Category: Review

Confess, Fletch (2022)

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick synopsis: While investigating a case of valuable stolen paintings, Fletch becomes the prime suspect in a murder.

I had no idea this was happening until I saw the poster at the cinema a few weeks ago. I saw no trailer, no press release, no hype, nothing. Plus, it’s a new entry in a franchise that has lain dormant since 1989. Apparently, the Fletch books are known in America among comedy circles, it’s why certain filmmakers always want to give it a go, and it’s why Kevin Smith tried so hard to make Fletch Won back in the day. So it’s a film the studio seems ashamed of, based on an IP that’s not that well-known in this country. All of this adds up to a feeling like looking at a particularly prophetic bowl of alphabet soup; it spells disaster.

So it comes as a bit of a surprise that this film is good. By some weird coincidence, I have watched the older Fletch films semi-recently, and I wasn’t too impressed by them. I think it’s because it’s hard to see the character as a lovable rogue when he’s played by renowned asshole Chevy Chase (Chevy Chase, of course, being the only c-words you will never find in a 2020’s comedy). Regardless of his dickishness, people liked Chase in the role, with some considering it among his best work, so Jon Hamm has a lot to live up to. He needs to be similar enough to Chase that people won’t bitch and complain “he’s ruining it”, but different enough that the general audience actually, you know, likes him. I think Jon Hamm’s work in Mad Men etc has made people forget how absolutely brilliant he is as a comedic actor. His timing and delivery is spot-on throughout, few people can go as comedically subtle as he can. He’s also a lot less broad in terms of comedic style than Chase was, he’s not the type of performer to make pratfalls or go overly cliche in terms of his ad-libbing. He’s helped by the other cast members though. Roy Wood Jr. could easily ride the momentum of his performance here into something bigger, and Ayden Mayeri’s performance has to be seen to be believed and makes me think that the fact she doesn’t have a Wikipedia page (or a recurring role in a well-reviewed but under-viewed sitcom) must be an error which I’m sure will be fixed soon. It does make their job easier that the characters are all so well-written though. The supporting cast of characters are so well-defined, even those who are only in there for a few scenes. Yes, it is mainly about the titular Fletch, but if some of the other characters returned in a sequel I wouldn’t be too opposed. They’re all given little unique quirks and characterisations that make them memorable (and also, importantly, funny).

The plot? It does what it needs to. It’s not as compelling a mystery as Knives Out, but it is filled with enough twists and turns to keep you surprised and entertained. It’s not the greatest, but it doesn’t make any mistakes. There’s not really a weak part to the writing, it’s not aiming to be the smartest film in the world, it’s aiming to entertain you, and it does that well. I wish there were more films like this, mid-budget comedies which are just designed to entertain.

As I mentioned earlier, the marketing campaign for this film is practically non-existent here, and even in the US, it was dumped on VOD services quickly after a very limited cinema release. It deserves better. It deserves to be seen by as wide an audience as possible. It won’t change your life, it won’t teach you anything, but it will entertain you and you will enjoy it. It’s the kind of film where you go in knowing what to expect, and it delivers exactly what you need. I will never not be in the mood to watch this.

Black Adam (2022)

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick synopsis: What if Superman was Middle Eastern, and kind of a dick?

I’ll admit, I’m not that familiar with the Black Adam character, but I get that he’s a big deal, especially to black comic book fans. That appeal is why The Rock has been trying to do this film since 2007, so my ignorance is on me. The film actually does a good job of explaining who he is, so even newcomers won’t be lost. You can go into this having not seen any other DC films and get the plot, and the main character (and as good as Black Panther is, this is one element where this film wins. Spoilers for that review btw). The other characters? Yeah, you’re gonna have problems. There are some you can work out from context clues what their powers are, but it definitely needs to do a better job, there’s one character in particular who is severely underwritten to the point where I’m still not entirely sure what they were. So, after The Rock spent so long getting this made, is it actually worth it?

Kind of. It’s one of the stronger DC films, behind only The Suicide Squad, Shazam!, and Wonder Woman, but that says more about how disappointing (or in the case of Wonder Woman 1984; outright terrible) the rest have been. The worst thing you can say about this is that it’s kind of bland. I know this is a passion project, but that doesn’t seem to come through in the script. The whole thing feels like a tribute to better movies. It’s not really bringing much that’s new to the table. I think it’s supposed to be “morally complex anti-hero”, but that’s not new, that’s most heroes in modern films. At this point it would be more notable if a hero was actually pure light and good (that’s part of what made Shazam stand out to me so much). I mean, in this movie universe, Superman has killed someone, and attempted to fight the rest of the Justice League, you’d have to be very dark to beat that, and this film doesn’t want to go there. It may not fully “go” there, but it does approach it at times. The Suicide Squad was shockingly violent, and so is this, but in a different way. There’s not really a lot of blood and gore, but the violence is impactful enough that it feels like physical fights actually have consequences.

On the downside, the villain is incredibly underwritten. He doesn’t actually matter for 90% of the film. He never really feels like a threat, either, meaning the whole thing doesn’t have much jeopardy. The human characters are well-written though, but that’s not quite enough to make up for the lack of stakes the whole thing seems to have. The plot is quite basic, although it does have a reveal which came as a genuine surprise to me, and makes you re-evaluate everything that came before it (like a good reveal should).

All the performances are good, not really many “wow, I am really impressed by that”, but none that draw you out of the film either. The only note I have on performances is that I watched Brooklyn 99 the day before, and a lot of The Rocks delivery in this is very reminiscent of Captain Holt, and now I can’t stop thinking about Captain Holt in different superhero films, not the actor, the character, replacing others. Everytime I think of a new one it makes me laugh, seriously, Captain Holt being Thanos would be incredible, admit it. Annoyingly, that may be the best thing I got from this movie. Which is a shame, as it’s important, and could be better. If I hadn’t seen a superhero film before, I would be impressed. But this being released during a potential aftermath of a superhero boom, can’t help but feel a little dated. It does bode well for the future of the DCEU though, which is a good sign.

The Banshees of Inisherin (2022)

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick synopsis: On a remote island off the coast of Ireland, Pádraic is devastated when his buddy Colm suddenly puts an end to their lifelong friendship.

I feel I need to watch more of Martin McDonagh. I’ve had a few people recommend In Bruges and Seven Psychopaths to me, saying they seem like my kind of films. Plus I really enjoyed Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. Okay, maybe “enjoyed” is the wrong word, as it wasn’t exactly a pleasant watch, but it was very good (And weirdly described by Disney+ as a “comedy”). He’s really good at making very dark things which are still weirdly funny. His reputation as some kind of sadistic grim reaper clown continues with this.

It veers from comedy to deeply depressing, swerving between the genres like a drunk driving on a motorway, and with just as devastating consequences. There are a lot of genuine laughs here, but they all come from a dark place. Even when this film is light, it’s not outright light, it’s more like a star in a dark sky. Thematically this makes sense, you couldn’t really have a film about this subject and have it be one of constant comedy, but then again you couldn’t make it completely serious either. The very concept is absurd, as someone points out “he doesn’t want to be your friend anymore? What is he, twelve?”. It’s completely ridiculous and absurd but played straight. It does sound silly at first but think of the amount of popular media about dealing with a break-up. Romantic breakups are taken seriously in art, but there’s not much discussion about the break-up of a friendship, and that can be just as devastating, yet it is seen as a stupid thing to be upset about, especially among men.

It’s a delicate subject to deal with and needs to be handled expertly, which McDonagh manages. One thing I don’t think he pulled off quite as well is the emotion. There are moments towards the end where I know I should have felt something, but for whatever reason, I just didn’t. I think it’s because the emotional baseline was so low, that when it gets low it doesn’t feel as bad as it could in other films. After spending time walking through a monsoon, a cup of water thrown at your face doesn’t bother you quite as much. It leaves you so cold throughout that it is unable to leave you colder when it needs it. Overall I think it needs a bit more warmth to work.

There’s a review in the Boston Globe which describes it as “A short story trying to be a novel”, and I think that sums it up well. It lacks momentum and focus far too often. That’s not to say it’s a bad film, far from it, it’s an incredible watch. It got some REALLY loud laughs from the other people in the audience in the screen I was at. It wasn’t that busy that day but the laughter made it sound packed.

From a technical standpoint, this is amazing. It looks great. It’s not a “wow, so much CGI, how did they do that?” film, it’s a “that shot can be in a poster” kind of beauty. Everything looks stunningly beautiful, so even though the world the film creates is depressing and bleak, it’s still one you want to visit. The performances are among the best this year, Gleeson and Farrell are perfect together, they have good chemistry and it’s a shame they’re not paired together too often. They’d be great on stage together. The ensemble cast is great too, but this definitely belongs to Gleeson and Farrell.

I’m really looking forward to watching this again, just, maybe not for a while. I’m not in that much need of an existential crisis.

Joyride (2022)

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick synopsis: Joy is on a journey to abandon her baby when the taxi she’s in is stolen by a teen in this coming-of-age comedy-drama.

Does Olivia Colman know she’s a star? She’s probably one of the best performers in the world right now, yet she’s still in films that people at a similar level would see as beneath them. She is so without ego that it’s actually impressive, and it can only be a good thing for filmmakers. I’m not sure I would have watched this if she wasn’t attached. I’m sort of glad I did. I mean, it’s not the greatest film in the world, but it’s not the worst. It’s a film that shows great potential for everybody involved. Neither the director (Emer Reynolds), the writer (Ailbhe Keogan), nor the male lead (Charlie Reid, playing Andrew) even has a Wikipedia page at the moment, but on the evidence of this, that should change for all three of them.

It is a fun script, but it could do with being both more subtle, and more in-your-face. Andrew is too good, he’s introduced stealing money, but it’s from his dad who stole it from a hospice collection, so Andrew is planning to return it. It means there’s no ambivalence toward him, you know he’s always going to do the right thing. So when, later in the film, he comes to a moral crossroads; chosing the right thing to do, and going back to his nefarious dad, you already know what he’s going to do so the moment doesn’t seem as powerful as it would otherwise. It’s supposed to be an ethical dilemma, but it never feels like one because the film hasn’t shown the chance of him going the other way.

On the subject of his dad, he’s supposed to be feared and violent, but we’re not really shown that. I’m not saying we need a scene of him smacking a kid, but it would have helped build him up. Also, he shouldn’t have been in it so much. If you keep him as an unseen threat, then, ironically, it would make him seem a bigger threat.

Now onto the good, it has some very good moments. Olivia Colman’s flashback is incredibly powerful. I also respect how well it uses time. The entire plot is kicked off within 4 minutes (that’s including the opening logos and credits). It moves at such a pace that while watching it, you’re never going to feel bored or look at your watch. There’s also a scene on a plane near the end which is genuinely hilarious and has some great one-shot characters.

In summary, I feel this is destined to be included in a “oh, you liked this film the director made? Well one of their earliest ones was Joyride” conversation. An early oddity in a future career of greatness.

Amsterdam (2022)

On By troubledproductionsIn Review, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Quick synopsis: Three friends who witness a murder, become suspects themselves, and uncover one of the most outrageous plots in American history.

This should be the type of film I like. It’s a star-filled cast in a movie based on an underknown aspect of American history (the Business Plot of 1933), it should be fun. If not fun, it should be interesting and a fascinating watch.

It’s not though, despite having all the ingredients of a film I like, the end result just didn’t do anything for me. I think a big issue is the pacing, it’s far too long, and doesn’t use the time well. It spends far too long setting up the mood and time, meanwhile, the narrative itself stands still. A good story is a long-distance runner, it varies the pace when it needs to so it keeps momentum until the end. This film approaches narrative like I approached long-distance running, going way too fast for a minute, and then having to stop for 5 minutes to get my breath. It’s really unfocused, giving us backstories and explanations that we don’t really need.

It also has a huge tonal problem. The subject is very serious, about an attempted coup against the United States government, and the mistreatment of veterans from the first world war. Yet the film is written, directed, and performed like a madcap caper. As the Western World is flirting with fascism, showing the concept of dictatorships our thighs and fluttering eyelashes, it’s hard to take films like these as lightweight. Especially when it’s trying to make parallels to modern times (as in, times which are modern, not the Charlie Chaplin film, which is actually more relevant today). The film wants to be taken seriously whilst not being a serious film. “hey, the threat of fascism is looming and business owners want to control every aspect of your life and kill those you hold dea-oh look, someone fell over, tee-hee”. It also doesn’t feel like the characters are taking it seriously, they all seem too self-aware that they’re not in any danger because they’re the main characters.

It’s a shame as the story is one that should be told, just not by this writer. Adam McKay would have been a better shout to do this. The way he handled The Big Short shows that he can do films of this nature well. David O.Russell doesn’t feel the right choice for this. Then again, I didn’t like Joy or American Hustle much either, so maybe it’s just I don’t vibe with his style. The performances are also really good, there’s not really a weak link, and the three leads have excellent chemistry.

It’s also very very funny. Getting some great reactions from the people I was in the cinema with. Not just small laughs, full-on belly laughs that you rarely get in audiences. I feel this could be edited into a better film, but at the moment it’s just too much of a challenge to get through. I might watch it again if it’s on Netflix and I can skip certain parts. But I’m not going to go out of my way to see it. Mainly because it feels like a film, and more like a drunk guy at the pub telling you a story.

Emily (2022)

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick synopsis: A biographical film about Emily Brontë, and the writing of her most famous work, a shopping list. No, wait, Wuthering Heights.

It’s weird, this film is supposed to be about the writing of Wuthering Heights, but it doesn’t feature Kate Bush at all. Plus it’s set in the 1840s instead of the 1970s. Such a basic lack of fact-checking. Oh, it turns out Wuthering Heights is not just a banger of a tune, it’s also a book (Books: they’re like television shows for your eyes), huh, the things you learn.

I’m not that familiar with Wuthering Heights, or the work of any of the Brontë sisters truth be told. I worried this would hinder my enjoyment of it. There was a high chance that I just wouldn’t vibe with this film, not just because I don’t know much about the sisters, but also because I tend to not like period films that much. And for a lot of this film’s opening, I was uninterested in this film. It felt like the characters were taking some things far too seriously and ignoring obvious truths which would reduce their anxiety. My fears were justified, I was bored, and I had started to tune out.

Now I’m about to say something I wish wasn’t true. The Brontë sisters are important in a literary sense, and are among the most famous female writers of all time, coming from a time when women were legally second-class citizens. So any story about them has to be feminist AF for it to work, which makes the following sentence make me feel shitty for saying: the film gets a lot better once her brother enters the spotlight more. There’s a turning point where he and Emily are talking and it tells you so much about who Emily is. It’s the first time you see the dynamism and excitement that she has. It’s the first time that she feels like an actual human instead of a character. The two actors have undeniable chemistry and I hope they work together in the future.

I have no idea how historically accurate this is, so I can’t judge it based on that. I can only judge on what I see, and what I see is slightly frustrating at times. As I said, the opening doesn’t do a great job of drawing you in, and the main romance that’s central to the plot feels lacking. Hard to explain why, they have good chemistry, and the way it ends is heartbreaking, it just doesn’t feel quite as real as it should. I think it’s because the meet-cute moment doesn’t land. As I said, the way it ends is brilliant, but the way it starts feels a bit rushed and forced. The performances are great though, the only time I’ve seen Emma Mackey in something was Death On The Nile, where I described her as “distractingly like Lucy Hale, but better”. None of that here, she is completely different and knocks every moment out of the park. Fionn Whitehead has a good energy to him, although I did spend a lot of the film wondering where I knew him from, I thought I was just getting him confused with Matthew Baynton, but now I know he was in possibly the best episode of Inside No. 9. I’m really looking forward to seeing what the two of them do next.

This is the first film directed by Frances O’Connor, best known for her performances in Mansfield Park, Importance Of Being Earnest, and Madame Bovary. I would not have guessed this is her first film as a director. It’s very ambitious, she doesn’t approach it as a standard period film, she uses handheld shots, dynamic camera movement during chases, and very dark colours to give it a slightly modern feel. It doesn’t always work, the scene where characters are getting drunk feels very poorly edited. I get what she was going for, but it didn’t really work. There are some moments when the visual language is unclear and it can be frustrating and difficult to watch. But when it’s good, it’s very good. Although I do have the feeling her future is not in period dramas, but in horror. There are a few scenes in here which are directed as if they’re in horror movies, and I’d love to see her do one. Not a modern slasher, but a retro-style ghost story.

It’s strange, I’m not sure I learnt any facts about Emily, but it did give me great insight into who she was. I’m not sure I could pass a multiple-choice exam on her, but this did give me an understanding of her character to the point where I could probably BS my way through an essay on her. Worth a watch, but not essential.

The Lost King (2022)

On By troubledproductionsIn Review2 Comments

Quick Synopsis: Philippa Langley (Sally Hawkins) thinks she knows where the lost body of Richard III is buried, and is determined to prove it to an establishment that doesn’t believe her.

If I wrote this review the minute I left the cinema, it would have been more favourable. But now that time has passed, it’s soured my opinion on it. Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing bad about it. You don’t walk out thinking you’ve wasted your time, but it doesn’t stay with you.

The cast is all good: Steve Coogan provides enough character without overshadowing the lead, and Mark Addy seems weirdly Reece Shearsmith. Sally Hawkins continues to be one of the best performers around. She is starting to run the risk of playing similar characters though. A lot of her biggest roles are now “slightly downtrodden mother who stands up to people”. There’s a reason for that though, she is so good at it. Her characters naturally have a slight fragility to them, and she has haunting eyes which make it easy to sympathise with her when things go against her. Plus she does a great “shakey scared voice”. But there’s not much in her performance that you haven’t seen before, as good as it is (and it is very good), it doesn’t feel unique to this film.

She’s not helped by some weird script choices, the “ghost” of Richard III has the usual Television Dream Ghost qualities, pointing out stuff she already knew. But then there are moments where it feels like he’s leading her places, and so that he does have sentience and independent thought. If they dialled down on that it would improve it somewhat, and make it feel like her character has more agency rather than “a ghost told me”.

Another misstep in the script is it plays out like we don’t know what happened. That may work overseas, but the discovery of his body was a big deal in the UK, so when the film does try to have the tension of “will they find it?”, it doesn’t feel true. We know he was found in a car park in Leicester, so there’s zero drama to the story. I know it’s in bad form to add things which weren’t there for dramatic purpose, but I feel this needed it. It needed a B-story that it could use for drama and suspense. At the very least it can stop pretending that we don’t know what happens.

I should point out that there is some controversy surrounding the other archeologists involved in the dig. They say they’re being labelled the villains in the story unfairly, and that in reality they were helpful. Which, considering the crux of the movie was “Richard III was unfairly made a villain by Shakespeare”, is kind of ironic.

In summary, this is fine. It’s a pleasant enough watch but I’m not sure I need to watch it again. It’s a standard British movie, for better and for worse. It will make you feel things while watching it, but you’ll be hard-pushed to remember that much about it a month down the line. That’s its biggest weakness: how disposable it is. It’s based on a true story, but they changed so much of it that it doesn’t really matter that much. They change so much of the true story that it doesn’t work as a “learn about what happened” piece. Films are supposed to change you, make you feel, and importantly, make you ask questions. But really the only feeling this gives you, is that you should watch a documentary about it instead. It also made me think of this song. Which is a plus, I suppose.

We’re All Going To The World’s Fair (2021)

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick synopsis: Alone in her bedroom, Casey (Anna Cobb) takes part in an online horror challenge, one which affects her sanity in this coming-of-age horror from Jane Schoenbrun.

This is weird. I’m still not entirely sure if I liked it or not. I am very glad I’ve seen it, and it is one that I would recommend, but my personal thoughts on it are still going through my head. I’ll admit, I tend to avoid a lot of films like this because they all run together in my mind. The “teen challenge horror” has seen a resurgence lately, and a lot of them have been cheap and kind of shit. I was ready to put this on the file of “nah, won’t bother watching” alongside Slenderman (and where Truth Or Dare should have been). I then realised Anna Cobb was in it. I thought she was the best part of How To Deter A Robber last year so I thought would be interesting. She seemed really different in this though, there was none of the Anna Kendrick-ness to her this time round, which surprised me. It was like she was a completely different person. There’s a reason for that, this was Anna Cobb, that was Abbi Cobb, a completely different actress. I feel that that paragraph may be a disservice to Anna as she is really good in this. She has incredibly expressive eyes. This is her feature debut, and she nails it. I’m really looking forward to what she does next. She’s one of the best things about this film. Although that’s easy to say, as she’s one of the only things about this film. It’s incredibly minimalist, most of the film is her on her own, talking to a camera. I don’t recall a moment of her sharing the screen with anybody at any time. There are moments where she’s talking to someone offscreen, or via webchat, but most of it is just her. Weirdly, it doesn’t end with her. The ending is a guy talking, a guy who is possibly being an unreliable narrator. The film is at its weakest when it’s not on Casey, so it’s frustrating when the film closes not on a different character. The closing is just too long and too much nothing. Much like the opening.

The opening could, and should have been shorter, it’s about 8 minutes of her sitting in front of the camera doing the challenge (saying a phrase three times, smearing blood on the computer, then sitting in front of strobe lights). Could have been done in about 3 minutes and achieved the same. The film itself is only 85 minutes, so that’s almost a 10th of the film doing nothing. It also sets up the film as being something different from what it is, since the whole intro is from the POV of her webcam, it makes you think the whole film will be like that, certainly the minimalist cast would lead you to believe that. It’s not, it mostly is, but the moments where it’s not that don’t add to it. It is kind of a wasted opportunity, the nature of the story would lend itself to her being viewed on a camera or computer screen at all times. Cobb is such a good performer, and has such brilliant facial expressions that it kind of feels like a waste when the film has moments of scenery with her talking over them. As beautiful as the scenes look, you want to see her. This film is at its best when it doesn’t feel like a film. When it feels like home recordings that you’re weirdly intruding on. If the film was entirely recordings from a camera, then the ending of the male character would have a bigger impact. It would put us in his shoes as a voyeur, watching this character on a screen and becoming obsessed with her.

It’s a shame as the writing and directing has potential. It’s strangely hypnotic. It’s the cinematic equivalent of a lava lamp. You don’t watch and think about character and plot, you’re just entranced by everything and lose track of time while observing. The whole thing feels very personal, but also like it should have been a short. It shows promise, it shows potential, but it also shows limitations and inexperience. I expect both Cobb and Schoenbrun (the writer/director) to do great things in the future. Schoenbrun has a great sense of how to make things creepy. But only in short bursts, it struggles to keep that momentum throughout. The scenes themselves are super strange and well done; one in particular where someone seems to be digging into their own arm and pulling out a reel of tickets. It’s moments like that which make you wonder about what the film could have been. Personally, I think this should have been a series of shorts. So we get to see the effects the game has on different people. Would allow the film to maintain momentum and showcase what Shoenbrun is best at: weird shit.

So yeah, see this. Turn the lights off, shut the curtains, turn your phone off, and just be enraptured by what you’re watching. It’s not for everybody, but you won’t see anything else like this. For some reason, it reminded me of the indie game Gone Home (which if you haven’t played, I highly recommend), no idea why. It also has an absolute killer soundtrack which I’ve already purchased.

The Bubble (2022)

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick synopsis: The cast and crew of a blockbuster action franchise attempt to shoot a film while quarantining at a posh hotel

I don’t think I trust Apatow as a writer anymore. The last thing of his I really enjoyed was Trainwreck, and that was something he directed, didn’t write. Other than that, lately, his stuff just seems like it’s all just deleted scenes from other movies. Funny People was far far too long, This Is 40 just seemed kind of cruel, and a lot of times his characters are unsympathetic. Plus he casts like he’s still a young up-and-comer, casting his friends and family whenever he can. I do wish Apatow would stop casting his family members in major roles. I get he wants to see them in it, and he can trust them easily. But I don’t think Iris Apatow was the best choice as one of the main cast. I’m not saying that being Apatow’s daughter is what caused her to get the role, but I have a feeling it was. I really don’t get how she was the best option for the role. Especially when Maria Bakalova was cast in the film in a smaller role. An ensemble-cast film like this means you can’t have any weak links, and having someone as inexperienced as her alongside performers like Karen Gillan, Pedro Pascal, and Keegan-Michael Key just makes her inexperience stand out even more.

But maybe Judd Apatow’s writing saves this? Nope. The whole thing feels like a first draft. It’s really weirdly paced. You’ll have a two-minute scene set during the day, then a short one set at night, and then another one set in the day. It’s just weird and means you don’t get a good grounding of time passing. Time passes so quickly that you don’t really get that feeling of suffocation. It also repeats itself, as well as repeating itself, and worse of all; it repeats itself. There’s a montage of the characters in the second quarantine where some are just drinking and doing drugs, some are going crazy with the quarantine, and some are learning lines. It kind of feels like it should have been shown during the first quarantine section. Would have been a good introduction to the characters, as it is, it’s just confirming personalities we’ve already seen. It’s a repeating of a situation we’ve already seen, and it’s not entertaining to see it again that long into the film. It’s like the whole plot has been brought back to the start. The way that montage ends is weird too, it doesn’t have a definitive end, just cuts to a scene of characters talking, so it makes it seem like those characters are breaking the isolation bubble. It would be very in character for them to do so, and they actually do that, sneaking out (in a scene which either didn’t happen or if it did, was very forgettable).

That’s not the only montage btw, there are quite a few of them, and most of them are pretty bad. It feels like the film is trying to aim itself at the TikTok crowd. It’s trying SO hard to be young and “hip”, that it just comes off like it’s as old-fashioned as someone in their 30s who still uses the word “hip”. Maybe that was done because montages are good ways to show characters quickly, and this film has so many characters that juggling them is difficult. It fails at that, btw. Most of the characters are ridiculously underdeveloped. It doesn’t help that we only see them at their worst, so we don’t really get a sense of who they are. They’re not helped by the dialogue they’re given. “you remember the reviews from your last film Jerusalem Rising”. That is a terrible sentence because it just feels really fake. I don’t think you’d mention the film title, or you’d mention just that. You’d say either “you remember the reviews from your last film”, OR “you remember the reviews from Jerusalem Rising”, it’s weird they mention both. Feels fake. It’s just blatant exposition, and it’s terrible that it’s one of the first lines in the film.

The film also starts with the hotel staff being briefed. They’re the best parts of the film, and if it was focused more on them it would be a better film. It would allow us to see the Hollywood lifestyle from the outside, and get a better view of the madness. As it is, the Hollywood stars are the main characters, so it feels too much like rich people watching other rich people. It’s incredibly toothless as a satire of film-making. It’s the film equivalent of government-approved satire. It doesn’t have a point to make, it’s just surface-level jokes.

On the plus side, I did get a kick out of a character being called Bola, mainly because I called a character that in a script and it’s nice to see a name like that used by actual filmmakers. Most of the cast are good, and the central idea is fine. It also does a good job of setting up the fictional franchise. It has moments where the potential shines through, but they’re quite rare. Really the main issue is one bad piece of casting, and a bad script. So that’s ALL Apatow. If he was replaced, and everything else the same (the casting, the concept etc), it would have the potential to be one of the best of the year. As it is? Bitterly disappointing. Oh, it also has a really awkwardly funny moment with Beck singing a song about dinosaurs. And a Miley Cyrus cover of Blondie.

A Hero (2021)

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Rahim Soltani (Amir Jadidi) is out of debtors prison on weekend release. His partner found a bag full of gold and they plan to use it pay off his debts. When they find out it’s not enough to cover the debt, Rahim pretends he found it and tries to track down the owner and make use of good publicity.

Ah man, I wish I did some research before watching this. I liked this film, it was an engaging story and it was very well written. But the director/writer stole it from a student in a class he was teaching. It’s very heavily (by which I mean, it’s practically the same story) as a documentary made by Azadeh Masihzadeh whilst she was a student in a workshop being taught by Farhadi. Farhadi forced Masihzadeh to sign a document saying that the idea was all his. So yeah, the writer/director is a prick, and I don’t want to praise him, but I have to. If this film was terrible I could make jokes about how much I hated it, and how not only is he bereft of morality, but he’s also bereft of talent. If it was mediocre, I could ignore it like I have one or two other films. But this is too good to ignore. It’s a very human story about the nature of doing good, and whether the motives of a good deed affect the altruism of the act. It also has a lot to say about how people respond to good deeds: with people lining up to exploit the act until it gets out of hand and the person who does the act no longer has ownership of how it’s perceived.

As much as he is a prick, Farhadi is a good director, knowing exactly when to let silence happen. The opening has barely any dialogue, it’s possible it had none, I’m not just confident enough to say that for certain. Most of the opening 5 minutes is just him walking to meet someone, but the locations are so beautiful that you’re not bored watching it. The long walk also highlights just how determined he is, plus he’s just got out of prison, so he’s probably just enjoying the smell of fresh air instead of the smell of rape and pee corners (it’s why I don’t take late trains from Kings Cross). The character is played by Amir Jadidi, and he’s the entire anchor the film is based around. His character could come off as someone who is self-serving and selfish (and he kind of is, but never in a way that makes him unlikeable), or he could come off as pitiful and pathetic. Jadidi makes him someone you want to root for, he’s very likeable and charming, in situations that he started but are now out of his control. It’s essentially an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm, just without the laughs. His relationship with his girlfriend feels very natural too. They have really good chemistry and the scenes of them together on screen are lovely to watch. It’s a relationship you can buy into easily, you can see why they’d do the things for each other that they do.

The background characters are all well-portrayed too. Even the person he owes money to, the person who is, for all intents and purposes, the antagonist, is seen as sympathetic. He’s (rightly) annoyed that Jadidi’s character is seen as a hero just for handing the bag back in, he doesn’t see why that’s a good thing, and not just, you know, normal. His frustration that the person who owes him A LOT of money is being held up as a paragon of virtue, meanwhile he’s seen as the bad guy for, you know, wanting the money he is owed.

So in summary, watch it, just try to ignore how horrifying the concept of “debtors prisons” are in the first place.