Category Archives: Film reviews

Film reviews

Immaculate Review

Leave a comment

Immaculate is about faith being tested. The story is not so much about making religious or culturally-influence choices, but more about dealing with choices involving betrayal. The movie is directed by Michael Mohan and written by Andrew Lobel. Immaculate is audacious in portraying how difficult it is to maintain the faith especially when things begin to go south. The trailers caused me to anticipate that this film was going to be a bumpy ride of surreal terror which it was. The psychological tracks in Immaculate are destined to break norms and barriers.

The film introduces its audience to Cecilia who is played by Sydney Sweeney. Cecilia is a young American who is devoted to religion and takes a position at a convent in Italy. She has faith that this is her new Safe Haven until the attitudes of the other nuns and the staff start to create a pattern of disturbing questions. The Father at the convent is played by Alvaro Morte. He tries to convey that Cecilia is now in a place that is extremely safe. However, as Cecilia gathers facts and information from other nuns, she increasingly feels that the convent has some very unsettling vibes which are both devilish and life-threatening.

With Sweeney in the lead role, she has a very cute and innocent personality as a young practicing nun. Due to her youthful and pleasing style, the audience hopes she finds a way out of the convent before it is too late. The film periodically traces back to the practices of the convent and shows various times when many of the nuns are held back from going elsewhere. Whateverdetrimental actions and behaviors are happening at the convent,it appears that the more likely of the same is likely to occur. Immaculate is a movie about religion and faith where a trail of lies highlight the journey with their shock value.

With the setting in Italy, the language barrier also contributes to the tension in Immaculate. Cecilia cannot understand what is being said through most of the movie. What she sees and feels cause  her stress and uneasiness. Immaculate is an experience that is quite unsettling. Can Cecilia save herself from the terrorswaiting for her? Will her faith sustain her? What is the evil that lurks in the convent? Immaculate made me feel like I was in a historic church being subjected to extreme darkness which wasquite unsettling. The film is not an easy psychological thriller to absorb. It takes some mental preparation and toughness especially due to the violence and realizations that further put Ceclia’s safety in jeopardy.

Immaculate is a daring movie for a daring actress. Sweeney’s role is filled with pure adrenaline. However, the film overall was not amazing. It is one of those terror flicks that keeps trying to throw violence in to heighten the effect. In the end, I did not feel as satisfied as I had anticipated I would when I left the movie was over. Two out of four stars for Immaculate.

Film reviews

Arthur the King Review

Leave a comment

A film with Mark Wahlberg doing what he can to fulfill a dream is one that resembles a role that fits him faithfully in Arthur the King. With Wahlberg (in real-life) as one who works out consistently and so multiple times a day, the perseverance path of success is the enthralling fragment of Arthur the King. Its foundation has moments of repetition and faith along the lines of athletics and being a winner. The other half of the film tends to fall to a blur. The personality of Wahlberg’s character, determined and frustrated for achievements remains in staying persistent in Arthur the King. The film does have inspiration in terms of personality. It is just the pattern of connection in achieving a dream is not as patriotic.

The film is based on the non-fiction novel Arthur-The Dog Who Crossed the Jungle to Find a Home. Wahlberg plays Mikael Lindnord. Mikael is set to establish a dream of completing a race that is over four-hundred miles long along the Dominic Republic. A race of obstruction of treacherous dangers. Mikael believes that he can do this race. His wife Helena (played by Juliet Rylance) supports Michael’s dream. With Michael’s past of not having the best race results, sponsorship begins as a struggle for him. With luck though, his friend Liam (played by Simu Liu) teams up with Mikael and they do embark on this perilous adventure of a race—a competition of physical damage and many loops to complete. With the race having its moments of hardship and aggravation, a dog follows Mikael. The dog saves Mikael and his team from moments of dangers the dogs alertness keeps the endurance of Mikael to accomplish his ethics. Mikael names the dog Arthur. That is why the film is titled Arthur the King.

Once the dog enters the theme of the film, there is that interpretation that the dog is the full-on hero of the race. That is true in some circumstances. The approach of Arthur though, does not enter the film until later in the film…much later that the film even makes its audience forget that it is the title is geared on a dog. The film goes through the hurdles of the rough terrain of competition than emphasizing Arthur. The moving parts of adrenaline and endurance navigate the faith of winning over Arthur’s presence. Expect a lot more excitement from Wahlberg’s performance over having empathy for Arthur the dog.

The film is in the context of a race for sacrifice, and a race for connection. There Mikael finds empathy for Arthur in the moments of the dangers of the competition. I felt more empathy for Arthur over the film’s main character. That is more because I felt sorry by the lack of presence that is put into the focus of Arthur in the film. Too much Wahlberg finding his moments of achievement over the dog being the hero. The hero of the film is the neutrality of how its continuity flows. That is because with the lacking characterizations I found there must be praise for both the dog and Wahlberg.

The film does leave the trail of deep thinking. Who is more important? Mikael or Arthur? Who is a true hero making it to the finish line properly? There is not much of a king premise, more of a get through a situation premise. One that finds its components to think poetically and is rushed for an empathetic path. It does not do justice, but there is inspiration in the eyes of Wahlberg’s performance. Two out of four stars for Arthur the King.

Film reviews

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire Review

Leave a comment

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire is one which crosses the line into mediocrity, yet somehow manages to nostalgia alive. A follow-up from Ghostbusters: Afterlife, this installment steps up the game of evil lurking through artifacts by employing loads of CGI. The characters loved by fans are back, and include Callie (played by Carrie Coon), Grooberson (played by Paul Rudd), Trevor (played by Finn Wolfhard), Phoebe (played by Mckenna Grace), and Lucky (played by Celeste O’Connor). These characters arenow considered alumnus of the franchise since their appearance in Ghostbusters: Afterlife. The old-school alumnus (who add much necessary humor and quirks to the experience) are Peter Venkman (played by Bill Murray), Ray Stantz (played by Dan Aykroyd), Winston Zeddemore (played by Ernie Hudson) and Dana Barrett (played by Sigourney Weaver). Surprisingly, even with a cast this impressive, the movie has flaws which make it difficult for it to be memorable.

The film consisted of four writers including the director, Jason Reitman.  Joining him as contributors were his father, Ivan Reitman, Gil Kenan, Dan Aykroyd, and Harold Ramis. I guess the compilation of writing is why the film is not as straightforward and nostalgic as I would have expected. The film begins in 1904 in New York. This introduction is familiar to the films in this franchise. It then jumps to the present where the family hunting ghosts returns. The team of Grooberson, Callie, Trevor, and Phoebe are all ghost hunters which causes some misbelief with their reputation due to their dynamics as a team.The newest trend with the ghosts features ice and snow. When an old artifact is discovered, it’s time to call Ghostbusters! With Peter, Ray, and Winston making appearances, the team has grown, but is skillful enough to take on the monsters of the snow? The film lacks in establishing a quality foundation, but manages to finds a way to detail the situation moderately well.

Philosopher Dr. Hubert Wartzki (played by Patton Oswalt) is part of a backstory which explains how the new monsters of ice and snow have come into the city of New York. Also, a third-party seller, Nadeem Razmaadi (played by Kumail Nanjiani), is also part of the puzzle. Many of his collectables are artifacts, but much of his collection hold secrets related to ghosts as well. Ray’s character and his experience with ghosts does help add to the story. The various moving parts are fascinating but tend to drag the movie down and cause boredom before the excitement of ghost hunting swerves into the picture.

The scenes with quirky humor boost the nostalgic feel of this film. The CGI also adds more in-depth visual interest to the film’s adventure of stopping one giant ghost. Truly, Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire is not amazing…partly because the lines of understanding seem unnecessarily blurred. The nostalgia provided by Murray, Aykroyd, and Hudson is where the film has its most memorable moments. As always, the ghost hunting is when this franchise shines. Two-and-a-half out of four stars for Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire.