Add it to the “passible movies that are adaptations of Stephen King novels” pile, which is getting concerning-ly large.
Regardless, I got to see the NOPE trailer on the big screen!

**Ironically, this fire never got going—total dud.**
What? How? I didn't expect to be blown away, but I also didn't expect to be bored. I love Blumhouse flicks, and their fresh take on The Invisible Man had my expectations high for their version of Firestarter. Unfortunately, this was as straight to streaming as a movie could feel. Think Push (2009) but much more mediocre.

Eh, just another pointless remake/re-adaptation, although I don't mind it since the 1984 version wasn't great either. Nothing terrible but not anything special either. Performances were bland and not even the pyrotechnics weren't all that impressive. I guess it's fine to watch for free on Peakcock Premium but even so, you're really not missing anything. **2.25/5**

He might look good in a white T-shirt but the thing is, as Zac Efron gets older he looks more and more like an automaton. When he was younger, he had a charm about him - now he just looks like his life consists of nothing but the gym, the manscapists and a bath in yesterday's excess kale smoothie mix! Add to that really lacklustre performance some screaming from a competent youngster in Ryan Kiera Armstrong ("Charlie") and we are left with a very mediocre adaptation of this pretty lightweight Stephen King story that is big on pyrotechnic effects, certainly, but on very little else. There is a story: the youngster can cause things to combust at will when she gets stressed or annoyed; her father can bend people to his will making his eyes bleed in the process - quite an effective cure for smokers who want to give up; and her mother - Sidney Lemmon, well she too has a quirk - but I cannot remember what it was (but it definitely wasn't firefighting). Anyway, those who scientifically enhanced this family are hot on their trail - and it's all a question of who will prevail. Well it would be if you were still remotely bothered but after half an hour I just wasn't. For a movie about conflagration - it's sadly all a bit of a damp squib.

Unfortunately not funny. Good war footage and engaging fish-out-of-water scenes. Crowe stuff is great. Kind of like Forrest Gump.

**By: Louisa Moore / www.ScreenZealots.com**
What bugs me the most about “The Greatest Beer Run Ever” is director Peter Farrelly’s indecisiveness. He can’t seem to pick a tone and stick with it. The first part is filled with lighthearted moments that make it seem like the film is a tailor-made crowd-pleasing movie. The last half of the film (and the strongest) is firm in its anti-war messaging. Farrelly tries to be too many things to too many people, and the result is a film that feels at odds with itself.
Set in 1967, the film tells the true story of Chickie Donohue (Zac Efron), a man who wants to do something special to show his support for his neighborhood friends serving in Vietnam. He gets the outrageous idea to hand-deliver cans of beer to them on the front lines so they can have a little taste of home, and to show them that somebody back in New York still cares. When the locals start to encourage (and count on) Chickie to complete his mission, the man sets off for the jungles of Vietnam with a rucksack full of Pabst Blue Ribbon.
It’s a terrific story that should make a great film. The problem is that there isn’t much to the movie other than the premise. Some of the situations Chickie finds himself in are ridiculous, and there’s no complexity to the story at all. It’s as straightforward as they come, in what I can only presume was a conscious effort by Farrelly to keep it easily accessible for mainstream audiences.
The film briefly touches on the political and social impacts of the Vietnam War, including the division between Chickie’s family and friends. The film gets better once he heads back to Saigon and the story settles into its strong anti-war stance. It’s heavy-handed in its “war is hell” messaging, and it’s where the film gets away from its actors.
Efron is fine as the film’s leading man, but the role requires a depth that seems to be a bit too much of a stretch for him at this point in his career. He’s talented, but is asked to do more than he’s comfortably capable. Bill Murray is a high point of the film, although he only makes a very brief appearance as the neighborhood barkeep. The best work comes from Russell Crowe as a photojournalist.
There are some memorable scenes in “The Greatest Beer Run Ever,” but they will be soon forgotten under the weight of the film’s boilerplate script. Just because the movie is based on an interesting true story doesn’t automatically make it a winner.

This tells the true story of Chickie Donohue (Zac Efron) who decided that he was fed up hearing the continuing reports of bad news from the Vietnam war, and so decided to travel to the war zone - as a civilian - and take the serving friends from his neighbourhood some beer! Using a combination of guile and brass neck, he is soon in situ, where he encounters the cynical journalist Arthur Coates (Russell Crowe) before embarking on his trek to deliver his beer. If it were not fact, it would really beggar belief this - the hand that serendipity plays in ensuring not just his safety, but the manner in which he blags his way around this tortured land, is sometimes just a little too difficult to believe. Efron is never going to be a good versatile actor, but to give him his due he delivers well enough here with a decent script and once we enter the final phase that involves more of a contribution from Crowe, the film picks up giving us some indication of just how perilous life was for those facing the Viet Cong's stealthy advance. It's not without it's humour and it illustrates amusingly just how afraid everyone was of falling foul of the CIA - a confusion which he was able to take advantage of on a regular basis! It's a tale of camaraderie in it's truest form, and though not really a cinema film, is at the better end of the Apple productions we have seen so far. It is half an hour too long - it takes way too long to get going, but once we are in Asia, it's a watchable enough drama.

**A very well-made film, in which the biggest flaw is trying to make a teenage love eternal.**
What happens after we die is one of the mysteries that has preoccupied the human race forever and remains unsolved. Of course, this will continue because Man's incessant search for more knowledge is doomed to hit insurmountable limits, barriers that we cannot penetrate. That is, despite his will, Man is not supposed to know everything. However, faith has proposed a lot of answers to the question of death, and there is not, I think, a single religion that does not defend the existence of life after the moment when the heart stops beating. What changes is what each religion and belief system proposes for that existence, and the way it seeks to advocate that proposal.
We don't know what religion believed Tessa and Skylar, the two main characters in the film, which never touches on issues of faith or religion at any time. We only know about the teenage love story they live, during a very short period of time that ends suddenly, when they have an accident, he dies, and she is injured. Times later, she begins to notice strange things, which lead her to believe that her late boyfriend is trying to communicate with her. The script is good, the story is nice, we quickly see a strong influence of the movie “Ghost” in this cinematographic work, and much of the story takes place in flashback, but it is relatively easy for us to understand when they start and when they end.
However, and despite the qualities, we have to recognize that the film does not bring anything new and that there are many overly sugary moments, in which the romance is served with excessive doses of sweetness and fussiness, normal for a teenage couple, but deeply irritating for the mentality of more adult and mature people. Let's face it, it was a summer dating! It was almost certainly not the great love of Tessa's life. I don't know that many couples who met each other in their teens and stayed together for all (or almost all) of their lives. It just doesn't happen on a regular basis, and it's difficult for us, however painful and traumatic the situation for the young girl may be, for her loss to be comparable to a mother who loses a child, or a child who loses her mother or something. And the supernatural and the existence of spirits or “ghosts” does not make sense to all people, even when their faith beliefs admit their existence.
The protagonists are Kyle Allen and Joey King, two very young actors who still have a long way to go if they want to keep their careers active in the world of cinema and television. I can't say they didn't do well… in fact, considering their youth, they both seem to have done a very satisfying job, especially King, who has more screen time, better material and more experience as an actress. The chemistry between the two is also good, it works quite well and lends some credibility to their romance. There is, however, something missing, a spark of intensity and maturity.
Technically, the film consistently relies on CGI and digital and computer-made special effects. It's something increasingly common, and dealing with a movie with a supernatural theme, it was difficult to escape it and avoid spending a good sum of money on good effects. I liked them, in general, especially the effect of the TV static, the mirror that breaks and the slow motion that follows (which reminded me of “Matrix” with their bullets). The bluish cloud that follows the car and that starts to drive it, after a certain moment, seemed to me cliché and exaggerated. The film makes use of a fairly regular cinematography, but well executed, with good colors and good lighting, and the editing was well done, giving the film a very safe and pleasant rhythm. The locations used for filming, the sets and the costumes are predictable, and the soundtrack is not memorable.

I was watching this thinking how much Alisha Weir's performance in the title role reminded me of Emma Watson's "Hermione" from back in 2001! Feisty and intelligent, she is sent by her parents to the "Cruncher Hall" school where she encounters "Miss Trunchbull" (Dame Emma Thompson). Now this is a teacher who would not have looked out of place working with King Herod at Christmas! The children live in fear of her, as do the staff - but as "Matilda" starts to bond with "Miss Honey" (Lashana Lynch) and realises her true potential, well - a rebellion is soon in the offing! It's a strong story this - Dahl addressed many issues of neglectful parenting, bullying, intimidation and sexual stereotyping and Tim Minchin puts much of that sentiment effectively to music with a clever and entertaining lyric. The almost unrecognisable Dame Emma is on top form exuding an almost ridiculous degree of menace as helped by her array of cctv cameras, she rules the school with a rod of iron. Weir really enters into the spirit of things - she puts her heart and soul into the enthusiastic, mischievous and engaging character and with some enjoyably choreographed ensemble dance numbers this all delivers well. It still has a bit of the theatrical to it, some of the production doesn't quite make the best use of the flexibility the big screen offers, but the toe-tapping "Naughty" and "Revolting Children" help put a smile on your face for a surprisingly quickly-paced two hours.

I don't rate a film 10/10 unless it's wonderful and my reviews tend to be motivated by either abject disappointment or outright admiration. I think that's very much most people's experience of film, you either love it or you don't.
With Close, there's everything to love and it is an exercise in pure love, not just in its storyline but also the art of film, acting and storytelling. Importantly. It is akin to a dissection, an expert analysis of youth told through the eyes of two boys in tremendous pain. It is nuanced and a near savant, perceptive commentary on the predjudices cultivated within the human predicament from the very outset. It captures perfectly how instilled bigotry dessicates pure innocence from the moment a child sets foot into wider society via the educational system and it is a damning indictment of what we've become or failed to become, more accurately.
The storyline shows how deep rooted prejudice can destroy a pure and innocent love between two boys, and it perfectly contrasts how the insipid and evil innuendo from female quarters feeds into to the outright violent machismo in male quarters, together combining to destroy the boys' idea of what their friendship was, to sully it unjustly and to make them feel that what was wonderful is wrong, to make them paranoid and defensive. It is a tale as old as time, the despicable and mean way jealous observers seek to destroy what they can't have, because they don't have that capacity. And it is infuriating as a viewer to see homophobia cast onto an innocent friendship at a tender age because it is precursive homophobia targeted at closeness, at innocent brotherly love. It is infuriating because it shows how deep rooted homophobia is in both girls' and boys' upbringing - bigotry that is used to target close friendship and innocence as a near precautionary measure, vaccinating the world at large against any male affection just in case it might turn into something more.
There is much praise for this film and the writer/director Lukas Dhont is talented beyond what many critics seem to be able to bring themselves to admit, for he has, at a rather youthful age, created a work which leaves many in the industry probably wondering how he does it and where they went wrong.
If Hollywood is the centre of the movie business, it is only due to money, and Lukas Dhont has, in this Belgian film, and as much French cinema has done before, shone a light on what cinema can and should be, and by comparison, he puts the typical offerings of Hollywood to shame. It is truly a comparison of fast food to haute cuisine.
By way of another comparison and a similar study of loss, there was much praise for Aftersun and I gave it a great review. Having now seen Close, I think Aftersun is rudimentary in comparison and I wonder if the fact that Close is in French/Flemish is sufficient enough a reason for it to languish behind in terms of accolades and praise when compared to Aftersun, which, while deserving of much praise, is nothing of equal merit whatsoever - not even Close.
For anyone wanting to learn about cinema and storytelling on screen, about acting and direction, Close is the objective to aim for, a masterclass in perfection. It will break your heart.

Thirteen year old "Léo" (Eden Dambrine) and his schoolfriend "Rémi" (Gustav De Waele) are inseparable. The play together, eat together, sleep together - an ideal fraternal relationship. At school, though, their classmates start to make disparaging remarks about them, and the naturally more gregarious "Léo" begins to shun his friend a little, then a little more... Tragedy ensues after "Rémi" doesn't show up for a school trip and the repercussions hit the young "Léo" and "Sophie" (Émilie Dequenne) - the mother of his friend - especially hard. On one level this film is about cruelty. Not a deliberate, malevolent style of cruelty - but one of indifference, of ignorance - a bully's sort of cruelty. On another it is a story of love, loyalty - betrayal even. It is an highly emotional film with two excellent performances from the young boys conveying their respective responses to a bewildering array of suspicion and judgements being thrust their way by those who knew no better - but should have. It's about parenting, about openness and about how people deal with tragedy in their own, personal way - and it is very effective. It really does leave a lump in your throat afterwards. Well worth a watch.

I personally love Athena from the soundtrack to the action I think it’s brilliant.

Watched 25 minutes of this. Well, I was in front of the TV for 25 minutes, but it's hard to make out what's happening.
It's the kind of "HDR" that means "turn off all the lights and make sure no one can see anything. Oh, and also raise the black level, so everything's a gray mass."
Something about cops and violent immigrants. Lots of shouting and fast-moving camera stuff, super duper boring so far. Not gonna bother for the rest.

**Interceptor isn't great, but it's a low-budget action movie meant to stream. It's lame but has some fun 80s-type action moments too.**
People need to go easier on Interceptor. Is it a great movie? No. But it's precisely what I expect from a straight-to-stream Netflix action movie. I have seen worse stuff out there. Elsa Pataky was clearly committed to the role and was ripped to play the part. The story was the typical Under Siege\The Rock plot with a bunch of bad guys taking over something and a lone hero saving the day. Even though it's been done a million times, what's not to love about it? Interceptor is forgettable, but if you love action movies, why not?

When you come to a movie that calls itself an action flick, you don't expect to be lectured on feminism and toxic masculinity.
Well, after starting off well enough that's precisely where Interceptor takes you. Its got plot holes galore but its entertaining enough at first, until it starts finger wagging.
Get the message entertainment industry, I don't come to a film to be lectured, I want to be entertained. Simple as that.

The premise, as an elevator pitch, might have worked.
With some research, a good script, and some solid acting and direction, this might have been a good, entertaining action flick. But it isn't.
No-one bothered to do a tiny bit of research to make the scenario, the tech, the military babble or insignias at least somewhat OK-ish. The CGI is a the level YT kids do these days, and the story is threadbare recycled fare. Plus, as some complained, too much "woke BS" - I intended to go along with some plot elements at first, but it's so coarsely piled on, it becomes unbearable.
And don't get me started on the "acting".
As audience, we are making a deal with the moviemakers. We provide some suspension of disbelief, accept some bits that aren't realistic, and they put in some effort to accommodate us in this regard.
Unless they are lazy as in this case. Then it becomes insulting how little they think of us.
Action stars don't need to have real acting chops; if they do, it is a very welcome addition, and can mean actual stardom. But the least we can expect is Expendables-level effort.
There is still a niche for old-fashioned save-the-world-action flicks, I'm sure of that. But stuff like this is just a crappy waste of viewer's time.
2 of 10, 1 of which for the director as an encouragement that your first failure doesn't have to mean an entirely failed career. Try again!
Everybody else: please don't do another thing like this, even if it is a favour for your wife.

Great Christmas movie. Cast was great, performance was good, movie had a interesting story and definitely was a good choice for a family Xmas movie. Also, no woke agenda, thank god. Was a good, clean movie.

A tedious watch.
I didn't enjoy 'Falling for Christmas'. There are a couple of reasons as to why, one of which is the cast - there isn't really a performer that I wanted to watch, perhaps with the exception of Sean Dillingham; he does well in his (very) minimal scenes. Another reason is the story, which is predictable, uninteresting and one that I feel like I've seen elsewhere before.
This movie marked the return of Lindsay Lohan in a major lead role. It's good to see her back, but this isn't a performance of her's that I'll remember unfortunately - if not for the actress' name, I wouldn't have noted the character of Sierra to be honest. Lohan isn't helped by being paired with Chord Overstreet, who - don't get me wrong - is on the same level as Lohan in terms of what's given but as a duo I didn't sense any real chemistry at all.
The Xmas vibes and all that jazz are alright, but even then I'm reaching for positives. Not good!

One sided, that how I'd describe Sniper: the White Raven.
Lets start with the positive, this film has a basic but solid story, its well acted, action scenes are compelling and visuals are polished.
That said, its also only presenting one side of a two sided conflict between Russia, the break away Ukraine republics, who Russia's government supports and the Ukrainian government. I get it, this is a pro Ukraine film but this fact should be kept in mind, when watching.
In summary, moderately well done but it needs be said there is more than one side to any story.

At the risk of sounding like a purist, Jackass Forever is one comeback too many. I’m aware that expecting purity from this franchise is akin to drawing blood from the proverbial stone, but even when taken on its own terms, it’s safe to say that there is no Jackass without Bam Margera and Ryan Dunn – just like there wouldn’t be any Jackass sans Johnny Knoxville or Steve-O. To its credit, JF doesn’t try to replace the irreplaceable, but it does attempt to fix what’s not broken by injecting ‘new blood’ into the cast (come to think of it, it's definitely broken, and it doesn't get fixed either).
Thus, we get a new fat guy, even though the old fat guy is still around (and still round). Why? You already have a fat dude; you don’t need two fat dudes. Similarly, with the likes of Dave England, known for his ability – if one can call it that – to defecate on cue, what need is there for a Dave England-lookalike named Poopies? All of this makes as much sense as having another little person on set other than Wee Man – and again, I know that ‘sense’ doesn’t enter the equation here, but just because the performers are dumb enough to do what they do to themselves, it doesn’t mean that the fan base, among whose numbers I count myself, is too dumb to have its intelligence insulted.
There is no point in introducing newcomers this late in the game, especially considering that, as JF makes abundantly clear, watching random strangers suffering grievous bodily harm isn’t all that funny; ironically, it’s much funnier when it happens to people you have come to know and actually like over the years – and even then the novelty has doubtless finally worn off (and it certainly had a damn good run); there is a lot more deja vu in the proceedings than there is nostalgia. All things considered, I was considerably more entertained by Knoxville’s match with Sami Zayn at Wrestlemania 38 than by Jackass Forever.

**The Princess might not be innovative or unique, but it’s well done and a lot of fun!**
While The Princess might not bring anything new to the Die Hard style action genre, well-choreographed fight sequences and a strong, committed lead in Joey King performing almost all of her stunts take this simple plot and elevate it to a solid action flick. The sword fights and martial arts had some inventive moments with fresh new techniques and finishing moves that I hadn’t seen before. The stunt work was almost to the level of John Wick, which was unexpected for a straight-to-streaming film and very appreciated. Even though the movie was very predictable, and I had seen many other films like it before, The Princess is still entertaining and is better than reviews imply. Any action fan that loves the Die Hard, Con Air, Passenger 57 type movies will enjoy The Princess’s medieval, sword fighting, fantasy spin on the genre.

Brilliant

The Wonder is a slow burn that fails to leave a lasting impression that most films of its type achieve.
At the forefront is the battle between science vs religion. Many citizens in the town are extremely religious and desperately want this child to be a sign from God and a gift to the town. This idea works well, and the denial of facts is quite reminiscent of today's society. But unfortunately, this film treats itself as some grand masterpiece when that isn't entirely true. It is filled with small plot holes and details that simply do not makes sense. I was bought in to a point, but the ending really falls of the rails for me and left me somewhat unsatisfied.
The performances are great, and really carry this movie. Florence Pugh is spectacular, and I will go to see any film she is in. Her portrayal of emotions is top notch and her on screen connection with Kila Lord Cassidy is well done. Speaking of Cassidy, I thought she was excellent in this film. She seemed extremely experienced and able to handle the nuances of a film of this caliber. I was shocked to see that this is really her first main role in a filmography that is somewhat empty to this point. The rest of the cast did fine.
Overall, this movie worked better as concept than what was executed. The performances were great and kept me in the film, but that should not be the only thing capturing me. It is a decent watch and one of the better Netflix projects, but that is not saying much.
Score: 64% |
Verdict Decent

MORE SPOILER-FREE MINI-REVIEWS @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/mini-reviews-2022-edition
"The Wonder takes time to transform its mysterious premise into a truly captivating narrative, but the displays of Florence Pugh and especially Kíla Lord Cassidy - one of the most impressive performances to come from a 13-year-old - bear the struggles in the least relevant moments.
As a character study, the film approaches the protagonists' distinct grieving processes in a gradually more profound manner, with some surprises along the way. Filmmaker Sebastián Lelio makes the most of the atmospheric cinematography (Ari Wegner) and the contemplative score (Matthew Herbert) to elevate the slow pacing, but not always successfully.
For fans of period pieces, see it."
Rating: B-

Florence Pugh is English nurse "Mrs. Wright" who travels to Ireland to nurse a young girl who hasn't eaten in quite a while. Well at least that is what she thinks. Upon arrival, she discovers from the board that she and a nun (Josie Walker) are not to nurse at all, but to sit and watch what happens to this young girl "Anna" (Kíla Lord Cassidy). Is this all a fraud or is it divine intervention that is enabling this young woman to survive un-nourished but for the odd sip of water. Enter Tom Burke's rather sceptical journalist "Will", a local who moved to London but who still has more than his fair share of demons. Soon he and the nurse begin to bond, despite their initial difference of opinions about the whole thing and she knuckles down to discover just what is going on. Pugh is really effective here, delivering a characterisation that is considered and sympathetic but by no means gullible. The story is a slow burn, and to be honest I found the conclusion a little implausible and unsatisfactory but she and the young Cassidy carry this really well. The dialogue is sparing with some beautiful scenery that helps well to depict an Ireland still in the grip of anti-English sentiment and religious superstitions.

_The Invitation_ started off so well, but eventually morphed into a generic film that I could have predicted from a mile away. The set up to the movie was decent, but the second act was when I really thought this movie nailed it. I really enjoyed the somewhat sadistic back and forth between the two leads. On one hand, you see a woman ready to give herself over to the thought of love for the first time. While on the other hand, the audience knows this chance at love is built on a lie. Despite this fact, I found the chemistry incredibly strong between the two leads. I was smiling as their love story progressed, even though I knew it was not going to end well. Nathalie Emmanuel and Thomas Doherty do such an excellent job in this film. I loved their chemistry and Dohery does such a great Jekyll and Hyde with the unearthly vampire masked by the charismatic lord. Super entertaining watching them do great work here.
The creepy disturbing nature of the trailers was not overly present here, almost all of the unsettling imagery was used for the trailers and leaves the rest of the movie feeling pretty generic. This is even more evident when the movie turns into a vampire action flick reminiscent of the Twilight movies. At this moment, I was completely ripped out of the movie and was ready for it to end. This drastic change in tone really did not fit well here for me. Even though the last quarter was a disappointment, there is still good elements to the movie that is worth watching for those that were initially interested.
**Score:** _55%_ |
**Verdict:** _Average_

**The Invitation wastes great potential and ideas by trying too hard to be clever and failing.**
Reviews for The Invitation are mediocre at best but as harsh as they seem, they aren't too far off. The Invitation takes the successes of Ready or Not and blends them with the Dracula story putting a fresh new take on a familiar story. The film benefits from this new approach and introduces new characters and ideas. But that is where the good runs out. The first hour of the runtime forces a romance between the heroine and a painfully suspicious and uncomfortable forward rich guy. Unfortunately, the story gets so caught up in trying to fool the audience into thinking it is a simple romance movie, so it could shock with the vampire twist that it didn't leave time to make the conclusion feel rewarding or earned. Once the monsters finally revealed themselves, The Invitation sprinted to the end, with the inexperienced heroine easily besting Dracula and his minions; corrupt families and monsters had survived and thrived for hundreds of years. The victory sadly does not convince or satisfy. If The Invitation had spent less time on the failed love story and more time developing the vampire story, this could have been a good movie.

OK, so this is about as derivative as it is possible to get - but you know what, I actually quite enjoyed it. It's a short and sweet tale of the young "Evie" (Nathalie Emmanuel). She does one of those online DNA tests and before she knows it, is having a posh lunch with "Oliver" (Hugh Skinner) - a posh British lad who claims that she is his long lost cousin. After about thirty seconds, she is invited to come to Yorkshire for a wedding and, as you would - readily accepts. Upon arrival, she encounters their irascible butler "Fields" (Sean Pertwee) and then the hunky lord of the manor "Walt" (Thomas Doherty). She is smitten, indeed they are at it within twenty four hours - but soon she starts to sense that things at the new "Carfax Manor" are not quite what they may seem - not least because there is a distinct lack of bride and groom; and the waitresses employed to cater for the occasion have a habit of disappearing. What could be going on...? Well, it's fairly clear to us from the start who the baddie is, and that "Viktoria" (a sort of Angelina Jolie-esque Stephanie Corneliussen) and her pal "Lucy" (Alana Boden) are in on the cunning scheme too. It has clearly been done on a limited budget, but the direction is still just about adequate. The story, though, is pretty thin and the acting is drama school stuff for the most part before an ending that really does let the whole thing down rather badly. Still, I watched it with considerable trepidation in a pretty empty cinema, and left thinking it passed 100-odd minutes amiably enough. Not great, no - but not rubbish either.

It's pretty woke and I enjoyed it.
I swear, how did we go from discussing and critiquing the plot of a movie and the acting and the script and the sets, to opening criticism with the line "it's pretty woke". At least the bigots can't help but out themselves constantly nowadays.

Not a bad movie... but not a decent movie either.
It's not as entertaining as most of the Hellraiser sequels to date.
It's predictable, in no way suspenseful and much of it makes little to no sense. It has nothing in common with the other Hellraiser movies and nothing in common with 'The Hellbound Heart' which is the Clive Barker novel that Hellraiser is based on.
The original Hellraiser movie was very true to the book and is still by far the best Hellraiser movie with the most suspense, horror and entertainment value.
I'm sure we'll see more Hellraiser movies... and I'm sure they will all be uninspiring.