The CineFiles

Thursday, November 12, 2026

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-

Saturday, November 7, 2026

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+

Friday, November 6, 2026

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-

Tuesday, November 3, 2026

THE HOUSEMAID (2025)

Directed By: Paul Feig

Written By: Rebecca Sonnenshine

Based of the Book by: Freida McFadden

Cinematography: John Schwartzman

Editor: Brent White

Cast: Sydney Sweeney, Amanda Seyfried, Brandon Sklenar, Elizabeth Perkins, Michele Morrone, Sarah Cooper, Ellen Tamaki, Megan Ferguson

Millie a struggling young woman becomes live-in maid for a wealthy couple Nina and Andrew. She enters a mansion of secrets, manipulation, and escalating psychological games that pull her into a dangerous relationship dynamic.

This is based on the best seller and directed by Paul Feig, who used to be more of a noted comedic director, and still brings humor usually to most of his films whereas here this is part of his journeyman process of films, such as A SIMPLE FAVOR Which was a muster mystery with humor and pretty much a domestic fantasy.

This film is more of a domestic drama/thriller that seems to be made to appeal more for women, but particularly middle class. Women who are probably housewives. This seems aimed at them the only time the film seems maybe aimed a little bit. Maybe for the husbands is in a sex scene within the film that offers nudity by star Sydney Sweeney, but it still played more romantic and a bit risqué as a fantasy for the housewives.

First and foremost, I must say, even though Sydney Sweeney is the star Amanda Seyfried walks away with the film she gives the strongest performance which at times could be camping, but it’s strangely fits in with the film. It makes her all the more believable at first you might hate her, but she is what makes the material come alive and truly is the films anchor.

That would also feels like this is Amanda Seyfried handing the torch down to Miss Sweeney as to play the young hot genu whereas Amanda Seyfried is now in the era of playing middle aged or women considered older and more grown-up she’s matured though she’s still a dynamite actress though no one is we’re not many are probably going to feature her as the young beautiful and uninformed

Trying not to spoil this film as it has many twist and turns that are actually worth it even if they are a bit ridiculous I will say each half of the film works for different reasons. The first half is a built-up definitely strong and works and makes you believe one thing. The second part is where the film gets a little bit more ridiculous but is stronger and gives you a different point of view than what we seen and heard in the first half of the movie it kind of pulls the rug out from under you.

One of the sore spots of the film is actually Sydney Sweeney, who does what she’s required here and definitely is a sex symbol throughout the film, though it feels like she could’ve been stronger as where the film takes her. It works, though she doesn’t inhabit it as well as in the first half of the film.

Which also introduces a strength thing when it comes to Sydney Sweeney‘s acting and her career

Sydney Sweeney tries proving she can act many times indifferent more independent productions, such as AMERICANA, CHRISTY even REALITY which was made for HBO even EDEN, which was directed by Ron Howard, where she was around such noted actors, as Jude law and while the critics might praise it, unfortunately most audiences don’t go to see these films

So that forces her to maybe star in mainstream films that exploited her assets more, but proved to be hits like in films like anyone but you this film the housemaid so of course she’s going to more embrace these types of films as these are proving to be her bread and butter

And that is what she’s embracing by making more of those types of films, which is why then she gets endorsements with more sexually changed ads and even starting her own skimpy clothing company using sex and lust to sell so that she has seen is having no integrity and selling out rather than when she tries to show integrity. No one is watching they claim because they don’t want to support her but yet they all see the other ads and those tend to be quite successful. So she’s damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t. So obviously she’s gonna go with what works and keeps paying her bills.

She’s all right this isn’t obviously her best performance, but it plays more into her wheelhouse. At least the types of films that she’s most commonly gonna find herself casting or choose to be in. Though especially in flash vaccines involving her is where she might be at her weakest.

Whereas Brandon Sklenar, who plays the husband in the film, he does just fine stoic at times scary at others and even being the dreamboat, but he also comes across at times so stiffing like a Boy Scout that and including his looks, he just comes across as the type of actor you commonly see on soap operas that seems to be his range good guy one minute, but can quickly change but pretty much always the industry standard and between the two actresses he ends up being an anchor that tries to ground the film and that maybe should let up and let the film be a little bit more crazy.

Though when you factor in Elizabeth Perkins in a supporting an all two brief role, she almost walks away with the film herself. One wishes there was a movie with her and Amanda Seyfried starring in it as these characters are in it together where they can just go full blast.

Director Paul Feig like Sydney Sweeney finds himself kind of in the middle whereas the comedies he used to make, but then stopped making money in studio stopped making those films so he changed up his style and found films that work for him where he can go from a thriller that is a bit more comedic to one that is more icy and dramatic and still never skip a beat. Either way everybody in this film in their careers will be fine afterwards. As this film was a surprise hit.

It hits the right spot is most of the other characters are dislikable and bitchy for no other reason that the script wants them to be so that the film becomes a little closed off and only shines a light on the main three characters overall.

If you’re looking for a thriller, that thinks it’s smarter than it is, but at least we’ll keep you entertained throughout no matter how implausible it might be at times and feels like a guilty pleasure by the end then this is the film for you. As this is pretty much a crowd pleaser. They were a bit too long.

Grade: C