ONE SPOON OF CHOCOLATE (2026)

 

Written & Directed By: The Rza

Cinematography: Brandon Cox

Editor: Joe D’Augustine 

Cast: Shameik Moore, RJ Cyler, Paris Jackson, Rockmond Dunbar, Blair Underwood, Emyri Crutchfield, Johnell Young, Harry Goodwins, James Les Thomas, Michael Barney, 

Follows Unique, a veteran and ex-convict seeking a fresh start in the small town of Karensville. After an altercation with a gang of hostile locals, he starts to suspect they have something to do with the disappearance of young Black men in the area – including his cousin. As he digs for the truth, he finds himself the target of not just the gang but the local sheriff’s office, whose involvement in the disappearances may be even more sinister. Instead of waiting for his turn to be picked off, Unique and those closest to him decide to fight back in this sharply satirical and stylish action thriller from the visionary leader of the Wu-Tang Clan

---

This is definitely a modern day exploitation that isn’t very subtle. It is pretty obvious from the beginning where this film is going. One her high hopes for the film. Unfortunately they are quickly dashed. 

This film has so much potential until it seems lien the story and scenes just become good enough to get by instead of injecting any ideas, thoughts or imagination to eliminate the film

There isn’t any deep character study here it just seems like we watch African-Americans get bullied killed in tortured for I would say mostly the first hour of the film before finally in the third act Shameik Moore as the hero finally not only fights back, but takes most of them down as much as he can

Earlier in the film, he fights a few battles, but then has to go in the hiding, but once it seems like the final straw has been broken that is when he comes out and is ready to do some damage

Now, while this film tries to be a black exploitation film, the problem is there are no really happy moments or any kind of happiness throughout the film. It just seems down Triden and torturous from beginning to end so one can’t say this is a fun watch. don’t know if the film which is executive produced by Quentin Tarantino was trying to go for a kind of DJANGO UNCHAINED fighting back against oppressive forces feel. As a collaborator with The Rza in the past that seems one of the reasons he is exec producing here, but also the film fits into a blaxploitation/Grindhouse genre and feel that he is notoriously a fan of and inspired by. 

The problem is that the film for the most part doesn’t feel exceptional in any way it feels and plays pretty basic throughout and then once we finally do hit the end it doesn’t really have an ending. It feels ambiguous, though for no real reason it seems like the film painted itself into a corner and didn’t know how to get out of it so they are trying to send this message that isn’t a message

The film has a good cast and has plenty of exploit of scenes of nudity sex violence. No, none of them particularly done well.

It’s entertaining to keep your interest, but immediately forgettable, even with such what would seem to be for some and enjoyable message of rebellion. Maybe because of the film doesn’t offer any mystery most of the White characters are evil and the Business they are doing is so out in the open and I know that it exist in the real world but for this film, no one investigating seems kind of odd.

With Blair underwood being in this film, it constantly reminds me of how this actor should be a leading man, but somewhere along the way something happened, where he ended up, mostly playing villains and supporting rules as he has the charm looks acting ability to be leading characters now he might be aged out, but he should have a bigger career just as it would be nice if he had a bigger role in this film nothing against Shameik Moore. He’s got the physicality and youth on his side.

The film just feels like a big mistep. There are certain ideas here that it flashed out could’ve made a stronger narrative and film altogether but the way it is now it just feels like a gigantic near me. It’s not a complete failure, but it’s not a film. One would recommend either.

One plat point that might show true color blindness, especially in the world of this film is that the love interest for the lead played by Shameik Moore is a Caucasian woman, but also showing that there is hope between the races as far as a message at the heart of the film, even though usually in Blacksville films, the lead character might have intimate relations with the Caucasian woman. Usually, the love of his life is a fellow African-American female. That might just also show the films liberalism in between all the black-and-white that the film tries to showcase.

Out of all the films that Rza has directed this might be the most disappointing as at least before it films had somewhat style and were brimming with ideas. This just seems very cut and dry simple with no kind of imagination really going into it.

there seems to be one of those films that’s better in theory and in discussions and thinking about the film then the actual end product. 

Grade: C

NIGHT PATROL (2026)

Directed By: Ryan Prows

Written By: Ryan Prows, Shaye Ogbonna, Tim Cairo and Jake Gibson

Cinematography: Benjamin Kitchens

Editor: Bradinn French

Cast: RJ Cyler, Jermaine Fowler, Justin Long, Nicki Micheaux, Freddie Gibbs, Dermont Mulroney, CM Punk, Flying Lotus, YG

An L.A. cop discovers a local task force is hiding a secret that puts the residents of his childhood neighborhood in danger.

---

There’s a version of NIGHT PATROL that I admire. And then there’s the version I watched same film, different feeling. That gap is where this review lives.

Because on paper, it has something. There’s ambition here. A willingness to lean into uncomfortable ideas about race, power, and perception. It’s dressed up like a grindhouse, black exploitation throwback, but underneath that is a film trying earnestly, maybe even desperately to say something about the way people see each other before they even speak. That instinct alone deserves credit, But the film doesn’t just explore a worldview. it traps itself inside one.

Everyone feels pre-assigned. You’re either in a gang, in a uniform, or in danger. Pretty much sheep. There’s very little air between those identities. which is why I wonder since the captain looks to be mixed Race is that why he’s in the middle even though of course as a cop it’s all blue

The world becomes less of a story and more of a system: if you’re not one thing, you’re the other, and if you’re neither, you’re already marked. It’s effective in a blunt, almost mythological way, but also limiting. It starts to feel less like commentary and more like a loop the film can’t escape.

And maybe that’s intentional. Maybe that’s the point. But intention doesn’t always soften impact.

Because what lingers more than the themes, more than the structure is the violence. Not just that it exists, but who it lands on. The film wants to position Black characters as heroic, resilient, central and yet, scene after scene, they’re the ones suffering the most, the ones being brutalized, the ones turned into images of pain. That contradiction is hard to shake.

It creates this strange emotional dissonance where the film is telling you, “these are your heroes,” while showing you, repeatedly, how disposable they are within the narrative. And after a while, it stops feeling like commentary and starts feeling. exhausting. Not because the film is wrong to go there, but because it rarely gives that pain room to transform into anything beyond more pain.

At a certain point, it almost stops feeling like horror and starts feeling like something heavier. Not quite allegory, not quite exploitation. Just this lingering sense of watching people be executed and massacred, over and over again, even in a film that’s trying to uplift them And maybe that’s where my own head gets in the way.

Because I kept asking questions the film never really answers: Is this the world as it is, or just the world as the film sees it?  Is everyone meant to be trapped in these roles, or is that just the lens we’re forced to look through? And if the goal is empowerment. why does it feel so punishing to sit through?

To be fair, it’s not without its strengths. There are flashes of personality, moments where the film’s voice cuts through the noise and feels sharp, even fresh. It plays with familiar genre bones but twists them just enough to feel like it’s reaching for something new, even if it doesn’t fully get there.

And the cast does what they can with it.

Jermaine Fowler is still incredibly likable, still has that natural presence that makes you want to follow him anywhere… which is why it’s frustrating when the film doesn’t seem to know what to do with him. He feels like a lead who keeps getting treated like a maybe.

Then there’s Freddie Gibbs (primarily Known as a rapper) who brings a kind of offbeat energy that works. sometimes comedic, sometimes surprisingly grounded. You almost wish the film trusted him with more weight, more danger, more purpose And that’s kind of the running theme here: almost. Almost insightful, Almost subversive, Almost balanced.

There’s a good film in Night Patrol. You can feel it trying to break through in certain scenes, certain ideas, certain performances. But it keeps circling back to the same imagery, the same brutality, the same narrow lens, until whatever nuance it had starts to blur. So I land somewhere in the middle.

I respect it more than I enjoy it.I understand it more than I like it And maybe that says more about me than it does the film or maybe that’s exactly the kind of reaction it was aiming for

MIXED BLOOD (1984)

 

Directed By: Paul Morrissey 

Written By: Paul Morrissey and Alan Bowne 

Cinematography: Stefan Zapasnik 

Editor: Scott Vickrey 

Cast: Marilia Pera, Richard Ulacia, Linda Kerridge, Rodney Harvey, Angel David, Geraldine Smith, Ulrich Berri, John Leguizamo, Alvaro Rodriguez

Brazilian drug dealers in Manhattan’s Lower East Side start a war with a rival gang of Latino drug dealers. Their soldiers are Latino kids all under 17 because, as Rita La Punta says, “They can kill and not go to jail.” The war escalates to include their German heroin supplier, his sexy English girlfriend, a Puerto Rican ex-cop, and the Japanese police captain. This movie is about racism, police corruption, junkies, and drug dealing.

---

Paul Morrissey is a director who doesn’t get enough credit. He was a constantly working in the director who found Fame and success working on Andy Warhol‘s film projects before striking out on his own in the 1980s where unfortunately his films while promoted mostly flopped though one credited him with being a journeyman director, but also usually writing about what he knew which was what was going on around him, majorly in downtown Manhattan, and in the streets.

This is not a very good film by any way or means, barely decent, shot well. though I think it’s a film will definitely find fascination with. As It’s a film full of history not to mention, showing the wayward youth of New York City at the time, particularly in this Hispanic community

The film comes across is more of an artifact of the 1980s and while at times it does feel identifiable with the times the storyline just seems so overrated and so over the top though does tell a compelling crime story

It’s directed by Paul Morrissey so it does have that authenticity but it also has that randomness factor that most of his films have and times a lot of this is ridiculous but something keeps you watching that is compelling even if it’s just because of a time capsule of the times

So even if you’re not really into the PLOT OR THE CHARACTER  at least the visuals in culture of old New York might keep your interest.

One of the problems is that the film obviously is trying to go for naturalistic performances, but a lot of the acting is not that great even laughable, but that’s what might make it authentic in itself as these actors are raw untrained just as their characters are.

The war most this one is not for the squeamish, especially when it comes to racial language as there is a lot of it throughout the film. It’s fair enough to say that most of the characters in this film are racist not only against each other, but it seems African-Americans in particular. Which was the landscape and unfortunately might still be

Though the gang leaders might be more middle age, most of the characters are teenagers, which gives a reason for the senseless random violence and the abundance of it and the nihilistic feeling. while watching the film. It more focuses on the gangs though we do deal with Moore the main gang with the Brazilian female at the lead whereas the opposing gang is shown more as the antagonist and single-minded there is police corruption but that storyline just seems to be there and they don’t deal too deep into it after it’s introduced and when they do it, it’s only a means to an end to make their feel like there’s more tension involved

It’s not meant to be a nihilistic film, but it feels like a nihilistic film, though is noted for having an early performance of John Leguizamo in one of his first roles.

Grade: C-

JEFF OF THE CINEFILES & UNFINISHED BUSINESS: HALL OF FAME - FILE #0077 - CRIMINAL LOVERS (1999)

 

Directed By: Francois Ozon

Written By: Francois Ozon, Marcia Romano and Annette Perrichon

Cinematography: Pierre Stoeber

Editor: Claude Bouche and Dominique Petrot 

Cast: Natacha Regnier, Jeremie Renier, Mikki Manojlovic, Salim Kechiouche, Yasmine Belmadi, Bernard Maume 

Modern retelling of Hansel and Gretel. After committing a murder, a young couple on the run find refuge in a remote cottage in the woods, where they become trapped by the perverse hermit who lives there.

---

This is a twisted fairy tale with very real human consequences, a lovers-on-the-run crime story poisoned by teenage lust, obsession, manipulation, and the terrible things people convince themselves are acts of love. It’s shocking, disturbing, seductive, strangely beautiful, and somehow all of those things at once.

Consider yourself warned: this isn’t a comfortable watch. François Ozon isn’t interested in easing you into the darkness. He simply opens the door and invites you inside.

At first, the film feels deceptively straightforward. A young couple commits an impulsive murder, and the story appears to follow their desperate escape. Then Ozon pulls the rug out from under you. Flashbacks reshape everything you thought you understood, revelations arrive with unnerving calm, and the narrative splinters apart only to rebuild itself into something richer and far stranger.

The film is almost bursting at the seams with symbolism. It’s a crime thriller. A coming-of-age story. A sexual awakening. A psychological horror. A fairy tale. A social commentary. Somehow, despite juggling enough allegories to overwhelm lesser filmmakers, it never feels messy. It feels hypnotic.

The fairy tale influences are impossible to ignore. LITTLE RED RIDING HOOD, HANSEL AND GRETEL. The mysterious hunter becomes a version of the Big Bad Wolf, the forest transforms into a place where innocence and monstrosity coexist, and civilization itself becomes more dangerous than nature. Ironically, the teenagers are predators in the city, yet once they enter the wilderness they become frightened children simply trying to survive.

Beneath all of this lies an uncomfortable examination of desire. Sex is constantly used as currency, manipulation, temptation, reward, punishment, and power. One character is so blinded by infatuation that morality becomes negotiable. Another seems almost intoxicated by violence itself. Love isn’t portrayed as romantic. it’s presented as something capable of becoming toxic enough to justify murder.

Ozon also quietly exposes uglier truths beneath the crime. Racism, prejudice, jealousy, fetishization, and repression slowly reveal themselves as motivations lurking beneath the surface. The murder isn’t simply an act of passion, it becomes tangled in fear, attraction, insecurity, and the desperate need to prove devotion. It’s one of those films where every revelation makes previous scenes feel even more unsettling.

Even its sexuality refuses easy labels. Desire here is fluid, conflicted, repressed, and often frighteningly honest. Characters struggle against attractions they don’t fully understand, making every interaction feel layered with longing, denial, and self-deception.

The film can certainly be graphic, but it rarely feels exploitative. Its violence is disturbing precisely because it isn’t exaggerated. Even its eroticism feels unnervingly poetic. One unforgettable love scene, surrounded by quietly observing wildlife, plays like a corrupted Disney fantasy, as though nature itself has stopped to witness something simultaneously beautiful and deeply wrong. It’s difficult not to think later films like Antichrist may have wandered through similar woods.

You can also feel echoes of BONNIE AND CLYDE and GUN CRAZY, but Ozon isn’t interested in celebrating outlaw romance. He’s dismantling it. Every fantasy of youthful freedom eventually collides with guilt, consequence, and tragedy.

What makes CRIMINAL LOVERS, so remarkable is its tone. It’s shocking without screaming for attention. Elegant while depicting ugliness. Tender moments suddenly become disturbing, while horrific moments reveal unexpected humanity. Just when you think you’ve settled into one emotion, the film quietly replaces it with another.

There is something undeniably charming about this movie and that’s perhaps the most disturbing thing about it.

This wasn’t my first François Ozon film, but it was the one that truly introduced me to how fearless he could be. 8 FEMMES hinted at his playful experimentation. CRIMINAL LOVERS tears away every safety net. It’s daring, provocative, endlessly symbolic, and completely unconcerned with staying inside conventional boundaries.

It’s the kind of film that feels overstuffed on paper: crime thriller, fairy tale, queer awakening, social critique, psychological horror, satire, romance, tragedy, and fable. Yet somehow Ozon balances every one of those ideas with astonishing confidence.

Few filmmakers can throw this much into a single film and emerge with something so cohesive, so haunting, and so unexpectedly beautiful.

It’s difficult. It’s troubling. It’s unforgettable.

And that’s exactly why it’s worth Watching.

Grade: B+

EYE OF GOD (1997)

 

Written & Directed By: Tim Blake Nelson 

Cinematography: Russell Lee Fine 

Editor: Kate Sanford 

Cast: Kevin Anderson, Hal Holbrook, Martha Plimpton, Nick Stahl, Richard Jenkins, Margo Martindale, Mary Kay Place, Chris Freihofer

A small Oklahoma town is stripped of its innocence when one of its boys turns up mute and bloodied by the lakeside. Unable to tell his story, the local sheriff embarks on a quest to uncover the roots of a gruesome crime. He’s led to Ainsley DuPree and her new husband, Jack, a man whose interest in family may very well outweigh his morals.

---

This is one of those films where the less you know going in the better the film will be for you and the grand are the experience, though as a warning must let you know this film is devastating.

It’s told like a puzzle as pieces fit together as we get more and more of the story. It gets deeper as it goes along and more tragic.

Especially after starting out on a high note, the film is low budget that feels lived in within an impressive cast firing on all cylinders and not armed with monologues or speeches, but in there on voices playing the mundane every day, I’m making us care about these characters

Martha Plimpton is absolutely heartbreaking in this film how Holbrook is regal and Kevin Anderson is truly a chameleon of charm and rage. And he is a snake that’s colorful and cute to look at, but does have that venom within them and could bite at any moment.

This film started out as a play from writer/Director 

Tim BlakeNelson and ended up becoming his directorial debut that was developed at the Sundance Institute and is quite the powerful debut.

this is one of those films where you feel the emotional gut punch by the end.

One hopes more people discovered this film as it is truly an undiscovered Gem. It reminds one of the Richard Marx song HAZARD. At times, it plays more melodramatic, but that’s to convince the audience of how simple it might seem and be, though it’s waiting to pack a punch.

It’s a mystery you don’t know you are entering as it plays more like a drama other than the drawing opening which ends up being nearly and ended that was the only appearance of violence in the film, though it does give you a hint of where the story will probably eventually lead

Grade: A-