jtindahouse

I did not have the highest hopes for 'Smile 2'. It seemed like a concept that had one film in it and nothing more. How wrong I was. This film took an above average horror film in the original, and said we are going to better it in every way.

I mean don't get me wrong, it's still popcorn horror, but it's popcorn horror of the highest quality. Jump-scares rarely get anything out of me these days. This one had be jump out of my chair multiple times. I do have to make a note on this however - these did seem like the loudest jump-scares I've ever heard in a cinema. Even when the fright didn't work the sheer noise was capable of being quite startling. Not entirely sure if that was just the volume in my cinema or the sound mixing.

I worried when we were introduced to the lead character, and she was a pop-star, that it was going to be hard to side with her. Pop-stars in real life haven't exactly made themselves the most likeable of people over the last couple of decades. Her character was quite well created though. She was flawed, but she was also very personable and easy to side with. It helped that we got a terrific performance out of Naomi Scott it has to be said.

A good opening scene in horror movie has become a lost art. It's so important to get your audience hooked from the get go and set the standard. Many modern horror films forget about this, but not this film. The opening scene was great and really kicked the film off on the right note.

This film is pretty long for a horror film, coming in at over 2 hours. That's an ambitious ask to keep the quality up for that long and I kept wondering when it was all going to fall apart. It never did though and it even stuck the ending which I was really worried it wasn't going to do. I never thought I'd be writing this, but 'Smile 2' is going to be a contender for one of the best horror films of 2024. 9.5/10.

I've always been incredibly curious about the film 'Bug'. It came out almost 20 years ago and I've been meaning to see it ever since. I had absolutely no grasp of what kind of film I was in for. And still I left surprised. This was a wild ride.

The entire runtime I kept thinking I was going to have to watch multiple explanation videos to get my head around the film. In actuality by the end of the film I thought I had a pretty good grip on what it was all about.

The acting in this movie is what makes it though. Both Ashley Judd and Michael Shannon give everything they've got and fully commit to the movie. It's even more impressive when you consider director William Friedkin doesn't do many takes, so they had to be at their best immediately in every scene.

I can see people either loving or hating every minute of this film. It won't be for everyone, but if you do connect with it could be a special experience. 7/10.

I often say the most important ingredient to a successful and enjoyable film is having likable characters. Well 'The Divide' kind of proved me wrong on that one. Almost every character in this movie is pretty despicable. All except one that is, and it turns out that one was enough to grip onto and carry me through the movie.

Lauren German is such an underrated actress. Everything I've seen her in, which unfortunately isn't much, she has been terrific in. She's very naturally likable without seemingly having to do much. She's also a bad-ass and again it's just effortless. Without her character in this movie my enjoyment levels would've been a lot lower.

The film gets off to a bit of a clunky start, but once it finds its rhythm and gets going it becomes highly enjoyable and I was hooked. Be warned it goes to some pretty dark and grimy places, but if you can handle that you'll likely have a great time. 9/10.

Sometimes you just don't connect with a film. Often for me it's when the story is based on an outlandish concept, yet the film is taking itself very seriously as if nothing is out of the ordinary. That was 'Caddo Lake' for me.

The other barometer for me about my enjoyment of a film is if its confusing, but I don't care enough to put the pieces of the puzzle together. There are films like 'Memento' where you simply have to go over every detail with a fine-tooth comb because you're so invested. With this film I was just happy to accept that all the logic worked and it was what it was.

Don't get me wrong, there's some good stuff here and if you buy into the concept you might just really enjoy yourself. All I say is this one wasn't for me. 5/10.

I heard that Chris Pine described 'All the Old Knives' as one of the three best scripts he'd ever read. And I imagine this would be a very strong movie on paper. It has an intriguing storyline and the dialogue is decent. It is a solid film no doubt about it. But it does come across quite flat. There is very little in the way of action and this is going to leave some viewers hoping for a regular spy-thriller a little underwhelmed.

There are little clips we keep getting from a plane hijacking, and every time we were focused on that I couldn't help thinking that that was the movie I wanted to be seeing. It looked absolutely brutal.

This is the kind of film you enjoy at the time, then five years later someone asks if you've seen it or not, and you have no idea. It was solid and enjoyable and well-written, but nothing about it will stick with me. 6.5/10.

A good film needs two things. It needs a good concept, and then it needs good ideas to branch out from that concept. 'I. S. S' had the first part, but failed badly at the second part. It has a great set up and all the potential for an interesting film, and then it just has no idea what to do with itself from there.

That said, while it is an interesting concept, it does seem a bit tacky to have two nationalities going against each other in a film and basically asking the audience to pick a side. Especially these two particular countries in this politically charged time we live in. It just seems a bit in bad taste if I'm honest.

This was a nothing movie, and it shouldn't have been. It should have been better. 5/10.

Food movies have been all the rage the last few years. And almost all of them have been pretty good. 'House of Spoils' is sadly the first real letdown in the sub-genre that I've seen. It felt very much like a film that didn't have enough of any one thing, so tried to throw multiple things at the wall in the hope that one of them would stick.

The end result is a bit of a chaotic mess - and not a particularly interesting one either. The film is probably at its most interesting when it is just being a regular kitchen drama. But even then all the drama and obstacles feel very forced.

I had hopes that all the grind of the first hour was just setting up for a strong finish. Unfortunately the final 20-30 minutes are probably the most dull part of the film. It really does whimper home. This one wasn't for me. 4/10.

When it was announced that this film was going to be a musical, I fully expected for the whole world to love it, and I'd be the single human who hated every minute of it. Seemingly, we are in quite the opposite situation. I loved this film, and I suspect I know why most other people did not. I have a feeling 'Joker: Folie à Deux' will go down as one of the most misunderstood films of all time.

Where the misunderstanding is coming from, I believe, is that people think this is just another iteration of the 'Joker' that we have come to love over the years. It's not, and it never was. This is an entirely original character. This is not a 'Joker' who could mastermind heists, or set up master plans to bring down Gotham or go toe-to-toe with 'Batman'.

People didn't notice this as much in the original because it was an origin story. So they thought it normal that we wouldn't see all the theatrics we are used to from the 'Joker'. We are so used to sequels being bigger and bolder in every way that people thought this sequel would be him coming into his own, and doing all the things we have become used to seeing this character do.

So I think people went in with an expectation and didn't get anything remotely like what they expected/wanted, and for that reason deemed it a bad film. When in reality it is anything but. I can't imagine how Todd Phillips feels making a film this good, a film most directors could only dream of producing, and having the whole world criticise it.

The acting in the film is incredible. Both Lady Gaga and Joaquin Phoenix are more than deserving of Oscar nominations, but it will be very interesting to see what the Academy does after the critical response the movie has received. It shouldn't matter, but it often does.

I'm not a big fan of musicals. And that was my least favourite part of the movie. Having said that, watching Gaga sing is rarely ever a bad thing. I could watch that all day. Phoenix on the other hand, not so much. Would I have preferred it not to be a musical? Yes. Did it ruin the film for me? No, but it certainly did hold it back from being a 10/10.

I have been immensely curious about this film ever since it was announced. Going in I really thought anything from a 1 to a 10 was on the cards. And then I just sat there loving every minute of it, and before I knew it 140 minutes had passed. I hope this film finds its audience along the way, even if it takes some time for people to appreciate it. 9/10.

'It's What's Inside' set itself up really well. We meet some characters and learn they have some behind-the-scenes drama going on. Then we are introduced to an interesting mechanism that is going to drive the remainder of the film. At this point I thought I was in for something truly special. What I hadn't realised was that there were some problems that were going to hamper the film.

Firstly, it was going to get very confusing. I don't want to get into details because that would spoil the premise of the film. But anyone watching this film will know pretty quickly what I'm talking about in terms of confusion. I will say that while the middle of the film is very confusing, it does clear itself and become a bit more coherent towards the end. You still need to have your wits about you at all times though, that is for sure.

The other problems lie with the characters. There are two many of them and they are very toxic people who it is hard to care about and get onside with. I really feel like the movie could easily have cut 2-3 of the characters and nothing would have been lost. And as far as making them toxic, I understand that leads to more juicy drama, but sacrificing likability is a big thing.

All negatives aside, there is some really good stuff here. If you can stay on top of the story and follow along with all the story/character arcs, you are probably going to have a really good time, because it has some nice tricks up its sleeve at the end in that regard. It was an ambitious undertaking to make a film this complicated work, and all in all they did a pretty good job. 6/10.

Hollywood doesn't get a whole lot right these days, but one thing they seem to have perfected is the coming-of-age comedy. I feel like every one of these I've seen for the last ten years or so has been terrific. And I imagine they're incredibly cheap to make, so hopefully they keep churning them out.

'Incoming' was terrific. The humour worked. I found myself genuinely laughing out loud almost the entire run time. The dialogue was funny and the situational humour was even funnier. Also the characters were extremely likable. Even the ones who were supposed to be bad (less good?) people were still people you could side with and understand where they were coming from.

I found this movie really energising. I was never checking my watch begging for the credits to roll. If anything I wanted more of these characters. This was a good one. 9.5/10.

It's hard to remember the last time I saw a found footage film that was as all over the place as this one. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it was just kind of trying to do a lot in 90 minutes and it was hard to settle into a rhythm.

The acting is a little dusty, as we've come to expect in this sub-genre. When the film is trying to be funny though there are some genuine laughs. And when it is trying to be scary there are a couple of properly unnerving moments.

The ending to these types of films is always very important. It's what everything builds towards and it is often what sticks most in the audience's mind. The ending here was okay, but I thought it could've been done a little better. A solid, if forgettable, little found footage film. 6/10.

I remember when this film came out back in 2015, thinking that it looked super art-house and probably wouldn't be my kind of thing. What a fool I was. Since then, writer/director Yorgos Lanthimos has gone on to become one of the best filmmakers working today. But 'The Lobster' isn't far from being his best work.

Sometimes a film just speaks to you. That was this film for me. Usually a lot of metaphors, subtext and symbolism in films go over my head, but in this case I was picking up what they were putting down. I also watched a few explanation videos afterwards that pointed out a few things I had missed. This is one of the smartest films I've seen in a long time.

A film like this has no business being as entertaining as it was though. Firstly, it's hilarious. I found myself laughing more than I often would in a pure out and out and out comedy. Secondly, you never know what is going to happen next. Nothing is off limits and the story is so bizarre and unpredictable than anything can be around the next corner.

This is the kind of film you just don't want to end. I could happily have watched another 5 hours of this story and I don't think I would've been bored for a second. This is as good as film-making gets. 10/10.

This movie is set on May 9 and the lead character relives that day over and over and over again. May 9 just so happens to be my birthday, which is also my least favourite day of the calendar year. Living it repeatedly for all of eternity would be my version of hell. This film really spoke to me in that sense.

We have seen the same day relived concept numerous times now, with mixed levels of success. What I think the key to making it work is, and what 'Boss Level' was missing, is an enticing mystery that the audience can put together along with the character/s. 'Happy Death Day' for example did this excellently.

'Boss Level' on the other hand had a pretty simple concept. We know more or less entirely what is going on from the early stages, and we are asked to enjoy the action sequences and the video game style of the film more than anything else.

It's fun for a little while, but after an hour or so it starts to get pretty tedious. By the final 20 minutes you are really grinding towards the finish line. The film did a lot right though it has to be said and it tried its best to get everything out of the concept. A worthy effort. 5/10.

As I was watching 'Rebel Ridge' I couldn't help thinking that this was exactly what the 'Jack Reacher' movies should have been. A genuinely intimidating lead character with a military background, and a nice straight-forward story where bad vs evil is easily apparent. It sounds so simple, but it's also incredibly watchable.

This film started out great. It quickly established the antagonists and made sure they were pure evil so that we would be invested and care about the outcome. Then it ensured that the lead character and his "side-kick" were likable, so there was no doubt about what side we should be on. Again, this sounds so simple, but so many screenplays fail to get this right.

From there the movie kind of takes care of itself. It does run out of the steam a little through the middle and could have done with cutting out about 20 minutes in editing. Otherwise though, this was a fun little Netflix film that is worth your time. 8/10.

When a film is confusing, you are left with two options. Look deep into it and try to work out what the film was trying to get across. Or accept that the film went over your head and never think about it again. And the decision isn't really up to you. It all comes down to how invested in the film you were. 'Cuckoo' was a case of the latter. I didn't care enough to look for an explanation.

It took me a while to get my head around whether I was enjoying the film or not. There was some interesting stuff being set up early on, and Dan Stevens was giving a great performance. I soon realised though that this was not my preferred brand of horror. It was all getting a little bit too silly for my liking.

I actually had really expected to like this one ever since I first heard about it. It wasn't quite the film I was hoping for though. 5/10.

I should start by saying I haven't read the Colleen Hoover book this was based off, so this isn't a comparison of any sort. This is purely a critique of the film and how it stood on its own. I also think a lot of people are letting personal feelings about the cast and Hoover herself get in the way of their actual feelings about the movie. I haven't seen a movie with this much toxicity surrounding it since 'Don't Worry Darling'.

Putting all that aside, I thought the film was fantastic. I thought the cast all had great chemistry, helped in large part by some terrifically written dialogue. I thought the heavy tones of the film were handled well also. The were able to pack a very large punch, without ever going over the top or feeling unrealistic.

The key indicator for me that this was a great film was that the 130 minute runtime flew by. I was absolutely invested in the story to the point where it never felt like a chore to watch.

One minor critique I would mention, is that you have to believe it is a very small world with the all the characters constantly running into each other as if they were living in a little village of a thousand people, rather than Boston. That aside though, I found this film hard to fault. 9.5/10.

Oh man, I loved 'The Substance' for 90% of the runtime. It was more or less locked into a 10/10 for me with half an hour to go. Then the film found a way to undo a lot of the hard work. The ending they went for didn't work for me, and it's a real shame because this is an otherwise excellent film.

This is some of the most relentless body horror I've seen. Three separate groups all walked out while the film was still going, something I have never seen before in a cinema. The film has no fears of going overboard or showing anything shocking whatsoever. I absolutely loved it in that regard.

The film has a clear message and for most of the run time it gets it across very effectively. I can't help wondering whether the 140 minute run time was a little too ambitious and it just didn't know how to keep the momentum going for all that time. Don't get me wrong, this was a very good film. But there's no doubt that with the icing on the cake it could've gone down as something truly special. 9/10.

Well, those were 90 of the most depressing minutes I've had in a while - in a good way of course. This film is heavy from start to finish. It starts with a kick to the teeth and doesn't relent from there on out.

The animators and voice artists did a truly fantastic job. The work put into making 'Setsuko' possibly the cutest and most likeable kid ever put to screen was incredible. It plays a huge part in keeping you invested and caring about what is happening on screen.

Whether you want to or not, a film like this leaves you thinking pretty hard about decisions that were made back in these war times. It's pretty sobering that a story like this is true. It breaks your heart but it's also important not to forget, and so films like this will always be vitally important. 8.5/10.

Stephen King gave 'Under Paris' a glowing review on X (formerly known as Twitter) and I can only think he was paid to do so, because this is not the kind of film you finish and think - I'm going to recommend this film to people. This was a hard slog to get through.

Shark movies have two options: Take themselves very seriously, or lean into the absurdity of it all. 'Under Paris' finds an awkward middle ground. It's clear that it is trying to take itself seriously, but it's such a ridiculous concept that it comes across in an absurd way. The problem is, because it doesn't know what it is, it is never able to build any tension, but it's also no fun whatsoever.

Look, a lot of shark movies are doomed from the get go. There's only so much you can do with the concept and chances are we have seen it all before. That's what 'Under Paris' feels like, a film we have seen a thousands times over already. 3/10.

This may be the toughest review I've ever had to write. And there's no way I can do it without spoilers. So please note there will be spoilers for this film and the original 2022 version. I absolutely love the 2022 version. I think it is nothing short of a masterpiece and I couldn't stop thinking about it for weeks after seeing it. So when most people hear there was going to be a remake of one of their favourite films they would be happy, right? Not me. I was very worried. And my worries were justified.

The sad thing is that this 2024 version of 'Speak No Evil', just on its own, is a very fine film. People who haven't seen the original (and probably even some who have) are going to see this and have a great time. The problem in my opinion is that that's not fair to the original, that people know this story for the watered down, pandering English-language version, when there is an absolutely masterful 2022 version going un-watched. If you are remaking someone elses story you should be obligated to tell the same story from start to finish. Make changes to details and the way things happen, sure. But don't make major changes that completely change the outcome of the film.

I can imagine the discussions behind the scenes when deciding how to go about this remake. Americans simply wouldn't accept an ending like the original has. It would not be acceptable to them. The 1/10 votes would pour in and the film would likely fail. So I understand why they changed it. But I would say that if you had to change it, then this remake should never have been made in the first place.

Look, I'm absolutely gutted at how this film came out obviously. But to be fair to this version, it did do a lot right. All of the main cast are fantastic and James McAvoy in particular is electric. There were some other quite nice little tweaks to the script as well. They did a lot right. And had they gone with the same/or similar ending I could have easily seen myself giving it a 10/10. But to cop out and pander to American audiences in the hope of making a few extra bucks is unforgivable and loses all my respect.

I've never had such trouble settling on a rating for a film before. 5/10 doesn't feel right but it the highest I was willing to go. I wish this remake was never made, quite frankly.

Ahh the old memory-loss thriller. Christopher Nolan mastered it with 'Memento' obviously but there really hasn't ever been a bad one that I can think of. 'Sleeping Dogs' is a solid concept that only lets itself down with a bit of sloppiness in the polish department.

There are some decent actors in this movie, and yet I kept thinking to myself - why is the acting so sub-par? I think the answer lies in the dialogue they were delivering. I think it was written quite clunky and therefore the actors performances come across quite awkward and wooden.

This is one of those films where if you can put all the other stuff aside and just appreciate a good, solid and entertaining story, you're going to enjoy it. If those kind of things tend to bother you, then that may become an issue. Personally, I enjoyed it. 7/10.

I recently wrote about watching a George Miller film and knowing that a genius was at work behind the camera. The same goes for Yorgos Lanthimos at the moment. He is at the peak of his powers and is in complete control of every frame in his films. It's truly inspirational. So why the only 6.7/10 IMDb rating and a 48% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes for 'Kinds of Kindness', you may wonder. I think I can explain.

Audiences, American ones in particular, like purpose, answers and justice. Purpose, meaning they like to understand why things are happening in a film. Answers, meaning they like everything to be explained and revealed by the end of the film. And justice, meaning that if someone is done an injustice in the film, then there must be repercussions for that by the end of the film. 'Kinds of Kindness' doesn't care about any of those things. It wants to tell its story in its own way and it doesn't give a damn what the audience thinks.

Personally, I loved almost every minute of this film. The only real let-down for me was the second story. It was book-ended by two mini-masterpieces, so it was always going to seem a little inferior by comparison. But I do think it could've been done a little better.

One other thing I notice in Lanthimos' work, is that he seems to intentionally choose cast members who are slightly less conventionally good looking, but who can absolutely knock a performance out of the park. I don't know exactly, but I feel like he's worked out some kind of science, that if the cast are slightly less good-looking, they will be infinitely more watchable and convincing in their roles. I could be way out on that, but he seems to do it time and time again. And time and time again he gets the best performances out of his cast of almost any director working today.

This film was an incredibly unique experience that I thoroughly enjoyed. You may love it, you may hate - but chances are, either way, you'll still be thinking about it long after the credits roll. 8.5/10.

It's disappointing to hear that a film like 'Skincare' failed badly at the box office. But sadly, it's also not surprising. Movie tickets are expensive and if people are going to make the effort to go out and pay all that money then they want something that demands to be seen on the big screen. And it's a shame because 'Skincare' is a decent little film.

It can be quite an unpleasant thing to watch a movie about someone's life being destroyed. It can give quite an uneasy feeling in the pit of your stomach. This film does it well. It doesn't go over the top with anything, but it does more than enough to keep you invested and wanting the right side to prevail.

Probably where the film falls down is its lack of ability to surprise. The film is a whodunit of sorts but it isn't going to drop your jaw to the floor at any stage. Still, it was a good time and had me interested for the full run time. 8/10.

This film was hard work. I get that it's a true story and you have to be somewhat loyal to the reality of what actually happened, but man were these two tedious people to follow for 90 minutes. One is a wimp and the other is a psychopath. A psychopath can be a fun character if written correctly, but this one was just boring. He had nothing interesting to say and when he was killing someone it was just grim.

There were times when the movie showed some promise. I liked the addition of the monkey (sorry, chimpanzee) to the story and the added dimension that brought to the proceedings. Too often though scenes felt very forced and like they were just there to give the film some kind of purpose.

Basically I didn't care. The film never found a way to get me invested. This one wasn't for me. 5/10.

I remember Roger Ebert talking about a Quentin Tarantino film once, and he said something to the effect of the film being just a pleasure to watch someone in total command of their craft. That's how I feel when I watch a George Miller film. Every detail is so lovingly crafted and it makes the overall result an absolute pleasure to watch.

I actually believe this to be a superior film to 'Fury Road' and it is extremely disappointing it did poorly at the box office. I'm not sure what the experts are saying the reason for the failure was, but I do know personally I would've preferred it to be less than 2 and a half hours long. That said, the film is electrically paced and the time really does fly by.

It's also a film that just keeps getting better and better as it goes along. There will be an incredible sequence and you'll think, well that was clearly the highlight of the film and it's all down hill from here. But then the next sequence will top it and this happens over and over again.

The only criticism I would have of the film was the casting of Chris Hemsworth. I believe a villain like this requires someone with some real acting chops and I can think of some names who would've done an incredible job with it. Hemsworth always feels very much like he's acting when he's on screen. He doesn't become the role like others are able to do, and it can take you out of the film sadly.

Otherwise though, this is one of the best film experiences I've had in 2024. An absolute pleasure to sit through. 9.5/10.