Together (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: Tim and Millie are a couple who are slowly drifting apart. They then find themselves having the complete opposite problem in this Romantic Horror (is that a thing?).

Together is 70 minutes of pure body horror, incredibly weird disgusting-ness set against a backdrop of romantic co-dependency. The trouble is, the film is 102 minutes long, and that over 30 minutes really brings it down.

There’s not a specific section that’s the problem. It’s not like The Watchers, where the final section significantly dragged it down. There are just moments throughout which don’t really feel necessary, where the premise is stretched thinner than someone who curses a witch whilst saying how they want to lose weight. I get the theme it’s going for, as will every audience member, as it bashes you over the head with it. There are also some incredibly misguided moments of comedy. I also didn’t buy some of their reactions as genuine. With a premise like this, you have to wonder “how will others react to this?” We’ll never know, as the only person they discuss it with has already had it happen to them. They do meet one of the characters mothers at the end, but at the very end, just before the film cuts to black, so we don’t see how she reacts to it. This is probably because if they discuss it with some people, it would make it too difficult to not have THAT overwhelm the story, but I’m not sure ignoring it makes it any better. It’s a relatively simple fix, have them on a week away in a remote cabin somewhere, with no people nearby for miles.

This is all pretty negative so far, I know. But when Together works, it REALLY works. The climactic fusing together (does it really count as a spoiler when its ALL OVER the marketing?) is absolutely vile, in a wonderful way. It reminds me of The Substance, but more painful. The use of “2 Become 1” on the soundtrack during that scene is incredibly unsubtle, but this film can’t have subtlety when it’s as gross as it is. The performances are pretty damn good, the real-life chemistry between the two leads shines off the screen, and really adds to the story being told. On the subject of performance; Dave Franco has never sounded less like his brother, and more like Aaron Paul.

Back to the body horror. That’s really the main reason to watch this, and it doesn’t disappoint. I like how it actually has a reason behind it. There’s a narrative reason for the merger to happen, it’s explained why and how it happened. It also has a thematic reason, ties into the central messages well. It’s not just stuff happening for the sake of it, the horror has a reason and a message. That has to be commended, and is the reason for me recommending this film, even if I didn’t think of it quite as highly as everyone elses seems to. Is it a very good film? Yes. Is it an all-time classic? Not quite. But it’s quite close, and that’s more than most films could manage.

The Thursday Murder Club (2025) Review.

Quick Synopsis: Four retirees spend their time solving cold case murders for fun, but their casual sleuthing takes a thrilling turn when they find themselves with a real “who has done this” on their hands

It’s possible I did The Thursday Murder Club (TTMC, pronounced Ta-too-muk) in the wrong order; I watched the film, read the book, then I wrote the review. In some ways, this did help, as most of the casting is pretty spot on and easy to imagine. However, the film makes some things difficult to unsee, one of which is the size of the building. In the book, it’s almost normal, yet in the film? It basically looks like Downton Abbey. This wouldn’t be a problem for most films. But for this? It does bring out the worst aspects; the middle-class tweeness of the whole thing. The feeling that it’s watched by people who spend half their conversations going “I miss the old days when people weren’t so black”.

It’s a shame, as that does a disservice to TTMC. Yes, I expect it to pale in comparison to Wake Up Dead Man when that comes out, but that’s not for a while, so TTMC has a few months of being the best murder mystery film of the year. It’s a pretty good mystery too, especially once you realise that they’ve completely gutted a sub-plot from the boo,k which means they’re either going to change the murderer or change their motivation, otherwise the motivation will be “he’s responsible for this awful thing that nobody has decided to mention for some reason”.

Like all good mysteries, the solution seems incredibly obvious once you’ve figured it out. The clues make sense, and it is possible to make an educated guess before the solution. In fact, I’d say it’s TOO easy. There aren’t enough suspects. The book has quite a few characters who you could easily imagine being the killer. The film has around two. I know stuff has to get cut when you adapt a book, but removing suspects from a murder mystery feels like shooting yourself in the face and leading a bloody corpse (I’ve just been informed the phrase is actually “shooting yourself in the foot”).

The deletion of some of the subplots also means a key scene in the book (and the film-makers obviously realise its importance when you see who they cast for this one scene) is rendered as nothing more than a diversion, albeit a quite entertaining one. That’s the film in a nutshell: not essential, but damn charming and entertaining. It’s the cinematic equivalent of a lovely drive through the country. Really, this is perfect for Netflix, and is probably the best film they’ve released this year.

Bride Hard (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Sam is a secret agent, which is quite handy when her friend’s wedding is attacked by mercenaries desperate for GOLD!

It may not seem like it, but I do actually like films, honest. I don’t often go in and focus on small issues I can nitpick. At worst, I go in with a “this could be terrible, let’s see if it actually is”. I never WANT a film to be bad, and even if I go in with low expectations, I can be won over. For example, I watched Ghostbusters: Afterlife expecting it to be among the worst films I’ve ever seen, and came out absolutely loving it (honestly, I might prefer it to the first one). That’s a rather long preamble to say that I do not dislike this movie because I’m expected to dislike it, I dislike it because there was very little for me to like.

First issue? The casting. I don’t dislike Rebel Wilson, but she’s the wrong actress for this, mainly because she plays the same character she plays often: a sarcastic quipper who’s quick to random punches in the face. That doesn’t work as a secret agent; it would be like casting Adam Sandler as Bond. You can’t watch this and picture her character as a competent agent, not just because of how loud she is, meaning she’ll definitely get attention everywhere she goes. But also because she does incredibly stupid things. For example, near the end, she blows up a house accidentally whilst catching a bouquet at a wedding. Makes her seem kind of shit at her job. I know, it’s a comedy, but if the characters aren’t going to take this seriously, I’m not. Although considering how quickly one of her friends tells everyone she’s a secret agent, I can’t imagine she’d be one for very long after the events of this film.

You can’t lay all the blame at the feet of her character. Genre mash-ups are hard if you get the genres wrong. Horror/comedy? That’s fine. Hardcore pornography/musical? That’s harder (pun unintentional). Wedding comedy/action? That should work. Both are full of recognisable cliches, and both require elaborate set-pieces. Yet it doesn’t really work for this. Part of it is because the characters never feel like they’re in a decent action movie; they all act as if they’re in a wedding-based comedy where the biggest problem is the colour of the cake, not the armed terrorists. So in the middle of hostage situations, characters start making jokes and making light of the situation. These are not the hero characters who are used to this; they’re normal, everyday people for whom being hostages isn’t normal. There’s no sense of urgency or fear. Even when a character is shot, nobody seems to care that much. It doesn’t even factor into the plot.

Overall, it feels like nobody cares. That it was written by A.I. and performed by (normally very talented) performers who just wanted to get back home and eat a Müller Light, maybe a Müller Corner, the banana one with the chocolate cornflakes. In case you think I’m underestimating the effort, this is from the IMDB page:

“At the party, the priest is at the bar with other guys. He picks up two full champagne flutes in 4 different cuts. Each cut is to two girls talking, but when it cuts back each time, the priest is still picking up the same flutes. This happens 4 times.”

That should not happen in a movie you want people to see. Someone should have picked up on that. Either they should have got more shots on set that they could cut away to, or the editor could have found different ones to use. Someone either messed up, didn’t give a shit, or ran out of time. I don’t particularly care which one, I just care that it happened.

This really should have worked; most of the situations and scenes essentially write themselves due to the situation mash-up; have the bride be nervous about the bouquet toss, but need to throw something similar in the climax. Make at least ONE joke about how tuxedos are worn by both men at weddings and secret agents in films. Have a drunk relative walk in on an action scene and assume it’s a sex scene. Use the centre-pieces to defeat people. Have a scene of the bride’s guests choosing their dresses, then echo that scene later on when they’re picking weapons. Really, there are SO many ways you could have incredible, unique action set-pieces; none of which happen. The closest we get is a fight scene in a kitchen set to It’s Raining Men. But even that has a negative; it’s not a high-octane scene featuring impressive stunts, it’s mainly slowly sneaking around a small room, and then throwing something. It’s like the film-makers knew they needed that song, but didn’t know how best to utilise it, so they just threw it into a scene where it didn’t belong.

This could have been great; instead, it’s not even passable.

Spinal Tap II: The End Continues (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Many years after the original “documentary”, the band returns for a comeback gig.

I’m not actually sure if I’ve seen the first movie or if I’ve just seen so many clips and references to it that my mind recognises it (also in that category; Hitchcock’s Rebecca). So I was in a weird position where I would understand every callback and reference, but I also didn’t need “hey, this is a reference, remember? If not, we’ll flashback anyway” as was done in Happy Gil-More More More How Do You Like It, How Do You Like It.

Because of that, I may not be the best person to review this, caught in the strange medium between knowing nothing and knowing something. Even with that, I liked it. You can tell it’s highly improvised, but only really if you’re looking for it. It’s not 2010’s SNL improv, where everyone is so desperate to get their own shit in that they trample over everyone elses dialogue and extend their bits with “zany” moments (for an example of this; Kate McKinnon in Ghostbusters, I love her, think she’s hilarious, but there are multiple times where the movie stops dead so she can get her shtick in). This is improv where everybody knows their character so well that they know how to respond to any situation believably. The core cast know their roles, and all are perfectly willing to set up jokes rather than take the laughs themselves.

Not everybody returns in a big way. Fran Drescher, Paul Schaffer, and June Chadwick return, but only really as cameos. Tony Hendra, who played their manager Ian in the original, does not return, on account of being dead. That’s probably for the best, as in 2004, his daughter submitted a piece to the New York Times that said that he sexually assaulted her as a child. The allegations were never fully investigated, so they weren’t disproven, which would have caused a cloud to hang over this picture and would make me kind of uncomfortable to watch it and laugh with him.

How about the new additions? They slot in perfectly. You’d never guess this was Valerie Franco’s first acting role; she doesn’t seem out of place at all. Anybody who has seen The Thick Of It knows how good Chris Addison can be. The way his character disappears near the end is sort of narratively unsatisfying, though.

Now’s the best time to mention it; the narrative isn’t great. Because it’s SO dependent on the core cast, we don’t see much of the outside world. The fact that the gig is sold out kind of indicates they have fans, and the fact that Elton John and Paul McCartney want to work with them shows they’re respected in the music industry, but the band are still kind of seen as jokes when they talk to each other. We needed more stuff away from the band, conversations with music journalists, etc, talking about the band’s impact. Or even quick social media snapshots of how people are reacting. As real as the band feels at times, the film could do a better job of making us believe. Obviously, we know they’re a fake band, and the film doesn’t do a good enough job of making us forget that.

That’s a small issue, though. This is a hilarious film. The screening I was in wasn’t the biggest, but it got a good reaction. It reminded me of going to a gig in a small venue that’s not sold out, the kind of attendance where there’s not even a queue at the bar. But everybody at that gig is IN, having the time of their life, dancing and singing along all night with the energy of thousands. Thats what watching this was like; you could probably feed everybody there with a mid-size BBQ, but those minimal numbers made noise. They laughed, they murmured when they realised certain things were about to happen, and every single one stayed through the credits. It’s not a “laugh every minute” film, but the laughs that are there are great.

The Roses (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: Theo and Ivy are a married couple who are slowly starting to resent each other.

I have not read the book this movie is based on, and I also haven’t seen the original 1989 adaptation. So this review will not contain any “but in the original version they did this” or “in the book this character had a different job, ruined!”. I’ll be taking this on its own merits. On its own merits, this is a damn fine movie. The laughs start early on and don’t stop until the credits roll. That’s not hyperbole; the fade to credits is, in itself, a joke.

One of the most exciting things for me about this was the knowledge that statistically, there’s a high chance that people went in not knowing what it was. They saw Cumberbatch, they saw Colman, and thought it would be a sweet romantic comedy, not knowing how angry and bitter it would get. Meanwhile, I had seen the trailer, so I knew that it was going to be cynical and spiteful and more cold-hearted than a polar bears internal organs that have been stuffed in the freezer for transplant purposes. I would sit there in the knowledge that I knew what to expect, whereas they did not. Oh, how I would mock those fools. But, much like every web comic on April Fools Day 2016, perhaps I am the fool. Because, yes, this is somewhat mean-spirited and bitter (especially in the final scenes, which I’m not a fan of how extreme they got), it’s also incredibly heart-warming.

Crucially, The Roses doesn’t make them hate each other that quickly. We see how their relationship started, then see them together and happy before the cracks start showing, and even longer before those cracks become big enough to cause structural damage. It means that the trailers were somewhat misleading, but I preferred it like this. It meant that we actually wanted them to be together. No matter how funny their barbs are (and they are), there is still a small part of you that feels disappointed that it’s come to this. It’s not like you’re watching two characters in a farce gradually descend into silliness, it’s more like you’re watching two friends tear into each other while you’re helpless to watch.

I’m not sure if you’re aware of Chekov’s Gun. Essentially, it’s a narrative device that says elements in a story must be necessary to justify their inclusion. For example, if you introduce a gun in the first act, then that gun must be fired later on. Obviously, not EVERYTHING, if a character has a cup of tea, it doesn’t mean you then have to reveal that without hot leaf water they will die. But if you make a point to specifically mention and highlight that the character is drinking tea, audiences would be forgiven for expecting that to be an important plot point later on. Sometimes this is done incredibly subtly; a spy movie will feature the character being handed a gadget while being told, “Now this device is lethal to people called Keith”, then the villain will turn out to be someone called Keith. When it’s done well, it’s a sight to behold, and few films have done it as well as The Roses. We’re introduced to so many things that we can easily think of as just symbols of excess and AMERICA, but then turn out to be vital in the third act.

It’s not all great. I wasn’t a fan of just how sociopathic they both turned at the end. Which is weird, as some of the negative reviews I’ve read have highlighted those moments as their favourite parts. It just felt like a huge leap from “flicking eyeballs” (not sexy slang) to “aiming a gun at”. There are also moments where it does feel like it’s repeating itself, and some of their friends should have noticed something was amiss earlier.

In general, though? I enjoyed it. It’s not as cynical as I expected, but it has bite when it needs to. Also, it’s good that a film like this basically centres around the message “FFS, communicate!”.

The Toxic Avenger (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: A janitor is turned into a superhero when he’s dumped in toxic waste.

Gonna get this out of the way now; I was not a fan of this movie. I know quite a few people are, and the reasons they like it are likely to be the same reasons I don’t: the tone, the shoddy quality of the filmmaking, the feeling that it’s outdated. That’s fine, there is no right or wrong when it comes to liking a movie; it’s entirely subjective (unless you like the Ice Cube version of War Of The Worlds, which was objectively bad).

I’ve always been interested in works made by Troma, ever since I heard about Tromeo and Juliet, but this is the first time I’ve actually watched one, and I have to believe the others are different from this. My main problem is that it feels deliberate. It feels like the cinematic equivalent of buying pre-torn clothes; a lot of effort put in to seem low effort. Some of the editing choices are a bit weird, and I feel like the soundtrack could have been better (with two notable musical choices which are pretty damn perfect).

It has a unique look, but I can’t quite figure out how. It doesn’t look like it’s been heavily altered in post-production, but there’s something weirdly crystal clear about the visuals; everything looks sharp and real, with great focus work. There are good performances too; you can tell that everybody is having a lot of fun, and while I do criticise this film, there is a small part of me that is jealous of the obvious camaraderie that everybody involved in it has.

This film is gory as hell, kind of. Heads get chopped off, guts are displayed, there’s so much blood that even track 8 of AC/DC’s 1979 album Highway To Hell would say “yeah, we get the point”. Mostly, there are times when it feels weirdly restrained; when it cuts away from violence that is in no way more violent than what we just saw. There’s also one death that I think should have been more violent. When Winston kills a band onstage, almost every death is violent and brutal, full of blood and gore. But then he kills the only female member of the band by electrocution. It’s hard to believe that that was an accident; it feels like the director made a conscious decision to shy away from showing extreme violence against women, even if they have been responsible for deaths. For a film based around chaos and gore, it feels weirdly conservative and politically correct. It is consistent with the tone, though, all of the deaths happen to truly terrible people. There’s no attempt to humanise the villains, which is refreshing. If someone is dumping toxic waste into lakes, they shouldn’t be humanised because they are vile, evil scum who deserve life in prison. No matter how violent and gory this movie is, it does have heart. Not just in the film itself, but the fact that the studio has declared it will wipe out (at a minimum) $5 million of medical debt. That is admirable.

As I said, there is quite a bit to like about this. And I’m glad it was made. I saw it in a cinema with (at most) 8 other people in, on a cold, damp Saturday night after a 6-day run at work which left me exhausted both physically and mentally. That’s not the right place to watch this. You want to watch it either at home with your friends while you’re drunk/high as fuck, or in a room full of people who are excited and audibly reacting. So yes, this is a negative review, but with caveats.

War Of The Worlds (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: Aliens attack! But this time, we witness it all through computer screens.

To fill you in on my non-film-watching life, I work retail. A few weeks ago, I was putting some clothes up and turned around, where I witnessed someone facing away from the store, pants around his ankles, pissing in the doorway. It was disgusting, vile, and rude. Yet I would rather have that happen once every hour of my working life than ever watch this film again. Trust me, that’s being kind. This is the worst thing I’ve seen all year, and I’ve seen the news.

First off, War Of The Worlds is timeless; its themes and messages are still relevant today. Updating it adds nothing. I should clarify, it’s not “updated” in a “same basic story, but takes place in modern times”, I mean, they completely change the themes. The aliens no longer invade Earth for colonialistic reasons; they invade for food. This could still work and possibly tie into the themes. Have the humans discover that they are to aliens what animals are to us; nothing but food and sustenance. You could even have a scene of a character discovering humans being harvested. WOTW (What-wah) doesn’t do this. Instead, the aliens eat, actually, I’m going to need to pause here to gather my thoughts because it’s so damn stupid. The aliens eat data. Because aliens must know my search history.

The other change is that the aliens are no longer defeated by a common virus, which means that it was only luck that the humans won in the book. Here, they’re defeated by a computer virus; so it’s not luck; it’s intentional defence, which, again, destroys the very point of the source material. It’s so stupid, and it’s not even original; it’s the same as Independence Day, one of the biggest films of all time.

The notion of “destroyed by a computer virus” isn’t even the stupidest part of how they’re defeated. Essentially, the world is saved by someone ordering something on Amazon Prime. By sheer coincidence, this movie is available on Amazon Prime. Side note, for this to work, we have to believe that the NSA don’t allow thumb drives, but they do allow random drones to enter their airspace. Although it’s not as though anybody can stop him from using a thumb drive anyway, as there seems to be nobody else in his building. A whole building with one person fighting cyber terrorism doesn’t feel safe. I imagine that would make it very easy for people to infiltrate and blackmail that person.

The idea of an alien invasion being witnessed on a computer screen is intriguing and opens up a lot of possibilities. But it doesn’t work. Part of that is because the film is so low-budget can’t show us what it wants to. Although I guess it’s nice to know that “filming yourself instead of the actual interesting thing” is something that even trained NSA agents do. Not as though filming the actual threat could prove useful, just keep filming your face as you run. That’s definitely what trained professionals would do.

When you see stuff like that, it really takes you out of it. As do the terrible effects. The weather effects, in particular, are reminiscent of something from a PS2 game rather than a modern feature. The news reports also feel incredibly fake. It’s hard to clarify exactly why, but none of them feel genuine. It’s not the logos or the people, it’s the general feel of them; they feel very amateur.

The characters? Terrible. The lead character of Will may actually be an idiot, and the way he cyberstalks his daughter is weird. This is actual dialogue:

His son (certified computer genius): “I have information you might want to know”

Ice Cube: “Not now!”

If, in the middle of a serious event that is mysterious, someone says, “I have information you might want to know”, it would be a good idea to actually listen to them to see if it’s helpful, and to make the film at least 30 minutes shorter.

The characters might work if the performances were good. Spoilers, they’re not. Ice Cube just scowls, with less depth than the shallow end of a baby’s swimming pool. It feels like he wasn’t actually told what he was supposed to be reacting to, just told to make generic faces. It’s not just him; Michael O Neil looks bored, giving a truly terrible performance.

You may be morbidly curious about watching this. Don’t. Don’t watch it, watch good movies instead. Watch films you want to see more of. Don’t watch badly made pieces of shit. Don’t watch movies which pretend to be warning against the dangers of government surveillance, but then also praise Amazon and Facebook, if their data handling methods are squeaky clean. This movie is terrible, and it breaks Prime’s positive review streak on this website.

Nobody 2 (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: An assassin goes on holiday, and people die.

I thoroughly enjoyed the first Nobody. It was action-packed, it was fun, and it was short enough that it didn’t outstay its welcome. In that aspect, Nobody 2 succeeds. It does all the important stuff well, and carries on the legacy of the first movie.

There are some aspects in which it’s not quite as successful. The action scenes aren’t as memorable as those in the first one; none of them come close to the bus scene. It’s also slightly overstuffed, particularly in the villain department. There is one definite BIG bad, but they’re introduced after we’ve already had issues with everybody else, so they’re not given as much focus. This may seem like sacrilege, but I didn’t like Sharon Stone in this. Her performance felt so hammy that I witnessed a little felt frog marry it. It felt like she was giving a performance, not that she got lost in the role. The background characters aren’t as well-written as they could be. With some aspects of them feeling overpowered and unrealistic, especially when they hold their own in fights with people they really shouldn’t.

Now, onto the upside, very little of that previous paragraph actually matters. You’ll be entertained throughout anyway. The action scenes, like I said, aren’t quite as good as the first one, but they are still very good. They’re set up beautifully. Things are mentioned throughout the film that later become relevant in a later scene when they are used to kill people. There are some great music choices, varied too. Cliff Richard’s songs fit alongside Celine Dion and The Offspring; all the choices make sense, although it would be an incredibly weird soundtrack if you played all of them together.

What Nobody 2 does better than the first one is set up a potential future. There are so many plot threads that are just waiting for a future film to unravel them. It also avoids the trap that people think John Wick fell into: becoming overly long and too steeped in lore. Nobody 2 is a quick 90 minutes, meaning it never overstays its welcome. For people who like the action of the John Wick movies (which you should, they’re awesome) but actually have social lives, which means they can’t spend an entire day watching a franchise, Nobody 2 is the perfect substitute. When the film ends, you want more. On the one hand, that’s delightful. On the other hand, there is a small part of you that feels unsatisfied, like you’ve had a delicious burger, but you’re still hungry.

Happy Gilmore 2 (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: Gilmore returns to the sport of golf since his retirement after winning his first Tour Championship, to finance his daughter’s ballet classes

I will admit, I loved Adam Sandler’s movies as a teen. But as I’ve grown up, I’ve come to find his characters a bit petulant and annoying. Plus, his films have a weird attitude to women; with most of the love interests being more like mothers than lovers. His characters are kind of embarrassing to watch, especially since they all share the same flaws, and the lesson they learn is normally “everyone else is the problem, you shouldn’t change”. Nowhere is this more evident than in the opening of this movie; where he kills his wife accidentally, then his life falls apart; not because of grief, not because of trauma (in fact, the idea that he killed his wife playing golf doesn’t play into the narrative as much as it should, there’s no “but I can’t play golf, golf killed my wife” moments), but because he sucks as an adult and has no idea how to pay bills.

If you can still watch ’90s Sandler and enjoy it, then you will like this. There are a lot of callbacks to the original, which fans will appreciate. On the downside, the movie doesn’t trust you to remember the first film, so a lot of callbacks are prefaced by flashbacks to what is about to be referenced. That’s to be expected from a modern Sandler film; as are the other main faults: the narrative stopping so a character can make a joke, repetitiveness, and the insistence of Sandler putting his friends and family in major roles.

It’s when it’s not traditional Sandler that HG2 shows its best. The message of “no, tradition should be upheld instead of being ignored for something new and flashy” is unexpected. Also unexpected is the redemption arc of Shooter. It feels very in-character, though. Part of the reason he was the villain in the first movie was that he hated how Happy treated the game. So there’s zero reason for him to go along with a plan to change the game to the extent the villain in this movie suggests. The tributes to the cast members who have passed are genuinely sweet whilst remaining tonally consistent with the franchise. I also enjoyed one of the early golf games, where Happy is a drunken mess. That moment is helped by the people he’s playing with, who are played by Eric Andre and Margaret Qualley. It does kind of suck that those characters are never seen again. There are multiple moments where I feel they could have belonged. The villains’ super team of golfers are also an interesting group of characters, who are less developed than an improv comics stand-up set.

In summary, if this came out 20 years ago, I’d have loved it. As it is? It’s just kind of sad. Especially when it shows hints of being a much better movie.

The Naked Gun (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Frank Drebin Jr. attempts to stop a fiendish billionaire (is there any other kind?) from activating their P.L.O.T device.

This is the dumbest movie I’ve ever seen (editor’s note: this review was written before I watched the 2025 Ice Cube-led War Of The Worlds), it’s ridiculous, it’s cliche, and it’s over the top. It’s also f*cking brilliant. I’m a huge fan of the original trilogy (and the TV show, which is sorely underrated), so I went into this with a mixture of excitement and nervousness. Excited because I love movies like this – dumb, funny, and weird oddness. Studios and general audiences don’t feel the same way, so they’re not made as much as they should. The last film I can remember which even came close to that chaotic energy was probably Bottoms. But nervous because I was concerned it would be less like the original movies, and more like the execrable “[WORD] Movie” parodies that plagued the 2000s. Movies which forgot to have jokes, and instead had references, or if they did have jokes, they were jokes that they didn’t realise were in the thing they were mocking.

Also, there was a chance I could love this movie and still have it be a bad cinema experience. What if I were in a busy screening and it’s met with silence? Something like that is made much better by being in a room with others who are laughing. If I were the only one who enjoyed it, it would definitely sour me somewhat.

Not to worry, the audience I was with found it hilarious, as has everybody else I know who has seen it. It seems to be liked by both audiences and critics, which is always a good sign. It helps that everybody involved clearly loves the project. The core cast is almost perfect; Liam Neeson is much better at comedy than many people assume he is. He’s not a “My dogs got no nose, how does he smell? Terrible” type comedic actor; he’s a “I am serious in the face of the ridiculous” comedy actor, much like Leslie Nielsen was back in the day. Pamela Anderson is great as the sex symbol female lead made famous by Priscilla Presley (who makes a cameo). Paul Walter Hauser feels somewhat underused, and I was disappointed that the O.J. Simpson reference in the trailer was the only appearance of that character (named Not Nordberg Jr.).

Now, is it as funny as the originals? Kind of. When it’s funny, it does match the original. But it’s not as funny as often. That’s not me saying it’s not packed with jokes, it is. But the original was like being shot with a machine gun of jokes of various types, where it felt like every sign or prop was a joke. There are multiple moments where it feels like there’s a comedic gap, normal dialogue or backgrounds in which the writers could have squeezed more jokes in. Compared to most movies? It’s full. But compared to Naked Gun? You can definitely see opportunities, especially with some jokes that don’t have payoffs. There’s a prison break scene (which was in the trailer) that’s never followed up on. There’s a violent fight at the end, which would have been perfect for some of the escaped convicts to make a re-appearance. They could have squeezed in some cameos to make sure you remember those who broke out. That’s not a major criticism, but it definitely feels like a wasted opportunity.

The major loss between this and the original is the credits. The opening credits of the original are iconic, to the point where they’re used in the ending credits here. There’s no attempt to do a version here. If they did, yes, it would have come off as pandering. But it’s not replaced by anything either. There’s a very quick “title won’t fit on screen” gag, but no attempt to make the opening credits set the tone. Even the first two Deadpool movies had more suitable opening credits.

Like I said, those are all very minor issues, though. This film is great and I already miss it.