Bad Apples (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: A stressed primary school teacher (Maria Spencer, played by Saoirse Ronan) accidentally imprisons her most disruptive student (Danny, played by Eddie Waller) in her basement.

I didn’t see a single trailer for this before booking my ticket. I hadn’t heard any pre-release chatter either. Basically, I knew nothing about it. Which, to be fair, is how I live my life most days anyway. In this case, though, that might actually be the best way to go into it. Bad Apples is weird, and the premise alone might be enough to put some people off. Weirdly, this is the second film I’ve reviewed this year about someone kidnapping a person in an attempt to improve their behaviour, after The Good Boy (as reviewed here). The two films are working with a surprisingly similar premise, but Bad Apples handles it far more elegantly. The biggest difference is the age of the person being abducted. In The Good Boy, Tommy is 19, which is an age where it’s a little harder to look at his behaviour and think, “Maybe he just needs to be loved and listened to.” In Bad Apples, Danny is around nine or ten, making the idea that his home life is contributing to his violent behaviour much more believable. There’s also a much stronger reason for why this particular child is targeted. In The Good Boy, the choice of Tommy always felt somewhat arbitrary; in Bad Apples, the abductors are his classmates and his teacher, giving the whole thing a much clearer motivation. More importantly, the kidnapping feels like a last resort, brought about by an increasingly absurd series of events that somehow makes the whole ridiculous situation feel almost inevitable.

The other advantage this has over The Good Boy is that it’s actually fun. Bad Apples has an incredibly dark sense of humour, and nowhere is that more apparent than in the final third, when the local parents discover that that Danny has been kidnapped by Maria and essentially decide to ignore it because it’s better for the school if he’s not there. It’s absurd, but in a way that feels weirdly plausible. There’s something incredibly satisfying about watching them make an objectively terrible moral decision for the sake of the wider community. Nobody’s pretending it’s the right thing to do; they’ve simply decided that, under the circumstances, it’s the most convenient thing to do. It gives the film a slightly heightened, almost satirical quality, without ever tipping over into outright comedy.

I feel like Saoirse Ronan’s comedy skills are underrated. She has such an endearing presence that she’s perfect for something like this. Her character has a tricky line to walk: she has to kidnap a child, yet still remain likeable and sympathetic. Somehow, the film pulls it off. She’s written so well that you never really question her logic, even when what she’s doing is obviously completely insane. The film also manages to stop Danny from becoming completely unbearable. He is a little shit, there’s no denying that, but once you start to unravel his history, you begin to understand why he behaves the way he does. There’s more to him than just, “All the little shits need is a firm hand. Less Pokémon, and for my wife to come back. I’m gonna go paint a roundabout.” There’s genuine nuance to his character, which makes it all the more frustrating when his progress is threatened by another character: Pauline.

Pauline is such an annoying little shit. She’s not quite a villain, but she’s definitely an antagonist. The clever thing is that it’s almost impossible to actively hate her. She’s a child who isn’t used to receiving praise or attention, and once you understand that, you can sympathise with her even when you absolutely do not like what she’s doing. The further the film goes, the more frustrating she becomes, but the more you understand where she’s coming from too. It’s a difficult balance for the script to pull off, and it does it remarkably well. Yes, she’s blackmailing her teacher, which is hardly the behaviour of a particularly well-adjusted child. But the teacher is unquestionably the one who has crossed the bigger line.

It’s a crime that threatens to unravel towards the end, and unfortunately, that’s where the film starts to lose me. The ending is kind of a letdown, because it initially gives us a brilliant conclusion: technically a downer ending, but also strangely sweet and heartwarming. It’s brave, unique and darkly funny, and honestly, I would have been perfectly happy if the film had ended there. Instead, it carries on for much longer than it needs to, before arriving at a series of final shots that I found disappointing. It reminded me of the original ending of the Mr Bean movie, where an earthquake reveals the deception but we never actually get to see the aftermath. It’s the worst of both worlds: we know everything is about to change, but we don’t get to see any of it. It feels like a sequel hook for a sequel that can never happen. By the time the credits roll, I half expected them to say, “If you’d like to see the true ending, pay £5 now.”

I have one other issue: the Bad Apples metaphor is so heavy-handed that it’s basically slapping you in the face. The film isn’t content to let the idea of a “bad apple” emerge naturally from the story; it keeps returning to it, explaining it and underlining the comparison until there’s very little left for the audience to work out for themselves. Danny is the obvious “bad apple”, but the film is also interested in the idea of whether you can simply remove one problem from a group and pretend everything else is fine. That’s a perfectly good metaphor, but the film keeps pointing at it and saying, “Look! This is what we’re talking about!” I got it the first time. You didn’t need to keep reminding me.

That’s a minor issue, though. Overall, I really enjoyed Bad Apples. It’s shocking, weird and wonderful. It’s not perfect, but it is different. It’s ambitious, it’s darkly funny and, most importantly, it’s fun.

The End Of Oak Street (2026) Review

Quick Synopsis: A family’s suburban neighbourhood has been transported from 1982 into the age of dinosaurs.

In 2014, David Mitchell (not that one) released It Follows. I consider it one of the finest horror movies of modern times. Not just because it’s tense and full of pitch-perfect scares, but because it inspired questions and debate: did she sleep with the people in the boat? If so, does that really make her any better than Hugh/Jeff? And if you moved abroad and just waited for it to cross the ocean, could you theoretically outrun it? With The End Of Oak Street (TEOOS), the big question I had was this: can Ewan McGregor act? I mean, he must be able to; it’s his job. He’s been in some really good films, usually alongside people who we know can act, without seeming like he’s out of place. And he’s not cheap, so if he couldn’t act, you’d think studios would eventually stop hiring him. Yet I can’t think of a memorable performance, one where he really sold the role. I only ask because he has some of the worst line delivery I’ve ever heard. One line, in particular, robbed the scene of any tension because I assumed he was being sarcastic.

Maybe that’s harsh. He is performing in an accent that’s not his. Evidently, the studio believes audiences will buy into a town disappearing through a wormhole into a prehistoric land, but having someone live in America and use a Scottish accent is a step too far. He’s also not helped by acting alongside Anne Hathaway, who is one of the best performers on the planet. Even the child actors are strong in this. Maisy Stella and Christian Convery both give performances beyond their years. So his performance looks weaker by comparison.

I’ve been accused of being too picky with my criticisms sometimes. If you believe that, you should probably avoid this, because I’m about to make one of my weirdest criticisms in a while. Here goes: this didn’t need to be set in the 80s. It felt like it was done like that because it was based on a book from the 80’s and they wanted to be accurate. But nope, original concept. This wasn’t hinted at in the trailer, and it doesn’t have much impact on the plot. The only change it would have made is the method Denise uses to do research. And I suppose the kids would have recorded videos of the dinosaur on their phones, but that wouldn’t have helped because they wouldn’t have had a signal to send them with. None of those changes would have been major. Did they do it because it’s slightly Spielberg-esque and they wanted to make the most of that? They don’t even make the most of the time period by filling the film with wave after wave of 80s bangers. I’m not saying every film set in 1982 needs to pay out for Under Pressure, but I can’t imagine Goody Two Shoes by Adam Ant would have taken a massive chunk out of the budget.

Thankfully, there is quite a lot to like about TEOOS. The dinosaurs look fantastic. I assume they took a lot of work and money to create, which is why the film cuts away from them at certain times. Or perhaps it was to stop the film getting an 18 because of the blood and violence. Either way, it’s frustrating. There’s never a point where you don’t buy them as real (unless you’re a palaeontologist, in which case you tear your hair out with frustration at the inaccuracies, none of which I know enough about dinosaurs to notice). They’re also constantly a threat. You can’t imagine someone throwing a saddle on one of the dinosaurs and using it to herd the others in like cattle. Usually, films like this treat the smaller creatures as mere nuisances, with only the bigger ones being a threat. TEOOS leaves you in no doubt that the smaller ones can still fuck your shit up.

It’s also weirdly funny, in a dark way. Believably so. Characters don’t sneak past a dinosaur, then say “do you think he saw us?” and wink at the camera because they just made a dinosaur pun. But there’s something oddly funny about some of the violence; people being killed should not be this funny. Yet the dinosaurs attack with expert comedic timing, akin to a Three Stooges skit with decapitations. That humour means that the characters feel like actual people rather than disposable bodies waiting to die or kill. They sometimes do stupid shit, but that can be explained by the fact that they don’t have much experience dealing with stuff like this. This means when characters are in danger, you want them to survive. At no point do you cheer the dinosaurs.

The core of TEOOS is the family dynamic. They’re not perfect; the relationship between the parents is strained, with alcoholism playing a role in the present and almost certain divorce in the future. These aren’t the “I will do anything to save you, my love” type; these are the “can barely stop arguing even when they might die soon” type. That being said, there’s one major death (that I won’t name for spoiler reasons) that isn’t really given enough time to breathe. They die, the plot immediately moves on, and we don’t get much time to experience the world without them. I get what they were going for, but it didn’t quite land with me. The same could be said for the mystery at the centre of the film. It doesn’t spend as much time exploring it as some people might want. It does provide an explanation, but it’s very quick and easy to miss.

There’s a good film hiding in here; play up the 80s nature or set it in modern day, aim for a higher age rating so you can show the blood, and let McGregor speak in his natural accent. Yes, they’re small problems. But together, they hamper the film more than they should. It’s a solid 7/10, and it annoys me that it’s not higher. Watch it at the cinema while you can, because I doubt the streaming services are going to be fighting over the rights.

The Edge Of Seventeen

Director: Kelly Fremon Craig

Budget: $9million

Let’s get the obvious out of the way here; I’m fairly certain I’m not the target audience for this film (a feeling which was confirmed by the cinema being almost entirely teenage girls), so this had an uphill battle to impress me, an uphill battle which was evened out by the release of the trailer, which was funny, slightly heartwarming, and cynical as hell, I’m glad to say the only difference between the film and the trailer is the film itself is a lot more heartwarming. It’s just as funny and cynical as you’d hope, although part of my opinion on that might be because I have a weakness for any film which has “I’m going to kill myself” as the first line.

download
Unlike this film, where “I want to kill myself” is the first thing said by the audience

It’s not just the cynical nature of the film that’s done well, the characters themselves are really well defined. Even when the characters do and say terrible things, you understand their motivations, even though you don’t agree with them. They are all fully fleshed out, and they all get good lines. Unpopular opinion, I tend to dislike “comedy characters” in films and sitcoms, mainly because it means the writers tend to give them all the best lines, leaving the other characters somewhat underdeveloped. That’s a problem which this film avoids, most of the characters could comfortably lead their own movie, that’s a masterful piece of scripting and the writer should be commended for that. Which is why I’m glad the writer also directed it, it’s easier to follow directors careers than writers as more emphasis is put on directors. I was surprised this was directed by the writer, although it kind of makes sense, this seems like a very personal story and they’d be nobody better to get that across than the person who wrote it. It’s more surprising that this is her first film as a director, whilst it’s not exactly full of “wow shots”, or inspiring cinematography, it’s a lot more accomplished than a first time director should be, here’s hoping she gets a chance to do more work in the future with someone elses script, will be interesting to see what she can do. I feel her best work is as a writer though, the script has some amazing pieces of dialogue that really hit home. My personal favourite being (and i’m paraphrasing here) “I just don’t want to have to live with myself for the rest of my life”.

edgeofseventeen_01
Probably not going to get a good lead in to say this but these two worked really well together.

This film is not perfect however, a major problem is that you will feel you’ve seen it before. Within five minutes of meeting certain characters you can guess their entire story arc, you know what they’ll end up doing for the rest of the film. Despite that it’s still a very enjoyable film, it’s a bit like listening to a REALLY good cover song, whilst it’s not completely original, and you won’t be surprised by it, you still have to be impressed with how they’ve done it, and you still love it. Put it this way; I also watched Arrival this week. Probably one of the  best films I’ve seen all year, yet i still felt like THIS was the film I should write about.

219646971_5128748465001_5128734816001-vs
Actually I take back what I said earlier; this shot is kind of beautiful it terms of colour and angles

I will admit, this is not the greatest film of the year, it’s not even in the top five if I’m honest, yet I’ll sum up my feelings about this film on this; I have a belief that everyone should have a self-care box. A box which contains dvds, books, chocolate, tea etc, basically stuff which will cheer you up when you’re at your worst. And whilst this film won’t make it into my top 10 of the year, or my favourite 100 of all time, it definitely deserves to go in the box, and that’s the best thing you can say about it.

Edge Of Glory

  • Strong performances from the cast (Special mention must go to Hailee Steinfeld, Hayden Szeto, Haley Lu Richardson and Blake Jenner. Actually all of them were really good)
  • Fantastic script.
  • Believable characters.
  • Very very funny and heartwarming.
  • Possibly one of the best soundtracks I’ve heard all year.

Edge Of A Cliff, Staring Into The Abyss

  • Formulaic plot.
  • Not many memorable shots.