The Girl with the Needle: Technical Brilliance, Narrative Limitations
Magnus Van Horn's "The Girl with the Needle" is a masterclass in period production design and atmospheric storytelling, yet ultimately falls short of its narrative potential.
Set in the bleak landscape of post-World War I Denmark, the film is visually extraordinary. The cinematography and production design meticulously reconstruct a world ravaged by war and social upheaval. Every frame feels authentically gothic - a world of shadows, desperation, and moral ambiguity.
Frederikke Hoffmeier's soundtrack is a haunting character in its own right, amplifying the film's psychological tension. The gothic elements - particularly the morphing faces - are initially striking, though Van Horn's repeated use becomes more stylistic excess than meaningful technique.
The film's technical achievements, however, cannot fully compensate for its narrative shortcomings. Dagmar's courtroom scene, despite strong performance, reveals a script that fails to fully explore the complex moral landscape it attempts to navigate.
"The Girl with the Needle" emerges as a technically stunning work that ultimately feels more like an exercise in style than a profound exploration of its thematic potential.

I really enjoyed this movie. It was dark, chilling, unsettling and very real. The cinematography took me away. It immersed me so much from picture to picture. Yes, this movie is grotesque and pushes a boundary. But the storytelling is quite fascinating, I love how they created something equally unsettling as it is masterful. Thanks a lot!

Having been trained as a journalist, I’m generally not one to back away from an unsettling story, whether told through reporting or on the silver screen. However, there are times when I have to question the wisdom of whether certain films should be made in the first place. Just because it can be done, in my estimation, does not necessarily mean that it should be done. Such is the case with writer-director Magnus von Horn’s third feature outing, a dark, fact-based story that’s innately disturbing and, frankly, pushes the boundaries of good taste. The film, set in Copenhagen as World War I comes to an end, follows the life of Karoline (Vic Carmen Sonne), a factory seamstress whose husband, Peter (Besir Zeciri), was believed killed during the conflict. In his absence, she becomes romantically involved with, and subsequently pregnant by, her boss, Jørgen (Joachim Fjelstrup), who summarily abandons her when his wealthy, controlling mother (Benedikte Hansen) threatens to cut him off financially if they wed. Karoline is thus left with the prospect of becoming an unemployed single mother. She takes drastic steps to end the pregnancy but reconsiders her decision when she meets a seemingly compassionate and supposedly legitimate but highly unscrupulous baby broker, Dagmar (Trine Dyrholm), who offers to help Karoline out of her dilemma – for a price. Little does she know, though, that the cost is far higher than she ever imagined, especially when she becomes involved with the new stranger and her wholly unprincipled operation. What ensues is one of the most troubling stories I have ever seen committed to film, one that genuinely makes me wonder whether it should have ever been told in the first place. Admittedly, this picture is technically well made, with gorgeous black-and-white cinematography and fine performances across the board. However, it’s so cold and unsettling that even viewers with cast-iron stomachs and unflinching cinematic sensibilities may find this one difficult to sit through. Perhaps it may have worked better as a documentary than as a narrative reenactment, but that’s precious little comfort in the face of this offering’s ominous subject matter. It also makes me wonder how so many critics, awards competitions and film festivals have come to lavish so much praise on it, despite the undeniable technical prowess that’s gone into making this picture. Those accomplishments hardly seem to be enough to justify this release’s existence and represent a growing trend toward an inherently unfeeling, irresponsible approach to moviemaking, one whose further development, in my opinion, should be nipped in the bud, no matter how groundbreaking, inventive and provocative it might be seen. Some have tried characterizing “The Girl with the Needle” as a chilling horror film, but, from where I stand, I see it more as a horrific film, a truly dubious distinction to be sure. Indeed, don’t say you weren’t warned about this one.

"G" (Colman Domingo) spends much of his time in prison leading their amateur dramatics society. This quite disparate group of felons are quite adept at turning their hand to everything from Shakespeare to things he's written himself, and with his clemency hearing looming and him having new evidence that he didn't commit the crime he's in for, he is generally an upbeat and optimistic man. They are one person short on their team, and so decide to approach new arrival Clarence Maclin to see if he will join their group. He does, but he takes a different approach to the whole operation and that looks like it is going to set the two men on a collision course. Their next performance is to be a comedy - but as the story unfolds we find that there isn't so much funny about the various scenarios of the incarcerated characters. There's very little emphasis here on who did what to get behind bars in the first place, the thrust focusses more on the characterisations of the men - many of whom are actually former prisoners themselves, as director Greg Kwedar uses the stage - and, occasionally, the costumes, as the perfect setting to explore the lives of these people. Some of them are hopeful of release, some less so. Some protest their innocence, others - well maybe not so much. Then there's the increasingly potent dynamic between Domingo and Maclin. One assuming he is better placed to help the other, but is that true? Could there be more in common between them than it initially appears? Domingo is on great form, especially towards the end, but it's actually Maclin who delivers the stronger character here. That's doubtless informed by his real experiences, but he still brings a degree of nuance to a role that has little expectation of release nor belief in the rehabilitative powers of the routine day-to-day life in "Sing Sing". It's an intense and engaging drama that does draw us in to care what happens whilst creating personalties that are flawed, yes, but not beyond redemption and that are distinctly human.

Azrael is one of those movies where the lead actress carries the whole thing on her shoulders. Samara Weaving absolutely owns her role with such expressive intensity and raw energy that you can’t take your eyes off her. She makes Azrael a character worth rooting for, even when the story doesn’t give her much to work with. Her performance is electric, and she brings so much life to a movie that often feels like it’s just... happening around her.
Visually, the film is stunning. The cinematography and the dark, oppressive atmosphere set the perfect tone for a post-apocalyptic horror. The Burned Ones are terrifying to look at, and the world feels genuinely dangerous. But where it falters is the script. There’s no backstory, no real character buildup, and the lack of explanation for anything, be it the monsters, the cult, or Azrael’s choices, leaves you feeling like you’re grasping at straws to make sense of it all. A little more depth or context would’ve gone a long way in turning this into something truly memorable.
As it stands, Azrael is a chilling, beautifully directed horror movie with flashes of brilliance, but it’s ultimately a missed opportunity. It delivers on mood and style, but it skimps on substance. It’s worth watching for Samara Weaving alone, but don’t expect the story to stick with you in the same way her performance will.

Dumb and boring where political message seems more important than a story itself. No explanation what happened or what's going on. All we have is a stupid girl who became John Wick and magically managed to kill whole village without a scratch. Seriously, don't waste your time on this garbage. If you stil decide to watch it anyway, bear in mind there's no speech in this movie. It's a bad copy of "Quiet Place" with no plot & bad performance.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://movieswetextedabout.com/azrael-review-a-dialogue-free-horror-that-thrives-on-visuals-and-samara-weavings-magnetic-performance/
"Azrael is characterized by the absence of dialogue and a dense visual narrative, challenging viewers to interpret every detail. E. L. Katz's direction, combined with Mart Taniel's captivating cinematography, creates a mysterious, immersive atmosphere, though it doesn't always balance the story's ambiguity with the need for emotional impact.
Nonetheless, Samara Weaving's magnetic performance is the true pillar that holds the movie together, making it a compelling experience with several memorable moments of horror and violence, even if some of its more abstract elements may frustrate part of the audience.
An audacious, artful work with enough entertainment value to satisfy mainstream viewers."
Rating: B

Jean Claude Van Damme can actually act. I saw him hand in a decent performance in the regrettably short lived, satirical series, Jean-Claude Van Johnson.
So given its clear he's not just "another cookie cutter action star" why on earth then, can't they tailor a decent script, for the man? All we seem to get is a regurgitation of past martial arts, action films, from the 20th century, he starred in, only worse again.
Kill Em All 2 a case in question. This is simply a platform for Van Damme's martial arts skills. Skills that are admittedly impressive, especially given the mans in his 60's. That said, everything else that makes any film work, like a decent script, with a strong back story and characterisations, is mostly absent.
Come on Hollywood, you can do better than this for Van Damme, surely?
In summary, a film that is little more than a showcase for Van Damme's martial arts prowess, minus pretty much everything else that makes a quality action film, well, a quality action film.

Someone really needs to step up and let Jean-Claude Van Damme know that the whole "killing everyone while he survives" movie formula just doesn’t work anymore.
This movie is almost as bad as Steven Seagal’s—completely impossible and with plotlines that are beyond comprehension.

Fighter is Sid Anand's yet another cinematic triumph balancing emotions, action & drama, led by a diligent Hrithik Roshan
My Score : 86/100
In the landscape of modern commercial filmmaking, few directors manage to strike a balance between emotion, action, and drama. Siddharth Anand, with his latest venture Fighter, not only meets this challenge but does so with flying colors. Gripping from the start, it offers a rollercoaster of drama, deep emotion, and pulsating aerial action, enticing dog fights all resulting in an experience crafted for big screens. While patriotic elements are skillfully incorporated, the film celebrates friendship and confronts the weight of the past, providing nuanced character portrayals and their dynamics. The strong emotional arc, supported by stellar performances, especially by Hrithik Roshan and Anil Kapoor, leaves a lasting impact. The thrilling screenplay, excellent a and some cheesy dialogues in addition to spectacular VFX enhance key scenes, making Fighter a must-watch cinematic triumph under Anand's proven and evolved directorial prowess.
Balanced Mastery: Fighter, directed by Siddharth Anand, excels in modern commercial filmmaking by skillfully balancing emotion, action, and drama. Yes it has cheesy dialogues , some melodramatic scenes and forced humour at places but the overall product is far more captivating and hence overshadows minor hiccups
Cinematic Rollercoaster: The film grips audiences from the start, offering a thrilling rollercoaster of high drama, deep emotion, and pulsating aerial action, urging a big-screen experience. The VFX is excellent barring the climatic moments.
Nuanced Storytelling: Fighter sets itself apart with a rich tapestry of storytelling, seamlessly weaving patriotic elements, friendship celebration, and confronting the heavy baggage of the past. The character arcs of Hrithik, Deepika and Anil come to a full circle leaving you overwhelmed with a rewarding satisfaction.
Emotional Impact: A standout feature is the film's strong emotional arc, supported by stellar performances, particularly Hrithik Roshan scorching eyes and his excellent screen presence. He is charming, vulnerable, helpless, revengeful and sarcastic all in a single film. He is just too good. Anil Kapoor and his tensed chemistry with HR is worth watching where Anil dominates. Deepika Padukone, leaving a lasting impact on audiences with her appropriate role.
Directorial Triumph: Fighter stands as a testament to Siddharth Anand's directorial skills, executing a tough film superbly with a perfect blend of action, drama, emotions, scale, and sweet humor, making it a must-watch cinematic experience. He focuses on passing message from time to time in the film that the war is with terrorism and not a particular country. He has evolved brilliantly and his bond with HR shows how deeply he admires the actor and vice versa. Mass with Class shining bright along with Hrithik’s masterclass.
Instagram & X : @streamgenx

Though it's really way too long, I did rather enjoy the developing chemistry here between Léa Seydoux ("Gabrielle") and George MacKay's "Louis". The story isn't really structured, it's all largely dictated from her consciousness lounging in the bath of Guinness no longer needed by "Baron Harkkonen" where she is having her DNA cleansed. This is ostensibly to make her life happier and more fulfilled, to take the rough edges off disappointment and pain - and generally to turn her into a rather soporific drone. The thing is, whilst plugged in and gently soaking we discover that her brain isn't co-operating with the process and that she is having very lifelike fantasies - historical, contemporary and futuristic with the handsome and enigmatic "Louis". The story in itself isn't really up to very much. It's an episodic jaunt through what is/was/might be their lives - together and apart. What does work well is the ambiguity. The sense that artificial intelligence, either working on it's own or at the behest of humanity, can rearrange our thoughts and our memories. It can create as convincingly as it can delete comprehensively - and all because there is a sense that emotions are unpredictable, unreliable and therefore a threat to the stability of a new "natural order". The dialogue can meander into the realms of psycho-babble now and again which does detract from the subtle but clear thrust of the narrative, but it is actually quite a scary prognosis of what might become fact if we are not careful to protect what is real and important.

'Brothers'... not the best. I wanted to enjoy it given I like those involved, but it really does fall flat and, despite a small run time, it doesn't flow well either. Peter Dinklage and Josh Brolin are OK together, chuck in Brendan Fraser & Glenn Close and it's a good cast... on paper.
In reality, I didn't sense much from any of those on the screen and they have all produced far better. You also have Max Barbakow in the directing chair, the same can be said for him as it is safe to say this isn't the best follow-up for him after the excellent 'Palm Springs'.

For whatever reason, genuinely funny comedies have become an increasingly rare cinematic commodity in recent years, so it’s a real treat when one comes along that satisfyingly tickles the funny bone. Such is the case with director Max Barbakow’s third feature effort, the wild and wacky tale of a dysfunctional crime family seeking to recover the hidden loot from a heist carried out by the family matriarch (Jen Landon) 30 years earlier. Leading the charge are twin brothers Jady (Peter Dinklage), a career criminal recently released from prison, and Moke (Josh Brolin), a gifted but long-reluctant thief who’s now trying to go straight. The goal is to find and retrieve a stash of emeralds stolen by their long-absent mother (Glenn Close), who originally pilfered the goods but has been on the run ever since – and who now shows up out of the blue to collect the gems for herself. The unlikely trio thus launches their quest to get the jewels, an odyssey finding them aggressively pursued by Officer Farful (Brendan Fraser), a crooked prison guard who arranged Jady’s early release through his father, a corrupt judge (M. Emmett Walsh in his penultimate screen performance), in exchange for a sizable cut of the stash. And, along the way, the parties to this wayward caper bungle themselves through an array of inventively inspired comic challenges that include Jady’s spacey new girlfriend (Marissa Tomei), Moke’s pregnant wife (Taylour Paige) and an unusually randy gorilla, among others. It’s also a cautionary tale on the notion of there being no honor among thieves, even when they’re members of one’s own family. While some of the film’s segments are obviously a little overwritten and overplayed (especially by Fraser), much of this romp plays fairly well, reminiscent of one of the Coen Brothers’ movies (though admittedly not quite as polished). If nothing else, though, it represents a huge step up from the filmmaker’s last outing, the positively horrendous “Palm Springs” (2020) (my worst film of that year), as well as a major improvement over many of Amazon Prime’s recent disappointing offerings, an accomplishment largely made possible by the performances of its stellar ensemble cast (particularly the three principals). “Brothers” isn’t epic filmmaking by any means, but it’s a good way to get some hearty laughs at home on a Friday night with a big bowl of popcorn, and that’s pretty satisfying all by itself.

There are times when many of us feel compelled to pursue something for reasons that we don’t fully understand but that we can’t walk away from, either, no matter what the personal cost may be. So it was for former fashion model Elizabeth “Lee” Miller (Kate Winslet), who, after a successful career of sporting haute couture, became a battlefield photographer for the British edition of Vogue magazine during World War II. Admittedly, she could have enjoyed a life of luxury in her retirement, but she felt a strong need to fulfill a purpose, a decision that led her to willingly immerse herself in this dangerous venture, one in which her life was frequently on the line. However, in doing so, she captured some of the most iconic images of the war in Europe, the stories behind which are recounted and re-created in this engaging biopic from director Ellen Kuras. In chronicling Miller’s life, the film details the hard choices she made, both personally and professionally, as well as her drive to document the hard truth about a conflict for which the world didn’t always have ready access to news about, at least not in the on-demand way we do today. While the picture has a tendency to be somewhat episodic at times, it nevertheless presents a series of intriguing back stories behind a variety of incidents from the storied career of this unlikely but widely regarded journalist. This offering’s fine period piece production design effectively captures the differences between the two diverse worlds in which the protagonist lived – the elegance of high fashion and the gritty wartime landscape – backed by Winslet’s superb performance (a strong awards season contender, to be sure) and the fine supporting portrayals from an excellent ensemble cast, including Andrea Riseborough, Marion Cotillard, Samuel Barnett and a surprisingly effective Andy Samberg. These attributes aside, though, it’s somewhat mystifying how this release came and went from theaters as quickly as it did. “Lee” truly deserved wider attention than it received, but, thankfully, it’s now available for streaming. It takes courage to stick to one’s convictions in a time of combat, especially when the potential cost to oneself is as high as it was for Miller, but the world is better off for her valiant efforts in showing us what we might have missed but about which we all desperately needed to know.

Lee is a giant neon sign of a film with 'Made-for-award-season' written all over it while screaming 'Look how amazing Kate Winslet is!' But sadly, it's not until the third act, when things turn chilling, that she finally grabs hold of you and doesn't let go. Then there's Andy Samberg. Yes, that Andy Samberg, who somehow waltzed into this movie and decided to give us a 'Wait, is this guy about to win an Oscar?' performance. At this point, even the Academy are probably like, 'Well, guess we gotta nominate him now.'

Kate Winslet turns in quite an effective performance here as the eponymous photographer who originally arrived in London to be with husband Roland Penrose (Alexander Skarsgård) and to work for the formidable Audrey Withers (Andrea Riseborough) at "Vogue" magazine as a fashion photographer. With the rise of the Nazis seemingly unstoppable throughout continental Europe, Penrose spends more time on the war effort leaving her more and more determined to prove that she is every bit as capable as her male counterparts. Needless to say there's quite a bit of resistance to her participation in combat zones, but thanks to her own perseverance and an alliance with David Scherman (Andy Samberg) she is soon actively involved in wartime photography and by the end is visiting some of the most ghastly sites ever built seeing, at first hand, the truly stomach-churning atrocities left behind by a now defeated war machine that turned large-scale annihilation into an art form. Her story is being relayed from the comfort of her British home in the 1960s to a man whom we assume is just a journalist. Indeed his obvious nervousness and her antipathetic attitude towards him and his task seems to suggest she sees no value in her memories, but as we develop the threads of her life, we begin to sense that something more exists between her and this young man (Josh O'Connor) which quite neatly puts quite a lot of perspective on the choices made by a woman who probably did put career first. Through the characters of Solange (Marion Cotillard) and Nusch (Noémie Merlant) the film also attempts to put a little meat on the bones of the story of those who had to "co-operate" with their new overlords. Some willingly, some less-so and some, well they didn't live to tell. The production and battle scenarios aren't really so effective - maybe just bit too manicured, the script is a little dry and there's maybe just a bit too much of it, but Winslet shows here that she has plenty of capacity to take on a role that it would have been easy to shower with bravado, but instead she brings a more considered charisma to her portrayal of a woman whose bloody-minded courage provided for some of the most significant imagery of the Second World War. Imagery that even now makes your flesh crawl.

Fascinating viewing. 'Lee' is very well made and expertly acted.
As others have noted, it's quite the thing that fellow 2024 flick 'Civil War' has a character inspired by Lee Miller, then this comes along with a plot directly about the incredible photojournalist. Kate Winslet portrays Miller supremely, not that that would ever be in doubt; she is excellent at every single moment of this near two hour film.
About time this biopic was produced, it is one that does get dark but it's undoubtedly an important story to tell.

With the emperor ailing in his capital, he sends out messengers to secure the one thing that can save him from certain death: the blood of a live dragon. Luckily for the few remaining dragons, though, there's a young girl "Ping" and her pet rat "Hua" who are determined to preserve their last egg and ensure that "Kai" is born in the sacred birthing pool safe and sound. It's quite good fun, this, and I always liked the Chinese depictions of dragons as rather more lithe and nimble then the grumpy, scarred and scaly Western interpretations, but otherwise this is a rather thinly padded out story that might better have tried to incorporate more from this six book series it's based on into it's plot to better build up the characters and fill out the plot. That said, it doesn't hang around and there's plenty of action as the youngster and the ancient dragon "Long Danzi" take on the whole Imperial army - and it's dastardly and scheming agent - whilst trying to preserve this fragile blue egg until it's ready to hatch. There's a gentle moral to the story about self reliance and the odd humorous moment too, and though it's probably not a film that the very young will really get much from, the animation is lively and colourful with some menacing bugs and fiery blue fisticuffs and it's worth a watch on the telly if you like the family fantasy genre.

'Kneecap' is fairly entertaining.
It's impressive how good the acting is given it stars the musical trio in acting debuts as basically themselves. Michael Fassbender adds star power, could've used more of Lalor Roddy (great in 'That They May Face the Rising Sun', fwiw) mind. Other pluses include the camera work and the music; never heard of Kneecap until now, though their stuff is merged in nicely. The humour is amusing too, arguably the movie's strongest element to be honest.
With those positives noted, I didn't find the story all that interesting - and there's a lot of convenience involved for it, as every character has a (too) direct connection to everything else. The main characters are a bit cringe too in moments, though the humour does admittedly just about shield that for much of the run time.
Overall, I'd recommend it. It has enough about it, for sure.

Two lads with little by way of opportunity hook up with a school music teacher (DJ Próvai) whose wife "Caitlin" (Fionnuala Flaherty) is fighting for the legalisation of the Irish Gaelic language. Móglaí Bap and Mo Chara play themselves as two "low life scum" who have been taught to weaponise their language by "Arlo" (Michael Fassbender) who has decided that it's probably safer for him to die in a fatal accident at sea before the authorities catch up with him. With his ma unwilling to leave the house, Móglaí and his pal start to realise that there is a great deal of power in honestly crafted lyrics that cut through the politics and resonate directly with sections of the population consistently under-represented by mainstream media, radio, music... Thing is, though, the peelers aren't so keen on this subversion and led by "Ellis" (Josie Walker) whose niece "Georgia" (Jessica Reynolds) just happens to be Mo's on/off sex buddy, are quickly on their case. They've also attracted the attention of some radical republicans who ostensibly don't like the fact that a fair whack of their words relate to horse tranquillisers and other drugs they get sent through the post from abroad disguised as toys and DVDs. With the cops on one side and the fed-up paras on the other, not to mention their third wheel struggling to keep his involvement as under wraps from his school and his missus as he can, these lads don't have their problems to seek. It's unashamedly republican in sentiment and if that's not your position in the scheme of Northern or North of Ireland politics, then this might border on the offensive. It's fairly comprehensively anti-British. However, as these guys get up an head of steam you can't help but like them and want them to succeed in achieving their own sort of freedom from an oppression that is as much to do with their own futures as it has for the broader solution for their homeland. Their writing is ripe and pithy with loads of craic, a little violence but ultimately a message of hope and optimism that exemplifies the old saying about the pen being mightier than the sword - only in this case, it's the rap. It's course and brutal, and won't be for everyone - but you should give it a try.

Director Rich Peppiatt‘s rowdy, frenzied film “Kneecap” is a lively biopic based on the hell-raising Irish rap trio of the same name. You’ve probably never heard of these musicians, but the film celebrates the general sense of anarchy as these young men become key figures in a civil rights movement to save their mother tongue. It’s a story about finding your voice in a world that seems determined to keep you down, all told with a slew of swear words, hip-hop tracks, and lots of drug-fueled shenanigans.
Set in West Belfast in 2019, the film depicts the origins of the group Kneecap, including insight on how they created their unique sound. In a bid to push back against the establishment, Liam Óg, Naoise Ó Cairealláin, and JJ Ó Dochartaigh (who play themselves in the film) take to the stage as a symbol of Ireland’s restless youth. They refer to themselves as “low life scum,” and their message resonates with so many. By writing and performing hip-hop songs in Irish, they become a local sensation. This garners the attention of their political martyr father (Michael Fassbender), the ire of party conservatives, and the adoration of the people.
It’s a true story that doesn’t give a ton of insight into the band members, but it’s still a lot of fun. The film features plenty of original music by the trio (which admittedly is an acquired taste), and their politically-charged rhymes and defense of their cultural heritage speak volumes. The guys write what they know, and the truth resonates with locals. It comes down to this: when cops don’t want people hearing your music, that’s when you know you’re doing something right.
The songs and the film rapidly switch between English and Irish, so it takes a lot of concentration to watch. I could see some viewers quickly giving up, but those who stick it out will be rewarded.
Liam, JJ, and Naoise are rambunctious lot, and their shenanigans are sometimes questionable but always entertaining. There are quirky bursts of humor that make the boisterous characters even more appealing. None of these guys are great actors, but it adds to the unpolished authenticity of the film.
There’s a defiant energy to “Kneecap” that is invigorating, and the story is one that’s different and original.
By: Louisa Moore / SCREEN ZEALOTS

#WinnieThePoohBloodAndHoney #MovieReview 🍯🐻🔪
"Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey" is a horror twist on the beloved Winnie the Pooh characters, offering a dark and unsettling take on the classic story. While I'll do my best to avoid spoilers, expressing my thoughts on this film is challenging given the unsettling content it presents.
From the start, the movie sets a grim tone with the disturbing portrayal of Eeyore as a man-eating creature, a jarring departure from the familiar and endearing characters we know. The film takes the characters to grotesque and repulsive extremes, leaving viewers feeling conflicted and saddened by the drastic changes.
As the storyline unfolds, the revelation of Piglet and Pooh as serial killers adds an uncomfortable layer to the narrative. The transformation of beloved characters into evil personas, including Rabbit, Owl, and Gopher, leaves the audience bewildered and unsettled.
Unfortunately, the storyline falls short, and the acting fails to elevate the film. Watching this on Peacock proved to be a disappointing experience, with missed opportunities to explore a more nuanced approach to the characters. The decision to depict the characters as realistic yet unsettling figures in a bizarre fantasy world adds to the confusion and detracts from the overall viewing experience.
In conclusion, "Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey" misses the mark with its dark and misguided interpretation of the beloved characters. It struggles to find its footing, leaving viewers perplexed and uncomfortable with the drastic departure from the heartwarming tales of the Hundred Acre Wood. 🍯🐻🔪

Rhys Frake-Waterfield... what in god's name have you done.
Let me preface this with a note that I am no stranger to horror, terrible horror, and finding enjoyment in what the masses hated.
I went into this knowing this was a godawful movie. I expected at least one of those "i know this b rated horror is ridiculous, terrible and pure shite, but because I know that, it will be hilarious."
oh boy. and there's a sequel?
roll on another godawful series i now have to complete bc thats the way my brain and ocd works.
this is godawful. i mean _god awful_. i mean i couldnt stop yawning, i almost stopped watching entirely and dropped it, and i have promptly told everyone who was going to watch it under the same premises of "this is awful so it should be funny" to just stay cleer of it and watch any of the other 100-300 horror movies coming out this year.
that being said, if this was an animated horror movie, i think this would have been perfect and done brilliantly. but this? dear lord.
what a terrible start to my 2023 year watching.

Absolutely horrible

Now don't judge. You mustn't judge. If you do this will come across as the most atrocious piece of cinema since "Mesa of Lost Women" (1953). "Christopher Robin" (Nikolai Leon) is taking his fiancee back to the wood in which he played with "Pooh", "Piglet", "Eyeore" etc. as a child. What he doesn't appreciate, though, is that in the intervening years things got tough for his erstwhile friends. They couldn't fend for themselves, and were reduced to cannibalism to survive.... Aside from altering the balance of their tiny mids, this also instilled in "Pooh" and "Piglet" a grim and determined need for vengeance. What now ensues is hilarious. What ever budget there was must have been spent on gin for the cast: the costumes and lighting are pretty dreadful and the script - well that is almost as bad as the acting. Leon is quite easy on the eye, but the sight of him being whipped to within an inch of his life with the tail of "Eyeore" by a large man in an ill-fitting yellow bear suit whose mouth was oozing honey like a drooling bairn just has to be seen. Cinema can be too earnest and worthy at times, and I think this is the perfect recalibration for that - it is certainly neither, nor is it a film you will ever (want to) remember after you've seen it. Still, the cinema was packed and there was laughter a-plenty throughout the eighty minutes or so this risible drivel lasted. It could easily be a school project - nothing here is of an higher standard, and it did make me squirm at times as the 1970s "Doctor Who" special effects department came back to life - but I didn't hate it.

This reminded me of one of those beautifully photographed post-war Vittorio De Sica stories with Sophia Loren. This time, it's the long suffering "Delia" (Paola Cortellesi) who is marred to the brutish "Ivano" (Valerio Mastandrea) and lives with their three children and her ailing father-in-law. The love has long since departed their marriage, and a few fleeting conversations with struggling garage-owner "Nino" (Vinicio Marchioni) fills us in on a bit of her own romantic backstory before she met "Ivano". Their elder daughter "Marcella" (Romana Maggiora Verano) is sweet on "Giulio" (Francesco Centorame) who's the son of a local and rather pompous café owner and his wife. "Delia" suspects, though, that any marriage between the pair would merely end up mirroring her own so resorts to some quite ingenious Sicilian tactics before focusing on the one thing that might offer her some sense of individual fulfilment. With the brutality becoming ever more regular, we see a woman who is resorting to desperate measures - but what exactly is she trying to achieve? What's striking about this is the way the violence is portrayed. The kids are always removed from the room and then it's a dance. Almost as if it were being portrayed on stage - and it's entirely effective. Cortellesi directs this too, but avoids falling into that trap of losing objectivity with her impassioned storytelling. It's the variety and spirit of the characters that offer us a touching look at family and community set against a backdrop of extreme chauvinism, political tensions and a little dark humour too. The monochrome presentation works really well and this really is worth a watch in the cinema if you can.

I was quite disappointed that despite months of cinema trailers, this went straight to the television. Why? Well I reckon that's because if I had seen it on a big screen I would have struggled my way through it in one go. As it is, I've taken about three days to get to the end of this stylish looking but really insubstantial crime caper. The story centres around the dodgy antics of "Greg" (Hugh Grant) who is looking to facilitate a $10 billion arms deal that just about nobody wants to happen. It falls to "Orson" (Jason Statham) and his team of crack operatives to come up with a plan to thwart the deal and apprehend the bidders! The only chink in the armour of our "Greg" is his idolisation of the American film star "Danny" (Josh Hartnett) and so they recruit him to come and partake in a bit of real life fan-doration (obviously without explaining just quite what is going on, or how perilous it might be) and off they travel to beautiful Antalya in Turkey where they must use all their guile, wit and technical savvy - largely down to "Sarah" (Aubrey Plaza) - before someone smells a rat. The problem here is that the story is just all too old hat. We've seen it all once too often and so when we have to rely on the characterisations to enliven the thing we are presented with an overly hammy Grant; a Statham who really is reusing an old - and well wrinkly - skin and Plaza who is really rather a lacklustre personality on screen. The jokes are all a bit predictable, as are the 007-light action scenes, car chases and - indeed - the whole thing just lacks for any sense of originality. It's not the worst film I've seen lately, but I wonder if maybe Guy Ritchie is just spent now? Perhaps it is time for him to take a few years off and try to work on something that can capitalise on his undoubtedly creative quirkiness without offering the same old sandwich just on a different shiny plate.

In spite of a rather convoluted plot, fall flat comedy and a very minor dash of woke nonsense, I mostly liked Operation Fortune: Ruse De Guerre.
Don't let the dash of French pretension in the title fool you, there's nothing remotely clever or sophisticated, about this flick.
At heart, this is stripped down, nuts and bolts, action fare. Its pacing is decent and it has enough going on, exposition wise, to keep the viewer entertained. Exotic locations, gun fights, fist fights, car chases, pyrotechnics, it has it all, in abundance.
Acting is generally reasonable. Hugh Grant does a great Michael Caine(??) impression.
In summary, diverting, simple action fare, with a little unconvincing window dressing, in the form of tired comedy and a nod to a more sophisticated story line, that never arrives. Still worth a look, if taken on its true merits, as opposed to those it aspires to.

**Operation Fortune had all the appearances of a movie heavily altered on the cutting room floor… and not for the better.**
I’m not quite sure what happened to this movie. It had hints and moments of something much more Guy Ritchie but instead was slower-paced and confused. I almost felt like an hour of screen time was cut from the film because many characters and plot points seemed incomplete. The entire movie was disjointed. The action was mediocre. The writing was so bad. There were so many great qualities this movie had going for it. The great cast and veteran director had me excited to see this film, but what I saw felt like the studio had pulled a Justice League on this movie, hacking and slashing it into something with shades of something else potentially entertaining but leaving a mess behind.

**_Operation Fortune's_ convoluted plot and terrible pacing result in a viewing experience that leaves a lot to be desired.**
Operation Fortune was a terrible movie from start to finish. The plot was incredibly generic, filled with a bunch of cool spy jargon that made the agents sound really cool. The pace is way too fast, with jump cuts from scene to scene that attempt to be quick and seamless but just left me lost. I spent more time trying to figure out what was going on, where we were, and why we were here than I did enjoying the actual movie. The action was average at best, filled with cuts that tried to mask the poor choreography. When we were not spending time on lackluster action set pieces, it was used to deliver exposition dumps to help the audience attempt to understand what was going on. I have a hard time coming up with anything positive about my experience with the film.
The performances left a lot to be desired. I think Jason Statham and Josh Hartnett did a decent job, but they did not blow me away. None of the main cast had any amount of chemistry, particularly Statham and Plaza. The latter quite disappointed me in this film. None of her comedic timing worked, and I found her performance to be rather flat. With how stacked the cast was, I am leaning toward believing that the script was so horrid that it was limiting the actors abilities to put on a good performance.
Overall, I had a pretty terrible time watching this in theaters. I kept checking the time, waiting for the credits to finally roll. If you like Guy Ritchie, check this film out; otherwise, skip it because you will avoid wasting two hours of your life.
**Score:** _26%_
**Verdict:** _Bad_