smileyyanny97

I would give "X" a 6.5 if I could, as I do think it's above average, but not good enough to warrant a 7 or above. This is not a bad film at all, it's just simply not up my alley.

The characters, while excellently acted, are rather bland and we don't learn much about them before they are killed off. The main antagonists weirdly enough have more substance than the main group we're supposed to care about. The film is also slightly annoying in that it pretends to be deeper than what it really is, which again, wouldn't be an issue if the leads had some more meat. The characters are not bad, just lacking.

Other than that, the film gets almost everything right. The cinematography is as excellent as we've come to expect from an A24 production. The atmosphere of the film is extremely well done. The pacing is masterful. This film is only roughly 1hr40min, yet it still manages to build up to the action much more satisfyingly than big budget action flicks. Due to the great pacing and great special effects, the kills have excellent payoff even in their at-times campy brutality. The wardrobe was eye-catching and period accurate. Lastly, the acting is great. Everyone gave a stellar performance and worked well with what they were given.

So overall do I think "X" is a good film? Yes. Is it a film I will be returning to? No. This isn't the kind of horror I am tantalized by, but I do recommend it for people who are into the slasher genre and want to see it take on a more arthouse vibe.

I will be giving "Pearl" a watch though!

This is an enemies-to-lovers/rivals-to-lovers rom-com mixed with a pretend-relationship. It had potential, as this sort of red-lover-blue-lover thing has been done before, but this film severely missed the mark. Enemies-to-lovers and pretend-relationship are two of my favorite tropes.

Part of what makes enemies-to-lovers intriguing is two people from opposite ends learning about each other and growing. Enemies-to-lovers is frequently done poorly because writers think they can just have two attractive leads snarl at each other laced with sexual tension for two-hours and that's it. But no, part of what is great about E-to-L is the character development.

At the beginning of this movie Luke is a conservative-republican type military man. Cassie is supposed to be an ultra-progressive leftist type. By the end of the movie, neither one of these characters have fundamentally changed in any great way. They find things to like about each other and just simply ignore what they don't like about each other. Part of the pretend-relationship trope that is appealing is the couple gradually developing real feelings for each other. Luke and Cassie falling in legitimate love came out of left field.

And then there's other aspects of the film that just don't sit right with me. One character is a stone racist and misogynist, who is called out once, and the person doing the calling-out is made to be the one in the wrong... because being racist and sexist are totally acceptable I guess? Also Frankie, the only character that is actually likable in this film, gets an ending that I don't appreciate at all.

I get why most people are highly critical of Cassie's singing. However there was so much already wrong with the film, that the singing was far from a major flaw.

I gave this film a 5 because while I overall don't like it, there are some things that benefit it, making it an average film. The acting is perfectly fine. The portrayal of diabetes was better than I expected. The subject of the faults within the American healthcare system is treated with the seriousness it needs.

Overall, "Purple Hearts" is a film that doesn't live up to its potential. Story-wise, this film feels more like an outline than an actual finished project. A deeper understanding of what makes the relationship tropes it wants to depict would have greatly benefitted this film.