Wolf Man (2025 Review)

I saw The Wolfman recently, and here are my thoughts.

Writer Blake takes his family to his father’s cabin in the woods to help ease family tensions… Only to be attacked by some sort of wolf-like man, and then slowly become one himself.

Leigh Whannell’s direction is good; he’s a master of building tension, makes interesting and effective camera choices, and knows how to get good performances out of his actors.

The main actor, played by Christopher Abbott, gives a very good performance. He really knows how to act in a way that makes subtle internal acting choices come off as very powerful and intense. He knows how to convey a lot while doing little, and you can really tell the internal struggle his character is going through.

Julia Garner is good as his wife; she gives a very natural, down-to-earth, realistic performance.

There’s a little girl in this who’s pretty good; for a 10-year-old, she handles a lot of big emotions and concepts that would normally be out of an actor of her age range, but it’s impressive how mature and natural her character deals with them while also coming off as funny and silly in parts.

So some footage of the Wolfman design leaked before the movie came out from a Universal theme park scare night attraction, and to be honest, I definitely threw some shade at it. I thought it looked like the hillbilly inbred cannibal character “Three Fingers” from the Wrong Turn series, who looks nothing like a Wolf Man. So I like, “Really, this is the design we’re going with, a redneck with a bad skin condition lol” (plus it was filmed during the day and on a regular camera, so it was not doing itself any favors). But having seen the film, it comes off much better within the story… It’s filmed at night with a lot of shadow, which definitely helps; you see the transformation in stages, higher-end makeup effects and prosthetics, and color grading all come together to help you buy the look, which, combined with the acting, makes it much more convincing and wolf-like. So for all of you out there worried that this would not work, it works within the movie and does look like a Wolfman.

I liked the new take on the werewolf mythos, where it’s more of a virus like in “28 Days Later” or “Resident Evil.”. Plus they include other cool ideas, like how the transformation affected Blake's hearing, so everything was enhanced (the sound mixing feels like a character in and of itself, so big ups to the sound department). Blake would struggle to understand what people were saying; also, he started to get this like glow-in-the-dark, bright-colored vision that also distorted people's faces. All of these little details were very interesting and felt fresh.

Unfortunately, the rest of the movie is just kind of... plain. Like I wouldn’t say this is a bad movie, but so much of it is an “in real time survival under siege” movie. So there’s not a lot of dialogue or in-depth character interactions; most of the film is characters either trying to figure out how to survive, walking around dark corridors looking scared, or trying to defend themselves against a Wolfman… It gets very rinse and repeat. And when they do have dialogue, it’s nothing special. It’s a lot of “I love you” and “You mean so much to me” and stuff like that. It’s all big love confessions you’ve heard in romantic dramas or Hallmark movies before.

There’s a theme of generational trauma in the film; Blake’s father was very stern with him, and Blake got a little bit of an angry side that he’s trying to deal with and not pass down to his daughter… Very “he’s got a beast inside him that was given to him by his dad,” which is very much a metaphor for being like a werewolf… Which is an interesting idea, but they introduce it and do not end up doing a lot with it. Also towards the end there are some pieces of dialogue that really spell out the theme that makes it feel like the filmmakers are going, “OK, we really gotta hit this on the nose so people know what we’re talking about, so let’s really spell it out,” and it’s like… You didn’t have to go that far; we got it.

This movie’s been getting a lot of criticism, and while I don’t think it’s as bad as people say, I do understand their criticism, but I wouldn’t say this is a bad movie; it’s not. The actors all do a good job; Leigh Whannell knows how to build tension, plus the film looks good. Unfortunately, the overall story is just so straightforward and ordinary that there isn’t much to get out of it besides regular jump scares and watching people fight to survive. It’s like a werewolf biting the skin and muscles off your arm… It’s too bare-bones, lol.

I give it three stars ⭐️⭐️⭐️ it’s right down the middle between good and bad.

The Lady Showgirl review

 

I recently saw The Last Showgirl with my friend Ami, and here are my thoughts…

After her show is announced to be closing, showgirl Shelley tries to figure out what’s next in her life…

 

Pamela Anderson gives one of the absolute best performances of the year; she plays it with such class, humor, tragedy, and childlike excitement… All at the same time. I’m just saying if she doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this performance, I think we should legally be able to riot lol.

 

Jamie Lee Curtis is hilarious in the movie; she’s very sassy, and you can tell she’s having a ball in the role.

 

Dave Batista gives a very subtle but heartfelt performance; he felt like a protective bear.

 

I was happy to see Brenda Song. I haven’t seen her since her Zack and Cody days, but I always thought she was very talented on that show, and she is still talented, so it is good to see her again in a cool flick.

 

Kiernan Shipka was very good at playing such a vulnerable and sweet character. They introduced some stuff with her character that I wish was delved into more, but the actress was fantastic and very enjoyable.

 

Billie Lourd was great; she’s one of those actresses who’s always solid in whatever she’s in and this is no different. She gives a very grounded insincere performance.

 

I don’t want to spoil a cameo, but when you see someone playing a casting director, I was happy to see this person because I like them, and they gave us a sort of different performance than they are usually used to; it was a nice surprise.

I had never seen a Gia Coppola movie before, and I got to say she has a lot of creativity, knows how to get great performances out of actors, and has a great eye for storytelling.

Kate Gersten (the writer) knows how to write a very entertaining and take what could be very silly dialogue and make it very sincere and heartfelt.

I liked the look of the movie; it tried to recreate the glitz and bright colors of Vegas, showgirl venues, and it did a good job at doing that while also feeling realistic and grounded… I know that sounds contradictory, but contradictions are a theme of the movie, so it fits within the story.

 

They were scantily clad ladies in fun outfits… That’s always a blast.

 

There are some good 80s rock ballads that pop up throughout the film, which I enjoyed.

 

A lot of the movie has handheld close-ups, which can be a bit much after a while. Like it’s a very personal movie, so I assume they were trying to make you feel like you’re in the character's shoes (or Brazzers in this case lol), but when every shot is the same thing, it can get a bit repetitive, and you end up wanting a little variety… But then again, that could just be the nitpicker in me. Plus, when actually filming in Vegas, I’m sure there were tons of people around, so they had to work tight.

I did have issues with the ending, it just lacked a sense of closure and really bringing all the themes and ideas together and putting a fine period on them, instead it just kind of ends… go a great song by Miley Cyrus I must admit.

The best part by far was getting to see it with my friend Ami, she liked it too and it was fun having discussions about the film afterwards

 

I overall enjoyed this movie, enough that the issues I do have with it don’t outweigh the fun I had. The movie had a lot of style and truly excellent performances by the whole cast with likable and unique characters… I give it a low four stars ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

The Brutalist review

I saw The Brutalist, and here are my thoughts…

After surviving the holocaust and coming to America, a famed architect struggles to survive and manages to be-friend a very rich man and gets the opportunity to build a very lavish building…

So let me start with the good… This movie looks incredible. I saw it in 70 mm, and I’m not usually someone who goes, “You have to see it like this to really enjoy it,” but this movie is so gorgeous and stunning, I think if you’re going to go to a nearly 4, you might as well go in style.

 

The cinematographer better start working on his Oscar speech, because this is one of the most beautiful and stunning movies I’ve seen this decade. The use of lighting and color, despite being filmed in 2024, feels right for a movie from the 40s or 50s, and it actually fits within the context of the story. That award is locked and loaded. 

 

The soundtrack is beautiful, absolutely elegant and heartfelt. 

 

Adrian Brody gives such a powerfully emotional and vulnerable performance, one of the best of his career; I wouldn’t be surprised if you want best actor.

 

This movie is unexpectedly hilarious, especially with Guy Pearce. Now he gives a grounded and great performance, but he’s so rich, and obviously to his own richness, he can come off like the Monopoly Man with his humor.

 

Felicity Jones has always been one of my favorite actresses, and she gives a very raw and scene-stealing performance, definitely bringing a lot of elegance into the role.

 

A lot of different actors, big and small, some known and some unknown, pop out throughout the movie. Everyone gives a great, memorable performance.

 

Speaking of humor, there were actually some pretty good jokes in here that got big laughs out of the audience, and I had a pretty full theater, so that was fun.

 

Now this is a nearly 4-hour movie, and while slow in parts, it was never boring. It’s the cinematic equivalent of reading a novel. Now there were a couple parts where I thought, “Well, this could’ve been shortened, or this could’ve been elongated”, but that’s just personal taste. I got to give Brady Corbet a lot of credit, dude knows how to make… cinema lol.

 

Now for the criticism... I thought some of the rich elite characters, especially Guy Pearce’s son, played the whole “elite looking down on poor foreigners” stick a little too broadly. It’s obvious the movie's trying to make some kind of comment about class and the difference between the rich and the powerful, but it does come off a bit too off-ish at times.

 

So for the first 2/2 of the movie, the film moves at a fairly good pace. I may have my ups and downs about what parts they choose to focus on, but nothing I can really complain about. It’s an artsy film about characters, and it’s doing a good job, and I’m rolling with it… And then the story decides to do something, start a storyline to introduce conflict for the third act, and honestly it kind of comes out of nowhere, like when you’re watching you’re like… Oh, we’re doing this? That’s an odd choice; why are we doing this? And then the movie just kind of goes back and forth, not feeling as cohesive as it was before, and while there is one really good performance scene for Felicity Jones, the movie then just sort of stops very abruptly, and there is a big, big, big thing that they do not resolve in any sort of satisfying way, and I do not know why you very obviously could’ve; it seems like the director made a choice, and honestly I don’t think it was the best one. Then the movie just wraps up quickly, and it’s like… what the hell was that? I mean, I just spent the last three hours following these characters in the story, and that’s how you’re gonna put a bow on everything? That anticlimax, really? There is one bit of dialogue that explains something that when you think about it through the rest of the movie actually brings a whole new context and dimension and heart to the film, but honestly the way they decide to handle the ending and wrap up really just a turd in the punch bowl. I don’t want to be mean because I can tell the filmmakers all had a lot of passion and put a lot of work into this, but they had to have known this ending would’ve pushed people the wrong way; this is some Joker: Folie à Deux stuff right here.

On a positive note, this film coast a little less than 10 million dollars, which is SUPER impressive, this looks like a 30-50 million dollar movie, so a big tip of my hat to the filmmakers.

 

To sum up my feelings, this movie has a quote that sums up my feelings: “No matter what the others try and sell you, it is the destination, not the journey.” … This movie started out in the first 2/2 like a beautiful scenic cruise with all sorts of style and class and elegance... And then it stops, and you fall face first in the mud. No matter how much good that starting gave me, the only thing I’m going to remember is the dry cleaning to get all this guck off me.

 

If I’m being honest with myself, it’s really a three-star movie ⭐️⭐️⭐️ but the level of work that went into it with the filmmaking and acting just barely pushes it over the line to a low four stars ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ and that may feel like a copout, but honestly, there is just a next level of detail and work put in that does merit praise. To take an architect analogy… No matter how beautiful the house is, if you have a shaky foundation, everything will fall apart.

A Complete Unknown review

 

The movie tells the story of the fake Bob Dylan (I can call him that because I’m a real Dylan Bob; he just took it as a stage name; I’m the 100% authentic and genuine article lol) and his rise to fame and the controversy he caused by using an electric guitar at a folk festival.

 

The movie focuses on a specific time in Dylan's life, which makes for a more cohesive film. Unfortunately for me, they focus more on why he’s considered so revolutionary and a cultural phenomenon than focusing on explaining why he is the way he is. I mean, I’m not saying every bio should be a character study (part of his appeal is he’s such an aloof and mysterious guy), but it would’ve been nice to know a little bit more about him so I could sympathize with him more. Like I appreciated the filmmakers showed Bob Dylan to be three-dimensional; you can like him; he could be shown to be shy or straight-out an asshole (by that third act, you kinda want to give a slap upside the head) but they never dive into his character deep enough to really get to know him or sympathize with him in a way you’d find him more sympathetic.

 

Timothée Chalamet gave a stellar performance. He had Bob Dylan‘s mannerisms and way of speaking down, but he wasn’t doing just a straight impression; he made the character his own and made this big iconic figure feel more down to earth and completely nailed the role.

 

Edward Norton was really great. He felt like a very down-to-earth, creative, and likable high school creative arts teacher who wants to support and kindle people’s love of the arts. I hope he gets a lot of acclaim for the role.

 

Elle Fanning plays Dylan’s girlfriend. The writing for her character is a little underwritten; she spends a lot of the movie reacting and listening to what Bob Dylan is doing, but the actress brings something to the performance with her acting that I found very engaging.

 

I did not know a lot about Joan Baez before this movie, but she has a really interesting history and relationship with Bob Dylan that was very interesting to watch…. I wish they had gone into it more because it felt a bit too surface level to me. It would be cool to see a movie based on her life, kind of like they did with the Elvis movie and the Priscilla movie.

 

So I’m not a big expert about that time period when it comes to folk music, and the movie doesn’t really help people who don’t know; you can tell they’re playing it to people who already have a knowledge of Bob Dylan and the early 60’s. Like early on, Bob Dylan gets to meet one of his heroes, Woody Guthrie, and the movie plays it like, “Oh my God, he’s meeting his legendary figure, and I’m like… Who?

 

Dan Fogle was a nice surprise; he plays a record executive who normally would be played as a money-obsessed obstacle who tries to stiffen Bob’s stranger creative choices, but he’s actually pretty supportive and funny, which was a nice surprise.

 

Boyd Holbrook may not be the most “Johnny Cash” looking guy out there, and he plays the role a little more comedic and broad, but he’s very enjoyable and fun. 

 

This isn’t the most original musical biopic out there; it sticks to the “bio-film” formula more than it doesn’t, but it does it very well and shows why the clichés work so well and are so liked. 

 

I wasn’t alive from 1961-1965 (neither were my parents), but from what I could see at the time, the movie captures the feel and look down to the tiny detail.

 

This movie has a lot of great music. Like, I am hardly a folk music fan, but I give it up that there were a lot of great songs that I was tapping my foot to.

So I really like the first act when we see him as like that fresh eyed, but he tailed kid and his rise to fame… Then in the second act to see him when he’s at the height of his fame, and he where is all black and is all introverted and prickly and they don’t really give a good explanation for why he’s so prickly. They kind of hint maybe he’s just not a big fan of all the attention he’s getting but they don’t really go into it and it just comes off like he’s a bit of a drama queen.

Also, Bob and Joan Baez relationship hit some rocks and they never really give a good explanation about why it became so rocky or wrap it up in a completely satisfying way they do a little bit, but it’s not enough.

And then the third act Feels like the drama was embellished a bit so the film could have a third act climax. I mean, it never goes into the realm of unbelievable but the way the other two acts were going the fact that this is the big climax did feel a little bit smaller in comparison… Not bad but just need a little more “oomph” to really bring it home.

 

You can tell James Mangold and Timothy Chalamet have a lot of love and respect for Bob Dylan, and that gleeful positive energy can really be felt throughout the film and makes it very enjoyable.

 

My favorite part was getting to see this movie with my mom, auntie, and uncle Donald. It’s fun enjoying films with loved ones.

 

So this film definitely has its issues with its pacing and characters needing more depth… but the passion everyone has for the project, the craftsmanship by the filmmakers, and the great music makes it super entertaining that you’ll have a good time watching it. I give it low four stars ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Nosferatu (2024) Review

 

So a few days ago I saw Nosferatu (2024) and I can safely say this movie doesn’t… Suck lol

 

So I think it’s safe to crown Robert Eggers as the current reigning king of the period pieces because that guy knows how to make something feel incredibly time accurate. The costumes, the sets, the way people speak, and even the lighting. It can feel like you’re looking into a time portal; it’s so on point.

 

Although I will say one nitpick I have about the lighting is that there are some scenes where the only source of light is a single candlestick, and while they are very moody, sometimes you can’t really make out somebody’s face. There was literally one scene where I’m squinting at the screen, trying to make someone out, and it was straining my eyes. So if you have sensitive eyes, be aware of that. I think it was a creative choice by the filmmakers, but it’s a good idea to give the audience a headache lol.

 

Somebody give the casting director of this movie a raise because the most impressive things about Nosferatu are the cast. We have a lot of big stars in here, like Nicholas Holt, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Emma Corrin, Willem Dafoe, Ralph Ineson, and Simon McBurney, and each one of them is acting their ass off, so enthralling and interesting to watch, and giving some of their career best performances.

 

That being said, there are two acting standouts, the first being Lily-Rose Depp. So her character throughout the movie is plagued with visions of death and horror and other monsters, so her character is always on the brink of an emotional breakdown or insanity. Even when she’s trying to put on a strong face, she is able to convey so much and do these big, crazy acting performances and contort her face that it is impressive just how much equality she is putting into her acting. Now the second one…

 

Hot Take: I think Bill Skarsgård gives one of the best vampire performances of all time… Like across movies, TV, video games, animation, and books, I think it could easily make the top 10. Which honestly feels a little weird to say because his performance reminded me of a mix of a Russian Czar, Ren from Ren and Stimpy, and the Leader from Hulk… but there’s something so otherworldly and out there about it (not to mention some creative filmmaking techniques that booster the performance) that I found him very captivating and entertaining to watch. Also

I don’t know if they modulated his voice afterwards, but he sounds nothing like he normally does; he could be a really successful voice actor if he wanted.

 

One more compliment I gotta give: Willem Dafoe plays the Van Helsing role, and I like how he rides the line between the classic version of the character, who is very fatherly and wise, and more modern interpretations that make him more kooky and in destroying vampires, it was kind of the best of both worlds.

 

Speaking of the filmmaking, I think this might be my favorite Robert Eggers movie. If you read my reviews, you know I like creative camera movements and choices, and Robert Eggers moves that camera like a trained ballroom dancer. Everything is so deliberate and practiced and on point that you can’t help being impressed and swept up in the spectacle of it all.

 

So mixed feelings here; there are some sequences where the scene just goes on and on quietly, and usually I get kind of bored and zone out on those scenes, but the way everything was put together was always enthralling, which is a big plus, so good for you. So when I think back about it, those scenes weren’t my favorite, but I can’t say I had a problem with them, so good for you, Robert, for pulling that off.

 

I liked the use of vampire lore in this movie; like a lot of flicks, it depicts vampires as creatures of the night or sexy British people, but this iteration of Count Orlock is more like an otherworldly force of nature or a plague who just wants to consume all life. There have been so many vampires in fiction that it can be hard to make them feel fresh and original, and Nosferatu pulls it off, so again, tip of the hat.

 

Now this is a very bleak movie; I’m not just talking about everything looking gray. As mentioned, there’s a lot of death and plague and darkness and just crazy imagery, and I’ve heard some other people say they felt the movie was just good bleak, that it was hard to get into the story because everything was just so depressing. Now I can sort of see their point of view. Yeah, the movie can get darker than wearing sunglasses at night, but this is a vampire Nosferatu movie, and I expected darkness going in. Plus, I would say there are interesting characters and creativity that, for me personally, I was able to find some levity in parts, but I understand if other people can’t.

 

There is some noticeable nudity in the film, like it’s never too explicit, and it’s not sexual for the most part; just be aware… You see Orlock dong. So take that as you will and just be prepared for... vampiric ding dong lol

 

The special effects on everything look great. I’m sure a lot of the shadow lighting helped, but even then some scenes were so convincing that I cannot see Bill Skarsgård's performance; he gets lost under that makeup. 

 

I didn’t know where else to put this, but if you are a big fan of rats, like seeing rats in movies, well, this movie has got you covered. You see more mice than “Dress like Mickey Day” at Disney World lol.

 

So, in conclusion, I enjoy a fun spooky flick, and I found this to be very spooky, creative, a fresh retelling of both Nosferatu and the Dracula mythos, and entertaining. It can be a bit heavy at times, so while one or two details knock it off from being perfect, I do think Nosferatu (2024) has a good chance to enter my spooky rotation around Halloween time. I give it a low five stars ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️