I.S.S. (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Tensions flare in the near future aboard the International Space Station when a worldwide conflict breaks out on Earth

Not really relevant to my opinion of this film; but that title is terrible. It’s an awkward mix of being too short to google effectively, but also too clunky to say out loud. It’s also incredibly bland. I suppose that sums up the film itself though; bland, unoriginal, and not something you particularly want to find.

It’s hard to say exactly WHY this doesn’t work (which doesn’t bode well for this review). It looks fantastic, zero gravity is hard to pull off on-screen without it looking too fake and like they’re just being pulled along by wires. There’s never a second here where you don’t believe they’re floating around like a lost balloon (only with less chance of having a duck choke on them). The scenes of nuclear explosions on Earth could look better though. I’m not sure what they could look like, but the way they’re done here makes them look more like a video game, specifically Civilization.

The plot itself is pretty good actually. A look at paranoia, claustrophobia, and how citizens can suddenly become pawns in a game they have no desire to play. On paper, this should be a tension-filled masterpiece. Yet it’s not. The performances are all there, the directing is good, but they just don’t seem to mesh together. Separately they’re all fantastic, but it feels like they’re all trying to make different movies, so there’s no sense of a cohesive style. It’s a political thriller directed like a science fiction action movie, starring actors who think they’re in a horror movie. Gabriella Cowperthwaite is obviously talented, but she needed to tell people “That’s a good idea, but it’s wrong for this”.

I think part of the problem is the sound. If you had your eyes shut, you wouldn’t feel the tension. There’s not really a score to help match the scenes, and it also doesn’t utilise silence effectively. You’re also not really given a chance to see how big the ISS actually is. We see it from the outside and see bits of it inside, but there’s not really much indication of how far things are from each other. It looks like the whole thing takes place in a section no bigger than an ordinary-sized flat. So it’s presented as a small area, but it never feels like they’re hemmed in too close to each other in a way that ups the tension. It also doesn’t feel big enough that you can imagine someone feeling isolated from their colleagues.

It would also be useful if we were provided more background into the world. Why are Russia and the US at war? Are other countries involved? Importantly; what is left of the world after the nuclear weapons have been launched? We know that some elements of the space agencies/military are still available, but that’s it. What makes it even more frustrating is that the characters themselves don’t seem interested in answering these questions. The reason that it’s important for each country to gain control of the space station also feels a bit weak. Spoilers; they’re fighting so one of the sides can get control of the cure for radiation sickness. I feel if it got out that one side did have that, the other side would just focus on destroying infrastructure instead, meaning you wouldn’t die of radiation sickness but would starve instead. Also, they don’t need the whole space station for that. Look at it from the Russians’ POV: You assume the Americans have received a message saying “Take over the space station”. But if you are aware of what that’s for, and also that you have the cure for radiation sickness with you, would you not just say “We’re leaving, the space station is yours”, and secretly take the research with you as you jettison back home. You don’t need the ship, you need the contents of a locker. It’s like shooting up a school so you can get your homework back.

This is a fairly decent watch, which is the worst thing. It had potential for greatness, everything about it screams out “modern classic”, but it only reaches “pretty good” at best. Seeing that wasted potential is such a disappointment, and makes me think of it as worse than it actually is.

Civil War (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: In a dystopian future America, a team of military-embedded journalists races against time to reach Washington, D.C., before rebel factions descend upon the White House.

I have watched lots of terrible films, some at home, some at the cinema. Some, I’ve slowly realised are bad as the film went on (Lucky, or ironically Alex Garland’s previous film Men), and some I knew were going to be shit from the opening moments (Wolf, Hellboy), and a few I knew would be shit before they even started but I knew I’d get a decent review out of them (Thunder Force). But no matter how bad a film is, or how torturous the experience is, I have one rule; stay until the end. There have been a few cases where I have got up IMMEDIATELY at the fade-out, but I made sure I stayed until then. Civil War is the closest I’ve ever come to walking out of a screening.

Not because it was bad, or I objected to anything in it (and in a film about an American Civil War there was potential for it to be very problematic in terms of themes), or even because I didn’t like what I was watching. It was just so unbearably brutal and bleak that I felt I needed a break, just for a few minutes so that I could compose myself and face what was unfolding. Civil War is one of those films which seems horrific and terrifying until you sit down and think about it and realise it’s actually somehow more horrific than you first thought.

That’s the point of it though. People have come out against the film for “not picking sides”. In a way, they have a point. It’s difficult to know how to feel about certain factions because you don’t know their motivations. All we know is that the president has done some awful things. But we don’t know why. The war itself isn’t given any background, and the main opposing faction is comprised of both a red and blue state, so it’s difficult to assign any political leanings to it. We do see one group who are torturing and massacring any foreigners or people they see as “un-American”, but they’re shown as being unaffiliated with any of the main rebel factions. Similarly, it mentions an “Antifa massacre”, now is this a massacre committed by anti-fascists, or one committed upon them? The film doesn’t say.

It’s easy to see why this would annoy people. They need a side that is right and wrong, and they need to feel like they’re on the right side. I don’t think it matters though. If someone is threatening to shoot you it doesn’t matter what side they’re on. Unless they’re Israeli in which case, you’re obviously Hamas and deserve to be killed, even if you’re an unarmed child laying sick in a hospital bed. The point of this movie isn’t that you’re right, or even that you’re wrong and need to change your ways. The point is; war is fucking shit. It’s not fun. It’s not glorious, it’s not inspiring. It’s fucking shit and brutal and people will be killed unnecessarily. It won’t be “driving through the city playing CCR and shooting evil-doers whilst fireworks go off”. It will be “Family members and people you love are going to be tortured and you won’t be able to stop it, so stop wishing for it to happen you fucking idiots”.

It’s a lot more effective because of how well the story is crafted. Some characters are only in one scene yet are so well defined that you can fill in the gaps and create a believable back-story for them. All cast really well too, Jesse Plemons is perfect in his small role, as are the other one-sceners. But it all hinges on the core cast: Dunst, Wagner Moura, Cailee Spaeny and Stephen McKinley Henderson. They work brilliantly together. Truth be told; Wagner Moura is given less to do than the others, but he does have some great stand-out moments, particularly at the end. Dunst is fantastic and is a reminder of why she is highly regarded in acting circles. I haven’t seen that much of Cailee Spaeny before (mainly because I never got around to watching Priscilla), but she is damn near perfect. I want to see what she does next because she is fucking phenomenal in this.

In summary; a fantastic watch. Possibly the best film I’ve seen this year. Very much not an easy watch though. The scene with the mass graves, in particular, was difficult to stomach. It is something I feel most people NEED to see though. And you should see it in theatres whilst you can before you end up seeing it in the streets.

Imaginary (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: A horror story about an imaginary friend/bear. I’m not putting more detail into this than the scriptwriter did.

This may come as a shock to some of you, but I am not perfect and I do sometimes make mistakes. My mistake here was assuming Imaginary was good and that I should see it. That’s not to say it’s terrible, it’s just incredibly mundane. A huge issue is a lack of identity. Imaginary is as confused about its identity as I am when I enter a new relationship with someone who has interests I don’t know about but I suddenly find myself being a big fan of.

It’s not a film, it’s a mix tape of other creative releases: The black-eyed fake family from Coraline is one. The Never Ever (the dream world) reminds me of Among The Sleep in terms of visuals. Then there’s the fact the villain is an interdimensional reality-bending being who’s capable of driving people mad, usually focuses on children, and whose real form looks like a giant spider, which is basically It. You don’t come out of this wanting to see it again, you come out of it wanting to see the better films it reminded you of, and It; Chapter Two.

There’s only one time where this horror tribute act works; when it hints that it happens in the same universe as Nightmare on Elm Street. That would explain a lot of things which occur, as well as help close up some holes. That, and only that, is a reference to another horror movie that actually enhances the lore that it’s trying to create.

So whilst it is basically a mix tape, it is a very well-curated one. Jeff Wadlow is a competent director, he’s less good at picking good scripts though, being responsible for three of the harshest reviewed films on this site: Truth Or Dare, Bloodshot, and Fantasy Island. Two of those were so notably bad, I liveblogged them, if you want to read my brain break, look here and here. Imaginary isn’t as bad as those, but it is nowhere near good enough to redeem it in my eyes.

Visually it’s nowhere near where it needs to be. There’s also a TERRIBLE edit. A character expresses joy that they were correct. You know, the “arms spread out, shouting out loudly” kind of joy. So she’s shouting in elation, arms spread out in euphoria, us watching it all from above. The camera then IMMEDIATELY cuts to her eye level and she’s standing normally. That’s just lazy.

He’s not helped by how dull the script is. A lot of the moments don’t land. It wastes the potential of an evil imaginary friend, to the point where there are times when that feels more like the background than the main plot. It’s not just the plot not mattering, there are specific scenes which waste so much potential. For example; there’s a section where the characters are attempting to enter the Never Ever. To open the door the characters need to feel pain. Physical pain isn’t enough so one of the characters delivers a “brutal” speech to her stepdaughter, harming her daughter for having to hear it, and herself for having to say it. That’s a genuinely good idea, but Colombo (by which I mean: there’s just one problem): It’s not brutal enough. It’s not a sentence you can imagine breaking anybody. It’s incredibly tame.

The tameness is a constant issue. The predictable heel turn from a side character leads to a motive rant about how they want to do something (I stopped paying attention, I was that bored). It seems hollow and a bit stupid. She’s then killed off-screen. So you don’t even get the catharsis of seeing a horrible character suffer.

The performers are all fine though. Pyper Braun is hella talented for someone so young, reminding me of Milly Shapiro. Taegen Burns is also pretty good, coming off as an alternate version of Sarah Hyland. DeWanda Rise is talented enough to lead a much better film than this. The other characters are severely underwritten, completely wasting some potential horror fodder, some of them are basically crying out to be killed, yet instead they just walk off and never appear again, probably having a wank, or a salad, or wanking into a salad.

Yup, that’s how I’m ending it.

Monkey Man (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Kid (Dev Patel) infiltrates the Mumbai elite to enact vengeance, with his fists.

Dev Patel is quite good, isn’t he? He’s already shown his acting pedigree in The Green Knight, The Personal History Of David Copperfield, and Slumdog Millionaire. Now it turns out he can direct too. Monkey Man is an ambitious effort for a first-timer, with some brilliantly inventive action scenes. They’re a lot more brutal than you’d expect. It’s not quite “blood blood everywhere, in my eyes and in my hair” levels of brutality, but it doesn’t shy away from showing the damage these fights would have. It has someone getting their thumb severed with a dinner tray. But also has enough Wick-ian fights to satisfy modern action palates.

Monkey Man has more than action to its name though. There’s also one hell of a story. Despite the fact that the character physically challenges many people, there’s a very personal approach to it. He is focused and determined throughout the narrative, with a clear goal. His backstory is incredibly believable and provides enough humanity that you actually do give a shit when he gets hurt or nearly dies. Yes, the action sequences are incredible, but it’s a damn fine film away from those moments too. There’s a sequence where he’s involved in stealing something and it’s so intricate and well-done, it’s basically a mini heist movie, very mini, a few minutes.

There’s a social message to this, which is always nice. I remember after the first trailer, people online were bitching about how “I bet they make a white man the villain, typical political correctness”, then when it turned out the villains are played by the very Indian Sikander Kher, Ashwini Kalsekar, and Makarand Deshpande, that discourse changed to “so there’s barely any white people in this? Racism!”. This is a Mumbai film through and through (albeit made by someone from Harrow, and filmed mostly in Indonesia), dealing with corruption, the caste system, trans rights, and abuse of political power. All themes that are sadly still prevalent in modern Mumbai (and in most countries too, let’s not get too full of ourselves to deny that). It doesn’t hurt that the character of Baba Shakti visually resembles the current Indian PM and notable dickhead, Narendra Modi. It’s this political context which was responsible for Netflix deciding not to release it, feeling it was too controversial and gritty. They tried to quietly cancel it because Netflix are cowards, but it thankfully found a home with Jordan Peele’s Monkeypaw Productions. I’m glad they released it, as it’s a film that’s worth seeing, but it definitely feels like it doesn’t quite fit in with the rest of their releases.

Now onto the bad. The female characters are woefully underwritten, with most of them coming off as nothing more than visual props. There are large periods of the film which basically feel like it’s there so the audience can be amazed at Patel. The “Monkey Man” aspect is also underdeveloped. There’s a big deal made about him turning his mask white, he dons the newly coloured mask for about 30 seconds before throwing it away. The general “lore” aspect of the backstory is not needed. It provides a small amount of detail into his connection with his mother, but we’d have assumed the two had a connection anyway as they’re related, not only is she his mother, but she was also married to his dad. I presume it was also there to provide a visual “hook” they could use in marketing, but again, it’s not needed. It’s just padding, and not even good padding; it’s asbestos.

As I said, it’s worth a watch. But it’s not a “must-see”. It at times comes off as a remake of an existing property that wasn’t that good in the first place. Or like an expertly crafted cover song, as good as it gets, you kind of just want to experience the original instead. Patel is clearly one hell of a director, and he will make something incredible. But this isn’t quite it. It is clearly a passion product for Patel, made with love and a NEED to get this made. But maybe someone should have stepped in at times to tell him to prune some of the cinematic flowers that aren’t quite blooming.

Seize Them! (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Queen Dagan has been toppled by a revolution led by Humble Joan. With the help of servant Shulmay, she aims to get her crown back.

I’m aware I am kind of pretentious sometimes when it comes to my film taste. But it’s a weird kind of pretentiousness, one which will talk endlessly about obscure Polish films, or how the work of Lotte Reiniger still holds up almost 100 years later. Yet, I also dislike Men (the film, not the gender, although….) and I’m not that fond of the films of Wes Anderson.

So whilst my taste may run a little weird at times, I love films that are just dumb fun. They’re not trying to change the world, or wow you, they’re just there to distract you from the Western-supported genocide occurring 2000 miles away (wait until you find out the fucked up shit I found out whilst googling that distance by the way). It’s in this sphere of silliness that Seize Them falls. It’s different from something like Bill, which had historical in-jokes and at least had the pretence that it happened in reality. There’s no effort to pretend this is real; it’s a live-action cartoon in a fictionalised version of history. This has as much in common with the Dark Ages as the Artemis Fowl movie has with the books it was (supposedly) based on.

This isn’t something you can see being quoted in an academic paper. It’s not supposed to be though. It’s just dumb jokes wrapped up in a different time. It does make the most of the concept though, there are a lot of jokes which wouldn’t work outside of this context, which is something I always like. I like when jokes are unique to a film, especially if it’s a comedy set outside of “now”. Crucially, it doesn’t have any of those “knowing” jokes. You know the kind, where someone invents a modern invention and is rubbished, or otherwise makes a reference to modern times. The kind of “It’s a communication device mixed with a telescope, we call it an Eye-Phone”. I know comedy is subjective, and different jokes for different folks. But those are the ones that come up a lot in films like this and I cannot stand them, not just in a “that joke didn’t land” way, when I see those jokes, it actively turns me against the film.

The jokes are helped by just how talented the cast is. Casual audiences are more likely to be aware of Nick Frost (from his films with Simon Pegg), Nicola Coughlan (from Derry Girls, Bridgerton, and “you won’t believe how old she is” posts on Facebook), or James Acaster (from memes about the world falling apart). It’s mainly led by Aimee Lou Wood (from Sex Education) and Lolly Adefope (from Ghosts/Taskmaster), they make a good pair, sharing natural chemistry. They spend a lot of time with experienced comedy performer Nick Frost, and they easily match him. They both nail their roles perfectly. Lou Wood turns what could be an annoying character into someone sympathetic. Kind of sympathetic anyway. The third-act conflict only really happens because of her character derailment. Also, I’m still not quite sure that with the world the way it is at the moment, a movie about how “this rich useless person who holds all the power is someone you should be sympathetic towards, the woman fighting against her and campaigning for equality is just a phoney who will end up being a dictator”, is that really a message that needs to be put into the world right now?

In summary, a hilarious movie, with oddly memorable music. Not the best film of the year, but incredibly fun. For better (the jokes, the performances) and for worse (the production values, the pacing), it does feel a bit like an extended episode of a Channel 4 sitcom. Funny as hell though. I mean, how many other films have two characters die from fatal wanking incidents? It should have had a better cinema release though, at my local it was only on once a day, and with zero promotion.

Godzilla X Kong: The New Empire (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: It’s a monster movie, is the plot important?

The Monsterverse movies have been a huge success, the fact they’re big-budget movies that keep getting sequels is proof of that, especially since they’re made by Warner Bros, who have a tendency to cancel films and don’t let silly things like “It’s been completed and early reviews have been very positive” get in the way. But anyway, that’s enough about my bitterness over the Batgirl movie. I have watched all the Monsterverse movies at the cinema and reviewed most of them. But here’s the thing; I can’t remember any of them. I can’t remember any of the characters’ names, can barely remember any of the actors, with one exception (Brian Tyree Henry) I’m genuinely not sure if any of the actors from this film were in the previous ones or if they’re all new. Human characters have never been this franchise’s strong point, especially when compared to Minus One which was released last year.

If you’ve seen both this and Minus One, this can’t compare. The visuals are better, yes, but the story, the characters, the entertainment, just aren’t there in this. As I said, the visuals are great in this, the monsters themselves look fantastic, if not incredibly cartoon-like. The sense of scale is occasionally off though. You don’t know how big they are because there’s nothing recognisable in there to compare it to, just trees, which aren’t great for establishing size because (obviously) they can vary in size. This is a huge problem with Suko, the “Baby Kong”. We only ever see him next to Kong and other similarly sized objects, all of whom tower over him. So in your head, you think “Oh, okay, he’s the size of a child”, then when he enters the fight at the end you find out he’s actually the size of a small building. Would it have killed them to have him near a human character to establish his size?

On the subject of it, the final fight could be better. It’s built up well, and does deliver in terms of titans smashing into each other. But again, it lacks the human aspect. We see buildings demolished in the fight, but there’s no sound from them, nobody screaming. Were the buildings empty or is it just lazy sound design? If they were empty, then surely a shot from the inside of one of the buildings would have been a nice thing to see? These films are impressive for what they manage on their budget, but it feels like creatively the directors are so focused on meeting the budget that they leave zero room for creativity. There are no shots which will linger with you once it’s over. There are “fuck yeah!” shots, shots which look great in trailers and on posters, but nothing that stands the test of time. Think of King Kong, the character. Odds are, you’re imagining him at the top of the tower, fighting off bi-planes (and some heteroplanes, but less than you think they’d be), NOTHING in this entire franchise has ever even attempted to be as iconic. It feels bad to say this considering the sheer amount of effort that has clearly gone into these, but creatively it’s all very lazy.

I’m aware those are very pretentious criticisms and ones which most people won’t give a shit about. Most people go into this for dumb fun, and in that aspect, it does deliver. I mean, it does count on you being able to remember far too many details from previous (forgettable) films. This is definitely spectacle film that deserves to be seen at the cinema. It’s just, dumb spectacle is no excuse for low effort. There is zero reason spectacle has to be stupid. Zero reason for it to have characters you can’t name. Zero reason for it to take no risks. That scene of Mothra is dope as fuck though.

Late Night With The Devil (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Jack Delroy is a television host who courts controversy in the face of falling ratings. On Halloween, 1977, he invites a possessed girl onto the show in this found footage slice of horror gold.

LNWTD is utterly fascinating, from the opening credits all the way through to the closing you are on the edge of your seat, taking in every subtle nuance it throws at you. That’s the opening credits of the fictional television show Night Owls With Jack Delroy. The opening of the film itself? I found it kind of weak. It’s framed as a documentary investigating the original show, but this never comes up again outside of the opening. It’s alluded to that the documentary crew are the ones who uncovered the footage played from the commercial breaks. But that doesn’t really work because the black-and-white footage feels too modern and clean in the way it’s filmed, if anything that footage should be in WORSE condition than the stuff shown on television, it should feel hand-held and rough, like it was secretly filmed and kept in a loft. The documentary isn’t even needed for that to make sense, just have it as unseen stuff that happened. The other issue with the documentary-style opening is it doesn’t say much that’s not told in the film itself. And the stuff that’s not noted in the movie is alluded to or could have easily been said. If you’re a writer and you can’t figure out how to get characters to say information during a talk show, you’ve failed.

Like a portable timepiece that shouts out your sexual fantasies at random intervals; this is a deeply unsettling watch. A lot of effort has been put in to make it feel authentic to the time, from the way it is shot, to the audio cues, all the way through to the word choices. You completely buy into the fact that this is from the time. It’s helped that it’s a found footage movie that has a reason to exist. It doesn’t feel like it’s been edited together afterwards, it feels like someone just happened to record it onto a VHS when it was being shown.

The performances are all fantastic. David Dastmalchian is great as the nervous but genial host with a dark secret. I’ve only ever seen him as a supporting character, never really buying him as a lead, that’s changed. He’s perfect for this, his vocal performance, the way he carries himself, and his facial acting, wouldn’t work with a lesser actor. Personally, I thought the best performer was Ingrid Torelli. Her performance isn’t as good, but she shows more sides to her and is given more to do, I have to mention her now because in a few years, she could break out into something fantastic, and I just want it in writing I was there early.

In summary, if you’re a horror fan, you will love this. It’s a fresh gimmick based on something a lot of people will be familiar with. It’s clever, it’s well-made, and it’s very violent when it needs to be. Importantly, it actually closes. There’s no sequel hook, it’s all very self-contained, but with the possibility of literature to find out more. Definitely not enough to stretch out to a whole new film though. It won’t quite reach horror infamy, but it will be one fans of the genre will talk about.

Immaculate (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: A naive nun joins a remote convent in Italy, discovering they’re harbouring a dark secret.

I have three horror reviews to write this week: this, Late Night With The Devil, and The First Omen. I was going to review Late Night With The Devil (LNWTD, pronounced La-new-ted) first, it’s the most critically acclaimed of the three, and I have the strongest opinions regarding it. But after seeing seeing Immaculate I have to do this first. Not because my feelings towards it are particularly strong, or because I have anything important to say. I’m just not sure how I can put this and The First Omen reviews next to each other, I haven’t seen TFO (Tee-foe) yet, but there is a definite worry that they will be treading similar grounds, and I don’t want to repeat myself. Plus, if I think of any jokes after posting this, I can just use them in the TFO review. The upside of repetition in cinema.

Now onto Immaculate itself. It’s received a lot of praise, particularly for Sydney Sweeney’s performance. I’m not entirely sure I agree. The final third, she is superb, a cinematic slice of delicious cheesecake. But for most of it? She appears kind of bored. Like I said, the final third where she has the hardest stuff to do, she’s great at. But the standard conversations with others? Doesn’t feel real, with one exception. Her interactions with Sister Gwen (played by Benetta Porcaroli) are incredibly sweet and I wish I could see more of them. Sadly, Gwen is killed relatively early on. Her body is discovered in the closing section and this is filmed like it’s supposed to be a surprise. Not entirely sure it is though. The last time we saw her she was being tortured, and then she didn’t appear again for (in film time) about 6 months, obviously she’s dead. It would be a bigger shock if she wasn’t.

There is a distinct lack of surprise in Immaculate. You can pretty much plot what’s going to happen based on the synopsis, all the twists and turns are more like slight veers to the left to the left. Sorry, went a bit Beyonce there. The final third is batshit insane and I am all for it, but the lead there just isn’t that exciting. The people you expect to be shits turnout to be shits, turns out there is a massive conspiracy where the church is impregnating young nuns without their knowledge. Which is a bit stupid when you think about it, there must be millions of women who would willingly consent to that, so going after unwilling ones just seems like you’re setting yourself up to be the villain. I kind of wish that the blood they used for the procedure turned out to not be from Christ at all. There’s not a single moment where there’s any doubt that that is his blood. That’s a lot of faith. Biblical relics are not that well preserved and catalogued. There are 21 churches which claim to have the foreskin of Jesus, and that means at least 20 of them are wrong or lying unless he had 21 penises (which I think they would have mentioned in the book, but it would have meant they’d have to change the title from The Bible to The 21 Dicked Man, which won’t sell as well). So the odds that they would have the correct artifact are quite low. I do like that the film discusses how their methods are more likely to create the antichrist (and it’s implied that is what happens). But the scene where they discuss that does have someone say “If this is not the will of God, why does he not stop us?” and this is treated (even by TVTropes) as a “gotcha”. So if God allows something, this means he supports it? I think the residents of Germany in the late 1930s would have a few fucking things to say about that. As would the residents of cities hit by tsunamis and earthquakes, and people who had to watch Madame Web.

As I said, the final third is superb, and it has one of the strongest closing scenes I’ve seen since Knives Out. It’s a slow slog to get there, but it is overall worth it. This won’t end up being my favourite film of the year, not even close, but it is one I will tell people to watch if they are fans of the genre. It’s very low on jump scares, relying more on tension and atmosphere. It’s directly brilliantly (with some pretty good music choices), and I’m glad to see the horror is mostly from humanity rather than demons (which usually results in scares which are just “thing jumps at the screen but it turns out to not be real”). I do want to see a sweet friendship-based road trip dramedy starring Sydney Sweeney and Benetta Procaroli though, they bounce off each other very well and it would be a shame to waste that chemistry.

Mothers’ Instinct (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Housewives Alice and Celine are best friends and neighbours who seem to have it all. However, when a tragic accident shatters the harmony of their lives, guilt, suspicion and paranoia begin to unravel their sisterly bond

Anne Hathaway is quite good, isn’t she? I know that it might come as a shock that a multiple award-winning actress is quite good at this whole “acting” thing, but it must be said. She’s a big part of why Mothers’ Instinct works. She plays Celine as somebody of whom you’re never quite sure of her intentions. She is either a cold-hearted manipulative woman who is trying to gaslight Alice into madness and steal her family, or she’s just a grieving mother who is doing her best to cope with an unimaginable loss? It’s not so much that flits between the two depending on the scene, it’s that at all times she could conceivably be any one of them. I’d be interested in watching it twice again, each time focusing on assuming a different thing.

Actually, that’s a lie, I’m not interested in watching this again. As good as this Mothers’ Instinct is (and it is finely crafted), nothing about it really warrants a second watch. There’s nothing inherently wrong with it, but like a lot of films based around a mystery or possible misunderstanding, once you realise the truth, is there much left to it?

As I said, this was directed by Benoît Delhomme. Obviously not the first time the name “Benoit” has been associated with dead children. Delhomme has a history in cinematography, with this being his directorial debut. He does a really good job. There are some very interesting shot choices, his use of angles to suggest uncertainty is brilliant. It’s a really basic trick, but he utilises it perfectly.

Unlike a lot of thrillers/horrors, the majority of this movie takes place during the day. Lit by natural sunlight, small lamps, and of course, a lot of gaslighting. The original film Duelles took the modern setting of the original book (Derrière la haine) and changed the setting to the ’60s. That time change has been kept in this English language version, and it suits the themes perfectly. There are so many moments that wouldn’t be as effective if it was set in a modern age. It would still work, but it hits more when every character is repressed by the time period they are living in. You don’t need to ask why they’re not doing certain things, because “they’re women in the 60s, and that’s just not done” is there. I listen to a podcast called How To Survive, which deals with how to survive (hey, that’s where they get the title) in certain films, usually horror. I highly doubt they are going to cover this, but if they did, then I imagine it would just come down to a single word: therapy. It’s mentioned that Alice has had issues with mental health in the past, to the point of being briefly institutionalised, but never being allowed to talk about it. Celine is clearly going through some shit and NEEDS someone to talk to. But since her friends are abandoning her because everybody finds it too awkward. At one point, she is flat-out told “You shouldn’t be here, your presence is making everyone sad”. The characters are clearly all broken, which fuels their paranoia and decisions. So in a way, there is no good, there is no evil, and the real villain is trauma. But in another, more accurate way, the villain is the person who killed a bunch of people.

I still can’t figure out why I didn’t love this movie. It had a good story, great performances, and it was very well made. But it never quite warmed its way into my heart. It’s technically brilliant, but colder than a British summer before global warming. It’s a bit like its own main characters; constantly unsure of itself, constantly figuring itself out whilst it waits to find its footing. It’s a very easy film to be impressed by, a very easy film to praise, but it’s a very difficult film to be excited about. That’s its main problem.

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.