Coyote Vs. Acme (2026) Review

Quick Synopsis: After years of failure, Wile. E Coyote decides to sue Acme over their products failures to aid him in eating a bird.

In the last few years, it’s become increasingly obvious that people judge films by their context. I try to avoid doing that in my reviews; I think a lot of films that are negatively reviewed and dismissed as “woke” are films nobody would have been particularly bothered by if they’d been released before the Internet Bad Times. But sometimes context is impossible to ignore. It’s difficult to enjoy a film if you can’t separate the actor from their sex crimes. Similarly, part of my dislike for Ella McCay was that I thought it was socially irresponsible to make a film about US politics in 2025 and have it be utterly toothless. I’m mentioning that for two reasons: 1) to fill my word count (which doesn’t matter because I don’t have a prescribed word count; it’s just “write until I run out of ideas”); and 2) because the context of CvA’s release is vitally important.

For those unaware, the film was completed in 2023, then Warner Bros. cancelled it for tax reasons/because they’re assholes (my editor made me refrain from using the c-word there, but in my opinion it would be fully deserved), alongside Batgirl and Scoob! Holiday Haunt (although the latter two were still in post-production). Clearly, WB decided to focus on high-quality films that would enhance their reputation. Films like Joker: Folie à Deux, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (the film that redefined how to do a sequel to a film where one of the main characters is a paedophile, and that’s not a compliment), and the nepo-film of the century, Trap. The decision was baffling, especially since early reviews were positive. Highly so, in fact. Some people were even calling it one of the best animated movies in recent memory. CvA was eventually saved by distributor Ketchup Entertainment, to the relief of everybody who likes good movies (so, presumably, nobody who works at Warner Bros.).

So it’s fair to say expectations were high. Does it meet them? Early reviews indicate yes. But those are professional reviewers; I’m not. I don’t give a shit about a lot of films that “proper” reviewers care about, and there are plenty of times when our opinions differ.

Not here though. CvA is a joy. It put me in mind of Who Framed Roger Rabbit? but with fewer scenes that will traumatise you or turn you on. It’s genuinely heartwarming at times. It’s not exactly a complex movie, but there’s considerably more going on beneath the cartoon chaos than you’d expect. Beyond the obvious cartoon stuff, there’s a story about the dangers of corporate capitalism, what makes a conscious being deserving of rights, and the tragic tale of Sisyphus. That’s not exactly surprising, though. People have this misguided idea that Shrek was the first kids’ movie that had higher concepts and jokes for adults to understand, yet Looney Tunes has been doing that kind of thing for years. Bugs Bunny has been a lot of people’s first introduction to classical music for decades. Bugs Bunny wasn’t sitting around waiting for Shrek to show up and give him permission to be funny to adults. Looney Tunes has always been perfectly happy to put something ridiculous in front of children while also slipping in references that they’re not expected to understand. CvA feels like it actually understands that rather than trying to replicate the formula of modern animated films and occasionally putting a fart joke in to prove it’s still fun.

That attitude is why CvA is not just a great kids’ movie, but a great movie. I say that having looked around the screening and realised how many childless adults were there. It wasn’t exactly a cinema full of parents being dragged along by their children; there were a surprising number of us who had apparently chosen to spend two hours watching Wile E. Coyote sue ACME entirely of our own free will. CvA works because it operates under the assumption that kids aren’t idiots, while recognising that parents are the ones buying the tickets and need to be entertained too. Crucially, it’s not cynical; there’s no dark mysterious undertone. It’s also not ashamed of being a Looney Tunes movie. There’s a tendency with some films based on properties like this to make them too self-aware or retcon everything to make them darker. CvA just lets the characters be themselves. The closest it gets to a Cerebus-style reinterpretation is implying that Daffy Duck’s behaviour is because ACME drove him mad.

The film does expand the characters, though. That’s to be expected with the increased runtime. Coyote is no longer a two-dimensional villain. The character has spent most of his existence being defined by one thing: trying to eat the Road Runner. That’s basically it. He’s not exactly Tony Soprano in terms of character development. Giving him a proper personality works, and you actually feel sorry for him. He’s been repeatedly sold products by ACME that are either defective or catastrophically dangerous, and rather than anyone asking why the company is allowed to continue operating, everyone just accepts that Wile E. is an idiot. At some point you have to wonder whether this is actually a Road Runner problem or whether the coyote has just been the victim of one of the longest-running corporate scams in history. He’s sympathetic, vulnerable, and, importantly, he’s allowed to be right. There’s an actual injustice here. Watching Coyote fight against injustice adds a lot of emotional weight, more than you’d expect from a film based on short films where the punchline was usually “gravity”.

The performances? John Cena is perfect for stuff like this. His comically serious demeanour suits the ridiculousness of the film. I mean, he’s basically a cartoon anyway. Surprisingly, Will Forte brings the drama. More so than I expected. He seems genuinely beaten down by life, almost as if he’s spent decades pushing a boulder up a hill only to watch it roll back down again. He adds a sincerity to Coyote that would otherwise be lacking. I kind of loved Lana Condor. This is the third film I’ve seen her in this year, and the first one I’ve positively reviewed. She shows a warmth that was missing from the previous films. She wasn’t in it long, but I loved Kristen K. Berg as the court reporter. She kind of reminded me of Sarah Baker.

Those performances are helped by the script. It’s incredibly sincere. Beneath the standard cartoon jokes, there’s a story about someone being told his suffering doesn’t matter because of who he is. Not many animated films tackle this kind of complex philosophical debate, and even fewer would do it at a time when we’re increasingly likely to have debates about whether robots deserve rights while still denying those rights to people who are non-white or part of the LGBTQ+ community. It’s not the main thesis of the film, but it does underlie a lot of the characters’ motivations and narrative choices.

It’s also surprisingly anti-corporate. ACME is exaggerated, but compared to companies in the real world, not by that much. In-universe, ACME is a company that can sell you something that kills you through negligence, then refuse to accept responsibility. Meanwhile, in the real world, aircraft manufacturers can ignore safety concerns which lead to the deaths of hundreds of people, and have their main punishment be a fine that’s a fraction of the money saved by ignoring those concerns. It’s not exactly subtle, but in modern times we need stuff that’s unsubtle.

That depiction of large corporations has only become more relevant when you consider how Warner Bros. treated the film. It’s a film about a corporation screwing over an individual because it has enough money and power to do so. The film itself was nearly denied an audience because a massive corporation decided it was financially more convenient to make it disappear. I’m sure somebody at Warner Bros. has already explained why this isn’t ironic. I’m also sure their explanation involved the words “strategic” and “content”, which means I don’t want to hear it. Their actions only made the message of the film feel more relevant. It’s like when a guy argues he’s not violent, and if you say he is, he’ll punch you in the face.

That’s probably why the emotional stuff works. Underneath all the jokes, this is a story about somebody who has spent his entire life losing and finally deciding that he’s had enough. It’s not particularly complicated, but it doesn’t need to be. Sometimes a simple story works better than one with twelve twists, three cinematic universes and a post-credits scene teasing a spin-off that nobody asked for.

The Sisyphus references are obvious, but they’re also explained in case you’re not too familiar with Greek mythology. There will be people who learn about that tale through this movie. Whilst also learning how corporations suck. What more could you want from a film like this?

Even without the background noise of its production and release, this is still worth paying attention to. The early reviews were right. Annoyingly, sometimes critics actually know what they’re talking about. Coyote vs. Acme is great. Not “great considering it was almost cancelled”, not “great for a film based on a cartoon”, and not “great if you’re a fan of Looney Tunes”. Just great. It’s funny, it’s surprisingly sweet, it has more going on beneath the surface than I expected, and it manages to make a film about Wile E. Coyote suing ACME feel like a completely reasonable thing to spend two hours watching. The biggest problem with the film is therefore also the biggest problem with its release: I wish I’d been able to watch it sooner. Warner Bros. spent years sitting on a film that people actually wanted to see, while releasing films that made plenty of people wonder whether they’d accidentally walked into the wrong cinema. I don’t know what the exact financial calculations were, and frankly I don’t care. I’m a film reviewer, not an accountant. If your decision means I get to watch Trap instead of Wile E. Coyote suing ACME, I think I’m entitled to conclude that somebody, somewhere, has made a terrible mistake.

It’s not often that I finish a film about a cartoon character whose primary achievement is repeatedly running into walls and think, “That was considerably better than it had any right to be.” But here we are. And after everything this film went through just to be released, perhaps Wile E. Coyote finally got the one thing he’s been trying to get his entire life.

A win.

Little Brother (2026) Review

Quick Synopsis: Rudd Landry (played by John Cena) has a thriving real estate career, a wife/kids, a killer physique, and a chance to be on a reality TV show. But he has two problems: Josh (Christopher Meloni), his actual brother, who overshadows him. And Marcus (Eric Andre), his “little brother”, someone he mentored as part of a Big Brother program in college.

I’ll start with performances. I will always love seeing Sherry Cola and John Cena in films. Cena, in particular, has quietly become a really dependable comedic lead. For someone who was known in his wrestling career for showing his work (often shouting instructions so loudly that people in the back row could hear) and for being unable to take things seriously, it’s weird that his film comedy style is based mainly on being the straight man. He’d be great in an action movie parody in the style of Naked Gun. Christina Catechis gives a fun performance, reminds me of Grace Parra. No idea who the woman who is territorial about her window is, but I love her. Eric André can be brilliant, but he can also be exhausting.

That’s definitely the case here. He’s the central part of the emotional story arc, yet his personality makes that emotional arc far less effective than it should be. The audience doesn’t buy into him as someone worth the emotion. He’s not misunderstood, or troubled, or someone who’s a bit rough around the edges but is generally a lovely person. He’s kind of a selfish dick with no idea of societal expectations. Not in a “With multiple options for cutlery, move from the outside in as you go through the meal” way, this is “don’t piss out of a car window, dent someone’s car, or swear at strangers”. This isn’t Jack Black in most films; this is Jack Black in School of Rock. Someone you’re supposed to support, but is too immature and self-destructive to really care about.

That’s ultimately the film’s biggest problem. We’re supposed to care about Marcus, but it never does the work to make him someone you’d actually want to spend time with. Chaotic energy isn’t a substitute for likeability, no matter what the parents of toddlers tell you. You absolutely can build a comedy around an abrasive protagonist, but the audience needs to understand where that abrasiveness comes from. Otherwise, he’s just a dick. I never felt sorry for Marcus. I felt sorry for everyone who had to deal with him.

Rudd’s older brother Josh is a more believable character, but arguably an even less likeable one. He seems completely oblivious to Rudd’s admiration and feelings of inadequacy, yet there are moments where he almost appears to go out of his way to antagonise him. And the voice box gag at the end is simply too stupid for words.

Thankfully, Cena’s Rudd keeps everything grounded. He could easily have become the sort of bland straight man who exists purely to react while everyone else gets the jokes. Instead, the writing gives him enough warmth and frustration that he feels like a real person. The emotional core only works because Rudd behaves like a human being rather than a plot device. He gets annoyed, he occasionally snaps, but he keeps trying. Cena has become surprisingly adept at playing characters whose defining trait is patience rather than charisma, and that’s a much harder job in comedy than simply being the loudest person in the room.

The important question, though, is whether it’s funny.

Yes. It is.

There are plenty of genuine laughs throughout. Nothing groundbreaking or unforgettable, but enough to keep the film entertaining. Although it leans heavily on Eric André’s trademark chaos, it also has the good sense to avoid some of the more obvious, low-hanging dialogue jokes.

The ending, though, is bizarre. I’m used to films continuing the story during the credits, showing where the characters end up. I’m also used to films filling the credits with bloopers and outtakes. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a film try to do both simultaneously. Not one after the other, either. Instead, it constantly cuts between story epilogues and behind-the-scenes outtakes, forcing your brain to keep recalibrating whether what you’re watching is part of the narrative or just the cast messing around. It feels oddly amateurish and neatly sums up my biggest issue with the film: the comedy keeps getting in its own way.

That’s a strange criticism to level at a comedy. I’m not saying it shouldn’t have jokes. I’m saying it’s so desperate to remind you it’s a comedy that it often sabotages itself. Whenever the film starts building a genuinely engaging scene, it feels compelled to interrupt it with another improvised tangent or burst of randomness. Sometimes that works. Just as often, it kills the momentum and undercuts whatever emotional weight the scene was beginning to build.

That’s a shame, because there’s a better film buried underneath. The central relationship is strong enough to carry the story without constantly winking at the audience. None of that makes it a bad watch. It’s breezy, consistently entertaining, and never feels like it’s wasting your time. It just never quite figures out when to stop chasing the next laugh and let the ones it’s already earned breathe. Ironically, by trying so hard to be funny, it sometimes undercuts the humour that’s already there.

It’s an enjoyable comedy rather than a memorable one. You’ll laugh, you’ll probably forget most of it by next week, but for nearly one hundred or so minutes it does enough to justify its existence. Plus, it contains more Hoobastank than any other film released this year.

Heads Of State (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: The UK PM and the US President are forced to put aside their personal rivalries when the plane they’re travelling on gets shot down.

This is a weird thing to say, but in 2025, Amazon originals are better than Netflix. That might be because netflix is much better at showing you new stuff, so it’s easier for me to see when they add a new original film to add to my watchlist, whereas Prime showcases stuff it doesn’t have access to unless you pay more, so your brain filters most of it unless something stands out in some way.

Heads Of State (HOS, pronounced hoes, because obviously) is not meant to top any “best films of 2025” lists. It’s not a technical masterpiece that will astond you and change the way you think about cinema. But it is exactly what it needs to be: a fun waste of time. You can tell it does WANT to be smart though. There are multiple twists and turns designed to keep you on your toes. But they happen so quickly that none of them have an impact. If I tell you “My name is Jonas, no it’s not, it’s Earl, actually it’s Who”, then when I reveal that my name is actually Slim Shady, you won’t give a shit because I’ve spent so long trying to convince you my name is something else that the actual revelation lands deader than my hopes and dreams. I’m not saying it needs to be dumber, but it would be improved if it had a more streamlined vision.

The action scenes are good, but I would expect better from Ilya Naishuller. This is the third film by Naishuller; he previously directed Nobody and Hardcore Henry, both of which had a distinctive style that made them memorable. By comparison, HOS could have been made by a number of different directors. There are moments where his style seeps through; the fight in Belarus, in particular, is a lot of fun, almost Jackie Chan-esque in how it combines violence and comedy. It’s also incredibly creative in the way it uses the surroundings.

HOS is the perfect showcase for the performers. I’m not sure whether it was intentional, but it does seem like there’s a subtext to the casting. Idris Elba, a respected actor who has honed his craft across decades, alongside John Cena, a brash American who walks in and starts getting top roles. Especially with lines like “I don’t watch your movies, I watch actual cinema”. The supporting cast all play their part. Although I’m pretty sure Priyanka Chopra is supposed to be co-lead, that’s certainly the impression the marketing gives you. HOS doesn’t fuck around with its supporting cast, having Stephen Root, Sharlto Copley, Sarah Niles, and Paddy Considine. Considine, in particular, is building up more evidence that he’s one of the most versatile performers around. He keeps going like this, and he’s going to end up in a reboot of Jaws, as the shark, and he will be magnificent.

Now it’s time for the downsides. It feels like Idris and Cena stay opposed for longer than they should. The “reluctant team-up” is a vital part of a movie like this, but it feels like they’re too hostile for each other for an unnaturally long time, especially for two people who’s jobs require them to be respectful to people they hate. There are times when it works, but those are mostly in the first half, where it would make sense for them to act like that to each other. I’m thinking mainly of their argument on the plane, where the two lay out their disdain for each other, and they both have a point. That should lead to some thawing of animosity, but it doesn’t. I’m also not a fan of one character surviving, mainly because they didn’t feel important enough to earn an end-credits appearance.

Overall, there are better films than this, but there are A LOT worse. It will be difficult to watch HOS and not, at the very least, be somewhat entertained. Although it is somewhat unrealistic that the two countries would both have politicians who are likeable.

Jackpot!(2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Katie (Awkwafina) wins the lottery (yay), unaware that California (boo) has instituted a policy where if you kill the lottery winner before sundown, you get their winnings.

Reviews have not been kind to Jackpot, with a Metacritic score of only 41, and a Rotten Tomato score of 31. That RT score puts it lower than the new Garfield movie. Now I haven’t seen Garfield, but I refuse to believe that this is anywhere near as bad as that. That movie looks terrible, like it would be among the worst of the year if I saw it. Jackpot? There’s nothing offensively bad about it. It’s not the best movie you’ll ever see, but it’s entertaining.

There are so many brilliant lines. They’re not throwaway lines either. It’s incredibly satirical. It makes this point very early on, with lines like “The economy hit record lows, however in a positive sign the stock market is doing well, creating five more billionaires” which are funny but are also uncomfortably true. The satire cuts much deeper than you’d expect. Of all the films that comment on income discrepancy, the perils of fame, etc., you wouldn’t expect it to be a Paul Feig movie starring John Cena and Awkwafina.

That’s also kind of a downside though. It lacks a sense of consistency. There’s a very weird tonal mix. It’s a dystopian nightmare, where life is hell and people have to behave inhumanly just to get a slight hope of success. But then that’s mixed with scenes where John Cena straps Awkwafina to his back and then flicks a woman in her vagina with a beach towel. Whilst we’re talking about Cena and Awkwafina (or; AwkwaCena), I’m not sure Jackpot would work without them, and not just because then it would just be a film about silent empty rooms where nothing is happening. They have surprisingly good chemistry. This is going to be a borderline offensive comparison, but it reminds me of the chemistry between Arnold and DeVito in Twins. They’re having a lot of fun, bouncing off each other well. It helps that there doesn’t seem to be an ego, from the outtakes in the closing credits we can see they’re both perfectly willing to let other people get the laughs.

As much as I enjoyed Jackpot, I know it could have been better. Not just with the tone issues mentioned above. The “twist” is one of those villain reveals that’s so obvious the only twist is that it’s supposed to be a twist. People who are surprised by the reveal in this are the same type of people who are surprised when they watch a superhero movie and someone with a name like “Dr. Murderer Von Genocide III” turns out to be the bad guy. The plot is so basic it might as well be a white woman ordering a pumpkin spice latte. You also get the feeling that Feig is restraining himself somewhat (not in a “Fatal Wanking Accident” way), the fight scenes never quite getting as violent as they could or should.

In summary, not the best, not the smartest, but fun. There’s a fine line between “stupid fun” and “no, just stupid”, and this comes dangerously close to crossing that line, but just manages to stay on the right side. I’m in no hurry to watch it again, but I would if someone else wanted to.

The Suicide Squad (2021)

Quick Synopsis: A group of sociopaths get forced to team up to steal shit from an island. Chaos and hilarity ensues.

This was either going to be amazing or a complete mess. James Gunn managed to capture lightning in a bottle with Guardians Of The Galaxy, but that was a film with (lets be honest) not many people paying attention to it. There wasn’t really much expectations for it. This was the opposite, the critical failure of the last Suicide Squad movie meant that people were waiting for this. Some were waiting for it to fail, so they could continue to decry the DC Universe, they were waiting for the smallest mistake in the film so they could call it trash. Whereas some were the opposite, using anything positive to show that it’s an example of Gunn’s genius.

All I can say is that the first group will be disappointed. This is a brilliant film. It’s incredibly funny, brilliantly slick, and makes the most of the rating it’s been given, being gleefully violent. The violence is strange, it’s kind of horrific in parts, but it’s so out there that it’s weirdly comedic. This is best demonstrated in a scene where Peacemaker and Bloodsport walk through a village killing everybody in a “top this” competition with each other, the kills getting increasingly brutal and sadistic as they walk through the village. It’s disturbing and hilarious in equal measure, but it does a great job of selling you on these characters. It’s storytelling through violence, it actually tells you information. The reveal after this scene of who they killed is also hilarious.

There were early concerns that Idris Elba would be playing Deadshot, replacing Will Smith. I can see why that was thought, the characters are quite similar, and have similar motivations. They’re completely different in the actual films though. It helps that Elba is really good at what he does (but he does sometimes pick terrible movies), as is John Cena. They have great chemistry and make a great double act. It’s still weird seeing Cena swear so much when I normally know him as a squeaky clean hero to all, and I’m really looking forward to the Peacemaker spin-off. Actually the whole cast is wonderful, Daniela Melchior, in particular, is a real highlight and I look forward to seeing her do more stuff. David Dastmalchian is wonderfully neurotic in how he plays Polka-Dot man, taking a character who could be a joke and providing him with depth and tragedy. It really is all about Peacemaker and Bloodsport though.

I reviewed the original years ago, and wasn’t very complimentary. This one improves on it in every way. The performances are better, the story is better (albeit still quite simple), the relationships between the characters are better, and the use of music is much better. The original had an issue where it felt overloaded with music for musics sake. For this the music really suits it, and is placed far enough apart from each other that the film actually has moments of silence that allow you to breathe. There are a few characters returning and they’re all done better in this. Harley Quinn makes more sense, Waller seems more dangerous, and Rick Flag feels like a completely different character.

It also looks a lot better, it’s not as bright, but the colours are vivid enough that it’s a pleasure to actually sit and watch. Plus the actual geography of each scene is much better, even when there’s chaos going on you have a grasp of where everybody is in relation to each other.

Sadly, there is a chance this film may not be a huge financial success. It’s confusingly titled to casual viewers, who may be unsure if it’s a reboot, a sequel, or just a reimagining. It’s hard to tell exactly when this film took place too, as the events of Birds Of Prey are completely ignored. In fact, almost all the films before this are ignored. On the plus side that means it works as a standalone movie. On the downside, what was the point of investing time in previous movies then? Could you have not just thrown in a quick line to explain where Huntress etc are?

That’s a small issue though (as is the fact that they continue to make Harley Quinn herself severely overpowered to the point where it feels like she’s the most powerful being in the film). You will enjoy it, mostly. There’s one moment which you won’t; when The Thinker reveals the truth about project starfish. It’s completely horrifying, and one of the most disturbing moments in modern superhero cinema. Somehow it’s more disturbing than half the world dying in Avengers. It’s just so cold, calculating, and downright evil that it’s difficult to think of far too long without being utterly horrified. And it’s amazing. More superhero films should have the guts to go as horrific as this did. To provoke debate about human sacrifice and government policy.

So in summary, well worth seeing, at the cinema, possibly more than once.

Blockers (2018)

I expected to be underwhelmed by this. I thought it would basically be disposable fluff. It kind of is, but it’s also more than that. “Teens make a pact to lose their virginity” is a story that has been told many times in films, albeit usually with guys. And there we get the first big difference: female sexuality is oddly underdeveloped in stories we see. Judging by what we see in films or on television, sex is something that women put up with in order to get flowers from men, as a means to persuade men to do something, or to get pregnant. The very notion that maybe, just maybe, women might ACTUALLY ENJOY sex is woefully underrepresented. So it’s nice to see a film which treats women as sexual beings, and not just in a “men will conquer their resistance to it” kind of way. It even has a gay sub-plot, albeit one which is kind of underdeveloped, which is a shame as the way that Gideon Adlon plays the character is brilliant. Most of the cast play their parts brilliantly actually. It would be easy for them to not care and to phone their performances in, yet almost everyone here is thriving to do the best with what they’re given. Luckily, what they’re given is really good. The script is incredibly funny, gross and puerile, but funny. This got some of the loudest laughs I’ve heard in a while, not just “polite titters”, but genuine belly laughs until it hurts (actually caused one person in the cinema to choke on their popcorn).

The decision to split the time between the two sets of people (the parents, and the teens) is a great move, both in terms of marketing potential (opens it up to a much wider audience), and in terms of story. It means that you can have emotional heartfelt moments, and then a scene of someone taking a beer enema, and because they’re happening to two separate groups of characters, it doesn’t feel too much of an emotional whiplash. The characters are well developed as well, all of the main six are fully developed characters, all with their own unsaid backstories and history. For some reason I don’t see this becoming as big a hit as American Pie, but, honestly, I think it’s better. The writing is smarter, the jokes are funnier, and it’s more grounded. Also, it isn’t (yet) diluted by way too many sequels. I think you could probably get one or two sequels out of this, there’s enough interest in the characters to see them develop into future situations, but it would need to be a really great story for it to work. Also, you cannot recast. John Cena is a lot better at comedy than someone as inexperienced as him should be, his delivery and facial expressions stop JUST short of being over the top. There’s not much chance of him challenging The Rock or Batista for the best wrestler-turned-actor, and he’ll never be in a film as good as They Live, but he won’t be an embarrassment and could easily lead his own sitcom. Ike Barinholtz also plays his character with a lot more pathos and subtlety than you’d expect from the character. This film definitely belongs to the teen cast though, and they nail it. Not a weak link or moment in their performance. Geraldine Viswanathan, in particular, deserves plaudits for her performance. With the right roles, she could easily develop into someone at an Anne Hathaway-like level, definitely one to watch out for.

So in summary, I would recommend watching this film, it won’t be your favourite film, but it will make you laugh. It’s not perfect, it features an annoyingly high amount of scenes in the trailer which aren’t in the film for some reason (like at least half the trailer), which is just odd, and the music choices could have been better in some moments. But other than that I highly recommend giving it a go.