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.

I Saw The TV Glow (2024) Review.

Quick Synopsis: A classmate introduces teenage Owen to a mysterious late-night TV show — a vision of a supernatural world beneath their own. In the pale glow of the television, Owen’s view of reality begins to crack.

I was less than a minute into this and I had a singular thought “This reminds me a lot of We’re All Going To The World’s Fair”. It turns out there’s a reason for that; the writer/director is the same, Jane Schoenbruen. The music was SUCH a big part of WAGTTWF (Pronounced Wag-toot-woof), and I’m glad that Schoenbrun managed to reunite with Alex G to get the music done. I’m going to cheat a bit here and quote my review from WAGTTWF, because so much of my thoughts of that are my thoughts for ISTTG (I-stoot-og). So here are the still-relevant pieces:

This is weird. I’m still not entirely sure if I liked it or not. I am very glad I’ve seen it, and it is one that I would recommend, but my personal thoughts on it are still going through my head.

This is definitely still apt. ISTTG is fucking weird. Worlds Fair felt Green, Glow feels purple. I don’t know what Schoenbrun has planned next but I’m guessing the colour scheme will be red.

the writing and directing has potential. It’s strangely hypnotic. It’s the cinematic equivalent of a lava lamp. You don’t watch and think about character and plot, you’re just entranced by everything and lose track of time while observing. The whole thing feels very personal, 

Oh yeah, very true. Glow is ethereal as hell. There are times where you’re not really sure what’s going on, and in the hands of a lesser director, you’d turn away. But Schoenbrun has a way of making you not want to turn away for even a second. It does have a more cohesive narrative than Worlds Fair, certainly more ambitious. The narrative is helped by how REAL it feels. The fake TV show in particular feels like it already exists. The film he watches in the cinema? Not so much. The downside of that is made me think I really need to finish my script for Hi! School (a horror drama where someone finds a way to go into the universe of their favourite 90’s teen sitcom). So all of that is fantastic to see. On the downside, this is kind of let down by the performances. Brigette Lundy-Paine is great, and there are moments where Justice Smith is, but there are also moments where he doesn’t quite have the range needed. I doubt the ending would work with a different actor though. There are moments where he is weak, but he NAILS that.

The ending is weird. I’m not going to go into the particulars, just the general feeling of it. It’s a culmination of his feelings of isolation and despair. Only at that point, it’s not just that the world is ignoring him, it’s ignoring him to the point of hostility.

Both of Shoenbruns films so far feel deeply personal. They realised they were trans during the production of Worlds Fair (whilst tripping on mushrooms) and came out after the project wrapped. Glow was clearly created by someone with a firmer grasp on their gender identity. It’s not so much a standard narrative film, as much as it is them coming to terms with their egg cracking moment (the moment in a trans persons life when they realise their identity does not correspond with their assigned gender). The parallels aren’t obvious, but once you know they’re there, they are difficult to ignore.

So yeah, see this. Turn the lights off, shut the curtains, turn your phone off, and just be enraptured by what you’re watching. It’s not for everybody, but you won’t see anything else like this. For some reason, it reminded me of the indie game Gone Home (which if you haven’t played, I highly recommend), no idea why. It also has an absolute killer soundtrack

Oh, this is definitely still true. You WILL need to decompress afterwards. You may be annoyed, you may be delighted, but you will have opinions. I’m so glad the director’s career is progressing. I’m not sure their work is quite mainstream enough to justify a major budget, but a bigger budget is definitely deserved. There is going to be a third film in this thematic trilogy, and I look forward to it. I’m glad that Shoenbrun has allowed us to join them on their personal journey of identity.

I should note that this review was written entirely by a cisgender male. Maybe if I was trans, the metaphors and journey would have been a lot more obvious. Maybe it would have been “important” to me and part of my own journey. I love that films like this exist, it’s clearly going to be VERY important to somebody. But to me? It’s just a pretty damn good movie full of unsettling scares and music cues. And that’s fine. This wasn’t made with someone like me in mind, but it doesn’t need to be. It’s aimed at the confused teens (and adults) who NEED this, and I think they’ll love it. Of course, I haven’t actually spoken to any trans people about this film, so for all I know, I’m woefully off the fucking mark. But I don’t think I am.

Alien: Romulus (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: A group of disillusioned colonists get set for one big job to earn enough money for their freedom from the corporation that essentially owns them. As you can guess from the title, they meet a Xenomorph.

I managed to catch Covenant at the cinema during its theatrical release, and I wasn’t too impressed by it. Part of me wondered whether that was because I hadn’t seen any of the others. However, just through cultural osmosis, I recognised certain bits of it as paying homage to the original, making it seem like a greatest hits package, albeit one rerecorded by a different line-up because the lead singer fired everybody and didn’t want to pay them royalties so replaced them all with session musicians. By which I mean, I recognised the narrative and visual melodies, but they weren’t as sharp and exciting as I knew they had originally been.

Now, onto Romulus. Romulus VERY heavily leans into the original, taking place between that and Aliens, as well as featuring dialogue that explicitly references the original, just oddly delivered. The Xenomorph in Romulus is the same creature from the original, and there is an android that physically resembles Ash (the android, not the result of fire, or the Pokemon animal torturer). Now I have actually seen the first two films in the franchise, so am more able to spot more subtle references, it wouldn’t be a stretch for me to dislike Romulus as much as I did Covenant. Especially since it was written/directed by Fede Alvarez and co-written by Rodo Sayagues, the team responsible for the “you’ve kind of made a rapist sympathetic” horror movie Don’t Breathe (which I heavily disliked) and its “So you’ve made the rapist the hero now?” sequel Don’t Breathe 2, (which I utterly despised).

I didn’t. I, well I don’t want to say “enjoy”, as it was tense as hell and disturbing, but I was thoroughly “oooo”‘d, and a little bit “aaaaaa”‘d. There are some truly fantastic set pieces in this, full of creativity and intelligence. The use of the acidic blood in some of the scenes is superb, with my personal highlight being when the characters make a zero gravity journey through a corridor whilst the acidic blood floats around them. Some amazing scenes make the best use of gravity mechanics available to the characters. It felt like Alvarez and Sayagues looked at the toys they had to work with in terms of the technology and location developed earlier in the franchise, and then thought of scenes that would make the best use of them.

I haven’t felt this tense (at the cinema at least) since Civil War, which also starred Cailee Spaeny. The Alien franchise has many flaws, but one thing it’s always EXCELLED at has been casting perfect female leads. Noomi Rapace, Katherine Waterston, Weaver etc are all critically acclaimed performers, and I know that Spaeny will get there. She received some acclaim for her role in Priscilla, but that’s not enough. She was incredible in Civil War, to the point where in my review (link here) I specifically pointed out her performance, saying (and I quote):

she is damn near perfect. I want to see what she does next because she is fucking phenomenal in this

I didn’t quite expect her next performance to be this good. It’s genuinely difficult to figure out which of her performances is better. I dunno, maybe her next film will be shit. I’ll just see what she’s in next. *checks*. Knives Out 3. Oh damn, she’s in line for a perfect three-film run.

Romulus isn’t all perfect, some of the fanservice is a little bit too obvious, the final third drags a little bit, and some of the CGI feels a little weird. Those are very nitpicking criticisms though. Overall it’s incredible. There’s so much to like about it. David Jonsson (last seen here in Rye Lane) as a defective droid is great, with the character providing so much tension and humanity throughout, especially with a few of the narrative reveals (essentially the trolly problem) adding some background to humanity’s relationship with androids. The other characters are fine, but aren’t really explored enough, they don’t need to be though. Not everybody is a main character, so it’s fine if some characters are less developed than others.

The location is also a highlight. Much like the other entries in the franchise, there’s a kind of future-retro feel to everything. There’s a lot of future technology, but all the computers etc have all clearly seen better days. It would be much like having a film in 2010 featuring VHS players, but the film itself being released in the 1950’s.

Overall, I loved this movie. It’s cruel, atmospheric, and downright terrifying in parts, absolutely perfect for cinema.

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.

IF (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: A young girl discovers she can see everybody’s imaginary friends.

John Krasinski has had a weird film career, especially as a director. Brief Interviews With Hideous Men was a comedy-drama based on a series of short stories by David Foster Wallace. The Hollars was standard film student drama fare. Then came A Quiet Place. If you thought that was a weird transition, nothing will prepare you for this.

It kind of makes sense though. There are many similarities in visual/narrative storytelling between horror and kids’ fantasy. Both of them depend heavily on effective world-building, creating something unbelievable but making it believable, and both depend on a “WOW!” shot, where the audience is made aware of the scale of what’s happening. He does a good job though; there are not that many moments where the visuals feel cheap or distracting in a way that takes you out of what you’re watching. On the other hand, there are not that many visuals that will stick with you. There’s nothing that makes you think “f*ck damn that is cinema”. I can’t imagine a child watching this and having a scene stick with them that they’ll remember forever.

The story will though. It’s incredibly sweet. Yes, people who have seen a lot of films and are familiar with story structure etc will guess the ending relatively early on, mainly because it’s the only way that plot holes aren’t created. But if you’re one of those fortunate people who can just sit and watch something without overanalyzing everything, you’re in for a treat. It has a sense of genuine heart and warmth to it. It does look like it’s heading in one direction, and I’m pleased it went in another way. The new way ended up being able to display much more heart. Spoilers, I watched this the same day as I saw Inside Out 2: Inside Harder. I didn’t expect THIS to be the film that slightly broke me. The moments where we see some of the characters “reunite” with their childhood IFs are genuinely delightful and emotionally powerful. They’re helped by the performances, Reynolds does exactly what you expect (For better and worse), the vocal performances are all good but most are too brief to matter that much (the fact that Brad Pitt is credited as an invisible and silent character is hilarious though), Cailey Fleming is incredible considering her young age, especially considering she’s playing a character at that awkward age where they want to be seen as an adult, but they are still kids. Alan Kim is fun whenever he’s on-screen, and Fiona Shaw provides a touch of “theatre, darling” prestige.

The biggest criticism is that it feels kind of dated. There is a distinct lack of technology and mobile phones present. If this was firmly set in the 90s, that criticism would disappear so it is kind of weird that they didn’t just do that. It also takes FAR too long to get to the point. I know it has quite a bit to set up, but it spends forever getting to the main premise that you’ve paid to see.

Those are minor criticisms though. Overall I enjoyed it. It’s not going to change your worldview forever, but there is a chance it might remind you about the joys of innocence and inner strength. It handles topics such as bereavement (and fear of it in regards to others) and childhood anxiety with sensitivity and class. It very rarely puts a step wrong, but it also rarely puts one forward in amazement. It’s a difficult film to really LOVE, but it’s an incredibly easy film to like.

Tarot (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: It’s essentially Final Destination if the set-up was tarot cards. If the writers aren’t going to put the effort in, I’m not either.

I do love a good horror movie. I need to say that because (spoilers) this review is going to be mostly negative. With some horror films, my issues have been difficult to explain, I just haven’t vibed with it. So I suppose I should at least thank Tarot for making my issues with it easy to explain: it’s shit.

On the plus side; the performances aren’t completely terrible, and I will commend the scriptwriter for showing a believable scene of grief and how it affects you. You know that these characters are haunted by the first death, and it hangs over everything that happens. There’s also a scene at a magic show that’s pretty damn interesting and chilling to watch unfold. Plus the flashbacks are pretty well made and provide an interesting story. That is all the nice things I can say about Tarot. The rest of this review will basically be me chopping this film down with my axe of criticism.

None of the characters show much of a personality, usually with this it’s because the characters are archetypes so the writers don’t have to put too much effort into writing the characters because the audience already knows who the characters are; this person wears their football jersey away from the field? They’re a jerkass jock with a heart of gold. The guy with glasses? He’s a nerd. The woman in the cheerleader outfit? She’s a cheerleader. Tarot avoided making the characters cliches but didn’t bother to give them anything else. Watch something like the first Scream movie, you can tell by the way those characters interact that they have been friends for a long time and are comfortable in each other’s presence. You don’t get that in this. There’s no sense that these characters have much of a history with each other. There’s no closeness, they might as well be strangers.

I should say, they are sometimes on the same page, but in a weird way. They play a game where they have to say who they think a certain subject applies to (first to get pregnant etc), over three rounds the group agree fully on every choice. There’s no “two people say this, three of them say this”, they’re all in total agreement. That’s weird, and feels very fake. The lack of believable friendships isn’t helped by how inconsistent the characters are. That’s partly why it’s so hard to figure out who they are, just when you think you’ve got their personality down they say something to contradict that because that’s what the plot requires and the scriptwriter has realised that character hasn’t said anything that page yet.

Nobody seems to have any convictions or realism. The main character points out that she shouldn’t use tarot cards which don’t belong to her, she’s later shown to take tarot and horoscopes very seriously. So how do her friends convince her to break that rule? Basically just by saying “come on” and she does it. There’s no inner turmoil or conflict, she just decides to do it.

Their actions when they realise the tarot cards are killing them aren’t much better. Mainly because they come to that realisation twice. So the second time it feels a bit like “Yeah, you already know that, why are you shocked?”.

It looks bad. Traditional film language regarding horror movies boils down to shadows and lighting, here it’s just dark with no sense of “why” other than “other horror movies do it”. It’s rare for the phrase “too bleak, stopped caring” to apply to visuals, but it does so here. The audio isn’t much better, with random volume jumps replacing actual tense audio. The music choices are baffling. No teen horror movie set in 2024 should have Things Can Only Get Better by Howard Jones on the soundtrack.

Just, nothing about this movie works. It’s uncertain as to whether to be serious or funny and isn’t good enough at either to be an effective horror comedy. All I can say this; Tarot should be VERY thankful that Madame Web and Nightswim were released this year.

Malum (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: A rookie police officer takes the last shift at the decommissioned police station where her father worked and killed himself/others. Turns out the hauntings from her past are very literal.

Going to start this review off with something that may be important; Malum is a remake of the 2014 film Last Shift, also directed by Anthony DiBlasi. No I have not watched Last Shift, so I can’t talk about the differences and improvements between the two. I don’t know what DiBlasi changed, what he added, or if it was just a “I have better technology now” situation. I do occasionally put some research into my reviews (I think I put more research into my review for Antlers than the writers of the movie did), but watching an entire film is a bit much. I will say the title is better though. Last Shift is kind of bland and could be any genre, Malum (latin for evil), is definitely a horror movie title.

Now onto Malum itself. I feel I’d like this more if I watched it years ago. Horror movies are a lot like comedy movies, the first time you see something happen in a movie it can be shocking and brilliant, but if every film you watch starts doing that same thing, it can quickly become tiresome, so by the time you see the tenth movie pulling the same tricks, you feel a lot more negatively towards it than you did the first one. This doesn’t mean the tenth film is worse than the first one, but I will give it a negative review because I’m just tired of seeing certain things. Now this isn’t a fault of the movie, I watch a lot of films, so I am exposed to more repetition, reiterations and retellings than most people. With that in mind, Malum does a lot of shit I’m quite frankly just tired of seeing the same old shit in a lot of horror films. I am bored of hallucination horror. Mainly because it always feels like such a fucking cop-out. “oooo spooky stuff, but is it real? we don’t know, and neither will you”. Far too many films are pulling the same tricks, which would be okay if that wasn’t the only way they had scares. I have a limit on how many times I can see the “character witnesses something horrific, but then its not there, did they dream it?” trick pulled in a movie. Pull it off towards the end or at the start, but far too many films have that as the only trick in its arsenal. Specifically, I could do with a 5 year ban on any “Person kills what they think is an evil thing but turns out they were hallucinating and it was actually a relative/friend” scenes in horror movies.

As I said, if I watched this earlier I’d feel much more warmly towards it. There is a fair bit to like about it; the cult aspects are fascinatingly creepy, and the use of practical effects is to be welcomed. I kind of wanted more from the cult. There are two movies; one is about a demonic cult that sacrifices people and who are planning a night of carnage focused on the daughter of an officer who went after them. It’s a very human story, and the idea of her being trapped in a locked building as they try to hunt her is terrifying, especially since her colleagues refuse to help her because of what her dad did (great opening by the way, the scene where her dad shoots Not Jodie Foster is genuinely shocking). It’s simple, but it’s effective. But the other movie is paranormal, where the cult’s tricks work, and they have demonic powers which cause her to hallucinate/control her. And that’s not as effective, as once you see it happen once, you assume that’s the case with every scare. So even at the end where she’s gravely injured after having killed someone, there’s a part of you that assumes it’s just going to cut back and she’s going to be sitting at her desk absolutely fine. The first movie? That’s one I want to see, it’s creative, and incredibly creepy. The second? Seen it. If you cut out the demonic stuff it wouldn’t be as technically impressive, but I think it could end up being an improvement from a narrative standpoint.

It also might have worked better if we went straight from the snuff movies to the police station. If the audience never sees the outside world it would make her world seem smaller and claustrophobic. It’s similar to the Colin Firth “I’m on a boat motherfucker don’t you ever forget” movie from a few years ago. The acting is mostly okay, Jessica Sula has a lot to carry and does it as best as you can hope. Some of the snuff movie sections are great visually, but the vocal performances feel fake.

Overall, I couldn’t help but feel I was watching cutscenes for a horror video game rather than a feature-length, erm, feature. It’s definitely ambitious, but I can’t help but feel it may have worked more if it aimed for something a bit simpler. Although considering how fake some of the dialogue sounds, I can see why they’d feel the need to wow with effects and visuals. The music is pretty damn good though. Like I said, there is a lot to like about Malum. But it’s standing in the shadows of stuff I’ve seen before, mostly Hereditary. Yes, I know the original of this was released 4 years before Hereditary, but this remake was made afterwards, so it might have been advisable to try and avoid comparisons and, I dunno, not make this movie? Or change the hallucination stuff and just focus on the cult-killing people.

Night Swim (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: A haunted swimming pool exists.

I started talking to someone online recently and she mentioned that she doesn’t watch movies. I remember thinking how weird that is, to spend your evenings or days NOT watching something. After watching this, I’m slightly jealous of her for being lucky enough to avoid this. After a series of reviews which basically amounted to “this film was weird, I loved it”. It’s nice to have a film where the review will boil down to “this film was weird. I hated it”. To paraphrase the Benoit who solves murders instead of causing them, this isn’t so dumb it’s brilliant, it’s just dumb. Seriously, just look at that synopsis. They somehow stretched this out to 90 minutes.

I think the issue is that Night Swim takes its concept seriously, and with a concept like “a haunted swimming pool” I think it’s best to lean into the absurdity. I like it when films have emotion and realism, characters you can believe exist and all have backstories. But there’s a time and a place for that, and there’s a time for stupidity and ridiculousness. Guess which one this is? Here’s a hint, look at the synopsis again.

It’s competently made and performed, but just not effective. Probably because, again, it’s a haunted swimming pool. Some of the scares aren’t so much “evil pool trying to kill someone” as “person forgets basic safety rules”. The most obvious one is where the male lead leans over the pool and lands on the pool cover, almost being trapped underneath. That’s an actual danger with falling onto plastic pool covers, it’s as much a “ghost scare” as someone jumping down stairs and breaking their leg is a scare to do with a haunted stair.

It’s difficult to make an immovable object scary (except for Andre The Giant obviously, if you don’t think he’s scary, just ask Bad News Brown about the incident in Mexico). The simple answer to it is “just don’t go near the object”. To make up for that, there’s a possession thing going on which compels one of the characters to act a certain way. But that also opens up new issues. Spoilers, btw. The pool operates on a “we will give you health in return for a sacrifice”, and lines up the dad for a sacrifice. But then tries to make him kill a random child, and at one point has him chase his daughter around. The writers said they wanted to make people scared of swimming pools, but they failed. Because of the amount of time spent on the possession angle, it makes you more scared of violent men. And I’m sure countless women already have true stories they can tell which will do a better job of that.

It tries to set up the pool as evil early on by having a scene where a cat is scared of it. But that isn’t really an indication that the pool is evil as much as it is cats hate water, as anybody who has tried to bathe them can attest. By the logic of Night Swim, tiny plastic vials of flea treatment are all haunted because every time I approach one of my cats whilst wielding one, they get scared and either run away or pee on me. The cat disappears, gets referenced in a single sentence in the next scene, and then is never brought up again. It wasn’t brought up that much before then either. Also, if the cat is dead, does that not count as a sacrifice? The pool is shown as killing people in return for something, so why did it kill the cat? Just to be a dick? Things like “cat is scared of water” are set up as big deals. Meanwhile, when a character has a demonic force trying to pull them under they treat it as a “everything is okay, everything is cool when you’re part of a team” situation. Sure, they are a little wary, but that only extends to “watching out for the kids when they go swimming”, which THEY SHOULD BE DOING ANYWAY!

As you can guess, I was not a fan of this. It took itself far too seriously, and yet not seriously enough to actually think about what it was doing. For example; the dad sacrifices himself at the end, after which the family fill in the pool. A few things: Why was that not done earlier by ANY of the previous families? Also, the husband dies, and then they perform a large landscaping job. Would that not raise questions with the police?