Reviews

There's more than meets the eye with 'Lost Ollie'. What is at its core an adventure show about family and coming of age holds an unexpected amount of darkness, grief and sorrow. Much in the footsteps of 'Toy Story', the show presents a much shorter but nonetheless equally charismatic ensemble of toys to embark on a classic adventure on the search of Ollie's former owner. The leading trio is surprisingly well designed, written, animated, and, even more impresive, blended on a live action setting. And as goofy as it is to watch three kids' toys traversing a human world without anyone paying attention, we all can agree that if we can -and joyfully do so- cope with dragons breathing fire on ice zombies or grimmy creatures threatening teenagers from an upside-down world, we can condone a small cinematographic sleight of hand that is essential to the show's plot. What matters is that 'Lost Ollie' manages to tell a heartbreaking story for each of the toys, with Zozo's backstory in the third episode probably stealing the show. With its dark twists and turns rushed at times due to the show's limited runtime, 'Lost Ollie' still finds the time to make the whole leading trio shine.

Unfortunately, Ollie's quest means there's a kid, a home, and a human world to return to. A human world filled with plastic characters, fake dialog and overly trite drama. And as much as the actors give their best to make the most out of a poorly written script, they can stop the human segments of the film from dragging the whole experience down and feel even more fictional than a dual wielding pink plushie bear jumping from a train. There's more personality and charisma to be found on any of the three toys than on the whole cast of human characters, and while that may seem a good sign in a production where the sooner are the stars of the show there's so big a gap it feels like an open chasm between the two worlds, turning an old-time, deep adventure story with a satisfaying bittersweet end into a disjointed puzzle of good ideas and exhausting, overused drama with a weak and repetitive soundtrack that doesn't help its case.

'Lovecraf Country' is good entertainment. It really is. A fast paced show with a lot of mistery, decent ambientation and some goofy but satisfaying gore. The visual effects might be a bit dissapointing for HBO standards but it makes up for it with a very polished cinematography -which probably accentuates the lacking VFX, but better get at leas one of them right- and solid acting.

Just remembet to turn your brain off when watching. Expect some mindless entertainment or you won't make it very far. There's no clever, elaborated plot to enjoy, no intrincate conundrum that gets cleverly solved answering all of your questions. Just a show about racial oppression within a 50's deep south background plagued and haunted by H. P. Lovecraft's creations, a script that gets too disjointed with its story lines and little side subplots. No deep debate to justify the racial protest, nor solid horror or even fidelity to Lovecraft's work to be a meaningful cosmic horror title, just some mainstream mistery with better looks than could be expected that might prove an enjoyable ride if you lower your expectations and let yourself go.

'Cha Cha Real Smooth' is a sweet, heart-warming everyday story... from an alternate universe. Copper Raiff is so focused on getting his feel good movie done no matter what that he forgets to make any of its characters belieavable. From the incredibly unrealistic dialogues to the behaviour of every character in the film, the whole ordeal feels like a Disney movie that's been stripped of any conflict or villain, leaving a bleak film that can not even display its message properly through an ensemble of such artificial characters. Even the portrayal of autism is so off it kills the whole purpose of the movie.

Yes, if you can keep your head above the ocean of honey and syrup you can still see Copper's intention and even catch a glimpse of some decent directing here and there and a movie with a bigger production value that most of its kind, but eventualy you get engulfed by the stickiness of its atmosphere and every little praisable detail is taken from your field of view hidden under an overly mellow canvas.

'X' couldn't have a more promising plot or a better start. Not only is the perfect example of the 70's and 80's explotation cinema, it's basically 'The Texas chainsaw massacre' had it have better budget and 2020's resources and technology. The ambientation is absolutely on point, and the cinematography -aside from some questionable editing choices and a few weird, overly experimetnal camera angles- is gorgeous. On the paper it's a B movie no matter how you look at it, but on the screen it doesn't look the part. The first half of the movie burns slowlier than damp wood and even so I couldn't have enjoyed it any better.

But by the time the production of the X movie of the movie 'X' (kind of like a dream inside a dream) starts picking pace you can sense the accident coming. You're on the deck of the Titanic watching the iceberg grow closer and you know the collision is inevitable. The cinematography is still majestic, the visual appeal is still there and the actors do a great job even with the weakest scenes -except for Brittany which is annoyingly overacting even for someone who has clearly been asked to do so- but the film lingers too much on the gratuitous sex scenes even for an explotation movie and a bit of character developement which would have been welcomed had it paid of at any point, but the ship hits the iceberg before it can.

Once the killings start it's all downhill. The movie turns into a weird horror comedy filled with goofy and incredibly foreseeable deaths -the alligator one can be called the moment the animal makes his appearance- and all the runtime spent developing the characters goes down the drain as they turn into brainless meatbags with the sole purpose of dying. Even the directing and camera work take two steps backwards, and while there are still some stunning shots -the old lady with the pitchfork on the barn and her devil-like shadow getting bigger is astounding-, the movie finally looks like every other 'Texas chainsaw massacre' rip-off, plain and uninspired. Little matters that the murders make as little sense as the perpetrators, because at that point 'X' has lost its one distinguising trait and joined the rank of mediocre horror films with great but wasted potential.

On paper there is nothing wrong with 'Home before dark'. Acting is great thanks to a solid cast -maybe not the best child performance ever seen on the screen, but still good-, cinematography is just as good, even great at times and the soundtrack, although a bit lacking, fits the theme and ambience of the show pretty well. Even the story, unoriginal as it is, still has an aura of mystery strong enough to keep you watching to see it unravel, a poorly solved murder case that still haunts the town and people involved years later. A story seen hundreds of times that works just as well as the first one.

Then you have that story progressing through the efforts of a 9 year old girl. A little girl that literally bosses her parents, neighbours, teachers and even the local police and FBI as she wishes, getting his hands on vital evidence or sneaking into places under investigation effortlessly. The lack of a proper criminal investigation will most likely throw off most adults as it turns a compelling mystery into little more than an after school assignment for elementary schoolers. But the story and background themes are too dense and even too dark at times to be a fit watch for kids the age of our equally gifted and annoying protagonist. Which leaves us with teens as the best target audience for a series where they'll fail to find any compelling character their age that influences the story in any way.

'Home before dark' is the perfect example of a product that has the right budget and skilled crew behind, but committed its worst sin way before the production even started, resulting in a show that doesn't know exactly whom is it trying to appeal.

Even if it's starting to become a trend and basically expected of every superhero movie, there's absolutely no doubt the amount of goofiness in a movie like 'The suicide squad' is gonna be pretty much off the charts. And even if the comical situations and the humor feel forced at times, it still makes a really enjoyable experience once you make amends with the idea that nothing in the film is gonna follow a coherent script. Some scenes like the initial landing or the assault on the camp are as absurd as they're hilarious. The jokes and dialogue leave a bit to be desired, but in most cases they're not terribly out of place (except for the overuse of some of the comical elements).

Visually and acting wise the much better sequel to the terrible first Suicide Squad appearance on the big screen is not bad either. The visual effects feel too lazy at times, making it look like you are watching an indie flick with a slightly better budget, but fit the overall feel of the movie and the acting is good enough for a movie of its kind. It even sparkles at times with its cinematography and some interesting takes and camera angles when they're not trying to overdo it.

But it's on its story structure that 'The suicide squad' fails more noticeably. Nobody expects a great story or a perfectly polished script from an anti-hero movie. But so many scenes and subplots -and even characters- feel so unnecessary and out of touch with the main story it feels like watching four different movies that aren't related to one another. Harley's whole ordeal with the dictator -and almost Harley's entire story arc-, the whole resistance militia group subplot that has no impact whatsoever on the story, the Polka-Dot-Man (or whatever) mommy issues... There are plenty of moments taking up too much runtime that do nothing for the film but take you out of the main thread of the story -which doesn't have a satisfactory ending itself either-. In the end 'The suicide squad' is a bag of mixed puzzle pieces that fail to connect with each other to form a whole picture.

James Gunn's take on the franchise is definitely a huge improvement from the forgettable first instalment, but wasted to much time trying to be funny and too little making the film go in the right direction.

'Fear Street: 1994' was a stylish and promising horror thriller. Sure, it wasn't all that 'thrilling' at all and it was hard to care for the cheesy characters without any background at all, but its neon 90s vibes and a decent production made it stand out and hope for an improvement in what we already knew would be a horror trilogy. And that improvement came immediately in the second part, if not by much. The fact that it was a gorier, more solid 'slasher' as we understand the genre and that the links between the story and the characters and events we already knew from part one made us care more for them made it a more pleasurable run. It still lacked something big, the most important part of a story, specially if you plan on telling a story through three whole full feature length films. It lacked a meaning, an explanation, a purpose. Fortunately the cliffhanger from 'Fear Street: 1978' made it pretty clear that's what we were getting in the last instalment.

And that's where the reviewed title comes in, with a really conservative take on the origin of it all. The first half of 'Fear street: 1666' is nothing but your mainstream17th century witchcraft tale with a little twist to spice it up a little. The gore and violence are quite tame, the action is almost lacking and the atmosphere and tension, while present, are miles away from similar titles like 'The VVitch'. It still provides a satisfying and effective explanation for the mistery surrounding Shadyside and having the cast from the original two films playing the characters from this origin story works really well for making us care more for them and display some interesting similarities with the relations the characters plaid by those actors have in the future. But explaining the reason behind Shadyside's curse isn't enough, we need to put an end to it.

And that's where the movie derails. Back to the future, back to 1994 and immediately the shift in the visuals and the tone is so abrupt it instantly takes you out of the movie. The story reintroduces some really goofy characters for comedy relief, the vibe goes back to the first film with its overly preteen 'Goosebumps' thriller like atmosphere and the soundtrack (while undeniably good, gotta approve seeing 'Pixies' getting some love) is one again so overly present it doesn't help at all to soften the abrupt transition. The only welcome change is the return to the stylish neony cinematography, and even that is just a matter of personal taste. So after some poorly executed climax battle scenes where the alleged driving force for the mindless killers to chase one victim or another seems to change freely to accommodate the script we get a bleak -although still fitting- happy resolution that feels too unsatisfying after over 5 hours of run through the whole thing. Impossible to let this end without a cheesy after-credits -or is it inter-credits- cliffhanger scene where an unknown character gets his/her hands on a vital plot item that despite being evidence for a multiple homicide lies marked but unguarded in the middle of a cave -good job police!-. Homage to the classic 90s' slashers or an open door to a follow-up? Surely very few are hoping for the latter.

John Krasinski's sequel to the well received first instalment he himself directed is almost an opposite of its predecessor. While the first part blasted off with a great start only to slip midways and derive into a pretty mediocre film with a terrible ending, its sequel starts with a less than worthy reveal of the origin of it all, with so many absurd situations just for the convenience of the plot and to build up tension (how can it be total chaos in the streets but one second later be so quiet that monsters are even paying attention to the slightest of sounds inside of closed locals?) it's almost infuriating, but picks up and ends in a way better fashion than 2018's instalment.

Krasinski's able hand at directing is still very noticeable. The pacing of the films is very adequate and along with the gorgeous cinematography (that salvaged the first one and is just as good this time) makes the whole film fly by. And while the script is far from perfect and raises many questions about the state of the threat worldwide and humanity's inability to deal with an enemy with so many flaws and weak points, it still edges the first one story wise, even if everything outside Regan's and Emmett's plot line does nothing but drag the film, Noah Jupe's character and performance were enough to annoy me to unexpected degree and the elements introduced late into the film provide little to no payoff. Even so it still maintains a much more pleasing exposition-conflict-resolution structure and an ending that, while still abrupt and dragged by the terrible CGI in the later fights, is still much more well rounded than the blatant senseless cut its predecessor ended with.

If something's clear is that probably Krasinki himself and if not someone else will definitely go for another one. Maybe third one is the charm and 'A quiet place' finally receives the instalment it really deserves but it's not quite yet getting.

After watching more of the series, my initial fears got confirmed. Digimon was always a shounen, albeit a very character driven one. And here we have the 2020 reboot, taking the sooner to extreme limits and the latter totally out of the product. 'Digimon adventure 2020' (code named 'Digimon Adventure Psi') can be just summed up as a collection of battle episodes with an exhaustingly repetitive script. Threat arises (causing planet extinction risk from day one), absurd battle with no coherence at all ensues, deus ex machina victory happens (usually due to unexplained phenomena or the characters shouting out very loud), threat that was over reappears in a more threatening way to have an excuse for another episode. The characters that drove the story in the original run and were likeable, relatable persons with emotions and strong bond between them are plain robots with the mere function of riding their Digimons, remember us how unexplainable everything happening around them is and shouting their Digimons' (and occasionally other character's names) an average of five times per minute. Or that is the case at least for the two "main" characters of the story, the rest of the kids have been cut back to a lesser role than an extra would have in any other show.

Animation wise the new re-imagining of 1999's franchise originating title edges the original, feeling very pleasing visually during some episodes (even if the sloppiness of the sequences they had no interest on investing time on, like some digievolution sequences for "lesser" Digimons, is almost insulting) and keeping in the vibrant colour palette of its predecessor that makes it so attractive for younger kids. The soundtrack, although not in the level of the masterful score of the first 'Digimon adventure', is still pretty good and definitely up to the standards of the franchise. Little matters any of it as the script makes it an unbearable ride for anyone looking for a bit of emotion or warmth in it, or at least a coherent, thrilling story. 'Digimon adventure 2020' is, at best, a mediocre shounen enjoyable by the youngest of the family, but it's in no way an entertaining watch for a newcomer to the franchise, and it is like salt in the recent 'Digimon Tri' wound to all of us who grew up with the original and expected a tweaked, improved storyline with the humanity and emotion that glued us to the screen twenty years ago intact.

The world is a'ight, then it's not. We have met our end very quickly and in many unexplained ways on the big screen before, but Sweet Tooth is definitely one of the most flagrant cases. One moment everyone is going on with their everyday routines, the next things are exploding left and right and whole cities are quarantined on the spot, to the point of getting people stuck on their workplaces or wherever they where at the moment. Very little is explained about what actually happened, and that very little which is actually told barely explains the amount of chaos depicted or how people survived weeks trapped on offices or other buildings with no food to go on. On the apocalyptic front 'Sweet Tooth' is a cataclysm in itself.

But unexpectedly Netflix's new show still works. Because even if it's an apocalyptic tale set in a dying earth with humans on the brink of extinction, 'Sweet Tooth' is above all a story of human values, respect and understanding. And as bad as its action sequences or its somewhat lacking plot might be, it makes up for it with a stunning cinematography and gorgeous landscapes -despite the terrible and obvious VFX on some creatures-, some solid acting and a handful of incredibly heart-warming bonding moments that, as cliché as they might be, build up some very interesting and relatable characters.

So, 'Sweet Tooth' is definitely not your go-to for a serious survival tale, nor for a thrilling script, but it's a good drama adventure clearly aimed at younger audiences -despite some gnarly moments- that can be easily enjoyed by them and older people alike, not trailing far behind of recent titles such as 'His Dark Materials'

Funny how a show from the producers of 'Stranger Things' and the (one of the) director(s) of 'The End of the F***ing World' would actually feel familiar for the most unexpected reason. Because yes, 'I Am Not Okay with This' has a strong resemblance to the Duffer Brothers show and uses the same sarcasm and teenage angst as Netflix's (other) ongoing coming of age dark comedy. One could even describe Entwistle's last work as 'Carrie joins the Breakfast Club crew' and have his way. But almost any gamer will have made an instant, more solid connection to another title. After all, 'I Am Not Okay with This' is practically 'Life is Strange' in disguise, to a point the similitudes are almost frightening. The young girl with powers she doesn't fully control, the weird nerd boy who falls for her, the lesbian love interest, the dead father -wrong character, but still-. Dig deeper and more similitudes arise. The drug -namely marihuana- use and dealing, the black bald principal, the mother working in a cafeteria. Even the soundtrack sounds like it was taken right off Dontnod's bestselling title.

So yes, 'I Am Not Okay with This' really feels like a Frankenstein monster of recycled ideas. And even so, it doesn't make it any less enjoyable. Thanks to the solid performance and great chemistry of a cast used to work together, an able hand behind the camera and the short runtime of the whole thing -barely above and average movie- that leave no time to get bored, it's hard not to reach the crescendo finale in one sitting and understand that the team behind 'I Am Not Okay with This' did the most important thing right: tease your audience but show nothing. And when the final credits roll you'll have more questions than when you started but one thing crystal clear... if there's a second season, you're in for it.

Taika Waititi really is an odball. Some people hate him, some people love him, most don't even know what to think of him. For me, he's a director I always kept an eye on. His basic, silly humor was exactly my kind of thing, the canvas he painted it on... not so much. So when I heard he was working on a film revolving around the third Reich, it sounded like a great opportunity to finally put all that witful but weird humor to good use.

And it certainly was. 'Jojo Rabbit' is full of incredibly satisfying dark goofy moments. A satire they called it. Can't say it is. Taika tackles the nazi regime and the holocaust too lightly and the criticism isn't poignant enough to tag it as such. 'He falls short', said the critics, 'he is not bold enough'. Probably right. But the result of Taika's tameness is a wonderful comedy drama enjoyable by parents and children alike. Because a comedy it is and a comedy it remains, for the most part. But when the plot develops and the drama strikes, 'Jojo Rabbit' turns into the most heart-warming and at the same time heart-wrenching film of recent years.

Content aside little is there to say about Taika's last work, and all of it good. The directing is magisterial, with a perfect pace and visuals that make it hard to remember you're not watching one of Wes Anderson's masterpieces. And the cast shines so much on the screen as it did as a list of names on the title's credits. One after another, they all bring all their best into the table, regardless the importance of the role. That makes even more unbelievable the fact that a twelve year old newcomer could come and take advantage of playing the leading role to outshine a whole cast of acting titans. Roman Griffin Davis interacts with virtually every other character on the show, and his chemistry with every one of them is truly mesmerizing.

In a generally weak year for cinema there's no doubt that alongside Bong Joon Ho's 'Parasite' and Todd Phillips' 'Joker', 'Jojo Rabbit' is one of 2019's crown jewels. But while the sooner stands out for its beautiful cinematography and its almost flawless original script and the latter relies too much on Joaquin Phoenix's stellar performance, Taika's odd dark nazi comedy might be the most solid overall of the three.

Christmas Flint might be the weirdest, oddest, cutest little thing in cinema history. Backed by the strong performance from Mckenna Grace -can this kid do anything wrong?- it is near impossible not to fall for this little girl and share all her dreams, her hopes and her heartbreaks. Unfortunately for Mckenna -and the rest of the cast, who all do a magnificent job- 'Troop Zero' fails as a movie by going over every cliche one hopes to find in indie coming of age flicks and taking every on of them over the top and beyond.

There's a lot to be taken from 'Troop Zero'. Every life lesson worth learning for children and not-so-children is portrayed in ninety minutes of footage. It's heartwarming, it's educational and it's emotional. And above it all, it's overly dramatic, to the point where even if you appreciate the intention of the director and sympathize with the characters involved, you still cringe on the sofa and wait for it to be over, hoping the next scene won't try so hard to pull all the strings it would still pull -and more effectively- if it was toned down to a more realistic and enjoyable level.

With a solid directing, some near perfect scenes, a fantastic performance from the whole cast -even the younger ones- and a magnificent sound track -it's Bowie, what more is there to say?- I can only wonder what this movie could have been had it not wasted so much effort in becoming the stereotypical Sundance movie.

No, Hollywood -and Hollywood dwellers-, having naked grandmas in your movies or shows doesn't make you revolutionary or transgressive. 'Hunters' tries on everything to stand out. Vibrant colors, weird camera angles -some interesting, most of them just off-putting-, foul language and wacky characters. Unfortunately none of it helps cover for the lazy writing and the disjointed script, if anything it just makes it worse.

'Hunters' looked good on the paper. A Tarantinesque nazi show with visuals that had a strong 'Utopia' vibe. Shoes too big to fill. Even after overlooking its enormous flaws and getting through a dose of mediocre acting, all that's left in the show is another bleak nazi inspired production without any morals, the humor from satires on the topic or the thrilling drama from more accurate historic fiction centered on WW2. Even as a suspense thriller 'Hunters' falls short. It's just a carcass of a failed extravaganza occasionaly kept afloat by a brilliant scene or the spark of some good acting -Greg Austin kinda worked for me here, both character and performance-wise-. But after going through the whole run, I couldn't but cross another one from the anticipated lists with a bitter taste in the mouth.

Oh, how rarely BBC disappoints. And with good source material behind a production even less so. So in this adaptation of Phillip Pullman's acclaimed books a solid script was almost guaranteed. And foreign as said books are to me it's not my place to judge the series worth in terms of adapting a literature world into a TV series, but the script does keep the essence of a juvenile adventure story while being dark and gritty enough to make it more appealing for public of any age. Add a very talented cast really displaying their skills on the screen and, despite the occasional misteps and poorly executed scenes, it is more than enough to make 'His dark materials' stand out in current television rooster.

It is visually, though, that the British production sucks you in and keeps you watching regardless your investment in the story. There's no flaw in the visual effects, the lightning and photography both at broad daylight and on nocturnal takes are on point and the camera work is truly magnificent in many scenes. Even in the weakest episodes or during storylines you're not interested in, there's so much to pay attention to, so many little details to behold it makes the episode fly by and leave you longing for more even if the cliffhangers ending each episode weren't there.

It's yet to see what lays in wait for 'His dark materials' in the future, but everything in its debut season leads to believe it'll have no trouble covering the whole of its source material masterfully and claiming it's place as one of the best TV shows in the coming years.

Peele's directorial debut 'Get out' was far from perfect. But that was simply because it didn't deliver on the big picture. Then again, there was a lot of good things that showed how good Peele's work could get by just adjusting a few details. So, with a bit more experience on his back and a very promising trailer, 'Us' was expected to be most likely his first masterpiece and a well awaited return to the good atmospheric horror in an era plagued by supernatural or posession movies driven by jumpscares, completely dark scenes and overly strident music scores.

And for a short time he delivers. Not kicking out some of his old habits, Jordan Pelee still creates a great opening that -although too reminiscent of 'The strangers'- sets an incredibly eerie ambience and introduces some of the creepiest antagonists/killers the horror cinema has ever seen -thanks mainly to some awesome acting from the cast, specially the younger ones-. Then the film suddenly takes a turn. For the worse. For the very worst. After building this tense and serious atmosphere the story simply derives in some strangely clumsy comedy, with cringy catchphrases, clichee situations and a vibe more reminiscent of 'Zombieland' or 'Shawn of the dead' than a proper horror movie. And just so, the dread feeling and the sensation of danger vanish. All that remains is a mediocre movie that fails as a horror tale and doesn't deliver on the comedy or suspense either. The jokes are cheap, the backstory of the menace is never told -aside from a vague nonsensical explanation of their creation and a very mainstream motivation for their actions- and the overly open ending just adds more salt to the wound of finishing watching a movie that promised so much and not only failed to become a milestone of modern horror, but also fell way short of being a thrilling watch.

Let's start by making something crystal clear: I'm not a big fan of gore, torture, snuff or such kind of content in cinema. Not that it disturbs me or freaks me out. I'm simply not particularly fond of it, but I've enjoyed my share of it when it serves a purpose. Unfortunately, in Climax Gaspar Noé has no story to tell, no message to deliver, just a poor, weak excuse of a remotely imaginative concept to let loose on the screen an increasingly annoying collection of sexual graphic scenes, violent imagery and deranged acts that feel out of place even in the context of the movie. It's just a lazy effort to get all avant-garde critics to come out of their shells and claim it's a bold take from a brave director, a raw experience showing the true nature of humans and whatnot. The truth is that besides the interesting cinematography and a solid music score that fits the film perfectly (although gets a bit tedious after a while) there's nothing else to salvage from a film so meaningless and empty it could only produce an equally empty review.

But does it pretty well, I must say. The moment you watch a movie about a little girl who's diagnosed with cancer, you know you are in for some heavy drama, which normally means a barrage of overacted and overly sentimental scenes, cheesy dialogues and poorly scripted tear buffets. 'Kule kidz gråter ikke' has its share of them, as is to be expected. But under the teary scenes, colorful photography and cliché characters (specially the adult ones), Katarina Launing manages to keep a serious tone, with its ups and downs, scenes that show some lazy writing underneath interspersed with moments that bring a breath of fresh air to keep the story in line.

But it's the children's acting that ultimately dictates if a movie of this kind floats or sinks. And there's no acting from the main five kids that I could possibly disregard. The young cast puts on a pretty solid performance to cope up with the good scenes as much as the bad ones, making the journey way more pleasant and turning what could have been a mediocre film into a enjoyable tale of young love, sorrow and friendship. Sometimes the best way to pull off this right is to just keep it simple, and remind the adult audience how it felt to be a kid. And there are few better than the scandinavians at that.

'Ich seh ich seh' had all the ingredients to be a great suspense movie. With a background reminding of some flicks like 'La piel que habito' or 'Les yeux sans visage', this potential gem of austrian cinema blasts off with a great start and mantains an equally great quality throughout the whole film. The slow pacing is a great fit for a light horror/suspense title, the directing is good enough and there's absolutely nothing wrong with any of the acting performances. Furthermore, it abides by suspense cinema's golden rule: keep it simple. With barely no dialogue it's up to the viewer to interprete the situations and the motivations of the characters.

The problem is that the directing duo gives away too much, too early. From one of earliest scenes ("Lukas says he wants some juice too") to the equally early confirmation ("I don't want you to talk to your brother anymore"), any mistery revolving the identity of the mother and her apparently bizarre behaviour vanishes into thin air, leaving nothing else but a disturbingly gruesome, nerve wracking experience that, while interesting to watch, lacks any of the suspense and the tension the films could have had, had Fiala and Franz managed to keep the viewer dissoriented for the majority of the trip.

'Ich seh, ich seh' is still a good movie to watch, hard to swallow at times, gruesomely provoking. But the feeling that ultimately remains in the viewer is the frustration of having watched a movie that was polished into a diamond so fast it had enough time to return to its carbon form.

Seldom does a show or a film with such an assuming title live up to it. But 'The terror' does indeed honor its name and set some solid baselines its counterpart wannabe horror productions would do well to follow. Because the real horror does not lie in the gore, the paranormal or a loud and strident music score. The terror, the real terror hides in the isolation, the uncertainty and the unpredictability of human nature.

And not only does 'The terror' create a sense of hopelessness brilliantly, it does it through a masterfully crafted atmosphere, one of the best photography to be seen in any TV show in recent years and an ensemble cast that would put some blockbusters to shame. The actors do such a great job one can even overlook the occasional script flaws -to be expected in any show- out of pure interest in the characters' well-being.

It's not easy to get into 'The terror', not a show for the ones looking for random violence or heart-stopping jumpscares. But for those looking for a more complex experience, one that does not treat the viewer as most horror flicks do, this show is a pleasant and rewarding journey with just the right amount of blood and mistery, and a generous serving of witty dialogue. A treat that we may not be offered again in the coming years in any suspense genre show.

'A quiet place' is a film that revolves around a concept as interesting as dangerous. While making a film that can (or shouldn't) include any dialogue or loud noises allows for the use of shocking and interesting sound effects, it's almost impossible to get it through without breaking a couple rules for the sake of advancing the story or creating more thrilling situations. Even so, John Krasinski manages to produce a very atmospheric and well wrapped first half, staying somewhat loyal to the rules of the universe he has created, and avoiding at all cost the excesive use of jumpscares. The photography and directing is really good, and even though the VFX aren't anything extraordinary and the creatures' design looks pretty lame, we never get the feeling of being watching a cheap movie, and the spectator can enjoy the silent and tense atmosphere and the characters, which are very well acted and easy to care for, even with the little character development a film with barely no dialogue allows.

But the film breaks its premise halfway through, and starts to rely too much on histrionic events, unlikely behaviours and unbeliavable measures. From matresses soundproofing entire rooms, to newborns staying silent under really uncomfortable conditions, or piles of corn defying all rules of physics, the film starts travelling downhill at light speed, rushing towards and ending that will leave most thinking minds wondering how a pack of blind, slowish creatures (and not so many of them by the looks of it) that are sensitive to loud sound waves and can be killed with a single shotgun shot overran the military of any country, let alone (apparently) the whole world. If that wasn't enough, Krasinski decides that instead of going for an open ending, its even better to simply cut the film in the middle of its climax and give absolutely no conclusion at all, effectively destroying all the good work done up to the point.

In the end, 'A quiet place' feels like nothing but a wasted effort, a horror/adventure movie which could have brought a whole new level to the genre but ended falling for the same cheap tricks most such movies use for pure shock value.

In the perfect mood for some mindless violence and some gruesome humor, a slasher always seem the obvious choice. Not being a big fan of the genre for the difficulty of making a believable film that brings a real sense of fear, I let myself be guided by the critics and reviews and finally fall for 'You're next', the umpteenth genre redefining movie.

Soon I discover that I've been tricked not one, but twice by the siren voices and the empty promises of reviews as little realistic as the film they refer to. The unsavory déjà vu of the dinner scene is a clear reminder that I had seen the movie before, and for good reason not seen it through.

Decided to make it to the end credits this time, I give Adam Wingard and his 'You're next' an undeserved second chance. One that would only confirm suspicion that the whole film never gets to achieve a sense of continuity and real threat. What should have -given by how the story unfolds- been a cold blooded, efficient mass murder ends up as some senseless one on one assassinations even amidst the crowd within the mansion. Even the foreseeable plot "twist" mid-film does nothing but kill the little suspense and tension the previous footage had managed to grow.

But ultimately, it is the complete absurdity in every character's actions that kills the little effect the film could have produced. From characters standing alone on a room with a corpse even after everyone has left and running out in panic seconds later only to get easily killed; to people standing carelessly right in front of windows or opened doors just minutes after being the target of a hail of crossbow bolts; all through the real and genuine Crocodile Dundee of the film, the expert in survival who goes locking downstairs glass windows - some of them already broken- to prevent bad guys from entering or leaves the axe of an assaulter on the carpet because it's always a wiser idea to defend oneself with a screwdriver.

Not only does 'You're next' not revive the slasher genre, but systematically repeats all the big mistakes that make most flicks of the kind dull and repetitive, offering nothing but a bunch of histrionic deaths and a story that lacks both backbone and a smooth skin.

First thing directors should ask themselves when tackling a film is what kind of film and message they're willing to deliver. Thanks to a strong start with a faithful (even if overcaricaturized) depiction of the heartless corporate world, Gore Verbinski sends a message, even a spark of hope for a witty, tense and eerie thriller. And it does keep up appearances during a well rounded first half, which could have been a complete film by itself had he wrapped it in a simple and equally elegant manner.

But in a conclusion that drags on and on, Gore descends into the plainest of storytellings, turning the film into the perfect example of a B movie, filled with chliché, foreseeable events and plain characters. All the good done beforehand gets completely obscured by one of the dullest endings in recent years, leaving the viewer with a really bitter taste after well over two hours of screening.

Little matters the great photography and pretty good music score and sound mixing. Even a solid performance from most of the cast. Because "A cure for wellness" is the perfect example of a script that goes so awry it can't be cured by any means.