The Smashing Machine (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: The tale of Mark Kerr, one of the pioneer athletes in MMA.

The Rock is in a weird position right now. A few years ago, he was the biggest action star in the world, but a series of notable flops, combined with reports of diva-esque onset behaviour, has caused the world to sour on him somewhat (not to mention some of the stories he’s ruined in his role on the board of directors of Endeavor). It’s clear that he needs a rebrand. Importantly, he needs to calm down a bit and bring in his ego, instead of talking about the characters he plays as the most important ones in the whole history of the franchise, as he did with Black Adam. It feels like The Smashing Machine is an attempt at reputation rehabilitation. For one, he actually has to act. He can’t do the “shut up, jackass, I am bigger and funnier than you” shtick he relies on so much. This is probably the first film I’ve seen him in where he doesn’t rely on his charisma.

I’m surprised by just how good he is in this. This is the first time I’ve seen him and thought “he could genuinely win awards for this”. He is restrained, toned down, and clearly full of anxiety and worries, as opposed to pancakes, which is normally the case. This would not work if he gave his normal performance. At least 60% of this movie is subtext. Dialogue is replaced with a nervous look, or the audience having to piece it together from context clues. It’s strange to think that something so subdued and honest could come from the guy who played the villain in Happy Gilmore 2.

It’s not all good. There are times when you kind of wish it would show you what it shies away from. Ryan Bader gives a performance that’s okay, but is nowhere near as good as the performances he is surrounded by. No matter how good a slice of toast with butter is, if you put it alongside a perfectly cooked buttered chicken, it will not seem as good anymore. Also, this film doesn’t feel 90s. The visuals look like a cheap VHS, the colours are muted, and the music feels very 70s. I’m not saying this film should have had Limp Bizkit or Nirvana on the soundtrack; that would have been weird. But if you ignored the cards telling you the dates, you would not say this was set in the 90’s, all the film language tells you 60’s or 70s.

Narratively, it’s easy to see why some would find The Smashing Machine frustrating. There’s not much sense of cohesion between moments, which means it flows weirdly. It’s a bit like listening to a band’s greatest hits album, and it goes from their early rough stuff to a peak-of-career overproduced ballad; as good as those two parts are, it feels like you’re missing a middle step, something to bridge the gap between the two moments. It skips over some things incredibly quickly, then focuses on stuff that’s not as important. In terms of film time, Mark Kerr spends more time shopping than he does in rehab. Yes, the rehab does linger longer (“linger longer” is a fun thing to say, by the way), but it would have helped the story if we saw more of how he went through it in the first place; the struggles he had overcoming addiction. As it is, he breezes through rehab, then gets judgmental when his partner drinks. If the narrative focused more on how hard rehab was for him, then his annoyance at her behaviour would have more weight.

Overall, it’s worth a watch, though. A fascinating character study and a look at masculinity and how it can be bruised. It’s not your typical sports story, where the underdog comes from behind and miraculously wins. Instead, it’s one where someone comes from ahead and loses. Where someone’s own pride and hubris cause their professional and personal destruction. Much like The Damned United, but not quite as good.

Moana 2 (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Moana journeys to the far seas of after receiving an unexpected call from her wayfinding ancestors.

Moana 2: More-ana has received a lot of criticism upon release. From people saying “It was obviously supposed to be a TV show” (which it was), to just a general sense of disappointment. At the time of writing, it has a 61% score on Rotten Tomatoes, that’s only 2% away from being rotten. It’s not as good as the first one, but it’s certainly not a bad movie. It currently has an audience score (sorry, “Popcornmeter”, FFS) of 81%. That feels more accurate based on the 95% score of the original.

Yes, it has its flaws. The music isn’t anywhere near as good and feels more unnatural than it did in the original. The villain isn’t quite as present, to the point where the film seems to be building up someone else as the villain, who then turns out to be helpful and isn’t mentioned again. It also has more moments that feel cringy compared to the original.

It is still fun though. It adds to the story from the first one in a logical way, expanding the universe that was created. Most of the original cast return, and the new voices slot right in; Rose Matafeo BELONGS in more Disney movies, and her voice is perfect for animation. David Fane also feels so natural that I had to check he wasn’t in the original. The Rock continues to do what he does, and Auli’i Cravalho is still one of the most perfect castings any animation has ever done, she sounds like how her character looks (although I still maintain that Moana herself looks like an animated version of Jennifer Freeman, the second Claire from My Wife And Kids).

The movie looks GORGEOUS. Water is generally really hard to animate due to the unpredictable nature of how it moves (second only to George Best in the 1966 European Cup quarter-final against Benfica), so it’s very easy to mess up. There are no moments here where the animation takes you out. It looks so perfect and real that it almost feels live-action. This is why it’s so baffling that a live-action version of Moana is being made. Why? It hasn’t been long enough since the original to justify it, and there is no way it will look as good, so what’s the point? The high quality of Moana 2: The Ocean Strikes Back means that audiences are fully invested in this iteration of the character, all a live-action version will do is dilute or taint the love for the franchise.

In summary; this film is good, only tainted by how utterly superb the first one was. The reviews are wrong, except for this one, I am always right.

Red One (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Santa gets kidnapped.

Studios put a lot of thought into release dates for big movies. Sometimes it’s to avoid competition with a similar release which may split the audience and negatively affect the box office, sometimes because it wants to be in people’s minds when they nominate films for awards, and sometimes it is to make use of certain demographics (releasing kids films during the summer holidays etc). With that in mind, it is truly baffling why Red One, a Christmas movie, was released in the first week of November, which despite what the adverts on television may be telling you, is not Christmas. I can’t imagine there’s much crossover between the intended audience of Red One, and the intended audience for Night Bitch or the new Lord Of The Rings. There are only two ways I can justify it;

  1. They need it to fail so they can recoup the losses in some form of Hollywood accounting BS
  2. It’s going to be released on streaming services just before Christmas.

There is, of course, the possibility that they want this to be a slow-burn success, that audiences will be so impressed by what they see that they will tell their friends, who will then tell their friends and sooner or later everyone will go see it.

If they wanted that, they should have made a better movie. It’s not terrible, it’s just deeply deeply flawed. The main issue is one of tone. It’s not sure whether it wants to be a family-friendly Christmas adventure or an action movie. At times, it seems like it’s aimed at children, with infantile references and simple narratives, but then there are sexual references and mid-level swears which you’d expect in a mild 15.

I wasn’t a fan of Chris Evans in this. He’s usually very good, and he can do comedy. But for some reason, his style didn’t work in this. It’s hard to buy him as a regular human, even when he is standing next to The Rock. I should point out, that there’s a moment where Nick Kroll gets possessed, and the vocal performance is bad to the point of embarrassment. Other than that, most of the performances are fine, and it’s always nice to see Bonnie Hunt.

There are also pacing issues. It takes FAR too long to get to the point. The opening also repeats itself or says things that could have been saved for later. Personally, I think we should have stayed with Chris Evans character before moving to the mystical part, then our experiences would have been similar to his, with our eyes and minds slowly being shown the magic.

The magic is the best part. Red One incorporates so many worldwide Christmas myths and legends that it’s almost an educational experience. I really enjoy the way they incorporate Gryla. I kind of wish they put more in, but I suppose the hope was to save them for sequels.

In summary; disposable fun, that really should have been released either straight to streaming or closer to Christmas. At the moment, it feels like it’s been sent out to die, and it doesn’t deserve that.

Black Adam (2022)

Quick synopsis: What if Superman was Middle Eastern, and kind of a dick?

I’ll admit, I’m not that familiar with the Black Adam character, but I get that he’s a big deal, especially to black comic book fans. That appeal is why The Rock has been trying to do this film since 2007, so my ignorance is on me. The film actually does a good job of explaining who he is, so even newcomers won’t be lost. You can go into this having not seen any other DC films and get the plot, and the main character (and as good as Black Panther is, this is one element where this film wins. Spoilers for that review btw). The other characters? Yeah, you’re gonna have problems. There are some you can work out from context clues what their powers are, but it definitely needs to do a better job, there’s one character in particular who is severely underwritten to the point where I’m still not entirely sure what they were. So, after The Rock spent so long getting this made, is it actually worth it?

Kind of. It’s one of the stronger DC films, behind only The Suicide Squad, Shazam!, and Wonder Woman, but that says more about how disappointing (or in the case of Wonder Woman 1984; outright terrible) the rest have been. The worst thing you can say about this is that it’s kind of bland. I know this is a passion project, but that doesn’t seem to come through in the script. The whole thing feels like a tribute to better movies. It’s not really bringing much that’s new to the table. I think it’s supposed to be “morally complex anti-hero”, but that’s not new, that’s most heroes in modern films. At this point it would be more notable if a hero was actually pure light and good (that’s part of what made Shazam stand out to me so much). I mean, in this movie universe, Superman has killed someone, and attempted to fight the rest of the Justice League, you’d have to be very dark to beat that, and this film doesn’t want to go there. It may not fully “go” there, but it does approach it at times. The Suicide Squad was shockingly violent, and so is this, but in a different way. There’s not really a lot of blood and gore, but the violence is impactful enough that it feels like physical fights actually have consequences.

On the downside, the villain is incredibly underwritten. He doesn’t actually matter for 90% of the film. He never really feels like a threat, either, meaning the whole thing doesn’t have much jeopardy. The human characters are well-written though, but that’s not quite enough to make up for the lack of stakes the whole thing seems to have. The plot is quite basic, although it does have a reveal which came as a genuine surprise to me, and makes you re-evaluate everything that came before it (like a good reveal should).

All the performances are good, not really many “wow, I am really impressed by that”, but none that draw you out of the film either. The only note I have on performances is that I watched Brooklyn 99 the day before, and a lot of The Rocks delivery in this is very reminiscent of Captain Holt, and now I can’t stop thinking about Captain Holt in different superhero films, not the actor, the character, replacing others. Everytime I think of a new one it makes me laugh, seriously, Captain Holt being Thanos would be incredible, admit it. Annoyingly, that may be the best thing I got from this movie. Which is a shame, as it’s important, and could be better. If I hadn’t seen a superhero film before, I would be impressed. But this being released during a potential aftermath of a superhero boom, can’t help but feel a little dated. It does bode well for the future of the DCEU though, which is a good sign.

DC League Of Super Pets (2022)

Quick Summary: Krypto The Superdog teams up with a group of superpowered pets to save the world from a hairless guinea pig.

Oh joy, a DC movie, animated, aimed at kids, this could be terrible. It’s not though, it’s funny, has a lot of heart in it, and makes the most of how ridiculous the premise is. It does seem somewhat hampered by the fact that a lot of the already existing jokes about pet ownership have already been taken by Secret Life Of Pets etc. It’s not doing anything new, but it’s not really expected to. Compared to the other Warner Bros animated fare, this is much better. Although let’s be honest, being better than Space Jam: A New Legacy is not exactly difficult.

There are some jokes which only work in this film, and really that’s how films like this should be. That’s the same for the story too. Bat-Hounds backstory is that he was abandoned by his family after they thought he bit their child. Brilliant writing as it ties into Batman’s “I work alone and don’t like getting close to people” nature, whilst also ties into the character, you know, being a dog.

Most of the casting is perfect. The Rock makes a great Superdog (if you stick around for the credits, you see him as Black Adam), and some of the human voices are almost too perfect: Keanu Reeves as Batman, for example. Kevin Hart as Bat-Hound doesn’t really work for me though. Kevin Hart is a ball of manic energy who survives on quick dialogue and humour. Which is the complete opposite of what a Batman-like character should be. It’s a shame as his chemistry with The Rock is obvious and sells many films, I just feel it might not be appropriate for this.

If you go into this as an adult, watching it and comparing it to other comic book movies, you won’t be pleased. It will be too simple, the plot too obvious, and the action scenes without tension. But if you go into this as a kids movie, just leave your mind at the door, and go in to have fun, you’ll like it. I’ve been in screenings for kids’ films before and this probably got the best reaction. That sounds like I’m damning it with faint praise, but kids’ films are REALLY hard to do. An adult goes into a film with the social understanding “I am going to sit and watch this film”, a child has no such qualms. If a child isn’t entertained by what they’re seeing, they’ll let you and everybody else know. They have no shame in complaining, or running around the screen. They’re a highly critical audience, and the fact that this film scores well among that audience is a testament to how well made it is. There’s not QUITE enough there for adults though, which is a shame as films like The Lego Batman movie have shown how you can show love for the source material, entertain children, and throw in references for adults to get, and this doesn’t get close to doing that.

So in summary, is good, but could be great. If there’s a sequel, that could be better as the characters will already be established.

Red Notice (2021)

Quick Synopsis: An interpol agent attempts to track down a jewel thief. In reality it’s much much more complicated than that.

Disposable. That is probably the best way to describe this. Don’t get me wrong, at no point while watching this will you be bored, you will be thoroughly entertained throughout, and if a sequel came out you will watch it. But will you NEED to see this film again? Probably not. It’s good at what it does, but you’ve already seen everything it does before, it brings nothing new to the table. Ryan Reynolds does his usual shtick, and gets partnered with a violent stronger person who he initially disagrees with and you wonder if they can trust each other before true friendship wins. Blah blah. I’ve seen it all before. It has the usual twist and turns and they are surprising, but again, they’re not new.

The film can’t even rely on the action scenes to carry it through. They’re too video-gamey. You know how back in the days of Tony Hawk’s games the levels used to be designed in a way to be skateable, so the fences and rails would all be placed in a way that was designed with the video game playability in mind first before realism, that’s how this feels. It’s like the world was designed in such a way for action set pieces, so there’s no sense of realism or weight to the scenes, which robs them of any tension. Although let’s face it, you’re not going to get much tension in a film starring Ryan Reynolds and The Rock anyway as you know that the studio is aiming for a franchise, so they’re going to keep both alive.

It has some good parts. It’s very funny. The story has more twists and turns than a roller coaster, and Gal Gadot is funnier than she’s ever been (outside of her Imagine video obviously).

It’s hard to feel too disappointed, but it’s also hard to feel too pleased. It’s hard to feel anything. It’s popcorn movie. Sometimes that’s all you need, sometimes that’s all you want. It’s going to be a success, but I don’t think it will be anybody’s favourite film.

Jungle Cruise (2021)

Quick Synopsis: Emily Blunt and Jack Whitehall ask for The Rocks help to take a small boat down the Amazon river so they can find a magic tree.

To say I went into this with low expectations would be an understatement on the scale of “cheese is good on toast”. So much of it pointed to it being a bad film. Don’t get me wrong, I love The Rock and he’s always entertaining to watch, but he’s not someone that will make me go see a film just because he’s in it, he does have a history of films which are kind of forgettable and bland (I’ve seen San Andreas, cannot remember anything from it). Plus as much as I find Jack Whitehall amusing, his character seemed incredibly one note and stereotypical.

I was wrong. Not about Whitehall, his character is quite one note and once you’ve seen him in one scene you know exactly how his character is going to react to everything. You can also guess he’s gay. It’s not explicitly stated, but it is signposted more than Disney usually feel comfortable doing, with him saying that none of the women he was asked to marry “were really suitable for him”. That’s as obvious as they make it, and they count this as progressive, doing the bare minimum.

Other than that, it’s actually fun. It’s not a movie that’s going to change your life. But it is one that you can put on and comfortably watch. It’s the kind of movie they don’t make anymore. A fun adventure movie for kids that will inspire kids. It won’t inspire them to buy merchandise, or to go online, or purchase the video game. It will simply inspire kids to play. To go outside, pretend to be the characters and jump around the park. That’s something weirdly sweet coming from a film based on a theme park ride.

It’s not all fun though, the CGI is unforgivably bad for a film of this budget, normally when I see something this ropey in this type of film, it’s a bridge going over a canyon. The pacing is a mess, and the story is so incredibly formulaic and bland. It also is too obviously hoping for a sequel. It’s also lacking a truly impressive scene. There’s no big action sequence that the film builds towards. No “holy shit” moments. A film like this requires a big marquee moment which everybody who watches will remember. It needs a cinematic mountain to climb, this doesn’t have that. It has the occasional action sequence but they’re more like cinematic small hills. The excitement level stays pretty constant throughout, with no notable highlights.

Maybe kids won’t notice, but adults will. They’ll still have fun though. The film is a wonderful throwback movie to a simpler time. It’s not saying anything major about the human condition or society. You won’t learn anything, and you won’t be changed as a person. But you won’t be annoyed or angered either. You’ll just be taken to a different place for the duration of the film. And sometimes that’s enough.

Jumanji: The Next Level (2019)

Film reviews can be many things: they can be an analysis of the techniques used, a discussion on the relevance of the film subject in a modern world, or even a way to showcase hidden depths within a media some might think of as shallow. Well, professional reviews are anyway, with me, they are basically a long pretentious way to answer one question: Should I see this movie?

With this, I’d say yes, with a but (lol, I said “butt”). I’d see the second one first, if you didn’t like that, you won’t like this (but also, what the hell is wrong with you?), if you like it, you’ll like this. It has the same flaws and brilliance. I found my mini-review of it (before I started doing a review of every cinema film) in which I said this:

“Holy hell this was a lot of fun. I think I actually might prefer it to the original. Got some of the loudest and most consistent laughs from other people in the audience out of any film I’ve seen.

+The performances. All the main characters are basically avatars of other characters. So they have to be played the same way the original characters are (think the scene in Harry Potter where Hermione pretends to be Bellatrix, like that, throughout the entire film). Not the easiest thing to do, but they all do it really well. Jack Black, in particular, makes a fantastic teenage girl, and Karen Gillans “no idea how to flirt” scene was hilarious.

-The entire film you can’t escape the feeling that you miss Robin Williams”

Okay I was kind of wrong with “the performances” part. Yes, Jack Black and Karen Gillan were great, but Kevin Hart was just playing himself, and The Rock didn’t throw himself into it as much as you felt he could have. They completely fix that with this, you occasionally have to remember that that actually is The Rock, and he hasn’t actually been possessed by Danny DeVito. Same with Kevin Hart and Danny Glover; Kevin Hart completely nails Danny Glover’s mannerisms and demeanour.

The addition of DeVito and Glover to the cast takes some getting used to (there are moments where it feels like they’re stretching certain jokes out until they become unbearable), but they do end up (about a third of the way in) meshing into the dynamics of the film and wondering how the previous one managed without them.

Other than that, this film is basically the last one, again, but bigger. It’s just as funny, just as great to look at, and the music is really good (something I hadn’t noticed before was how good the score is). So yeah, I would recommend seeing it, seeing it in 3D isn’t completely necessary, and didn’t seem to make much of a difference, so just see it in 2D if you want. You won’t regret it, it’s funny, heartwarming, and has a REALLY subtle link to the first one, with a returning character who you might not even remember. The story isn’t great, and anybody who has ever seen a film will guess one of the “so that’s her powers” moments before it happens, and is so obvious I thought there was no way they would actually do it. Some character motivations aren’t entirely consistent and there are moments which are just done to forward the story. But it doesn’t matter, the film is fun enough to make you forget that. Plus it sets up a sequel beautifully, and a sequel you actually want to happen.

Fighting With My Family (2019)

I may be biased but I genuinely loved this film. I found it incredibly funny and heartwarming. It may be Rock-produced film focused on a huge American company, but a lot of the humour is incredibly British and snarky, Nick Frost’s character showing disdain at having to wear a t-shirt as it’s too posh for him etc.  Also, it’s probably the only film this year to have the line “dick me dead and bury me pregnant” in it (unless the sequel to Secret Life Of Pets takes a weird left turn).

This film is helped by the performances. Everyone really gets into their characters, to the point where you forget they’re playing characters. I’ve seen the person this film is based on, and followed their career for years, I still forgot it wasn’t actually her in the film. It’s weird as she doesn’t physically resemble her that much, but the way she performs as her completely convinces you (much like Michael Sheen in The Damned United).

I am aware of the background of this film, the happy ending of the film is one I remember watching and my knowledge actually makes me like the film slightly less. They discount a lot of the work she did prior to that and how highly regarded she was. This film makes it look like she was one step away from being fired and nobody knows who she is. When the truth is she was one of the most highly regarded performers for the developmental company, and the internet loved her and were begging for her to be called up to the main company. This is also shown in the ending. In this, she gets called up and is met with silence as nobody knows who she is. In reality, the reaction she got was loud as hell (caused partly by a large number of English fans who were in attendance) and everybody loved her. I see why they played with reality though, it makes the film much better and flows narratively more. I mean, “highly respected performer who is known as one of the best gets a promotion after impressing on shows for over a year” isn’t as compelling a narrative as “plucky underdog comes from nowhere”. The other thing that makes reality cheapen this film; a sex-tape joke. The person this film is based on suffered from a leak of a sex tape, which led to her suffering from suicidal thoughts and being hospitalised from stress-induced anorexia. So the fact a character refers to another as “sex-tape” because “he makes you famous” seems a bit….awkward. Especially since it SO easily could have been cut out, it wasn’t in the middle of an important piece of dialogue and NOTHING would have been lost if it got cut.

Also, she’s now retired. She suffered an injury which means if she wrestles again she risks paralysis. Although, again, I get why they didn’t put this in. It would have provided a real downer to what is essentially a feel-good movie. And this movie is feel-good. It’s charming, funny, and has the heart needed. That’s the forgotten part of a feel-good movie. If it’s just happy happy all the time the feel-good moments of it feel disingenuous. This film hits hard when it needs to. Yes, you see her succeed, but you see others fail. You see her rise, but you see the aftermath of someone else’s fall. You see her dream come true, but you see her brothers’ dream get torn away from him and he has to watch her succeed where he can’t.

The film also looks good. Apparently, Stephen Merchant was hand-picked to direct this, and I can’t see why. By which I mean I have no idea why he thought he’d be right for this, I mean, he is, completely. He nails every moment of this with a sleekness and brilliance. The way he cuts between a lot of the scenes is genius and I truly love it. I really hope he does more directing work as he’s REALLY good at it.

Skyscraper (2018)

This film knows what it is. It’s a popcorn movie. A film that demands being seen at the cinema as that’s its home. It needs to be seen on a big screen, and you can’t expect great cinema etiquette. Yeah if someone is on their phone then you should still legally be allowed to slap their wrist with a razor blade, but someone laughing loudly? That’s fine during this. Someone sitting there loudly eating popcorn? Also fine. It’s almost like it was made specifically for people to audibly react, it’s like the anti-Quiet Place. It’s an incredibly fun distraction. The kind of film you can imagine watching whilst drinking with your friends late at night. It’s not going to change the world, or be studied in film class by future directors, and if you say this is your favourite film, I will judge you.

So this film should be run of the mill guilty pleasure. There’s one thing that stops it from being that; the main character is an amputee. To say that again; the action hero is an amputee. It’s very rarely mentioned, he’s not defined by it and it only really comes up once every so often. It’s a small thing, but I love that action movie fans in a similar situation finally have representation on screen. Usually, when you see someone like that on screen it’s as the villain, it’s about damn time they were allowed to be the hero. Yeah, it’s a shame the character was played by someone with 2 legs but still, baby steps. Also, The Rock is just killing it lately. Jumanji, Rampage, and now this? He’s quickly becoming the go-to guy for popcorn flicks.

So we’ve established this film is fun. It’s entertaining shlock and you’ll enjoy it whilst watching it. There are some issues with it, of course, the CGI isn’t quite as clean as it needs to be in some areas, which occasionally makes it feel like you’re watching a video game cutscene. The majority of characters are underutilized, and, personally, I’m getting incredibly bored of “the bad guys are doing this so they can get hold of this USB stick” plots (seriously, it’s the MacGuffin for sooooo many movie characters lately). Also, it’s hard to feel any genuine tension as you can pretty much pinpoint how every scene will play out. I must commend them on the room of mirrors scene though, that was BEAUTIFULLY orchestrated and laid out, THAT’S the scene you need to see. You don’t need to see the rest, but I advise that you should, and watch it on a big screen. This film will lose so much of its potency if you watch it on a small screen. It’s spectacle cinema, and deserves to be treated as such. The action is some of the most jaw-dropping you’ll see. The bits which aren’t action-heavy? They’re…..look watch the action bits. The rest of it is difficult to recommend. The opening third, in particular, is exposition in a film that really doesn’t need that much exposition. People aren’t going to see this film for the brilliant camera work, they’re going to see it because “ooo things go boom”. It doesn’t need as many characters as it has, as it means most of them go to waste. Neve Campbell, in particular, seems incredibly underdeveloped for a performer of her calibre. I think Hannah Quinlivan is underwritten as well, but it’s hard to tell as her character flits in and out of the script like a drunken desire to commit suicide. She’s good when she’s in it, but she isn’t really in it enough to warrant a strong opinion on her either way, I’d like to see her in more so I can find out.

So yeah, go see it. You may not love it, but you will enjoy it