Fear Street: Prom Queen (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: Shadyside High’s 1988 prom queen election becomes deadly for underdog Lori as candidates are targeted.

A few years ago, I changed the focus of this site from “write an article twice a week, which will sometimes consist of reviews” to “review every film I see that’s a new release”. Despite that new policy, I didn’t review the Fear Street trilogy. I’ve reviewed Netflix exclusives before, so that wasn’t the reason. It was because I couldn’t figure out whether to review them as separate entities or count them as one. If there was a bigger break between them, I would have done them separately, because I would have watched them separately. But the way they were released almost made it seem like they wanted you to binge-watch all three. So they felt too interconnected for me to treat them as separate entities.

If I had, I would have been kinder than I am towards Fear Street: Prom Queen (FS: PQ, Fish Pee-queue). I have issues with the original trilogy, but it felt better than this. Prom Queen’s biggest problem is one of horror identity. It doesn’t seem to know whether it’s dumb fun, where you’re supposed to watch and cheer the chaos, or if its supposed to scare and shock you. So it ties itself up in knots trying to serve both.

It’s not necessarily a bad film; it’s just incredibly forgettable. I watched it three days ago, and I’ve already forgotten every character’s name. I remember being incredibly 80s. In fact, it’s so 80s that it’s trying to ban the promotion of homosexuality in British schools using the EXACT same methods that people in the 2020s would use to spread hate against trans people.

The main negatives lie with the script. Most of the events happen over the course of one night, but part of the charm comes from the juxtaposition between the violent deaths and the joyful prom. Which means the prom characters need to be ignorant of the deaths. The script needs to be clever to do it, and Prom Queen isn’t smart enough. Characters split up from the prom scenes just so they can be killed off, and it doesn’t feel natural the way they do it.

On the upside, when it decides to let loose, it’s spectacular. The massacre in the actual prom is wonderfully violent and slick. It’s pure chaos and bloodshed. It’s here where the movie soars, when we see it at its best. It’s bloody, funny, and bloody funny. It also leads into the final scene at the house, which had one of my favourite deaths I’ve seen in a horror movie in a while. I’ll try to keep it vague to avoid spoilers; a character hits the villain over the head with a statue. They don’t die instantly; they don’t even die in that scene. There is no overabundance of blood or screaming. There’s just a character speaking in such a way that you can tell that their brain is fucked, and even if they don’t die, they won’t be able to live unassisted ever again. That moment is too good for a film like this.

Now, onto the three-hundred-pound question: do you need to watch the original trilogy for this to make sense? Thankfully, no. It’s stand stand-alone. It is a richer movie if you remember the others, I assume, the other films were just as forgettable as this one, so whilst I recognised there were some references, such as names, I couldn’t remember the significance of them. There’s a mid-credits scene that’s much more explicit in its reference, but feels more tacked on than the connections in the last Cloverfield movie.

From my few memories of the previous films, this does feel the weakest. That’s a shame as the performances are the best. I’ve long spoken of my love for Katherine Waterston; she’s not always in good films, but she’s always good in whatever she acts in. India Fowler leads the cast admirably, especially when you consider that she’s performing in an accent that’s not her natural one. Actually, all of the performances are good, and I’d have loved to have seen what these performers could do with a better script.

I probably will end up live-blogging the franchise at some point. But I don’t really have any love for the franchise. It exists, and I’ve watched them, that’s as far as my love for it goes. On the plus side; it is probably the best film I’ve seen on Netflix this year, but that says more about the lacklustre offerings they’ve had in 2025.

The Last Showgirl (2024) Review

Quick synopsis: After the show she’s been headlining for decades is suddenly shut down, Shelly has to decide her next steps; trying for fame, or working in a waitress in a cocktail bar.

I watched The Wrestler recently. First off, great film. Secondly, very thematically similar. REALLY similar. That’s the problem; everything The Last Showgirl does right, other films have done a lot better. Not just “kind of similar at a push”, there are some really specific similarities. The pressures placed on women and how they can be pushed out of certain entertainment roles due to their age, with the lead performer being played by a sex symbol from the 90s? The Substance. Obsession with performance causing you to isolate yourself from your child, while you have a special relationship with someone you work with? The Wrestler. The ethereal shot composition, which makes you feel like you’re watching someone reminiscing while looking at faded Polaroids? Aftersun.

I really wanted to like this. I like Pamela Anderson as a person, and I like how the media now seems to be taking her seriously as a person. The social narrative is now that she was fucked over by popular culture in the 90’s, that she was slut-shamed and judged on a constant basis. She is the best part of this. Her performance is phenomenal. I’m not entirely surprised that she didn’t win an Oscar, but I am surprised she wasn’t at least nominated. The Last Showgirl (TLS, pronounced Tuh-les) is a great showcase for her. This much is obvious from the opening, where we see her audition, and we get to see her nervousness and vulnerability. This is the first time a lot of people would have seen Anderson since her heyday, and it would be shocking to see her so emotionally naked like this.

It’s not just her, the rest of the cast are damn fine. Kiernan Shipka is delightful as always, Brenda Song is superb, and Billie Lourd is perfectly cast. I just wasn’t a fan of what they were given to work with. I’ve watched a lot of 90s sitcoms, so I’m used to arguments between characters being so badly set up that if they were a building, they’d have collapsed quicker than my will to live when I watch Mrs. Browns Boys. But even compared to those, the “split” between characters isn’t set up well. You can almost sense the script pushing characters to act in a certain way so that the plot can move forward.

TLS has a lot to say, and what it has to say, is important. It just feels like it doesn’t know how to say it. I’m not saying it wasn’t a good movie, I’m just saying it wasn’t for me. It left me emotionally cold, and, if I’m being honest, kind of uninterested in what I was seeing.

Final Destination Bloodlines (2025) Review

Synopsis: Have you seen any of the other Final Destination movies? It’s that.

The Final Destination series will always have a place in my heart. It’s the only horror franchise that I’ve been able to watch progress along with everybody else. The first Chucky movie I watched was Bride, so already needed to catch up on three of them, Nightmare On Elm Street had pretty much finished (except for Freddy Vs. Jason) by the time I got to it, Scream is the closest, but I didn’t see that until the second one was out. But Final Destination? I hired the first one from a local video shop, then was able to watch the rest as they came out, some on TV on the movie channels, some on DVDS. I am a genuine fan of them (as can be proven here) I hadn’t watched any at the cinema, though, until now. *overly dramatic music*

Genuinely disappointed with my cinema experience for this. I booked for a subtitled screening (I loves me some subtitles), but it was changed to a standard screening 2 hours before. So those who don’t like subtitles wouldn’t have booked because by the time it was no longer subtitled, it was too late, and those who like subtitles would have cancelled when they got the e-mail saying it’s no longer subtitled. So it was an almost empty screen. That’s a shame, as Final Destination Bloodlines (FDB, pronounced Thud-ob) deserves to be seen with a group of people. As I was watching it, I imagined friends and family nearby watching it with me, reacting to the tense moments and visual foreshadowing.

The deaths in this franchise have always been a mixed bag. Sometimes they’ve caused people to react with “well I can’t even get behind a log truck again”, and sometimes they’re so silly that they’re almost comical. Before you think that’s just me shitting on the sequels, the first movie had “death sucks the liquid back into the toilet”, which is still one of the dumbest moments in the franchise. I can’t think of any deaths in FDB which I’d count among the series lowlights (although the obligatory “final scene death” is shit, but that’s mainly because of the narrative of it, rather than the nature of the death itself), and there are a few which I’d count among the most gruesome (that’s one involving an MRI machine which is haunting).

The opening disaster is probably the best in the franchise and the longest. It sets the tone perfectly and features one of the funniest child deaths in cinema history (it’s fine, the kid deserved it). The deaths are unique and harrowing. On the downside, it takes up a huge stretch of the runtime, considering they’re not the main characters. Traditionally, the inciting incidents have involved the characters we’re going to spend the rest of the film with, so we get to spend time with them, learn their personalities and quirks. FDB has the disaster happen to a group of people we never see again. It does feature the main character’s grandmother, but we only really spend 5 minutes with her once the main story begins. That character is interesting, she’s one who’s spent her whole life writing notes on how to avoid death, decades of research and observation. She’s one of two people from the original incident who are still alive at the start (along with Bludworth, played by Tony Freaking Todd, explaining how his character has been so knowledgeable). It would have been interesting to see some more of those characters, even if it was just in quick cuts.

That’s my big issue with FDB, as good as it is (and it is very good), you can’t fight the feeling that there’s a much better movie hidden in the narrative floorboards. Decades of strange deaths, Iris compiling the book, whether THEY knew anything about the disasters. It would have been fascinating to see a movie like this set in the ’60s or ’70s. Imagine the amount of carnage you could have teased by setting a scene at Woodstock, a Sex Pistols gig, etc. It would have allowed us to see characters who didn’t have the internet to research anything, could have had flash forwards to the future, maybe of them giving birth to a character from the first film. Instead, the 60’s prologue is just that, a prologue.

Not that there’s anything wrong with the characters we have. They’re all likeable, so when they die, we actually feel sadness and terror instead of the desire to cheer. They are still entertaining, though. There’s one in particular (involving a football) which is darkly hilarious. Personally, I would have liked to have seen some returning characters (of which, let’s face it, there are very few). FDB comes off as a finale, the sky restaurant was the catalyst for the events of every movie, and now all the survivors (and their bloodlines, heeeeey, that’s why it’s called that) have been killed, so what’s left? The other thing that gives it an air of finality is the final appearance of Tony Todd, who sadly passed away in 2024 of stomach cancer. Watching Bloodlines, you can tell he’s not got long (he passed six months after filming), and he knows it. It’s genuinely heartbreaking to see, but I’m not sure he could have asked for a better farewell. He revealed his condition to the filmmakers, who allowed him to write his final lines.

I intend to enjoy… the time I have left. And I suggest you do the same. Life is precious. Enjoy every single second

I genuinely didn’t expect to cry during a Final Destination movie, but that part damn near got me. It’s clear that Todd meant that as a goodbye to his fans, and it speaks volumes to his character that he did so. He will be missed, but damn, what a way to go.

The Ugly Stepsister (2025) aka Den Stygge Stesøsteren Review

Quick synopsis: Cinderella, but from one of the stepsisters’ POV, and with added body horror.

“Dark versions of fairy tales” will always be intriguing. Although it’s a bit weird to think about because really, we’re not seeing dark versions of them; we’re seeing versions that are “more accurate to the original books than the Disney adaptations were”. Whether we like it or not, though, the Disney versions are the ones in the public consciousness. When people dress as Cinderella, they dress as the Disney version. So a film like The Ugly Stepsister will always be welcome. That being said, this is possibly the worst time to release it. The last few years have seen multiple copyrights expire, which has led to shit horror movies based on characters who are now in the public domain such as Winnie The Pooh and the original Mickey Mouse design. So you’d be forgiven for being a bit sceptical of a “horror reimagining of what most people see as a Disney property”.

TUS is better than those others, for a start, it focuses on the correct character, the titular stepsister. Secondly, it takes it seriously. It starts off like a normal costume drama. This is great as it allows you to adjust the universe. If a movie starts with blood and gore, you assume that’s normal for that universe, so later violence isn’t as shocking. Whereas if you start from a grounded position, the violence hits hard. There is a small hint of horror with the cruelty, which is then amped up when he coughs up blood. This interesting “not a costume drama but looks like one” approach is also represented in the opening credits, which are a weird mix of horror and regency.

When TUS gets brutal, it is horrific. The nose being broken by a chisel is horrendous. It’s not overly gory, there’s a tiny bit of blood, and no other visible damage. But the screaming? Oh my god the screaming, that sells it. I’m trying to think how to say this without coming off as creepy, but Lea Myren is one heck of a screamer. Her anguished howls of pain will reach deep inside you and claw at your guts.

I loved some of the music, but it doesn’t always work. I know that sounds contradictory but it is possible to recognise something as great but not appropriate. O Fortuna is a magnificent piece of music, but you wouldn’t use it to score a porno. There are so many music choices here which don’t work because the disconnect between the music and the visuals are too large to ignore.

In terms of visuals? It’s artfully shot, a bit too much at times. There are a few moments where a scene starts with a soft fade from someone’s face, and it would be lit in a somewhat “fuzzy” way, making you think it was a dream sequence. Nope, actual thing that happened, so halfway through the scene, you need to adjust your mindset. It’s a small thing, but it KEPT happening, to the point where there are a few shots of which I’m still not entirely sure if they were dream sequences or not.

That all may be a bit mean. Whilst TUS isn’t the best movie of the year, it is still interesting. You may not want to watch it again, but it won’t be one you regret. It’s the kind of movie that would have KILLED back in the days of VHS. The body horror aspects are PAINFUL! The tapeworm moment does look a bit ridiculous, but only towards the end, most of that scene works. The foot chopping scene is one of the most viscerally disgusting things I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen Piers Morgan’s face. It’s a smart choice to not have the step-sisters be completely terrible people. They’re not necessarily nice, but the Cinderella expy isn’t nice either; she starts off snooty and condescending. Every character is relatable and believable (although the other step sister would have benefited from being on screen more), except for the step mother, who is fucking awful, in a cinematically appealing way.

What is clear is that Emilie Blichfeldt is one hell of a talent, and couldn’t ask for a better debut feature than this. The world is set up for her to place her name alongside the likes of David Cronenberg and David Lynch. Now she just needs the opportunity, and a studio that trusts her vision.

The Rule Of Jenny Pen (2024) Review

Quick synopsis: Recovering from a stroke at an assisted living facility, a judge encounters a psychopathic patient who uses a hand puppet to abuse fellow residents.

There are not many horror films focused on the elderly. On the rare occasions those films exist, they tend to come in the same two flavours. One, the elderly as the villains. These generally boil down to “ewwww, old people”. The others are with the elderly as a victim, these are usually more interesting (so are rarer, because Hollywood hates interesting), and show the elderly as trying to survive. At the same time, they struggle against not only the villain, but also their limitations brought on by age. The Rule of Jenny Pen (TROJP, trow-jop) attempts both.

It mostly manages it. The director is good at shock. The death of Howie is particularly shocking, especially since it happens so early on and occurs mostly in the background of a scene. I imagine it was mainly done that way so that we wouldn’t focus on it, so it would be easier to do the effects for as you wouldn’t notice it’s actually a model being set on fire. It helps the scene, though. It makes it seem shocking and realistic.

It’s not always realistic. There are a few moments which make you wonder if the staff have had any training whatsoever in terms of safeguarding. It would be acceptable for one or two of them to not notice things, but none of them? It’s not as if they appear overworked or like they don’t care. Most of the staff seem like they genuinely give a shit and want to do their best; so it’s baffling to try and figure out how they can miss signs of abuse.

The lack of realistic safeguarding is not my main issue; that would be the pacing. TROJP is fifteen minutes shy of 2 hours, and it only has enough story for about half of that runtime. I know the characters are physically slow, but that doesn’t mean the film has to be. I’m not asking for an exhilarating action film, but I don’t want the film to pause because it doesn’t have a clue what it’s supposed to do. This would be a fascinating short, there’s no doubt about it. It has ambition, creativity, and solid performances.

More than solid, actually. Lithgow is a tremendous actor, and I’m sure he’ll be a fantastic Dumbledore in a tv show that I will actively try to avoid. He’s positively unhinged in his role as Dave Crealy; utterly menacing and creepy. Geoffrey Rush is great going toe to toe with him. The best moments are when the two of them share a scene and try to outperform each other.

There is one thing I absolutely loved about TROJP. Whereas most films would approach a story like this with a “Is it really happening, or is he just mad?” Jenny Penn takes a “why not both?” strategy, which is much scarier. He isn’t in full control of his mental abilities, so he (and the audience) has trouble working out exactly what is real. But some of it IS real. That mixture is terrifying to think about and to watch unfold.

As I said, there are moments where TROJP isn’t a fascinating watch. But there are also times when it’s (and there’s no other way of saying this), fucking dull. And the dull moments are just not good enough to get you through the rest of it.

Havoc (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: After a drug deal gone wrong, a bruised detective must fight his way through the criminal underworld to rescue a politician’s estranged son, unravelling a deep web of corruption and conspiracy that ensnares his entire city

This is a difficult review to write. Not because I was so emotionally affected by the film that it left me speechless. Not because it was so magnificent that I’m lost for words. And not even because it has so many potential spoilers that I can’t discuss the film without spoiling plot points. It’s difficult to write about because it’s so incredibly bland. It’s almost noteworthy how bland it is.

This was actually on my list to see last year, but I didn’t get around to it because I was hindered by the fact that it wasn’t released last year, I know, just lazy on my part, I apologise. But it’s been on my radar for a while. I didn’t know the plot; all I knew was that Tom Hardy was in it, and it was directed by Gareth Evans. So I was looking forward to it. The Raid is a modern action movie classic. I can’t see Havoc reaching the same acclaim. In fact, I can’t even see it being remembered. I watched it yesterday, and I can barely remember it, and that’s with making notes.

There are some good action sequences, I’ll give it that. It has a unique visual style that didn’t really work for me as I felt I was watching it through an ’80s filter. I didn’t feel like I was actually watching something from the 80s, but a video game cut-scene designed to look like the 80s. I can’t explain it, but there’s something about the visuals that’s “off”. But I’ll give Evans credit for at least TRYING, which is much more than most Netflix movies seem to do lately.

It’s a shame, as it’s got a really good cast. Tom Hardy is (in my mind), one of the best modern performers, and I always love seeing Timothy Olyphant in stuff because he has an unmistakable charisma. They’re backed up by notable names: Forest Whitaker, Luis Guzman, etc. If you saw those names together in a trailer, you’d think you’re in for a good time. You certainly wouldn’t expect something quite as tofu-like as this.

The main issue is the script. Havoc hasn’t met an action movie cliche it didn’t want to use. Sometimes, it works, but there are a lot of times when it feels derivative. It’s like a good cover song: You recognise what they’re doing, but you know it’s so dependent on the work already there by others that it’s hard for it to have its own identity. Specifically, a cover song played live by a band who keeps winking at the audience, as if to say “do you recognise what we’re doing?”. There’s nothing about Havoc that stands out, nothing that makes you feel you NEED to tell people to see it. In some ways, this is perfect for Netflix. It’s a film that’s designed to be “content”; you don’t engage with or love it. You watch it once, it disappears in the fog of the algorithm, and you never come across it again.

This is a film starring capable actors, directed by someone incredibly talented, and yet with a poor result. The most offensive part about that is that that would also be how I would describe The Electric State, which I also only just reviewed (available here). The only other netflix film I’ve watched this year? Kinda Pregnant (as reviewed here). That’s three movies, and all of them have been duds. THAT is now netflix’s brand; disappointment.

The Electric State (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: An orphaned teen hits the road with a mysterious robot to find her long-lost brother, teaming up with a smuggler and his wisecracking sidekick. I know, SOOOO original.

Many reviews for The Electric State (or TES) seemed unkind. After watching it, I can confirm that they are, in fact, quite kind. Simply describing TES as “a bad movie” is the kindest thing you could say about it. I like the Russo brothers; they’ve directed some of my favourite episodes of Community and Arrested Development. But they also directed The Gray Man, a film so forgettable that having watched it is almost indistinguishable from not having watched it. I just looked at my review for that, and I was genuinely tempted to repost that with a few names changed, because I could make the same damn points for this.

Now it doesn’t make the exact same mistakes. Nope, TES managed to make newer, dumber mistakes. Firstly, it’s more expensive. Secondly, it doesn’t have a charming, charismatic lead like Ryan Gosling; instead, it’s stuck with Chris Pratt, who seems to be continuing his quest to try to be Harrison Ford, and failing miserably (well as miserably as someone with millions of dollars in the bank can fail). The music is nowhere near as good. I can’t remember that much of the music in The Gray Man, but I don’t remember it feeling as post-Guardians as this does. I’ll explain what that means, since the success of Guardians Of The Galaxy, it has occasionally felt like film studios treat soundtracks (especially for action movies with a sci-fi element) as a way for the director to play their favourite songs. When it’s done well, it’s brilliant. But when it’s done badly, it feels like they’re picking the most obvious songs, doing the cinematic equivalent of recommending you a great new place for coffee, a Starbucks. I’m not exagerrating the obviousness of the tracks. Here’s a selection:

I Fought The Law – The Clash. I mean, it’s a good song, but a little on the nose, don’t you think? I LOVE The Clash, but I realise that some of their songs are overused in media (one day, studios will realise that Londons Calling isn’t the only song with London in the title).

Don’t Stop Believing – Journey. This has been overused since Glee.

Breaking The Law – Judas Priest. Again, so obvious.

Wonderwall – Oasis. Jesus, what are you, a guy at a party with an acoustic guitar?

The only thing with less creative vision than the soundtrack is the script. I’ve heard the source material is REALLY good, and completely different from the film. I look forward to reading it, so I can also be annoyed at the changes they made. Lets face it, I have to be annoyed at one adaptation now that Disney+ has deleted Artemis Fowl. The script makes some weird choices. For example; the entire robot/human war is skipped over. Not “the film starts after the war”, the opening of the movie is set before the conflict, then the entire thing takes place via montage. They should have started after the war, that way THAT’S the world we’re in from the start. The way they do it makes TES feel like a sequel, with the opening montage being a summary of the first movie.

It’s also not good with how it handles the villain. I’m gonna be honest, I saw TES a few weeks ago, and I genuinely can’t remember the villain. Which I think says it all. I just remember them not being there for most of the film, so nothing had urgency. It felt like the characters were free to just walk around doing side quests.

TES also suffers from having no idea how to handle emotion. The death of Amherst should be a huge deal, as it is, if you sneeze you won’t notice he’s dead. The characters don’t seem to reflect on the moment, there’s no sense that their motivations or situation is changed by the death. It’s just something that happens.

Now, on the upside, the robots look AMAZING. Some of the other CGI is a bit ropey, but the robots themselves are brilliant. They all seem to have individual personalities, too. Weirdly, they feel the most real out of everything in this movie. The reveal of what they did to her brother is also suitably horrific and belongs in a much better movie.

Oh, on the subject of the brother. I’ll give the film kudos for filming their interactions in a way that makes it seem like the brother and sister DO share a bond, that they are close to each other. But…….and I’m not sure how to put this. Erm, it’s the wrong kind of closeness. They seem more like lovers than siblings (a note to Alabama; those are supposed to be different things). It’s weird and creepy.

It’s not the only “wait, that feels sexual” moment. Okay, so there’s a moment where two robots are fighting, and one grabs the other by the hat and pushes him down. It genuinely looks like he’s trying to force a blowjob. That, and only that, got a laugh out of me. It’s the only section where TES tickles me. I’m glad about that because it meant I got to use the phrase “TES tickles”, which sounds like testicles.

Shut up, this movie is fucking shit, at least let me enjoy something.

Until Dawn (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Clover is on a road trip to find out what happened to her missing sister, she finds out. Her and her friends get trapped in a repetitive nightmare.

I’ve never played Until Dawn, but I have played some games by the same studio, which follow the same principles and guidelines. I genuinely love them, not just because I’m a fan of story-based games, but also because they’re interesting and have great accessibility options. A key part of those games is the notion that choices have consequences. Something as simple as “look at this poster” could be the difference between life and death. Importantly, you, as a player, have to live with the consequences of your actions. So it’s baffling that the main gimmick of the movie is that choices don’t matter because once you die, you reset into your original position.

Annoyingly, it doesn’t even do anything entertaining with that premise. When this has been done before, the characters die because of their mistakes, and learn from them to help them survive. Here, it feels like they’re being controlled to die, and there’s nothing they can do. For example, at one point, a character gets picked up by an invisible force and dragged into a building. What’s the lesson there? What can a character learn from that to avoid it? Similarly, there’s one set of deaths which is essentially “don’t drink tap water, you’ll explode”, which feels ridiculously unfair to the characters.

It feels like the movie itself gets bored of its own premise halfway through, with the characters waking up and realising they’ve died multiple times and can’t remember a lot of them (conveniently, the characters all forget the exact same ones). Why? How does this serve the plot? It seems like they only did that as an excuse to watch videos of previous deaths on someones phone, and cram in horror movie moments.

Which is another issue; this isn’t a story, it’s a series of moments from other horror movies that the filmmakers wanted to put in. It doesn’t settle on a tone or style that’s consistent throughout. It reminded me of Cabin In The Woods, but badly written.

The characters? They’re funny, I’ll give them that. But there are so many moments where they feel like movie characters instead of actual people. Some sentences uttered are only uttered by characters who are written; nobody responds as an actual human would respond. There’s also a weird sense of detachment. The characters quickly get used to the idea of dying and coming back, despite not knowing when their last life will be, so really, they could die at any point. There’s a moment when a character disappears, and I thought they were going to announce that she had died died, which would lead to everybody becoming less flippant with death, but nope, she’s just elsewhere. I’m not exaggerating when I say the characters treat death flippantly, at times they seem to welcome it. “fuck, stubbed my toe, guess I’ll die”. At one point, one of the characters flat-out murders one of her friends. That murder is never brought up again. If a friend drove a pickax into my stomach, I would find it hard to forgive them. Plus, can you imagine what it would be like if THAT life was the person’s final life? So their friend properly killed them and has to live with that knowledge, whilst also learning that their lives are finite.

Until Dawn is not completely terrible, though. The performances are fine, although it is hard to get past the feeling that they are discount versions of other actors; specifically, Rachel Weisz, Jenny Slate, Johnny Depp, and James McAvoy. It is weird how the film has objectively lesser-known actors than the game. The game had Remi Malek and Hayden Panettiere. Okay, this was before Bo Rhap, so Malek wasn’t a big name then, but it’s still strange.

Some of the kills are fun, and as much as I hated the explosion scene for what it did to the narrative, out of context, it was entertaining. There is a basis for a good idea here. But it needed more thought than it was given. I was really looking forward to this, and I can’t feel anything except disappointed.

Thunderbolts (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: A ragtag group of misfits join together to save the day. Yes, it’s been done.

Doctor Strange, released back in 2016, was the 14th movie of the MCU. Think of everything that happened between the release of Iron Man and the release of that. All the original Avengers had been introduced, they had met, teamed up, and split. Tony Stark stepped into a leadership role alongside Steve Rodgers, Thor learned how to step back and not be so pigheaded, the Captain America trilogy showed us something special. I’m saying that because Thunderbolts is the 14th movie since Endgame, it would be impossible to argue that the MCU has taken the same steps. Post-Endgame, it’s still struggling to find an identity or story arc. There’s also been a change in intentions; it used to be focused on “we’re going to tell stories”, and now it seems to be based more on moments. When people talk about Doctor Strange 2: More Strangerer, they often don’t talk about the story, what the characters went through, etc; they talk about the scene where Scarlet Witch kills multiverse versions of characters we want to see. Even Brave New World was focused almost entirely around the scene of Red Hulk (and then spoiled in the trailer, so what was the point of watching the movie?). Thunderbolts feels like a change from that. For the first time, there are no huge reveals that are there to bait the audience (except for the Fantastic Four reference in the post-credits scene, which was spoiled by the “Fantastic Four Theme” listed in the credits itself).

For the first time in a long time, it has genuine emotion and character development. It’s been marketed as being similar to Guardians Of The Galaxy, but to me it felt more like Winter Soldier. Importantly, it feels mature. Even the way the villain is defeated is different from the usual superhero fare. It could be argued that Thunderbolts isn’t even about the villain, not really. It’s about depression, trauma, and youth football (of the non-US variety). It feels like an actual honest-to-god movie, rather than just a comic book movie.

It’s not perfect. There are a few moments which reveal things much earlier than the film intends. This isn’t a criticism of foreshadowing, I love that shit. But there are moments where you realise, “Okay, well, Marvel would never do the thing they want us to think they’ve done, which means there’s no threat in this scene” It’s hard to explain the specifics without spoilers. Also, I find it unrealistic that Bucky Barnes would be nominated as a congressman. Not because he has killed multiple people, including JFK, and the Starks. Not because you can never be truly certain if he’ll kill again. But because he has a definitive history of being anti-Nazi, that just won’t fly in modern America.

I liked how grounded this film felt. This is a weird thing to say about a film that features a character who is basically Superman. But it felt relatively small, in a good way. They weren’t saving the world from an extinction-level event. They were nipping a local event in the bud before it became a problem. This was superheroing as prevention rather than reaction. When people are in danger, it’s not directly because of the villain, but because of the side effects of what he did. The biggest threat to human life, the scenes which feature the most near-deaths, are focused around one helicopter crash; it flies into a building, causing structural damage, and that damage rains down onto civilians below. I love that. I also like when it allowed my favourite superhero cliche to happen; characters running towards danger while everyone else runs away. That image in the Justice League trailer was what sold Affleck as Batman to me, and I love it when it’s repeated.

As I said, a really solid script. But none of that would be worth a shot glass of monkey glass (what the fuck?) if the performers weren’t up to it. Why isn’t Wyatt Russell a bigger deal? Seriously, if you showed someone a photo of him, or one of his performances, they would assume he’s a big deal, someone who producers and directors have to fight to get to lead their movies because they know he’ll make them a success. He just FEELS like a star. I mean, he’s still highly regarded, but it genuinely baffles me how no studio has worked out a way to make him a household name. Florence Pugh is great, and her accent barely wavers, same with David Harbour, but he’s let down by a few moments where his character showcases the worst of Marvel screenwriting; badly timed quips. I will always love seeing Julia Louis-Dreyfus on screen, same with Geraldine Viswanathan. The two of them have weirdly good chemistry for two performers who I don’t think have worked together before; they could easily lead a sitcom or road trip comedy together.

In summary, one of the strongest MCU films in a while, and sets up enough dominoes for future movies to knock down.

Kinda Pregnant (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Lainey (Amy Schumer) pretends to be pregnant for reasons. This plan, predictably, starts to unravel.

Amy Schumer makes it difficult to trust her. Not in a “she’s gonna steal my wallet and use it to fund a trip to Legoland” way, but no matter how many brilliant films she’s in, I will never go to see a film based on her being in it. Her highs are high. Trainwreck is still an absolutely brilliant film. But her lows (Unfrosted, the bits of Inside Amy Schumer that aren’t shared on YouTube, her book) are low. Not just low, but embarrassing. It’s as if she can only do brilliant or shit, with no middle ground.

Kinda Pregnant is…..well, it’s not brilliant. Part of it (well, the whole thing really) is that the lead character is unlikable. Her motivations are so shallow that you could leave a small child in them and they wouldn’t drown. Assuming her character is supposed to be the same age as the performer, she’s in her 40s. Yet her reaction to her relationship ending makes her seem like a teenage girl. Don’t get me wrong, breakups hurt. But her reaction isn’t “here’s a woman pushed to the edge by sadness”, it’s “this woman is kinda pathetic and has zero idea how to act like an adult”. Her reaction is not based on realism; it’s based on “how can we make this movie comedic?”, but it’s too stupid to work.

It’s not just her that this affects; there are multiple scenes which feel too false to work. The break-up scene itself is painful in how fake it feels. Spoilers (for a scene at the very beginning of the movie). The relationship ends because she thinks he’s about to propose marriage, but instead, he asks for a threesome. This isn’t “oh two people aren’t on the same page”, it’s “this was obviously set up to look like a proposal”. It’s an anniversary, at a posh restaurant, with champagne and a romantic cake brought over. That’s not an understandable misunderstanding. It’s fake bullshit. You can see the narrative strings too much.

Now, the plot itself. It’s predicated on the fact that she likes the positive attention being pregnant gets her. That’s not enough. She goes from “someone complimented me” to “well, I’m gonna wear a fake pregnancy belly and go to prenatal yoga class” WAY too quickly. Also, I’ve been outside, and pregnant women aren’t treated with respect. Especially single ones. They’re told “that’s what happens to sluts. I expect you’ll be on benefits now, scrounging off MY tax money”. They’re shouted at on trains, denied seats because “the pregnancy was your own fault, so why should I sacrifice my seat because of your bad decision making? Get a job!”. The entire plot is based on something that isn’t true. It’s like that sitcom a few years ago where two men pretend to be women so they can find work. It’s a premise that’s too dumb to take seriously, even for a comedy.

The other characters aren’t any better. Some of the plot points only happen because characters are arseholes. Her scheme is unravelled when someone announces at a baby shower, “Hey, this person’s pregnant, and they’re thinking of having an abortion”. You can say it’s because “well, the character who announced it is a vapid idiot”, but nobody at the baby shower calls her out on it and tells her that she was wrong to announce it.

I suppose this could work if the jokes were funny. There are a few good moments, the bit where she gets the class to boo a small child is very funny. But those moments are too few. The attempts at humour are kinda embarrassing. Someone makes a joke about her having a moustache when she clearly doesn’t. It would be like making a fat joke about Margot Robbie; you can put it in the script, but unless you commit to the bit, it’s not going to work.

How about from a technical perspective? Again, not good. There’s a weird soft focus over a lot of the scenes, it feels like cheap 80s porn. It looks cheap. The director is the nephew of Adam Sandler, and the movie was produced by Sandler’s production company. I’m not saying those two things are related, but they definitely are. There is no flair to the shots, no creativity or attempt at visual storytelling. It feels like an Kevin Smith movie, but with a shit script.

Now onto the good. The central romance is actually really sweet. The meet-cute is cute because it’s actually believable, and it’s one of the first times we see her act like an actual human. Maybe that’s what she’s like most of the time. We just don’t know because before that, she’s always been in a state of high stress, so we have no idea what her default state is. But the moments where Lainy and Josh (Will Forte’s character) are just chatting and flirting are some of the best scenes. If the movie had a better premise, I would have loved to see this relationship in a different movie. But even the sweetest and most delicious chocolate wouldn’t be edible if you wrapped it in fried dog shit. The scenes between Schumer and Urzila Carlson are also entertaining, but in a different way. Carlson’s character is batshit insane and weird, which works well with Schumer who is insane but trying not to be.

If they got rid of the entire concept, simplified it down to a normal romcom with a mad work friend. This would have been…..well, not great, but it would have been entertaining. But the concept, and how the concept forces characters to behave, ruins any chance of this being entertaining.