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.

Unfrosted (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: A completely untrue story about the origin of Pop Tarts

The biggest thing Unfrosted (shortened to U, pronounced “chabatwangkluman for linguistic reasons I can’t get into) has going for it is that it is very very silly, and demonstrates how silly it is by playing it completely straight. The fact everybody takes all these things so seriously despite the fact it’s ridiculous just demonstrates how absurd a lot of this is.

But that’s also kind of its biggest weakness. Stoic reactions in a comedic world can work, Airplane is an example of that. But that requires ACTORS, everybody in this is a comedian, and they’re all playing the straight role. This feels like a waste of their talents. Jerry Seinfeld is the most affected by this. He’s known for his wit and comedic timing, so it’s weird he wrote himself a role in which he doesn’t get to display any of that. Especially since his acting skills could be improved. Don’t get me wrong, he is a tremendously talented comedian and writer, but he’s a bad actor, and always has been, even back in the days of Seinfeld.

The trouble with EVERY character buying into the silliness is there’s no real way to ground it, nobody is pointing out how stupid it is. As a result, everything feels disconnected, making it very hard to buy in. Without a reason to buy in, it occasionally comes off as a marathon of references and “Future popular thing? That will never catch on.” The story isn’t that compelling either. You don’t actually care about what happens. As such, there’s no reason to be invested. It doesn’t feel like a feature film, it has the air of an SNL sketch stretched out far far too long to the point where it seems a bit obnoxious and like it only exists so the cast can show off how funny they are, in other words, an SNL sketch.

This review may give the impression that I didn’t care about Unfrosted. Truth is; it’s one of the funniest films I’ve seen this year. The jokes are like a chronic masturbater who has just recovered from surgery which meant he couldn’t use his hand; they come frequently and with great satisfaction. You may not be invested in the story, but you’re never bored. If you don’t understand or like a certain joke, there will be another one in a few seconds that you will like. It’s not going to change the world, make you reassess your feelings about something, or make you forget that Seinfeld is now one of those comedians who complains about how “woke ruins everything”, but it will make you laugh, and sometimes that’s all you need. Plus, in a world where a biopic for a shoe genuinely exists (and is pretty good), is one about pop tarts really so far-fetched?

Spaceman (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Jakub Prochazka (Adam Sandler) is a Czech astronaut, six months into a space mission and starting to feel the effects of both isolation and the growing emotional distance between him and his wife. Also, there’s a telepathic spider called Hanuš

I have not been kind to Netflix movies lately. In my defence, they haven’t been good. I think 2023 was the first time since I started this site that every film in the “Amazeballs” section at the end of the year was a cinematic release. I can’t remember the last time a Netflix original movie excited me, and then delivered on that promise. Actually, I can, it was Glass Onion. My hopes aren’t that much higher for something that’s not only a Netflix original but also an Adam Sandler film. Don’t get me wrong, Adam Sandler is capable of doing great things. To the point where I don’t actually think it’s as much a surprise as people say it is when he gives a good performance. But his Netflix stuff has seemed to be an excuse for him and his friends to get paid vacations.

Sandler does give a great performance though. As I said, it’s no longer surprising when he does so. What is a surprise, is that his character is supposed to be Czech. We need a Czech actor. It’s not that he gives a bad performance, but it’s like if Michael Sheen played Martin Luther King, no matter how good he is, you can never fully buy into it. The other performers are all good, and it’s impossible for Carey Mulligan to not be great, Paul Dano gives an INCREDIBLE voice performance, to the point where you don’t realise it’s him. Really though, this is a showcase for Sandler. It’s essentially him screaming out “What the fuck do I need to do for you awards fuckers to take me seriously?”, turns out the answer, by the way, is “Don’t work with Kevin James”.

I’ve criticised isolation-based films for focusing too much on flashbacks, and how doing so means the characters don’t actually feel isolated because half of their screen time is spent with people (whatever that Colin Firth one was, Eternals etc). But here the flashbacks are shot in such a way that they are distinct memories, it does something rare in cinema; it makes us genuinely believe that he is remembering those things. The way they’re done, they feel like actual memories rather than long-distance not-instant replay. They’re slightly “off”, they’re shot differently from modern life, and there’s a sense of ethereal otherness to the whole thing.

Gonna give a weird criticism; the spider moves too fluidly. It looks fantastic, but it doesn’t have that slight jerky/hydraulic leg movement that spiders have. The limbs are more like a cat than a spider. Now this could be argued it’s because it’s a space spider, not a land-based one, but still. Jakub also doesn’t seem to respond to Hanuš the way you’d expect. He just kind of backs away, tries to kill it, then comes back and starts talking to it. He doesn’t view it like the horror he would think it is. Spiders are creepy bastards anyway, giant space spiders that can talk? That’s pure horror. Yet it doesn’t ever really feel like he believes that. He treats it more as a mere inconvenience.

In summary, if this was at the cinema I’d say you should probably see it, but because it’s on Netflix? If you have that streaming service, you should definitely watch it. Set aside some time on a Sunday afternoon after dinner, put it on, and then get ready to feel something (not yourself). I should say though, no matter how good it is, it’s never good enough to stop you thinking of the Babylon Zoo song.

Lift (2024) Review

Quick synopsis: A group of thieves plan to steal $500million a shit load of gold from a dickhead.

Palestine, Ukraine, economic turmoil, in these trying and confusing times it can be nice to have something to ground yourself, something that you can hold onto that you know is real. So thank Netflix for bringing us Lift and providing us with an undeniable truth; some films are utter shit.

F. Gary Gray has a weird history as a director. Sometimes he brings us Friday or Straight Outta Compton, and sometimes he brings us Men In Black: International. Lift belongs more in the second camp. It’s so by the numbers it’s basically a children’s colouring book. When you watch it unfold you’re not surprised or entertained by anything. There are moments where you can guess what’s going to happen, not just in terms of narrative, but also in terms of action scenes and dialogue. Everything has been done before, and done better.

Lift even copies the stupid things from action movies. They do that usual chase scene thing of using the “make go fast” lever/button when it’s dramatically convenient rather than when it would have been best to use it. It feels like the writer took a bunch of modern buzzwords like “NFT” and “hackers”, and then got AI to write the script. It has the “yes they’re thieves, but they’re the good guys” BS that’s prevalent in a lot of similar stories, but they’re not really good. Yeah, they’re stealing art from dickheads, but they’re doing it entirely for selfish reasons. Also, I’m calling BS on the “we’re the best thieves in the world” claim as the police know every single member of the crew. Not just names, but also their roles within the organisation, their addresses, and their contact details.

I’m also not entirely sure WHY it had to be this group of misfits who helped get the MacGuffin back. The movie states “We legally can’t get the gold because the transaction itself is legal”. But Interpol plans on taking the gold once it’s been retrieved. By doing that, they wouldn’t be able to do anything with it EXCEPT return the gold to the first person, who will then just make the deal again.

I don’t know enough about physics to call out the flight scenes as unrealistic, but even I know enough to doubt the scene where one of the planes flies upside down steadily for an extended period of time. I’m guessing there are more instances which will cause people’s heads to explode, but that was the most obvious. I do know enough to know that planes flying over the English Channel don’t tend to need to be wary of mountains. There’s not really an extended mountain range in Folkestone or Margate.

The worst thing for me about those errors is how unnecessary they are. Just don’t mention the mountains, say “high winds”. Make up a different reason for the crew being needed (maybe they used to work for the Big Bad so have inside information etc). Use a heist method which doesn’t involve flying a jet upside down. All of those are easy fixes for unnecessary problems. The fact that these problems are all over the film like Bill Cosby on an unconscious woman raises concerns. Concerns that the scriptwriter either didn’t realise they were problems, didn’t care, or was told to put these problems in by the studio. Neither of these scenarios is good. It just adds up to the feeling that nobody involved in this plane crash of a movie gave a shit about making it the best movie they could. Nobody went in with the intention of bringing 100%, they just did what they were paid to do, and then left. Nobody cared, and that’s evident throughout.

A plane heist is a unique idea, and one that could be interesting to watch unfold. As it is, it’s hard to recommend something as lazy as this. If nobody involved is going to care about a film, then why should the audience? Billy Magnussen is dope as fuck though.

2023 In Film: Day Five (The Okay)

All Quiet On The Western Front

Ups: Some beautiful shots.

The best use of silence in a war movie

There are moments where the sound effects, the turning wheels, the sliding doors etc, almost seem like beats accompanying the music. Phenomenal sound work.

Downs: Bit too oscar-baitey

Weirdly anti-French.

Not really the right time for a film like this.

Best Moment: The scene with the dying French soldier. Haunting.

Worst Moment: The bits which were invented for the film.

Best Performer: Felix Kammerer

Opening: A few shots which I was pretty sure were paintings when I first saw them.

Closing: He dies, JUST before the war is over. Utterly pointless, and very in keeping with the story being told.

Best Line: All that’s left separating us from an armistice is false pride.

Original Review here

Apocalypse Clown

Ups: So funny.

Makes the most of the premise

Utterly ridiculous, in the best possible way.

Downs: Loses its way a bit in the middle.

Most of the performers seem to be doing tribute performers to other actors.

Best Moment: The creation of Funzo. Provides a heartbreaking backstory to what could be a one-dimensional character.

Worst Moment: The conspiracy theory section seems a bit of a pointless detour.

Best Performer: Natalie Palamides. Her character, as written, is already the highlight of the film, but her physicality is tremendous. Even the way she eats ham is notable. She is never not on.

Opening: “They say you should never give up on your dreams, but what if you should?” A nice happy way to start the film off, over scenes of destruction. Considering it’s a relatively small budget the scenes of apocalypse look pretty decent. There are large fires, derailed trains etc.

Closing: It wasn’t the apocalypse, a Garth Brooks concert created a power surge. Hilarious ending.

Best Line: When discussing how they accidentally set fire to their friends: “I thought it said laughter fluid”

Original Review here

Cassandro

Ups: Interesting story.

Downs: The editing is a bit choppy at times.

He gets loved way too quickly.

Best Moment: When a fan on a talk show thanks Cassandro for giving him the courage to come out to his father. His reaction is perfect, you can tell he’s happy, but also slightly envious that his father didn’t react the same.

Worst Moment: The moment where his mother dies doesn’t quite hit as hard as it could do

Best Performer: Gael Garcia Bernal.

Opening: Character walks into a run-down gym. Lots of locker room banter which is pretty much just “wanna fuck?” stuff. Then a match starts. It’s good at showing the location etc. There’s no glamour etc, just a grotty warehouse and dirt. He then watches an exotico match and is entranced by the reaction, especially after the unsatisfying feeling he had for his match. A really quick way of getting character motivations over.

Closing: He has a frank and honest discussion with his homophobic father. Incredibly powerful.

Best Line: “I needed you, at a certain point in my life I needed you, but now I don’t. And that’s okay”

Original Review here

Dungeons And Dragons: Honour Among Thieves

Ups: More competent than you’d think

Clearly made by people who were passionate about the project

A lot of fun.

Downs: The characters don’t take the threat seriously

The big bad isn’t pushed as a big deal so feels inconsequential.

Best Moment: The swooping transformation.

Worst Moment: How it takes so long for them to realise the villains’ plan

Best Performer: Sophia Lillis

Opening: Narration

Closing: More narration

Best Line: “I don’t want to see you die. And that’s why I’m leaving the room”

Original Review here

El Conde

Ups: It leans into the weird premise brilliantly.

There’s a sense of music in the way it’s shown, the actions flow very well.

Some very clever nods to cinematic vampire lore.

Downs: The black-and-white appearance may put some people off.

Far far too much narration.

I get the fact they have an English language version, but was it necessary for them all to have very British accents?

A vampire Pinochet after power isn’t as interesting as a vampire Pinochet in or rising to power.

Best Moment: Carmen flying. Yes, it looks quite fake, but there’s a real sense of playfulness and beauty to it.

Worst Moment: The execution of Marie Antoinette. Only because the scene of her head being held up looks fake.

Best Performer: Paula Luchsinger

Opening: A rousing military march being played on a record player over a black-and-white scene. Instantly sets up the military theme. Then a Margaret Thatcher sound-alike talks about a vampire comparing blood tastes. This leads into the themes incredibly quickly. Then leads into how vampire Pinochet came to power.

Closing: Thatcher and Pinochet survive. Literally, as opposed to modern Britain where it’s just their ghosts and horrific ideas that survive.

Best Line: If you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman.

Original Review here

Haunted Mansion

Ups: Funny

Smart characters.

Good starter horror movie for kids

Downs: Poor choice of opening.

Needs more memorable music.

Weird choice to release it in summer.

Best Moment: The police sketch artist, genuinely laughed out loud.

Worst Moment: When it’s revealed that Travis’s dad is dead, mainly because it seemed really obvious and surely everybody assumed that was the case.

Best Performer: LaKeith Stanfield.

Opening: Ben meets his wife. Kind of sweet, but not really needed and might have been better as a flashback later on.

Closing: Halloween party. Here’s where the lack of memorable music hurts it most.

Best Line: I know this place isn’t as warm as I hoped. But I’m gonna light a vanilla candle, and it’s gonna be a game-changer.

Original Review here

Napoleon

Ups: Bloody

Some great battle scenes.

Downs: Everybody has an English accent so it’s difficult to tell people apart.

Long

Historically inaccurate

Terribly paced.

Best Moment: The Siege of Toulon. Does a decent job of showing his strategic side.

Worst Moment: The first exile, seems to happen too quickly.

Best Performer: Vanessa Kirby

Opening: Marie Antoinette gets beheaded by a guillotine. She’s not mentioned again but I assumed she died. A good way of setting up Napoleons’ motivations. Also lets you know how bloody the film is going to be, it doesn’t shy away from the gore but it’s never gratuitous.

Closing: He’s exiled. It doesn’t really do a good job of selling that he was there for years. It does tell you, but it would have been better to show so that you truly sense the isolation and despair his final years consisted of.

Best Line: “You think you’re so great because you have boats!” hard to figure out why it’s hard to take this film seriously.

Original Review here

The Hunger Games: The Ballad Of Songbirds And Snakes

Ups: Some good character work.

Looks dystopian

It has the balls to kill a disabled child.

Brutal.

Downs: Terribly paced.

Wrong choice for the protagonist.

Needs a sequel, but won’t get one.

Best Moment: The bombing of the games. Comes out of nowhere and is genuinely shocking.

Worst Moment: The entire final section. It cannot be overstated how much everything after the games just KILLS the momentum.

Best Performer: Rachel Zegler

Opening: General Snow dies. Not the most exciting opening.

Closing: Coriolanus becomes a full-on asshole. Doesn’t really feel deserved.

Best Line: Corals dying words.

Original Review here

Chicken Run: Dawn Of The Nugget (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: Ginger and Rocky are now raising a child, one with ambitions of leaving the farm they raised her in.

The original Chicken Run has a weird place in people’s hearts. It doesn’t feel like it’s many people’s favourite film, there’s not exactly a rabid fanbase who do yearly showings and conventions about it and discuss its themes at left. That being said, it is a comfort film for many people. It’s a film which whilst people don’t LOVE, it does give them a place of warmth and security. That’s, you know, if you ignore the Mel Gibson of it all.

The recasting of Gibson made a lot of sense, his career has never really recovered from people discovering he’s a massive racist (by which I mean, “he uses racist words”, not “he sometimes criticises Israel when they kill children”). Whilst he’s not box office poison (the reaction to Hacksaw Ridge proves that), he is box office Evri, his involvement will drive more people away than it will bring them in. Zachary Levi is a good replacement though, providing enough emotion and vocal depth to the performance that you don’t really miss Gibson. I have a bigger issue with Thandiwe Newton being in this. Julia Sawalha was great in the first one, and her being recast for seemingly no reason genuinely annoys me. It’s claimed it’s because she sounded too old, but Newton is only 4 years younger, so maybe it was to get a bigger name? Either way, it’s bullshit, and did kind of sour the whole experience for me.

It kind of sums up my issues with the film. It doesn’t seem to have the same warmth and cosiness as the original. It feels more, well not cynical, but more business-like, as if they were focused on the reaction it was going to get rather than what they were making. It has a Paloma Faith song. That somehow feels wrong, she’s too cool for this. Especially since it seems to be recorded especially for the soundtrack. It just kind of feels like a tonal misfire, it would be like if Wallace and Gromit used a Stormzy track.

That’s a shame, if this was a stand-alone film, I would rate it relatively high. It’s funny, it looks good, and it’s f*cking weird at times. A joke involving an eye-scanner made me laugh so much that I spat out tea (such a sad waste of tea). It is also genuinely unsettling at times, more kids’ films should aim to occasionally scare the living shit out its intended audience. There’s one area where this is better than the original; it has much more emotion. It definitely has an air of “aiming at the parents as well as the kids” with how it’s got themes of parental worry and a need for independence.

I mentioned the cast briefly, this has quite a few new voices, and they work. Bella Ramsey sounds exactly how that character should sound; with the right mix of youthful enthusiasm and paranoia. My personal favourite was Josie Sedgwick-Davies, who (at the time of writing) doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page. Her character could be annoying if it was voiced wrong, but Sedgwick-Davies makes it work, with her character coming off as endearing rather than frustrating (it helps that her voice makes her sound like someone who goes on Bake Off and bakes rainbow cakes which look weird). She’s absolutely fantastic and I love her in this. Curious as to what she does next, but she’s on my radar for now so I’m hoping it’s something good.

So in summary; because this is on Netflix, I’d say you should watch it. It’s a great Netflix film, but only a good Aardman one. If you’re looking for a good family movie, you could do a lot worse than go with this. I mean, you could also do a lot better, but still.

El Conde aka The Count (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet is a two-hundred-and-fifty-year-old vampire. Now tired of his life, he wants to die at last after the disgrace and family crises he has caused.

I’m going to start by saying that El Conde is a bit like a personal time-piece you can use to help you find the Arctic: it’s a polarising watch. It features some truly evil things; vampires, murders, Margaret Thatcher. It is nice to have a vampire film where the vampires aren’t shown as sexy anti-heroes but as vile, remorseless killers. This is the closest they’ve come to feeling like horror movie villains in a while. These aren’t vampires you’re supposed to laugh at, admire, or masturbate to, they’re ones you’re supposed to be scared of. This sense of fear is created by some shockingly violent imagery and acts. The scene of him beating a prostitute with a hammer is INCREDIBLY brutal. The whole bedside massacre is really. But the hammer is particularly so, the camera shows the hammer making contact with her face, caving it in.

It’s not just horror though, there’s a sense of playfulness to parts of it, like a knife cutting into something in time with the non-diegetic music. It also has some cracking dialogue and funny scenes. The idea; that Pinochet was a creature of the night born from an unholy vampiric Thatcher, is unique, and really gives you, as an audience, something to sink your teeth into. A concept like that is just ripe for satire, the idea itself is satirical; taking the “rich people draining the lifeblood from the poor” from a metaphorical idea to a literal one. Lines like “English blood is his favourite of course” are said with pride, and lines like “all generals that conquer have the absolute right to ransack, and to keep a fortune!” are said as though they’re obvious truths. The point is arrived at VERY quickly, there’s no long set up getting to what we want to see. For that, El Conde has to be commended, with Pinochet’s history and rise to power coming in a few minutes.

This brings me to my big issue with El Conde; it’s about a Pinochet who has been removed from power and is now living in secrecy on a farm. That’s just not a very interesting approach. If we see a vampire dictator we don’t want to see one hiding with no power, reflecting on his life. We want to see one rising to power, using his viciousness to kill his way to the top. Or we want to see one leading a country, putting down rebellions and foreign threats with his supernatural abilities. Both of these would also allow the satire to hit harder, we’d be able to see the disparities in wealth, most of this takes place on a random farm, so just isn’t that interesting visually. It’s a shame, as there is a great concept somewhere in this, but it feels like the script is actively avoiding it.

This is a foreign language film available on Netflix so by watching it, you need to ask yourself an important question. Sub or dub? Engage in submissive sexual intercourse, or listen to dubstep. One is a shameful act only performed by perverts, which should be kept behind closed doors and never shown on television, the other is sex.

Oh, it turns out that “sub or dub” actually means “subtitles or dubbing?”. I’d go for subtitles for this, not only because it allows you to watch it as originally intended, but also because the dubbing choices are terrible. It feels like it was done cheaply, as every performer has a very English accent, but still litter their sentences with random Spanish words. It just doesn’t sound right, and at times feels like it’s approaching parody.

Larrain is obviously a talented director, everybody who has seen Spencer can tell that, and this is the best way to tell a story about a retired dictator vampire. But like I said, THAT’S not the most interesting movie. Still definitely worth a watch though; the intoxicating performances and references to classic horror films mean that it’s a difficult experience to turn away from. And for a Netflix film, what more could you ask for?

Apocalypse Clown (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: After a mysterious technological blackout plunges Ireland into anarchy and chaos, a group of washed-up clowns travel the country for one last shot at their dreams.

Apocalypse Clown is ridiculous. But it’s aware of it. Comedy horrors can be difficult to get right because if they lean too far in the direction of comedy then the horror doesn’t work, and if they lean too hard into the horror then you risk the comedy coming off as inappropriate, with characters witnessing horrific and traumatising murders, and then making jokes about it like the deaths of people not named Henry Kissinger are funny. The director, George Kane, has previously directed episodes of Inside Number 9, so he has a track record of being able to balance the two genres effectively.

He’s helped by the characters taking the situation seriously, the threat feels VERY real throughout, so even when people are dying in ridiculous ways (Like when a character nearly died from being creampied repeatedly, I heard rumours that’s how David Cameron kills pigs), it still feels horrific enough to hit the right horror notes, like John Carpenter at a keyboard.

Now onto the (kind of) negative. If your exposure to British media is big-budget films, reality shows, or bleak murder shows, then the performances are fine. If, however, you’ve watched much comedy then you are left with feeling that too many of the performers seem to be doing tribute acts to other performers; David Earl is doing Joe Wilkinson, Fionn Foley is basically MC Grindah as a clown, Amy De Bhrun is very Sharon Horgan, Ivan Kaye is Roger Allam (he’d also make a good Desmond Tiny if they were to redo Cirque De Freak), so when you’re watching it, you are slightly distracted by thinking “who does that guy remind me of?”. That being said, Natalie Palamides is a f*cking delight. I mean, it’s weird for me to say that “being a tribute act to a better performer” is a bad thing but then also praise Palamides based on the fact she has a real Carol Kane energy. I think the difference is that cinema sees a lot of despondent clowns, but very manic excitable Carol Kane types. It helps that Palamides feels like the only performer who threw out the script and is just making shit up as she goes along. She’s the epitome of vulnerable chaos and I absolutely love her. It would be so easy for her to overegg her coulrophilia pudding (that sentence is clearly there just to make people google coulrophilia, and enjoy the strange targeted ads you’re going to get). Palamides plays it perfectly though, she never feels too much, like she’s trying too hard. She’s an incredible physical performer, turning a scene as simple as “eating ham” into something incredibly unsettling. Her tornado of chaos also means that when she acts scared, it sells the situation. If a depressed and nihilistic clown is worried, not a big deal, but if a psychopathic clown is scared, shit has got real.

In terms of visuals, it’s fine. There are a few moments where you feel a bigger budget might have improved it, but it mostly works. The opening scene showing the chaos is incredible for a film of this budget. The music could have been better, I can’t really remember any of it to be honest, which is a shame as this is apt for a scene of soundtrack dissonance, playing a bright and cheery song over scenes of brutality.

The script could be a bit more focused, there’s an entire subplot which could be removed and the only impact it would have is to slightly lessen the impact of the ending. On that topic; the ending reveal is SUPERB. I haven’t seen a reveal this satisfying and unexpected since Bodies Bodies Bodies. Before this, Killers Of A Flower Moon was locked on to win the award for best ending, now it has competition.

So in summary; it’s on Netflix so you really should watch it while you can. It’s not the greatest film in the world, but it’s a welcome distraction in a world full of war, famine, and Piers Morgan.