gabrieldsanchez

With wonderful vibes and a hit of nostalgia, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (SSTD) delivers a great and compelling story driven by strong acting, setting, and arc. The story follows a group of teens on Halloween that ends up with a cursed book on their hands, little knowing that this would spawn a series of killings. The protagonist and friends have that good IT vibes, with dialogues that feel natural and aligns to their traits. Considering the target audience, SSTD is effective, and fans of these types of stories a la Goosebumps and Fear Street will get what they want – with room for more installments.

Sometimes, even Morgan Freeman has to accept a side-job. With budget estimated at 17M USD, probably most of it going to Freeman, one can understand why though. We gotta pay our bills. Except Director George Gallo that grossed too little for its endeaveour. The story of The Ritual Killer follows broken detective Lucas Boyd in the pursuit of a ritualistic serial killer. Old stuff, nothing new in this storyline. The serial killer apparently follows some African-descendant-type of ritual said to give focals power. Or whatever the hell it is. Morgan Freeman, of course, is compelling, but even he was just off with this whole mess, and his participations feels like a try on capitalizing this flick – it flopped. Everyone else is playing serious, and the movie itself is super serious, but the plotline just doesn't work. Such a mediocre piece could only end in the worst possible way: with an off-screen resolution. The closing scene is a huge what the F is happening here to wrap this piece (of s...)

An average movie that would benefit from having a different protagonist, It Feeds delivers good horror and suspense, but misses a bit in the choice of protagonist. Even though the original protagonist delivers a good plot, her daughter has a more relevant arc. The story follows Cynthia, a psychiatrist with psychic powers, and her daughter Jordan. The two manage a psychiatric clinic that specializes in a special treatment: Cynthia can literally enter people's minds to explore their traumas in order to make them overcome them. The idea here is clear, we are not following two fragile women in a dark world, Cynthia, mainly, knows well what she is dealing with and with the dangers of her astral projection. Everything goes relatively well until a girl enters her clinic desperate for being haunted by an entity. The background is interesting and the development of the narrative, good. The slight problem of the film is that Jordan seems to have an arc of transformation and overcoming much greater than Cynthia, including unlockings that the writer could explore better, but Cynthia in the end is the one who takes the role of protagonist. Acceptable, but a shame. Still, an OK movie, fun and coherent. It is worth it for fans of the genre in search of something lighter and less dense, or less tense.

S**ploitation meets .com Era, Feardotcom tries capitalizing on that year's Internet boom with a mix of horror and crime investigation, but falls short of being miserable. With a convoluted story, weak characters, and nonsensical sequence of events, by the end of it you will just be numb. Funningly enough, it won the Grand Prize of European Fantasy Film in Silver and also the Worst Film category in the DFWFCA Award and Fangoria Chainsaw Awards, a testament to how convoluted this picture is. The story follows Detective Mike Reilly and DoH associate Terry Huston on an investigation to try to understand a series of seemingly connected death scenes. The only connection: a weird website. The "haunted tapes" genre is common but the take on a haunted website was apparently somewhat new in 2002 – Kairo/Pulse, Japanese techno-horror from 2001, seems to be the only other coinciding match –, so writers and director had room for innovation, but the mix of what appears to be nudity for its own sake is just exploitative, making the plot secondary. (A funny Brazilian DVD cover makes this movie even more deceiving.) The acting from pretty much everyone makes the film feel forced, like they couldn't even grasp what they were dealing with in the first place – very late 90's corkiness, but also not as fun. Perhaps the only one sort of trying is Natascha McElhone, but even she was a bit off. In the end, a weird convoluted climax leads to an anticlimatic ending that just makes no sense at all. The final revelation is just nonsensical, and you just have to let it slide and forget about it. The closing scene, again, mere horror cliché with the neverending cycle of open loops. Avoid.

My Son is one of those movies that promises big, executes good, but ends horribly. It builds momenutm for something big, but ends up lacking a wrapping conclusion, leaving too many **** story follows Edmond Murray from the day he knows about the disappearance of his 7-year-old son. After the impact of such shocking news, and understanding that bureaucratic police procedure is going to take forever, he decides to dig into his own ****, though familiar, this thrilling plotline is intriguing to keep us hooked and going. For the most part, the plot work beautifully, and, as beats happen, you spyral deeper and deeper into a web of conspiracies and the always-lurking questions if this is more than just mere chance. But the problem is that a lot of the build-up falls flat in the last segment of the **** our distaste, the film ends with an anticlimactic series of events that works beautifully for Edmond but leaves us with too many open questions. So much of the build-up left unanswered, a complex web finished so simply – yet, is it though? The film is unclear.Regarding acting and pace, great movie. Thrilling, chilling, suspenseful. One would be biting their nails off, especially if they have kids. A shame that the resolution is subpar.

By the 7th installment in this franchise, what would you expect? Not much, and the film keeps it truthful to expectations. Scream 7 is a lackluster that just capitalizes on a well-known movie series that, by now, it is starting to get old. So again we have the mastermind Kevin Williamson keeping his series alive but, for the first time, Kevin is now also the director, which one would had thought would give him more space to shine, but Scream 7 just beats on the same old idea. Again, Ghostface is after our scream-queen Sydney and, well oh well, who is now the 2-3 culprits behind the mask. Yes, it is never 1 as we all know - or is it? One would think this movie would try different tricks, but the true things is that the only new trait here is the motive behind everything, which doesn't really work honestly. The story also tries to sort of make some statement about AI and deep fakes, but it just plays out so poorly that you just don't get the point. In the end, this subplot is just a cheap exploitation to get some recurrent characters on screen. Of course, the acting is Hollywood style, Neve and Courteney delivering the expected duo partnering for yet another adventure, and the teens are our Late Millenniums, early Alphas. Nothing to see here, folks. And then, like I said, the motive, which is the big revelation at the end of every Scream movie, is new but we are getting sick of this I guess. It just didn't hit right. Overall, watch it at home and only if you ave been following the franchise since Movie 1. Otherwise, not worth it.

It Comes at Night is your B-movie done right, a simple yet powerful story of hopelessness in face of Apocalyptic situations. Sometimes, all you need is a what-if and imagination. The story follows a family living quietly in the wood, trying to lay low during the outbreak of some incurable disease. That is until a man arrives asking for shelter and food for his wife and kid. A set of moral choices, a set of consequences, and a hint of horror. The plot is somewhat predictable too, nothing far from ordinary in these types of stories. Of course, what starts as a step in the right direction suddenly turns into problems and the question if breaking the rules was the right thing to do. What carries the plot forward is the protagonist, Travis. We root for him and we feel his pain. We just want to see him getting out of this somehow. This film is not for the ones seeking action-packed tension. It Comes at Night builds suspense slowly, and each new beat is a step towards an expected but still effective climax. Ignore some small holes here and there, like the lack of sustainable backstory lore, and you got yourself a nice story that could very well be its own book — maybe it would even work better as a novel. For lovers of psychological thrillers and drama, you got your score. It is not that strong on the horror aspects except for a few jumpscares, but for a thriller, it holds its own.

Suspect Zero is another psychological thriller in a sea of the same in the genre, a mix of cool concept with some corky 2000's acting and storyline, nothing expectacular but far from bad. With an interesting mix of supernatural, the plotline is serious enough to keep you hooked yet holed like a swiss cheese. As one would expect, the cheer amount of complexities and complications culminates into a chance factor that sets a simplistic ending in motion, one that sort of lacks justice for the intricate woven plot this story developed. Though alright as a piece of film history, Suspect Zero won't make any top tens, maybe featuring in lists of films that resemble Se7en just a little bit.

Christophe Gans is an aficionado for the original game series, which led him to spawn the first Silent Hill movie adaptation in 2006, a movie that tried hard, showed a lot a passion, but deviated a bit from the game. I get it, it is hard to adapt video-games to the big screens (or books for that matter) — does anyone remember Milla's Resident Evil? —, but it is possible, and Directors and Screenwriters do, should have liberty of spinning outside canon. It so happened that Gans' Silent Hill (2006) was somewhat an enjoyable film. Following his same passion, he spawned, 20 years later, Return to Silent Hill. (We are going to pretend that Silent Hill: Revelations from 2012 didn't happen.)Like most Silent Hill games, continuity is only implied, never forced or granted, so don't try to tie this movie with its predecessors; most games didn't maintain solid progress, instead opting for little hints here and there, and the only thing connecting all movies so far is the lore and infamous city. Gans' Return to Silent Hill focuses on the events of the video-game Silent Hill 2, so the premise is strong: when James Sunderland gets a letter from his long lost love prompting him to go to Silent Hill, he decides to follow his heart, leading him to the doomed town of Silent **** might fall into two categories of audience here: you either know the video-game or you **** you know the game, you will quickly recognize the care and passion into the details. Gans tries to re-enact most key scenes, from camera angle to recognizable moments. You will also note that the movie plot deviates ever-so slightly from the game plot, twisting some of the characters in an interesting way and changing the darker theme of the game into a pure Romantic love thematic **** you don't know the game, this is a movie about a guy that is losing his mind and goes into a town where everyone seems to also have lost theirs. The town also seems to be alive and trying to **** them into a hellish nightmare. James' drive is love, but also confusion and denial. Psychological horror done right.Regardless of your audience fit, you should notice some plot holes too. Some characters seem to be there for the sake of bloating the story — one in particular is just there because he was in the game too, but that is about it; the other, or others, just bloat for real. And the whole psychological plot is flawed without a concrete **** all culminates in an ending that is true Silent-Hillian, so if you got confused, you never played the games for ****'s go technical here. The CGI is acceptable and the ambience is creepy and satisfying. Cinematography was the key highlight of this film, and I enjoyed all scenes overall. You might feel that the acting is off, but that is because all Silent Hill games have weird character interactions, so I think that was intentional. Everyone feels off or lacking social abilities, but that is because everyone is getting consumed, I will leave it at that. Overall, nothing to complain here.Return to Silent Hill is yet another ohmage by Gans. Like the original movie from 2006, this one is clearly another passion projects, and Gans' care pays off in delivering a solid experience. Like most video-game adaptations, though, things might feel off or weird, but the Silent Hill franchise is also that. You won't be bored in this film, nor awed.

Looking for a docudrama filled with tension and tragedy, American Sniper might be your dose of Freedom. It tells the sad story of Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle and the events that led to his fame and **** 2026, American Sniper is a no-brainer for people looking for dramatization of war events, so I believe there is not much more to talk about here. I will focus on if it holds on or **** starters, it is a tension-filled, slow-ridden drama focusing on the **** experiences of war. If you like action-pumped war movies, skip this one. Then again, even this powerful-filled adaptation might miss feel a bit shallow, think of it like the best (and worst) moments of Mr. Kyle.A great experience if heavy dramas are your jam.

I don't even know where to start...I skipped the previous movie and went straight to this one out of pure nostalgia. Then again, I had the foreshadowing from Dominion that this was going to be lackluster and, oh my, was I **** the story is as baloney as it can get: this unbelievable lab accident happens in this neo-futuristic research facility in an island, where some prime tech visionary research is in place. A few days later, Martin Krebs (Rupert Friend), a senior exec from this Pharmaceutical wants to hire mercenary Zora Bennett (Scarlett Johansson) to go to this island to get some samples from live specimen because it will help the company devise this amazing medicine that will cure a lot of diseases. Zora Bennett, cautious, has this intricate plan to go to the island, get the stuff and then get out, but they were not counting on two things: they would find this one family stranded near the island and, two, the experiments from the lab were far from pretty.This is one of those films purely made for the bucks, plain and simple, capitalizing on a name that sells, unfortunately. Everything in this film is just wrong to the point of mediocrity, and watching its full 133min length is an endurance test.Some solid ****, the cinematography is Hollywood high standards, for the most part. From the landscape to the CGI, everything connects just ****, Mahershala Ali and Jonathan Bailey are solid supporting characters. Mahershala for his comedic relief in general and Jonathan for his seriousness and his character's motivations, which he plays in good fashion.Everything else is just weak and below average.Some reviews are clear: paycheck project, recycled, disappointment. You really need to go this rabbit hole knowing it is subpar.I would say avoid it completely because it feels like a spin-off of the franchise rather than part of its main arc. Watch it at your own risk.

Continuing on the end-of-90's, early-2000's teen slasher trend, comes the sequel to I Know What You Did Last Summer, titled I Still Know What You Did Last Summer (too big, last use IKnow2), in an attempt to spawn a franchise out of the simple story by Lois Duncan from her novel in **** story is clichéd teen horror: Julie James is trying to cope with all that happened, things are estranged between her and her boyfriend, so happens that by incorrectly answering what is the capital of Brazil, duh, they get to spend vacations on an island resort during unbeknownst storm season. There, of course, they are chased by the hook man. The twist, of course, is who is the hook man this time.Iknow 2 is fun times, especially because of the darker humor led by Tyrell (Mekhi Phifer) and minor character, comedic reliefer Titus Telesco (Jack Black, our man!), but it is baloney, so don't take it seriously. Truth be told, you really can't take any of these teen horrors from that era seriously — neither they were taking it!For 100min, if you like Scream-like type of slashers, go for it. In 2026, considering the revival of the series, I'd say it might be a nice catch up adventure to rewatch the whole franchise if you are into horror. But for casuals, you are better just going straight to the reboot.

Based on the homonimous novel by Brian Garfield, Death Sentence is a revenge thriller that starts strong, drives compelling momentum through powerful acting (mainly Kevin Bacon), and lacks a bit of coherence. Overall, satisfying, sure, in a weird **** story follows Nich Hume trying to cope with the murder of his son. It is as in-the-face as it can get with an emotional package. Things get crazy when it seems like the culprits might get away — not only that, but the reason for the murder also seems to be superfluous.Kevin Bacon is the star here, as expected. He is **** only pet-pieve of mine is the credibility. I find it hard to believe that the Justice System would be that failed. To add to that, the Police and Detectives just feel out of their mind; their lack os sympathy is shocking, and I can only feel but a beat cheated as if the story is just forcing matters onto me.Other than that, the plotline and momentum is there. As far as revenge thrillers go, Death Sentence carries itself through just fine.

Director/writer Dennis Bartok and writer Tom Abrahams give a shot to horror with the entry Nails, starring Shauna Macdonald (The Descent) and Steve Wall (Vikings, Dune: Part Two), but the film fails to convey a solid **** story follows Dana who is hospitalized after an acceident. She is struggling to recover, and to make matters worst, her room is tormented by an evil entity.Haunting stories are usually a fun premise, but Nails bores us with staleness. For starters, our protagonist, Dana, is bedridden, not much of a help to make the plot progress. She is basically just accepting the torment while asking too many questions to Dr. Ron Stengel, our exposition guy.Buddy character Trevor Helms is a mix-bag: sometimes he feels like a supporting char to Dana, sometimes he seems like an opposite force just keeping Dana at bay. Of course, the main protagonist is the evil entity, and also her husband — he just can't accept the facts —, but Trevor, who starts nice, then pretty much subdues to the inability of keeping **** backdrop narrative is alright but nothing far from ordinary haunting rationale. The entity has the same sob story than pretty much ever other evil entity on most average to mediocre **** scary factor is also absent. You get your share of cheap jumpscares and that is about it. Most clichés from haunting movies are present, and no scene felt original.I'm not sure what was the final message in this film, if any. The ending just leaves us questioning every decision, and the lack of a proper closure just sours the experience. Luckly, you only need to endure 85min of screentime.Avoid, you will find nothing here. If you are a horror junkie, ok, watch it for the nerdiness.

Zodiac (2007) is a professional re-telling of the events surrounding the infamous serial killing dubbed homonymous, through the perspective of three individuals perhaps not key but definitely tied to the events. The film takes an interesting bold move by being strongly opinionated, and it pays off with the strong cast and their performances. If you have the stomach to endure the tension and some of the shocking scenes, you will find here a thrilling experience that shows that sometimes reality is already a movie.

Jeepers Creepers! The cult classic horror film from the early 2000's starring Gina Phillips and Justin Long. Is there anything to say at this point about this piece of History? I believe I can only try to make it justice by saying if it holds up or not in **** film follows brothers Darry and Trish travelling back to their parents house, supposed to be a long ride. Along the way, they spot a weird person dumping packages down a pipe, packages that resemble bodies. This sets a chain of events in motion that is going to change their lives forever.I miss how stories would pop out of mundane events, whole arcs could develop out of simple what-if scenarios. What if you spotted someone disposing of their murdered victims? Add a spicy twist to this mix and you got yourselves a watchable story — at least a good ****, it is far-fetched, sure. A lot of stretching-of-reality happens to support the beats and plot points. It is clichés galore for anyone that likes these older movies.Jeepers Creepers is entertaining but weak in the horror aspect. Some jumpscares might get you, but you will only feel scared if you are like 5 or something. I like, though, how they kept things practical — something we miss these **** — jeepers creepers! — we know the film was successful enough to spawn a whole franchise. So in the "it worked" department, Jeepers Creepers **** 2026, though, I would say watch it only if you are rewatching or getting up to speed with the franchise to watch some of the latest movies, or you are just a horror junkie.

The Alphabet Killer is one of those stories that BS you by selling itself right and delivering itself wrong. It tries hard, but lacks coherence.Detective Megan Paige has a solid record thus she being the lead detective in the investigation of the R and murder of a pre-teen girl seems like the right move. That is until she becomes obssessed with solving the **** this movie a horror movie, a crime procedural, a thriller? It is all and none. This film attempts too many things. Megan's hauntings have somewhat of an explanation, but, at the same time, just feels like a channel for cheap scares. The crime procedural is absent: Megan just instinctively knows stuff, which gets convenient fast. To wrap up, you are not really thrilled with anything other than seeing Megan go **** fact that this film is based on true events, and the way the real investigation turned out, makes the addition of Megan ineffective. Her arc is just a weird layer on top of a sad case, a layer that feels like covering a steak with chocolate. The movie Zoadiac had launched a year priot to this, have they not seen it?To make matters worst, the screenwriter and the director took the liberty of actually somewhat "solving" the case, which I think is super disrespectful with the real families involved in this. Such a bold move only for it to become a stain in the poorly written ending this film **** you are an average film-watcher, avoid this piece. It is subpar, at best, and you are better off watching anything else. For the film-junkies, yeah, you might want to watch it for the sport, but be advised.

The Woman in the Yard is one of those films that stretches the what-if scenario to try to deliver a punch on a premises. It works in some parts and doesn't in others. The story follows Ramona and their children Taylor and Annie. They live in a sort of beat-down farm that David, the father, bought to renovate but ended up dying in a car accident; one that left Ramona injured with a broken leg or back, which hinders her mobility. Enduring depression gets harder for Ramona when, out of the sudden, there is a woman in a cover-all black dress sitting in their yard. The interesting part of this premise is really the whole, like, what would you do in this case? Would you just be cool and try to talk your way through? Would you play tough and threaten for results? Would you play mean and go guns-blazing? It is a thought-provoking situation that I think storywriters sometimes nail out of such mundane scenarios. What if a seemingly normal but eerie person is just sitting in your yard and refuses to leave? Of course, there are some stretches that we need to evaluate here. Couldn't they just call the cops? Well, it so happens that their communications are cut due to the inability of Ramona to pay bills and, unfortunately, they are out of power too. More than that, we need to remember that Ramona is going through severe depression and that is really the theme here: the effects of unhealed, untreated depression. It is a strong theme that I think plays out nicely in this film. But there are some things that bother me a bit in this film. For starters, Ramona is too idle in this whole thing and Taylor is actually the one that acts on the situation. Stories that focus on the effects of depression are common and this one is not really innovating, it could have been an interesting take to have the story focus on the effects this has on the children through Taylor's perspective. As the story unfolds, things get complicated due to a lack of focus on the struggles of the protagonist. The Woman in the Yard is a short film and we feel the affects of this in the end when some questions just linger in the air. The enclosured, folk-driven horror is effective and I like this type of film. Sometimes, horror and terror are in the small things, when you are helpless due to being alone in the situation rather than large-scale pandemonium. Overall, The Woman in the Yard is effective for what it is and entertaining on its own. A nice view on the theme with a somewhat convoluted unfolding of events — could be intentional. In the end, the story might stay with you a bit in your head as you try to make sense of it all. Some mistakes here and there, but it delivers on what it tried to do. Just... Don't watch it on the Movies — it was on display here and luckly I skipped it; not worth your bucks unless you are watching on Stream.

Billy Ray tries a third-time-charm with Secret in Their Eyes, a drama thriller about a cold case turning hot when protag thinks he finally have the answers. Billy is a well-known screenwriter outputting successes like The Hunger Games, Captain Phillips, and other niche or cult thrillers. With directing being a secondary role of his, Secret in Their Eyes delivers the punch he intended through an emotional **** story follows the events of two timelines tied by the murder of the daughter of Jessica Cobb. Ray Kasten, antiterrorism investigator partnering with Cobb, finally thinks he has the answers to the murder, firmingly believing that a man called Marzin is the killer. And now that he knows Marzin's whereabouts, he is willing to do everything to solve this murder. But there might be more to this story than mere pursuit.Going back and forth in time, pacing is nice and appreciable. Dispite no memorable shots, you still feel the intensity of the story and that is mostly due to **** cast is strong: Nicole Kidman, Julia Roberts, Chiwetel Ejiofor, the latter the protag. They all deliver compelling acting and **** plotline is gripping and entertaining as any solid drama thriller. As mentioned, it is less about the investigation itself and more about the emotional draft of the case and the pursuit for a final answer. And the ending is strong message about revenge and its effects, it adds good closure to the story.Where does a seemingly flawless film errs then?For starters, the B plot does not develop that well. It feels platonic and ideal lacking any real plot points.Second, all of the rationale as to why the case could not be solved in the past is a bit too far-fetched. I beg to differ that the Force wouldn't just join together to bring some **** down.Overall, Secret in Their Eyes is compelling and solid, a great thriller for a chill Sunday.

Valkyrie is a dramatization of the events of 20 July 1944 were a party of unsatisfied military tried to start a coup to kill **** and free Germany from the **** regime. The movie portraits their acts as a heroic try at ending **** ideologism and try to remove the stain from WWII.This adaptation of the events pleases the audience by focusing on the good aspects of our main characters, specially protagonist Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg. In Brian Singer's view, Stauffenberg had solely pure intent to bring Germany back to its former glory rather than potential political or even military motivations, which some sources seem to imply. Nonetheless, the plotline seems fateful to the real **** Cruise plays Stauffenberg and the resemblence is somewhat acceptable, specially when you look at profile images of the latter. However, it does feel americanized; too much for liking — this film would have been better with German actors and actresses, I would believe. In this film, we have a polished Cruise, back to its roots of just playing safe and not going over the hill with stunts and **** you like historical dramas, you will like Valkyrie for what it is. Probably not a historically accurate accounting, or maybe it is but too brief and shallow, but you get your fair share of gossip-driven "this is how it sort of happened". Not sure if I can recommend to Germans, though.

Brick is a film in the “locked-room” style, with an escape-room dynamic, built on a categorical and forced assumption of a hypothetical, surreal scenario: What if you woke up and discovered you were trapped in your own home or apartment by a wall made of some indistinguishable, seemingly indestructible material? The plot unfolds from that **** follow the couple __ and __, who are on the verge of breaking up. Our protagonist, __, is on the brink of a nervous breakdown after an event that the opening background scenes make far too obvious from the start—and now, to make matters worse, finds themself stuck with their partner in the middle of a marital crisis.Fans of the escape-room genre—think [INSERT THE FILM THAT STARTED THIS GENRE]—will be drawn into a story that moves quickly and directly. But the conveniences are glaring! Our couple just happens to be a programmer and an architect who, of course, has construction materials lying around the apartment that conveniently help the plot move forward. And maybe that’s the film’s biggest flaw: everything feels too aligned, too easy, too explicit.Another issue is the exposition. For some reason, the director thought the backstory scenes were mysterious enough to make the final cut, but the plot point they’re trying to obscure is obvious from the beginning. When, halfway through, we get the big reveal about why the couple is in crisis, it’s like when a breakup happens because of an affair—but everyone already knew except the people involved. Oh… sure… who would have guessed that was the reason for their crisis? So hard to imagine…Some plot points are painfully predictable, and by now you’ve probably realized this is an easy film to figure out. The best thing to do is just let the story play out.That said, the movie is entertaining enough. The performances feel genuine, and the mystery of what’s really going on is intriguing—especially when conspiracy theories start creeping **** ending, for shock value, is infinitely simpler than many might expect. And that’s a good thing—better than trying too hard, aiming for an Oscar with a film like this.Brick succeeds in being straightforward and fun but fails by being far too shallow. It works well for a laid-back Sunday.

I just had the opportunity of rewatching the slasher classic Urban Legend from 1998, and it was somewhat worth it. Movies were simpler back then, straightforward and predictable, but **** story follows some teens at an university where one seemingly random murder happens, but then a series of events leads Natalie and Paul to believe a serial killer is on the loose. It is your classic who/whydunit shameless and bare.Simplistic as it sounds, Urban Legend spanwed a franchise. Yup, on the same trend as I Know What You Did Last Summer — a nice book, by the way —, Urban Legend ended up spawning the Urban Legends series, so you know what to wait for here. Urban Legend is like Scream, but without trying to ethernalize a masked killer.Like most cult classics, this movie is funny and entertaining and mostly flawed, but you love to hate it. If you want a nostalgic slasher vibe, this one should be on your list.

Del Toro's Frankenstein shows how one can remain somwhat fateful to the source material but spin it to its own vision and will, still deliverying a compelling story. Not a movie for everyone, but certainly a good movie **** Toro's Frankenstein is a retelling of the original Mary Shelley's novel with some tweaks for modern audiences. This movie leans itself closer to the thriller and horror aspect with hints of Gothic, while avoiding the stronger criticisim that the original work had.This movie has great visuals, Del Toro's branding all over. You can clearly see that care is present all over shots and **** is a long flick, though, I will give you that. Set time to watch it, and be prepared for a melancholic ride.Overall, a nice adaptation, worth it of its praise. Perhaps not as exciting and action-driven, but definitely deep and remarkable.

A House of Dynamite comes out of nowhere to slap us in the face with a story that is powerful, but that should leave us all on either edge: love or hate, like or dislike. It plays a bold move, and the pay off is entirely personnal. The story follow one eventful day where the US Defense System detects a nuclear missile heading inbound. What starts as seemingly an error quickly turns into a stressful situation when it proves to be real and unprecedented. How to react, how to respond? The way the story unfolds is superb. You get the narrative from different perspectives on the same event, the characters reactions and decisions all leading to what seems to be the inevitable moment. As the film progresses, you are as stressed as them, and you want to find out the ultimate revelation: what is going to happen, how will US respond to this. Now, this is one of those movies that one can't go further without major spoilers, so I will keep myself to being shady and grey. The point I want to make is that the overall storyline is great to watch, that is until the ending, one that watchers will either totally appreciate or dislike completely. Kathryn Bigelow, assisted by writer Noah Oppenheim, plays a bold move with this piece, one that will either get her some awards or just leave this movie for oblivion. Now, you might be asking: but Dear Reviewer, did you like it? Well, the score itself might already be a good indication of what I think, but he is in writing. I think the movie is good, I would definitely recommend it even for casuals on the premise that they will either love or hate it. That said, I think you should watch this and see for yourself. Truth be told, I believe most people won't like the ending, but, as a writer and a **** for stories, I like what the Director and the Writer did here. A House of Dynamite is a hypothetical movie, a thesis on an assumption, on a very edgy, very worrying _if_ scenario.

When something goes right in Hollywood, you know a wild sequel will happen to try to milk every last penny out of the feature. Unfortunately, Black Phone 2 is no different: a bland sequel to a great original film that should have been a standalone. That is not to say Black Phone 2 is complete garbage, far from this. In fact, Director Scott Derrickson is no newbie to the horror genre, himself the Director **** horror film: Sinister. So what fails in Black Phone 2? Well, for starters, the premise is as generic as it gets: Finn and Gwen gets a phone call that draws them towards Alpine Lake, a winter camp that happens to hide a morbid story. Of course, this is all tied to Finn, Gwen, and the Grabber, it all filling in the gaps of their origin stories, somewhat, somehow. Somethings are better just being open. The Grabber in this film is just a spoofed version of the original. Ethan Hawke is great, but I guess the direction for this film was trying too hard to make the Grabber this new Jason or, better yet, Freddy Krugger. Well, it so happens that Black Phone 2 has a lot of A Nightmare on Elm Street in it, so no wonder the Grabber under the mask looks a lot like Freddy. To make matters worse, the Grabber's motives are as unoriginal as it can be. No intricate reasons, no complex line of thought, just plain and simple and uninteresting. Then there are the pet peeves. How the Grabber is so ineffective in this film. How the protagonism shifted from Finn to Gwen, which, albeit alright, is unexplored overall because it feels like one is trying to spotlight the other. How they kept resorting to jumpscares rather than real horror. Holy s-, is it all bad? Not really. Finn's unspoken progression from the original to this sequel is spot on. I like how he is clearly struggling with the events from the previous movie. Another thing to like is that the atmosphere is tense and suspenseful, which is appreciated. Black Phone 2, although the Grabber is a bit looney, is trying to be serious in tone. And, of course, in technical cinematography, this film is high-budget, very well filmed. Kudos to the editing team. Overall, Black Phone 2 is just OK. It is somewhat acceptable if you watch the original and then this one, but it definitely does not add anything worthwhile to the original other than setting this universe as a potential franchise moving forward.

Even though the premise is passable, Awaken the Shadowman fails to turn it into anything cohesive or impactful, delivering a confusing string of decisions and events. And way too many cheap jump scares. The story follows Adam Morris and his wife Beth, a couple drifting apart after the birth of their child—mostly because Adam can’t stop obsessing over being the provider. Things take a turn when Adam gets a call from his estranged brother—it's a love-hate relationship—saying their mother has gone missing. When Adam heads to her house to figure out what’s going on, he finds a community that’s... let’s just say, off. Now, protagonists are supposed to be flawed—that’s storytelling 101. But Adam? Adam’s a jerk. As the story unfolds, it becomes clear he’s the black sheep of the family, and not without reason. He’s a textbook narcissist. It’s hard to explain, but Adam just doesn’t click. There’s no emotional bridge between him and the audience. You keep waiting for some redeeming quality to balance out his selfishness—but nope. He makes the worst decisions out of pure ego or plain stupidity, conveniently pushing the plot forward. The narrative setup itself is intriguing. Adding some spice is this oddball community led by a young guy named Lawrence, who’s clearly hiding something. Oh, and there’s a humanoid entity with alien-like features that’s supposedly the Shadowman. But from there, it all unravels. The film tries to crank the mystery up to conspiracy-theory levels, but that only makes things more muddled. By the time we get to the big reveal, it all falls apart—plot holes galore, and what’s left is painfully generic. And the jump scares. So many of them. All loud noises and sudden cuts—cheap tricks that add nothing. The ending was... fine. Doesn’t redeem the movie, but the idea it hints at is kind of cool. Awaken the Shadowman is pretty weak overall. It delivers little and stumbles over its own ideas. Just another drop in the sea of forgettable horror flicks

Extraction II falls squarely into the category of unnecessary sequels that are still watchable. The kind of movie that works as a time-killer but doesn’t offer much in the way of depth. The story picks up right where the prequel left off. Tyler Rake basically comes back from the dead for another mission: to rescue—or rather, extract—his ex-sister-in-law from a prison run by the Nagazi, a powerful Georgian crime syndicate. The plot follows the usual formula for this genre: force the protagonist into a situation that dredges up pieces of his past, trying to build an emotional connection to the external chaos unfolding around him. Extraction II is easy to follow and even easier to predict. What saves it are the action scenes and the cast. One standout moment in Act One features a 21-minute continuous shot. It’s surreal to watch—intense, gripping, and technically impressive. A technique that gained fame after showing up in John Wick 3 (or was it **** actors themselves are top-tier professionals. Nothing to complain about there. Overall, Extraction II is fine for casual viewing, the kind of film that doesn’t tax your brain with complications or nuance. A smooth ride that feels tailor-made for a Sunday evening of mental decay. Acceptable.

The debut feature film of David Casademunt is an interesting folk horror piece that works as a whole, but it is not without its flaws. With its interesting design and pacing, it captivates horror fanatics, but throws away generalists. The story follows Diego and his parents who live a secluded life in rural Spain, away from whatever current war is happening at the moment—I guess the Second War? Their lives are modest and ordinary, as mundane as you can get living in a big barren land in the middle of nowhere. That is until Diego's father, Salvador, tells the scary story about The Beast and how it tormented his sister. From there on, it is down hill for Diego and their family, and we get to watch them wither and wither. The Wasteland is one depressing piece, and that is a positive thing: the story is very compelling. We root for Diego and his family, and we also want to understand what the hell is this entity, if there is any. But The Wasteland is off on a few things. The visuals are great, so is the horror element, but the pacing is somewhat repetitive. The story is keeping us in this enclosed space where there is nothing more to do (or lose), and well, the gist is also the blist that, after a while, we are kind bored that all we get is the same house and the same haunting scenes and nothing much is really happening and, oh well, we are at the end of the movie. The ending is nice though. Super nice, actually, so it compensates for the runtime—but getting there, will ya, is a bit of a chore. If you endure, the film will deliver its final blow with glory. Overall, The Wasteland is like an experimental story, one that works great on paper—like in a book with introspection and a lot of foreshadowing—but kind does not translate well to the screens. The movie is short for today's standards, so you can give it a pass, if you are a horror fan. Casuals, I believe just avoid.

The Ruins (2008) is a screenplay that Scott B. Smith adapted from his 2006 novel of the same name, a novel that is usually referenced in a bunch of horror lists as a must-read—but that this review won't consider, of course. Director Carter Smith, unrelated to Scott B. Smith, directs this adaptation as his debut feature-length film, he himself in 2025 managing a modest career in filmography. That modesty is different than Scott B. Smith's prominent career in writing and his often endeavors in screenwriting. The story follows a group of young adults on their vacations in Mexico, a bit cooked with their time there already, when they stumble upon this guy that suggests they go on this expedition trip to meet his brother on this ancient ruins in the middle of the jungle. A change of pace, you know, from sunny beaches and parties to a wet, enclosed jungle and ruins as old as the place itself. Little did they know that these ruins hide horrors from centuries old. Supported by great acting, the character development is decent and well-done. Each arc, and the overarching narrative and intersections as the plot thickens, explore interesting lines of traits for each of the characters in our group, thus culminating on their closures, all pleasing according to the story premise. The plot alone is also good. The curveballs are interesting, keeping us hooked to what could happen next. You never know, and that keeps you going on and on until the end; which is where things go south a bit. The existence of an alternate ending is a clear indication that something was amiss. The original ending is too open and lacks closure, that putrid taste you feel when you bite something that looks fresh but happens to be stale. After all we and the characters endure, we wanted closure, goddamit. The alternative is to watch something that tries to wrap everything up but still… A bit unsatisfying. Another thing that might throw people off a bit is the genre: limited-space horror and body horror. Yup, you read it right. The story is good, but we are enclosed to the ruins, and maybe that is a bit stale after a while—for some people. You need to enjoy horror and a good mystery to keep going. The pacing, though, is solid. You get hooked fast and the hook keeps you throughout the whole length of the movie. Never will you bore or want to move faster. Of course, the FXs are superb for 2008. I always wonder what happened to CGI after the early 2000s, something got wrong. Nowadays, with all tech we have, it feels like the old still delivers solid graphics rather than the new. The Ruins is a good film for its genre, so good it got 7 nominations accordingly. You won't see it in scariest movies of all time lists, but you should stumble upon it on lists like movies to watch before you die or specialized lists. The reality is that The Ruins appeals to a niche, and little would you know that, if you like horror, than that niche might be something you enjoy too.

Weapons tells the story of the disappearance of an entire classroom, except for Alex, and the different POVs of people involved in this incident. 1 month later, the story picks up on how everyone is dealing with grief and closure. The story itself is good, a nice take on horror. It is a well thought-of narrative by Zach Cregger who, despite certain hits like The Civil War on Drugs (2011) and Barbarian (2022), has a modest career in screenwriting (for Cinema) and directing—a bit more prominent in acting. With an immersive narrative, Weapons keeps us hooked and curious about what is going on, who is behind all this, what is going to happen to the characters. The characters, which, by the way, are all-round interesting. They provide unique POVs into the story, and the acting is good and convincing. These characters interact through a narrative that is structured as chapters in a book. You start with one character until a specific plot point, then you move to a different character, going back in timeline until another plot point, usually intersecting with another character, so on and so forth. The pacing for this type of narrative arc is well-done, connecting each character arc until the innevitabel final Act. Weapons plays with a mix of genres, going from downright haunting and thrilling to a bit of cosmic horror, and, a s- you not, even dark humor and gore, all that with good execution. In the gore genre, Weapons use of practical effects is a great visuals pleasant to the eyes. And in the horror aspect, Weapons is overall acceptable, spooky at times, delivering a few jumpscares here and there, but acceptable. Some aspects of the movie are somewhat of a miss, though. The dream sequences hit like plot devices meant to just drive the character to action. They don't foreshadow, they force action and propel characters, which feels a bit cheesy. Also, to avoid spoiling, the antagonist forces in this story feel shallow, the main reason being that we get little background, the ins and outs, the whys. The story leaves a bunch of holes and unanswered questions about the antagonist forces, they themselves interesting, but superficial. And the ending is abrupt, too abrupt. Not bad by any means, but lackluster, missing that final punch and closure. Considering all the character and we went through, we would expect a bit more resolution here. Weapons is a good entry on the Horror Catalog, a nice watch as a whole. It is a refreshing take on the genre, finally something that feels different than the average and mediocre templatized media Hollywood as been pushing out.

Should you watch a 22 years-old movie? If you like fast-paced crime mysteries, sure! Basic is, well, far-off from being that. The story is a intricate series of events taking place in one night, when Ranger Dunbar is held in custody after being the suspect of killing his fellow buddy Rangers and Sargent West during a training routine. Fearing escalation, Captain Styles turn to former Ranger turned DEA agent Tom Hardy to quickly close the case, but the truth is not that simple. In this flick we get to see the combo John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson, albeit not as close as they were in Pulp Fiction. Definitely not the beginning of their careers, but it was sort of their mainstream entry into these quick blockbusters meant to deliver simple pleasures when Hollywood had their focus on crime thrillers like Face/Off, The General's Daughter, Swordfish, Rules of Engagement, The Negotiator, so on and so forth. Good times. Basic won't be seeing any entries into top-tier lists, though. And for what is worth, it got its nomination into Stinker Award, so you get the picture here. This is trash thriller, sort of like, well, pulp-fiction books, meant to be a fun quick ride, even with its flaws, and Basic has a few. For starters, the plotline is convoluted to begin with. I had to stop the film twice to get my bearings. Even when it ended, I had to read a quick summary to understand what the f just happened. And Tom Hardy? That is a subjective name. Overall, nice little piece of entertainment for a Sunday afternoon, but words of advice: expect little. This is no masterpiece.

Though one could argue that The Conjuring franchise is one of the most successful horror universes out there, and Last Rites already high grossing within a week of release, the last entry in the series raises mixed feelings. The story follows our beloved Warren family on what is supposed to be their last adventure into the realm of the demonic and damned. Avoiding new cases, Ed and Lorraine try to live a normal life, but as their daughter Judy starts seeing things ever so often, and a great ancient evil tied to the Warrens seem to grow in Pennsylvania, it is not before long that Evil finds their way to draw the Warrens back into the **** paper, the premise, and the slogan "the case that ended it all" raises expectations, especially considering all we have experienced so far in the franchise. What evil could be so evil that would have ended the Warrens journey? What terror is lurking in the dark to get them all? Well, turns out evil might have a number of faces, but their features are more or less the same. At best, The Conjuring: Last Rites is the same ol'-same ol' but done by skilled professionals. First of all, the title is a bit off. Last Rites? I would have expected something at large scale involving satanic summonings and the likes. Turns out last rites has to do with these being the last time the Warrens perform some expelling rituals or that stuff, so it seems. A little disappointing.Remove the wrapping ending, and Last Rites could easily be just another average The Conjuring entry. Remove the Warrens, and you would have your average 2020's haunting and demon possession movie. If you are a horror fanatic, which by watching what is supposed to be the 9th or 10th movie in this universe you probably are, you should easily predict the plot points for Last Rites with acceptable accuracy as the story progresses. It is full of the same old clichés and it is also as linear as it gets. Now, by this point you might think that Last Rites is a miss, a movie to ignore. Well, the context here is important: Last Rites advertisement was that it would end the franchise on a higher note with the case that made the Warrens stop their activities. Even though we know most of the events are just based on the Warrens's accountings, Last Rites enticed the premise that it would be the nail in The Conjuring coffin, at least for the time being, so expectations are super high. Last Rites, at best, delivers an acceptable **** scary factor is below par though. My wife hates these types of movies and she watched this one just fine. She said "this one was OK, watchable. I thought it would be worst [in the scary department]." I guess this is a good summary on this subject. As a whole, Last Rites is alright, and the ending and closure is beautiful and a tribute to the Warrens, sure. But consider all its context, Last Rites is average with a predictable, all-of-the-same type of story and a villain that has no personal connection to the Warrens other than just being generically evil.

Along Game a Spider (let's shorten this to AGS) is a thriller about the kidnapping of the daughter of a low-profile Senator and how the forensic psychologist Alex Cross solves the case—based on the homonymous James Patterson's novel. Simple and effective for the most **** you are just a movie fanatic, you might notice this Cross dude is super similar to the Cross on the movie Kiss the Girls (1997) and you wouldn't be wrong: they are the same character based on Dr. Alex Cross from Patterson's novel series. However, the order is reversed in the cinema: Alonge Came a Spider released later in movies; in the book series, AGS comes first.Anyhow, considering the movie alone, Dr. Alex Cross is thrown into an investigation over the kidnapping of Megan Rose when the kidnapper calls Cross with some cryptic BS. Pairing with Jazzie Flannigan, the Secret Service's agent tasked with protecting Megan, Cross and her needs to unravel a eerie case that defies the usual kidnapping **** is 24 years now and you feel its age. It has that early 2000's vibe and pacing, and cinematography. Nostalgia should surround you, but also a feeling of cliché.Nothing to do with Morgan Freeman, though. He is God.Overall, AGS works as intended, but expect no masterpiece. It is a simple movie that provides a simple experience and it works for the most part.

In a sea of mediocre to mostly average Hollywoodian horror films—many of which feel like recycled scripts with predictable scares and uninspired direction—there occasionally comes a refreshing surprise from outside the Western bubble. May the Devil Take You (MDTY), directed by Timo Tjahjanto, is one such surprise. Tjahjanto, no stranger to the horror genre, brings a solid Indonesian horror flick to the table that, while not perfect, manages to rise above the noise with atmosphere, folklore, and a genuinely unnerving tone. The film opens with a strong Eastern horror vibe, immediately setting itself apart from the typical Hollywood formula. It’s drenched in eerie ambiance, and the setting—a decaying rural house with a dark past—feels like a character in itself. The story centers around Alfie, a young woman grappling with the loss of her mother and a strained relationship with her father. Things take a turn when her father falls into a mysterious coma, prompting his new family to scramble for control over his assets, particularly a rural house that used to be Alfie’s childhood home. Alfie’s decision to return to the house is driven by a mix of nostalgia and unresolved tension, though the film doesn’t do a great job of making her motivations crystal clear. In fact, one of the film’s weaker points is how it leans on plot conveniences. Alfie has a dream, wakes up, and suddenly decides she needs to go to the house. That’s it. No deeper emotional trigger, no real buildup—just a dream and a decision. It’s a bit jarring, and unfortunately, that kind of narrative shortcut happens more than once. Characters also make some frustratingly dumb decisions throughout the film. They ignore obvious signs of danger, split up when they shouldn’t, and take far too long to piece together what’s happening. It’s the kind of behavior that makes you want to yell at the screen, but if you’ve watched enough horror, you know it’s part of the territory. Still, it’s worth noting that these moments do detract from the tension, especially when the audience is two steps ahead of the characters. Despite these flaws, MDTY delivers where it counts. The horror elements are steeped in Eastern tradition, which means you get a healthy dose of jumpscares, unsettling imagery, and folklore-driven terror. The CGI is hit-or-miss—sometimes it looks questionable, but other times it’s just creepy enough to work. The practical effects and makeup, however, are solid and help ground the supernatural elements in something tangible. The acting is convincing and acceptable across the board. Alfie, played with a mix of vulnerability and grit, anchors the film well. The supporting cast does their job, though some characters feel more like archetypes than fully fleshed-out people. Still, the performances are strong enough to keep you invested, especially as the stakes rise and the supernatural forces begin to reveal themselves. The ending is where things get a bit convoluted. It dives deep into Indonesian folklore and legend, which adds a rich cultural layer but might leave casual viewers scratching their heads. There’s a lot happening in the final act, and while I think it works within the context of the story, it’s definitely not a clean or straightforward resolution. That said, it’s refreshing to see a horror film embrace its roots and go all-in on its mythology rather than watering it down for broader appeal. What makes MDTY stand out is its commitment to atmosphere and tone. The film is genuinely chilling at times, especially if you’re watching it alone in a dark room. It’s not just about the scares—it’s about the creeping dread, the sense that something is deeply wrong, and the slow unraveling of a cursed legacy. The themes of grief and greed are woven throughout, giving the story a bit more weight than your average haunted house **** the end, May the Devil Take You is a flawed but compelling horror film that manages to rise above the average. It’s not perfect, and it won’t work for everyone, but if you’re tired of formulaic Western horror and want something with a bit more bite, this is worth your time. Just don’t watch it alone—grab a buddy, especially one who appreciates Eastern horror, and dive in. You might find yourself pleasantly surprised by how much this film gets right, even when it stumbles.

Guy Ritchie is a well-known blockbuster generator, starting high with bangers like Snatch and Sherlock Holmes and The Man of UNCLE, to questionable stuff like Aladdin and, most recently, Fountain of Youth. The dude likes his action stuff and fast-paced narrative, and, out of nowhere, he publishes a dark action thriller with Jason Statham called Wrath of Man. Wrath of Man tells the story of H, a mysterious man that joins a cash transportation company as a security guard of the cash truck. He is quiet and reserved, contrasting with his co-workers who are the complete opposite. While his motives seem unclear, bit by bit we understand why this skilled marksman joined a seemingly random job. Though the film is 2h long, it feels super fast paced. Blink and you might lose important facts. The narrative is not linear, jumping from timeline to timeline to woven all gaps and, in the end, lead us to the climax and conclusion. A well-told story overall. And that is the case with this film: it has a nice story that is serious enough and entertaining. It mixes dark themes and thriller with comedic relief hints here and there to keep things fresh. Jason Statham is, well, him. He is cocky and talks little, like in most films he is in. Everyone else if fair game. This film is an action thriller that fortunately works. If you like something that is clever than most action flicks, but also keeps you hooked without too much intricacies, Wrath of Man will deliver a satisfying experience overall.

That Richard Stanley is well-known for his bizarre features and controversy collaboration, most mainstream die-hard movie afficionados know. And, yet, Color Out of Space, another adaptation of HP Lovecraft's work, went by my radar flying low. It is an interesting flick, but not for the casuals seeking pure entertainment. The story really just takes the major themes and visuals from Lovecraft's tale and spins it into a modern day interpretation of the events. The Gardner family is trying to reconnect with nature and enjoy their new life in Nathan's inherited farm when a strange meteorite crashes into their frontyard. What starts oddly enough turns into an eerie twist when the seemingly inoffensive outer space stone emanates a cosmic aura that seems to affect all around it. This premise is perhaps the major similarity with the novella by Lovecraft. The rest from here on is a spiral into mediocrity. Let's start with the good, though. The visuals are fantastic. Especially when things go awry, the FX to capture Lovecraft's imagination into this cosmic color is as accurate as it could potentially be given the source material. I also liked the FX on the creatures. Creepy for the wrong reasons. Pretty cool. Back to the mediocre, then, Color Out of Space is plagued by bad writing, bad direction, and bad acting — a byproduct of the second plague. Something is just off with the plot. For most of the film, it is completely unclear who is the protagonist and, next to the end, we fill maybe no one really is. Also, character development is super absent. No one really develops itself into any enhanced version of themselves, and what we get is shallow and robotic. To spice things up, add some terrible direction by screenwriter Richard Stanley himself and you get the recipe for disaster. The editing is alright for the most part, but later plot points are rushed and disjointed. There is even one scene that is completely off in the sequence, clearly a mistake. The bad direction influences acting. Nicholas Cage is a bit over the top, we know, but here he is super off his game. His acting is subpar, feels forced, and most of the time he is complaining about a scent that clearly is not happening; no one is really connected here, as lost as just asking them to just "go with the flow", but they are all fresh out of college. Color Our of Space is a missed opportunity for something nicer. Instead, we got a flick as chaotic and convoluted as some of Lovecraft's works themselves. When you get to the ending, you would be as numb as everyone else, and perhaps your only remedy should (or must) be (re-)reading the novella to get the best version by far.

Uli Edel is known for having his finger in a bunch of genre pies—from horror to crime to historical fiction—crafting flicks for the big screen, television, series, mini-series, you name it. With Pay the Ghost, Edel opted for a limited release strategy, sending it straight to VOD—probably because he realized this flick was a solid lackluster. The story follows Cage—I mean, Mike—the always-busy professor, husband to Kristen, and father to Charlie. He’s struggling to land that one contract, their lives “apparently” hitting a financial low, and his relationship with his family souring due to his lack of presence. Trying to make up for missing Halloween trick-or-treating, he takes his son to a local fair… where Charlie goes missing. At this point, I need to stop—because otherwise, I’d already be halfway through the film. And that’s the main problem with this flick: its depth. Pay the Ghost is so shallow and fast-paced—likely to compensate for its shallowness—that the synopsis covers about 50% of the movie. Everything moves at the speed of light with little context, characters accepting supernatural elements without question, characters that exist just to fill plot holes, yet making them deeper, just pushing the plot forward beat after beat toward a predictable and boring conclusion… capped off with an even more boring post-credit scene. Pay the Ghost is apparently based on a short story by British writer Tim Lebbon. I’ll have to read it, because premise-wise, it feels like the short story might actually be good. Too bad the screenwriters couldn’t stretch the source material into a compelling feature-length film. And that’s not even getting into Nicolas Cage’s acting. I love him—really do—but he’s always Nicolas Cage. That can work or not work. No in-betweens. In this flick, it just doesn’t work. Yet… I still love him. Overall? Lackluster and weak. Just avoid entirely.

Fleur Fortune’s feature-length debut, The Assessment, is a dystopian sci-fi drama thriller that’s bound to split opinions. Its sharp critique of society hits the mark, yet its lack of a clear conclusion might leave a sour taste in your **** story follows Mia and Aaryan, a couple hoping to become parents. The catch? In this post-near-extinction society—heavily controlled by the Government—aspiring parents must undergo an assessment program to determine their fitness for parenthood. When the assessor arrives at Mia and Aaryan’s home to begin the process, things spiral into a web of disillusionment and redemption as Mia begins to question whether there’s more to **** Assessment is a slow burn, and action junkies might find themselves bored if they’re expecting a high-octane thrill ride. The story unfolds steadily, piece by piece, over the course of seven days, each day presenting unusual—yet oddly familiar—parenting scenarios. Truth be told, this exaggeration of parenting is a strong element of the narrative, tightly woven with commentary on society’s parenting norms and the extent of Government control. That said, the latter theme feels underdeveloped for the most **** to maintaining engagement are Elizabeth Olsen and Alicia Vikander, who steal the show with their performances. Their character arcs are compelling and, in their resolution, breathtaking—no **** what makes The Assessment land a solid 8?The backstory is noticeably absent, despite being crucial to understanding the characters’ context. We get a major exposition dump during the Dinner Scene, but that’s about it. Given the dystopian setting, a bit more world-building—either through dialogue or visuals—would’ve gone a long way.Then there’s Virginia’s arc conclusion: abrupt to the point of shock value. For impact, it’s an A+, but in terms of narrative payoff, especially considering her climax, it feels rushed. Her “Dark Night of the Soul” moment could’ve used more breathing room—it flashes by in an ****’s arc conclusion is also a letdown, simply because it’s too open-ended. Hell, “ended” might not even apply—it’s just open. Her journey would’ve benefited from a touch more closure.That’s not the case with Aaryan’s arc, though. His conclusion aligns perfectly with the trajectory of his character: fitting and deeply **** Assessment is bold, eerie, and aims to deliver a powerful punch. Most of its social critique lands hard, though a few minor pet peeves keep it just shy of greatness. Still, for movie fanatics, it’s a memorable flick that’ll linger in your mind long after the credits roll.

After dabbling with short films and a polarizing feature-length project called Still/Born, Brandon Christensen takes another swing at supernatural horror with Z—which might just win the award for most random title of the year. While its premise is always intriguing (let’s be honest, creepy entities that start with kids never get old), Z stumbles with a messy plot and thin characters. The story follows Beth, Kevin, and their son Josh, the picture of an all-American family living a quiet suburban life: Josh is the golden boy, Kevin’s the hard-working dad, Beth the stay-at-home mom. Everything seems postcard-perfect—until Josh introduces his new imaginary friend... Z. Honestly, I’ve always wondered just how common the whole “imaginary friend” thing really is. If I saw my kid talking to herself, sure, I’d brush it off. But talking to someone invisible? That’d send up all kinds of red flags. Like most horror flicks, it takes the parents way too long to realize they need to step in. And that’s just where the problems start. For us. To begin with, Josh is basically every parent’s nightmare. I don’t know—by the time the plot really picks up, I couldn’t help but wonder if this kid was even worth saving or just begging for some good old-fashioned exorcism. Add to the mix a passive-aggressive, subtly sexist dad. Kevin’s just... useless. All he does is make Beth’s life harder with his passivity and arrogance—he’s a walking liability wrapped in a dad disguise. If Beth were a single mom, it wouldn’t change a thing. Kevin’s just there to take up screen time. Beth herself is your textbook movie mom. Sweet. Vulnerable. Strong when she needs to be. She’ll move mountains to save her child. You’ve seen it before. As the story unfolds, it hits all the familiar beats. Beth’s got a dark past, and Z’s origin is way more personal than it first appears. So yeah, nothing groundbreaking in that department. One thing I can’t ignore—the alphabet toy that clicks loudly with every key press. If I were alone in a room and that thing started clacking without a soul in sight, I’d lose it. In the film? Characters treat it like it’s just another day at Chuck E. Cheese. Come on. Z's design is cool, though. From Josh’s sinister little drawings to Z’s full reveal, the visual concept actually lands. Props to the production team for that one. It’s just a shame the story doesn’t hold up. The ending is flat, uninspired, and—honestly—makes zero sense. A mess of last-minute twists that feel clunky and half-baked. Disappointing, especially for a movie that showed real promise. Z is kind of like the letter itself: the last one you think about, barely used, and oddly hard to fit into anything. Almost forgettable.

The Wretched is a low-budget supernatural horror flick by the Pierce brothers that delivers a surprisingly positive punch. Mixing teen horror with folklore, its story might seem a bit too modest at depicting typical adolescent behavior standards, but it’s also intriguing and dark—a tasty blend for horror fans. The story follows Ben, a mildly out-of-place teenager trying to process his parents’ separation in a natural way while settling into his new home with his dad in a coastal town. But things start to lean toward the absurd when he suspects something’s off with the neighbors. Throughout the film, Ben is the kind of protagonist you genuinely want to follow. He’s smart, he’s brave, he’s awkward and lonely, he’s got problems—and he’s going to overcome them. A protagonist written right. To thicken the stew of this well-done character development, the plot is a pleasure to follow: gripping and creepy. It’s not terrifying, but it’s definitely tense. And the story beats are effective and support what’s unfolding. When the climax hits, we’re desperate to know how Ben’s going to get out of the mess he’s landed in. That’s when a few minor missteps happen—like the dog-based deus ex machina, or how so many people end up subverted so quickly—but hey, overlook those and The Wretched delivers what it promises: a young adult horror movie with touches of folklore and mystery. A solid pick to wrap up a boring Sunday.

Pyewacket grabs attention with its folk horror premise, and for much of the runtime, it delivers a convincing and intriguing story—until the final act, where things take a noticeable dip. The plot follows Leah, a teenager grappling with the recent death of her father and her mother’s emotional unraveling. This environment, ripe for self-pity, leads Leah down a dark path of fascination with black magic and the occult. In a moment driven more by rage than reason, she summons a supernatural entity that puts her life in danger. The horror element holds steady throughout, keeping us glued to our seats in anticipation of the entity’s arrival. And when it finally appears on screen, the creature design is solid—a satanic, grotesque figure worthy of a sinister ritual. But that’s where it ends. A story that once held promise crashes into an abrupt, anticlimactic finale—like a gut punch after a gourmet meal. It feels as if the production team suddenly had to wrap things up: “Close the curtains, we’re done here, slap on an ending and move on.” A sad conclusion for what could’ve been a standout narrative. Strip away that flaw, and Pyewacket still offers a compelling tale of occult and folk horror. The entity is well-crafted, and the overall narrative is solid—but the ending falls short. Like something bitter for those who enjoy it, this is a good film that leaves a sour taste at the end.

Attack on Finland (2021) leaves a bitter taste, unfortunately. Something went wrong in this narrative, and I can’t help but wonder if Ilkka Remes’ novel follows similar lines—if so, then the book is flawed **** story follows a specialized and mostly secret division of European Union agents trained for ghost operations. From this agency, we follow Markus Tanner. After terrorists storm the Presidential Ball on Finland’s Independence Day, Tanner must race against time to meet their demands before the worst happens—which, for him, would be the death of his partner, who’s serving as a bodyguard to one of the guests.Sounds like the setup for a sharp espionage thriller packed with conspiracy, terrorism, twists, betrayals, suspense, and action. But no—the film ends up being a simplistic sequence of events so surreal they’re hard to take seriously. It’s riddled with plot holes, making the story feel like a moldy slice of Swiss **** way the terrorists pull off their stunt is so absurd—especially given the context of the Ball—that I nearly stopped watching right then and there. I forced myself to finish it, hoping it would improve. It didn’t.Plot point after plot point, nothing redeems this cinematic piece. I’ll even forgive the weak CGI in the helicopter shots, because for me, story is everything—but this story is broken. It lacks cohesion and desperately needs stronger character development.Speaking of character development, let’s talk about that. We follow Tanner and the main antagonist, Vasa Jankovic. Tanner barely evolves. We’re told there’s romantic tension in his past, but we see little of it. Vasa, on the other hand, has some family tension and a general terrorist motive, but again, not enough to justify the chaos he unleashes. The truth is, everything that happens in Attack on Finland feels fake, impossible, and far too **** pains me to place an indie international film in the “bad review” category, but I have to be honest. Attack on Finland fails to deliver a consistent and compelling narrative, leaving us with a confusing mess of implausible and meaningless events.

From the director of Malèna, Giuseppe Tornatore brings us a film that’s essentially Malèna with the roles reversed—at least when it comes to the romantic duo. The Best Offer is clever and shrewd, but I struggle to accept the protagonist, truth be **** story follows eccentric auctioneer Virgil Oldman, a brilliant and influential art historian with a touch of charlatanism and a flair for mannerisms. Beneath his polished façade lies a sad truth: Virgil is a lonely man. After being hired to appraise and auction the estate of Claire Ibbetson, a newly minted heiress, Virgil finds himself spiraling into an increasingly difficult situation—his growing infatuation with the mysterious Claire, who, for reasons unknown, never appears in **** Best Offer moves slowly, its central premise being the gradual development of Virgil and Claire’s relationship until the inevitable, and yes, predictable, final reveal. A secondary plot tries to spice things up: the late Mr. Ibbetson apparently owned a remarkable mechanical piece, which Virgil and his hired assistant Robert attempt to reconstruct, piece by **** of this would have landed far better for me if not for one glaring issue: Virgil is clearly somewhere between 65 and 75 years old, while Claire is under 30. Just like in Malèna, where the romantic tension plays out between a woman in her 30s and a boy of about 14, Tornatore once again toys with a Lolita-esque theme that, frankly, I find distasteful. Had the protagonist been in his 40s, I’d say the romance would’ve been far more palatable.Narratively speaking, setting aside that mathematical mismatch, The Best Offer delivers an intriguing plot and, by the end, a clever one. The conclusion is well-crafted and emotionally resonant. If you can overlook the unsettling grandfather-granddaughter dynamic, you’ll find a film that’s sharp and perceptive.

I've noticed high praises for No One Will Save You (NOWSY), even praises from Stephen King, the Master of (Novel) Horror, but, although I found the premise to be very good, I felt that NOWSY missed the point by an inch. Do you want the Executive Summary? Sure, then! Though NOWSY is scary and suspenseful, the lack of character development for Brynn might pay a toll on the dark ending. Read more for details. In NOWSY, anxiety-driven and recluse-homegirl Brynn receives an unexpected guest: an alien, and he is not friendly. The problem is that Brynn has no one to ask for help because her past set her as hated by all townsfolks. The missed inch here is with the character Brynn. The setup is too short, which gives us no context to her anxiety problem other than one major scene where she is having an anxiety crisis and one small glimpse of common anxiety when she has to go the post-office. I'm husband to a woman that suffers from this disorder, and I know her pain and struggle; even though people cope with anxiety in different ways, I felt that Brynn's anxiety was — pun intended — scripted. Another problem is the hate townsfolks have towards her. Again, with the setup being too short, we get no real sense of the hatred that she is in. And this hate is also a turning point in the ending. So, these are the only cons of the movie; moving into middle-ground territory, then, the lack of dialogue is doubtful. Even when Brynn meets Mrs. Collins, there's no dialogue, regardless of the encounter being a key scene. The cinematography is alright, but nothing spectacular. CGI is clearly CGI, and perhaps having the aliens so up-and-close was not the best choice. The ambience, though, is very suspenseful and frightening, especially when slow pace is setting the mood for a thrill. As aforementioned, editing is alright, but the setup was too short. I'd sacrifice the scene with the small-sized alien for more setup, which could develop the Brynn character further. The sound effects are alright, but nothing that should give you goosebumps or something. General effects overall, if you will. The ending was dark, but not highly aligned with the Brynn character's desire. Because Brynn has no development in the beginning, the ending feels a bit out of place and, perhaps, too dark. The ending also does match Brynn's persona at all as she dismisses a slightly diminished version of the ending previous to the actual ending. NOWSY tries to send a strong message about anxiety and society cancelling, but Direction misses the point. Though, NOWSY is thrilling, and the horror elements are there, NOWSY ends with a dark tone that feels out of place with the overall movie pacing and plot. For horror geeks, it is recommendable, but NOWSY is no masterpiece

Too cartoonish. I can’t think of other criticism to make other than that: the movie feels too cartoonish. Maybe some 10 years ago, I could have enjoyed it, but, now, I think I'm too old for this. The actors are good. Although Jamie Foxx is questionable, he is doing an OK job in this movie. Joseph is what you expect. The plot is comic-books all the way: a drug, Power, makes people have superpowers for 15 minutes; oh!, it also hooks you into it. The drug is also unstable: sometimes you get powers, sometimes you just get killed. The pow-ers also hurt you, most of the time. However, the real premise is that Art is looking for his daughter, and the police, including Frank, is looking for Art. The CGI is kinda bad considering that this movie is from 2020. We have seen better. Project Power feels like a no-brainer of a movie. One that you watch without putting much thought into it. With too many ex-Machina to take in, watch this movie only if your kids want some adult stuff to watch.

In Brazil, there was a television show called The Afternoon Session that played movies for teens, usually adventure movies. The Last Witch Hunter is a movie that, with minor tweaks, could be on The Afternoon Session. There is nothing special about the plot: an immortal witch hunter needs to protect the world once again from the hands of a powerful witch. They try to put some cleverness to the plot by adding a touch of mystery, but it is unimpressive; nice, but unimpressive nonetheless. If you just need to pass time with your family, this is a good movie. Good movie to watch with your kids too, if they are bothering you because they want something more grown-up to watch.

Before the review, I need to complain a little: I hate most of the titles they choose for the version published in Brazil. Most of them use the original title with some silly subtitle. In Brazil, BAC Nord, The Stronghold in the United States, became BAC Nord: Under Pressure. Ridiculous. BAC Nord is a depressing film. We quickly sympathize with the good guys: Greg, Yass, and Antoine. They are from the Anti-Crime Brigade (BAC), a police department ruled by the sameness of being a shadow of organized crime. Their day-to-day comes down to brushing ice, as we say in Brazil. But things change with the possibility of being able to settle accounts with the criminal organization that rules a residential complex. The catch is that all this needs to happen under the hood. We follow the good guys on this journey. The mission is simple and, overall, little happens. Half the movie is character development. Things get complicated starting from the middle of the movie. The situation is tense enough to keep us hooked on the film. The story also seems reasonably convincing to the point where we don't question the progression of events. The plot twist, although expected, happens naturally and causes a strong impact. I liked the approach the screenwriters used to unfold the facts of the final conflict. The only negative point I raise is that nothing serious happens. Even the final conflict doesn't result in anything really bad. I don't recommend this movie if you're looking for frantic, wild action. This is a slow movie about frustration, friendship, corruption, and injustice.

I'm a **** for zombie and infections movies. I can't help but watch them. Most of these movies fall into the B-movie category; The Crazies is no exception. The Crazies is an adaptation of a 1973 film of the same name. Gearge A. Romero directed the original; here, he's an executive producer. I discovered this fact while researching to write this review. In The Crazies, David, sheriff of the fictional town of Odgen Marsh, Iowa, has to shoot a civilian who showed up armed with a shotgun at a baseball game. The civilian was clearly affected by something that prevented him from thinking. Here, I think the problems are already starting for me. Odgen Marsh is a small town, with just over 1200 inhabitants, but it seems that there are only two police officers in town: David, the sheriff, and Russell, his assistant deputy. A man armed with a shotgun shows up at a high school baseball game, and no one decides to take shelter. David clearly shoots in self-defense, and yet it seems that some of the population condemn him for the act (but here, I can even see reality with today, where some values ​​seem inverted.) David and Russell are super smart. Sometimes I don't like how protagonists can't seem to put the ends together, but David and Russell put them together accurately. In less than half an hour, they already knew they were dealing with some pathogen. A scene that ends in a scare felt forced just to cause pointless tension. David and Russell were working as a team, but for no apparent reason, David decides to go out alone when he realizes the problem is serious. A bizarre scene ends with a pretty dumb scare, with a guy with no chance of seeing warning David that someone is right behind him. There is little explanation about the pathogen. Despite an agent describing it as deadly, the only confirmed symptom is that the hosts become extremely aggressive. I couldn't close a pattern beyond aggression: at times, the hosts seem erratic; in others, they seem smart enough to set traps. The lack of consistency makes some scenes feel exploitative. Some scenes are classic horror scenes, like when David can't restart the car he just turned off. Others are funny for the wrong reasons, for example, when Judy, David's wife, decides to take the towels off the line because of an anxiety attack. However, the film is consistent in keeping us tense and curious for the end. One thing that annoyed me about the protagonists is the fact that they always walk on the road. At one point, they even ask if it's a bad idea, and indeed it is. Exposing yourself in this way is clearly idiotic; why not follow the road from a safe distance? The climax was expected. The events are tense, but the main reason for the events themselves was obvious to me from the middle of the movie. The outcome was acceptable. The scenes during the end credits, however, open the possibility for a sequel or a prequel, two aspects not explored until then. Considering the box office results, I imagine that these movies will not see the light of day. Recommended if you are a fan of movies about infection. The film is very simple because it only focuses on the survival aspect without wanting to be scientific, but it works. These types of movies aren't for everyone, that's for sure.

An American hitman retires, and now the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) wants him dead. This type of plot is very common, so common that it always comes in two versions: pure or spiced. Pure, when the plot is simply what it is; someone leaves the Agency, and the Government betrays him. Spiced, when they add some element to spice up the plot. Gemini Man is spiced. The spice is that the Agency sends a clone of the hitman to kill the retiree. Henry Brogan, after finishing one more job, decides to retire. His superiors at DIA wants to kill him to eliminate loose ends. Only there were no loose ends. That's Gemini Man's biggest problem: the motives don't make sense. A friend of Henry's warns him that his last job was forged. The dude he killed wasn't who he was reported to be. But the plot does not unfold around this conflict. The plot uses this conflict to justify why DIA wants Henry dead. Explanations reappear as the plot approaches its climax, where we learn that conflict doesn't matter, making it all just an excuse for the film to move forward. After DIA tries to kill Henry with conventional assassins, Clay Verrys, our villain, decides to send a special assassin: Henry's clone. Here, congratulations on the film: at least the clone idea was well thought out. The clone is not literally Henry with the same abilities; well, actually the clone is, only the clone, Junior, was born like any other human. Henry is 51 years old while Junior is 20 (-ish,) which makes him more agile than Henry. From this point forward, the movie is just Junior hunting down Henry and his friends. The friends are Baron and Danny who inevitably got involved. The stunts are spectacular to look at, but surreal. No human being could do or bear everything that happens in the movie. I would prefer it to be something real, a cat-and-mouse game with elements of suspense, stealth and action when needed. Augmented reality to make Junior look younger Will Smith is acceptable but noticeable. Junior looks like rubber or wax in some scenes. As for Will Smith in general, I don't know... He falls into the same category as Jim Carrey for me: I accept him in serious movies, but he has that comedic air. I couldn't help but chuckle in some lines. The revelation to Junior that he's a clone of Henry isn't all that exciting. But maybe I was getting my hopes up too much. Of course, the revelation advances the film to the final events, which are bad. Clay makes such a ruckus that I doubt it wouldn't reach the ears of the President and the National and International Press. Lots of fireworks. If you want to erase loose ends, you want to do it silently, not warning the whole world that you are burning files. The final twist is abrupt and, so close to the end of the film, unnecessary. The character Clay ends up becoming weak and with bad motives. The ending is not surprising as Gemini Man is PG-13. Recommended if you want to spend some time with your family. If you like more elaborate plots, suspense, violence, you can skip it.