Cast: Josh Ruben, Sarah Lind, Malin Barr, Katie Kung, Lakshmi Hedemark, Tanya Everett, Marshall Taylor Thurman, Neal Mayer
A serial killer brings an unsuspecting new victim on a weekend getaway to add another body to his ever-growing count. She’s buying into his faux charms, and he’s eagerly lusting for blood. What could possibly go wrong?
This film has a very original trajectory, whereas the first half plays more traditional and linear where it surprises you and it feels a little more predictable as we have seen this before a kind of serial killer working his way on a current victim.
Then all of a sudden the film which already was leaning into more psychological and the psychedelic. Totally moves and gives itself up to that direction where we are now seeing the delusions and the reality of the situation that the serial killer has found himself in.
Where he is haunted by different ghosts, demons of past victims telling him what to do and also torturing him as he tries to find his latest victim and to see if she is truly alive or is she dead?
This is where the film also becomes more violent and a little grotesque, though it stays captivating as you wonder what’s real and what isn’t just like the lead character and wondering where this is going to go and what is the ultimate ending.
This isn’t a film one could call light, but it does try to offer something new and different and a bit more experimental in the genre that keeps you guessing, and usually you will be wrong as to where it might go or where it goes, which adds a little decadent fund to the whole endeavor.
This room isn’t gonna be for everyone so if you’re looking for the traditional horror film, this is probably not for you or even if you’re looking for a slash or film this is not going to be the film for it but if you like your horror a little out there and maybe a little thought-provoking and unsteady this might be the film for you
A toxic spill revives a beautiful, dead heiress who, with the help of her childhood friend, must quench her insatiable thirst for blood.
This is the first Jean Rollin directed film that I have seen, even as his films are notorious it film circles for their more sexual material in the middle of being a horror film and here is a perfect example, even though this is the first and only I’ve seen I imagine that the rest of his films are similar to a degree only hopefully better quality
Has this film plays like a 1970s softcore movie that strives to be artistic in European mixed with random ridiculous violence that looks like it should be in a low budget grind house horror film that is even over the top four it subject matter
At heart it’s a love story that is also a zombie movie where the female zombie in this film has quite amazing strength and seems to be perfectly presented and not the George Romero type where they crave brains in our continuously rotting. The zombie is cannibalistic, though that doesn’t seem to come out until the second half of the film Moore..
Which by the end doesn’t even matter because even though it’s zombies, the film seems to have the same rules where it could’ve easily been a vampire but it seems like the filmmakers were like well. We’ve been there and done that so let’s move on to zombies which I can’t blame the filmmakers for because eventually that is how Hollywood started treating the genre also it seems more in the early 2000s when there was a horror where vampire suddenly became in in the shadow of the popular TWILIGHT movies those after realizing the overkill and dwindling box office of those particular creatures, always romantic nature and always seeming to come around once in a while they moved to zombies, but not just plain old zombie films soon we were starting to get zombie films that were romantic like WARM BODIES or just zombies in general to be our protagonist who we feel sorry for as they are cursed or just a general villain.
Director Jean Rollin’s style makes the film feel like his own personal fetish or fantasy material with actress Francoise Blanchard, as he seems or makes the camera seem obsessed with her from the many angles in poses he has her do especially nude as well as her female, best friend and lover, played by Marina Pierro though not as obsessed with her she is quite beautiful and stunning in her own right prove that the coldest or most evil monsters aren’t always the supernatural kind
Luckily, the film does have a plot that is barely there, but there is a story that ties everything together, which is a essentially a forbidden romance film between two women with themes of obsession that feels overall throughout, even while trying to show one’s devotion to the other
It comes across pretty pretentious as it tries at certain points to be classy, but it has just a low class style, like wanting to be artistic, but also wanting to be down with the people while providing plenty of sex which year is more nudity and violence at which at times can be gory, though only in one scene does it feel like it keeps going on and on and over the top
I believe the film is a bit anti-American. As it has the only American player by Mike Marshall be a complete idiot and blind to all that is going on around him. As he is the amateur photographer who keep snooping in and investigating’s boyfriend.
The film is a lesbian romance that is interrupted and slowly starts to break down and become more dramatic and tries to involve certain characters investigating these uncommon occurrences, though they seem here only for the audience to get more of a backstory that the two main characters are not providing
By the end, the film feels much do about nothing. The type that you probably wanted to watch when you were 13 only because you saw on the TV Guide that it had nudity and sexual themes, but then were partially disappointed because he had to sit through so much just to get to those scenes and it’s still seeing the kind of odd or something that you weren’t used to, though I wonder if that is what shaped certain artist Taste was going in for one thing expecting more T And A as well as exploitation and in sitting through all of the film just to get to that they also started to learn to appreciate art of foreign cultures, depth, story, or seek out what they weren’t used to necessarily.
The quality of this film could’ve been more understood if it had been made in the 60s or 70s, but this was made in 1982. It feels like the filmmaker’s knew better then again maybe it was a throwback for them rather than trying to be modern or they were trying to make a film that seemed more dipped in the past with for 1982 modern sensibilities as it was a decade just beginning and hadn’t quite found an identity yet, but was coming into its own
There is an English language version of the film. That was filmed and directed by Gregory heller only using the same cast and crew. A she would film the same exact scenes in English right after they did them originally in French. It was never released and thought to be a lost film or lost version of the film.
Though even if it hopefully was one of those films that was a Gateway drug to better quality films of this type, this was still a major disappointment, though it will be slow. Can’t wait to see how this one measured up to his other films in terms of quality. As with this one, I like the song that it inspired by Rob Zombie, which to me is more exciting than the actual film that inspired it here.
Cast: Delaney Quinn, Caleb Williams, Cristin Milioti, Topher Grace, Keegan-Michael Key, Patton Oswalt, Michael Shannon, Clint Howard
A brave girl and her friends must escape a kids television show.
There are some movies where the less you know going in, the better. BUDDY is definitely one of them.
This is a film that can be ambiguous and awkward, but always feels just a bit off and creepy. Yet somewhat comfortable
If you’re familiar with writer-director Casper Kelly’s short for ADULT SWIM, TOO MANY COOKS you may already have an idea of the kind of strange, unsettling sense of humor he brings to the table. That short took something as harmless and familiar as television opening themes and slowly revealed something much darker bubbling underneath. This film plays with that same idea of innocence turning increasingly… well, not so innocent. And this film is definitely out there.
The first fifteen minutes might test your patience or your willingness to go along with it. As we’re introduced to what appears to be an actual children’s television show. Episode after episode, everything seems cute, cheerful and perfectly harmless. Then, almost imperceptibly, things begin to feel a little wrong. And then a little more wrong. Before long, you realize you’re not watching the movie you thought you were watching.
I won’t say much more, because discovering where BUDDY goes is part of the fun. The film has an unusual way of withholding information, and by the time it reaches the end, it leaves you with more questions than answers. Normally that might frustrate me, but here I found myself wanting to know more.
That’s probably the nicest thing I can say about the film: I wanted more.
The recognizable adult cast is used barely, with the kids essentially carrying the movie. And despite the innocent looking premise, this is absolutely not a movie for children. There is some disturbing violence involving kids that will understandably be difficult for some viewers.
But what makes the film refreshing is that it never seems particularly interested in giving you exactly what you expect.
This isn’t your typical horror movie. In fact, some people may find that disappointing. There are moments when you expect the film to push things further, only for it to pull back and leave you wondering what exactly you just watched.
Personally, I appreciated that restraint.
BUDDY is disturbing, strange and occasionally bizarre, but there’s something wonderfully curious about it. It feels like a movie that wants you to think about it afterward rather than simply move on to the next thing.
Is it for everybody? Absolutely not, But maybe that’s part of why I liked it.
There’s something to be said for a movie that doesn’t completely explain itself, doesn’t follow the usual rules and leaves you just curious enough to want to step back into its world.
So if you’re looking for something familiar, predictable and comfortably within the lines, this probably isn’t your movie. But if you’re willing to take a chance on something weird? Give it a try.
No matter what, I have a feeling you’ll remember it.
Cast: Halle Bailey, Rage-Jean Page, Lorenzo De Moor, Marco Calvani, Isabella Ferrari, Aziza Scott, Nia Vardalos, Desiree Popper
When a woman crashes at an empty Italian villa posing as the owner’s fiancée, she discovers an unexpected romance that could transform her life.
Sometimes a movie doesn’t need to reinvent the romantic comedy. Sometimes it just needs to be charming, pretty, and know exactly what it wants to be. This is pretty much that movie.
It’s simple, predictable, and built with the kind of sitcom logic you can see coming from a mile away. But honestly? There’s something rather pleasant about that. The movie has an easygoing charm, a picturesque setting, and a cast that makes the whole thing go down pretty smoothly. It’s not exactly epic filmmaking, but it is certainly easy on the eyes.
And then there’s Halle Bailey. It’s still a little strange seeing her play a fully grown adult character because, well… she still looks so young. There are moments when it feels almost like she’s playing dress-up as an adult. But she’s good here, and there’s an appealing warmth to her performance. Young people need love stories too, apparently. Who knew?
The movie does introduce a few details that seem as though they’re going to become important, only to eventually leave them sitting on the side of the road. I kept waiting for certain pieces of Mateo and Isabella’s history to lead somewhere, especially because their relationship feels like it has a story worth telling. Even if they’re supporting characters, a little more background would have given the movie some additional texture.
But my biggest hesitation comes from something outside the movie itself.
I’ve seen this film treated by some as though being basic, automatically makes it bad. And I’m not entirely convinced that’s fair. Plenty of romantic comedies have operated with this exact formula for years. They’re predictable, glossy, sentimental and designed to give you a pleasant couple of hours.
So why does this one sometimes seem to get judged more harshly?
I can’t help but wonder if part of it has something to do with the fact that the central love story is primarily between two Black leads. That shouldn’t make the movie more or less identifiable, and it certainly shouldn’t make its familiar formula suddenly seem inferior. If anything, it’s nice to see a Black love story allowed to simply be a love story, rather than feeling obligated to explain itself, make a political statement, or turn every moment into a joke. that’s what I appreciated here.
Yes, this film is basic. But basic isn’t necessarily a crime. Sometimes you want the cinematic equivalent of a nice vacation: beautiful scenery, attractive people, a little romance, a little sass, and absolutely no need to pack emotional baggage.
The film has a pleasant vibe, and sometimes that’s enough.
It may not stay with you forever, but we have all seen worse.
Written By: Samuel Hoffstein and Elizabeth Reinhardt
Based on The Novel By: Margery Sharp
Cinematography: Joseph LaShalle
Editor: Dorothy Spencer
Cast: Jennifer Jones, Charles Boyer, Peter Lawford, Helen Walker, Reginald Gardiner, Reginald Owen, Sir. C. Aubrey Smith, Richard Haydn
Amateur plumber Cluny Brown gets sent off by her uncle to work as a servant at an English country estate. While there, she becomes friendly with Adam Belinski, a charming Czech refugee. She also becomes interested in a dull shopkeeper named Mr. Wilson. Belinski soon falls in love with Cluny and tries to keep her from marrying Wilson.
Sadly this was the last film director Ernst Lubitsch finished on his own before passing. Away the following year, though he went out with a bang in this it seems lesser known or at least lesser talked about classic film.
It feels like this film has so much in entendre throughout the film, (there is a character actually named Betty Cream, played by the scene stealing beauty Helen Walker) but still manages to be heartwarming as it is charming with sharp dialogue and has an innocence, whereas overall it feels more fluffy than serious
Jennifer jones has a star making role as the title character. A naïve tomboy. Trying to find her place in the world where she won’t be taking advantage of. Our character is still hopes and the way Jones player in the role is so winning.
At first, you’re not sure where this film is going or what the story will be until she arrives roughly about 10 minutes into the film. After that, it mostly never leaves her and even when it does, it’s usually characters talking about her. Not to mention. You have to admire lady who masters a true trade
And also offers something you don’t see too much more in films, where a film is more written around a character or a characters and whoever is the star of the film really gets to make an impression throughout.
Charles Boyer’ character at first was annoying, but you were to a charms, especially considering most of the other characters are so stiff and dull. Though at first, you wonder if he’s just a con man and then you realize he might not be, but he mostly is getting what he wants and being quite the rascal doing it, especially while putting the other characters in their places for the most part
What I enjoy about the films that each character gets their time to shine maybe not in quite star making, but each of them has their own scene to shine in that really defines their character be more comedic or more serious
The film is witty and warm. As after all, it is a comedy of manners and errors with real world historical references that were modern at the time that make the film feel a bit more real, even if it feels more like a fantasy set in the real world at times.
A lesser known film that makes magic out of a little and a few details. Then again look at who directed it. He had that kind of touch with most of his films.
Very old school of quality that is plenty of fun it takes its time to get there. Though classic that can play for the whole family. The adults will probably appreciate the film more
In the end, bringing a love story romance for most even where it doesn’t necessarily feel like it belongs. You can see why it’s a classic.
Written & Directed By: John Francis Daley & Jonathan Goldstein
Cinematography: Barry Peterson
Editor: Jamie Gross and John Lee
Cast: Ryan Reynolds, Kenneth Branagh, Marcin Dorocinski, Maria Bakalova, David Morse, Clark Johnson, Wendy Crewson, Josh Hamilton
Lieutenant Troy Brennan takes part in a top secret surveillance mission over Soviet airspace. Things take a sharp turn, however, when he is forced to eject from his plane over the Russian wilderness. He is rescued by a paradoxical Russian native and the two begin to appreciate both their differences and commonalities.
There are some movies you finish and immediately think, “Well… that was fine.” And honestly, that’s probably the best way to describe this one.
I went into it expecting something disposable, and while it certainly isn’t reinventing the action-comedy wheel, I have to admit that I had a decent time with it.
because this is very much a paint-by-numbers kind of movie. You’ve seen this story before. You’ve seen these characters before. You can practically see some of the plot turns coming from the next room.
But every once in a while, it has just enough personality to keep itself from becoming completely forgettable.
Ryan Reynolds is interesting here because, thankfully, this isn’t quite the Ryan Reynolds we’ve seen a million times before. He still has that familiar rhythm and personality, but instead of firing off a wisecrack every thirty seconds, a lot of his humor comes through his reactions to the increasingly ridiculous situations around him. He almost becomes the audience surrogate. The guy looking at everything happening around him and thinking, “Are we seriously doing this?” surprisingly, that works.
Kenneth Branagh, meanwhile, is doing a lot of the heavy lifting literally. He’s getting into the action himself, which is something I’m not particularly accustomed to seeing from him. At this point in his career, watching Branagh throw himself around in an action movie is kind of charming. I don’t know if he’s channeling Sean Connery, taking notes from Liam Neeson, or simply having a really good time, but the man deserves some credit. He’s surprisingly convincing.
Branagh has directed action before, of course, with films like THOR and JACK RYAN: SHADOW RECRUIT. So this isn’t exactly unfamiliar territory for him. But seeing him actually inhabit this kind of older action-hero role is one of the more entertaining aspects of the movie.
The problem is that the rest of the film doesn’t exactly rise to their level.
It feels like the kind of movie that probably explains why it ended up on streaming rather than in theaters. There’s supposedly an epic quality to the story, much of it set against Cold War-era Russia, the KGB, and all the usual ingredients for a big, muscular action thriller. Yet somehow, everything feels surprisingly muted.
The movie is set in the 1980s, which at least gives it an excuse to use Russia and the KGB as its primary villains without having to invent some overly complicated modern conspiracy. But even with that built-in atmosphere, the film rarely feels as big as it seems to think it is.
And then there’s the strange feeling that Ryan Reynolds could almost be replaced by just about anybody. He’s not bad. He’s just… there.
Considering how naturally Reynolds fits into buddy comedies, you would think this would be tailor-made for him. But the movie never quite gives him enough material to bring his usual gravitas or comedic energy. Instead, he’s mostly along for the ride.
Oddly enough, the whole thing reminded me of BEHIND ENEMY LINES, except somebody decided to make this movie more of a buddy comedy and turn down the action just a little.
maybe that’s why I didn’t hate it.
It’s familiar, but it’s not completely lifeless. It’s basic, but it occasionally has some spirit. It doesn’t offer much you haven’t seen before, but it at least tries to put a slightly different spin on a very familiar formula.
It’s perfectly watchable, occasionally fun, and elevated by a couple of performances that are more entertaining than the material itself. But once the credits roll, I’m not sure there’s much left to say other than, “Yep. That was a movie.”
Cast: Anne Hathaway, Michaela Coel, Fka Twigs, Hunter Shaffer, Sian Clifford, Jessica Brown Findlay, Kaia Gerber, Alba Baptists
Long-buried wounds rise to the surface when iconic pop star Mother Mary reunites with her estranged best friend and former costume designer, Sam Anselm, on the eve of her comeback performance.
This is a movie that one didn’t dislike and found fascination at times within it, though at some parts of the film, found myself struggling to meet the film, even halfway
There’s clearly a lot happening here, and I admire what writer-director David Lowery is trying to do. The acting is strong, the visuals are inventive, and even the situations themselves feel inspired. There’s a real dramatic idea underneath all of it. The problem is that, somewhere along the way, you start wondering why are you still sitting here waiting for it to fully arrive.
The first half really catches you attention. There’s an energy and mystery to it that makes one curious about where it was going. But by the middle, that curiosity began turning into patience. The second half starts to feel a little empty and monotonous, and while the film continues to look beautiful, the visuals sometimes feel like they’re doing more of the heavy lifting than the story.
And yet, I can’t say I didn’t appreciate it.
This is essentially constructed like a play: a limited location, a handful of actors, and a story that depends heavily on the relationships between them. But Lowery finds clever ways to make the world feel larger than the space we’re actually in. There’s imagination here, and I have to applaud that. This is clearly one of those more personal, artistic projects where a filmmaker is allowed to follow his instincts rather than simply give us what we expect.
The film also leaves plenty of room for interpretation. You can read it as a story about collaboration, ambition, loss, regret, or the complicated ways people remain connected even after they’ve spent years apart. There’s a particularly interesting feeling of loss running underneath everything. The sense that these characters have both lost something important and are still trying to figure out whether they can somehow get a piece of it back.
And then there’s Michaela Coel, who is fantastic.
She has a presence that immediately pulls you in, and she gives the film an emotional center that it desperately needs. I honestly just want to see Michaela Coel in more things. She’s one of those performers who can make you interested simply by watching her think. She walks away with the movie. As I am a fan of her other work, obviously
I really wanted to love this film. I admire its ambition, its originality, and the fact that it actually has something to say. I just wish there were more movie in between all those ideas.
Maybe that’s partly on me. This is the kind of film that asks you to meet it on its own terms, sit with its rhythms, and decide for yourself what it means. And perhaps I simply wasn’t in the mood for that particular challenge.
I can absolutely see myself revisiting the film years from now and appreciating it differently. It’s divisive, certainly, but it’s also the kind of film that gives people something to argue about afterward and honestly, I’ll take that over a movie I completely forget five minutes after leaving the theater.
So while I respect what Mother Mary is attempting, and I genuinely admire the vision behind it, I can’t quite give it the glowing review I wanted to.
It’s ambitious. It’s beautiful. It’s original. I just wish it had given me a little more to hold onto.
Based on the Novel “WHAT ARE YOU GOING THROUGH” By: Sigrid Nunez
Cinematography: Edu Grau
Editor: Teresa Font
Cast: Tilda Swinton, Julianne Moore, John Turturro, Alessandro Nivola, Juan Diego Botto, Alex Hogh Andersen, Victoria Luengo, Esther McGregor
Ingrid and Martha were close friends in their youth, when they worked together at the same magazine. After years of being out of touch, they meet again in an extreme but strangely sweet situation.
This isn’t a bad film. In fact, it’s almost frustrating that it isn’t, because there’s so much to admire here, and yet so little that I actually connected with.
Every frame is beautiful. The colors, compositions, interiors, costumes, and carefully chosen shots often look like paintings. There’s a rhythm to it, too, almost like a beautifully directed stage production. But after a while, It started feeling less like one was watching a movie and more like I was visiting a very expensive museum exhibit And while appreciated, just wasn’t necessarily having a good time.
The biggest problem for me is that the dialogue often feels written rather than spoken. The characters seem to deliver information rather than reveal emotion. It’s almost like reading a very wordy novel where the author tells you everything, leaving you to create the images and feelings yourself. Except this is a movie Qqand Pedro Almodóvar is giving us all those images already.
There are moments of genuine beauty and meaning, but emotionally, the film feels strangely cold. Almost like a modern 1950s melodrama that forgot to turn up the melodrama.
And that’s particularly disappointing because Almodóvar is one of my favorite filmmakers. He has always had this wonderful ability to make chaos feel ordinary, make the mundane feel fascinating, and turn emotional extremes into something colorful, funny, messy, and alive.
Here, everything feels much more controlled.
Almost too controlled.
The film eventually becomes monotonous, like listening to someone tell you a story when you keep waiting for them to finally get to the point and then realizing you’re not particularly interested in the point.
I also couldn’t shake the feeling that this was partly an appreciation piece for its two magnificent leading actresses. If you’re already a fan of them, there’s plenty here to admire. And honestly, they deserve to be celebrated. But the movie sometimes feels more devoted to their presence than interested in giving us something emotionally involving around them.
It’s gorgeous. It’s sophisticated. It’s carefully constructed. There’s absolutely nothing technically wrong with it And maybe that’s the problem.
I kept waiting for the movie to surprise me, move me, shake me or at least make me feel something beyond “That’s a lovely shot.”
It almost feels like watching a Vogue fashion spread: beautifully designed, impeccably photographed, sophisticated enough to discuss over cocktails, but after a while you’re wondering where the actual story went.
Ultimately, The film feels like a film to study, admire, dissect, and appreciate more than one to simply enjoy And maybe that’s exactly what Almodóvar intended.
But for me, it was like going on a date with someone who has plenty of qualities you admire. They’re intelligent, beautiful, interesting, accomplished, and probably wonderful to other people. There just isn’t any chemistry. So you wish them well And if everyone else wants to rave about them, I won’t argue.
Though by the end if you can afford it. You want to know who the interior designer and costume designer were. As those are immaculate.
Cast: Maya Da Costa, Myra Molloy, Zach Braff, Levon Hawke, Alozie LaRose, Sierra Sidwell, Hunter Dillon, Sophia Carriere, Alexa Mareka
Coley, 17, from rural Oregon, navigates intimacy after her mother’s passing. Meeting Sonya sparks new feelings, but self-doubt hinders their connection. Sonya, unfamiliar with dating girls, is uncertain. They learn to embrace emotions.
The film is light and airy feeling like a perfect summer romance
A nostalgic throwback that feels modern but yet would fit in the early 2000’s in which it’s set
Wondering if it is autobiographical fantasy for the Writer- Director Hayley Kioko from her song and music video it seems a full length feature extension from.
It works as a typical romantic film that just happens to be queer or a queer awakening film that lends itself more to a paperback romantic novel origins. As the film feels like, The type that this is adapted from by the writer director who also wrote the original novel.
The films easy to watch you can’t help but route for the main characters and their back stories are handled with care that seem to be heavy and emotion, but very light material wise all the two girls bond and are left in their own world. There is no bullying there doesn’t seem to be prejudice from any friends or family so really the only challenge throughout the film seems to be being emotionally available and open to one another and trust there’s nothing or no one in the outside world really challenging this romance.
As throughout the film, it seems like the main character played By Maya Da Costa seems to be the one who is facing the most challenge of letting go and growing up and living her life and not staying mentally in her sorrow.
It also doesn’t hurt that everything in this film is very pretty. So there’s nothing that’s ugly or mean spirited and there’s nothing bad to look at as most of the cast is beautiful as are the locations and the town that they’re staying in. The cast is lovingly diverse. It’s one of those dream towns where everyone seems cool with everything. No prejudice, no class struggles, no bigotry. So the film won’t offend anyone and one can see why some might be attracted to it.
There is a slightly romantic rival, and once they are with them instead of the scenes, seeming as romantic beautifully shot and intense, there’s a coldness in a practicality that feels cold and a little bit of disgust.
It’s an assured debut by Director, Hayley Kioko, who keeps it light and sweet with a little bit of death and is quite assured behind the camera as an actress and musician. She seems to have learned and picked up the necessary skill and await what her next film will be here she shows she has the goods to continue along this path.
Happy this got a limited release theatrically though really the material feels more like a streaming or the type that these days would be more streaming original only because it’s a little more lightweight, which isn’t unexpected watching the trailer
Before graduation, Ethan and Alex pose as trans women in a last ditch effort to quell gay rumors. It’s all a joke until Ethan realizes: she really is trans. The two must reckon with their changing friendship, coming out, and coming-of-age.
This is a Queer film where the leads are trans and, Non-Binary. Which there isn’t a problem because there are such few films and representation for them. So at least here they get a chance to beat themselves or speak for themselves.
As the two leads who are non-binary and trans, are supposed to play their roles as straight boys trying to disguise themselves as trans to save themselves and to try and get one of their dream girls to fall in love with them go through that process one discovers that they might actually be trans themselves and is not pretending as much.
The film is mostly a comedy and plays out like one of those teen comedies from the 80s 90s or even 2000s or logic. It’s thrown out the door, but which sounds like a good plan works and goes as well as satirizing high school movies in general straight and queer.
What shocked me here was not the comedy which is a little like the recent film BOTTOMS but without as big of a budget, it was the heart and emotion that this film has it’s not played out throughout, but it is an essential part of the film, which is the film’s heartbeat which truly is what saves the film. As it helps cover up the low budget technical shortcomings and presentation.
As, if this film had just been straight comedy, it would’ve worked, but it wouldn’t have felt necessarily as worth the story or the fountain as it gets you the audience at certain moments that prove to be universal and truly show the depth of the characters and the situations they find themselves in. While swimming in the Moore, universal broad comedy aspects of it all.
This is an unexpected delight that I think people
Should give a chance to, and maybe it will open up their ways of thinking to acceptance and support for the LGBTQ+ community and understand the challenges and fears that they go through.
It’s a film that can be both educational and fun for the audience other than language maybe should be aimed or show more teenagers as it’s appeal seems to be aimed at them a little more
