The Roses (2025) Review

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!”.

The Naked Gun (2025) Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deep Cover (2025) Review

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.

Jackpot!(2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Katie (Awkwafina) wins the lottery (yay), unaware that California (boo) has instituted a policy where if you kill the lottery winner before sundown, you get their winnings.

Reviews have not been kind to Jackpot, with a Metacritic score of only 41, and a Rotten Tomato score of 31. That RT score puts it lower than the new Garfield movie. Now I haven’t seen Garfield, but I refuse to believe that this is anywhere near as bad as that. That movie looks terrible, like it would be among the worst of the year if I saw it. Jackpot? There’s nothing offensively bad about it. It’s not the best movie you’ll ever see, but it’s entertaining.

There are so many brilliant lines. They’re not throwaway lines either. It’s incredibly satirical. It makes this point very early on, with lines like “The economy hit record lows, however in a positive sign the stock market is doing well, creating five more billionaires” which are funny but are also uncomfortably true. The satire cuts much deeper than you’d expect. Of all the films that comment on income discrepancy, the perils of fame, etc., you wouldn’t expect it to be a Paul Feig movie starring John Cena and Awkwafina.

That’s also kind of a downside though. It lacks a sense of consistency. There’s a very weird tonal mix. It’s a dystopian nightmare, where life is hell and people have to behave inhumanly just to get a slight hope of success. But then that’s mixed with scenes where John Cena straps Awkwafina to his back and then flicks a woman in her vagina with a beach towel. Whilst we’re talking about Cena and Awkwafina (or; AwkwaCena), I’m not sure Jackpot would work without them, and not just because then it would just be a film about silent empty rooms where nothing is happening. They have surprisingly good chemistry. This is going to be a borderline offensive comparison, but it reminds me of the chemistry between Arnold and DeVito in Twins. They’re having a lot of fun, bouncing off each other well. It helps that there doesn’t seem to be an ego, from the outtakes in the closing credits we can see they’re both perfectly willing to let other people get the laughs.

As much as I enjoyed Jackpot, I know it could have been better. Not just with the tone issues mentioned above. The “twist” is one of those villain reveals that’s so obvious the only twist is that it’s supposed to be a twist. People who are surprised by the reveal in this are the same type of people who are surprised when they watch a superhero movie and someone with a name like “Dr. Murderer Von Genocide III” turns out to be the bad guy. The plot is so basic it might as well be a white woman ordering a pumpkin spice latte. You also get the feeling that Feig is restraining himself somewhat (not in a “Fatal Wanking Accident” way), the fight scenes never quite getting as violent as they could or should.

In summary, not the best, not the smartest, but fun. There’s a fine line between “stupid fun” and “no, just stupid”, and this comes dangerously close to crossing that line, but just manages to stay on the right side. I’m in no hurry to watch it again, but I would if someone else wanted to.

Thelma (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Thelma loses $10,000 to a con artist, she is not very happy about this.

June Squibb is pretty damn cool. She’s best known to me for her role in the (criminally under-appreciated) Table 19, which is still near the top of my list for confusion at the negative reviews. She’s also been utilized in a lot of recent Pixar movies, recently voicing Nostalgia in Inside Out 2: Inside Harder. Yes, she was also in Father Figures but I can’t hold that against her. Thelma is her first chance to lead, and at the age of 94, it’s (as the great philosopher Lizzo once said) about damn time. The only disappointing part about June’s performance is if it was bad I would have had the perfect opportunity to make a “damp Squibb” joke, and now I can’t, stupid actresses ruining my jokes by being talented.

The script does help Thelma too. In the wrong hands it would risk coming off as condescending, or alternatively going too far the other way and having a message of “no, 94-year-old women can still parachute out of a burning helicopter whilst smoking meth, and if you try to stop them then you’re a terrible person”. It also doesn’t attempt to do an “old people swearing/rapping/sex references=comedy” thing, which is a relief. The title character feels real, and her interactions with her grandson (played by Fred Hechinger) are so lovely that I want to watch a road movie featuring the two of them. The two actors share surprisingly good chemistry, there is no sense of distance between them and the warmth radiates off the screen. Not so much with the two parent characters, but they’re not as fleshed out as the main two so that’s to be expected.

Anybody who has spoken to me for more than twenty seconds will know that I’m quite a moody and cynical person. So in many ways, a film like Thelma is the opposite of what it’s expected I’d like. But in another, more accurate, way, this is the exact type of shit I love. Sometimes it’s nice to have “Hey, stop being a condescending dick to your elderly relatives” as a message. It’s not exactly subtle with that message, having characters openly discuss moving Thelma into a home whilst she’s in the room, but discussing it like she’s not there. The moments where it plays like a pseudo-action film are fun to watch too, but it never goes quite as far as you feel it could.

A part of the film I didn’t think worked out that well was the sections in the nursing home. They feel a bit too sitcom-like as if they belong in a lower-quality film with a completely different tone. The director’s use of soft focus on the edges of the frame may be annoying to quite a few people too. It also sucks that this was Richard Roundtree’s final film role, and I’m not a fan of how it reminded me of my grandmother and hence now I’m sad.

Overall, Thelma is delightful. A bit too cutesy at times, but it would take a heart of stone to not be charmed by it. It is not among the best of 2024, but it is certainly among the films that made me feel most warm inside. It’s definitely the best of the two “Old person gets scammed by someone on the phone” movies of the year. Here’s the other one if you were wondering.

Unfrosted (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: A completely untrue story about the origin of Pop Tarts

The biggest thing Unfrosted (shortened to U, pronounced “chabatwangkluman for linguistic reasons I can’t get into) has going for it is that it is very very silly, and demonstrates how silly it is by playing it completely straight. The fact everybody takes all these things so seriously despite the fact it’s ridiculous just demonstrates how absurd a lot of this is.

But that’s also kind of its biggest weakness. Stoic reactions in a comedic world can work, Airplane is an example of that. But that requires ACTORS, everybody in this is a comedian, and they’re all playing the straight role. This feels like a waste of their talents. Jerry Seinfeld is the most affected by this. He’s known for his wit and comedic timing, so it’s weird he wrote himself a role in which he doesn’t get to display any of that. Especially since his acting skills could be improved. Don’t get me wrong, he is a tremendously talented comedian and writer, but he’s a bad actor, and always has been, even back in the days of Seinfeld.

The trouble with EVERY character buying into the silliness is there’s no real way to ground it, nobody is pointing out how stupid it is. As a result, everything feels disconnected, making it very hard to buy in. Without a reason to buy in, it occasionally comes off as a marathon of references and “Future popular thing? That will never catch on.” The story isn’t that compelling either. You don’t actually care about what happens. As such, there’s no reason to be invested. It doesn’t feel like a feature film, it has the air of an SNL sketch stretched out far far too long to the point where it seems a bit obnoxious and like it only exists so the cast can show off how funny they are, in other words, an SNL sketch.

This review may give the impression that I didn’t care about Unfrosted. Truth is; it’s one of the funniest films I’ve seen this year. The jokes are like a chronic masturbater who has just recovered from surgery which meant he couldn’t use his hand; they come frequently and with great satisfaction. You may not be invested in the story, but you’re never bored. If you don’t understand or like a certain joke, there will be another one in a few seconds that you will like. It’s not going to change the world, make you reassess your feelings about something, or make you forget that Seinfeld is now one of those comedians who complains about how “woke ruins everything”, but it will make you laugh, and sometimes that’s all you need. Plus, in a world where a biopic for a shoe genuinely exists (and is pretty good), is one about pop tarts really so far-fetched?

Seize Them! (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Queen Dagan has been toppled by a revolution led by Humble Joan. With the help of servant Shulmay, she aims to get her crown back.

I’m aware I am kind of pretentious sometimes when it comes to my film taste. But it’s a weird kind of pretentiousness, one which will talk endlessly about obscure Polish films, or how the work of Lotte Reiniger still holds up almost 100 years later. Yet, I also dislike Men (the film, not the gender, although….) and I’m not that fond of the films of Wes Anderson.

So whilst my taste may run a little weird at times, I love films that are just dumb fun. They’re not trying to change the world, or wow you, they’re just there to distract you from the Western-supported genocide occurring 2000 miles away (wait until you find out the fucked up shit I found out whilst googling that distance by the way). It’s in this sphere of silliness that Seize Them falls. It’s different from something like Bill, which had historical in-jokes and at least had the pretence that it happened in reality. There’s no effort to pretend this is real; it’s a live-action cartoon in a fictionalised version of history. This has as much in common with the Dark Ages as the Artemis Fowl movie has with the books it was (supposedly) based on.

This isn’t something you can see being quoted in an academic paper. It’s not supposed to be though. It’s just dumb jokes wrapped up in a different time. It does make the most of the concept though, there are a lot of jokes which wouldn’t work outside of this context, which is something I always like. I like when jokes are unique to a film, especially if it’s a comedy set outside of “now”. Crucially, it doesn’t have any of those “knowing” jokes. You know the kind, where someone invents a modern invention and is rubbished, or otherwise makes a reference to modern times. The kind of “It’s a communication device mixed with a telescope, we call it an Eye-Phone”. I know comedy is subjective, and different jokes for different folks. But those are the ones that come up a lot in films like this and I cannot stand them, not just in a “that joke didn’t land” way, when I see those jokes, it actively turns me against the film.

The jokes are helped by just how talented the cast is. Casual audiences are more likely to be aware of Nick Frost (from his films with Simon Pegg), Nicola Coughlan (from Derry Girls, Bridgerton, and “you won’t believe how old she is” posts on Facebook), or James Acaster (from memes about the world falling apart). It’s mainly led by Aimee Lou Wood (from Sex Education) and Lolly Adefope (from Ghosts/Taskmaster), they make a good pair, sharing natural chemistry. They spend a lot of time with experienced comedy performer Nick Frost, and they easily match him. They both nail their roles perfectly. Lou Wood turns what could be an annoying character into someone sympathetic. Kind of sympathetic anyway. The third-act conflict only really happens because of her character derailment. Also, I’m still not quite sure that with the world the way it is at the moment, a movie about how “this rich useless person who holds all the power is someone you should be sympathetic towards, the woman fighting against her and campaigning for equality is just a phoney who will end up being a dictator”, is that really a message that needs to be put into the world right now?

In summary, a hilarious movie, with oddly memorable music. Not the best film of the year, but incredibly fun. For better (the jokes, the performances) and for worse (the production values, the pacing), it does feel a bit like an extended episode of a Channel 4 sitcom. Funny as hell though. I mean, how many other films have two characters die from fatal wanking incidents? It should have had a better cinema release though, at my local it was only on once a day, and with zero promotion.

Quiz Lady (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Anne and Jerry’s mother gets into debt with the mob. In order to pay off the debt (and get her pet dog back), Anne goes on a quiz show.

I fucking love Awkwafina. From the first time I saw her on-screen in Jumanji: The Next Level, through to Renfield, she has consistently been the highlight of almost every film she’s in. She’s carved a niche as a sarcastic brilliant mess. Conversely, Sandra Oh is best known for playing smart characters who are in control. So it’s weird that Quiz Lady has them do the opposite. It’s a nice subversion of audience expectations. Doing something like that does run the risk of coming off as an acting exercise, but it works in this. They’re both clearly having a blast, being surprisingly great at playing against type.

They have really great chemistry, to the point where it is easy to buy them as siblings. They’re helped by a script full of moments which showcase how much Jenny (Oh) really does care for her sister Anne (Awkwafina). There are so many moments where the script is damn near perfect. The story, however, not so much. It’s incredibly predictable, in a basic way. Just by watching the trailer you can probably pinpoint the three-act structure. But it’s what it does within those confines that make it interesting. Even though the moments are predictable, it still surprises you with how it does it. Even the traditional “what happened next” ending includes a random “Capitalism is broken” message in it.

It also uses the framework it’s in to create some genuinely heartfelt moments, mainly between the sisters. Weirdly (and never thought I’d say this), the most emotional scene comes from Will Ferrell, where he showcases his affection for previous guests on the show. He’s aided by his “rivalry” with Jason Schwartzman’s character, who feels like he’s just doing a Steve Carrell impression.

Now onto the bad; it has one of the worst uses of Eye Of The Tiger in cinematic history. Because of the Rocky movies (a touching tale of unrequited love between one man’s fist and another man’s face), that song has certain expectations attached to it. When you hear that, you expect something triumphant and epic, and that doesn’t really happen in this. It builds up to it, then neutered like a feral cat, only much quicker.

The rapid-fire nature of the jokes also means that some don’t work, there’s an entire character that clearly seemed hilarious on paper but just does not work on screen. I think it’s because it feels shoehorned in. It had the potential to affect the plot, all it would have needed was one conversation between that character and one of the sisters, one moment of meaning could have justified his inclusion. As it is, it just felt like “Okay, they’re staying in a hotel, add some jokes”, like they’re just jokes for joke’s sake, rather than having any thought between them, and they’re not even good jokes.

Overall, this is definitely worth a watch. It’s not going to change your life, but it’s not meant to. It’s escapism at its (almost) best. Sometimes that’s all you want in life. In the UK it’s available on Disney+, and you could do a lot worse.

Fisherman’s Friends: One And All (2022)

Quick synopsis: Cornish singing fisherman continue to sing, this time joined by a Welsh farmer.

Fun fact: the synopsis currently on google is “After the highs of performing on the pyramid stage at Glastonbury, the group struggle with their second album. During a divisive tour of South Australia, they will trace their ancestors and embrace a new community, and discover their musical DNA.”, that’s not what happens. The film ENDS with them on the pyramid stage at Glastonbury, so I’m not entirely sure what is going on there. And the one on IMDB is just “a sequel to the first film”. Bit weird.

I’ll admit, I was going to be a bit cheeky in this. My original plan for this review was to just post the review of the first one, and then make a snarky comment about how weirdly everything about my review still fits. I read that review, and I was going through it I was thinking “wow, this is actually perfect, ALL of this still applies to this film”. But then I got to this line:

“The above made complete sense in relation to this film. Which is weird, as with the exception of 3 words, it was lifted word for word from an earlier review.”

The rest of the review mentioned some specific things about the film, but that one sentence is a curse. Because it means this film is so generic that I can do a review that’s not even a copy, but is a copy of a copy. I missed about 6 minutes of the film, and wasn’t lost when I came back. Stuff had happened in that gap, but it was stuff you knew was going to happen. In fact, I’d argue that you only need to watch about 15 minutes of this to get the whole plot. It’s a shame as it is enjoyable. It’s funny, heartwarming, and everybody is doing a great job. At its heart, it is a good film. It does everything well. There’s nothing inherently bad about it, and it’s a difficult film to dislike. When you’re watching it you’re not bored or distracted. Everybody in the screen I was in enjoyed it. If it’s on TV and I need something on in the background, I’ll keep it on. But I can’t imagine a scenario where I’d go out of my way to watch it. In a months time I won’t be able to remember any lines from it or moments I enjoyed, and as time goes on it will be increasingly difficult to remember what happened in this film and what happened in the first one. There are certain scenes in this that I felt I’d seen before, and that’s never a good thing. I’ll admit, there were also times I laughed, and times I was emotionally affected by the film. But there was absolutely nothing that will stay with me.

So to sum up: you won’t be bored or angry, but it’s not going to change your life. It’s almost the perfect definition of “If you liked the first one”.

On The Count Of Three (2021)

Quick Synopsis: Val (Jerrod Carmichael) and Kevin (Christopher Abbot) are two friends on a mission: have one last good day before killing themselves.

This is a unique film. I sent a few people the trailer for this and the responses varied from “are you sure you didn’t write it?” and “that’s very concerning. are you okay?”. It’s something which is going to be off-putting for a lot of people. It’s an acquired taste, and one that a lot of people won’t like. Personally, I loved it, and a large part of that was the dialogue. That’s what I’m going to base this review around, the dialogue. Here goes:

“I didn’t know I had to set a Save The Date for a double suicide”/“I’m not listening to Papa fucking Roach on the day I commit suicide”

Kicking off with a big one. Yup, this is about two people planning a double suicide (which is a good number of people to have if you are planning it: one is not enough, three is too many, and fifty-six is just silly). None of this would work if the relationship between the main two wasn’t believable. I’m not that familiar with the work of either of the two performers, but they make a natural double act. They bounce off each other so well that it feels like they’ve been performing together for years, but (judging by the IMDB credits anyway) this is the first thing they’ve starred in together. They will also be in Yorgos Lanthimos’s (best known for The Favourite, The Lobster, and The Killing Of A Sacred Deer) Poor Things; alongside Emma Stone, Willem Dafoe, and Mark Ruffalo. If a studio had any brains they’d sign those two guys up and get them to lead an action franchise together.

“if the guests can’t follow the rules then visitation rights will be revoked”

That’s a much more important line than you’ll think. It’s delivered by someone in the facility Kevin is in after he attempts suicide. It demonstrates that it’s not really about caring for the people in the facility. If you have a heavily suicidal person, you don’t threaten to cut off their connection to the outside world. You don’t threaten to isolate them from their friends just because their friends decided to smoke. That’s shitty behaviour and is the kind of “rules are more important than results” bullshit that leads to increased suicides and ineffectual “well we did what we could” platitudes from people who in reality did nothing. That’s very early on in the film, so it sets up how seriously this film takes the subject. It doesn’t hide away from the dark reality of not just having it, but how other people deal with you when you have it.

“not waking up tomorrow is the most beautiful thought I’ve had in a long time”

On the subject of beauty, there are some beautiful shots here. Jerrod Carmicheal does a fantastic job of making ordinary shots look good. It’s not quite at “oh my god these are the most beautiful visuals I’ve seen” levels, but there is a dark elegance to the normality he portrays. He’s mainly known for acting, playing a semi-fictionalised version of himself in The Carmichael Show, which I’ve yet to see but I’ve heard is absolutely astounding in how it tackles some of the issues, especially the Bill Cosby controversy. His directing has mainly been documentaries and stand up specials. Those have been enough that even without this film you’d know to keep an eye on his future. For example, Drew Michael was an incredibly unique way of shooting a stand up special, so made clear to everyone how creative Carmichael can be. While he is a great performer, I’m much more interested in what he brings to the table as a director in the future.

“You just tried to kill yourself three days ago don’t tell me suicide is not the answer”

That made me laugh, so much. As did a lot of lines in this. While it is about depression, it does still make you laugh, but never about the situation, you laugh at the characters. It’s really difficult to a film about a subject like this, and not have it offend people. It’s a really tricky line to walk, to make a comedy like this, and not have it feel like it’s exploiting the situation. This walks that line brilliantly and is a testament to the very clever script.

“good times, nice to see you”

Said by a former bully of the main characters. The “good times” he’s referring to by the way, are when he ran Kevin over in his truck, causing him to undergo physical therapy for a year. It’s brutal, but is also kind of honest in how people like that never see themselves accurately. They see what they did at school to people as funny and just something that happened, they don’t see the horrific impact it has on peoples lives. Just shows that the script knows what it’s like to live that life.

“that unhappiness, it’s a good thing, it will push you”

Usually, this is portrayed genuinely, the myth that depression is good because it can be used as a motivating tool for artists. You don’t need happiness, you don’t need enough money to pay your bills, just stay miserable and poor. It’s good that this film has that line be said by a character who is an abusive prick, but who is also rich. The character who says it? Henry Winkler, a.k.a The Fonz. He’s in it, as are other big names like JB Smooth and Tiffany Haddish, but not much. This is mainly about the two leads, somewhat to their detriment. It would have been nice to pull away from them once just to see how people are reacting to them. Because the focus is so small that it feels like a small-time story, and to go from that to the ending is a huge shift.

“guns are crazy, how are these legal?”

This is such an American film. From the way that it treats mental illness, to how easily they can get guns. This wouldn’t work as well in another country. Especially at the end when Val is in prison. That’s my negative for this film, the closing third feels a bit too much like a story someone has written in class. All feels a bit too fake compared to the grounded nature of the rest of the film. Him being in jail at the end also doesn’t answer some questions, did he actually get jailed for the murders? Or was he just charged as an accessory? That changes everything. Yes, it does seem like he’s happier now than he was. But him being locked for a few years while his child grows up is a very different ending than him being away for decades. I get why it ended like that, to show the irony that he was free and miserable, but now he’s locked up but happy.

“When a customer is talking, you listen bro, it hurts to be ignored”

And there it is. What this film is. Frustration. Frustration with yourself, frustration with your past, frustration with your lack of future. So while it is funny, and it is sad at times, really the emotion I’m most left with from this story is pain. It’s incredibly real, and if you have ever been in a place to recognise that reality, this film will speak to you like few others will.

So in summary I’d say you should watch this. It’s not among the best films I’ve seen, but it is definitely the most “me”.