Chicken Run: Dawn Of The Nugget (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: Ginger and Rocky are now raising a child, one with ambitions of leaving the farm they raised her in.

The original Chicken Run has a weird place in people’s hearts. It doesn’t feel like it’s many people’s favourite film, there’s not exactly a rabid fanbase who do yearly showings and conventions about it and discuss its themes at left. That being said, it is a comfort film for many people. It’s a film which whilst people don’t LOVE, it does give them a place of warmth and security. That’s, you know, if you ignore the Mel Gibson of it all.

The recasting of Gibson made a lot of sense, his career has never really recovered from people discovering he’s a massive racist (by which I mean, “he uses racist words”, not “he sometimes criticises Israel when they kill children”). Whilst he’s not box office poison (the reaction to Hacksaw Ridge proves that), he is box office Evri, his involvement will drive more people away than it will bring them in. Zachary Levi is a good replacement though, providing enough emotion and vocal depth to the performance that you don’t really miss Gibson. I have a bigger issue with Thandiwe Newton being in this. Julia Sawalha was great in the first one, and her being recast for seemingly no reason genuinely annoys me. It’s claimed it’s because she sounded too old, but Newton is only 4 years younger, so maybe it was to get a bigger name? Either way, it’s bullshit, and did kind of sour the whole experience for me.

It kind of sums up my issues with the film. It doesn’t seem to have the same warmth and cosiness as the original. It feels more, well not cynical, but more business-like, as if they were focused on the reaction it was going to get rather than what they were making. It has a Paloma Faith song. That somehow feels wrong, she’s too cool for this. Especially since it seems to be recorded especially for the soundtrack. It just kind of feels like a tonal misfire, it would be like if Wallace and Gromit used a Stormzy track.

That’s a shame, if this was a stand-alone film, I would rate it relatively high. It’s funny, it looks good, and it’s f*cking weird at times. A joke involving an eye-scanner made me laugh so much that I spat out tea (such a sad waste of tea). It is also genuinely unsettling at times, more kids’ films should aim to occasionally scare the living shit out its intended audience. There’s one area where this is better than the original; it has much more emotion. It definitely has an air of “aiming at the parents as well as the kids” with how it’s got themes of parental worry and a need for independence.

I mentioned the cast briefly, this has quite a few new voices, and they work. Bella Ramsey sounds exactly how that character should sound; with the right mix of youthful enthusiasm and paranoia. My personal favourite was Josie Sedgwick-Davies, who (at the time of writing) doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page. Her character could be annoying if it was voiced wrong, but Sedgwick-Davies makes it work, with her character coming off as endearing rather than frustrating (it helps that her voice makes her sound like someone who goes on Bake Off and bakes rainbow cakes which look weird). She’s absolutely fantastic and I love her in this. Curious as to what she does next, but she’s on my radar for now so I’m hoping it’s something good.

So in summary; because this is on Netflix, I’d say you should watch it. It’s a great Netflix film, but only a good Aardman one. If you’re looking for a good family movie, you could do a lot worse than go with this. I mean, you could also do a lot better, but still.

It’s A Wonderful Knife (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: Winnie wants to see what the world would be like if she had never been born and is shocked to find out that if she didn’t stop a serial killer, people would die.

It’s hard NOT to compare this to Totally Killer. I mean, you can also compare to Freaky and Happy Death Day, but the “person in familiar yet new environment” is more applicable to TK. That was fun and had good ideas and logical storytelling. And I actually enjoyed TK. This? Not a fan. I think it’s because I expected it to be much better than it was.

If you’re doing a parody of an iconic film like It’s A Wonderful Life, you need to go all in. You can’t gently kiss or tease the concept, you need to fuck it. You need to make it as fun as possible and play with expectations and societal differences in regards to what was acceptable in the original, and what isn’t now.

Importantly, you need a lot of thought and love. This kind of seems like they came up with the title first, and then the idea whilst having no idea how to flesh that idea out. The Wonderful Life comparisons aren’t as central as they could be. For most of the movie, it doesn’t really matter. A lot of the central problems aren’t related to her, it’s just standard “there’s a killer on the loose” mixed with “alternate universe”. The “here’s what it would be like if you never existed” differences are ONLY related to the murders. Which is my central problem; she stopped a serial killer. She knows this. So her “I don’t matter, I’ve never done anything important” attitude doesn’t really ring true. Might have made more sense if her absence in the town CREATED the killer somehow, like she stopped someone on their path of darkness etc. Because at the moment it’s “without you stopping a serial killer, that serial killer KILLED PEOPLE!” *dun dun dun*. She only gets to that feeling of worthlessness because her parents take a personality change from the opening to the “one year after”. In the opening they’re normal and kind parents, afterwards, they’re swaggering bags of douche cleanse. If it played into “they’re traumatised too so they don’t know how to talk to their daughter” it would work. But at the moment they’re the kind of people who buy their son a new car, and their daughter a single item of clothing (I think was a jumper). To be fair, the rest of the characters aren’t that smart. One character punches the killer and then runs into the dark woods rather than BACK INTO THE HOUSE. I mean, luckily it ends up working for her but still.

The other timeline isn’t that interesting either. For one thing, it would have been more interesting if the killer from the first timeline died early in the second but the killings continued. Then there’d be a sense of mystery. And it wouldn’t make the characters seem so lazy. At the moment she goes into a new timeline, realises the mayor is still killing people, and then goes to watch a movie. This would be so easy, especially since there IS another killer in this timeline, but they don’t reveal that until very late on. The only twist is some mind-control gimmick, but that doesn’t count as a worthwhile twist because it’s fucking stupid.

We’re also not given enough time to really explore the new reality. Which is linked to another problem; the pacing. It takes 8 minutes for the film to realise it’s a horror movie, and 15 minutes to get to the title card, IN A 90 MINUTE MOVIE. It takes her almost half the run-time to discover what kind of movie she’s in.

Now onto the good, there are some beautiful shots, especially in regards to the use of colour. There’s a moment where she’s dressed in red whilst in an incredibly washed-out room. I like that the town somehow became more nihilistic in response to an active serial killer, that seems very realistic. There’s a romantic relationship between Winnie and Bernie that is very sweet. The reactions between the two of them are very genuine. They have great chemistry, and apparently, that’s why the relationship between the characters happens as it does, they wanted to take advantage of the actors’ natural chemistry. So whilst it is nice, it’s kind of sad that the best part of the film wasn’t written. The performances are all fine, but I kind of think it might have worked better if Joel McHale and Justin Longs’ characters were switched. As I said, the best parts of the films are all related to the central two; Jane Widdop and Jessie McLeod. I want to see them in a buddy road trip movie, or a weird millennial remake of Thelma and Louise. McLeod is delightfully weird, seeming to operate on a different level from anybody else, and I absolutely love her for it. Those kinds of performances are tricky to do because they can often come off as fake and over the top. McLeod is talented enough that she seems genuine throughout.

So in summary, maybe watch if it’s on TV at Christmas time, but you don’t NEED to see it. If you want a violent Christmas movie, watch Violent Night, if you want a Christmas horror movie, watch Gremlins, if you want a parody horror, watch Totally Killer. This is not the best option for any choice, which I’m sorely disappointed by. This has all the ingredients to be a classic; fun premise, bloody kills, Katherine Isabelle from Ginger Snaps. But instead of utilising those ingredients to make a delicious cake of greatness, it underbakes them and then adds a secret ingredient of piss. If I hadn’t watched Totally Killer 2 days before, I might have been kinder. But it’s hard to watch economy after watching first class.

Totally Killer (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Thirty-five years after the shocking murders of three teens, an infamous killer returns on Halloween night to claim a fourth victim. When 17-year-old Jamie comes face-to-face with the masked maniac, she accidentally time-travels back to 1987 where she tries to stop the original murders, and come to terms with the idea that her mother was a complete bitch.

I went into this knowing only the title. I’m assuming I did read the concept at one point and thought it sounded interesting, but by the time I got around to watching it I had forgotten it. So I’m glad it set the tone early on, describing a murder in the 80’s. We see the murders through crime scene reconstructions (so figures and small models laid out in a model house) intercut with still shots of the actual bodies. This is a really simple way of doing a scene like that on a low budget and without coming off as cheap, so I was instantly sold that this would be creative and clever.

I then realised that this was essentially Back To The Future but as a slasher film, and I went all in. I love stuff like that. It’s been attempted before with Happy Death Day 2 U, which I absolutely loved. But I think I might prefer Totally Killer, HDD2U was good, but it didn’t play into the time travel aspect as much. This doesn’t just do a time travel slasher, it dissects the genre and approaches it from as many angles as possible. It would be really hard to do a sequel to this because it’s difficult to see what else they could do.

There’s a comment on the trailer for this that says something along the lines of “I miss the 80s, people were better back then”. Which makes me think they didn’t watch the movie. A lot of the people in this are dicks, but they’re entertaining dicks (like a penis telling jokes). Unlike something like Ferrari (spoilers for that review btw) where it’s hard to get emotionally involved since every character is a prick. In TK, the characters aren’t people you want to know in real life, but they’re funny and interesting. Plus, they’re teenagers in the 80s, so a small amount of assholeness is understandable because you know they’re not at their final form.

This is really damn funny. I went through many options for my “favourite line” in my end-of-the-year round-up. Funny dialogue comes thicker and faster than a Grimace Milkshake Ejaculation.
“When I think of serial killers I think at least 3 people”. “let’s give it up for Angie who wishes there were more people killed”
“if she did do blow jobs, maybe she’d still be alive” “Yeah, let’s not make that the lesson”
“the machines don’t kill us all. They just rip apart the fabric of our society via dance videos on TikTok”

These lines are all perfectly delivered too. I didn’t watch The Chilling Adventures Of Sabrina; nothing against it, but I worked in a shopping centre when it came out so I had to see the poster for it hundreds of times a day. As such, I’m not that familiar with the work of Kiernan Shipka, but she nails it here. It helps that she’s given a good script.

It’s a script which is depressingly realistic in terms of how it approaches murder. The commercialisation of murder is too true to not sting a little bit. On the downside, the reveal of the killer doesn’t really work. It’s probably because it’s a character we haven’t seen that much of, so when they’re unmasked it feels more like “who?”. If the opening third had another 10 minutes it might have helped flesh him out.
In summary, this is on Amazon Prime, and that’s apt, as this is a prime cut of fresh horror.
Fuck that’s a terrible line, isn’t it? Ah well, go see this movie.

Apocalypse Clown (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: After a mysterious technological blackout plunges Ireland into anarchy and chaos, a group of washed-up clowns travel the country for one last shot at their dreams.

Apocalypse Clown is ridiculous. But it’s aware of it. Comedy horrors can be difficult to get right because if they lean too far in the direction of comedy then the horror doesn’t work, and if they lean too hard into the horror then you risk the comedy coming off as inappropriate, with characters witnessing horrific and traumatising murders, and then making jokes about it like the deaths of people not named Henry Kissinger are funny. The director, George Kane, has previously directed episodes of Inside Number 9, so he has a track record of being able to balance the two genres effectively.

He’s helped by the characters taking the situation seriously, the threat feels VERY real throughout, so even when people are dying in ridiculous ways (Like when a character nearly died from being creampied repeatedly, I heard rumours that’s how David Cameron kills pigs), it still feels horrific enough to hit the right horror notes, like John Carpenter at a keyboard.

Now onto the (kind of) negative. If your exposure to British media is big-budget films, reality shows, or bleak murder shows, then the performances are fine. If, however, you’ve watched much comedy then you are left with feeling that too many of the performers seem to be doing tribute acts to other performers; David Earl is doing Joe Wilkinson, Fionn Foley is basically MC Grindah as a clown, Amy De Bhrun is very Sharon Horgan, Ivan Kaye is Roger Allam (he’d also make a good Desmond Tiny if they were to redo Cirque De Freak), so when you’re watching it, you are slightly distracted by thinking “who does that guy remind me of?”. That being said, Natalie Palamides is a f*cking delight. I mean, it’s weird for me to say that “being a tribute act to a better performer” is a bad thing but then also praise Palamides based on the fact she has a real Carol Kane energy. I think the difference is that cinema sees a lot of despondent clowns, but very manic excitable Carol Kane types. It helps that Palamides feels like the only performer who threw out the script and is just making shit up as she goes along. She’s the epitome of vulnerable chaos and I absolutely love her. It would be so easy for her to overegg her coulrophilia pudding (that sentence is clearly there just to make people google coulrophilia, and enjoy the strange targeted ads you’re going to get). Palamides plays it perfectly though, she never feels too much, like she’s trying too hard. She’s an incredible physical performer, turning a scene as simple as “eating ham” into something incredibly unsettling. Her tornado of chaos also means that when she acts scared, it sells the situation. If a depressed and nihilistic clown is worried, not a big deal, but if a psychopathic clown is scared, shit has got real.

In terms of visuals, it’s fine. There are a few moments where you feel a bigger budget might have improved it, but it mostly works. The opening scene showing the chaos is incredible for a film of this budget. The music could have been better, I can’t really remember any of it to be honest, which is a shame as this is apt for a scene of soundtrack dissonance, playing a bright and cheery song over scenes of brutality.

The script could be a bit more focused, there’s an entire subplot which could be removed and the only impact it would have is to slightly lessen the impact of the ending. On that topic; the ending reveal is SUPERB. I haven’t seen a reveal this satisfying and unexpected since Bodies Bodies Bodies. Before this, Killers Of A Flower Moon was locked on to win the award for best ending, now it has competition.

So in summary; it’s on Netflix so you really should watch it while you can. It’s not the greatest film in the world, but it’s a welcome distraction in a world full of war, famine, and Piers Morgan.

The Blackening (2022) Review

Quick Synopsis: Seven friends go away for the weekend and find themselves locked in a cabin with a serial killer who forces them to play a pretty damn racist board game.

The review of this will be positive, but I’m going to start it with something negative. I am not a fan of Tim Story for two reasons;

1) He made the execrable 2021 Tom and Jerry movie.

2) He made the 2005 Fantastic Four movie. I haven’t seen that one so I can’t judge it based on quality, but he was a proper dick to Jessica Alba during filming, criticising her crying for being too realistic as it made her look “ugly”. He also refused to add any physical depth to her character, not letting her get any damage that would affect her looks (not even dirt). So whenever I hear his name mentioned, I think “asshole”. I have to admit though; The Blackening is one damn fine piece of cinema.

The Blackening does everything it’s supposed to; it has some good scares, setpieces, deaths etc., and is also really funny. It also refuses to hold your hand, which I love. It’s incredibly black, with no effort made to tone that factor down. The card game Spades is a huge part of the story, not only being played but also being used as character motivation. They don’t explain how to play the game, only giving allusions to what are considered mistakes to make in the game. So you’re forced to do something most movies don’t make you do, pay attention. It makes sense, if you’re playing a game with your friends or family, and you all know how to play it, why would you explain how? The assumption is you already know.

That’s part of what makes these characters feel like real people, they’re all written so that it feels like they have a life outside of this film. They all performed well too, with the possible exception of Jermaine Fowler as Clifton. I get what he was going for, but it seems a bit too cartoonish compared to the relatively realistic and grounded nature of the rest of the performances; it’s like everybody else is in a horror, and he’s in a comedy. Some people may like what he did, but it just wasn’t for me. The rest of the cast are great though. X Mayo brings so much energy to this and owns every comedic beat she’s given, whilst Grace Byers brings the dramatic performance needed.

The reveal of the killer is a bit weak too, it tries to be a twist but it’s far too obvious to anybody who has ever seen a film. I haven’t seen a killer reveal this obvious since Scream VI. But it doesn’t harm The Blackening as much as it did Scream, because working out the killer is not as big a deal in this. It can be argued that The Blackening isn’t about the reveal, and is more about the experience you have watching it. I’d also argue the soundtrack could be improved somewhat, but it does feature a reference to Lift Every Voice And Sing, which is always appreciated.

In summary, if you’re a horror fan, particularly of the slasher genre, then watch this. It’s one of the best modern additions to the genre in a long time, and it’s so much fun.

Talk To Me (2022) Review

Quick Synopsis: When a group of friends discovers how to conjure spirits by using an embalmed hand, they become hooked on the new thrill — until one of them unleashes terrifying supernatural forces.

Talk To Me has a rotten tomatoes score of 95%, and the lone negative user review on Metacritic is from someone complaining about how it’s “too woke” and not representative of current American racial demographics. This is a stupid criticism of a film that’s set in Australia.

So other than that dickhead, most reviews are highly positive from both critics and audiences. But I have to say; I don’t get it. I mean, it’s good. Everybody involved is clearly talented, especially Sophie Wilde as the lead Mia (side note; Mia is the name of my cat. So every time someone said “Mia! No!” my brain automatically added “stop pissing there, go outside”). Joe Bird comes off as a multiverse version of Barry Keoghan, and I mean that in a positive way. The Philippou Brothers (best known as RackaRacka on youtube) are obviously talented directors. It’s not that I didn’t like the film; I just felt it could and should have been a lot better.

The gap between the potential and the reality is huge. I can’t exactly pinpoint why. I think part of it is there are some scenes that feel like filler. The first two parties where the characters interact with the hand (and then it gets out of……hand in the second party) could have been combined into one. There also could have been more done with the guy from the opening; who appears in the opening scene, gets stabbed by his brother, and then is completely absent until one scene later on where he provides information that could have come from anyone, then disappears again. If you removed him from it then the only noticeable hole in the script would be that you don’t have an opening.

I also feel the possession scenes could have been done better. The characters describe it as almost euphoric, like it’s akin to certain drugs. But the film doesn’t really let us FEEL that. If you turn the sound off and watch it, you’d have no idea that the characters are experiencing an intense positive rush.

It’s a shame as with a few tweaks this could have been among my favourite films of the year. But I sense that everything could have been better. This must have been how Metallica fans felt after listening to St. Anger

Pearl (2022) Review

Quick synopsis: Trapped on an isolated farm, Pearl must tend to her ailing father under the watch of her mother. Lusting for the glamorous life she’s seen in movies, Pearl’s temptations and repressions collide and she starts killing people, one of which she leaves near the entrance of her house, literally sending her to the Pearl-ey gates.

I actually wasn’t a fan of X, it just didn’t vibe with me. So I went into this with slight apprehension, worried that I might end up being bored very early on. The good news is, I didn’t dislike it for a long time of it. The downside, the longer Pearl went on, the less love I had for it. I loved the stylistic choices, and the performances are incredible. I just, I dunno, at some point I just stopped caring. Once I got past the Wizard Of Oz feel, I wasn’t that engrossed by it. It’s not helped that I didn’t like any of the characters. The titular Pearl is a sociopath, her mother is unbearably cruel, and the projectionist seems a little too date-rapey. Also, they’re not quite despicable enough to be villains. Pearl is driven mainly by her ambition and desires to leave her farm (which anybody who has seen X will know she never does), Pearls’ mother recognises that Pearl is capable of great evil, so she is trying to protect the world from her. So you can’t really truly despise them either. In a film full of colours, all the characters are too morally grey to feel too strongly about.

I think I need to watch more Ti West, as it is possible I just don’t like his writing style. Others do, and I can see why. He writes like a 70s horror writer, so you know that no matter what, it won’t be stupid, and it will take its time. His stuff mainly seems to be very slow burns, which normally I like, but I feel it didn’t really lead to much this time. It’s like watching a car slowly roll down a hill, you expect it to crash at the end, but instead, it just slows down gradually and comes to a stop.

Everybody involved is obviously talented, Mia Goth gives an incredible performance, one scene, in particular, is a master class in acting where she just gives an unbroken monologue to her friend. Tandi Wright is also great as the mother of Pearl, I wouldn’t trade her for another girl. That’s a reference to this song btw, I haven’t just decided on a really weird sentence structure.

Matthew Sunderland gives a weirdly good performance considering his character can’t move, but his eye work is tremendous. There is a definite love for the art here, the fact that Ti West, when he needed an illicit film, didn’t just invent one, or find a random one, he actually showed A Free Ride, which is seen as the earliest American porn movie that is still available for viewing today. It’s obvious he knows his shit, it’s just not for me.

If this was a short film, I’d have loved it. If it actually did more with the concept than the “we have an idea”, I’d have liked it. But as a feature? For a film which features genuine pornography, there’s surprisingly little meat. Also, it’s weird this received a US cinema release in September last year, and a Blu-ray/DVD release in November, yet didn’t come out here until March. Wtf is up with that?

Scream VI (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: People from Woodsboro get stabbed, this time in New York

I am a massive fan of the Scream franchise (despite only managing to catch one of them at the cinema), so a new one is always welcome. They don’t just work as slasher horrors, but also as murder mysteries, you watch them and look for clues to work out who the killers is, and why. The duel genre nature of the franchise is one I’ve always been a fan of, so I was looking forward to this. Scream movies have always started well, and have always been unexpected. The first one killed off Drew Barrymore, the third one killed off returning character Cotton Weary, the fourth was….well it was very weird, the fifth one started with the person who was attacked surviving, and this? This started with someone being brutally murdered, and the killer unmasking himself. It’s a shockingly different way to start the film off, and I love it. I’ll say this now, it’s genius. It subverts expectations twice, and both times it blew my mind and got me very excited.

The ending? Not so much. Scream 3 gets a lot of shit for the killer reveal, but it was still a lot better than this. In the third one, there was still some ambiguity about who the killer could be and what their motives were, we were presented with numerous possibilities, but enough clues so that we could possibly figure it out (but maybe not the “why”). Scream VI does the opposite, it’s blindingly obvious who the killers are. When you have a character say they “had” a son, and also have them talk about swearing revenge on those who hurt his family, it’s not difficult to figure out that they’re the killer, and the motive. Related to this, if a character in a slasher movie dies off-screen and you don’t see the body properly, they didn’t die. This is incredibly obvious to everybody who has seen a movie before. It’s an incredibly disappointing reveal, even more so because it starts wonderfully.

The rest of Scream VI is fun to watch, well, as fun as watching people get brutally murdered can be. The kills are disgustingly brutal, it gets really specific with where the knife goes. Someone being stabbed directly in the throat will always be a manner of murder that stands out more than just stabs in the back or chest. That being said, there is a scene where someone gets stabbed in the chest repeatedly and the sheer violence of it is shocking, so there is a way to do something as simple as that in a way that makes it stand out.

Usually, “[killer name] in Big City” is a sign a horror franchise has gone off the rails, second only to “in space” as a sign that the movie is going to be shit. I actually like the way they use the location here. New York is loud, so it is conceivable that somebody can be stabbed in an alleyway and nobody will notice. I will respect this for not doing the obvious scenes in Times Square etc. It is in New York, but it’s not a tour of the landmarks. Instead, it is a way to introduce different horror set pieces, the scene on the subway system is incredible, although it was ruined in the previews (as was the scene in the bodega). There are moments where it does get a bit too “You mess with one of us, you mess with all of us!” Spider-Man-like.

The big story leading up to the release was the absence of Neve Campbell, who refused to make an appearance due to Paramount deciding not to pay her enough because they’re bastards. I have to be honest though, I’m not sure what she would have done in this. There’s not really a Sidney Prescott-shaped hole in this story. If there’s a sequel then there will have to be a discussion about bringing her back, but the story they’re telling here? She would have seemed superfluous. They do explain her absence, and it’s a way that makes sense. Without Neve, Scream VI focuses more on the characters introduced in last year’s Scream. The only legacy character to return is Gale Weathers, but Courtney Cox only appears in roughly 4 scenes. Her character seems to have reverted to her Scream 1 persona, in a character development that doesn’t make much sense. Her scenes do feature a nice reference to how she and Ghostface have never really spoken much, but aside from that, Gale’s scenes seem a bit superfluous.

Not quite established enough to be a legacy character, but also returning from this is Hayden Panettiere’s Kirby Reed, who was last seen (and introduced) in Scream 4,or to give it proper (a.k.a, stupid) title: Scre4m (pronounced Screfourm, obviously). It is nice to see her back, not just in this franchise, but in Hollywood in general, with this being Hayden’s first film appearance since Custody in 2016. Kirby’s character arc is a great examination of how characters react to events like this, although I would like to see her explored more in the future.

The rest of the cast is great too, Melissa Barrera keeps her upward trajectory, but I feel this does slightly stall the momentum Jenna Ortega is on from Wednesday. Not due to the quality of the script, but there are moments near the start where her performance seems a little bit weak. Not “OMG this is terrible” level, but it feels like she’s operating at a slightly lower level than everybody else. In a film full of Lennon and McCartney, she’s a George Harrison; still very good, but overshadowed.

So in summary; go see this. It’s very good, although you may get a headache from how many times the “How did they survive that?” alarm in your head goes off.

M3gan (2022)

Quick Synopsis: Remember the 2019 Child’s Play? It’s that. Only with a younger child, less snark, and more orphans.

I’ll get the obvious out of the way, you don’t need to have seen M1gan, or M2gan for this film to make sense, mainly because those films don’t exist on account of M1gan sounding less like a horror film, and more like a documentary about the motorway connecting London and Leeds. I would not have made them the first movies I see in 2023, that would be weird.

This was actually the first film I saw in cinemas this year, and I don’t regret that choice at all. It’s a fun watch. It’s not likely to end up among the best films seen this year, but it is likely to be among the ones I had the most fun watching. This is my type of horror film; funny, violent, and well-made. That’s not to say it’s disposable, I think the idea of a horror film coasting by just on the kills are long-gone, they need to justify themselves to still work. This does that, it’s made with a lot of care and really feels like a passion project.

Some people may find it a bit too reminiscent of the last Child’s Play film, but I actually enjoyed that so it’s not exactly a downside, after all, even if you eat chocolate ice cream on a Monday, you’re not going to say no to chocolate ice cream on a Tuesday. Sometimes it’s okay to do the expected. There’s not much about this that’s necessarily groundbreaking or new, it’s not reinventing the wheel. It knows you know what’s going to happen, but it’s done so skillfully that that actually works in the movie’s favour. A good example of this is a scene where a technician is attempting to fix M3gan. Everybody in the audience knows that she’s going to reboot and attack him. But the key is when is it going to happen? It’s like watching someone play Jenga, every block removed causing a sigh of relief when the tower doesn’t fall, and the longer it doesn’t fall the tenser it gets as you know it’s building to the inevitable conclusion. Only, Jenga doesn’t cause as much blood usually (I’m aware there are exceptions).

So that’s the film itself, now onto the pieces that make it up. This is only the second feature directed by Gerard Johnstone, and that’s baffling. It feels like the work of an experienced hand, the way he balances horror and humour is a good sign for his future prospects. If he sticks with M3gan, he could helm a killer franchise, which the genre surely needs as there doesn’t seem to have been many in the last few years.

Oh, to answer the question; Get Out. That’s where you know lead actress Allison Williams from. Or possibly HBO’s Girls. I was trying to figure out where I knew her from the whole time. She’s well-cast in this, her slightly detached closeness makes sense. There are a few scenes where you feel she could do more, but there’s never a scene where it feels like she needs to. Violet McGraw does a pretty damn good job as Cady (the young child that befriends M3gan). I wouldn’t be surprised if she grows into a great talent over the next few decades. She has a really difficult role in this actually, a child who has lost her parents and is searching for emotional reassurance without being able to say that out loud because she’s too young to fully understand that’s what she needs. The worry when she approaches the android is understandable, as is the joy when they start emotionally connecting.

Now, M3gan herself. Usually, a character like that is either CGI or puppetry/robotics. Here she’s played by Amie Donald, a child actress from New Zealand. Her physical commitment to the role is impressive, moving in a way that even the silhouette provides an uncanny valley experience. If she moved naturally the character would be laughable, it’s the strange stiffness that reminds you that the character isn’t human, and then she rips a kid’s ear off easily and that confirms it.

That scene is very disturbing by the way, and if it wasn’t for the strange dance M3gan does that’s gone viral, I feel the child murder would be the iconic scene. It’s a good murder, and the motives for it make sense. Not only was the child threatening Cady, but he also pretty much tried to rape M3gan. I mean, he removes some of her clothing, strikes her in the face, and straddles her. He had no idea she was a sentient robot, he just thought he was fucking a toy. That’s still not great, is it?

Sadly, like all movies of this ilk, there is the inevitable sequel hook. It’s not as egregious as they usually are though, so that’s a plus. There is a self-contained story here, so any sequels will be nice addendums, rather than necessities. Plus, I wouldn’t actually mind seeing a sequel, if it was done right. If it’s just another “oh no, killer toy robot” then I wouldn’t be too excited. But a sequel that examined the effect these murders had on the survivors, the town, and the toy company itself trying to handle a PR nightmare that can’t be ignored? I’m down for that.

We’re All Going To The World’s Fair (2021)

Quick synopsis: Alone in her bedroom, Casey (Anna Cobb) takes part in an online horror challenge, one which affects her sanity in this coming-of-age horror from Jane Schoenbrun.

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. I’ll admit, I tend to avoid a lot of films like this because they all run together in my mind. The “teen challenge horror” has seen a resurgence lately, and a lot of them have been cheap and kind of shit. I was ready to put this on the file of “nah, won’t bother watching” alongside Slenderman (and where Truth Or Dare should have been). I then realised Anna Cobb was in it. I thought she was the best part of How To Deter A Robber last year so I thought would be interesting. She seemed really different in this though, there was none of the Anna Kendrick-ness to her this time round, which surprised me. It was like she was a completely different person. There’s a reason for that, this was Anna Cobb, that was Abbi Cobb, a completely different actress. I feel that that paragraph may be a disservice to Anna as she is really good in this. She has incredibly expressive eyes. This is her feature debut, and she nails it. I’m really looking forward to what she does next. She’s one of the best things about this film. Although that’s easy to say, as she’s one of the only things about this film. It’s incredibly minimalist, most of the film is her on her own, talking to a camera. I don’t recall a moment of her sharing the screen with anybody at any time. There are moments where she’s talking to someone offscreen, or via webchat, but most of it is just her. Weirdly, it doesn’t end with her. The ending is a guy talking, a guy who is possibly being an unreliable narrator. The film is at its weakest when it’s not on Casey, so it’s frustrating when the film closes not on a different character. The closing is just too long and too much nothing. Much like the opening.

The opening could, and should have been shorter, it’s about 8 minutes of her sitting in front of the camera doing the challenge (saying a phrase three times, smearing blood on the computer, then sitting in front of strobe lights). Could have been done in about 3 minutes and achieved the same. The film itself is only 85 minutes, so that’s almost a 10th of the film doing nothing. It also sets up the film as being something different from what it is, since the whole intro is from the POV of her webcam, it makes you think the whole film will be like that, certainly the minimalist cast would lead you to believe that. It’s not, it mostly is, but the moments where it’s not that don’t add to it. It is kind of a wasted opportunity, the nature of the story would lend itself to her being viewed on a camera or computer screen at all times. Cobb is such a good performer, and has such brilliant facial expressions that it kind of feels like a waste when the film has moments of scenery with her talking over them. As beautiful as the scenes look, you want to see her. This film is at its best when it doesn’t feel like a film. When it feels like home recordings that you’re weirdly intruding on. If the film was entirely recordings from a camera, then the ending of the male character would have a bigger impact. It would put us in his shoes as a voyeur, watching this character on a screen and becoming obsessed with her.

It’s a shame as 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, but also like it should have been a short. It shows promise, it shows potential, but it also shows limitations and inexperience. I expect both Cobb and Schoenbrun (the writer/director) to do great things in the future. Schoenbrun has a great sense of how to make things creepy. But only in short bursts, it struggles to keep that momentum throughout. The scenes themselves are super strange and well done; one in particular where someone seems to be digging into their own arm and pulling out a reel of tickets. It’s moments like that which make you wonder about what the film could have been. Personally, I think this should have been a series of shorts. So we get to see the effects the game has on different people. Would allow the film to maintain momentum and showcase what Shoenbrun is best at: weird shit.

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 which I’ve already purchased.