Minier‘s Hometown News Site

CONTENT opens with a therapist coercing one of her patients into mutilating himself over Zoom. It’s ugly, uncomfortable, and played with enough realism that the sequence lands with genuine tension. Then everything ‘collapses’. I had actually typed out far more here, but in retrospect, I think I explained too much and deleted this part. The unknown is what makes this film work so well!

The strongest thing 13 SOULS has going for it isn’t the possession angle, the setting, or even the supernatural mythology woven throughout the story. It’s the atmosphere of emotional decay hanging over nearly every frame. Writer/director Paulo Nascimento approaches the material less like a traditional jump-scare genre film and more like a story about damage spreading through a family already fractured long before the paranormal elements reveal themselves. That emotional aspect gives the film a more robust foundation than many low-budget possession horror films do.

There’s a moment early on in ROBIN HOOD: PRINCE OF THIEVES where Kevin Costner returns to England, discovers his family home destroyed, and reacts with the emotional sincerity that only existed in gigantic studio adventure films from this era. The movie isn’t interested in subtlety. It’s not trying to be historically accurate. It wants anguish, vengeance, romance, giant musical swells, flaming arrows, dramatic speeches, and villains loud enough to shake castle walls. Somehow, against all odds, it mostly works.

Darkness usually defines the depths of noir. INSOMNIA does the exact opposite. Erik Skjoldbjærg’s 1997 psychological thriller traps its characters beneath endless daylight, turning constant visibility into an oppressive, deeply unsettling force. The result still feels strange nearly thirty years later. Instead of hiding corruption in shadows, the film forces every mistake, lie, and moment of panic into the open. Nothing gets concealed, yet nobody sees things clearly either.

KYLE LARSON VS. THE DOUBLE spends a lot of time explaining how difficult “The Double” is, but not nearly enough time exploring why the attempt actually matters beyond the spectacle itself. The documentary aims to leave viewers impressed by Kyle Larson’s endurance, discipline, and willingness to push himself to the limits of motorsports’ most demanding challenge. On a surface level, that part works. Racing both the Indianapolis 500 and the Coca-Cola 600 on the same day is objectively absurd. The logistics alone sound exhausting before a single lap is even completed. But the deeper the film goes into the mechanics of the challenge, the more noticeable its emotional and analytical blind spots become. That’s ultimately what holds the documentary back.

THE ANGRY RIVER spends a surprising amount of time feeling like a movie caught between generations. You can see the older wuxia style still clinging to it, from the heightened melodrama to the elaborate fantasy elements, but underneath all of that is the early pulsation of something faster, rougher, and more aggressive beginning to emerge. That tension becomes more interesting than the actual plot at times because the film accidentally documents a studio and an entire genre reinventing itself in real time.

SICK PUPPY understands something a lot of dark comedies miss entirely. Absurdity only works when the people trapped inside it stop recognizing it as absurd. Jay Reid’s film doesn’t treat murder like a punchline dropped into an otherwise normal marriage. It treats it like rot that’s settled so deeply into the foundation of a relationship that it’s begun reshaping the logic of everyone living inside it. Charlie doesn’t see herself as the wife of a monster. She sees herself as someone trying to save a man she loves from the worst parts of himself, the same way another couple might struggle through addiction, anger issues, or self-destruction. That’s what gives the film its edge. Beneath it all sits a disturbingly sincere portrait of emotional denial, where love has become so tangled with rationalization that even serial murder starts feeling like just another obstacle to avoid.

SACCHARINE opens with the kind of sensory bombardment that tells you exactly where its head is at. Mouths chewing. Fingers digging into food. Bodies are observed like problems waiting to be solved. Writer/director Natalie Erika James doesn’t ease you into this world delicately because the film itself is about a mindset that never allows people to exist comfortably inside their own skin. Everything feels scrutinized, monitored, optimized, compared, and consumed. That discomfort becomes the movie’s strongest weapon.

There’s a strange… I’m not sure what to call it that runs through both of these series, and it’s not just tied to the monsters or the extravaganza. It comes from the sense that you’re watching a franchise redefine itself in real time, stepping outside its comfort zone and testing whether its identity can survive that shift. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn’t. That push and pull ends up defining the entire experience.

There’s no easing into this one. Within minutes, it’s already committed to a tone that doesn’t mitigate, doesn’t rearrange, and doesn’t pretend it’s building toward anything resembling refinement. It plants its flag in the territory of low-budget exploitation and stays there without hesitation. If anything, the film seems more interested in pushing further into that space as it goes, stacking shock on top of shock until the line between intention and excess barely matters. All of that is to say that if this is for you, then this is REALLY going to be for you! You’re either going to love this or hate it. It may not be my jam, but I totally understand what it was going for!

There’s no dramatic entry point here, no rush to frame the importance of the story in a way that feels constructed for impact. Instead, the film settles into something quieter and far more uncomfortable: the space where trauma doesn’t announce itself, where it lingers in hesitation, in body language, in the way a child avoids eye contact or clings just a little too tightly. It’s not trying to convince you that what happened matters. It assumes you already understand that, and it moves forward from there.

There’s a dissolution to TRACE OF STONES that feels almost rebellious, not in a loud, confrontational way, but in how casually it allows disorder to exist within a system that’s supposed to reject it. The film doesn’t present its world as broken. It presents it as functioning exactly as designed, and that’s where the heightened anxiety comes from.

I was somehow lucky enough not to learn a single thing about this film before getting a copy to watch. That was the best thing that could have ever happened to me, honestly! I had heard a lot of people say they really liked it, and that was about all I had going into it. I would highly recommend not knowing more than you need to. The entire movie hinges on a joke that should collapse under its own weight. Not because it’s too ambitious, but because it’s too stupid to sustain for 100 minutes. And somehow, that’s exactly why it works.

There’s a difference between someone just telling jokes and someone unloading years of perspective that’s funny, because it happened for real. LISA ANN WALTER: IT WAS AN ACCIDENT sits in that second category, and that shapes the entire experience. This doesn’t feel like a carefully polished production with a comedian stepping into the spotlight. It feels like someone who’s been doing this for decades, getting the space to say everything she’s been holding onto without needing to sand off the edges.

There’s a clear sincerity running through THE MIDWAY POINT, and it shows up almost immediately. Not in the way scenes are constructed or how the story unfolds, but in the feeling that this is coming from a very specific place in writer/director Lucca Vieira’s heart and mind. It doesn’t feel manufactured or overly cultivated.

There’s no easing into a story like CRADLE OF FEAR. It doesn’t conventionally build atmosphere or slowly guide you into its world. It drops you straight into something abrasive, something that feels more like it’s daring you to keep watching than trying to win you over. That approach defines the entire experience. If it connects, it’s because you meet it on its terms. If it doesn’t, it pushes you away almost immediately.

GIRLS presents itself as a snapshot of youth in transition, a variation on the traditional coming-of-age story, but it never quite decides how closely it wants to observe that moment or what it wants to say about it once it does. The film follows a group of young women stepping out of adolescence and into a version of adulthood that feels both exhilarating and unstable. Yet, instead of building that journey into a single, solid vision, it drifts through it with a looseness that becomes harder to ignore the longer it goes on.

G.I. SAMURAI offers up an idea that’s more than a little compelling, so it almost feels like the film doesn’t need to do much more to win you over. A “modern” military unit dropped into feudal Japan, armed with tanks, machine guns, and helicopters, facing off against swords and arrows. This is the kind of concept that sells itself. The film understands that appeal, leans into it, and then reveals that it’s aiming for something more complicated than simply staging that clash.

There’s a version of BLUE THUNDER that would play out like pure adrenaline, built on rotor blades, gunfire, and stunt work that doesn’t exist anymore. But there’s another version running underneath it, one that’s more interested in control, surveillance, and the idea that the tools meant to protect people can just as easily turn on them. The film never commits to that second version, but it’s there, and it’s what keeps this from fading into the background of 80s action.

There’s no mystery about what THE INVINCIBLE EIGHT is trying to do. It’s built on revenge, stacked with recognizable names, and structured to deliver one fight after another. What makes it so interesting isn’t the setup; it’s watching a young studio test how far it can push a formula that already worked for someone else.

Two people, one location, and a relationship already under strain. MAGIC HOUR keeps its setup simple, almost to a fault, dropping Erin and Charlie into the desert with the expectation that everything unresolved between them will rise to the surface. It’s an intimate framework that should be filled with tension, but the film spends more time circling its ideas than digging into them.

It doesn’t open like a traditional documentary, and that’s probably one of the smartest decisions it makes. Instead of positioning itself as an authority on artificial intelligence, THE AI DOC: OR HOW I BECAME AN APOCALOPTIMIST starts from a place of uncertainty. That perspective shapes everything that follows, for better and worse. This isn’t a film built on answers. It’s built on someone trying to catch up to a conversation that’s already moving faster than anyone seems comfortable admitting.

The camera almost never rests, the sound drifts in and out, and half the performances feel like they were figured out seconds before the take. DESPERATE TEENAGE LOVEDOLLS doesn’t try to smooth any of that over, and that’s exactly why it works. It throws you into its world with no filter, no polish, and no interest in making itself accessible to anyone who isn’t willing to meet it on its level. A film that keeps you guessing whether it's a documentary or a group of friends just having a weekend of chaos.

By the time a series stretches across seven films, the expectation usually shifts from growth to maintenance at best. That’s where this cheerleading franchise settles in. It doesn’t try to outdo itself with each entry, and it doesn’t pretend the formula needs a major overhaul. Instead, it keeps circling the same structure, adjusting tone, cast, and setting just enough to keep things in motion without breaking what already works. That’s why, despite most of these being direct-to-video, the core energy of the series was always there (well, part seven was a different spin, but still.)

Trying to evaluate something like VAMPIRE TIME TRAVELERS on traditional terms feels like you’re missing the point almost immediately. It’s not just low-budget or rough around the edges; it’s actively rejecting the idea that it should function like a “normal” film in the first place. That’s either going to be the entire appeal or an immediate dealbreaker, and the film seems perfectly aware of that divide.