Novocaine (2025)

Novocaine is what would be called a ‘high concept idea. The film sees Jack Quaid play Nathan Caine who is the Assistant Manager at a bank when he falls for Sherry the cashier at the bank and after they go on a date, the bank is targeted by robbers and takes Sherry. The thing about Nathan is that he was born with a condition where he cant feel pain. He has to watch what he eats and goes to the toilet. When Sherry is taken by the hostages, Nathan is racing to save her but also try and avoid the police who naturally think that Nathan is working with the robbers. 

Jack Quaid is quite good as Nathan. As Nathan, he is a terrible fighter but realistically he isnt going to be very good because he works in a bank. He isn't suddenly going to be John Wick so he wins sort of by luck more than anything else and that might be a problem for some but I think that it works for the film. Amber Midthunder is also very good as Sherry. The last time I recall seeing her in was Prey the Predator sequel and she was very good in that and whilst she doesn't really have much to do she makes all her scenes seem important and you notice when she’s not around. Also making Sherry seem like someone worth saving is tougher than you would think yet because of Midthunder, you want Caine to save her. Ray Nicholson is ok as the leader of the bank robbers but only really gets to be any good in his fights with Caine. Jacob Batalon plays the sort of role that is use to playing in the Spider-Man films although he is good at doing it so why not play the comic relief that the protagonist can rely on.

There are issues with the film but they are mainly plot related. Firstly we are told quite early on that Sherry is related to one of the robbers long before Nathan finds out so the twist of him finding out is wasted because it sort of makes Nathan look like a fool even if he doesn't know it yet. The other issue is at the end when Nathan gets 6 months under house arrest and Sherry gets 2 years (??) in prison. I think that what Nathan does is way worse than what Sherry does and yet Sherry gets the tougher sentence. 

Those two issues aside, the film is a lot of fun. Quaid has a lot of charisma that gets you through the early part of the film when nothing really happens and the fight scenes are enjoyable and mixing that in with the gore helps create a fun film that sort of knows what it is but has fun doing it. There are a couple of wincing moments which did make me want to look away. The first was when Nathan has not one but two finger nails pulled out. The next is when Nathan hammers his thumb back out of place so he can get the handcuffs off him and then snap it back. That looked horrible. Then there is a bit at the end when Nathan has his ulna bone (fancy name for his arm bone) broken and his hand is sort of flapping away at the side but it does lead to the death of Nicholson’s character and it's the last of many great deaths.

Novocaine is definitely worth your time. The only thing that ruined my movie experience was two people talking constantly throughout the film. Normally people talk during the trailers and shut up once the film gets started but these two a**holes carried on talking. I would like to watch this again but without talking. I thought this film did what I was expecting and wanted it to do.

The Alto Knights (2025)

The Alto Knights is the answer to what a Martin Scorsese film would look like if it had no involvement from Scorsese. The Alto Knights sees De Niro play crime bosses Frank Costello & Vito Genovese. At the beginning of the film someone tries to kill Frank and he decides to give up the power to Vito and the rest of the film is about that and how Vito doesn't trust Frank.

One of the few plus points of the film is Robert De Niro. Quite why he is playing both roles is a mystery. It’s either money or vanity. It made sense for Tom Hardy to play the Kray twins in Legend but seeing as Vito and Frank aren't related it can only be that they offered him more money cause it worked out slightly cheaper than hiring another actor. To be fair, De Niro does a good job in playing both roles differently enough that it makes it worth the hassle it must have been to do all of this. 

The big scene comes obviously at the end when there is a big meeting and Frank has it arranged under the premise that he will hand over power to Vito in front of all the bosses and it's just a hoax so that the bosses can get arrested by the police. This felt like Scorsese would have done it and that is about as good as it gets really. 

The main problem with the film is that it lacks the flair and style that Scorsese films have which isn't always a bad thing but when that is the style you are going for it does make it an issue with the film. There are moments which are quite fun to watch but there is always something that takes me out of it and wishing I was watching Goodfellas or Casino or something like that. This is the first film for quite a while that made me wish it was longer. It could easily have been another 25-30 minutes and it would have made all the difference cause it felt like things were cut to get it under the two hours run time (even though with credits it's just over 2 hours).

I wasn't expecting a lot from this film and seeing as it didn't deliver I can't say that I was made about what I saw. It's something that might be worth seeing when it appears on streaming but it's not something that is worth making the trip to the cinema on a Monday night (or any night for that matter).

Mickey 17 (2025)

Mickey 17 is the first film from Bong Joon Ho who directed the amazing Parasite and is based on the novel Mickey 7. The story sees Mickey Barnes who joins a program that will clone him to do the grunt work and when he dies there will be another one but when he survives and the company think that he has died they create a new one and there is a rule about duplicates and the film then becomes a battle between the two Mickeys and the company.

I went into this film not thinking that this film would be as good as Parasite. Parasite is a perfect film and this at best was going to be a close second. There are things to like about this film including Robert Pattinson. Pattinson is very likeable in this film and it's hard to believe how far he has come since the Twilight days. Here he has to play two different versions of himself and make them work. The horrible version of him is likeable enough so that when he ends up dying it does feel like a sad moment. His nicer version is the one that we want to see make it to the end and get the life he deserves. There is a nice aspect of the plot that his life is a result of a bad decision when he pressed a red button that led to his mother’s death. Naomi Ackie is also very good in this as the only person that seems to care about Mickey. Last time I saw Ackie was in Blink Twice which she was good in and here she continues to show what a good actress she is. 

The film isn't perfect as they do waste Steve Yeun who pops up every so often and does contribute to the story but I would have liked to see more of him. The biggest problem with the film is Mark Ruffalo. I can remember how impressed I was with his performance in Poor Things and yet it seems like he has gone backwards with this. It’s undeniable that he is doing what I think he thinks is a Trump performance and it's just boring now when people do a parody of Trump, even if he hadn't won the election in 2024, it would have been an eye rolling performance. There was potential to make him a decent villain but either the director or Ruffalo himself thought this was ok. Even Toni Collette is a bit of a let down as she is just there to be the one that is pushing Marshall to do certain things but she is never presented as being the main villain but she gets overshadowed by Ruffalo’s performance.

Despite these few issues, the film is as good as I hoped it would be. There are things that are very Bong Joon ho and these add to the quality of the film. The effects of the creepers is very good and the fact that they are portrayed as not being terrorising monsters works very well. The film has hints of Starship Troopers and Moon which are good films to include in this film and overall the film works because of the central performances from Pattinson and Ackie. I think the way that the film is pitched might put some people off but I think that it deserves people’s time as it's a fun two hour film and shows that Bong Joon ho is a very good director.

Captain America: Brave New World (2025)

When it was announced that Marvel were effectively hitting the reset button with the Fantastic Four it meant that two films were already pointless. The other film is Thunderbolts but Captain America 4 is the big casualty. Coming six years after Steve Rogers handed over the shield and four years after Winter Soldier and the Falcon TV show which I admit that I haven't seen, this film shows Sam Wilson walk from one scene to another saying things while grumpy pensioner Harrison Ford who is now President (playing the role previously held by William Hurt) from going Red.

GOOD POINT 01 - ESPOSITO & FORD SAVE THE FILM

There are very few standout performances in this film but the only ones that stayed in the memory are Giancarlo Esposito and Harrison Ford. Esposito is wasted in this film but he still gives it his all and if I were involved in production I would have told Esposito to do the role he did in Breaking Bad because that would have made him much more valuable to the plot. Ford might be getting grumpier by the day (something thats probably been happening since 1982) but it was good seeing Ford get that sweet sweet Marvel paycheck.

GOOD POINT 02 - NICE CONNECTION TO ETERNALS

Nice is probably stretching it but I thought it was unexpected that they referenced Eternals which came out 4 years ago and to the best of my knowledge has not been referenced since. So it is a bit random that they did this now but at least it was on screen for more than a split second and was the backdrop behind one of the best scenes in the entire movie.

GOOD POINT 03 - NEVER BORED

Whilst it's not the greatest film ever made, I was never bored at any point during the film. It was just under two hours long and the film never felt like there was any padding. Admittedly it wasn't very good but it still managed to maintain my attention for the entirety of the movie.

BAD POINT 01 - ACTION SCENES HAVE NO ENERGY - I DIDNT CARE

It didnt take very long for me to come to the conclusion that the action sequences were going to be disappointing. The very first one in fact helped me draw to this conclusion. The ultimate problem is that while things are happening, nothing is really happening and there doesn't seem to be any energy to what we are seeing. Action sequences should be entertaining and at best the strongest one in this film were passable. 

BAD POINT 02 - SAM WILSON IS CAPTAIN BLAND

It’s alluded to in the trailer but missing from the end film but there is a line about Sam Wilson not being Steve Rogers and this normally wouldn't be a thing but Wilson is very dull and whilst Rogers was never the most charismatic person in the world, he did have a charm and this is missing from Wilson. Whether this is Anthony Mackie’s fault or the writing, I never felt like he could be a leader and would have made a substandard deputy. Wilson seems so wrapped up in clearing some old person’s name that he never shows us why he would make a good avenger.

BAD POINT 03 - VILLAINS MOTIVATION IS RUBBISH

So Giancarlo Esposito’s Sidewinder would have made a good villain but he’s the secondary villain for some. The film decided that Samuel Sterns is the villain to show people the reason President because he’s a bit grumpy. Not only is Sterns a terrible villain but his motivation is mediocre at best. I just didn't care. I think I miss the days when the villain would want global domination instead of getting a tiny bit of revenge. Marvel has always had this problem and it shows no sign of being sorted out.

OVERALL

My expectations were low for this film and they were met. The film isn't terrible but it felt like a film that cost a lot of money but never felt like it had been spent on any important areas. The performances are ok at best and pointless at once and the directing is fine but never felt like it has any vision behind it or anything that would ever make me want to watch this again and I think even the Marvel shills will not be rushing to recommend this anytime soon. Hopefully this is the last time that Sam Wilson leads a film because I dont think Disney/Marvel can afford many more films like this especially the way their films have been received at the box office since Endgame.

The Monkey (2025)

The Monkey was another of the Mystery Screenings that my local cinema has been putting on and this is one of the films I was looking forward to in 2025 and after enjoying Longlegs I wanted to see what Osgood Perkins was going to do. Sadly the signs were not great when I saw that Atomic Monster were involved and James Wan is involved so it's not going to be clever or atmospheric but instead it's going to appeal to the lowest common denominator whilst thinking it was being clever.

GOOD POINT 01 - THE KILLS WERE VERY GOOD

Considering this is a horror film, the kills are as good as they should be. Like Heart Eyes, the inventive kills happen very early on with the owner of a shop being the first victim after he is harpooned and then the harpoon is pulled out along with the owner's internal organ. Unlike Heart Eyes, the kills keep coming including the woman who explodes after diving into an electrified swimming pool or a guy who shoots a hornets nest through the car window and the hornets fly through the bullet hole and into the guy's mouth. The kills are very big highlight of this film

GOOD POINT 02 - THE MONKEY’S MOTIVE SEEM UNPREDICTABLE

Some people might see this as a problem but I think that it works in the films favour. Being unpredictable means that as a viewer, we can't really guess with any certainty what the Monkey would do. The film does a very good job of highlighting this when Lois dies after Hal asks the monkey to kill his brother Bill.  

GOOD POINT 03 - THEO JAMES AND TATIANA MASLANY ARE THE HIGHLIGHTS

Theo James is good as both Hal & Bill and enough was done to make them seem different and even when they eventually have a face to face towards the end of the film they look different and the versions are also different. Tatiana Maslany takes what is really a basic role and makes it much more. She brings some warmth to the family of the younger Hal & Bill and it's a shame when she gets killed off. 

BAD POINT 01 - THE MONKEY CAN TELEPORT

Ok I am willing to admit that I haven't read the story that this film is based on but I hope that it is explained why the monkey can teleport. Unless something was mentioned that I missed, there is no explanation given why the monkey can move. This is shown at the beginning when young Hal & Bill go to the restaurant and the monkey goes from being on the back seat to the front seat and you could argue that this was moved in a deleted scene but when it's thrown down the well and then disappears its just accepted that it can teleport instead of coming up with some reason like somebody came along through a tunnel and took it home. That would have worked better than a teleported monkey

BAD POINT 02 - THE BROTHER REUNITE AT THE END

This might seem harsh since Bill ends up with a squished head but the way that the reunion is done poorly. So they spend all the time leading up to the end with Bill blaming Hal for their mothers death and the following dialogue is said

Bill: You killed my mother.

Hal: She was my mother too.

Bill: Oh yeah, i never thought of it like that.

A moment later they shake hands. If you're going to have them reunite then do a better job that doesn't come across as lazy.

BAD POINT 03 - WASTING ELIJAH WOOD

I was quite excited when I saw that Elijah Wood was in this film. Sadly it's more of a cameo. He comes in early on as the new husband to Hal’s estranged wife and wanted to take sole custody of Hal’s son Petey and I thought that it would have led to more scenes with the former hobbit but sadly that's it. One scene that probably only lasts for 4-5 minutes and I think if you're going to feature Wood then it should have been in a better role or give him some more screentime.

OVERALL

This was a major disappointment. I thought that whilst the deaths were creative and the central performances were very good, the whole film felt like a major step down for Osgood Perkins. I think if you haven't seen any of Perkins’ other films then this film might not be the disappointment that I thought it was but after Longlegs, this film seemed like there was a creative battle between Perkins and James Wan. Perkins knows how to make creative horror and Wan has no interest in being creative. It feels like the kills were Perkins and everything around them was Wan. Not worth going to the cinema for but maybe when it appears on streaming around Halloween then……maybe.

Heart Eyes (2025)

 Heart Eyes was another mystery screening which I had pretty much worked out and this is another film where I probably wouldn't have gone to see it normally. This is a horror film which sees some co-workers stalked by a serial killer who thinks they are a couple. That is pretty much the plot.

GOOD POINT 01 - VERY GOOD OPENING

The film wastes no time in setting its stall out with the Heart Eyes killer attacking a pretentious social media couple who are staging a marriage proposal in a vineyard and get killed (along with the cameraman filming it all). It's relatively short but it does end with the woman being squashed to death in some wine making contraption. Its gory and not what I was expecting. It is probably the most gory death in the film but its 

GOOD POINT 02 - GOOD CHEMISTRY BETWEEN ALLY & JAY

One of the key things you need in a romantic film (even a horror) and that is chemistry from the main couple and we get that in this film. Olivia Holt and Mason Gooding work well together and there is a nice evolution between the two as they go from two co-workers who don't get on to two co-workers who fall for each other and ride off into the sunset. Holt plays Ally as someone who isn't the most confident person and doesn't like that someone comes in and does her job better and Gooding plays the smooth talking person that Ally isn't supposed to like but finds it hard not to. Thye play the roles well.

GOOD POINT 03 - COMEDY WAS PITCHED JUST RIGHT

There were comedic moments sprinkled out throughout the film and it wasn't over the top but pitched just right there was one moment where Devon Sawa’s Detective Hobbs, looks angrily at Jay in an interview room, is escorted out of the room by Jordana Brewster’s Detective Shaw and the door is closed but it has a glass window in the door and it placing is perfect as his funny face is still looking at Jay. That may not make the joke sound funny but trust me it is and there are plenty of funny moments which work to create the right mood for the film. 

GOOD POINT 04 - GOOD KILLS

One thing you want in a slasher horror is that the kills need to be good and that is one thing the film does very well. The first kills happen within the first 5 minutes of the film and sees the self indulgent girlfriend meet her end in some sort of wine making machine which squashes the grapes and berries and its literally an eye popping scene. The rest of the kills might not be quite as graphic or original but they are what you would expect and they are effective.

BAD POINT 01 - DIALOGUE MUST HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY AI

Whilst the chemistry of the two leads and the deaths make this film enjoyable, the script is terrible and sometimes its ear scrapingly bad. It's bad to the point that I wondered at one point if the screenplay had been written by AI. I know expecting the script in a horror film to be anything above average was asking a lot and was probably not going to happen, it still would have been nice to have something approaching decent. 

BAD POINT 02 - KILLER REVELATION WAS A BIT RUBBISH

The question of who the killer was is another thing that slasher films are known for and sometimes they work but other times they dont and unfortunately in the case of Heart Eyes its the latter. It’s revealed that Detective Shaw and her boyfriend/lover are the ones responsible and it felt a bit of a disappointment. It would have made more sense for it to be Ally’s ex-boyfriend or someone else. Instead we get a cop and the IT guy we encounter in one scene halfway through. Not the best revelations.

OVERALL

I didn't have too many expectations for this film but despite that I enjoyed this film. I thought it did what it was supposed to rather well and its a fun 97 minute horror film. Will it be one that I will want to watch again. Maybe if I see it on TV but I don't know. The central performances and the kills are worth your time and it would work as a nice double feature with one of the recent Scream films.

September 5 (2024)

I was aware of the terrible events that happened on September 5 1972 although I can’t say that I am an expert in it. This tells the story of that tragedy from the point of view of an American sports crew. The action takes place largely in the studio where they are directing the action and over the course of 95 minutes we see what happened mainly from the perspective of the crew but we still learn what is going on from seeing other interviews.

GOOD POINT 01 - LACK OF STAR POWER BUT STILL STRONG PERFORMANCES

There aren't any familiar names although I have probably seen the actors in things before and yet the lack of starpower doesn't hurt the film. In fact I would say it does the opposite, it means that you aren't spending your time thinking that a particular person looks like somebody they haven't seen for a while or why a particular actor has been cast in this role. The closest I came to recognising someone was Leonie Benesch who starred in The Teachers’ Lounge which I enjoyed very much last year. Everyone else was someone I had never seen before or didn't recognise and I think when you have something that is supposed to be as realistic as possible then lack of starpower is good.

GOOD POINT 02 - DOES NOT RECREATE SCENES INSIDE THE HOTEL

The temptation must have been there at sometime during production where they wanted to move action to inside the compound and thankfully they resisted. Everything that the characters learn comes the same way we learn about them and so there is no misinterpretation and another reason why I liked the fact there was no cutting to other locations is that it increases the tension and the claustrophobia and it is gradually increased as the film progresses and you don't realise it until quite late in the film.

GOOD POINT 03 -NICE MIX OF RECREATED FOOTAGE AND NEW FOOTAGE

The way that we see what is going on outside the gallery area is by seeing what is on the screens and there is a mixture of original footage and newly recorded. It was genuinely difficult to see what was newly recreated for the film and what wasn't. The attention to detail has helped make the footage a huge part of why the film has worked the way that it does. I cant imagine that this film had a big budget but they spent it where it mattered and the whole of the exterior footage was brilliantly put together and mixed in with the story.

GOOD POINT 04 - PERFECT RUNNING TIME

It’s a rare thing to be able to say that a film has the perfect running time but the film works perfectly well at 95 minutes. There is little fat and no time is wasted in getting things up and running. Once the situation is over the film takes the appropriate amount of time in winding down before the credits roll. The film was an hour and a half long but it felt a lot longer and that is a compliment because time flew by because my attention was completely on what was happening and that is such a rare and refreshing thing to experience in a modern film.

OVERALL

There are no negatives that I could take away from the film. Nothing even coming close to nitpicking when it comes to bad points and that shows how good the film is. It is currently my favourite film of the year and even though we are only in February it is hard to see a film beating this. The film is cast perfectly, had a great script and is directed really well and its hard to make something that is quite restrictive work as well as it does. Its nice to see that in 2025 there are still films that see they don't need to rely on theatrics to tell a great story and it feels like it does the real situation and casualties justice and deals with them in a respectful manner.

Saturday Night (2024)

Saturday Night tells the story of the iconic comedy show Saturday Night Live which celebrates its 50th Birthday this year. The story follows the 90 minutes before the show went on the air. This is directed by Ghostbusters: Afterlife director Jason Reitman who co-wrote the screenplay with Gil Kenan. I don't know much about Saturday Night Live and haven't really seen anything of the shows so this was a great opportunity to show what made it so special.

GOOD POINT 01 - VERY GOOD IMPRESSIONS

This might seem like a back handed compliment but I thought that the truth is that the impressions of Chevy Chase, Dan Aykroyd, John Belushi, Andy Kaufman and Jim Henson were perfect and it was easy to see who they are supposed to be and that due to the performances. Nicholas Braun deserves special praise because he plays both Andy Kaufman and Jim Henson and gives two very different performances and it's only because he has some recognisable eyes that its clear he is playing both people.

GOOD POINT 02 - GOOD SETUP

The idea of following the events of the show going to air might not sound like the most exciting idea in the world but credit to Reitman and Kenan, they manage to keep it relatively straight forward and don't try to add things to make it seem like more happened than actually did. The entire film takes place in one location and even though there are the occasional moments outside, its good that the plot is contained to this one place.

GOOD POINT 03 - DAFOE AND SIMMONS STEAL THE SHOW

Willeem Dafoe is always dependable and this is the second film I have seen with him at the cinema in 2025 and he has been one of if not the best thing in each film (Nosferatu being the other). In this he plays David Tebet who is basically the network executive who gets to decide whether Saturday Night Live goes on the air or whether they show a rerun of Johnny Carson. He pops up every so often, gives a great performance and then leaves for 10-15 minutes and this is perhaps one of the more restrained performances I have seen of his recently and yet its still a great one. JK Simmons also gives a great performance as Milton Berle who is someone I have heard of but don't know too much about and in this he comes across as a horrible person but Simmons is capable of playing a horrible person and still being likeable.

GOOD POINT 04 - GABRIEL LABELLE IS GOOD AS THE STAR OF THE FILM

Playing Lorne Michaels, the film basically follows LaBelle from one scene to another as he tries to get this show on the air despite all the chaos that seems to be following him. LaBelle was really good in The Fablemans and manages to make Lorne Michaels seem like a nice guy. I don't know how close this is to the real Lorne Michaels but the film version works because as the film progresses and problems seem to be mounting up, we want to see things work out because he comes across like a nice guy and when the show does air you are happy for him.

BAD POINT 01 - WHAT TYPE OF FILM IS IT???

The main issue with this film is that it doesn't know what it wants to be. Does it want to be a comedy or does it want to be a drama? The whole thing takes place 90 minutes or so before the show starts and yet there never seems to be any urgency or tension and the comedy never really gets to shine. There are a couple of moments which are funny but if the entire film had a comedic vibe to it then it would have worked much better. If it was a straight drama then they could have worked on the pacing and thing would also have worked better.

OVERALL

This was a good film but it wasn't a great film. The central performances work very well and cover up some of the cracks such as tone and the fact that Lamorne Morris’ Garrett Morris seems to be in the film so he can ask why he’s there. The film is worth your time but I get the feeling that there is a better story about the start of the show. This isn't it though and probably worth your time when it's on streaming.

Companion (2025)

Like Presence, Companion was part of a Mystery screening at my local cinema and since Presence turned out to be a good film I thought that this film would be just as good but unlike the previous film I guessed this correctly. Companion is about Iris (played by Sophie Thatcher) who meets Josh (Jack Quaid) at the supermarket and then the story moves along in time with Irish and Josh arriving a house in the middle of nowhere that is owned by a russian who tries something with Iris who then kills him and the film’s twist is that Iris is a robot. Sadly Companion was sort of spoiled in the trailer so I knew that the twist but the film looks past that and becomes a cat and mouse chase with Josh trying to get Iris shut down and her attempts to prevent that.

GOOD POINT 01 - GOOD CENTRAL PERFORMANCE FROM SOPHIE THATCHER

The film has a great central performance from Sophie Thatcher. I thought that she was really good in Heretic and despite playing a robot, she makes Iris a likeable and real person. The film sort of has its cake and eats in when they make Iris really smart and then really dumb when the plot needs her to be. Thatcher manages to play different versions of the same character and do it very well. She is showing that Heretic wasn't a one off.

GOOD POINT 02 - JACK QUAID IS A VERY GOOD BADDIE

Jack Quaid gives one of his best performances as Josh. He comes across as likeable at the beginning but when the main plot kicks in, he becomes such a horrible antagonist and does a great job in making you hate him. He doesn't seem to have any qualms about getting Patrick to basically become a younger Terminator to hunt down Iris. Quaid should play more bad guys as she seems to do quite well with what he is given.

GOOD POINT 03 - SUPPORTING CHARACTERS GOOD BUT NOT TOO ANNOYING

The film does have a limited supporting cast but whilst they are young characters they aren't too annoying. Lukas Gage (Patrick) turned out to be another robot but the same sex relationship with Eli (Harvey Guillén) was well performed and Kat (Megan Suri) was fun to watch as someone who didn't like Iris and when it turns out that she is in cahoots with Josh made her character seem more interesting that it probably had any right to be. Rupert Friend is chewing the scenery and seems to be having fun doing it. He’s not in it very much but what we do see of him made him one of the highlights

GOOD POINT 04 - DOESNT BECOME AS SILLY AS IT COULD

Somehow the film doesn't become too silly. It does start to head that way when Josh is eating dinner prepared by Patrick whilst he basically tortures Iris and Patrick attacking the engineers because they reveal that the company will be able to see what Josh has been up to. Despite all this the film somehow manages to keep it together that's perhaps the most impressive thing about the entire film.

BAD POINT 01 -  JACK QUAID’S PLOT IS WAY TOO CONVOLUTED

As much as I think that Jack Quaid is great and the character is so unlikeable, the plot to get Iris to kill Sergey to take all his money does seem a little bit convoluted and there does seem to be a simpler plan to get the money. It might not have made for a better film but this is the closest that I could find to a bad point

OVERALL

I was genuinely surprised with how much I enjoyed this film. The trailer may have spoiled the twist but I still enjoyed the film enough that it might be one of my unexpected favourites of the year. The film has a good plot and good characters that make use of a restricted setting and the film zips along at 97 minutes and there isn't an ounce of fat that could have been cut. A rare thing in a modern day film.

Labyrinth (1986)

Labyrinth is one of my favourite movies. I know it is a bit cheesy but I would be lying if I said that there wasn't a bit (quite a lot of nostalgia) attached with this film. The thing is that the film came out when I was just three years old and like Shaun of the Dead I have never seen it at the cinema and when it was re-released at the cinema I thought this was a fantastic opportunity to watch it again. It was a bit of a shame that I was the only person in the screening but it meant that I could enjoy the film and not worry about anyone else. The film sees Sarah (played by Jennifer Connolly) who after getting the hump about looking after her baby brother, wishes for him to be taken away and when he is by the Jareth the Goblin King (David Bowie), she has to get the castle within 12 hours otherwise the baby will belong to Jareth forever. 

The songs are really good. Yes they are cheesy and they are very 1980’s but they are still likely to get you moving along to the beat (beauty of being the only one in the screening). It’s clear that is why they cast David Bowie who sings the songs with ease. Sadly his acting isn't the best but thankfully he has to share his scenes with the puppets who are still great to look at. Jennifer Connolly is very good in this in what is probably one of her first roles. The only thing that bugs me and always has is that she comes across really bratty for no real reason. I get that she is supposed to be younger than Connolly probably was but they could have reigned in the brattyness. 

The film was amazing to see on the big screen. I think that its a very good film and would still work with a modern audience who doesn't have quite the connection that I do with this film. The human performances are worth watching but the puppets do a lot of the heavy lifting in terms of performances and the fact that nearly 40 years later they don't seem out of place is a credit to Jim Henson and the magic that his company was able to create not just in this film but throughout many films. The film is just around 102 minutes and it flies by. The magical world is great to look at because it's all on screen, the sets help create a world that I wouldn't mind going to. The main issue with modern day films is that the CGI does make most of the sets feel lifeless but this 1986 means that the actors are seeing what and how they are talking to and this is a key reason why it's still watchable nearly 40 years later.   

Presence (2024)

 Presence isn't the sort of film I would have gone to the cinema but my local cinema did a ‘Mystery Screening’. It stated nothing but it was a horror film, coming out soon and the curious clue ‘Can you see our POINT OF VIEW?’ and that was actually a good clue as the film is a mix of 1917, Paranormal Activity and Poltergeist. The plot is that a family moves into a house which seemingly has a ghost. We see moments of their lives as they start to settle in and we discover that the ghost is a friend of one of the kids and things go from there. 

GOOD POINT 01 - ISOLATED SETTING

The entire film takes place inside a house. Ok it's quite a big house but the isolated setting is something that I liked. This will always be a good point in movies because it means we are not jumping to other areas of the country or even world and the plot and our attention is focused on one place. I would love to see behind the scenes footage of how they pulled this off because it was rather well done and I liked how the film showed restraint by not cutting away to somewhere else. The closest the film gets is the final shot when the camera pulls outside of the house and flies into the sky.

GOOD POINT 02 - POINT OF VIEW SHOT IS INTERESTING IDEAL

Using a POV isn't new but when it's used it has to be done well and the film does use this well. The way that we feel like we are listening to private conversations and then pull away almost like something more interesting is happening is something that shows a different energy to this type of horror film. When the camera is hiding in the closest it does a good job of showing how the ghost is feeling and when it tries to get someone's attention we are made to feel like its urgent and internally you want to shout to try and wake them up. 

GOOD POINT 03 - RYAN IS A FLIMSY VILLAIN BUT EFFECTIVE

The film has to have a villain and in this film is Ryan who is introduced as a jock friend of Tyler’s who falls for Chloe and as they become an item comes across as supportive and patient but there is always something about him that comes across as a villain and it happens when he tries to drug Chloe but is thwarted by the ghost before he tries again and drugs not only Chloe but Tyler and again is thwarted by the ghost who manages to wake Tyler up. There isn't much to the character apart from him clearly being a scumbag but at least the film attempts to give him reason for us to care about him getting his comeuppance.  I do think they missed a trick by killing him off and would have liked him to have had his day in court but that's more of a nitpick and not worthy of being a bad point. 

BAD POINT 01 - ACTING IS NOT GREAT

Despite Lucy Liu’s best efforts, the acting isn't the best throughout the film. The character of Tyler played by Eddy Maday wasn't particularly strong and in one of his first scenes where he gets to deliver some dialogue he is dropping the f-bomb in every sentence. I know that isn't Maday’s fault and I am sure that he will do better in future films but here and now it's not a great performance. The dad (Chris) is next to useless as he admits that he lets the Lucy Liu character pretty much do whatever she wants and the only time he does anything is when he brings the woman who can feel the soul. The acting could have been better but then probably would have taken our attention from what's going on but at least Lucy Liu is working. 

OVERALL

This was a complete mystery screening which was very populated for a Monday evening in mid-January which was a good sign. I wasn't disappointed with the choice although I don't think I would have gone to see it had I had the choice but I thought it was pretty decent. It’s not on par with some of Soderbergh’s best work but I thought for a 90 minute film it did what it was supposed to and got out of there (literally). Not worth going to the cinema for but definitely worth seeing it when it appears on streaming.

A Complete Unknown (2024)

 I can't say that I am the most knowledgeable Bob Dylan person in the world. I know of him and know a couple of songs but that was about it. A key reason for me wanting to see this film was that it was getting good reviews and has done well with BAFTA nominations so I wanted to give this the cinema going experience. This film follows Bob Dylan during the first half of the 1960’s as he gets started in his career and becomes the hitmaker we know he would become.  Timothée Chalamet plays Bob Dylan, Edward Norton plays Pete Seeger, Ellie Fanning plays Sylvie Russo & Monica Barbaro plays Joan Baez with James Mangold trying to prove that the disaster that was Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny was a blip.

GOOD POINT 01 - CHALAMET WAS VERY GOOD AS BOB DYLAN

This film was really going to succeed or fail based on who they cast as Dylan and they cast the right person for the role. There is something that seems quite strange about Chalamet that means he pulls off roles like Bob Dylan and Paul Atreides with the same aura no matter how different the characters would be. He doesn't just look like Dylan but he seems to be talking and behaving like Dylan and this helps to create a believable version of the man himself. I also liked the fact that he actually sings all the songs himself instead of just miming, if you watch the end credits then when it says all the songs that were used it says Chalamet song most of the songs if not all of them.

GOOD POINT 02 - NORTON AND BARBARO ARE VERY GOOD SUPPORTING ACTS

To be fair there are quite a lot of good supporting characters but Norton and Barbaro stand out. It’s nice to see Norton in something (can't remember the last time I saw him) and he has earned a Supporting Actor nomination and its not hard to see why because the character who is a sort of father figure to Dylan but where Dylan’s music starts to get some people’s back up then Seeger changes his tune (pardon the pun) and there is a little bit of conflict. Then there is Barbaro who play Joan as a strong yet vulnerable person and its not hard to see why there was chemistry between Dylan and Baez.

GOOD POINT 03 - SONGS WERE VERY GOOD

If you are a fan of Bob Dylan then this will probably be an obvious good point but for someone like me who isn't then the songs are a big part of why I enjoyed it. There are portions where the song fills 5-10 minutes at a time and yet it doesn't ruin the flow of the film. The only downside with focusing on such a short period of time is that we only get a small percentage of his back catalogue. The film made the songs seem as good as I think that most people would say they are and it does make me want to get into Bob Dylan’s music.

GOOD POINT 04 - SCREENPLAY WAS VERY SHARP

The plot is going to come up as a bad point but the screenplay is very good as it allows Chalamet to have some good speeches with pretty much everybody and I think that the film does what it needs to. I think that there isn't a massive amount of plot but that isn't really much of a problem in this film because the songs do the heavy lifting and between the songs, you are won over by Chalamet’s performance.

GOOD POINT 05 - GREAT RUNNING TIME

At two hours and twenty minutes, I was worried that the film was going to outstay its welcome and the film was working to the point where I never felt like it was plodding or that the story was using padding to get to a longer running time. The performances probably do take a large chunk of the running time but the mix of performances and dialogue mean that the film has a perfect running time. Joker 2 should have watched this to see how to mix songs and story. 

BAD POINT 01 - FELT A LITTLE BIT UNDERWHELMED

As much as I love the good things about this movie, I felt a little disappointed with the film. I honestly cant put my finger on what it was but I liked this film rather than loved it and feel that I didn't quite get the proper feel of what Bob Dylan was like. A friend says that he is a bit of an enigma and so it was perhaps going to be difficult to present a full version of Bob Dylan in this film. Whilst I have praised the screenplay I do think that a little bit more effort could have been made to flesh the character out.

OVERALL

My overall feeling of this film is that there is plenty to like about this film and I understand why it's doing well at the awards but I feel like there was a slightly better film somewhere. This is a big step up for the director and I do recommend people going to see this film if only to see what Chalamet is like as Bob Dylan. It is towards the top of the pile of biopics based on music stars but I would honestly be lying if I said that I loved this film and I wanted to love this film as I went into the screening. As for the rest of the film, the songs are great, the pacing is great and it has a visual sheen that I think is hard to pull off and yet the film manages it. 

A Real Pain (2024)

A Real Pain was the second film I saw at the cinema in 2025 and one that I felt was one that might belong going straight to streaming instead of getting a cinematic release. The story tells of two cousins who decide to visit Poland to honor their recently deceased grandmother. David (Jesse Eisenberg) is an introvert and has his life together with a good job and a family and then there is Benji (Kieran Culkin) who is the life and soul of the party and doesnt quite have his life together.  The film 

GOOD POINT 01 - THE EISENBERG/CULKIN DOUBLE ACT

The film is pretty much sold on these two and it's not hard to see that this was a smart move. Eisenberg and Culkin are basically playing exaggerated versions of themselves although Culkin is playing the same character he did in Succession but that's not a bad thing instead it was nice to see cause Roman Roy was a funny character. Eisenberg is the writer and director so he sort of takes a step back to allow Culkin to become the lead and he has some great moments but they work very well together by being two different types of people and as a result we get some not scenes about wanting to be like the other person. 

GOOD POINT 02 - THE CONCENTRATION CAMP SECTION WAS ??

I honestly didn't know how to finish that line. Given that the film was about the cousins visiting places connected to their grandmother and they visit interesting areas but the most interesting was Majdanek and very little is really said during this portion which goes on for a few minutes and it's a sombre experience and it's one of those examples where silence says more than words ever could but what really seals it as one of the most powerful moments in the film is when they are on the bus and the camera slowly moves along to show Benji crying and David is just sitting next to him. 

GOOD POINT 03 - NEVER BORING/WELL PACED

The film is 90 minutes long and it never stops as it can't really afford to but despite the inevitable fallout from making this film so short (see the bad points), the film was well constructed and so never feels like there is padding and every scene is important to the story. Things that on paper that look like they should be cut are played well by everyone and the film has humorous moments when it needs to have humorous moments and sad moments when it needs to have sad moments. When you have interesting characters then it makes films enjoyable to watch and that leads me to….

GOOD POINT 04 - SUPPORTING CAST ALL FEEL LIKE REAL PEOPLE

A large portion of the film sees David and Benji take part in a  tour along with other people who are there for similar reasons. We get a bit of information about each character to make them seem like real people and interesting ones that we can follow. I thought the most interesting of the supporting cast was James (played by Will Sharpe) who is trying his best but suffers from one of Benji’s well meaning but slightly mean rants at the cemetery. Jennifer Gray was arguably the most well known of the supporting cast and her character was interesting because of the marital grief she had suffered and I thought the film showed restraint by not having her fall in love with either David or Benji.

BAD POINT 01 - BENJI’S STORY FELT HALF BAKED

The bad points are linked to each other. My biggest issue with this film is that the details of what was going on in the characters' lives were too vague. We know Benji tried to kill himself six months earlier but we don’t know why or ultimately why he doesn’t want to go back home. Yes it could be implied that he doesn’t want to leave the airport because he doesn’t want to return to real life but there is nothing mentioned. I don’t want everything spelt out to me but a little bit more would have helped a lot.

BAD POINT 02 - COULD HAVE DONE WITH ANOTHER 30 MINUTES

If the film had been half an hour or so longer then it would have allowed things to be expanded and given more screen time because things did feel rushed. We could have had more Benji backstory as a result and I genuinely believe that this would have made this film a much better film. Not sure why they made the decision to make this film so short but if it was for artistic reason rather than financial then I feel like it was the wrong choice as it felt like we were being short changed a little bit.

OVERALL

It’s not a bad film by any means because the good things did make up for the bad things but it came perilously close to being a frustrating film and I haven't felt like that since I saw Challengers. The performances are really good and the story itself was equally as good but I think the short run time meant that we lost out on a lot of rather interesting things. I do think that you should go and see this film. Not just because it's a good movie or because it's been BAFTA nominated and will probably get some Oscar nominations but because it's an original idea and when they are in such short supply we need to make sure we are seeing them and supporting them especially when they are as good as this one. Frustrating but very good.