Kingdom Of The Planet Of The Apes (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Many years after the reign of Caesar, a young ape goes on a journey that will lead him to question everything he’s been taught about the past and make choices that will define a future for apes and humans alike.

I consider the 2010 Planet Of The Apes trilogy as close to a perfect trilogy as one could get. It’s right up there with the three Creed movies as not having a weak entry. So it’s easy to see why I was concerned that a new entry 7 years later and without Andy Serkis wouldn’t be able to live up to the legacy, especially since it’s being directed by someone (Wes Ball) whose only previous cinematic experience as a director is the Maze Runner franchise. There was the potential for this to come off as cheap and a cash-in. Thankfully, that’s not the case. This easily matches the rest of the franchise and helps bridge a gap between the original and modern franchises.

Before this, I assumed that the two iterations of the Apes franchise had different continuities, but Kingdom makes it clear that they both may exist in the same universe. That opens up future possibilities which I’m very excited about.

Besides that, is this worth watching? I have to say yes. Visually it’s stunning. Water is notoriously difficult to animate due to how unpredictable it is. It is a brave choice to have SOOO much of this film’s climax in running water, as it has the potential to look shit. But Ball (lol, buttball) managed to pull it off with aplomb. There are zero moments where you don’t believe what you’re seeing is real, which isn’t easy considering the subject matter.

Kingdom Of The Planet Of The Apes (or KOTPOTA, pronounced cot-pot-ah) feels more ape-focused than the previous entries, which makes sense considering that they are the dominant species on the planet. This also means that when we do see humans, it is a genuine shock. The humans we see are kind of feral, which again sets up the timeline established in the first film. They’re also not good. It would be so easy to make them sympathetic heroes, but the ones we spend time with are either cowards or duplicitous backstabbers. We don’t spend that much time with them though, this is definitely an Ape movie (as in, about them, not aimed towards them, are apes capable of understanding fiction?).

KOTPOTA doesn’t miss Serkis as much as you think it would. To be honest, it would have been weird if he was in this considering the character he portrayed has been dead for 300 years. The actors playing the apes don’t let you down in this, either in motion or voice. Peter Macon, in particular, is incredible as Raka, and I really hope that his character actually did survive the seemingly certain death, as I want to see more. Really though, this belongs to Owen Teague, who I wasn’t that familiar with despite having seen him in things. Teague plays Noa as someone who is emotionally conflicted about having to work with humans, wanting to be proven wrong about them but is not given very many reasons to trust them. I hope KOTPOTA gets a sequel as I’m interested in where his character goes. Unlike Caesar, there is the definite possibility that Noa could die in the second film of a new trilogy, he lacks the plot armour of previous leads. There’s also the possibility of him deciding to get more vicious and become a villain. There are countless possibilities, all being logical options.

In summary; if you liked the previous trilogy (and you really should) then you’ll like this. It lives up to the legacy and slots beautifully alongside it.

Unfrosted (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: A completely untrue story about the origin of Pop Tarts

The biggest thing Unfrosted (shortened to U, pronounced “chabatwangkluman for linguistic reasons I can’t get into) has going for it is that it is very very silly, and demonstrates how silly it is by playing it completely straight. The fact everybody takes all these things so seriously despite the fact it’s ridiculous just demonstrates how absurd a lot of this is.

But that’s also kind of its biggest weakness. Stoic reactions in a comedic world can work, Airplane is an example of that. But that requires ACTORS, everybody in this is a comedian, and they’re all playing the straight role. This feels like a waste of their talents. Jerry Seinfeld is the most affected by this. He’s known for his wit and comedic timing, so it’s weird he wrote himself a role in which he doesn’t get to display any of that. Especially since his acting skills could be improved. Don’t get me wrong, he is a tremendously talented comedian and writer, but he’s a bad actor, and always has been, even back in the days of Seinfeld.

The trouble with EVERY character buying into the silliness is there’s no real way to ground it, nobody is pointing out how stupid it is. As a result, everything feels disconnected, making it very hard to buy in. Without a reason to buy in, it occasionally comes off as a marathon of references and “Future popular thing? That will never catch on.” The story isn’t that compelling either. You don’t actually care about what happens. As such, there’s no reason to be invested. It doesn’t feel like a feature film, it has the air of an SNL sketch stretched out far far too long to the point where it seems a bit obnoxious and like it only exists so the cast can show off how funny they are, in other words, an SNL sketch.

This review may give the impression that I didn’t care about Unfrosted. Truth is; it’s one of the funniest films I’ve seen this year. The jokes are like a chronic masturbater who has just recovered from surgery which meant he couldn’t use his hand; they come frequently and with great satisfaction. You may not be invested in the story, but you’re never bored. If you don’t understand or like a certain joke, there will be another one in a few seconds that you will like. It’s not going to change the world, make you reassess your feelings about something, or make you forget that Seinfeld is now one of those comedians who complains about how “woke ruins everything”, but it will make you laugh, and sometimes that’s all you need. Plus, in a world where a biopic for a shoe genuinely exists (and is pretty good), is one about pop tarts really so far-fetched?

Night Swim (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: A haunted swimming pool exists.

I started talking to someone online recently and she mentioned that she doesn’t watch movies. I remember thinking how weird that is, to spend your evenings or days NOT watching something. After watching this, I’m slightly jealous of her for being lucky enough to avoid this. After a series of reviews which basically amounted to “this film was weird, I loved it”. It’s nice to have a film where the review will boil down to “this film was weird. I hated it”. To paraphrase the Benoit who solves murders instead of causing them, this isn’t so dumb it’s brilliant, it’s just dumb. Seriously, just look at that synopsis. They somehow stretched this out to 90 minutes.

I think the issue is that Night Swim takes its concept seriously, and with a concept like “a haunted swimming pool” I think it’s best to lean into the absurdity. I like it when films have emotion and realism, characters you can believe exist and all have backstories. But there’s a time and a place for that, and there’s a time for stupidity and ridiculousness. Guess which one this is? Here’s a hint, look at the synopsis again.

It’s competently made and performed, but just not effective. Probably because, again, it’s a haunted swimming pool. Some of the scares aren’t so much “evil pool trying to kill someone” as “person forgets basic safety rules”. The most obvious one is where the male lead leans over the pool and lands on the pool cover, almost being trapped underneath. That’s an actual danger with falling onto plastic pool covers, it’s as much a “ghost scare” as someone jumping down stairs and breaking their leg is a scare to do with a haunted stair.

It’s difficult to make an immovable object scary (except for Andre The Giant obviously, if you don’t think he’s scary, just ask Bad News Brown about the incident in Mexico). The simple answer to it is “just don’t go near the object”. To make up for that, there’s a possession thing going on which compels one of the characters to act a certain way. But that also opens up new issues. Spoilers, btw. The pool operates on a “we will give you health in return for a sacrifice”, and lines up the dad for a sacrifice. But then tries to make him kill a random child, and at one point has him chase his daughter around. The writers said they wanted to make people scared of swimming pools, but they failed. Because of the amount of time spent on the possession angle, it makes you more scared of violent men. And I’m sure countless women already have true stories they can tell which will do a better job of that.

It tries to set up the pool as evil early on by having a scene where a cat is scared of it. But that isn’t really an indication that the pool is evil as much as it is cats hate water, as anybody who has tried to bathe them can attest. By the logic of Night Swim, tiny plastic vials of flea treatment are all haunted because every time I approach one of my cats whilst wielding one, they get scared and either run away or pee on me. The cat disappears, gets referenced in a single sentence in the next scene, and then is never brought up again. It wasn’t brought up that much before then either. Also, if the cat is dead, does that not count as a sacrifice? The pool is shown as killing people in return for something, so why did it kill the cat? Just to be a dick? Things like “cat is scared of water” are set up as big deals. Meanwhile, when a character has a demonic force trying to pull them under they treat it as a “everything is okay, everything is cool when you’re part of a team” situation. Sure, they are a little wary, but that only extends to “watching out for the kids when they go swimming”, which THEY SHOULD BE DOING ANYWAY!

As you can guess, I was not a fan of this. It took itself far too seriously, and yet not seriously enough to actually think about what it was doing. For example; the dad sacrifices himself at the end, after which the family fill in the pool. A few things: Why was that not done earlier by ANY of the previous families? Also, the husband dies, and then they perform a large landscaping job. Would that not raise questions with the police?

The Fall Guy (2024) Review

Quick synopsis: Retired stuntman Colt Seavers is hired by a studio to attempt to find a missing actor. Yup, it’s just as intelligent as that makes it sound.

I’m a big fan of the work of David Leitch. Every film I’ve seen from him has been reviewed well on this site (Deadpool 2, Bullet Train etc), in fact, they’ve often been the highlights. They’re the kind of films I enjoy watching; fun action movies with creative set pieces. The Fall Guy (or TFG, pronounced Tafug, as in “What ta fug is going on in this movie? I don’t know but I love it”) is no exception. It’s a film about stunt work, so the action scenes have to be top-notch, which they are. From the looks of it, a lot of the work on this was done practically, so everything has a weight to it. When someone ducks, you feel like they’re actually getting out of the way of something the director has thrown at them, rather than just ducking then something being added in post production. Every hit has an impact, so when someone is punched in the face you actually feel the pain. The vehicular stunts are impressive too, with it achieving a Guinness World Record for most cannon rolls in a car. That alone shows the dedication that Leitch and his crew have to making everything feel real.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s still very silly at times. Ryan Babygoose has seemingly stopped attempting to be taken seriously, instead just doing stuff that is fun and a bit weird; which I love. I never would have guessed he had the comedic chops that he does. He’s not quite as brilliant as he was in Barbie, but that’s probably because he’s got less to do. The whole cast is tremendously funny; Blunt is brilliant, Waddington is wonderful, and Taylor-Johnson has too long a name for me to work into an alliterative compliment, but he’s good too, and incredibly punchable in an entertaining way. Annoyingly, this berth of talent does mean that some do feel wasted. Stephanie Hsu in particular feels incredibly underutilized. Even Blunt feels like she could have more to do, which is weird as she’s one of the leads; but there are times when she feels more like a plot device than an actual character. The relationship between the two is very cute, but the tension between them feels overexplained; there are times when the characters defend their motivations for past actions, then say practically the same thing again in case the audience doesn’t get it. My other big criticism of TFG is it uses a Kiss song far too much, I get wanting to associate a certain song with your movie, but Kiss fucking suck and are as manufactured as Boyzone or the Sex Pistols. On that note; fuck the sex pistols.

In summary; TFG is well worth a watch. I’m not sure how it relates to the original television show as I’ve never seen it, but on its own merits it’s an incredibly fun watch which doesn’t feel anywhere near as long as it actually is. It’s a love letter to cinema, to action, and to stunt performers. We need more films like this; ones made with genuine love and care. Where you just know that EVERYBODY is giving their all.

Boy Kills World (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: An unnamed deaf-mute ventures on a revenge plan against those who killed his family.

As is a sadly familiar story with smaller films lately, even ones I’ve seen at the cinema, I knew nothing about this as it received no trailers or promotional material in my local. You could easily not know it existed. That’s a shame as Boy Kills World (or BKW, pronounced Buck-ow) is one of the highlights of the year.

Saying this film is “weird” would be an understatement. “Batshit insane” is more appropriate. It’s essentially a live-action anime mixed with Naked Gun. It takes longer than you’d expect for that tone to come through though. Don’t get me wrong, you’re not waiting a long time for it to establish tone, but it does take longer than it probably should. Up until the opening credits it just feels like a standard movie. When it gets weird, it does get WEIRD, but it could place its flag earlier on.

It is weird, but in a way that makes sense within the universe created. The world it takes place in is weird, so when odd shit happens, it doesn’t feel out of place. There’s a general sense of “what the fuck?” over the whole thing. Thankfully it’s not offputting, mainly because it’s incredibly funny. Bill Skarsgard has great physical comedy skills; bringing to mind Buster Keaton, only with violence and bloodshed. He has a hell of a difficult job, not being able to vocally communicate with the other characters puts him at a huge disadvantage. He does have a slight advantage over similar roles by having a voiceover performed by H. Jon Benjamin. On the downside; it’s hard to not hear him as Archer or the main character from Bob’s Burgers whose name escapes me right now (Gene Parmasen?), so he never really feels like he is the character as much as he is just narrating as a separate person. He does provide some fantastic laughs though. A lot of the cast nail the comedy side; Brett Gelman and Andrew Koji are particular highlights, Koji surprisingly so.

The weirdness and comedic nature don’t mean it doesn’t excel from a technical viewpoint. The action scenes are intense and expertly crafted. The story is much better than it needs to be. It really feels like a genuinely dystopian city. It’s creepily believable. It’s not loudspeakers and constant “all hail us”. It’s statues, police presence, and state-sanctioned violence on dissenters. The scene where Boys family are executed is chilling, as is the fact that the regime has a lot of supporters. It also notable that there’s not really a “nice” side. It’s not a battle between good and evil, it’s a battle between two sides desperate to kill each other. Although one of the sides:

  • Started the conflict.
  • Has more advanced weaponry.
  • Has an army/police force that brutally crushes any form of resistance to them.
  • Indulges in mass surveillance of its people.
  • Has a media supporting them who are ready to go after anybody who opposes them.
  • Stifles free speech.
  • Massacres children indiscriminately

Yet that side is still portrayed as the “good” side. I wonder if there are any real-life parallels to that happening right now. I’m sure not.

Unsubtle political posturing from me aside, Boy Kills World isn’t the best film of the year (that honour still belongs to either Civil War or American Fiction), but I think it is the one I most want to watch again. It’s not perfect, the music choices could be more fun. There’s not really an iconic needle drop, which feels like a wasted opportunity. There’s also a late twist which isn’t as surprising as the film thinks it is.

I.S.S. (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Tensions flare in the near future aboard the International Space Station when a worldwide conflict breaks out on Earth

Not really relevant to my opinion of this film; but that title is terrible. It’s an awkward mix of being too short to google effectively, but also too clunky to say out loud. It’s also incredibly bland. I suppose that sums up the film itself though; bland, unoriginal, and not something you particularly want to find.

It’s hard to say exactly WHY this doesn’t work (which doesn’t bode well for this review). It looks fantastic, zero gravity is hard to pull off on-screen without it looking too fake and like they’re just being pulled along by wires. There’s never a second here where you don’t believe they’re floating around like a lost balloon (only with less chance of having a duck choke on them). The scenes of nuclear explosions on Earth could look better though. I’m not sure what they could look like, but the way they’re done here makes them look more like a video game, specifically Civilization.

The plot itself is pretty good actually. A look at paranoia, claustrophobia, and how citizens can suddenly become pawns in a game they have no desire to play. On paper, this should be a tension-filled masterpiece. Yet it’s not. The performances are all there, the directing is good, but they just don’t seem to mesh together. Separately they’re all fantastic, but it feels like they’re all trying to make different movies, so there’s no sense of a cohesive style. It’s a political thriller directed like a science fiction action movie, starring actors who think they’re in a horror movie. Gabriella Cowperthwaite is obviously talented, but she needed to tell people “That’s a good idea, but it’s wrong for this”.

I think part of the problem is the sound. If you had your eyes shut, you wouldn’t feel the tension. There’s not really a score to help match the scenes, and it also doesn’t utilise silence effectively. You’re also not really given a chance to see how big the ISS actually is. We see it from the outside and see bits of it inside, but there’s not really much indication of how far things are from each other. It looks like the whole thing takes place in a section no bigger than an ordinary-sized flat. So it’s presented as a small area, but it never feels like they’re hemmed in too close to each other in a way that ups the tension. It also doesn’t feel big enough that you can imagine someone feeling isolated from their colleagues.

It would also be useful if we were provided more background into the world. Why are Russia and the US at war? Are other countries involved? Importantly; what is left of the world after the nuclear weapons have been launched? We know that some elements of the space agencies/military are still available, but that’s it. What makes it even more frustrating is that the characters themselves don’t seem interested in answering these questions. The reason that it’s important for each country to gain control of the space station also feels a bit weak. Spoilers; they’re fighting so one of the sides can get control of the cure for radiation sickness. I feel if it got out that one side did have that, the other side would just focus on destroying infrastructure instead, meaning you wouldn’t die of radiation sickness but would starve instead. Also, they don’t need the whole space station for that. Look at it from the Russians’ POV: You assume the Americans have received a message saying “Take over the space station”. But if you are aware of what that’s for, and also that you have the cure for radiation sickness with you, would you not just say “We’re leaving, the space station is yours”, and secretly take the research with you as you jettison back home. You don’t need the ship, you need the contents of a locker. It’s like shooting up a school so you can get your homework back.

This is a fairly decent watch, which is the worst thing. It had potential for greatness, everything about it screams out “modern classic”, but it only reaches “pretty good” at best. Seeing that wasted potential is such a disappointment, and makes me think of it as worse than it actually is.

Civil War (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: In a dystopian future America, a team of military-embedded journalists races against time to reach Washington, D.C., before rebel factions descend upon the White House.

I have watched lots of terrible films, some at home, some at the cinema. Some, I’ve slowly realised are bad as the film went on (Lucky, or ironically Alex Garland’s previous film Men), and some I knew were going to be shit from the opening moments (Wolf, Hellboy), and a few I knew would be shit before they even started but I knew I’d get a decent review out of them (Thunder Force). But no matter how bad a film is, or how torturous the experience is, I have one rule; stay until the end. There have been a few cases where I have got up IMMEDIATELY at the fade-out, but I made sure I stayed until then. Civil War is the closest I’ve ever come to walking out of a screening.

Not because it was bad, or I objected to anything in it (and in a film about an American Civil War there was potential for it to be very problematic in terms of themes), or even because I didn’t like what I was watching. It was just so unbearably brutal and bleak that I felt I needed a break, just for a few minutes so that I could compose myself and face what was unfolding. Civil War is one of those films which seems horrific and terrifying until you sit down and think about it and realise it’s actually somehow more horrific than you first thought.

That’s the point of it though. People have come out against the film for “not picking sides”. In a way, they have a point. It’s difficult to know how to feel about certain factions because you don’t know their motivations. All we know is that the president has done some awful things. But we don’t know why. The war itself isn’t given any background, and the main opposing faction is comprised of both a red and blue state, so it’s difficult to assign any political leanings to it. We do see one group who are torturing and massacring any foreigners or people they see as “un-American”, but they’re shown as being unaffiliated with any of the main rebel factions. Similarly, it mentions an “Antifa massacre”, now is this a massacre committed by anti-fascists, or one committed upon them? The film doesn’t say.

It’s easy to see why this would annoy people. They need a side that is right and wrong, and they need to feel like they’re on the right side. I don’t think it matters though. If someone is threatening to shoot you it doesn’t matter what side they’re on. Unless they’re Israeli in which case, you’re obviously Hamas and deserve to be killed, even if you’re an unarmed child laying sick in a hospital bed. The point of this movie isn’t that you’re right, or even that you’re wrong and need to change your ways. The point is; war is fucking shit. It’s not fun. It’s not glorious, it’s not inspiring. It’s fucking shit and brutal and people will be killed unnecessarily. It won’t be “driving through the city playing CCR and shooting evil-doers whilst fireworks go off”. It will be “Family members and people you love are going to be tortured and you won’t be able to stop it, so stop wishing for it to happen you fucking idiots”.

It’s a lot more effective because of how well the story is crafted. Some characters are only in one scene yet are so well defined that you can fill in the gaps and create a believable back-story for them. All cast really well too, Jesse Plemons is perfect in his small role, as are the other one-sceners. But it all hinges on the core cast: Dunst, Wagner Moura, Cailee Spaeny and Stephen McKinley Henderson. They work brilliantly together. Truth be told; Wagner Moura is given less to do than the others, but he does have some great stand-out moments, particularly at the end. Dunst is fantastic and is a reminder of why she is highly regarded in acting circles. I haven’t seen that much of Cailee Spaeny before (mainly because I never got around to watching Priscilla), but she is damn near perfect. I want to see what she does next because she is fucking phenomenal in this.

In summary; a fantastic watch. Possibly the best film I’ve seen this year. Very much not an easy watch though. The scene with the mass graves, in particular, was difficult to stomach. It is something I feel most people NEED to see though. And you should see it in theatres whilst you can before you end up seeing it in the streets.

Imaginary (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: A horror story about an imaginary friend/bear. I’m not putting more detail into this than the scriptwriter did.

This may come as a shock to some of you, but I am not perfect and I do sometimes make mistakes. My mistake here was assuming Imaginary was good and that I should see it. That’s not to say it’s terrible, it’s just incredibly mundane. A huge issue is a lack of identity. Imaginary is as confused about its identity as I am when I enter a new relationship with someone who has interests I don’t know about but I suddenly find myself being a big fan of.

It’s not a film, it’s a mix tape of other creative releases: The black-eyed fake family from Coraline is one. The Never Ever (the dream world) reminds me of Among The Sleep in terms of visuals. Then there’s the fact the villain is an interdimensional reality-bending being who’s capable of driving people mad, usually focuses on children, and whose real form looks like a giant spider, which is basically It. You don’t come out of this wanting to see it again, you come out of it wanting to see the better films it reminded you of, and It; Chapter Two.

There’s only one time where this horror tribute act works; when it hints that it happens in the same universe as Nightmare on Elm Street. That would explain a lot of things which occur, as well as help close up some holes. That, and only that, is a reference to another horror movie that actually enhances the lore that it’s trying to create.

So whilst it is basically a mix tape, it is a very well-curated one. Jeff Wadlow is a competent director, he’s less good at picking good scripts though, being responsible for three of the harshest reviewed films on this site: Truth Or Dare, Bloodshot, and Fantasy Island. Two of those were so notably bad, I liveblogged them, if you want to read my brain break, look here and here. Imaginary isn’t as bad as those, but it is nowhere near good enough to redeem it in my eyes.

Visually it’s nowhere near where it needs to be. There’s also a TERRIBLE edit. A character expresses joy that they were correct. You know, the “arms spread out, shouting out loudly” kind of joy. So she’s shouting in elation, arms spread out in euphoria, us watching it all from above. The camera then IMMEDIATELY cuts to her eye level and she’s standing normally. That’s just lazy.

He’s not helped by how dull the script is. A lot of the moments don’t land. It wastes the potential of an evil imaginary friend, to the point where there are times when that feels more like the background than the main plot. It’s not just the plot not mattering, there are specific scenes which waste so much potential. For example; there’s a section where the characters are attempting to enter the Never Ever. To open the door the characters need to feel pain. Physical pain isn’t enough so one of the characters delivers a “brutal” speech to her stepdaughter, harming her daughter for having to hear it, and herself for having to say it. That’s a genuinely good idea, but Colombo (by which I mean: there’s just one problem): It’s not brutal enough. It’s not a sentence you can imagine breaking anybody. It’s incredibly tame.

The tameness is a constant issue. The predictable heel turn from a side character leads to a motive rant about how they want to do something (I stopped paying attention, I was that bored). It seems hollow and a bit stupid. She’s then killed off-screen. So you don’t even get the catharsis of seeing a horrible character suffer.

The performers are all fine though. Pyper Braun is hella talented for someone so young, reminding me of Milly Shapiro. Taegen Burns is also pretty good, coming off as an alternate version of Sarah Hyland. DeWanda Rise is talented enough to lead a much better film than this. The other characters are severely underwritten, completely wasting some potential horror fodder, some of them are basically crying out to be killed, yet instead they just walk off and never appear again, probably having a wank, or a salad, or wanking into a salad.

Yup, that’s how I’m ending it.

Back To Black (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: The tragic tale of the life and death of Amy Winehouse.

Have to admit, I’m not that big on Amy Winehouse. I appreciate she was talented, but for whatever reason, her music never really appealed to me enough to actively choose to listen to it. So how would I get on with a film about her that seemed to treat her as the most unique and talented that has ever existed? Probably with scorn.

Luckily, Back To Black (or BTB, pronounced Baa-tob) doesn’t treat her as a God-like figure. In fact, I’d argue it goes too far in the other direction. On the upside, it means that you’re not watching a film that constantly has to defend the terrible decisions the main character makes, but on the downside, it means you’re left watching a film with a main character whom it’s kind of difficult to like. Even before the drugs, she’s an incredibly abrasive character. Now this isn’t just a “She’s a woman standing up for herself! Difficult!”. Out of the four main conflict styles (Man against man, man against society, man against nature, man against self), this is definitely against self. She constantly gets in her own way. When she’s offered a record deal? “I ain’t no fucking Spice Girl, fuck you!”. When she’s told she needs to stop drinking and punching people? “I have to live my life the way I want, fuck you!”. When they try to make her go to rehab? She says “No, no, no. And also? Fuck you!”. It’s been a while since I’ve watched something with this much disdain for its main character. It’s much more sympathetic to her father Mitch than the 2015 documentary Amy. It does include him saying she doesn’t need to go rehab, but it doesn’t include the moment where he followed her to Saint Lucia with a camera crew so he could make a documentary about her called My Daughter Amy, in which she’s clearly uncomfortable and desperate for privacy.

I feel the tabloid media gets off easier than it should too. There are a few scenes of them camping outside her house, but only in those moments. There’s a lot where it seems like she’s left alone. Like the tabloid scenes were only there to say “See, we included it” and then never referenced again. It also doesn’t touch on just how bad her addictions were at some point. We see her get in a quick punch-up, but we don’t see it affecting her live performances. Her 2007 tour is shown as a success when in actuality she was a drunken mess for a lot of those gigs, cancelling a lot of them. We also don’t see her disastrous final gig at Belgrade. It’s a shame as that could have been an incredibly emotional scene, but the film is too scared to be ugly, too preoccupied with showing us the glamour, and not enough grit.

The performances are pretty damn good though. Marisa Abela doesn’t really physically resemble Winehouse that much, although there are moments where you can see Amy in her like a magic eye picture. She carries herself like Winehouse did though, and that’s the important thing. Her voice is damn near perfect for it, especially for the singing. Jack O’Connell is fine as Blake, but we’re not shown enough of him outside of his relationship with Amy to make him seem like a full person. Eddie Marsen is, as usual, a captivating presence on screen, and you can feel the character’s despair at how his daughter is squandering her life (but not enough to suggest rehab).

In summary, it’s okay. It’s a better watch than the Bob Marley film but feels more like a concept than a completed idea, there are too many missing pieces to make it feel complete. In the jigsaw of cinema, this is missing so many narrative pieces that you can’t even finish the borders first. We don’t even get to see much about her death, no news reaction to it, no family reaction to it, no fan reaction to it. So the whole thing lacks the tragedy that would elevate it to something greater.

Monkey Man (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Kid (Dev Patel) infiltrates the Mumbai elite to enact vengeance, with his fists.

Dev Patel is quite good, isn’t he? He’s already shown his acting pedigree in The Green Knight, The Personal History Of David Copperfield, and Slumdog Millionaire. Now it turns out he can direct too. Monkey Man is an ambitious effort for a first-timer, with some brilliantly inventive action scenes. They’re a lot more brutal than you’d expect. It’s not quite “blood blood everywhere, in my eyes and in my hair” levels of brutality, but it doesn’t shy away from showing the damage these fights would have. It has someone getting their thumb severed with a dinner tray. But also has enough Wick-ian fights to satisfy modern action palates.

Monkey Man has more than action to its name though. There’s also one hell of a story. Despite the fact that the character physically challenges many people, there’s a very personal approach to it. He is focused and determined throughout the narrative, with a clear goal. His backstory is incredibly believable and provides enough humanity that you actually do give a shit when he gets hurt or nearly dies. Yes, the action sequences are incredible, but it’s a damn fine film away from those moments too. There’s a sequence where he’s involved in stealing something and it’s so intricate and well-done, it’s basically a mini heist movie, very mini, a few minutes.

There’s a social message to this, which is always nice. I remember after the first trailer, people online were bitching about how “I bet they make a white man the villain, typical political correctness”, then when it turned out the villains are played by the very Indian Sikander Kher, Ashwini Kalsekar, and Makarand Deshpande, that discourse changed to “so there’s barely any white people in this? Racism!”. This is a Mumbai film through and through (albeit made by someone from Harrow, and filmed mostly in Indonesia), dealing with corruption, the caste system, trans rights, and abuse of political power. All themes that are sadly still prevalent in modern Mumbai (and in most countries too, let’s not get too full of ourselves to deny that). It doesn’t hurt that the character of Baba Shakti visually resembles the current Indian PM and notable dickhead, Narendra Modi. It’s this political context which was responsible for Netflix deciding not to release it, feeling it was too controversial and gritty. They tried to quietly cancel it because Netflix are cowards, but it thankfully found a home with Jordan Peele’s Monkeypaw Productions. I’m glad they released it, as it’s a film that’s worth seeing, but it definitely feels like it doesn’t quite fit in with the rest of their releases.

Now onto the bad. The female characters are woefully underwritten, with most of them coming off as nothing more than visual props. There are large periods of the film which basically feel like it’s there so the audience can be amazed at Patel. The “Monkey Man” aspect is also underdeveloped. There’s a big deal made about him turning his mask white, he dons the newly coloured mask for about 30 seconds before throwing it away. The general “lore” aspect of the backstory is not needed. It provides a small amount of detail into his connection with his mother, but we’d have assumed the two had a connection anyway as they’re related, not only is she his mother, but she was also married to his dad. I presume it was also there to provide a visual “hook” they could use in marketing, but again, it’s not needed. It’s just padding, and not even good padding; it’s asbestos.

As I said, it’s worth a watch. But it’s not a “must-see”. It at times comes off as a remake of an existing property that wasn’t that good in the first place. Or like an expertly crafted cover song, as good as it gets, you kind of just want to experience the original instead. Patel is clearly one hell of a director, and he will make something incredible. But this isn’t quite it. It is clearly a passion product for Patel, made with love and a NEED to get this made. But maybe someone should have stepped in at times to tell him to prune some of the cinematic flowers that aren’t quite blooming.