'Dog' won me over by its end.
Across the first half of this film, I wasn't feeling it at all - the whole vibe of the film just felt off, with lead Channing Tatum not really doing anything for me. However, the second half does, in fairness, save it. By the conclusion, I actually felt invested in both characters - quite the turnaround!

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/dog-spoiler-free-review
"Dog may be unimaginative and unsurprising, but it still offers a simple, lovely story, boasting enough authenticity and genuine emotion to captivate any viewer. Bearing in mind the directorial debuts of Channing Tatum and Reid Carolin, it's worth highlighting the lack of extreme dramatizations or overly sophisticated shots, which helped keep the narrative quite natural.
Despite an odd plot point or two, Briggs and Lulu share emotionally impactful interactions that will generate a lot of smiles, a few laughs, and, who knows, a tear or two - Thomas Newman's fantastic score will surely cause that.
I couldn't recommend this film more for anyone who considers their pet as their best friend."
Rating: B-

Now I would have thought that the last thing you'd allow to travel through a tunnel with billions of gallons of water above it, would be a truck full of explosives; but hey - if you need to make a film for Sly to come to the rescue, you've got to start off with a daft premisss. Add to this, a getaway car full of robbers that manages to collide with said truck and we have a load of superb pyrotechnics and then a sort of subterranean version of the "Poseidon Adventure" (1972) as our hero tries to lead a group of survivors up top. It takes far too long to actually get going: Sly leaves the rather incompetent rescue-management team on the surface to facilitate the rescue but only after about half an hour of disaster/character establishment that we could have easily have done without. A bit like with it's earlier maritime counterpart, there are some decent moments when all their lives are in peril, and Sly chivvies the gang along with a mixture of cajoling and threat, but the thing is all just so formulaic - even down to the dog and many of them, by the end, deserved what they got!

Really hilarious movie. I was laughing pretty hard on some stuff. It's worth a watch for sure!

Celeste Holm ("Karen") takes pity on stage-door groupie "Eve" (Ann Baxter) when, after the umpteenth time, she encounters her hanging around waiting for the departure of stage star "Margo Channing" (Bette Davis). She decides to take her in and introduce her to her feisty idol. "Channing" - despite the rather brusque protestations of her assistant "Birdie" (a lovely effort from Thelma Ritter) - and writer "Richards" (Hugh Marlowe) take a bit of a shine to this endearing young woman who proceeds to regale them with a rather sad story explaining her current predicament. Next thing we know, "Eve" has ingratiated herself into the home of her new - and increasingly frustrated - mentor, and - well is she quite what she seems? Davis is at the top of here game in this drama. Her characterisation of the ageing star is potent and poignant - especially when she hosts a welcome home party for her soon-to-be husband "Simpson" (Gary Merrill) and the "fasten your seatbelts" quote is unleashed to devastating cinematic effect. Holm is also really quite effective as the conduit between these two women, but it is really Baxter who steals the show. You just know she can't be as pure and innocent, as sweetness and light as she portrays. Luckily, we have the dastardly critic "Addison DeWitt" (possibly a career best supporting performance from George Sanders) on hand to help keep the audience ahead of the plotting and scheming and also to ensure a certain amount of divine retribution is doled out as required at the end. This is a cracking drama with six principal characters left to develop and evolve in front of us exposing all that is good and bad about human nature and nurture. Joseph L. Mankiewicz adapts and allows Mary Orr's pithy and sharp story to accumulate gently but powerfully and even though it starts as it finishes, robbing the denouement of a touch of jeopardy, it's still one hell of a star-studded "bumpy' ride.

**Fasten your seat belts: this is one of the best films of the 20th century.**
There aren't many perfect movies: At least, I don't know many. However, this film is almost certainly one of them. The result of an ideal combination of factors, which harmoniously came together to make it a work of art, it is a timeless film that is as pleasantly watched today as it was fifty years ago. But when we talk about classic films, it's far from being one of the first to come to mind. What is the reason? It's hard to explain, but I feel like the film never really touched the hearts of the general public. The film deserves more attention these days and is worth seeing. I'm not one of those who measure the quality of a film by the awards it receives (although that is always an indicant to consider as to quality)... but the film is one of the most nominated for the Oscars, with fourteen nominations, something that has only rarely been equaled, and six statuettes won, including Best Picture.
The film begins by showing us a ceremony in which an actress, Eve, receives an important award for her performance in the theater. Then, the action goes back a year to, in flashback, let us know everything that happened until that moment. And that's how we follow the rise of Eve, an aspiring actress from obscure origins who manages to arouse the pity and sympathy of Margo Channing, then the biggest star of the stages. The film explores the two characters well, and the way they relate to each other. Eve is quite ambiguous for part of the movie, and even after we see the darker side of the character. Margo seems like a very insufferable shrew, but the character has a good heart, hidden under tons of ego and big theater diva tics.
Based on a short story and intelligently developed by Joseph Mankiewicz, the director who will ensure the script, the film has an excellent cast and memorable dialogues, full of quotable phrases that we've probably heard somewhere. The cast is powerfully led by Bette Davis, an extremely talented, charismatic and full of personality actress who gave her all in this film, managing to achieve here, in my perspective, her work of glory. The difference between Margo, the character, and Davis, the real person, is so thin that you can almost say that the actress has taken the character and brought it a little bit into her own life. It's a truly superb dramatic exercise, and the same applies to the one given to us by its co-star, Anne Baxter, who plays Eve. The way they both collaborate in their scenes is mesmerizing. I also really liked Celeste Holm, George Sanders and Hugh Marlowe, even though the men in this cast aren't as strong as their female counterparts.
Being a black and white film, this might be a bit off-putting to current audiences, but it's not something I see as a problem. On the contrary, I really liked the cinematography and I think the film has a lot of elegance and visual beauty. There are some scenes and camera movements that I found strange, but I think some are really unusual in films from this era. As for the costumes, I really liked the way they fit the story, and some of the actresses' costumes and dresses are pieces worthy of haute couture. The film has some implicit humor, which can escape the most inattentive, like that piano piece that Davis, intoxicated, listens to several times, later calling it “cheap sentimentality”.

Excellent performances by everyone, especially Bette Davis, Anne Baxter and George Sanders, which kept me captivated more so than the story, though the dialogue was amazing. Nothing fantastic all in all but still entertaining. **4.0/5**

This classic is a must with great dialogues and script with a great performance from Bette Davis.

'Beast' is unfortunately a bit bland.
Idris Elba's performance is fine, I'm a big fan of his so naturally expected a bit more from him here if I'm honest - his American accent is a tad distracting, but that's probably just because I'm used to his usual dulcet tones. Sharlto Copley is solid, while young actors Iyana Halley and Leah Sava Jeffries are OK; though their characters are written to act in an irritating way.
The film could've done with a few more curveballs, most if not all that we see is pretty predictable - and even then it's all filmed and shot in a fairly 'normal' way. In short, this 2022 release didn't quite do it for me - it isn't bad, but I personally don't think it's anything good either. I'd say the beast special effect is decent, even if it was giving me more wolf vibes than lion.
The middle/end improves upon the start, though all in all it's a quintessential 6/10 flick for me.

_Beast_ had its moments where I was left gripping the arms of my chair at the edge of my seat, but the majority of film had me verbally laughing at the poor character writing. This movie does a lot right, don't get me wrong. The buildup to the encounter was done really well. You get a great introduction to all the characters and the individual struggles they go through due to the loss of Dr. Nate Daniels wife; it gives a baseline for the viewer to be able to relate and sympathize with the character. The action is pretty decent, and I was really impressed with the CGI work done on the lion. But, once the climax ensues the writing goes downhill, mainly in terms of character decision making. I found that the writers did not really know how to create unique situations to put the characters in with the lion, resulting in baffling decision to prolong the duration of the film. At every turn, a solution is so easily in view, but they do something that is such a right turn that it is unbelievable. The performance of Idris Alba really pulls the score up though. He does a fantastic job and portrays the loving and protecting nature of a father so well. I enjoyed his cool calm collected nature during high pressure scenes, it gave a sense of reality to him being a doctor. Overall, this film is not great, but it was entertaining, and I had a good time.
**Score:** _65%_ |
**Verdict:** _Decent_

**o.m.g - one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Please don't pay to see this film!**
Idris Elba is generally mediocre anyway, but he can put on an acceptable performance with a decent script and concept. Sadly, neither was available to him in this bumbling, tragic, and failed effort to create dramatic cinema.
I'm amazed that anyone could create a movie based on such a predictable and often used concept and do it so badly. One poorly contrived scene after another, belief is not just suspended, but abandoned entirely to piece together a cartoonish presentation of sappy ideas and bad cgi. The script is equally dreary, simplistic, and filled with mostly predictable chatter, until it suddenly leaps off the cliff of reality and into the void of astoundingly stupid. Sadly, that happens far too often.
Don't bother going to the cinema to see this. Wait a few weeks for it to get relegated to Pluto TV, Amazon Prime Video, or Freevee. Honestly, it won't take long.

I think the key to figuring out this movie is an early scene in which one of the characters is wearing a Jurassic Park shirt. This must be the filmmakers winking their eye at the audience, letting us know that what we’re about to see is all in jest.
How else to explain a film where the protagonists arrive in South Africa and immediately start bitching about the heat, but they’re all wearing jackets, and sweaters, and hoodies? More importantly, how are we to interpret a movie that introduces the issues of poaching (people who kill lions) and anti-poaching (people who kill people who kill lions, or at least that’s what Beast thinks it is), only to have the antagonist be a maneater (a lion that kills people regardless of their stance on poaching).
This only perpetuates the myth that lions have never met a human they didn’t want to maul (while contributing nothing to the poaching debate). I’m not saying lions follow an animal version of the First Law of Robotics, but they do get a bad rap in the movies, as do sharks — and in that sense, Beast is closer to Jaws: The Revenge than Jaws. Actually, Beast is even worse than Jaws: The Revenge because the latter at least used a mechanical shark, as opposed to the former’s pitiful CGI lion.
All things considered, this is a film that makes you yearn for the simplicity of The Ghost and the Darkness, which made no pretense of being anything other than a Hemingway-lite story about male bonding over hunting big game (and which, though taking many liberties with the source material, had the decency to feature real lions).
Here, however, the hero tricks two other lions into killing the 'evil' lion, not only a gambit that could easily backfire, but also not very nature-friendly. Although coming to think about it, maybe these lions do comply with the second part of the First Law ("A robot [or in this case, lion] may not ... through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm").

**Poor effects and mediocre writing obscure Beast’s shining moments.**
Beast is a decent creature movie entry with some good actors and immersive camerawork. Unfortunately, the digital effects on the lion are distracting and prevent the tension from fully building. The film was at its best when characters were frantically trying to spot the lion before it attacked, but the attacks themselves were easily survivable, making the result disappointing. The pointless family drama, weak dialogue, and far-fetched man versus lion battles prevented Beast from being as enjoyable as movies like Crawl or Deep Blue Sea.

MORE SPOILER-FREE REVIEWS @ https://www.msbreviews.com/
"Beast is one of the most gorgeous, satisfying films of the year. The camera moves cut-free during the vast majority of scenes, depicting all the splendor of the African safari, as well as helping viewers to become invested in the character interactions in a much more captivating manner.
The immersive atmosphere carries immense suspense and tension - the lion sequences are quite brutal - where Idris Elba delivers one of the most emotional performances of his career. It follows the usual formula when it comes to survival movies, and it does require some suspension of disbelief. Final remark for the convincing visual effects.
Audiences won't be disappointed."
Rating: B

There are a few scenes in this that are vaguely menacing, but for the most part it is really, really poor! Idris Elba ("Nate") arrives with his daughters "Mer" (Iyana Halley) and "Norah" (Leah Jeffries) at at remote African game reserve run by his friend "Martin" (Sharlto Copley). Pretty soon we realise that the luggage they brought on the plane is but the tip of the iceberg of baggage that actually accompanied this family and we are quickly immersed in a rather unattractive melodrama surrounding his late wife who tragically passed away (hopefully before seeing this film). Anyway, they are out on a guided tour when they discover that all is not well - an huge rogue lion is out to avenge himself on humanity after a group of poachers annihilated his pride. Snacking with impunity, this lion is soon determined to make a meal of these travellers - but can they stay alive long enough for help to arrive? Elba struggles to deliver consistency with his rather un-necessary American accent, the two girls are frankly just annoying and from very early on, I was wholeheartedly on the side of the lion. Curiously (or fortunately for the narrative), this great beast has virtually no sense of smell so "Nate" and his offspring seem to manage to dice with death on an implausibly regular basis. Taking shelter in an old school - leaving all the doors open for added protection; getting in and out of their land cruiser with scant regard for their safety and armed with little more than a pen-knife. The dialogue is OK - that's because it says it over and over again... "Are you OK?" "Are You OK"? The last few scenes are just plain silly - indeed, they reminded me of my schoolboy enjoyment of "Daktari" (1966) with the friendly "Clarence the cross-eyed lion" married together with one of the those semi-educational Disney films with actuality interspersed into the fiction. It does have the benefit of being short - just the ninety minutes, but what action there is is all too often drowned out in the banal family drama that is just dull. Nobody's finest work, sorry...

_**Going inside the mind of a psycho**_
A child psychologist who’s adept with an innovative procedure (Jennifer Lopez) agrees to help FBI agents (Vince Vaughn and Jake Weber) by entering the mind of a comatose serial killer (Vincent D'Onofrio) in order to find clues to where his latest kidnap victim is held captive. Will they find her in time?
"The Cell" (2000) is a psychological crime drama/thriller that combines “The Silence of the Lambs” (1991) with “The Matrix” (1999) and the style of Francis Ford Coppola’s “Dracula” (1992); meanwhile the sordid elements recall “The General’s Daughter” (1999). Although the plot seems convoluted, the film is actually easy to follow and it’s a veritable feast for the eyes.
The best ‘feast’ is Jennifer in her prime. Also on the female front is Catherine Sutherland as one of the victims. The only thing that takes down my rating is the early scene showing how the sick phukk gets his jollies with female corpses. Who wants to see that? How about just hinting at it or describing it verbally?
The film runs 1 hour, 47 minutes, and was shot mostly in Southern Cal, e.g. San Diego (neurosciences facility), Los Angeles (hospital), Bakersfield (the silos), Taft & Pomona; as well as the Namib Desert (mind scenes with the boy).
GRADE: B

The Cell is a forgotten classic. Way ahead of its time, it is a cinematic delight. It could be best described as a psychological thriller but it is so much more. Don't hesitate to enjoy this gem. It is visually stunning with a gripping story. JLo is good in this despite her booty never being the focus. Yes, it makes an appearance in a side view but it doesn't overwhelm. For serious, this is a 10-star film. Have fun!

I can't... I can't call _The Cell_ good... But it's artistically spectacular, features one of D'Onofrio's best roles ever, and though it has unoriginal concepts, it uses them in originally thematic ways. I can't call _The Cell_ good... But I can tell you to watch it.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

Good watch, could watch again, and can recommend.
This is probably more interesting than good when it comes down to it.
I'm not a big fan of Matthew McConaughey or Jason Clarke, but they sure nail all the crazy in their roles.
Djimon Hounsou probably has the only character that isn't crazy to some degree. The "Moby Dick" reference is strong, but the story structure allows for theming to evolve as the story continues.
Each arc is interesting as if it is a new story using the same characters.
While the journey definitely carries some intensity with it, the end is a bit vague and may leave you questioning not only what happened in the movie, but questioning reality.

If you never heard of Serenity before, you’re not alone because neither had I. The movie was in and out of theaters making a mere $11.4 million off of a reasonable $25 million budget. But one of the best perks of reviewing is getting to see films I might’ve otherwise skipped and boy was Serenity one hell of a ride. Well, more of a ride that’s on a collision course toward a semi, but still…
Here is the basic plot synopsis: Baker Dill (MATTHEW MCCONAUHEY) is a fishing boat captain who leads tours off of the tranquil enclave of Plymouth Island. His peaceful life is soon shattered when his ex-wife Karen (ANNE HATHAWAY) tracks him down. Desperate for help, Karen begs Baker to save her — and their young son — from her abusive husband (JASON CLARKE). She wants him to take the brute out for a fishing excursion — then throw him overboard to the sharks. Thrust back into a life that he wanted to forget, Baker now finds himself struggling to choose between right and wrong.
Sounds simple enough, no? While indeed that does happen in the movie, where I thought I was getting some sort of modern-day film noir, what eventually we get is more along the lines of The Truman Show. Despite the insanity that I was watching and how some of it makes no sense whatsoever, I have to admit, I kind of was entertained by it all.
First, the performances are, well, uneven. The supporting players of the respectable actors which included Djimon Hounsou as Dill’s skipper and Diane Lane playing the sugar momma. However, McConaughey switched back and forth from mild mannered to over-the-top, where I wonder if he got to the point where he realized just what a messy movie he had signed on to. Hathaway was decent enough, although she did feel like a character out of an old-time film noir while Jason Clarke went full-on portraying a loutish, all-around despicable human being, necessary if you want your main character to even consider murdering the guy.
Outside of my reference to The Truman Show, I won’t go much further as not to spoil the twist, though it is one maybe M. Night Shyamalan would probably appreciate… And I suppose I did as well, even if it didn’t make a lick of sense, even days later thinking upon what the hell exactly happened. That being said, it certainly was one of the more unique, and bewildering, viewing experiences of the last few years.
Serenity was the brainchild of Steven Knight, Academy Award nominee for writing Dirty Pretty Things and who has also written the screenplays for Eastern Promises, Allied and The Girl in the Spider’s Web amongst others. This also marks his third film in the director’s chair following the Jason Statham thriller Redemption and Locke starring Tom Hardy, both movies released back in 2013.

One of the weirder films I've seen recently. And I like weird, I just don't like... This. Credit where credit's due though, both Anne Hathaway and Jason Clarke are **one hundred percent** believable in their roles, which is impressive given the setting, and... Terrifying, given their relationship dynamic.
_Final rating:★½: - Boring/disappointing. Avoid where possible._

This is insane, which is why I really like it. It's original, it had my attention throughout the entire runtime, and I can't remember the last time I got this many chills--maybe never! I'll admit it fails to ever become cohesive but it's got so much fucking flavour that I can't not gulp it down. What would one call this? Artsy schlock? This is artsy schlock. This is my initial rating upon a first watch; it is possible I will feel differently about the film on a second watch.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
I will always respect and appreciate the will of a director/writer in trying to do something bold and bonkers. Whether that’s a divisive plot twist, a double-faced character or even an unusual method of filming, it doesn’t really matter, as long as it succeeds. Steven Knight delivers a story that doesn’t feel right from the get-go. Everything feels strange and random, with weird dialogues and awkward hints at something underneath it all. Then, a somewhat predictable plot twist changes pretty much everything since our perspective is entirely different now. However, it sinks the movie even more and creates a whole bunch of incongruencies and plot holes.
The film wasn’t near good before the twist, and it gradually transformed itself into something jaw-droppingly bad, after it. In addition to this, the final message that Steven Knight leaves the audience with, is probably one of the worst ones since The Emoji Movie. “Doing the wrong things for the right reasons” is always going to be a controversial statement, but in this particular case, having in mind what happens in the movie and who does it involve, it’s 100% wrong and I want to believe that Knight didn’t exactly want to transmit this in the way that he did.
There’s an intriguing and meaningful story to be told deep down in this messy screenplay. Behind all of the unnecessary exposition scenes (there’s no need to describe what’s happening since the twist is quite self-explanatory) and cringe-worthy dialogues, there’s a well-structured narrative and an extraordinary concept to be explored. However, I have no idea what happened to the script nor the production and filming stages of the film, but I understand now why its original release date in October was postponed to the traditional January’s garbage. This was supposed to be an Oscar-bait movie: an Oscar-nominated director/writer plus two Oscar-winner protagonists, in a film that seems to be more than what it actually is? I guess the production companies saw this coming and they tried to prevent an even bigger flop.
I’m always the first to defend that a movie without at least “good” technical attributes is rarely one of the best of the year. However, I’m also the first to affirm that if a film fails to deliver a captivating story with compelling characters, there’s no magnificent cinematography or mind-blowing special effects that can salvage it. Serenity doesn’t even have that. Despite me feeling pleased that it was filmed in one-location and that the set design is pretty sweet, the editing is incredibly choppy. It feels like Knight had to remove several cuts in order to reduce the overlong runtime, which wasn’t performed in the best way possible. There are a lot of moments where a character is facing a side, and in the next cut, the former is already facing a completely different one (this particular thing really occurs often).
Regarding the characters, Baker and his son are definitely the ones that we learn more about since their connection is continuously addressed. Like I wrote above, there’s a relevant story behind all of this mayhem, but I did saw (even if briefly) the light at the end of this very dark tunnel. That light is instantly consumed by the darkness as new characters or subplots start to show up, and the hollowness prevails over everything else. Jeremy Strong’s character is baffling ridiculous, Diane Lane (Constance) is one of the dozens of logical reasons why the twist doesn’t work, but the one who annoyed me the most didn’t even show up. You spend a whole movie talking about this one person, like it is going to be a crucial subplot, and then you forget about it. You merely end the film, and it’s like that character was never even mentioned… Why? Why give even more reasons for someone to leave the theater frustrated?
Then, there’s the tone. It’s weird until the twist and weirder after it. Not even Matthew McConaughey or Anne Hathaway can save themselves from some awfully delivered lines. Nevertheless, it’s the cast who saves this wreckage of being an F. McConaughey is a hell of an actor and he demonstrates his outstanding range throughout the runtime. Hathaway has less to do, and I felt that her lines were the worst, but I can’t argue with her ability to deliver any emotion. Jason Clarke (Frank Zariakas) is perfect as the violent father/husband, and Djimon Hounsou (Duke) has some space to shine.
In the end, Serenity tries to go big and bold, but falls astonishingly flat. Plot holes, logical incongruencies, awful dialogues, terrible editing, hollow characters, and neglected subplots. Steven Knight had a great concept and a truly interesting thriller-mystery in his mind, but his execution is shockingly baffling, and the twist transforms everything into something way worse. The final message is the number one reason why I don’t recommend anyone to see this movie, especially if you take teens or kids with you. Matthew McConaughey is good enough to avoid a total disaster, and I know that there was something incredible behind all of this horrible mess. It’s probably going to end up as one of the worst films of 2019, unless we have a truly disastrous year in cinema.
Rating: D-

**Spiderhead could have been so much more but settled for bland.**
Spiderhead’s concept presented compelling possibilities but fell very short of its potential. The movie focuses on pharmaceuticals that create love, fear, and other emotions in its prison-mandated test subjects. I expected the plot to center on characters grappling with whether they actually love their new boyfriend/girlfriend, causing them to doubt every decision since they entered the program — a psychological angle. Instead, Spiderhead is a basic rich guy doing something shady at the expense of others movie. With a great cast and an incredible director, I wanted this movie to be so much more. Ultimately, Spiderhead is another forgettable straight-to-streaming movie that wasted its exciting premise and talent.

Going into Spiderhead I was not expecting much due to the mixed bag of reviews, but I was really surprised. The concept is really interesting and very deranged, I found myself gasping out loud at scenarios that were presented to the inmates throughout the film. While I do agree that the third act does fall bit short, I still found it enjoyable enough. The acting in this movie was superb. Chris Hemsworth does an excellent job as the "villain," he really makes you believe that he is doing this out of a good heart. It was really nice seeing him play a somewhat demented scientist, which is outside of the comedic role that he has carved himself due to the MCU. Wyatt Teller and Jurnee Smollett do a really good job as well, they have very emotionally invested scenes that bleed over to the audience. Overall, this film starts off strong and slowly fades towards the end but nothing that tremendously hurts the overall product.
**Verdict:** _Good_

Can't fault the acting or the production values.
This was filmed in Australia, on an island in Queensland.
The premise should be more interesting than the way this film presents it. Poor directing? Perhaps. As I said, the acting is good and believable.
A couple of plot holes that I couldn't wrap my head around.
The film was based on a short story, which I'm told is a very good story. Clearly the movie got something very wrong.
A few days after I watched it, and the movie is unmemorable.

The concept is fascinating enough, but the story is so slow and boring that it's hard to follow. Seems like there's a message buried somewhere in there, but it's easy to fall asleep before Evil Corporations oh my god is properly repackaged and regurgitated at whatever climax they think they wrote into the script somewhere. Snore.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/spiderhead-spoiler-free-review
"Spiderhead contains a fascinating high-concept sci-fi premise, but even with an extraordinary cast, it falls short of its narrative potential.
Chris Hemsworth proves again that he's one of the most underrated actors working today, while Miles Teller and Jurnee Smollett share excellent chemistry. Technically, Joseph Kosinski and his team are able to generate an uneasy atmosphere in a single location without forgetting some visually impressive shot selection.
Nevertheless, the story loses energy and focus during the second act, leaving dozens of creative, genuinely captivating paths unexplored or underdeveloped, ultimately choosing the safest, most generic alternative. Revelations and twists are somewhat inconsistent but undeniably impactful.
I still highly recommend it. I'm very curious about the general audience's reaction."
Rating: B-

Unfriended: Dark Web takes the unique computer-screen format from the first movie and dials it up with a more grounded and plausible storyline, which makes it far scarier this time around. The technical execution is sharp, seamlessly immersing you in the digital world where every click, message, and video feed ramps up the tension. It’s an unconventional way of storytelling, but the production nails it, making the experience feel eerily real.
What sets this one apart is the shift in tone. Instead of leaning into the supernatural elements of its predecessor, this movie opts for a more realistic and chilling approach. The grounded nature of the story makes the threats feel tangible, and that plausibility is what makes it so unsettling. It’s a change that works in the movie’s favor, as it takes the fear from something fantastical to something that could actually happen, amplifying the intensity and dread.
As a standalone thriller, it excels at creating an atmosphere of paranoia and helplessness, with its focus on the dangers of the digital age. It may not feel like a traditional sequel, given its departure from the themes of the original, but the more realistic approach gives it a unique identity. If you’re looking for a movie that leans into grounded horror with clever execution, this one is definitely worth watching.

Something that I've noticed recently in horror franchises that have tried to get off the ground in the past couple of years, the second entry is actually better than the first. In ages past, a thing unheard of, but now at least as common as not. Same goes for _Unfriended: Dark Web_. Just about everything is one step up from the first _Unfriended_ movie: Acting, AV, urgency, the shorter wait times, and the new direction _Dark Web_ takes in terms of its antogonists (I won't spoil it for you, but surely you're capable of reading a title and putting it together for yourself) works better in this one too. I feel at least.
Now neither of these films are perfect, but the first _Unfriended_ movie was okaaaaaaaaay, and this one has managed to push it by the skin of it's teeth over in to what I could honestly argue is "good".
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._