Vetrrich_Chelvan
Joined Jul 2015
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.
Badges6
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings653
Vetrrich_Chelvan's rating
Reviews160
Vetrrich_Chelvan's rating
Brilliant cinematography. Character driven storyline. Jack Quaid is perfectly cast as Nathan. Loved the pacing. Hell of an entertainer. Humor works out well. I regret that I missed watching it on theatres.
Downsides - predictable screenplay, dragged out climax, weak antagonist, inconsistent side characters and I am still wondering if Nathan's relationship should have worked out.
Downsides - predictable screenplay, dragged out climax, weak antagonist, inconsistent side characters and I am still wondering if Nathan's relationship should have worked out.
Ryan Coogler's Sinners, released on Apple TV in 2025, promised a bold vision-a supernatural horror set in 1932 Mississippi, framed against the KKK and the brutal racial divide between whites and blacks. On paper, it's a daring mix of history and horror. In execution, though, it falls apart.
The film revolves around vampires, but here lies the first problem. Vampires as a concept have long evolved into what we now recognize as zombies. To cling to such an outdated, illogical idea feels regressive. Does simply weaving racial history into the backdrop guarantee global praise? Perhaps in today's climate, yes-but cinema is still a transaction. When an audience pays their money, they expect a story that respects their time. Sinners doesn't deliver.
The film belongs to that frustrating category of overhyped experiments. Gorgeous cinematography and an Oscar-winning composer can't cover up the cracks in a hollow script. And that's exactly why my disappointment runs so deep.
The racial backdrop is powerful, but it barely connects with the narrative. Characters appear only to be killed off within minutes, with no reason that feels significant. Are we meant to pity them simply because they are black? Without clear goals, motivations, or purpose, there's no reason to invest in their fates.
The script itself is painfully weak. The pacing crawls. The climax feels rushed, stitched together with no weight or emotion. What could have been layered with tension and feeling instead comes off shallow. It's like watching someone crack an egg on hot asphalt just to prove the sun is burning-the point lands, but it feels silly, empty, and unnecessary.
In the end, Sinners wastes its enormous potential, leaving behind a hollow echo of what could have been a searing piece of cinema.
The film revolves around vampires, but here lies the first problem. Vampires as a concept have long evolved into what we now recognize as zombies. To cling to such an outdated, illogical idea feels regressive. Does simply weaving racial history into the backdrop guarantee global praise? Perhaps in today's climate, yes-but cinema is still a transaction. When an audience pays their money, they expect a story that respects their time. Sinners doesn't deliver.
The film belongs to that frustrating category of overhyped experiments. Gorgeous cinematography and an Oscar-winning composer can't cover up the cracks in a hollow script. And that's exactly why my disappointment runs so deep.
The racial backdrop is powerful, but it barely connects with the narrative. Characters appear only to be killed off within minutes, with no reason that feels significant. Are we meant to pity them simply because they are black? Without clear goals, motivations, or purpose, there's no reason to invest in their fates.
The script itself is painfully weak. The pacing crawls. The climax feels rushed, stitched together with no weight or emotion. What could have been layered with tension and feeling instead comes off shallow. It's like watching someone crack an egg on hot asphalt just to prove the sun is burning-the point lands, but it feels silly, empty, and unnecessary.
In the end, Sinners wastes its enormous potential, leaving behind a hollow echo of what could have been a searing piece of cinema.
Just as films from the 2000s carry a certain aura, the 1990s-especially thrillers-have their own dedicated fan base. I came to Cape Fear from outside that circle.
The story of Cape Fear is a little complicated. Max, who rapes and tortures women, escapes the law twice, but finally ends up serving a 14-year prison sentence because of his lawyer's trickery. After being released, he sets out to take revenge on his lawyer, Sam Bowden.
They say this is a remake of a film from the 1960s. I haven't seen that film. So, how is this one? Let's see.
Cape Fear is directed in the very format that belongs to the 90s thrillers. That is: using heavy background score to make even empty scenes scary, jump scares, sexual undertones - the entire film is filled with these familiar elements. Some scenes, in particular, were very disturbing.
Robert De Niro shines as Max. A man who looks very charismatic on screen, he adapts his performance perfectly to suit the character. The supporting actors Nick, Jessica, and Juliette all act exactly as director Martin instructed, and that strength is visible in the film.
Bernard's background score is a huge strength to the story. Freddie Francis' cinematography is splendid. So, those are the strengths of the film. But when there is strength, there must also be weakness, right?
The biggest weakness lies in the female characters. From the perspective of 2025, the way they were written looks terrible. The character of Danielle, who is only 15, is sexualized heavily just to appeal to the audience - that is a crime. A sensitive topic like rape is treated casually, displayed again as a spectacle just for the audience's arousal, which is disgusting. The character of Leigh is written in such a shallow way, as if to suggest all women are neurotic. In the final scene, they pretend to give Danielle importance, but even that looks like a cheap stunt for a twist.
Despite Danielle and Leigh having scope for much more, they are not fleshed out, and that is a death blow to the film. And the climax - it felt too dragged. Long monologues, logical loopholes, and cheap thrill elements make Cape Fear sour for today's audience.
Scorsese spent too much time focusing on thrill elements. If he had taken the story in a more psychological direction, the film would have been much better.
The story of Cape Fear is a little complicated. Max, who rapes and tortures women, escapes the law twice, but finally ends up serving a 14-year prison sentence because of his lawyer's trickery. After being released, he sets out to take revenge on his lawyer, Sam Bowden.
They say this is a remake of a film from the 1960s. I haven't seen that film. So, how is this one? Let's see.
Cape Fear is directed in the very format that belongs to the 90s thrillers. That is: using heavy background score to make even empty scenes scary, jump scares, sexual undertones - the entire film is filled with these familiar elements. Some scenes, in particular, were very disturbing.
Robert De Niro shines as Max. A man who looks very charismatic on screen, he adapts his performance perfectly to suit the character. The supporting actors Nick, Jessica, and Juliette all act exactly as director Martin instructed, and that strength is visible in the film.
Bernard's background score is a huge strength to the story. Freddie Francis' cinematography is splendid. So, those are the strengths of the film. But when there is strength, there must also be weakness, right?
The biggest weakness lies in the female characters. From the perspective of 2025, the way they were written looks terrible. The character of Danielle, who is only 15, is sexualized heavily just to appeal to the audience - that is a crime. A sensitive topic like rape is treated casually, displayed again as a spectacle just for the audience's arousal, which is disgusting. The character of Leigh is written in such a shallow way, as if to suggest all women are neurotic. In the final scene, they pretend to give Danielle importance, but even that looks like a cheap stunt for a twist.
Despite Danielle and Leigh having scope for much more, they are not fleshed out, and that is a death blow to the film. And the climax - it felt too dragged. Long monologues, logical loopholes, and cheap thrill elements make Cape Fear sour for today's audience.
Scorsese spent too much time focusing on thrill elements. If he had taken the story in a more psychological direction, the film would have been much better.
