Until Dawn (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Clover is on a road trip to find out what happened to her missing sister, she finds out. Her and her friends get trapped in a repetitive nightmare.

I’ve never played Until Dawn, but I have played some games by the same studio, which follow the same principles and guidelines. I genuinely love them, not just because I’m a fan of story-based games, but also because they’re interesting and have great accessibility options. A key part of those games is the notion that choices have consequences. Something as simple as “look at this poster” could be the difference between life and death. Importantly, you, as a player, have to live with the consequences of your actions. So it’s baffling that the main gimmick of the movie is that choices don’t matter because once you die, you reset into your original position.

Annoyingly, it doesn’t even do anything entertaining with that premise. When this has been done before, the characters die because of their mistakes, and learn from them to help them survive. Here, it feels like they’re being controlled to die, and there’s nothing they can do. For example, at one point, a character gets picked up by an invisible force and dragged into a building. What’s the lesson there? What can a character learn from that to avoid it? Similarly, there’s one set of deaths which is essentially “don’t drink tap water, you’ll explode”, which feels ridiculously unfair to the characters.

It feels like the movie itself gets bored of its own premise halfway through, with the characters waking up and realising they’ve died multiple times and can’t remember a lot of them (conveniently, the characters all forget the exact same ones). Why? How does this serve the plot? It seems like they only did that as an excuse to watch videos of previous deaths on someones phone, and cram in horror movie moments.

Which is another issue; this isn’t a story, it’s a series of moments from other horror movies that the filmmakers wanted to put in. It doesn’t settle on a tone or style that’s consistent throughout. It reminded me of Cabin In The Woods, but badly written.

The characters? They’re funny, I’ll give them that. But there are so many moments where they feel like movie characters instead of actual people. Some sentences uttered are only uttered by characters who are written; nobody responds as an actual human would respond. There’s also a weird sense of detachment. The characters quickly get used to the idea of dying and coming back, despite not knowing when their last life will be, so really, they could die at any point. There’s a moment when a character disappears, and I thought they were going to announce that she had died died, which would lead to everybody becoming less flippant with death, but nope, she’s just elsewhere. I’m not exaggerating when I say the characters treat death flippantly, at times they seem to welcome it. “fuck, stubbed my toe, guess I’ll die”. At one point, one of the characters flat-out murders one of her friends. That murder is never brought up again. If a friend drove a pickax into my stomach, I would find it hard to forgive them. Plus, can you imagine what it would be like if THAT life was the person’s final life? So their friend properly killed them and has to live with that knowledge, whilst also learning that their lives are finite.

Until Dawn is not completely terrible, though. The performances are fine, although it is hard to get past the feeling that they are discount versions of other actors; specifically, Rachel Weisz, Jenny Slate, Johnny Depp, and James McAvoy. It is weird how the film has objectively lesser-known actors than the game. The game had Remi Malek and Hayden Panettiere. Okay, this was before Bo Rhap, so Malek wasn’t a big name then, but it’s still strange.

Some of the kills are fun, and as much as I hated the explosion scene for what it did to the narrative, out of context, it was entertaining. There is a basis for a good idea here. But it needed more thought than it was given. I was really looking forward to this, and I can’t feel anything except disappointed.

Kinda Pregnant (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Lainey (Amy Schumer) pretends to be pregnant for reasons. This plan, predictably, starts to unravel.

Amy Schumer makes it difficult to trust her. Not in a “she’s gonna steal my wallet and use it to fund a trip to Legoland” way, but no matter how many brilliant films she’s in, I will never go to see a film based on her being in it. Her highs are high. Trainwreck is still an absolutely brilliant film. But her lows (Unfrosted, the bits of Inside Amy Schumer that aren’t shared on YouTube, her book) are low. Not just low, but embarrassing. It’s as if she can only do brilliant or shit, with no middle ground.

Kinda Pregnant is…..well, it’s not brilliant. Part of it (well, the whole thing really) is that the lead character is unlikable. Her motivations are so shallow that you could leave a small child in them and they wouldn’t drown. Assuming her character is supposed to be the same age as the performer, she’s in her 40s. Yet her reaction to her relationship ending makes her seem like a teenage girl. Don’t get me wrong, breakups hurt. But her reaction isn’t “here’s a woman pushed to the edge by sadness”, it’s “this woman is kinda pathetic and has zero idea how to act like an adult”. Her reaction is not based on realism; it’s based on “how can we make this movie comedic?”, but it’s too stupid to work.

It’s not just her that this affects; there are multiple scenes which feel too false to work. The break-up scene itself is painful in how fake it feels. Spoilers (for a scene at the very beginning of the movie). The relationship ends because she thinks he’s about to propose marriage, but instead, he asks for a threesome. This isn’t “oh two people aren’t on the same page”, it’s “this was obviously set up to look like a proposal”. It’s an anniversary, at a posh restaurant, with champagne and a romantic cake brought over. That’s not an understandable misunderstanding. It’s fake bullshit. You can see the narrative strings too much.

Now, the plot itself. It’s predicated on the fact that she likes the positive attention being pregnant gets her. That’s not enough. She goes from “someone complimented me” to “well, I’m gonna wear a fake pregnancy belly and go to prenatal yoga class” WAY too quickly. Also, I’ve been outside, and pregnant women aren’t treated with respect. Especially single ones. They’re told “that’s what happens to sluts. I expect you’ll be on benefits now, scrounging off MY tax money”. They’re shouted at on trains, denied seats because “the pregnancy was your own fault, so why should I sacrifice my seat because of your bad decision making? Get a job!”. The entire plot is based on something that isn’t true. It’s like that sitcom a few years ago where two men pretend to be women so they can find work. It’s a premise that’s too dumb to take seriously, even for a comedy.

The other characters aren’t any better. Some of the plot points only happen because characters are arseholes. Her scheme is unravelled when someone announces at a baby shower, “Hey, this person’s pregnant, and they’re thinking of having an abortion”. You can say it’s because “well, the character who announced it is a vapid idiot”, but nobody at the baby shower calls her out on it and tells her that she was wrong to announce it.

I suppose this could work if the jokes were funny. There are a few good moments, the bit where she gets the class to boo a small child is very funny. But those moments are too few. The attempts at humour are kinda embarrassing. Someone makes a joke about her having a moustache when she clearly doesn’t. It would be like making a fat joke about Margot Robbie; you can put it in the script, but unless you commit to the bit, it’s not going to work.

How about from a technical perspective? Again, not good. There’s a weird soft focus over a lot of the scenes, it feels like cheap 80s porn. It looks cheap. The director is the nephew of Adam Sandler, and the movie was produced by Sandler’s production company. I’m not saying those two things are related, but they definitely are. There is no flair to the shots, no creativity or attempt at visual storytelling. It feels like an Kevin Smith movie, but with a shit script.

Now onto the good. The central romance is actually really sweet. The meet-cute is cute because it’s actually believable, and it’s one of the first times we see her act like an actual human. Maybe that’s what she’s like most of the time. We just don’t know because before that, she’s always been in a state of high stress, so we have no idea what her default state is. But the moments where Lainy and Josh (Will Forte’s character) are just chatting and flirting are some of the best scenes. If the movie had a better premise, I would have loved to see this relationship in a different movie. But even the sweetest and most delicious chocolate wouldn’t be edible if you wrapped it in fried dog shit. The scenes between Schumer and Urzila Carlson are also entertaining, but in a different way. Carlson’s character is batshit insane and weird, which works well with Schumer who is insane but trying not to be.

If they got rid of the entire concept, simplified it down to a normal romcom with a mad work friend. This would have been…..well, not great, but it would have been entertaining. But the concept, and how the concept forces characters to behave, ruins any chance of this being entertaining.

The Accountant 2 (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Forensic accountant Christian Wolff teams up with his estranged but highly lethal brother to track down mysterious assassins.

I watched the first movie in the cinema when it came out. Now here’s everything I can remember from it:

  1. Ben Affleck played an autistic person who shot people.
  2. He had a brother.
  3. It was called The Accountant.

That’s it. I don’t remember particularly disliking it, but nothing stood out. It’s why I was so confused when a sequel was announced. Was anybody really asking for a 2025 sequel to a forgotten 2016 film? More importantly, how lost will I be if I can’t remember anything?

Turns out, not that lost. It doesn’t feel like a continuation of the first one as much as a different story. There’s an incident referred to many times, which I assume was the end of the first movie, but it’s otherwise relatively standalone. I’m assuming this is better than the first, because I thoroughly enjoyed this. I had one MAJOR issue, which I’ll go into later. But otherwise, it was a lot of fun. Affleck and Bernthal have great chemistry. There are so many small moments between the two which help add to their relationship. I’m not sure whether they were in the script or whether it was due to the performers themselves, but during the action scenes towards the end, they wordlessly communicate. Not the way you’d expect, which is normally hand gestures to indicate direction. Instead, there are subtle “I’m here” brushes on the back as they pass each other in battle.

There are other cast members, but they’re all definite supporting artists in the double-act of Affleck and Bernthal. Some return from the first movie (not that I remember them), and some are new. They’re fine, but none of them would be missed if they weren’t in the third one, with one exception. She’s not in it much, but I adored Allison Robertson as Justine. She has no spoken dialogue (unless the synthesised voice is hers), but her character is wonderful, and since she’s not a secret like the first one, we get to see more of her this time. She’s joined by (there’s no other way of putting this) an army of autistic tech genius kids. I loved that whole section. Not only because the kids were fun and operated as a group effectively and believably, but also because it actually backs up Affleck’s character, you can tell he would have loved to have had a community like that growing up, so he’s doing everything he can to help them.

Now onto my main issue: the plot. There’s no polite way of saying this, it’s a mess. It makes sense, there are no massive plot holes, and it’s not confusing. It’s just incredibly superfluous. I’ve seen games on the SNES with a better plot. A lot of times, you don’t really get a feel for what’s driving the narrative forward, nothing seems important, and until the final section, the stakes seem low. It never feels like the narrative is what’s driving the characters and plot, and it’s really hard to get invested.

Somehow it still works. The characters are likeable enough that you can look past the plot that’s thinner than my patience. It’s difficult to be bored when you’re as entertained as you are here. There’s no “best scenes ever”, but there are a lot of very cute and wonderful moments. Whether it’s the line dancing scene (which is actually a really good character piece for a wordless dance scene), the speed-dating opener where Affleck’s character attracts a long queue of women and then slowly annoys every single one of them, or the pay-off to the cat comment. It’s a likeable, charming film, and one which you’ll be hard-pressed to not enjoy.

Warfare (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: A surveillance mission goes wrong for a platoon of American Navy SEALs in insurgent territory in Iraq.

I’m still not entirely sure how I felt about Warfare (the movie, not the general concept). On the one hand, it is a superbly crafted experience, one that puts you in the shoes of those who were there, a real treat for those who are interested in modern warfare. On the other hand, it’s incredibly dull at times, and is so focused on being realistic and well-researched, it seems to forget that not everybody knows military terms.

I will praise Warfare (again, the movie, not the general concept, I’m not about to “big up” genocide, I’m not a politician) for how research permeates through the screen. People react realistically, and I will praise it for showing how even well-trained professionals still find it difficult to cope. This is the kind of masculinity that should be taught; the strength to know when you’re too fucked up and broken to be at your best, and how during those times you should relinquish leadership roles. They also have no qualms about screaming in agony and crying. Yes, this is natural when you’ve lost your legs. But think of how many films have shown people suffer severe physical damage, and don’t seem to emotionally respond to it. Warfare shows fear, and it shows pain. It’s disappointing that something so simple should be praised, but it should.

Sadly, that realism also means it can be difficult for people to “buy in” to the narrative. Army speak is kind of a code at times, people are referred to almost entirely by what type of soldier they are, and those names sometimes don’t give you a lot of clues as to what they actually do. Because everybody knows what they’re doing, they don’t explain it. So you often have someone say something like “okay, meet the Yorkshire Puddings at 06 to coordinate a Flipped Fletcher, and don’t forget your oily shepherd, you never know when you might meet a sleeping zebra”, but not give any clues what those terms mean (obviously not those ones, I invented them).

One of the most frustrating aspects is that it’s a war film without purpose. There are no moral quandaries or discussions. Which is odd considering they break into someone’s house and force the families who live there to let them stay there, pointing guns at their faces if they even look like objecting. Near the end, once the soldiers leave, the families are traumatised, and you know that there’s no chance the US army will compensate them for destroying their house, and they’re now targets for the Iraqis because they may be seen as helping the invasion. Despite this, we’re still supposed to support the main characters, because they’re the main characters. But outside of that, it’s difficult to feel more for them. They’re not given enough chance to show any personality, and most are interchangeable. Movies like this depend on personal connection to the characters, but Warfare is so insistent on telling its truth, it forgets to adhere to basic storytelling devices, which would allow us to care.

As a concept? This is fascinating. As an art project? Worthwhile. As a narrative feature-length movie to sit in a cinema and watch? Unfortunately, it’s difficult to recommend. Yes, it’s real, but there’s a reason most films don’t feature scenes highlighting a character pissing in a bottle.

The Penguin Lessons (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: An Englishman experiences personal and political changes after p-p-p-picking a penguin during a turbulent time in Argentina’s history.

You’ve seen the trailer, so you know how this film is going to go. A stuffy teacher in a foreign country is going to struggle to fit in, but then he finds a cute animal companion. Through this animal, he learns the value of kindness, but the out-of-touch leaders at his school try to stop him. Eventually, he’ll fall in love with a local woman. It will be heartwarming, it will be safe, and it will be predictable.

Nope. The “out of touch principal” section is very short, to the point of being inconsequential. He also doesn’t fall in love, or even gain a new social group. Truth be told, it’s not REALLY about a man and a penguin, it’s about a man in a fascist regime, coming to terms with personal responsibility and how to help in a world where you feel helpless. This isn’t done very subtly. A character flat out tells him that she expects bad people to do bad things, but she’s frustrated when good people do nothing. That character is then “arrested” in public while the main character just stands nearby, frozen to the spot.

It’s easy to criticise the character for doing that, but it’s also easy to see why he wouldn’t do anything. He knows that if he tries to help, he’ll either be arrested or executed. The government at the time (and the one that followed it) were arrested and disappeared. Don’t worry, the country was suitably chastised by *checks notes* being given a World Cup and financial backing from the West.

I’ve read some reviews that have criticised this movie for how it flips between being a silly movie about a penguin and being a serious movie about government oppression. I didn’t mind it, in fact, I really enjoyed the way they did it. Fascism doesn’t only affect you during the serious moments, it affects you when you’re making jokes with your friends, and an officer arrests you for thinking you were mocking him, it affects the TV you watch because your favourite show has been cancelled for not being patriotic enough. It doesn’t segregate or only rear its head at certain times, it causes your life to switch from comedic to serious real fucking quick. How many people do you think have made jokes, unaware that the secret police are right outside their door, ready to disappear them?

As you can tell, I did enjoy this film. Although, spoilers, (kind of, it won’t affect how you view the story), the penguin fucking dies. You will feel things. It is an emotional scene in a surprisingly emotional movie. If you had told me in the 90s that the guy who played Alan Patridge would give a subtle and brilliant dramatic performance, I’d have wondered why you were a grown adult talking to a child, and also “Who’s Alan Partridge? I haven’t watched that yet. I wouldn’t even watch The Day Today until the very late 90s”. But if you told me in the 2000s, I would have been doubtful. Coogan seems to have walked away from his comedic roles and into more dramatic fare. It suits him; he has a “classical English actor” face, and it’s good to see his performances finally match it.

The Amateur (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Charlie is a CIA cryptographer whose wife is brutally killed. He’s somewhat pissed about this, so decides to enact vengeance.

I never thought I’d say this, but sometimes big movie studios do know what they’re doing. Whether it’s editing Donnie Darko to make it coherent, making Woody more sympathetic in Toy Story, or changing the ending of Clerks, sometimes they do the right thing. I say that because it’s relevant here. The trailer for The Amateur featured a weird swimming pool death, with an explanation of what’s happening. Ordinarily, that would annoy me because it would feel like they’re giving away a key action setpiece in the trailer, but I actually liked it a lot. Mainly because in the movie itself, it was fascinating to watch it arrive. The build-up is superb, it’s like a horror movie, where you see the death coming, but the interesting part is seeing the tension build up beforehand. I guess now would be a good time to point out that this review is based entirely on this version. I have not seen the 1981 version, nor have I read the book. So I won’t make any complaints about stuff they’ve changed, and I won’t be able to talk about how it improved on certain aspects. I will be evaluating it based entirely on its own merits.

Out of the films I’ve seen directed by James Hawes, this is the most impressive from a technical standpoint, mainly because it has more of a visual style. I like the way he shot this; everything looks real and slick. It’s helped by some gorgeous locations, which actually feel like you’re travelling the world rather than just watching someone act in front of a green screen. The action sequences are unique; they’re not over-the-top fun like John Wick, they’re toned down, restrained. If this were a boxing match, it wouldn’t be a relentless series of punches to the face; it’s more like standing there, waiting patiently for the perfect time to make a singular knockout punch. I love that, as it means that the scenes that are supposed to have an impact hit HARD because they feel realistic, mostly. The realism is a big part of why I enjoyed The Amateur. Let’s face it, “a faceless cryptographer manages to outsmart the entire CIA” is a ridiculous premise when you think about it, but The Amateur makes you believe it.

Now, onto the downside, the background characters feel bland. They have enough foundations to be interesting, but a lot of those foundations are never built upon. Most of them don’t feel real; they just feel like machinations to help or hinder the lead character. My other issue is a bit harder to explain; I feel it wastes Rami Malek. I’m not saying he’s above films like this, but I do get the impression that the role isn’t showing him at his best. This wouldn’t be an issue, but there are a few scenes which could have allowed him to display his talents if the script were different. There’s one in particular near the end where he delivers a single line, and it’s a line full of emotion and pathos. But it’s also a line, and a scene, which you could easily imagine being extended, giving him a chance for a monologue that will truly break your heart.

Those are small issues, though. The Amateur is an easy film to enjoy. Unless it happens to be on TV as I’m trapped under a cat, I’m not sure I can imagine a situation where I will ever want to see it again. But that’s more to do with my lack of love for the spy genre as a whole rather than a comment on the film itself. It’s certainly not something I would ever discourage anybody from watching.

Drop (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: A widow goes on a date with a man she met online. A date that gets ruined by her trauma and anxiety, plus she keeps getting phone messages that threaten to kill her son if she doesn’t poison her date.

I am a slight fan of Landon, but mainly when he works a distinct style; kickass female leads in genre-bending weirdness (Happy Death Day and its sequel, Freaky, etc). When he steps away from that? Well then, you get Paranormal Activity 5 and Scouts Guide To The Zombie Apocalypse. Drop could easily fall into either of the two; yes, it has a strong female lead, but it isn’t playing off a genre, so it was difficult to figure out which side of the Landon fence it would fall.

I’ll get this out of the way; it’s much closer in quality to Happy Death Day than it is to Scouts Guide. From a technical standpoint, it’s his best film yet. There are some incredible shots here, this is the most impressed I can remember being with his camera work; sometimes when it didn’t even need to be. He doesn’t NEED to transition between the bar and the table with a tracking shot; a simple cut between the two would have worked. But he DOES make the choice to use the more difficult shot, and it’s beautiful. The set design also allows some visuals that are stunning, but not in an overly showy way.

Sadly, that doesn’t make Drop his best film. You can tell a lot of effort has been put into closing off any potential loopholes or answering any questions you may have about the logic. Drop REALLY doesn’t want you to question its core premise, but it doesn’t do enough to get you to care about anything outside of that. It has the essence of a political thriller, but it feels kind of underdeveloped. The villain’s main motivation comes off a little weak, especially since he seems to have picked the worst possible method to fix his problem. It’s written by the pair who wrote Fantasy Island and Truth Or Dare, which I still count as two of the worst horror movies I’ve had the misfortune of watching. Drop is nowhere near as bad as those two films, but the issues I had with them do linger here, too. The ambition is beyond its talent, trying so hard to be clever that it comes off as kind of stupid, and some character choices aren’t logical. There’s nothing inherently terrible about Drop. Nothing that will annoy you or offend you, but there are a lot of small issues with it, and eventually, they do build up.

Thankfully, Drop has something wonderful in its box of tricks: the cast. Meghann Fahy and Brandon Sklenar make incredible leads. Separately, they’re very good performers. But it’s when they share the screen that magic happens. You really buy them as a nervous couple on a date; they could lead a rom-com together easily. The background cast is fun too (especially Violett Beane), never overshadowing the leads, but providing enough uniqueness that you do notice them, so if they were revealed as the mastermind behind the scheme, you wouldn’t be sitting there like “Who’s that?”. I’d have liked to have seen more work done on the writing of those characters, more motivational possibilities for some of them, and more doubt placed in our heads about some of them.

So, the reveal itself? It’s good, not great. If you ignore the “That’s literally the worst way you could have done this” questions, then it does make sense, and it’s easy to see how it was pulled off. However, there’s something deeply unsatisfying about how the reveal is set up. Just an offhand comment that no professional serving staff would make, followed by a lucky guess. It’s nowhere near as bad as the last Scream movie, but it’s also not one that makes you want to see the film again and watch it again with that reveal in mind.

In summary, it’s a very cute relationship movie that then breaks out into a thriller, and it does 75% of that VERY well.

The Second Act aka Le Deuxième Acte (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: It genuinely doesn’t f*cking matter, seriously.

It’s weird how a trailer can win you over by not showing a single second of what’s in the film. It may seem counter-productive to not include anything from the movie in the trailer, but sometimes it’s not needed. Sometimes, all you need is a way to tell people “This is the tone and style”. The Second Act (TSA, pronounced Tizz-ah, but not like the drink) trailer did that brilliantly and is probably the best trailer I’ve seen in a while. It tells you everything while showing you nothing. The complete opposite of most Marvel trailers.

Now, the film itself. It’s meta and weird. Near the start, a character says something mildly transphobic and then is told “You can’t say that we’re being filmed” Then the character tries to rephrase it differently. He doesn’t say that as the character, he says it as the actor playing the character, if that makes sense? It’s a weird moment, the first of many, and how you react to that scene will let you know whether its worth continuing with the rest of the movie. Personally, I found it funny. But I will admit that it does highlight a small issue I had with this; it is occasionally too meta. As much as I do love the opening scene and how meta it is, there is still a small part of you that thinks “Get on with it”. I’m not saying be less meta, I never say that, but spread it out more among the story. As it is, TSA will stop the story for 5 minutes to focus on meta-commentary, then pick up the story again. In a film that’s less than 90 minutes long, that’s a lot of waiting around. There should have been a more seamless way of threading the meta-ness through the narrative without pausing. I typed that after 10 minutes. Really I should delete it because this film wouldn’t exist without the meta. All it has is “we’re actors making a film” and fourth wall breaks upon fourth wall breaks (16 walls?).

That kind of stuff is to be expected from fans of Quentin Dupieux, those who watched and enjoyed the *checks notes* sentient tire that kills people with psychokinetic powers movie Rubber, will enjoy this. It’s very similar, you have to go into it expecting it to break the very notion of narrative and cinema, you’re not watching it for the plot, you’re just watching it for the experience of watching it. If you are expecting some form of sense, you’re going to be deeply disappointed.

I’m quickly falling in love with Lea Seydoux, she was phenomenal in The Beast, and continues to impress throughout TSA. She’s charming, friendly, and seems believable as a slightly frustrated actress. The others are all fine, but Seydoux is the best of a very good bunch.

From a technical standpoint, this is a marvel (and not just because it stops the plot to make jokes), not in terms of special effects or even outstanding beauty, but because of the tracking shots. Oh my science, the tracking shots. They’re so prevalent that the pre-credits scene makes a point of showcasing just how long the tracks were to make them happen.

Really the only thing to take from TSA? Films are silly. Making them is silly. Writing them is silly. So what not make it so watching them is silly too? It’s not for everybody, and I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t a slightly frustrating watch at times, but it’s also one that’s not entirely without merits.

The Woman In The Yard (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: Grieving (and injured) widow Ramona lives on a dilapidated old farm in the middle of nowhere. They’re struggling financially when things are made worse by everyone’s biggest fear: a person nearby.

Long-time readers will know that I love horror movies, but when I don’t it’s usually due to one of two things: 1) Unlikeable characters. 2) Terrible ending. Usually, it’s specifically the final scene, where we find out the demon/ghost/haunted sandwich is still alive because the writers sacrificed ending the film on a scare over the narrative. Usually, that’s not enough to completely sink a film, but it will make a bad film even worse. I’ve yet to have a case where the final third has completely sunk my opinion of a film the way it did The Woman In The Yard (TWITY, pronounced “twit-tea”).

It cannot be overstated how much the final third absolutely torpedos any goodwill the rest of the film provides. For two-thirds of its runtime, TWITY is a tense, atmospheric family story set against the backdrop of a silent ghost; a tale of grief and guilt manifesting itself in unexpected ways. A display of the toll that motherhood can take, how it can seem like it takes over your entire life and leaves you feeling like you don’t have your own identity. I liked that film. I found it “spooky” without being silly, emotional without being overbearingly depressing, and slow-paced without being boring. It’s the kind of film I want to see more of, original and creative. It was up there in the top 50% of films this year.

Then the final third happened. Then it becomes the worst of Blumhouse, a visual and narrative mess which confuses deliberate confusion for scares, rapid cuts instead of tension, and a final shot “reveal” that doesn’t actually reveal anything going by online discourse which gives it two different meanings. It feels like the writer isn’t sure he’s going to get another shot at writing a horror film so crammed as many horror tropes and conventions as he could, regardless of whether it worked for the story he was trying to tell.

If they figured out a way to fix it, TWITY could be a classic. It has some truly great cinematography. Most horror movies utilise darkness, TWITY goes the other way, using intense sunshine and brightness to create mood. The shot of the woman just sitting there silently is unsettling as hell, and is PERFECT for marketing purposes. The performances are also good, Danielle Deadwyler is believable as a grieving mother who is trying to balance her grief and being a responsible mother to home-schooled children. Estella Kahiha sometimes falters, but she’s a child so that’s forgivable. I was really surprised by how good Peyton Jackson was. Jackson gives the kind of performance that you can imagine being looked back on in 10 years time and saying “THAT’S how it started, look at all the awards and acclaim he has now”. He’s the audience’s “in”, the level-headed character who points out how crazy the other characters are behaving, while trying to look after his younger sister. As such, a lot of the emotional labour of the narrative has to go through him, and with a lesser performer it would have sunk; Jackson does SO much with what he’s given; handling the role with a maturity beyond his years.

There’s also a lot to like about how damn good the opening two-thirds is. It sets up so many small details that pay off later. The titular woman is treated like existing folklore in terms of her actions and appearance, it would be easy to believe that in this world, the tale of The Woman In The Yard is told by teens at slumber parties and summer camps, a way to scare kids into behaving. The characters are believable, even when they do possibly abusive things. The setup is good too; we’re shown that the family are isolated and with their electricity cut off, so it really feels like they’re cut off from the rest of civilisation.

In summary; I am so disappointed with this. I loved seeing the delicate narrative house of cards built up into a magnificent art piece, only to see it knocked over by a fart of flat writing.

Matt And Mara (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Mara, a young professor, is struggling with marital problems when she suddenly meets Matt, a man from her past, who wanders onto her university campus.

Despite what my rather morose personality may make you think, I genuinely love a good rom-com. That’s mainly because they’re usually character and dialogue-based, which are things I adore. They’re also not restrained by budget; a low-budget one can be just as good as a multi-million dollar one. They’re a real display for both writers and performers, allowing them to showcase what they do (especially with actors because they get to do emotional grand scenes).

So it’s kind of disappointing how much I didn’t like Matt And Mara. It’s not that it’s too low-budget (but that will be a turn-off for some people, who will be put off by the opening 20 seconds and how muffled some of the dialogue is). The main issue for me was the characters.

To paraphrase It’s Always Sunny; there’s no will they/won’t they, instead it’s “I know they won’t, and I don’t want them to”. The actors have chemistry, but the script doesn’t really allow it to show. I know movies like this need conflict, and often that conflict is silly and can be solved by a twenty-second conversation. Or it’s over something so inconsequential like “Oh my god, you prefer cheesecake over sponge? It’s over!” that the characters come off as stupid. MAM has the opposite problem, the script (or the actors, with the improvisational nature of the movie, it’s hard to figure out who caused it) is so focused on the conflict that it occasionally seems like they’re constantly either arguing or on the verge of arguing. Not small ones either, harsh words which will definitely need to be either discussed in depth or completely ignored for their friendship to carry on. It gets to the point where I’m not actually sure these characters like each other at all.

One thing that is definitely the fault of the filmmakers rather than the performers is the editing. It keeps cutting away before interesting things happen, or just after they happen but before we’re allowed to see the aftermath. Bombs are dropped but we’re not allowed to see the explosions or the burning crater. This would be acceptable if the rest of the film worked; but as a whole, it’s too unfocused and underbaked.

It’s not all bad; there are some charming moments, but they’re fleeting, not enough to sustain the story. I wish there were more of them but as it is they’re peppered through like croutons of hope in the soup of disappointment. I saw one review which describes it as “an excursion into nothing much”, and that’s incredibly accurate. In the 90’s, Seinfeld described itself as “a show about nothing”, Matt and Mara is a display of what happens when you take that theory too far. That being said; the scene in the cafe was actually brilliant, partly because it feels like one of the few moments where you can see why they’re friends and what they’re like when they’re working on the same side.