Dear Santa (2024) Review

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

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

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

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

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

Timestalker (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Girl meets boy, girl gets decapitated, girl meets boy again in a future life. Repeat.

I’m a massive fan of Alice Lowe, from her television work in Darkplace or Horrible Histories, to her forays into films. She’s weird. I mean that in a good way. She’s one of those actors who could turn up in almost any comedy or horror and it would make sense, how she didn’t make an appearance in Paddington or Wonka is astounding to me. It’s not just a performer, she’s gained a reputation as a pretty darn good writer/director too; giving the world Sightseers and Prevenge. The latter, she made whilst pregnant, and is highly recommended. My plan for this review as to gush over how much I adore her and everything she does, this is the first film of hers I’ve reviewed on this site, and it’s about damn time(stalker) I showed her the love she deserved.

With that in mind, it’s a shame that Timestalker isn’t quite as good as you feel it could be. I’m not saying it’s bad, I’m not even saying it’s not good, but it’s not brilliant. It doesn’t feel as essential as some of her other work. It’s got a really unique premise, and some great visual styles, but there are times when it feels like that’s all it has. Timestalker does have the bad fortune to be released in 2024. It would be impossible to compare this to anything else any other year. You could legitimately say you’ve never seen anything like this. In 2024? It brings to mind Bertrand Bonello’s The Beast (as reviewed here). They take different approaches to it though, whereas The Beast gives you existential dread and nihilistic thoughts, Timestalker gives you laughs and playfulness. It’s certainly more consistent than The Beast, better than the worst parts, but nowhere near as good as the best parts.

My biggest gripe is that Timestalker is that it feels like it is not making the most of the premise. It needs more links between the times, with repeated themes and visuals in different contexts. There are some visuals that keep cropping up (the pink heart for one) but they feel too forced and instead of suggesting a connected universe, this makes it feel more like that object has magical powers. The music, especially, is a component that definitely could have had a lot more fun with connective moments.

This is very negative I know. In truth, I did like Timestalker. It’s darkly funny with many moments where you catch yourself laughing at things you know you really shouldn’t. There are some terrific colours throughout, so it’s never an ugly watch. Aneurin Barnard is a revelation (which I realise now is a borderline offensive thing to say considering how many things he’s been in), he has innate star power, which helps you buy into the idea that she would fall in obsession with him. You see him on screen and you just know “That’s a star”. He backs this up with a good performance too, his performance in the 80’s timeline is a particular delight. The 80’s section was probably my favourite part, and not just because Lowe fits that decade visually. It’s also the part with the best story development, characterisation, and music. Her unspoken romance with Meg is also incredibly sweet.

In summary, it’s weird and wonderful, but not quite great. Alice Lowe is still one of the most unique creators around, and it will take something truly terrible for her to lose stock.

Woman Of The Hour (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: It’s 1970 and Sheryl Bradshaw is so desperate for TV time that her agent books her on The Dating Game, unaware that one of the male contestants is harbouring a dark and disturbing secret: he’s from Texas. Oh, and he kills people. That’s bad too.

Woman Of The Hour (or WOTH, pronounced to rhyme with cough) is like a six-dicked Calydonian boar, a strange beast you can’t turn away from. It’s helped by a truly fascinating story. This actually happened. In 1978, serial killer Rodney Alcala made an appearance on The Dating Game, and he did win, which has to be a real kick in the teeth of the guys who were rejected. Everything else about the story is fiction. The entire story of the woman who went out with him? Fake. The woman in the audience who reports the killer and is ignored? Fake. The host of the show is a complete dick? Fake (for this one specific person). A producer making creepy comments about Anna Kendrick whilst pointing at her breasts? Fa-oh wait, that’s real, happened to her when she was 19, which sadly meant she was too young to drink, so she couldn’t go to a bar, buy a bottle of drink then use the bottle to slit the throat of that producer.

I’m okay with that kind of approach to historical accuracy. This is mainly because it never pretends to be anything other than what it is; it is a fictional narrative that occurs during a real historical story. If it was presented with a subtitle like “The true story” then I’d object. The reality isn’t important, the story and the setting is. The setting is significant. This was a time when, according to the letter of the law, women were mostly equals (sometimes), but the reality was very different. Men still felt comfortable being sexually aggressive with female strangers, who would then be told to “take it as a compliment” or “stop complaining” when they mentioned it. It’s very different from now, I’ve spoken to many men on the subject and they all agree women are treated equally now. The time is just as much a character as the serial killer (now there’s a sentence I’ve never said before).

The other essential half of the jigsaw of WOTH is Anna Kendrick. This is her directorial debut and it’s pretty damn impressive. She does have a tendency towards being overly arty and “oooo look at this” as opposed to using the camera to tell a story. There are no moments which are “bad”, nothing which makes you think “Ooof, I wouldn’t have done that”, and more experienced directors have done that (A Quiet Place: Day One, for example, featured one of my least favourite shots of the year from a coherence standpoint, and that was from a guy with experience). I hope Kendrick continues to direct, and I’m curious as to what her next move would be. I’m hoping she continues to do stories she has a passion and personal interest in (she donated her fee from this movie to charity, because she’s lovely and a badass). She’s about 2 movies away from making an INCREDIBLE feminist AF drama which I will absolutely LOVE.

Her performance is good too. The moment where she calls everyone out on their misogyny is glorious to watch. I’ve seen some reviews state she was the wrong choice, and that she feels too modern for a 1970s character. To those people I say, you’re wrong. I won’t debate this, I won’t explain this, but you are wrong.

The weakest part, for me, is the narrative. The fact he was on a tv show (you know, the whole selling point of the film) doesn’t matter. It’s not his appearance on TV that leads to his downfall, his downfall wasn’t until the next year. So really, the main crux of the film is entirely inconsequential. It’s still a good watch, but I do wish that more things mattered, that the timeline was more coherent, and that the side characters were memorable. So much focus went on the “serial killer on a dating show”, that it feels that not enough effort was put on anything else in the narrative, so it feels incredibly underbaked.

That being said, there is one BRILLIANT scene that’s not set on the show. The date. Specifically, the aftermath when she’s creeped out by him in the car park. It’s CHILLING, and makes the hair on the back of your neck stand on edge. It’s also (I imagine), a scene in which pretty much every woman alive has a “yeah that happened to me too. When? Well the first time was when I was 12, then the next time it was-” series of anecdotes which are similar.

In summary, an easy film to be impressed by. An easy film to be moved by. But also a film in which you can’t help but feel there’s something better from the creators in the future.

Humanist Vampire Seeking Consenting Suicidal Person (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: I feel the title adequately explains it.

As we approach the end of the year, I’m starting to think of the awards I will give out in January, and try to note the contenders for each award. Some are pretty much settled (Worst Moment is likely to go to Twisters for a character introduction that tainted the rest of the film). In contrast, some still require a lot of thinking (the Most Disappointing category is depressingly packed so far). One award that won’t be given is Best Title, if it was, Humanist Vampire Seeking Consenting Suicidal Person (HVSCSP, pronounced Hoo-vis-car-seep) would win that easily. I love that title, it promises so much. Not just the plot, but also the type of film it will be. A title like that is not going to be an incredibly depressing look at the human condition. It will be quirky, and it will be unique.

What you might not expect is just how damn sweet it is. It’s incredibly heart-warming, with the central relationship being more believable and recognisable than a vampire story should be. Some writers would have focused on the sexual energy of vampires, but HVSCSP is more sweat than sexual, and is all the better for it. I love the central relationship. There’s a moment between the two where they’re just sitting listening to music. There’s no dialogue, no dancing, they’re just sitting near each other. By all logic, that should be boring as hell. But it says something about the talent of director Ariane Louis-Seize, plus the performers Sara Montpetit and Felix-Antoine Benard that it works. You can tell there are moments when both of them want to speak, and you know exactly what they would say, and the characters know that too, so they want to respond, but because it wasn’t actually said, they don’t. That scene is a microcosm of the film as a whole; incredibly sweet and wholesome.

I’ve seen some reviews which have stated they wished this had more bite. I’m assuming they only said that for pun purposes. Cynicism and meanness would have ruined this. Yes, vampire movies usually do need to be dark and broody, but this particular film? It needs niceness. It’s like a Wes Anderson movie being caressed by Tim Burton.

Don’t get me wrong, there is some violence, but it’s used to tell a story. The killing of the clown in the opening scene is shown to have traumatised Sasha, so it makes sense that even with the ability to do so, she would be reticent to commit violence unless she needed to. This builds up beautifully to a moment where she violently attacks a group of people threatening Paul. If the film was filled with violence, that scene wouldn’t land. If the violence was shot as “cool” and fun, that moment wouldn’t land. HVSCSP understands restraint better than a German dungeon mistress and uses it to great joy.

It’s not perfect. The soundtrack is kind of bland. The aforementioned scene of the two listening to music together? Perfect song choice. The rest of the movie? Forgettable. I’m not saying EVERY film needs more 80’s dark synth music, but some Bauhaus would have improved this immensely.

I also found it difficult to get a solid grounding on the universe contained within HVSCSP. Are people aware of vampires but decide to ignore them? Are they aware but deathly scared? Do they consider vampires as mythological creatures? There are moments which support all three assertions, so it’s difficult to work out what world this takes place in. This leads me to the other problem; with the exception of the main two, the characters are all tremendously bland. It doesn’t feel like a real group of people, they’re not main characters in their own life, they’re only supporters of the tale we’re being told right now.

This is still a lovely film. It’s not among the best of the year, but it’s worth watching, even if only once.

Red One (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Santa gets kidnapped.

Studios put a lot of thought into release dates for big movies. Sometimes it’s to avoid competition with a similar release which may split the audience and negatively affect the box office, sometimes because it wants to be in people’s minds when they nominate films for awards, and sometimes it is to make use of certain demographics (releasing kids films during the summer holidays etc). With that in mind, it is truly baffling why Red One, a Christmas movie, was released in the first week of November, which despite what the adverts on television may be telling you, is not Christmas. I can’t imagine there’s much crossover between the intended audience of Red One, and the intended audience for Night Bitch or the new Lord Of The Rings. There are only two ways I can justify it;

  1. They need it to fail so they can recoup the losses in some form of Hollywood accounting BS
  2. It’s going to be released on streaming services just before Christmas.

There is, of course, the possibility that they want this to be a slow-burn success, that audiences will be so impressed by what they see that they will tell their friends, who will then tell their friends and sooner or later everyone will go see it.

If they wanted that, they should have made a better movie. It’s not terrible, it’s just deeply deeply flawed. The main issue is one of tone. It’s not sure whether it wants to be a family-friendly Christmas adventure or an action movie. At times, it seems like it’s aimed at children, with infantile references and simple narratives, but then there are sexual references and mid-level swears which you’d expect in a mild 15.

I wasn’t a fan of Chris Evans in this. He’s usually very good, and he can do comedy. But for some reason, his style didn’t work in this. It’s hard to buy him as a regular human, even when he is standing next to The Rock. I should point out, that there’s a moment where Nick Kroll gets possessed, and the vocal performance is bad to the point of embarrassment. Other than that, most of the performances are fine, and it’s always nice to see Bonnie Hunt.

There are also pacing issues. It takes FAR too long to get to the point. The opening also repeats itself or says things that could have been saved for later. Personally, I think we should have stayed with Chris Evans character before moving to the mystical part, then our experiences would have been similar to his, with our eyes and minds slowly being shown the magic.

The magic is the best part. Red One incorporates so many worldwide Christmas myths and legends that it’s almost an educational experience. I really enjoy the way they incorporate Gryla. I kind of wish they put more in, but I suppose the hope was to save them for sequels.

In summary; disposable fun, that really should have been released either straight to streaming or closer to Christmas. At the moment, it feels like it’s been sent out to die, and it doesn’t deserve that.

Don’t Move (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: When a killer injects her with a paralytic agent, a woman must run, fight and hide before her body completely shuts down.

Did Netflix gaslight us into thinking their original films used to be good? I thought they were, but looking at the list, there’s a lot of shit there. Well, maybe “shit” is a bit harsh, but for every Glass Onion, there are about 40 Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga‘s, films which are so forgettable that they barely register as being watched. Maybe Don’t Move will be different?

It starts promising, it sets the tone very quickly, and it’s really interesting. The opening kidnapping is shocking, not just because of how sudden it is, but also how cold and calculating it is. You can really see how the killer lures his victims. He picks up character information so quickly, incredibly observant. He’s essentially a detective who uses his powers for evil.

I like how minimalist DM is. There are a few other characters, but it is mostly just Finn Witrock and Kelsey Asbille. Finn Wittrock is good, but he never really feels like an individual, instead coming off as a mix between Bill “Pennywise” Skarsgard, Casey “Not Ben” Affleck and Leonardo “No Don’t Turn 26, you’re so pretty” DiCaprio. Asbille does A LOT considering she’s paralyzed for the majority of the runtime. She has tremendous eye-acting, which is essential because that’s the only way she portrays emotion for most of it. The small cast allows the talents of the two leads to really shine. It also helps Asbille’s character seem more isolated. This could have been TERRIBLE if it cut to her previous life too often (as was done in The Mercy) in an attempt to examine her life. Because we only see her in the context of a kidnapping victim, we feel scared and isolated alongside her; all we know in this world is her and her kidnapper.

I do have some issues with the script though. Not that it’s bad, but I feel it wastes potential. Whilst DM is good, it could (née, should) have been great. Her losing her body autonomy (we call that “Being An American Woman”) should have taken place in real-time, it lasts 10 minutes onscreen instead of the (I think) 20 it was said to have taken. Adding the extra 10 would have made it so much more interesting. That’s the case for the whole film actually. It’s crying out for a gimmick. Maybe that’s real-time, so we get LONG shots of her being driven to the cabin the kidnapper hopes to keep her in, the longer the drive, the more we become aware of just how hopeless her situation is. Maybe it could have done the always impressive long take, making it seem like it was all filmed in one take (as in Boiling Point and 1917) with scenes of forestry masking cuts and time jumps. Maybe if it was all from her POV, so we are truly in her shoes, feeling her fear and helplessness. Any one of those would have made it a genuinely impressive feature and would have helped it stand out. As it is, it’s just pretty good.

It’s a shame to watch a film and get distracted by what it is instead of what it could be. But this isn’t quite refined enough to distract you, so you can’t really help but let your mind wander. It’s a great concept, but there’s not quite enough in the narrative it to justify stretching it out to feature length instead of just having it as a short. It’s not, but it does have big “based on a short story” energy. This is where a gimmick would have helped it, it would have hidden the narrative swamp of boredom.

Juror #2 (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Justin Kemp (Hoult) is called to jury duty for a man accused of murdering his girlfriend, a man Kemp knows is innocent because the actual killer was him, during a distressing car journey home on that night.

I will admit, I was a little lost going into this as I hadn’t seen Juror #1.

Now that that terrible joke is out of the way, I can get serious. I’m not going to, but the option is there. Juror #2 can best be described as a competent movie. It’s possibly Clint Eastwood’s last movie as a director and a fine film to exit on. Eastwood is a good director, but let’s face it, his real talent is picking really good scripts. That continues with this, where his directing never really gets better than “serviceable”. Actually, that’s mean, I suppose “functional” would be more accurate. There are no bad visual moments, but nothing that will really impress you.

Something like this isn’t about the visuals though, it’s all about the story and the performances, both of which are pretty damn fine. It’s not perfect. There are definitely a few scenes that don’t do enough to justify their inclusion. That’s especially disappointing in a legal thriller. When you watch a film based on truths coming out, where characters are trying to hide their past actions etc, you expect things to matter. If a random scene happens, you expect that it’s actually important and will matter. There’s a scene here where the main character picks up the phone that belongs to the lead prosecutor (played by the About A Boy pairing of Nicholas Hoult and Toni Collette) after she accidentally drops it in the car park. There are a lot of ways this could have come up again; maybe she uses it to get his fingerprints, and maybe she will remember something about him later on. Nope, nothing. It doesn’t even tell us anything about the characters. That’s followed by another scene which is an intro to jury duty, again, completely unnecessary. It feels like it was only there because the writer did their research into what happens before you serve on jury duty, found out that you go into a room and watch a video before the trial starts, and wanted to show off that research.

There’s some great character work here. So many of the jury members have enough backstory and motivations to come off as believable. It would be nice if a few more of them were fleshed out, especially because of all the wasted scenes. There’s one weird character. Harold, played by JK Simmons is written almost TOO well. He’s a former detective who takes an interest in the case. His interest in the case gets him kicked off the jury, which is realistic. He then doesn’t appear again. Soooooooo, what was the point of that? Are we to believe that he just stopped? “Well, I’m not part of the case anymore, so who gives a shit?” If anything, he would feel more free. He can investigate it as a private citizen on his free time now he’s not locked in a jury room all day.

The performances? Pretty damn good. Why don’t films cast Nicholas Hoult as a leading man in romance films? He has the best eyes. The rest are pretty good, it is weird to see so many English actors in SUCh an American movie. Zoey Deutch is a delight, as she always is. Eastwood does cast his daughter, but it’s a minor role, the kind of role that’s okay for a nepotism hire as you’re not exactly going to get a major performer in such a small role.

Hellboy: The Crooked Man (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: In the 1950’s Appalachian mountains, Hellboy and his rookie teammate hunt down a local legend.

I mentioned to someone that I had watched this. The response to that is normally a quick “is it worth watching?”, “How is it?” etc, the usual questions. The one I got for this? “What new Hellboy movie?”.

The first Hellboy movie had box office takings of nearly $100million, so A LOT of people saw it. Even the 2019 one (which I reviewed here) made $55million on a budget of $50million (you wouldn’t think it would be that expensive to put a massive pile of dog shit in front of a camera and then film it). Those numbers prove one thing; a lot of casual moviegoers are aware of this character. So it’s baffling that the studio not only released this straight-to-VOD but also had a marketing campaign that consisted of “just post a video on YouTube, people will find it”. Really, Hellboy: The Crooked Man (H: TCM, pronounced Ha-took-em) SHOULD be a cult classic. It should have a reputation as a folk horror comic book movie, a low-budget but high-effort hidden gem.

It won’t have that reputation though, because it’s a bad film. Maybe I’d be more favourable towards this if it wasn’t for how good the first two are. Then again, maybe I’d be less favourable if I didn’t have to suffer through the last one. Actually, that does a disservice, as even without the comparisons, H: TCM would still seem cheap. At times it looks like a video game, and at other times it looks like a porn parody where the actors forgot to have sex. I knew it would have a lower budget, so visually it wouldn’t be able to match the previous entries, but it still tries to, and it fails in that trying. The things we see in films aren’t real, but I appreciate some effort in concealing that. I’m well aware that Wallace and Gromit are claymations, but if the next film has a moment where we see the animators’ fingers moving them around, I’m gonna be pissed. This makes no effort to hide the metaphorical strings behind the visuals, so it’s hard to lose yourself in what you’re seeing as the visuals constantly pull you out.

There are some good moments. It is suitably violent and doesn’t waste time getting to the violence. The witch coming back to life scene was pretty damn good. Very creepy. There are a few other moments where you can see what it is aiming to be. It’s in those moments where you see the influences, the most obvious one being The Evil Dead. Considering how heavily indebted it is to The Evil Dead series, it’s surprising they didn’t just get Bruce Campbell to play the lead. It certainly would have been a better option than Jack Kesy. Nothing against Kesy, but he doesn’t have that special otherworldly factor to lead a film like this. There’s no presence, no sense of authority, he doesn’t feel like he OWNS the scenes, he never feels any more than just an actor playing his part. He lacks the physicality too. There’s a moment where I can’t tell if it’s supposed to be in slow motion, or if he just can’t run fast in the prosthetics.

Another positive is that, unlike similar movies, they do explain the myth behind the villain etc. So it’s very easy to understand motivations and character. The trouble is, it’s delivered in such a dull way that it’s hard to pay attention. Yes, the 2019 Hellboy was terrible, but it was never as boring as this.

The Whip (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: In response to government welfare cuts, a group of people attempt to steal a black book of blackmail material from the Houses of Parliament.

I was wary of this. It looked interesting, but so did A Kind Of Kidnapping, which was kind of a letdown (especially since I’m a fan of the director). I knew nobody who worked on The Whip, and even from the trailer it looked low-budget. After watching it, I can confirm its low-budget nature. I don’t know if it’s a green screen or was filmed on location and lit badly, but there are far too many moments where there’s a disconnect between the characters and the background. In a student film, that’s okay, but in a wide-release feature, you can’t help but feel a little disappointed.

The directing is definitely the weakest link in The Whips’ chain. Not just in terms of visuals, but the physical geography is lacking. One scene featuring a walk and talk on a bridge is particularly clunky regarding how it’s set out concerning character placement. What was even weirder about that is that the next scene is a static shot on a nearby bench which would have been much easier to play out, it would have had the advantage of hiding the Houses Of Parliament out of shot so that the “so what’s the target?” shot reveal would have felt more natural, rather than “stop and look behind us at the thing that’s been in the shot all this time and that we’re actually walking away from right now”. I also have issues with some of the performances. None of them are bad, but there are definitely some inconsistencies that should have been taken care of in rehearsals, or as Cath Clarke put it in the Guardian “more wooden than the panelling in the chief whip’s office”. Also, there are a few bad edits where the match-cutting could be a lot better.

Now onto the good; A LOT of effort has been put into this, and it shows. The opening credits are unique, with the names being written down in a notepad before appearing on screen. I love it when films put the extra effort in and tell a story or tone by the way they display the credits. Haven’t seen it done as well since Sometimes I Think About Dying. The closing credits are creative too, the traditional “photo alongside name” but done as newspaper headlines, and having other headlines providing a “what happens next” coda. I really appreciate that level of creativity.

So how about the actual film? Imagine there’s a line between “funny because it’s relatable” and “not funny because it’s too relatable”, this film dances down that line and then snorts it. The opening scene with the assessment is uncomfortably realistic; a government worker who’s not listening and spends more time looking at the computer than actually paying attention to the person she’s interviewing. Everybody who has had to speak to someone at the DWP can recognise that. The “can you tell me about her condition?” attitude of asking the carer when the actual person is RIGHT THERE is so prevalent that it’s actually taught as an example of what not to do because of how dehumanising it is. It’s frustrating the amount of effort disabled people have to put in to convince people that they haven’t magically healed, and just because they can manage their condition whilst at home and under certain conditions, doesn’t mean they can work full time. It’s difficult to watch scenes like that and not be fucking furious at our government (including the new ones who are basically the old ones just in a different jacket). On that note, Meg Fozzard is superb.

That frustration is shared by the characters, alongside their helplessness. They point out that marching isn’t enough, people marched against the invasion of the Middle East and it still happened. Being on the right side of history doesn’t mean dick if it kills you and nothing changes. As someone says “There’s being right, then there’s doing something about it”.

You’d think that all of this would make this a deeply cynical watch, and at times it is. But it is also weirdly idealistic. Hard to explain but I’ll try. I guess the message of it is; everything fucking sucks UNLESS we do something now! It has moments which are clearly made to inspire you, whether it’s the scene in the back of a car where a politician tells someone “Young people don’t tend to vote for us, so we encourage them not to vote”, it’s made to encourage you to engage in politics (although that scene does take too long to get to the point). It’s also nice how it shows an older politician who is just as disgusted with his party’s actions. Makes you wonder if a better world is possible if we just remove the person at the top (and as someone who is currently reading a book about the history of Rome, the answer as to whether that is true is……unclear). He’s clearly not comfortable with repeating his party’s message, especially as he knows it’s barbaric and badly explained. As he says:

“Of course they didn’t get it, they’re not supposed to get it, if they got it they’d be furious”

The lack of internet security in government buildings is depressingly accurate. It is FAR too believable that our government’s wi-fi has zero encryption, probably because the people who need to use it are computer illiterate to the point where they DEFINITELY keep their passwords on a post-it attached to the computer screen. Just as believable is that they’d purchase a safe which opens if you tap the top of it. Just as believable. It’s that reality that really helps this film work. It doesn’t quite feel like a documentary, but it does feel so believable that there’s a small part of you that wonders “Could we do this?”. It provides hope, and that’s sorely needed right now.

Transformers One (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: A look at the inciting incident in the hatred between Optimus Prime and Megatron

I was mildly looking forward to this. The trailer caught my attention, and I thought, “That looks like a lot of silly fun.” A bit like the second coming of The Lego Batman Movie, which I still think is dumb brilliance. It’s not dumb brilliance, it’s just brilliant. Yes, it has some silly jokes, but nowhere near as much as it could. Before it fully settled into the tone I spotted numerous opportunities for some silly jokes, and I assumed it was the scriptwriters missing opportunities. That’s my bad, this is not attempting to be silly, just entertaining, and yes, Virginia, there is a difference. Everything makes sense within the logic created. Also, EVERYTHING is played straight, to a horrific extent at some points.

This isn’t a “fun and joy for kids” movie. It deals with colonialism, disability rights, hierarchal power structures, appeals to authority fallacies etc. It doesn’t shy away from darkness, characters are decapitated, torn apart, mutilated at birth, and stabbed repeatedly. You don’t expect kids’ films to feature a scene of a main character being horrifically tortured, and you certainly don’t expect it to be shown and not just implied or cut away from.

This is only the second film that Josh Cooley has directed, and he does brilliantly. It will be a weird thing to say as a response to an animated kid’s film, but I feel he would make a fantastic horror film. He knows about scale, he knows about tension, and he knows how to maximise character pain so that the audience can feel it, I shouldn’t wince in pain when an animated robot gets hurt, but this manages it. He’s helped by the animation style; it is almost stop-motion in how physically real the world looks.

It’s very well cast. There are NAMES in this, Johannson, Hemsworth, Fishbourne, Hamm etc. And all of them nail it, they actually act, and they’re not just doing their normal voices. The real MVP is Brian Tyree Henry. There’s one moment in particular where his performance is one of the best I’ve heard all year, not just in kids films, in general. His conviction and passion is breathtaking, and it’s genuinely chilling to hear him deliver it, particularly the line “No, I want to kill him” which would easily be seen as cheesy if delivered by a lesser performer.

I know I’ve seen the first Michael Bay Transformers movie, and I think I’ve seen the second one too. But I can’t remember much from them, they were fine as I was watching them, but nothing stands out, it was just metal smashing metal like some Robot Fuck Club (great band name). This? I will remember this. At the risk of sounding crude, it’s f*cking fantastic. It has everything I want in a movie; laughs, good characters, references to Key And Peele sketches, looks fantastic, heart, and some mild terror. Some people may argue that the start of darkness is too obvious. Those people are wrong, it’s not “predictable”, it’s foreshadowing/storytelling, and damn fine storytelling at that.