Hello movie lovers, it’s Slick Dungeon here! Today I’ve got a recommendation for a movie you should watch whether or not you are an Oscars fan. Dune: Part Two is a sweeping science fiction masterpiece that has to be seen to be believed. It’s beautifully crafted, well acted, and in some areas, even improves on the source material. Let’s get into it!
What is Dune: Part Two about?
Obviously this film is a sequel to the first Dune film. I won’t spoil that movie here for you but if you want to know more about it, read my review here. The second film in the series continues to follow Paul Atreides. Paul is played by Timothée Chalamet who puts in an epic performance. Zendaya also plays a seriously impressive role in this film. Paul is prophesied to be the savior of many worlds in the galaxy. He has made an alliance on a desert planet with people called the Fremen.
At the same time, there are rival houses who want to kill him, and an oppressive emperor who rules the galaxy with an iron fist. Paul has to navigate faith, politics, love, and family all while he himself is uncertain about the future.
It is an intricately complicated story and while I will always recommend reading the book, the movie actually makes some improvements by speeding up time a bit, introducing some events from later books, and adding to the roles of a few other characters.
And I will say, if you can see this at a theater on a big screen, this is the best experience of the film. I definitely advise you to watch the first part before watching the second but this is a film experience. And I personally think it’s better than the first one.
the Awards
This movie is up for awards in 5 categories. Best Sound, Best Visual Effects, Best Cinematography, Best Production Design and Best Picture are the ones it landed nominations for. I think Timothée Chalamet, Zendaya, Rebecca Ferguson, and Javier Bardem all deserved to be nominated for their acting but I guess they’ll just have to be satisfied with the huge paychecks they got from this movie. Timothée Chalamet does get a shot for a different movie, A Complete Unknown which I will review later this week.
As far as the technical categories go, it would be a total shame if Dune: Part Two doesn’t win at least some of them. Sound was incredibly impressive and used to great effect in this film. And the cinematography is chef’s kiss perfect. Production design was great but there may be better contenders in that category. And let’s just say, the visual effects are jaw dropping in this movie. It’s fantastic. If this movie does lose in any of those categories, my guess is Wicked will pick them up instead. But I’m hoping Dune gets something here.
As far as Best Picture goes I don’t think this will win. Now, I will say, I thought this was an incredible movie and maybe it should win. But, science fiction almost never wins. I’m still bitter about Star Wars not taking home the win in 1977. I haven’t seen all the movies in the category for this year so there could be a better movie but this one is definitely in the top three, at least for me.
Dune: Part Two in conclusion
If you can get to a theater to watch this before it is gone, run, don’t walk. It’s an incredible movie experience and it just doesn’t work as well at home. But even if you can’t get there, do at least watch it at home if you are a science fiction fan at all. It’s one of the most well made movies in the last decade, hands down.
Awardingly yours,
Slick Dungeon
P.S. Want to see what I thought of the Best Picture winner last year? Check out my review of Oppenheimer!
Ethan Herisse and Brandon Wilson star in Nickel Boys
Hello film fans and welcome to Oscar week! Like I do every year, I’m going to review all of the movies up for Best Picture this year. Ten movies are nominated. I’ll do my best to get them all out before the big show. But that does mean some days you’ll get more than one review from me this week. Hope you don’t mind! With that out of the way, let’s get into the first nominated film I watched, Nickel Boys.
What is Nickel Boys about?
Nickel Boys is based on the book titled The Nickel Boys by Colson Whitehead. The book is fictional but based on the real life events of an abusive reform school called the Dozier School. It was the kind of school you’d find in segregated areas where utterly horrific acts of violence, up to murder, were perpetrated upon the kids forced to be there.
In the movie, we see the story of Elwood Curtis who is a good student who is accepted into a trade school. When he goes to the school for the first time, he gets a ride with a stranger who is pulled over by the police. While Elwood is innocent of any crime, he’s forced to go to a reform school for boys called the Nickel Academy. This school has two units, one for white boys and one for non-white boys. It’s obvious the white students are treated far more favorably but there is abuse all around.
While there, Elwood makes friends with a boy named Turner. The two are exposed to abuse and injustice and try to figure a way out of the academy. Things get dark and we see some flashbacks and flashes forward of both Elwood and Turner. Sometimes the shifting perspective is a little hard to follow.
The first person point of view
I have to mention the entire film is shot from a first person point of view. I’m of two minds about this. On the one hand, it feels visceral and you really do get into the head of the characters and feel like you are the one experiencing the story. On the other hand, it’s absolutely apparent that Ethan Herisse who plays Elwood and Brandon Wilson who plays Turner are delivering top notch performances. But you hardly see their faces and that seems like a shame to me.
While I think this is a good film, I’m not as sold on the first person experience as some critics were. It is a unique way to shoot a film but between that technique and the flashes forward and back, sometimes the story is hard to follow and lessens a bit of the impact of the story. And I do think this is an important story to tell. I just think in this case, the book may do a better job conveying it than the film.
I won’t spoil too much of the movie here but I will say there are moments that are seriously shocking and maybe they wouldn’t have worked as well if not in first person point of view. But I found watching this way a bit of an exercise in patience.
The acting is fantastic and it’s beautifully shot with some amazing cinematography and heavy editing work here. The score fits nicely but I don’t think it’s especially amazing. And the directing must have been difficult to do this kind of movie in a first person perspective.
The awards
This film has already been nominated (and won) a bunch of awards. But as far as the Oscars go, it’s only up for Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay. I’m never good at predicting what will actually win the big awards. But if I had to put money on this (don’t put money on this based on what I say) I’d say this will not win Best Picture. It has a shot at Best Adapted Screenplay, especially considering the unique POV. But I don’t think that’s actually going to be enough to clench the win here.
In conclusion
While I absolutely think this is a story that should be told, I’m not sold on this film being the best way to tell it. The first person camera work is impressive but sometimes comes off as more of a gimmick than it should. But there is a lot of beautiful art to behold. And the acting is excellent. I just wanted to see more of it. I don’t think this one will be my favorite of the nominees but I’m certain it’s far from the worst one. If you saw this one, I’d be curious to know what you thought of the first person point of view. Let me know in the comments if you did.
Awardingly yours,
Slick Dungeon
P.S. Want to see what I thought of the Best Picture winner last year? Check out my review of Oppenheimer!
Saturday Night depicts the 90 minutes before the first airing of the famous television show
Live from wherever you are reading this, here’s my review of Saturday Night! Hey everyone, Slick Dungeon here. We all know Saturday Night Live is a sketch comedy institution at this point. It’s been on the air for 50 years so it’s a pretty well known show. But it wasn’t always that way. The movie, directed by Jason Reitman is a fictionalized depiction of the 90 minutes on October 11, 1975 just before the first episode of the show aired. I’ll be giving some mild spoilers in this review. One thing that is not a spoiler is the show obviously made it to air. This sucks a little bit of the drama away but it doesn’t really hurt the film.
What’s it about?
You would think with the long history of Saturday Night Live this story would have already been told. In some ways it has, through books, anecdotes and interviews, not to mention the sketches and jokes in the show itself, a lot has been made of the origins of SNL. The film takes the approach of just giving us the 90 minute window before Lorne Micheals’ career was to either rise up in glory or go down in flames.
The film is frenetic and full of constant chaos. There are problems with the sets, the lists of material is way too long to fit into a 90 minute live show. There are actors who haven’t signed contracts. NBC censors are breathing down the necks of the young comedians. And there is an old television establishment just hoping for the whole thing to fail.
While this is a huge ensemble cast, the main driver of the story is Lorne Micheals played by Gabriel LaBelle. He has to put out dozens of fires backstage, some literal, while convincing the powers that be the show is worthwhile. It’s a wild ride full of absolute chaos with Michaels just barely tying it all together.
The casting
Before I go further with the review I have to mention the casting. It’s not easy casting faces the whole world is familiar with. We’re talking about comedy and musical legends who are internationally famous. But somehow the casting is pitch perfect. It helps that the main character is the one people would least recognize on the street interacting with famous people like Chevy Chase, Dan Aykroyd, and John Belushi. And while it is impossible to look at these actors and say they look exactly like the actors did in the 1970s, the energy they bring to their parts is completely believable through the whole thing.
And while Gabriel LaBelle deserves a ton of credit here for his performance there are others that stand out too. Dylan O’Brien as Dan Aykroyd brings a non-stop fever pitch of jokes and energy. Matt Wood as John Belushi does a great job conveying the outwardly frustrated but clearly genius comedic mind of the man. Ella Hunt as Gilda Radner is also fantastic. But I think there are two performances that stand out most to me. Cory Michael Smith as Chevy Chase shows us both on and off stage personalities of the man and gives a nuanced approach to it. The other is Nicholas Braun who is tasked with double duty as both Andy Kaufman and Jim Henson. He nails both parts. Although I do have an issue with some of how the film portrays Henson. But we’ll get to that a little later.
The real conflict of Saturday night
The basic premise of the movie frames this as whether or not the show makes it to air. We all know what happened there. But the true conflict here is the establishment versus the younger generation. Everyone going around telling Lorne Michaels no is someone who has been in television for decades. But Michaels is trying to convince them they should put on this show that will be the first live show created, produced, and acted by the first generation that grew up entirely watching television.
There are two moments in the film that show how subversive this generation was. First, Lorne Michaels goes to find someone to hire to do the lighting for the episode. He goes straight to a young guy working on the Milton Berle show. He tells the guy it’s risky, the show probably won’t succeed, and there’s no guarantee there will even be a second show. The guys asks Michaels what the pay is and Michaels responds, “That’s the worst part.” The young guy immediately quits his job and works for Michaels.
There’s a similar scene involving a writer who Michaels hires at a bar. The guy is writing jokes for a comedian who has the material but keeps botching the jokes by changing them or delivering the lines poorly. Again he signs on with MIchaels.
And there are scenes with the NBC censors where the writers easily convince the older woman that some things that maybe shouldn’t be on television are fine. Because she is completely out of touch with the language of the younger generation.
And George Carlin who was the first host of the show, looked down on these young comedians to an extent, bragging that he was a “real comedian.” He doesn’t even show up in any sketches in the first episode. So even a subversive comic at the time was an establishment figure to Lorne and crew.
It’s because of scenes like that I think the movie can work for anyone watching, whether they are familiar with SNL or not. But I do have some caveats.
Who is Saturday Night for?
If you are Generation X or older, you’ll get a kick out of this movie for sure. You probably remember either being around at the time or watching the clips of the sketches (or re-runs) on television. And you’ll get most of the references. Probably all of them if you are older than Gen X.
From Millennials on down, you’ll still enjoy the movie, but there are probably things here that don’t make a lot of sense. In the 1970s stand up comedy was being deconstructed by people like Andy Kaufman and Steve Martin. So some of the jokes that played well then might land with a thud now. Those instances are a “you had to be there at the time” moment.
You don’t have to be overly familiar with the original cast of Saturday Night Live to like the movie but it helps if you know who they are. And it’s kind of a blast to watch the movie and then watch (or re-watch) the first episode of the show.
Did this all really happen?
So much happens in this movie it’s really hard to believe all of it occurred in the 90 minutes before showtime. I’m pretty sure they condensed a few things, took anecdotes from later episodes, and probably on a few occasions, outright made up some of what happens in the movie. But it gets the point across.
The one thing that bugs me about that is the attitude toward Jim Henson in the movie. Yes, it’s true the Muppets show up in early SNL days. It’s also true the rest of the cast was not so nice to Jim Henson. But a few times in the movie they make Henson look a bit more reserved and prudish than he was. We all know him now for famous children’s entertainment. But he totally thought Muppets would work in subversive late night comedy for adults. This is a guy who had used puppets to sell cigarettes after all. Henson was actually really excited to be working on a show like this.
There are a few other things I could mention that stretch the truth in the movie. But, it doesn’t really take away from the drama and comedy of the film. After all, this is not a documentary. So my takeaway here is most of this happened but not all and not all in that 90 minutes. But the entertainment value outweighs the truth here.
Saturday Night in conclusion
If you need a good comedy/drama with an incredibly talented cast that will remind you why it’s good to go against the establishment, I can’t recommend this more. It’s a really fun ride full of way more energy than anything else on screen and it’s a shame it didn’t do better at the box office.
Before I go, I just want to make my pitch for a sequel to this. It’s really interesting to see these people we know as long established celebrities at their early stages. SNL was a subversive phenomenon at the time. But now, it’s such old hat that it feels inevitable. I’d love to see a take on 90 minutes from the start of a show now. Is it still as frantic and chaotic? Or are the routines so well established it’s like a well oiled machine? And also, wouldn’t SNL now be the establishment? So who is going up against that? Just a thought.
Comedically yours,
Slick Dungeon
P.S. Want another great film to watch? Check out my review of Carrie!
Hello film fans, Slick Dungeon here! Today I am going to be reviewing the independent horror/thriller film Thou Shalt Kill directed by Richard Friedman. I was offered a screener copy in exchange for a fair review for this film. I’ll let you know what I think the strengths of the film are and where it could use some improvement. There will be spoilers but I will keep them mild. If you want to know more I’ve included the trailer below. You can find the film on Amazon here.
Thou Shalt Kill trailer
What is Thou Shalt kill about?
In Las Vegas there is a serial killer known as Priest, played by Vince Lozano, on the loose. He punishes sinners for their crimes and has gotten away with several murders already.
Meanwhile, recovering alcoholic Shannon, played by Augie Duke, has hit rock bottom. She is in the middle of a difficult divorce with her wife and is fighting for the custody of their son. When she feels all is lost, she goes back to drinking, only to find herself captured by Priest. Now Shannon has to fight for her life and protect her son by outwitting the dangerous killer. But at the same time, she has alcohol induced hallucinations and blacks out, causing frustration for the killer, and sometimes blurring reality for the audience.
The crux of the film is seeing if Shannon and her young son can survive the situation. And we also get some insight into her past through flashbacks building up to a larger story.
The Good
While the motivation of the killer is fairly standard and it reminds me of the villain in Se7en, Vince Lozano comes off as threatening and wholly believable in the film. He has a pretty nuanced performance and he’s enjoyable to watch as a bad guy.
Similarly, Augie Duke really shines as Shannon. She has to go through a multitude of emotions and she does a fantastic job for the most part. It’s easy to buy her moments of rock bottom and desperation in the film. And she plays it smart against the killer, not just bumbling into his manipulations or falling for his rhetoric.
For a low to no budget film, the cinematography works very well. And there a couple of well timed soundtrack songs that stick with you after the film due to the creepiness they impart. The film also makes good use of the short runtime and knows when to end the story.
The bad
There are some things in this movie that people might consider bad but are just a result of low budget. The film takes place in a car for a majority of the film. And a lot of the drama comes from a religious and philosophical debate between Priest and Shannon. Some people are not going to enjoy that but I had no problem with it. In fact, Hollywood has done this before in films like Collateral. I found the performances engaging enough to enjoy this part of the film.
There are a few flashback scenes that do feel a bit wooden to me. I don’t think this is anyone’s fault in particular but there were just a couple scenes that I think didn’t quite sell me on some of the past events. It’s not so pervasive that I couldn’t enjoy the movie but I found those scenes a bit distracting.
And in similar fashion some of the flashback scenes don’t entirely add up with what the characters (especially Priest) are saying in real time. Those scenes were a little less problematic to me though. And the visuals on some of Priest’s scenes are done really well. Sometimes they stretch credulity just a bit but they were fun horror style scenes.
This also looks low budget but that’s because it is. I don’t fault them at all for that and I am always in support of independent film making. But be warned it will look low budget.
The ugly
There’s one complaint I have about the film I can’t quite get past. The ending goes in a direction that I think does not work and it didn’t sit right with me. At a certain point I found myself thinking there was no way they would end it this way. And then they did. For some people this ending is going to be too much for the whole film. I’ll say it is a twist and I can see how they were trying to get there. It just wasn’t for me. Others might find it an incredible turn.
To the film’s credit, the ending wasn’t enough to make me dislike the whole movie. The really strong performances by Duke and Lozano kept me engaged. There is a lot of conversation in the film but I found it to be interesting enough to keep watching. After all, for most of the movie, the only weapon Shannon would have against Priest would be her words. But the whole film would have been made much stronger if they had tweaked the ending just a bit more.
Thou Shalt Kill in conclusion
Do I recommend this film? For some viewers yes. If you don’t mind low budget independent films and you’re comfortable with horror and thriller elements this can be a good watch. But, the ending is not as strong as I would like, and there are a few things that don’t fully add up in the movie.
However, it really is a good effort and there are two standout performances that make the film worth watching in my book. It’s always good to support independent films when Hollywood keeps just sending us the same old remakes, sequels, and prequels over and over. While not all of this film feels completely original, the film makers were trying for something new and independent and I think that is worth watching.
Have you seen this one? If so, let me know what you thought in the comments!
Independently yours,
Slick Dungeon
P.S. Want to see more of my movie reviews? Check out my review of Nosferatu.
Hello internet people! Welcome to Slick Dungeon’s February Challenge Check-in! In this post I’ll be going through the progress I made on my movie, book, and ttrpg challenges for the year so far. If you’re doing any of the challenges as well, I’d love to hear about it in the comments.
Slick Dungeon’s February Challenge Check in for movies!
Slick Dungeon’s Movie Challenge. Download your copy by clicking the image!
I watched a few movies this month but only one met a challenge requirement. I was recommended I Saw the TV Glow by a friend. And it was a great recommendation. If you didn’t see my review already, check it out here. But I will say, the best film I watched in January was Hereditary. Great movie if you like horror. I also watched Nosferatu which I thought was fine but not groundbreaking. And I watched We’re All Going to the World’s Fair. To me, that one is not worth your time. It does have a decent performance by Anna Cobb though.
Slick Dungeon’s February Challenge Check in for Books!
Slick Dungeon’s Book Challenge. Download your copy by clicking the image!
This one is going to be a little bit of a cheat. I read a book of short stories which is not yet released. It is called Four Dark and Stormys and a Hangover by Dan Kaminski. It’s a book of horror novellas but I’m counting it as a book of short stories. My review will come soon so watch for that this month. I think for next month I’ll be reading a fantasy book called Uprooted by Naomi Novik.
Slick Dungeon’s February Challenge Check in for TTRPGs!
Slick Dungeon’s TTRPG Challenge. Download your copy by clicking the image!
In January I read the rule books for a TTRPG called Along the Leyline. I’ll be doing a review of it on this blog later this month. And once I’ve gotten a chance to play it, I’ll do a more comprehensive rules breakdown of the game. There are a lot of similarities between this one and Dungeons & Dragons but I will say the rules for Along the Leyline are more streamlined and easier to follow. There are lots of strengths here and a few spots for improvement but I’ll go into detail more on that in a post later this month.
How is your progress going?
Now that I’ve shared my updates with all of you, I would love to know if any of you have taken these challenges. Watched any movies, read any books, or done any of the TTRPG challenges? Please let me know in the comments!
Anna Cobb stars in We’re All Going to the World’s Fair
Hey everyone, Slick Dungeon here. I’m back to review another psychological horror film. We’re All Going to the World’s Fair is a 2021 coming of age, psychological horror film centered on a girl named Casey. Casey is played by Anna Cobb. Normally, I would warn you against spoilers in this review but there’s really not a lot to spoil in this film so read away.
The movie is a bit of a hybrid of found footage and classic film making styles. At the beginning of the film Casey awkwardly makes a video talking about how she is going to take the “world’s fair challenge.” This is along the lines of any TikTok or YouTube challenge you might see. You prick your finger to draw blood, say, “I want to go to the world’s fair” three times and you’ve started the challenge. Then something is supposed to happen to you. You are changed in some way.
The good
Before I get into criticisms here I’ll point out what I like about this movie. It is low budget. I love to see independent, low budget horror. I think that’s some of the most creative stuff out there. Anna Cobb takes the lead and her acting performance was solid. She seems a bit understated most of the time but that’s the role. The soundtrack is pretty decent. And the cinematography of the non-found footage is good. Found footage scenes don’t look as good but they aren’t supposed to.
The bad
Also, before I get into the criticism here let me just say I like slow burn horror. It’s not for everyone but I do enjoy a good, slow paced horror film that can pack a punch at the end.
The problem with this film is there is no punch. For there to be a slow burn there has to be a fire at some point. There are some creepy images. A few things Casey says are disturbing. But that’s it. There’s nothing else there. You are supposed to be guessing if this is reality or supernatural. It’s clear the whole time which one it is.
The scenes are incredibly long. I’m okay with slow pacing but you’ll want to fast forward. You don’t miss anything if you do. Most of the film felt like someone new to YouTube struggling to get channel views. As a plot that’s fine but with this pacing, I might as well watch YouTube.
The only other character who relates to Casey is a man named JLB played by Michael J. Rogers. The dude just comes off as oddly creepy and way too interested in a teenager. But it’s not scary in any way.
In Conclusion
I wish I could recommend this film. But if you are looking for horror or psychological thrills you are not going to find them here. It’s good to support independent movies but this one doesn’t take us anywhere. You’re better off finding a different independent film if you want entertainment. But if you love slow dramas and just want to support an independent voice then it’s worth it. I do think the film makers tried their best and made the film they wanted to. If you want to be a low budget film maker it’s worth a watch. But if you want to see some horror? Don’t bother, it’s not here.
If you want to watch brilliant horror film with a slow build up, check out Hereditary.
Hello there internet people, it’s Slick Dungeon! I just watched Nosferatu (2024) and wanted to get my thoughts about it out here. There are some spoilers here but if you’ve seen or read Dracula in almost any form, you know the plot.
A quick summary
For a speed read of a review on this, the movie is just Dracula but with some elements changed and a different ending. While the changes are notable and interesting, I didn’t feel like this movie delivered as well as it should have. The production design is incredible and Nicholas Hoult and Bill Skarsgård have excellent performances. However, I personally felt there was a bit of overacting on the part of Willem Dafoe and Lily-Rose Depp. I can understand what they were going for but it just seemed a notch too high here and there.
There is some incredible makeup in the film. And it does deliver a decent sense of dread, especially in the first third of the movie. The middle section drags just a bit. The end of the film does wrap up well and there are some incredibly memorable moments but not all of them work.
The story
Dracula and Nosferatu (2024) share very similar story lines for a good reason. In 1922 a film was made called Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror. And it’s a film classic. But it was an unauthorized adaptation of the book. So while the characters in Nosferatu are not named the familiar names of Johnathan and Mina Harker, and Dracula is instead called Count Orlok, the integral elements remain the same.
There is a young solicitor who has to leave his young wife to go to a castle in Transylvania and seal a land contract with the Count who lives there. While there, he is taken prisoner and has to escape to return to his wife. And the young wife seems to be somehow entranced by this count. You basically know how this story goes.
The creature
What I do find interesting about both the original Nosferatu and this one, is the look of our favorite vampire. This is no smooth and beautiful creature who charms women. This is an ugly demonic thing which uses its power to dominate both men and women.
There’s also an added element in the third act of the 2024 version that ups the stakes for not just our heroes but all of society. In my opinion, that was a good change. But it wasn’t enough to make me think this film is superior to other versions of Dracula.
In conclusion
Despite this being a rehashed Dracula, it is an entertaining film. There are some great elements of gore, makeup, and special effects. And the production truly feels like walking into the past. I am looking forward to seeing how director Robert Eggers handles werewolves in his next project.
But I also feel like if you don’t see this one in theaters, you’ll be fine streaming it whenever it gets to a service you have. It’s a good take on Dracula but in my opinion not a great one. I know a lot of people might disagree with me here, and that’s totally fine. It just didn’t fully sell me on it the whole way through. But I do love seeing big and bold horror productions so I hope we get more movies like it. I just hope they can be a tad more original and have a couple performances more grounded in reality.
Vampirically yours,
Slick Dungeon
P.S. Want to see a classic horror film? Check out Dracula (1931)!
Toni Collette and Milly Shapiro star in Hereditary
Hey everyone, Slick Dungeon here. I know I am late to this party but I just watched Hereditary and I’ve got to say it’s one of the best horror films I’ve ever seen. There are going to be some spoilers in this review but I’ll try to keep them mild.
The film is about the Graham family. The family is mourning the loss of the eldest member of the family, Ellen. The film stars Toni Collette as Annie Graham. Gabriel Byrne plays Steve Graham who is married to Annie. Alex Wolfe plays Peter Graham, Annie’s 16 year old son. And rounding out the cast is Milly Shapiro who stars as Charlie Graham. Ann Dowd also has a sizable role as a woman named Joan who befriends Annie.
Any time I see Toni Collette is in a show or movie I know there will be at least one amazing performance. Hereditary has at least five of them. Toni Collette does most of the heavy lifting but the quiet portrayal by Gabriel Byrne, the descent into panic by Alex Wolfe, and the somewhat strange and mysterious performance by Milly Shapiro give the movie weight and build up the tone to perfection.
At the start of the movie, Annie has suffered a complicated loss. It starts at the funeral of her own mother who she clearly had a fraught relationship with. Charlie seems to have been the favored grandchild of Ellen. So Charlie is the only one who is truly missing Ellen.
Annie goes to a support group to understand her complicated feelings and find some community surrounding her mother’s death. At the same time, her relationship with her husband and children are strained. The reason for this becomes more clear later on in the film but the tension is palpable.
And then a sudden event makes things excessively worse for her and every member of her family.
The lead up to the horror here is definitely a slow burn. But once the horror hits, it is relentless. And it’s not just the horror of jump scares or some lunatic running around with a knife. It’s also the horror of tragedy, of mental illness, and of family members not believing or understanding what is happening.
While the film has won its share of awards, it’s nearly criminal this didn’t win any Oscars. It’s the kind of project where this being a horror film makes the nuance of the performance even more necessary.
And the film delivers an absolutely unforgettable ending. There are those who might say the ending is not earned but if you watch it a second time, everything for the ending is set up in the film early on. It’s great not just on a first watch but on a repeat watch.
The movie is not overly gory but there are moments of gore and these characters are dealing with real trauma. For that reason it gets intense. So if that is not for you, stay away from this one. But if you are looking for an absolutely great horror watch, Hereditary is perfect.
Love Lies Bleeding starring Kristen Stewart and Katy M. O’brian
⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 4 out of 5.
Love Lies Bleeding is a 2024 crime thriller starring Kristen Stewart and Katy O’brian. It is an A24 production directed by Rose Glass. The film pulls no punches at all and takes the viewer on an intense ride from start to finish. It’s a love story and a crime story with strong elements of horror and gore. Plus, there is a bit of surrealism here which some will find amazing and others may not enjoy.
What is Love Lies Bleeding About?
The story is set in the 1980’s. It opens in a rough and grimy gym. This is not the kind of place that tells you to believe in yourself and do your best. It’s the type where everyone is constantly drenched in sweat, the bathrooms are filthy, and the signs say things like “Pain is weakness leaving your body.”
Kristen Stewart’s character Lou manages the place. One day a woman who is working her way to a body building competition in Las Vegas starts coming to the gym. This is Jackie, played by O’Brian and the two soon fall in love.
There are major complications. Lou has an obsessive and flirtatious ex-girlfriend. She has a sister who is being abused by Lou’s brother in law. And Lou’s father is a vicious criminal acting like an upstanding citizen in the community. Lou’s father is played by Ed Harris.
Things come to a head when Lou’s sister ends up in the hospital. Lou wants to do something to stop her brother in law. But it’s Jackie who takes action. And this action leads to a course of events that throws the characters into inevitable conflict with a trail of bodies behind them.
I don’t want to give too much away here but the plot gets rather complicated and connects all of the players.
The production design and acting are incredible
The production and set design here are outstanding. It’s set in the 1980s. But it looks and feels like the 80s really did. There are muscle men wearing pink neon. But the hair, the outfits, all of it fits together. This isn’t someone’s idea of the 80’s it’s the lived experience.
Everyone seems to be sweating in the movie and it’s almost as if you want to wipe the grime off the screen yourself. It really works for the tone of the film.
Kristen Stewart gives a complex and amazing performance, balancing romantic interests, a life falling apart, and intense action sequences all at once. But it’s Katy O’Brian who really shines here. The physicality of the role had to be intense. And her strong body is in direct contrast to her vulnerable emotions throughout the film.
And I have to give Ed Harris his usual credit here. He’s always amazing but he plays an outstanding villain here who is cold, ruthless, and intelligent.
The ending is not for everyone
As good as the film is, it’s not perfect. The ending is definitely divisive here. Some will love it while others are going to find it silly and confusing. I think it ultimately works. But it’s tough to tell how metaphorical it’s meant to be. I found it to be satisfying and it does wrap up the story.
There are enough shocking and intense moments to forgive anything here that seems a bit off. But one does wonder if the film would be better served without the surrealist elements that do show up. Either way, it works in the end and stays true to the intention of the film.
Love Lies Bleeding In Conclusion
If you’re looking for a crime thriller in an unexpected setting this is a great one. It’s in an odd world of bodybuilding in the 80’s and it just works as far as the story goes. But it does take a while to warm up. You might say it’s a slow burn. But by the point things do get burning, it’s a raging inferno which does not stop. Expect to have some mixed feelings about the end but if you haven’t seen this you’re in for quite the ride.
Thrillingly yours,
Slick Dungeon
P.S. Want to read more of my movie reviews? Check this one out here!
The 2025 movie challenge is a basic challenge. Watch any move that fits into the requirements on the checklist and then check it off! Download the challenge right here or in the image below.
Here’s how I plan to meet the challenge!
For a movie made more than 10 years ago I’m going to watch a black and white horror film
I need someone to recommend me a movie for the second one. Got any recommendations?
A silent movie – I will probably go with Charlie Chaplin here.
A movie with an alien on the poster – might do Alien for this one!
A guilty pleasure movie – I love horror comedy so probably one of those
The oldest movie on my to be watched list is Scarface (I went by oldest meaning it has been on my list the longest. Feel free to interpret it however you want.)
A movie with no special effects – I’ve been wanting to re-watch Before Sunrise so that’s my pick.
A movie with incredible special effects – it was amazing for the time and I’ll take any excuse to re-watch it so Star Wars is my pick.
A movie from a country you have visited (or always wanted to) – I’ve been lucky enough to visit Japan a couple of times so I will pick a Japanese film but I don’t know which one yet.
A movie with the word yellow in the title – Yellow Submarine
A movie with no romance in it – Not sure what I will pick here but it will likely be in the horror genre.
A movie with all romance – I’ve never seen The Notebook so I’ll give that one a try.
I hope you enjoy the challenge! Don’t forget to let me know if you play along and how it goes if you do.
