Tag: movies

Black Phone 2 (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Gwen and her brother Finn are haunted by bad dreams and PTSD, leading them to a Christian youth camp where they’re forced to face their fears, and their pasts.

As a stand-alone film, I have some issues with Black Phone 2, but it’s pretty good. As a sequel to The Black Phone, however? It’s a mess. I haven’t seen a sequel shift like this since Brahms: The Boy II, which was seemingly written by someone who only saw the trailer for the first movie, and was writing based on what they thought that movie was.

The original Black Phone was semi-realistic. The Grabber wasn’t a demon or person with special powers; he was just a serial killer who focused on children (possibly in a creepy way). Yes, the eponymous phone was mystical and supernatural, but the narrative itself was fairly grounded. The fears that the characters dealt with were realistic; a child has been taken and is desperate to survive. It’s no more supernatural than the tales World War 2 pilots would tell of a deceased officer seemingly leading them to safety when all hope seemed lost. Black Phone 2 would be like if those same pilots said that the clouds gained sentience and started breathing fire on the enemy, then winking at the survivors as if to say, “I got this”. I’m not sure where I expected a sequel to The Black Phone to go, but I didn’t expect it to basically turn into A Nightmare On Elm Street, but more ridiculous.

Two things are very clear from this movie: 1) Ethan Hawke is damn good at what he does. 2) Scott Derrickson LOVES creepy VHS-style vignettes. He uses that style to indicate what scenes take place in dreams; so it’s actually a really handy visual cue, I kind of love it. Yes, it makes no diegetic sense unless we believe these kids are dreaming in Super 8, but as a shorthand for “this is a dream”? I dig it.

I mentioned Ethan Hawke’s performance just now; his performance is less camp and theatrical than it was in the original, but much more menacing. Part of that is because he’s not actually in it that much; the biggest mistake a third movie can (or, I predict, will) make is having more of him. It is kind of helped by the other performances being only okay. It’s weird, I’ve seen every performer in this do well, so it’s not a talent issue, but there are moments where performances seem so hammy that the film should come with a label saying it’s non-kosher (alternative joke; so wooden I’m going to use them to mend my fence). None more so than Anna Lore in the opening scene. She redeems herself in later scenes, but her making the initial phone call feels off, performance-wise.

Loved the music; it’s suitably creepy and weird; reminds me of the work of Trent Reznor, and it perfectly suits the visuals Derrickson is going for. Although on the subject of music, everytime a character loudly exclaimed “Gwen!” my brain started singing this. I’m not holding that against the film, that would be stupid. I just wanted to make sure everyone who reads this is equally cursed, like when I tell people that the opening to Breakfast In America by Supertramp is very similar to Don’t Speak by No Doubt.

It is a weird sequel, but I do appreciate how realistic it is that the characters are haunted by the events of the first film. They’re both clearly suffering from PTSD. My first thought was, “a bit unrealistic, someone would have clearly given Finn therapy and counselling”, then I remembered this is set in 1982, and therapy was seen as unmanly (and to some stupid people, still is), so depressingly, his having to self-medicate his trauma with drugs is accurate.

Overall, a pretty solid experience, but one of the few sequels that is actually made worse by having watched the original. There are some stupid character moments (when trying to stop Gwen from being slowly dragged into an oven, nobody thinks to close the oven door), but also some smart ones. I appreciated how they tried to wake her up by throwing cold water in her face. Despite the moments of stupidity, it’s still a fun watch, albeit not one you’ll be dying (horror pun!) to do twice.

Good Boy (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick synopsis: A haunted house story from the POV of a dog.

Sometimes it can be difficult to sell a film just by explaining the plot. How can you sell someone on Knives Out if you just sell it as “a murder mystery drama about a rich guy”? Then there’s Good Boy. “A horror movie told from the POV of a dog”. That’s all you need. Once you hear that, you don’t need to know the director, any of the performers, or even to see a trailer. That concept is simple enough and strong enough to draw you in. For that, this has to be commended. It doesn’t fail to live up to that premise either. If you like the concept, you will love this film.

Gimmick films can be tricky because they need to be worth watching even once the novelty of the gimmick wears off. “From a different perspective” is a fun gimmick to use, especially in horror, but it has been done a lot lately. We’ve had films from the perspective of a ghost (Presence), films from the perspective of the killer (In A Violent Nature), and films from the perspective of a group of fucking idiots (Truth Or Dare). From the POV of a dog is interesting, and I can’t think of any others like it. The closest I can think of comes from video games. It adds a unique twist to a somewhat tired genre; everything is more terrifying when it’s towering over you. What will be a downside to a lot of people is that, because the main character is a dog, there’s no vocal way to convey a lot of information. You REALLY have to pay attention to enjoy this film; there’s no way you will enjoy this if you’re not 100% in. Which is a rather long-winded way of saying that this is a terrible film to watch on the same day you get your flu jab as instead of paying attention to it, you’ll sit there trying to remember the final line in the Postman Pat theme song (“he puts all the letters in his van”, by the way). Don’t worry, I have seen it again, so this review isn’t coming from a place of tired haze.

If you pay attention and give this film what it deserves, you will be rewarded. It’s fascinating. I am slightly disappointed that it does firmly place its foot in the “this house is haunted” box; there is definitely a haunting here, no doubt about it. It may have been more interesting if it were ambiguous, where we realise that what we’re seeing isn’t a haunting, it’s just something the dog doesn’t understand. Maybe a scene where it looks like his owner is possessed, but with further context clues, it turns out he’s just drunk. A fearsome creature turns out to be an animal that the dog isn’t familiar with, that kind of thing. For a definite horror movie, this does its job well, though. It helps that we care about the characters, despite there only really being two of them (and one of them being a dog). The ending is heartbreaking (don’t worry, the dog doesn’t die), and it is the best way this story could end. The heart shown in that moment encapsulates why Good Boy stands out in a crowded genre; it’s genuinely sweet at times. It helps that they picked the right kind of horror movie. It’s not needlessly violent and disgusting, or full of jump scares. Instead, it’s an exercise in creeping dread. Instead of smashing you in the face with violence, it creates an atmosphere and uncertainty which lingers over the run-time.

On the subject of run-time, it’s only 72 minutes. I admire that, I much prefer that to a longer one. Mainly because longer films sometimes overstuff the narrative to try to justify their length. A shorter film says, “yup, we know the limits of this story”. It’s difficult to see how this could be longer and still maintain the elements that make it work.

In summary, this may not be your cup of tea, but it’s a film that I’m very glad was made, purely because of its originality. I wish there were more films like this, even though I don’t really feel I need to see it again. If I’m with someone who wants to watch it, I’ll watch it. But I can’t see myself going out of my way to see it again. That’s nothing against it, it’s a fine film, but it’s never quite great.

Urchin (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Smashing Machine (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: The tale of Mark Kerr, one of the pioneer athletes in MMA.

The Rock is in a weird position right now. A few years ago, he was the biggest action star in the world, but a series of notable flops, combined with reports of diva-esque onset behaviour, has caused the world to sour on him somewhat (not to mention some of the stories he’s ruined in his role on the board of directors of Endeavor). It’s clear that he needs a rebrand. Importantly, he needs to calm down a bit and bring in his ego, instead of talking about the characters he plays as the most important ones in the whole history of the franchise, as he did with Black Adam. It feels like The Smashing Machine is an attempt at reputation rehabilitation. For one, he actually has to act. He can’t do the “shut up, jackass, I am bigger and funnier than you” shtick he relies on so much. This is probably the first film I’ve seen him in where he doesn’t rely on his charisma.

I’m surprised by just how good he is in this. This is the first time I’ve seen him and thought “he could genuinely win awards for this”. He is restrained, toned down, and clearly full of anxiety and worries, as opposed to pancakes, which is normally the case. This would not work if he gave his normal performance. At least 60% of this movie is subtext. Dialogue is replaced with a nervous look, or the audience having to piece it together from context clues. It’s strange to think that something so subdued and honest could come from the guy who played the villain in Happy Gilmore 2.

It’s not all good. There are times when you kind of wish it would show you what it shies away from. Ryan Bader gives a performance that’s okay, but is nowhere near as good as the performances he is surrounded by. No matter how good a slice of toast with butter is, if you put it alongside a perfectly cooked buttered chicken, it will not seem as good anymore. Also, this film doesn’t feel 90s. The visuals look like a cheap VHS, the colours are muted, and the music feels very 70s. I’m not saying this film should have had Limp Bizkit or Nirvana on the soundtrack; that would have been weird. But if you ignored the cards telling you the dates, you would not say this was set in the 90’s, all the film language tells you 60’s or 70s.

Narratively, it’s easy to see why some would find The Smashing Machine frustrating. There’s not much sense of cohesion between moments, which means it flows weirdly. It’s a bit like listening to a band’s greatest hits album, and it goes from their early rough stuff to a peak-of-career overproduced ballad; as good as those two parts are, it feels like you’re missing a middle step, something to bridge the gap between the two moments. It skips over some things incredibly quickly, then focuses on stuff that’s not as important. In terms of film time, Mark Kerr spends more time shopping than he does in rehab. Yes, the rehab does linger longer (“linger longer” is a fun thing to say, by the way), but it would have helped the story if we saw more of how he went through it in the first place; the struggles he had overcoming addiction. As it is, he breezes through rehab, then gets judgmental when his partner drinks. If the narrative focused more on how hard rehab was for him, then his annoyance at her behaviour would have more weight.

Overall, it’s worth a watch, though. A fascinating character study and a look at masculinity and how it can be bruised. It’s not your typical sports story, where the underdog comes from behind and miraculously wins. Instead, it’s one where someone comes from ahead and loses. Where someone’s own pride and hubris cause their professional and personal destruction. Much like The Damned United, but not quite as good.

Him (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

Zero (2024) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elio (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Elio is a small child who feels isolated and unloved. Those problems are solved when he is abducted by aliens.

It’s hard to explain, but Pixar films don’t seem like big deals anymore. The internet says it’s because they are jamming in adult themes. Themes such as “gay people can sometimes be in happy relationships and it’s not a big deal”, and “Mexican people exist”. Personally, I think it’s the opposite. Classic Pixar movies are great films that are for everything. It feels like the last few years they’ve aimed more at kids, which means it’s somewhat embarrassing to go see them at the cinema as an adult. The exceptions are sequels such as Inside Out 2, but mostly it’s felt like they’re marketed with “there is nothing for adults here” even if the messages apply to everyone.

I want to love Pixar films, I really do. But sometimes they make it difficult. It’s possible I just have very high standards for them, so a film that I would see as average, is rendered worse because I know Pixar can do better. Elio is better than average, for a start, it looks absolutely stunning. But it gets nowhere near the quality of their other work. The issues are mostly down to the script, specifically the characters. Most of the background characters are far too bland to make their moments near the end mean anything. A lot of the aliens are forgettable too; nobody is going to be making fan art for most of them. There are a few that are memorable, but mostly they’re much of a muchness.

A small issue, but it does break realism slightly that a small child can write “Abduct me” in the sand on a beach and lie there for hours without any adults staging an intervention. I also found the eye-patch a bit superflous, especially since it only really matters for 5 seconds of the entire runtime. I’m not asking for it to suddenly become “Elio: The Eyepatch Enfante”, but it feels like a massive character change for something so inconsequential. Was it just so they could do the “he’s a clone” reveal? If so, there must have been an easier way of doing that (plus, wouldn’t a super advanced cloning device be prepared for that? It does know things wear clothes, surely?).

This has seemed negative, I know. And it deserves a better reaction than that. On its own, it’s a solid 7/10. But films aren’t watched in a vacuum, and with the knowledge of just how good Pixar can be, this is disappointing. Especially when you look into the production of it, where Elio was a much more developed person. Executives forced the writers to make him more traditionally masculine by removing his love of fashion and *checks notes* environmentalism. Because, obviously, wanting to live on a planet that we can actually live on, instead of a burning ball of sewage and shit (otherwise known as New Jersey) is feminine and gay.

A massive plus is the way it looks. Visually, it’s absolutely stunning. The animation of a sentient hair crawling about on its own is cool. I said it when I saw Monsters University, and I’ll say it again; Pixar really should do a horror movie. Or do an 80’s kids movie where the aim is to traumatise as many children as possible.

In summary; perfectly fine for Disney+, but I’d have been frustrated if I left the house to see it at the cinema.

I Swear (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One Battle After Another

The Strangers: Chapter 2.

Radiohead X Nosferatu: A Symphony Of Horror

Him

The Smashing Machine

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

Together (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick synopsis: Tim and Millie are a couple who are slowly drifting apart. They then find themselves having the complete opposite problem in this Romantic Horror (is that a thing?).

Together is 70 minutes of pure body horror, incredibly weird disgusting-ness set against a backdrop of romantic co-dependency. The trouble is, the film is 102 minutes long, and that over 30 minutes really brings it down.

There’s not a specific section that’s the problem. It’s not like The Watchers, where the final section significantly dragged it down. There are just moments throughout which don’t really feel necessary, where the premise is stretched thinner than someone who curses a witch whilst saying how they want to lose weight. I get the theme it’s going for, as will every audience member, as it bashes you over the head with it. There are also some incredibly misguided moments of comedy. I also didn’t buy some of their reactions as genuine. With a premise like this, you have to wonder “how will others react to this?” We’ll never know, as the only person they discuss it with has already had it happen to them. They do meet one of the characters mothers at the end, but at the very end, just before the film cuts to black, so we don’t see how she reacts to it. This is probably because if they discuss it with some people, it would make it too difficult to not have THAT overwhelm the story, but I’m not sure ignoring it makes it any better. It’s a relatively simple fix, have them on a week away in a remote cabin somewhere, with no people nearby for miles.

This is all pretty negative so far, I know. But when Together works, it REALLY works. The climactic fusing together (does it really count as a spoiler when its ALL OVER the marketing?) is absolutely vile, in a wonderful way. It reminds me of The Substance, but more painful. The use of “2 Become 1” on the soundtrack during that scene is incredibly unsubtle, but this film can’t have subtlety when it’s as gross as it is. The performances are pretty damn good, the real-life chemistry between the two leads shines off the screen, and really adds to the story being told. On the subject of performance; Dave Franco has never sounded less like his brother, and more like Aaron Paul.

Back to the body horror. That’s really the main reason to watch this, and it doesn’t disappoint. I like how it actually has a reason behind it. There’s a narrative reason for the merger to happen, it’s explained why and how it happened. It also has a thematic reason, ties into the central messages well. It’s not just stuff happening for the sake of it, the horror has a reason and a message. That has to be commended, and is the reason for me recommending this film, even if I didn’t think of it quite as highly as everyone elses seems to. Is it a very good film? Yes. Is it an all-time classic? Not quite. But it’s quite close, and that’s more than most films could manage.

Bride Hard (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Sam is a secret agent, which is quite handy when her friend’s wedding is attacked by mercenaries desperate for GOLD!

It may not seem like it, but I do actually like films, honest. I don’t often go in and focus on small issues I can nitpick. At worst, I go in with a “this could be terrible, let’s see if it actually is”. I never WANT a film to be bad, and even if I go in with low expectations, I can be won over. For example, I watched Ghostbusters: Afterlife expecting it to be among the worst films I’ve ever seen, and came out absolutely loving it (honestly, I might prefer it to the first one). That’s a rather long preamble to say that I do not dislike this movie because I’m expected to dislike it, I dislike it because there was very little for me to like.

First issue? The casting. I don’t dislike Rebel Wilson, but she’s the wrong actress for this, mainly because she plays the same character she plays often: a sarcastic quipper who’s quick to random punches in the face. That doesn’t work as a secret agent; it would be like casting Adam Sandler as Bond. You can’t watch this and picture her character as a competent agent, not just because of how loud she is, meaning she’ll definitely get attention everywhere she goes. But also because she does incredibly stupid things. For example, near the end, she blows up a house accidentally whilst catching a bouquet at a wedding. Makes her seem kind of shit at her job. I know, it’s a comedy, but if the characters aren’t going to take this seriously, I’m not. Although considering how quickly one of her friends tells everyone she’s a secret agent, I can’t imagine she’d be one for very long after the events of this film.

You can’t lay all the blame at the feet of her character. Genre mash-ups are hard if you get the genres wrong. Horror/comedy? That’s fine. Hardcore pornography/musical? That’s harder (pun unintentional). Wedding comedy/action? That should work. Both are full of recognisable cliches, and both require elaborate set-pieces. Yet it doesn’t really work for this. Part of it is because the characters never feel like they’re in a decent action movie; they all act as if they’re in a wedding-based comedy where the biggest problem is the colour of the cake, not the armed terrorists. So in the middle of hostage situations, characters start making jokes and making light of the situation. These are not the hero characters who are used to this; they’re normal, everyday people for whom being hostages isn’t normal. There’s no sense of urgency or fear. Even when a character is shot, nobody seems to care that much. It doesn’t even factor into the plot.

Overall, it feels like nobody cares. That it was written by A.I. and performed by (normally very talented) performers who just wanted to get back home and eat a Müller Light, maybe a Müller Corner, the banana one with the chocolate cornflakes. In case you think I’m underestimating the effort, this is from the IMDB page:

“At the party, the priest is at the bar with other guys. He picks up two full champagne flutes in 4 different cuts. Each cut is to two girls talking, but when it cuts back each time, the priest is still picking up the same flutes. This happens 4 times.”

That should not happen in a movie you want people to see. Someone should have picked up on that. Either they should have got more shots on set that they could cut away to, or the editor could have found different ones to use. Someone either messed up, didn’t give a shit, or ran out of time. I don’t particularly care which one, I just care that it happened.

This really should have worked; most of the situations and scenes essentially write themselves due to the situation mash-up; have the bride be nervous about the bouquet toss, but need to throw something similar in the climax. Make at least ONE joke about how tuxedos are worn by both men at weddings and secret agents in films. Have a drunk relative walk in on an action scene and assume it’s a sex scene. Use the centre-pieces to defeat people. Have a scene of the bride’s guests choosing their dresses, then echo that scene later on when they’re picking weapons. Really, there are SO many ways you could have incredible, unique action set-pieces; none of which happen. The closest we get is a fight scene in a kitchen set to It’s Raining Men. But even that has a negative; it’s not a high-octane scene featuring impressive stunts, it’s mainly slowly sneaking around a small room, and then throwing something. It’s like the film-makers knew they needed that song, but didn’t know how best to utilise it, so they just threw it into a scene where it didn’t belong.

This could have been great; instead, it’s not even passable.