Paddington In Peru (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: A bear goes to a certain South American country to go meet with his adoptive mother. I can’t remember which country though, or the name of the bear.

Paddington In Peru (Or PIP, which is pronounced the only way you can pronounce it, but in a lilting tone) was a special occasion for me. I didn’t catch the first two at the cinema because I assumed they were standard kids’ films. I, of course, now know better and can appreciate their genius. So PIP was the first one I caught at the cinema, and I’m very glad I did. There was concern that the team would be different. Paul King wasn’t directing due to his Wonka commitments, Sally Hawkins would not be returning (but her character would), and neither would Peter Capaldi or Michael Gambon, the latter due to being a bit busy with that whole “no longer being alive” trend that’s so popular among the favourite celebrities of my youth.

I’ll assuage those fears now; PIP is very good. It’s not quite as good as the first two movies, but very few films are. If you weren’t aware there was a change behind the scenes, it wouldn’t be noticeable. The film is still charming, still very funny with few joke opportunities missed, and still weird. The Paddington movies exist in their own universe. They have a definite FEEL to them. They feel like musicals where everybody is too busy to sing. There’s a sense of playfulness and visual music which a new director would need to stick to. Dougal Wilson continues the tradition set down by Paul King. The universe of PIP is the same one established in the first two. Essentially, it’s a universe that you’d find in a cliche terrible 1970s sitcom, where every “I’m glad nobody saw that” is followed by a bus driving by. That doesn’t happen in real life, mainly because our bus services are practically useless. So you have to go in expecting silliness. But it would also seem very out of place if characters started levitating and time-travelling to solve their problems. It’s a tricky balancing act between realism and silliness, which these films manage perfectly.

The replacement of Mary Brown is much more noticeable. Sally Hawkins is deeply missed in these films. Well, she would be if Emily Mortimer wasn’t so damn good. Both performers play the character similarly, but each brings something unique to the part. Eventually, you do get used to the differences, but it does take a few minutes to adjust.

I do wish more of the neighbours returned, although I’m not sure how that would have happened. Some of them are there in the opening, but it feels more like an obligation to fans than genuine. As it is, I can’t really see a way they could be in it without it seeming jarring, but still. That might be because there are not quite as many notable replacements. There’s Olivia Colman, who people keep forgetting is REALLY good at comedy. Antonio Banderas is a lot of fun, but I do kind of wish he was Pedro Pascal. Banderas does handle the emotional moments PERFECTLY though, so props to him for that. Rachel Zegler was originally cast in PIP, and I have been impressed in the few films I’ve seen her in so far (Shazam! Fury Of The Gods as reviewed here, and the Hunger Games prequel as reviewed here), so I have no doubt that she would have fit perfectly into the Paddington universe. She was replaced (due to Zegler’s participation in the 2023 SAG-AFRTA strike, on the side of the strikers, because Zegler is awesome) by Carla Tous. Carla Tous doesn’t have a Wikipedia page, and I haven’t even heard of anything she’s been in, let alone watched it. That doesn’t matter, as I LOVE her performance in this. I think she’s better than Zegler would have been, mainly because Zegler would feel too confident. Tous’s performance is full of worry and sadness, and that’s forever etched on her face and in her vocal performance. It’s strange that in a film starring Olivia Colman (one of THE best performers in the world), I was most impressed with a performer who is a complete stranger to me. I really hope to see her in more stuff in the future, very impressive.

In summary, I loved this movie. Is it the best movie of the year? Nope. But it is probably the one I want to go back to most. It’s just so damn charming. I’m a cynical and miserable person most of the time, and I like it when films manage to break through that.

Don’t Move (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: When a killer injects her with a paralytic agent, a woman must run, fight and hide before her body completely shuts down.

Did Netflix gaslight us into thinking their original films used to be good? I thought they were, but looking at the list, there’s a lot of shit there. Well, maybe “shit” is a bit harsh, but for every Glass Onion, there are about 40 Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga‘s, films which are so forgettable that they barely register as being watched. Maybe Don’t Move will be different?

It starts promising, it sets the tone very quickly, and it’s really interesting. The opening kidnapping is shocking, not just because of how sudden it is, but also how cold and calculating it is. You can really see how the killer lures his victims. He picks up character information so quickly, incredibly observant. He’s essentially a detective who uses his powers for evil.

I like how minimalist DM is. There are a few other characters, but it is mostly just Finn Witrock and Kelsey Asbille. Finn Wittrock is good, but he never really feels like an individual, instead coming off as a mix between Bill “Pennywise” Skarsgard, Casey “Not Ben” Affleck and Leonardo “No Don’t Turn 26, you’re so pretty” DiCaprio. Asbille does A LOT considering she’s paralyzed for the majority of the runtime. She has tremendous eye-acting, which is essential because that’s the only way she portrays emotion for most of it. The small cast allows the talents of the two leads to really shine. It also helps Asbille’s character seem more isolated. This could have been TERRIBLE if it cut to her previous life too often (as was done in The Mercy) in an attempt to examine her life. Because we only see her in the context of a kidnapping victim, we feel scared and isolated alongside her; all we know in this world is her and her kidnapper.

I do have some issues with the script though. Not that it’s bad, but I feel it wastes potential. Whilst DM is good, it could (née, should) have been great. Her losing her body autonomy (we call that “Being An American Woman”) should have taken place in real-time, it lasts 10 minutes onscreen instead of the (I think) 20 it was said to have taken. Adding the extra 10 would have made it so much more interesting. That’s the case for the whole film actually. It’s crying out for a gimmick. Maybe that’s real-time, so we get LONG shots of her being driven to the cabin the kidnapper hopes to keep her in, the longer the drive, the more we become aware of just how hopeless her situation is. Maybe it could have done the always impressive long take, making it seem like it was all filmed in one take (as in Boiling Point and 1917) with scenes of forestry masking cuts and time jumps. Maybe if it was all from her POV, so we are truly in her shoes, feeling her fear and helplessness. Any one of those would have made it a genuinely impressive feature and would have helped it stand out. As it is, it’s just pretty good.

It’s a shame to watch a film and get distracted by what it is instead of what it could be. But this isn’t quite refined enough to distract you, so you can’t really help but let your mind wander. It’s a great concept, but there’s not quite enough in the narrative it to justify stretching it out to feature length instead of just having it as a short. It’s not, but it does have big “based on a short story” energy. This is where a gimmick would have helped it, it would have hidden the narrative swamp of boredom.

The Whip (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: In response to government welfare cuts, a group of people attempt to steal a black book of blackmail material from the Houses of Parliament.

I was wary of this. It looked interesting, but so did A Kind Of Kidnapping, which was kind of a letdown (especially since I’m a fan of the director). I knew nobody who worked on The Whip, and even from the trailer it looked low-budget. After watching it, I can confirm its low-budget nature. I don’t know if it’s a green screen or was filmed on location and lit badly, but there are far too many moments where there’s a disconnect between the characters and the background. In a student film, that’s okay, but in a wide-release feature, you can’t help but feel a little disappointed.

The directing is definitely the weakest link in The Whips’ chain. Not just in terms of visuals, but the physical geography is lacking. One scene featuring a walk and talk on a bridge is particularly clunky regarding how it’s set out concerning character placement. What was even weirder about that is that the next scene is a static shot on a nearby bench which would have been much easier to play out, it would have had the advantage of hiding the Houses Of Parliament out of shot so that the “so what’s the target?” shot reveal would have felt more natural, rather than “stop and look behind us at the thing that’s been in the shot all this time and that we’re actually walking away from right now”. I also have issues with some of the performances. None of them are bad, but there are definitely some inconsistencies that should have been taken care of in rehearsals, or as Cath Clarke put it in the Guardian “more wooden than the panelling in the chief whip’s office”. Also, there are a few bad edits where the match-cutting could be a lot better.

Now onto the good; A LOT of effort has been put into this, and it shows. The opening credits are unique, with the names being written down in a notepad before appearing on screen. I love it when films put the extra effort in and tell a story or tone by the way they display the credits. Haven’t seen it done as well since Sometimes I Think About Dying. The closing credits are creative too, the traditional “photo alongside name” but done as newspaper headlines, and having other headlines providing a “what happens next” coda. I really appreciate that level of creativity.

So how about the actual film? Imagine there’s a line between “funny because it’s relatable” and “not funny because it’s too relatable”, this film dances down that line and then snorts it. The opening scene with the assessment is uncomfortably realistic; a government worker who’s not listening and spends more time looking at the computer than actually paying attention to the person she’s interviewing. Everybody who has had to speak to someone at the DWP can recognise that. The “can you tell me about her condition?” attitude of asking the carer when the actual person is RIGHT THERE is so prevalent that it’s actually taught as an example of what not to do because of how dehumanising it is. It’s frustrating the amount of effort disabled people have to put in to convince people that they haven’t magically healed, and just because they can manage their condition whilst at home and under certain conditions, doesn’t mean they can work full time. It’s difficult to watch scenes like that and not be fucking furious at our government (including the new ones who are basically the old ones just in a different jacket). On that note, Meg Fozzard is superb.

That frustration is shared by the characters, alongside their helplessness. They point out that marching isn’t enough, people marched against the invasion of the Middle East and it still happened. Being on the right side of history doesn’t mean dick if it kills you and nothing changes. As someone says “There’s being right, then there’s doing something about it”.

You’d think that all of this would make this a deeply cynical watch, and at times it is. But it is also weirdly idealistic. Hard to explain but I’ll try. I guess the message of it is; everything fucking sucks UNLESS we do something now! It has moments which are clearly made to inspire you, whether it’s the scene in the back of a car where a politician tells someone “Young people don’t tend to vote for us, so we encourage them not to vote”, it’s made to encourage you to engage in politics (although that scene does take too long to get to the point). It’s also nice how it shows an older politician who is just as disgusted with his party’s actions. Makes you wonder if a better world is possible if we just remove the person at the top (and as someone who is currently reading a book about the history of Rome, the answer as to whether that is true is……unclear). He’s clearly not comfortable with repeating his party’s message, especially as he knows it’s barbaric and badly explained. As he says:

“Of course they didn’t get it, they’re not supposed to get it, if they got it they’d be furious”

The lack of internet security in government buildings is depressingly accurate. It is FAR too believable that our government’s wi-fi has zero encryption, probably because the people who need to use it are computer illiterate to the point where they DEFINITELY keep their passwords on a post-it attached to the computer screen. Just as believable is that they’d purchase a safe which opens if you tap the top of it. Just as believable. It’s that reality that really helps this film work. It doesn’t quite feel like a documentary, but it does feel so believable that there’s a small part of you that wonders “Could we do this?”. It provides hope, and that’s sorely needed right now.

Transformers One (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: A look at the inciting incident in the hatred between Optimus Prime and Megatron

I was mildly looking forward to this. The trailer caught my attention, and I thought, “That looks like a lot of silly fun.” A bit like the second coming of The Lego Batman Movie, which I still think is dumb brilliance. It’s not dumb brilliance, it’s just brilliant. Yes, it has some silly jokes, but nowhere near as much as it could. Before it fully settled into the tone I spotted numerous opportunities for some silly jokes, and I assumed it was the scriptwriters missing opportunities. That’s my bad, this is not attempting to be silly, just entertaining, and yes, Virginia, there is a difference. Everything makes sense within the logic created. Also, EVERYTHING is played straight, to a horrific extent at some points.

This isn’t a “fun and joy for kids” movie. It deals with colonialism, disability rights, hierarchal power structures, appeals to authority fallacies etc. It doesn’t shy away from darkness, characters are decapitated, torn apart, mutilated at birth, and stabbed repeatedly. You don’t expect kids’ films to feature a scene of a main character being horrifically tortured, and you certainly don’t expect it to be shown and not just implied or cut away from.

This is only the second film that Josh Cooley has directed, and he does brilliantly. It will be a weird thing to say as a response to an animated kid’s film, but I feel he would make a fantastic horror film. He knows about scale, he knows about tension, and he knows how to maximise character pain so that the audience can feel it, I shouldn’t wince in pain when an animated robot gets hurt, but this manages it. He’s helped by the animation style; it is almost stop-motion in how physically real the world looks.

It’s very well cast. There are NAMES in this, Johannson, Hemsworth, Fishbourne, Hamm etc. And all of them nail it, they actually act, and they’re not just doing their normal voices. The real MVP is Brian Tyree Henry. There’s one moment in particular where his performance is one of the best I’ve heard all year, not just in kids films, in general. His conviction and passion is breathtaking, and it’s genuinely chilling to hear him deliver it, particularly the line “No, I want to kill him” which would easily be seen as cheesy if delivered by a lesser performer.

I know I’ve seen the first Michael Bay Transformers movie, and I think I’ve seen the second one too. But I can’t remember much from them, they were fine as I was watching them, but nothing stands out, it was just metal smashing metal like some Robot Fuck Club (great band name). This? I will remember this. At the risk of sounding crude, it’s f*cking fantastic. It has everything I want in a movie; laughs, good characters, references to Key And Peele sketches, looks fantastic, heart, and some mild terror. Some people may argue that the start of darkness is too obvious. Those people are wrong, it’s not “predictable”, it’s foreshadowing/storytelling, and damn fine storytelling at that.

The Trouble With Jessica (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: Sarah and Tom have one final dinner party before selling their home. The suicide of an unwanted guest ruins the party (and the chances of a successful sale)

I fucking love a good dinner party scene. There’s something about them that’s so tense to watch unfold. I think it’s because they have societal expectations in ways that other parties don’t. There’s an expectation that everyone will behave politely and behave well. There’s also the fact that they tend to be very conversation-based, so it’s VERY easy to get information over via dialogue. “so how’s the new job going?” is a perfectly normal thing to ask at a dinner party, so it’s very useful for exposition. I mention that because the one in here has some of the most tense five seconds I’ve ever seen. A tenseness which is then made worse by the revelation that the character was joking. There’s a definite shift in dynamics there. Ordinarily, it would be “This rudeness puts everyone on the defensive”, but here it actually does the opposite, it puts everyone on the offensive, against her, so your feelings are conflicted when she commits suicide soon after.

On that subject; I wasn’t a fan of the post-suicide moment. She commits suicide, they try to cut her down and save her but are unsuccessful, and she falls onto the floor dead. Title card. That, that I’m fine with. But then there are establishing shots of the house and food before we go to the characters reacting. Those shots are only roughly 5 seconds long but completely kill any momentum. It’s just a weird narrative decision.

That’s The Trouble With Jessica’s (TTWJ, pronounced That-weej) biggest flaw; it has a good story but no idea what to do with it. The main farcical driver is that the characters want to move her body to her own house because they think having a dead body in their house will affect their house price. Very funny, very middle class. But they get to that decision far too quickly.

Part of the problem is that the satire never hits as sharply as it could. Primarily because tonally, it feels like the target of its ire and its target for a viewing audience are one and the same, so it’s very scared of annoying the people who are viewing it.

It REALLY feels like a weirdly dark episode of Coupling without Jeff, in which Jane kills herself. Seriously, watch this movie with the core 4 from that sitcom in mind, if I told you “Which Coupling character would this person be?” I GUARANTEE you’d get the exact same. That’s a criticism of the script, by the way, nothing against the performances. Shirely Henderson gets the plaudits, but it’s fascinating how well Alan Tudyk plays a middle-aged Brit.

The familiarity and lack of bite aren’t the only issues with the script. There are completely unnecessary flashbacks to scenes we saw earlier, it would have worked better if we saw just the flashbacks, not the originals. It also has trouble ending. It doesn’t so much drive to the home stretch, as stutter.

It has some fun moments though. The intertitles are interesting, but when they get to “The trouble with driving a dead body across London in the middle of the night”, they suddenly become brilliant. Some of the dialogue is hilarious, and the characters are very believable.

In summary, I’m glad I saw this, but that’s mostly because it’s available on Netflix and I watched it there, if I watched it at the cinema I’d be much harsher towards it.

Lee (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: The tale of Lee Miller, acclaimed war photojournalist

This review was going to be so simple. It was just going to be a lot of jokes about how the name character has the same name as me. Lots of “I don’t remember doing any of this” stuff. It was going to be SOOOOO dumb but funny. Now I can’t do that. And I can’t do that because this film is too good for that. It’s deeply emotional and important, and making stupid jokes about it feels like it would cheapen it a lot. Stupid Lee, being too good for me to make jokes about, as all my friends say: Lee ruins everything.

Lee is not perfect, at times it feels like it assumes you know the importance of certain images, so you’re sitting there and being amazed at the recreations and new insight into how they were constructed etc. As it is, you spend a few moments with no idea what is happening. My other issue, and it hurts me to say this, Andy Samberg is not as good a dramatic actor as the other performers. In a lot of films, that would be okay, but here, he’s opposite Kate Winslet who is at the top of her game. Despite my prediction towards small weird stuff, and my avoidance of the obvious big-budget films (by which I mean, I haven’t seen Titanic), I’ve always been a fan of Winslet, mainly because she’s in the supremely underrated Heavenly Creatures. This is off-topic, but she also seems like a hugely brilliant human being.

The other downside of Lee is going to make me sound a bit weird. There’s been a lot of Nazi films lately. Not films about Nazi leadership, or even the soldiers. But a focus on the ideology, about how it penetrates everyday society and needs to be snuffed out before it poisons. This concerns me. Not because I think “but free speech! people should be free to be racist idiots!” or “WOKE!” etc. But because writers, even those writing about the past, are ALL writing about the current world. So I’m slightly uncomfortable that so many writers in 2020’s feel the need to point out how nazi’s are bad, we don’t have that many “don’t eat lava” films, because we all know that’s obvious. So I’m worried that there is a resurgence in Nazi viewpoints being accepted in polite society, and astute writers are noticing that.

Otherwise, this is damn fine. There is so much to like about this. It’s shot beautifully for a start, done in such a way that it really makes you feel like you’re in a different time. The story is what’s key though. It’s incredibly engaging throughout. It’s the closest I’ve seen to Civil War in terms of how it details the importance of war photographers (incidentally, the lead character in that film was named after Lee Miller). It does so much right. Importantly, it starts off pre-war. But in a time where, in hindsight, war was inevitable. It’s fascinating to see how dismissive they are of the looming threat. It also provides a huge contrast when war does break out, even when you don’t see them, you are aware of what has happened to some of the characters we were introduced to in the opening (although it could do a better job of reminding you they are when they’re mentioned near the end).

In summary; there is A LOT to like about Lee. It’s harrowing, beautiful, and absolutely essential. I’ve seen some movies where the audience stands up and leaves the very second the closing credits start. Sometimes people sit there, but from the general hubbub, you can tell they’re just waiting for a credits scene. With this, there was silence, not of shock, not of exhaustion, but one of appreciation, almost reverance.

I Saw The TV Glow (2024) Review.

Quick Synopsis: A classmate introduces teenage Owen to a mysterious late-night TV show — a vision of a supernatural world beneath their own. In the pale glow of the television, Owen’s view of reality begins to crack.

I was less than a minute into this and I had a singular thought “This reminds me a lot of We’re All Going To The World’s Fair”. It turns out there’s a reason for that; the writer/director is the same, Jane Schoenbruen. The music was SUCH a big part of WAGTTWF (Pronounced Wag-toot-woof), and I’m glad that Schoenbrun managed to reunite with Alex G to get the music done. I’m going to cheat a bit here and quote my review from WAGTTWF, because so much of my thoughts of that are my thoughts for ISTTG (I-stoot-og). So here are the still-relevant pieces:

This is weird. I’m still not entirely sure if I liked it or not. I am very glad I’ve seen it, and it is one that I would recommend, but my personal thoughts on it are still going through my head.

This is definitely still apt. ISTTG is fucking weird. Worlds Fair felt Green, Glow feels purple. I don’t know what Schoenbrun has planned next but I’m guessing the colour scheme will be red.

the writing and directing has potential. It’s strangely hypnotic. It’s the cinematic equivalent of a lava lamp. You don’t watch and think about character and plot, you’re just entranced by everything and lose track of time while observing. The whole thing feels very personal, 

Oh yeah, very true. Glow is ethereal as hell. There are times where you’re not really sure what’s going on, and in the hands of a lesser director, you’d turn away. But Schoenbrun has a way of making you not want to turn away for even a second. It does have a more cohesive narrative than Worlds Fair, certainly more ambitious. The narrative is helped by how REAL it feels. The fake TV show in particular feels like it already exists. The film he watches in the cinema? Not so much. The downside of that is made me think I really need to finish my script for Hi! School (a horror drama where someone finds a way to go into the universe of their favourite 90’s teen sitcom). So all of that is fantastic to see. On the downside, this is kind of let down by the performances. Brigette Lundy-Paine is great, and there are moments where Justice Smith is, but there are also moments where he doesn’t quite have the range needed. I doubt the ending would work with a different actor though. There are moments where he is weak, but he NAILS that.

The ending is weird. I’m not going to go into the particulars, just the general feeling of it. It’s a culmination of his feelings of isolation and despair. Only at that point, it’s not just that the world is ignoring him, it’s ignoring him to the point of hostility.

Both of Shoenbruns films so far feel deeply personal. They realised they were trans during the production of Worlds Fair (whilst tripping on mushrooms) and came out after the project wrapped. Glow was clearly created by someone with a firmer grasp on their gender identity. It’s not so much a standard narrative film, as much as it is them coming to terms with their egg cracking moment (the moment in a trans persons life when they realise their identity does not correspond with their assigned gender). The parallels aren’t obvious, but once you know they’re there, they are difficult to ignore.

So yeah, see this. Turn the lights off, shut the curtains, turn your phone off, and just be enraptured by what you’re watching. It’s not for everybody, but you won’t see anything else like this. For some reason, it reminded me of the indie game Gone Home (which if you haven’t played, I highly recommend), no idea why. It also has an absolute killer soundtrack

Oh, this is definitely still true. You WILL need to decompress afterwards. You may be annoyed, you may be delighted, but you will have opinions. I’m so glad the director’s career is progressing. I’m not sure their work is quite mainstream enough to justify a major budget, but a bigger budget is definitely deserved. There is going to be a third film in this thematic trilogy, and I look forward to it. I’m glad that Shoenbrun has allowed us to join them on their personal journey of identity.

I should note that this review was written entirely by a cisgender male. Maybe if I was trans, the metaphors and journey would have been a lot more obvious. Maybe it would have been “important” to me and part of my own journey. I love that films like this exist, it’s clearly going to be VERY important to somebody. But to me? It’s just a pretty damn good movie full of unsettling scares and music cues. And that’s fine. This wasn’t made with someone like me in mind, but it doesn’t need to be. It’s aimed at the confused teens (and adults) who NEED this, and I think they’ll love it. Of course, I haven’t actually spoken to any trans people about this film, so for all I know, I’m woefully off the fucking mark. But I don’t think I am.

The Critic (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: A theatre critic lures a struggling actress into a seductive blackmail plot.

I went into this on a weird day. It was one of those days where you can’t stop worrying about one thing, and it just keeps entering your head and ruining everything. So however this review goes, bear in mind that it was good enough to distract me when nothing else did for the three days prior. So whatever else I say, I can’t deny it is effective at keeping your attention. That’s a good thing, because it means you’re still paying attention when the story finally starts. I hadn’t seen a trailer for this, or even read a synopsis. So I wasn’t sure what The Critic was about. That level of not-knowing continued for most of the film’s run-time. Soooooo much of the runtime for The Critic is spent setting up the story, with barely any time spent on the actual story itself. The actual plot-related portion only takes up about 10-20 minutes.

It is mainly about Jimmy, his character is so compelling. He’s acerbic, ambitious, a real drunken hot mess. He’s also gay, which leads to a great scene of him verbally jousting with some nazi dickheads. It’s essentially that scene from Black Books where Bernard approaches skinheads, but more subdued. It’s interesting to see a critic on-screen. It shows just how important reviewers are, and if you ever know any reviewers, even if you just read their stuff online, you should give them presents and compliments. The opening two-thirds mostly focuses on him as a cruel reviewer having to come face to face with the targets of his ire, about how they react to his brutal insults, his words have power and with that power comes responsibility. It’s an interesting look into the power of writing, especially in a time when the country is under threat from the rise of fascist political parties and opinion formers (thank god THAT’s not an issue anymore). That section is so interesting that it overshadows the rest of the narrative. It feels wrong to say, but “people talking” was more compelling to watch unfold than when there was sex, murder and blackmail.

Not that the sex and blackmail aren’t enjoyable (isn’t that Donald Trumps’ campaign slogan?). Visually it’s a delight. The opening scene is a barrage of bright colours that are a true feast for the eyes. The dialogue is also a lot of fun. There are some lines here which could have been written by Noël Coward. The performances are damn fine too. Everybody knows Ian McKellen is great (hence all the awards and respect he has), but this is the first time I’ve ever really “got” Gemma Arterton. Before I just thought of her as “Is that Cobie Smulders? Oh it’s not”. But there are moments in this where she showcases how good she really is. There’s a scene in particular that stands out, where Nina and Jimmy are conversing about how she became an actress because of him, and how she’s craving his approval. Arterton is damn near perfect in that scene, even her silences say so much. Ben Barnes is fun to watch onscreen, even if (for some reason) I thought he was Henry Golding.

In summary; I would say this is worth watching, but maybe not immediately. It probably wasn’t helped that I watched this on Friday afternoon, just after that I watched Lee, and the day before I watched Babes. I haven’t posted the reviews of them yet, but (spoilers), they are both fantastic and among my cinematic highlights of the year. And no matter how good the salmon and cucumber sandwich of The Critic, it’s in between the warm and delicious bread of Lee and Babes. That metaphor makes sense right?

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.