Shortly after I was born, the world was introduced to the ultimate devil child. Not me though, this was 1976 and June (November in the UK) of that year saw the release of one of Richard Donners masterpieces of cinema, “The Omen”. A movie that terrified me as a child (Not sure how old I was when I saw it, but far too young to be watching). The movie expanded to a trilogy (In 1978 and 1981) that told the entire story of the antichrist. The final part was the weakest but did take the story to it’s logical conclusion. This was followed by an ill advised fourth movie in 1991 that was universally panned and a disastrous remake no one asked for in 2006. After an even longer hiatus the franchise finally returned in 2024 for another ill advised entry. This time a prequel.
The First Omen is directed by Arkasha Stevenson in her feature length debut, based on a story by Ben Jacoby. Stevenson, Tim Smith and Keith Thomas provide the screenplay. All relatively new but not totally inexperienced talent. Nell Tiger Free (Servant, Game of Thrones) plays the protagonist “Margaret”, a novitiate awaiting to take her vows. She is sent to an orphanage to finish her training but is caught up in a series of unexplained events and disturbing visions while there. A priest, “Father Brenan” (Ralph Ineson), explains to her that something nefarious is going on here and that the fate of the world may be at stake. However not even Brenan fully realizes the entire truth of the situation.
The Devil’s Greatest trick
Okay, so the first thing that comes across to me with this film is that it is really, really, boring. Not much of anything actually happens throughout the entire film and the plot twists are so easily guessed that there is very little pay off. The entire story of the Omen has run it’s course, a prequel was always an ill advised concept, especially since it was effectively done to absolute perfection decades ago with Roman Polanski’s “Rosemary’s Baby”. Not technically of the same franchise, but the best telling of the antichrists birth you are likely to see on screen. If the idea behind a prequel was to avoid comparisons to the original they failed as with this the movie will be compared to both The Omen and Rosemary’s Baby.
But this isn’t the only problem. like many demon/devil related horrors of recent years the makers have tried to steer the story into a somewhat anti-Christian frame and this is something that always works against the impact of this kind of horror. Demonic possession and the rise of the antichrist are Christian fears first and foremost and as such work best when the Christian element is leaned into instead of shun. This is the very reason why I felt “Nefarious” worked so well. That film was as biased towards Christianity as films like this and the recent Exorcist sequel are against it, but the simple fact is being biased towards it makes the film work! If you don’t want to lean into that, don’t make demon/devil films! H.P. Lovecraft is always a viable alternative as are Pagan deities or aliens.
Final Judgement
Tonally they did try and make the film at least feel like an Omen movie. In practice though, that mostly meant playing heavily discordant choral music over scenes of… well, not much at all. There were some references to events of The Omen but these didn’t serve that much purpose on their own. Mostly the film tries to create an uneasy atmosphere through the music and occasional unrelated visuals instead of from the plot itself. That plot involves a twist that is so painfully obvious that the swerve is really more irritating than anything else. This is no Angel Heart. The plot here has very little wriggle room due to the constraints of the other entries in the franchise and where they have found room for originality the directions are all disappointing.
Ultimately this is a confused offering. Politically speaking it is a very right wing franchise (Given the Christian element) taken in a very left wing direction. Which means the fears it tries to reflect are left wing fears, specifically female body autonomy and the danger of Christian fundamentalism. That couldn’t contrast more with the originals very Christian fear of the rise of the antichrist. As bad a fit as that is, my main issue with the film remains that it was just boring! This is a 4.5/10. Go and watch Rosemary’s Baby or the original Omen instead of this.
Many horror films have been made based on true stories. Usually these are embellished and sometimes end up having very little in common with the true story. In the case of 10 Rillington Place from 1971, an attempt was made to present the story of serial killer John Christie as accurately as possible. The focus of the story though isn’t so much on the horrendous crimes of Christie but on the travesty of justice that saw an innocent man hanged for some of his crimes. The movie was directed by legendary director Richard Fleischer, with a screenplay by Clive Exton. It is based on the novel by the same name by Ludovic Kennedy. Screen legend Richard Attenborough takes on the role of serial killer Christie and John Hurt plays unfortunate scapegoat Timothy Evans.
10 Rillington Place is part psychological thriller and part court room drama. The primary purpose of the movie is not to scare the audience so much as to lay bare the travesty of justice of the real life case involved in the story. It is effectively a drama designed to expose the great flaw of capital punishment. Despite that, there are definitely horror elements to the story. It is after all about real life serial killer and rapist John Christie, that murdered at least 8 people including his own wife and one baby. The film shows a few of those murders and while they are not especially graphic they didn’t need to be.
The Case That Shocked A Nation
The story starts when Timothy Evans, his wife Beryl and their baby move in to one of the apartments in Rillington Place. By this point Christie has already actively murdering women and burying them in his garden. It’s not clear how many he has killed, but we see one murder at the start of the film. Christie sets his sights on adding Beryl to his collection. Here I’m torn between not spoiling too much of the film and recognizing this is all real life events so a lot of people will already know what happens next. Suffice to say Christie ends up framing Timothy not just for Bery’s murder but also for their baby’s. However Christie’s bloodlust means he doesn’t have the sense to quit while he is ahead.
The movie doesn’t really have a main character though since it is more concerned with showing the historic events. At times this can make the film seem a little dry. There’s no mystery to it either, but then when dealing with a real life killer any attempt at mystery would be futile. Instead the film needs to build the suspense of impending doom for those living under the roof of 10 Rillington Place and it doesn’t always manage this. This is probably intentional though since the movie wasn’t meant to be a horror as such. It’s hard to dramatize these characters without delving into horror a little though and that is largely down to some impressive performances from the two leads.
Star Performances
Richard Attenborough plays murderer Christie and he plays it with cold calculating calmness that makes the character that much more terrifying. He rarely seems flustered and even when he is, he still has a coldness about him and a politeness. I can’t help but see an element of Attenborough’s performance in Anthony Hopkin’s portrayal of Hannibal Lecter 20 years later. Of course Hopkins was playing a fantasy character and so could ham it up a little and have a bit of fun with it, but underneath that you can definitely see Attenborough’s Christie. The two were friends and collaborated many times, so it makes sense.
Attenborough wasn’t the only big name actor in this movie, we also have John Hurt showing his flexibility as the somewhat simple minded man scapegoat, way out of his depth, Timothy Evans. Hurt won a BAFTA nomination for his role and it was well earned. Evans is a man with a certain amount of pride and an equal amount of hubris and yet is played the most tragic of hands. His wife and child murdered and he takes the blame. It is too much to deal with and Hurt puts it all into his performance without overdoing it.
The Verdict
Overall this is a pretty strong telling of a tragic and horrifying series of events. It makes a good argument against capital punishment as well as the failure of a police to spot a killer with no clear motivation. It is however a little too dry for my liking, even for something based on real events. That leaves it a little short of a 7 for me but it’s still a recommendation. This is a strong 6.5/10.
The big debate about this film is if Hannibal Lecter should ever have had an origin story/prequel movie. The answer in my view is: Probably not. That said, an origin for the character is absolutely consistent with Thomas Harris’ writing style. Every other character in his novels have their motivations and psychology examined closely. Often, by Dr. Lecter himself. Harris style of writing largely relies on the realism of these characters. What made Hannibal stand out so well was because he was the enigma, the one unexplainable evil. Harris edged into explaining a lot of Lecter’s thought processes in “Hannibal”, his third novel. That novel was less warmly regarded and the film adaptation skipped most of those elements. To be fair, it’s hard to show thought processes on screen. For this reason, they were correct not to have Clarice take Hannibal up on his offer and go off with him.
But if you have read the novels, it was always clear that Harris wanted to explain Hannibal to us. He just wasn’t sure if he should and I have heard that he did need his arm twisted somewhat to finally set to work on a full origin story. Supposedly it was producer Dino De Laurentiis who told Harris that if he didn’t write the origin story, someone else eventually will. Horrified by this prospect, Harris set to work. As I mentioned though, if you read the books you know Harris does try and help the reader to understand Lecter. He’s not entirely the enigma he is in the movies. To make sure his message wasn’t lost this time he insisted on writing the screenplay to the eventual movie himself. For better or worse director Peter Webber has provided a fairly faithful adaptation of the source material.
Dark Origins
The film begins with a young Hannibal (Played by Aaran Thomas), with his loving family and young sister Mischa (Helena-Lia Tachovská) living in a castle in Lithuania. This is not a good time to be in Lithuania though as the Nazi invasion of Russia has turned the area into part of the bloodiest front line in World War Two. As Hitler and Stalins forces clash, the Lecter family is caught in the middle. The parents are killed and Hannibal and Mischa are left to fend for themselves. Matters get worse as a group of ex-Nazi’s now just trying to survive as Russian forces take over the region hold up in their castle. With it being in the thick of winter and no food available they take drastic action.
Many years later, the story picks up with an adult Hannibal (Now played by Gaspard Ulliel), who has made his way to his last surviving relatives home in France. After settling in, he sets out on his mission to extract vengeance on the people that murdered and ate his sister. Gong Li plays his aunt “Lady Mursaka”, who understands Hannibals drive but can’t stand by who he is becoming. Dominic West (McNulty from the TV series “The Wire”) plays Inspector Pascal Popil, a detective that specializes in bringing war criminals to justice. He too understands Hannibal’s desire for vengeance, but won’t let him get away with taking the law into his own hands. Rhys Ifans plays “Grutas” the head of the gang that murdered Hannibal’s sister.
A Man of Exquisite Taste
The most obvious issue with this film is that Hannibal Lecter is not a character that any actor can play. The gold standard is obviously Sir Anthony Hopkins, who elevated the character into the movie villain hall of fame. Before Hopkins took on the role Brian Cox put in an impressive performance in the movie “Manhunter”. After the release of this movie a third actor, Mads Mikkelsen would take the role and make it his own in a way that arguably even outdid Sir Anthony. With that in mind, perhaps my view of Gaspard Ulliel is a little unfair. However, I was not impressed. It’s not that his acting was bad or anything. It’s just we’re dealing with a complex and chilling character at a time in his life where he is perhaps the most conflicted he is ever likely to be and he felt… generic.
As for the origin itself, it does make a certain amount of sense. Starting out with a trauma that desensitized him and showed him how brutal life can be. Then giving him a reason to pursue and murder those that had wronged him. After that, I guess he just kept going. But this is where the problem lies. Even though Lecter does murder one character simply for being rude there’s not really any suggestion that he will keep going indefinitely with those kinds of murders. The vast majority of his actions were motivated by his revenge. So these elements don’t totally add up. What we do see though is his casual brutality and lack of empathy for his victims. This is balanced by the fact he does not harm the children on one of his victims. So at least here we see something of the man he would become.
A Trail of Destruction
There is another problem too. All these killings are high profile. It’s hard to imagine that no one ever casually looked into Lecters past. Had they done so, he would have quickly become a suspect in Chesapeake Ripper case. In the movie, he fakes his own death too. But then doesn’t change his name after. In the novel at least he is actually arrested, but between the public support (For killing war criminals) and the lack of evidence, he is released. There was an obvious solution here in Inspector Popil. Had the story allowed for Popil to be somewhat sympathetic and realizing that the only way for these men to face justice was for Hannibal to kill them there could have been an air tight backstory for the character. Instead though Popil is totally dedicated to the law, despite his own tragedy. So much so it’s hard to imagine him buying the faked death and not flagging the name globally.
Popil’s actual role appears to be like an early version of Hannibal’s relationships with Will Graham and Clarice Starling. Someone he finds very similar to himself, but just not quite able to see the world the way he does. Sadly though the film doesn’t spend any time looking into this relationship. It’s just sort of there. Another relationship somewhat wasted is Hannibal’s odd romance with his Aunt, Lady Murasaki. We aren’t given a great deal of time to know the character except that she is the one person Hannibal feels close to. Perhaps the idea was for Popil to be a prot-Will Graham and Lady Murasaki to be a proto-Clarice Starling, but in practice neither of them really are that interesting.
Conclusion
As a stand alone movie, this is a reasonable revenge story. As an origin story for Hannibal Lecter though it is a disappointment. It’s not however a complete disaster. Things do, by and large, add up. Even the plot holes can be explained by the fact that in the novels at least, no one suspected Lecter until Will Graham. There was no investigation because Lecter, sensing he’d been rumbled, immediately attacked. While an origin story for Hannibal Lecter was always likely to disappointed, I do feel this one could have been better. Specifically with more to his relationship with sympathetic characters and perhaps a different actor in the lead. I’m giving this a solid 5.5/10. Despite some promise the movie largely just coasts along on it’s predecessors coat tails.
Over the years there have been many versions of the alien body snatcher idea. The 1951 Robert Heinlein novel “The Puppet Masters”, may well be the earliest entry in this sub-genre. However the movie adaptation comes very late to the party following in the footsteps of three versions of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” (1953, 1978 and 1993) and two versions of “Invaders From Mars” (1953 and 1986). There have also been a number of tangentially similar films such as “The Thing” (1982), “The Hidden” (1987) and “Night of the Creeps” (1986). On top of this both Star Trek and The Outer Limits produced episodes based on Heinlein’s story. Even Roger Corman ripped it off for “The Brain Eaters” (1958) and was sued by Heinlein as a result. All that considered, it is strange it took so long for a direct adaptation.
The Puppet Masters was somewhat of a passion project for Michael Engelberg. The producer had been pushing for the film to enter production since the mid eighties. He was assisted by his long term friend and Disney CEO Michael Eisner. Disney didn’t have a lot of experience with this kind of film however, as a result production was a tad bumpy. The script ended up with countless re-writes, two competing scripts were being developed simultaneously at one point. Directors were hired, minds changed, a third new script was developed and then finally a variation of the original script when to filming with a whole lot of compromise.
Invaders From Space
The Puppet Masters is directed by Stuart Orme. A strange choice given his career until that point was mostly directing made-for-TV movies (And still is). The screenplay was provided by by a combination of David Goyer, Terry Rossio and Ted Elliott. Eric Thal stars as “Sam Nivens”, Donald Sutherland as his father “Andrew” who runs a special branch of the CIA that deal with extraterrestrial activity and Julie Warner as xenobiologist “Mary Sefton”.
The team are called in to examine a site where a UFO is suspected of landing near a small town. When they arrive they quickly determine something is up with the inhabitants of this town and after a confrontation with one realise they are being controlled by an alien lifeform. What follows is a tactical battle between the two sides. The invaders do their best to take over key personnel while the humans try to detect the invaders, figure out what they want and most importantly find a way to kill them without killing their hosts.
Stars And Slugs
Coming as late to the pod party as this movie does has left it in a difficult position. Trying to repackage the original body snatching story to appear fresh and unique in a sea of similar stories that came after the original novel is a difficult ask. It’s most obvious imitator “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” already re-invented itself twice and the second version of that story from 1978 is still regarded as the gold standard for the theme. The earlier 1953 movie was no slouch either. Both versions pushed the fear and paranoia to the extreme. Puppet Masters is more focused on the bigger picture, than on individual characters. This is more about the war between the humans and the space slugs, instead of the paranoia of the individuals. The result is interesting, but not especially compelling.
The cast is a relatively strong one, with the big name unfortunately being Donald Sutherland. A fantastic actor for sure, but unfortunate because he was also in the 70’s Bodysnatchers movie and as I mentioned, that is the gold standard. There was no possible way that this film wouldn’t be constantly compared to the 1978 classic with Sutherland being the face of both. His performance in the film is good, as you’d expect. But since he isn’t the lead, he is largely wasted. All his inclusion does is lead to harsh comparisons with a better movie. The actual lead is Eric Thal (When he’s not being controlled by space slugs) who puts in a solid performance. Keith David and Julie Warner are pretty good too. It’s not the acting that lets this one down.
Bad Adaptation
This is a film made out of compromises, resulting in a final product that probably didn’t please anyone involved. It’s not a fair reflection of Heinlein’s novel, it’s not that different to the various other body snatcher films it doesn’t really offer any great moments. While the screenplay gave up most of the cool moments from the novel to executive pressure, the director Stuart Orme failed to make anything that remained at all memorable. The movie is all bland and dry. There is a reason he went right back to made-for-TV movies after. The cast do their best and there are elements of the plot that are interesting but none that really make it compelling.
It’s a real shame, but that’s Hollywood. Maybe one day someone will make a better adaptation. For now we just have this. It is conceptually interesting in places, but nothing in the film really stands out and it’s ultimately a movie you’ll have forgotten minutes after watching. This is a solid 5/10. Not a total waste of time, but also not a recommendation. If you want a more fun version of the story on screen, watch the Star Trek episode “Operation — Annihilate!”
Is there any director more all over the place in quality than M. Night Shyamalan? Most of his movies are divisive with the audience, rejected by most but loved by a solid number. Some of his movies are universally panned and some are universally loved. It could be argued that he is doing exactly what a director should do (When making original content). Taking big risks and following his inner muse. However, his work always follows a certain formula, namely the big twist. As a result, he has all the hallmarks of both a good and bad director. Auteur’s do tend to have their own unique style. But when that style makes the stories predictable it does more harm than good. In many ways Shyamalan is his own worst enemy, because technically speaking at least he is a good director.
Here he has a conceptually interesting story. John Hartnett stars as “Cooper”. A family man taking his daughter, Riley (Ariel Donoghue) to a concert by “Lady Raven” (played by M. Night’s daughter, Saleka Shyamalan). Cooper though has a dark secret (Revealed in the trailer and early in the movie, so not a spoiler), he’s a notorious serial killer known as “The Butcher”. It turns out the FBI was aware he would be at the show (Though they don’t know who he is or what he looks like) and have the venue locked down. Having caught on to this it is down to Cooper to find a way out, preferably without ruining his daughters big day. He is being hunted by FBI profiler “Dr. Josephine Grant” (Hayley Mills).
Two Sides of Night
This is very much a film of two halves and it is the first half which is by far the superior. The interesting thing is this first half is entirely free from Shyamalan style twists. Sure the concept itself is somewhat of a subversion, but you find out very early that Cooper is the butcher and his attempts to escape the trap plays to M.Night’s actual strengths as a director. Scenes play out with a tension underneath where the audience understands the stakes but most of the characters on screen do not. This is classic Hitchcock style tension and Shyamalan pulls it off well. The pacing is pretty solid too leaving you on the edge of your seat. The problem is there is only really enough content here for half a movie. Horror films don’t need to be long, but all too often these days we see a horror with a cool concept that just can’t sustain itself for even 90 minutes. These ideas are better off as anthology shorts.
The second half of the movie is where we see the bad side of Shyamalan. Where the obsession with twists and subversions actually leads to the film becoming clankly and predictable. Here we see Cooper constantly outsmarted by almost everyone he comes across. He loses all ability to inspire fear and with the mask now off he turns out to be far less interesting as an antagonist/protagonist. In some ways it reminds me of the 2018 Halloween sequel since you effectively have three “Final Girls”, from three different generations taking down the villain. The difference is that none of these three are really main characters. Lady Raven comes closest but she doesn’t take a central role until the second half of the film and leaves the story a fair while before the climax. The result is a complete disconnect between the audience and these characters. It’s also a noteworthy horror for the total lack of deaths during the film.
Conclusion
This is a difficult film to rate. This represents the best and the worst of the M. Night Shyamalan. The first 40 minutes are very solid and would probably have garnered a strong 6.5/10 from me. The rest of the film though is disappointing and probably would have landed a 5/10 if I was feeling generous. I’m going to balance those out to a 5.5/10. Ultimately this is not entirely bad and you won’t regret watching. However, it’s not worth going out of your way for it and it certainly won’t be bothering your physical media collection (If you have one). Slightly above average, but with the good weighted so heavily towards the early half you will likely walk away with a bad taste in your mouth. I don’t really recommend it, but if it’s on streaming and you have nothing else you want to watch, go for it.
Legacy sequels are a difficult nut to crack. The vast majority of these films (and occasional shows) are for Gen X franchises. That’s my generation, so I’ll give you my bias up front for that. For a legacy sequel to work it has to appeal to the franchises existing fan base. But Gen X is aging (Believe me, I’m all too aware), so you need to bring in younger generations too. The important thing is you don’t bring them in at the expense of the built in fandom. Indeed the entire point of using these old franchises is that the enthusiasm and love of the existing fans helps to encourage in new ones. Ideally you want parents to introduce the kids, but as long as the general reaction is positive you get a nice momentum boost.
The problem is that quite often these sequels are created by people that either don’t care for the franchise or have a very fringe take and as a result they garner a huge backlash from the original fans and new fans are put off. This is true of remakes/reboots too, but the potential for both success and failure is that much higher with a continuation. The success rate for legacy sequels is marginally better than that for remakes, but still lands under 50%. What tends to weigh things more to the positive is the inclusion of legacy cast members and creatives, so the fact that the new Beetlejuice sequel sees Tim Burton, Michael Keaton and Winona Ryder return had me hopeful this one would join Top Gun, Beverly Hills Cop and Karate Kid in the win list.
Showtime!
Tim Burton returns to the directors chair, with Danny Elfman once again providing the score. Script duties though have been passed to “Wednesday” writers Alfred Gough and Miles Millar (Original writer Michael McDowell died in 1999 and his collaborator Larry Wilson is absent). Keaton and Ryder of course return as the titular character and franchise lead “Lydia Deets” respectively. Catherine O’Hara, returns in her role as “Delia Deetz” (Lydia’s step-mother) and while her husband “Charles” is somewhat present as a character, actor Jeffrey Jones did not return. Ghost couple “Adam” and “Barbara” (Alec Baldwin and Geena Davis) are entirely absent. The primary addition to the cast comes from Jenna Ortega (Fresh off “Wednedsay”) as Lydia’s estranged daughter “Astrid”. She is joined by Willem Dafoe as ghost detective “Wolf Jackson”, Justin Theroux as manipulative douche bag “Rory” and Monica Bellucci as soul sucking seductress “Delores”.
Many years after the events of “Beetlejuice” (1988), Lydia has made a career for herself as a TV Medium, utilizing her ability to see the dead. She is however haunted by visions of Beetlejuice and the events of the first movie has left her somewhat fragile. That didn’t stop her marrying and having a daughter, but after the death of her husband, her relationship with her daughter has become strained and she has found it increasingly difficult to cope. After her father also dies during a tragic plane crash, Lydia, her daughter Astrid and step-mother Deelia return to “Winter River” (Site of the first movie) for the funeral. While there, a series of events unfold that leaves Lydia with only one person to whom she can turn, the devious and outrageous Beetlejuice.
Stitched Together
Beetlejuice Beetlejuice is a bit of a mixed bag and that is a shame because the ingredients are all here for what could have been a fantastic legacy sequel. The returning cast settle into their roles as if it was still the 1980’s, Tim Burton is able to indulge in all that quirky gothicness that we love about his style and the film provides what is effectively a female-centric story while avoiding all those modern cliches that tend to ruin that kind of thing. All the characters have their flaws, the heroic ones learn to overcome them and everyone else milks their flaws for entertainment value. They even dealt with controversies with the original cast (The ones that didn’t return) in a manner that fed into the story instead of derailing it. These elements, while good come up against the films big problem: The Plot.
The main issue here is that there are effectively three main stories, that should all intertwine in a way where each one enhances the other, but instead the three threads feel separate and get in each others way. Astrid’s plot provides the opening for the Lydia/Beetlejuice story but in no way intersects with the Delores story and is confined almost entirely to the middle act. It’s hinted that the Delores story factors in to Beetlejuices motivation with Lydia but this is never really explained and ultimately doesn’t change his intentions (He always wanted his wedding). Ultimately, the Delores plot feels entirely detached and just an excuse to place additional disconnected scenes and characters momentarily into the story. Her actual engagement with the rest of the cast is very brief and highly anti-climactic.
Happy Families
Conceptually speaking the Astrid and Delores plots should have had a movie each for it to work, with the Beetlejuice/Lydia story being the focus for a trilogy. Perhaps this was the original plan, but at some point that was abanoned and both plots were squeezed into the one movie. A side effect of this is that Beetlejuice really doesn’t get enough screen time and that is a shame because Keaton was truly on form. It takes about half the movie before he gets properly involved. He’s not alone though in providing a good performance and one surprising highlight is Catherine O’Hara who gains extra screen time largely due to the exclusion of her onscreen husband. Meanwhile, Willem Dafoe’s reminds us that he can do comedy just as well as he does everything else and while his character is sort of pointless, you are glad he is there.
The movies leads though are Winona Ryder and new addition Jenna Ortega. Winona continues her Hollywood comeback she started when she landed her role in Netflix “Stranger Things” and long may it continue. Lydia has changed since she was a child, and is somewhat neurotic, but throughout the film you still feel the young Lydia inside and waiting to come back out. Jenna was an obvious choice for the daughter, since she did so well as Wednesday Addams for the Burton directed Netflix series. While Astrid isn’t a million miles removed from Wednesday, the differences are clear. Astrid has a layer of innocence and naivety that Wednesday does not and Astrid is actually interested in hooking up with boys. She does however have Wednesday’s goth girl sarcasm, but that fits considering how her mother was at her age. The pairing was perfect.
Final Judgement
In conclusion: This is a film that will very likely be both disappointing and enjoyable. It’s an odd combination and almost certainly your mileage will vary. It’s no surprise that reviews of the film have been somewhat split and I am going to land somewhat in the middle. As legacy sequels go, this is more of a win than a loss. This is a film that you want to be fun and it delivers that. That said, a Beetlejuice film can’t just coast by on the humour alone, it needs a solid plot too. The weaknesses with that plot are a lot more noticeable here than with something like Deadpool and Wolverine. On a positive note though, the film doesn’t damage the franchise or any of it’s characters and I don’t think anyone will regret watching.
The original movie is a strong 8.5/10. An all time classic. This sequel just about hits 6/10. That’s a recommend, but not an earth shattering one. Set your expectations accordingly and you will have a good time.
It’s been a while since I’ve reviewed a superhero movie. The truth is most of them aren’t that interesting to me these days. However, this team up is too appealing to resist. If the box office is any indication, I’m not alone in feeling that. This is a truly unique situation for a movie. It’s not just along overdue team up (We don’t talk about “X-Men Origins:Wolverine”). It’s also the first time Deadpool, regular breaker of the fourth wall has been able to directly reference the MCU. Last but not least it is more than nostalgia it is the farewell to the Fox X-Men universe. Truly, the end of an era. Effectively this is the “End Game” of the the Fox Superhero franchises.
Spoiler Free
This installment of the Deadpool franchise is directed by “Free Guy” (2021) director Shawn Levy. Writing credits go to Levy, Reynolds, Rhett Reese, Paul Warnick and Zeb Wells. Ryan Reynolds obviously returns as Deadpool and is joined by Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. Emma Corrin and Matthew MacFayden play the movies main antagonists (“Cassandra Nova” and Mr. Paradox” respectively). The rest of the cast will remain unnamed by me since that is basically spoilers (Don’t look at imdb btw, they are listed). Before I give you the basics, it’s important to know this is a spoiler free review. However, I will reference the material in the trailer, so if you have been avoiding even watching that you may want to skip to the conlusion.
I will keep the plot summary minimal. Effectively Deadpools universe is going to collapse due to the death of it’s “Anchor”. Being the universe of the Fox X-Men it’s no surprise that the anchor is none other than Wolverine. Don’t think to hard about an entire universe revolving around one single person from Earth, it is what it is! Deadpool is recruited by the Time Variance Authority and offered a new life in a certain other universe (Yes, the MCU). However, he would prefer to try and fix his own world. To do that he needs to find a new Wolverine. From here on things get complicated and spoiler filled, so that is all you are getting from me on the plot!
The Fox Multiverse
The movie features a lot of cameos, some of which actually turn into substantial supporting characters (At least for the middle act). If you have seen the trailer you know of two of these cameos, X-23 (From “Logan”) and Sabretooth. X23 is one of the characters with a more substantial role and it’s good to see the character grown up. Alongside her though there are three more characters that get a bit of a story arc and one more big (If short) cameo. On the villain side there are several cameos but most are blink-and-you’ll-miss-it affairs. The selection for all of these are well balanced and will give some surprises while providing at least one long overdue return of a fan favourite.
In some ways the use of the multiverse for these characters is similar to how it was used in Spider-Man: No Way home. It actually provides somewhat of a redemption arc for characters and actors that were not given the best of send offs or really even given a chance. But it’s important to note, these characters are mostly limited to the middle act. The first and final act still make use of the multiverse but in very different ways. But while this is all fun and creative the film never loses sight of what is important: Deadpool and Wolverine. This is their journey. Of course this is a Deadpool film first and foremost and that means Deadpool style humour and fourth wall breaking, but Wolverine fits into that world almost perfectly.
The Good, The Bad and The Other Stuff
So what about the weaknesses? Well, the plot never really feels that important. Perhaps because it is approached in a such a meta way or because the multiverse removes all stakes anyway. The movies two antagonists are okay and Emma Corrin does a great job as Cassandra Nova but their motivations for the entire film effectively feel like they just need to make the plot happen. It’s like they didn’t want a plot to get too in the way of the comedy. That’s fine but it is still the movies weakness. The TVA (As revealed in the trailer) are basically just here to initiate events and in many ways feel like an unwelcome interloper into a movie that is very much about the Fox Marvel films. It’s not a major issue though as they don’t dwell too heavily on any of the MCU elements.
The best thing about the movie is that it is fun! Of course it’s a Deadpool movie and you know what to expect. Outrageous comedy, meta comedy and outrageous meta comedy. The movie dives head first into the last of those right at the start. They found a remarkable way to simultaneously respect and disrespect the ending “Logan” (2017). This, they managed in a way that I think most people will be okay with it. Many watching will have no idea who the cameos are and won’t get a lot of the references. The humour though, should all still land. That is important because technically to get the most out of this movie you need to have seen every Fox and Disney Marvel movie, but if you haven’t seen a single one of them you should still have fun.
Conclusion
So what does the future hold now for Deadpool, Wolverine and the MCU? Impossible to tell. This movie has a lot in common with Spider-Man: No Way Home. That movie firmly remained an outlier for the MCU. The wrong lessons were learned and Marvel ultimately dived blindly into the multiverse to the point where everything seemed unimportant. Outside of that the MCU stuck to the plan that Kevin Feige had laid out before the Fox acquisition with extreme tunnel vision. This movie should show them that those Fox characters are still well loved. Ignoring them is leaving money on the table. That said, they need to have their own take on these characters. I don’t envy anyone stepping into High Jackman’s shoes.
The MCU is a juggernaut of a franchise and course correction takes a long time. We will have to see if they can manage it while there is still an audience. Whatever fate has in store for the MCU, this movie is a success in every way that matters. It is a final emotional farewell to the Fox era of superhero movies, a long overdue team up and highly entertaining movie in its own right. Oh and it’s also making bucket loads of money at the box office. This is a success and it’s a big recommendation from me. Is it the perfect movie? No, frankly the plot is paper thin and that limits the rating, but the movie is so much fun I’m still giving it one of my highest ratings 8/10.
The only movie franchise that can get away with having “Of the” in the title twice, returned once more this year with “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes”. The previous trilogy of films (Rise/Dawn/War) effectively told a complete story over the three films documenting how the world of Man could turn into the world of Ape. That story is over and to be honest was starting to get a little boring by the end. So, to come back to the franchise means finding something new. This is the test to see if there is any more to squeeze out of this franchise. A series that already sat at a total of nine films (this now being the tenth). One more film after this will see this reboot series equal the original in number. Quite a feat for a reboot. But anyway, is it any good? Let’s find out!
Building A Kingdom
Taking the directors chair for the franchise return is Wes Ball. Wes is only really known for the Maze Runner series, which was probably more miss than hit. However, Nintendo/Sony have enough faith in him to give him the tent pole “Legend of Zelda” movie. Josh Friedman (creator of “Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles”) provides the script. Owen Teague stars as the voice of “Noa”, and Freya Allan as lead human “Nova/Mae”. Support comes from Kevin Durand as his nemesis “Proximus”, Peter Macon as wise old Orangutan “Rakka” (A librarian of sorts, which has to be a Terry Pratchett reference) and William H. Macy as the only other human with a notable role, “Trevathan”.
The film is set an unspecified number of years after the reign of “Caesar” (the primary character of the previous trilogy) and depicts a world where humans are feral and rare and where most apes live in isolated villages with their own customs and cultures. Once such village is Noa’s which has a tradition of raising and working with Hawks. The apes here form an almost spiritual bond with the birds of prey. Noa’s village is attacked by local warlord Proximus Ceasar. Noa’s father is slain, the rest of the village are captured and Noa is left for dead. Waking up to find his home destroyed, Noa sets off to find and attempt to rescue his tribe. Along the way he teams up an Orangutan historian “Rakka” and an intelligent human they call “Nova”. She has her own reasons for finding Proxima’s base, a location that has many secrets of it’s own to reveal.
Echoes From The Past
I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. The previous two movies while relatively solid simply trod the same ground as “Rise”. That movie ultimately implied the completion of that journey and didn’t really need sequels to flesh it out. Those were movies more impressive visually than they were with their storytelling. I was hoping we would get something different here and we did. That said, the movie is very much a post apocalyptic adventure and hits many of the tropes you would expect from such a story, just with the twist of the world now being dominated by Apes. Proxima’s base could be straight out of a Mad Max movie or possibly a Fallout game. The Ape perspective though is interesting, when they find an observatory, Rakka sees murials depicting humans and concludes it was some kind of reserve that the apes homed the humans in.
One potential negative is the deliberately vague passage of time. At some points it seems like centuries have passed, but the surviving intelligent humans act like they actually remember the old world and their goals and places they inhabit don’t quite fit with it being centuries after the fall of man. This can be explained a little by humans having about twice the lifespan of most apes. So twice as many generations of ape will pass in the time of one human generation. Also while these apes can talk, they appear to not be able to read, making it more difficult to pass on information between generations. Still, there are a lot of questions that remain. Future entries may prove this to be an interesting bit of world building instead of a flaw, time will tell.
Evolution Of The Franchise
Visually the movie is a big winner. It looks great and the action scenes involving the apes are impressive. The film takes a journey through a great variety of locations and provides some action in each. Each environment looks unique and provides something new for those action scenes. That said, many of these set pieces are only unique within this movie, not the action genre in general, so there is nothing ground breaking but it is definitely entertaining. But it’s not just the action, the characters all have somewhat of an emotional journey and their own agency and goals. The movie is longer than I would like at 2 hours and 25 minutes, but it doesn’t drag. While there are elements that could have been cut, there wasn’t anything I felt needed to be left on the cutting floor.
This is a good, fun movie. Not terrible original and definitely not ground breaking (Ten movies in, no surprise). However, compared to the last trilogy it changes things up enough to not be boring. The story feels like one worth telling and while I’m not sure how much more life the franchise has in it in general, I would like to see more of this branch of the story. That said, the movies largest flaw is it is predictable and that is largely the franchise at this point. There are only so many times you can push the “Apes used to be kept in zoos” reveal. At some point this reboot series needs to break away from setting up the events of the 1968 original and answer the final question: Can humans and apes actually live in peace? This is a strong 6.5/10 and a recommendation.
This month I’m doing a speed run. I’ve got four movies and two documentaries for you. It’s a lot to cover so I am giving each two paragraphs only. I’ll have more content for you in July including some major reviews. For now though, I’m looking at four low budget horror movies: “Project Dorothy”, “Sting”, “I Saw the TV Glow” and “Arcadian”. Don’t worry, I’ll still have plenty of horrors to review in October! As strange bedfellows to those I’m looking at a pair of documentaries, namely “Brats” and “Jim Henson: Idea Man”. Let’s get started!
Sting
Sting is a tale of an alien Spider creature that is briefly befriended by a young girl (Called “Charlotte”, naturally), but then goes on a rampage in an apartment block, slaughtering the residents. It’s also about the relationship of that girl with her Step-Father who she both idolizes and resents. Jermaine Fowler, Ryan Corr and Alyla Browne star. The movie is the brainchild of writer/director Kiah Roache-Turner, the man behind cult classics Wyrmwood (2014) and Nekrotronic (2018). This is a simple horror movie that had a lot of promise… But doesn’t quite live up to that. Very much a case of: Close, but no cigar.
The movie begins with a clever little scene and leads into a stylish intro. Roach-Turner is pretty good at adding a little class to a generic horror, so no surprise here. The rest of Sting however plays through largely by the numbers, though competently and with some charm. It has an interesting concept that ultimately has no impact on the rest of the story, which devolves to a straight forward monster in a building affair. The cast is decent, the characters are reasonable and the monster doesn’t look terrible. But outside the intro nothing really stands out. This hits a strong 5.5/10. Not quite enough to be a recommendation, but if you have nothing better to watch and like horror, it’ll do.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 5.5 out of 10.
Arcadian
I often say you can’t go too far wrong with Nicholas Cage these days. When he wants to he can bring it as an actor, but mostly he just seems to be doing things that are fun and many of his more B-Movie releases in recent years have become instant cult classics. This is an actor that is just having fun with his career in his later years and long may it continue. Here though he has a smaller role with his character Paul’s sons taking center stage. It works though and the two actors, Jarden Martell (As “Joseph”) and Maxwell Jenkins (As “Thomas”) do a solid job. Benjamin Brewer (Who directed Cage previously in 2016’s “The Truth”) helms the film. Mike Nilon provides the script. Nilon is mostly a producer (And has worked with Cage several times previously), this is only his second writing credit.
The film doesn’t waste much time with explanations. Indeed the creators of this seem to have quite deliberately left things a mystery. Mostly I think this was a good idea, but it does mean the movie just sort of throws things at you. The monsters are actually pretty cool, decently scary and original looking. The move well and seem to have a lot of lore behind them that the film barely touches on. That said, we’ve seen all this before. Arcadian is similar to any number of Monsters-Take-Over-The-World films and we know what to expect from them. The result is a film without any real originality but well made and relatively compelling. If you’ve never seen “The Quiet Place” or the horror/comedy “Love And Monsters” watch those instead. But if those movies are your thing, you’ll enjoy this too. This is a 6/10 and a recommendation.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 6 out of 10.
Brats
Way back in the 1980’s and early 1990’s I was aware of the term “Brat Pack” and that it applied to a group of young actors that were making waves in Hollywood. It was never entirely clear who was in this pack, but I liked their movies and that was all there was to it for me. For those actors however this was a whole different matter. The term came from an article by David Blum, originally an interview with Emilio Estevez, but Blum changed the article to talk more broadly about that entire generation of actors. Those actors reacted badly to this label and in many ways have carried around resentment about the label throughout their careers. Now one of those actors, film maker Andrew McCarthy has decided to meet up with the rest of the gang to look back on that article and how it impacted them.
This is a mildly interesting documentary mixed with a chunk of 80’s nostalgia. Primarily this is a documentary about Andrew McCarthy and how he felt about the article that labelled him and many of his peers “Brats”. We see a bit of how others felt and a small amount of talk about the impact of the movies themselves. If you grew up watching these actors you will get something out of it, but ultimately the question of how they felt about being labelled as the “Brat Pack” didn’t need an entire documentary to cover and while their reactions are interesting they are about what you would have expected. Where they cover the movies it becomes a bit more interesting but that aspect is almost an afterthought. If you didn’t grow up in the 80’s this likely won’t be of interest to you. For me, an 80’s kid, it just about hits a 6/10.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 6 out of 10.
I Saw The TV Glow
This is a small cast surreal horror from Jane Schoenbrun centered around “Owen” (Ian Foreman/Justice Smith) and his total obsession with a TV show which may be more than it seems. The focus on a single character with almost no personality and the very slow build makes this really drag until that halfway point, at which stage the message gets confused. It is a very obvious allegory and while it never names the topic, it wears it on its sleeve. Despite that, the creators clearly wanted to be artistic with it and for me the most interesting thing was to see the conflict between their desire to push a specific message and the artistic need of leaving things to the viewer to interpret.
That’s not to say all art has to be open to interpretation but the truth is if you want to deal with a really specific issue and the message is more important than being creative you should probably stick to drama. Genre entertainment works better with broader messages that can resonate with everyone no matter how they interpret it. From about half way through up until the ending this seemed more of an allegory for drug abuse and the impact of media on young minds. Only with the very on the nose ending was I certain my original read of the message was correct. At which point I realized the film may not be saying what the director thinks it is. While that is interesting, the film itself is not. Despite a little bit of style and flair this is a 4.5/10.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 4.5 out of 10.
Project Dorothy
A very low budget B-Movie horror that attempts to make the most of it’s limited resources but is ultimately too bland and with too many plot holes to be any kind of cult classic. The movie is from relatively new director George Henry Horton and starts Tim DeZarn and Adam Burdon as a pair of thieves hiding out from police in an apparently abandoned warehouse after stealing a valuable piece of technology. The warehouse though houses a psychotic AI from the 1980’s that is looking for a way to escape her confines. The AI, named “Dorothy” is played by horror scream queen Daniel Harris (“Jamie” from Halloween IV and V), who takes top billing despite having the smallest role of the three.
Major plot holes surround the main premise, from not thinking there was an internet in the 1980’s, to not understanding how WiFi dongles work and of course the idea that an extremely dangerous AI would be cut off from the world by an easily broken padlock and no other security. This would be fine if this was a horror comedy, but unfortunately it takes itself a little too seriously. It’s also lacking in style, there’s no cool imagery or clever scenes that stand out here. The two main characters do a reasonable job, especially given how little they have to work with. The AI mostly chases after them with fork lift trucks and turns the lights on and off. There’s definitely been more terrifying and more interesting AI’s. Still, the movie isn’t boring, it is however below average. 4.5/10
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 4.5 out of 10.
Jim Henson: Idea Man
How doesn’t love the Muppets? Come to think of it, what 80’s kid doesn’t love The Dark Crystal or Labyrinth? Jim Henson is a cultural legend for sure, with a great positive influence on the world of entertainment. Despite dying relatively young at 53, he was a giant for two decades and his legacy still stands. Indeed the Muppet’s still occasionally make movies (2014’s “Most Wanted” being the most recent), Sesame Street is still running and Dark Crystal had a TV series relatively recently. A ill advised sequel to Labyrinth is apparently in the works too, without Henson or Bowie. None of these things would happen if there wasn’t still a lot of love for Jim’s work.
This documentary covers Jim’s entire career and gives a solid amount of time to each stage, providing something of interest not matter what era of Henson’s career is of most interest to you. The Focus though is on the man himself and the documentary has a real personal feel to it, through the interviews with all those close to the man and their thoughts, inter-cut with interviews with Jim from over the years. There is nothing ground breaking here, but it is a very moving tribute to a truly creative man. We see his struggles, his relationship with his wife and kids and how he impacted everyone he worked with. The documentary makes it hard not to feel a lot of affection for this driven, funny human being. This is a 7/10.
This month we’ve got a bit of a mixed bag to sort through. We have one horror film in “Abigail“, previously known as “Abducting Abigail” (As listed in my January preview for this year); We have an over the top action comedy in “Boy Kills World“; and the most indie of indie movies, the story of a family of Sasquatches “Sasquatch Sunset“. No clangers this week, but two that didn’t quite land for me. Although only one of these ended up a recommendation, all these movies have positives and something to offer someone. Let’s dig in!
Sasquatch Sunset
This is a film that didn’t entirely work for me, but I can see where some may find it appealing. It treads the ground between artistic vision and gross out comedy. In my view it relies a too heavily on the latter, making it hard to enjoy the former. If I’ve learned anything about these fictional creatures it is that they are basically just grosser versions of humans. This is in some ways endearing and in others… Well, just unpleasant. This is the Sasquatch cycle of life. We witness mating, death and birth. In between we seem aggression, we see tenderness, anger, fear at the unknown, curiosity and uh, body excretions.
Despite featuring very emotional scenes, I struggled to feel empathy for these creatures. This all felt very mundane to me. Part of the problem is that the heavy makeup makes it difficult for the actors to emote. As Sasquatches of course they don’t speak either and instead just grunt. They compensate for this with a lot of body acting and it works to some degree. But I didn’t feel especially connected. Fun fact: One of the Sasquatches is actually Jesse Eisenberg. Of course he is unrecognizable and doesn’t talk, so you’d be forgiven for missing that.
Cryptid Writing
When you have cast that will struggle to emote, you really need the music to do the heavy lifting. However, instead the soundtrack is understated and ethereal with a dream like quality. To be fair, I actually liked the soundtrack quite a lot, but it didn’t drive the story emotionally. It’s possible it was intentional to give the film a dream like quality, these are mythical “Cryptids” after all. The soundtrack release for the movie actually contains a cover of one of the actual songs from the film, but with the lyrics replaced by grunting. Really, that sort of summarizes the features art meets silliness approach!
Conceptually this is interesting and it is why I watched the film in the first place. I was especially interested in the lack of dialogue (I’m a big fan of the series “Primal”). What I wasn’t aware of was how much the movie would rely so much on body excretions to entertain. That isn’t my thing, but if you like an artistic concept paired with gross out humour this may be for you. What I will say is the Sasquatches did look great. Visually the film worked really well and this was made for around $1m, so that is in itself very impressive. For me though on entertainment value it is a 5.5/10.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 5.5 out of 10.
Abigail
Abigail tells the story of a group of criminals that have been given a high paying job abducting a young girl. They don’t know who her father is outside of them being wealthy. However, it turns out things are not as they seem and one by one they are being eliminated while they await news of the ransom. It turns out it really does matter who you kidnap. The movie comes from Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett and stars Melissa Barrera, Dan Stevens and Alisha Weir. SPOILERS for this one. Suffice to say this is a visually entertaining movie but full of cliches and heavily reliant on all the characters being stupid. If you still want to stay unspoiled, skip to the last paragraph.
The film gave away the nature of Abigail both in the trailer and many early synopsis’s. Hell, I knew she was a monster late on in 2023 back when this film was still going to be called “Abducting Abigail”. Child Vampires are not new and the movie even references Anne Rice, so I guess little Claudia was the inspiration here. She is done reasonably well and definitely the movies highlight. The visuals are in the “Fun horror” category where things are pushed to such extremes as to be sort of funny (Lots of “Red mist”). While the visuals are fun, I can’t help but find a lot of similarities between this movie and “Ready or Not” by the same directors. But that movie had something this does not: Characters.
Red Mist
Every character here is a hollow shell and everyone other than the final girl is mind-numbingly stupid. Joey (Said final girl), could not be more of a cliché. Her single flaw is that she is a recovering drug addict. She recently got clean. As a result is incredibly competent, a master of hand to hand combat, able to read every person she meets instantly and figure out their back story and is afraid of nothing. Yep, sounds like the kind of recovering drug addict who would be in on a kidnapping scheme…. Of the rest of the team only a couple even verge on competence, but ultimately fall short. Even with Joey, the group collectively make repeated dumb mistakes (Such as constantly splitting up).
Ultimately, this by-the-numbers horror features barely outlined characters who need to make constant stupid decisions to drive the story forward. It has some decent cinematography, generic but fun effects and reasonable pacing. If you want a popcorn horror it may suffice but it is a long way from “Ready or Not”, which was this directing duos one good movie. Most recently they made two bad scream sequels. This is better than those but not by much and I’m starting to realize how much “Ready or Not” relied on the talents of Samara Weaving to make it work. Unfortunately Melissa Barrera (Who was also in those bad Scream sequels) is not quite good enough to prop up a movie by herself. Anyway this is a 5/10.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 5 out of 10.
Boy Kills World
For the final movie is this months review roundup we have the directorial debut of Moritz Mohr with “Boy Kills World”. The movie is written by Mohr, Tyler Burton Smith and Arend Remmers and stars Bill Skarsgård as the unnamed “Boy”. Bill is playing a deaf mute here though, but his character has a constant voice over representing the voice in his head and H. Jon Benjamin (Bob’s Burgers/Archer) provides that voice over. The rest of the cast split fairly evenly in their supporting roles, but Famke Janssen stands out as the film’s big bad, “Hilda Van Der Koy.” This is a martial arts revenge film set in a dystopian future, but played out very much as an action comedy.
“Boy”, grew up in a Dystopian city ruled over by the brutal authority of the Van Der Koy family. The family has an annual tradition of rounding up 12 dissidents and executing them on live TV in an event dubbed “The Culling”. As a child, the Van Der Koy’s killed his mother and the families matriarch Hilda Van Der Koy personally shot his sister in front of him. Boy himself was to be executed via hanging, but was rescued by a mysterious Shaman (Yayan Ruhian). Since then the stranger has trained the deaf and mute child to be the ultimate fighting machine and given him a single task: To kill Hilda Van Der Koy. The child though never got to experience growing up naturally and so despite his skills maintains a certain childishness to him. He also is haunted by visions of his dead sister. Eventually though he must take on the evil family on the night of “The Culling”.
Smart But Stupid
This is a movie that I expected to be fun both for outrageous action and a bit of comedy. That was really all I expected and yet it managed to pleasantly surprise me. The story is both darker and more interesting than I first imagined and provided a solid twist towards the end that turns the entire story on it’s head. Meanwhile, I did indeed gain a lot of entertainment from the action and comedy. Most of that comedy (That landed with me anyway) was down to the deaf protagonist not being able to read the lips of one character properly, which ended up not just providing a few quick (Hilarious) laughs but actually became a pivotal part of the story. This is a clever film packaged as a dumb movie and it does both parts extremely well.
I don’t have a lot of criticism for this one. One issue is the film focuses so much on the protagonists’ point of view that we don’t really get to know the other characters well. This also means the world building is somewhat minimal. To be fair some of this is because the film relies heavily on mystery. You know this is some kind of dystopian future but not much more than that. While this is a flaw, it doesn’t really harm the film that much so it’s not a big one. We don’t spend much time with the supporting cast, but they are all without exception larger than life and feel straight out of a comic book. This means they are at least memorable. We learn everything we need to know about them, but nothing more. The over-the-top video game style voice-over may put some people off. However you will find a lot of entertainment value if you can get past that. This movie does just about enough to earn a 7/10 for me. Definitely recommended.
You must be logged in to post a comment.