Tag: movie-review

Now You See Me, Now You Don’t (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: The Four Horsemen and a new generation of illusionists join forces to steal the world’s largest diamond from a South African mogul who heads an international crime syndicate.

I’m a huge fan of this franchise. I mean, they’re clearly bollocks, with some of the moments (particularly when they were passing the card around in the second movie) defying physics. But that doesn’t mean they’re not enjoyable and well-crafted. It’s weird how all three movies in this franchise have a similar style despite being directed by different people. Now You See Me, Now You Don’t (NYSMNYD, pronounced Nice-mon-yad) is directed by Ruben Fleischer, best known for Zombieland. Now You See Me 2 was by Jon M Chu, who has since moved on to the two Wicked movies (as in, the two movies based on the stage show Wicked, not two movies I think are wicked), and the first one was brought to the world by Louis Leterrier, who gave us Fast X (which should have been called Fast X Your Seatbelts). It feels like Fleischer understood the world better out of the three; he’s really good at staging action sequences among crowds, making them feel dynamic and not like everyone is just standing there watching instead of running away.

I like the script for this more than I did the others; there aren’t as many obviously unrealistic moments. My biggest issue was one which I’m not sure most people would notice. I’m aware I watch more films than most people (I’m one film away from 100 new releases seen this year), so I don’t think it’s too pretentious to say I pick up on things more than most people would, especially verbal foreshadowing. Like a verbal Chekov’s Gun, if a character in a cop movie talks about how their former partner died mysteriously, odds are that character isn’t really dead and will come back at the end. In this, a character is explicitly introduced with “I couldn’t find out much about your past”, so its obvious his past will be a plot point. Added to that, there’s an unseen mysterious character, with nowhere near enough side characters as potential suspects for who they are. So it’s not as mysterious as it should be. Yes, the way the reveal is pulled off is incredibly satisfying, but they could have hidden it a little better. It also would have been nice if the villain was a bit more cruel.

It’s been almost ten years since the last movie, so it would have been understandable if they assumed people didn’t remember what happened and opened with a flashback. This doesn’t do that, it jumps straight in, no explanation of what happened before, no reintroductions or summaries. I like that. It treats the audience as adults rather than spoonfeeding them everything. The way it introduces the new characters could be slightly more subtle, but it works. They slot in with the established crew without overshadowing them. I may not have been too impressed with him in I Saw The TV Glow, but Justice Smith is growing on me with performances like this (I’ve also been playing The Quarry lately, which may explain it). Dominic Sassa is impressive enough that you forget he’s only been acting for a few years.

Is this among the best movies I’ve seen this year? Nope. It might make the top 25% but that’s it. Am I going to buy it on DVD/Blu-ray? Almost definitely. I won’t gush to everyone about how incredible this movie is, about how everyone should see it, and it will change your life. But I will watch it again. If anyone asks whether it’s worth it, I will say yes.

The Running Man (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Desperate to get the money required to get his family luxuries such as food and healthcare, Ben Richards enters The Running Man, a TV show where people must survive 30 days being hunted by assassins.

The existence of this movie has annoyed a lot of people. People who are complaining, “They remade the Arnie movie. Be original! And they’ve changed aspects of it”, seemingly not realising that it’s not a remake, it’s another adaptation of the book, and some of the changes have been made to make it more faithful to the book. I watched the original a few weeks ago; it’s a VERY loose adaptation of the source material, removing a lot of the central themes. So in that sense, the 2025 version is better; it’s a lot more faithful, keeping not just the basic plot points but also the world-building required to make the story more than “muscle man kills everyone”.

As good as the first version is, it never truly felt dystopian or real. This feels real. The characters are clearly financially suffering, and living in a world where most of the media shows glamorous lifestyles that are beyond the reach of most people. A world where people are constantly watched. A world where the divide between corporations and government is wafer-thin. In short, a world which can either be described as “one we’re heading towards” or “one we’re already in”, depending on whether you view your glass as half full, half empty, or missing because some fucker stole it. The world has changed since the 80s, when America was led by a psychopathic manchild brought to the world by his appearances in the media, and Britain was determined to crush the rights of the poor, disabled, non-white, and members of the LGBTQ community. The proliferation (big word, go me) of AI and surveillance means that certain parts of this now ring very true. It does make things easier for the filmmakers; characters don’t have to say “they edited it using artificial intelligence based on pre-existing recordings” We’re all so familiar with deepfakes that we automatically know.

So it’s a good adaptation, but is it a good movie? I mean, the Tim Burton version of Charlie And The Chocolate Factory is clearly more accurate than the Gene Wilder one, but is clearly inferior, partly (but not entirely) down to Depp’s decision to play Wonka like Michael Jackson, but more creepy. I liked it. The political satire is on point, the action sequences are fun, and there are no sequences where you’re bored. Also, it’s fun. Action movies can make a political point and still be fun.

That being said, it could do more. Edgar Wright is known for certain things, mainly his editing and his music choices. It feels like The Running Man doesn’t showcase his skills. There are some very good music choices (especially in the opening), and like I said, some of the action sequences are fun. But there are no scenes which stand out as particularly impressive compared to his other works. There’s nothing which you can point to and say, “That! That is why we love cinema”, like the opening chase of Baby Driver.

The performances are fine. It’s still weird to see Glen Powell as an action hero, but I suppose that’s kind of the point. Colman Domingo is great, bringing to mind Carl Weathers’ performance as Apollo Creed with the energy and charisma he has.

There’s been some negative talk online about this movie. Those people are wrong. The Running Man is one of the most fun experiences you can have in a cinema without risking being thrown out. There’s a delightful energy to the whole thing, and the action scenes actually make sense. There’s not much suspension of disbelief required for it to make sense, no requirement to leave your brain at the door and “stop nitpicking and just start enjoying”. That doesn’t mean it’s overly pretentious and serious, though. You can just watch it at home (when the DVD/Blu-ray is released) with a couple of beers and some friends (sadly, friends aren’t included with a dvd purchase, I’ve checked) and cheer at the sequences, you’re not going to be have to be like “shhhh, you’re missing important plot points, concnetrate!”. Essentially, this movie is what you make it; if you want political satire, it’s got it, if you want bang bang blow up shoot shoot action movies, it’s that. So while it’s not an easy film to declare the best movie ever, it’s a very easy movie to enjoy.

I like that.

Shelby Oaks (2024) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Mia is haunted by the disappearance of her sister Riley 12 years ago. She’s given up all hope, then a stranger hands her a videotape of Riley’s final moments.

I’ve seen this movie described as a mix of Blair Witch and Hereditary, which is remarkably accurate. It has the lore and world-building of Hereditary, and the reality-based found footage of Blair Witch. It’s been overused since then, so people forget just how exciting The Blair Witch Project was when it came out. What made that movie work was how real the footage itself felt; the people in it didn’t like actors, so it genuinely felt like we were watching something hidden. It also wasn’t overly edited and full of jump scares, which is a trap its weaker imitators have fallen into. In that regard, Shelby Oaks continues that tradition, with the found-footage sections being incredible to watch.

It’s when it steps away from the found-footage premise that it becomes less interesting. The moment it happens is brilliant, and feels like a genuinely “holy shit” moment, the likes of which I haven’t seen since the Ghostface deaths in the opening of Scream 6. It can’t keep that momentum up, though. Once that moment has gone, the film doesn’t come close to matching it. You’re still invested in the story and the mystery, but a little bit of that “wow” factor has gone; there’s not as much to separate it from every other horror movie. I think part of the annoyance with it is that the mystery is intriguing, but you never really feel like you’re getting close to solving it until the film tells you what’s happening; there are no clues for the audience to figure out. If you’re watching this with friends, there will be no discussion about your theories or guesses. It gives you a puzzle, then makes you watch someone else solve it, so after a while, your brain can’t help but wander. Without that “I want to solve the mystery”, you’re just left with a spooky story, albeit a very competent one.

It’s clear that Chris Stuckmann has a lot of talent as a director; he’s an expert at crafting scares out of seemingly nothing. He’s helped by a brilliant performance from Camille Sullivan. I was also fond of Sarah Durn’s performance as Riley, especially towards the end when we see her perform not as a video host, but as a traumatised victim. She looks haunted. Nobody else really lasts long enough to have an impact, but it is always nice to see Keith David. There’s also some great audiowork, which is an underrated part of crafting tension.

When it is tense, it’s on “edge-of-your-seat” levels. Shelby Oaks is the kind of film that nail-biting was invented for. I watched it in the cinema, which is a great way to watch a film like this; sitting in a dark room with lots of space around you, letting everything overwhelm you. The only way the experience could be better is if you had to listen to it on those massive over-ear headphones.

What surprised me about Shelby Oaks is just how nostalgic it made me feel. The videos genuinely feel like they’re from the early days of YouTube, where it was weird people making art as opposed to corporations making “content”. There’s a sort of innocence to the videos the Paranormal Paranoids make, which makes what happens to them all the more frightening.

I wish I could play this as a video game, or watch it as a series of YouTube shorts played off as real. As a feature film, it runs out of ideas in the final third (but the ending is pretty shocking), which really does a disservice to the art created beforehand. In summary, quite frustrating, but the work of people who clearly know what they’re doing. One day, Stuckmann could make the greatest horror movie of modern times, but he’s not quite there yet.

Roofman (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: The true story of Jeffrey Manchester, an armed robber who escapes prison and secretly hides in a Toys R Us for six months.

I was quite hyped for this, the trailer made it look fun and pacier than a blue hedgehog wearing trainers. So it was somewhat of a shock when I realised it was over two hours long. The concept (man hides in Toys R Us) didn’t feel like it had enough meat on it to justify that runtime. I’ve now seen it, and those fears were not without merit. It overly complicates what should be a relatively simple story, and just isn’t fun enough.

Roofman is weirdly cosy, at times playing like a Hallmark Christmas movie. On that note, it should have actually been a Christmas movie. So many of the emotional and narrative set-pieces are built around it in the final third, so they really should have just leaned into it and released it a few weeks later. It also meant that it would have been played on TV every single year. At the moment, I can’t really see many TV stations rushing to show this. It doesn’t really have much to it.

Maybe it would have helped if we actually saw more of how he operates. He goes from a normal person to a serial thief off-screen. We’re shown him thinking about committing armed robbery, to having already committed almost 40 of them. I’m not saying we needed all of them in full, but it wouldn’t have hurt Roofman to cut some of its superfluous moments and replace them with a robbery montage near the start. This would have improved the pacing and made it flow a bit better than it currently does. Also, it would have made him seem more competent. We’re told he’s great at noticing things; he commits 5 crimes in this movie. One, he gets caught and thrown in prison, not good. Then he escapes prison, all good there, but heavily dependent on luck. He camps out in the store, but commits simple errors whilst doing so (he’s clearly noticeable on security cameras). Fourth, he goes to break into a pawn shop and ends up in the building next door by mistake, a failure. Lastly, the toy store again, which he messes up. So the only time he objectively succeeds is in escaping prison. We don’t see him being good at his “job”. A montage would have solved something; we would have seen what makes him so talented.

I have a specific problem with the pawn shop robbery. He ends up in the building next door and breaks through the wall to the pawn shop. This sets the alarm off. He then breaks the glass door with a giant statue and escapes. Does this lead to an exciting police chase? No. Does this lead to a moment of panic where he realises how reckless he’s being? No. Does it lead to a near miss? Nope. So what does it do? It gets him a gun. That’s it. The alarms, etc, don’t matter to the plot at all. So what was the point of that scene? It’s America, “but how did this white person get a gun?” is not a question any audience members would have asked; we would have assumed he found it in a cereal box or something. Asking where an American got a gun from is like asking where a 19th-century London prostitute caught syphilis from; it would be more surprising if they didn’t have it. There are a few other moments which aren’t followed up on; he breaks into the store’s computer to change someone’s shifts. That’s never followed up on; at no point does the manager notice, “hang on, I had this person due to work and now they’ve mysteriously disappeared from the roster, who did this?”

Now onto the romance part of the film. I’m not opposed to it. The worst part of it is that it kind of negates his kids. He goes from “my children are my entire world, it’s why I do what I do”, to “Wooo new family”. He tries to contact his kids once or twice, but his focus and motivation definitely seem to be on his new relationship. The relationship between the two feels real, and her inner conflict towards the end makes complete sense when you take into account her character and personality. Usually, a relationship between a woman and a criminal is displayed in a “she softened his hardened heart, and hardened his…” way. But Roofman takes great lengths to display how kind a person he is, even before that, only committing crimes so he can buy the necessities for his family (a big TV, a brand new bike, mariachi singers for a birthday. You know, the essentials), so he doesn’t really change at all. Really, it’s just two people who stay exactly the same for the entire film, with no personal growth. Yes, he is looking to escape to another country when he can, but that never seems to be his main motivation. The “I am flying away” parts only take up roughly 5 minutes of screen time, and could be missed entirely with a few badly timed pissbreaks. All it needed was for him to put posters of his destination on the wall.

In summary; not a perfect film. It’s likeable enough, but has less weight than a helium balloon. The kind of film you stick on at Christmas to have on in the background as you sleep off a cheese coma.

Friendship (2024) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick synopsis: Craig Waterman, a reclusive man, meets his new neighbour, Austin Carmichael, and forms an unexpected friendship with him. As their friendship grows, so does Craig’s obsession with Austin.

I think I’ve done this backwards. The way this was supposed to go was I watch I Think You Should Leave With Tim Robinson (starring some guy, Tim something, can’t remember), get used to his comedic style, and then watch this. I still haven’t seen the TV show (it’s on my list), so I went into this with a minimal understanding of what to expect. My best bet was that this would feel like All My Friends Hate Me (as reviewed here) and be an incredibly awkward “Social Horror”. I have mixed feelings about that movie, in some ways, it was TOO effective to be enjoyable. Friendship handles it much better. It is so heightened that it goes past relatable to the point of absurdity; if it didn’t, the film itself would be uncomfortable. Yes, it is incredibly awkward, but it stays JUST weird enough that it is still enjoyable to watch.

It helps that the decisions are logical. AMFHM felt like the other characters were deliberately gaslighting the lead; that’s the only way their decisions made sense. This? Even when Austin (Tim’s character) does incredibly weird things, you can follow his logic. As an outsider, you can see how that logic is twisted and flawed, but most of the time, you can fully understand how he reached that conclusion. It’s a difficult balancing act, and Friendship walks it perfectly, most of the time. His wife’s welcome back party veers into cruelty; it’s one of the few times where it’s difficult to follow his train of logic. I also have an issue with having the opening scene be him and his wife at a cancer survivors group, then not making the recovery a plot point. I’m not saying that the whole film should have been “The Chemo Support Club”, but you could delete it from the script and it would not change the narrative at all, which feels like a weird thing to say about something so life-changing. Whilst I’m on the subject of the negatives, I’m not sure if it’s intentional or not, but there’s one scene where someone says “weed”, and there’s a really random and loud honking noise. Not sure if its a reference to something, but it’s strange.

Now onto the positive; Paul Rudd gets a chance to flex his acting abilities here, and play someone different from the “Hi, I’m Paul Rudd, I’m going to make droll comments where I move my head to the side in the middle of the sentence”. He gets to show fear, he gets to be freaked out, he gets to be vulnerable. Obviously, this is Tim Robinsons film, but the writing makes him constantly feel like the side character in his own movie; strangely, I mean that as a compliment. He feels like someone who would be the side character in a normal film; the odd kooky neighbour of the lead who’s only there for comedic purposes. So seeing him as the lead is oddly subversive, like we’re seeing something we shouldn’t be able to. It’s like when a long-running TV show has an episode devoted entirely to a background character, the audience is keen to see what they’re like in general day-to-day life, and in Friendship, they get it.

What really made this work for me is it does have a genuine heart under all the social cruelty. It’s not going to have you feel warm and fuzzy inside, but there a few moments which will genuinely make you smile. The best example of this is the ending, which I won’t spoil, but is delightful and exactly how you want a movie like this to end; with narrative closure.

In summary; weird, awkward, but strangely lovable. But that’s enough me, the film is good too. Although it took me a while to get past Paul Rudd’s likeness to Matthew Baynton.

Time Travel Is Dangerous! (2024) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Ruth and Megan run a vintage shop in Muswell Hill, using a time machine to source new old stock.

It’s nice reviewing films people know and are excited for, to add my voice to the conversation that millions of people around the world are having. But there’s also something to be said about reviewing something not quite as well-known. Films like Time Travel Is Dangerous (TTID, pronounced Tit-tied), which at the time of writing has only 25 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, that’s critic and audience total. It deserves more than that.

I’m not really surprised, though. This film is incredibly British and quite low-budget. It’s not low budget in a way that makes you wonder how they managed to miraculously produce something on that budget; it wears its budget on its sleeve, and that’s not meant as an insult. If anything, it adds to the charm. And TTID is very charming. The characters using a time machine to bring back stuff to sell in a vintage shop? Brilliant idea. And anybody who has worked retail will recognise someone trying to buy the shop vacuum, and then being annoyed that they can’t do it. It helps that the two charity shop workers (Ruth and Megan, played by two women called *checks notes* Ruth and Megan, well, how am I supposed to remember that?) are incredibly likeable. Apparently, they are the real-life owners of a vintage shop in Muswell Hill. That genuinely surprises me. Usually, you can spot non-actors in films like this, especially as the leads. I had no idea; I just assumed they were involved in production somehow.

There are some great jokes here. An inventor’s group having a motto that’s “insert motto here” in Latin? Love it. Yeah, the jokes aren’t the smartest, but they’re funny. It’s also surprisingly poignant at times, especially the sub-plot with Botty and Ralph. I didn’t expect to find a touching treatise on fame and friendship inside a film as silly as this, but I’m glad it’s there. The entire inventor’s group is full of fun characters and jokes, so for two-thirds of the film, it’s delightful.

But then we get the final third. This section takes place in the other universe (there is a proper name for it, but I’ve forgotten it). It feels WAY too disconnected from the rest. There’s an almost entirely new cast of characters, a different visual style, and different comedy. The rest of the film is like a documentary; this part isn’t. So it feels like it takes place in a different film, where the characters of this one have just invaded it. It seems like that’s where most of the budget went (I’m guessing). It’s a shame, as that’s clearly the most ambitious part, so it feels somewhat mean to knock them for it. But it is definitely the weakest part, and knocks it down quite a bit.

There are some people who will enjoy that part, and there are also likely to be people who hate my favourite part: when Ruth is turned into a teenager because of issues caused by the time machine. I like it, I found it funny, and I liked how it drove a division between the two leads. But it’s easy to see how some may see it as a stupid diversion. Like I’ve said before, film reviews are all opinion, and opinions are never objective.

This won’t be a film liked by most people. But those who like low-budget silliness will enjoy it.

Urchin (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

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.

Him (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: An up-and-coming quarterback undergoes a rigorous training regimen at the home of his idol. Weird shit happens

There are some stories which need to be told, which capture the zeitgeist perfectly. In 2006, Christopher Nowinski authored Head Games: Football’s Concussion Crisis, which theorised (and demonstrated) how maybe having grown adults smash into each other at sprinting speed could cause damage to the brain. Yes, sports needed a book to be told that brains are important. With the exception of 2015’s Concussion, it hasn’t really made a dent in cinema, which is a shame as it’s an interesting story to look into; the lengths people have to go to so they can succeed; the physical damage that is not only expected, but demanded. Sports (particularly American Football) is ripe for a film about the sacrifices needed to succeed; it needs its own Whiplash (insert your own spinal injury joke). And there are moments where Him (and we can’t brush past how bad a title that is) showcases that, when it’s absolutely brutal and forces upon you the knowledge that these players are risking their health and lives every time they step onto the field. This is best demonstrated when Cam (played by Tyriq Withers) runs into someone, skull crushing against skull. The other person is left a quivering wreck on the floor, spasming uncontrollably as the team members ignore him, cheering Cam for his violence. In a film rife with horror imagery, I found that the most disturbing.

That’s my rather clumsy segue into what I didn’t like about Him: the horror aspects. It spends its entire runtime with one foot in the stirrup of sports drama, and the other in supernatural horror, and they’re spread apart as far as you can get. Every time Him looked like it was getting interesting, it was then ruined by silly supernatural bullshit. The horror aspects actually make it less scary. It turns it from something realistic and genuinely harrowing into something incredibly generic. Also, it’s underdeveloped. It’s revealed that great players get their greatness from a ritual blood transfusion. This is actually foreshadowed very well, so I won’t fault it for that; it doesn’t exactly come out of nowhere. But it doesn’t explain why. Why does (presumably) Satan care so much about American Football? If it’s the blood that causes greatness, couldn’t they put it in anybody instead of trying to convince someone who’s already great? Also, considering he was likely to sign for the Saviours anyway, they didn’t actually need to orchestrate him being injured. All they needed to do was say, “Want to sign for this time? Come to your heroes’ training camp for a few days”.

Also, it REALLY overplays the “spooky thing happens. Cut back to normal so it was possibly a hallucination” thing. It doesn’t leave you scared; it leaves you annoyed, like it’s intentionally trying to wrongfoot you constantly, then mocking you for being confused. This is especially noticeable towards the end, where a scene set in a club is shot and edited in a manner that’s almost incomprehensible. That could have been an iconic scene, showing his final descent into being corrupted. Instead, it’s just a messy blur that uses editing techniques to not show you anything that you actually want to see.

In summary, a complete car crash, if it weren’t a horror movie, would be a lot better. But then, I suppose it wouldn’t have a gimmick. I can see what they were going for, but neither the script nor the directing is good enough for it. I’m also somewhat put off by Marlon Wayans’ response to negative reviews, saying, “Some movies are ahead of the curve. Innovation is not always embraced”. This isn’t ahead of the curve, it’s Suspiria mixed with Whiplash, but if Suspiria was made by a first-year film student.

Zero (2024) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Did you see 30 Minutes Or Less? It’s basically that, but not comedic.

Zero has a lot going for it. The use of African hip-hop gives it a unique sound. Plus, it’s nice to see a movie set in Africa that shows how stunning it can look; the coastline shots, in particular, are gorgeous. It has a unique concept (weird thing to say when my synopsis compares it to another movie) that lends itself well to high-energy and fun set-pieces.

It doesn’t live up to that potential, though. Part of that may be down to the performances. Hus Miller does not have the right gravitas for this role. I don’t want to seem cruel, but I think the fact that he co-wrote it may have had something to do with his casting. He comes off as someone you’d get if you ordered John Cena from Temu, mixed with “Angry Business Man who screams the lead character’s name at the end of a really shitty UK sitcom episode”. Cam McHarg at least has the physical presence required for his part. Moran Rosenblatt is the only performer who gave a performance I wanted to see more of.

The big issue? The plot is f*cking stupid. It’s a tonal mess that’s uncertain what it wants to be. Does it want to be a Statham-like action movie, albeit with a message? Does it want to be a zany comedy? Does it want to be an intense thriller? It feels like it wants to be all those things at once, which means it ends up being none of them. It’s not helped by how bad the action sequences are. I’m not sure how something can be both cheap and yet also feel overproduced, but Zero manages it. The action sequences have all the energy and excitement of watching a piece of bread become overcome with mould. It doesn’t have a unique style; instead, it decides to ape other popular styles (it loves to attempt Edgar Wright-style sequences, but gets the timing wrong, so it constantly looks like the film is pausing). I’ve said before that films sometimes seem so determined to have a visual style that they get stuck up their own arse (Spoilers for my review of Urchin by the way). This is the first time I’ve seen a film get stuck up someone else’s arse.

The thriller aspects? It feels like Zero attempts to have a mystery, but never wants to answer it. We get glimpses of why this is happening, and why the characters were chosen (one represents the wealth of America, one represents the violence), but it doesn’t feel satisfactory. It feels oddly condescending to Senegal. “America may have rich people, but people from Senegal are rich in experience and life, and aren’t violent at all” is a woefully simplistic take. The United States has caused a lot of issues (as have pretty much all world powers at some point, look up the atrocious acts Belgium committed in the Congo Free State), but to say that every act of violence in Senegal is due to them is ridiculous, and incredibly infantilising towards Senegal, treating them as if they’re children who are being misled by an adult.

There are two moments where it gets the tone right, but they’re completely different tones. One, the way the passengers on the bus react to the bomb strapped to someone’s chest. It’s exciting, dynamic, and slightly funny. The other moment is when a character is delivering a monologue, and the camera shows us Dakar residents staring at the camera, allowing us to read our own motivations into their stares. That’s the only moment where it feels like it knows the message it wants to impart, and there’s a real beauty in its simplicity. If it kept up the momentum from any of those two moments and kept that tone throughout, then Zero would have worked.

In summary, this is probably the first film I’ve reviewed where its title would also represent how I’d score it out of 5.

I Swear (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: The true story of John Davidson, a man with an issue which causes people to mock and belittle him, being Scottish. Oh, he also has Tourette’s syndrome.

It’s difficult to figure out how to judge “based on a true story” films. Do you judge them on their own merits as a film, or does the true story itself affect reactions? I change between the two. Personally, I see it as a “factual errors won’t stop me liking a movie, but it will make me like it less”. The Iron Claw, for example, made multiple errors. Not small ones, they lied about the number of brothers who died for one thing. But I still enjoyed that movie. Well, I say “enjoyed”, it made me cry. It also matters how important the lies are to the key themes and climactic moments. Bohemian Rhapsody made a few errors that felt disrespectful to the memory of Freddy, mainly in terms of the timing of his diagnosis. That soured me on it somewhat.

How is any of that relevant here? I’ll come back to it at the end, because it is important when I talk about my feelings towards it and how I feel a bit iffy about it. But I’ll start with the positives. I Swear is a beautiful movie, not visually, but narratively and emotionally. It’s heartbreaking at times. Especially since so many of the problems faced by the main character are entirely down to how others react to him, rather than what he’s done. From the teachers (and his parents) assuming he’s just being a little shit, through to the police arresting him, and the judge in one of his court cases basically saying Tourette’s doesn’t exist. It’s frustrating to see him being unable to clear the hurdles which society has placed in front of him and then chastised him for not being able to clear.

It’s comforting to think that society has moved on (in some aspects) when it comes to disability acceptance. And it’s horrific to see how backwards society was just a relatively short time ago. It’s comforting how it ends, when we see him speaking as an advocate, talking to the police about how they can do better, speaking to schools telling them to stop being dicks, and talking to other people with Tourette’s about their lives (and talking to their family members too).

There are moments where the film does feel like it’s using the condition for laughs, but it never feels like it’s mocking it, which is important. It’s a film coming from a place of understanding and education, something which is a lot easier to do when it’s anchored by such great performances. I’m not entirely sure how many of the supporting cast have the condition, but I suspect that a few of them do. Robert Aramayo doesn’t, and I’m sure specialists will be able to spot that, but as a casual movie-goer, it’s easy to believe. Ordinarily, that would mean I call him the best performer, but he’s acting alongside Maxine Peake, who constantly feels like she’s one film away from being an A-list superstar.

Now onto the bad (and referring back to what I mentioned earlier about the “based on a true story” complications). Well, “bad” is overstating it, but most of the weak parts come from the same problem: the desire to tell a complete story. Yes, that is admirable, but it feels like writer/director Kirk Jones is determined to tell as much of the story as he can, so he squeezes things in when there’s no natural narrative space for them. There are at least two minor subplots which could be excised completely. Literally, if you cut out the sections, the narrative gaps would close themselves with no indication that something was missing. Yes, those sections do show us how sad his life can be at times, but they feel so episodic and are never referenced again, so they feel a bit pointless.

Now onto the other issue: what’s not mentioned. The closing credits show real-life footage of the characters. It’s good to see how accurate the performances and moments are (it shows that he does occasionally accidentally punch his friend in the face). But some of it was from years ago, and it made me wonder who filmed it. Turns out, the main character was the subject of a BBC documentary when he was 16, then again at 30, and once more at 37. Those documentaries are NEVER mentioned or referred to during the film, which feels a bit weird. It kind of changes the narrative, because he’s no longer a youth leader just because of his work in the local community; at least part of it would have been because of his notoriety for appearing in a documentary. My main problem is that there are so many interesting stories that could have led to: how did he feel about his portrayal in that documentary? How did his town feel? More importantly, in the 1980s, kids were dicks. Their response to seeing Joey Deacon, a kid with cerebral palsy, on Blue Peter, was to use “Joey” as an insult. It’s not hard to imagine that seeing John Davidson on television would have had a similar effect; kids would have used his name as an insult. That realisation, that he’s seen as a national joke, would have been an INCREDIBLY powerful scene to see. It’s strange that a film that was so focused on telling us everything left out such an important part of his life and journey. It would be like making a film about One Direction and not mentioning The X-Factor.

Overall, I Swear is kind of hurt by it’s “based on true story” nature, but also improved by it. In general, it is definitely worth seeing. I caught it at a secret screening. For those unaware, that’s a thing that Cineworld do where they preview a film, and you have no idea what it is until you go in. Ordinarily, the title card for these is usually met with a few people walking out, as it’s not what they expected. I Swear is set to be released on 10th October. Before that, we have:

One Battle After Another

The Strangers: Chapter 2.

Radiohead X Nosferatu: A Symphony Of Horror

Him

The Smashing Machine

All of those are pretty big deals, and it’s not difficult to imagine that some people went into this screening expecting it to be one of those (I felt certain it would be One Battle After Another). Despite the almost guaranteed “oh, didn’t think it would be that”, nobody left when the title came up. Nobody left at any point. That’s a HUGE deal for a secret screening. I was at a “Halloween Classics” secret screening a few years ago, and somebody left when they found out it was The Shining, and that’s a classic. The fact that this held everybody’s attention is a sign of how good it is. It should do well, and it will be received well, but it may not be something people remember in 5 years’ time.