Chicken Run: Dawn Of The Nugget (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: Ginger and Rocky are now raising a child, one with ambitions of leaving the farm they raised her in.

The original Chicken Run has a weird place in people’s hearts. It doesn’t feel like it’s many people’s favourite film, there’s not exactly a rabid fanbase who do yearly showings and conventions about it and discuss its themes at left. That being said, it is a comfort film for many people. It’s a film which whilst people don’t LOVE, it does give them a place of warmth and security. That’s, you know, if you ignore the Mel Gibson of it all.

The recasting of Gibson made a lot of sense, his career has never really recovered from people discovering he’s a massive racist (by which I mean, “he uses racist words”, not “he sometimes criticises Israel when they kill children”). Whilst he’s not box office poison (the reaction to Hacksaw Ridge proves that), he is box office Evri, his involvement will drive more people away than it will bring them in. Zachary Levi is a good replacement though, providing enough emotion and vocal depth to the performance that you don’t really miss Gibson. I have a bigger issue with Thandiwe Newton being in this. Julia Sawalha was great in the first one, and her being recast for seemingly no reason genuinely annoys me. It’s claimed it’s because she sounded too old, but Newton is only 4 years younger, so maybe it was to get a bigger name? Either way, it’s bullshit, and did kind of sour the whole experience for me.

It kind of sums up my issues with the film. It doesn’t seem to have the same warmth and cosiness as the original. It feels more, well not cynical, but more business-like, as if they were focused on the reaction it was going to get rather than what they were making. It has a Paloma Faith song. That somehow feels wrong, she’s too cool for this. Especially since it seems to be recorded especially for the soundtrack. It just kind of feels like a tonal misfire, it would be like if Wallace and Gromit used a Stormzy track.

That’s a shame, if this was a stand-alone film, I would rate it relatively high. It’s funny, it looks good, and it’s f*cking weird at times. A joke involving an eye-scanner made me laugh so much that I spat out tea (such a sad waste of tea). It is also genuinely unsettling at times, more kids’ films should aim to occasionally scare the living shit out its intended audience. There’s one area where this is better than the original; it has much more emotion. It definitely has an air of “aiming at the parents as well as the kids” with how it’s got themes of parental worry and a need for independence.

I mentioned the cast briefly, this has quite a few new voices, and they work. Bella Ramsey sounds exactly how that character should sound; with the right mix of youthful enthusiasm and paranoia. My personal favourite was Josie Sedgwick-Davies, who (at the time of writing) doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page. Her character could be annoying if it was voiced wrong, but Sedgwick-Davies makes it work, with her character coming off as endearing rather than frustrating (it helps that her voice makes her sound like someone who goes on Bake Off and bakes rainbow cakes which look weird). She’s absolutely fantastic and I love her in this. Curious as to what she does next, but she’s on my radar for now so I’m hoping it’s something good.

So in summary; because this is on Netflix, I’d say you should watch it. It’s a great Netflix film, but only a good Aardman one. If you’re looking for a good family movie, you could do a lot worse than go with this. I mean, you could also do a lot better, but still.

Aquaman And The Lost Kingdom (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Super scary villain fails to kill a baby.

It’s hard to give a shit about DC films at the moment. They’re clearly being written with the idea of building towards something, but the audience knows that with Gunn taking over and resetting everything, they’re not actually building towards anything. This is partly why The Flash was such a frustrating film, It was setting up questions that we knew would never be answered. Aquaman And The Lost Kingdom (AATLK, pronounced Arterlook) doesn’t set up anything like The Flash did, but it also doesn’t feel like the closure that it actually is.

Like a lot of superhero films, it is hard to not wonder where the other characters are. Even considering that they couldn’t withstand the water pressure, there’s still a lot of stuff that takes place on land that they could have been used for. Even just a quick scene of “contact your friends” “There’s no time/they’re busy” would be useful.

Those absences would be fine if the story itself was engrossing enough. This film is so pedestrian, it’s at risk of being hit by a car that mounts the pavement. The visuals aren’t that exciting either. Something like this should create magical-looking worlds that you want to live in. We should forget that these worlds don’t exist. You never get that, everything looks so fake that it resembles a mid-2000s video game more than real life.

At least the performers are having fun. Momoa is having a lot of fun, and the sad thing about him not being Aquaman in Gunns DCEU means that that character is effectively over now, because they can’t recast it without it seeming like a downgrade. It looks like they’re thinking of having him as Lobo, which would kind of make sense, but I think we all know that Joseph Anoa’i would be a better option. Momoa is helped by him and Patrick Wilson having tremendous chemistry, much more than they had in the first one. Yahya Abdul-Mateen II was good in the brief moments he’s seen as Black Manta, but isn’t really in it enough to be memorable. It doesn’t help that Black Manta doesn’t really do much. His whole thing is “I’m going to find this weapon and take over the world”, so the heroes need to stop him getting the weapon that will make him unbeatable, he finds the weapon and then is defeated almost instantly. It reminded me of something, but it’s so generic that I don’t know what it reminded me of. He also seems to know he’s a character in a film, so makes decisions based entirely on what the film needs him to do. The best example of this is when all he needs to do is kill Aquamans son, so he stands above him holding a knife, and pauses, raising it far too high, just so Aquaman can save the day. If he was actually bothered, he could/would/should have killed that baby immediately; would have been easy too, babies are shit at fighting, I reckon I could take like 10 of them on my own. Also, he knew he had to sacrifice the child, yet still did everything on his own. Logically he should have sent one of his henchman to fetch the child while he was off doing other shit. I’ve never said this sentence before and I’m not sure I’ll say it again, but if he was a good manager and effectively delegated his duties, he could have killed that baby instantly.

That’s how I’m ending it.

A Kind Of Kidnapping (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: A young, broke couple kidnap a sleazy politician who decides he can spin the story to his advantage.

I wanted to like this, I really did. If you can, check out the absolutely SUBLIME television series How Not To Live Your Life. From that, it’s clear that Dan Clark has a lot of talent, not just for the absurd, but also for finding humanity, with an almost Seinfeldien level of talent for making you root for characters who by all rights you should dislike. Plus, I love a good political satire, and this looked like it might be that. Alas, it was not to be.

I’ll start with the positive, Dan Clark is a hell of a director. He could have gotten away with this being low-budget and grim, but it’s really slick and has a big-budget feel, albeit one of those big-budget films mainly played in theatres that cater to cinema snobs. The performances are all pretty solid too. Leila Hoffman isn’t in it for long but shines when she is in it. Patrick Baladi was born for this kind of role, he has Thick Of It face. He’s perfect to play a slimy opportunistic Tory wanker.

Now onto the bad; it just feels a bit too mean-spirited. We know politicians are shits, so if the sharpest your satire gets is showing us that, it will feel a little weak. Good satire should be an explosive firebomb of inspiration, this is more like a pathetic discharge of a mouse coughing. It’s not telling us anything we don’t already know, and it doesn’t offer any glimpse of an opportunity to change anything. If anything, all this has to say is “The ruling class are shit, deal with it”. The pacing is a bit odd too. The moment where Baladi’s character doesn’t want to go because he realises it’s good for his career possibly should have come earlier. It’s the main gimmick of the film and it doesn’t occur until a third of the way through the runtime.

This wouldn’t matter if the rest of the time was well spent, if a holiday is good enough, you don’t mind the queues to get there. But the other two-thirds of the runtime feels kind of wasted. There’s not enough in there that wasn’t in the trailer.

Don’t get me wrong, this does have some cracking dialogue; my personal favourites:

“Japs Eye is not very PC, in fact, it’s pretty racist”

And, this is the only film to have “if you do that again I’ll put a bullet in your dick” as a threat.

I like the dialogue, I like the concept, I like the performances, I like the direction, but the film didn’t really do it for me. I can tell they tried though. There’s a lot you can say about this, but you can’t say it’s low effort. I’ve given negative reviews to a lot of films, but this is one of the few I’ve felt genuinely guilty about writing. That’s probably because when I shit on something like Assassin Club or Wolf, I don’t see myself in those films. They’re not the kind of scripts I would write, or the mistakes they make are ones I would never make. But this? A sweary political satire that kind of lacks focus and passion? I could do that. This feels like something I would do, so I see any issues more easily, I take them more personally out of my own personal fear of failure.

Next Goal Wins (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: Football (the foot-to-ball kind, not the hand kind) coach Thomas Rongen has been given the job of coach of the American Samoan national team with one task; to score a goal.

The best thing this film has going for it is it’s likeable. Next Goal Wins (or NGW, pronounced Noog-wah) has an inherent cosiness and warmth that makes it very easy for the audience to not want to turn away. It has the air of a comfortable end-of-year movie you watch with everybody; a bit like Cool Runnings, it all feels very Disney, in a good way. But much like a ska song about the holocaust, that lightness is hiding something very dark. Underneath the tale of the worst football team in the world lies a story about national pride, parental grief, transphobia, and personal belief. But those topics are woven so intricately that you don’t even realise they’re breaking your heart until they pile up. Mostly, the subplot about parental grief plays its hand too easily, it’s trying to give you a peak behind the curtain but instead pulls the curtain wide open, the hints just aren’t subtle enough to hide the reveal. I am very glad that that wasn’t invented for the movie though. His daughter genuinely did pass away in a car crash, and it was her hat he was wearing during American Samoa’s match against Tonga. That’s the kind of thing which if it was invented for the film, would have come off as weird and unrealistic. Related to that, there are quite a few moments which if they weren’t real (and if the film didn’t come from someone with ties to the area) would come off as incredibly condescending. Even the whole premise of the film, that these natives were hopeless until they were “saved” by a white man, comes off as a little strange in the current climate, by “current climate”, I mean “past the 1970s” (which didn’t reach some parts of the Midlands until 1998).

This isn’t an essential watch, but it is very good. It’s not going to change the world, but I’m not sure it’s supposed to. It’s supposed to just entertain you, and tell a really unique story. The American Samoan team’s loss to Australia was huge, literally, it was 31-0. NGW does do a great job of pointing out that the American Samoan goalkeeper actually had a fantastic game, and if it wasn’t for him the score would have been a lot worse. The rest of the players don’t come off with quite as much dignity. But even when the film portrays the players as not being that good, it never dehumanises them. The joke is purely on the observer, not the person being observed. This is the difference between something like Next Goal Wins, and The Gods Must Be Crazy. You don’t come out of this pitying the people you’ve just watched. But you also don’t come out with some condescending thoughts of “Ah, but they’re the real smart ones”, you come out realising that they’re just people with ambitions, hopes, dreams, and moments of stupidity.

It’s not perfect. We could stand to be given a bit more background into his coaching career. We don’t really get a sense of what level he was at in his career. So we’re not given any indication of how big his “fall from grace” is. Was it a huge scandal? Was he not known by anybody? We don’t know, and it kind of harms his character not knowing. Fassbender does do a great job portraying him, though. Due to the nationality and race of the cast, it’s not exactly going to be full of performers you’re familiar with. The only one I recognised was Talia’uli Latukefu from Young Rock, but there are so many performers from this who I want to see again. They’re helped by a really fun script that knows that it’s ridiculous. I mean, it’s a sports movie where the end result isn’t to win the tournament or beat their rival, it’s to score a single goal. Delightfully unique, and I look forward to watching it again.

Ferrari (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: With the company in dire straits (not the band), Ferrari need to win their next race in order to survive. Will they? I mean, they still exist, so yeah.

Many people like this film, it’s got pretty decent reviews. I have to be honest; I don’t get it. The main issue I had with it was I had nothing to hang a positive thought on. It didn’t feel informative enough to be interesting, the characters (particularly the lead; Enzo Ferrari) were too unlikeable to root for, and you knew how the main conflict would end. Let’s go through all three.
The lack of information. You don’t come out of this with a better understanding of the person, or the company. It’s so heavily focused on one event that it neglects to give you any other information. It feels like the second part of a ten-part documentary series. I’m not asking for every single piece of the company history to be covered, but it would be nice to have at least one “oh, I didn’t know that!/that’s interesting” thought whilst watching it.
The predictability. This also affected the shoe-opic Air. We all know that Ferrari exists (spoilers?). So you can’t really watch this and think “OMG! I wonder if the company is going to survive this.” If you push that a company is dependent on doing well in a race, and the company is still around today, you know what’s going to happen.
Now onto the unlikeability. I thought the lead character was a complete prick. I didn’t care about anybody, especially the lead. “oh no, if this doesn’t work he might have to sell the house he purchased for his mistress and illegitimate child. Or stop drinking quite as much expensive wine.”
He’s not in a “I’m financially struggling and if I don’t turn it around I won’t have enough money to pay rent” situation. The film seems to really hate his wife, with his mother blaming her for his cheating “Well if you can’t give him an heir, it’s his right to look elsewhere”. The film ends with the wife saying “I’ll lend you money but only if you never acknowledge your illegitimate son as your heir”, then a few minutes later you get a piece of text onscreen saying “She died in [year], and now the son is the head of the company”. It seems to treat “but then his wife died so the son he had with his mistress was finally able to inherit the business” as a happy ending. Like his wife was being the bitch for not allowing that.
I like Shailene Woodley, she gave a fantastic performance in TFIOS, anchored the Divergent series, and rightfully puts herself forward for causes she believes in. I think she is a good person and a good performer, but she is a terrible Italian. A lot of the accents are bad, but hers is one step away from “It’s a me, a Mario! I make-a the pizza”. Out of the cast, only Penelope Cruz gives the impression of someone who can actually point out Italy on a map of Europe.
To the film’s credit, the racing scenes themselves are fantastic, injected with a sense of realism missing from similar films. They don’t feel like you’re watching a film about racing, it feels like you’re actually there experiencing it, being fully aware of just how f*cking fast these things can go.
Mann has also managed to recreate the period. I’m not aware of how accurate it is, but it feels right. It doesn’t even need to tell you when and where it’s set, as the set design does a good enough job of telling you. The aftermath of a crash at the end is much more brutal than I thought it would be, although that is somewhat ruined by the reaction of Enzo being one of nonchalance. That’s to be expected though, another character died in one of his cars early on, and there’s no mention of him for the rest of the film. There’s no sense of “but am I responsible?” guilt, it’s just “his mother caused him to crash” (that’s genuinely what he says by the way) and absolves himself. Again, he’s an asshole.
I wish I liked this film, I really do. But it’s the second Adam Driver film of the year with an exciting concept, rendered incredibly dull. Maybe if you like cars etc, this might mean more to you. But it left me colder than the weather is currently.

It’s A Wonderful Knife (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: Winnie wants to see what the world would be like if she had never been born and is shocked to find out that if she didn’t stop a serial killer, people would die.

It’s hard NOT to compare this to Totally Killer. I mean, you can also compare to Freaky and Happy Death Day, but the “person in familiar yet new environment” is more applicable to TK. That was fun and had good ideas and logical storytelling. And I actually enjoyed TK. This? Not a fan. I think it’s because I expected it to be much better than it was.

If you’re doing a parody of an iconic film like It’s A Wonderful Life, you need to go all in. You can’t gently kiss or tease the concept, you need to fuck it. You need to make it as fun as possible and play with expectations and societal differences in regards to what was acceptable in the original, and what isn’t now.

Importantly, you need a lot of thought and love. This kind of seems like they came up with the title first, and then the idea whilst having no idea how to flesh that idea out. The Wonderful Life comparisons aren’t as central as they could be. For most of the movie, it doesn’t really matter. A lot of the central problems aren’t related to her, it’s just standard “there’s a killer on the loose” mixed with “alternate universe”. The “here’s what it would be like if you never existed” differences are ONLY related to the murders. Which is my central problem; she stopped a serial killer. She knows this. So her “I don’t matter, I’ve never done anything important” attitude doesn’t really ring true. Might have made more sense if her absence in the town CREATED the killer somehow, like she stopped someone on their path of darkness etc. Because at the moment it’s “without you stopping a serial killer, that serial killer KILLED PEOPLE!” *dun dun dun*. She only gets to that feeling of worthlessness because her parents take a personality change from the opening to the “one year after”. In the opening they’re normal and kind parents, afterwards, they’re swaggering bags of douche cleanse. If it played into “they’re traumatised too so they don’t know how to talk to their daughter” it would work. But at the moment they’re the kind of people who buy their son a new car, and their daughter a single item of clothing (I think was a jumper). To be fair, the rest of the characters aren’t that smart. One character punches the killer and then runs into the dark woods rather than BACK INTO THE HOUSE. I mean, luckily it ends up working for her but still.

The other timeline isn’t that interesting either. For one thing, it would have been more interesting if the killer from the first timeline died early in the second but the killings continued. Then there’d be a sense of mystery. And it wouldn’t make the characters seem so lazy. At the moment she goes into a new timeline, realises the mayor is still killing people, and then goes to watch a movie. This would be so easy, especially since there IS another killer in this timeline, but they don’t reveal that until very late on. The only twist is some mind-control gimmick, but that doesn’t count as a worthwhile twist because it’s fucking stupid.

We’re also not given enough time to really explore the new reality. Which is linked to another problem; the pacing. It takes 8 minutes for the film to realise it’s a horror movie, and 15 minutes to get to the title card, IN A 90 MINUTE MOVIE. It takes her almost half the run-time to discover what kind of movie she’s in.

Now onto the good, there are some beautiful shots, especially in regards to the use of colour. There’s a moment where she’s dressed in red whilst in an incredibly washed-out room. I like that the town somehow became more nihilistic in response to an active serial killer, that seems very realistic. There’s a romantic relationship between Winnie and Bernie that is very sweet. The reactions between the two of them are very genuine. They have great chemistry, and apparently, that’s why the relationship between the characters happens as it does, they wanted to take advantage of the actors’ natural chemistry. So whilst it is nice, it’s kind of sad that the best part of the film wasn’t written. The performances are all fine, but I kind of think it might have worked better if Joel McHale and Justin Longs’ characters were switched. As I said, the best parts of the films are all related to the central two; Jane Widdop and Jessie McLeod. I want to see them in a buddy road trip movie, or a weird millennial remake of Thelma and Louise. McLeod is delightfully weird, seeming to operate on a different level from anybody else, and I absolutely love her for it. Those kinds of performances are tricky to do because they can often come off as fake and over the top. McLeod is talented enough that she seems genuine throughout.

So in summary, maybe watch if it’s on TV at Christmas time, but you don’t NEED to see it. If you want a violent Christmas movie, watch Violent Night, if you want a Christmas horror movie, watch Gremlins, if you want a parody horror, watch Totally Killer. This is not the best option for any choice, which I’m sorely disappointed by. This has all the ingredients to be a classic; fun premise, bloody kills, Katherine Isabelle from Ginger Snaps. But instead of utilising those ingredients to make a delicious cake of greatness, it underbakes them and then adds a secret ingredient of piss. If I hadn’t watched Totally Killer 2 days before, I might have been kinder. But it’s hard to watch economy after watching first class.

Totally Killer (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Thirty-five years after the shocking murders of three teens, an infamous killer returns on Halloween night to claim a fourth victim. When 17-year-old Jamie comes face-to-face with the masked maniac, she accidentally time-travels back to 1987 where she tries to stop the original murders, and come to terms with the idea that her mother was a complete bitch.

I went into this knowing only the title. I’m assuming I did read the concept at one point and thought it sounded interesting, but by the time I got around to watching it I had forgotten it. So I’m glad it set the tone early on, describing a murder in the 80’s. We see the murders through crime scene reconstructions (so figures and small models laid out in a model house) intercut with still shots of the actual bodies. This is a really simple way of doing a scene like that on a low budget and without coming off as cheap, so I was instantly sold that this would be creative and clever.

I then realised that this was essentially Back To The Future but as a slasher film, and I went all in. I love stuff like that. It’s been attempted before with Happy Death Day 2 U, which I absolutely loved. But I think I might prefer Totally Killer, HDD2U was good, but it didn’t play into the time travel aspect as much. This doesn’t just do a time travel slasher, it dissects the genre and approaches it from as many angles as possible. It would be really hard to do a sequel to this because it’s difficult to see what else they could do.

There’s a comment on the trailer for this that says something along the lines of “I miss the 80s, people were better back then”. Which makes me think they didn’t watch the movie. A lot of the people in this are dicks, but they’re entertaining dicks (like a penis telling jokes). Unlike something like Ferrari (spoilers for that review btw) where it’s hard to get emotionally involved since every character is a prick. In TK, the characters aren’t people you want to know in real life, but they’re funny and interesting. Plus, they’re teenagers in the 80s, so a small amount of assholeness is understandable because you know they’re not at their final form.

This is really damn funny. I went through many options for my “favourite line” in my end-of-the-year round-up. Funny dialogue comes thicker and faster than a Grimace Milkshake Ejaculation.
“When I think of serial killers I think at least 3 people”. “let’s give it up for Angie who wishes there were more people killed”
“if she did do blow jobs, maybe she’d still be alive” “Yeah, let’s not make that the lesson”
“the machines don’t kill us all. They just rip apart the fabric of our society via dance videos on TikTok”

These lines are all perfectly delivered too. I didn’t watch The Chilling Adventures Of Sabrina; nothing against it, but I worked in a shopping centre when it came out so I had to see the poster for it hundreds of times a day. As such, I’m not that familiar with the work of Kiernan Shipka, but she nails it here. It helps that she’s given a good script.

It’s a script which is depressingly realistic in terms of how it approaches murder. The commercialisation of murder is too true to not sting a little bit. On the downside, the reveal of the killer doesn’t really work. It’s probably because it’s a character we haven’t seen that much of, so when they’re unmasked it feels more like “who?”. If the opening third had another 10 minutes it might have helped flesh him out.
In summary, this is on Amazon Prime, and that’s apt, as this is a prime cut of fresh horror.
Fuck that’s a terrible line, isn’t it? Ah well, go see this movie.

Wonka (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: It’s a Willy Wonka prequel, do you need a synopsis?

I will admit, I went into this knowing there was a chance that it would end up being terrible. Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely ADORE the Paddington movies, I think they’re genuinely two of the most enjoyable films I’ve ever seen. But I didn’t know that much about Paddington, so I had no preconceived notions of what the character should be. Wonka’s different, I’ve read the book (and the sequel), watched both of the films, and really enjoyed one of them. So I already knew the character, I had an idea in my head of what he was like, and the tone. Where the Depp one went wrong (in my opinion) is it just made him weird and kooky, lacking the (weird description but it makes sense to me) sociopathic kindness of the character. The trailer did not ease my worries; I know Chalamet is a good performer, but I just don’t buy him as Wonka. My rule for Wonka is this; can I imagine them playing The Doctor? If so, they’re a good fit (and vice versa). Chalamet feels like he’s trying too hard. It always feels like he’s acting as Wonka, it never feels like he completely disappears into the role and becomes him. It’s not helped by the fact that his singing isn’t the strongest, which isn’t great for a musical.

It’s a shame because apart from that, this is a great watch. The songs are catchy as hell and instantly feel familiar. That’s probably helped by how even in Paddington, Paul King directed everything with a sense of rhythm so that everything flowed together and created a sense that you were in a musical. So really, an actual musical was the next logical step. Importantly, the songs don’t overshadow the narrative, there aren’t any moments where it feels like they spent 4 minutes singing about something they could have said in 10 seconds, the songs all have a purpose; either driving the narrative forward, introducing a character etc.

Much like Paddington, the supporting cast is a delight. Paul King has always had a talent for putting random British comedy performers in small roles, and thus, making those characters memorable. That continues here, with one-scene characters played by Charlotte Richie, Phil Wang, Isy Suttie etc. Even the main “villains” are mostly unknown outside of the UK; people will know Olivia Colman and might know Matt Lucas from Bake Off, but I don’t think performers like Matthew Baynton or Rakhee Thakrar can be considered mainstream names, even in the UK. But none of them are weak links. Special mention must go to young American actress Calah Lane, who outshines the aforementioned Chalamet at every moment. I hope she goes on to do something special, as she definitely has the potential to do something amazing.

This film is lucky, because of the universe it’s created, it allows things which could sink other films. Gaps in logic, contrived coincidences, things existing just for silly reasons. They don’t matter as much in this as they do in say Good Burger 2 (spoilers for that review btw).

So in summary, this is completely predictable, overstuffed with cliches, and also unbelievably fantastic.

Godzilla Minus One (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Koichi Shikishima is a failed World War 2 kamikaze pilot who returns home and decides to earn his forgiveness by helping a homeless woman and her child in the destroyed ruins of Tokyo. Oh, there’s also a giant reptilian monster rampaging around the country killing people.

Godzilla movies always have so much potential, both positive and negative. They can showcase a director’s ability to use a sense of scale to create a spectacle, something you HAVE to see at the cinema because the big screen does it better. It can also be an overly CGI mess where the producers think they don’t need to bother with a story because “monster makes boom” (by which I mean “monster destroys city and buildings explode”, not “monster shits himself”, nobody wants to watch a monster shit, which is why the 90’s Godzilla movie is regarded so badly). There was almost no cinema chatter of Godzilla Minus One (GMO, pronounced Gee-Moe) pre-release, they didn’t play the trailer, no posters put up etc. There was a small amount of internet hype, almost all of it saying it’s incredible.

It is.

I know, you’re expecting something more in-depth, but that’s all there is to it. This is an excellent flick. Usually, the key to a film like this is simple; you subtly build up the threat and then reveal it in all their glory in the final act; blowing the audience’s mind with how impressive it is. Or you show them early but hide them in shadows or with trees. Minus One takes a different approach, showing the titular ‘ziller in its full glory in the opening, then showing them again as they undergo nuclear-infused evolution. But this isn’t just about the big G, the human story is the one that actually carries the narrative, and it’s a damn compelling watch. This is a story that only really works in post-war Japan, a country that just lost the war, suffered nuclear explosions, and yet still carries a sense of deep pride. The reaction to Koichi returning to his home isn’t “Oh you survived, Thank fuck for that, everybody here died and we’ve suffered great losses, but it’s good that at least one person returned home”, instead it’s “You survived? Coward. If you did your job, we might have won”. In most other countries that would be dismissed as absurd, but in Japan it works. So when Koichi is haunted not just by the giant lizard with the capital G, but by his own personal failings, it makes sense. He doesn’t just suffer survivor’s guilt, it’s also a deep personal shame to him that he didn’t do his duty. So when, later on in the film, he has a plan to fly directly into the mouth of G-Z Rider and detonate a device, it makes complete sense that he would attempt that. The audience knows he has a death wish, so it doesn’t feel like a lazy attempt at drama.

Weird thing to say, but even with the radioactive lizard, this would still be a compelling story. But the addition of the nuclear-powered scaly disaster adds things you couldn’t do otherwise. His giant beam of death is now more reminiscent of a nuclear bomb going off, which adds another jerry can of nightmare fuel. The Queen Liz isn’t as big as it has been in previous iterations, you’d think this would make him less scary, nope, more so. Previously, it’s felt like he’s been shown as a sort of protector of earth, humanity was so small to him that they didn’t register as a problem, so he was only used to fight other large threats. Because he’s smaller, he can see humans, they register to him, and he REALLY does not like them. This isn’t a monster that accidentally kills people like we think our benefits systems does, this is one that is actively trying to kill people, like our benefits system actually does.

The fact that this was done on such a small budget is mind-blowing. There are a few moments where the lack of budget is noticeable, but mostly it looks impressive. The Atoll Atrocity Animal (well, lizard) does occasionally resemble a man in a suit/model, but at least doing it that way instead of CGI means it does still feel like something you can physically touch (not in a sexy way, don’t have sex with a killer kaiju). I recently watched a trailer for Godzilla X Kong: The New Empire and I messaged someone “Is it just me or does this look fake as shit?”. It looks overly CGI and more like a video game. This isn’t a “booo new” viewpoint. This is an “I’m glad both of these versions can exist”. If you want a monster movie, you can wait for GxK, if you want a human story with a monster, you have GMO. Don’t be bad we have both, be delighted we have the option.

El Conde aka The Count (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet is a two-hundred-and-fifty-year-old vampire. Now tired of his life, he wants to die at last after the disgrace and family crises he has caused.

I’m going to start by saying that El Conde is a bit like a personal time-piece you can use to help you find the Arctic: it’s a polarising watch. It features some truly evil things; vampires, murders, Margaret Thatcher. It is nice to have a vampire film where the vampires aren’t shown as sexy anti-heroes but as vile, remorseless killers. This is the closest they’ve come to feeling like horror movie villains in a while. These aren’t vampires you’re supposed to laugh at, admire, or masturbate to, they’re ones you’re supposed to be scared of. This sense of fear is created by some shockingly violent imagery and acts. The scene of him beating a prostitute with a hammer is INCREDIBLY brutal. The whole bedside massacre is really. But the hammer is particularly so, the camera shows the hammer making contact with her face, caving it in.

It’s not just horror though, there’s a sense of playfulness to parts of it, like a knife cutting into something in time with the non-diegetic music. It also has some cracking dialogue and funny scenes. The idea; that Pinochet was a creature of the night born from an unholy vampiric Thatcher, is unique, and really gives you, as an audience, something to sink your teeth into. A concept like that is just ripe for satire, the idea itself is satirical; taking the “rich people draining the lifeblood from the poor” from a metaphorical idea to a literal one. Lines like “English blood is his favourite of course” are said with pride, and lines like “all generals that conquer have the absolute right to ransack, and to keep a fortune!” are said as though they’re obvious truths. The point is arrived at VERY quickly, there’s no long set up getting to what we want to see. For that, El Conde has to be commended, with Pinochet’s history and rise to power coming in a few minutes.

This brings me to my big issue with El Conde; it’s about a Pinochet who has been removed from power and is now living in secrecy on a farm. That’s just not a very interesting approach. If we see a vampire dictator we don’t want to see one hiding with no power, reflecting on his life. We want to see one rising to power, using his viciousness to kill his way to the top. Or we want to see one leading a country, putting down rebellions and foreign threats with his supernatural abilities. Both of these would also allow the satire to hit harder, we’d be able to see the disparities in wealth, most of this takes place on a random farm, so just isn’t that interesting visually. It’s a shame, as there is a great concept somewhere in this, but it feels like the script is actively avoiding it.

This is a foreign language film available on Netflix so by watching it, you need to ask yourself an important question. Sub or dub? Engage in submissive sexual intercourse, or listen to dubstep. One is a shameful act only performed by perverts, which should be kept behind closed doors and never shown on television, the other is sex.

Oh, it turns out that “sub or dub” actually means “subtitles or dubbing?”. I’d go for subtitles for this, not only because it allows you to watch it as originally intended, but also because the dubbing choices are terrible. It feels like it was done cheaply, as every performer has a very English accent, but still litter their sentences with random Spanish words. It just doesn’t sound right, and at times feels like it’s approaching parody.

Larrain is obviously a talented director, everybody who has seen Spencer can tell that, and this is the best way to tell a story about a retired dictator vampire. But like I said, THAT’S not the most interesting movie. Still definitely worth a watch though; the intoxicating performances and references to classic horror films mean that it’s a difficult experience to turn away from. And for a Netflix film, what more could you ask for?