The Thursday Murder Club (2025) Review.

Quick Synopsis: Four retirees spend their time solving cold case murders for fun, but their casual sleuthing takes a thrilling turn when they find themselves with a real “who has done this” on their hands

It’s possible I did The Thursday Murder Club (TTMC, pronounced Ta-too-muk) in the wrong order; I watched the film, read the book, then I wrote the review. In some ways, this did help, as most of the casting is pretty spot on and easy to imagine. However, the film makes some things difficult to unsee, one of which is the size of the building. In the book, it’s almost normal, yet in the film? It basically looks like Downton Abbey. This wouldn’t be a problem for most films. But for this? It does bring out the worst aspects; the middle-class tweeness of the whole thing. The feeling that it’s watched by people who spend half their conversations going “I miss the old days when people weren’t so black”.

It’s a shame, as that does a disservice to TTMC. Yes, I expect it to pale in comparison to Wake Up Dead Man when that comes out, but that’s not for a while, so TTMC has a few months of being the best murder mystery film of the year. It’s a pretty good mystery too, especially once you realise that they’ve completely gutted a sub-plot from the boo,k which means they’re either going to change the murderer or change their motivation, otherwise the motivation will be “he’s responsible for this awful thing that nobody has decided to mention for some reason”.

Like all good mysteries, the solution seems incredibly obvious once you’ve figured it out. The clues make sense, and it is possible to make an educated guess before the solution. In fact, I’d say it’s TOO easy. There aren’t enough suspects. The book has quite a few characters who you could easily imagine being the killer. The film has around two. I know stuff has to get cut when you adapt a book, but removing suspects from a murder mystery feels like shooting yourself in the face and leading a bloody corpse (I’ve just been informed the phrase is actually “shooting yourself in the foot”).

The deletion of some of the subplots also means a key scene in the book (and the film-makers obviously realise its importance when you see who they cast for this one scene) is rendered as nothing more than a diversion, albeit a quite entertaining one. That’s the film in a nutshell: not essential, but damn charming and entertaining. It’s the cinematic equivalent of a lovely drive through the country. Really, this is perfect for Netflix, and is probably the best film they’ve released this year.

The Critic (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: A theatre critic lures a struggling actress into a seductive blackmail plot.

I went into this on a weird day. It was one of those days where you can’t stop worrying about one thing, and it just keeps entering your head and ruining everything. So however this review goes, bear in mind that it was good enough to distract me when nothing else did for the three days prior. So whatever else I say, I can’t deny it is effective at keeping your attention. That’s a good thing, because it means you’re still paying attention when the story finally starts. I hadn’t seen a trailer for this, or even read a synopsis. So I wasn’t sure what The Critic was about. That level of not-knowing continued for most of the film’s run-time. Soooooo much of the runtime for The Critic is spent setting up the story, with barely any time spent on the actual story itself. The actual plot-related portion only takes up about 10-20 minutes.

It is mainly about Jimmy, his character is so compelling. He’s acerbic, ambitious, a real drunken hot mess. He’s also gay, which leads to a great scene of him verbally jousting with some nazi dickheads. It’s essentially that scene from Black Books where Bernard approaches skinheads, but more subdued. It’s interesting to see a critic on-screen. It shows just how important reviewers are, and if you ever know any reviewers, even if you just read their stuff online, you should give them presents and compliments. The opening two-thirds mostly focuses on him as a cruel reviewer having to come face to face with the targets of his ire, about how they react to his brutal insults, his words have power and with that power comes responsibility. It’s an interesting look into the power of writing, especially in a time when the country is under threat from the rise of fascist political parties and opinion formers (thank god THAT’s not an issue anymore). That section is so interesting that it overshadows the rest of the narrative. It feels wrong to say, but “people talking” was more compelling to watch unfold than when there was sex, murder and blackmail.

Not that the sex and blackmail aren’t enjoyable (isn’t that Donald Trumps’ campaign slogan?). Visually it’s a delight. The opening scene is a barrage of bright colours that are a true feast for the eyes. The dialogue is also a lot of fun. There are some lines here which could have been written by Noël Coward. The performances are damn fine too. Everybody knows Ian McKellen is great (hence all the awards and respect he has), but this is the first time I’ve ever really “got” Gemma Arterton. Before I just thought of her as “Is that Cobie Smulders? Oh it’s not”. But there are moments in this where she showcases how good she really is. There’s a scene in particular that stands out, where Nina and Jimmy are conversing about how she became an actress because of him, and how she’s craving his approval. Arterton is damn near perfect in that scene, even her silences say so much. Ben Barnes is fun to watch onscreen, even if (for some reason) I thought he was Henry Golding.

In summary; I would say this is worth watching, but maybe not immediately. It probably wasn’t helped that I watched this on Friday afternoon, just after that I watched Lee, and the day before I watched Babes. I haven’t posted the reviews of them yet, but (spoilers), they are both fantastic and among my cinematic highlights of the year. And no matter how good the salmon and cucumber sandwich of The Critic, it’s in between the warm and delicious bread of Lee and Babes. That metaphor makes sense right?

Trap (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: The Butcher is a serial killer who has gone to a concert with his daughter. He quickly discovers (through a far too-talkative member of staff) that the police are there to catch him. So begins a tense cat-and-mouse game between him and the police.

I remember catching the trailer for this in the cinema. The name “Saleka” was all over the trailer, making a point to name her and mention that she’s in this. This got me wondering, who is she? Is she some American musician I don’t know, who is in her first acting role? Maybe she’s famous on TikTok. She has to be somebody, right? She’s front and centre of the marketing, like “making her feature film debut and you want to see it”. So, who is she? I’ll google her. “Saleka Shyamalan is” Okay that explains it. This is the second M.Night nepotism film I’ve reviewed this year, so I don’t have high expectations.

That aside, is Trap a good film?

Short answer: no. Long answer: well, read on.

Maybe I’m being cruel, maybe Saleka is a talented performer and she’s not just here because she’s the director/writer’s daughter. And maybe it’s just a coincidence that it’s that character who ends up saving the day and being the only person to outsmart the killer. I’m trying to not sound too cruel here; her acting talents do not match the acting responsibilities she’s been given. It’s made worse by the fact that the moments when she takes over the film are the worst moments from a narrative standpoint too. The trailer made it seem like this could be a tense claustrophobic thriller, with the whole thing taking place in the concert. M.Night made his name for almost being Hitchcockian in his ability to construct tense scenes. There were plans to shoot Trap in a 4:3 aspect ratio to make it feel more claustrophobic, this was later abandoned because it was felt that this would limit the shots, plus it was too much effort.

Once the characters leave the concert, all tension leaves with them. Not just because it puts more focus on Lady Raven (played by the aforementioned Saleka), who, as I said earlier, is not a good enough actress to pull this off. Her character is badly written too. At one point, Cooper (played by Josh Hartnett, who does a pretty good job tbf) tells her that he’s got someone locked up and that he can kill him at any point just by pressing a button on his phone. Her response is to annoy him. The entire closing section is a dumpster fire of shite and disappointment.

Not that the moments before that are remarkable either. The main issue is that it doesn’t feel like a concert. For a start, there are parking spaces near the venue and the toilets are clean. The cops’ plan feels kind of stupid too. To clarify; their plan here is to lock 20,000 people in a building with a serial killer. There are sooooo many ways that could go wrong. I know that the American police approach to civilians is similar to Drago’s approach to Apollo Creed, but this isn’t just a building full of thousands of people, this is a building full of thousands of middle-class white people. That would be a PR nightmare if The Butcher ran amok and killed people because he felt trapped. Also, I’m not quite sure how that works in terms of fire exits, you can’t lock them, surely? Even if a serial killer doesn’t get them, an errantly tossed cigarette could still kill them.

The main issue is that Trap is not as smart as it wants to be, and not as dumb as it should be. It seems to think it’s very smart though. In his mind, M.Night has created an epic, the cinematic equivalent of Bohemian Rhapsody. In reality; he’s given us Ice Ice Baby. A poor imitation of talent.

Abigail (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: A group of would-be criminals kidnaps a 12-year-old, and don’t even do that right. Losers.

I’ve spoken before about going into some films completely blind, having not even seen a trailer. I wish I had done that for this. The more you know about Abigail, the worse it is. A lot of the film is spent with the killer in shadow, making you think the killings are being done by a hitman working for Abigails’ mob boss father. But if you’ve seen the trailer, you know that Abigail is a vampire, so you know what’s happening. To be fair, the title and the poster do that too. It’s a film called Abigail, and the poster features that character in a bloodstained dress, so even if you don’t know she’s a vampire, you do know that she is responsible for the deaths. So the whole “what is happening? It’s a secret” aspect of the opening half is wasted. I know we didn’t see a lot of Jaws in the film of the same title, but we were aware it was a shark. We didn’t spend half the time watching that film and being told it was hippo.

Once the truth is revealed, it’s a much better film. It’s still good before that, but it definitely feels like it’s holding back on you a little bit. It’s shot like a horror movie before the characters know it’s a horror movie. So the vampiric reveal doesn’t come as a shock, it comes off as “Well that’s what happens next in a horror film”. Compare this to say, From Dusk Till Dawn, which comes off as a heist movie for the first half, which means the vampiric shift comes off as a genuine shock. Here, you KNOW it’s a horror movie, so you’re expecting something similar to what happens. They could have played it off like a heist movie and it would have improved it. I’ll admit, that would have drawn comparisons to the aforementioned FDTD. But heist movies are cinematically different now than they were in the 90’s, they’re now more focused on straight lines, split-screen shots etc. So whilst it would have been similar in terms of genre shift, the styles themselves would be different, which would have lessened comparisons.

I’m overexaggerating slightly, I’ll admit. The sections before them are still pretty entertaining. That’s mainly due to the cast though. I’m a huge fan of both Kathryn Newton and Melissa Barrera, and they’re both given a lot to work with even before shit gets bloody. The characters feel real, which helps sell the believability of this universe. The core group all mesh together well, to the point where their interactions don’t feel like the script is just fleshing out doomed characters. Kevin Durand does look distractingly like an even dumber Elon Musk though.

The real highlight is Alisha Weir as the titular vampire. She is believably an ancient being, there’s no “yeah but that’s clearly just a child speaking, not a 200-year-old person who looks like one”. Her physicality helps too. Her movements (or her stunt doubles movements, I dunno) have a brutal elegance to them, so even when she’s killing someone there’s still an air of beauty and art to it. The ballerina aspect to her character allows some very unique action scenes, of her walking down a bannister with her feet in the ballerina tippy toe pose (I do know the name, it’s called En Pointe, but I’m using that in a pun later). There’s a scene where she dances with someone’s corpse that is very weird and artful, but it did make me sad as it reminded me of Bray Wyatt. The music selection is pretty en pointe (ballet pun! I told you that would come back), mostly consisting of classical music which you’d normally find in ballet performances, operas, and an advert for a Ferrari Pene Piccolo complete with steering wheel, tyres, and can go from 0-80 in 5 seconds which you’ll never manage because you’re only using it to take your kids to school 5 minutes down the road.

In summary; it is just a mindless horror film. But it’s one of the better ones. With humour, some great kills, one truly disturbing moment, and just enough heart to elevate it.

Seize Them! (2024) Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mothers’ Instinct (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Housewives Alice and Celine are best friends and neighbours who seem to have it all. However, when a tragic accident shatters the harmony of their lives, guilt, suspicion and paranoia begin to unravel their sisterly bond

Anne Hathaway is quite good, isn’t she? I know that it might come as a shock that a multiple award-winning actress is quite good at this whole “acting” thing, but it must be said. She’s a big part of why Mothers’ Instinct works. She plays Celine as somebody of whom you’re never quite sure of her intentions. She is either a cold-hearted manipulative woman who is trying to gaslight Alice into madness and steal her family, or she’s just a grieving mother who is doing her best to cope with an unimaginable loss? It’s not so much that flits between the two depending on the scene, it’s that at all times she could conceivably be any one of them. I’d be interested in watching it twice again, each time focusing on assuming a different thing.

Actually, that’s a lie, I’m not interested in watching this again. As good as this Mothers’ Instinct is (and it is finely crafted), nothing about it really warrants a second watch. There’s nothing inherently wrong with it, but like a lot of films based around a mystery or possible misunderstanding, once you realise the truth, is there much left to it?

As I said, this was directed by Benoît Delhomme. Obviously not the first time the name “Benoit” has been associated with dead children. Delhomme has a history in cinematography, with this being his directorial debut. He does a really good job. There are some very interesting shot choices, his use of angles to suggest uncertainty is brilliant. It’s a really basic trick, but he utilises it perfectly.

Unlike a lot of thrillers/horrors, the majority of this movie takes place during the day. Lit by natural sunlight, small lamps, and of course, a lot of gaslighting. The original film Duelles took the modern setting of the original book (Derrière la haine) and changed the setting to the ’60s. That time change has been kept in this English language version, and it suits the themes perfectly. There are so many moments that wouldn’t be as effective if it was set in a modern age. It would still work, but it hits more when every character is repressed by the time period they are living in. You don’t need to ask why they’re not doing certain things, because “they’re women in the 60s, and that’s just not done” is there. I listen to a podcast called How To Survive, which deals with how to survive (hey, that’s where they get the title) in certain films, usually horror. I highly doubt they are going to cover this, but if they did, then I imagine it would just come down to a single word: therapy. It’s mentioned that Alice has had issues with mental health in the past, to the point of being briefly institutionalised, but never being allowed to talk about it. Celine is clearly going through some shit and NEEDS someone to talk to. But since her friends are abandoning her because everybody finds it too awkward. At one point, she is flat-out told “You shouldn’t be here, your presence is making everyone sad”. The characters are clearly all broken, which fuels their paranoia and decisions. So in a way, there is no good, there is no evil, and the real villain is trauma. But in another, more accurate way, the villain is the person who killed a bunch of people.

I still can’t figure out why I didn’t love this movie. It had a good story, great performances, and it was very well made. But it never quite warmed its way into my heart. It’s technically brilliant, but colder than a British summer before global warming. It’s a bit like its own main characters; constantly unsure of itself, constantly figuring itself out whilst it waits to find its footing. It’s a very easy film to be impressed by, a very easy film to praise, but it’s a very difficult film to be excited about. That’s its main problem.

Dumb Money (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: A drama comedy about the internet teaming up to take down a Wall Street hedge fund

I was really looking forward to this. It felt like a modern version of The Big Short (well, even more modern), only unlike that, it was a topic I actually knew some stuff about. Partly because The Big Short did such a good job of explaining what shorting means in regards to investments, but also because I remember this all happening, I was reading news and social media to follow it. I couldn’t give a presentation on it, but I could bluff my way through a conversation about it.

I’m lucky I did, because this is near incomprehensible if you don’t know about the events. I hate doing it, but I’m going to mention The Big Short again (and will do a lot throughout this review); I knew more going into Dumb Money than I did going into that, and yet I left Dumb Money knowing less. It’s a complicated situation, and it feels like Dumb Money expects you to be knowledgeable about the subject going in. There’s no effort made to bring you up to speed, resulting in a confusing mess.

The sense of confusion is not helped by the directing. I don’t get how this was made by the same person (Craig Gillespie) as I, Tonya and Cruella. Those two were slick masterpieces of visual storytelling, whereas this feels like it’s trying waaaay too hard. The editing, in particular, feels like a case of “will do for now, tighten it up later”. It is reminiscent of of obnoxious youtubers mixed with dickhead 90’s skateboarders where random things get overlaid with cartoon images and silly faces. In the end it just felt kind of immature, like it knew it wasn’t explaining itself properly so just went “look, random!”

None of this is on the performers; all of whom are great in what they do; it’s just that whenever it feels like they get momentum, the film pulls away and starts showing over people. It either needed to be pared down, or do a much better job of screentime distribution.

It also has an issue with how it relates to the real world. It doesn’t feel like it does. We get news footage of people talking about it, but it feels weirdly isolated from reality, like it takes place in its own bubble away from the rest of the world.

It has its fun moments though, there are some moments of real emotional depth and seriousness. And the moments featuring the real court testimony is nice to see. But it’s not fun enough to be truly enjoyable.

It’s possible I’d like this more if I hadn’t watched The Big Short, but since I have, comparisons between the two are inevitable, and there’s not a single area in which this is preferable. It is a shame, as on it’s own it’s a 5/10, but in a universe where a better version exists; it’s knocked down severely. Everything in it has been done better, and recently. Even the song choices.

Barbie (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: Do you really need me to say it? I mean, odds are you’ve already seen this so….

This film is big. That much is obvious by now. It’s the highest-grossing film by a female director, has reached $1billion dollars quicker than any other Warner Bros property (and that includes the Harry Potter films), and is now their highest-grossing film ever. It’s also the highest-grossing film of the year, beating The Super Mario Bros. Movie. This pleases me. The Super Mario Bros. Movie (or TSMBM for short, pronounced Tisembum) was good, it was very funny in parts. But it didn’t strike me as something that deserved to hold records. This does. It is, as one of my friends put it “everything”. It’s incredibly smart, it’s funny, has a killer soundtrack, great look, and memorable music, essentially it has almost everything you want in a film.

I suppose I have to add a bit more to this don’t I? Balls.

There was a lot of trepidation when this was announced. Audiences were worried it was going to be another soulless cash grab, completely devoid of originality or anything worthwhile. Then the first trailer was released, and people started to come around to the fact that there’s a possibility that it’s actually going to be batshit insane. I can confirm, it is. But not in a “weird for the sake of weird” way, or even in a “confusing” way. More in a “this feels like a child wrote it”, it makes narrative leaps that seem weird, but they do have a logic to them.

Margot Robbie is perfect for playing Barbie. It’s weird though; she’s the lead, the title character, but she is slightly overshadowed by both Ryan Babygoose’s Ken and America Ferrera’s Gloria. It could be argued that it’s more about the narrative arc of Ken than it is about Barbie, and it’s hard to disagree that he’s given more characterisation as the film goes on. He also has the best musical moment with I’m Just Ken. Gloria wasn’t given much attention in the marketing, but she provides a lot of what makes Barbie more than you’d think it would be. Because she’s a human character she’s given more dimensions to work with, whilst also working as the audience surrogate.

In terms of look? It looks unique. It’s made to look like the whole thing takes place in a toy universe. Some ways are obvious, but then there are other ways which are a bit more subtle; the way everything is scaled slightly incorrectly etc. Greta Gerwig did a fantastic job with the look of this, making it look so fake and plastic that ironically it looks real.

Now onto the bad; there are a lot of performers who feel underutilized. Will Ferrell’s character for example could be taken out of the script and it would require only minimal adjustments to fill the narrative hole left. The Ruth Handler moment could also be played a lot better, as it is it kind of feels like a “we’ll do this now, but think of something better later” script idea. It could maybe go a bit more traditional in the third act, where it seems like it’s throwing everything against the wall, most of which works, but some don’t. It did feature my own personal highlight; Gloria’s monologue about modern femininity which she uses to break the brainwashed Barbies out of their spell. It encapsulates the best of what Barbie achieves; it’s the kind of dialogue which can only be written by a writer who is either a woman or is paying a lot of attention. It’s important, but also doesn’t feel overly preachy.

I mean, some people were still annoyed by it, describing it as “anti-men”, but those people were looking to hate it anyway. I saw some commentators saying that the beginning of the film was pro-abortion because it features children throwing away dolls of babies. Anybody with intelligence would have recognised it as a tribute to 2001: A Space Odyssey, but then again people who add lies about how “they then all screamed Kill All Babies” aren’t exactly overflowing with intelligence. There have also been people who claim that Barbie visiting a gynaecologist at the end is a pro-abortion message; because obviously that’s all gynaecologists do. F*cking idiots.

I mentioned the opening; it does a really good job of explaining WHY Barbie matters. Make no mistake; she does matter. She’s had a huge influence on life, to the point where it’s not crazy to say that there is a little bit of Barbie in all of us; and not just because of the microplastics we ingest on a daily basis that are slowly killing us.

Nope, I’m not ending with that. I’m ending it with the biggest downside of this film. Because it was so successful, studios obviously will want to recreate the success. Will they do that by giving critically acclaimed indie directors a big budget and creative freedom? Or by getting scriptwriters to focus on delivering intelligent, subversive scripts? Or will they do it by just making films based on toys, no matter the quality?

It’s the last one.

Fuck.

Haunted Mansion (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: It’s a Disney movie called Haunted Mansion, don’t pretend you can’t guess that plot.

Disney is a huge company, I don’t think I’m breaking new ground by stating that. But it is an American company, again, I’m not exactly being controversial or shocking by stating that. As such, whilst parts of Disney are known worldwide (the characters, the logos etc), there are a few things that aren’t really iconic outside of the US: primarily things relating to the theme parks. Yes, people know the name “Space Mountain”, but outside of the name, the ride itself isn’t that well known. That’s why making a film based on a ride is always tricky because you’re aiming at a market with little knowledge of the IP you’re basing it on. If it’s something like Pirates Of The Caribbean then you work around it by not really basing it on the ride at all. But Haunted Mansion is one that is known to Americans, they are aware of the music, the visuals, and the story about the ride. So Disney needs to create something that would play to people who know nothing about the ride, whilst also making it worth seeing for people who adore the ride because even something as small as using the wrong shade of blue will make fans furious, Disney fans be crazy yo.

So, does this work? I think it does. I am a huge fan of child horror; that’s “horror aimed at children”, not “horror starring children”, so more “Casper the Friendly Ghost” than “Minipops” (which whilst not a horror, is very creepy and disturbing). I think PG horror is a great way to get kids into the horror. If you ask horror fans about their first experience of the genre, a large portion of them would choose something like Scary Stories To Tell In The Dark, Goosebumps etc. Haunted Mansion does a good job as something that will unlock the door for future horror fans; it has some well-crafted spooky moments (I wouldn’t really count them as “scares”) and set pieces that will live long in the memory. It’s helped by the fact it’s directed by Justin Simien, who gave the world the cult horror Bad Hair. He knows how to craft a genuine scare, and tones it down so that he can provide chills to kids (a bit like an ice cream man).

But what if you’re one of the 100% of people who read these reviews but aren’t a child? It’s going to be harder for you to like it. There’s a lot to appreciate in it, for sure. I don’t think LaKeith Stanfield has a reputation worthy of his talent. I genuinely believe he’s one of the best all-rounders the industry has; a face that suits magazine covers, the perfect voice for audiobooks, plus the ability to deliver an incredibly powerful monologue that will bring you to tears. He’s the ace in Haunted Mansions hole (phwoar). Don’t get me wrong, the other performers are fine, Rosario Dawson rarely gives a weak performance, Danny DeVito is always a pleasure to see (in a film, when he appears on the end of your bed at 2am clutching a bloody ice pick? Not so much), and Chase W Dillon gives a performance beyond his years. But everyone else is acting like they’re in a Disney movie, all overly expressive and aimed towards a mass audience. That’s fine, that’s really all you need in a film like this. But Stanfield? He performs like he’s in an Oscar-bait drama. The characters are all really well-written by the way. Although I’m still not exactly sure what Owen Wilson’s character brought to the film. But the rest? They mostly act in an intelligent manner. They don’t ignore obvious signs of hauntings, when they see evidence of ghosts they leave the house immediately.

The music? It should be better. I can’t remember any songs from this. I know a song played at the end, but I can’t recall it. I still get a song from Goosebumps 2 stuck in my head, so it’s not a memory problem; it’s an effectiveness problem.

So in summary? Wait until it inevitably comes on Disney Plus, which will probably be near Halloween. Would make sense, a film like this is made for watching after/before you go trick or treating. It’s not made for watching in the middle of summer, and I’m not really sure why they released it now, and why they gave it almost zero advertising. I know for a fact I’m going to check it out when it’s on Disney, but that’s mainly to figure if it actually did have two title cards at the start or whether my brain is inventing one of them.

Joy Ride (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Four friends travel to China (well, one was already there) to help Audrey land a business deal. Sexually explicit hilarity ensues

Adele Lin probably has the best record for screenwriting; Crazy Rich Asians, Raya and The Last Dragon, and now Joy Ride. All incredibly written films and all three of them are unapologetically Asian. That may not seem like a big deal, but the aforementioned Crazy Rich Asians was the first film by a major Hollywood studio to feature a majority Asian cast in a modern setting since 1993’s The Joy Luck Club. That’s 25 years with a large audience being ignored by mainstream Hollywood. I don’t really have a point to this, I just wanted to mention The Joy Luck Club so I can segue naturally into the fact that this film was originally (apparently) going to be called The Joy Fuck Club, and I find that funny. Instead, it’s called Joy Ride, which is okay as a title, but is going to be confusing in my archives because I’ve already reviewed a film called that.

I really enjoyed this. It’s got pretty much everything I want in a film; great jokes, emotional depth, good characters, and a condom of cocaine exploding in someone’s ass. This is probably the best outright comedy I’ve seen in a long time, causing some of the loudest laughs I’ve heard in a cinema for a long time. It’s not just the laughs though; it brings the emotion when it’s needed. It has a lot to say about cultural identity and that when you have a foot in two separate cultures how it can make you feel like you don’t truly belong in either of them. It’s effectively pulled off, not just because of the writing, but also due to the talent of the lead performer Ashley Park. She has tremendous chemistry with co-star Sherry Cola, to the point where it’s very easy to believe that they’ve been friends for years. The other two leads: Stephanie Hsu and Sabrina Wu are also a delight to watch, but the whole thing lives or dies on the relationship between Park and Cola. Stephanie Hsu is good, but she’s not given quite as much to do as she was in Everything Everywhere All At Once, but “not quite as good as she was in one of the best films ever made” isn’t exactly a condemnation. Sabrina Wu has the widest range going from socially awkward silence to excited info-dumping on KPOP. , They also provide probably the most emotional point of the movie, when they think all their friends have abandoned them. All four of them turn what could be stereotypical characters into multi-dimensional real people. They all have moments where they’re selfish and moments where they’re right; the whole thing feels very real.

Now onto something else; it’s filthy. The trailers indicated it, but it doesn’t quite prepare you. It says a lot where a scene where they sing WAP is probably one of the least lewd moments, until the end of it anyway where it suddenly becomes incredibly sexual and funny. Personally, I think the WAP scene went on slightly too long. The scene made its point and then continued. It did lead to a satisfying pay-off, but that pay-off would still have been achieved even if the scene was cut in half. The sexual confidence the film provides will also put some people. Actually, the fact it’s a female-lead sex comedy will be enough to put some people off. One negative review saying it “objectifies men, targets white people”. I mean, it’s weird to watch a film which features a lingering shot of a vagina tattoo and think that shirtless men are the ones thought of as being sexual. And I don’t really see how it targets white people. If anything, China gets much more attacked; outright saying they’re racist towards Koreans. I think what the reviewer meant by that is; it shows sexual attraction from a female POV, and the white characters aren’t important to the plot. If you’re not going in looking to be offended, then it’s a fantastic watch with themes that will resonate with everybody. I mean, I did feel incredibly white whilst watching it. But that wasn’t because of the film, it’s because I had Hot Honey Ice Cream which I assumed would mean “warm honey throughout the ice cream”, but actually meant “spiced honey”, so whilst watching a film about Asian culture, there was me, a very white person, sitting there thinking “oof, this ice cream is a bit spicy”.