Tag: Comedy

Fackham Hall (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Downtown Abbey meets Airplane, but not in a plane crash way.

We’re beginning to reach the end of 2025, which means it’s soon time for me to write the annual awards. So I’m starting to think of the best movies of the year. Among the obvious candidates are a film about the power of music mixed in with a gothic tale of racism and American history, a personal drama about trauma and family via a visit to a concentration camp, and a tale about the existence of the afterlife and all the implications of eternity. All very serious topics, all very “big”. Despite how that might make me look; I adore silliness. I like silly, fun little films, of which Fackham Hall is one of the best of the year. Really, the only comparison lately is The Naked Gun, which had the advantage of having an established style.

So, how does this compare? It’s not quite as joke heavy as TNG, with a distinct lack of sign-based jokes which aren’t signposted. There are also fewer background jokes. Basically, I don’t think there are any jokes that I missed that I’ll catch on a second viewing. So I didn’t laugh as often as I did during TNG, but I did laugh louder. I can remember more jokes from this than I can TNG, although that might be down to me having seen it more recently.

But does it stand out on its own? I’d say it does. There was a surprisingly full screening when I went, and everybody seemed entertained. Nobody walked out, which for a film barely advertised and which from the poster you could mistake for a period drama, was a pleasant surprise.

The performances are exactly what’s needed. I’m not familiar with Ben Radcliffe, but he does seem like he’d be perfect in an actual period drama. Thomasin McKenzie is building a weird filmography, which makes it hard to pin down her niche: JoJo Rabbit, Last Night In Soho, The Justice Of Bunny King, and now this. All of those are completely different films, and her roles are very different, yet they’re all somehow still “her”; she’s one of the most chameleonic (is that a word? Is now) performers around. Katherine Waterston is quickly becoming one of my favourite performers, which is odd as I’ve never intentionally seen a film because she’s in it; she just happens to be in films I watch, and happens to always be REALLY good. She has a face that feels like its come straight out of the 1940’s, so she’s perfect for films like this. She also has surprisingly perfect comic timing.

On the downside, the plot is muddled. The murder of the lord feels weird in terms of pacing. The arrival of the detective investigating it turns it more into a Hercule Poirot pastiche than a period parody. That feels like a genre rife for parody, but we’re not given enough time to fully explore that. I would be fully up for a sequel with that concept, by the way. If the murder was cut out, then it would leave a hole that needs fixing (and you’d lose one of the funniest sequences), but I’m sure it could be replaced with something more suitable. It feels like Jimmy Carr wanted to put those jokes in, not realising it might have been smarter to save them for a different film; now he can’t use those jokes and scenes in a more suitable film.

The reveal at the end is a bit too obvious, but not obvious enough that it seems deliberate and is, as such, a joke. Similar to the reveal of the murderer. But I think that if you go into a film like this expecting to be wowed by the plot, you’re in the wrong movie.

Really, the biggest negative of watching this is how it affected my viewing experience of another film. You know how, when you play Tetris or Guitar Hero, it changes the way you see things briefly? All you can see is falling circles and bricks for a while? I went through a comedic version of that. My brain watched the next fil,m and it took about 20 minutes for it to adjust and try not to see a joke in every single action or moment. That’s the biggest compliment I can give this film; It broke my brain with comedy.

Friendship (2024) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick synopsis: Craig Waterman, a reclusive man, meets his new neighbour, Austin Carmichael, and forms an unexpected friendship with him. As their friendship grows, so does Craig’s obsession with Austin.

I think I’ve done this backwards. The way this was supposed to go was I watch I Think You Should Leave With Tim Robinson (starring some guy, Tim something, can’t remember), get used to his comedic style, and then watch this. I still haven’t seen the TV show (it’s on my list), so I went into this with a minimal understanding of what to expect. My best bet was that this would feel like All My Friends Hate Me (as reviewed here) and be an incredibly awkward “Social Horror”. I have mixed feelings about that movie, in some ways, it was TOO effective to be enjoyable. Friendship handles it much better. It is so heightened that it goes past relatable to the point of absurdity; if it didn’t, the film itself would be uncomfortable. Yes, it is incredibly awkward, but it stays JUST weird enough that it is still enjoyable to watch.

It helps that the decisions are logical. AMFHM felt like the other characters were deliberately gaslighting the lead; that’s the only way their decisions made sense. This? Even when Austin (Tim’s character) does incredibly weird things, you can follow his logic. As an outsider, you can see how that logic is twisted and flawed, but most of the time, you can fully understand how he reached that conclusion. It’s a difficult balancing act, and Friendship walks it perfectly, most of the time. His wife’s welcome back party veers into cruelty; it’s one of the few times where it’s difficult to follow his train of logic. I also have an issue with having the opening scene be him and his wife at a cancer survivors group, then not making the recovery a plot point. I’m not saying that the whole film should have been “The Chemo Support Club”, but you could delete it from the script and it would not change the narrative at all, which feels like a weird thing to say about something so life-changing. Whilst I’m on the subject of the negatives, I’m not sure if it’s intentional or not, but there’s one scene where someone says “weed”, and there’s a really random and loud honking noise. Not sure if its a reference to something, but it’s strange.

Now onto the positive; Paul Rudd gets a chance to flex his acting abilities here, and play someone different from the “Hi, I’m Paul Rudd, I’m going to make droll comments where I move my head to the side in the middle of the sentence”. He gets to show fear, he gets to be freaked out, he gets to be vulnerable. Obviously, this is Tim Robinsons film, but the writing makes him constantly feel like the side character in his own movie; strangely, I mean that as a compliment. He feels like someone who would be the side character in a normal film; the odd kooky neighbour of the lead who’s only there for comedic purposes. So seeing him as the lead is oddly subversive, like we’re seeing something we shouldn’t be able to. It’s like when a long-running TV show has an episode devoted entirely to a background character, the audience is keen to see what they’re like in general day-to-day life, and in Friendship, they get it.

What really made this work for me is it does have a genuine heart under all the social cruelty. It’s not going to have you feel warm and fuzzy inside, but there a few moments which will genuinely make you smile. The best example of this is the ending, which I won’t spoil, but is delightful and exactly how you want a movie like this to end; with narrative closure.

In summary; weird, awkward, but strangely lovable. But that’s enough me, the film is good too. Although it took me a while to get past Paul Rudd’s likeness to Matthew Baynton.

Time Travel Is Dangerous! (2024) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Ruth and Megan run a vintage shop in Muswell Hill, using a time machine to source new old stock.

It’s nice reviewing films people know and are excited for, to add my voice to the conversation that millions of people around the world are having. But there’s also something to be said about reviewing something not quite as well-known. Films like Time Travel Is Dangerous (TTID, pronounced Tit-tied), which at the time of writing has only 25 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, that’s critic and audience total. It deserves more than that.

I’m not really surprised, though. This film is incredibly British and quite low-budget. It’s not low budget in a way that makes you wonder how they managed to miraculously produce something on that budget; it wears its budget on its sleeve, and that’s not meant as an insult. If anything, it adds to the charm. And TTID is very charming. The characters using a time machine to bring back stuff to sell in a vintage shop? Brilliant idea. And anybody who has worked retail will recognise someone trying to buy the shop vacuum, and then being annoyed that they can’t do it. It helps that the two charity shop workers (Ruth and Megan, played by two women called *checks notes* Ruth and Megan, well, how am I supposed to remember that?) are incredibly likeable. Apparently, they are the real-life owners of a vintage shop in Muswell Hill. That genuinely surprises me. Usually, you can spot non-actors in films like this, especially as the leads. I had no idea; I just assumed they were involved in production somehow.

There are some great jokes here. An inventor’s group having a motto that’s “insert motto here” in Latin? Love it. Yeah, the jokes aren’t the smartest, but they’re funny. It’s also surprisingly poignant at times, especially the sub-plot with Botty and Ralph. I didn’t expect to find a touching treatise on fame and friendship inside a film as silly as this, but I’m glad it’s there. The entire inventor’s group is full of fun characters and jokes, so for two-thirds of the film, it’s delightful.

But then we get the final third. This section takes place in the other universe (there is a proper name for it, but I’ve forgotten it). It feels WAY too disconnected from the rest. There’s an almost entirely new cast of characters, a different visual style, and different comedy. The rest of the film is like a documentary; this part isn’t. So it feels like it takes place in a different film, where the characters of this one have just invaded it. It seems like that’s where most of the budget went (I’m guessing). It’s a shame, as that’s clearly the most ambitious part, so it feels somewhat mean to knock them for it. But it is definitely the weakest part, and knocks it down quite a bit.

There are some people who will enjoy that part, and there are also likely to be people who hate my favourite part: when Ruth is turned into a teenager because of issues caused by the time machine. I like it, I found it funny, and I liked how it drove a division between the two leads. But it’s easy to see how some may see it as a stupid diversion. Like I’ve said before, film reviews are all opinion, and opinions are never objective.

This won’t be a film liked by most people. But those who like low-budget silliness will enjoy it.

Bride Hard (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

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.

The Roses (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick synopsis: Theo and Ivy are a married couple who are slowly starting to resent each other.

I have not read the book this movie is based on, and I also haven’t seen the original 1989 adaptation. So this review will not contain any “but in the original version they did this” or “in the book this character had a different job, ruined!”. I’ll be taking this on its own merits. On its own merits, this is a damn fine movie. The laughs start early on and don’t stop until the credits roll. That’s not hyperbole; the fade to credits is, in itself, a joke.

One of the most exciting things for me about this was the knowledge that statistically, there’s a high chance that people went in not knowing what it was. They saw Cumberbatch, they saw Colman, and thought it would be a sweet romantic comedy, not knowing how angry and bitter it would get. Meanwhile, I had seen the trailer, so I knew that it was going to be cynical and spiteful and more cold-hearted than a polar bears internal organs that have been stuffed in the freezer for transplant purposes. I would sit there in the knowledge that I knew what to expect, whereas they did not. Oh, how I would mock those fools. But, much like every web comic on April Fools Day 2016, perhaps I am the fool. Because, yes, this is somewhat mean-spirited and bitter (especially in the final scenes, which I’m not a fan of how extreme they got), it’s also incredibly heart-warming.

Crucially, The Roses doesn’t make them hate each other that quickly. We see how their relationship started, then see them together and happy before the cracks start showing, and even longer before those cracks become big enough to cause structural damage. It means that the trailers were somewhat misleading, but I preferred it like this. It meant that we actually wanted them to be together. No matter how funny their barbs are (and they are), there is still a small part of you that feels disappointed that it’s come to this. It’s not like you’re watching two characters in a farce gradually descend into silliness, it’s more like you’re watching two friends tear into each other while you’re helpless to watch.

I’m not sure if you’re aware of Chekov’s Gun. Essentially, it’s a narrative device that says elements in a story must be necessary to justify their inclusion. For example, if you introduce a gun in the first act, then that gun must be fired later on. Obviously, not EVERYTHING, if a character has a cup of tea, it doesn’t mean you then have to reveal that without hot leaf water they will die. But if you make a point to specifically mention and highlight that the character is drinking tea, audiences would be forgiven for expecting that to be an important plot point later on. Sometimes this is done incredibly subtly; a spy movie will feature the character being handed a gadget while being told, “Now this device is lethal to people called Keith”, then the villain will turn out to be someone called Keith. When it’s done well, it’s a sight to behold, and few films have done it as well as The Roses. We’re introduced to so many things that we can easily think of as just symbols of excess and AMERICA, but then turn out to be vital in the third act.

It’s not all great. I wasn’t a fan of just how sociopathic they both turned at the end. Which is weird, as some of the negative reviews I’ve read have highlighted those moments as their favourite parts. It just felt like a huge leap from “flicking eyeballs” (not sexy slang) to “aiming a gun at”. There are also moments where it does feel like it’s repeating itself, and some of their friends should have noticed something was amiss earlier.

In general, though? I enjoyed it. It’s not as cynical as I expected, but it has bite when it needs to. Also, it’s good that a film like this basically centres around the message “FFS, communicate!”.

Happy Gilmore 2 (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick synopsis: Gilmore returns to the sport of golf since his retirement after winning his first Tour Championship, to finance his daughter’s ballet classes

I will admit, I loved Adam Sandler’s movies as a teen. But as I’ve grown up, I’ve come to find his characters a bit petulant and annoying. Plus, his films have a weird attitude to women; with most of the love interests being more like mothers than lovers. His characters are kind of embarrassing to watch, especially since they all share the same flaws, and the lesson they learn is normally “everyone else is the problem, you shouldn’t change”. Nowhere is this more evident than in the opening of this movie; where he kills his wife accidentally, then his life falls apart; not because of grief, not because of trauma (in fact, the idea that he killed his wife playing golf doesn’t play into the narrative as much as it should, there’s no “but I can’t play golf, golf killed my wife” moments), but because he sucks as an adult and has no idea how to pay bills.

If you can still watch ’90s Sandler and enjoy it, then you will like this. There are a lot of callbacks to the original, which fans will appreciate. On the downside, the movie doesn’t trust you to remember the first film, so a lot of callbacks are prefaced by flashbacks to what is about to be referenced. That’s to be expected from a modern Sandler film; as are the other main faults: the narrative stopping so a character can make a joke, repetitiveness, and the insistence of Sandler putting his friends and family in major roles.

It’s when it’s not traditional Sandler that HG2 shows its best. The message of “no, tradition should be upheld instead of being ignored for something new and flashy” is unexpected. Also unexpected is the redemption arc of Shooter. It feels very in-character, though. Part of the reason he was the villain in the first movie was that he hated how Happy treated the game. So there’s zero reason for him to go along with a plan to change the game to the extent the villain in this movie suggests. The tributes to the cast members who have passed are genuinely sweet whilst remaining tonally consistent with the franchise. I also enjoyed one of the early golf games, where Happy is a drunken mess. That moment is helped by the people he’s playing with, who are played by Eric Andre and Margaret Qualley. It does kind of suck that those characters are never seen again. There are multiple moments where I feel they could have belonged. The villains’ super team of golfers are also an interesting group of characters, who are less developed than an improv comics stand-up set.

In summary, if this came out 20 years ago, I’d have loved it. As it is? It’s just kind of sad. Especially when it shows hints of being a much better movie.

Freakier Friday (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

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

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

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.

Deep Cover (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: DS Billings is a cop who needs help infiltrating a local drugs ring, so employs the most logical people possible: Improv Comedians.

Certain streaming sites have a higher expectation of quality when it comes to their originals. With Mubi, you expect something that, even if you don’t like it, is well-made and has something you will appreciate. Disney+ originals will be slick and well-produced, but overly stylised. Amazon Prime? They’re usually the most avoidable. Their original films are normally “we paid someone who has been successful in the past to make something not quite as good”, a perfect example? The last Guy Ritchie film. I will admit, it’s not helped by Prime being, undoubtedly, the WORST streaming service, one which isn’t so much “user-unfriendly” as openly hostile to the viewer, bombarding them with adverts just as you were starting to get into the film, because obviously, Amazon isn’t rich enough. Also, the last action film with Bryce Dallas Howard was Argylle, which was a huge disappointment. So it’s fair to say my expectations were low, especially in a year which has provided more disappointments than a night in a hotel room with [complete joke here].

Even with those low standards, Deep Cover still disappoints me, because it’s so good. I was hoping it would be bad so I could make jokes about how terrible it is. But nope. It’s good. Really good. A very solid 7.5/10. If you think about the premise too much, you will see it for the bullshit it is, but it’s entertaining enough that you don’t think about that while you’re watching it.

A huge part of Deep Cover working is the cast. Bryce Dallas Howard is great at showing comedic exasperation, but not overdoing it. Nick Mohammed plays a similar character to the one he did in Ted Lasso, but I’m starting to think that is actually what he’s like. I’m most surprised by Orlando Bloom. I feel a bit sorry for him; his career went kind of downhill, and I’m not sure why. He’s not thought of as washed up; he still gets decent work, but his heyday does seem to be over, which is odd as he hasn’t really had that many notable failures. He’s really good in this, overly intense and dramatic. Sonoya Mizuno is fun. I’ve seen her in stuff before, mainly in the work of Alex Garland, and I’ve always liked her, but I’ve never felt to single her out until now. The rest of the cast is fun too. If you’re familiar with the British comedy scene, you’ll be delighted at who they managed to get in some of the smaller roles. Related to that, Deep Cover has fantastic characters. Even people who are only there for a minute or so are memorable; they’re well written enough that the universe seems ripe for spin-offs.

It’s described as an “action comedy”, but the comedy definitely comes first. It’s difficult to recall many action sequences that were notable. The comedy is definitely memorable, though. There are some truly great jokes and comedic set-pieces here. There are potential comedic gold mines which go unexplored, mainly the characters’ interactions with others. It would have been nice to see how some of their friends would react to the situation, especially since the two moments where we do see a glimpse of the wider world are hilarious.

In summary, all your instincts will tell you to avoid this movie, avoid those. It’s not the greatest, but it is a hell of a lot of fun.

The Penguin Lessons (2024) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn Review1 Comment

Quick Synopsis: An Englishman experiences personal and political changes after p-p-p-picking a penguin during a turbulent time in Argentina’s history.

You’ve seen the trailer, so you know how this film is going to go. A stuffy teacher in a foreign country is going to struggle to fit in, but then he finds a cute animal companion. Through this animal, he learns the value of kindness, but the out-of-touch leaders at his school try to stop him. Eventually, he’ll fall in love with a local woman. It will be heartwarming, it will be safe, and it will be predictable.

Nope. The “out of touch principal” section is very short, to the point of being inconsequential. He also doesn’t fall in love, or even gain a new social group. Truth be told, it’s not REALLY about a man and a penguin, it’s about a man in a fascist regime, coming to terms with personal responsibility and how to help in a world where you feel helpless. This isn’t done very subtly. A character flat out tells him that she expects bad people to do bad things, but she’s frustrated when good people do nothing. That character is then “arrested” in public while the main character just stands nearby, frozen to the spot.

It’s easy to criticise the character for doing that, but it’s also easy to see why he wouldn’t do anything. He knows that if he tries to help, he’ll either be arrested or executed. The government at the time (and the one that followed it) were arrested and disappeared. Don’t worry, the country was suitably chastised by *checks notes* being given a World Cup and financial backing from the West.

I’ve read some reviews that have criticised this movie for how it flips between being a silly movie about a penguin and being a serious movie about government oppression. I didn’t mind it, in fact, I really enjoyed the way they did it. Fascism doesn’t only affect you during the serious moments, it affects you when you’re making jokes with your friends, and an officer arrests you for thinking you were mocking him, it affects the TV you watch because your favourite show has been cancelled for not being patriotic enough. It doesn’t segregate or only rear its head at certain times, it causes your life to switch from comedic to serious real fucking quick. How many people do you think have made jokes, unaware that the secret police are right outside their door, ready to disappear them?

As you can tell, I did enjoy this film. Although, spoilers, (kind of, it won’t affect how you view the story), the penguin fucking dies. You will feel things. It is an emotional scene in a surprisingly emotional movie. If you had told me in the 90s that the guy who played Alan Patridge would give a subtle and brilliant dramatic performance, I’d have wondered why you were a grown adult talking to a child, and also “Who’s Alan Partridge? I haven’t watched that yet. I wouldn’t even watch The Day Today until the very late 90s”. But if you told me in the 2000s, I would have been doubtful. Coogan seems to have walked away from his comedic roles and into more dramatic fare. It suits him; he has a “classical English actor” face, and it’s good to see his performances finally match it.