Freakier Friday (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: Two decades after an identity crisis, Anna’s blended family faces new challenges. Tess and Anna discover their past may be repeating with the next generation.

I know I’ve seen the 2003 version of Freaky Friday, but my main memory of it is that it had a Halo Friendlies song in it, guitar-focused female-vocal pop punk is my jam. I remember the basic plot, and the two leads, but that’s pretty much it. Added to that, I have a feeling that “straight male in his late 30s” is not the target audience for this. So I was prepared for my feelings towards this movie to be “it’s okay” at best, a solid 5/10. Thoroughly okay, but not for me.

Yup, that’s wrong, this film is good. Really good. It’s smart, funny, and genuinely heartwarming. It does a good job of catching newcomers up to speed with what happened in the first movie, without repeating itself so much that it bores fans who can remember what happened. I recognised enough “hey, it’s a reference” moments that I get the feeling fans of the 2003 version will get more out of it than those who haven’t watched it. I don’t know why I was surprised; it’s directed by Nisha Ganatra, who also directed Late Night, which was one of my favourite films of 2019. She knows how to do comedy, plus has a talent for getting the best out of actors, both established (Emma Thompson in Late Night, Curtis in this) and new.

It’s not said enough, but Jamie Lee Curtis is incredible. She NAILS her performance here. Body swap movies can be difficult for performers, as you need to behave in such a way that the audience never forgets the premise; they need to remember, “Okay, that’s so-and-so in that body”. There’s not a single moment where Curtis slips up. Lohan? She’s good, but there are a few moments where its easier to forget than it should be that she’s been bodyswapped. Julia Butters and Sophia Hammons fare slightly better, but that’s mainly because they’re given more to do physically.

The supporting cast also does their job. Even those only in a few scenes (Vanessa Bayer, X Mayo) give such strong performances that you wouldn’t object to them coming back in a sequel. I want to give particular recognition to Sherry Cola and Santina Muha for only being in one scene each, but being incredibly memorable, especially Muha as I think this is the first time I’ve ever seen her in anything, and her performance was so good in this that my brain automatically cast her in the book I’m currently reading.

There aren’t many “laugh uproariously” moments, but you’d need a heart of stone to not be charmed and amused by many of the moments here. I have a few quibbles with the script, the main one being the opening. The opening is fine, it does its job well, and I have no issues with it on its own. But there’s a montage of Anna and Eric’s relationship developing and growing that would have been PERFECT for the opening credits. With that in mind, it’s difficult to not see some moments as a bit superfluous. I’m not asking for all of it to be cut, but you could easily get it down to 5-10 minutes and THEN have the relationship play out. There are other moments where you could poke holes in the logic or storytelling. But, to be honest, you don’t really want to. It’s such a lovable film that doing that would feel weirdly cruel.

Not amazingly fantastically brilliant, but very good. Although “Lindsey Lohan tries to stop a father marrying someone she doesn’t approve of”? You sneaked a Parent Trap sequel past us, didn’t you?

The Naked Gun (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Frank Drebin Jr. attempts to stop a fiendish billionaire (is there any other kind?) from activating their P.L.O.T device.

This is the dumbest movie I’ve ever seen (editor’s note: this review was written before I watched the 2025 Ice Cube-led War Of The Worlds), it’s ridiculous, it’s cliche, and it’s over the top. It’s also f*cking brilliant. I’m a huge fan of the original trilogy (and the TV show, which is sorely underrated), so I went into this with a mixture of excitement and nervousness. Excited because I love movies like this – dumb, funny, and weird oddness. Studios and general audiences don’t feel the same way, so they’re not made as much as they should. The last film I can remember which even came close to that chaotic energy was probably Bottoms. But nervous because I was concerned it would be less like the original movies, and more like the execrable “[WORD] Movie” parodies that plagued the 2000s. Movies which forgot to have jokes, and instead had references, or if they did have jokes, they were jokes that they didn’t realise were in the thing they were mocking.

Also, there was a chance I could love this movie and still have it be a bad cinema experience. What if I were in a busy screening and it’s met with silence? Something like that is made much better by being in a room with others who are laughing. If I were the only one who enjoyed it, it would definitely sour me somewhat.

Not to worry, the audience I was with found it hilarious, as has everybody else I know who has seen it. It seems to be liked by both audiences and critics, which is always a good sign. It helps that everybody involved clearly loves the project. The core cast is almost perfect; Liam Neeson is much better at comedy than many people assume he is. He’s not a “My dogs got no nose, how does he smell? Terrible” type comedic actor; he’s a “I am serious in the face of the ridiculous” comedy actor, much like Leslie Nielsen was back in the day. Pamela Anderson is great as the sex symbol female lead made famous by Priscilla Presley (who makes a cameo). Paul Walter Hauser feels somewhat underused, and I was disappointed that the O.J. Simpson reference in the trailer was the only appearance of that character (named Not Nordberg Jr.).

Now, is it as funny as the originals? Kind of. When it’s funny, it does match the original. But it’s not as funny as often. That’s not me saying it’s not packed with jokes, it is. But the original was like being shot with a machine gun of jokes of various types, where it felt like every sign or prop was a joke. There are multiple moments where it feels like there’s a comedic gap, normal dialogue or backgrounds in which the writers could have squeezed more jokes in. Compared to most movies? It’s full. But compared to Naked Gun? You can definitely see opportunities, especially with some jokes that don’t have payoffs. There’s a prison break scene (which was in the trailer) that’s never followed up on. There’s a violent fight at the end, which would have been perfect for some of the escaped convicts to make a re-appearance. They could have squeezed in some cameos to make sure you remember those who broke out. That’s not a major criticism, but it definitely feels like a wasted opportunity.

The major loss between this and the original is the credits. The opening credits of the original are iconic, to the point where they’re used in the ending credits here. There’s no attempt to do a version here. If they did, yes, it would have come off as pandering. But it’s not replaced by anything either. There’s a very quick “title won’t fit on screen” gag, but no attempt to make the opening credits set the tone. Even the first two Deadpool movies had more suitable opening credits.

Like I said, those are all very minor issues, though. This film is great and I already miss it.

The Bad Guys 2 (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Reformed criminals are forced to return to a life of crime.

I have to be honest, I can’t really remember that much from the first one. I know I’ve seen it, and I know I reviewed it. But none of the characters really stuck with me. My main memory of it is how it had the bad luck to be released very close to Zootopia/Zootropolis whilst exploring familiar themes.

The sequel has the advantage of being released roughly 4 months before the Zootopia sequel, so it doesn’t have the same comparison issues. It’s also much better paced, starting with a heist instead of a conversation. The initial heist is surprisingly well written. Not just in terms of the action making sense in terms of physics and geography, but it also showcases all of the gang’s talents. It could easily get away with “this is Ms. Tarantula, expert computer hacker”, but instead it just shows her expertly hacking. This is incredibly smart as it means that people who watched the first one recently won’t feel like it’s repeating itself, but people who haven’t watched it recently still get to know their personalities and skills. I admire the scriptwriting that goes into that.

I admire other parts of the script less. It feels very episodic, it doesn’t flow from one scene to the next, instead it feels like there’s a definite STOP at certain points, seemingly destined for a theme tune and a “How will our fishy friend find his way out of this aquarium of agony? Find out next week!” voiceover. Some of those moments are better than others. The section at the Lucha Libre show is a particular lowlight. If you’ve been on the internet, you may have seen people point out how impossible one of the Fast and Furious movies is because it has a scene that takes place on a runway, and for it to work in the film, it would need to be miles long because of how long the scene is. This has a similar issue. Characters run for far too long in a small ring without hitting the ropes. It’s a minor issue, but once I noticed it, it was impossible to ignore.

It’s a shame, as that moment could have been brilliant. The space-bound sections are much better, and it’s clear that the writers did their research on how rocket launches occur in stages. Yes, it’s incredibly unrealistic in parts, but mainly for the rule of fun. The action scenes on the space station make tremendous use of the situation, and it’s genuinely difficult to see how they’re going to top that in the sequel.

Overall, I liked this more than the first one. The first was too obviously indebted to its influences; this feels like its own movie; it has an identity that the first one didn’t. The bringing back of Professor Marmalade felt weird, though. Had some funny moments, but it felt needless. Also, there were moments where it felt like this was trying to appeal to furries, especially with the way they portray Kitty Kat. A bit uncomfortable, not gonna lie.

Freaky Tales (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: An NBA star, a corrupt cop, a female rap duo, teenage punks, neo-Nazis and a debt collector embark on a collision course in 1987 Oakland.

I think this is the first anthology film I’ve reviewed. I have to be honest, it’s difficult to figure out how to review a film like this. Do I review each one individually, or take it as a whole? I’ve decided to try to do each segment in turn. If it were something like the VHS series, where there’s A LOT of segments, I’d do it as a whole (or just not watch it), but with only four segments? That seems doable. This will be more stream-of-consciousness than most of my reviews, so fair warning for that.

Strength In Numbers: The Gilman Strikes Back

Ah, this really made me wish we had a local music community. There’s so much togetherness displayed among the characters. Jack Champion has played the worst character in at least two movies (Avatar: The Way Of Water and Scream VI), but his performance in this shows that it was ALL due to bad writing. He is charming and sweet in this. I love Tina, though. Ji-Young Yoo is full of energy and repressed anger.

I appreciate that in an age where “don’t be a dick” is taken as “woke political correctness”, I appreciate how this segment (the entire film, in fact) is not subtle. This is not subtle, one character outright says “the rules don’t apply to nazis” when they discuss their “no hate” rule. But when we have politicians outwardly saying they want to put the unemployed in concentration camps, we can’t afford to be subtle. I have seen one person say that the portrayal of nazi’s in this segment made them “cartoonishly evil”, especially when they beat up someone on crutches. Got news for ya, that’s far from the worst thing Nazi’s did to people.

The fight itself is brutal. Doesn’t shy away from the blood and anger. It plays up some of it by making it slightly comic booky, but you are left in no doubt that these are real people (and nazi’s). The message here, “You can’t afford to be a pacifist if you’re being attacked”, is vital in 2025 (and yes, that is depressing). The relevance and importance of the message wouldn’t matter if the other components weren’t good. Obviously, the soundtrack is brilliant, with tracks from Operation Ivy and Black Flag suiting both the tone and the time. The visuals are pretty fun too, a standard conversation between the two characters is made visually interesting with animated overlays (very similar to Ninjababy, if you ever saw that). There’s some great stuff with aspect ratio too, with the frame pushing in at the start, making the whole thing seem like an 80’s VHS tape (that’s helped by the slight grain to the footage too). On the downside, the grainy nature of the visuals does make it difficult to see things at times. But I suppose it’s in a dark room, everybody is wearing black, so if you combine that with the 80’s filter, it’s difficult to see how it could be brighter without looking fake.

My other problem was a singular scene just before the chaos started. There’s a conversation between two punks outside when the nazi’s arrive, it feels stilted and is the only part that doesn’t feel real. If I were told “these two actors won a competition/are the crew”, I’d believe it.

Don’t Fight The Feeling

It’s certainly a choice that the nazi story was followed by a story about two black women. Just to showcase how shitty the 80s were, there wasn’t just racism, there was also sexism. Their race never drives the narrative, though, I suppose if it did, then it would have risked repeating the lessons from the first section.

It’s not just the themes; tonally, this is completely different. That’s what you want from a film like this. You want to showcase the diverse group of characters, and it’s no point doing that if every section feels the same. There are connecting themes and settings, but they’re not even in the same genre or sharing a visual technique. The soundtrack is also completely different, with this section taking on more of a hip-hop slant.

It’s not as satisfying an end, though. They defeat a battle rapper who only hired them to humiliate them. His rhymes are hateful and sexist as fuck, and he deserves to be beaten. But, you don’t get the feeling that he’s learned his lesson. He’s still going to be misogynistic as fuck, just not to these two particular women.

Born To Mack

After the youth-oriented previous chapters, it’s a surprise that the opening of this consists of Tom Hanks and Pedro Pascal. I knew Pedro was in this, genuinely had no idea Tom Hanks was. Explains all the references to the previous segments made to him.

There’s a “but you’re the owner, you’ve always been the owner” spooky fake-out was brilliant and I loved it. This is a much more deliberate and slower story than the previous two. It’s strange, it has the most story, more happens (and it’s certainly the only one so far that you could imagine becoming a feature on its own), but it somehow feels like it stagnates more. In the previous sections, not much happened, but it happened quickly. If the previous two were sprints, this is a marathon. It’s not quite as entertaining, but ot is much more fascinating.

The Legend Of Sleepy Floyd

And we’re back with the nazi cunts (fuck off). This is an excellent culmination of everything we’ve seen. The sci-fi undertones become more obvious, with the references to telekinesis finally becoming meaningful. This is how the final section of an anthology should be; the previous scenes all crashing together in a magnificently meaningful coda.

I can see why people would hate this movie. I found it oddly charming. The opening leads you to think that the science-fiction elements may be more prevalent than they actually are, but that’s a minor issue. If you take it with no expectations, it’s a collection of stories which you’ll love to watch.

The Fantastic Four: First Steps (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Mister Fantastic, Invisible Woman, Human Torch, and the Thing face their most daunting challenge yet as they defend Earth from Galactus and Silver Surfer.

I’m not as opposed to the recent MCU films as most people seem to have been. They haven’t been fantastic, but I think the worst post-Endgame movie is still better than Thor: Dark World. We are fifteen films away from Endgame, and I think it would be hard to argue that there’s been A LOT less progress made since then than there was in the first 15 films (which would take you up to Guardians 2). The MCU’s desire to introduce as many heroes as possible has meant that many of them have felt forgotten or like their movies had no consequence. The introduction of TV shows has meant that keeping up to date with developments in the MCU has felt more like homework than a fun way to spend time. The lack of focus is causing them to lose viewers (let’s be honest, a focus on women and non-white heroes is also driving people away, but only assholes, so who gives a shit about them?), and the fact that it would take nearly 80 hours non-stop to catch up, it’s going to be difficult for them to attract new viewers.

That’s all a rather long-winded prelude to me saying that this is kind of a return to form. Importantly, it actually stands out as unique. It has its own visual identity and style, something that has been lacking from the MCU lately where everything has looked the same and had the same feel to it. TFF: FS (To-foof Foos) is something which the MCU hasn’t been in a long time: different. Its set in the 60s, but a different version of the 60s. It feels like its set in what people in the 50s thought the 60s would be like; incredibly future retro. Visually, it reminds me of the Jetsons more than it does the Fantastic Four animated TV series.

Not that it doesn’t pay tribute to that series. It’s heavily inspired by the animated version, but not in a way that feels out of place. If you’re familiar with the series, you’ll catch the little winks and nods. It’s done skilfully enough that if you aren’t aware, you won’t feel like you’re missing out. There was the risk that having H.E.R.B.I.E would make it too silly, but it kind of works. Much like Krypto in Superman, it adds a level of comedy when needed.

Nows the best time to say that the phrase “much like Superman” could be all over this review. There are multiple comparisons. The colours, the importance they both have to their franchise, the playfulness etc. They’re also both anchored by great performances. Pedro Pascal is as good as you expect him to be, but the rest of the main four also play their parts. It’s a weirdly English cast, with a lot of them doing American accents. Yet you never really notice their accents slipping. There is one part where Galactus does go a slight bit Yorkshire, but you have to be really listening to notice. I loved Julia Garner as Silver Surfer, her character is believable, and her performance suits the greatness.

Now onto the downside. This is possibly the worst time for this film to be released. The next MCU film is Spider-Man: Brand New Day, then there’s Doomsday. Doomsday is going to be big. The biggest movie since Endgame. But does it really feel like it? Does it feel like it’s been set up? Fantastic Four is a fantastic standalone movie, but with the exception of a mid-credits scene, it doesn’t really do anything to get you excited for the next step. It reminds me of Captain Marvel, but that at least came JUST after Infinity War, so it still felt adjacent to an event. This doesn’t have that. I’m genuinely curious how they’re going to make Doomsday feel like a big deal without spending a lot of that movies runtime just setting stuff up.

That’s a very minor niggle. This is a fun film, with great music. It’s definitely the best Fantastic Four movie. Although that’s not really saying much.

All Happy Families (2024) Review

Synopsis: A family gathers to renovate their home. Truths are unearthed and memories dug up.

Josh Radnor appears to be following the Zach Braff career path of being the lead in a sitcom, which everyone eventually comes to hate, thinking the lead character is creepy and weird, to low-budget indie films, the only difference being that he’s starring in them instead of directing them. Braff’s films are weird. It felt like everyone loved Garden State, then watched it again and changed their mind. Josh Radnor is yet to even approach anything like Garden State, casting agents seem reluctant to cast him in feature films for some reason.

All Happy Families (AHF, pronounced Arth) isn’t going to change their mind. He plays the same put-upon character we’ve seen him play before. It feels like he was cast because he played a similar character, not because they wanted to give him a chance to spread his thespian abilities. That’s not saying he gives a bad performance. But you are going to compare his character to Ted Mosbey, who, love him or hate him, is a character audiences are familiar with and have notions about. His character here is never given enough to distance himself from that comparison. The closest he gets from stepping away from that character is when he’s interacting with his family members and the chaos they bring; and that’s only because that entire dynamic makes you think of the Bluths from Arrested Development (only in this case, it’s the brother character that is accused of sexual misconduct, not the actor who plays the father. Seriously, fuck Jeffrey Tambor, and the way the entire male cast talked over Jessica Walters’ experiences.) If you thought being compared to How I Met Your Mother is bad, try being compared to Arrested Development.

This may seem like I disliked it. The truth is, I didn’t. It’s a difficult film to dislike, mainly because it’s a difficult film to feel any powerful emotion towards. It’s sauceless pasta. Bland, dull, and everybody has tried similar stuff that’s better.

There are glimpses of what this movie could be. The scene on the boat is fun, and it displays the characters’ personalities very well. The mum (Sue, played by Becky Ann Baker) is the type of person who corrects a tour guide, Will (his brother, played by Rob Huebel) is famous and kind of smug, Graham feels overshadowed, and their dad, Roy (John Ashton,) just goes along with it. If the writers tweaked the narrative and put this scene first, it would have made a fantastic opening scene.

The moment where his mother has a discussion with his trans daughter is incredibly sweet, and the kind of scene which feels modern and like it has something to say. Other narratives are running throughout, every character going through their own trials: Sue has been groped by her boss, Roy has a gambling addiction that threatens to rear its head, his brother Will has been accused of sexual misconduct on the set of his TV show, and Graham is going through a personal crisis. All of these are very worthy plots, and all are narrative fruits that are ripe for picking. However, they’re so underdeveloped that the audience only gets a brief glimpse of each narrative before it is disposed of. This approach can work in real life; not every story gets an ending, sometimes it’s just that things happen. But it’s handled really badly here, especially in the closing section.

The end feels really rushed. You have all this drama colliding together, and you expect it to lead to something. Instead, it just kind of becomes nothing. I mean, stuff happens, but it doesn’t FEEL big. The payoffs are incredibly flat, and there’s zero intensity. It feels like a 10-episode TV show which skips episodes 7,8, and 9. Or the writer HAD to keep it under 90 minutes and wasn’t allowed to delete stuff they’d already done.

In summary, it’s cosy, sweet, and very heartfelt at times, with good performances throughout. But it’s nowhere near as good as what’s already out there. In a world of exquisite dining, this is toast.

I Know What You Did Last Summer (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: Five friends cause a death and decide to lie about it.

For whatever reason, this is the only ’90s teen slasher franchise I have no history with. I’ve even watched the first two Urban Legends, and I’m fairly certain that more people are in those films than have actually watched them. I’m aware of what happens, so I wasn’t lost when watching IKWYDLS (eye-cue-ya-doo-les), I got the references and recurring characters. Some of the references were so heavily signposted that I’m pretty sure babies born during the pre-movie trailers would understand they were callbacks. The “what are you waiting for?” callback is particularly obvious; the character would not say that at that moment, and only does so because it was accidentally iconic in the original. The fact that she repeats it here makes it seem like she actually says it all the time, and it just happened that one of those times was during the events of the first movie.

Wow. I thought I’d hold out longer before saying how much I disliked this movie. If it came out in 2017, I might have enjoyed it more. But the release of the new Scream and Halloween movies means this suffers by comparison. They are the most unfortunate franchises to be compared to, because they both excelled at what this movie fails at: displaying societal trauma. They both did a great job at showing how towns cope with being the site of a horrific event.

IKWYDLS tries to excuse that by saying “rich person covered it up” (which turns into a motive for one of the killers), but that doesn’t wash, for multiple reasons. One, there’s a podcast about the murders, so it’s not THAT covered up. Two, and it’s the same problem I had with Five Nights At Freddy’s; if a group of people were murdered horrifically by a serial killer, the town would not forget about it. If someone said, “Don’t talk about those murders”, people would assume the person saying it had something to do with it. Legends aren’t fire, they don’t die without the oxygen of publicity; they grow. They’d be new falsehoods attached to it “I heard the killer came back years later as a zombie, and for some reason, despite being a fisherman, killed people in a completely landlocked state”. Fuck, that third movie was so stupid.

It’s not just on an “if you think about it for a while” level that the script has issues. There are some serious tonal issues. Nowhere is this more evident than in the final scene. Two of the surviving characters talk about how one of the killers is still alive. But they do it in such a casual way that it has no impact. I think that may have been because the writers were attempting to make the teen characters cool and quippy, but it just makes them seem like they’re not taking the situation seriously. The characters are far, far too quippy, unnaturally so. The comments don’t even make sense. “None of this would have happened if men went to therapy” is an especially stupid line in a movie where one of the killers is female. Did the writers forget the villain reveal?

Maybe I’d be more forgiving of the quippy nature of the script if the characters weren’t so, so, soooooo annoying. It’s not even “learn to despise these characters”, they’re instantly annoying. They come off as the type of people who would respond to a global pandemic by singing a John Lennon cover, and while I’m somewhat glad to end that joke there, I don’t think Gal Gadot’s lawyers would be, as my planned next sentence would have been an easy libel win for them.

The thing is, I’m fairly sure we’re supposed to like this group of characters. The inciting incident is a lot less blameless than the original. There’s no chance of them being legally culpable; it’s built up to make them as innocent as possible. Although now I’ve just realised something. One of the killers is someone who was very close to the person who died in the original accident. Would the gang not have noticed that in any of the newspaper pictures after the event? Damn, this movie gets dumber the longer I think about it.

It’s not all negative; there are some fun kills. The death of Wyatt is brutal and brilliant. The character arc of Teddy is pretty interesting, and they really could have done more with it. Sarah Pidgeon gives a truly great and sympathetic performance. The use of Julie James from the first two is the perfect use of her. The way they use Ray is……inconsistent. I don’t hate the character, I’m not a Ray-cist, but his character does feel wasted at times.

In summary, actually, do I need to summarise? You can tell I didn’t like this movie. It’s not among the worst 5 films of the year, but it’s possibly in the worst 10. Still, it’s better than the third one (no, haven’t seen it, but I’m still aware of its shitness).

Bring Her Back (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: A brother and sister are placed with a new foster mother; she’s a bit weird.

Sally Hawkins can do anything, can’t she? At no point during Bring Her Back do you think she’s English; she slips into her performance perfectly. The supporting cast also gives performances beyond their years, especially Billy Barratt, who gives a near-perfect performance of someone haunted by trauma but trying to stay strong. It’s also clear that the Philippou brothers are tremendous directors, with a real flair for understanding what makes certain visuals work.

I thought I’d start with that so I could move onto the negatives, as I really didn’t like this film. It’s not that I actively hated it; I just wasn’t impressed with it, at all. It tries so hard to matter, to be important, to deal with themes of grief and guilt, but does so far too unsubtly to the point of repetitiveness. It makes its points, then a few minutes later says the exact same thing again (a bit like I just did with the previous two sentences).

It is possible I just don’t like their stories, as I also wasn’t fond of their previous film, Talk To Me. Reading that review again (posted here), I have many of the same issues; it didn’t live up to its potential, a lot of scenes were needless, and it was a few tweaks away from being great.

BHB (pronounced Bah-haaab) isn’t sure whether its audience is comprised of geniuses or idiots. So it veers between “now to just make sure, we’re going to have this character explain this again” and “because f*ck you! that’s why that happened”. So watching it is akin to trying to do a kids crossword and a cryptic crossword on the same board.

As much as I love how the brothers create horror, I think BHB may have been better if it weren’t a horror movie. If they instead focused on the themes of grief and loss. Keep the possession angles, just dial down the “scares” back a bit. The cult interludes feel forced, and like they are just there to get creepy moments in. That’s a shame, as if we didn’t see those moments, then when we see her attempt to do it later, it would have more of an impact. At the moment, the cult videos are more disturbing than the main product. To put it in wrestling terms, it would be like starting a card with a match full of barbed wire baseball bats to the face, and then having the main event end with a single baseball bat to the back, and the person is knocked out for 10 minutes and taken to the hospital. If you’ve already seen something more devastating, it dilutes the payoff you’re looking for.

Cutting down on the horror would mean leaving out some of the deaths, but that’s no great loss, as the moment where two characters die has all the impact of a single raindrop on a swimming pool. They feel particularly mean-spirited and pointless. If you cut them from the script entirely, it would only require a 20-second scene to fix the hole that’s left. The deaths don’t cause any lasting trauma to the characters, don’t drive the story forward, and are pretty inconsequential. So either delete them, or make them have a purpose.

In summary, I’m going to end this with the exact quote I ended my review of Talk To Me.

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. 

Renner (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Tech genius Renner (hey, that’s the title of the movie) has developed an AI tool to help develop confidence. A tool that’s unwittingly influenced by his domineering mother

I went into this expecting to be impressed. I knew who was in it, and I knew roughly what it was about; that was it. I don’t say this often, but if I had read more about it, I’m not sure I would have bothered. It actually annoyed me that I didn’t like it, because I know what the next two films I have to review are, and I would have liked if I had at least one positive review this week.

It’s not just that this wasn’t for me; at times, I actively disliked it. The lead character’s romance arc reminds me of Y2K, the film, not the year. He invites a neighbour to his house for an introduction. She brings a guy, and he is visibly annoyed to the point of rudeness. He’s then visibly elated when it turns out to be her brother. So, he comes across as a little bit entitled. Sentences like “I feel as if I’m being friend-zoned, this is like a horror movie” back up my viewpoint on that. You can’t be annoyed if a woman you’ve just met is wary of being at your home alone.

The other characters? They follow the same pathway of “the performances being better than the writing”. Violett Beane is incredibly charming and likeable in her performance, but that impact is lessened by the stuff the script makes her character say (You don’t get to say “it feels like my mouth had an orgasm” and then get surprised when someone turns it sexual). Her character feels like wish fulfilment; there’s not much reason for her to be into Renner. Look at it from her POV; she meets a guy who gets visibly angry at her for knowing a male. We don’t really get a reason for her to like him. Yes, you can say that part of that is due to (spoilers) her pretending to be into him so she can steal his shit. But it turns out that she does actually like him, but with no demonstration as to why. You can definitely tell this is written by a guy. The only character of the three who seems genuine is Chad, and that’s because he’s one of the few who calls characters out on their bullshit. In a lot of films, that might come off as annoying. But in something like Renner, it’s actually refreshing.

There’s some really interesting stuff done with colours. It is sometimes flat, garish, and ugly, but there are moments where it works, particularly after the monopoly conversation, where they move through colours. It’s incredibly minimalist, and when the visuals work, they really work. They look sparse, like the character is emotionally hollow. When they don’t work, they look cheap and like a student film.

I said earlier that this was clearly written by a man. That was wrong. It was written by four guys, one less than it takes to build a burger chain. This obviously wasn’t how it was done, but if you told me each writer took a scene and they never consulted with each other, I’d believe you. There are some inconsistencies between scenes that are harder to swallow than a burger van burger the next day. In particular, there’s a genre switch which doesn’t really work because it doesn’t feel right for the characters. It’s jarring, but not in a shocking Sinners way, but in a “yeah that didn’t work AT ALL” way. It doesn’t help that the key scene for this moment is shot in such a way that it appears to be a dream/fantasy sequence. It has a “looks like a dream but is reality” a few times, but the genre switch moment is the most egregious. It’s not to do with the way it’s shot, it’s entirely down to the way it’s edited.

Essentially, the problem with Renner (besides the title, which is difficult to Google) is that it has no idea what it wants to be. One of the best bits of scriptwriting I’ve ever been told was “do more with less”. Essentially, cut out unnecessary twists, plot points, and themes. It may suck as you may love them, but it improves the narrative if you cut out the fluff and focus on the essentials. I know that goes against my usual preference for ambitious failures over safe successes. But the ambitious failures I like are when I see something new. Nothing in Renner is new or original; it’s just unfocused, and the multiple attempted plotpoints all stumble over each other. If it cut out the bullshit, streamlined the narrative, DEFINITELY changed the ending, then you’d have something impressive. As it is? I can’t even be bothered to watch the trailer again, let alone go near the movie.

I do like that the film ended with a “made by humans” note. Very cute.

Superman (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: When Superman gets drawn into conflicts both domestic and abroad, his life is made harder by revelations about his parents.

For a long time, I was not a fan of Superman as a character. He seemed too perfect, like a superhero invented by a child: “he can fly, and he’s super fast, and he is the strongest, and all the women want him because of how good-looking he is”. Then I started reading some, specifically All-Star Superman, For The Man Who Has Everything, and Earth One, and then I got it. The important part of him isn’t his Kryptonian side; it’s his human side. What makes him different from other “cooler” superheroes is that, despite being an alien, he represents the best of humanity. You sense that even without his powers, he’d be doing his best to help people. The release of the Dark Knight trilogy made this attitude seem passe and naive, which led to a somewhat darker take on the character with Man Of Steel. This movie corrects that. It’s not gritty and dark, it’s bright, it’s colourful, it’s fun, and most importantly, it’s hopeful.

Which, of course, has meant that idiots have derided it as woke. The reactions to this movie seem like the kind of reactions the character gets in the movie, and from what I’ve seen of James Gunn, he’s probably making notes and is going to quote them in the sequel. Let’s get this out of the way, superhero movies haven’t BECOME political, they’ve always been political. From the days of characters fighting Russians, taking on corrupt governments, rallying against corporate greed, or even just saving their local village. They’ve ALWAYS had a message; the only reason you’re opposed to it now is because you support the villains. The presentation of Superman, the character, is almost identical to how the movie itself wants to be seen. A rallying cry of hope and kindness. There’s a moment that’s telling, when a country is about to be invaded by a US-backed government (which I’m sure has absolutely no real-world comparisons), in that moment, a small child raises a Suerpman flag, a desperate cry for help.

This is a movie that understands its characters. Not just the lead. You understand why Lois Lane is so good at her job, especially when she’s interviewing Superman, and despite knowing his real identity (and dating them), she doesn’t shy away from asking difficult questions. She is tenacious, desperate to get to answers. She provides Truth to Superman’s Justice and Krypto’s American Way (being a ball of chaos that destroys stuff). Krypto is a wonderful addition, too. There was a worry that he would come off silly, and he does, but it somehow works and will undoubtedly be many people’s favourite character. The Justice Gang are fantastic background characters, given just enough details to explain them, but leave enough out that there’s room to explore in a spin-off.

This is probably the best Lex Luthor in a while. Not just for his motivations, but his behaviour. A billionaire having a team of monkeys dedicated to trolling someone feels almost Musk-like. Keeping his ex-girlfriend in a different dimension always displays a particularly entitled form of cruelty. His behaviour is chillingly realistic, as is the fact that he has teams of people who follow him. When Superman gets the crap beaten out of him, Lex has workers who cheer, not out of obligation, but because they’ve genuinely been brought into his vision.

None of this would work without actors, all of whom are damn near perfect. Hoult continues to impress, and Corenswet easily steps into boots which others would find intimidating. I’m not familiar with Rachel Brosnahan, and it did take a while to sink in that she’s not Charlotte Ritchie from Ghosts, but once I got past that, which is entirely the fault of my own faceblindness, then I saw just how good she was. Her and Corenswet have fantastic chemistry, you can easily believe that they’re a couple. Every moment when they share the screen is electric.

Another factor that helps sell this movie is the world. It doesn’t depend on real-life celebrities. When the characters fight in a baseball stadium, it’s not the team of the New York Knicks; it’s the Metropolis Meteors. When they pass a road sign, it’s leading drivers to Gotham, and adverts for burgers are for Big Belly Burgers, not Burger King. News commentators are Peacemaker instead of Joe Rogan. This is a movie that sells its own reality, and it does it brilliantly.

It also sets up the situation well. This isn’t an origin story. We don’t see a world where Superman doesn’t exist, and then he’s introduced. The opening texts state that Superman is known, plus that he just got the crap kicked out of him. It’s a brave move for the opening of a Superman movie to show him broken, but it works.

I genuinely loved this movie, but it’s not perfect. The final third could be improved. Lex decides to cause a rift that tears across the city. I’m not sure why, but this didn’t really land with me. It felt unnatural. Yes, it was done to lure Superman into the open, but I feel there must have been a better way to do it. Earlier, Luthor shoots someone in the head just because they offered Superman food, and he then threatens to go after everyone associated with him. He could have just done that instead of tearing apart the world; it feels like he escalated it somewhat. Also, it’s a bit unrealistic that a billionaire would be arrested. There’s also an action scene which is impressively shot, but the impressive nature of it makes it harder to figure out what’s happening.

In summary. I loved this movie. It’s a film that’s sorely needed in times like these. It’s nice to see the message that in an age where people feel proud to be assholes, being kind is punk rock. Even if you can’t save the entire planet, you can still mean the world to someone.