Reviews

'Robin Hood Daffy (1958)' casts Daffy duck as the titular folk hero and has him try to prove his identity to a mocking Friar Tuck, as played by Porky Pig. It's part of that era in which its protagonist isn't so much a manic, mischievous trickster as a hopelessly down-on-his-luck, perpetually trying-to-prove-himself sap. The short is dripping with unmistakably Chuck Jones style, with distinctly sharp character designs and zippy movements that lend a specific rhythm to the slapstick. It is, in essence, a one-joke short, but the variations of that joke never cease to be at least somewhat amusing. It's not the best 'Looney Tunes' of its kind, primarily because it isn't as visually inventive or packed with wall-to-wall sight gags. Its ending is satisfying, but it's slightly too abrupt for my liking. However, this is a more-than-solid effort overall that keeps you smiling throughout. It's fun and aesthetically pleasing.

'An Egg Scramble (1950)' is a 'Looney Tunes' short about an old hen who finally produces an egg (or so she thinks) and decides that she isn't going to hand it over to farmer Porky Pig. After he forcibly takes it from her, she soon finds herself on an intercity adventure to recover her baby and keep it safe. The short is a little on the light side when it comes to humour. As you'd expect, there are some nice sight gags here and there, but it generally feels rather tame in terms of wacky antics or clever visuals. The designs of its human characters are a little unsettling, too (especially a housewife who tries to boil the protagonist's precious egg). Still, it's ultimately an enjoyable, easy-to-watch experience that provides ample light entertainment in a brisk package. It's not the best in its series, but it's definitely not the worst.

'Bye, Bye Bluebeard (1949)' starts with Porky Pig attempting to rid himself of a mouse who wants to eat some of the plentiful banquet he's tucking into, but soon morphs into something of a fight for survival as a radio announcement brings the news of a vicious serial killer on the loose. It's weird to see Porky's life genuinely in danger, especially since the short is clear that all the cartoon logic in the world won't save him if the baddie gets his hands on him, and it's also strange to have a murderer as a villain in one of these films. It feels quite nasty, in a way. That's not to imply that the piece itself is particularly scary or, even, unnerving, but its out-of-place concept certainly carries with it a strange feeling that's hard to shake. At any rate, this is still primarily concerned with being fun. It features some enjoyable moments and is told with lively animation. One of its jokes seems to have served as direct inspiration for an excellent gag in 'Barry (2018 - 2023)', unless parallel thought was at play (the two were created over fifty years apart, after all). It's an enjoyable experience overall.

There's a convention in town and Porky Pig can't find a place to stay. A lone vacancy opens up at a nearby hotel, but the catch is that the room will have to be shared. That wouldn't be a problem if the other person wasn't Daffy Duck, who barges in at God-knows-what time with his invisible kangaroo friend and wakes Porky from his much-needed slumber. 'Daffy Duck Slept Here (1948)' is all about the conflict that arises when Porky realises just how unlikely he is to actually get some sleep when sharing a bed with his hyperactive roommate. It has plenty of goofy, usually absurdist gags and operates on a distinctly cartoon logic that provides plenty of opportunity for laughter. It really makes you understand just how annoying Daffy Duck truly is, as his behavior is directed solely towards a sympathetic character. We identify more with Porky than with Daffy, so it can be a bit grating to see him act so unreasonable. It's lucky, then, that Porky ends up getting the last laugh, which leaves things on somewhat of a high note. Overall, this is an enjoyable, if occasionally frustrating, short that has plenty of amusing moments sprinkled throughout.

'Porky Pig's Feat (1943)' is great. This 'Looney Tunes' short is packed wall-to-wall with chaotic, side-splitting sight gags and an unrelenting energy that's simply infectious to behold. When Porky Pig and Daffy Duck are saddled with an unreasonably hefty hotel bill by an intimidating manager, the duo try everything they can think of to get out of the building without paying a single penny. It's a really fun experience that feels as though it could go on forever, never running out of steam even as it approaches its final gag. Its set-pieces are all vital and amusing, mixing pure visual bliss with delightfully 'contemporary' (now dated) references that really sell the personality of its lead characters. Mel Blanc's impeccable voice work also does that; there really is no substitute for the impossibly talented actor when it comes to injecting life into shorts like this. Overall, this is just a fantastic effort that's one of the best 'Looney Tunes' I've seen so far. It's a total blast.

'Pigs In A Polka (1943)' is a 'Merrie Melodies' short set to the tune of 'Hungarian Dance no. 5' by Johannes Brahms, with each on-screen movement timed perfectly to the classic piece of music. Its story is that of the three little pigs, and it follows that well-established narrative pretty much to a tee. Although it's amusing to see the smooth animation speed up and slow down as dictated by the score, the film lacks strong comedic gags and feels a little bit standard when it comes to its slapstick. It's not bad, by any means, but it does feel a little bit lacking when compared to the zany freneticism usually associated with 'Merrie Melodies' and the later 'Looney Tunes'. It's a solid short overall, however, and its animation is consistently good.

'Pigs Is Pigs (1937)' is a 'Merrie Melodies' short that's surprisingly grotesque in its own way, focusing on a greedy little piggy who experiences a harrowing nightmare in which he's force-fed food by a variety of complex machines until he's ready to burst. Essentially, the piece depicts piglet torture and it's really bizarre to see. What's worse is that it isn't even all that entertaining. Although there are some inventive, if cruel, visual gags, the majority of the film is just a bit boring. It's moralistic, too, but it doesn't stick the landing in terms of driving its message home. It's just a bit weird, really, and it isn't all that pleasant to watch. It's interesting to see that this is basically where 'The Simpsons (1989-)' got that gag about Homer being force-fed all the donuts in Hell and still being hungry for more, though.

After a more pleasant last outing, 'Fraidy Cat (1942)' reestablishes the iconic duo's entirely antagonistic relationship by having Jerry fall directly into his role as initial aggressor (as he would so often be in later films). Here, he decides to terrify Tom when he sees the cat shaking in his fur while listening to a spooky radio broadcast. Using an old nightgown and a vacuum cleaner, the mischievous mouse sets about pranking his unsuspecting prey. Of course, Tom eventually gets wind of the wind-up and fixes to do more than just scare his opponent to death. The flick has some funny sight gags and its animation is as scrumptious as you'd hope from these earlier shorts in which Tom is more cat-like and raggedy. It's a well-animated outing that's lively and has a lot of spirit to it. However, it just feels fairly standard overall. The premise isn't particularly clever and the piece lacks a satisfying ending to tie things together. It also features some off-screen animal abuse (which sounds to be more than the typical feline-on-rodent slapstick we all know and love) which leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Having said all that, it's still an entertaining effort overall. It isn't one of the pair's best outings, but it's definitely not one of their worst.

Based on the anime of the same name (itself based on the manga of the same name), 'City Hunter (2024)' tells the origin of its source material's focal detective team. After a tragedy, a sex-pest private eye is hassled by the sister of his ex-partner until he agrees to help her find out who is responsible for the death that has torn her world apart. The film is definitely a live-action anime, and it feels like something ripped straight from two-dimensions in the best possible way. Although I'm not familiar with the specific anime it adapts, it definitely reminds me of a lot of other anime that I've seen and you can tell that its idiosyncrasies all lovingly stem from its inspiration. Because it's being told with real people yet operating on a cartoon logic, it has this distinct unreal feel to it that makes it seem quite unhinged at times. That's not a bad thing, though, as its off-kilter atmosphere goes hand-in-hand with its inventive filmmaking to absolutely nail the aesthetic it's going for. It's really fun, despite being rather rough around the edges and featuring a protagonist who's as creepy as he is good with a gun. The narrative is all rather rote (although it does have a fairly big surprise towards the beginning) and the character work is done in the broadest of strokes, but the flick is typically enjoyable and is often rather funny as well. It features some excitingly well-choreographed, highly stylised action set-pieces, too. You can tell it's a bit of a low-budget production (it is Netflix, after all), but it wears its heart on its sleeve and it's hard not to like on at least some level. It may not be groundbreaking, but it's definitely entertaining enough for what it is.

It's easy to see what 'Trail Of The Screaming Forehead (2007)' is going for, and to be fair there are times when it achieves it to amusing results. However, the novelty of this 1950s B-movie creature-feature pastiche wears off incredibly quickly. "It's only 88 minutes long" has never been so misleading. It's a one-joke movie and it drags because of it. Despite nailing its intended aesthetic, its narrative is just really dull. It has some charm and its filmmakers clearly put a lot of love into it, but it's very hard to sit through - let alone recommend. There's not much more to say about it, to be honest. I can't condemn it too harshly, purely because it's undeniably a passion project and even has some limited success, but it is pretty bad, even if its heart - and forehead - is in the right place.

Taking place generations after 'War For The Planet Of The Apes (2017)', 'Kingdom Of The Planet Of The Apes (2024)' is said to be the start of a new saga which acts as a bridge between the recent prequel trilogy and the original series of Apes movies (or, at least, their world). The film follows a young ape who encounters a smarter-than-usual human on his journey to find his abducted clan. Essentially a post-apocalyptic picture that focuses on what has emerged in the wake of humanity's self-destruction rather than on humanity's last efforts to survive the consequences of its actions (as is more typical for the genre), the film is visually stunning from its first moment to its last. Although it might not look quite as good as its predecessor (maybe that's mainly down to the cinematography), there isn't a single second that makes you doubt you're actually watching a bunch of primates walk and talk. It really is spectacular. Although the picture is perhaps a little too long for its own good, it's an entertaining experience throughout. The narrative is surprisingly unconventional in a couple of key ways, primarily in how it retains the grey morality of its predecessors. It's able to craft something that's genuinely interesting in how unwilling it is to assign attributes like 'good' and 'evil' to its characters, and the underlying sense of sadness inherent to this series is just as potent as ever - even as we move further and further away from a world we recognise. Not only is it never silly, it's actually quite dark on occasion (for example, there's one particularly nasty death scene that feels like something straight out of an R-rated affair). There story contains some unexpected twists and turns, and its betrayals are allowed to carry the weight they're meant to simply because they aren't undercut by an out-of-character change of heart. You aren't quite sure who to trust and it's really engaging. Noa makes for a strong protagonist, a sheltered ape who undergoes a journey of discovery that allows him to begin to contend with his - and his species' - place in the universe. The lessons he learns aren't as simple as you'd expect, either. This is further proof that the piece, rather refreshingly, feels no need to talk down to its audience and is unafraid to explore the real ramifications of the world it has created. It honours what has come before (and what is yet to come) in a believbable and compelling way, feeling like a logical addition to its franchise. While I'm not sure I totally dig the direction it teases for its sequel, I have no doubt further films will continue to surprise with their thrillingly unconventional tone and messaging. There are so many potent ideas in this piece that a lot of them unfortunately feel underexplored, so hopefully further efforts will be able to focus in on specific points outlined by this entry point into a new Apes era. The dangling-thread nature of a lot of the concepts in this is certainly one of its weaker aspects, and the film often feels like it wants to be about so many things that it struggles to truly be about any of them. However, it just about stops before it reaches that unruly precipice and thankfully feels mostly cohesive on the whole. While it does have slightly uneven pacing and some unfulfilling segments, it's a really enjoyable and intellectually stimulating film. It makes you think about its various conflicts and the actions of its characters, which isn't something that can often be said about big blockbuster movies. Like the recent trilogy before it (which it isn't as good as), it's still very much a thinking person's blockbuster (however pretentious that may sound). It respects its audience, and earns their respect in return. Plus, it's pretty cool to see evolved apes climbing and fighting and screeching their way through a post-apocalyptic world. It's really good.

'Lift (2024)' is literally nothing. There's no part of it that I didn't dislike. It's such a made-by-committee, more-formulaic-than-formulaic exercise in capitalist cynicism. The epitome of 'made for streaming' as a pejorative; all the worst things about Netflix movies rolled into one uninspired, uninteresting and unenjoyable mess that practically calls you a sucker to your face for having clicked on it. It might just be the first feature not to have an aesthetic. It's total trash disguised as inconsequential fluff. The worst part about it is that it isn't completely incompetent, it isn't painfully boring and it isn't bafflingly bizarre. It's just soul-crushingly bland, the kind of thing that seems "fine" simply because it exists and you couldn't care less about it. It would be easy to mistake it for something bang average, to write it off as something middle-of-the-road and utterly harmless, simply because it's such a blatantly passionless project that it just sort of happens before your eyes. It doesn't just require you to turn your brain off, it actively turns it off for you and it doesn't bother to even try and pass as "fun" while it does. It exists purely to devour engagement, to inflate statistics, to play on your television while you do something, anything else. It's the opposite of art, a product not dissimilar to the NFT it prominently features in its opening movement. It has no charisma, no charm, no... anything. It's as hollow as they come. Maybe it's not that deep. Maybe it's not worth getting worked up about. Maybe it's no worse than the thousands of others just like it. But enough is enough. We have to stop letting them get away with this. We have to make a stand and demand entertainment that actually entertains, art that is actually artful. We can't let this auto-play drivel be the future of film. Am I still watching? No, Netflix. No, I am not.

'Ricky Stanicky (2024)' is a bit of an oxymoron, in that it's somehow both exactly what you expect and way better than you'd think it would be. Peter Farrelly's latest comedy is about three best friends who have been lying about a supposed fourth since childhood in order to get out of trouble by scapegoating the imaginary rascal or get some time away from their families by saying they're going to see him. When the time comes for the fake friend to finally show up to a family function, the trio hire a down-on-his-luck actor - who moonlights in Las Vegas as a crude parody lyricist - to step into the impossibly big boots of the eponymous Ricky Stanicky. Luckily for them, the guy's feet are plenty big enough - both because he's played by the enormous John Cena and because he's somehow the best, yet most overlooked method actor in the entire world. The film isn't hilarious, but it has its fair share of funny moments. Although not all of the jokes land, or even seem appropriate, most of them are decent enough to keep you entertained even when you aren't chuckling. The feature also has a somewhat strong emotional core, even if the way everything wraps up kind of undercuts it and a lot of the narrative could play as a horror if the tone was tweaked just slightly. It's an oddly paced experience, though, that feels really front-loaded. There's a lot of interesting stuff in the back half - or, rather, the potential for interesting stuff - that gets completely overlooked because of how fast the flick needs to speed towards its climax after spending so long on Stanicky's first real-life appearance. Unfortunately, it totally whiffs its third act, too. Not only does it do everything it can to excuse and absolve the bad behaviour of its heroes (a problem with a lot of male-driven comedy), most of it is dedicated to a boring news broadcast that doesn't even tell us anything we don't already know. It's a bizarre choice that really takes the steam out of the affair. To be honest, it lands with a total thud. Thankfully, the first two acts are a lot better. They're not great, and they're as generic as they come, but they're enjoyable enough. It helps that the performances are pretty solid across the board, with Zac Efron comfortably slipping back into a comedic role after his excellent dramatic work in 'The Iron Claw (2023)' (which is on another level to this, obviously) and John Cena continuing to charm with his particular brand of bumbling innocence. Ultimately, this is total fluff that lacks any real bite, but it's far more pleasant than you'd expect it to be. It's entertaining enough for what it is, despite its weak third act and general complacency, and it's often fairly amusing. It's a surprisingly solid effort.

'Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)' is simply spectacular. This visually stunning action film totally reinvents the aesthetic of its series, injecting it with chrome-infused blood and gleefully watching it run wild. George Miller makes everything he's done before seem decidedly quaint, swapping the tactile griminess of 'Mad Max 2 (1981)' for something altogether more unhinged and unreal. Yet, for all its purposeful aesthetic absurdity, the picture remains remarkably tangible, a near perfect blend of practical and visual effects that crafts a seamlessly sweaty, sandy, petrol-soaked world that feels as though it's been baked in the post-apocalyptic sun for so long that every last morsel of it has gone certifiably insane. This is an incredibly impressive picture, the kind of thing that seems incomprehensible to dream up, let alone actually create. It's basically one long chase, but it ebbs and flows so nicely that it never even threatens to outstay its welcome. Filled with colourful characters, creative vehicle designs, and jaw-dropping set-pieces (the image of Max dangling from a pole as a huge orange explosion lights up the background is still seared in my mind), the feature remains entertaining from its first frame until its last. The ominous yet exciting music gets you pumped up for the edge-of-your-seat action, which is so high-octane that it's a miracle you can follow every single second of it as well as you can. It's truly a thrilling picture that puts so many of its peers to shame. It's an unconventional experience in many ways, and its weirdness makes it all the more enjoyable. It really is a blast, the best in its series by far. If you haven't seen it in a while, you'll have forgotten just how stunning it is. It's glorious. What a lovely film!

'Land Of Mine (2015)' is set in Denmark just after the end of WWII, and it focuses upon a group of young German prisoners of war who are forced to undertake the deadly task of defusing mines placed along the Danish coastline. Under the watch of a harsh, hateful sergeant, the boys struggle to survive every day as they work towards their promised freedom. The movie is filled with suspenseful bomb defusals, as well as heart-wrenching bomb explosions, and it keeps you on the edge of your seat pretty much throughout. It effectively shows how the war negatively affected even soldiers fighting for the ones who started it, and it explores the nuances of innocence that come when people too young to understand a conflict are forced to partake in it. Whether any of these boys actually ever believed in the Nazi ideals they were forced to fight for is never made clear, and it's entirely irrelevant to this story; they're not old enough to be held fully accountable for the atrocities they unwittingly helped commit, in however small a way, and it's very unlikely any of them even comprehend their place in history. Whether they joined the German army due to propaganda or fear of punishment results in the same outcome, and most of them seem like late-game conscriptions who've barely seen foreign land, let alone combat. At the end of the day, these are just boys and they're still being put in harm's way due to the actions of their country even after it has lost the war it started. The Danish government adopt an understandable, if flawed, attitude of "better them than us", but the ones who should be cleaning up Hitler's mess are the ones who ordered it to be done in the first place. Get the high-ranking officials down on this beach, let them see the consequences of their orders, let their own weapons be used to blow them to pieces if it comes to that. The demanded removal of mines by German POWs is considered to be one of the worst war crimes ever committed by the Danish state, as the Geneva conventions explicitly forbid any prisoner of war to be forced to perform dangerous or unhealthy labour (the status of the captured troops was illegally changed to 'Disarmed Enemy Forces' so that the Allies could get away without feeding them the required amount of food and not giving them access to the Red Cross). It's worth noting that although this was a Danish operation, British forces were also directly involved. With a commanding central performance by Roland Møller and strong work from each and every actor portraying the POWs, the film keeps you hooked from the moment it begins. It's an affecting story based around a little-known portion of history. With a commanding central performance by Roland Møller and strong work from each and every actor portraying the POWs, the film keeps you hooked from the moment it begins. It's not graphic, but it's often fairly harrowing. It's anti-war in a fairly unconventional way, showcasing the aftermath from an often unseen perspective in a fashion that makes it totally clear such conflict causes nothing but pain - pain which doesn't dissipate on surrender, but reverberates across the coming generations. It's a tough watch at times but it's worth every second, a uniquely empathetic exploration of post-war trauma from the perspective of both those who fought against the Nazis and those who had no choice but to fight for them.

Despite what the title implies, 'Cléo from 5 to 7 (1962)' follows the real-time exploits of its protagonist between the hours of 5 and 6.30pm, as she nervously waits for the results of a recent test that could represent some very bad news. She wanders around Paris, interacting with various people both known and unknown to her, essentially having something of an existential crisis. The film actually bounces between perspective characters, essentially spending a few minutes inside the heads of various people who interact with the hero, but it never leaves Cléo's side. In some ways, this feels like a bit of a pointless quirk, even if it does allow for some external perspective on the main character's situation. It's just not used all that interestingly, and the title cards that signify each segment basically act as chapter breaks rather than significant shifts in point of view. Still, it works well to establish the film's pseudo-vignette structure, with each segment feeling fairly distinct despite seamlessly flowing out of the previous and into the next. Although the piece is light on plot, it never threatens to drag because it's well-paced and soaked in the tangible milieu of its urban setting. As Cléo wanders around the city, we get a glimpse into the busy lives of those she passes by. The film's microphone wanders just as much as its camera, capturing snippets of conversations not important to the story but essential to the atmosphere. This eavesdropping adds a lot of flavour to the film, allowing it to feel as though the hero is part of a much wider world and framing her personally life-altering situation as one of a myriad of experiences both better and worse. It's an interesting way to ground proceedings, and it lends the affair an often fly-on-the-wall feeling that makes its events - and characters - seem all the more real. It's basically a 'vibes movie'; its atmosphere is far more important than its plot. That does mean that, while never boring, it's sometimes a little less compelling than you'd like. Plus, at one point we're shown a weird short film that may or may not be racist (I can't quite tell). Ultimately, though, it's an engaging and somewhat poignant picture that paints a detailed portrait of its protagonist and uses its confident filmmaking to immerse us in its believably everyday world. It's not exactly exciting, but it's enjoyable nevertheless.

With its bold colours, heightened melodrama and clunky dialogue, 'Strange Way Of Life (2023)' often feels like a parody of... itself, I guess. Those already accustomed to Pedro Almodóvar's work will recognise these elements, as well as the sincere camp aesthetic they contribute to. However, here it doesn't cohere as well as it typically does in the director's other movies. Perhaps his dialogue has always been this dodgy but, not being a native Spanish speaker, I haven't picked up on it; either way, even actors as good as Ethan Hawke and Pedro Pascal struggle to sell the dialogue here. Still, the piece operates on a kind of down-to-Earth unreality that just about works. A bigger issue is that the story just... ends. Like, almost in the middle of a sentence. It feels as though the screenplay was still being written when Yves Saint Laurent's production company called and offered a green light on the condition that filming started almost then and there, so Almodóvar put down his pen and picked up his viewfinder and shot what he had. There's a lot more that could have been done with this tale of long-burning, societally repressed romance; the ending feels like the midpoint of a much more affecting feature-length affair. Another smaller issue with the flick is that it's nowhere near as erotically charged as you may expect. Hawke and Pascal do a good job at conveying their barely hidden attraction for one another, and there's a sense of tragedy that underlines their once-flourishing relationship, but they display no real physical connection and the only time they get hot and heavy is in a flashback (when their characters are portrayed by younger actors). Their connection is believable, but not as fleshed out as it could have been. It's also remarkably tame if you're familiar with Almodóvar's earlier efforts. Ultimately, though, the piece is entertaining enough for what it is. It has a solid central story that's underexplored but interesting, and two strong lead performances that lend authenticity to the generally clumsy screenplay. It's not a bad effort, by any means. It's just not as moving, or fun, as I'd like it to be.

Set in and around Korea in the 1920s when the country was under Japanese rule, 'Age Of Shadows (2016)' follows a group of Korean rebels who plan to blow up a prominent Japanese building. It's primarily viewed through the eyes of a Korean man who now works for the Japanese police after turning on his freedom-fighter countrymen at some point in the fairly recent past. The narrative is interesting, if perhaps a little too labyrinthine for its own good. It's easy to get a little lost amidst the movie's tangled web of shifting allegiances, betrayals, reveals and attempted recruitments. It's constantly engaging, though, even during its most overwhelming moments. It's also really well conveyed, with confident direction managing to balance more conventional espionage thriller elements with bursts of highly choreographed action. Song Kang-ho is the lead, and he delivers yet another notably fantastic performance that keeps you unsure as to what his true motives are. He also provides the picture's emotional and thematic anchor, both of which are quite potent on occasion. Ultimately, though, the feature feels somewhat inconsequential - or, perhaps more accurately, forgettable - and it doesn't have the staying power it ought to. It's also a bit too long. However, it's an entertaining in-the-moment experience that keeps you engaged throughout. It explores a distinct period in history and features some suspenseful set-pieces, as well as some surprisingly explosive ones. It's a solid effort, but I wish it was a little tighter so that it had a stronger impact overall.

'Love Lies Bleeding (2024)' is a sweaty, grimy, bloody romantic crime thriller about a disillusioned woman who falls in love with a bodybuilding hitchhiker whose steroid-infused rage soon lands both of them in big trouble. It unashamedly - proudly, even - takes the often explicitly cishet, masculine revenge/crime-gone-wrong genre and tells it from a distinctly LGBT+, feminine angle that doesn't feel exploitative despite its graphic nature. It also doesn't box itself in with that 'feminine' label, allowing its female characters to exist with all the complexities and imperfections usually afforded to their male counterparts. It's refreshing to see a story like this be told from a creative team of primarily women, and director Rose Glass continues to impress with her sophomore feature. Filled with palpable texture and peppered with moments of stark surrealism, the feature typically avoids convention despite telling a fairly conventional tale. It's the kind of film you can almost smell, a dirty and down-to-earth representation of small-town America that's the opposite of 'Hollywood' (whatever that term is typically associated with). Its moments of shocking violence punctuate the interpersonal drama at its core and inherently raise its stakes. Kristen Stewart is really good a Lou, with a non-showy performance that feels tactile and real. She's able to hide a real darkness just beneath her shy yet brash exterior, and her initially meek interactions with Katy O'Brian believably bubble into the full-blown immersion associated with head-over-heels love. O'Brian turns in similarly impressive work, portraying a dangerous but vulnerable person whose inner life is layered and messy and likely not all that much more stable prior to her experiments with steroids. She's so ripped she could easily play She-Hulk without the aid of CGI (which, incidentally, I'd love to see), but it isn't her stunning physique that leaves the strongest impression and that's no easy feat. The supporting cast do a good job at making the world feel palpable, with Ed Harris' hair extensions always threatening to outact everyone they share a frame with (Harris himself is good too, of course) and Dave Franco channeling his brother to convincingly play a real creep (and somehow garner a hint of sympathy with a single word in his most memorable scene). Although it's not always as exciting or intense as I'd like, the piece has a strong atmosphere throughout and its world really does feel tangible. Its complex characters constantly reveal darker and darker aspects of themselves, all while its heroes fall deeper and deeper into an all consuming romance that might just doom them both. Its infrequent violence is as shocking as it is affecting, and its confident surrealism gives it a slightly ambiguous air that adds to its overall effect. It's a strong example of female and LGBT+ representation, too. It's not as good as Glass' previous picture, 'Saint Maude (2019)', but it's a really solid follow-up that's effective pretty much across the board.

'The Fall Guy (2024)', a loose reimagining of the television show of the same name, is David Leitch's ode to stunt work and the unsung heroes behind so many of our favourite movie moments (as well as his own stunt team). It's also his best film since his uncredited work on 'John Wick (2014)' for the simple reason that it's a ton of fun. Although its plot has some notable inconsistencies and contrivances, it keeps you engaged throughout and provides ample opportunity for the mixture of action and comedy that acts as the core of the affair. Ryan Gosling's infinite charisma, alongside his palpable chemistry with the great but arguably underused Emily Blunt, allows the feature to float high above its issues; you don't even notice most of its problems until you get home. The crime caper aspects of the narrative often feel like they're getting in the way of the more interesting on-set stunt stuff, and there's definitely a superior version of this that focuses entirely on Gosling and Blunt's rekindling romance amidst the latter's frantic efforts to shoot her sci-fi epic as practically as possible. Still, both sides of the coin are enjoyable. This is the sort of movie that, in a way, shouldn't be as good as it is. It's the sort of thing we've all seen before and probably not liked very much, but here it's been done with so much passion and is generally so well achieved that it just soars above expectation. It's really, really entertaining. It may be predictable, feel-good blockbuster fluff, but sometimes that's just what the doctor ordered.

Martin McDonagh just can't help himself. With the safety blanket of 'bad' characters, he peppers his screenplays with slurs and unnecessarily offensive statements - to the point that they don't actually add anything to the narrative or tell you anything about the on-screen people who say them. The meek meta aspects of 'Seven Psychopaths (2012)' aren't used to genuinely challenge his worst habits, rather to poke fun at them while being allowed to partake in them unashamedly. However, hanging a lantern on his difficulty writing women or his propensity to use outdated language and stereotypes doesn't absolve him of anything. In fact, it makes it clear that he knows exactly what he's doing; if he ever wanted to feign ignorance, he's no longer able to. This may just be McDonagh's weakest film, a pseudo anti-thriller/ neo-noir that aims to be subversive of the tropes it itself identifies via its screenwriter characters. It's still a relatively entertaining experience, though, despite its legitimate issues. Its cast is notably good, each member delivering a strong performance no matter how short-changed they are by the script (Olga Kurylenko and Abbie Cornish, in particular). Colin Farrell sturdily plays the only non-psychopath in the main group, essentially acting as the audience surrogate as he's taken on this wild ride that starts with a kidnapped dog and only escalates from there. A couple of his line deliveries are spectacular and he's a compelling lead considering he's also arguably the least interesting. Sam Rockwell is, as always, a delight as the notably off-the-chain dognapper who brings the wrath of the equally strong Woody Harrelson's character down on his friends. I especially enjoyed the scenes which contrast the latter's utter ruthlessness towards humans with his endearing affection for his dog, and I wish that aspect was explored more as it gives depth to an otherwise pretty stock antagonist. Christopher Walken delivers yet another performance that makes me wonder whether or not he's actually a good actor (iconic, yes, but good?), but he is - of course - really fun to watch and he features in what's easily the flick's funniest yet most suspenseful scene ("put your hands up"). There are some enjoyable sequences spread across the fairly scattershot story, and in general the picture is engaging throughout. It lacks the punch of some of McDonagh's better work, though. Still, it's a decent enough effort overall.

Structured like a play, this mostly single location chamber piece depicts a few meetings between a sexually repressed ex-teacher and a "quite expensive" sex worker. Dealing with themes of body image, confidence, regret, shame, honesty, pleasure and intimacy, the picture basically makes a case for the decriminalisation of its focal profession by portraying it not as an indulgence in 'sins of the flesh' (or whatever archaic terms those opposed to it throw around these days), but as an essential service that can help those in desperate need of a connection - physical and otherwise - get in touch with something they've lost (or perhaps never had to begin with). Furthermore, it posits that sex can be fun and that's perfectly fine. As you can tell, 'Good Luck To You, Leo Grande (2022)' is a very sex positive picture. It's also a rather feminist one. Featuring a brave, vulnerable performance from Emma Thompson (who has described filming a certain scene as being the hardest thing she's ever done) and a nuanced, tender turn from Daryl McCormack, this is an open, honest and sometimes PSA-esque parable about the benefits of open communication that bubbles with nervous anticipation and acts as an exploration of two characters who represent a plethora of emotions that are all too often hushed up in an effort to avoid so-called vulgarity. Things like this aren't often represented in media, and they're important to see reflected on screen. None of us are alone in - or wrong for - feeling the way we do about our bodies, and it's vital for that to be showcased in media because many people simply can't talk about this stuff with people they know in their real lives (for a variety of reasons). Although the movie stumbles into a traditional climax that leans into a stereotype the first two acts feel primed to avoid, the majority of the narrative is refreshingly non-judgmental and effectively naturalistic. It's basically a series of long conversations, but it ebbs and flows to the point that it never feels stagnant. It doesn't repeat itself unnecessarily and the range of topics it covers is impressive, if sometimes a little bit heavy-handed. It's entertaining in a laid-back sort of way, and it's often quite affecting simply due to its willingness to be frank about its subject matter. It's a really solid character study that hits all the beats it needs to. It's not the most exciting film, but it's important and engaging. It's also never exploitative, which is a big plus and kind of rare when it comes to movies prominently featuring prostitution.

'BlackBerry (2023)' tells the (mostly) true story of the meteoric rise and inevitable fall of the world's first smart phone - you know, that phone people had before they got an iPhone. In many ways, it feels like a less successful 'Succession (2018-2023)', taking place over a number of years and diving into the various bits of dodgy business and marketplace management necessary to not only get such a radical idea off the ground, but also keep it floating comfortably in the sky. It really makes you realise just how fast things move; not long ago, the idea I'd be able to write this review on my phone and post it to the internet in a matter of seconds would be inconceivable. In many ways, the movie is a two-hander: Jay Baruchel plays the eponymous device's grey-haired inventor, and Glen Howerton plays its half-haired seller. The former is initially as meek as he is brilliant, but the business side of things eventually wears him down and his ego begins to get the better of him. The latter is aggressive, arrogant and unwilling to let rules get in the way of his potential success. They make a compelling duo precisely because they're so different, at least to begin with, and both actors deliver really solid performances. The feature is a lot more entertaining than you may expect from its relatively dry subject matter. Unlike some other recent 'brand origin' movies, this feels like a story that could have been told even if it wasn't based in reality. It's really enjoyable when it gets going, and it keeps you invested in the journey of its characters by constantly throwing new obstacles for them to overcome... or not. It moves at a good pace, too. It's just a really well-made biopic that rises above a lot of its peers, especially the corporate ones. In fact, and this is a major compliment, it doesn't really feel like a biopic at all (even though it has a a text ending). It's just a really good movie that happens to be about a real-life mobile phone.

'Rebel Moon - Part Two: The Scargiver (2024)' is essentially that episode of 'Game Of Thrones (2011-2019)' season 8 where everyone sits around for an hour waiting for the Night King to arrive, followed by that episode where the Night King does arrive and there's that big battle at Winterfell, except none of the preamble is entertaining and the battle takes place in the day but is no more compelling just because we can actually see it. Following a brief recap by Jimmy the robot, the film picks up with the surviving members of the ragtag rebel crewn/ croon (see what I'm trying to do here?) arriving back on Veldt thinking they aren't in a sequel and won't have to defend the village that hired them after all. However, it soon becomes apparent that they are in a sequel and that the baddies are coming not only to take the grain they were promised but also to capture some high-value targets and likely kill everyone in the community as well. The team must prepare the farmers for the upcoming battle; the supposed 'training' mostly consists of slow-motion farming montages and one or two brief scenes that establish the farmers are somehow completely competent in the art of war despite the fact that most of them have never even held a gun (seriously, these sequences don't show anyone failing at any time, instead portraying them all as just instantly as gun-savvy as John Wick). The movie's first half culminates in a laborious scene in which the main warriors sit around a table and take turns trauma dumping their dreadfully generic backstories that are all essentially the same as each other. I don't think it's a spoiler to say that the film's second half is where its big battle finally kicks off (that's what one-and-a-half film's worth of buildup has been about, after all), and - to be fair - the skirmish itself is fairly entertaining in its own generally subpar way. That sounds like I'm hesitant to admit that it's good, but I just want to make sure I'm not making it sound better than it is. In a more competent film, it wouldn't be up to par; here, it's more enjoyable than you'd expect. Still, it struggles to balance its various elements and plays out like a string of loosely connected vignettes rather than a cohesive sequence. The characters feel like they freeze whenever they aren't on screen and there's no sense of stakes because the movie has never really done any character work (even when it thinks it's doing character work). We just don't know any of these people and the spectacle isn't spectacular enough to truly hold your attention based solely on its aesthetics alone. Like the first film, the experience is entirely inconsequential. It's empty fluff that somehow cost millions of dollars. Its incredibly limp and bizarrely vague sequel-tease ending (which, by the way, does the opposite of get you excited for a potential follow-up) feels entirely contractual and devoid of any real energy on the part of anyone involved. It's emblematic of the odd oxymoron at the feature's core: it's a passion project that seems to lack any real passion. Zack Snyder has butchered his own work here, and it's hard to see how his long-promised "director's cut" (which makes no sense considering he seems to have had full creative control from the moment Netflix got involved with him) will make any of this any better. The problems run too deep for that. This may be better than its predecessor, but it's still not good enough.