Reviews

I have watched only the first season.

I love Stallone, i've been watching his movies since i was a child in the 80's. I even love this recent Neflix documentary about him (SLY). TULSA KING had a very good start, first episodes made me invest, i can't say it was great but i liked it a lot. Stallone was convincing against the odds, he's in his 70's but he made me believe everything about his character. But the other characters (side kicks, antagonists ets) were well written too. It never drags even for a minute, there's always something going on, intense scenes were very good, i liked the comedy element.

So, i was about to rate it higher but unfortunately, the last 3 episodes were a bit rushed and totally unrealistic, unlike the previous ones. Script became messy, all of a sudden, characters turned into caricatures. Especially in the last episode, nothing makes too sense. It was like watching a different show.

Still, it was entertaining even on its lowest.

And something else : I said that i liked the comic relief but i think this could have been better if it played out more like a drama. At some point, comedy kinda prevails and TULSA KING stopped taking itself too seriously. Stallone could have pulled it off, making this show more BREAKING BAD-esque. The ingredients were here, Taylor Sheridan, great actors, clever script.

I don't know if i am gonna watch the second season.

Hype is not justified. This is slightly worse even than the COVENANT. And the COVENANT already was not a very good movie. I can see why it's a commercial success, there is a lot of action, action scenes are well directed and the whole second part of the movie is intense. But there's nothing more to it. Script is messy and chaotic. It's not well acted ( except the leading character). Actors are the opposite of charismatic, i could not even remember their faces. Not every actor should be beautiful or attractive of course, so many not good looking actors are great. But they had "personality". To be honest, i didn't even care about the fate of these characters. Not only the actors were not charismatic but even their characters were uninteresting and not well written.

Still, i gave it a good rating because Alvarez knows how to make a good horror movie and as i said previously, at least Cailee Spaeny was good enough to carry this movie on her shoulders. Even her character was well developed. Overall, build up was good. It's a 2 hours movie but it never got boring, even though the charcters were. I can't say i was on the edge of my seat, but i appreciated it. 2024 is the worst cinematic year of all time, after 2021. At least, ROMULUS is watchable, at worst.

Too slow, borderline unwatchable. It's 100 minutes but it felt at least 150. It should have been at least 20 minutes shorter. The worst thing is that it plays like a mystery, and there are no mysteries here, even though director tries hard to make it a bit enigmatic and cryptic. If it was a "pure" drama movie, without the "mystery" element, it could have been a good, even great. Because there are positives here, it's well acted and well directed. Juliette Binoche is so charismatic that she almost turns this boredom into an interesting movie. Furthermore, cinematography is nice and overall, movie's technical aspects are above average.

Yet, it's a failure. This could have been good because Binoche's motives for doing what she did, are crystal clear to me. I understood what she's going through and why she behaves like this. But still, the mystery element is unnecessary.

Ending was great.

So much hate for this movie. It's sad even though it's not surprising. There is so much hate that even a few good words about this would trigger a lot of people, but that's unimportant. What matters is honesty. So, this is my honest opinion.

1) In a way, Todd Phillips foreshadowed all this negative responses. There are some meta scenes here, it's like he knew JOKER 2 is gonna be hated from many people who loved the first movie. I can't prove it of course but i feel he empathized/identified with his leading character. So many people loved the Joker but not the person who he really is, under the disguise. This is not disrepect to the audience. This is Todd Philips who try to explain what this whole story is really about. And the whole story is about Arthur Fleck. And his personal tragedy.

2) Not gonna lie, i liked the first movie much more. I rated it as 8,7/10. I didn't want to watch something like this, as an epilogue. I would like to see Arthur outsmart them all, take revenge against his guards and destroy all the system. All of those who lead him on insanity and on his demise. I didn't want to watch something sad, i wanted to watch something insanely glorious and epic.

But i cannot not respect this daring and bold creative choice. In the first movie, this character was something like an anti-hero. It was so easy to be a villain here. But, he didn't. He became a hero instead. A true victim of circumstances who could ride the wave and cause chaos and mayhem, but in the final moment, he chose to turn the tide. He chose to get rid of his persona and reveal his true self. A sick and weak man who rejected the power and the "glory" because he wanted to make a new start. Of course, it was impossible. But this was still a brave "leap of faith".

Arthur Fleck is a true hero, something that Joker could never pull off. Some say that Todd Philips humiliate purposefully this character because he wanted to insult his fans from the first movie. What a delusional take. Is a victim to blame because some sadistic and disgusting guards tortured him? Fleck is a victim and instead of empathising with him, many viewers reject him. Exactly as his fans from the movie. Philips foreshadowed even this. No disrespect but i didn't expect something so brilliant from the director of HANGOVER.

3). So, this story is not a triumphant revenge. But a tragedy. Phoenix was great again. So many people cannot understand that this performance was 100 times more difficult than his performance in the previous movie. It's not difficult to play a man who goes insane. Literally, every mediocre actor can do it. It's way more difficult to be restrained. To show a character's struggle to get out of his personal abyss whereas he is still a sick person.

I don't even like Gaga as a person. But how could anyone say that she acted bad here? She did a good job, as a character who, like everyone, loved Joker but not Arthur.

4) There is a scene around in 50 minutes mark. Brendan Gleeson gave a cigarette to Phoenix. Phoenix felt as he was a friend of his and gave him a friendly tap in his back. Gleeson hated it and smacked him instantly on the back of his head, like he wanted to remind him that he is not a human being anymore.

This was an amazing/devastating scene but as many others, it won't be appreciated.

5) It's not a perfect movie. It shouldn't have so many musical scenes. I understand the reason, after all, Arthur was a performer. His goal was to entertain people. And there should be a distinction between the horrors of the real world and what was taking place inside his mind. But still, all this music was distracted.

6) Chaos and insanity will prevail. All the sensitivity and the rational thinking and the try to make sense in this cruel world, will be gone. Some think this is a revolution against the corruption and the filth of the elites. Elites are indeed corrupted and misanthropes. And this is exactly what they want. Insanity instead of reason. And order through chaos.

I love watching documentaries like this. In the last years, i have watched THE ALPINIST/MERU/THE DAWN WALL etc, even a tv series named Edge of the Unknown (with Jimmy Chin). Of course, everything started with the glorious Free solo.

I admire very much Alex Honnold and the other people who engaged in this kind of activities. I love watching them breaking the "limits". THE DEVIL'S CLIMB is another good documentary, however, it is not as good as the aforementioned ones. It's less intense. I was still on the edge of my seat but not as much as with the other documentaries. I can't explain why, maybe it's more "polished"? Maybe ending was a bit abrupt. I can't tell.

In any case, every fan of those documentaries is gonna enjoy it, this is still beautiful to watch and these two guys are very likeable.

But i would like to say something else here : Please, stop doing it. Alex and Tommy and so many other people tested their limits, risked their lives, did the unthinkable. It was amazing but it has to stop. No need to tempt your fate anymore, you have nothing to prove anymore to anyone and to yourselves.

Best part here: It's only 45 minutes. I can't even imagine the horror and the pain i would face if it was longer. And i don't mean, in a good way. Look, i respect Asian horror and there are some great movies. Of course, there are some great movies overall in which some things were unexplained. Some times, ambiguity is even necessary, all the mysteries don't need to be solved.

But, this was too much. This is so cryptic and enigmatic that made me don't care at all, i mean, who are those people and why they suffer? Why should i invest? I am not even sure it's cryptic, maybe there is nothing beneath the surface, maybe it's just a mess, this is too random to be called an enigma.

I gave it 5 stars because it's well acted and well directed. Visually, it's good, i can't rate lower a film when so many aspects of film making are above average.

But, that's it.

I wanted to like it more, i am almost sorry that i didn't give it a 7. But i can't recommend it. This is too disjointed and messy. At times, it was even difficult to watch because this is a 2 hours movie and it's difficult to watch such a long movie which is so chaotic.

Still, there are redeeming qualities. The soundtrack is great and the use of Iron Maiden song is spot on. Jennifer Connelly commands the screen, she's so sweet and innocent that make the viewer root for her and escape the dangers she has to face. Furthermore, it is entertaining. Most horror fans will probably enjoy it, as long as they know Dario Argento and his specific directorial style.

This should have been at least 15 minutes shorter and the writers should have tried harder. Of course you don't watch movies of this subgenre because you love well acted movies or because you want to get scared or for their realism. This is more of a dark fairy tale. However, as i said before, this is so disjointed/messy/incoherent that i couldn't enjoy it as much as i wanted to.

For reference, these are my ratings for the previous movies of this franchise:

V/H/S : 7/10.

V/H/S 2: 7/10.

V/H/S VIRAL : 4/10

V/H/S 94 : 4/10

V/H/S 99: 6,4/10.

V/H/S/85 : 6,5/10.

So, if you strongly disagree with these ratings, my review won't be useful for you.

V/H/S/Beyond is uneven but that's not surprising, every movie of this franchise is. Most of the segments are about aliens but not all of them. It was a good creative choice, i mean, scifi horror is one of the most interesting horror subgenres. I wonder though what's coming next. In any case, i hope there are gonna be more sequels. V/H/S franchise is not groundbreaking neither great, but movies are overall enjoyable, minus VIRAL and 94 (Bad movies imo).

Best segment is probably the first with the cops, i liked it, it was intense and well directed. Furthermore, I liked a lot both the DREAM GIRL and the last one (Stowaway). DREAM GIRL is the most well acted and enjoyable segment, i loved this song. Not as intense as the other two, and it could have a better explanation about the nature of the villain, but it was a fun ride.

LIVE AND LET DIVE it was also a fun ride, but not very good. And the other segment with the dogs was by far the worst segment. I mean, come on, originality is great but not like this, it was dumb.

Overall, a good addition but the best moments here are not as good as the best moments of the two previous movies (99 and 85).

First of all, this is not a dark comedy. Just because someone is dying, it doesn't mean it's dark or macabre or "sinister" enough to characterize it as a dark/black comedy. This is a comedy/drama and it focuses on the relationship between Neill and Carides. So, there is a romantic element too. Of course, it has nothing to do with a Holywood comedy/romance movie but it's neither much bleak or sad as it seems at first.

Overall, it is a good movie, both leading actors did a fine job and it's interesting until the end. I can't recommend it because there are better movies to watch, too many movies, too little time. But it's good. Characters are real, there are some intense moments, it doesn't drag. It's kinda funny at times but don't expect something hilarious.

And the ending is satisfying.

FIRST SEASON : 8,7/10

SECOND SEASON : 8,7/10

THIRD SEASON : 6,8/10

FOURTH SEASON : .........

FIFTH SEASON : 2/10

First two seasons are top-tier TV. Amongst the greatest seasons of any show, i have ever watched. I can't remember much details because many years have passed, but everything worked : The dark comedy, the action scenes, intensity, acting, directing etc. Of course, Lorn Malvo is the most memorable aspect of FARGO, but the second season was even better in terms of building, structure etc.

The third season was not bad, it was watchable and kinda enjoyable. Unfortunately, this was the follow-up to those aformentioned excellent two seasons. So, it pales in comparison. I was so dissapointed that i decided to not watch FARGO again.

I didn't watch the fourth season.

I decided to give it a chance and watch the fifth season. After all, there were all those raving reviews and ratings. I got tricked. It started good, i liked the first episode, it was weird and intense and the leading characters were likeable. Unfortunately, it was getting worse with each passing episode. I couldn't believe what i was watching. It was like the writers decided to make fun out of the audience. A takeoff of Malvo's character. Ridiculous and unbelievable situations. FARGO was never a realistic tv show, but fifth season was so outrageous that you couldn't take anything seriously. These were not human characters but caricatures. Furthermore, it was not even funny. I mean, writers were incapable of creating something intense and riveting, ok, at least make it funny.

I almost never give such low ratings. But the fifth season was so garbage that it made me detest the whole show.

In any case, watch the first two seasons. They are great.

Bogart shows some acting range and versatility here. He's the villain but not a typical one, i mean, he's also vulnerable and there was a moment he was even altruistic. Of course, there are no redeeming qualities, he's still the villain and the whole movie is intense because the viewer is rooting for his downfall.

This is better than i expected. If you read the IMDB synopsis, you may think you know how it's gonna play out, but there are a few twists and turns ahead which will make you invest a lot. This is almost exciting, i can't say it's nail-biting but still, i didn't expect to be that "Hitchcockian". You migh also think that this is a typical thriller, but it's more of a mystery and i enjoyed it a lot, because there is nothing like a good mystery movie, if you want to entertain yourself.

And i admit that i didn't see it coming, i mean the ending. So, if you like this kind of movies, you will definitely like this one as well.

1) I watched the original Danish film two years ago. When i found out there is gonna be a remake, i didn't like it at all. What's the reason? Original is too recent for a remake. So, i was very pleased eventually, because this remake is worth watching. For those who haven't watched any of those films, i suggest to watch firstly the original and then, the remake. I won't be more specific in order to avoid spoilers but this is the right order.

2) There is a main difference between those films. The original is a psychological drama thriller, you could easily call it even a horror movie. The remake is a thriller movie. Nothing else. The Danish movie is an anxiety-inducing experience. The American is also somewhat thrilling but it's more "typical" and forgettable, whereas i believe that i won't forget the Danish one so soon. Still, both movies are good. The American version is more enjoyable, some changes have been made in order to be more belieavable and these changes were necessary. There was not a moment when i thought "Nah, i don't buy it". Characters are kinda reasonable, and the whole situation is not that unrealistic for a thriller movie, i mean, the majority of thriller movies ain't that convincing.

3) Actors did a good job. Many people praise McAvoy's performance. I kinda disagree. He was good but he has given much better acting performances in his previous movies. He didn't overshadow anyone, on the contrary, i was more impressed by McNairy and Davis. A restrained acting performance is not necessarily worse. Usually, they're better.

4) There are a lot of garbage movies this year, so this movie looks better than it really is. In any case, this is a solid thriller and the ending was very good. The American remake feels a bit shallow and naive in comparison with the original, but you know what, i am reallly glad that i watched it. I needed it after this horrifying experience of watching the Danish one.

I like a lot this kind of movies, i mean, one-location movies which are taken place in a short period. Dialogue driven dramas or dramedies, like stage plays. These movies are giving the opportunity to the actors to shine, as long as there is a good script, otherwise it's a double-edged sword and they might get exposed.

NIGHT OWLS could be better, but it could be also worse. Script is not that interesting and the dialogue seems forced at times. However, it was not boring either and there were many intriguing moments that made me empathise with these characters. I can tell for sure that this is not a MUST WATCH movie, i can't recommend it, there are far better movies to spend your time. But if you like this specific genre, you won't be dissapointed. After all, it's well acted and these characters have a little depth.

And the ending is probably the best part of this movie.

1) Many reviewers said that they disliked the ending and it ruined (or harmed) the whole movie. That it should have been "more subtle" or less insane etc. I disagree. The ending is exactly what it should. I don't know what movie did they watch, but THE SUBSTANCE is NOT a subtle and "nuanced" movie. This is raw, wild, insane and a bit simplistic. Symbolisms are so basic that even a child will understand them. Coralie Fargeat is not Lars Von Trier neither Andrzej Zulawski etc. Her previous movie (Revenge) was visually great and entertaining but overall, a bad movie. She is not that skilled in order to create subtle movies. She's very good though when it comes to chaos, insanity, gore etc. And this is a very useful skill : When an artist knows his/hers limitations. THE SUBSTANCE ended exactly like it should and the whole movie is based upon its particular strengths.

2) Everything worked in this movie. At first, i was even distracted by all this sexiness. I have watched erotic films much more subtle and classy than this. But as this unfolds, i understood there was a reason. All this sexiness and the close ups in Qualley's body, had a purpose. Everything is happening in order to serve this movie's message, this is how it should have been played out. It looks like plain voyeurism but it isn't. The audience should feel fed up with all this stuff. Basically, this worked like a distorting mirror. I think Fargeat wanted to show how creepy/pervert have so many people became nowadays. And this was a clever decision. There is of course the obvious message regarding the hypocricy/perverseness/sickness of the whole entertainment industry and the pressure that stars feel as they get older. But there is a second layer also. So many creeps and weirdos and empty people nowadays. It's like Fargeat tells to them: Look, it's just flesh, this is what you have idolized, and you are feeding also all this industry sickness, as they feed it to you.

3) Demi Moore was indeed magnificent, believe the hype. Qualley was also very good. Quaid was over the top, this was definitely overacting but that's exactly what Fargeat asked him to. Don't forget that these characters are not "people", this is not a drama with everyday people. These characters are Symbols. There is nothing realistic here on the surface. These characters are just vessels, and even though they are not real people, everything that's being revealed through them, is real as hell.

4) So, THE SUBSTANCE is a bit BLACK MIRROR, a bit Possession (Zulafski), Cronenberg, Kafkaesque, a Faustian bargain and a Dorian Gray painting which came into life. It's flawed and i think that in the future, it will be viewed as overrated. Still, it's raw, honest, exciting, intense, powerful and its heart is in the right place. I was holding my breath during the last 30 minutes, it was shocking and tough to watch, and i appreciated it : With all its flaws, it doesn't get much better nowadays. THE SUBSTANCE is by far one of the best movies of this decade.

5) Best moment of this movie though was when Moore was looking herself in the mirror, moments before her date. This is one of the best scenes i have watched the last 10 years. And this, paradoxically, was subtle.

I thought this was gonna be another movie, in which the woman is a Saint and the man is the Antichrist. There are hundreds of movies like this, in the last years, pure misandric. As a man, i know that there is a very high percentage of bad, even dangerous men. I know also that both sexes are flawed and there are not many Saints : Most of us are just humans.

I am glad it wasn't. There are no heroes and villains here, even though both of the leading characters are equally flawed and they keep harming or trying to manipulate each other, until something is happening during the last minutes (I'll spare the details of course, in order to avoid the spoliers).

So, i liked this movie. When the "MacGuffin" is taking place, it becomes unexpectedly anxiety-inducing. Some people won't find it interesting, maybe they're gonna dislike both the leading characters. Indeed, these characters are not likeable but they were interesting and fun to watch.

What is this movie? There are Ruben Östlund/Francois Ozon vibes. It reminded me also of two other movies : 1) Lemming (Dominik Moll) and 2) La moustache (Emmanuel Carrère). Weirdness and Absurdity but it doesn't get much dark like the previous movies. Hypnosen is more lighthearted and funny. By no means this is a great movie. It's flawed, a bit messy and confusing and i am not really sure that the creators knew exactly what they were doing.

But overall, this is enjoyable and the ending was very good. Maybe the whole movie should have been less chaotic, or i don't know, the opposite and they should go full insanity. I liked the fact that they try something different, not the most original outcome but at least, they were creative.

If you haven't watched this movie, probably my review doesn't make much sense and it's not very helpful. In any case, this is a good comedy/drama (Kafkaesque? Fantasy?) and if you're looking for something different and not easy to categorize, you'll probably enjoy it too.

A very good, almost great, comedy/drama/romance movie. To be more specific, it's a mostly lighthearted drama/romance movie. Don't expect hilarious scenes, this is not a funny movie, even though Mastroianni's performance will put a smile on your face, a lot.

It's mostly lighthearted but in the last 10 minutes, i warn you, you'll be crying like a baby.

Starting was kinda dull. During the first 20 minutes i was wondering if i took a wrong choice by watching this movie. Just boring people doing boring stuff. However, that changes fast. Movie is finding its pace and rhythm ,and gradually, it's becoming more and more interesting and enjoyable. It's a 2 hours movie and i wish it was longer.

Mastroianni is excellent, overall it's well acted and well directed.

This ending though.. I bet it will make you think a lot about your life too.

"Hitchcockian" on the surface but at its core, a typical 90's drama/romance movie, way more lighthearted and less dramatic than it seems, or than it thinks it is. To be clear, i liked it a lot. It's just i thought this was gonna be darker and more intense. No, it's not a movie that can keep you on the edge of your seat, especially if you are older than 25-30 years old. Had i watched it back then, i would have surely liked it more. I watched it recently and i believe that, overall, it's kinda shallow and naive.

That doesn't mean i didn't like it. On the contrary, it is very entertaining. The first part was kinda intense and i was very curious to see where it goes. When the major twist was revealed, movie lost its steam in a way. But still, it was a fun ride until the end.

Yes, the characters were not that likeable but they were interesting, and the actors were charismatic. It's not very easy to follow but it's not difficult either, for sure it's not a movie which you can watch without giving much attention (But then, why watch a movie when it's not even worth your attention?)

About the ending : Regardless if one liked it or not, it was defitely unexpected. Even now, i can't even tell if i liked it or not. I don't even know if it was clever or dumb. And i prefer this kind of endings than predictable or typical ones. Because this ending got me thinking. Probably it would be better if it was less ambiguous, maybe it's a bit unpredictable for the sake of unpredictability.

In any case, i gave a high rating on this movie because there is a high entertainment value here. Just don't expect some high quality, arthouse drama or a "Hitchcockian" drama/mystery. It isn't.

I am a fan of Adams family. I have watched both "The Deeper You Dig" and "Hellbender". Good movies, especially Hellbender, by those talented artists who obviously love a lot the horror genre, and they try to leave their mark on it. I respect their effort, with the means they have at their disposal. These are not groundbreaking movies though, neither great ones. Their movies are not scary neither much intense. For example, HELLBENDER is something like a "Coming of age/indie/art horror". It's easy to make a garbage movie like every other horror movie nowadays, with masked killers or demons killing everyone, but this is just a copy of a copy of a copy. Adams' movies have identity and their movies are kinda unique.

That doesn't mean they're very good. And "Hell hole" is my least favorite movie of them. Of course it's not scary as expected but at the same time, it's not much intense neither interesting. Keep in mind though, this is more comedy than horror. At least, i saw it that way. And when i understood what this is about, i had a lot of fun, there were even some hilarious scenes during the last 20 minutes.

So, it's important to lower your expectations and undestand what this is about. If you expect something as i described it, you will find this movie entertaining as well.

In any case, this is definitely not a MUST WATCH movie and i expect something better in the future. HELL HOLE is not a failure imo but neither a step forward by those film makers.

It's not very good, i could live without watching it, too much plot armor and the pace is uneven : At times, it seems it's gonna be great but it's never becoming that interesting neither intense.

Yet, it was a fun ride. Bates is charismatic and delightful to watch, same as Elliott and Martin. There are even some unpredictable moments, i'll spare the details in order to avoid spoilers. Overall it's enjoyable and dark comedy fans will enjoy it mostly. But for sure, it's not as clever as it thinks it is and you are gonna need a lot of suspension of disbelief in order to buy what is happening here.

Ending is exactly as the previous moments. Not as clever as they thought, and if you think it thoroughly, it doesn't even make sense. But as i said, actors are so charismatic that they make it work.

It's watchable but nothing else, i can't even say it's good for recommendation. Zero creativity and originality (except the last segment). It's like they watched a lot of anthology horror/comedy horror movies, maybe THE BLACK MIRROR too or something like that, and they made a copy of them.

So, it's uninspired and predictable as hell. But that doesn't mean it's bad. It's entertaining, nice pace, i wasn't bored at all. I didn't hate acting and i had some fun, even though it was deeply flawed. I can say safely that it's getting kinda better as it's unfolding. I mean, after those terribly predictable first segments, the following are somewhat better. And the last segment was the best, by far. I liked that it tried to wrap it up. It didn't succeed at this but overall, it was enjoyable and the lead actress was very good.

Overall, by no means this is a MUST WATCH. But diehard fans of this genre will probably be less rigorous than me.

There is an oxymoron in this phrase, and a masterpiece can never be flawed, after all, this is the definition of a masterpiece : Something flawless. But still, i can't find a better description. At times, TFK is a masterpiece, equal to every other cinematic masterpiece i have watched (A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE, CASABLANCA etc). There are moments i had goosebumbs, some Brando scenes or watching this excellent performance by Anna Magnani. And there were some other scenes, in which it felt a bit forced, i can't find the words to describe it but it was like the actors themselves didn't believe in their own characters. Fortunately, these specific scenes are not many.

THE FUGITIVE KIND is of course a bit melodramatic but literally every masterpiece of old cinema is a bit melodramatic. I could even say that acting performances here are not that theatrical, i mean, they don't feel "dated", instead they are a great mix of theatrical and "natural" performances. (In any case, i love those "theatrical performances" like Swanson in Sunset Blvrd, etc)

Overall, this is an amazing piece of Art, i felt it like a journey to another world, both magical and devastating. This movie is both poetic and realistic. I gave it a 8/10 rating but it shocked me more than other movies i have rated higher. And definitely, i won't forget it. It was like cleansing your soul with magical tears, if it makes sense.

And the ending was both tragic and beautiful.

It starts somewhat flat and dull, but as it unfolds, it finds it's rhythm and pace. It's getting more and more enjoyable and i can safely say it was a fun ride. I think that fans of comedy/romance movies are gonna enjoy it as well.

Indeed, as many reviewers already mentioned, Goldie Hawn stole the scene. But the duo Matthau-Bergmann was also delightful.

There are some funny moments, there are also others in which it seemed a bit forced. Overall, this is not a great movie and i could live without watching it, but it's so classy and enjoyable that made me glad i watched it.

Don't expect a great movie, it's a nice comedy/romance though, which is gonna leave you with a smile on your face.

The premise is outrgeous. If this movie was made nowadays, noone would have taken it seriously unless it was something like a dark comedy. However, i don't watch old movies for their verisimilitude nor their realism (Many of them are not that realistic). I watch them for their charismatic actors. Because they are classy, beautiful, not cheap, because the creators respect their audience and many more reasons.

So, there are great acting performances here, there is Bergman and that by itself, is enough. Fortunately, these are not the only positives. Plot is totally unrealistic as i said but it's interesting too. Not for a second this became boring. It's intense and i was curious to see how it was gonna unfold, even if guessed the ending. It's highly likely that many of those who will watch it nowadatys, will guess exactly how it's gonna end. But still, it was a fun ride.

It's not a great movie and movie's remarks about human behavior are not that profound neither surprising. Yet, i enjoyed it.

I read some reviews and if i am not mistaken, this is considered by a lot as one of the greatest movies in the history of Cinema. I am not a movie expert. Historical significance and value are among my criteria when i rate a movie but my most important criterion is if the movie was appealing to me. It's the script, directing, acting performances, the feelings i had as i was watching it, etc.

So, i can safely say that this is not a cinematic masterpiece. I have watched many Pre-WWII Films better than this. Still, it's a good movie and every cinephile will enjoy it, at least. Some will love it. I got carried away and took a dive into the past. There is something magical in this movie, there are breath taking moments and i empathised with the characters. I liked the fact that they are down to earth characters, really flawed people, not glorified at all. Even if this movie had no historical value, i would still have recommended it. However, i can't say i was moved neither that this is a film i will always remember. Overall, I didn't find it captivating nor mesmerizing or anything. It's easily my least favorite Michel Simon movie, even though Simon gave another excellent performance here.

In any case, this is an artistic achievement given its time era and the means Jean Vigo had at his disposal.

I said it's watchable, but this stands only of you want to have a little mindless fun. Even in that case, its not 100% sure you'll enjoy this, because this so called horror movie is not scary at all. I didn't hate it and i watched the whole movie because the first half was a bit passable, and the second half was ridiculous but there were many (unintentionally?) funny scenes.

So, only if you are in a similar mood and you lower A LOT your expectations, there's a chance you will enjoy it. In any case, i cannot recommend it. Even for a 2024 movie, this is bad. And 2024 is the worst cinematic year of all time, after 2021.

PS I don't blame the actors for this mess, but this was really bad, acting wise. Bob Gunton is a very good actor but the other actors (except Briana Middleton) didn't do a good job.