Deep Cover (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: DS Billings is a cop who needs help infiltrating a local drugs ring, so employs the most logical people possible: Improv Comedians.

Certain streaming sites have a higher expectation of quality when it comes to their originals. With Mubi, you expect something that, even if you don’t like it, is well-made and has something you will appreciate. Disney+ originals will be slick and well-produced, but overly stylised. Amazon Prime? They’re usually the most avoidable. Their original films are normally “we paid someone who has been successful in the past to make something not quite as good”, a perfect example? The last Guy Ritchie film. I will admit, it’s not helped by Prime being, undoubtedly, the WORST streaming service, one which isn’t so much “user-unfriendly” as openly hostile to the viewer, bombarding them with adverts just as you were starting to get into the film, because obviously, Amazon isn’t rich enough. Also, the last action film with Bryce Dallas Howard was Argylle, which was a huge disappointment. So it’s fair to say my expectations were low, especially in a year which has provided more disappointments than a night in a hotel room with [complete joke here].

Even with those low standards, Deep Cover still disappoints me, because it’s so good. I was hoping it would be bad so I could make jokes about how terrible it is. But nope. It’s good. Really good. A very solid 7.5/10. If you think about the premise too much, you will see it for the bullshit it is, but it’s entertaining enough that you don’t think about that while you’re watching it.

A huge part of Deep Cover working is the cast. Bryce Dallas Howard is great at showing comedic exasperation, but not overdoing it. Nick Mohammed plays a similar character to the one he did in Ted Lasso, but I’m starting to think that is actually what he’s like. I’m most surprised by Orlando Bloom. I feel a bit sorry for him; his career went kind of downhill, and I’m not sure why. He’s not thought of as washed up; he still gets decent work, but his heyday does seem to be over, which is odd as he hasn’t really had that many notable failures. He’s really good in this, overly intense and dramatic. Sonoya Mizuno is fun. I’ve seen her in stuff before, mainly in the work of Alex Garland, and I’ve always liked her, but I’ve never felt to single her out until now. The rest of the cast is fun too. If you’re familiar with the British comedy scene, you’ll be delighted at who they managed to get in some of the smaller roles. Related to that, Deep Cover has fantastic characters. Even people who are only there for a minute or so are memorable; they’re well written enough that the universe seems ripe for spin-offs.

It’s described as an “action comedy”, but the comedy definitely comes first. It’s difficult to recall many action sequences that were notable. The comedy is definitely memorable, though. There are some truly great jokes and comedic set-pieces here. There are potential comedic gold mines which go unexplored, mainly the characters’ interactions with others. It would have been nice to see how some of their friends would react to the situation, especially since the two moments where we do see a glimpse of the wider world are hilarious.

In summary, all your instincts will tell you to avoid this movie, avoid those. It’s not the greatest, but it is a hell of a lot of fun.

The End (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: After civilisation collapses (the concept, not the game), a rich family live out their lives in an underground bunker. Their peaceful existence is disrupted by a girl.

I’ve been playing a lot of The Executive – Movie Industry Tycoon lately. For those who aren’t aware, it’s a game where you play as a producer who develops movies, picking the genre, age rating, actor, etc. It’s very similar to Game Dev Tycoon if you’ve ever played that. The key to success in that game is working out which genres and styles work together. For example, “Slasher” goes better with “horror” than it would with “romance”. Like all games, it’s not perfect, and it’s not perfect because it doesn’t take into account outliers. The End would definitely score a low mark, “Apocalyptic Musical starring Tilda Swinton”. Based on that, this would fail. You would not expect it to work.

Turns out, formulas exist for a reason. It feels like the two genres are constantly getting in each other’s way. Every time the narrative becomes dramatic and moves forward, it stops for a song. The narrative has potential, but it trips over itself too many times and feels disjointed. There are too many dramatic moments that don’t affect the overall story being told. It’s just “incredibly deep personal revelations for the sake of tension in that scene”, then the next scene, like they were all written separately then sewn together to form a cinematic quilt.

It’s not too impressive on a moment-to-moment basis. It’s nowhere near as deep as it thinks it is, being depressingly surface-level in terms of character intentions, which is again, where the two genres get in each other’s way. Drama, deep personal drama that sticks with you, is made of unsaid character motivations and agendas. Whereas a lot of musicals are dependent on characters literally singing out their emotions, turning their inner monologues into outies.

So far, this review has been negative, and that’s unfair. All the performances are superb, in terms of both acting and singing (although the fact that I’ve already forgotten every song is not a good sign). Also, the fact that rich people would rather kill the world than give up their wealth or some of their home space is depressingly realistic.

It’s also new. I’ve not seen anything like this, and I’m not entirely certain I ever will again. I’ve seen some weird films before, but usually they belong to a director who specialises in weird. For example, The Second Act (as reviewed here) was weird, the director also made Rubber and Mandibles, which are also weird. The main exception to that is if it’s a new director eager to make their mark. The End is different from both of those; it’s from an established director, Joshua Oppenheimer was nominated for an Academy Award in 2014 and again in 2016. But both of those were for documentaries. The End is an ambitious film at the best of times, but from a first time feature director, it seems like fucking insanity. But I would much rather watch something like this than more bland shit.

“Something like this”, not this, because this is far too long and in need of editing. But I fully respect the attempt.

In The Lost Lands (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: A witch travels to the Lost Lands in search of a magical power that allows a person to transform into a werewolf.

Okay, so about an hour before I watched this, I was having an imaginary conversation with someone about how hard it is to take Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels seriously because my first encounter with one of the actors was in a comedy. The fictitious people weren’t convinced, so I had to prove it to them by watching the sketch (YouTube the Armando Iannucci East End Thug, it’s that). After the imaginary argument was won, I watched another sketch from that show, the “This House Is Made Of Paper” one. I mention this for three reasons:

  1. To increase the word count.
  2. Watching those sketches was more entertaining than watching this movie.
  3. The guy from the “This house is made of paper” is in this movie, in a serious role. So to prove a point to imaginary people, I ended up proving that point to myself. Because it made In The Lost Lands (ITLL, it-lull) difficult to take seriously.

Not that it’s an easy film to take seriously in the first place. Somehow, it’s both one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen, yet also overcomplicated with everybody switching sides and allegiances at the drop of a slippery hat. If you threw in Macguffins On A Pole, casual racism, and misogyny, you’d have a Vince Russo special. Stuff happens, but none of it FEELS important. You’re never not aware that these are fictional characters, so nothing hits.

It’s not helped by the look. You know how, when you go swimming in a chlorinated pool, and after you leave, all the light that comes from light bulbs looks weird for a while? It’s that, but intentionally, and without the joy of swimming. Even JJ. Abrams told them to tone down the lens flare. I don’t get the fascination with it; most of the time, it looks awful. I don’t know how, but even shots of sunlight hitting mountains look fake. It looks like every scene takes place in front of a green screen (which it may well have done).

The performances are…..off. They’re not necessarily bad, but you’re aware that every performer is capable of better. Nobody will use this on their highlight reel, with the possible exception of Amara Okereke, who carries herself so well that you assume you’ve already seen her in loads of stuff even if you haven’t. If there’s any justice, she can use this to land roles in the future where she’ll be able to receive more plaudits.

I didn’t expect ITLL to be good; I went in knowing it would be a mess. I thought it would at least be fun. That I’d watch it and be satisfied knowing that it’s shit, but entertaining shit, shlock. I didn’t expect it to be as incomprehensibly shit as it is. It looks bad, the story is bad, and nothing about it is memorable in a positive sense. I can only assume the 55 million dollar budget went on avocados and Starbucks, because none of it comes out on the screen. On the plus side, it’s not notable enough to stick in my memory.

Ballerina (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Trained in the assassin traditions of the Ruska Roma, Eve Macarro takes on an army of killers as she seeks revenge against those responsible for the death of her father.

Ballerina, or to give it its full (stupid) title: From The World Of John Wick: Ballerina, has a lot to live up to. The John Wick franchise is a modern classic, with some of the best action scenes ever committed to screen. Combine that with the fact that this feels undermarketed (I don’t even think I’ve seen a trailer at the cinema), and with how underwhelming the TV series was (did you even know there was a TV series? Exactly), and this was in a weird position of somehow having both high expectations, yet also having expectations that it could be shit.

I’m glad to say that this is a worthy addition to the franchise. It’s somehow both different and very similar to the main movies. Eve Macarro is not as iconic an action hero as John Wick, nowhere near as competent. But she’s not supposed to be. She’s still relatively new to this world and often takes on people bigger and stronger than her. So the action scenes aren’t about her outskilling her opponents; it’s about her using creativity to defeat them. So the action scenes have a different feel to them, but are just as good. They’re not as impressive as the previous fights, but strangely, they’re more entertaining. There are moments where it feels like a Jackie Chan movie with how it incorporates comedic set-pieces into an action scene, while not taking away the seriousness of them. Nobody is making quips or smartass comments after escaping death, but you do have characters lined up to take a killer shot, but get knocked over by another character breaking out of a freezer.

You will need to have seen the previous John Wick films for some of this to make sense, I think. You might be able to piece together why hotel staff gunned down two assassins (for doing business on Continental grounds), but I’m not quite sure it gives enough context for most people to grasp. Plus, let’s face it, the world of John Wick is a weird world, full of assassins and clandestine groups. The original film eased you into it, and then opened up the world; this drops you right into the world that’s already been created. So coming into this off any other normal action film will be a bit weird; you need to be already used to the world where pretty much everyone you meet can somehow be a trained killer.

Ana De Armas does a lot better than I thought she would. I still can’t unsee her Knives Out role, so it was weird to see her as an action hero. She does well. There’s no point where she appears superhuman or unrealistic. It doesn’t get quite as unbelievable as the main franchise did at times. The supporting cast is pretty good too. Although it is sad that this is the last appearance of Lance Reddick. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but something seemed off with Ian McShane’s vocal performance; it wasn’t as imposing or impressive as it usually is. I never realised how much Gabriel Byrne looks like a former 80s pop star. Not a specific 80s pop star, just general “I had a massive synth-pop hit in the 80s and look at me now” energy.

In summary, genuinely loved this movie. It’s as good as the other films, and adds to the legacy without taking anything away from them. I do wish it led to a crossover with Atomic Blonde, though; that film was too good to not be loved.

Snow White (2025) Review

Quick Review: A brutal look at life in a concentration camp. Nah, I’m just kidding, it’s Snow White, you know this story.

I’ve made my dislike of live-action remakes of animated movies well known. I see them as cynical cash grabs, completely bereft of any soul, passion, or reason. A lot of reviews for this movie were negative, and the online reaction was negative to the point of toxicity. That’s why I waited for it to come to Disney+ instead of watching it at the cinema. Also, fuck disney. This is a long way for me to say that you should prepare yourself for a highly negative review; full of cynicism and annoyance.

That’s what I did anyway, so imagine my shock when it turned out that I didn’t hate this. I wouldn’t say I liked it, and I definitely don’t need to see it again. But as far as movies of this ilk go? It’s certainly more charming than most. It helps that Snow White actually makes sense to be remade. It’s been a long, long time since the original, so unlike some of the other live-action adaptations (specifically the upcoming Moana), this WILL look different. Side note: it looks fantastic. Yes, it’s live-action, but the colours are astounding, so bright that at times it does feel like a cartoon. There are only two parts which let it down visually; Gal Gadot, and the dwarves.

Sorry, not dwarves, they’re not referred to as that. The dwarves (sorry, “magical beings”)are “played” by talented performers, but performers who don’t have dwarfism. This came after Peter Dinklage criticised the remake and said it was insulting. Disney responded to this by not hiring any actors with dwarfism, a decision which was derided by some actors (notably Dylan Postl) who felt the actions of Dinklage cost actors like him roles. It’s a difficult subject to talk about, especially since both sides have a point. The fact that the only roles that actors with dwarfism can get are as elves, etc, is demeaning, but it feels like not having those roles at all is worse. Either way; keeping the roles but having them played by typical actors? That feels incredibly offensive. If you cast actors who were size-appropriate, you’d actually be helping. Also, they wouldn’t have the weird uncanny-valley thing that plagues every single one of them.

The other visual problem, as I said earlier, is Gal Gadot. The costume designers etc did everything they could, the look they put together is spot on. But Gadot cannot pull it off. She doesn’t feel natural. Her physical performance feels clunky and makes it look like her face was CGI’d onto a random crew members body. At no point in her performance does she look like anything other than an actor playing a role, she never fully dissolves into it. Gadot looks like she’s playing as an evil Queen, Zegler looks like she is Snow White.

It’s weird how a lot of people (idiots) criticised Zegler’s casting when she is, without a doubt, the glue that holds the shoddy pottery of this movie together. Side note: I’ve almost definitely put spelt her name “Zeigler” at some point in the past, and for that, I apologise, mea culpa. She is quickly becoming one of my favourite performers, even though she’s never been in a film I’d consider great. She basically seems like a Disney princess already, more so than any female performer not named Amy Adams. She has charm, fantastic physical presence, and great facial expressions. Plus, she can bring the emotion and anger when she needs to.

I realise I may be overselling this movie a bit. It is, at best, a 5 or 6 out of 10. Some of the dialogue is clunky as hell, quite a few of the songs don’t work as well as they should, there’s no build up, people suddenly start singing in a jarring manner. The witch who gives Snow White the apple feels more like a cameo than an actual character, and most of the “magical creatures” aren’t given enough personality to be memorable.

The main romance works though, so it’s got that going for it.

Y2K (2024) Review

Quick Review: Remember that Simpsons Halloween episode where all electrical appliances start killing people because of the Y2K bug? Yeah, that.

Streaming services, even with the movies they acquire rather than what they make, tend to have a certain connective vibe. Taskmaster would be weird on Disney+, just wouldn’t work, whereas something like Miranda would slip in perfectly. I’m just clearing that up before I summarise my thoughts on this in one sentence: This feels like a Netflix movie.

I mean that in a good and a bad way. It’s slick, well-produced, and with a killer soundtrack. But it’s also forgettable. It feels tailor-made to have ridiculous AI-generated adverts running through it. It’s not all bad; the opening gives so much nostalgia. Although that’s part of the problem. It feels like it’s designed to appeal to 90’s kids, but hasn’t realised that people who grew up in the 90s are now adults, and realise that a lot of stuff from the 90s was fucking stupid and terrible. It’s a brave move for a film to have a target audience of “people who have been in a coma for 25 years”, and judging by the reviews, it hasn’t paid off.

Don’t get me wrong, I do have a soft spot for dumb, stupid things (except myself), but Y2K is pushing it. It’s a little “too” dumb. How exactly does a VHS player eject a tape at such high speed that it kills someone? How did the blender end up on someones dick? It’s cartoon physics in the real world, so it’s hard to actually feel scared at any point.

I also have a problem with the script. Eli’s friend dies WAY too early. Which means he doesn’t have anyone to bounce off. We have no grounding for what he’s like as a person, as once his friend dies, we only see him in a “nervous around his crush” state. On the subject of Eli, he also feels from the 90s, and not in a good way; there are major “nice guy” vibes. In a different movie, his character would turn out to be a date rapist who is angry that the female lead wouldn’t give him a handjob to thank him for holding the door open for him.

On the plus side, it is better than the other “robots vs. humans” film of the year, The Electric State (as reviewed here). Mainly because there are moments where Y2K is an enjoyable movie, with glimpses of the 90s throwback it could have been. They are just glimpses, though; shooting stars in the night sky of stupidity that is Y2K. The Fred Durst cameo is entertaining and actually contributes to the story.

The performances are mostly fine, but it’s difficult to tell under the script. I will always like Rachel Zegler in things; she’s a great talent to watch. Mason Gooding brings the dramatic chops when the film needs it. Other than that? Mostly okay but not outstanding.

In summary: a good idea, let down by a piss-poor execution.

How To Train Your Dragon (2025) Review

Synopsis: Watch the original. It’s that.

This is a difficult review to write. Not for the usual reasons, but because I’m going to find it difficult not to repeat what I said in the Lilo and Stitch review. Much like that, I am not a massive fan of the original, but I recognise it’s good. I remember more of it than I do Lilo and Stitch, though. Although I don’t remember enough of How To Train Your Dragon (HTTYD, pronounced Hit-tuh-tie-da) to recognise any differences between the two adaptations.

I remember enough to recognise the similarities, though, and there are a lot of them. There are a lot of shots which are pretty much the same as they were in the original. I get that you don’t want to mess with iconic moments, but this “just do everything exactly the same” means that the new HTTYD never feels like its own movie. It seems like it exists just for people who are fans of the original, letting them see what their favourite moments are like in live action.

So, how does it look? Honestly, it’s a mixed bag. The dragons themselves look much better. With one (chubby) exception, all the dragons look scary and like the kind of creatures you’d run away from fast. You understand why they inspire such hatred and fear, why the islanders feel they need to kill them on sight. Until it happens, there’s no indication that these things can be reasoned with, let alone tamed. Brings me to one narrative issue: everyone gets trained to ride dragons WAY too fast. They go from “wait, you can ride dragons?” to “swooping in and saving the day” without even a montage.

My other issue? It’s too dark. Not in terms of tone, I mean visuals. The night scenes for this do for your eyes what Tenet did for your ears: render them something you can’t depend on for your enjoyment of the movie. It feels like you’re watching it wearing sunglasses for some of it. The daytime scenes are fine, they look magnificent.

The performances? Mason Thomas could easily lead this franchise if they wanted to redo the sequels as live-action. Although he does remind me way too much of Matthew Baynton at times. Nico Parker is great, too, but her character is let down by some indecisive writing. Gerard Butler is the only returning performer, which makes sense, as he already resembles a Viking.

In summary, HTTYD is good, VERY good at times. But it’s also pointless. Gus Van Sant’s 1998 remake of Psycho was heavily derided for being pointless and just a shot-for-shot remake. HTTYD is the same. It’s made just to show they can, rather than any artistic need. I do love how they kept the director, although it is concerning that in the 15-year gap between the two versions, he seems to have added nothing to his repertoire in terms of shot construction and visual storytelling.

The final battle is f*cking badass though.

Lilo And Stitch (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Stitch is an alien who pretends to be a dog when he gets adopted by Lilo.

I need to preface this review with one important detail: I’m not a massive fan of the original. I don’t dislike it. I find it charming, funny, and it is actually a brilliant film. However, I have no personal attachment or deep love for it, so I’m not personally offended by changes made. With that in mind, I’m going to be reviewing this mostly as a stand-alone and will be judging it on its own merits. I’ll try not to make too many comparisons to the original, ranting about how “but they changed this so it sucks”.

That being said, I do have to acknowledge that this is a live-action remake of an animated film. Which is why I wasn’t a fan of the opening. For a film like this, you want to show off how different it looks outside of animation. You want to heavily showcase either the design of Stitch or the beautiful locations. Instead, LAS starts on a spaceship full of CGI characters. Yes, it’s photorealistic CGI, but it would have been nice to see them show us something real first.

The downside of a live-action film based on a child is that a lot of children aren’t good actors, so it’s risky getting them to lead your movie. It’s somewhat easier in animation because you can go race-blind (and age-blind too) if you need to, a trick you can’t get away with in live-action; no matter how long she’s done the voice for, nobody would buy Nancy Cartwright as a live-action Bart Simpson. Maia Kealoha is charming as Lilo. Her interactions with Stitch are heartfelt and wonderful, really selling the idea that they’re close. The rest of the cast is pretty good. I always love seeing Billy Magnussen in anything; he brings a Tudyk energy to everything he does. It’s also nice to see Hannah Waddington firmly stepping into her role as the Queen of British Accents. She’s long been appreciated for her theatre work, but since Ted Lasso, she now seems to be Hollywood’s new “middle-aged posh British lady”, and I’m all here for it. Also, every time I see her, I fall a little bit more in love with Amy Hill; she has the energy of a grandparent who slips you whiskey behind your parents’ back.

I have no issues with the look. It would have been nice to showcase more of the island, but I suppose that would go against the “OMG, fucking tourists!” message. Although the “tourists are ruining this island and forcing us into demeaning customs” message is already diluted somewhat by a car company offering a holiday to Hawaii in association with this movie. Disney are the fucking worst.

Stitch looks fantastic. He feels more dog-like in this, not enough that you still don’t find it weird that nobody notices he’s not a dog. But enough that you can conceivably buy it. The live-action nature of this means his chaos seems more real. When he ruins a wedding party, it’s not “wacky animated hijinks”, it’s “if I find this thing, I’m going to kill it because it ruined my day”.

Now onto the ending. I’ll talk about it more at the end of the year, so I can do so without spoilers, but lets just say it’s received A LOT of hatred online. “Ohana means nobody gets left behind, unless I have somewhere better to stay, in which case, fuck you Lilo”. I don’t hate it as much as everyone else seems to. I mean, it’s not good, and it definitely goes against the spirit of the movie. But I see what they were going for. I recognise they were going for something different but equally heartwarming; they just didn’t pull it off. There is a way to pull that ending off, I’m not sure what it is, but it does exist.

The Ballad Of Wallis Island (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Charles is a lottery-winning widow who pays folk duo McGwyer Mortimer to reunite for a private gig, very private, just him.

Films inspire different emotions and feelings. Some films make you yearn for human connection, some films make you nostalgic for a past you’ve never felt, and some, like The Ballad Of Wallis Island (TBOWI, tea-bowie) feel like sitting in front of a fire, drinking a nice cup of tea while the rain falls outside. It’s incredibly cosy and lovely to watch. It reminds me of playing Gone Home. You’re not watching it for the narrative, per se, you’re watching it for the feeling. There are secrets, but not really plot twists. It feels like you’re opening up matryoshka dolls, each doll revealing a new facet of the character’s history. TBOWI will really benefit from a rewatch, where you’ll be able to see everything with new context.

I have to be honest, I’m not sure I’ll want to watch it again, though. Don’t get me wrong, it was fine while I was watching it, but nothing about it made me need to watch it again. I’m not entirely sure why. It is a likeable film while you’re watching. It’s funny, albeit very awkward at times. But not uncomfortable in a “oh god, I can’t watch it, too cringeworthy” way. In a “I have met people like this before. Fuck, I AM people like this at times”.

Tim Key is perfectly cast, making the most of his bumbling awkwardness that he’s known for. This is the most dramatic role he’s been in, and he plays it well. You never feel “this is a comedian/poet, out of his depth”. Tom Basden is pretty fun as the obviously frustrated Herb. Carey Mulligan isn’t in it as long as the other two, but will be the person you remember most. She has an inherent likeability and creates a fun double-act with Basden.

I wish there were a bigger focus on the music. As good as the performances and writing are, I never really bought into the idea of them as a folk band. Compare this to Opus, which, although I liked it a lot less than this, had much better world-building and truly made you feel like you were in a world where that band existed.

I suppose that’s the problem. There was nothing about TBOWI that made me forget I was watching a piece of fiction. At times, it felt like the script was overly written and a bit too forced. Even the “end of second act” downer moment felt forced, and there’s one “reason you suck” speech that feels unnecessarily cruel and out of character.

That feels weirdly harsh. There is a lot to like about TBOWI. It’s not as “sketch comedy” as its premise would make you think. It manages to be both melancholic and lovely, creating genuine emotions. It’s worth a watch, but maybe not a rewatch.

Dangerous Animals (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: A surfer is trapped on a boat with a serial killer intent on feeding her to sharks.

It may seem counterproductive to say so, but sometimes it can be counterproductive for a sitcom to be given more episodes or a new season. Not all sitcoms, but there are some sitcoms which have a definitive endpoint (think How I Met Your Mother), or a story arc that the series is based around (Ted Lasso). These things are normally planned meticulously in terms of timing, so it can be weird to have new episodes jammed into the middle, it forces writers to unnaturally extend things. If it’s a sitcom based around a relationship, that usually involves knocking the relationship status back a bit. This can be frustrating as an audience member because it can make you feel like there’s no progress being made.

It may seem weird to start a review of a horror movie with a paragraph about sitcoms, but there’s a reason. That elastic nature of storytelling, pulling characters back to the same position again and again, is my biggest issue with Dangerous Animals. I’m going to tell you about a scene:

The character tries to escape.

They manage to get out of the restraints and make their way to freedom.

JUST before the final hurdle, they’re stopped, and they wake up tied to the bed again.

That happens multiple times. The majority of this film is that scene repeated. As good as it is at times, Dangerous Animals suffers from having no idea how to fill its runtime. To be honest, I’m not sure how you could do it either. Two characters on a boat, one trying to kill the other? There’s very little you can do with that to fill 98 minutes.

None of that is the fault of the performers. Hassie Harrison is as fun to watch as her name is to say. Jai Courtney is delightfully unhinged. When they’re together, it’s magic. Courtney’s maniacal terror meshes well with Harrison’s innocent yet determined nature. Their characters are fun to watch, especially when Zephyr is in full-on flirtation mode with Josh Heuston’s character. I liked the moments where she was safe; it really helped flesh her out and make her seem like an actual human. It could be argued that the two do fall in love too easily; maybe it would have been better if they were a couple at the start of the movie, or had at least started dating.

This is Sean Byrne’s third film as a director, but the first one he hasn’t written. Thankfully, there’s not a huge disconnect between the script and the directing. He makes the most of the setting, with the open sea providing some gorgeous shots, while also helping to emphasise the isolation. The script really should play up the isolation aspect more. The boat comes back to land far too often. It’s difficult to really FEEL the isolation Zephyr is going through when she’s constantly so close to land. Technically, you could argue that’s the point. That she’s always so close to freedom and society, but never quite able to reach it. If that was the aim, then it could just as well have all taken place in a basement or an abandoned factory. Part of the USP of Dangerous Animals is it takes place on a boat. So the terror comes from knowing that even if she escapes the room, getting off the boat wouldn’t help because she has no way of getting back to land.

It is probably not helped by the fact that it was released in the same year as Last Breath, which, while not a horror movie, was also a tense movie about someone out at sea, so used similar techniques to emphasise distance from civilisation.

This is all coming off very negatively, but it’s unintentional. I did enjoy Dangerous Animals. When it works, it’s tense as hell. The music choices are first class, and it’s a unique idea, I can’t do deny that. Also, a lot of it takes place in daylight, which I will always appreciate. It’s not overly bloody or gory, coming off as more of a tense thriller than a full-on horror. Compared to other recent shark-based movies, this is the best one I’ve seen since 47 Meters Down, 8 years ago. It does well with highlighting how, when sharks kill, it’s not based on anger or hatred, it’s food. It points out how sharks kill fewer people than mosquitoes, but are considered scarier (let’s face it, saying sharks aren’t that dangerous is a risky move in a film designed to make sharks an element of fear). It also points out how tourist boats that pour food into the ocean to attract sharks so people can swim with them lead to sharks associating those boats with food. It’s incredibly clever in how it approaches the creatures. It is a good movie, but I know it could have been great