Black Widow

The Marvel Cinematic Universe will never be the same. After Endgame, Kevin Feige and the Marvel team have expanded the stories of our favorite heroes to the small screen, giving them more time to explore the new corners of this vast universe. However, after a long hiatus, Marvel movies are back, and it’s exciting to see Natasha Romanoff on the big screen one last time.

Black Widow has been one of the most interesting and mysterious characters in the MCU for years. When we first met her, she was a top SHIELD agent with an obscure past. Unfortunately, even though her story seemed worth exploring, Marvel never gave her a proper solo film. But that’s no longer the case.

Black Widow takes us to Europe, where Nat is hiding from the Government after the events of Civil War. There, she discovers a dangerous secret about the Red Room, something that could destroy many innocent lives. That’s when she decides to team up with her sister Yelena (Florence Pugh) to take down the Red Room and the man behind it once and for all.

Director Cate Shortland finally delivers an epic and trilling story where Natasha (Scarlet Johansson) isn’t just a side character. The film is on a par with one of the strongest MCU entries, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and it really delivers in terms of action and story.

There are a lot of plot twists and surprises along the way, but also a lot of humor and heart. Natasha and Yelena are one of the best MCU duos ever created and Johansson and Pugh’s chemistry is perfect. Their scenes are perfect, and Pugh’s Yelena is the best addition to the MCU we’ve had in years.

The rest of the cast does a really nice job too, even though they don’t have much screen time. Rachel Weisz and David Harbour shine when they’re together and also have some good scenes; and O-T Fagbenle has a very small but funny role, one that could potentially play again in future MCU movies or shows.

As I mentioned before, the action is absolutely perfect. Every single sequence is incredibly well-choreographed and shot, and every single punch felt very real and painful. This is the kind of action that we sometimes miss in the MCU, but Shortland and her team really delivered this time.

If I had to say something negative about this film, it would be about the second act and the villain. The story moves so fast that at one point it stops and you can feel it. This pause the film takes is used to explore Natasha’s family dynamic, and it is actually a pretty good and moving sequence, but the pacing is not as good as the rest of the movie.

On the other hand, Taskmaster is a very intimidating villain and all the action scenes where he’s involved are good. However, they could have done more with the character, and I really hope Marvel uses him again in future MCU stories.

Black Widow is a very strong and powerful MCU film, one that every Marvel fan will enjoy. It explores the darkest corners of this universe while presenting new and exciting characters that will become fan favorites. Natasha’s story deserved to be told and even though we had to wait a long time, it was worth it.

Cruella

Cruella follows the story of Estella (Emma Stone), a young and talented fashion designer who wishes to success in a cruel world. When she gets the opportunity to work alongside one of the best designers in London, the Baroness (Emma Thompson), Estella discovers she is destined for greatness.

Even though at first Cruella may seem like the typical villain origin story, it is not. This Cruella is not the younger version of the 1961 animated antagonist: she is an alternate version of the character. And while she keeps some of the signature trades that made Cruella so iconic, like the black and white styles, this new version adds a lot of new material to the character and the story in general, making it a very new interesting take on the Disney villain. However, don’t panic. Cruella is still bad, or at least, very mean.

Emma Stone as Cruella in Disney’s live-action CRUELLA. Photo courtesy of Disney. © 2021 Disney Enterprises Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Cruella is the lost child of Joker and The Devil wears Prada. If you liked one of these movies, or both, you will definitely enjoy this film.

The story is really deep and dark, especially if you remember this is a Disney movie. Cruella is not the crazy lady who wants to kill puppies anymore. She is more complex: she has a tragic backstory, of course, one that makes you understand why she becomes Cruella.

A lot of people have been making fun of the movie because they’ve watched certain scene at the beginning of the film, so I want to make sure you understand this (spoilers): Cruella doesn’t want to kill dalmatians because they killed her mom. That’s absurd and far from the truth. In fact, as I said before, she is not interested in murdering dogs anymore. She has five at the end of movie! Including three dalmatians!

The actual reason why she becomes Cruella is more realistic and entertaining. They’ve made the character sympathetic, yes, but in a way where she’s still the villain. That’s where the comparisons with Joker come into play.

Emma Stone as Cruella in Disney’s live-action CRUELLA. Photo courtesy of Disney. © 2021 Disney Enterprises Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Two of the strongest elements in this film are the production and costume design. Fiona Crombie, Jenny Beavan and Tom Davies have created a world where “normal is the cruelest insult of them all”, as Artie would say.

Every set is perfectly structured and built, and if they added VFX in some of them, you can’t tell. I wish we could have seen more of the Hell Hall mansion, but I guess they’ll save that for the sequel. Hopefully.

The costumes are amazing. All of Cruella’s outfits are absolutely stunning, and again, I wish we could have seen even more! Jenny Beavan truly deserves the recognition for creating more than 40 different looks that still are special and unique.

Emma Stone as Cruella in Disney’s live-action CRUELLA. Photo courtesy of Disney. © 2021 Disney Enterprises Inc. All Rights Reserved.

The rest of the cast is also really good. Emma Thompson does an amazing job as the Baroness, an even meaner version of Miranda Priestley. She is actually the devil in this movie.

As for Joel Fry’s Jasper, Paul Walter Hauser’s Horace and John McCrea’s Artie, the new member of the gang, they are very funny and charismatic, and have the funniest scenes in the film, but also deeper storylines, which makes their characters more realistic. Also, the dogs are a great addition to the team.

Emma Thompson as The Baroness in Disney’s live-action CRUELLA. Photo courtesy of Disney. © 2021 Disney Enterprises Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Cruella is not a perfect movie. It’s a bit long and the CGI can sometimes take you out of the experience. However, I enjoyed it very, very much. It’s funny, entertaining, dark and visually stunning. Emma Stone shines in every single scene she’s in and the music is also amazing.

If you like Disney movies in general, you will definitely like this film. Just remember, this Cruella is her own character, and the story is NOT like the original animated film. Now go watch Cruella darling, and enjoy it!

Emma Stone as Cruella in Disney’s live-action CRUELLA. Photo courtesy of Disney. © 2021 Disney Enterprises Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Chilling Adventures of Sabrina Season 4

The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina come to an end. Even though this show started in 2018 and became a huge hit for Netflix, the streaming service decided to cancel it last year, giving it a fourth and final season to conclude the story of Sabrina Spellman.

Is this final season worth-watching? The short answer would be yes. If you are a fan of the show, the characters and everything that makes CAOS special, you will enjoy these new episodes. Are they as good as the first ones? Is the ending any good? Let’s discuss.

CHILLING ADVENTURES OF SABRINA KIERNAN SHIPKA as SABRINA IN CHILLING ADVENTURES OF SABRINA. Cr. DIYAH PERA/NETFLIX © 2020

Season 4 of CAOS is great. As a said before, fans of the show will definitely enjoy it. It’s on par with season 3, so it means that, unfortunately, it’s not as good as the first two parts.

The story this time revolves around the Eldritch Terrors, powerful and ancient entities that are eager to destroy the world. Each episode focuses on one of these terrors, which made the show feel a bit episodic, instead of creating a huge plot line that develops throughout the season. This is not something bad per se, it just means that some episodes will be easily forgotten once you finish the show. However, I will admit that episode 7 was the best episode of the season, and probably one of the best of the series.

The Terror are quite interesting, but some of them are more developed than others. In the end, they feel like means to an end, which is bringing back certain characters and the big bad of the season: The Void.

The cast is, as usual, incredible. If CAOS has something special that will make you forget the not-so-good aspects of the show, it’s definitely its cast. Kiernan Shipka, Michelle Gomez, Miranda Otto and Skye P. Marshall are the best part of this season, mainly because they have the more interesting plot lines.

The rest of the cast does a great job every time they are on screen. Luke Cook, Tati Gabrielle and Lucy Davis are wonderful, especially in this season. However, the special guest stars of episode seven are probably the greatest addition to this show and this season.

CHILLING ADVENTURES OF SABRINA (L to R) LUKE COOK as LUCIFER and MICHELLE GOMEZ as MADAM SATAN inCHILLING ADVENTURES OF SABRINA. Cr. DIYAH PERA/NETFLIX © 2020

The ending was ok. You can definitely see how rushed it was, and that creator Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa had more stories to tell with this cast. However, Netflix canceled it, and at least, they didn’t leave the story open. It’s not a bad ending, but I wish we could have gotten a final season, or a special episode to wrap things up in a better way.

As Tony Stark would say, “part of the journey is the end”, and Chilling Adventures of Sabrina was quite the journey. Maybe it’s not the greatest show ever created, but I will always remember it. The good outweighs the bad, for sure, and these characters will always be remembered.

And who knows, maybe someday Netflix decides to bring back CAOS for one last adventure.

CHILLING ADVENTURES OF SABRINA (L to R) MIRANDA OTTO as ZELDA and LUCY DAVIS as HILDA in CHILLING ADVENTURES OF SABRINA. Cr. DIYAH PERA/NETFLIX © 2020

Ratched

Ryan Murphy and Sarah Paulson are teaming up again, but this time it’s not for another season of American Horror Story. At least, that’s what it looked like at first. Murphy and Paulson bring us Ratched, the new Netflix series that explores the origin of one of the most interesting characters in movie history: Mildred Ratched, the nurse that treated Jack Nicholson’s R.P. McMurphy in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

Ryan Murphy is a very special producer. No one can deny that some of his shows are outstanding pieces of art, like the first season of American Crime Story. But we all can agree that he doesn’t hit the jackpot every single time. However, despite his many flaws, Murphy always delivers good entertainment for those like me who tend to enjoy his work.

Ratched is definitely a Ryan Murphy show in every single aspect. From the gorgeous locations and shots to the amazing cast (including Sarah Paulson, of course). And the show has the potential to become the next Bates Motel. But even though this first season is strong on its own, and I’ve enjoyed it a lot from the very beginning, there are certain elements that don’t quite work.

The first thing that bothered me about Ratched was the season finale. The show ends with an amazing cliffhanger, which leaves us begging for season 2. But the problem isn’t that. At the end of the final episode, Sarah Paulson’s Mildred Ratched is, without a doubt, a totally different person than the Ratched we know from the movie. Now, I understand that Murphy really wants to continue with the story and, as I said, the show has potential, so maybe in a couple of seasons, we’ll end up getting the real Ratched. However, I feel like Netflix’s Ratched is a completely different character and it would be really difficult but interesting to see how they can unite both stories.

Does that mean that Paulson’s interpretation of the iconic character is bad? Not at all. Sarah Paulson is one of the best actors working on TV these days, and she is the best element on the show. Her Ratched has what Louise Fletcher’s didn’t: a backstory that justifies and explains how she acts. Of course, Ratched is a series and she is the main character, but sometimes protagonists are bland and the shows must be carried by the side characters. This isn’t that kind of show.

I loved Paulson’s Ratched: the way she dresses, her ability to manipulate everyone, and, especially, how well she adapts to every single situation. I can’t wait to see how she evolves in the next season and (hopefully) how she ends up being the Mildred Ratched that Nicholson hated so much.

The rest of the cast is also great. Finn Wittrock is a very convincing serial killer and Judy Davis’s Nurse Bucket is a delight throughout the series. Charlie Carver is surprisingly good, even though he doesn’t have much screen time and even Sharon Stone has her moments. And Sophie Okonedo is a force of nature. She shines every time she’s on-screen, and even when her character reminds us of James McAvoy in Split, her Charlotte is one of the most amazing elements on the show.

Ratched story is very interesting, and I think that’s one of the strengths of this show. The episodes never feel too long or too crowded. There aren’t unnecessary subplots that complicate the story too much, which is something that Ryan Murphy tends to do and even though the show is very similar to his other creation, American Horror Story, Ratched is more similar to the best seasons of that show and not the worst ones.

In general, I think Ratched is a very good show. If you like Ryan Murphy, American Horror Story, Sarah Paulson, or asylums, this is your show. And if you’re a fan of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, I think you can enjoy the series if you understand that this is a different take on the character and the world that movie portrayed.

I hope we get to see more of Murphy’s Ratched, and as they did with Bates Motel, I think it would be interesting to see if the final season for this show recreates the events of the movie. We’ll have to wait.

Tenet

Armed with only one word—Tenet—and fighting for the survival of the entire world, the Protagonist journeys through a twilight world of international espionage on a mission that will unfold in something beyond real time. Not time travel. Inversion.

They finally did it. After months of delays, Tenet is finally here. At least in those countries where cinemas are open. Christopher Nolan has been eager to share his latest movie with the world, and now that we can watch the film, it’s time to discuss the complexity of Nolan’s Tenet.

First of all, I’m not the greatest Christopher Nolan fan, and although I enjoy most of his films, I don’t consider any of them to be “masterpieces”. However, I thought that Tenet could change that trend and become my favorite Nolan film of all time, due to the fact that I loved the idea of inversion when I first saw the trailer. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. In general, I liked the movie, the characters, and the way Nolan directed it, but I had some problems with the script, which I think should have been the strongest element in Tenet.

My main complaint about Tenet’s script is that some of the key story elements are poorly explained or not explained at all. In fact, Clémence Poésy’s character says at the beginning of the movie: ‘Don’t try to understand it. Feel it.’ when she’s talking about how the inversion works, and I strongly believe that quote could sum up the entire film perfectly. If you try to understand every single little detail about Tenet‘s science and how everything we are presented in the story works, you won’t be able to enjoy the movie as much as you could. The ideas are really interesting and, visually, they work, but I felt some deeper explanations were needed.

But there are some really good elements in this movie, which makes it worth watching on the big screen. As I said before, Tenet’s visuals are spectacular. Nolan is a very good director, and he proves it once again. All the inversion sequences are absolutely stunning, especially during the third act, which is definitively the best moment of the movie. As I said, it’s not very well explained, but it looks amazing.

The acting is also extremely good. John David Washington does a very good job, and he is a very charismatic actor. However, I think it’s safe to say that Robert Pattinson and Kenneth Branagh have the strongest and most interesting roles in the story. Pattinson shows how good he really is as an actor, stealing every scene he is in, and Branagh does an amazing job portraying a very scary and realistic antagonist.

When I left the theater after watching the movie I knew a lot of people will love it. It’s a very good film, and I can’t deny that. However, I think Tenet must be experienced at least once. Even if you can’t understand everything, Nolan creates a really solid action film full of shocking mind-blowing twists, that every single cinephile will appreciate. It’s not the greatest movie of all times or the best Nolan story, but I think it’s worth seeing in theaters.

Why “Joker” works

There’s a lot you can say about this movie. Todd Phillips has created a very controversial and unique film that will divide audiences across the globe, and I’m sure that was the intention. As a comic book movie, “Joker” is not that special. It doesn´t have amazing action sequences or a gigantic cast of heroes. This is not that kind of movie. Does that mean that “Joker” is not good? Is this movie a complete failure? Not at all.

When reality surpasses fiction

Heath Ledger’s Joker is, probably, the most beloved and respected portrayal of the character. Ledger did such a good job with his interpretation of the Joker, that he won an Oscar. But his Joker had a Batman to fight, someone that could stop him. His relationship with the Dark Knight is, arguably, the most interesting aspect of these characters. So, how can they make a movie about the Joker, without Batman?

Well, the answer is simple. They didn´t. “Joker” is not the movie you are expecting. Yes, the Joker is the main character, but you only see him as this twisted villain at the end of this movie. This film is about Arthur Fleck, the man that becomes the Joker, and how he ended up that way.

Todd Phillips and Scott Silver’s screenplay tells the story of a man with mental illness, and how society decided to exclude him because of that. This premise is so well developed during the movie, that, sometimes, you can feel really bad about Arthur and everything that he has to go through. And this is a very delicate matter, because, unfortunately, it’s something that happens nowadays. Arthur is someone that needs help, but the world seems to not care about him. Of course, this is not an excuse for what he does, but it’s very interesting to see such a realistic take on a character like the Joker.

The most interesting part of this movie is not the Joker doing crazy things or killing people just to piss off Batman. What really sticks with you once you’ve watched the movie is the scary truth behind the origin of this Joker. A man who could not take care of himself becomes a monster due to the fact that the society where he lives turned his back on him. And the scariest aspect of this idea is that it’s not something that only happens in comic books.

“I can´t believe I feel bad about him”

As I said, there are certain moments where you feel bad about Arthur and what he has to go through. At first, I thought that feeling bad about this individual, who would end up being one of the most dangerous criminals on Gotham, wasn´t right. I could not feel that way about someone who could do the horrible things that the Joker does. However, that’s the entire point of this film. It reminded me of the dynamic between Batman and Joker during the events of “The Killing Joke”.

“All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That’s how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day.” It’s clear that Phillips took some inspiration for his movie from this story, which I understand. It’s probably the best way to create an interesting dynamic between characters. The Joker represents someone who, as he says, has lost everything. He has nothing to give his life meaning. And at the end of the movie, after finding out certain things about his own past, he decides to go full dark.

What I really like about this idea is that it can be applied to anyone, heroes and villains. And that’s what makes heroes so interesting, the fact that they overcome their fears and traumas to fight for what is right. However, in this film, we are introduced to someone who could not face his traumas on his own. Arthur needs help, and that’s why I felt bad about him. He didn´t have anyone to help him, and his life was horrible.

Now, even though I think that the origin of this Joker is brilliant, and gives him some kind of humanity, I know that he is the bad guy. We all know. What he does, especially in the third act of the film, is really disturbing, and after watching that, there’s no way back. Arthur is no longer there, it’s just the Joker. And you start feeling bad about the people of Gotham, mainly, because they don´t have Batman to protect them.

Can the Joker exist without Batman?

One of the most shocking elements of this film, besides everything the Joker does at the end of the movie, is the fact that Batman doesn´t exist. He is not around, so the Joker has no opponent. This is something that a lot of fans could be angry about. The Joker is at his best when he is rivaling Batman. They are, arguably, one of the best duos in comic book history. So the fact that Bruce doesn’t dress up as a bat every night, should be a problem. However, Phillips cleverly avoids this issue by locking up the Joker. He is in prison, and everything is over, right? Well, not really.

One of the best ideas that Phillips develops in this movie is how the Joker becomes a symbol of a revolution. The revolution against the rich people of Gotham. The Joker is incredibly powerful and scary because even when he has been arrested, his ideas are still alive. There are people fighting in the streets against the aristocracy.

In this case, yes. The Joker can exist without Batman. It’s sad that we can’t see THIS Joker against Batman, but it’s not something that doesn´t work.

Joker’s huge problem

There’s, however, one problem that comes with this interpretation of the character. And that problem has a name: Thomas Wayne. Phillips and Silver created an amazing antagonist for this movie, but the fact that he was Thomas Wayne, is a problem. Why?

Well, let’s start by saying that Bruce Wayne / Batman is one of the most famous characters in the world. He is the favorite superhero of thousands of people and one of the most well-known superheroes of all time. So, the idea that Bruce’s father was such a despicable human being, someone who would say such horrible things about the people of Gotham, is not right. At least, for me. I understand what they tried to do with the character, but I think that they didn´t have to name him Thomas Wayne. He could have been anyone. The problem is that when THAT thing happens to Wayne at the end of “Joker”, instead of saying “Oh no, what a tragedy”, you end up saying “Yeah, he deserves that”. 

Phillips and Phoenix, a great duo

“Joker” is a very good film overall. It has some pacing issues, which I’m sure some people would notice, but there are also some incredible scenes. Joaquin Phoenix is a very good Joker, very different from Ledger’s interpretation, but he respects the core essence of the character. He is scary and funny (in a Joker way), and, as I said, it’s sad that we won’t see more of him as the Joker.

Phillips, as a director, does a good job with the artistic part of the film. There are some really amazing shots throughout the movie, which results in a film that is beautiful and dark in a way that you can´t understand until you watch it. However, there are other elements that don´t work as well. The main problem is the pacing, as I said. The movie feels longer than it is, and there are certain moments during the second act, where the story doesn´t seem like it’s moving forward. One could say that the film is boring, but I wouldn´t go that way. It’s a slow burn. Phillips builds the tension little by little until the climax arrives at the end.

Why Joker works

Warner Bros. is having some trouble promoting this movie. And I know there are some elements that could trigger some people. However, we should remind ourselves that this is the story of the Joker, a character that is best known for his twisted mind and horrible actions. Phillips creates a film about a character that suffers from a lot of real issues and ends up becoming that monster we all know.

“Joker” works because the people who made this movie understood the character and decided to give him a more realistic backstory. There are no chemicals involved in the origin of this Joker. He is a real person with real problems, someone you could know. That’s what makes this movie special, and why I think a lot of people could have some trouble watching it. And that’s ok. Maybe “Joker” is not for everyone. But if you are a fan of the character, I’m sure you will enjoy this film a lot.

Nosotros / Us

Adelaide (Lupita Nyong’o) y Gabe (Winston Duke) van a pasar el fin de semana con sus hijos en una casa cerca de la playa. Sin embargo, lo que en un principio parece una escapada familiar tranquila se convierte en una locura sangrienta cuando la familia es atacada por sus dobles. 

Si Jordan Peele demostró algo con “Déjame salir” fue su enorme talento como guionista, gracias a una historia que no solo le dio un Oscar, sino que cautivó a todo el mundo, rompiendo varios récords en taquilla. Con “Nosotros”, Peele vuelve al género que tan bien domina, creando una historia original e interesante que nos dejará pensando incluso al salir del cine.

El talento de Peele es indiscutible. Los primeros cuarenta minutos de “Nosotros” son una auténtica maravilla, tan impresionantes como la también aclamada “Un lugar tranquilo”. Esta primera mitad de la película lo tiene todo: intriga, suspense y terror en estado puro. Realmente lo pasas mal viendo cómo los dobles de la familia atacan por primera vez. Los dobles están muy bien desarrollados, y es interesante ver cómo se comportan en relación con los miembros “originales”, por así decirlo.

Sin embargo, durante la segunda mitad de la cinta, “Nosotros” se convierte en algo completamente diferente. Peele deja a un lado el terror y se centra más en crear una película de suspense y acción, con más dosis de comedia. Ahora bien, la comedia no es un problema hasta este punto. De hecho, durante la primera parte de la película hay algunos momentos cómicos y frases sarcásticas que casan bien con el tono general de la historia. Sin embargo, en la segunda parte se descontrola. La comedia roza niveles que no terminan de encajar con la terrorífica y seria primera mitad. El problema no es tanto que la comedia sea excesiva, sino que no parece formar parte de la misma película que veíamos al comienzo. Por así decirlo, es como si “Nosotros” fuera la mezcla entre una primera parte más parecida a “Un lugar tranquilo”, y que después se convierte en “Scream”. Por separado ambas son películas increíbles, pero juntas no terminan de encajar.

Aun así, “Nosotros” se disfruta mucho, especialmente gracias a la increíble actuación de Lupita Nyong’o. La ganadora del Oscar no solo demuestra el enorme talento que posee, sino que hace suya la película. Nyong’o hace un gran trabajo interpretando a Adelaide, pero cuando realmente brilla es cuando se convierte en su doble, Red. La forma en la que se mueve, habla y mira es perturbadora e inquietante, y es algo que se nos quedará en la memoria incluso después de haber dejado la sala.

El maravilloso papel de Nyong’o suple un poco otro de los fallos de la cinta: el giro final. El guion, como dije, parece estar partido en dos. Y tras ver el final me pregunto si habría sido mejor no explicar algunas cosas. A pesar de esto, el problema con el gran giro final es que es predecible. Es cierto que sigue siendo inquietante, pero durante el primer acto se puede deducir fácilmente, y eso le resta un poco de valor al final de “Nosotros”.

En general, creo que la nueva cinta de Jordan Peele es mejor que “Déjame salir”, al menos en lo que a tensión e intriga se refiere. Sin embargo, creo que, aunque Peele tiene un gran talento para crear historias, no parece que cerrarlas se le dé tan bien. Aun así, “Nosotros” tiene una primera mitad tan increíble que solo por verla en la gran pantalla, merece la pena.

A family’s serenity turns to chaos when a group of doppelgängers begins to terrorize them.

Jordan Peele’s “Get Out” was one of the most interesting and intriguing films of 2017, and it was the movie that got Peele an Oscar. Now, the director returns to the genre he loves with “Us”, a movie that will leave you thinking about everything you have watched even after you have left the cinema.

Peele is a wonderful screenwriter, and the first half of “Us” proves how talented he is. The first 45 minutes are at the same level of quality as another huge hit, “A quiet place”. They are intriguing, scary and breathtaking, and you really feel bad for the family that is being attacked by their doppelgängers. They are also very well developed, and it is amazing how they are similar, but at the same time darker and more brutal than the originals.

The problem comes with the second half of the movie. “Us” leaves the horror element aside and becomes something completely different. The movie turns into a very high-quality thriller, with a strong comedic aspect that doesn´t fit with the first part. “Us” starts being a horror movie and ends up being something similar to “Scream”. And I´m not saying “Scream” is a bad movie. In fact, I love “Scream”, but I love it for what it is: a very “meta” slasher movie. This combination of elements makes “Us” seem like two different movies piece together. The comedy is what really makes the difference. Even though there are some jokes during the first half of the movie, I would say that the horror element is stronger. In the second half, the horror aspect disappears, and that is the problem. The rest of the movie is still good, but it is not as good as the first part.

The strongest aspect of “Us” is, without a doubt, Lupita Nyong’o. Her performance is amazing and disturbing. When she is playing Adelaide, she is good. However, when she is playing the role of “Red”, Adelaide’s doppelgänger, she becomes the star of the movie. The way she moves, talks and looks is not only really weird, but intriguing and scary.

The other element I didn´t think was well developed overall, was the script. Peele tries to explain everything, or at least, most of the things we have seen in the movie, but it doesn’t work. Sometimes leaving things unexplained is better than giving them an unbelievable explanation. The director also creates a final twist, in order to leave the audience shocked, that doesn´t work either. In fact, you can see it coming without problems from the first 20 minutes of the movie.

Jordan Peele’s “Us” is very good, but not perfect. There are some elements that could have been better and others that don´t make sense at all. However, the first half of the movie is amazing, scary and intense, and it is worth seeing on the big screen.

Feliz Día de tu Muerte 2 / Happy Death Day 2U

Después de descubrir qué causó el bucle temporal que la mantuvo atrapada durante el mismo día hasta descubrir quién trataba de matarla, Tree Gelbman vuelve a dicho bucle de nuevo. Sin embargo, las cosas son distintas esta vez, y Tree debe averiguar qué ha cambiado para dejar de vivir el mismo día una y otra vez. 

“Feliz día de tu muerte” mezclaba dos elementos que a simple vista parecen no tener relación alguna: el género slasher y los bucles temporales. Una versión moderna y sangrienta del clásico “Atrapado en el tiempo” podría decirse.

Con esta segunda parte, Christopher Landon, director y guionista, nos lleva de vuelta al mundo de Tree, la joven que tuvo que revivir el mismo día varias veces hasta encontrar a su asesino. Sin embargo, esta secuela deja un poco de lado el misterio y la sangre para centrarse mucho más en las maravillas de la ciencia ficción.

Si con la primera entrega explorábamos los bucles temporales, “Feliz día de tu muerte 2” juguetea con las dimensiones alternativas y el multiverso. Y digo juguetea porque si hay algo que caracteriza a ambas entregas es el hecho de que ninguna explora a fondo los conceptos que presenta. Esto no es algo negativo, sino más bien una aclaración para aquellos que esperen ver un desarrollo total y riguroso de la teoría del multiverso.

El hecho de que la protagonista, Tree (Jessica Rothe) acabe en una dimensión alternativa, en la que ciertos personajes son completamente diferentes y algunos eventos sucedieron de forma distinta, fomenta uno de los elementos que ya estaba presente en la primera entrega: el humor.

“Feliz día de tu muerte 2” es tremendamente divertida, mucho más que su predecesora. Esto puede sonar raro, puesto que estamos ante lo que parece una cinta de terror. Sin embargo, y como dije antes, esta película pertenece mucho más al género de la ciencia ficción que al de terror. Dependiendo de lo que busques, este cambio te resultará más o menos negativo. En lo personal, creo que es una grata sorpresa que ayuda a mantener el interés por la historia, que funciona perfectamente y que justifica el hecho de que haya una secuela.

Jessica Rothe y Rachel Matthews (Danielle) son las estrellas de esta cinta, y sin duda alguna protagonizan los mejores momentos de la misma. De hecho, Rothe nos sorprende con una interpretación realmente buena, que se aleja de la típica protagonista de las películas de terror. Incluso cuenta con una interesante y emotiva trama secundaria que ayuda a darle mucho más realismo y profundidad a su personaje.

En lo que respecta al guion, no hay mucho que decir. La historia es bastante similar a la primera cinta, cambiando algunos elementos para no hacerla igual. Sin embargo, el misterio sobre quién es el asesino queda completamente relegado a un segundo plano hacia la mitad de la película. La historia se centra en Tree como personaje, y deja a un lado dos de los puntos más importantes de una cinta slasher: las muertes violentas y el asesino. Siendo justos, hay varias muertes a lo largo de esta segunda entrega, pero también hay que decir que la mayoría son suicidios de Tree. La gran revelación final no parece importante, puesto que el guion no hace el esfuerzo de desarrollar a este nuevo asesino en ningún punto.

En resumen, “Feliz día de tu muerte 2” mantiene la esencia de la primera, e implementa nuevos elementos para hacerla fresca. Sin embargo, pierde uno de los aspectos más importantes y característicos de este tipo de películas: el terror. Aun así, es una cinta entretenida y divertida, con una trama secundaria bastante interesante y una protagonista perfecta.

After the events of the first movie, Tree is living a peaceful life. However, something goes wrong, and she ends up trapped in a new time loop. But this time, some things are different, and she is going to need some help to find out what happened and who is the new killer.

“Happy Death Day” was a nice surprise. A movie that mixed the slasher genre with time loops was something really interesting. A modern and bloody version of Bill Murray’s “Groundhog Day”.

Christopher Landon takes us back to the world of Tree, the young woman who died several times until she found out who was trying to kill her. However, even though there is a new killer in this sequel, Landon focuses more on the science fiction aspect of the story than the mystery itself.

The first movie explored time loops. Now, with “Happy Death Day 2U”, we are going to explore parallel universes. However, just like in the first one, we are just going to scratch the surface of this concept. Landon keeps the story simple, which is good, because he wants as many people as possible to understand the plot of this movie. By doing so, he isn´t able to explore the infinite possibilities of the multiverse.

The fact that Tree is trapped in a parallel universe where some of her friends are completely different persons and some events didn´t happen creates very comedic and also emotional situations.

“Happy Death Day 2U” is very funny. This may sound weird because we are talking about a horror movie. However, as I said before, this sequel abandons most of the slasher aspects of the first film, and as a result, it becomes a science fiction movie, more than a horror one. I personally think this was a very interesting and refreshing change that justifies the existence of this sequel and makes it even funnier.

Jessica Rothe and Rachel Matthews are the two standouts of this movie. Both actresses are very funny, and they have the best scenes in the film. In fact, Rothe really surprised me as an actress. She has a very interesting and emotional subplot, which is related to his mother and makes her a more real and deeper character.

There isn’t much to say about the script, mainly because it’s very similar to the first film’s script. The mystery is not as relevant as it was in the first movie, and the story focuses more on Tree’s personal journey than on the person who is trying to kill her. There is nothing wrong with that, but most people were expecting a horror movie, and maybe they won´t be very happy with how this sequel turned out to be.

The Prodigy

Una joven madre comienza a preocuparse por el comportamiento agresivo y extraño de su hijo Miles. Después de probar diversas terapias sin resultado alguno, la idea de que un ente sobrenatural haya podido poseer a su hijo es la única que queda sobre la mesa. 

Nicholas McCarthy dirige “The Prodigy”´, una inquietante cinta protagonizada por Taylor Schilling y Jackson Robert Scott. La historia sigue a Miles, un chico cuyo cuerpo es reclamado por otro espíritu, el de un terrible asesino en serie que murió minutos antes de su nacimiento.

Aunque la premisa y el desarrollo de la película no es para nada novedosa, “The Prodigy” destaca en dos aspectos principalmente: la gran atmósfera que crea y el sorprendente giro final que nos regala.

Como digo, la cinta no está sobrecargada de sustos y jumpscares, sino que se encarga de construir poco a poco una inquietante atmósfera que acaba perturbándonos hasta el final. El mérito de que dejemos la sala con mal cuerpo lo tiene el joven Jackson Robert Scott, cuya interpretación de “chico poseído” es lo mejor de la cinta. El actor consigue que su personaje dé miedo con solo unas simples muecas. Y sí, el hecho de que sea un niño de poco más de nueve años ayuda a crear una situación tensa y espeluzanante, pues el espíritu aprovecha la compasión y ternura que muchos sentiríamos por los niños para llevar a cabo sus oscuros planes.

Junto con Miles, el guion también es bastante interesante. La historia avanza a un ritmo perfecto, y sabe equilibrar los momentos de pura tensión con los más relajados. El tercer acto es quizás el punto más interesante de la historia, tanto por cómo los personajes se han desarrollado hasta entonces como por el increíble giro final que concluye la cinta.

“The Prodigy” sorprende, pero queda lejos de ser una increíble cinta de terror como esas a las que nos hemos acostumbrado en los últimos años, con títulos como “Un lugar tranquilo” o “It”. Sin embargo, es una buena forma de pasar cualquier tarde o noche, y disfrutar de una historia de miedo de esas que te quitan un poco el sueño, y las ganas de tener hijos.

A mother concerned about her young son’s disturbing behavior thinks something supernatural may be affecting him.

“The Prodigy” is a really creepy and scary movie, directed by Nicholas McCarthy, and starring Taylor Schilling and Jackson Robert Scott. The movie follows Miles, a young boy whose body seems to be possessed by a brutal serial killer, who died just before he was born.

The story could look like something we have seen before. And we have. However, the creepy atmosphere and the brilliant performance of Jackson Robert Scott as Miles are the two elements that make going to see this movie worthwhile.

There aren’t many jump scares in this movie. McCarthy builds a very intriguing and scary atmosphere that makes us uncomfortable while watching the movie. As I said, Jackson Robert Scott is the real standout of this film. He creates a creepy and terrifying character, with the ability to scare us even when his face is hidden. He is really capable of selling the fact that his character is possessed by a serial killer. And the “villain” of this movie takes advantage of the fact that children are usually seen as these cute little beings that wouldn´t hurt a fly and uses that to accomplish his plans.

Along with Miles, the script is actually quite interesting. The pacing of the movie is great, and McCarthy really knows how to handle the suspense and the scary scenes very well. The third act is very well made, and it is indeed surprising. There is a big plot twist at the end of the film that really caught me off guard, but it was very good and terrifying.

“The Prodigy” is not a perfect movie. It isn’t one of those amazing horror movies that we’ve been watching recently, like “It” or “A quiet place”. However, it is a good way to spend the evening with your friends or family and enjoy a pleasant film about a supernatural being that is obsessed with mums.

Velvet Buzzsaw

Después de que una serie de pinturas realizadas por un artista totalmente desconocido sean descubiertas, una entidad imparable comienza a eliminar a aquellos cuya codicia se interpuso en el camino del arte. 

“Nightcrawler” es quizás uno de los thrillers más interesantes, entretenidos y bien dirigidos de esta década. Dan Gilroy realizó un excelente trabajo como director, y Jake Gyllenhaal interpretó uno de los mejores papeles de su carrera, acompañado por una también fabulosa Rene Ruso.

Ahora, Netflix ha vuelto a reunir a este equipo con “Velvet Buzzsaw”, una cinta que, a pesar de no estar a la altura de “Nightcrawler” en muchos aspectos, tiene suficientes elementos buenos como para resultar una experiencia entretenida y, a ratos, muy interesante.

Como director, Gilroy vuelve a demostrar que tiene una magnífica capacidad para crear tensión y una atmósfera acorde con la trama. Sin embargo, el principal fallo de “Velvet Buzzsaw” es su guion. El misterio que nos plantea Gilroy es interesante, y la premisa es cuanto menos atractiva, pero no consigue mantener nuestro interés de forma constante. El director y guionista se desvía varias veces, abandonando la búsqueda de explicaciones al misterio que propone y que debería de ser el eje central de la película. Aunque el misterio no sea precisamente el punto fuerte de la película, creo que Gilroy tiene buen ojo para captar ideas. Quizás solo necesite un poco de ayuda para desarrollarlas, puesto que la premisa de esta cinta no termina de ser explotada al máximo.

Las que sí resultan interesantes y están bien elaboradas son las escenas de mayor tensión y las muertes de los personajes. Gilroy utiliza muy bien la idea del arte contemporáneo como “recurso asesino”, y estoy seguro de que los amantes del género del terror disfrutarán bastantes de muchas de las muertes que aparecen en pantalla. En estos casos sí puedo afirmar que Gilroy sabe manejar esas ideas, demostrando que tiene futuro dentro de un género que podría explotar más en el futuro.

El reparto está repleto de conocidos. Jake Gyllenhaal y Rene Ruso son los auténticos protagonistas de la cinta, y aunque sus actuaciones son tan buenas como de costumbre, ninguno de los dos realiza una interpretación tan radical e interesante como en “Nightcrawler”. El resto de actores y actrices cumplen con su cometido. Toni Collette es quizás la única que destaca por encima del resto, a pesar de que ninguno de los secundarios tiene mucho tiempo en pantalla. El personaje de Zawe Ashton es, sin duda, el peor de todos. Por una parte, su personaje no está diseñado para caer bien, pero ,además, Ashton no consigue conectar en ningún momento, y su actuación es la que más frío nos deja.

En general, “Velvet Buzzsaw” no cumple todas las expectativas que podríamos tener, pero acaba siendo una cinta entretenida y bien hecha. Una sátira moderna sobre el mundo del arte acompañada por un misterio que no acaba de desarrollarse al máximo. La nueva cinta de Dan Gilroy está hecha para ser vista en cualquier momento y pasar una buena tarde/noche. Desde luego, no todos disfrutarán la película, pero a quiénes os gustara “Nightcrawler”, “Velvet Buzzsaw” es de visionado obligatorio. Simplemente, rebajad un poco vuestras expectativas.

After a series of paintings by an unknown artist are discovered, a supernatural force enacts revenge on those who have allowed their greed to get in the way of art.

“Nightcrawler” is one of the most exciting thrillers of the last decade. Director Dan Gilroy created a fantastic movie with a very interesting story and a stellar performance by Jake Gyllenhaal.

This original Netflix movie, “Velvet Buzzsaw”, reunites the team once again in a good and entertaining film that is not as good as “Nightcrawler”, but it still has some good elements that make the experience very enjoyable.

Gilroy is a good director, and he proves it again creating a very intriguing story with a great atmosphere. However, the script is the main problem I have with this movie. The mystery that Gilroy is trying to create is based on great ideas, but he is not able to go beyond them. He throws those good ideas into the story but doesn´t develop them as much as he could. Besides, Gilroy usually draws attention away from the main story and focuses too much on other elements of the film that are not as important as the mystery we are discovering.

Gilroy is very good, as I said, creating an amazing atmosphere. The death scenes are also one of the most interesting things to watch, mainly because Gilroy uses contemporary art as a murder weapon in a very creative way. He has a future in the horror genre, and I think he could do very good in that world.

The cast is quite impressive. There are many known actors and actress, but Jake Gyllenhaal and Rene Ruso are the standouts. Gyllenhaal’s performance is not as bold or interesting as the one he gave us in “Nightcrawler”, but he still is a great actor, and one of the most amazing elements of the movie. Toni Collette has also some great scenes, but her role is very small and she doesn´t have much screen time. Zawe Ashton’s character is probably the worst one. Her role is not designed to please the audience or to be likable, and her acting is also quite bad.

“Velvet Buzzsaw” is not what I expected. However, even though the movie is not at the same level as other thrillers, I enjoyed it. It is a very well-made film, with good performances and directing. Horror fans will enjoy the movie as much as those who loved “Nightcrawler”. Just remember, it is not as good as other similar movies, so keep your expectations low.