I have watched one of the most anticipated movies of the October month. The name of the movie is A House of Dynamite. There is a very big flaw in this movie. But that will come in the spoiler. In the USA at the end with a big spoiler warning I will tell what that flaw is. But before that let us talk about the basic story of this movie.

In this movie we get to see the story of America where suddenly DEFCON 2 gets activated. In America the normal status is DEFCON 4. I think because in normal situation DEFCON 4 gets activated. DEFCON 4 means normal satellites are being launched. Missiles are being launched. Missile testing is going on. But as soon as DEFCON 2 gets activated then understand the danger is very big. Because over America an ICBM Intercontinental Ballistic Missile has been launched which is going to target the Chicago city of America in which minimum 1 crore people will be killed and this is a nuclear missile meaning nuclear attack has happened over America due to which all the defense and attack divisions of America get fully activated and after DEFCON 2 understand that the situation is going to escalate a lot and here it is not that people will die or not they are definitely going to die now it has to be found out who wants to kill them what America will do in retaliation what not all those things you have to see in this movie.

The story of the movie is tremendous. Very comfortably this movie will become one of the best movies of 2025. There is no doubt in this. But there is a very big flaw in the movie which I will tell again at the end because if I tell now then there will be no meaning left. And that is why at this point I can say that if you want to watch a tremendous movie in which the intensity is very high in which you get to see a lot of emotions because now people are going to die so people will become emotional and in the movie a mystery a suspense is also maintained then you can definitely watch this movie. If you have interest in Iran Israel war. If you have interest in Russia Ukraine war. If you have interest in geopolitics then also you can definitely watch this movie.

In this movie the acting of everyone I liked a lot. And especially its star cast is very big. Very big actors you will get to see in this movie. In big series of Netflix whom we had seen those are also seen in this. The actress of Mission Impossible is also seen in this. So the star cast is definitely very big which is a very big positive that their performance no doubt looks amazing.

The movie has been made in three parts. Meaning the movie is one only. The stories have been shown from three different perspectives. It is the same situation. But in America there are multiple divisions. Like there is a president office, there is a normal army office, there is one from where counter missiles are launched. So all their different stories have been shown which looks quite good to watch. The movie is so tight, such tight pacing has been kept in this movie. The movie has been written in such a good way that you will not be able to take your eyes off the movie even for 1 second. I had just forgotten how quickly the movie is moving forward. When 40 minutes passed, when 50 minutes passed and when the movie is about to end, it does not even get known. But as soon as its two parts get completed a very big fear starts settling in your mind and that fear will definitely be true. Now what that fear is you will see in the movie itself.

But in all other aspects like star cast is very big. So in the movie money has definitely been spent a lot. So its production is quite good. Its cinematography looked quite good in this movie. All the scenes of missiles, scenes of submarines, all look very good to watch. In the movie one thing I noticed in American movies especially that whenever there will be a very big situation, nuclear war is going to happen, something is going to happen then all the countries will reach high alert. But India will not reach high alert. They do not care at all. Meaning everyone is busy killing each other. But will no one target India. It is quite strange that we also have nuclear bombs. Hey we can also attack over America. But no one considers us a threat. So because of this nothing happens.

Rest in the movie positives are many. Negatives are coming now. With a very big spoiler warning. I will say now if you want to watch one of the best movies of 2025 then you can definitely go and watch this movie right now. And after spoiler I will say that only those who have watched this movie should watch because then there will be no meaning left to watch this movie. So that is why you go watch the movie first and in spoiler also as much as possible I will try to tell as little as possible about this movie.

Its biggest negative is that I searched a lot on the internet. I did not find out anywhere whether its second part is coming or not and if not coming then this is a very big negative definitely because the story of the movie has been left half. Yes, we people can say and the makers must have made thinking that this is the complete story. But according to me this is half story. This should definitely be taken further. For the movie even increase one hour, but the movie should have been completed. This leaving half incomplete by the makers is a very bad thing if really its second part was not coming whose chances seem less to me because anywhere I did not find anything regarding its second part rest after watching the ending of the movie we who had become very excited will start abusing yes whoever will watch this movie will definitely abuse at the end then what meaning is left of all those things which we have seen till now thought so much felt so many things felt so much thrill intensity everything what meaning is left when next part will not come at all so you must tell whether its next part will come or not.

According to how much I searched anywhere I did not get any hint related to second part. Maybe the reason for this can be that just the movie has been released they do not want to spoil the movie. Because of this the details of second part have not come out yet. But it should definitely come because a lot can happen ahead. The story is going very good. If second part does not come then absolutely I will abuse in mind to the makers of this movie and for now I will not give any rating to this movie. You give the rating yourself after watching this movie. According to me it is one of the best movies of 2025. Yes, if second part does not come then definitely abuses will be there.

With a title like Kill all Others, it is not a surprise that the film opens with the word productivity, and capitalism, and well, America. Advertising holograms are everywhere.

Then there's a bus ride filled with political news. A single candidate for an election. People look on with disinterest. Then the workplace. The chatter, "You're depressed because you haven't purchased anything in a while."

His coworkers tell him to buy cheese. His wife buys coffee. The advertising holograms can be sex symbols. That's why she buys coffee and he buys cheese. The politics continue on the projections in the room.

America is a great mega nation - only no one really seems to be all that happy. A casual drop during the speech, "As you know, we have to kill all others..."

Only it seems our protagonist is the only one who seemed to hear this line. Thus we go down one of Philip K Dick's classic reality bending story lines. Does something happen because one person observes it, does anyone else?

What if it is struck from the record? What even is media and broadcasting? Our main character in the plot wears a goatee in the same style as Philip K Dick, and the crew behind this episode have clearly placed these elements into the movie with intention.

Mel Rodriguez is cast well as Philbert, who the story focuses on. He has the right amount of underlying anger and suspicion lurking behind his eyes in all the scenes against a reality that is rejecting his perception of events. Is that insanity? Hard to say.

The train he is on has an accident. He's a passenger. He's allegedly to blame. A rather fucked up world. He keeps finding himself back in what appears to be therapy, but is more like an interrogation.

The spectre of Kill all Others continues, along with the mystery of who The Others might be.

I continue to be impressed by the sets, the design, and the unique world building that exists in each and every one of the short movies that has so far made up the Electric Dreams sequence.

One thing that is never left out of these episodes is the human element. The impact of technology, government interference, corporate initiatives, or changes to the status quo of reality.

This seems to be a heavily recurring theme in Philip K Dick's work, and I am overjoyed to have immersed myself in more and more of it recently. However, there is so much of it to get through. I've been reading several of his novels lately, and I can't help but get hooked into his recurrent question of "Is this real?"

We watch Philbert become backed into an increasingly tight corner, with more and more inquiry directed toward his alleged observational malfeasance.

Philip K Dick always tells us one story - that there is no real way out of the rat runs and mazes that we find ourselves in, be it via democracy, bureaucracy or other systems - because a system is just that - a closed loop, like a noose, tightening lovingly around whatever with the aid of gravity.

Tengo que decir que la trama es bastante buena, todo gira en torno al misterio y a, como el nombre de la serie indica, "cosas extrañas" que pasan en un pequeño pueblo estadounidense. Tenemos varios protagonistas, sin embargo creo que los principales son nuestros cuatro niños

Uno de ellos se "pierde" y los tres amigos restantes se obsesionan con encontrarlo ya que sospechan que no todo esta perdido, más aun cuando "Once" una niña rara con poderes se une a ellos ayudandoles con su misión

La verdad es qu una de las cosas que más me gustó fue el desarrollo de trama, subtrama y personajesy coo al final todos se relacionan hasta llegar al mismo fin (atrapar a la cosa que anda suelta y que se ha llevado a personas conocidas de nuestros personajes) nada se ve forzado, todo avanza de manera muy natural asi que es un punto a favor

La ambientación es bastante buena, literalmente nos sentimos en los años 80's la música, los escenarios, los carros, etc todo está muy bien cuidado

El diseño de la criatura de esta temporadame pareció bastante cool, además que la forma en la que se mueve a través del tiempo y el espacio me hizo recordar mucho a Silent Hill... ALERTA DE SPOILER A CONTINUACION EN ESTE PARRAFO... ya que el monstruo hace una especie de dimensión distorcionada, diferente y opresiva del lugar donde te secuestra y en ese lugar al final todos los escenarios se conectan, pero incluso el efecto de cenizas cayendo del suelo, me hicieron recordar muchísimo de la otra dimensión de Silent Hill, inclusole llaman en la serie "el otro lado" como solemos llamar a esa dimensión en el juego

Y bueno, gente, esto ha sido todo por el post de hoy, espero que les haya gustado. Muchas gracias como siempre por apoyar mi trabajo, le doy la bienvenida a los nuevos lectores, les quiero mucho a todos, les envío un abrazo y ya nos encontraremos en otro post

La imagen de portada la realicé en Canva.

It tells a story about Bonnie, who runs a food truck business selling noodles in the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur. It was at the brink of the MCO and also the annual Hungry Ghost Festival.

Her uncle dropped by her food truck and had a chat. Then she drove back to her hometown in Behrang, Perak just to find out that her uncle actually passed away.

Bonnie possesses the special gift of seeing the dead since she was a kid. She almost forgotten about it and now she just got a reminder of that.

The film slowly unfolds Bonnie’s background story. She learnt about the art of making noodles from her parents running the kopitiam and noodle shop in the town of Behrang, since she was small. They inherited the business from her grandmother. The MCO, Hungry Ghost Festival, and her special gift are used nicely as literary device to take Bonnie through her character redemption arc, which leads her to make amends for her past and with her father.

Lies not so deep in the subtext is about first learning from the older generation’s wisdom, before going forward into the future blind and unguided. Bonnie rushes into doing her food truck business mainly because she was dissatisfied with her father, especially after her mother’s death, which led to the eventual closure of their inherited Kopitiam business.

Oh, the pandemic. How that has shaped all of our lives.

This film is also a subtle critique of the decline of the Malaysian’s ‘pekan koboi’ state of economics, which many young generations have tried to breathe new life into. One way (in Bonnie’s case), is by transforming it into a food truck business, a franchise, or a brand. But unfortunately, that takes out the whole charm, romance, and soul of the whole thing. We have to stop trying to mechanise and computerise everything, and sometimes sticking to the roots and the core originality and identity of it all is the best way to go.

That shot sequence of the old abandoned dining table, shown to rewinds slowly into its glorious past. Ahh. Don’t we all miss the old days. But it is also about moving forward, the right way. By not forgetting who you are and where you come from.

The love how the song performed by Keat Yoke Chen, who also plays Bonnie, binds together with the story and the narrative. I love Eric Chen's performance as a patient and stoic yet loving father. And like how Bonnie’s dead uncle, played by Sam Chong, said about the parallel between her father’s character and durians. Even though it's spiky on the outside and stinks on the surface, beneath it is soft flesh and blood.

And I love how durians are used as allegories in many Malaysian literature - in comic strip, ‘It’s a Durian Life’ by C.W. Kee, the infamous film ‘The Big Durian’ by Amir Muhammad. ‘Rivers of Exploding Durians’ by Edmund Yeo and none other than ‘Snow in Midsummer’, where it also uses the supernatural as a narrative, and it breaks open a durian with blood in it in the poster.

Perhaps it is a lamentation and a perfect allegory of being alienated in a land of your birth. It is ever so tricky now in being independent with a system that feeds on division instead of unity. The stance of living in it is a mark of acceptance of its absurdism. Despite the ‘foul smell’, we all rejoice in its bittersweetness as a seasonal ‘plat du jour’. Oh, the irony. Life has to go on.

During a recent FINAS programme, the participants recognises that race-based fragmentation of the film industry is the main reason why we are at this state. But a poetry in a fiction such as this will not be possible without it. Its blessing in disguise.

The poster is actually showing a wish of most of us for all to have a ‘makan-makan’ for another time, like the good old days. Ahhh the inner yearning towards nostalgia in all of us. Yet the Buddhism teaching of living in a present before it changes in becoming the past. Living in regrets for the loss is not they way.

Just like how Sam Chong’s ghostly character saying it to Bonnie, now he also doing it to us all post-humously, through this film. I was shocked to learn of his death after watching this film. May his soul rest in peace.

This film has been shot in glorious Malaysian colors. It premiered in the Bucheon International Fantastic Film Festival on June 30th 2023 and was subsequently awarded the NETPAC Award for the best Asian feature film. A great start for We Jun Cho in his debut!

It is still on Netflix!

Official Trailer

Grand cinema masters, particularly those who honed their formidable skills during Hollywood’s formative decades, were consummate professionals capable of delivering potent, polished cinema even when personal enthusiasm waned. His 1950 Western Rio Grande, frequently dismissed as the weakest link in his revered Cavalry Trilogy, nonetheless emerges as a structurally sound, visually arresting work that continues to satisfy ardent admirers of the classic Hollywood Western. While overshadowed by its predecessors, Rio Grande is far from a mere contractual obligation; it is the product of a master craftsman operating at a high level of professional competence, even when the project itself held little intrinsic fascination for him.

Rio Grande functions nominally as a sequel to Ford’s 1948 Fort Apache, the trilogy’s inaugural chapter. However, its narrative foundation stems from James Warner Bellah’s 1947 Saturday Evening Post story "Mission with No Record," adapted by screenwriter James Kevin McGuinness. Bellah’s tale, itself loosely inspired by the controversial 1873 U.S. Cavalry raid across the Mexican border in pursuit of Kickapoo raiders, provides the historical scaffolding. The film transposes this volatile border tension to circa 1879.

John Wayne reprises his role as Kirby Yorke, now promoted from Captain (as seen in Fort Apache) to Lieutenant Colonel. Yorke commands a depleted cavalry regiment stationed along the Rio Grande, tasked with shielding vulnerable settlers from relentless Apache incursions originating from both sides of the porous border. His operational capacity is crippled by chronic shortages of men and matériel, compounded by a rigid political prohibition against crossing the river into Mexican territory during pursuits – a constraint that proves strategically disastrous.

Yorke’s professional burdens intertwine painfully with personal turmoil. Among newly arrived recruits is Jefferson Yorke (Claude Jarman Jr.), his estranged teenage son, expelled from West Point for academic failure and having enlisted in defiance of his father’s wishes. The situation escalates when Kathleen Yorke (Maureen O’Hara), Kirby’s fiercely proud Southern wife and Jefferson’s mother, arrives at the remote outpost. Her mission is to extract her son from military life and restore him to civilian society, a plea vehemently rejected by both stubborn men, igniting a bitter familial conflict over Kirby's burning of Kathleen's plantation during the Civil War that mirrors the larger struggle against the Apaches.

Complications multiply with the arrival of Travis Tyree (Ben Johnson), one of the raw recruits. Tyree is revealed to be a fugitive wanted for manslaughter back East. Fearing imminent arrest, he deserts the post. Yet, when a devastating Apache raid strikes Yorke’s outpost – freeing a captured chief and, later, abducting a wagonload of soldiers’ children – Tyree unexpectedly returns. His intimate knowledge of the terrain and the Apache band’s movements proves indispensable. This act of redemption, coupled with the sheer scale of the atrocity, finally compels General Phil Sheridan (J. Carrol Naish) to override political constraints. He authorises Yorke to lead an expedition across the Rio Grande into Mexico to rescue the children, with Tyree providing the crucial intelligence needed for the mission’s success.

Crucially, Ford undertook Rio Grande with palpable reluctance. Historical accounts consistently indicate he viewed it primarily as a means to appease Republic Pictures and secure financing for The Quiet Man (1952), a deeply personal Irish romantic comedy close to his heart. Dubbed a "vacation picture" by some, it was reportedly produced on a shoestring budget – roughly half Ford’s usual scale – and shot in a mere 32 days. Astonishingly, this expedited production leaves virtually no trace on the screen. Rio Grande pulsates with the full signature of Ford’s peak-period mastery. The majestic, mythic landscapes of Monument Valley are deployed with characteristic grandeur, framing human drama against an indifferent, awe-inspiring natural world. The action sequences, particularly the climactic rescue mission, showcase exceptional stunt work and visceral choreography; Ben Johnson, then a rising star transitioning from stuntman to actor, contributed significantly to this physical authenticity.

Ford’s abiding affection for the enlisted man’s perspective shines through the larger-than-life presence of Sergeant Major Quincannon, magnificently embodied by the formidable Victor McLaglen. While Wayne delivers another reliably charismatic and authoritative performance as Yorke, the film’s true revelation is the electric on-screen chemistry between Wayne and Maureen O’Hara. Their volatile yet deeply felt sparring as the estranged Yorke couple ignited a cinematic partnership that would define several iconic 1950s films, marking the beginning of one of Hollywood’s most compelling screen pairings.

Commercially, Rio Grande performed respectably upon release, capitalising on Wayne’s star power and the enduring popularity of the Western genre. Ironically, its box office success was soon dwarfed by the far greater triumph of The Quiet Man, the very film whose funding Rio Grande was intended to facilitate.

Critical reception, however, was largely dismissive. Reviewers of the era often found it formulaic, a step down from Fort Apache and the subsequent She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949), and this lukewarm critical reputation has stubbornly persisted.

This enduring critical coolness stems significantly from the film’s overt political ideology. Screenwriter James Kevin McGuinness and source author James Warner Bellah were staunch anti-communist ideologues. Accounts suggest McGuinness’s original script was so extreme in its jingoistic fervour that even Ford, no stranger to conservative politics himself, reportedly discarded large sections, resorting to extensive improvisation on set. Nevertheless, the film’s right-wing underpinnings remain glaringly evident. The Apache are depicted in relentlessly dehumanising terms – as murdering, raping, child-abducting savages – serving a clear narrative purpose: to implicitly justify the violent removal of "problematic" Native populations from the American West. This portrayal, reflecting the dominant, racist frontier mythology of the era rather than historical complexity, sits uncomfortably with modern sensibilities and was already critiqued by more perceptive contemporary reviewers for its simplistic demonisation.

Furthermore, the film’s November 1950 premiere coincided precisely with the dramatic escalation of the Korean War, including China’s entry into the conflict. Many observers, including John Wayne himself, immediately interpreted Rio Grande as a potent allegory. Wayne explicitly identified the Rio Grande with the Yalu River border between North Korea and China. He lamented the Truman administration’s reluctance to authorise a similar cross-border incursion into Communist China – a move he believed would have swiftly ended the war – contrasting it with Yorke’s decisive, successful mission. This contemporary political reading, whether intended by Ford or not, became inextricably woven into the film’s initial reception and subsequent critical dismissal, marking it as a piece of bald-faced Cold War propaganda for many.

Yet, the film’s most persistent flaws arguably stem less from its politics and more from specific creative misjudgments. The casting of 14-year-old Claude Jarman Jr. as Jefferson Yorke, while understandable given his prior child-star success (The Yearling), proves problematic. Jarman, earnest and game, simply lacks the emotional depth and screen presence to credibly spar with seasoned titans like Wayne and O’Hara. His performance, often stiff and unconvincing, undermines the crucial familial drama central to the film’s structure. Equally jarring is the prominent inclusion of the popular Western music group, The Sons of the Pioneers, cast as the regiment’s "singers." While their harmonies are pleasant and authentically Western, the frequent musical interludes feel tonally dissonant within the film’s otherwise gritty narrative of military hardship, familial strife, and brutal frontier conflict. These interludes momentarily rupture the carefully constructed realism, injecting a note of artificial, almost musical-comedy levity that clashes with the film’s darker themes.

Ultimately, Rio Grande deserves reassessment beyond its position as the "weakest" Cavalry film or a mere footnote in Ford’s journey towards The Quiet Man. It is a testament to the bedrock professionalism of Hollywood’s golden age auteurs. Ford, operating under constraints he despised, delivered a film brimming with his signature visual poetry, robust action, and profound understanding of masculine camaraderie and duty. To dismiss Rio Grande solely for its politics or its place in the trilogy is to overlook the core skill of a master filmmaker working efficiently, effectively, and with undeniable artistry, even when the wellspring of personal passion had run dry. It is, in essence, professional filmmaking at its most admirable: the ability to make the difficult look effortless, the unloved project resonate, and the screen consistently deliver the goods.

RATING: 6/10 (++)

Blog in Croatian https://draxblog.com Blog in English https://draxreview.wordpress.com/ InLeo blog https://inleo.io/@drax.leo

InLeo: https://inleo.io/signup?referral=drax.leo Leodex: https://leodex.io/?ref=drax Hiveonboard: https://hiveonboard.com?ref=drax Rising Star game: https://www.risingstargame.com?referrer=drax 1Inch: https://1inch.exchange/#/r/0x83823d8CCB74F828148258BB4457642124b1328e

BTC donations: 1EWxiMiP6iiG9rger3NuUSd6HByaxQWafG ETH donations: 0xB305F144323b99e6f8b1d66f5D7DE78B498C32A7 BCH donations: qpvxw0jax79lhmvlgcldkzpqanf03r9cjv8y6gtmk9

I think I may end up giving up on trying to find a good horror movie as this makes 3 in a row with only one of them being somewhat good. The somewhat good film was called Good Boy and I will write more about that later.

After Dawn the title of the notion of the film to be somewhat familiar because it is a pretty popular video game in both this one title and the many other games that are like them. I played Until Dawn and though that this would mean that because of this I would know how this movie turns out. Well, that was incorrect as this movie does not follow the game's plot at all and perhaps this was due to them not being able to afford Rami Malek or perhaps just wanting to avoid what might have been rather expensive CGI that would accompany the other-worldly creatures that were featured in the game.

This film is similar to the game in some ways but the main one being that it has a group of rather "attractive" teens that are going somewhere for some reason and end up getting trapped there. In the game their destination is some sort of ultra-luxurious mountain lodge that is on top of Blackwood Mountain but in the film they end up in another fictional place called Glore Valley.

They arrive at a welcome center in the middle of nowhere and even though things are pretty darn strange in all the events that lead up to them arriving there, including that once they do arrive that they are the only people there and nobody is inside of the unlocked welcome center, they don't really see any issue with this and of course, just as one would do as a teenager in a horror movie, they decide to stick around.

[src](https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/67868aa7b0516d2f10b373a6/Until-Dawn-Movie/960x0.png?fit=scale)

What ends up happening is kind of abrupt and will surprise anyone who has never played the game as well as those that have because all of them are rather rapidly killed and I suppose I can applaud this because I didn't see that coming. But then they all wake back up and the night starts again and they have to try to survive the various things things that are hunting them.

The CGI is actually pretty good and the actors are not terrible either. The jump-scares are genuinely well-done for the most part and some of the dream chase scenes I would say are really artistic and well-done.

[src](https://bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/sawn-m.jpg)

Although it does remain a bit unclear as to what the objective is even after the architect of this strange trap attempts to explain it, they do eventually figure out how to get free from the Groundhog Day from Hell.

So it seems as though I am praising it and honestly, it does have a lot of things going for it. So why do I say that the film is "frustratingly terrible?"

The dialogue is some of the worst I have ever seen in films

I don't know how a lot of people manage to maintain jobs in the script-writing world honestly, because it seems to me as though more than 50% of film that are released have dialogue that appear as though it was written by someone as a group project for a freshman-level drama class.

The dialogue in this is just absolutely retarded, with the 5 of them constantly getting in time-wasting arguments about whether or not they should stick together or split up (we definitely know they are going to split up because this is a horror film) and as soon as one of them gets slightly out of sight another one of them starts to call out their name over and over, shouting for them even though they are being stalked at that particular point in time by creatures that will be drawn to their shouty-ass location.

The idea of being magically captured in a "groundhog day" sort of maniacal trap is a magically crazy one already, but I didn't like the fact that the whole idea is that it is a game of sorts that they have to try to figure out yet certain ways in which they are dispatched involves their bodies getting possessed or taken over by some sort of force power and to me this is rather stupid. The things that are hunting them each night want to catch them, so why not just use the possession powers every time.

Outside of Evil Dead I have found any sort of powers that take over a person's body completely to be overpowered and just plain silly in horror films.

Overall, if they had just completely reworked the dialogue so that it wasn't so damn awful and absurd -perhaps it was meant to be funny - that this could have actually be a pretty decent film. But because of the horrible dialogue I found myself getting a bit upset anytime that any of the actors said anything at all. They do not help or compliment one another in any way, each of them is simply a hindrance on the progression of the group somehow.

Should I watch it ?

While this movie did relatively well financially speaking which means we are likely going to get many more of them from the studio that made the game, it failed to get any real praise from both professional critics and regular users. It sits at a 5/10 on all the major sites and honestly, that is where it belongs. I commend their efforts for being able to make such a good-looking film for a mere $15 million, but maybe if you do make another one, spend more than $3.95 on the script-writers. The dialogue is too serious to be intentional comedy and too stupid to be intentionally dark and dramatic. It's just there, and its there to fill up time I guess since virtually none of it is inspired or moving of the story in any way.

To me this was enough to frustrate me out of enjoying almost any of it.

On the other hand it is a visual spectacle and a concept that shows a lot of promise should they try to have another go at the idea. It could be a real winner if put into different hands on the second go round, like a new Final Destination sort of series.

It really is amazing that dialogue can be so bad that is actually ruins the rest of the otherwise pretty nicely made film but that is the case with this one.

Latin American political cinema occupies a precarious space on the global stage—rarely exported, even more rarely understood beyond regional borders. Within this context, Luis Sepúlveda’s 2002 directorial debut Nowhere arrives as both a courageous act of testimony and a cautionary tale about the perils of translating lived trauma into art. A Chilean writer who endured imprisonment and exile under Pinochet’s regime, Sepúlveda brought undeniable moral authority to this project, crafting a narrative set in the unnamed but unmistakably Chilean desert of the 1980s. Yet, Nowhere ultimately collapses under the weight of its own contradictions—a film torn between the black comedy Sepúlveda allegedly envisioned and the reverential solemnity demanded by his personal history. What emerges is not catharsis but confusion, a work whose noble intentions are fatally undermined by the director’s inexperience and the suffocating pressure of representing historical atrocity.

The premise alone demands attention: five dissidents, branded enemies of the state, are seized by commandos and imprisoned in an abandoned desert railway station—a liminal space where the regime’s arbitrary cruelty becomes tangible. Guarded by naive teenage recruits, the prisoners navigate a purgatory where camaraderie with captors clashes against the ever-present threat of execution, all while left-wing guerrillas scour the dunes for their comrades. This setup brims with potential to dissect the psychological mechanics of authoritarianism—the way terror seeps into mundane interactions, the moral corrosion of power, the fragile humanity persisting even in dehumanising systems. Yet Sepúlveda, a novelist by trade, lacks the cinematic language to harness this material. Sepúlveda seems to have abandoned his initial vision of black comedy—not as a deliberate artistic pivot, but as a retreat into reverence for Pinochet’s victims. The result is neither satire nor tragedy, but a disorienting pastiche where laughter dies in the throat and pathos feels unearned.

Sepúlveda’s personal history as a survivor of Pinochet’s torture chambers should have been an asset, yet it becomes the film’s fatal flaw. Unlike Costa-Gavras’ Missing (1982)—a masterclass in political filmmaking that dissected the same regime with surgical precision while it was still in power—Nowhere suffers from the burden of hindsight. Gavras, a seasoned director, wielded narrative restraint to devastating effect: the bureaucratic banality of American complicity in the coup, the agonising search for a disappeared son, all rendered with icy clarity. Sepúlveda, by contrast, drowns his story in sentimentality. The unnamed dictator (Patricio Contreras, made to resemble Pinochet with chilling specificity) appears only in fleeting, almost campy cameo. This vagueness extends to the setting itself: the country is never named, as if Sepúlveda feared accusations of exploiting trauma. But ambiguity here isn’t subtlety; it’s evasion. Missing forced global audiences to confront U.S. involvement in Chile’s coup; Nowhere retreats into allegory, sacrificing historical urgency for safe abstraction. The guerrillas searching the desert might as well be phantoms—their mission feels disconnected from any tangible political reality, reduced to plot devices to justify Harvey Keitel’s perfunctory cameo.

Ah, Keitel: the film’s most cynical concession to commercial viability. His character—a generic "American observer" with no discernible motivation—exists solely to sell the film in the American market. Sepúlveda, desperate for international distribution, inserts this spectral figure whose presence disrupts the narrative’s fragile coherence. Keitel’s scenes feel like they belong to a different movie entirely. By pandering to Western distributors, Sepúlveda undermines the very critique of imperialism his story purports to deliver.

Where Nowhere finds fleeting grace is in its human-scale moments. The ensemble cast captures the suffocating tension of arbitrary detention. Nicola Piovani’s score, all mournful guitar motifs and sparse percussion, evokes the Chilean nueva canción tradition without resorting to kitsch. Yet these strengths are swamped by Sepúlveda’s directorial missteps. His inexperience manifests in static framing, hesitant pacing, and a reliance on narration that tells rather than shows.

The comparison to Missing is damning. Gavras’ film, released just nine years after the coup, wielded immediacy as a weapon. Jack Lemmon’s desperate search for his son forced American audiences to confront their government’s role in Chile’s tragedy, turning politics into visceral drama. Nowhere, arriving two decades later, feels like an archaeological dig—reverent but detached, more concerned with memorialising than interrogating. Sepúlveda’s trauma, while valid, prevents him from achieving the critical distance needed for true artistry. He cannot satirise Pinochet’s regime without feeling he betrays its victims; he cannot embrace magical realism without diluting historical specificity. The desert railway station—a potent symbol of isolation—becomes a metaphor for the film itself: stranded between genres, audiences, and moral imperatives.

Nowhere ultimately fails not because of its subject, but because of its surrender to external pressures. Sepúlveda’s personal stake in the story should have fortified his vision, yet it shackled him to reverence over rigour. The tragedy of Nowhere lies in its near-miss. Sepúlveda, a man who lived the horror he depicted, deserved to tell this story. But filmmaking is not testimony—it is craft. And without mastery of that craft, even the noblest intentions become dust in the wind.

RATING: 4/10 (+)

Blog in Croatian https://draxblog.com Blog in English https://draxreview.wordpress.com/ InLeo blog https://inleo.io/@drax.leo

LeoDex: https://leodex.io/?ref=drax Hiveonboard: https://hiveonboard.com?ref=drax InLeo: https://inleo.io/signup?referral=drax.leo Rising Star game: https://www.risingstargame.com?referrer=drax 1Inch: https://1inch.exchange/#/r/0x83823d8CCB74F828148258BB4457642124b1328e

BTC donations: 1EWxiMiP6iiG9rger3NuUSd6HByaxQWafG ETH donations: 0xB305F144323b99e6f8b1d66f5D7DE78B498C32A7 BCH donations: qpvxw0jax79lhmvlgcldkzpqanf03r9cjv8y6gtmk9

I was so bored today and decided to watched a movie and an horror one at that and while I was searching for what to watch, I came across this movie "CONJURING" and it matched what I was looking for, it really makes my day

Here is the review

Conjuring is the film that doesn’t rely on cheap jump scares or over-the-top special effects, instead, it slowly creeps under your skin until you’re too afraid to look away. The story takes place in 1971 and follows the Perron family as they move into a secluded farmhouse in an Island. Everything seems normal at first. The laughter of kids, the creak of old floors, and that fresh-start excitement that comes with a new home. But soon, everything changed, the small things begin to feel off, the doors creak open on their own, pictures fall from the walls, and strange bruises appear on Carolyn Perron’s body. What starts as a few unexplained incidents turns into something dark and terrifying.

That’s when they seek help from the investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren. Their calm presence and believable chemistry ground the film in reality. Lorraine’s sensitivity to spirits and Ed’s unwavering faith create a perfect balance between skepticism and belief. The Warrens don’t just feel like ghost hunters they feel like real people trying to bring peace to a suffering family, even when the darkness starts targeting them too.

One of the things I love most about the movie is the atmosphere. The lighting, the sound design, the pacing everything works together to build tension without the need to explaining the horror. You can almost feel the chill in the air as the camera slowly pans through empty rooms, waiting for something to move. Every knock, whisper, and shadow keeps you on edge, yet I can’t stop myself from watching.

What makes the movie even more disturbing is that it’s was based on true events. Whether you believe in the paranormal or not, that phrase lingers in your mind long after the watching the movie l. The realism not just to scare, but to make us think about faith, evil, and the unseen things that might exist around us. It’s a horror movie that respects its audience, proving that true fear isn’t about what you see, but what you feel. The Conjuring isn’t just a film you watch, it’s an experience you survive.

Thanks for checking on my blog and have a wonderful day

Hello! 💙

La premisa de esta película en un principio sonaba bastante interesante ya que era la historia típica de una película de terror pero a través de los ojos de un perro que intenta salvar a su dueño, pero si bien como idea podría sonar increíble e innovadora que sí Hasta cierto. Lo es la verdad es que termina siendo una película bastante lenta carente de ritmo y a raíz de que el protagonista es un perro y de hecho el foco principal gira alrededor de él la verdad es que el desenlace incluso plantea ser bastante aburrido.

The premise of this film initially sounded quite interesting, as it was the typical story of a horror film but through the eyes of a dog trying to save its owner. However, while the idea might sound incredible and innovative, this is only true to a certain extent. The truth is that it ends up being a rather slow film lacking in rhythm, and because the protagonist is a dog and the main focus revolves around him, the truth is that the outcome is even quite boring.

Fuente de imagen

El misterio sí a resolver en este caso en esta película de terror paranormal Por decirlo de alguna manera la verdad es que es completamente nulo y aquí Él es un pequeño spoiler sobre fiel de la película todo el misterio que estaba rodeando las sombras que ve el perro que están acosando a su dueño resulta que era como una especie de interpretación de la muerte buscando al dueño porque una enfermedad terminal sé que esto suena sumamente interesante pero de verdad el ritmo de la película es tan lento y tan aburrido que la verdad es que deja mucho que desear.

The mystery to be solved in this paranormal horror film is, to put it mildly, completely non-existent. Here's a small spoiler about the film: the mystery surrounding the shadows that the dog sees harassing its owner turns out to be a kind of interpretation of death seeking out the owner because of a terminal illness. I know this sounds extremely interesting, but the pace of the film is so slow and so boring that it leaves a lot to be desired.

Fuente de imagen Con todo esto que digo no puede decir que es una mala película tampoco puede decir que sea una buena película es una película curiosa tirando a regular que si me lo preguntan a mí creo que si son amantes del cine y son muy cinéfilo A lo mejor le pueden dar una oportunidad porque dura apenas una hora con 15 minutos Pero la verdad es que no la recomendarías están buscando de ver algo genuinamente entretenido.

With all that said, you can't say it's a bad movie, nor can you say it's a good movie. It's a curious movie, leaning toward mediocre. If you ask me, I think that if you're a movie lover and a real cinephile, you might want to give it a chance because it's only an hour and 15 minutes long. But the truth is, I wouldn't recommend it if you're looking for something genuinely entertaining.

Hello, film lovers! /Bonjour les cinéphiles,

This American series, consisting of three seasons, is available on Netflix. It is an adaptation of the 13-volume literary series of the same name, written by Daniel Handler under his pseudonym Lemony Snicket. This series falls into the adventure category.

Nous sommes sur Netflix pour cette série américaine composée de 3 saisons. Il s'agit de l'adaptation de la série littéraire éponyme en 13 volumes, écrit par Daniel Handler sous son pseudonyme Lemony Snicket. Cette série est à classer dans la catégorie aventures.

Source Series poster /Affiche de la série

Synopsis :

One cloudy morning, the Baudelaires' parents send their three children to the beach. Violet (Malina Weissman), Klaus (Louis Hynes) and Prunille (Presley Smith) skip stones to pass the time.

At the end of the morning, Mr Poe, a banker, arrives to tell them that their house has burned down and their parents have died. He is responsible for taking them to a guardian, a close family member, who will look after them until Violet comes of age, at which point they will gain access to the Baudelaire family fortune.

Les parents Baudelaire envoient leur 3 enfants à la plage, un matin, alors qu'il fait un temps nuageux. Violette (Malina Weissman), Klaus (Louis Hynes) et Prunille (Presley Smith) font quelques ricochets avec des pierres pour passer le temps.

En fin de matinée, le banquier Mr Poe vient leur annoncer l'incendie de leur maison et le décès de leurs parents. Il est chargé de les conduire chez un tuteur, un membre proche de la famille, qui veillera sur eux jusqu'à la majorité de Violette, ce qui débloquera l'accès à la fortune de la famille Baudelaire.

These three children have sometimes unexpected talents that will enable them to extricate themselves from some rather incredible situations. Their fortune attracts envy, which will lead to famous pursuits by ‘predators’ who will stop at nothing to obtain this holy grail.

The orphans will make enemies, but also friends. They will cross paths with other orphans whose stories are linked to their own.

Ces 3 enfants ont des talents parfois inattendus qui leur permettront de se sortir de situations assez rocambolesques. Leur fortune attire la convoitise, ce qui donnera lieu à de fameuses poursuites de la part des "prédateurs" qui ne reculeront devant rien pour obtenir ce graal.

Les orphelins se feront des ennemis, mais aussi des amis. Ils croiseront le chemin d'autres orphelins dont l'histoire est liée à la leur.

My opinion and useful information /Mon avis et petites infos :

It's really quite special. It's aimed more at young teenagers. Throughout the episodes, we encounter Lemony Snicket (Patrick Warburton), who recounts the circumstances and repeatedly advises us to turn off the television. Author Daniel Handler contributed to the series' screenplay.

C'est vraiment très spécial. C'est plutôt destiné à de jeunes adolescents. Tout au long des épisodes, nous croisons Lemony Snicket (Patrick Warburton) qui nous raconte les circonstances et nous conseille à maintes reprises d'éteindre la télévision. L'auteur Daniel Handler a participé au scénario de la série.

Several relatively well-known actors appear throughout the series, in leading or supporting roles:

• Neil Patrick Harris: Count Olaf
• K. Todd Freeman: Arthur Poe
• Lucy Punch: Esmé Salomon d'Eschemizerre
• Patrick Breen: Larry
• Nathan Fillion: Jacques Snicket
• Allison Williams: Kit Snicket
• Peter MacNichol: Ishmael
• Morena Baccarin: Beatrice

Plusieurs acteurs relativement connus apparaissent au fil de la série, dans des rôles principaux ou plus secondaires :

• Neil Patrick Harris : le Comte Olaf
• K. Todd Freeman : Arthur Poe
• Lucy Punch : Esmé Salomon d'Eschemizerre
• Patrick Breen : Larry
• Nathan Fillion : Jacques Snicket
• Allison Williams : Kit Snicket
• Peter MacNichol : Ishmael
• Morena Baccarin : Béatrice

Some events were far-fetched, such as DIY solutions to save them from a situation, where the necessary ingredients happened to be on hand, even though they wouldn't normally be there.

All in all, it wasn't too bad. It has the merit of being original, and the theme tune sticks in your head.

This series dates from 2017 to 2019, so you may have already seen it. If so, what did you think of it?

Enjoy your evening's viewing, everyone!

Certains événements étaient tirés par les cheveux, comme des bricolages pour les sauver d'une situation, dont les ingrédients nécessaires se trouvaient justement sur les lieux, alors que ce n'est pas leur place normalement.

En fin de compte, ce n'était pas trop mal, ça a le mérite d'être original et la musique du générique reste bien dans la tête.

Cette série date de 2017 à 2019, vous l'aurez peut-être déjà regardée. Si c'est le cas, qu'en avez-vous pensé ?

Bonnes soirées-tv à tous,

Florence

Source photo : image Qwant autorisée

I used Deepl Translator to translate French into English

Proud member of the Principality of Bastion

In 2018 many questions remained unanswered, but not the one that was of exceptional importance to the American cable TV network HBO. If its executives had hoped that Westworld, the exceptionally expensive and lavish series, would succeed the globally popular and ratings-wise unassailable Game of Thrones, the second season of this extravagantly costly show has given an unequivocally negative answer to that question. Although critics, out of habit, continued to sing praises to everything bearing the HBO initials and feigned as though there are no other “players” in the Golden Age of Television, audiences have expressed far less enthusiasm. Based on the last its episodes, it seems improbable that anyone will quote Westworld dialogues in internet memes or that any of Westworld’s characters will achieve the global popularity of Daenerys, Tyrion, or Jon Snow.

The first season enjoyed significantly higher viewership because it drew far more heavily on the original 1973 film, specifically its initial segment, which depicted an unusual futuristic world where the Delos Corporation, thanks to appearance-perfect humanoid robots and other details, provided wealthy guests with all manner of pleasures, including the darkest ones. Similar to the film, things go awry when the robots, or “hosts,” develop consciousness and, tormented by decades of abuse, begin a rebellion, massacring guests and park staff. The narrative begins at this very moment and follows several groups of characters who, during these apocalyptic events, attempt to find answers to existential questions or at least save their own lives. Dolores (Evan Rachel Wood), who prior to the uprising embodied goodness and benevolence as a “host,” transformed into a fervent revolutionary convinced she must eradicate humanity not only within the park’s boundaries but across the rest of the world. Maeve (Thandie Newton), who served as a brothel madam as a “host,” seeks to find her daughter, undeterred by the possibility that this daughter might be a product of implanted memories. During her dangerous and bloody quest, she discovers abilities she never knew she possessed. William (Ed Harris), a long-time guest who developed sadistic tendencies during his stays at the park, survives the uprising but treats the new perilous situation as a fresh game or challenge—one orchestrated by the park’s creator, Robert Ford (Anthony Hopkins), who was killed during the uprising. Meanwhile, Charlotte Hale (Tessa Thompson), Delos’s unscrupulous director, despite arduous, bloody, and largely unsuccessful attempts to seize control of the park, strives to access the host concealing a secret far more valuable to her corporation than the lives of guests and staff. Assisting her is Bernard (Jeremy Wright), a “host” who served as part of the park’s staff, believing himself to be human, and who harbours a deep secret whose revelation could have apocalyptic consequences.

A substantial budget was allocated to the second season, yet after ten episodes, it still gives the impression of being cheaper than the first. Nearly all locations—from the Wild West reconstruction to the futuristic offices and facilities maintaining the park—are the same ones we saw in 2016. The sole exception is the so-called Shogun World, where viewers get a glimpse of a reconstructed ancient Japan, though it is only utilised in a single episode. The same applies to the cast, which has also been recycled and lacks more prominent new names. Nevertheless, the ensemble delivers an exceptionally strong performance. This is true of Evan Rachel Wood, who transformed from the embodiment of all that is good and innocent in the world into a homicidal maniac attempting to inflict upon all human beings what Amon Göth did to Jews in Schindler’s List. Thandie Newton also excels, as does Ed Harris, whose character, initially portrayed as a monstrous villain, gains a more human dimension. Anthony Hopkins makes a significant contribution to the series, although his character, for understandable reasons, primarily appears in flashbacks and visions. A pleasant surprise is British actor Simon Quatermain in the role of a “Delos” screenwriter forced to live out his own bloody and melodramatic stories in reality amidst murderous robots. Jeremy Wright continues to impress as the perpetually confused and traumatised “host,” constantly torn between loyalty to other “hosts” and the humans whose image and likeness he was created to emulate.

Good acting, however, all too often serves in Westworld as a veil—and mostly an unsuccessful one—for script flimsiness. Lisa Joy and Jonathan Nolan, the producing, writing, and married duo behind the series, had in the first season—and largely made use of the opportunity—to craft a fascinating world and characters based on a rather slender and four-decades-old premise. However, like many other modern television creators, their ambitions in the second season collided with a lack of talent or inspiration. The core plot was thus “spiced up” in the first season with a mystery to be resolved in the second. However, this resolution, which also serves as a “plot twist”—one that will come as no surprise to those who watched Futureworld, the 1976 sequel to the original film—arrives only after hours of tedious viewing during which most viewers will simply be unable to ignore the script and logical gaps wide enough to drive an aircraft carrier through. Another point supporting the thesis that Nolan and Joy lack the talent of Michael Crichton, creator of the original film, is their loss of sense of pacing. The plot unfolds excruciatingly slowly and far too often serves as an excuse for action sequences that boil down to explicit yet repetitive and tedious violence that many would be inclined to label as pornographic. The sole breath of originality comes in the eighth episode, where Zach McClarnon brilliantly portrays the chief of the Native American “hosts,” delivering a rather intriguing subplot describing how his tribe attempts to confront a world they have realised is no longer theirs. Joy and Nolan also ultimately display an irritating tendency towards nonlinear storytelling, namely the use of flashbacks that will confuse viewers. This occurs right from the start, when the confused and amnesia-stricken Bernard attempts to help his human “saviours” uncover what happened. The final episode, stretched to an hour and a half in HBO’s increasingly irritating habit, also showcases the series creators’ penchant for multiple endings whose length evokes The Return of the King, followed by an equally irritating “Marvel-style” teaser after which many will lose the last vestige of enthusiasm for the third season.

RATING: 4/10 (+)

(Note: The text in the original Croatian version was posted here.)

Blog in Croatian https://draxblog.com Blog in English https://draxreview.wordpress.com/ InLeo blog https://inleo.io/@drax.leo

LeoDex: https://leodex.io/?ref=drax Hiveonboard: https://hiveonboard.com?ref=drax InLeo: https://inleo.io/signup?referral=drax.leo Rising Star game: https://www.risingstargame.com?referrer=drax 1Inch: https://1inch.exchange/#/r/0x83823d8CCB74F828148258BB4457642124b1328e

BTC donations: 1EWxiMiP6iiG9rger3NuUSd6HByaxQWafG ETH donations: 0xB305F144323b99e6f8b1d66f5D7DE78B498C32A7 BCH donations: qpvxw0jax79lhmvlgcldkzpqanf03r9cjv8y6gtmk9