Renner (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Tech genius Renner (hey, that’s the title of the movie) has developed an AI tool to help develop confidence. A tool that’s unwittingly influenced by his domineering mother

I went into this expecting to be impressed. I knew who was in it, and I knew roughly what it was about; that was it. I don’t say this often, but if I had read more about it, I’m not sure I would have bothered. It actually annoyed me that I didn’t like it, because I know what the next two films I have to review are, and I would have liked if I had at least one positive review this week.

It’s not just that this wasn’t for me; at times, I actively disliked it. The lead character’s romance arc reminds me of Y2K, the film, not the year. He invites a neighbour to his house for an introduction. She brings a guy, and he is visibly annoyed to the point of rudeness. He’s then visibly elated when it turns out to be her brother. So, he comes across as a little bit entitled. Sentences like “I feel as if I’m being friend-zoned, this is like a horror movie” back up my viewpoint on that. You can’t be annoyed if a woman you’ve just met is wary of being at your home alone.

The other characters? They follow the same pathway of “the performances being better than the writing”. Violett Beane is incredibly charming and likeable in her performance, but that impact is lessened by the stuff the script makes her character say (You don’t get to say “it feels like my mouth had an orgasm” and then get surprised when someone turns it sexual). Her character feels like wish fulfilment; there’s not much reason for her to be into Renner. Look at it from her POV; she meets a guy who gets visibly angry at her for knowing a male. We don’t really get a reason for her to like him. Yes, you can say that part of that is due to (spoilers) her pretending to be into him so she can steal his shit. But it turns out that she does actually like him, but with no demonstration as to why. You can definitely tell this is written by a guy. The only character of the three who seems genuine is Chad, and that’s because he’s one of the few who calls characters out on their bullshit. In a lot of films, that might come off as annoying. But in something like Renner, it’s actually refreshing.

There’s some really interesting stuff done with colours. It is sometimes flat, garish, and ugly, but there are moments where it works, particularly after the monopoly conversation, where they move through colours. It’s incredibly minimalist, and when the visuals work, they really work. They look sparse, like the character is emotionally hollow. When they don’t work, they look cheap and like a student film.

I said earlier that this was clearly written by a man. That was wrong. It was written by four guys, one less than it takes to build a burger chain. This obviously wasn’t how it was done, but if you told me each writer took a scene and they never consulted with each other, I’d believe you. There are some inconsistencies between scenes that are harder to swallow than a burger van burger the next day. In particular, there’s a genre switch which doesn’t really work because it doesn’t feel right for the characters. It’s jarring, but not in a shocking Sinners way, but in a “yeah that didn’t work AT ALL” way. It doesn’t help that the key scene for this moment is shot in such a way that it appears to be a dream/fantasy sequence. It has a “looks like a dream but is reality” a few times, but the genre switch moment is the most egregious. It’s not to do with the way it’s shot, it’s entirely down to the way it’s edited.

Essentially, the problem with Renner (besides the title, which is difficult to Google) is that it has no idea what it wants to be. One of the best bits of scriptwriting I’ve ever been told was “do more with less”. Essentially, cut out unnecessary twists, plot points, and themes. It may suck as you may love them, but it improves the narrative if you cut out the fluff and focus on the essentials. I know that goes against my usual preference for ambitious failures over safe successes. But the ambitious failures I like are when I see something new. Nothing in Renner is new or original; it’s just unfocused, and the multiple attempted plotpoints all stumble over each other. If it cut out the bullshit, streamlined the narrative, DEFINITELY changed the ending, then you’d have something impressive. As it is? I can’t even be bothered to watch the trailer again, let alone go near the movie.

I do like that the film ended with a “made by humans” note. Very cute.

Heads Of State (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: The UK PM and the US President are forced to put aside their personal rivalries when the plane they’re travelling on gets shot down.

This is a weird thing to say, but in 2025, Amazon originals are better than Netflix. That might be because netflix is much better at showing you new stuff, so it’s easier for me to see when they add a new original film to add to my watchlist, whereas Prime showcases stuff it doesn’t have access to unless you pay more, so your brain filters most of it unless something stands out in some way.

Heads Of State (HOS, pronounced hoes, because obviously) is not meant to top any “best films of 2025” lists. It’s not a technical masterpiece that will astond you and change the way you think about cinema. But it is exactly what it needs to be: a fun waste of time. You can tell it does WANT to be smart though. There are multiple twists and turns designed to keep you on your toes. But they happen so quickly that none of them have an impact. If I tell you “My name is Jonas, no it’s not, it’s Earl, actually it’s Who”, then when I reveal that my name is actually Slim Shady, you won’t give a shit because I’ve spent so long trying to convince you my name is something else that the actual revelation lands deader than my hopes and dreams. I’m not saying it needs to be dumber, but it would be improved if it had a more streamlined vision.

The action scenes are good, but I would expect better from Ilya Naishuller. This is the third film by Naishuller; he previously directed Nobody and Hardcore Henry, both of which had a distinctive style that made them memorable. By comparison, HOS could have been made by a number of different directors. There are moments where his style seeps through; the fight in Belarus, in particular, is a lot of fun, almost Jackie Chan-esque in how it combines violence and comedy. It’s also incredibly creative in the way it uses the surroundings.

HOS is the perfect showcase for the performers. I’m not sure whether it was intentional, but it does seem like there’s a subtext to the casting. Idris Elba, a respected actor who has honed his craft across decades, alongside John Cena, a brash American who walks in and starts getting top roles. Especially with lines like “I don’t watch your movies, I watch actual cinema”. The supporting cast all play their part. Although I’m pretty sure Priyanka Chopra is supposed to be co-lead, that’s certainly the impression the marketing gives you. HOS doesn’t fuck around with its supporting cast, having Stephen Root, Sharlto Copley, Sarah Niles, and Paddy Considine. Considine, in particular, is building up more evidence that he’s one of the most versatile performers around. He keeps going like this, and he’s going to end up in a reboot of Jaws, as the shark, and he will be magnificent.

Now it’s time for the downsides. It feels like Idris and Cena stay opposed for longer than they should. The “reluctant team-up” is a vital part of a movie like this, but it feels like they’re too hostile for each other for an unnaturally long time, especially for two people who’s jobs require them to be respectful to people they hate. There are times when it works, but those are mostly in the first half, where it would make sense for them to act like that to each other. I’m thinking mainly of their argument on the plane, where the two lay out their disdain for each other, and they both have a point. That should lead to some thawing of animosity, but it doesn’t. I’m also not a fan of one character surviving, mainly because they didn’t feel important enough to earn an end-credits appearance.

Overall, there are better films than this, but there are A LOT worse. It will be difficult to watch HOS and not, at the very least, be somewhat entertained. Although it is somewhat unrealistic that the two countries would both have politicians who are likeable.

M3gan 2.0 (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: M3gan comes back, this time as a hero.

This is a terrible horror movie. That’s mainly because it’s not a horror movie. I’m used to horror franchises delving more into action or comedy, but it’s usually a few minutes in and it’s a sign of decline. I can’t remember a time it’s been so drastic as this. There’s no traditional horror movie beats, no shots that fill you with dread or keep you awake at night. What there is, is quips, fights, and weirdness.

On the one hand, the genre switch means that M3gan 2.0 is fun to watch and will appeal to a wide audience while still keeping true to the spirit of the original. On the downside, from the first trailer, where it was made clear that this time she’ll be more heroic and will be teaming up with those who defeated her in the first movie, comparisons have been made to Terminator 2. Those comparisons are much harder to ignore when the change of genre makes the movies even closer. It’s almost begging you to make those comparisons, and when it does, it doesn’t hold up.

On its own merits? It’s a lot of fun. It’s violent, funny, and kind of sweet. It has really good characterisation. Making M3gan a hero could have backfired, but it works wonderfully. That’s helped by the fact that even when she was a villain in the first movie, her entire motivation was doing what she felt she should do to protect a child. So she could easily turn them into heroes without changing their motivation. It feels like the next logical step. Her introduction is a lot of fun, with her controlling the aspects of a smart house to defeat an invading police force, who burst into a house all guns blazing to arrest an unarmed woman and a child, but because this isn’t real life, nobody got shot.

The performances are also key, the main characters from the first film return, and it’s clear they all love playing these characters. There aren’t too many new characters, but those who are introduced fit in perfectly.

Now onto the downsides. There are a few minor ones in terms of tone and consistency, and some moments are just a little bit too much like a video game for my liking. The major issue for me is the villain reveal. I live quite near a 12th-century castle. A castle, which is a crucial part of local and national history. A castle, which is vital to tourism and is a visual centrepiece of the local area. If you visit this town, you kind of HAVE to visit the castle.

That castle isn’t as clearly signposted as the villain reveal in this movie. I guessed it from the character introduction, not only that they would turn out to be the villain, but also their motivations and reasoning. It felt so obvious as the film went on, with a few “but nobody could have known this” about things which he would have known about. It’s so clear that I felt it was a red herring; I didn’t think a movie in 2025 could be this obvious with its twist. I haven’t seen a reveal this obvious since, well, every superhero movie where a character named something like “Evil Von Murderface” turned out to be the bad guy.

In summary, don’t go in expecting scares, and you’ll have one hell of a good time. It has a lot to say about AI, specifically about the role of humanity in controlling it. It’s much smarter than it needs to be, and I will always love that. I will also always love it when, in the final product, an editor takes out a really creepy moment from the trailer.

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 End (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: After civilisation collapses (the concept, not the game), a rich family live out their lives in an underground bunker. Their peaceful existence is disrupted by a girl.

I’ve been playing a lot of The Executive – Movie Industry Tycoon lately. For those who aren’t aware, it’s a game where you play as a producer who develops movies, picking the genre, age rating, actor, etc. It’s very similar to Game Dev Tycoon if you’ve ever played that. The key to success in that game is working out which genres and styles work together. For example, “Slasher” goes better with “horror” than it would with “romance”. Like all games, it’s not perfect, and it’s not perfect because it doesn’t take into account outliers. The End would definitely score a low mark, “Apocalyptic Musical starring Tilda Swinton”. Based on that, this would fail. You would not expect it to work.

Turns out, formulas exist for a reason. It feels like the two genres are constantly getting in each other’s way. Every time the narrative becomes dramatic and moves forward, it stops for a song. The narrative has potential, but it trips over itself too many times and feels disjointed. There are too many dramatic moments that don’t affect the overall story being told. It’s just “incredibly deep personal revelations for the sake of tension in that scene”, then the next scene, like they were all written separately then sewn together to form a cinematic quilt.

It’s not too impressive on a moment-to-moment basis. It’s nowhere near as deep as it thinks it is, being depressingly surface-level in terms of character intentions, which is again, where the two genres get in each other’s way. Drama, deep personal drama that sticks with you, is made of unsaid character motivations and agendas. Whereas a lot of musicals are dependent on characters literally singing out their emotions, turning their inner monologues into outies.

So far, this review has been negative, and that’s unfair. All the performances are superb, in terms of both acting and singing (although the fact that I’ve already forgotten every song is not a good sign). Also, the fact that rich people would rather kill the world than give up their wealth or some of their home space is depressingly realistic.

It’s also new. I’ve not seen anything like this, and I’m not entirely certain I ever will again. I’ve seen some weird films before, but usually they belong to a director who specialises in weird. For example, The Second Act (as reviewed here) was weird, the director also made Rubber and Mandibles, which are also weird. The main exception to that is if it’s a new director eager to make their mark. The End is different from both of those; it’s from an established director, Joshua Oppenheimer was nominated for an Academy Award in 2014 and again in 2016. But both of those were for documentaries. The End is an ambitious film at the best of times, but from a first time feature director, it seems like fucking insanity. But I would much rather watch something like this than more bland shit.

“Something like this”, not this, because this is far too long and in need of editing. But I fully respect the attempt.

Ballerina (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Trained in the assassin traditions of the Ruska Roma, Eve Macarro takes on an army of killers as she seeks revenge against those responsible for the death of her father.

Ballerina, or to give it its full (stupid) title: From The World Of John Wick: Ballerina, has a lot to live up to. The John Wick franchise is a modern classic, with some of the best action scenes ever committed to screen. Combine that with the fact that this feels undermarketed (I don’t even think I’ve seen a trailer at the cinema), and with how underwhelming the TV series was (did you even know there was a TV series? Exactly), and this was in a weird position of somehow having both high expectations, yet also having expectations that it could be shit.

I’m glad to say that this is a worthy addition to the franchise. It’s somehow both different and very similar to the main movies. Eve Macarro is not as iconic an action hero as John Wick, nowhere near as competent. But she’s not supposed to be. She’s still relatively new to this world and often takes on people bigger and stronger than her. So the action scenes aren’t about her outskilling her opponents; it’s about her using creativity to defeat them. So the action scenes have a different feel to them, but are just as good. They’re not as impressive as the previous fights, but strangely, they’re more entertaining. There are moments where it feels like a Jackie Chan movie with how it incorporates comedic set-pieces into an action scene, while not taking away the seriousness of them. Nobody is making quips or smartass comments after escaping death, but you do have characters lined up to take a killer shot, but get knocked over by another character breaking out of a freezer.

You will need to have seen the previous John Wick films for some of this to make sense, I think. You might be able to piece together why hotel staff gunned down two assassins (for doing business on Continental grounds), but I’m not quite sure it gives enough context for most people to grasp. Plus, let’s face it, the world of John Wick is a weird world, full of assassins and clandestine groups. The original film eased you into it, and then opened up the world; this drops you right into the world that’s already been created. So coming into this off any other normal action film will be a bit weird; you need to be already used to the world where pretty much everyone you meet can somehow be a trained killer.

Ana De Armas does a lot better than I thought she would. I still can’t unsee her Knives Out role, so it was weird to see her as an action hero. She does well. There’s no point where she appears superhuman or unrealistic. It doesn’t get quite as unbelievable as the main franchise did at times. The supporting cast is pretty good too. Although it is sad that this is the last appearance of Lance Reddick. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but something seemed off with Ian McShane’s vocal performance; it wasn’t as imposing or impressive as it usually is. I never realised how much Gabriel Byrne looks like a former 80s pop star. Not a specific 80s pop star, just general “I had a massive synth-pop hit in the 80s and look at me now” energy.

In summary, genuinely loved this movie. It’s as good as the other films, and adds to the legacy without taking anything away from them. I do wish it led to a crossover with Atomic Blonde, though; that film was too good to not be loved.

Y2K (2024) Review

Quick Review: Remember that Simpsons Halloween episode where all electrical appliances start killing people because of the Y2K bug? Yeah, that.

Streaming services, even with the movies they acquire rather than what they make, tend to have a certain connective vibe. Taskmaster would be weird on Disney+, just wouldn’t work, whereas something like Miranda would slip in perfectly. I’m just clearing that up before I summarise my thoughts on this in one sentence: This feels like a Netflix movie.

I mean that in a good and a bad way. It’s slick, well-produced, and with a killer soundtrack. But it’s also forgettable. It feels tailor-made to have ridiculous AI-generated adverts running through it. It’s not all bad; the opening gives so much nostalgia. Although that’s part of the problem. It feels like it’s designed to appeal to 90’s kids, but hasn’t realised that people who grew up in the 90s are now adults, and realise that a lot of stuff from the 90s was fucking stupid and terrible. It’s a brave move for a film to have a target audience of “people who have been in a coma for 25 years”, and judging by the reviews, it hasn’t paid off.

Don’t get me wrong, I do have a soft spot for dumb, stupid things (except myself), but Y2K is pushing it. It’s a little “too” dumb. How exactly does a VHS player eject a tape at such high speed that it kills someone? How did the blender end up on someones dick? It’s cartoon physics in the real world, so it’s hard to actually feel scared at any point.

I also have a problem with the script. Eli’s friend dies WAY too early. Which means he doesn’t have anyone to bounce off. We have no grounding for what he’s like as a person, as once his friend dies, we only see him in a “nervous around his crush” state. On the subject of Eli, he also feels from the 90s, and not in a good way; there are major “nice guy” vibes. In a different movie, his character would turn out to be a date rapist who is angry that the female lead wouldn’t give him a handjob to thank him for holding the door open for him.

On the plus side, it is better than the other “robots vs. humans” film of the year, The Electric State (as reviewed here). Mainly because there are moments where Y2K is an enjoyable movie, with glimpses of the 90s throwback it could have been. They are just glimpses, though; shooting stars in the night sky of stupidity that is Y2K. The Fred Durst cameo is entertaining and actually contributes to the story.

The performances are mostly fine, but it’s difficult to tell under the script. I will always like Rachel Zegler in things; she’s a great talent to watch. Mason Gooding brings the dramatic chops when the film needs it. Other than that? Mostly okay but not outstanding.

In summary: a good idea, let down by a piss-poor execution.

How To Train Your Dragon (2025) Review

Synopsis: Watch the original. It’s that.

This is a difficult review to write. Not for the usual reasons, but because I’m going to find it difficult not to repeat what I said in the Lilo and Stitch review. Much like that, I am not a massive fan of the original, but I recognise it’s good. I remember more of it than I do Lilo and Stitch, though. Although I don’t remember enough of How To Train Your Dragon (HTTYD, pronounced Hit-tuh-tie-da) to recognise any differences between the two adaptations.

I remember enough to recognise the similarities, though, and there are a lot of them. There are a lot of shots which are pretty much the same as they were in the original. I get that you don’t want to mess with iconic moments, but this “just do everything exactly the same” means that the new HTTYD never feels like its own movie. It seems like it exists just for people who are fans of the original, letting them see what their favourite moments are like in live action.

So, how does it look? Honestly, it’s a mixed bag. The dragons themselves look much better. With one (chubby) exception, all the dragons look scary and like the kind of creatures you’d run away from fast. You understand why they inspire such hatred and fear, why the islanders feel they need to kill them on sight. Until it happens, there’s no indication that these things can be reasoned with, let alone tamed. Brings me to one narrative issue: everyone gets trained to ride dragons WAY too fast. They go from “wait, you can ride dragons?” to “swooping in and saving the day” without even a montage.

My other issue? It’s too dark. Not in terms of tone, I mean visuals. The night scenes for this do for your eyes what Tenet did for your ears: render them something you can’t depend on for your enjoyment of the movie. It feels like you’re watching it wearing sunglasses for some of it. The daytime scenes are fine, they look magnificent.

The performances? Mason Thomas could easily lead this franchise if they wanted to redo the sequels as live-action. Although he does remind me way too much of Matthew Baynton at times. Nico Parker is great, too, but her character is let down by some indecisive writing. Gerard Butler is the only returning performer, which makes sense, as he already resembles a Viking.

In summary, HTTYD is good, VERY good at times. But it’s also pointless. Gus Van Sant’s 1998 remake of Psycho was heavily derided for being pointless and just a shot-for-shot remake. HTTYD is the same. It’s made just to show they can, rather than any artistic need. I do love how they kept the director, although it is concerning that in the 15-year gap between the two versions, he seems to have added nothing to his repertoire in terms of shot construction and visual storytelling.

The final battle is f*cking badass though.

Lilo And Stitch (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Stitch is an alien who pretends to be a dog when he gets adopted by Lilo.

I need to preface this review with one important detail: I’m not a massive fan of the original. I don’t dislike it. I find it charming, funny, and it is actually a brilliant film. However, I have no personal attachment or deep love for it, so I’m not personally offended by changes made. With that in mind, I’m going to be reviewing this mostly as a stand-alone and will be judging it on its own merits. I’ll try not to make too many comparisons to the original, ranting about how “but they changed this so it sucks”.

That being said, I do have to acknowledge that this is a live-action remake of an animated film. Which is why I wasn’t a fan of the opening. For a film like this, you want to show off how different it looks outside of animation. You want to heavily showcase either the design of Stitch or the beautiful locations. Instead, LAS starts on a spaceship full of CGI characters. Yes, it’s photorealistic CGI, but it would have been nice to see them show us something real first.

The downside of a live-action film based on a child is that a lot of children aren’t good actors, so it’s risky getting them to lead your movie. It’s somewhat easier in animation because you can go race-blind (and age-blind too) if you need to, a trick you can’t get away with in live-action; no matter how long she’s done the voice for, nobody would buy Nancy Cartwright as a live-action Bart Simpson. Maia Kealoha is charming as Lilo. Her interactions with Stitch are heartfelt and wonderful, really selling the idea that they’re close. The rest of the cast is pretty good. I always love seeing Billy Magnussen in anything; he brings a Tudyk energy to everything he does. It’s also nice to see Hannah Waddington firmly stepping into her role as the Queen of British Accents. She’s long been appreciated for her theatre work, but since Ted Lasso, she now seems to be Hollywood’s new “middle-aged posh British lady”, and I’m all here for it. Also, every time I see her, I fall a little bit more in love with Amy Hill; she has the energy of a grandparent who slips you whiskey behind your parents’ back.

I have no issues with the look. It would have been nice to showcase more of the island, but I suppose that would go against the “OMG, fucking tourists!” message. Although the “tourists are ruining this island and forcing us into demeaning customs” message is already diluted somewhat by a car company offering a holiday to Hawaii in association with this movie. Disney are the fucking worst.

Stitch looks fantastic. He feels more dog-like in this, not enough that you still don’t find it weird that nobody notices he’s not a dog. But enough that you can conceivably buy it. The live-action nature of this means his chaos seems more real. When he ruins a wedding party, it’s not “wacky animated hijinks”, it’s “if I find this thing, I’m going to kill it because it ruined my day”.

Now onto the ending. I’ll talk about it more at the end of the year, so I can do so without spoilers, but lets just say it’s received A LOT of hatred online. “Ohana means nobody gets left behind, unless I have somewhere better to stay, in which case, fuck you Lilo”. I don’t hate it as much as everyone else seems to. I mean, it’s not good, and it definitely goes against the spirit of the movie. But I see what they were going for. I recognise they were going for something different but equally heartwarming; they just didn’t pull it off. There is a way to pull that ending off, I’m not sure what it is, but it does exist.

The Ballad Of Wallis Island (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Charles is a lottery-winning widow who pays folk duo McGwyer Mortimer to reunite for a private gig, very private, just him.

Films inspire different emotions and feelings. Some films make you yearn for human connection, some films make you nostalgic for a past you’ve never felt, and some, like The Ballad Of Wallis Island (TBOWI, tea-bowie) feel like sitting in front of a fire, drinking a nice cup of tea while the rain falls outside. It’s incredibly cosy and lovely to watch. It reminds me of playing Gone Home. You’re not watching it for the narrative, per se, you’re watching it for the feeling. There are secrets, but not really plot twists. It feels like you’re opening up matryoshka dolls, each doll revealing a new facet of the character’s history. TBOWI will really benefit from a rewatch, where you’ll be able to see everything with new context.

I have to be honest, I’m not sure I’ll want to watch it again, though. Don’t get me wrong, it was fine while I was watching it, but nothing about it made me need to watch it again. I’m not entirely sure why. It is a likeable film while you’re watching. It’s funny, albeit very awkward at times. But not uncomfortable in a “oh god, I can’t watch it, too cringeworthy” way. In a “I have met people like this before. Fuck, I AM people like this at times”.

Tim Key is perfectly cast, making the most of his bumbling awkwardness that he’s known for. This is the most dramatic role he’s been in, and he plays it well. You never feel “this is a comedian/poet, out of his depth”. Tom Basden is pretty fun as the obviously frustrated Herb. Carey Mulligan isn’t in it as long as the other two, but will be the person you remember most. She has an inherent likeability and creates a fun double-act with Basden.

I wish there were a bigger focus on the music. As good as the performances and writing are, I never really bought into the idea of them as a folk band. Compare this to Opus, which, although I liked it a lot less than this, had much better world-building and truly made you feel like you were in a world where that band existed.

I suppose that’s the problem. There was nothing about TBOWI that made me forget I was watching a piece of fiction. At times, it felt like the script was overly written and a bit too forced. Even the “end of second act” downer moment felt forced, and there’s one “reason you suck” speech that feels unnecessarily cruel and out of character.

That feels weirdly harsh. There is a lot to like about TBOWI. It’s not as “sketch comedy” as its premise would make you think. It manages to be both melancholic and lovely, creating genuine emotions. It’s worth a watch, but maybe not a rewatch.