THE LIVING DEAD GIRL (1982)

 

Directed By: Jean Rollin 

Written By: Jean Rollin, Jacques Ralf and Gregory Heller

Cinematography: Max Monteillet 

Editor: Janette Kronegger 

Cast: Francoise Blanchard, Marina Pierro, Mike Marshall, Carina Barone, Fanny Maggier, Patricia Besnard-Rousseau, Veronique Pinson, Sandrine Morel 

A toxic spill revives a beautiful, dead heiress who, with the help of her childhood friend, must quench her insatiable thirst for blood.

---

This is the first Jean Rollin directed film that I have seen, even as his films are notorious it film circles for their more sexual material in the middle of being a horror film and here is a perfect example, even though this is the first and only I’ve seen I imagine that the rest of his films are similar to a degree only hopefully better quality

Has this film plays like a 1970s softcore movie that strives to be artistic in European mixed with random ridiculous violence that looks like it should be in a low budget grind house horror film that is even over the top four it subject matter

At heart it’s a love story that is also a zombie movie where the female zombie in this film has quite amazing strength and seems to be perfectly presented and not the George Romero type where they crave brains in our continuously rotting. The zombie is cannibalistic, though that doesn’t seem to come out until the second half of the film Moore..

Which by the end doesn’t even matter because even though it’s zombies, the film seems to have the same rules where it could’ve easily been a vampire but it seems like the filmmakers were like well. We’ve been there and done that so let’s move on to zombies which I can’t blame the filmmakers for because eventually that is how Hollywood started treating the genre also it seems more in the early 2000s when there was a horror where vampire suddenly became in in the shadow of the popular TWILIGHT movies those after realizing the overkill and dwindling box office of those particular creatures, always romantic nature and always seeming to come around once in a while they moved to zombies, but not just plain old zombie films soon we were starting to get zombie films that were romantic like WARM BODIES or just zombies in general to be our protagonist who we feel sorry for as they are cursed or just a general villain. 

Director Jean Rollin’s style makes the film feel like his own personal fetish or fantasy material with actress Francoise Blanchard, as he seems or makes the camera seem obsessed with her from the many angles in poses he has her do especially nude as well as her female, best friend and lover, played by Marina Pierro though not as obsessed with her she is quite beautiful and stunning in her own right prove that the coldest or most evil monsters aren’t always the supernatural kind

Luckily, the film does have a plot that is barely there, but there is a story that ties everything together, which is a essentially a forbidden romance film between two women with themes of obsession that feels overall throughout, even while trying to show one’s devotion to the other

It comes across pretty pretentious as it tries at certain points to be classy, but it has just a low class style, like wanting to be artistic, but also wanting to be down with the people while providing plenty of sex which year is more nudity and violence at which at times can be gory, though only in one scene does it feel like it keeps going on and on and over the top

I believe the film is a bit anti-American. As it has the only American player by Mike Marshall be a complete idiot and blind to all that is going on around him. As he is the amateur photographer who keep snooping in and investigating’s boyfriend.

The film is a lesbian romance that is interrupted and slowly starts to break down and become more dramatic and tries to involve certain characters investigating these uncommon occurrences, though they seem here only for the audience to get more of a backstory that the two main characters are not providing

By the end, the film feels much do about nothing. The type that you probably wanted to watch when you were 13 only because you saw on the TV Guide that it had nudity and sexual themes, but then were partially disappointed because he had to sit through so much just to get to those scenes and it’s still seeing the kind of odd or something that you weren’t used to, though I wonder if that is what shaped certain artist Taste was going in for one thing expecting more T And A as well as exploitation and in sitting through all of the film just to get to that they also started to learn to appreciate art of foreign cultures, depth, story, or seek out what they weren’t used to necessarily.

The quality of this film could’ve been more understood if it had been made in the 60s or 70s, but this was made in 1982. It feels like the filmmaker’s knew better then again maybe it was a throwback for them rather than trying to be modern or they were trying to make a film that seemed more dipped in the past with for 1982 modern sensibilities as it was a decade just beginning and hadn’t quite found an identity yet, but was coming into its own

There is an English language version of the film. That was filmed and directed by Gregory heller only using the same cast and crew. A she would film the same exact scenes in English right after they did them originally in French. It was never released and thought to be a lost film or lost version of the film. 

Though even if it hopefully was one of those films that was a Gateway drug to better quality films of this type, this was still a major disappointment, though it will be slow. Can’t wait to see how this one measured up to his other films in terms of quality. As with this one, I like the song that it inspired by Rob Zombie, which to me is more exciting than the actual film that inspired it here.

For me this film is overhyped 

Grade: D+ 

BUDDY (2026)

 

Directed By: Casper Kelly

Written By: Casper Kelly and Jamie King

Cinematography: Zach Kuperstein

Editor: Josh Ethier 

Cast: Delaney Quinn, Caleb Williams, Cristin Milioti, Topher Grace, Keegan-Michael Key, Patton Oswalt, Michael Shannon, Clint Howard

A brave girl and her friends must escape a kids television show.

---

There are some movies where the less you know going in, the better. BUDDY is definitely one of them.

This is a film that can be ambiguous and awkward, but always feels just a bit off and creepy. Yet somewhat comfortable 

If you’re familiar with writer-director Casper Kelly’s short for ADULT SWIM, TOO MANY COOKS you may already have an idea of the kind of strange, unsettling sense of humor he brings to the table. That short took something as harmless and familiar as television opening themes and slowly revealed something much darker bubbling underneath. This film plays with that same idea of innocence turning increasingly… well, not so innocent. And this film is definitely out there.

The first fifteen minutes might test your patience or your willingness to go along with it. As we’re introduced to what appears to be an actual children’s television show. Episode after episode, everything seems cute, cheerful and perfectly harmless. Then, almost imperceptibly, things begin to feel a little wrong. And then a little more wrong. Before long, you realize you’re not watching the movie you thought you were watching.

I won’t say much more, because discovering where BUDDY goes is part of the fun. The film has an unusual way of withholding information, and by the time it reaches the end, it leaves you with more questions than answers. Normally that might frustrate me, but here I found myself wanting to know more.

That’s probably the nicest thing I can say about the film: I wanted more.

The recognizable adult cast is used barely, with the kids essentially carrying the movie. And despite the innocent looking premise, this is absolutely not a movie for children. There is some disturbing violence involving kids that will understandably be difficult for some viewers.

But what makes the film refreshing is that it never seems particularly interested in giving you exactly what you expect.

This isn’t your typical horror movie. In fact, some people may find that disappointing. There are moments when you expect the film to push things further, only for it to pull back and leave you wondering what exactly you just watched.

Personally, I appreciated that restraint.

BUDDY is disturbing, strange and occasionally bizarre, but there’s something wonderfully curious about it. It feels like a movie that wants you to think about it afterward rather than simply move on to the next thing.

Is it for everybody? Absolutely not, But maybe that’s part of why I liked it.

There’s something to be said for a movie that doesn’t completely explain itself, doesn’t follow the usual rules and leaves you just curious enough to want to step back into its world.

So if you’re looking for something familiar, predictable and comfortably within the lines, this  probably isn’t your movie. But if you’re willing to take a chance on something weird? Give it a try.

No matter what, I have a feeling you’ll remember it.

Grade: B+

YOU, ME & TUSCANY (2026)

 

Directed By: Kat Coiro

Written By: Ryan Engle

Story By: Ryan Engle & Kristin E. Engle

Cinematography: Danny Ruhlmann

Editor: Zene Baker and Troy Takaki 

Cast: Halle Bailey, Rage-Jean Page, Lorenzo De Moor, Marco Calvani, Isabella Ferrari, Aziza Scott, Nia Vardalos, Desiree Popper 

When a woman crashes at an empty Italian villa posing as the owner’s fiancée, she discovers an unexpected romance that could transform her life.

---

Sometimes a movie doesn’t need to reinvent the romantic comedy. Sometimes it just needs to be charming, pretty, and know exactly what it wants to be. This is pretty much that movie.

It’s simple, predictable, and built with the kind of sitcom logic you can see coming from a mile away. But honestly? There’s something rather pleasant about that. The movie has an easygoing charm, a picturesque setting, and a cast that makes the whole thing go down pretty smoothly. It’s not exactly epic filmmaking, but it is certainly easy on the eyes.

And then there’s Halle Bailey. It’s still a little strange seeing her play a fully grown adult character because, well… she still looks so young. There are moments when it feels almost like she’s playing dress-up as an adult. But she’s good here, and there’s an appealing warmth to her performance. Young people need love stories too, apparently. Who knew?

The movie does introduce a few details that seem as though they’re going to become important, only to eventually leave them sitting on the side of the road. I kept waiting for certain pieces of Mateo and Isabella’s history to lead somewhere, especially because their relationship feels like it has a story worth telling. Even if they’re supporting characters, a little more background would have given the movie some additional texture.

But my biggest hesitation comes from something outside the movie itself.

I’ve seen this film treated by some as though being basic, automatically makes it bad. And I’m not entirely convinced that’s fair. Plenty of romantic comedies have operated with this exact formula for years. They’re predictable, glossy, sentimental and designed to give you a pleasant couple of hours.

So why does this one sometimes seem to get judged more harshly?

I can’t help but wonder if part of it has something to do with the fact that the central love story is primarily between two Black leads. That shouldn’t make the movie more or less identifiable, and it certainly shouldn’t make its familiar formula suddenly seem inferior. If anything, it’s nice to see a Black love story allowed to simply be a love story, rather than feeling obligated to explain itself, make a political statement, or turn every moment into a joke. that’s what I appreciated here.

Yes, this film is basic. But basic isn’t necessarily a crime. Sometimes you want the cinematic equivalent of a nice vacation: beautiful scenery, attractive people, a little romance, a little sass, and absolutely no need to pack emotional baggage.

The film has a pleasant vibe, and sometimes that’s enough.

It may not stay with you forever, but we have all seen worse.

Grade: C+

CLUNY BROWN (1946)

 

Directed By: Ernst Lubitsch

Written By: Samuel Hoffstein and Elizabeth Reinhardt 

Based on The Novel By: Margery Sharp

Cinematography: Joseph LaShalle

Editor: Dorothy Spencer 

Cast: Jennfier Jones, Charles Boyer, Peter Lawford, Helen Walker, Reginald Gardiner, Reginald Owen, Sir. C. Aubrey Smith, Richard Haydn 

Amateur plumber Cluny Brown gets sent off by her uncle to work as a servant at an English country estate. While there, she becomes friendly with Adam Belinski, a charming Czech refugee. She also becomes interested in a dull shopkeeper named Mr. Wilson. Belinski soon falls in love with Cluny and tries to keep her from marrying Wilson.

---

Sadly this was the last film director Ernst Lubitsch finished on his own before passing. Away the following year, though he went out with a bang in this it seems lesser known or at least lesser talked about classic film. 

It feels like this film has so much in entendre throughout the film, (there is a character actually named Betty Cream, played by the scene stealing beauty Helen Walker) but still manages to be heartwarming as it is charming with sharp dialogue and has an innocence, whereas overall it feels more fluffy than serious

Jennifer jones has a star making role as the title character. A naïve tomboy. Trying to find her place in the world where she won’t be taking advantage of. Our character is still hopes and the way Jones player in the role is so winning.

At first, you’re not sure where this film is going or what the story will be until she arrives roughly about 10 minutes into the film. After that, it mostly never leaves her and even when it does, it’s usually characters talking about her. Not to mention. You have to admire lady who masters a true trade

And also offers something you don’t see too much more in films, where a film is more written around a character or a characters and whoever is the star of the film really gets to make an impression throughout.

Charles Boyer’ character at first was annoying, but you were to a charms, especially considering most of the other characters are so stiff and dull. Though at first, you wonder if he’s just a con man and then you realize he might not be, but he mostly is getting what he wants and being quite the rascal doing it, especially while putting the other characters in their places for the most part

What I enjoy about the films that each character gets their time to shine maybe not in quite star making, but each of them has their own scene to shine in that really defines their character be more comedic or more serious

The film is witty and warm. As after all, it is a comedy of manners and errors with real world historical references that were modern at the time that make the film feel a bit more real, even if it feels more like a fantasy set in the real world at times.

A lesser known film that makes magic out of a little and a few details. Then again look at who directed it. He had that kind of touch with most of his films. 

Very old school of quality that is plenty of fun it takes its time to get there. Though classic that can play for the whole family. The adults will probably appreciate the film more 

In the end, bringing a love story romance for most even where it doesn’t necessarily feel like it belongs. You can see why it’s a classic.

Grade: B 

MAYDAY (2026)

 

Written & Directed By: John Francis Daley & Jonathan Goldstein 

Cinematography: Barry Peterson 

Editor: Jamie Gross and John Lee 

Cast: Ryan Reynolds, Kenneth Branagh, Marcin Dorocinski, Maria Bakalova, David Morse, Clark Johnson, Wendy Crewson, Josh Hamilton

Lieutenant Troy Brennan takes part in a top secret surveillance mission over Soviet airspace. Things take a sharp turn, however, when he is forced to eject from his plane over the Russian wilderness. He is rescued by a paradoxical Russian native and the two begin to appreciate both their differences and commonalities.

---

There are some movies you finish and immediately think, “Well… that was fine.” And honestly, that’s probably the best way to describe this one.

I went into it expecting something disposable, and while it certainly isn’t reinventing the action-comedy wheel, I have to admit that I had a decent time with it. 

because this is very much a paint-by-numbers kind of movie. You’ve seen this story before. You’ve seen these characters before. You can practically see some of the plot turns coming from the next room.

But every once in a while, it has just enough personality to keep itself from becoming completely forgettable.

Ryan Reynolds is interesting here because, thankfully, this isn’t quite the Ryan Reynolds we’ve seen a million times before. He still has that familiar rhythm and personality, but instead of firing off a wisecrack every thirty seconds, a lot of his humor comes through his reactions to the increasingly ridiculous situations around him. He almost becomes the audience surrogate. The guy looking at everything happening around him and thinking, “Are we seriously doing this?” surprisingly, that works.

Kenneth Branagh, meanwhile, is doing a lot of the heavy lifting literally. He’s getting into the action himself, which is something I’m not particularly accustomed to seeing from him. At this point in his career, watching Branagh throw himself around in an action movie is kind of charming. I don’t know if he’s channeling Sean Connery, taking notes from Liam Neeson, or simply having a really good time, but the man deserves some credit. He’s surprisingly convincing.

Branagh has directed action before, of course, with films like THOR and JACK RYAN: SHADOW RECRUIT. So this isn’t exactly unfamiliar territory for him. But seeing him actually inhabit this kind of older action-hero role is one of the more entertaining aspects of the movie.

The problem is that the rest of the film doesn’t exactly rise to their level.

It feels like the kind of movie that probably explains why it ended up on streaming rather than in theaters. There’s supposedly an epic quality to the story, much of it set against Cold War-era Russia, the KGB, and all the usual ingredients for a big, muscular action thriller. Yet somehow, everything feels surprisingly muted.

The movie is set in the 1980s, which at least gives it an excuse to use Russia and the KGB as its primary villains without having to invent some overly complicated modern conspiracy. But even with that built-in atmosphere, the film rarely feels as big as it seems to think it is.

And then there’s the strange feeling that Ryan Reynolds could almost be replaced by just about anybody. He’s not bad. He’s just… there.

Considering how naturally Reynolds fits into buddy comedies, you would think this would be tailor-made for him. But the movie never quite gives him enough material to bring his usual gravitas or comedic energy. Instead, he’s mostly along for the ride.

Oddly enough, the whole thing reminded me of BEHIND ENEMY LINES, except somebody decided to make this movie more of a buddy comedy and turn down the action just a little. maybe that’s why I didn’t hate it.

It’s familiar, but it’s not completely lifeless. It’s basic, but it occasionally has some spirit. It doesn’t offer much you haven’t seen before, but it at least tries to put a slightly different spin on a very familiar formula.

It’s perfectly watchable, occasionally fun, and elevated by a couple of performances that are more entertaining than the material itself. But once the credits roll, I’m not sure there’s much left to say other than, “Yep. That was a movie.”

Not bad. Not great. Just ok 

Grade: C