I see 2 reviews here on this one, one is an 8 star the other a 1 star, I've been watching Movies for over 50 years now, I absolutely love them, all types and Genres, I can sit down with my Wife or alone and watch any good Hallmark Movie or any good Horror Movie, I have favorites in all genres.
And I think I can give a good honest independent review on any type of Move, so obviously here with an 8 & 1 star reviews one of them is either 100% wrong and the other right or this move possibly falls somewhere in the middle at around a 5*.
I watched it for the 1st time last night, I like the original, it's not a great Movie but it's good and a decent sequel to the Original, Rob Zombie's Halloween remake of the Original was fairly good, 10x better than his second one.
I have to agree 100% with Peter's review here, the star is a Loud, Foul Mouthed, and extremely irritating and ignorant Character, she is also a terrible actress in this Movie unless you just want her for her screaming in y our face.
I like all the actors from other shows and Movies he throws in, some are wasted others are fairly good in their spots.
I also rate it a 1 STAR, I'm not against Foul language in a Movie, but it should be used in the right spots and times, in this one, they just throw the F-Bombs out there like it's a normal thing and it's not, even when I worked in a Factory with mostly Men that drank some before during and after work, they did not use foul language that often.
I could have raised my rating higher if that was not the case and if she was nothing more than a screamer, let her act a little, I agree with Peter's question, was Rob High when he filmed this, LOL!, the reviewer that rates it an 8 star is WAY OFF!, I'm sorry whomever you are, but the only thing you get right is, it is Rob's Darkest Movie yet, other than that, this MOVIE SUCKS!
DO NOT WASTE 1 MINUTE OF YOUR LIFE WATCHING IT, watch the 2nd one with Jamie Lee Curtis, it's pretty good and also number 3 it's not a bad one either and better than the reviews it got.

What happened? When I watched the 2007 remake I was quite happy that it was a decent enough work and gave it 7 stars out of 10. This one though? Well the reboot is effectively killed as far as I am concerned. If there are to be made another movie in this franchise there has to be another reboot. This one is just ruined.
The first 20 minutes or so was not too bad. Then it just went to hell. Rob Zombie must have been high on drugs when he wrote this crud. A god chunk of it is just some drug-induced psychedelic mess.
Debora Meyers is just a foul-mouthed brat who is so dislikable that you almost hope that Michael will get her. Dr. Loomis have been turned into a despicable asshole. Michael himself is mostly just a big dirty man who slashes people up.
Occasionally he shows some of the supernatural qualities he is supposed to have but most often not. And he grunts a lot, what the f…? The dialogue is non-existent if you remove the foul language. I am normally quite resistant towards foul language but not when the movie is filled with it just to cover up the lack of talent in the writer.
I think that I have not been so disappointed in a movie in a long time. This movie is utter trash and a disgrace to a franchise that is really one of my favorite horror ones.
I am going to think more than twice before I ever watch a movie by Rob Zombie again.

Personally, I found _Halloween II_ the darkest of any Rob Zombie movie, and certainly more menacing than any other _Halloween_ film to date. It’s full of tortured, nasty, hateful, abhorrent, violent and crude characters, and that’s just the good guys! Mikey is back, in a big way. His look is a little different, but in a realistic “I’m-a-serial-murdering-insane-homeless-giant” kind of a way. And although the bleak, demoralising nature of the film made it painful to watch at times, I would say it was worth it overall. Featuring some strong acting, a surreal but accomplished script, an absolutely amazing soundtrack, and a totally absorbing storyline. I may be alone in thinking this, but to me, _Halloween II_ is a worthy entry into one of the most successful horror franchises of all time.

A great and hearty - true life - story.
I watched 'A Street Cat Named Bob' back when it was released at the cinema (remember them?) and thoroughly enjoyed it; something that hasn't changed just over four years on. It's a very touching story, crafted together very nicely. I also love cats, so I felt all the cuteness that this offers in that area.
The cat(s) steals the show, but big credit also to Luke Treadaway who plays lead character James. He is superb in this. Ruta Gedmintas, Serafina herself, and Joanne Froggatt play their part too.
Interested to find out what the, I have to say very unexpected, sequel has to offer.

**In the tough time, they have found one another.**
After taking a week off from the films, now I'm back with this one. It is a British film based on the book of the same name, which is inspired by a real person and his cat. Well, it might be wrong to say 'his cat', because according to this film, I learnt that they have found one another. So nobody belongs to no one, except in human perception its 'his cat' and that's how this story goes.
The title reminded me a classic film, but this is nothing like that one. If fact, it is a very suitable title name. How many people do you think gets a chance to represent themselves for the film version, excluding documentaries. Here Bob the cat had got one. He was so perfect. I'm not really a cat person, but when I was small I lived among lots of them and they all are nothing like this Bob. So if I want one, I need exactly like the Bob.
The story is about a young man, James, who is a drug addict. Living on the street, singing to get close to enough money to feed. Sometimes frustratingly short to buy a meal, leads back to the needles at the time he tries his best to free from them. Having no friends and family for support, that's how he meets Bob. Bob is a stray cat who snuck into the James house and instantly they had become friends. All Bob wanted was a safe place and an owner to feed him. And for James, to divert attention from his issues.
Humans and animals won't talk, but all those great relationships are built with wonderful understanding. I have seen many films based on man and animal bond, and there's nothing new from this, yet very inspiring. This tale was told from James perspective, having Bob alongside, but very nicely revealed how things change when we start to commit to something with a great support.
> ❝You got yourself a lifelong partner there. Better friends than people, they are.❞
From the outside, it looks like another 'Inside Llewyn Davis'. A man with no future, having a guitar in one hand and a cat in another, roaming the city. Other than that it is totally a different film. Well cast and made a film. The female lead looked like on cosplay. There's a little romance, but the focus always has been James and Bob. Even there are many scenes from Bob's perspective, like through his eyes how things look. Going after a mouse, travelling on the bus and bicycle, performing on the street, the camera literally on the ground to reveal that angle of the story.
In a country like India, all domestic animals including pet animals roam casually everywhere without bothering about any threat. But elsewhere, like as in this film in England, one must get a license to have a pet. What I meant is, people are not used to those animals on the street and when they see one, they go like 'oh, so cute', 'so sweet'. Anyway, Bob and James won the many hearts. When they get on the street, it will be a spotlight. Crowd throng to see them, the rare partnership led them to fame. That was not their intention, but it helped them to overcome poverty.
The pet lovers would love this film. Despite the original theme is darker with drugs, the film was fun and friendly for almost all ages. Seems like a holiday film, particularly to watch during Christmas. Well, it came on that season, but I saw it only now and I'm happy I did not give it a miss. This is a good film for families, so recommended it to them. Meanwhile, there's a follow-up book and I'm hoping that they would turn it as well a film. I don't know the book, but after watching this one, I feel it is worth it. So waiting for any official confirmation.
_8/10_

Not sold on a lot of what this offers, but the acting from Zendaya and John David Washington is absolutely phenomenal - flawless, in fact.
The aforementioned duo are truly outstanding, I loved their performances from start-to-finish; whether it the more serious bits or the more amusing parts. Great delivery, best acting I've seen in a film in a while - no word of a lie.
As noted at the top, I'm admittedly not fully sure about the rest of the film. I'm definitely not saying it's bad, disappointing or anything but I am unsure about it. Honestly though, the two leads take away any negatives I may have from the production's other departments. They elevate it, for sure.
I'd fully recommend checking out 'Malcolm & Marie' - if only for Zendaya and Washington.

If I'm being totally honest, this movie was not that great. The concept was kind of cool because it focused on only 2 characters. Don't get me wrong John David Washington, son of Denzel Washington, and Zendaya do give great performances but they never reached the breakthrough level.
Washington plays Malcolm who just released a film. At the premiere he forgets to thank Marie during his speech. Zendaya plays Marie, who has plenty of her own demons, and is what the main character in Malcolm's film is based on.
The two return home from the premiere party, and it's 1 o'clock in the morning and immediately start arguing. You can tell from the beginning that Marie is ticked off about something. Marie makes some mac and cheese and the movie is worth it just to watch Malcolm destroy the mac and cheese while arguing with Marie.
It's then that it's revealed that Malcolm didn't mention Marie in his speech. Arguments ensue and they are brutal.
Then the "white woman from the LA Times" review gets posted online and another argument ensues.
The go between the stone cold put downs and the lovey dovey scenes grew boring but that's the core of the movie.
Again, the performances were great but the storyline could have used a bit of work. I just don't feel this movie will be a lot of fans cup of tea.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
At the time of this review, Malcolm & Marie is already dividing critics worldwide, which is far from being surprising, having in mind its expectedly provocative premise. Being a film critic isn't exactly an easy task, especially when it comes to deal with public opinion. In most cases, when one reaches a high level of success, that always comes with a heavy dose of offensive tweets and personal attacks, particularly when the author's opinion contradicts the audience's response. So, I was hoping that Sam Levinson would not contribute to the dozens of misconceptions surrounding film criticism and hundreds of conspiracy theories regarding journalists of the respective area…
Unfortunately, the extremely exaggerated, borderline offensive, over-the-top monologues - kind word for rants - delivered by Malcolm (John David Washington) are simply more wood thrown to the already devastating fire. What starts as a surprisingly rational, thought-provoking comment on how (some) critics tend to make movies about something these aren't attempting to be - mainly emphasizing a non-existent political or racial message - quickly evolves to scenes featuring a childish, immature, self-absorbed behavior from the male protagonist, who blindly attacks hypothetical reviews from, in his opinion, horrible critics. Even though this is somewhat of a niche subject for the general audience, it's still a negative contribution to a challenging problem film critics face every day.
I've read the following comment more than a couple of times already: "Sam Levinson is using a Black actor to transmit his white male director's frustrations on the industry's reviewers". In my opinion, whoever wrote something similar to this is falling into the exact same error Malcolm aggressively accuses critics of doing: reading too much into it, and once again, bringing race to a discussion where it doesn't belong. It doesn't really matter if the screenplay is written by a frustrated Levinson who decided to let out his thoughts about film criticism or by someone else entirely. Ultimately, the characters are one of the main pillars of any movie, and sadly, they're my main issue with the whole story.
Despite the prologue above that I couldn't help not writing, Malcolm & Marie focuses on the toxic relationship of the two unlikable protagonists. The adjectives used in the last sentence are hardly untrue. Malcolm and Marie spend almost the entire runtime in a tiresome, exhausting, headache-inducing cycle of incredibly exaggerated fights followed by a temporary reconciliation by making out for a couple of minutes before the next big argument begins. As soon as I finished the film, Marriage Story came to my mind, and I vividly remember tearing up when the main characters had that massive fight. Why did I feel so bothered and uncomfortable with Malcolm and Marie then? Because of their personalities.
Malcolm is nothing more than a cocky, egocentric, self-indulgent filmmaker who believes he's the king of the world now that he delivered a good movie. Pride and arrogance are separated by a thin line, but Malcolm definitely incorporates the arrogant persona who can't even show signs of gratitude when positive reviews come in - instead delivers another rant on how the respective author didn't understand his film. On the other hand, Marie (Zendaya) starts as an apparently nice, hardworking, lovable young woman who just got stuck with the wrong man, seemingly working as the equilibrium point in their relationship. I do feel sorry for a lot of things that happened to her. However, Marie quickly demonstrates that she's far from being a perfect girlfriend.
Despite being much more tolerable and less unlikable than Malcolm, Marie carries unforgivable mistakes from her past and shows an inability to accept that Malcolm might have drawn inspiration from someone else. With constant attempts at victimization and a certain amount of jealousy, Marie is the trigger for most of the arguments that come up out of nowhere each time the two reconcile. In the end, this is the reason why I felt so much more emotionally invested in the protagonists of Marriage Story: I deeply cared about these characters and their respective lives. Not only I understood what drove them apart, but I could actually relate to some of it. Malcolm might have made a beautiful movie partially based on his relationship with Marie, but it's still a toxic, damaging romance that no one should ever need to deal with.
Even though the before-mentioned problems are indeed heavy negatives, Malcolm & Marie still possesses a lot of qualities worthy of deep appreciation. Levinson might share the same views on film criticism as Malcolm, but his talent as a director is undeniable. His brilliant use of excruciatingly long takes plays a significant role in elevating the intensity and attention levels of every dialogue and monologue. Marcell Rév's cinematography - who previously worked with Levinson in Euphoria - is either based on tracking shots to follow each character across the never-ending halls and rooms of the house or static images to let the actors shine in their line deliveries. Rév waits for just the right moment to finally move the camera near the character after extensive, uncut minutes of impressive work from the movie's absolute standouts: the actors.
John David Washington's performance in Tenet wasn't universally loved, and even though I really enjoyed his display, I didn't know where his career would go from there. Well, his portrayal of Malcolm may be a bit too over-the-top for some people's taste, but despite my despise for the character, only a blind viewer would not value Washington's outstanding interpretation. In a surprisingly more physical display than I anticipated, Washington literally offers his entire body and voice to his character, not forgetting a single facial expression or body movement. As uncomfortable as his rants on film criticism are, I have to show appreciation for the actor's ability to actually make me feel like that.
Nevertheless, this is Zendaya's show. In fact, I won't be surprised by the inevitable nominations coming her way. For someone who never watched Euphoria or only has her performance as MJ in Spider-Man: Homecoming and Spider-Man: Far From Home as an example, her portrayal of Marie will surely shock many viewers. From the incredible control of subtle emotions certain scenes ask for to the extremely captivating monologues - something both actors tackle superbly - Zendaya delivers her career's best performance in a feature film. An emotionally powerful display that I won't forget so soon. A final praise to Labrinth's score, which plays a meaningful part in the storytelling.
Malcolm & Marie is technically impressive - gorgeous cinematography and impactful score - boasting two phenomenal performances, but its complicated screenplay and characters push me to the negative side. From the overly exaggerated, almost offensive rants on film criticism and the area's professionals to the tiresome, over-the-top cycle of fight-reconciliation, Sam Levinson's undeniable talent as a director is overpowered by the two incredibly unlikable protagonists who are mutually damaging each other in their unquestionably toxic relationship. Despite the exceptionally captivating effort from John David Washington and especially Zendaya, who delivers a career-best interpretation, the feeling of discomfort and distress never goes away. Malcolm is a completely intolerable, arrogant filmmaker, and even though I genuinely felt sorry for Marie at one point, the latter eventually proves that she's far from being a better person. Since one of its central topics of discussion is a bit too niche for general audiences, it will probably find its commercial success through Netflix. Personally, it's my first major disappointment of 2021.
Rating: C

While the screenplay might not be the most nuanced, it doesn't have to be - it's a showcase of talent in front of and behind the camera. It's a beautiful film; each frame could serve as a still to whatever campaign Zendaya is currently a part of while proving her place as one of the best young talents of the 21st century. Find the biggest screen in your house and be in awe of all the beauty 'Malcolm & Marie' has to offer.
- Chris dos Santos
Read Chris' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-malcolm-and-marie-bow-down-once-more-to-queen-zendaya

> The fight for the Mona Lisa of Austria.
Based on the true story of an elderly woman, Maria Atman, who attempt to reclaim her aunt's portrait from the museum of her birthplace. Now she's an old and American citizen, but after her sister's death the possibilities favours her when she meets a young lawyer. So these two sets a journey on one focus, that is to reunite with the family's art. How? That's the story of this beautiful movie to tell.
Well, the story was a very good one as inspired by the real, but looks a so simple drama as a film, even the twist and turns. Only if it would have been a better narration, at least in a few important portions, the awards would have been poured on it rather just praises. Anyhow Helen Mirren and Ryan Reynolds combo were excellent, but individually she ruled and he was a low key performance. Though the overall movie wins with the inspiring characters than the narration.
The two different timeline stories edited into one random presentation. One is the past events and the other is the present that reveals simultaneously Maria's struggles. Really, it was better than I thought, one of the best drama with the backdrop of the world war 2. Everyone can't enjoy this flick, but certainly I feel I want to recommend it all.
7/10

“Blood for Dust” is the type of generic crime thriller that not only has a forgettable title, but is something that you won’t remember watching a week later. That doesn’t mean it’s a stinker, though, and Rod Blackhurst’s strong direction and commanding performances from the cast make this slow burn indie a familiar, yet still unpredictable, ride.
Traveling salesman Cliff (Scoot McNairy) is drowning in debt and struggling to take care of his family. All he wants is the American Dream, but the only things he seems to be catching are remnants in the rearview mirror. When he has a chance encounter with Ricky (Kit Harington), a colleague from a dark past he’d rather forget, Cliff joins him and American cartel boss John (Josh Lucas) for a dangerous job that promises a big payday.
It’s a simple story of guns, drugs, bloodshed, and despair that’s well told. The basic script (co-written by Blackhurst and David Ebeltoft) is peppered with dialogue that’s sometimes superficial yet somehow, often profound. This is a small story about of the white American male that’s well told, with strong “Hell or High Water” vibes.
The film is hauntingly beautiful, and Blackhurst nails the moody atmosphere. The cold and bleak landscapes of the snow-covered Montana badlands perfectly complement the story, lending a slice of modern Western Americana that’s rough, rugged, and grim.
I enjoyed “Blood for Dust” in spite of its predictability and flaws because the things it sets out to accomplish, it does so well.
By: Louisa Moore

This is a corker of a romantic thriller with both Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn at the top of their game. When her husband is found murdered by the railway line, "Reggie" soon discovers that he wasn't quite the man she had though - Walter Matthau ("Bartholomew") convinces her that he was on the run from the US Government with an huge stash of gold. Enter James Coburn; George Kennedy and Ned Glass who begin to cajole, intimidate and downright threaten her determined to obtain the stash. Grant - her knight in shining armour steps in to protect her from these avaricious hoodlums and the shenanigans begin. Stanley Donen really does get the best from everyone in this gripping, witty and stylishly sexy drama. The writing is subtle and nuanced - we have a thriller in which there is virtually no actual menace, but it still twists and turns and nobody is ever whom they seem/say, The characterisations are engaging, the ending is clever, fun and well worth enjoying again 60 years later.

**Style, class, elegance, an intriguing mystery and a pleasant game of lies and half-truths in a film that deserves to be considered a great classic.**
Some say this movie is the best Hitchcock movie that Hitchcock never made, and it's true. The iconic director didn't make this film, he wasn't even connected to the production, but his influence and style are very present here. The director, Stanley Donan, may possibly have been fond of the master. Maybe, I don't know. It doesn't matter, the director does a good job and the movie is good.
The center of the film is the murder of a man who leaves a young wife bankrupt when she used to live a luxurious life. In the following days, she discovers that her husband was not who he claimed to be, and that he was probably killed because of his own greed: after all, he had appropriated a huge amount of money stolen years before by himself and three other accomplices who will want their share now. Meanwhile, she is also contacted by the CIA and an agile, sly gentleman, who may also be unreliable. By the way, in this film, it is really difficult to know who is telling the truth.
The film has all the makings of a great classic, and is a regular on a number of television channels dedicated to old and classic films. It is also considered one of the best in the career of most of the actors involved. The production values are also excellent, and there is a good deal of money in the film: many exterior scenes in recognizable filming locations take advantage of the best that the always elegant Paris has to offer us, from its cathedral to the beauty of the Seine River. The cinematography deserves a close look: there is nothing ingenious, but is done with a lot of talent and technical competence. And the soundtrack? Magnificent.
As always happens, Audrey Hepburn gives us another character full of charm and style, with an aristocratic bearing that the costumes, by Givenchy (her personal friend), emphasize even more. She was, then, experiencing the greatest moment of her artistic career, and reaping the fruits of success. Beside her, the unmistakable figure of Carey Grant gives us a friendly face, full of seriousness and credibility attested by his austere appearance, the gray hair and the decent look of the actor and his character, who is not as serious as he might seem. They make an excellent harmonization of opposites: she is young, and he is mature, he is intelligent, and she is more emotional, he is sentimentally more rational and thoughtful, she is impulsive and lets things happen, she wants to believe and trust him, he does not give her a single reasonable guarantee of trust. We also have a solid supporting cast that includes Walter Matthau, James Coburn, Jacques Marin and George Kennedy.

Audrey Hepburn's acting is simply lovely and her clothes gorgeous. I loved the way old movies were made, simple, slow passed, no running around or blowing entire buildings, just the old way of telling stories. This way I got to meet all characters, like them, laugh at them and be happy with their ending. And Regina is such an elegant, feminine, brave lady that I'd hoped to be when older. In sum a wonderful movie.

Quality seeping from every genre pore.
Charade is directed by Stanley Donen, written by Peter Stone and Marc Behm, and stars Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn. It also features Walter Matthau, James Coburn, George Kennedy, Dominique Minot, Ned Glass, and Jacques Marin. It's shot on location in Paris with Charles Lang on cinematography and Henry Mancini provides the score - where his memorable theme tune was Oscar nominated.
When her husband is murdered, just prior to seeking a divorce from him, Regina Lampert (Hepburn) finds herself pursued by a number of men who seem to think she knows the location of a quarter of a million dollars in stolen loot. Of all the men who are now thrust into her life, it's the handsome Peter Joshua (Grant) who she trusts and sides with. Trouble is, is that his name keeps changing and she's finding it difficult to determine who exactly are the good guys and who are the bad guys - especially as the corpses start to mount up.
Pure Hollywood entertainment featuring two of its most endearing and classy performers, Charade shows how a multi genre spliced film should be made. It's rare to find a film that works on all levels, as a comedy, a thriller and a romance. But thanks to the astute direction from Donen, Charade comes up trumps whilst also oozing an elegant sheen about it. That Grant & Hepburn have charisma in abundance is something of a given, but they are given a quality script to work from and a Hitchcockian plot to revel in. It has been said from some critical quarters that there is no peril in Charade, thus its reputation is not entirely lived up to. Yes we can say it's a playful movie, but it's meant to be, pretty much like "North By Northwest" is. Yet the peril exists, lest we forget a great rooftop fight and the last quarter of the movie as we follow our hurried protagonists through the Parisian underground - and on to a memorable encounter at a theatre. Or what about a metal handed George Kennedy putting the pressure on, or James Coburn menacingly playing with matches? No peril my eye!.
There's also been the odd dissenting voice proclaiming the structure of the story to be confused. Well it's very twisty, delightfully so, but nothing to tax the brain. Everything is laid out in simple terms and all dialogue is spoken nice and crisply. All played out amongst the splendid back drop of Paris. This was the first and only time that Hepburn & Grant appeared together. A crying shame, for in spite of Grant worrying about the age gap before hand (Grant 59/Hepburn 34), to the extent he requested some dialogue changes to make Regina the romantic pursuer, their chemistry sparkles and they make a very believable coupling. Coburn, Kennedy & Glass are effective bad boys, while Matthau is a key presence throughout. Stylish, charming, suave and suspenseful, with an ending that's truly a pleasant surprise - both in revelation and character closure, Charade is not to be missed by anyone who likes a bit of comedy, romance and thrills in their respective movie diets. 9/10

an amazingly impressive directorial debut from Dev Patel that blends inspired action sequences, Hindu folklore and a political message of corrupt government officials, with a very well written and emotional script

Cool but somewhat sloppy, like the first half of this story doesn't need to happen. I'd have liked to see more of Monkey's journey to the city, or his establishment as kind slum overlord. More adventure than scenes of him getting beat up. How'd he build up to such an elaborate purse snatching? Seems more lucrative than his night job. Rigged, zero-stakes fights of our guy wearing a mask. I suppose it couldn't have been called Monkey Man without.
Engaging look into a side of India that seems to be ignored by many films. I liked the grit. Kept me engaged. Good scenes, unbelievable story elements. Our lead doesn't seem overly religious, his mission isn't one of a god fearing man...yet the focus of all the mother scenes is preaching the one true god.
Monkey Man's got something to say: God good. Yoga bad.

Fans of elevated revenge action films are going to be flat-out dazzled by “Monkey Man,” the directorial debut of Dev Patel (who also co-wrote and stars as the titular character). Many actors are unsuccessful when attempting to make the transition from in front of the camera to behind it, but Patel has the talent to back it up tenfold. This story of vengeance is done so well that I have very few criticisms. It exceeds expectations in all respects.
The anonymous Kid (Patel) makes a living by sparring for cash in a seedy underground fight club. His gimmick includes wearing a gorilla mask and agreeing to take the fall to his more popular opponents. After enduring bloody beatings for years while carrying with him a terrible childhood trauma, Kid’s rage has grown to astronomical levels. When he discovers a way to infiltrate the city’s elaborate network of corrupt leaders who are responsible for his mother’s death, Kid makes it his personal mission to exact revenge. In the process, he becomes a savior of the people, an underdog who helps the powerless settle the score and right the wrongs that they’ve all endured at the hands of the elite.
It’s a simple story that works well for a revenge film, as Kid has a great motivation for unleashing his violent retribution. This makes him a hero you want to root for. He’s a murderer, but the people he kills most certainly had it coming. Patel (along with co-writers Paul Angunawela and John Collee) include culturally-appropriate thematic elements that make a statement on the current political climate in India, which lends a depth to the story that makes it as meaningful as it is entertaining.
Heavily influenced by “The Raid,” “John Wick,” and Korean cinema, eagle-eyed viewers will catch many references and homages to these films. Thankfully, Patel’s approach doesn’t feel like a sad imitation of similar revenge action movies. The production values are fantastic, and every element falls into place. Patel has a great visual style that feels like he’s approaching his direction as a fan who understands the language of cinema (particularly action). There is some really creative stuff here, from the inventive kills to the exciting stunts.
The fight choreography is nothing short of excellent, and the realistic makeup and stunt coordination combine to make the hand-to-hand brawls feel so authentic The sets and creative duels are absolutely terrific, and fans of the genre will not be disappointed.
The film has its share of violent, bloody mayhem, but it’s not as action-packed as you may be led to believe. There is a lot of story, but it’s a strong one. The fighting doesn’t start until a good 40 minutes into the film, so it’s a good thing that the dramatic elements work so well (the narrative lags briefly about halfway through, however).
The biggest surprise to come out of the film is that Patel actually has the talent to back up everything he attempts, from the stunt work (which resulted in multiple personal injuries), writing, direction, and acting. Lanky and thin, he’s an atypical action star, but he sells it here as a scrappy yet powerful fighter who is dismissed as “a kid from the gutter.” You will cheer when Kid embarks on his savage rampage of revenge, especially when this nobody eventually becomes a somebody. Turns out, Patel is a badass action star with an undeniable charm, which makes for a magic combination.
“Monkey Man” strikes the right balance between meaningful political commentary and full-speed fun, and Patel does both equally well. Topped off with its stylish, gritty atmosphere and high-energy action, this is the type of film that will get you energized about the genre.
By: Louisa Moore / SCREEN ZEALOTS

When I saw the trailer for Monkey Man, I was unsure of what to expect. It seemed like a standard revenge tale with a horror twist. However, what I got was one of my favorite films of the year. Dev Patel shines not only in his acting but also in his directing. This film is much more than another John Wick type of movie; it delves into deep themes and presents a complex narrative that I thoroughly enjoyed.
Initially, the trailer gave the impression of a conventional revenge story with some horror elements. However, the film exceeds these expectations by offering a richer, more nuanced narrative. The themes explored are profound, touching on revenge, justice, and the human condition.
Dev Patel's dual role as actor and director is impressive. His performance is both intense and layered, bringing depth to his character's journey. Additionally, his direction is sharp, balancing action with moments of introspection.
The film is more than just an action-packed revenge story; it explores deeper themes that resonate on multiple levels. The narrative examines the nature of revenge and its impact on the individual and society. For example, the protagonist's quest isn't just about personal vendetta but also about addressing the broader corruption and injustice in the city. This thematic depth sets the film apart from more straightforward action movies.
My biggest gripe is that the story could benefit from a longer runtime (which I NEVER say). The film occasionally feels rushed, particularly in the latter half when the protagonist begins his hunt. More time to build tension and develop interactions would enhance the overall impact.
Despite this minor flaw, the movie is fantastic. It stands out for its strong performances, thoughtful direction, and complex narrative. Dev Patel has proven himself as a talented filmmaker capable of delivering both action and substance. I look forward to seeing more from him in the future and hope he continues to explore and expand on these rich themes.

There's a recurrent metaphor throughout the film, of Hanuman trying to eat the sun leaping towards it Icarus-like and being stopped by the gods eventually. Maybe Dev Patel was aware of how well this metaphor would encapsulate his brave directorial debut too, all throughout the film he's trying to reach the narrative he wants to tell but he eventually pulls his own punches. Only if he knew his film would eventually not release in Indian theaters at all, howmuchever he restrains himself.
Don't get me wrong, this is a highly enjoyable film. But the commentary on the current Indian society and what is plaguing it and all the classist and casteist divides we have setup within ourselves -- all of that comes out a tad bit feeble and a bit too watered-down.
You can see Dev touching majorly on religious blind-faith intermingling with politics, but also offhandedly on caste and patriarchy too -- there's even a montage of real-life videos of a few of these evils thrown in for good measure -- but everything is a bit too sanitised and it doesn't jolt you. Not for a single moment did the film drown me in itself with these thoughts, always swimming on the surface. Water and fire are another recurrent tropes which occur throughout, another piece of foresight by Dev on how his fire would eventually be watered and we would just swim on the surface of it.
Having said that all out, I completely dig the film for its action and how it tries to mix Indian music and instruments throughout. **There's Zakir Hussain in it ffs, now THAT is what true cameos should be like, completely unexpected and swooping you in.** I've always liked Dev's performance and here he proves he's as good behind the camera as he is on it. It was great to see familiar Indian faces as well. There's also one homage to _Ghajini_ in there which I feel was a great nod.
One last piece of critique and then I would leave: the fictional cities and villages all feel lived-in and real, but at the same time a little bit Westernised too to be uniquely identified as Indian.

This movie is a boring John Wick wannabe (they literally mention John Wick in the movie). The action sucks, the cinematography is nauseating, the story is boring. There's nothing good about this movie. I'm convinced the high reviews are probably from Indians, as they like to rate shit movies highly. If you're not Indian, don't waste your time on this crap.

Dev Patel has spoken a lot about him not wanting to be "James Bond" but it looks like those stories have inspired quite a bit of this pretty derivative revenge thriller that actually reminded me a bit of his "Hotel Mumbai" (2018) outing too. We know that he ("Kid") routinely dons a monkey mask for some wrestling and he duly gets a pasting - but that this all has purpose. That purpose starts to come together when he manages to organise a subtle sting operation on "Queenie" (Ashwini Kalsekar) who runs an high-end gentleman's club. His reward here is a job. In the kitchens, bleaching the toilets and washing the pots. A means to an end though as he befriends the drug-pusher "Alphonso" (Pitobash) - who has a nifty, turbo-charged, tuk-tuk, and is soon elevated to the rank of waiter to the corrupt and profligate of city society who frequent the place. Interspersed with his burgeoning career, we begin to see flashbacks of his childhood - and of the brutality that reduced him to his present, vengeful, circumstances. The story is set against a backdrop of political turmoil and with an election looming, he becomes aware that there are wheels within wheels and that his principle antagonist is firmly amongst the secular and religious plotters. He also finds himself being cared for by a sagely monk "Alpha" (Vipin Sharma) who helps him to focus both his mind and his body as we build to a denouement that can be seen from space by anyone who's ever seen a "John Wick" film. Patel is a charismatic man but that's not what's needed here. That's something just a little more original to keep this over-long two hours from becoming just a bit dull and procedural. It's not terrible, but it's not really up to much either.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://talkingfilms.net/monkey-man-review-an-imperfect-yet-compelling-directorial-debut-from-dev-patel/
"Monkey Man shows that Dev Patel still has much to learn when it comes to directing and writing, but his unwavering commitment to a culturally and thematically rich story deserves countless praises.
A revenge arc with some pacing issues narrative-wise, but with action sequences loaded with energy and adrenaline, even when chaotically choreographed and shot. Predictably dedicated performance from Patel that avoids some genre formulas while paying homage to some of the classics that inspired him.
An imperfect yet compelling debut."
Rating: B

Slightly too long, but pretty much every other element of 'Monkey Man' is more than enough to compensate.
I had a very good time watching what is Dev Patel's directorial debut. He himself is outstanding, having portrayed the role of the titular character perfectly. I had only seen the guy in two films ('Slumdog Millionaire' & 'The Last Airbender') prior to this, so very much happy to see him act further. An excellent job from him on and off screen, I'm happy that he managed to get this made in the end.
As noted, I do think the run time could've been trimmed a little. It's not a major issue of mine, at all, but at a few moments I did feel my interest wane a bit. The story itself is a good one though, one that is entwined with a lot of fight (literally) but a lot of feeling too. Visually, it's a beauty. As for those behind Patel, Pitobash and Vipin Sharma are positives; Ashwini Kalsekar does well too.
Most definitely worth a watch, especially on the big screen! I enjoyed myself, all in all.

This is certainly my favourite role from Dustin Hoffman as he turns in an outstanding performance as "Ratso". He hooks up with the dapper, but out of his depth cowboy "Buck" who arrives in New York all set to be a hustler, but ends up paying his first client for the sex she's supposed to pay him for! Initially, "Ratso" fleeces this gullible guy too, but gradually the two start to depend on one and other - which is as well for "Ratso" who is clearly not long for this world. His persistent cough is being worsened by the squalid conditions in which he, and latterly, "Buck" have to live and by their poverty row existence. This is a great story and John Schlesinger tells it with some panache. The relationship between the two men is honest and decent, even though that attribute could hardly be said to apply to either of them when it comes to anyone else: "Ratso" would probably have hustled his own grandmother given the chance. Their bond feels real, plausible - unsentimental and convincing; and the Waldo Salt screenplay ensures that the dialogue - though frequently quite sparing - is both poignant and humorous.

**"I'm walking here! I'm walking here!" Shuffling, perhaps.**
One can always count on Hoffman and his ability to absorb the character he is portraying with such ease. He has a knack at portraying that deep, bronchial coughing schtick. When watching, I had to wear a surgical mask - just in case.
Voight, as usual, is magnificent as the innocent amongst the scum. Watching this wide eyed lone ranger slowly losing the tassels from his jacket is a deeply moving experience.
A word of warning, you may want to use antibacterial wipes on your tv screen after watching Hoffman here. One cannot be too careful.
- Potential Kermode

**_Clearly comes from a place of respect, but it's emotionally unengaging and rather dull_**
> _Congress should oppose any effort to put gay and lesbian relationships on an equal legal status with heterosexual marriage. Congress should oppose any effort to recognize homosexual's_ [sic] _as a "discreet_ [sic] _and insular minority" entitled to the protection of anti-discrimination laws similar to those extended to women and ethnic minorities. Congress should support the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act only after completion of an audit to ensure that federal dollars were no longer_ _being given to organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus. Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior._
– Mike Pence (current Vice President of the United States); Campaign statement when running for Congress, 2001
_Boy Erased_ is one of those films it seems almost churlish to criticise for its formal aspects, given that it obviously comes from a place of deep respect, has genuinely laudable intentions (albeit with one eye on award season), and says something undeniably important and just. Written and directed by Joel Edgerton (who also stars and produces), the film is based on Garrard Conley's _Boy Erased: A Memoir of Identity, Faith, and Family_ (2016), the true story of his experiences with conversation therapy in Arkansas in 2004. In a political climate where progressive thinking seems to be backsliding more and more, given the regressive beliefs of many of those in power, one should celebrate a film which highlights the barbaric concept of enforcing heteronormative social mores by way of psychological, and often physical, abuse. However, simply because a film has good intentions, it doesn't necessarily follow that it's a good film, and _Boy Erased_ is such an example; a film whose aims can be praised, but whose flaws cannot be ignored. Whereas Desiree Akhavan's recent _The Miseducation of Cameron Post_ approached similar subject matter from a perspective of irreverence and satire, _Boy Erased_ is far more sincere. And because of its self-seriousness and its insistence on keeping the audience emotionally distanced from the characters, it remains underwhelming, never getting anywhere near the kind of emotional highs and lows one might anticipate from such inherently sensitive material. It's a topical and morally laudable film, unquestionably. One wishes it were simply better than it is.
Set in 2004, the film begins as 19-year-old Jared Eamons (Lucas Hedges) attends his first day at Love in Action, a conversion therapy program in Arkansas. The son of Southern Baptist preacher and car salesman Marshall (Russell Crowe) and his wife Nancy (Nicole Kidman), Jared is initially looking forward to the program, keen to be purged of his homosexual impulses. Run by Victor Sykes (Edgerton), the program is based on the concept that homosexuality is a choice influenced by poor parenting and moral abnormalities in a person's extended family, and thus Sykes has students draw a family tree indicating such things as drug or alcohol addiction, use of pornography, criminal convictions etc. Students must also sign a waiver declaring that they won't speak with anyone about what occurs during therapy. Other students include Jon (Xavier Dolan), who is so fanatically devoted to conversion, he refuses to even touch other men, although he turns up every day with fresh bruises; Gary (Troye Sivan), who has made peace with his homosexuality, and plans to pretend to be straight until he can leave; and Cameron (Britton Sear), a timid aspiring footballer. Meanwhile, Nancy rents a nearby motel room where she and Jared will stay for the duration of the program. However, Jared soon learns from Jon and Gary that there is no specific end-point for the therapy, and if he fails to convince Sykes that he is straight, he may be required to move onto the campus full-time. The backstory of how he came to be signed up to the program then unfolds achronologically, intercutting his increasingly unsettling time at Love in Action with such incidents as his awkward first sexual encounter with his ex-girlfriend, Chloe (Madelyn Cline); his first homosexual experience at college, with his running-partner, Henry (Joe Alwyn); a non-sexual relationship with a fellow college student, Xavier (Théodore Pellerin); how his parents found out about his homosexuality; and Marshall's decision, taken in consultation with two church elders, to send Jared to therapy.
I'm a heterosexual male from a country where conversion therapy isn't really a thing; there is only one conversion therapy program in Ireland, and, as of January 2019, a bill to outlaw such therapy is passing through the Oireachtas. Given my very limited exposure to the subject, I was more than a little surprised to learn that in the US, only 15 states (plus Washington, DC) have legislated against the practice, and in the remaining 35, it's perfectly legal. To be honest, I can't even get my head around the fact that some people won't accept homosexuality amongst their family or friends, so the concept of parents knowingly exposing their children to psychological abuse so as to "pray away the gay", and doing so within the scope of the law, is completely beyond the realm of comprehension. That such things still happen in a modern so-called civilised western society is both deeply disturbing and incredibly upsetting, and it is this world into which _Boy Erased_ offers a window.
Once Jared is installed at Love in Action, it isn't long before Sykes begins to preach "_you cannot be born homosexual. It's a choice_" and "_God will not love you the way that you are_". At the same time, the students are tutored in "_masculine_" physicality (don't cross your legs when seated, don't slouch, always shake hands firmly), discouraged from anything that deviates from heteronormative behaviour (Jared has pages from a notebook of short stories torn out and discarded), and advised on what not to read (when Sykes learns Jared's college course includes such titles as Oscar Wilde's _The Picture of Dorian Gray_ (1890) and Vladimir Nabokov's _Lolita_ (1955), he suggests that Jared shouldn't return to his studies, committing instead to Love in Action full-time).
However, the film is not confined to the program, also offering an examination of some of the attitudes of fundamentalist religiosity toward sexuality. Significantly, when Marshall learns that Jared is planning on spending the night with Chloe, he is quite proud of his son, although both Marshall and Nancy already assume that Jared and Chloe will be getting married in the not-too-distant future. Although the film admirably resists the urge to vilify Marshall or Nancy, even Love in Action itself, Edgerton is unequivocal in condemning a system that compartmentalises anything with which it disagrees as "_taboo_", thereby retarding any kind of discussion. Love in Action is predicated on making young people feel guilty regarding the "sin" of their sexual practices and/or impulses, whilst at the same time reinforcing the infallibility of church doctrine. This instils a deep-rooted sense of torment for young men and women who are already confused about what they are feeling - if a person's predilections are directly in contradistinction to church dogma, then such predilections must obviously be immoral and against God; the irreconcilability of innate homosexual desire with the fact that such homosexuality is a sin.
The film opens with voiceover narration over home video footage of Jared as a baby, immediately setting him up as the focal character, and inculcating us into his world. Indeed, Jared appears in every scene, although, strangely, voiceover is never employed again, rendering this initial use stylistically isolated. Visually, the film is drab and unimaginative, but deliberately so. This blandness may initially seem disappointing, given that Edgerton's 2015 directorial debut, _The Gift_, was visually impressive. However, in _Boy Erased_ the design is intended to mirror the interior of Love in Action - a place of functionality over aesthetic nuance, a place where neutralising colours are used to enforce reserve and restraint at the expense of vitality. If anything, Edgerton is too successful with this mirroring, as the insipidness of the Love in Action scenes often bleeds into the scenes outside the program. Had Edgerton, cinematographer Eduard Grau (_A Single Man_; _Buried_; _Suite Française_), and production designer Chad Keith (_Take Shelter_; _Midnight Special_; _Leave No Trace_) showed a little more _panache_ when depicting the outside world, such scenes would have been far more thematically impactful, as their visual differentiation would have served the central tenets of the film.
In terms of the acting, as Jared, Lucas Hedges has a difficult task, playing a character that becomes increasingly withdrawn and emotionally shut down as the film progresses. From the very beginning, Jared is somewhat distant, making it difficult to determine if his muted emotions are part of Hedges's performance or a weakness in that performance. For example, is his inherent lack of fear a component of the character, or is Hedges simply not tapping into the necessary emotions? That this might be the case can be seen if one compares his performance to that of Xavier Dolan as Jon, who exudes desperation and existential panic every second he's on screen. Of course, Jared is very much a passive character, with only one notable example of him asserting his own agency and breaking through the emotional paralysis which has stifled the character (and the actor). When this scene does come, it's quite powerful, with Hedges playing it in such a way as to suggest the release of long-gestating pressure. On the other hand, in a scene where he screams and throws rocks at a glass-encased picture of a male model, the performance comes across as a performance and doesn't ring emotionally true. As a whole, I felt that Hedges played Jared pretty much identically to how he played Patrick in Kenneth Lonergan's _Manchester by the Sea_ (2016).
Kidman plays Nancy as a woman who very much subscribes to the notion that the man is the head of the household, accepting Marshall's decision to send Jared to therapy without openly questioning him. However, it's obvious from the start that she's not entirely comfortable. Later, as she starts to learn some of what is going on behind the closed doors of Love in Action, her attitude becomes more and more adversarial. She has a particularly good scene where she finally persuades Jared to allow her to read Love in Action's manifesto, and is equal parts shocked by the content and amused by the spelling mistakes (she finds one particular reference to "_Almighty Dog_" especially funny and especially worrying). Kidman plays the scene with a mixture of horror, amusement, and a desire to step in and protect her child, and she modulates these conflicting emotions perfectly.
As for Marshall, instead of him being the token villain of the piece, Crowe plays him as fundamentally conflicted. He loves his son deeply and is devastated by what has happened, so he never goes the clichéd route of condemning him from the pulpit and casting him into eternal hellfire. Marshall genuinely wants to help Jared, and even more so, he wants to understand, but is prevented from doing so by a lifetime of faith and his absolute conviction of his own moral certitude. Despite the character's flaws, Crowe's quiet and restrained performance elicits a degree of sympathy for a man who is clearly out of his depth, unable to overcome the indoctrination which is now making a relationship with his son an impossibility. As Sykes, Edgerton gives an almost robotic performance, playing the character as a regimental fundamentalist. A man without any peripheral vision in terms of morality and devotion to God, he is the kind of person who not only refuses to accept opinions that are in contradistinction to his own, but who is unable to even get his head around the fact that such opinions exist at all.
However, despite the strong performances from both Kidman and Crowe, the film fails to depict the texture and nuances of the family dynamic. All three family members are, to a certain extent, types rather than fully fleshed out individuals. Along the same lines, none of the Love in Action students are granted any kind of arc or personality beyond that of the archetype they represent. Jon, Gary, and Cameron are all sketches of characters we've seen time and again in this kind of pseudo-prison narrative, and the film often falls back on generic tropes - hypocritical authority figures; a sadistic authority figure who is abusive beyond the parameters of the program (played by Flea from the Red Hot Chili Peppers); the "inmate" on the verge of complete psychological breakdown (think Pyle (Vincent D'Onofrio) from Stanley Kubrick's _Full Metal Jacket_); the focal character resisting the mandates of the institution (think McMurphy (Jack Nicholson) in Miloš Forman's _One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest_ or Dufresne (Tim Robbins) in Frank Darabont's _The Shawshank Redemption_). Regarding Sykes, a postscript describing his own sexual preference casts his character in a completely different light, and would have made for fascinating material had it been incorporated into the narrative. Granted, this is Jared's story, not Sykes's, but that doesn't change the fact that more information on his background (especially given what the postscript reveals) would have been very welcome.
It's also somewhat problematic that the only homosexual sexual activity depicted in the film is a rape. It's a powerful scene in and of itself, brilliantly shot in a single static take which forces the viewer to watch what is happening unmediated by editing or blocking. However, it's unsettling that Edgerton never shows us any consensual and pleasurable homosexual content. True, the film is not about sexual activity, so to only show one scene of such activity is fair enough in theory. But it remains problematic that the only time we see a homosexual character acting on their impulses is a rape scene. What is one supposed to take from that? Presumably, the scene is supposed to balance against the scene where Jared spends the night with Xavier without becoming physical. However, this scene is given far less time than the rape, and the character who rapes Jared is given far more characterisation than Xavier, creating a noticeable imbalance.
Another problem is that, as a whole, it's an extremely cold film, remaining always distanced, either unwilling or unable to really get into the fear and psychological trauma inflicted upon the attendees of programs such as Love in Action. Perhaps Edgerton was trying to avoid exploitative or manipulative emotion, but whatever the case, he has made a film that is itself emotionless, undercutting the harrowing story it tells by always keeping the audience one or two steps removed. Jared, in particular, is never depicted with anything resembling emotional specificity. We never feel his torment or loneliness, with his character depicted only to the extent necessary to drive the plot, and far too distanced for him to emotionally impact the audience.
_Boy Erased_ is a laudable film dealing with an important subject, but it's also quite a poor film, with a disjointed narrative and paper-thin characters, redeemed only by fine performances from Kidman and Crowe. The biggest problem is that it insists on pushing the audience away, presenting the story clinically rather than emotionally, a dispassionate reportage rather than an angry denunciation. Edgerton's even-handedness is to be commended, as is his refusal to cast the parents, or even Love in Action itself, as the villains, and his avoidance of emotional manipulation is praiseworthy up to a point. However, there comes a moment in the film where you realise that you're as close to these characters as you're going to get, yet they have still only been summarised. The film will probably go on to be an important document in the ongoing attempt to eradicate this cruel practice. It will probably open the eyes of a lot of people who didn't know much about this subject. It is well-intentioned, and comes from a place of compassion and respect. It's just not an especially good film.

Yet another anticipated film from an actor-turned-director is Boy Erased, the work of Golden Globe nominee Joel Edgerton, who wrote and stars in the film.
The flick follows the recently outed son of a Baptist preacher, Jared (Lucas Hedges), after he’s forced to partake in the church’s gay conversion program. Based on the critically acclaimed memoir by Garrard Conley, Boy Erased features an all-star cast which, in addition to Hedges and Edgerton, boasts Oscar winners Nicole Kidman and Russell Crowe

The Exorcism is more of a psychological drama than a straight-up horror film, and that’s where it finds its strength. Russell Crowe delivers a compelling performance, and the film’s exploration of addiction, guilt, and redemption gives it emotional weight. However, as a horror movie, it doesn’t quite hit the mark. The scares are minimal, the supernatural elements lack depth, and the finale feels too familiar.
If you’re in the mood for a character-driven story with a sprinkle of horror, The Exorcism is worth a watch. Just don’t expect to be sleeping with the lights on afterward.

I didn’t have high expectations for The Exorcism, and my initial confusion about whether it was a sequel to Russell Crowe's other exorcism movie from last year (The Pope's Exorcist, 2023) didn’t help. However, the first two acts of the film were surprisingly intriguing. The atmosphere and the mysteries being built throughout the story captured my interest, creating a sense of foreboding that kept me engaged.
The film does an excellent job of establishing an eerie atmosphere that is both unsettling and captivating. The cinematography and set design contribute to a sense of creeping dread, with dimly lit rooms and shadowy figures that add to the tension.
Russell Crowe delivers a strong performance as an aging actor who appears to be descending into madness—or possibly possession. His portrayal is nuanced, capturing the uncertainty of a man who doesn’t know if he’s losing his grip on reality or being overtaken by something more sinister. For instance, his interactions with other characters, such as a skeptical priest and a concerned family member, are laced with a growing sense of unease, effectively building the tension. Crowe’s gradual shift from confident to increasingly erratic is one of the film’s highlights.
Unfortunately, the film falls apart in the final act. What had been a carefully constructed narrative devolves into chaos, with the story’s conclusion feeling completely disjointed from what came before. The final scenes abandon the atmospheric tension in favor of over-the-top action and special effects, which undermine the psychological horror that had been so carefully built.
The ending offers no satisfying resolution because nothing about it makes sense. The carefully crafted mysteries and character development are thrown aside for a conclusion that feels more like a spectacle than a logical progression of the story. This abrupt shift leaves the viewer with more questions than answers, and not in a way that invites thoughtful reflection, but rather in a way that feels frustrating and incomplete.
The Exorcism joins a long line of exorcism films that have missed the mark. While it starts with promise, building an intriguing atmosphere and strong character dynamics, it ultimately fails to deliver a cohesive or satisfying narrative. The final act’s departure from the established tone and story structure highlights the film’s inability to maintain the tension and mystery it initially sets up.
Overall, The Exorcism is a film that had potential but ultimately falters. Russell Crowe’s performance and the initial atmospheric build-up are commendable, but the film’s chaotic and nonsensical final act leaves much to be desired. As another entry in the exorcism genre, it fails to stand out and instead becomes yet another example of a film that starts strong but loses its way, leaving the audience disappointed and disconnected.