To say that Cocaine Bear isn’t the usual style of movie I like to watch is an understatement. My wife thought it had been involved in Academy Award talk of some kind and suggested we give it a try. Not sure where the Oscar talk came from but we stuck with it, barely. The violence is that excessive sort that horror fans demand, I guess. It was easy to get past it, once you internalize that it is all special effects and make believe, of course. There was just enough humor to keep us watching, though I am sure if they come out with a sequel, we won’t get drawn in a second time.

I got excited for this one, I mean it's 2023 and Cocaine Bear had the promise of NOT being political. It had the promise of NOT having meh message. It had the promise of NOT being serious.
I mean, the bear was obviously the star. People were going to see it because they wanted to see a giant bear high on coke killing people in a mindless and humorous way...
... but.... something happened with the direction. The humor was clearly there on paper. That was evident enough, but the delivery was... meh. The jokes didn't land because they ran too long, the timing was off, everything was there for it to be funny and fun... it just feels like it was made by a director that can't tell a joke.
And it falls on the director, because the writer clearly can. Everything is there to make it work. But all the action is predictable and all the jokes are butchered.
In the hands of anyone else, this would have been hysterical fun.

**_Not funny enough as a comedy and too silly to take serious_**
In 1985, several bags of cocaine fall from a drug smuggling plane in the mountainous area of northern Georgia and eastern Tennessee. Near Blood Mountain, a mother black bear eats a lot of the cocaine and goes on a bloody spree as it menaces hikers, rangers, thugs, EMTs and cops.
“Cocaine Bear” (2023) is a campy creature feature inspired by the true story directed by, of all people, Elizabeth Banks. It was Ray Liotta’s second to last movie before his death on May 26, 2022. Keri Russell is on hand as the concerned mother of a tween hiker. In real-life the black bear weighed 175 lbs, but this was changed to almost 400 lbs for the movie.
The production unbelievably cost $35 million. I say “unbelievably” because this is a decidedly throwaway creature feature of the semi-goofy SyFy variety. The CGI is a little superior, but not enough to make any appreciable difference. I’m speaking as someone who enjoys some of the better SyFy flicks on occasion. A good example is “Sasquatch Mountain” (2006), aka “Devil on the Mountain,” which only cost $800,000.
Except for the lush scenery (shot in Ireland, locations listed below), this is decent but generally meh. It’s not humorous enough as a comedy, but you can’t take it serious either because it’s too goofy. It doesn’t help that Keri is the only female worth mentioning (as a footnote at that).
How this garnered as much attention as it did is a great mystery. “Grizzly Park” (2008) treaded similar terrain and, while far from a great movie, is more entertaining than this (at a fraction of the budget).
The film runs 1 hour, 35 minutes, and was shot south of Dublin, Ireland, in Barnaslingan, Powerscourt and, further south, Avoca.
GRADE: C-

There’s a bear high on mass quantities of illegal drugs that is going on a murderous rampage in a Tennessee state park in “Cocaine Bear,” an absolutely awful action / horror movie from director Elizabeth Banks. I understand with a premise like that, it’s supposed to be stupid. The problem is that the movie isn’t just dumb, it’s actually bad, with poor direction, acting, CGI, writing, and storytelling.
Loosely based on true events (yes, really), the film is inspired by the 1985 story of a drug runner’s plane crash. In order to save a large quantity of cocaine, the man threw out several duffel bags full of the stuff over Tennessee and then jumped to his death when his parachute didn’t open. A black bear got into the drugs, consumed most of it and, according to experts, immediately died. This movie imagines what could have happened if the bear didn’t die from ingesting all that booger sugar. In this bloody and gory version, the 500 pound apex predator goes bananas and kills everyone in sight.
It’s a fictional story that is stretched too thin, especially with the meager subplots about a single mom (Keri Russell), her missing daughter (Brooklynn Prince) and friend (Christian Convery), a group of criminals (Ray Liotta, O’Shea Jackson Jr., Alden Ehrenreich), two park rangers (Margo Martindale, Jesse Tyler Ferguson), a police detective (Isiah Whitlock Jr.), and random tourists and teenagers that must think on their toes in order to avoid being the bear’s next victim. Jimmy Warden‘s script is atrocious because he’s trying to force a story that’s not at all compelling nor complex. The actors give clunky performances and character-wise, there just isn’t a whole lot to root for.
Banks isn’t the most skilled director, and a film like this certainly doesn’t demand a whole lot of talent behind the camera. But there’s something that consistently feels “off” with her style and tone, especially in the random, mostly unsuccessful jokes. The humor didn’t work for me at all, and when I did muster a laugh, I wasn’t doing so because the movie was good — I was laughing because the movie was so dumb. I understand that a movie about a huge bear ingesting a bounty of blow is supposed to be dumb, but it also has to be good in order to work, and this movie is not.
To become a cult classic, a movie must be one that you’d want to watch on repeat. “Cocaine Bear” is simply not funny enough, not campy enough, and not kooky enough to succeed. It’s nothing but a one-joke trainwreck.
**By: Louisa Moore / www.ScreenZealots.com**

If you are viewing this film with some of the Oscar flicks in mind then you might see it as terrible. But if you are watching it for some good ole entertainment's sake, then this one is surely not a miss. A definite viewing which will make you smile and horrified at the same time. I loved it as a one time watch. Not so much the 2nd time though. If you are one of those who like to go critical on not-so-logical jokes, then give this a miss. But if you find life good to have a hearty laugh, then this one's for you.

**Cocaine Bear delivers ridiculous creature violence on some goofy, short-lived characters, but its lack of consistent tone and identity kept it from being everything I had hoped.**
Let’s start with this: I am a massive fan of lane creature movies - Ghost Shark, Sharknado, Lavalantula, The Sand - some of my favorites. So I expected to love Cocaine Bear. Sadly, I was a little underwhelmed. It wasn’t bad for what it was, but it didn’t dazzle me as I had hoped. Two things held it back for me:
1. The tone inconsistently switched from a Zombieland-style ridiculous violence to a goofy crime movie to an odd family drama. Cocaine Bear had a minor identity crisis from start to finish.
2. The movie tried to give each character a little backstory and development. While this is generally a good thing, in a low-budget creature movie, it slows down the nonsensical violence that the audience came for in the first place. Spend time on one or two characters but not all of them. I didn’t need to know about the drug lord’s grandson or the detective’s dog. I just need to see more people get eaten 😆.
I appreciated the larger-budget kills and the oddball characters. If it continues, I will come back for a second try in this franchise, but ultimately I wasn’t high on Cocaine Bear (get it? 😜).

After the initial hit of Cocaine Bear, the film left me scratching for something a little stronger.
I think the main drawback of this film is that it is trying to do too much. There are seven to eight characters introduced throughout the course of the film, with each given significant time to develop their story and motivations. This takes a lot of time away from the main attraction, the cocaine bear. There is a period of almost 45 minutes where we are focused on these "secondary" characters, without any action or appearance of the cocaine bear. This section was pretty slow paced and started to lose me, but once the bear is re-introduced, the film gets significantly better. The paramedic scene was superb.
The comedy was pretty lackluster as well. The entire theater was laughing aloud, but I found myself only chuckling at a few jokes. This left the script feeling somewhat bland. But the lack of humor is made up for by the absolute brutality on display. There are some really messed up kills that do not shy away from the blood and gore. Some of the effects looked to be prosthetics as well, which always have an especially disgusting appearance to them.
The story overall was pretty decent, but the ending was atrocious and incredibly predictable. I found that it was really over the top and cheesy, but not in a good way.
The visual appearance of the bear was pretty solid. The CGI was done well but is spotty in a couple of scenes. Overall, I was slightly entertained by this film, but I can't help but feel it did not live up to its full potential.
Score: 55% |
Verdict: Average

OK, so the plot wears a little thin after a while but I really did quite enjoy this daft action adventure film. It all starts with a bloke tossing bags from an aircraft before he clonks his head on the door whilst leaving, mid-air, and next thing the police are identifying the body and a large duffle bag of cocaine. Where's the rest of it? Well out near the original "glory hole" at Cagney's Cavern a bear is having the time of her life - and snacking on just about anything that crosses her path - including Scandi tourists as an appetiser! A couple of kids "Dee Dee" (Brooklyn Prince) and "Henry" (Christian Convery) bunk off school to visit a waterfall and pretty soon her mother and the feisty park ranger "Liz" (Margo Martindale) are all trying to find them and stay one step ahead of the increasingly stoned apex predator. It's got funny moments, scary moments - downright silly moments; Martindale and the young Convery are good fun too, and there is even a bit of a moral to the story from "Eddie" (Alden Ehrenreich) who is determined to opt out of the drug dealing business of his ruthless dad "Syd" (Ray Liotta). It's not often folks laugh out loud in a cinema these days and folks did - as did I - tonight. Rocket science it isn't, but entertaining it certainly is and the bear has some nifty moves, too!

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/cocaine-bear-review
"COCAINE BEAR offers what one expects from it: an absolutely INSANE bear wreaking gory, bloody havoc while also doing the stupidest things imaginable. A totally nonsensical yet extremely entertaining time where nothing else matters besides the bear who did cocaine."
Rating: B-

'The Nun II' concludes this franchise, at least for the time being, in typical fashion - that being rather dull. I haven't got much new to add, anything I could say I've said much before for most of the other entries; most notably for the original 2018 film.
I mainly dislike The Nun character, both in terms of how it looks visually and how it is portrayed audibly - just such a disappointment, 'The Curse of La Llorona' did it greater... not that many would agree with me, admittedly. The human side of all this isn't much better either.
The only positive I have is that some of the attacks on the kids here are fairly brutal, though sadly they are few and far between so don't elevate the film all that much. All in all, this is a forgettable flick at best.

MORE SPOILER-FREE MINI-REVIEWS @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/mini-reviews-2023-edition
THE NUN II surpasses its predecessor with commendable acting, improved practical effects, and impressive imagery, making it a surprisingly decent horror blockbuster. Michael Chaves effectively utilizes his budget, showcasing well-directed, suspenseful sequences.
However, it stumbles in the second act with a loss of momentum and still overuses generic jumpscares that often fall flat. The unnecessary complexity introduced in the story, including weird flashbacks and character intricacies, leads to a somewhat messy third act narratively.
Despite these issues, this sequel represents a positive step forward for the franchise, although I doubt it will ever go back to the peak of the first two The Conjuring films."
Rating: B-

I guess a plus on this sequel is it is better than the first one. Not that says much as I didn't really care for it, as it was a sludge to sit through, especially the finale. Here, honestly I couldn't really understand what the heck was going on but I suppose some of the direction was interesting and it didn't feel like it dragged on. That said, it is empty on any emotional elements.
The only reason I even like "The Conjuring Universe" is because of Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga, even the mediocre "The Devil Made Me Do It" was watchable because of them, all of these other entries have been mostly duds. **2.5/5**

Five years on from her first outing, Taissa Farmiga dons her holy robes to return as the nun who is a dab hand at facing down satanic apparitions. It's France in the 1950s and a priest is seized in his own church and brutally killed. Not by a person though - and that's where "Sister Irene" comes in. Fairly quickly her investigations take her to a girl's school where a previous tragedy has left a room completely sealed off and that's where she senses the source of this evil may be lurking. Can she figure out who this demon is and thwart it's ambitions - ambitions that really centre on the absorption of her own, true, spirit? Well, what do you think? We have a bit of eye candy from Jonas Bloquet's handyman "Maurice" but that's countered by far too many children - so often the death knell in horror films with their screeching, squealing and toxic effect on the jeopardy of any story - if only they would actually just do as they were told! To be fair, though, they are not the only thing that drags this down. It's all so very verbal, procedural and predictable. Even the visual effects are a direct descendent of the first film with a denouement that cannot be a shock to anyone. I know it's hard to reinvent the wheel in this genre, but films like this really offer very little by way of creative innovation, acting/writing skills or even providing the merest hint of scariness. Adequate for Halloween television, but no more I'd say.

Despite having such a strong central character on its poster with a great back story, 'The Nun 2' spends more time on the pauses and long dialogue scenes than on the scares. 'Nun the less', watch it if you are invested in the 'Conjuring' universe.

Another quality action film from big guns Butler. The plane flying/landing sequences were tense. The fight scenes were well executed. The story was fine. All around an entertaining action flick.

**This movie is for entertainment purpose**
Although the scenario is expected and there is nothing new in it, I enjoyed watching the movie, this type of movie that I can call popcorn movies that you see in the cinema or at home, and this type is fun doesn't require the viewer to think a lot during the show.
Gerard Butler was distinguished. sometimes i forget that he is an actor of action movies and he has similar movies. When you watch the movie, you feel that it is a film in the early 2000s, and this makes you feel that you need to watch this type of movies from time to time. The movie managed to grab my attention because there is a factor of isolation. Isolation in the air while boarding the plane and the problems that occurred during take-off and after landing on the ground, which is the isolation of staying on the island.
Imagine you land the plane in an area controlled by separatists and the killers are people who don't follow the law. This movie has become a kind of survival, which is the struggle for survival, and these movies have a large type of viewers, regardless of the usual plot and the familiar and expected ending.
If i am from the kind of audience whose movies only depend on the plot, I will criticize the movie from beginning to end, but there are sometimes movies that you should watch for fun, like Plane 2023. Cinema is the art of conversation, but it is also an enjoyable experience. Each movie has a specific goal for viewers. This movie is for entertainment purpose.

MORE SPOILER-FREE MINI-REVIEWS @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/mini-reviews-2023-edition
"Plane exceeds low personal expectations. Originality, creativity, and deep exploration of themes or character arcs aren’t exactly part of the screenplay, but Jean-François Richet executes all his ideas in such an efficient manner that it fully justifies releasing in theaters instead of going straight to VOD. Gerard Butler uses his charisma to lead a by-the-numbers survival-rescue mission that surprisingly holds beautifully shot action sequences and quite high entertainment levels. A film that delivers what it promises and a bit more."
Rating: B

**Plane is a well-done action thriller with a solid lead and good fight sequences. Nothing more. Nothing less.**
Plane is a low-budget action/survival movie that checks all the boxes and provides plenty of gritty Gun fights and brutal melee combat along the way. The film that didn’t spend much time picking a clever name also didn’t waste much time on character development. Instead, the plot is centered on Gerard Butler as he works to secure the safety and survival of a small group of passengers. Unfortunately, the island they crash-landed on is full of a bunch of pirate/terrorist types, so Butler does some shooting and punching, and choking to save the day. Plane won’t win any awards, but it is a solid action movie that I would watch again and recommend renting (probably not a whole $20 purchase to own, though) to any action fan. I’m glad it got a theatrical release so people can trust that it’s a little bigger budget and higher quality than most straight-to-stream action films.

OK, where is Jason Statham? He does these things so much better! Maybe he was off having an haircut so they decided to cast a distinctly wooden Gerard Butler as airline captain "Torrance" who is charged with flying his plane from Singapore to Tokyo before he heads on to his daughter's wedding in the USA. There aren't many passengers on his airliner, so to save cash and fuel he is directed to fly very near a violent storm that - well, next thing he has managed to land his sizeable aeroplane on a remote and lawless Filipino island (that luckily is replete with a dirt-track "mining" road that would not look out of place encircling Los Angeles). Now we happen to know that one of his few charges was also under the charge of the police, and now "Brodie" and the erstwhile captive - and useful - "Gaspare" (Mike Colter) must unite to fend off the venal bandits lead by their chief "Junmar" (Evan Dane Taylor) whilst getting a message to the rescue parties that can hopefully come and save their bacon. This film is so far-fetched that you might as well leave any need for reality at the door as you go in. The dialogue is pedestrian and the plot lurches from one implausibly half-baked scenario to another with consummate ease. That said, it hots up nicely for the last twenty minutes of gunfighting and that does rescue it a little from the mediocrity it probably deserves. It passed an hour and an half in the cinema easily enough, but it is not a film you will ever remember watching.

May contain an odd spoiler
“Plane” has a Scottish Pilot, Brodie Torrance ( Gerard Butler ) intent on getting his passengers to their destination in time to meet up with his daughter during the New Year festivities. However all does not go to plan when bad weather puts paid to any such activities and prematurely forces Brodie to make an emergency landing. During the attempt to land an FBI agent escorting a dangerous criminal, Louis Gaspare ( Mike Colter ), drops his mobile phone. Rather than leave it during a dangerous decent he tries to retrieve it only to loose both his life and that of a stewardess trying to help him.
Surviving this landing on a remote island was not easy but the skills of Brodie saves the remaining passengers and crew. However far from praised for his actions the passengers decide it’s rather an inconvenience and complain constantly as the crew try to repair the communications. Unfortunately there is much more for the passengers to complain about once they are taken hostage by rebel forces who control the Island. More deaths ensue, however Brodie and his new friend, Louis are the only two to avoid capture after killing a few rebels along the way. Brodie and Louis work together to dispatch more rebels in an attempt to rescue the hostages.
What ensues is a Die Hard style action thriller but based at New Year rather than Christmas. “Plane” does have some tense moments but very much ticks every Die Hard trope box it can. What is extremely notable, much like Die Hard, a rather large number of rebels are killed compared to hostages. In hindsight, as requested by Brodie, if I was Hans Gruber , sorry the rebel leader, I’d have let all the hostages go. I did enjoy this movie but for what it is, an action packed, nothing new , 1 hour 47 mins.
New tag line . Survive Together or Die Hard alone.

I was pleasantly surprised by Plane. Going into it, I had pretty low expectations as it seemed to be a cheap, action flick that was built for the dad's in our life. But there were some pretty good performances, set pieces, and brutal action that raised this movie from mediocrity.
The plot is incredibly bare bones: a plane gets damaged in a storm and crash lands on a desolate island. We've seen this used in countless films and TV shows throughout the years but, the way this is handled is pretty incredible. We see it from the pilots perspective as he and the stewards are trying to navigate the situation to create the best course of action to survive. It was done in a very believable way, giving us a glimpse at crash landing procedure and how truly indestructible planes are. The entire 30-minutes sequence had me on the edge of my seat even though I knew it was coming from a mile away. The CGI in this section was quite rough though as the plane looked like something rendered in an Xbox 360 game.
The movie does fall into some pretty classic tropes in movies like this. One being that almost all the "good" people are the classic white American men and woman, but the "bad" people (the island combatants and our main prisoner hero) are individuals of color. It is subtle, but something I noticed that slightly rubbed me the wrong way. Also the depiction of how the Philippines refused to assist in their own territory was laughable. But it opened the way for the good men of the American military were there to save the day and kill some island terrorists. It has some minor military propaganda that didn't totally take away from my experience, but worth a mention.
The performances were all pretty good. Gerard Butler played his usual role, I enjoyed his charisma as a pilot but also the gruff and militaristic persona he pulled out from his previous service. Mike Colter was great as the ultimate badass of the movie, killing terrorists with whatever he could get his hands on. This was nothing against his performance, but I hated how they wrote his characters ending in the film. It did not do his character arch any justice and felt out of place. The rest of the cast was decent.
Overall, this movie delivers exactly what it promised in a short concise runtime and I cannot ask any more than that.
Score: 63%
Verdict: Decent

Brodie Torrance (Gerard Butler), is a recently widowed dad who looks
forward to completing his nearly empty run from Singapore to Tokyo so he
can take advantage of the time difference and meet up with his daughter in
Hawaii in time to celebrate the new year.
In the new film “Plane” things do not go as planned as the nearly empty
the flight also hosts a prisoner transfer as a dangerous fugitive named Louis
(Mike Colter), is brought onto the flight late.
Forced by a corporate officer to fly through a storm they were told would
be clear by the time they reached it to save time and fuel, the flight
encounters severe issues and soon find themselves without avionics and
forced to make an emergency landing on an island.
Unable to send for help and unsure of their exact location, Brodie learns
that they are on an outer island of the Philippines and that there is only
insurrectionists and militia on the island and that the military or police
are not options.
While attempting to find a way to contact help, Brodie enlists Louis to
help and soon finds that the passengers and crew have been taking hostage
by a brutal local militia. Forced to improvise rescue and wait for
help, the tense and violent situation quickly becomes a living nightmare
as they fight to survive.
The tension level of the film is great as the early segments in the plane
did a great job of showing the routine of a pilot and also ramped up the
tension. I can be a nervous passenger when a plane gets into bad weather
and I found my palms getting sweaty and anxiety creeping in during the
detailed sequences of the flight in peril.
The action of the film was engaging as were the characters as they were
easy to pull for despite not having much in the way of backstory or
character development. The film has plenty of action as was engaging from
start to finish which makes “Plane” a pleasant diversion and one fan of
Butler will not want to miss.
4 stars out of 5

#AHauntingInVenice #MovieReview
This film initially presents itself as a horror movie but unfolds more as a murder mystery, deviating from the expectations set by its promotional material. It shares similarities with other movies starring the same actor in a recurring character role, resembling a continuation of a franchise with a different name.
While the first two movies were decent, this one falls into the same category. It doesn't quite captivate or hold your attention throughout. The storyline feels somewhat lacking and could benefit from filling in some plot holes. Overall, it's an okay movie that doesn't excel in drawing the audience in.
The predictability of the plot and clues may leave viewers feeling ahead of the protagonist, diminishing some of the suspense. Ultimately, this film seems more suited for streaming rather than a theatrical viewing. It may not be worth the expense of a cinema ticket.

Another take on Agatha Christie's books, this one takes the "Hallowe'en Party" (1969), into the screen on a loose adaptation. Again
Kenneth Branagh leads on the direction and main role (the belgian detective Hercule Poirot), while on his retirement in Venice, in post-war Venice, 1947.
The screenplay is by Agatha Christie (obviously) and Michael Green (Blue Eyed Samurai, Blade Runner 2049, Logan, and the previous two movies of this series "The Murder on the Orient Express - 2017, and Death in the Nile - 2022).
It is a way better movie than Death in the Nile, but it doesn't reach the level of Orient Express tho. In all passes in a dark Venice palazzo, in a strange empty Venice, that is shown only into the begging and the end (that were actually shots on a London Studio as much of the movie). The CGI effects are really nice into deleting modern things (and actual tourist) nto some obvious closed famous spots on close angle shots.
The cinematography of Haris Zambarloukos (another close colleague into Branagh works like the previous movies and Belfast) is really beautiful, even into the dark settings that can be into closed spaces or huge claustrophobic rooms. I've read somewhere that the actors weren't aware when something like a closing door, etc would happen, but I bet that after the first one the trick didn't work again.
On the story side, Branagh is spot on Poirot again. The story follows the usual premise of a crime with several characters involved, but I killed the charade into mid-movie (knowing how usually Agatha Christie Stories area - I can't really compare to the book as I didn't even read it). But it is enjoyable anyway if is that that you search.
The story plus acting and beautifully well done cinematography and settings ensure a 7,0 out of 10,0 / B on my score. How I miss to see Venice again.

While Kenneth Branagh is not our favourite Poirot, we like seeing Agatha Christie tales on the big screen. (We want to encourage more murder mysteries to be made.) Much improved over Death on the Nile, this one gives us interesting establishing shots of the titular Venice before we get to the haunted Pallazo where the majority of the film takes place. Michelle Yeoh was the highlight of the familiar faces populating this one. Tina Fey was an odd choice as the comic relief in a period film.
We did both close our eyes sometime in the middle though.

Unlike his other two Christie adaptations featuring this character, this film does not have a previous, star-studded, version with which to compare. That's a good thing because this is certainly not one of the author's stronger stories. "Poirot" (Sir Kenneth Branagh) has retired to a sort of self-imposed exile in Venice where he sees nobody but the pastry chef. The arrival of fellow writer "Ariadne" (Tina Fey) teases what's left of his little grey cells and takes them to an old palazzo where there is to be a seance to try and ascertain what caused the strange death of the young "Alicia". He quickly discovers that those assembled consist a group of folks who all have baggage - individually, or with others from the party and of course, in the best "Cleudo" style, one of them is duly murdered in a nigh-on impossible fashion. The last ten minutes of this is quite quirky and as usual with this writer we are presented with a fairly left-field solution, but I found the bulk of the remainder of the mystery to be presented in a stylish and classy-looking, but ponderous and lethargic fashion. It's way too wordy and the cast don't really gel together particularly well as the sense of peril really doesn't accumulate very much at all. It's nicely scored and shows off the beauty and the vulnerability of Venice but as a whodunnit, I felt it just lacked a little je ne sais quoi! Sir Kenneth is definitely trying to create a persona for his detective, and I am warming to that slightly (though he's no Peter Ustinov) but I found the writing rather too dry and I didn't really manage to get into this. Maybe one to watch a few times?

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.firstshowing.net/2023/review-kenneth-branaghs-a-haunting-in-venice-is-quite-the-horror-mystery/
"A Haunting in Venice is, by some margin, the best adaptation of the now trilogy featuring Hercule Poirot, correcting many of the mistakes of the past and utilizing Kenneth Branagh's innate talent as both filmmaker and actor to stand out as a darker, more atmospheric film.
Exceptional performances, suspenseful sequences with intense build-ups, and a couple of genuinely intriguing mysteries that last until the very end. Some ambiguity surrounding its supernatural themes feels off in such a logic-driven world, just as not all characters deserve the allocated screen time.
If this last installment is used as a solid base for new sequels, the saga has everything in its favor to continue…"
Rating: B

The one thing a good whodunnit should not do is put its audience to sleep. Unfortunately, this latest cinematic adaptation of an Agatha Christie novel fails miserably on this score. Director Kenneth Branagh’s third outing as Belgian sleuth Hercule Poirot is a protracted snooze that leaves viewers caring little about the characters and even less about the story in which they’re trapped. When the famed detective (Branagh) – now in retirement in Venice – is called upon by a friend and author of murder mysteries (Tina Fey) to help her verify or discredit the psychic powers of a medium (Michelle Yeoh) at a séance at an allegedly haunted Venetian palazzo, he’s drawn into yet another of his famous investigations. The problem here is that what should be an engaging story is interminably dull, one that, regrettably, prompts frequent checking of one’s watch. Moreover, virtually the entire film is shot with excessively dark camera work (so much for showing off the glories of Venice). And then there are the performances, which feature good turns by Yeoh and Jude Hill but a positively wooden portrayal by Branagh (compared to his previous depictions of the protagonist) and an absolutely dreadful performance by a woefully miscast Fey. To its credit, like its recent predecessors, the production values of this Christie offering are top shelf, but that’s about all this release has going for it, a far cry from the much better overall work found in “Murder on the Orient Express” (2017) and “Death on the Nile” (2023). Indeed, even fans of the famed mystery writer are likely to find “A Haunting in Venice” tiresome and tedious. Pack a lunch for this one.

Underneath poor pacing and a half-baked plot, there is a good film that, unfortunately, 65 never fully realizes.
From the start of the film, the pacing was dreadful. The introduction of our character, Mills, and the set-up to his story were rushed and for no reason, as the movie was under an hour and thirty minutes long. This time that should have been used for character development and motivation setup was fast-forwarded in order to get to the action on Earth. This section is critical to the audience's ability to relate to Mills, and unfortunately we never get to see it come to fruition.
Once we get to Earth, things start to even out as the story progresses. The world they built was breathtaking, and the visuals were stellar. The action set pieces were nothing too impressive, but they did the job and had me thoroughly entertained. But, similarly to the introduction, this section lacks heart. 65 tries to be more than just a dinosaur action flick, and attempts to develop an intimate relationship between Mills and Koa just don’t work. I think the decision to make them speak different languages really took away from their development. It always felt awkward, which is a missed opportunity for what they could have been.
Despite my story complaints, this movie was just entertaining. There were some pretty decent action scenes, Adam Driver was fantastic as always, and the overall concept was pretty unique. I loved the idea of this not being a time travel film, especially with that mixed with the extinction event of the dinosaurs. In the end, this film is not good, but it isn’t as bad as many would have you believe.
Score: 56%
Verdict: Decent

This film starts out with an odd premise. Putting a twist on the Planet of the Apes plot, instead of earth astronauts ending up in the past or future of this planet, the Earth is visited by space travelers from a different planet in the distant prehistoric past. (The title is not a suggested rating for reviewers, but rather how many million years ago the story takes place.) So it is odd to contemplate that the Adam Driver character speaks Engish just so we can understand him, while his co-star speaks some other language. How different the story would have been if we understood her (Koa) and not him!
But I digress. So this turns into another Jurassic Park without the huge body count or those magic sighing moments of viewing a herd of docile grazing Brontosauruses or triceratops. Instead the dinosaurs start out as killing threats and remain so throughout. I suppose this is also a good reason to show the movie on a streaming service rather than on a large theater screen. That sort of access might have tilted the movie away from sci-if thriller and towards mere horror.
I had this weird and unrealized vision of them showing some sign of these alien visitors millions of years later along with other fossil remains, but perhaps fortunately perhaps, nothing like that developed.