Joker: Folie A Deux (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Arthur Fleck is in prison after the events of the first film, whilst there he meets a romantic interest.

Initial reaction to this has been, well it’s not been positive has it? Normally, I don’t care about internet reviews, because they’re usually just “This movie has a black person in. Woke! This has Winona Ryder dating someone who’s not me. That’s bullshit, she’s my Winona! One star”. This was especially puzzling when you remember the positive reaction of the first one. People loved that. When the initial Blu-rays were released people referred to it as “The shipped gold standard“, due to how glad they were that they could finally have it. I mean, yeah, Joker: Folie A Deux (Or J: FAD, which is pronounced the only way you could pronounce that acronym really), is a musical, and the Angry Incel Dickhead “No Mercy! Coffee’s For Closers! Sweep The Leg!” faux alpha’s tend to hate them because those movies consist of people showing emotion. Logically, they should love this movie though, because it also has zero emotion, unless you count unrelenting bleakness as an emotion. It’s just a series of shit things happening in a shit world. You don’t feel like you enjoy it, it feels like you’re on permanent jet lag.

I’m not opposed to musicals, I’m opposed to THIS being a musical, especially the way they did it. Joaquin Phoenix can sing, he showed this with his performance in Walk The Line. But he can’t show that in this. His voice as Arthur Fleck (and how annoying is it that his character isn’t in the DCEU Batman movies, so we never got an A.Fleck/Affleck movie) is pathetic and downbeat, and he carries that through to the singing. If I wanted an incel icon singing songs of love, I’d listen to Bright Eyes (sorry Conor Oberst). Also, he’s acting alongside renowned waitress/actress/musician/singer Lady Gaga, who is a MUCH better singer than he is. Of course, he’s a better actor, so it kind of balances out, but is deeply unfair to both performers. Also, how can you have a musical called Joker and not have “Send In The Clowns”? I will admit, the use of “That’s Life” is damn perfect.

Serious musicals can work, just look at Annette, but that worked because it leaned into the weirdness, and because all the songs were written by Sparks there was a coherent vision throughout the soundtrack. They had a vision, and they carried that through over 27 songs (63 is over 27, right?). That same coherent song choice isn’t present in J: FAD, instead it feels like an old man choosing songs at the jukebox.

There’s a consistency in style though, it’s not as though you get pop punk, underrated “I Think We’re Alone Now” 80’s popstar Tiffany, blues, and then thrash metal. It is pretty much just all the same style, but no sense of flow between them, and not many choices which completely redefine how you feel about that song.

The script is nothing to write home about, either. The “romance” between Harley and Joker never really feels real. We’re not given a reason to believe she would be into him. There’s no seduction or moment of attraction. He sees her singing, starts talking, and seduces her by basically saying, “I’ve got troubled thoughts and a self-esteem to match.” What a catch! Somehow, this works, and they become America’s suite-hearts. Well, they don’t. Nobody notices them as a couple. The hero worship for Joker doesn’t extend to the woman doing everything possible to get him out of prison. You’d think she would have a fan club or something. It feels like the film wanted the pint-sized peroxide princess Harley Quinn but had no idea how to fit her in, so all the scenes of her character feel badly written. The newspapers don’t recognise her as who she actually is, and don’t give me the “she paid the press to stop them reporting”, because they still report on her attempted prison breakout/Joker romance, which you’d think would be far more damaging to her family. It’s not helped by how much of the runtime consists of “imagine spots, ” not very interesting ones either.

None of my negativity for this is down to the performers. They’re great. Phoenix continues to play Joker as some kind of West Coast smoker uncomfortable with his new-found fame, and Gaga is a fantastic performance. I’d like to see them together in something else, even another musical, but one a bit more fun. There’s no sense of playfulness to this. It doesn’t feel like a musical, it feels like a film where the characters sometimes sing in their mind, yes, there is a difference. Also, the way it handles fame and the weirdness of people who spend their days worshipping sociopaths (That reminds me; Americans, don’t forget to vote) is interesting, and those are things that people need to talk about. But they could talk about them a lot better than this. No matter how important it is, a message doesn’t mean shit if it’s delivered in a shit way. It’s why my method of writing “Recycle!” on a shovel and twatting people didn’t do much to convince people to change their rubbish disposal methods. This isn’t a movie, it’s a thesis and a poorly written one at that. It’s not even interesting, there’s one FASCINATING, well not even a sub-plot, just a “thing that has happened”. In this universe, someone created a drama based on the events of the first film. It’s referred to in passing a few times, but there’s no indication of what it’s like in terms of style. I WANT to see stuff about that. I feel it would give a better indication of how the world is truly reacting to what happened (especially since the majority of J: FAD takes place in the prison or in a courtroom, so it does feel quite claustrophobic). Plus it would also make a point about how the media sensationalises violence whilst also decrying it, in some kind of self-feeding cycle of shit. Plus, it would give it a sense of playfulness which is otherwise lacking (except for the animated opening).

You may have noticed, but during this review, I slipped in the song titles (and in two cases, the lyrics) for every song (except track 1) from the Fall Out Boy album which shares a title with this flick. I did this mainly because I was so bored during J: FAD that my mind wandered, and went automatically to the Fall Out Boy album. Yes, it was weird and distracting, making this review a lot more stressful than it would be otherwise. But it also means I put more effort into this than the writers did into the movie. Sadly, there’s absolutely no way for me to put “Disloyal Order Of The Water Buffalo” in.

Oh wait, I just did. Go me!

Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice (2024) Review

Quick synopsis: Remember Beetlejuice? He’s back, in fog form.

I think I left it too late to watch the original Beetlejuice. I didn’t see it until I was in my late 20’s, by which time I was already over-familiar with the iconography and character, and it was too late for me to be obsessed with it. Also, I was never the biggest Tim Burton fan. His stuff has always seemed to be a case of style over substance, like a Zack Snyder who hasn’t yet discovered porn.

Maybe Beetlejuice Beetlejuice will change that? While I wasn’t a huge fan of the original, I liked it and consider it among his strongest works. So if anything could get me to buy a ticket to ride the Burton Bus it would be this piece of unfresh meat (if he ever gets accused of sexual improprieties then that sentence is going to seem so bad).

Spoilers, it doesn’t. I have the same issue with Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (BB, pronounced Bébé) that I have with much of Burton’s work; the script. There are five different plotlines, most of them run episodically rather than alongside each other. There are moments which aren’t really storybeats, just stuff happening one after the other. It seems like it’s setting up a plotline or villain, and then it is resolved within 10 minutes.

None of this is the fault of the actors though; all of them are on top form. Winona Ryder continues to be the best, Jenna Ortega slots into this universe perfectly, Keaton is exactly what you expect, and Catherine O’Hara is a damn delight. Jeffrey Jones is missing from BB, but his character isn’t, appearing in animated form in a plane crash, and in live-action form walking around the afterlife without a head. The reason for this is that Jeffrey Jones is a gross paedophile, so having him in this would be a huge PR problem. I do have an issue with his character being in it though, especially being so revered and a major part of one of the characters’ plotlines. Dunno, it just feels a little weird. I know it’s not him, but it is slightly uncomfortable to see that much love shown to a character played by him. It would be like if you dressed up as Jimmy Savile and attended a kids’ birthday party; the adults would know that it’s not actually him, but they would still be a little bit grossed out.

There are moments where BB is better than the original, some of the visuals have a lot more creativity to them, the characters are better defined, and the world feels more real. The “involuntary karaoke” scene is definitely worse though, and that’s mainly down to song choice. The song is still good, but it’s not as well known, not as likely to be sung by drunk people at music festivals, and just not as bombastic and hilarious considering the scene. To the point where it feels like it only exists in this movie BECAUSE it was in the first one.

It’s a shame, this could have been great. It is pretty good, but it doesn’t make you think that Burton has developed much as a filmmaker since he made the original. If there was only a five-year wait for this to be released, that would be okay, but 36 years and THIS is the best he can do? It’s a little disheartening, and definitely not good enough for me not to sing the title of it to the tune of Lollipop Lollipop.

AfrAId (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: A family takes an experimental AI into their house. Everything works out fine. Psych! Stuff starts to suck.

AfrAId was directed by Chris Weitz, who also directed About A Boy, The Twilight Zone: New Moon, and The Golden Compass, which is a weird film history if you think about it. Not really relevant at all, I just wanted to mention it.

I went into this with lower expectations than I would if Gillingham were playing Barcelona (football joke, I NEVER make them), I knew it had bad reviews and box office, and bad horror movies are usually The Crow-est of the low. So I knew this would be terrible. But then something went wrong; it’s not terrible. It’s not good, but it’s not terrible. It is never bad enough to be awful, but also it’s never quite good enough to stand out. It doesn’t help that it’s quite derivative, it’s not saying that much which hasn’t been said before (primarily by equally stupidly titled M3gan). It can’t compare to that, and not just because the AI in this isn’t as memorable, or as well-written. Occasionally it only does things BECAUSE it’s a horror movie, there’s no “non-creepy” justification for many of the AI’s choices.

On the plus side, it does seem like it has something to say, which I always like to see in a horror movie. The proliferation of AI is a concerning development and one that’s too big for films to ignore. This film also says a lot about how families interact with themselves and with technology, especially concerning how that affects parenting. It doesn’t always work, though. There are some parts where the AI nature of it just

The revenge porn bit, in particular, didn’t sit right with me. I don’t care that it ruined that kid’s life, he knowingly made and shared porn of his girlfriend. I don’t give a shit that he won’t go to college or that he’s being tried as an adult. To be perfectly honest I hope he gets hit by a fucking car. Now it gets fun. No word of a lie, I legit wrote that line, and then that character died in a car crash. So that’s nice.

On the upside; the performances are good. John Cho is underrated (as anybody who has watched Searching will know), and I’m still waiting for the world to pay attention to just how utterly fantastic Katherine Waterston is. Both of them feel slightly beyond this movie, almost like this was a film made years ago and only just released now to make use of their fame. There’s also no issue with direction; it looks good, has decent audio cues etc.

The main issues are pretty much entirely down to the script. The pacing is like a drunk driver; all over the place, causing great damage, and indefensible. The ending is a huge letdown. It goes too “real”, with the AI making incursions into reality which are a bit too far-fetched and would be easily solved by humans. The closing scenes are also far too predictable, to the point where it feels like a parody.

In summary; not as bad as I expected, but not as good as I wanted. AfrAId is like people who discuss politics on Twitter, too concerned with saying stuff “now” than trying to figure out how to say it.

Never Let Go (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: In response to a worldwide evil, a mother (Halle Berry), protects her children via tethering them to the house with a rope, thus ensuring no evil can come to them. As the years go on, she struggles to keep them content with their new lifestyle.

I have a mixed history with Alexandre Aja (the director of Never Let Go, or NLG, pronounced Nelgg), I enjoyed Horns, but I found Crawl a bit poor, so I was unsure what to expect. Halle Berry is in it, which bodes well as she does seem to be more careful about what scripts she chooses lately (probably because of Catwoman), and even if a film is bad, Berry is always good. I wasn’t aware of the two child actors in this, but they are pretty damn good in this. It’s not “good for child actors”, just flat-out good. So that’s definitely a plus. Aja’s directing is pretty decent too with some brilliantly creepy set-pieces and creative visuals. There are moments where it is a bit too dark to see, but that’s to be expected in a film set in a cabin that lacks as many lights as this does. It’s also a genuinely interesting story, and provides a real sense of survivalism, particularly with how difficult it is even for those experienced in it. Doesn’t matter how good you are at hunting if the animals have all gone somewhere else (unless you’re a nomadic tribe obviously). And it doesn’t matter how good you are at farming if it’s too cold and flooded for the crops to work. It’s not “organic salads made entirely from hand-grown fruits”, sometimes it’s “eating fried bark”. You’re only ever one winter away from starvation, and that will lead to you making difficult decisions like wondering if you should kill your dog. So much of NLG is utterly fantastic. The film itself? Far from it.

Whenever you watch a film, you don’t watch it in a vacuum (or any other household appliance), it can set up expectations and then subvert them, and other times it makes them seem predictable. So movies now need to be written with that in mind. Never Let Go attempts to play with expectations, but in its attempts to do so, it traps itself like a fly in a spider’s web and is just as ugly. It knows that your first thought while watching this will be “Okay so is the twist going to be that she’s actually just making it up?”, which would work. Instead of subtly laying in clues, it has characters outright state that they believe that to be the case. It sets up that “twist” far too obviously, to the point where you begin to wonder if it’s actually a double twist and it turns out she was telling the truth all along. But that’s not a twist, that’s just a straight story. The way that NLG tries to set up both endings means that whatever ending it picks, it will end up feeling predictable. It traps itself by attempting to be too clever.

I suppose that’s to be expected, I mean, it has to attempt SOMETHING, the story itself really doesn’t lend itself to a 100-minute feature. It only has three characters, and the very notion of the story means they can’t interact with anybody else, and two of them have known only this life forever. So with nothing to upset the status quo, and no new characters introduced, it’s difficult to be hooked. I’ve seen worse films, but I’ve yet to see a semi-decent movie be as derailed by a poor script as much as this one was. I suppose at least they’re trying.

Lee (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: The tale of Lee Miller, acclaimed war photojournalist

This review was going to be so simple. It was just going to be a lot of jokes about how the name character has the same name as me. Lots of “I don’t remember doing any of this” stuff. It was going to be SOOOOO dumb but funny. Now I can’t do that. And I can’t do that because this film is too good for that. It’s deeply emotional and important, and making stupid jokes about it feels like it would cheapen it a lot. Stupid Lee, being too good for me to make jokes about, as all my friends say: Lee ruins everything.

Lee is not perfect, at times it feels like it assumes you know the importance of certain images, so you’re sitting there and being amazed at the recreations and new insight into how they were constructed etc. As it is, you spend a few moments with no idea what is happening. My other issue, and it hurts me to say this, Andy Samberg is not as good a dramatic actor as the other performers. In a lot of films, that would be okay, but here, he’s opposite Kate Winslet who is at the top of her game. Despite my prediction towards small weird stuff, and my avoidance of the obvious big-budget films (by which I mean, I haven’t seen Titanic), I’ve always been a fan of Winslet, mainly because she’s in the supremely underrated Heavenly Creatures. This is off-topic, but she also seems like a hugely brilliant human being.

The other downside of Lee is going to make me sound a bit weird. There’s been a lot of Nazi films lately. Not films about Nazi leadership, or even the soldiers. But a focus on the ideology, about how it penetrates everyday society and needs to be snuffed out before it poisons. This concerns me. Not because I think “but free speech! people should be free to be racist idiots!” or “WOKE!” etc. But because writers, even those writing about the past, are ALL writing about the current world. So I’m slightly uncomfortable that so many writers in 2020’s feel the need to point out how nazi’s are bad, we don’t have that many “don’t eat lava” films, because we all know that’s obvious. So I’m worried that there is a resurgence in Nazi viewpoints being accepted in polite society, and astute writers are noticing that.

Otherwise, this is damn fine. There is so much to like about this. It’s shot beautifully for a start, done in such a way that it really makes you feel like you’re in a different time. The story is what’s key though. It’s incredibly engaging throughout. It’s the closest I’ve seen to Civil War in terms of how it details the importance of war photographers (incidentally, the lead character in that film was named after Lee Miller). It does so much right. Importantly, it starts off pre-war. But in a time where, in hindsight, war was inevitable. It’s fascinating to see how dismissive they are of the looming threat. It also provides a huge contrast when war does break out, even when you don’t see them, you are aware of what has happened to some of the characters we were introduced to in the opening (although it could do a better job of reminding you they are when they’re mentioned near the end).

In summary; there is A LOT to like about Lee. It’s harrowing, beautiful, and absolutely essential. I’ve seen some movies where the audience stands up and leaves the very second the closing credits start. Sometimes people sit there, but from the general hubbub, you can tell they’re just waiting for a credits scene. With this, there was silence, not of shock, not of exhaustion, but one of appreciation, almost reverance.

The Crow (2024) Review

Quick synopsis: After the love of his that he’s known for a suuuuuuch a long time is murdered in front of him, Eric is given the power of face paint and healing to get his revenge.

I know how this is supposed to go. Reviews for this have been so negative there was concern it would somehow end up with a minus score on rotten tomatoes. The jokes would have been obvious, “This does to Skarsgards career what the original did to Brandon Lee”. About how it was a cynical cash grab, that forgot the “cash” part. Maybe comments about how this is the second review this year which would lead itself to jokes about Sting. Truth is, I won’t be making any of those jokes.

Not because this film is good, far from it, it’s definitely a steaming pile of crap that I wouldn’t recommend to anybody. And certainly not because I feel it deserves compliments for effort and you can tell the filmmakers are trying. The reason it’s hard to rustle up any anger and vitriol towards The Crow is because it’s so unbelievably bland. I haven’t encountered anything so devoid of taste since a Wetherspoons fry-up.

The original Crow movie is iconic, in the 30 years since it was released, the combination of a white face and black trenchcoat has inspired countless school shooters. It’s hard to imagine this version inspiring anything other than complete apathy.

It’s hard to think of anything about this that works. The romance, you know, the entire reason the character is so vengeful in the first place, doesn’t feel real. For some reason, The Crow thinks we need to see their whole relationship, including how it starts. We don’t NEED to see them meeting, in fact, that actually makes it worse because you then realise the “Love of his life” is someone he’s known for a few days. So his reasons for coming back from the dead seem less “I have lost EVERYTHING!” than they should. It’s not helped by the fact they don’t seem to have much chemistry. I don’t get how Skarsgards performance is so meh in this considering he’s basically made a living treading that line between corpse and hot. This is only the second feature film credit for FKA Twigs, and she’s better than that would suggest. Note “better” does not necessarily mean “good”.

The soundtrack is forgettable. I’m assuming that anyway, I can’t actually remember. This would have been the PERFECT time to play a shitload of dark pop. Get some stuff in there that’s both danceable and depressing; some Lana Del Ray, some Ashnikko, some Charli XCX, don’t play fucking Enya.

Nothing about this answers the question “Why was this made?”. Do we need a dark and gritty film which is a remake of a film that’s already dark and gritty? The only notable thing about this movie is that Danny Huston continues to be a solid choice for “threatening mob-like guy”. But even that’s ruined by the inconsistency in his character.

Even the fight scenes aren’t well done. We know Skarsgard can do fight scenes, but you wouldn’t know that if you have only seen this, because of how bland and weirdly neutered the fights are. I’ve never seen scenes so full of blood still manage to come off so sanitised and “safe”.

It’s not the worst film ever. It’s not a complete mess that fails at everything it attempts. What it is, is something much more offensive than that; dull. It doesn’t fail at what it tries because it never tries anything. There is zero effort, zero heart, and consequently, zero reason to watch this film.

Babes (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Pregnant after a one-night stand, Eden (Ilana Glazer) leans on her best friend Michelle (Michelle Buteau) for guidance in this millennial hot mess from-com (friendship rom-com).

I was a bit wary of watching this, primarily because of how terrible the poster is. Not the one with the pink background, the one with the yellow background. The faces don’t look real, so your first opinion of the film is “cheap”. Thankfully, the film itself doesn’t suffer the same problems.

I feel weird reviewing this. I want to say “This is an open and honest depiction of pregnancy, with none of the Hollywoodness which usually happens when the subject is displayed on film”. But let’s face it. I don’t know. I have no idea if this is an honest depiction or whether this is just a different kind of lying. This FEELS more honest though. There’s no attempt to beautify pregnancy or downplay the pressures it causes on the female body, or how stressful parenthood can be. It’s not just honest, it’s also VERY good.

Babes is Pamela Adlon’s feature directorial debut. I have no reason to mention that. Adlon did a good job of directing it but nothing really stood out as superb in terms of directing, I don’t mean that in a bad way, Kevin Smith made a career out of that. I only mention it because she voiced Bobby in King Of The Hill, and I just find that weird.

Really, Babes belongs to Glazer (as in, the film called Babes belongs to her, she doesn’t own all women who adhere to superficial beauty standards, nor would I think she would want to). She co-wrote it with Josh Rabonitz, and the dialogue really has her voice running throughout it, she is completely friend goals, I’m not just talking about her character in this, I mean just in general. I have no issues with her performance. I’m not like “Give her ALL the awards” but there were zero points where I thought “She’s only here because she wrote it”. She is the best possible casting choice for the character of Eden. She plays well off Michelle Buteau, who I must admit I’m not that familiar with but has the air of somebody who would be GREAT at Taskmaster.

Babes does set itself a difficult task, Eden gets pregnant from a one-night stand with a man who passes away the day after from nut-related choking. For Babes to have any emotional core you need to buy that the relationship between the two is genuine. That’s difficult to do when the characters only meet once. This manages it though. The connection the two characters have is electric. The interplay between the two on the train is some of the best “getting to know you” dialogue I have ever seen, and it instantly made me slightly sad that I would never have that anybody because of my general repulsive personality and/or face.

It’s helped that the guy is played by Stephan James, best known for If Beale Street Could Talk, Selma (where he played John Lewis, not the shop), and Race where he played Jesse Owens. So he’s used to carrying a lot on his shoulders in his performance. He’s pretty damn great in this. I feel he could replace James Earl Jones as THE VOICE for stuff now.

In summary; this is a lot of fun. It’s the closest a film this year has got to matching the brilliance of Bottoms. I love the film, I love the soundtrack, I love the characters. And I love how it suggests abortion but doesn’t moralise about it, just presents it as an option. It’s proudly pro-choice, and I can’t help but love a film like that. It’s such a fun watch. It’s nice to have something so warm and funny, like a clown on fire, but funny. The downside is that it’s a difficult film to Google. Turns out if you google “babes”, you do not get this movie. Maybe because I’m not focusing on how emotionally naked the characters in this film are, truly displaying their soul to everybody. I’ll try “Naked Babes” and see if that brings up this movie.

The Garfield Movie (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Garfield gets roped into a scheme alongside his dad to steal milk.

Well after insulting it in my review of Jackpot, I had to actually watch it, didn’t I? If only so my despair at that being rated lower than this would be accurate. There was always a chance that I would be wrong and that this would actually be really good. I mean, look at the cast. Hannah Waddington, Nicholas Hoult, Brett Goldstein, Ving Rhames, and Samuel L Jackson, that is a weirdly strong cast for a non-ensemble piece.

Like all good films, The Garfield Movie (TGM, pronounced Tigg-um) leaves you asking questions, especially with the final action scene. It’s just a shame that those questions are ones like “How fucking long is that bridge? This scene should have ended minutes ago, this movie fucking sucks”.

In 2010 there was a woman named Mary Bale who was filmed walking past a delightfully cute kitty-cat named Lola. She stroked Lola, who was clearly approachable and friendly. Lola’s tail was raised in happiness and delight. Mary then picked Lola up and threw her in a fucking wheelie bin like a bitch. That video was posted online and she became infamous. I have seen that video (I had to, it was EVERYWHERE at the time), so I can confirm that that footage is now the SECOND most painful video I’ve seen involving a cat. You know, because this movie is also about a cat, and is fucking terrible (in case I was being too subtle).

I should have known this would be terrible from the very start. It starts with Garfield ordering food on an app. So the first shot is of a phone screen. There is no effort to make it seem like real food is being ordered on a real app. It moves from the item he wants to the next item he wants, there is no scrolling and picking an item, it just magically goes from one thing he wants to the next thing. I know it’s a small thing to be annoyed about, but it does annoy me because it makes it seem low effort. Also, he’s not ordering a lasagne, he’s ordering a pizza (with sides, which he knocks off the table in the bag without eating them).

This just doesn’t feel like a Garfield movie. There’s nothing specific to the character. In fact, there are very free moments specific to him being a cat. For example, when his dad is tied up with rope, Garfield tries to untie him; he has claws. It’s not a Garfield movie, it’s a movie that has Garfield in it. He’s not a character with his usual characterisation and foibles. He’s not sarcastic or dour, he’s just a normal animated movie lead. I haven’t seen a film misjudge its own main character this much since the Artemis Fowl casting call. It’s not a Garfield movie, it’s more like it’s a standard kids film, that stars Garfield. He’s not a character, he’s an actor playing a character that doesn’t suit him. The tone is completely wrong too, it’s too fast.

So I’ve established it fails as a Garfield movie. It’s not even a good animated movie. It fails at being a movie, and the animation is terrible. It reminds me of the South Park game on the N64, only with less piss-soaked snowballs. The human characters look okay, but the animals themselves look terrible. There’s no sense of realness to it. The animals don’t feel fluffy or cosy, they look like balloons. This is going to be a weird criticism of an animated film, but it’s too much of a cartoon in terms of the physics. There’s a scene where Garfield bounces from one tree to the other without losing any momentum. I know, standard modern animation. But still, it’s completely out of place in a series such as Garfield which has always maintained a somewhat realistic style.

I’ve seen worse films this year, but I can’t think of a movie which has completely failed its own lead character as much as this one did. On the plus side, I don’t have to see it again.

Jackpot!(2024) Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.