Category Archives: Film reviews

65 Review


The meaning of 65 is “65 million years ago and is intended to be an attention-grabbing fact. The movie is a blur of sci-fi fascination with technological captivation. It also has a lost planet vibe where there are endless surprises. The world in 65’s futuristic setting may be appealing, but I was not very impressed. A better way to describe 65 would be to say it is like the world of a video game merged with a film. The video game is along the lines of Halo, and the movie a bit like Jurassic Park. Two factors that may sound interesting to correlate, unfortunately fail to deliver.

There is not much of an intriguing plot while the film progresses from one catastrophe to the next. To help provide a better understanding, 65 starts with a ship crashing on an unknown planet. The captain is Mills, played by Adam Driver. All his passengers are gone, his ship has malfunctioned, and he has one survivor. The survivor is Koa, played by Ariana Greenblatt. Koa is Mills new mission. She is his responsibility to get to safety and to help her find her way home from this unknown planet which is full of dinosaurs and all kinds of strange scientific stuff. 65’s scenery is amazing, but it is like a video game. The movie adaptation has a very poor setup to its premise.

Much of the action in 65 just keeps happening without any explanation. It also seems like it borrows elements from other sci-fi classics.  For example, the ship in the film looks like the Starship Enterprise from Star Trek, and the world looks like the video game Metroid Prime.  The film is poorly written.  If the movie were to be more interesting, it should have created more questions for its audience. Is there more to the crash on the planet? Is there a reason why the planet is extinct? Are there resources on the planet for survival? 65 is a ride of rushed boredom that does not focus on factors that could entertain its audience.

There are a few points in the film when I did find the dangers on the planet enjoyable because they were visually stunning. Otherwise, 65 does not do much justice as a sci-fi adventure because it is not adventurous. It is a film that feels like a rip-off TV series that did not sell me at all. In fact, most video games based upon movies usually do not turn out that great either. In addition to 65 being nothing original, its technicalities, its characterizations, and its writing are all glitchy and cheesy. Watching it requires the attention-span of watching paint dry.  My experience with this film equates to watching a video game I was bored of playing.

Is 65 terrible? No, it is mediocre. Is it visually excellent? Very much so. Are there hidden treasures of sci-fi excitement? Not really. How many stars does it deserve? I would rate with only two stars because it lacks in many qualities.

Shazam! Fury of the Gods Review


The word, “Shazam!,” is where the positive superhero factor usually comes into play with a Shazam movie. In Shazam! Fury of the Gods there is a whole lot of “Shazam!” and much superhero nostalgia, but the film is actually somewhat of a trainwreck. The pacing is off, and I found myself wondering whether I could take this sequel seriously. For a continuation of a superhero franchise, this one felt very forgettable. It relies too much on the slapstick of its heroes and enemies, instead of focusing on the central conflict in the film. Director David F. Sandberg directed the first Shazam film in 2019, and he’s back for Shazam! Fury of the Gods, but this one just doesn’t seem to be one that will enthrall its superhero fans.

In Shazam! Fury of the Gods, Billy Batson (played by Asher Angel) is back as the superhero Shazam. As fans of the franchise know, when the word “Shazam!” is used Billy turns into the adult version of himself and he is recognized as the Shazam superhero. The adult and superhero version of Billy is played by Zachary Levi. The team of heroes and misfits are also back, ranging from Superhero Freddy (played by Adam Brody), Superhero Darla (played by Meagan Good), Superhero Pedro (played by D.J. Coltrona), and others. The enemies are Hespera and Kalypso (played by Helen Mirren and Lucy Liu).

In addition to the heroes, there is a god character who helps Billy. That character is also named Shazam and he is played by Djimon Hounsou. Sadly, though, the film does not develop this character enough or take it seriously.

Again, the directing in this film just seems out of focus. The pacing is off and the excess of humor detracts from the superhero importance. There is also not enough backstory about the enemies. The film leaves the audience wondering who is more powerful. Instead of lots of superhero jam it just keeps resorting to the buzzword, “Shazam!,” to keep the enticement going.

The credit I do give Shazam! Fury of the Gods is that it keeps its family-friendly approach. And that will help sell it to its target audience. But unfortunately, it is one of those continuation films that will leave much of the audience not appreciating the franchise. I still do, but this film didn’t help my appreciation. Overall, I just wish it could have stepped up its action, its twists, and given us some hidden gems of what is to continue in the franchise. This sequel was not very detailed, and when there is not much detail to a superhero franchise it doesn’t gives its audience enough information to anticipate what to expect down the road. I will say that I didn’t totally hate Shazam! Fury of the Gods, but I definitely didn’t love it, and it fell way below my expectations. Two stars for Shazam! Fury of the Gods.

Inside Review


Nothing is more anxiety-provoking than being locked up fending for survival. In Inside there is a tone of discomfort in its harrowing premise. Inside is Vasilis Katsoupis’ second project as a director. This film involves a problematic situation where the anxiety goes to the core of its main character. Inside is Castaway (2000) taking place in a New York penthouse. One error led to someone being completely locked up. Inside brings all kinds of frustrations while focusing on survival and escaping confinement. There is no easy way to define this movie experience because audiences will take away different emotions once they see Inside for themselves.

In Inside the focus is on an art thief, Nemo (played by Willem Dafoe). He makes his way to a high-end New York penthouse to steal expensive works of art. His heist runs into trouble when alarms are triggered which seal off the whole penthouse. With the owner never there and all contacts lost once the place is sealed off, Nemo finds himself trapped. With the precious works of art surrounding him, he must figure out if he can escape or survive in the penthouse. As he realizes that it’s impossible to escape, he decides he should start making the penthouse feel like a home until he can figure out how to get out. Can he maintain his patience? What legal trouble could he face if he escapes?

Inside filled me with repulsive feelings as Nemo engages in activities he did not plan for. The penthouse has a lack of resources. There is no running water, messed up air conditioning, and barely any food. Nemo does find a way to make his resources manageable, but his bizarre mindset grows under shocking tensions. Inside caused me to feel scared due to Dafoe’s brilliant performance as someone stuck in confinement.

The features in the penthouse also contribute to Nemo losing his mind. For example, the refrigerator plays music when it is open for too long which makes Nemo even more angry. The other big anger factor for Nemo is the fact that there is a camera system through the plasma screen TV of the penthouse. He can see that there are others working and coming in and out of the building. Sadly, they cannot recognize that there is anything wrong with the penthouse that Nemo is trapped in because it is soundproof, and the main owner is never there. The film’s audience knows who the owner is, through pictures and information, but they never see him on screen.

Do not expect conversations or a whole lot of dialogue during Inside. Expect a whole lot disastrous thinking from the mind of Nemo caused by his continued frustration with finding a way out from a mission that went awry and caused him to be trapped in the penthouse. There is only so much Nemo can do to prevent himself from going completely insane in his unprecedented situation.

There are moments when Nemo narrates. Dafoe’s performance in this role slurs and goes down dark alleys. He shares a story in his narration about when he was young and was asked what items would have most meaning to him that he would save in a fire. The correlation to his narration and the situation he finds himself in is that there is no value when something valuable is destroyed. Instead of Nemo hoping to escape and make a profit from the art pieces he stole, he now finds himself in locked-up solitude creating his own art.

In the film, Nemo says, “There’s no creation without destruction!” In Inside there is a lot of creation and destruction. Unfortunately, it is a lot harder than Nemo or the audience anticipates because there is no simple answer to get him out of confinement. From my perspective, this film is an experimental thriller that keeps its audience thinking. Three stars.