My Mom Jayne

Movie Name: My Mom Jayne
Year of Release: 2025
Director: Mariska Hargitay
Starring: Jayne Mansfield, Mariska Hargitay, Mickey Hargitay, Nelson Sardelli, Tony Cimber
Score out of ten (whole numbers only): 8
View Trailer

Synopsis and Review

"My Mom Jayne" is a documentary, as the title indicates, tracing who actress Jayne Mansfield was, from the perspective of her daughter, actress and film-maker, Mariska Hargitay. The documentary has a heartfelt premise: Mariska was only 3 years old when her mother died as a result of a car crash (where Mariska and two of her siblings were also on board), something that has become an event of its own (popping up for instance on David Cronenberg's seminal work "Crash"). What starts as an investigation of Mariska into who the person behind the larger than life actress her mother was, uncovering more details about her mother in the process, thanks to numerous interviews she performs, including with her siblings, the film also starts peeling away at who she actually is, her own roots, her relationship with her father Mickey Hargitay, stepmother, and some discussions that never happened about her own ancestry. It's a thoughtful documentary, one that shies away from salacious topics, nor does it investigate the star factory of Hollywood of the 1950s, but one that chooses to investigate who Jayne Mansfield "the mother" actually was, and subsequently how Mariska Hargitay herself came about, and her position in the family and all the ties her mother created. There's quite a bit of vulnerability and self-exposure from Ms. Hargitay in this documentary, which is always a rather tricky option to tackle in a documentary, which by default, should always be as objective as possible. There's a risk of losing a bit of self-awareness, and presenting oneself in a particular way, and there are indeed certain parts of the documentary where the author itself becomes too much of the center of a narrative that started being about someone else, but it's nonetheless a touching document and homage to a figure, to family, and to ultimately a testament to the fact that everyone is fallible, filled with limitations, and even some regrets, no matter how glamorous or publicized someone's life may be. It's worth watching. 

Heart Eyes

Movie Name: Heart Eyes
Year of Release: 2025
Director: Josh Ruben
Starring: Olivia Holt, Mason Gooding, Gigi Zumbado, Jordana Brewster, Devon Sawa, Michaela Watkins, Yoson An, James Gaylyn, Bronwyn Bradley
Score out of ten (whole numbers only): 2
Watch it on Amazon

Synopsis and Review

While "Heart Eyes" is a Screen Gems release, I genuinely thought this film was a Netflix release, trying to emulate the "Fear Street" series. The narrative follows the story of Ally McCabe, a copywriter/marketeer, whose latest creation/campaign for a Jewelry client almost gets her fired by her volatile and energetic boss Crystal. Crystal introduces everyone to Jay Simmons, a bold and award winning creative who is coming in to inject some creativity into the campaigns the teams have been pushing out. Ally fears even more for her job, but upon meeting Jay realizes he's the man she bumped into earlier on at a coffee shop. He invites her for a work dinner, so they can also get better acquainted as they're about to start working together, and Jay is in town for a very brief time span. After a tense conversation during dinner, and as they both leave the restaurant, Ally crosses paths with her recent ex-boyfriend, in tow with his new partner. Not wanting to be a sore loser, she quickly locks lips with Jay, makes up a quick lie, not realizing that a serial killer who goes by the name of Heart Eyes is checking what is happening. As Ally and Jay patch their relationship up, and go to her apartment, they are attacked by the killer, who starts leaving a list of bodies on the trail to get to the couple. 

This is the type of film that is truly a head scratcher, not because of being particularly ingenious or creative, or even particularly gore-filled, but more so about the question that forces us all to ask ourselves: why was this even made. This is a film that literally adds nothing to the slasher genre that's been around for quite some time, it picks up influences from Wes Craven's "Scream" series, from Geoffrey Wright's "Cherry Falls", and a series of others, but essentially brings nothing new to the genre. Where Ti West for instance has approached the genre in a rather unique way, with his trilogy of "X", "Pearl", and "Maxxxine", Josh Ruben who previously directed "Death to 2021" and "Werewolves Within", doesn't really do much beyond illustrating the gore that is involved in most killings in this film. There are glances of humor in the narrative, but it's a film that doesn't really know what to do with its characters, nor with the killer, who when uncovered at the end, is presented with the flimsiest justification as to why that killing spree has been occurring. This attempt at marrying a Young Adult type of series, quasi Hallmark style, with slasher, ultimately doesn't congeal, it feels forced, and it's inhabited by characters that are caricatures without much to say (or do), including the perpetual humorous best friend, and the shrill and eccentric older boss character. The cast is sadly also uninspired, without anyone truly making much of a mark. The production team is solid, with highlights going to Stephen Murphy's cinematography, and Rob Bavin's production design. It's forgettably mediocre. 

The Final Destination

Movie Name: The Final Destination
Year of Release: 2009
Director: David R. Ellis
Starring: Bobby Campo, Shantel VanSanten, Haley Webb, Nick Zano, Mykelti Williamson, Krista Allen, Andrew Fiscella, Lara Grice
Score out of ten (whole numbers only): 2
Watch it on Amazon

Synopsis and Review

After the successful "Final Destination 3", the series went back to director David R. Ellis, who had previously helmed the second chapter, to bring this follow up to life. The premise for this installment is similar to the mechanism that rules this series. This time around the central character is a college student by the name of Nick O'Bannon, who is at an auto race with his girlfriend Lori and a couple of their friends, Hunt and Janet. Nick experiences a premonition of a dramatic crash which will set off a series of fatal accidents, which will result in the death of them all, and many others at the site. He panics, and after an ensuing fight with a few other spectators, they're all escorted out of the area, upon which the accident does occur, with massive casualties occurring. The next few days the survivors of the occurrence start dying due to unexpected accidents. Nick is convinced that Death is claiming the survivors in the exact order in which they would have died, had they stayed at the auto race site. He and Lori go about trying to warn the remainder of the survivors, in the hopes they can prevent the worst from happening.

As much as David R. Ellis is adept at telling a story with minimum fuss, this film is the worst in the series, primarily due to a script that has no humor, and very little suspense, and characters that are even more poorly defined than any of the others that came before in the series. It's somewhat perplexing how the film looks and feels as a cheap direct to video release, something that David R. Ellis in his career always managed to successfully avoid with all his features ("Cellular" and "Snakes on a Plane" for instance both had a polished and slick look to them). Aside from the look and feel, the characters in this chapter are literally cardboard cut-outs of what a "persona" should look or behave like, having no demonstrable human traits aside from the ability to talk and move, yet avoiding anything more substantial as giving the audience a glimpse into who they are or if they have a sense of humor. The cast, with the exception of Mykelti Williamson, sadly doesn't help either. All of these actors are truly wooden and uniformly unwatchable, which further sinks this film. The gruesomeness of all the killings can't hide the fact that this film has little to offer, and that everyone involved was just phoning it in, waiting for the big bucks to come in. The production team is uninspired, which is essentially a perfect summary for this film: uninspired and almost unwatchable (and it gets a 2 mostly because of Mr. Williamson and the late Mr. Ellis). 

28 Years Later

Movie Name: 28 Years Later
Year of Release: 2025
Director: Danny Boyle
Starring: Alfie Williams, Jodie Comer, Aaron Taylor Johnson, Ralph Fiennes, Jack O'Connell, Christopher Fullford, Edvin Ryding, Chi Lewis-Parry, Sandy Batchelor
Score out of ten (whole numbers only): 6
View the Trailer

Synopsis and Review

In the last decade director Danny Boyle hasn't been the most prolific when it comes to releasing feature films, having only directed "Steve Jobs", "Trainspotting 2", and "Yesterday", with the latter one not being particularly well received. "28 Years Later" marks a return to a universe he started in 2002 with "28 Days Later", which was also the introductory card for actor Cillian Murphy, who is one of the executive producers of this film. The narrative takes place nearly thirty years after the events of the original film. The rage virus has been eradicated from Europe, and is now confined to the British Islands, who are being quarantined from the rest of the world. One of the surviving communities has set up a series of rules which has enabled them to survive without the virus. Spike, a 12 year old boy goes with his father on a rite of passage, back to the main Island, in order to hunt. During their journey they encounter a few infected, with some being a substantially different kind of infected, a group Spike's father brands as Alpha: they are stronger and more intelligent than the others. While they manage to escape, and return to their community, Spike learns some valuable lessons, about the infected and also about himself. While his father has issues dealing with Isla's ailment (Spike's mother), and is already cavorting with other people in the group, Spike learns that there's a surviving Doctor (by the name of Kelson) in the main island, who can potentially help his mother with her disease, that no one really knows what it is. Pushing past his father, and creating a distracting incident to obscure his intentions, Spike takes off with his mom towards the main Island, seeking Kelson and a possible salvation for her. 

This chapter of this series is not so much a sequel, but more a reinvention and expansion of what the original film set in motion. What was so uniquely arresting from the first film, aside from the premise of the rage virus spreading rapidly and creating hordes of zombie-like creatures, was the fact that it was grounded on the point of view of a survivor who had not witnessed the demise of society, someone who had to relearn how to live in a completely different world. In this chapter, we witness this reality through the perspective of a young boy who has known nothing but this world where the virus robs people of their lives, but more so, robs the people on the islands of what it means to live in a civilized society. If the first film was about developing a plan to stay alive, this one is more about maintaining life as it is, avoiding the perils of the virus. The film has a tone that is very different than the prior chapters of the series, reminding at times of Robin Hardy's "The Wicker Man", in the sense that it takes the characters, and us with them, across this very British scenery that is both bucolic, but also dangerous and potentially lethal. The film's chapters are very clearly divided, but where the film takes a considerable leap is with it's last two chapters. This occurs courtesy of a more satisfying emotional dynamic between the characters, and the introduction of Dr. Kelson, who also brings a slightly different perspective of living in this new reality. The last two chapters of the film allow for both Spike and Isla to become more than just clichés, and bring Kelson who is a catalyst that jolts the narrative, and even adds a bit of mysticism to the existence in which they are now. Sadly not much time is spent with Kelson, but the last sections of the film are a much needed jolt that reenergizes what was otherwise a rather commonplace beginning to the narrative and to the film itself. Gone is the frantic handheld tone that "28 Days Later" galvanized, replaced with a different take and reflection on living in a new society, one that persists with the heritage of the past, at times almost suffocated by it. The cast tries their best with this material, even if character development wasn't necessarily the main concern for Alex Garland. Ralph Fiennes and Alfie Williams are the most memorable performances and characters in the film. Anthony Dod Mantle's cinematography is beautiful, as is the score from Young Fathers. It's not a sequel that many may be expecting, but maybe it's the sequel that is needed, particularly for the times we're currently living. 

Black Bag

Movie Name: Black Bag
Year of Release: 2025
Director: Steven Soderbergh 
Starring: Cate Blanchett, Michael Fassbender, Naomie Harris, Tom Burke, Marisa Abela, Regé-Jean Page, Pierce Brosnan, Gustaf Skarsgard, Orli Shuka, Daniel Dow, Kae Alexander
Score out of ten (whole numbers only): 7
Watch it on Amazon

Synopsis and Review

After releasing "Presence" in 2024, editor, cinematographer, producer, director (and occasion writer), Steven Soderbergh continues his creative collaboration with David Koepp, subtly crafting one of the most interesting and solid thrillers of recent times. The narrative focuses on a married couple, comprised of George and Kathryn, both of whom work for British Intelligence. George has been recently given the task to investigate the leak of a software with the code name of Severus. His wife is listed as a potential suspect of doing so. George invites the other suspects to a dinner at his house, and during the meal the ambience gets progressively heated, particularly as the guests start exposing some of their personal agendas and feelings. When George's boss dies of a suspect heart attack, he starts to investigate what his wife is up to, though he always states that his marriage and Kathryn's well being is his top priority. As Kathryn goes on an overnight trip to Zurich, George pressures Clarissa (one of the suspects and also one of the dinner guests), to use an available satellite to uncover whom is she meeting with. As the relationships between all these professionals become clearer, so does the leak surrounding Severus, and why Kathryn and George were pitted against each other, something that turns out to be an error for the mastermind of the whole scenario. 

"Black Bag" is another great example of how Steven Soderbergh keeps delivering intelligent and economically constructed films that are so well oiled and so smoothly executed, that they almost seem effortless. "Black Bag" which plays out like a sophisticated thriller relying on character exchanges, more so than big action sequences, doesn't necessarily give much backdrop or sustenance to most of the characters, however the creative team does provide just enough context to all of them, which allows us to best understand who they are,  how are they interacting with each other and what kind of relationships are tied between them all. George and Kathryn, who both exude a cool and methodical demeanor, are the antithesis of what Doug Liman's "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" was all about: they treasure their relationship, but they're also very aware of the situation in which they been placed in. The film slowly and smartly uncovers the conspiracy, as George navigates with detail and perseverance, the breadcrumbs of data that were left behind (and that the conspirator didn't expect to be quite so obvious). It's a smartly executed film, benefiting from a wonderful cast, with highlights going to the elegant Cate Blanchett, the versatile Michael Fassbender, both of whom get great support from the wonderful Naomie Harris, Tom Burke, and Marisa Abela, all of which also excel. The production team is impeccable, even if Steven Soderbergh's cinematography on this feature is a bit distracting (the tint is too warm and almost too blurry in the night scenes). It's a very entertaining film from a great film maker (and the trailer does a poor showcase of just how good this film is). 

Final Destination 3

Movie Name: Final Destination 3
Year of Release: 2006
Director: James Wong
Starring: Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Ryan Merriman, Kris Lemche, Alexz Johnson, Sam Easton, Jesse Moss, Gina Holden, Texas Battle, Chelan Simmons, Crystal Lowe, Amanda Crew, Maggie Ma, Tony Todd
Score out of ten (whole numbers only): 5
Watch it on Amazon

Synopsis and Review

"Final Destination 3" marked the comeback of director James Wong to the series he originated (and was also up until now the last installment he participated in). The narrative for this chapter focuses on high school senior Wendy Christensen. She and her boyfriend Jason are out with her close friends Kevin and Carrie, celebrating grad night. Wendy is taking snapshots of everyone, but things take a darker turn when it's time to go on the roller coaster and she has a premonition that the ride is going to experience technical issues and people will die, including herself. Sobbing and visibly distressed, she gets pulled out of the roller coaster, alongside Kevin who was near her to safeguard her safety (since Jason wanted to go in front). A few others get off the ride as Wendy and Kevin do, and while they're trying to calm Wendy the ride goes off and the disaster she had predicted ends up occurring. Riddled with guilt, Wendy avoids everyone, until Kevin lets her know this type of event has happened before. Wendy doesn't want to pay attention to his words, until Ashley and Ashlyn suffer a bizarre accident in a tanning salon and die as a result. Both Wendy and Kevin start going through the list of survivors, trying to save them from freak occurrences, trying to prevent them from dying and themselves from eventually meeting the same fate.

Whereas David R. Ellis gave his first installment of the series a noticeable B-movie vibe, James Wong really played to the more supernatural aspect the series has cultivated throughout its episodes. He was able to create more of an ominous environment in this episode, probably more so than any other one that has followed. While the mechanics of these films are fairly similar, with the two protagonists always trying to warn the survivors of what's coming to them, and witnessing fairly brutal deaths as a result, James Wong in this episode gives these characters some extra backdrop, with Wendy in particular feeling a bit more expanded upon than your typical central heroine (more so than A.J. Cook in the prior installment for instance). The fact that James Wong builds the narrative as a sleuthing type of feature, with two unprepared heroes at its core, also gives the film a certain level of unpredictability, even if the formula does put all these characters through pretty horrifying demise scenarios. The film benefits from a solidly assembled cast, led by the talented Mary Elizabeth Winstead, then starting her career, with good support from Ryan Merriman, Kris Lemche, and Amanda Crew. The production team is also solid, with highlights going to the work of cinematographer Robert McLachlan, Shirley Walker's score, and Mark Freeborn's production design. Of the first five installments of the series, it's possibly the most refined one, even if it does fall prey to the formula at its core. Still watchable and entertaining. 

Final Destination 2

Movie Name: Final Destination 2
Year of Release: 2003
Director: David R. Ellis
Starring: A.J. Cook, Ali Larter, Michael Landes, Keegan Connor Tracy, Lynda Boyd, Jonathan Cherry, Justina Machado, Terrence Carson, Sarah Carter, David Paetkau, James Kirk, Tony Todd
Score out of ten (whole numbers only): 4
Watch it on Amazon

Synopsis and Review

"Final Destination 2" premiered not long after the release of the first installment from James Wong, which turned out to be a surprise hit. The narrative on this second chapter picks up a year after the events of the first film. This time around the focal character is Kimberly Corman, a college student who is on her way to Daytona Beach with a group of friends for Spring Break. While driving along the highway she has a premonition of a massive pile-up, one that causes multiple deaths, including her own. Frightened by the premonition, she stops her vehicle, and prevents others behind her from getting on the main highway. A police officer by the name of Thomas Burke comes in her direction to find out what is causing all the commotion, and as Kimberly explains what she saw, the massive crash takes place right in front of all them. All the survivors are relieved to have escaped the dramatic situation, but in the ensuing days, eerie accidents start occurring and start claiming each of the survivors. That is, until Kimberly and Thomas discover something similar happened in the past and try to thwart the nefarious events from occurring. And they go back to Clear Rivers, the only remaining survivor from a similar event, to understand how she's managed to stay alive.

David R. Ellis started his career as a stunt performer and eventually evolved to stunt coordinator and 2nd unit director. He also ventured into directing feature films, with "Final Destination 2" being his sophomore directorial endeavor. Much like the films of the series, and the formula they abide to, David R. Ellis is able to capture the menacing aspect of the situations that eventually lead to dramatic and chilling death situations. The best aspect of this film is how the director understands this is a B-movie for all intended purposes, and moves the narrative in an economical and efficient manner. However this efficiency does make these characters all feel very cardboard in terms of understanding who they are: the college student who is kind, but has a premonition and a traumatic event in her past, the kind police officer who comes to her aid, whereas everyone else on the surviving group, are just a collection of characters defined by a particular characteristic/cliché (the pothead, the self-involved one, the mother with the teenager, the young professional, and so on). While no one watches these films for character development, they could benefit from making these individuals more realistic, as opposed to puppets that fall prey to something sinister that is happening. The cast is solid, and they do make this episode one of the most compelling in the series, particularly with A.J. Cook, Michael Landes, Terrence Carson, all bringing as much veracity as possible to the characters they're playing. The production team is solid, though not particularly remarkable. It's a watchable feature, even if rather unremarkable. 

Fear Street: Prom Queen

Movie Name: Fear Street: Prom Queen
Year of Release: 2025
Director: Matt Palmer
Starring: India Fowler, Suzanna Son, Fina Strazza, Katherine Waterston, Lili Taylor, Chris Klein, Ariana Greenblatt, David Iacono, Darrin Baker, Ella Rubin, Rebecca Ablack, Ilan O'Driscoll, Ryan Rosery, Damian Romeo, Dakota Taylor, Luke Kimball
Score out of ten (whole numbers only): 2
Watch it on Netflix

Synopsis and Review

Following the successful three first films from the "Fear Street" series, originally authored by R.L. Stine, and adapted to film by Leigh Janiak (and her co-writers), Netflix has released another installment, with a few more apparently in the pipeline for development and production. The narrative which takes place in 1988, follows a series of high school seniors who are about to celebrate their prom. The main character is Lori Granger, who is a bit of an outcast, due to rumors about her mother murdering her own father. The popular girls, aptly titled the "Wolfpack", consisting of Tiffany Falconer, Melissa Mckendrick, Debbie Winters, and Linda Harper, are all vying for the crown and title of Prom Queen. Things start taking a dark turn when Christy Renault, one of the seniors who is also a pot dealer, is stabbed and killed by a mysterious assassin. The following evening as the prom celebration begins, and as Lori stars to feel more confident in her chances, Tiffany tries to sabotage her, while the pile of corpses star increasing, as the killer is in the premises, and is killing the students vying for the crown.

Co-writer and director Matt Palmer's prior directorial endeavor, "Calibre", gave him enough creed to tackle this episode of "Fear Street", however and unlike the prior films of the series, this one has very meager results, and to add insult to injury, it also feels amateurishly developed, and strangely underdeveloped. The creative team took cues from well known slasher films of the 80s such as Paul Lynch's "Prom Night" and even George Mihalka's "My Bloody Valentine", to name but a few, however and unlike these films, this episode of "Fear Street" seems to believe that relying on the grotesqueness of the death scenes, and their considerable gore, it provides for entertainment and for character establishment (as it turns out, it doesn't). The film attempts to be a cross between "Heathers" and "Halloween", however it never manages to retain the spirit of either one, since all the girls are strangely even more inert and lack any dimension when compared to what any of the characters of those films even minimally was able to establish. Sadly for this creative team, they failed to realize that giving some of these characters a different hairstyle, or a certain costume, doesn't render them more interesting or make them more compelling. It's a film that doesn't have any pretension, but one that could capitalize on having at least a sense of crescendo and momentum (they could have taken a cue and a few hints from Brian De Palma's classic "Carrie"). As is, the more established supporting actors such as the wonderful Lili Taylor and the fantastic Katherine Waterston, feel underused, whereas in the case of Chris Klein, if you blink, you'll literally forget he was in this film. The material is there to make a good homage to the slasher genre, in this case, it just needed a stronger point of view, and a deeper conviction from the creative team. It's ultimately a gore filled and rather humorless take on a genre that feels somewhat forgotten by all. 

Captain America: Brave New World

Movie Name: Captain America: Brave New World
Year of Release: 2025
Director: Julius Onah
Starring: Anthony Mackie, Harrison Ford, Danny Ramirez, Shira Haas, Carl Lumbly, Tim Blake Nelson, Giancarlo Esposito, Liv Tyler, Xosha Roquemore, Jóhannes Haukur Jóhannesson, William Mark Mc Cullough, Takehiro Hira, Harsh Nayyar, Rick Espaillat, Sebastian Stan

Score out of ten (whole numbers only): 3
Watch it on Amazon

Synopsis and Review

Director Julius Onah, who prior to joining the Marvel Studios ranks of hired directors, was fairing well with his independent features, particularly the recent "Luce", sadly doesn't seem to find his footing in this universe. The narrative focuses on the establishing of the new Captain America, who is trying to shape a relationship with the newly elected President of the United States, Thaddeus Ross. Ross had had his issues with the Avengers, including imprisoning Sam Wilson during the heated arguments that occurred about who should govern the actions of the Avengers. Captain America has a new partner, Joaquin Torres, who is taking the duties of the Falcon. Sam is however uncertain about getting Torres involved, as the both of them don't actually possess super powers. During an important communication from the President, there's a murder attempt on his life, from one of Wilson's closest friends. When he's eventually caught, he has no recollection of what just took place. Wilson and Torres start investigating, while the President continues his mission of trying to build diplomatic bridges with other countries, whose leaders are suspicious of his actions, following his track record of destruction and vindictive behaviors when he was pursuing the Hulk. Wilson and Torres uncover their friend was brainwashed, and that others also have been targeted using the same trigger to "activate" them. They eventually uncover the origin of the coup hailing from a hidden site in West Virginia, and the culprit behind all the events taking place, someone who is close to Ross, and who may have been tampering with Ross' life all this time.

These days badmouthing a film from Marvel, feels like an easy shot. However, the quality output has been visibly diminishing, and this new "Captain America: Brave New World" is a good example of a certain creative rut that the studio has found themselves in. At this point, the films themselves feel exactly like a formula, one that renders each output indistinguishable from each other. Not that long ago, Scott Derrickson's "Doctor Strange" brought a unique visual style to the catalogue, even if narratively and character-wise, the film itself didn't stray very far off from the formula. However it had style, a point of view, that made it stand out and feel fresh and unique. "Captain America: Brave New World" once again piggy backs on events and storylines that have been developed on Disney+'s streaming platform (where the Falcon, the Winter Soldier, Hawkeye and a bunch of others had their own shows), and builds upon that context, which many viewers may not be that familiar with. Context aside, the narrative tries very hard to replicate the success of "Captain America: The Winter Soldier", which was smartly inspired by the conspiracy thrillers of the 1970s (namely Alan J. Pakula's "Parallax View" and Sydney Pollack's "3 Days of the Condor"), however this one neither has the intelligence, nor the nuance to set up a scenario as successfully as "The Winter Soldier" did. Character development is also sidetracked, with most exchanges being superficial ones, indicating very little as to who exactly these characters are, and most of them are supporting ones who are now brought forth from the background in which they always were. Sadly visually this film doesn't really work at all either, it's tremendously flat, with not a semblance of a stylistic choice, from the production design to the cinematography, all of which is shocking, considering the budget this film had. The formidable Harrison Ford can't really save this mess, even if he does try his best to do so. It's a forgettable endeavor, one of those films that you've already forgotten by the time you leave the theater. 

Love Hurts

Movie Name: Love Hurts
Year of Release: 2025
Director: Jonathan Eusebio
Starring: Ke Huy Quan, Ariana DeBose, Mustafa Shakir, Lio Tipton, Daniel Wu, Cam Gigandet, Marshawn Lynch, André Eriksen, Rhys Darby, Sean Astin, Drew Scott, Stephanie Sy, Adam Hurtig, Liam Stewart-Kanigan
Score out of ten (whole numbers only): 2
Watch it on Amazon

Synopsis and Review

"Love Hurts" is the feature directorial debut of Jonathan Eusebio, who up until now has been a second unit director for films such as David Leitch's "Deadpool 2" and Cedric Nicolas-Troyan's "Kate". The film follows the story of Marvin Gable, a well liked and successful realtor in the Milwaukee area. His boss and mentor Cliff, awards him a plaque celebrating his success and achievements. However, Marvin isn't all he's presented himself to be, he's in reality a retired assassin, who used to work for a crime lord, who also happens to be his brother. Marvin walked away from that lifestyle when he decided to help Rose, a lawyer who had been accused of stealing from his brother. Out of his love for her, he lets her escape, and then he himself decided to start a new fresh life. However Rose comes back, as she uncovers she was set up, and her life has been in shambles since she had to go underground. Marvin's brother in the meantime sends a series of killers in his direction, as he suspects Marvin may know the whereabouts of Rose. 

"Love Hurts" could be considered a puzzling feature, were it not for its paltry results. Puzzling because it features two recent multiple award winner performers, both in starring roles, working with material that is clearly beneath what they're capable of doing, in this case Ke Huy Quan and Ariana DeBose (the latter one in particular, has done nothing but mediocre features since her award winning part in "West Side Story" directed by Steven Spielberg). There really isn't much to say about this feature, since it's another one that tries to fit the mold of Chad Stahelski's "John Wick" cross-bred with Michael Davis "Shoot 'Em Up", in a genre that I like to call "Relentless Revenge". The problem with these clones, which includes "Kate", Navot Papushado's "Gunpowder Milkshake", Drew Pearce's "Hotel Artemis", Tanya Wexler's "Jolt", Gareth Evan's "Havoc", and the list goes on, is the fact that they have no discernible point of view. They cannibalize on what other filmmakers have done, and better, and try to make a similar concoction, without realizing if they have the right ingredients to deliver the same type of quality. Invariably the problems don't lie with the quality of the performers, Ke Huy Quan for instance is wonderfully committed as always, and he is always compelling to watch (not so much for Ariana DeBose, who at this time should rethink her taste in material), but in the case of "Love Hurts", the screen story is unoriginal, and its attempts at being "ironic" and "off kilter", feel crudely developed and out of place in the film. It tries to be a lot of things, to deconstruct the genre, to put a "Pulp Fiction" spin on it, but it lacks conviction, insight, and sense of humor. Another detrimental aspect to this film is the low budget, which some filmmakers manage to cleverly hide, but that in this case is always painfully obvious. The production team is uninspired, including a washed out cinematography from Bridger Nielson, and a generic score from Dominic Lewis. It's a bad film, featuring the lovely Ke Huy Quan. Hopefully he has better vehicles ahead of him. 

Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning

Movie Name: Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning
Year of Release: 2025
Director: Christopher McQuarrie
Starring: Tom Cruise, Haley Atwell, Ving Rhames, Simon Pegg, Esai Morales, Pom Klementieff, Henry Czerny, Angela Bassett, Greg Tarzan Davis, Rolf Saxon, Holt McCallany, Janet McTeer, Nick Offerman, Hannah Waddingham, Tramell Tillman, Shea Whigham, Charles Parnell, Mark Gatiss, Lucy Tulugarjuk, Stephen Oyoung 
Score out of ten (whole numbers only): 5
View the Trailer

Synopsis and Review

Following the entertaining and well crafted "Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One", Christopher McQuarrie and Tom Cruise went back to work to complete the events sent in motion by that episode, something that took a considerable amount of time, due to strikes and logistical issues. The film picks up after the prior installment, and finds Ethan Hunt holding the key, the that is critical to defeat the entity (the key unlocks access to a box located in a sunken submarine where the original source code for the entity lies). Hunt is now being hunted, particularly by the American government who is one of the few remaining governments still with control of their nuclear arsenal, as the entity has stolen that control from nearly all other nations who have a nuclear inventory. Hunt manages to persuade the American president to give him time and resources to retrieve the box from the sunken submarine. That task is a complex one, which demands his team find a particular spot in the Arctic to sequester him, in the hopes of reanimating him after such an in-depth dive. However, Gabriel who has since fallen from grace with the entity, has plans of his own, and wants to control the entity, and has successfully stolen a device created by Luther that sways some of the entity's computing prowess. The team has to calculate and be ingenious enough to play with all these variables, in order to avoid a global nuclear meltdown.

The first sentiment I personally got from this episode of "Mission: Impossible", was just how bloated and self congratulatory the film seemed to be. As if the creative team had decided to pat themselves in the back for all the work they've been doing throughout the latest films in the series, and at the same time wink at the audience with a smirk that says: "here's some more acrobatics the likes you've never seen before". They've tried too hard, and pushed excessively, and lost track of what made the prior and more successful films of the series always so fantastic: the ability to be narratively economical, to pay attention to characters, to put a big budget spin on what is essentially a b-movie (or slick tv-show) concept. The impossible mission is still there, the considerable risks for everyone involved are also fairly well illustrated, but this time around it all gets buried under the Ethan Hunt mythology creation show, which sadly sucks out the air from most of the supporting characters (and almost of the whole story itself), who are all left with not much to do, except be part of the Ethan Hunt back up orchestra. This focus on making the stunts larger, flashier, and bigger, also pushes the villainous agent in question to the sides, who also have to play third fiddle to whatever Ethan Hunt is doing onscreen. The creative team looked at all the "knobs" they had available to them on the "creative mixing table", and instead of finessing the narrative, characters, and finding a balance for all the ingredients they had available, cranked up the action set pieces, which as it turns out in this film, go on for an enormous amount of time, including the stunts in the submarine, and the stunts with the airplanes. Is the film ultimately worth watching? Yes, it's watchable, all the actors are solidly cast, and Tom Cruise does try his hardest, but it's an unbalanced feature, and one of the weakest films in the series (the worst one being of course John Woo's "Mission: Impossible 2"). It could have benefited from more editing, adequate character development, and an ambition to do better storytelling (as opposed to be driven by fear of missing out, which is what the film gives off, a faint scent of despair, of irrelevance). The production team is a mixed bag: while the visual effects and stunt work is top notch, the cinematography from Fraser Taggart is underwhelming (cinematographers don't even light scenes anymore, everything just has this "shot on iphone" look), the same going for the score by Max Aruj and Alfie Godfrey (I wish they had brought back Danny Elfman for this episode). Hopefully the talented Christopher McQuarrie learns his lesson from this experience, and focuses more on his next projects with Tom Cruise.

Presence

Movie Name: Presence
Year of Release: 2024
Director: Steven Soderbergh 
Starring: Lucy Liu, Chris Sullivan, Callina Liang, Eddy Maday, West Mulholland, Julia Fox
Score out of ten (whole numbers only): 6
View the Trailer

Synopsis and Review

The ever prolific Steven Soderbergh, who is starting to resemble Woody Allen with a yearly filmic output, tackles with "Presence", a different genre that he has ventured into previously, namely the psychological drama with hints of horror.

The film follows the story of the Payne family, whom we witness going through the process of purchasing a lovely family home, which seems to be haunted (we witness the entity wandering throughout the house as the family visits). The family eventually moves in, and the entity seems to gravitate towards Chloe, the daughter of Rebekah and Chris, who is more sensitive following the death of one of her close friends, Nadia. In the meantime, Rebekah and Chris' relationship is fraught with tension, and Rebekah keeps focusing on Tyler, their son, and disregarding the challenges Chloe is going through. When Chloe mentions the entity, most of the family dismisses her, save for her father. However once the entity makes itself more visible, the family finally has to come to terms with it. In the meantime, Tyler brings one of his friends, Ryan, to visit. Ryan is involved in dealing with drugs, and he and Chloe start a flirtation. However Ryan isn't all he seems to be, and whatever is happening in the house with that entity escalates further. 

One can only commend Steven Soderbergh for his willingness to always experiment with genres, and his constant attempts at pushing the conventions of those same genres. Playing within the rules of the supernatural genre, Soderbergh (working from a script from David Koepp) spins the camera towards the perspective of the entity, giving us in the process a voyeuristic perspective towards the life of the family in the house, and how fractured those relationships are. It's an interesting proposition, but one that feels slight, particularly because the family itself feels underdeveloped, and under-established. Some of their dynamics are crudely defined, but ultimately this family, the interactions and the events captured in the house feel a bit like a mix of Robert Redford's "Ordinary People", Peter Jackson's "The Lovely Bones", and even Sidney J. Furie's "The Entity". Where the film does lose some momentum is actually in giving these characters something more substantial to latch on to, to properly discuss, and make them all feel more authentic and vivid in their representations. As the film takes a darker turn in the third chapter, it almost feels like a detour into what could have been an interesting assessment of what was happening to this family (and its potential disintegration). The introduction of this outsider character ends up deviating the journey Soderbergh had placed us on, and takes the film into more trivial and expected territory. The film is nonetheless an interesting experiment, with a limited dramatic arc, with minimally established characters. The actors manage to portray the characters with conviction, in particular the always underrated Chris Sullivan. The production team is solid, including Soderbergh's cinematography and April Lasky's production design. It's worth watching, even if not entirely memorable. 

Thunderbolts*

Movie Name: Thunderbolts*
Year of Release: 2025
Director: Jake Schreier 
Starring: Florence Pugh, Sebastian Stan, David Harbour, Lewis Pullman, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Wyatt Russell, Hannah John-Kamen, Geraldine Viswanathan, Wendell Pierce, Chris Bauer, Olga Kurylenko, Alexa Swinton, Violet McGraw, Eric Lange, Chiara Stella
Score out of ten (whole numbers only): 6
View the Trailer

Synopsis and Review

Marvel Studios continues their ongoing release schedule, now more modestly paced as a result of the debacle that some of their more recent films have turned out to be (with the exception of the tremendously successful  "Deadpool & Wolverine", which became the biggest R-rated hit of all time - at least thus far). "Thunderbolts*" is also Jake Schreier's third feature, the first in 10 years, following quite a few years working on prestige TV-Shows and mini series (he directed episodes of "Beef", "Minx", and "Skeleton Crew"). The film follows Yelena Belova, who is currently a mercenary working for Valentina Allegra de Fontaine. Her sister, Black Widow, has died, and she feels a void that is starting to consume her. Valentina in the meantime is being impeached, and is eradicating all proof that indicates all illicit wrong-doings she has been banking for quite some time. Yelena, and a few other mercenaries, including John Walker, Ava Starr, and Antonia Dreykov, all find themselves in a similar locale, only to realize they're all the last loose ends Valentina wants to get rid of, and they've all been properly trapped. While at that bunker, they also come across a man named Bob, who has no recollection of how he found himself there, and is only sure of how unremarkable he is. While the group manages to escape that deathtrap, as it turns out, Bob is a man who has been given an experimental drug devised by a group of scientists banked by Valentina, to create a creature better than all the Avengers. And while Bob does uncover some of his newfound abilities, he also does not know how to control them. That's not a problem for Valentina, who immediately sees a way to escape her impeachment and avoid jail time.

"Thunderbolts*" tries very hard not to repeat the errors of past Marvel films, by not relying on TV Shows and continuity of the long saga, to build a sensical narrative, one that is populated with marginally constructed characters, and that actually has an arc for some of those same characters. In this particular case, the film smartly anchors itself on Yelena's journey, illustrating her past trauma, how it inhibits her sense of belonging and also how it cripples her ability to continue to move through life, particularly in her line of business. Where the film falls into the typical trappings of the Marvel formula, is the inability to give any of the supporting characters, something more than just rough sketches of motivation, and for some others, something more than a comedic/jovial/clownish approach to their interactions (which in this case is brought to life by David Harbour). One of the most interesting aspects of this film, and also one of the most frustrating ones, is the introduction of Bob, who is a gray character because of how he evolves, and how much more could have been done with this character. Suffice to say, from a moral and villainous counterpoint to all these anti-heroes, and as lovely as Julia Louis-Dreyfus is, neither her nor her plan, or members of that same plan, are sufficiently morally bankrupt or chillingly sinister (as say, Robert Redford's in "Winter Soldier"), to warrant or capture much attention. What we're left with is a watchable film, populated with a solid cast, decent visual effects, and that's pretty much it. Florence Pugh, Sebastian Stan, David Harbour, and Lewis Pullman all create compelling characters, and the production team is solid yet unremarkable (this is yet another Marvel film that is devoid of much in terms of visual style sadly). It's a watchable endeavor. 

 

Gladiator II

Movie Name: Gladiator II
Year of Release: 2024
Director: Ridley Scott
Starring: Paul Mescal, Pedro Pascal, Denzel Washington, Connie Nielsen, Joseph Quinn, Fred Hechinger, Lior Raz, Derek Jacobi, Peter Mensah, Matt Lucas, Tim McInnerny, Richard McCabe, Alexander Karim, Yuval Gonen, Rory McCann, Yann Gael
Score out of ten (whole numbers only): 5
Watch it on Amazon

Synopsis and Review

The prolific Ridley Scott is back, following the tepidly received (and actually not very good at all), "Napoleon". This time around this film is of course a sequel to one of his biggest commercial and critical hits, "Gladiator", which came out in 2000, and ended up winning the Academy Award for Best Picture (if that even means anything these days, since films like "Coda" and even "Green Book" also won that award). The narrative this time around focuses on Lucius who now goes by the name of Hanno. He's the son of Lucilla, and apparently of Maximums, whom she had a relationship with. Lucilla sent him away as a young boy fearing for his life after Commodus and Maxiumus' deaths. She's now married to a powerful general by the name of Acacius, who treasures her, and who believes in the future of Rome, even if he sees it in danger due to the twin Emperors who are currently in charge. Acacius invades and conquers the kingdom of Numidia where Hanno has been living with his wife. She perishes in battle, and Hanno is intent on revenge. He is taken as a slave, alongside other survivors. Turns out he's able to fight well enough in the arena, killing some vicious baboons, and catching the eye of Macrinus, who promises him an opportunity to get his revenge, if he wins enough fights in Rome. As Acacius and Lucilla conspire, alongside some senators, to restore the Republic, Macrinus suspects Hanno is more than he says he is. As Hanno/Lucius continues to win fights, his profile and popularity grow, however Macrinus has plans of his own, and he slowly sets them in motion by revealing the plot Lucilla and Acacius have devised, which leaves them in a dangerous situation. Hanno/Lucius has to fight Acacius in the arena, much to Lucilla's horror. 

There's plenty of films that have not needed sequels, including Jan De Bont's "Speed 2: Cruise Control" and even Steven Spielberg's "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", and this one can actually be added to that list. "Gladiator" while not a great film per se, is fairly entertaining and a self contained narrative that does not need any offspring. As it turns out, the script for "Gladiator II" feeds off from the events of the first film, to essentially rehash the same plot, but with different characters, who are less convincing and less engaging than the first film. The film is fairly well constructed, since Ridley Scott is a competent film-maker who knows how to devise an environment in which characters exist (he basically knows how to set something up). His biggest issue is always having a well constructed script, one that contains interesting characters who go through an actual arc or journey, characters who are more than a simple cliché or cluster of repetitive storylines we've already seen in many other feature films. "Gladiator II" is sadly not that case: everything that is presented here has already been done, and done better and more convincingly. We don't need to go back to William Wyler's "Ben Hur" or Stanley Kubrick's "Spartacus", we only need to go back to Ridley Scott's own "Gladiator" to notice how this narrative of the embattled hero in pursuit of vengeance and how he overcomes tremendous challenges to vanquish his oppressor has already been finely illustrated. "Gladiator II" sadly misses the point, the urgency, and the conviction to ascend to something truly memorable, even if the supporting cast tries their best to bring these limited characters to life. Connie Nielsen, Pedro Pascal, Denzel Washington, Derek Jacobi, are all wonderful performers, but are given very little to do, while Paul Mescal is sadly miscast in this role (he lacks the versatility to illustrate the hate, despair, and contempt the character needs to exude). As a side note, this whole glorification of actors working out in order to become buff should probably stop. Going to the gym doesn't necessarily make one a better actor: probably makes one healthier, which is a good thing in the long run, but doesn't necessarily bring conviction where it's needed. The production team is solid, particularly the cinematography by John Mathieson, costume design by Janty Yates, and production design by Arthur Max. It's not unwatchable, it's just unnecessary and unmemorable. 

Nightbitch

Movie Name: Nightbitch
Year of Release: 2024
Director: Marielle Heller
Starring: Amy Adams, Scooxt McNairy, Arleigh Snowden, Emmett Snowden, Jessica Harper, Zoe Chao, Mary Holland, Archana Rajan, Ella Thomas, Stacey Swift, Roslyn Gentle, Kerry O'Malley
Score out of ten (whole numbers only): 4
Watch it on Hulu

Synopsis and Review

Writer/director Marielle Heller has followed her two most recent solid endeavors, "Can You Ever Forgive Me" and "A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood", with the adaptation of the novel by Rachel Yoder, "Nightbitch", which was in a way being positioned as a return to form to Amy Adams, which sadly turned out not to be quite the case. The narrative focuses on a woman who has semi-recently become a first time mother. Her child is now two years old, and this person has decided to put a thriving artistic career on hold to be a mother full time. Her husband travels quite frequently, which means that it's always her overseeing the raising of the child. She's been having issues with sleeping, as her son also has unruly sleeping habits and patterns. To add further stress to the situation, she starts noticing unexpected physical changes, including patches of fur on her body, the growth of a tail and even additional nipples. The dogs in the neighborhood also appear more intently on her doorstep, as if lured by the proximity to one of their own. While initially she believes these to be symptoms related to perimenopause, she then has a realization that she's turning into a dog. She has fantasies about becoming one. In the meantime, she also dreams about her childhood in a Mennonite environment, and how that has connections with what she's currently going through (did her mother also go through the same). She starts connecting her young son with dog related activities, including getting him a dog bed, which seems to calm him down, though her husband questions more and more what is happening. These events eventually start wearing down the relationship between the couple.

This is indeed a film that had a ton of potential related to the richness of its subject matter: on one hand it has this whole aspect of body mutation and transformation, very reminiscent of what David Cronenberg did in the 1970s and 1980s (one only has to remember his "The Brood" with Samantha Eggar). It also had the potential of being a satire, something John Waters could easily tackle and give it a dark comedy spin similar to what he did with "Serial Mom" for instance. Instead what we end up having is a film that treats this phase of this woman's life, as an epiphany-type of moment for her, which somehow transforms her into a more authentic version of herself (it runs in the family). And in true Hollywood style, and much like many films do with any character who has an epiphany or a newfound sense of self, everything around them, including close relationships, friends, every day life, suddenly becomes grotesque and monstrous, as if for some reason the fact they feel more connected with their truer sense of self denies everyone else's equal permission of being who they are. Essentially this becomes the typical perspective of: I've had a spiritual epiphany, which means I've moved forward in the leaderboard of life, and everyone who's failed to do the same, is now an abject monstrosity. It's a cliché for so many scripts, and eventually it always land the central character at a junction where they have to decide what do they want to do with their own lives. Similarly that's the path that occurs in this film, but until we get to that point, we witness Amy Adams behaving both sensibly and also as a slightly deranged individual, and even a vicious one to those she's closest with, because she doesn't really want to verbalize what triggers her or her needs. It's a film with good questions, but one that is wrapped in bad character development, and an even worse development of the ballsy premise. When faced with topics such as these, it would be nice to have a point of view that is more visceral, similar to what Coralie Fargeat did with "The Substance". What's left of this is Amy Adams trying very hard to give some nuance to this central character, and if the film manages to be watchable is mostly due to her and her chemistry with Scoot McNairy. The production team is unremarkable, much like this film. Good premise, bad execution. 

Holland

Movie Name: Holland
Year of Release: 2025
Director: Mimi Cave
Starring: Nicole Kidman, Matthew McFayden, Gael Garcia Bernal, Jude Hill, Lennon Parham, Rachel Sennott, Jeff Pope, Isaac Krasner, Bill Russell
Score out of ten (whole numbers only): 2
Watch it on Amazon

Synopsis and Review

"Holland" is a direct to streaming release, courtesy of Amazon. It hails from the directorial vision of Mimi Cave, in her sophomore directorial endeavor, following her well received directorial debut "Fresh" (which premiered on Hulu). The film, which takes place in Holland, Michigan in the the year 2000, follows the story of Nancy, a high school teacher, who's married to Fred and has a 13 year old son by the name of Harry. Nancy suspects Fred has a double life, since he's an optometrist, and yet is always going on trips for conferences and so on. Nancy wants to find out more and ropes in the assistance of Dave, a fellow teacher who has harbored a crush on her since coming to the school. Nancy and Dave develop romantic notions towards each other, which they almost materialize, but something always presents itself which prevents them from consuming their budding affair. Nancy in the meantime realizes that the train model Fred has been building in their home, in reality may represent more than just the idyllic surroundings of where they live. While Dave initially has some qualms about following Fred, Nancy eventually convinces him, which results in Dave following Fred to a lake home, where he discovers that Fred definitely not only has another life, but one that isn't very cookie-cutter. 

This film had a long journey to the screen, since it initially was a project backed and assigned to Naomi Watts and Bryan Cranston, only to eventually find itself under the good fortune of Nicole Kidman, who is also a producer on this feature. One of the biggest issues with this film is the fact that it can't figure out its tone, and can never decide on what it wants to be. On one hand it wrestles with its David Lynch influences, particularly the ones from "Blue Velvet", and on the other hand, it also struggles with the traces of Sam Mendes/Alan Ball's "American Beauty". It's a bit all over the place, and the director can't figure out if it wants the feature to be a dark comedy, or a satire, or a bloody observation on the ennui of living in the middle of nowhere, or a mix of it all. It just can't find its point of view, and even in its blandness it doesn't have the boldness of going all the way in on it: it lacks belief to make the storytelling anything memorable. It doesn't even hold a flame to Noah Hawley's "Fargo" tv series, of which it seems to be trying to borrow some aspects from. Most of the characters don't have much of anything to them, both lead and supporting characters. Nicole Kidman who is typically a stupendous performer feels both wasted and lost in this feature, with her Nancy character lacking something that makes her discernibly authentic (is she fed up with her relationship, is it the infidelity she suspects of that sparks something in her, or the fact that she has interest in another man). Matthew McFayden and Gael Garcia Bernal, are both equally underserved in roles that are rather monotonous and lack any type of momentum. Sadly the film that is so intent on building up the quirkiness of Holland itself, doesn't know how to capture that spirit, unlike what Ethan and Joel Coen did for "Fargo" for instance. There really isn't much to appreciate about this film, that is sadly a waste of time and talent for everyone involved (the only reason I'm giving it a 2, is due to the acting troupe assembled). Avoid.

Havoc

Movie Name: Havoc
Year of Release: 2025
Director: Gareth Evans
Starring: Tom Hardy, Timothy Olyphant, Forest Whitaker, Jessie Mei Li, Justin Cornwell, Quelin Sepulveda, Luis Guzman, Michelle Waterson, Sunny Pang, Jim Caesar, Xelia Mendes-Jones, Richard Harrington, Narges Rashidi
Score out of ten (whole numbers only): 3
Watch it on Netflix

Synopsis and Review

"Havoc" had a long road before hitting the streaming screens in 2025 (the film was shot in 2021, and has been in post production since). It marks the first feature for Gareth Evans' since "The Apostle", which premiered in 2018. The film follows the story of Patrick Walker, a corrupt homicide detective, who gets involved in a new case mercy of a heist gone wrong. Patrick gets summoned by Lawrence Beaumont, a mayoral candidate, who informs him that his son is in trouble, since he was involved in the heist that resulted in one police officer being seriously injured and in the hospital. To make matters more complicated, the heist which aimed to capture a bunch of cocaine, upon its delivery to Tsui, the chief of the local Triad, gets gunned down by a masked gang, with Lawrence's son Charlie, and his girlfriend Mia, barely escaping. As Tsui's mother arrives in town thirsty for revenge, Patrick alongside his rookie partner Ellie, is hunting for leads as to where Charlie may be. As it turns out, Patrick's own colleagues who are also corrupt, are hot on the trail of Charlie, the same going for the Triad, and they will stop at nothing to get their revenge. 

As I was watching this film I was getting flashbacks to very different films and styles, but nonetheless they immediately popped in my mind: Michael Davis' "Shoot' Em Up" and Robert Rodriguez's "Sin City". The reasons being the over the top violence & blood gushing of the former and also the stylized aspect of the whole city and even of the choreography behind the action scenes of the latter. For all of Gareth Evans' talent and vision, is somewhat perplexing he's going back to something he has already explored in the films that brought him attention ("The Raid"), but in a way that is more simplistic, and a lot less interesting, as this time around he has barely created any characters to bring this narrative to life. Patrick and his corrupt police buddies have very little exposition or explanation as to why they have decided to become corrupt, which in itself isn't problematic, if they're given something else to do other than go around shooting people. As is, the film lives in this frame of mind where shooting a ton of people means absolutely nothing, where consequences don't really exist, and apparently neither does gravity most of the times. The film doesn't have any pretensions of being a take on corruption or an indictment on organized crime, but its borderline cartoonish violence, with plenty of exploding gore, lacks any sense of humor, which Michael Davis was so smart to bring on "Shoot' Em Up". For all its simplification, "Shoot' Em Up" understood that over the top violence at some point becomes cartoonish, and only a highly motivated villainous character can ground or bring some ethos to what is happening on screen. "Havoc" sadly has no humor, and its villains (basically everyone) demonstrate very little personality. What's left? Tom Hardy continues to be a compelling performer, even if these days his choice of material is making a disservice to his career and to what was otherwise a series of interesting performances in acclaimed films (remember "Mad Max: Fury Road" and "The Revenant"). The supporting cast is top notch, but they have very little to do, particularly Forest Whitaker and Timothy Olyphant. The production team is solid, particularly Matt Flannery's cinematography and Aria Prayogi's score. It's an unnecessary film that can't really find a strong point of view to hold on to, and these days that's problematic, when so many films don't even see the light of day (meaning, if you have the means and the opportunity, make it count, since it may be your last opportunity to do so).