Ferrari (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: With the company in dire straits (not the band), Ferrari need to win their next race in order to survive. Will they? I mean, they still exist, so yeah.

Many people like this film, it’s got pretty decent reviews. I have to be honest; I don’t get it. The main issue I had with it was I had nothing to hang a positive thought on. It didn’t feel informative enough to be interesting, the characters (particularly the lead; Enzo Ferrari) were too unlikeable to root for, and you knew how the main conflict would end. Let’s go through all three.
The lack of information. You don’t come out of this with a better understanding of the person, or the company. It’s so heavily focused on one event that it neglects to give you any other information. It feels like the second part of a ten-part documentary series. I’m not asking for every single piece of the company history to be covered, but it would be nice to have at least one “oh, I didn’t know that!/that’s interesting” thought whilst watching it.
The predictability. This also affected the shoe-opic Air. We all know that Ferrari exists (spoilers?). So you can’t really watch this and think “OMG! I wonder if the company is going to survive this.” If you push that a company is dependent on doing well in a race, and the company is still around today, you know what’s going to happen.
Now onto the unlikeability. I thought the lead character was a complete prick. I didn’t care about anybody, especially the lead. “oh no, if this doesn’t work he might have to sell the house he purchased for his mistress and illegitimate child. Or stop drinking quite as much expensive wine.”
He’s not in a “I’m financially struggling and if I don’t turn it around I won’t have enough money to pay rent” situation. The film seems to really hate his wife, with his mother blaming her for his cheating “Well if you can’t give him an heir, it’s his right to look elsewhere”. The film ends with the wife saying “I’ll lend you money but only if you never acknowledge your illegitimate son as your heir”, then a few minutes later you get a piece of text onscreen saying “She died in [year], and now the son is the head of the company”. It seems to treat “but then his wife died so the son he had with his mistress was finally able to inherit the business” as a happy ending. Like his wife was being the bitch for not allowing that.
I like Shailene Woodley, she gave a fantastic performance in TFIOS, anchored the Divergent series, and rightfully puts herself forward for causes she believes in. I think she is a good person and a good performer, but she is a terrible Italian. A lot of the accents are bad, but hers is one step away from “It’s a me, a Mario! I make-a the pizza”. Out of the cast, only Penelope Cruz gives the impression of someone who can actually point out Italy on a map of Europe.
To the film’s credit, the racing scenes themselves are fantastic, injected with a sense of realism missing from similar films. They don’t feel like you’re watching a film about racing, it feels like you’re actually there experiencing it, being fully aware of just how f*cking fast these things can go.
Mann has also managed to recreate the period. I’m not aware of how accurate it is, but it feels right. It doesn’t even need to tell you when and where it’s set, as the set design does a good enough job of telling you. The aftermath of a crash at the end is much more brutal than I thought it would be, although that is somewhat ruined by the reaction of Enzo being one of nonchalance. That’s to be expected though, another character died in one of his cars early on, and there’s no mention of him for the rest of the film. There’s no sense of “but am I responsible?” guilt, it’s just “his mother caused him to crash” (that’s genuinely what he says by the way) and absolves himself. Again, he’s an asshole.
I wish I liked this film, I really do. But it’s the second Adam Driver film of the year with an exciting concept, rendered incredibly dull. Maybe if you like cars etc, this might mean more to you. But it left me colder than the weather is currently.

It’s A Wonderful Knife (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: Winnie wants to see what the world would be like if she had never been born and is shocked to find out that if she didn’t stop a serial killer, people would die.

It’s hard NOT to compare this to Totally Killer. I mean, you can also compare to Freaky and Happy Death Day, but the “person in familiar yet new environment” is more applicable to TK. That was fun and had good ideas and logical storytelling. And I actually enjoyed TK. This? Not a fan. I think it’s because I expected it to be much better than it was.

If you’re doing a parody of an iconic film like It’s A Wonderful Life, you need to go all in. You can’t gently kiss or tease the concept, you need to fuck it. You need to make it as fun as possible and play with expectations and societal differences in regards to what was acceptable in the original, and what isn’t now.

Importantly, you need a lot of thought and love. This kind of seems like they came up with the title first, and then the idea whilst having no idea how to flesh that idea out. The Wonderful Life comparisons aren’t as central as they could be. For most of the movie, it doesn’t really matter. A lot of the central problems aren’t related to her, it’s just standard “there’s a killer on the loose” mixed with “alternate universe”. The “here’s what it would be like if you never existed” differences are ONLY related to the murders. Which is my central problem; she stopped a serial killer. She knows this. So her “I don’t matter, I’ve never done anything important” attitude doesn’t really ring true. Might have made more sense if her absence in the town CREATED the killer somehow, like she stopped someone on their path of darkness etc. Because at the moment it’s “without you stopping a serial killer, that serial killer KILLED PEOPLE!” *dun dun dun*. She only gets to that feeling of worthlessness because her parents take a personality change from the opening to the “one year after”. In the opening they’re normal and kind parents, afterwards, they’re swaggering bags of douche cleanse. If it played into “they’re traumatised too so they don’t know how to talk to their daughter” it would work. But at the moment they’re the kind of people who buy their son a new car, and their daughter a single item of clothing (I think was a jumper). To be fair, the rest of the characters aren’t that smart. One character punches the killer and then runs into the dark woods rather than BACK INTO THE HOUSE. I mean, luckily it ends up working for her but still.

The other timeline isn’t that interesting either. For one thing, it would have been more interesting if the killer from the first timeline died early in the second but the killings continued. Then there’d be a sense of mystery. And it wouldn’t make the characters seem so lazy. At the moment she goes into a new timeline, realises the mayor is still killing people, and then goes to watch a movie. This would be so easy, especially since there IS another killer in this timeline, but they don’t reveal that until very late on. The only twist is some mind-control gimmick, but that doesn’t count as a worthwhile twist because it’s fucking stupid.

We’re also not given enough time to really explore the new reality. Which is linked to another problem; the pacing. It takes 8 minutes for the film to realise it’s a horror movie, and 15 minutes to get to the title card, IN A 90 MINUTE MOVIE. It takes her almost half the run-time to discover what kind of movie she’s in.

Now onto the good, there are some beautiful shots, especially in regards to the use of colour. There’s a moment where she’s dressed in red whilst in an incredibly washed-out room. I like that the town somehow became more nihilistic in response to an active serial killer, that seems very realistic. There’s a romantic relationship between Winnie and Bernie that is very sweet. The reactions between the two of them are very genuine. They have great chemistry, and apparently, that’s why the relationship between the characters happens as it does, they wanted to take advantage of the actors’ natural chemistry. So whilst it is nice, it’s kind of sad that the best part of the film wasn’t written. The performances are all fine, but I kind of think it might have worked better if Joel McHale and Justin Longs’ characters were switched. As I said, the best parts of the films are all related to the central two; Jane Widdop and Jessie McLeod. I want to see them in a buddy road trip movie, or a weird millennial remake of Thelma and Louise. McLeod is delightfully weird, seeming to operate on a different level from anybody else, and I absolutely love her for it. Those kinds of performances are tricky to do because they can often come off as fake and over the top. McLeod is talented enough that she seems genuine throughout.

So in summary, maybe watch if it’s on TV at Christmas time, but you don’t NEED to see it. If you want a violent Christmas movie, watch Violent Night, if you want a Christmas horror movie, watch Gremlins, if you want a parody horror, watch Totally Killer. This is not the best option for any choice, which I’m sorely disappointed by. This has all the ingredients to be a classic; fun premise, bloody kills, Katherine Isabelle from Ginger Snaps. But instead of utilising those ingredients to make a delicious cake of greatness, it underbakes them and then adds a secret ingredient of piss. If I hadn’t watched Totally Killer 2 days before, I might have been kinder. But it’s hard to watch economy after watching first class.

Totally Killer (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Thirty-five years after the shocking murders of three teens, an infamous killer returns on Halloween night to claim a fourth victim. When 17-year-old Jamie comes face-to-face with the masked maniac, she accidentally time-travels back to 1987 where she tries to stop the original murders, and come to terms with the idea that her mother was a complete bitch.

I went into this knowing only the title. I’m assuming I did read the concept at one point and thought it sounded interesting, but by the time I got around to watching it I had forgotten it. So I’m glad it set the tone early on, describing a murder in the 80’s. We see the murders through crime scene reconstructions (so figures and small models laid out in a model house) intercut with still shots of the actual bodies. This is a really simple way of doing a scene like that on a low budget and without coming off as cheap, so I was instantly sold that this would be creative and clever.

I then realised that this was essentially Back To The Future but as a slasher film, and I went all in. I love stuff like that. It’s been attempted before with Happy Death Day 2 U, which I absolutely loved. But I think I might prefer Totally Killer, HDD2U was good, but it didn’t play into the time travel aspect as much. This doesn’t just do a time travel slasher, it dissects the genre and approaches it from as many angles as possible. It would be really hard to do a sequel to this because it’s difficult to see what else they could do.

There’s a comment on the trailer for this that says something along the lines of “I miss the 80s, people were better back then”. Which makes me think they didn’t watch the movie. A lot of the people in this are dicks, but they’re entertaining dicks (like a penis telling jokes). Unlike something like Ferrari (spoilers for that review btw) where it’s hard to get emotionally involved since every character is a prick. In TK, the characters aren’t people you want to know in real life, but they’re funny and interesting. Plus, they’re teenagers in the 80s, so a small amount of assholeness is understandable because you know they’re not at their final form.

This is really damn funny. I went through many options for my “favourite line” in my end-of-the-year round-up. Funny dialogue comes thicker and faster than a Grimace Milkshake Ejaculation.
“When I think of serial killers I think at least 3 people”. “let’s give it up for Angie who wishes there were more people killed”
“if she did do blow jobs, maybe she’d still be alive” “Yeah, let’s not make that the lesson”
“the machines don’t kill us all. They just rip apart the fabric of our society via dance videos on TikTok”

These lines are all perfectly delivered too. I didn’t watch The Chilling Adventures Of Sabrina; nothing against it, but I worked in a shopping centre when it came out so I had to see the poster for it hundreds of times a day. As such, I’m not that familiar with the work of Kiernan Shipka, but she nails it here. It helps that she’s given a good script.

It’s a script which is depressingly realistic in terms of how it approaches murder. The commercialisation of murder is too true to not sting a little bit. On the downside, the reveal of the killer doesn’t really work. It’s probably because it’s a character we haven’t seen that much of, so when they’re unmasked it feels more like “who?”. If the opening third had another 10 minutes it might have helped flesh him out.
In summary, this is on Amazon Prime, and that’s apt, as this is a prime cut of fresh horror.
Fuck that’s a terrible line, isn’t it? Ah well, go see this movie.

Wonka (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: It’s a Willy Wonka prequel, do you need a synopsis?

I will admit, I went into this knowing there was a chance that it would end up being terrible. Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely ADORE the Paddington movies, I think they’re genuinely two of the most enjoyable films I’ve ever seen. But I didn’t know that much about Paddington, so I had no preconceived notions of what the character should be. Wonka’s different, I’ve read the book (and the sequel), watched both of the films, and really enjoyed one of them. So I already knew the character, I had an idea in my head of what he was like, and the tone. Where the Depp one went wrong (in my opinion) is it just made him weird and kooky, lacking the (weird description but it makes sense to me) sociopathic kindness of the character. The trailer did not ease my worries; I know Chalamet is a good performer, but I just don’t buy him as Wonka. My rule for Wonka is this; can I imagine them playing The Doctor? If so, they’re a good fit (and vice versa). Chalamet feels like he’s trying too hard. It always feels like he’s acting as Wonka, it never feels like he completely disappears into the role and becomes him. It’s not helped by the fact that his singing isn’t the strongest, which isn’t great for a musical.

It’s a shame because apart from that, this is a great watch. The songs are catchy as hell and instantly feel familiar. That’s probably helped by how even in Paddington, Paul King directed everything with a sense of rhythm so that everything flowed together and created a sense that you were in a musical. So really, an actual musical was the next logical step. Importantly, the songs don’t overshadow the narrative, there aren’t any moments where it feels like they spent 4 minutes singing about something they could have said in 10 seconds, the songs all have a purpose; either driving the narrative forward, introducing a character etc.

Much like Paddington, the supporting cast is a delight. Paul King has always had a talent for putting random British comedy performers in small roles, and thus, making those characters memorable. That continues here, with one-scene characters played by Charlotte Richie, Phil Wang, Isy Suttie etc. Even the main “villains” are mostly unknown outside of the UK; people will know Olivia Colman and might know Matt Lucas from Bake Off, but I don’t think performers like Matthew Baynton or Rakhee Thakrar can be considered mainstream names, even in the UK. But none of them are weak links. Special mention must go to young American actress Calah Lane, who outshines the aforementioned Chalamet at every moment. I hope she goes on to do something special, as she definitely has the potential to do something amazing.

This film is lucky, because of the universe it’s created, it allows things which could sink other films. Gaps in logic, contrived coincidences, things existing just for silly reasons. They don’t matter as much in this as they do in say Good Burger 2 (spoilers for that review btw).

So in summary, this is completely predictable, overstuffed with cliches, and also unbelievably fantastic.

Godzilla Minus One (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Koichi Shikishima is a failed World War 2 kamikaze pilot who returns home and decides to earn his forgiveness by helping a homeless woman and her child in the destroyed ruins of Tokyo. Oh, there’s also a giant reptilian monster rampaging around the country killing people.

Godzilla movies always have so much potential, both positive and negative. They can showcase a director’s ability to use a sense of scale to create a spectacle, something you HAVE to see at the cinema because the big screen does it better. It can also be an overly CGI mess where the producers think they don’t need to bother with a story because “monster makes boom” (by which I mean “monster destroys city and buildings explode”, not “monster shits himself”, nobody wants to watch a monster shit, which is why the 90’s Godzilla movie is regarded so badly). There was almost no cinema chatter of Godzilla Minus One (GMO, pronounced Gee-Moe) pre-release, they didn’t play the trailer, no posters put up etc. There was a small amount of internet hype, almost all of it saying it’s incredible.

It is.

I know, you’re expecting something more in-depth, but that’s all there is to it. This is an excellent flick. Usually, the key to a film like this is simple; you subtly build up the threat and then reveal it in all their glory in the final act; blowing the audience’s mind with how impressive it is. Or you show them early but hide them in shadows or with trees. Minus One takes a different approach, showing the titular ‘ziller in its full glory in the opening, then showing them again as they undergo nuclear-infused evolution. But this isn’t just about the big G, the human story is the one that actually carries the narrative, and it’s a damn compelling watch. This is a story that only really works in post-war Japan, a country that just lost the war, suffered nuclear explosions, and yet still carries a sense of deep pride. The reaction to Koichi returning to his home isn’t “Oh you survived, Thank fuck for that, everybody here died and we’ve suffered great losses, but it’s good that at least one person returned home”, instead it’s “You survived? Coward. If you did your job, we might have won”. In most other countries that would be dismissed as absurd, but in Japan it works. So when Koichi is haunted not just by the giant lizard with the capital G, but by his own personal failings, it makes sense. He doesn’t just suffer survivor’s guilt, it’s also a deep personal shame to him that he didn’t do his duty. So when, later on in the film, he has a plan to fly directly into the mouth of G-Z Rider and detonate a device, it makes complete sense that he would attempt that. The audience knows he has a death wish, so it doesn’t feel like a lazy attempt at drama.

Weird thing to say, but even with the radioactive lizard, this would still be a compelling story. But the addition of the nuclear-powered scaly disaster adds things you couldn’t do otherwise. His giant beam of death is now more reminiscent of a nuclear bomb going off, which adds another jerry can of nightmare fuel. The Queen Liz isn’t as big as it has been in previous iterations, you’d think this would make him less scary, nope, more so. Previously, it’s felt like he’s been shown as a sort of protector of earth, humanity was so small to him that they didn’t register as a problem, so he was only used to fight other large threats. Because he’s smaller, he can see humans, they register to him, and he REALLY does not like them. This isn’t a monster that accidentally kills people like we think our benefits systems does, this is one that is actively trying to kill people, like our benefits system actually does.

The fact that this was done on such a small budget is mind-blowing. There are a few moments where the lack of budget is noticeable, but mostly it looks impressive. The Atoll Atrocity Animal (well, lizard) does occasionally resemble a man in a suit/model, but at least doing it that way instead of CGI means it does still feel like something you can physically touch (not in a sexy way, don’t have sex with a killer kaiju). I recently watched a trailer for Godzilla X Kong: The New Empire and I messaged someone “Is it just me or does this look fake as shit?”. It looks overly CGI and more like a video game. This isn’t a “booo new” viewpoint. This is an “I’m glad both of these versions can exist”. If you want a monster movie, you can wait for GxK, if you want a human story with a monster, you have GMO. Don’t be bad we have both, be delighted we have the option.

El Conde aka The Count (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet is a two-hundred-and-fifty-year-old vampire. Now tired of his life, he wants to die at last after the disgrace and family crises he has caused.

I’m going to start by saying that El Conde is a bit like a personal time-piece you can use to help you find the Arctic: it’s a polarising watch. It features some truly evil things; vampires, murders, Margaret Thatcher. It is nice to have a vampire film where the vampires aren’t shown as sexy anti-heroes but as vile, remorseless killers. This is the closest they’ve come to feeling like horror movie villains in a while. These aren’t vampires you’re supposed to laugh at, admire, or masturbate to, they’re ones you’re supposed to be scared of. This sense of fear is created by some shockingly violent imagery and acts. The scene of him beating a prostitute with a hammer is INCREDIBLY brutal. The whole bedside massacre is really. But the hammer is particularly so, the camera shows the hammer making contact with her face, caving it in.

It’s not just horror though, there’s a sense of playfulness to parts of it, like a knife cutting into something in time with the non-diegetic music. It also has some cracking dialogue and funny scenes. The idea; that Pinochet was a creature of the night born from an unholy vampiric Thatcher, is unique, and really gives you, as an audience, something to sink your teeth into. A concept like that is just ripe for satire, the idea itself is satirical; taking the “rich people draining the lifeblood from the poor” from a metaphorical idea to a literal one. Lines like “English blood is his favourite of course” are said with pride, and lines like “all generals that conquer have the absolute right to ransack, and to keep a fortune!” are said as though they’re obvious truths. The point is arrived at VERY quickly, there’s no long set up getting to what we want to see. For that, El Conde has to be commended, with Pinochet’s history and rise to power coming in a few minutes.

This brings me to my big issue with El Conde; it’s about a Pinochet who has been removed from power and is now living in secrecy on a farm. That’s just not a very interesting approach. If we see a vampire dictator we don’t want to see one hiding with no power, reflecting on his life. We want to see one rising to power, using his viciousness to kill his way to the top. Or we want to see one leading a country, putting down rebellions and foreign threats with his supernatural abilities. Both of these would also allow the satire to hit harder, we’d be able to see the disparities in wealth, most of this takes place on a random farm, so just isn’t that interesting visually. It’s a shame, as there is a great concept somewhere in this, but it feels like the script is actively avoiding it.

This is a foreign language film available on Netflix so by watching it, you need to ask yourself an important question. Sub or dub? Engage in submissive sexual intercourse, or listen to dubstep. One is a shameful act only performed by perverts, which should be kept behind closed doors and never shown on television, the other is sex.

Oh, it turns out that “sub or dub” actually means “subtitles or dubbing?”. I’d go for subtitles for this, not only because it allows you to watch it as originally intended, but also because the dubbing choices are terrible. It feels like it was done cheaply, as every performer has a very English accent, but still litter their sentences with random Spanish words. It just doesn’t sound right, and at times feels like it’s approaching parody.

Larrain is obviously a talented director, everybody who has seen Spencer can tell that, and this is the best way to tell a story about a retired dictator vampire. But like I said, THAT’S not the most interesting movie. Still definitely worth a watch though; the intoxicating performances and references to classic horror films mean that it’s a difficult experience to turn away from. And for a Netflix film, what more could you ask for?

Cassandro (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Saul Armendariz is a gay luchador wrestler under the name El Topo. His career and life changes when he starts to compete as Cassandro, a flamboyant exotico wrestler.

I’m a big fan of films like this. Professional wrestling is f*cking weird, there’s no other way to say it. The people who fund it are weird, the people who perform it are weird, and the people who watch it are weird. So it usually makes for fantastic watch. But this? It fails to do one basic thing: explaining the lingo, it assumes you know what an exotico is. I mean, I do, because I’m a fucking mark for this business. Unless you know the business, the story won’t mean as much. Not just the aforementioned exotico, but it also doesn’t really do a decent enough job of explaining why certain people are big deals. His match with El Hijo Del Santo was a HUGE deal, Santo is a legend in lucha libre and his importance cannot be overstated. In Cassandro, his importance and relevance aren’t even stated. It’s this kind of attitude which makes it difficult to figure out whether this will appeal to people who aren’t fans of wrestling in the first place. It’s important for a film to know that audiences don’t know everything. Even I know that, and I’m basically an idiot. In my Napoleon review, I originally had a joke about how “This film is long, 157 minutes. Although that’s English minutes, in French minutes it’s much shorter”. That’s an obscure (even by my standards) reference to how the French and English had different calculations for what counted as a foot, which is partly what led to the fallacy that Napoleon was short, listed as being 5 foot 2 when in English measurements he was 5 foot 6. I loved that joke, but I knew if I did, I’d have to explain it, and as has just been proven, that would be dull and shit.

So yeah, this could prove impenetrable for casual moviegoers. For those who know? It’s delightful. It’s not great for providing you a life story, but it does provide a useful foundation for you to want to find out more. It’s helped by the performance of Gael Garcia Bernal, showcasing Cassandro as someone deeply insecure and broken but whose entire wrestling persona is based on overconfidence. His story is deeply emotional to watch unfold, especially the frayed relationship with his homophobic father. Yes, this is a story about professional wrestling, but it’s also a story about finding yourself (always make sure to check down the back of the sofa), about masculinity, and about being true to yourself.

Originally that ended with me saying it’s about bigotry, but it’s really not. The story itself is, but the way it’s told means it doesn’t really come through. The very nature of exotico’s traditionally existed to reinforce negative gay stereotypes. They were/sometimes still are grotesque caricatures of male feminity, whose entire purpose was to repulse and annoy the audience, who would then cheer when the traditionally heterosexual male hero would come along and beat the shit out of them whilst the crowd shouted homophobic slurs. That’s still the world we see in this film, but then he wins them over almost instantly. That kind of undercuts the homophobia he endured, like as soon as they saw him they all changed their minds. It kind of feels like a wasted opportunity. His rise to fame also seems to skip over a few things, so his match with Del Santo doesn’t really feel earned.

I have been a bit harsh to this but it is still a fun watch. His first entrance to a flamenco Spanish-language cover of I Will Survive is fun as hell, and there’s a scene near the end which is an absolutely fantastic piece of performance storytelling. Cassandro is on a talk show and a fan stands up and thanks him for giving him the courage to come out to his father. You can tell this means a lot to Cassandro, but he’s also slightly bitter and jealous that he’s talking to someone who was accepted by their own father when he still isn’t accepted by his. It’s a subtle facial performance and is so damn perfect.

In summary; it’s on Prime so if you have an account you might as well watch it, but you might be best off watching a documentary instead.

The Hunger Games: The Ballad Of Songbirds And Snakes (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: How did Coriolanus Snow rise to the position we see him in in the original franchise? Let’s find out.

I like the original Hunger Games movies, but I can’t really remember that much about them. So I’m glad this was a prequel and not a sequel, otherwise, I’d spend half of it wondering “Who’s that guy?”, like a gender-flipped 1987 Madonna film. Fun fact; the director of that movie later went on to direct two films in the Fifty Shades series. Okay, it’s not that interesting, but I thought if I didn’t mention the Fifty Shades series in this one, nobody will speak about them.

I will admit I wasn’t really a fan of the series during the original theatrical run. I wasn’t actively against it, I just never got into it. The first one I saw at the cinema was the second part of Mockingjay (it was split into two parts, I didn’t just wander in halfway through) and my main memory. One thing I did notice from going to a cinema screening is that despite this franchise not having a cinematic entry since 2015, it still has an audience. A young audience too, there were a lot of teenage girls in the screening, they couldn’t have been more than 10 when the last film was released, which indicates that the films are gaining a new audience as time goes on, which can only be a good sign (unless Suzanne Collins turns out to be a massive bigot, but what are the odds that would happen to two franchises?). Of course, none of that would matter if this film was a piece of shit. Thankfully, this matches the previous entries. It’s helped that (with the exception of the first one), all the films have been directed by Francis Lawrence, which means that visually and thematically they remain consistent. This is probably the most grounded movie in the franchise, where Panem isn’t quite the technological power that it grows to be. It’s the early days, and the colours represent that; instead of the blues and neon, it’s all brown and murky. You really get the oppressive poverty people are under.

The other positive for Songbird is that it doesn’t seem to miss the franchise characters as much as you’d expect it to. Katniss/Jennifer Lawrence was a big part of why the original franchise worked, so there was concern that the studio would get nervous and insist on forcing the character into it, even if just as a framing device of her telling the story. That doesn’t happen, and Zegler/Lucy Gray is given a chance to shine. The character of Lucy Gray (or Lucy Grey in England) is determined, likeable, and different enough from Katniss that she doesn’t just feel like a literary replacement. Rachel Zegler gives one hell of a performance and makes you think that she actually is going to be a great Snow White, everything about her screams “Disney princess”. The best bit of casting is Jason Schwartzman as Lucretius Flickerman, not because his performance is particularly outstanding, but because of how much he resembles Stanley Tucci from the original series. To the point where (because I couldn’t remember the name of Tucci’s character) I thought they were the same person, just younger.

Now onto the negative; the story is kind of weak. I think we’re supposed to be shocked that humanity can be so blasé about the suffering of people like we’re supposed to think “holy shit that’s terrible, how bad must a society be to let that happen? This is an indication of a dystopia”, but it’s a little difficult to be shocked when we live in a world where homeless people sleep under newspapers that brag about the good economy because of how well millionaires are doing, and the only part of that which looks like changing in the future is the existence of printed media.

It’s not helped by how the characters can sometimes seem like idiots. There’s a moment where Coriolanus records another character (Sejanus) talking about overthrowing the government, he then sends the recording off and then is surprised when the government arrives and executes Sejanus for treason. It feels like such a lazy way of getting rid of that character, and it derails the heel turn of Coriolanus. He should have admitted it and be proud of it, it should be an indication that not only is he now a dick, but he is proud of it.

Actually, the whole final third is a complete mess, both too short and too long. It feels completely disconnected from what came before, kind of like a quick epilogue, but one that takes about 30 minutes so isn’t really quick. But this is where Snow melts and becomes a dick, he doesn’t show that before this section. So his entire turn takes place in that 30 minutes, which feels too short. It feels like it could have been its own entry. Doing that would have allowed some of the other tributes from the games to be more fleshed out, as opposed to just the walking soon-to-be-dead. The games themselves are absolutely brutal, the lack of technology means that the deaths have an intimate feel to them, and a lot of them are quite disturbing (with points going to the girl with Down syndrome, and the starving girl who unknowingly drinks poison). The best death is one that belongs to Coral, where in her dying breath she expresses regret that she killed all those people for nothing. That one line is sooooo damn good. I haven’t seen a dying line change character motivations that much since The Suicide Squad when Starro said “I was happy, floating, staring at the stars”. It’s helped that Coral is played by Mackenzie Lansing, who is just fucking great in this. It would be easy for that character to be a caricature, but Lansing gives them enough reality that it’s easy to see them as a real person.

So in summary; go watch it. But only if you have a passing knowledge of the rest of the franchise. It is a weak point that this doesn’t talk about the distracts, or the rules of the games etc because it knows you remember them from the previous films, so if you are a newbie, you might be lost, which is a shame. Just be prepared to be incredibly disappointed for the final third.

Apocalypse Clown (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: After a mysterious technological blackout plunges Ireland into anarchy and chaos, a group of washed-up clowns travel the country for one last shot at their dreams.

Apocalypse Clown is ridiculous. But it’s aware of it. Comedy horrors can be difficult to get right because if they lean too far in the direction of comedy then the horror doesn’t work, and if they lean too hard into the horror then you risk the comedy coming off as inappropriate, with characters witnessing horrific and traumatising murders, and then making jokes about it like the deaths of people not named Henry Kissinger are funny. The director, George Kane, has previously directed episodes of Inside Number 9, so he has a track record of being able to balance the two genres effectively.

He’s helped by the characters taking the situation seriously, the threat feels VERY real throughout, so even when people are dying in ridiculous ways (Like when a character nearly died from being creampied repeatedly, I heard rumours that’s how David Cameron kills pigs), it still feels horrific enough to hit the right horror notes, like John Carpenter at a keyboard.

Now onto the (kind of) negative. If your exposure to British media is big-budget films, reality shows, or bleak murder shows, then the performances are fine. If, however, you’ve watched much comedy then you are left with feeling that too many of the performers seem to be doing tribute acts to other performers; David Earl is doing Joe Wilkinson, Fionn Foley is basically MC Grindah as a clown, Amy De Bhrun is very Sharon Horgan, Ivan Kaye is Roger Allam (he’d also make a good Desmond Tiny if they were to redo Cirque De Freak), so when you’re watching it, you are slightly distracted by thinking “who does that guy remind me of?”. That being said, Natalie Palamides is a f*cking delight. I mean, it’s weird for me to say that “being a tribute act to a better performer” is a bad thing but then also praise Palamides based on the fact she has a real Carol Kane energy. I think the difference is that cinema sees a lot of despondent clowns, but very manic excitable Carol Kane types. It helps that Palamides feels like the only performer who threw out the script and is just making shit up as she goes along. She’s the epitome of vulnerable chaos and I absolutely love her. It would be so easy for her to overegg her coulrophilia pudding (that sentence is clearly there just to make people google coulrophilia, and enjoy the strange targeted ads you’re going to get). Palamides plays it perfectly though, she never feels too much, like she’s trying too hard. She’s an incredible physical performer, turning a scene as simple as “eating ham” into something incredibly unsettling. Her tornado of chaos also means that when she acts scared, it sells the situation. If a depressed and nihilistic clown is worried, not a big deal, but if a psychopathic clown is scared, shit has got real.

In terms of visuals, it’s fine. There are a few moments where you feel a bigger budget might have improved it, but it mostly works. The opening scene showing the chaos is incredible for a film of this budget. The music could have been better, I can’t really remember any of it to be honest, which is a shame as this is apt for a scene of soundtrack dissonance, playing a bright and cheery song over scenes of brutality.

The script could be a bit more focused, there’s an entire subplot which could be removed and the only impact it would have is to slightly lessen the impact of the ending. On that topic; the ending reveal is SUPERB. I haven’t seen a reveal this satisfying and unexpected since Bodies Bodies Bodies. Before this, Killers Of A Flower Moon was locked on to win the award for best ending, now it has competition.

So in summary; it’s on Netflix so you really should watch it while you can. It’s not the greatest film in the world, but it’s a welcome distraction in a world full of war, famine, and Piers Morgan.

Napoleon (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: The (partial) life story of a French Emporer

Napoleon is a strange film, and one I’m not entirely sure needs to exist. For something like this to exist it needs to be either educational, overblown, or relevant. This fails on all three counts.

The educational: the accuracy of it has been called into question multiple times. This was going to be obvious from the first time you see the tagline: He came from nothing, he conquered everything. He didn’t come from nothing, and it’s weird to say he did. For starters, his dad was an aristocrat (not to be confused with an aristocat. who are pets who get to sleep on velvet mats, naturalment). It puts him present at the execution of Marie Antoinette when he was actually on a battlefield at the time. It also shows him firing at the Pyramids in Giza, which never happened. These are such needless lies too. But they call into question the accuracy of everything, did Napoleon mastermind a victory over the English at the siege of Toulon? Did his marriage fall apart because of fertility issues? Is there even a country called France? These are all things presented as true within the film, but so are proven falsehoods, so it’s hard to tell.

It has been accused of being anti-French, but what else would you expect from a Scott? You know, because the director is Ridley Scott, and Scotland is part of the UK, who have famously nearly always been at war with France? I know, the joke would have worked better if the film also involved Britt Eckland (if I spelt it Brit), Robert Englund (if I spelt it England), or Kerry VonFuckTheFrench (if I spelt it Kerri).

It’s not just the French who are annoyed at this movie; idiots are too. Accusing Ridley Scott of making a film that discriminates against white men by showing one of them as a bit of a dick and he had a wife who cheated on him. The wife part; yes, she did cheat on him, but he cheated on her. He ended the marriage just because she couldn’t get pregnant, and impregnated a teen. The wife ended up dying alone and in pain, what a bitch. And of course, it shows him as a bad person, he was a military leader responsible for the deaths of thousands. Something that’s not in the movie is the siege of Jaffa, where Napoleon allowed/encouraged his soldiers to spend two days massacring and raping the inhabitants of Jaffa (a city in now-Israel, not the chocolate and orange treat that’s a cake for tax purposes). Most European leaders in history were dicks, and most of them were white men, both of those things are facts. So if you want to watch a movie about European history, you’re going to have to put up with a white man being terrible. So we can either not make historical movies, we can make historical movies about non-Europeans, or we make Henry VIII a black woman. Maybe then the internet will stop complaining. In response to the historical inaccuracies, Ridley Scott has said that historical accuracy isn’t important. I’m hoping he continues this point of view when I release my new film “Ridley Scott once bummed a hedgehog”

The overblown: it’s all a bit dour. There’s not much on the excess of emperors. It’s a Ridley Scott film so there are some fantastic shots in it. I’m normally not a fan of animal deaths in movies, but I’m very glad his horse got shot with a cannon in this because it means I could make a joke about how his horse was Napoleon Blown-Apart.

I’m not going to though.

The horse death does give me an excuse to talk about the violence. It’s incredibly violent, in a good way. You can tell this from the opening scene when Antoinette is executed. Usually, when you see that on screen it’s a clean cut and the head is held up like a mannequin head. When her head is held up here it’s dripping blood and bits of skin, it’s horrific, but does a good job of reminding you that this is an actual human head that just a few seconds ago was full of life. Whilst the visuals are good, the audio is a bit meh. Not in terms of music and sound, but the accents. Nobody has a French accent. This would be okay if it was all taking place in France or if every character was clearly defined, and it’s fine for small scenes. But when there are scenes of characters from multiple countries it can be a bit confusing. This is best highlighted in battle scenes which just consists of people with English accents and nondescript outfits charging at each other, with no idea of who belongs to which side. I haven’t seen fight scenes this confusing since the last Transformers movie I watched where action scenes were just chunks of metal rolling around. (I think it was the second one).

This does have the potential to be a good movie, and there are times when it does live up to that potential. But it mostly doesn’t. The pacing is weird, skipping over important details way too quickly. His first exile and escape took place entirely in my quick pee break. But this is a moment where he was exiled and completely hopeless, yet he escaped by commandeering the people who were supposed to be guarding him. That’s a classic moment of historical farce, which with the right build-up and setup could have been incredible. There are multiple moments of that. It’s both too short to go into things with as much detail as it should, but also too long to hold your attention. I would say it’s wasted potential, but really, I expected nothing less. Every worry I had about this turned out to be correct. And really that’s the most disappointing thing, well, that and the fact that I still can’t stop singing the name to the tune of Linoleum by NoFX. The film also doesn’t contain a scene where goes around San Dimas eating ice cream and helping two kids with their history presentation. Bullshit. *storms out review*

Wait

*comes back in*

I forgot my chocolate, I’m still angry.

*storms back out*