Quick Synopsis: Emily Blunt and Jack Whitehall ask for The Rocks help to take a small boat down the Amazon river so they can find a magic tree.
To say I went into this with low expectations would be an understatement on the scale of “cheese is good on toast”. So much of it pointed to it being a bad film. Don’t get me wrong, I love The Rock and he’s always entertaining to watch, but he’s not someone that will make me go see a film just because he’s in it, he does have a history of films which are kind of forgettable and bland (I’ve seen San Andreas, cannot remember anything from it). Plus as much as I find Jack Whitehall amusing, his character seemed incredibly one note and stereotypical.
I was wrong. Not about Whitehall, his character is quite one note and once you’ve seen him in one scene you know exactly how his character is going to react to everything. You can also guess he’s gay. It’s not explicitly stated, but it is signposted more than Disney usually feel comfortable doing, with him saying that none of the women he was asked to marry “were really suitable for him”. That’s as obvious as they make it, and they count this as progressive, doing the bare minimum.
Other than that, it’s actually fun. It’s not a movie that’s going to change your life. But it is one that you can put on and comfortably watch. It’s the kind of movie they don’t make anymore. A fun adventure movie for kids that will inspire kids. It won’t inspire them to buy merchandise, or to go online, or purchase the video game. It will simply inspire kids to play. To go outside, pretend to be the characters and jump around the park. That’s something weirdly sweet coming from a film based on a theme park ride.
It’s not all fun though, the CGI is unforgivably bad for a film of this budget, normally when I see something this ropey in this type of film, it’s a bridge going over a canyon. The pacing is a mess, and the story is so incredibly formulaic and bland. It also is too obviously hoping for a sequel. It’s also lacking a truly impressive scene. There’s no big action sequence that the film builds towards. No “holy shit” moments. A film like this requires a big marquee moment which everybody who watches will remember. It needs a cinematic mountain to climb, this doesn’t have that. It has the occasional action sequence but they’re more like cinematic small hills. The excitement level stays pretty constant throughout, with no notable highlights.
Maybe kids won’t notice, but adults will. They’ll still have fun though. The film is a wonderful throwback movie to a simpler time. It’s not saying anything major about the human condition or society. You won’t learn anything, and you won’t be changed as a person. But you won’t be annoyed or angered either. You’ll just be taken to a different place for the duration of the film. And sometimes that’s enough.
Quick Synopsis: A drug-addicted nurse needs to find a spare kidney to stop her sister being killed.
By all rights I should have loved this. It’s an interesting plot, bloody, funny, and it has Mick Foley. For some reason it inspired no bigger reaction than “it was alright”. It was good, but it never felt better than that to me. It never fully grabbed me like I needed it to. I’m not sure why, the performances are great, I’ve only seen Angela Bettis in the 2002 version of Carrie, a film which had many problems but she was not one of them. I think its an issue of the film over-reaching, it attempts a lot more than it needs to. It has so many plates spinning in the air that it never spins them quickly enough. If it cut down some of the unnecessary characters I feel it would be stronger. Because it has so much going on it never really gathers enough momentum to be truly satisfying.
It’s written and directed by Brea Grant, who also gave us Lucky, which was more disappointing but probably had more potential. It’s a shame because she’s obviously really good, it’s just her stuff seems more like stuff I’d see shorts of than features. Not to say this film is bad though, like I said the performances are great, and it’s really really funny when it needs to be.
It’s still weird to see Mick Foley drop the f-bomb considering I always assumed he was allergic. It also looks great, has a kind of washed out greyness too it that really suits the tone. Praise must also go to the uniqueness of the the film. It’s hard to compare it anything because there’s really not much else like this. There’s not nearly enough horror films set in a hospital, especially not one over the course of a nightshift, which is weird as that kind of thing is ripe for horror movie fodder. I feel that may also slightly work against this film, you get the feeling that it’s not quite making the most of the setting and timing. There doesn’t seem to be much in this film that couldn’t be accomplished over the course of a few nights instead of just one. It doesn’t have that race against time that would be great for a film like this. It does seem to do a lot with the location, there are few places this could take place in other than a hospital, although again, it doesn’t make the most of the fact that it’s a night shift. Compare this to something like The Power, which made the most of the creepy nature of hospitals late at night.
Maybe that’s my issue, it doesn’t feel like a horror movie full of darkness and creepiness, it feels a bit like a cheap slasher movie, but the story doesn’t lend itself to that so there’s a real disconnect between tone and story. Also it feels a little too polished for such a scuzzy tale. It needs to feel dirty, but it comes off just a bit too clean. Overall the film suffers a real struggle for tone throughout, and that really hurts it.
This is a film I feel I will like a lot more on a second watch, and I will watch it again someday, just not for a while. Worth checking out though.
Quick Synopsis: A struggling film-maker (Gillian Horvat) realises that the skill set to make a movie is the same to commit a murder.
Obviously I had to see this. From the first time I saw the tagline, I knew I had to watch this. The concept was unique, being dark and twisted in a way I really appreciated. It could only go one of two ways: one of my favourite films of the year, or one of the most disappointing.
Thankfully this is squarely in the first camp. It makes the most of the concept, it’s something new and exciting, and the script is incredible. I say that with certainty because it passes one test on whether I love a film or not: it annoys me that I didn’t write this. It seems very me as a concept, and I’m so glad it was handled by someone as talented as Horvat (who directed/wrote this film as well as starring in it). Her background is in short films, and I guess the concept here is best suited for that, there are a few moments where the film seems uncertain of what it’s doing, the ending in particular doesn’t quite hit as it needs to. It also feels quite low budget, but personally I think that works for it. It feels home-made. That’s something that would put a lot of people off, but it really appealed to me and helped bring me into the world. It’s shot like a documentary (of which Horvat has a lot of experience in as a director, and it shows), and it’s not exactly a subject which would allow a big budget as a documentary. In universe, the documentary is not funded by a studio, and she doesn’t have a large crew on which to fall on, it’s pretty much just one woman and a camera. So you do have moments where she sets up a static camera, then people move out of the centre of the frame. There are awkward setting up of shots, the camera isn’t always steady when she’s moving and the lighting isn’t always great. But that all makes sense in universe. It doesn’t seem like “oh, this is low budget and the film-makers don’t know what they’re doing”, it feels more like “this was a stylistic choice to improve the believability of the film”, and I love it.
Now onto the performances, there are a lot of performers in this, but it’s definitely Horvat’s showcase, and she carries it off well. There are a few moments where she doesn’t seem sure what she’s doing, but that feels more like character-work than bad performance. It’s not the best performance of the year by a long shot, but it is one of the most believable. I have no idea what she’s like as a person, but her performance makes me think she’s almost exactly like the character in the film (just less murder-ey, maybe). Again, it’s not something everybody will like, but it really worked for me. It helps with how well-written her character is, so that even when she’s doing horrible things, you root for her. And even when she’s doing stuff that shouldn’t make sense, you can see her logic for it. It’s all very well done.
Another polarising aspect will be the plot. It’s very feminist, and isn’t shy about displaying that. That will be off-putting to some, but I doubt those people will be watching low budget movies anyway because they’re too busy crying that “I displayed basic human dignity to a human female, and she didn’t fuck me. I hope she dies”. With films like this, Lucky, The Power, and Promising Young Woman (which I still really need to see), this is definitely a year of women fighting back in films. A year where they are displaying how fed up they are with dealing with the bullshit they have to on a daily basis, and want to power back against the systems that hold them down. On the one hand: it’s brilliant that those voices are now being amplified and listened to, so that’s great. But on the other hand, it’s depressing that those things still needed to be said.
So yeah, I loved this film, as you can tell. It’s so damn funny and brilliant. It’s a film that will split opinion, but those who like it will really like it. A cult hit that needs a bigger audience, and I genuinely think it deserves it. A film that continues 2021’s streak of fantastic womens films. I will freely admit that Mouthpiece was a much better film, but I have more love for this (and considering how many times I’ve put that film over this year, that says a lot).
Quick Synopsis: A young couple (played by Vanessa Marano and Benjamin Papac) face off against a pair of burglars in Wisconsin.
I was interested by this. The concept seemed fun and the trailer? Well my reaction to the trailer was to send someone a link to it and say “this looks like it will be made or ruined by the pacing and directing”. The concept seemed wacky and fun, but the way the trailer was edited made it look weirdly slow-paced. The concept was crime-comedy, but the directing seemed Napoleon Dynamite. It’s a weird mix that doesn’t really seem suited. That was just the trailer though, there was always a chance the actual film would be the opposite.
It’s not. This film is dreadfully slow. It seems like a short film unnaturally stretched out. There are moments here which add nothing and a lot of this film is kind of tedious. You have a lot of the film just setting the plot up, and it doesn’t really do a good job of that. Part of that is that it’s not needed, there are quicker and better ways of setting up what it sets up. It doesn’t help that the situation doesn’t develop naturally. The plot drives the characters actions, their motivations solely being “we need this to happen so the plot can develop”. Chief among this is the “inciting incident” where they think their neighbours house is being robbed, so they break in, and then…….do a séance? Okay then. That’s something believable. They fall asleep and wake up to the house having been robbed. It doesn’t make character sense, and it wasn’t really needed. They could have had the same end result if they just went to the house and found it robbed. The only way this would have changed the plot is would have had to think of another reason for them to move to their uncles house (at the moment they do so because they’re under suspicion of being the robbers because they’re the ones who phoned the police, which is obviously what robbers do after they burgle a house). It’s unnatural and overly written, and there doesn’t seem to be much of a reason for them staying that nearby if they think they’re in danger. Considering it’s a snowy area they could have just gone with “snow is too heavy” and would have saved time. Plus it would have made the most of the gorgeous setting, something it only really does in the closing stretch. Maybe it’s because Bissell is used to those visuals that she doesn’t realise just how beautiful it has the potential to be. She sees those kind of things all the time so they’re standard to her, but to the rest of the world it’s something new and exciting, and I wish it used it more.
The set-up to the robbery itself is also pretty funny too, when they duct-tape a knife to a roomba, when they get nervous about handling guns etc. It all feels incredibly real. It does still have a few moments where the film is sitting around waiting for the plot to start, but it’s mostly good.
And then the robbery itself starts. And it’s here where the quality of the writing and directing really shines and we get a better idea of what Maria Bissell is really capable of when she’s at her best. It’s slick, smart, and funny as hell. It’s just a shame that doesn’t start to happen until halfway through the runtime. It’s a shame as when the film is good, it’s incredible. Like I said, the robbery itself is a delight to watch (that sounds wrong). If the film was just that, it would have been one of the best things I’ve seen all year. The characters are at their best, and we’re introduced to the robbers themselves, one of whom is played by Abbie Cobb. I’m not too familiar with her work but she is incredible. There’s something of the Anna Kendrick in the way she plays her and I would love to see her do more stuff. The writing is at it’s best here too, the dialogue has a natural flow to it which really makes the situation seem real.
So in summary, see this film, but you don’t need to pay too much attention for the first half of it. As a directorial feature debut, this is incredible and shows a lot of promise. It’s just when it’s compared to other films that it seems to lack, maybe that’s unfair but it’s really the only way you can do it. It has made me want to see what Bissell does next as she’s obviously incredibly talented and has the potential to one day do my favourite film, it’s just she hasn’t quite managed that yet.
Quick Synopsis: LeBron James has to win a basketball match in a computer simulation to get his son back, save the looney tunes, and stop countless innocent people being killed by a sentient A.I
Years ago I heard this was being made, and I was excited. I remember enjoying the first one a lot. But since then, something has happened and I’m not entirely sure what. Enthusiasm for the first film has died down. People no longer talk about it as one of the great 90s films. I remember it having a lot of goodwill towards it, but that’s all gone, and I can’t really explain why. I haven’t seen a film go from “nostalgic and beloved” to “oh yeah that existed” so hard since Home Alone, and that had the excuse of multiple terrible sequels. This just sort of faded from collective consciousness.
So has this film done a good job of bringing any of that good feeling back? Nope, if you were one of the few people to have any sense of goodwill towards this franchise, this film will eliminate that. Not to brag, but I knew this movie would be terrible. Okay, that’s really not much of a brag because everybody knew that. They knew that from when they saw the trailer, with Porky Pig rapping (I don’t like pig raps, much prefer them in a sandwich). Then there were all the references to other Warner Bros properties that brought to mind The Emoji Movie or Ralph Breaks The Internet. The actual film is actually far worse than you’d think. The references are both invasive and pointless.
In this universe, all the looney tunes characters have gone to live in other Warner Bros properties. In the quest to find them, LeBron James and Bugs Bunny go into them, so we get scenes which reference the DC animated movies, Casablanca (you know, for the kids), and the Matrix (in a reference which would have seemed dated 10 years ago). That then never really comes up again. They appear in the crowd at the game, that’s where all the references you’ve heard about are. That’s where you get Pennywise, King Kong, and the characters from Clockwork Orange. It’s the Clockwork Orange characters which have caused controversy, with some parents complaining that they’re not appropriate for a kids movie. I don’t get that for two reasons:
The kids won’t see them as “Oh, they’re the violent rapists from that film” unless you’ve shown them the film. They won’t get the reference at all, they’re just see them as weird background characters. They’re only offensive if you know the context.
If you’re going to complain about any characters in this film, complain about the nuns from The Devils in the background, that film still hasn’t been properly released in the US (which begs the question of why they are making a reference to it)
So yeah, they take up a big chunk of the film, and add NOTHING.
This is not a film. This is not something you watch and enjoy or be entertained by, this is just an exercise in brand identity that they want to charge you for. It’s product, not entertainment. I shouldn’t be surprised though. Whenever I saw people exclaim how great this film is, they didn’t talk about how funny it was, or how good it was, the only thing they mentioned was the references. It was basically “hey, this has things I recognise, that means it’s good” attitude which led to things like Epic Movie being watched. .
Fine, I’m done with that now. Now onto the actual film itself. The rest of it is bad too. Nobody seems to be giving a good performance, LeBron just seems confused all the time. He doesn’t have the ability to anchor a film like this. It doesn’t help that he’s not Michael Jordan. Jordan was a once-in-lifetime marketing opportunity. People worldwide knew who he was. Even people who didn’t know anything about basketball recognised him. I imagine that was helped by how much more prevalent basketball was in pop culture in the 90s: the shorts, the attitude, the video games, it all merged together to create a boom period for the sport. LeBron is big in US, and big among a few demographics, but if you went up to random people in UK and asked them to point to a picture of him out of 3 people, they wouldn’t be able to. He hasn’t penetrated popular culture in the same way.
The film? It’s incredibly dull. On the bright side, the way they actually use the cartoon characters is probably better than the first one. It’s certainly more in keeping with their personalities. But the film restricts them for so much of its runtime. It feels like they’re holding them back. If you’re going to play this as a sports movie, at the very least make it a tournament surely? That way you get to see them have fun. I think it’s supposed to be a sports movie anyway, I’m not sure what it’s trying to buy as the film lacks identity.
I can imagine studios wanting this, I can imagine “hey, wouldn’t it be cool if we/someone made this movie?”. But what I cannot imagine is “I have a dream, to make a Space Jam sequel, and to make it like this”. There’s no “making this film is my endgoal” to it. I’m willing to bet the people who made it had no ideas before they were approached to make it. It has no love, no passion for the project, it has nothing. It has nothing that the makers can point at and be like “yes, this is the story I’ve been dying to tell people”. The only people who do come out of it with their pride intact are the animators, who do a great job on bringing the 2D characters to life. Other than that? This is a film which is best forgotten, a dodgy knock-off of a film that wasn’t that great to begin with. The kindest thing I can say about it is at least it came out the same year as Tom And Jerry so it isn’t the worst live-action animated hybrid of the year. Going to leave you with a quote from that review that I feel is applicable here:
“if you can’t make a good movie, don’t make a movie. This feels like it was made for the sake of being made. Everything about it just screams “contractual/celebratory obligation”. There’s no desire, no passion, there’s no sense that this is what anybody who worked on it has had their entire career building to this moment. Which considering how beloved these characters are, is a real shame. The franchise inspires a lot of love in people, it’s just a shame not a damn ounce of it was in the script“
Quick Synopsis: Nicholas Cage beats up animatronic creatures alongside a group of teens.
Bit weird. That’s an understatement, I mean, just look at that synopsis and tell me there’s a way to make it normal. It’s every bit as strange as that makes it sound. It’s like Five Nights At Freddy’s as a horror movie (a bit like the Banana Splits movie which I still need to see). It probably helped that Nicolas Cage is in it, which allowed it more casual eyes than it would have had otherwise. The script grabbed his attention when he read it on the blood list, and he helped produce it too.
Cage is weird, he is occasionally awful, not just in performances but also in the films he picks (Wicker Man comes to mind), but then he picks something like this and knocks it out the park. That’s all the more impressive when you realise he doesn’t utter a single word in the film. That’s incredibly hard to do, especially in a way that feels natural. But it’s done so well that it’s possible you might not notice. There’s not a moment where you sit there thinking “why doesn’t he just say something?”, he gets his character over so well wordlessly. This is possibly one of his best performances, and to be honest it’s kind of frustrating that he is capable of this, but then makes terrible choices in other films. Either he’s very lazy at times, or he has an evil twin who can’t act.
The other performances are good too. Beth Grant continues to do her usual, but her usual is so damn impressive that it works. Emily Tosta co-anchors the film alongside Cage, and easily matches him in performance levels.
The others are good, but aren’t in it long enough. It’s a shame as they’re good characters with individual motivations. So it’s a shame to see them go so soon when they all had so much potential for their own plot points. The 88 minute runtime slightly hinders it in that aspect, if you added half an hour and spread the characters around you could add more depth to the film whilst also (hopefully) not upsetting the pace too much.
The other main weakness is the animatronic characters themselves. Sometimes they look fine but in some of the more intense sequences they do just look a bit silly. Ozzie Ostrich in particular doesn’t look good when it moves. When that kind of thing happens it can be a bit distracting and take you out of the film. It’s a shame as the general look of the film is good. It has a weird neon look to it. Kevin Lewis has a great sense of light and dark, using the intense brightness among the night-look to create a stunningly unique look.
Now onto the plot, the plot doesn’t need to be this good. It doesn’t need to be as disturbing as it does. It could get away with no explanation, just have it as a schlocky horror. The fact it does is to be commended. The plot is as disturbing as the images, and the images are pretty damn disturbing. This film actually has the balls to kill kids. That doesn’t happen in horror films often enough, usually they’re spared because it would be too disturbing (as if that’s not the point of horror films).
So in summary, see this. But don’t see it alone. Get people around, get drunk and watch it while making stupid jokes.
Quick Synopsis: A coming of age story with sea monsters set in an Italian seaside town.
Pixar do great stuff. I’ve often used “it seems very Pixar” as a compliment for great animated movies, and that’s for a good reason. Their films are usually among the best animated films of the year (with the exception of Cars and Good Dinosaur), and they’re usually full of emotion and heart. This is no exception. It has everything you want from a Pixar movie, but also a few more things. This has an air of something non-Pixar about it. That’s a good thing though considering the “non-Pixar” feeling it has is almost Miyazaki-like. I do not say that lightly, and it’s a great compliment. The almost dream-like state to the whole thing is magical and keeps you interested throughout.
Almost everything about this film just works beautifully. The casting is a great mix of known Western names, and Italian performers which mean the whole thing doesn’t feel like cultural appropriation, but also has enough names that it will appeal to people who watch films because “well I know that guy”. They’re divided up well too, with the humans being voiced by Italian performers (with one exception), and the “monsters” being the non-Italian ones. This makes sense as they just live in the Italian waters, they’re not specifically Italian, so it’s an acceptable break from reality.
The look? It looks absolutely gorgeous. It’s quite difficult to do water-based animation as everything is constantly moving and you have to account for that. It also has a great sun-like nature to it. You almost feel warm watching it, it has the air of a summer vacation.
The plot? It’s, not gonna lie, kind of basic. There’s not many surprises, but the way they tell it is wonderful. The idea of having the heaviness of “sea monsters that can walk on land and want to be accepted” and the lightness of “three new friends need to win a race so they can buy a vespa” works wonderfully and helps drive so many great moments. The way they overlap and influence each other is something that only works in this film, take away one of the aspects and the whole film falls apart.
It’s really hard to not love the characters in this. They’re all so well written that you identify with almost all of them. There is slight gay-coding in the story, with the “sea monsters” being a metaphor for homosexuality (feared for no reason, having to hide their true nature to fit in with people etc). This was unintentional on the film-makers part, but was welcomed by the director Enrico Casarosa. Its one of those film theories that once you think about it, you can’t unsee it, it really works and improves what is already a good film. It adds an unintentional layer to the central dynamic of the three characters as it means it’s not just about friendship, it’s a romantic triangle featuring characters who are too young to fully understand their feelings so they act out. It also adds another layer to a scene where one of the characters is revealed as a sea monster, and fearing repercussions, their friend joins in in the shunning and expulsion of them from the city. It’s an emotionally devastating scene and you can just feel the kids heart break. So powerful and one of the best scenes of the year
So in summary I’d highly recommend this. It’s so damn beautiful and I love it.
Quick synopsis: A group of “escape room” winners are dragged into another one and picked off one by one
I reviewed the original a few years ago (as seen here) and I could pretty much post that review again, just take out a few specifics, the main points still hold up. The geography of the whole thing still raises questions, deaths are still seemingly forgotten too quickly, and it still seems too bloodless.
The story is better though, with some genuine surprises, including one comeback from the first film who everyone assumed was dead. This leads to a slight problem though. It’s emphasised “unless you see someone die, they’re probably not dead” to justify someone coming back from the dead after sinking in sand. Smart idea, just one problem. Two people died from that method, so is the other person still alive too? We’ll never know. I mean, we might know in the next film, but probably not.
And there will be a next film, and THAT is the biggest weakness. The first film ended with “but the company that arranged the killer Escape Rooms is still out there, and are planning their deaths by forcing them onto another Escape Room on a plane”. This film ends with “the company that arranged the killer Escape Rooms is still out there, and have forced them onto another Escape Room on a plane”. Yup, totally worth spending 90 minutes to get to that point. The worst part about it is that you KNOW it’s coming. The company have been shown to be all powerful so you know there’s no way this ends it. It doesn’t help that the way they’ve organised the traps feels cheap. I can’t remember if this was the case in the first one but in this one it’s like the games aren’t meant to be solved. Not in terms of difficulty, but in terms of the rooms are designed to work against the players. If it looks like they’re going anywhere the rules will change. An example of this is a bit in a train where the metal bars are electrified. Tense enough, right? But when the team starts doing well, the power gets turned up and electric bolts start shooting out everywhere. That feels like cheating. That’s the first trap. The rest continue in the same vein. As soon as the group starts figuring out what to do, the game turns against them. It makes the whole thing wildly unsatisfying as it just doesn’t seem fair. So when people fail and die, they don’t do it because they failed the task, they failed because the game cheated. It would be better if they failed due to them actually, you know, failing. If they weren’t smart enough, weren’t quick enough, too impulsive, or don’t follow instructions. Then the deaths feel earned. It’s not entertaining to sit there and think “they’re being competent, but it doesn’t matter as the odds will be unnaturally turned against them”. It’s also not entertaining to see them escape, but know they didn’t actually escape because you saw the “Oh no we didn’t escape, we’re still in the trap” from the next scene in the god damn trailer, thus being the second film in this franchise where all the tension has gone (second in a row).
But it then does the same trick again. After that fake out they have a puzzle involving acid rain, then they go into another room which they escape and take down the entire company exposing them to the world. Except they don’t, that was a trap too, and you knew that. You sensed it coming. The only way the “shock ending” would have actually been a shock is if it didn’t happen. That “none of it matters” feeling overshadows the whole film and stops you being invested in it.
Yup, that was a long fucking way to make a single point, but considering the franchise has taken two films to make that point, I stand by it.
So, how else is this different from the first one? Well this time everybody involved is a survivor from a previous tournament, which is a bit weird because after Ben was thought to have won his in the first one, the organisers said his “reward” was being murdered, and he only survived due to outside interference. If that’s the case for everybody else, then how exactly are their survivors. Also, we know how Ben and Zoey ended up on this train, but how did the rest? That’s an issue with the writing of this film, the new characters feel like that; new characters created for the sequel. They don’t feel like they have a history outside of this film. It’s a shame as the ones who were in the first one feel developed.
Quick synopsis: Audrey Plaza plays an actress in her partners film, and gets jealous of how he acts with the woman playing his wife. Weirdness ensues (in shoes)
This was not what I expected. I expected standard Plaza snark. I heard it was a slight head-fuck so I was expecting something like Life After Beth. This is nothing like Life After Beth. This is…..it’s something else. It’s something unique. There’s not way I can talk about this without spoiling it so here goes. For the first third of the film we see Plaza walk into a guys house that he shares with his wife, and seduce him. It then turns out that was part of a film-within-a-film and in reality she’s the guys partner. As the film progresses we realise she’s worried that he’s cheating on her with the woman who plays his wife, an idea that he pushes as he thinks it will help her performance. That’s a very telling piece of character work as it highlights how he’ll put his work over his wife’s own mental health. This causes her to drink heavily (and the rest of the crew to be horrified with him).
That’s the most normal way I can describe it, and it still involves pointing out that a third of the film is a film within a film. It’s a weird film, but in an incredibly normal way. It’s not weird in what happens, there’s not really any “wow, that’s a freaky special effect” moment. It’s more a weirdness in terms of atmosphere and feeling. The whole film FEELS incredibly tense. You know when you’re drinking with people and it all feels normal, until two drunk people disagree? That feeling that hangs in the air, even when one of the two people leaves you still get that tension in the air, that tension where it feels almost certain that they’re going to come back and shoot everyone. It’s a heavy energy that weighs everyone down. THAT’S what this film is, and it’s a fantastic watch. Weird thing: I can’t remember that many individual moments. But it’s not a film of moments, it’s a film of tone. It’s almost like you take it all in at one moment like the characters in Arrival (fantastic film by the way). If it was an album it wouldn’t be one full of hit singles, but one you put on and listen to in full with headphones in the corner of a room.
It helps that it’s directly beautifully. Lawrence Michael Levine has the talent to let scenes breathe, going on longer than other directors would until it becomes uncomfortable to watch. Now I’m going to have to be very careful with how I phrase this next sentence, just go into it knowing it’s a compliment. It feels cheap. It doesn’t feel like a slick big budget film. It has the air of someone just grabbing a camera and filming something with their mates one weekend. It kind of feels like a documentary at times. Actually now I think about it it feels more like you’re hiding in the bushes watching it. There’s an incredibly voyeuristic quality to the film-making that makes it seem like you’re peeling apart the lives of these characters, witnessing things you shouldn’t be seeing. It’s wonderful and I love it. The type of film-making that makes you want to go into the directors back catalogue and see what else they’re capable of.
So in summary I think you should check it out, but be aware there is a chance that you will absolutely hate it.
Quick Synopsis: Barb (Annie Mumolo) and Star (Kristen Wiig), two middle aged women, go on holiday. Can’t remember where, if only they mentioned it in the title or something
This was a strange film. I expected something standard but warm. Not standard in terms of quality, but in terms of style, I thought it would be something fairly straight forward. I based this solely on the title. I went into this almost blind, I read a quick synopsis and it said “the plot follows two best friends from Nebraska who travel to Florida on vacation only to become caught up in a villain’s plot”. See, completely normal based on that. Maybe if I saw a trailer I probably would have had a better idea of what the film is, and what it is, is pretty fucking weird. It’s a film entirely made up of “what the actual fuck?” moments (Like a talking crab doing a Morgan Freeman impression, or a piano singer who makes every song a song about how much he loves tits). Crucially, it never breaks the universe the film is set in, even when it doesn’t make sense. Because so much weird stuff happens that doesn’t make sense, that it actually makes sense. That’s one thing a lot of lesser films don’t do properly, they just put weird moments in that break the flow and feel like they don’t fit the universe.
But it works in this, it’s very much Black Books in that weird shit happens, but it’s amongst grounded stuff, so the weird stuff becomes the new reality. It’s very clever in how it manages that. It’s kind of standard for the SNL films (Wayne’s World, Macgruber), of which this actually isn’t one, but it really seems like one. Not just because of the style, but also because of the presence of Wiig. She plays both one of the leads, and the villain. I get why she did that but I don’t think it works here. Now, I love Wiig, but I think the villain needed to be someone a bit more dramatic. It feels throughout like the villain is aware she’s in a comedy film and it just feels a bit bland. If you had someone who usually played this roles anyway it would have been better. Cate Blanchett would have been perfect.
Mentioned a lot about the weirdness of it, but the film it reminds me of most? Shirley Valentine. Very weird as I don’t think I’ve actually seen that film. But that kind of sunshine holiday feel to it. Visually it reminds me of Palm Springs in terms of the colour scheme.
It’s not just the colours that give this that delightful feel. The dynamic between the two leads is perfect, the real life friendship really shines through the screen. The dialogue flows naturally between the two friends and it’s so lovely to see such a pure and honest friendship between two characters on screen. The two are friends in real life and it really shows in the way they interact.
I really enjoyed this film. It set the tone very early on by having a child lip-sync to a Bee Gees/Streisand song while delivering newspapers, then it turns out he’s actually helping a supervillain by planting a bomb. Yeah it’s a very strange movie, sometimes unintentionally (like when it has a dance scene using the same song as Paddington 2 did, that film owns that song now, no films can use it without reminding me of that).
So in summary, not a perfect film, and it’s not a film that will be for everybody’s tastes. But if you like this kind of thing, you will like this. Incredibly funny, unique, and has a great look to it.
Troubled Productions 