Divisive Dilemas.
Have to be honest, I had no idea this was filmed on an iPhone 7 or that it was directed by Steven Soderbergh. I was stuck for something to watch on cable the other night and I liked the sound of the plot premise. So unburdened by expectation of a searing horror classic I settled in to see what unfolds.
Plot has Claire Foy as Sawyer Valentini who inadvertently commits herself to a mental health institution. Once inside things being to unravel and the threat of her one time stalker now being even close to her opens up the book of terror - but is it real?
Firstly you have to say that the mental health authorities must have had kittens when they saw this, much of what is on screen is utterly ridiculous and paints the system in a damning light. Secondly you really have to jump on board with the improbability of it all, this really is made for dramatic entertainment purpose and not as a viable horror of the real world.
As a thriller it worked for me, the constant question of what is real or not keeps things on the slow burn. Either way, real or not, it's thought provoking enough to warrant staying till pics end. The psychological angle is pungent enough to say there's some thought in the writing, though this is undone by utter nonsense as things spiral into the impossible for the final quarter of film.
Foy is good value up front and the fulcrum of it all, while elsewhere good work comes from Nate Hoffman and it's nice to see Juno Temple in a spicy role. Ultimately this is no blood letting horror picture, and certainly it's no One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Girl Interrupted etc etc.
The iPhone experiment is a gimmick that works here due to the confines of the location for story, but as a genre piece of worth it is unlikely to have legs. However, even though I enjoyed this as a one time only viewing experience, I perfectly understand why it has become divisive. So for those who haven't seen it yet then it is advised you understand this is no terrifying thrill a minute piece. It's tricky to recommend with any sort of confidence, and thus I feel the internet ratings of about 6.5/10 is just about right. 6.5/10

Surprisingly funny! I thought this was going to be your regular running of the mill chick flick, far from it. Super hilarious and a really raunchy comedy.

I didn't like _Girls Trip_. No great shock there, it's an American Comedy in much the same vein as a great number of American Comedies that have come before it I didn't like. A lot of other people did like it. That's fine. Different strokes for different folks. All that jazz. I totally understand it. What I don't understand is the vast number of people who have said _"This one's different. This movie is gonna appeal to the people who don't normally go in for this sort of thing. It breaks all the conventions and even Independent film & Oscar film fans will love it"_. Like... No... When you follow up your piss-joke with the exact same piss-joke just seconds later... It's like... This is exactly the same as every other movie I hate.
_Final rating:★ - Of no value. Avoid at all costs._

I'd have to admit that at the start - however politically incorrect it is to say - I though that the mix of Bruce Willis as an independently minded FBI agent and Miko Hughes ("Simon") as a boy genius with very loud, and annoying, autism was going to be a difficult film to sit through. Luckily, the initial in-your-face character establishment settles down and the somewhat preposterous plot takes over quite quickly. The US Government runs a competition to see whether anyone can decipher it's supposedly unbreakable "Mercury" code and young Mr. Hughes is genuinely convincing as the young lad who can break it just by looking at the thing. When he calls in to claim his prize, all hell breaks loose and soon he and Willis are dodging the NSA and the FBI as they try to get to the bottom of this rather far-fetched, but entertaining conspiracy. This is of those films that reminds you why Willis became a star in the first place; he was never the greatest actor to take to the big screen, but he has bags of charisma and here he uses it to full effect. He and his charge bond well - given the youngster has precious little salient dialogue; and it is action-packed enough to pass the two hours in a satisfactory way. I am never sure why Alec Baldwin is cast at all - he is really a terribly wooden actor, though here he is given a run for his money by the equally stolid Chi McBride as Willis' FBI chum. It's nowhere near as bad as some people seem to think...

Tahar Rahim is really good in the dark, gritty and vicious prison drama. His character - "Mailk" is an illiterate eighteen year old who is sent to jail for six years for attacking a police officler. One inside, he has little protection but the clothes he stands up in. The place is governed by "Luciani" (Niels Arestrup). He's a man of Corsican descent who has twenty or so hoodlums to do his bidding and the guards in his pocket. It's the Arabs who are causing him some chagrin so he alights on the newbie to be his instrument of murder. Initially terrified and reluctant, it's soon clear that a choice isn't on his list of options. Do this, though, and he will be protected and, well, alive. He elects on the survival path and becomes gradually more riled upon by his boss whilst learning to read from his friend "Ryad" (Adel Bencherif). By half way through his sentence, he has grown in confidence, is trusted with more "delicate" tasks and even gets the odd day's leave in the outside world. As the demographic of the inmates changes, it falls to both him and "Luciani" to adapt - and that's quite a challenge. Now it is a bit long, and takes a while to get up an head of steam, but once we know who's who and likely to betray or kill the other this developer into a tautly directed and compelling story that doesn't shirk from conveying the epitome of a dog-eat-dog environment. Arestrup also delivers really strongly here as the man with the power who slowly realises that change is not his forté, not is patience nor any likelihood of release looming. It's a little predicable, but gives us a rough ride that conveys criminal and cultural clashes with an earthy plausibility and it whizzed by.

Great movie in all aspects; great story and script, great cast and great performances.
One of the best movies I've watched lately.

**Sweet Home Alabama's country charm gives a fun and lovable film some good flavor.**
Sweet Home Alabama doesn't necessarily revolutionize the romantic comedy genre, but it takes a fairly typical rom-com formula and sprinkles some southern charm and genuinely endearing characters resulting in a sweet and well-done film. It could just be the southerner in me, but watching Sweet Home Alabama feels a little like home. The small Alabama town with its historic buildings, tiny local bar, tight-knit community, lakes, and southern drawls remind me of how I grew up, which gives the movie some country flavor and a nostalgic vibe. There are some great funny moments, and watching the main characters develop throughout the film is pretty rewarding when it all comes together at the end. Sweet Home Alabama's tone and plot feel like a return to simpler times and a retreat from the chaos of everyday stress to a focus on what matters most: love, family, and good BBQ.

**_Spanish cabin-in-the-woods, except it’s castle-in-the-woods and the monster is Drac_**
In the Tihuța Pass of the Carpathian Mountains north of Transylvania, a stagecoach consisting of five travelers, one male and four females, breaks down and they have no recourse but to seek sanctuary at a nearby sanitorium. They are welcomed by Doctor Marlowe (Paul Naschy), but could he really be...
"Count Dracula’s Great Love" (1973), aka “Cemetery Girls,” is basically a Spanish sequel to Hammer’s Dracula flicks up to “Scars of Dracula.” It’s most reminiscent of “Dracula, Prince of Darkness,” but also contains bits that bring to mind “The Satanic Rites of Dracula,” which was released after this one.
Naschy was of course the king of Spanish horror from the late 60s to the 2000s. This was his only stab at playing Dracula and the first cinematic depiction of the Count in a more romantic light, which would influence Frank Langella’s 1979 version and Coppola’s 1992 movie. Here, Paul sorta looks like Brando when he was younger.
Haydée Politoff stands out on the female front with her glorious locks of auburn hair. She ends up being the main female character but, ironically, Naschy didn’t ‘click’ with her.
Interestingly, this is essentially a cabin-in-the-woods flick, as pointed out in my title blurb. The ‘cabin’ just happens to be a castle or, more specifically, a sanitorium; and the era just happens to be the early 1900s. There’s even a skinny-dipping sequence.
If you’re in the mood for a Hammer-esque Dracula flick with crumbling castles, eldritch woods, stagecoaches, spooky rumors spoken in hushed tones, women in Victorian apparel, bloodsucking vampires, Dracula’s ‘brides,’ diabolical rituals and female breasts, this fills the bill. The ending’s unique and I loved it, but there are some questionable things, like the corny booming voice that curiously comes out of nowhere and the overkill top nudity (which smacks of shallow exploitation).
It runs 1 hour, 25 minutes, and was shot in Madrid.
GRADE: B-

Pretty crazy and messed up romance-thriller featuring great performances from Rose Perez and Javier Bardem. Slows down a tad in the third act before ratcheting up again for the finale. Some really uncomfortable scenes but still a highly engaging film. This was the 130-minute uncut version. **4.0/5**

Arrebato is dangerous. Possibly evil. It had its way with me. This should be banned. I'll never be the same.

Director Doug Liman’s “Road House” is a wild ride of fightin’, spittin’, cussin’, and bone snappin’, a testosterone-fueled muscle movie that’s perfect for a weekend stream. Taking a more dramatic angle with a drug and crime story, this re-imagining of the 80s cult classic still delivers plenty of action and entertainment, even if it lacks in originality and substance.
Trouble is brewing at a Florida Keys roadhouse, and proprieter Frankie (Jessica Williams) is desperate for some old fashioned law and order. The local police won’t help, so Frankie seeks out ex-UFC fighter Dalton (Jake Gyllenhaal) for the job. Down on his luck, he agrees to take the well paying gig in paradise. When he arrives, Dalton discovers that he’s stepped into a criminal underworld that’s darker and more serious than anticipated. One by one, he outsmarts and out muscles the seemingly endless line of bad guys that stand in his way.
The film works well because of its willingness to embrace its own over-the-top absurdity. Gyllenhaal plays Dalton with an authentic, rugged charm, taking his character seriously, but not overly so. He’s believable as a tough guy for hire who “hurts people for money,” and he lends a pedigree to an otherwise mindless piece of entertainment.
Conor McGregor is a lot of fun in his supporting role as Knox a worthy adversary to Dalton. Insane and unhinged, he feels like a ripoff of the Jason Momoa character Dante in “Fast X,” minus a bit of charm and acting talent.
The movie is over-the-top in a lot of ways, but the one thing that really bugged me is that early on, there’s a casual mention of a killer crocodile. This caused my mind to wander the whole movie, just waiting on the edge of my seat for Dalton to wrassle it (spoiler alert: I was so disappointed).
That’s not to say the movie isn’t corny, because it is. Those little touches of humor, the charismatic lead, brawny action sequences, and nods to classic muscle movies also make it wildly entertaining.
Let me put it this way: “Road House” ends with a clear set-up for a sequel that I wouldn’t necessarily be excited to see, but I’d definitely be first in line to buy a ticket.
By: Louisa Moore / SCREEN ZEALOTS

I love this movie. It is a brilliant dissection of "testosterone movies" in their most basic form. Typically, these films rely on a formulaic group dynamic to add depth to the stoic hero, as seen in the original. When the hero began to show emotion, another stoic figure was introduced to maintain the balance. In this reimagining, the tables have turned.
The surrounding cast of characters are formulaic stereotypes, including the dastardly villains. This approach cleverly mirrors the original's tactic but with a twist. For example, the antagonists follow the same pattern: once the main antagonist, Brandt, reveals any emotion, it is perceived as weakness, prompting the introduction of a more intense and hyper-masculine antagonist, Knox. This shift highlights the film's commentary on the traditional portrayal of strength and vulnerability.
The protagonist, Dalton, adds unexpected layers to the story. Unlike the typical stoic hero, Dalton displays mental health struggles and other vulnerabilities, making him a more complex and relatable character. He is constantly conflicted and fighting his inner demons, much like Knox, but he strives to control his wild and reckless tendencies. For example, Dalton's struggle with his darker impulses is poignantly depicted in scenes where he battles both external foes and his internal conflicts, showcasing his depth and humanity.
This modern-day Western with a twist offers a fresh perspective on the concepts of heroes and villains. By the end, the film delivers a new message that challenges traditional notions of heroism and villainy. The nuanced portrayal of Dalton's character and his journey towards self-acceptance and control provides a thought-provoking narrative. For instance, the climax where Dalton must confront his own nature and make a crucial decision encapsulates the film's theme of inner strength and redemption.
Overall, this movie stands out for its innovative take on a familiar genre. It successfully deconstructs the typical testosterone-fueled narrative by focusing on the protagonist's vulnerabilities and internal struggles. This fresh approach not only adds depth to the characters but also redefines the genre's conventions. I would love to see more stories told in this manner, offering new perspectives and challenging traditional narratives.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://fandomwire.com/road-house-review-a-generic-yet-superior-remake/
"Road House keeps the screenplay superficial and formulaic, but the narrative changes and more captivating new characters make the remake a more satisfying watch.
The cast led by a Jake Gyllenhaal in excellent form – in every sense of the word – possesses enviable chemistry, with the surprising highlight falling on Conor McGregor’s debut, infusing the movie with intense, truly crazy energy. The action sequences suffer slightly from some excess stylization but serve their basic purpose.
A more significant focus on character development, especially in the central romance, would have been welcome, but it remains a pleasant home viewing experience."
Rating: B-

Very poor scenario and the story just does not add up, the ending also was not very convincing.

**Enjoyable and not as bad as some people say.**
I went into this movie yesterday and didn't expect anything. Could have been trash or bad, I didd't care - I went into this movie because I very much enjoyed the first one, because I like the director James Wan and a lot of the actors.
And the result was - I had a very fun evening in the movie theatre. The best movie to grab yourself a large bag of popcorn, put your brain on stand-by and enjoy a fun ride.
The story, admittedly, was nothing special. It was enough there to make you follow the plot, but other than that - there wasn't much there. Could it have been better? Yes. Does that kill the movie? No.
This movie is more like a guilty pleasure for me and I would watch it because of the world of Aquaman and all of its details. This is were the movie really shines. The production design is 10/10 for me. And the action is good, too.
So, if you want a deep and very good story, you might be disappointed.
But if you are somebody to enjoy a fun and very well made "Superhero Aquaman theme park ride", a classical "grab yourself a bag of popcorn and turn your brain off" movie - this one may be for you.

Quite an underwhelming end to the DCEU.
I actually like the DC Extended Universe, only 'Justice League' failed to get a thumbs up from me. That is until now, because 'Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom' isn't any good. I admittedly only mildly enjoyed the original - I had to watch a recap because I had forgotten basically everything about it since viewing it in May 2021.
The cast are hit-and-miss. I have no negatives for Jason Momoa, he is more than satisfactory from start to end. I did find his eyes distracting (wait, not like that) with the effects used, I don't remember them being so in-your-face (pardon the pun) in the 2018 film - but I could be totally misremembering, to be fair. Either way, Momoa is the obvious star.
Yahya Abdul-Mateen II's character is one I can barely remember, but the actor himself is good - I am a fan. The rest of those onscreen are fine acting-wise, but I really wasn't invested in any of them whatsoever; from Patrick Wilson (especially) to Amber Heard to Dolph Lundgren to Nicole Kidman. I think it's their character designs that I find most uninteresting.
I am kinda looking forward to seeing what James Gunn and Peter Safran produce with the DC Universe come 2025, on paper with those two in charge it should be a success - just depends how much so, I guess.

This could have been a really good movie. Unfortunately it is another one of these movies where the woke asshats in Hollywood sat down and asked themselves, what woke and preachy subject could we cram into the movie?
As a result this movie is dragged down by the entire plot revolving around the preachings of the climate cult which pretty much negated a lot of the good things in the movie.
If not for that it would easily have been a good movie. There are plenty of cool special effects and it is quite funny at times.
The bad guy, or should I say bad guys, are truly bad guys that you are really hoping will get their ass kicked.
Overall the movie has a lot of the good stuff that you would want in a superhero movie.
Unfortunately there are, in addition to the woke crap, also too much dumbass Atlantis politics flying around.
The good parts are good enough that the movie is not a complete turd but it is still another movie where the potential is really ruined by the woke asshats in Hollywood.

Not great but still highly entertaining that is a good time waster though it does suffer from many of these visual effects-heavy movies (like the Transformers franchise) where the stakes don't feel all that threatening. It also felt odd when they (the studio most likely) tried to edit out Amber Heard as much as possible, I get why but it felt weird and glaring.
Jason Momoa as usual seemed to be having a great time and Yahya Abdul-Mateen II made once again as a serviceable enough villain, though nothing terribly noteworthy in terms of performance from an otherwise good actor from what I've seen.
James Wan tries his best to give his horror touch and does some fun direction with one-take-like shots and does poke fun at one of the first film's criticisms of the surprise explosion during quiet scenes.
Given this is the end of the DCEU, it ties it up well enough. **3.5/5**

DC is trying to copy Marvel instead of listening to their audience

This movie was really quite terrible. I didn't watch the whole thing, but the parts that I did see were incredibly boring and poorly acted and the underwater stuff looks terrible. 2 hams carved into the shape of fists with the thumbs pointed downwards.

Not clear who this movie was made for. Perhaps somewhat worth it to see Khal Drogo get piss dumped into his gaping mouth 3 or so times (twice human, once octopus), but otherwise this is another shit show. There is something particularly obnoxious about these super hero movies that strut around with such confidence while being so incredibly stupid and intellectually bankrupt. Perhaps if this was clearly aimed at children it could be forgiven, whatever, kids will laugh at anything, but when they insist that the bulk of the adult population be amused by this...

So here's good old "Arthur" (Jason Momoa) sitting around the house playing nursemaid to his young son with his wife "Mera" (Amber Heard) whilst all in his underwater kingdom is peaceful. Well not for long! "Black Manta" (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) is still a tad narked after the last film (five years ago!) and now armed with an useful geek "Dr. Shin" (Randall Park) sets out to discover a secret trident that will enable him to destroy "Atlantis" altogether and maybe also release the long captive "Kordax" (wasn't that the stuff they used to make telephone cables from?) to help make his revenge complete. Initially hopelessly outgunned by his nemesis's sonic gun, he has to resort to the drastic step of rescuing his imprisoned brother "Orm" (Patrick Wilson) - whom you may recall he was instrumental in deposing and incarcerating in the first place; and hoping that he will join forces with them, "Atlanna" (Nicole Kidman) and "King Nereus" (an almost unrecognisable Dolph Lundgren). With battles lines drawn the films goes from "Narnia" to "Middle Earth" via the "Lost World" and even a bit of "Ice Station Zebra" for a series of ploddingly slow and disappointing set-piece adventures. To be fair, the last half hour does lift the pace a little, but by then I'm not sure if it wasn't all just a rather too late. Momoa is trying very hard here, but he's no Dwayne Johnson, and even the dulcets of John Rhys-Davies as the "Brine King" - with or without his claw - can't really raise this from it's pretty weak and feeble doldrums. Of course it looks good, loads of quality CGI and visual effects, but the story is light and overly strung out for two hours that really did feel more like two days at times. It's harmless fodder for Christmas cinema with very little to actually dislike about it - it's just the latest in a series of equally forgettable super-hero films that I suspect will leave no impact at all in the snow afterwards.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://fandomwire.com/aquaman-and-the-lost-kingdom-review/
"Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom is a 'fine' farewell to the DCEU. Jason Momoa and Patrick Wilson's amusing chemistry offers plenty of entertaining moments, as their characters' complex relationship takes center stage as the primary thematic force. Mostly consistent from a visual standpoint, featuring well-executed set pieces that will leave the more action-addicted fans satisfied.
Nevertheless, the overreliance on exposition, a messy narrative structure, and other minor yet questionable decisions detract from the overall cohesiveness of the story. As the final installment, it's a pretty accurate mirror that reflects the highs and lows of the cinematic universe as a whole.
While far from a mind-blowing send-off, it encapsulates the essence of the DCEU - a journey filled with few triumphs, many missed opportunities, and incomprehensible disasters."
Rating: B-

I just watched it. I’d love to say I have no words because that’s what I believe many people feel, but because I love to analyze, I can find the exact words to describe this movie: an understanding, confusing, sorted chaos.
I might say that I love the director’s take on feminism—that’s the whole deal. A girl curious to become a woman of knowledge. She experiments, and as she grows, we see many artistic choices showing how Bella develops. Her growing hair, her walk style, and the use of color are all significant.
Max, in my opinion, is the definition of a good guy. He believes a woman can do anything she wants, and he won’t try to stop her. Eventually, she ends up with him—kind of. Strange, right? All those abusive men, like Duncan, who told her not to fall in love with him, eventually fell the hardest and went crazy because he couldn’t bear Bella’s choices. He couldn’t handle the fact that she chose to become a prostitute.
Understanding why Bella made such a decision was challenging at first, but then it all concluded that she was just curious or wanted to save the word.
It’s amazing how prostitution is shown as something women use to escape difficult situations. Well done.
On the other hand, when Max wanted to marry Bella and knew she’d been with many men, he asked her to get tested, and she agreed. It’s that simple.
Overall, I love the sound design. The music is incredibly well done, and I can’t say anything wrong about it. It always suited the situation and amplified her emotions even more.
The camera work was particularly good. I loved the zoom-ins and outs—it was fascinating because, in film school, they teach you not to do that, but the director saw a purpose in it.
This film breaks what we know about filmmaking today, even when you don’t realize it at first, and that’s the best part. This movie breaks the rules of filmmaking just as Bella breaks the rules of society.
As my last point, yes, it might seem explicit and chaotic, but that’s the image of the movie. If you really try, you’ll find answers to your questions—because not everything is served to you on a golden plate.
It’s a 10 out of 10 for me.

**Poor Things: A Steampunk Symphony of Rebirth and Discovery**
From the moment Emma Stone appears on screen in Yorgos Lanthimos's "_Poor Things_", it's clear we're in for something extraordinary. Who knew Stone had such incredible comedic timing? Her portrayal of Bella Baxter is a revelation—a performance that transforms from infantile curiosity to nuanced self-discovery with remarkable precision.
Bella's character arc is nothing short of miraculous. Stone navigates Bella's developmental stages with such delicate complexity that you're simultaneously amused, uncomfortable, and deeply moved. From her initial childlike movements to her eventual sexual and intellectual awakening, she crafts a character who is both alien and profoundly human.
This is, without question, my favorite Yorgos Lanthimos film. His signature absurdist approach finds perfect harmony with this narrative, creating a world that's simultaneously grotesque and enchanting. The steampunk aesthetic is a delightful throwback to Jules Verne, with the Eiffel Tower establishing a precise historical context. The occasional use of 16mm lens work beautifully enhances this sensation, sometimes feeling like we're peering through a vintage camera obscura—creating an almost dreamlike quality that mirrors Bella's own perception.
The film's literary DNA is unmistakably Frankensteinian. The biographical parallels with Mary Shelley are both fascinating and intentional. Shelley, herself motherless after her mother's death in childbirth, seems to have inspired multiple layers of Bella's narrative. The fact that Shelley's half-sister, like Bella's mother, died by suicide adds another haunting dimension to the story.
The relationship between Bella and her creator, Dr. Godwin Baxter (brilliantly played by Willem Dafoe), is particularly poignant. Her calling him "God" is a multilayered reference—not just to Shelley's own father William Godwin, but a sly commentary on the act of creation itself. That heart-wrenching moment when the dying Godwin notes that Bella only ever looked at him with pure love is reminiscent of the monster and child scene in Boris Karloff's iconic 1931 Frankenstein—a tender echo of monstrosity and affection.
Lanthimos has crafted something truly unique: a feminist bildungsroman wrapped in science fiction, comedy, and philosophical inquiry. "Poor Things" isn't just a film; it's an experience that challenges our understanding of autonomy, identity, and what it means to truly come into one's self.

How this movie was not rated NC-17 is the greatest feat of Emma Stone’s career. Surpassing even two Oscars.
A woman jumps off a bridge and kills herself.
Upon discovering her body our resident mad scientist takes it home , studies _the human body for dummies and goes to work. After his success the brain of our suicide victims baby
Begins to grow up in its mothers body.
The Scientist invites a valued student to dinner to meet his creation Bella Baxter.
It is not long before the student discovers Bella’s special situation. Upon confronting his mentor an arraigned marriage is agreed upon.
Bella has other ideas. 35 in appearance but 16 in spirit she runs off with her father’s lawyer. Then she begins to experience life.
Food.Sex.Food.Sex.Sex.Sex.Dancing.Sex.Politics.Sex.After a cruise and a falling out on cold Parisian morning she joins a brothel. Combined with endless sex she matures further on many aspects of life.
In spite of moral complaints the plot is quite coherent eliminating it as such. There is nothing in this film at all that should shock its director’s fan base.
Was I really supposed to believe that was 19th Century Lisbon? Honestly , when Stone was on screen I was not looking at the sets too carefully.Also the movie was absent a scene with a thousand geese.

This film is nothing I thought it would be. I'm glad I'm of the ilk to watch something for at least 10 minutes or I might have turned it off. The plot was eccentric/odd to say the least, but it grew on me quickly thanks to the performances. All were outstanding to say the least and thought Ruffalo would take the supporting award. Stone and Dafoe brilliant work.
The cinematography was fantastic which kept me looking for more each scene. Director gave us a great ride of which I enjoyed very much.
I guess I'm trying to say, from start to finish, I enjoyed the ride, and everyone involved in this movie did an incredible job.

Men bad. Interracially promiscuous socialist prostituted bisexual sociopathic women good. The end.
Thank you, feminism. I'm surprised there were no transpeople in this thing. Maybe in the director's cut.
Boring. So, so boring. You're sooo boooooring.

Director Yorgos Lanthimos sweeping cinematic spectacular film that explores the life of what it means to be human, a woman, what exactly is life, and what is love.
The tale follows Bella Baxter, a woman who had been given another chance at life in the weirdest medical experiment.
The film will make you think. It will stun you with its visual prowness from the direcotr, and the cast commitment to staying in character throughout.
Although I found the film to be the strangest tale mixed with aspects of Frankenstein and Eat, Pray, Love.
Do not try to think too deeply about what you see because this is a film that wants you to sit and enjoy it's story with fascination, and delight all of your senses.
I give it 4/5 stars for it's uniqueness.

How old when they start banging her? Very much a baby when she's a hot retard. If this isn't proof of pizzagate, I don't know what is.
Recommend watching as much as possible in the theatres and retiring to your most leisurely of spots for a pirated ending. Super enjoyable performances. Violent. Sensual. Lots of titties. A little long.