babyjaguar
Joined Nov 1999
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews212
babyjaguar's rating
Phillipou's brothers sophomore feature, "Bring Her Back" is not a sequel to their first full-length movie, "Talk to Me" (2023). This film loses its strength in the third act, if the brothers were leaning towards a slow burner, Folk Horror-like vibes - so there wasn't a need for shock value.
Sally Hawkins's acting chops themselves keep the story together making her absurd character believable. Hawkins's helming of Laura, as this innocent foster parent, who delves with the supernatural. Her central character is met with two other characters: Andy and Piper (brother with a visual-impaired sister).
After an unexpected parent's death, they find themselves with foster homing, enter Laura. Laura in the first and second acts, is about gaining trust and pure manipulation. Their interaction or banter is good and effective for this film's drama.
Underneath these dramatic scenes, something unnatural, sinister is developing with another foster child, Ollie. The brothers' direction is known for ultra violence and drug abuse as with the first film but here it's about emotional abuse.
Hawkins's character arc, becomes quite sinister but met with humanism. It demonstrates Hawkins as such a gifted, versatile actor. That's why gore isn't need like for shock value, it diminishes Hawkins's work.
It's third act, is where the illusion loses strength and loss of creepiness. Instead it goes for unnecessary gore effects becoming just violence without emotional value. This film could have gone into a great climax with a twist. It's soundtrack quite fun, comes off as party music for college students. It's tracks usually playing behind Laura's scenes, it's like that's the only type of music she listens to (also used to cover sinister sounds like screaming, etc.).
This film is not a bad one, just a little sorted. "Bring Her Back", as film is held together due to Hawkins's genius. It feels sorted, a crisis to be horror or just genre filmmaking - but it's worth a look.
Sally Hawkins's acting chops themselves keep the story together making her absurd character believable. Hawkins's helming of Laura, as this innocent foster parent, who delves with the supernatural. Her central character is met with two other characters: Andy and Piper (brother with a visual-impaired sister).
After an unexpected parent's death, they find themselves with foster homing, enter Laura. Laura in the first and second acts, is about gaining trust and pure manipulation. Their interaction or banter is good and effective for this film's drama.
Underneath these dramatic scenes, something unnatural, sinister is developing with another foster child, Ollie. The brothers' direction is known for ultra violence and drug abuse as with the first film but here it's about emotional abuse.
Hawkins's character arc, becomes quite sinister but met with humanism. It demonstrates Hawkins as such a gifted, versatile actor. That's why gore isn't need like for shock value, it diminishes Hawkins's work.
It's third act, is where the illusion loses strength and loss of creepiness. Instead it goes for unnecessary gore effects becoming just violence without emotional value. This film could have gone into a great climax with a twist. It's soundtrack quite fun, comes off as party music for college students. It's tracks usually playing behind Laura's scenes, it's like that's the only type of music she listens to (also used to cover sinister sounds like screaming, etc.).
This film is not a bad one, just a little sorted. "Bring Her Back", as film is held together due to Hawkins's genius. It feels sorted, a crisis to be horror or just genre filmmaking - but it's worth a look.
This flick was based off on recent horror related young adult fiction by Adam Cesare and was just average. It offers some good practical and cgi gore effects, full of tongue-in-cheek humor.
It offers an inclusive grouping of characters probably that the current administration wouldn't approve of. One of the characters kinda looks like Elon Musk!
The only that original is the intergenerational jokes between older and younger characters. Things like a rotary dial phone, etc. Comes off pretty funny. The clowns were not a creepy as many reviewers have claimed.
The acting chops were not above average, but not horrible. The film is most likely coming at a time where producers are responding to clown with extreme violence like the recent success of Damian Leone's "Terrifier" franchise.
This film has probably got popularity of a new generation of filmgoers trying to feel the 80s/90s straight to gore films. In the way, their new interest is probably to chase folk horror and more subtle horror like "Midsummer" and "The Witch" away
I guess this film by Eli Craig should be indebt to "Terrifier"-crowd funders and independent horror supporters. It's need to be said that Craig is also a trendsetter with horror comedy like "Tucker and Dale vs Evil" (obviously inspired by "Evil Dead" franchise).
It offers an inclusive grouping of characters probably that the current administration wouldn't approve of. One of the characters kinda looks like Elon Musk!
The only that original is the intergenerational jokes between older and younger characters. Things like a rotary dial phone, etc. Comes off pretty funny. The clowns were not a creepy as many reviewers have claimed.
The acting chops were not above average, but not horrible. The film is most likely coming at a time where producers are responding to clown with extreme violence like the recent success of Damian Leone's "Terrifier" franchise.
This film has probably got popularity of a new generation of filmgoers trying to feel the 80s/90s straight to gore films. In the way, their new interest is probably to chase folk horror and more subtle horror like "Midsummer" and "The Witch" away
I guess this film by Eli Craig should be indebt to "Terrifier"-crowd funders and independent horror supporters. It's need to be said that Craig is also a trendsetter with horror comedy like "Tucker and Dale vs Evil" (obviously inspired by "Evil Dead" franchise).
Cronenberg's 2024 film explores death and technology. The film surrounded the idea of grieving with the story of Karsh (Vincent Cassel) is a wealthy tech-entrepreneur mourning the death of his wife. His influence within the tech field, using a new software (called "Shroud") for mourning tradition that the living surviving loved ones can use.
His wife's body, is documented with cameras showing the decaying process, connected to cellular apps, etc.. Personal technology allows for the mourning to continue - it's the digital age for necromancy? A love like Cassel's obsession with his wife's body, that he projects onto to his wife's sister both roles played by Diane Kruger.
The rest of the film becomes almost noir-like amateur sleuth story. Karsh trying to solve recent desecrated cemetery plots including his wife's burial spot. The film's pace swifts into subplots, it's bit of a sidetracked.
The film is different from his recent productions, set in Canada. Its tone is somber, almost quiet not relying gore or onscreen violence. The most violent reference is the desecrated burials (which isn't seen and the other is Cancer. The terminal illness killed Karsh's wife (within his dreams, flashback scenes).
The film got critical reactions since Cronenberg's motivation was the death of the director's wife, Carolyn. Aesthetically, this film wasn't really exploring body horror, completely abandoned even the gore effects. Yes, it can be suggested as a decaying corpse to body deformation caused by Cancer and it's surgeries on Karsh's late wife.
Moreover, it explores Westernized traditions of memorialize the dead, mourning process catches up with 21st century technology: social media culture. If this is Cronenberg's prediction in the near future of memorialization? It's pretty credible that wealthy tech icons could be exploring. He puts quite of bit in tech aspects from encryption to resolution topics, throws off film's humanistic focus.
His wife's body, is documented with cameras showing the decaying process, connected to cellular apps, etc.. Personal technology allows for the mourning to continue - it's the digital age for necromancy? A love like Cassel's obsession with his wife's body, that he projects onto to his wife's sister both roles played by Diane Kruger.
The rest of the film becomes almost noir-like amateur sleuth story. Karsh trying to solve recent desecrated cemetery plots including his wife's burial spot. The film's pace swifts into subplots, it's bit of a sidetracked.
The film is different from his recent productions, set in Canada. Its tone is somber, almost quiet not relying gore or onscreen violence. The most violent reference is the desecrated burials (which isn't seen and the other is Cancer. The terminal illness killed Karsh's wife (within his dreams, flashback scenes).
The film got critical reactions since Cronenberg's motivation was the death of the director's wife, Carolyn. Aesthetically, this film wasn't really exploring body horror, completely abandoned even the gore effects. Yes, it can be suggested as a decaying corpse to body deformation caused by Cancer and it's surgeries on Karsh's late wife.
Moreover, it explores Westernized traditions of memorialize the dead, mourning process catches up with 21st century technology: social media culture. If this is Cronenberg's prediction in the near future of memorialization? It's pretty credible that wealthy tech icons could be exploring. He puts quite of bit in tech aspects from encryption to resolution topics, throws off film's humanistic focus.