Good Burger 2 (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Dexter Reed and cashier Ed reunite at fast-food restaurant Good Burger

Do people like Good Burger? I think it’s like Space Jam, where if you mention it then you will get positive response from people, but it’s not really brought up that much. It also is very limited in their fanbase, people who were kids in the 90s. There’s not really a large number of modern kids and teens being like “You should totally check out this 90s film I just found”. So the market for a sequel would be people who watched the original in the 90s, and now have both disposable income, and an impending sense of time passing which means they want to recapture their youth. So in that sense, a sequel does make sense, and would be a good way for a streaming service like Paramount+ to gain a foothold.

It doesn’t mean the film is good though. The director was asked about a potential sequel to this, and gave the world the following sentence:

“The character of Ed has not changed […] he now has a family, he’s got a bunch of kids and a wife, but he is still the same old Ed. As that doesn’t change, we can just do it again and again and put them in crazier and crazier situations.”

And that’s a problem. It worked when these characters were teenagers, but it’s 25 years later and Ed hasn’t changed, and seeing that level of naivity, stupidity and immaturity, is no longer charming or funny, it’s actually kind of annoying and makes you concerned. It doesn’t feel like a movie, it feels like a television show. A character like that is needed in a TV show because you need an excuse for them to not learn over the course of 25 episodes, but for a 90 minute movie? You’re allowed to have your characters seem human.

There’s also an issue with the way the film handles Kenan Thompson. He’s a TREMENDOUS comedic talent, but he’s forced into a straight man role that doesn’t really suit him. Most of his screen time is him watching crazy shit, and then explaining what he’s just seen in case the audience didn’t understand it.

The best showcase of Kenan Thompson has been his SNL stint, and people who have watched that will know he’s capable of much more than he’s been allowed to show here. Those who haven’t watched SNL? Best of luck with this, as that’s where a lot of the cameos come from.

With only 2 or 3 exceptions, most of them are relatively low-level outside of the US. I watched Wonka recently, and this feels like it’s aiming for similar, but not really doing it. It has a similar method of casting television comedy actors in small parts so that people who watch it can do the DiCaprio point. I felt it worked better in Wonka though, and not just because I actually knew who they were (although that helped). The cameos in Wonka felt like full characters, even if they were only on screen for one scene (thinking specifically of the couple played by Charlotte Richie and Phil Wang), so that they didn’t feel like cameos, they felt like characters who just happened to be played by comedy performers. Good Burger has the cameos be so obvious that it’s distracting. It puts them front and centre, over the lead actors. You can almost sense the “look, it’s [person]! Applause”. It’s like when I watched the Uncharted movie and the cameo of the original voice actor stood out like a sore thumb covered in fairy lights, begging for people to notice it. “I don’t know who that is, but I assume that’s somebody” is the general feeling.
It’s not all negative though, there is some tremendously funny dialogue with some genuine laugh out loud moments. The scene where Ed is introducing his family has some really randomly funny lines. “he’s allergic to hippos” was my personal favourite because it’s just so stupid and wonderful. Whilst I did say Thompson was miscast, he is still pretty good at what he has to do in this. Kamaia Fairburn is talented as hell and has great potential, as do the Hinkler sisters, who in their all-too-brief moments show enough that I feel casting directors need to focus on developing a vehicle for them.
There’s one area where this is a definite improvement over the first one: no creepy sex pest Dan Schneider, which as anybody who has read I’m Glad My Mom Died (or has heard anything said about him in the last few years), is a definite good thing. The ending reprise of “We’re All Dudes” is also pretty damn entertaining.

Quiz Lady (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Anne and Jerry’s mother gets into debt with the mob. In order to pay off the debt (and get her pet dog back), Anne goes on a quiz show.

I fucking love Awkwafina. From the first time I saw her on-screen in Jumanji: The Next Level, through to Renfield, she has consistently been the highlight of almost every film she’s in. She’s carved a niche as a sarcastic brilliant mess. Conversely, Sandra Oh is best known for playing smart characters who are in control. So it’s weird that Quiz Lady has them do the opposite. It’s a nice subversion of audience expectations. Doing something like that does run the risk of coming off as an acting exercise, but it works in this. They’re both clearly having a blast, being surprisingly great at playing against type.

They have really great chemistry, to the point where it is easy to buy them as siblings. They’re helped by a script full of moments which showcase how much Jenny (Oh) really does care for her sister Anne (Awkwafina). There are so many moments where the script is damn near perfect. The story, however, not so much. It’s incredibly predictable, in a basic way. Just by watching the trailer you can probably pinpoint the three-act structure. But it’s what it does within those confines that make it interesting. Even though the moments are predictable, it still surprises you with how it does it. Even the traditional “what happened next” ending includes a random “Capitalism is broken” message in it.

It also uses the framework it’s in to create some genuinely heartfelt moments, mainly between the sisters. Weirdly (and never thought I’d say this), the most emotional scene comes from Will Ferrell, where he showcases his affection for previous guests on the show. He’s aided by his “rivalry” with Jason Schwartzman’s character, who feels like he’s just doing a Steve Carrell impression.

Now onto the bad; it has one of the worst uses of Eye Of The Tiger in cinematic history. Because of the Rocky movies (a touching tale of unrequited love between one man’s fist and another man’s face), that song has certain expectations attached to it. When you hear that, you expect something triumphant and epic, and that doesn’t really happen in this. It builds up to it, then neutered like a feral cat, only much quicker.

The rapid-fire nature of the jokes also means that some don’t work, there’s an entire character that clearly seemed hilarious on paper but just does not work on screen. I think it’s because it feels shoehorned in. It had the potential to affect the plot, all it would have needed was one conversation between that character and one of the sisters, one moment of meaning could have justified his inclusion. As it is, it just felt like “Okay, they’re staying in a hotel, add some jokes”, like they’re just jokes for joke’s sake, rather than having any thought between them, and they’re not even good jokes.

Overall, this is definitely worth a watch. It’s not going to change your life, but it’s not meant to. It’s escapism at its (almost) best. Sometimes that’s all you want in life. In the UK it’s available on Disney+, and you could do a lot worse.

Chicken Run: Dawn Of The Nugget (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: Ginger and Rocky are now raising a child, one with ambitions of leaving the farm they raised her in.

The original Chicken Run has a weird place in people’s hearts. It doesn’t feel like it’s many people’s favourite film, there’s not exactly a rabid fanbase who do yearly showings and conventions about it and discuss its themes at left. That being said, it is a comfort film for many people. It’s a film which whilst people don’t LOVE, it does give them a place of warmth and security. That’s, you know, if you ignore the Mel Gibson of it all.

The recasting of Gibson made a lot of sense, his career has never really recovered from people discovering he’s a massive racist (by which I mean, “he uses racist words”, not “he sometimes criticises Israel when they kill children”). Whilst he’s not box office poison (the reaction to Hacksaw Ridge proves that), he is box office Evri, his involvement will drive more people away than it will bring them in. Zachary Levi is a good replacement though, providing enough emotion and vocal depth to the performance that you don’t really miss Gibson. I have a bigger issue with Thandiwe Newton being in this. Julia Sawalha was great in the first one, and her being recast for seemingly no reason genuinely annoys me. It’s claimed it’s because she sounded too old, but Newton is only 4 years younger, so maybe it was to get a bigger name? Either way, it’s bullshit, and did kind of sour the whole experience for me.

It kind of sums up my issues with the film. It doesn’t seem to have the same warmth and cosiness as the original. It feels more, well not cynical, but more business-like, as if they were focused on the reaction it was going to get rather than what they were making. It has a Paloma Faith song. That somehow feels wrong, she’s too cool for this. Especially since it seems to be recorded especially for the soundtrack. It just kind of feels like a tonal misfire, it would be like if Wallace and Gromit used a Stormzy track.

That’s a shame, if this was a stand-alone film, I would rate it relatively high. It’s funny, it looks good, and it’s f*cking weird at times. A joke involving an eye-scanner made me laugh so much that I spat out tea (such a sad waste of tea). It is also genuinely unsettling at times, more kids’ films should aim to occasionally scare the living shit out its intended audience. There’s one area where this is better than the original; it has much more emotion. It definitely has an air of “aiming at the parents as well as the kids” with how it’s got themes of parental worry and a need for independence.

I mentioned the cast briefly, this has quite a few new voices, and they work. Bella Ramsey sounds exactly how that character should sound; with the right mix of youthful enthusiasm and paranoia. My personal favourite was Josie Sedgwick-Davies, who (at the time of writing) doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page. Her character could be annoying if it was voiced wrong, but Sedgwick-Davies makes it work, with her character coming off as endearing rather than frustrating (it helps that her voice makes her sound like someone who goes on Bake Off and bakes rainbow cakes which look weird). She’s absolutely fantastic and I love her in this. Curious as to what she does next, but she’s on my radar for now so I’m hoping it’s something good.

So in summary; because this is on Netflix, I’d say you should watch it. It’s a great Netflix film, but only a good Aardman one. If you’re looking for a good family movie, you could do a lot worse than go with this. I mean, you could also do a lot better, but still.

Aquaman And The Lost Kingdom (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Super scary villain fails to kill a baby.

It’s hard to give a shit about DC films at the moment. They’re clearly being written with the idea of building towards something, but the audience knows that with Gunn taking over and resetting everything, they’re not actually building towards anything. This is partly why The Flash was such a frustrating film, It was setting up questions that we knew would never be answered. Aquaman And The Lost Kingdom (AATLK, pronounced Arterlook) doesn’t set up anything like The Flash did, but it also doesn’t feel like the closure that it actually is.

Like a lot of superhero films, it is hard to not wonder where the other characters are. Even considering that they couldn’t withstand the water pressure, there’s still a lot of stuff that takes place on land that they could have been used for. Even just a quick scene of “contact your friends” “There’s no time/they’re busy” would be useful.

Those absences would be fine if the story itself was engrossing enough. This film is so pedestrian, it’s at risk of being hit by a car that mounts the pavement. The visuals aren’t that exciting either. Something like this should create magical-looking worlds that you want to live in. We should forget that these worlds don’t exist. You never get that, everything looks so fake that it resembles a mid-2000s video game more than real life.

At least the performers are having fun. Momoa is having a lot of fun, and the sad thing about him not being Aquaman in Gunns DCEU means that that character is effectively over now, because they can’t recast it without it seeming like a downgrade. It looks like they’re thinking of having him as Lobo, which would kind of make sense, but I think we all know that Joseph Anoa’i would be a better option. Momoa is helped by him and Patrick Wilson having tremendous chemistry, much more than they had in the first one. Yahya Abdul-Mateen II was good in the brief moments he’s seen as Black Manta, but isn’t really in it enough to be memorable. It doesn’t help that Black Manta doesn’t really do much. His whole thing is “I’m going to find this weapon and take over the world”, so the heroes need to stop him getting the weapon that will make him unbeatable, he finds the weapon and then is defeated almost instantly. It reminded me of something, but it’s so generic that I don’t know what it reminded me of. He also seems to know he’s a character in a film, so makes decisions based entirely on what the film needs him to do. The best example of this is when all he needs to do is kill Aquamans son, so he stands above him holding a knife, and pauses, raising it far too high, just so Aquaman can save the day. If he was actually bothered, he could/would/should have killed that baby immediately; would have been easy too, babies are shit at fighting, I reckon I could take like 10 of them on my own. Also, he knew he had to sacrifice the child, yet still did everything on his own. Logically he should have sent one of his henchman to fetch the child while he was off doing other shit. I’ve never said this sentence before and I’m not sure I’ll say it again, but if he was a good manager and effectively delegated his duties, he could have killed that baby instantly.

That’s how I’m ending it.

A Kind Of Kidnapping (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: A young, broke couple kidnap a sleazy politician who decides he can spin the story to his advantage.

I wanted to like this, I really did. If you can, check out the absolutely SUBLIME television series How Not To Live Your Life. From that, it’s clear that Dan Clark has a lot of talent, not just for the absurd, but also for finding humanity, with an almost Seinfeldien level of talent for making you root for characters who by all rights you should dislike. Plus, I love a good political satire, and this looked like it might be that. Alas, it was not to be.

I’ll start with the positive, Dan Clark is a hell of a director. He could have gotten away with this being low-budget and grim, but it’s really slick and has a big-budget feel, albeit one of those big-budget films mainly played in theatres that cater to cinema snobs. The performances are all pretty solid too. Leila Hoffman isn’t in it for long but shines when she is in it. Patrick Baladi was born for this kind of role, he has Thick Of It face. He’s perfect to play a slimy opportunistic Tory wanker.

Now onto the bad; it just feels a bit too mean-spirited. We know politicians are shits, so if the sharpest your satire gets is showing us that, it will feel a little weak. Good satire should be an explosive firebomb of inspiration, this is more like a pathetic discharge of a mouse coughing. It’s not telling us anything we don’t already know, and it doesn’t offer any glimpse of an opportunity to change anything. If anything, all this has to say is “The ruling class are shit, deal with it”. The pacing is a bit odd too. The moment where Baladi’s character doesn’t want to go because he realises it’s good for his career possibly should have come earlier. It’s the main gimmick of the film and it doesn’t occur until a third of the way through the runtime.

This wouldn’t matter if the rest of the time was well spent, if a holiday is good enough, you don’t mind the queues to get there. But the other two-thirds of the runtime feels kind of wasted. There’s not enough in there that wasn’t in the trailer.

Don’t get me wrong, this does have some cracking dialogue; my personal favourites:

“Japs Eye is not very PC, in fact, it’s pretty racist”

And, this is the only film to have “if you do that again I’ll put a bullet in your dick” as a threat.

I like the dialogue, I like the concept, I like the performances, I like the direction, but the film didn’t really do it for me. I can tell they tried though. There’s a lot you can say about this, but you can’t say it’s low effort. I’ve given negative reviews to a lot of films, but this is one of the few I’ve felt genuinely guilty about writing. That’s probably because when I shit on something like Assassin Club or Wolf, I don’t see myself in those films. They’re not the kind of scripts I would write, or the mistakes they make are ones I would never make. But this? A sweary political satire that kind of lacks focus and passion? I could do that. This feels like something I would do, so I see any issues more easily, I take them more personally out of my own personal fear of failure.

Next Goal Wins (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: Football (the foot-to-ball kind, not the hand kind) coach Thomas Rongen has been given the job of coach of the American Samoan national team with one task; to score a goal.

The best thing this film has going for it is it’s likeable. Next Goal Wins (or NGW, pronounced Noog-wah) has an inherent cosiness and warmth that makes it very easy for the audience to not want to turn away. It has the air of a comfortable end-of-year movie you watch with everybody; a bit like Cool Runnings, it all feels very Disney, in a good way. But much like a ska song about the holocaust, that lightness is hiding something very dark. Underneath the tale of the worst football team in the world lies a story about national pride, parental grief, transphobia, and personal belief. But those topics are woven so intricately that you don’t even realise they’re breaking your heart until they pile up. Mostly, the subplot about parental grief plays its hand too easily, it’s trying to give you a peak behind the curtain but instead pulls the curtain wide open, the hints just aren’t subtle enough to hide the reveal. I am very glad that that wasn’t invented for the movie though. His daughter genuinely did pass away in a car crash, and it was her hat he was wearing during American Samoa’s match against Tonga. That’s the kind of thing which if it was invented for the film, would have come off as weird and unrealistic. Related to that, there are quite a few moments which if they weren’t real (and if the film didn’t come from someone with ties to the area) would come off as incredibly condescending. Even the whole premise of the film, that these natives were hopeless until they were “saved” by a white man, comes off as a little strange in the current climate, by “current climate”, I mean “past the 1970s” (which didn’t reach some parts of the Midlands until 1998).

This isn’t an essential watch, but it is very good. It’s not going to change the world, but I’m not sure it’s supposed to. It’s supposed to just entertain you, and tell a really unique story. The American Samoan team’s loss to Australia was huge, literally, it was 31-0. NGW does do a great job of pointing out that the American Samoan goalkeeper actually had a fantastic game, and if it wasn’t for him the score would have been a lot worse. The rest of the players don’t come off with quite as much dignity. But even when the film portrays the players as not being that good, it never dehumanises them. The joke is purely on the observer, not the person being observed. This is the difference between something like Next Goal Wins, and The Gods Must Be Crazy. You don’t come out of this pitying the people you’ve just watched. But you also don’t come out with some condescending thoughts of “Ah, but they’re the real smart ones”, you come out realising that they’re just people with ambitions, hopes, dreams, and moments of stupidity.

It’s not perfect. We could stand to be given a bit more background into his coaching career. We don’t really get a sense of what level he was at in his career. So we’re not given any indication of how big his “fall from grace” is. Was it a huge scandal? Was he not known by anybody? We don’t know, and it kind of harms his character not knowing. Fassbender does do a great job portraying him, though. Due to the nationality and race of the cast, it’s not exactly going to be full of performers you’re familiar with. The only one I recognised was Talia’uli Latukefu from Young Rock, but there are so many performers from this who I want to see again. They’re helped by a really fun script that knows that it’s ridiculous. I mean, it’s a sports movie where the end result isn’t to win the tournament or beat their rival, it’s to score a single goal. Delightfully unique, and I look forward to watching it again.

Ferrari (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: With the company in dire straits (not the band), Ferrari need to win their next race in order to survive. Will they? I mean, they still exist, so yeah.

Many people like this film, it’s got pretty decent reviews. I have to be honest; I don’t get it. The main issue I had with it was I had nothing to hang a positive thought on. It didn’t feel informative enough to be interesting, the characters (particularly the lead; Enzo Ferrari) were too unlikeable to root for, and you knew how the main conflict would end. Let’s go through all three.
The lack of information. You don’t come out of this with a better understanding of the person, or the company. It’s so heavily focused on one event that it neglects to give you any other information. It feels like the second part of a ten-part documentary series. I’m not asking for every single piece of the company history to be covered, but it would be nice to have at least one “oh, I didn’t know that!/that’s interesting” thought whilst watching it.
The predictability. This also affected the shoe-opic Air. We all know that Ferrari exists (spoilers?). So you can’t really watch this and think “OMG! I wonder if the company is going to survive this.” If you push that a company is dependent on doing well in a race, and the company is still around today, you know what’s going to happen.
Now onto the unlikeability. I thought the lead character was a complete prick. I didn’t care about anybody, especially the lead. “oh no, if this doesn’t work he might have to sell the house he purchased for his mistress and illegitimate child. Or stop drinking quite as much expensive wine.”
He’s not in a “I’m financially struggling and if I don’t turn it around I won’t have enough money to pay rent” situation. The film seems to really hate his wife, with his mother blaming her for his cheating “Well if you can’t give him an heir, it’s his right to look elsewhere”. The film ends with the wife saying “I’ll lend you money but only if you never acknowledge your illegitimate son as your heir”, then a few minutes later you get a piece of text onscreen saying “She died in [year], and now the son is the head of the company”. It seems to treat “but then his wife died so the son he had with his mistress was finally able to inherit the business” as a happy ending. Like his wife was being the bitch for not allowing that.
I like Shailene Woodley, she gave a fantastic performance in TFIOS, anchored the Divergent series, and rightfully puts herself forward for causes she believes in. I think she is a good person and a good performer, but she is a terrible Italian. A lot of the accents are bad, but hers is one step away from “It’s a me, a Mario! I make-a the pizza”. Out of the cast, only Penelope Cruz gives the impression of someone who can actually point out Italy on a map of Europe.
To the film’s credit, the racing scenes themselves are fantastic, injected with a sense of realism missing from similar films. They don’t feel like you’re watching a film about racing, it feels like you’re actually there experiencing it, being fully aware of just how f*cking fast these things can go.
Mann has also managed to recreate the period. I’m not aware of how accurate it is, but it feels right. It doesn’t even need to tell you when and where it’s set, as the set design does a good enough job of telling you. The aftermath of a crash at the end is much more brutal than I thought it would be, although that is somewhat ruined by the reaction of Enzo being one of nonchalance. That’s to be expected though, another character died in one of his cars early on, and there’s no mention of him for the rest of the film. There’s no sense of “but am I responsible?” guilt, it’s just “his mother caused him to crash” (that’s genuinely what he says by the way) and absolves himself. Again, he’s an asshole.
I wish I liked this film, I really do. But it’s the second Adam Driver film of the year with an exciting concept, rendered incredibly dull. Maybe if you like cars etc, this might mean more to you. But it left me colder than the weather is currently.

It’s A Wonderful Knife (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: Winnie wants to see what the world would be like if she had never been born and is shocked to find out that if she didn’t stop a serial killer, people would die.

It’s hard NOT to compare this to Totally Killer. I mean, you can also compare to Freaky and Happy Death Day, but the “person in familiar yet new environment” is more applicable to TK. That was fun and had good ideas and logical storytelling. And I actually enjoyed TK. This? Not a fan. I think it’s because I expected it to be much better than it was.

If you’re doing a parody of an iconic film like It’s A Wonderful Life, you need to go all in. You can’t gently kiss or tease the concept, you need to fuck it. You need to make it as fun as possible and play with expectations and societal differences in regards to what was acceptable in the original, and what isn’t now.

Importantly, you need a lot of thought and love. This kind of seems like they came up with the title first, and then the idea whilst having no idea how to flesh that idea out. The Wonderful Life comparisons aren’t as central as they could be. For most of the movie, it doesn’t really matter. A lot of the central problems aren’t related to her, it’s just standard “there’s a killer on the loose” mixed with “alternate universe”. The “here’s what it would be like if you never existed” differences are ONLY related to the murders. Which is my central problem; she stopped a serial killer. She knows this. So her “I don’t matter, I’ve never done anything important” attitude doesn’t really ring true. Might have made more sense if her absence in the town CREATED the killer somehow, like she stopped someone on their path of darkness etc. Because at the moment it’s “without you stopping a serial killer, that serial killer KILLED PEOPLE!” *dun dun dun*. She only gets to that feeling of worthlessness because her parents take a personality change from the opening to the “one year after”. In the opening they’re normal and kind parents, afterwards, they’re swaggering bags of douche cleanse. If it played into “they’re traumatised too so they don’t know how to talk to their daughter” it would work. But at the moment they’re the kind of people who buy their son a new car, and their daughter a single item of clothing (I think was a jumper). To be fair, the rest of the characters aren’t that smart. One character punches the killer and then runs into the dark woods rather than BACK INTO THE HOUSE. I mean, luckily it ends up working for her but still.

The other timeline isn’t that interesting either. For one thing, it would have been more interesting if the killer from the first timeline died early in the second but the killings continued. Then there’d be a sense of mystery. And it wouldn’t make the characters seem so lazy. At the moment she goes into a new timeline, realises the mayor is still killing people, and then goes to watch a movie. This would be so easy, especially since there IS another killer in this timeline, but they don’t reveal that until very late on. The only twist is some mind-control gimmick, but that doesn’t count as a worthwhile twist because it’s fucking stupid.

We’re also not given enough time to really explore the new reality. Which is linked to another problem; the pacing. It takes 8 minutes for the film to realise it’s a horror movie, and 15 minutes to get to the title card, IN A 90 MINUTE MOVIE. It takes her almost half the run-time to discover what kind of movie she’s in.

Now onto the good, there are some beautiful shots, especially in regards to the use of colour. There’s a moment where she’s dressed in red whilst in an incredibly washed-out room. I like that the town somehow became more nihilistic in response to an active serial killer, that seems very realistic. There’s a romantic relationship between Winnie and Bernie that is very sweet. The reactions between the two of them are very genuine. They have great chemistry, and apparently, that’s why the relationship between the characters happens as it does, they wanted to take advantage of the actors’ natural chemistry. So whilst it is nice, it’s kind of sad that the best part of the film wasn’t written. The performances are all fine, but I kind of think it might have worked better if Joel McHale and Justin Longs’ characters were switched. As I said, the best parts of the films are all related to the central two; Jane Widdop and Jessie McLeod. I want to see them in a buddy road trip movie, or a weird millennial remake of Thelma and Louise. McLeod is delightfully weird, seeming to operate on a different level from anybody else, and I absolutely love her for it. Those kinds of performances are tricky to do because they can often come off as fake and over the top. McLeod is talented enough that she seems genuine throughout.

So in summary, maybe watch if it’s on TV at Christmas time, but you don’t NEED to see it. If you want a violent Christmas movie, watch Violent Night, if you want a Christmas horror movie, watch Gremlins, if you want a parody horror, watch Totally Killer. This is not the best option for any choice, which I’m sorely disappointed by. This has all the ingredients to be a classic; fun premise, bloody kills, Katherine Isabelle from Ginger Snaps. But instead of utilising those ingredients to make a delicious cake of greatness, it underbakes them and then adds a secret ingredient of piss. If I hadn’t watched Totally Killer 2 days before, I might have been kinder. But it’s hard to watch economy after watching first class.

Totally Killer (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Thirty-five years after the shocking murders of three teens, an infamous killer returns on Halloween night to claim a fourth victim. When 17-year-old Jamie comes face-to-face with the masked maniac, she accidentally time-travels back to 1987 where she tries to stop the original murders, and come to terms with the idea that her mother was a complete bitch.

I went into this knowing only the title. I’m assuming I did read the concept at one point and thought it sounded interesting, but by the time I got around to watching it I had forgotten it. So I’m glad it set the tone early on, describing a murder in the 80’s. We see the murders through crime scene reconstructions (so figures and small models laid out in a model house) intercut with still shots of the actual bodies. This is a really simple way of doing a scene like that on a low budget and without coming off as cheap, so I was instantly sold that this would be creative and clever.

I then realised that this was essentially Back To The Future but as a slasher film, and I went all in. I love stuff like that. It’s been attempted before with Happy Death Day 2 U, which I absolutely loved. But I think I might prefer Totally Killer, HDD2U was good, but it didn’t play into the time travel aspect as much. This doesn’t just do a time travel slasher, it dissects the genre and approaches it from as many angles as possible. It would be really hard to do a sequel to this because it’s difficult to see what else they could do.

There’s a comment on the trailer for this that says something along the lines of “I miss the 80s, people were better back then”. Which makes me think they didn’t watch the movie. A lot of the people in this are dicks, but they’re entertaining dicks (like a penis telling jokes). Unlike something like Ferrari (spoilers for that review btw) where it’s hard to get emotionally involved since every character is a prick. In TK, the characters aren’t people you want to know in real life, but they’re funny and interesting. Plus, they’re teenagers in the 80s, so a small amount of assholeness is understandable because you know they’re not at their final form.

This is really damn funny. I went through many options for my “favourite line” in my end-of-the-year round-up. Funny dialogue comes thicker and faster than a Grimace Milkshake Ejaculation.
“When I think of serial killers I think at least 3 people”. “let’s give it up for Angie who wishes there were more people killed”
“if she did do blow jobs, maybe she’d still be alive” “Yeah, let’s not make that the lesson”
“the machines don’t kill us all. They just rip apart the fabric of our society via dance videos on TikTok”

These lines are all perfectly delivered too. I didn’t watch The Chilling Adventures Of Sabrina; nothing against it, but I worked in a shopping centre when it came out so I had to see the poster for it hundreds of times a day. As such, I’m not that familiar with the work of Kiernan Shipka, but she nails it here. It helps that she’s given a good script.

It’s a script which is depressingly realistic in terms of how it approaches murder. The commercialisation of murder is too true to not sting a little bit. On the downside, the reveal of the killer doesn’t really work. It’s probably because it’s a character we haven’t seen that much of, so when they’re unmasked it feels more like “who?”. If the opening third had another 10 minutes it might have helped flesh him out.
In summary, this is on Amazon Prime, and that’s apt, as this is a prime cut of fresh horror.
Fuck that’s a terrible line, isn’t it? Ah well, go see this movie.

Wonka (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: It’s a Willy Wonka prequel, do you need a synopsis?

I will admit, I went into this knowing there was a chance that it would end up being terrible. Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely ADORE the Paddington movies, I think they’re genuinely two of the most enjoyable films I’ve ever seen. But I didn’t know that much about Paddington, so I had no preconceived notions of what the character should be. Wonka’s different, I’ve read the book (and the sequel), watched both of the films, and really enjoyed one of them. So I already knew the character, I had an idea in my head of what he was like, and the tone. Where the Depp one went wrong (in my opinion) is it just made him weird and kooky, lacking the (weird description but it makes sense to me) sociopathic kindness of the character. The trailer did not ease my worries; I know Chalamet is a good performer, but I just don’t buy him as Wonka. My rule for Wonka is this; can I imagine them playing The Doctor? If so, they’re a good fit (and vice versa). Chalamet feels like he’s trying too hard. It always feels like he’s acting as Wonka, it never feels like he completely disappears into the role and becomes him. It’s not helped by the fact that his singing isn’t the strongest, which isn’t great for a musical.

It’s a shame because apart from that, this is a great watch. The songs are catchy as hell and instantly feel familiar. That’s probably helped by how even in Paddington, Paul King directed everything with a sense of rhythm so that everything flowed together and created a sense that you were in a musical. So really, an actual musical was the next logical step. Importantly, the songs don’t overshadow the narrative, there aren’t any moments where it feels like they spent 4 minutes singing about something they could have said in 10 seconds, the songs all have a purpose; either driving the narrative forward, introducing a character etc.

Much like Paddington, the supporting cast is a delight. Paul King has always had a talent for putting random British comedy performers in small roles, and thus, making those characters memorable. That continues here, with one-scene characters played by Charlotte Richie, Phil Wang, Isy Suttie etc. Even the main “villains” are mostly unknown outside of the UK; people will know Olivia Colman and might know Matt Lucas from Bake Off, but I don’t think performers like Matthew Baynton or Rakhee Thakrar can be considered mainstream names, even in the UK. But none of them are weak links. Special mention must go to young American actress Calah Lane, who outshines the aforementioned Chalamet at every moment. I hope she goes on to do something special, as she definitely has the potential to do something amazing.

This film is lucky, because of the universe it’s created, it allows things which could sink other films. Gaps in logic, contrived coincidences, things existing just for silly reasons. They don’t matter as much in this as they do in say Good Burger 2 (spoilers for that review btw).

So in summary, this is completely predictable, overstuffed with cliches, and also unbelievably fantastic.