The Housemaid (2025) ☆☆☆(3/4): Her tricky employment

Posted on February 2, 2026 by kaist455

“The Housemaid”, which was one of the two films from Paul Feig during last year, is a slick genre film packed with enough pulpy fun to compensate for a few glaring narrative hiccups. As your average seasoned moviegoer, I instantly saw through most of its plot machination right from the start, so there was not much surprise for me even in the end, but I still had enough entertainment for recommendation at least.

At the beginning, we are introduced to Millie Calloway (Sydney Sweeney), a young woman who has struggled to recover from her problematic past. She has been homeless and unemployed for a while, and she does not expect much when she comes to some big suburban house for having a job interview with an affluent housewife named Nina Wincester (Amanda Seyfried), but, to her surprise, she is subsequently notified that she actually gets hired.

When Millie returns to that house, she is wholeheartedly welcomed by Nina, but, of course, we soon begin to notice several small but disconcerting signs. Everything looks fine and comfortable inside the house, but there is something really odd about Nina’s overtly cheerful attitude, and we also observe how her little daughter often looks a bit too cold and distant in her mostly quiet appearance.

Above all, mainly for usually being at service for Nina and her daughter and husband, Millie is required to stay inside the house. When Nina gladly shows a room in the attic where Millie will sleep, it looks mostly clean and fine on the whole, but Millie quickly notices a few little strange things. For example, it seems totally isolated from the outside, though Nina assures that Millie can have some real privacy for herself there because of that.

However, these minor weird things turn out to be nothing compared to what Millie experiences once she begins her first day in Nina’s house. Although she initially looks like a fairly generous employee for a while, Nina frequently becomes quite neurotic for no apparent reason, and this certainly perplexes Millie a lot. No matter how much Millie tries to tolerate her employee’s erratic behaviors, Nina goes further and further in her increasingly hysterical behavior, and Millie finds herself depending more on Nina’s husband Andrew (Brandon Sklenar), who seems to have tolerated a lot from his wife just because he still loves her despite that.

And Millie comes to hear more about how deeply troubled Nina has been during last several years. Nina actually went to a mental hospital more than once, and there was also a very disturbing incident involved with her daughter some time ago. When her mother-in-law visits the house at one point, it is quite apparent that this old but indomitable lady does not like Nina much, and her silent but cold disapproval certainly adds more tension to the screen.

Things become all the more complicated when Millie comes to lean more on Andrew. Considering how fragile her current status really is, that is something she should not do at any chance, but she only gets more attracted to Andrew as he shows her more heart and kindness in contrast to his wife, who continues to harass and confuse her in one way or another.

Around that narrative point, Rebecca Sonnenshine’s screenplay, which is based on the novel of the same name by Frieda McFadden, goes for more pulpy craziness, and you may easily discern some of the following plot turns in advance even if you have not read McFadden’s novel yet. At least, thanks to Feig’s competent direction, I gladly went along with several wild plot turns during the second half, and I got really engaged in what is being at stake for the main characters during the rather predictable climactic part.

Most of all, the movie works mainly thanks to the game efforts from its two engaging lead actresses. Regardless of all those recent unpleasant troubles associated with her, Sydney Sweeney, who has been more prominent thanks to her Emmy-nominated supporting turn in HBO TV drama series “Euphoria”, is clearly talented enough to hold the ground for her co-star’s showier performance, and Amanda Seyfried surely has a ball as ably swinging back and forth between cheeriness and craziness as demanded. These two wonderful actresses effortlessly generate a lot of uneasiness together on the screen, and their good chemistry on the screen also overcomes several plot contrivances to some degree.

In case of several notable main cast members, they dutifully fill their respective spots as required. While Brandon Sklenar is convincing during his several key scenes with Sweeny, Indiana Elle and Michele Morrone bring some extra nervousness to the story, and Elizabeth Perkins is suitably frigid during her brief but striking appearance.

In conclusion, “The Housemaid” is not entirely without weak points, but I must admit that it is relatively more entertaining than Feig’s other recent film “Another Simple Favor” (2025), which is incidentally the sequel to Feig’s previous film “A Simple Favor” (2018). Considering its very last scene, “The Housemaid” may also be followed by a sequel, and I can only hope that it will be as enjoyable as its predecessor at least.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Wrecking Crew (2026) ☆☆1/2(2.5/4): A generic buddy cop action flick with some Hawaiian flavor

Posted on February 2, 2026 by kaist455

“The Wrecking Crew”, which was released on Amazon Prime in last week, is a generic buddy cop action flick spiced with some local flavor. While it has some personality besides being supported well by its two seasoned lead performers, the movie is conventional and predictable to the core, and I simply followed the story and characters with a mild degree of interest and amusement during my viewing.

The two seasoned lead performers of the film are Jason Momoa and Dave Bautista, who also participated in the productions as co-producers. They play Jonny and James Hale, two estranged Hawaiian brothers who come to investigate together on what happened to their recently murdered father, a seedy private investigator who turns out to be onto something big and serious before he got killed during the opening scene.

When he hears the news of his father’s death, Jonny, who is a US Navy SEAL soldier working in Hawaii, is not particularly sad, and neither is James, who left Hawaii some years ago and has worked as a cop in some Native American reservation area in Oklahoma. However, Jonny begins to sense something suspicious about their father’s death, and so do James, after he is suddenly attacked by a trio of Japanese mafia gangs who want to get something his father sent him right before his death.

Although the mood is certainly awkward between Jonny and James when they meet each other again at the following funeral of their father, both of them become more interested in investigating their father’s death as observing who come to the funeral. Besides the governor of Hawaii who is incidentally a close relative of their family, there also come a bunch of local criminals, who may know why Jonny and James’ father was killed.

Of course, it does not take much time for us to have a pretty good idea about the answer. Right from when the movie introduces a certain big company which is going to build a lot of hotels in Hawaii, we can instantly discern that the company and its rich and powerful owner are involved with the case, and we are not so surprised to see later that the governor has been closely connected with this wealthy person in question (Is this a spoiler?). Furthermore, there are also a group of Japanese mafia gangs eager to eliminate Jonny and James, and that naturally leads to a couple of big action sequences filled with lots of bangs and crashes.

Needless to say, Jonny and James keep clashing with each other due to their old personal resentment toward each other, but we all know too well that 1) they will eventually let out all of their anger and resentment as punching and kicking each other a lot, 2) they are reminded again that they are still, well, brothers, and 3) they subsequently stick together more when their main opponent goes further for eliminating a certain incriminating piece of evidence.

While the screenplay by Jonathan Tropper faithfully follows every footstep of many senior buddy cop action flicks out there such as, yes, “Lethal Weapon” (1987), director Ángel Manuel Soto, who previously directed “Charm Street Kings” (2020) and “Blue Beetle” (2023), competently mixes action and comedy along the story. In case of the busy action sequence unfolded along a highway, we are expectedly served with a fair amount of fun and excitement as lots of things happen on the screen, and you may forgive its rather unrealistic digital special effects for a while at least.

In case of the two lead actors of the film, they easily slip into their respective roles, and they certainly look believable in its action scenes as expected. While Momoa, who has shown more of his potential since “Aquaman” (2018), has a lot of fun with his character’s edgy aspects, Bautista, who looks leaner than before but remains as engaging as he was in several various films ranging from “Guardians of the Galaxy” (2014) to “Dune” (2021), is an effective straight counterpart to his co-star, and their solid chemistry often lifts the film whenever it becomes a bit too bland.

Around Momoa and Bautista, the movie assembles several various cast members, whose main job is no more than bringing a bit of local touch to the story and characters. Despite their functional supporting parts, Maia Kealoha and Frankie Adams hold each own small place well around the story, and Morena Baccarin, who has been mainly known for her Emmy-nominated supporting turn in American TV drama series “Homeland”, imbues her thankless role with some pluck later in the story. While Stephen Root, Temuera Morrison, and Jacob Batalon are suitably cast in their respective substantial supporting parts, Claes Bang willingly goes over the top at times as the main villain of the story, but his grand attempt is often outmatched by the sheer overacting by Japanese entertainer Miyavi, who goes a little too far as he previously did in “Unbroken” (2014).

Overall, “The Wrecking Crew” is just another passable product from Amazon Prime, but it is not wholly without fun and entertainment at least. I do not recommend it mainly because my mind kept going somewhere instead of getting really engaged and entertained, but you may watch it instead of that recent documentary film about the despicably superficial wife of that orange-faced prick in the White House.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Lovers on the Bridge (1991) ☆☆☆(3/4): A shabby but bold tale of romance

Posted on February 1, 2026 by kaist455

Leo Carax’s 1991 film “The Lovers on the Bridge”, whose recent 4K restoration version happened to be released in selected South Korean theaters a few days ago, is a seemingly shabby but undeniably brash tale of romance. While simply rolling along with its two main characters who happen to be thrown into their seedy but passionate love affair, the movie serves us a series of stunning visual moments mainly driven by its unabashedly romantic heart, and you may admire that even if you observe its many flaws.

During the opening part, the movie, which is mainly set in Paris during several months of 1989, gives us a gritty variation of Meet Cute. First, we meet a young street vagrant named Alex (Denis Lavant), who occasionally works as a street performer. And then we are introduced to a young female artist named Michèle Stalens (Juliette Binoche), who comes across Alex at one late night when his unconscious body is lying in the middle of a wide street. Even after he seriously gets injured in one of his legs due to some reckless driver, she does not give him much attention, and his unconscious body is eventually picked up and then sent to one of those shelters for vagrants in the city.

After spending some time there for the recovery from his physical injury, Alex returns to where he stayed before the accident, which is one of those many bridges over the Seine River. Because this bridge happens to have been under renovation for a while, he and his fellow vagrant Hans (Klaus Michael Grüber) have been able to stay there without much problem, and Alex has also depended a lot on the drug from Hans just for sleeping more easily on the bridge.

However, their daily life on the bridge is interrupted by the appearance of Michèle, who comes to the bridge for no apparent reason but decides to stay there for a while. Hans is not so pleased about this, but Alex willingly lets Michèle stay along with him just because, well, he falls in love with her after his second encounter with her, and Hans respects Alex’s choice despite being still quite annoyed about her.

As Michèle comes to spend more time with Alex, we get to know a bit more about why she became a vagrant just like Alex and Hans. Although she is from a fairly affluent family, she has been quite distraught as she began to lose her eyesight due to some unspecified illness and then her boyfriend suddenly left her, and she has desperately been looking for him just because she wants to see him for the last time before totally losing her eyesight.

Nevertheless, Alex still yearns for getting closer to Michèle, and she comes to open herself a bit more to him as time goes by. When the city and its citizens become quite excited because of the French Bicentennial celebrations, Alex and Michèle willingly let themselves swept by the festive atmosphere surrounding the city and its people, and the movie accordingly gives us several impressive scenes including the one where its two main characters dance a lot on the bridge as the night sky over the city is filled with a lot of fireworks.

As some of you know, the production of the film was rather notorious as Carax went further than what was allowed by the initial production budget at that time. As a matter of fact, the bridge in the film is not the real one but a replica specially built for its production, and you may be amused a bit as musing on how much money and effort were actually spent on making the bridge in the film look realistically ugly and shabby on the screen.

Nevertheless, the bridge in the film works fairly well as the main background of the wild and desperate romance between Alex and Michèle. Although they are more or less than archetypes, the romantic feelings developed between them along the story make a striking contrast with the bridge and some other gritty locations around them, and we come to understand more of how they cannot help but stick to each other more despite a lot of difference between them.

Around the third act, Carax’s screenplay stumbles more than once as making several contrived plot turns, but the movie keeps going with its distinctive mood and romanticism at least, and it is also supported well by the modest but precious chemistry between its two undeniably charismatic lead performers. While Juliette Binoche, who previously collaborated with Carax in his second feature film “Bad Blood” (1986), exudes her charming presence even during her seediest moments in the movie, Denis Lavant, who has frequently worked with Carax since he appeared in Carax’s debut feature film “Boy Meets Girl” (1984), ably complements his co-star, and they steadily carry the film to the end as frequently pulling or pushing each other along the story. As another crucial part of the story, Klaus Michael Grüber has his own small moments around Binoche and Lavant, and he and Binoche have a wonderful moment together when his character kindly gives Michèle a little special moment to watch and remember.

On the whole, “The Lovers on the Bridge”, whose original French title is “Les Amants du Pont-Neuf”, is not so satisfying at times due to its rather thin narrative and characterization, but I appreciated the considerable amount of skill and ambition behind it, while also reflecting a bit on Carax’s idiosyncratic career. After this film and “Pola X” (1999), Carax’s filmmaking career seemed to be hitting the bottom, but he made a superlative comeback with “Holy Motors” (2012), and his very next film “Annette” (2021) confirmed to us that he is still one of the most interesting filmmakers in our time. Although it is less impressive compared to these two aforementioned works, “The Lovers on the Bridge” has some admirable aspects to observe and enjoy, and that is enough for recommendation in my trivial opinion.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Chronology of Water (2025) ☆☆☆1/2(3.5/4): The remarkable debut work by Kristen Stewart

Posted on February 1, 2026 by kaist455

As many of you know well, Kristen Stewart has proven a lot of her undeniable talent during last two decades. Sure, she has often been remembered for those commercially successful but utterly disposable Twilight flicks, but her acting career subsequently advanced a lot once she was totally free from them, as shown from a series of stellar performances including the Oscar-nominated turn in Pablo Larraín’s “Spencer” (2021).

In case of “The Chronology of Water”, Stewart demonstrates another surprising side of her talent. This time, she serves as a director/writer/co-producer here, and the result is often very astonishing for not only the considerable skill and competence shown from its technical aspects but also a lot of emotional power from its sensitive and thoughtful handling of the story and characters. As I gradually gathered what it is about, I was often struck hard by how it is about, and now I can gladly declare that this is definitely one of the most interesting movie experiences during this year.

Stewart’s screenplay is based on the 2011 memoir written by American writer Lidia Yuknavitch. During the first act of the story, which is unfolded in a rather non-chronological fashion as said by the occasional narration in the film, we get the random glimpses on the painful memories of abuse from its heroine’s childhood and adolescence period, and we come to interpret as the emotional reflection of how she struggles to examine and then process all those pains and traumas remaining inside her rather messy adult mind.

The main source of pain and trauma in Yuknavitch’s childhood and adolescent years was none other than her parents. Her father was not only harshly stern but also quite abusive to his two daughters, and her mother did not do anything at all for her daughters, though she probably knew about what her truly deplorable husband did to them behind his back.

At least, young Yuknavitch, who is played by Anna Wittowsky and then Angelika Mihailova, found some solace and comfort from swimming, though that did not always make her happy. As shown from several brief flashbacks, she was often physically abused along with several other members of her female swimming team by their unforgiving male coach, and this certainly added another trauma to her abused mind.

While never overlooking the traumatic effects of physical/emotional abuse on its heroine’s mind, the movie thankfully prevents itself from becoming too blatant or exploitative, and Stewart and her crew did a superlative job of immersing us more into the heroine’s psychologically damaged state of mind. Shooting the film with Arriflex 416 camera on the Super 16mm format, Stewart and her cinematographer Corey C. Waters deliberately add grainy and tarnished visual texture to the screen, and the movie feels more like a disjointed but somehow coherent stream of consciousness swirling inside its heroine’s mind.

After establishing its heroine’s background so well during its first act, the movie observes her bumpy struggle toward emotional stability during next several chapters. Thanks to her swimming skill, adult Yuknavitch, played by Imogen Poots, leaves her parents and then goes to a university in Texas, but, alas, she subsequently gets herself expelled as wildly enjoying her sudden freedom too much. In addition, she also comes to develop a serious addiction problem, and this certainly pushes her down further to the bottom.

Fortunately, after a period of eventual recovery and the heartbreaking end of her first marriage, Yuknavitch becomes interested in writing. Thanks to a close friend of hers, she comes to study and write along with several young aspirating writers under Ken Kesey (Jim Belushi), an acclaimed novelist mainly known for “Sometimes Great a Nation” and, yes, “The One Who Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”. Although Kesey seems to become more interested in getting a bit closer to her, he gives Yuknavitch a lot of advice as well as some emotional support, and this helps her a bit in not only writing but also processing her old pains and traumas associated with her father.

Nevertheless, Yuknavitch’s road toward emotional stability remains messy and confusing as before, and the movie wildly bounces along with her as she recklessly throws herself into a lot of experiments with drug and sex. As before, the movie firmly sticks to its heroin’s frequently wandering emotional status, and we come to feel more of the cri de coeur from her deeply conflicted mind.

Yes, this is surely not something easy to watch, but the movie keeps us engaged while never losing any of its deep compassion and empathy on its heroine, and it is also supported well by the strong lead performance by Imogen Poots. Besides deftly handling a number of emotionally intense moments in the film, Poots presents her character as a flawed but complex human figure to observe and empathize with, and she is also flawlessly connected with Wittowsky and Mihailova. In case of several main cast members in the film, Thora Birch, Susannah Flood, Tom Sturridge, Esmé Creed-Miles, and Charlie Carrick are well-cast in their respective supporting parts, and the special mention goes to Jim Belushi, who steals every minute of his brief but crucial appearance as ably supporting Poots.

In conclusion, “The Chronology of Water” is a harrowingly powerful female drama film to be admired for many good reasons, and Steward made quite an impressive start for her nascent directorial career. I do not know whether she will advance further, but I will certainly have some expectation on what she will make next after this significant cinematic achievement.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Primate (2025) ☆☆1/2(2.5/4): Menaced by a mad chimpanzee (no kidding)

Posted on February 1, 2026 by kaist455

“Primate” is your typical mad killer movie with a rather amusing twist on its story premise. This time, we get a murderously raging ape at the center of the story, and the movie surely has a lot of vicious but skillful fun from eliminating its several cardboard characters one by one before eventually culminating to its very, very, very violent climax.

The main background of the story is a nice big house located in the middle of some remote region of Hawaii. It belongs to a deaf writer named Adam Pinborough (Troy Kutsur) and his two daughters Lucy (Johnny Sequoyah) and Erin (Gia Hunter), and they also have a male chimpanzee named Ben, who has been another family member for many years since he was adopted by Adam’s recently diseased linguist professor wife.

After its disturbing prologue scene, the story begins with the arrival of Lucy and her two close female friends Kate (Victoria Wyant) and Hannah (Jessica Alexander) in Hawaii. They are warmly greeted by Kate’s older brother Nick (Benjamin Cheng) at the airport, and these four young people are all going to spend a good time along with Erin in the house while Adam is absent to due to some business deal involved with his pulpy but popular genre novels.

While everything looks fine and well when they arrive at Adam’s house, we come to sense some awkwardness among him and his daughters. While they still love and care about each other as before, his wife’s recent death remains to hover around them as an uncomfortable fact, and Erin has been a bit resentful about her older sister’s absence shortly after their mother’s death.

And we also notice a few alarming signs from Ben, who looks fairly friendly but then unnerves us as well as Lucy’s friends for no apparent reason. When Adam later discovers a certain dead animal inside Ben’s big cage outside the house, we instantly discern a big trouble to come, and, because of what was already presented to us at the beginning of the movie, we are not so surprised by what is revealed later in the story. Yes, that dead animal had rabies, and it certainly bit Ben before meeting its demise.

While he subsequently sends the carcass of that dead animal to a local veterinary clinic just in case, Adam is not concerned much before leaving for his work, and her daughters are certainly excited to have their own private time along with Lucy’s friends. The house, which is incidentally on a big cliff facing the ocean, has a nice swimming pool in front of it, and they cheerfully enjoy themselves there as having no idea on what is happening to Ben right now – even when he looks a lot more scared of water than before (This is one of those telling signs of rabies, you know).

Although it drags a bit during its first part just like many of those mad killer movies such as, yes, “Friday the 13th” (1980), the movie gradually builds up the sense of uneasiness as occasionally focusing on Ben’s increasingly alarming status. Even while succumbing to his dangerous disease step by step, Ben, who is convincingly presented on the screen thanks to the solid motion capture performance by Miguel Torres Umba, also seems to be aware of how his mind is helplessly going crazy, and that gives a little tragic side to what is going to happen sooner or later.

Once it goes for the expected killing mode along with its crazed ape hero, the movie becomes a sort of cross between “Cujo” (1983), “Monkey Shines” (1988), and “Halloween” (1978). Although he is relatively smaller and shorter than the human characters in the film, Ben can be quite lethal and menacing as driven by his sick rage, and that makes him a fairly effective horror movie monster. As a matter of fact, there are several truly gruesome moments filled with blood and violence, and I assure you that these moments will make you wince more than once.

As relentlessly cornered and menaced by Ben along the story, Lucy and several other main characters are certainly thrown into more panic and fear, but they also try to find any possible way for their survival as much as possible. What follows next is a series of generic scenes where some of them must move silently and carefully in the unlit spaces inside the house, but director/co-writer Johannes Roberts, who is no stranger to horror movies considering his several previous films such as “47 Meters Down” (2017) and “The Strangers: Prey at Night” (2018), and his crew members including cinematographer Stephen Murphy and composer Adrian Johnston, whose electronic score is clearly attempting to emulate John Carpenter’s iconic synthesizer score in “Halloween”, did a competent job of handling these conventional moments with enough sense of dread to hold our attention for a while at least (I particularly like how Ben expresses his raging feelings via his little communication tool, by the way).

The main flaw of the film is its rather superficial main characters, who are mostly as flat and colorless as many of those numerous victims of Jason Voorhees or Michael Myers. Johnny Sequoyah and several other main cast members in the film acquit themselves well on the whole, but they are often limited by their thin roles, and Troy Kotsur, a wonderful deaf actor who won an Oscar for “CODA” (2021), manages to bring a little touch of class despite his thankless role.

In conclusion, “Primate” works to some degree during its short running time (89 minutes) even though it ends up being a bit too typical to recommend despite its fun story setting. Yes, it does have that clichéd moment of last-minute surprise you can expect from many mad killer flicks, and this is effectively delivered, but the movie could do more than that in my humble opinion.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Send Help (2026) ☆☆☆(3/4): The Taming of the Boss

Posted on February 1, 2026 by kaist455

Sam Raimi’s latest film “Send Help” is a little naughty genre film you can exactly expect from its director. While you can clearly see how the story will end in one way or another, the movie has some vicious fun from the increasingly tricky power dynamics between its two main characters, and you may chuckle more than once just like I did during my viewing.

The early part of the film establishes how things have been quite frustrating for Linda Liddle (Rachel McAdams), who has worked as a mere employee of the Planning and Strategy Department of some prominent consulting company. She hopes to get some promotion as promised by the former CEO of the company before his recent death, but, alas, Bradley Preston (Dylan O’Brien), the new CEO who is also incidentally the son of his predecessor, casually disregards her and then promotes her direct supervisor instead just because he is an old college friend of Bradley.

Mainly because Linda impresses him in a rather negative way, Bradley soon considers firing her sooner or later. However, she happens to be really necessary for the latest big deal of the company right now, so he decides to let her join his business trip to Thailand along with his several executives before eventually firing her later, and we come to wince more as these obnoxious dudes cruelly laugh at her behind their back.

And then something unexpected happens. Their private jet airplane crashes into the ocean not long before arriving in Thailand, and we get a nasty moment of fun and thrill as everyone on the airplane gets killed except Linda and Bradley, who are subsequently swept onto the shore of a nearby tropical island. Although the situation looks quite daunting to say the least, Linda is not despaired at all because, well, she knows about a lot of survival skills as an avid fan of American TV reality show “Survivor”. Because Bradley cannot move that well now due to getting injured in one of his legs, Linda has to do all those things including securing fresh water for their survival, and Bradley has no choice but to depend on her at least for a while.

Needless to say, Bradley is reminded again and again that he does not have any power over Linda anymore in contrast to when he did in their company. While he gradually gets recovered from his leg injury, he remains disadvantaged in more than one aspect, and Linda is usually one or two steps ahead of him in their following power game.

As these two main characters push and pull each other along the story, the movie doles out a series of darkly amusing moments to make you laugh or cringe. In case of a humorously tense scene which will surely take you back to Raimi’s classic horror film “The Evil Dead” (1981), you will be tickled by how this scene becomes much gorier than expected in the end, and you will also appreciate how deftly it swings back and forth between broad comedy and bloody horror under Raimi’s skillful direction.

Above all, the movie steadily generates constant tension between its two main characters. As Bradley comes to assist and cooperate more with Linda, the movie naturally toys with how long their reversed relationship can be maintained, and the mood remains ambiguous even when they supposedly open themselves a bit more to each other at one point later in the story.

After a certain plot turn during its last act, the screenplay by Damian Shannon and Mark Swift becomes rather predictable. Nevertheless, the movie keeps rolling toward its inevitable ending at least, and Raimi ably dials up and down the level of suspense and comedy along the narrative with ample amount of dark amusement for us.

It surely helps that the movie is supported well by the talent and presence of its two good lead performers. Rachel McAdams, who can be quite serious as shown from Tom McCarthy’s Oscar-winning film “Spotlight” (2015) but is also capable of being very hilarious as shown from John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein’s “Game Night” (2018), shows considerable commitment as dexterously balancing her acting between comedy and suspense, and she is particularly effective when her Linda comes to show how far she can go for showing Bradley who the boss really is during one disturbingly funny scene, which is reminiscent of that chilling scene in David Slade’s “Hard Candy” (2005).

On the opposite, Dylan O’Brien, who has steadily been matured since he drew our attention in Wes Ball’s “The Maze Runner” (2014), functions as a solid counterpart for his co-star. While Bradely is your average obnoxious jerk at first, O’Brien brings some life and personality to his role besides being quite convincing during several key scenes in the film, and that is the main reason why the movie works to the very end of the story.

In conclusion, “Send Help” is a modest but effective genre film which shows that Raimi has not lost any of his touch yet. Although he seemed to be on autopilot in his two recent previous films “Oz the Great and Powerful” (2013) and “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” (2022), “Send Help” demonstrates that he is still a talented (and naughty) filmmaker who gave us “A Simple Plan” (1998) and “Drag Me to Hell” (2009), and I sincerely hope that he will continue to entertain us as he successfully did several times.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Another Simple Favor (2025) ☆☆1/2(2.5/4): A less charming sequel

Posted on January 29, 2026 by kaist455

“Another Simple Favor”, which was released on Amazon Prime several months ago, mildly dissatisfied me. While it is still fun to watch its two engaging lead actresses pushing and pulling each other from the beginning to the end, the movie is hampered by blatant plot contrivance and thin characterization, and the result is less charming than its predecessor.

The movie, which is a sequel to “A Simple Favor” (2018), begins with how things have been rather uneventful for Stephanie Smothers (Anna Kendrick) during last five years since what happened in the previous film. Thanks to her little investigation adventure involved with her former friend Emily Nelson (Blake Lively), she became quite famous in public, and she even published a book about that, but she does not know what to do next except paying too much attention to her son as your average suburban single mother.

However, there soon comes a big surprise when she attends a little local book signing event. Emily, who has been in prison thanks to Stephanie’s investigation, suddenly appears right in front of Stephanie, and, of course, she wants Stephanie to do a supposedly harmless favor for her. Naturally, Stephanie does not want to get involved with Emily again, but then she changes her mind because, well, she cannot help but become curious about whatever Emily may be planning behind her back.

It turns out that Emily somehow got released thanks to some powerful (and shady) figure in Italy, who was once her boyfriend a long time ago and is now willing to marry her as soon as possible. Thanks to this dude, Emily and Stephanie quickly go to Italy along with several other wedding guests via his big private airplane, and Stephanie is going to be the bridesmaid for her at the upcoming wedding held in Capri. 

Needless to say, Stephanie remains suspicious of Emily, and, not so surprisingly, there soon come a series of unexpected happenings before Emily’s wedding day. To Stephanie’s little surprise, Emily also invites her ex-husband just because she wants to see their son currently under his custody, and Stephanie feels quite awkward to be with him because of their rather embarrassing past.

In addition, the groom’s mother is not so pleased about his wedding to say the least, and she is determined to hurt her future daughter-in-law’s feelings by any means necessary. She deliberately invites the two certain family members of Emily, and Emily is surely not amused at all because they are the last people she wants to see right now.

Nevertheless, Emily and her future husband still want to marry, and Emily remains quite nice to Stephanie, who finds herself beckoned more by Emily’s seemingly good-willed gestures. At one point, they have a pretty good time alone by themselves outside a big hotel where they are staying with others, and Stephanie comes to wonder more whether Emily is really sincere to her.

As already shown to us at the beginning of the film, the situation subsequently becomes quite serious for both of them. After getting framed for a couple of crimes she definitely did not commit, Stephanie discovers that there is actually another secret behind Emily (Is this a spoiler?), and that naturally leads to another risky adventure for her.

As following Stephanie’s increasingly bumpy adventure, director/co-producer Paul Feig, who previously directed “A Simple Favor”, and his crew members including cinematographer John Schwartzman fill the screen with a lot of mood and style. While the movie feels as bright and sunny as you can expect from its main background, costume designer Renee Ehrlich Kalfus has a lot of fun with Emily’s several striking clothes including her gorgeous wedding dress, which will surely leave a big impression on you along with the excerpt from Ennio Morricone’s famous score for “Once Upon a Time in the West” (1968).

However, the story stumbles more than once as getting pretty predictable with artificial plot turns. I will not go into detail here, but what is revealed around its last act is a little too preposterous, and the movie also fails to bring more depth or interest to Stephanie and Emily’s complicated relationship before eventually giving a resolution which feels too convenient in my inconsequential opinion.

Anyway, the movie works to some degree mainly thanks to the good comic chemistry between Anna Kendrick and Blake Lively. While Kendrick holds the ground with her plucky presence, Lively has some juicy fun with her role later in the story, and they effortlessly click well with each other during several key scenes in the film. In contrast, several notable performers in the film including Andrew Rannells, Henry Golding, Elizabeth Perkins, and Allison Janney are under-utilized to my disappointment, and that is another main flaw of the film.

Overall, “Another Simple Favor” does not work well enough because of its many glaring weak aspects, but it is not entirely without fun at least mainly thanks to its two good lead actresses who certainly deserve better than this. I do not know whether there will be another sequel as implied by the very last scene of the film, but I can only hope that I will be more entertained if that really happens.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Death of a Unicorn (2025) ☆☆1/2(2.5/4): They have an accident… with a unicorn

Posted on January 28, 2026 by kaist455

“Death of a Unicorn” begins with an utterly outrageous story premise which will instantly draw your attention: what if a certain mythical creature actually exist? I was a bit disappointed to see that the overall result is rather uneven and clumsy as trying to balance itself between drama, horror, and satire, but I was entertained to some degree even though I observed the story and characters from the distance instead of embracing its wacky aspects.  

The movie begins with the arrival of a recently widowed lawyer named Elliot Kintner (Paul Rudd) and his teenaged-daughter Ridley (Jenna Ortega) in some remote rural region. They are going to spend a weekend with Elliot’s employer, but Elliot is so occupied with how to present himself well that he does not seem to notice how unenthusiastic his daughter is about spending their supposedly special weekend.

And Elliot’s employer turns out to be extremely wealthy to say the least. Although he is quite ill at present, Odell (Richard E. Grant) and his family are the owners of some big pharmaceutical company, and they reside in a big, luxurious house located in the middle of a vast private wildlife reservation area incidentally owned by them.

Not long after Elliot drives his car into this wildlife reservation area, something quite unexpected occurs. His car hits some big animal by accident while he drives along the road to Odell’s house, and both he and Ridley are caught off guard by what seems to be dying on the road right in front of them. Mainly because he really needs to see his boss right now, Elliot decides to take care of this messy situation as quickly as possible, and Ridley certainly does not feel good about that.

Needless to say, they soon get themselves into more trouble after they eventually arrive at Odell’s house. While Elliot wants to leave as soon as possible, Odell adamantly insists that Elliot should stay longer, just because he wants to know whether Elliot is really dependable enough to represent Odell’s company. Needless to say, this makes both Elliot and Ridley all the more uncomfortable, but Elliot cannot possibly say no to his rich boss to his daughter’s growing frustration.

It is not much of a spoiler to tell you that Odell and his family eventually find out what Elliot is frantically trying to hide from them, but I will let you see for yourself how greedy and selfish they can be once they come across another opportunity for more power and wealth. Just like many of recent comedy films out there, the screenplay by director/writer/co-producer Alex Scarfman, who incidentally makes a feature film debut here in this film, does not pull any punch in its broadly comic depiction of Odell and his very superficial family members, and you will certainly despise them more while having some dark amusement from their sheer banality.

As her father has no choice but to follow whatever his employer orders, Ridley tries to understand what is really going on around her and others, and what she discovers via a bit of online search is not a good news at all. It looks like there is the only one way to prevent an imminent peril to come, but, of course, her dire warning is dismissed by Odell and his family as well as her father, and the mood becomes more tense with several ominous signs to notice.

Yes, what Ridley and her father encountered at the beginning of the story is a unicorn, but those unicorns in the film are not so cute and graceful at all. As a matter of fact, their teeth are as sharp as their horns, and they can be pretty nasty and aggressive as shown from several violently gruesome moments during the second half of the movie.  

As its several main characters are helplessly stuck inside Odell’s house, the movie naturally follows the footsteps of many other monster flicks such as “Jurassic Park” (1993). While it is quite apparent to us that which character will be killed or maimed by those unicorns in the end, the movie has some naughty fun from how some of its main characters are eliminated in one way or another, and I will not deny that I was amused a bit when one certain character comes to have a rather gory demise at one point later in the story.

However, I also did not care that much about the story and characters. Besides Elliot and Ridley, many of the other main characters in the movie remain more or less than caricatures to be skewered, and the drama between Elliot and Ridley is mostly half-baked, instead of functioning as an emotional anchor we can hold onto amidst a lot of carnage surrounding them.      

Nevertheless, the game efforts of the main cast members support the film to some degree. While Paul Rudd and Jenny Ortega are believable in the frequent miscommunication between their characters, Will Poulter, Téa Leoni, and Richard E. Grant are suitably obnoxious as required by their detestable characters, and Poulter is particularly effective when he willingly throws himself into the sheer folly and madness of his character.      

In conclusion, “The Death of a Unicorn” is not entirely successful in its wild genre mix. I still think it could handle its story premise with more coherence and competence, but I was not that bored during my viewing, so I will not stop you from watching it if you have some spare time and simply want to have some dumb fun.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Castle in the Sky (1986) ☆☆☆1/2(3.5/4): The first official Ghibli work from Miyazaki

Posted on January 28, 2026 by kaist455

Hayao Miyazaki’s 1986 animation feature film “Castle in the Sky” (1986), which was re-released in South Korean theaters in last week, still soars high even after 40 years. When I walked into the screening room on last evening, I did not expect much because I already saw it in 2010, and I was actually rather tired at that time, but my mind soon became quite energized as appreciating its vivid animation style full of charm, spirit, and imagination.

The film is actually the first official animation film from Studio Ghibli, which was founded by Miyazaki and producer Isao Takahata, who also would be known for his several notable Ghibli animation films such as “Grave of the Fireflies” (1988), not long after the considerable commercial success of Miyazaki’s previous animation film “Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind” (1984). As a matter of fact, you can recognize a lot of common elements shared between “Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind” and “Castle in the Sky” such as aviation, retro-futuristic style, and ecological philosophy, and you can also see how Miyazaki advanced further with his own style in “Castle in the Sky”.

The film, which is mainly set in what can be regarded as a fantasy version of European country around the early 20th century, opens with a thrilling action scene in which a little orphan girl named Shita (voiced by Keiko Yokozawa) escapes from shady government agents when their airship is suddenly attacked by the pirates led by an old lady named Dola (voiced by Kotoe Hatsui). Thanks to a mysterious stone in her possession, Shita manages to survive even though she falls from the sky, but she becomes unconscious, and then her unconscious body happens to fall right in front of Pazu (voiced by Mayumi Tanaka), a young orphan boy working in a shabby mining village.

Not long after Pazu takes her to his little residence, Shita regains her consciousness, and they instantly befriend each other as two orphan kids, but, of course, the situation soon becomes quite perilous for both of them. Not only those government agents but also the pirates are already searching for Shita, and Pazu, who comes to like her a lot, willingly tries to protect her from anyone trying to take her away. What follows next is the action sequence which is as exciting as that memorable chase sequence in Miyazaki’s first feature film “The Castle of Cagliostro” (1979), and you will also get some good laughs from how this sequence can be as funny and daring as those Buster Keaton films. At one point, our two orphan kids hurriedly try to get away from their two opponents via a little steam locomotive along a very tricky railway, and we come to brace ourselves more as Miyazaki gleefully adds more wit and action into this impressive action sequence.

Meanwhile, we come to know more about why the government agents keep pursuing after Shita. She turns out to be the last member of a kingdom named Laputa, which was once quite powerful for its highly advanced technology but now seems to be lost forever along with its floating castle (Yes, this will definitely remind you of that famous classic novel by Jonathan Swift). That mysterious stone of hers can actually show where Luputa is, and the government agents are very interested in getting something quite valuable in Laputa.

Because his father told him about his accidental encounter with Laputa, Pazu gets himself more involved into Shita’s ongoing circumstance, even after Shita tries to distance herself from him for protecting him from any danger. Fortunately, he and Shita subsequently get unexpected help from Dora and her merry band of pirates most of whom are actually her sons, and they all certainly encounter a lot of danger and adventure along the story.

The last act of the story eventually culminates to the point where its main characters finally arrive in Laputa, but the film takes its time as letting us behold a heap of enchanting details observed here and there from the screen. While still fully functional due to its advanced technology, the floating castle of Laputa is also covered with a lot of greenery and flower, and there is also a big robot reminiscent of not only that giant robot in “Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind” but also the robot characters in Brad Bird’s “The Iron Giant” (1999) and Chris Sanders’ “The Wild Robot” (2024).

Of course, when it shifts itself onto action mode during its expected climactic part, the film does not disappoint us at all as deftly balancing itself between humor and thrill. While Dora and her pirates provide some comic relief, Pazu comes to take a lot more risk than expected for saving his dear friend, and you will be alternatively amused and thrilled by how he goes through a series of very risky actions which may even impress Tom Cruise. In addition, there is some real precious poignancy from when Pazu and Shita stick together as making a big decision for not only themselves but also many others out there, and the ecological message of the film surely feels all the more relevant, considering how many of us have let ourselves detached from the world and the nature due to the rapidly advancing technology during last several decades.

On the whole, “Castle in the Sky” remains quite charming and entertaining thanks to Miyazaki’s skillful handling of style and substance. While it does not reach to the greatness of his next work “My Neighbor Totoro” (1988), the film is still a quintessential work from Miyazaki nonetheless, and that is more than enough for recommendation in in my inconsequential opinion.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Videodrome (1983) ☆☆☆(3/4): A grotesquely prophetic nightmare from Cronenberg

Posted on January 27, 2026 by kaist455

David Cronenberg’s 1983 film “Videodrome” is a grotesquely prophetic nightmare I still observe from the distance. There are a number of striking visual moments which have lingered on somewhere in my mind for more than 30 years, and they chillingly serve and amplify the interesting ideas and themes in the movie which become all the more relevant in our ongoing era of digital media. That is the main reason why I find the movie more fascinating than before, even while recognizing its several limits and flaws again.

At the beginning, we are introduced to Max Renn (James Woods), who runs a small UHF (Ultra-high Frequency) television station in Toronto, Canada. His company has mainly broadcast sleazy and sensational stuffs like Japanese softcore flicks, and he has always looked for anything more shocking just for drawing more viewers out there.

On one day, Max comes across something unusual via one of his main employees, who can search and then record anything via his pirate satellite dish. It is called “Videodrome”, and Max instantly gets intrigued because its raw presentation of sex and violence looks so real to him. When it later turns out that Videodrome has been produced somewhere in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, he becomes more interested in obtaining and then broadcasting it someday.

Needless to say, he is soon warned about how dangerous Videodrome is. Max’s frequent supplier Masha (Lynn Gorman) is reluctant to tell much about it after doing her own search, but she eventually suggests that he should go to Dr. Brian O’Blivion (Jack Creley), who has been known as a “media prophet” in public. Although he cannot meet Dr. O’Blivion for some reason, Max meets his daughter Bianca (Sonja Smits) instead, and she gives something supposed to help him learn more about Videodrome.

Around that point, the story becomes more confusing due to its hero’s gradually unreliable viewpoint, which is emphasized by a series of weird and grotesque moments including that unforgettable scene where he puts his head into the bulging television screen. The more he searches for the answer on who is really behind Videodrome, the more confused he becomes with the increasing sense of paranoia and doom. As a consequence, it is apparent that there is the only way out for him at the end of this nightmarish plight of his, though we are not so sure about whether that is really chosen by his free will or not.

However, I still feel quite distant to the story and characters. The story sometimes feels like a mere ground for its many unpleasant and freakish moments, and I also find that it does not have much depth in terms of characterization. James Woods and several other main cast members including Debbie Harry, Sonja Smits, Peter Dvorsky, Leslie Carlson, Jack Creley, and Lynne Gorman play their materials as serious and straight as possible, but I must point out that they are often limited by their superficial roles and clumsy dialogues full of mumbo-jumbo about Videodrome and the upcoming brave new world it represents.

Did Cronenberg have a clear vision on what he was going to present on the screen? I am not that sure, but the ideas and themes in his movie feel much more alarming and interesting than before. Like Sidney Lumet’s great media satire “Network” (1976), the movie shrewdly recognizes not only our insatiable thirst for shock and sensationalism but also how media can manipulate and then engulf us as providing whatever we want. As a matter of fact, we have seen such cases too often during last two decades thanks to the rapid rise of social media service, and the movie becomes a bit more ironic as Woods, who was supposed to be one of the most intelligent actors working in Hollywood, became one of those pathetic cases as spending too much time on a certain social media application and then being transformed into your average hateful right-wing weirdo.

In case of technical aspects, the movie is impressive for the special effects by Rick Baker, who was already at the top of his field after winning his first Oscar for John Landis’ “An American Werewolf in London” (1981). Needless to say, many of the special effects in the film are not CGI at all, and their deliberately fleshy texture certainly generates more sticky and unpleasant feelings to the film just like Rob Bottin’s equally memorable special effects in John Carpenter’s “The Thing” (1982). Besides that bulging TV screen, you will never forget that grotesque cleavage suddenly appearing on Max’s belly, and you may be a bit amused by when Baker and Cronenberg seem to attempt to surpass Bottin and Carpenter’s achievement around the end of the movie.

In conclusion, “Videodrome” is everything to be recognized as a distinctive Cronenberg film, but I regard is as one of his early test runs just like “The Brood” (1979) and “Scanners” (1981), which are also interesting in each own way but not very successful in my trivial opinion. Not long after “Videodrome” came out, Cronenberg returned with “The Dead Zone” (1983), and that is more engaging besides being another stepping stone for his fascinating filmmaking career, which subsequently gave us “The Fly” (1986), “Dead Ringers” (1988), “Naked Lunch” (1991), “Crash” (1996), “A History of Violence” (2005), “Eastern Promises” (2007), “A Dangerous Method” (2011), and “Crimes of the Future” (2022). As shown from his latest work “The Shroud” (2025), he is still working as usual, and I sincerely hope that he will continue to disturb and fascinate us at least for a while.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment