Category Archives: Movie Reviews

All of my movie reviews…

Movie Reviews

A Star Is Born (1937) Review – Nothing Ever Changes

1 Comment
Advertisements

I understand that some people thought the newest A Star Is Born (2018) was a remake of the version with Barbra Streisand from 1976, but that’s not actually true, as that version was a remake of another remake from 1954 and, as far as I know, this (1937 version) is the true original version. So yes, this movie is truly immortal, as (almost) every generation has had their own A Star Is Born remake.

The reason for that is fairly obvious – nothing ever changes, so this story is as relevant today as it was back in 1976, 1954 and even in 1937. Yes, technology improves, the way actors perform on camera has improved massively too, but this is as universal of a story as you will ever see. Come to think of it, this hasn’t been done “just” 4 times, as there are countless more movies about more or less the same premise – somebody young, full of hopes, dreams and short on cash, comes to Hollywood, where they want to make it big. Only thing that changes is how much they struggle on their way to the top, and whether they fall down, once they reach that top and how that affects them and people around them.

I found this movie to be still relevant, even after 80+ years now, as in Hollywood, nothing ever truly changes. You are only as good as your last movie, where it doesn’t matter how many fans letters you receive (or rather in this day and age, how many followers you’ve got across various platforms) but what truly matters is how many of those fans/followers show up to watch you on the big screen (and today, even the smaller, home TV screen counts). Where nobody is truly your friend, they are just there for you, until they aren’t.

I was really surprised with performances in this film, as I thought both Janet Gaynor and Fredric March have done really well, especially for 1937. Don’t forget, we can’t judge actors by today’s lens, as even the most mediocre actors of today have much more knowledge about the craft, know how to act, what works and what doesn’t. But I honestly felt like these two performances were not bad at all – I have trusted both actors almost everything, especially Fredric portrayed his role of a somebody, who used to be a big name actor, just for him to shift to a new “role” of “husband to a great actress”, really convincing. I know some won’t agree with what I am about to write, but I’ve found his character much more convincing than Bradley Cooper‘s in the latest remake of this film and here’s why – we can see the glimpses of this guys greatness, whereas in the newest remake, Bradley’s character is pretty much done for from the start, because of his alcoholism.

As I am a completionist, I will try and watch the other two remakes from 1954 and 1976, just to compare them and see not even which movie has the “upper hand”, but how each director and cast dealt with the same story, how many differences there are and how close they are to each other. Because I tell you what – so far, I’ve seen this version and the 2018 one, and I preferred this one. One day, I might write about why I didn’t care that much about the new one. So that leaves me wondering, how much will I like the other two remakes and how they deal with this story in two completely different eras.

Rating: 4 out of 5.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

Movie Reviews

Men in Black: International (2019) Review – Meh in Bland: Europe

1 Comment
Advertisements

Where to start with this one…

I really like the original Men in Black (1997), as it was surprisingly refreshing blockbuster – fun, charming, really good screenplay, and great chemistry between Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith, that was what made it the surprise hit of 1997 (see for yourself here). Mainly the monologue Tommy Lee has stuck with me ever since:

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.

Agent K on people.

So no wonder, 5 years later, the sequel was born, which is still watchable, but proved that bigger is not always better. But again, it was a decent movie, where at least you weren’t bored watching it.

10 years after that, Men in Black 3 came about and I’ve only seen it once, and remember feeling… alright. Almost as with the previous one, it was alright, but not really memorable in any way, shape or form. But also not boring, or unfunny.

And now (or, year 2019, to be exact) Men in Black: International found its way onto the theatre screens, with brand new (all sexy now!) cast, brand new settings and… and… yeah, that’s pretty much it.

This movie fails as a spin-off of this franchise, as there is almost nothing tying it back to the original trilogy, but what’s worse, this movie fails as a comedy. The only person, who’s actively trying to make us laugh is all CGI (yes, all hail Kumail Nanjiani) but guess what? Even he can’t save this movie, as he definitely has had better roles. And that’s what I don’t understand.

We know Chris Hemsworth can be surprisingly funny and engaging character on screen (his almost a cameo role in Vacation (2015) was definitely the highlight of that movie, and as much as it pains me to write this, he was the best part of the Ghostbusters (2016)… well maybe after Kate McKinnon, who tried to save that movie, but that’s a review for another day) the same goes for Tessa Thompson who we know as charismatic and capable actress that had pretty solid chemistry with Chris in Thor: Ragnarok (2017). So what went wrong? How come, suddenly, these two don’t work as well? That’s the main issue with this movie, what was supposed to be THE reason this film should have worked (duo that worked well in the past), turned out to be its biggest problem…

When your comedic duo doesn’t work, the movie around them can’t work, unfortunately it is as simple as that and I don’t know if it was the script, or the direction, or bit of both, but there was no chemistry for me here. And it’s not like they were particularly bad, but they didn’t work well together.

Another problem I had with this movie, but that’s mainly for almost every single major movie these days… everything looked fake. Especially in this movie, every location looked like they were shooting on a set, surrounded by green/blue walls. I understand there will always be CGI involved, as, you know, it’s a movie about space and aliens, but even the desert location looked fake to me. Maybe it was, in which case, I shouldn’t have noticed that. And if they were shooting in desert, how did you manage for it to look so fake…?

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

One last reason this movie didn’t work for me was the way they had decided to “telegraph” who’s the main “surprise” villain of this movie basically ever since he steps on the screen. I don’t know who came up with that, as again, I know it’s kind of generic Hollywood thing nowadays, for villains to be obvious from the very beginning, mainly in comedies, but come on… why? Can’t the audience be trusted to figure it out on their own, or to have fun figuring it out anymore? You don’t even need to be a movie maniac like myself to know almost instantly Liam Neeson is the actual bad guy (duh).

That is why this movie doesn’t work for me overall – it’s a mix and match, generic Hollywood screenplay with some questionable CGI, sexy people taking over a franchise that was once popular, where studio throws everything on the wall, hoping something would stick. In this case, almost nothing does. I’d rather watch second and third MiB movies back to back several times, than watching this movie one more time.

Rating: 1.5 out of 5.

That’ all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

Movie Reviews

Changing Lanes (2002) Review – Solid Concept, Poor Execution

4 Comments
Advertisements

There are movies that are ageless, and if it wasn’t for something (old piece of technology, a specific word/lingo we don’t use today) you wouldn’t even notice, how old they are. And then there are movies like Changing Lanes, a movie that took a concept that was really popular in the early 2000’s (car accident affects lives of several people) and made it in hyper edited, pseudo dramatic early 2000 way, that it’s hard to watch.

Changing Lanes is really frustrating movie, as it’s trying to have it both ways – it wants to talk about good and bad, with characters who are both in between being good and evil (even though you could argue Ben Affleck‘s character has passed the edge and went to the dark side with occasional glimpse of remorse) but everything this movie is trying to say/show is so on the nose it’s basically punching you in the face with it. Subtlety is not a word this movie knows.

Unlike movies like Amores Perros (2000) or Crash (2004), the car accident in this movie is more of a fender bender, so there is not much at stake, nobody’s injured. It’s more about the time to do the right thing in that situation, where both men are rushing to get to court (what a coincidence!) and Samuel L. Jackson wants to do the right thing (exchange the information, etc.). Ben Affleck is in a rush, so he just writes a blank cheque for Samuel to repair his car, but during the chaos, he forgets his red folder, that’s of course, the crucial piece of evidence for his case and trial he’s already late for, even prior to this accident.

From there on, is where the film starts being really melodramatic, as plenty of times if people had just waited for couple of minutes, they would’ve saved themselves plenty of problems, but they don’t. Which is not necessarily bad idea, but the execution… I don’t know whether the studio was interfering with shooting, or giving the director some notes, but the approach Roger Michell went with (half drama, half thriller on crack) didn’t work for me. Not only the pacing felt all over the place, but what the movie was trying to say was just too on the nose, and if you didn’t get, you will get it re-hashed at the end of the movie again, just to make sure you got it.

The other thing that totally didn’t work for me was Ben Affleck’s character, who I didn’t trust at all. To me, that was the typical Hollywood’s idea of “morally ambiguous” character, who knows he’s more on the evil side, but then he sees a family on the sidewalk crying for their dad, and that makes him realise the scope of his evil actions. Yep, that exact scene happens in this movie. I guess, I can’t disprove the fact there might be people like that, but usually people who do things that are… morally questionable, they realise the scope of everything they are doing. They just know how to justify it to themselves, how to disconnect from anything and everything, so people like that wouldn’t get shaken up by something like that.

That’s why the film doesn’t work for me overall – it seemed like it was afraid to either go deeper with Ben’s character, or to allow itself to have moments of quiet reflection, where you could see/believe Ben’s character is about to “break” for the better, not just a few seconds on the street. Unfortunately, the movie did neither, and that’s why it feels unearned.

Side note – if you are still asking “how on the nose can this film be?”, know this – the title literally comes from the accident, where the main characters were… changing lanes on a motorway. Yeah. Subtlety be gone.

Rating: 2 out of 5.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

Movie Reviews

Alita: Battle Angel (2019) Review – Plenty of Setup, Not Enough Payoff

Leave a comment
Advertisements

I remember the very first time I’ve seen the first trailer for this movie, and I was… mixed on this. It looked like that type of movie that can be ridiculously funny and entertaining, but also looked like something that could easily be another Jupiter Ascending (2015), where (questionable) visuals overtake everything and the story and performances aren’t that great.

After the movie came out, I was hearing mainly positive things about the movie, so I was kind of looking forward seeing this. And finally, I’ve watched it, as with more and more movies nowadays, without knowing anything about it – I didn’t know it was based on manga (yeah, I know, I’m like the last person who didn’t know that) even though it became obvious watching the movie, as the action scenes were done differently than your typical Hollywood blockbuster (in a good way).

That’s where Alita: Battle Angel shines (no pun intended) – action sequences are not choppy, in most scenes you can tell what’s happening and where everybody is, so that’s definitely plus. And even the special effects are great, even though it will be interesting to see how well this movie will age (how great will it look 10/15 years from now).

Halfway through the movie I’ve realised something – I’m not enjoying this as much as I could be, as I thought the movie is trying to do 100 things at once, and it shows. There is a plenty of world building, but also there is a lot of what movie hints at. Which, if you do it properly and don’t overdo it, I wouldn’t mind. But if you do it in a way that says “we would love to tell you more about this character, about this place, about how everything works, so gives us money and we will make sure to explain everything in upcoming sequels” I refuse to play along.

Movie should always work on its own, even if you plan this as a trilogy, especially the very first one! You need to establish much more than Alita managed to do, because as it is now, Alita: Battle Angel is half of a movie. There is no end, there is just a setup for “things to come”, where you don’t really know answers to some basic questions asked throughout the movie (Who is she actually? Who is Nova?) and I’m kind of sick and tired of this approach.

This honestly feels like the movie is either 20 minutes too long (if we were to cut some sequel setups) or 2 hours too short. There is an argument to be made that this would be much better HBO/Netflix show, with proper budget, where you could immerse yourself in this world, properly build it and tell the story you want to tell. And then your viewers would even forgive you ending a season on a cliffhanger, where if you know second season is coming, it feels very different than having the movie simply not answering things it should. Movies are very different medium than TV shows. Yes, it sounds obvious, but looks like it’s not really to Robert Rodriguez.

Think about it, especially in 2020, the line between what’s a movie and what’s better suited to be a show is very blurry. But whatever medium you pick, you better stick to its rules, because they matter. Especially the rule that movies should have some sort of structure, where beginning, the middle and the end is not only appreciated, but it is mandatory, as it works much better. This is where Alita fails – it doesn’t work on its own. And sure, if there will be a sequel that clears up some things, it might work better, BUT…

It’s the same as making a movie based on a book – it’s always better to read the book before watching the movie, as books contain more details, but it should NEVER be mandatory, as movie should work on its own! It should only serve as a recommendation, where the book would go over extra (not necessary) plot points in more detail, or would give extra development to some characters. But having your movie rely on book (“Oh, you want to why this happens? Read the book!”) is a cheat. The same way having a movie rely on getting a sequel (“You want to know who this character is? Make sure to give us money, so we can tell you… THE NEXT TIME!”) is just annoying.

Which is a shame, as Alita: Battle Angel is a good movie with some great actions scenes, decent cast and world I wouldn’t mind exploring more. But not like this.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

Movie Reviews

Woman in Chains (1968) Review – The Passion and The Art

Leave a comment
Advertisements

This is the perfect example of why I love old, foreign movies! As with most of them, I knew next to nothing about this movie before I watched it, and I was mesmerised. Woman in Chains is a great showcase on how to make “steamier” movie without going over the top with nudity.

The main story focuses on 3 very different people – Stanislas, Gilbert and Josée. Stanislas is the “main” figure, where he’s a mysterious artist, who is really into what he’s doing and (among other things) into domination, where he takes pictures of woman in (what would be back then) scandalous settings/poses. Gilbert is an artist who knows Stanislas, as they showcase their art in the same gallery. Josée is Gilbert’s wife, who ever since she meets Stanislas, is intrigued by him, ever so slowly, yet passionately. And that scares her. The movie explores their bond, and whatever is happening between them is getting stronger and stronger, where it effects Josée’s relationship with Gilbert.

I’m not going to further into details, but I will tell you this – the movie is not as shocking as it was in 1968, as everything about sex and this particular subculture (it’s not exactly BDSM, but it’s definitely on the verge of it, as it’s about dominance and submissiveness) have been demystified in media, from books to movies. This is what Fifty Shades of Grey (2015) should’ve aspired to be, as throughout the movie, Laurent Terzieff (Stanislas) oozes some sort of charm, mysteriousness and certain attraction, where you believe him to be THAT kind of artist, that would take those pictures and not only would enjoy controlling women, but the women would let him control them.

One of the main things this movie does well is the way it shoots certain scenes, mainly in the art gallery. The camera work could’ve just been simple pan and occasional zoom over the art pieces, but this movie puts you in the artist perspective, where some of those visuals are stunning, some of them make you feel you are on some sort of trip, but everything fits so well with the atmosphere of this movie. To me, it makes you think about the art pieces the same way the artists thought about them and that was definitely something you won’t see in every movie.

The main “selling” point of this movie is the relationship between Stanislas and Josée, where first, she doesn’t know what to think of him, as he talks and behaves like nobody she’s met before. She’s slightly scared of him, but there is a part of her that’s fascinated with him, so she keeps coming back, slowly realising he made her discover something about herself she might have not known otherwise. It’s always fascinating to see how “older” movies deal with topics like these, and yes, towards the end the movie is slightly driving the point to overdrive, but for the most part, I’d imagine the movie nailed how would that be, in late 60’s, suddenly discovering you enjoy something, that’s so shamed upon. Something that to a degree, disgusts you too, but you just can’t help yourself.

Woman in Chains is definitely an interesting study into some not-so-conventional people, and how they perceive everything, from the world around them, to intimacy, art… It’s also a movie, that can build sexual tension without any excessive amount of nudity, or being sleazy and that is the thing I was surprised with – how, even though it can be seen as a “dirty” movie, there isn’t that much nudity or sleaziness. Because the film is more interested in the characters and how they navigate relationships, art and everything, rather than trying to shock you.

Just a side note, if you were to watch this movie and the already mentioned Fifty Shades of Grey back to back, it’d strike you even more, how bad of a film it actually is, and they had the upper hand of coming out in 2015, exactly 47 years AFTER this film! Everything about that movie still puzzles me to this day…

This is the last movie of Henri-Georges Clouzot, so talk about going out on a high note. Just another side note, if you don’t know anything about this director, do yourself a favour and watch The Wages of Fear (1953) and Les Diaboliques (1955) (and of course, this movie too), to appreciate his legacy. All of those are great movies, especially The Wages of Fear will give you anxiety attack throughout the entire movie like no other.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

Movie Reviews

Cinderella (2015) Review – Kenneth Branagh To the Rescue!

4 Comments
Advertisements

By now, there are a few things you can take for certain in this life – death, taxes, the fact we have more knowledge and information available at our fingertips than ever before in history, yet people are constantly wrong about everything, and Disney remaking every single classic movie they have in their catalogue, until the run out, by which point… let’s remake the remakes!

I’m happy to say, Cinderella is definitely on the better “side” of those remakes, as I feel like the story lends itself for different interpretations more than other classic Disney movies. Why? Well…

  1. Arguably, it’s the simplest story there can be – good x evil, where there is nothing “major” at stake, but it’s always revolving around family/step-family. And that’s something more people can relate to, rather than having a magical genie, or 7 helping dwarfs. The beauty of Cinderella is the universality of the story.
  2. The previous iterations never had any “memorable” performances, or a crowd pleasing songs – really think about it. We don’t necessarily talk about previous versions of Cinderella story because of somebody specific shined in those movies, or there would be something remarkable about them, no. They were nice, simplistic and beloved movies, no argument there. But that also gives the director/writer almost no hill to climb in regards to “we need to make sure we are better than X, Y & Z”, where they don’t “compete” with previous versions as much. Perfect examples would be the original Dumbo (1941) had the heartbreaking mum scene, or Aladdin (1992) had Robin Williams‘ performance, and those are things their remakes had to overcome or address, be either different or better. Whereas Cinderella doesn’t have anything like that.
  3. Because of the universality of this story, you can pretty much set it into any time and tweak it however you like, to various degrees of success.

Luckily, this movie had seasoned Shakespearean Kenneth Branagh behind the camera, so you can tell it was shot and told by somebody who’s got a sense for drama, as it was told and shot very well. My main issue was with actors “overacting” a bit too much for my taste. And sure, I understand they know they are in a fairy tale, therefore they don’t have to take themselves so seriously, but there was something especially striking about Cate Blanchett overacting the shit out of most of her scenes. I was kind of amazed as to why, or whose choice was that. She’s usually great, reserved actress and I guess if she were to make it more menacing/serious it wouldn’t be as kids friendly…? It’s weird saying that, as usually, Cate is highlight of almost every single movie she’s in, but I guess sometimes even an actress of her calibre deserves to go slightly over the top.

Lily James was a perfect choice for Cinderella, as she’s young, naturally beautiful and charming young lady, everything Cinderella should be. It’d be easy to believe Cinderella is slightly “stupid” for letting her step-family to boss her around, but due to her performance and instant likeability, we believe her to be that person, who’s just too kind for her own good sometimes, so we understand where is she coming from. Plus I thought it was a smart move to have almost everybody to be English, as it gives this classic story certain “extra” polish.

Will you see anything new whatsoever in this remake? No. Nothing will surprise you, story wise. But that’s not the point – the movie is fairly enjoyable as the cast is great, the movie is not too long and because of Kenneth’s directing, there are plenty of stunning shots throughout, where Cinderella definitely is closer to the “top” of these remakes, than plenty of other ones. Part of that might be because of my weakness for Lily James and her delightful performance, but still. 🙂

Rating: 4 out of 5.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

Movie Reviews

Hercules (1997) Review – Hero Nobody Talks About

Leave a comment
Advertisements

Hercules – when I was growing up, he was my hero. I’d watch Hercules: The Legendary Journeys all the time, I’d read all the stories and myths about him, as I wanted to be him, the hero who’s strong and always does good things, helping other people. But surprisingly, I’ve not seen this movie until now! I don’t even know why.

Hercules is a great animated movie, that’s way too often forgotten about, or pushed aside as “not worthy” Disney movie. Sure, it doesn’t reach the same level as The Lion King (1994), but I don’t think that necessarily makes it “B rated” movie, as Hercules is lovely, uplifting, colourful film about a hero, who overcomes everything, proves himself and finds out that you don’t need to be a God to be a hero. Plus from Disney’s late 90’s canon, this movie stands out as the lighthearted movie we didn’t know we needed.

Personally, I prefer the 90’s style of animation over the “CG” animation of today, because when everything looks so perfect, there is no “soul”. Even though story wise, the animated movies of today are brilliant, sometimes I do wonder why do 95% of them must look the same, where at some point, your mind starts to blend movies together, as almost nothing stands out anymore.

The other thing I need to mention is the voice-over work, as it’s brilliant. Before James Woods became more known for being a Twitter troll (90’s were just different, but in a way, simpler times) he was nailing a thing or two here and there, and this was one of them. His performance as Hades shouldn’t be overlooked and alongside another great performance by Danny DeVito as Phil, they both should be celebrated more for this movie, as both of them not only nailed their characters, but created something where the movie works on another level because of them. I would be even willing to discuss putting them both on the same level as Robin Williams‘s performance in Aladdin (1992), that much I’ve enjoyed both of them.

The movie overall is a really fun, simple thing to watch, where it doesn’t take itself too seriously, everything is lighthearted, so you can properly switch off, and just relax watching a proper Disney movie with your entire family and have a good time, while jamming along to a really good soundtrack.

By the way, what happened to those? What happened to animated movies having fantastic songs in them, where they wouldn’t just really on one “main” song…? I feel like that’s one of the reasons plenty of people still prefer this area of Disney movies, not just because they grew up watching them, but because each song feels different, yet fits the movie well.

I would say this movie is definitely worth seeing, especially if you haven’t seen it in a while, give it a re-watch and you might discover this movie sneaks up on you, where by the end, you just feel great and realise, it should be talked about more often when comes to Disney animated films and where do each of them rank.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5.

That’s all for this one? Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

Movie Reviews

Euphoria (2017) Review – Great Idea, Mediocre Execution

Leave a comment
Advertisements

As with plenty of newer movies nowadays, I had no idea what I am getting into, which is something I like more and more. I used to watch a lot of trailers, but now, I’d only watch trailers in the cinema (remember cinemas? COVID-19 is not fun.) or for a proper big blockbusters like Star Wars, where I can’t wait and want to see something from the movie.

Anyway, only thing I knew about this movie was that Eva Green and Alicia Vikander (both capable and great actresses I really like) play sisters, so I’ve saved it to my watch-list for later. And that later came couple of night ago… and yeah. It’d be really tough talking about what didn’t work without going into the spoilers, so…

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

The movie is centred around Eva & Alicia being sisters, who don’t really like each other that much, both live someplace else and Eva contacted Alicia to come with her for a “holiday”. That holiday turns out to be in Switzerland, and the reason for that is Eva’s character is dying and wants to spend her last week in this fancy establishment, that specialises in making your last days as great as possible… and then give you a special serum that kills you. Yes, euthanasia is legal in Switzerland and everything goes through a rigorous procedure.

So far, we have two more than capable actresses and the main idea is one of them is dying so… You’d think this would lead into a pretty decent drama about life, death, regrets… and yes, the movie touches on some childhood things, on some tension between the two sisters, how different they and their lifestyles are, but it never goes deep enough. That means you, the viewer, are only left bored. Which is a shame, as a movie with this kind of story and two great leads shouldn’t be boring.

The problem here is, this is not a new concept, as this has been done before. Once as a comedy (The Bucket List (2007) comes to mind, even though it’s not exactly the same, but it’s close enough) or as a romantic drama (Me Before You (2016) which is closer to this, given the Switzerland element) – both of these were pretty great movies where you didn’t get bored. And these two are just off the top of my head, there are definitely more movies like this, so the concept “works” and that proves you can take this and make it into almost anything and it’s usually great. This movie tried to go for straight family drama, but unfortunately, it isn’t great. And that’s slightly frustrating, knowing there are movies like that, that deal with this kind of topic, and they’ve done it better.

I’m still not sure what was the point behind this movie… stay close with your family…? Or try to be a good person…? The reason I don’t know is because I’ve already forgotten most of it, and I’ve watched in not even 3 nights ago! That’s how you know you’re dealing with something that’s not that memorable. The only thing this movie did right was the casting – the main two stars I’ve mentioned several times, but even the smaller roles like casting Charles Dance as a guy, who wants to be remembered “slightly better” than he was, or Charlotte Rampling as a counsellor (?) of some sort were great choices. I was gutted that Charles didn’t get more scenes, as his character could’ve been perfect for Eva’s character to maybe realise her sister wasn’t that bad…? That’s the most confusing thing about this movie – it seems like it has all the right elements to make a compelling movie, but it never goes beyond “soap opera” blandness.

Overall, this movie felt like a huge missed opportunity, where instead of gut punching family drama, that you’d remember for weeks/months to come, Euphoria is just an average movie, with great cast. That’s it, unfortunately. If it wasn’t for the cast, my rating would’ve been even lower, that’s for sure. And if you are looking for a movie that deals with this kind of topic (somebody looking to die with dignity), I’d recommend watching the 2 mentioned above.

Rating: 2.5 out of 5.

That’s all for this one? Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke