All Happy Families (2024) Review

Synopsis: A family gathers to renovate their home. Truths are unearthed and memories dug up.

Josh Radnor appears to be following the Zach Braff career path of being the lead in a sitcom, which everyone eventually comes to hate, thinking the lead character is creepy and weird, to low-budget indie films, the only difference being that he’s starring in them instead of directing them. Braff’s films are weird. It felt like everyone loved Garden State, then watched it again and changed their mind. Josh Radnor is yet to even approach anything like Garden State, casting agents seem reluctant to cast him in feature films for some reason.

All Happy Families (AHF, pronounced Arth) isn’t going to change their mind. He plays the same put-upon character we’ve seen him play before. It feels like he was cast because he played a similar character, not because they wanted to give him a chance to spread his thespian abilities. That’s not saying he gives a bad performance. But you are going to compare his character to Ted Mosbey, who, love him or hate him, is a character audiences are familiar with and have notions about. His character here is never given enough to distance himself from that comparison. The closest he gets from stepping away from that character is when he’s interacting with his family members and the chaos they bring; and that’s only because that entire dynamic makes you think of the Bluths from Arrested Development (only in this case, it’s the brother character that is accused of sexual misconduct, not the actor who plays the father. Seriously, fuck Jeffrey Tambor, and the way the entire male cast talked over Jessica Walters’ experiences.) If you thought being compared to How I Met Your Mother is bad, try being compared to Arrested Development.

This may seem like I disliked it. The truth is, I didn’t. It’s a difficult film to dislike, mainly because it’s a difficult film to feel any powerful emotion towards. It’s sauceless pasta. Bland, dull, and everybody has tried similar stuff that’s better.

There are glimpses of what this movie could be. The scene on the boat is fun, and it displays the characters’ personalities very well. The mum (Sue, played by Becky Ann Baker) is the type of person who corrects a tour guide, Will (his brother, played by Rob Huebel) is famous and kind of smug, Graham feels overshadowed, and their dad, Roy (John Ashton,) just goes along with it. If the writers tweaked the narrative and put this scene first, it would have made a fantastic opening scene.

The moment where his mother has a discussion with his trans daughter is incredibly sweet, and the kind of scene which feels modern and like it has something to say. Other narratives are running throughout, every character going through their own trials: Sue has been groped by her boss, Roy has a gambling addiction that threatens to rear its head, his brother Will has been accused of sexual misconduct on the set of his TV show, and Graham is going through a personal crisis. All of these are very worthy plots, and all are narrative fruits that are ripe for picking. However, they’re so underdeveloped that the audience only gets a brief glimpse of each narrative before it is disposed of. This approach can work in real life; not every story gets an ending, sometimes it’s just that things happen. But it’s handled really badly here, especially in the closing section.

The end feels really rushed. You have all this drama colliding together, and you expect it to lead to something. Instead, it just kind of becomes nothing. I mean, stuff happens, but it doesn’t FEEL big. The payoffs are incredibly flat, and there’s zero intensity. It feels like a 10-episode TV show which skips episodes 7,8, and 9. Or the writer HAD to keep it under 90 minutes and wasn’t allowed to delete stuff they’d already done.

In summary, it’s cosy, sweet, and very heartfelt at times, with good performances throughout. But it’s nowhere near as good as what’s already out there. In a world of exquisite dining, this is toast.

I Know What You Did Last Summer (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: Five friends cause a death and decide to lie about it.

For whatever reason, this is the only ’90s teen slasher franchise I have no history with. I’ve even watched the first two Urban Legends, and I’m fairly certain that more people are in those films than have actually watched them. I’m aware of what happens, so I wasn’t lost when watching IKWYDLS (eye-cue-ya-doo-les), I got the references and recurring characters. Some of the references were so heavily signposted that I’m pretty sure babies born during the pre-movie trailers would understand they were callbacks. The “what are you waiting for?” callback is particularly obvious; the character would not say that at that moment, and only does so because it was accidentally iconic in the original. The fact that she repeats it here makes it seem like she actually says it all the time, and it just happened that one of those times was during the events of the first movie.

Wow. I thought I’d hold out longer before saying how much I disliked this movie. If it came out in 2017, I might have enjoyed it more. But the release of the new Scream and Halloween movies means this suffers by comparison. They are the most unfortunate franchises to be compared to, because they both excelled at what this movie fails at: displaying societal trauma. They both did a great job at showing how towns cope with being the site of a horrific event.

IKWYDLS tries to excuse that by saying “rich person covered it up” (which turns into a motive for one of the killers), but that doesn’t wash, for multiple reasons. One, there’s a podcast about the murders, so it’s not THAT covered up. Two, and it’s the same problem I had with Five Nights At Freddy’s; if a group of people were murdered horrifically by a serial killer, the town would not forget about it. If someone said, “Don’t talk about those murders”, people would assume the person saying it had something to do with it. Legends aren’t fire, they don’t die without the oxygen of publicity; they grow. They’d be new falsehoods attached to it “I heard the killer came back years later as a zombie, and for some reason, despite being a fisherman, killed people in a completely landlocked state”. Fuck, that third movie was so stupid.

It’s not just on an “if you think about it for a while” level that the script has issues. There are some serious tonal issues. Nowhere is this more evident than in the final scene. Two of the surviving characters talk about how one of the killers is still alive. But they do it in such a casual way that it has no impact. I think that may have been because the writers were attempting to make the teen characters cool and quippy, but it just makes them seem like they’re not taking the situation seriously. The characters are far, far too quippy, unnaturally so. The comments don’t even make sense. “None of this would have happened if men went to therapy” is an especially stupid line in a movie where one of the killers is female. Did the writers forget the villain reveal?

Maybe I’d be more forgiving of the quippy nature of the script if the characters weren’t so, so, soooooo annoying. It’s not even “learn to despise these characters”, they’re instantly annoying. They come off as the type of people who would respond to a global pandemic by singing a John Lennon cover, and while I’m somewhat glad to end that joke there, I don’t think Gal Gadot’s lawyers would be, as my planned next sentence would have been an easy libel win for them.

The thing is, I’m fairly sure we’re supposed to like this group of characters. The inciting incident is a lot less blameless than the original. There’s no chance of them being legally culpable; it’s built up to make them as innocent as possible. Although now I’ve just realised something. One of the killers is someone who was very close to the person who died in the original accident. Would the gang not have noticed that in any of the newspaper pictures after the event? Damn, this movie gets dumber the longer I think about it.

It’s not all negative; there are some fun kills. The death of Wyatt is brutal and brilliant. The character arc of Teddy is pretty interesting, and they really could have done more with it. Sarah Pidgeon gives a truly great and sympathetic performance. The use of Julie James from the first two is the perfect use of her. The way they use Ray is……inconsistent. I don’t hate the character, I’m not a Ray-cist, but his character does feel wasted at times.

In summary, actually, do I need to summarise? You can tell I didn’t like this movie. It’s not among the worst 5 films of the year, but it’s possibly in the worst 10. Still, it’s better than the third one (no, haven’t seen it, but I’m still aware of its shitness).

Bring Her Back (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: A brother and sister are placed with a new foster mother; she’s a bit weird.

Sally Hawkins can do anything, can’t she? At no point during Bring Her Back do you think she’s English; she slips into her performance perfectly. The supporting cast also gives performances beyond their years, especially Billy Barratt, who gives a near-perfect performance of someone haunted by trauma but trying to stay strong. It’s also clear that the Philippou brothers are tremendous directors, with a real flair for understanding what makes certain visuals work.

I thought I’d start with that so I could move onto the negatives, as I really didn’t like this film. It’s not that I actively hated it; I just wasn’t impressed with it, at all. It tries so hard to matter, to be important, to deal with themes of grief and guilt, but does so far too unsubtly to the point of repetitiveness. It makes its points, then a few minutes later says the exact same thing again (a bit like I just did with the previous two sentences).

It is possible I just don’t like their stories, as I also wasn’t fond of their previous film, Talk To Me. Reading that review again (posted here), I have many of the same issues; it didn’t live up to its potential, a lot of scenes were needless, and it was a few tweaks away from being great.

BHB (pronounced Bah-haaab) isn’t sure whether its audience is comprised of geniuses or idiots. So it veers between “now to just make sure, we’re going to have this character explain this again” and “because f*ck you! that’s why that happened”. So watching it is akin to trying to do a kids crossword and a cryptic crossword on the same board.

As much as I love how the brothers create horror, I think BHB may have been better if it weren’t a horror movie. If they instead focused on the themes of grief and loss. Keep the possession angles, just dial down the “scares” back a bit. The cult interludes feel forced, and like they are just there to get creepy moments in. That’s a shame, as if we didn’t see those moments, then when we see her attempt to do it later, it would have more of an impact. At the moment, the cult videos are more disturbing than the main product. To put it in wrestling terms, it would be like starting a card with a match full of barbed wire baseball bats to the face, and then having the main event end with a single baseball bat to the back, and the person is knocked out for 10 minutes and taken to the hospital. If you’ve already seen something more devastating, it dilutes the payoff you’re looking for.

Cutting down on the horror would mean leaving out some of the deaths, but that’s no great loss, as the moment where two characters die has all the impact of a single raindrop on a swimming pool. They feel particularly mean-spirited and pointless. If you cut them from the script entirely, it would only require a 20-second scene to fix the hole that’s left. The deaths don’t cause any lasting trauma to the characters, don’t drive the story forward, and are pretty inconsequential. So either delete them, or make them have a purpose.

In summary, I’m going to end this with the exact quote I ended my review of Talk To Me.

It’s a shame as with a few tweaks this could have been among my favourite films of the year. But I sense that everything could have been better. 

Renner (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Tech genius Renner (hey, that’s the title of the movie) has developed an AI tool to help develop confidence. A tool that’s unwittingly influenced by his domineering mother

I went into this expecting to be impressed. I knew who was in it, and I knew roughly what it was about; that was it. I don’t say this often, but if I had read more about it, I’m not sure I would have bothered. It actually annoyed me that I didn’t like it, because I know what the next two films I have to review are, and I would have liked if I had at least one positive review this week.

It’s not just that this wasn’t for me; at times, I actively disliked it. The lead character’s romance arc reminds me of Y2K, the film, not the year. He invites a neighbour to his house for an introduction. She brings a guy, and he is visibly annoyed to the point of rudeness. He’s then visibly elated when it turns out to be her brother. So, he comes across as a little bit entitled. Sentences like “I feel as if I’m being friend-zoned, this is like a horror movie” back up my viewpoint on that. You can’t be annoyed if a woman you’ve just met is wary of being at your home alone.

The other characters? They follow the same pathway of “the performances being better than the writing”. Violett Beane is incredibly charming and likeable in her performance, but that impact is lessened by the stuff the script makes her character say (You don’t get to say “it feels like my mouth had an orgasm” and then get surprised when someone turns it sexual). Her character feels like wish fulfilment; there’s not much reason for her to be into Renner. Look at it from her POV; she meets a guy who gets visibly angry at her for knowing a male. We don’t really get a reason for her to like him. Yes, you can say that part of that is due to (spoilers) her pretending to be into him so she can steal his shit. But it turns out that she does actually like him, but with no demonstration as to why. You can definitely tell this is written by a guy. The only character of the three who seems genuine is Chad, and that’s because he’s one of the few who calls characters out on their bullshit. In a lot of films, that might come off as annoying. But in something like Renner, it’s actually refreshing.

There’s some really interesting stuff done with colours. It is sometimes flat, garish, and ugly, but there are moments where it works, particularly after the monopoly conversation, where they move through colours. It’s incredibly minimalist, and when the visuals work, they really work. They look sparse, like the character is emotionally hollow. When they don’t work, they look cheap and like a student film.

I said earlier that this was clearly written by a man. That was wrong. It was written by four guys, one less than it takes to build a burger chain. This obviously wasn’t how it was done, but if you told me each writer took a scene and they never consulted with each other, I’d believe you. There are some inconsistencies between scenes that are harder to swallow than a burger van burger the next day. In particular, there’s a genre switch which doesn’t really work because it doesn’t feel right for the characters. It’s jarring, but not in a shocking Sinners way, but in a “yeah that didn’t work AT ALL” way. It doesn’t help that the key scene for this moment is shot in such a way that it appears to be a dream/fantasy sequence. It has a “looks like a dream but is reality” a few times, but the genre switch moment is the most egregious. It’s not to do with the way it’s shot, it’s entirely down to the way it’s edited.

Essentially, the problem with Renner (besides the title, which is difficult to Google) is that it has no idea what it wants to be. One of the best bits of scriptwriting I’ve ever been told was “do more with less”. Essentially, cut out unnecessary twists, plot points, and themes. It may suck as you may love them, but it improves the narrative if you cut out the fluff and focus on the essentials. I know that goes against my usual preference for ambitious failures over safe successes. But the ambitious failures I like are when I see something new. Nothing in Renner is new or original; it’s just unfocused, and the multiple attempted plotpoints all stumble over each other. If it cut out the bullshit, streamlined the narrative, DEFINITELY changed the ending, then you’d have something impressive. As it is? I can’t even be bothered to watch the trailer again, let alone go near the movie.

I do like that the film ended with a “made by humans” note. Very cute.

Superman (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: When Superman gets drawn into conflicts both domestic and abroad, his life is made harder by revelations about his parents.

For a long time, I was not a fan of Superman as a character. He seemed too perfect, like a superhero invented by a child: “he can fly, and he’s super fast, and he is the strongest, and all the women want him because of how good-looking he is”. Then I started reading some, specifically All-Star Superman, For The Man Who Has Everything, and Earth One, and then I got it. The important part of him isn’t his Kryptonian side; it’s his human side. What makes him different from other “cooler” superheroes is that, despite being an alien, he represents the best of humanity. You sense that even without his powers, he’d be doing his best to help people. The release of the Dark Knight trilogy made this attitude seem passe and naive, which led to a somewhat darker take on the character with Man Of Steel. This movie corrects that. It’s not gritty and dark, it’s bright, it’s colourful, it’s fun, and most importantly, it’s hopeful.

Which, of course, has meant that idiots have derided it as woke. The reactions to this movie seem like the kind of reactions the character gets in the movie, and from what I’ve seen of James Gunn, he’s probably making notes and is going to quote them in the sequel. Let’s get this out of the way, superhero movies haven’t BECOME political, they’ve always been political. From the days of characters fighting Russians, taking on corrupt governments, rallying against corporate greed, or even just saving their local village. They’ve ALWAYS had a message; the only reason you’re opposed to it now is because you support the villains. The presentation of Superman, the character, is almost identical to how the movie itself wants to be seen. A rallying cry of hope and kindness. There’s a moment that’s telling, when a country is about to be invaded by a US-backed government (which I’m sure has absolutely no real-world comparisons), in that moment, a small child raises a Suerpman flag, a desperate cry for help.

This is a movie that understands its characters. Not just the lead. You understand why Lois Lane is so good at her job, especially when she’s interviewing Superman, and despite knowing his real identity (and dating them), she doesn’t shy away from asking difficult questions. She is tenacious, desperate to get to answers. She provides Truth to Superman’s Justice and Krypto’s American Way (being a ball of chaos that destroys stuff). Krypto is a wonderful addition, too. There was a worry that he would come off silly, and he does, but it somehow works and will undoubtedly be many people’s favourite character. The Justice Gang are fantastic background characters, given just enough details to explain them, but leave enough out that there’s room to explore in a spin-off.

This is probably the best Lex Luthor in a while. Not just for his motivations, but his behaviour. A billionaire having a team of monkeys dedicated to trolling someone feels almost Musk-like. Keeping his ex-girlfriend in a different dimension always displays a particularly entitled form of cruelty. His behaviour is chillingly realistic, as is the fact that he has teams of people who follow him. When Superman gets the crap beaten out of him, Lex has workers who cheer, not out of obligation, but because they’ve genuinely been brought into his vision.

None of this would work without actors, all of whom are damn near perfect. Hoult continues to impress, and Corenswet easily steps into boots which others would find intimidating. I’m not familiar with Rachel Brosnahan, and it did take a while to sink in that she’s not Charlotte Ritchie from Ghosts, but once I got past that, which is entirely the fault of my own faceblindness, then I saw just how good she was. Her and Corenswet have fantastic chemistry, you can easily believe that they’re a couple. Every moment when they share the screen is electric.

Another factor that helps sell this movie is the world. It doesn’t depend on real-life celebrities. When the characters fight in a baseball stadium, it’s not the team of the New York Knicks; it’s the Metropolis Meteors. When they pass a road sign, it’s leading drivers to Gotham, and adverts for burgers are for Big Belly Burgers, not Burger King. News commentators are Peacemaker instead of Joe Rogan. This is a movie that sells its own reality, and it does it brilliantly.

It also sets up the situation well. This isn’t an origin story. We don’t see a world where Superman doesn’t exist, and then he’s introduced. The opening texts state that Superman is known, plus that he just got the crap kicked out of him. It’s a brave move for the opening of a Superman movie to show him broken, but it works.

I genuinely loved this movie, but it’s not perfect. The final third could be improved. Lex decides to cause a rift that tears across the city. I’m not sure why, but this didn’t really land with me. It felt unnatural. Yes, it was done to lure Superman into the open, but I feel there must have been a better way to do it. Earlier, Luthor shoots someone in the head just because they offered Superman food, and he then threatens to go after everyone associated with him. He could have just done that instead of tearing apart the world; it feels like he escalated it somewhat. Also, it’s a bit unrealistic that a billionaire would be arrested. There’s also an action scene which is impressively shot, but the impressive nature of it makes it harder to figure out what’s happening.

In summary. I loved this movie. It’s a film that’s sorely needed in times like these. It’s nice to see the message that in an age where people feel proud to be assholes, being kind is punk rock. Even if you can’t save the entire planet, you can still mean the world to someone.

Heads Of State (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: The UK PM and the US President are forced to put aside their personal rivalries when the plane they’re travelling on gets shot down.

This is a weird thing to say, but in 2025, Amazon originals are better than Netflix. That might be because netflix is much better at showing you new stuff, so it’s easier for me to see when they add a new original film to add to my watchlist, whereas Prime showcases stuff it doesn’t have access to unless you pay more, so your brain filters most of it unless something stands out in some way.

Heads Of State (HOS, pronounced hoes, because obviously) is not meant to top any “best films of 2025” lists. It’s not a technical masterpiece that will astond you and change the way you think about cinema. But it is exactly what it needs to be: a fun waste of time. You can tell it does WANT to be smart though. There are multiple twists and turns designed to keep you on your toes. But they happen so quickly that none of them have an impact. If I tell you “My name is Jonas, no it’s not, it’s Earl, actually it’s Who”, then when I reveal that my name is actually Slim Shady, you won’t give a shit because I’ve spent so long trying to convince you my name is something else that the actual revelation lands deader than my hopes and dreams. I’m not saying it needs to be dumber, but it would be improved if it had a more streamlined vision.

The action scenes are good, but I would expect better from Ilya Naishuller. This is the third film by Naishuller; he previously directed Nobody and Hardcore Henry, both of which had a distinctive style that made them memorable. By comparison, HOS could have been made by a number of different directors. There are moments where his style seeps through; the fight in Belarus, in particular, is a lot of fun, almost Jackie Chan-esque in how it combines violence and comedy. It’s also incredibly creative in the way it uses the surroundings.

HOS is the perfect showcase for the performers. I’m not sure whether it was intentional, but it does seem like there’s a subtext to the casting. Idris Elba, a respected actor who has honed his craft across decades, alongside John Cena, a brash American who walks in and starts getting top roles. Especially with lines like “I don’t watch your movies, I watch actual cinema”. The supporting cast all play their part. Although I’m pretty sure Priyanka Chopra is supposed to be co-lead, that’s certainly the impression the marketing gives you. HOS doesn’t fuck around with its supporting cast, having Stephen Root, Sharlto Copley, Sarah Niles, and Paddy Considine. Considine, in particular, is building up more evidence that he’s one of the most versatile performers around. He keeps going like this, and he’s going to end up in a reboot of Jaws, as the shark, and he will be magnificent.

Now it’s time for the downsides. It feels like Idris and Cena stay opposed for longer than they should. The “reluctant team-up” is a vital part of a movie like this, but it feels like they’re too hostile for each other for an unnaturally long time, especially for two people who’s jobs require them to be respectful to people they hate. There are times when it works, but those are mostly in the first half, where it would make sense for them to act like that to each other. I’m thinking mainly of their argument on the plane, where the two lay out their disdain for each other, and they both have a point. That should lead to some thawing of animosity, but it doesn’t. I’m also not a fan of one character surviving, mainly because they didn’t feel important enough to earn an end-credits appearance.

Overall, there are better films than this, but there are A LOT worse. It will be difficult to watch HOS and not, at the very least, be somewhat entertained. Although it is somewhat unrealistic that the two countries would both have politicians who are likeable.

M3gan 2.0 (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: M3gan comes back, this time as a hero.

This is a terrible horror movie. That’s mainly because it’s not a horror movie. I’m used to horror franchises delving more into action or comedy, but it’s usually a few minutes in and it’s a sign of decline. I can’t remember a time it’s been so drastic as this. There’s no traditional horror movie beats, no shots that fill you with dread or keep you awake at night. What there is, is quips, fights, and weirdness.

On the one hand, the genre switch means that M3gan 2.0 is fun to watch and will appeal to a wide audience while still keeping true to the spirit of the original. On the downside, from the first trailer, where it was made clear that this time she’ll be more heroic and will be teaming up with those who defeated her in the first movie, comparisons have been made to Terminator 2. Those comparisons are much harder to ignore when the change of genre makes the movies even closer. It’s almost begging you to make those comparisons, and when it does, it doesn’t hold up.

On its own merits? It’s a lot of fun. It’s violent, funny, and kind of sweet. It has really good characterisation. Making M3gan a hero could have backfired, but it works wonderfully. That’s helped by the fact that even when she was a villain in the first movie, her entire motivation was doing what she felt she should do to protect a child. So she could easily turn them into heroes without changing their motivation. It feels like the next logical step. Her introduction is a lot of fun, with her controlling the aspects of a smart house to defeat an invading police force, who burst into a house all guns blazing to arrest an unarmed woman and a child, but because this isn’t real life, nobody got shot.

The performances are also key, the main characters from the first film return, and it’s clear they all love playing these characters. There aren’t too many new characters, but those who are introduced fit in perfectly.

Now onto the downsides. There are a few minor ones in terms of tone and consistency, and some moments are just a little bit too much like a video game for my liking. The major issue for me is the villain reveal. I live quite near a 12th-century castle. A castle, which is a crucial part of local and national history. A castle, which is vital to tourism and is a visual centrepiece of the local area. If you visit this town, you kind of HAVE to visit the castle.

That castle isn’t as clearly signposted as the villain reveal in this movie. I guessed it from the character introduction, not only that they would turn out to be the villain, but also their motivations and reasoning. It felt so obvious as the film went on, with a few “but nobody could have known this” about things which he would have known about. It’s so clear that I felt it was a red herring; I didn’t think a movie in 2025 could be this obvious with its twist. I haven’t seen a reveal this obvious since, well, every superhero movie where a character named something like “Evil Von Murderface” turned out to be the bad guy.

In summary, don’t go in expecting scares, and you’ll have one hell of a good time. It has a lot to say about AI, specifically about the role of humanity in controlling it. It’s much smarter than it needs to be, and I will always love that. I will also always love it when, in the final product, an editor takes out a really creepy moment from the trailer.