Sinners (2025) review

I’ve just finished watching the “Sinners” film directed by Ryan Coogler. 

Fantastic movie.

I enjoyed it so much.

What makes it so thrilling is that it is both a “vampire movie”; but going way beyond it - an original fearless storytelling.

It’s a gripping tale with an emotional force that explores all kinds of human experiences - guilt, faith, seduction, addiction, and ambition. There is a balancing of intimate character moments with the intensity of a thriller. The music is also wonderful, and you feel as if you’re part of the dancing. 

The acting is fabulous. Michael B. Jordan was great - he captures a character ripped apart by the sins/horrors of his past and the hope of moral redemption. Delroy Lindo was great, and I especially enjoyed the performance of Jack O’Connell (and his Irish dancing).

The film was able to weave the story of racism and slavery in the United States with great deft and especially without it being overbearing or sententious. The way sometimes a film veers into lecturing us about the evils of slavery (a lamentable hallmark of contemporary “wokeism”). The film takes a carefully detailed tour of black society living under Jim Crow, dealing with the horrors of racism.

This film is probably the highlight of 2025 cinema. 

Rating: 4/5 ★★★★☆

I’m Still Here (2025) - film review

I went to the Odeon cinema in Wimbledon to see “I’m Still Here”.

I loved it.

The film is set in 1970s Brazil during the military dictatorship.

The larger-than-life family-man and affable ex-congressman Rubens Paiva simply “vanishes”. Against the subplot of communist-terrorism against the military-rule, Rubens Paiva is implicated. 

His wife Eunice is played by the spellbinding Brazilian actress Fernanda Torres. She is incredible. I think it’s hard for any actor to capture vulnerability, helplessness and terror. If you have tears, be prepared to shed a few.  Her life is torn-apart. She is devastated and terrified; but, at the same time, she has to be strong for her 5 children.

And, so, how do you raise a family (with some semblance of normality) against the terror of faceless evil-doers in uniform.

The movie is filled with an ominous heavy absence. It also exhibits the psychological toll of not knowing what happened to the “disappeared”.

I can’t recommend it enough.

★★★★★ 5/5

Heretic (2024) - film review

Recently went to see this film at the cinema. It was good. 

“Heretic” offers a novel and unsettling thriller/horror film that lingers with you after the film’s credits roll - religious themes in a twisted and suspenseful narrative.

It’s one of those films littered with subtle clues and signs.

Two young missionaries encounter a reclusive & mysterious Englishman (Hugh Grant) ... which sets the stage for an unsettling game of cat and mouse.

The first 3/4 of the film is great. 

The tension gradually builds up and one is never fully sure of each character’s true rationale/motives. Are the missionaries really true believers? Is Mr Reed actually an OK guy? Hugh Grant is great at unsettling you with his raffish rogueish charm (masking his darker intent). He is engrossing & I enjoyed his deeper chronicling on the meta of religions. The other actors (Sophie Thatcher and Chloe East) are equally impressive.

The film’s darkened atmosphere & claustrophobia is masterful which magnifies the unease. 

However, the final act, fails to satisfy.

I felt that the v. thought-provoking and unsettling commentary on evil & religion demanded a worthy and “extraordinary” denouement.

Yet, it seemed to me like something was missing.

Rating: 3 ★★★

Smile 2 (2024) - horror film review

Wow!

I’ve just returned home from seeing the new horror film “Smile 2” today with my friend Karen.

I saw it at the Leicester Square Odeon theatre. Managed to bag a 2 tickets for £15.

And - boy oh boy! - it’s intense, v. scary and brutal.  

It’s a sequel to the 2022’s “Smile” film which, in my view, takes it to a whole new level of scare/horror with the terrific performance of Naomi Scott as “Skye Riley” (the central character) and the noticeable raising of the stakes. 

The fact that, in the film, Skye has the persona of a world famous pop star adds to the stress and tension which comes from her day-to-day “star” lifestyle and its demands. Since she has a well-developed character, it makes her turmoil so “real”. (I couldn’t really watch the teleprompter scene).  

It makes her unfolding even more torturous. The stakes seem much higher in this film due to (1) the existence of “Morris” (Peter Jackson) who has a plan to work with Skye and destroy the demon in time, while (2) having to please her legion fans, managers, mother, and friends. (For reference, I think her first interaction with Morris was real, but she missed her opportunity.)

The film’s depiction of the “pop star” reality creates a beautiful esthetic. Her outfits, hairstyle, and amazingly choreographed dancing are gorgeous.

There is a v. interesting insight into the demonic lore of the entity. It mixes the supernatural with biology as an allegory on trauma. To me, it seems as though this demon behaves like a virus. Skye is merely a “host” for this malignant entity to “use”; and then, after use, it spreads to the next person killing the earlier host. Its true origins though remain mysterious. 

Like the original film, the demon seems to enjoy mentally torturing the victim. It creates elaborate and complicated delusions which forces the viewer to question what was reality as opposed to illusion. This confusion and chaos combined with a veritable rollercoaster-ride of jump scares makes for a film you can’t look away from ... while also having to cover your eyes.

There is an escalating horror and so much gore. I had to look away often. And the ending scene will leave jaws on the floor. When horror films seem to be more of a miss thesedays, this film is a very strong hit. 

I definitely recommend it for any horror nerds.

Great viewing for Halloween! 

Rating: 4.5 ★★★★★

Review: “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes” — very disappointing

I saw this film earlier this week at the cinema.

In my opinion, this installment (following on from the previous trilogy) was confused and a serious drop in quality.

The underlying problem is that it is set too far in the future, and it took ages to get story going. The storylines seemed a bit confused and tenuous, at times. It’s unclear why the villain is so determined to break into the man-made underground bunker. It’s one of the many plot devices that we’re never really explained. So, the denouement feels sluggish.

The film’s protagonist is “Noah”, which I assumed would be Caesar’s son — as he seems to resemble him. However, it becomes v. clear that this film isn’t related to Caesar at all. The actual “kingdom” is surprisingly basic and primitive — notwithstanding an apparent and “serious” increase in the apes’ cognitive and linguistic abilities. 

The final action scene utterly strains the film’s credibility. Despite many generations of neglect and decay, there were apparently groups of humans somewhere with a computerised ground crew? Why was the satellite card from the bunker so important? How did the woman know where to find it? Why couldn’t the human battalion have simply built or fashioned some alternative? And why does the young woman, after all her experiences, decide not to go inside the human bunkers at the end — but stand outside to observe things?

Also, I found the apes less relatable. I found it difficult to care about Noah at all, or his eagles.

I enjoyed the theme of the de-evolution of Caesar, and his ideas, into some quasi-religious esoteric movement. That was very interesting with parallels in Christian sectarianism and Marxist groupuscules. The Orangutan was probably the most fascinating ape. He was teaching Noah about Caesar’s ideas (which are only referred in brief). It would have been fascinating to have heard more of his teachings. But, we don't get that.

Lots of Avatar-like CGI with some amazing landscapes though.

Rating: 1/5 ★

Review: “The Pale Blue Eye” — really enjoyed it

“The Pale Blue Eye” is a murder thriller/horror set in the early 1800s released by Netflix last year.

I really enjoyed it.

Directed by Scott Cooper & cast include Christian Bale, Timothy Spall, Harry Melling, and Gillian Anderson. It is a detective story with Bale as Detective Landor and Melling as Edgar Allan Poe. They team up to solve a series of grisly killings in this period gothic “drama”.

The film is great at creating an oppressive & chilling atmosphere. I really enjoyed the interaction and chemistry between the duo Detective Landor and Poe. Their partnership is the facsimile of the Holmes/Watson duo. 

Exquisite photography and a disquieting Howard Shore score accompanies this film throughout.

However, where the film lacks is an ordinate amount of time is devoted to unearthing the mysterious Marquis family. It has the effect of separating the detective duo. Harry Melling’s Poe falls in love and aches for a fellow cadet’s terminally sick sister; while Bale strays around aimlessly. For me, these meanders feel like we’re treading water as opposed to developing the plot.

The ritualistic “occult” scenes in the basement felt a little cliche, as if it were rushed. This, I think, was a lost opportunity to bring some horror.

The great “reveal” is great and Christian Bale gives an emotional final act.

All-in-all, I enjoyed the film all the way through. It isn’t a masterpiece but it’s good fun.

Rating: 4/5 ★★★★

Review: The Nun II – a great horror flick

Earlier this week, I watched ‘The Nun II’ at the cinema (which wasn’t cheap even with student discount).

It was really very good.

The film is based on 1950s France and involves a demon trying to return to power and terrorising the students and staff of a school. Called into action by the Catholic Church is Sister Irene goes to defeated Valek. It is both mystery and horror. I have to say the terror in the opening scene was shocking and set an ominous tone to the film. I strapped myself in. 

The film was v. visually atmospheric with a wonderful wardrobe, an oak-barrel winery, motorcars, visceral horror elements and creepy noises - especially the scene with the newsstand in a dark cobbled alleyway. Very stylish, perhaps more so than horror.

The acting and casting was impressive. The characters’ chemistry and connection were really examined in this film. Horror films sometimes prioritize scare scenes and creepy/eerie atmosphere over an emotional depth to the film. I especially liked how the subtle and unforced the romantic subplot was developed and their obvious chemistry among the protagonists.

I wish the film wouldn’t turned the Church and theology into a Marvel movie though. The fact is that a nun cannot really be an exorcist. Catholic priests have the authority which a Bishop has to sanction. St. Catherine of Siena was known to have exorcised demons. That would put Sister Irene on par with a Saint! Also, it is unclear why the demon has to hunt for a relic to obtain its ‘powers’. That backstory is never fully explained despite serving as the fulcrum to the film’s entire story-line. And it was clever to have the demon defeated through the eucharist; but those barrels of wine were a bit silly.

Something else that doesn’t sit well with me is how ‘The Nun II’ veers into adventure-action type of horror (rather like Tom Cruise’s ‘The Mummy’). It is strange that a demonic entity has to be give chase, fight and seems to be foiled by hiding under a table - but, at elsewhere in the film, can snap a girl’s neck with a flick of her hand.

Overall, it is a v. enjoyable and scary film. Totally recommend.

7/10.

Review: Insidious: The Red Door – an embarrassment to the Insidious franchise

This film is so disappointing. I went to the cinema with one of my closest friends for nostalgia. We watched the original film - over a decade ago - in the cinema too.

It's rare to come across a Hollywood blockbuster today that isn't some rehashed stuff, or some remakes, or some banal sequel to force another film (= ££). This one is quite forgettable. The tragedy is that James Wan was innovative and fresh in his Insidious film. He set the groundwork so you couldn't go wrong. He infused the films with his unique scares and atmosphere, and paired with Joseph Bashara's hypnotic musical score for the insidious films, so it should have been a great recipe. Patrick Wilson had a great franchise laid out for him to close off, and it withered ... painfully and tragically.

The first twenty minutes is devoted to tedious character development and some ham-fisted & lazy dialogue. No ear-splitting dramatic intro of the earlier films. The dialogue scenes were just awful and corny. The characters don't make any sense, and their family grievances seem petty despite - notwithstanding the initial long burst given to their characters. In short, we are expected to believe that the family members don't speak to each other because ... well, they just don't? And, then the plot is ridiculous. We are never told why it was necessary - or even intelligent - to have the two astral-projection characters forget everything. And why was the red door apt to be opened at all?

A lot of the plot seems forced and random (especially the art teacher counting back from 10, 9, 8 ...) and it's not clear the film understands what the point of the story is. Is it trying to answer the mystery of the other antecedent films? Why is the Josh's father appearing now - but didn't appear in the earlier films? I don't think we are told what the magic of the red door really is, or how it works? And why a door? 

For me, the Renai and Josh separation was ridiculous. They had a very strong loving bond having been through so much together. It just didn't make any sense; and the audience aren't told why. And why was it necessary for Josh (father) to be hypnotized too? Why did we have to spend so much cinema time having the characters recall what happened to them (no surprise to audience). By the time we get to the red-faced demon, there was hardly any fight ... and ta da ... its over. There was no climax, no reason for anything.

The lack of Elise, Karl, Specs and Tucker make for a different feel which lacks the force and chemistry of the original mystery horrors. The red demon scenes felt like they came from the original film and there was little new. Felt like a sad film. The Elise cameo at the end with her platitudes was, well, also deflating. 

Perhaps a caution for the production of a film picked up after a long decade.

Review: The Elephant Man (1980) – a tragic and moving masterpiece

I've just finished watching The Elephant Man. My goodness! What a moving evocative film.

It is incredible how - despite John "Joseph" Merrick being the object of such despairing cruelty and nastiness among his coeval - he still managed to maintain some positivity, decency, affability and cheer in his life. Although the film exhibits the worst of human nature, it is also full of the compassion and the generosity of the human spirit.

This movie is genius, in certain respects. An incredible cast of England's finest knights: Sir Anthony Hopkins, the late Sir Johns Hurt (I met him once!) and the imperishable Sir John Gielgud. Including, an amazing turn by Freddie Jones. Also, a very touching performance by Kenny Baker (guy inside R2-D2). The cinematography is brilliant and the makeup effects are pretty impressive. I found the first 10 minutes of the film quite experimental in story telling - flashes of stressful childbirth and an elephant. The adagio for strings is very powerful. No CGI here which gives the film that wonderful sense of authenticity - much needed today. The film's setting and backdrops are full of amazing details creating an immersive feel. The black-and-white film really transports us to a different epoch. In short, a remarkable combination of pure talent creates a tragic, dark and unforgettable film.

I liked how Anthony Hopkins' character - Dr Frederick Treves - wipes away the begrime and allows Merrick's wonderful personality and intelligence to shine. Merrick ultimately finds some solace against his tormentors & defamers. The heart-wrenching scenes of the morons breaking into his room and pushing him around and pouring alcohol on him: it's manifest who the true monsters are. Nevertheless, Merrick's amor-proper and pride - gradually scaffolded up by his doctor friend - surpasses the inherent anxiety and fears of the general public. He learns a bit how to annunciation and speak; and he becomes fascinated by civilized society and theatre. Because of his deformity, he can't even sleep like normal people. I really love how John dresses himself - takes such special pride in his clothes & appearance to match his kind gentle manner. 

John Hurt was incredible as John Merrick. The painful nuances in the physical movements, and I could feel the discomfort in Merrick's speaking and breathing. The acting really transports you. You kind of forget that it isn't the real Merrick. 

Then, there is the deeply touching Romeo and Juliet scene. Anne Bancroft here is incredible. Her character, Mrs Kendal, decides to visit Merrick. As a leading actress, she decides to read some Shakespeare; and soon they are both reading the beautiful passages. For the briefest of moments - through the magic of theatre - Merrick becomes Romeo - our hero - and we can see that. We get to see his great courage and strength in the face of such adversity, and his benevolent and kind nature, and his beautiful soul. It is a very powerful scene that made me tear up. (Then, there are the scenes of him speaking about his mother with such warmth and love. They killed me too.)

It's an inspiring story.

✲✲✲

Note: doing some research online, it seems Merrick used to quote poetry in his correspondences.

"Tis true my form is something odd, But blaming me is blaming God; 

Could I create myself anew I would not fail in pleasing you.
If I could reach from pole to pole Or grasp the ocean with a span, 

I would be measured by the soul; The mind's the standard of the man."

— poem used by Joseph Merrick to end his letters, adapted from "False Greatness" by Isaac Watts.

Review: The Pope's Exorcist by Julius Avery – potential to be a better film

Russell Crowe, with a decent Italian accent, plays the Chief Vatican Exorcist, Father Armoth. Crowe's performance is pretty good. He becomes assigned the case of a boy in Spain whose family had just relocated to their 'ancestral' abbey (from the US??). The priest discovers the Abbey hides secrets which will test his faith. 

The annoying thing about this film is its potential. It doesn't really offer much that isn't predictable or filled with the standard horror cliches. So, once again, the boy is possessed and in danger ... once again the priests have flaws which the demon exploits, their faith is tested and the priests must conquer themselves. It is the familiar ground.

However, this film has an interesting conspiratorial element which gradually unfurls. It builds on a sense of unease in navigating the Church's history; but it doesn't seem to go very far. The scenes in the catacombs with the books and the encaged skeleton were really interesting and creepy. But it's all very quick and to little effect.

Despite the idea that the legacy of the Spanish Inquisition being imputed on demonic possession is a bit silly (would it make sense for future generations to blame child sexual abuse on possession too?), it didn't seem to be explored much. The Spanish Inquisition could have been an interesting angle with some depth - but it doesn't do much more than a background for mounting jolts.

Towards the third act, the Pope's Exorcist veers towards the horror parody. For me, I don't feel very comfortable in a movie that shifts between the dramatic and the comedic. It's not a movie that's taking itself seriously. Not to mention the exploding bodies, ridiculous amount of blood, stretched faces, rough use of CGI effects etc.

This film isn't terrible, it's fun – but could have been more.

Review of Baltasar Kormakur’s Beast – decent and suspenseful

Not a bad movie. Quite entertaining. 

This film is an iteration of the Man vs Monster formula. 

That man is the recently-widowed Dr Nate Samuels (Elba) and he is trying to redeem himself over his ostensible past failures with his two daughters (Jeffries and Halley). Although Beast offers no real surprises, it is good at setting out what it wants to achieve; and then it does it. The film has pretty good jumpy scary scenes (especially the scenes of Dr Samuels in the lake) and Kormakur is good at creating tense moments.

The underlying premise involves a lion that has gone rouge. This is reminiscent of the 90s film The Ghost and the Darkness. Particularly when a wounded villager warns that he was attacked by “diabolos”. (This film itself was based on accounts during the British Empire regarding two African lions in Tsavo, Kenya. See YouTube – The Man-Eating Lions of Tsavo). At any rate, in Beast, the lion gets tranquilised, tumbles off a cliff, gets burned, and then finally stabbed! Surely it would make more sense to have made him demonic (as per the 90s version).

To me, the problem with the lion is the Hollywood insistence on casting the villain as being a hapless victim of cruelty as opposed to being inherently evil. So the lion went rogue because we made him do so. What a yawn. If the movie Jaws was being produced today, that shark would be framed as the victim of the marine overfishing, or his pups were savagely hunted by a villager, or the shark is upset about global warming! 

Some of the dialogue is a bit clunky, and there isn’t a whole lot of creativity in the film. Indeed, there is some plain silliness in the plot. Why would anyone venture out of the safety of the car when there’s a lion patrolling the area? Or wade through waterways despite having seen crocodiles plunging in at shore?

The ending of Beast – with Elba punching the lion (!) and getting mauled – reminded me of the film The Grey. In that moving film, Liam Neeson’s character was lost and destroyed following the death of his wife. The film is mostly about a man struggling with grief and surrounded by death. At the start of the film, he’s intent on ending his own life with a rifle. Towards the end - in the love and memory of his former wife - he decides to fight for his life as opposed to throwing it away. It’s a moving scene that connects on a deeper level. (See: The Grey - Once More Into the Fray). Thus, by contrast, Idris’s “fight” with the lion feels hollow, and a bit silly.

Nevertheless, this film is a decent adrenaline hit particularly through a sluggish cinema season. It’s good fun but don’t expect a whole lot.

Review: Nope by Jordan Peele – first-rate horror and mystery thriller

I really enjoyed this film.

Jordan Peele – who wrote, produced, and directed this film – is a true original. His films bleed suspense and horror with a latent social commentary.

The films Get Out and Us were masterful in their suspense and unsettling aspect. Above all, for me, they added another dimension to the post-cinema chitchat.

To this list, Peele gives us Nope. It’s an unsettling disturbing film in which the horror gradually unfurls. Nope works best as a genuine mystery, and a thrilling. Like the characters, the audience must ferret out what is going on, and this is critical to the advancing unease of the film’s arc. There are no ‘experts’ in the film to nudge us along. We accept the inchoate and foggy assumptions of the film’s protagonists as to what is going on. To that extent, we never really form a complete and total understanding of the substance. But, perhaps we don’t really need to.

✲✲✲

Daniel Kaluuya plays the rancher OJ with his sister Emerald (Keke Palmer). They are trying to keep their father’s struggling horse-wrangling company alive. The chemistry between them is sweet and adds a charming bonhomie to the film’s narrative. OJ’s general reserved and phlegmatic disposition is at odds with his sister’s ebullience and humour. The yin-and-yang energy gives the movie its heart.

However, promptly, they both realise that they are being stalked by a mysterious cloud-like entity in the skies. Interesting to note that, as with the Roswell incident, UFO/UAP are associated with weather balloons; and so this film gives us the marauding carnivorous cloud. To save the indebted company and their home, they then try to capture film footage of the alien-like visitation in the hopes of a huge television network payout.

The mystery of the film is the audience and characters trying to understand what this alien is and how it operates. The cinematics surrounding the alien (noises it emits, quick, fleeting sharp motions, opaque concealments) are excellently done. The film’s Texas desert mountain-valley landscape is beautiful; and it is, after all, the clichiac epicentre of UFO sightings (Chinati Peak etc.).

✲✲✲

However, as I see it, the problem in the film is Peele’s social commentary vis-a-vis Steven Yeun as Ricky “Jupe” Park and the film’s occasional focus on the black rider in Eadweard Muybridge’s first moving picture.

Firstly, and with respect to the latter issue, I suspect it’s Peele’s side-glance to the history of slavery in America’s cinematic history. But, this is probably ahistorical. The ‘man on horse’ frames concerned a bet as to whether a horse had all four feet off the ground while it was running. According to Wikipedia:

In 1872, the former governor of California, Leland Stanford, a businessman and race-horse owner, hired Muybridge for a portfolio depicting his mansion and other possessions, including his racehorse Occident. Stanford also wanted a proper picture of the horse at full speed, and was frustrated that the existing depictions and descriptions seemed incorrect. The human eye could not fully break down the action at the quick gaits of the trot and gallop. Up until this time, most artists painted horses at a trot with one foot always on the ground; and at a full gallop with the front legs extended forward and the hind legs extended to the rear, and all feet off the ground. There are stories that Stanford had made a $25,000 bet on his theories about horse locomotion, but no evidence has been found of such a wager.

Twenty-four cameras were attached to tripwires creating “frames” along a stretch of a raceway. As the horse ran, it triggered the tripwires which set off cameras in succession. In our times, we are used to “movies” with actors being credited. But this was not a “movie” so much as an experiment. It proved that horses do indeed have all four feet off the ground for a moment while running. It’s only afterwards that a string of photos were then arranged together to make ‘motion’ (in the sense that we understand of “movies”). 

So, the underlying sense of exploitation – inherent in the historical reference – is a bit forced through its ahistoricism. It assumes a contemporary perception about film and cinema which it superimposes on a different historical context.

✲✲✲

Secondly, the other problem, relates to the backstory of the chimp (‘Gordy’) with Steven Yeun’s character (‘Jup’) and the fuzzy way that that ties into the alien storyline. It’s unclear to me whether Jup felt that he had a special connection with Gordy; but I think we can assume so as he later tries to recreate a similar ‘relationship’ via taming the alien predator.

The problem here is that this idea is explored, through the chimpanzee, in a half-hearted way. It does feel shoehorned into the movie which made for a confused viewing at those particular moments, and a disjointed feel to the flow of the movie. It feels like an attempt to squeeze in disturbing scenes at the expense of Jup’s characterisation.

✲✲✲

Nevertheless, the predator-prey motif governs the movie (e.g. director watching clips of a tiger and a snake in mortal combat) and it’s a subject which Peele excels in showcasing.

In Nope, there are haunting scenes in which people get consumed by the predator. The screeching piercing screams of people getting sucked into the object and not dying immediately. They’re enveloped by the monstrous alien into tight moist spaces with enough space to wriggle and scream (and presumably breath) but not enough for any control. It’s only after a while that they are consumed by the alien; by which time we have been wondering what horrors await them.

The above discussions about the subtext does not diminish the film’s amalgam of mystery thriller with disturbing horror.

Review: Thor: Love and Thunder by Taika Waititi – a film to miss

This movie is awful. 

I didn’t even wait for the post-credit scenes. I watched the movie with my partner, and, on leaving the cinema, we hardly discussed it. We chatted about other things, and I think that’s unprecedented. Shockingly so. It was so tedious.

I am also getting sick-and-tired of “Sweet Child O’ Mine” by Guns N’ Roses.

There’s so much that’s really terrible about this movie that I don’t quite know where to start. I have broken down the criticisms into three headings; firstly, the plot and scripting, then, secondly, the gruelling use of humour and comedy to the general feel of the movie, and, lastly, I shall spend some time examining the villainy of the story.

✲✲✲

The Anakin-Padme redux

One of my favourite reviews – which never fails to make me chuckle and was quite instructive – relates to Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith by YouTuber “Confused Matthew”.

It is worth listening to some of his brief (minute or so) comments – linked here to the time-mark 08:37 – on the Anakin-Padme “relationship”. It captures my thoughts on the Thor-Jane storyline and dialogue. In a nutshell: 

It is, as if, [George] Lucas expects us to believe that these two are in love just because they say they are, over and over again. And even when they say that it’s not only unconvincing, but the dialogue doesn’t even make very much coherent conversational sense.

In movies, the oft-quoted “show, don’t tell” prescription applies. Great acting can disclose more in nuance and subtlety in the performance than via forced storylines and abrupt and stilted conversation. The problem with Star Wars is that the audience is told Anakin is deeply in love with Padme; and that love, in turn, causes him to eventually shift to the dark side. But, in what sense does an audience really believe that he actually loves her? Apart from the occasional embrace and such stiff dialogue, as above, her death feels more like the death of sister than his inamorata.

In Thor: Love and Thunder, the movie starts with rock-guy (“Korg”) eulogistically reciting Thor’s adventures. The circuitous narration explains Thor’s past, his current mid-life crisis, and the apparent relationship he seems to have had with his then “ex-girlfriend” Jane. Just as with Revenge of the Sith, the oral exposition trumps scenes conveying real chemistry, love, and romance. The underlying difficulty is that the audience sees Jane as a plot device. She is not only a relatively trivial character whom Thor happened to have kissed once-or-twice (or whatever they did); but, as we all know, the whole backstory has been contrived in order to cram and squeeze her character into some epic tale.

The audience are exposed to fleeting memories – amid the narration – which is intended to capture the arc of their relationship. But these scenes have the opposite effect: it is forced and their love is thus superficial. There is no real chemistry or affection between them throughout the movie – apart from a clutch of cliché and rather clumsy lines. Even in death, Jane’s demise did not feel all that heart-breaking or sad.

In short, Waititi wanted Jane to take a leading role and the whole relationship was a device to pivot her into the movie and then back out again. She was afraid of dying because she was, in fact, dying. In the presence of Eternity, she ultimately died of what she was already dying of. So, what is the point? 

My grievance is not just restricted to the Thor-Jane ‘dynamic’ , but the movie broadly. It has a weak and incoherent storyline (angled towards audience gasps and the shock-factor) and is fastened together with an uncomfortable script. The ‘children’ section of the movie felt very disjointed. Taken away from Asgard and stored in a cage, they end up briefly taking part in the final battle. This felt like a bizzare plot turn in the film. Why didn’t Thor ask the Guardians Of The Galaxy for help instead, given their role at the beginning?

The CGI – as one would expect – is dazzling; but I think heavy CGI masks a lack of catharsis that great acting & cinema can induce in cinemagoers. The pace of the movie is dizzying and much of the film involve Jane’s “this is happening now … don’t ask why” variety of scenes which, as you can expect, has all the grace of a sharp U-turn to the natural ease and flow of the film. 

✲✲✲

The comedy and humorous

In Thor: Love and Thunder, the jokes and the general comedic effects were incessant. 

Thirty minutes into the movie and it feels like the dialogue is largely quips, hahaha-s and general trying to be funny. So, for example, Zeus’s sexual jokes about orgies didn’t seem funny at all. Nobody in the cinema laughed and it felt a bit awkward with families watching. (And Poor Russell Crowe, that dreadful Greek accent he had to contrive!)

At one point, at the beginning, an exchange between Chris Pratt’s character and Thor – opportunity for some man-qua-man ‘the meaning of life’-type discussion – is also shoved through the jokes blender. Ultimately, these jokes feel inappropriate, even humourless. The trouble is that Thor – by relying so heavily on jokes and wisecrack triviality – remains the grating child-like character. Despite the movie’s premise that Thor has ostensibly “matured” (following Infinity War and Endgame), his behaviour and attitude affirm the contrary. Such as, for example, the way in which Thor callously destroys the temple of the aliens in the opening act, and is utterly indifferent about it. Was the audience supposed to find this funny? 

Also, I am a bit ambivalent about the movie’s handling of Jane’s terminal cancer. I didn’t think it was explored, beyond cliche. A solemn subject like that should demand a more considered management. I was a bit surprised that the hammer (according to the movie) supposedly sped up her cancer? A bit random? Gorr (Christian Bale) does not kill her, nor does she really ‘sacrifice’ herself: indeed she dies in a cancer-related sense; and completely un-Viking-like. It did not really fit with the storyline at all, and I am not sure justice was done by the broader sombre issue of cancer.

Ultimately, the jokes were not really subversive at all, but rather increasing tedious and it felt as thought the movie could not really wrench itself off those tracks. It felt as if we were being drowned (especially with the moronic goat screaming). Additionally, given the general levity of everything in the movie, there was never any real weight or force behind anything. There are no high stakes, no real sense of risks being taken, and the whole movie feels a bit tedious.

✲✲✲

The villain

I did quite enjoyed Bale’s performance as Gorr. 

The problem here is that Gorr isn’t really a villain. He’s called the “god butcher” but does no butchering. As a matter of facts, he’s was kind of sweet to the kids. If anything, he seems like an eccentric sympathetic dupe-like victim. In a way, his revenge against the gods felt authentic and even justified. 

Drawing on my recent discussion of evil in The Black Phone, Gorr is the villain – not from any inherent vice or evil or malevolence – but merely because he’s counterposed to Thor. He’s a villain for the sake of it. Thor may well be a great superhero but he’s a cold and indifferent god – as the rest of them in the Omnipotent City while the “small people”, like Gorr’s family, struggle. (Classic Marxian class struggle.)

Firstly, we are told, that his nefarious evil goals are actually the result of the corruptive influence of the “necrosword” which granted him power. So, basically, he’s alright deep-down. Secondly, he isn’t defeated. He chooses to resurrect his long-dead daughter, in the end. Thor doesn’t really fight him (beyond the usual CGI kicks and punches). Gorr feels like Thor’s opponent perforce (his ire being directed at all gods and celestials). There is no sense in which this is personal.

The problem is the complete absence of any genuine villainy as – not merely the struggle of the battlefield but – a clash as to who is actually right (i.e. justice).

On the whole, this movie is one to miss.

Review: The Black Phone by Scott Derrickson - very intense thriller/horror

When it comes to the cinema, I try to avoid watching the official trailer (which usually completely surrenders the movie’s intrigue and substance). As a result, and in this case, I had no idea what to expect. 

The film begins in the despairing community of a suburban town amid an ongoing police manhunt of various ‘missing’ kids with posters and uneasy parents (1970s, it would appear). 

Finney Shaw (Mason Thames) is a sensitive shy schoolboy eluding school bullies and an abusive alcoholic father, especially abusive to his sister Gwen (Madeleine McGraw) who has clairvoyant dreams, which the father is eager to suppress. Some of these scenes were difficult to watch.

Soon enough, the kidnapper (Ethan Hawke) – in the guise of an friendly masked magician – grabs the boy, renders him unconscious and throws him into the back of his van (van trade name: “abracadabra”). That is how Finney wakes up from a slumber on a dirty mattress of a barren and sound-proof basement.

✲✲✲

The Black Phone is an intense experience. The level of suspense, tension and anticipation rises steadily throughout the movie, like the turning of an oven knob. Watching this on the big screen, there were moments where I had to hold my breath. At home, I am the sort who pauses a movie for a brief respite. 

The reason for the intensity is because Scott Derrickson doesn’t waste any time exploring the ‘background’ or the psychology of the maniac (the whys? and the hows?) or other tangential storylines. This is a much needed effect. 

Nowadays, the central philosophy in movies is the attempt to 'rationalise' the villain. It's a social commentary based on the regnant cultural view that people aren’t born innately evil. As such, movie studios, tend to eschew anything remotely veering on “pure evil”. Instead, the villain is cast as the product of social or economic woes that have contorted them into misshapen tragic victims in their own right. I intensely dislike this pervasive motif; from Hannibal Lecter in Hannibal Rising, Emma Stone’s Cruella De Ville, to Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent. The attempt in all these cases is to ‘contextualise’ the villain. They are not born diabolically wicked or psychopathically evil – but are merely reacting to the harsh and unforgiving world around them. The villains are objects in need of our affection, kindness and understanding. The recent blockbuster endeavour – in Cruella – to redeem and ‘humanise’ a villain’s goal of murdering hundreds of adorable puppies for the mere want of a fur-coat, as anything other than deranged evil, is an illustration of this absurdity.

Returning to The Black Phone, Derrickson doesn’t explore the psychology of the kidnapper. Instead, Finney, in that basement, is the cynosure of the cinematic experience. It’s in that basement that Finney discovers the spirits of his former schoolfriends.

Also, the movie does pivot to Gwen and her own home terrors. As already mentioned, she does seem to have inherited the gift of clairvoyance from her mother. But, because of her mother’s death, her drunken father condemns this preternatural powers in the hopes of subduing it. Derrickson makes Gwen the movie’s steadfast beacon of compassion and indomitability in her determination to find, and help, her brother.

✲✲✲

Hawke’s performance adds degrees to the chill factor. Despite wearing that demented all-encompassing comedia del arte mask, which would obviously impede normal vocalisation and enunciation, he manages to add guttural layers so that he can switch from being relatively human-like, if perhaps unstable, to the unalloyed depths of psychopathic sadism.

The mask itself is a fascinating object in the movie which seems to have a psychological hold over him. Ethan’s character, at various points, removes distinct portions of the mask so that, at different points, at least some his aspect remains concealed. But, when the mask is fully removed, he appears to recoil and shriek. Why does being fully denuded exact such a psychological toll? It’s an interesting thought.

In the end, The Black Phone works superbly by focusing and amping up the stifling unease and suspense in a confined atmosphere. The ticking of the clock is interlaced with jumps and startles of the supranatural.

Film review: Top Gun: Maverick – Exciting film with impressive aerial stunts

Top Gun: Maverick is the sequel to the original 1986 film. I must admit that my recollection of that classical is somewhat fuzzy now, but I do remember the original being quite excellent with some iconic music and cinematography. This reboot illustrates the quandary of re-capturing the dynamism and eclat that marked the original whilst trying to create a new fresh storyline. In my view, the narrative and story fall quite short.

There is the problem of Tom Cruise’s Maverick. How do you introduce the babyish adolescent Maverick of former days that is still in his prime, bold and daring? According to this film, you make your character behave and act as though he hasn’t actually grown up. The film begins with some spine-tingling scenes of Maverick in a Hypersonic Jet flying at Mach-10. Credit to Kosinski: these are some terrific scenes. There is something majestic in the sublime beauty of a jet soaring through the clouds in the upper atmosphere. Just beautiful. 

Nevertheless, we see Maverick prepared to take absurd and totally ridiculous risks whilst also suffering from some psychological holdover from the previous film. What has Maverick been doing since 1986? He has still not recovered from the death of his Goose and is mired with regrets about his past. Still! Indeed, his wisecrack jokes and grins seem a bit disjointed in a man approaching his fifties. He also appears to have no real friends, no relationships, no girlfriend, no children etc... Here is a lonely man who will risk death in going above Mach-10 for no reason. He has also never been promoted to a position of seniority in the air-force and is made to feel like a relic. It’s a bit depressing. 

Moreover, for me, the film The Mummy imparted a lingering suspicion that Tom Cruise only has a limited repertoire that he brings to a character. It’s the same set of looks and delivery and so on: whether Mission Impossible or Top Gun. I’m not sure if that’s fair, but it’s my suspicion (exception might be War of the Worlds).

At any rate, Maverick is ordered to train the “elites of the elites” to carry out a nondescript operation against Tehran. As I say, the plot isn’t what drives Top Gun: Maverick. Instead, it is the background for action-packed planes in the sky, fraternal comradery, and a lot of bro-ing. The group is a fairly cliché bunch: with the token arrogant rude one, the token female, the token nerd, etc... Among their number is Rooster (Miles Teller), son of his former friend Goose. There is surprisingly very little interaction in their burgeoning relationship. For example, Rooster’s initial residual anger and resentment is somehow transformed into their hugging, embracing and high-five-ing one another. We never seem to get a sense of closure between them over past traumas and difficulties. There are brief moments of wistful reflection for Maverick; but these are promptly offset by beach scenes, muscular toned bodies, sharp hairlines, broad shoulders & chiselled jawlines etc... (but no shower scenes with men in their white towels, unfortunately.).

Nevertheless, Kosinski has created such action-packed, immersive, adrenaline-inducing cinematography that one can overlook these problems: from cameras positioned inside the cockpit, to the explosive sonic blast and pressure of flight captured in and around the F-18 (I think?). I also appreciated the audible bursts of inhalation in the cockpit reflecting large g-forces. It adds to the experience as planes are darting around the landscape (and it’s a point which most people would not have realised). 

Unfortunately, the plot is somewhat lacking which leads to a lack of finality and closure.

Review: Everything Everywhere All At Once – an exhilarating masterpiece

Have you ever laughed so hard – you started convulsing and shouting?

That is Everything Everywhere All At Once. 

I shrieked in laughter and convulsion, wept and sniffed in the deep poignancy of the denouement, and gasping in despair and shock. And I don't mean the dignified type of laughing – I mean the misshapen monstrous type of laughing!

This movie is an exhilarating rollercoaster. It plunges the viewer across the gamut of emotion - guffawing at the absurd and teary at the beautiful and profound. 

I left the movie theatre glowing and beaming with joy and convinced it was one of my favourite films of all time. This film has reminded me what movies can do – make us feel like children again.

Let me explain something. I am the worst type of viewer – sceptical, incredulous, impassive. I cannot watch a movie without quietly raising an eyebrow as I picking holes in the plot, or roll eyes at soporific dialogue, or grunt at CGI-overreliance etc... But I was spellbound and transported away by its originality, chaotic filmmaking and deeply-moving elements of the modern human condition. The film is immersive and its underlying subject really hit home. Michelle Yeoh was marvellous.

Please go and watch it on the the big screen while you still can. 

I feel bad for people who don't get to see it.