Queen Of The Ring (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: The tale of Mildred Burke; those who know, know why she’s important. Those who don’t? Prepare to find out.

I know a little bit about Mildred Burke, I could probably BS my way into a small essay about the impact she had on professional wrestling, as long as I kept some details incredibly vague, especially when it comes to names and dates. But I will always watch a film about professional wrestlers, mainly because it attracts such weird personalities. In what other performance medium could you have a lottery winner buy their way in and then later die whilst running around a hotel covered in baby oil and carrying a baseball bat, and not have it be one of the most iconic stories? So really, I’m the perfect audience for this. I will understand the basics, but won’t know the exact details, so I’ll still be surprised.

I’m not sure how this will fare with non-wrestling fans. On the plus side, it explains the wrestling business well; its history in relation to the carnival circuit is something that a lot of films about the subject overlook. I hope this becomes the biggest film ever because then it will seem normal when I use the phrase “heel turn” in reviews (there’s really no better phrase). On the downside, it could have done a better job of explaining who some people were. It feels like it expects you to know who some people are based on context, waiting far too long to name on. I know the NWA and the territory system, but a lot won’t, and the lack of knowledge about that could also hamper some people’s enjoyment. Even with that in mind, I think there’s still enough here for non-fans to be interested and to learn. That’s based on my assumption that this is accurate. Considering Jim Cornette is involved, that’s a pretty safe assumption as he’s notoriously respectful of classic wrestling.

There are really only two moments where I felt my being a fan changed my perception a lot. One, it’s fascinating to see a representation of a younger Mae Young. I’m used to her being in her 70s and still being tougher than a burnt stake, so it’s interesting to watch a time period where she had the body you’d expect someone with her physical resiliency to have. The other one is one I’m possibly wrong about: the racially mixed crowds, I know that was still illegal in some parts of the country, it’s why the work of Sputnik Monroe and his efforts to desegregate the audiences in 1957 were so controversial., so there’s a chance that was bad choice, but I’m willing to be told I’m wrong, and I probably am.

One thing that is clear to everyone: Mildred Burke really got screwed over. I wish she had got her flowers while she was alive. Her story is iconic; what she did was something that cannot be overstated (despite the best efforts of some people). I thought this was surprisingly fair in how it dealt with controversial characters. It openly states, “Despite his many flaws, Billy Wolfe helped popularise women’s wrestling”, see THAT’S how you do it. He was a complete prick, but he did change women’s wrestling for the better, so there’s no turning him into a cartoonish villain or diminishing his efforts.

I thought her time in Al Hoft’s territory went by too quickly in the film. She goes from unknown to headliner way too fast, and the montage isn’t good enough. But if it went slower, then it might have caused a bigger gap between the explanation of what a “shoot fight” is, and one actually occurring, so I can see why it was done that way. That’s what most of my criticisms are, just small imperfections that stop it from being great; scenes which feel needless (the shoe-horning of Vince McMahon Sr feels weird), the way some characters you’d feel are important are neglected, and how for a lot of events we’re not really given enough context to understand WHY certain things are big deals.

There’s a really small moment which I liked; she was showing off her skills, beating a random guy, and a tiny girl flexed her muscles nearby, showing the influence she was having. There’s no “and that little girl grew up to be……”, it helps emphasise how important role models are to everyday people.

The performances? They’re hard to fault. Emily Bett Rickards is in great shape. Weirdly, she looks tougher than some of the actual wrestlers cast in the movie. Josh Lucas is a suitable mix of charming and scummy. Due to the way characters revolve in and out of the narrative, it’s hard for many of them to leave an impression, but none of them are negative, so that’s a plus.

One thing I didn’t expect to find myself enjoying so much was the music. It’s mostly new songs, but with an old-fashioned feel to them, like modern takes on old tales. Which is thematically perfect for this story. This feels like the perfect time for a movie like this to be released, and I’m glad it was. I had to watch it on Amazon, but I’d have absolutely loved if I got a chance to see this at the cinema. Ah, well, maybe in 10 years, when it becomes a cult classic. I’d love Avi Avildsen to take a chance on some of the other characters. I trust he’d do well with telling the story of Gorgeous George, Fabulous Moolah, or Ethel Johnson. But seeing as those stories are unlikely to be told, we’ll have to settle for this one brilliant one.

Good Fortune (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: A well-meaning but inept angel named Gabriel meddles in the lives of a struggling gig worker and a wealthy venture capitalist.

Aziz Ansari could have gone down a very different career path. He was a pretty big deal in comedic circles in the late 2010s, then in 2018, he got caught up in a #MeToo-related scandal (albeit one of the tamer ones). At this point, he could have gone the Jimmy Havoc route and retired from public life, he could have gone down the Louis CK path and ignored it, or he could have done what Russel Brand did and gone full-blown conspiracy theorist (albeit one who agrees with a US political party funded by billionaires). Instead, he did something almost unheard of in celebrity circles; he took ownership of his mistake. Not in the form of a multi-million dollar apology tour, but instead by admitting he misread a situation, fucked up, and he apologised for it. As such, he’s avoided the stink that surrounds someone like Kevin Spacey and is forgiven for it to the point it never comes up anymore (outside of idiotic reviewers who start their reviews of his movies by talking about it, oh wait).

Good Fortune is his first foray back into cinema (with the exception of The Bob Burgers Movie, which is more a continuation of something he was already working on), and it’s nice to see him back. Not just as a performer, but his skills as a writer have also been sorely missed. He avoids the trap that a lot of comedy writers fall into, making sure that the other performers get just as many laughs as he does (seriously, watch some films written by comedians and see how unbalanced the comedy is in their favour). Keanu Reeves gets to show everyone he can still pull off the Wholesome Bro shtick he perfected in Bill and Ted.

Not that the writing is perfect. It comes across a little dismissive of its own lead, Arj. Arj is mostly likeable and charming, but his getting fired from his job as Jeff’s assistant doesn’t come off as particularly unfair or something that Jeff needs to atone for. He’s not fired over a misunderstanding or something beyond his control; he was fired because he used company money to pay for an expensive date. I know, techbro millionaire could afford it, but still. It’s like being fired from Woolworths for eating Pic-a-Mix; you can disagree, but it’s hard to argue against. It’s such a simple fix, too. Just have him use the company card accidentally. Or use it for something essential, where he’s so desperate he has no other choice BUT to use the company card; his car gets towed a few scenes later, it would have been easy to have him try to stop it happening, but realising the only way it can happen is if he uses the card, but show he’s conflicted about it. His using it to pay for an expensive lunch comes off a little “the poor deserve to be poor because they make bad choices”. It’s a relatively small moment, but it paints an ugly colour over the character as it means you’re aware that whenever he’s complaining, it’s kind of his fault, and he never realises what he’s done is wrong.

If you ignore that scene, the film is pretty damn good, with moments that are depressingly relatable and frustrating, even in the small moments. For example, he can’t sleep, so he tries to listen to a relaxation app for assistance. It starts to work, but the peace is interrupted by a loud, obnoxious advert, meaning the “free” app is utterly worthless unless you pay for premium, which is pretty damn shitty for something designed for health reasons.

There are many moments like that, moments which are relatable and you hope will age badly because the problems won’t exist in 5 years. If you want to explain to certain people why younger people are struggling despite working, show them this. As one character explains, it’s hard not to live as a worker in a gig economy and not be angry. It never lets the message it’s telling get in the way of a good narrative, or in the way of jokes. There are some great jokes here, moments which caused the (disappointingly not full) screen I was in to burst out in laughter. Then there were moments where you could sense people really invested in the story.

In summary, thoroughly enjoyed this. I’m not going to feel an urge to buy it on DVD, but that’s mainly due to space rather than quality. It is a bit unrealistic, though, especially at the end. I can buy the existence of angels. But a rich person being prosecuted for financial crimes? As if.

For a lot of comedians (particularly American ones), The Aristocrats routine is a staple. It allows them to showcase their talents within an expected framework, take something everybody knows and show an audience how they do it. I believe there are two versions of it for scriptwriters, two stories every single writer should do their own version of to showcase their skills. One is A Christmas Carol (which I’ve done, and might post this year when I run out of reviews to post). The other? It’s A Wonderful Life. This is Anzari’s Wonderful Life, and I’d love to see him do a Christmas Carol. It’s strange how a film can make you want to see a completely different one, especially one that will never exist. But Good Fortune is so entertaining that you can’t help but want more, but realise a sequel would be terrible.

Spinal Tap II: The End Continues (2025) Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In The Lost Lands (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: A witch travels to the Lost Lands in search of a magical power that allows a person to transform into a werewolf.

Okay, so about an hour before I watched this, I was having an imaginary conversation with someone about how hard it is to take Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels seriously because my first encounter with one of the actors was in a comedy. The fictitious people weren’t convinced, so I had to prove it to them by watching the sketch (YouTube the Armando Iannucci East End Thug, it’s that). After the imaginary argument was won, I watched another sketch from that show, the “This House Is Made Of Paper” one. I mention this for three reasons:

  1. To increase the word count.
  2. Watching those sketches was more entertaining than watching this movie.
  3. The guy from the “This house is made of paper” is in this movie, in a serious role. So to prove a point to imaginary people, I ended up proving that point to myself. Because it made In The Lost Lands (ITLL, it-lull) difficult to take seriously.

Not that it’s an easy film to take seriously in the first place. Somehow, it’s both one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen, yet also overcomplicated with everybody switching sides and allegiances at the drop of a slippery hat. If you threw in Macguffins On A Pole, casual racism, and misogyny, you’d have a Vince Russo special. Stuff happens, but none of it FEELS important. You’re never not aware that these are fictional characters, so nothing hits.

It’s not helped by the look. You know how, when you go swimming in a chlorinated pool, and after you leave, all the light that comes from light bulbs looks weird for a while? It’s that, but intentionally, and without the joy of swimming. Even JJ. Abrams told them to tone down the lens flare. I don’t get the fascination with it; most of the time, it looks awful. I don’t know how, but even shots of sunlight hitting mountains look fake. It looks like every scene takes place in front of a green screen (which it may well have done).

The performances are…..off. They’re not necessarily bad, but you’re aware that every performer is capable of better. Nobody will use this on their highlight reel, with the possible exception of Amara Okereke, who carries herself so well that you assume you’ve already seen her in loads of stuff even if you haven’t. If there’s any justice, she can use this to land roles in the future where she’ll be able to receive more plaudits.

I didn’t expect ITLL to be good; I went in knowing it would be a mess. I thought it would at least be fun. That I’d watch it and be satisfied knowing that it’s shit, but entertaining shit, shlock. I didn’t expect it to be as incomprehensibly shit as it is. It looks bad, the story is bad, and nothing about it is memorable in a positive sense. I can only assume the 55 million dollar budget went on avocados and Starbucks, because none of it comes out on the screen. On the plus side, it’s not notable enough to stick in my memory.

Matt And Mara (2024) Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fresh Start (New Script)

I have been very harsh to a lot of movies this year, and when I look at what’s coming up, I will more than likely continue to be. So it’s only fair I share some of my own writing with the world, so here goes.

You see it a lot on social media, posts saying “Have you seen this person?”, and people share it far and wide. I very rarely do this, and it’s because of my paranoid nature. Whenever I see a post like that, I think, “What if they don’t want to be found?” And I know that’s terrible, but what if an abusive husband was using the kindness of strangers to locate his ex-partner who left him? With enough “helpful” people, he’ll be able to pin down her location, and that thought scares me. Rather than just say that out loud on Facebook, I wrote it in a script, and then only had that moment last about 20 seconds. This is a first draft, but I’m interested in feedback. Oh, trigger warning for domestic violence, it’s not shown but is talked about.

The one thing that does concern me is if it’s clear enough what’s happening. I think I’ve written it in a way that readers/viewers can figure out it’s all taking place on social media, but that might be because I know that’s what it is. There must be another way of doing it, and I’m curious what it would be. I didn’t want to run the risk of being obnoxious and pushing that aspect in the audience’s face, so it was difficult to find that balance. I think I also need to introduce the concept of Mikaela

Let’s See You Do Better: Update 6

For those unsure what this refers to: click here

I’ve changed the ending.

Well, not so much changed, added to it. In my previous iteration, the whole thing was kept in one town. I’ve completely changed it with this new ending. Decided that it opens it up for more fanfiction and theories. It was originally going to be actual serial killers, and I was going to name them. Realised that might be a bit weird, so I’ve only alluded to them in it now. I thought that’s a bit better, and it allows me more freedom as to casting and what they look like.

So, here’s the new ending

Hope you enjoy it. Does mean I have to go through and add some hints that that’s the case, that Freddy is just one of hundreds of dream demons around the world. That you aren’t safe just because you aren’t in Elm Street. Also provides a reason why Freddy is stuck to that location, because that’s his jurisdiction. Crucially it allows possible spin-offs with different characters. Plus it gives you a possible sequel of another dream demon invading his territory.

Downside is there’s no closing image. There’s no great pre-credits thing to really astound you. It’s just a scene that continues until it doesn’t. It needs a decent coda, and I just don’t have that yet.

Dark Night (Episode 1: Update 3)

So, I’ve finished. Kind of. As I was writing, I took some bits out so I now need to make some bridges between plots. But this is what I’ve got as my basis, and I’m pretty proud. I’m not quite sure about the ending yet, but overall I think it’s pretty disturbing, and that’s what I’m going for.

As with all of these, feedback is very welcome, always looking for improvements.

Petra’s-spective: Update 1

Update to this

Very quick update today. And possibly the least indicative of what I’m going for with this script. This is the opening, where I’m showing the Petra’s sitting down to watch the film. This is mainly to not only introduce the characters, but also to introduce the different filming styles. I know it may seem like I’m spending a lot of time on the introductions, but that’s mainly because I need time for the differences in the visuals and audio to become apparent so that when they happen later in the film-within-a-film it’s easier for the audience to understand what’s happening without having to actually explain it.

So, here’s the opening, hope you enjoy it.

I do give a peak of the fictional film there and I had to try and remember what christmas films were like back then. Decided on rap because it was used as shorthand for “cool”, and chose Silver Bells because a rap version of that actually exists and I love it.

That’s the tricky part, those films were generally terrible and I have to remember that, but I also need to make sure that this script is actually still watchable. So it needs to kind of suck, but in an entertaining way. That’s a really tricky balance to do and it’s not going to be easy, should be fun though. I just need to make sure my love for the genre shines through.

Petra’s-spective

Usually I write scripts for one of two reasons:

  1. Doing the idea genuinely excites me (Superlee, Dark Night)
  2. Spite/to prove a point (Nightmare On Elm Street, Headlines)

This, this is different. This is one made from love, but it also doesn’t excite me. It terrifies me. Not in a “This idea is creepy and horrific” way, but in a “This is going to be incredibly complicated” way. So what is it?

Petra’s-spective

A girls coming of age story framed with how she views a film from her childhood at different points in her life, with the sections of her life and her different takes on the film, being shown and told non-linearly.

Each times she watches the film; it features the same story, actors, and dialogue, but each comes across wildly different in execution, tone, theme and genre, depending on where she is in her life.

The film, Last Christmas (title will change) , she watches is a Christmas based family drama, which she first sees on TV (with adverts), then DVD, then streamed. When she’s young she sees the film as a comedy about a kid pranking his (no films from that time featured a female lead, so she has to identify with a male character) neglecting parents till they realise the errors of their way and give him attention, which her story at the time parallels. When she’s a teen it’s a romantic drama, about their teen daughter and her boyfriend and having to put up with her embarrassing family through the holidays. And when she’s an adult she realises the film is about the parents splitting up while trying to keep a good Christmas going for their bratty kids. The film ends on what appears to be a happy dinner, but with the undertone that this is the end of the parents’ marriage.

Petra 7: Is left to watch the film by her parents as they argue, and draws parallel between the child feeling neglected in the film to how she feels, and tries to gain her parents attention.

Petra 17: After receiving a DVD of Last Christmas for a present, she is forced to watch it with her family, as she waits for her Boyfriend to arrive who she is in the middle of fighting with due to a pregnancy scare. She makes parallels to the teen daughter in the film, seeing it as a drama about the daughter dealing with her nightmare family with her Boyfriend over for Christmas.

Petra 37: Is watching the film with her own daughter on Christmas, as they wait for her husband to come home for Christmas as he has had to work. She sees parallels with the mother and father characters in the film, finally understanding that the film is about the parents getting divorced while trying to have a last good Christmas as a family.

So yeah, that’s a lot of narratives running through one film, where the style and tone will be used as a major narrative device. Best scene to demonstrate the concept is this:

There’s a scene of the younger child pranking their sister’s boyfriend and it being played for laughs from the childs POV. Then when we see it from the Teens POV we see the heartbreak she is going through: she’s lost her first love and her life feels like it’s over. Then from the adult POV we see it as slightly petulant whining, all we can think is “you were together for a week, you’ll get over it”. This will be demonstrated almost entirely by different lighting and scores, and slight modifications to the performance. But it will be the same scene played once through, with the time changing during camera cuts.

The difficult thing for this is how to demonstrate it in the script. This will have to be read by people I can’t converse and explain, the script will have to explain itself. Best way I can think of doing it is this:

Script notes: each section within the fiction film (labelled as “film” in the scene headings) take place in the same location. The colour of the text corresponds with the style of filming and which version of Petra we see in the fictional film:
Age 7. Lots of bright colours and cheerful music (think Home Alone)
Age 17. Darker, overly depressing and angsty music
Age 37. More subtle colours, orchestral music

This will allow me to change the timelines mid-scene and have it easily understandable to the reader.