Michael (2026) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: A look at Michael Jackson, apparently, he was famous.

I think it’s fair to say that Michael Jackson is probably the biggest celebrity of my lifetime. The magazine Forbes used to run a feature every year where they talked about the 10 biggest celebrities of that year. The top 10 in 2014 (the final year it ran using a complex formula rather than just “who made the most money) included Ellen DeGeneres, Katy Perry, Floyd Mayweather Jr, and LeBron James (no prizes for guessing which country Forbes is based in). No disrespect to Mr James, but I don’t think there’s many people who would argue that any of them have a bigger cultural footprint or recognition than Michael Jackson, and that was 5 years after he died. So it makes sense that a film about his life would be made and be financially successful. This is probably the biggest film of the year so far. Other films have been made since he died, but they’ve all been unofficial, leading to them being criticised by his family members. Michael not only has the approval of most of his family members (not all; his brother Tito sadly passed away in 2024, and his father Joe, not as sadly, passed away in 2018), but has a lot of family members involved as executive producers, and Michael’s own nephew Jaafar was cast in the title role.

So what does John Logan do with this unique position of writing an official Michael Jackson film? Not a damn thing. A biopic needs to achieve at least one of the following:

  1. Teach you something factual about the subject.
  2. Give you an appreciation of their talent.
  3. Examine its subject in detail.

This movie does none of that. Michael Jackson had a full life, being in the public eye for roughly 43 of his 50 years on the planet. It’s not just longevity; his life story is full of chapters worth exploring: from his childhood fame, his marriages, his relationship with his family members, his health issues, plus his (let’s not mince words here) weirdness. How can a singular film ever hope to cover all of that? Answer, it doesn’t. It briefly mentions all of them (except the marriages, which are ignored), but doesn’t go into detail about any of them. It’s the biographical equivalent of listening to 30-second samples of a band’s greatest hits; you get the choruses, but none of the verses which build up to them. You see him perform Billie Jean, but are you given any indication as to the story behind that song? Nope. You see him adopt Bubbles the monkey, is there any examination as to the chaos that caused, or a mention of how the other house members had to adapt? Nope. The idea that his adult eccentricities were a result of him not having a childhood is not given any time, and like most things about this film, if you didn’t already think that, this film wouldn’t put that idea in your head.

Michael is not interested in examining the subject, holding a mirror up to it. Instead, it kneels before it in reverence. There are multiple scenes which exist only to tell the audience how nice he was, how talented he was, how unlike everybody else he was. The film also glosses over some of the more interesting parts of his life. It doesn’t even allude to the thing he’s most known for, a certain incident involving a 10-year-old boy. Yup, a film about Michael Jackson somehow didn’t mention his appearance on The Simpsons. Oh, it also didn’t talk about the child sexual abuse scandal. But I have no issue with them not mentioning that, and I won’t attack the film over it. Mainly because the film legally couldn’t talk about it due to a settlement. So it’s difficult to criticise a movie for something it has no control over; it would be like criticising a fish for not being able to make an omelette. The fight to get MTV to play his music video (the channel had a policy of not playing music by black artists, but this totally wasn’t racism on their part) is limited to a single scene. In fact, there’s barely any mention of racism at all, almost as if the film is scared of tackling any important subject. The Jackson 5 Victory tour of 1984 is seen as a triumph that led to Michael and his brothers regaining control over their own lives, and was only caused by the father emotionally blackmailing Michael to join his brothers. In reality, Michael was pressured by everyone in his family, including his mother and brothers. There were issues with ticketing as tickets were extortionately expensive, could only be purchased in batches of four, and weren’t guaranteed. Instead, there was a lottery system, so you had to pay for tickets, the money would be held in an account for 8 weeks, and then a lottery would be held to determine who was successful. At which point, if you weren’t successful, then your money would be returned, but the company would have made A LOT of money on the interest from the account. Michael himself was vehemently opposed to this idea as he felt it priced out less affluent fans. This could have been a plot point: a genuine moment where he tried to stand up for his fans and managed to convince his brothers how bad an idea it was. For these events, he also set aside some tickets that he would give away to poor children. Again, a genuinely nice thing to do, that you wouldn’t know about if you watched this film. The ticketing system also enraged James Brown, causing him to pull out from playing with the Jacksons in New York. How is that not a moment in this film? Picture it: Michael being approached by one of his idols, flashbacks to Michael listening to James Brown records, and James Brown being disappointed in him, leaving Michael crestfallen.

Of course, that would only work if the Victory tour was a centrepiece that the film anchored itself around. That’s what this film needs. It has no central idea or event. It’s not really about anything. There’s nothing for Michael to overcome in the grand scheme of things. No giant mountain for him to conquer, just a series of small hills. So there’s no flow to it, nothing connects to the next scene. All it is is: something happens, skip forward 2 years, something happens, skip forward, something happens, skip forward, repeat. I don’t even think it told you he died.

Like most biopics, especially around musicians, Michael is bookended with a specific event: Michael performing at Wembley Stadium. Obviously, playing Wembley is a big deal. But the film doesn’t tell us that. It doesn’t tell us that he planned this to be his final tour, as he wanted to go into filmmaking. It doesn’t tell us that the tour was the highest-grossing in history at the time, and had the largest audience. It doesn’t even tie into the narrative, as we jump straight into it after the 1984 Victory tour. Also, it draaaaaags. A performance of one of the most charismatic performers of all time should not be as painfully dull as the closing section of this movie is.

It’s not just Michael’s charisma that this film misses: it robs him of any sex appeal. It’s not acknowledged much today, but a lot of his branding was based around sex. Although for that to work, the film would have to portray him as an actual adult rather than the naive manchild it insists on portraying him as.

On the bright side: there’s no denying how good his songs are, and I appreciate how much effort the film put into showing the effort that goes into crafting them: not just the writing, but the recording and production too. Jaafaar Jackson is put into an almost impossible position of trying to emulate one of the most famous people of all time. Whilst it’s not perfect, it’s hard to see someone doing better. Colman Domingo is the only performer truly allowed to let rip, giving Joe Jackson an intense energy that is downright captivating, whilst never being heroic or nice. Joe Jackson was a piece of shit in real life, and Domingo shows that. On the downside, much like The Iron Claw, it actually tones down how much of a dick he was. There’s no mention of the allegations that he sexually abused La Toya. Probably because that would mean the film would have to devote screentime to someone other than its lead character.

Ultimately, this is a film for Michael Jackson fans. One that will help them justify their fandom of him. A love letter to a complicated man, which is something that certain people will love. But there’s nothing here for most people. If this film were any more shallow, it would be sung by Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper.

Glenrothan (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: After 40 years abroad, Donal returns to Scotland to make amends with his brother, Sandy.

In case you weren’t aware, there’s an app called Runpee. What it does, simply, is tell you the best time to pee during a movie so you don’t miss too much. Some films are so densely packed that they have a few very short windows you can use. Glenrothan would be the easiest film to find peetimes on, because no matter what happens, no matter when you leave, you’re not going to miss much. Sure, you’ll miss some jokes or heartwarming moments, but it’s like falling asleep on a plane. Sure, you missed the in-flight movies, but you know where you are when you land.

That’s a somewhat negative way to start this review, and considering the Rotten Tomatoes score (17% at the time of writing), you’d be forgiven for thinking the rest of this review would be negative. It’s hard to argue against some of the points the negative reviews make. The characters feel like sitcom characters: not in terms of jokes, etc., but because they go through stuff which should change their character, yet for some reason it doesn’t. Donal (played by Alan Cumming) is constantly having his flaws pointed out to him, and he seemingly acknowledges them, but then in the next scene it’s like he’s never been told them. It doesn’t do a good enough job of explaining WHY the two brothers are estranged. The way the flashbacks are lined up, you’d think it’s building up to a revelation that explains and changes everything, but it never comes. There are minor disagreements, but mainly it’s Donal being generally fed up with living there and feeling the need to leave. It’s teenage petulance, but one the character never comes back from. I know sometimes family disagreements happen, but the events we see don’t seem big enough to cause a generational rift like that. It feels like it’s missing ONE scene, one scene that changes everything.

The biggest downside is that you’ve seen this movie before. I know there are not unlimited ideas and concepts in the world, but everything about this is too familiar to be interesting. Two family members are reunited by disastrous health news, a somewhat snobby family member sees the errors of his ways and the importance of home, the notion that “no matter where you go, this will always be home”, which in Western media is limited to a few countries (you never see an American film about how someone really misses their home country of Luxembourg). These are all narrative paths that everyone is familiar with. So it’s hard to get that excited by what we’re seeing.

On the upside, whilst it does have all the originality of a cover song by a tribute band, it is expertly made. Everyone does their job well. At 79 years old, it may be a bit optimistic to say that Brian Cox can transition into a director capable of cinematic genius that will make the works of Hitchcock and Cameron look like warmed up piss on a cold plate, but if there’s a story he’s been pitching for decades, one that’s incredibly personal to him that he would consider his lifes work to complete, Glenrothan does enough to convince studios that they should let him. Alan Cumming has a lot riding on his shoulders, and he manages it. In fact, he’s so good that I finally realised he’s not Michael McDonald of “Killed by a leprechaun” fame. Well, I say “fame”.

The script isn’t good enough for Cox to showcase the story. But what he does showcase is the landscape. The shots are so beautiful that at times it doubles as a tourist advert for Scotland. So whilst I can’t see Glenrothan inspire someone to start film-making or performing. I can see it inspiring someone to finally take that holiday Scotland they’ve been dreaming of. To phone that family member or friend they haven’t spoken to in decades over something stupid. To cherish the time they have. So whilst this won’t be the best film anybody will see (tbh, it’s just a step above “White Male British people do things” fare like Mothers Pride or Fisherman’s Friends), it could end up being one of the most important movies in someone’s life.

And really, it’s hard to muster hate for something that could do that. Plus, it has the balls to have an anti-monarchy song in a pivotal scene. So it has that going for it. It’s not perfect. But it’s nowhere near as bad as the critic score says.

Mother Of Flies (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick synopsis: When a young woman faces a deadly diagnosis, she seeks dark magic from a witch in the woods; but every cure has its cost.

I have to say this first: I don’t think I’ve seen a film that perfectly encapsulates independent filmmaking like this. A real group effort by John Adams, Toby Poser, and Zelda Adams, the three of whom pretty much did everything. So at the very least, you have to admire what they did. There’s no doubt that this is low-budget. So I will be judging it based on that. There are some concessions you have to make with lower-budget films. You have to judge them based on what they had available to them. Think of the scenes in Captain Marvel where the backgrounds felt disconnected, so you never forgot you were watching a piece of fiction. If that happened in a low-budget independent, I’d have forgiven it. Weirdly, I felt the budget more in the conversational scenes. The background audio was too loud (almost distractingly so), and the lightning was off. I was genuinely considering cutting my losses and turning it off. Then there was a scene where Mickey (played by Zelda Adams, and she’s pretty great) hallucinates in a motel room. That moment brought me back in. The visual effects and the editing transition between night and day are expertly done. It comes after some incredibly trippy visuals, and just before a pretty fine song (“Murder” by H6llb6nd6r. I love the song almost as much as I hate that band name). On the subject of music: it’s REALLY good, especially in the opening section, which sounds a bit like if the Psycho theme were being played on a ship’s foghorn.

I should note: this is possibly not the best film to watch if you want to avoid an existential crisis. There’s lots of discussion about mortality and death. There’s a lot of talking about subjects that you may not be ready to handle. The conversations themselves are usually engaging enough. Containing some comedic lines, but it’s not Marvel-style quips; it’s a woman who is clearly scared and is using humour to deflect her fears. I like the woman who explained the history of the witch. She had great energy. Haven’t seen a one-scene “who’s that enigmatic woman” performance since Howard the Duck. Her story about teenagers getting drunk and throwing stones at the grave of a witch is incredibly realistic.

That makes it sound like Mother Of Flies (MOF, pronounced Mouth) is exposition-heavy, full of obvious dialogue that explains everything so you can still follow it if you’re scrolling your phone or playing Football Manager. Nope. There’s a lot of visual storytelling, especially with the flashbacks. MOF demands your attention and is talented enough to hold it.

MOF is not a traditional horror. It’s a slow burn, but the type that can destroy a building. There’s not really a villain. Even the person designated the villain has somewhat altruistic motives.

This has all been very positive and kind. To the point where you’d think this is the best film I’ve seen all year. It’s not. There are times when the budget does hurt it. Where the colours are washed out, or the performances are not quite where they should be. It also can’t decide whether it wants to be overly artsy and surreal or straightforward and easily digestible. The flashbacks to Solveig’s past don’t feel like they occurred centuries ago; they’re shot the same way as the scenes in the modern day, and there’s no attempt to use visual language to showcase the time differences. I have to be honest, I don’t think I need to watch it again.

MOF is definitely worth a watch, but you have to go in knowing what type of movie it is first.

Lee Cronin’s The Mummy (2026) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: A teenage girl who has been missing for 8 years is suddenly found. But she’s come back a bit more possessed and nonverbal than they remember.

It’s really hard to make a Mummy movie (and in the case of the 2017 version, it can be difficult to watch, too). I think it’s because, well, essentially, what do they do? Especially compared to other similar properties. Look at the intended movies in Universal’s attempted Dark Universe. Dracula. He can fly, bite people, slight hypnotic powers. Wolf Man, animalistically bites and mauls. Invisible Man? His powers are pretty much stated in his name. The Mummy? The powers there depend entirely on who’s writing them. Sometimes they control undead armies, sometimes they have magical powers, and sometimes they’re basically zombies with toilet paper. Also, they’re fairly localised. Vampires can travel, werewolves are usually attached to woods and villages, but there are a lot of them in the world. The mummified corpse of an ancient Egyptian pharaoh? They’re usually only found in Egypt or the British Museum. You’re highly unlikely to see one in Berwick-Upon-Tweed. To the general public, if asked to define a Mummy, they will go to the 1999 Stephen Sommers film. That’s kind of scary, but it’s mostly a fun adventure movie.

Lee Cronin’s The Mummy (LCTM, pronounced Lick-toom) is DEFINITELY a horror, unashamedly so. But is it a mummy movie? I have no idea. It just feels like an Evil Dead movie with added sand. It’s absolutely disgusting, in the best possible way. There’s a sequence involving a toenail which still makes me wince when I think back to it. The body horror is off the charts and will make you feel uneasy. Cronin is great at making stuff seem like it actually hurts: the sound design, the make-up, etc., it’s all perfectly crafted for maximum efficiency.

The editing? Not so much. At times, it feels like the horror movie version of the Bourne shaky action cam. There’s a moment near the end which is near incomprehensible due to the way it’s edited. I know some people like that; they like the sense of unease that it creates, and how energetic and jumpy it is. I’m not a fan; I like to actually see what’s happening during scenes. Not in a “no, light everything like daylight so I can see the monster before it jumps out”, but if I can’t tell whether a character is on top during an action scene, am I supposed to be pleased the good person is winning, or scared because the villain is? We can’t tell. I had a similar issue with the Transformers movies, which often just felt like car parts rolling around.

It doesn’t feel like a Mummy movie, though. The moments which make it so feel incredibly tacked on. There’s a subplot involving a local expert that could be excised completely, as most of the information provided is given to us by someone else later on. I also felt the ending dragged. The closing moment has to be the shortest part of a film that’s ever dragged. I’d estimate it’s roughly 90 seconds long; it should be 10. I’m not saying every scene has to be quick, but there are so many moments which aren’t necessary, just dragging any momentum to a halt.

Lee Cronin is very good at making you disgusted and freaked out, but what he’s not so great at is giving those moments a reason. The powers are inconsistent, at times seeming only to exist to serve the plot. Characters are possessed, but only to call the teacher a cunt, not to do anything that would be useful. The grandmother’s wake is expertly crafted in terms of horror, but never followed up on. Did none of the people there feel the need to alert the authorities of a feral child bursting through a ceiling and biting a corpse? There’s not really any indication that the events of this movie affect the characters’ day-to-day lives. There’s no intense media pressure on the return of the child. Yes, the police in Egypt didn’t release that information, but SOMEONE would have noticed. Can you imagine if Madeline McCann turned up at her parents’ house? That news would be released VERY quickly, and the fact that the parents hadn’t announced it would then be seen as suspicious. There’s no way the events in this movie happen without some form of media intrusion. The dad works for the local news; you’d think that would be relevant to the plot at some point.

The parents act a bit weird in this. Leaving it WAY too long to attempt to get help or figure out what’s wrong. It wouldn’t take as long as it takes for the parents to question whether the child is possessed. I mean, they’re American, they’d call for an exorcist if their child is left-handed. The hospital staff are a bit weird, too. Sending her home WAY too early. And I’m not sure the police would SHOW parents a video of their child being tortured.

Personally, I don’t think the opening section of them in Egypt before she gets kidnapped was necessary. The kidnapping itself is brilliantly creepy. Okay, when I say “I don’t think it was necessary”, I mean the way it’s done. If it were the pre-credits scene, it would be great. It would also help sell the timeskip. We’re told it’s 8 years she’s been missing, but it never feels like it. Because we go straight from “she is missing” to “8 years later”, we don’t feel the torment and pain the family have gone through, because the audience has only just seen her, and the mother and father look exactly the same. If it were pre-credits, that pause would allow the time jump to sink in. The actual pre-credits scene is a scene of a family coming home and finding out their bird is dead, which leads to the dad dying. It adds NOTHING to the story and is seemingly only there under the misguided notion that every horror pre-credits scene must feature a death. Out of the 4 characters in the opening, only 2 of them are seen or referenced again, and one of them is completely different, so her inclusion in the opening didn’t influence how you saw her later. This also has the effect of making the unseen mummy the focus, when it should be the family. Imagine if The Shining opened with Charles Grady (the former caretaker) murdering his family. Think how that would change the audience’s reactions to Jack, Wendy and Danny.

In summary: a film I didn’t hate, because I respect that Lee Cronin was trying something. It just feels like a waste of an IP. That being said, if anybody ever makes an Eternal Darkness movie (and they should), Cronin is the person I’d want directing it. Also, the people complaining because it’s not the same movie as the 1999 one are stupid.

Pretty Lethal (2026) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick synopsis: A group of ballerinas tries to escape from a remote inn after their bus breaks down on the way to a dance competition.

Action movies are better in the cinema: that’s not an opinion: the bigger screen, the atmosphere, everything about it makes it perfect. That being said, Amazon has released some fairly decent ones in the last few years: Deep Cover, Heads Of State, and surely there’s a third one? That being said, they’ve also given us the My Spy sequel, War Of The Worlds, and they were the service that landed Bride Hard, so it’s hit and miss.

Pretty Lethal isn’t as bad as Bride Hard. But it’s nowhere near as good as Deep Cover. On the bright side, PL knows its gimmick. It never lets you forget that it’s an action film about ballerinas. There are times that the reliance on the gimmick works against it, where the characters do something physically complicated when something simple would have done. It doesn’t happen enough to ruin it, but there are times when they add a random twirl just because that’s what they would do in a dance.

I’m split on how I feel about the fight scenes. On the positive side: the hits themselves have an impact. When characters bleed, it makes sense, and it feels suitably distressing. But the choreography? It’s somewhat lacking. It’s the opposite of They Will Kill You. Whilst that was a horror movie that seemingly was made by a director more suited to action, this is a horror movie made by someone seemingly more suited to horror. If Vicky Jewson made They Will Kill You, and Kirill Sokolov made Pretty Lethal, I feel it would have improved both films. Rest assured, if Jewson were to make either a horror movie or an action movie focused on brutality rather than finesse, I’ll be second in line to watch it (not first, I’m not that eager). I’m trying to think how to phrase this without sounding creepy: I like that the women involved in this breathe heavily after and during intense scenes: it’s a little thing, but it really helps sell how physically taxing the fights are.

Even if the fights were better, it would be hard to see this as something incredible. There’s an issue with tone. At times it seems like it wants to be serious, then at other times it has something that sounds like a swanee whistle accompany someone ducking behind a table. I’ve yet to see anything to convince me that Iris Apatow gets cast based purely on merit. I’m not saying she gives bad performances, but her screentime is far beyond what her performance deserves. On the subject of casting, Michael Culkin doesn’t quite have the presence needed to carry off the role. Physically, he’s fine. But he’s missing that indescribable “it” factor that the character deserves. That’s not a slight, like I said, it’s hard to define and even harder to find, but when it happens, you know. The best way to explain it is professional wrestlers: show someone a clip of Hulk Hogan in his prime, even with the audio muted, you can tell that he is someone. Now play a clip of the Brooklyn Brawler, you’ll see the difference.

Millicent Simmonds is great, though (although I do question why the villains find it so hard to kill a deaf woman who’s lost her hearing aid). Uma Thurman is her standard, brilliant self. Avantika is so good that it almost made me forget she was in Tarot. Almost. Maddie Ziegler is the true star, though, with the perfect blend of physicality and facial performance.

In summary, only about 4 steps away from being great, but those steps are huge. Also, just once, I want to see someone attempt a Molotov cocktail and just have the glass bottle bounce.

The Super Mario Galaxy Movie (2026) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick synopsis: Mario, Luigi, Peach, and Bowser travel across the galaxy to rescue a princess.

At the time of writing, The Super Mario Galaxy Movie (TSMGM, pronounced Tis-mah-gum) is the second-highest-grossing movie of 2026, and the highest-grossing western movie. It has the biggest global opening at the box office in 2026, and has the fifth-biggest global opening for an animated movie of all time. That sounds incredible, and I don’t want to demean the work involved, but TSMGM does not deserve it. The biggest positive is that it makes the first film seem better by comparison. This is just more of the same, the good, and the bad.

The visual and audio references? They’ve increased, and are superb. The animators clearly love the franchise, with small references hidden everywhere; some more obvious than others. The story is somehow more generic than the ones in the video games, which is somewhat surprising considering the games aren’t exactly known for excellent stories. That’s the trouble with adapting video games to movies; often, it’s not the stories people enjoy. People often say there should be a Grand Theft Auto movie, but what would the point be? The fun in GTA is the stuff YOU do, the story, etc., is mostly inconsequential. A movie adaptation would just be a Guy Ritchie movie, and the world has enough of those. Mario game stories are simple, though: someone (usually Bowser) kidnaps someone, and Mario has to stop them.

Yes, it’s very basic. But there’s a lot you can do within that basic framework. But you have to do it well. This doesn’t really do it well. There’s no flow between one scene and the next: it’s just setpiece after setpiece. It doesn’t feel cohesive; it literally feels like they’re going from one level to the next. There are multiple moments which break when you think about them for more than a second. Particularly near the end, where the film makes references to the old 2D games, but in a manner you quickly realise is pointless in a world where high-tech cameras exist.

Other ways it’s similar to the first: the plot-based references to the franchise are too heavily shoe-horned in. The first one had the Karts, which felt unnecessary and more like an exercise in time-wasting than part of a narrative. This has baby Luigi/Mario. It feels like the writers said, “Okay, remember Super Mario World 2? When Mario was a baby? How do we fit that into this movie?” rather than writing a script and thinking “, Hang on, if we turn them into babies for this section, it fixes this plot problem we’ve been having”. One issue this plot has is how it handles Bowser. The character has said they’ve changed their ways and spends most of the film’s runtime trying to prove that. Until he meets his son, in which case he turns heel again. But that turn only happens in the final section. It’s obvious it’s going to happen, so the time with good Bowser feels wasted. It doesn’t allow the character to be any fun. The writers needed to either turn him much earlier, keep him good, or have him turn at the VERY end after his son has been defeated. Would it have been too much to ask for a bigger villain? Imagine how much fun a film adaptation of Wario could be. Would be much more dynamic and threatening than a kid with a magical paintbrush. Yeah, there’s also a world-destroying cannon, but weirdly, it always feels like the paintbrush is a bigger threat to the characters.

Of course, it’s not just the Mario franchise; Galaxy has started incorporating the wider Nintendo franchise with the introduction of Fox McCloud. Those hoping for an Infinity War-style crossover will be disappointed. There’s no Captain Falcon, Samus, Link, Kirby, etc. Don’t worry, we still have Minions, because Illumination will never let you forget those yellow fuckers. There’s also Pikmin, but they are placed in such a “hey look, this is a thing!” way that it’s actually kind of annoying. There’s a moment near the end which feels like it’s calling out for a surprise cameo of a character that will get everyone excited, but instead, it’s just the nihilistic star from the first movie. I enjoyed that character, but having him be the reveal of a build-up feels like a waste, especially in a world where much bigger villains still exist.

On the plus side: it looks absolutely gorgeous. The cast (except Chris Pratt) has improved their vocal work, especially Anya Taylor-Joy. The way they display the power of Rosalina is an almost perfect way to showcase her character. The introduction of Yoshi is a lot of fun. Evidently, kids will like it. And I appreciate how the filmmakers have gone out so strongly against AI. Ultimately, I love the original franchise. And if I were the kind of person who had hope and joy in his life, I’d have been looking forward to this and expecting greatness, so I would have been disappointed. Long-term fans deserve something better than this. They deserve something that will fill you with passion. Instead, they get something worse than bad: they get something mediocre. A film that is so scared of standing up for itself that it ends up attempting nothing. At least it succeeds in that aspect, I guess. I was so tempted to just repost the review of the first movie. I checked, and I would have needed to delete the paragraph about Bowser singing, and I would have had to change the “highest-grossing film of 2023” bit, and it would have meant neglecting specific issues I had with this movie. But it would have still worked. All of the criticisms are the same. The fact that I didn’t do that, that I instead wrote something original, means I put more effort in than the writers of this movie did.

California Schemin’ (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: The true story of how two men from Scotland convinced the music industry they were American.

This is unfortunate. If I reviewed California Schemin the same day I saw it, or even the next day, it would have been highly praised. It’s now been 3 days, and my feelings towards it have lessened. It’s not that I now dislike it; I’ve suddenly thought of things I hated about it, or it turns out someone involved is a sex pest. I don’t harbour any dislike towards it, but the warmth I have towards it is no longer at the same level.

It’s still good, though. It’s incredibly funny. It’s a concept that is ridiculous, but it leans into it. There’s a general air of “I can’t believe this happened” The music industry does not come off well. It comes off as shallow, stupid, and callous. I’m not exactly sure what is real, though. There are some parts I know happened differently due to extensive research (I quickly looked at the band’s Wikipedia page), but I’m not sure about the truth of everything. There is a documentary available on Netflix that I’ll watch, and then use that to ascertain where this film ranks at the end of the year.

But that’s viewing it as an adaptation of the truth; on its own merits, it stands up. Key to this is the relationship between Billy, Gavin, and Mary. The relationship between the three feels very honest; their reactions with each other all ring true. It helps that they have tremendous chemistry. You can sense the closeness between the characters. Seamus McLean Ross has one of the most difficult jobs: making the journey from a nervous, likeable wannabe to egomaniacal douche, but staying consistent throughout. You can easily see how this character makes that transition, looking back, all of the character traits that become visible later on, the jealousy, the anger, the entitled nature? The seeds are planted very early on, so his descent into darkness actually makes sense. Even when he’s at his worst, you still feel sympathy for him because you know that under all that bravado is still the scared, insecure person we saw at the start of the movie. For some reason, the whole thing reminded me of a wrestling angle, and I still have no idea why. But now I want to start a project where I rewrite classic films as wrestling angles.

On the downside, it could do us more to sell the illusion. We see how the band responds to it, we see how Mary responds to it, we don’t see how others do. It would have been nice to see media attention; journalists writing about them, fans saying how excited they were by the gig. John Malkovich’s character in Opus felt more real than the characters do in this. I know they didn’t exactly get front-page headlines and number-one singles, but enough people were fooled to make it notable.

I also feel it ended a bit suddenly. One of the characters attempts suicide near the end, and it’s never really touched upon. His former manager comes to see him, but his former best friend (and his sister) never acknowledges it. Are they aware? We don’t know. They only see each other once afterwards, and no words are spoken; they just stay whilst he sings a song apologising. It feels like there was a heart-to-heart between the characters that’s missing from the script.

In summary, this is delightful. More than anything else, it will make you want to know more about the real story. As a director, it won’t be enough for James McAvoy to be known as one of the best directors in the world, but it is a remarkably solid base for him to build a career on. He’s not going to be handed the reins to a new blockbuster franchise, but it will put him in the discussion when it comes to dramas and comedies.

The Drama (2026) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: A happily engaged couple get put to the test when an unexpected revelation sends their wedding week off the rails.

I don’t want to, but I feel I have to give spoilers for The Drama to discuss how I feel about it. Since I’m not a complete dick and don’t want to spoil for people who just click and have wandering eyes that briefly look over the whole page, I’ll add a certain amount of preamble, and won’t spoil anything until I say the words BUTTERED PARSNIPS.

I’m only doing that because it’s clear that a part of the marketing was based on curiosity about what the worst thing she ever did was. It’s a simple strategy: “You want to see what the conflict is about? Buy a ticket”. I was unfortunate enough to accidentally glance at a news headline about it, specifically how controversial it is. To be even more specific, they named the groups opposed to it, which automatically gave a pretty big clue as to what it was. It wasn’t this, but if the article header was “9/11 survivors object to The Drama”, you’d know it was something to do with 9/11.

The Drama was written and directed by Kristffer Borgli, who also made Dream Scenario, a film which I loved the concept of, but felt the execution was deeply flawed. After watching this, I have come to the conclusion that Borgli loves writing arguments and having characters scream and yell at the leads. The Drama has a lot of that, and unlike in Dream Scenario, those moments make sense. It helps that The Drama is much more grounded and has a more focused narrative. It does occasionally veer into dream sequences and imagine spots, which veer from the useless to the great. There are some moments which I’m still not sure if they were real or not, and if they were dreams, to whom did they belong? These moments will put people off.

Not that that’s necessarily a bad thing. From the reveal (which I will get to), to the editing, to the scenes of characters loudly talking over each other, The Drama feels designed to make you uncomfortable. It’s not designed to be a lovely life-affirming watch. Sometimes that worked for me, sometimes it didn’t. The way it was edited did feel like it was building towards something huge. Shots of people who were clearly stressed out, staff at the wedding who are angry at being fired, the partner of a woman that Charlie kissed is at the wedding, etc. It all feels like it’s building towards a huge, explosive event that will scar you. Nope. Rude comments are made at the wedding, and Charlie gets headbutted. That’s it. Narratively, it’s like being promised a fireworks display and ending up with a sparkler.

BUTTERED PARSNIPS

The terrible thing she did? She planned a school shooting. She had a gun, trained with it, made videos online that she planned to be released after the event, etc. Truly horrible and unexpected. But pretty brilliant. It allows the film to ask questions about morality: is planning something that’s a 9/10 on a shithead scale worse than actually doing something that’s a 6/10 (locking a mentally challenged boy in a strange vehicle in the woods and not telling people he’s there)? It also talks about America’s obsession with guns, to the point it almost sexualises them (the random cuts of Zendaya posing with guns are artsy as hell). America (and yes, it is a uniquely American problem) focuses so heavily on guns as aspirational things to own, then acts surprised when kids shoot each other.

I mostly liked The Drama. When it was funny, it was laugh-out-loud hilarious. The fact that the thing that stopped her from carrying out the shooting was that another one happened nearby is funnier than it should be. The humour is darker than the POV of someone wearing a blindfold at midnight in a locked casket. I’m someone who has said multiple times that genocide is bad, and racism is the preserve of dickheads, so obviously I’m an easily offended snowflake, but I didn’t find this movie offensive in the slightest. It’s not making light of school shootings. The entire conflict is based on the notion that it’s a terrible thing to do. It’s obvious she’s haunted by her almost actions. All things considered, it’s actually handled relatively tastefully.

Now onto the downside: I didn’t think Alana Haim’s performance was at the level of everybody else’s. Charlie’s characterisation is a bit inconsistent, especially in the final third, where his actions seem to be stuff that drives the plot forward rather than stuff that the character would do. It also has far too many inconsequential moments; it’s as if the film is throwing as many moments at the screen and seeing what sticks. Personally, I don’t think the relationship between them is quite sweet enough for the ending to land. It’s sweet at the start, but they spend a lot of the film’s runtime in conflict with each other, so that’s our main impression of them as a couple. A buildup to a wedding is the perfect opportunity to explore characters’ pasts, so it would have been easy for them to have flashbacks to better times, so we could feel more of the love between the two of them. If the love felt genuine, the ending would have worked. It’s also so heavily tied to the reveal that if you happened to find it out before you watch, it won’t be as good an experience.

In summary, a truly divisive film that I kind of loved. People who love it, will really love it. People who hate it will consider it one of the worst films of the year. It’s 1-2 out of 10, or 8-10 out of 10. Nobody will give this a meh.

Crazy Old Lady a.k.a Vieja Loca (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: A man is asked by his ex-girlfriend to care temporarily for her senile mother, Alicia. But Alicia won’t let him leave,

Okay, this is the second film I’ve reviewed in a row which starts with a male character running over a dog. I hope the next film I watch, “Man Runs Over Dog At The Start Of The Movie”, doesn’t start the same way. It’s not even a genre trope as the films have been two different genres. Not localised either, as from two different countries, continents, in fact.

Crazy Old Lady (COL) is a strange watch. For one, it doesn’t open like a horror movie. I love that. It means that people react believably, as real-life people, as opposed to characters in a horror movie. It contextualises actions and behaviours. As it goes on, it does become a more traditional horror movie, but that’s excused because it takes place at night, so of course it’s going to be dark. Otherwise, it is shot in a pretty standard way; there are no shaky-cam jump scares or weird walking towards the camera.

The downside to the traditional horror nature (when it becomes one), it’s sooooo dark. Not tonally (okay, slightly yes tonally), but visually. It makes it difficult to actually see anything. I don’t need to see clearly enough to make out the book titles in the background (I wouldn’t be able to read them anyway, what with them likely being in Spanish), but it would be good to be able to see characters facial expressions, or know where they are in relation to each other, rather than straining to work it out through the shadows.

Alicia is an interesting villain. You get the idea that she’s always been a little of a sociopathic monster; the things she says certainly allude to a past that’s darker than this movie’s visuals. There is always the question about whether her memory is accurate, though. So how much of her actions are due solely to her senility, and how much of it is just her senility leaving her unable to mask her true nature? It’s an interesting question which will leave audiences with their own opinions. The other interesting part is that it’s difficult to see how you personally would escape. Yes, she’s an old woman, so you could just punch her in the face. But she’s also an old woman suffering from senility, so it would be a bit weird to just punch her in the face without it feeling a bit weird. And even if you did, there’s not a Facebook group around that wouldn’t crucify you. The other nice thing about the villain is she’s so out of her mind with random non-sequiturs, blatant falsehoods, and overly sexual creepiness that I feel I don’t need to watch the Melania documentary now.

I respect Crazy Old Lady for having a sexual assault scene as skillfully done as it is, and for having a female-on-male one, which is very rare. The last one I remember is the first Black Christmas remake. This is certainly the first time I’ve seen it where it’s not a villain origin story, so kudos for that. Surprisingly, that’s not the most shocking moment. When Alicia stabs her daughter, it genuinely stuns you despite you somehow knowing it’s coming. It feels like she should have some sort of familial defence clause. “Yes, she’s stabbing this random man, but surely she’d recognise her daughter, and that will bring her back to normality?” Nope.

The performances are fine. Carmen Maura definitely gives a stronger performance. Daniel Hendler occasionally veers into comedic territory with how he portrays fear. It would have been nice to see footage of Alicia when she was a bit younger, maybe in family videos of BBQ’s and Christmases, etc., just to get a taste of what her actual personality is like.

Now for the negative. The ending feels lethargic. There’s a definite sense of “is that it?” It looks like it is intending to end with her getting deliberately hit by a train because she realises what she’s done. Nope, she just walks away as a train rolls nearby, leaving her Granddaughter alone in an unlocked car at night. It’s incredibly anticlimactic. It’s possibly the only moment where the fact it doesn’t feel like a horror movie lets it be down. Because it’s shot and feels like a drama, there’s no tension or fear in that scene. You don’t have that “is she going to now kill a child?” worry. It’s just, I dunno, nothing. It’s as if a rollercoaster ended with a slow, gradual descent into an empty room.

“Crazy Old Lady” is currently available for streaming on Shudder

It Was Just An Accident (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: An unassuming mechanic is reminded of his time in an Iranian prison when he encounters a man he suspects to be his sadistic jailhouse captor

I had a tiny amount of knowledge about the story of It Was Just An Accident (IWJAA, pronounced Eye-woo-jah). I knew it was about a man who comes face-to-face with his former torturer. So when we were introduced to a happy family accidentally running over a dog, I thought that the father might be the innocent person tortured, and he stumbles across his former enemy, who is hiding out as a mechanic. Nope, the mechanic is the victim. Not sure if that makes me an idiot or if it’s just clever writing. Possibly a mixture of both. That being said, we don’t have enough of the torturer (Eghbal) as a normal person to really feel it. We get a very brief moment of him as a normal family man. I feel that if it somehow intercuts it with his domestic life, it would help highlight the notion that the people committing these terrible acts weren’t cartoon villains, they were everyday people, they were neighbours, fathers, people who are known as kind pillars of their community. That being said, it does do a good job of building him up as a symbol of fear. The way characters speak of him, you can tell they’re traumatised by him. The group all responds in different ways too; some are angry and want to kill him, some never want to see him again, and it all feels very realistic.

IWJAA is an interesting watch. This is a story of pain, of trauma, of PTSD, the likes of which most people will never know. How do you cope with coming face-to-face with someone who tortured you? Do you want revenge? Or do you want closure? It’s that inner argument that drives the movie. Really, Eghbal is not a character in this, not really. He’s a story device. It’s not “the group against Eghbal”, it’s “the group against themselves”. It’s akin to other “Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves” works, like The Count of Monte Cristo. But it’s about so much more than that; it’s about oppressive governments and the impact they have on their citizens.

Now’s a better time than any to speak about the writer/director, Jafar Panahi. Panahi is badass. He’s been arrested multiple times. He broke the law multiple times whilst making this film, and not in a Victor Salva way (not really relevant, I just think it’s important to recognise that the director of Jeepers Creepers raped a 12-year-old, so fuck that entire franchise). The women involved broke the law by not wearing the hijab in public. Fun fact: Iran isn’t the only country that’s mistreated him; he was also detained by the police in another dystopian hellcape: JFK airport. He’s probably one of the best modern examples of film as protest, and I love him for it.

So how is the film on its own merits, outside of political contexts? It’s pretty impressive. It was nominated for best screenplay at the last Academy Awards. Which is a pretty big deal considering it’s not only not American, it’s not even in English. In terms of narrative, it does lose momentum slightly once they’ve tied him a tree, but it pulls it back for a phenomenally unsettling closing. There’s some interesting shots, with a lot of dialogue happening with the characters backs to the camera. It works, though. It means we’re focusing on the reaction those words are having, and the words being said.

Judging performers in a second language is always difficult because it sometimes feels like you’re not getting the full experience in terms of delivery etc. Mohammad Ali Elyashmeher veers a bit too close to cartoonish overreaction at times, but I feel that behaviour is natural for someone who has suffered like that character has, so it’s difficult to criticise it too harshly. I have to single out Mariam Afshari for her performance. Even in a second language, she has presence that’s difficult to ignore.

In summary: this will not be for everyone, but it was for me. Openly political, and very much needed in modern times. It would be a bit bleak if every film was like this, but I am glad it exists.