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.

Heart Eyes (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: Every Valentine’s Day, a serial killer attacks couples. This year is no different.

I watched this the same day as Love Hurts, another Valentine’s Day-based movie with a twist. Heart Eyes is better, I’ll lead with that. Not to say it’s perfect, I have very specific problems with it that I’ll go into later, but it is mostly a pretty fun watch. My big issue is one that I can easily see some people actually liking, it’s all down to personal preference, as all reviews are.

I don’t think the script of the original Scream (as in the movie, not the painting, the script for that is only worth 1000 thousand words) is as highly regarded as it should be. It’s not just a horror movie, it’s a well-crafted mystery. There are clues, red herrings, along with lots of foreshadowing. The reveal is stupendous, when you hear it, you feel as if you should go “Ohhhh, well that’s obvious now I know the answer”. You don’t get that with Heart Eyes. Part of that is because it doesn’t build up the background characters that much. Scream had a large pool of suspects to draw from, so as you watched it, your brain was juggling between them, trying to figure out which one could be the killer. Heart Eyes only provides you with one option, doing all it can to signpost that this person is the killer. So either there’s no mystery, or it’s wasted its time giving you only red herrings instead of actual clues, neither of which is particularly narratively satisfying. The reveal itself is…..well it won’t end up on the list of greatest killer reveals, put it that way.

That’s a shame because if the mystery aspect was handled better, Heart Eyes would be a top 5 horror movie of the year, easily (probably still will be, but it is at risk). It does what I like my horror movies to do; have non-horror moments that are still interesting to watch. The central romance between Ally and Jay is lovely to see. It helps that Olivia Holt and Mason Gooding have really good chemistry. Their meet-cute is legit adorable. Take out the murders and you could easily frame this as a straight romcom.

So how about the horror moments? They’re fucking great. Companion (the other love-themed horror movie of the month) was a better movie, but Heart Eyes had MUCH better kills. They’re brutal, but not gratuitous. It doesn’t shy away from showing you the outcomes, people get squashed in machines and there’s a lot of blood, people get holes in their heads, and stabbed in places. “Holes in the head” does sometimes mean weird body physics in film, we’ve all seen horror movies where the killer punches someone and somehow their fist makes a hole in their skull. Moments like that can really pull you out of the movie because they’re not scary, they turn horror movies into cartoons with characters made of paper. Thankfully, that’s not the case here. Yes, characters do get attacked and end up looking like a polo mint, but the way it happens often makes sense in terms of physics, you can easily see how what happened COULD break through someone’s skull. The attacks all have weight to them, when people get hit with an object, you can feel the pain it causes, and you know they’re not going to get up. This helps it feel scarier and more violent, the realism makes it easy to buy into the concept that this is real.

What also helps sell the illusion of reality is how people react. They panic but try to not overdo it. There’s no “everybody in the country locks themselves in their homes”, because (as COVID showed), people wouldn’t do that. But people still took precautions (just like COVID), because everybody realised this is a big deal and to not do at least something would be incredibly selfish (just like…..oh wait, not like COVID, people were selfish during that). Restaurants that take bookings on that day carry out checks for weapons because you would in that situation. What’s not realistic is that this is still America, and there’s no “just because there’s a serial killer around doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be able to bring my gun everywhere I go. Yes, even into a restaurant, table for one since my wife left me, but gun didn’t. Gun still loves me” pushback from Fox News.

For two-thirds of this movie, I thoroughly enjoyed it, but the reveal REALLY let it down. As did two characters who were just unrealistically stupid, even for a horror movie. It is still a really solid 7.5/10, but it could have been so much more.

Nosferatu (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Do you really need me to tell you the story for this? Just watch the original.

There was a lot of hype for this. I have been excited since I first heard of it back in 2016, even mentioning how I was looking forward to it in my review of The Witch (or The VVitch). Many journalists and critics raved about early screenings of it.

But then I heard from actual people; moviegoers who I like and respect. Their feedback wasn’t quite as positive. And I agree with them, I was not a fan of this movie. For whatever reason, I just didn’t care about what I was seeing. I haven’t seen the original from the 1920s, but I know it (mainly through the Kill Count video I recently watched). At no point while watching New-sferatu did I feel I was watching something original. It never felt like anything other than a remake. It’s so heavily indebted to its sources that it never feels like it has its own identity.

My other issue is the filming style. A lot of dialogue is delivered straight to the camera, from the receiving person’s POV. As such, there’s a disconnect between everybody, it kind of reminds me of television shows made during COVID where everybody had to socially distance themselves.

Eggers is a fantastic filmmaker, there’s no doubt about that. The visual style is arresting, with every frame mesmerising and haunting, particularly with the use of light and shadow. As a storyteller? I’m afraid that’s his weakness. None of the characters seem that interesting, Ellen Hunter, in particular feeling more of a storytelling device than an actual character. The title character also doesn’t seem that interesting. He’s played well, looks good, but the character itself doesn’t seem to have any presence; when he’s not onscreen, you don’t feel him looming over the narrative.

The performances are fine, Lily-Rose Depp has a haunted look which really suits the character and themes, Nicholas Hoult was made for these movies, and Dafoe continues to be fucking weird. Dafoe and Eggers work well together, their styles suit each other.

Like I said; all the technical parts? Brilliant. All the parts that require how to make a movie? Brilliant. All the parts that require imagination and heart? Lacking. Remakes should showcase and do what couldn’t be done in the original. All we have here is more of the same. It doesn’t remind me of classic Dracula stories, what it does remind me of? Gus Van Sant’s remake of Psycho.

Longlegs (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Lee Harper is a clairvoyant who is assigned an unsolved murder case involving satanic sacrifices, possession, and Nicholas Cage

I will say this to start: there have been three films this year with lead characters named Lee, none of them male. Longlegs, Civil War, and the one where Kate Winslet played Lee—I can’t remember what that one was called though. Of the trilogy or trilog-lee, as some people (nobody) calls it, Longlegs is probably the one I enjoyed least.

I get the feeling it’s not supposed to be enjoyed though. It’s dark, gritty, and disturbing. That works in its favour as it means every moment is full of tension, so you never get a chance to relax. Osgood Perkins has made it so that even when the characters are in no danger, it somehow still feels uncomfortable. This is partly due to the way it is shot; the colour scheme and use of focus make everything feel like a mix of memory and a dream, where the rules of reality are still there, but you have a sneaking suspicion those rules could be torn up at any point. The narrative also helps; the sudden death of a character plants in your head the idea that all bets are off and nobody is safe.

On the downside; it is sometimes too bleak to care about, and the lighting makes it an uncomfortable watch for all the wrong reasons at times, making it resemble the visual equivalent of Tenat’s dialogue, you know stuff is there, and you know it’s important, but you can’t make it out at all.

The performances also help the tone. Cage, in particular, is disturbing. It is slightly disappointing how horror movies keep falling back on the “androgynous people who were assigned male sex at birth are creepy and likely to be serial killers” cliche that has real-world implications for trans people, but arguing for horror movies to stop doing that would be like asking Will Smith to stop saying “aw hell no” in his films, it’s not going to happen so you might as well just accept it.

Maika Monroe continues to be excellent. She has a habit of picking really good horror movies to start in, first It Follows, and now this. Nobody else is really given that much time to shine, but whoever decided to cast Alicia Witt as Monroe’s mother deserves a raise as that is spot on. Kiernan Shipka continues to impress whenever I see her, but her appearance in this is basically an extended cameo, and features some truly bad dialogue.

The dialogue is definitely the worst part of Longlegs, especially towards the end where it treats the audience like a nervous mother treats a child at traffic lights and holds their hand so tightly that you can sense it doesn’t trust you to know what’s happening. It then dumps so much information on you at once that it’s kind of annoying. Especially since it’s a detective horror, it would have been so easy for the script to simply reveal the killer M.O gradually throughout the runtime instead of “and here’s EVERYTHING”. The lead up to that with a character killing themselves by headbutting a table is pretty damn gnarly though.

So in summary, disturbing, kind of wonderful, but completely falls apart in the third act.

AfrAId (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: A family takes an experimental AI into their house. Everything works out fine. Psych! Stuff starts to suck.

AfrAId was directed by Chris Weitz, who also directed About A Boy, The Twilight Zone: New Moon, and The Golden Compass, which is a weird film history if you think about it. Not really relevant at all, I just wanted to mention it.

I went into this with lower expectations than I would if Gillingham were playing Barcelona (football joke, I NEVER make them), I knew it had bad reviews and box office, and bad horror movies are usually The Crow-est of the low. So I knew this would be terrible. But then something went wrong; it’s not terrible. It’s not good, but it’s not terrible. It is never bad enough to be awful, but also it’s never quite good enough to stand out. It doesn’t help that it’s quite derivative, it’s not saying that much which hasn’t been said before (primarily by equally stupidly titled M3gan). It can’t compare to that, and not just because the AI in this isn’t as memorable, or as well-written. Occasionally it only does things BECAUSE it’s a horror movie, there’s no “non-creepy” justification for many of the AI’s choices.

On the plus side, it does seem like it has something to say, which I always like to see in a horror movie. The proliferation of AI is a concerning development and one that’s too big for films to ignore. This film also says a lot about how families interact with themselves and with technology, especially concerning how that affects parenting. It doesn’t always work, though. There are some parts where the AI nature of it just

The revenge porn bit, in particular, didn’t sit right with me. I don’t care that it ruined that kid’s life, he knowingly made and shared porn of his girlfriend. I don’t give a shit that he won’t go to college or that he’s being tried as an adult. To be perfectly honest I hope he gets hit by a fucking car. Now it gets fun. No word of a lie, I legit wrote that line, and then that character died in a car crash. So that’s nice.

On the upside; the performances are good. John Cho is underrated (as anybody who has watched Searching will know), and I’m still waiting for the world to pay attention to just how utterly fantastic Katherine Waterston is. Both of them feel slightly beyond this movie, almost like this was a film made years ago and only just released now to make use of their fame. There’s also no issue with direction; it looks good, has decent audio cues etc.

The main issues are pretty much entirely down to the script. The pacing is like a drunk driver; all over the place, causing great damage, and indefensible. The ending is a huge letdown. It goes too “real”, with the AI making incursions into reality which are a bit too far-fetched and would be easily solved by humans. The closing scenes are also far too predictable, to the point where it feels like a parody.

In summary; not as bad as I expected, but not as good as I wanted. AfrAId is like people who discuss politics on Twitter, too concerned with saying stuff “now” than trying to figure out how to say it.

Never Let Go (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: In response to a worldwide evil, a mother (Halle Berry), protects her children via tethering them to the house with a rope, thus ensuring no evil can come to them. As the years go on, she struggles to keep them content with their new lifestyle.

I have a mixed history with Alexandre Aja (the director of Never Let Go, or NLG, pronounced Nelgg), I enjoyed Horns, but I found Crawl a bit poor, so I was unsure what to expect. Halle Berry is in it, which bodes well as she does seem to be more careful about what scripts she chooses lately (probably because of Catwoman), and even if a film is bad, Berry is always good. I wasn’t aware of the two child actors in this, but they are pretty damn good in this. It’s not “good for child actors”, just flat-out good. So that’s definitely a plus. Aja’s directing is pretty decent too with some brilliantly creepy set-pieces and creative visuals. There are moments where it is a bit too dark to see, but that’s to be expected in a film set in a cabin that lacks as many lights as this does. It’s also a genuinely interesting story, and provides a real sense of survivalism, particularly with how difficult it is even for those experienced in it. Doesn’t matter how good you are at hunting if the animals have all gone somewhere else (unless you’re a nomadic tribe obviously). And it doesn’t matter how good you are at farming if it’s too cold and flooded for the crops to work. It’s not “organic salads made entirely from hand-grown fruits”, sometimes it’s “eating fried bark”. You’re only ever one winter away from starvation, and that will lead to you making difficult decisions like wondering if you should kill your dog. So much of NLG is utterly fantastic. The film itself? Far from it.

Whenever you watch a film, you don’t watch it in a vacuum (or any other household appliance), it can set up expectations and then subvert them, and other times it makes them seem predictable. So movies now need to be written with that in mind. Never Let Go attempts to play with expectations, but in its attempts to do so, it traps itself like a fly in a spider’s web and is just as ugly. It knows that your first thought while watching this will be “Okay so is the twist going to be that she’s actually just making it up?”, which would work. Instead of subtly laying in clues, it has characters outright state that they believe that to be the case. It sets up that “twist” far too obviously, to the point where you begin to wonder if it’s actually a double twist and it turns out she was telling the truth all along. But that’s not a twist, that’s just a straight story. The way that NLG tries to set up both endings means that whatever ending it picks, it will end up feeling predictable. It traps itself by attempting to be too clever.

I suppose that’s to be expected, I mean, it has to attempt SOMETHING, the story itself really doesn’t lend itself to a 100-minute feature. It only has three characters, and the very notion of the story means they can’t interact with anybody else, and two of them have known only this life forever. So with nothing to upset the status quo, and no new characters introduced, it’s difficult to be hooked. I’ve seen worse films, but I’ve yet to see a semi-decent movie be as derailed by a poor script as much as this one was. I suppose at least they’re trying.

The Substance (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Elisabeth Sparkle is an ageing actress who has just lost her job as the host of an aerobics TV show. Desperate to regain her “sparkle” she takes a serum which causes a younger version of herself to “hatch”, with one rule; she must switch between the two versions every week, without fail.

I am so glad this was directed by Coralie Fargeat. As anybody who watched 2017’s Revenge can attest, she’s talented as hell. She is the perfect director for something like this, injecting standard scenes with an air of creepiness. She also makes some incredibly brave decisions, mainly to do with holding a shot MUCH longer than most directors would, uncomfortably long at times. She sets her standards in the opening shot, where we see a star on a Hollywood Walk of Fame get created, and then see it age and decay. Not only is it a beautiful sequence (plus weirdly fascinating), but it’s also thematically appropriate; seeing a star be damaged by the pressures put upon it alongside the natural damages caused by time passing, well it’s not exactly subtle, is it?

The other reason I’m glad Coralie directed this is because it needs to be directed by a woman. It’s a female story. Yes, the worries of ageing and not feeling as sexy as we once were are worries shared by everybody, but it hits women harder because they’re judged for it more harshly. Also, if this was directed by a man then some of the shots would be a bit creepy. I’m not saying they’re odd shot choices, but when a film is telling you about the pressures of enforcing societal expectations of constant youth and beauty on women so that they see being old as a character flaw, but then the next shot is full of VERY close-up of a young woman buttcheeks in exercise clothes, well it can feel like mixed messages.

The young woman with the zoomed-in buttcheeks? Margaret Qualley, who plays a “more perfect” version of Demi Moore’s character. Annoyingly, there is no point in which they seem like the same person. There are no shared quirks or physical tics. They seem like completely separate people, which I know is sort of the point, but I would like to buy into the concept that there is some shared nature between the two of them considering the mind they share is the same.

The moment when they split is truly disturbing. It’s one of the most disturbing things I’ve seen all year, and I’ve watched a lot. Coralie is great at body horror, and it’s those moments which drive the freakishness of the narrative, especially in the final third which is just batshit insane. Normally I say “batshit insane” and it’s a compliment, here it’s not. I liked it, but for some reason, it didn’t hit me. Possibly because it took FAR too long to get to the obvious moments. At one point, it repeats a dream sequence/hallucination from a few minutes earlier, and with no new context or reason for it to exist again.

This may seem like a negative review, and that’s because there is quite a fair bit to dislike about The Substance. It’s unsubtle at times, it’s FAR too long, and it wastes sooo much potential. But there’s also SOOOO much to like and appreciate. It’s stylish, it’s darkly funny, and it needs to be unsubtle to get the message through. I did like it, but I wouldn’t say I “enjoyed” it, at times it was a struggle to continue paying attention. It’s an important one, it’s a spectacular one to see unfold in front of you, but it also needs about 10 minutes cut from it. It’s utterly horrific, but also completely fascinating.

In summary, it’s a dichotomy. Which I suppose also suits the themes.

The Crow (2024) Review

Quick synopsis: After the love of his that he’s known for a suuuuuuch a long time is murdered in front of him, Eric is given the power of face paint and healing to get his revenge.

I know how this is supposed to go. Reviews for this have been so negative there was concern it would somehow end up with a minus score on rotten tomatoes. The jokes would have been obvious, “This does to Skarsgards career what the original did to Brandon Lee”. About how it was a cynical cash grab, that forgot the “cash” part. Maybe comments about how this is the second review this year which would lead itself to jokes about Sting. Truth is, I won’t be making any of those jokes.

Not because this film is good, far from it, it’s definitely a steaming pile of crap that I wouldn’t recommend to anybody. And certainly not because I feel it deserves compliments for effort and you can tell the filmmakers are trying. The reason it’s hard to rustle up any anger and vitriol towards The Crow is because it’s so unbelievably bland. I haven’t encountered anything so devoid of taste since a Wetherspoons fry-up.

The original Crow movie is iconic, in the 30 years since it was released, the combination of a white face and black trenchcoat has inspired countless school shooters. It’s hard to imagine this version inspiring anything other than complete apathy.

It’s hard to think of anything about this that works. The romance, you know, the entire reason the character is so vengeful in the first place, doesn’t feel real. For some reason, The Crow thinks we need to see their whole relationship, including how it starts. We don’t NEED to see them meeting, in fact, that actually makes it worse because you then realise the “Love of his life” is someone he’s known for a few days. So his reasons for coming back from the dead seem less “I have lost EVERYTHING!” than they should. It’s not helped by the fact they don’t seem to have much chemistry. I don’t get how Skarsgards performance is so meh in this considering he’s basically made a living treading that line between corpse and hot. This is only the second feature film credit for FKA Twigs, and she’s better than that would suggest. Note “better” does not necessarily mean “good”.

The soundtrack is forgettable. I’m assuming that anyway, I can’t actually remember. This would have been the PERFECT time to play a shitload of dark pop. Get some stuff in there that’s both danceable and depressing; some Lana Del Ray, some Ashnikko, some Charli XCX, don’t play fucking Enya.

Nothing about this answers the question “Why was this made?”. Do we need a dark and gritty film which is a remake of a film that’s already dark and gritty? The only notable thing about this movie is that Danny Huston continues to be a solid choice for “threatening mob-like guy”. But even that’s ruined by the inconsistency in his character.

Even the fight scenes aren’t well done. We know Skarsgard can do fight scenes, but you wouldn’t know that if you have only seen this, because of how bland and weirdly neutered the fights are. I’ve never seen scenes so full of blood still manage to come off so sanitised and “safe”.

It’s not the worst film ever. It’s not a complete mess that fails at everything it attempts. What it is, is something much more offensive than that; dull. It doesn’t fail at what it tries because it never tries anything. There is zero effort, zero heart, and consequently, zero reason to watch this film.

Sting (2024) Review

Quick synopsis: An alien spider grows and kills, serving as a warning to humans: “Don’t stand so close to me”.

Sting is not a smart movie. It’s not brave, it’s not challenging, it’s not something that’s going to stay with you for years after you see it. It’s also not bad. Not everything needs to change the world, some things can just be entertaining, and this is definitely that. Yes, it’s the dumbest thing the name “Sting” has been attached to since Starrcade 1997/Track 12 from the Brimstone And Treacle soundtrack. You’ll be entertained once you get past the disappointment that this isn’t actually a horror movie based on a guy who once watched The Crow or the writer of Roxanne (the song, not the movie).

It’s not perfect, for one thing, Robyn Nevin is clearly not using her natural accent, and it’s noticeable. Noni Hazelhurst is pretty damn fun though, and has the name that’s the most fun to say. There are also moments where the writers skipped over things we should have seen. For example, the police are seemingly accusing Ethan (played by a pretty damn great Ryan Corr) of harming his neighbour. While they talk to him he receives a phone call saying “come here” from his neighbour (Danny Kim), and he just leaves. There are also issues with pacing, the opening in particular is far too long in comparison to the rest of the film.

It is mostly just a lot of fun. The way the opening is filmed may make you think it would be cheaply made, especially since the attack there didn’t show that much (for reasons that become clear later on, but in the moment, it does seem cheap), but when it needs to, it goes hard. There’s one death in particular which is BRUTAL and I love it.

Sting has an advantage (not in a Wargames way) over horror movies in that people already find spiders kind of creepy, probably because the way they walk doesn’t seem natural, and they look more like hydraulic robots. Sting makes the most of the creepy nature they naturally have. Yes, it does augment it with sci-fi stuff, but it never comes across as horror you laugh at. There are some funny moments, but they’re based around the characters rather than the situation.

I went in with low expectations, and it exceeded them. I don’t think I need to watch it again at any point, but I don’t regret seeing it, and I would definitely watch a sequel (which, judging by the ending, we’re getting). Yes, it’s shlock, but it’s so fun. Taking inspiration from Alien, but also from those terrible 80s slasher movies that people love. It may not be your favourite horror of the year (I think The First Omen is my favourite so far), but it won’t be the worst (Hello there Tarot, Night Swim, The Watchers etc).

A Quiet Place: Day One (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: New York city comes under attack from an invading force of noise-hating aliens.

Longtime readers (or those who click this link here) will know that as much as I loved the first Quiet Place, the second one (A Quiet Place Two: Shhhhhh-it Happens) didn’t do as much for me. My biggest issue with it was the use of music. The first one used silence perfectly, to the point where it affected audiences watching it; the screening I was in had the quietest audience I’ve ever been a part of. The second one? It had music to set the tone, which meant it just felt like any other horror movie, and the effect of silence wasn’t as big as it could have been. That same issue plagues A Quiet Place: Day One (AQP: DO, pronounced Aquop-do), I’d actually argue it’s worse in this. In the start, the time before the attack? There it makes sense. In fact, the use of noise in that section is brilliant. There’s SOOOO much background sound that when it does turn silent it is a huge difference. The use of music does ruin it though, and lessens the impact of one of the closing scenes. Spoilers; this film ends with a character committing suicide by music by unplugging their headphones from a radio, thereby broadcasting music everywhere, ensuring their death. If there was NO music before that, the impact of that would be HUGE. But because we’ve heard music throughout the film, it doesn’t hit quite as hard as it could. There’s also not as big a difference in audio level between “music on headphones” and “music unplugged” as there could be.

There’s also one pretty big flaw with AQP: DO. It doesn’t feel like a prequel We see what life was like before the attack, and we have a character who was in the second movie. But other than that, there’s not that much of a difference between this and the other two in terms of what it does. There’s nothing here that could only be done in a prequel. No questions are answered, and because the main character passes out we don’t see that much of the initial panic.

There was a perfect opportunity to use this to find out more about the initial response, but we don’t get that. How do we know they hunt by sound? No idea, the film doesn’t tell us. How did politicians respond? We don’t know. What was the initial media reaction? We don’t know. Yes, communications do get cut out, but there would still be a few minutes/hours of social media reactions. But the most important question that goes unanswered: exactly how much hentai of the invading aliens was drawn before the world collapsed?

Other than that, the film itself is good. The characters are likeable. Lupita Nyong’o’s character (Samira) is beautifully written. She’s a terminal cancer patient so her character shows us something so far unexplored in this franchise; those who NEED civilization to survive. Those with illnesses that require medication, and those with health issues that mean they’re dependent on others. In an apocalypse situation there will be people like that, people who know that if people don’t turn against them now, they will when resources start getting depleted. It is seen in a somewhat more optimistic light than in The End We Start From (spoilers for that review), with Samira having a more “fuck it, let’s do this” attitude.

When the film does remember its gimmick, it’s brilliant. There’s a scene of Samira and Eric (played by Joseph Quinn) at a jazz club. The silence lends it a weird sense of intimacy which would otherwise be lacking. It’s one of the few moments of hope in an otherwise quite bleak experience (bleak in a good way).

That scene is helped by the performances of Nyong’o and Quinn. They play off each other very well. That’s probably for the best as most of the film is spent just with the two. For a film set in New York City, it does feel incredibly isolated in terms of other characters. We occasionally spend time in the company of others, but not that much. Everybody has found themselves groups to hang out in very quickly. We all know that if this did happen they’d be separate factions etc, none of that in here. Everybody just stays silent and moves as a group (except for the leads).

It is a pleasant surprise to see effective organisation though. The military quite quickly figured out a plan to send one helicopter to make a lot of noise in the city, and thus distract the aliens to allow another helicopter to marshall survivors onto the boat. That kind of competence porn is always great to see.

In summary; this is a really good film, but it would have been SOOOO easy to make it great.