Tag: Adaptation

DIE MY LOVE (2025)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Lynne Ramsay

Written By: Enda Walsh, Lynne Ramsay and Alice Birch

Based on the book by: Ariana Harwicz 

Cinematography: Seamus McGarvey 

Editor: Toni Froschhammer 

Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Robert Pattinson, Sissy Spacek, Nick Nolte, Sarah Lind, Lakeith Stanfield, Gabrielle Rose, Clare Coulter 

Grace, a writer and young mother, is slowly slipping into madness. Locked away in an old house in and around Montana, we see her acting increasingly agitated and erratic, leaving her companion, Jackson, increasingly worried and helpless.

Jennifer Lawrence gives a phenomenal performance that is raw animalistic and amazing more physical than verbal as that is what the script calls for so she just morphs into the role and is a sensation

Though sadly, she is more interesting and truly the highlight of the movie as the movie is not bad, but she is clearly the star in the heart of the film, even with a stacked cast she’s the only one who makes an impression and stays memorable

Now be warm this film is very dark and very depressing throughout. There are very few if any moments of joy and none that I can truly remember. 

Now I knew what I was getting into when it came to watching this as most of Director Lynne Ramsey‘s movies are intense sad and mostly joyless. I’m not saying that is a bad thing. It’s just that, that is the mood and vibe that they give off they can be quite depressing and this film is no exception. They like the main character and maybe this was intentional. The film also feels a little lost.

As it plays, this feels like the film NIGHTBITCH with Amy Adams strive to be or at least make the audience feel like, whereas, even though that film is more of a satire that involve postpartum depression this film is definitely a drama showing the ravages of postpartum depression only revealing through flashbacks that not only to this character might have had mental problems already, but it seems like everyone around her is also breaking down in their own way. They both have many similarities as both protagonists are artists of some kind. Who begin to exhibit animal type behavior.

We see that the relationship seemed kind of rushed from the beginning, and that both characters were always impulsive and now that they are need to be more responsible Lawrence his character does not seem prepared or ready for it or as Robert Pattinson‘s character does but doesn’t want to take on all the responsibilities either

As like in the film night, bitch, he comes across as careless and not at all helpful and expecting her to take on everything

Just as with the main character film plays with time where sometimes we’re not sure exactly where we are in the timeline of their relationship exactly where they are and sometimes if what we’re seeing is real, we’re all in her head

Which is shown to be faulty as in a scene when she sees her neighbor who always rides a motorcycle at a supermarket with his wife and disabled child at first, we believe she’s going to talk to him to help her with a flat tire. Then we realize nose, some weird fantasy that she had of talking to as he represents temptation even though doesn’t really have any lines throughout the film.

Speaking of which Nick Nolte is in the film as Robert Patterson‘s father, who is slowly losing his cognizance and seems to be in a film for only five minutes before he’s gone, which is a shame as he has a screen legend and was hoping that he’d have more time on screen and more things to do, though  Sissy Spacek as Lawrence‘s mother-in-law is powerful in her scenes

As she seems to be having her problems after her husband‘s recent death, but still can hold it together and seems to understand what Lawrence‘s character is going through, but wants her to take responsibility and kind of snap out of it even while having sympathy for her

One can’t see who this film’s audience really is as it got a very low cinema score, but it is good filmmaking that is more experimental and doesn’t hold the audience‘s hand. What’s the where it goes and leaves them to interpret it however they will as the last 15 minutes of the film, which so far has been a buildup is truly worth the film. Let’s loose and becomes all the more powerful.

As even though the film does offer some surprises before we reach that point, it’s never as strong as the ending just as a strong and deeply felt Jennifer Lawrence‘s performances. The rest of the film just isn’t as strong as you constantly wonder where it’s going.

Grade: B- 

THE LONG WALK (2025)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Francis Lawrence 

Written By: JT Mollner

Based On The Novel By: Stephen King 

Cinematography: Jo Willems 

Editor: Peggy Eghbaliant and Mark Yoshikawa 

Cast: Cooper Hoffman, David Jonsson, Ben Wang, Charlie Plummer, Mark Hamill, Judy Greer, Josh Hamilton, Garrett Wareing, Tut Nyuot, Jordan Gonzalez, Joshua Odjick, Roman Griffin Davis 

In the near future, where America has become a police state, 50 boys are selected to enter an annual contest where the winner will be awarded whatever he wants for the rest of his life. The game is simple – maintain a steady walking pace of at least three miles per hour without stopping. Three warnings, and you’re out – permanently.

This film announces itself as a slow burn and then has the nerve to earn it. From the outset, a dark cloud hangs overhead, but what makes the experience so quietly devastating is how much warmth, camaraderie, and fleeting hope exist beneath that shadow. You know purely from the premise that this is going to hurt. A dystopian march for survival, a grim prize dangled in front of young men with nothing else to cling to. And yet, against all odds, the film keeps reaching for something gentler: connection, shared humor, the fragile optimism of youth.

The storytelling is intentionally cut and dry, almost austere. There’s nothing flashy or sensationalized about the way we move through this bombed-out vision of Middle America. Streets feel hollowed out, spectators feel desperate rather than celebratory, and the so-called hope this march offers the world feels cruelly abstract. The film doesn’t exaggerate its dystopia; it lets the emptiness speak for itself. That restraint is precisely what makes it so unsettling.

At the center of it all is the chemistry most notably between Cooper Hoffman and David Jonsson, who anchor the film with a bond that feels lived-in rather than written. Their relationship becomes an emotional spine, but the real achievement is how the entire ensemble locks together. This is a movie where the heart lives in the group, even if it’s a bruised, dark heart. Each character’s elimination lands with a genuine sense of loss. Early on, the executions feel shocking, almost confrontational, as if the film is forcing you to understand the rules of this world in the harshest possible terms.

As the march continues, something subtler and more painful happens. The violence recedes into the background not because it matters less, but because it hurts more. You begin to avert your eyes the same way the characters do. The film places you inside their exhaustion, their grief, their numbness. It’s an odd, devastating alchemy: the suffering deepens, yet so does your emotional investment. You don’t just watch the film, you endure it alongside them.

As a Stephen King story, it fits perfectly within his particular brand of Midwestern dread. There’s no supernatural evil lurking here, which somehow makes it scarier. The horror is human, systemic, and banal. It’s also tinged with nostalgia. a throwback to a kind of youthful camaraderie where people from wildly different backgrounds can form instant, meaningful bonds. That sense of shared experience, of learning from one another before time runs out, gives the film its aching soul.

Francis Lawrence deserves real credit for the direction. Known for handling large-scale studio spectacles, he proves here that he can scale things down without losing intensity. The film could easily have been an intimate indie drama, yet it still carries the propulsion of a thriller. It’s juggling multiple tones at once emotional, political, suspenseful and somehow keeps them all spinning.

Yes, on paper, the story sounds simple and even predictable, and for the most part, it embraces that simplicity. But within that framework, it offers something far richer: a meditation on endurance, youth, and the quiet brutality of hope weaponized. It’s the kind of film that breaks your heart slowly, thoughtfully, and without apology.

The ending is likely to divide audiences. I’m still not entirely sure how I feel about it and that uncertainty feels intentional. It lingers, gnaws, and invites interpretation long after the final frame.

This is not an easy sit, nor is it meant to be. But it’s a deeply admirable piece of filmmaking. one that deserves discovery, discussion, and reevaluation. It may not have found its audience at the box office, but one can only hope it finds a longer life beyond it. If studios made more films like this somber, human, and unafraid of sadness. we’d all be better off, even if we walked out a little heavier than we walked in.

Grade: B

HEDDA (2025)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Written & Directed By: Nia DaCosta

Based on the play “HEDDA GABLER” by Henrik Ibsen

Cinematography: Sean Bobbitt

Editor: Jacob Schulsinger

Cast: Tessa Thompson, Nina Hoss, Imogen Poots, Tom Bateman, Nicholas Pinnock, Finbar Lynch, Mirren Mack, Saffron Hocking, 

In a provocative, modern re-imagining of Henrik Ibsen’s classic play, Heather finds herself torn between the lingering ache of a past love and the quiet suffocation of her present life. Over the course of one charged night, long-repressed desires and hidden tensions erupt-pulling her and everyone around her into a spiral of manipulation, passion, and betrayal.

This is a film that understands atmosphere before it  worries about plot. It looks great deliberately gray, restrained, and textured. Which is impressive especially considering how much of it stays in a single location. The art direction, costumes, and camera work all do quiet but confident heavy lifting, turning limited space into something moody, elegant, and faintly suffocating in the best way.

Tessa Thompson is very good here, even if her affected accent initially throws you off. At first it feels like something you’re constantly aware of, but as the film settles into its rhythms, so does she. Once again, Thompson proves her range and commitment, leaning the character with a confidence that ultimately outweighs any early hesitation. She knows how to command stillness, and this film gives her plenty of room to do exactly that.

I’ll admit I went in blind, unfamiliar with the original play, and for much of the runtime I wasn’t entirely sure where things were heading. The narrative keeps its cards close, and clarity doesn’t fully arrive until the end. At which point it confirms what you may have suspected from early on. That slow reveal can be either intriguing or frustrating depending on your patience, but it feels intentional rather than careless.

One of the most interesting aspects is how the material is reframed around African American characters, along with more openly LGBTQ+ identities and the politics surrounding them. What’s notable is how relaxed the film feels about this. Instead of leaning into heightened tension or historical accuracy, it presents these dynamics as part of everyday life. Even if that ease may feel more modern than the period itself. That creative choice gives the film a looseness and accessibility that invites the audience to engage with the material from a fresh angle.

Though as shame as they’re are only three African-American characters, and by the end two will try to attack and kill each other. 

This isn’t an especially exciting film in the traditional sense. As period pieces rarely are, but the shifting power dynamics within relationships and the sharp, biting dialogue keep things moving. Conversations matter here. They keep the film alive and keep the audience leaning in, especially as everything circles around a lavish, almost dreamlike dinner party that feels both glamorous and quietly ominous.

Most importantly, this stands out as one of Nia DaCosta’s more original-feeling projects. While it’s still an adaptation, it’s not tied to sequels, franchises, or existing cinematic universes. You can feel her breathing a bit easier here, letting her style emerge more clearly and trusting the audience to follow. It’s a reminder of her talent as a filmmaker rather than a caretaker of someone else’s vision.

Hopefully, this leads to more projects where she has that kind of control. where she can fully flex her artistic muscles instead of feeling like a placeholder executing someone else’s plan. There’s a strong filmmaker here, and films like this suggest she’s at her best when she’s allowed to lead rather than follow.

As even after the film, one still is thinking about it

Grade: B-

THE AMATEUR (2025)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: James Hawes 

Written By: Ken Nolan and Gary Spinelli 

Based on the Novel By: Robert Littell

Cinematography: Martin Rhue

Editor: Jonathan Amos

Cast: Rami Malek, Laurence Fishburne, Holt McCallany, Danny Sapani, Julianne Nicholson, Jon Bernthal, Michael Stuhlbarg, Rachel Brosnahan, Adrian Martinez, 

When his supervisors at the CIA refuse to take action after his wife is killed in a London terrorist attack, a decoder takes matters into his own hands.

————————————————————————

You probably seen this film before it’s a pretty much a revenge tail where a character seeks revenge for the death or murder of a loved one and at first seems too weak or too meek 

Who somehow against all odds starts achieving in getting their revenge, but not always in the way in which they seek or expected .

This could’ve been a random episode of any kind of government series, or even then a full season of a limited series about the same subject in story, which would’ve at least given the film a chance to flash more of the characters out other than the lead and those who are working against him .

The film is pretty average. It stays entertaining and tries to offer some surprises that you might see coming though it’s not quite as action packed as maybe the trailer or storyline might have the audience believe there are action sequences, but they’re nothing phenomenal or breathtaking. They’re fairly average and actually pretty quick so that this plays off more as a dramatic thriller than anything else.

The twist and turns truly do show how smart that the main character is for what he might lack and physical prose, though it doesn’t help that some of the bigger supporting cast names are barely in the film for long periods of time and are severely underused 

One can understand why Rami Malek produce this and starting it as most likely there aren’t that many who would see him in this role naturally or as he plays the nerdy parts well the more physical aspects of the role would leave most in question. Which is actually one of the reasons why we might not see Rami Malik in so many films is that he’s hard to cast as he’s wiry physically and has quite a strange look and at times feels tilted and gives meek line readings.

That make him come across as a bit odd or more seeming like a character, actor, pro more eyeball rules, rather than leads or even villains. The film does pack a punch, but it’s not a lethal one. It’s more of a jab that will keep you entertained while watching though probably instantly forget once you’re done. It’s a great popcorn entertainment with a great cast that you wish had more to do.

as he just constantly sit through the film, waiting for all this to build up into something bigger and better or at least more and unfortunately, it doesn’t. It kinda goes out on a whimper rather than an extravaganza.

No, it’s not a lost cause, But  it’s nothing to write home about it. Does what it seeks out to do it entertains it makes you think you get caught up with the story and the characters but it’s just not that memorable and considering the cast that is on screen should be better.

Grade: C 

BALLAD OF A SMALL PLAYER (2025)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Edward Berger

Written By: Rowan Joffe

Based on the novel by: Lawrence Osborne

Cinematography: James Friend

Editor: Nick Emerson 

Cast: Colin Farrell, Tilda Swinton, Fala Chan, Alex Jennings, Deanie Ip, Jason Tobin, Adrienne Lau

Lord Doyle is laying low in Macau spending his days and nights on the casino floors, drinking heavily and gambling what little money he has left. Struggling to keep up with his fast-rising debts, he is offered a lifeline by the mysterious Dao Ming, a casino employee with secrets of her own. However, in hot pursuit is Cynthia Blithe a private investigator ready to confront Doyle with what he is running from. As Doyle tries to climb to salvation, the confines of reality start to close in.

————————————————————————————

Unfortunately , this is another film where it’s a case of style over substance and the strange part is that there is enough substance to truly match the style, but by the end, it just feels so empty and almost like an opportunity wasted.

The film tries to tell the tail as the title suggest in a small way, even though it’s international, it sure does live up to the title. As it shows a small time player who wants to be bigger and more successful than what he is in this growing huge international market, and no matter how much he wins or loses, he still stuck almost insignificant in this world.

Even though director, Edward Berger gives his all and making this film flash and a visual delight with plenty of color and style throughout, not quite making the images always surreal, but definitely always making them feel alive when bright, but also feeling chill and coldness when there is no color and it’s rather plain 

which is rather shocking as with his previous two films conclave and all quiet on the Western front adaptation both seem to be simple yet highly visual with the media stories that seem to plane at the time, but as the film goes along, truly brings the audience in deeperz.

where as here the film seems to go for flash and slowly reveal a more dramatic story underneath, but there’s just no meat to be chewed on as we watch so that the only time the film truly is entertaining is when it comes to the visuals and more visual storytelling rather than the dialogue scenes and the little meat that they offer

Colin Farrell gives his all in his performance as the gambler in the middle of this, but again it’s something we’ve seen before and many other films, and we never quite understand why he makes certain decisions. There are explanations that has left more for the audience to read into. 

Just as Tilda Swinton having a supporting role here, though it feels more like a special appearance as her role is vital, but she’s not given much to do other than have kind of a frumpy noteworthy look and style. 

This one was like watching a steak or a meal that just looks so big and delicious but then when you bite into it is undercooked and thus disappointing 

Where you can imagine how great it could’ve been but have to deal with what it actually is. 

There is glitz and glamour, but they’re still seems to be something missing things. We are supposed to take for granted or figure out from little information we are given as there aren’t that many explanations, but big decisions and actions that we question the meaning behind all of them.

Grade: C

FRANKENSTEIN (2025)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

 

Written & Directed by Guillermo del Toro

Based on the novel “FRANKENSTEIN OR THE MODERN PROMETHEUS” ByMary Shelly 

Cinematography: Dan Laustsen 

Editor: Evan Schiff 

Cast: Oscar Isaac, Jacob Elordi, Mia Goth, Christoph Waltz, Charles Dance, David Bradley, Ralph Ineson, Lars Mikkelsen, Nikolaj Lie Kaas, Lauren Collins, Sofia Galasso 

Dr. Victor Frankenstein, a brilliant but egotistical scientist, brings a creature to life in a monstrous experiment that ultimately leads to the undoing of both the creator and his tragic creation.

————————————————————————

Guillermo del Toro’s adaptation of Frankenstein arrives with the kind of anticipation usually reserved for cinematic pilgrimages. It’s a long-gestating passion project by a filmmaker whose devotion to monsters borders on religious. And yes, it’s gorgeous. Ravishing. Sculpted with the kind of gothic precision that makes you want to pause the frame and hang it in a museum (which, ironically, is part of the problem).

Because for all its visual majesty, the film feels less like a living, beating story and more like a beautifully lit museum chamber piece sacred, admired, but curiously still. Almost like a Wes Anderson film

Watching Frankenstein at home, even on the biggest TV you can justify without shame, is like trying to view a cathedral through your peephole. You get the idea, but not the impact. As The film Is A Gorgeous Experience That Never Quite Comes Alive

Del Toro stages the movie like a theatrical spectacle; wide, grand, operatic. It demands an audience seated in the dark, collectively hopefully

holding their breath. On a smaller screen the whole thing compresses, and so does its emotional force. It becomes one more thing you’re “watching while also texting,” its larger-than-life gestures suddenly feeling muted. Which might be why this film doesn’t reach me. As much as it would in a theater more secluded and direct. 

It’s a reminder of an uncomfortable truth: not every film needs the big screen, but this one absolutely does. Shrink it, and the soul shrinks with it.

A friend once described last year’s NOSFERSTU remake as “a museum piece”—impeccable, reverent, exquisitely lit, styled, designed and emotionally distant. It comes off more as a presentation than a movie. Del Toro’s Frankenstein often slips into that same territory.

The sets are Immaculate. The creature design is inventive. The mood? Pretentiously Overwhelming in the best way.

And yet… it rarely moves you. The emotions are presented but not felt. They are laid before the viewer with academic seriousness, like annotations on a text everyone already knows by heart. Maybe that’s the curse of remaking a story we’ve collectively known since childhood: the beats land, but they don’t surprise.

It becomes less a story and more an opportunity to witness someone else’s interpretation of a myth you’ve heard too many times.

Del Toro is too talented to ever make something bad, but here he feels like a director in his Tim-Burton-phase: Instead of breaking new ground, he’s lovingly recreating  the things that inspired him growing up. Unlike Burton, del Toro doesn’t defang his monsters or turn them into punchlines. He actually adores them too much for that, but the result is still a filmmaker circling familiar territory rather than charting new routes. 

And yes, the del Toro signature remains: a gothic romance at the center, a creature yearning for connection, a broken heart inside a larger-than-life body. It’s easy to see what drew him to the material. It’s also easy to wish he’d returned to an original idea instead.

Christoph Waltz—shockingly—goes big. He’s operatic, but also the kind of actor who benefits from stern directorial supervision. Left unchecked, he can become his own genre. Here, he hovers just on the edge of self-parody, charismatic but distracting. 

The rest of the cast plays it with earnestness and restraint, letting del Toro’s production design do most of the heavy emotional lifting. Sometimes too much.

So… Is It Good? Absolutely. Is it essential?

Not quite. As Frankenstein is an achievement, a vision, a painterly triumph. But it’s also one more retelling of a story that has been told so many times it now arrives pre-interpreted. Beautiful, yes undeniably. But also strangely hollow, like an echo of itself.

It’s a noteworthy film, worth admiring, worth seeing on the biggest screen you can find.

But it’s not a new favorite. More a reminder of what del Toro can do… and what we wish he’d dare to do next.

Grade: B 

THE ACTOR (2025)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Duke Johnson 

Written By: Duke Johnson and Stephen Cooney 

Based on. The novel “MEMORY” by: Donald E. Westlake 

Cinematography: Joe Passarelli 

Editor: Garret Elkins

Cast: Andre Holland, Gemma Chan, Toby Jones, Tracy Ullman, Joe Cole, May Calamawy, Tanya Reynolds, Youssef Kerkour 

When New York actor Paul Cole is beaten and left for dead in 1950s Ohio, he loses his memory and finds himself stranded in a mysterious small town where he struggles to get back home and reclaim what he’s lost.

————————————————————————

This is a strange film as it is beautifully film, offering surreal, imagery, mystery, nostalgic throwbacks in a bit of artificiality that the film leans into when it comes to fading memories, or one memory leading to another and connected 

What a strange about this tail is that it plays a bit like film noir it seems to want to head that way, so it plays more like a romance, as well as a psychological character drama that fully tries to illustrate the lead characters, fractured, memories, and emotional state due to this condition 

Though ultimately the problem with the film is that it doesn’t really go too many places it explores the situation, but you never know where exactly it’s headed and it still doesn’t really offer any answers and what it does. They’re not really that big revelations so you wonder what are we supposed to do with this And even though the film doesn’t outright explain anything we’re able to get answers through small little clues

Obviously, the film deals with identity, and whether this is truly the person’s identity stripped away, and who he was before was always an act. This is more the emotional vulnerable him or is he in fact, truly a different person.

Just as we are left a question what’s real as the film is obviously filmed more on sites than actual locations and can easily walk over to the vaccine or memory, but it makes it not only a movie but also makes it feel more staged, but also loose in itself as there is obviously a design to it all, but you never know where it’s gonna go so more like an outfit from the runway, though in the parameters of an outfit that someone could wear daily, but still with that wild streak. As the sets work to show that each time he moves on, he is in a new scene or a new set for him in his life. 

If anything, the film plays more like a dramatic romance that is dreamlike and fits in with movies such as MOOD INDIGO, and THE SCIENCE OF SLEEP where it’s more about the creative forces,  presentation and artistry on display. As the films and the filmmaker seemed to get lost in their imagination and while it all looks good by the end, it doesn’t come too much

Though it all looks pretty and it does entertain it’s very light on material, even though there is plenty of depth. Though sometimes that creativity seems like it is more there to either distract or make up for the lack of action.

Though this film is admirable, if you give it a chance for its beauty and what it attempts to do not to mention where it takes you to and leaves you for you more interpret as it is sweet and old-fashioned now using more modern storytelling techniques. Not to mention the bravery of the filmmakers to make this film and live in the moments.

Another aspect that keeps the film feel more like a stage plays is that some of the noticeable and notable actors play at least three different roles throughout. Usually minor but meaningful ones. That come In each phase or territory that he travels to. 

Andre Holland in the lead is excellent as usual, truly showing his leading man presence, looks and vulberability. Gemma chan as the female lead is so precious though one wishes she was given more to do and play with. Even as with that decision she plays more of a sweetheart who the audience falls in love with, as she is truly innocent throughout.

Hopefully this will be a film that is discovered and studied by Audiences In the future and not just an undiscovered gem. That while shiny isn’t as heavy as it should be. 

by the end, you just wish that it had more to say and something you can grab a hold of so that it could truly match its beauty

Grade: B-

LADY KILLER (1933)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Roy Del Ruth

Written By: Ben Markson and Lilie Hayward

Based on the story “The Finger Man” By: Rosalind Keating Shaffer 

Cinematography: Tony Gaudio

Editor: George Amy 

Cast: James Cagney, Mae Clarke, Margaret Lindsay, Leslie Fenton, Douglas Dumbrille, Russell Hopton, Raymond Hatton, Henry O’Neill 

When a movie theater usher is fired, he takes up with criminals and finds himself quite adept at various illegal activities. Eventually though, the police catch up with him, and he runs to hide out in Los Angeles. There he stumbles into the movie business and soon rises to stardom. He has gone straight, but his newfound success arouses the interest of his old criminal associates, who are not above blackmail.

————————————————————————

The films of James Cagney’s work that I see, he is swiftly becoming one of my favorite actors of all time.

As he has a screen presence personality, and tons of range and while this film, is it quite one of his memorable ones.  it’s still an interesting entry in his résumé and one can see why he starred in it.

The film is pre-code Hollywood where anything goes. 

As the first half definitely works and it’s fun, funny and seems to move quite long at a quick pace that stays charming. Though once the second half of the film starts where he has to relocate and go to Hollywood and we see him work his way up the ladder. In various roles for the studio.

Where this part of the film is where the romance starts, it also allows us to see him in various costumes and roles that come off more comedic, and are truly a time capsule of old Hollywood for those fanatics which shows how they would dress up extras as Native Americans and westerns and the special effects that they would use

It also allows us for a good part of the film to see James Cagney with a hideous thin mustache. Now once his life has seemed to have settled his old cronies and business partners from his passing to hunt him down and find him and while this should be thrilling this is actually What brings the film down as it’s not as fun or inventive as the rest of the film and really makes the film dragged towards the end and this film is under 90 minutes already

One quality that is notable is the viciousness in which he treats one of his old female compatriots and seemingly ex lover when he throws her out he’s just so outrageously violent towards her that it almost feels comical, which seems to be what the film is going for but watching it it feels over-the-top and cruel, no matter what happened in their past. I’m talking Tyler Perry melodramatic over the top.

The film is a crime keeper comedy and does whisk along rather quick, but truly James Cagney is the only reason to watch this film. He is the star and truly is one in this film. While the rest of the cast is good enough but not all that memorable 

James Cagney said in interviews it’s not one of his finest. In fact, I had never heard of it until it came up on a streaming service and decided to give it a chance.

So for this one I say watch at your own risk, but if you’re a James Cagney fan, I think it’s enjoyable

GRADE: C 

THE RUNNING MAN (2025)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

 

Directed By: Edgar Wright 

Written by: Michael Bacall and Edgar Wright 

Based on the book by: Stephen King 

Cinematography: Chung-Hoon Chung

Editor: Paul Machliss 

Cast: Glen Powell, Josh Brolin, Michael Cera, Colman Domingo, Alyssa Benn, Sean Hayes, Lee Pace, Katy O’Brian, William H. Macy. Emilia Jones  

A man joins a game show in which contestants, allowed to flee anywhere in the world, are pursued by “hunters” hired to kill them.

—————————————————————————

Where to begin with this one? First off, let me say that I am a huge fan of director Edgar Wright. Though I have to say this is his most disappointing film from a personal standpoint.

Though it is not his fault, but throughout the film, the only time the film seems to have his madcap energy and directing prose is really in the scenes with Michael Cera. Which is where the film feels fun and unpredictable. Which is what you are kind of expecting the whole film to be.

This version plays supposedly a little bit more to the original book by Stephen King then the previously filmed the version of it starring Arnold Schwarzenegger.

I can’t really say because I’ve never read the book .

Though while this story seems like it would do well on the big screen I prefer the previous version of the film maybe because while not sticking exactly to its material it does play well as a satire Moore in the 1980s of what the future might be 

Whereas watching this version of the film, the satire feel somewhat dated and beat you over the head with a message that I think or would hope most viewers already enough and furthermore, this film just feels like it didn’t need to be made. It just feels like such a big budget Entertainment but yet it lacks the death.

Worst of all, even though Edgar Wright, cockroach and directed the film other than the Michael Cera scenes this film felt like it could’ve been made by anybody any director worth their weight as that is how uninspired the story and visuals come across it just all feels colorful yet basic 

Now don’t get me wrong the film is perfectly entertaining for a popcorn movie but again if you’ve already seen the original from the 1980s, this is just a retread that has been updated and seemingly to have more action instead of inside of a studio more in the world and the villain has changed from the game show host to the CEO behind the scenes 

Most of the major actors seem more like they’re doing cameos that were done all for the paycheck and we’re finished in a day or two, though they are stitched into the film and storyline to be major players

The lead played by Glenn Powell does try but this feels like a film that definitely needs a known star who has a history within the action genre so you already know they can pull it off whereas Glenn Powell is a star who is somewhat known but does not have a big screen personality he is more of an actor so this every man surviving comes across more as a concoction, and then letting the audience believe it also, even though his character is supposed to be this angry man full of rage and that’s why he keeps surviving. The problem is that Glenn Powell comes across as such an affable guy you can understand his anger, but you don’t believe that he has that much built up inside of him that is just keeps pushing him ahead. He just seems like your average decent guy now whereas in the past, that would work for an action hero to be identifiable here it makes it seem all the more implausible.

Now while the film is never truly boring, it doesn’t run a bit long and could’ve easily been shortened by 20 minutes as it feels like the film just wanted to give you more action and that’s really the only reason for the length of time whereas the story could’ve been told a little bit shorter.

Especially when they have scenes devoted to a seemingly satire of the Kardashians throughout, which seems there as alternative programming for viewers in the film to watch, as it is at least more innocent and less violent than most of the game shows that are presented as well as to just make fun of reality shows in general in the end feels unnecessary

Throughout this review, trying not to compare the two but also the introduction of a third act character who truly proves integral to the whole film feels random at best  and at worst like lazy storytelling that had to be put there because it was part of the story of the original and in the book. Has even as it seemed to pre-date AMERICAN GLADIATORS at least the villains. The hunters had personality whereas here, though they could be compared to ice they feel a bit more random and mysterious again, typical villain, who each seem to have a look, but only to come across in costume.

This one tries to be different and while it is much different then the original screen version and manages to set itself apart. It’s not necessarily for the better. When it’s difference really doesn’t help it and makes the co promised version we got, just a bit better. Even if it let the book’s fans down and not one of its stars favorite films. As he feels the movie is filmed too flat.

As by now there have been so many copycats, we borrowed from this story in plot and managed to do better and impress, and also do mean and go to the worst offenses of exploitation It’s pretty much hard to impress or top at this point.

It’s quality entertainment as long as you don’t have your hopes up .

Grade: C+

CONTEMPT (1963)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Jean-Luc Godard

Written by & based on the novel “IL DISPREZZO” By: Alberto Moravia

Cinematography: Raoul Coutard

Editor: Agnes Guillemot 

Cast: Jack Planace, Brigitte Bardot, Fritz Lang, Michel Piccoli, Giorgia Moll

A French writer’s marriage deteriorates while working on Fritz Lang’s version of “The Odyssey”, as his wife accuses him of using her to court favor with the film’s brash American producer.

————————————————————————

Tortured Myself again, by watching another Jean Luc-Godard From my Criterion Collection, sight unseen.

I know how dour that already sounds. You just have to know that me and Jon Luc Godard films have had a love-hate relationship. I have actually liked and enjoyed some films that I didn’t expect while other films that are considered classics I found rather boring noteworthy for different reasons.

I like the ideas of Jean-Luc Godard, in his style though the films not necessarily as much at times they work, but usually not at least for me as they become statements which might have worked at the time as bold but now come across as pretentious, cinematic, theatrical games, there is a living quality to them in an absurd quality, as they are usually quite beautiful, but leaves the audience lost to find their own way, which is commendable, if not having

I will say watching the movie is like reading a classic book you don’t like and wonder why so many do as it feels more like an assignment that you’re determined to finish 

This is one of those movies where you’re going to come up with your own theory or understanding of it so I’m only gonna present my interpretation.

Now it’s always entertaining watching a younger Jack Palance in a film, as well as young women, riding bicycles in skirts. Though watching Fritz Lang steal the movie in his scenes was worth it

It is another movie of Brigitte Bardot being torn supposedly between Teague lovers neither of which is seem a good choice, but one is better than the other and her never having chemistry who is the one who is older, has more money and seems more want her only physically.

This film is a satire film making, but it seems to turn more into a domestic drama romance of a deteriorating marriage.Even as it explores the themes of selling out or staying, true to your principles.

That was it’s a beautiful locations still end up being a hang out movie that is in the middle of paradise yet everyone is oblivious to the beauty of their surroundings or they’ve been there so long that it is normal to them, though the film still manage to showcase the beauty and appeal of Brigitte Bardot and it seems like while everybody in the film can see her beauty she is like the background to them. They’ve grown so used to her that it’s normal, but will still contest her. Well, the film and filmmaker bathe her and loving light as well as give her a meaty challenging role. Though questionable if you might actually like her by the end

One can say that at least she gets to play full character other than just a fantasy or an object of beauty pretty much a bombshell, though she does Grace the poster, so it she did help sell tickets for this phone as next to Jack Palance she’s the biggest name in the film and of course Fritz Lang. No, she seems to be the entrance or introduction for us to the Phil as the camera lingers on her

Throughout the film, we see the games that all the characters seem to be playing weather in love relationships filmmaking financing.

Now one can see where Martin Scorsese got part of his score of CASNO from. It gets  annoying a bit at times watching its source play throughout. The score “ST. MATTHEW PASSION BMV 244/PART TWO: WIR SETZEN UNS MIT TRANEN NEIDER”’By Johann Sebastian Bach 

Which leads me to wonder Did he use it to subconsciously say that all these characters are in this Idyllic Wonderland in that they are alienated from it due to mounting domestic pressures & alienation from one another

Didn’t expect this to become one of Godard Morchella Ching films even though it’s seams like most of them are as the film deals with alien nation. It almost feels more like a Michelangelo Antonioni film only no not as long, and this seem to have more of a cruel, ending the natural ending.

In the end, I have no problem, admitting maybe I didn’t quite get it as much as others did as I loved the concepts and drama that was introduced that lead to discussions and conversations even after you watch the film no again I can’t say I enjoyed it, or necessarily would need to watch it again