The Twits (2025) Review

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.

The Thursday Murder Club (2025) Review.

Quick Synopsis: Four retirees spend their time solving cold case murders for fun, but their casual sleuthing takes a thrilling turn when they find themselves with a real “who has done this” on their hands

It’s possible I did The Thursday Murder Club (TTMC, pronounced Ta-too-muk) in the wrong order; I watched the film, read the book, then I wrote the review. In some ways, this did help, as most of the casting is pretty spot on and easy to imagine. However, the film makes some things difficult to unsee, one of which is the size of the building. In the book, it’s almost normal, yet in the film? It basically looks like Downton Abbey. This wouldn’t be a problem for most films. But for this? It does bring out the worst aspects; the middle-class tweeness of the whole thing. The feeling that it’s watched by people who spend half their conversations going “I miss the old days when people weren’t so black”.

It’s a shame, as that does a disservice to TTMC. Yes, I expect it to pale in comparison to Wake Up Dead Man when that comes out, but that’s not for a while, so TTMC has a few months of being the best murder mystery film of the year. It’s a pretty good mystery too, especially once you realise that they’ve completely gutted a sub-plot from the boo,k which means they’re either going to change the murderer or change their motivation, otherwise the motivation will be “he’s responsible for this awful thing that nobody has decided to mention for some reason”.

Like all good mysteries, the solution seems incredibly obvious once you’ve figured it out. The clues make sense, and it is possible to make an educated guess before the solution. In fact, I’d say it’s TOO easy. There aren’t enough suspects. The book has quite a few characters who you could easily imagine being the killer. The film has around two. I know stuff has to get cut when you adapt a book, but removing suspects from a murder mystery feels like shooting yourself in the face and leading a bloody corpse (I’ve just been informed the phrase is actually “shooting yourself in the foot”).

The deletion of some of the subplots also means a key scene in the book (and the film-makers obviously realise its importance when you see who they cast for this one scene) is rendered as nothing more than a diversion, albeit a quite entertaining one. That’s the film in a nutshell: not essential, but damn charming and entertaining. It’s the cinematic equivalent of a lovely drive through the country. Really, this is perfect for Netflix, and is probably the best film they’ve released this year.

Happy Gilmore 2 (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: Gilmore returns to the sport of golf since his retirement after winning his first Tour Championship, to finance his daughter’s ballet classes

I will admit, I loved Adam Sandler’s movies as a teen. But as I’ve grown up, I’ve come to find his characters a bit petulant and annoying. Plus, his films have a weird attitude to women; with most of the love interests being more like mothers than lovers. His characters are kind of embarrassing to watch, especially since they all share the same flaws, and the lesson they learn is normally “everyone else is the problem, you shouldn’t change”. Nowhere is this more evident than in the opening of this movie; where he kills his wife accidentally, then his life falls apart; not because of grief, not because of trauma (in fact, the idea that he killed his wife playing golf doesn’t play into the narrative as much as it should, there’s no “but I can’t play golf, golf killed my wife” moments), but because he sucks as an adult and has no idea how to pay bills.

If you can still watch ’90s Sandler and enjoy it, then you will like this. There are a lot of callbacks to the original, which fans will appreciate. On the downside, the movie doesn’t trust you to remember the first film, so a lot of callbacks are prefaced by flashbacks to what is about to be referenced. That’s to be expected from a modern Sandler film; as are the other main faults: the narrative stopping so a character can make a joke, repetitiveness, and the insistence of Sandler putting his friends and family in major roles.

It’s when it’s not traditional Sandler that HG2 shows its best. The message of “no, tradition should be upheld instead of being ignored for something new and flashy” is unexpected. Also unexpected is the redemption arc of Shooter. It feels very in-character, though. Part of the reason he was the villain in the first movie was that he hated how Happy treated the game. So there’s zero reason for him to go along with a plan to change the game to the extent the villain in this movie suggests. The tributes to the cast members who have passed are genuinely sweet whilst remaining tonally consistent with the franchise. I also enjoyed one of the early golf games, where Happy is a drunken mess. That moment is helped by the people he’s playing with, who are played by Eric Andre and Margaret Qualley. It does kind of suck that those characters are never seen again. There are multiple moments where I feel they could have belonged. The villains’ super team of golfers are also an interesting group of characters, who are less developed than an improv comics stand-up set.

In summary, if this came out 20 years ago, I’d have loved it. As it is? It’s just kind of sad. Especially when it shows hints of being a much better movie.

Fear Street: Prom Queen (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: Shadyside High’s 1988 prom queen election becomes deadly for underdog Lori as candidates are targeted.

A few years ago, I changed the focus of this site from “write an article twice a week, which will sometimes consist of reviews” to “review every film I see that’s a new release”. Despite that new policy, I didn’t review the Fear Street trilogy. I’ve reviewed Netflix exclusives before, so that wasn’t the reason. It was because I couldn’t figure out whether to review them as separate entities or count them as one. If there was a bigger break between them, I would have done them separately, because I would have watched them separately. But the way they were released almost made it seem like they wanted you to binge-watch all three. So they felt too interconnected for me to treat them as separate entities.

If I had, I would have been kinder than I am towards Fear Street: Prom Queen (FS: PQ, Fish Pee-queue). I have issues with the original trilogy, but it felt better than this. Prom Queen’s biggest problem is one of horror identity. It doesn’t seem to know whether it’s dumb fun, where you’re supposed to watch and cheer the chaos, or if its supposed to scare and shock you. So it ties itself up in knots trying to serve both.

It’s not necessarily a bad film; it’s just incredibly forgettable. I watched it three days ago, and I’ve already forgotten every character’s name. I remember being incredibly 80s. In fact, it’s so 80s that it’s trying to ban the promotion of homosexuality in British schools using the EXACT same methods that people in the 2020s would use to spread hate against trans people.

The main negatives lie with the script. Most of the events happen over the course of one night, but part of the charm comes from the juxtaposition between the violent deaths and the joyful prom. Which means the prom characters need to be ignorant of the deaths. The script needs to be clever to do it, and Prom Queen isn’t smart enough. Characters split up from the prom scenes just so they can be killed off, and it doesn’t feel natural the way they do it.

On the upside, when it decides to let loose, it’s spectacular. The massacre in the actual prom is wonderfully violent and slick. It’s pure chaos and bloodshed. It’s here where the movie soars, when we see it at its best. It’s bloody, funny, and bloody funny. It also leads into the final scene at the house, which had one of my favourite deaths I’ve seen in a horror movie in a while. I’ll try to keep it vague to avoid spoilers; a character hits the villain over the head with a statue. They don’t die instantly; they don’t even die in that scene. There is no overabundance of blood or screaming. There’s just a character speaking in such a way that you can tell that their brain is fucked, and even if they don’t die, they won’t be able to live unassisted ever again. That moment is too good for a film like this.

Now, onto the three-hundred-pound question: do you need to watch the original trilogy for this to make sense? Thankfully, no. It’s stand stand-alone. It is a richer movie if you remember the others, I assume, the other films were just as forgettable as this one, so whilst I recognised there were some references, such as names, I couldn’t remember the significance of them. There’s a mid-credits scene that’s much more explicit in its reference, but feels more tacked on than the connections in the last Cloverfield movie.

From my few memories of the previous films, this does feel the weakest. That’s a shame as the performances are the best. I’ve long spoken of my love for Katherine Waterston; she’s not always in good films, but she’s always good in whatever she acts in. India Fowler leads the cast admirably, especially when you consider that she’s performing in an accent that’s not her natural one. Actually, all of the performances are good, and I’d have loved to have seen what these performers could do with a better script.

I probably will end up live-blogging the franchise at some point. But I don’t really have any love for the franchise. It exists, and I’ve watched them, that’s as far as my love for it goes. On the plus side; it is probably the best film I’ve seen on Netflix this year, but that says more about the lacklustre offerings they’ve had in 2025.

Havoc (2025) Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Electric State (2025) Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kinda Pregnant (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Lainey (Amy Schumer) pretends to be pregnant for reasons. This plan, predictably, starts to unravel.

Amy Schumer makes it difficult to trust her. Not in a “she’s gonna steal my wallet and use it to fund a trip to Legoland” way, but no matter how many brilliant films she’s in, I will never go to see a film based on her being in it. Her highs are high. Trainwreck is still an absolutely brilliant film. But her lows (Unfrosted, the bits of Inside Amy Schumer that aren’t shared on YouTube, her book) are low. Not just low, but embarrassing. It’s as if she can only do brilliant or shit, with no middle ground.

Kinda Pregnant is…..well, it’s not brilliant. Part of it (well, the whole thing really) is that the lead character is unlikable. Her motivations are so shallow that you could leave a small child in them and they wouldn’t drown. Assuming her character is supposed to be the same age as the performer, she’s in her 40s. Yet her reaction to her relationship ending makes her seem like a teenage girl. Don’t get me wrong, breakups hurt. But her reaction isn’t “here’s a woman pushed to the edge by sadness”, it’s “this woman is kinda pathetic and has zero idea how to act like an adult”. Her reaction is not based on realism; it’s based on “how can we make this movie comedic?”, but it’s too stupid to work.

It’s not just her that this affects; there are multiple scenes which feel too false to work. The break-up scene itself is painful in how fake it feels. Spoilers (for a scene at the very beginning of the movie). The relationship ends because she thinks he’s about to propose marriage, but instead, he asks for a threesome. This isn’t “oh two people aren’t on the same page”, it’s “this was obviously set up to look like a proposal”. It’s an anniversary, at a posh restaurant, with champagne and a romantic cake brought over. That’s not an understandable misunderstanding. It’s fake bullshit. You can see the narrative strings too much.

Now, the plot itself. It’s predicated on the fact that she likes the positive attention being pregnant gets her. That’s not enough. She goes from “someone complimented me” to “well, I’m gonna wear a fake pregnancy belly and go to prenatal yoga class” WAY too quickly. Also, I’ve been outside, and pregnant women aren’t treated with respect. Especially single ones. They’re told “that’s what happens to sluts. I expect you’ll be on benefits now, scrounging off MY tax money”. They’re shouted at on trains, denied seats because “the pregnancy was your own fault, so why should I sacrifice my seat because of your bad decision making? Get a job!”. The entire plot is based on something that isn’t true. It’s like that sitcom a few years ago where two men pretend to be women so they can find work. It’s a premise that’s too dumb to take seriously, even for a comedy.

The other characters aren’t any better. Some of the plot points only happen because characters are arseholes. Her scheme is unravelled when someone announces at a baby shower, “Hey, this person’s pregnant, and they’re thinking of having an abortion”. You can say it’s because “well, the character who announced it is a vapid idiot”, but nobody at the baby shower calls her out on it and tells her that she was wrong to announce it.

I suppose this could work if the jokes were funny. There are a few good moments, the bit where she gets the class to boo a small child is very funny. But those moments are too few. The attempts at humour are kinda embarrassing. Someone makes a joke about her having a moustache when she clearly doesn’t. It would be like making a fat joke about Margot Robbie; you can put it in the script, but unless you commit to the bit, it’s not going to work.

How about from a technical perspective? Again, not good. There’s a weird soft focus over a lot of the scenes, it feels like cheap 80s porn. It looks cheap. The director is the nephew of Adam Sandler, and the movie was produced by Sandler’s production company. I’m not saying those two things are related, but they definitely are. There is no flair to the shots, no creativity or attempt at visual storytelling. It feels like an Kevin Smith movie, but with a shit script.

Now onto the good. The central romance is actually really sweet. The meet-cute is cute because it’s actually believable, and it’s one of the first times we see her act like an actual human. Maybe that’s what she’s like most of the time. We just don’t know because before that, she’s always been in a state of high stress, so we have no idea what her default state is. But the moments where Lainy and Josh (Will Forte’s character) are just chatting and flirting are some of the best scenes. If the movie had a better premise, I would have loved to see this relationship in a different movie. But even the sweetest and most delicious chocolate wouldn’t be edible if you wrapped it in fried dog shit. The scenes between Schumer and Urzila Carlson are also entertaining, but in a different way. Carlson’s character is batshit insane and weird, which works well with Schumer who is insane but trying not to be.

If they got rid of the entire concept, simplified it down to a normal romcom with a mad work friend. This would have been…..well, not great, but it would have been entertaining. But the concept, and how the concept forces characters to behave, ruins any chance of this being entertaining.

Woman Of The Hour (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: It’s 1970 and Sheryl Bradshaw is so desperate for TV time that her agent books her on The Dating Game, unaware that one of the male contestants is harbouring a dark and disturbing secret: he’s from Texas. Oh, and he kills people. That’s bad too.

Woman Of The Hour (or WOTH, pronounced to rhyme with cough) is like a six-dicked Calydonian boar, a strange beast you can’t turn away from. It’s helped by a truly fascinating story. This actually happened. In 1978, serial killer Rodney Alcala made an appearance on The Dating Game, and he did win, which has to be a real kick in the teeth of the guys who were rejected. Everything else about the story is fiction. The entire story of the woman who went out with him? Fake. The woman in the audience who reports the killer and is ignored? Fake. The host of the show is a complete dick? Fake (for this one specific person). A producer making creepy comments about Anna Kendrick whilst pointing at her breasts? Fa-oh wait, that’s real, happened to her when she was 19, which sadly meant she was too young to drink, so she couldn’t go to a bar, buy a bottle of drink then use the bottle to slit the throat of that producer.

I’m okay with that kind of approach to historical accuracy. This is mainly because it never pretends to be anything other than what it is; it is a fictional narrative that occurs during a real historical story. If it was presented with a subtitle like “The true story” then I’d object. The reality isn’t important, the story and the setting is. The setting is significant. This was a time when, according to the letter of the law, women were mostly equals (sometimes), but the reality was very different. Men still felt comfortable being sexually aggressive with female strangers, who would then be told to “take it as a compliment” or “stop complaining” when they mentioned it. It’s very different from now, I’ve spoken to many men on the subject and they all agree women are treated equally now. The time is just as much a character as the serial killer (now there’s a sentence I’ve never said before).

The other essential half of the jigsaw of WOTH is Anna Kendrick. This is her directorial debut and it’s pretty damn impressive. She does have a tendency towards being overly arty and “oooo look at this” as opposed to using the camera to tell a story. There are no moments which are “bad”, nothing which makes you think “Ooof, I wouldn’t have done that”, and more experienced directors have done that (A Quiet Place: Day One, for example, featured one of my least favourite shots of the year from a coherence standpoint, and that was from a guy with experience). I hope Kendrick continues to direct, and I’m curious as to what her next move would be. I’m hoping she continues to do stories she has a passion and personal interest in (she donated her fee from this movie to charity, because she’s lovely and a badass). She’s about 2 movies away from making an INCREDIBLE feminist AF drama which I will absolutely LOVE.

Her performance is good too. The moment where she calls everyone out on their misogyny is glorious to watch. I’ve seen some reviews state she was the wrong choice, and that she feels too modern for a 1970s character. To those people I say, you’re wrong. I won’t debate this, I won’t explain this, but you are wrong.

The weakest part, for me, is the narrative. The fact he was on a tv show (you know, the whole selling point of the film) doesn’t matter. It’s not his appearance on TV that leads to his downfall, his downfall wasn’t until the next year. So really, the main crux of the film is entirely inconsequential. It’s still a good watch, but I do wish that more things mattered, that the timeline was more coherent, and that the side characters were memorable. So much focus went on the “serial killer on a dating show”, that it feels that not enough effort was put on anything else in the narrative, so it feels incredibly underbaked.

That being said, there is one BRILLIANT scene that’s not set on the show. The date. Specifically, the aftermath when she’s creeped out by him in the car park. It’s CHILLING, and makes the hair on the back of your neck stand on edge. It’s also (I imagine), a scene in which pretty much every woman alive has a “yeah that happened to me too. When? Well the first time was when I was 12, then the next time it was-” series of anecdotes which are similar.

In summary, an easy film to be impressed by. An easy film to be moved by. But also a film in which you can’t help but feel there’s something better from the creators in the future.

Don’t Move (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: When a killer injects her with a paralytic agent, a woman must run, fight and hide before her body completely shuts down.

Did Netflix gaslight us into thinking their original films used to be good? I thought they were, but looking at the list, there’s a lot of shit there. Well, maybe “shit” is a bit harsh, but for every Glass Onion, there are about 40 Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga‘s, films which are so forgettable that they barely register as being watched. Maybe Don’t Move will be different?

It starts promising, it sets the tone very quickly, and it’s really interesting. The opening kidnapping is shocking, not just because of how sudden it is, but also how cold and calculating it is. You can really see how the killer lures his victims. He picks up character information so quickly, incredibly observant. He’s essentially a detective who uses his powers for evil.

I like how minimalist DM is. There are a few other characters, but it is mostly just Finn Witrock and Kelsey Asbille. Finn Wittrock is good, but he never really feels like an individual, instead coming off as a mix between Bill “Pennywise” Skarsgard, Casey “Not Ben” Affleck and Leonardo “No Don’t Turn 26, you’re so pretty” DiCaprio. Asbille does A LOT considering she’s paralyzed for the majority of the runtime. She has tremendous eye-acting, which is essential because that’s the only way she portrays emotion for most of it. The small cast allows the talents of the two leads to really shine. It also helps Asbille’s character seem more isolated. This could have been TERRIBLE if it cut to her previous life too often (as was done in The Mercy) in an attempt to examine her life. Because we only see her in the context of a kidnapping victim, we feel scared and isolated alongside her; all we know in this world is her and her kidnapper.

I do have some issues with the script though. Not that it’s bad, but I feel it wastes potential. Whilst DM is good, it could (née, should) have been great. Her losing her body autonomy (we call that “Being An American Woman”) should have taken place in real-time, it lasts 10 minutes onscreen instead of the (I think) 20 it was said to have taken. Adding the extra 10 would have made it so much more interesting. That’s the case for the whole film actually. It’s crying out for a gimmick. Maybe that’s real-time, so we get LONG shots of her being driven to the cabin the kidnapper hopes to keep her in, the longer the drive, the more we become aware of just how hopeless her situation is. Maybe it could have done the always impressive long take, making it seem like it was all filmed in one take (as in Boiling Point and 1917) with scenes of forestry masking cuts and time jumps. Maybe if it was all from her POV, so we are truly in her shoes, feeling her fear and helplessness. Any one of those would have made it a genuinely impressive feature and would have helped it stand out. As it is, it’s just pretty good.

It’s a shame to watch a film and get distracted by what it is instead of what it could be. But this isn’t quite refined enough to distract you, so you can’t really help but let your mind wander. It’s a great concept, but there’s not quite enough in the narrative it to justify stretching it out to feature length instead of just having it as a short. It’s not, but it does have big “based on a short story” energy. This is where a gimmick would have helped it, it would have hidden the narrative swamp of boredom.

Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F (2024) Review

Quick synopsis: Do you care about the plot or are you just glad to see Foley back? Exactly.

I will admit I was nervous about this. I will go on record as being one of the few people who actually thoroughly enjoyed Beverly Hills Cop 3, probably because I had it on VHS back in the day so I got to watch it a lot. That being said; that film was released thirty years ago, and there hasn’t been anything major since then. A video game was released in 2006 but was so poorly received that it was referred to in one publication as “the 9/11 of video games”, which feels a little harsh. In 2013, a pilot for a television show was produced, but it was never shown. Let’s not be too harsh; but let’s face it, Eddie Murphy isn’t the name he used to be, and this is a francwhise that, whilst loved, isn’t missed (mainly because the last one was so poorly received). So what’s the purpose of this being made? Those concerns were raised with the release of the trailer; which made it seem tonally inconsistent with the rest of the franchise. Gone was the lightheartedness and fun, to be replaced by family drama and large stunts.

So it’s a pleasant surprise that the final product is a lot of fun. There are a few new characters, but they slot into the universe effortlessly to the point you could assume they’d been there all along. The only character that stands out is Kevin Bacon’s Captain Cade Grant. The reveal that he is the villain comes too early to count as a twist, but also arrives too late to be the basis of the plot. It’s also far too obvious, to the point where you have to wonder why they even bothered pretending he wasn’t the villain from the opening. Just show him as the bad guy at the start, then have the late reveal be that he belongs to the police, then have THAT lead to the third act shootout.

It’s nice to see the returning cast, although some have been very rude and had the audacity to age in the last 30 years, which is very disappointing to see. I do get the feeling that Eddie Murphy has slightly aged out of playing these characters. At his age, that kind of behaviour just seems reckless and irresponsible rather than “wacky fun hijinks”, there are moments when you can’t help but think “you should know better”. There are moments where his behaviour works, where it is genuinely fun to see, and that is most of the time. But like I said, there are one or two moments where it just seems weird to see him act that way.

There are few occasions where it does seem like its resting on past glories, but they are rare. It mostly works. There are fun set pieces, creative action, and some incredibly funny dialogue and interplay between the characters. It’s ridiculous, but not “he just knocked a helicopter out of the sky using a car” level like other franchises reached. Even at its most ridiculous, it does feel grounded in the reality that this universe has created.

In an uncertain world full of gloom and doom (to the point where it’s effected champagne sales), it’s nice to have something as comforting and uncomplicated as a film like this. Watch, enjoy, then eat a pot noodle or something. It’s not going to change the world, and some of the satire feels misguided compared to the potential it has, but it would be a cruel vindictive heart that is not warmed by this.