Author: troubledproductions

Fackham Hall (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Downtown Abbey meets Airplane, but not in a plane crash way.

We’re beginning to reach the end of 2025, which means it’s soon time for me to write the annual awards. So I’m starting to think of the best movies of the year. Among the obvious candidates are a film about the power of music mixed in with a gothic tale of racism and American history, a personal drama about trauma and family via a visit to a concentration camp, and a tale about the existence of the afterlife and all the implications of eternity. All very serious topics, all very “big”. Despite how that might make me look; I adore silliness. I like silly, fun little films, of which Fackham Hall is one of the best of the year. Really, the only comparison lately is The Naked Gun, which had the advantage of having an established style.

So, how does this compare? It’s not quite as joke heavy as TNG, with a distinct lack of sign-based jokes which aren’t signposted. There are also fewer background jokes. Basically, I don’t think there are any jokes that I missed that I’ll catch on a second viewing. So I didn’t laugh as often as I did during TNG, but I did laugh louder. I can remember more jokes from this than I can TNG, although that might be down to me having seen it more recently.

But does it stand out on its own? I’d say it does. There was a surprisingly full screening when I went, and everybody seemed entertained. Nobody walked out, which for a film barely advertised and which from the poster you could mistake for a period drama, was a pleasant surprise.

The performances are exactly what’s needed. I’m not familiar with Ben Radcliffe, but he does seem like he’d be perfect in an actual period drama. Thomasin McKenzie is building a weird filmography, which makes it hard to pin down her niche: JoJo Rabbit, Last Night In Soho, The Justice Of Bunny King, and now this. All of those are completely different films, and her roles are very different, yet they’re all somehow still “her”; she’s one of the most chameleonic (is that a word? Is now) performers around. Katherine Waterston is quickly becoming one of my favourite performers, which is odd as I’ve never intentionally seen a film because she’s in it; she just happens to be in films I watch, and happens to always be REALLY good. She has a face that feels like its come straight out of the 1940’s, so she’s perfect for films like this. She also has surprisingly perfect comic timing.

On the downside, the plot is muddled. The murder of the lord feels weird in terms of pacing. The arrival of the detective investigating it turns it more into a Hercule Poirot pastiche than a period parody. That feels like a genre rife for parody, but we’re not given enough time to fully explore that. I would be fully up for a sequel with that concept, by the way. If the murder was cut out, then it would leave a hole that needs fixing (and you’d lose one of the funniest sequences), but I’m sure it could be replaced with something more suitable. It feels like Jimmy Carr wanted to put those jokes in, not realising it might have been smarter to save them for a different film; now he can’t use those jokes and scenes in a more suitable film.

The reveal at the end is a bit too obvious, but not obvious enough that it seems deliberate and is, as such, a joke. Similar to the reveal of the murderer. But I think that if you go into a film like this expecting to be wowed by the plot, you’re in the wrong movie.

Really, the biggest negative of watching this is how it affected my viewing experience of another film. You know how, when you play Tetris or Guitar Hero, it changes the way you see things briefly? All you can see is falling circles and bricks for a while? I went through a comedic version of that. My brain watched the next fil,m and it took about 20 minutes for it to adjust and try not to see a joke in every single action or moment. That’s the biggest compliment I can give this film; It broke my brain with comedy.

Ella McCay (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: A look at the lives of those close to or under ella, Ella, Ella. That only works if you sing it like Rihanna’s Umbrella

On January 27, 1992, George HW Bush was making a speech during his re-election campaign that included the sentence “We are going to keep on trying to strengthen the American family, to make American families a lot more like the Waltons and a lot less like the Simpsons”, this was after his wife had described the show as “the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen”, which answers the question of whether she spent much time with her own son. Three days after Bush’s speech, the rerun of Stark Raving Dad (the Michael Jackson episode) featured a new opening; the family watching the speech on television, then Bart saying, “We’re just like the Waltons. We’re praying for an end to the depression, too”, which is a truly great joke. I do have a reason for saying this; it may be difficult to picture now, but there was a time when The Simpsons was considered subversive and dangerous, when schools forbade any Simpsons merchandise as they considered Bart a bad example.

I’m mentioning this because the writer/director of Ella McCay is James L. Brooks, one of the key writers for The Simpsons in its early years. With that in mind, it’s weird that he made this movie. On the one hand, it’s nice to see movies like this; simple movies about women going through tribulations which don’t involve sexual assault. Films which are ultimately pure at heart and can be watched on a Sunday afternoon after dinner. On the other hand, it feels socially irresponsible to make a movie in 2025 about US politics and have it be utterly toothless. If this were released 10 years ago, I’d have had no problems with it. I wouldn’t have loved it; it’s far too flawed for that, but I wouldn’t be quite as disappointed as I am. Today, Rob Reiner was murdered, and the President of the United States essentially responded that he died because he was anti-Trump. The most surprising part of that is that it’s not that surprising. This is the world we’re in now; if you make a political comedy, it needs bite. In 2025, making a movie like this feels like an act of cowardice.

But aside from that, how is it? It’s a mess. Characters are inconsistent in terms of behaviour; it seems to be written by an AI that’s ignoring previous input. There are so many stories running through it, but very few of them are given enough time to justify their existence. They all feel like they’re building towards something, then they just choose not to. This is most obvious with her dad. His story ends with her saying she won’t accept his apology. But it never looked like she was going to anyway, so it’s not really that satisfying an ending; nothing is gained or changed. There are moments where the film that it could be makes an appearance. Watching her verbally express her anxieties and worries in a cannabis-induced monologue is a fantastic window into her psyche, is close in quality to the monologue from Barbie, which is very high praise.

It feels like it was originally designed as an ensemble piece, focused on a large group of people all connected through one person; the trials and tribulations of her friends, family, and colleagues. But then, somewhere in the edit, they decided to cut out non-Ella scenes. As a result, none of the side-characters are memorable; they don’t feel like actual people with their own lives; they just feel like they don’t exist outside of Ella.

I refuse to accept that James L.Brooks has financial difficulties. He is not forced to make movies anymore. He’s at the stage of his career where every project should be a passion project. It should be “I NEED to tell this story, and only I can, it must be told”. So for him to be 85 years old and think that THIS is the film he needs to make? I can’t help but feel a little disappointed.

Plus, the title (Ella McCay) is far too close to the name of the lead actress (Emma Mackey), and I don’t like that. It’s not an actual issue, but it will mean I am forever not quite sure whether I’ve got the title of this film correct. Also, whenever anybody called out her name three times, my brain automatically ended “ey ey ey” and started singing Umbrella.

Eternity (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: In an afterlife where souls have one week to decide where to spend eternity, Joan is faced with the impossible choice between the man she spent her life with and her first love, who died young and has waited decades for her to arrive.

As we approach the end of 2025, my mind is starting to wander; what will the films of 2026 be like? How have I reviewed over 100 films this year? What will the awards be this year? I was discussing the awards with someone last week, specifically the “best film”. I had it narrowed down to four: Sinners, Last Breath, A Real Pain, and one place reserved for the new Knives Out. I looked at the films still to come and could only see sequels (Avatar), films which could be way too meta (Anaconda), and films I’m not even sure will get a local cinema release (Eleanor The Great, Sentimental Value). So there was nothing there I could see making a push for best film. Then I watched Eternity, which instantly shot to near the top of the pile.

As I watched, I was waiting for it to fall apart, waiting for a reason for me not have heard a rumble of excitement about this. It never came. Yes, the ending drags slightly and could be shortened by a few minutes, but that doesn’t take away from what is truly a majestic piece of filmmaking. From the opening, where an elderly couple complain whilst taking a car journey, to the closing, where the cinema usher shines a touch on me and tells me to please leave as the next film is about to start, I was fully onboard with what this film was selling.

It feels like this film was needed by two of the leads; Miles Teller still needs to recover from Fantastic Four, despite that film being released 10 years ago. Top Gun helped, but that film has a specific audience. Similarly, Elizabeth Olsen needs to step out of the Scarlet Witch shadow. I’m not that familiar with Callum Turner, but he matches the other two well; playing off them well. He has great chemistry with Olsen, which is essential to making you believe that she’d still be into him.

In a year full of openly feminist horror, silly parodies, and subversive comedies, it’s strange that it’s Eternity that is most in line with my sensibilities. Everything about this was something I would want to write. It’s funny when it needs to be, the characters are well-written, and you’ll spend most of the time on the verge of tears. I’ve not seen a film like this in a long time; a film that reminds me why I love writing; writing gives you the ability to explore ideas and concepts, worlds that may or may not exist. Eternity is a film that, if it gains a big audience, could launch a thousand fan-fictions. It will inspire long discussions that will go long into the night. It is at its heart, a romance story; and the “let’s discuss this” nature of it means that this could be the perfect date movie.

This deserves to be one of the biggest films of the year, but it won’t be. It’s too weird a subject for mass-market appeal. There are some scenes which are mostly subtext. Plus, it openly says there’s no heaven or hell, which severely impacts its chances of hitting middle America without being called anti-Christian. It’s not anti-Christian, by the way, it’s anti-all religions.

This has been a difficult review to write. It’s hard not to just repeat the words “this film is amazing, go see it”. It’s not perfect; like I said, it drags a bit towards the end, there really should be better music choices, and The Void isn’t as nightmare-inducing as it could be. Those are minor issues, though. Eternity is magnificent, I’ve already put it on my Christmas list for 2026

Five Nights At Freddy’s 2 (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: One year has passed since the supernatural nightmare at Freddy Fazbear’s Pizza. Former security guard Mike has kept the truth from his 11-year-old sister, Abby, concerning the fate of her animatronic friends. When Abby sneaks out to reconnect with Freddy, Bonnie, Chica and Foxy, she sets into motion a terrifying series of events that reveal dark secrets about the true origin of Freddy’s.

I won’t lie, I could just repost my review of the first movie, SOOOO many of my issues with it are repeated here.

It’s a horror movie without gore, without suspense, and without scares. 

Yup, same here. It’s incredibly neutered. I’m not asking for full hardcore violence, but a little bit of blood and more disturbing sound design would have helped sell the violence.

Piper Rubio outshines all of them, though. She’s only 8 years old but never misses a beat, even when she has to express some relatively complex concepts. I haven’t seen a child perform this well since McKenna Grace in Gifted. Her relationship with her brother and her need for social acceptance are a core part of the narrative of FNAF. The moments where it dwells on that are the strongest parts of the film (that and the animatronic work, which is sublime).

The only part of this that is changed is that Piper Rubio is no longer 8. She’s still the strongest performer by a wide margin. Elizabeth Lail seems to be having an off-day; I know she can give a better performance than this. Also, that mention of McKenna Grace seemed to be weirdly prophetic, as she’s also in this. Not for long enough, though, I hope she has more screamtime (pun intentional) in Scream 7.

Like I said, when it’s not a horror movie, when it’s a family drama dealing with loss, that’s when it’s at its best.

Oh, that’s definitely the case here. The relationship between Mike and Abby is core to why this works. The two are so sweet together; so even when the film itself isn’t that entertaining, it’s just so damn nice to watch the interplay between the two.

The continuity lockout is much bigger for this than it was for the first one. If you’re not familiar with the original games, you’ll struggle to work out why certain things are met with dramatic music, or why some of the sentence structures feel clunky and designed to get certain phrases in. I have a slight knowledge of the games, so I recognised some of the references; but there were a few moments which I recognised as references, but didn’t get the references themselves (like when an American sitcom starts talking about NY politicians).

My biggest issue is the ending; it doesn’t really have one, not in the traditional sense anyway. Not in a “the story is complete and we’ve reached a dramatic conclusion” way. It ends with a character being possessed and about to hunt down everyone. That’s not an ending; that’s the third-act setback that leads to the ending. It feels like they cut an entire section out. I also wasn’t happy that seemingly essential plot points were in the middle of the credits. Not a fan of that, if something is important, it should be in the actual film, credits scenes are for fun stuff, not essential.

In summary, incredibly similar to the first one, but with newer mistakes.

Zootropolis/Zootopia 2 (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick synopsis: Detectives Judy Hopps and Nick Wilde find themselves on the twisting trail of a mysterious reptile who turns the mammal metropolis of Zootopia upside down.

I may have made a mistake going in. I tend to avoid reviews before seeing a film, but sometimes I do accidentally glance at one, or at least see the headline. The one headline I saw for this described it as a “soulless film-by-numbers affair filled with corporately approved jokes” and “might as well be AI-generated”. So I went in with low expectations. After viewing Zootropolis 2, I don’t understand where that reviewer was coming from. It’s not quite as good as the first one, but it is still a worthy viewing experience.

Most of the cast from the first film return, including Tiny Lister, through the use of archival recordings. Joining the cast are Patrick Warburton, Macaulay Culkin, Ke Huy Quin, and Andy Samberg. That’s the main cast; the voice cameos make it look like whoever wrote the Wikipedia page is just making shit up; Ed Sheeran, Mario Lopez, Mae Martin, Auli’i Cravalho, Tig Notaro, The Rock, CM Punk, Roman Reigns. The last two are particularly fun as the Zebros, who seem like the kind of characters destined for a spinoff.

So how does the story compare? It’s good, but it does feel reminiscent of the first one. The whole “the ones you think are dangerous aren’t really” message is essentially the same as the first one. There’s even the “cuddly animal you thought was friendly turns out to be a dick” plot twist. That one in particular hurt, as it seemed so obvious that I felt it must be a red herring. The Nick and Judy relationship also repeats some moments from the first movie. If the first movie didn’t exist, this would be great; as it is, it feels kind of like a remake.

I think it would have been stronger if they hadn’t done that late-stage heel turn; it would have backed up the film’s thesis that “it’s your personality that determines you, not your species/family”. It also misuses Dawn Bellwether from the first movie; she gets broken out of prison, then arrested again at the end. I’m not asking for her to have a huge impact on the story, but why bother bringing her back if you’re not going to use her at all? I also wasn’t impressed with how they say that Nick has a phobia of reptiles, then never mention it again.

That is a rather negative way of looking at it. On its own merits, it’s charming. It’s also very funny; packed full of jokes; there are moments where it feels like they’re cramming them in until it’s fit to bursting. Gary The Snake is a wonderful character who suits the franchise. It has enough heart to carry it through its weaker moments, and the animation is absolutely gorgeous. This isn’t as focused on the characters in the world as the first one, but the world itself is explored more; we get a much bigger focus on how the world works, how the different zones interact, etc.

In summary, just as good as the first one, and the signs for the inevitable third one are good.





“

The Alto Knights (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: In the 1950s, notorious New York crime bosses Frank Costello and Vito Genovese vie for control of the city streets. Once the best of friends, petty jealousies and a series of betrayals place them on a deadly collision course that reshapes organised crime forever.

A few weeks ago (In my review of The Hand That Rocks The Cradle, posted here), I talked about films from your childhood which aren’t meant for children, I didn’t mention it at the time, but another film that filled that role for me was Sleepers. I have vivid memories of the scene on the subway stairs; that’s my Odessa Steps/Battleship Potemkin moment. I also have fond memories of Bandits, Toys (yup, that tonal disaster, I like it), Rain Man, Good Morning Vietnam, and Liberty Heights. So it’s safe to say, whilst not necessarily a fan, I have enjoyed a lot of films directed by Barry Levinson. So the idea of him going back to telling stories about the mafia (much like Sleepers) means I should like this, especially with a performer of the calibre of Robert DeNiro.

Sadly, the result of that combined talent just means you are acutely aware of how dull this is compared to what it could be. Everyone involved has, and should do better than this. The double DeNiro feels like a classic case of stunt casting. If the characters were related, it might make sense. Think of the classic crime performances; normally, they involve another person that the actor can bounce off. These movies are perfect for two actors to share a scene and create magic. That’s especially the case in films like this, where you can have two people who want to harm each other sit opposite each other calmly, both threatening each other whilst not making the first move. The fact that DeNiro plays both roles robs the audience of that potential. It doesn’t bring to mind classic movies; it more closely resembles the minus-5-star classic that is Undertaker Vs. Undertaker from Summerslam 1994 (guarantee this is the only review that’s made that comparison, guarantee not guaranteed).

If you love this genre, as in, watch EVERYTHING to do with it, then there’s stuff for you to enjoy in it. The atmosphere is well-crafted, and there are moments which are reminiscent of classic gangster movies, backed up by some pretty damn good performances. But it doesn’t bring anything new to the table. It never feels like it has its own identity, feeling more like a highlight reel of other, better movies. Maybe if this were made in the ’90s, it would be impressive, but in 2025? You can’t help but feel you’ve seen everything before.

There are some good moments; the barber shop assassination feels like something that would be iconic if it had arrived earlier in cinematic history. I also enjoyed the ending, where we see the famed Apalachin Meeting. I’d love an entire film based around that moment; it’s extraordinary. Meanwhile, the section where characters are testifying in front of congress feels weak. That’s mainly due to the editing; something about it just doesn’t work; there’s no flow, instead of feeling momentous, it feels like you’re watching a dvd that’s scratched and keeps skipping.

In summary; The Alto Knights should be iconic. Instead, it feels too much like a mini-series that’s been edited down. It sinks when it should swoop, and brings nothing new to an overstuffed table.

Clown In A Cornfield (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Some kind of circus worker (can’t remember the specifics) kills teens in a rural setting of some sort.

Fun fact: this was the 100th new movie I’ve seen this year, beating my previous record by roughly 11. It kind of sucks that such a momentous occasion is being marked with a film so bland that even a local cheap chicken shop wouldn’t sell it. It says a lot that the most memorable thing from this film is that you can sing the title to the same tune as Goldfinger’s cover of Man In A Suitcase. Also, I kept spelling it Cornfrield for some reason. If this movie were a colour, it would be mud-brown.

For Clown In A Cornfield (CIAC, pronounced Sigh-ack) to work, it needs to do one of two things: either be ridiculous and weird, or be brutal beyond belief. This does neither. It’s rated 15 in the UK, and it feels like it’s towards the lower end of that rating. The kills, even the most violent ones, feel remarkably pain-free. None of them really sticks in my mind. The opening two in particular feel neutered. One is offscreen, and the other one breaks physics. The clown approaches the future victim while they’re lying on the floor, then does a sideways sweep (like a hockey player making a quick pass), it then cuts to the person being lifted up on the weapon high up above the clown’s head.

The actual script isn’t too impressive either. Seinfeld famously described itself as “a show about nothing”, CIAC takes it to the next step by having nothing happen. The background characters are so underwritten that they might as well be cameos, so when the film shows us that there are multiple killers (I don’t count as a spoiler as it occurs before the halfway point,) it’s not difficult to see how the unmasking is going to go. The iconography of Frendo is so underbaked that I’m pretty sure it gave me salmonella. It doesn’t feel like “this has haunted the town for years”, or even a recent urban legend. The main characters use the idea that Frendo is a killer as a joke in a YouTube video. Also, for most of the deaths, the clown is only seen by the person they kill; so why dress as a clown in the first place? It’s unfair to single out CIAC for that, as SOOOO many slashers make the same mistake, to the point where I was actually impressed when Heart Eyes provided a good reason for the characters’ “fame”.

I don’t want to spoil the ending, but it’s basically Hot Fuzz, only we’re expected to take it seriously. I think we are, anyway. By all logic, this should be comedic, and there are times where it feels like it’s trying to be one, but it’s like being headbutted by a teletubby; incredibly po-faced. It’s weird as Eli Craig also directed Tucker and Dale Vs. Evil, which got the comedy/horror balance spot on. Here, it feels like it didn’t do enough to satisfy either genre.

On the upside, there are some musical choices. And there are some surprisingly subversive choices made with the main characters. It’s nowhere near as bad as I’ve made it sound. I doubt it will be in the bottom half of my movie rankings this year. There’s not much offensively awful about it, but there’s absolutely nothing worth highlighting. It’s mediocre, and in some ways, I find that more offensive than being bad.

The Twits (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Remember the book? It’s not like that.

I’ll start this by being brutally honest about my opinions on the original book: I don’t like it. I’ve never liked it. I’ve always had a very specific issue with a line in it. There’s a moment in the book where the author says that a person who has good thoughts can never be ugly, and if someone is ugly, it’s because they’re a shitty person. As someone with a face that looks like the “before” picture in an advert for “You’re a lost cause, just slice off your entire face”, you can see why I’d have an issue with this. I don’t need books to insult me; I have myself for that. So I went into this not expecting to love it. Coupled with that is the fact that almost every review of this was highly negative, so my expectations were so low that even limbo dancers would refuse to go under it.

Now I know what people expect: that this is a setup for me to say “However, I liked it”. Nah, fuck this movie. It’s not the worst of the year, but it should be very thankful for films like War Of The Worlds. Actually, that’s cruel and implies this will end up in the Awful section for the end-of-year roundups; it’s actually probably going to go in the one above it. It’s not absolutely terrible, but it’s definitely not good. The main problem is the script; the original book is roughly 100 pages, if I remember correctly, which isn’t enough story for a feature-length movie. So the writers have to stretch it out. Phil Johnston has a weird career as a writer; he wrote Zootopia, which was great, The Brothers Grimsby, which was okay, and Wreck-It Ralph 2, which was bad. The Twits isn’t his best work; it’s incredibly unfocused. It doesn’t flow organically, instead coming off as a series of shorts. There’s not a central narrative; it’s just stuff happens, then different stuff happens. Some of the “episodes” are better than others. The Muggle-Wump part feels like it comes from something completely different, and not in a good way. The build-up to them entering the mayoral elections is pretty fun, though, with some political satire that’s so sharp you can cut steak with it. Thing is, it’s not saying “these political thoughts are bad”, it’s saying “voters need to stop believing obvious bullshit, a mayor can’t make everyone in town a billionaire”. But even that plot point is ruined by a truly juvenile (even for a kids’ movie) fart joke.

One other upside is the casting. Johnny Vegas is an obvious choice as the male lead. I didn’t expect esteemed character actress Margo Martindale to work as well as she did. I’m guessing she was hired here because of her work on Bojack Horseman. Emilia Clarke and Natalie Portman are weird choices for such small roles; tonally, it feels odd to have their voices in something so deliberately ugly.

Make no mistake; this is an ugly film to watch. I get that that might be the point, but the animation is so off-putting that it’s not a pleasant experience at times. It looks like a (much) cheaper version of the shiny elastic CGI animation that most companies use, which is fine when it works, but here it doesn’t. Narratively, this is like most Dahl adaptations; it works best when it’s slightly cruel. There are times it manages that: key among them is when a family arrive at an orphanage to say they won’t be adopting anybody because they’re worried a recent disaster has made the kids contagious; it’s so cruel, and wickedly funny.

That’s somewhat negative, truth be told; most of this review has been. But there’s something oddly charming about it. It’s a shit adaptation, I’ll give it that. So fans of the original are sure to hate it. But fans of the original are adults now, so it’s not really for them. But who is it for? Are there many kids clamouring for an animated adaptation of a book they haven’t read? Does Johnny Vegas have a large toddler fanbase that Netflix wants to tap into? Fans of the original book will hate it, and there’s nothing to bring in people who aren’t fans of the book. So again, who’s it for? That’s a question I have no answer for, and I’m not entirely sure the people involved in making this know the answer either. Somehow, the music is weirdly solid. Well, the song from Hayley Williams and David Byrne is anyway.

Nuremberg (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: As the Nuremberg trials are set to begin, a U.S. Army psychiatrist gets locked in a dramatic psychological showdown with Nazi war criminal Hermann Göring.

Movies can be useful teaching methods; numerous lives have been saved because kids have seen someone perform the Heimlich manoeuvre in movies. The lessons and themes that films feel the need to teach can often be indicative of the times they’re set in; the 60s were full of films warning of the danger of nuclear war. So it’s a bit weird to see a film in 2025 warning the audience of unchecked hatred leading to horrors. “How did this happen?” “because people let it happen”. Even more concerning is that this is somehow a controversial lesson.

It’s a lesson that’s taught very well in this film. We see how people who are evil are still people. This isn’t shown in a way to humanise or justify them. If anything, it makes their actions more horrifying. What’s more likely to scare you, the knowledge that some people are born evil and can’t be changed, so just stay away from them, or the feeling that one day your neighbours and friends will be the ones to pull the trigger on you? Nuremberg is incredibly effective in that aspect. It must have been a tricky movie to write because it’s a legal drama where everybody watching knows the people were found guilty.

Somehow, this film is still interesting. Part of that is down to how much detail it goes into. It explains the importance of legal procedure. The law is often seen as a hindrance in movies and television. Seriously, watch how many police TV shows operate on the basis of “if the cops arrest someone, they’re guilty. Lawyers just stop the police from doing their job”. Nuremberg shows how if the law isn’t implemented properly, you’re fucked. It explains easily how difficult the job was. Looking back, it may seem like they had a slam dunk case, but there was no precedent for foreign states punishing people for crimes against their own people. Before this, the only people who could bring a legal case were the leader of the country itself, which, for politically based crimes, you can see would be an issue, especially one where a lot of people in the country either agree with what happened, were directly involved, or deny its existence. As an examination of the time, this is tremendously fascinating.

Now onto the downside, and it’s a pretty big one. Rami Malek is not at his best here. His attempts at anger during some of the key scenes are almost laughable. It’s quite hard to take him seriously as he comes off like he’s auditioning for a comedy. This could be the role of a lifetime for some actors, but his performance is so low effort that it feels like a contractual obligation rather than something he’s actually excited about. I also wasn’t impressed with the climax of the trial, where Sir David Maxwell Fyfe (who later helped drive Alan Turing to his grave, so fuck him) successfully goads Goring into admitting he still has admiration for Hitler. It’s the key moment in the trial, and is the reason for the trial ending the way it does. For whatever reason, it doesn’t land. A moment like that should feel huge; there should be a sense of “oh, he fucked up there”. Instead, it just feels like another sentence. You’re not left with “oh, that’s it!”, instead it’s “oh, that’s it?”.

In summary, a pretty good movie. But I’d rather watch a documentary about it than see it again.

Now You See Me, Now You Don’t (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: The Four Horsemen and a new generation of illusionists join forces to steal the world’s largest diamond from a South African mogul who heads an international crime syndicate.

I’m a huge fan of this franchise. I mean, they’re clearly bollocks, with some of the moments (particularly when they were passing the card around in the second movie) defying physics. But that doesn’t mean they’re not enjoyable and well-crafted. It’s weird how all three movies in this franchise have a similar style despite being directed by different people. Now You See Me, Now You Don’t (NYSMNYD, pronounced Nice-mon-yad) is directed by Ruben Fleischer, best known for Zombieland. Now You See Me 2 was by Jon M Chu, who has since moved on to the two Wicked movies (as in, the two movies based on the stage show Wicked, not two movies I think are wicked), and the first one was brought to the world by Louis Leterrier, who gave us Fast X (which should have been called Fast X Your Seatbelts). It feels like Fleischer understood the world better out of the three; he’s really good at staging action sequences among crowds, making them feel dynamic and not like everyone is just standing there watching instead of running away.

I like the script for this more than I did the others; there aren’t as many obviously unrealistic moments. My biggest issue was one which I’m not sure most people would notice. I’m aware I watch more films than most people (I’m one film away from 100 new releases seen this year), so I don’t think it’s too pretentious to say I pick up on things more than most people would, especially verbal foreshadowing. Like a verbal Chekov’s Gun, if a character in a cop movie talks about how their former partner died mysteriously, odds are that character isn’t really dead and will come back at the end. In this, a character is explicitly introduced with “I couldn’t find out much about your past”, so its obvious his past will be a plot point. Added to that, there’s an unseen mysterious character, with nowhere near enough side characters as potential suspects for who they are. So it’s not as mysterious as it should be. Yes, the way the reveal is pulled off is incredibly satisfying, but they could have hidden it a little better. It also would have been nice if the villain was a bit more cruel.

It’s been almost ten years since the last movie, so it would have been understandable if they assumed people didn’t remember what happened and opened with a flashback. This doesn’t do that, it jumps straight in, no explanation of what happened before, no reintroductions or summaries. I like that. It treats the audience as adults rather than spoonfeeding them everything. The way it introduces the new characters could be slightly more subtle, but it works. They slot in with the established crew without overshadowing them. I may not have been too impressed with him in I Saw The TV Glow, but Justice Smith is growing on me with performances like this (I’ve also been playing The Quarry lately, which may explain it). Dominic Sassa is impressive enough that you forget he’s only been acting for a few years.

Is this among the best movies I’ve seen this year? Nope. It might make the top 25% but that’s it. Am I going to buy it on DVD/Blu-ray? Almost definitely. I won’t gush to everyone about how incredible this movie is, about how everyone should see it, and it will change your life. But I will watch it again. If anyone asks whether it’s worth it, I will say yes.