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.

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.

Nosferatu (2024)

My first cinema experience of 2025 is for one of my most anticipated films of the year. This is a remake of the 1922 copyright infringing Nosferatu which itself is based on Bram Stoker's Dracula and comes from Robert Eggers the director of The Lighthouse and The Witches along with 2022's The Northman. This isn't the only Dracula movie we are getting this year with a Chloe Zhao directed Dracula supposed to be coming this year but there currently are no details about it so there are several question marks attached to this.

GOOD POINT 01: VISUALLY BRILLIANT AND ATMOSPHERIC

You can tell this by the trailer but this film is very atmospheric and looks stunning. The film does basically exist in black and white although there are obviously other colours but when I think of this film I just think of it in black and white. Every frame gives off a gothic vibe and despite the plot, Credit has to go to Jarin Blaschke for his cinematography work which would totally undermine the tone of the film if it didn't work like it did. I would love to spend a bit of time in this world. We might not even be a full week into 2025 but I would be astonished if there were any better looking films that I see this year. 

GOOD POINT 02: GREAT PERFORMANCES FROM SKARSGARD & DAFOE

To say that Bill Skarsgård and Willem Dafoe give the best performances is at this point a given. I cant remember a time when Dafoe has given a bad performance, he might be in films that aren't as good or terrible but he's never been bad in them. As Professor von Franz, he comes into the plot relatively late but when he does appear he makes up for the time he is missed and starts to steal the show (more of that later). It’s a confident and at times cranky performance yet its mixed in with kindness and warmth. Skarsgård who plays Count Orlok gives a performance that at times rivals Pennywise. In fact there are a couple of shots where he did remind me of It. The thing about Skarsgård’s performance is that we don't really see him for 80% of the runtime as he is always shown in silhouette which works for the tone of the film and when we do see him it's quite horrific and makes the final scene. I did find the manner in which he spoke to be slightly frustrating and joked to myself that the film would have probably been 30 minutes shorter if he spoke at normal speed. It’s still a great performance and a great villain for the film.

GOOD POINT 03: NICHOLAS HOULT AND LILY ROSE-DEPP ARE GOOD SUPPORTING ROLES

Normally this would be a negative but Nicholas Hoult and Lily-Rose Depp are supposed to be the leads of the film but they are outacted by Dafoe and Skarsgård. They aren't terrible in it by any means but they weren't able to quite keep up with their co-stars. I quite like Hoult and think that he is quite underrated in most of his films. The Menu instantly comes to mind as a cowardly Tyler in 2022’s The Menu. He is very good as Thomas Hutter who is trying to be a nice person but has been pulled into this horrible work through no fault of his own. Lily-Rose Depp is ok when she is playing Ellen normally but never has any weight behind her scenes, where she saves this from going into the negative section is when she is possessed and has to contort her body in ways that dont look like they have been done with CGI. I think that this makes up for the weaker aspects of her performance.

Ralph Ineson is also worthy of an honourable mention as it is his character that drives a lot of the action in the first half of the movie. He always elevates whatever he is in and is one of those actors that never delivers a bad performance regardless of whether the film is any good or not.

GOOD POINT 04: WELL PACED AND NEVER BORING

The film is just over two hours and it was never boring. The atmosphere and visual moments keep you occupied when the action takes a breather and at no point during the course of the film was I looking at my watch waiting to see how much time was left. For something that is lacking in light hearted moments, the film managed to keep my attention and was the rare thing nowadays and that is a film that is the perfect running time. It would have been so easy to make this an extra 30 minutes or so but Robert Eggers told his story and got out as soon as he could. An argument could be made that the film needed a final scene which left the audience with an upbeat moment but I thought it ended just the right way.

BAD POINT 01: AARON TAYLOR-JOHNSON WAS THE WEAK LINK

Hollywood’s attempt to try and make Aaron Taylor-Johnson a big star continues to falter. I haven't seen Kraven the Hunter but apparently he’s not great in that and I don't think he is much better in this. There are moments where he is fine but I thought that he disappeared into the background. He was at best the fifth best person in this film which considering he’s in a decent amount of the movie is a shame.  It’s worrying that people keep trying to push him as the next Bond because I don't think he has the presence that is needed to play the role.  

He is due to appear in 28 Years Later so hopefully that will show us what he can do but in Nosferatu he doesn't quite keep up with everyone else.

OVERALL

I had a lot of expectations for this film and they were met. It’s not the best Robert Eggers film but I still think it's a damn good movie with some great performances and one that looks like care and attention has been paid to the film and it's also clear that Eggers cares about the source material and the end result is an early contender for film of the year. Not sure if that will be the case by the end of the year but wherever it ends up in my rankings, its a relief that the year has started off in such a great way.

The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim (2024)

It’s weird to think that its been 10 years since the last Hobbit film came out and apart from the Amazon TV series, there hasnt been much in the way of stuff from Middle Earth but despite us getting a Gollum movie (at some point) we now get an animated film which is set 183 years before the Lord of the Rings trilogy and sees a war between Wulf and Helm Hammerhead and Helm killed Wulf’s dad and that is the simple enough plot. It’s nice that there isnt world ending implications in the plot and that its a self contained story.

GOOD POINTS

Nice to be back in Middle Earth

The Lord of the Rings trilogy is one of the greatest trilogies in movie history and whilst the Hobbit trilogy had issues (it shouldn't have been a trilogy), it was nice to be back in middle earth and after a decade away, its good to be back in familiar places. Even though it's 183 years before we would be back here in The Two Towers, the animation manages to take us back there and despite it not being live action, I still felt like I was there.

Brian Cox is a good Helm Hammerhead

It’s nice to see Brian Cox do something where he is playing a nice guy. Having watched and enjoyed him in Succession and his instantly recognisable voice is great to hear and it fits the character perfectly. It's so easy to get casting wrong in animated films but they struck gold when they cast Cox. The character is a likeable person and Cox’s voice makes you like him and want him to be victorious.

Animation is beautiful

The animation does have a feel of a Studio Ghibli and it's stunning from start to finish. The only thing I wasn't keen on was the fire which looked like live action instead of animated. This felt like a weird choice because it didn't need to look real and looked really out of place. That’s the only real criticism with the animation because as I said it looks beautiful and the colours are nice and the grading all add to give us what we have in the film.

Wulf is a good villain 

A film can be successful or not depending on how effective the antagonist is and in the case of this film, Wulf is an effective villain. He is focused on his goal to the point where he forgo logic just to win his personal battle. It might come across as a bit weak to other but sometimes personal motives work just as well as wanting something for power and if its done well then I dont mind personal motives for moving a story along.

BAD POINTS

Bit too long

At 2 hours and 15 minutes it is about 40 minutes to long. It didn't need to be any longer than 90 minutes. Animated films work better when they have a shorter running time. Toy Story is only 81 minutes long so why this film is over two hours is a mystery to me. A shorter run time can lead to a pacier film and that is something that could work in a film's favour.

Slightly pointless

As much as I loved being back in Middle Earth, the film did feel like it was slightly pointless. It doesnt lead into anything that is coming out soon, it doesnt connect to anything beyond the Lord of the Rings films and so it doesnt feel like its a must see thing which is a shame and it is worth seeing but I dont think many people beyond Lord of the Rings fans will bother even tracking it down. 

OVERALL

I enjoyed this animated film. It had a good story which would have benefited from a shorter running time. We are suppose to be getting a Gollum movie at somepoint which will get a lot more attention than this film has received which is a shame because it is worth your time but it might be quite low in your rankings of best Middle Earth stories.

Gladiator II (2024)

Gladiator II concludes the mini-series I like to call ‘Films where the last instalment came out 20+ years ago’. Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F, Twisters, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice have all been good instalments and now Gladiator II brings up the rear and this is the one I was unsure about because I didn’t know what they could really do with it but if anyone is going to try and make something of Gladiator II then it would be Ridley Scott. The film takes place 16 years after the first film with Rome now run by Emperors Geta & Caracalla who use tyranny to stay in power with Lucius from the first film on a course to exact revenge on General Acacius but is being used by Macrinus.

GOOD POINTS

Paul Mescal

I was never a big fan of Mescal. I don’t think he’s a bad actor I just don’t think he commands the screen but this film managed to make me change my opinion. Over the course of the film he seems to grow in confidence as an actor and the character becomes more believable as someone who could lead people. His fights were all well done and his final showdown with Macrinus was 

Denzel Washington

I had heard that Washington steals the show and I can confirm that this is true. He doesn't overshadow Mescal too much but he is clearly enjoying playing a manipulative monster and the way that he doesn't raise his voice or get into a fight once apart from shooting and bow and his fight scene with Mescal in the final act. He speaks when he has too and 

Good Action Points

All the scenes in the coliseum were very good and on par if not better than in the first one. The water battle was one i was looking forward to and even 

Violence/Gore was perfectly done

I watched the first film the previous night and worried that the violence and gore would be toned down for a 2024 audience but that was proved wrong because there are several moments where the blood is seen in glorious splendour and they didn’t shy away from it.

Tapped into the previous film enough

Being a sequel it was inevitable that there would be references to the first one but I was surprised how they didn’t go overboard with it. There were instances where they reference Maximus and the opening credits was a nice nod but I think that it was folded into the new film a lot better than I was expecting. I thought it was a very good screenplay from David Scarpa who is a Ridley Scott regular. 

I thought at one point they were going to dig up the figures that got buried at the end of the first one but thankfully they didn’t as it wouldn’t have made sense to anyone who hadn’t watched the first one in recent memory.

BAD POINTS

Pedro Pascal was wasted

The film makes it seem like Pascal was going to be involved a lot more in the story than he ended up being. Essentially his character gives Lucius motivation and they add something that he is romantically involved with Lucilla. But he is behind a plan to take power from the twins but once his plan is revealed in rather simplistic fashion, he becomes almost surplus’s to requirements as far as the plot is concerned. Pascal is a great actor but he deserved better.

OVERALL

This was the best Ridley Scott film since All the Money in the World. The film did a great job in telling the story and I was engaged from start to finish. The film was 2 and a half hours and the run time was perfect. It’s not as good as the first one but as long as you go into this film not expecting that then you will enjoy things a lot more. This is by far my favourite film of the year and that isn’t what I was expecting when I sat down at the cinema.

Conclave (2024)

For the first time in a while, I was debating between two films to see at the cinema. The first option was Juror #2 because it will probably be the last Clint Eastwood directed film and then second option was this. I chose this because I thought that this might have more going for it. There aren’t many films about the election of a new pope. I think the last film I saw about the Conclave was Angels and Demons about 15 years ago. I was keen on this not just because of the premise but because it was directed by Edward Berger who won the Best Director BAFTA in 2023 for All Quiet on the Western Front. 

GOOD POINTS

Ralph Fiennes & Stanley Tucci

There aren't many famous faces in this film but Fiennes & Tucci are two of them and they do a very good job. Fiennes drives the story along and Tucci pops up every so often and plays his role perfectly. Is he manipulating things to get the top prize of is he a victim of circumstances. It's obvious to say that Tucci is great in a role because he always is but as Megalopolis has shown, even top actors can have an off day but this doesn't apply to Tucci. Fiennes' performance is quite understated but still strong and the role of Lawrence is only made to be as interesting as he is due to Fiennes' performance.

Good Supporting characters

The rest of the familiar names also help. John Lithgow's Tremblay is portrayed as the ambitious and slightly sinister of the candidates for Pope but its never quite pulled off to make me feel like he is a proper villain and instead he is almost like a red herring. The other big name is Isabella Rossellini as Sister Agnes who is the one person that Lawrence can trust even though its not a typical relationship but it helps the story and the idea that Lawrence is a good man in a difficult position.

Very Good Plot

Some might argue that its a simplistic plot or even one that has been seen in films before and that may be true but it doesn't matter as its still very good and it kept me interested throughout. I don't know too much about the process of selecting a new pope and this film manages to make what is probably a rather dull process and turn it into something mildly entertaining and when you add in a dash of conspiracy into the plot then it leads to something that most people can enjoy.

Beautiful Looking Film

Despite most of the film taking place indoors, the film manages to look stunning from the costume design by Lisy Christl to the cinematography by Stéphane Fontaine, the film feels like a lot of attention has been given to making this setting feel important and dare I say it expensive. Sometimes people would say that this film is style over substance but I would disagree, the way that the film looks helps add to the enjoyment.

Perfectly Paced

At two hours, it might seem like the film is going to drag with the plot of a new pope being selected but Edward Berger manages to make the film feel like it was the perfect running time. I don't think that they could have really lost anything without affecting the film but had the film go on for even 10 more minutes then I would have probably not included this in the good points. Very rare do films know what the right duration is for a film but Berger times it perfectly.

BAD POINTS

Revelation of Benitez Felt Pointless

Once Benitez had been become Pope, there is a scene with him and Lawrence and its revealed that Benitez has male and female genitals and its not made out to be a big deal so I wondered what the point of it was. Aside from tying up a loose end in one of the sub plots, this revelation achieves very little. This is a nitpick really but because the film worked so well that any flaw would stand out a lot more 

OVERALL

I wont know for sure until I see Juror #2 but I think I made the right choice. I was very impressed with this movie. Not knowing too much about it probably helps and if you are interested in the mechanics behind the election of a new pope interesting then you will like this film but if not then this will be tough to get through. Easily in my top three of the year.

Heretic (2024)

Heretic is an A24 film so you know that its a slightly more intelligent horror film and one that I had been looking forward to for a long time because the trailers made it look like at worst a decent horror film but at best the film had potential to be one of the best horror films of the year. The set up of the film is that Sisters Barnes and Paxton visit a house and Hugh Grant's Mr Reed answers and before we know it Mr Reed tells the Sisters to pick a door to leave but there would be consequences.  Its a pretty simple story but what makes it interesting is that this film is about belief and questioning what you see and think.

GOOD POINTS

Hugh Grant
I thought that Hugh Grant might rival James McAvoy for best horror performance of 2024. This didn't happen but it came pretty close. Grant has really entered a great phase in his career where he seems to be having the time of his life and its a far cry from the floppy hair drip of the 1990's. Here there is a menace that is slightly over the top but not to the point that it ruined the film. 

The Sisters
This film features just three characters with Hugh Grant's Mr Reed being one and the two Sisters making up the other two. Sophie Thatcher (Barnes) and Chloe East (Paxton) are great on their own but together they work very well. Paxton is willing to see the good in Reed even as things start to turn weird whereas Barnes is being a bit more sceptical whilst maintaining a polite appearance. The sceptical side would normally be an irritation in this sort of film but because this film is about faith and accepting what your told, the sceptical part worked a lot better and both Thatcher and East deserve a lot of credit with being just as good as Grant.

Isolated Setting
I'm a big fan of isolated settings because I think that it forces everyone involved to be creative and think about how the story was going to work. Apart from the opening few scenes and the occasional cut away, the film sticks to the house and its basement. It doesn't feel claustrophobic but it does feel atmospheric and credit to Scott Beck and Bryan Woods for keeping things going so that the isolated setting didn't become a hinderance.

Tense
It's very easy to think that it doesn't take much to make something tense and that's simply not true. The way that the subject matter is discussed, Hugh Grant's performance and the house and basement all help to make the film feel very tense and this doesn't really let up until the very end.

BAD POINTS

Hammers home the religious message
When Reed is explaining what he is doing to the Sisters and there is a discussion, there are a couple of instances about iterations and Monopoly and Radiohead and after a while it did feel like they were just reiterating a point and I wanted the film to get going again. This doesn't last for very long but it was noticeable that they lingered on the point too much. 

OVERALL

I had high expectations for this film and I am relieved to say that they were met. This is probably going to be the best horror film of 2024. I really like Speak No Evil but the ending slightly ruined it for me. This doesn't do that. There is an ambiguous ending which I thought worked quite well and in my opinion I think she's in the process of dying and the butterfly was the final moment of her life. The setting was great, the performances were great and the film didn't end on a disappointing note. I thought the Topher Grace character was a bit of a waste of time really but that aside this was a highly enjoyable film.