Bring Her Back (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: A brother and sister are placed with a new foster mother; she’s a bit weird.

Sally Hawkins can do anything, can’t she? At no point during Bring Her Back do you think she’s English; she slips into her performance perfectly. The supporting cast also gives performances beyond their years, especially Billy Barratt, who gives a near-perfect performance of someone haunted by trauma but trying to stay strong. It’s also clear that the Philippou brothers are tremendous directors, with a real flair for understanding what makes certain visuals work.

I thought I’d start with that so I could move onto the negatives, as I really didn’t like this film. It’s not that I actively hated it; I just wasn’t impressed with it, at all. It tries so hard to matter, to be important, to deal with themes of grief and guilt, but does so far too unsubtly to the point of repetitiveness. It makes its points, then a few minutes later says the exact same thing again (a bit like I just did with the previous two sentences).

It is possible I just don’t like their stories, as I also wasn’t fond of their previous film, Talk To Me. Reading that review again (posted here), I have many of the same issues; it didn’t live up to its potential, a lot of scenes were needless, and it was a few tweaks away from being great.

BHB (pronounced Bah-haaab) isn’t sure whether its audience is comprised of geniuses or idiots. So it veers between “now to just make sure, we’re going to have this character explain this again” and “because f*ck you! that’s why that happened”. So watching it is akin to trying to do a kids crossword and a cryptic crossword on the same board.

As much as I love how the brothers create horror, I think BHB may have been better if it weren’t a horror movie. If they instead focused on the themes of grief and loss. Keep the possession angles, just dial down the “scares” back a bit. The cult interludes feel forced, and like they are just there to get creepy moments in. That’s a shame, as if we didn’t see those moments, then when we see her attempt to do it later, it would have more of an impact. At the moment, the cult videos are more disturbing than the main product. To put it in wrestling terms, it would be like starting a card with a match full of barbed wire baseball bats to the face, and then having the main event end with a single baseball bat to the back, and the person is knocked out for 10 minutes and taken to the hospital. If you’ve already seen something more devastating, it dilutes the payoff you’re looking for.

Cutting down on the horror would mean leaving out some of the deaths, but that’s no great loss, as the moment where two characters die has all the impact of a single raindrop on a swimming pool. They feel particularly mean-spirited and pointless. If you cut them from the script entirely, it would only require a 20-second scene to fix the hole that’s left. The deaths don’t cause any lasting trauma to the characters, don’t drive the story forward, and are pretty inconsequential. So either delete them, or make them have a purpose.

In summary, I’m going to end this with the exact quote I ended my review of Talk To Me.

It’s a shame as with a few tweaks this could have been among my favourite films of the year. But I sense that everything could have been better. 

Renner (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Tech genius Renner (hey, that’s the title of the movie) has developed an AI tool to help develop confidence. A tool that’s unwittingly influenced by his domineering mother

I went into this expecting to be impressed. I knew who was in it, and I knew roughly what it was about; that was it. I don’t say this often, but if I had read more about it, I’m not sure I would have bothered. It actually annoyed me that I didn’t like it, because I know what the next two films I have to review are, and I would have liked if I had at least one positive review this week.

It’s not just that this wasn’t for me; at times, I actively disliked it. The lead character’s romance arc reminds me of Y2K, the film, not the year. He invites a neighbour to his house for an introduction. She brings a guy, and he is visibly annoyed to the point of rudeness. He’s then visibly elated when it turns out to be her brother. So, he comes across as a little bit entitled. Sentences like “I feel as if I’m being friend-zoned, this is like a horror movie” back up my viewpoint on that. You can’t be annoyed if a woman you’ve just met is wary of being at your home alone.

The other characters? They follow the same pathway of “the performances being better than the writing”. Violett Beane is incredibly charming and likeable in her performance, but that impact is lessened by the stuff the script makes her character say (You don’t get to say “it feels like my mouth had an orgasm” and then get surprised when someone turns it sexual). Her character feels like wish fulfilment; there’s not much reason for her to be into Renner. Look at it from her POV; she meets a guy who gets visibly angry at her for knowing a male. We don’t really get a reason for her to like him. Yes, you can say that part of that is due to (spoilers) her pretending to be into him so she can steal his shit. But it turns out that she does actually like him, but with no demonstration as to why. You can definitely tell this is written by a guy. The only character of the three who seems genuine is Chad, and that’s because he’s one of the few who calls characters out on their bullshit. In a lot of films, that might come off as annoying. But in something like Renner, it’s actually refreshing.

There’s some really interesting stuff done with colours. It is sometimes flat, garish, and ugly, but there are moments where it works, particularly after the monopoly conversation, where they move through colours. It’s incredibly minimalist, and when the visuals work, they really work. They look sparse, like the character is emotionally hollow. When they don’t work, they look cheap and like a student film.

I said earlier that this was clearly written by a man. That was wrong. It was written by four guys, one less than it takes to build a burger chain. This obviously wasn’t how it was done, but if you told me each writer took a scene and they never consulted with each other, I’d believe you. There are some inconsistencies between scenes that are harder to swallow than a burger van burger the next day. In particular, there’s a genre switch which doesn’t really work because it doesn’t feel right for the characters. It’s jarring, but not in a shocking Sinners way, but in a “yeah that didn’t work AT ALL” way. It doesn’t help that the key scene for this moment is shot in such a way that it appears to be a dream/fantasy sequence. It has a “looks like a dream but is reality” a few times, but the genre switch moment is the most egregious. It’s not to do with the way it’s shot, it’s entirely down to the way it’s edited.

Essentially, the problem with Renner (besides the title, which is difficult to Google) is that it has no idea what it wants to be. One of the best bits of scriptwriting I’ve ever been told was “do more with less”. Essentially, cut out unnecessary twists, plot points, and themes. It may suck as you may love them, but it improves the narrative if you cut out the fluff and focus on the essentials. I know that goes against my usual preference for ambitious failures over safe successes. But the ambitious failures I like are when I see something new. Nothing in Renner is new or original; it’s just unfocused, and the multiple attempted plotpoints all stumble over each other. If it cut out the bullshit, streamlined the narrative, DEFINITELY changed the ending, then you’d have something impressive. As it is? I can’t even be bothered to watch the trailer again, let alone go near the movie.

I do like that the film ended with a “made by humans” note. Very cute.

Superman (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: When Superman gets drawn into conflicts both domestic and abroad, his life is made harder by revelations about his parents.

For a long time, I was not a fan of Superman as a character. He seemed too perfect, like a superhero invented by a child: “he can fly, and he’s super fast, and he is the strongest, and all the women want him because of how good-looking he is”. Then I started reading some, specifically All-Star Superman, For The Man Who Has Everything, and Earth One, and then I got it. The important part of him isn’t his Kryptonian side; it’s his human side. What makes him different from other “cooler” superheroes is that, despite being an alien, he represents the best of humanity. You sense that even without his powers, he’d be doing his best to help people. The release of the Dark Knight trilogy made this attitude seem passe and naive, which led to a somewhat darker take on the character with Man Of Steel. This movie corrects that. It’s not gritty and dark, it’s bright, it’s colourful, it’s fun, and most importantly, it’s hopeful.

Which, of course, has meant that idiots have derided it as woke. The reactions to this movie seem like the kind of reactions the character gets in the movie, and from what I’ve seen of James Gunn, he’s probably making notes and is going to quote them in the sequel. Let’s get this out of the way, superhero movies haven’t BECOME political, they’ve always been political. From the days of characters fighting Russians, taking on corrupt governments, rallying against corporate greed, or even just saving their local village. They’ve ALWAYS had a message; the only reason you’re opposed to it now is because you support the villains. The presentation of Superman, the character, is almost identical to how the movie itself wants to be seen. A rallying cry of hope and kindness. There’s a moment that’s telling, when a country is about to be invaded by a US-backed government (which I’m sure has absolutely no real-world comparisons), in that moment, a small child raises a Suerpman flag, a desperate cry for help.

This is a movie that understands its characters. Not just the lead. You understand why Lois Lane is so good at her job, especially when she’s interviewing Superman, and despite knowing his real identity (and dating them), she doesn’t shy away from asking difficult questions. She is tenacious, desperate to get to answers. She provides Truth to Superman’s Justice and Krypto’s American Way (being a ball of chaos that destroys stuff). Krypto is a wonderful addition, too. There was a worry that he would come off silly, and he does, but it somehow works and will undoubtedly be many people’s favourite character. The Justice Gang are fantastic background characters, given just enough details to explain them, but leave enough out that there’s room to explore in a spin-off.

This is probably the best Lex Luthor in a while. Not just for his motivations, but his behaviour. A billionaire having a team of monkeys dedicated to trolling someone feels almost Musk-like. Keeping his ex-girlfriend in a different dimension always displays a particularly entitled form of cruelty. His behaviour is chillingly realistic, as is the fact that he has teams of people who follow him. When Superman gets the crap beaten out of him, Lex has workers who cheer, not out of obligation, but because they’ve genuinely been brought into his vision.

None of this would work without actors, all of whom are damn near perfect. Hoult continues to impress, and Corenswet easily steps into boots which others would find intimidating. I’m not familiar with Rachel Brosnahan, and it did take a while to sink in that she’s not Charlotte Ritchie from Ghosts, but once I got past that, which is entirely the fault of my own faceblindness, then I saw just how good she was. Her and Corenswet have fantastic chemistry, you can easily believe that they’re a couple. Every moment when they share the screen is electric.

Another factor that helps sell this movie is the world. It doesn’t depend on real-life celebrities. When the characters fight in a baseball stadium, it’s not the team of the New York Knicks; it’s the Metropolis Meteors. When they pass a road sign, it’s leading drivers to Gotham, and adverts for burgers are for Big Belly Burgers, not Burger King. News commentators are Peacemaker instead of Joe Rogan. This is a movie that sells its own reality, and it does it brilliantly.

It also sets up the situation well. This isn’t an origin story. We don’t see a world where Superman doesn’t exist, and then he’s introduced. The opening texts state that Superman is known, plus that he just got the crap kicked out of him. It’s a brave move for the opening of a Superman movie to show him broken, but it works.

I genuinely loved this movie, but it’s not perfect. The final third could be improved. Lex decides to cause a rift that tears across the city. I’m not sure why, but this didn’t really land with me. It felt unnatural. Yes, it was done to lure Superman into the open, but I feel there must have been a better way to do it. Earlier, Luthor shoots someone in the head just because they offered Superman food, and he then threatens to go after everyone associated with him. He could have just done that instead of tearing apart the world; it feels like he escalated it somewhat. Also, it’s a bit unrealistic that a billionaire would be arrested. There’s also an action scene which is impressively shot, but the impressive nature of it makes it harder to figure out what’s happening.

In summary. I loved this movie. It’s a film that’s sorely needed in times like these. It’s nice to see the message that in an age where people feel proud to be assholes, being kind is punk rock. Even if you can’t save the entire planet, you can still mean the world to someone.

Heads Of State (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: The UK PM and the US President are forced to put aside their personal rivalries when the plane they’re travelling on gets shot down.

This is a weird thing to say, but in 2025, Amazon originals are better than Netflix. That might be because netflix is much better at showing you new stuff, so it’s easier for me to see when they add a new original film to add to my watchlist, whereas Prime showcases stuff it doesn’t have access to unless you pay more, so your brain filters most of it unless something stands out in some way.

Heads Of State (HOS, pronounced hoes, because obviously) is not meant to top any “best films of 2025” lists. It’s not a technical masterpiece that will astond you and change the way you think about cinema. But it is exactly what it needs to be: a fun waste of time. You can tell it does WANT to be smart though. There are multiple twists and turns designed to keep you on your toes. But they happen so quickly that none of them have an impact. If I tell you “My name is Jonas, no it’s not, it’s Earl, actually it’s Who”, then when I reveal that my name is actually Slim Shady, you won’t give a shit because I’ve spent so long trying to convince you my name is something else that the actual revelation lands deader than my hopes and dreams. I’m not saying it needs to be dumber, but it would be improved if it had a more streamlined vision.

The action scenes are good, but I would expect better from Ilya Naishuller. This is the third film by Naishuller; he previously directed Nobody and Hardcore Henry, both of which had a distinctive style that made them memorable. By comparison, HOS could have been made by a number of different directors. There are moments where his style seeps through; the fight in Belarus, in particular, is a lot of fun, almost Jackie Chan-esque in how it combines violence and comedy. It’s also incredibly creative in the way it uses the surroundings.

HOS is the perfect showcase for the performers. I’m not sure whether it was intentional, but it does seem like there’s a subtext to the casting. Idris Elba, a respected actor who has honed his craft across decades, alongside John Cena, a brash American who walks in and starts getting top roles. Especially with lines like “I don’t watch your movies, I watch actual cinema”. The supporting cast all play their part. Although I’m pretty sure Priyanka Chopra is supposed to be co-lead, that’s certainly the impression the marketing gives you. HOS doesn’t fuck around with its supporting cast, having Stephen Root, Sharlto Copley, Sarah Niles, and Paddy Considine. Considine, in particular, is building up more evidence that he’s one of the most versatile performers around. He keeps going like this, and he’s going to end up in a reboot of Jaws, as the shark, and he will be magnificent.

Now it’s time for the downsides. It feels like Idris and Cena stay opposed for longer than they should. The “reluctant team-up” is a vital part of a movie like this, but it feels like they’re too hostile for each other for an unnaturally long time, especially for two people who’s jobs require them to be respectful to people they hate. There are times when it works, but those are mostly in the first half, where it would make sense for them to act like that to each other. I’m thinking mainly of their argument on the plane, where the two lay out their disdain for each other, and they both have a point. That should lead to some thawing of animosity, but it doesn’t. I’m also not a fan of one character surviving, mainly because they didn’t feel important enough to earn an end-credits appearance.

Overall, there are better films than this, but there are A LOT worse. It will be difficult to watch HOS and not, at the very least, be somewhat entertained. Although it is somewhat unrealistic that the two countries would both have politicians who are likeable.

M3gan 2.0 (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: M3gan comes back, this time as a hero.

This is a terrible horror movie. That’s mainly because it’s not a horror movie. I’m used to horror franchises delving more into action or comedy, but it’s usually a few minutes in and it’s a sign of decline. I can’t remember a time it’s been so drastic as this. There’s no traditional horror movie beats, no shots that fill you with dread or keep you awake at night. What there is, is quips, fights, and weirdness.

On the one hand, the genre switch means that M3gan 2.0 is fun to watch and will appeal to a wide audience while still keeping true to the spirit of the original. On the downside, from the first trailer, where it was made clear that this time she’ll be more heroic and will be teaming up with those who defeated her in the first movie, comparisons have been made to Terminator 2. Those comparisons are much harder to ignore when the change of genre makes the movies even closer. It’s almost begging you to make those comparisons, and when it does, it doesn’t hold up.

On its own merits? It’s a lot of fun. It’s violent, funny, and kind of sweet. It has really good characterisation. Making M3gan a hero could have backfired, but it works wonderfully. That’s helped by the fact that even when she was a villain in the first movie, her entire motivation was doing what she felt she should do to protect a child. So she could easily turn them into heroes without changing their motivation. It feels like the next logical step. Her introduction is a lot of fun, with her controlling the aspects of a smart house to defeat an invading police force, who burst into a house all guns blazing to arrest an unarmed woman and a child, but because this isn’t real life, nobody got shot.

The performances are also key, the main characters from the first film return, and it’s clear they all love playing these characters. There aren’t too many new characters, but those who are introduced fit in perfectly.

Now onto the downsides. There are a few minor ones in terms of tone and consistency, and some moments are just a little bit too much like a video game for my liking. The major issue for me is the villain reveal. I live quite near a 12th-century castle. A castle, which is a crucial part of local and national history. A castle, which is vital to tourism and is a visual centrepiece of the local area. If you visit this town, you kind of HAVE to visit the castle.

That castle isn’t as clearly signposted as the villain reveal in this movie. I guessed it from the character introduction, not only that they would turn out to be the villain, but also their motivations and reasoning. It felt so obvious as the film went on, with a few “but nobody could have known this” about things which he would have known about. It’s so clear that I felt it was a red herring; I didn’t think a movie in 2025 could be this obvious with its twist. I haven’t seen a reveal this obvious since, well, every superhero movie where a character named something like “Evil Von Murderface” turned out to be the bad guy.

In summary, don’t go in expecting scares, and you’ll have one hell of a good time. It has a lot to say about AI, specifically about the role of humanity in controlling it. It’s much smarter than it needs to be, and I will always love that. I will also always love it when, in the final product, an editor takes out a really creepy moment from the trailer.

Deep Cover (2025) Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

The End (2024) Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In The Lost Lands (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: A witch travels to the Lost Lands in search of a magical power that allows a person to transform into a werewolf.

Okay, so about an hour before I watched this, I was having an imaginary conversation with someone about how hard it is to take Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels seriously because my first encounter with one of the actors was in a comedy. The fictitious people weren’t convinced, so I had to prove it to them by watching the sketch (YouTube the Armando Iannucci East End Thug, it’s that). After the imaginary argument was won, I watched another sketch from that show, the “This House Is Made Of Paper” one. I mention this for three reasons:

  1. To increase the word count.
  2. Watching those sketches was more entertaining than watching this movie.
  3. The guy from the “This house is made of paper” is in this movie, in a serious role. So to prove a point to imaginary people, I ended up proving that point to myself. Because it made In The Lost Lands (ITLL, it-lull) difficult to take seriously.

Not that it’s an easy film to take seriously in the first place. Somehow, it’s both one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen, yet also overcomplicated with everybody switching sides and allegiances at the drop of a slippery hat. If you threw in Macguffins On A Pole, casual racism, and misogyny, you’d have a Vince Russo special. Stuff happens, but none of it FEELS important. You’re never not aware that these are fictional characters, so nothing hits.

It’s not helped by the look. You know how, when you go swimming in a chlorinated pool, and after you leave, all the light that comes from light bulbs looks weird for a while? It’s that, but intentionally, and without the joy of swimming. Even JJ. Abrams told them to tone down the lens flare. I don’t get the fascination with it; most of the time, it looks awful. I don’t know how, but even shots of sunlight hitting mountains look fake. It looks like every scene takes place in front of a green screen (which it may well have done).

The performances are…..off. They’re not necessarily bad, but you’re aware that every performer is capable of better. Nobody will use this on their highlight reel, with the possible exception of Amara Okereke, who carries herself so well that you assume you’ve already seen her in loads of stuff even if you haven’t. If there’s any justice, she can use this to land roles in the future where she’ll be able to receive more plaudits.

I didn’t expect ITLL to be good; I went in knowing it would be a mess. I thought it would at least be fun. That I’d watch it and be satisfied knowing that it’s shit, but entertaining shit, shlock. I didn’t expect it to be as incomprehensibly shit as it is. It looks bad, the story is bad, and nothing about it is memorable in a positive sense. I can only assume the 55 million dollar budget went on avocados and Starbucks, because none of it comes out on the screen. On the plus side, it’s not notable enough to stick in my memory.

Ballerina (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Trained in the assassin traditions of the Ruska Roma, Eve Macarro takes on an army of killers as she seeks revenge against those responsible for the death of her father.

Ballerina, or to give it its full (stupid) title: From The World Of John Wick: Ballerina, has a lot to live up to. The John Wick franchise is a modern classic, with some of the best action scenes ever committed to screen. Combine that with the fact that this feels undermarketed (I don’t even think I’ve seen a trailer at the cinema), and with how underwhelming the TV series was (did you even know there was a TV series? Exactly), and this was in a weird position of somehow having both high expectations, yet also having expectations that it could be shit.

I’m glad to say that this is a worthy addition to the franchise. It’s somehow both different and very similar to the main movies. Eve Macarro is not as iconic an action hero as John Wick, nowhere near as competent. But she’s not supposed to be. She’s still relatively new to this world and often takes on people bigger and stronger than her. So the action scenes aren’t about her outskilling her opponents; it’s about her using creativity to defeat them. So the action scenes have a different feel to them, but are just as good. They’re not as impressive as the previous fights, but strangely, they’re more entertaining. There are moments where it feels like a Jackie Chan movie with how it incorporates comedic set-pieces into an action scene, while not taking away the seriousness of them. Nobody is making quips or smartass comments after escaping death, but you do have characters lined up to take a killer shot, but get knocked over by another character breaking out of a freezer.

You will need to have seen the previous John Wick films for some of this to make sense, I think. You might be able to piece together why hotel staff gunned down two assassins (for doing business on Continental grounds), but I’m not quite sure it gives enough context for most people to grasp. Plus, let’s face it, the world of John Wick is a weird world, full of assassins and clandestine groups. The original film eased you into it, and then opened up the world; this drops you right into the world that’s already been created. So coming into this off any other normal action film will be a bit weird; you need to be already used to the world where pretty much everyone you meet can somehow be a trained killer.

Ana De Armas does a lot better than I thought she would. I still can’t unsee her Knives Out role, so it was weird to see her as an action hero. She does well. There’s no point where she appears superhuman or unrealistic. It doesn’t get quite as unbelievable as the main franchise did at times. The supporting cast is pretty good too. Although it is sad that this is the last appearance of Lance Reddick. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but something seemed off with Ian McShane’s vocal performance; it wasn’t as imposing or impressive as it usually is. I never realised how much Gabriel Byrne looks like a former 80s pop star. Not a specific 80s pop star, just general “I had a massive synth-pop hit in the 80s and look at me now” energy.

In summary, genuinely loved this movie. It’s as good as the other films, and adds to the legacy without taking anything away from them. I do wish it led to a crossover with Atomic Blonde, though; that film was too good to not be loved.

Snow White (2025) Review

Quick Review: A brutal look at life in a concentration camp. Nah, I’m just kidding, it’s Snow White, you know this story.

I’ve made my dislike of live-action remakes of animated movies well known. I see them as cynical cash grabs, completely bereft of any soul, passion, or reason. A lot of reviews for this movie were negative, and the online reaction was negative to the point of toxicity. That’s why I waited for it to come to Disney+ instead of watching it at the cinema. Also, fuck disney. This is a long way for me to say that you should prepare yourself for a highly negative review; full of cynicism and annoyance.

That’s what I did anyway, so imagine my shock when it turned out that I didn’t hate this. I wouldn’t say I liked it, and I definitely don’t need to see it again. But as far as movies of this ilk go? It’s certainly more charming than most. It helps that Snow White actually makes sense to be remade. It’s been a long, long time since the original, so unlike some of the other live-action adaptations (specifically the upcoming Moana), this WILL look different. Side note: it looks fantastic. Yes, it’s live-action, but the colours are astounding, so bright that at times it does feel like a cartoon. There are only two parts which let it down visually; Gal Gadot, and the dwarves.

Sorry, not dwarves, they’re not referred to as that. The dwarves (sorry, “magical beings”)are “played” by talented performers, but performers who don’t have dwarfism. This came after Peter Dinklage criticised the remake and said it was insulting. Disney responded to this by not hiring any actors with dwarfism, a decision which was derided by some actors (notably Dylan Postl) who felt the actions of Dinklage cost actors like him roles. It’s a difficult subject to talk about, especially since both sides have a point. The fact that the only roles that actors with dwarfism can get are as elves, etc, is demeaning, but it feels like not having those roles at all is worse. Either way; keeping the roles but having them played by typical actors? That feels incredibly offensive. If you cast actors who were size-appropriate, you’d actually be helping. Also, they wouldn’t have the weird uncanny-valley thing that plagues every single one of them.

The other visual problem, as I said earlier, is Gal Gadot. The costume designers etc did everything they could, the look they put together is spot on. But Gadot cannot pull it off. She doesn’t feel natural. Her physical performance feels clunky and makes it look like her face was CGI’d onto a random crew members body. At no point in her performance does she look like anything other than an actor playing a role, she never fully dissolves into it. Gadot looks like she’s playing as an evil Queen, Zegler looks like she is Snow White.

It’s weird how a lot of people (idiots) criticised Zegler’s casting when she is, without a doubt, the glue that holds the shoddy pottery of this movie together. Side note: I’ve almost definitely put spelt her name “Zeigler” at some point in the past, and for that, I apologise, mea culpa. She is quickly becoming one of my favourite performers, even though she’s never been in a film I’d consider great. She basically seems like a Disney princess already, more so than any female performer not named Amy Adams. She has charm, fantastic physical presence, and great facial expressions. Plus, she can bring the emotion and anger when she needs to.

I realise I may be overselling this movie a bit. It is, at best, a 5 or 6 out of 10. Some of the dialogue is clunky as hell, quite a few of the songs don’t work as well as they should, there’s no build up, people suddenly start singing in a jarring manner. The witch who gives Snow White the apple feels more like a cameo than an actual character, and most of the “magical creatures” aren’t given enough personality to be memorable.

The main romance works though, so it’s got that going for it.