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.

They Cloned Tyrone (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: A series of eerie events thrust an unlikely trio onto the trail of a nefarious government conspiracy.

I think my slight apathy to this is all on me. I didn’t watch the trailer or read much about it, I just saw the title and the synopsis and made my mind up about what kind of film this would be. I assumed it would be a silly wacky comedy. It’s definitely not that. I mean, it is funny at times, but it is also INCREDIBLY serious at other times. Let’s be honest, Netflix originals do not have the “must-see” status they used to have. Their output over the last few years has included The Gray Man, Red Notice, and a slew of Adam Sandler films, so not exactly. There have been a few impressive ones but they’re mainly adaptations or sequels; All Quiet On The Western Front, Glass Onion etc. So with a film like this, something a bit silly is to be expected. Because of this tonal misexpectation (not a word) it’s possible I didn’t fully buy in as much as I would have otherwise. Don’t get me wrong, it is a really good piece of filmmaking and storytelling. It’s difficult to say what genre this belongs to but if I had to categorise it I’d say it’s Sci-Fi Blaxploitation Mystery Satire Thriller. That’s very ambitious, especially for a first-time director like Juel Taylor. It’s a difficult balancing act and I’m not quite sure he manages it. There is a lot to like about it. It’s slick, it’s stylish, it’s sooooo damn smart. Much smarter than Netflix deserves. I’d like this a lot more if I watched it at the cinema, but watching it at home just felt kind of wrong.

Taylor is obviously one hell of a writer/director. There’s a scene where the characters are just sitting in a chicken restaurant (think more KFC than Nandos in terms of lighting) and everybody around them starts laughing. That’s all it is, people laughing. It’s somehow one of the most unsettling scenes of the year. It’s at its best when it is taking itself seriously; when it goes full batshit insane conspiracy. That’s when TCT is at its smartest and most entertaining. But then it lets itself down by just going a bit silly.

The performances are as good as you expect. By this point it’s expected that John Boyega and Jamie Foxx can give good performances, Teyonah Parris isn’t as well known but still gives a great performance, and plays such a different character than she does in the MCU which is where most people would probably know her from.

It looks great, a lot of love has obviously gone into creating this visual style, and that effort certainly pays off. There are a few moments where it’s a bit too dark to figure out what’s going on. But mostly it works visually. The soundtrack also really suits it.

In summary, it’s worth seeing, it’s an intriguing watch; albeit one that doesn’t quite live up to the potential it offers. On that note; the next review will be Dream Scenario.

All Quiet On The Western Front (2022) Review

Quick Synopsis: A German language adaptation of the classic Remaruqe book of the same name.

This was expected to do good business come award season, after watching it, I can see why. It’s very much an “awards” film. It has some truly beautiful shots, it’s an adaptation of a book, and it’s about “things”. It’s definitely an “important” film, and superbly made. The performances are near perfect and they will definitely make you feel emotions, and will also make you think about the horrors of war and how unfairly young lives can be snuffed out so worthlessly on behalf of others.

But will you enjoy it? It’s all well and good being a technical masterpiece, but I will always favour something I enjoy over something I’m impressed by. Avatar: The Way Of Water (or to give a name nobody else would call it: ATWOW) was a technical masterpiece, whilst I Blame Society was weirdly shot and had multiple audio issues, but I don’t go around telling people they need to watch Avatar, whilst I have annoyingly told everybody to go watch I Blame Society (which I will continue to do until every single one of you watches it). This isn’t quite up there with ATWOW in terms of technical brilliance, but it’s not down there with how much I didn’t enjoy it. I did like this film, I just don’t need to ever watch it again.

Weirdly, despite being a deeply important film, and dealing with pertinent themes, it’s not going to stick in my memory. There are moments which will, a few moments which I’ll be able to tell people about as an example of why this film is good, but overall? You could show me clips from it and I wouldn’t recognise it, I don’t even think I could point out any of the cast in a line-up (so if they do commit a crime, I’d be a terrible eyewitness, but don’t commit crimes).

I’ll admit, I haven’t read the book, or seen any of the other adaptations of the book, so I can’t judge it based on that. I can’t, others can, and those who are, are not being kind. A lot of the vitriol towards AQOTWF (pronounced Aquotwoof for those making notes) comes from Germany, where the book is required reading in many schools, and as such, is a country very familiar with it. The general consensus seems to be that Edward Berger was so “horny for an Oscar” (direct quote) that he missed the themes of the book. There are particular issues with the way the film ends. In the original book, it ends with a notice of the main character’s death, saying “He fell in October 1918, on a day that was so quiet and still on the whole front, that the army report confined itself to the single sentence: all quiet on the western front.”. In this? He dies as part of a moving cog in the machinery of a loud combat scene. Not only does that betray the themes of the original work, it means the title isn’t even relevant anymore in a way that I haven’t seen since I Am Legend.

There are other issues with it, this AQOTWF is strangely anti-French, distractingly so at times. A lot of the scenes which haven’t been carried over from the original texts are misdeeds of German soldiers, their watches being stolen by their own people in military hospitals for example. This, combined with all the scenes of French soldiers brutally massacring Germans makes it a strange watch. Even the ceasefire scene is mainly focused on how Germany wants peace but France won’t accept it. Not only is the whole thing anti-French, it also doesn’t feel like a message that a film should be putting out at this time. Germany was an invading force during this conflict, so the whole thing feels like what a Russian film talking about the current conflict in Ukraine would be like: “the invading armies were all kind and wonderful, the natives were terrible violent sociopaths”.

It’s a shame, without the changes, I feel I would enjoy this and appreciate it more. But art isn’t released in a vacuum, the context of the general world influences opinion. And the more I think about AQOTWF, the more disappointed by it. It could have been great, it should have been, instead, it’s just very good but never necessary.

The Pale Blue Eye (2022)

Quick Synopsis: Detective Augustus Landor investigates a series of grisly murders with the help of a young Edgar Allan Poe

I suppose it had to happen. I’ve had a run of really good films so far, with every single one worth watching again. So I suppose it’s inevitable that eventually I’d get a film I didn’t like in 2023. It’s a shame, but this is probably the longest I’ve been into a year before that happened. Also, the first Netflix film I watched this year which just goes to show something, I’m not sure what, though.

So why doesn’t this work? It should, it has a really stacked cast. Look at the names involved: Christian Bale, Toby Jones, Timothy Spall. What connects those names? All British. The film location? 1830’s New York. Which (and I’ve checked a map), is not Britain. I get sometimes actors play different nationalities, and it’s usually not a big deal. But for this many members of the cast to not be American feels a bit weird. This could have been a great showcase for young American talent. The biggest non-British performer is Gillian Anderson, and she’s almost British as she’s spent large portions of her life here. Just to check, America still has actors, right? Or are they just depending on comedians now?

At times it’s beautiful. The location lends itself well to stylistic shots of landscapes, and it suits a story like this. The director, Scott Cooper, also directed Antlers, which you may remember I was not a fan of. And if you don’t remember, here’s the link anyway, warning, I do go off on a weird tangent for……well pretty much all of it.

The other issue? It’s hard to get through. Not because of content or strangeness, but because at times it is painfully dull. Ultimately, it comes down a poor script. It doesn’t know what kind of film it wants to be. Does it want to be a gothic horror? A murder mystery? The most annoying thing about the script is how much it fumbles what should be the highlight. The reveal of the murderer towards the end. One, the things that needed to happen are a little hard to believe. There are so many coincidences and weird character decisions. The scene showing the reveal isn’t even exciting. It tells you who the murderer is, then explains the motives, then shows you the murders in flashbacks. We didn’t need a scene of them killing people or approaching them, we know it happened, and we gain nothing from a barely lit shot of someone punching someone and shouting “who else was there?” at someone.

It’s a shame as I really wanted to enjoy this, I was hoping the Poe thing would give the film a sense of intelligence and darkness, as it is, you could replace Poe with anybody and it wouldn’t change the plot much at all.

The Adam Project (2022)

Quick synopsis: After accidentally crash-landing in 2022, time-traveling fighter pilot Adam Reed teams up with his 12-year-old self for a mission to save the future.

Ryan Reynolds and Netflix Originals don’t have the best reputations. Red Notice was thoroughly mediocre, and when I mentioned I was watching 6 Underground, the reaction I got from people on Twitter was one of sympathy. This should be better though, directed by Shawn Levy, who made Free Guy, which was a lot of fun. So this could be awful, or it could be brilliant, either way, it wouldn’t surprise me. So is it worth watching? Kind of. I mean, it’s good, but it’s “streaming good”. By which I mean, it’s good, but not good enough that you want to make an effort. If you had to go to the cinema to watch it, or pay to stream it, you’d be very disappointed. But since it’s on netflix, you’re not paying for this individual film, so you have no financial investment in watching this. That’s for the best as it’s only ever a 7/10. I watched it about a week ago and still can’t remember that much from it.

That’s not to say it’s bad. It’s very funny at times, and whoever decided to cast Walker Scobell as a younger Ryan Reynolds? Give that man a raise. It’s one of the most perfect child castings I’ve seen in a long time, not so much visually, but Scobell absolutely NAILS the mannerisms where even if you weren’t told he was a younger version of Reynolds’ character, you’d know it. Reynolds does his usual, which is all he needs to do in a film like this. I am a massive fan of him but I will freely admit he doesn’t always pick the best films. But when a film he’s in is bad, it’s never because of him. Jennifer Garner and Zoe Saldana feel too inconsequential in this to comment on. It’s strange as they both play characters who have the potential to add a lot of emotion; the main character’s partner, who was declared dead so it’s the first time he’s seen her in years, and his mother, who he regrets being rude to whilst she was alive. Both of those have massive potential to be heartbreaking, but they are underdeveloped by the story. Jennifer Garner, especially, seems to disappear from the film after a short while, only meeting her future son once, and not really having too in-depth a conversation with them. Catherine Keener is her usual delightful self, she’s going through a real purple patch in terms of roles, and this continues that run, I’m now at the point where I can tell the difference between her Mary Steenburgen, and Kathryn Hahn which considering that in reality they look absolutely nothing alike, isn’t worth bragging about. Again, she should be given more to do. She’s also unfortunate that she is subject to CGI de-aging technology, and it doesn’t quite look right. Wouldn’t it have been easier to age up future-her with make-up rather than de-age with CGI? Probably cheaper too. Feels like they CGI de-aged just because they could, not caring if they could do it well.

The plot? Well, there’s nothing in here that will surprise you. It’s not exactly a film that you’ll struggle to follow, no matter how drunk you are. Time travel stories lend themselves well to narrative trickery and weirdness, and it never really happens in this. It never goes beyond the surface level. That’s fine, not all movies need to be EEAAO, but it is frustrating to see potential wasted like this. This could be fantastic, but it never does anything to stand out. The visuals are only okay, the story is basic, and I can’t even remember the music. Compared to how music is used in similar films like Back To The Future, where certain songs are now impossible to separate from the film, this has nothing. Well, I say nothing, there’s a scene near the end which is damn near perfect. If the rest of the film was as good as that, it would be among the best of the year, as it is, I can already forget I’ve seen it.

The Bubble (2022)

Quick synopsis: The cast and crew of a blockbuster action franchise attempt to shoot a film while quarantining at a posh hotel

I don’t think I trust Apatow as a writer anymore. The last thing of his I really enjoyed was Trainwreck, and that was something he directed, didn’t write. Other than that, lately, his stuff just seems like it’s all just deleted scenes from other movies. Funny People was far far too long, This Is 40 just seemed kind of cruel, and a lot of times his characters are unsympathetic. Plus he casts like he’s still a young up-and-comer, casting his friends and family whenever he can. I do wish Apatow would stop casting his family members in major roles. I get he wants to see them in it, and he can trust them easily. But I don’t think Iris Apatow was the best choice as one of the main cast. I’m not saying that being Apatow’s daughter is what caused her to get the role, but I have a feeling it was. I really don’t get how she was the best option for the role. Especially when Maria Bakalova was cast in the film in a smaller role. An ensemble-cast film like this means you can’t have any weak links, and having someone as inexperienced as her alongside performers like Karen Gillan, Pedro Pascal, and Keegan-Michael Key just makes her inexperience stand out even more.

But maybe Judd Apatow’s writing saves this? Nope. The whole thing feels like a first draft. It’s really weirdly paced. You’ll have a two-minute scene set during the day, then a short one set at night, and then another one set in the day. It’s just weird and means you don’t get a good grounding of time passing. Time passes so quickly that you don’t really get that feeling of suffocation. It also repeats itself, as well as repeating itself, and worse of all; it repeats itself. There’s a montage of the characters in the second quarantine where some are just drinking and doing drugs, some are going crazy with the quarantine, and some are learning lines. It kind of feels like it should have been shown during the first quarantine section. Would have been a good introduction to the characters, as it is, it’s just confirming personalities we’ve already seen. It’s a repeating of a situation we’ve already seen, and it’s not entertaining to see it again that long into the film. It’s like the whole plot has been brought back to the start. The way that montage ends is weird too, it doesn’t have a definitive end, just cuts to a scene of characters talking, so it makes it seem like those characters are breaking the isolation bubble. It would be very in character for them to do so, and they actually do that, sneaking out (in a scene which either didn’t happen or if it did, was very forgettable).

That’s not the only montage btw, there are quite a few of them, and most of them are pretty bad. It feels like the film is trying to aim itself at the TikTok crowd. It’s trying SO hard to be young and “hip”, that it just comes off like it’s as old-fashioned as someone in their 30s who still uses the word “hip”. Maybe that was done because montages are good ways to show characters quickly, and this film has so many characters that juggling them is difficult. It fails at that, btw. Most of the characters are ridiculously underdeveloped. It doesn’t help that we only see them at their worst, so we don’t really get a sense of who they are. They’re not helped by the dialogue they’re given. “you remember the reviews from your last film Jerusalem Rising”. That is a terrible sentence because it just feels really fake. I don’t think you’d mention the film title, or you’d mention just that. You’d say either “you remember the reviews from your last film”, OR “you remember the reviews from Jerusalem Rising”, it’s weird they mention both. Feels fake. It’s just blatant exposition, and it’s terrible that it’s one of the first lines in the film.

The film also starts with the hotel staff being briefed. They’re the best parts of the film, and if it was focused more on them it would be a better film. It would allow us to see the Hollywood lifestyle from the outside, and get a better view of the madness. As it is, the Hollywood stars are the main characters, so it feels too much like rich people watching other rich people. It’s incredibly toothless as a satire of film-making. It’s the film equivalent of government-approved satire. It doesn’t have a point to make, it’s just surface-level jokes.

On the plus side, I did get a kick out of a character being called Bola, mainly because I called a character that in a script and it’s nice to see a name like that used by actual filmmakers. Most of the cast are good, and the central idea is fine. It also does a good job of setting up the fictional franchise. It has moments where the potential shines through, but they’re quite rare. Really the main issue is one bad piece of casting, and a bad script. So that’s ALL Apatow. If he was replaced, and everything else the same (the casting, the concept etc), it would have the potential to be one of the best of the year. As it is? Bitterly disappointing. Oh, it also has a really awkwardly funny moment with Beck singing a song about dinosaurs. And a Miley Cyrus cover of Blondie.

The Gray Man (2022)

Quick Synopsis: When the CIA’s top asset — his identity known to no one — uncovers agency secrets, he triggers a global hunt by assassins set loose by his ex-colleague.

Bless netflix, they keep trying. The way people consume movies has changed, and netflix, logically, wants a piece of that. Big-budget, loud, explosive blockbusters always sell to the masses, so that’s what they try. They’re not going with small actors and directors either, they’ve roped in Will Smith, Ryan Reynolds, The Rock, Adam Sandler, Scorsese, De Niro etc. But they still can’t quite to the level needed. Yeah, the stuff gets watched by people, but the effects don’t last long. Just compare that to the television shows they’ve done; you don’t need to have watched Stranger Things to be aware of it. Stranger Things, Sandman, House Of Cards etc, they’ve penetrated pop culture in a way that none of the Netflix original movies has managed.

So, does this movie break that underwhelming run? I mean, it’s got Ryan BabyGoose, Chris Evans in full heel mode (and reunited with fellow Knives Out cast member Ana De Armas), it’s based on a successful book (which has sequels, so easy to franchise), and made by the Russo brothers (no, not Vince Russo, even netflix aren’t that stupid), who directed two Captain America movies, and the last two Avengers movies (you may have heard of them). So all pre-watch indicators say that it should be great.

I mean, obviously, it’s not, if a film was that good, I wouldn’t have waited until the third paragraph to let you know. That whole preamble was just to set up the inevitable disappointment. It’s alright, but it’s been less than a week and I’ve already forgotten a lot of what happened. The trouble is it never feels like it has its own identity. Die Hard is “the film in the skyscraper”, John Wick is defined by its stylistic choices. There’s no equivalent way to describe this. I’m not sure how you would define this movie in terms of describing it in a way that makes it stand out (I’m not sure “That Netflix Action Movie” counts). You won’t watch other films in the future and think “ah, they stole that shot from The Gray Man”. You’re not going to hear someone in the future say “I was inspired to get into film-making/writing by watching The Gray Man”. All it does feel like is a tribute to other films. The whole thing feels like a remake of a 90s Harrison Ford film which starred a young Ben Affleck as the villain. A film made in 2022 shouldn’t feel as dated as this does. It is possible to do a spy film, adhere to the tropes, and not feel as 90’s as this one does.

It does have it’s good side; Chris Evans playing an evil prick is always entertaining to see, and Ryan BabyGoose never fails to bring it, De Armas continues to impress but still needs THAT role to take her to the next level. Personal opinion, they messed up on one bit of casting. There’s a character at the start (Sierra Four) who is an assassin who worked for the CIA and gets killed while attempting to expose corruption. Considering the genre, and the pull that the Russo brothers have, they should have had a big name here. A fun cameo to please the audience, instead it’s just some guy. I mean, no disrespect to Callan Mulvey, he’s a talented performer, but it definitely feels like a wasted opportunity.

That’s a good summary of the film really: it’s good, but you really feel it could be better if it cared.

You Are Not My Mother (2021)

Quick synopsis: In a North Dublin housing estate, Char’s mother goes missing. When she returns, there’s something “different” about her.

I will always be a sucker for a slow-burn horror film. Don’t get me wrong, I adore a fast-paced slasher with blood from the outset. But there’s a weird sense of satisfaction I get from watching the closing section of a slow-burner, when everything comes together and the tension starts ramping up. This is one of those, it’s not the quickest film, not going to be one where you’re sitting there thrilled throughout. But it is one where you’ll be watching and enjoying. It’s the cinematic equivalent of when you read a book by the fire, and you’re so hooked that you finish the whole book in one night. It’s genuinely a compelling watch. It’s set in Ireland, the quiet modern world providing a lovingly simple backdrop to the haunting narrative. That’s the best location for this story, I feel if it was in a large city it wouldn’t have the cosy familiarity that it needs to work. It would also require a different type of audio, you’d need the sound of the hustle and bustle of city life, so you couldn’t get the silence and the darkness that this needs for the narrative to breathe.

That’s the best way to talk about one of the possible downsides of this film, it is slow, and that won’t be for everyone. There are also some plot points which are started, but not really closed. I know that closure is unrealistic, but there are some things which feel like they’re forgotten. Trouble is, I’m not entirely sure how you could have closed them without disrupting the narrative. It’s really tricky, and really picky of me to point out. You also get the feeling that this might work better as a short, it does struggle to fill the length sometimes. There are also moments where characters don’t question things which they probably should, it feels like this is just because if they asked questions and investigated, the film would be over quicker.

This is Kate Dolan’s debut feature as both a writer and a director. She’s found success in her shorts, creating the award-winning Catcalls back in 2017. There’s been a lot of promising debuts over the last few years, particularly in horror, especially from female creators. Some have shown promise (Umma), some have shown potential but aren’t quite there yet (How To Deter A Robber), and some instantly get you into the creator (Censor). This is up there towards the higher quality, I won’t exactly rush out and have a NEED to watch everything she has done, but if I’m watching a trailer and I see the words “By Kate Dolan”, it will be the deciding factor about the film. She has a great talent at narrative misdirection, but then making it seem like the ending was the only possible way, almost like it’s mocking you for thinking one thing was true. Her directing is pretty much spot on too. She knows when to inject suspense into a scene, and when to have it play like a drama. The biggest compliment I can give her as a director is it’s a horror movie that doesn’t feel like a horror movie. That’s a weird point I know, so I’ll just explain it. Often things in horror movies only happen because they’re horror movies: there are people just walking around a house while creepy music plays and they’re terrified. But if you think of it from their reality, they don’t hear the music, so what are they scared of? It makes you very aware you’re watching a movie. This plays out like a drama, so when the horror moments happen, the grounding in reality that the film has established means the horror feels real. These aren’t characters in a horror movie, these are real characters who are living, and are having a horror movie happen to them.

Her work is aided by the performances, the central 3 (Ingrid Craigle, Hazel Doupe, and Carolyn Bracken) work so well together that I could watch a film that’s just the three of them in a room talking for 90 minutes. Carolyn deserves special mention purely because of how physically demanding her role as the mother (and “mother”) is. She technically plays two roles and carries herself differently in both. There’s one scene in particular where she shines and is a great example of her talent. She’s dancing around the room, very graceful and elegant. But then it gets weird, and the dancing has a strange, almost violent energy to it. It is still elegant, but it’s a violent elegance that is beautiful to watch but also terrifying.

That’s how I sum up this film: terrifying elegance. The biggest disappointment is that it’s on Netflix and I didn’t get to see it at the cinema.