The End We Start From (2023) Review

Quick synopsis: After floods decimate the UK, a new mother does her best to find a safe space for her and her child.

I watched this in the middle of summer, and you’d think a film about torrential rainfall wouldn’t make sense to be watched in the summer. Ordinarily, you’d be right, but you’ve forgotten one thing; I live in England. I’ve spoken before about how the external atmosphere can affect the film-watching experience (I am wondering if part of my disdain for how Oculus ended was because the cinema turned the lights on early), but watching this in a weirdly wet summer definitely changed it, was like having surround sound.

The End We Start From (TEWSF, pronounced Two-soff) sets its genius relatively early on, having the scenes of her giving birth be intercut with scenes of her house being flooded. This is both smart and an obvious thing to do, but obvious like “having cheese on pizza instead of boiled foot dust” is obvious, in that if you did otherwise it would be weird. I do have some issues with the opening section though. It has her husband (referred to as R, and played brilliantly by Joel Fry) be away. With that, you’d assume the story would be about the two of them trying to reach each other. But then he just appears at the hospital after she’s given birth, so his not being in the opening didn’t affect the plot. It’s peculiar when you consider they get separated again. So their on-screen chemistry feels very stop-start. Ordinarily, I’d say “Keep them separated until the end so when the two meet again it feels special”, but that would be a stupid thing to do as it would rob TEWSF of a key scene; the one where R’s parents die. We know one dies but aren’t told anything about how or why until a few scenes later, and when you find out, damn it’s brutal, so, damn, brutal. It all feels real too. COVID taught us a lot (For example; that you should wash your hands after peeing, and that you shouldn’t sneeze directly on people. Both of which are things that apparently needed teaching), but the most sobering thought (so sobering it drives me to drink) was that people are dicks. They need to go to Ladbrokes even if it does kill the person behind the counter who’s forced to work even whilst sick.

I kind of wish we saw more of the world the film takes place in, most of what we see is just the universe surrounding the main character (Jodie Comer, credited as Woman). Much like AQP: DP, it all happens so quickly and the character isn’t at the centre of it. We do see a few other people, but only sporadically. It’s essentially a road movie where we only see the pit stops. As such, we feel like we’re in a weird purgatory where the character spends a lot of time in various places but none long enough to let the audience feel grounded and like we’re getting to know anybody. So much happens, but because they all feel like they have no impact, weirdly it seems like nothing happens.

That’s a shame as I would like to see more of some of the characters; partly as an excuse to see more Gina McKee and Katherine Waterston, especially Waterston who is always incredible. Of course, Comer is great, but that’s to be expected. I was surprised by how good Joey Fry is, I’ve only seen him in comedies, or acting alongside other sitcom actors. He more than holds his own in this. He’s surprisingly key to how this works. Considering it’s about a mother and a newborn child, you’d think it would contain a lot about modern femininity, and it does. But it also tackles masculinity, the feeling that if you’re not a provider then you are failing as a man.

It’s not just the people on screen, there’s a lot of talent behind the camera too. The music is mostly fitting, there is one part where it feels slightly too jaunty for what just happened, but otherwise, it’s dour and depressing. The visuals are sublime too, there are no gorgeous shots in it, but it’s not a movie for beauty, it’s about ugliness. Mahalia Belo has done a fantastic job of directing TEWSF. Even just the little moments are done as well as they could be. There’s a two-second shot of the television networks shutting down, that two seconds is creepier than most horror movies. Watching TEWSF is like wading through a murky puddle, but doing so in the middle of summer so that even when you are nearly stuck, you can still feel the warmth and have a small glimmer of hope of what’s coming.

In summary, it has flaws, but it’s incredibly powerful and definitely worth your time. Although I do question the logic of the main character crying so much during a flood; that’s just making it worse.

Sometimes I Think About Dying (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: A story about isolation, boredom, and lacking purpose. No it’s not my biography and it’s rude of you to say that.

A few years ago I travelled to New York at the end of winter. In preparation, I purchased some winter clothing. Among them was a new pair of boots. Not just warm and sturdy, but they also came with a neat little extra; spikes on the soles that you could flip down in harsh icey conditions. I still have those boots (we don’t really have “winter” here, we just have rain) and I consider the flippable cleats a genius design. It’s so simple too, you see them and think “why don’t more companies do this?”. That’s how I felt about the opening credits of Sometimes I Think About Dying (Otherwise known as SITAD, pronounced sit-add). The fact that they use a different font is embarrassingly mindblowing. It takes the same amount of effort as doing them the same way as everyone else, but it does SO much in establishing style. I’ve mostly seen it in horror movies to be like “Oh look, we’re spooky”, or to establish the time period in which the film is set. Here it’s to establish a theme. It’s such a simple thing but it works beautifully and it means that no matter what happened for the rest of the runtime, I was going to take something positive from this.

Thankfully, even without that, I’d be able to be positive about SITAD, it’s delightful. But not in a “everything is fantastic and wonderful if you just believe” fake BS way that Hollywood provides. In a way, you can say it’s twee, kind of. But it’s a sense of twee with all the colour and joy drained away from it. Mostly it’s a film that says “I don’t understand people”. Those three previous sentences may seem disjointed (and some would say inherently contradictory) but that’s the wonder of SITAD. It’s depressive elegance, with some stark cinematography that’s beautiful in its simplicity. It’s shot not to sell a story, but to sell a character and a mood.

The script matches that, doing so much with so little. Normally characters establish themselves by saying things, SITAD establishes itself by having the main character not say anything while everybody else talks around her. In a lesser film, this would be met with scenes of her trying to say something but getting cut off whenever she tries to speak. Here, she doesn’t even attempt to say anything, she just stands in the background until she can safely leave without anybody noticing. She doesn’t have isolation thrust upon her, she actively prefers it. It’s great because when she speaks out loud, it actually means something. It’s at least 20 minutes before Fran (Daisy Ridley’s character) utters her first words. Side note, one of these days I’ll remember what Daisy Ridley looks like when I’m not looking at her, my brain keeps picturing Charlotte Ritchie. Daisy Ridley gets a lot of praise (and she should, she’s PHENOMENAL), but I feel that Marcia DeBonis needs praise too. Her speech near the end where she’s talking about her husband suffering health issues is heartbreaking and delivered perfectly. Crucially, it’s not delivered as “a performance”, with perfect diction and line delivery. She stumbles over her words, is slightly unclear on a few syllables, and pauses mid-sentence. In essence; she feels REAL.

That’s partly why I loved this film so much, nothing about it felt fake. It doesn’t feel like we’re there watching them, it’s better than that. Even though we see her from an audience’s perspective, it somehow feels like we ARE Fran. It’s helped by a powerful score (brought to you by Dabney Morris), and a powerful performance. But it is mostly anchored by how good the writing is.

It’s not perfect though. Fran is a little bit too cruel at times which can make her hard to root for. But when she does say something heartless such as “You’re exhausting, no wonder you can’t stay married”, the VERY next scene shows her obviously regretting it.

As you can probably tell. I LOVED this movie. It’s not up for my favourite of the year, but it is possibly the one I’ve connected with the most. Good films entertain, and great ones inspire. This will inspire you as a writer, as a director, as a musician, as a performer, fuck it, with the way this tackles themes of isolation and self-sabotage, this will inspire you as a person. A lot of people won’t like it, and even those who do like it might not like certain parts of it. For example, I saw some reviews say the party scene was cringe and went on too long. Personally, that was the highlight of the movie. It felt like the first time Fran felt accepted, she was letting the mask of insecurity slip, and the sheer joy she showcases is infectious. I’m not saying this is the best film of the year, but it is probably the one I would recommend most at the moment if you want to feel things and be touched (not in a Kevin Spacey way). One of the most genuine movies I’ve seen all year, and I’m a better person for having watched it.

Boy Kills World (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: An unnamed deaf-mute ventures on a revenge plan against those who killed his family.

As is a sadly familiar story with smaller films lately, even ones I’ve seen at the cinema, I knew nothing about this as it received no trailers or promotional material in my local. You could easily not know it existed. That’s a shame as Boy Kills World (or BKW, pronounced Buck-ow) is one of the highlights of the year.

Saying this film is “weird” would be an understatement. “Batshit insane” is more appropriate. It’s essentially a live-action anime mixed with Naked Gun. It takes longer than you’d expect for that tone to come through though. Don’t get me wrong, you’re not waiting a long time for it to establish tone, but it does take longer than it probably should. Up until the opening credits it just feels like a standard movie. When it gets weird, it does get WEIRD, but it could place its flag earlier on.

It is weird, but in a way that makes sense within the universe created. The world it takes place in is weird, so when odd shit happens, it doesn’t feel out of place. There’s a general sense of “what the fuck?” over the whole thing. Thankfully it’s not offputting, mainly because it’s incredibly funny. Bill Skarsgard has great physical comedy skills; bringing to mind Buster Keaton, only with violence and bloodshed. He has a hell of a difficult job, not being able to vocally communicate with the other characters puts him at a huge disadvantage. He does have a slight advantage over similar roles by having a voiceover performed by H. Jon Benjamin. On the downside; it’s hard to not hear him as Archer or the main character from Bob’s Burgers whose name escapes me right now (Gene Parmasen?), so he never really feels like he is the character as much as he is just narrating as a separate person. He does provide some fantastic laughs though. A lot of the cast nail the comedy side; Brett Gelman and Andrew Koji are particular highlights, Koji surprisingly so.

The weirdness and comedic nature don’t mean it doesn’t excel from a technical viewpoint. The action scenes are intense and expertly crafted. The story is much better than it needs to be. It really feels like a genuinely dystopian city. It’s creepily believable. It’s not loudspeakers and constant “all hail us”. It’s statues, police presence, and state-sanctioned violence on dissenters. The scene where Boys family are executed is chilling, as is the fact that the regime has a lot of supporters. It also notable that there’s not really a “nice” side. It’s not a battle between good and evil, it’s a battle between two sides desperate to kill each other. Although one of the sides:

  • Started the conflict.
  • Has more advanced weaponry.
  • Has an army/police force that brutally crushes any form of resistance to them.
  • Indulges in mass surveillance of its people.
  • Has a media supporting them who are ready to go after anybody who opposes them.
  • Stifles free speech.
  • Massacres children indiscriminately

Yet that side is still portrayed as the “good” side. I wonder if there are any real-life parallels to that happening right now. I’m sure not.

Unsubtle political posturing from me aside, Boy Kills World isn’t the best film of the year (that honour still belongs to either Civil War or American Fiction), but I think it is the one I most want to watch again. It’s not perfect, the music choices could be more fun. There’s not really an iconic needle drop, which feels like a wasted opportunity. There’s also a late twist which isn’t as surprising as the film thinks it 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.

Back To Black (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: The tragic tale of the life and death of Amy Winehouse.

Have to admit, I’m not that big on Amy Winehouse. I appreciate she was talented, but for whatever reason, her music never really appealed to me enough to actively choose to listen to it. So how would I get on with a film about her that seemed to treat her as the most unique and talented that has ever existed? Probably with scorn.

Luckily, Back To Black (or BTB, pronounced Baa-tob) doesn’t treat her as a God-like figure. In fact, I’d argue it goes too far in the other direction. On the upside, it means that you’re not watching a film that constantly has to defend the terrible decisions the main character makes, but on the downside, it means you’re left watching a film with a main character whom it’s kind of difficult to like. Even before the drugs, she’s an incredibly abrasive character. Now this isn’t just a “She’s a woman standing up for herself! Difficult!”. Out of the four main conflict styles (Man against man, man against society, man against nature, man against self), this is definitely against self. She constantly gets in her own way. When she’s offered a record deal? “I ain’t no fucking Spice Girl, fuck you!”. When she’s told she needs to stop drinking and punching people? “I have to live my life the way I want, fuck you!”. When they try to make her go to rehab? She says “No, no, no. And also? Fuck you!”. It’s been a while since I’ve watched something with this much disdain for its main character. It’s much more sympathetic to her father Mitch than the 2015 documentary Amy. It does include him saying she doesn’t need to go rehab, but it doesn’t include the moment where he followed her to Saint Lucia with a camera crew so he could make a documentary about her called My Daughter Amy, in which she’s clearly uncomfortable and desperate for privacy.

I feel the tabloid media gets off easier than it should too. There are a few scenes of them camping outside her house, but only in those moments. There’s a lot where it seems like she’s left alone. Like the tabloid scenes were only there to say “See, we included it” and then never referenced again. It also doesn’t touch on just how bad her addictions were at some point. We see her get in a quick punch-up, but we don’t see it affecting her live performances. Her 2007 tour is shown as a success when in actuality she was a drunken mess for a lot of those gigs, cancelling a lot of them. We also don’t see her disastrous final gig at Belgrade. It’s a shame as that could have been an incredibly emotional scene, but the film is too scared to be ugly, too preoccupied with showing us the glamour, and not enough grit.

The performances are pretty damn good though. Marisa Abela doesn’t really physically resemble Winehouse that much, although there are moments where you can see Amy in her like a magic eye picture. She carries herself like Winehouse did though, and that’s the important thing. Her voice is damn near perfect for it, especially for the singing. Jack O’Connell is fine as Blake, but we’re not shown enough of him outside of his relationship with Amy to make him seem like a full person. Eddie Marsen is, as usual, a captivating presence on screen, and you can feel the character’s despair at how his daughter is squandering her life (but not enough to suggest rehab).

In summary, it’s okay. It’s a better watch than the Bob Marley film but feels more like a concept than a completed idea, there are too many missing pieces to make it feel complete. In the jigsaw of cinema, this is missing so many narrative pieces that you can’t even finish the borders first. We don’t even get to see much about her death, no news reaction to it, no family reaction to it, no fan reaction to it. So the whole thing lacks the tragedy that would elevate it to something greater.

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: A death-chilling god seeks to build a spectral army. And in that scenario, who are you gonna call? Well, text, nobody answers the phone anymore.

I didn’t understand the negative reaction Afterlife got. Well, I say “negative reaction”, it was mainly from critics and online douchbags. Actual people who aren’t just going to be annoyed because “it’s gone woke” all enjoyed it. The same negative reviews and internet comments were there for this one. Logically I shouldn’t have cared because of what happened with Afterlife. But I had similar situations with Halloween Kills and Halloween Ends, poo-pooing the negative reviews of Ends, when they later turned out to be accurate as the film was shit.

I can gladly say, negative reviews of this are wrong. If you enjoyed Afterlife, you’ll enjoy this. The things which made that film work, also work here. It’s charming, it’s funny, and McKenna Grace continues to be one of the best young performers in the industry. Frozen Empire does have the advantage of being a bit spookier than Afterlife. There are some great scares and genuine tension, with a villain who’s much better defined than the previous one.

Just because he’s better defined, does not mean he’s better utilized. It’s a nearly two-hour film, yet it still doesn’t have time to properly flesh out the villain. He appears sporadically throughout, so never really overhangs the film like he could/should. When he’s on-screen/being discussed, definitely feels like a threatening threat of threatening proportions, but he’s definitely not used as effectively as he could.

I think part of the problem is that there are essentially two BIG threats in one movie. There’s the “Frozen” part, where the world is at risk of being frozen and people being killed via death chill so they will never want to build a snowman ever again. That could be a huge threat to overcome, and there’s a reason it’s all over the marketing.

But there’s another threat at play; all the ghosts that have been captured by the team are at risk of being broken out of “prison” and all returning. That was underplayed in the marketing and the film itself. But let’s face it, that should have its own movie. That concept has so much potential for greatness, and it’s as undercooked as that chicken that I had from KFC in ‘94 in which the only compensation we got was Viennetta ice cream.

It’s a shame as apart from that this is great. All the performers are great, although some aren’t in it enough but that’s probably because there are just SO many of them; not only do we have the cast from Afterlife, but we also have the surviving originals and some new ones we’re introduced to play by James Acaster, Kumail Nanjiani and Emily Alyn Lind. There are about 12 characters, so obviously, its going to be a struggle to juggle them all. Alyn Lind’s character in particular is interesting. I’m not sure if I’m imagining it, but there did seem to be a slightly sapphic undertones to the interactions between her Melody and McKenna Graces Phoebe. I’m not sure whether it was implied intentionally in the script, or whether it’s just the chemistry between the actors, but I did sense it there. As everyone knows, I’m a huge fan of McKenna and what she brings to the table performance-wise, and I want to see more from Alyn Lind, there’s an inherently loveable quality to her. She could easily lead a horror franchise, in the right hands, she could be mentioned in the same breath as Jamie Lee Curtis,

In summary, I love this movie. It’s not quite as good as the previous one, but it’s not a shame to the franchise. This is much better than the 5th (or 4th depending if you take the 2016 as canon) movie in a franchise should be. Few franchises this far in are very rarely this inventive, this fresh, this joyful. I want a lot of these characters and this world. I love it so much.

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.

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.