Quick synopsis: A young, broke couple kidnap a sleazy politician who decides he can spin the story to his advantage.
I wanted to like this, I really did. If you can, check out the absolutely SUBLIME television series How Not To Live Your Life. From that, it’s clear that Dan Clark has a lot of talent, not just for the absurd, but also for finding humanity, with an almost Seinfeldien level of talent for making you root for characters who by all rights you should dislike. Plus, I love a good political satire, and this looked like it might be that. Alas, it was not to be.
I’ll start with the positive, Dan Clark is a hell of a director. He could have gotten away with this being low-budget and grim, but it’s really slick and has a big-budget feel, albeit one of those big-budget films mainly played in theatres that cater to cinema snobs. The performances are all pretty solid too. Leila Hoffman isn’t in it for long but shines when she is in it. Patrick Baladi was born for this kind of role, he has Thick Of It face. He’s perfect to play a slimy opportunistic Tory wanker.
Now onto the bad; it just feels a bit too mean-spirited. We know politicians are shits, so if the sharpest your satire gets is showing us that, it will feel a little weak. Good satire should be an explosive firebomb of inspiration, this is more like a pathetic discharge of a mouse coughing. It’s not telling us anything we don’t already know, and it doesn’t offer any glimpse of an opportunity to change anything. If anything, all this has to say is “The ruling class are shit, deal with it”. The pacing is a bit odd too. The moment where Baladi’s character doesn’t want to go because he realises it’s good for his career possibly should have come earlier. It’s the main gimmick of the film and it doesn’t occur until a third of the way through the runtime.
This wouldn’t matter if the rest of the time was well spent, if a holiday is good enough, you don’t mind the queues to get there. But the other two-thirds of the runtime feels kind of wasted. There’s not enough in there that wasn’t in the trailer.
Don’t get me wrong, this does have some cracking dialogue; my personal favourites:
“Japs Eye is not very PC, in fact, it’s pretty racist”
And, this is the only film to have “if you do that again I’ll put a bullet in your dick” as a threat.
I like the dialogue, I like the concept, I like the performances, I like the direction, but the film didn’t really do it for me. I can tell they tried though. There’s a lot you can say about this, but you can’t say it’s low effort. I’ve given negative reviews to a lot of films, but this is one of the few I’ve felt genuinely guilty about writing. That’s probably because when I shit on something like Assassin Club or Wolf, I don’t see myself in those films. They’re not the kind of scripts I would write, or the mistakes they make are ones I would never make. But this? A sweary political satire that kind of lacks focus and passion? I could do that. This feels like something I would do, so I see any issues more easily, I take them more personally out of my own personal fear of failure.
Quick synopsis: Football (the foot-to-ball kind, not the hand kind) coach Thomas Rongen has been given the job of coach of the American Samoan national team with one task; to score a goal.
The best thing this film has going for it is it’s likeable. Next Goal Wins (or NGW, pronounced Noog-wah) has an inherent cosiness and warmth that makes it very easy for the audience to not want to turn away. It has the air of a comfortable end-of-year movie you watch with everybody; a bit like Cool Runnings, it all feels very Disney, in a good way. But much like a ska song about the holocaust, that lightness is hiding something very dark. Underneath the tale of the worst football team in the world lies a story about national pride, parental grief, transphobia, and personal belief. But those topics are woven so intricately that you don’t even realise they’re breaking your heart until they pile up. Mostly, the subplot about parental grief plays its hand too easily, it’s trying to give you a peak behind the curtain but instead pulls the curtain wide open, the hints just aren’t subtle enough to hide the reveal. I am very glad that that wasn’t invented for the movie though. His daughter genuinely did pass away in a car crash, and it was her hat he was wearing during American Samoa’s match against Tonga. That’s the kind of thing which if it was invented for the film, would have come off as weird and unrealistic. Related to that, there are quite a few moments which if they weren’t real (and if the film didn’t come from someone with ties to the area) would come off as incredibly condescending. Even the whole premise of the film, that these natives were hopeless until they were “saved” by a white man, comes off as a little strange in the current climate, by “current climate”, I mean “past the 1970s” (which didn’t reach some parts of the Midlands until 1998).
This isn’t an essential watch, but it is very good. It’s not going to change the world, but I’m not sure it’s supposed to. It’s supposed to just entertain you, and tell a really unique story. The American Samoan team’s loss to Australia was huge, literally, it was 31-0. NGW does do a great job of pointing out that the American Samoan goalkeeper actually had a fantastic game, and if it wasn’t for him the score would have been a lot worse. The rest of the players don’t come off with quite as much dignity. But even when the film portrays the players as not being that good, it never dehumanises them. The joke is purely on the observer, not the person being observed. This is the difference between something like Next Goal Wins, and The Gods Must Be Crazy. You don’t come out of this pitying the people you’ve just watched. But you also don’t come out with some condescending thoughts of “Ah, but they’re the real smart ones”, you come out realising that they’re just people with ambitions, hopes, dreams, and moments of stupidity.
It’s not perfect. We could stand to be given a bit more background into his coaching career. We don’t really get a sense of what level he was at in his career. So we’re not given any indication of how big his “fall from grace” is. Was it a huge scandal? Was he not known by anybody? We don’t know, and it kind of harms his character not knowing. Fassbender does do a great job portraying him, though. Due to the nationality and race of the cast, it’s not exactly going to be full of performers you’re familiar with. The only one I recognised was Talia’uli Latukefu from Young Rock, but there are so many performers from this who I want to see again. They’re helped by a really fun script that knows that it’s ridiculous. I mean, it’s a sports movie where the end result isn’t to win the tournament or beat their rival, it’s to score a single goal. Delightfully unique, and I look forward to watching it again.
Quick Synopsis: After a mysterious technological blackout plunges Ireland into anarchy and chaos, a group of washed-up clowns travel the country for one last shot at their dreams.
Apocalypse Clown is ridiculous. But it’s aware of it. Comedy horrors can be difficult to get right because if they lean too far in the direction of comedy then the horror doesn’t work, and if they lean too hard into the horror then you risk the comedy coming off as inappropriate, with characters witnessing horrific and traumatising murders, and then making jokes about it like the deaths of people not named Henry Kissinger are funny. The director, George Kane, has previously directed episodes of Inside Number 9, so he has a track record of being able to balance the two genres effectively.
He’s helped by the characters taking the situation seriously, the threat feels VERY real throughout, so even when people are dying in ridiculous ways (Like when a character nearly died from being creampied repeatedly, I heard rumours that’s how David Cameron kills pigs), it still feels horrific enough to hit the right horror notes, like John Carpenter at a keyboard.
Now onto the (kind of) negative. If your exposure to British media is big-budget films, reality shows, or bleak murder shows, then the performances are fine. If, however, you’ve watched much comedy then you are left with feeling that too many of the performers seem to be doing tribute acts to other performers; David Earl is doing Joe Wilkinson, Fionn Foley is basically MC Grindah as a clown, Amy De Bhrun is very Sharon Horgan, Ivan Kaye is Roger Allam (he’d also make a good Desmond Tiny if they were to redo Cirque De Freak), so when you’re watching it, you are slightly distracted by thinking “who does that guy remind me of?”. That being said, Natalie Palamides is a f*cking delight. I mean, it’s weird for me to say that “being a tribute act to a better performer” is a bad thing but then also praise Palamides based on the fact she has a real Carol Kane energy. I think the difference is that cinema sees a lot of despondent clowns, but very manic excitable Carol Kane types. It helps that Palamides feels like the only performer who threw out the script and is just making shit up as she goes along. She’s the epitome of vulnerable chaos and I absolutely love her. It would be so easy for her to overegg her coulrophilia pudding (that sentence is clearly there just to make people google coulrophilia, and enjoy the strange targeted ads you’re going to get). Palamides plays it perfectly though, she never feels too much, like she’s trying too hard. She’s an incredible physical performer, turning a scene as simple as “eating ham” into something incredibly unsettling. Her tornado of chaos also means that when she acts scared, it sells the situation. If a depressed and nihilistic clown is worried, not a big deal, but if a psychopathic clown is scared, shit has got real.
In terms of visuals, it’s fine. There are a few moments where you feel a bigger budget might have improved it, but it mostly works. The opening scene showing the chaos is incredible for a film of this budget. The music could have been better, I can’t really remember any of it to be honest, which is a shame as this is apt for a scene of soundtrack dissonance, playing a bright and cheery song over scenes of brutality.
The script could be a bit more focused, there’s an entire subplot which could be removed and the only impact it would have is to slightly lessen the impact of the ending. On that topic; the ending reveal is SUPERB. I haven’t seen a reveal this satisfying and unexpected since Bodies Bodies Bodies. Before this, Killers Of A Flower Moon was locked on to win the award for best ending, now it has competition.
So in summary; it’s on Netflix so you really should watch it while you can. It’s not the greatest film in the world, but it’s a welcome distraction in a world full of war, famine, and Piers Morgan.
Quick Synopsis: A heartwarming tale about a tiny dog (Reggie, voiced by Will Ferrell) on his quest to reunite with his owner……….so he can bite his dick off.
This film is filthy. The talking animals may lead you to believe it’s a cute film, but it’s not; it’s incredibly sweary and sexual. This can work; Joy Ride has been my favourite comedy of the year (so far). I will admit though, there are times whilst watching Strays where it all felt a bit much. It felt like the film was being crude for the sake of being crude. Sometimes the jokes are coming so quickly that this isn’t a problem, you can just move on to the next joke and recover. But a few of the worst jokes in this are the recurring ones, so they’re hard to ignore when they linger over the movie like a wet fart. It’s a shame as Strays is hilarious at times, there are moments where it’s whipsmart, with some laugh-out-loud dialogue. It also has more heart than you expect it to, the backstory given to Bug is brilliant, elevating the character to something better than you thought it was. The love story between Maggie and Hunter is also kind of sweet. The key emotional part is Reggie and his relationship with his owner Doug (played by Will Forte in absolute detestable form, it’s brilliant). You can tell a lot of the scriptwriters’ attention was on this section; making sure it plays as it should; reminiscent of an abusive romantic relationship, but without seeming like you’re making light of it.
The relationship allusions are really well done, the PTSD Doug has got, and the realisation that being mistreated is not how a healthy relationship should go. It’s an interesting way of approaching a very delicate topic, and it works. This also means that the revenge at the end feels earned, it doesn’t feel like a quick impulsive decision; but the inevitable result of years of tension and mistreatment. In case that wasn’t enough, Doug does go into full dickishness just before the end; getting incredibly fed up with Reggie and threatening to beat that bitch with a bat.
Yes, I know that “beat that bitch with a bat” reference doesn’t really work. Bitch applies to female dogs, and Reggie is male. So whilst at first it may have been an acceptable joke to make, if you think about it for more than a second, it just feels a bit lazy. A bit like this film(can I get some applause for how I managed that segue btw? Nope, damn). Because whilst the Reggie/Doug relationship (or, as shippers call it: Rug) works and is well-written. A lot of the moments feel underdeveloped. Whilst Reggie and Bug are strays (hey, that’s the title of the movie), two of the other foursome aren’t; with one being a therapy dog at an old folks home. There’s not much attention paid to how the owners/home residents react/feel about their dogs running away. Even just a 5-second cutaway of a confused old person stroking a rug or a coat and thinking it’s their dog would have closed that issue and provided a quick laugh. It feels like the writer just thought “But who’s going to think about that?” and moved on. Well, I thought about it Mr. Writer Man, I thought about it. And it just feels lazy. There are other moments that don’t work if you think about them for more than a second. If it went through a few rewrites it could be amazing, as it is, it’s just good. It’s destined to be thought of just as “Oh yeah, I watched that once” and then forgotten again.
Quick synopsis: After accidentally crash-landing in 2022, time-traveling fighter pilot Adam Reed teams up with his 12-year-old self for a mission to save the future.
Ryan Reynolds and Netflix Originals don’t have the best reputations. Red Notice was thoroughly mediocre, and when I mentioned I was watching 6 Underground, the reaction I got from people on Twitter was one of sympathy. This should be better though, directed by Shawn Levy, who made Free Guy, which was a lot of fun. So this could be awful, or it could be brilliant, either way, it wouldn’t surprise me. So is it worth watching? Kind of. I mean, it’s good, but it’s “streaming good”. By which I mean, it’s good, but not good enough that you want to make an effort. If you had to go to the cinema to watch it, or pay to stream it, you’d be very disappointed. But since it’s on netflix, you’re not paying for this individual film, so you have no financial investment in watching this. That’s for the best as it’s only ever a 7/10. I watched it about a week ago and still can’t remember that much from it.
That’s not to say it’s bad. It’s very funny at times, and whoever decided to cast Walker Scobell as a younger Ryan Reynolds? Give that man a raise. It’s one of the most perfect child castings I’ve seen in a long time, not so much visually, but Scobell absolutely NAILS the mannerisms where even if you weren’t told he was a younger version of Reynolds’ character, you’d know it. Reynolds does his usual, which is all he needs to do in a film like this. I am a massive fan of him but I will freely admit he doesn’t always pick the best films. But when a film he’s in is bad, it’s never because of him. Jennifer Garner and Zoe Saldana feel too inconsequential in this to comment on. It’s strange as they both play characters who have the potential to add a lot of emotion; the main character’s partner, who was declared dead so it’s the first time he’s seen her in years, and his mother, who he regrets being rude to whilst she was alive. Both of those have massive potential to be heartbreaking, but they are underdeveloped by the story. Jennifer Garner, especially, seems to disappear from the film after a short while, only meeting her future son once, and not really having too in-depth a conversation with them. Catherine Keener is her usual delightful self, she’s going through a real purple patch in terms of roles, and this continues that run, I’m now at the point where I can tell the difference between her Mary Steenburgen, and Kathryn Hahn which considering that in reality they look absolutely nothing alike, isn’t worth bragging about. Again, she should be given more to do. She’s also unfortunate that she is subject to CGI de-aging technology, and it doesn’t quite look right. Wouldn’t it have been easier to age up future-her with make-up rather than de-age with CGI? Probably cheaper too. Feels like they CGI de-aged just because they could, not caring if they could do it well.
The plot? Well, there’s nothing in here that will surprise you. It’s not exactly a film that you’ll struggle to follow, no matter how drunk you are. Time travel stories lend themselves well to narrative trickery and weirdness, and it never really happens in this. It never goes beyond the surface level. That’s fine, not all movies need to be EEAAO, but it is frustrating to see potential wasted like this. This could be fantastic, but it never does anything to stand out. The visuals are only okay, the story is basic, and I can’t even remember the music. Compared to how music is used in similar films like Back To The Future, where certain songs are now impossible to separate from the film, this has nothing. Well, I say nothing, there’s a scene near the end which is damn near perfect. If the rest of the film was as good as that, it would be among the best of the year, as it is, I can already forget I’ve seen it.
Quick synopsis: Randal Graves, after surviving a massive heart attack, enlists his friends and fellow clerks Dante Hicks, Elias Grover, and Jay and Silent Bob to make a movie about their lives at the Quick Stop Convenience store that started it all.
Could this work? I don’t really think it’s a secret that the Kevin Smith who made Clerks is very different from the Kevin Smith of today, and it could be argued that he’s a different Kevin Smith than he was when he made Clerks 2. The original is almost 30 years old and will it still be entertaining to see these characters? There is a point where the characters reach an age where their humour and pop culture obsessions would just seem kind of depressing. Thankfully these characters do use this film to move on in their characterisation.
I’m going to get the negatives out the way first; the most obvious one is that this will be impenetrable to those who haven’t seen the first two, but if you’re going into the third film in a series without watching the other two then that’s on you. People who see this will know what they’re getting. It didn’t get a wide cinema release over here so it’s not as though there’d be many people wandering into the cinema to kill time and see this.
Now onto the other negative, and this is a lot bigger for me. The first two films primarily took place over two separate days, years apart. These seem to be the only days that mattered to these characters, as they only ever reference people and situations we’ve already seen. There are no other running jokes from the over 30 years these two have worked together, nothing funny has happened in that entire time. I know it wouldn’t be fun to have this filled with orphaned references, but we could see them via flashbacks or them describing the events. As it is, the only times these characters refer to are the two days we’ve seen, so it makes it feel like the characters aren’t real people. They haven’t lived outside of these films.
There is one notable exception to this, where we find out a character died between films. I’m normally opposed to that thing happening as it feels lazy, but here it works. If we saw it it would have wasted time.
It is a comedy, but it is at its best when it’s not trying to be funny. This has more emotion than Smith has allowed in any of his films before. But there are moments where he feels scared of showing that. When it’s getting emotional and heavy, so he decides to pull back to comedy and pop culture references. It’s a shame as when he lets the emotions continue it’s genuinely heartbreaking.
So if you loved the first two, you’ll love this. If you’re the kind of person who listened to the audio commentaries and watched the DVD special features on the original, you’ll enjoy seeing the behind-the-scenes moments work their way into the script. I’ve missed these characters, and I’m glad to have them back, but the ending means if I ever do see them again I’d be kind of disappointed. The ending to this is so perfect that any attempt to add to it will just ruin it.
This has been a somewhat more dry review than usual, in my defence this film made me feel so many things that it’s hard to get back into normal review mode. That says more about this film than me raving about how much I loved it will.
Quick synopsis: While investigating a case of valuable stolen paintings, Fletch becomes the prime suspect in a murder.
I had no idea this was happening until I saw the poster at the cinema a few weeks ago. I saw no trailer, no press release, no hype, nothing. Plus, it’s a new entry in a franchise that has lain dormant since 1989. Apparently, the Fletch books are known in America among comedy circles, it’s why certain filmmakers always want to give it a go, and it’s why Kevin Smith tried so hard to make Fletch Won back in the day. So it’s a film the studio seems ashamed of, based on an IP that’s not that well-known in this country. All of this adds up to a feeling like looking at a particularly prophetic bowl of alphabet soup; it spells disaster.
So it comes as a bit of a surprise that this film is good. By some weird coincidence, I have watched the older Fletch films semi-recently, and I wasn’t too impressed by them. I think it’s because it’s hard to see the character as a lovable rogue when he’s played by renowned asshole Chevy Chase (Chevy Chase, of course, being the only c-words you will never find in a 2020’s comedy). Regardless of his dickishness, people liked Chase in the role, with some considering it among his best work, so Jon Hamm has a lot to live up to. He needs to be similar enough to Chase that people won’t bitch and complain “he’s ruining it”, but different enough that the general audience actually, you know, likes him. I think Jon Hamm’s work in Mad Men etc has made people forget how absolutely brilliant he is as a comedic actor. His timing and delivery is spot-on throughout, few people can go as comedically subtle as he can. He’s also a lot less broad in terms of comedic style than Chase was, he’s not the type of performer to make pratfalls or go overly cliche in terms of his ad-libbing. He’s helped by the other cast members though. Roy Wood Jr. could easily ride the momentum of his performance here into something bigger, and Ayden Mayeri’s performance has to be seen to be believed and makes me think that the fact she doesn’t have a Wikipedia page (or a recurring role in a well-reviewed but under-viewed sitcom) must be an error which I’m sure will be fixed soon. It does make their job easier that the characters are all so well-written though. The supporting cast of characters are so well-defined, even those who are only in there for a few scenes. Yes, it is mainly about the titular Fletch, but if some of the other characters returned in a sequel I wouldn’t be too opposed. They’re all given little unique quirks and characterisations that make them memorable (and also, importantly, funny).
The plot? It does what it needs to. It’s not as compelling a mystery as Knives Out, but it is filled with enough twists and turns to keep you surprised and entertained. It’s not the greatest, but it doesn’t make any mistakes. There’s not really a weak part to the writing, it’s not aiming to be the smartest film in the world, it’s aiming to entertain you, and it does that well. I wish there were more films like this, mid-budget comedies which are just designed to entertain.
As I mentioned earlier, the marketing campaign for this film is practically non-existent here, and even in the US, it was dumped on VOD services quickly after a very limited cinema release. It deserves better. It deserves to be seen by as wide an audience as possible. It won’t change your life, it won’t teach you anything, but it will entertain you and you will enjoy it. It’s the kind of film where you go in knowing what to expect, and it delivers exactly what you need. I will never not be in the mood to watch this.
Quick synopsis: Joy is on a journey to abandon her baby when the taxi she’s in is stolen by a teen in this coming-of-age comedy-drama.
Does Olivia Colman know she’s a star? She’s probably one of the best performers in the world right now, yet she’s still in films that people at a similar level would see as beneath them. She is so without ego that it’s actually impressive, and it can only be a good thing for filmmakers. I’m not sure I would have watched this if she wasn’t attached. I’m sort of glad I did. I mean, it’s not the greatest film in the world, but it’s not the worst. It’s a film that shows great potential for everybody involved. Neither the director (Emer Reynolds), the writer (Ailbhe Keogan), nor the male lead (Charlie Reid, playing Andrew) even has a Wikipedia page at the moment, but on the evidence of this, that should change for all three of them.
It is a fun script, but it could do with being both more subtle, and more in-your-face. Andrew is too good, he’s introduced stealing money, but it’s from his dad who stole it from a hospice collection, so Andrew is planning to return it. It means there’s no ambivalence toward him, you know he’s always going to do the right thing. So when, later in the film, he comes to a moral crossroads; chosing the right thing to do, and going back to his nefarious dad, you already know what he’s going to do so the moment doesn’t seem as powerful as it would otherwise. It’s supposed to be an ethical dilemma, but it never feels like one because the film hasn’t shown the chance of him going the other way.
On the subject of his dad, he’s supposed to be feared and violent, but we’re not really shown that. I’m not saying we need a scene of him smacking a kid, but it would have helped build him up. Also, he shouldn’t have been in it so much. If you keep him as an unseen threat, then, ironically, it would make him seem a bigger threat.
Now onto the good, it has some very good moments. Olivia Colman’s flashback is incredibly powerful. I also respect how well it uses time. The entire plot is kicked off within 4 minutes (that’s including the opening logos and credits). It moves at such a pace that while watching it, you’re never going to feel bored or look at your watch. There’s also a scene on a plane near the end which is genuinely hilarious and has some great one-shot characters.
In summary, I feel this is destined to be included in a “oh, you liked this film the director made? Well one of their earliest ones was Joyride” conversation. An early oddity in a future career of greatness.
Quick synopsis: Pete is cautiously excited about reuniting with his college crew for a birthday weekend. But, one by one, his friends slowly turn against him.
People decry trigger warnings, but sometimes they’re useful, you can argue “they ruin the surprise” or “if you’re that bad then just don’t go to the cinema” but both of those ignore one simple thing:
You’re actually supposed to enjoy things sometimes. Even things it seems like you’re not supposed to. Horror books are supposed to use a font that’s actually legible so it’s not a struggle to read it, roller coaster seats are not supposed to be painful to sit in. It’s the same with films, it’s supposed to be something you actively want to do, and if trigger warnings will let you know that this film is not for you then that can only be a good thing. I’ve avoided certain films purely because I knew I wouldn’t be able to objectively watch them. As much as I might have enjoyed, for example, Another Round, the subject matter meant that there was a large chance I wouldn’t, so I avoided it.
So what does all that have to do with this film? Well if I knew going into this film how I’d feel going out, I might have avoided it. Don’t get me wrong, it’s very well made. It’s very funny at times, the performances are pretty much perfect, and it looks fine. It’s just…….it feels too real. It starts with the main character (who we’ve seen to be awkward) described as “funny” and how he now worries he has that to live up to. It’s so difficult to watch his anxiety beat the crap out of him, especially as you can kind of see why he’s so anxious. It feels sometimes like his friends are trying to gaslight him. They take him shooting and then berate him for not being able to shoot anything, saying it was disrespectful of him. They then hire an impressionist who just insults him the entire time.
And then to top it off, they say “it’s you. You’re why this weekend has gone wrong” is horrific. His anxiety drives all his friends away in a self-fulfilling prophecy. That’s not something you want to hear if you have anxiety, that you have to hide all your worries or everybody you love will leave you. It’s a lot to take in, maybe it would have been better if it was a short series so you had a break every half hour as opposed to taking it all in in one sitting.
So in summary, maybe you should see this. But there is a chance this film will lead you into a deep depression and do for friendship what Psycho did for showers, makes you wary and slightly frightened of them. If you have any insecurities, this film will play upon them, it will gnaw into your brain and reside there, making you think over your friendships and wonder if they are actually your friends or whether they hate you too. It’s a psychological horror for your mental health. Utterly fascinating, and you probably should watch it, but…..prepare something nice for after. I may have said that before in reviews, but I have never meant it as much as I do for this. No film has damaged my brain as much as this did, and that’s a huge compliment to just how spot-on they got everything.
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”.
Troubled Productions 