Cast: Melissa Boros, Golshifteh Farahani, Tahar Rahim, Emma Mackey, Louai El Amrousy
In a French city grappling with an unnamed viral epidemic, 13-year-old Alpha, the daughter of an immigrant doctor, confronts a challenging coming-of-age journey. Her mother, a frontline healthcare worker, is horrified when Alpha allows her classmate and love interest, Adrien, to tattoo her with a shared needle at a party. The resulting bleeding turns Alpha into a social pariah at school, igniting heightened fears of blood contamination among her peers. However, things take a dark turn when Uncle Amin, a person with a chronic substance use disorder, moves back into the family home. This unexpected reunion forces Alpha to share a room with him, further complicating her already strained life.
Alot of people came away from Alpha feeling underwhelmed, calling it just okay, or even a disappointment,but against all odds, I really liked it.
In some ways, it’s overdone. It leans heavily into melodrama, and at times it feels almost overwhelming on purpose, But somehow, that worked on me. I was mesmerized by it, by the mood, the discovery, and the way it slowly reveals itself. Even when I had a sense of where it was going, it kept me interested.
This won’t be for everyone. It’s slower, more emotional, and much more introspective than many might expect. Especially from writer-director Julia Ducournau. If you’re looking for the shock or body-horror intensity of RAW or TITANE may feel restrained by comparison. But that restraint is part of what makes it fascinating.
The visuals are still unmistakably hers, sharp, beautiful, occasionally surreal, but they never feel flashy just for the sake of it. They serve the emotion. The film’s central allegory, with its mysterious virus that slowly turns people into marble statues that bleed sand, is an obvious but powerful reflection on illness, grief, and specifically the AIDS crisis.
This isn’t really a genre film, so much as a drama dressed in genre clothing. It’s less interested in shocking you than in sitting with discomfort, fragility, and loss. It may not always know exactly what it wants to say, but it remains compelling as a study of its themes and characters.
And yes, maybe it goes a little too far with the melodrama, perhaps to compensate for a story that feels thinner than its ideas. But even then, it never lost me.
To show how far, she has gone from her usual. The film doesn’t even have actress Garance Marillier who is. Usually in all of her work so far
It’s not my favorite film from Julia Ducournau, but it might be her most personal. And sometimes a film doesn’t need to be perfect to leave an impression. it just needs to feel singular. This film certainly does
Based on the Motion Picture “SENTIMENTAL” By: Cesc Gay
Cinematography: Adam Newport-Berra
Editor: Anthony Boys and Yorgos Mavropsaridis
Cast: Olivia Wilde, Penelope Cruz, Seth Rogen, Edward Norton
Joe and Angela’s marriage is on thin ice. When they invite their enigmatic upstairs neighbors for a dinner party, the night spirals into unexpected places.
This movie reminded me of something rather embarrassing. I have never been to a dinner party.
I’ve always wanted to be invited to one. Maybe one day, if I ever have a place of my own, I’ll throw one myself. Until then, all I really know about dinner parties comes from movies, television, and books. If they’re anything like this one… sign me up. Hopefully just with slightly less emotional damage.
This feels like a genuine comeback for Olivia Wilde as a director. It reminds you just how talented she is when she’s focused less on genre and spectacle, and more on people. Relationships, insecurities, attraction, jealousy, longing, you know those messy little emotions that make us human.
The film is a loving throwback to the intimate relationship dramas that flourished from the 1960s through the 1980s. You can immediately feel the DNA of WHO’S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOLFE and BOB & CAROL & TED & ALICE. It’s refreshing to see a movie made for adults that lets conversations become the action.
The smartest thing the film does is invite you into the story without revealing its hand. Whether you know the premise or go in completely blind, you’re pulled in by the seductive setup and the chemistry between the characters. As the evening unfolds, what begins as playful curiosity slowly transforms into something heavier, more emotionally revealing, and surprisingly tense. Yet the film always keeps a sense of humor tucked away in its back pocket.
Every actor is working at the top of their game, and each performance is an essential ingredient in what makes the film work.
Olivia Wilde is especially impressive, both behind and in front of the camera. She plays the anxious, seemingly ordinary half of a married couple stuck in a comfortable rut with Seth Rogen. It’s fascinating watching the dynamic evolve. To each other they’ve become familiar, almost invisible. But through someone else’s eyes, they suddenly become attractive again. The film cleverly explores how desire and perception change depending on who’s looking.
The entire movie feels like a beautifully staged play. I honestly assumed it was an original screenplay because it feels so confident and distinct. Finding out it’s actually adapted from a foreign film that’s already been remade several times was surprising. Even so, this version feels completely fresh and confidently stands on its own.
It’s bold without trying too hard. Provocative without becoming cynical. Underneath all the awkwardness, emotional chaos, and uncomfortable conversations is an oddly wholesome innocence about people simply wanting to reconnect with themselves, their partners, and the lives they’ve built.
At times the film almost plays like an emotional thriller. There isn’t a killer hiding in the house, just vulnerability, desire, regret, and the fear of saying the quiet part out loud. Somehow that’s even more suspenseful.
Even the soundtrack echoes the films that inspired it. It captures that sophisticated, simmering mood where something has been bubbling beneath the surface all evening, and you’re simply waiting for it to finally boil over.
The Invite is funny, sexy, awkward, revealing, and emotionally honest. It’s the kind of intelligent adult drama Hollywood used to make all the time and one I hope becomes fashionable again.
Inspired By “KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS” Screenplay By: Robert Hammer and John Dighton
Based On the Novel “ISRAEL RANK” By: Roy Horniman
Cinematography: Todd Ranhazl
Editor: Harrison Atkins
Cast: Glen Powell, Jessica Henwick, Margaret Qualley, Bill Camp, Ed Harris, Topher Grace, Zach Woods, Phumi Tau, Stevel Marc
Disowned at birth by his obscenely wealthy family, a blue-collar stop at nothing to reclaim his inheritance, no matter how many relatives stand in his way.
This is a loose remake or more a modern retelling of the Alec Guinness film KIND HEARTS & CORONETS only set more realistically and taking out the gimmick of that film years ago. Where Alec Guinness played all the members of the family that was getting killed off.
It might have been an added incentive if this film had big stars making cameos as members of the family getting killed off, but only Topher Grace is recognizable as one of the kin in standing to inherit a fortune above out protagonist.
So the film really adds nothing except instead of being an outright comedy. It’s dark and slick. It attempts to be a social satire. Though never quite feels sharp enough. In fact at times it feels oddly rushed.
The film is darkly comedic and isn’t as bad as one would think. Considering how little fanfare or promotion the film got. Which the studio seemed to have cold feet after Glen Powell started in THE RUNNING MAN reboot that bombed. I don’t even remember seeing a trailer for this film. Until I had to go out and find it online myself.
The film plays pretty standard items entertaining as you watch but barely sticks with you once done. This fits in with the disposable films of yesteryear that were good enough for a watch and are rewatchable but therebisnMt much to them except for entertainment.
This film seems like it’s going to be a crowd pelaser until the end where it stays with it’s cynicism.
Strangely enough Glen Powell, plays a likable killer. That feels like he has shades of Patrick Bateman possibilities but is never that much of a sociopath or psychopath and had his reasons for his actions.
Margaret Qualley is a good femme fatale only because we barely know anything about her and comes across as a mystery but also a type. Though she wears chanel as her wardrobe in all her scenes. That gives you a hint to the heart of her character. Where her legs are all over.
Which is one of the films problems it’s
Likable enough bit has no real depth. The characters are more types. So that it never draws you in. So as it stays on the surface that is what you get and how you feel by the end.
The films screenplay was surprisingly on the 2014 BLACK LIST of scripts that those in the industry rank as the best unproduced they have read that year.
Which drags the film down and makes it feel more and more basic as it goes along. Especially in the end where the irony want to take over. As this is a film that shouldngave high stakes. Yet it all feels very telegraphed.
This feels like a film you would sneak Into after paying and watching another film or that you go to on a weekend, just because you want something to watch.
Cast: Jude Law, Vicky Kirby, Ana De Armas, Sydney Sweeney, Daniel Bruehl, Felix Krammerer, Toby Wallace, Ingracio Gasparini, Richard Roxburgh
Based on a factual account of a group of outsiders who settle on a remote island only to discover their greatest threat isn’t the brutal climate or deadly wildlife, but each other.
I’ve learned nothing from age or experience. When I read a rating description that says graphic nudity and see that a film takes place on a remote island, my brain still lights up like a teenager who thinks cinema is about to deliver. Full frontal. Everyone. Sunburned and symbolic. Instead, Eden plays like a prank pulled by the MPAA: lots of male butts, a wet shirt doing some heavy lifting, and apparently breastfeeding now qualifies as “graphic.” If there’s a support group for grown adults disappointed by misleading rating descriptions, sign me up.
What’s funny is that this misdirection mirrors the film itself. Critics and early buzz framed Eden as something juicier; betrayals, affairs, wife-swapping, maybe even an orgy or two. The implication was that Ron Howard, of all people, was getting daring. That this was Howard pushing himself, trying to shock, or at least stir something beyond polite admiration. What we get instead is a film that flirts with danger and then immediately apologizes for it.
Eden is competently directed, handsomely produced, and based on a true story, three qualities that should theoretically give it weight. We watch a group of people who choose to abandon society and live on a mostly deserted island, arriving at different times for different reasons, only to slowly discover that isolation doesn’t bring enlightenment so much as irritation. They get on each other’s nerves, draw lines, form alliances, and eventually turn on one another. It’s Lord of the Flies adjacent, but with better grooming and a lot more passive aggression.
What complicates things and arguably makes the film more interesting than it intends to be is how clearly it maps onto contemporary racial and political anxieties. The most overtly “evil” figure does get what’s coming to them, but that act becomes the moral rot that spreads to everyone else. The so-called innocents are now tainted, forced to reckon with how far they’ll go to protect what they’ve decided is theirs. The island becomes a parable: for colonization, for gentrification, for what happens when people who see themselves as peaceful pioneers suddenly feel threatened.
Because this is based on a true story, it’s hard to accuse the film outright of bad faith, but it’s also hard to ignore its blind spots. Once again, the darker, Spanish-speaking characters are framed as loud, sexually promiscuous, domineering, and ultimately villainous, while the British and German couples are coded as pilgrims: earnest, fragile, and well-intentioned until pushed too far. The film seems unaware of how familiar this dynamic feels, or how neatly it mirrors modern anxieties about immigration and “who belongs.” If you’re going to villainize certain characters, at least give them dimension. Here, too many feel like ideas rather than people.
Structurally, Eden is odd. It spends much of its first half building toward a second half that never quite deepens what we’ve been shown. We get minimal backstory, and what little we do learn is mostly told to us rather than dramatized. In the Baroness’s case, her past is revealed through a lover in a way that feels meant to shock, but lands flat because it’s so plainly delivered and instantly believable. There’s no real mystery, just information.
The title, of course, refers to the Garden of Eden: a fertile paradise that could have sustained everyone, if only they hadn’t ruined it. And that’s the tragedy here, not just of the characters, but of the film itself. Eden has all the ingredients for something sharper, angrier, or more unsettling. Instead, it settles into respectability.
This feels like a movie that wanted to be Oscar bait or at least Oscar-adjacent. The cast is stacked with respected dramatic actors, with Sydney Sweeney standing out as the lone box-office draw, seemingly happy to be along for the ride. Her role grows in importance as the film progresses, culminating in a quiet tragedy that works more on paper than in practice.
There’s something faintly admirable about this film simply existing. In a climate where everything is either a franchise extension, an algorithm-approved product, or an awards-season personality test, this feels like a movie that was made because someone genuinely wanted to make it. And that someone is Ron Howard: Hollywood’s ultimate steady hand, a director whose career has been defined less by provocation than by craftsmanship. That’s both the film’s greatest strength and its most limiting factor.
The problem isn’t that the film is bad, it isn’t, but that it often feels unsure of who it’s for. Is this meant to be an Academy-friendly legacy piece, the kind that quietly accumulates nominations and polite applause? Is it for history buffs, who might argue it works better as a limited series, where the ideas could breathe rather than be efficiently summarized? Or was it aiming for a broader, prestige-curious audience that no longer really exists in the same way? The film seems caught between these identities, resulting in something that’s respectable, handsomely mounted, and faintly adrift.
Howard directs with his usual classical restraint, which gives the film an old-school texture almost quaint in its pacing and presentation. In another filmmaker’s hands, this material might have been stranger, riskier, or more formally exciting. Here, it’s competent to a fault. When the film reaches for anything risqué or emotionally sharp, it feels slightly self-conscious, like it knows it’s stepping outside its comfort zone and wants credit for the attempt. Nothing lands disastrously, but very little surprises.
Ultimately, this feels like a story Ron Howard wanted to tell and add to his already extensive résumé. a solid, professional entry that might have caused real waves in the ’80s, ’90s, or even the early 2000s. Today, it risks getting lost in the endless churn of content, not because it’s disposable, but because it’s modest in a moment that rewards extremity. Still, there’s value in its existence. It’s a reminder of a kind of filmmaking that’s becoming rare: sincere, controlled, and unconcerned with spectacle. You may not love it, or even remember it vividly, but you’ll likely agree. it didn’t waste your time. And these days, that almost counts as a quiet victory.
This seems to fit in with his more recent films that are a bit dark in its visuals and story, but also have an audience friendly presentation where a normal sea is gained through more traditional family values.
Ana de Armas is the scene stealer but that’s also because she’s the villain and only character who is truly of interest throughout the film. Her character causes most of the drama and through her instructions and actions. The actual action and betrayals of the film happen. Sydney Sweeney’s character only gets to be that way by the end as it ultimately seems like it’s her characters story of growth and maturity.
In the end, Eden is fine. The production is polished, the performances solid, and the intentions sincere. But once the villains exit, so does much of the tension. What remains is a group of attractive people circling their guilt, convinced of their own moral superiority, and slowly realizing they’re not so different from one another after all. It’s not bad. It’s not great. It’s a well-made film that feels oddly lost, unsure whether it wants to provoke, condemn, or simply be admired. And in trying to be all three, it never fully becomes any of them.
Cast: Harry Melling, Alexander Skarsgard, Lesley Sharp, Douglas Hodge, Jake Shears, Mat Hill, Nick Figgis, Zoe Engerer
Colin, a weedy wallflower letting life pass him by, meets Ray, the impossibly handsome leader of a motorbike club, who then takes him on as his submissive. Ray uproots Colin from his dreary suburban life, introducing him to a community of kinky, queer bikers and taking all sorts of virginities along the way. But as Colin steps deeper into Ray’s world of rules and mysteries, he begins to question whether the life of a 24/7 submissive is for him. Has he found his calling, or simply swapped one form of suffocation for another?
The film is less graphic than I expected it to be.
Even though it does start off with a little bit of a shock. Though sexually frank it shocks more with its moments of tenderness. That is more universal for us all.
Though I think it uses the BDSM aspects of the relationship as shocking at first, but also to show a kind I’ve avoidance of intimacy, especially when it came to emotions which Skarsgard’s character seeks to avoid.
As he loves control and power, where we and Harry Melling’s character are not sure if he keeps him around just because he’s a willing consenting victim of sorts or if he feels that this is his way of showing his attraction and care for him. As obviously Skarsgard character is a fantasy come true. Skarsgard plays up the hot hunk with no emotions to the hilt. He has played this before and seems willing to try most freaky roles and go for it. Though making them recognizable human eventually.
What is interesting is what plays out a more hard-edged cruel version of how most relationships are where at first it’s all about the attraction and the sex were one person usually has to take the lead. Hear the roles are more defined as in most relationships. They are either switched communicate communicated about or naturally happen.
Whereas most thing, what’s the worst I could happen will be something sexual here, the relationship relationships or sexual upfront, but more afraid of getting emotionally and personally involved. As it ruins the dynamic and the power-play.
For a film that seems like it’s going to be hard to take or heart edged. It’s got a surprisingly sweet spot and story. It might be mine, the audience of the film. SECRETARY now this film is a little more hard, edged around the heart, and not quite as romantic..
That we do see a relationship evolve. I believe some of the more interesting scenes are with Harry Melling’s character and his parents them wanting to see him happy but his mother who is dying of a terminal disease can tell something is off. We’re not quite right or not quite equal in the way, the relationship is by the end our premonition proves to be right.
This isn’t a film that one would expect where emotions will become a commodity that you in the audience might find yourself choked up in a good way over the film so I can give the film that much credit. As the audience gets involved way more than expected.
As by the end, though it does have a definitive ending it still leaves you wanting more be it in the form of revelations and answers. As by the end it ends up being a coming of age tale. As Melling’s character learns all sorts of lessons and breaks all kind of virginities of his own.
Cast: James Sweeney, Dylan O’Brian, Aisling Franciosi, Lauren Graham, Chris Perfetti, Tasha Smith, Cree, Katie Findlay, Kody Harvard
In Twinless, two young men meet in a twin support group and form an unlikely friendship. Roman and Dennis both search for solace and an identity without their other halves and soon become inseparable outside the group. But when Roman meets Dennis’ ebullient co-worker, Marcie all is revealed to be not what it seems, as each man harbors secrets that could unravel everything.
This is a buddy comedy, but not a traditional one. Nor is it romantic, but it does involve intimacy. This also seems the type that film festival is like Sundance love. Though at least this film truly does earn it.
The film feels more with emotional humor and situational humor, all at once, as well as the absurdities of life and almost a comedy of errors that leave things awkward throughout the madcap situations the lead characters find themselves in. While dealing in loneliness and how when in that state any connection large or small might feel deeper and bigger to one individual. While the other might find it more casual or fleeting.
Though for all of it comedic persona or personality, it gets deeply dramatic at times as a cloud of melancholy hangs over most of the film as the film looks at loneliness and the power of bonding in friendship.
Dylan O’Brien gives a great performance in this film playing two roles and you believe him as two totally different characters. Even though they are related as they are both different and unique. As even though he is phenomenal in this film, kind of wanted to see more of him as the twin who has the shorter amount of Screen Time, who is the more entertaining in charismatic one.
Speaking of dazzling performances Aisling Franciosi again manages to transform herself to an almost unrecognizable character than she has played before emotionally and physically. So that throughout you can’t Take your eyes off of her. While you understand why she is fallen for
Don’t get me wrong. The film is very quirky but at times it feels all too real not necessarily identifiable because of how deep the characters dig themselves but again there’s an awkwardness to it that is undeniable and feels very cringe while you watch.
The film can be understated and it stars the Writer/Director James Sweeney. Who also definitely comes across as memorable throughout the film. I’m playing the depressive yet obsessed lead but you appreciate his performance. As he seems to be smart, but makes all the wrong decisions and isn’t afraid to admit to and indulge in his dark side.
This is a film that is hard to describe or categorize exactly. As it does take you on quite the journey, even while It seems like it’s standing still though can say that it explores friendship, like any other relationship, but not one that mature is overtime more one that is intense though just as strong
Cast: Albert Finney, Brenda Fricker, Tara Fitzgerald, Michael Gambon, Rufus Sewell, David Kelly, Patrick Malahide, Mick Lally
Alfred Byrne is a middle-aged bus conductor in Dublin, Ireland in 1963. He would appear to live a life of quiet desperation: he’s gay, but firmly closeted, and his sister is always trying to find him “the right girl”. His passion is Oscar Wilde, his hobby is putting on amateur theatre productions in the local church hall. We follow him as he struggles with temptation, friendship, disapproval, and the conservative yet oddly lyrical world of Ireland in the early 1960s.
Honestly if not for some course language and a particular scene of sexual nature. This could have been a television movie. Thankfully it is a feature film for the big screen which explains the high quality cast.
I will admit I came for actress Tara Fitzgerald who I had a teenage crush on in the 1990’s and whitening e always wanted to watch this film. It took me so long. Because it reminded me of the film BRASSED OFF with her in it.
Watching this film after it being out 30 years truly shows how times have changed. As this might have been a bit stirring at the time, but watching it now seems almost quaint.
As we watch Albert Finney as an effeminate older man who is obsessed with theater. Plays in particular and puts together the locals I. Whichever place is obsessed with that time of year. His friends think he should find a nice girl to settle down with, others think he is eccentric and passionate only about his interests.
Though we can tell that he is gay or has feelings for men. Even as he coddles and curates a local female who he has star in his play and it looks like it could be a cute little love story of acceptance and being about more than physical love.
Then he third act happens and everything goes toosy turbulence and what he and we thought of certain people is exposed. By the light of day and their true ide tires come out in the open.
Honestly that is when the film seems to come alive or at least gets a lot more interesting whereas it feels like there was a ton of buildup just to get to this and it works effectively as a kind of shock but also of everyone showing their cards good and bad
What does work for this film is how deeply rooted the film and characters are in the community who offer a kind of chorus for all the moods and feelings and most of them might not get their time in the sunlight, but they certainly get to shine and help influence and entertain the audience. They are at the heart of the film that has its obvious stars, though luckily it’s quite ensemble.
It’s shocking again that they got the cast that they did Albert Finney, Michael Gambon, Brenda Fricker, David Kelly and a young Rufus Sewell and of course the enchanting Tara Fitzgerald. All for a coming out story.
Then again we all have our stories and coming out can be a defining moment in one’s life, so why not tell it with the best cast that you can get of acting superstars even at the time even if they are way above the quality of the material as Michael Gambin is more supporting and feels almost like an extended cameo throughout.
Give the film a chance but don’t expect too many fireworks. It’s like Levi’s blue jeans in fact, dependable durable something you can count on, but not necessarily a brand you go on and on about, but you’re glad exist and is there
Cast: Sydney Sweeney, Ben Foster, Katy O’Brian, Merritt Weaver, Ethan Embry, Tony Cavalero, Chad Coleman, Coleman Pedigo, Jess Gabor
The life and the incredible career of Christy Martin, the most successful female boxer of the 1990s.
I will admit before I saw the film I remeber the UNTOLD series documentary on Christy Martin. So I knew the twist and turns of the story
so watching it now, more as a docu-drama The film strangely felt like one of those premium cable movies from the 1990s usually on HBO was a star surrounded by a recognizable cast with questionable wigs.
Sydney Sweeney does the best that she can in the role and shows that she has range but it’s not quite as strong as one would hope. As here she feels like a star, trying to be a character actor instead of a character trying to be a star. She’s good enough to be possible and shows a determination that serves the film.
As most will come to this film to see if she has what it takes and does she have that star power. Which she does, but is still working on craft. As she tries to hide her looks and transform into a character. That isn’t quite successful.
Though that is the problem with the film, everything here feels just good enough to be possible, but there’s nothing special to it. There’s nothing that is quite that memorable or has a quality that sticks with you after the film so that it just comes across as very satisfactory and basic, but nothing special.
Even as director David Michod tries to go with a plain, report to his directing. More matter of fact than stylish. To go with a more natural approach.
Not to belittle the main character’s life in life, so which is very dramatic, but that is how the film should feel not so matter fact, things just happen even as it has the theme of the character, knowing her sexuality and trying to be everything to everybody else, but never quite being true to herself and once she does, she is punished for it mercilessly. So that you can see why she might’ve been afraid in the first place.
Though you’re giving hints to her sexually your same sex preferences, it always seems more like flirting more than us ever truly seeing a romance, even when it comes to who she finally ends up with we see the blossoming as camaraderie and the development of a friendship, more than anything leading to a romance and her relationship before we’re thrust in the middle of and see the painful break up and ending of rather than the maintenance of or the beginning of
Her mother comes across as just a big villain as her husband, as she leaves more mental and emotional scars rather than physical ones.
Ben foster is noteworthy and registers as a jealous scumbag if a human being, but again surprisingly he is holding back. As the film never truly presents why Christy’s character would fall for him or even be devoted for him as he’s pretty much a bad guy from when we first were introduced to him.
The main problem with this film is that there’s too much talent associated with this film for it to be this impassive overall. It feels like the filmmakers are frayed as there are too many true life characters still alive to really say anything definitive about any of them.
Cast: Amanda Seyfried, Lewis Pullman, Thomasin Mckenzie, Christopher Abbott, Matthew Beard, Stacy Martin, Tim Blake Nelson, Daniel Blumberg, David Cale, Viola Prettejohn
Ann Lee, the founding leader of the Shaker Movement, is proclaimed as the female Christ by her followers. This film depicts her establishment of a utopian society and the Shakers’ worship through song and dance, based on real events.
This is a hard film to quite get your head around.
Though it definitely makes an impression. As it is an epic done on a budget, but still manages to be quite illustrious throughout even when it seems like it’s not doing that much or playing it basic at times.
Which showcases limitation, but works for the time the story is set in when the world and society was still building itself.
The film is a musical and the religious choreography, testimonial music score and movements are great. Which is what keeps a captivating and keeps your interest as it might not have been as magical if it had played as a straight drama. It might’ve felt more like a prestige film rather than something of its own concoction while trying to tell a true story.
The film gets matters of the flesh out of the way early, so that while that theme is always in the background, it’s not as heavily a focus, and once the lead character played by Amanda Seyfried goes all in with her religion and beliefs. We don’t get to see any really again, it’s more hinted at or implied, but never seen until when the film needs to be brutal.
One can see this from getting more of an audience as more people discovered it through word-of-mouth as it might not be perfect, but it certainly is interesting and never boring
Amanda Seyfried in the lead is strong and memorable. One of her strongest performance is so far as it seems like with each new passing year and each new project she does get stronger as an actress and more captivating to see with her range.
Christopher abbot plays another terrible character. Which at this point he seems to have cornered the market on. When not playing leading roles.
The film ends brutally as that seems to be the case when it comes to most films, depicting religion or even religious ones as usually we know how they will end. It’s all in how he get there.
What keeps this from exciting is that you Never quite know where it’s going so it manages to be quite an Odyssey in of itself. Even with its limited surroundings.
Looking forward to more films from this filmmaker.
Cast: Damian Maffei, Yvonne Emilie Thalker, Scott Fowler, Marc Romeo, Kate Kiddo, Vito Trigo
Desperate for work, Derek accepts a job replacing his recently-deceased friend at a tech startup. Continuing to develop the company’s innovative project means working intimately with Susan, a bleeding-edge BDSM sex doll meant to receive and appreciate punishment as an integral part of her evolving AI. Derek will soon test the limits of his own desires and explore the nature of man and woman, pleasure and pain, and life and death in a morally uncertain future world.
This is a tough film to talk about without spoilers
This is one of those films that almost dares you to describe it, because the moment you do, you risk ruining the very thing it’s built on: discomfort, surprise, and a slow, deliberate seduction of the viewer.
At first, it plays like something provocative for the sake of it teasing eroticism, brushing up against disgust, testing where your limits lie. But that tension feels intentional. The film isn’t just pushing buttons; it’s studying which ones you’re willing to let it press. Much like its title character, it lures you in with a kind of controlled intimacy, only to shift the ground beneath you when you think you understand the rules.
There’s a sneaky, almost anthology like quality to it, something that echoes the spirit of TALES FROM THE CRYPT mixed with THE TWILIGHT ZONE and throw in some BLACK MIRROR, but stripped of comfort and pushed further into psychological unease. It’s less interested in outright shock than in escalation. Every time it feels like the film might settle, it pivots. Every time you adjust, it sharpens.
Visually, it leans into its independent roots. There’s a rawness to the presentation that feels almost out of time reminiscent of early 2000s genre films, but the themes are distinctly modern, even uncomfortably so. The sci-fi elements are there, though used sparingly. When they do arrive, they land with purpose rather than spectacle.
What really anchors it, though, is the performance at its center. The actor behind Black Eyed Susan: Yvonne Emilie Thalker commits fully, there’s no visible safety net, no distance from the material. It’s the kind of performance that doesn’t just carry the film, it exposes it.
And make no mistake, this is not an easy watch. It’s meant to wear you down a little, to test your endurance as much as your curiosity. The film hits hard, pulls back just enough, then hits harder. Not always through violence, but through the creeping sense that it’s always one step ahead of your comfort.
The less you know going in, the better. Just understand that it’s a film built on provocation. One that invites conversation, maybe even confrontation, long after it ends.
Whether it’s worth the experience, that’s part of the question it leaves behind.
Cut To The Chase 