Tag: Tom Holland

Spider-Man: Brand New Day (2026) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: A forgotten Peter Parker lives completely isolated four years after No Way Home. While working as a full-time, anonymous hero, he faces a bizarre crime wave tied to a psionic threat while dealing with a dangerous physical mutation and reconnecting with a memory-wiped MJ

Online discourse states that superheroes are used as the ideal male fantasy. A strong man who single-handedly defeats evil, gets the girl, and is admired by society, and sometimes he’s rich. In a way, that’s pretty accurate. The male gaze is generally used to discuss how female characters are viewed, but it definitely applies to male ones too. They’re people we’re supposed to envy, people we’re supposed to want to be. So with that in mind, it’s somewhat sweet how one of the most highly regarded superheroes on the big screen began as a teenager full of sarcasm and anxiety. Not including television films, there have been 11 Spider-Man films, and only three of them have really fallen out of favour with audiences or critics. On the other hand, the Marvel Cinematic Universe is in a slump, with recent films not reaching the commercial, critical, or pop culture-penetrating heights of some of the previous. It’s into this pit of uncertainty that SM: BND (Pronounced Sum Bond) steps. The highs of the character and the lows of the MCU mean that expectations are uneven: you can go into this expecting either the next great Spider-Man film or another symptom of Marvel’s current decline

In the end, it’s pretty damn good. Firstly, it feels less gimmick-dependent than the previous three movies. There’s no expectation of a twist or unexpected-but-actually-expected-by-everyone characters. So it’s standing on its own legs for the first time in a while. Much like Peter himself, the franchise has matured into something worthy. Holland and Zendaya have incredible chemistry; even an idiot could guess they’re dating in real life. This is the best work the two have pulled off in this franchise; both giving their characters inner depth and turmoil.

I’ve always rated Tom Holland as Spider-Man; he’s always been the right performer for this iteration, playing him with just the right balance between anger and lightheartedness. BND adds a new level of weariness to his performance. You have the suspicion that his version of Peter Parker does not want to be Spider-Man anymore; he doesn’t get any sense of pride or joy from it. It’s not even a societal need; he does it because he feels he has nothing else to his life now that he no longer has MJ. He feels he has no life outside of Spider-Man. BND doesn’t give us much sense of what he does when he isn’t Spider-Man. We don’t really see a job, a social circle, or much of a life at all. Spider-Man is all he has right now. There’s a real sense of hopelessness to the character that is refreshing to see. Yes, he still makes jokes (this is an MCU film after all; if Stalin was a character in this universe, he’d be making quips as he kills people), but they mask a sense of sadness.

On the downside, the villain is underwhelming. BND does the same thing that a lot of superhero films have done lately; the person you thought was the villain turns out to not be a villain, and they end up teaming up with the hero to defeat a bigger, supposedly more important villain (who was usually someone we thought was a hero). Narratively, that’s risky, because it could mean the actual villain ends up feeling superfluous and defeated too quickly. That’s the case here. I can’t even remember their name; I can’t even remember what happened to them at the end. Were they killed? Arrested? Not a clue. Their impact on this movie is the same as a wasp flying into a cruise ship.

That’s a shame, as there’s a lot of villains they could have worked into this. I’m surprised they haven’t turned Ned into a villain. The mind-wipe would have been the perfect opportunity. It’s established he’s good at science; it would have been easy enough to give him a grudge against Spider-Man. The moment where Peter realises that he has to fight Ned could have been one of the most powerful moments in the franchise, and could have allowed Jacob Batalon to show a bit more range than he’s been allowed to show. It would mean the villain isn’t just someone for Spider-Man to fight; he’s someone Peter has a deeply personal history with. It would also give Peter something he desperately lacks in this film: someone who knows him. Peter has lost MJ, Aunt May is gone, his identity has been erased, and his former best friend doesn’t know him. Making Ned the villain would turn that loneliness into the actual dramatic conflict. Plus, it would write your closing shot for you: Ned and Peter are friends again, Ned unaware that Peter is Spider-Man, they’re joking and having fun, then there’s a look of slight distrust from both of them to the other; MJ sits unaware of the potential problem brewing in front of her.

A smaller issue is the time jump. There’s a montage of Spidey defeating low-level foes, but there’s not enough variety in it to make it feel like years have passed. We see him stopping a few crimes, beating up a few interchangeable villains, and generally doing the same thing Spider-Man has always done, but there’s no real sense of time passing. If you removed that montage and one or two lines of dialogue, you could pitch this film as happening a few months after the events of the previous one and very little would need to change. That’s particularly strange because the film has apparently decided that several years have passed, which should mean Peter has fundamentally changed. Instead, everyone feels more or less frozen in place. Peter has become more miserable, but that’s a development the film could have established without telling us several years have passed. MJ hasn’t meaningfully changed, and the world around them doesn’t feel substantially different. A time jump can be a really useful storytelling device because it allows you to skip the less interesting parts of a character’s life and show us the consequences of that time passing, but here it feels more like the filmmakers wanted the novelty of saying “years later” without actually doing anything with those years. It’s not a huge problem, but it does make the film’s timeline feel strangely artificial.

BND exists in a slightly strange position. As a Spider-Man film, it doesn’t really need to care about the wider MCU. As an MCU film, however, it’s impossible to completely ignore what comes next, especially when what comes next is supposed to be one of the biggest films in the franchise. The problem is that Marvel has spent years training audiences to look for the bigger picture. We’re supposed to notice the references, remember the post-credit scenes and speculate about what everything is building towards. When that build-up suddenly disappears, it becomes noticeable. Especially when they’re still doing the post-credit scenes, only they’re not building towards anything. Vulture still hasn’t reappeared, the beacon sent out by the Ten Rings hasn’t been answered, and Charlize Theron’s cameo in the last Doctor Strange film still appears to have led absolutely nowhere. Side note: that list was originally MUCH longer, but my editor said it was too tiring to read, which kind of proves my point about the MCU’s lack of follow-up.

Obviously, Doomsday could be incredible as a film and as a villain. Maybe the lack of set-up is the point. To be honest, after the Kang issue, I can see why they’d be reluctant to throw everything into one basket. Marvel’s response to that has been weird. It hasn’t really been to course-correct; it’s been to quietly remove the things that were supposed to lead somewhere. But there’s a difference between not revealing your villain and not establishing the world in which your villain exists. Thanos wasn’t properly explained until Infinity War, but we’d already been given reasons to know he was important. The Infinity Stones had been introduced, the Avengers had encountered his influence, and the universe had gradually been moving towards him. If Doomsday is going to be the new centre of the MCU, Marvel has some catching up to do.

Still, that’s a problem for the next film, not necessarily this one. And I think it’s important to separate the two. I’ve spent a lot of this review talking about the state of Marvel, but that’s because BND is arriving at a particularly awkward point in the franchise’s history. It would be unfair to judge it entirely on whether Marvel has a coherent five-year plan, especially when the film itself is actually quite good. When BND is focused on Peter, it works. When it’s asking me to think about where the MCU is going next, it reminds me of everything that’s gone wrong with the franchise.

And ultimately, that’s why Spider-Man has endured. He isn’t the ideal male fantasy I talked about at the beginning. He’s not a rich, confident man who gets everything he wants and is universally admired. He’s a lonely, sarcastic idiot who has been given incredible powers and somehow ended up with even more problems. He loses people, makes mistakes, gets beaten up, and still gets up the next morning and puts the suit back on. There’s something much more appealing about that than watching another superhero who seems to have everything figured out.

That’s what BND gets right. It doesn’t need to make Peter the most powerful person in the MCU, or give him another universe-ending threat to defeat. It just needs to make me care about the miserable bastard underneath the mask. And for the most part, it does. It’s not the best Spider-Man film we’ve had, and it certainly isn’t going to rescue the MCU single-handedly. But it doesn’t need to. Spider-Man has survived three different actors, multiple reboots, a cinematic universe, several attempts at making everything connected, and at least one film where the villain was a man made entirely of sand. He’ll probably survive Marvel’s current existential crisis too.

That being said, I’d still rather have another Spider-Verse movie.

The Odyssey (2026) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Odysseus, the Greek king of Ithaca, undergoes a long and perilous journey home after the Trojan War and encounters mythical beings as he attempts to reunite with his wife Penelope

I don’t think I need to see another Nolan film ever again. My problems with Nolan are well documented: his scripts often lack emotion, while his dialogue somehow manages to both overexplain everything and leave you wondering what anyone actually means (as perfectly encapsulated in this video). Of course, actually hearing that dialogue has always been another challenge thanks to Nolan’s sound mixing (a problem that’s cropped up throughout his career, but reached its peak with Tenet). The result has always been films I admire more than I actually connect with.

None of that is why I don’t want to see another Nolan film. I just wanted to lull you into a false sense of security. I don’t want to see another Nolan film because The Odyssey feels like what his career has been building towards. The fragmented timelines in Dunkirk, the sense of foreboding that hangs over Oppenheimer, the manipulation of geography in Inception, his exploration of mythic heroes from Batman. Everything has been building towards this moment. Seen in retrospect, the rest of his filmography feels like practice for The Odyssey. Homer’s epic demands a filmmaker obsessed with time, perspective, spectacle and impossible journeys, qualities Nolan has spent twenty-five years refining

The internet has spent an impressive amount of time arguing about the historical accuracy of a film based on a myth. Some of it has simply been misinformation, claims that Elliot Page is playing Achilles, despite actually playing Sinos. Some of it has been uglier, with people claiming Lupita Nyong’o is “too black” to play Helen of Troy (despite being one of the most strikingly beautiful actors working today, which feels rather relevant when casting Helen). Then there’s the debate over accents, with complaints that everyone speaks in historically inaccurate American accents, rather than the obviously much more historically accurate British ones. I didn’t invent that last argument, by the way. James Hibberd of The Hollywood Reporter was so annoyed by the accents that he wrote an entire article about it, arguing that the modern British accent is “traditionally considered universally pleasing and ‘just foreign enough'” to create a timeless quality. Apparently, the ancient Greeks were just waiting for actors to discover Received Pronunciation.

However, there is one criticism that does deserve to be taken seriously: Emily Wilson’s. Especially because her 2017 translation of The Odyssey formed the basis of Nolan’s adaptation. She argues that the film simplifies Odysseus, stripping away much of the complexity of the character and leaving little to say about the major themes of Homer’s work.

From the perspective of someone who has spent years studying the text, it’s a difficult criticism to dismiss. However, there is also a difference between experiencing The Odyssey as a scholar and experiencing it as a general audience member. Wilson has pored over every word of the original, examining it through historical context and the work of other translators and academics. A filmgoer is approaching the story very differently. They are not necessarily looking for every character, or comparing every choice against centuries of interpretation; they are experiencing the story Nolan has chosen to tell.

Let’s be honest, most audience members won’t leave the cinema wondering where Queen Arete is or which elements of the poem have been omitted. As historian Tom Holland (not the actor who appears in this film) has pointed out, there is no historically accurate version of Odysseus to recreate. He is a mythical figure. An “impressionist” interpretation of ancient history is arguably more valuable than a painstaking attempt to recreate every historical detail, because such accuracy is impossible. So with that in mind, how is the film itself? As you can guess from my second paragraph, I loved it. It’s long, you can’t deny that, but every scene feels like it earns its place. There is so much mythology packed into this story that removing anything risks making the journey feel incomplete. Some stuff you’ll be familiar with (the Trojan horse, the sirens, Circe), some you won’t (I can’t say because I don’t know what you’re familiar with). The impressive thing isn’t that Nolan includes these famous moments; it’s the way he reinterprets them. The Trojan horse isn’t simply a giant wooden structure waiting to be wheeled into Troy. The song of the sirens is not a beautiful melody, but a haunting lament for everything you’ve left behind. Circe’s transformation of men into pigs is one of the most disturbing versions of that event you could hope for, helped enormously by another excellent performance from Samantha Morton. Surely an Academy Award for one of her performances is only a matter of time?

The cast is one of the film’s biggest strengths. There are no real weak links. Robert Pattinson gives a deliciously sleazy performance that will make your skin crawl, somehow making every appearance both entertaining and deeply uncomfortable. Matt Damon is perfectly cast, and not just because this is another film where he spends the story desperately trying to get home. Somehow, that has become his very specific niche. As said earlier, Samantha Morton is excellent as Circe, bringing a genuinely unsettling quality to a character who could easily have become just another stop on Odysseus’ journey. The only criticism you can really make of Tom Holland is that his babyface means he doesn’t quite look like a 30-year-old, but that is hardly a fault with his performance.

Visually, this might be Nolan at his most impressive. Polyphemus the cyclops looks genuinely monstrous; the way he kills Odysseus’ soldiers brings to mind Francisco Goya’s Saturn Devouring His Son, not simply because of the violence, but because of the sense of something ancient and unstoppable consuming something helpless. The Laestrygonians are similarly nightmarish, not only because of their size, but because of the way they manipulate the landscape itself to trap and kill their victims.

This makes it the perfect opportunity to talk about one of Nolan’s greatest strengths: his understanding of scale. A low angle alone does not make something feel enormous; the audience needs something familiar beside it for comparison. This is partly why I think Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire did not work as well as it could have. The monsters were huge, but the films rarely gave us a true sense of that size. Nolan understands that difference. Here, everything that is supposed to feel massive actually does, from the mythological creatures to the buildings, landscapes, and entire worlds they inhabit.

Perhaps the most impressive thing about The Odyssey is not what Nolan builds, but what he allows us to see. The film takes us across coastlines, mountains and islands that feel almost untouched by time, and Nolan is confident enough to simply let them exist. The scenery becomes almost another character, shaping the journey as much as the people within it. Each location represents another stage of Odysseus’ journey, not just geographically but emotionally, giving the entire film a sense of scale and reality that artificial environments often struggle to replicate.

These are not historical places recreated for the camera. They are places that existed before the film and will continue to exist afterwards. Every mountain, coastline and cave has texture and history, making the journey feel less like a series of movie sets and more like an actual voyage across an ancient world.

For all Nolan’s strengths, emotion remains his greatest weakness. There is emotion here, but it comes mainly from the performances rather than the writing. The actors create feelings that the script itself rarely manages to reach. There are moments that should be devastating, but they are presented with such clinical precision that you end up more impressed than affected by what you are seeing. You understand what the characters are feeling, but you remain outside the experience rather than being pulled into it. There is an emotional distance between the audience and both the characters and the story.

The closest the film gets is near the end, when the fall of Troy is presented not as the glorious conclusion of an epic, but as what it actually was: the destruction of a city and a war crime. Even then, however, it does not have quite the impact it should. It is brutal, but in a film where soldiers are killed by living trees, transformed into pigs, or have their heads bitten off by monsters, the human horrors of war somehow feel strangely tame in comparison. You cannot present something as the tragedy that reshaped a civilisation if the audience does not feel its weight more than the fantastical violence surrounding it.

I meant what I said at the beginning: I don’t need to see another Nolan film. Not because I have lost interest, but because I genuinely cannot see how he could top this. The Odyssey feels like the culmination of everything he has spent his career working towards. Every other film now feels like a filmmaker refining the tools he would eventually need for this. Every obsession, every stylistic quirk, and every technical innovation finds the perfect material to justify itself.

I cannot imagine another Nolan film topping this because I cannot imagine another story that suits him quite this perfectly. But I hope I’m wrong. Because if Nolan somehow manages to surpass this, then we will have another one of my favourite films to add to the list.

Uncharted (2022)

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

A treasure hunter (Mark Whalberg) recruits the bartender brother (Tom Holland) of one of his old cohorts to try and find a shitload of goooooooooooooooold.

Movies based on video games have a bad reputation, for a good reason though: most of them are terrible. Even the best have only been “okay”. I’m actually not that familiar with the Uncharted games. By “not too familiar” I mean “I’m aware that they exist, but that’s about it”. For films like this that can sometimes be an advantage, and sometimes a disadvantage. A disadvantage because if the film assumes you know the game, it won’t tell you certain things which mean you’ll be lost. And an advantage because you don’t get annoyed at things like “but his belt buckle is a dark silver in the games, not light grey like in this. They ruined it! That belt is the most important thing ever, and the colour actually matters for reasons I can’t explain beyond crying”

I’ll say outright this is not the best film you’re going to see, but it’s nowhere near the worst. It’s the kind of film you’d rent from a video shop and enjoy, but not quite enough to buy it, and if it’s on ITV on a Sunday afternoon it would be a pretty good option for you. It’s very fun to watch and you’re not going to spend a lot of time looking at your watch or bored. You may spend quite a bit of time saying out loud “well that’s awfully fucking convenient”. The whole thing works on videogame logic in terms of physics, which makes sense considering, well, you know.

One thing this does very well is work for outsiders. Like I said, I know nothing about the game, yet the film made sense. It gave you enough backstory that you knew who the characters were, and what their motivations are. There are probably references etc that I missed, but most of them don’t make you aware they’re references so you don’t feel lost for not getting them, you don’t realise there’s something to get. There’s one exception, after falling from a plane he says what happens to a stranger on a beach, who replies “yeah, that happens to me a lot too”, and the way it’s filmed makes it obvious this is a reference to something, especially when the camera lingers on this random beachgoers face for an unnaturally long time. It turns out he voices Drake in the game, so I don’t object to the cameo itself, but the way they did it was more hamfisted than me when I’m drunk reaching into the fridge for some cold meat to eat.

It’s directed by Ruben Fleischer, who gave us not only the Zombieland films, but also the first Venom. Actually didn’t realise the same guy did those. If you told me that the guy who made Zombieland made this, I wouldn’t believe you. If you told me the guy who made Venom made this, I’d be like “okay that makes sense”. There’s nothing bad about the way this is shot, it has some good visuals and the set pieces are busy but never look fake despite how ludicrous the action in them is. Even when you have someone get run over by a car in mid-air, you never look at it and notice the CGI. But on the other hand, there’s nothing that really wows you. You’re not going to get future directors be influenced by it. It’s a shame as there’s potential for great visuals in here, but it never really gives them to us.

The plot……let’s face it you’re not watching this for the plot. It tries to have one, and it does work. The only issue is a major character dies and it seems to not affect the plot at all. In this world he’s a rich famous person, so you’d think that would be mentioned again. There are so many ways you could have used it to affect the plot, but having it just to be “hey, this person who killed him is bad” seems a massive waste.

In summary: see it, but don’t pay full price, and don’t go on your own.

2021 In Film: Day Eight (The Amazeballs)

On By troubledproductionsIn Review, Year round upLeave a comment

And so we’ve reached the last round-up of the year. This, and the last one were the most difficult to separate. There were some great films in the last blog, and I will admit there are some here that some people will feel are more flawed. This one is all about “Do I consider these among the best films I’ve seen?”. Entirely subjective, but I never really claimed to be anything else.

Come True

We’re starting off with a good’n. I haven’t properly decided on the awards yet for this year, but this will probably win the one for best film. This is astounding. Everything about this works. I’ve had to cut down on unessential items this year, yet I still got both the blu-ray, and the soundtrack for this. Without a doubt, this is the most astounding film of the year. I remember this being on a big screen and completely involved in it. In reality, I watched it on a laptop while building work was going on a few doors down. That’s how good this film is, it makes the screen you’re watching on feel bigger.

It is possible I’m mad.

+ The general feeling of the whole thing. Incredibly tense.

– Might be a bit too strange. Plus, the title is such a common phrase that finding any cool t-shirts etc on redbubble (other websites are available) is difficult.

Best Moment: The ending. Incredibly tense which both makes sense and yet also doesn’t.

Worst moment: Not a specific moment, but there are a few times where the film seems to be repeating itself.

Best Performer: Julie Sarah Stone. One of the best performances of the year.

Best Line: “what if you’re wrong?” Means nothing with no context, but in the context, holy shit.

Original review here

Ghostbusters: Afterlife

Am I being too generous to this? Probably. But the way this film made me FEEL is incredible. It made me feel warm inside like glitter was exploding inside of me. It just WORKS. I saw it twice at the cinema, and still feel that wasn’t enough. Probably the warmest a film has made me feel in a long time. It’s very funny, and the performances are amazing. I was concerned when we got near the end and three of the original Ghostbusters turned up. I worried it would be “it’s fine, the old men are here now, they will save the young people and the women, because they’re just better”. But it doesn’t, they work together, and there’s a moment which gives us one of the sweetest moments of the film which I won’t spoil here

This is in a weird situation with me, because I both want to see more, but also REALLY don’t want a sequel to tarnish it. This is the perfect mix of humour and heart, and unless the writer has a sequel he NEEDS to make, it won’t work. This is a deeply personal story to the creators, and you can tell. This is a film they NEEDED to make, and is all the better for it.

+ Absolutely lovely. This should be a film that does for kids today what the original did for kids in the 80s. It has so much heart that you can’t help but fall in love.

– Lacks a certain playfulness at times.

Best Moment: The closing section, was built up to wonderfully.

Worst moment: All the unsubtle references to the original.

Best Performer: McKenna Grace. I’ve been talking about how great a performer she is since 2017, and she keeps proving why I was right to do so. And it’s not even just me thinking “oh, I like that actor, I’m going to compliment her performance”, her hair is WILDLY different in this, so I didn’t even recognise it was her until afterwards when I was looking at the details online.

Worst Performer: Bill Murray. Mainly because it feels like his character feels like the only one that hasn’t changed at all since the original.

Best Line: “how is a hamster like a cigarette? They’re both harmless until you put them in your mouth and set them on fire”.

Original review here

I Blame Society

Okay now, this is going to be divisive. It’s not just “not for me”, a large number of people will HATE this movie. But this is absolutely perfect for me. Funny, bloody, and incredibly smart. I wish more films were like this. I crave originality in film, and this has that in buckets. I can tell I liked this because I was really fucking annoyed that I didn’t write it. If you told people that I wrote a film that was released last year, they would have guessed this one. Everything about it seems like it was made for me.

+ They manage to make a killer likeable.

– Some people won’t like the filming style.

Best Moment: Hard to say as it flowed together. The death on the hill is an absurd highlight though.

Worst moment: The ending might be seen as a bit underwhelming.

Best Performer: Gillian Horvat, obviously.

Best Line: “There are benefits to killing a bad person, if you get a good movie out of it that’s an additional advantage”

Original review here

Love And Monsters

Quite unexpected. I thought this might be typical YA film. One of those films you ignore if you’re over the age of 14 because you assume it will be trite bollocks. It wasn’t until a few people recommended it that I thought I should give it a chance. I’m very glad I did as this is one of the best YA films I’ve seen since I Kill Giants. Available on netflix and well worth a watch. Has a fun energy to it, a lot of heart, and is very funny. It also teaches a lot of important lessons. Not the usual stuff you get in films like this: “just believe in yourself and you’re sure to win”, “the underdogs will always win every sports game”, “all bullies secretly want a hug”, “if you do drugs once, you’re going to die!”. The lessons from this are ones that even adults need: just because a woman rejects you, don’t be a fucking dick about it.

+ How damn fun it is.

– Really needed better marketing

Best Moment: There’s a scene between Mav1s (a robot) and Joel (the lead) where her battery is about to die. It’s weirdly sweet.

Worst moment: The crab fight goes on just a minute or so too long

Best Performer: Ariana Greenblatt. A performer to look out for in the future.

Worst Performer: Dan Ewing. Not quite the swaggering dick he needs to be. He’s an 8/10, could go slightly further.

Best Line: I did have your typical upbringing, but then the world ended.

Original review here

Luca

Inside Out made you relive your childhood, Soul gives you an existential crisis (more on that later), and now Pixar are asking…………..what if two children had a fun summer together and competed in a bike race. Oh, but those children are also fish monstes. It’s Pixar. Of course this is going to be great. This is……..it’s beautiful. Absolutely stunning to watch. The look, the story, the characters, it’s all *chef kiss*. The plot is not great but it so damn emotional that it doesn’t effect it as much as it would lesser films. When you look at the backgrounds for this you almost forget that it’s animated. It looks so wonderful it gives you nostalgia for a summer holiday you never went on. You can almost feel the summer breeze on your skin as you watch it. I highly recommend everybody watch this. It’s weirdly underrated by people, haven’t seen many people talking about it. But it’s among Pixar’s best.

+ The fact they used actual Italian voice performers.

– The plot is kind of basic. Controversial opinion, Pixar plots aren’t great.

Best Moment: Finding out Albertos history.

Worst moment: The opening under the scene, not as essential as the rest of the film.

Best Line: “Sea monster!” Out of context, that means nothing. But those two words changed the film. It moved it to another level.

Original review here

Mouthpiece:

And here it is, the other film I’m annoying people with by constantly mentioning. This is astounding. This is art, with one of the best scripts I’ve ever seen. Technically, it’s “okay” for most of it, but there’s really not that much you COULD do with this. But the script is incredible, and the performances across the board are so perfect you forget you’re watching a film. It’s really annoying to me that I can’t find this on DVD, it is available on Amazon Prime, but I don’t want that. I want to contribute financially to the makers of this. They don’t deserve this film to be lost on a streaming service, they deserve me walking up to them, handing them money directly and saying “thank you, thank you for providing what you have. But also fuck you because I wish I thought of it first”

+ The core performances. Physically and verbally, damn near perfect.

– Doesn’t hit quite as hard emotionally as it could. It should wreck you, it just makes you feel bummed out.

Best performer: Both of the leads. They’re the same person and they work in tandem beautifully. This is performance as art at it’s very best.

Worst performer: The florist. She has a total of two lines but feels like the only performer working at 90% as opposed to 100%. Incredibly harsh but it would be like putting a fifty pound note among a briefcase of cheques for a thousand pounds.

Best moment: Where the two versions of her are fighting to be the one to give the eulogy. It takes place in an empty church, no music, just the sound effects and the visuals of them not just fighting each other, but also fighting against their own inabilities to do what needs to be done. Incredibly powerful and moving, ends with the two of them embracing each other and walking up together. I changed this moment about 4 or 5 times while watching the film, it’s full of so many great moments like that.

Worst moment: “hi, it’s your Auntie”. Mainly because you’d lead with name not relationship, wouldn’t you?

Best line: That sex face might be confused with your “where’s my other sock?” face.

Original review here

Raya And The Last Dragon

Disney films normally start with the main characters parents dying, this one starts with what is the closest disney have ever come to genocide since they declared war on Guatemala. That may not have actually happened, could have just been a fever dream.

This is possibly the closest to being in the last blog, it’s teetering between the two and an argument could made for it in either direction. I love that this film exists. I love the performers. I love the way it looks. I love the story. I don’t love every moment, but the moments I don’t love are overshadowed by the moments I do. And by the Awkwafina, who completely owns her character. It’s strange, as the animated character doesn’t look like her really, but the way she moves and her facial expressions are so her that it’s perfect. It’s her character that JUST pushes it into this blog. But it thoroughly deserves to be here.

+ The world-building.

– Story is a little basic.

Best Moment: When Sisu becomes human. Adorable.

Worst moment: The babies. Bit unnecessary.

Best Performer: Awkwafina. A genius.

Best Line: “it should have been this big inspirational moment where humanity united over her sacrifice, but instead, people being people, they all fought”.

Original review here

Soul:

Does this count as a kids movie? I think showing this to a kid would basically be torturing them. Unless you want kids to have an existential crisis. It’s tough deciding what’s the better Pixar movie from this year, this, or Luca. They do different things. That’s a kids film aimed at kids, this is one they may like, but the parents will understand more. I feel this is definitely more important and essential, and at times funnier.

+The sheer emotion.

-Is it suitable for kids?

Best Moment: The flashbacks. When Joe looks back at the simple pleasure he’s had in life, and how 22 viewed their brief interactions on earth. It’s incredibly sweet and made me ugly cry (or how I call it: crying. Get it? Because of my ugly face)

Worst Moment: The ending credits. Weird I know, but Pixar is known for being creative, so the standard credits here were a little bit of a let down as they had a lot of opportunity to do some really interesting stuff.

Best Performer: Rachel House. One of the few voices I didn’t know, yet provides the most unique vocal performance. There were a lot of choices for this, but she JUST edges it out for how much fun she seems to have.

Worst Performer: Richard Ayoade, it’s too, I don’t know, Ayoade? So it just feels like him as opposed to a character.

Best Line: “I’m Just Afraid That If I Died Today My Life Would Have Amounted To Nothing.” Oh I felt that. I FELT that.

Original review here

Sound Of Metal

I REALLY wish I got to see this at the cinema. It deserved that. Definitely deserved better than just being thrown on Amazon Prime. What this film does well is represent deafness. It’s not inspiration porn. It’s not “look at these poor people, pity them”. The way it lets you into their world is fascinating. The first time it does subtitles is when he’s learning sign language. So before that, he was an outsider, and the film made you feel like that by having YOU as an outsider. You knew people were signing to each other, but you didn’t know what. But once he starts engaging, YOU start understanding too. This means you really feel it when he turns his back on the community, you feel that pan and betrayal.

+ The way the audio editing puts you in his place.

– It could do a better job of letting you seee what his world was like before. You get a quick few minutes, not enough to gauge who he really is.

Best Moment: There’s a moment where he starts to finally socialise with other people from the deaf community. It’s incredibly sweet and lovely, great to see.

Worst moment: See the worst moments are also the best moments, so this is weird. When he gets the implants and the sound is incredibly distorted. It’s incredibly difficult to get through that part without feeling physical pain, but that’s kind of the point.

Best Performer: Oh this is tough. Olivia Cooke and Paul Raci are great, but Riz Ahmed? He deserves the plaudits he got.

Best Line: “what i need is a fucking gun in my mouth”. The desperation in his voice, the whole scene builds up to that moment. The frustration and helplessness. It’s almost like he’s going through the five stages of grief, and has reached the anger phase.

Original review here

Spider-man: No Way Home

It is possible I’m being overly generous to this. But then I think, I did see this twice, and I wasn’t bored whilst watching it the second time. And it’s a looooong film. But it never felt as long as it actually is. That’s what JUST pushes it over Shang-Chi, it uses the time it has much better. I’ve watched Shang-Chi online since and I did find myself tuning out for sections. This is possibly better second time around because you have the anticipation, you know what’s coming and you’re all for it. Plus it has actual emotion, the main death is brutal from an emotional standpoint.

This film is also a lot of fun. There’s something so joyful about the interactions between MJ, Ned, and Peter. That’s the dynamic I’ll miss most.

+ It resets him back to a friendly neighbourhood Spider-man.

– It closes off the Vulture arc. He now has no leverage, so what was the point of his ending?

Best Moment: The three Peter Parkers standing around chatting shit before the final fight.

Worst moment: The Venom moment seems a bit too much of a sequel-bait. But without Tom Hardy because he’s a good guy.

Best Performer: Tom Holland, he nails the rage when May dies.

Best Line: “I was in the Avengers” “is that a band?”

Original review here

Sweat

You’d expect a film about a Fitness Influencer to be fun and jolly, very lightweight. This isn’t. This goes deep into the nature of fame and fandom, whilst also discussing how we treat victims of sexual harassment. When she mentions being sexually harassed her family turn against her, saying “you can’t judge him, maybe he was a nice guy”. She’s felt alone lately anyway, and that just confirms that even when she’s with people who know her, she still has nobody to talk to. That’s the core theme of the piece, that everybody knows her, but she is still isolated from everybody. It’s a strange dichotomy, one that is backed up by the way it’s filmed, close up, but handheld so it almost feels like you’re stalking the main character. It’s a genius method of telling the story.

+ The detached intimacy to the filming style.

– Doesn’t really have a set story it’s telling, is more slice of life, which may put some people off.

Best Moment: The dinner scene. Says so much about her.

Best Performer: Magdalena Kolesnik

Best Line: “What’s wrong with the fact that I admitted that right now there’s no one in my life who loves me? Does that mean that I’m weak or pathetic? In that case I want to be weak and pathetic because that’s when I’m myself. When I’m the Sylwia from the posters I feel very lonely and I’m just tired of pretending that I’m better than I am. I’m tired of wondering that I’m not good enough. I want to be weak and pathetic because weak pathetic people are the most beautiful people on earth”

Original review here

The Columnist

Deeply uncomfortable to watch. It feels too real and true to be comfortable watching. But it’s so damn entertaining and brilliant that it’s worth going through the uncomfortable truths to get there. A film I loved so much that when it was being shown on Channel 4 over Christmas, I messaged people I knew and told them to watch it. This film deserves to be seen by more people. The bloody nature of it will divide people, as will the fact it’s not in English (people are still weird about subtitles, which is weird as they’re obviously the best way to watch almost any film).

Sadly I feel the people who most need to watch this film will be the kind of people who won’t want to. Sucks for them as they’re missing out on one of the highlights of the year. Not just in terms of the blood and the humour, but the performances too. Everybody plays their part perfectly. Katja Herbers is the main focus, and is the one you’re most likely to know due to her performances in The Americans, The Leftovers, and Westworld, as well as being nominated for a Critics Choice award for her role in Evil. Claire Porro is up there too though, and she doesn’t even have a wikipedia page. But she brings such a mischievous energy to her performance that you have to love her. I really hope I see more of her in the future as she’s got a lot of potential

+ An essential look at something which is both everywhere, yet not highlighted enough.

– Could possibly go a little deeper with the satire.

Best Moment: The murder montage.

Worst moment: The ending. It’s in the trailer.

Best Performer: Katja Herbers. She’s perfect in it.

Best Line: “why couldn’t you just be nice?” “I’m a person. If you call me a fucking whore, a stupid bitch, a paedophile, I feel that. It keeps me awake, DO YOU GET IT, THAT Other people have feelings. I don’t deserve this. I’m not a nazi, not a psychopath, not an enemy of the people. The fact that I have another fucking political opinion doesn’t mean I’m not a person. I’m not a monster, I’m Femke, just Femke, just a woman who writes for a newspaper with a different opinion to you. I don’t deserve this. You are what is wrong with the world. You and your whole army of losers with a laptop.” All the better because it leaves the person completely speechless. You feel her rage, her anger, and importantly you feel that despite her being a serial killer who is currently pointing a shotgun at someone, she still feels scared, she still feels powerless in this world.

Original review here

The Mitchells Vs The Machines

Again, went in with low expectations. I expected to be typical “technology bad, polio good” BS. But it’s actually a lot more nuanced than that. I was sold from the opening lines “Every family has its challenges. From picture day to picky eaters. For my family our greatest challenge? probably the machine apocalypse”. The film then continues with that wit and weirdness

+ A family film featuring a lot of conflict, where one of the characters is gay, but that’s NOT the cause of the conflict. Such a relief, and I’m glad that things like that are now normalised in most places, only seen as an issue in uncivilized backwards places full of people using their medieval religion to persecute homosexuals. You know, Texas.

– Quite cliche in parts.

Best Moment: When the mother tears through the robots. Could be seen as cliche in other films, but it’s just badass and earned enough to work.

Worst moment: The ending, the world doesn’t seem to have changed that much, which considering what happened is a bit strange.

Best Performer: Eric Andre.

Worst Performer: Doug The Pug. Because they (presumably) paid a lot for a celebrity pug to make dog noises. Why? They didn’t even seem to mention it in the promotional materials, so it’s not as though it was for publicity purposes. And even if it was, who pays to see an animated film because of which animal did one of the “voices”?

Best Line: “It’s almost like stealing people’s data and giving it to a hyper-intelligent AI as part of an unregulated tech monopoly was a bad thing”

Original review here

Onward (2020)

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

I was both looking forward to, and slightly apprehensive about this. Yes, it’s Pixar, and if a studio’s worst film is Cars (which, as much as I hate it, is MASSIVE financially) then you know you’re in for a good time, but since this film has been out I haven’t heard a lot of love for it. So maybe it’s just average, maybe it’s another Good Dinosaur, a film that’s perfectly serviceable but nothing special. After seeing the film, I don’t get it, it’s hard to say it’s one of Pixar’s best, but that’s only because their films are such high quality that it’s really hard to rank them. I will say this though: it’s going to take something special coming out for this not to be in consideration for one of the best films of the year.

I mean it could be argued that the plot is kind of generic, it’s essentially a road movie. But a lot of Pixar films are really when you think about it. For every brilliant plot of Ratatouille or Wall-E, you have the simple plot of Monsters University. Pixar are not about the story the telling, it’s about HOW they tell them, and they tell them perfectly. As to be expected it looks gorgeous, and the script and the characters are just as beautiful.

The best thing about this is just how deeply personal you can feel it is to the writer. I often criticise films by saying “I can’t imagine someone feeling they NEED to get this film made”. You could NEVER say that about this. It’s obviously deeply personal and that personal touch permeates every inch of the film.

It’s helped by the performances, Chris Pratt and Tom Holland work incredibly well together and their relationship is the true emotional core this film depends on. It depends on the brother relationship much more than the “sons missing their father” angle that you expect. I mean, the fact that they miss their deceased father is central to the film, and it does provide one or two deeply emotional moments, but the central emotional crux is the relationship between the two brothers. For a story about not-mythical creatures it is incredibly human, but then again that’s always been Pixars strength.

Now the downside: it feels like it doesn’t do enough with the premise. The film has two main concepts:

  1. Magic used to be a thing people could do, but then technology replaced it as it was simpler. Reminds me of the Arthur C. Clarke quote: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
  2. The legs.  Okay I should mention it: this film is about them trying to bring their dad back from the dead but it goes wrong and only his bottom half comes back (fully clothed thankfully).

I feel it could have done more with those premises, although then I suppose there is a risk that might have taken away from the emotional developments. The legs thing is weird, and should provide very unique scenarios, but it really doesn’t provide that many. It does provide a great moment where the legs realise that his sons are there. One of them lets him know by tapping on his foot like he did when he was a child, after that the legs immediately search for the other son, and press down on his foot with his own. It’s the closest it will get to a hug, and it’s beautiful. As is the moment near the end, when you see it you’ll know.

So yeah, go see it. It’s a great film, and all the cast are brilliant (I haven’t mentioned it but Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Octavia Spencer’s characters are crying out for a spin-off).

Contemplations On Chucky: Day 1 (Child’s Play)

On By troubledproductionsIn Contemplations On ChuckyLeave a comment

So, halloween is just around the corner, knife in hand, ready to jump out and disembowel people when they approach it (or alternatively, hand out sweets, depends how you celebrate it), so what better time than now to waste time watching horror films start a new blog series? Similar to Musings On Marvel which I did earlier this year, and extremely similar (I.E: Pretty much the same as) last years Nightmare A Day, I’ll be watching a film every day and blogging my thoughts. This year I’m doing the Chucky series, and I thought I’d start with the first film, because I’m not a complete idiot.

Director: Tom Holland ((Psycho II (unpopular opinion, I prefer it to the first one) Fright Night (including the sequel and remake))

Budget: $9million

Box Office: $44.2million

  • The cop just threw his jacket away. Littering!
  • Pretty impressive shot there. Cop attempted to shoot someone but they move out of the way and it shoots a car window instead, camera was behind the car window so it looked beautiful.
  • How different would this film have been if he put his soul into a ninja turtle toy, or a transformer?
  • Oh man I’d hate to be the shop worker who has to tidy this up in the morning.
  • “Oh god I’m dying”, really needed a better delivery of that line there. Sounds way too “ah well, shit happens”
  • “You did this” Murderer is annoyed that somebody killed him. Really the hypocrisy is worse than the murder.
  • Shop exploded. Obviously. Yet no fire alarms went off. See, that’s why you have health and safety laws.
  • “I saw this one” yeah, children famously hate repetition.
  • This toy company has it’s own cereal that’s basically diabetes in a box.
  • That giant doll costume is really really creepy.
  • Even without the soul of a psychopathic killer I still get the feeling these dolls would kill you. You specifically.
  • “so remember to tell your mum and dad you want a Good Guy”. I have two jokes for this. Delete which ever one you found less funny. 1) When I told my parents I wanted a good guy they were less than pleased. 2) No, you go get a job and buy your own dolls.
  • “and remember, you can buy all these good guy accessories too” Holy pressurised selling, Batman!
  • This kid is called Andy, I’m now saying this is a Toy Story prequel.
  • “How long have you been up?” “since forever” You lying little shit.
  • “it looks delicious” Liar!
  • “I have to give you your super duper birthday tummy gummy” That sounds strange.
  • A news report on Charles Lee Ray, do they often put news reports about serial killers on just after children’s TV shows this early in the morning?
  • You did not need to have a box that big just to put children’s clothes in. It’s just a waste of wrapping paper.
  • “there’s a guy in the alley selling the toy you want”. That statement asks more questions than it answers. 1) Why were you in the alley behind the store? This was before shops could hire snipers to shoot smokers so you could have gone out the front. 2) How did Chucky climb back into the box and close it, and clean up the blood? 3) It’s been a while since I’ve brought toys, but “stranger in an alley”? I really doubt they have a decent returns policy. “if you’re not satisfied, fucking die”
  • “Are you happy with your job here?” No manager would ever ask that question.
  • “A Good Guy, I knew it” What gave it away? The fact it was in a Good Guy box, or the fact that the box has a see-through front so you can tell what it is before you opened it?
  • The toy company has it’s own cake mix. Evil!
  • “Hey Chucky, you’re not watching me”. It’s because you’re boring, kid.
  • “Chucky wants to watch the nine O clock news” She doesn’t find it weird that a child asks to watch the news.
  • So, inside the doll is the soul of an an adult male, and he just got kissed by a child. This must be hell for him.
  • “What is wrong with me?” Off the top of my head, I’d say low self-esteem, a lack of maternal affection and a genetic predisposition for anxiety and depression.
  • How did she get hit so hard (with a toy hammer no less) that she stumbled about 6 feet back with enough force to fall through a window? Were the windows made of sugar glass?
  • If a body lands on your car, is that covered by insurance?
  • “I live there”, thankfully the police don’t ask for proof or clarification.
  • So the detective investigating this is the same one who shot Charles Lee Ray? Wow, well coinci-mental
  • “Why? What’s happened to Maggie?” Well the detective is from homicide, try and put 2 and 2 together.
  • “You got any idea what these are?” What, the footprints, I’d say they’re footprints.
  • “what would Andy be doing on the counter anyway?” There speaks somebody who obviously has never had children, those fuckers climb everything.
  • PJ Sneakers? What the fuck? No! That’s just ugly capitalism.
  • “I don’t know who did that, and I don’t care”, wait, you don’t care who killed them?
  • “I want time alone with my son” “okay, we’ll clear out”, is that how police investigations work? They stay there until they solve the case, or until somebody politely asks them to leave.
  • The main kid in this called Andy, and there’s a character called Sid, this is basically Toy Story.
  • “his real name is Charles Lee Ray”, why did he tell you that?
  • “it’s because of Aunt Maggie you’re behaving like this”, no it’s because you’re a failure and I hate you.
  • “Why don’t you sleep with me tonight?” Wait, but at the moment you suspect your kid is dangerous, so why would you want that? Why not do the opposite and sleep far away, locking the door.
  • “you sure you’re alright about last night?” He goes to school the next day? I know it’s just a family friend but surely he’d get a day off for that?
  • How did he get on a train without either 1) paying (you really think a six year old kid has that much spare change?). 2) Someone phoning the police.
  • Pretty good use of music here, they’re seemingly incorporating the basic noise from a train running on the tracks into the music. Simplistic but rather brilliant.
  • What was Chucky’s plan if Andy didn’t need a piss at this precise moment?
  • Andy urinated for over a minute, how much does this kid drink?
  • “random noise, I’ll fire towards it” Good plan.
  • Andy runs towards gunshots.
  • How did Andy find Chucky in the burning wreckage?
  • Why has she not thrown that box out? Or at the very least compacted it down for recycling. Earth-killers are the true evil.
  • Good Guy even make their own god-damn batteries?
  • “Talk or I’ll throw you in the fire”. Look, this will go one of two ways, either 1) You’re threatening a serial killer. Or 2) You’re going to burn your childs favourite toy because it wouldn’t talk to you.
  • “I brought it from a peddler behind my work, I’ll try there” Stupid idea.
  • “he’s a cop” How do you know that? All he’s done is knee a homeless rapist in the groin, that’s the least that anybody would do.
  • “It was struck by lightning the night that Charles Lee Ray died? “How do you know that?” Well I imagine a serial killer dying, and a big toy store blowing up would make the local news. And he’s a member of the police so I imagine he’s up to date with current events, even ones as small as the police shooting someone.
  • “I was the man who killed him” “why didn’t you tell me?” Is it a policy to tell civilians every single person you’ve killed? If so that’s going to make meeting new people a lot more difficult for me.
  • Chucky attempts to strangle him, instead of, you know, using the knife.
  • Chucky finally decides to use the knife.
  • Obvious Green Screen is obvious.
  • “this is his accomplice” then why aren’t you there? Why did you insist on seeing a civilian first, and then take her to a possibly dangerous scene?
  • Why does he have a voodoo doll of himself? Does he put it near the heater so that even when he’s walking around in the snow he’s warm? That’s what I would do.
  • “I have a date with a six year old boy”, Phrasing!
  • Chucky stabs the voodoo doll, instead of, you know, just stabbing the guy laying in front of him. Lazy.
  • The actor playing Andy seems to genuinely be in fear. No child actor is that good (apart from Ruby Barnhill and Madison Wolfe of course) that I’m not suspicious that that child is actually in fear of his life. In which case, meh, you gotta do what you gotta do.
  • Chucky bites a lot. If that’s his natural instinct he probably did it a lot whilst human too, so why did it take so long for the police to catch him? Or has him becoming a doll given him really weird fetishes?
  • Random fact: Whilst doing the voice-over work for when Chucky is thrown in the fire, Brad Dourif’s (the voice of Chucky) daughter crawled into the recording room. Nobody noticed until she started crying as a reaction to her dad screaming. I don’t have a joke to end this on, just found that interesting.
  • This woman who works in a department store is a better shot than most movie cops.
  • I like how this ends with a “phew we’re safe, but oh shit, everyone thinks we’re crazy”. Kind of a happy ending, but also a downer. It’s a happy downer, like a post-orgasm penis

And that’s that. The first of many (well, about 5) in a new series.