The Running Man (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Desperate to get the money required to get his family luxuries such as food and healthcare, Ben Richards enters The Running Man, a TV show where people must survive 30 days being hunted by assassins.

The existence of this movie has annoyed a lot of people. People who are complaining, “They remade the Arnie movie. Be original! And they’ve changed aspects of it”, seemingly not realising that it’s not a remake, it’s another adaptation of the book, and some of the changes have been made to make it more faithful to the book. I watched the original a few weeks ago; it’s a VERY loose adaptation of the source material, removing a lot of the central themes. So in that sense, the 2025 version is better; it’s a lot more faithful, keeping not just the basic plot points but also the world-building required to make the story more than “muscle man kills everyone”.

As good as the first version is, it never truly felt dystopian or real. This feels real. The characters are clearly financially suffering, and living in a world where most of the media shows glamorous lifestyles that are beyond the reach of most people. A world where people are constantly watched. A world where the divide between corporations and government is wafer-thin. In short, a world which can either be described as “one we’re heading towards” or “one we’re already in”, depending on whether you view your glass as half full, half empty, or missing because some fucker stole it. The world has changed since the 80s, when America was led by a psychopathic manchild brought to the world by his appearances in the media, and Britain was determined to crush the rights of the poor, disabled, non-white, and members of the LGBTQ community. The proliferation (big word, go me) of AI and surveillance means that certain parts of this now ring very true. It does make things easier for the filmmakers; characters don’t have to say “they edited it using artificial intelligence based on pre-existing recordings” We’re all so familiar with deepfakes that we automatically know.

So it’s a good adaptation, but is it a good movie? I mean, the Tim Burton version of Charlie And The Chocolate Factory is clearly more accurate than the Gene Wilder one, but is clearly inferior, partly (but not entirely) down to Depp’s decision to play Wonka like Michael Jackson, but more creepy. I liked it. The political satire is on point, the action sequences are fun, and there are no sequences where you’re bored. Also, it’s fun. Action movies can make a political point and still be fun.

That being said, it could do more. Edgar Wright is known for certain things, mainly his editing and his music choices. It feels like The Running Man doesn’t showcase his skills. There are some very good music choices (especially in the opening), and like I said, some of the action sequences are fun. But there are no scenes which stand out as particularly impressive compared to his other works. There’s nothing which you can point to and say, “That! That is why we love cinema”, like the opening chase of Baby Driver.

The performances are fine. It’s still weird to see Glen Powell as an action hero, but I suppose that’s kind of the point. Colman Domingo is great, bringing to mind Carl Weathers’ performance as Apollo Creed with the energy and charisma he has.

There’s been some negative talk online about this movie. Those people are wrong. The Running Man is one of the most fun experiences you can have in a cinema without risking being thrown out. There’s a delightful energy to the whole thing, and the action scenes actually make sense. There’s not much suspension of disbelief required for it to make sense, no requirement to leave your brain at the door and “stop nitpicking and just start enjoying”. That doesn’t mean it’s overly pretentious and serious, though. You can just watch it at home (when the DVD/Blu-ray is released) with a couple of beers and some friends (sadly, friends aren’t included with a dvd purchase, I’ve checked) and cheer at the sequences, you’re not going to be have to be like “shhhh, you’re missing important plot points, concnetrate!”. Essentially, this movie is what you make it; if you want political satire, it’s got it, if you want bang bang blow up shoot shoot action movies, it’s that. So while it’s not an easy film to declare the best movie ever, it’s a very easy movie to enjoy.

I like that.

Zero (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Did you see 30 Minutes Or Less? It’s basically that, but not comedic.

Zero has a lot going for it. The use of African hip-hop gives it a unique sound. Plus, it’s nice to see a movie set in Africa that shows how stunning it can look; the coastline shots, in particular, are gorgeous. It has a unique concept (weird thing to say when my synopsis compares it to another movie) that lends itself well to high-energy and fun set-pieces.

It doesn’t live up to that potential, though. Part of that may be down to the performances. Hus Miller does not have the right gravitas for this role. I don’t want to seem cruel, but I think the fact that he co-wrote it may have had something to do with his casting. He comes off as someone you’d get if you ordered John Cena from Temu, mixed with “Angry Business Man who screams the lead character’s name at the end of a really shitty UK sitcom episode”. Cam McHarg at least has the physical presence required for his part. Moran Rosenblatt is the only performer who gave a performance I wanted to see more of.

The big issue? The plot is f*cking stupid. It’s a tonal mess that’s uncertain what it wants to be. Does it want to be a Statham-like action movie, albeit with a message? Does it want to be a zany comedy? Does it want to be an intense thriller? It feels like it wants to be all those things at once, which means it ends up being none of them. It’s not helped by how bad the action sequences are. I’m not sure how something can be both cheap and yet also feel overproduced, but Zero manages it. The action sequences have all the energy and excitement of watching a piece of bread become overcome with mould. It doesn’t have a unique style; instead, it decides to ape other popular styles (it loves to attempt Edgar Wright-style sequences, but gets the timing wrong, so it constantly looks like the film is pausing). I’ve said before that films sometimes seem so determined to have a visual style that they get stuck up their own arse (Spoilers for my review of Urchin by the way). This is the first time I’ve seen a film get stuck up someone else’s arse.

The thriller aspects? It feels like Zero attempts to have a mystery, but never wants to answer it. We get glimpses of why this is happening, and why the characters were chosen (one represents the wealth of America, one represents the violence), but it doesn’t feel satisfactory. It feels oddly condescending to Senegal. “America may have rich people, but people from Senegal are rich in experience and life, and aren’t violent at all” is a woefully simplistic take. The United States has caused a lot of issues (as have pretty much all world powers at some point, look up the atrocious acts Belgium committed in the Congo Free State), but to say that every act of violence in Senegal is due to them is ridiculous, and incredibly infantilising towards Senegal, treating them as if they’re children who are being misled by an adult.

There are two moments where it gets the tone right, but they’re completely different tones. One, the way the passengers on the bus react to the bomb strapped to someone’s chest. It’s exciting, dynamic, and slightly funny. The other moment is when a character is delivering a monologue, and the camera shows us Dakar residents staring at the camera, allowing us to read our own motivations into their stares. That’s the only moment where it feels like it knows the message it wants to impart, and there’s a real beauty in its simplicity. If it kept up the momentum from any of those two moments and kept that tone throughout, then Zero would have worked.

In summary, this is probably the first film I’ve reviewed where its title would also represent how I’d score it out of 5.

Nobody 2 (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: An assassin goes on holiday, and people die.

I thoroughly enjoyed the first Nobody. It was action-packed, it was fun, and it was short enough that it didn’t outstay its welcome. In that aspect, Nobody 2 succeeds. It does all the important stuff well, and carries on the legacy of the first movie.

There are some aspects in which it’s not quite as successful. The action scenes aren’t as memorable as those in the first one; none of them come close to the bus scene. It’s also slightly overstuffed, particularly in the villain department. There is one definite BIG bad, but they’re introduced after we’ve already had issues with everybody else, so they’re not given as much focus. This may seem like sacrilege, but I didn’t like Sharon Stone in this. Her performance felt so hammy that I witnessed a little felt frog marry it. It felt like she was giving a performance, not that she got lost in the role. The background characters aren’t as well-written as they could be. With some aspects of them feeling overpowered and unrealistic, especially when they hold their own in fights with people they really shouldn’t.

Now, onto the upside, very little of that previous paragraph actually matters. You’ll be entertained throughout anyway. The action scenes, like I said, aren’t quite as good as the first one, but they are still very good. They’re set up beautifully. Things are mentioned throughout the film that later become relevant in a later scene when they are used to kill people. There are some great music choices, varied too. Cliff Richard’s songs fit alongside Celine Dion and The Offspring; all the choices make sense, although it would be an incredibly weird soundtrack if you played all of them together.

What Nobody 2 does better than the first one is set up a potential future. There are so many plot threads that are just waiting for a future film to unravel them. It also avoids the trap that people think John Wick fell into: becoming overly long and too steeped in lore. Nobody 2 is a quick 90 minutes, meaning it never overstays its welcome. For people who like the action of the John Wick movies (which you should, they’re awesome) but actually have social lives, which means they can’t spend an entire day watching a franchise, Nobody 2 is the perfect substitute. When the film ends, you want more. On the one hand, that’s delightful. On the other hand, there is a small part of you that feels unsatisfied, like you’ve had a delicious burger, but you’re still hungry.

M3gan 2.0 (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: M3gan comes back, this time as a hero.

This is a terrible horror movie. That’s mainly because it’s not a horror movie. I’m used to horror franchises delving more into action or comedy, but it’s usually a few minutes in and it’s a sign of decline. I can’t remember a time it’s been so drastic as this. There’s no traditional horror movie beats, no shots that fill you with dread or keep you awake at night. What there is, is quips, fights, and weirdness.

On the one hand, the genre switch means that M3gan 2.0 is fun to watch and will appeal to a wide audience while still keeping true to the spirit of the original. On the downside, from the first trailer, where it was made clear that this time she’ll be more heroic and will be teaming up with those who defeated her in the first movie, comparisons have been made to Terminator 2. Those comparisons are much harder to ignore when the change of genre makes the movies even closer. It’s almost begging you to make those comparisons, and when it does, it doesn’t hold up.

On its own merits? It’s a lot of fun. It’s violent, funny, and kind of sweet. It has really good characterisation. Making M3gan a hero could have backfired, but it works wonderfully. That’s helped by the fact that even when she was a villain in the first movie, her entire motivation was doing what she felt she should do to protect a child. So she could easily turn them into heroes without changing their motivation. It feels like the next logical step. Her introduction is a lot of fun, with her controlling the aspects of a smart house to defeat an invading police force, who burst into a house all guns blazing to arrest an unarmed woman and a child, but because this isn’t real life, nobody got shot.

The performances are also key, the main characters from the first film return, and it’s clear they all love playing these characters. There aren’t too many new characters, but those who are introduced fit in perfectly.

Now onto the downsides. There are a few minor ones in terms of tone and consistency, and some moments are just a little bit too much like a video game for my liking. The major issue for me is the villain reveal. I live quite near a 12th-century castle. A castle, which is a crucial part of local and national history. A castle, which is vital to tourism and is a visual centrepiece of the local area. If you visit this town, you kind of HAVE to visit the castle.

That castle isn’t as clearly signposted as the villain reveal in this movie. I guessed it from the character introduction, not only that they would turn out to be the villain, but also their motivations and reasoning. It felt so obvious as the film went on, with a few “but nobody could have known this” about things which he would have known about. It’s so clear that I felt it was a red herring; I didn’t think a movie in 2025 could be this obvious with its twist. I haven’t seen a reveal this obvious since, well, every superhero movie where a character named something like “Evil Von Murderface” turned out to be the bad guy.

In summary, don’t go in expecting scares, and you’ll have one hell of a good time. It has a lot to say about AI, specifically about the role of humanity in controlling it. It’s much smarter than it needs to be, and I will always love that. I will also always love it when, in the final product, an editor takes out a really creepy moment from the trailer.

Red One (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Santa gets kidnapped.

Studios put a lot of thought into release dates for big movies. Sometimes it’s to avoid competition with a similar release which may split the audience and negatively affect the box office, sometimes because it wants to be in people’s minds when they nominate films for awards, and sometimes it is to make use of certain demographics (releasing kids films during the summer holidays etc). With that in mind, it is truly baffling why Red One, a Christmas movie, was released in the first week of November, which despite what the adverts on television may be telling you, is not Christmas. I can’t imagine there’s much crossover between the intended audience of Red One, and the intended audience for Night Bitch or the new Lord Of The Rings. There are only two ways I can justify it;

  1. They need it to fail so they can recoup the losses in some form of Hollywood accounting BS
  2. It’s going to be released on streaming services just before Christmas.

There is, of course, the possibility that they want this to be a slow-burn success, that audiences will be so impressed by what they see that they will tell their friends, who will then tell their friends and sooner or later everyone will go see it.

If they wanted that, they should have made a better movie. It’s not terrible, it’s just deeply deeply flawed. The main issue is one of tone. It’s not sure whether it wants to be a family-friendly Christmas adventure or an action movie. At times, it seems like it’s aimed at children, with infantile references and simple narratives, but then there are sexual references and mid-level swears which you’d expect in a mild 15.

I wasn’t a fan of Chris Evans in this. He’s usually very good, and he can do comedy. But for some reason, his style didn’t work in this. It’s hard to buy him as a regular human, even when he is standing next to The Rock. I should point out, that there’s a moment where Nick Kroll gets possessed, and the vocal performance is bad to the point of embarrassment. Other than that, most of the performances are fine, and it’s always nice to see Bonnie Hunt.

There are also pacing issues. It takes FAR too long to get to the point. The opening also repeats itself or says things that could have been saved for later. Personally, I think we should have stayed with Chris Evans character before moving to the mystical part, then our experiences would have been similar to his, with our eyes and minds slowly being shown the magic.

The magic is the best part. Red One incorporates so many worldwide Christmas myths and legends that it’s almost an educational experience. I really enjoy the way they incorporate Gryla. I kind of wish they put more in, but I suppose the hope was to save them for sequels.

In summary; disposable fun, that really should have been released either straight to streaming or closer to Christmas. At the moment, it feels like it’s been sent out to die, and it doesn’t deserve that.

Twisters (2024) Review

Quick synopsis: Haunted by a past encounter with extreme weather conditions, Kate is tempted back into tornado chasing in an attempt to prove her method of disintegrating dangerous tornados will work.

Let’s say you were on a date with someone. The two of you have been messaging for a while and there have been a few moments where their actions could be misconstrued as rude and/or abusive but you felt “I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt”. There’s an undeniable spark between the two so you decide to meet. You sit at the restaurant waiting for them, it’s exciting and you’re nervous. They suddenly appear out of nowhere spinning a circle whilst operating a chainsaw, nearly decapitating you and forcing you to jump away at the last second to avoid getting hurt. For whatever reason, you continue the date. On the journey home they stop the car to let some ducks cross the road, and then pull someone out of a burning car. The next day you get a text from your friend asking how it went. Are you going to respond “Oh it was great, they were so cute and saved someone’s life”, or are you going to respond “They nearly killed me with a chainsaw, fucking sociopath”? The odds are that it will be the second. Once someone nearly kills you with their arrogance and stupidity, it’s hard to overcome that initial “what the fuck is their problem?” feeling, and it will taint every action they do from that point on. I mention that because in Twisters, the kind-of sequel to the 1996 “Oh yeah that film existed, and made a lot of money” disaster Funtime flick Twister, very early on in their interactions we witness Glen Powell’s character Tyler Owens nearly run Kate (a fantastic Daisy Edgar-Jones) and Javi (Anthony Ramos) off the road whilst they’re all chasing a tornado. It’s very easy to see how those actions could have killed those characters. After that, it’s hard to buy him as a romantic lead or someone to root for.

That’s a shame, if they cut out those 3-seconds of almost vehicular manslaughter then Twisters would work a lot better than it does. It’s a much better film than you’d assume it would be. The tornado scenes are incredible to look at, giving you a true sense of the damage they can cause. People who have never seen a tornado may think, “It’s just a bit of wind, just put some Blu-Tack on your shoes and you’ll be fine”. Twisters does a fantastic job of showing why that’s stupid (beyond how expensive Blu-Tack is now), they are destructive forces of nature that arrive, fuck shit up completely, and then leave. That is never more felt than in the opening scene, which introduces a group of dynamic and loveable (plus incredibly smart) teens who it looks like could anchor this film, and then kills almost all of them. It possibly could have done a slightly better job of showing the destruction that flying debris can cause, most of the danger does seem to come from being sucked off.

Some of the dialogue does come off a bit weird. There’s a lot of talk about how “weather has changed a lot and become more dangerous lately” but no discussion as to why. Like it’s so scared about upsetting certain (American) people that it dares not utter the words “Climate Change”. Other than that weird omission, the conversations feel real. That’s because the characters do too. Oddly, there didn’t seem to be any characters from the original movie here at all, I didn’t even see any mention of them. I don’t mind that though as I don’t remember that much from the original, at one point a cow went wooosh. So I think it’s probably for the best that this doesn’t go full “Look kids, it’s the person from the original! Applaud!”, although it does feel like there is one character who was written with “let’s see if we can get Helen Hunt to come back” in mind.

I appreciate how they didn’t dumb the science down. The characters are all supposed to be intelligent and experienced in the field of tornados, so if they were talking to each other they wouldn’t dumb it down. Why would they? They wouldn’t explain the basics, they would talk as if everybody in the room already knows, because odds are they would. Most films wouldn’t do that, they’d write it to get the audience to understand it, which means the characters would be speaking like nobody with their expertise would talk to their peers.

To summarise; a surprisingly good experience, that’s completely tainted by a few seconds of character stupidity that makes it hard to truly love. That moment lingers over the film far too heavily to forget it. Which is a genuine shame, I haven’t witnessed a more damaging three-second incident since [paternity suit pending].

Bad Boys: Ride Or Die (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis; Will Smith slaps people, which never happens outside of these movies.

Is it just me or does it feel like there’s a missing film in this franchise? To me, it feels like the franchise has been: Original film in the ’90s, a surprisingly improved sequel in the mid-2000s, a more serious and mature entry from roughly 2010 or so, a “we’re back” 4th movie, then a 5th “we’re old now” entry. But nope, there was no 2010’s entry. That genuinely surprises me, and not just because I assumed the 2020 one was called Bad Boys For Life only so they could get a “4” in the poster somewhere. None of that was relevant at all, I’m just saying it to demonstrate how, despite having now seen all of them, I don’t particularly have warm feelings toward this franchise. I don’t dislike them, and will never turn them off if they’re on, but I will never go out of my way to watch them. More importantly, I could never speak about anything from these movies with any passion. I never really think of this franchise unless I’m watching them or someone talks to me about them (which makes reviewing it a bit difficult).

Bad Boys: Ride Or Die (Or BB: Rod, pronounced exactly how you expect it to be) doesn’t change that. It’s the most stylistic of them by a long shot; with some actual visual creativity displayed. There were inklings of that in the third one, but Adil and Bilal really let their creative flair flow in this, usually to its advantage. “Usually”. There are moments where it’s ugly as fuck in terms of shot composition. Not every shot HAS to be creative and visually impressive, sometimes a standard shot or transition is acceptable. Yes, there are times when you want cinematic deliciousness, but sometimes you just want a simple toast. BB: ROD has far too many moments where it takes a simple toast and over eggs it like a [generic hotel breakfast joke]. I know it’s weird to criticise a film for being too creative but it definitely does hinder this. Some of the shots are so weird that they actually distract you from what you’re actually seeing.

The story is okay. Doesn’t really surprise you at any point and it is far far too busy. It kind of feels like it wasted some things which could be decent subplots but instead, it was decided to use them for a single joke. There’s one running joke/theme that just doesn’t work though. It feels completely out of place and far too mystical/spiritual for a relatively grounded character. Let’s face it, you’re not watching this for character consistency though. A character nearly dies and is told that he needs to look after his health; this only ever comes up in non-action scenes. Even after being told to avoid stressful situations, he still chases down villains and shoots them with seemingly no issue. The other character does have issues in those scenes though, and it’s here where the film thinks it’s making a point about the need for therapy and dealing with PTSD. But considering the characters actively mock the idea of panic attacks, it doesn’t do a VERY good job of being supportive of mental health issues.

In summary; frustratingly mediocre, but at least it’s trying.

The Fall Guy (2024) Review

Quick synopsis: Retired stuntman Colt Seavers is hired by a studio to attempt to find a missing actor. Yup, it’s just as intelligent as that makes it sound.

I’m a big fan of the work of David Leitch. Every film I’ve seen from him has been reviewed well on this site (Deadpool 2, Bullet Train etc), in fact, they’ve often been the highlights. They’re the kind of films I enjoy watching; fun action movies with creative set pieces. The Fall Guy (or TFG, pronounced Tafug, as in “What ta fug is going on in this movie? I don’t know but I love it”) is no exception. It’s a film about stunt work, so the action scenes have to be top-notch, which they are. From the looks of it, a lot of the work on this was done practically, so everything has a weight to it. When someone ducks, you feel like they’re actually getting out of the way of something the director has thrown at them, rather than just ducking then something being added in post production. Every hit has an impact, so when someone is punched in the face you actually feel the pain. The vehicular stunts are impressive too, with it achieving a Guinness World Record for most cannon rolls in a car. That alone shows the dedication that Leitch and his crew have to making everything feel real.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s still very silly at times. Ryan Babygoose has seemingly stopped attempting to be taken seriously, instead just doing stuff that is fun and a bit weird; which I love. I never would have guessed he had the comedic chops that he does. He’s not quite as brilliant as he was in Barbie, but that’s probably because he’s got less to do. The whole cast is tremendously funny; Blunt is brilliant, Waddington is wonderful, and Taylor-Johnson has too long a name for me to work into an alliterative compliment, but he’s good too, and incredibly punchable in an entertaining way. Annoyingly, this berth of talent does mean that some do feel wasted. Stephanie Hsu in particular feels incredibly underutilized. Even Blunt feels like she could have more to do, which is weird as she’s one of the leads; but there are times when she feels more like a plot device than an actual character. The relationship between the two is very cute, but the tension between them feels overexplained; there are times when the characters defend their motivations for past actions, then say practically the same thing again in case the audience doesn’t get it. My other big criticism of TFG is it uses a Kiss song far too much, I get wanting to associate a certain song with your movie, but Kiss fucking suck and are as manufactured as Boyzone or the Sex Pistols. On that note; fuck the sex pistols.

In summary; TFG is well worth a watch. I’m not sure how it relates to the original television show as I’ve never seen it, but on its own merits it’s an incredibly fun watch which doesn’t feel anywhere near as long as it actually is. It’s a love letter to cinema, to action, and to stunt performers. We need more films like this; ones made with genuine love and care. Where you just know that EVERYBODY is giving their all.

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.