Deep Cover (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: DS Billings is a cop who needs help infiltrating a local drugs ring, so employs the most logical people possible: Improv Comedians.

Certain streaming sites have a higher expectation of quality when it comes to their originals. With Mubi, you expect something that, even if you don’t like it, is well-made and has something you will appreciate. Disney+ originals will be slick and well-produced, but overly stylised. Amazon Prime? They’re usually the most avoidable. Their original films are normally “we paid someone who has been successful in the past to make something not quite as good”, a perfect example? The last Guy Ritchie film. I will admit, it’s not helped by Prime being, undoubtedly, the WORST streaming service, one which isn’t so much “user-unfriendly” as openly hostile to the viewer, bombarding them with adverts just as you were starting to get into the film, because obviously, Amazon isn’t rich enough. Also, the last action film with Bryce Dallas Howard was Argylle, which was a huge disappointment. So it’s fair to say my expectations were low, especially in a year which has provided more disappointments than a night in a hotel room with [complete joke here].

Even with those low standards, Deep Cover still disappoints me, because it’s so good. I was hoping it would be bad so I could make jokes about how terrible it is. But nope. It’s good. Really good. A very solid 7.5/10. If you think about the premise too much, you will see it for the bullshit it is, but it’s entertaining enough that you don’t think about that while you’re watching it.

A huge part of Deep Cover working is the cast. Bryce Dallas Howard is great at showing comedic exasperation, but not overdoing it. Nick Mohammed plays a similar character to the one he did in Ted Lasso, but I’m starting to think that is actually what he’s like. I’m most surprised by Orlando Bloom. I feel a bit sorry for him; his career went kind of downhill, and I’m not sure why. He’s not thought of as washed up; he still gets decent work, but his heyday does seem to be over, which is odd as he hasn’t really had that many notable failures. He’s really good in this, overly intense and dramatic. Sonoya Mizuno is fun. I’ve seen her in stuff before, mainly in the work of Alex Garland, and I’ve always liked her, but I’ve never felt to single her out until now. The rest of the cast is fun too. If you’re familiar with the British comedy scene, you’ll be delighted at who they managed to get in some of the smaller roles. Related to that, Deep Cover has fantastic characters. Even people who are only there for a minute or so are memorable; they’re well written enough that the universe seems ripe for spin-offs.

It’s described as an “action comedy”, but the comedy definitely comes first. It’s difficult to recall many action sequences that were notable. The comedy is definitely memorable, though. There are some truly great jokes and comedic set-pieces here. There are potential comedic gold mines which go unexplored, mainly the characters’ interactions with others. It would have been nice to see how some of their friends would react to the situation, especially since the two moments where we do see a glimpse of the wider world are hilarious.

In summary, all your instincts will tell you to avoid this movie, avoid those. It’s not the greatest, but it is a hell of a lot of fun.

The End (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: After civilisation collapses (the concept, not the game), a rich family live out their lives in an underground bunker. Their peaceful existence is disrupted by a girl.

I’ve been playing a lot of The Executive – Movie Industry Tycoon lately. For those who aren’t aware, it’s a game where you play as a producer who develops movies, picking the genre, age rating, actor, etc. It’s very similar to Game Dev Tycoon if you’ve ever played that. The key to success in that game is working out which genres and styles work together. For example, “Slasher” goes better with “horror” than it would with “romance”. Like all games, it’s not perfect, and it’s not perfect because it doesn’t take into account outliers. The End would definitely score a low mark, “Apocalyptic Musical starring Tilda Swinton”. Based on that, this would fail. You would not expect it to work.

Turns out, formulas exist for a reason. It feels like the two genres are constantly getting in each other’s way. Every time the narrative becomes dramatic and moves forward, it stops for a song. The narrative has potential, but it trips over itself too many times and feels disjointed. There are too many dramatic moments that don’t affect the overall story being told. It’s just “incredibly deep personal revelations for the sake of tension in that scene”, then the next scene, like they were all written separately then sewn together to form a cinematic quilt.

It’s not too impressive on a moment-to-moment basis. It’s nowhere near as deep as it thinks it is, being depressingly surface-level in terms of character intentions, which is again, where the two genres get in each other’s way. Drama, deep personal drama that sticks with you, is made of unsaid character motivations and agendas. Whereas a lot of musicals are dependent on characters literally singing out their emotions, turning their inner monologues into outies.

So far, this review has been negative, and that’s unfair. All the performances are superb, in terms of both acting and singing (although the fact that I’ve already forgotten every song is not a good sign). Also, the fact that rich people would rather kill the world than give up their wealth or some of their home space is depressingly realistic.

It’s also new. I’ve not seen anything like this, and I’m not entirely certain I ever will again. I’ve seen some weird films before, but usually they belong to a director who specialises in weird. For example, The Second Act (as reviewed here) was weird, the director also made Rubber and Mandibles, which are also weird. The main exception to that is if it’s a new director eager to make their mark. The End is different from both of those; it’s from an established director, Joshua Oppenheimer was nominated for an Academy Award in 2014 and again in 2016. But both of those were for documentaries. The End is an ambitious film at the best of times, but from a first time feature director, it seems like fucking insanity. But I would much rather watch something like this than more bland shit.

“Something like this”, not this, because this is far too long and in need of editing. But I fully respect the attempt.

Y2K (2024) Review

Quick Review: Remember that Simpsons Halloween episode where all electrical appliances start killing people because of the Y2K bug? Yeah, that.

Streaming services, even with the movies they acquire rather than what they make, tend to have a certain connective vibe. Taskmaster would be weird on Disney+, just wouldn’t work, whereas something like Miranda would slip in perfectly. I’m just clearing that up before I summarise my thoughts on this in one sentence: This feels like a Netflix movie.

I mean that in a good and a bad way. It’s slick, well-produced, and with a killer soundtrack. But it’s also forgettable. It feels tailor-made to have ridiculous AI-generated adverts running through it. It’s not all bad; the opening gives so much nostalgia. Although that’s part of the problem. It feels like it’s designed to appeal to 90’s kids, but hasn’t realised that people who grew up in the 90s are now adults, and realise that a lot of stuff from the 90s was fucking stupid and terrible. It’s a brave move for a film to have a target audience of “people who have been in a coma for 25 years”, and judging by the reviews, it hasn’t paid off.

Don’t get me wrong, I do have a soft spot for dumb, stupid things (except myself), but Y2K is pushing it. It’s a little “too” dumb. How exactly does a VHS player eject a tape at such high speed that it kills someone? How did the blender end up on someones dick? It’s cartoon physics in the real world, so it’s hard to actually feel scared at any point.

I also have a problem with the script. Eli’s friend dies WAY too early. Which means he doesn’t have anyone to bounce off. We have no grounding for what he’s like as a person, as once his friend dies, we only see him in a “nervous around his crush” state. On the subject of Eli, he also feels from the 90s, and not in a good way; there are major “nice guy” vibes. In a different movie, his character would turn out to be a date rapist who is angry that the female lead wouldn’t give him a handjob to thank him for holding the door open for him.

On the plus side, it is better than the other “robots vs. humans” film of the year, The Electric State (as reviewed here). Mainly because there are moments where Y2K is an enjoyable movie, with glimpses of the 90s throwback it could have been. They are just glimpses, though; shooting stars in the night sky of stupidity that is Y2K. The Fred Durst cameo is entertaining and actually contributes to the story.

The performances are mostly fine, but it’s difficult to tell under the script. I will always like Rachel Zegler in things; she’s a great talent to watch. Mason Gooding brings the dramatic chops when the film needs it. Other than that? Mostly okay but not outstanding.

In summary: a good idea, let down by a piss-poor execution.

Lilo And Stitch (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Stitch is an alien who pretends to be a dog when he gets adopted by Lilo.

I need to preface this review with one important detail: I’m not a massive fan of the original. I don’t dislike it. I find it charming, funny, and it is actually a brilliant film. However, I have no personal attachment or deep love for it, so I’m not personally offended by changes made. With that in mind, I’m going to be reviewing this mostly as a stand-alone and will be judging it on its own merits. I’ll try not to make too many comparisons to the original, ranting about how “but they changed this so it sucks”.

That being said, I do have to acknowledge that this is a live-action remake of an animated film. Which is why I wasn’t a fan of the opening. For a film like this, you want to show off how different it looks outside of animation. You want to heavily showcase either the design of Stitch or the beautiful locations. Instead, LAS starts on a spaceship full of CGI characters. Yes, it’s photorealistic CGI, but it would have been nice to see them show us something real first.

The downside of a live-action film based on a child is that a lot of children aren’t good actors, so it’s risky getting them to lead your movie. It’s somewhat easier in animation because you can go race-blind (and age-blind too) if you need to, a trick you can’t get away with in live-action; no matter how long she’s done the voice for, nobody would buy Nancy Cartwright as a live-action Bart Simpson. Maia Kealoha is charming as Lilo. Her interactions with Stitch are heartfelt and wonderful, really selling the idea that they’re close. The rest of the cast is pretty good. I always love seeing Billy Magnussen in anything; he brings a Tudyk energy to everything he does. It’s also nice to see Hannah Waddington firmly stepping into her role as the Queen of British Accents. She’s long been appreciated for her theatre work, but since Ted Lasso, she now seems to be Hollywood’s new “middle-aged posh British lady”, and I’m all here for it. Also, every time I see her, I fall a little bit more in love with Amy Hill; she has the energy of a grandparent who slips you whiskey behind your parents’ back.

I have no issues with the look. It would have been nice to showcase more of the island, but I suppose that would go against the “OMG, fucking tourists!” message. Although the “tourists are ruining this island and forcing us into demeaning customs” message is already diluted somewhat by a car company offering a holiday to Hawaii in association with this movie. Disney are the fucking worst.

Stitch looks fantastic. He feels more dog-like in this, not enough that you still don’t find it weird that nobody notices he’s not a dog. But enough that you can conceivably buy it. The live-action nature of this means his chaos seems more real. When he ruins a wedding party, it’s not “wacky animated hijinks”, it’s “if I find this thing, I’m going to kill it because it ruined my day”.

Now onto the ending. I’ll talk about it more at the end of the year, so I can do so without spoilers, but lets just say it’s received A LOT of hatred online. “Ohana means nobody gets left behind, unless I have somewhere better to stay, in which case, fuck you Lilo”. I don’t hate it as much as everyone else seems to. I mean, it’s not good, and it definitely goes against the spirit of the movie. But I see what they were going for. I recognise they were going for something different but equally heartwarming; they just didn’t pull it off. There is a way to pull that ending off, I’m not sure what it is, but it does exist.

Dangerous Animals (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: A surfer is trapped on a boat with a serial killer intent on feeding her to sharks.

It may seem counterproductive to say so, but sometimes it can be counterproductive for a sitcom to be given more episodes or a new season. Not all sitcoms, but there are some sitcoms which have a definitive endpoint (think How I Met Your Mother), or a story arc that the series is based around (Ted Lasso). These things are normally planned meticulously in terms of timing, so it can be weird to have new episodes jammed into the middle, it forces writers to unnaturally extend things. If it’s a sitcom based around a relationship, that usually involves knocking the relationship status back a bit. This can be frustrating as an audience member because it can make you feel like there’s no progress being made.

It may seem weird to start a review of a horror movie with a paragraph about sitcoms, but there’s a reason. That elastic nature of storytelling, pulling characters back to the same position again and again, is my biggest issue with Dangerous Animals. I’m going to tell you about a scene:

The character tries to escape.

They manage to get out of the restraints and make their way to freedom.

JUST before the final hurdle, they’re stopped, and they wake up tied to the bed again.

That happens multiple times. The majority of this film is that scene repeated. As good as it is at times, Dangerous Animals suffers from having no idea how to fill its runtime. To be honest, I’m not sure how you could do it either. Two characters on a boat, one trying to kill the other? There’s very little you can do with that to fill 98 minutes.

None of that is the fault of the performers. Hassie Harrison is as fun to watch as her name is to say. Jai Courtney is delightfully unhinged. When they’re together, it’s magic. Courtney’s maniacal terror meshes well with Harrison’s innocent yet determined nature. Their characters are fun to watch, especially when Zephyr is in full-on flirtation mode with Josh Heuston’s character. I liked the moments where she was safe; it really helped flesh her out and make her seem like an actual human. It could be argued that the two do fall in love too easily; maybe it would have been better if they were a couple at the start of the movie, or had at least started dating.

This is Sean Byrne’s third film as a director, but the first one he hasn’t written. Thankfully, there’s not a huge disconnect between the script and the directing. He makes the most of the setting, with the open sea providing some gorgeous shots, while also helping to emphasise the isolation. The script really should play up the isolation aspect more. The boat comes back to land far too often. It’s difficult to really FEEL the isolation Zephyr is going through when she’s constantly so close to land. Technically, you could argue that’s the point. That she’s always so close to freedom and society, but never quite able to reach it. If that was the aim, then it could just as well have all taken place in a basement or an abandoned factory. Part of the USP of Dangerous Animals is it takes place on a boat. So the terror comes from knowing that even if she escapes the room, getting off the boat wouldn’t help because she has no way of getting back to land.

It is probably not helped by the fact that it was released in the same year as Last Breath, which, while not a horror movie, was also a tense movie about someone out at sea, so used similar techniques to emphasise distance from civilisation.

This is all coming off very negatively, but it’s unintentional. I did enjoy Dangerous Animals. When it works, it’s tense as hell. The music choices are first class, and it’s a unique idea, I can’t do deny that. Also, a lot of it takes place in daylight, which I will always appreciate. It’s not overly bloody or gory, coming off as more of a tense thriller than a full-on horror. Compared to other recent shark-based movies, this is the best one I’ve seen since 47 Meters Down, 8 years ago. It does well with highlighting how, when sharks kill, it’s not based on anger or hatred, it’s food. It points out how sharks kill fewer people than mosquitoes, but are considered scarier (let’s face it, saying sharks aren’t that dangerous is a risky move in a film designed to make sharks an element of fear). It also points out how tourist boats that pour food into the ocean to attract sharks so people can swim with them lead to sharks associating those boats with food. It’s incredibly clever in how it approaches the creatures. It is a good movie, but I know it could have been great

The Ugly Stepsister (2025) aka Den Stygge Stesøsteren Review

Quick synopsis: Cinderella, but from one of the stepsisters’ POV, and with added body horror.

“Dark versions of fairy tales” will always be intriguing. Although it’s a bit weird to think about because really, we’re not seeing dark versions of them; we’re seeing versions that are “more accurate to the original books than the Disney adaptations were”. Whether we like it or not, though, the Disney versions are the ones in the public consciousness. When people dress as Cinderella, they dress as the Disney version. So a film like The Ugly Stepsister will always be welcome. That being said, this is possibly the worst time to release it. The last few years have seen multiple copyrights expire, which has led to shit horror movies based on characters who are now in the public domain such as Winnie The Pooh and the original Mickey Mouse design. So you’d be forgiven for being a bit sceptical of a “horror reimagining of what most people see as a Disney property”.

TUS is better than those others, for a start, it focuses on the correct character, the titular stepsister. Secondly, it takes it seriously. It starts off like a normal costume drama. This is great as it allows you to adjust the universe. If a movie starts with blood and gore, you assume that’s normal for that universe, so later violence isn’t as shocking. Whereas if you start from a grounded position, the violence hits hard. There is a small hint of horror with the cruelty, which is then amped up when he coughs up blood. This interesting “not a costume drama but looks like one” approach is also represented in the opening credits, which are a weird mix of horror and regency.

When TUS gets brutal, it is horrific. The nose being broken by a chisel is horrendous. It’s not overly gory, there’s a tiny bit of blood, and no other visible damage. But the screaming? Oh my god the screaming, that sells it. I’m trying to think how to say this without coming off as creepy, but Lea Myren is one heck of a screamer. Her anguished howls of pain will reach deep inside you and claw at your guts.

I loved some of the music, but it doesn’t always work. I know that sounds contradictory but it is possible to recognise something as great but not appropriate. O Fortuna is a magnificent piece of music, but you wouldn’t use it to score a porno. There are so many music choices here which don’t work because the disconnect between the music and the visuals are too large to ignore.

In terms of visuals? It’s artfully shot, a bit too much at times. There are a few moments where a scene starts with a soft fade from someone’s face, and it would be lit in a somewhat “fuzzy” way, making you think it was a dream sequence. Nope, actual thing that happened, so halfway through the scene, you need to adjust your mindset. It’s a small thing, but it KEPT happening, to the point where there are a few shots of which I’m still not entirely sure if they were dream sequences or not.

That all may be a bit mean. Whilst TUS isn’t the best movie of the year, it is still interesting. You may not want to watch it again, but it won’t be one you regret. It’s the kind of movie that would have KILLED back in the days of VHS. The body horror aspects are PAINFUL! The tapeworm moment does look a bit ridiculous, but only towards the end, most of that scene works. The foot chopping scene is one of the most viscerally disgusting things I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen Piers Morgan’s face. It’s a smart choice to not have the step-sisters be completely terrible people. They’re not necessarily nice, but the Cinderella expy isn’t nice either; she starts off snooty and condescending. Every character is relatable and believable (although the other step sister would have benefited from being on screen more), except for the step mother, who is fucking awful, in a cinematically appealing way.

What is clear is that Emilie Blichfeldt is one hell of a talent, and couldn’t ask for a better debut feature than this. The world is set up for her to place her name alongside the likes of David Cronenberg and David Lynch. Now she just needs the opportunity, and a studio that trusts her vision.

The Rule Of Jenny Pen (2024) Review

Quick synopsis: Recovering from a stroke at an assisted living facility, a judge encounters a psychopathic patient who uses a hand puppet to abuse fellow residents.

There are not many horror films focused on the elderly. On the rare occasions those films exist, they tend to come in the same two flavours. One, the elderly as the villains. These generally boil down to “ewwww, old people”. The others are with the elderly as a victim, these are usually more interesting (so are rarer, because Hollywood hates interesting), and show the elderly as trying to survive. At the same time, they struggle against not only the villain, but also their limitations brought on by age. The Rule of Jenny Pen (TROJP, trow-jop) attempts both.

It mostly manages it. The director is good at shock. The death of Howie is particularly shocking, especially since it happens so early on and occurs mostly in the background of a scene. I imagine it was mainly done that way so that we wouldn’t focus on it, so it would be easier to do the effects for as you wouldn’t notice it’s actually a model being set on fire. It helps the scene, though. It makes it seem shocking and realistic.

It’s not always realistic. There are a few moments which make you wonder if the staff have had any training whatsoever in terms of safeguarding. It would be acceptable for one or two of them to not notice things, but none of them? It’s not as if they appear overworked or like they don’t care. Most of the staff seem like they genuinely give a shit and want to do their best; so it’s baffling to try and figure out how they can miss signs of abuse.

The lack of realistic safeguarding is not my main issue; that would be the pacing. TROJP is fifteen minutes shy of 2 hours, and it only has enough story for about half of that runtime. I know the characters are physically slow, but that doesn’t mean the film has to be. I’m not asking for an exhilarating action film, but I don’t want the film to pause because it doesn’t have a clue what it’s supposed to do. This would be a fascinating short, there’s no doubt about it. It has ambition, creativity, and solid performances.

More than solid, actually. Lithgow is a tremendous actor, and I’m sure he’ll be a fantastic Dumbledore in a tv show that I will actively try to avoid. He’s positively unhinged in his role as Dave Crealy; utterly menacing and creepy. Geoffrey Rush is great going toe to toe with him. The best moments are when the two of them share a scene and try to outperform each other.

There is one thing I absolutely loved about TROJP. Whereas most films would approach a story like this with a “Is it really happening, or is he just mad?” Jenny Penn takes a “why not both?” strategy, which is much scarier. He isn’t in full control of his mental abilities, so he (and the audience) has trouble working out exactly what is real. But some of it IS real. That mixture is terrifying to think about and to watch unfold.

As I said, there are moments where TROJP isn’t a fascinating watch. But there are also times when it’s (and there’s no other way of saying this), fucking dull. And the dull moments are just not good enough to get you through the rest of it.

Havoc (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: After a drug deal gone wrong, a bruised detective must fight his way through the criminal underworld to rescue a politician’s estranged son, unravelling a deep web of corruption and conspiracy that ensnares his entire city

This is a difficult review to write. Not because I was so emotionally affected by the film that it left me speechless. Not because it was so magnificent that I’m lost for words. And not even because it has so many potential spoilers that I can’t discuss the film without spoiling plot points. It’s difficult to write about because it’s so incredibly bland. It’s almost noteworthy how bland it is.

This was actually on my list to see last year, but I didn’t get around to it because I was hindered by the fact that it wasn’t released last year, I know, just lazy on my part, I apologise. But it’s been on my radar for a while. I didn’t know the plot; all I knew was that Tom Hardy was in it, and it was directed by Gareth Evans. So I was looking forward to it. The Raid is a modern action movie classic. I can’t see Havoc reaching the same acclaim. In fact, I can’t even see it being remembered. I watched it yesterday, and I can barely remember it, and that’s with making notes.

There are some good action sequences, I’ll give it that. It has a unique visual style that didn’t really work for me as I felt I was watching it through an ’80s filter. I didn’t feel like I was actually watching something from the 80s, but a video game cut-scene designed to look like the 80s. I can’t explain it, but there’s something about the visuals that’s “off”. But I’ll give Evans credit for at least TRYING, which is much more than most Netflix movies seem to do lately.

It’s a shame, as it’s got a really good cast. Tom Hardy is (in my mind), one of the best modern performers, and I always love seeing Timothy Olyphant in stuff because he has an unmistakable charisma. They’re backed up by notable names: Forest Whitaker, Luis Guzman, etc. If you saw those names together in a trailer, you’d think you’re in for a good time. You certainly wouldn’t expect something quite as tofu-like as this.

The main issue is the script. Havoc hasn’t met an action movie cliche it didn’t want to use. Sometimes, it works, but there are a lot of times when it feels derivative. It’s like a good cover song: You recognise what they’re doing, but you know it’s so dependent on the work already there by others that it’s hard for it to have its own identity. Specifically, a cover song played live by a band who keeps winking at the audience, as if to say “do you recognise what we’re doing?”. There’s nothing about Havoc that stands out, nothing that makes you feel you NEED to tell people to see it. In some ways, this is perfect for Netflix. It’s a film that’s designed to be “content”; you don’t engage with or love it. You watch it once, it disappears in the fog of the algorithm, and you never come across it again.

This is a film starring capable actors, directed by someone incredibly talented, and yet with a poor result. The most offensive part about that is that that would also be how I would describe The Electric State, which I also only just reviewed (available here). The only other netflix film I’ve watched this year? Kinda Pregnant (as reviewed here). That’s three movies, and all of them have been duds. THAT is now netflix’s brand; disappointment.

The Electric State (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: An orphaned teen hits the road with a mysterious robot to find her long-lost brother, teaming up with a smuggler and his wisecracking sidekick. I know, SOOOO original.

Many reviews for The Electric State (or TES) seemed unkind. After watching it, I can confirm that they are, in fact, quite kind. Simply describing TES as “a bad movie” is the kindest thing you could say about it. I like the Russo brothers; they’ve directed some of my favourite episodes of Community and Arrested Development. But they also directed The Gray Man, a film so forgettable that having watched it is almost indistinguishable from not having watched it. I just looked at my review for that, and I was genuinely tempted to repost that with a few names changed, because I could make the same damn points for this.

Now it doesn’t make the exact same mistakes. Nope, TES managed to make newer, dumber mistakes. Firstly, it’s more expensive. Secondly, it doesn’t have a charming, charismatic lead like Ryan Gosling; instead, it’s stuck with Chris Pratt, who seems to be continuing his quest to try to be Harrison Ford, and failing miserably (well as miserably as someone with millions of dollars in the bank can fail). The music is nowhere near as good. I can’t remember that much of the music in The Gray Man, but I don’t remember it feeling as post-Guardians as this does. I’ll explain what that means, since the success of Guardians Of The Galaxy, it has occasionally felt like film studios treat soundtracks (especially for action movies with a sci-fi element) as a way for the director to play their favourite songs. When it’s done well, it’s brilliant. But when it’s done badly, it feels like they’re picking the most obvious songs, doing the cinematic equivalent of recommending you a great new place for coffee, a Starbucks. I’m not exagerrating the obviousness of the tracks. Here’s a selection:

I Fought The Law – The Clash. I mean, it’s a good song, but a little on the nose, don’t you think? I LOVE The Clash, but I realise that some of their songs are overused in media (one day, studios will realise that Londons Calling isn’t the only song with London in the title).

Don’t Stop Believing – Journey. This has been overused since Glee.

Breaking The Law – Judas Priest. Again, so obvious.

Wonderwall – Oasis. Jesus, what are you, a guy at a party with an acoustic guitar?

The only thing with less creative vision than the soundtrack is the script. I’ve heard the source material is REALLY good, and completely different from the film. I look forward to reading it, so I can also be annoyed at the changes they made. Lets face it, I have to be annoyed at one adaptation now that Disney+ has deleted Artemis Fowl. The script makes some weird choices. For example; the entire robot/human war is skipped over. Not “the film starts after the war”, the opening of the movie is set before the conflict, then the entire thing takes place via montage. They should have started after the war, that way THAT’S the world we’re in from the start. The way they do it makes TES feel like a sequel, with the opening montage being a summary of the first movie.

It’s also not good with how it handles the villain. I’m gonna be honest, I saw TES a few weeks ago, and I genuinely can’t remember the villain. Which I think says it all. I just remember them not being there for most of the film, so nothing had urgency. It felt like the characters were free to just walk around doing side quests.

TES also suffers from having no idea how to handle emotion. The death of Amherst should be a huge deal, as it is, if you sneeze you won’t notice he’s dead. The characters don’t seem to reflect on the moment, there’s no sense that their motivations or situation is changed by the death. It’s just something that happens.

Now, on the upside, the robots look AMAZING. Some of the other CGI is a bit ropey, but the robots themselves are brilliant. They all seem to have individual personalities, too. Weirdly, they feel the most real out of everything in this movie. The reveal of what they did to her brother is also suitably horrific and belongs in a much better movie.

Oh, on the subject of the brother. I’ll give the film kudos for filming their interactions in a way that makes it seem like the brother and sister DO share a bond, that they are close to each other. But…….and I’m not sure how to put this. Erm, it’s the wrong kind of closeness. They seem more like lovers than siblings (a note to Alabama; those are supposed to be different things). It’s weird and creepy.

It’s not the only “wait, that feels sexual” moment. Okay, so there’s a moment where two robots are fighting, and one grabs the other by the hat and pushes him down. It genuinely looks like he’s trying to force a blowjob. That, and only that, got a laugh out of me. It’s the only section where TES tickles me. I’m glad about that because it meant I got to use the phrase “TES tickles”, which sounds like testicles.

Shut up, this movie is fucking shit, at least let me enjoy something.

Until Dawn (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Clover is on a road trip to find out what happened to her missing sister, she finds out. Her and her friends get trapped in a repetitive nightmare.

I’ve never played Until Dawn, but I have played some games by the same studio, which follow the same principles and guidelines. I genuinely love them, not just because I’m a fan of story-based games, but also because they’re interesting and have great accessibility options. A key part of those games is the notion that choices have consequences. Something as simple as “look at this poster” could be the difference between life and death. Importantly, you, as a player, have to live with the consequences of your actions. So it’s baffling that the main gimmick of the movie is that choices don’t matter because once you die, you reset into your original position.

Annoyingly, it doesn’t even do anything entertaining with that premise. When this has been done before, the characters die because of their mistakes, and learn from them to help them survive. Here, it feels like they’re being controlled to die, and there’s nothing they can do. For example, at one point, a character gets picked up by an invisible force and dragged into a building. What’s the lesson there? What can a character learn from that to avoid it? Similarly, there’s one set of deaths which is essentially “don’t drink tap water, you’ll explode”, which feels ridiculously unfair to the characters.

It feels like the movie itself gets bored of its own premise halfway through, with the characters waking up and realising they’ve died multiple times and can’t remember a lot of them (conveniently, the characters all forget the exact same ones). Why? How does this serve the plot? It seems like they only did that as an excuse to watch videos of previous deaths on someones phone, and cram in horror movie moments.

Which is another issue; this isn’t a story, it’s a series of moments from other horror movies that the filmmakers wanted to put in. It doesn’t settle on a tone or style that’s consistent throughout. It reminded me of Cabin In The Woods, but badly written.

The characters? They’re funny, I’ll give them that. But there are so many moments where they feel like movie characters instead of actual people. Some sentences uttered are only uttered by characters who are written; nobody responds as an actual human would respond. There’s also a weird sense of detachment. The characters quickly get used to the idea of dying and coming back, despite not knowing when their last life will be, so really, they could die at any point. There’s a moment when a character disappears, and I thought they were going to announce that she had died died, which would lead to everybody becoming less flippant with death, but nope, she’s just elsewhere. I’m not exaggerating when I say the characters treat death flippantly, at times they seem to welcome it. “fuck, stubbed my toe, guess I’ll die”. At one point, one of the characters flat-out murders one of her friends. That murder is never brought up again. If a friend drove a pickax into my stomach, I would find it hard to forgive them. Plus, can you imagine what it would be like if THAT life was the person’s final life? So their friend properly killed them and has to live with that knowledge, whilst also learning that their lives are finite.

Until Dawn is not completely terrible, though. The performances are fine, although it is hard to get past the feeling that they are discount versions of other actors; specifically, Rachel Weisz, Jenny Slate, Johnny Depp, and James McAvoy. It is weird how the film has objectively lesser-known actors than the game. The game had Remi Malek and Hayden Panettiere. Okay, this was before Bo Rhap, so Malek wasn’t a big name then, but it’s still strange.

Some of the kills are fun, and as much as I hated the explosion scene for what it did to the narrative, out of context, it was entertaining. There is a basis for a good idea here. But it needed more thought than it was given. I was really looking forward to this, and I can’t feel anything except disappointed.