The Bride! Review

 

Christian Bale plays Frankenstein’s monster (who goes by Frank) and enlists the help of a mad scientist (played by Annette Bening) to bring back a dead 1930s party girl (played by Jessie Buckley), and the two go on a Bonnie and Clyde-inspired romance/cross-country crime spree.

The big scene stealer in this movie is Jessie Buckley as The Bride; her performance is very manic and scenery-chewing, but she’s able to switch between many different emotions and characteristics almost on a dime and is very captivating to watch.

Christian Bale as Frank is definitely the heart of the movie. Bale brings a lot of sympathy and pathos to the character, not to mention does a great job at recreating all the Frankenstein hallmarks (being big, shambling, feeling separated and lonely from society).

The film was directed by Maggie Gyllenhaal, and she ironically brought a fun, “electric” energy to the film with a lot of creative and out-of-the-box directing decisions that definitely made the movie feel unique.

Jake Gyllenhaal plays a Fred Astaire type movie star, and not only does Gyllenhaal nail the accent, acting style, and type of singing in 1930s musicals, but the other Gyllenhaal’s directing at re-creating those films in camera angles, blocking, and shooting the choreographed dance sequences feels very authentic.

This movie has several dance sequences, and Maggie Gyllenhaal definitely brought a quirky direction to them that felt very inspired and unique.

As previously stated, the film takes place in 1930, and not only did the set designers, costume department, and special effects team do a fantastic job at re-creating the time period.

I also really enjoyed Annette Bening as Dr. Euphronious; she wasn’t in the movie a whole lot, but she does have a fun screen presence, and her more logical, down-to-earth character was a good disposition to the more over-the-top feel of the film.

Peter Sarsgaard and Penelope Cruz play detectives tracking Frank and The Bride, and both actors do a solid job and have a fun dynamic, although they’re also involved in this mafia subplot that really isn’t shown or affected much outside of their conversations about it.

At the very beginning of the film, a story element is introduced that I liked the style of and the performance attached. But it is kind of confusing and never really addressed, not to mention it raises several continuity questions about this reality that are never really acknowledged.

This film also suffers from having several plot lines that sound important but really don’t go anywhere and don’t amount to much. Like, the movie makes a big deal about how the Bride is inspiring this revolution amongst women, but they never really do much with it outside of a mid-credit scene, like you could’ve cut that from the movie and it wouldn’t have affected the story much.

The pacing and storytelling, especially in the second half, get rather random, like there’s no real cohesive buildup; things just feel like they happen randomly one after another, not to mention one least favorite movie cliché where characters have to travel a long distance to achieve something, but the way the film is edited It feels like it took them like five minutes to get there, so it makes you think, "How fast were they driving?" not to mention other forces that would make it very difficult for them to get around, but our conveniently skipped over.

The film also tries to have this very deep social message, but it’s nothing new, and they hit you over the head with it like a frying pan, so even if you agree with it, it’s still too much and could of been more nuanced.

There are also hints that when Frank and the Bride are together, they somehow can affect reality around them, but again, it is never really acknowledged or delved into, and characters who were seeing this who should have some kind of reaction don’t do anything, which felt very confusing, like, "So is this happening, or is this in people‘s heads? Like, what’s going on?"

The writing was up and down; it was good for the most part, but certain parts towards the end felt like the characters had a longer monologue that got edited down, so their dialogue comes off more splintered and jarring.

Strangely, I caught at least three separate Young Frankenstein references in the film, which, hey, it’s a great movie, so I don’t mind, but it was certainly unexpected.

The Bride! takes a lot of big creative swings, and while most of the 1930s send-ups I enjoy, and I respect Maggie Gyllenhaal’s gumption and creativity in taking those swings, the final product feels like a random mess of ideas and storylines that were stitched together like Frank’s body lol. But the performances were solid throughout and kept me engaged. I give it a supportive two and a half stars ⭐️⭐️💫 it was a nice effort, but could’ve used a stronger cohesion.

Wuthering Heights review

 

In 18th-century England, we follow childhood friends turned obsessed lovers, Catherine and Heathcliff, as their passion for each other turns vicious and they manipulate the people around them.

My biggest compliment for the movie is the director’s (Emerald Fennell) visuals. She strikes that perfect balance of using real luscious landscape locations and very stylish sets that feel like a mix between a dollhouse and a Tim Burton movie, not to mention her use of strong colors like red, green, gray, and white. From start to finish, the entire film was visually striking and always held my interest in what striking image was going to come up next.

I quite enjoyed Margot Robbie’s performance; at first it’s a little more comedic, with her acting almost like a bratty child, which is juxtaposed well against the aristocratic melodrama of the story. It kind of feels like The Favourite (2018), but she also nailed the dramatic scenes, and she has a lot of nuance and layers to the character.

Jacob Elordi is good as Heathcliff; the actor brings a lot of pathos and charisma to the character, and like Robbie’s performance, the character is multifaceted, and audiences will have many emotions about him, and Elordi writes that line very well.

I was pleasantly surprised with Anthony Willis & Charli XCX’s score for the film; it was a nice mix of classic folk, ballads, and high-tempo, more modern music, and usually when modern music is played in films, that usually takes me out of the story and setting, but I never really found it with this film, which I always appreciate.

While a more subdued performance, I liked Shazad Latif's performance as Cathy’s other love interest, Edgar. While most of the other characters are very big and over the top, his acting is more down to earth and realistic, so the approach definitely added a nice variety to the acting.

The story takes place between two different houses in the Yorkshire moors, and I appreciated how Fennell differentiated the two houses. As previously stated, one is very bright and idyllic in a strong artificial way, and the other is very moody and damp and almost always messy; it was a good visual distinction between the two and helped fit the mood of the piece.

Hong Chau was a nice surprise as Cathy’s childhood friend Nelly. While the character doesn’t have as much importance to the story as she does in the book, Hong fits very well into the Victorian melodrama and has a lot of subtle and nuanced acting choices that give her character a lot of depth and, like most of the characters in this movie, make you feel very mixed emotions about their motives and actions.

Linus Sandgren did a great job with cinematography. I was especially impressed with his use of shadows in natural lighting; it really gave the film a striking and elegant look, and given the locations, it really helped the images pop.

Alison Oliver plays Isabella, Edgar’s naïve Ward. I have to give serious credit to Oliver because she was in the director’s last film as a more voracious and snarky party girl, which is the complete opposite of Isabel’s almost childlike, naïve persona, so I have to give the actress serious credit for her range and to the costume department because I did not recognize her until looking her up in the credits after the movie.

I will say at the end of the day this story is quite the melodrama, and all the characters do something dirty or mean-spirited to another character at some point, so by the end, it’s hard to root or care about any of these people since it feels like they all brought a lot of their problems on themselves, but on the other hand, I don’t need to necessarily root for a character to find the story engaging, and that may be true for some people, but for me personally, the characters' pettiness and inability to get over their own egos made it hard for me to connect with this film.

I will say, I think the most interesting performance was Martin Clunes as Mr. Earnshaw (Cathy’s father); the character seemingly starts out as a loving and sweet father but throughout the film gets more seedy and shady and has some of the ugliest teeth you've ever seen in a movie lol. The character still acts refined and dignified despite his harsher actions, so it gives an interesting dynamic to him and the characters around him.

The film also infuses the reoccurring theme and motif of BDSM and more "kinky sexual imagery and scenarios," which definitely wasn’t in the original story lol. But it wasn’t as effective as it could have been. I can see it working as a metaphor for the tension between Catherine and Heathcliff, plus it’s something the director has explored in her previous films, so it just might be a recurring motif she likes exploring, but it doesn’t really move the plot forward in any major way besides one bit towards the end to highlight Heathcliff’s cruelty and trying to get back at Catherine, but that part is more sad and emotionally upsetting for the characters, so it's not as sensational and intriguing as the filmmakers and the marketing trying to sell the movie.

Also, the very first scene has a very odd depiction (very light spoiler here)… of a hanging. I understand what the director was going for and how it affects the main character and her worldview and actions later on, but as an introductory scene and how to set the tone for the rest of the story, it felt unnecessary, and you’re not really sure what the filmmakers were trying to convey with it.

There was also a strange continuity moment I noticed; one scene takes place on Christmas Day, and then in the next scene two of the characters are out in the garden playing on a swing, and it feels like this scene should be taking place a few days after the last one. Except in the scene, the grass is green, the trees are full, and everything is sunny like it’s a June day, but the last scene clearly took place during Christmas, so well within the context of the story, it should feel like a few days later, but the visuals show like it’s six months later, so that was confusing for a second, but the set they were on was very lavish and stunning, so I kind of gave it as a creative choice since this film does have a dreamlike quality in the first place, so it wasn’t too distracting, but it was a head-turner when I first saw it.

The film also leaves out a good part of the original novel, and I don’t need every adaptation to be a one-to-one remake, and I don’t necessarily mind the changes since it does fit the story Fennell was trying to tell, but I do think the story would’ve been more nuanced and given the characters more of a payoff if they had included more of the book, but honestly, it didn’t affect the final product too much. That being said, I thought the ending was this kind of "eh." Like it reaches a climax, but it feels more like the story, cut off and a satisfying ending

While I enjoyed the visuals and tone of the film, the lack of a relatable character and strong melodrama made this film a little hard for me to connect to. The director said she wanted the film to feel like what it was like to read Wuthering Heights for the first time as a teenage girl, so I can say that the film might find an audience with those kinds of people, but for everyone else, I’d say it might be more than a mixed bag. I give the film a low three stars ⭐️⭐️⭐️, and that’s mostly for the performances and the overall filmmaking.

Scream 7 Review

 While dealing with family drama with her daughter, Sidney must do battle with a new Ghostface, who may have an interesting connection to her.

The opening scene of the couple at the Stab-themed Airbnb was fun; the way they ratcheted up the tension and played with expectations was well done and will lead to some memorable moments.

It was nice having Neve Campbell back; I’m a sucker for the Sidney character, and it was interesting seeing her now at the age her mom was in the first film and where she is in life and how she’s dealing with all the emotional baggage of her life and her relationship with her daughter.

I’m mixed on Sidney’s daughter Tatum (named after her best friend from the first movie); like, I like the actress's performance overall, and the character is fine, but she was written kind of bratty and overly dramatic, like I get there’s a killer on the loose and things are stressful, but she was complaining about some pretty inconsequential details, like at a certain point I had to catch my eyeballs rolling out of my head lol.

I like seeing Gale Weathers and Randy’s niece and nephew back; their characters are always enjoyable and get some good laughs, not to mention I enjoyed their introduction, but Gail and Sidney have some drama more forced than a Darth Vader chokehold, and it would’ve been nice for the twins to have more to do than just show up, be snarky, and explain the rules, but I’ll admit I got some good chuckle moments with them in their banter.

I enjoyed Joel McHale in the movie; not to sound like a broken record, but I liked his performance, but the character was pretty generic, as his only real personality traits are loving husband and cop… Just a generic cop lol.

This may be the most bloodthirsty we’ve seen Ghostface; with just the brutality of the kills, I wonder, with the success of the Terrifier series, if the producers are trying to compete with that franchise. It doesn’t come even close to something Art would do, but the kills do have a similar feel as far as brutality, which at times can sort of clash with the more family-friendly, mellow drama tone of the rest of the film.

I liked the new cast performances; everyone did a solid job and was likable in their roles, but the characters were flatly written, like it’s hard to describe their personality outside "friend of Tatum or Sidney."

There is a sort of subplot addressing Sidney not being in the last movie, which felt unnecessary and, as my friend described, “too insider baseball” that most audiences won’t really care about or even pick up on.

The cinematography was sufficiently moody. Kevin Williamson did a good job at capturing the overall tone and feel of the other films, but I did find some of his direction pretty flat and overly standard, like with basic “medium close-up, reverse shots” during dialogue scenes. Nothing really jumped out at me as far as stunning visuals, but the directing was competent overall, and the action scenes did have some thrills to them as far as pacing, use of location, and fight choreography; that was all solid.

There wasn’t a whole lot of meta commentary on horror movies as previous entries, but there were plot twists and subversions to the story that I did find enjoyable and kind of clever.

There was something modern that was incorporated as a plot device, which I think overall led to some fun moments and an intriguing mystery, but I can see some viewers not being the biggest fans of it; I thought it was fine.

I do feel like the film is overly relying on callbacks to previous entries in the franchise, like they kick on that nostalgia like maple syrup on the world‘s biggest pancake, but I will admit some of the references got me to smile or chuckle, but overall it was more of a crutch than an advantage, but it never got overly annoying or anything; it’s definitely a mixed bag, up to the viewers' discretion on how they feel about it.

Unfortunately, this movie hands down has the weakest Ghostface killer reveals; like, I’m not gonna spoil anything, but even as the big motive was being explained, I was getting confused and lost in the moment about what this was all even about. But for me personally there was a performance I did enjoy in that scene; I just wish there was stronger writing to support it.

In the final confrontation, Sidney does have some badass moments, but that stuff is most enjoyed if you’re a fan of the character or the series; if not, you will think it’s fine but just not as much as

So overall, I think the movie is OK; like, on a visceral slasher action level, the movie is fine and has enjoyable moments, and certain characters were fun to see again, and there were some subplots that did draw me in and I was curious about, but there was also too much forced drama in callbacks. I gave the film an enthusiastic 2 and a half stars ⭐️⭐️💫; like, I don’t strongly dislike it or anything, and the movie definitely has its moments I enjoyed, but at the end of the day there just wasn’t a whole lot of substance to the film.

Send Help Review

 

Send Help tells the story of unappreciated and survivor-obsessed worker bee Linda Liddle (played by Rachel McAdams) and her new arrogant CEO Bradley (played by Dylan O’Brien), who must fight to survive when they’re stranded on a desert island after a plane crash, but not against the elements, but against each other.

The biggest standout in this movie for me is Rachel McAdams's performance. The way she’s able to play this very shy and dowdy secretary and then transform into this super confident survivalist who gets pretty sadistic and intense but never loses that friendly coworker attitude is really fun to watch, and McAdams is able to flow between the two in a very natural and really fun way to watch as she gets more confident throughout the film. At some point, you’re rooting for her, and at other points, you’re mad at her. Definitely one of my new favorite performances from her.

Dylan O’Brien is also very good at playing a very full, almost frat bro-like CEO. I do wish his character was a little bit more fleshed out like Adam’s, but there are several moments throughout where you see different sides of Bradley and have different emotions throughout. I just thought for me there could have been a little more of them, but again, O’Brien is very entertaining at playing this cocky idiot who you enjoy seeing taken down a peg every once in a while.

Ironically, for a movie that for 85% of its runtime takes place in one location, this movie is very stunning. Obviously, they filmed on actual beaches, and all the different tropical locations look very peaceful and stunning and are a good contrast to the characters' emotional journey of becoming more erratic and stir crazy.

The film, for the most part, has a very dark sense of humor, which I’m always down for, but there are a couple of scenes, particularly one between the two characters during a campfire, that I thought really added an interesting character, a wrinkle to both characters, and both actors really get to shine and give strong and enjoyable performances.

The directing is fantastic; Sam Raimi gets to go full Sam Raimi, and I’m always down for that. He does a lot of wild, intense camera movement and a lot of interesting, creative shots, while dripping just a little bit of horror in there. Not to mention some pretty creative, spectacular gore scenes, like there’s one scene during the plane crash that is both disturbing and hilarious at the same time lol.

The CGI, for the most part, is pretty good, like some things do look a little cartoonish, but the design and situation they’re in kind of make it work within the scene as a creative style decision.

I think gore hounds will be satisfied with the effects in this movie; again, there are some CGI parts that I know are not everyone’s cup of tea, but there’s enough blood and bonkers action to keep any horror fan happy.

I also like to have the film overall unfold the story, like certain bits of information aren’t shown and then saved for later to reveal other stuff, and I thought that was pretty creative.

I do have a recommendation if you do plan on seeing this movie. You have to see it in the theater with a pretty big and lively crowd; that’s the best way to enjoy it, like I did. People were laughing and cheering throughout, and there was one scene where you could just feel everyone’s sphincter just tighten with suspense… Good times, lol.

Danny Elfman did the music and did a solid job throughout.

Ironically, for a film where the characters wear pretty much the same outfit throughout, I was impressed with how the costume department was able to change up the outfit with different layers and styles throughout; it was a nice subtle detail.

There are a couple of twists here and there throughout the story that I thought were pretty well integrated and had some nice payoffs.

I wasn’t satisfied with the very end; like, it was OK, but I was hoping for a stronger ending, but it kind of felt like they filmed multiple endings, and this one tested best with audiences. Again, it’s not bad, but I was just hoping for more.

For you Sam Raimi fans out there, yes, there is a Bruce Campbell and Sam’s old station wagon cameo in the film, and I spotted them both; they were very nice.

I also got to see the movie with my pals, which always adds to a movie's enjoyment.

Send Help is a very enjoyable, straightforward dark comedy thriller, with incredible and entertaining performances by the main cast and a beautiful location that really adds something special to this film. I give it somewhere between three stars and a low four stars ⭐️⭐️⭐️ or ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️. It isn’t anything mind-blowing, but it is a really fun time at the movies.

The Housemaid Review

 

Sydney Sweeney plays Millie, a girl with a troubled past who gets a job as a live-in housemate for a wealthy family, and then things get weird and dark…

Sydney Sweeney is very good as Millie; she feels very down-to-earth and relatable, but there is some interesting mystery and twist with her character.

I think the biggest reason to see this is for Amanda Seyfried’s performance (who plays the rich wife, Nina), because she is able to switch from, like, very over-the-top and silly to very intimidating and unhinged in, like, a second. It’s really impressive and very entertaining to watch.

Brandon Sklenar plays the husband, Andrew, who at first seems a little too charming and perfect, but he and Millie have some cute and sweet scenes that really warm you to his character.

The movie does a fun job at building tension and unfolding the mystery while also infusing it with a good amount of dark humor, which is not an easy thing to do, but they do a really impressive job; it feels like Alfred Hitchcock meets Mean Girls.

Paul Feig does a solid job directing and comes up with some pretty cool camera shots, not to mention, for an over two-hour movie, it has a pretty good pacing, like the movie will fly by.

There is a gaggle of rich housewife characters that are a little over the top at points, but they get some good laughs in.

There is a groundskeeper character played by Michele Morrone, who gives a good performance, but I wish they had explored his character more; there just seemed to be more going on with him than they only really scratched the surface of.

There are a couple points in the film where my suspension of disbelief gets stretched a little too much; there are definitely a couple points where I’m like, “Millie, why are you still there? There are more warning signs than a railroad crossing lol.

I quite enjoyed this cinematography; everything looked very idyllic and soft, which fit the fancy house, and it was used very effectively in an almost subversive way towards the end of the film.

So going into this movie, I heard this had a crazy twist, and we’re a good chunk into the film, and I’m sitting there thinking, “OK, this movie is enjoyable, but what is this twist they’re talking about?” Like, I’m trying to predict what it might be, and I have a couple guesses here and there, and for a second I thought, “OK, maybe it’s not going to be that big a twist,” and just when I thought that, that’s when the twist kicked in, and I have to say… I did not see that coming lol.

I will say, I did find the final climax to be a little predictable, not in, like, a bad way, but the rest of the movie had been more intriguing and surprising, and I was hoping the film would end on a bigger plateau, but where it ends up didn’t feel quite as strong and more run-of-the-mill, but still solid.

Also, as well done as that first big twist was, it’s one of those twists that the more you think about, the more certain things feel contrived in certain areas. But honestly, it doesn’t take away from the movie too much, and the movies are entertaining enough that you’re not really distracted by it.

Also, there was one final twist that I thought was OK—that’s way too convenient. Like, you have a better chance of winning the lottery than having that workout. Like it’s not enough to ruin the movie, but man, those odds are thinner than the side of a piece of paper lol.

I also got to see with my sister who explained the differences between the movie and the book afterwards, so that was nice 

Overall, The Housemaid takes a premise that has been explored in many films and adds an interesting new dimension to it, combining both humor and thrills to a point that they’re almost interchangeable, with great performances and direction throughout, and a twist/climax that definitely cranks things up to 11 that most audiences will really be entertained by. I give the film four stars ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️. Sometimes the movie doesn’t have to be the smartest; it just has to be fun, and this certainly was.