Warfare (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: A surveillance mission goes wrong for a platoon of American Navy SEALs in insurgent territory in Iraq.

I’m still not entirely sure how I felt about Warfare (the movie, not the general concept). On the one hand, it is a superbly crafted experience, one that puts you in the shoes of those who were there, a real treat for those who are interested in modern warfare. On the other hand, it’s incredibly dull at times, and is so focused on being realistic and well-researched, it seems to forget that not everybody knows military terms.

I will praise Warfare (again, the movie, not the general concept, I’m not about to “big up” genocide, I’m not a politician) for how research permeates through the screen. People react realistically, and I will praise it for showing how even well-trained professionals still find it difficult to cope. This is the kind of masculinity that should be taught; the strength to know when you’re too fucked up and broken to be at your best, and how during those times you should relinquish leadership roles. They also have no qualms about screaming in agony and crying. Yes, this is natural when you’ve lost your legs. But think of how many films have shown people suffer severe physical damage, and don’t seem to emotionally respond to it. Warfare shows fear, and it shows pain. It’s disappointing that something so simple should be praised, but it should.

Sadly, that realism also means it can be difficult for people to “buy in” to the narrative. Army speak is kind of a code at times, people are referred to almost entirely by what type of soldier they are, and those names sometimes don’t give you a lot of clues as to what they actually do. Because everybody knows what they’re doing, they don’t explain it. So you often have someone say something like “okay, meet the Yorkshire Puddings at 06 to coordinate a Flipped Fletcher, and don’t forget your oily shepherd, you never know when you might meet a sleeping zebra”, but not give any clues what those terms mean (obviously not those ones, I invented them).

One of the most frustrating aspects is that it’s a war film without purpose. There are no moral quandaries or discussions. Which is odd considering they break into someone’s house and force the families who live there to let them stay there, pointing guns at their faces if they even look like objecting. Near the end, once the soldiers leave, the families are traumatised, and you know that there’s no chance the US army will compensate them for destroying their house, and they’re now targets for the Iraqis because they may be seen as helping the invasion. Despite this, we’re still supposed to support the main characters, because they’re the main characters. But outside of that, it’s difficult to feel more for them. They’re not given enough chance to show any personality, and most are interchangeable. Movies like this depend on personal connection to the characters, but Warfare is so insistent on telling its truth, it forgets to adhere to basic storytelling devices, which would allow us to care.

As a concept? This is fascinating. As an art project? Worthwhile. As a narrative feature-length movie to sit in a cinema and watch? Unfortunately, it’s difficult to recommend. Yes, it’s real, but there’s a reason most films don’t feature scenes highlighting a character pissing in a bottle.

A Minecraft Movie (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: A mysterious portal pulls four misfits into the Overworld, a bizarre, cubic wonderland that thrives on imagination. To get back home, they’ll have to master the terrain while embarking on a magical quest with an unexpected crafter named Steve.

I will preface this review by pointing out that I’ve never played Minecraft. Plus, despite spending a lot of my time online, I don’t really integrate myself with online culture; I’m not really someone who pays attention to trends and memes, etc. I’m not actively opposed to them, I just don’t really give a shit. Essentially, I view most TikTok trends not with disdain, but with boredom. That’s pretty much how I viewed A Minecraft Movie (AMM, pronounced aaaaaaaaaaaaarm for no reason whatsoever except that I want to pronounce it that way). I get what they were going for, but it didn’t appeal to me.

Part of it may be that I’m getting slightly bored of Jack Blacks shtick now. Dear Santa and Borderlands, I have pushed him out of the good graces portion of my brain, and I’m beginning to realise how similar all of his performances have been lately, like he’s coasting. It doesn’t help that I couldn’t get past the notion that it might have made more sense if he and Momoa swapped roles. You have two characters; one is a former video game champion with no prospects and tries to coast on his charm, reliving his glory days through video games and metal music. Doesn’t it seem like Jack Black should play him? As it is, he plays the other adult character, but plays him exactly the same way he plays every character, which would have suited the aforementioned character better.

I was also puzzled by the opening. It establishes that Steve was a child who wanted to mine, a child who grew older and bored with life, then, as an adult, felt the yearning again and went back into the mine, finding himself transported to the Overworld. While there, he becomes a master baiter, expertly baiting a wolf to become his friend. More importantly, he builds a lot of cool shit, and pisses off the gold-obssesed leader of another dimension. Now, what became of the life of real-world Steve? Nobody cares. No mention of his workplace, wondering where his child went, no town legends about someone going missing. There’s not even much of a mention of how long he’s been gone. I’m going to do this a lot in this review (possibly), but compare it to Jumaji. Where he went missing as a child (which makes a lot more sense), this allowed the film a justification for him being so well-versed in the world. Jumanji also showed how that disappearance haunted the people left behind, which never happens here with Steve. I know there’s a possibility that this happened like that because “that’s how it happened in the game”, but it still feels odd, very first draft.

Generally, I was left feeling with a sense of boredom throughout, no more than at the end, where they do the traditional music montage with text showing what happened to everybody. Big issue: the song is kind of dull. It “rocks” with a small R, in much the same way Bryan Adams does. Actually, that’s unfair to Bryan Adams; it “rocks” in the same way as Sting does. Not asking for a piece of musical greatness that would echo through the ages, but at least make it so I can remember.

All of this hurts more because it is generally a likeable movie. Momoa is clearly having fun, Emma Myers is fine but not notable, and Jennifer Coolidge continues to be incredibly reliable, the type of performer you can give 5 minutes to, and they’ll be some of the most entertaining 5 minutes you’ll see. The visuals are fun, and the action scenes have a sense of logic to them that’s missing in a lot of similar films. Plus, there are some funny jokes and moments in there (a lot of them provided by Danielle Brooks, who’s one of the few people who seem suitably freaked out).

It really should be better, though. It’s ironic that a film about the importance of creativity should be so pedestrian and uninspiring. THAT’S my issue. The concept has potential, and the film never comes within eyesight of it.

Sinners (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: From Dusk Till Dawn, but as a 30’s gangster movie with a black cast.

I went into this after seeing the trailer, but forgot what the trailer was like. I saw a post on Facebook saying it was a vampire horror movie. For about 40 minutes, I wondered if I had seen a post about a different movie. It wasn’t a horror movie, it wasn’t a vampire movie, it was a gangster flick about two brothers using money stolen from Chicago mobs to start up a bar. It had interesting character work, a lot of subtle references to the brothers’ past misdeeds, and how they acquired the money. It asked a lot of questions that the audience will want answered; the main one being what led to the opening scene, where Sammie (played by Miles Caton in his screen debut) stumbles into his father’s church, battered and bloody, desperate for comfort, only to see his father use him as an example in a sermon. Just when I began to doubt my own memory, the vampires made their first appearance. It’s a great genre switch, reminded me of From Dusk Till Dawn, only with less scenes of the writer sucking on an actresses toes to fulfil their own fetish.

I think I preferred this to Dusk; it’s much slower, and that glacial pace will be divisive, putting off a lot of people. It’s also not as bloody, but it does do something that the aforementioned Dawn never manages; it wowed me. There’s a scene in Sinners where Sammie plays his song at the bar. The song is so powerful that it connects across space and time, with spirits of the past and future joining in; electric guitars played Hendrix style join in with music from hundreds of years ago, and dances from different cultures, showing how music connects everybody. I’ve already written its nomination for best scene in the end-of-year awards. From a storytelling perspective, from a technical perspective (it’s a LOOOONG mostly unbroken shot), from a musical perspective, it’s all brilliant. I hate people who talk at the cinema, but I couldn’t help let out a gasp of “that was fucking cinema” when I saw it. I’m so glad it’s not just me. I’ve seen a lot of people online mention how much they loved that moment, and if you see it, it’s easy to see why. The mass sing-along to “Rocky Road Of Dublin” (which I always assumed Dropkick Murphys wrote, obviously not) is a few steps below it in terms of quality, but is just as powerful, and MUCH more terrifying.

Scenes like that, which show not only the power of music, but also the shared experiences between black and Irish immigrants (albeit, at two VASTLY different levels for most of American history) show just how smart Sinners is. The characters are just as smart. When a friend-turned-vampire starts asking for permission to enter the bar, the characters question why they suddenly need to ask permission. When they’re not sure who’s been bitten, they gather round and each eat a clove of garlic (in a scene very reminiscent of The Thing). The characters don’t die due to their own stupidity; they die because they’re overpowered, overmanned, and don’t know everything. Except for the klan members at the end, they die because they realised their blood can help the grass grow, and by dying they can actually provide some use for once in their pathetic fucking lives. I know, I’m anti-KKK, so controversial.

Sinners is not a perfect movie, but you have to be very picky to find those faults. It’s probably the best film I’ve seen this year. It’s not my favourite, but it is undoubtedly the most impressive, and the one closest to perfection. Cooglar is fantastic and cannot receive enough praise for the work he’s done, not just here, but throughout his whole career. Long may it continue.

The Amateur (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Charlie is a CIA cryptographer whose wife is brutally killed. He’s somewhat pissed about this, so decides to enact vengeance.

I never thought I’d say this, but sometimes big movie studios do know what they’re doing. Whether it’s editing Donnie Darko to make it coherent, making Woody more sympathetic in Toy Story, or changing the ending of Clerks, sometimes they do the right thing. I say that because it’s relevant here. The trailer for The Amateur featured a weird swimming pool death, with an explanation of what’s happening. Ordinarily, that would annoy me because it would feel like they’re giving away a key action setpiece in the trailer, but I actually liked it a lot. Mainly because in the movie itself, it was fascinating to watch it arrive. The build-up is superb, it’s like a horror movie, where you see the death coming, but the interesting part is seeing the tension build up beforehand. I guess now would be a good time to point out that this review is based entirely on this version. I have not seen the 1981 version, nor have I read the book. So I won’t make any complaints about stuff they’ve changed, and I won’t be able to talk about how it improved on certain aspects. I will be evaluating it based entirely on its own merits.

Out of the films I’ve seen directed by James Hawes, this is the most impressive from a technical standpoint, mainly because it has more of a visual style. I like the way he shot this; everything looks real and slick. It’s helped by some gorgeous locations, which actually feel like you’re travelling the world rather than just watching someone act in front of a green screen. The action sequences are unique; they’re not over-the-top fun like John Wick, they’re toned down, restrained. If this were a boxing match, it wouldn’t be a relentless series of punches to the face; it’s more like standing there, waiting patiently for the perfect time to make a singular knockout punch. I love that, as it means that the scenes that are supposed to have an impact hit HARD because they feel realistic, mostly. The realism is a big part of why I enjoyed The Amateur. Let’s face it, “a faceless cryptographer manages to outsmart the entire CIA” is a ridiculous premise when you think about it, but The Amateur makes you believe it.

Now, onto the downside, the background characters feel bland. They have enough foundations to be interesting, but a lot of those foundations are never built upon. Most of them don’t feel real; they just feel like machinations to help or hinder the lead character. My other issue is a bit harder to explain; I feel it wastes Rami Malek. I’m not saying he’s above films like this, but I do get the impression that the role isn’t showing him at his best. This wouldn’t be an issue, but there are a few scenes which could have allowed him to display his talents if the script were different. There’s one in particular near the end where he delivers a single line, and it’s a line full of emotion and pathos. But it’s also a line, and a scene, which you could easily imagine being extended, giving him a chance for a monologue that will truly break your heart.

Those are small issues, though. The Amateur is an easy film to enjoy. Unless it happens to be on TV as I’m trapped under a cat, I’m not sure I can imagine a situation where I will ever want to see it again. But that’s more to do with my lack of love for the spy genre as a whole rather than a comment on the film itself. It’s certainly not something I would ever discourage anybody from watching.

Drop (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: A widow goes on a date with a man she met online. A date that gets ruined by her trauma and anxiety, plus she keeps getting phone messages that threaten to kill her son if she doesn’t poison her date.

I am a slight fan of Landon, but mainly when he works a distinct style; kickass female leads in genre-bending weirdness (Happy Death Day and its sequel, Freaky, etc). When he steps away from that? Well then, you get Paranormal Activity 5 and Scouts Guide To The Zombie Apocalypse. Drop could easily fall into either of the two; yes, it has a strong female lead, but it isn’t playing off a genre, so it was difficult to figure out which side of the Landon fence it would fall.

I’ll get this out of the way; it’s much closer in quality to Happy Death Day than it is to Scouts Guide. From a technical standpoint, it’s his best film yet. There are some incredible shots here, this is the most impressed I can remember being with his camera work; sometimes when it didn’t even need to be. He doesn’t NEED to transition between the bar and the table with a tracking shot; a simple cut between the two would have worked. But he DOES make the choice to use the more difficult shot, and it’s beautiful. The set design also allows some visuals that are stunning, but not in an overly showy way.

Sadly, that doesn’t make Drop his best film. You can tell a lot of effort has been put into closing off any potential loopholes or answering any questions you may have about the logic. Drop REALLY doesn’t want you to question its core premise, but it doesn’t do enough to get you to care about anything outside of that. It has the essence of a political thriller, but it feels kind of underdeveloped. The villain’s main motivation comes off a little weak, especially since he seems to have picked the worst possible method to fix his problem. It’s written by the pair who wrote Fantasy Island and Truth Or Dare, which I still count as two of the worst horror movies I’ve had the misfortune of watching. Drop is nowhere near as bad as those two films, but the issues I had with them do linger here, too. The ambition is beyond its talent, trying so hard to be clever that it comes off as kind of stupid, and some character choices aren’t logical. There’s nothing inherently terrible about Drop. Nothing that will annoy you or offend you, but there are a lot of small issues with it, and eventually, they do build up.

Thankfully, Drop has something wonderful in its box of tricks: the cast. Meghann Fahy and Brandon Sklenar make incredible leads. Separately, they’re very good performers. But it’s when they share the screen that magic happens. You really buy them as a nervous couple on a date; they could lead a rom-com together easily. The background cast is fun too (especially Violett Beane), never overshadowing the leads, but providing enough uniqueness that you do notice them, so if they were revealed as the mastermind behind the scheme, you wouldn’t be sitting there like “Who’s that?”. I’d have liked to have seen more work done on the writing of those characters, more motivational possibilities for some of them, and more doubt placed in our heads about some of them.

So, the reveal itself? It’s good, not great. If you ignore the “That’s literally the worst way you could have done this” questions, then it does make sense, and it’s easy to see how it was pulled off. However, there’s something deeply unsatisfying about how the reveal is set up. Just an offhand comment that no professional serving staff would make, followed by a lucky guess. It’s nowhere near as bad as the last Scream movie, but it’s also not one that makes you want to see the film again and watch it again with that reveal in mind.

In summary, it’s a very cute relationship movie that then breaks out into a thriller, and it does 75% of that VERY well.

The Second Act aka Le Deuxième Acte (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: It genuinely doesn’t f*cking matter, seriously.

It’s weird how a trailer can win you over by not showing a single second of what’s in the film. It may seem counter-productive to not include anything from the movie in the trailer, but sometimes it’s not needed. Sometimes, all you need is a way to tell people “This is the tone and style”. The Second Act (TSA, pronounced Tizz-ah, but not like the drink) trailer did that brilliantly and is probably the best trailer I’ve seen in a while. It tells you everything while showing you nothing. The complete opposite of most Marvel trailers.

Now, the film itself. It’s meta and weird. Near the start, a character says something mildly transphobic and then is told “You can’t say that we’re being filmed” Then the character tries to rephrase it differently. He doesn’t say that as the character, he says it as the actor playing the character, if that makes sense? It’s a weird moment, the first of many, and how you react to that scene will let you know whether its worth continuing with the rest of the movie. Personally, I found it funny. But I will admit that it does highlight a small issue I had with this; it is occasionally too meta. As much as I do love the opening scene and how meta it is, there is still a small part of you that thinks “Get on with it”. I’m not saying be less meta, I never say that, but spread it out more among the story. As it is, TSA will stop the story for 5 minutes to focus on meta-commentary, then pick up the story again. In a film that’s less than 90 minutes long, that’s a lot of waiting around. There should have been a more seamless way of threading the meta-ness through the narrative without pausing. I typed that after 10 minutes. Really I should delete it because this film wouldn’t exist without the meta. All it has is “we’re actors making a film” and fourth wall breaks upon fourth wall breaks (16 walls?).

That kind of stuff is to be expected from fans of Quentin Dupieux, those who watched and enjoyed the *checks notes* sentient tire that kills people with psychokinetic powers movie Rubber, will enjoy this. It’s very similar, you have to go into it expecting it to break the very notion of narrative and cinema, you’re not watching it for the plot, you’re just watching it for the experience of watching it. If you are expecting some form of sense, you’re going to be deeply disappointed.

I’m quickly falling in love with Lea Seydoux, she was phenomenal in The Beast, and continues to impress throughout TSA. She’s charming, friendly, and seems believable as a slightly frustrated actress. The others are all fine, but Seydoux is the best of a very good bunch.

From a technical standpoint, this is a marvel (and not just because it stops the plot to make jokes), not in terms of special effects or even outstanding beauty, but because of the tracking shots. Oh my science, the tracking shots. They’re so prevalent that the pre-credits scene makes a point of showcasing just how long the tracks were to make them happen.

Really the only thing to take from TSA? Films are silly. Making them is silly. Writing them is silly. So what not make it so watching them is silly too? It’s not for everybody, and I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t a slightly frustrating watch at times, but it’s also one that’s not entirely without merits.

The Woman In The Yard (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: Grieving (and injured) widow Ramona lives on a dilapidated old farm in the middle of nowhere. They’re struggling financially when things are made worse by everyone’s biggest fear: a person nearby.

Long-time readers will know that I love horror movies, but when I don’t it’s usually due to one of two things: 1) Unlikeable characters. 2) Terrible ending. Usually, it’s specifically the final scene, where we find out the demon/ghost/haunted sandwich is still alive because the writers sacrificed ending the film on a scare over the narrative. Usually, that’s not enough to completely sink a film, but it will make a bad film even worse. I’ve yet to have a case where the final third has completely sunk my opinion of a film the way it did The Woman In The Yard (TWITY, pronounced “twit-tea”).

It cannot be overstated how much the final third absolutely torpedos any goodwill the rest of the film provides. For two-thirds of its runtime, TWITY is a tense, atmospheric family story set against the backdrop of a silent ghost; a tale of grief and guilt manifesting itself in unexpected ways. A display of the toll that motherhood can take, how it can seem like it takes over your entire life and leaves you feeling like you don’t have your own identity. I liked that film. I found it “spooky” without being silly, emotional without being overbearingly depressing, and slow-paced without being boring. It’s the kind of film I want to see more of, original and creative. It was up there in the top 50% of films this year.

Then the final third happened. Then it becomes the worst of Blumhouse, a visual and narrative mess which confuses deliberate confusion for scares, rapid cuts instead of tension, and a final shot “reveal” that doesn’t actually reveal anything going by online discourse which gives it two different meanings. It feels like the writer isn’t sure he’s going to get another shot at writing a horror film so crammed as many horror tropes and conventions as he could, regardless of whether it worked for the story he was trying to tell.

If they figured out a way to fix it, TWITY could be a classic. It has some truly great cinematography. Most horror movies utilise darkness, TWITY goes the other way, using intense sunshine and brightness to create mood. The shot of the woman just sitting there silently is unsettling as hell, and is PERFECT for marketing purposes. The performances are also good, Danielle Deadwyler is believable as a grieving mother who is trying to balance her grief and being a responsible mother to home-schooled children. Estella Kahiha sometimes falters, but she’s a child so that’s forgivable. I was really surprised by how good Peyton Jackson was. Jackson gives the kind of performance that you can imagine being looked back on in 10 years time and saying “THAT’S how it started, look at all the awards and acclaim he has now”. He’s the audience’s “in”, the level-headed character who points out how crazy the other characters are behaving, while trying to look after his younger sister. As such, a lot of the emotional labour of the narrative has to go through him, and with a lesser performer it would have sunk; Jackson does SO much with what he’s given; handling the role with a maturity beyond his years.

There’s also a lot to like about how damn good the opening two-thirds is. It sets up so many small details that pay off later. The titular woman is treated like existing folklore in terms of her actions and appearance, it would be easy to believe that in this world, the tale of The Woman In The Yard is told by teens at slumber parties and summer camps, a way to scare kids into behaving. The characters are believable, even when they do possibly abusive things. The setup is good too; we’re shown that the family are isolated and with their electricity cut off, so it really feels like they’re cut off from the rest of civilisation.

In summary; I am so disappointed with this. I loved seeing the delicate narrative house of cards built up into a magnificent art piece, only to see it knocked over by a fart of flat writing.

Novocaine (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: A character nicknamed Novocaine can’t feel pain, he decides to utilise this after his love interest is kidnapped.

The world is shit. That has been the case for a while, but just today the world has seen a submarine sink in the Red Sea, storms destroy sacred temples in South Korea, journalists arrested in Turkey, and my custard cream just broke apart in my cup of tea. In times like this, while important and political films are needed, it’s nice to have a bit of escapism. While I LOVE films like A Real Pain, sometimes (and this may come as a shock) I want to watch a film that makes me happy rather than make me feel things.

It’s also a nice change to have Jack Quaid play a man who isn’t responsible for a woman being set on fire, makes a nice change. I’ve seen Quaid in Scream, and Companion (as reviewed here and here), but this is the first time I’ve seen him as the undeniable lead. He does a really good job. I’m used to seeing him as a sociopathic dickweed, so this is a nice change. He definitely has the charisma needed, maybe not for a major action film with a bigger budget than this, but I feel he has the charm to lead a rom-com.

He’s helped by a pretty tight script. Novocaine isn’t the smartest, most mature movie, but it does a really good job of showing why the characters’ inability to feel pain is a bad thing. We see how it affects his day-to-day life, from not being able to eat solid food in case he bites his tongue without noticing, to having to set a timer to pee because otherwise, his bladder might burst. This is a rather long-winded way of saying that for a dumb movie, this is pretty smart.

Novocaine makes the most of its concept, with every single action scene based around the gimmick. None of the scenes would work in a different film, which is what you want from something with such a unique gimmick as this.

Even outside of the gimmick, it kind of works. There’s a genuinely good mid-twist. On the downside, there’s something that’s supposed to be a twist, but was instead all over the marketing. Production companies NEED to stop doing that shit, especially with things that won’t actually make anybody see the film, so all they do is ruin the enjoyment of people who actually pay to watch the film.

Now on the downside: it is hard to ignore just as one-note this is. That doesn’t stop it being good, but it does stop it being great. Yes, it is a good gimmick, but the film’s reluctance to ever move away from it does mean it resembles a modern-day SNL sketch that goes on too long and features people you don’t know (or in other words, an SNL sketch). Also, the villains are not that interesting. I can vaguely remember what they look like, but it’s difficult when they don’t have that much screen time and spend most of that just sitting still waiting for the hero to come to them.

It’s also not technically the greatest. The fun from the fight scenes comes all from the script and performance, not from the direction. There’s one fight sequence near the end where the visuals actually detract from the action, with the core moment of it being too difficult to see what’s actually happening.

In summary; if this was the 90s it would be the perfect film to rent from blockbuster, in 2025? I dunno, watch it on Netflix or something, I guess.

Last Breath (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: The true story of Chris Lemons, a deep-sea diver stranded at the bottom of the sea with no oxygen.

There are some films which challenge every notion you have; films which are so complex and fascinating that it feels like you need to make notes during it just to follow. Those are fine, and it can be very interesting to see those complicated plots reveal themselves in front of you. Then there are films like Last Breath, films are so ridiculously simple you have to wonder how they can make it into a feature (similar films include Fall, Buried, and a third one I can’t be bothered to think of because I’m sleepy). Sometimes those films fail because they can’t maintain such a simple story (as in the case of Night Swim), but when they work? They’re superb.

Last Breath is a simple film, but it’s a great one. What it lacks in clever plotting or twists, it makes up for in tension. From the moment the breathing tube breaks, right to the final credits, you will be on the edge of your seat. It’s pacey, getting to the main plot very quickly, but not so quickly that it feels rushed. Crucially, you’re given enough of a reason to actually care about the characters. This is essential, especially since one of the characters (played brilliantly by Finn Cole) spends most of the film runtime unconscious on the ocean floor, so you can’t really get much character development done for him (unless you utilise flashbacks, which will break up the tension too much). So a lot of the introduction is spent on him, giving us a reason to care about him. The rest is logically spent on the other characters, all of whom are likeable, realistic, and (crucially), competent. The disaster isn’t caused by mistakes, stupidity, or carelessness. It just happened. In some ways that’s good, because it would be weird if incompetent characters were in charge of important things like that, it would be like having someone high up in government who adds journalists to online message groups where they discuss war, it would just be unrealistic and make them seem stupid. On the other hand; it makes it more terrifying. The idea that no matter how well prepared you are, no matter how many precautions you take, you can still die alone at the bottom of the sea just because of bad luck?

Make no mistake—everyone in this is DEEPLY competent, to the point where the competence is entertaining in itself. There’s something to be said about watching a group of people being VERY good at their job, it’s sort of like the opposite of watching BBC Parliament. Even decisions which in lesser films would make someone the villain (such as when a character decides not to drop anchor so they can stay near the abandoned diver), are displayed in a way that you know the character making that decision is uneasy about it, only doing so because they fear dropping the anchor will sever a pipeline.

If I’m being critical, Last Breath could do a slightly better job of showing WHY they’re doing certain stuff. You can pick up on a lot of it due to context clues or previous knowledge of diving safety equipment. But there are still some moments where the audience is seeing stuff happen, but aren’t told what the purpose of it is. It’s a minor criticism because I’m not sure HOW they could have done it without some ham-fisted dialogue. The ending also suffers from being nowhere near as interesting as what comes before it. Last Breath knows how to keep you interested during the dive, but it’s not quite as good at making the post-dive moments feel like anything other than a needless coda.

Those are minor criticisms though. Last Breath is genuinely one of the best films I’ve seen this year. The performances are great (Woody in particular has never been better), the visuals are striking in how sparse they are undersea, and the soundtrack is majestic without ever overshadowing the visuals. I’ve liked some films more than this, but Last Breath is the best movie I’ve seen with wide mainstream appeal.

Opus (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: A young writer travels to the remote compound of a legendary pop star who mysteriously disappeared 30 years ago. 

This is the debut feature of writer/director Mark Anthony Green, and I feel it has to be viewed through that lens. There are parts of Opus that could only be made by someone early on in their career, which I mean as a positive and a negative. There’s an ambition behind the work, an ambition and cockiness that would have been beaten down by experience. There are narrative and visual risks that can only come from a newcomer. On the downside; it doesn’t live up to its own ambitions. Green KNOWS what he wants to say, but he doesn’t quite know how to say it.

I will say this, Green is fantastic at setting up tense moments, he’s also good at all-out narrative chaos. What he’s not so great at is connecting the two. Narratively, it feels like a walk through creepy woods. Very slow, very deliberate, very unnerving. It then realises you’re never going to reach the end in time so pushes you down a hill. There’s a definitive cliff-pushing moment here, and the moment itself is brilliant. But it’s such a shift that it feels a bit weird. It seems like there could have been a few more scenes beforehand. I also wasn’t a fan of how it ended. I know what they were going for, and on paper, it’s a tremendous ending, truly some Twilight Zone/Outer Limits shit. But for some reason, it just didn’t work for me. I can’t even fully explain why. The ending made sense, it ties into the characters well, plays into the themes perfectly etc. It just……..I dunno, it didn’t quite land. It felt more like a concept of an ending, a casual conversation between people about “we should end like this” rather than an actual ending. It’s not helped by the fact that it’s dependent on everything going EXACTLY as they planned.

Not to say Opus isn’t a worthwhile watch. The music alone makes it a good experience. Green did a FANTASTIC job of setting the world up. It doesn’t punch you over the face with “This is how the world is different”. It sets up our reality, then slides into the Opus reality through aged footage and interviews with people the audience is familiar with. If you showed someone the montage parts of this, you could easily convince them that it’s reality. The locations feel real too. In particular, the compound feels vast and like you could actually walk around and explore it, with the film subtly providing enough clues that it’s probably possible to create a map. The music feels like real music too. Crucially, in regards to the pop star, it never feels like Malkovich is playing the part, it feels like he IS the part.

The other performers more than hold their own. Ayo Edebiri continues to be one of the most consistent young performers around, Juliette Lewis gives a performance worthy of the character, and Tony Hale has hair. Nobody gives a weak performance, even cult members who are only there for a single scene are spot on (as is Rosario Dawson as the puppet of Billie Holiday).

I love that Opus actually had something to say. The “cult of celebrity” aspect is not exactly subtle, but it is timely. I mean, America handed political power who named a department after a meme, and he was in that position because of his celebrity status (and bribery, possible bribery). People keep telling celebrities “stop talking about politics” (normally ONLY when they support a different political party than the person complaining), but political parties still court them, because they know the viewpoints of celebrities carry weight. The whole anti-vaxxer movement in the US entered mainstream political conversation because of celebrities, and for some reason, people view the medical opinions of Jim Carrey as having more worth than actual doctors. The cult of celebrity is ripe for satire and ridiculing, and that’s something Opus does fantastically. Yeah, it doesn’t quite know WHAT it wants to say about it, but I respect it for at least trying.

Green will make something superb once he finds his visual voice. At the moment, as impressive as it looks, it never looks unique. Even at its most tense, it feels like shots were designed with “now make this like a Jordan Peele film, now make this look like this Midsommar, now make this like The Menu” in mind. Opus is overly ambitious, but I would MUCH rather watch that than a film where the creators didn’t try. So it’s hard to dislike it too much, even if I didn’t like it that much as it went on.