Dungeons And Dragons: Honor Among Thieves (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: A ragtag group of misfits go on a fetch quest.

Dungeons And Dragons: Honor Among Thieves (or to give it the title it should have if it’s spelt correctly: Dungeons And Dragon: Honour Among Thieves. Or as a shorter title: DADHAT) is actually the fourth Dungeons And Dragons movie, the previous ones starring Jeremy Irons, Marlon Wayans, and Thora Birch. Well, I say “previous ones”, they were all in the first one. The other two feature actors who are…..not as well known, and were released straight to DVD. So it’s fair to say expectations for this were not exactly what you’d call sky-high. Added to that, it was originally scheduled for release back in 2021, and a film being delayed by almost 2 years is never a good sign (for evidence of this: New Mutants, Morbius, and countless more). There’s not even a huge star to anchor this. Chris Pine is a good actor, sure, but he’s not at the level where members of the general public who don’t often go to the cinema will pay to see a film because he’s in it. So is there any hope for this film at all?

Turns out there is. Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley (who previously directed the supremely underrated Game Night) used a sneaky trick which I suspect may help this film turn a profit. A devious and sneaky trick which other studios may want to pick up on; they made a good film. I’m surprised more studios don’t do that tbh, it could become a trend. In fact, I’m hoping it does.

Now I’m not saying this is a great film, but it is definitely better than it needs to be. There’s a scene where a shapeshifter runs through a building and outside to her friends, they could have done this in any manner of ways to make their job easier. Instead; it’s one long continuous shot. That was completely unnecessary, nobody would have criticised it for going slightly cheaper by having the transformations happen off-screen (so a mouse runs behind a curtain, a tiger runs out etc), or even if they only did two transformations. Instead, it’s like the directors WANTED to make things difficult for themselves, and I admire that.

It’s moments like that that make you realise that DADHAT was made by people who actually gave a shit about what they were making. This extends to the performance too; Daisy Head (daughter of English Vampire/Richmond FC botherer Anthony Head, not relevant, but I only just discovered that and wanted to share it) spends most of the film with more make-up than [insert name of a woman that the internet has decided it hates now] and is still giving it everything. Hugh Grant is clearly in the “shits and giggles” stage of his career. It’s said that some struggling actors base decisions on what will allow them to eat that month. Hugh Grant definitely does that, only the thing he eats is the scenery, which he chews like you would not believe. It’s amazing to watch and gives you the impression that everyone on set was having a lot of fun. The chemistry between the cast will make you think they’ve all worked together as an ensemble (as opposed to working individually as ensembles obviously) multiple times. Some of the performers you will know; Hugh Grant, Chris Pine, Michelle Rodriguez, even Bradley Cooper makes a random appearance. But the “new” performers more than earn their spot. Rege-Jean Page makes the journey from Bridgerton to Tonnes-Of-Bridges with ease. I wouldn’t say he’s the best performer, but he has such a magnificent screen presence that if a movie studio had any brains they’d sign him to lead a franchise. Justice Smith continues to be an entertaining presence (as he was in Detective Pikachu). My personal favourite is Sophia Lillis (best known from IT, Sharp Objects, and I Am Not Okay With This). Her performance as Doric is a delight to watch and I hope leads to even more for her in the future.

So what stops me from enjoying this even more? Because there are a few things it does badly. It’s difficult to take the threat seriously, because at times it feels like the characters aren’t. They do show fear when directly facing an enemy, and they do talk about their worries, but they also spend too much time making jokes about the situation they’re in. So because the characters don’t take it seriously, the audience doesn’t either, so there’s no tension. The attempt at emotion doesn’t really ring true. Finally, the “final boss” so to speak isn’t pushed as a big threat either, she barely gets a chance to flex her villainous muscles before she’s defeated.

Wait, underwhelming villain, tonally inappropriate jokes, zero tension, CGI Bradley Cooper, a final battle that is just CGI, and a lead actor called Chris. Is DADHAT part of the MCU?

Champions (2023) Review


Quick Synopsis: Marcus (Woody Harrelson) gets fired from his job as an assistant coach for physically abusing his manager, and things get worse when he gets caught drunk driving. He gets sentenced to community service, coaching a basketball team with intellectual disabilities.

It’s often said that a film is “made” by its cast, which is definitely the case here. With a different cast, Champions would be a terrible experience with a dated 80s feel. The simple thing the film does? It actually casts people with intellectual disabilities. It’s surprising how often stuff like that doesn’t happen and the studio decision is just “just put a guy in there and have him pull a funny face”. Out of the basketball team members; Madison Tevlin shines above everyone else, with an incredible screen presence to watch unfold.

Even without considering that, the film is a pleasant watch. It’s a cliché plot that only throws up a few small curveballs. To be honest, a sudden swerve would have ruined this. The charm of Champions is not from the plot, it’s from the characters, and those characters are likeable. Harrelson isn’t exactly stretching his limits as a performer, but he does what he needs to.

Whilst I was watching this I had two thoughts: 1) That guy over there keeps checking his emails on his watch, and I hope it’s an early design that has a flaw which causes it to give the wearer an electric shock if they keep using it, prick. 2) This feels incredibly American. Which is why it was such a surprise that it was based on a Spanish film (also called Champions). A genuine surprise, so much of it felt American, except maybe the end, which is more like Rocky than most sports films.

The whole film is so easy to enjoy and smile at, so why has it taken so long for me to review it? Because whilst it is charming, it is funny, it is full of joy, and it has heart, it is also lacking that extra something to make it stand out among the crowd. There are not many moments which stick with you, not enough to recommend this film over the hundreds of films which tackle similar subjects. It does show potential though. There’s a moment where Marcus finds out why one of his players (Darius) won’t play for him. Darius was left with brain damage after being in an incident involving a drunk driver, the reason Marcus has to coach this team? He was sentenced for drunk driving. That’s why Darius doesn’t trust him, he doesn’t want to follow the instructions of someone who could have done the thing that he did. It’s a brilliant piece of character storytelling, but it is also one that only affects the moments that reference it, it doesn’t organically feel part of this world, and if it was excised it wouldn’t leave a narrative hole that needed plugging (speaking of holes that need plugging: sexual joke). I wish it led to a bigger moment, I wish it was a large part of this, a defining part of the narrative. But as it is, it’s just a small section in a puzzle with too many pieces. I will commend Champions for having one different moment: when Marcus is hired by an NBA team it causes the inevitable schism, usually, that’s the moment which leads to the third act reconciliation. It looks like that might happen here, but then it’s forgotten when a bigger issue arises. If it carried that aversion to tropes throughout, it would have been a better film. But as it is, this is too predictable and safe to be considered anything better than good. I really did enjoy it, Champions is very difficult to dislike. But I don’t think I will ever need to see it again. I’m glad I watched it, and I don’t regret it. But it’s only ever “good”. Which is a shame.

Air (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: It’s the 80s (in the film, not now, obviously) and Nike’s basketball shoe division is flailing, when one guy makes a decision: throw everything they can on signing the rights to create shoes for a young Michael Jordan.

I’ll get the big thing out of the way first: Michael Jordan isn’t in this. Well, he technically is, but mainly out of focus or shot from behind, I’m not even aware of the character having any lines. It kind of works though, he’s supposed to be “above” everybody, so having him as this unseen presence makes him feel bigger and more important. If you actually saw the character and he was underwhelming, it would underwhelm the whole premise. It is a decision that does risk annoying some people, and hasn’t gone down well with some reviewers, but like I said, for me, it works. You don’t really miss him as a character, and there are only a few scenes where it’s obvious that they’re deliberately not showing him.

With no Jordan, it’s left to others to pick up the mantle: the employees of the Nike basketball division, Michael Jordan’s family, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (middle eastern geography joke!). The ensemble cast is like a dream team of “I like them, but to be honest I wouldn’t be surprised if they turned out to be a massive dick” (with the exception of Viola Davis who is genuinely one of the best performers in the world at the moment). Nobody is really testing their acting abilities here, everybody is playing a character similar to what they would play in almost anything else. Ben Affleck plays a Shouty Man who remembers where he came from, Matt Damon plays his friend who is idealistic, and Jason Bateman plays someone who is sarcastic. I mean, they do their jobs well, so it’s hard to find fault with that, but you don’t come out of this particularly impressed with any of them? The characters? Yes, very well written, which is a good thing as the film would fall apart without that. Let’s face it, it’s not as though Air can depend on the plot to carry it. I’m not saying the plot is bad, but it’s a foregone conclusion so it does lack the suspense that audiences may want. Face facts, nobody is watching this film thinking “Oh no, I wonder whether these *checks notes* Air Jordan shoes will ever get made? I just don’t know. Also, why am I carrying notes in a movie theatre? And how am I able to read them so clearly in a dark room?”. In a lesser film that lack of suspense would harm it, but in this it’s oddly not an issue. That’s probably because of how good the writing is, it’s fascinating to watch everything play out.

Despite the fact it is a Ben Affleck movie, it doesn’t really feel like his previous work, for one thing, there’s no crime. Still a lot of swearing though, a distracting amount at times. Mostly it’s okay and makes sense in the scene and for the characters, but there are a few times where it feels a bit gratuitous, which is a shame as mostly the dialogue is incredible. The dialogue is so good that it feels like it hasn’t been written. All of it is so natural and effortless that if someone told me it was ad-libbed I’d believe them.

The other thing to appreciate is the pacing. It’s almost 2 hours long, but you’d never guess. There are no moments where you sit there looking at your watch wondering when it’s going to be over. The whole thing is so quick that it feels over quicker than my interest in watching an actual game of basketball. It is weird to watch a film where Nike is pitched as a plucky underdog though.

I’m going to end this with a positive. There’s a scene in this where Damon’s character is telling Jordan’s parents about how the career of Jordan will go. It’s an incredibly powerful piece of writing talking about how the public reacts to fame; how they build people up into an impossible ideal and then criticise them for not being able to live up to it. It’s intercut with high (and low)lights from his life; his career, his playing basketball, and his father’s death (although it is weird that this is the only reference the film makes to that, with it being curiously missing from the “what happened next” montage at the end). It is one of the best scenes I’ve ever seen, but it does make the rest of the film seem worse by comparison, which is a shame.

So in summary, go see this. It’s not likely to end up on any “best of” lists at the end of the year, but it will be one you’ll think warm thoughts of if you see it mentioned. It’s one you’ll definitely think of buying if you see it cheap enough, and if it’s on netflix, it’s getting watched.

Rye Lane (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Following two youngsters reeling from bad breakups who connect over a particularly eventful day in South London.

I like a good rom-com, mainly because they contain two of my favourite things: likeable characters, and good dialogue. My issue is, that a lot of them aren’t good, they’re too trope-ey and dull to really be memorable. It feels like the genre is overpopulated by films displaying a complete lack of effort, as if the genre is an excuse to be lazy because “well it’s just a rom-com, it doesn’t need to be too new”. It’s why it’s such a shock to find something genuinely fresh and exciting like Rye Lane is. Raine Allen-Miller could potentially be one of the great directors of the future. I mean, THIS is her debut. She displays more creativity with her shots here than 90% of directors would. From the use of different lenses, to Peep Show style POV shots, there’s a lot of creativity in Rye Lane which means that as a filmmaker it’s a fascinating watch. Her aptitude is backed up by the performances of Vivian Oparah (who you might know from the Doctor Who spin-off Class) and David Jonsson (who you might know from the HBO/BBC series Industry). There are other actors in this, but they mostly float in and out of the narrative, it is anchored around the characters of Yas and Dom. If Oparah and Jonsson miss a step then the film falls apart. That is also true of how the characters are written, you should actually want these characters to be together (the fact that the characters made each other worse when they were with each other was a big reason why I wasn’t a fan of Licorice Pizza, that and the whole HE’S FIFTEEN!). Yas and Dom are likeable characters, it’s easy to see a small bit of yourself in their awkwardness and faux confidence. It’s helped by the natural chemistry between Jonsson and Oparah. They perform together like they’ve worked together multiple times, bouncing off each other with ease.

Now onto the downside, the visual style may not be for everyone, personally, I loved it but I am aware it is an acquired taste. And whilst it hits most of the romcom tropes in a decent enough manner, the traditional “fall-out and argument in the final third” falls a little flat. They’re hard to do anyway because 90% of the time it’s just someone going “let me explain” and then not explaining. The argument needs to be big enough to make it believable that they might not end up together at the end of the film (à la Chasing Amy, spoilers for a 26-year-old film btw), but not so big that it would demean one of the characters if the relationship was restarted (“yes, he shot my family, but we only have 5 minutes left in the film so I think we need to get back together”). It’s a tricky tightrope to tiptoe down and Rye Lane doesn’t quite manage it. It feels too small, I was so into the relationship that I didn’t really buy that something like that would keep them apart. The “grand gesture to win them back” at the end felt relatively small too. So really my main problems with this film all revolve around the ending, and it’s not even necessarily bad, but it is slightly flat compared to how great the rest of the film is.

In summary, a very good film, but I’ll be very disappointed if this turns out to be the high point in the careers of everyone involved. This could end up being mentioned in a future review of one of my favourite films I see, in much the same way as my mention of how good McKenna Grace was in Gifted means I can now be like “hah, I told you she’d be amazing” now that everybody else is finally realising how damn good she is. If you get a chance, go see this, inventive romcoms deserve to be seen, plus, the mere existence of this film REALLY annoys racist dickheads, which is always fun.

All Quiet On The Western Front (2022) Review

Quick Synopsis: A German language adaptation of the classic Remaruqe book of the same name.

This was expected to do good business come award season, after watching it, I can see why. It’s very much an “awards” film. It has some truly beautiful shots, it’s an adaptation of a book, and it’s about “things”. It’s definitely an “important” film, and superbly made. The performances are near perfect and they will definitely make you feel emotions, and will also make you think about the horrors of war and how unfairly young lives can be snuffed out so worthlessly on behalf of others.

But will you enjoy it? It’s all well and good being a technical masterpiece, but I will always favour something I enjoy over something I’m impressed by. Avatar: The Way Of Water (or to give a name nobody else would call it: ATWOW) was a technical masterpiece, whilst I Blame Society was weirdly shot and had multiple audio issues, but I don’t go around telling people they need to watch Avatar, whilst I have annoyingly told everybody to go watch I Blame Society (which I will continue to do until every single one of you watches it). This isn’t quite up there with ATWOW in terms of technical brilliance, but it’s not down there with how much I didn’t enjoy it. I did like this film, I just don’t need to ever watch it again.

Weirdly, despite being a deeply important film, and dealing with pertinent themes, it’s not going to stick in my memory. There are moments which will, a few moments which I’ll be able to tell people about as an example of why this film is good, but overall? You could show me clips from it and I wouldn’t recognise it, I don’t even think I could point out any of the cast in a line-up (so if they do commit a crime, I’d be a terrible eyewitness, but don’t commit crimes).

I’ll admit, I haven’t read the book, or seen any of the other adaptations of the book, so I can’t judge it based on that. I can’t, others can, and those who are, are not being kind. A lot of the vitriol towards AQOTWF (pronounced Aquotwoof for those making notes) comes from Germany, where the book is required reading in many schools, and as such, is a country very familiar with it. The general consensus seems to be that Edward Berger was so “horny for an Oscar” (direct quote) that he missed the themes of the book. There are particular issues with the way the film ends. In the original book, it ends with a notice of the main character’s death, saying “He fell in October 1918, on a day that was so quiet and still on the whole front, that the army report confined itself to the single sentence: all quiet on the western front.”. In this? He dies as part of a moving cog in the machinery of a loud combat scene. Not only does that betray the themes of the original work, it means the title isn’t even relevant anymore in a way that I haven’t seen since I Am Legend.

There are other issues with it, this AQOTWF is strangely anti-French, distractingly so at times. A lot of the scenes which haven’t been carried over from the original texts are misdeeds of German soldiers, their watches being stolen by their own people in military hospitals for example. This, combined with all the scenes of French soldiers brutally massacring Germans makes it a strange watch. Even the ceasefire scene is mainly focused on how Germany wants peace but France won’t accept it. Not only is the whole thing anti-French, it also doesn’t feel like a message that a film should be putting out at this time. Germany was an invading force during this conflict, so the whole thing feels like what a Russian film talking about the current conflict in Ukraine would be like: “the invading armies were all kind and wonderful, the natives were terrible violent sociopaths”.

It’s a shame, without the changes, I feel I would enjoy this and appreciate it more. But art isn’t released in a vacuum, the context of the general world influences opinion. And the more I think about AQOTWF, the more disappointed by it. It could have been great, it should have been, instead, it’s just very good but never necessary.

Pearl (2022) Review

Quick synopsis: Trapped on an isolated farm, Pearl must tend to her ailing father under the watch of her mother. Lusting for the glamorous life she’s seen in movies, Pearl’s temptations and repressions collide and she starts killing people, one of which she leaves near the entrance of her house, literally sending her to the Pearl-ey gates.

I actually wasn’t a fan of X, it just didn’t vibe with me. So I went into this with slight apprehension, worried that I might end up being bored very early on. The good news is, I didn’t dislike it for a long time of it. The downside, the longer Pearl went on, the less love I had for it. I loved the stylistic choices, and the performances are incredible. I just, I dunno, at some point I just stopped caring. Once I got past the Wizard Of Oz feel, I wasn’t that engrossed by it. It’s not helped that I didn’t like any of the characters. The titular Pearl is a sociopath, her mother is unbearably cruel, and the projectionist seems a little too date-rapey. Also, they’re not quite despicable enough to be villains. Pearl is driven mainly by her ambition and desires to leave her farm (which anybody who has seen X will know she never does), Pearls’ mother recognises that Pearl is capable of great evil, so she is trying to protect the world from her. So you can’t really truly despise them either. In a film full of colours, all the characters are too morally grey to feel too strongly about.

I think I need to watch more Ti West, as it is possible I just don’t like his writing style. Others do, and I can see why. He writes like a 70s horror writer, so you know that no matter what, it won’t be stupid, and it will take its time. His stuff mainly seems to be very slow burns, which normally I like, but I feel it didn’t really lead to much this time. It’s like watching a car slowly roll down a hill, you expect it to crash at the end, but instead, it just slows down gradually and comes to a stop.

Everybody involved is obviously talented, Mia Goth gives an incredible performance, one scene, in particular, is a master class in acting where she just gives an unbroken monologue to her friend. Tandi Wright is also great as the mother of Pearl, I wouldn’t trade her for another girl. That’s a reference to this song btw, I haven’t just decided on a really weird sentence structure.

Matthew Sunderland gives a weirdly good performance considering his character can’t move, but his eye work is tremendous. There is a definite love for the art here, the fact that Ti West, when he needed an illicit film, didn’t just invent one, or find a random one, he actually showed A Free Ride, which is seen as the earliest American porn movie that is still available for viewing today. It’s obvious he knows his shit, it’s just not for me.

If this was a short film, I’d have loved it. If it actually did more with the concept than the “we have an idea”, I’d have liked it. But as a feature? For a film which features genuine pornography, there’s surprisingly little meat. Also, it’s weird this received a US cinema release in September last year, and a Blu-ray/DVD release in November, yet didn’t come out here until March. Wtf is up with that?

Creed III (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Adonis Creed retires from the boxing world, and is met by Damian, a childhood friend who has just got out of prison. Damian turns out to be a very good boxer, but also a massive prick.

On balance, I probably prefer the Creed franchise to the Rocky one. The first two Rocky films are great, no doubt about it. But the Creed films have something different to them. I think it’s because there is a real-life undercurrent to the whole thing. The character of Adonis Creed is trying to step out of the legacy of his father Apollo, whilst also wanting to pay respect to him. Similarly, the films want to stand out on their own away from the Rocky films, whilst also paying respect to them.

There was still the worry that this would be the film which lets the Creed franchise down, especially since it was being directed by Michael B. Jordan. He is a FANTASTIC actor, but this is his directorial debut, so there is always the risk that handing the reigns over to someone so inexperienced could backfire, especially when that person is the lead.

Thankfully, turns out that he’s pretty damn good. The first Creed film was notable for how it shot the fights, really making you feel like you were in there with them. This goes in a different direction, especially for the final fight. That scene is already one of the best I’ve seen this year. It doesn’t aim to make the fight realistic but uses more abstract visual language to show how it actually FEELS to be in there. For example, at one point, the crowd disappears and the fight takes place in an empty arena, it really highlights the personal nature of the feud between the two characters. Jordan has said he was heavily inspired by anime when it came to how to shoot the fight scenes, that makes a lot of sense. It’s a bold choice, but it pays off.

Another smart choice is casting Jonathan Majors, who was last seen in Ant-Man And The Wasp: Quantumania. As daunting a presence as he was in Quantumania, it’s in Creed where he is more imposing. He looks like someone who can punch your head clear off your head, and carries himself as someone who would. It is kind of a weakness of the film that his point is too good. Most people would do what he did in that situation, so it’s hard to not only sympathise with him but to kind of root for him. I’m not asking him to come out and punch a child, but they could have done more to make him more of a villain. Wouldn’t even take something (Jonathan) major, his incarceration was kicked off by Adonis punching someone who abused him at a children’s home. All it would take is for Adonis to find out that Damian planned that person to be there to steal the money Adonis won from betting earlier. Or have Adonis’s mother Mary Anne point out horrible things Damian did to Adonis as a child (stealing his stuff, belittling him, stopping him from entering a boxing tournament, I dunno, something). He is still a prick, and his underhanded tactics in the fight to make you slightly hate him, but Damian is definitely too easy a character to root for.

Michael B Jordan continues to shine as Adonis, but he is slightly overshadowed by not only Jonathan Majors, but also Phylicia Rashad, who provides much of the emotion, kind of like Stallone did in the last one. On that note, I should point out that Stallone is not in Creed III. To be honest, he’s not missed. If Stallone was in this then it would be far too busy. There’s no space for the Rocky character, it also means that Adonis stands out more as a focused character. You’re not sitting there waiting for Rocky to turn up, you might not even notice he’s not there until you think about it.

Onto the downside: the pacing is a little off. It ends brilliantly, but the middle section seems rushed. Damian chases the title for a while, but we don’t get to see him as champion that much. It’s a shame as there is room for an interesting story about how the boxing world views him. We don’t really get how the boxing world reacts to someone winning the title in their first professional fight, and being much older than most professionals. There’s definitely space to tell this story too, it keeps going back to the incident at the grocery store when really we only needed to see it twice, once at the start, and then again later on for clarification with new context. It also wouldn’t be a bad thing for the opening to be a bit quicker. Those are minor issues, and it doesn’t stop Creed III from being a fantastic film, but it does stop it from being among the best I’ve ever seen.

So in summary, definitely go see this. I’m not sure where the franchise can go from here, but at the moment this is a damn fine conclusion to the saga.

Scream VI (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: People from Woodsboro get stabbed, this time in New York

I am a massive fan of the Scream franchise (despite only managing to catch one of them at the cinema), so a new one is always welcome. They don’t just work as slasher horrors, but also as murder mysteries, you watch them and look for clues to work out who the killers is, and why. The duel genre nature of the franchise is one I’ve always been a fan of, so I was looking forward to this. Scream movies have always started well, and have always been unexpected. The first one killed off Drew Barrymore, the third one killed off returning character Cotton Weary, the fourth was….well it was very weird, the fifth one started with the person who was attacked surviving, and this? This started with someone being brutally murdered, and the killer unmasking himself. It’s a shockingly different way to start the film off, and I love it. I’ll say this now, it’s genius. It subverts expectations twice, and both times it blew my mind and got me very excited.

The ending? Not so much. Scream 3 gets a lot of shit for the killer reveal, but it was still a lot better than this. In the third one, there was still some ambiguity about who the killer could be and what their motives were, we were presented with numerous possibilities, but enough clues so that we could possibly figure it out (but maybe not the “why”). Scream VI does the opposite, it’s blindingly obvious who the killers are. When you have a character say they “had” a son, and also have them talk about swearing revenge on those who hurt his family, it’s not difficult to figure out that they’re the killer, and the motive. Related to this, if a character in a slasher movie dies off-screen and you don’t see the body properly, they didn’t die. This is incredibly obvious to everybody who has seen a movie before. It’s an incredibly disappointing reveal, even more so because it starts wonderfully.

The rest of Scream VI is fun to watch, well, as fun as watching people get brutally murdered can be. The kills are disgustingly brutal, it gets really specific with where the knife goes. Someone being stabbed directly in the throat will always be a manner of murder that stands out more than just stabs in the back or chest. That being said, there is a scene where someone gets stabbed in the chest repeatedly and the sheer violence of it is shocking, so there is a way to do something as simple as that in a way that makes it stand out.

Usually, “[killer name] in Big City” is a sign a horror franchise has gone off the rails, second only to “in space” as a sign that the movie is going to be shit. I actually like the way they use the location here. New York is loud, so it is conceivable that somebody can be stabbed in an alleyway and nobody will notice. I will respect this for not doing the obvious scenes in Times Square etc. It is in New York, but it’s not a tour of the landmarks. Instead, it is a way to introduce different horror set pieces, the scene on the subway system is incredible, although it was ruined in the previews (as was the scene in the bodega). There are moments where it does get a bit too “You mess with one of us, you mess with all of us!” Spider-Man-like.

The big story leading up to the release was the absence of Neve Campbell, who refused to make an appearance due to Paramount deciding not to pay her enough because they’re bastards. I have to be honest though, I’m not sure what she would have done in this. There’s not really a Sidney Prescott-shaped hole in this story. If there’s a sequel then there will have to be a discussion about bringing her back, but the story they’re telling here? She would have seemed superfluous. They do explain her absence, and it’s a way that makes sense. Without Neve, Scream VI focuses more on the characters introduced in last year’s Scream. The only legacy character to return is Gale Weathers, but Courtney Cox only appears in roughly 4 scenes. Her character seems to have reverted to her Scream 1 persona, in a character development that doesn’t make much sense. Her scenes do feature a nice reference to how she and Ghostface have never really spoken much, but aside from that, Gale’s scenes seem a bit superfluous.

Not quite established enough to be a legacy character, but also returning from this is Hayden Panettiere’s Kirby Reed, who was last seen (and introduced) in Scream 4,or to give it proper (a.k.a, stupid) title: Scre4m (pronounced Screfourm, obviously). It is nice to see her back, not just in this franchise, but in Hollywood in general, with this being Hayden’s first film appearance since Custody in 2016. Kirby’s character arc is a great examination of how characters react to events like this, although I would like to see her explored more in the future.

The rest of the cast is great too, Melissa Barrera keeps her upward trajectory, but I feel this does slightly stall the momentum Jenna Ortega is on from Wednesday. Not due to the quality of the script, but there are moments near the start where her performance seems a little bit weak. Not “OMG this is terrible” level, but it feels like she’s operating at a slightly lower level than everybody else. In a film full of Lennon and McCartney, she’s a George Harrison; still very good, but overshadowed.

So in summary; go see this. It’s very good, although you may get a headache from how many times the “How did they survive that?” alarm in your head goes off.

65 (2023) Review

Synopsis: Mills (Adam Driver) crashes on earth 65 million years ago and fights dinosaurs.

Oh this is annoying. A title like that, and a film like this, you can almost sense that a review would say “65; a film as dull and unoriginal as the title suggests”, that comment itself would be (ironically) really lazy and predictable. But I can’t think how else to put it. Adam Driver fighting dinosaurs should not be as dull as this. Everything is just incredibly bland and dour. I think the problem is that the premise and the length (93 minutes) would lead you to believe that 65 will be an action-packed thrill-ride, albeit one that is a bit tongue-in-cheek and silly. Instead, the whole thing is far too serious, which feels like a missed opportunity.

That’s actually a good summary: a film of missed opportunities. Throughout, the script makes the wrong choices, goes down the wrong path, eats the wrong berries (I forgot the point I was making). Usually a script is lucky enough that these choices would be placed far apart in a script so that it isn’t too egregious but here it’s unlucky enough that it makes two narrative missteps in the opening.

One: Starting with Mills leaving his family behind so he can take part in a two year expedition. His daughter (Nevine) is sick so he needs to be able to afford healthcare etc. We find out relatively early on that Nevine died midway through Mills’ expedition. That should have been spread out. If we start not knowing this daughter is sick then it can unveil that to the audience through the film, and allow us to mentally go back and use the new knowledge to recontextualise earlier scenes. This doesn’t do that, because it gives us so much, so early on, it kind of feels like there’s no character exploration because we’re told too much early on. It’s the narrative equivalent of not bothering to wrap up Christmas presents. It also means that the film starst off calm and serene, which is the opposite of what you want. If it opened up with the spacecraft crashing then the audience would automatically be on the edge of their seat.

Two: We don’t see anybody else on the ship before it crashes. We aren’t introduced to them, the first time we see them, they’re all dead. This feels like a mistake because it means the audience doesn’t feel anything when they die. If we replaced the opening with a small scene of crew members joking around with each other it would flesh them out, so when everybody dies, the audience would actually feel something. The only other character we see is Koa, and with the exception of her desire to be reunited her parents, the deaths of the crew don’t effect the plot at all. There are no moments where Mills feels particularly haunted by all his colleagues being dead (or walking through their blood, in one of the few effective scenes). So what was the point of it? Why kill off that many people if you’re not going to have it have any baring on the plot?

That’s the other thought 65 provoked in me: Why? There are so many times where I don’t know why the writers made the choices they do. The core one: why is it set 65 million years in the past? Why not just have them as humans in the present day on a distant planet? The fact it’s earth, and in the past, adds NOTHING to the story. The odds that human life would evolve to the EXACT specifications on two different planets is astronomical. Is it just there so they can tie in the giant asteroid that caused the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event? I think it is. I did think that whole plot made the characters look like idiots. Mills is an experienced spacecraft pilot, so he is aware of what asteroids do. Yet when he spots a giant flaming rock moving gradually closer to earth, he just seems to be like “meh, not my world, not my problem, YOLO”. Both characters are a bit stupid to be honest. Koa traps a small dinosaur in a tunnel and throws a handful of grenades down, one would have done, and the other grenades could have been used for something else. It doesn’t matter in the end, they don’t need the grenades at any point, they were only used in 2 scenes and they didn’t matter. A lot that happens in this doesn’t matter. For example, at one point Mills wakes up and finds that Koa is foaming at the mouth. He opens her mouth and pulls a parasite out, then she recovers. That’s it, from “oh no, this character might die” to “everything’s fine” in less than a minute. The parasite thing isn’t mentioned again, doesn’t threaten the characters again, so ultimately a near-death of a main character means NOTHING. This keeps happening, something seemingly important happens, they get past it, the threat is no longer there. It’s not narrative, it’s video game levels. It might have worked better if the film had more survivors, then we could see them being killed off as the film develops. It would mean the world actually FEELS dangerous, instead of fake danger that we know can’t pierce the characters plot armour.

Of course, this could have been on a different planet with a different asteroid, and nothing would have been different. In fact, it didn’t even need to leave earth. The plot, as it is, would work perfectly fine if it was a character in modern times who is on a ship that lands on a deserted island full of creatures. I mean, that would basically be King Kong, but this is not a film aiming for originality anyway so fuck it.

So in summary; a film clearly aiming for spectacle, but instead ends up being utterly forgettable. Far too many pointless scenes adding up to a pointless movie. It also has possibly the worst title of the year in terms of making it easy to find in a few years time.

Ant-Man And The Wasp: Quantumania (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: It’s a Marvel movie, you know what the plot is.

M.O.D.O.K looks fucking stupid. Sorry, I just had to get that out of the way before I start this.

*gathers notes and restarts*

Since Endgame, it feels like the MCU has been stagnating slightly. It’s doing the cinematic equivalent of setting up a lot of dominos, which will hopefully all tie together wonderfully, but at the moment it’s kind of uninteresting. Quantumania looks like it may end that, the next stage is set up so heavily that it needs to start being acknowledged soon.

First off, yes, this film has flaws. The visuals are a bit inconsistent. It’s both beautiful yet ugly, technically astounding yet a cheap mess. Everything looks green-screened, and the Quantum Realm itself is a bit bland. It’s a shame as there are moments where it is glorious to watch, where you truly get a sense of scale and wonder. But for the majority of it, it’s kind of bland. There was a chance to fill this world with colour, so that every scene pops off the screen, as it is, it’s just there. I mean, it’s still impressive that it was all created, but it still doesn’t look like a $200million budget film.

There was some controversy before Quantumania was released due to the recasting of Cassie Lang. Nobody was assuming that Abby Ryder Forston was going to come back due to being too young, but there was an assumption that Emma Fuhrmann would. I don’t know why they cast someone in Endgame when they were planning to look to recast if Cassie Lang came back. Secretly, I’m glad they did, Kathryn Newton is one of my favourite performers around at the moment, and she is a REALLY good Cassie. So yeah, I get why, and she is the better choice, I just, I think it’s a shitty thing to do to recast like that.

In terms of the other performers, the main issue is that Bill Murray feels wasted. I don’t want him as a main character, but having him in it then doing what they do with him feels like such a weird casting decision.

There are some people annoyed that Michael Pena didn’t come back. Luis was one of the most popular characters in both Ant-Man, and Ant-Man and The Wasp, with his rapid-fire delivery and vocal style of summing up events being a highlight. Truth be told, there wasn’t really a way for Luis to fit into this. If they did, then Luis would have felt unnaturally shoe-horned in and would have been weird. Part of this is because Quantumania does SUCH a good job in terms of pacing. Sometimes you can be waiting around for a lot of the running time waiting for the story to kick off, but it happens here incredibly quickly. Same with the way it ends. It doesn’t linger long after the story is resolved, they resolve the story, give a quick coda, then end it.

There is no Luis, but there is Kang (weak segue, I know), and Kang is a fantastic villain. Part of that is due to Jonathan Majors, he CRUSHES it. Josh Brolin was fantastic as Thanos, there’s no doubting that. But if they let Majors do what he is capable of doing, Kang could end up being better. Majors has such a screen presence, especially physically. He is a hell of an actor for the MCU to have going forward, and the concept of different multiverse versions of him is incredibly exciting when you think of the potential for Majors to show what he can do.

Now onto the big issue I have: M.O.D.O.K. I’ll admit, I’m not that familiar with M.O.D.O.K as a character, but I assume we’re supposed to take him somewhat seriously? It doesn’t help that when I look at M.O.D.O.K I don’t see a “Mechanized Organism Designed Only for Killing”, I see Krang from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. It doesn’t help that the CGI is awful and just looks ridiculous. To be fair, I don’t think there is a way to make a giant human head look threatening, so there’s not much they could have done to help that. Well, they could have just kept the fucking mask on and NOT SHOW THE ACTUAL FACE. Do the reveal through dialogue instead of unmasking. That would then make it seem like the face has been disfigured, and let the audience wonder how badly it has been ruined by what it’s been through.

Overall, Quantumania is a bit like the last few Marvel films; entertaining enough, but won’t change your mind on the genre. On the plus side, you don’t need to have watched all the TV shows for the film to make sense, although Loki will need to be watched to understand the post-credits scene.