Undracula:

Bram Stoker’s Dracula is an engrossing read. John Badham’s and/or Netflix’s Dracula (1979 & 2020) are also worth their weight in runtime.

Those who’ve ingested such elevated vampiric horror won’t enjoy this remake.

The 1922 silent film is derivative Stoker. Plus a remake, in and of itself, is derivative. Thus…

Nosferatu (2025) = Derivative²

The math checks out.

Nosferatu Review

A frayed story is obvious from the opening “jump scare,” a cowardly directing crutch. The footage quick cuts to a bloody screaming demon face, the high-pitch strings. The volume is too loud. The viewer feels self-conscious on the filmmakers’ behalf.

The shadow footage is shameless. This isn’t artistry – it’s a shortcut. A cheap way to fill screen time without requiring actual performances or engaging cinematography. Nosferatu films shadows lengthening over a miniature landscape. Candyman (2021) relies on shadow puppets to tell part of its story. Neither should be accepted as worthy of the big screen. It’s a visual gimmick that requires little effort yet masquerades as style. To sum it up: Shadows stretch, but creativity does not.

Nosferatu (2025) ends up being an exercise in mimicry without purpose. This remake drags itself through the motions of horror homage without generating a single moment of true unease. Even fans of the 1922 version will find this outing joyless, stale and hollow. The sound design overwhelms, the lighting choices feel smug and the pacing is all but non-existent. For a film trying so hard to be haunting, Nosferatu (2025) mostly just haunts your patience. Skip it.

B Movie

Conjures feeling akin to viewing Friday the 13th, a fellow derivative B movie. A feeling of somehow even less than inadequacy. At least F the 13th is mostly inoffensive. Nosferatu has a gruesomeness that sticks to the tongue.

Final Review: Nosferatu (2025) Don’t waste time and money. Enjoy a real Dracula instead.

★★

Check IMDb or Letterboxd if brevity’s preferable.

Enjoy punishing yourself? Check The Substance.

Earth’s God should remove this from the commercial system.

It can be library-accessible. Disguised as educationally revelatory, its profitability should be discontinued.

The Bookends

The film starts and ends with footage of a nameless riverbed. Al Gore narrates.

Much like the documentary itself, these pieces are completely unremarkable. A static shot recorded thru a single camera mounted on a tripod. This includes live sound. The babbling brook, the insect buzz; that is 100% real. Unless it was faked.

Tho, if the sound’s fake, how real is the footage? 60%?

The resulting footage is home movie quality. It’s even worse because the viewer has no context. While its inclusion feels like a reminder to appreciate the glory of nature, it ironically highlights the tiresome monotony. What’s intended as revelatory comes off as finger-wagging.

A History of Earth’s Cyclones

The intellectual discourse boils down to correlation vs causation. Much of the documentary attempts to scientifically ground climate change in the scholarly vernacular. By correlating real world events to the invisible effects of global warming; the logic resembles sense.

Statistics. Charts, photographs. The death of a Chilean lake.

The tornado record in the United States encapsulates much of the film’s thrust. A correlation between 2004 being a record high for recorded tornadoes in the United States. (Located in the Northern Hemisphere, where the temperature’s rise is most severe.) Thus it’s an indicator of these diminishing atmospheric effects.

This raises larger questions: How far back do we keep record of tornado occurrences? How reliable is it? If we distinguish a pattern between rising temperatures and an increase in tornado occurrence; the discussion can end there. To suggest this is caused by the weakening of an invisible shell, a magic sun filter circling the Earth. A degradation imposed by our overindulgence in mechanical industry.

Wow. That is quite the leap.

Domain Lapse

A static hyperlink displays throughout the entire credit roll. Directing the viewer to (what should be) the lead source on scholarly development within the scientific field. A well-intended call-to-action.

The film makes twenty year outcome predictions – the doom-and-gloom sort reminiscent of religious apocalypse enthusiasts. A website would be the place to post followup developments, further evidence toward or against those proclamations.

Inputting the link into a browser takes the user to a Thai gambling website.

If the filmmakers felt genuine passion toward this ‘crisis’ the domain would not have lapsed. The public would have an historical discourse dating back to the documentary’s production.

If they cared, at the very least, they would remove the broken link from the credit roll. The passion of the message, tho not wholly committed to accuracy, overflowed into the production of a sequel in 2017.

One would think an energetic sliver can be allocated toward maintaining the original’s integrity.

Assuming the original ever had any integrity.

★★

Briefer reviews on IMDb and Letterboxd.

Check out Becoming Led Zeppelin for a strong documentary experience.

For a most violent year in New York City’s history, the visual depiction of violence is minimal.

For viewers paying close attention to the radio broadcasts, it’s a different story. Wink.

Oxymoronic also considering it’s an independent film and a period piece.

Elaborately set during the winter of 1981; it doesn’t feel very ‘independent.’

It stands at $4.6M in the box office, according to Box Office Mojo and Rotten Tomatoes; a tragedy considering it’s $20M production budget.

This may be a reflection of late distribution, finally releasing wide in theaters on January 30.

Which intrinsically ties to its complete lack of Oscar nominations.

A gosh-darn-shame, considering the filmmaker’s credentials.

As the scholars say, J. C. Chandor is an ‘auteur.’

Which Google defines as, “A filmmaker whose personal influence and artistic control over a movie are so great that the filmmaker is regarded as the author of the movie.”

A less frilly description is writer/director.

J. C.’s crafted three flicks thus far, including 2011’s Margin Call and 2013’s All Is Lost.

Both were critically well-received, and particularly the former contains my stamp of approval.

In a way, he’s comparable to Woody Allen; relying less on elaborate cinematic sequences or stylistic editing, and focusing heavily on story and strong acting.

‘Great movies for adults’ is another way to say it.

A Most Violent Year’s no different.

The cast is phenomenal.

Oscar Isaac (of Inside Llewyn Davis fame) is fantastic in the leading role.

Albert Brooks is excellent, but did you expect anything less?

No; of course not. The man’s a master of his craft.

Another master, Jessica Chastain, delivers a remarkable performance.

The word ‘snub’ is not scientific. It means, “to rebuff, ignore or spurn disdainfully.” Assigning disdain to the choices of the Academy gives them too much credit. Most members probably never considered watching this film.

But if Laura Dern’s five minutes of Wild screen time total up to a Best Supporting Actress nomination, I argue Chastain deserves it more.

All in all, A Most Violent Year hasn’t received the credit it deserves.

Lots of clean writing. Bursting with strong performances. Compelling throughout.

Catch it in theaters while you have the chance!

★★★ ★★★ ★★★

Read IMDb or Letterboxd for the short version.

Check The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby for more inspired Chastain.

Or John Wick for more tactile 2014 cinematic violence.

“Movies are mechanisms of empathy,” Roger Ebert didn’t quite say.

But this reviewer prefers the misquoted diction (provided by Anderson Cowan of The Film Vault.)

When one asks, “Why watch Still Alice when it’s only going to depress me?”

There’s only one legitimate response.

“It’s a mechanism of empathy, dawg.”

Channeling an experiential river flow, the narrative spins the neurological waterwheel.

Did I want to watch Still Al? No.

Am I a smarter/better person following the experience? Absolutely.

The purely objective form of personal growth? The viewer’s exponentially more fluent in the Alzheimer’s realm of modern medicine.

The subjective forms? For one: The priceless merit of seeing a well-crafted, timely motion picture.

Two: If your torso’s peppered with shurikens, I’d hope it wouldn’t come as a complete surprise.

Likewise, if my demise arrives on a tidal wave of death stars, what’s to stop me from running around in a circle and screaming obscenities until the official end?

Maximizing (rather than minimizing) the agony of my unexpected affliction.

Catch my drift, proverbial reader?

Still Alice is profoundly sad, but not ‘depressing.’

‘Depressing’ connotes a residual effect; a lasting (potentially irrevocable) alteration of your emotional state.

I discourage this aversion toward cinematic tragedy. My top three films of all time (Platoon, Raging Bull and Schindler’s List) belong in the downer category.

Tragedy often spotlights hidden profundities.

Still Alice is a heartwarming narrative obscured by the haze of Early Onset Alzheimer’s, a rare form of the disease. Symptoms typically begin showing in the early fifties.

At that precise moment, the viewer meets Alice and her family.

It’s tough, folks.

No sugarcoating it.

Expect to weep. More than once.

On a high note, it’s well shot, directed and edited. The writing’s crisp; the drama’s chilly and real.

Lead by an outstanding performance from one of the best actresses ever, Julianne Moore, the entire cast is fantastic.

Alec Baldwin’s excellence in a major supporting role comes as no surprise.

What (perhaps) defies expectation is an equally terrific piece of acting from Kristen Stewart.

This reviewer hopped aboard Kristen’s locomotive after Snow White and the Huntsman. That gal’s gotten a bum rap, despite some serious acting chops.

Anyhow. For an educational and moving experience, check out Still Alice.

It’s a top quality flick, featuring adept performances from a tight (but stellar) cast.

Should one find oneself sobbing mid-theater, cursing a favorite film reviewer’s name, try to remind oneself:

“It’s a mechanism of empathy, dawg.”

Feel that cognitive waterwheel aturnin’.

★★★★ ★★★★

Briefer takes at IMDb & Letterboxd.

Check out Birdman for more strong filmmaking in 2014.

Industrious Chuckles

Tough not to be hard on comedic sequels. Folks seem disenchanted by franchised laughter.

The average rating amongst Top Critics (according to Rotten Tom) is a 4.5 out of 10.

Though the more accurate portrayal’s provided by the ‘user’ average: 7 stars.

It’s not due to a lack of proofreading that my score remains unaltered.

This author’s got a little integrity.

Therefore the rating stays at 8; implying it’s ‘great’, but perhaps not ‘tremendous.’

After all, 2014 is the year of the comedic sequel.

Anchorman 2 was released last December and largely satisfied.

The best comedic sequel of all time, 22 Jump Street came out in June.

The long awaited D&D To…wasn’t great.

Trepidatiously we await the follow-up to Hot Tub Time Machine on late February’s horizon.

Well, I say, “To hell with top critics!”

Horrible Bosses 2 more than satisfies.

Top Comedies 2014

1. 22 Jump Street
2. Neighbors
3. The Interview
4. Let’s Be Cops
5. Horrible Bosses 2

Horrible Bosses 2 review

Keeps you guessing while offering a persistent snicker. The out-and-out laughs are numerous and frequent.

The plot is timely, clever and not too outrageous. A considerable amount of social commentary is interwoven.

Dare I say it’s thought-provoking?

Since viewing, I’ve ruminated on the panoramic time lapse and off-type car chase; so, there you have it. Thoughts provoked.

The cinematography, shooting and editing are really impressive.

As far as casting goes, this flick’s top-notch. Jason Bateman, Charlie Day and Jason Sudeikis are all fantastic.

Each lead is hilarious in his own individual way.

I’ll never understand why Bateman gets docked for his mastery as the ‘straight’ man. Plus, his Arrested Development version is more foolish softy.

Kevin Spacey, Jennifer Aniston and Jamie Foxx return without disappointing.

Christoph Waltz delivers in a minor role.

Chris Pine, however, is terrific. He’s great in Into the Woods as well so hopefully we’ll see more out of him in the future.

There’s a delightful blooper reel accompanying the rolling credits.

As well as a fun character montage directly preceding. Such cinematic sequences are becoming more prevalent. They’re enjoyable, informative and a welcome addition to any theatrical release.

Let’s call these bits ‘character reels.’ Best when featuring the character’s image paired with both names (role and actor).

Don’t be disappointed if you missed HB Deuce while in theaters.

For fans of the first, keep an eye on your streaming devices. It’s available for pre-order through iTunes, but who’s really going to shell $19.99 for digital ownership on release date?

Wait for the rental. It’ll be cheaper and thus, more satisfying.

★★★★ ★★★★

For briefer thoughts check: IMDb, Letterboxd & RT.

The viewer is a salmon.

Swimming up streams of consciousness, occasionally leaping between parallel tributaries to follow movements of different characters.

That’s right, folks – the old head-hopping narrator.

Extra thought provoking because the voiceover only chimes in to pester the protagonist. What’s most noteworthy about Birdman is exactly that: Creative and original storytelling techniques.

Another example is the stylistic editing: The film has the appearance of all occurring within one take.

Therefore the cutting is minimal. Which is incredibly refreshing.

Big names are visibly acting in the same space, oftentimes physically interacting. There’s no ‘cut to close-up’ as characters deliver dialogue, which makes for a more organic viewing experience. (Sidenote: Hollywood should ban the ‘cut to close-up.’)

Birdman isn’t going to be your favorite, but it’s still great.

The writing is strong; the protagonist’s plight is timely and moving. The characters interact compellingly. The subject matter is thought provoking.

Although this term is overused, it takes a ‘gritty’ in-depth look at stage acting.

The metahumor is consistent and pointed. Even the casting is ironic.

Michael Keaton playing the washed up retired superhero. Edward Norton as a pompous know-it-all veteran.

Wanna know who’s excellent? Naomi Watts.

She delivers a stellar performance as Lesley; in a role that somewhat calls back to Mulholland Drive, in which she plays a sexually conflicted up-and-coming actress.

Emma Stone is ten types of terrific, but they shouldn’t have spoiled her monologue in the trailer.

Turns out Zach Galifianakis can play off-type extremely well, which comes as no surprise.

Andrea Riseborough is lesser known, but holds her own.

Finally, Amy Ryan plays a totally different character from her role in Gone Baby Gone and fits in perfectly with a slew of other great performers.

Although the trailer spoils most, the special effects are decent enough.

The surreal portion is a welcome addition to the common cinematic experience, and contributes uniquely.

Birdman’s a visual treat, as they say.

People seem to enjoy this flick. After all, what’s not to like?

It’s still in limited release, but you shouldn’t have trouble finding a screening nearby.

Expect a moving dramatic piece about the thespian business and you shouldn’t feel disappointed.

As always, the best advice remains the same.

Be a salmon – expect nothing, and eventually, you’ll feel something.

Resonates nicely with the subtitle, no?

★★★ ★★★ ★★★

For the short version check IMDb or Letterboxd.

Check A Most Violent Year & Still Alice for other great 2014 releases.

Does it need to be outstanding?

If so, maybe save the sequel for a future rental.

My mother was kind enough to attend the theater with me, and we mostly enjoyed Dumb and Dumber To. It’s good.

Definitely not ‘great,’ but still good.

If you’ve seen the trailer, some jokes are spoiled. Yet another reason to wait and rent.

The scatological humor is never strong.

Quite a bit is distasteful.

Which may be due (partly) to the rating. Gotta dial down the cursing and ratchet up the scat to nab a PG-13.

I guess?

Consider the following list:

Top Five Comedies of 2014

1. 22 Jump Street (R)
2. Neighbors (R)
3. Let’s Be Cops (R)
4. The Skeleton Twins (R)
5. Dumb And Dumber To (PG-13)

One might argue it’s generous not to swap it out with Chef (R).

This review’s only going to frustrate fans, and I feel bad for Jeff Daniels and Jim Carrey who do an outstanding job returning as Harry and Lloyd.

But the Farrelly brothers were never strong filmmakers.

The original D&D is the only great entry in their entire filmography. Everything else ranges from bad to meh.

The common theme is revulsion. There’s Something About Mary, Osmosis Jones and Me, Myself & Irene all initially trigger memories of disgust.

Now, looking back on the long-awaited sequel, it’s difficult to separate the gross from the chuckles.

What’s Funny

This is not to discredit the banana peel antics – that stuff’s hilarious.

Anything involving a zamboni (especially when combined with tree limbs) – hilarious.

Shoving people into bushes, and pointing and laughing – gets me every time.

The double-point-and-laugh is classic.

The callbacks are mostly solid; some hit home better than others.

Reused snippets from the original score resonate strongly.

Favorite bit parts, like ‘Billy in 4C’ and Seabass, make cameos.

But, again. Was it funniest to increase the morbidity factor with the blind kid? The joke’s edgy enough in the first movie.

And why…

Why, why, WHY…

…do we need close-up shots of the cat’s anus?

During post-production, how many adults watched as feathers are rocketed from a cat’s asshole, and agreed it’s an essential cutaway?

Perhaps the viewers hadn’t realized from the mutilated bird corpses what’s just taken place.

I’m not trying to hate on this movie, but that’s only one of three revolting moments. I’ll spare you the rest.

To finish on a high note, a few words on the acting.

Jesus Christ & Jack Daniels

Jim Carrey is incredibly funny. His delivery is spot on.

Watching Lloyd’s facial expressions is enough to keep the viewer in stitches.

Jeff Daniels is just as chucklesome as Harry Dunne.

He’s a terrific actor.

Rachel Melvin is an excellent addition to the cast of ‘dummies.’ It’s not easy to play slow in a convincing or funny manner, and she pulls it off with finesse.

Jennifer Lawrence is somewhere in this movie as Young Fraida. Which is odd.

If it’s her making out with Lloyd, what a strange cameo…another scene must have gotten cut out. Or something.

Anyway.

Be sure to stay through the credits for the following stinger. The images accompanying the rolling are enjoyable as well.

Dumb and Dumber To is not a disappointment.

But it’s nothing to write home about.

★★★ ★★★

Briefer takes on IMDb & Letterboxd.

Check Horrible Bosses 2 to see what knocks D&D To off the Top 5.