Avaliações de leestoych

"If I Had Legs I'd Kick You" is a stress inducing film. Our protagonist is constantly on edge, and the sound design is loud and unrelenting. There are no moments where the viewer can escape the pressure or take a breath from the relentless atmosphere.

The film carries a simmering tension that always feels like it is about to boil over. What makes this so effective is the incredible performance by Rose Byrne. I genuinely believe this is the best work I have seen from her. She is fully convincing and brings a compelling authenticity to the role.

Technically, the film uses two main methods to create its tense atmosphere. The first is the continual use of tight camera angles. The viewer is given almost no room to breathe as the frame often stays closely focused on Linda. We are placed directly in her situation. It is clever, but undeniably uncomfortable.

The second method is the lack of context. The film offers very little explanation and forces the audience to interpret the situation for themselves. Nothing is spoon fed, which lets us concentrate more on our protagonist's emotional experience.

I mentioned earlier the tension that seems on the verge of boiling over. I felt the film never quite reached the point it was building toward. I expected the character to spiral so far out of control that something unthinkable would occur, but it never reached that moment. The ending was a little disappointing in that sense.

However, the film is still a unique experience. Rose Byrne is exceptional, and she genuinely deserves recognition for her performance.

Del Toro's signature style is unmistakably present throughout Frankenstein. The film is a visual spectacle, from its stunning production and costume design to its moody, beautifully composed cinematography. He perfectly captures that distinct gothic period atmosphere he's so well known for.

Told in parts, the film moves with an ebb and flow. Some moments are genuinely captivating, while others drag a little, and the longer runtime does start to show.

What makes the Frankenstein story so powerful, the monster's search for humanity, feels somewhat underexplored here. I wish there had been more depth and time devoted to such themes. The psychological and moral turmoil experienced by Viktor in the novel was under utilised in my opinion too.

The dialogue also feels unusually heavy handed for Del Toro. He's typically a master of subtlety and implication, but here the film often spells out its themes too directly. With a story as well known as Frankenstein, that kind of exposition wasn't really necessary.

In the end, this adaptation feels somewhat watered down in its thematic approach. The visuals and technical elements are faultless, but the emotional resonance falls short, leaving an experience that's beautiful to look at yet unlikely to linger.

The Ballad of a Small Player is a stylish and visually striking film. It's beautifully shot, with excellent framing and cinematography that stand out. After watching, I wasn't surprised to learn it was directed by Edward Berger, it certainly fits.

Steeped in mysticism, the film's world is both vibrant and dark. It's a fascinating mix: grungy alleyways illuminated by neon light, a setting that feels both alive and haunted. This contrast extends to Colin Farrell's performance, he tries to be suave and composed yet carries an edge of disarray and tension.

Farrell is, as always, completely convincing. The story itself is intriguing but lacks depth to the world and character. A deeper dive into our protagonist could have helped us connect with him on a stronger level, perhaps through brief flashbacks or a deeper exploration of his past.

By the third act, I found myself anticipating a reveal or twist and when it arrived, it felt satisfying enough. The movie strikes a delicate balance between grounded realism and mythological undertones, creating something that feels unique and memorable.

Overall, The Ballad of a Small Player is an engaging watch, carried by a compelling performance from Colin Farrell. However the surface level character exploration and meandering plot prevents proper praise.

Springsteen: Deliver Me From Nowhere is 2025's annual dose of Oscar bait. I always walk out of musical biopics asking the same question: was this movie worth making?

In this case, the answer is probably not.

Springsteen is technically fine. The direction, sound, and cinematography are serviceable but not detractors. None of it offends, but none of it excites either. The performances are solid; JAW delivers a convincing portrayal of Springsteen, though it never quite transcends into anything remarkable.

Where the film stumbles most is in its surface-level exploration of what truly makes Springsteen compelling. His battle with depression, strained relationship with his father, and creative defiance are the heart of his story and are the elements that shaped him into who he became. Unfortunately, the film only grazes these themes instead of diving into them with the depth they deserve.

In the end, Springsteen: Deliver Me From Nowhere is an underwhelming missed opportunity. It's a shame, because both his music and his story are genuinely moving, and this film never quite captures that spirit.

Anemone is a visual and auditory treat, intermittently sprinkled with heartfelt moments brought to life by the incredible performance of Daniel Day-Lewis. Between these powerful scenes lies a great deal of patient, deliberate filmmaking and quiet sombreness which most of the criticism lies.

The story itself is relatively simple, but it leans heavily on its emotional weight to carry it through. Anemone is a slow burn exploration of guilt and abandonment, tackling heavy themes with restraint and subtlety. A few abstract sequences feel somewhat out of place, though they invite interpretation.

For the most part, I found the experience interesting. Anemone's runtime could have been trimmed to prevent it from feeling so slow and the story might have benefited from delving slightly beyond its final scene but ultimately, I understand and appreciate the meaning behind its ending.

The Black Phone 2 genuinely impressed me. It's a rare sequel that manages to be both terrifying and emotionally grounded.

The eerie setting immediately sets the tone, and with Scott Derrickson back in full force. His trademark Super 8 segments are once again a highlight, perfectly capturing that unsettling atmosphere he's known for. Derrickson proves he still knows how to make horror feel real. I found the sound design to be one of the film's strongest aspects. Loud and immersive.

The story carries surprising emotional weight, anchored by characters we actually care about. It's engaging and well-paced, though at times the structure does feel slightly repetitive. Still, those moments are quickly forgotten once the horror kicks in and when it does, it hits hard.

The performances are consistently strong, especially Madeleine McGraw and, of course, Ethan Hawke, who transforms the Grabber into something truly unhinged.

The Black Phone 2 delivers some chilling scares, grounded emotion, and top-tier direction. With this film, Derrickson reaffirms his place as one of horror's finest.

"House of Dynamite" is a bold film in terms of its structure, which I believe will be the most divisive element among viewers.

The film uses a flower narrative style. Which is a story told through differing perspectives that ideally come together like puzzle pieces to form a complete picture. When done right, this approach creates intrigue and mystery as each segment reveals something new. Unfortunately, that wasn't quite the case with "House of Dynamite."

Each perspective failed to add meaningful depth or new information to the overarching story. Instead, the same dialogue and moments were replayed multiple times, which quickly became repetitive and dull. I understand what the filmmakers were aiming for, but the execution never fully realized the potential of its structure. There were no fresh insights gained from the shifting perspectives just retreads of what we'd already seen.

The dialogue also felt overly on-the-nose and occasionally corny, with line deliveries that leaned too heavily into melodrama.

Where "House of Dynamite" truly shines is in its exploration of the moral and strategic decision making between individuals and departments. Those moments were far more engaging than the story's overall presentation.

In the end, "House of Dynamite" had the foundation of a great film, but its structural choices ultimately held it back from reaching its full potential.

Good Boy" is truly one of a kind a horror film told from the perspective of a dog. As expected, it has its limitations when it comes to character development and emotional depth, but these are minor concerns.

Where the film truly excels is in its well thought out direction. The lingering shots that leave your eyes frantically scanning the frame for something "scary," and the excellent use of lighting and shadow, make for a masterclass in suspense. It's practically a textbook example of how to build tension through patience and clever camerawork.

The story could have been developed a bit more, but the lack of dialogue naturally limits this. Still, what we do get is captivating enough. The film embraces a "show, don't tell" approach, which fits perfectly with its creative style.

I was also impressed by the coordination of Indie, (the dog) which was genuinely remarkable work. The film also manages to deliver some truly scary moments.

In today's cinematic landscape, I appreciate any film that dares to be original, and Good Boy deserves as much praise as possible for doing just that.

The Smashing Machine has some pretty strong competition in the fighting movie genre. With the likes of Raging Bull, Warrior, and Million Dollar Baby, it's hard not to compare.

It's difficult to fault the performances in the film. Johnson gives one of his strongest performances to date (which isn't saying much). He's very convincing in his portrayal of what is essentially a condescending man-child. Blunt is equally convincing. Their dynamic is, in my opinion, the highest and strongest element of the film.

As expected with Safdie films, the soundtrack is unique. I found the upbeat jazz/drums and almost trance-like psychedelic sound to work really well together.

It's also hard to fault Safdie's direction here. I love how his camerawork feels so close to the subject and constantly moving. It creates a real sense of intimacy.

Where the film struggles is in maintaining a balance between the emotional side and the fighting, which is often the most difficult aspect of these kinds of movies. A decision needs to be made on whether it's going to take a Raging Bull approach, where the emotional elements take precedence over the fighting (which you rarely see), or a Creed-style focus where the fighting takes center stage.

I can't help but think of Warrior, which managed to perfect both simultaneously. The Smashing Machine doesn't quite get that balance right. The climax of the movie leans too heavily on the fighting, which is ironically the film's weakest element. A more emotional and lingering conclusion, in my opinion, would have been more effective.

However, the film is definitely an enjoyable watch, with some outstanding performances and direction.

If you're already a fan of the V/H/S franchise, chances are you'll find something to enjoy in V/H/S: Halloween. For me, it landed somewhere in the middle. One segment stood out as genuinely scary, original, immersive, and the kind of horror that lingers. Unfortunately, the rest leaned too heavily into gore for gore's sake, sacrificing storytelling for shock value.

That said, there's still plenty of chaotic fun to be had. The film balances flashes of strong direction with moments of pure absurdity, and even when it misses, it never stops being wild. The uneven quality of the segments makes it tricky to rate, but with only one standout and the rest feeling just okay, I'm settling on a 6/10.

I have seen a few contemporary westerns recently being "Eddington", "Honey Don't" and now "Americana".

I felt the movie started well. The story and elements that came together were interesting and engaging. It felt very Coen-esc in the sense that it's a situation that goes wrong and escalates out of proportion.

The scenery, soundtrack and performances were impressive. However when Act 3 begun it was the moment where "Americana" lost steam.

The subtly and patience that was executed in the first 2 acts evaporated when the film transitioned into an overly dramatic thriller.

I would have preferred are more grounded finale that focused on the well crafted themes in the beginning on the film.

Although The Long Walk does rely heavily on dialogue, its strong performances and emotional depth keep it engaging and moving at a steady pace (haha). The beautiful cinematography, stark dystopian landscapes, and a stirring soundtrack are so immersive.

I enjoyed the lack of forced world building, it gave more attention to our characters and their motivations which is I believe is the true purpose of the story.

I did feel like the pacing seemed to ebb and flow at points and did get repetitive but the slower moments were quickly redeemed by genuine heart felt scenes that hit with real emotional weight. The film's strength lies in its well-drawn characters and their real, moving relationships. This is excelled but some great performances.

However, I believe the film is inhibited by the structure and can never reach the heights of greatness but for what was available The Long Walk was an enjoyable ride.

I went into this finale with some nerves, especially given how the previous Dexter finale's missed the mark. Unfortunately, this one didn't quite deliver either.

I didn't mind the actual conclusion in terms of where the characters ended up. There's a certain appreciation in the show choosing simplicity, ending things on a grounded, satisfying note without overcomplicating it. On that level, it worked.

Where it faltered for me was in the climactic moments. The showdown between Dexter and Prater felt staged and overly contrived, almost as if the writers were playing it safe to avoid dividing the audience. Instead of tension, it came across as hollow and predictable.

This was especially disappointing considering how sharp and well-planned the previous episodes had been. The finale just didn't carry that same level of intelligence or execution, making the journey to the ending feel a bit false and too easy.

That said, I do respect that the show chose to close on a straightforward and somewhat optimistic note. It's just a shame that the path to get there didn't feel nearly as strong as what came before.

If Apocalypse Now and Jurassic Park had a baby, you'd get Primitive War and that sentence alone is baffling enough to turn heads. A movie like this can go one of two ways: ridiculously stupid or surprisingly epic. To my surprise, it succeeds in most areas, despite a few rough edges.

The biggest strength lies in the direction. The cinematography and lighting are often stunning, creating an immersive atmosphere that fits the story perfectly. The camera work feels deliberate and engaging, pulling you into the chaos of the jungle. On top of that, the dinosaurs look fantastic. The inclusion of feathers was a great detail, and the CGI was convincing enough to make the creatures feel genuinely dangerous especially the raptors, who were easily the highlight.

The plot itself is simple, almost reminiscent of The Mist with its "experiments gone wrong" premise. I appreciated that the film didn't overcomplicate things and instead leaned into a straightforward survival story. However, the screenplay was definitely the weakest element. The dialogue often felt clunky and occasionally cringe worthy. The constant one-liners undercut the tension, and I wish the characters had approached their dire situation with a bit more seriousness.

As for pacing, the runtime felt justified and never dragged. That said, the ending went a little too far. I was already suspending disbelief for the story, but the final act with its slow-motion sequences and over-the-top carnage pushed things past the point of plausibility.

Overall, Primitive War is a ridiculously fun ride with strong direction, great cinematography, and some memorable dinosaur moments. It's not without flaws, the dialogue and ending drag it down but when the movie is firing on all cylinders, its no doubt epic.

What I value most in today's cinema are originality and grounded storytelling that avoids unnecessary excess. Relay delivers on both counts.

From the very beginning, the film establishes a simmering tension that kept me hooked, almost expecting an explosive climax. The third act does stumble slightly, with a few plot turns that feel overly coincidental or forced. Yet, the eventual reveal reframes those moments in a way that makes the payoff all the more shocking.

Riz Ahmed gives a restrained performance, perfectly suited to the character he portrays. The supporting cast does a decent job, but they don't leave the same lasting impression. What makes Relay stand out is its grounded approach and storytelling, helped by its well written screenplay.

However, while I thoroughly enjoyed Relay, I doubt the film will be spoken about much past this month. It's a well made and original piece that unfortunately does not reach the heights of long lasting inventiveness and impact.

2025 has been a solid year for horror and Weapons easily earns a spot among the best. Its tight script and "flower" narrative weave together in a clever, cohesive way, while the characters feel refreshingly real and authentic.

The script went through multiple bidding wars from multiple companies and I absolutely understand why. Its the film's strongest component.

Gorey, unsettling and at times darkly comedic, Weapons is a fresh and original take on the genre that I absolutely love. Any horror that steers away from the generic tropes deserves praise.

The cinematography and directing with its dark palette and tight camera work look great on the big screen. Cregger is becoming more and more special.

It can be argued that it loses points in its longer run time due to certain segments that feel slower compared to the rest. As well as a lack of explanation in the end could be a critique but I see it as part of its charm and journey.

At times I found the "comedic" parts to override the well earned horror tone the film took its time to implement. Maybe that is fault of the marketing/trailer.

Overall, one helluva ride.

Man, what an awesome ride! This film is definitely worth seeing on the biggest screen possible. Shot in IMAX's exclusive 1.90:1 aspect ratio, the action sequences looked absolutely stunning. Paired with an iconic score and dynamic sound design, it's a visual and auditory sensation from start to finish.

James Gunn has officially cemented himself as a legend among comic book directors. His direction here beautiful to watch with the fast-paced action, cinematic slow-mo's and always a catchy song to tie the moment together. He knows exactly how to blend spectacle with rhythm.

The performances were strong across the board. At no point did I think of David Corenswet as playing Superman-I genuinely believed Superman was Superman. He embodied the role perfectly.

What I really loved was how the movie felt like a cartoon come to life in its purest form. It embraced the heart and style of classic comics. Long time comic lovers would be proud.

However, I wanted more.

We've seen multiple Superman portrayals over the years, and while this one looks and sounds amazing, it doesn't quite break new ground in terms of storytelling. I found myself craving deeper emotional tension. I wanted Superman to be pushed to a place where even we, the audience, began to doubt how things might resolve. Instead, his character sometimes felt a bit too surface-level.

By the end, the plot felt predictable and a little too safe. It never quite reached the emotional or narrative heights needed to truly stand out (from a story perspective).

In summary: This is a visual treat, with great performances and direction. But when it comes to story and character depth, it plays it safe.

I went into this film completely blind, not knowing it was based on a true story.

By the end of it, I was underwhelmed. I feel like there were the makings of a pretty strong movie with its beautiful scenery, strong cast and realism due to the true story.

However, the themes of psychological isolation and social interaction were under developed. I feel like the movie never got into full stride exploring these themes effectively. There was too much waffle in between.

The makings of a psychological thriller were there but never reached the heights that we wanted. I strongly believe the film was too long and could've definitely benefited from a short run time thus making the better moments of the film feel more impactful.

Unfortunately, I believe Eden will fly under the radar despite its strong ensemble cast, decent cinematography and direction.

Going into this film completely blind is the play. Absolutely bonkers.

I appreciate an original horror story when it gets executed to perfection. Funny, cringey (in a good way) and downright absurd.

The story is interesting enough and follows cult/folk lore but the performances by Franco and Brie are the high point. Their chemistry is perfect and believable. The film highlights themes of co-dependency and fear of commitment in a truly insane way.

Granted, there are cliched moments that are usually present in the horror genre. And yes, such moments are in this film, but it definitely doesn't take away from the wild ride. This film reminiscences elements from "The Substance" but it warrants its own distinction.

Definitely up there with one of the best horror movies of the year.

The film is truly a tale of two halves. The first act was definitely entertaining. The world design looked amazing. Sprawling scenery and some genuinely scary moments involving the infected. This part of the film was by far the closest to the previous instalments. The direction here stands out - with grainy close-ups, fast jump cuts, and jarring transitions reminiscent of the original film, it pulls you right into the chaos.

Unfortunately, the momentum doesn't last. As the film transitions into its second half, it shifts gears into a more melodramatic human drama. The focus moves away from the infected threat and toward a lackluster subplot involving a mother and a doctor. The characters at this point make some questionable decisions which really doesn't help the film's validity.

The final act unfortunately teetered on lacklustre and borderline comedic, completely changing the tone of the first act.

I stand by saying the directing, camera work, editing and cinematography were the highlight. The landscapes and post apocalyptic setting was beautiful to look at. These elements made the film worth watching. There were some plot elements that were interesting enough but were never explored to the full potential.

However a weak plot, even weaker characters and a lacklustre ending prevent this instalment from being memorable.

I can only tell this is gonna be a very polarising film, people are going to love the ambition from Aster or call it a convoluted mess.

Depending on your views during the 2020s will severely determined your outlook on this film. Are you able to laugh at the insanity or remain serious at the severity of events that transpired.

Eddington is ultimately a satire on the comedic ridiculousness and tumultuous times of the 2020's. Eddington in itself is the main character. It's a macrocosom of events that impacted the US but obviously ramps them up to 11.

I appreciate the craft and the film was at its best when it was reminiscent of the Coen's No Country For Old Men. The 2nd act elevated the implemented satire to a contemporary western crime thriller.

The film is hit or miss in its summary. I understand the message and themes but at some points the execution is lacking. I feel like it tried to juggle a lot of themes and messages. Maybe sticking to one or two would have made the film more tight and succinct.

"Blue Moon" is quintessentially Richard Linklater. A film with heavy dialogue but rich in character and depth.

Some might call this film boring, but what helps keep engagement levels is a strong performance by Ethan Hawke accompanied by a decently written screenplay.

The entire film feels like a theatre play brought to life on the big screen. It takes place in one bar but manoeuvers through conversations with different characters each with their own quirk.

I think what makes this film shine is Lorenz Harz (Hawke). A poor soul at the end of his time clinging to his past successes. A lonely man wanting love. As a film progresses, we learn more about our main character increasing our empathy and sadness for him.

In saying this, it is a film that struggles to reach the heights to call it a masterpiece. I feel like it's structure and style hinders it's ability in doing so.

I also will mention that I think Margaret Qualley was not strong enough in the female lead. With someone with not much dialogue, I felt like a stronger presence was needed to bring her character to life.

All in all, a decent movie but nothing to get too excited about.

7/10.

The Philippou's brothers have again created a spellbinding horror film chock full of heavy themes, real characters and terrifying moments.

The brothers are arguably the best in the current horror game. Bring her Back reads more as a psychological thriller mixed with moments of true terror. The strength of the characters, the family bond and heavy themes all blend perfectly to create one hell of a ride.

The brother's style is so profound, the imagery, recurring motifs and downright brutal moments is something to relish. I love how we actually care about those on screen. Smart characters played by great actors that don't make any dumb decisions.

When the film really turns up a gear in the final act it never stops. Unafraid of breaking boundaries and playing it easy. It goes full force right until the end.

This is a must watch.