Cat Person (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Margot (Emilia Jones) goes on a date with Robert (Nicholas Braun), who then starts to exhibit possessive and sexist behaviour when they start dating.

I was really looking forward to this, it felt like it would be a vitriolic critique of modern misogyny. I was so looking forward to it I caught a preview screening. So it’s with regret that I have to say that I’m slightly disappointed. It’s based on a short story, and watching it play out, that becomes evident. It knows what it wants to say, but doesn’t seem to know how to say it in a cinematically pleasing way. Part of that is due to the reliance on fantasies and dream sequences, moments where Robert is openly hostile and cruel. This seems to have been done to show the paranoia that women go through when they’re with men they don’t know that well, the worries that go through their heads when they’re in a car with a man. The issue with this is that it means that when he is hostile and cruel, it doesn’t seem quite as bad because she imagined worse. It’s like “Well, he only called her a whore via text, not as though he actually choked her like we saw earlier”.

There is one exception to this; the sex scene. Possibly the unsexiest sex scene of the year. It also features a piece of non-reality which I really enjoyed; her having an imaginary conversation with herself as a version of her stands by and observes the sex, asking her why she’s doing that. It’s a great look into her mindset and self-justifications, it clearly defines the boundary between reality and her mind, and it reminded me of both Fleabag and Mouthpiece (darn I love that movie). It’s almost as brilliant as my constant use of the word “and” in the last sentence was annoying. Almost.

It’s in this moment where we see the best of Emilia Jones, who is shockingly the daughter of Aled Jones. Yup, we’re now in a time where the daughter of the singer of Walking In The Air is an actual adult. Her performance in this is good, but the writing of her character lets her down, as does the fact it took me like 15 minutes before I realised she wasn’t Jenna Coleman.

It pains me to say this, but Cat Person kind of left me with the feeling that incels will watch it and it will justify their viewpoints. Much like how Unhinged left me with the feeling it would appeal to the darker vengeful side of humanity, I feel this will help back up the opinions of those who really shouldn’t have their viewpoints backed up. It’s easy to imagine them watching this and blaming Margot for what happened. Or to think there are times when she’s making up problems and acting off that. It doesn’t help that she seems to repeat the actions at the end, making it feel like she hasn’t gone through any character development.

As I said earlier; you can tell it’s based on a short story, there’s just not enough to it to fill the runtime. Characters drop in and out to the point where a lot of them don’t seem like characters, but plot vehicles. The exception to that is Geraldine Viswanathan’s Taylor, who is a delight whenever she’s on screen. To be honest, the little we do see of side characters makes it feel like they’re probably the most interesting characters to explore, instead we only see them when they make a quick plot-relevant detail and then move on never to be seen again.

On the plus side; it is occasionally very funny. And the aforementioned sex scene is incredible in how it gets the characters over. It also has good performances throughout, and it is a story that needs to be told, but it needs to be told better. It tries to be both a tale of sexual politics whilst also being a thriller, but in its rush to be the first, it fumbles to be an effective example of the second. It has good moments, but those moments just aren’t enough to sustain the runtime. If it was a short film, this would be brilliant, in fact, I feel this could be edited down to a fantastic 15 minutes, two hours? It just doesn’t have enough to sustain that. It does make you aware of the thought processes that women go through when dealing with men, so in a way, you can say that it’s effective. It’s just not good to watch.

Saw X (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Bullshit medical charlatans con cancer patients out of their life savings, one of whom is the Jigsaw killer, smart move.

I have a complicated history with the Saw franchise (see my review for Spiral), I have all of them on Blu-ray except for Jigsaw which I have on DVD, I’ve seen 4 of them at the cinema, and I even liveblogged the (at the time) complete franchise a few years ago for Halloween. Yet if you were to ask me what my favourite 50 horror films are, outside of possibly the first one I don’t think any of them would feature. If I was to mention some of my least favourite moments in cinema, and another list of my favourite moments, the Saw franchise would feature a lot more in the first list than the second. It’s a franchise of wasted potential. I’ve insulted them a lot, but if I was asked to write and make a new film in any horror franchise, it would definitely be a Saw one.

Saw X (pronounced how a person from Boston would say “socks”) is probably the best Saw film yet. By which I don’t mean the most enjoyable, or with the best deaths/motives etc. I mean it’s the one that feels the most mature. When it comes to horror movies, people tend to use “mature” as a shortcut for “lots of blood, swearing, and nudity”, but to me, true maturity is in restraint (not restraints, that’s a different kind of mature content). It’s in trusting that the audience is with you, so you don’t need to resort to constant deaths and shock. I know a lot of people watch this specifically for the traps, but for people who are willing to wait and show a little patience, it’s the most rewarding one yet.

Saw X is also helped by how independent it is from the other entries in the franchise. Amanda Young being in it does mean that if you’ve watched the first three then you’d have a better understanding, but I don’t think it’s essential. It provides you with the very basic necessary details so even newcomers won’t be lost. The post-credits scene probably does require some background knowledge, but in a post-credits that’s allowed.

Now onto the bad; the ending is somewhat underwhelming in terms of catharsis. Saw has never decided to not take an opportunity to be cruel to those it feels deserve it (and in the case of Joyce in Saw 3D, those who don’t deserve it), so the fact that we are given one of the most despicable humans in cinema history should mean we are given a hugely satisfying scene, but it never really comes. If anybody deserves to be put through hell it’s some of the characters in this, but we’re denied it for some reason.

It’s also not helped by how utterly pointless it feels. There’s a moment where John Kramers’s life is in danger, yet we’ve seen him die in another film so we know he survives. This entry doesn’t add to the mythos, doesn’t change anything we thought was true etc. It just exists, like it was written without the knowledge of what’s to come. It feels like it’s just plugging in gaps which weren’t there to begin with. It feels more like a cheap comic book that would be released between movies than an actual movie which is a shame. It also has the same problem most of these have had; it feels very insular. You don’t get the feeling that this is a world in the grips of a mysterious serial killer. There are almost no indication that Jigsaw is being hunted by the police, no moments where he has to escape possible prosecution etc.

Really, this whole franchise was f*cked by the decision to kill John Kramer so decisively in the third film, it’s been spinning its wheels since then and it knows it. This brings me to my next point; they don’t really refer to him as Jigsaw that much in this. They do refer to him as Kramer quite a lot, and as someone who has been watching a lot of Seinfeld lately, it’s difficult to get past.

Dumb Money (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: A drama comedy about the internet teaming up to take down a Wall Street hedge fund

I was really looking forward to this. It felt like a modern version of The Big Short (well, even more modern), only unlike that, it was a topic I actually knew some stuff about. Partly because The Big Short did such a good job of explaining what shorting means in regards to investments, but also because I remember this all happening, I was reading news and social media to follow it. I couldn’t give a presentation on it, but I could bluff my way through a conversation about it.

I’m lucky I did, because this is near incomprehensible if you don’t know about the events. I hate doing it, but I’m going to mention The Big Short again (and will do a lot throughout this review); I knew more going into Dumb Money than I did going into that, and yet I left Dumb Money knowing less. It’s a complicated situation, and it feels like Dumb Money expects you to be knowledgeable about the subject going in. There’s no effort made to bring you up to speed, resulting in a confusing mess.

The sense of confusion is not helped by the directing. I don’t get how this was made by the same person (Craig Gillespie) as I, Tonya and Cruella. Those two were slick masterpieces of visual storytelling, whereas this feels like it’s trying waaaay too hard. The editing, in particular, feels like a case of “will do for now, tighten it up later”. It is reminiscent of of obnoxious youtubers mixed with dickhead 90’s skateboarders where random things get overlaid with cartoon images and silly faces. In the end it just felt kind of immature, like it knew it wasn’t explaining itself properly so just went “look, random!”

None of this is on the performers; all of whom are great in what they do; it’s just that whenever it feels like they get momentum, the film pulls away and starts showing over people. It either needed to be pared down, or do a much better job of screentime distribution.

It also has an issue with how it relates to the real world. It doesn’t feel like it does. We get news footage of people talking about it, but it feels weirdly isolated from reality, like it takes place in its own bubble away from the rest of the world.

It has its fun moments though, there are some moments of real emotional depth and seriousness. And the moments featuring the real court testimony is nice to see. But it’s not fun enough to be truly enjoyable.

It’s possible I’d like this more if I hadn’t watched The Big Short, but since I have, comparisons between the two are inevitable, and there’s not a single area in which this is preferable. It is a shame, as on it’s own it’s a 5/10, but in a universe where a better version exists; it’s knocked down severely. Everything in it has been done better, and recently. Even the song choices.

A Haunting In Venice (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: (sing to the tune of Eleanor Rigby) Agatha Christie, puts a Poirot in a house where a murder has been, ghosts cause a scene.

I very much enjoyed the Branagh version of Murder On The Orient Express (or MOTOE, pronounced Moe-toe). I wasn’t quite as enamoured by Death On The Nile (or DOTN, pronounced Dot-en) but it had its moments. With both of those I had some sense of expectation going in, I had witnessed the trailers enough times that I had a general idea of what to expect. This? This felt like it was secretly released. This is the blindest I’ve gone into one of these, I was aware of how MOTOE ended and had a general idea about DOTN, but I knew nothing about A Haunting In Venice (AHIV, pronounced A-heev). It’s (loosely) based on Halloween Party, which is not exactly a well-known Christie book. So it would have been useful if the studio bothered to promote it AT ALL to let the audience know what they were in for. I didn’t see a single trailer being played at the cinema and very few posters. There didn’t seem to be any excitement pre-release, it just felt like the studio was saying “Okay it’s out now, deal with it”, treating it with all the pomp and circumstance of a silent fart.

I was really hoping my trepidation was wrong and that this wouldn’t turn out to be as painful as a hole in the head. It’s……..alright. It’s decent enough and doesn’t reach the lowlights of DOTN, but it doesn’t come anywhere close to the highlights of MOTOE. Part of that is because the mystery itself just isn’t as narratively satisfying. It’s not set up well enough, the clues aren’t given in such a way that you could conceivably guess the ending and important points are moved past VERY quickly. It also pulls the “maybe magic, maybe mundane” card too much. It’s explored brilliantly with the séance scene, where Poirot works out how they’re pulling off the tricks. But then later on you have the main villain seemingly killed by a ghost. The fun in a film like this is seeing how it’s done, so when death is reduced to “a ghost did it” it cheapens it somewhat.

The performances are all pretty damn good, but I do wish we got more Yeoh. Branagh continues to shine as the lead and is usually the most captivating presence on screen. Part of that might be because of the strange directorial choices. Branagh doesn’t have much of a background in horror movies, and that much is clear in this. The physical geography of some of the scenes is a bit muddled, and there are some moments where it feels like the characters are reacting to camera movements, which obviously don’t exist in their reality, so really they’re reacting to nothing.

It does have some highlights; the aforementioned séance is a lot of fun to watch unfold. The puppet story about the plague children is hauntingly beautiful, and the ending is nice to watch.

In summary; a spooky detective story that is essentially unessential.