FREAKIER FRIDAY (2025)

 

Directed By: Nisha Ganatra

Written By: Jordan Weiss 

Story By: Elyse Hollander and Jordan Weiss

Based on characters, Based on the book By: Mary Rodgers 

Cinematography: Matthew Clark

Editor: Eleanor Infante 

Cast: Jamie Lee Curtis, Lindsay Lohan, Julia Butters, Sophia Hammons, Vanessa Bayer, Mark Harmon, Manny Jacinto, Chad Michael Murray, Maitreyi Ramakrishnan, Christina Vidal

22 years after Tess and Anna endured an identity crisis, Anna now has a daughter and a soon-to-be stepdaughter. As they navigate the challenges that come when two families merge, Tess and Anna discover that lightning might strike twice.

————————————————————————-

This was unexpected a sequel, so many decades after the original hit though will admit kind of had interest to catch this can say that it’s not disappointing. It stays fun and lively throughout. It doesn’t offer necessarily anything original but it’s perfect for its target, offering fans of the original or more first a chance to see the two stars in their element who they grew up with, and it allows their children a chance to see characters their own age they can identify with.

Though I might not be the ideal audience, it reminded me of Disney adult aimed humored films where they still have an innocence, despite being more maturely themed

The film wisely stays with Lindsay Lohan and Jamie Lee Curtis‘s characters whose bodies are supposed to be inhabited by these teenagers and they get to major league showcase and be broad throughout whereas we do see the teenagers supposedly inhabited by older people, but the movie doesn’t rely on them as much.

It’s especially nice and surprising to see Lindsay Lohan back on the big screen and a major release making her comeback of sort. She has been making a comeback and more Hallmark and straight to streaming movies but here is the first time she’s had a chance on a major big screen platform. After so much trouble in her personal life it seemed like she was destined for tragedy or at least never really work again, which was a shame as always thought that she had the talent and goods to be a leading lady and have a long career so this film was a nice surprise.

Even though she doesn’t have as much to do or shine as in the last film, she still impresses, and it still quite the screen presence.

Jamie Lee Curtis is obviously having fun with her role here and gets a lot of time to shine and showcase and feel steadier here than in some of her more recent roles

Chad Michael Murray continues to be type cast as the hunk who gets away and kind of temptation that lays on the side, pure of fantasy, which leaves him with very little to do.

The film breezes along and mannequin to have and beat everything for each part of the audience. It can be romantic, comedic, young, mature, juvenile, and it manages to stay fun throughout, except when it goes from the second act of the third act with a plot device that of course is needed for a 3 act structure, but still has you rolling your eyes Kind of like getting a shot at the doctors office it’s needed and you know it’s coming, but the process is always a pain

Is the film is everything you expected to me, though? It also has charisma and charm. This is not going to went over anyone new to the franchise, but the fans of it will be in heaven as they bring back most of the cast from the first film and it feels like not your standard sequel. There was a lot of effort put it into this film That makes it feel like it goes above and beyond for its audience not a general audience again, but its audience.

Grade: C+

PICTURE THIS (2008)

 

Directed By: Stephen Herek

Written By: Temple Mathews 

Cinematography: Bernard Couture 

Editor: Robin Russell 

Cast: Ashely Tisdale, Robbie Amell, Lauren Collins, Kevin Pollack, Shenae Grimes, Cindy Busby, Marie-Marguerite Sabonqui, Angela Galuppo

Rich, handsome team captain Drew Patterson, the high school's dream prince, like his elder brothers before, tires of the haughty head cheerleader and shows some interest in nerdy nobody Mandy Gilbert. For her, his invitation to the party of the year of his parental estate bodes instant social promotion, but her overprotective father Tom grounds her for dishonesty. She's as determined to get in anyway with friends' help as her rival's pack to prevent that and dad to guard her. Furthermore, there's a dooming rumor about the Patterson boys.

———————————————————————

Now let me start this review off by saying that,  I am obviously not the normal audience for this film as I am an adult male, so I am aged out when it comes to this film and this is definitely aimed at a more teenage audience, teenage female in particular, even though as the film plays, it even seems a little too soft and innocent for them. This is something I could more imagine, preteens or children, even watching as it would make more sense to them as it just has a innocence about it even the race scenes or subjects aren’t something you would worry about too much.

The film is a starring vehicle for Ashley Tisdale who is one of the stars of Disney’s high school the musical smash hit TV movie and it’s sequel now I’m not sure if they started as a Disney original or not though would place for that kind of audience. 

The film is rather basic paint by numbers you’ve seen this all before just with different Hijinx and little adventures that all seem to take place really within a few days, which is where some of the logical problems of the film come in whereas this the school hunk who dates it seems like the queen be most popular girl is telling this girl who has lead low on the social scale and never seem to really talk. all of a sudden he’s professing that he really likes her and that how special she is and really if this was true why did he wait for the last year of high school towards the end of the year before they graduate and B? Why doesn’t he just break up with his girlfriend first, so that there would be no hijinks but then again then there would be no movie.

To tell you the truth, the only reason I watch this is because two cast members from the grassy the teenage melodramatic soap opera that I am a big fan of were in it. Shanae Grimes and Lauren collins. Who played Tisdale‘s best friends and offer quirky, comedic, and loving support.

Ashley Tisdale does have star quality though this script and doesn’t really help her shine though she is watchable the film is acceptable even though the script or film might be too juvenile for even her core audience at the time. 

what are the major problems of this film? Is that her arrival? The queen bee who was the most popular girl in school? I don’t feel like would put so much attention to taking her down if she was really secure, but of course, since there’s a team movie at heart it shows that she’s insecure and not to mention the rival isn’t even a challenge when it comes to looks, she seems rather bleach, blonde and generic and way too old to be playing high school school student. Then again, so does the male elite who’s the dream guy Robbie Amell. But I digress.

luckily, the film never comes off as offensive, so it can easily play with most audiences and some might find its silliness cute and it is directed by journeyman director Stephen Herek. (BILL AND TED’S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE) So you have to give the film credit as at least it’s competently directed even if the material isn’t the greatest. i’m not really going to write this film only because it would be unfair as normally I might give it a low grade but again to a certain audience this might be the greatest thing ever made and if you’re watching it either you have kids or you’re watching it by accident or you’re really into these sort of films so it doesn’t really matter what I have to say.

Hopefully Ashley Tisdale returns to start them again, cause she definitely has the talent and the energy to truly be an effective actress full of personality

102 DALMATIONS (2000)

 

Directed By: Kevin Lima 

Written By: Kristen Buckley, Brian Regan, Bob Tzudiker and Noni White 

Story By: Kristen Buckley and Brian Regan

Based on the Novel “THE ONE HUNDRED AND ONE DALMATIONS” By: Dodie Smith 

Cinematography: Adrian Biddle and Roger Pratt

Editor: Gregory Perler 

Cast: Glenn Close, Gerard Depardieu, Ioan Gruffund, Alice Evans, Eric Idle, Tim McInnerny, Ian Richardson, Jim Carter, Ron Cook

After a spot of therapy, Cruella De Vil is released from prison a changed woman. Devoted to dogs and good causes, she is delighted that Chloe, her parole officer, has a dalmatian family and connections with a dog charity. But the sound of Big Ben can reverse the treatment so it is only a matter of time before Ms DeVille is back to her incredibly ghastly ways, using her new-found connections with Chloe and friends.

————————————————————————

One can remember  this trailer making the rounds in the year of its release and the trailer actually looked funny and captivating. It took me all this time to finally watch this film and say the trailer held more promise and humor. 

take this review with a pinch of salt as obviously if you like this film already, I’m not gonna change your mind and you’re just going to think that I am a hater and I will freely admit. This is not usually my type of film, but I was hoping it would be something fun and charming and it’s neither

it took me a while to watch this film. I remember when it came out and all the brew ha ha over 101 Dalmatians and then then making a sequel live action sequel with 102 Dalmatians and I decided to give the film a chance. 

Watching it clearly is not for me. This is a film, purely for children because it’s silly joyful with a little hint of darkness, but I’d rather feels like a straight to Dvd home video TV type of production as it just seems kind of cheap and unmemorable and there are a bunch of gags, but they don’t really seem to work. 

The only good thing or promising aspect of this film is Glenn Close reprising her role as Cruella Deville and she’s fun and campy is all hell but also the weakness of the film is that it More keeps her as a supporting character.

whereas we focus on the characters played by Ioan Gruffund and Alice Evans. Who don’t even feel like real characters they feel like plat points and they’re truly is no fun when most of the movie is centered around them and the dogs as they have no chemistry and they’re not even that interesting as characters so while the film does have the basic requirements and trying to pretty much do the same thing as a 101 Dalmatians only now with Cruella supposedly being rehab and liking dogs and then halfway through the film, the rehab doesn’t work or backfires and having her go back, this is just the first film all over again with less star filled Cast.

One might be a particularly disappointed because this film is directed by Kevin Lima, who also directed A GOOFY MOVIE which was animated in which I love so I thought that he would be able to handle a live action film with the same care and touch and while it’s a film, that children will obviously adore it lacks any real nuance or any real fun so personally for me, and that just adds to the disappointment of the whole endeavor. As he has shown, he can offer up emotional yet funny material for an audience of all ages and here, even though it might be a little more skewed it’s very hard to believe that even the audience it’s aimed that will find this enjoyable or unforgettable. Then again he can only work with what he has in the script, even if Glenn Clouse shines above it all.

Though you usually know you are in trouble when a film introduces a talking animal for its comedic relief, but also shows who this film was more made for. 

So that the rest of the film feels silly familiar and just tired. It just feels like no one really had any new ideas or really any passion for this film and and it ended up just being more of the same only with lower production values and again Glenn Close is clearly having fun and truly earning her paycheck as the over the top supporting villain, but she is the only thing of note in this otherwise forgettable film.

At least the fashions through out are ridiculously over the top and leaves some room For campy humor. 

Grade: D

FRANKENSTEIN (2025)

 

Written & Directed by Guillermo del Toro

Based on the novel “FRANKENSTEIN OR THE MODERN PROMETHEUS” ByMary Shelly 

Cinematography: Dan Laustsen 

Editor: Evan Schiff 

Cast: Oscar Isaac, Jacob Elordi, Mia Goth, Christoph Waltz, Charles Dance, David Bradley, Ralph Ineson, Lars Mikkelsen, Nikolaj Lie Kaas, Lauren Collins, Sofia Galasso 

Dr. Victor Frankenstein, a brilliant but egotistical scientist, brings a creature to life in a monstrous experiment that ultimately leads to the undoing of both the creator and his tragic creation.

————————————————————————

Guillermo del Toro’s adaptation of Frankenstein arrives with the kind of anticipation usually reserved for cinematic pilgrimages. It’s a long-gestating passion project by a filmmaker whose devotion to monsters borders on religious. And yes, it’s gorgeous. Ravishing. Sculpted with the kind of gothic precision that makes you want to pause the frame and hang it in a museum (which, ironically, is part of the problem).

Because for all its visual majesty, the film feels less like a living, beating story and more like a beautifully lit museum chamber piece sacred, admired, but curiously still. Almost like a Wes Anderson film

Watching Frankenstein at home, even on the biggest TV you can justify without shame, is like trying to view a cathedral through your peephole. You get the idea, but not the impact. As The film Is A Gorgeous Experience That Never Quite Comes Alive

Del Toro stages the movie like a theatrical spectacle; wide, grand, operatic. It demands an audience seated in the dark, collectively hopefully

holding their breath. On a smaller screen the whole thing compresses, and so does its emotional force. It becomes one more thing you’re “watching while also texting,” its larger-than-life gestures suddenly feeling muted. Which might be why this film doesn’t reach me. As much as it would in a theater more secluded and direct. 

It’s a reminder of an uncomfortable truth: not every film needs the big screen, but this one absolutely does. Shrink it, and the soul shrinks with it.

A friend once described last year’s NOSFERSTU remake as “a museum piece”—impeccable, reverent, exquisitely lit, styled, designed and emotionally distant. It comes off more as a presentation than a movie. Del Toro’s Frankenstein often slips into that same territory.

The sets are Immaculate. The creature design is inventive. The mood? Pretentiously Overwhelming in the best way.

And yet… it rarely moves you. The emotions are presented but not felt. They are laid before the viewer with academic seriousness, like annotations on a text everyone already knows by heart. Maybe that’s the curse of remaking a story we’ve collectively known since childhood: the beats land, but they don’t surprise.

It becomes less a story and more an opportunity to witness someone else’s interpretation of a myth you’ve heard too many times.

Del Toro is too talented to ever make something bad, but here he feels like a director in his Tim-Burton-phase: Instead of breaking new ground, he’s lovingly recreating  the things that inspired him growing up. Unlike Burton, del Toro doesn’t defang his monsters or turn them into punchlines. He actually adores them too much for that, but the result is still a filmmaker circling familiar territory rather than charting new routes. 

And yes, the del Toro signature remains: a gothic romance at the center, a creature yearning for connection, a broken heart inside a larger-than-life body. It’s easy to see what drew him to the material. It’s also easy to wish he’d returned to an original idea instead.

Christoph Waltz—shockingly—goes big. He’s operatic, but also the kind of actor who benefits from stern directorial supervision. Left unchecked, he can become his own genre. Here, he hovers just on the edge of self-parody, charismatic but distracting. 

The rest of the cast plays it with earnestness and restraint, letting del Toro’s production design do most of the heavy emotional lifting. Sometimes too much.

So… Is It Good? Absolutely. Is it essential?

Not quite. As Frankenstein is an achievement, a vision, a painterly triumph. But it’s also one more retelling of a story that has been told so many times it now arrives pre-interpreted. Beautiful, yes undeniably. But also strangely hollow, like an echo of itself.

It’s a noteworthy film, worth admiring, worth seeing on the biggest screen you can find.

But it’s not a new favorite. More a reminder of what del Toro can do… and what we wish he’d dare to do next.

Grade: B 

CHRISTMAS EVE IN MILLER’S POINT (2024)

 

Directed by: Tyler Taormina

Written By: Tyler Taormina and Eric Berger

Story Editor/Editor: Kevin Anton

Cinematography: Carson Lund

Cast: Matilda Fleming, Maria Dizzia, Ben Shenkman, Francesca Scorsese, Elsie Fisher, Michael Cera, Gregg Turkington, Tony Savino, Steven Alleva, Grege Morris, Sawyer Spielberg

On Christmas Eve, a family gathers for what could be the last holiday in their ancestral home. As the night wears on and generational tensions arise, one of the teenagers sneaks out with her friends to claim the wintry suburb for her own.

————————————————————————-

this film is the epitome of an ensemble film as there are no real stars. Every character plays their role essentially in each other stories, and there is no real complete story as everything is told more and snippets and scenes, but never quite from beginning to end in a complete way. 

As the film is largely plotless, but plays out over a families holiday traditions, and party as they all get together where many individual things happen some smaller some greater but nothing really happens except for this celebration.

it seems like the filmmaker wanted some more evoke, the emotions of the holiday or any holiday gathering with your family where the story is told purely at this celebration where you get updates about their lives away from one another, always wanting to showcase the best and you get a sense of the family history and their relationships with one another, but nothing is ever clearly defined 

The drama that happens as well as the comedy is more lived in and isn’t as random as everyone knows each other and because they know each other and their habits nothing is quite shocking to one another. 

The film works and its own artistry that might be frustrating to some members of the audience as it takes its time telling the story it wants to, but again the story is never told in a complete way it’s more told segments that seem like they go nowhere endless that more evoke moods as there is an inherent sadness throughout as they adults are realizing they’re getting older and how much they have in the past but also the ones who raise them are slowly deteriorating and they want to take care of them. It might be too much for them to take on

And that would also celebrates the happiness of seeing long lost family members who you grew up with who now other than these types of get together rarely ever see as those family members you never really want to see, but are forced to and have to play nice with 

The tons of cuisine and food that you can board yourself on and share with family 

As well as issues that certain family members have with one another that everyone seems to know about, but either or not acknowledged or not talked about, but clearly seen and felt 

there is a section of the film where it more focuses on the younger characters the teenagers and their wild night out though even though there’s more adventure and the film seems to have a little more energy and spirit to match the characters. It also is more told in segments whereas anytime the film comes close to anything happening, especially any kind of action or excitement it seems like it cuts to something else or another character and then we see the aftermath of the action.

As even the biggest names in the cast, who is also a producer, Michael cera barely has any lines and isn’t in much of the movie nor anal part of it, but is appearance does add a certain prestige into the film

this is a film that might be challenging for some and truly you’re either going to get into its wavelength or not.

Though as an audience member one cannot say they were totally down with everything about the film. I applaud it for its artistic choices and the mood and can identify with the material as the film presents highs and Lows joys and defeats, but isn’t meant to leave the audience depressed, but also isn’t the typical holiday movie where it’s all smiles and happiness for the audience, though the film does end with a lot of smiles for the characters.

Grade: B-