Month: February 2025

Captain America: Brave New World (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Captain America punches things.

I’m assuming you guys have seen The Producers, right? If not, I’ll briefly explain the plot (spoilers for a nearly 60-year-old film by the way). The two characters (Leo and Max), attempt to produce a play that’s so bad that it gets cancelled quickly, allowing them to earn money (nobody checks the books on failures, so they can accept more funding and give away over 100% of stock). Why am I mentioning this? One, because it’s a great film and you should watch it. Two, so you can understand just how good season 4 of Curb Your Enthusiasm is. Three: because are the studio heads at Disney trying to do something similar with the MCU? This is not because of the film, but because of the trailer. Captain America: Brave New World (or CA: BNW, pronounced Car-Bo-new) is a good movie. The failure is in terms of the marketing. What was in the trailer? Red Hulk. What was the focus of all the merchandise? Red Hulk. What’s on the posters? Red Hulk.

But this isn’t really about Red Hulk. He appears in one scene near the very end. It’s also supposed to be a twist. It’s something that’s foreshadowed and built up to, so you wonder what’s happening to the character. It would be like if the marketing campaign for Saw 3D was based entirely around the return of Cary Elwes and this time he’s a villain. The Wait For Red Hulk means that CA: BNW feels like a prequel. You’re not watching to see what happens, you’re watching to see HOW something you know will happen happens. I’m incredibly disappointed that they did that. Not just because it ruins the film, but also because it makes it seem like they chased “butts in seats” rather than compelling storytelling.

It’s not a prequel, obviously. It’s a sequel. It’s not a sequel to the Captain America films, that would be too obvious. It’s a sequel to Hulk. With returning characters and cameos from Hulk, instead of from the first three Captain America movies. I get it, it’s a new Captain America, so villains from the first three movies wouldn’t have any beef with New Cap, but they certainly have more in common with him than the people the film decides to use.

That aside; CA: BNW is actually a lot of fun if you don’t stop to think about it for more than a few seconds. It has some decent side characters who are worth investing in. They’re well-written enough that if they died, it would mean something, so the action scenes actually have tension in them. It also has a genuinely great performance from Carl Lumbly. His performance has SO much emotional weight behind it. Giancarlo Esposito is also good, but not in it anywhere near as long as he should be.

That is a common criticism of the MCU. It puts so many eggs of character in its narrative cake that it ends up inedible and confusing (a bit like this metaphor). That’s definitely the case here. You could eliminate one of the villains (and probably the other black widow) and it wouldn’t affect the narrative that much. The MCU has a habit of changing films in post-production a lot, but it never seems to have “make it streamlined” as a goal.

It’s inevitable that some people will hate this, it’s now cool to hate the MCU, plus it has a black lead, so that’s going to annoy some “people” automatically because “WOOOOOOOOOKE!”. It doesn’t deserve that. It’s not as good as Winter Soldier, but I found more to like about BNW than I did the first Cap movie. The main villain is logical and is awarded a decent redemption arc. It would have helped to give them a few more moments of humanity, but there’s enough to give a teaser that he isn’t a complete shit before the full heel turn. I hope the other MCU films this year are better (especially Fantastic Four), but if this is the worst then it’s going to be a cracking year for them. Most of the flaws are down to (presumed) studio interference, so it’s hard to be annoyed at the creatives for that.

September 5 (2024) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: A retelling of the events of the 1972 Munich Massacre, from the perspective of the real heroes: Television journalists.

I went into this semi-blind (and also battling a HORRIFIC fever but that’s beside the point). I knew rough details about the event, but not enough to recall. So I didn’t know how many died, how it ended etc. This is because I haven’t seen Munich before September 5, and I also haven’t seen any of the (checks how many days there are between January 1 and September 5) 247 films in the series that are set before this (I have seen Friday the 13th, but that doesn’t give a month so I’m not sure if it’s set before or after September 5).

I think that ignorance of reality (great band name btw) actually helped though. It meant that the film could pull off a rug-pull. If I did know a lot about the event, then there’s a moment to the end which would have seemed a bit weird, you’d sit there thinking “hang on, that’s not what happened”, before the truth is actually revealed. As should be obvious by now, I won’t be judging this on historical accuracy, as I don’t know enough about it to do so. I didn’t see any characters use an iPhone or talk about the series finale of Gavin and Stacy, so I’m taking it as historically accurate.

Accurate, it may be, but is it really necessary? For those lucky enough to not pay attention to the news, the Israel/Palestine conflict has turned incredibly heated over the last year or so. With that in mind, it’s kind of uncomfortable to watch something like this, which at times feels like propaganda in terms of how it treats the conflict. Fun fact, one of the characters in this movie (Peter Jennings) was actually pro-Palestine. That’s why he refused to refer to Black September as “terrorists” on air. In the movie? His reasons for doing so are “it’s too early so we don’t know”. So the only pro-Palestinian voice in the movie has been neutered, and I’m sure that’s for creative reasons.

Other than that? I’ve never been so bored whilst also being fascinated. The story is interesting, but visually it’s lacking. If you like watching people speak on phones, this is the movie for you. I know there’s only so much you can do with a grounded story, but it does kind of feel like a documentary where someone has just grabbed a camera and started filming. The performances are all fine, but none of them really stand out.

The performances aren’t helped by the writing, despite characters expressing misgivings, they only ever feel surface level. So when they realise “Hang on, the hostage-takers are watching our coverage, so they know what the local law enforcement are planning”, none of them feel haunted by it. When they get caught lying at the end, a point is made that “you still did the right thing”, even when they clearly didn’t.

When the characters aren’t just talking, when they’re actually DOING, September 5 is fascinating. It may just be my educational background, but I loved watching them prepare everything. Seeing them set up the cameras, prepare the insets etc is delightful competency porn. As a piece of historical viewing, September 5 is incredible. It does a fantastic job of showing just how the team pulled off what they did. Which is why I wish this was a documentary instead. Trying to shoehorn the true tale into a traditional 3-act structure hampers the story they’re trying to tell. It also stops them from providing historical context, since all the characters obviously know what led to it, they never bother telling the audience. On the one hand, this is incredibly realistic, but on the other, it does leave some holes. What is the status of the Israel/Palestine war at this time? Is there active fighting? Has there been a recent ceasefire? These are important questions which the characters already know, but the audience doesn’t. Considering it’s about the news industry, it would have been such an easy fix too; just provide a news montage of a brief history of the Olympics/the conflict.

In summary; fascinating story, not too interesting a film. Reminds me of that film about the Chilean miners a few years ago.

Heart Eyes (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick synopsis: Every Valentine’s Day, a serial killer attacks couples. This year is no different.

I watched this the same day as Love Hurts, another Valentine’s Day-based movie with a twist. Heart Eyes is better, I’ll lead with that. Not to say it’s perfect, I have very specific problems with it that I’ll go into later, but it is mostly a pretty fun watch. My big issue is one that I can easily see some people actually liking, it’s all down to personal preference, as all reviews are.

I don’t think the script of the original Scream (as in the movie, not the painting, the script for that is only worth 1000 thousand words) is as highly regarded as it should be. It’s not just a horror movie, it’s a well-crafted mystery. There are clues, red herrings, along with lots of foreshadowing. The reveal is stupendous, when you hear it, you feel as if you should go “Ohhhh, well that’s obvious now I know the answer”. You don’t get that with Heart Eyes. Part of that is because it doesn’t build up the background characters that much. Scream had a large pool of suspects to draw from, so as you watched it, your brain was juggling between them, trying to figure out which one could be the killer. Heart Eyes only provides you with one option, doing all it can to signpost that this person is the killer. So either there’s no mystery, or it’s wasted its time giving you only red herrings instead of actual clues, neither of which is particularly narratively satisfying. The reveal itself is…..well it won’t end up on the list of greatest killer reveals, put it that way.

That’s a shame because if the mystery aspect was handled better, Heart Eyes would be a top 5 horror movie of the year, easily (probably still will be, but it is at risk). It does what I like my horror movies to do; have non-horror moments that are still interesting to watch. The central romance between Ally and Jay is lovely to see. It helps that Olivia Holt and Mason Gooding have really good chemistry. Their meet-cute is legit adorable. Take out the murders and you could easily frame this as a straight romcom.

So how about the horror moments? They’re fucking great. Companion (the other love-themed horror movie of the month) was a better movie, but Heart Eyes had MUCH better kills. They’re brutal, but not gratuitous. It doesn’t shy away from showing you the outcomes, people get squashed in machines and there’s a lot of blood, people get holes in their heads, and stabbed in places. “Holes in the head” does sometimes mean weird body physics in film, we’ve all seen horror movies where the killer punches someone and somehow their fist makes a hole in their skull. Moments like that can really pull you out of the movie because they’re not scary, they turn horror movies into cartoons with characters made of paper. Thankfully, that’s not the case here. Yes, characters do get attacked and end up looking like a polo mint, but the way it happens often makes sense in terms of physics, you can easily see how what happened COULD break through someone’s skull. The attacks all have weight to them, when people get hit with an object, you can feel the pain it causes, and you know they’re not going to get up. This helps it feel scarier and more violent, the realism makes it easy to buy into the concept that this is real.

What also helps sell the illusion of reality is how people react. They panic but try to not overdo it. There’s no “everybody in the country locks themselves in their homes”, because (as COVID showed), people wouldn’t do that. But people still took precautions (just like COVID), because everybody realised this is a big deal and to not do at least something would be incredibly selfish (just like…..oh wait, not like COVID, people were selfish during that). Restaurants that take bookings on that day carry out checks for weapons because you would in that situation. What’s not realistic is that this is still America, and there’s no “just because there’s a serial killer around doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be able to bring my gun everywhere I go. Yes, even into a restaurant, table for one since my wife left me, but gun didn’t. Gun still loves me” pushback from Fox News.

For two-thirds of this movie, I thoroughly enjoyed it, but the reveal REALLY let it down. As did two characters who were just unrealistically stupid, even for a horror movie. It is still a really solid 7.5/10, but it could have been so much more.

Love Hurts (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick synopsis: Marvin is a mild-manner realtor whose past (and ex-girlfriend) comes back to haunt him

I like Ke Huy Quan, he’s one of those people who you can easily imagine being late for an awards show because he needed to buy a coat for a stranger he saw who looked cold. I’m also becoming a fan of Marshawn Lynch, who seems to always go all out into ridiculousness (for proof of this, watch Bottoms. As in, the film called Bottoms, don’t watch strangers arsecheeks, that’s weird).

So with that in mind, it kind of (love) hurts me to say that this movie is not good. The concept is good, but the execution is lacking. The fight scenes are mostly okay, but some are shot with a lack of clarity so it’s difficult to figure out what is going on. It also suffers from a lack of “that” scene. There’s no fight scene that you can tell people “You need to see this” and pull it up on Youtube to show them. There are attempts at this (i get the feeling the fight in the club near the end was an attempt at this). There a few moments within the scenes which are fun, teeth being ripped out by duct tape was a particularly gruesome and wince-inducing moment.

There’s a foundation of a good idea here; an action-based romcom could work. But the romantic notions feel really tacked on. There are two main romances, both of which feel kind of abusive in different ways. I had no desire to see the romances work, I didn’t buy into them as real or heartwarming. We’re not given a reason to care about the potential relationships. I did have a fairly decent joke/Always Sunny reference here, but I had to delete it as it will suit my review of Matt and Mara much more accurately.

If you took away the romance angle then it would improve the experience, but it would also mean the film would lose its hook, its gimmick, and would then have to advertise itself as “a mild-mannered man turns out to be a hitman”, which is kind of cliche at this point. That’s another aspect I felt was underdeveloped; we are constantly told how Marvin was a vicious hitman, dangerous and incredibly sadistic. But we never really see it. We get flashbacks of the aftermath, but we don’t get moments of the past version of him torturing and harming people; so it’s hard to buy him as a reformed hitman, because we only see him on the defensive. He doesn’t even kill the people hunting him, in fact it seems like he’s doing his best to make sure they don’t die. I know “he’s reformed and now a nice guy”, but if someone is trying to decapitate you, I think you’re morally allowed to kick them in the head until their brain resembles blueberry pie.

The lack of deaths leads to my other problem; the lack of consequences. Characters get tased in public (with witnesses), their are fights in offices (which at the very least, the cleaners would notice when they come in the next day), and his boss gets murdered. None of those moments matter. The police don’t seem to be ienterested in this random uptick in violence, there’s no news report about someone being found dead with a straw in his eye, none of the action scenes have any consequence, they’re just levels in a video game the main character has to get through.

Now onto the good, the performances are all good. And there are moments where the fight scene works. It’s also sweet at times (but never enough to keep momentum). And I do appreciate that is at least TRYING something different. There are also some very funny moments.

In summary, a mediocre film that’s about 2 rewrites away from being a 10/10.

Companion (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: A weekend getaway turns bloody and violent when a subservient android that’s built for human companionship goes haywire.

First Scream (the “new” one, not the original), now Companion. Why do female partners of Jack Quaid keep getting set on fire in horror movies? Amber Midthunder should be relieved that Novocaine will be an action movie instead of a horror (a movie I’m genuinely looking forward to by the way). On the subject of Quaid, why hasn’t anybody cast him as the son of Joshua Jackson in anything? He looks more like him than he does his own dad. Anyway, enough dilly-dallying, on with the actual review.

Companion is god damn delight. More of a thriller than it is a traditional horror movie. That doesn’t underplay the deaths by the way, when characters do die, it’s horrific. Some of the deaths are incredibly cathartic too, it’s good to see bad things happen to bad people. A lot of horror movie writers know this, but make the mistake of writing every character to be an insufferable dickbag (were there any tears for any of the characters in Unfriended outside of tears that it took so long?). In those cases, while you get catharsis, you’re also spending all your time with characters you don’t like, so it’s not an enjoyable experience. While most of the characters in Companion are unlikeable, it’s in a very human way and they’re still entertaining to watch. A lot of is due to the performances; there’s something inherently likeable about Jack Quaid even when he is being an incel douch, Harvey Guillen is too adorable for words, and Megan Suri? There’s something about her performance that is intoxicating to see, she has tremendous presence and feels like she’s destined for leading roles. It’s hard to explain why without giving away spoilers, but Lukas Cage pulls off a fascinating performance.

The story? It’s interesting. Yes, it can be argued that the trailer gives away too much, but Companion still has enough tricks up its sleeves to entertain you. You go in knowing what is happening, but the “why” is just as interesting to see play out. I like that Companion is unashamedly feminist AF, taking multiple shots at male entitlement and inadequacy. I’ve seen some defenders of the character in this, saying “he’s just lonely, why is that seen as a bad thing to want someone?” which would be a fair point, loneliness is a huge issue and one that does need a solution. But it’s very telling that when he’s asked to create his “perfect” partner, he tones down her intelligence significantly. He doesn’t want an equal partner, the robot is not to provide love or to share experiences with; it’s to fuck and to have it fawn over him.

There is a feeling that it is holding back at times. She increases her intelligence, but it doesn’t change that much of the plot (although it may be why she decides to switch language at one point in a scene which is, well it’s genius). There are other moments like that; where it comes up with a cool idea but then doesn’t do the most with it.

Those are very minor nitpicks though. Companion is among the best films I’ve seen in a while. It’s slick, stylish without being overly so, violent without being cruel, and it invites discussion and conversation. It’s smart without being pretentious, modern without risking being dated quickly, and digestible without being dumb. I want more horror movies like this. I also want to see Sophie Thatcher in more stuff, as she seems cool. On an equal level with Anya Taylor-Joy for expressive eyes perfect for horror movies. I caught a preview of this a few days before it came out, and I already know I’m going to buy it when it comes out on blu-ray.

Saturday Night (2024) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: The world is not ready for the debut episode of Saturday Night Live, but then again, neither are the cast.

I need to start with what will be the core premise of this review: Saturday Night Live is a huge deal, despite fluctuations in quality over the years (and people who say the modern series are the worst have obviously never watched season 6), it’s still a big deal culturally and commercially.

In America. Outside? It only really gets mentioned when a guest is particularly noteworthy or controversial, and even then it never breaks through the cultural barrier past “people who are already aware of American pop culture”. The only time I have seen it mentioned lately my main thoughts aren’t “That’s funny”, it’s “FFS can someone tell these performers to keep a straight face for five minutes?” Americans reading this may feel a bit smug, thinking “knowledge of culture isn’t needed to see a film, just go see it”, and then refuse to watch the Robbie Williams monkey film because they don’t know who he is.

I have seen the first season of SNL, so I’m aware of who most of the characters in this are. That’s a good thing, as Saturday Night assumes you know them, and makes almost no effort to let you know who everybody is. Saturday Night is made for people who already know about the making of the show, and want to see it onscreen. There’s nothing to bring in the casuals. It never escapes the shadow of reality or does much to escape the incredibly specific fan service. The fan service is an issue because it creates a weirdness. We see things happen, like wondering what can happen when you mix Jim Belushi and a bee costume. That only works if you’re aware of what happened in the show, but if you’re aware of what happened, then you already know the first episode of SNL worked, so there’s no drama. At times it needs you to be unaware of reality, and at others, it depends on it for the jokes to work.

The performances are f*cking fantastic though. Cory Michael Smith as Chevy Chase is funnier than anything the real Chevy Chase has done in years (with the exception of the time that bitter old fuck fell over). Dylan O’Brien is surprisingly unrecognisable as Dan Aykroyd, disappearing completely into the role. I wish Emily Fairn (Laraine Newman) and Ella Hunt (Gilda Radnor) were given more to do as they seem pretty good in those roles (and I hella miss Gilda Radnor and love to see more of her, even if it is just a representation of her). In terms of “most like the performer they’re portraying”, Lamorne Morris as Garrett Morris is probably the best.

Saturday Night does contain some very funny moments. I particularly liked it when the writers clashed with Joan Carbunkle, who demanded they censor some of their more risque moments. The profane reaction to her demands are damn hilarious, and I want more of that. It’s one of the few times the movie stands still and lets you observe what’s happening, rather than quickly whipping around to the next historical moment.

I’d have absolutely loved it if this was a TV show instead, where we were given more time to know the characters, where the three-act structure of each episode was based around things we didn’t know, rather than the only thing we did.

Reitman has pulled off a FANTASTIC job of recreating NBC in the mid 70’s, but what he’s not done is given a reason to care about it. We’re not an audience, we’re voyeurs being taken for a ride through a world we’re not given a grounding in. It did make me watch SNL again, so yay that I guess?

A Complete Unknown (2024) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Dylan goes electric! Eventually.

Bob Dylan is an odd kind of celebrity. If you asked someone “do you recognise the name Bob Dylan?”, the majority of the English-speaking Western world would say yes. They could also probably name some of his songs. “Now, here are five photos of men dressed in casual clothes. Which one is Bob Dylan?” would be a much harder question. It’s not just age, his look is oddly fluent. At times he looks like one of the most handsome men who’s existed, and at other times he looks like he’s about to ask you for spare change so he can buy a bottle of White Lightning. It’s why I’m Not There worked despite featuring a multitude of Dylans. All of this is a long way for me to say that I’m not entirely opposed to Timothee Chalamet as the title role. Yes, I had objections to his singing abilities in Wonka, but if you think it’s weird someone doesn’t sing Bob Dylan songs in perfect pitch, then you’ve never listened to Bob Dylan.

The performances were some of my favourite parts of A Complete Unknown (Or, ACU, pronounced Ack-oo), Monica Barbaro as Joan Baez is a particular highlight. Edward Norton is okay but is occasionally a bit too “Mr Rogers”, which he may have been in real life, I don’t know. Boyd Holbrook is an unexpectedly good Cash, not quite as good as Phoenix was, but good enough that you don’t sit there thinking “That’s not Phoenix”. I was pleasantly surprised with how well Scoot McNairy performed as Woody Guthrie. Not because I don’t rate him as a performer, but because at the time, Woody Guthrie was in very poor health due to his battle with Huntington’s Disease. That’s a very hard disease to pull off on screen, especially when it’s at the stage it was here. If you go too far it can come off as unrealistic and kind of offensive, but if you don’t go far enough then it downplays how horrific it can be. McNairy has a difficult balance to achieve but manages it. Best of all, nobody is a vocal failure in terms of singing either.

On the downside? The script itself is lacking. It’s kind of dull at times, suffering from a lack of focus. It’s primarily about a singular incident, the 1965 Newport Folk Festival. You know, a time when instead of getting offended at silly things like sexual assault and unelected billionaires in charge of everything, people got offended at things that really mattered, such as black people sitting on a bus, and a folk musician playing an electric guitar. That’s partly why it’s difficult to buy into this. Yes, it was a HUGE deal, but it’s something so incredibly stupid that it’s difficult to build an effective opposition. The people against him aren’t given enough of a defence that they seem logical. I know, the reality is unrealistic and all, it’s the same issue that films about MLK have, the viewpoints of his opposition were so ridiculous in reality it’s difficult to showcase them onscreen in an effective way.

It’s not helped by how the narrative doesn’t seem to be building towards that moment. It’s just a loose series of events connected by its main character, which happens to end at the folk festival. It’s not detailed enough to count as a proper biography, so you don’t really learn enough about him. Much like the Elvis film from a few years ago, he goes from (pardon the obvious) a complete unknown to a massive star almost instantly in screen time. It’s almost like ACU feels it has to tell us he’s a big deal, and how he became a big deal, before getting to the main crux, but then realised it ran out of time so had to fit the whole Folk Festival plot in very quickly.

I liked some of the character set-up though. The moments between him and Baez on stage are beautiful, particularly when that chemistry causes Dylans’ relationship to break up. No words need to be said, the chemistry between the two, and his girlfriend noticing that and storming off, says it all. Looking at it now, most of my favourite moments from this did involve the music. The bits of him complaining about his record label forcing him to record an album of mostly covers? Meh. Dylan is surrounded by industry suits and feels like a musical prostitute. Okay, nothing special. Dylan sings The Times They Are A-Changing for the first time and the crowd spontaneously joins in? Magic. Dylan plays Song To Woody to Woody as Pete Seeger watches? Beautiful.

As a tool to learn about Bob Dylan? It’s not that great. As a way for people who are already aware of Bob Dylan to see some of the moments onscreen? It’s pretty cool. If you know the players involved in this story, it is fascinating to see them. If you don’t? There’s not enough for you to delve into.

Much like Bob Dylan himself, it feels like ACU truly comes alive when it’s onstage, and the day-to-day life is kind of not worth examining.

Wolf Man (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Blake Lovell (Christopher Abbot) takes his wife and kid on a vacation to his childhood home. His vacation-as-marriage-counselling efforts are somewhat thwarted by a therianthropic threat intent on killing.

I’m a fan of Christopher Abbott, based ENTIRELY on the fact that I liked the first film I saw him in (On The Count Of Three). Wolf Man having him as the lead, combined with it being made by Leigh Whannell (writer of Saw, director of The Invisible Man) got my hopes up high.

Maybe too high. I didn’t dislike Wolf Man. The last wolf-based movie I watched at the cinema was (I think, but I could be wrong) Wolf, a film so bad that I live-blogged it for Halloween a few years ago, and I haven’t live-blogged anything since. This is nowhere near as bad as that. The score on Metacritic currently stands at 50%, which seems fair. It’s as middle-of-the-road as a dead badger. Not much really stands out as either a negative or a positive.

The biggest negative for me was the story itself. The cause of the transformation feels unearned. It’s as close to “character was bitten by a zombie, but the audience doesn’t realise” as it’s possible to get. He’s in an accident, stuff happens, and he gets scratched by the “wolf” attacking him. He starts transforming later on, and you do get the feeling that you’ve missed something. It’s all the more baffling because near the end of his transformation, there is a moment where his leg is grabbed and he’s attacked. That would have made a much more logical cause for the infection, and it wouldn’t have been in the middle of a car crash scene. The reveal of who the Wolf Man that’s attacking them is is so obvious that I’m not sure it even counts as a twist. “Hmmmm, this character mysteriously disappeared 30 years ago in this very area, and now we’re being attacked by something with slight human characteristics that’s been haunting these wolves for decades. I wonder if those two things are linked?”

The visual effects are fine, I guess? Nothing will ever top An American Werewolf In London for a transformation sequence with weight and body horror, there are moments where Wolf Man comes close, but then there are also moments where it looks a little bit goofy.

On the plus side, the performances are good, Abbot is good enough that you forgive him for Kraven The Hunter (although I completely forgot he was even in that), the biggest issue I have with Matilda Firth is that she was born in 2014 and that makes me feel old. I was most impressed with Julia Garner. She has such a great look, it’s a mix between 80’s Scream Queen and Classic Hollywood Beauty mixed with a smidgen of Crazy Art Teacher/Madonna. She’s in the new Fantastic Four movie which I’m now looking forward to 12% more because of her involvement.

I also have to praise Wolf Man for the scenes from Blake’s world. The visuals, the audio etc all combine to create something new and also make sense. Once the colour change happens you somehow INSTANTLY know that we’re now in his perspective. It would have been so easy to demonstrate it by saying, “This is what he can see,” in a POV shot, but keeping it in a third-person viewpoint is much more visually interesting. It also allows for transitions between Blake’s version of reality and reality reality to be smoother than a Barry White ballad. As a writer, it’s easy to see moments where you think “I would not have done that”, but as a director, it’s difficult to not be thoroughly impressed with what Whannell has pulled off. I have criticised this film, but I appreciate that it made an effort. It instilled emotional scenes, it added character depth so they all seem like actual humans as opposed to just “characters in a horror movie”. So while I have criticised it, I would MUCH rather something like this exist than “Generic Horror Movie Number 57”.

Here (2024) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Multiple generations of couples and families inhabit the same home over the course of a century.

I knew one thing before sitting down to watch this: the CGI used to de-age Tom Hanks was not good. I have to be honest, that didn’t bother me that much. There are moments where you can see the CGI and you’re brought out of the narrative, but it doesn’t happen anywhere near as much as it could.

Here is a fascinating watch, all taking place at the exact same location over the course of hundreds of years in a non-linear fashion. The non-linear nature was a smart choice because it allows you to see how actions can influence people years later. It also allows for more interesting transitions because you can see the changes.

That leads me to the visual downside. Here doesn’t fade directly from one scene to the next, there’s also no attempt to make it look like it’s one scene. Instead, it brings up a small box on the screen which contains the same location at a different time or with different people, it’s only once you get used to that new scene that the movie moves on fully. It’s visually compelling, but there’s one major drawback. It makes it difficult to be invested in the current scene as you’re always seeing what’s next. It would be like if the “here’s what’s up next” part of television shows happened halfway through the episode instead of at the end. The constant look into the future stops you from focusing on the present, Here never exists in the moment, instead just constantly dangling the narrative carrot in front of you and waiting for you to catch up.

As much as it is cool to see it through the different time periods, there’s a definite focus on what happened after 1945; with the characters from then onwards being the ones we see the most of. To be honest, they’re the only ones needed. Yes, the look into the Lenni-Lenape couple and their courtship and burial rituals are interesting, and the William Franklin connection does come into play in the present-day scenes, but they’re not needed. They feel like narrative sorbets designed to cleanse our palate. The post-Young scenes also aren’t that interesting, seemingly just there to remind us that COVID existed, and police racism still does. If anybody watched this movie without those scenes, nobody would say “hey! This family drama set from 1945-2000 doesn’t focus on 2020 pandemics and race relations enough”. It feels like they were put in there just because Zemeckis feels this is an “important” movie, and “important” movies need to discuss themes.

I hate to sound like a Daily Mail reader, but this needed less politics. If it focused just on the family and their life in the house, it would be a much more interesting watch. I can accept the scenes of the house being built, because the house is a character, so seeing how it was “birthed” could also tie in thematically, but we didn’t need the inventor, the wannabe flier etc. If you cut out all the fluff, it would be much shorter. That’s not too big an improvement, as timing isn’t an issue. The “here’s what’s next” nature of the visuals means that even when you’re not interested, you’re still paying attention, so it flies by much quicker than it should.

In summary, it’s an interesting art experience, not a great movie. As much as I did enjoy the narrative, it feels like it’s trying too hard to move you. It’s so heavy-handed that if it slapped you it would knock you out. As Peter Sobczynski said in his review posted on rogerebert.com “there is a point when you find yourself thinking that the only thing that Zemeckis hasn’t thrown into the mix is a needle drop of ‘Our House’ and then he proceeds to do just that”. It’s not a terrible film, but it’s not one that wouldn’t have worked better as a 20 minute short instead. Also, a simply terrible title that makes it really awkward to talk about.

Nosferatu (2024) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Do you really need me to tell you the story for this? Just watch the original.

There was a lot of hype for this. I have been excited since I first heard of it back in 2016, even mentioning how I was looking forward to it in my review of The Witch (or The VVitch). Many journalists and critics raved about early screenings of it.

But then I heard from actual people; moviegoers who I like and respect. Their feedback wasn’t quite as positive. And I agree with them, I was not a fan of this movie. For whatever reason, I just didn’t care about what I was seeing. I haven’t seen the original from the 1920s, but I know it (mainly through the Kill Count video I recently watched). At no point while watching New-sferatu did I feel I was watching something original. It never felt like anything other than a remake. It’s so heavily indebted to its sources that it never feels like it has its own identity.

My other issue is the filming style. A lot of dialogue is delivered straight to the camera, from the receiving person’s POV. As such, there’s a disconnect between everybody, it kind of reminds me of television shows made during COVID where everybody had to socially distance themselves.

Eggers is a fantastic filmmaker, there’s no doubt about that. The visual style is arresting, with every frame mesmerising and haunting, particularly with the use of light and shadow. As a storyteller? I’m afraid that’s his weakness. None of the characters seem that interesting, Ellen Hunter, in particular feeling more of a storytelling device than an actual character. The title character also doesn’t seem that interesting. He’s played well, looks good, but the character itself doesn’t seem to have any presence; when he’s not onscreen, you don’t feel him looming over the narrative.

The performances are fine, Lily-Rose Depp has a haunted look which really suits the character and themes, Nicholas Hoult was made for these movies, and Dafoe continues to be fucking weird. Dafoe and Eggers work well together, their styles suit each other.

Like I said; all the technical parts? Brilliant. All the parts that require how to make a movie? Brilliant. All the parts that require imagination and heart? Lacking. Remakes should showcase and do what couldn’t be done in the original. All we have here is more of the same. It doesn’t remind me of classic Dracula stories, what it does remind me of? Gus Van Sant’s remake of Psycho.