkel. "Mrs Robinson" (Anne Bancroft) is married to the husband of his father's business partner. She is sexy, alluring, sophisticated - and he, well he is just young, naive and horny. Their assignations proceed with few problems but in parallel, his own family are trying to hook him up with her daughter "Elaine" (Katharine Ross). The plot thickens and poor old "Ben" finds him self more and more conflicted, Whom might he choose? Whom might he be allowed to choose? Can their secret stay just that? What, I think, keeps this stylish effort from Mike Nichols relevant fifty-odd years later is it's ability to expose the human, visceral, need for sex, for love, for "more" - without graphically demonstrating it! How characters evolve into more rounded, measured, less "instant" human beings - and Hoffman carries that development role off perfectly. Bancroft is simply a class act. She manages to morph from glamorous wife and mother to seductress and back again with a distinct panache and chic that is both menacing and tantalising in equal measure. You just know that the equilibrium, the balance of power and dependency between the two will change, it has to - but how? That's the question. At what cost - collateral, emotional, personal? The production standards are excellent, the dialogue potent and the chemistry between the initially hapless Hoffman and Bancroft palpable. Of course, a memorable soundtrack helps it along too and if you can see this on a big screen, then it's well worth the effort.