Bride Hard (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Sam is a secret agent, which is quite handy when her friend’s wedding is attacked by mercenaries desperate for GOLD!

It may not seem like it, but I do actually like films, honest. I don’t often go in and focus on small issues I can nitpick. At worst, I go in with a “this could be terrible, let’s see if it actually is”. I never WANT a film to be bad, and even if I go in with low expectations, I can be won over. For example, I watched Ghostbusters: Afterlife expecting it to be among the worst films I’ve ever seen, and came out absolutely loving it (honestly, I might prefer it to the first one). That’s a rather long preamble to say that I do not dislike this movie because I’m expected to dislike it, I dislike it because there was very little for me to like.

First issue? The casting. I don’t dislike Rebel Wilson, but she’s the wrong actress for this, mainly because she plays the same character she plays often: a sarcastic quipper who’s quick to random punches in the face. That doesn’t work as a secret agent; it would be like casting Adam Sandler as Bond. You can’t watch this and picture her character as a competent agent, not just because of how loud she is, meaning she’ll definitely get attention everywhere she goes. But also because she does incredibly stupid things. For example, near the end, she blows up a house accidentally whilst catching a bouquet at a wedding. Makes her seem kind of shit at her job. I know, it’s a comedy, but if the characters aren’t going to take this seriously, I’m not. Although considering how quickly one of her friends tells everyone she’s a secret agent, I can’t imagine she’d be one for very long after the events of this film.

You can’t lay all the blame at the feet of her character. Genre mash-ups are hard if you get the genres wrong. Horror/comedy? That’s fine. Hardcore pornography/musical? That’s harder (pun unintentional). Wedding comedy/action? That should work. Both are full of recognisable cliches, and both require elaborate set-pieces. Yet it doesn’t really work for this. Part of it is because the characters never feel like they’re in a decent action movie; they all act as if they’re in a wedding-based comedy where the biggest problem is the colour of the cake, not the armed terrorists. So in the middle of hostage situations, characters start making jokes and making light of the situation. These are not the hero characters who are used to this; they’re normal, everyday people for whom being hostages isn’t normal. There’s no sense of urgency or fear. Even when a character is shot, nobody seems to care that much. It doesn’t even factor into the plot.

Overall, it feels like nobody cares. That it was written by A.I. and performed by (normally very talented) performers who just wanted to get back home and eat a Müller Light, maybe a Müller Corner, the banana one with the chocolate cornflakes. In case you think I’m underestimating the effort, this is from the IMDB page:

“At the party, the priest is at the bar with other guys. He picks up two full champagne flutes in 4 different cuts. Each cut is to two girls talking, but when it cuts back each time, the priest is still picking up the same flutes. This happens 4 times.”

That should not happen in a movie you want people to see. Someone should have picked up on that. Either they should have got more shots on set that they could cut away to, or the editor could have found different ones to use. Someone either messed up, didn’t give a shit, or ran out of time. I don’t particularly care which one, I just care that it happened.

This really should have worked; most of the situations and scenes essentially write themselves due to the situation mash-up; have the bride be nervous about the bouquet toss, but need to throw something similar in the climax. Make at least ONE joke about how tuxedos are worn by both men at weddings and secret agents in films. Have a drunk relative walk in on an action scene and assume it’s a sex scene. Use the centre-pieces to defeat people. Have a scene of the bride’s guests choosing their dresses, then echo that scene later on when they’re picking weapons. Really, there are SO many ways you could have incredible, unique action set-pieces; none of which happen. The closest we get is a fight scene in a kitchen set to It’s Raining Men. But even that has a negative; it’s not a high-octane scene featuring impressive stunts, it’s mainly slowly sneaking around a small room, and then throwing something. It’s like the film-makers knew they needed that song, but didn’t know how best to utilise it, so they just threw it into a scene where it didn’t belong.

This could have been great; instead, it’s not even passable.

Monkey Man (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Kid (Dev Patel) infiltrates the Mumbai elite to enact vengeance, with his fists.

Dev Patel is quite good, isn’t he? He’s already shown his acting pedigree in The Green Knight, The Personal History Of David Copperfield, and Slumdog Millionaire. Now it turns out he can direct too. Monkey Man is an ambitious effort for a first-timer, with some brilliantly inventive action scenes. They’re a lot more brutal than you’d expect. It’s not quite “blood blood everywhere, in my eyes and in my hair” levels of brutality, but it doesn’t shy away from showing the damage these fights would have. It has someone getting their thumb severed with a dinner tray. But also has enough Wick-ian fights to satisfy modern action palates.

Monkey Man has more than action to its name though. There’s also one hell of a story. Despite the fact that the character physically challenges many people, there’s a very personal approach to it. He is focused and determined throughout the narrative, with a clear goal. His backstory is incredibly believable and provides enough humanity that you actually do give a shit when he gets hurt or nearly dies. Yes, the action sequences are incredible, but it’s a damn fine film away from those moments too. There’s a sequence where he’s involved in stealing something and it’s so intricate and well-done, it’s basically a mini heist movie, very mini, a few minutes.

There’s a social message to this, which is always nice. I remember after the first trailer, people online were bitching about how “I bet they make a white man the villain, typical political correctness”, then when it turned out the villains are played by the very Indian Sikander Kher, Ashwini Kalsekar, and Makarand Deshpande, that discourse changed to “so there’s barely any white people in this? Racism!”. This is a Mumbai film through and through (albeit made by someone from Harrow, and filmed mostly in Indonesia), dealing with corruption, the caste system, trans rights, and abuse of political power. All themes that are sadly still prevalent in modern Mumbai (and in most countries too, let’s not get too full of ourselves to deny that). It doesn’t hurt that the character of Baba Shakti visually resembles the current Indian PM and notable dickhead, Narendra Modi. It’s this political context which was responsible for Netflix deciding not to release it, feeling it was too controversial and gritty. They tried to quietly cancel it because Netflix are cowards, but it thankfully found a home with Jordan Peele’s Monkeypaw Productions. I’m glad they released it, as it’s a film that’s worth seeing, but it definitely feels like it doesn’t quite fit in with the rest of their releases.

Now onto the bad. The female characters are woefully underwritten, with most of them coming off as nothing more than visual props. There are large periods of the film which basically feel like it’s there so the audience can be amazed at Patel. The “Monkey Man” aspect is also underdeveloped. There’s a big deal made about him turning his mask white, he dons the newly coloured mask for about 30 seconds before throwing it away. The general “lore” aspect of the backstory is not needed. It provides a small amount of detail into his connection with his mother, but we’d have assumed the two had a connection anyway as they’re related, not only is she his mother, but she was also married to his dad. I presume it was also there to provide a visual “hook” they could use in marketing, but again, it’s not needed. It’s just padding, and not even good padding; it’s asbestos.

As I said, it’s worth a watch. But it’s not a “must-see”. It at times comes off as a remake of an existing property that wasn’t that good in the first place. Or like an expertly crafted cover song, as good as it gets, you kind of just want to experience the original instead. Patel is clearly one hell of a director, and he will make something incredible. But this isn’t quite it. It is clearly a passion product for Patel, made with love and a NEED to get this made. But maybe someone should have stepped in at times to tell him to prune some of the cinematic flowers that aren’t quite blooming.

Lift (2024) Review

Quick synopsis: A group of thieves plan to steal $500million a shit load of gold from a dickhead.

Palestine, Ukraine, economic turmoil, in these trying and confusing times it can be nice to have something to ground yourself, something that you can hold onto that you know is real. So thank Netflix for bringing us Lift and providing us with an undeniable truth; some films are utter shit.

F. Gary Gray has a weird history as a director. Sometimes he brings us Friday or Straight Outta Compton, and sometimes he brings us Men In Black: International. Lift belongs more in the second camp. It’s so by the numbers it’s basically a children’s colouring book. When you watch it unfold you’re not surprised or entertained by anything. There are moments where you can guess what’s going to happen, not just in terms of narrative, but also in terms of action scenes and dialogue. Everything has been done before, and done better.

Lift even copies the stupid things from action movies. They do that usual chase scene thing of using the “make go fast” lever/button when it’s dramatically convenient rather than when it would have been best to use it. It feels like the writer took a bunch of modern buzzwords like “NFT” and “hackers”, and then got AI to write the script. It has the “yes they’re thieves, but they’re the good guys” BS that’s prevalent in a lot of similar stories, but they’re not really good. Yeah, they’re stealing art from dickheads, but they’re doing it entirely for selfish reasons. Also, I’m calling BS on the “we’re the best thieves in the world” claim as the police know every single member of the crew. Not just names, but also their roles within the organisation, their addresses, and their contact details.

I’m also not entirely sure WHY it had to be this group of misfits who helped get the MacGuffin back. The movie states “We legally can’t get the gold because the transaction itself is legal”. But Interpol plans on taking the gold once it’s been retrieved. By doing that, they wouldn’t be able to do anything with it EXCEPT return the gold to the first person, who will then just make the deal again.

I don’t know enough about physics to call out the flight scenes as unrealistic, but even I know enough to doubt the scene where one of the planes flies upside down steadily for an extended period of time. I’m guessing there are more instances which will cause people’s heads to explode, but that was the most obvious. I do know enough to know that planes flying over the English Channel don’t tend to need to be wary of mountains. There’s not really an extended mountain range in Folkestone or Margate.

The worst thing for me about those errors is how unnecessary they are. Just don’t mention the mountains, say “high winds”. Make up a different reason for the crew being needed (maybe they used to work for the Big Bad so have inside information etc). Use a heist method which doesn’t involve flying a jet upside down. All of those are easy fixes for unnecessary problems. The fact that these problems are all over the film like Bill Cosby on an unconscious woman raises concerns. Concerns that the scriptwriter either didn’t realise they were problems, didn’t care, or was told to put these problems in by the studio. Neither of these scenarios is good. It just adds up to the feeling that nobody involved in this plane crash of a movie gave a shit about making it the best movie they could. Nobody went in with the intention of bringing 100%, they just did what they were paid to do, and then left. Nobody cared, and that’s evident throughout.

A plane heist is a unique idea, and one that could be interesting to watch unfold. As it is, it’s hard to recommend something as lazy as this. If nobody involved is going to care about a film, then why should the audience? Billy Magnussen is dope as fuck though.

The Beekeeper (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: After his friend Eloise kills herself in shame after being the victim of a phishing scam, Adam Clay goes on a roaring rampage of revenge.

If you like Jason Statham films, you’ll enjoy The Beekeeper. Actually, that’s incorrect, if you LOVE Jason Statham films, you’ll enjoy this. If you’re on the fence about him as a performer, this isn’t going to change your mind. It’s standard Statham-ware (Not Stathamwear of course, which is his fashionline). It’s actually got quite good reviews so far and I have to be honest; I don’t get it. I never really saw it get better than average. Nothing about it is memorable, not in a good way anyway. The action scenes really should be better. There are a few exceptions; the destruction of the call centre early on is deliciously cathartic, but those moments are few and far between. On the plus side, the action scenes are comprehensible, which is more than could be said for a lot of recent action films. Comprehensibility does not mean excitement though, I don’t find Humpty Dumpty exciting, even if I can understand it (it’s about breakfast, right?). As anyone who watched the first Suicide Squad movie can attest, as a director, Ayer knows how to create colourful shots. But he doesn’t know necessarily how to make them exciting. He just seems to think that adding purple neon makes a shot dynamic.

Similar accusations of laziness can be directed at the performances. It’s a weirdly talented cast; Minnie Driver, Phylicia Rashad, and Jeremy Irons. Performers like that should elevate the film and bring it up to a higher level. Instead, it feels like the film is dragging them down. For example, Statham does a weird not quite English/not quite American accent.

In their defence, the script doesn’t really give them much to work with. It’s hard to deliver a good performance when you have to give some of the worst dialogue ever committed to film. Some films improve when you think about them, this actually seems like it gets worse the more you think about it. Not in a “plot holes reveal themselves when you think about them” way, but for the events of this film to happen, certain things must have happened or will happen after the film ends. In this universe, “Beekeepers” is the name of an organisation of highly trained assassins who operate and kill with complete impunity from the law. I’m not quite sure how they’re funded, it possibly mentioned it but I stopped caring. But what makes it weird is the idea that their training library includes not only “How To Sneak Past Things” by “S.Tealth”, and “How To Fight” by “That Guy In The Pub Who Doesn’t Have Training But When He’s In The Zone You Totally Better Watch Out, Bro. fka. Keith”, but also “The Naked Apiarist; Elementry Mistakes In Beekeeping”. Statham’s character really commits to the bit, by actually keeping bees after he retires from the service. Weirdly enough, it’s only his beekeeping that alerts people to the organisation in the first place. If he stopped living the gimmick and started an alpaca farm, then the bad guys wouldn’t have had a clue how to identify him, so they wouldn’t have set so many highly trained killers on him.

I’d also like to see more of what happens after this film. It’s been revealed that the president’s son is behind a multinational operation that scams people’s life savings from them. and used that money to fund the election campaign. How would the world react to that? That’s the most interesting part of the story, and it’s not in the film itself.

In summary, an incredibly frustrating watch. If it was more in-depth and intelligent that would have allowed it to say something important about corruption and election funding. Although, in some ways, if it was trashier, that would improve it too. As it is, it’s stuck in this middle ground between shlock and serious, so just ends up shlerious, which isn’t a word. It does have one huge plus for it though; it genuinely is an incredibly effective way of teaching basic cyber security to those who aren’t that computer literate. Okay, all that lesson is is “don’t give your bank details to a stranger”, but you know, baby steps.

Do do do do do do

The Hunger Games: The Ballad Of Songbirds And Snakes (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: How did Coriolanus Snow rise to the position we see him in in the original franchise? Let’s find out.

I like the original Hunger Games movies, but I can’t really remember that much about them. So I’m glad this was a prequel and not a sequel, otherwise, I’d spend half of it wondering “Who’s that guy?”, like a gender-flipped 1987 Madonna film. Fun fact; the director of that movie later went on to direct two films in the Fifty Shades series. Okay, it’s not that interesting, but I thought if I didn’t mention the Fifty Shades series in this one, nobody will speak about them.

I will admit I wasn’t really a fan of the series during the original theatrical run. I wasn’t actively against it, I just never got into it. The first one I saw at the cinema was the second part of Mockingjay (it was split into two parts, I didn’t just wander in halfway through) and my main memory. One thing I did notice from going to a cinema screening is that despite this franchise not having a cinematic entry since 2015, it still has an audience. A young audience too, there were a lot of teenage girls in the screening, they couldn’t have been more than 10 when the last film was released, which indicates that the films are gaining a new audience as time goes on, which can only be a good sign (unless Suzanne Collins turns out to be a massive bigot, but what are the odds that would happen to two franchises?). Of course, none of that would matter if this film was a piece of shit. Thankfully, this matches the previous entries. It’s helped that (with the exception of the first one), all the films have been directed by Francis Lawrence, which means that visually and thematically they remain consistent. This is probably the most grounded movie in the franchise, where Panem isn’t quite the technological power that it grows to be. It’s the early days, and the colours represent that; instead of the blues and neon, it’s all brown and murky. You really get the oppressive poverty people are under.

The other positive for Songbird is that it doesn’t seem to miss the franchise characters as much as you’d expect it to. Katniss/Jennifer Lawrence was a big part of why the original franchise worked, so there was concern that the studio would get nervous and insist on forcing the character into it, even if just as a framing device of her telling the story. That doesn’t happen, and Zegler/Lucy Gray is given a chance to shine. The character of Lucy Gray (or Lucy Grey in England) is determined, likeable, and different enough from Katniss that she doesn’t just feel like a literary replacement. Rachel Zegler gives one hell of a performance and makes you think that she actually is going to be a great Snow White, everything about her screams “Disney princess”. The best bit of casting is Jason Schwartzman as Lucretius Flickerman, not because his performance is particularly outstanding, but because of how much he resembles Stanley Tucci from the original series. To the point where (because I couldn’t remember the name of Tucci’s character) I thought they were the same person, just younger.

Now onto the negative; the story is kind of weak. I think we’re supposed to be shocked that humanity can be so blasé about the suffering of people like we’re supposed to think “holy shit that’s terrible, how bad must a society be to let that happen? This is an indication of a dystopia”, but it’s a little difficult to be shocked when we live in a world where homeless people sleep under newspapers that brag about the good economy because of how well millionaires are doing, and the only part of that which looks like changing in the future is the existence of printed media.

It’s not helped by how the characters can sometimes seem like idiots. There’s a moment where Coriolanus records another character (Sejanus) talking about overthrowing the government, he then sends the recording off and then is surprised when the government arrives and executes Sejanus for treason. It feels like such a lazy way of getting rid of that character, and it derails the heel turn of Coriolanus. He should have admitted it and be proud of it, it should be an indication that not only is he now a dick, but he is proud of it.

Actually, the whole final third is a complete mess, both too short and too long. It feels completely disconnected from what came before, kind of like a quick epilogue, but one that takes about 30 minutes so isn’t really quick. But this is where Snow melts and becomes a dick, he doesn’t show that before this section. So his entire turn takes place in that 30 minutes, which feels too short. It feels like it could have been its own entry. Doing that would have allowed some of the other tributes from the games to be more fleshed out, as opposed to just the walking soon-to-be-dead. The games themselves are absolutely brutal, the lack of technology means that the deaths have an intimate feel to them, and a lot of them are quite disturbing (with points going to the girl with Down syndrome, and the starving girl who unknowingly drinks poison). The best death is one that belongs to Coral, where in her dying breath she expresses regret that she killed all those people for nothing. That one line is sooooo damn good. I haven’t seen a dying line change character motivations that much since The Suicide Squad when Starro said “I was happy, floating, staring at the stars”. It’s helped that Coral is played by Mackenzie Lansing, who is just fucking great in this. It would be easy for that character to be a caricature, but Lansing gives them enough reality that it’s easy to see them as a real person.

So in summary; go watch it. But only if you have a passing knowledge of the rest of the franchise. It is a weak point that this doesn’t talk about the distracts, or the rules of the games etc because it knows you remember them from the previous films, so if you are a newbie, you might be lost, which is a shame. Just be prepared to be incredibly disappointed for the final third.

The Unbearable Weight Of Massive Talent (2022)

Quick synopsis: Unfulfilled and facing financial ruin, actor Nick Cage accepts a $1 million offer to attend a wealthy fan’s birthday party. Sadly this fan turns out to possibly be a drug lord, so the CIA get Cage to spy on the person for them.

Let’s face it, someone like Cage is perfect for this film. He’s not so much as an actor, as he is a living meme at this point. Capable of greatness, or being terrible. You never see a Cage performance and think “he was alright, nothing special”. He’s one of those people who you could hear any story about and believe. “hey, I heard Nicholas Cage slapped a Rhino with a sea bass” “yeah, that seems like something he’d do”.

So a film in which he plays himself, who gets roped into doing an investigation into a suspected drug lord? Perfect. The result? Well it’s not perfect, it is very, very good. It has a lot of laugh-out-loud moments, but just not consistently enough to consider it great. Also, there are too many issues which stop it from reaching the next level. What issues? Well I’m glad you asked, and your hair looks great by the way.

Well firstly, a big issue is that this has been done before. An action star who is having family trouble, being caught up in a crime? If you want to see how that’s done, watch JCVD, that’s a superb movie featuring Jean-Claude Van Damme giving (genuinely) one of the best performances you’ll ever see. The other issue is that ONLY Cage is playing himself. I’m okay with Sharon Horgan playing his wife, and there are other similar performances. Put Neil Patrick Harris is too big a name to just play Cage’s agent. When I first saw the trailer I assumed he was playing himself too, and he knew about the wealthy person who liked Cage because he’s been invited to his parties too. But nope, he’s just his agent. I feel it would have made more sense to have it as himself though, would have set Pedro Pascal’s character up as the kind of eccentric rich guy who pays celebrities to hang out with him. I kind of have a similar issue with Pascal, who is definitely too big a name to not known. But overall I’m more okay with that, because he is so much fun in this. He doesn’t normally do comedy, but he should, he has a talent for it, and him and Cage bounce off each other wonderfully.

The other downside? This could go further, it features moments where Cage is interacting with a younger version of himself. It’s a bit weird, happens enough that it is notable, but doesn’t happen enough to make you comfortable. I mean, it’s Cage, this has room to go a lot weirder, and it’s weird how refrained it is. I also have an issue with the fact that the guy we thought was good, turns out to have been good all along, and the actual villain is a guy we’ve seen only once or twice in the film, and then very fleeting.

I know this sounds negative, but I have had to be very nit-picky to make those points. Overall it’s a very fun watch. I’m glad I saw it, and probably will see it again if it’s on streaming services, or I find it cheap at a boot fair or charity shop. As I said before, it is very funny, even if some of those laughs have been ruined in the trailer. The plot makes sense, even when people make stupid decisions, you can understand the logic. It also has actual characters with their own personalities and motivations. This means that when the film aims to be emotional, it actually works.

So yeah, if you get a chance, go see it. But don’t rush out RIGHT NOW. Treat it like a deer, approach slowly and realise you may not see it.