Scrapper (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: 12-year old Georgia (Lola Campbell) is living on the edge of her seat after the passing of her mother. She’s then surprised by her long-absent father (Harris Dickinson) turning up.

I knew nothing about this going in, I didn’t even know it existed. I went to a secret preview screening, assumed it would be for Meg 2, and was baffled when this came up. It wasn’t just me, the general noise from the audience was “huh?”. Not many people left though. I wouldn’t say that Scrapper caught my attention immediately, but it did show its charm relatively early on. We learn quite early on that 12-year-old Georgie is living on her own after her mother died, tricking the school and social services into thinking she’s living with an uncle. Ordinarily, especially in British cinema, this means the following 90 minutes are going to be super depressing and bleak. So it’s a surprise that this is weirdly heartwarming and sweet. It’s like a weird B-side to Aftersun. Aftersun felt like a home video that was being watched in full, openly candid and laid bare for all to witness. Scrapper brings to mind a child hastily editing their home movies, covering up their pain with quick asides.

Scrapper was written and directed by Charlotte Regan, and in lead Lola Campbell, she’s found a fantastic conduit for her ideas. The character Lola plays, Georgie, never feels overwritten. Her behaviour and dialogue feel genuine, which helps the charm Georgie has. One of the first scenes of her is her being caught stealing a bike and blagging her way out of it. If this was written wrong, or performed wrong, then she’d seem like an annoying little shit. But everything about it works so well together that you can’t help but root for her.

The performance of Harris Dickinson is a surprise. He normally plays quite posh characters, so for him to play her dad Jason as well as he does takes talent. Jason is a suspicious character, he abandoned Georgie when she was a baby, and now spends his days giving fliers to tourists in Spain. Dickinson has a delicate line to walk; is Jason a criminal, a feckless good for nothing, or just generally a bit lost but trying his best? He has to make you think all three are possible, and he does it well. He and Lola have incredible chemistry, there’s a fun playfulness between the two, but it’s a playfulness filled with uncertainty and quiet mistrust.

The mistrust and uncertainty should lead to a great third-act conflict, but it doesn’t. The relationship between the two is so sweet and is built up so well that the plot-mandated divide between the two should be heartbreaking, and the resolution at the end should be incredibly sweet. As it is, the conflict between the two feels relatively minor, and the way it’s solved seems really pedestrian. It’s solved by something that the film treats like a huge revelation that changes everything but is really just kind of bland. It’s a shame, a film like Scrapper deserves a great ending. It sets up all the pins perfectly, but then flubs knocking them down.

That doesn’t distract from the fact that this is a remarkable film and hopefully leads to great things for Lola Campbell and Charlotte Regan. I hope they work together again, but I’m sure even if they don’t then they’re going to do something incredible. They’ve already done something very good.

Strays (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: A heartwarming tale about a tiny dog (Reggie, voiced by Will Ferrell) on his quest to reunite with his owner……….so he can bite his dick off.

This film is filthy. The talking animals may lead you to believe it’s a cute film, but it’s not; it’s incredibly sweary and sexual. This can work; Joy Ride has been my favourite comedy of the year (so far). I will admit though, there are times whilst watching Strays where it all felt a bit much. It felt like the film was being crude for the sake of being crude. Sometimes the jokes are coming so quickly that this isn’t a problem, you can just move on to the next joke and recover. But a few of the worst jokes in this are the recurring ones, so they’re hard to ignore when they linger over the movie like a wet fart. It’s a shame as Strays is hilarious at times, there are moments where it’s whipsmart, with some laugh-out-loud dialogue. It also has more heart than you expect it to, the backstory given to Bug is brilliant, elevating the character to something better than you thought it was. The love story between Maggie and Hunter is also kind of sweet. The key emotional part is Reggie and his relationship with his owner Doug (played by Will Forte in absolute detestable form, it’s brilliant). You can tell a lot of the scriptwriters’ attention was on this section; making sure it plays as it should; reminiscent of an abusive romantic relationship, but without seeming like you’re making light of it.

The relationship allusions are really well done, the PTSD Doug has got, and the realisation that being mistreated is not how a healthy relationship should go. It’s an interesting way of approaching a very delicate topic, and it works. This also means that the revenge at the end feels earned, it doesn’t feel like a quick impulsive decision; but the inevitable result of years of tension and mistreatment. In case that wasn’t enough, Doug does go into full dickishness just before the end; getting incredibly fed up with Reggie and threatening to beat that bitch with a bat.

Yes, I know that “beat that bitch with a bat” reference doesn’t really work. Bitch applies to female dogs, and Reggie is male. So whilst at first it may have been an acceptable joke to make, if you think about it for more than a second, it just feels a bit lazy. A bit like this film(can I get some applause for how I managed that segue btw? Nope, damn). Because whilst the Reggie/Doug relationship (or, as shippers call it: Rug) works and is well-written. A lot of the moments feel underdeveloped. Whilst Reggie and Bug are strays (hey, that’s the title of the movie), two of the other foursome aren’t; with one being a therapy dog at an old folks home. There’s not much attention paid to how the owners/home residents react/feel about their dogs running away. Even just a 5-second cutaway of a confused old person stroking a rug or a coat and thinking it’s their dog would have closed that issue and provided a quick laugh. It feels like the writer just thought “But who’s going to think about that?” and moved on. Well, I thought about it Mr. Writer Man, I thought about it. And it just feels lazy. There are other moments that don’t work if you think about them for more than a second. If it went through a few rewrites it could be amazing, as it is, it’s just good. It’s destined to be thought of just as “Oh yeah, I watched that once” and then forgotten again.

Haunted Mansion (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: It’s a Disney movie called Haunted Mansion, don’t pretend you can’t guess that plot.

Disney is a huge company, I don’t think I’m breaking new ground by stating that. But it is an American company, again, I’m not exactly being controversial or shocking by stating that. As such, whilst parts of Disney are known worldwide (the characters, the logos etc), there are a few things that aren’t really iconic outside of the US: primarily things relating to the theme parks. Yes, people know the name “Space Mountain”, but outside of the name, the ride itself isn’t that well known. That’s why making a film based on a ride is always tricky because you’re aiming at a market with little knowledge of the IP you’re basing it on. If it’s something like Pirates Of The Caribbean then you work around it by not really basing it on the ride at all. But Haunted Mansion is one that is known to Americans, they are aware of the music, the visuals, and the story about the ride. So Disney needs to create something that would play to people who know nothing about the ride, whilst also making it worth seeing for people who adore the ride because even something as small as using the wrong shade of blue will make fans furious, Disney fans be crazy yo.

So, does this work? I think it does. I am a huge fan of child horror; that’s “horror aimed at children”, not “horror starring children”, so more “Casper the Friendly Ghost” than “Minipops” (which whilst not a horror, is very creepy and disturbing). I think PG horror is a great way to get kids into the horror. If you ask horror fans about their first experience of the genre, a large portion of them would choose something like Scary Stories To Tell In The Dark, Goosebumps etc. Haunted Mansion does a good job as something that will unlock the door for future horror fans; it has some well-crafted spooky moments (I wouldn’t really count them as “scares”) and set pieces that will live long in the memory. It’s helped by the fact it’s directed by Justin Simien, who gave the world the cult horror Bad Hair. He knows how to craft a genuine scare, and tones it down so that he can provide chills to kids (a bit like an ice cream man).

But what if you’re one of the 100% of people who read these reviews but aren’t a child? It’s going to be harder for you to like it. There’s a lot to appreciate in it, for sure. I don’t think LaKeith Stanfield has a reputation worthy of his talent. I genuinely believe he’s one of the best all-rounders the industry has; a face that suits magazine covers, the perfect voice for audiobooks, plus the ability to deliver an incredibly powerful monologue that will bring you to tears. He’s the ace in Haunted Mansions hole (phwoar). Don’t get me wrong, the other performers are fine, Rosario Dawson rarely gives a weak performance, Danny DeVito is always a pleasure to see (in a film, when he appears on the end of your bed at 2am clutching a bloody ice pick? Not so much), and Chase W Dillon gives a performance beyond his years. But everyone else is acting like they’re in a Disney movie, all overly expressive and aimed towards a mass audience. That’s fine, that’s really all you need in a film like this. But Stanfield? He performs like he’s in an Oscar-bait drama. The characters are all really well-written by the way. Although I’m still not exactly sure what Owen Wilson’s character brought to the film. But the rest? They mostly act in an intelligent manner. They don’t ignore obvious signs of hauntings, when they see evidence of ghosts they leave the house immediately.

The music? It should be better. I can’t remember any songs from this. I know a song played at the end, but I can’t recall it. I still get a song from Goosebumps 2 stuck in my head, so it’s not a memory problem; it’s an effectiveness problem.

So in summary? Wait until it inevitably comes on Disney Plus, which will probably be near Halloween. Would make sense, a film like this is made for watching after/before you go trick or treating. It’s not made for watching in the middle of summer, and I’m not really sure why they released it now, and why they gave it almost zero advertising. I know for a fact I’m going to check it out when it’s on Disney, but that’s mainly to figure if it actually did have two title cards at the start or whether my brain is inventing one of them.

Meg 2: The Trench (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Jason Staham fights a shark, and some dinosaur-like things too.

The Meg was surprisingly good. Yes it was a dumb monster movie, but it also had incredibly well-written characters, good CGI, and no weak performances. There’s a new director this time, Cool Runnings Jon Turteltaub has been replaced by Ben Wheatley, better known for Sightseers, Kill List, Free Fire etc. Essentially, if you want something weird, British, and slightly disgusting but ultimately satisfying you call Ben Wheatley (or pop into your local Greggs). So he’s a weird choice for this. He works though. There are some weird shots in here which I don’t think many other directors would have been brave enough to attempt. It doesn’t feel like a Wheatley movie, but it does feel unique, it doesn’t have the “this could have been directed by anybody” feeling that has haunted a lot of MCU stuff lately (look, I enjoy the MCU, but let’s not pretend the directors are given enough creative control that the products they’ve released lately have felt unique).

Everything I liked about the first one was recreated here. It had characters with more depth than you’d expect in a film of this nature. On the downside, it did kill off one of the major characters from the previous film off-screen and doesn’t really explain how. The CGI is as good as the first one, which is impressive considering how it has a lot more to do here.

That’s kind of a downside though, the whole thing feels like the first one, just slightly different. Not really a sequel, instead it feels more like an alternate-universe version of the same film. As well done as it is, in a year’s time it’s going to be really difficult to remember that much from it. I know that’s the case for the first one as whilst watching this I realised I had no idea if certain characters were in the original or whether they were new. Another problem which has come up again in this edition; the lack of gore. Wheatley does the best with what he can, the scene where there’s a crack in someone’s helmet is horrific, but there are other times where the lack of blood is noticeable, where it seems like an “edited for Sunday afternoon family viewing” version of the film.

Now, this film is dumb. But it’s entertaining. It has a pretty good pace, things move along quickly enough so you’re not bored. It’s not going to test your brain or make you think about the wider world. But it will keep you occupied and make you think “that’s fun” whilst watching. And really that’s all you need.

Note; the previous will be true in the future. Truth be told, the opening section being set on a submarine that goes missing whilst exploring a crash site just made me think of the Oceangate disaster, only this time with sympathetic characters.

Joy Ride (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Four friends travel to China (well, one was already there) to help Audrey land a business deal. Sexually explicit hilarity ensues

Adele Lin probably has the best record for screenwriting; Crazy Rich Asians, Raya and The Last Dragon, and now Joy Ride. All incredibly written films and all three of them are unapologetically Asian. That may not seem like a big deal, but the aforementioned Crazy Rich Asians was the first film by a major Hollywood studio to feature a majority Asian cast in a modern setting since 1993’s The Joy Luck Club. That’s 25 years with a large audience being ignored by mainstream Hollywood. I don’t really have a point to this, I just wanted to mention The Joy Luck Club so I can segue naturally into the fact that this film was originally (apparently) going to be called The Joy Fuck Club, and I find that funny. Instead, it’s called Joy Ride, which is okay as a title, but is going to be confusing in my archives because I’ve already reviewed a film called that.

I really enjoyed this. It’s got pretty much everything I want in a film; great jokes, emotional depth, good characters, and a condom of cocaine exploding in someone’s ass. This is probably the best outright comedy I’ve seen in a long time, causing some of the loudest laughs I’ve heard in a cinema for a long time. It’s not just the laughs though; it brings the emotion when it’s needed. It has a lot to say about cultural identity and that when you have a foot in two separate cultures how it can make you feel like you don’t truly belong in either of them. It’s effectively pulled off, not just because of the writing, but also due to the talent of the lead performer Ashley Park. She has tremendous chemistry with co-star Sherry Cola, to the point where it’s very easy to believe that they’ve been friends for years. The other two leads: Stephanie Hsu and Sabrina Wu are also a delight to watch, but the whole thing lives or dies on the relationship between Park and Cola. Stephanie Hsu is good, but she’s not given quite as much to do as she was in Everything Everywhere All At Once, but “not quite as good as she was in one of the best films ever made” isn’t exactly a condemnation. Sabrina Wu has the widest range going from socially awkward silence to excited info-dumping on KPOP. , They also provide probably the most emotional point of the movie, when they think all their friends have abandoned them. All four of them turn what could be stereotypical characters into multi-dimensional real people. They all have moments where they’re selfish and moments where they’re right; the whole thing feels very real.

Now onto something else; it’s filthy. The trailers indicated it, but it doesn’t quite prepare you. It says a lot where a scene where they sing WAP is probably one of the least lewd moments, until the end of it anyway where it suddenly becomes incredibly sexual and funny. Personally, I think the WAP scene went on slightly too long. The scene made its point and then continued. It did lead to a satisfying pay-off, but that pay-off would still have been achieved even if the scene was cut in half. The sexual confidence the film provides will also put some people. Actually, the fact it’s a female-lead sex comedy will be enough to put some people off. One negative review saying it “objectifies men, targets white people”. I mean, it’s weird to watch a film which features a lingering shot of a vagina tattoo and think that shirtless men are the ones thought of as being sexual. And I don’t really see how it targets white people. If anything, China gets much more attacked; outright saying they’re racist towards Koreans. I think what the reviewer meant by that is; it shows sexual attraction from a female POV, and the white characters aren’t important to the plot. If you’re not going in looking to be offended, then it’s a fantastic watch with themes that will resonate with everybody. I mean, I did feel incredibly white whilst watching it. But that wasn’t because of the film, it’s because I had Hot Honey Ice Cream which I assumed would mean “warm honey throughout the ice cream”, but actually meant “spiced honey”, so whilst watching a film about Asian culture, there was me, a very white person, sitting there thinking “oof, this ice cream is a bit spicy”.

Gran Turismo: Based On A True Story (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: A player wins a series of Nissan-sponsored video game competitions through his gaming skills and becomes a real-life professional race car driver.

Yes, colloquially this is known as Gran Turismo, and if you tell people about it, you’re going to say “I saw Gran Turismo at the cinema”, but the official title (at least in UK markets) is Gran Turismo: Based On A True Story (or GT: BOATS, pronounced Git Boats). I say that now for two reasons: one is accuracy. The other is because it’s a stupid f*cking title. It’s a title that feels like it was decided by a committee with no idea how actual people talk. That sums up the experience of watching GT BOATS, to be honest. It has no emotion, no personality, it’s film as product and marketing rather than storytelling. There’s no actual humanity to the whole thing. It attempts it; the moment where Mardenborough crashes and kills a spectator is the closest the whole thing gets to showing genuine emotion. Fun fact; the crash did happen to the real Jann Mardenborough (who plays his character’s stunt double in this, which I thought was a nice touch). But it didn’t happen when he was training. In real life it happened four years into his career, in this, it is showcased as an event which motivated him to a podium finish. Some may say this is disingenuous, but Mardenborough wanted it in there, saying “It would have been a disservice for the audience for that not to be in there”. Would it? Would it really? Also, at the wish of sounding rude, that’s not your decision to make, yes you were injured, but someone else died. So unless you got permission from the family, then it feels kind of exploitative. Tbh, it feels that way in the film itself, even without the wider context. The fact that someone died is given away in dialogue that’s almost throwaway. The film seems to be saying: yes, somebody died, but look on the bright side, it inspired the lead character to win so it’s all good.

None of the faults of this film lies on the head of the performers btw. Archie Madekwe has a great screen presence and could have a good future ahead of him. David Harbour seems to be doing his best impression of Tough Enough Season 5 era Bill DeMott (just without the sexual and physical abuse). Orlando Bloom seems to be transitioning out of his heartthrob era, and I’m all for it. Not every performance is worth a positive comment though: Djimon Hounsou is completely wasted in such a small role, and he’s not helped by the fact he has to act alongside Geri Halliwell. Well, I say “act alongside”, it feels more like he’s acting against her, with her utterly dismal performance dragging him down with her. I’m sure her being married to the team principal of a Formula 1 team had nothing whatsoever to do with the choice to cast her. I kind of hope she was forced upon the production because I can’t bear to stand the idea that someone saw her performance and thought “Yup, she’s the best choice”.

It’s a shame I didn’t like this as it is an interesting story. Someone being chosen to join a race team because they were good at a video game is a fascinating story. But it shows its hand far too early. It’s so desperate to tell you how realistic the game is, that it never gives us any reason to doubt that he’s actually a good racer. There’s no “but will the skills be transferable?” conflict, he’s almost immediately very good. He goes through the training programme very quickly. Personally, I would have liked to have seen more of that. The section with the group of gamers training and being evaluated is the most interesting part of the film. Partly because there’s an interesting set of characters, all of whom are flawed but still likeable. They’re all in the same position, and from all over the world so you have a wealth of eclectic characters to work with. Instead, the film spends most of the time with the background characters being a group of spoiled rich dicks, but never focusing on or fleshing them out. They’re more annoyances than proper antagonists. The shift from “training camp” to “driving in Le Mans” also changes how some of the other characters are; they go from potential antagonists to helpful friends. It’s completely inconsistent and means we don’t really have much of a conflict. It’s all “Will he become a proper driver” when we know he will otherwise there’s no story. If he was working against somebody then at least they’ll be something there the audience can latch onto.

The lack of a compelling narrative might have been easy to ignore if it at least looked good. But it doesn’t. It looks too much like a video game, even when it’s not meant to. The scenes where it’s supposed to look like a video game are a weird choice. There are videogame style overlays over some of the races, to indicate how he sees the world. But it makes it seem TOO much like a video game. Having someone say “This isn’t a video game” and then making it seem exactly like a video game slightly undermines the message, somewhat. The races don’t look that exciting. There are too many close-ups of the internal machinery firing up etc, I’m sure for people who like cars it means something, but to everybody else, it just looks like small bits of metal and fire doing shit. There’s not even a decent soundtrack to the whole thing.

How To Blow Up A Pipeline (2022) Review

Quick Synopsis: A group of eco-warriors are frustrated that they’re not being taken seriously, so plan to blow up a pipeline

First off, I am very glad this appeared on Netflix because it means I didn’t have to google “How To Blow Up A Pipeline” (or HTBUAP, pronounced Huh-tub-wapp). My research for horror scripts has already probably already put me on a list.

Films can inspire a lot of different reactions in people. In 2023 alone I’ve had surprise from Missing, joy from Shazam, and utter boredom from The Pale Blue Eye. This? Well considering I mentioned in my Holy Spider review that the theme for this week is anger; you wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this made me angry; in a good way. I wasn’t angry in a “this film sucks” way, I was angry in a “how is everybody okay with this happening?”

Everybody in it is frustrated, they’re not annoyed at what may happen, they’re not dealing with “in a hundred years” hypothetical situations, they’re dealing with current consequences, and they’re consequences which people in real life are dealing with. There’s no “but maybe in the future if”, these are things that are happening: farmers are losing their livelihoods from chemical spills killing off their livestock/crops, people ARE being forced from their houses so that companies can build pipelines, people ARE getting cancer due to the effects of pollution. It’s easy to ignore these things when you’re not presented with them, but when you are then it infuriates you. People criticise climate protesters for being angry (even if they’re just standing there waving signs), but after watching things like this; if you’re not angry then you’re not paying attention. It would be easy for this film to come off as preachy or anvilicious. Crucially; there isn’t some big oil baron as the villain, because there’s not one person to defeat to stop this; it’s a systemic problem.

But it’s a problem everybody is encouraged to ignore. The current policy of “If you’re not happy with the planet burning, write a polite e-mail and then the government might do something if they find it profitable”. This is probably because of the way that civil rights are taught. It’s best summed up by one line from the film:

“Anytime anyone has challenged authority they call it terrorism, then when the terrorism works they lie about the legacy and say that it was all passive nonviolent kumbaya bullshit.”

HTBUAP definitely doesn’t shy away from pointing out how everybody regarded MLK as a ruthless terrorist back in the day, and it’s only after he won that public opinion changed. The fact that it reminds you of this is a good indication of how important films like this are.

But is it any good? Yes. It’s engrossing, the non-linear aspect allows us to connect the actions to the consequences, and the motivations. Daniel Goldhaber has a history in horror, a genre which (when done well) is all about gathering sympathy for characters and creating good ensemble chemistry. The cast is fantastic. Ariela Barer, in particular, has a fantastic presence and is utterly captivating to see. HTBUAP is incredibly well made, and it’s quite telling that most of the negative reviews focus on the premise rather than how it’s carried out. I know that’s somewhat hypocritical considering how I spent half this review, but I’m not a paid reviewer for a national newspaper.

It’s not a perfect film, it could definitely stand being trimmed or adjusted slightly so that it doesn’t drag as much as it does. The music could stand out more, there’s a litany of suitable music to choose from, played by artists who I’m sure would love to stand alongside this film, but as it is it’s mostly just “there”. It also could stand to focus more on the outside world; for a topic that affects us all, it feels incredibly localised. It could definitely stand to do what Blackkklansman did and end it with a news montage of the real-world effects of what we’ve seen.

I do have to say though; this has the best website of any film this year. It perfectly matches the themes; with resources for activists who were inspired by it, as well as a free e-book of the book the film is based on. I like that, it shows that the filmmakers are not doing this as performative showmanship activism, they actually care about what happens and want things to change. And for a film like this, you NEED that.

You also need to probably space your watching of it out so you don’t go out and punch strangers in anger.

Holy Spider (2022) Review

Quick synopsis: A journalist descends into the dark underbelly of the Iranian holy city of Mashhad as she investigates the serial killings of sex workers by the so-called Spider Killer, who believes he is cleansing the streets of sinners.

I’m really glad I got a chance to watch this (available on Mubi at the time of writing). Not just because (spoilers) it’s a very good film, but also because it means it doesn’t appear on my to-watch list any more. Every time I saw the title on the list my brain sang it to the tune of Holy Diver by Dio.

If relief at the eradication of an earworm was my main takeaway from this then that would be a bad indication of the quality of it. But whilst relief was slightly how I felt, it was only about 5% of my feelings; the dominant emotion coming out of this was pure anger. Anger, btw, is likely to be the theme of reviews this week. It wasn’t intentional, it just turned out to be a very “We have a point to make!” run of films.

The central theme of this piece is: “Local prostitutes in Iran are being murdered, a lot of people aren’t bothered by this because they see the women as immoral and deserving it”. It’s a depressingly accurate take on cultural misogyny in that country, especially since the killings did actually happen. In 2001, Saeed Hanaei went on a killing spree of prostitutes in the Iranian city of Mashhad. These weren’t quick “in the moment” killings either; he strangled them. Do you know how long it takes to strangle someone to death? Watch Promising Young Woman and find out, there’s A LOT of time to change your mind and come to your senses. And just like in the film; the real Hanaei was supported by locals; with newspapers defending him. And before you get too high and mighty about “well that’s just Arabs, western worlds don’t treat people like that”, read the comments on news articles when asylum seekers or refugees die. You will see an outpouring, not of grief, but of glee.

Hanaei is portrayed by Mehdi Bajestani, and he is so damn good in this. It would be easy to portray Hanaei as a stereotypical one-dimensional fundamentalist killer. But Bajestani (and the writing of Ali Abbasi) provide him with a lot of humanity. He’s not sympathetic or likeable in the slightest, but he is sincere, and you do understand how he got to his point of view, even if it is sociopathic and deplorable. It’s key that the character doesn’t seem to be getting pleasure from this. He seems genuinely disgusted with himself for having to be near the women he’s killing. This really helps him feel genuine. He is terrifying, even when he’s just being an everyday family man. There’s a moment where the veil slips when he has an outburst in front of his family and stops being the kind loving family man. What’s very telling is how his family react. They’re scared, but not surprised. So they know he has the capacity for violence; just maybe not to the full extent of it.

It’s not just Bajestani whose performance anchors this film. The casting of Zar Amir Ebrahimi is genius. I’m not sure if her casting was ENTIRELY just “she’s the best performer available”. I mean, she definitely is great, absolutely phenomenal. But consider this: Holy Spider is a film about how the prevalence of religion in Iran has led to extremists who commit murder and use religion as an excuse for extreme sexism. And the female lead? A woman who was banned from appearing in Iranian films after SOMEONE ELSE leaked her sex tape. So if that wasn’t part of the decision in casting her, it advertently provides a lot of backstory. People talk about political casting, but usually, they just mean “10% of the films cast aren’t straight white men. This is political correctness gone mad!”. This is political casting as an attack on the Iranian cultural misogyny which allowed Hanaei to kill so many women. Ebrahimi brings everything to this. She brings the anger and determination needed, and it would be a much lesser film without her in it.

In terms of the film itself? It’s weirdly reminiscent of It Follows in terms of the stylistic choices; especially when it comes to the music. The murders are brutal, but not in an exploitative way. The first one especially is aided by how damn scared the woman seems; really sells the fear with her eyes. Ali Abbasi did a fantastic job writing/directing this. You can tell he felt he NEEDED to make this. Every scene is full of furious passion and indignation; but also the creative talent needed to make such a hard-hitting story palatable to audiences. He recently directed two episodes of The Last Of Us, so I’m hoping his career continues upward and he gets the opportunities he deserves. Few people can inject emotion and frustration as easily as he managed it, and he’d be an asset to any studio.

Talk To Me (2022) Review

Quick Synopsis: When a group of friends discovers how to conjure spirits by using an embalmed hand, they become hooked on the new thrill — until one of them unleashes terrifying supernatural forces.

Talk To Me has a rotten tomatoes score of 95%, and the lone negative user review on Metacritic is from someone complaining about how it’s “too woke” and not representative of current American racial demographics. This is a stupid criticism of a film that’s set in Australia.

So other than that dickhead, most reviews are highly positive from both critics and audiences. But I have to say; I don’t get it. I mean, it’s good. Everybody involved is clearly talented, especially Sophie Wilde as the lead Mia (side note; Mia is the name of my cat. So every time someone said “Mia! No!” my brain automatically added “stop pissing there, go outside”). Joe Bird comes off as a multiverse version of Barry Keoghan, and I mean that in a positive way. The Philippou Brothers (best known as RackaRacka on youtube) are obviously talented directors. It’s not that I didn’t like the film; I just felt it could and should have been a lot better.

The gap between the potential and the reality is huge. I can’t exactly pinpoint why. I think part of it is there are some scenes that feel like filler. The first two parties where the characters interact with the hand (and then it gets out of……hand in the second party) could have been combined into one. There also could have been more done with the guy from the opening; who appears in the opening scene, gets stabbed by his brother, and then is completely absent until one scene later on where he provides information that could have come from anyone, then disappears again. If you removed him from it then the only noticeable hole in the script would be that you don’t have an opening.

I also feel the possession scenes could have been done better. The characters describe it as almost euphoric, like it’s akin to certain drugs. But the film doesn’t really let us FEEL that. If you turn the sound off and watch it, you’d have no idea that the characters are experiencing an intense positive rush.

It’s a shame as with a few tweaks this could have been among my favourite films of the year. But I sense that everything could have been better. This must have been how Metallica fans felt after listening to St. Anger