Superman (2025) Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nosferatu (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Do you really need me to tell you the story for this? Just watch the original.

There was a lot of hype for this. I have been excited since I first heard of it back in 2016, even mentioning how I was looking forward to it in my review of The Witch (or The VVitch). Many journalists and critics raved about early screenings of it.

But then I heard from actual people; moviegoers who I like and respect. Their feedback wasn’t quite as positive. And I agree with them, I was not a fan of this movie. For whatever reason, I just didn’t care about what I was seeing. I haven’t seen the original from the 1920s, but I know it (mainly through the Kill Count video I recently watched). At no point while watching New-sferatu did I feel I was watching something original. It never felt like anything other than a remake. It’s so heavily indebted to its sources that it never feels like it has its own identity.

My other issue is the filming style. A lot of dialogue is delivered straight to the camera, from the receiving person’s POV. As such, there’s a disconnect between everybody, it kind of reminds me of television shows made during COVID where everybody had to socially distance themselves.

Eggers is a fantastic filmmaker, there’s no doubt about that. The visual style is arresting, with every frame mesmerising and haunting, particularly with the use of light and shadow. As a storyteller? I’m afraid that’s his weakness. None of the characters seem that interesting, Ellen Hunter, in particular feeling more of a storytelling device than an actual character. The title character also doesn’t seem that interesting. He’s played well, looks good, but the character itself doesn’t seem to have any presence; when he’s not onscreen, you don’t feel him looming over the narrative.

The performances are fine, Lily-Rose Depp has a haunted look which really suits the character and themes, Nicholas Hoult was made for these movies, and Dafoe continues to be fucking weird. Dafoe and Eggers work well together, their styles suit each other.

Like I said; all the technical parts? Brilliant. All the parts that require how to make a movie? Brilliant. All the parts that require imagination and heart? Lacking. Remakes should showcase and do what couldn’t be done in the original. All we have here is more of the same. It doesn’t remind me of classic Dracula stories, what it does remind me of? Gus Van Sant’s remake of Psycho.

2024 In Film: Day Eight (The Very Good)

A side note to this entry. I originally had Fly Me To The Moon here, but then I thought about it and added it to this list instead. Yup. The differences are SO small once we get this high that something can be easily knocked down two spaces based on a single flaw.

Babes
Ups: Funny.
Honest
Downs: Some scenes feel a little lazy and like they’re a first-draft.
Best Performer: Ilana Glazer
Best Moment: The meet-cute. From a writing perspective, it’s iconic and inspirational.
Worst Moment: The “bitch” scene. The way it’s filmed makes it seem like the two performers are in separate rooms recording their lines.
Opening: “THIS FILM IS SET IN NEW YORK” montage opening
Closing: She takes her child to the movie the kid’s dad was in before he died. Very sweet.
Best Line: “Best friends are screwed over as adults. If you don’t couple up you’re fucked”.
Original review here

Gladiator 2
Ups: Every character makes sense and is well-defined.
Looks fantastic.
Brutal deaths.
Fight and action scenes look like they hurt.
Downs: Is it necessary?
The historical inaccuracies will make your head hurt. It’s not just “this happened 10 years after”. Some weaponry wouldn’t exist for over 1000 years after the movie’s events. For similar timescales; imagine a film about William The Conquerer, where the invading Norman army drives Ford Fiestas. Think of how “well that’s bullshit” that would seem. Similarly; there was no way for the safe transportation of sharks to be used in the arena.
Best Performer: Pedro Pascal
Best Moment: The Naumachia, at least until the sharks turn up.
Worst Moment: Him being shown the armour etc of Maximus feels a little shoe-horned.
Opening: A beautiful opening credit sequence that looks like it’s been painted.
Closing: A new emperor is crowned.
Best Line: What does my past matter, when my future is only to die as a gladiator?
Original review here

Humanist Vampire Seeking Consenting Suicidal Person
Ups: Cracking title.
Very sweet.
When the music is good, it’s very good.
Downs: The above point about the music? Doesn’t happen enough.
Bland background characters.
It doesn’t establish the universe well enough. This is such a big problem because if it sorted that out, this would be in the next blog.
Best Performer: Sara Montpetit
Best Moment: Sasha and Paul listening to music together. Incredibly awkward and sweet. The way the characters move says so much without a word of dialogue. Paul’s revenge is also up there.
Worst Moment: Sasha breaks free from Henry in the park, hitting them. Feels weak, as if the hits have no weight to them.
Opening: It’s Sasha’s birthday, As a present, her family invited a clown over for dinner, as the main course.
Closing: Paul becomes a vampire and the two form a euthanasia team at the local hospital, draining people on their deathbeds. There’s then a scene of the two walking in the corridor, which wasn’t needed.
Best Line: I wouldn’t kill anyone other than myself.
Original review here

I Saw The TV Glow
Ups: The music.
The general feeling.
Some great performances.
Weirdly hypnotic
For someone out there questioning their gender identity, this will be THE most important film they’ve ever seen.
Excellent lighting.
Downs: It’s definitely too slow and weird for a lot of people.
Needs a clearer narrative.
Justice Smith isn’t quite confident enough to pull some of these moments off.
Best Performer: Brigette Lunday-Paine
Best Moment: Maddy explains how they buried themselves.
Worst Moment: When he’s at the cinema with a film playing behind him, mainly because whilst the Pink Opaque TV show feels real, the film does not, at all.
Opening: Some weird neon chalk drawings on a road at night. Very cool looking, it doesn’t feel like a horror movie, which I love as it helps everything feel real.
Closing: Owen breaks down at a party. Pretty damn creepy, especially since nobody reacts, they just kind of shut down like robots. He goes into a room and cuts his chest open, smiling when he finds TV static. Then goes back to work and apologises. There are a lot of different interpretations of this, which is good.
Best Line: It feels like someone… took a shovel and dug out all my insides. And I know there’s nothing in there, but I’m still too nervous to open myself up and check. I know there’s something wrong with me. My parents know it too, even if they don’t say anything.
Original review here

Juror #2
Ups: Tense.
Some great performances.
Interesting story. The kind you can tell someone and they go “Oh, I’d like to see that”
Will inspire discussion.
Downs: Bland visuals.
It wastes SOO much time.
Completely screwed over by the distributors.
It’s disheartening how believable it is.
Characters disappear.
Best Performer: Nicholas Holt.
Best Moment: Justins’ car journey, is depressing.
Worst Moment: Harold getting kicked off the case, mainly because you think it would lead somewhere.
Opening: Kind of bland opening. Hasn’t been that long but I can’t even remember it.
Closing: The assistant DA knocks on Justins’ door, so I’m assuming he gets arrested.
Best Line: We’re only as sick as our secrets.
Original review here

Late Night With The Devil
Ups: Chilling.
A lot of subtext.
Good performances.
Downs: Some wasted time.
The backstage moments completely break the immersion.
Doesn’t lead into the concept as much as it could.
Best Performer: David Dastmalchian.
Best Moment: The third-act carnage.
Worst Moment: The opening.
Opening: A documentary is investigating the events. Well not really investigating, just playing the show in full. Could have got away with cutting away from it for some sort of modern analysis etc, make it feel more like a documentary. As it is, the opening is just set up, and it all sets up stuff we would be told later anyway.
Closing: Lots of flashbacks and self-analysis. The closest a film has come to the Firefly Funhouse Match, but more normal.
Best Line: We go WAY back. We met amongst the tall trees… remember?
Original review here

Moana 2
Ups: Beautiful visuals.
New characters slot in perfectly.
Funny.
Downs: Unfocused, especially in regards to the villains.
Some of the dialogue is cringy.
The music is nowhere near as good as the first one.
Best Performer: Auli’i Cravalho
Best Moment: Assembling the crew. Always a super easy way to make a film entertaining as it allows quick jokes and character development.
Worst Moment: The death of Moana. Nobody in the audience buys it, and it’s over far too soon.
Opening: Moana has continued her adventures. Doesn’t feel like there’s been too much that has happened between the two movies. Which kind of makes it seem like the first one didn’t matter.
Closing: The island is connected to the world. Depending on how the third one goes, this is a genuine game-changer.
Best Line: “You look like a kidney stone”
“And you look like someone who would know what that is”
Original review here

Mothers’ Instinct
Ups: Some great shots.
Constantly keeps you on edge.
Downs: Doesn’t need a second watch.
Difficult to love.
Does nothing new.
Best Performer: Anne Hathaway
Best Moment: When Celine kills her husband. Slow, methodical, and brutal.
Worst Moment: The birthday party seems too cruel.
Opening: White women curtain twitching. If you know nothing going in, I’m not sure it would be as good. Knowing that it’s a thriller means you’re on edge throughout the opening, expecting something terrible to happen, instead, it’s a surprise party.
Closing: Celine adopts Theo after killing his parents. Chilling closing. Could have done a fake-out where she’s in court and made it look like she had been caught before revealing it’s for custody.
Best Line: Not really a line, but Hathaway’s scream is spine-chilling.
Original review here

Wicked Little Letters
Ups: Funny and sweary.
Olivia Colman is a delight
Fantastic chemistry between the cast.
Downs: Misleading trailer.
The “mystery” is pretty obvious.
Best Performer: Jessie Buckley
Best Moment: How they reveal the villain. Fun, caper-esque, and so damn charming.
Worst Moment: The death of Victoria feels a little misguided tonally.
Opening: Sweary letters are sent. It’s clear from reactions it’s been happening for a while. It sets up the repressed characters well and gets some good laughs in.
Closing: Standard “what happened next” reminds you that this stuff really happened.
Best Line: “It’s German”
Original review here

Juror #2 (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Justin Kemp (Hoult) is called to jury duty for a man accused of murdering his girlfriend, a man Kemp knows is innocent because the actual killer was him, during a distressing car journey home on that night.

I will admit, I was a little lost going into this as I hadn’t seen Juror #1.

Now that that terrible joke is out of the way, I can get serious. I’m not going to, but the option is there. Juror #2 can best be described as a competent movie. It’s possibly Clint Eastwood’s last movie as a director and a fine film to exit on. Eastwood is a good director, but let’s face it, his real talent is picking really good scripts. That continues with this, where his directing never really gets better than “serviceable”. Actually, that’s mean, I suppose “functional” would be more accurate. There are no bad visual moments, but nothing that will really impress you.

Something like this isn’t about the visuals though, it’s all about the story and the performances, both of which are pretty damn fine. It’s not perfect. There are definitely a few scenes that don’t do enough to justify their inclusion. That’s especially disappointing in a legal thriller. When you watch a film based on truths coming out, where characters are trying to hide their past actions etc, you expect things to matter. If a random scene happens, you expect that it’s actually important and will matter. There’s a scene here where the main character picks up the phone that belongs to the lead prosecutor (played by the About A Boy pairing of Nicholas Hoult and Toni Collette) after she accidentally drops it in the car park. There are a lot of ways this could have come up again; maybe she uses it to get his fingerprints, and maybe she will remember something about him later on. Nope, nothing. It doesn’t even tell us anything about the characters. That’s followed by another scene which is an intro to jury duty, again, completely unnecessary. It feels like it was only there because the writer did their research into what happens before you serve on jury duty, found out that you go into a room and watch a video before the trial starts, and wanted to show off that research.

There’s some great character work here. So many of the jury members have enough backstory and motivations to come off as believable. It would be nice if a few more of them were fleshed out, especially because of all the wasted scenes. There’s one weird character. Harold, played by JK Simmons is written almost TOO well. He’s a former detective who takes an interest in the case. His interest in the case gets him kicked off the jury, which is realistic. He then doesn’t appear again. Soooooooo, what was the point of that? Are we to believe that he just stopped? “Well, I’m not part of the case anymore, so who gives a shit?” If anything, he would feel more free. He can investigate it as a private citizen on his free time now he’s not locked in a jury room all day.

The performances? Pretty damn good. Why don’t films cast Nicholas Hoult as a leading man in romance films? He has the best eyes. The rest are pretty good, it is weird to see so many English actors in SUCh an American movie. Zoey Deutch is a delight, as she always is. Eastwood does cast his daughter, but it’s a minor role, the kind of role that’s okay for a nepotism hire as you’re not exactly going to get a major performer in such a small role.

Renfield (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: Renfield (Nicholas Hoult) wants to escape his life of servitude to Dracula (Nicholas Cage). Dracula is less than thrilled with this prospect.

If you look at the cast of Renfield you get a good indication of the tone: Awkwafina (she’s a genius), Ben Schwartz (he’s the WOOOOORST), and of course, the two Nicks; Cage and Hoult. That alone tells you that this will not be an intense character study. It’s going to be fun(ny), it’s going to be as subtle as a crowbar to the nuts, and it’s going to be weird. This feels destined to be a cult movie, it’s ultra-violent but in a weirdly “Rated 15” way, and has a lot of fun moments. If you’re a fan of the Dracula mythos, particularly the cinematic depictions then you’re going to find a lot of fun references to appreciate in this. Some of the references are very obvious; with the director changing the filming style to show an obvious homage to the 1931 depiction. Whereas some are more subtle, depending on musical cues and mannerisms. Cage’s Dracula is obviously based on the performance of Christopher Lee, and you couldn’t ask for someone more bombastically perfect than Cage.

I’ve seen some criticism that Cage isn’t in it enough, with people saying he should have had more focus than Hoult’s character of Renfield. I feel that’s an entirely subjective viewpoint, and people are just critiquing a film for not being exactly what they think it should be. It’s obvious this film is going to be about the character of Renfield, it’s literally the title. I actually like the character’s interactions with Awkwafina’s Rebecca Quincy. There’s a nice warmth to their interactions. Awkwafina is a great choice for the foul-mouthed idealistic ball of energy, playing well off Hoult’s more deadpan and “seen it all before” world-weariness.

Cage isn’t in Renfield much (the film, not the title character), that is true. But the shadow of his character looms over the narrative heavily, with his relationship with Renfield coming off more like an abusive relationship. That’s not accidental by the way, it’s flat-out stated in the dialogue that it’s like an abusive relationship. It’s a really smart choice and allows for some good laughs which are only possible in this film. The fight scenes are also full of unique moments, featuring set pieces and stunts which you’re not likely to see in lots of other media. I do appreciate how they didn’t just mine the “Big Book Of Action Set Pieces and Jokes” for this, they thought of unique moments and lines and then put them in, it shows that they actually put the effort in.

Now onto the downside; I wasn’t a fan of a moment near the end. The main characters bring back to life a number of characters who were slaughtered by Dracula earlier in the film. My issues: why only them? A lot of characters die, and not many get brought back. Also, it kind of minimizes their deaths and the potential emotional impact they had. It doesn’t even really seem worth it, if you deleted the resurrections then you wouldn’t miss them from the narrative. It just feels like it was done to end the film on a slightly lighter note and give the good characters a “happy” ending. It’s a shame as there are some parts of the ending which I love. What they do with Dracula’s body is hilariously twisted and brilliant, the definition of necessary overkill (yes, I know that seems like a contradiction but trust me).

So, in summary, I would recommend this, it’s a lot of fun and even if you don’t like it you’re likely to be amused throughout. Plus it teaches us a very important life lesson; you can use cocaine to solve your problems.

Recasting….The Saga Of Darren Shan (a.k.a: Cirque Du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant)

Vampires_assistantWelcome, welcome, welcome. We’ve been doing this for a while now and thought we’d try a new series: Recasting. In this we’ll both be looking at established franchises and casting our ideal movie versions. Throughout the series we’ll be looking at franchises such as Batman, Justice League, Artemis Fowl etc. But we’ll start with The Saga Of Darren Shan, a literary franchise which isn’t well known, but is well regarded. Now, this has already had a film adaptation (to stretch the definition): Cirque Du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant. But our casting for this will probably be different. In fact, I’ll be surprised if we had any cast members at all from the film. So, let’s begin.

NOTE: We will be using pictures from the Darren Shan manga (yes there is one, and it’s awesome) for comparisons, as its a WAY better adaption of the books.

Darren Shan

Played in the film by: Chris Massoglia

Asa Butterfield as Darren Shan

asa-butterfield-jacob-porter-miss-peregrines

Darren

Though at this point 18, with his timid and youthful look he could easily pass for around 13-15 (as young as he’s played before). That is still older than the 11 year old Darren at the start of the series, but this is Hollywood so having him start a bit older I think is fine, as long as they don’t make him seventeen or something (¬_¬ looking at you thoa who shall not be named). Having already led films like Hugo (amazing), Enders Game (decent), and X+Y (pretty good), he’s already proved himself as a capable leading man with a talent for heart and action. And his natural timid deminer I think would suit Darren, who’s always been shyer and would give him room to grow into the badass he becomes later in the series.

c977213066ca47b4191dd9c41aee4108This was actually the hardest one for me. I had to find a young enough actor who would age well with the series. One who could have both the youthful naivety of the first few books, with the fight of the last few. So in the end I decided to go with: Nicholas Hoult. When you watch About A Boy you just see the look of innocence on his face. Someone who still has hope and joy, then you watch Mad Max: Fury Road years later and you realise he will cut a bitch

 

Larten Crepsley

Played in the film by: John C Reilly

Peter Capaldi as Larten Crepsley

tumblr_n40lqncAB41qk2h4go5_1280sleepy_mr__crepsley_by_bleach_red_abyss3-d4b5kd3

Because who fucking else. If his run as the Doctor has proven anything, it’s that he can be dark and brooding when he needs, but also light, funny, and heartfelt. He has the look, he has the presents, he is Larten Crepsley. And no one else could possibly do better.

Going to keep this short, and keep it simple. As this is the one where I feel we may have chosen the same actor. Peter Capaldi, from The Thick Of It, Neverwhere, and a small indie low budget show called Doctor Who. It’s got to the point now where I don’t even have to think a bout it, if I read Crepsley, I read it in Capaldi’s voice. It just works so well, not only in dialogue but in the clothes and actions too.

 

Steve Leonard

Played in the film by: Josh Hutcherson

Logan_lerman

Logan Lerman as Steve Leonard

Though typically known for his more timid troubled characters, like in Perks of being a wallflower (best film of 2012) and Fury (damn good flick), it’s that same bitter darkness I believe could lend well to Steve’s chasteveracter, as he is so messed up and troubled. He also has a much broader physical presents than Asa Butterfield, and his ability to come across sweet and caring as well as intense as fuck (again Perks of being a wallflower) I can definitely see him in a strong opposition to Butterfield.

misfits_s2_iwan_rheon_002_FULL

Ok, this was hard, I needed someone who could appear friendly but also have an undercurrent of psychopathic killer. As such I settled on Iwan Rheon, better known from Misfits. He played a nice character in that, but I feel he could pull off angry psychopath quite well. 

 

 

Mr. Tiny

Played in the film by: Michael Cerveris

Jim Broadbent as Mr. Tiny

Par2220395
Again I have to agree with my writing colleague; Jim Broadbent has that perfect mix of charmingly harmless but with this clear dark undercurrent to him that would lend perfectly to Mr Tiny. Because Mr Tiny needs to have an off charm and humour to him, he can entertain you while also being able to make you shit yourself. And that’s Jim Broadbent in a nut-shell.

6bbd588d2b6338484eab45604d594f641382363851_fullThis was actually quite difficult as well. As he has to be someone who has all the capabilities of being charming and lovely, but also just pure evil at the same time. As such, in the end I went with Jim Broadbent, Horace Slughorn from Harry Potter, and Slater from Only Fools And Horses. This is an actor who looks like everybody’s favourite uncle, albeit an uncle you’re fairly certain keeps dead bodies in his basement. Actually, now I think of it, he’d pretty much just be bringing back his performance from Hot Fuzz.

Others

Gary Oldman as Mr. Tall

Sir-Gary-Oldman-gary-oldman-30389354-397-600

An odd choice, but a good one. Mr Tall has 78422always been an ambiguous character, the leader of Cirque du freak and possibly so much more, he needs to loom confidantes with a tinge of menace, but also be a kind soul who can sympathies with his many freak comrades. So of cause Mr Oldman not only has the acting range to pull off all of the above, but he has the stoic look and presents to match.

Some of the others I felt would work:

index

Kurda Smahlt: Chris Addison. Also from The Thick Of It. I feel he could pull off the huhnervous and manipulative nature nature of the character quite well.

 

 

reynolds_horrorx-large

Vancha March: Ryan Reynolds. Specifically: Bearded Ryan Reynolds. A slightly sarcastic loudmouth vampire fighter. I feel he’d do well.hu