LOVE HURTS (2025)

Directed By: Jonathan Eusebio

Written By: Matthew Murray, Josh Stoddard and Luke Passmore 

Cinematography: Bridger Nielson 

Editor: Elisabeth Ronaldsdottir 

Cast: Ke Huy Quan, Ariana DeBose, Lio Tipton, Cam Gigandet, Marshawn Lynch, Rhys Darby, Mustafa Shakir, Daniel Wu, Sean Astin, Drew Scott 

A realtor is pulled back into the life he left behind after his former partner-in-crime resurfaces with an ominous message. With his crime-lord brother also on his trail, he must confront his past and the history he never fully buried.

————————————————————————

this oddly feels like this could’ve been a sequel to the big hit only because again a gang of hitman, a love story and disposable action that is quite visual and admirable from a stunt and fight choreography standard but feels a bit much about nothing.

It feels like a lighter version of the film. NOBODY that packs a much lighter punch. as this is more of a jab.

As all the actors are likeable, you just wish that there was a stronger script because everything here feels like you’ve seen it 100 times before and it just feels so basic that even at under 90 minutes it feels a bit long like everyone is going through the motions The only thing that keeps you is lead actor Ke Huy Quan 

As he is so small and has such a gentle nature, but seeing him be a bad ass is quite watchable, but also seeing him struggle with the two sides of himself, the dangerous side and the good side is quite remarkable 

Everything else about the film though is a little bit tired or familiar even Marshawn Lynch usually is a scene stealer and most films while he’s good and humorous here it still feels like unremarkable in this film 

Same with Ariana Debose, a great actress and Oscar winning actress where you have to wonder why is she here? Was it just the paycheck because she is very enticing in this film and seems to be having fun but she feels better than the material or this film so that it feels like she’s slumming and you wanna see her and better you wanna see key and better You wanna see better than what they have.

you know when the film has multiple screen writers that it’s most likely gonna be a little bit confusing and it’s identity and probably water down. 

It feels like the film is afraid to ever slow down and its pace as every shot must be busy or they have the camera move like a 90s MTV style film with an electronic music soundtrack to keep the bass moving at times you wish it would slow down With its constant push you more and more away from the film and it’s believability

What’s worse is that I am an advocate for seeing for films being seen on the big screen as that seems to be what they when you’re making one. That’s what they’re made for but this film feels like it has blockbuster money, but the script seems more accustomed to a streaming platform and the big screen. 

At least you’re paying for the service and this is what they offer you rather than you going. Spending hard earned money on this and the quality is not that great even though maybe if you’re an action junkie, this might be up your alley, but in the end, even though it is an action film it also seems like it’s more comedic moments rather than the action at times , and it doesn’t seem to be able to have it.

It’s not a horrible film. It’s just a film that seems like it more just gets by instead of trying or attempting to be better and there’s nothing wrong with that being satisfied with who you are but let us know that in the audience beforehand instead of making it seem like you have promise .

Well at least  Ke Huy Quan has a cute moment of a reunion of THE GOONIES having played in the film as data . Here he isso close with his mentor and boss at the realty company played by Sean Astin, who played Mikey in THE GOONIES. As well as them both appearing in the film ENCINO MAN together

Grade: C

PERFECT (1985)

Directed By: James Bridges

Written By: James Bridges and Aaron Latham

Based on Articles By: Aaron Latham 

Cinematography: Gordon Willis 

Editor: Jeff Gourson 

Cast: John Travolta, Jamie Lee Curtis, Marilu Henner, Jann Wenner, Laraine Newman, Anne De Salvo, Kenneth Welsh, Chelsea Field, David Paymer

Fed up with writing obituaries for a local New Jersey newspaper, the inquisitive and ambitious journalist, Adam Lawrence, finally gets his big break, when–as a Rolling Stone reporter–gets to interview a well-off entrepreneur accused of drug-dealing. However, one brief look at the tight-bodied members of a modern gym will have Adam itching to write an exposé on the latest craze of fitness and health centres, where aerobics instructors like the ferociously-astonishing, Jessie, are the absolute stars. But, Jessie, really despises interviewers. Will she ever let him into her sultry world of cool music, high-energy exercise, and perfection?


————————————————————————

One could see the appeal of this movie at the time. as more revolving around the romance between the two leads played by John Travolta and Jamie Lee Curtis. You need to fill the time of this movie that is way too long.

This film is over two hours long and the tale could’ve been told and 90 minutes. so instead of just a romance, the film also wants to talk about journalistic responsibility not only that but how to build a story.

As the film tries to show, yes there is a reporter trying to get the truth out to the people and tell a story, but also how the story is only the view of the reporter and might not tell the full story or is edited so that details are left out, and also the aftermath that the story can do two people who never intended originally to be victims.

One can see why John Travolta chose this movie as it’s by James Bridges, who also directed him in his head urban cowboy so this is another kind of down and dirty romance. Only this is given more of a flashy treatment as it is tying for rolling stone magazine, for which John Travolta is a reporter of and , the editor and chief of the magazine at the time Jan wiener even plays himself a version of himself under a different name.

The script was also written by written by the actual writer that John Travolta character is based on who wrote a story about sports clubs or aerobics clubs being the new singles club so it all feels like an in-house production.

I will say that Jamie Lee Curtis looks fantastic in the movie and her character is so cool and has such a fashionable look that you just wish her character was in a different and better film. 

John Travolta tries his best and makes his character charismatic and dramatic, but he doesn’t make him interesting.

That is the problem with this film at first, watching this film as a look back at the fashions and mentality of the times, but it moves along so slowly that even any campiness factor within the film slowly drains away until your hit with what is supposed to be drama but he just doesn’t seem in the right way that the film is hoping it will just want resolution as you’re wondering where is this movie going to go?

Seem to have a lot going for at first it has some unbilled cameos by Lauren Hutton and Carly Simon and it seems like a typically streamline film that was made to be tied into a fan, but then also tried to have some substance and that might be the problem is that that substance dragged down the film that not that it wouldn’t necessarily have been good Even without the substance, but it could be forgiven for naïveness

So give credit for at least trying to be worth something.

The film is fascinating to watch though after a while it’s feels a little monotonous, almost like a sitcom where you wait for the two leads to finally get together and then they do and then the show kind of runs out of steam as it doesn’t know what else to do or focus on , watching just to see where it’s going to go if you’re a Die Hard that’s what it feels like watching this film. It goes on for way too long and so many characters consequences and plots that don’t seem to go anywhere or are introduced but not more depth.

For instance, the Lorraine Newman character seems like the one chance for the film to actually have a character of death who has tragic ramifications around her and offers some traumatic consequences, but the film seems to hint at these prospects and then totally drops them so that just becomes another background character that we do with.

It’s not exactly the same with Mary Lou character who is Bill heavily but is given very little to do more than maybe be in the background of scenes even though she looks great too in this film as much as Jamie Lee Curtis, but other than just being another body in the background She doesn’t have much to do.

I’m sure this film has its fans and Jamie Lee Curtis and John Travolta still defended though this was a flop a big one for the studio and John Travolta who seem to not start another film for another four years after this film so he did kind of a hit though again I think everyone is proud of the film, at least attempted to even if it didn’t do it successfully.

I would say the warnings but watch at your own risk. It’s not the worst thing in the world, but it’s reputation proceeds and there is a reason for that there is some decent stuff in here, but you have to get through so much bad stuff just to get to it, including a ridiculously long aerobics scene where John Travolta just keeps thrusting his hips endlessly.

The one aspect of the film is that it has so many aerobics and workout scenes that this film under normal circumstances could’ve been a musical if you just take all the aerobic scenes and made them into song and dance productions it seems it wants to be a musical, but physically, it’s a romantic drama about reporting and aerobics.

Grade: D+

SUGAR BABY (1985)

Directed By: Percy Adlon 

Written By: Percy Adlon and Gwendolyn Von Ambasser

Cinematography: Johanna Heer

Editor: Jean-Claude Piroue

Cast: Marianne Sagebrecht, Elsi Gulp, Toni Berger, Manuela Denz, Will Spindler, Hans Stadlbauer, Meret Burger 

An asocial, obese German woman lives in a large city. Unfortunately, despite her kind and intelligent personality, she has had a lot of trouble making a connection with people, until she gets a crush on a handsome subway conductor.


Though this film sounds more modern about an older person taking care of a beautiful younger person financially and them doing the ssmenin return socially and physically. The same happens here but it is more romantic and emotional. Same title different meaning. Oh how the times have changed 

Throughout this film I had the feeling that I had seen this film before. As it constantly felt familiar though I I had only learned of this film in the previous weeks. Then by the end a particular scene jogged my memory. I didn’t see this film exactly, but a televison movie name BABYCAKES starring Ricki Lake and Craig Sheffer. Which o found out was a remake of this film.

Only with a happier and less ambiguous ending. As this original is definitely more sexual and a bit more twisted, but still sweet and more direct. 

As this film goes the artistic route in It’s stark lighting and camera work that seems to go a bit haywire at times in romantic scenes. I am shocked this film hasn’t become a cult film with a following. 

The lead played by Marianne Sagebrecht comes off as lonely and sad but also smart and determined. As we watch in her determined pursuit of her crush. Who seems like an epiphany to her one day.

Their romance takes up most of the film. As they find salvation in one another. Even though he is married. Most of the scenes are of their courtship and romance and some sex. The main difference between the movies other than country of origin is in the remake she has a best friend who is jealous and kind of pulls the rug out from under the romance.

The main attraction of this film is that the female is older and overweight. Making her seem all the more desperate and like her pursuit is more of a dream of fairytale. As the guy is considered think or in this original rather average but skinny. So when she manages to get him it is joyous and a wish come true. So it truly feels like the underdog finding victory. Only unlike most romances we stay way past the victory lap and watch as they deal with reality and the world. Remeber You have to defend your title at times. 

As I saw the remake first I have to side with it as far as presentation of the story and offering up a happy ending. Even though the original is more truthful, artistic and focused. 

Grade: C 

HEART EYES (2025)

Directed By: Josh Ruben 

Written By: Philip Murphy, Christopher Landon and Michael Kennedy 

Cinematography: Stephen Murphy 

Editor: Brett W. Bachman 

Cast: Mason Gooding, Olivia Holt, Jordana Brewster, Devon Sawa, Gigi Zumbado, Michela Watkins, Yoson An, Ben Black, Chris Parker, 

For the past several years, the “Heart Eyes Killer” has wreaked havoc on Valentine’s Day by stalking and murdering romantic couples. This Valentine’s Day, no couple is safe.

————————————————————————

This is a film that plays more like a romantic comedy that builds itself around a horror, film plot. It’s cute. It’s violin. It sometimes has a laugh or two and both sides with each other and against against each other. 

Whereas I wish you could be more like happy death day, which did have a comedy side and a horror side, but it also seemed to have its serious moments too. That made you care a little bit more. 

This film lacks that so that again the characters always feel exactly like that like characters rather than human beings, and why you worry about them in their peril the film, cynical, nature, almost every other character works against it as it seeks to be a dark comedy that reels a little bit more in violence 

If that is what you are seeking, you have found the perfect film for yourself and I will admit it stays entertaining through 90 minutes though after a while, it does becoming a bit predictable, though I will give it points for originality with ending to a certain extent 

No, again like a romantic comedy unfortunately the two leads who we follow are somewhat interesting, but not enough to hold your attention throughout the whole film where you really start to bond with them 

In fact, as a film where again some of the more supporting characters are way more interesting, and you had more screen time, but then it would probably require them to be either pulled into the plot story more killed. The audience would definitely want revenge on the slasher. 

I’m thinking, especially the best friend played by Gigi Zumbado, who the film could’ve benefited with her character being featured more or hell even being the lead character if they make a sequel to this film hopefully she will get that lead role

The film is enjoyable in a disposable way where your entertained while you watch it, but can’t see many watches and some of the scenes. Remind you so much of other horror films that either is paying two or based around. 

In fact, the only scene to me that was the most far would be that all these people are watching one of my favorite movies his girl Friday at a drive-in, even if it is Valentine’s Day.

It’s nice to see Jordana Brewster in any role that is not associated with the FAST & FURIOUS franchise 

Almost like rather than a comedy à la Simpsons episode where there’s a serial killer killing couples out and of course the city decides to still keep it Valentine’s Day celebrations going culminating and a driving and amusement park for lovers the slasher, a perfect opportunity of victims.

Not surprised that this film was also written, but some of the writers of the film’s FREAKY and IT’S A WONDERFUL KNIFE as well as TIME CUT. As this film has a similar feel. Where the concept is pushed more than anything else. Just as being directed by Josh Ruben who made WEREWOLVES WITHIN a mystery that seemed more to push the comedic elements more than the horror or mystery ones. 

Again, I don’t wanna make this film seem worse than it is as it does seem to be having a lot of fun and is made more for an audience. It’s just not a sharp as it seems to aim to be like fast food good in the moment, but overall not the best for you Nor noteworthy

Grade: C+

CRUSH (2013)

Directed By Malik Bader

Written By: Sonny Malhi

Cinematography: Scott Kevan 

Editor: Jeff Canavan

Cast: Lucas Till, Sarah Bolger, Crystal Reed, Leigh Whannell, Camille Guaty, Isaiah Mustafa, Holt McCallany, Caitriona Balfe, Reid Ewing, Meredith Salenger

The promising high school soccer player Scott is injured on the knee in a game and two years after, he is still trying to heal his knee. The teenager Jules feels unrequited love for him but Scott is concentrated in recovering his physical condition and considers her as a friend. The also teenage Bess that works in the store owned by David with her mature colleague Andie has a crush on Scott. When Scott is stalked by a mysterious person that threatens Jules, he believes that Bess is responsible for the weird situations. Is his assumption correct?


This film is just  so tedious and badly paced most of the time it keeps building up and then when it does finally offer a release you are so thankful but never truly lives up to It’s potential or premise 

The way the film points at the red herring the more it becomes obvious that it’s not them.

It could have been a bit more fun if it played up it’s Ridiculous aspects or camped it up or actually added thrills. The way it plays it is more limp. Where you find yourself asking questions or creating your own scenarios rather then go with what is on screen. As it is taking way too long at a little over 90 minutes 

Not to mention the main character has looks and seems to be a good moral kid, but he has very little personality for all these ladies to have such crushes on him. Especially the teacher.

Though a teenage boy who is really into classic black and white films. Warmed my heart as I wished I could go to this town’s theater, but feels mroe an invention of a writer. Who wanted to put a piece of themselves and lvoe of film In there. As the film chosen isnMt even an inside joke or a hint of what is to come. 

Though will say she seemed to only be here for eye candy for anyone desiring some skin other then some from the lead actor and even what is shown is more pg-13 quality 

Know it would most likely be straight to home video quality but expected a bit better then what is offered. Espeically with such a recognizable cast, but we all have to start somewhere. 

It feels like a WB channel thriller if you remember what those were more targeted to the youth, a little risqué, but almost every character is picture perfect good looking.

While there’s barely anything objectionable, that is why it feels more like a TV movie or a movie meant for or could’ve easily played on a lifetime channel or MTV or WB

Crystal reed is the only true notable performance throughout. Everyone else does what is expected of them. 

Grade: D+

THE VAGRANT (1992)

Directed By: Chris Walas

Written By: Richard Jefferies 

Cinematography: John J. Connor and Jack Wallner 

Editor: Jay Ignaszewski

Cast: Bill Paxton, Michael Ironside, Marshall Bell, Mitzi Kapture, Colleen Camp, Patrika Darbo, Marc McClure, Stuart Pankin, Teddy Wilson 

The Vagrant tells the story of Graham Krackowski, who moves into his new home only to be terrorized by an unruly vagrant that lives across the street in an abandon lot. What begins as simply an inconvenience to him, escalates into an all out war of head games, wit, and eventually murder.


 The film mixes hard and comedy and the humor though dark is funny and parts, but it never quite land. It always feels like it’s missing a beat. 

The performances are believable and the material you expect a bit more zaniness and can see why this film does have a cult following and it’s fans but personally, it never quite comes alive nor as fun as the premise it presents

It seems to be headed for better and you expect more especially with such a cast. 

The film does seem to treat every female. He comes across as attracted to him, and they are all secondary by nature or props, then actual characters. 

Bill Paxton’s character change of looks later in the film. It also shows the range of Mr. Paxton who is the only reason I saw this movie for.

As I knowingly used to pass the box for this movie and video stores in my youth, all the time always thought it would be more run-of-the-mill and basic one can appreciate that at times it tries to be different and subvert the audience 

The film is a low budget movie that tries and you want to like it. it seems to work against itself never quite finding that right mixture as it feels more comedic when it wants to be horrific, and it feels more horrific when it wants to be comedic finding its groove.

It should be noted that it’s sort of the few times. Michael Ironside has been in an intentional comedy.

The film was directed by Chris Walas, a special effects artist, and whose previous film was THE FLY II. Which was a guilty pleasure in my teens and was hoping this film would end up being a diamond in the rough as this seems to be the last film that Chris Wallace has directed so far it ends up disappointing because the potential had more than anything

Grade: D+

THE STRANGE VICE OF MRS. WARDH (1971)

Directed By: Sergio Martino 

Written By: Eduardo Manzanos, Ernesto Gastaldi and Vittorio Caronia 

Cinematography: Emilio Foriscot and Floriano Trenker 

Editor: Eugenio Alabiso 

Cast: Edwige French, George Hilton, Cristina Airoldi, Manuel Gill, Alberto De Mendoza, Bruno Corazzari, Carlo Alighiero, Ivan Rassimov 

After arriving in Vienna with her diplomat husband, a woman is stalked by a mysterious, razor-wielding maniac, with people around her getting killed one by one.


 Right now, I am truly immersing myself and the Gallo genre or at least catching up on many that I have never seen and truly never heard of when is thankful for Tubi for actually having a lot of these films to offer finding out about these films from various box sets devoted to lesser known examples of the genre. vinegar syndrome in particularly has a bunch of these in box sets that help me just discover titles to try to find and see for myself

There is a certain grace in Giallo films 

And it fees  like the story telling is on a rhythm almost like liquid as it flows. This film feels more rough around the edges att times. Which adds to it’s Charms. 

Though they started in these films and the women sometimes are treated horribly in them. Though the Film and filmmaker seems devoted to showcasing the actresses as unearthly beautiful but makes their behavior all the more human. That either you root for them in their indiscretions as their partners treat them horribly. So that you feel a certain sympathy for them. It is also the filmmakers putting you on yheornside as the men dominate the women to make them seem all the more human and weak to a certain extent. that way each film seems like a testament to the actress or the lead character and the actress just encases the role.

story wise this film is pretty typical of Giallos. There’s always a murder mystery at hand and the film offers. You many suspects as well as grand death scenes scenes were the lead female character is almost a victim, but it saved last minute or manages to escape. 

it tries to make you believe that anyone could be the killer offering, red herrings, and plenty of motives for different characters who are close to the main character to do it as well as scenes that try to provide alibis or reasons as to why we might suspect cannot be the killer.

While also providing plenty of intrigue, seduction, glamour, international landscapes,  sex scenes, nudity and graphic violence that the directors usually try to make seem brutal, yet artistic in the aftermath.

Even though a little more predictable than usual, this film is truly an undiscovered gem as again it’s imperfections or set it apart from the typical Giallo, which can be original sometimes are so stylistic that it’s too much for their own good.

Edwige French captivtes the screen. As you want to see more of her or for her to do more. One can’t take their eyes off of her. Conchita Airoldi does the same in a more supporting role. Which has her leavi g the film before she can truly make too much of an impression, but while she is there. She works as a distraction at times though one with a great smile. 

By the end the puzzle isn’t too hard to figure out but the end packs a hell of a punch. 

Grade: B

KRAVEN THE HUNTER (2024)

Directed By: J.C. Chandor

Written By: Richard Wenk, Art Marcum and Matt Holloway 

Story By: Richard Wenk

Based on characters created by: Stan Lee & Steve Ditko 

Cinematography: Ben Davis 

Editor: Milos Djakovic and Zach Vandlik 

Cast: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Ariana DeBose, Alessarndro Nivolla, Russell Crowe, Christopher Abbott, Levi Miller 

Kraven’s complex relationship with his ruthless father, Nikolai Kravinoff, starts him down a path of vengeance with brutal consequences, motivating him to become not only the greatest hunter in the world, but also one of its most feared.


This film is like a record where at first you are really not liking the songs then every other song you like or you hit a section of the album and it’s quite good or adequate for a few songs that make it listenable/watchable. So it’s not as bad as you expected 

As there are some really good action sequences that save the film but there are so many scenes in between setting up the characters and story. As the film tries to be of a better quality then it is. Trying to enrich it. When tis should have been a more Mindless popcorn action film.

As the early opening scenes or rather the intro is so ridiculous it seems like it’s on the verge of becoming MADAME WEB bad. Though at least that was watchable and not boring. As thst tried to throw everything against the wall and see what stuck. 

Aaron Taylor johnson is good in the lead and believable but ultimately better than the material. Ariana debose really has nothing to do and Russell Crowe is as usual chewing the scenery and having fun.

The foreigner  is really the only interesting part and character in the film. Though not used nearly enough. As he comes across as a celebrity cameo throughout or a special guest star. Not To mention his fashion is a flex. 

The film could have resisted the use of cgi for the scaling scenes which makes kraven look more like a non super human version of Spider-Man. 

Though at least it’s Excessively violent like a 1980’s action films of yesterday. Honestly out of the spin-off spider-man films. This is the one I wouldn’t mind seeing a sequel to this film. Even though there is no reason. As he truly was a minor villain in the comic books, who caused a major storyline. 

Where is he? Where is the world’s greatest Hunter? He saw Spider-Man as the ultimate pray, and went about hunting and ceremoniously killing him with us, also causing his own downfall, and Spider-Man’s resurrection of sorts.

The film’s second half is better than the first half and that’s only because of so much set up in the first half. Even if it is ridiculous and always feels more like fantasy than any kind of reality it tries to portray. 

It has the same problem as the other films in this series. In that it feels disposable. They feel like the superhero films that would have come out in the 1990’s and with the same mindset. So if looking for something brainless yet entertaining. I would say go for it.

Grade: C-

CUCKOO (2024)

Written & Directed By: Tilman Singer 

Cinematography: Paul Feltz 

Editor: Terel Gibson and Philipp Thomas 

Cast: Hunter Schafer, Dan Stevens, Marton Csokas, Jessica Henwick, Greta Fernadez, Jan Bluthardt, Proschart Madani, Astrid Berges-Frisby

Reluctantly, 17-year-old Gretchen leaves her American home to live with her father, who has just moved into a resort in the German Alps with his new family. Arriving at their future residence, they are greeted by Mr. König, her father’s boss, who takes an inexplicable interest in Gretchen’s mute half-sister Alma. Something doesn’t seem right in this tranquil vacation paradise. Gretchen is plagued by strange noises and bloody visions until she discovers a shocking secret that also concerns her own family.


This film matches its title. As even once you price everything together it still comes off as bizarre, Yet idiosyncratic.

This is a film that you should go into knowing as little as you can. Though even if you know some of it. It will still be bizarre and mysterious. 

All of the actors are on top of their games and give memorable performances. One only wishes there was more to remember story wise. That at times feels confusing for its own sake and to keep us as off center as the lead character played by Hunter Schafer.

The film is very stylish and keeps you on your toes trying to guess what is coming next. 

The film puts you Ina strange environment and commit ity and leaves you there. For you

To figure it out as much as the characters. Though they take to it a little more

Quickly and routinely than the audience most Likely will. 

This movie is a drug, Purely. It’s up to you wether the trip it leaves you with is good or bad. It’s definitely cinematic, experimental and theatrical. 

Honestly… This $h*t is bananas in a good way. Far from predictable, but hard to explain A wild stylish ride. Hunter Schafer is quite good, and a Fox but Dan Steven’s once again runs away with the film. It has a strange taste to it, foreign and not Terrible quite tasty but not exactly a favorite 

Grade: B- 

THE WOLFMAN (1941)

Directed By: George Waggner

Written By: Curt Siodmak

Cinematography: Joseph Valentine

Editor: Ted Kent

Cast: Lon Chaney Jr., Claude Rains, Bela Lugosi, Ralph Bellamy, Evelyn Ankers, Warren William, Patric Knowles, Maria Ousperskaya, Fay Helm 

Upon his return to his father’s estate, aristocrat Larry Talbot meets a beautiful woman, attends a mystical carnival and uncovers a horrifying curse.

this is one of the first films to have a werewolf at the center of its floor, and you have to give it respect as the film is well made with a legendary cast

Unfortunately, even at only 70 minutes, it gets right to the point and manages to tell a story though it just doesn’t feel that strong

I thought this was the first time I ever seen this film, but checking my files. I realized I had seen this film only a few years before, and it completely slipped my mind.

so for me, this film is memorable. It might be a case of. I was born later and have seen many werewolf movies that use similar premise, but were more memorable. Only here we’re getting what the basics of all those other tales were and simplest form by the time and trying to tell, entertaining an emotional story 

It’s not a bad film and can understand why it has its fans, but is a concert reminder that just because it’s first doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the best but it pave the way for the others so you have to give it a certain amount of respect

But if you already know, you’re really not into black-and-white classic horror films. This might be one you wanna skip as it’s never quite a strong as Dracula or Frankenstein or the ultimate bride of Frankenstein.

and the film doesn’t present itself as some kind of the movie that was more made to fit a fad or rushed out with little care the film it’s requirements as far as entertaining the audience, but actually showcasing emotions and characters, owning up to their decisions and choices in certain moments