Gran Turismo: Based On A True Story (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: A player wins a series of Nissan-sponsored video game competitions through his gaming skills and becomes a real-life professional race car driver.

Yes, colloquially this is known as Gran Turismo, and if you tell people about it, you’re going to say “I saw Gran Turismo at the cinema”, but the official title (at least in UK markets) is Gran Turismo: Based On A True Story (or GT: BOATS, pronounced Git Boats). I say that now for two reasons: one is accuracy. The other is because it’s a stupid f*cking title. It’s a title that feels like it was decided by a committee with no idea how actual people talk. That sums up the experience of watching GT BOATS, to be honest. It has no emotion, no personality, it’s film as product and marketing rather than storytelling. There’s no actual humanity to the whole thing. It attempts it; the moment where Mardenborough crashes and kills a spectator is the closest the whole thing gets to showing genuine emotion. Fun fact; the crash did happen to the real Jann Mardenborough (who plays his character’s stunt double in this, which I thought was a nice touch). But it didn’t happen when he was training. In real life it happened four years into his career, in this, it is showcased as an event which motivated him to a podium finish. Some may say this is disingenuous, but Mardenborough wanted it in there, saying “It would have been a disservice for the audience for that not to be in there”. Would it? Would it really? Also, at the wish of sounding rude, that’s not your decision to make, yes you were injured, but someone else died. So unless you got permission from the family, then it feels kind of exploitative. Tbh, it feels that way in the film itself, even without the wider context. The fact that someone died is given away in dialogue that’s almost throwaway. The film seems to be saying: yes, somebody died, but look on the bright side, it inspired the lead character to win so it’s all good.

None of the faults of this film lies on the head of the performers btw. Archie Madekwe has a great screen presence and could have a good future ahead of him. David Harbour seems to be doing his best impression of Tough Enough Season 5 era Bill DeMott (just without the sexual and physical abuse). Orlando Bloom seems to be transitioning out of his heartthrob era, and I’m all for it. Not every performance is worth a positive comment though: Djimon Hounsou is completely wasted in such a small role, and he’s not helped by the fact he has to act alongside Geri Halliwell. Well, I say “act alongside”, it feels more like he’s acting against her, with her utterly dismal performance dragging him down with her. I’m sure her being married to the team principal of a Formula 1 team had nothing whatsoever to do with the choice to cast her. I kind of hope she was forced upon the production because I can’t bear to stand the idea that someone saw her performance and thought “Yup, she’s the best choice”.

It’s a shame I didn’t like this as it is an interesting story. Someone being chosen to join a race team because they were good at a video game is a fascinating story. But it shows its hand far too early. It’s so desperate to tell you how realistic the game is, that it never gives us any reason to doubt that he’s actually a good racer. There’s no “but will the skills be transferable?” conflict, he’s almost immediately very good. He goes through the training programme very quickly. Personally, I would have liked to have seen more of that. The section with the group of gamers training and being evaluated is the most interesting part of the film. Partly because there’s an interesting set of characters, all of whom are flawed but still likeable. They’re all in the same position, and from all over the world so you have a wealth of eclectic characters to work with. Instead, the film spends most of the time with the background characters being a group of spoiled rich dicks, but never focusing on or fleshing them out. They’re more annoyances than proper antagonists. The shift from “training camp” to “driving in Le Mans” also changes how some of the other characters are; they go from potential antagonists to helpful friends. It’s completely inconsistent and means we don’t really have much of a conflict. It’s all “Will he become a proper driver” when we know he will otherwise there’s no story. If he was working against somebody then at least they’ll be something there the audience can latch onto.

The lack of a compelling narrative might have been easy to ignore if it at least looked good. But it doesn’t. It looks too much like a video game, even when it’s not meant to. The scenes where it’s supposed to look like a video game are a weird choice. There are videogame style overlays over some of the races, to indicate how he sees the world. But it makes it seem TOO much like a video game. Having someone say “This isn’t a video game” and then making it seem exactly like a video game slightly undermines the message, somewhat. The races don’t look that exciting. There are too many close-ups of the internal machinery firing up etc, I’m sure for people who like cars it means something, but to everybody else, it just looks like small bits of metal and fire doing shit. There’s not even a decent soundtrack to the whole thing.

How To Blow Up A Pipeline (2022) Review

Quick Synopsis: A group of eco-warriors are frustrated that they’re not being taken seriously, so plan to blow up a pipeline

First off, I am very glad this appeared on Netflix because it means I didn’t have to google “How To Blow Up A Pipeline” (or HTBUAP, pronounced Huh-tub-wapp). My research for horror scripts has already probably already put me on a list.

Films can inspire a lot of different reactions in people. In 2023 alone I’ve had surprise from Missing, joy from Shazam, and utter boredom from The Pale Blue Eye. This? Well considering I mentioned in my Holy Spider review that the theme for this week is anger; you wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this made me angry; in a good way. I wasn’t angry in a “this film sucks” way, I was angry in a “how is everybody okay with this happening?”

Everybody in it is frustrated, they’re not annoyed at what may happen, they’re not dealing with “in a hundred years” hypothetical situations, they’re dealing with current consequences, and they’re consequences which people in real life are dealing with. There’s no “but maybe in the future if”, these are things that are happening: farmers are losing their livelihoods from chemical spills killing off their livestock/crops, people ARE being forced from their houses so that companies can build pipelines, people ARE getting cancer due to the effects of pollution. It’s easy to ignore these things when you’re not presented with them, but when you are then it infuriates you. People criticise climate protesters for being angry (even if they’re just standing there waving signs), but after watching things like this; if you’re not angry then you’re not paying attention. It would be easy for this film to come off as preachy or anvilicious. Crucially; there isn’t some big oil baron as the villain, because there’s not one person to defeat to stop this; it’s a systemic problem.

But it’s a problem everybody is encouraged to ignore. The current policy of “If you’re not happy with the planet burning, write a polite e-mail and then the government might do something if they find it profitable”. This is probably because of the way that civil rights are taught. It’s best summed up by one line from the film:

“Anytime anyone has challenged authority they call it terrorism, then when the terrorism works they lie about the legacy and say that it was all passive nonviolent kumbaya bullshit.”

HTBUAP definitely doesn’t shy away from pointing out how everybody regarded MLK as a ruthless terrorist back in the day, and it’s only after he won that public opinion changed. The fact that it reminds you of this is a good indication of how important films like this are.

But is it any good? Yes. It’s engrossing, the non-linear aspect allows us to connect the actions to the consequences, and the motivations. Daniel Goldhaber has a history in horror, a genre which (when done well) is all about gathering sympathy for characters and creating good ensemble chemistry. The cast is fantastic. Ariela Barer, in particular, has a fantastic presence and is utterly captivating to see. HTBUAP is incredibly well made, and it’s quite telling that most of the negative reviews focus on the premise rather than how it’s carried out. I know that’s somewhat hypocritical considering how I spent half this review, but I’m not a paid reviewer for a national newspaper.

It’s not a perfect film, it could definitely stand being trimmed or adjusted slightly so that it doesn’t drag as much as it does. The music could stand out more, there’s a litany of suitable music to choose from, played by artists who I’m sure would love to stand alongside this film, but as it is it’s mostly just “there”. It also could stand to focus more on the outside world; for a topic that affects us all, it feels incredibly localised. It could definitely stand to do what Blackkklansman did and end it with a news montage of the real-world effects of what we’ve seen.

I do have to say though; this has the best website of any film this year. It perfectly matches the themes; with resources for activists who were inspired by it, as well as a free e-book of the book the film is based on. I like that, it shows that the filmmakers are not doing this as performative showmanship activism, they actually care about what happens and want things to change. And for a film like this, you NEED that.

You also need to probably space your watching of it out so you don’t go out and punch strangers in anger.

Holy Spider (2022) Review

Quick synopsis: A journalist descends into the dark underbelly of the Iranian holy city of Mashhad as she investigates the serial killings of sex workers by the so-called Spider Killer, who believes he is cleansing the streets of sinners.

I’m really glad I got a chance to watch this (available on Mubi at the time of writing). Not just because (spoilers) it’s a very good film, but also because it means it doesn’t appear on my to-watch list any more. Every time I saw the title on the list my brain sang it to the tune of Holy Diver by Dio.

If relief at the eradication of an earworm was my main takeaway from this then that would be a bad indication of the quality of it. But whilst relief was slightly how I felt, it was only about 5% of my feelings; the dominant emotion coming out of this was pure anger. Anger, btw, is likely to be the theme of reviews this week. It wasn’t intentional, it just turned out to be a very “We have a point to make!” run of films.

The central theme of this piece is: “Local prostitutes in Iran are being murdered, a lot of people aren’t bothered by this because they see the women as immoral and deserving it”. It’s a depressingly accurate take on cultural misogyny in that country, especially since the killings did actually happen. In 2001, Saeed Hanaei went on a killing spree of prostitutes in the Iranian city of Mashhad. These weren’t quick “in the moment” killings either; he strangled them. Do you know how long it takes to strangle someone to death? Watch Promising Young Woman and find out, there’s A LOT of time to change your mind and come to your senses. And just like in the film; the real Hanaei was supported by locals; with newspapers defending him. And before you get too high and mighty about “well that’s just Arabs, western worlds don’t treat people like that”, read the comments on news articles when asylum seekers or refugees die. You will see an outpouring, not of grief, but of glee.

Hanaei is portrayed by Mehdi Bajestani, and he is so damn good in this. It would be easy to portray Hanaei as a stereotypical one-dimensional fundamentalist killer. But Bajestani (and the writing of Ali Abbasi) provide him with a lot of humanity. He’s not sympathetic or likeable in the slightest, but he is sincere, and you do understand how he got to his point of view, even if it is sociopathic and deplorable. It’s key that the character doesn’t seem to be getting pleasure from this. He seems genuinely disgusted with himself for having to be near the women he’s killing. This really helps him feel genuine. He is terrifying, even when he’s just being an everyday family man. There’s a moment where the veil slips when he has an outburst in front of his family and stops being the kind loving family man. What’s very telling is how his family react. They’re scared, but not surprised. So they know he has the capacity for violence; just maybe not to the full extent of it.

It’s not just Bajestani whose performance anchors this film. The casting of Zar Amir Ebrahimi is genius. I’m not sure if her casting was ENTIRELY just “she’s the best performer available”. I mean, she definitely is great, absolutely phenomenal. But consider this: Holy Spider is a film about how the prevalence of religion in Iran has led to extremists who commit murder and use religion as an excuse for extreme sexism. And the female lead? A woman who was banned from appearing in Iranian films after SOMEONE ELSE leaked her sex tape. So if that wasn’t part of the decision in casting her, it advertently provides a lot of backstory. People talk about political casting, but usually, they just mean “10% of the films cast aren’t straight white men. This is political correctness gone mad!”. This is political casting as an attack on the Iranian cultural misogyny which allowed Hanaei to kill so many women. Ebrahimi brings everything to this. She brings the anger and determination needed, and it would be a much lesser film without her in it.

In terms of the film itself? It’s weirdly reminiscent of It Follows in terms of the stylistic choices; especially when it comes to the music. The murders are brutal, but not in an exploitative way. The first one especially is aided by how damn scared the woman seems; really sells the fear with her eyes. Ali Abbasi did a fantastic job writing/directing this. You can tell he felt he NEEDED to make this. Every scene is full of furious passion and indignation; but also the creative talent needed to make such a hard-hitting story palatable to audiences. He recently directed two episodes of The Last Of Us, so I’m hoping his career continues upward and he gets the opportunities he deserves. Few people can inject emotion and frustration as easily as he managed it, and he’d be an asset to any studio.

Talk To Me (2022) Review

Quick Synopsis: When a group of friends discovers how to conjure spirits by using an embalmed hand, they become hooked on the new thrill — until one of them unleashes terrifying supernatural forces.

Talk To Me has a rotten tomatoes score of 95%, and the lone negative user review on Metacritic is from someone complaining about how it’s “too woke” and not representative of current American racial demographics. This is a stupid criticism of a film that’s set in Australia.

So other than that dickhead, most reviews are highly positive from both critics and audiences. But I have to say; I don’t get it. I mean, it’s good. Everybody involved is clearly talented, especially Sophie Wilde as the lead Mia (side note; Mia is the name of my cat. So every time someone said “Mia! No!” my brain automatically added “stop pissing there, go outside”). Joe Bird comes off as a multiverse version of Barry Keoghan, and I mean that in a positive way. The Philippou Brothers (best known as RackaRacka on youtube) are obviously talented directors. It’s not that I didn’t like the film; I just felt it could and should have been a lot better.

The gap between the potential and the reality is huge. I can’t exactly pinpoint why. I think part of it is there are some scenes that feel like filler. The first two parties where the characters interact with the hand (and then it gets out of……hand in the second party) could have been combined into one. There also could have been more done with the guy from the opening; who appears in the opening scene, gets stabbed by his brother, and then is completely absent until one scene later on where he provides information that could have come from anyone, then disappears again. If you removed him from it then the only noticeable hole in the script would be that you don’t have an opening.

I also feel the possession scenes could have been done better. The characters describe it as almost euphoric, like it’s akin to certain drugs. But the film doesn’t really let us FEEL that. If you turn the sound off and watch it, you’d have no idea that the characters are experiencing an intense positive rush.

It’s a shame as with a few tweaks this could have been among my favourite films of the year. But I sense that everything could have been better. This must have been how Metallica fans felt after listening to St. Anger

Oppenheimer (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: A comprehensive look at the life of J. Robert Oppenheimer, focusing mainly on his developing the atomic bomb, and the post-war treatment he received.

This is a BIG movie. It’s been advertised for over a year, to the point where I was genuinely starting to get a bit fed up with it by September last year. That level of hype usually only leads to disappointment. Added to that, I’m not THAT big a fan of Nolan as a writer; I’ve found his last few films to be incredibly well-made, but lacking any sense of genuine emotion. I’ve also had issues with his sound mixing (ESPECIALLY in Tenet) because he sometimes has the dialogue incredibly quiet in an attempt to make the audience “lean in”. Oppenheimer has a lot of two things: talking, and explosions. I didn’t have as big an issue with sound in this as I have previously, but that might be because I watched a subtitled version.

Whilst I’m on that subject I have to say something to cinemas; if you have a subtitled screening of a popular film, have the trailers beforehand be subtitled too, otherwise you’re only providing half an experience.

Anyway, back to the review. Oppenheimer had another issue going against it; we all know how it ends. Nobody is sitting watching it and wondering if they’re going to successfully create the bomb; the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are pretty infamous. So I was curious how this was going to work; especially with it being 3 hours long.

I’m glad to say it works. And a good reason for that is obvious if you look at the title; Oppenheimer. It’s not about the bomb per se, the narrative arc is not based around the device, it’s around the person building the device; with a lot of focus on how he was treated post-war. Spoilers; he was essentially demonised because they suspected he was a communist and traitor. They set him up in a sham hearing and revoked his security clearance to ruin his career. It’s incredibly disturbing to see, especially since “but he thinks employees should be paid in money and not kind words; communist!” style headlines can still derail a politician’s chances in modern America. We never really had that issue over here during the cold war; we didn’t derail a war hero’s life just because we suspected they were left-wing; nope, we did it because they were gay, because we’re kind!

It’s actually an outstanding watch. It’s not as complicated as it could be; part of that is because Nolan casts recognisable faces in small roles; Creepy Casey Affleck appears for a few minutes, as does Remi Malek, Gary Oldman, David Dastmalchian etc. This really helps the audience remember who the characters are; because we recognise them so they’re all distinctive. That is needed as there is A LOT to unpack here. Despite it being three hours long, it still moves very quickly at times, to the point where there are not that many places where you’d feel comfortable zoning out. Whether it’s important dialogue, historical references, or even just remarkable visuals, every scene has a reason to exist.

About the visuals; this is Nolans’ best visual feast so far. It’s astounding what he’s pulled off here, especially when it was pretty much all done without CGI. The test explosion is a big deal, so if it didn’t seem big, the film would collapse. Thankfully, it seems impressive. I think Nolan could have done a better job of showing the effects of it though. We get Oppenheimer hallucinating what happened, but it almost feels like the effect it had on the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is sidelined for the personal drama. I get why, but it does feel like it’s really understated the horrific effects it had on civilians.

Overall, this is a remarkable film, and one that I feel really gains something from being seen at the cinema. But like a lot of Nolans’ work, I’m not really in a rush to see it again. I will say this though; Cillian Murphy NEEDS to be nominated for Best Actor next year. He gives everything to this performance, and it says a lot that even when a large explosion is happening, you can’t take your eyes off him. I would recommend seeing this; just make sure you go to a subtitled screening, and maybe take ear protection.

Elemental (2023)

Quick synopsis: A fire girl and water guy meet and fall in love.

Pixar are one of the few studios I actively trust. If a film has already piqued my interest, then finding out it’s being released by Blumhouse or A24 might make me go see it slightly quicker, but their name being attached to something is not going to be the deciding factor in me watching it. But Pixar is different, if a Pixar film is released, I’m going to see it, because 90% of the time it’s going to be a really good experience (okay I’ve just run the numbers and it’s actually 84% of the time, but that’s still a really good hit rate). With the exception of Cars 2, even low-grade Pixar is still better than 90% of stuff out there. So where does this rank? It’s not up there with the best, but it’s nowhere near the worst. In terms of the bad; the plot is predictable. Sometimes when I say that I mean it in a “when you get near the final third you can figure out what’s happening next”, sometimes I mean it in a “by the end of the first act I can guess the ending”, for this? I could figure out what was going to happen just by looking at the poster. It’s incredibly predictable, you can figure out what will happen, how it will happen, and when it will. But that doesn’t actually matter, sometimes predictability is okay. It would be weird if someone remade Romeo and Juliet but changed the ending so that both characters ended up being 3 otters in a trenchcoat who were intent on stealing the world’s supply of fish. Yes, it would be a surprise, but it would also be shit and not make any sense. Sometimes you want a simple story about a guy meeting a girl and they end up together.

That only works if the audience buys into the central concept, and to do that, they need to WANT the two people to be together. I can’t speak for everybody, but I REALLY wanted the two to be together, the way they react to each other is adorable. They’re played by performers I’m not too familiar with; Leah Lewis was in How To Deter A Robber, and Mamoudou Athie was in Patti Cake$, but I can’t remember them too much, all I can remember from Athie’s performance in PC was how much he reminded me of the guy from Lightspeed Champion. It’s a really fresh cast in terms of how unknown everybody is, the only name most people will recognise is Catherine O’Hara. It’s a brave move to anchor so much on unknown performers, but it works. From a vocal performance, they’re absolutely perfect, the voices match the body types; Lewis has a firey voice which speaks in short bursts, whereas Athie has a vocal performance that feels more fluid and like it’s a continuous flow.

The animation is stunning. Two things are notably difficult to animate; fire and water. So deciding to have a film based on characters comprised of those two things is a display of either bravery or stupidity. It could have looked awful. Thankfully it looks astounding, everything works together to create a visual treat. All the characters have a weight to them which means they don’t just feel like 2-dimensional images on screen, but feel incredibly real and wonderful. The way the buildings are designed around the different elements is delightful.

Now onto the best thing; the emotion. Pixar are bastards because they know how to emotionally manipulate you. They know how to make you cry like a child who has lost their ice cream. It’s not sophisticated; it’s pretty basic in terms of how they signpost it and pull it off, but it’s so damn effective that even when you know you’re being manipulated you can’t resist it.

As I said though, it is predictable, and there are a few plot points which don’t get to be as important as you feel they could be. When it has a choice between the big and the personal, it goes with the personal. But still sets up the big thing. It’s a bit weird and feels slightly first draft. If they paid more love to the script it could have been great, instead, it’s just pretty damn good.

Aftersun (2022) Review

Quick Synopsis: A heartwarming slice-of-life drama about a father and his daughter on holiday in the ’90s.

Aftersun is beautiful. I need to say that first. Not because I’m going to spend this review slating this film and I need you to know that no matter what problems I have with this, I do still like it. No, I need to say that first because that’s my first thought if anybody asks me my opinion on it. In some ways it’s about nothing, it’s just a dad on holiday with his daughter. So if you’re going in and skim-watching (not paying attention, not thinking of subtext etc) it won’t be for you. But if you’re watching and paying attention to the unsaid moments, the worrying subtext of much of the dialogue and the behaviour (such as the father talking about depression, then writing a lot of letters to his daughter before breaking down and crying), it will break you. But it won’t break you in an “I am now despondent and hate everything” way, but in a way that whilst sad, carries a sense of beauty. Like being at a funeral for a dear friend.

As I said, in some ways, Aftersun is a film where nothing happens. So it makes it hard to talk about and explain. So I’ll try to do it by talking about how it reminded me of a mix of The Florida Project and Lady Bird. There’s a real sense of nostalgia in this. I was instantly transported to the Spanish holidays I took with my family in the 90s. That feeling of being far too hot, spending all your time by the pool, playing video games/pool with strangers, and latching onto strangers who you have nothing in common with except the fact you’re both English. “Wow, you’re from Liverpool? I’m only from a place about 7 hours away, we’re basically neighbours!”. This sense of nostalgia is helped by the moments which are shot like a home movie (well, not “home” but you get what I mean). The video quality and lack of stability to the shots instantly remind you of when everybody’s dad would record their holidays, talking over them, and getting video footage that you’ll never ever watch again unless something interesting happens. It’s not nostalgia in the sense of “those were the fun times”, but there is definitely a sense of longing, a sense of yearning for those memories to be clearer so you can emotionally wrap yourself in them and use them for warmth.

Aftersun would not have worked if the relationship between the two leads felt fake. It’s difficult for two adults to fake a familial relationship, let alone an adult and a child actor. Yet you never doubt the sincerity between the two. They genuinely feel like father and daughter, which is a testament to the talent of both Paul Mescal and Frankie Corio, as well as whoever made the decision that the two of them should spend time at a holiday resort in Turkey during rehearsals.

It’s not a perfect film, though. But my issues with it are mainly ones of different personal preferences than outright “nope, that was stupid and wrong”. I’d have preferred some of the shots to linger a little bit more so that the audience could take in the emotion of what was happening. I’d have also liked to have seen a bit more of the current Sophie, her moments are too fleeting so the adult version of her doesn’t feel as developed or full as she could, which means the younger version is lacking something too.

So, overall a very good watch, but not one that’s for everybody.

Asteroid City (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: An alien lands in a city, steals an asteroid, then goes back home. There’s more, but it can’t really be done in one sentence.

I am a pretentious film watcher. I can’t hide that. I have genuinely talked about how much I loved a film’s aspect ratio before, and I’ve definitely used the phrase mise-en-scène in casual conversation. I also love films that have a unique look, something that visually stands out among the sea of bland visuals in modern cinema. Plus, I like weird character-driven pieces. So with that in mind; I should LOVE Wes Anderson. Yet for some reason, I’ve never liked Wes Anderson’s stuff. Some directors’ styles just don’t mesh well with my cinematic tastes. It’s not just Wes, I’m also not too big a fan of Paul Thomas Anderson, so it’s possible the only time I like an Anderson is if they’re investigating possible alien activity, or delivering Spinebusters to Dusty Rhodes.

I like his animated stuff though, I just feel his live-action feels feel a bit…..I dunno, a bit too Wes Anderson. Everybody speaks in a stilted and rigid manner. I suppose in this case it could make sense because the film is a 1950s play, so all the actors are speaking like 1950s American theatre performers would. This has the unfortunate effect of making it seem a bit like every actor is giving the same performance. Every male is a quick-talking emotionless person who feels like they smoke cigars and call people “sonny boy”, whereas every female is either a nervous “need a hug” or in a sexy French depression. There are also too many of them, multiple side characters seem to have no purpose or reason. That’s to be expected with the story though. They mention an on-ramp to nowhere, so it’s just a road that goes up and ends up nowhere. That’s what the story is like. So much nothing happens, but it’s not that interesting to watch. There are moments which go by and you assume mean something, and they probably do, but there is no attempt to explain or discuss them, so they’re just stuff that happens with no pay-off.

I’m sure there are some people who will love this, who will love all the references to obscure radio plays and stories gone by. But the idiosyncrasies are so prevalent that unless you’re fully onboard then you’re not going to be interested. I kept waiting for it all to come together, to be shown a reason for some of it, but none came. More importantly; I kept waiting for a reason to actually give a shit about what was happening, but it’s difficult when character deaths occur in narration, important characters too.

As to be expected, it looks great. Visually, it FEELS like the 50s. Normally, directors just play some 50s music, maybe adjust the colour a little bit, and then consider it done. Anderson has put SOOOOO much work in to make it look period appropriate. Importantly, there are important visual distinctions between the moments in AC which are the play, and the parts which are in real-life about the production of the play. Not just the colours, but the set layout and shot composition seems different too. As I said, Anderson is a very talented visual storyteller, and there are some absolutely sublime pieces of cinematic genius in here (the vending machine bit still makes me laugh when I think of it). I just don’t vibe with his stuff. To me, it’s the cinematic equivalent of a fancy deconstructed pie. It looks fantastic and it takes SO MUCH F*CKING TALENT to be able to pull it off, but after you eat it….well to quote The Menu; You’re still fucking hungry. If you like his stuff, you’ll like this too. But if you’re not already a fan, this will do nothing to convert you.

The Flash (2023) Review

Synopsis: The Flash breaks reality by running fast (despite running fast multiple times in the past and it never being an issue) ending up not only in the past, but in a different universe with another Barry Allen.

I went into this with one thought in mind: this is going to be a complete mess. I mean; it had an advertising campaign which consisted of trailers that would play in the cinema and then have “full trailer available online” at the end, and fuck that. At the very least they could have done something cool and released the whole trailer early but sped up so it goes by in a second. That level of laziness when it comes to marketing is never a good sign. I assumed it would be worse than Morbius and that I’d hate it, but it would at least be fun to complain about. That’s why I’m actually slightly annoyed that The Flash is *whispers* kind of good.

Don’t get me wrong, there are some serious flaws here. The CGI is shameful at some points, and there are some characters who are underused. None more so than Sasha Calle’s Supergirl. The restructuring at DC makes me worried that this will be her only appearance in the role; which is a shame as she’s really good. She has the screen presence needed for such a lofty role. Then again, she HAD to be great, because if she wasn’t then the online reviews would consist of unwashed masses insulting her. I mean, those kinds of people are still going to insult her, but at least now they’re not backed up by the general public agreeing with them.

The other downside was the advertising. There were rumours Michael Keaton was going to reprise his role as Bruce Wayne from the early 90’s Batman movies, these rumours were confirmed when he was put front and centre of the marketing campaign, to the point where it didn’t really feel like The Flash was the main character in his own movie. It would have been nice to have that as a surprise, as without that there are not too many “OMG” moments (with the exception of one near the end). I get why the studio did this; with all the controversy over Ezra Millers’ behaviour, they needed to find a way to draw people into theatres; and the only way they could think to do it was “Look, Michael Keaton’s back!”. I think it worked, it got people interested, but it did have the unfortunate side effect of making people expect more.

Don’t get me wrong; there are some great moments and cameos in the final section, but they’re not important to the story and are only seen briefly, to the point where it feels like they’re only there for fanservice. There has been some controversy about this section as it involves CGI use of dead actors in a way that some people might be uncomfortable with. It is a bit uneasy to think about the potential applications of deepfakes of actors, particularly at a time when streaming companies are trying to use AI to screw over writers.

Now onto the good: The performances are all great. Keaton crushes it as Batman, the aforementioned Calle could not be better. The main issue with some of the supporting cast is a lot of them aren’t given enough to do. Michael Shannon, for example, is underutilized despite being the main villain. The story itself is pretty good. The worry with a multiverse story is how you make it simple enough for the mass public to understand. It turns out the answer is spaghetti. It’s a bit weird how the character who mentions it would know of it, but as far as exposition goes, there are worse examples.

I did LOVE one moment. There’s a section near the end where he works out how to fix everything but at a personal sacrifice. It’s absolutely perfect. By which I mean; that is EXACTLY how I would I have done it. The unsaid heartbreak, the crushing weight of responsibility that decision leads to, the wonder whether the other person is aware or not. It’s up there as one of my favourite moments of the year, just a shame the rest of the film doesn’t come anywhere close. Overall; nowhere near as bad as you think it would be, but not as good as it needs to be. Plus, it is a bit weird that it’s ANOTHER Barry Allen story, no Wally West (Which would have been nice) or Bart Allen (which could have led to something fun).

Piggy a.k.a Cerdita (2022) Review

Quick Synopsis: Sara is an overweight teen who witnesses a stranger kidnap a group of girls who bully her on a regular basis. She is torn on whether to keep quiet or report what happened in this Spanish horror.

This has been described as “rural horror”, I feel that does a disservice to it. Carlota Pereda doesn’t approach this as a standard slacker full of bloodshed and cheap kills. Piggy is something different, it’s an intense character study that delves into the effects of bullying, morality, and bystander syndrome.

The characters in Piggy are so well-written. Sara is incredibly easy to root for, and the bullies are easy to root against. The bullies are terrible people, utterly despicable, but you need them to be. If they were just name-calling then the moment where Sara leaves them to nearly die would make her seem like a bad person. But the trauma that those characters put her through, where they not only try to drown her but then steal her clothes and make her run home in her swimming clothes (which leads to a group of guys attempting to sexually assault her) makes you completely understand her reluctance to help. The bullies cry out for her help, and she understandably reacts with a “nah, fuck you” attitude. Importantly, the audience still feels sympathy for her. It would be so easy for the audience to see her as a spiteful, vengeful character, but because of the way she’s written, you’re with her all the way.

It helps that her bullies don’t really redeem themselves. There’s no “we’re sorry for what we did, we were wrong”. In fact, when Sara arrives where they’ve been kidnapped, one of the girls still thinks it’s a good idea to call her “Piggy”. Keep in mind, Sara is armed with a shotgun and knowledge that there is nobody nearby who would be able to place her there if she did shoot someone. Not the smartest choice.

The likeability of Sara is helped by the actress playing her. Laura Galan is perfectly cast. I hope this leads to more for her, as she deserves it. Despite the character being a teen, Laura herself is actually 35. You wouldn’t think it though, she clearly remembers the awkwardness of being a teenager, where you both want to hide away from the world, but also show everybody who you are. I don’t know whether the hair-chewing was her choice or the director’s, but it works. To be honest, it’s probably a good thing she’s not played by an actual teenager, I can’t begin to imagine the psychological damage which could inadvertently arise from a teenager playing a character where her physical size is mocked and belittled constantly.

Whilst it’s not a “horror” horror, there are some very unsettling scenes. The moment where the killer attacks the house is pretty damn chilling, especially because of how understated it is. There’s no grand music giving you a sense of foreboding, it’s played straight and very real, which makes it more disturbing. That underplaying of cinematic conventions doesn’t always work though. There are some story points which you might miss because they were only shown briefly, not discussed. So if you sneeze (or if you’re paying attention to the subtitles and not the scene) then you may find yourself wondering what happened to certain characters. It was originally a short, and there are times when you can tell that. Where it seems like it’s just running in circles trying to find its narrative place. It’s not incredibly obvious, but if you keep the fact that this was a short in mind, then you will notice it.

So in summary, pretty damn impressive. Not as blood-soaked as you’d expect, but incredibly real.