Jaafar Jackson portrays his uncle in Michael

The film stretches across a significant portion of Michael Jackson’s life, beginning in the modest family home where everything started. We meet him as a child, navigating a world shaped almost entirely by his father, Joseph Jackson, whose methods oscillate between discipline and outright cruelty. From there, the story follows the rise of The Jackson 5, the early success that hinted at something bigger, and eventually the transformation of Michael into a global phenomenon. On paper, it sounds like a familiar arc. In execution, the film chooses to simplify that journey into something much narrower: a story about control, and the long, painful attempt to break free from it.

Before even watching the film, my expectations were already buried somewhere beneath the floor. Not because of the subject, but because of the genre. Biopics about musicians rarely work. And it’s not a coincidence. The problem is structural. Music is not an accessory in these stories—it’s the core. You cannot separate the artist from the work, and yet the work is almost always locked behind legal walls. Rights need to be secured, estates need to approve, and every decision becomes a negotiation. In the case of Michael Jackson, that negotiation becomes even more complicated. The film’s list of producers reads less like a standard production team and more like a family gathering. His estate is involved. His relatives are involved. Even members of the next generation are involved. And when the people being portrayed are also the people approving the portrayal, the boundaries of what can and cannot be said become very clear.

This is where the film reveals its true nature. It is not an exploration of Michael Jackson’s life in its entirety. It is a curated version of that life, built around a central conflict that feels both safe and dramatically convenient: the relationship between Michael and his father. Everything else orbits around that. The music, the fame, the milestones—they are present, but they are not the focus. They function more as transitions than as subjects. The creation of albums like Off the Wall and Thriller, moments that reshaped the music industry, are treated with surprising brevity. The collaboration with Quincy Jones, one of the most important creative partnerships in modern music history, is reduced to passing glimpses. Even iconic performances, the kind that defined generations, appear and disappear before they can fully resonate.

For some viewers, this approach will feel like a missed opportunity. For others, it will feel like a deliberate choice. The truth sits somewhere in between. Because the film isn’t just choosing what to focus on—it’s also choosing what to avoid. And the absence is impossible to ignore. A Michael Jackson biopic that sidesteps the most controversial aspects of his life is not an incomplete film by accident. It is incomplete by design. Reports surrounding the production suggest that earlier versions of the script included material addressing those controversies, only for legal complications to force a complete restructuring. Entire sequences were reportedly removed and replaced, at a significant cost, to reshape the narrative into something more acceptable. What remains is not the original vision, but a revised version—a film that feels, at times, like a carefully executed rescue operation.

And yet, despite all of that, the film works. Not entirely, not perfectly, but enough to surprise. It is far better than it had any right to be. It is coherent, emotionally accessible, and, most importantly, aware of its limitations. There is a softness to it, an almost deliberate gentleness in how it handles its subject. Michael is portrayed not just as a performer, but as something closer to an idealized figure—fragile, misunderstood, and, at times, almost angelic. It’s an interpretation that leans heavily into sympathy, occasionally to the point of exaggeration, but it aligns with the film’s broader strategy: avoid complexity, emphasize emotion.

At the center of all this is Jaafar Jackson, stepping into one of the most intimidating roles imaginable. Casting him is both the film’s safest and riskiest decision. Safe, because the resemblance is undeniable. Risky, because resemblance alone is never enough. From the early promotional material, there was reason to be skeptical. Michael Jackson’s presence was never just about appearance—it was something intangible, something that couldn’t be replicated through technique alone. And yet, as the film progresses, something clicks. It doesn’t happen immediately, but once it does, the performance settles into a convincing rhythm. Part of that success comes from a very specific choice: committing fully to the version of Michael that audiences recognize. The voice, the mannerisms, the emotional tone—it’s all calibrated to match the public image, not necessarily the private reality. It’s not the most daring approach, but it’s the most effective one for this kind of film.

Opposite him, Colman Domingo delivers a performance that carries much of the film’s dramatic weight. His portrayal of Joseph Jackson is intense, imposing, and unapologetically harsh. The film positions him as the central antagonist, the force that shapes and distorts everything around him. It’s a portrayal that leaves little room for nuance, but it serves the narrative the film has chosen to tell. In a story built around conflict, clarity often takes precedence over complexity.

The direction by Antoine Fuqua is another unexpected strength. This is not a director typically associated with restraint, and yet here, restraint becomes his most valuable tool. The pacing is carefully managed, the transitions between musical sequences and dramatic moments are smooth, and the film maintains a consistent rhythm throughout. The musical performances themselves are handled with a level of respect that borders on reverence. They are not attempts to outdo the original moments, but rather to recontextualize them within the narrative. Whether that approach works depends largely on the viewer. For some, it will feel redundant—why watch a recreation when the original is readily available? For others, it will provide a new layer of connection, placing familiar moments within a broader emotional framework.

Ultimately, the experience of watching Michael is shaped less by the film itself and more by what the viewer brings into it. If you approach it as a fan, someone with a deep connection to the music and the legacy, the film offers enough to engage and entertain. If you approach it as a critic, looking for depth, complexity, and honesty, the limitations become more apparent. It is not a film that fully explores its subject. It is a film that carefully navigates around it.

And yet, there is something to be said for what it achieves within those boundaries. It tells a story. A focused, contained, and emotionally coherent story. It avoids the common mistake of trying to cover everything, choosing instead to concentrate on a single thread. In a genre often defined by excess, that restraint is refreshing. It doesn’t elevate the film to greatness, but it does make it work.

In the end, Michael finds itself in a very specific category—a small, often overlooked space reserved for biopics that are simply… good. Not groundbreaking, not definitive, but solid. It delivers enough of what audiences expect while avoiding complete collapse under the weight of its own subject. It is, in many ways, exactly what it needed to be.

The lingering question, however, extends beyond the film itself. What comes next? There is already talk of a sequel, a continuation that would presumably explore the parts of the story this film avoids. But that raises an obvious concern. If the first film was shaped so heavily by restrictions, what would a second film look like? What would it be allowed to say? And more importantly, what would it choose not to say?

Sometimes, stopping at the right moment is the smartest decision. And despite its imperfections, Michael feels like it ends at exactly that point.

The trailer for Superman didn’t reveal much about the story. It was purely about expectation management — teasing a new round in the conflict between Superman and Lex Luthor, showing signs of a divide between Superman and public opinion, hinting at foreign policy entanglements, a romantic thread with Lois Lane, cameos from other metahumans, a monster attack, and yes, a dog. And all of this, in one way or another, is present in the film.

Superman is the launchpad of the new DC Universe — a reset of everything. Films, series, games, animation — all aligned under the new DCU banner, with James Gunn at the creative helm. And his authority here is total. Writer, director, producer, and the new studio head — he is to DC what Kevin Feige is to Marvel, but with even more creative ownership. If I have full control over FilmGamed, Gunn has even more over DC Studios.

So this film isn’t just another Superman story. It’s a statement. It’s meant to define the tone, style, and structure of everything to come. And that’s why the result feels so disorienting — not unfamiliar in an exciting way, but unfamiliar in an identity crisis kind of way. The film feels like the collision of two cinematic histories: one belonging to Superman, and the other to James Gunn. And instead of synergy, what we get is a strange, polarizing mix. You either buy into it from the opening moments and ride along with joy — or you check out early and never reengage. It’s binary. Anyone claiming “I liked some parts and disliked others” is likely trying to avoid alienating either the diehard DC fans or the more serious cinephiles.

Personally? I found it to be exactly that: a film with things I liked, and things I didn’t.

To start with the positive, I genuinely loved the opening. The cold open — dropped right into an active sequence — was one of the best I’ve seen recently. Instead of trying to kick off with high-octane action, it was used to elegantly build world, geography, characters, and history. I also loved how Superman himself was introduced. His backstory, his moral philosophy, his sense of responsibility, his restraint — it was all well-handled, especially his ideological connection to the idea of legacy.

But problems started to emerge with Lex Luthor. Not with the performance — I think Nicholas Hoult did a very solid job. The issue was with the scope of his character and the arenas he operated in. This wasn’t the Lex we know from previous cinematic versions. His range of influence felt exaggerated, his tools barely explained, and his leap into sci-fi absurdity far too sudden. I know this is likely inspired by All-Star Superman, which this film (and others to come) will likely draw from — but if that’s the case, some groundwork would have helped. What we get instead are universal dimensions, alien beings, nanotech transformations, giant monsters, and selfies — and little to no connective tissue explaining how or why he controls any of it.

And while we’re here, can we talk about the people around him? Not just his circle, but the world in general. The civilians, the government, the newsroom staff — particularly the Daily Planet characters — all feel like they’re from a 1970s cartoon. They’re exaggerated to the point of parody. And it’s not just for comedic tone — major plot turns rely on them. The film’s biggest turning point is anchored in characters who don’t seem to be taking anything seriously.

Speaking of comedy, this film tries very hard to be funny. Too hard. And it just doesn’t land. In a packed screening, most of the comedic beats fell completely flat. All I could hear was people whispering explanations about who’s who. And yes, one guy was filming every shot of the movie from the opening message that says the cinema is equipped with magical anti-piracy tech. Even the post-credit scene — especially the second one — left the room in silence. I waited all that time for that?

Now, this isn’t a comedy, so I don’t want to judge it solely on laughs. But the humor was relentless, and it only worked for me when it had a political or social undertone. And on that front, I want to give real credit to the film: its political messaging was clear, intentional, and surprisingly bold. Superman stands with humanity — and very clearly, with the Palestinian people. If you put together all the information shared about Boravia and Jarhanpur, there’s no mistaking the allegory.

I also liked the monkeys. I know many didn’t, but I found their inclusion oddly satisfying.

Emotionally, however, the film left me dry. I didn’t feel anything for most characters. Maybe one early scene with Clark’s adoptive father landed — and by the way, that’s the guy from Identity, for those with sharp memories. But even something as emotionally accessible as Krypto the dog felt misused — just a CGI chaos agent, and occasionally a failed punchline. The CGI, for what it’s worth, was flawless — one of the film’s visual highlights.

On the topic of visuals, Gunn delivered a film with a unique visual identity. It doesn’t look exactly like The Suicide Squad or Guardians of the Galaxy, though maybe the third Guardians film comes close. The action sequences are full of close-ups and rapid shifts in perspective. The film’s use of surreal locations is weird, yes — but generally good. Even familiar sequences, like Superman flying, are treated with irreverence. They reminded me more of Black Adam than anything new — likely a deliberate choice, but one that didn’t quite work comedically.

David Corenswet is a good Superman. The casting worked. But he didn’t get enough moments to truly show what he could bring to the character. Maybe one longer dialogue scene with Lois Lane early on gave him room to breathe, but for the most part, he was “superhero movie good” — nothing more. None of the supporting characters left much of an impression either, though Mr. Terrific was probably the most likable and had more screen time than expected.

Gunn did everything he set out to do. Yet somehow, the Superman we got didn’t feel like the one we were hoping for. Not from Gunn. I expected more reverence to the cinematic legacy — even if that legacy was flawed. I also expected better drama and a far smarter story.

This isn’t a bad movie. But it’s a tough one to ease into. And it’s frustrating to realize that after all the lessons DC was supposed to learn, this reboot learned none of them.

Final Score: 6.5/10

Before diving into the reasons, I want to talk about something that’s become really important to me lately: context of the viewing experience. I watched the film at 8:30 in the morning on its second screening during the Cannes Film Festival, in a seat that wasn’t great, surrounded by a packed, noisy, and frankly uncomfortable setting.

MIF members look like shadows of what they once were

Another piece of context: I watched the film the day after Christopher McQuarrie’s panel which Tom Cruise himself crashed. It was an absolutely fantastic session—fun, insightful, full of energy. It got me incredibly hyped for the movie and sent my expectations through the roof.

Now, if you end up liking the movie—full respect, and if you think my opinion is too negative because I saw the film in less-than-ideal conditions, that’s totally fair and I accept that.

Our the story picks up where the last one left off. The threat of the self-aware AI—The Entity—has grown. It’s now fully evolved and determined to pit nations against one another, pushing the world closer to the edge of total nuclear war. Many powerful forces are trying to control The Entity. Meanwhile, Ethan Hunt and his team are trying to destroy it, putting them at odds with their own government and leading to a direct confrontation with their old nemesis, Gabriel. As always with Ethan Hunt, the mission takes him across a series of impossible tasks

So what went wrong?

Let’s start with the most obvious reason: the film is dumb. Like, genuinely dumb when it comes to decisions and logic. First of all, it abandons many of the signature elements that define the Mission: Impossible series. The Impossible Mission Force, led by Ethan Hunt, used to rely on high-tech gadgets, smart disguises, elaborate masks, and clever twists mid-mission. All of that is barely there—reduced to a shadow of what it once was. The classic “spy intelligence” flair that was the heart of the previous stories? Completely gone.

And let’s talk about the thing that always elevated these movies: the dramatic buildup. I’m not talking about the team preparing physically for a mission. I’m talking about narrative preparation—the build-up that shows us why the mission matters, why it’s impossible, and why there’s no other way out. That storytelling thread has been declining over the past few films, and while it used to be balanced out by strong emotional stakes, even that is missing here.

Sure, there are emotional motives in this one too—but like the last film, they aren’t given time to breathe. Actually, no—this is worse than the last one. And I don’t mean just romantic emotions—I’m talking about emotional stakes tied to friendship and character history.

The film makes what initially seems like a clever decision: it goes all the way back to the beginning of the franchise, reintroducing characters from the first Mission Impossible. On paper, that sounds smart. In practice, it feels almost comical. Not in a good way—just awkward and unnecessary.

As for romantic stakes? They’re basically nonexistent. Ethan Hunt’s emotional and romantic history feels like a storyline that’s been cut off mid-sentence. Even his wife, who’s been referenced since part three, is barely acknowledged here.

The result? What’s left from the Mission Impossible DNA feels like a checklist. “Here’s this element… here’s that one…”—just so no one like me can say they were completely missing. Take comedy for example. One or two scenes had a tiny injection of humor, but that’s it.

And it’s baffling, especially considering Simon Pegg is in the cast! You’d think he’d be the comedic anchor. But no—even Tom Cruise doesn’t seem to want anyone to have a comedic influence other than himself. Even the mask element—usually one of the franchise’s most iconic features—shows up once, quickly, almost like the filmmakers said, “Let’s throw it in so no one complains we didn’t.”

So yeah: the film is dumb, it’s cold, and it’s trying to scam us with nostalgia. Anything else?

Absolutely.

There’s also a heavy dose of political messaging—completely unrealistic and, frankly, quite irritating. Sure, we initially praised the decision to center the plot around an AI threat. It’s timely, relevant, and very much a global conversation. But is that the only thing happening in the world worth talking about? I’m not saying they need to tackle everything—but at the very least, don’t insult our intelligence with the way they handle it. The political war room scenes for the American government were a joke. Some of the dialogue was so absurd, the entire audience in the theater laughed out loud.

Speaking of dialogue—it’s easily one of the film’s weakest points.

Are we done with the negatives? Not yet.

There’s a noticeable lack of variety in the action scenes. The fight sequences are few and far between—and when they do show up, they’re weak. And if my memory serves me correctly (and I hope it does), there wasn’t even a single proper chase scene.

Villain problems? Oh yes.

In the last film, I let it slide. I thought maybe the AI threat could carry the weight of the villain role. But now, we’re back with the same threat and, basically, the same villain—only dumber and more annoying. Remember I said this when you watch the final showdown: it’s laughable.

So why all this effort? Why go through all this?

Simple: to serve one purpose. One thing only.

Tom Cruise’s death-defying stunts.

Let’s be fair now—there are two “impossible mission” sequences in the movie that are absolutely massive and incredibly well-made. Not the best in the series, sure—but on their own, they’re impressive.

What makes them stand out is the obsessive focus on showing that Tom Cruise actually performed these stunts himself. Multiple angles. Long uninterrupted takes. Elaborate set-ups. There’s no way to watch them and not believe what you’re seeing is real. As if it wasn’t enough that he spent half an hour the day before the screening swearing to us he did all of it himself. That obsessive commitment to realism made the sequences long—very long. And as a result, the entire movie feels long. But to be fair: I didn’t feel bored. Not really.

While watching the film, I wasn’t exactly bored—but I have to say, compared to the previous approach used to shoot these kinds of sequences, this one felt less effective. Those older sequences used to generate real tension: you felt the danger, the suspense, the nerves. But here? I felt like I was watching Tom Cruise in a circus act, not Ethan Hunt on an impossible mission.

Let me be clear—technically, the scenes are outstanding. Beautiful cinematography, solid editing, and of course, the stunt work. And yes, Tom Cruise deserves full credit, but frankly, that’s the one area where he truly deserves to be recognized for his performance. But beyond that? Nobody else in the film gave a performance worth remembering. Not his team, not the villain, not the government suits. Honestly, if I try to count the characters, most of their faces probably passed right by you without leaving any impression—aside from the ones you already know.

Let’s be honest: didn’t you feel that the franchise has dimmed? This is the same series that once had Philip Seymour Hoffman… Henry Cavill… Rebecca Ferguson… Jeremy Renner… and so many others going all the way back to part one. How did we go from that to this?

Is it possible that Tom Cruise still thinks he’s enough to carry the whole thing alone? He keeps proving that idea wrong. Even Top Gun: Maverick—the film that reignited his superstardom—wasn’t just him. He had solid names around him, even from a younger generation.

From what I heard in the Christopher McQuarrie session I attended the day before the screening, and then what I saw on screen, I sense that even he is tired of this franchise. Not that it needs to end necessarily, but it definitely needs a shift—new energy, new flavor.

But not by sacrificing the very ingredients that made us fall in love with it in the first place: the spy games, the compelling villains, the strong ensemble cast, the inventive tech, and the impossible tactics. It could’ve benefited from a different kind of flexibility from Tom Cruise—not just the kind that lets him hang off planes or dive into submarines.

Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part Two is, in my view, the weakest film in the entire franchise. Yes—even weaker than Part Two. At least that one, for all its flaws, was still in an experimental phase. It was trying to figure out what this series could become and what its main character stood for. I rate the film at 4 out of 10.

=

The Gorge

The film introduces us to Drasa, a top-tier Lithuanian fighter and sniper, and her American counterpart, Levi, a highly skilled soldier. They are assigned a secret mission that isolates them from the world for an entire year, tasked with guarding a massive trench hidden from humanity for decades. The mission is bound by strict rules, the most crucial being that they are forbidden from communicating with each other.

Naturally, as cinematic tradition dictates, a rule like this is bound to be broken, leading to an unexpected romance that challenges the very foundation of their assignment. The first half of the film does a commendable job of exploring this dynamic. The character development is solid, and the tension between them is well-paced. If given more time to breathe and evolve naturally, this portion of the movie could have been exceptional.

Unfortunately, *The Gorge* stumbles significantly in its second half. As the film shifts its focus to the mystery surrounding the trench and its sci-fi elements, it quickly spirals into a mess of poor storytelling choices and uninspired action sequences. What was initially an engaging romantic sci-fi thriller turns into a nonsensical spectacle filled with cheap visual effects—smoke machines, colored lights, and generic action tropes.

For a director with Derrickson’s background in mystery and horror, this should have been his moment to shine. Instead, the execution feels rushed and uninspired, almost like a children’s story with a few forced jump scares. The intrigue built in the first half is squandered, leaving audiences with more frustration than excitement.

Miles Teller and Anya Taylor-Joy start off strong, bringing depth and emotion to their characters in the film’s early moments. Their chemistry helps sell the premise, making the audience invest in their relationship. However, as the story unravels into chaos, there’s little they can do to salvage the film’s downward spiral. Despite their talent and recent strong film choices, *The Gorge* does little to showcase their abilities beyond the first act.

*The Gorge* had all the ingredients for a compelling sci-fi romance but failed to capitalize on them. The first half holds promise, with an intriguing setup and strong character work. But by the time the film transitions into its grand reveal and action-heavy climax, it loses its way completely.

While *The Gorge* deserves credit for its ambition, its flaws ultimately outweigh its strengths. A great concept and solid performances are let down by poor execution, weak visuals, and a second half that turns an intriguing mystery into a forgettable misfire. For sci-fi and romance fans, this one might still be worth a watch—but don’t expect to be blown away.

My rating for “The Gorge” is 4/10

The sequel is set 17 years after the original film’s events. The Roman Senate and Republic, central to the first film, remain unchanged under the rule of two emperors, Geta and Caracalla, loosely based on historical figures. The film revisits themes of tyranny and rebellion but struggles to justify its existence. Some speculate that the timing of the sequel aligns with contemporary American socio-political parallels, marking the third cinematic attempt this year to draw analogies between ancient Rome’s decline and current global politics, after “Megalopolis” and relatively “Civil War”. However, in the context of Gladiator 2, this approach falls short.

At its core, Gladiator 2 is a revenge story. Lucius, the young boy from the original film, now an adult, fights against his captors after Rome destroys his new home. However, the emotional depth that propelled Maximus’s journey in the first film is notably absent. Scenes meant to evoke empathy—such as Lucius witnessing his wife’s murder—lack emotional buildup and compelling character arcs. While Gladiator had moments of genuine heartache and rage, Gladiator 2 replaces emotional engagement with repetitive gladiatorial combat. Even moments of supposed transformation—such as Lucius’s decision to abandon revenge—feel abrupt and unjustified.

The political undercurrents of Gladiator 2 are underexplored. The film draws loose parallels between ancient Rome’s chaotic leadership and modern-day political turmoil but fails to present these themes cohesively. Sudden shifts in tone and motivations leave the audience questioning the characters’ actions rather than empathizing with them. For instance, the dual emperors, despite their historical significance, are reduced to caricatures. Their ineffectiveness and shallow portrayal detract from the narrative’s gravity.

One of the original Gladiator’s strengths was its innovative depiction of combat and the emotional stakes tied to every battle. While Gladiator 2 excels in choreographed action sequences and grand set designs, it leans too heavily on visuals, neglecting the story. This imbalance disconnects the audience from the characters’ journeys. Additionally, the absence of side characters with meaningful relationships to the protagonist—like Juba in the original film—diminishes the tension during battles. Without stakes tied to secondary characters, the gladiatorial matches feel mechanical rather than thrilling.

The film boasts an impressive cast, including Denzel Washington, Paul Mescal, and Pedro Pascal. Washington delivers one of his most memorable performances in years, but his character lacks the narrative weight to fully shine. His role invites comparison to Littlefinger from Game of Thrones, a manipulative and politically astute character whose arc spanned several seasons. Unlike Littlefinger’s richly layered story, Washington’s character is restricted by the compressed timeline and rushed plot, depriving the audience of a deeper exploration of his motivations and schemes. This is unfortunate, as Washington’s performance hints at a potential masterpiece that could have been, had his character been given more screen time and depth. Meanwhile, Mescal shows potential, particularly in his delivery of stirring speeches, but his role feels underwritten. Pascal, too, is limited by repetitive and predictable material.

Gladiator 2 struggles under the shadow of its predecessor. The sequel mirrors the original’s structure but fails to bring anything new to the table. Its reliance on nostalgia and recycled themes makes it feel more like a pale imitation than a worthy successor. The absence of innovative storytelling and emotional resonance makes the film’s impact fleeting. While the action sequences and production design offer some entertainment, they cannot compensate for the lack of a compelling narrative.

Grade: 6/10

Another key aspect that I admired about the film is its storytelling. The plot is driven by some of the smartest and oldest story elements, reminiscent of the tales our grandparents used to tell us. My late grandmother used to tell me stories based on the same idea as the plot of this film, albeit without any inappropriate content. The classic tale of an evil witch who offers a deal with conditions that, if broken, lead to unforeseen consequences—this is the essence of the story. For instance, in “Cinderella,” she is given a chance to attend the ball and meet the prince, but she must return before midnight. The entire story builds tension around what will happen if this condition is breached.

In “The Substance,” the central character is an actress who was once very famous in her youth but has aged and now only has her fitness show to keep her under the spotlight. The producers of the show, however, begin to rebel against her as they seek a younger, more attractive host who can appeal to the audience more. Amid this, she receives an offer that changes everything: a drug that promises to restore her youth, creating a better version of herself—young, beautiful, and charming, yet still the same person. The only condition is that each version must not take control of the body for more than a week at a time. After that week, there must be a switch.

As expected, with classic story frameworks, we anticipate that this rule will be broken, and we wait to see the consequences unfold. The film explores themes of fame, youth, beauty, public allure, and how these values are measured and manipulated by media and cinema. It questions when a person reaches their peak stardom and when they face being replaced or discarded.

This film doesn’t seem to have a specific message. Instead, it offers a reflective exploration without explicitly telling the audience what to take away. This approach is a characteristic of quality cinema—it presents ideas but leaves interpretation open.

Despite moments of seriousness, the film frequently erupts into humor, juxtaposed with grotesque and shocking elements. The third act, in particular, contains moments that made me close my eyes in anticipation of what would happen next.

This provocativeness is part of the film’s intent, reminiscent of Quentin Tarantino’s use of gore and shock in his films. The objective is to challenge and provoke the viewer, which suits the exploration of what drives the characters to make extreme choices, like the older actress accepting such a harsh deal to reclaim her youth.

Despite its artistic nature and provocative content, the film’s nudity is shocking but not overly explicit in its sexual content. This seems intentional; the filmmakers aren’t trying to provoke desire but rather to evoke thought, disgust, and deep emotion, especially in the final segment where the story comes full circle.

The film’s third act, however, becomes my primary critique. While the story could have concluded more cohesively at certain points, it continues to expand, attempting to address various themes like media consumption and the cycle of fame. It feels as if it drags on unnecessarily, reaching a point where it becomes less focused.

Performances by the lead actress, portrayed by Demi Moore, and her younger counterpart, Margaret Qualley, were strong, though not standout enough to be considered extraordinary. If I had to choose, Demi Moore’s performance was particularly brave as it reflected her career and resonated with the film’s themes.

The movie shines in its screenplay and direction. The scenes showcasing the transformation, the way the drug is administered, and the overall aesthetic are brilliantly executed. Although it’s unlikely to receive significant award recognition due to its provocative nature, it is a film that leaves a lasting impression if one is willing to engage with its bold content.

In conclusion, “Substance” is a thought-provoking film that challenges viewers with its themes and presentation. Despite moments of discomfort, it is an intelligent exploration of fame, youth, and the sacrifices made for beauty. My personal rating for the film is 8.5 out of 10. However, it’s not a film that adheres strictly to logic but rather plays in a surreal space where concepts and perceptions take precedence over rationality.

Wake Up 2024

“Wake Up” details the unfortunate adventure of 6 activists who plan to destroy a huge furniture store for environmental causes while filming the process, only to find themselves in a fight for their lives against a psychotic security guard with unique hunting skills and a large appetite for blood and violence.

With smart utilization of elements we always notice in such huge stores, the cozy furniture store that is built and designed to make everyone feels at home, becomes a perfect death trap. “Wake Up” is like “Home Alone” with horror taking the place of fun at every turn. Actually, to be accurate, witnessing Kevin design his traps and lure our victims into them offers the perfect combo of fun from trying to understand what he has in mind, to imagining the worst that could happen, to the painful moments of anticipation to how each situation will turn out.

The final act of “Wake Up” chooses an artistic direction that is both expressive with a message in mind and nihilistic at the same time. It felt out of tune compared to the rest of the movie but can’t deny that it looked amazing.

“Wake Up” is a fresh addition to horror concepts that emerge from the presumed happiest of places. It is bold but could’ve been bolder. It managed to shock me at points, but at other points what I anticipated was much worse than what actually happened. It’s a challenge to choose to see this film and a let down in the early stages but it gets better as it progresses and rewards the audience for their spirit of adventure.

Joker: Folie a Deux

Events of Joker: Folie a Deux focus on the next phase of Arthur Fleck’s journey after the events of “Joker” that was released in 2019. Fleck is now awaiting trial while being locked up in Arkham hospital. Following his sense of isolation and under the effect of his medicine, he now appears lifeless physically and psychologically. Until one day he meets Harleen Quinzel who shows great admiration towards him and through his relation with her, Fleck finds love, fantasy and music.

Joker: Folie a Deux transcends the definition of an “unnecessary movie” to be an “offensive movie”. Offensive to its genres, offensive to its hero, offensive to the legacy of the first film and offensive to the fan base. In terms of genre, though the film feels so limited in the viewing experience, it’s actually rich in classifications. It’s a comic book movie, it’s a musical, it’s a courtroom drama, it’s a prison drama and it’s a love story. And it’s really difficult to tell in which genre it performs worse. This might be the part that hurts the most and I’m saying that as someone who doesn’t count himself among the fan base of the first film. Couldn’t you at least get one right?

As a comic book movie .. well, it’s not really a comic book movie .. never was. The first movie set itself free from the bounds of the character storylines in the comic books so .. sky is the limit. The second movie feels restricted by its own shackles .. what on earth could’ve forced the screenplay to be so uninspiring?! As a musical, and I’m saying that as someone who doesn’t count himself among the fan base of musicals, it’s not really a musical. Most of the songs are not original. The design of the dancing numbers presented in the fantasies of the two leading characters is so basic. The movie cost 190 million dollars to make and I really didn’t see even half this budget on the screen.

To me, only one dancing number was interesting and only due to the physical performance of Joaquin Phoenix in it. Courtroom drama? .. one interesting testimony .. only because of the performance of the two actors involved in it. Prison drama .. so confusing and lacks any kind of logical progression due to the contradicting angles of the guard character portrayed by Brendand Gleeson. And I’m guessing you already raised an eyebrow when you heard me say “love story” earlier.

The best thing in the movie is of course the performance of Joaquin Phoenix. Which was wasted most of the time displaying what we already know about his abilities and the character in the first part. But every now and then he would showcase a moment of brilliance that might actually be the lifebuoy of the movie. Not to make it a good movie, not even to make it slightly better, but maybe, in a few months .. might make me wanna watch it again. The best character in the film in my opinion is that of Harleen Quinzel. She makes sense, her quest makes sense, her transformations make sense, and yes, among the characters of this film, that makes it an achievement. Gaga’s musical potential is wasted in the confinement of the songs the movie offered. But all in all, I believe this part could’ve been a step forward to Lady Gaga in the world of cinema only if it didn’t exist in this mess.

Wasn’t a fan of any element of the visual experience of the movie, and wasn’t annoyed much either. There’s a surprising and shocking sequence in the third act, that I believe was amazing visually and can be the key thing that cinematography can show for. But I believe it will also be a painful memory because of how poorly the screenplay dealt with its consequences.

I saw Joker: Folie a Deux 5 days ago and it’s among the longest times I’ve ever given a movie to marinate in my mind to try and see what I couldn’t see while watching it. See the point, see the purpose, see how it can be a good film even if I didn’t like it. See how it can have a positive score because I just couldn’t believe I can make a review and give the film a negative score no matter how many problems it had. I liked one dramatic scene with one dialogue. I liked one long sequence with great cinematography and amazing perspective. I liked one song because a good actor danced and acted so well in it .. And that’s it. I rate “Joker: Folie a Deux” at 3.5/10 .. like Arthur Fleck in this film, I fantasize about a world where this movie was never made.

De Niro and DiCaprio star in Martin Scorsese’s historical drama

Killers of the Flower Moon takes place in the early 1920s and is a true story documented in a book of the same title by David Grann. Our events begin with an explanation of the historical background of the characters of our story, who are the Osage community, the indigenous people of the American continent. After a long historical suffering, they were displaced to a barren land in the state of Oklahoma, but ironically, oil was discovered in that land and the members of that community became the richest people in the world. And with this extreme wealth come the envious eyes of the white man. Many infiltrate the peaceful community and begin a two-stage scheme. The first is creating family connections with the wealthy landowners by marrying their daughters, and the second is killing them in order to seize their wealth by inheritance.

The center of our story is Ernest Bukhart, who travels to join his uncle, William King Hale, in the land of the Osage. He also joins the white man’s plan against the wealthy people of the city. He quickly begins to woo Mollie, who has great wealth, and actually succeeds in marrying her while obeying all of his uncle’s instructions until he reaches the second stage of the plan.. Will he keep going forward to kill his wife? And will all these crimes go unpunished?

Our film is a historical epic that is very accurate in conveying what was stated in Grann’s book, with a great focus on the dramatic treatment of the social fabric of the heroes of our story, who are members of the Osage tribe and the greedy and criminal intruders who rise within the events to become its center and the key perspective. We see, in a very creative documentarian technique, how this society was formed, how it reached that level of damned wealth, and the resulting outcome that contradicts the stereotypical appearance of members of an outcast society, some of which reach the level of comedy.

A Quick Discussion the Movie In Arabic starts at 01:41:30

Discussing Killers of the Flower Moon with Maher

Then we move on to the bulk of the film’s events, which lasts for 3 hours and twenty minutes, to enter the home of Mollie’s family and her sisters, who are the main target for William Hale and his minions, and we watch how the chapters of the satanic plan are carried out over the years. It is fascinating to watch Scorsese deal with these historical events and convey them through the human qualities, natures, and decisions of a tangible stage of events and a courtroom for the trial of each character. Under the hand of any other filmmaker, Mollie and her family would turn into fleeting images covered in the dust of history, and the focus shifts to the aspects of the crime: how it occurred, how far it went, and how it was confronted. Problem is .. I can’t decide which one I prefer!

Returning to the book from which the events of the film are based, its full title is Killers of the Flower Moon: The Osage Murders and the Birth of the FBI. It is clear from the title of the book that it balances the importance of historical events of the horror of the crimes committed with the most important outcome that resulted from them, which is the establishment of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. When the film was initially announced, Di Caprio was slated to play Tom White, an FBI agent who arrives to investigate the crimes. However, during the development stages, there was an exchange of roles, and the role of White was assigned to the wonderful actor Jesse Plemons, while Di Caprio chose the role of Bukhart. This was followed by major changes in Eric Roth’s script to make Bukhart the center of events and his perspective they key one for most of them.

The change came to bring the film closer to the Scorsese school, which is always interested in showcasing the corruption of society and studying the process of crime development from serious and humorous angles to the point of arousing admiration in many films. While a short section at the end of such films as The Wolf of Wall Street, Goodfellas, or Casino is devoted to the fall and legal accountability. Which is certainly what the screenplay for Killers of the Flower Moon ended up being.

I never like to rate any movie according to what it should have been in my personal opinion. But in this case, the change is public and, with all my regret, I find myself inclined towards it. The criminals and corrupt people in Scorsese’s films mentioned above were very attractive characters. Overwhelming presence, dazzling intelligence, and exceptional capabilities led to their rapid rise through the ranks of their society until their resounding fall. Our main criminal in the events of Killers of the Flower Moon is not. Ernest Buckhart is a pale character. He does not have any glow or presence, and his stock of moral codes does not allow for creating a conflict with his uncle’s evil intentions, and nothing stands in the way of implementing them at best except his apparent stupidity. Di Caprio’s portrayal of the character is perfect, but I don’t think it was a great investment spending the duration of the movie with him. Many of his scenes were redundant, and the only thing that raised their importance in my personal estimation was the dynamism and attractiveness accompanying the appearance of the King Hill character, especially with the portrayal of De Niro in what I consider to be his best appearance since Heat in 1995, and I mean it.

In this case, I find myself forced to agree that the duration of the film is too long. I reaffirm that studying juvenile society and respecting its historical and geographical dimensions is a cinematic achievement that brought us back to the golden times of cinema and can’t be compared to anything we have seen recently, not even from Scorsese himself. But I believe that the platform he built promised more and better in terms of rhythm and intensity of events, as it seemed to us for a long time that we were facing a systematic and widespread violation that can only be stopped by a miracle, and after it had gone on for more than I could bear, I almost wished that this miracle would never happen because this means that the events will continue for a longer period of time, which personally made me feel ashamed because I never thought I would make this confession in front of a Scorsese film.

In the end, I have to admit that it’s very difficult to answer the easiest of questions, which I always receive after watching any movie; Is Killers of the Flower Moon worth watching at the cinema? The first hour of events is definitely worth watching and enjoying in front of the largest screen possible. It is the richest visually and the most active in terms of rhythm. The rest of the film bears the stamps of dramatic creativity that are perfectly suitable for viewing at home with the film available on Apple TV+ platform. I think the most appropriate rating for the film is 8 out of 10, but this rating is not enough to express my frustration at its wasted opportunities. So I’m well settled at 7.5 out of 10.

House of Gucci

Patrizia and Maurizio and the story of love and murder

House of Gucci tells the story of a key period in the history of the Gucci fashion house by focusing on “Patrizia Reggiani”. Who sets her eyes on Maurizio the heir of 50% of the Gucci empire and manages to marry him. Then pushes him hard through the years to take his place on top of the family business, never shying away from actively scheming against other members of the family. A long journey filled with hopes, dreams, lies, deceit and eventually much worse things.

The element of peculiarity, or let’s call it the untraditional treatment, in the way the film feels is definitely intentional. The film didn’t make a mistake, it only took a risk. Which is understandable putting into consideration that it’s a real story and almost everybody knows how it’s going to end. It is always a great thing when a veteran filmmaker shows the courage to take risks with projects but it is also a good occasion to remind ourselves that risks can misfire.

Among the various areas where our movie failed, the most disappointing department is the screenplay. How long our running time is versus how little we explored everything that matters. Every angle of our story stole time from the other angles and never reached maturity. The key story of the relationship between our two leads felt rushed. Patrizia and Maurizio went through a lot together and their emotions towards each other seriously shifted. While our film presented so little to justify those shifts or study how each of them truly felt towards the other in critical moments and it didn’t really come in favour of other sides of our story.

Our story takes place in the core of the world of fashion. We’re talking about Gucci through the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s, and the transition of the gigantic fashion house plays the most important role in the shifts in the nature of relationships between the members of the house of Gucci. That is also poorly explored. It’s a movie about fashion with so little fashion in it. I heard a lot of lines explaining the philosophy of the Gucci products, the fact that it wouldn’t evolve and the so many other brands that managed to adapt and surpass it, but I just didn’t see it. Wouldn’t it be weird if a movie with the word “Gucci” in its title fails to land a nomination in costume design?!

What really works in “House of Gucci” is the study of “Patrizia” in the opening chapters. Offering the profile of an ordinary girl whose eyes shine at the rise of an opportunity. Playing the long game, knowing how to sleep on the winning ticket and when exactly to cash it. You see that in the design of her encounters with her love interest and other members of his family. Nothing is ever said about her except in the confrontation between Maurizio and his father and at this point, quite honestly, I’d seen much from her to suggest that they both could be right and without any contradictions in the performance of Lady Gaga. It was the finest display of her quality performance. The same could not be said about the second half though when all we could see is just reasons to hate her and suggest that she’s not really that smart or even in control of her own tools.

Adam Driver is great. He even managed to make the American English with the Italian accent not sound so weird .. and it was generally speaking weird and silly. Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons are also great. Jared Leto is just weird .. and slow. The worst moments for the entire cast, with the exception of Pacino, is when they had to share the screen with him. He would take so long to convey emotions and speak so slow, it seemed they didn’t know what to do meanwhile.

The epic story of the Gucci fashion house with the Patrizia/Maurizio drama in the middle of it is a challenging project. It’s tricky but it’s also rich. In the hands of Scott, that cast and everybody involved in the project I expected to see a triumph. I don’t believe it was facing a deadline so it can end up being half cooked. “House of Gucci” reminds me a lot of Ashton Kutcher’s Jobs. A movie you can’t call bad but can’t perceive as worthy.

Hugh Jackman in Trapped into his Own Memories in Reminiscence

Events of “Reminiscence” take place in the near future. Climate change has caused the seas to rise and flood Miami where war veteran “Nick Bannister” lives and runs a small business. Operating a machine that allows people to relive their memories. Until one day he falls for one of his clients, Mae, and when she walks out on him, he becomes trapped in his memories with her. Determined to discover why she left him and where she went. Even if his investigation takes him for confrontations with the ugliest sides of the city.

The first half of “Reminiscence” is slower than me making a review of any film and you just can’t imagine how slow I can be. I’ve seen it myself with my fellow audiences in the cinema. Yawns, eyes growing heavy, hands becoming too weak to hold the bucket of pop-corn. Guys, I know some movies are slow by design, and noir films are usually slow during the build up. However, there’s slow, and there’s too slow .. and there’s too slow it made people in the cinema snore.

I think I understand the reason for this decision about the pace. I think it was a distraction technique. Loads of clues to our mystery are presented in the first half, and by going too slow and too focused on the romance, the film might’ve hoped people won’t pay enough attention. It’s a risky move because I’ve seen people crossing the boundaries of not paying attention into losing total interest. Especially that you didn’t give us anything to actually enjoy meanwhile. What was there to enjoy in the first half is mainly the performance of Rebecca Ferguson and nothing else. In the second half things become different .. relatively. Pace wise we don’t go racing, we are still slow, but at least things are happening and brains are working.

We’re thinking with Nick and trying to beat him to the answer. We got two action sequences that were simply amazing. One of them was visually astonishing. We start perceiving our story in the broader sense. The sense of the community and how it’s shaped in the new cruel world. Our mystery is not so difficult to solve .. wasn’t so hard either. Also, the image of the community was not too deep to perceive .. wasn’t too shallow either. The second half of the film only works as an achievement when we look at our own achievement when we crossed safely into it.

Several creative choices that the film embraced ended up misfiring. Besides using the pace as a distraction technique to serve the mystery element. The first annoying thing that comes to mind during the watching experience is the narration. Again, a tool frequently used in neo-noir movies to upscale tension. Giving the audience a feel of how personal things are becoming for our investigator, and helping the audience realize the emotions overflowing him. In “Reminiscence” I would say the chapters of our story took proper care of that. We know what he found with “Mae” and we know what he’s missing. We know the pain he suffers from and we know how hard his history has been.

All the time we wasted in narration could’ve been put to better use. Like maybe misleading the audience a bit? No element comes on the screen and goes unused. Giving us all the pieces of the puzzle and probably in the exact order they should be used. Can’t say that the narration had an effect on the performance of Hugh Jackman .. Neither negatively nor positively. His character was well designed in all cases and his performance was alright I guess .. Not much of it was memorable. Except maybe for 1 key scene towards the end. Hands down the best scene of the whole film. Where our mystery mostly comes to an end. In a moment of blend between all the elements of the story and cinematic tools being used to achieve maximum emotional effect on the audience .. The ones that remained I mean. The star of the scene, however, is definitely Rebecca Ferguson.

The performance of Rebecca Ferguson is what you’d really walk out of the film remembering. She’s playing the femme fatale, also a common component in neo noir films. All the complications lie in this character and again it was very well designed. She doesn’t have the privilege of narration so we depend fully on her performance to try and read her character, and she totally delivered. Generally speaking Ferguson is the actress that keeps moving forward, even if the film she’s in is dragging everybody else backwards.

“Reminiscence” is an alright film but a challenging viewing experience. It’s not fun for the most part and when it rewards the audience for their patience it doesn’t feel very generous. I guess it’s a positive thing that we have an attempt at bringing neo-noir back and it tries to blend the classic components with more modern themes that should connect easier with the audience .. But I’m sorry to say the whole thing doesn’t really work.

Evangeline Lilly Plays a Mother Who Suffers A Great Loss In “Crisis”

“Crisis” tracks 3 strangers over the course of a few days when their lives are rocked hard when they cross paths with opioid. A mother who suffers a great loss, a scientist who has his morals violently tested and a cop who seeks personal and professional redemption. Through our 3 stories, “Crisis” draws a full picture of how opioid threatens our lives. How it became so easily accessible and how ferociously protected, sometimes by the same bodies we depend on to keep us safe from it.

Our stories rarely ever meet but it’s easy for the audience to link all the angles together. I never felt like I was watching 3 short films in one full length feature. The timing of switching from one story to the other was the key to perceiving the whole film as one solid fabric. It had the drama at the top of its priorities and kept the pace of all the stories consistent. I couldn’t help but feel for the characters and relate to their ordeals and I think that was the philosophy that Nicholas Jarecki intended in order to serve the purpose of raising awareness to the crisis. Not just by informing the audience of all its angles, but to make it easy for them to imagine their lives affected by it.

Great casting choices also helped supply the needed depth to the characters and their stories. Although the particular casting of Armie Hammer backfired by his own personal PR crisis and affected the film marketing negatively. It’s only fair to say though that he did just as good of a job as the two other leads of the two other stories; Gary Oldman and Evangeline Lilly.

The element that worked against the influence of each story independently is how similar they were to other works of drama that tackled the exact angles with greater depth and more generous durations. For example, I couldn’t chase away the similarity of the storyline of Dr. Tyrone Brower, portrayed by Gary Oldman, to that of Michael Mann’s “The Insider”, and of course the comparison cannot work in favour of “Crisis”. Typical similarities can be found between the two other sub stories and other influential films as well.

“Crisis” is an important and good film. It balances its purpose and identity very well. At the end of the day, if I walked out of it with the amount of knowledge and awareness that I learnt, then it was a time well spent .. and I didn’t walk out with just that.

David Harbour Makes Every Scene He’s In A Little Better

“Black Widow” Tells the story of what Natasha Romanoff was busy with between the events of “Civil War” and “Infinity War”. After successfully escaping from Thaddeus Ross she heads to Norway, where contact is established between her and Yelena Belova, who was raised with her and trained with her in the Soviet project for preparing Black Widows; The Red Room. Belova needs Romanoff’s help to destroy The Red Room and free all the Black Widows, which requires a confrontation with the leader of the program General Dreykov and his deadly weapon represented in the mysterious assassin; Taskmaster but, more importantly, it will require a confrontation with the past of Romanoff, Belova and the family in which they were raised.

Our team performed well. They made the best product possible from the leftovers of the Marvel stories ingredients. A villain that is more like all the villains that Captain America ever faced. A threatening super soldier that is more or less like The Winter Soldier or Ghost. A substance that gives a leverage to the side that has it like .. any substance that ever appeared in any Marvel film. We also have some twists and turns that are directly borrowed from “Captain America and The Winter Soldier”.

Our story has nothing that we haven’t seen before. It is only injected by diversified action sequences whenever called or uncalled for. Seriously, one of the best fight confrontations of the film didn’t have a single reason to even happen! But to be honest, the action was cool. Real effort was invested in designing them and making sure no two action scenes look the same. Stunt team did a great job with some advanced and mind blowing sequences. Stars of the film did nothing other than look sexy or funny in combat suits, but that’s the Marvel formula anyway. Nicely filmed, nicely edited. The final confrontation maybe took exaggeration a bit too far .. as far “The Fast and the Furious” honestly. This may be the only negative side of the action experience and that’s why it remains one of the best aspects of the film along with, like I said, the players in the field.

Very few of the characters of the film are ones that we’ve seen before and the key character is the one we know we shouldn’t see again. The formula had everything in it though. A hero with a rich story and a long history. A partner in this history with equal richness and a promising future in our universe. A mystery figure with continuous doubt in intentions. The comic relief with humorous and loveable presence, and sufficient complications between everyone.

I believe it will be hard to argue with the fact that the best character of the film is Alexei Shostakov or Red Guardian portrayed by David Harbour. One of those occurrences where you cannot imagine anybody else ever playing the character. Fresh type of comedy that jumps out of nowhere but never feels out of place and although the character is supposed to be a super soldier, his key dramatic input is kindness. In a film that is mostly colourless, David Harbour stands out as an undeniable shade of red.

Florence Pugh is great in the film and great as an addition to the future of the Marvel plans. She brings freshness to the label of Black Widow with some humour and warmth in the character history. As opposed to the relative coldness in which our beloved Black Widow was presented. We have a history with Scarlett Johansson in the character. We’ve seen her transform and grow from a side character that no one knew why she should matter, to a key character that shocked us when it was time for her to leave. I don’t think the Black Widow film was the best goodbye she could’ve had, but at least she had one and she did the best with the opportunity.

The story of Black Widow is not fun, and not good. The villain is poor and lacks charisma. The threat is not strong and not interesting. Our action makes the chapters of the film tolerable, and the formula of our protagonist side evened up the overall watching experience. Cate Shortland, the film director, comes from the literature and artistic side of movie making. So I don’t think she had much to account for in the action and, being in a Marvel film, I don’t trust she had a say in the story as a whole. However, she did make the drama better and did help the emotions feel real. I believe that is sufficient to call her experience a success.

Dianne Wiest is Rosamund Pike’s worst mistake in “I Care a Lot”

Our story starts with Marla Grayson, who runs a con that begins with clinics tipping her on the profiles of certain old patients who appear to have little complications in their lives, as well as valuable possessions. Marla then manages to get a court order forcing herself as their caretaker and legal guardian, and that’s when she suddenly appears at their doorstep and accompanies them to a senior citizens care facility. She strips them off any means for contacting the outside world and starts liquidating their belongings to her own benefit. The elaborate scam allowed Marla to build a successful business, until one day she goes after the wrong target; Jennifer Peterson, who has connections to powerful and dangerous people with every intention to liberate her from Marla’s grip.

The early stages of “I Care a Lot” are the best. The exploration of Marla’s horrifying business plan and the explanation of the different sides that allow it to go on and grow. A phase that was mostly light in mood though that didn’t take anything from how shocked I felt watching it. It’s one thing to imagine being a victim to such a scam and a whole different thing to realise that it’s all legal and takes place in broad daylight. The opening chapter reminded me of the best films that ever discussed serious issues caused by serious holes in the system. However, very early on, our story took a turn that I’m not a big fan of.

Our story put the issue at hand to rest and focused on a small story. The story of the wrong woman being targeted and the gangster who’s now after Marla’s neck. A story heading in a direction that I don’t like can toss a film outside my list of favourites but I would never deny that it’s a good film if the story it embraced is good, which is certainly not the case here. Our little story is not good .. it is rather flawed.

My biggest problem with “I Care a Lot” is that it doesn’t have a protagonist. I would never root for either of the two sides whose conflict is what the film focuses on for the most part. Who can I possibly lean towards? Marla or Roman? The con artist that imprisons old people, forbids them from seeing their loved ones, steals their belongings and leaves them to die? Or the human trafficker? I didn’t invent any of those descriptions, it’s all in the exposition of the characters, the film made sure we understand that!

When I say the film lacks a protagonist, I’m not referring to a “Robin Hood”! Many good films were about the conflict among mostly negative characters but we always had a quality that makes us feel for one character and hope he would win. In “I Care a Lot” whenever a character, who is not an inmate in Marla’s prison, was in danger, I would find myself hoping that he/she would die in the worst of ways.

Let’s imagine that there was indeed a factor that I totally missed, that would transform any of our characters into the lamest possible form of protagonists, would that make “I Care a Lot” a good film? Definitely not! Our various chapters and stages were unreasonably convenient. The mob boss, the criminal mastermind with unlimited resources, could only make stupid plans. Though he did demonstrate his ability to come up with good plans. Ones that are simple and effective. However when he’s up against Marla, his plans are always complicated with growing chances of failure in order to help the film to keep going. That of course was not the case with the other side.

Even when reaching outside her acceptable scope of skills and expertise, Marla is always a winner. I mean, I can buy her triumphs in legal battles and even in mind games, but in physical confrontations as well? .. Come on!!

Most of the time, the film committed to the light spirit. Which was a good decision that didn’t compromise the seriousness of the case at hand and further supported the dark comedic quality of the events. And a dark comedy is the best way to describe the film. One with effective dramatic intermissions and acceptable action breaks pushing the development of the eternal struggle between David and Goliath.. that’s if David was a bloodsucker of helpless old people. Probably the only thing that kept me going with the film is the charismatic nature of the acting talents that starred in the film.

Rosamund Pike is finally back in the form of “Gone Girl”, where she played a murdering monster but with reasons to cheer for. She offered the full profile of how a character like that can be formed and can stand in the face of real danger to keep her way of life. That was not something her character said, it’s all her performance. Pike has an amazing solo performance for a long sequence that was all about her character. It was difficult, physical and complicated but it was also very well directed although it reminded me a lot with another sequence in “Kill Bill”.

I don’t have much to say about Peter Dinklage’s performance but he will always be a welcomed addition to anything he appears in. Best performance in the film, in my opinion, though has to be that of Dianne Wiest, and the way she sold the transformation from being just another victim to an intimidating figure. The performances in “I Care a Lot” deserved a better film.

“I Care a Lot” told a story about a dangerous issue in a manner that is not good and rather cowardly. It sympathized with authorities and acquitted the judge and the police by simply labeling them with ignorance and stupidity. What could’ve saved the film were the acting performances if only I didn’t want all the characters to die in the first 15 minutes. I can only treat some movies like football matches, if I can’t find a side to cheer for, then I just can’t enjoy.

Ahmed Amin plays the iconic Dr. Refaat Ismail

Paranormal tells the story of Dr. Refaat Ismail and his descent into the world of the paranormal. Dr. Refaat is a 40 years old Hematologist and college professor. His life spirals into huge chaos when he receives two visits. One from his old love interest Magy, which disrupts his quiet and rather boring life, and the second from an old childhood friend, who belongs in the world of the paranormal. This latter visit quickly turns into a nightmare when serious danger starts threatening the ones close to him, and just like that our hero finds himself in the face of difficult choices on all fronts.

This is a very difficult series and carries a huge load of responsibilities. First Egyptian Netflix original. The long hoped for adaptation of the iconic work of the late Dr. Ahmed Khaled Tawfik. A horror production with precedents that were rarely good in Egyptian productions. The emergence of an unlikely casting choice for the lead drifting away from comedy for the very first time, and those are the obvious ones. We also have the first Egyptian adoption of the foreign methodology in series production by having a show creator and several directors and writers for the episodes. We have the fact that our events take place in the late 60’s adding loads of challenges in artistic and technical choices. So how did the series manage its way through all those challenges and responsibilities?

The way I see it, Paranormal was constructed on 3 pillars; The horror, the adventure and the drama. The horror borrowed a lot from techniques we’ve seen in foreign cinema, but added a twist of making the actual stories based on Egyptian culture and folklore. Horror was effective and the creepy moments worked very well, especially in the early and the late episodes. There were some dependencies on jump scares and they were the least effective, but it wasn’t a heavy dependency anyways.

The adventure layer on the other hand was well diversified. There were no signs of laziness especially when we put the time period complications into consideration, and it offered the right platform for horror to also be diversified. Both the horror and the adventure layers invested heavily in the utilization of production design and art direction, with several elements looking more like models rather than real life elements in the earlier episode. Those elements evolved into arguably the star of the show in the last episodes. There was heavy investment into VFX as well as sound effects. Can’t say I was generally impressed by VFX especially in episode 3. I’m sure there was practical use for it throughout the show and I’m sure it was great since I didn’t notice it. However with elements of Paranormal qualities, it wasn’t that great. The overall sound experience was perfect. Be it the sound effects or the score which had a unique personality and great influence on maximizing the effect of horror scenes as well as important dramatic moments.

The dramatic layer had in its center a love triangle of unique nature. Mainly because of its most important side being Dr. Refaat with his overall unimpressive personality and looks. The side of Howaida had its own complications which were well reflected by Ayah Samaha, and on the point of complications, Magy, which was also very well portrayed by Razane Jammal, had her share. Especially the complications of language and accent.

Our drama was richer than just the love triangle, with various relationships between our key characters and supporting characters, and supporting characters among each other. My problem with those relations is that they were downplayed and sometimes completely ignored. Until they had to erupt into conclusion and demand our utmost attention and immersion and of course that didn’t always work. Generally speaking, it’s great to enjoy that much attention to the dramatic layers and it’s also great to have this cast, which didn’t have any huge names in it put together.

I would say that the greatest measure of success for an actor in a role is to be unable to imagine anybody else in it. I think Ahmed Amin succeeded in achieving that with Dr. Refaat Ismail. Of course I didn’t have an image for the character in mind. The image from the books and how much Amin managed to fulfill it is a judgment to be made by the loyal readers themselves. However that particular peculiar hero, in that peculiar age, with that peculiar look, with that large number of negative and annoying traits, with his gradual descent into self doubt, in a journey filled with rage, horror and confusion .. I really can’t imagine anybody else playing him.

Paranormal was very good entertainment and lots of fun to watch. It had enormous challenges and it performed with varying degrees of success. Seems to me like better could’ve been done in some areas, mostly VFX and the secondary layers of drama, but all in all, I’m satisfied. Considering that this is an Egyptian show after-all .. and hoping to see further seasons of the story.

Dominique Fishback shines in her role as Robin in Project Power

Our events take place in New Orleans over the course of one day and one night. Word begins to spread about a mysterious new pill that unlocks superpowers unique to each person. The catch is that you don’t know what will happen until you take it. While some develop real superpowers for 5 minutes, others face destructive changes. When crime escalates in the city with the spread of the pill, an unlikely team is formed to fight it. Consisting of Frank, the local cop, and a teenage dealer called Robin. In addition to Art who is believed to be a competitor for control over the market of the pill, but might have another agenda.

From the early moments you sense the film follows a unique directorial philosophy. One that is visually messy and reflects the truth of the environment. Pace is fast and characters’ connections are built through events, no introductions. There’s a musical identity to each sequence separating it and marking its start and end. Can’t say that I was a fan of it but I respect the approach and what it takes to establish it. On the story level, the idea is fresh and there’s a lot of wait for and discover. Anticipation is built before seeing the powers in action for the first time. We can’t tell what it will be like and what it will do to our characters. The first encounter is great in all terms and adds further complications and unique layers to the concept of superpowers in the scope of the story. I can say that the film gets to half point with little problems and lots of good things both artistically and dramatically.

Most important dramatic achievement in my opinion is the formation of the characters. It gave us two important characters in separate quests that are destined to clash, and the most important character of the film exactly in the middle. That’s Robin, played by Dominique Fishback, and she is hands down the most interesting character in the film and certainly the most interesting performance as well. Combining innocence with street smarts and unique rapping performances. Developing chemistry and harmony on each scene with the film’s stars.

So everything was going fairly fine until the second half kicked off. That’s when the whole scope of the screenplay is materialized and you find out that it really had nothing in it other than a good idea and interesting characters. This is the first full feature screenplay for Mattson Tomlin who co-wrote the screenplay of the most anticipated “The Batman”. Tomlin might turn out to be a great screenwriter but I really look at this screenplay and I think .. What’s so unique about it?! What is so special to attract two large names, a production decision and a spot on Netflix. The idea? Well the idea is great, but I hear high concept ideas like this from aspiring writers all the time and I always think, this can’t be enough to make a good screenplay, let alone a good film. Without attractive dramatic layers, a worthy struggle on both sides of our conflict, a solid structure of chapters, and awareness to balance concept with application .. then anybody can be a writer. That’s exactly what the second part of the film proves to be lacking.

Our heroes take up with the whole story, the villains appear to be just an idea. A unique idea that is actually interesting too but with no build up to a real threat that can help us in anticipating the concluding chapters. The conclusion of the quests of our heroes proves to be childish. The ending chapters were predictable and heavily reliant on elements of action and fantasy, and this is where the film suffers the most, because it doesn’t seem like a lot of budget was allocated to exhibit the superpowers of the various characters. Early on, when we had to witness it on 1 or 2 characters transformations it was very good. Later on when it became the dominant element, it appeared to be flawed. Shots were not clear, unpractical angles were used to avoid scrutiny. They even went as far as using a real person with real abilities such as bending one’s joints in weird angles then just adding one super poor CGI touch effect to conclude the super power.

It’s important when we criticize a factor such as the depiction of superpowers that we don’t deny how difficult it is or discount the amount of effort it took to get it to where it is. Directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman actually took a classic approach in filming those sequences and in exhibiting those powers. Minimal CGI was used. Rodrigo Santoro who played “Biggie” in the film had to sit on the makeup chair for 9 hours with artist Mike Marino to be transformed into his pill transformed self and film what I believe was less than a minute of screen time that I initially thought was entirely the work of computer graphics. However, it will be totally unfair to those who did it right if we say that the work on Project Power was as good as theirs.

What helps the film survive its second chapter is only the charismatic presence of its leads and especially, again, Dominique Fishback. Don’t get me wrong, Joseph Gordon Levitt and Jaimie Foxx are very good in the film and they didn’t feel like treating it lightly or anything. I meant this as a compliment but I know it came out looking like a criticism.

Project Power was entertaining to a large extent during the first half but became difficult to endure in the second. It is built on a unique and interesting concept, but a concept is never enough to give a good film, even if supported by great talents and decent vision in execution. Even if it takes the hard path of avoiding CGI to grant a real look. I would personally take good CGI over mediocre usage of makeup.

Samuel L. Jackson and Anthony Mackie Star in “The Banker”

“The Banker” tells the story of entrepreneur Bernard Garret, portrayed by Anothony Mackie, who in the 1960’s formed a partnership with Joe Morris, delightfully played by Samuel L. Jackson, to build a successful business in real estate. To overcome barriers of racism, they picked Matt Steiner to act like their business front only because he is a white man. The success of the duo encouraged them to go into the banking business in order to give the black community a fair chance in boosting their businesses and making a better life. That’s when their peculiar business arrangement is put to the real test.

You look at a film like “The Banker” from the outside and you think I can probably guess it all. It seems like another story about the struggles against racial discrimination only taking business entrepreneuship as the arena where the events take place. The film is in fact much more than that. It’s fresher and richer. It builds an increasingly interesting story over various pillars and with the element it borrows from each pillar it becomes truly unpredictable to anyone who’s not familiar with the real story.

First of course we have the angle of racism acting like a key driver for most of the transformations and escalations in our story. I can’t say that this was too fresh or different but at least we didn’t attribute everything to it. Because we also have a key character mainly driven by his desire to succeed and get rich. The story of the rise of Garret takes center stage in the design of his own motives and develops maturely throughout the entire film. Then we have our own drama where the character of Matt Steiner, played by Nicolas Hoult, offers both lightness and a great deal of complication. What starts as a humorous, Pygmalion style, transformation of a working class individual into a walking and talking businessman turns quickly into a lot more. Finally, as if all of that wasn’t enough, we have a reasonable amount of screentime dedicated to offering the audience with a clear look into the ins and outs of real estate and banking businesses. At least the parts that matter to us anyways.

What I appreciated the most is that the film never felt convoluted or messy. Maybe a little hasty at important points where a lot more could’ve been explored in our key characters, especially that of Morris. Yet, the overall sense of pace felt balanced and deliberately choosing not to get too comic or extremely dramatic.

Technically the film is also balanced with no major achievements in conveying the time period of the events. It covers what’s required but can’t say I came out with anything memorable from the visual experience. I’d say what captured the most of my attention is the performance of Mackie, who I think I’ll be taking more seriously moving forward. I also, as always, enjoyed the company of Samuel L. Jackson a lot. Nicolas Hoult also delivers a noteworthy performance for the character that represents most of the surprises and unpredictable turns throughout the film.

I would say that “The Banker” deserved more attention and much more appreciation, and if it is to be considered as a true representation to what Apple TV+ is planning in terms of films, then count me in.

A Stellar Cast Star in Rian Johnson’s “Knives Out”

Events of Knives Out revolve around the mystery of the death of Wealthy crime novelist Harlan Thrombey, who was discovered with his throat slit in his mansion on the following morning of his 85th birthday party, to which he had invited all members of his family. The murder is, at first, believed to be a suicide, but private detective Benoit Blanc soon arrives explaining that he was hired by an anonymous figure to investigate the incident. As soon as the investigations begin, a lot of reasons begin to emerge that this might be a murder.

Our film utilizes the crime as a driver for drama and emotions, yet without totally neglecting or over simplifying it. We still have all the twists and turns that you would expect in a story like this. In fact the film is too smart with the crime investigation element that it keeps changing the core question. We start by asking “who has done it?”, but at various stages the key question shifts to “how?” And “why?”. As a matter of fact at certain points the entire concept of the crime changes. This worked great in hiding how some proceedings of our riddle might be a bit too convenient. In my mind this is the only problem with the film.

By shifting the question, or the center of attention, we get further complications in the relationships and bigger chances to move the spotlight from one character to the other, offering our cast of stars to actually perform and showcase their talent. Once again, unlike Murder on the Orient Express, this film has a central character and it’s not the detective. It’s Marta Cabrera the nurse who was portrayed by Ana De Armas. I first saw De Armas in Blade Runner 2049 and back then she seemed to be headed towards great things and she offers further proof in this film, by being the key player in various heated situations in the face of acknowledged actors and carrying her full weight.

Everybody gets share of attention in this film. No talent is wasted though no situation is unnecessarily forced. There’re 3 performances, besides that of De Armas of course, that I really loved. Christopher Plummer who plays the victim and does much more than simply portray a murder victim. Michael Shannon and maybe because I’m generally biased towards his talent, but he really brings his weirdness and intimidating nature to the full benefit of his character. In addition to Chris Evans who’s gonna make it difficult for everybody to actually believe he was ever Captain America.

What makes drama of the film truly special is the fact that it’s multilayered and completely derived from the characters. The film offers an interesting perspective on greed and arrogance. Not a straightforward one, our characters all seem like real and reasonable people. Throughout the film, most of them behave in a way that seems logical to us if we were in their shoes. However, with a crime at hand, and with important decisions presented, we get a sense of how harmful this benign greed and self-absorbing nature can be.

The film even delivers a couple of smart sociopolitical pinches and they work fine because they’re also not forced and because they serve an important purpose in key decisions throughout the film. Artistically the film plays a little with the Rashomon effect, repeating the same sequences from various point of views and there’s efficient and noteworthy utilisation of various visual elements. It never steals from the two key elements though, which again are the drama and riddle at hand.

Knives Out is further proof that the key factor that helped several films in 2019 be exceptionally successful is risk taking. Using a classic genre and twisting it. Risk people coming to it with expectations and finding something else. It takes courage and Rian Johnson’s courage paid off massively in this case. As we can see, the film is not just an entertaining experience, though of course it is, but it’s also one of the significant films of the year with a fair chance at having a rather long lifetime in our attention.

A Stunning Visual Experience

Ad Astra tells the story of a space adventure set in the near future. Astronaut Roy McBride is tasked with traveling to Neptune in order to communicate with his father. His father, Clifford McBride himself was tasked with exploring the possibility of intelligent life far into the solar system 30 years ago, but nothing was heard from his station in 16 years and he was presumed dead, until life threatening power surges start hitting the earth and were traced back to the “Lima Project” .. Roy’s father project. The journey is long and filled with dangers as well as self explorations from Roy.

There are two key problems with the film in my opinion. First, the lack of direct connection between the stages of our adventure and what we should conclude from them and second how incredibly slow the entire movie is. It’s not subtle, it’s not calm, it’s not serene .. it’s simply slow. Slow to the extent that I fought sleep .. several times. It really baffled me how a film containing chases, fights, attacks and breathless struggles for survival can possibly be described as slow, but it is, and not just around those moments .. actually through them. You know the chase scene from the trailer with the two space vehicles firing at one another? I almost slept through that!!

Ad Astra is a mildly complicated film and a very complicated condition. I can say that I understand it & it doesn’t take much thinking to do so. The philosophy is clear and the message is directly spoken. I’m obligated by my own claim of honesty to say that I didn’t enjoy it. Yet I can never deny the so many things that I truly admired. There are multiple factors that ought to help this film stand out in the middle of all of the space films. Director and co-writer James Gray managed to pull what was almost deemed impossible; Find fresh ideas to present into space. How would a commercial flight to the moon look like in a serious sense? If technology is always driven by military research and targets luxury once publicized, how can that merge into the real world of space? Would you like to learn how to sneak into a ride to a different planet? This film shows you how, and it’s all presented in an astonishing visual experience. So crisp and so realistic and also so artistic in the selection of set design and colouring.

Thankfully we have all the time in the world to admire the visual experience because of how, unfortunately, slow everything moves. Of course I understand how the pace helps in serving two purposes; First, to reflect the surround of space where everything, even if deadly, moves slow, and second, to put us in the state of mind of our hero who’s embracing, and suffering from loneliness. However, it does hinder the adventure layer very badly. I rarely ever felt thrilled in any situation the film offered, with the exception of the very first perhaps. The thing that kept me excited about the sequence of events is a journey of our hero and that was because of the authenticity of the experience and the magic of the visual experience like I said, and before them of course comes the performance of Brad Pitt. It’s one of the rarest occasions where I really see him working outside of his comfort zone. Playing an introvert character with so little speech and so little emotions on the surface. Yet completely successful in connecting the viewer to the feelings of his character with the slightest of expressions. One of his best performances for sure but I would say it’s not the kind preferred by the academy.

Ad Astra is a significant film, an original film, a smart film, an impressive film. Look, I’ll surrender to any positive label that can come to mind, except enjoyable. The film chose to stay true to its surround and set the priority of his character exploration above the actual cinematic experience, and in that it failed to be another Blade Runner 2049. It also declined to commit to the artistic classification and forced various adventurous scenarios that didn’t always connect with its philosophy, and in that it failed to be another 2001: A Space Odyssey .. by a long distance .. and I’m not even a big fan.

Bill Hader Plays Ritchie in the Sequel to the 2017 Hit

27 years after the events of It chapter 1, the monster awakens. Pennywise the clown reappears and gets detected by Mike; The only member of the losers club who actually remained at Derry, and with the sole purpose of studying how to terminate Pennywise and alarm the others as soon as he appears. Mike contacts the rest of the gang and they do come back to honor their oath, but this time Pennywise is much stronger and more prepared for the challenge of the losers.

Chapter 2 can only be described as too messy until it gets too organized and then goes back to the worst mess I can imagine. We start with an event and with characters that we never see again throughout the entire film. Then we spend a lot of time with a struggle of a decision, for which everybody, including the characters, knew the conclusion, and then finally the horror begins. Oh yeah, we only get to see the real horror in the second half. That’s how long it took the film to tell us what we already knew. Not just from the trailer, but from the moment we heard there will be a second part for the film.

What follows had every potential to be unexpected and shocking, but again the film takes a very wrong decision by presenting it in the most organized way possible. It’s the same scenario being repeated over and over again which rendered it totally predictable yet, to my surprise, it remains the best sequence of the entire film. This sequence took us all the way to the ending, which proved that everything that came before it was actually pointless, and we start establishing rules that were never presented before to reach a conclusion that ironically went in total opposition to the actual message of the two parts.

Events of Chapter 2 take place in 2016 and like we all know it takes us back to Derry. Only this time the location has no personality and neither do the year we’re in. We’re in 2016 and we see no real use of technology in any way. In the original novel by Stephen King chapter 2 starts in 1984, and the absence of advanced technology in its events make sense, but our film’s decision to start the events in 1989 turned out to be useful for chapter 1 and totally pointless for chapter 2.

The whole message in the first film was focused on how people would turn a blind to the abuses of children. This time the message has to do with the struggles of different people to stay true to their identity. Only there’s no projection on other people simply because there’s no other people. No seriously, our story is only about our heroes and some faceless characters that pop and then end. Actually some of them popped and never ended .. they simply disappeared and we never heard of them again!

Ok then, what about our heroes? They’re not traumatized, they’re not affected. They live fine, mostly successful with some problems and they have completely forgotten about “It”. So, now that we have reminded them, is there any shock or confusion? Not really, just a new mission that is weird in nature, execution and conclusion. The horror in this phase starts off great, really efficient and unsettling. You can clearly see the use of CGI and it quickly takes a bit away from the scares but you still appreciate the initial hit. But then like I said it gets repetitive and less and less effective. Especially with the clear focus on comedy in every opportunity that is possible .. and not possible as well.

The comedy in this film is great, I personally laughed hard. But while laughing I kept asking myself, is that really what I should be feeling like? It’s distracting and weird, but again intentional and successful within its own purpose. Comedy and contrast of childhood struggles is what elevates Bill Hader’s performance above everybody else. He is really the only performance that matches the excellence of his childhood counter part played by Finn Wolfhard who delivered one of the performances that I really admired in part 1. For all the other parts, the children win. James Mccavoy, Jessica Chastain and all the others .. no the kids were much better because their story was by far more solid and convincing. I can sense that the film was aware of that to the point where they started missing the children themselves and kept giving us flashbacks in large portions and again, in a very messy manner. Which adds the editing of the film to my pile of disappointments, as if all the rest wasn’t enough.

With the first signs of the fall season came It Chapter 2 to remind us of how the summer was. Filled with promising films that ended up badly disappointing, and this particular movie is the one to blame the most because it had not excuse. You have the source material, your cast got bigger and supposedly better, and you had all the time to learn, enhance and do better. But the best praise I can give the film is a couple of good scares and a lot of laughs.