THE COLUMNIST (2019)

Directed By: Ivo Van Aart 
Written By: Daan Windhorst
Cinematography: Martijn Cousijn 
Editor: Irme Reutelingsperger & Yamal Stitiou 

Cast: Katja Herbers, Achraf Koutet, Genio De Groot, Rein Hoffman, Claire Porro, Bram Van Der Kelen, Medina Schuurman, Harry Van Ritjthourn 

A columnist must continuously deal with threats and negative comments on her social media pages. One day, she has had enough and decides to hunt down her trolls.


The film wastes no time in getting right to the point and its actions. The film ends up going down like candy-sweet and quickly with very few complaints. 

The film comes off very dry and seems to have no real sensations at all throughout the film. Especially when it comes to presentation.

Feels very lightweight for such a dark comedy. Almost like a TV movie level. Only with plenty of language and violence.

It might have been stronger if at any point she really has faced a true challenge or more of one in her killings or the immediate aftermath. 

The only other being she seems to face is the older gentleman who at first seems like he could be the easiest.

As she became too common too fast and with very little investigation into these Crimes. So there feels like an absence of any real depth. Especially when the film offers opportunities for it to be more interesting. Like having the daughter act impulsively when thinking her mother’s boyfriend is the killer or having her kill him when believing him to be the killer. Then found out she was wrong when the kills keep happening and then finding out it was her mother or ending the film with the daughter’s Mistake.

In the middle of the movie is the only town where the police really have any questions and she gives them motive and a bit of evidence to build a case if they bothered to really investigate her. 

The killings soon become an obsession. So much so that it takes over her regular responsibilities. Truly shows her character’s transformation. The more she kills the more it relieves her mind as it clears her head and gets more writing done. In essence, becoming more successful.

As it seems she is all for freedom of speech until it is used against her then she becomes the ultimate censor. At first, she is bullied into being a killer. 

Though without controversy there is less of an audience. The end is a little outlandish as it seems meant to be a message. As the film does have one in a worst-case scenario version. That could be reworked but makes itself loud and clear. 

At first, it seems Like it will be open-ended but proceeds especially as there are plenty of witnesses though goes for shock and sensationalism with a warning. 

Her speech might help her and the film to realize what she says about herself goes to the victims also. 

Just her boyfriend who dresses freaky to get attention as fashion is the more normal put-together individual. Whereas she comes off as the more so-called normal one is the crazed killer.

In the end, the film feels disposable and hassle-free.

Grade: C+

28 DAYS (2000)

Directed By: Betty Thomas 
Written By: Susannah Grant 
Cinematography: Declan Quinn
Editor: Peter Teschner 

Cast: Sandra Bullock, Elizabeth Perkins, Viggo Mortensen, Dominic West, Margo Martindale, Diane Ladd, Reni Santoni, Alan Tudyk, Azura Skye, Steve Buscemi, Michael O’Malley, Marianne Jean-Baptiste, Susan Krebs 

A big-city newspaper columnist is forced to enter a drug and alcohol rehab center after ruining her sister’s wedding and crashing a stolen limousine.


This movie is charming in its own way.  As it is primarily a comedy but it gets deeply dramatic and doesn’t always provide a happy ending. 

This movie marked a difference In Sandra Bullock’s career. Where she seemed more interested in trying to stretch past her girl next door image and have more edge to her but also kind of realized her limitations. So she was trying to have a middle ground here. 

The film is too light to really be too hard-hitting, but gets to the emotional landscapes that it needs to and hits those aspects hard.

It’s a relief to watch a film where there is a hint of romance but treats it more for what it is a connection that can easily be read as a distraction from your true problems. 

While Sandra bullock is engaging it’s the side characters that really pepper the film

And make it spicy. They are also more the heart and dramatic pulls of the movie. Luckily though Sandra bullock is clearly the star. She lets the supporting characters breathe enough for us to care about them. Even if some stay one-dimensional.

Even though in hindsight the plotline with Azura Skye’s character would have been more recognizable and maybe a more informed outcome. Though she is one of the more heartbreaking. Elements of the film And definitely memorable characters. 

Though Viggo Mortensen comes into this film Like a true movie star and makes his presence felt he still feels more like a minor element to the film As a whole. Whose most dramatic and Piercing scene is a throwaway one at a gas stop. Though throughout the oozes charisma.

Though when the film hits her dramatic past. It does feel right and strong. Yet luckily never quite overdramatic. 

When I first saw the film I wasn’t prepared as it seemed to ride the middle as far as genres and quality. Watching it again recently though it might not have a typical happy ending film Makes you feel comfortable. As the film is infinitely rewatchable.

The only problem with the film Might be that In trying to be so many different things instead of going in-depth it kind of flirts and gives a bit, little too passable when it comes to everything. 

We are just given enough to feel or be informed about characters, situations, and the road to recovery. While feeling a bit spiritual but not the hokey hippie kind.

In the end, it shows the power and charisma of Actress Sandra Bullock that lasts to this day. As she is one of the last true stars of the big screen. Where audiences follow her no matter what genre of film she stars in and is still usually a hit of some kind. Yet she never comes across as the stereotype of a star. 

Grade: B-

RITUALS (1977)

Directed By: Peter Carter 
Written By: Ian Sutherland 
Cinematography: Rene Verzier 
Editor: George Appleby

Cast: Hal Holbrook, Lawrence Dane, Robin Gammell, Ken James, Gary Reineke, Michael Zevon, Jack Crelay, Murray Westgate 

Five doctors go on vacation deep in the Canadian wilderness. After all but one pair of the party’s shoes disappear, the remaining shoe camper decides to hike out and go look for help. Soon after he leaves, however, his four companions realize that something is very wrong when someone leaves a decapitated deer head just outside their camp. Even though they still don’t have their shoes, they decide to follow their friend’s trail out of the woods, but their path is blocked by someone who doesn’t want to see them leave the forest alive.


The film works as we spend most of the time with the characters and their reactions to various circumstances that at first seem random. As they start out as minor then grow as their desperation does also.

Already weary of each other though they are lifelong friends and siblings. Stuck in the Terrain in the middle of nowhere. The tensions are already high between them. So that when problems arise. They slowly turn on one another.

The film raises the intensity between them and their reactions in the first half of the movie before getting more to the horror/thriller elements of the second half 

The characters fit into certain types including a gay character whose sexuality is revealed not blatantly, but nonchalantly.

As the film goes along the characters’ true selves are revealed under duress. Exposing How some will truly act or react under pressure.

This is one of the first few leading man roles I have seen Hal Holbrook in and he goes above and beyond in the role. Showing a true star in the midst. In a role that feels lived in.

The film adds in the horror elements when it remembers. Only to help add to all the commotion Going on. Though there is a countdown of sorts, eventually there is going to be an attack at a certain point.

The film wisely never Amps up the action. It stays reserved. Never revealing its hand or giving hints too early. As most is revealed along with the characters. So that the audience never quite knows exactly what to expect in advance.

The film offers beautiful landscapes of nature that for all Their beauty have its own fair share of mystery.

At heart, this is a survival movie. Where a group of doctors going on a fishing trip seems to become the hunted. Out of the many places, it could have gone happy it stays somewhat simple and riveting. 

It’s filmed unglamorous so that it feels as stark and ugly as the land sometimes becomes. Mostly shot in close up so you see all the blood, sweat, and tears not to mention dirt, grime, imperfections, and injuries. 

This film came out of nowhere. As it goes along breaking down the genre while setting it up also. Until its own shocking final reveal.

Grade: B

TURISTAS (2006)

Directed By: John Stockwell
Written By: Michael Arlen Ross
Cinematography: Enrique Chediak 
Editor: Jeff McEvoy

Cast: Josh Duhamel, Melissa George, Olivia Wilde, Desmond Askew, Beau Garrett, Max Brown, Lucy Ramos, Andrea Leal, Diego Santiago, Agles Steib 

A group of young backpackers’ vacation turns sour when a bus accident leaves them marooned in a remote Brazilian rural area that holds an ominous secret.


This film is basically HOSTEL in Brazil. Even though the violence is brutal here it still doesn’t feel as bad, dark, or disgusting as HOSTEL does if only because this feels more like a big studio copy of it. As it seems more aimed at a worst-case scenario film, where privileged white young Americans are the victims. 

As this film has bigger names or at least more recognizable names and faces. It offers up just as much nudity also. As the film has a libidinous sexual vibe that disappears as soon as the carnage starts. It still feels a bit explosive but from a big studio 

Whereas in HOSTEL, the company is more sophisticated, it seems day by night and messy. Essentially this film is a traveler’s worst nightmare come to life. One of those urban legends you always hear about. Being seduced and then waking up and your body parts missing. As it begins everything seems magical, beautiful, and fun, and then it’s Like the characters wake up to a bad hangover and it is all a nightmare. 

For all this paradise’s Natural wonders there is a price to be paid. Whereas most of the characters/victims are caucasian tourists. Who you do feel sorry for, but also come off as annoying ugly Americans and foreigners at times. So while they don’t deserve what they get you do feel they should have some comeuppance. At least they aren’t treated like saints even though the stars Josh Duhamel and Olivia Wilde come off as the nicest and most decent.

This was Duhmel’s first starring role based on his shoulders. Though in the advertising he is really downplayed. 

The villain being caucasian also helps show that he is racist and also that he treats all the dark-skinned people who work for him horribly and like slaves. Even as he tries to make them feel like they are in a partnership.

Even though generally as is life the islanders are being taken advantage of by the tourists and the evil surgeon. But that is their way of making a living also is to entertain them to a degree. Which is the true horror. 

The film is entertaining but instantly forgettable. The island paradise and cast are nice to look at but that is about it as the rest of the film is fairly predictable. 

The only general shock to be had is how violent it gets for a mass audience studio film. Though at least It’s not gratuitous though it does feel liek it is trying hard to have an edge 

Grade: C

THE MUTILATOR (1984)

Directed By: Buddy Cooper & John Douglass
Written By: Buddy Cooper 
Cinematography: Peter Schnall
Editor: Stephen Mack

Cast: Matt Mitler, Ruth Martinez, Bill Hitchcock, Connie Rogers, Frances Raines, Morey Lamplay, Jack Chatham 

A college student, who accidentally killed his mother as a child, decides to take his friends to his father’s fishing cabin during fall break, not knowing that his crazed father is stalking the place.


This is another film from my youth whose poster/box art I remember from video stores. That always captured my imagination but I was too young and scared to ever watch. That has taken me this long to find and watch. 

I can remember the details and colors of these images from the posters. That even if the film isn’t so great the artwork will oversell it. As a poster for a better film or the one, you imagine in your head. Luckily this film lives up to the box art. 

Is this a good movie? no. is it entertaining? Yes, if 1980’s style horror films are your thing. They are for me so I thoroughly enjoyed the film. No matter how ridiculous it got or went.

The film starts off with a shocking scene of violence. Then it proceeds to play like a college coed comedy. While it sets itself and the characters/future victims up. At least as far as the opening Credits. 

Though it even has silly sight gags in the middle of the film after the killings start. 

This is pure 1980s slasher horror film bliss with questionable acting. Questionable character decisions that are obviously only there for the set-up. Scenes where the camera lingers too long. Leaving the actors feeling performative, stranded, and stiff. They also come off as false. Not to mention for a film where half the characters are obsessed with sex. There is surprisingly little nudity or sex 

The film has a strange innocence. As it never takes itself totally seriously and has good practical effects. At times it can be slow-paced and feels odd. 

The film follows the basic horror film rules. As it was made when they were still writing and defining them. 

The film offers no false advertising. It lives up to its title and even uses the weapon long-promised on the poster eventually. 

It feels overwrought at times like it takes too long to get to the point in scenes and the film I just under 90 minutes.

The killer’s motivation is somewhat understandable though you wonder what took him So long to snap.

One of the characters distractingly has the same shape of chest hair that Steve Carrell has after getting partially waxed in THE 40-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN. 

The soundtrack choices feel and seem wrong yet fun. At times too silly Or energetic for the tense mood, they are involved. 

The ending is ridiculous and does offer some jumps and seems to try to lighten the mood again once we get to the credits. 

GRADE: C

JUST BEFORE DAWN (1981)

Directed By: Jeff Lieberman
Written By: Gregg Irving, Joseph Middleton & Mark Arywitz
Cinematography: Joel King & Dean King 
Editor: Robert Olovett 

Cast: George Kennedy, Gregg Henry, Chris Lemmon, Mike Kellin, Deborah Rush, Ralph Seymour, Katie Powell, John Hunsacker, Charles Bartlett, Jamie Rose 

Five campers arrive in the mountains to examine some property they have bought, but are warned by Forest Ranger Roy McLean that a huge machete-wielding maniac has been terrorizing the area. Ignoring the warnings, they set up camp, and start disappearing one by one.


Wish I had seen this film before WRONG TURN. As the film seems influenced by it. While the film goes along you can see where a bunch of other horror films might have found influence in this film. Just as others might accuse this film of being influenced by THE HILLS HAVE EYES. 

Though this is a good starter horror film for anyone who wants to take baby steps into the genre and a perfect example of a film that is filled with cliches that it itself helped to build. With an impressive cast. 

The film has an early kill that then sets the playing field for the rest of the film and the characters.

The film is violent but surprisingly not gory or too violent. As the violence ends up showing some aftermath or suggested violence. So that it is a bit more reserved.

Though for it’s a more reserved matter. There is nudity but luckily the film isn’t as sex-obsessed as many in the genre and at the time. 

The film has a lower budget. So some effects are not quite great but good enough for the material considering the limits. Especially with its unconventional ending. 

The film gets a lot of use out of actor Chris Lemmon and his body. 

As the film goes along the victims Are humanized. Even if they are not stellar members of society they Don’t Deserve some of their fates. 

During the film it is quite understandable for the characters’ breakdown but their decisions are questionable. Though one element that becomes strong and sets the film apart is the hero and damsel in distress. Seems to switch roles as far as mentality towards the end. 

As she starts to put make-up on. It ends up being her war paint and bait. Though strange at first that she would get flirtatious after surviving an attack in which her boyfriend left her alone. Though at the endpoint he has been on his Way there to mentally deny and break down since the first body was discovered. So that he by the end is almost a shell of what he used to be. 

Which comes across as karma for earlier actions. Such as hitting a deer and lying about his fate and letting a survivor of an attack go with no real thought or concern. 

The one true surprise is the eventual reveal of the murder’s origins.

Grade: C+

BAD LUCK BANGING OR LUCKY PORN (2021)

Written & Directed By: Radu Jude Cinematography: Marius Panduru

Editor: Catalin Cristutu

Cast: Katia Pascariu, Claudia Leremia, Olimpia Malai, Nicodim Ungureanu, Alexandru Potocean, Andi Vasluianu 

EMI, a school teacher, finds her career and reputation under threat after a personal sex tape is leaked on the Internet. Forced to meet the parents demanding her dismissal, Emi refuses to surrender to their pressure. 


This film is about five minutes of actual pornographic material and one-third of information and history lesson, one-third lead up to the third act has a lot of us watching the main character walk through the streets to appointments and letting the situation build literally little by little and then finally in the third act a kangaroo court of sorts. Where she is being judged by people whose viewpoints are nastier than anything she has ever done. Exposing their own prejudices and hypocrisies. 

Where we get different viewpoints and counterpoints from various parents and citizens who dare to challenge the Character and one another and most are close-minded or run dual. Where they seem to be progressive on certain points and totally closed-minded on others.

The film is meant to be a satire but it feels pretty loaded that it comes off more at times as a statement more than anything else with some comedy thrown in, but it takes its time getting there that sometimes you are left wondering where it is eventually going.

Writer/director Radu Jude makes his points that at times are subtle and other times beat you over the head with his points. Though the film is filled with great ideas it does feel like a chore at times to sit through. Even if it does have a wicked ending. 

The film is worth watching to get a history and maybe a current look at the culture in Romania from a more humanitarian view and it does reach satirical heights but more in the third act. Where the only sane character seems to be the main one.

The version I saw was censored, don’t know if that was intended as the cover-up pretty much says it all and you can still hear and see glimpses of the action. When it comes to the more sexually explicit and nude scenes. Don’t know if the message would have been quite so dominant if it had been uncensored or may been left for the audience to make up their own minds. 

The film does raise some interesting points. Such as how it is ok to show violence as graphic as you can and it still is allowed to be shown as a kind of reality to most ages, but as soon as anything sexual comes up or any nudity we are so fast to censor it. Even though the latter is most likely and hopefully the extreme most of us will witness and have experience with it. 

The film is definitely a conversation starter, but as far as just entertainment it might be too far for those not looking for something more challenging to watch. 

Grade: B-

BENEDETTA (2021)

Directed by: Paul Verhoeven
Written By: Paul Verhoeven & David Birke
Based on the book: “IMMODEST ACTS: THE LIFE OF A LESBIAN NUN IN RENASSINCE ITALY” By: Judith C. Brown

Cinematography: Jeanne LaPoirie
Editor: Job Terburg

Cast: Virginie Efira, Charlotte Rampling, Daphne Patakia, Lambert Wilson, Olivier Rabourdin, Louise Chevillotte, Herve Pierre, Clotilde Courau 

A 17th-century nun in Italy suffers from disturbing religious and erotic visions. She is assisted by a companion, and the relationship between the two women develops into a romantic love affair.


I used to hate period piece films for the most part.  Now I appreciate them for their artistry and attention to detail of the time.

That makes watching them feel so enriching if done well. 

The film does have an overreaching achievement of being and feeling like an epic even though the film takes place in a few locations and in small, close quarters. That no matter the subject matter manages to keep the audience enriched and paying attention. As this is definitely not your typical religious picture. 

This film reminds me of the films as a teenager you stayed up to watch late at night for the promise of sex and nudity, but you might get bored watching at first as you keep waiting for that to be shown and as soon as you are ready to quit you start to get glimpses. That’s films were usually foreign and some were bad. Though some you actually got into while waiting for what you came for. Especially as the characters involved in this relationship are very attractive. Where we see them without clothes often enough.

This is based on a true story and while there is plenty of religion throughout. There is also plenty of violence and while there is certainly exploitation in view. The film never quite feels as dirty or exploitative as director Verhoeven has done in the past. The violence he does show is graphic and suggested at times. 

Here while it is obvious it seems more refined. Even when it gets into the ridiculous it still feels like it is trying to stick to the story above all else. 

The film almost works in two halves as the first part seems to be more about watching the main character serve in servitude in the convent. While slowly being seduced by the wild young woman she convinces herself to be saved from her abusive father. 

The second half involves the main character supposedly having religious visions and Jesus speaking through her. As she starts to have stigmata scars. As she rises through the ranks to be thought of as a saint and believed to be one, the tragedy that befalls those who don’t believe. While also falls into supposed sin with her sexual relationship with the nun she saved.

Though both leads are eye-catching they also offer strong performances throughout 

Throughout the film it shows how power corrupts and leads us to believe that maybe Benedetta is telling the truth while offering evidence that she’s not also. 

The film at times does seem to want to be somewhat of a satire or have a sense of humor, not a strong one, but let’s see some of the far-fetched aspects throughout. 

Watching this nunsploitation epic, there is no doubt if director Paul Verhoeven had made his CRUSADE movie. It would have been a Classic and made Arnold Schwarzenegger a bigger icon.

As it is nice to see directors like Verhoeven do smaller-scale films. Where he is more impressive. As we know he can handle bigger budget movies with panache, but it feels like his smaller films are a lot more memorable and stronger.

Grade: B+

R100 (2013)

Directed By: Hitoshi Matsumoto
Written By: Hitoshi Matsumoto, Mitsuyoshi Takasu, Timoji Hasegawa, Koji Ema & Mitsuru Kuramoto

Cinematography: Kazunari Tanaka
Editor: Yoshitaka Honda

Cast: Nao Omori, Mao Daichi, Shinbu Terajima, Hari Katagri, Ai Tominaga, Eriko Sato, Naomi Watanabe, Lindsay Hayward

An ordinary man with an ordinary life joins a mysterious club. The membership lasts for one year only and there is one rule: no cancellation under any circumstance. The man enters into a whole new exciting world he never before experienced where crazy love goes wilder and crazier. Is it an illusion or is it real? Welcome to the world no one has dared to explore until now!


The first act of this film is interesting, yet quickly becomes infuriating. As it introduces and lays the groundwork but then there seem like long scenes of repetition, long takes, and boredom.

The dominatrix scenes at least offer up what looks like random one-sided action scenes. Where we watch the main character go through many types of torture from various Dominatrixes and they each have a different specialty. That they come off almost as action hero henchmen or villains themselves. 

The film from time to time offers commentary by the film audience seemingly verbalizing what the actual viewing audience watching the film is probably feeling or thinking or wanting to say and pointing out flaws. While also giving the film a meta element and thus another layer. 

Once we get to the second act the film picks up as it doubles down on the out-there elements. Where the film comes off where it was already supposed to be more comedic. 

Until we get to the over-the-top third act. Which involves more action, fantasy, and chases that feel more convenient while still keeping its odd quality about it.

I really tried to get into the film And it’s a ridiculous premise. I will admit it was a challenge and while I can certainly say it’s different. I can’t say it was very enjoyable.

The film tries to break down a lot in explications and randomness. What is supposed to be comedic introduces randomness that constantly makes the film non-coherent and fully self-contained. Yet the first half still feels a bit monotonous. Even as it constantly aims for absurdism. 

Even as the film’s title reveals an inside joke. You know that it has a constant sense of humor about itself. In Japan, R18 is a rating that means no one under 18 is allowed to see it . As they will not understand the film. So this film’s title being R100 means it’s so disturbing that no one or at least no one under the age of 100 should watch it. As they won’t understand it. Which one can see? 

Grade: C

IN THE CUT (2003)

Directed By: Jane Campion 
Written By: Jane Campion, Susanna Moore & Starvos Kazantzids
Based On The Novel By: Susanna Moore 
Cinematography: Dion Beebe 
Editor: Alexandre De Franceschi

Cast: Meg Ryan, Mark Ruffalo, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Kevin Bacon, Sharrief Pugh, Nick Damici, Heather Litteer, Arthur J. Nascarella, Patrice O’Neal 

A psychological thriller: a lonely New York woman discovers the darker side of passion after becoming involved with a tough homicide detective who is investigating a series of murders in her neighborhood.


This film seemed to be dismissed and quickly forgotten by audiences and critics at the time of its release. Seen more as a failure or embarrassment. When actually it is a film that is worth exploring for the rules it abides by and the many it doesn’t. 

It’s grimy ugly not all that sexy. You don’t want to be there but are kind of forced to. As the film starts off disorienting and claustrophobic, it constantly feels like it’s tightening a noose. It stays intense with barely any noticeable score. 

Not a pleasant experience but this film is worth exploring. 

It’s strange as it is Jane Campion making a movie that is more seen as the most mainstream for her at that point and you have America’s sweetheart who wants to challenge herself and be seen in a different more dramatic light. In other words, trying to be anti-mainstream 

So you have these two working together trying to tell a tale that seems mroe obsessed with sex and maintain interest in a murder mystery that seems to be in the background until it hits close to home 

It certainly doesn’t help that all the male characters seem to be creepy as hell. Though make up a long suspect list 

The violence is more told or shown in the aftermath. After a while, the film’s problem is that you wonder what this is all about and what we are waiting for as it gets a bit monotonous at times but stays interesting. As you never know quite where it is going to go next so it feels alive 

The film is certainly well-directed though the material might not be the best. It works as everyone seems ordinary and doesn’t feel like a glamorous Hollywood production. As it does get down and dirty 

So can’t say you like or really care about too many of the characters. Especially when every cop character seems to have an overworked New York accent 

Then throw Kevin bacon into all this madness as a psycho stalking ex. He usually wears red so he might as well be labeled a literal red herring. Where you wonder why Meg Ryan’s character slept with him in the first place. As he seems to be there as a recognizable face and kind of a waste of time.

As Meg Ryan plays a nerdy teacher who is brought into all of this erotic and sexual obsession. At first, she seems Miscast almost like this film is more an experiment for her watching one time America’s sweetheart in a down and dirty role that for some might come across as desperate but for others, it shows she is up for the challenge. Between this film and her other dramatic performances in COURAGE UNDER FIRE and WHEN A MAN LOVES A WOMAN. 

Mark Ruffalo gives the most convincing performance. As he comes across as a simple character with a lot of secrets and heMs not the type to talk about his feelings. More direct as he seems to inhabit the role than play it. Though will admit him, Nor most of the cast are the first you would think of or fantasize about seeing in an erotic thriller 

Though the film would have been easily welcomed and probably lauded had it come out in the ’70s or 80’s as it seems to agave that kind of grit and seriousness of those films even if it would have felt like more of the norm back then. Though it does show classic early 2000 New York 

It feels like a welcome daring film especially for the times that was just too gloomy for audiences of the time to really get into as it is far from enjoyable 

Doesn’t play into bigger-budgeted thrillers with plenty of tension but not as much suspense and lead up. The score is barely noticeable 

The film shows the violence that men do to women that isn’t always physical or sexual but mentally and emotionally. 

 No matter what you think you are going to get going into this film. Do you actually get, It’s A challenging film that has a mind of life or energy if it’s own. That isn’t quite like anything you might have seen before. Not for everybody 

The film is sexual and erotic but not sexy necessarily. When it comes to the more erotic scenes and nature of the film. In the cut is the first Hollywood movie where I have seen someone a man eat ass booty 

Even by the end of the film once the killer is revealed there are no real answers. It’s more left for the audience to put together from what they have seen. Not only when it comes to the murder mystery but even most of the characters’ motivations.

Grade: B-