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. 

Venom: The Last Dance (2024)

I am fairly new to the Venom series having ignored the first one in 2018 and never getting round to watching the sequel. Here we have the final part of a trilogy which only time will tell whether it will be the final part. The film sees Eddie and Venom on the run from multiple people whilst Area 51 is being shut down. They are on the run because apparently Eddie/Venom have a key that someone is after and thats pretty much it but its clear throughout that they are trying to make this the final film.

GOOD POINTS

Tom Hardy

It’s hard to dislike Tom Hardy as an actor. He is always able to deliver a solid performance even if the film isn’t the strongest (Bikeriders jumps to mind) but he manages to make Eddie seem like a likeable person and Tom Hardy can do comedy quite well which is surprising considering some of the roles he has played over the years. Tom Hardy has carried this series of films which is another surprising thing and its hard to imagine someone else pulling these off quite as well as Hardy did.

The Moon Family

On the face of it, a family where the dad wants to go on a road trip to Area 51. I didn’t even realise it was Rhys Ifans who played Martin. I knew he looked familiar but it wasn't until the credits started that I made this discovery. The family work so well because even though the daughter is clearly sceptical and the son is almost blindly believing in his dads beliefs, they still feel like a lovely family and almost made me wish we followed the Martin family. It doesnt mean Sony that I want a Martin spin-off movie. 

The ‘weird’ bromance

To say that there is a bromance between Eddie and Venom is one of the weirdest points I have made in a review. They do a lot of bickering like they have done for most of this trilogy but when it was time to say goodbye, there was some sadness as if they didn’t want to say goodbye especially until they had seen the Statue of Liberty which became a weird sub-plot in this movie. Tom Hardy is creating a bromance which a CGI creation that is voiced by himself and it works very well as it has done throughout the three films.

Well Directed

This is Kelly Marcel’s debut feature as a director although she is familiar with the series having written the first two as well as this instalment and she handles in pretty well. The pacing is what it needs to be in the first half (a little slow) but then picks up when it has to (when they get to Area 51). There are a lot of effect scenes and they are entertaining and more importantly I could tell what was happening as there was very little shakey cam and thus hard to see what I was suppose to be paying attention to. Hopefully this is the start of a long career behind the camera because if she can handle this type of film then she can handle pretty much whatever she wants.

BAD POINTS

Tonally all over the place

Tonally the film is a bit of a mess. The film seems to want to be a comedy, then it wants to be dark but then it wants to have emotional moments and sometimes it his doesn't work. Things seem to be thrown in for the sake of it such as Mrs. Chen who pops up in Vegas for some reason and doesn't add anything to the story.

The General and Dr Teddy (also Stephen Graham)

I take no pleasure in saying that Chiwetel Ejiofor is not great in this film. It’s been a rocky year for actors not being their best (Megalopolis) and whilst this isn’t a terrible performance from him, it’s just an average performance from him. It’s a general that can be a bit unlikeable which we have seen a hundred times. I also thought that Stephen Graham's character could have been given a lot more to do because he was wasted in this film. I also thought the Juno Temple's character wasnt the greatest because the whole thing about her living her brother's dream by working for NASA is not very well fleshed out so just feels like a second thought.

OVERALL

The Venom trilogy wont go down as the best in movie history but for what they are they are quite a bit of fun. I would maintain that the second one is the best one and this would be a close runner up. Tom Hardy is the best part of each film and gets the send off he deserves in this film which has a lot off good stuff going on.  The action scenes are well done and the time flies by which isnt something that has been the case for a lot of Marvel films over the last couple of years (yes I know its a Sony film).

Smile 2 (2024)

Smile became a surprise success when it came out in 2022. When I first watched it I really didn’t think it was that good but in preparation for this film, I decided to rewatch the first film and was surprised how much more I liked it. So I went into this film feeling a lot more optimistic about this film. The film follows Skye Riley (Naomi Scott) who starts seeing people with smiles on their faces just as she is about to launch her tour a year after nearly dying in a car accident. 

GOOD POINTS

VERY GOOD OPENING SCENE

There is no real reason to watch the first film except for the first few minutes of the film. It takes place six days after the first film and we follow Joel (Kyle Gallner) as he forces his way into some drug dealers house and attempts to kill one in front of the other to pass on the ‘curse’ but things go wrong and I like it simply because it appears to be one continuous take. 

NAOMI SCOTT IS THE BEST PART OF THE FILM

You would expect this to be a given really as she is all over the film but I thought that she was likeable despite the fact that Skye does not appear to be a nice person. Admittedly she admits that she isn’t a nice person but it's fair to say that despite this, I still found myself wanting Skye to get through to the end. The rest of the cast is perfectly fine but the film relies on Scott to do a lot of the work in this film and she does it quite easily. 

INTERESTING CAMERA ANGLES

The camera work in this film is very good. As mentioned, the opening scene was a good use of camera work because it's one single shot but there are countless other moments where the camera is moving along like a slow Wes Anderson. I kept thinking that Wes Anderson must have been an influence for Parker Finn because he does it a lot. It’s only because it's done when needed that it gets a good point. There are plenty of moments where the camera follows action and there is no shakey cam which I appreciated.

DOESNT RELY ON THE FIRST FILM

Normally sequels rely on the previous instalment but this film didn’t. I honestly don’t think you need to have seen the first film as this one doesn't really have anything to do with the first and if they hadn’t stuck 2 in the title then you would have been none the wiser (although the six days later caption might be confusing). To have nothing to do with the first was a brave choice and yet it worked. 

GOOD GORE

Normally I am not great with gore although I am getting better but will never be at the stage where I could watch Saw or Hostel but the gore was sporadic and was done very well and effectively. Despite the fact that the trailer shows a lot of good stuff that would have been better had we not known it was coming, the best gore moment occurs when Lewis smashes his head three times with the weight from the weightlifting thing. The squishy noises used throughout help make the gore even more effective.

BAD POINTS

JUMP SCARES DON'T ALWAYS WORK

There were a couple of moments where the jump scares worked but for the most part the jump scars felt a bit lazy and the sort of dumb scares that you would see in a Blumhouse film. No effort seemed to be used in making most of these scars effective which made the ones that did work all the more confusing. It was like they were thought of by a different person. 

FINAL ACT IS A WASTE OF TIME

Perhaps the biggest issue I have with the film is the final act of the film. The film relies on the false narrative plot device because it shows us Skye killing her mom, driving to Staten Island to meet us with Morris who says that if she basically fakes her death then that will defeat the demon, he then walks out and never returns and then Skye appears on stage and kills herself infront of 15,000 people and then the film ends. This raises many questions such as ‘is the mom really dead?’ and ‘What was the point in that whole section?’. 

LACK OF A CONCLUSION

The fact that the film doesn't have a clear ending means that this could be strung out for several films and become the new version of the Insidious series. I understood why the ending of the first film happened the way it did but this film felt like a cop-out and everything that led to the ending was slightly eye-rolling.

OVERALL

There is a lot to like about Smile 2. It manages to avoid the traps that a sequel normally falls into but the lack of the clear ending means that it comes very close to being a frustrating film. It wasn't Trap level of frustrating but it was very similar to Civil War which was good for 80% of its running time before it completely went off the boil and this film was 90% before it went off the boil for me which is pretty good.  

Never Let Go (2024)

Sometimes not knowing anything about a film is a good thing. The only thing I knew about this film going in was that it started Halle Berry and there was suppose to be something in the woods. 

GOOD POINTS

Central Performances

This film is basically a three parter with Halle Berry (Momma), Anthony B. Jenkins (Samuel) and Percy Daggs IV (Nolan). There are other people in but they are only in it briefly and the three central performances are all really good. They felt like a family and that they cared for each other. Berry’s performance is intense at times. Jennings and Daggs IV are particularly impressive because for a large chunk of the movie they are carrying the film and they work well enough together that I found myself not missing Berry

Atmospheric 

It might seem easy to make a house in the woods seem atmospheric but its harder than it looks and Alexandre Aja does a good of making it feel like there was something in the woods even though we see very little. If you have seen enough B-Movies where they film in the woods then you know that its can easily be done badly.

Interesting Setup

All we know at the beginning of the film is that something happened and Momma, Samuel & Nolan might be the only people left and they have limited resources. We don't know too much and the film works on the plausible idea that less is more. You don't need to spell it out for the audience. Leaving some blanks can work well and the set up is enough to make the story interesting and it allows the characters to get on with it.

Good Pace

The film is 1 hour and 40 minutes long and its the perfect running time. Even five minutes more might have slowed things down and ruined it. The story gets in, tells us what it needs to tell us and then ends. It was a very satisfying pace. There are a lot of films that seem to thing more is better but find the right duration is not that difficult and this film proves it. 

BAD POINTS

Predictable Twist

Normally I can’t predict things that might be obvious to most people but I guessed fairly early on that this was all in the head of Momma but it wasn't until the grandmother appears and it cuts to another shot and she’s gone. This is being harsh on the film to put this in the bad points section but I often thing that its a fault of the film that make it so obvious that I can pick up on it

Ambiguous Ending

I think that the ending was too up in the air with not having a clear answer as to whether its all their heads or there really is an evil force. Just when I thought that it was clear this was all happening in Mama's head and then Samuel's before we see the helicopter with Nolan and Samuel on before the last shot being of the polaroid with Samuel and a hand on his shoulder. I would have like a more clearcut ending.

OVERALL

I enjoyed this film overall. Not knowing too much was the right way to go into this film. It's probably not going to work for everybody because it doesn't  explain what's going on and there arent explosions or excessive gore but I think that works in the film's favour. I like Aja as a film maker having been a fan of Crawl and really like Oxygen and this continues his good run. Defintley worth your time and worth seeing at the cinema.

Joker: Folie à Deux (2024)

Joker: Folie à Deux was already a film that had garnered a certain amount of negative response from reviewers similar to Megalopolis. Similar to that film I went to see if it was as bad as the reviewers were saying and unlike Megalopolis I can say that I don't agree with them. I understand why they don't like it but I left the cinema feeling good about it. Set two years after the events of the first, Arthur is being put on trial for killing 5 people and is being 'supported' by Lee Quinzel (Lady Gaga).

HONOURABLE MENTION

Continuity Issue

Fleck is charged with killing five people but admits killing his mother which would make it six but in fact it should be seven as the woman he speaks to at the end is implied to have died because of the blood footprints. I took it to mean that she died so that would make seven murders but if it isn't a continuity error then she's just been injured in which its slightly undermines the ending.

GOOD POINTS

Lady Gaga is quite good

Bearing in mind that Gaga isn't known for her acting and also isn't the Academy Award Winner (as well as the Movie Addict Award Winner), she was surprisingly good. I say surprisingly because she has shown in A Star is Born and House of Gucci that she can act and she does well as Lee. It would have been nice to have her in a bit more of this so the character could grow a bit more than she did. 

Phoenix & Gaga have good chemistry

The partnership of Phoenix and Gaga was a big selling point of the trailers and considering they spend a large chunk of the movie together, the chemistry is there and they work very well together. The chemistry between Phoenix & Gaga is as strong as it is for Quinn & Fleck. 

Nice redemption for Fleck

By the end of the film, Fleck has pretty much got Joker out of his system. In his scene in front of the jurors he says as much and Fleck has undergone a nice contrast to the anger he felt when he shot Murray Franklin. It was subtle and it wasn't until the very end when he is dying that it occurred to me that this is what they were doing. It was very clever writing and hats off to the writers.

Was never bored of the film

At 2 hours and 18 minutes, this film is exactly the same running time as Megalopolis. One felt a lot longer than the other and this film did not feel long. The story was interesting, the performances were strong and when those two things come together time flies. Six days since Megalopolis and both are great examples of how to utilise a decent running time.

Brendan Gleeson and Steve Coogan

I knew Steve Coogan was in this film as he featured in the trailer and whilst I would have liked him to be in it more, it was a good performance and it was in a nice scene where Arthur basically calls out the media for only being interested in the headlines and not the actual story. Brendan Gleeson is always great in whatever he is in and he continues that in this  as Jackie the guard who is your typical scumbag guard but when Gleeson does it, he does is to the degree that you still like him despite what he does.

BAD POINTS

Felt very disjointed

Despite the fact I was never bored, the musical moments did make the whole film feel disjointed and makes the fact that I enjoyed it as much all the more remarkable. The film is a musical although the people involved seemed reluctant to call it a musical its not structured like a musical because normally scenes build up to a song whereas the songs seem to be chucked in whenever it suited the director.

Songs felt amateurish

Musicals have songs that are created specially for a film and flow in nicely with the film but they didn't sound professional even the Lady Gaga songs didn't come across as particularly great. I think that using songs in films have been made popular because of Guardians of the Galaxy but they have to be used well and they didn't in this case.

Phoenix cant sing

Joaquin Phoenix cant sing at all and is a far better actor than singer. He is bad when is sings on his own but when he is next to a professional Grammy Award winner then he sounds like he is doing karaoke at a bar. I applaud the fact they didn't try and get someone else to sing for him but it did remind me of Russell Crowe in Les Miserables.

Not enough Gaga

Even though we get a good amount of Lady Gaga, due to how good her performance it would have been nice to her more of Gaga. Never thought I would write that but its true and it may have meant that we got less of Phoenix singing. She seems to be in it a lot in the first half of the film but as the court scenes take over then we seemed to see less of Gaga.

OVERALL

This was a good film. Not a perfect one but one that I thought was generally very good. It's clear that they didn't really want to make this sequel but when the first made so much money and won an Oscar, then it was either do it yourself or get someone else to make it and hope for the best. Phillips was at least smart enough to do it himself and that is why it was better than it probably had any right to be. If this is the last time that Joaquin Phoenix plays this character then that's fine but if they carry on with someone else (like they hinted at the end) then that would be fine too. Joker 2 isnt as bad as some people would have you beleive but I think there is enough to like about it and would be happy to watch again.

Megalopolis (2024)

This film has gained a bit of a reputation because it was suppose to be really bad and I wanted to go and see it because I was intrigued by it and also wanted to see a Francis Ford Coppola film at the cinema. I had read in trivia about this film that he had to sell his winery to pay for this film because he didn’t want any studio interference and never has a film needed more studio interference as much as this film did.

GOOD POINT

Esposito, Emmanuel and Fishburne

Giancarlo Esposito, Nathalie Emmanuel and Laurence Fishburne are the ONLY three that give good performances. They seem to somehow make sense of this madness and deliver some good performances. Emmanuel is the weaker of the three but that's because the character wasn't the best written and I think to make her as good as she was is down entirely to Emmanuel herself and not Coppola. 

BAD POINTS

Terrible Performances

I don’t think i have seen a film waste a cast as badly as this since Cats. 

Jon Voigt looks like he was woken up from his afternoon nap and told to say lines into the camera. Dustin Hoffman looks like he was dug up from a cemetery which is ironic as he replaced James Caan who had passed away before filming. Aubrey Plaza is normally very good in what she is in even if the film itself is not and yet she was totally terrible as the terribly named Wow Platinum which must seem like a amusing name to Coppola but to me it was eye rolling and showed that the film isn't as smart as it thinks it is. Adam Driver is another who normally gives a good performance even when the film isn't great and he delivers one of the worst performances ever. If I didn't know better then I would say it was cry for help aimed at Disney.

Shia LaBeouf

No one is as bad as LaBeouf. I don’t think a word exists for how bad he is. I think he had an idea of what he wanted to do and the director just said yes because there is no other explanation that makes sense for why he did what he did. The Madison Square Garden scene is by far the worst part of a terrible outing and was the point where I thought the film had lost the literal and figurative plot. Even by his low standards, LaBeouf excels himself in being terrible and utterly slappable. 

Looked Cheap

This film reportedly had a budget of $120 million dollars and looks like it cost about $20 million. Most scenes seemed to be filmed in front of a green screen and looks terrible. According to IMDB trivia, Coppola fired most of his visual effects team cause Coppola wanted to use technology similar to what was used in The Mandalorian TV series. I was reminded of The Creator which has a budget of $80 million and yet looks like it cost $200 million.

Two People walked Out

There were five people in this screening (including me) at 7:15 on a Monday evening and two people walked out. I was considering it for a good 20 minutes but decided to persevere. I have never walked out of a film before but came pretty close. I had given up on the film after 15 minutes which was bad for me because I still had another TWO HOURS left.

Weird Directing & Editing

It’s a shame that the director of The Godfather directed this. This film has so many weird directing choices and also some poor editing choices. Scenes just happen out of nowhere then end and move onto something else. Normally this is so that the audience doesnt have time to think about what was happening but in this case I think it’s because they didn’t know what they were doing.

The Worst Vanity Project

This film has being in production hell since the 1980’s and Coppola has been trying to get it financed and struggled and to be honest, it wasn't worth the wait. I think vanity projects are fine if they cost less than $10 million but $120 million shows that he doesn't really value money because he wouldn't have spent that much money and be so lacking in quality control.

OVERALL

This is one of the worst films I have seen at the cinema since I started keeping track in 2016. Fantasy Island was the worst film that I had seen but this easily beats it. The reason is that it’s longer than Fantasy Island and at least I could see what they were aiming for in that film. This film doesn't know what its doing, the director doesn't seem to be giving his cast any instruction. This film isn't so bad its good, its so bad that it should be avoided at all cost. I spent £5 and still felt like I was robbed. Had I paid the full £12 then I would have been fuming. 

Shaun of the Dead (2004)

 The first part of the Cornetto Trilogy is an ‘homage’ to the horror films that were made by George Romero. Having not seen the ‘of the dead’ series of films all the references that are littered throughout this film are lost on me. The setup of the film is that Shaun (Simon Pegg) and his friends are trying to survive a Zombie Apocalypse and get his girlfriend back who has recently dumped him. 

The film is funny because the film doesn’t take itself too seriously. There are plenty of references to George Romero films that most people would get and that is perhaps another reason why people would like this film. Having not seen these films, I still find the film entertaining and that shows why this film is so good. 

The performances are really good with Simon Pegg being a notable highlight. Even though he isnt the most successful person in the world. There is a likeable quality about Shaun, he does try to do the right thing but just seems to find being next to Nick Frost’s character as the easy approach. Nick Frost is funny in this film but he is one of those people that can be annoying at times. His character is suppose to be a stoner waste of space and yet becomes quite useful as the film progresses. When he turns into a Zombie it is handled quite well and nobody plays a monkey as well as Nick Frost. The other performances are all work and no one lets the film down.

Shaun of the Dead is a funny and entertaining film. Whether it’s the best film in the trilogy is something that is open for debate. Personally I think that Hot Fuzz is the better film but this is still a great film with great performances and shows that you can do horror comedies well. Admittedly the film hasn’t aged that well in some respects but in terms of humour and pacing, this film continues to be an entertaining film.

Speak No Evil (2024)

Be careful of remakes. Especially if the remake is of a film that only came out two years ago. I saw the original when it came out and liked it very much so my eyes rolled into the back of my head when I heard this film was coming out. Also the fact it was a Blumhouse production didn’t fill me with confidence because they aren’t known for subtle horror. I rewatched the original to try and be able to compare the two which might be unfair to both but I felt it was needed.

In the original a Danish couple are invited to a Dutch couple house after they became 'friends' on holiday and things go wrong pretty much straight away. In this version, a British couple invite an American couple to their isolated farm and things go strange very quickly.

GOOD POINTS

Good Performances from the adults

The central performances were really good with McAvoy being the best of the four adults. Never thought he was great as Charles Xavier in the X-Men films but he showed another side in this film. Mackenzie Davis was good as someone who felt like she wanted to do the right thing but seemed restricted. Scoot McNairy was also good as the husband who didn’t want to rock the boat or stand up to McAvoy’s character. All four of the performances work well together and this adds to the tension that runs throughout the film even from the very first scene.

Fixing the Bunny Rabbit Problem

The reason for the family returning after sneaking out always bothered me in the original but they fixed it in this film. In the original it seems like it is a normal toy but in this version it’s the daughters emotional support so it can’t really be replaced providing a decent reason for returning.

Enough mix of original and new

I always think if you're going to remake something then do something different and there are enough different things in this film that make it feel new but enough of the elements from the original to feel like it has done something new but not rubbishing the original and that's not an easy thing to pull off. I was happy that there were things that I recognised but not too much. 

Isolated Setting

I’m always a fan of isolated settings and the change from the original is moving the story from a cabin to an isolated farm. Simple idea but it’s used effectively and felt very claustrophobic in the third act. Apart from the opening part in Tuscany (?) and a scene at a resturant, the film takes place largely in one location and there is always something tense about the country that this film uses well.

Nice Atmosphere

The whole atmosphere and vibe was really good. It wasn’t as dark and grim and the original (more on that in the bad points) but it still had the same atmosphere they you would expect in a horror film and that with the performances help create a film that stands on its own compared to the original.

BAD POINTS

Disappointed with the ending

The ending was too upbeat for me. Having seen the original which has the nice couple stoned to death and the daughter becoming part of the psycho family minus her toy he whereas in this version they all drive off into the sunset.

This is probably harsh on the film as most people probably haven’t or won’t see the original so on its own merits it’s a fine ending but I think that horror films work better when they have a more downbeat ending.

OVERALL

I was sceptical when this was announced as Hollywood remakes of foreign language films rarely turn out better than the original but I did like this more than the 2022 version. I still like the original but found things just worked better for me. James McAvoy is a bit of a hit and miss actor for me but I thought that he excelled in this role. I hoped that he would be good based on the trailer that I saw and he didnt disappoint. It's not been as good as year for horror films as I would have liked but Speak No Evil manages to be as of writing the best horror film of 2024. Well acted, well structed and well directed.