Back To Black (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: The tragic tale of the life and death of Amy Winehouse.

Have to admit, I’m not that big on Amy Winehouse. I appreciate she was talented, but for whatever reason, her music never really appealed to me enough to actively choose to listen to it. So how would I get on with a film about her that seemed to treat her as the most unique and talented that has ever existed? Probably with scorn.

Luckily, Back To Black (or BTB, pronounced Baa-tob) doesn’t treat her as a God-like figure. In fact, I’d argue it goes too far in the other direction. On the upside, it means that you’re not watching a film that constantly has to defend the terrible decisions the main character makes, but on the downside, it means you’re left watching a film with a main character whom it’s kind of difficult to like. Even before the drugs, she’s an incredibly abrasive character. Now this isn’t just a “She’s a woman standing up for herself! Difficult!”. Out of the four main conflict styles (Man against man, man against society, man against nature, man against self), this is definitely against self. She constantly gets in her own way. When she’s offered a record deal? “I ain’t no fucking Spice Girl, fuck you!”. When she’s told she needs to stop drinking and punching people? “I have to live my life the way I want, fuck you!”. When they try to make her go to rehab? She says “No, no, no. And also? Fuck you!”. It’s been a while since I’ve watched something with this much disdain for its main character. It’s much more sympathetic to her father Mitch than the 2015 documentary Amy. It does include him saying she doesn’t need to go rehab, but it doesn’t include the moment where he followed her to Saint Lucia with a camera crew so he could make a documentary about her called My Daughter Amy, in which she’s clearly uncomfortable and desperate for privacy.

I feel the tabloid media gets off easier than it should too. There are a few scenes of them camping outside her house, but only in those moments. There’s a lot where it seems like she’s left alone. Like the tabloid scenes were only there to say “See, we included it” and then never referenced again. It also doesn’t touch on just how bad her addictions were at some point. We see her get in a quick punch-up, but we don’t see it affecting her live performances. Her 2007 tour is shown as a success when in actuality she was a drunken mess for a lot of those gigs, cancelling a lot of them. We also don’t see her disastrous final gig at Belgrade. It’s a shame as that could have been an incredibly emotional scene, but the film is too scared to be ugly, too preoccupied with showing us the glamour, and not enough grit.

The performances are pretty damn good though. Marisa Abela doesn’t really physically resemble Winehouse that much, although there are moments where you can see Amy in her like a magic eye picture. She carries herself like Winehouse did though, and that’s the important thing. Her voice is damn near perfect for it, especially for the singing. Jack O’Connell is fine as Blake, but we’re not shown enough of him outside of his relationship with Amy to make him seem like a full person. Eddie Marsen is, as usual, a captivating presence on screen, and you can feel the character’s despair at how his daughter is squandering her life (but not enough to suggest rehab).

In summary, it’s okay. It’s a better watch than the Bob Marley film but feels more like a concept than a completed idea, there are too many missing pieces to make it feel complete. In the jigsaw of cinema, this is missing so many narrative pieces that you can’t even finish the borders first. We don’t even get to see much about her death, no news reaction to it, no family reaction to it, no fan reaction to it. So the whole thing lacks the tragedy that would elevate it to something greater.

Monkey Man (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Kid (Dev Patel) infiltrates the Mumbai elite to enact vengeance, with his fists.

Dev Patel is quite good, isn’t he? He’s already shown his acting pedigree in The Green Knight, The Personal History Of David Copperfield, and Slumdog Millionaire. Now it turns out he can direct too. Monkey Man is an ambitious effort for a first-timer, with some brilliantly inventive action scenes. They’re a lot more brutal than you’d expect. It’s not quite “blood blood everywhere, in my eyes and in my hair” levels of brutality, but it doesn’t shy away from showing the damage these fights would have. It has someone getting their thumb severed with a dinner tray. But also has enough Wick-ian fights to satisfy modern action palates.

Monkey Man has more than action to its name though. There’s also one hell of a story. Despite the fact that the character physically challenges many people, there’s a very personal approach to it. He is focused and determined throughout the narrative, with a clear goal. His backstory is incredibly believable and provides enough humanity that you actually do give a shit when he gets hurt or nearly dies. Yes, the action sequences are incredible, but it’s a damn fine film away from those moments too. There’s a sequence where he’s involved in stealing something and it’s so intricate and well-done, it’s basically a mini heist movie, very mini, a few minutes.

There’s a social message to this, which is always nice. I remember after the first trailer, people online were bitching about how “I bet they make a white man the villain, typical political correctness”, then when it turned out the villains are played by the very Indian Sikander Kher, Ashwini Kalsekar, and Makarand Deshpande, that discourse changed to “so there’s barely any white people in this? Racism!”. This is a Mumbai film through and through (albeit made by someone from Harrow, and filmed mostly in Indonesia), dealing with corruption, the caste system, trans rights, and abuse of political power. All themes that are sadly still prevalent in modern Mumbai (and in most countries too, let’s not get too full of ourselves to deny that). It doesn’t hurt that the character of Baba Shakti visually resembles the current Indian PM and notable dickhead, Narendra Modi. It’s this political context which was responsible for Netflix deciding not to release it, feeling it was too controversial and gritty. They tried to quietly cancel it because Netflix are cowards, but it thankfully found a home with Jordan Peele’s Monkeypaw Productions. I’m glad they released it, as it’s a film that’s worth seeing, but it definitely feels like it doesn’t quite fit in with the rest of their releases.

Now onto the bad. The female characters are woefully underwritten, with most of them coming off as nothing more than visual props. There are large periods of the film which basically feel like it’s there so the audience can be amazed at Patel. The “Monkey Man” aspect is also underdeveloped. There’s a big deal made about him turning his mask white, he dons the newly coloured mask for about 30 seconds before throwing it away. The general “lore” aspect of the backstory is not needed. It provides a small amount of detail into his connection with his mother, but we’d have assumed the two had a connection anyway as they’re related, not only is she his mother, but she was also married to his dad. I presume it was also there to provide a visual “hook” they could use in marketing, but again, it’s not needed. It’s just padding, and not even good padding; it’s asbestos.

As I said, it’s worth a watch. But it’s not a “must-see”. It at times comes off as a remake of an existing property that wasn’t that good in the first place. Or like an expertly crafted cover song, as good as it gets, you kind of just want to experience the original instead. Patel is clearly one hell of a director, and he will make something incredible. But this isn’t quite it. It is clearly a passion product for Patel, made with love and a NEED to get this made. But maybe someone should have stepped in at times to tell him to prune some of the cinematic flowers that aren’t quite blooming.

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: A death-chilling god seeks to build a spectral army. And in that scenario, who are you gonna call? Well, text, nobody answers the phone anymore.

I didn’t understand the negative reaction Afterlife got. Well, I say “negative reaction”, it was mainly from critics and online douchbags. Actual people who aren’t just going to be annoyed because “it’s gone woke” all enjoyed it. The same negative reviews and internet comments were there for this one. Logically I shouldn’t have cared because of what happened with Afterlife. But I had similar situations with Halloween Kills and Halloween Ends, poo-pooing the negative reviews of Ends, when they later turned out to be accurate as the film was shit.

I can gladly say, negative reviews of this are wrong. If you enjoyed Afterlife, you’ll enjoy this. The things which made that film work, also work here. It’s charming, it’s funny, and McKenna Grace continues to be one of the best young performers in the industry. Frozen Empire does have the advantage of being a bit spookier than Afterlife. There are some great scares and genuine tension, with a villain who’s much better defined than the previous one.

Just because he’s better defined, does not mean he’s better utilized. It’s a nearly two-hour film, yet it still doesn’t have time to properly flesh out the villain. He appears sporadically throughout, so never really overhangs the film like he could/should. When he’s on-screen/being discussed, definitely feels like a threatening threat of threatening proportions, but he’s definitely not used as effectively as he could.

I think part of the problem is that there are essentially two BIG threats in one movie. There’s the “Frozen” part, where the world is at risk of being frozen and people being killed via death chill so they will never want to build a snowman ever again. That could be a huge threat to overcome, and there’s a reason it’s all over the marketing.

But there’s another threat at play; all the ghosts that have been captured by the team are at risk of being broken out of “prison” and all returning. That was underplayed in the marketing and the film itself. But let’s face it, that should have its own movie. That concept has so much potential for greatness, and it’s as undercooked as that chicken that I had from KFC in ‘94 in which the only compensation we got was Viennetta ice cream.

It’s a shame as apart from that this is great. All the performers are great, although some aren’t in it enough but that’s probably because there are just SO many of them; not only do we have the cast from Afterlife, but we also have the surviving originals and some new ones we’re introduced to play by James Acaster, Kumail Nanjiani and Emily Alyn Lind. There are about 12 characters, so obviously, its going to be a struggle to juggle them all. Alyn Lind’s character in particular is interesting. I’m not sure if I’m imagining it, but there did seem to be a slightly sapphic undertones to the interactions between her Melody and McKenna Graces Phoebe. I’m not sure whether it was implied intentionally in the script, or whether it’s just the chemistry between the actors, but I did sense it there. As everyone knows, I’m a huge fan of McKenna and what she brings to the table performance-wise, and I want to see more from Alyn Lind, there’s an inherently loveable quality to her. She could easily lead a horror franchise, in the right hands, she could be mentioned in the same breath as Jamie Lee Curtis,

In summary, I love this movie. It’s not quite as good as the previous one, but it’s not a shame to the franchise. This is much better than the 5th (or 4th depending if you take the 2016 as canon) movie in a franchise should be. Few franchises this far in are very rarely this inventive, this fresh, this joyful. I want a lot of these characters and this world. I love it so much.

Seize Them! (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Queen Dagan has been toppled by a revolution led by Humble Joan. With the help of servant Shulmay, she aims to get her crown back.

I’m aware I am kind of pretentious sometimes when it comes to my film taste. But it’s a weird kind of pretentiousness, one which will talk endlessly about obscure Polish films, or how the work of Lotte Reiniger still holds up almost 100 years later. Yet, I also dislike Men (the film, not the gender, although….) and I’m not that fond of the films of Wes Anderson.

So whilst my taste may run a little weird at times, I love films that are just dumb fun. They’re not trying to change the world, or wow you, they’re just there to distract you from the Western-supported genocide occurring 2000 miles away (wait until you find out the fucked up shit I found out whilst googling that distance by the way). It’s in this sphere of silliness that Seize Them falls. It’s different from something like Bill, which had historical in-jokes and at least had the pretence that it happened in reality. There’s no effort to pretend this is real; it’s a live-action cartoon in a fictionalised version of history. This has as much in common with the Dark Ages as the Artemis Fowl movie has with the books it was (supposedly) based on.

This isn’t something you can see being quoted in an academic paper. It’s not supposed to be though. It’s just dumb jokes wrapped up in a different time. It does make the most of the concept though, there are a lot of jokes which wouldn’t work outside of this context, which is something I always like. I like when jokes are unique to a film, especially if it’s a comedy set outside of “now”. Crucially, it doesn’t have any of those “knowing” jokes. You know the kind, where someone invents a modern invention and is rubbished, or otherwise makes a reference to modern times. The kind of “It’s a communication device mixed with a telescope, we call it an Eye-Phone”. I know comedy is subjective, and different jokes for different folks. But those are the ones that come up a lot in films like this and I cannot stand them, not just in a “that joke didn’t land” way, when I see those jokes, it actively turns me against the film.

The jokes are helped by just how talented the cast is. Casual audiences are more likely to be aware of Nick Frost (from his films with Simon Pegg), Nicola Coughlan (from Derry Girls, Bridgerton, and “you won’t believe how old she is” posts on Facebook), or James Acaster (from memes about the world falling apart). It’s mainly led by Aimee Lou Wood (from Sex Education) and Lolly Adefope (from Ghosts/Taskmaster), they make a good pair, sharing natural chemistry. They spend a lot of time with experienced comedy performer Nick Frost, and they easily match him. They both nail their roles perfectly. Lou Wood turns what could be an annoying character into someone sympathetic. Kind of sympathetic anyway. The third-act conflict only really happens because of her character derailment. Also, I’m still not quite sure that with the world the way it is at the moment, a movie about how “this rich useless person who holds all the power is someone you should be sympathetic towards, the woman fighting against her and campaigning for equality is just a phoney who will end up being a dictator”, is that really a message that needs to be put into the world right now?

In summary, a hilarious movie, with oddly memorable music. Not the best film of the year, but incredibly fun. For better (the jokes, the performances) and for worse (the production values, the pacing), it does feel a bit like an extended episode of a Channel 4 sitcom. Funny as hell though. I mean, how many other films have two characters die from fatal wanking incidents? It should have had a better cinema release though, at my local it was only on once a day, and with zero promotion.

Godzilla X Kong: The New Empire (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: It’s a monster movie, is the plot important?

The Monsterverse movies have been a huge success, the fact they’re big-budget movies that keep getting sequels is proof of that, especially since they’re made by Warner Bros, who have a tendency to cancel films and don’t let silly things like “It’s been completed and early reviews have been very positive” get in the way. But anyway, that’s enough about my bitterness over the Batgirl movie. I have watched all the Monsterverse movies at the cinema and reviewed most of them. But here’s the thing; I can’t remember any of them. I can’t remember any of the characters’ names, can barely remember any of the actors, with one exception (Brian Tyree Henry) I’m genuinely not sure if any of the actors from this film were in the previous ones or if they’re all new. Human characters have never been this franchise’s strong point, especially when compared to Minus One which was released last year.

If you’ve seen both this and Minus One, this can’t compare. The visuals are better, yes, but the story, the characters, the entertainment, just aren’t there in this. As I said, the visuals are great in this, the monsters themselves look fantastic, if not incredibly cartoon-like. The sense of scale is occasionally off though. You don’t know how big they are because there’s nothing recognisable in there to compare it to, just trees, which aren’t great for establishing size because (obviously) they can vary in size. This is a huge problem with Suko, the “Baby Kong”. We only ever see him next to Kong and other similarly sized objects, all of whom tower over him. So in your head, you think “Oh, okay, he’s the size of a child”, then when he enters the fight at the end you find out he’s actually the size of a small building. Would it have killed them to have him near a human character to establish his size?

On the subject of it, the final fight could be better. It’s built up well, and does deliver in terms of titans smashing into each other. But again, it lacks the human aspect. We see buildings demolished in the fight, but there’s no sound from them, nobody screaming. Were the buildings empty or is it just lazy sound design? If they were empty, then surely a shot from the inside of one of the buildings would have been a nice thing to see? These films are impressive for what they manage on their budget, but it feels like creatively the directors are so focused on meeting the budget that they leave zero room for creativity. There are no shots which will linger with you once it’s over. There are “fuck yeah!” shots, shots which look great in trailers and on posters, but nothing that stands the test of time. Think of King Kong, the character. Odds are, you’re imagining him at the top of the tower, fighting off bi-planes (and some heteroplanes, but less than you think they’d be), NOTHING in this entire franchise has ever even attempted to be as iconic. It feels bad to say this considering the sheer amount of effort that has clearly gone into these, but creatively it’s all very lazy.

I’m aware those are very pretentious criticisms and ones which most people won’t give a shit about. Most people go into this for dumb fun, and in that aspect, it does deliver. I mean, it does count on you being able to remember far too many details from previous (forgettable) films. This is definitely spectacle film that deserves to be seen at the cinema. It’s just, dumb spectacle is no excuse for low effort. There is zero reason spectacle has to be stupid. Zero reason for it to have characters you can’t name. Zero reason for it to take no risks. That scene of Mothra is dope as fuck though.

The First Omen (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Church’s be crazy, y’all

Arkasha Stevenson is one hell of a director. TFO is a spectacularly directed feature, which is even more astounding considering it’s her debut. She has a hell of a legacy to tackle, kind of. The Omen is the first horror movie I remember scaring me, but not the first I watched. In fact, I’m not even sure it was the actual film, it might have just been a parody someone did on a British comedy show (it feels very Vic Reeves), but the image of Damian knocking his mother over the balcony is chilling, and it’s not just me who thinks so. The first Omen (as in, the original 1976 movie, not the one I’m currently reviewing) is a horror classic, the sequels and the remake? Not so much. The original is full of moments which have been referenced and parodied, the third one does have a cool moment where someone blows their head off in front of a touring school group which is cool, but it otherwise hasn’t touched public consciousness in the same way. Stevenson has the chance to do something incredible but also has the pressure of attempting to match the original. Her task is made harder by two things: 1) it is a prequel. Prequels are notoriously difficult to get right, especially for horror movies as everybody knows the villain survives, so where is the tension? 2) She’s a woman. A female-directed horror movie gets judged much more harshly than a male one. Every mistake is scrutinized, any strong female characters, or villainous male ones, are “evidence of wokeness, I mean, a woman existing? Woke!”

So it’s a pleasant surprise that reviewers have actually been kind to this. After watching, it’s easy to see why. This is a surprisingly solid horror movie. Its biggest flaws are the inevitable comparisons to both the original 1976 movie, and to the recently released Immaculate. Thankfully, the comparisons to the original don’t happen too often. It does have a character from the OG Omen as a main character, but it crucially never puts THAT character in danger. It has enough characters to throw into peril to keep you second-guessing whether they survive. It does have enough twists and turns to keep you on your toes, but one of them, the most important one, is set up TOO well, to the point where experienced film watchers are likely to have guessed it before they’re told, mainly because it’s the only way certain things make sense.

The script is pretty damn good. It actually gives a reason as to why the church is supporting the rise of Satan. Crucially, a lot of the scares aren’t just jump scares, some truly grotesque and Cronenbergian images will linger like a Cranberries song, but not as enjoyable. The childbirth scene, in particular, is horrific and is a scene that could only be done by a female director. Stevenson’s talent lies in having a female lead in a horror movie, but not making her seem like a victim, or sexualising any of the horror. When Nell Tiger Free’s Margaret is writhing around, lesser directors would have filmed it in such a way that it would resemble low-budget porn, in this it’s clear that Margaret is SUFFERING. That’s not just the directing though, Nell Tiger Free is one hell of a performer. She’s surrounded by experienced performers; Ralph Ineson, Bill Nighy etc, but Nell is the best of the lot.

I mentioned earlier that there aren’t many jump scares, but the best scare I can remember IS of the jumping variety. It’s such a simple one too, her saying “It’s not real” repeatedly, then a disembodied voice cutting in with “what’s not real?”. It’s a rare jump scare, of the almost entirely audio variety. But it’s so damn unexpected and chilling that it will fuck you up a little bit. It’s probably my favourite scare since the Eternal Darkness Bathtub scene. It could be better, it settles back down too quickly, but not quickly enough for it to be shocking. It doesn’t have enough time to really settle before it’s moved on. It’s still phenomenal but not quite perfect.

In summary, I highly recommend this. It’s not incredible, but it’s a lot better than it could be. It’s artful and confident, and I’m excited to see what Stevenson can do when she’s not shackled by the constraints of franchise rules. The “It’s all for you” moment in particular feels like it would be a much better scene without that reference. The weakest part of the movie is the most obvious allusion to what happens next; the ending where it’s revealed the child has been given to Robert Thorn and named Damian. It’s supposed to be a dramatic ending, but it’s a bit pointless. We know the child has been given to Thorn, and everybody in the audience knows what happens next. His being called Damien isn’t important. Nobody was sitting there thinking “Wait, is that baby the kid from the first movie?”. It’s not as though the film was going to end with the reveal that this is ANOTHER demon child that was given to the Thorn family after killing their child and doing a swap.

Also, the use/updating of Ave Satani doesn’t really work, which is a shame as that’s in my top five horror movie themes.

Late Night With The Devil (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Jack Delroy is a television host who courts controversy in the face of falling ratings. On Halloween, 1977, he invites a possessed girl onto the show in this found footage slice of horror gold.

LNWTD is utterly fascinating, from the opening credits all the way through to the closing you are on the edge of your seat, taking in every subtle nuance it throws at you. That’s the opening credits of the fictional television show Night Owls With Jack Delroy. The opening of the film itself? I found it kind of weak. It’s framed as a documentary investigating the original show, but this never comes up again outside of the opening. It’s alluded to that the documentary crew are the ones who uncovered the footage played from the commercial breaks. But that doesn’t really work because the black-and-white footage feels too modern and clean in the way it’s filmed, if anything that footage should be in WORSE condition than the stuff shown on television, it should feel hand-held and rough, like it was secretly filmed and kept in a loft. The documentary isn’t even needed for that to make sense, just have it as unseen stuff that happened. The other issue with the documentary-style opening is it doesn’t say much that’s not told in the film itself. And the stuff that’s not noted in the movie is alluded to or could have easily been said. If you’re a writer and you can’t figure out how to get characters to say information during a talk show, you’ve failed.

Like a portable timepiece that shouts out your sexual fantasies at random intervals; this is a deeply unsettling watch. A lot of effort has been put in to make it feel authentic to the time, from the way it is shot, to the audio cues, all the way through to the word choices. You completely buy into the fact that this is from the time. It’s helped that it’s a found footage movie that has a reason to exist. It doesn’t feel like it’s been edited together afterwards, it feels like someone just happened to record it onto a VHS when it was being shown.

The performances are all fantastic. David Dastmalchian is great as the nervous but genial host with a dark secret. I’ve only ever seen him as a supporting character, never really buying him as a lead, that’s changed. He’s perfect for this, his vocal performance, the way he carries himself, and his facial acting, wouldn’t work with a lesser actor. Personally, I thought the best performer was Ingrid Torelli. Her performance isn’t as good, but she shows more sides to her and is given more to do, I have to mention her now because in a few years, she could break out into something fantastic, and I just want it in writing I was there early.

In summary, if you’re a horror fan, you will love this. It’s a fresh gimmick based on something a lot of people will be familiar with. It’s clever, it’s well-made, and it’s very violent when it needs to be. Importantly, it actually closes. There’s no sequel hook, it’s all very self-contained, but with the possibility of literature to find out more. Definitely not enough to stretch out to a whole new film though. It won’t quite reach horror infamy, but it will be one fans of the genre will talk about.

Immaculate (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: A naive nun joins a remote convent in Italy, discovering they’re harbouring a dark secret.

I have three horror reviews to write this week: this, Late Night With The Devil, and The First Omen. I was going to review Late Night With The Devil (LNWTD, pronounced La-new-ted) first, it’s the most critically acclaimed of the three, and I have the strongest opinions regarding it. But after seeing seeing Immaculate I have to do this first. Not because my feelings towards it are particularly strong, or because I have anything important to say. I’m just not sure how I can put this and The First Omen reviews next to each other, I haven’t seen TFO (Tee-foe) yet, but there is a definite worry that they will be treading similar grounds, and I don’t want to repeat myself. Plus, if I think of any jokes after posting this, I can just use them in the TFO review. The upside of repetition in cinema.

Now onto Immaculate itself. It’s received a lot of praise, particularly for Sydney Sweeney’s performance. I’m not entirely sure I agree. The final third, she is superb, a cinematic slice of delicious cheesecake. But for most of it? She appears kind of bored. Like I said, the final third where she has the hardest stuff to do, she’s great at. But the standard conversations with others? Doesn’t feel real, with one exception. Her interactions with Sister Gwen (played by Benetta Porcaroli) are incredibly sweet and I wish I could see more of them. Sadly, Gwen is killed relatively early on. Her body is discovered in the closing section and this is filmed like it’s supposed to be a surprise. Not entirely sure it is though. The last time we saw her she was being tortured, and then she didn’t appear again for (in film time) about 6 months, obviously she’s dead. It would be a bigger shock if she wasn’t.

There is a distinct lack of surprise in Immaculate. You can pretty much plot what’s going to happen based on the synopsis, all the twists and turns are more like slight veers to the left to the left. Sorry, went a bit Beyonce there. The final third is batshit insane and I am all for it, but the lead there just isn’t that exciting. The people you expect to be shits turnout to be shits, turns out there is a massive conspiracy where the church is impregnating young nuns without their knowledge. Which is a bit stupid when you think about it, there must be millions of women who would willingly consent to that, so going after unwilling ones just seems like you’re setting yourself up to be the villain. I kind of wish that the blood they used for the procedure turned out to not be from Christ at all. There’s not a single moment where there’s any doubt that that is his blood. That’s a lot of faith. Biblical relics are not that well preserved and catalogued. There are 21 churches which claim to have the foreskin of Jesus, and that means at least 20 of them are wrong or lying unless he had 21 penises (which I think they would have mentioned in the book, but it would have meant they’d have to change the title from The Bible to The 21 Dicked Man, which won’t sell as well). So the odds that they would have the correct artifact are quite low. I do like that the film discusses how their methods are more likely to create the antichrist (and it’s implied that is what happens). But the scene where they discuss that does have someone say “If this is not the will of God, why does he not stop us?” and this is treated (even by TVTropes) as a “gotcha”. So if God allows something, this means he supports it? I think the residents of Germany in the late 1930s would have a few fucking things to say about that. As would the residents of cities hit by tsunamis and earthquakes, and people who had to watch Madame Web.

As I said, the final third is superb, and it has one of the strongest closing scenes I’ve seen since Knives Out. It’s a slow slog to get there, but it is overall worth it. This won’t end up being my favourite film of the year, not even close, but it is one I will tell people to watch if they are fans of the genre. It’s very low on jump scares, relying more on tension and atmosphere. It’s directly brilliantly (with some pretty good music choices), and I’m glad to see the horror is mostly from humanity rather than demons (which usually results in scares which are just “thing jumps at the screen but it turns out to not be real”). I do want to see a sweet friendship-based road trip dramedy starring Sydney Sweeney and Benetta Procaroli though, they bounce off each other very well and it would be a shame to waste that chemistry.

Mothers’ Instinct (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Housewives Alice and Celine are best friends and neighbours who seem to have it all. However, when a tragic accident shatters the harmony of their lives, guilt, suspicion and paranoia begin to unravel their sisterly bond

Anne Hathaway is quite good, isn’t she? I know that it might come as a shock that a multiple award-winning actress is quite good at this whole “acting” thing, but it must be said. She’s a big part of why Mothers’ Instinct works. She plays Celine as somebody of whom you’re never quite sure of her intentions. She is either a cold-hearted manipulative woman who is trying to gaslight Alice into madness and steal her family, or she’s just a grieving mother who is doing her best to cope with an unimaginable loss? It’s not so much that flits between the two depending on the scene, it’s that at all times she could conceivably be any one of them. I’d be interested in watching it twice again, each time focusing on assuming a different thing.

Actually, that’s a lie, I’m not interested in watching this again. As good as this Mothers’ Instinct is (and it is finely crafted), nothing about it really warrants a second watch. There’s nothing inherently wrong with it, but like a lot of films based around a mystery or possible misunderstanding, once you realise the truth, is there much left to it?

As I said, this was directed by Benoît Delhomme. Obviously not the first time the name “Benoit” has been associated with dead children. Delhomme has a history in cinematography, with this being his directorial debut. He does a really good job. There are some very interesting shot choices, his use of angles to suggest uncertainty is brilliant. It’s a really basic trick, but he utilises it perfectly.

Unlike a lot of thrillers/horrors, the majority of this movie takes place during the day. Lit by natural sunlight, small lamps, and of course, a lot of gaslighting. The original film Duelles took the modern setting of the original book (Derrière la haine) and changed the setting to the ’60s. That time change has been kept in this English language version, and it suits the themes perfectly. There are so many moments that wouldn’t be as effective if it was set in a modern age. It would still work, but it hits more when every character is repressed by the time period they are living in. You don’t need to ask why they’re not doing certain things, because “they’re women in the 60s, and that’s just not done” is there. I listen to a podcast called How To Survive, which deals with how to survive (hey, that’s where they get the title) in certain films, usually horror. I highly doubt they are going to cover this, but if they did, then I imagine it would just come down to a single word: therapy. It’s mentioned that Alice has had issues with mental health in the past, to the point of being briefly institutionalised, but never being allowed to talk about it. Celine is clearly going through some shit and NEEDS someone to talk to. But since her friends are abandoning her because everybody finds it too awkward. At one point, she is flat-out told “You shouldn’t be here, your presence is making everyone sad”. The characters are clearly all broken, which fuels their paranoia and decisions. So in a way, there is no good, there is no evil, and the real villain is trauma. But in another, more accurate way, the villain is the person who killed a bunch of people.

I still can’t figure out why I didn’t love this movie. It had a good story, great performances, and it was very well made. But it never quite warmed its way into my heart. It’s technically brilliant, but colder than a British summer before global warming. It’s a bit like its own main characters; constantly unsure of itself, constantly figuring itself out whilst it waits to find its footing. It’s a very easy film to be impressed by, a very easy film to praise, but it’s a very difficult film to be excited about. That’s its main problem.

Spaceman (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Jakub Prochazka (Adam Sandler) is a Czech astronaut, six months into a space mission and starting to feel the effects of both isolation and the growing emotional distance between him and his wife. Also, there’s a telepathic spider called Hanuš

I have not been kind to Netflix movies lately. In my defence, they haven’t been good. I think 2023 was the first time since I started this site that every film in the “Amazeballs” section at the end of the year was a cinematic release. I can’t remember the last time a Netflix original movie excited me, and then delivered on that promise. Actually, I can, it was Glass Onion. My hopes aren’t that much higher for something that’s not only a Netflix original but also an Adam Sandler film. Don’t get me wrong, Adam Sandler is capable of doing great things. To the point where I don’t actually think it’s as much a surprise as people say it is when he gives a good performance. But his Netflix stuff has seemed to be an excuse for him and his friends to get paid vacations.

Sandler does give a great performance though. As I said, it’s no longer surprising when he does so. What is a surprise, is that his character is supposed to be Czech. We need a Czech actor. It’s not that he gives a bad performance, but it’s like if Michael Sheen played Martin Luther King, no matter how good he is, you can never fully buy into it. The other performers are all good, and it’s impossible for Carey Mulligan to not be great, Paul Dano gives an INCREDIBLE voice performance, to the point where you don’t realise it’s him. Really though, this is a showcase for Sandler. It’s essentially him screaming out “What the fuck do I need to do for you awards fuckers to take me seriously?”, turns out the answer, by the way, is “Don’t work with Kevin James”.

I’ve criticised isolation-based films for focusing too much on flashbacks, and how doing so means the characters don’t actually feel isolated because half of their screen time is spent with people (whatever that Colin Firth one was, Eternals etc). But here the flashbacks are shot in such a way that they are distinct memories, it does something rare in cinema; it makes us genuinely believe that he is remembering those things. The way they’re done, they feel like actual memories rather than long-distance not-instant replay. They’re slightly “off”, they’re shot differently from modern life, and there’s a sense of ethereal otherness to the whole thing.

Gonna give a weird criticism; the spider moves too fluidly. It looks fantastic, but it doesn’t have that slight jerky/hydraulic leg movement that spiders have. The limbs are more like a cat than a spider. Now this could be argued it’s because it’s a space spider, not a land-based one, but still. Jakub also doesn’t seem to respond to Hanuš the way you’d expect. He just kind of backs away, tries to kill it, then comes back and starts talking to it. He doesn’t view it like the horror he would think it is. Spiders are creepy bastards anyway, giant space spiders that can talk? That’s pure horror. Yet it doesn’t ever really feel like he believes that. He treats it more as a mere inconvenience.

In summary, if this was at the cinema I’d say you should probably see it, but because it’s on Netflix? If you have that streaming service, you should definitely watch it. Set aside some time on a Sunday afternoon after dinner, put it on, and then get ready to feel something (not yourself). I should say though, no matter how good it is, it’s never good enough to stop you thinking of the Babylon Zoo song.