The CineFiles

Friday, July 10, 2026

YOU’RE KILLING ME (2023)

Directed By: Beth Hanna and Jerren Lauder

Written By: Walter Hare and Brad Martocello

Cinematography: Jeff Tomcho

Editor: Rome Widenhouse

Cast: McKaley Miller, Keyara Milliner, Brice Anthony Heller, Morgana Van Peebles, Jayson Warner Smith, Will Deusner, Dermot Mulroney, Anne Heche, Hannah Celeste, Kelli Therinae

Eden, a bright student who is wait-listed at her dream college, attends a party hosted by a powerful Congressman’s son to get a letter of recommendation. However, she and her friend Zara discover that Schroder and his friends are involved in the disappearance of a missing girl. As tensions rise, Eden uses her wit and manipulation skills to navigate the dangerous social hierarchy of the wealthy elite and protect herself and those she cares about. As she delves deeper into the mystery, she uncovers shocking secrets and must fight to survive.

This film is a disappoint as the material is not bad. One only wishes they would’ve had more original ideas in which to not only present the film, but offer up style for the film..

As there are plenty of scenes in which the characters reactor act so dumb and not impulsively just either stupid or silly that it is beyond belief at times, so unfortunately it’s because of these things that keep the film going, where at certain points of the film it becomes so ridiculous that it’s funny while trying to keep this thriller tone

There is a final twist that you see coming, but there are plenty of places and ideas within the film where if they would’ve simply did a simple twist on the situation, the film could’ve been a little more entertaining and thought-provoking, but then it might’ve gone into being multidimensional in this film seems to wanna be one dimensional, cut and dry literally.

As for most of the film, there seems to be a lot of filler or stretching for time and a scene that should have been a lot more emotional and devastating here just seems to be played off to show a characters determination truly a taste of how evil they are, even though they’ve been presented that way throughout. Though at least it gives one of the characters who’s supposed to be a villain, somewhat of a soul or a chance to see the other side of them.

Though you know the main teen villian who seem cast here more for his look. Which telegraphs his evil side from the opening.

It even kills off one of the villains of color first. Who ends up seeming like one of the most innocent.

The main character is mostly to blame for the other character fates throughout. So at times it is hard to feel sorry for her. Especially as she brings it on herself and could have easily gotten out of this situation. Though it shows she has a soul through her actions. Even if her best friend who has hated most of these characters. Has an odd mid-movie feeling and about face of trying to give the bad guys the benefit of the doubt.

One can admit the film doesn’t truly get exciting until the major names in the cast actually appear which unfortunately isn’t until the last third of the film but they make their presence felt and make things or keep things a little more exciting especially the late Anne Heche’s performance, wishing she had been in more of the film as she makes a most scary and entertaining villain.

No ultimately the film is a thriller, but throughout it is a revenge tale no matter how it is dressed up even though the box art makes it look like it. Will Moore be something to the movie? READY OR NOT

Grade: D+

Directed By: Beth Hanna and Jerren Lauder

Written By: Walter Hare and Brad Martocello

Cinematography: Jeff Tomcho

Editor: Rome Widenhouse

Cast: McKaley Miller, Keyara Milliner, Brice Anthony Heller, Morgana Van Peebles, Jayson Warner Smith, Will Deusner, Dermot Mulroney, Anne Heche, Hannah Celeste, Kelli Therinae

Eden, a bright student who is wait-listed at her dream college, attends a party hosted by a powerful Congressman's son to get a letter of recommendation. However, she and her friend Zara discover that Schroder and his friends are involved in the disappearance of a missing girl. As tensions rise, Eden uses her wit and manipulation skills to navigate the dangerous social hierarchy of the wealthy elite and protect herself and those she cares about. As she delves deeper into the mystery, she uncovers shocking secrets and must fight to survive.

this film is a disappoint as the material is not bad. One only wishes they would’ve had more original ideas in which to not only present the film, but offer up style for the film..

Though you know the main teen villian who seem cast here more for his look. Which telegraphs his evil side from the opening.

It even kills off one of the villains of color first. Who ends up seeming like one of the most innocent.

Grade: D+

Thursday, July 9, 2026

DO NOT REPLY (2019)

Written & Directed By: Daniel Woltosz & Walt Woltosz

Cinematography: Jan-Michael Losada

Editor: Colleen Halsey

Cast: Amanda Arcuri, Jackson Rathbone, Kerri Medders, Elise Luthman, Ashlee Fuss, Ivon Millan, Courtney Henggeler, Nikki Leigh, Savannah Kennick

Chelsea, a high school introvert, is abducted through a social media app and is forced to look like other girls Brad holds captive. Chelsea desperately attempts to persuade them to escape before they all become victims in his virtual reality filmed murders.

At first one would think this film looking at the poster would be one of those paranormal or slasher films that comes out in theaters for a week before it is properly put on streaming. Unfortunately, this film doesn’t even belong on streaming. This feels more like a bad cable original

The film is a little confusing as to does. It wanna be in after school, special warning about the dangers of online predators in the dangers of online relationships without doing the proper background checks and research or doesn’t want to be a horror film about a deranged protagonist, and a final girl.

The film tries to mix, but by the end, it just feels like a rated lifetime movie that is a bit sensationalistic, and while it tries to be exploited, it never goes fall into any of what it hint at either sexual or violence wise, except for one gruesome death

Going into the film, you can pretty much guess what’s gonna happen in the type of film that it is going to be and while the lead is certainly twisted and most of the film plays more like a horror. The last five minutes then seems to want to be a kind of public service announcement.

The film does get into brainwashing Stockholm syndrome, and while it tries to be dirty and gruesome, it never quite thrills or make you really worry about the protagonists.

So that by the end feels like a nice try, but doesn’t truly satisfy anyone because you wonder who is supposedly the audience for this film and it just feels like a paint by numbers setup. From a father-son writing and directing duo.

One would guess this is supposed to be for teenagers, but none of it really comes across as believable, especially in dialogue when it comes to the teenage characters.

Though it is nice to see Amanda Arcuri from DEGRASSI: THE NEXT GENERATION have a lead role. One can only wish it was in a better film. Where half the time the audience is confused as to which kidnapped character is which. Since they are made to dress alike and respond to the same name.

Grade: D

Friday, July 3, 2026

EDEN (2024)

Directed By: Ron Howard

Written By: Noah Pink

Cinematography: Mathias Herndl

Editor: Matt Villa

Cast: Jude Law, Vicky Kirby, Ana De Armas, Sydney Sweeney, Daniel Bruehl, Felix Krammerer, Toby Wallace, Ingracio Gasparini, Richard Roxburgh

Based on a factual account of a group of outsiders who settle on a remote island only to discover their greatest threat isn’t the brutal climate or deadly wildlife, but each other.

I’ve learned nothing from age or experience. When I read a rating description that says graphic nudity and see that a film takes place on a remote island, my brain still lights up like a teenager who thinks cinema is about to deliver. Full frontal. Everyone. Sunburned and symbolic. Instead, Eden plays like a prank pulled by the MPAA: lots of male butts, a wet shirt doing some heavy lifting, and apparently breastfeeding now qualifies as “graphic.” If there’s a support group for grown adults disappointed by misleading rating descriptions, sign me up.

What’s funny is that this misdirection mirrors the film itself. Critics and early buzz framed Eden as something juicier; betrayals, affairs, wife-swapping, maybe even an orgy or two. The implication was that Ron Howard, of all people, was getting daring. That this was Howard pushing himself, trying to shock, or at least stir something beyond polite admiration. What we get instead is a film that flirts with danger and then immediately apologizes for it.

Eden is competently directed, handsomely produced, and based on a true story, three qualities that should theoretically give it weight. We watch a group of people who choose to abandon society and live on a mostly deserted island, arriving at different times for different reasons, only to slowly discover that isolation doesn’t bring enlightenment so much as irritation. They get on each other’s nerves, draw lines, form alliances, and eventually turn on one another. It’s Lord of the Flies adjacent, but with better grooming and a lot more passive aggression.

What complicates things and arguably makes the film more interesting than it intends to be is how clearly it maps onto contemporary racial and political anxieties. The most overtly “evil” figure does get what’s coming to them, but that act becomes the moral rot that spreads to everyone else. The so-called innocents are now tainted, forced to reckon with how far they’ll go to protect what they’ve decided is theirs. The island becomes a parable: for colonization, for gentrification, for what happens when people who see themselves as peaceful pioneers suddenly feel threatened.

Because this is based on a true story, it’s hard to accuse the film outright of bad faith, but it’s also hard to ignore its blind spots. Once again, the darker, Spanish-speaking characters are framed as loud, sexually promiscuous, domineering, and ultimately villainous, while the British and German couples are coded as pilgrims: earnest, fragile, and well-intentioned until pushed too far. The film seems unaware of how familiar this dynamic feels, or how neatly it mirrors modern anxieties about immigration and “who belongs.” If you’re going to villainize certain characters, at least give them dimension. Here, too many feel like ideas rather than people.

Structurally, Eden is odd. It spends much of its first half building toward a second half that never quite deepens what we’ve been shown. We get minimal backstory, and what little we do learn is mostly told to us rather than dramatized. In the Baroness’s case, her past is revealed through a lover in a way that feels meant to shock, but lands flat because it’s so plainly delivered and instantly believable. There’s no real mystery, just information.

The title, of course, refers to the Garden of Eden: a fertile paradise that could have sustained everyone, if only they hadn’t ruined it. And that’s the tragedy here, not just of the characters, but of the film itself. Eden has all the ingredients for something sharper, angrier, or more unsettling. Instead, it settles into respectability.

This feels like a movie that wanted to be Oscar bait or at least Oscar-adjacent. The cast is stacked with respected dramatic actors, with Sydney Sweeney standing out as the lone box-office draw, seemingly happy to be along for the ride. Her role grows in importance as the film progresses, culminating in a quiet tragedy that works more on paper than in practice.

There’s something faintly admirable about this film simply existing. In a climate where everything is either a franchise extension, an algorithm-approved product, or an awards-season personality test, this feels like a movie that was made because someone genuinely wanted to make it. And that someone is Ron Howard: Hollywood’s ultimate steady hand, a director whose career has been defined less by provocation than by craftsmanship. That’s both the film’s greatest strength and its most limiting factor.

The problem isn’t that the film is bad, it isn’t, but that it often feels unsure of who it’s for. Is this meant to be an Academy-friendly legacy piece, the kind that quietly accumulates nominations and polite applause? Is it for history buffs, who might argue it works better as a limited series, where the ideas could breathe rather than be efficiently summarized? Or was it aiming for a broader, prestige-curious audience that no longer really exists in the same way? The film seems caught between these identities, resulting in something that’s respectable, handsomely mounted, and faintly adrift.

Howard directs with his usual classical restraint, which gives the film an old-school texture almost quaint in its pacing and presentation. In another filmmaker’s hands, this material might have been stranger, riskier, or more formally exciting. Here, it’s competent to a fault. When the film reaches for anything risqué or emotionally sharp, it feels slightly self-conscious, like it knows it’s stepping outside its comfort zone and wants credit for the attempt. Nothing lands disastrously, but very little surprises.

Ultimately, this feels like a story Ron Howard wanted to tell and add to his already extensive résumé. a solid, professional entry that might have caused real waves in the ’80s, ’90s, or even the early 2000s. Today, it risks getting lost in the endless churn of content, not because it’s disposable, but because it’s modest in a moment that rewards extremity. Still, there’s value in its existence. It’s a reminder of a kind of filmmaking that’s becoming rare: sincere, controlled, and unconcerned with spectacle. You may not love it, or even remember it vividly, but you’ll likely agree. it didn’t waste your time. And these days, that almost counts as a quiet victory.

This seems to fit in with his more recent films that are a bit dark in its visuals and story, but also have an audience friendly presentation where a normal sea is gained through more traditional family values.

Ana de Armas is the scene stealer but that’s also because she’s the villain and only character who is truly of interest throughout the film. Her character causes most of the drama and through her instructions and actions. The actual action and betrayals of the film happen. Sydney Sweeney’s character only gets to be that way by the end as it ultimately seems like it’s her characters story of growth and maturity.

In the end, Eden is fine. The production is polished, the performances solid, and the intentions sincere. But once the villains exit, so does much of the tension. What remains is a group of attractive people circling their guilt, convinced of their own moral superiority, and slowly realizing they’re not so different from one another after all. It’s not bad. It’s not great. It’s a well-made film that feels oddly lost, unsure whether it wants to provoke, condemn, or simply be admired. And in trying to be all three, it never fully becomes any of them.

Grade: C