The Moment (2026) Review

Quick Synopsis: As her arena tour debut looms, a pop star finds herself caught inside the afterglow of a breakout summer under the mounting pressure of what it costs to stay on top.

Thoughts/Opinions going in: I’m the only male in the audience, and I’m a good 10 years older than everybody else, this is unsettling.

I’m not a huge fan of the Bohemian Rhapsody movie. Not just because of the editing, or its somewhat creative approach to band history. My main issue is that it feels more like a film about Queen than it does a Queen film. Visually, it’s incredibly bland, with none of the excitement and overbombastic nature that you’d associate with the band. That wasn’t as big an issue until I watched Rocketman, which felt very much like an Elton John movie, change the scripts, etc., and make that a film about Bob Dylan, it wouldn’t work. That’s how I felt about The Moment. The way it’s edited, the colour scheme, it all combines to create something authentic. It’s what I imagine being at her gigs is like.

That approach won’t work for everybody, though. There will be people who find it too loud, too busy, too obnoxious. Those are valid criticisms, but I feel that the people who make them aren’t the target audience for this anyway. I get the feeling that Charli XCX, as well as the director Aidan Zamiri, are not only aware of how off-putting this film can be, they’re counting on it. A running theme is how Charli is determined to stick to her vision, not compromising for the comfort of others. It’s a huge part of what she wants her live show to be. So it makes sense that the film would be the same. So whilst a lot of criticisms can be levied at this film, you can never say it’s inauthentic.

There’s another thing that helps the authentic feeling; it feels like a documentary. Other mockumentaries make the mistake of shooting things that no documentary filmmakers would show: either it’s too slick, it’s the kind of thing where the subject would tell them to turn the camera off, or it’s too personal, and they end up shooting people in bed going to sleep, or waking up. Every single shot in The Moment, you can see why a documentary would film and show it. The realism does hold it back in some aspects, though: the satire doesn’t bite quite as hard as it could, seeming content with teasing nibbles (yes, I did double check I put B’s, not P’s there). There are times when characters motivations aren’t completely clear. And the incident which changes her mind on how to approach the tour feels too low-key, it would be like watching an action hero where the hero decides to finally go after the villain because they ate a life-affirming slice of bread.

As I said, that will put people off slightly. As the closing credits rolled, I saw a lot of “as herself”, full of people I didn’t know. Most of them just passed me by, so it wasn’t an issue, but there’s one that was involved in a core plot point. Again, I’m not the target audience, and I’m certain the target audience would recognise them. So I can’t really hold that against it too much. But there’s an easy fix. The Moment is made to look like a documentary, and what do a lot of documentaries have? Information on the screen telling you who people are. Not something overly obnoxious, just plain text. Like I said, a small issue, and it won’t affect most of the audience: that’s judging by the reaction from the other people in the screening.

I didn’t love this movie, but I did appreciate it. As a film, it’s good. As a showcase for the personality of Charli, it’s superb. It also kind of feels like therapy for her, and it’s hard to begrudge her that.

Crime 101 (2026) Review

Quick Synopsis: A master thief and an insurance broker join forces for a big heist, while a determined detective pursues them to prevent the multi-million dollar crime.

Thoughts Going In: This should be slick, fun, and may end up being one of the most fascinating films I’ve seen all year

Sometimes I write reviews the day I see the film, so it’s fresh in my mind. If it’s a Netflix movie, I may write parts of it while watching it. Crime 101, I watched over a week ago. If I wrote it soon after, this may have been kinder. It’s not that the flaws have made themselves known (like they did the further I got away from IT: Chapter 2), or that horrific things have been revealed (like how the main character in The Penguin Lessons turned out to be a sexual predator). It’s just that, being a week removed from the experience of watching it, this is a difficult film to feel any enthusiasm about.

It’s not a bad movie, far from it. It’s just incredibly pedestrian (which is ironic for a film so heavily focused on cars). It’s clear that the director Bart Layton is a big fan of films like Heat, and this is the closest to that we’ve seen for a while. But we have seen it before. Although if you are going to make a film like this, you could do worse than borrowing from the best.

What Crime 101 does well, it does very well. It looks great, the performances are fantastic, and all three of the main characters have clear motivations. Barry Keoghan’s character of Ormon was less convincing. Not the performance, the performance was great. But the character? The character would have been caught much earlier on. Hemsworth’s character (Mike) is meticulous, doing everything possible to make sure he’s not caught, very deliberately not leaving any DNA evidence, or using violence. Ormon is less careful. It feels like almost every single scene starts with him taking off a mask to show his face, even whilst on camera.

The main issue is one of length. It’s 140 minutes, and it doesn’t deserve it. It doesn’t do anything near enough with its story to justify that length. It’s not interesting enough to keep you emotionally invested throughout. The romance subplot is one that could definitely be cut. Especially since the meetcute is “she drives her car into his”. There’s something about the whole bit which feels fake. It seems like it exists to tell us how lonely his life is. There are definitely more efficient ways of doing that. The section on Wikipedia for Plot is 538 words long. Here’s every mention of that character:

The lonely Mike strikes up a romance with a stranger, Maya, after she rear-ends his car.

Wary of Mike’s secretive nature, Maya ends their relationship after he reveals he will be leaving town.

Mike sends Maya a childhood photo, asking her for a second chance.

Completely unnecessary, although it has to be said that the character is played well by Monica Barbaro. I’d like to see her and Hemsworth lead a low-budget romcom, but I don’t want that romcom to be in the middle of a crime drama. There are times when it feels like Crime 101 lacks ambition; being perfectly content to give you the basics. Which would be fine if it didn’t have a $90million budget.

Budget does affect how you view a film. Not just action movies, even romantic comedies starring big names have higher expectations than ones with lesser-known actors. If the budget was smaller for this, I would commend it. But a budget this big, with actors this well known? It can’t afford to be as generic and forgettable as this is.

Mercy (2026) Review

Quick Synopsis: In a supposedly dystopian future, police officer Chris is on trial for the murder of his wife. He has to prove his innocence to an AI judge in 90 minutes, or he’ll be executed.

Thoughts Going In: This movie is going to be terrible. I’ve not seen a trailer for it; it was dumped in January, and it’s already rumoured to be a surefire bomb.

Films can be bad for different reasons. Sometimes it’s someone involved in it who is just not good at their job, sometimes it’s studio interference, and sometimes it’s just bad timing, and it’s released near something that’s clearly superior. Then you have films like Mercy, films which are so peculiar and flawed that it almost feels like a deliberate attempt to fail. I’m not too big a fan of Chris Pratt as a performer; he’s a good side character, but as the lead, his flaws are exposed, and you realise he is essentially playing the exact same character in every film. He’s not helped by the decision to have him spend most of the film locked in a room, tied to a chair and talking to a computer. You may think my problem would be the “locked in a room” or “talking to a computer” part. I have no issue with that. A guy trying to solve a crime while not being able to physically interact with anything is interesting. My problem is the “tied to a chair” part. If you do that with someone, you need them to have immense screen presence; you don’t need them to have the energy of someone who has just been asked to file a report at work 5 minutes before he’s due to leave. His being tied to a chair means there’s very little to praise in terms of visual dynamics. It’s him talking to a screen, yes, we see things on the screens, but the focus is still on a guy locked in a room ,whilst tied to a chair. He’s not allowed to pace around the room, break things in rage, hold his head in his hands; it essentially robs him of using body language. I’m not sure what the benefit of having him tied to the chair is. Could they not think of another execution method other than “sonic blast to the head”? Could they have not had the room itself kill them with a soundblast? If you want to lean into the computer aspect, have the room change into a 3D reconstruction of the crime scene, and then he can walk through that, have him haunted by the sights, cry at family mementos etc.

In terms of performance; Kali Reis continues to impress. It’s a shame that her performance in Catch The Fair One didn’t lead to the roles she deserves, but I hope if she continues to prove herself, those roles will come. Rebecca Ferguson is a definite highlight, Despite seeming for all intents and purposes, human, there’s something uncanny valley in her performance. Part of that is down to how her character is written. On the subject of characters, Chris is kind of an idiot. He knows he only has a short period of time to prove his innocence, he knows the system will investigate his history, yet he still lies to it. It would have been so much shorter if he admitted things straight up; if he told the system he was an alcoholic who relapsed. Yes, lying to the cops because you don’t trust them is a strategy. But when you’re a cop who’s trying to tell everyone this new AI judge is brilliant, you’d trust it.

A key thing to successful sci-fi is world-building. You need the universe created within to make sense and feel true. Obviously, this is the key to all movies, but sci-fi has it harder because it usually has to introduce its rules first. So how does Mercy fare? Not well. It cuts to occasional riots, but this never really feels like a futuristic LA with a huge crime problem; mainly because they’ve segretated most of the problem people into one area (the ethics of which are NEVER discussed). Outside of that, there doesn’t seem to be much day-to-day crime. The use of hover bikes is a nice touch, though. But they wouldn’t be needed if he was allowed to examine a VR version of the scene himself.

Every time I think of this movie, a new issue I had with the plot rears its head, which is strange as I’ve barely thought of it; I saw it, immediately forgot it until it came time to write this review. It doesn’t bring anything new or exciting to the table. The concept is full of possibilities. Possibilities which the film itself refuses to look at. The problem with AI deciding court cases is one of nuance and human nature; it’s not “if it’s controlled by the wrong people, it may go wrong”, it’s the system itself that is flawed. But Mercy has no interest in discussing that. It also isn’t interested in exploring the guilt he could (should) feel for being responsible for the execution of an innocent man. There’s no “The system I defend executed somebody when it shouldn’t have? Oh no, I caused this!” PTSD, which forces the film to discuss the ethics of this justice. It’s just “this guy died because of me? Ah well. Oooo, is that a sandwich?” Side note: When we see riots in this movie, the police tend to just leave them alone instead of teargassing them. And no children get shot in the face at point-blank range. So in some ways, the “dystopia” America in this movie’s 2029 is less traumatic than actual America in reality’s 2026

This could be great. It could be slick. It could be smart. It’s none of those things. It’s not even passable.

2025 In Film: Day One (The Awful)

Bride Hard
Ups: You can tell it was fun to make.
Downs: Some of the dialogue is too unsubtle.
Dull music.
Never makes the most of its premise.
Best Performer: Sherry Cola
Best Moment: I guess the kitchen fight, because its the closest this movie gets to what it is trying to be.
Worst Moment: The hovercraft chase looks particularly bad.
Opening: Montage of lead characters growing up and splitting when one of their families moves away, set to a sappy song. Then, “30 years later”, the two are part of a bachelorette group in Paris. I have a small problem; the labelling isn’t clear.
Closing: She sets off the denoator whilst catching flowers. The person whose house is blown up doesn’t seem to care.
Best Line: Is this normal for an American wedding?
Original review here

Havoc
Ups: Very energetic.
Downs: It looks weird. Hard to explain, but there’s a filter which means everything looks like a cutscene from a video game.
Kind of hard to care about anything that happens.
Best Performer: Tom Hardy
Best Moment: The kidnapping of Lawrence
Worst Moment: The inciting incident murder. Doesn’t feel “big” enough.
Opening: Tom Hardy delivers a voiceover over scenes of him stealing, murdering, and performing unlicensed burials at sea. A pretty weirdly shot car chase scene follows, can’t explain it, but it feels “off” somehow.
Closing: Patrick has been shot and will possibly die.
Best Line: You live in this world, you make choices. Choices you try to justify. For yourself, for your family. And for a while, it works. Until it doesn’t. Until you make a choice that renders everything worthless.
Original review here

In The Lost Lands
Ups: Unique.
Downs: Looks like a video game.
Overstuffed.
Characters turn on a whim.
Best Performer: Amara Okereke
Best Moment: The torture of villagers. Effective and personal.
Worst Moment: The train crash, it looks fake as shit.
Opening: Batista’s character walks up to the camera and gives a gritty version of “Are you sitting comfortably? Then I’ll begin”. This would have actually worked in the 1990s, but it now seems incredibly passe.
Closing: The two main characters who have spent the entire film working together decide to work together.
Best Line: The stronger the spirits, the weaker the senses.
Original review here

Keeper
Ups: Atmospheric
Tatiana Maslany
Downs: Meanders around.
Repeats itself a lot.
Some plot holes are vast enough to drive a truck through
Best Performer: Tatiana Maslany
Best Moment: The ending is satisfying.
Worst Moment: The cake. It isn’t impactful.
Opening: Quick scenes of women being murdered. Incredibly artsy.
Closing: Malcolm drowns in a jar of honey.
Best Line: This fork is going in your head one way or another. Might as well taste good.
Original review here

Kinda Pregnant
Ups: Amy Schumer and Urzila Carlson actually have really good chemistry and would make a great double act.
Some funny moments
Downs: It’s hard to like the characters
The premise is too dumb.
Most of the plot only happens because the characters are dicks.
Weirdly shot.
Best Performer: Urzila Carlson
Best Moment: The meet-cute. It’s believable and one of the few times she seems like a human.
Worst Moment: The break-up/threesome proposal with Dave. It feels incredibly fake. It would be like if you invited someone to your house on their birthday and all their friends were there, along with a birthday cake and a sign saying “Happy birthday”, but it wasn’t for their birthday, and you get annoyed at them for daring to think you were planning a birthday for them.
Opening: Two kids “playing mom”, well, pretending to be giving birth, with swearing. Weirdly short and feels like it’s there just because they know they can’t start the film with the next scene.
Closing: Public declaration of love involving a Zamboni and multiple vehicles being destroyed.
Best Line: “I will bite your fucking aorta”. Such a specific threat
Original review here

Matt And Mara
Ups: Some nice moments.
Nice to see low-budget movies get a release like this.
Downs: The characters don’t feel like friends.
They’re not that likeable.
Lack of cuteness
Best Performer: Deragh Campbell
Best Moment: The surly cafe owner.
Worst Moment: The car argument. Feels so forced.
Opening: A somewhat awkward meeting between the main characters.
Closing: Mara listens to music while holding her husband’s hand. She then puts a receipt in a book written by Matt.
Best Line: I’m letting my imagination reach the level of my stupidity, which makes it my reality
Original review here

Urchin
Ups: Some neat visual tricks.
There are moments where it shows you glimpses of how good it could be.
Downs: Unlikable lead.
Too episodic in nature.
Seems more focused on being visually interesting than being narratively compelling.
Best Performer: Frank Dillane. His performance is great, but his character is awful.
Best Moment: The karaoke bar. Three people singing an Atomic Kitten song should be skippable. But it’s incredibly sweet, and the way the three characters do it tells you so much about who they are.
Worst Moment: When he mugs the guy who tried to help him. Mainly because it’s too early on so colours your opinion of him. You spend the entire film knowing he’s a prick. If it delayed showing you that, it would have given us time to get some sympathy for him.
Opening: He wakes up, asks for money and is ignored. Interesting look in how hard that life is.
Closing: Arthouse weirdness. Probably killed himself.
Best Line: Each decision is yours.
Original review here

War Of The Worlds
Ups: Unique
Downs: Terrible CGI
Does this story really need updating?
Feels low-budget.
Product placement.
The world never FEELS in danger.
Too dumb
Best Performer: Henry Hunter Hill
Best Moment: The aliens crashing. Complete chaos, just enough to wake the audience up.
Worst Moment: The reveal of what the aliens are feeding on.
Opening: He logs on and opens up surveillance cameras. Let’s you know the gimmick quickly. Does include a fun moment where two people are talking about how “I think I’m being listened to” and is told to stop being paranoid. It’s interesting and intriguing. Then we see the freak weather, and it looks fake.
Closing: The aliens are defeated. Ice Cube refuses to spy on people anymore.
Best Line: I’m going to go with the tagline: “It’s worse than you think”. Almost like they were trying to warn us.
Original review here

Zero
Ups: Creative concept.
Makes the most of the location.
Downs: Terrible performers.
No style.
Dumb script.
Indecisive in terms of genre.
Best Performer: Moran Rosenblatt
Best Moment: The taking down of America. Depressingly relevant.
Worst Moment: The drug-taking scene makes it seem like the film is pausing.
Opening: Narration over a completely black screen. Did have to check if my HDMI cable was working properly. A guy is asleep on a packed bus in Senegal when someone puts a phone in his hand. He seems confused as to where he is.
Closing: The two characters stand in the ocean and accept their deaths. Kind of poignant. We then get the aftermath of the events; Senegal hates America, then a woman wakes up with a bomb strapped to her chest, but in Paris.
Best Line: “So where are you from?”
“I’m from that place that they signed the Declaration of Independence” Not the “best” line, but the most notable, because it’s terrible. Possibly the worst line I’ve seen all year. No person speaks like that.
Original review here

Urchin (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Rough sleeper Mike tries to sort his life out on his release from prison.

Despite the fact that I’ve reviewed close to 600 films on this site, I am well aware that there is a disconnect between my opinions and traditional film critics. There have been some films that critics have loved that I could not give a shit about, and ones which critics have decried as terrible, which I love. Sometimes, I’m aware it’s a personal opinion, that I just don’t vibe with that particular film. But then there are films like Urchin, which make me feel that my opinions are shared by the general audience. I saw a preview of this, and whilst it didn’t inspire any walkouts, it didn’t seem to inspire much praise either. As I sat outside waiting for the bus, I got a general consensus from others who were in the screening, it was not positive. The main theme seemed to be “the guy was a prick”, and it’s hard to argue against that.

Part of that is because of how Urchin is written. Near the start of the film, as we’re still getting used to Mike’s character, we see him brutally rob someone who tries to help him. This means that for the rest of the runtime, that is in our mind. Maybe it would have been better if it had opened with him coming out of prison, and we slowly reveal what he did, by which time we may have grown to like the character. I know, I know, “drug addiction isn’t pretty, and it makes people do bad things, this film just shines a light on it”. But even when he’s not on drugs, there are still multiple times where he comes off as an unlikeable shit. Does this mean I want him to die? That I think he deserves scorn and ridicule? No, of course not. But does it mean I want to spend over 90 minutes watching him on screen?

It’s a shame, as there are moments where Urchin is genuinely heartbreaking. When we see the disdain the world shows towards him, how many people walk past him without offering to help, it does hurt, of course it does. And there are moments of beauty, too. There’s a wonderful moment where he is in a karaoke bar with two women from work, they’re just singing (if I remember correctly) Whole Again by Atomic Kitten. That’s it, that’s all the scene is, three people singing a song. But it’s SOOOO good in terms of characterisation, even how they’re sitting on a chair tells you about these characters. It’s genuinely magnificent and nearly brought tears to my eyes. But soon after that, he leaves his job due to being argumentative, and we never see the two women ever again.

I like Harris Dickinson as a performer; he has the air of someone who is a massive star, yet still does indie projects (for those who haven’t seen it, check out Scrapper, genuinely great). But his directorial choices were a bit odd. It’s clear what he was going for, a trippy arthouse style, I just didn’t like it. Especially since it’s only arthouse for small moments, most of the time it’s just a generic-looking drama, so when it does go all “and here he is standing in a forest”, it comes off as (forgive my phrasing), a little bit wanky and self-indulgent. The kind of thing that film lecturers go crazy for, yet turns audiences cold.

On the upside? Like I said, there are moments where it shines. There are also moments where it forces you to restructure how you think of crime, and how our desire for “justice” just drives people further into crime and misery. It’s also anchored by some fantastic performances. Not just from lead Frank Dillane (although he will, rightfully, gain all the plaudits). But the performance of Karyna Khymchuk feels slightly overlooked. Her performance seemed effortless, and I want to see more from her.

There are some people who will absolutely love it, I can tell. This is the type of film that WILL end up on multiple people’s “best of 2025”, and that’s fair. I just personally couldn’t find my “in”, something which will allow me to sit back and let the story take over me.

Freaky Tales (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: An NBA star, a corrupt cop, a female rap duo, teenage punks, neo-Nazis and a debt collector embark on a collision course in 1987 Oakland.

I think this is the first anthology film I’ve reviewed. I have to be honest, it’s difficult to figure out how to review a film like this. Do I review each one individually, or take it as a whole? I’ve decided to try to do each segment in turn. If it were something like the VHS series, where there’s A LOT of segments, I’d do it as a whole (or just not watch it), but with only four segments? That seems doable. This will be more stream-of-consciousness than most of my reviews, so fair warning for that.

Strength In Numbers: The Gilman Strikes Back

Ah, this really made me wish we had a local music community. There’s so much togetherness displayed among the characters. Jack Champion has played the worst character in at least two movies (Avatar: The Way Of Water and Scream VI), but his performance in this shows that it was ALL due to bad writing. He is charming and sweet in this. I love Tina, though. Ji-Young Yoo is full of energy and repressed anger.

I appreciate that in an age where “don’t be a dick” is taken as “woke political correctness”, I appreciate how this segment (the entire film, in fact) is not subtle. This is not subtle, one character outright says “the rules don’t apply to nazis” when they discuss their “no hate” rule. But when we have politicians outwardly saying they want to put the unemployed in concentration camps, we can’t afford to be subtle. I have seen one person say that the portrayal of nazi’s in this segment made them “cartoonishly evil”, especially when they beat up someone on crutches. Got news for ya, that’s far from the worst thing Nazi’s did to people.

The fight itself is brutal. Doesn’t shy away from the blood and anger. It plays up some of it by making it slightly comic booky, but you are left in no doubt that these are real people (and nazi’s). The message here, “You can’t afford to be a pacifist if you’re being attacked”, is vital in 2025 (and yes, that is depressing). The relevance and importance of the message wouldn’t matter if the other components weren’t good. Obviously, the soundtrack is brilliant, with tracks from Operation Ivy and Black Flag suiting both the tone and the time. The visuals are pretty fun too, a standard conversation between the two characters is made visually interesting with animated overlays (very similar to Ninjababy, if you ever saw that). There’s some great stuff with aspect ratio too, with the frame pushing in at the start, making the whole thing seem like an 80’s VHS tape (that’s helped by the slight grain to the footage too). On the downside, the grainy nature of the visuals does make it difficult to see things at times. But I suppose it’s in a dark room, everybody is wearing black, so if you combine that with the 80’s filter, it’s difficult to see how it could be brighter without looking fake.

My other problem was a singular scene just before the chaos started. There’s a conversation between two punks outside when the nazi’s arrive, it feels stilted and is the only part that doesn’t feel real. If I were told “these two actors won a competition/are the crew”, I’d believe it.

Don’t Fight The Feeling

It’s certainly a choice that the nazi story was followed by a story about two black women. Just to showcase how shitty the 80s were, there wasn’t just racism, there was also sexism. Their race never drives the narrative, though, I suppose if it did, then it would have risked repeating the lessons from the first section.

It’s not just the themes; tonally, this is completely different. That’s what you want from a film like this. You want to showcase the diverse group of characters, and it’s no point doing that if every section feels the same. There are connecting themes and settings, but they’re not even in the same genre or sharing a visual technique. The soundtrack is also completely different, with this section taking on more of a hip-hop slant.

It’s not as satisfying an end, though. They defeat a battle rapper who only hired them to humiliate them. His rhymes are hateful and sexist as fuck, and he deserves to be beaten. But, you don’t get the feeling that he’s learned his lesson. He’s still going to be misogynistic as fuck, just not to these two particular women.

Born To Mack

After the youth-oriented previous chapters, it’s a surprise that the opening of this consists of Tom Hanks and Pedro Pascal. I knew Pedro was in this, genuinely had no idea Tom Hanks was. Explains all the references to the previous segments made to him.

There’s a “but you’re the owner, you’ve always been the owner” spooky fake-out was brilliant and I loved it. This is a much more deliberate and slower story than the previous two. It’s strange, it has the most story, more happens (and it’s certainly the only one so far that you could imagine becoming a feature on its own), but it somehow feels like it stagnates more. In the previous sections, not much happened, but it happened quickly. If the previous two were sprints, this is a marathon. It’s not quite as entertaining, but ot is much more fascinating.

The Legend Of Sleepy Floyd

And we’re back with the nazi cunts (fuck off). This is an excellent culmination of everything we’ve seen. The sci-fi undertones become more obvious, with the references to telekinesis finally becoming meaningful. This is how the final section of an anthology should be; the previous scenes all crashing together in a magnificently meaningful coda.

I can see why people would hate this movie. I found it oddly charming. The opening leads you to think that the science-fiction elements may be more prevalent than they actually are, but that’s a minor issue. If you take it with no expectations, it’s a collection of stories which you’ll love to watch.

Renner (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Tech genius Renner (hey, that’s the title of the movie) has developed an AI tool to help develop confidence. A tool that’s unwittingly influenced by his domineering mother

I went into this expecting to be impressed. I knew who was in it, and I knew roughly what it was about; that was it. I don’t say this often, but if I had read more about it, I’m not sure I would have bothered. It actually annoyed me that I didn’t like it, because I know what the next two films I have to review are, and I would have liked if I had at least one positive review this week.

It’s not just that this wasn’t for me; at times, I actively disliked it. The lead character’s romance arc reminds me of Y2K, the film, not the year. He invites a neighbour to his house for an introduction. She brings a guy, and he is visibly annoyed to the point of rudeness. He’s then visibly elated when it turns out to be her brother. So, he comes across as a little bit entitled. Sentences like “I feel as if I’m being friend-zoned, this is like a horror movie” back up my viewpoint on that. You can’t be annoyed if a woman you’ve just met is wary of being at your home alone.

The other characters? They follow the same pathway of “the performances being better than the writing”. Violett Beane is incredibly charming and likeable in her performance, but that impact is lessened by the stuff the script makes her character say (You don’t get to say “it feels like my mouth had an orgasm” and then get surprised when someone turns it sexual). Her character feels like wish fulfilment; there’s not much reason for her to be into Renner. Look at it from her POV; she meets a guy who gets visibly angry at her for knowing a male. We don’t really get a reason for her to like him. Yes, you can say that part of that is due to (spoilers) her pretending to be into him so she can steal his shit. But it turns out that she does actually like him, but with no demonstration as to why. You can definitely tell this is written by a guy. The only character of the three who seems genuine is Chad, and that’s because he’s one of the few who calls characters out on their bullshit. In a lot of films, that might come off as annoying. But in something like Renner, it’s actually refreshing.

There’s some really interesting stuff done with colours. It is sometimes flat, garish, and ugly, but there are moments where it works, particularly after the monopoly conversation, where they move through colours. It’s incredibly minimalist, and when the visuals work, they really work. They look sparse, like the character is emotionally hollow. When they don’t work, they look cheap and like a student film.

I said earlier that this was clearly written by a man. That was wrong. It was written by four guys, one less than it takes to build a burger chain. This obviously wasn’t how it was done, but if you told me each writer took a scene and they never consulted with each other, I’d believe you. There are some inconsistencies between scenes that are harder to swallow than a burger van burger the next day. In particular, there’s a genre switch which doesn’t really work because it doesn’t feel right for the characters. It’s jarring, but not in a shocking Sinners way, but in a “yeah that didn’t work AT ALL” way. It doesn’t help that the key scene for this moment is shot in such a way that it appears to be a dream/fantasy sequence. It has a “looks like a dream but is reality” a few times, but the genre switch moment is the most egregious. It’s not to do with the way it’s shot, it’s entirely down to the way it’s edited.

Essentially, the problem with Renner (besides the title, which is difficult to Google) is that it has no idea what it wants to be. One of the best bits of scriptwriting I’ve ever been told was “do more with less”. Essentially, cut out unnecessary twists, plot points, and themes. It may suck as you may love them, but it improves the narrative if you cut out the fluff and focus on the essentials. I know that goes against my usual preference for ambitious failures over safe successes. But the ambitious failures I like are when I see something new. Nothing in Renner is new or original; it’s just unfocused, and the multiple attempted plotpoints all stumble over each other. If it cut out the bullshit, streamlined the narrative, DEFINITELY changed the ending, then you’d have something impressive. As it is? I can’t even be bothered to watch the trailer again, let alone go near the movie.

I do like that the film ended with a “made by humans” note. Very cute.

The Ballad Of Wallis Island (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Charles is a lottery-winning widow who pays folk duo McGwyer Mortimer to reunite for a private gig, very private, just him.

Films inspire different emotions and feelings. Some films make you yearn for human connection, some films make you nostalgic for a past you’ve never felt, and some, like The Ballad Of Wallis Island (TBOWI, tea-bowie) feel like sitting in front of a fire, drinking a nice cup of tea while the rain falls outside. It’s incredibly cosy and lovely to watch. It reminds me of playing Gone Home. You’re not watching it for the narrative, per se, you’re watching it for the feeling. There are secrets, but not really plot twists. It feels like you’re opening up matryoshka dolls, each doll revealing a new facet of the character’s history. TBOWI will really benefit from a rewatch, where you’ll be able to see everything with new context.

I have to be honest, I’m not sure I’ll want to watch it again, though. Don’t get me wrong, it was fine while I was watching it, but nothing about it made me need to watch it again. I’m not entirely sure why. It is a likeable film while you’re watching. It’s funny, albeit very awkward at times. But not uncomfortable in a “oh god, I can’t watch it, too cringeworthy” way. In a “I have met people like this before. Fuck, I AM people like this at times”.

Tim Key is perfectly cast, making the most of his bumbling awkwardness that he’s known for. This is the most dramatic role he’s been in, and he plays it well. You never feel “this is a comedian/poet, out of his depth”. Tom Basden is pretty fun as the obviously frustrated Herb. Carey Mulligan isn’t in it as long as the other two, but will be the person you remember most. She has an inherent likeability and creates a fun double-act with Basden.

I wish there were a bigger focus on the music. As good as the performances and writing are, I never really bought into the idea of them as a folk band. Compare this to Opus, which, although I liked it a lot less than this, had much better world-building and truly made you feel like you were in a world where that band existed.

I suppose that’s the problem. There was nothing about TBOWI that made me forget I was watching a piece of fiction. At times, it felt like the script was overly written and a bit too forced. Even the “end of second act” downer moment felt forced, and there’s one “reason you suck” speech that feels unnecessarily cruel and out of character.

That feels weirdly harsh. There is a lot to like about TBOWI. It’s not as “sketch comedy” as its premise would make you think. It manages to be both melancholic and lovely, creating genuine emotions. It’s worth a watch, but maybe not a rewatch.

Here (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Multiple generations of couples and families inhabit the same home over the course of a century.

I knew one thing before sitting down to watch this: the CGI used to de-age Tom Hanks was not good. I have to be honest, that didn’t bother me that much. There are moments where you can see the CGI and you’re brought out of the narrative, but it doesn’t happen anywhere near as much as it could.

Here is a fascinating watch, all taking place at the exact same location over the course of hundreds of years in a non-linear fashion. The non-linear nature was a smart choice because it allows you to see how actions can influence people years later. It also allows for more interesting transitions because you can see the changes.

That leads me to the visual downside. Here doesn’t fade directly from one scene to the next, there’s also no attempt to make it look like it’s one scene. Instead, it brings up a small box on the screen which contains the same location at a different time or with different people, it’s only once you get used to that new scene that the movie moves on fully. It’s visually compelling, but there’s one major drawback. It makes it difficult to be invested in the current scene as you’re always seeing what’s next. It would be like if the “here’s what’s up next” part of television shows happened halfway through the episode instead of at the end. The constant look into the future stops you from focusing on the present, Here never exists in the moment, instead just constantly dangling the narrative carrot in front of you and waiting for you to catch up.

As much as it is cool to see it through the different time periods, there’s a definite focus on what happened after 1945; with the characters from then onwards being the ones we see the most of. To be honest, they’re the only ones needed. Yes, the look into the Lenni-Lenape couple and their courtship and burial rituals are interesting, and the William Franklin connection does come into play in the present-day scenes, but they’re not needed. They feel like narrative sorbets designed to cleanse our palate. The post-Young scenes also aren’t that interesting, seemingly just there to remind us that COVID existed, and police racism still does. If anybody watched this movie without those scenes, nobody would say “hey! This family drama set from 1945-2000 doesn’t focus on 2020 pandemics and race relations enough”. It feels like they were put in there just because Zemeckis feels this is an “important” movie, and “important” movies need to discuss themes.

I hate to sound like a Daily Mail reader, but this needed less politics. If it focused just on the family and their life in the house, it would be a much more interesting watch. I can accept the scenes of the house being built, because the house is a character, so seeing how it was “birthed” could also tie in thematically, but we didn’t need the inventor, the wannabe flier etc. If you cut out all the fluff, it would be much shorter. That’s not too big an improvement, as timing isn’t an issue. The “here’s what’s next” nature of the visuals means that even when you’re not interested, you’re still paying attention, so it flies by much quicker than it should.

In summary, it’s an interesting art experience, not a great movie. As much as I did enjoy the narrative, it feels like it’s trying too hard to move you. It’s so heavy-handed that if it slapped you it would knock you out. As Peter Sobczynski said in his review posted on rogerebert.com “there is a point when you find yourself thinking that the only thing that Zemeckis hasn’t thrown into the mix is a needle drop of ‘Our House’ and then he proceeds to do just that”. It’s not a terrible film, but it’s not one that wouldn’t have worked better as a 20 minute short instead. Also, a simply terrible title that makes it really awkward to talk about.

My Spy: The Eternal City (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: JJ (A “very noticeable for a spy” Batista) reunites with Sophie (Chloe Coleman), accompanying her on her school trip where they find themselves at the centre of a terrorist plot.

In case you hadn’t noticed, I’m not a normal reviewer; I don’t put definitive star ratings at the end of reviews for one thing. I will always admit that personal bias counts for a lot, sometimes negatively (I am predisposed to dislike anything with certain actors in), sometimes positively. My review of Hereditary was (I assume) the only review of that movie to include the phrase “cocking shit fuck” (unlike reviews of Morbius, which were fucking littered with that phrase, especially the one in the Holy Jesus Mary Church Weekly newsletter). On the plus side, that does mean there are lower expectations of me to maintain professional standards. As such, the following sentence won’t harm my reputation among readers as much as if it was said by someone like Peter Bradshaw (who only uses professional review lines, like in Twisters where he said “Certainly, the twister here is an obvious symbol for orgasm”). Here goes, the sentence which would doom me if I was a professional:

I stopped paying attention before this movie ended.

I watched this at home, but there weren’t any active distractions (local building work etc). I just…I just found myself watching but taking nothing in. When I speak of Come True, I often find myself talking about how despite watching it on a small screen, in my memory, it’s on a big one. With this? I will remember I watched it on my TV, not the cinema. It never felt big enough to be worthy of anything except “straight to streaming”. That’s a shame as I enjoyed the first one, and My Spy: The Eternal City (or MS: TEC, pronounced Ms. Tech) actually soured my memory of it. It assumes I can remember much more from the first one than I can. Characters turn up and the film is like “OMG it’s you guys”, whereas the audience’s reaction is “Who the fuck are these guys?”. I don’t want films overrun with flashbacks, but a few of them might have been helpful. It would be easy to do too; just frame it as Sophie giving a presentation in class or something. It would definitely be better than the current opening; a dream sequence. Never open an action movie with a dream sequence, it sets up action setpieces that can’t be recreated in reality.

Other scenes are similarly misjudged. The biggest misstep is when JJ is being tortured and threatened with death. I don’t know if it’s the way it’s shot, the way it’s written, or even just where it is in the script, but it’s devoid of any tension. I doubt a single person who watches this believed for a second that that scene would be where the character dies, even the stupid people watching it would realise that was never going to happen.

Another issue is how it wastes the location’ Venice is cinematic, but you would not know that from watching this. It could take place in any European city and it wouldn’t require that many changes. It’s a shame as I really enjoyed the first movie, and this feels like a massive step down.

MS. TECH isn’t all negative though. The cast has good chemistry, and Anna Farris is clearly having a lot of fun. There are some genuinely funny moments, especially when someone is getting stone dicks thrown at their face. Taeho K doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page but shows fantastic promise in the small moments he’s given.

Finally, and much more importantly; it’s great to hear an Ashnikko song in a film. Love that shit.