Movie Reviews

This post is part of my movie-a-day challenge in which I will watch a film every day for 365 days. Today is Day 273! You can see all the posts for this challenge HERE. To see the original Movie-a-Day Challenge post, click HERE.

Hey friends!

I gotta tell you, I went down a bit of a rabbit hole last night and ended up watching “Bringing Out The Dead,” you know that 1999 flick directed by the legend Martin Scorsese. Not exactly your typical feel-good flick, but definitely worth a watch if you’re into gritty, dark, and thought-provoking cinema. Trust me, it’s one of those films that gets under your skin.

This movie isn’t for the faint of heart, folks. It’s a raw and intense look into the life of Frank Pierce, a 1990s New York City paramedic played by a truly intense Nicolas Cage. Frank is this EMS paramedic who’s teetering on the edge of a mental breakdown. And let me just say, Cage sells it big time. His haunted eyes, the way he mumbles through his shift, and his frantic energy—it’s something else. Dude’s job is nightmarish but he keeps grappling with his inner demons anyway. Literally every night he’s out there, prowling the streets in his ambulance, trying to save lives and, kind of ironically, losing a piece of himself.

Right off the bat, the movie just sucks you into this gritty, neon-lit world. It’s a symphony of chaos—sirens wailing, lights flashing, people screaming. You can almost smell the city air, thick with exhaust fumes and rain.

The supporting cast is stacked too. We’ve got Patricia Arquette playing Mary Burke, whose dad turns up as one of Frank’s barely-alive patients and, of course, there’s something brewing between her and Frank. Arquette has this raw, vulnerable vibe going on, and it pairs well with Cage’s edgy performance. Then there’s John Goodman, Ving Rhames, and Tom Sizemore as Frank’s fellow paramedics. Each of them brings their own distinct brand of madness, humor, and humanity to the table. Rhames, in particular, is hilarious in this oddly uplifting charismatic way. There’s this one scene where he starts a prayer session in the middle of a rescue—you can’t make this stuff up!

One of my favorite things about the film is its dark humor. I mean, you wouldn’t think a movie about an almost-burnt-out paramedic would tickle your funny bone, right? But it does! It’s the kind of humor where you’re not sure if you should be laughing or cringing. That’s peak Scorsese for you! There’s even this moment when Frank is so desperate to get fired that he starts intentionally messing up his job, hoping someone realizes he’s a mess. Ironically, no one seems to care enough to sack him. Talk about a rock and a hard place!

Now, let’s talk about the plot — or rather, the lack of a typical linear plot. It’s more like a series of vignettes that capture the fragmented nature of Frank’s life. Actually, the entire film feels like a hallucination. Frank is seeing actual ghosts of the people he couldn’t save, and it’s wreaking havoc on his sanity. These apparitions pop up randomly, almost as if they’re a manifestation of his guilt.

One repeating ghost is this girl named Rose, and every time she appears, it’s both eerie and heartbreaking. His hallucinations and nightmares are seriously trippy, almost like a bad acid trip set in the grimy streets of NYC. Now, some might find this lack of a traditional narrative structure disorienting, but it works perfectly for the film’s themes of isolation, desperation, and the search for redemption.

Speaking of NYC, Scorsese paints a bleak and unforgiving portrait of the city. The streets are crawling with junkies, crime is rampant, and even the flashing lights of the ambulance seem to blend into the urban decay. The cinematography is top-notch, immersing you in the chaotic world Frank inhabits.

In a weird way, “Bringing Out The Dead” doesn’t really “end” per se. You’re left with this uneasy feeling like the story is just a slice of Frank’s ongoing, never-ending nightmare. Yet, there’s a sliver of hope. It’s not a happy ending, but more of a resigned acceptance of his reality.

“Bringing Out the Dead” is a tough watch, but it’s also a rewarding one. So, if you’re in the mood for something dark, gritty, and emotionally charged, give this one a try. Just don’t expect to feel all warm and fuzzy afterwards. This is Scorsese at his most bleak and uncompromising, and that’s what makes it so damn good.

Peace out,
Roger

This post is part of my movie-a-day challenge in which I will watch a film every day for 365 days. Today is Day 272! You can see all the posts for this challenge HERE. To see the original Movie-a-Day Challenge post, click HERE.

Hi friends!

So, I finally got around to watching “His Girl Friday,” directed by the legendary Howard Hawks, and man, was it a blast from the past or what? This 1939 flick is a whirlwind of fast talk, sharp wit, and all that classic Hollywood charm you just can’t help but fall for. The dialogue zips faster than a New York minute, and if you’re not paying attention, you might just miss a joke or two.

The film stars the charismatic Cary Grant as Walter Burns, a newspaper editor who could sell ice to Eskimos, and Rosalind Russell as Hildy Johnson, his ace reporter and ex-wife, who’s got more spunk than She’s got more spunk than a wildcat in a windstorm. The chemistry between these two is absolutely electric. Cary Grant brings his A-game with a mix of charm and sly cunningness, while Rosalind Russell matches him beat for beat with her sharp-tongued and equally cunning performance. You can’t help but root for them, even when they’re at each other’s throats.

The plot? Let’s say it’s like trying to keep up with a runaway train. Hildy’s all set to marry her new beau, a bland but sweet insurance man named Bruce Baldwin (played by Ralph Bellamy), and leave the hustle of the news world. But Walter has other plans. He wants her back—not just in the office, but in his life too. So, he concocts a series of outlandish schemes to keep Hildy around, especially when a major story breaks about an impending execution. Classic Walter, right?

What unfolds is a series of hilarious and hectic events that keep you hooked. There’s mistaken identity, rapid-fire banter, and a bunch of quirky side characters that add to the chaos. Oh, and the shouting—so much shouting! But it’s the good kind that keeps the energy up and the pace snappy.

What I loved about this film is how it turns the typical damsel-in-distress trope on its head. Hildy isn’t just there to be wooed; she’s smart, she’s savvy, and she drives much of the film’s plot with her journalistic chops. It’s refreshing, especially for a movie made way back in ’39.

So yeah, if you’re in the mood for a film that’s packed with wit, humor, and some old-school journalistic thrill, “His Girl Friday” is your ticket. Just make sure you’re ready to listen fast—these folks don’t waste any breath!

Catch you on the flip side,
Roger

This post is part of my movie-a-day challenge in which I will watch a film every day for 365 days. Today is Day 271! You can see all the posts for this challenge HERE. To see the original Movie-a-Day Challenge post, click HERE.

Hey there, friends!

So, I recently decided to watch “The Immaculate Room” directed by Mukunda Michael Dewil. You know, sometimes you just pick a movie because it sounds intriguing, right? Well, let me tell you, this was one of those times, and I gotta say, I actually found it kinda dull. But hey, let’s see what this film is all about, and maybe you’ll see it through a different lens!

The movie throws us into this ultra-minimalist room with nothing but white walls and basic essentials. The premise? A couple, played by the usually captivating Kate Bosworth and Emile Hirsch, decide to stay in this stark room for 50 days for a chance to win $5 million. Sounds simple enough, but the catch is they can’t leave or break any of the set rules. It’s supposed to be this psychological deep-dive, exploring human nature, resilience, and the dynamics of their relationship.

Now, the concept itself is pretty cool, right? It’s like, “What would you do for $5 million?” And you’d think with such a simple setup, the movie would really focus on character development. But honestly, it kind of missed the mark for me. Both actors are solid in their roles; Bosworth brings a certain intensity that’s pretty gripping, and Hirsch matches her with his own kind of quiet desperation. Yet, despite their efforts, the movie somehow feels like it’s dragging its feet through those immaculate white corridors.

The psychological tension that should have been the core just… wasn’t as punchy as I hoped. There were moments that aimed to be profound but ended up feeling a bit contrived. I mean, watching people slowly unravel could be fascinating, but here, it felt like the pacing was off, leaving me checking how much longer it was till the end. We’re supposed to be on the edge of our seats, wondering if they’ll crack under the pressure, but the tension never really builds. There are a few moments of conflict, but they’re quickly resolved, and the film just kind of meanders along until the anticlimactic ending.

Nevertheless, the film does have its moments. The cinematography is pretty sleek, capturing the starkness of the room and the emotional claustrophobia. There’s this visual cleanliness to it that ironically makes the eventual mental chaos more jarring. But I guess, for me, the slow burn was just a bit too slow, making the psychological exploration feel more like a light jog than a deep dive.

So, would I recommend “The Immaculate Room“? Hmm, maybe if you’re into films that are more about the concept than the execution, or if you’re a fan of either Bosworth or Hirsch. They do give it their all, but the movie could’ve used a bit more oomph, you know? It’s more like a slow burn that never quite ignites.

Oh well, better luck tomorrow!

Peace out,
Roger

This post is part of my movie-a-day challenge in which I will watch a film every day for 365 days. Today is Day 270! You can see all the posts for this challenge HERE. To see the original Movie-a-Day Challenge post, click HERE.

Hey folks,

So, I finally got around to watching “All My Friends Hate Me,” directed by Andrew Gaynord, and oh boy, what a trip this movie is! Imagine you’re excited about celebrating your birthday, right? But instead of the usual cake and cheers, your day spirals deep into paranoia and social angst. Yep, that’s the gist of this dark comedy that’s all about Pete’s birthday gone haywire and it’s a total cringe-fest

Pete, played by Tom Stourton (who also co-wrote the film, talk about talent!), decides to spend his big day with old uni pals at a gorgeous, somewhat eerie English country house. Sounds pretty sweet, doesn’t it? Except, it’s not. From the get-go, things feel… off. Pete can’t shake off this feeling that his friends are not just messing with him, but actually despise him. They seem distant and make snide comments about his past and his job. It’s like walking into a room and feeling all the good vibes sucked out – uncomfortable, right?

Oh, and there’s a new addition to the group, Harry (Dustin Demri-Burns), whose awkward behavior and creepy vibe only add to the tension.

The genius of this film lies in its cringey, almost too-real depiction of social anxiety and the paranoia that sneaks up when you feel out of place among people who are supposed to be your crew. The interactions are so awkward that I found myself squirming in my seat, and let me tell you, it takes a lot to make me squirm!

As the weekend progresses, Pete becomes increasingly paranoid that his friends are secretly plotting against him. Is it all in his head? Or is there something more sinister going on? The movie is a masterclass in creating an atmosphere of unease and dread. You can’t help but feel Pete’s growing anxiety as he tries to figure out what’s real and what’s imagined.

What’s cool about the movie is how it keeps you guessing. You’re never quite sure if Pete’s friends are genuinely terrible or if it’s all in his head. The ensemble cast, including Georgina Campbell, Joshua McGuire, Antonia Clarke, and Dustin Demri-Burns, play their roles with this perfect blend of charm and subtle menace, making you flip-flop between sympathy and suspicion.

And the setting! That house, with its sprawling, slightly wild grounds, becomes a character in its own right. It’s the perfect backdrop for a birthday where every whispered conversation and misplaced joke feels loaded with meaning. I mean, you can almost smell the mustiness of those old, grand rooms and hear the echoes of footsteps that make Pete’s (and your) skin crawl.

Interestingly, I’ve seen this film labeled a horror movie, but don’t be fooled—it’s really not. It’s all psychological and situational with no actual spooks or monsters or murderers, unless you count awkward social encounters as a form of horror!

One of the most compelling aspects of the film is its exploration of social anxiety and the fear of not fitting in. Pete is desperate to be liked and accepted by his friends, but he’s constantly second-guessing himself and overthinking every interaction. His insecurity is both relatable and painful to watch.

What I dig most about this film is its ability to be funny while making you incredibly tense. It’s a wild blend that keeps you uncomfortable in the best way possible. The climax, without giving too much away, leaves you a bit haunted, wondering about your own friendships and past social faux pas.

Now, the film does have its flaws. Some viewers may find it too slow-paced or uncomfortable to watch. The ending is also somewhat ambiguous, leaving the audience to draw their own conclusions about what really happened.

So yeah, “All My Friends Hate Me” is a thought-provoking and unsettling film — a brilliantly awkward watch that’s perfect if you’re into films that make you laugh while also making you want to hide behind a pillow. It’s not for everyone, but if you’re in the mood for a dark comedy that will make you squirm, this is definitely worth checking out.

TTFN,
Roger

This post is part of my movie-a-day challenge in which I will watch a film every day for 365 days. Today is Day 269! You can see all the posts for this challenge HERE. To see the original Movie-a-Day Challenge post, click HERE.

Hey friends!

So, I finally got around to watching “Time Lapse,” and let me tell you, it’s one of those movies that makes you question every choice you’ve ever made. Seriously, it’s a hidden gem from 2014, directed by Bradley King. It’s his debut film, and honestly, I’m here wondering why it didn’t make a bigger splash when it came out.

The plot? Oh, it’s a doozy. Imagine this: three friends, Finn, Callie, and Jasper, stumble upon a giant, bizarre camera in their deceased neighbor’s apartment. But it’s not just any camera. This bad boy takes pictures 24 hours into the future. Yep, you heard that right. Instead of memories, you’re snapping future moments. Naturally, they do what any of us would—use it to try to rig the outcomes of races and get rich. But as you can guess, things start spiraling out of control real fast.

Danielle Panabaker plays Callie, and she’s absolutely stellar. There’s something so relatable yet mysterious about her portrayal. Then there’s Matt O’Leary as Finn, who’s basically the glue holding the trio together, and George Finn as Jasper, who, well, let’s just say he gets a tad too into the betting game. The dynamics between these three? It’s like watching a slow-motion car crash—you can’t look away even though you know it’s gonna end in disaster.

What really hooks you is how the movie plays with the idea of destiny. It’s like, do we really want to know what tomorrow holds? And if we do, what are we willing to do with that knowledge? The tension just builds and builds, and watching their plans unravel is like watching a house of cards in a breeze—fascinating but nerve-wracking!

And the aesthetic of the film, oh boy, it complements the story perfectly. The camera itself looks like something out of a steampunk dream, and the setting, mostly being their apartment complex, adds this claustrophobic vibe that just amplifies the whole suspense thing they’ve got going on.

The film doesn’t just stop at being a cool sci-fi story, though. It dives deep into the ethics of it all. Like, what happens when you try to control fate? How does knowing the future impact your present? It’s pretty deep stuff, tucked neatly into an indie sci-fi wrapper. And the ending? No spoilers, but it’ll leave you staring at the screen, mouth agape, mind racing.

So, if you’ve got an evening to spare and you’re in the mood for something that’ll keep you glued to your seat and maybe keep you up a bit later than usual mulling over your life choices, “Time Lapse” is your ticket. It’s more than just a movie; it’s a philosophical quandary wrapped in a thriller, delivered with a solid dose of indie flair.

Catch ya on the flip side,
Roger

This post is part of my movie-a-day challenge in which I will watch a film every day for 365 days. Today is Day 268! You can see all the posts for this challenge HERE. To see the original Movie-a-Day Challenge post, click HERE.

Hey folks!

So, I finally decided to watch “Click,” that 2006 comedy-drama directed by Frank Coraci, and let me tell you, I absolutely loved it! It’s one of those movies that makes you laugh, then unexpectedly hits you right in the feels.

“Click” stars Adam Sandler as Michael Newman, this overworked family guy who’s just trying to climb the career ladder while hoping to spend more time with his family. He stumbles upon a universal remote at Bed Bath & Beyond, given to him by this eccentric and mysterious guy named Morty, played by the ever-amazing Christopher Walken. The remote is no ordinary gadget—it controls time and space in Michael’s life, letting him pause, fast-forward, and rewind life events.

Now, the concept itself is super intriguing, right? I mean, who hasn’t wished for a remote like that during a painfully boring meeting or a family dinner that’s going south? But as Michael soon finds out, messing with time has some serious consequences. His journey of skipping the “boring” parts of life really made me think about how every moment counts. It’s kind of deep for a comedy, but that’s what makes it stand out!

As much as I enjoyed the whimsical elements, it quickly hits home when he “fast-forwards” to a future that he would much rather have avoided. It’s like those awkward moments when you look back and think, “Wow, I could’ve done that better!” The story hits major emotional notes, especially as Michael starts realizing the value of time and the importance of cherishing each moment. I felt a tingling in my heart thinking about how often we take our loved ones for granted.

Adam Sandler delivers a surprisingly heartfelt performance, which is a bit of a shift from his usual slapstick comedy. Kate Beckinsale, who plays his wife Donna, is just wonderful. She brings this warmth and depth to her character that balances out Michael’s sometimes goofy antics. Oh, and the scenes with their kids? Totally adorable and so, so real.

But don’t get me wrong! This film isn’t just about sappy moments and lessons learned. It’s sprinkled with that classic Sandler humor that makes you LOL in the midst of the deeper themes. The banter, the absurd situations—like, who hasn’t wished that they could hit pause when the in-laws arrive for a surprise visit?

One of the things I really dig about this movie is how it mixes humor with life lessons without being too preachy. And the special effects? They’re pretty cool for its time. Watching Michael fast-forward through his life is both hilarious and a bit heartbreaking. The way the film plays with the concept of time is not only entertaining but also quite thought-provoking.

I think the most striking thing about “Click,” aside from its comedic genius mixed with emotional gravity, is the underlying message about how we often rush through life only to find ourselves yearning for what we left behind. It’s like that moment when you realize you spent too much time staring at your screen instead of enjoying real-life conversations. Kind of hits you in the gut, doesn’t it?

So yeah, “Click” is more than just your average Adam Sandler comedy. It’s a film that makes you laugh, makes you think, and might even make you tear up a bit. I think it’s one of those movies that everyone should watch at least once.

If you haven’t seen “Click,” definitely give it a go—it might just change the way you look at your TV remote!

Peace out,
Roger

This post is part of my movie-a-day challenge in which I will watch a film every day for 365 days. Today is Day 267! You can see all the posts for this challenge HERE. To see the original Movie-a-Day Challenge post, click HERE.

Hey friends!

So, like, last night I was in this mood, you know? The kind where you just want to curl up with a scary movie and freak yourself out for fun. Naturally, I perused the usual suspects—The Exorcist, The Shining. But then I stumbled across something that really made me do a double-take: a 2015 remake of Poltergeist. Say what? Mind blown. How had I missed this? Now, I’m a HUGE fan of the original 1982 classic (seriously, I’ve watched it more times than I can count), so I was intrigued to see what this remake had to offer.

Now, you gotta understand, I was totally in the mood for something that could give me the chills. The original 1982 “Poltergeist” was like a masterpiece in my book, and I stumbled upon this newer version by pure chance. But anyway, given my slightly morbid (read: masochistic) craving for some spooky stuff, I thought, “Why not?” But truth be told, I had, like, zero expectations. And, spoiler alert, my spidey sense was spot-on. This remake didn’t exactly rock my spooky socks off. It wasn’t quite the hair-raising experience I was hoping for.

Now, if you haven’t seen it, here’s the scoop. The story pretty much follows the classic setup: a family moves into a suburban home, only to find out it’s haunted by some seriously angry spirits. The ghosts are like the worst kind of house guests, causing all sorts of mayhem, and ultimately, they kidnap the family’s youngest daughter, Madison. The family then has to battle it out with the otherworldly squatters to get her back.

The plot sticks reasonably close to the original, but it felt a bit rushed, which might be why the scares didn’t really land. One thing about the original Poltergeist is that it takes its time sinking you into that creepy atmosphere. You feel the dread build up slowly. Here, it’s like, halfway through your popcorn, the spooky dial is turned up, and then level down, like a chaotic rollercoaster that’s more dizzying than frightening.

Acting-wise, Sam Rockwell and Rosemarie DeWitt play the bewildered parents, and they do what they can with the script. I mean, Sam Rockwell is usually the guy you can count on to bring some heavy artillery when it comes to acting, but even he couldn’t lift this movie out of the “meh” zone. The kids, especially Kennedi Clements, who plays Madison, are alright, but let’s be real, no one can top Carol Anne’s chilling performance in the original. That girl was in a league of her own.

If there was an MVP here, it was probably Jared Harris, playing Carrigan Burke, a somewhat quirky TV ghost hunter brought in to solve the family’s supernatural dilemma. He’s got this cool charisma about him and delivers lines with this dry wit that tickles your funny bone even amidst the chaos. It was much needed, let me tell you.

Now, for the spooky stuff. If you’re like me and the original had you peeking through your fingers, you might find yourself just staring blankly at the screen this time around. It’s not that it’s bad, it’s just… it’s like they took the original, scrubbed off the eerie vibes, and slapped on a bunch of CGI ghosts in hopes that it would do the trick. Spoiler alert: it didn’t. Sure, the special effects were impressive, but honestly, most of the scares felt like cheap jump scares and didn’t really stick with me. Maybe I’ve been desensitized by too many horror films or maybe the remake just missed the mark. Even the infamous clown scene felt more like an afterthought. Sad, right?

What’s funny is that even though the movie didn’t scare the bejeezus out of me, I did find myself kinda enjoying some parts. Like, the whole otherworld dimension they show is pretty cool visually, even if it’s not as dark or mysterious as it could have been.

So yeah, the 2015 “Poltergeist” was an entertaining watch, but in my ever so humble opinion, it paled in comparison to the original. It lacked the suspense, the psychological terror, and the sheer creepiness that made the 1982 film so iconic. It’s a decent choice if you’re looking for a few jump scares (maybe) and some spooky visuals, but if you’re expecting a truly terrifying experience, you might be disappointed. It just didn’t leave me with that lingering sense of unease that a good horror movie should. Stick with the original, my friends.

Cheers!
Roger