"Dantès" (Pierre Niney) is to be promoted to captain a ship for the wealthy "Morrel" (Bruno Raffaelli) after he disobeyed orders at sea and dived in to rescue a woman from drowning. This action immediately earns him the enmity of the now fired captain "Danglars" (Patrick Mille) and then just as his joy is to be complete with his marriage to "Mercedes" (Anaïs Demoustier) the soldiers arrive and he's implicated in a Napoleonic plot! The prosecutor, "de Villefort" (Laurent Lafitte) appears sympathetic and accepts his pleas of innocence, but when his close friend "Morcef" (Bastien Bouillon) is called upon to vouch for "Dantès" his own envious agenda takes hold and next, our naive young seaman is heading to the solitude of the Chateau D'If from which prisoners never escape. As the years of relentless frustration and boredom go by, his only conversation is a regular call from his jailers to see if he's still alive. Then a miracle occurs. Another prisoner has been tunnelling for years and inadvertently breaks through to his cell. It's this man - the Abbé Faria (Pierfrancesco Favino) - who gives him more than a little education as they try to dig their way to the sea wall. It's not to be for both, though, but armed with a knowledge that could change his life for ever, he manages to trick the guards and make it to land. It's now that the story of revenge hots up as we jump forward a few years and are introduced to the eponymous Count. He travels in style, has great wealth and style and is determined to avenge himself on the three men who framed him. As with himself, these men have gone on to great things with his denouncing friend now married to his love, "Danglars" owning a great trading fleet and the prosecutor now a powerful state official. "Dantès" has used his time well, assembling some allies whose roles in this unfolding drama are gradually revealed to us as politics, greed and jealousy stride to the fore of this classically designed production. The lavish costumes, stately homes and opulence of their lives contrasts well with the poverty and ruin faced by those collaterally damaged by the ambitions of men who cared but for themselves, and for whom our dashing and calculation gazillionaire is gunning. Nimey (who occasionally looked a bit like Kevin Kline here?) delivers that wronged and now Machiavellian characterisation especially well. There are also strong efforts from the younger characters "Albert" (Vassili Schneider); "André" (Julien De Saint Jean) and "Haydée" (Anamaria Vartolomei). It's essentially a thoroughly potent story of revenge, but it's as much about just how that can become a toxic influence that can eat into a man's soul and the challenge for "Dantès" and those around him whom he loves - however unwillingly on the surface - is not to become an obsessed demon every bit as ghastly as those he wishes to punish. It's this slow, dripping, evolution that the film delivers enthrallingly as we see this troubled man tread an increasingly conflicted line between love and hate. Revenge is said to be a dish best served cold, but like most things served cold - it doesn't keep for long.

In addition to telling an individual’s life story, one of the other primary objectives of a film biography is to provide insight into the protagonist’s character and nature. Unfortunately, that’s where this profile of reggae icon Bob Marley (Kingsley Ben-Adir) tends to come up somewhat short. Director Reinaldo Marcus Green’s biopic about the legendary musician and peace advocate provides viewers with a somewhat scattershot and episodic look at the artist’s life, primarily focused on the last few years of his life, intercut with flashbacks that are largely inserted without explanation and don’t come across as especially insightful or enlightening. To the film’s credit, it features a fine repertoire of Marley’s music, including the origins of many of his works, as well as fine performances by Ben-Adir and Lashana Lynch as the musician’s wife, Rita. However, I came away from this offering feeling as though I didn’t know a lot more about its subject than I did going in, particularly since many story threads are raised but never sufficiently resolved. It also probably didn’t help that the film’s sound quality (in the non-musical sequences) left much to be desired, often resulting in the need to strain to hear and comprehend the dialogue. In many ways, “One Love” feels like a missed opportunity to tell the story of someone who had much to say but whose message doesn’t come across nearly as clearly as it could and should have. Listen to Marley’s music instead – you’ll get more out of one of his albums than you’re likely to absorb from this picture.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://fandomwire.com/bob-marley-one-love-review-a-sanitized-homage/
"Bob Marley: One Love navigates the intricacies of biographical storytelling with mixed success. Its commendable focus on Marley’s message and music, coupled with good performances, highlights the enduring relevance of his legacy.
However, the reluctance to engage with the more contentious aspects of his life and the oversimplification of his political contributions undermine the potential for a more nuanced, complete exploration.
While the movie serves as a vibrant homage to Marley’s spirit and artistry, it ultimately leaves me yearning for a deeper, more critical study of the complexities that defined one of the most influential artists of the 20th century."
Rating: C

Sadly, this is one of those films that shoves almost all of it's best bits into the trails. What's left is a curiously sterile representation of the life of this vibrant and visionary man. To be fair, Kingsley Ben-Amir does turn in quite a charismatic performance, but the rest of that characters are largely under-cooked and seem there to make up the numbers. We get little by way of establishment. Why is he revered on his home island of Jamaica at the start? We are plonked into the centre of a political hotbed and then all to briefly, bullets are flying and we are in London, his family in Delaware. Again, little meat on the bones of context there for us to understand just what was going on and why he was so important to both sides in that conflict - alive or dead. The last twenty minutes does allow for more of his musical talents to shine, and KBA delivers them enthusiastically and engagingly, but somehow I just felt this was the thinnest of coats about his enigma. James Norton just looked like he was along because he liked the music and Lashana Lynch is totally unremarkable too. Son Ziggy may well have had a hand in this, but it really under-delivers on a story that I thought should have been a no-brainer politically, musically and culturally. Sorry, this is just a rather disappointing chronology that skirts across his life like a stylus on well worn vinyl. Pity.

It's fine, just nothing all that memorable.
I had a pleasant enough time viewing 'Bob Marley: One Love', though it does kinda seem a bit hollow post-watch - as in I don't feel like I've learned much nor actually seen that much, the movie has like three noteworthy events but then that's kinda it. The music from those involved also didn't feel amazingly utilised, I guess they didn't want it to be too jukebox-y.
Kingsley Ben-Adir does well in the lead role as Bob Marley himself. I'm not a Marley superfan or anything close, I basically only know his biggest hits, but the resemblance of Ben-Adir seemed off to me - a thought that was only solidified when the real Marley appears via archive footage at the end. Perhaps that's just me, though.
Lashana Lynch gives a good performance, spearheading the rest of the cast who are alright; interesting to see James Norton, Michael Gandolfini too... even if I didn't realise it was Gandolfini until the credits. Overall, it does feel like the film only scratches the surface of Marley's life. I wanted more from it, but to be fair it is still a decent flick in my opinion.

**Maxxxine** serves as a **crowd-pleasing** end to a strong trilogy. No fuss, no frills, decent pacing, with a more simplified **action-focused** plot. Lots of **good gore**, and perfect to kiss in the back of a cinema to. **8/10**

Maxxine is the third installment in a confusing trilogy of movies. After enduring the first film, X, which was essentially a low-quality adult film, and only partially watching the second film, Pearl, which was equally disappointing, I had low expectations for Maxxine.
Assuming it would follow the same pattern, I made sure no children were present before watching it alone. Surprisingly, Maxxine had less nudity, only appearing twice, compared to its predecessors. Instead, it focused more on horror and thriller elements, following an aspiring actress being stalked by a serial killer named Knight and another mysterious figure out to harm her.
While this film didn't win me over completely, I appreciated that it actually had a plot and some semblance of a storyline, unlike the previous entries in the trilogy. For those who enjoy quirky, over-the-top thrillers with unconventional writing, Maxxine may be worth a watch. However, if you prefer gripping, edge-of-your-seat thrillers, this may not be the film for you.
After viewing Maxxine, I concluded that it was not something I would revisit or add to my collection. It's the kind of movie you watch once and then move on from, ticking it off your list without a second thought.

MAXXXINE holds many strong ideas & thematic weight, but fails to bring it all together in a cohesive, captivating fashion. Everything feels less than its predecessors, where the only outstanding constant is Mia Goth's terrific central performance. Underwhelming.
Rating: C

There’s a lot to appreciate about “MaXXXine,” writer/director Ti West‘s latest film in his horror trilogy, even if he doesn’t quite stick the landing. The whole project feels like, as one of his characters says in one of the film’s most memorable lines, a “B-movie with A+ ideas.” There’s plenty of blood and gore to appease slasher fanatics, but there’s a depth to the film that comes from the hefty themes about sex, opportunity, religion, and Hollywood’s dark underbelly.
Set in Los Angeles in the mid-1980s, adult film star and aspiring big studio actress Maxine Minx (Mia Goth) finally gets her big break into the mainstream. She’s been cast in a supporting role in a horror movie sequel and is set to work with up-and-coming director Elizabeth Bender (Elizabeth Debicki). Things are looking up for Maxine career-wise, but a mysterious stalker who is targeting the starlets of Hollywood seems to have her directly in his sights. When a trail of blood makes it clear that several murders are directly connected to her, Maxine starts to worry that her sinister past is going to be exposed.
The first half of the film is also the best, and West fully embraces the decadence and danger that goes along with the backdrop of sleazy Hollywood. Filmed with a vintage aesthetic and Eighties feel, the neon-lit, blood soaked movie looks like it has stepped out of an exploitation cinema time capsule. It’s an homage that’s done exceedingly well, from the cinematography to the soundtrack to the costume design.
The casting is perfect across the board, with standout performances from both Kevin Bacon as a menacing bad guy and Giancarlo Esposito as Maxine’s attorney agent, Teddy Night. (Even the supporting roles are meaty, featuring solid turns from Michelle Monaghan, Moses Sumney, Bobby Cannavale, and Sophie Thatcher). Goth is once again terrific as a shrewd woman with a fierce ambition, lending the ideal mix of street smart toughness with a relatable vulnerability. West never demeans his lead character either, which is refreshing. The film portrays sex work and the adult film industry as a legitimate profession and Maxine as a strong, empowered woman who takes charge of her own destiny.
The second half of the film derails with a conclusion that seems both corny and disappointing (at least on the surface). The ending is left open for rampant speculation, which is probably going to polarize audiences. I think it’s fun when a film can be interpreted in several different ways, but this may prove frustrating for moviegoers who like things very black and white.
Best of all, “MaXXXine” leaves plenty of room for a fourth film featuring the character, which I certainly hope we get.
By: Louisa Moore / SCREEN ZEALOTS

Maxine sure wants to be famous. I really hope she's got what it takes. Gotta give 110% if you want that big break! Do you want it? Maxine does.
Fun little revenge story. Leather gloves sure make your hands strong. Good humour.

Despite her rather florid past, the eponymous porn star (Mia Goth) is determined to make it in the mainstream and seems well on her way when director "Elizabeth Bender" (Elizabeth Debicki) casts her as the lead in the sequel to her own successful first feature. Whilst this is all going on for "Maxine Minx", there is a serial killer on the loose in Los Angeles and the police seem to think that maybe she is involved. Obviously she's not the perpetrator of these vicious acts, but might she somehow be the ultimate target? A rather curious meeting with private eye "Labat" (Kevin Bacon) suggests that she might want to go a mysterious address where she might learn the truth, but she has her own ideas so with the help of her agent/manager/enforcer "Teddy" (Giancarlo Esposito) and a car crusher sets up quite a perilous face-off with a man in black gloves who lives behind a set of green doors. At times this is quite an attitudinal film and Goth does fine, but (no pun intended) Bacon just hams it up too much. Debicki seems totally disinterested in her role and the rest of the cast add very little to a story that is too thinly stretched to pad out one hundred minutes before taking us to a rather weak and rushed denouement. Beware: I sense a sequel might be in the pipe, as if we don't already have enough mediocre slasher fayre on offer already!

Maxxxine is a film I have eagerly anticipated since it was teased as the final installment of Ti West's X trilogy. Having thoroughly enjoyed the first two films, I had high hopes for this one. Each film in the series brings a unique style that represents the period it’s set in.
2022’s X was a gritty homage to the brutal horror films of the 1970s, with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre being a major influence. The same year, Pearl offered an even more stylistic approach, serving as a prequel with influences from the silent era and visual nods to The Wizard of Oz. These distinct stylistic choices set a high bar for Maxxxine.
In Maxxxine, we follow the lone survivor of the farmhouse massacres depicted in the first film. Now a bit older and blonder, Mia Goth’s Maxine is still striving to become Hollywood’s next biggest star. She finally lands a role as the lead in a new horror film, but her past begins to catch up with her. She is pursued by a sleazy private investigator, played by Kevin Bacon, who works for a vicious killer targeting Maxine’s closest friends. Concurrently, Maxine must navigate the terror of the Night Stalker, who is haunting Los Angeles, while detectives try to unravel her connection to these events.
Maxxxine is a beautiful love letter to the horror films of the 1980s. Ti West draws influence from many great horror filmmakers of that era. One scene in particular, where Maxine ascends a staircase toward the film’s climax, is reminiscent of the cinematography of David Lynch films from that period. This meticulous attention to style and atmosphere enhances the film’s nostalgic appeal.
Mia Goth is truly fantastic, bringing depth and intensity to her role. Her performance is a highlight of the trilogy, showcasing her versatility as she navigates multiple characters and complex emotional landscapes. For example, her portrayal of Maxine’s relentless determination and underlying vulnerability adds layers to the character, making her journey compelling and relatable.
While Maxxxine is a strong entry in the series, it is, in my opinion, the weakest installment. The film serves as a fitting conclusion to the trilogy but leaves some unresolved threads from X. I would have appreciated more closure regarding the events of the first film, as the connections feel somewhat superficial. Additionally, the reveal of the main antagonist, while surprising, feels somewhat detached from the overarching narrative. For instance, the motivations and background of the killer are not as deeply integrated into the story as they could have been, leading to a somewhat disjointed climax.
Despite these criticisms, Maxxxine is a well-crafted horror film that offers plenty of nods to genre aficionados. Ti West has created a trilogy that honors the horror tradition while bringing fresh and innovative storytelling to the table. The film is rich with familiarities from 1980s horror, making it a nostalgic yet refreshing experience. Mia Goth’s performance ties the trilogy together beautifully, and her portrayal in Maxxxine cements her status as a standout in modern horror cinema. While the film has its flaws, it remains a fitting and enjoyable conclusion to a remarkable series.

Kinds of Kindness is a thought-provoking film that explores themes of affection, toxic love, and the complexities of human relationships. Directed by Yorgos Lanthimos, the film presents three interconnected stories that delve into the darker sides of kindness and cruelty.
My experience with the movie was a mix of fascination and discomfort. The cinematography is striking, capturing both beauty and bleakness, which enhances the storytelling. While some moments are deeply unsettling—featuring elements like cannibalism and self-mutilation—the film's exploration of abuse and its impact is handled with a level of depth that kept me engaged.
The writing is sharp, filled with dark humor that contrasts with the serious themes, making it an intriguing watch despite its almost three-hour runtime. However, I found that the film's forced weirdness sometimes detracted from its emotional core.
Overall, Kinds of Kindness is a unique cinematic experience that challenges viewers to reflect on the nature of kindness itself. It's not for everyone, but those who appreciate unconventional storytelling may find it rewarding.
If you enjoyed my experience, then check out the Latest Movie Reviews.

The movie "Kinds of Kindness" was a perplexing and convoluted film that left me scratching my head. Clocking in at over three hours, it has earned the reputation of being the ultimate headache-inducing movie due to its scattered narrative.
Initially, the film showed promise with its stellar casting and intriguing storyline. I found myself drawn into the characters and their interactions, particularly with the protagonist's boss. However, as the plot unfolded, it spiraled deeper and deeper into confusion, leaving me feeling exhausted and questioning how much more I could bear.
Honestly, I wouldn't recommend wasting your time on this film. It won't clean your house like a vacuum, that's for sure. It's the kind of movie that makes you say, "No thanks, I'll pass." Unfortunately, that's all I can really say about it. The only standout aspect was Emma Stone's portrayal of a sexually driven character, which left me wondering about her choice of roles. Perhaps she's chasing an Oscar by taking on such provocative characters, but it left me more puzzled than impressed.

“I mostly loved it, but I kinda hated it” has pretty much become my mantra with the filmography of Yorgos Lanthimos, a writer/director whom most moviegoers will either loathe or adore. There are those of us who are firm fence sitters with his tales of absurdism and cruelty (although I skew towards the yay! versus the nay!), and it’s honestly a toss-up whether or not you’ll enjoy his latest bizarro project, “Kinds of Kindness.”
Written as a triptych fable that weaves together three distinct narratives, the film has layers upon layers of hefty, rich themes that are as thought-provoking as they are (at least on the surface) head-scratching. The first is a story of a man who has no choice in his life path, but is finally trying to stand up and take control of the direction his existence has been heading. The second is a totally weird tale of a policeman whose wife has gone missing at sea, but he becomes convinced that a doppelganger of her has returned home, where he delights in torturing her mercilessly. The final story is about a spiritual cult member who is determined to find a mysterious woman with a special ability who can lead the group to their destiny. It’s better to go in knowing as little as possible about the narrative, because the memorable surprises and general “WTF?” moments are also the film’s most successful.
As is the case with most of his former projects, Lanthimos once again gravitates towards the surreal, with unsettling stories that explore themes like fate, identity, free will, authority, power dynamics, and the complexities of human connection. It’s macabre and funny; dramatic and disturbing. The contemporary stories interconnect with a subtlety that’s incredibly well done through shared themes and recurring motifs, and the film blurs the line between dreamlike fantasy and harsh reality.
Further connecting the three stories together and keeping with coherent themes, Lanthimos keeps his cast small, utilizing the same actors (including Emma Stone, Jesse Plemons, Willem Dafoe, Mamoudou Athie, Margaret Qualley, and Hong Chau) in different roles in each of the fables. Very few directors working today can consistently draw out exceptional performances from their actors, but Lanthimos is one of the true greats. Everyone is top-of-their-game terrific, with a jaw-dropping, standout turn from the limitlessly versatile (and immensely talented) Plemons.
Obviously, “Kinds of Kindness” isn’t a film that will appeal to everyone. With its existential musings, experimental narratives, abstract storytelling, and deliberate pacing, Lanthimos certainly does not cater to mainstream tastes. But the small segment of movie lovers at which this visionary project is aimed will be up to the challenge (and of course, absolutely delighted).
By: Louisa Moore / SCREEN ZEALOTS

Quite the thing! I really enjoyed 'Kinds of Kindness'.
I'm also someone who loved 'Poor Things' from these folk, so I guess me also liking this isn't any sort of surprise. It is a truly bizarre movie and I can see many disliking it, a thought supported by the fact that in a cinema with around 10 others alongside me, 3 left before the conclusion; 1 left at the end of chapter one, then a group of 2 left at the end of chapter two.
I'm personally absolutely cool with absurdity if the filmmakers truly commit to it, otherwise what's the point? Yorgos Lanthimos & Co. evidently did just that and I was thoroughly entertained across the entire run time, which is impressive given it lasts for almost three hours; it flew by for me.
I'm already a big fan of those onscreen so didn't need much convincing to see them act again, and I'm glad I did because all those acting here are great. Jesse Plemons is the standout in my eyes, what a terrific showing from that man - such a top actor! Emma Stone is, obviously, excellent as well, as is the awesome Willem Dafoe. Margaret Qualley, Hong Chau and Mamoudou Athie merit praise too.
Gotta get 'The Favourite' watched at some point, all the while getting set for 'Bugonia' - Stone x Lanthimos is where it's at!

I have only walked out on one other film in my life. It was warranted then and warranted when I walked out on Kinds of Kindness. I enjoyed Yorgos Lanthimos's previous film, Poor Things, also starring Emma Stone and Willem Dafoe. In my opinion, that film is a shining star in his filmography. Before that, I found most of his work to be beautiful and intriguing in premise but ultimately very dull. Kinds of Kindness is not just dull but completely boring with no real intrigue.
The movie is divided into three separate stories, all revolving around the initials 'R.M.F', which are used by many of the cast playing multiple characters. This narrative structure, intended to interweave various tales of absurd kindness and humanity, fails to deliver a cohesive or engaging storyline. The disjointed nature of these stories makes it difficult to form any emotional connection or investment in the characters' journeys.
Although I found all of the characters in this film just as boring as the movie overall, the ensemble cast does their best to bring distinctiveness to their roles. Each character played by the talented actors has their own nuances, highlighting their skill despite the weak material.
The biggest credit goes to the location scouts and art departments for providing beautiful scenery to an otherwise mundane movie. The visual composition of the film is stunning, with carefully chosen settings that enhance the aesthetic appeal.
I did return to finish the film a couple of days later so I could properly review it. Unfortunately, this did not change my initial impression. The film remained an exercise in tedium, with no scenes or moments that redeemed its slow pace and uninspired plot. Even the most beautifully shot scenes couldn’t hold my interest for long. The disjointed narrative and the lack of engaging content made it a struggle to sit through the entire film.

I’m going to say up front that this is a film I’m probably going to be processing for quite some time. The latest offering from writer-director Yorgos Lanthimos – best known for films like “The Lobster” (2015), “The Favourite” (2018) and “Poor Things” (2023) – is as much a puzzle as anything else. Told in three loosely interlaced stories with mostly the same cast members playing different roles in each, the film primarily deals in explorations of control and abuse examined from various angles. The individual stories plumb an array of additional subjects, including life, death, sanity, religion, cult membership, sexuality, dreams, surreality and self-indulgence, among others, most of which are tinged with exceedingly dark, macabre, cynical, satirical humor (evident even in its title) very much in the same vein as one of the filmmaker’s other, more troubling releases, “The Killing of a Sacred Deer” (2017). Unlike that mess of a picture, though, “Kinds of Kindness” is somewhat more coherently structured, both in its individual segments and overall, even though the finished product still has an overly cryptic eccentricity that could have benefitted from better delineated refinement. To be sure, “Kindness” has its strong points, such as its sardonic humor that may often have you giggling at things that you probably think you shouldn’t be laughing at. It also has strong performances from many of Lanthimos’s regulars, including Emma Stone, Willem Dafoe and Margaret Qualley, along with newcomers Hong Chau and Jesse Plemons, winner of the Cannes Film Festival Best Actor Award (though I can’t help but wonder what effect this film may have on the future of their careers, talent notwithstanding). And, much to my surprise, the pacing is fairly well sustained for a movie with a 2:45:00 runtime, probably because it holds viewer attention well, leaving audiences perpetually wondering where each of the vignettes is going next. On the downside, however, its graphic imagery, explicit sexuality, extreme violence and other questionable story elements may easily turn off some members (myself included at times), particularly when they push the limits of acceptability (sensitive viewers take note, especially animal lovers). So the bottom line questions here would be, “Did I like it?” and “Would I recommend it?” Well, that depends on how open one is to edgy content that clearly pushes the envelope. To be honest, there are things about this offering that I truly liked, but, then, my tastes tend to be more open-ended than those of many more conventional moviegoers. Because of that, however, this may consequently be seen as the kind of picture that many of those same audience members might find unduly troubling and offensive, readily labeling it as such and claiming that this is the sort of movie that gives many reviewers a bad name (and they probably wouldn’t be entirely wrong in saying that). Lanthimos has certainly pushed limits in many of his previous works, such as “Poor Things,” “The Lobster” and “The Favourite,” but the edginess of those releases had a playful, warmer, more whimsical feel to them than this outing, which is much more akin to the disturbing shadowiness of a film like “Sacred Deer.” Keep all of the foregoing in mind if you’re contemplating a screening of this one. And, in any event, if you come away from it outraged, disappointed or confused, don’t say you weren’t warned.

This latest effort from the quirky imagination of Yorgos Lanthimos employs the services of Emma Stone, Jesse Plemons and Willem Dafoe in varying roles across three short stories that question just about every aspect of human behaviour and attitudes. The first (my favourite) sees Plemons as "Robert". He is an outwardly professional man who lives with is wife "Sarah" (Hong Chau) and works for "Raymond" (Dafoe). He has just recovered from a very slight car accident - and on meeting with his boss we discover a little more of just what that was about and of the somewhat curious nature, and dependencies, of their relationship. The second didn't engage with me so well as cop Plemons is "Daniel" struggling to deal with the loss of his wife "Liz" at sea. When she turns up somewhat unexpectedly, she appears completely different somehow and some fairly ghastly sacrifices are soon necessary before anyone can see any light at the end of this emotional maelstrom of a tunnel. Finally, the two share the leads more looking for the ideal candidate for a cult run by "Omi" (Dafoe). Candidate for what? Well so long as she is the right weight and her breasts are equidistant from each other and her navel, then it'd doesn't seem to matter... Thing is, she has an estranged husband (Joe Alwyn) and a daughter who are keen to have her back - and he is prepared to use some fairly ghastly methods to see she is "contaminated". The scenarios are quite hard to describe. They are surreal in places, brutal in others - but I found rarely entertaining. We are presented with the façades of characterisations but it's the questions their escapades pose to us that is more interesting. What might we do to satiate our cravings for love, affection and a sense of feeling needed? How easily led we can be. The things a person will do for a tennis racket smashed by John McEnroe in 1984! It's not that it blurs lines of sexuality. There aren't any. It's sexually fluid and frequently presents us with an environment where people behave according to instinct and not societal morals. Dafoe takes the acting plaudits for me, his ownership of his roles is unnervingly creepy at times. Stone, though, seems to be resurrecting her "Pretty Little Things" (2023) style of characteristic (lots of racing around taking short steps) and Plemons is adequate enough, but somewhat just a little too anodyne with roles that ought to have taken us more by the scruff of the neck. It also didn't really resonate with me as a comedy either. I could see where the humourous elements were supposed to be but I prefer my humour more subtle - these punches just didn't land well enough. It's a long old watch, and though at times I did enjoy it, I doubt I'd bother again.

Interesting movie, with interesting ending. Unique in its own way. I liked it, was really good. No progapanda and agenda, thank god.

Has some interesting elements here and there but despite some decent direction by Ishana Night Shyamalan (daughter of M. Night) and a solid enough performance by Elle Fanning, it doesn't quite come together and not a whole lot that I found thrilling or scary. The final 20-minutes or so also didn't work very well either. As a whole it's a run-of-the-mill supernatural horror film that if not for the director this would've been dumped on Netflix. **2.5/5**

The Watchers marks Ishana Night Shyamalan's directorial debut, with her father, M. Night Shyamalan, serving as a producer. For her first feature film, Ishana adapts the book The Watcher into a movie. The story centers on Mina, a U.S. immigrant living in Ireland, who works at a pet shop. She is sent to the countryside to make a delivery, only to find herself stranded in the middle of a forest. Seeking refuge, she discovers an old building with three walls and a window. She meets three other people who inform her that she cannot leave because 'The Watchers' are always watching and keeping them there.
The visual style of the film is impressive, showcasing Ishana Night Shyamalan's potential as a director. The atmospheric setting of the forest and the eerie, partially ruined building effectively create a sense of isolation and tension.
Despite its strong visual elements, the story itself falls short. The plot feels longer than necessary, with certain elements that don’t always make sense. The pacing drags in places, causing the suspense to wane rather than build.
The acting is another weak point. The performances come across as stale, with characters making choices that often seem illogical and uninspired. Mina’s interactions with the other stranded individuals lack depth and emotional resonance, making it hard to connect with her plight. The other characters also fail to leave a lasting impression, contributing to the overall sense of disengagement.
The themes of isolation and surveillance have the potential to be compelling, but they are not fully realized in this film. The concept of being constantly watched by an unseen force could have been used to create a more intense psychological thriller. However, the execution falls flat, resulting in a narrative that feels disjointed and unconvincing.
Overall, The Watchers is a visually striking film that ultimately fails to resonate on a deeper level. While Ishana Night Shyamalan shows promise as a director with her ability to create atmosphere and tension, the film is let down by weak performances, a disjointed story, and lackluster character development. It’s a forgettable film that doesn’t leave a lasting impact. However, I am looking forward to seeing Ishana’s next directorial outing, hoping she can build on her strengths and deliver a more cohesive and engaging film in the future.

Now my Irish geography isn't brilliant, but even I know that to drive from Galway to Belfast takes about four hours and does not involve any forest tracks. Nevertheless, pet shop worker "Mina" (Dakota Fanning), who is still coming to terms with a not very recent tragedy, sets off with her rare yellow bird only for her car to break down in the middle of an ancient forest. With no phone reception, she decides to leave her car and taking the caged bird with her, proceeds to wander through the trees shouting help! Pointless? Well no, as it happens, because she luckily encounters "Madeline" (Olwen Fouéré) who lives in a large concrete bunker with "Daniel" (Oliver Finnegan) and "Ciara" (Georgina Campbell). It appears that they have all been stranded in the woods and take shelter after sunset from the "watchers". These are mysterious creatures who like to come and watch their guests, via a great big one-way mirror, for a while each night. "Mina" is determined to escape and with the help of "Daniel" reckons she has a plan, but this just irritates their captors to the point that their "coup" is no longer safe. Hey, but wait - there's a submarine hatch in the floor, and when they go down they discover a lot more about who their enemy are, what they want and just who built this equivalent of a nuclear fall out shelter under the trees. Can they use this information to escape the trap and make it to freedom? At times it is quite menacing with their dark and wooded surroundings adding a degree of malevolence to an antagonist that we never really see and whose Gaelic mythological provenance is disappointingly undercooked. It has a go at ending a few times, but then comes back to add a little more to signal what I thought was that there'll be a sequel along shortly, rather than finish the adventure completely. It's not terrible, and Fanning delivers adequately - as does the gorgeous yellow bird, but you'll never remember it.

A real disappointment.
'The Watchers' holds some promise with its premise, though unfortunately it never really clicks into gear - in my opinion, at least. In fact, the longer it went on the more bored I felt whilst watching. I was waiting for the arrival of the end credits, which I thought were coming after 'the event' seemingly ends... yet the film still goes on for a little while yet.
No-one on the cast did anything that could save this, either. Olwen Fouéré is decent, her character starts off fairly interestingly but by the conclusion I didn't really care for her either. The only positive I have for this 2024 flick is the score, which actually is quite good. Aside from that, this Ishana Night Shyamalan directorial debut underwhelmed me a lot, sadly.

I don't really recall the other one but I saw it before. I guess it's better etc.
The actors do a good job. I liked watching them do scenes. Russel Crowe has lost a lot of weight. Kim Basinger knows how to work a hammer. It was all a bit drawn out in the end now wasn't it. I skipped seemingly large amounts of house running.
It loses the tension, becomes monotonous for the finale.
If you haven't seen the other one and you like this one, I think that's fine. I like it too.

**One time watchable**
I had watched the original Danish version, so I already knew the story. Yet, I watched this to see how this was done.
I would say it was done better than the original version. But overall, the story is lame with many flaws. The little girl and her weak father is super annoying. But, if you don’t know the story, you can watch it one time. Popcorn movie.

While Speak No Evil fails to keep you on the edge of your seat, no other performance this year will scare you as much or beat the dramatic performance of James McAvoy's unexpected transformation into the Incredible Hulk.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://talkingfilms.net/speak-no-evil-review-an-americanized-remake-for-better-and-worse/
"Speak No Evil may not reach the visceral depth of the Danish original, but it offers a more accessible, commercially appealing approach.
The changes in story and tone may divide fans of the 2022 psychological thriller, but there's something to be said about the effectiveness of the stellar performances - James McAvoy is mesmerizing - and the more complex dynamic between the central characters. The thematic exploration of politeness and the pressure to adhere to social norms, even when they conflict with personal safety, remains thought-provoking, though the credit here goes to the original.
For those who prefer a "softer" experience in terms of emotional and physical violence, this remake is a valid version that, while not surpassing the original, manages to deliver a distinct experience for the audience. After all, both stories can coexist and appeal to different viewers. Pick your favorite or, better yet, enjoy both."
Rating: B+

How many folks have you met on holiday and promised to go and visit when you all get back home? Well for me that is always a bit like ouzo or metaxa - best enjoyed in situ but never a good idea when the trip is actually over. The "Dalton" family are a bit down in the dumps. "Ben" (Scoot McNairy) has just relocated to London from the USA to find his job evaporated, wife "Louise" (Mackenzie Davis) is trying to keep things positive and their over-indulged daughter "Aggie" (Alix West Lefler) is an eleven year old joined (annoyingly) at the hip with her cuddly rabbit. They decide that they ought to take up the offer of spending a week with their new-found holiday friends and so head to the remote home of the ebullient "Paddy" (James McAvoy) and his family "Ciara" (Aisling Franciosi) and mute son "Ant" (Dan Hough). Initially it's all good fun - even if the sleeping arrangements leave something to be desired, but gradually it becomes clear that all is not as it might be amidst this idyllic setting. When young "Ant" manages to convey a menacing secret to "Aggie" then a distinct panic sets in amongst the visitors who conclude that a midnight flit is in order. Of course, it's not going to be that easy and adaptability and ingenuity become the family's buzzwords as things become a great deal more dangerous. It does come alive a bit for the last twenty minutes, even though these are all just a little far-fetched, but the rest of this is really little more than a showcase for McAvoy to shine. To be fair, he does turn in a decent enough effort eventually but we spend far too much time building to that denouement. The preamble, some on their holiday and most at their rustic residence all advances the storyline too slowly and meanderingly to sustain enough interest to carry it's almost two hour duration, and personally, I found the likelihood that these people would ever have become friends in the first place about as remote as his house. It's all watchable enough, but nothing very memorable I'm afraid.

'Speak No Evil' is supremely well done!
I felt unsettled from pretty much the get-go. That's because you can see the general direction that the movie is going to head, though that doesn't hampen the feeling of unease that is present all the way through. I did actually think whilst watching that the film was being a tad dragged out, though by the credits I was fully sold on what I had just seen.
James McAvoy is outstanding, I knew he was capable of portraying such a creepy and unhinged character from seeing some of his other work. 'Split' for one, though also, oddly, 'The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe'; I always got creeped out when we first see his Mr. Tumnus.
Mackenzie Davis impresses as well, as do Scoot McNairy and Aisling Franciosi in fairness; youngsters Alix West Lefler and Dan Hough do well too. The final scene with the latter is quite something, I thought it was going to play out slightly differently (i.e. what Ron does to Carl, for any fellow 'The Walking Dead' fans) so to see it go they way it did was unexpected - but, without question, welcome.
I shall no doubt check out the Danish original at some point in the future.