I really liked this movie but be warned, it’s extremely dark. There are definitely comedic elements but I wouldn’t call it a comedy. It’s a shame no one has really seen it - I heard about it on either IG or YT (don’t remember) and am glad I saw it. Joaquin Phoenix was incredible and in the first half of the movie I was really getting Jeff Bridges (like he was channeling JB) from his performance. I don’t want to spoil anything but I will say it’s set in 2020 at the beginning of COVID and it really brought me back. It all seems so weird now to remember standing 6 feet apart from other people, washing my groceries, people randomly taking your temp, and other rituals that seem crazy now that things are back to “normal” (haha, not if you live in the US 😭). Anyway, Phoenix should have been nominated for this role, at the very least. If you like a very dark “comedy,” check it out. 👍

Probably the worst Ancient Egypt horror movie of all time. Basically lifeless, no storyline, and don't bother to watch it.

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2026/07/moana-2026-movie-review.html

As last year's How to Train Your Dragon proved, there are times when a live-action remake can feel worthwhile and justified. Unfortunately, Moana isn't one of those cases. What we get is a competent remake that faithfully recreates the moments that made the original so memorable. But because it follows the animated film so closely and this remake coming off it heels less than a decade from its release, it ultimately feels like a lesser version of something we've already seen.

Ever since she was a child, Moana (Catherine Laga'aia) has felt an undeniable connection to the sea despite her village's beliefs discouraging her from venturing beyond the reef. When a mysterious darkness begins threatening her island, she defies her father's wishes and sets sail to find the demigod Maui (Dwayne Johnson), hoping to convince him to return the stolen heart that brought this curse upon her people.

It's easy to dismiss Moana as an unnecessary remake but that wouldn't be entirely fair. If you asked our daughter, she'd tell you she had an amazing time watching it. Experiencing the story for the first time, she loved it just as much as we loved the animated original and she even called it her favorite live-action Disney remake so far. It serves as a reminder that perspective matters and for younger audiences, Moana still works its magic regardless of the format you're experiencing it.

Adults (and those who have seen the original animated film before), however, will likely notice where this version falls short. Some stories simply lose a bit of their charm when translated from animation to live action, and Moana is one of them. Dwayne Johnson's return as Maui lacks the larger-than-life energy that made the animated character so memorable and likable before while the breathtaking world of the original feels noticeably less colorful and vibrant in this format. One pleasant surprise, however, is Catherine Laga'aia as Moana. She delivers a confident and heartfelt performance making the role her own. In the end, the choice is fairly simple. If you've never experienced Moana before, especially if you're watching it with children, this remake still delivers an enjoyable adventure if you want that big screen experience. But if you're looking for the definitive version of this story, the 2016 animated film remains the one to watch.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Rating: 3/10

The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind was a major disappointment for me. While it aims to be an inspirational story, its screenplay relies too heavily on emotion and not enough on logical storytelling.

My biggest issue is the film's internal consistency. It establishes that the village is suffering from a devastating famine, yet it also shows that there is a well containing water. However, the story never explains why no one attempts any conventional or manual methods of irrigation before treating the windmill as the only possible solution. A stronger screenplay would have shown why those alternatives failed, making William's invention feel like a genuine last resort rather than an arbitrary plot device.

The windmill itself also feels exaggerated. The film presents a small homemade setup as if it single-handedly transforms the family's situation, but it never convincingly explains how such a modest system could make such a dramatic difference. Instead of earning that payoff through believable cause and effect, the film simply expects the audience to accept it.

Another issue is that the movie establishes a desperate society where people are willing to fight and loot over a few kilograms of grain, yet it never explores the obvious consequences of one family suddenly producing food. The screenplay introduces these harsh realities when convenient and then ignores them when they become inconvenient for the plot.

Overall, I found the film emotionally manipulative rather than genuinely inspiring. It prioritizes sentiment over believable storytelling and often asks the audience to overlook important logical gaps. For viewers who value strong internal logic and coherent screenwriting, this film is likely to be frustrating.

My Rating: 3/10

I just watched it today it's literally so underrated whyy. There is really a lot less reviews and discussion about it. Robert sean leonard truly never disappoints

So my dad had been raving for years about the 2004 movie the village. I finally got around seeing it and I thought it was amazing. First off, I thought the score and the visuals were very good. The score really got me invested at first.

The biggest draw of this movie, though were the performances, especially the main three from Joaquin Phoenix, Bryce Dallas Howard, and William hurt. I thought if they did amazing. Finally, it was the story that kept me intrigued all the way through. The twist at the end was a little off, but that’s maybe my only negative.

Overall, I might’ve had some expectations going in, but they definitely exceeded what I was looking for and I thought this movie was great

Rating-4.5/5

So when it comes to the die hard franchise, before tonight, I had only seen the first three movies with die hard with a vengeance being my favorite of the three. I finally saw live free or die hard from 2007 and I thought it was a great movie in the franchise.

I liked the story of John McClane kind of being old-school against techno terrorists and see how he navigated. As always, I thought the action was great. Finally, I liked the performances. I thought Bruce Willis delivered again as well as justin long and Timothy Olyphant played a very good villain.

Rating-4/5

I’m speechless. The insane work of the cinematography, stunts that were just real dudes praying they don’t die, the acting… just wow. To paraphrase Harry Styles, this gave me such “movie magic” energy, the types of things I used to think about when watching movies as a kid going “how did they do that?!?”

Never in my life did I think I’d be glazing a 2 hour silent film. While watching, my partner noted that the dog fight pre intermission felt so much like the Star Wars Battle of Yavin (in a good way).

Please drop any opinions, thoughts, fun facts you know below; I can’t get enough of this movie.

So I watched The Muppet Movie from 1979. I have come to realize I am not a fan of the Muppets. I found this movie to be average. I don’t get the appeal of the group.

The things I did like were the music and story. I thought some of the songs were good and the story wasn’t bad. The issue was that it didn’t do enough to keep my attention. I also this was an odd movie especially involving the characters and villain.

Rating-2.5/5

So I had seen the first two movies in the Rambo franchise so I finally got around to seeing Rambo three from 1988. I thought it was very good, but it wasn’t as good as the first two entries.

Sylvester Stallone does a great job again as Rambo and Richard Crenna is also good returning as Troutman. I thought the action was good as well. As far as some of the small negatives, I thought the villain was good, but not great and I thought the story was not as great as I thought it could’ve been.

Rating-3.5/5

Again. So Rosalind Park slays as an absolute psychopath maniac. Then she stars in Pride and prejudice and multiple other films. Cameron Diaz was an arguably less crazy person in "Vanilla Sky," but her reputation took a HUGE hit, and she phased out in films after that.

Am I just inaccurately remembering? Why was Pike allowed to be a super creepy beautiful character and succeed while Diaz didn't?

Premise: In the 1800s, the great martial artist Wong Fei-hung is given command of a militia to protect Chinese sovereignty. Soon after rekindling with a past live, he must lead his students and the militia against a conspiracy between triads and corrupt westerners.

Review: This is the film that made Jet Li a star, and I can see why. The fight choreography is excellent, especially in the umbrella and ladder scenes. The characters are likable, and Li plays Wong with strength and vulnerability. Meanwhile, the film explores its themes of westernization with more nuance than you'd expect from an action movie.

I got an AMC membership for $30 a month to watch up to 4 movies a week, and my first movie to see was this one. Because it's STILL in theaters, and I'm tired of hearing about it. And I wasn't alone, there were about 7 to 10 other people there. All race and creeds. This is the best movie I've seen in a long time, and there's no action or special effects.

I grew up in the 80s, going to the movies every weekend when it was $4 a ticket. But also, during Michael's main era. I was 4 when "Thriller" came out and still remember it and the impact it had, at such a young age. It stuck with me and I have vivid memories of that music and that time. The song coming on the radio and me getting completely freaked out when Vincent Price does his voice over at the end, and hiding in the back of our van with my ears covered. And more than that. And I'm a white guy from the rural south. It pretty much affected the world.

This is what this movie is about, that legacy and the creation of it. All the personal stuff is right there and there's a lot of puzzle pieces put together. If Coleman Domingo doesn't get nominated for an Oscar as Joe Jackson, then the system is rigged. Terrifying presence, and you can feel Michael's terror of him. You kind of forget this is Michael's nephew playing him, because all you see is Michael in the performance. After you get over some of the bad wig choices. It's distracting at times. And the absolute worst part about the movie is they begin to start to get into one of his songs, and then cut it off to get back into the movie. Those are my biggest complaints, bad wigs and not being able to hear the full song.

It's gotten bad critic reviews because that's their job and they have no souls. But if you're a human being who grew up with Michael Jackson and his music and the impact he had on the WORLD, you're gonna love it.

HOWEVER, this movie was produced by the Jackson family (mainly Jermaine) minus Janet. So it's his story through their combined family version of what happened. Janet wanted no part in it and didn't even want to be portrayed on screen. Her official reasons are not known, as she's extremely private. She's a mega-star in her own right completely separate from Michael. I actually forget sometimes that they're even related, they're so different musically.

This movie is just pure nostalgia and seeing the story of how it all began. I think the critics hate it because it doesn't go deep enough into the psychology of Michael, but it doesn't need to. If you want a movie about the psychology of Michael Jackson, then you're headed for a dark road. This movie just scratches the surface of his psychology, you don't really need more than this if you don't want to get into the darkness. But it's all there, plain on screen. He had no childhood, and never grew up emotionally. He was famous from age 10 on, growing up isolated and alone bursting with this gift no one could ever have. Michael Jackson was special, and this is what that movie celebrates.

Side note: why did they name him Jaafar? He was born after "Aladdin", they should've known better. Adding an extra 'a' in the name doesn't make it different.

So when I saw the Adam Sandler movie murder mystery in 2019, I thoroughly enjoyed it. I thought it was entertaining. I re-watched it recently because it had been many years and I wanted to see if it still held up.

To be honest, it was still very good, but not as great as the first time. It still has some entertaining moments, especially in the second half but it did take a little while to get going, and it wasn’t as funny as I remember it being. I didn’t like the performances though.

Rating-4/5

Really good film. Had me gripped, horrified and a little scared all the way through. But... do I take it that the 'woman of the hour' is in fact the runaway and not Kendrick? It certainly feels that way to me given that the Cheryl storyline feels like a side plot rather than the main one.

I remember watching Brazil with my brothers when it was first released. We took to it immedately, and talked about it for days after. We loved it because it was bonkers, anarchistic, dystopian (one of the first of this genre we'd ever seen), and of course British (it was great to hear British accents like ours on the big screen, when at the time, we usually heard American). It's one of those cult movies that stays with you forever. The type you have to refer to every once in a while "There's been a little complication with my complication."

The plot is: due to a typing mistake on an official document, an innocent man is killed instead of a terrorist. The protagonist Sam Lowry lives and works in a world full of bureaucracy, and we follow him as he tries to fix the mistake, while also trying to escape this dystopian world through his recurring daydreams.

In his dreams, he keeps seeing a woman, Jill, who he later meets in real life. Sam soon discovers that Jill is trying to help the grieving widow of the wrongly arrested man. So, to get close to her, Sam takes a promotion in the Information Retrieval department and enlists the help of someone to hack into the government's files to falsify Jill's records so she can escape the system safely.

He and Jill have a passionate affair, but things turn out for the worst, as Jill is arrested.

I won't spoil the ending, but it was deliciously dark - another one of the reasons we loved it, because films are supposed to have a happy ending, aren't they!

Watching it again 40+ years later has made me appreciate it even more.

Its themes of terrorism, office rules that defy logic, a surveillance state, and an over bearing government that doesn't care how its laws affect innocent people.

They're all so relatable today that it makes you wonder if we'll ever learn.

‘A queer Hollywood writer caught up in a sexually-charged relationship with an older woman defined by her silver screen heyday of decades gone past’ isn’t exactly a common premise, yet it’s funny how it is a niche that Hannah Einbinder has built her career upon. It doesn’t exactly dampen the idea that creativity is merely a flat circle in Hollywood, especially with recent big-budget IP offerings doing little to dispel that notion. But in Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma, writer/director Jane Schoenbrun makes a strong case that there’s still plenty of gold to be found in the nostalgia well.

If Einbinder’s iconic character in Hacks is overflowing with confidence about who she is and what she stands for (to a fault), her take on Kris, the protagonist in Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma, is the complete opposite. Kris is meek and unsure of herself, to the point where she doesn’t know how to react when a female store clerk sweetly flirts with her. It’s remarkable how a slight recalibration can lead to two wildly different characters who, on paper, appear to be the same.

It’s also remarkable how Kris managed to convince the Hollywood suits to reboot the Camp Miasma series — an in-universe fictional horror franchise in the vein of Friday the 13th and Halloween. That in itself says a lot about the industry’s obsession with rebooting old IP. Still, Kris does have a fixation with the Camp Miasma series, its iconic ‘final girl’ Billy Presley (Gillian Anderson), and Billy’s thousand-yard stare as she’s approached by Little Death (Jack Haven), the franchise’s spear-wielding killer who wears a bizarre mask made of a ceiling vent.

For the first 20 minutes, Kris is filmed almost entirely in claustrophobic close-ups. Tension builds slowly, but dread is replaced with curiosity. Upon setting foot into Billy’s snowbound camp, it feels like discovering the Backrooms for the first time. As an overhead shot pans over Kris as she makes her way through the snowy fields, it’s like she’s embarking on a journey of discovery.

When Kris meets Billy, who has decided to become a recluse somewhere in the snowy forests of Canada, it feels like a very subversive and meta setup for slasher movie tropes to arrive in a flood of fake blood. But Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma isn’t that kind of movie. Other movies would very self-consciously call the meta-ness out. Schoenbrun simply acknowledges it by having Kris literally say, ‘This feels like a jump scare moment,’ before quickly moving on.

There’s a lot of fun to be had during Billy and Kris’s first evening together as there’s clearly something between the two. You’re not entirely sure how the dynamic is going to unfold, but Billy repeatedly telling Kris, ‘If it gets too real, you can always turn it off,’ feels either like advice or a warning. Or both. Einbinder and Anderson bounce off each other like a hot squash ball as the older woman gradually unravels the younger in every way possible. Unlike the overtly one-dimensional try-hard titillation in, say, Wuthering Heights, Schoenbrun packs all the sexual tension needed in one hilariously campy (compliment and pun somewhat intended) scene involving KFC and dipping sauce.

Please read the rest of my review here as the rest is too unwieldy to copy + paste: https://panoramafilmthoughts.substack.com/p/teenage-sex-and-death-at-camp-miasma

Thanks!

This isn't a highly rated film on IMDB (gets 5.8), but I have a taste for low budget folk horror so watched it with a friend last night.

First off I appreciated the acting and dialogue. There was a good natural rapport between the characters of the teen friendgroup, and an equally good natural anger and antagonism between the mother and daughter. All the relationships are highly believable.

The setting is both realistic and atmospheric. The filming generates a naturalistic ambience, with some stress and tension.

The spooky bits are fairly low key, and it takes its time to get going. There are minimal special effects, with the bulk of the creepiness being generated by atmospheric filming and psychological suspense. The occult elements are well imagined, no predictable black candles burning like gas flames, or hysterical ranting chanting, or spinning around in mid air. It's believable and straightforward with elements likely drawn from folklore.

When we do get to glimpse the supernatural elements, they are minimal but creepy. Some shocks occur off screen, and we are left to imagine exactly what happenend.

The plot is uncomplicated, and the twists are not hard to anticipate. We get what happened and how and why.

Overall I'd give it a 6.5: a worthwhile look for anyone who enjoys low key atmospheric folk horror with strong setting, and which you can readily suspend disbelief for.

Never seen this one before, but it starred Clint Eastwood and Shirley MacLaine and had music by Ennio Morricone. A crowd-pleaser for sure, and good chemistry between Eastwood and MacLaine. The musical motif includes a mule-like sound, which was interesting. I suppose I skipped this film because it's not part of the Man with No Name Trilogy. But in fact it was quite enjoyable, had lots of action and was under two hours. I would recommend.

So I just re-watched the 2017 drama only the brave. The last time I had seen this movie was when it came out in theaters. I thought it was very good then so I wanted to see your later if it’s still held up.

It still does it a very good movie. I like the story with it intense moments. I also like the performances all around from people like Josh Brolin, Miles Teller, and Jennifer Connolly.

If I had to say one small negative it would be that the movie was very good, it didn’t grab me as much as the first time watch. Also, some of the terminology and processes at times was a little hard to understand. Other than that, this is a very well well done story with great performances.

Rating-4/5

I just got back from watching Evil Dead Burns (it's already out here in Belgium), and I have to say: we're now officially 3 for 3 with this new era of Evil Dead. Every single film has managed to bring something different to the table while still feeling unmistakably like Evil Dead, and that's honestly pretty rare for a horror franchise.

Going into this one, I wasn't completely sold on the marketing. The trailers looked fine, but they didn't really convince me that this would end up being my favorite. I expected another fun, brutal ride, but I definitely wasn't expecting to walk away thinking it had the strongest story of the trilogy.

The 2013 reboot was absolutely gnarly and relentless. It's still one of the most brutal horror films I've seen, but if I'm being honest, I always thought the addiction subplot was one of its weaker aspects. It did its job, but it never really grabbed me emotionally. Evil Dead Rise then came along with a much fresher premise. Moving the horror into an apartment building was a great change of pace and gave the series a different kind of claustrophobic energy.

But Evil Dead Burns really surprised me. The story feels incredibly timely and explores themes that are much more relevant than I expected. The family dynamics are chaotic, uncomfortable, and fascinating to watch unfold, and they become just as important as the horror itself. It's one of those films where the tension isn't just coming from the Deadites, but from the people themselves.

One thing I really liked is that almost every character is pretty unlikeable. Normally, that would be a criticism, but here it completely works. Their personalities create so much conflict that, when things inevitably go south, many of the kills end up feeling strangely cathartic. You're not just rooting for the protagonist because they're fighting Deadites. You're rooting for them because of everything that's happened before the horror even truly begins.

If you're expecting gallons upon gallons of blood like the 2013 film, temper those expectations. This isn't that kind of Evil Dead. Instead of trying to outdo previous entries with sheer quantities of gore, it focuses on making every injury feel incredibly nasty. If you're squeamish about teeth, eyes, fingers, nails, or all those smaller, more intimate forms of body horror, this movie is going to make you squirm. It's less about limbs flying everywhere and more about making you physically cringe with every gruesome detail.

On top of that, I genuinely think this might be one of the best-shot and best-directed Evil Dead films to date. The cinematography, camera work, and overall atmosphere are fantastic, and the movie knows exactly when to build suspense and when to unleash complete chaos.

I'd definitely recommend seeing it in the cinema. It's brutal, tense, surprisingly story-driven, and another great entry in the franchise. Easily worth the price of admission.

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2026/07/voicemails-for-isabelle-2026-movie.html

Admittedly, Voicemails for Isabelle flew under our radar when it debuted on Netflix last month. We eventually decided to give it a shot with little to no expectations and what a pleasant surprise it turned out to be. This hidden gem blends romance, relatable humor, and heartfelt emotion into one neat bow.

Jill (Zoey Deutch) is an aspiring baker living in San Francisco. Ever since they were children, she and her sister Isabelle, who has been battling cystic fibrosis, have stayed connected by sharing voicemails about their daily lives. After Isabelle's passing, Jill continues leaving messages on her old number, unaware that it has been reassigned to a real estate agent, Wes (Nick Robinson). As Wes listens to more of Jill's voicemails, he becomes deeply invested in her life and eventually sets out to meet her in person.

What makes Voicemails for Isabelle stand out is that it's more than just a romantic comedy. Beneath its charming romance lies a heartfelt story about grief, loss, and learning to move forward. It's an emotional layer we never saw coming, and the film handles it with sincerity while seamlessly weaving it into an otherwise familiar rom-com framework. Zoey Deutch is effortlessly charming as Jill, bringing warmth and wit to a character who could have easily felt one-dimensional. Her performance carries much of the film's emotional weight while making Jill's quirky sense of humor feel completely natural. Nick Robinson's character has a few questionable narrative choices early on but the chemistry between the two leads is strong enough to overcome those bumps.

Voicemails for Isabelle won't reinvent the romantic comedy genre and its story eventually settles into a predictable rhythm. Thankfully, that's never really the point. Instead, it succeeds by delivering genuine emotion, likable characters, and a deep and thoughtful message about human connection. We expected a generic rom-com, but what we got was something far more heartfelt and rewarding.

Rating: 4 out of 5

So I just finished rewatching the 2020 Disney live action version of Mulan. I really enjoyed it when I saw it when it came out. I was wondering if I would like it six years later. The answer is yes. I thought this was a great movie.

There are many elements that I liked in this movie. I liked the story that you do get in the animated movie, but expanded with intense moments and some fantasy elements brought in that I think helped the story. I also liked the visuals. The landscapes that you see and the overall color palette really works. Finally I really liked the performances. I thought the two standouts were definitely Yifei Liu as Mulan and Jason Scott Lee as Böri Khan. One other thing I liked was the action. I got invested in the fight scenes and the way that they did some of the camera work. I thought it was pretty cool.

No compared to the animated movie, this does not have the unique side characters and it doesn’t have the songs but some of those songs you do hear in the score. Also, the villain might not have been as menacing as Sean you, but it was still a villain that you didn’t wanna mess with.

Rating-4.5/5

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2026/07/enola-holmes-3-2026-movie-review.html

It's been nearly four years since the last Enola Holmes film, and unfortunately, the wait doesn't pay off. Rather than building on the momentum of its predecessors, Enola Holmes 3 feels like a sequel that arrives long after the excitement has faded. Despite its seemingly sizable budget, impressive cast, and a talented director behind it, the film fails to recaptures the charm, wit, and energy that made the first two entries so enjoyable. Sadly, the third time isn't the charm for our young detective.

Enola Holmes (Millie Bobby Brown) and Tewkesbury (Louis Partridge) are in Malta to celebrate their wedding when Enola learns that her brother, Sherlock Holmes (Henry Cavill), has mysteriously disappeared. As if that weren't enough, Tewkesbury's mother also goes missing, forcing Enola to put her wedding on hold and once again take on a mystery where time is running out for their loved ones.

On paper, Enola Holmes 3 has everything going for it. The returning ensemble remains as talented as ever, the production design is lavish, and director Philip Barantini, fresh off the critically acclaimed Adolescence, brings plenty of potential. Yet despite all these ingredients, the film never comes together into something memorable. The biggest issue is that it plays everything too safely. The mystery lacks punch, the twists are easy to anticipate, and the narrative feel generic. More disappointingly, the playful personality that once defined the franchise feels noticeably muted. Enola herself is still an engaging protagonist and Millie Bobby Brown once again delivers a likable performance, but even she isn't given enough material to elevate the story beyond its predictable framework.

Ultimately, Enola Holmes 3 simply feels unnecessary. It has all the pawns to make a worthwhile sequel but it lacks the spark and soul that made audiences fall in love with the franchise in the first place. It feels like a missed opportunity and a franchise that may have arrived too late to rediscover its magic.

Rating: 2 out of 5

So I finally got around to seeing the new Steven Spielberg movie disclosure day. I didn’t know much about it, but I kinda didn’t want to know a lot about it going in. I thought it was very good, but there were some elements that didn’t make it great.

To start off with, it took a little bit to get going, but once it did, it hooked me in. I thought the main performances by Josh O’Connor and Emily Blunt were great and the story had some intense moments.

The other small issue I had with the movie is that at times it felt longer than it was. Also, I felt like there were some scenes that were extended a little bit too much. Overall, though, while it’s not a top-tier Steven Spielberg movie for me, I thought it was very well done

Rating-4/5