Film reviews

Leviticus Review

Leave a comment

This is a terror film that shocked my mind. I could not turn away due to the deep bond just under the surface. Leviticus is haunting, daring, and mentally mind-boggling. When it comes to friends and deep connections, the force takes a toll. The fight for love and friendship is one-of-a-kind. The film starts with someone finding a form of joy that is dismissed later, karma plays a role. Written and directed by Adrian Chiarella, his approach has violence written all over Leviticus. 

Filmed in towns in Australia, the subject of conversion therapy is deeply rooted in Leviticus. The film centers on two teen boys, Naim (Joe Bird) and Ryan (Stacy Clausen). Both of them have a love interest in each other, but believe it must be kept secret since they come from family backgrounds where their sexuality may be viewed as inappropriate. Naim’s mom is played by Mia Waskikowska. She wants Naim to find connection in his life, but at the same time her religious beliefs are top of mind. Therefore, Naim feels he is in a place where he cannot love Ryan. This film is a tear-jerker especially when the terror comes around in such haunting yet intriguing ways.

The film finds its wonders when it focuses on the feeling of someone wanting to be the center of attention. Naim finds Ryan in a scenario where he believes he is not interested in him, and he betrays him in a childish way. This leads Ryan’s family to have a man known as “The Deliverance Healer” to try to spiritually kick the same attraction thoughts out of Ryan. Is this approach beneficial? To an extent, it is not, but it is meant to keep the compelling storyline going. When this happens the fight for love in Leviticus feels bold. At the same time, it cannot be dismissed. The feelings between Naim and Ryan cannot be diminished.

After the healing approach is attempted, the spirits continue to come back and haunt Naim. The possessive issues involving Ryan look detrimental. Naim always finds himself feeling that an evil source of Ryan is after him. With no one to look out for him, there are times when audiences will assume the worst. In reality, Naim still loves Ryan, but he wants the spirits to go away. Ryan does too. Can their love survive with the lurking terrors following them?

I appreciated how the karma theme in Leviticus uses bipolar writing to create resilience. The writing technique of Chiarella is two-sided—one to think about love and the other to think about survival. Both must be achieved before happiness can prevail. It takes a bloody fight and circles of death matches before that can happen. Leviticus is a ride I urge viewers to take to see how far the main characters go to get what they want.  How bad do Naim and Ryan want each other? Find out in Leviticus. Three-and-a-half out of four stars.

Film reviews

Supergirl Review

Leave a comment

This film is rather boring, but also fun in a certain way. Directed by Craig Gillespie, the DC Universe now has a Supergirl in motion. The movie has scenes with flying and saving people, yet the quality of it is hit or miss. There is a predictable plot and a lousy setup. The saving grace is the execution of the action. Milly Alcock plays Supergirl, a party superhero who is bound to save the world if she can get her act together to do so. 

The film begins with Supergirl being hungover but she can still utilize her powers to do her own deeds and fulfill her own desires. The story is based on the premise that she has no desire to get into superhero mode. This is actually where the film picks up some entertaining momentum. That all changes when a young girl named Ruthye (Eve Ridley) needs her help. She wants to put an end to the enemy Krem (Matthias Schoenaerts.) Krem has wrecked Ruthye’s life but has also hurt Supergirl’s dog, Krypto. Both seek revenge. While there are moments of laser focus, it is not enough to make this film fly. 

Supergirl does find herself connecting with Superman (David Corenswet). The film Superman (2025) is much better than this one because the foundation is much stronger than the one Supergirl. This movie has a bizarre, flawed storyline. Still, Alcock does wonders trying to be a hero especially in scenes where she must utilize her powers and work with Ruthye. Oh, and there is also Lobo (Jason Momoa). Lobo has a biker attitude and only cares about himself due to his ego. Fortunately, Momoa’s performance was not too shabby. Overall, however, this introductory superhero film was cheesier than anticipated. 

Even though there are some laughs along the way,  it is disappointing that Supergirl was portrayed as a party animal. I felt that it diminished the purpose of her character. It is sad to say that the majority of this film is MEDIOCRE!  Viewers should not expect an inspirational storyline. Instead, they can look forward to someone trying to save their dog from the enemy. Pets in movies are normally fun but give them a bigger purpose. I’m trying to find the positive in this film, but it’s not easy.

There were plenty of strange moments, rushed scenes, and a bunch of  errors.  It was hard for me to find value in even the most impressive elements in Supergirl. Yet, I did adore Alcock’s performance. She plays a hero with an attitude that could have been written in a way that was much more inspiring. 

The lack of context via a meaningful storyline is why I am not fond of Supergirl. The IMAX experience does allow the visuals to soar during the flying, fighting, and space segments. In the end, the rest of the film…predictable! Feels like a made-for-TV movie. The saving grace is that Alcock is a leading lady who can fly, dive, and thrive. The foundation deserved better. Two out of four stars.

Film reviews

The Death of Robin Hood

Leave a comment

Technologically brilliant is how I define The Death of Robin Hood. The rest of the film is hampered by a blurred storyline dominated by vengeance beneath the surface. The continuity of the film felt flat in spite of the grandeur of cinematography in a setting centuries ago. The acting is stunning, but I had issues with the pacing. Written and directed by Michael Sarnoski, this film is about a battle of grief past and present seen through the eyes of Robin (Hugh Jackman).

The plot involves Robin dealing with his dark history of murder and crime. He seeks redemption. However, at the same time he cannot put his past behind him. Jackman displays seriousness well in The Death of Robin Hood as he finds himself reeling from an injury. With the help of a lady named Sister Brigid (Jodie Comer), he sees some light ahead. Also, with a man named Edward (Bill Skarsgard), there is a theme of teamwork and redemption, yet the storytelling is confusing.

Jackman’s performance delivers a haunting message that his character is not to be messed with. Moments from his present and past spiral in ways that feel unpredictable. I struggled with what the director chose to emphasize in the film primarily because the backstory felt drawn out. Overall, it was very subtle and quiet. Unfortunately, the establishment of an understandable landscape was not truly there. I just felt there could have been more context established to explain why Robin Hood is facing so many perils. The film relies too much on technology and darkness for its selling points.

Sarnoski incorporates some effective storytelling, but it felt removed from the central conflict. He relies on cinematography and Jackman’s performance to create suspense. These scenes take on more importance than the dynamics between the characters played by Comer and Skarsgard. I felt they deserved more. I  felt the film kept spiraling around an angry man looking back at his past with moments of brutal violence. In the end, the revolution fails to be supported by a compelling narrative. The movie starts off OK, but then slides down to flatness leading to a steady slew of disappointment.

Overall, there are some meaningful moments showing how grief and revenge take their toll. Sarnoski knows how to portray humanistic values. Still, the film failed to satisfy me. The historical components do not have the wonders I anticipated. Therefore, I only give it two out of four stars.

Treating cinema in many forms of art!