Bride Hard (2025) Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!”.

Happy Gilmore 2 (2025) Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Naked Gun (2025) Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The Penguin Lessons (2024) Review

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.

One Of Them Days (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: When her boyfriend takes her rent money, Alyssa and her roommate race against the clock to avoid eviction

I love the Friday franchise, ever since I first saw the second one. They’re fun, funny, and very American. The first two were a huge part of my adolescence, and why I couldn’t honestly say that they shaped me in any way or form, I have, and will always have, warm feelings towards them. I’m hoping that in the future, people will be saying that about One Of Them Days (OOTD, pronounced ooot-ta-da). It does everything that Friday did well; the chemistry between the two leads (one of whom is played by a musician), a plot that revolves around finding money while trying to juggle adult responsibilities, a romantic yearning over someone, a group of unique and weird background characters. The biggest difference between the two is the lack of family presence in OOTD. Other than that, they are very similar. Not in a derivative or “what’s the point if I’ve already seen Friday?” way. More like hearing two bands play the same song; yes, the core beats are the same, but it’s up to the talent involved to make it work and play the same narrative tune differently.

Everyone involved is clearly talented. Keke Palmer continues to impress. I loved her in Nope, but OOTD allows her to flex her comedic muscles. She also has great chemistry with SZA (funnily enough; they both starred in the same episode of SNL back in 2022, I don’t know whether that had anything to do with this movie, I just found it an interesting tidbit). This is SZA’s acting debut, but you couldn’t tell. Most of the dramatic weight does go to Palmer, but there are no moments where you look at SZA and think it’s stunt casting, She more than holds her own, and while I don’t see her winning any Academy Awards in the next few years, I wouldn’t be surprised if she was given sole lead duties in something.

The supporting cast is great too, being helped by how weird the characters are. Katt Williams in particular is clearly having a lot of fun. It’s the first time I’ve seen Keyla Monterroso Mejia, but I’m a huge fan of what she did in the short moments she was on screen.

OOTD will not change your life. I can’t imagine it being the film which influences future generations to create. But it is an insanely fun time, and one I’m definitely glad I watched. I’m also curious what Syreeta Singelton will come up with next. She’s got a talent for dialogue and characterisation. The plot isn’t perfect, with it occasionally feeling like a series of skits using the narrative as an excuse to move between them, rather than a cohesive story where stuff happens. A few scenes also go on a bit too long because the script needs to fit a few more jokes in. But those are minor quibbles. It’s still something you’re unlikely to regret seeing.

Dear Santa (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: A dyslexic child accidentally writes a letter to Satan instead of Satan. That’s it, that’s the movie.

The Farrelly Brothers have directed some of the most well-regarded comedies of the modern age; Dumb and Dumber, There’s Something About Mary etc. Jack Black also has a pretty damn good history in comedies; the modern Jumanji movies, School Of Rock, Kung Fu Panda. With that much comedy pedigree, and with such a simple premise, this should be fantastic.

It isn’t. It isn’t the worst film Jack Black has been in recently (Hello, Borderlands), but it is definitely in the lower half. None of the issues are with the performers, Black is on form, and even though she’s only in it a little section, I LOVE Cate Freedman as the crossing guard (disappointingly she’s not even mentioned on the Wikipedia page). The issue is the script. It’s incredibly disjointed. The main problem is a lack of cohesion in terms of audience. Much like Red One, this feels like it needs to either age up or down. At times it feels like a kids’ movie. The “here’s what I can do for you” sequence feels like it’s aimed at pre-teens. Some moments feel like they’re lifted directly from a 90s Christmas movie. But then it makes jokes about the sexual abuse of a minor and the consequences of fucking a dog, which makes you feel it’s aimed more at 15-year-olds who want to be thought of as mature and think that just means swearing and sex jokes.

There’s also a surprising lack of heart to the whole thing. It attempts to have heart with a dead brother subplot, but it feels incredibly tacked on, and the way it comes back at the end just raises more questions than answers, to the point where the “wait, but how does the world react to this?” reaction overshadows any sense of narrative closure. That would be acceptable in a kids’ movie, but not in a film with some of the jokes that Dear Santa has.

I get why a studio would diversify their jokes, to appeal to a wide audience. But the way they’ve done it here means that it ends up appealing to nobody. It’s too childish for kids, too mean-spirited for kids, and too one-dimensional for adults. I put more thought into this review than the scriptwriters did into the screenplay, and considering I did this while watching an episode of Smallville, that says a lot.

The Trouble With Jessica (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Sarah and Tom have one final dinner party before selling their home. The suicide of an unwanted guest ruins the party (and the chances of a successful sale)

I fucking love a good dinner party scene. There’s something about them that’s so tense to watch unfold. I think it’s because they have societal expectations in ways that other parties don’t. There’s an expectation that everyone will behave politely and behave well. There’s also the fact that they tend to be very conversation-based, so it’s VERY easy to get information over via dialogue. “so how’s the new job going?” is a perfectly normal thing to ask at a dinner party, so it’s very useful for exposition. I mention that because the one in here has some of the most tense five seconds I’ve ever seen. A tenseness which is then made worse by the revelation that the character was joking. There’s a definite shift in dynamics there. Ordinarily, it would be “This rudeness puts everyone on the defensive”, but here it actually does the opposite, it puts everyone on the offensive, against her, so your feelings are conflicted when she commits suicide soon after.

On that subject; I wasn’t a fan of the post-suicide moment. She commits suicide, they try to cut her down and save her but are unsuccessful, and she falls onto the floor dead. Title card. That, that I’m fine with. But then there are establishing shots of the house and food before we go to the characters reacting. Those shots are only roughly 5 seconds long but completely kill any momentum. It’s just a weird narrative decision.

That’s The Trouble With Jessica’s (TTWJ, pronounced That-weej) biggest flaw; it has a good story but no idea what to do with it. The main farcical driver is that the characters want to move her body to her own house because they think having a dead body in their house will affect their house price. Very funny, very middle class. But they get to that decision far too quickly.

Part of the problem is that the satire never hits as sharply as it could. Primarily because tonally, it feels like the target of its ire and its target for a viewing audience are one and the same, so it’s very scared of annoying the people who are viewing it.

It REALLY feels like a weirdly dark episode of Coupling without Jeff, in which Jane kills herself. Seriously, watch this movie with the core 4 from that sitcom in mind, if I told you “Which Coupling character would this person be?” I GUARANTEE you’d get the exact same. That’s a criticism of the script, by the way, nothing against the performances. Shirely Henderson gets the plaudits, but it’s fascinating how well Alan Tudyk plays a middle-aged Brit.

The familiarity and lack of bite aren’t the only issues with the script. There are completely unnecessary flashbacks to scenes we saw earlier, it would have worked better if we saw just the flashbacks, not the originals. It also has trouble ending. It doesn’t so much drive to the home stretch, as stutter.

It has some fun moments though. The intertitles are interesting, but when they get to “The trouble with driving a dead body across London in the middle of the night”, they suddenly become brilliant. Some of the dialogue is hilarious, and the characters are very believable.

In summary, I’m glad I saw this, but that’s mostly because it’s available on Netflix and I watched it there, if I watched it at the cinema I’d be much harsher towards it.