Tag: movies

Zootropolis/Zootopia 2 (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick synopsis: Detectives Judy Hopps and Nick Wilde find themselves on the twisting trail of a mysterious reptile who turns the mammal metropolis of Zootopia upside down.

I may have made a mistake going in. I tend to avoid reviews before seeing a film, but sometimes I do accidentally glance at one, or at least see the headline. The one headline I saw for this described it as a “soulless film-by-numbers affair filled with corporately approved jokes” and “might as well be AI-generated”. So I went in with low expectations. After viewing Zootropolis 2, I don’t understand where that reviewer was coming from. It’s not quite as good as the first one, but it is still a worthy viewing experience.

Most of the cast from the first film return, including Tiny Lister, through the use of archival recordings. Joining the cast are Patrick Warburton, Macaulay Culkin, Ke Huy Quin, and Andy Samberg. That’s the main cast; the voice cameos make it look like whoever wrote the Wikipedia page is just making shit up; Ed Sheeran, Mario Lopez, Mae Martin, Auli’i Cravalho, Tig Notaro, The Rock, CM Punk, Roman Reigns. The last two are particularly fun as the Zebros, who seem like the kind of characters destined for a spinoff.

So how does the story compare? It’s good, but it does feel reminiscent of the first one. The whole “the ones you think are dangerous aren’t really” message is essentially the same as the first one. There’s even the “cuddly animal you thought was friendly turns out to be a dick” plot twist. That one in particular hurt, as it seemed so obvious that I felt it must be a red herring. The Nick and Judy relationship also repeats some moments from the first movie. If the first movie didn’t exist, this would be great; as it is, it feels kind of like a remake.

I think it would have been stronger if they hadn’t done that late-stage heel turn; it would have backed up the film’s thesis that “it’s your personality that determines you, not your species/family”. It also misuses Dawn Bellwether from the first movie; she gets broken out of prison, then arrested again at the end. I’m not asking for her to have a huge impact on the story, but why bother bringing her back if you’re not going to use her at all? I also wasn’t impressed with how they say that Nick has a phobia of reptiles, then never mention it again.

That is a rather negative way of looking at it. On its own merits, it’s charming. It’s also very funny; packed full of jokes; there are moments where it feels like they’re cramming them in until it’s fit to bursting. Gary The Snake is a wonderful character who suits the franchise. It has enough heart to carry it through its weaker moments, and the animation is absolutely gorgeous. This isn’t as focused on the characters in the world as the first one, but the world itself is explored more; we get a much bigger focus on how the world works, how the different zones interact, etc.

In summary, just as good as the first one, and the signs for the inevitable third one are good.





“

Clown In A Cornfield (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Some kind of circus worker (can’t remember the specifics) kills teens in a rural setting of some sort.

Fun fact: this was the 100th new movie I’ve seen this year, beating my previous record by roughly 11. It kind of sucks that such a momentous occasion is being marked with a film so bland that even a local cheap chicken shop wouldn’t sell it. It says a lot that the most memorable thing from this film is that you can sing the title to the same tune as Goldfinger’s cover of Man In A Suitcase. Also, I kept spelling it Cornfrield for some reason. If this movie were a colour, it would be mud-brown.

For Clown In A Cornfield (CIAC, pronounced Sigh-ack) to work, it needs to do one of two things: either be ridiculous and weird, or be brutal beyond belief. This does neither. It’s rated 15 in the UK, and it feels like it’s towards the lower end of that rating. The kills, even the most violent ones, feel remarkably pain-free. None of them really sticks in my mind. The opening two in particular feel neutered. One is offscreen, and the other one breaks physics. The clown approaches the future victim while they’re lying on the floor, then does a sideways sweep (like a hockey player making a quick pass), it then cuts to the person being lifted up on the weapon high up above the clown’s head.

The actual script isn’t too impressive either. Seinfeld famously described itself as “a show about nothing”, CIAC takes it to the next step by having nothing happen. The background characters are so underwritten that they might as well be cameos, so when the film shows us that there are multiple killers (I don’t count as a spoiler as it occurs before the halfway point,) it’s not difficult to see how the unmasking is going to go. The iconography of Frendo is so underbaked that I’m pretty sure it gave me salmonella. It doesn’t feel like “this has haunted the town for years”, or even a recent urban legend. The main characters use the idea that Frendo is a killer as a joke in a YouTube video. Also, for most of the deaths, the clown is only seen by the person they kill; so why dress as a clown in the first place? It’s unfair to single out CIAC for that, as SOOOO many slashers make the same mistake, to the point where I was actually impressed when Heart Eyes provided a good reason for the characters’ “fame”.

I don’t want to spoil the ending, but it’s basically Hot Fuzz, only we’re expected to take it seriously. I think we are, anyway. By all logic, this should be comedic, and there are times where it feels like it’s trying to be one, but it’s like being headbutted by a teletubby; incredibly po-faced. It’s weird as Eli Craig also directed Tucker and Dale Vs. Evil, which got the comedy/horror balance spot on. Here, it feels like it didn’t do enough to satisfy either genre.

On the upside, there are some musical choices. And there are some surprisingly subversive choices made with the main characters. It’s nowhere near as bad as I’ve made it sound. I doubt it will be in the bottom half of my movie rankings this year. There’s not much offensively awful about it, but there’s absolutely nothing worth highlighting. It’s mediocre, and in some ways, I find that more offensive than being bad.

The Twits (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Remember the book? It’s not like that.

I’ll start this by being brutally honest about my opinions on the original book: I don’t like it. I’ve never liked it. I’ve always had a very specific issue with a line in it. There’s a moment in the book where the author says that a person who has good thoughts can never be ugly, and if someone is ugly, it’s because they’re a shitty person. As someone with a face that looks like the “before” picture in an advert for “You’re a lost cause, just slice off your entire face”, you can see why I’d have an issue with this. I don’t need books to insult me; I have myself for that. So I went into this not expecting to love it. Coupled with that is the fact that almost every review of this was highly negative, so my expectations were so low that even limbo dancers would refuse to go under it.

Now I know what people expect: that this is a setup for me to say “However, I liked it”. Nah, fuck this movie. It’s not the worst of the year, but it should be very thankful for films like War Of The Worlds. Actually, that’s cruel and implies this will end up in the Awful section for the end-of-year roundups; it’s actually probably going to go in the one above it. It’s not absolutely terrible, but it’s definitely not good. The main problem is the script; the original book is roughly 100 pages, if I remember correctly, which isn’t enough story for a feature-length movie. So the writers have to stretch it out. Phil Johnston has a weird career as a writer; he wrote Zootopia, which was great, The Brothers Grimsby, which was okay, and Wreck-It Ralph 2, which was bad. The Twits isn’t his best work; it’s incredibly unfocused. It doesn’t flow organically, instead coming off as a series of shorts. There’s not a central narrative; it’s just stuff happens, then different stuff happens. Some of the “episodes” are better than others. The Muggle-Wump part feels like it comes from something completely different, and not in a good way. The build-up to them entering the mayoral elections is pretty fun, though, with some political satire that’s so sharp you can cut steak with it. Thing is, it’s not saying “these political thoughts are bad”, it’s saying “voters need to stop believing obvious bullshit, a mayor can’t make everyone in town a billionaire”. But even that plot point is ruined by a truly juvenile (even for a kids’ movie) fart joke.

One other upside is the casting. Johnny Vegas is an obvious choice as the male lead. I didn’t expect esteemed character actress Margo Martindale to work as well as she did. I’m guessing she was hired here because of her work on Bojack Horseman. Emilia Clarke and Natalie Portman are weird choices for such small roles; tonally, it feels odd to have their voices in something so deliberately ugly.

Make no mistake; this is an ugly film to watch. I get that that might be the point, but the animation is so off-putting that it’s not a pleasant experience at times. It looks like a (much) cheaper version of the shiny elastic CGI animation that most companies use, which is fine when it works, but here it doesn’t. Narratively, this is like most Dahl adaptations; it works best when it’s slightly cruel. There are times it manages that: key among them is when a family arrive at an orphanage to say they won’t be adopting anybody because they’re worried a recent disaster has made the kids contagious; it’s so cruel, and wickedly funny.

That’s somewhat negative, truth be told; most of this review has been. But there’s something oddly charming about it. It’s a shit adaptation, I’ll give it that. So fans of the original are sure to hate it. But fans of the original are adults now, so it’s not really for them. But who is it for? Are there many kids clamouring for an animated adaptation of a book they haven’t read? Does Johnny Vegas have a large toddler fanbase that Netflix wants to tap into? Fans of the original book will hate it, and there’s nothing to bring in people who aren’t fans of the book. So again, who’s it for? That’s a question I have no answer for, and I’m not entirely sure the people involved in making this know the answer either. Somehow, the music is weirdly solid. Well, the song from Hayley Williams and David Byrne is anyway.

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.

Predator: Badlands (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Cast out from its clan, an alien hunter and an unlikely ally embark on a treacherous journey in search of the ultimate adversary.

They had to know, didn’t they? The writers, the directors, and the studio. When they made a Predator movie about a rookie Yautja being helped and trained by a woman, they knew it would piss people off. Even though it’s obvious that Yautja don’t come into the world as fully trained badasses, the woman was a robot designed by the Weyland-Yutani corporation, and the Predator franchise has always had a slightly matriarchal bent to it anyway. None of that would matter, the internet would see it and go “This film hates men. Woke!” then bitch and complain like the whiny jackasses that they are.

Yet they still made it. I respect that. I’m glad they did, too, as this is a fun movie. Its not quite as violent as it could be, it’s a 12A, and I’m not saying it needs to be an ultra bloody 18 with guts and decapitated heads flying around, but there are moments where it feels neutered slightly, where you can sense it’s deliberately pulling back to make sure it keeps its rating.

Badlands is an incredibly easy movie to like. Part of that is down to Elle Fanning, who plays Thia and Tessa very differently from each other. She’s exceptionally charming as Thea; funny, smart, and able to kill things easily, just what I look for in a woman. Okay, she also has no legs, but I can fix her. Its essential she does a good job, because she’s the most human character we spend time with. Dimitrius Schuster-Koloamatangi (yes, I did copy and paste that) does a good job as Dek; physically imposing when he needs to be, physically vulnerable when faced with a new threat, but he is still playing a character who is obviously not human, so there will be that slight disconnect.

This is as good a time as any to mention the world-building (not in a LEGO way). The film does hold your hand slightly when introducing certain aspects of the planet, but it does in a way that makes sense. Dek is new to the planet, so he doesn’t know the environment (such as the exploding plants, the grass that is like glass, etc), so it’s logical that he’d need Thea to explain it to him.

For all the good it does in building up the world, some of the characters feel underdeveloped. Chief among those is the Kalisk. We’re told it’s a seemingly unkillable apex predator on a planet full of danger. Yet it never really feels like it. It just feels like another creature; there’s nothing particularly awe-inspiring about it.

There’s also an issue with Dek at times. His relationship with Thea reminds me of How I Met Your Mother, where characters would come close to reaching the narrative ending, but the show would get renewed for another series, so the writers had to quickly snap the characters back so they were further away from their goal. There are many instances where Dek learns the same lessons again and again.

There’s a sequence near the end where our ragtag group of misfits take over a base, and it’s brilliant. The tooling up sequence leading up to it? Could be clearer. But the actual sequence itself? Masterful. Expertly shot, creative in terms of deaths, and very funny. Sequences like that are made for the big screen, so see this at the cinema while you can. It ties into the Alien franchise in a way that’s not too heavy on the fanservice. It’s such a smart way to do it, and it shows just how much effort was put in.

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.

Keeper (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Terrifying visions plague a free-spirited artist when she travels to a secluded cabin with the doctor she’s been dating for one year.

I went into this surprisingly blind for someone who has seen the trailer at least 11 times at the local cinema. It gave nothing away. So I expected it to be mysterious and creepy. Turns out it didn’t give anything away because there’s not that much to give away, at least not until the ending. It’s not a sequential escalation of events; it’s just stuff happens, then similar stuff happens, with no explanation.

Imagine you go to a restaurant expecting chocolate cake. It’s a 60-minute time limit, but for 50 minutes, all you have access to is bread. You’re confused, trying to figure out what is going on, wondering if you’re even going to get any cake. Then, just when you’ve given up hope, the cake arrives, and it is good; it somehow explains the bread. In that scenario, are you going to tell people “the cake was really good”, or are you going to talk about how you spent most of the time eating bread? That’s my experience with this movie (the bread is nonsensical weirdness, the cake is logic and storytelling, obviously). Most of the 99-minute runtime is spent with incomprehensible weirdness instead of scares. I have similar issues with it that I had with Osgood’s 2024 movie Longlegs; it looks pretty, the performances are good, but nothing happens, and then it continues to happen. It’s demonstrably dull. Part of that is the weirdness; it overplays the “something spooky, but it was possibly a dream” moments, so nothing lands. Every time you see something, you’re never sure if it’s real, so you assume it’s not, which means nothing has meaning.

The performances are great, that has to be said. By which I mean, of the three characters we spend the most time with, one is spectacular, and is luckily the one who is onscreen most of the time. On the downside, I have recently watched Broad City, so it did take a while to move past Tatiana Maslany’s resemblance to Ilana Glazer. If it wasn’t for Maslany, I’d have HATED this movie. Her performance is incredible, which is handy as most of the time she doesn’t really have anyone to bounce off.

Perkins has injected the film with an atmosphere that’s very low-key, incredibly naturalistic. Which makes it all the more disappointing when he keeps going back to hackneyed horror tropes when we see the creatures/visions. Those visions don’t seem to increase in levels; they stay consistent throughout, so they seem more repetitive than my complaints about them.

To be honest, this is a difficult review to write as it’s difficult to resist the urge not to just repeat a lot of the sentences from the Die My Love review, maybe mixed in with my Longlegs review too. There’s a filmmaking rule: Show, Don’t Tell. Essentially, if you want to tell the audience that a character is in pain, it’s best to do that by having them wince when they move, etc, rather than have them come in and say “I am in pain”. Films like Keeper take that advice too literally, showing us random things with no explanation. Short flashbacks and spooky shit do not count as foreshadowing; it’s just annoying.

In summary, I think it’s a style issue. I just don’t like Perkins’ style as a filmmaker. Except for The Monkey, I loved that. If this were a short, I’d have loved it. But because it spent sooooo long getting to the f*cking point, I was too bored to care by the time it got interesting.

The Hand That Rocks The Cradle (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Afluent attorney Michelle brings a new nanny into her home, shit gets creepy.

The original movie is one of my non-childish childhood favourites. I think everyone has those movies you watched growing up that you have fond memories of, that weren’t kids’ movies. Movies that aren’t stupid and cheesy. These are “proper” films. Your first introduction to nuance and mature themes. I’ve watched it again recently, and it still holds up. It’s a tense drama, led by some fantastic performances, especially Rebecca De Mornay, winner of the “Actress whose name sounds most like a Hitchcock character” award. If I heard this was being remade, I would have been deeply offended but curious. I only ended up hearing about its existence roughly two weeks before the release date, so I didn’t really get enough time to draw up strong opinions about it.

I’m not as opposed to remakes as some people; I won’t dismiss something purely because it’s a remake. So I was going into this with an open mind, but with the knowledge that it could suck. One advantage this has is that Maika Monroe isn’t as inherently unsettling as De Mornay. That’s not an insult to De Mornay, by the way, but she’s very easily believable as a creepy person, so it’s difficult to build her up as a creepy person because that’s her baseline. It’s like watching an action movie where you’re expected to be surprised that the mild-mannered janitor played by The Rock turns out to be a former soldier; it’s kind of obvious.

This does what a remake should do: sticks to the spirit of the original whilst changing the specifics so that you are still surprised. As good as the original was, Mrs Mott’s motivations always felt a little too caricatured evil to be as compelling as it could have been; “I’m annoyed that this woman reported my husband for sexually assaulting her” is a weird motivation. I won’t spoil it, but the villain’s motivation in this version is much more believable and personal. As good as Annabella Sciorra was in the original, Mary Elizabeth Winstead exceeds her in some aspects; it helps that she’s great at being frightened.

On the downside, the husband’s role is even more of an afterthought in this than it was in the original. I can’t remember his name, what he looks like, or any aspects of his personality. That’s a small complaint, though, as the core relationship in this story will always be the one between the two women.

In terms of visuals, this is overly artsy at times. Sometimes it works; the house fire is beautifully cinematic. But on others, it’s a little much; we don’t need a shot of her blood on the road the way it’s done. Truth be told, it feels a little pretentious at times. It’s definitely more cinematic than the original, for better and for worse. There’s one shot which I’m definitely not a fan of; when Rebecca kills someone with a baseball bat it lacks impact due to how it’s shot; it needs a split second or two

The story? I mentioned before how I preferred the villain’s motivation in this version, but how it’s revealed feels a little weak. There’s also a sex scene that doesn’t feel necessary. In a lesser movie, that would be a random sex scene made for titillation, but because this movie is obviously trying to be good, cheap moments like that hurt it more than they’d hurt others. If this weren’t trying to be so good, it would be a better movie. Which is a weird thing to say, I know. But the story is cheesy and over exaggerated, but the directing and performances are mature and sophisticated, which causes a weird style clash.

In summary, an interesting watch, and not one I regret. But I won’t hold it with the same love and reverence as I did the original.

Die My Love (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick synopsis: Grace is a writer and mother. One of those things is ruining her life.

This is going to be a difficult review to write. Not for personal reasons, the emotional moments didn’t cause PTSD or flashbacks to similar events in my life. It’s difficult because it’s going to be tricky for me to talk about this and not make it very similar to my review of Urchin. I also went into that with high expectations, which weren’t met. Both films seem to have a disconnect between reviewers and audiences; with multiple high scores in professional reviews, yet audiences (at least the screenings I was in) met them with silence at best, and derision at worst. They both suffer the same flaw: making a straightforward and potentially emotionally compelling piece “artsy” to the point it’s incomprehensible.

Die My Love (DML, pronounced Dimm-ell) has noble intentions; showcasing how postnatal depression can cause women to feel isolated and gaslit by their own brain, how damaging it can be to their mental and physical health. The issue is that it’s clear that some of the film takes place inside her head, but you’re never sure quite how much. It’s the kind of film which, if it ended and you found out everything except the opening scene was all a dream, would make sense. There’s no indication of what’s real and what’s imagined, so it’s difficult to feel fully invested. It also makes it difficult to learn anything from it. It doesn’t say how you can help your loved ones who are dealing with similar issues, and no indication of how women can help themselves through it. The character does go to a psychiatric institution, but that doesn’t help. If anything, it just widens the chasm between the two leads, with her being angry at him for attempting to get her help. So the main message seems to be “you’re fucked”. The lack of audience investment also means that there is zero emotional resonance. This should be deeply emotional; instead, you’re left cold because you don’t give a shit about anybody in it.

Jennifer Lawrence gets some slack, but she is the core to what does work; the few moments which have emotion are all down to her. Robert Pattinson is fine, but there were many scenes where I couldn’t tell if he was angry and frustrated or just drunk. The two have great chemistry as a couple. The opening moments of them as a happy couple are delightful. The wordless foreplay feels real; they feel like a couple at play, completely comfortable with each other. Most of the other cast aren’t really in it long enough to leave an impact. I love LaKeith Stanfield, but his character adds nothing except raised questions. If you removed him, it would leave no hole in the film. That’s partly because a lot of the film goes from moment to moment, with things happening and then not being referenced again. You’d think somebody headbutting a mirror until they bleed would be mentioned, but nope. They rarely mention a character killing a dog. In fact, they don’t bring up the baby as much as they should, with multiple scenes where it feels like they just leave it at home.

On the plus side, the choice of music is good. With some songs you’ll know, and some you won’t. They are all tonally perfect for each scene, usually played at the perfect volume. I am aware that’s a weird thing to say, but sometimes films struggle to show music being played, with there being a disconnect between the music and the scene, with it clear that the music isn’t actually being played on set. DML, you can almost feel the beats of the music as it’s played, and she dances around the house.

In general, DML is a deeply uncomfortable watch. The constant noise and narrative disruption mean the audience never feels settled; they always feel tense and frustrated. I get it, that’s the point, it means you feel what the character feels. But if something is designed to be deliberately off-putting, it’s not an unfair criticism to not like it because you find it off-putting. I can watch films about death and loss without the requirement of the cinema staff murdering the person sitting in front of me. It feels like a film you’re supposed to analyse, dissect, discuss, think about, pore over. There are very few moments where it feels like a film you’re supposed to watch and want to see again. It’s a thesis, not a film.

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.