Category: Review

Relay (2024) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: A bribe broker facilitates deals between corrupt companies and their threats. His new threat is a woman who has some dangerous leverage against a multinational conglomerate.

I was in a weird position for this. I’m not entirely sure how, but I had heard the “twist” ending for this. So I couldn’t be fully invested because instead of wondering where it was going to go, I spent my time trying to see the crumbs that would eventually come together into the sandwich of narrative completion. I’m going to admit, I did wonder if I had heard incorrectly. It felt like there was no way the ending I heard could be correct. If it was, surely they’d have set it up somehow? Put clues which don’t make sense until a second watch? Nope. It’s unpredictable, but not in a good way. It feels like it’s a twist for the sake of a twist. The annoying part is how unnecessary it is. If you changed it and made it more straightforward, it would work much better.

Remove the unnecessary moment near the end, and it’s a very solid thriller. I’m sure there are some plot holes that emerge if you think about it, but none that are so glaring that any idiot (by which I mean, me) can see them. I’m unsure of the opening. On the one hand, it is nice to have a film that doesn’t treat you like an idiot, but on the other, it takes longer to give you context clues than it should. One thing I am sure about is that Lily James’s character repeated her motivation. She explains it to a lawyer, who advises her to contact the relay service. She then explains it to Ash (played by Riz Ahmed). I understand why she would need to explain it twice, but I don’t understand why we had to see it twice. It would have worked if we started at the end of her meeting with the lawyer, so we just see him say “we can’t deal with this, but unofficially, here’s someone who can”. As an audience, our tension will be heightened, and we’d be wondering what it is that she’s so desperate and in danger. Although that does remind me of one plot hole that does need explaining, but I can’t explain it without ruining the twist. So I’ll just say this: the characters are INCREDIBLY lucky their plan went as it did.

This is all sounding negative. Which is a bit mean. Relay is one of the tensest films of the year. When it works, it’s remarkably old school and Hitchcockian; a tale of an ordinary man caught up in something much bigger than him, surviving on just his wits and local knowledge. The central premise is actually genius; a messaging service keeping anonymity by using deaf messengers and teletypewriters is perfectly suited for tense dramas. It reminded me of John Wick, how it set up its world visually and trusted in the audience to buy in.

It’s anchored by a great performance by Riz. That really shouldn’t be a surprise, I mean, he’s an Oscar-nominated performer (losing to Anthony Hopkins, which is nothing to be ashamed of). I think he may be one of my favourite British performers, and has been ever since I saw him in Four Lions. He has a nervous energy in this, like you can imagine that he jumps twenty feet in the air every time someone taps him on the shoulder. But he also seems like someone who’s really good at his job and is confident in doing it. It’s a strange dichotomy that is tricky to pull off, but he does it brilliantly.

In summary, this won’t be in my list of best films of the year. But it will join the likes of Bridge Of Spies, The Post, etc, by being a film that in a few years’ time will be added to a streaming service, and I’ll think “oooo, I really enjoyed that, I’ll watch it”, and then think “yup, that was certainly a good movie”.

Roofman (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: The true story of Jeffrey Manchester, an armed robber who escapes prison and secretly hides in a Toys R Us for six months.

I was quite hyped for this, the trailer made it look fun and pacier than a blue hedgehog wearing trainers. So it was somewhat of a shock when I realised it was over two hours long. The concept (man hides in Toys R Us) didn’t feel like it had enough meat on it to justify that runtime. I’ve now seen it, and those fears were not without merit. It overly complicates what should be a relatively simple story, and just isn’t fun enough.

Roofman is weirdly cosy, at times playing like a Hallmark Christmas movie. On that note, it should have actually been a Christmas movie. So many of the emotional and narrative set-pieces are built around it in the final third, so they really should have just leaned into it and released it a few weeks later. It also meant that it would have been played on TV every single year. At the moment, I can’t really see many TV stations rushing to show this. It doesn’t really have much to it.

Maybe it would have helped if we actually saw more of how he operates. He goes from a normal person to a serial thief off-screen. We’re shown him thinking about committing armed robbery, to having already committed almost 40 of them. I’m not saying we needed all of them in full, but it wouldn’t have hurt Roofman to cut some of its superfluous moments and replace them with a robbery montage near the start. This would have improved the pacing and made it flow a bit better than it currently does. Also, it would have made him seem more competent. We’re told he’s great at noticing things; he commits 5 crimes in this movie. One, he gets caught and thrown in prison, not good. Then he escapes prison, all good there, but heavily dependent on luck. He camps out in the store, but commits simple errors whilst doing so (he’s clearly noticeable on security cameras). Fourth, he goes to break into a pawn shop and ends up in the building next door by mistake, a failure. Lastly, the toy store again, which he messes up. So the only time he objectively succeeds is in escaping prison. We don’t see him being good at his “job”. A montage would have solved something; we would have seen what makes him so talented.

I have a specific problem with the pawn shop robbery. He ends up in the building next door and breaks through the wall to the pawn shop. This sets the alarm off. He then breaks the glass door with a giant statue and escapes. Does this lead to an exciting police chase? No. Does this lead to a moment of panic where he realises how reckless he’s being? No. Does it lead to a near miss? Nope. So what does it do? It gets him a gun. That’s it. The alarms, etc, don’t matter to the plot at all. So what was the point of that scene? It’s America, “but how did this white person get a gun?” is not a question any audience members would have asked; we would have assumed he found it in a cereal box or something. Asking where an American got a gun from is like asking where a 19th-century London prostitute caught syphilis from; it would be more surprising if they didn’t have it. There are a few other moments which aren’t followed up on; he breaks into the store’s computer to change someone’s shifts. That’s never followed up on; at no point does the manager notice, “hang on, I had this person due to work and now they’ve mysteriously disappeared from the roster, who did this?”

Now onto the romance part of the film. I’m not opposed to it. The worst part of it is that it kind of negates his kids. He goes from “my children are my entire world, it’s why I do what I do”, to “Wooo new family”. He tries to contact his kids once or twice, but his focus and motivation definitely seem to be on his new relationship. The relationship between the two feels real, and her inner conflict towards the end makes complete sense when you take into account her character and personality. Usually, a relationship between a woman and a criminal is displayed in a “she softened his hardened heart, and hardened his…” way. But Roofman takes great lengths to display how kind a person he is, even before that, only committing crimes so he can buy the necessities for his family (a big TV, a brand new bike, mariachi singers for a birthday. You know, the essentials), so he doesn’t really change at all. Really, it’s just two people who stay exactly the same for the entire film, with no personal growth. Yes, he is looking to escape to another country when he can, but that never seems to be his main motivation. The “I am flying away” parts only take up roughly 5 minutes of screen time, and could be missed entirely with a few badly timed pissbreaks. All it needed was for him to put posters of his destination on the wall.

In summary; not a perfect film. It’s likeable enough, but has less weight than a helium balloon. The kind of film you stick on at Christmas to have on in the background as you sleep off a cheese coma.

Springsteen: Deliver Me From Nowhere (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: On the cusp of global superstardom, New Jersey rocker Bruce Springsteen struggles to reconcile the pressures of success with the ghosts of his past as he records the album “Nebraska” in the early 1980s.

Music biopics have surged in the last few years, probably because of Bohemian Rhapsody. I actually don’t mind it, I usually like them. But I feel its important that the biopic style matches the subject. No matter the reality, if someone made a dark and depressing biopic of Ace Of Base, it would be weird. Conversely, if someone made a light and fun movie about Cradle Of Filth, it would seem unnatural. Springsteen: Deliver Me From Nowhere (S: DMEN, pronounced Ess-dee-murf-en) is a fantastic melding of film and subject. The logical step for a Springsteen movie would be to be about the creation of Born In The USA/Born To Run, or maybe a look at his life growing up and how he became famous; his journey from Springsteen to Springsadult. Instead, this deals with him writing Nebraska, his most personal and least commercial album. In a way, that’s very Bruce; having a movie ignore the mainstream and instead focus on the personal is what he was intending with the album, so to have a film reflect that is tonal genius.

If you watch this expecting a fun time where you get to hear all his songs, you’ll be disappointed. This is more of an intense character study. In some ways, that is to be admired, but in others, it does mean the film is an occasionally frustrating watch. It keeps teasing you with familiarity and then pulling back. It’s like listening to an album of B-sides where some of the songs contain a riff that was later used in a single. If you know what to expect, or you’re a fan of him, you will enjoy this movie a lot more than someone who isn’t particularly bothered about him.

What everyone will enjoy is the performances, Jeremy Allen White gets it spot on, you never feel he’s playing Bruce as much as he is him. It’s nice to see Stephen Graham in big movies, but it is odd that they cast someone English in SUCH an American story.

I’m surprised by how much I didn’t hate the direction, considering the director made 3 of my least favourite movies (Black Mass, Antlers, The Pale Blue Eye). I love how he shot some of the smaller gigs; he really captured the sweat and energy of those places; it makes you wish you were there.

I’m not sure about the accuracy of most of it, but apparently, the basics are pretty accurate. The way he recorded the demos and ran them through a machine that had been severely water-damaged? True. His dad asking him to sit on his knee (whilst Bruce was in his 30s and had never done it as a child)? True. Faye, the woman he dates? False. I’m not sure why they added that, as her sections are the least interesting and don’t really add anything to the narrative. If anything, it just makes Bruce seem like kind of a dick for treating her and her child the way he does. I’m used to biopics inventing moments to make their subjects likeable, but having them create something that just seems to exist to make him worse is certainly a brave choice. Stupid, but brave.

In summary, a curious watch with a very specific audience in mind, which feels risky for a $50million budget movie. It did make me want to listen to Springsteen, though, so in some ways it’s a success.

Friendship (2024) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick synopsis: Craig Waterman, a reclusive man, meets his new neighbour, Austin Carmichael, and forms an unexpected friendship with him. As their friendship grows, so does Craig’s obsession with Austin.

I think I’ve done this backwards. The way this was supposed to go was I watch I Think You Should Leave With Tim Robinson (starring some guy, Tim something, can’t remember), get used to his comedic style, and then watch this. I still haven’t seen the TV show (it’s on my list), so I went into this with a minimal understanding of what to expect. My best bet was that this would feel like All My Friends Hate Me (as reviewed here) and be an incredibly awkward “Social Horror”. I have mixed feelings about that movie, in some ways, it was TOO effective to be enjoyable. Friendship handles it much better. It is so heightened that it goes past relatable to the point of absurdity; if it didn’t, the film itself would be uncomfortable. Yes, it is incredibly awkward, but it stays JUST weird enough that it is still enjoyable to watch.

It helps that the decisions are logical. AMFHM felt like the other characters were deliberately gaslighting the lead; that’s the only way their decisions made sense. This? Even when Austin (Tim’s character) does incredibly weird things, you can follow his logic. As an outsider, you can see how that logic is twisted and flawed, but most of the time, you can fully understand how he reached that conclusion. It’s a difficult balancing act, and Friendship walks it perfectly, most of the time. His wife’s welcome back party veers into cruelty; it’s one of the few times where it’s difficult to follow his train of logic. I also have an issue with having the opening scene be him and his wife at a cancer survivors group, then not making the recovery a plot point. I’m not saying that the whole film should have been “The Chemo Support Club”, but you could delete it from the script and it would not change the narrative at all, which feels like a weird thing to say about something so life-changing. Whilst I’m on the subject of the negatives, I’m not sure if it’s intentional or not, but there’s one scene where someone says “weed”, and there’s a really random and loud honking noise. Not sure if its a reference to something, but it’s strange.

Now onto the positive; Paul Rudd gets a chance to flex his acting abilities here, and play someone different from the “Hi, I’m Paul Rudd, I’m going to make droll comments where I move my head to the side in the middle of the sentence”. He gets to show fear, he gets to be freaked out, he gets to be vulnerable. Obviously, this is Tim Robinsons film, but the writing makes him constantly feel like the side character in his own movie; strangely, I mean that as a compliment. He feels like someone who would be the side character in a normal film; the odd kooky neighbour of the lead who’s only there for comedic purposes. So seeing him as the lead is oddly subversive, like we’re seeing something we shouldn’t be able to. It’s like when a long-running TV show has an episode devoted entirely to a background character, the audience is keen to see what they’re like in general day-to-day life, and in Friendship, they get it.

What really made this work for me is it does have a genuine heart under all the social cruelty. It’s not going to have you feel warm and fuzzy inside, but there a few moments which will genuinely make you smile. The best example of this is the ending, which I won’t spoil, but is delightful and exactly how you want a movie like this to end; with narrative closure.

In summary; weird, awkward, but strangely lovable. But that’s enough me, the film is good too. Although it took me a while to get past Paul Rudd’s likeness to Matthew Baynton.

Queen Of The Ring (2024) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: The tale of Mildred Burke; those who know, know why she’s important. Those who don’t? Prepare to find out.

I know a little bit about Mildred Burke, I could probably BS my way into a small essay about the impact she had on professional wrestling, as long as I kept some details incredibly vague, especially when it comes to names and dates. But I will always watch a film about professional wrestlers, mainly because it attracts such weird personalities. In what other performance medium could you have a lottery winner buy their way in and then later die whilst running around a hotel covered in baby oil and carrying a baseball bat, and not have it be one of the most iconic stories? So really, I’m the perfect audience for this. I will understand the basics, but won’t know the exact details, so I’ll still be surprised.

I’m not sure how this will fare with non-wrestling fans. On the plus side, it explains the wrestling business well; its history in relation to the carnival circuit is something that a lot of films about the subject overlook. I hope this becomes the biggest film ever because then it will seem normal when I use the phrase “heel turn” in reviews (there’s really no better phrase). On the downside, it could have done a better job of explaining who some people were. It feels like it expects you to know who some people are based on context, waiting far too long to name on. I know the NWA and the territory system, but a lot won’t, and the lack of knowledge about that could also hamper some people’s enjoyment. Even with that in mind, I think there’s still enough here for non-fans to be interested and to learn. That’s based on my assumption that this is accurate. Considering Jim Cornette is involved, that’s a pretty safe assumption as he’s notoriously respectful of classic wrestling.

There are really only two moments where I felt my being a fan changed my perception a lot. One, it’s fascinating to see a representation of a younger Mae Young. I’m used to her being in her 70s and still being tougher than a burnt stake, so it’s interesting to watch a time period where she had the body you’d expect someone with her physical resiliency to have. The other one is one I’m possibly wrong about: the racially mixed crowds, I know that was still illegal in some parts of the country, it’s why the work of Sputnik Monroe and his efforts to desegregate the audiences in 1957 were so controversial., so there’s a chance that was bad choice, but I’m willing to be told I’m wrong, and I probably am.

One thing that is clear to everyone: Mildred Burke really got screwed over. I wish she had got her flowers while she was alive. Her story is iconic; what she did was something that cannot be overstated (despite the best efforts of some people). I thought this was surprisingly fair in how it dealt with controversial characters. It openly states, “Despite his many flaws, Billy Wolfe helped popularise women’s wrestling”, see THAT’S how you do it. He was a complete prick, but he did change women’s wrestling for the better, so there’s no turning him into a cartoonish villain or diminishing his efforts.

I thought her time in Al Hoft’s territory went by too quickly in the film. She goes from unknown to headliner way too fast, and the montage isn’t good enough. But if it went slower, then it might have caused a bigger gap between the explanation of what a “shoot fight” is, and one actually occurring, so I can see why it was done that way. That’s what most of my criticisms are, just small imperfections that stop it from being great; scenes which feel needless (the shoe-horning of Vince McMahon Sr feels weird), the way some characters you’d feel are important are neglected, and how for a lot of events we’re not really given enough context to understand WHY certain things are big deals.

There’s a really small moment which I liked; she was showing off her skills, beating a random guy, and a tiny girl flexed her muscles nearby, showing the influence she was having. There’s no “and that little girl grew up to be……”, it helps emphasise how important role models are to everyday people.

The performances? They’re hard to fault. Emily Bett Rickards is in great shape. Weirdly, she looks tougher than some of the actual wrestlers cast in the movie. Josh Lucas is a suitable mix of charming and scummy. Due to the way characters revolve in and out of the narrative, it’s hard for many of them to leave an impression, but none of them are negative, so that’s a plus.

One thing I didn’t expect to find myself enjoying so much was the music. It’s mostly new songs, but with an old-fashioned feel to them, like modern takes on old tales. Which is thematically perfect for this story. This feels like the perfect time for a movie like this to be released, and I’m glad it was. I had to watch it on Amazon, but I’d have absolutely loved if I got a chance to see this at the cinema. Ah, well, maybe in 10 years, when it becomes a cult classic. I’d love Avi Avildsen to take a chance on some of the other characters. I trust he’d do well with telling the story of Gorgeous George, Fabulous Moolah, or Ethel Johnson. But seeing as those stories are unlikely to be told, we’ll have to settle for this one brilliant one.

Time Travel Is Dangerous! (2024) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Ruth and Megan run a vintage shop in Muswell Hill, using a time machine to source new old stock.

It’s nice reviewing films people know and are excited for, to add my voice to the conversation that millions of people around the world are having. But there’s also something to be said about reviewing something not quite as well-known. Films like Time Travel Is Dangerous (TTID, pronounced Tit-tied), which at the time of writing has only 25 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, that’s critic and audience total. It deserves more than that.

I’m not really surprised, though. This film is incredibly British and quite low-budget. It’s not low budget in a way that makes you wonder how they managed to miraculously produce something on that budget; it wears its budget on its sleeve, and that’s not meant as an insult. If anything, it adds to the charm. And TTID is very charming. The characters using a time machine to bring back stuff to sell in a vintage shop? Brilliant idea. And anybody who has worked retail will recognise someone trying to buy the shop vacuum, and then being annoyed that they can’t do it. It helps that the two charity shop workers (Ruth and Megan, played by two women called *checks notes* Ruth and Megan, well, how am I supposed to remember that?) are incredibly likeable. Apparently, they are the real-life owners of a vintage shop in Muswell Hill. That genuinely surprises me. Usually, you can spot non-actors in films like this, especially as the leads. I had no idea; I just assumed they were involved in production somehow.

There are some great jokes here. An inventor’s group having a motto that’s “insert motto here” in Latin? Love it. Yeah, the jokes aren’t the smartest, but they’re funny. It’s also surprisingly poignant at times, especially the sub-plot with Botty and Ralph. I didn’t expect to find a touching treatise on fame and friendship inside a film as silly as this, but I’m glad it’s there. The entire inventor’s group is full of fun characters and jokes, so for two-thirds of the film, it’s delightful.

But then we get the final third. This section takes place in the other universe (there is a proper name for it, but I’ve forgotten it). It feels WAY too disconnected from the rest. There’s an almost entirely new cast of characters, a different visual style, and different comedy. The rest of the film is like a documentary; this part isn’t. So it feels like it takes place in a different film, where the characters of this one have just invaded it. It seems like that’s where most of the budget went (I’m guessing). It’s a shame, as that’s clearly the most ambitious part, so it feels somewhat mean to knock them for it. But it is definitely the weakest part, and knocks it down quite a bit.

There are some people who will enjoy that part, and there are also likely to be people who hate my favourite part: when Ruth is turned into a teenager because of issues caused by the time machine. I like it, I found it funny, and I liked how it drove a division between the two leads. But it’s easy to see how some may see it as a stupid diversion. Like I’ve said before, film reviews are all opinion, and opinions are never objective.

This won’t be a film liked by most people. But those who like low-budget silliness will enjoy it.

Good Fortune (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: A well-meaning but inept angel named Gabriel meddles in the lives of a struggling gig worker and a wealthy venture capitalist.

Aziz Ansari could have gone down a very different career path. He was a pretty big deal in comedic circles in the late 2010s, then in 2018, he got caught up in a #MeToo-related scandal (albeit one of the tamer ones). At this point, he could have gone the Jimmy Havoc route and retired from public life, he could have gone down the Louis CK path and ignored it, or he could have done what Russel Brand did and gone full-blown conspiracy theorist (albeit one who agrees with a US political party funded by billionaires). Instead, he did something almost unheard of in celebrity circles; he took ownership of his mistake. Not in the form of a multi-million dollar apology tour, but instead by admitting he misread a situation, fucked up, and he apologised for it. As such, he’s avoided the stink that surrounds someone like Kevin Spacey and is forgiven for it to the point it never comes up anymore (outside of idiotic reviewers who start their reviews of his movies by talking about it, oh wait).

Good Fortune is his first foray back into cinema (with the exception of The Bob Burgers Movie, which is more a continuation of something he was already working on), and it’s nice to see him back. Not just as a performer, but his skills as a writer have also been sorely missed. He avoids the trap that a lot of comedy writers fall into, making sure that the other performers get just as many laughs as he does (seriously, watch some films written by comedians and see how unbalanced the comedy is in their favour). Keanu Reeves gets to show everyone he can still pull off the Wholesome Bro shtick he perfected in Bill and Ted.

Not that the writing is perfect. It comes across a little dismissive of its own lead, Arj. Arj is mostly likeable and charming, but his getting fired from his job as Jeff’s assistant doesn’t come off as particularly unfair or something that Jeff needs to atone for. He’s not fired over a misunderstanding or something beyond his control; he was fired because he used company money to pay for an expensive date. I know, techbro millionaire could afford it, but still. It’s like being fired from Woolworths for eating Pic-a-Mix; you can disagree, but it’s hard to argue against. It’s such a simple fix, too. Just have him use the company card accidentally. Or use it for something essential, where he’s so desperate he has no other choice BUT to use the company card; his car gets towed a few scenes later, it would have been easy to have him try to stop it happening, but realising the only way it can happen is if he uses the card, but show he’s conflicted about it. His using it to pay for an expensive lunch comes off a little “the poor deserve to be poor because they make bad choices”. It’s a relatively small moment, but it paints an ugly colour over the character as it means you’re aware that whenever he’s complaining, it’s kind of his fault, and he never realises what he’s done is wrong.

If you ignore that scene, the film is pretty damn good, with moments that are depressingly relatable and frustrating, even in the small moments. For example, he can’t sleep, so he tries to listen to a relaxation app for assistance. It starts to work, but the peace is interrupted by a loud, obnoxious advert, meaning the “free” app is utterly worthless unless you pay for premium, which is pretty damn shitty for something designed for health reasons.

There are many moments like that, moments which are relatable and you hope will age badly because the problems won’t exist in 5 years. If you want to explain to certain people why younger people are struggling despite working, show them this. As one character explains, it’s hard not to live as a worker in a gig economy and not be angry. It never lets the message it’s telling get in the way of a good narrative, or in the way of jokes. There are some great jokes here, moments which caused the (disappointingly not full) screen I was in to burst out in laughter. Then there were moments where you could sense people really invested in the story.

In summary, thoroughly enjoyed this. I’m not going to feel an urge to buy it on DVD, but that’s mainly due to space rather than quality. It is a bit unrealistic, though, especially at the end. I can buy the existence of angels. But a rich person being prosecuted for financial crimes? As if.

For a lot of comedians (particularly American ones), The Aristocrats routine is a staple. It allows them to showcase their talents within an expected framework, take something everybody knows and show an audience how they do it. I believe there are two versions of it for scriptwriters, two stories every single writer should do their own version of to showcase their skills. One is A Christmas Carol (which I’ve done, and might post this year when I run out of reviews to post). The other? It’s A Wonderful Life. This is Anzari’s Wonderful Life, and I’d love to see him do a Christmas Carol. It’s strange how a film can make you want to see a completely different one, especially one that will never exist. But Good Fortune is so entertaining that you can’t help but want more, but realise a sequel would be terrible.

Black Phone 2 (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Gwen and her brother Finn are haunted by bad dreams and PTSD, leading them to a Christian youth camp where they’re forced to face their fears, and their pasts.

As a stand-alone film, I have some issues with Black Phone 2, but it’s pretty good. As a sequel to The Black Phone, however? It’s a mess. I haven’t seen a sequel shift like this since Brahms: The Boy II, which was seemingly written by someone who only saw the trailer for the first movie, and was writing based on what they thought that movie was.

The original Black Phone was semi-realistic. The Grabber wasn’t a demon or person with special powers; he was just a serial killer who focused on children (possibly in a creepy way). Yes, the eponymous phone was mystical and supernatural, but the narrative itself was fairly grounded. The fears that the characters dealt with were realistic; a child has been taken and is desperate to survive. It’s no more supernatural than the tales World War 2 pilots would tell of a deceased officer seemingly leading them to safety when all hope seemed lost. Black Phone 2 would be like if those same pilots said that the clouds gained sentience and started breathing fire on the enemy, then winking at the survivors as if to say, “I got this”. I’m not sure where I expected a sequel to The Black Phone to go, but I didn’t expect it to basically turn into A Nightmare On Elm Street, but more ridiculous.

Two things are very clear from this movie: 1) Ethan Hawke is damn good at what he does. 2) Scott Derrickson LOVES creepy VHS-style vignettes. He uses that style to indicate what scenes take place in dreams; so it’s actually a really handy visual cue, I kind of love it. Yes, it makes no diegetic sense unless we believe these kids are dreaming in Super 8, but as a shorthand for “this is a dream”? I dig it.

I mentioned Ethan Hawke’s performance just now; his performance is less camp and theatrical than it was in the original, but much more menacing. Part of that is because he’s not actually in it that much; the biggest mistake a third movie can (or, I predict, will) make is having more of him. It is kind of helped by the other performances being only okay. It’s weird, I’ve seen every performer in this do well, so it’s not a talent issue, but there are moments where performances seem so hammy that the film should come with a label saying it’s non-kosher (alternative joke; so wooden I’m going to use them to mend my fence). None more so than Anna Lore in the opening scene. She redeems herself in later scenes, but her making the initial phone call feels off, performance-wise.

Loved the music; it’s suitably creepy and weird; reminds me of the work of Trent Reznor, and it perfectly suits the visuals Derrickson is going for. Although on the subject of music, everytime a character loudly exclaimed “Gwen!” my brain started singing this. I’m not holding that against the film, that would be stupid. I just wanted to make sure everyone who reads this is equally cursed, like when I tell people that the opening to Breakfast In America by Supertramp is very similar to Don’t Speak by No Doubt.

It is a weird sequel, but I do appreciate how realistic it is that the characters are haunted by the events of the first film. They’re both clearly suffering from PTSD. My first thought was, “a bit unrealistic, someone would have clearly given Finn therapy and counselling”, then I remembered this is set in 1982, and therapy was seen as unmanly (and to some stupid people, still is), so depressingly, his having to self-medicate his trauma with drugs is accurate.

Overall, a pretty solid experience, but one of the few sequels that is actually made worse by having watched the original. There are some stupid character moments (when trying to stop Gwen from being slowly dragged into an oven, nobody thinks to close the oven door), but also some smart ones. I appreciated how they tried to wake her up by throwing cold water in her face. Despite the moments of stupidity, it’s still a fun watch, albeit not one you’ll be dying (horror pun!) to do twice.

Good Boy (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick synopsis: A haunted house story from the POV of a dog.

Sometimes it can be difficult to sell a film just by explaining the plot. How can you sell someone on Knives Out if you just sell it as “a murder mystery drama about a rich guy”? Then there’s Good Boy. “A horror movie told from the POV of a dog”. That’s all you need. Once you hear that, you don’t need to know the director, any of the performers, or even to see a trailer. That concept is simple enough and strong enough to draw you in. For that, this has to be commended. It doesn’t fail to live up to that premise either. If you like the concept, you will love this film.

Gimmick films can be tricky because they need to be worth watching even once the novelty of the gimmick wears off. “From a different perspective” is a fun gimmick to use, especially in horror, but it has been done a lot lately. We’ve had films from the perspective of a ghost (Presence), films from the perspective of the killer (In A Violent Nature), and films from the perspective of a group of fucking idiots (Truth Or Dare). From the POV of a dog is interesting, and I can’t think of any others like it. The closest I can think of comes from video games. It adds a unique twist to a somewhat tired genre; everything is more terrifying when it’s towering over you. What will be a downside to a lot of people is that, because the main character is a dog, there’s no vocal way to convey a lot of information. You REALLY have to pay attention to enjoy this film; there’s no way you will enjoy this if you’re not 100% in. Which is a rather long-winded way of saying that this is a terrible film to watch on the same day you get your flu jab as instead of paying attention to it, you’ll sit there trying to remember the final line in the Postman Pat theme song (“he puts all the letters in his van”, by the way). Don’t worry, I have seen it again, so this review isn’t coming from a place of tired haze.

If you pay attention and give this film what it deserves, you will be rewarded. It’s fascinating. I am slightly disappointed that it does firmly place its foot in the “this house is haunted” box; there is definitely a haunting here, no doubt about it. It may have been more interesting if it were ambiguous, where we realise that what we’re seeing isn’t a haunting, it’s just something the dog doesn’t understand. Maybe a scene where it looks like his owner is possessed, but with further context clues, it turns out he’s just drunk. A fearsome creature turns out to be an animal that the dog isn’t familiar with, that kind of thing. For a definite horror movie, this does its job well, though. It helps that we care about the characters, despite there only really being two of them (and one of them being a dog). The ending is heartbreaking (don’t worry, the dog doesn’t die), and it is the best way this story could end. The heart shown in that moment encapsulates why Good Boy stands out in a crowded genre; it’s genuinely sweet at times. It helps that they picked the right kind of horror movie. It’s not needlessly violent and disgusting, or full of jump scares. Instead, it’s an exercise in creeping dread. Instead of smashing you in the face with violence, it creates an atmosphere and uncertainty which lingers over the run-time.

On the subject of run-time, it’s only 72 minutes. I admire that, I much prefer that to a longer one. Mainly because longer films sometimes overstuff the narrative to try to justify their length. A shorter film says, “yup, we know the limits of this story”. It’s difficult to see how this could be longer and still maintain the elements that make it work.

In summary, this may not be your cup of tea, but it’s a film that I’m very glad was made, purely because of its originality. I wish there were more films like this, even though I don’t really feel I need to see it again. If I’m with someone who wants to watch it, I’ll watch it. But I can’t see myself going out of my way to see it again. That’s nothing against it, it’s a fine film, but it’s never quite great.

Urchin (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Rough sleeper Mike tries to sort his life out on his release from prison.

Despite the fact that I’ve reviewed close to 600 films on this site, I am well aware that there is a disconnect between my opinions and traditional film critics. There have been some films that critics have loved that I could not give a shit about, and ones which critics have decried as terrible, which I love. Sometimes, I’m aware it’s a personal opinion, that I just don’t vibe with that particular film. But then there are films like Urchin, which make me feel that my opinions are shared by the general audience. I saw a preview of this, and whilst it didn’t inspire any walkouts, it didn’t seem to inspire much praise either. As I sat outside waiting for the bus, I got a general consensus from others who were in the screening, it was not positive. The main theme seemed to be “the guy was a prick”, and it’s hard to argue against that.

Part of that is because of how Urchin is written. Near the start of the film, as we’re still getting used to Mike’s character, we see him brutally rob someone who tries to help him. This means that for the rest of the runtime, that is in our mind. Maybe it would have been better if it had opened with him coming out of prison, and we slowly reveal what he did, by which time we may have grown to like the character. I know, I know, “drug addiction isn’t pretty, and it makes people do bad things, this film just shines a light on it”. But even when he’s not on drugs, there are still multiple times where he comes off as an unlikeable shit. Does this mean I want him to die? That I think he deserves scorn and ridicule? No, of course not. But does it mean I want to spend over 90 minutes watching him on screen?

It’s a shame, as there are moments where Urchin is genuinely heartbreaking. When we see the disdain the world shows towards him, how many people walk past him without offering to help, it does hurt, of course it does. And there are moments of beauty, too. There’s a wonderful moment where he is in a karaoke bar with two women from work, they’re just singing (if I remember correctly) Whole Again by Atomic Kitten. That’s it, that’s all the scene is, three people singing a song. But it’s SOOOO good in terms of characterisation, even how they’re sitting on a chair tells you about these characters. It’s genuinely magnificent and nearly brought tears to my eyes. But soon after that, he leaves his job due to being argumentative, and we never see the two women ever again.

I like Harris Dickinson as a performer; he has the air of someone who is a massive star, yet still does indie projects (for those who haven’t seen it, check out Scrapper, genuinely great). But his directorial choices were a bit odd. It’s clear what he was going for, a trippy arthouse style, I just didn’t like it. Especially since it’s only arthouse for small moments, most of the time it’s just a generic-looking drama, so when it does go all “and here he is standing in a forest”, it comes off as (forgive my phrasing), a little bit wanky and self-indulgent. The kind of thing that film lecturers go crazy for, yet turns audiences cold.

On the upside? Like I said, there are moments where it shines. There are also moments where it forces you to restructure how you think of crime, and how our desire for “justice” just drives people further into crime and misery. It’s also anchored by some fantastic performances. Not just from lead Frank Dillane (although he will, rightfully, gain all the plaudits). But the performance of Karyna Khymchuk feels slightly overlooked. Her performance seemed effortless, and I want to see more from her.

There are some people who will absolutely love it, I can tell. This is the type of film that WILL end up on multiple people’s “best of 2025”, and that’s fair. I just personally couldn’t find my “in”, something which will allow me to sit back and let the story take over me.