Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: A death-chilling god seeks to build a spectral army. And in that scenario, who are you gonna call? Well, text, nobody answers the phone anymore.

I didn’t understand the negative reaction Afterlife got. Well, I say “negative reaction”, it was mainly from critics and online douchbags. Actual people who aren’t just going to be annoyed because “it’s gone woke” all enjoyed it. The same negative reviews and internet comments were there for this one. Logically I shouldn’t have cared because of what happened with Afterlife. But I had similar situations with Halloween Kills and Halloween Ends, poo-pooing the negative reviews of Ends, when they later turned out to be accurate as the film was shit.

I can gladly say, negative reviews of this are wrong. If you enjoyed Afterlife, you’ll enjoy this. The things which made that film work, also work here. It’s charming, it’s funny, and McKenna Grace continues to be one of the best young performers in the industry. Frozen Empire does have the advantage of being a bit spookier than Afterlife. There are some great scares and genuine tension, with a villain who’s much better defined than the previous one.

Just because he’s better defined, does not mean he’s better utilized. It’s a nearly two-hour film, yet it still doesn’t have time to properly flesh out the villain. He appears sporadically throughout, so never really overhangs the film like he could/should. When he’s on-screen/being discussed, definitely feels like a threatening threat of threatening proportions, but he’s definitely not used as effectively as he could.

I think part of the problem is that there are essentially two BIG threats in one movie. There’s the “Frozen” part, where the world is at risk of being frozen and people being killed via death chill so they will never want to build a snowman ever again. That could be a huge threat to overcome, and there’s a reason it’s all over the marketing.

But there’s another threat at play; all the ghosts that have been captured by the team are at risk of being broken out of “prison” and all returning. That was underplayed in the marketing and the film itself. But let’s face it, that should have its own movie. That concept has so much potential for greatness, and it’s as undercooked as that chicken that I had from KFC in ‘94 in which the only compensation we got was Viennetta ice cream.

It’s a shame as apart from that this is great. All the performers are great, although some aren’t in it enough but that’s probably because there are just SO many of them; not only do we have the cast from Afterlife, but we also have the surviving originals and some new ones we’re introduced to play by James Acaster, Kumail Nanjiani and Emily Alyn Lind. There are about 12 characters, so obviously, its going to be a struggle to juggle them all. Alyn Lind’s character in particular is interesting. I’m not sure if I’m imagining it, but there did seem to be a slightly sapphic undertones to the interactions between her Melody and McKenna Graces Phoebe. I’m not sure whether it was implied intentionally in the script, or whether it’s just the chemistry between the actors, but I did sense it there. As everyone knows, I’m a huge fan of McKenna and what she brings to the table performance-wise, and I want to see more from Alyn Lind, there’s an inherently loveable quality to her. She could easily lead a horror franchise, in the right hands, she could be mentioned in the same breath as Jamie Lee Curtis,

In summary, I love this movie. It’s not quite as good as the previous one, but it’s not a shame to the franchise. This is much better than the 5th (or 4th depending if you take the 2016 as canon) movie in a franchise should be. Few franchises this far in are very rarely this inventive, this fresh, this joyful. I want a lot of these characters and this world. I love it so much.

Seize Them! (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Queen Dagan has been toppled by a revolution led by Humble Joan. With the help of servant Shulmay, she aims to get her crown back.

I’m aware I am kind of pretentious sometimes when it comes to my film taste. But it’s a weird kind of pretentiousness, one which will talk endlessly about obscure Polish films, or how the work of Lotte Reiniger still holds up almost 100 years later. Yet, I also dislike Men (the film, not the gender, although….) and I’m not that fond of the films of Wes Anderson.

So whilst my taste may run a little weird at times, I love films that are just dumb fun. They’re not trying to change the world, or wow you, they’re just there to distract you from the Western-supported genocide occurring 2000 miles away (wait until you find out the fucked up shit I found out whilst googling that distance by the way). It’s in this sphere of silliness that Seize Them falls. It’s different from something like Bill, which had historical in-jokes and at least had the pretence that it happened in reality. There’s no effort to pretend this is real; it’s a live-action cartoon in a fictionalised version of history. This has as much in common with the Dark Ages as the Artemis Fowl movie has with the books it was (supposedly) based on.

This isn’t something you can see being quoted in an academic paper. It’s not supposed to be though. It’s just dumb jokes wrapped up in a different time. It does make the most of the concept though, there are a lot of jokes which wouldn’t work outside of this context, which is something I always like. I like when jokes are unique to a film, especially if it’s a comedy set outside of “now”. Crucially, it doesn’t have any of those “knowing” jokes. You know the kind, where someone invents a modern invention and is rubbished, or otherwise makes a reference to modern times. The kind of “It’s a communication device mixed with a telescope, we call it an Eye-Phone”. I know comedy is subjective, and different jokes for different folks. But those are the ones that come up a lot in films like this and I cannot stand them, not just in a “that joke didn’t land” way, when I see those jokes, it actively turns me against the film.

The jokes are helped by just how talented the cast is. Casual audiences are more likely to be aware of Nick Frost (from his films with Simon Pegg), Nicola Coughlan (from Derry Girls, Bridgerton, and “you won’t believe how old she is” posts on Facebook), or James Acaster (from memes about the world falling apart). It’s mainly led by Aimee Lou Wood (from Sex Education) and Lolly Adefope (from Ghosts/Taskmaster), they make a good pair, sharing natural chemistry. They spend a lot of time with experienced comedy performer Nick Frost, and they easily match him. They both nail their roles perfectly. Lou Wood turns what could be an annoying character into someone sympathetic. Kind of sympathetic anyway. The third-act conflict only really happens because of her character derailment. Also, I’m still not quite sure that with the world the way it is at the moment, a movie about how “this rich useless person who holds all the power is someone you should be sympathetic towards, the woman fighting against her and campaigning for equality is just a phoney who will end up being a dictator”, is that really a message that needs to be put into the world right now?

In summary, a hilarious movie, with oddly memorable music. Not the best film of the year, but incredibly fun. For better (the jokes, the performances) and for worse (the production values, the pacing), it does feel a bit like an extended episode of a Channel 4 sitcom. Funny as hell though. I mean, how many other films have two characters die from fatal wanking incidents? It should have had a better cinema release though, at my local it was only on once a day, and with zero promotion.

Godzilla X Kong: The New Empire (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: It’s a monster movie, is the plot important?

The Monsterverse movies have been a huge success, the fact they’re big-budget movies that keep getting sequels is proof of that, especially since they’re made by Warner Bros, who have a tendency to cancel films and don’t let silly things like “It’s been completed and early reviews have been very positive” get in the way. But anyway, that’s enough about my bitterness over the Batgirl movie. I have watched all the Monsterverse movies at the cinema and reviewed most of them. But here’s the thing; I can’t remember any of them. I can’t remember any of the characters’ names, can barely remember any of the actors, with one exception (Brian Tyree Henry) I’m genuinely not sure if any of the actors from this film were in the previous ones or if they’re all new. Human characters have never been this franchise’s strong point, especially when compared to Minus One which was released last year.

If you’ve seen both this and Minus One, this can’t compare. The visuals are better, yes, but the story, the characters, the entertainment, just aren’t there in this. As I said, the visuals are great in this, the monsters themselves look fantastic, if not incredibly cartoon-like. The sense of scale is occasionally off though. You don’t know how big they are because there’s nothing recognisable in there to compare it to, just trees, which aren’t great for establishing size because (obviously) they can vary in size. This is a huge problem with Suko, the “Baby Kong”. We only ever see him next to Kong and other similarly sized objects, all of whom tower over him. So in your head, you think “Oh, okay, he’s the size of a child”, then when he enters the fight at the end you find out he’s actually the size of a small building. Would it have killed them to have him near a human character to establish his size?

On the subject of it, the final fight could be better. It’s built up well, and does deliver in terms of titans smashing into each other. But again, it lacks the human aspect. We see buildings demolished in the fight, but there’s no sound from them, nobody screaming. Were the buildings empty or is it just lazy sound design? If they were empty, then surely a shot from the inside of one of the buildings would have been a nice thing to see? These films are impressive for what they manage on their budget, but it feels like creatively the directors are so focused on meeting the budget that they leave zero room for creativity. There are no shots which will linger with you once it’s over. There are “fuck yeah!” shots, shots which look great in trailers and on posters, but nothing that stands the test of time. Think of King Kong, the character. Odds are, you’re imagining him at the top of the tower, fighting off bi-planes (and some heteroplanes, but less than you think they’d be), NOTHING in this entire franchise has ever even attempted to be as iconic. It feels bad to say this considering the sheer amount of effort that has clearly gone into these, but creatively it’s all very lazy.

I’m aware those are very pretentious criticisms and ones which most people won’t give a shit about. Most people go into this for dumb fun, and in that aspect, it does deliver. I mean, it does count on you being able to remember far too many details from previous (forgettable) films. This is definitely spectacle film that deserves to be seen at the cinema. It’s just, dumb spectacle is no excuse for low effort. There is zero reason spectacle has to be stupid. Zero reason for it to have characters you can’t name. Zero reason for it to take no risks. That scene of Mothra is dope as fuck though.

The First Omen (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Church’s be crazy, y’all

Arkasha Stevenson is one hell of a director. TFO is a spectacularly directed feature, which is even more astounding considering it’s her debut. She has a hell of a legacy to tackle, kind of. The Omen is the first horror movie I remember scaring me, but not the first I watched. In fact, I’m not even sure it was the actual film, it might have just been a parody someone did on a British comedy show (it feels very Vic Reeves), but the image of Damian knocking his mother over the balcony is chilling, and it’s not just me who thinks so. The first Omen (as in, the original 1976 movie, not the one I’m currently reviewing) is a horror classic, the sequels and the remake? Not so much. The original is full of moments which have been referenced and parodied, the third one does have a cool moment where someone blows their head off in front of a touring school group which is cool, but it otherwise hasn’t touched public consciousness in the same way. Stevenson has the chance to do something incredible but also has the pressure of attempting to match the original. Her task is made harder by two things: 1) it is a prequel. Prequels are notoriously difficult to get right, especially for horror movies as everybody knows the villain survives, so where is the tension? 2) She’s a woman. A female-directed horror movie gets judged much more harshly than a male one. Every mistake is scrutinized, any strong female characters, or villainous male ones, are “evidence of wokeness, I mean, a woman existing? Woke!”

So it’s a pleasant surprise that reviewers have actually been kind to this. After watching, it’s easy to see why. This is a surprisingly solid horror movie. Its biggest flaws are the inevitable comparisons to both the original 1976 movie, and to the recently released Immaculate. Thankfully, the comparisons to the original don’t happen too often. It does have a character from the OG Omen as a main character, but it crucially never puts THAT character in danger. It has enough characters to throw into peril to keep you second-guessing whether they survive. It does have enough twists and turns to keep you on your toes, but one of them, the most important one, is set up TOO well, to the point where experienced film watchers are likely to have guessed it before they’re told, mainly because it’s the only way certain things make sense.

The script is pretty damn good. It actually gives a reason as to why the church is supporting the rise of Satan. Crucially, a lot of the scares aren’t just jump scares, some truly grotesque and Cronenbergian images will linger like a Cranberries song, but not as enjoyable. The childbirth scene, in particular, is horrific and is a scene that could only be done by a female director. Stevenson’s talent lies in having a female lead in a horror movie, but not making her seem like a victim, or sexualising any of the horror. When Nell Tiger Free’s Margaret is writhing around, lesser directors would have filmed it in such a way that it would resemble low-budget porn, in this it’s clear that Margaret is SUFFERING. That’s not just the directing though, Nell Tiger Free is one hell of a performer. She’s surrounded by experienced performers; Ralph Ineson, Bill Nighy etc, but Nell is the best of the lot.

I mentioned earlier that there aren’t many jump scares, but the best scare I can remember IS of the jumping variety. It’s such a simple one too, her saying “It’s not real” repeatedly, then a disembodied voice cutting in with “what’s not real?”. It’s a rare jump scare, of the almost entirely audio variety. But it’s so damn unexpected and chilling that it will fuck you up a little bit. It’s probably my favourite scare since the Eternal Darkness Bathtub scene. It could be better, it settles back down too quickly, but not quickly enough for it to be shocking. It doesn’t have enough time to really settle before it’s moved on. It’s still phenomenal but not quite perfect.

In summary, I highly recommend this. It’s not incredible, but it’s a lot better than it could be. It’s artful and confident, and I’m excited to see what Stevenson can do when she’s not shackled by the constraints of franchise rules. The “It’s all for you” moment in particular feels like it would be a much better scene without that reference. The weakest part of the movie is the most obvious allusion to what happens next; the ending where it’s revealed the child has been given to Robert Thorn and named Damian. It’s supposed to be a dramatic ending, but it’s a bit pointless. We know the child has been given to Thorn, and everybody in the audience knows what happens next. His being called Damien isn’t important. Nobody was sitting there thinking “Wait, is that baby the kid from the first movie?”. It’s not as though the film was going to end with the reveal that this is ANOTHER demon child that was given to the Thorn family after killing their child and doing a swap.

Also, the use/updating of Ave Satani doesn’t really work, which is a shame as that’s in my top five horror movie themes.

Late Night With The Devil (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Jack Delroy is a television host who courts controversy in the face of falling ratings. On Halloween, 1977, he invites a possessed girl onto the show in this found footage slice of horror gold.

LNWTD is utterly fascinating, from the opening credits all the way through to the closing you are on the edge of your seat, taking in every subtle nuance it throws at you. That’s the opening credits of the fictional television show Night Owls With Jack Delroy. The opening of the film itself? I found it kind of weak. It’s framed as a documentary investigating the original show, but this never comes up again outside of the opening. It’s alluded to that the documentary crew are the ones who uncovered the footage played from the commercial breaks. But that doesn’t really work because the black-and-white footage feels too modern and clean in the way it’s filmed, if anything that footage should be in WORSE condition than the stuff shown on television, it should feel hand-held and rough, like it was secretly filmed and kept in a loft. The documentary isn’t even needed for that to make sense, just have it as unseen stuff that happened. The other issue with the documentary-style opening is it doesn’t say much that’s not told in the film itself. And the stuff that’s not noted in the movie is alluded to or could have easily been said. If you’re a writer and you can’t figure out how to get characters to say information during a talk show, you’ve failed.

Like a portable timepiece that shouts out your sexual fantasies at random intervals; this is a deeply unsettling watch. A lot of effort has been put in to make it feel authentic to the time, from the way it is shot, to the audio cues, all the way through to the word choices. You completely buy into the fact that this is from the time. It’s helped that it’s a found footage movie that has a reason to exist. It doesn’t feel like it’s been edited together afterwards, it feels like someone just happened to record it onto a VHS when it was being shown.

The performances are all fantastic. David Dastmalchian is great as the nervous but genial host with a dark secret. I’ve only ever seen him as a supporting character, never really buying him as a lead, that’s changed. He’s perfect for this, his vocal performance, the way he carries himself, and his facial acting, wouldn’t work with a lesser actor. Personally, I thought the best performer was Ingrid Torelli. Her performance isn’t as good, but she shows more sides to her and is given more to do, I have to mention her now because in a few years, she could break out into something fantastic, and I just want it in writing I was there early.

In summary, if you’re a horror fan, you will love this. It’s a fresh gimmick based on something a lot of people will be familiar with. It’s clever, it’s well-made, and it’s very violent when it needs to be. Importantly, it actually closes. There’s no sequel hook, it’s all very self-contained, but with the possibility of literature to find out more. Definitely not enough to stretch out to a whole new film though. It won’t quite reach horror infamy, but it will be one fans of the genre will talk about.

Immaculate (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: A naive nun joins a remote convent in Italy, discovering they’re harbouring a dark secret.

I have three horror reviews to write this week: this, Late Night With The Devil, and The First Omen. I was going to review Late Night With The Devil (LNWTD, pronounced La-new-ted) first, it’s the most critically acclaimed of the three, and I have the strongest opinions regarding it. But after seeing seeing Immaculate I have to do this first. Not because my feelings towards it are particularly strong, or because I have anything important to say. I’m just not sure how I can put this and The First Omen reviews next to each other, I haven’t seen TFO (Tee-foe) yet, but there is a definite worry that they will be treading similar grounds, and I don’t want to repeat myself. Plus, if I think of any jokes after posting this, I can just use them in the TFO review. The upside of repetition in cinema.

Now onto Immaculate itself. It’s received a lot of praise, particularly for Sydney Sweeney’s performance. I’m not entirely sure I agree. The final third, she is superb, a cinematic slice of delicious cheesecake. But for most of it? She appears kind of bored. Like I said, the final third where she has the hardest stuff to do, she’s great at. But the standard conversations with others? Doesn’t feel real, with one exception. Her interactions with Sister Gwen (played by Benetta Porcaroli) are incredibly sweet and I wish I could see more of them. Sadly, Gwen is killed relatively early on. Her body is discovered in the closing section and this is filmed like it’s supposed to be a surprise. Not entirely sure it is though. The last time we saw her she was being tortured, and then she didn’t appear again for (in film time) about 6 months, obviously she’s dead. It would be a bigger shock if she wasn’t.

There is a distinct lack of surprise in Immaculate. You can pretty much plot what’s going to happen based on the synopsis, all the twists and turns are more like slight veers to the left to the left. Sorry, went a bit Beyonce there. The final third is batshit insane and I am all for it, but the lead there just isn’t that exciting. The people you expect to be shits turnout to be shits, turns out there is a massive conspiracy where the church is impregnating young nuns without their knowledge. Which is a bit stupid when you think about it, there must be millions of women who would willingly consent to that, so going after unwilling ones just seems like you’re setting yourself up to be the villain. I kind of wish that the blood they used for the procedure turned out to not be from Christ at all. There’s not a single moment where there’s any doubt that that is his blood. That’s a lot of faith. Biblical relics are not that well preserved and catalogued. There are 21 churches which claim to have the foreskin of Jesus, and that means at least 20 of them are wrong or lying unless he had 21 penises (which I think they would have mentioned in the book, but it would have meant they’d have to change the title from The Bible to The 21 Dicked Man, which won’t sell as well). So the odds that they would have the correct artifact are quite low. I do like that the film discusses how their methods are more likely to create the antichrist (and it’s implied that is what happens). But the scene where they discuss that does have someone say “If this is not the will of God, why does he not stop us?” and this is treated (even by TVTropes) as a “gotcha”. So if God allows something, this means he supports it? I think the residents of Germany in the late 1930s would have a few fucking things to say about that. As would the residents of cities hit by tsunamis and earthquakes, and people who had to watch Madame Web.

As I said, the final third is superb, and it has one of the strongest closing scenes I’ve seen since Knives Out. It’s a slow slog to get there, but it is overall worth it. This won’t end up being my favourite film of the year, not even close, but it is one I will tell people to watch if they are fans of the genre. It’s very low on jump scares, relying more on tension and atmosphere. It’s directly brilliantly (with some pretty good music choices), and I’m glad to see the horror is mostly from humanity rather than demons (which usually results in scares which are just “thing jumps at the screen but it turns out to not be real”). I do want to see a sweet friendship-based road trip dramedy starring Sydney Sweeney and Benetta Procaroli though, they bounce off each other very well and it would be a shame to waste that chemistry.

Spaceman (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Jakub Prochazka (Adam Sandler) is a Czech astronaut, six months into a space mission and starting to feel the effects of both isolation and the growing emotional distance between him and his wife. Also, there’s a telepathic spider called Hanuš

I have not been kind to Netflix movies lately. In my defence, they haven’t been good. I think 2023 was the first time since I started this site that every film in the “Amazeballs” section at the end of the year was a cinematic release. I can’t remember the last time a Netflix original movie excited me, and then delivered on that promise. Actually, I can, it was Glass Onion. My hopes aren’t that much higher for something that’s not only a Netflix original but also an Adam Sandler film. Don’t get me wrong, Adam Sandler is capable of doing great things. To the point where I don’t actually think it’s as much a surprise as people say it is when he gives a good performance. But his Netflix stuff has seemed to be an excuse for him and his friends to get paid vacations.

Sandler does give a great performance though. As I said, it’s no longer surprising when he does so. What is a surprise, is that his character is supposed to be Czech. We need a Czech actor. It’s not that he gives a bad performance, but it’s like if Michael Sheen played Martin Luther King, no matter how good he is, you can never fully buy into it. The other performers are all good, and it’s impossible for Carey Mulligan to not be great, Paul Dano gives an INCREDIBLE voice performance, to the point where you don’t realise it’s him. Really though, this is a showcase for Sandler. It’s essentially him screaming out “What the fuck do I need to do for you awards fuckers to take me seriously?”, turns out the answer, by the way, is “Don’t work with Kevin James”.

I’ve criticised isolation-based films for focusing too much on flashbacks, and how doing so means the characters don’t actually feel isolated because half of their screen time is spent with people (whatever that Colin Firth one was, Eternals etc). But here the flashbacks are shot in such a way that they are distinct memories, it does something rare in cinema; it makes us genuinely believe that he is remembering those things. The way they’re done, they feel like actual memories rather than long-distance not-instant replay. They’re slightly “off”, they’re shot differently from modern life, and there’s a sense of ethereal otherness to the whole thing.

Gonna give a weird criticism; the spider moves too fluidly. It looks fantastic, but it doesn’t have that slight jerky/hydraulic leg movement that spiders have. The limbs are more like a cat than a spider. Now this could be argued it’s because it’s a space spider, not a land-based one, but still. Jakub also doesn’t seem to respond to Hanuš the way you’d expect. He just kind of backs away, tries to kill it, then comes back and starts talking to it. He doesn’t view it like the horror he would think it is. Spiders are creepy bastards anyway, giant space spiders that can talk? That’s pure horror. Yet it doesn’t ever really feel like he believes that. He treats it more as a mere inconvenience.

In summary, if this was at the cinema I’d say you should probably see it, but because it’s on Netflix? If you have that streaming service, you should definitely watch it. Set aside some time on a Sunday afternoon after dinner, put it on, and then get ready to feel something (not yourself). I should say though, no matter how good it is, it’s never good enough to stop you thinking of the Babylon Zoo song.

Monster (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: A single mother demands answers from a school teacher when her son begins acting strangely. 

I went into this knowing the quick synopsis, and that’s it. So I had certain expectations; I thought it would be an intense drama about a mother getting to the bottom of her child being abused by a teacher at school, and the school’s indifference towards it. And for the first section of Monster, that’s what it is. Saori Mugino, played by Sakura Ando, is a fiery tour de force during its section, so it’s easy to see why that character (and performer) was chosen to lead this story. Then it suddenly flashes back, and we’re put in the shoes of the abusive teacher Hori (Eita Nagayama). Tonally, it’s here that the film shifts more than a pervert in a porno theatre (as opposed to the non-perverts who sit there and admire the cinematography. Which is the normal thing to do when watching porn, obviously). It takes some time to adjust to this. Honestly, the film could do a better job of this moment. It takes a while for the audience to acclimate to the fact that it’s now a flashback and they’re seeing something new. So you’re not really spotting things that you probably should be. That’s a shame as it pulls this trick again later in the film. So that’s three perspectives tying into each other, with recurrences that are very important for the audience to notice. So the fact that the audience is sitting there trying to work out where they are means they’re not connecting dots that they should. It’s a shame, as something as simple as a more coherent establishing shot or a title card would greatly improve it.

Once you do realise what the film is doing, it’s a damn fantastic watch. What you may think is a tale of abuse, turns out to be one of a crush between classmates. Unlike a lot of romantic sub-plots, this one feels not only earned, but desired. Once you realise what’s happening, you want them to end up together, you want them to admit their feelings to themselves and to others. It’s weird, looking back on it, this is essentially a mystery movie, but a nice one. The mystery isn’t about a murder or a disappearance, it’s about explaining behaviour. In a world where films start off innocent and then get darker, it’s nice that for once something comes out that’s the other way around. Genuinely heartwarming, not everybody will like it, but those who are into it will REALLY be into it. A bit like feet.

Drive-Away Dolls (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: In search of a fresh start, two women embark on an impromptu road trip to Tallahassee, Fla. However, things quickly go awry when they cross paths with a group of inept criminals along the way.

I’ve said before how there are some directors who, for some reason or another, I just don’t vibe with. I’m worried that this is the case with the Coen brothers. I should like them, actually, let’s go further, I should be obsessed with their stuff. But Hail, Caesar! left me cold, and DAD gave me the same feeling. Okay, this time it’s only by Ethan as opposed to both of them, but I had similar issues with both films. I felt the narrative promised in the trailer was not focused enough on in the film. The central narratives felt more like an annoying distraction the writer felt they had to reflect on rather than the main focus. The execution just didn’t work for me. It felt too loose and unstructured. There are moments where the film is intercut with random hippy-ish visuals and music. This does come together at the end when we find out the reason for them, but whilst you’re watching it is a bit weird to have all these 60’s visual interludes in a film set in the late 90’s.

That’s my other issue with it, it never FEELS like the ’90s. Except for an unimportant Y2K party, and the mention of gay marriage not being legal in some states, the timeframe the film is set in never really factors into either the plot or (more disappointingly) the design. Considering the fact this is a road movie, and they spend a lot of time in clubs, it’s a massive let-down that the music is so forgettable. I’m not asking for every scene to be soundtracked to third-wave ska, but give me SOMETHING, make it feel like if I was listening to the soundtrack I’d get a sense of 90’s nostalgia; some grunge, some riot grrrl etc. Just something to make us feel the time.

The performances are fine, although I highly doubt that that’s Margaret Qualley’s real voice. Geraldine Viswanathan continues to be great and I love her. The two of them have a very natural chemistry on-screen, which is handy because if they didn’t you wouldn’t buy the way the relationship develops between the two of them. Their characters are a bit off at times, especially Qualley’s Jamie, who at times is kind of unlikeable and selfish, a little emotionally/sexually pushy. It’s a shame, if she was pulled back a bit, her character would actually be kind of sweet.

You’ll notice how I haven’t mentioned the crime aspect of this. That’s because the film doesn’t mention it much. The core focus is on the developing relationship between the two leads. The supporting cast is okay, but none of them really get a chance to shine. Despite boasting a cast consisting of Matt Damon, Pedro Pascal, and indie darling Beanie Feldstein, DAD belongs entirely to Qualley and Viswanathan.

In summary, some people will love this. But personally? I felt kind of bored. Maybe that was on my expectations. I just kind of feel like the movie that was in the trailer, was not the one delivered in the final product except in very brief moments.

The Iron Claw (2023) Review

Synopsis: The triumph and tragedy of the Von Erich brothers, a wrestling family based in Texas during the 70’s and 80’s.

I’m gonna be honest with you guys, girls, both and neither, this film would have had to be TERRIBLE for me not to like it. I watched a documentary about the Von Erichs a few years ago so I knew the tragedy was perfect for a movie. That foreknowledge also meant that what happened was not a surprise. I’m not sure what would be the most devastating way to watch this. If you went in completely blind then you might think “Oh, that moment was very sad. Time to see how the family recovers from this. Wait, now THIS?” and find yourself relentlessly overcome by the constant slew of depressing events, a bit like watching the news in [insert current year]. But is being aware of what’s coming any better? Watching with the knowledge of what’s going to happen is a bit like watching a train slowly fall on an unknowing family having a picnic. You can see something terrible will happen, but you can’t do anything to stop it.

The worst part about this? The reality is actually sadder. There’s another brother who passed away that the film doesn’t show. Imagine that, having so much bad shit happen to your family a two-hour film isn’t enough to fit it all in. There are some other moments where it plays a bit loose with reality. Nothing major, it’s mainly about the chronology of events. A lot of things are made to look like they happened closer to each other than they actually did, creating a false sense of connection to some of them, implying that some events were the direct cause of the tragedies, even when in reality there were years between them. For most people watching, this won’t cause any issues, but for those who know what actually happened, it can be a bit frustrating to watch, but not enough to stop you from enjoying it.

A few wrestling fans might have issues with the cast not really looking much like the people they’re portraying. It’s true, in photos you can’t really see the resemblance. But the way that each actor captures the essence of their character is perfect. With one exception. I try to shy away from bad performances from actors I don’t know, particularly with those who don’t even have a Wikipedia page. It can feel a bit like bullying, and you never know if they might see it and feel discouraged. If you’re a name actor and your performance is shit? Yes, I’ll call you out on your performance, but I do try to be a bit kinder to unknowns. I’m about to break that rule for Aaron Dean Eisenberg. His portrayal of Ric Flair is shocking, and unrecognisable as the character. Ric Flair has a very distinctive vocal cadence, and Eisenberg doesn’t even approach it. At best he sees the correct cadence in the distance and then heads in the opposite direction to buy cheese, walking right past a warehouse that’s currently holding acting workshops. It’s distractingly bad and is the weakest part of a truly great film.

I think everybody should see this film, it’s genuinely fantastic. It will break you, and when you think it’s finished, will break you again. It’s so well done too. There’s a scene set in the afterlife which risks coming off cheesy, especially in such a grounded film. But it REALLY works here, with even the surviving Von Erich coming out in support of it. I’m glad he liked it, as he wasn’t actually involved in production so if he wasn’t a fan of the finished result it would mean the whole thing comes off slightly exploitative. The reaction from most people in the industry, and from family members, has been mostly positive. There’s been a few people who have said it made the father, Fritz Von Erich, look like a dick. I mean, nobody will come out of this thinking he was a good person, but considering it only implied instead of flat-out stating that when he forced his son to give a press conference after a coma it was whilst the son had brain damage, and it doesn’t contain a moment where he drunkenly tells his only surviving son “The only reason you’re still alive is because you’re not man enough to kill yourself like your brothers did”, I’d argue that Fritz The Twat actually got off pretty light.

In summary; watch this film. But FFS pick something nice to treat yourself to afterwards. I’ve watched two holocaust-based movies this year, but they didn’t quite hit home like this did. I think it’s because the holocaust is SO large that it’s hard to truly comprehend. Whereas the themes of The Iron Claw; toxic masculinity, burnout etc. They’re all ones that we see every day all around us, and they’re ones which some people actually still defend as push as good things. So it’s heartbreaking to see the natural ending of a lot of those vices. It’s not something that happens to other people, it’s something we can see happening to all of us. So it has a natural sense of empathy to the way you watch it. Only, you know, it’s empathy with spandex tights and fake fights.