Is This Thing On? (2025)

Is This Thing On? is a film about Alex (Will Arnett) and Tess (Laura Dern) who within 3 minutes of the film starting are about to get a divorce and when Alex walks into a comedy bar he attempts stand up and decides he likes it and the film follows as Alex tries to develop his career whilst trying to navigate his new relationship with Tess.

This film reminded me a bit of The Roses with Olivia Colman and Benedict Cumberbatch. In that film Kate McKinnon and Andy Samberg play a couple that is supposed to be the opposite to the main couple and their own is slightly dysfunctional and in this film it is Bradley Cooper himself and Andra Day who are the opposite couple. The Cooper/Day couple isn’t as funny as the McKinnon/Samberg couple but it works in the context of this film. 

I really like Will Arnett and Laura Dern in this. I thought that they worked really well as a couple that seemed to have a fun relationship with each other. The film didn’t force them to be horrible to each other or bitchy at certain times. There is a moment where they have a discussion with each other but it never felt like it was going to be a volatile moment. Ciaran Hinds pops up as Alex’s dad Jan who seems to be having fun playing the elderly father figure although he has a lovely moment with Alex after he has just done an angry routine. Hinds is one of those actors who can elevate whatever role he finds himself in. 

This is apparently based on the life of UK comedian John Bishop who had a stint in Doctor Who so that was enough to get me intrigued although based on the trailer the film doesn't really say that its worth coming to the cinema for. For the record this was another mystery screening although unlike my previous cinema encounter ‘Saipan’, there were actually people in the screening with me.

There are only a couple of things that I wasn't as keen on. Firstly is the moment when Tess arrives with her ‘date’ at the same comedy club that Alex is performing at and just at the same time. You could see that coming a mile off. The other thing and this one might be argued as a creative decision but something that I am never keen on and that is the close up. Someone needs to tell Bradley Cooper that camera even 40 years ago had zooms on them. There were a couple of times I wished the camera would take just a couple of steps away from Will Arnett. A final thing which might come across as unfair or harsh is the casting of Peyton Manning. He might be considered one of the greatest of all time in the NFL but in acting terms it's a dud piece of casting. Thankfully he is only in the film for about five minutes but when the rest of the cast is so good, his performance stood out and not in a good way.

Overall I found Is This Thing On? to be charming. This is technically a romcom and does a far better job of keeping me interested unlike Materialists and this film had characters which felt like real people and situations which felt real without coming across as fake. I like Bradley Cooper as a director. I think he is quite underrated because him films aren’t flashy and they don't have a ‘message’ that a lot of films nowadays seem to have. I was genuinely and happily impressed with this film and think that it should be seen because the story is good and the comedy routines are rather good.

Saipan (2025)

Saipan is directed by Glenn Leyburn and Lisa Barros D’Sa and it tells the story of the fallout between the coach of the Republic of Ireland Men’s Football team Mick McCarthy (played by Steve Coogan) and the captain of the team Roy Keane (played by Éanna Hardwicke) on the eve of the 2002 World Cup in South Korea and Japan. The film got off to a worrying start literally from the very beginning. There must have been 10 production companies. Now I know that if you put a great deal of money into the film you will want to see your company's name on the big screen but after two or three companies it starts to feel like a gag, which is not the best way to start a movie.

This film does work even if you are a novice to football and obviously wouldn’t be aware of this event. I remember it happening but didn’t know many of the details. I know who Roy Keane and Mick McCarthy are but I was never the biggest fan of Roy Keane and whilst I can understand his frustrations, he never comes across in the film or in real life as a particularly happy individual. This may not have been the intention but  Coogan plays McCarthy well although there were a few Alan Partridge moments. Hardwicke does a good job of playing Roy Keane. Neither man looks similar to their real life people but Hardwicke manages to make you sympathetic to his frustrations even if he doesn't go about it the best way to express it.

The film does a good job of building things up but there aren’t many scenes that really stand out. If you want scenes between McCarthy and Keane then every so often you get what you want. The only really good scene is the final showdown between the two which it feels like it has been bubbling along for quite a while and was inevitable. All the other ‘encounters’ between the two have felt like enough to show they don’t get on and that something bigger was coming so from a story point of view it did what it needed to do and it did it very well.

The film works because of these two. It’s not a particularly action packed movie but the story does ramp up to the inevitable showdown and because of how good Coogan and Hardwicke are you are engrossed when they are on screen together. Everyone else is sort of a supporting character because Roy and Mick are the two most interesting people. One mildmannered and likeable coach and the other is a hot headed and talented footballer.

It was a good film but one that would have worked out perfectly well on streaming. This was the first time in a very long while where I was the only person in the screening. Ok it was 4:40 on a Monday afternoon but I have seen films at this time and there have been a few more people in. The house lights weren’t on so I had to use the light on my phone to find my way to my seat.

Return to Silent Hill (2026)

 I will accept that I am not a Silent Hill fan. I never played the games and now next to nothing about what is going on and what things mean. I went to see it with a mate that has played the games so he would have a better idea of what was going on.  The set up of the film is that James is a painter and is driving along when he meets Mary and they decide to visit Silent Hill. A short time later James wakes up and sometime has gone by when he receives a note from Mary asking him to return to Silent Hill. That is basically the plot and that is basically all that I understood.

There was a worrying sign when I saw the cast list for this film and saw that I didn’t recognise a single name. NO-ONE. Not even someone who used to be a big name 10 years ago and is looking at this film as a quick payday. I am happy to report that despite the lack of star power, the performances were pretty decent. I thought that Jeremy Irvine did a good job especially considering that for a good 20 minutes or so he was the only person in the film if you don't count the CGI monsters. Another good point for the film was the atmosphere. They clearly spent a lot of time making sure that the film felt like the game. Even with my limited knowledge of the games it felt like this was the highlight of the film. 

I understand that things have to happen for the film to happen but they could have been done better in working them into the film. So after James helps Mary get her luggage back in the suitcases, the coach arrives and it is clearly pulling into the side of the road to stop and yet she acts like it is about to drive off. Then moments later one of her suitcases open up and about a second later she tells the driver to move along. It would have only taken 20 seconds (if that) to get the suitcase packed again. I know an argument could be made that it was part of her plan to lure James to Silent Hill but it could have been done in a better way. Then at the end of the film they replay it again just to highlight how dumb it was.

This is by far the worst film of the year (worse than Mercy). It was better than I was expecting but given that my expectations were at rock bottom, it was always going to be easy to beat them. There are things about this film that work very well but the main problem with the film is that very little of it makes any sense. This is definitely a film aimed at fans of the series and it does feel like a standalone film but if you went into the film not knowing anything then you would be completely confused. I went on a Saturday night and there was decent number and I would bet that they were all fans of the game series and i think that if they want to make the films more successful then they need to try and make them more accessible to non-Silent Hill fans.

The History of Sound (2025)

The second Paul Mescal in seven days sees him team up with Josh O’Connor who play Lionel and David who meet in a bar over a love of music and become romantically involved and when they go their separate ways the film focuses on Mescal’s Lionel as he tries to find out what has happened to David.

I am going to be honest and say that I thought the film was ok. The chemistry/dynamic or whatever you want to call it between O’Connor and Mescal was definitely the highlight of the movie and worth seeing for them. I don't think that Mescal’s performance was as good as it was in Hamnet but it was still enjoyable enough. I thought that Josh O’Connor performance was the stronger of the two and I thought his character was the more interesting of the two.

There are some positives apart from the two leading roles and the main one is that it is a beautiful looking film. The film takes place over a few decades and the film does a good job of making the time that has passed feel like it is passing instead of just feeling like it takes place over a few years.

The History of Sound is a perfectly decent film but I do think that it will be forgotten about and probably stumbled across by someone when it goes on streaming in about three weeks. I only discovered afterwards that the film was directed by Oliver Hermanus and a previous effort of his was Living which was the English language modern day remake of Akira Kurosawa’s Ikiru. I think if I had to choose then I would say that Living is the better film but this film is definitely worth your time. It just might be slow for some people.  

No Other Choice (2025)

No Other Choice is a Korean film directed by Park Chan-wook who is a director that I am relatively new to. The film follows Man-su who is working at a papermaking company and is laid off and tries to get a job. Man-su is a nice guy but is but he is made redundant by the new American owners and after over a year trying to get a new job, Man-su de goes for a job and after getting humiliated during the interview decides to try and kill the manager but decides against it when he realises that he needs to make sure he is the best candidate to replace him so he fakes a job application and works on the people who are better qualified than him and goes about killing them. 

The film ends with Man-su in his new job, his family home saved with the dogs back home and he is celebrating having his job whereas at the beginning of the film he wanted to stand up for his fellow workers so it is survival of the fittest really in the world of employment when you have a family to feed. The main characters were good. Lee Byung-hun  was very good as Man-su. Even when he is trying to kill people so he gets his job, he still comes across as a likeable person and you want him just to catch a break so he helps support his family in the way that most people would want to. Son Ye-jin plays his wife (Lee Mi-ri) and even though she seems exasperated with her husband's lack of employment she seems like she is willing to support. The children are a mixed bag. The son is fairly bland and doesn't really come into anything substantial when he is arrested. For most of the film the daughter is the stronger child because there seems to be something that stands out about her and she just appears to be doodling random nothing until the end when it looks like music notes that she is playing. 

There were a couple of occasions where the audience were laughing. Fart sounds will always get a chuckle (immature I know but still funny) and the humour doesn't seem out of place and this is a difficult thing to pull off. The film probably needed humour to break up the strangeness and the funniest part for me was when Man-su was running back to his car and there is a long shot where he is running towards the camera before changing direction to the car and a woman is chasing him a humorous distance. Don't know why I found it funny, I just did.

I wanted to like this more than I do. I think it's a fine film but I spent way too much time wondering what to make of it. I think the fact that the film managed to maintain my attention and I wasn't bored showed that the story and the characters were working on me. I would be happy to go back and watch this again because the seats in the screening that I was in for this film weren't very comfortable even though it was supposed to be a premier seat. I went to a different cinema to the one I usually go to and this was one where I saw all the films that meant something growing up like Jurassic Park, The Matrix and Toy Story. This screen was suited to this film but with an action film the result might be different. Anyway ‘No Other Choice’ is definitely worth your time.

Mercy (2026)

Mercy was a mystery screening and the signs weren’t good before I even walked into the cinema when I was asked if I needed 3D glasses. It is 2026 and they are still trying to push 3D films onto us. Another red flag was the fact that this film is directed by Timur Bekmambetov who made Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter and Ben-Hur very boring and seems to prefer style over substance. Chris Pratt struggles in his post Jurassic World/Guardians of the Galaxy career as he finds himself literally sat in a Timur Bekmambetov film. He plays Chris Raven who is accused of killing his wife and has 90 minutes to prove to an A.I. Judge (Rebecca Ferguson) that he didn’t do it. As set ups go, its pretty good and by good I mean simple. It doesn't have much more than that and so the film can just get on with being dumb. 

It turns out that his sponsor killed his wife because Chris Raven and the Mercy programme framed his brother over the death of someone but it turns out that nice cop Jaq was the one that framed the brother because they needed Mercy to be a success might be a bit of an eye roll revelation especially given that a couple points of the film we see a huge neck tattoo which is the films equivalent of saying that there is something not right with her. The film does attempt to throw a few red herrings but to be honest you would only be shocked of the revelation if you were that involved in the story and I wasn't. I was just thinking that this must have been a pretty good and simple payday for spending 90% of the running time sitting down. I felt bad for Rebecca Ferguson. She’s been in Mission: Impossible films and yet is reduced to playing an AI judge.

Using AI as a plot device is already boring and this film does very little to make it interesting. There are some action scenes but they do involve either of the big names so dont have any weight to them. The 3D is completely pointless and is only there to show some of the graphics that are brought close to the screen. Mercy is a B-Movie that happens to have A-List talent. Credit to Pratt and Ferguson who give their best and make this film far more entertaining that it had any right to be but I think I would have waited for this to come to streaming if I was going to watch it at all. 

28 Years Later: The Bone Temple (2026)

The Bone Temple was filmed back to back with the previous part and this film follows Dr Ian (Fiennes) as he encounters Jimmy from the end of the previous film. The film starts with Jimmy making Spike fight someone to the death and this shows that this little cult that he is now a part of isn’t the best thing to be a part of but he has no choice.  Nina DaCosta did the Candyman reboot which I enjoyed a lot and then she did The Marvels which was truly terrible so it's nice that she has come back to horror and showed that The Marvels was a blip. She shows that she manages to make a horror film that doesn't rely on jump scares and despite a few iffy editing moments the film makes this a horror film that manages to be about something.

The scene where the people from the house are being flayed by the Jimmy’s was a truly nauseating moment and made me look away. The film has an 18 certificate from the BBFC and it did deserve that because apart from the flaying, we get a head being pulled from the body which we see up close. This is definitely one of the goriest films in the 28 series.

The idea of making Jimmy a parody (of sorts of Jimmy Saville) was a bold choice. The Jimmy in this film is a monster and Jimmy Saville is a monster but when the virus raged through the world comes a time when the terrible things he did hadn’t come to light

The moment when I knew that I really enjoyed this film was when Ralph Fiennes’ Dr. Ian dancing to Iron Maiden's The Number of the Beast. It was such a fantastic moment because it seemed to come out of nowhere. Fiennes seems to be channelling his younger self and doing the sort of things that people wouldn’t expect him to do. I do think it was a shame to kill off his character but he was great in the previous film and was outstanding in this.

I was worried when Ian started dancing with Samson because I thought that  the film was going to undo all the good work of the previous film but it shows why this film works as well as it does because the friendship between them works because of the performances from Fiennes and Chi Lewis-Perry. Lewis Perry doesn't really have much to say but still manages to bring humanity to a role that just grunts and runs around.  

Ralph Fiennes is great as Dr. Ian and he carries the film which is impressive given that for most of the film he only interacts with two people. Jack O’Connell shows that he could play a character more horrible than what he played in Sinners. Alfie Williams is quite central to the plot because it's more about Jimmy and Ian but he is still pretty good and Erin Kellyman is very good as Jimmy Ink and comes across as the more likeable of the Jimmy’s which isn’t really that hard to achieve.

It has been confirmed that we will get the final part of the trilogy after the first two have done so well which I am over the moon about. Not just because we get another installment in this world but the return of Cillian Murphy’s Jim and a young girl who appears to be his daughter return and they spot Spike and Keli. Also I am not convinced that Sir Lord Jimmy Crystal is dead. He is still breathing when we last see him so there is always the chance that he will return in some form. 

I didn’t think that this was going to be as good as the first part but I am happy to say that I was wrong. Weirdly it doesn't seem as downbeat as the previous installment yet there were tough moments throughout but the next part has a lot to live up to and I hope that it can match what has come out of this one.  

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

The third and final part of arguably one of the greatest trilogies of all time sees Frodo and Sam get ever closer to destroying the ring unaware of what awaits them. The final part of one of the best trilogies ever had a lot to achieve even with its rather long running time. With the extended version running in at just over four hours there is plenty of time to tie up the many plot threads that have amassed over the previous two parts. Like the audience watching it in one go, the characters are all tied and have been through a lot.The threat of Shelob was well worth the wait. I am not a fan of spiders at the best of times but this is how i imagine all spiders are. The threat comes after Gollum has won in trying to separate Frodo and Sam although by the time Shelob appears, Gollum has seemingly met his end. That portion of the film went on just the right amount of time.

This doesn't have a battle like Helms Deep but it still has great fight battles that are completely gripping and at no point was it boring. The Minas Tirth portion of the film was quite good because Denethor is grieving over the death of his favourite son and his grief is turning to madness and when it looks like Faramir has died but he is in fact only unconscious, Denethor decides to burn his body and it takes Gandalf to stop him. As Bernard Hill was the best of the supporting characters in Two Towers, John Noble was the best of the supporting characters in this one. I do wish he had been in more than just this film because he was so good.

The main issue with this film for me is not that it tries to follow The Two Towers but that it doesn't know how to end. There are about three or four different times that it could have ended and this extends the run time when it didn’t need to. This is the longest of the extended editions at over four hours and I will be honest that the last hour or so was when I started to struggle. I think that by the time the ring goes into the lava, there is probably still about 30 minutes left of the film and by this stage of the marathon it was becoming a bit hard to stay focused.

As a film it does what it needs to and that is a fairly major accomplishment. There was so much expectation after the success that the first two were so good that the film achieves this in a satisfactory way. Yes the film could have done with being a little shorter but those issues aside it is still a damn good way to end the trilogy and a good film in its own right. Everyone is in great form and this film and trilogy has shown all the flaws that The Hobbit has. This has probably the same number of central characters but everyone in this film has a purpose and no one feels short changed. 

Something that I wasn’t expecting was when people applauded at the end of the film although I don’t know if that was for the film or for all of us (around 80). I did see some people leave just a few minutes from the end, which bearing in mind they had spent 12 hours watching these films seemed like a strange thing to do. I am glad that I did this marathon, I don't know if I would be willing to do this at the cinema or even whether I would do it again at home. Usually I would watch these films over the course of two or three days and now I know there is a good reason for it. 

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

The Two Towers is my favourite of the trilogy. The fellowship have gone their separate ways and we are introduced to Théoden played brilliantly by Bernard Hill and Wormtounge played by the equally brilliant Brad Dourif. I think that my movie knowledge was so poor in 2002 that I think this might have been the first Dourif film I had ever seen (his X-Files episode doesn't count). The first part of the film sees the hold that Saruman has over and then the action moves over to Helms Deep. Meanwhile Frodo and Sam come across one of the greatest monster creations ever and one that has probably kept Andy Serkis in work for 25 years….Gollum. The character has a mixed personality and the way they manage to make the two seem different even when they are being said by the same person is quite well done.  

The battle of Helms Deep is a brilliant portion of the film and when the bomb goes off and the wall goes flying in the air is just as impressive in 2026 as it was when I saw it 24 years ago. I hate to sound like an old man but if this were made today then they would have used CGI and there would be no weight or heft to what we were seeing. Also the fact that it takes place at night and yet we can see what is going on because of the cinematography and also the fact the camera is shaking about at a ridiculous level. I do like how the friendship between Legolas and Gimli has developed so quickly. In fact the trio of Legolas, Gimli and Aragorn adds some levity to what is quite a downbeat and dark portion of the film.

Middle films in a trilogy are always the difficult ones to do because you have to carry on from what came before and feed into what follows so like Peter Jackson says in his introduction video, it has no start and no finish and yet it is still a damn good film. Despite this there is a cliffhanger of sorts when Gollum talks about letting ‘her’ deal with Frodo and Sam. Now I knew (from a friend) that there was a big spider involved so in 2002 I knew I would have to wait an entire year to find out how this was going to be resolved. This is when you know a film has worked when you cant wait for the next installment to come out. The action scenes are brilliant even by today’s standards and even if people don't agree with me that this is the best, I don't mind because the quality of the other two make them equally as good but for purely the Helms Deep portion of the film makes this the top of a very good pile.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

I am now getting to the stage in my life where films that meant something to me growing up reach a particular milestone. Home Alone and Jurassic Park reaching 30 was such a milestone and the first Lord of the Rings film came out 25 years ago this December. I have watched them many times over the years but it has always been the extended editions with the exception of the original viewings at the cinema. Something I have never done in my repeat viewings is watch them in one go but that is what I did. Over 12 hours I get to see these films at the cinema for the first time since 2001, 2002 and 2003. Each film started with a little video from Peter Jackson talking about the films. To be honest, as nice as they were to have, they weren’t the greatest. It was clear that they weren’t scripted as he seemed to ramble a bit with the exception of the last one where Jackson talks about the people who have passed away and he alludes that the reason why Jackson hasn’t made a feature film in over a decade is because his cinematographer Andrew Leslie passed away in 2015 and he is trying to come up with the courage of working with a different cinematographer because the relationship between director and cinematographer is so close.

So the set up of this film is that Frodo is set on his journey and you feel sorry for Frodo because of the things that are going to happen to him and there is always a part of me that wants him to stay in the Shire. There is a youthfulness about Elijah Wood that make him seem innocent and appreciate his friends all the more because of what is about to happen. I don't think that Wood is the best actor in the world but for the most part he brings Frodo to live with a mix of charm, innocence and a willingness to help someone out without fully knowing what is involved.

One of the things about watching these films is that they get to a point on the DVD before the screen goes black and it says something like ‘Insert Disc 2’ so when Elrond says ‘The Fellowship of the Ring’ and the screen doesn't go black then I have to momentarily remind myself I am watching this at the cinema. The thing that surprised me about these films is how they don't feel like there is any padding. Things are happening in a slow and measured way that feels like everything and everyone involved is important. Despite clocking in at nearly three and half hours for the extended edition, because I enjoyed being in this world and being with these characters it didn't feel like that long of a film. 

There are a couple of things that stand out to me. Firstly and this is more with the creation of the Hobbit films and having watched them before this trilogy is that Legolas doesn't have a proper introduction. He just appears at Rivendell but we are told at the end of ‘The Battle of the Five Armies’ to seek out a ranger called Strider. Also some of the effects haven’t aged as well. There are some shots where it is clear that they have got a child with a Frodo wig on or Bilbo wig on. Even 25 years later and the production values are fantastic. I would want to spend more time in Rivendell because of how stunning it is and also it would be a nice place to relax and unwind. The Shire also looks like a wonderful place to visit and if only New Zealand weren't on the other side of the world I would have visited it by now. 

The ‘death’ of Gandalf was truly shocking when I watched this in 2001. Even 25 years later it is still a striking moment and one that is played brilliantly by Ian McKellen and Elijah Wood. I remember thinking in 2001 that it was a shame that his character had been killed off and it would have been nice to have him around for a little longer (obviously not read the books at this point). 

I really like Fellowship. It takes its time in setting things up and despite the high number of characters, every single one feels like they get a decent amount to do. That is one of the biggest issues with the Hobbit films is that there are too many characters with no development and you could get rid of half of them and it would make no difference with the story. Here every single character has some importance to Frodo’s journey.  

Hamnet (2025)

Hamnet is one of the films being talked about for Oscar consideration but even before that there was something about this film that made me want to check it out. The film tells the story of the relationship between Agnes Shakespeare (Jessie Buckley) and Willam Shakespeare (Paul Mescal). The film is directed by Chloé Zhao who did a great job of directing Nomadland and then almost undid that good will with one of the dullest Marvel films Eternals. Thankfully Zhao is back on good form with this film. One thing that I was concerned about was that it was going to involve William Shakespeare and I must confess that I think that Shakespeare is overrated. The way people drool over the way he speaks is bizarre to me. His stories are very good but people seem to value the words and style of his speech over everything else.

The thing to note is that Paul Mescal is not really in the first half and Jessie Buckley gets to own the film but once Hamnet dies then he becomes part of the story. Jessie Buckley is brilliant and she would totally deserve her Oscar and Bafta wins should she get them. Hopefully The Bride doesn’t Norbit her Oscar chances. The grief that she shows when Hamnet dies is something very harrowing and hard to ignore. Even if you are not a parent you would have to be made of very stern stuff not to be moved by those scenes. Jacobi Jupe was very good as Hamnet and this is the second film in succession that I have seen a very good child actor (Shannon Mahina Gorman in Rental Family being the other example). Part of the reason why his death is so powerful is that you end up liking him as he becomes the man of the house when William is away in London. The way that he also wants to get his sickness passed on to him to cheat death is such a selfless action that it would be hard to really hate him for the borderline stupid action that it is.

My only real issue with the film is that it assumes you know the story of William Shakespeare and his personal story (I didn’t) so the film does introduce characters. I know that this is a true story in the loosest sense of the word but the people around are true but were complete strangers to me. The problem starts straight away when we see Joe Alwyn sitting in a chair not knowing what his character's name is or that he is playing Agnes' brother. This little tidbit isn't revealed until the next scene a couple of minutes later. Another example is when Shakespeare's father disappears after William stands up to him and he’s never mentioned.The woman who is like a mother figure to Agnes but isn’t appears at the beginning but when she returns about an hour later looking completely different (at least a decade has passed) I had forgotten who she was.

Despite the issues with the screenplay and the introduction of characters, this is easily my favourite film of the year (although that list is only three films long at the moment). The performances are really strong with Buckley and Mescal deserving top praise but the script does let it down. Zhao does a great job with directing as the house looks amazing and the surrounding woodland looks magical. There are some shots where the camera just sits far away and allows the story to unfold and for us to observe that and in this era of modern filmmaking, its a rare thing to just be able to appreciate what you are seeing on screen. 

Rental Family (2025)

Rental Family was a mystery screening at my local cinema and these have generally been good and occasionally like this one, are films that I probably wouldn’t have seen. The thing that bothered me about this sowing was that four people walked out before we were even 25 minutes in. Thankfully six of us stayed until the end. The film sees Brendan Fraser playing Phillip who is an American living in Japan trying to get work as an actor and through his agent he becomes an extra at a pretend funeral and gets an offer to join an agency which provides services for people who want a particular type of person. Phillip is asked to be a groom at a wedding to please the parents of his ‘bride’. Once the ceremony is over it's revealed her true love is another woman. He is then asked to pretend to be the father of a little girl who doesn't know he is pretending. It is because the mother is trying to get her into a school. At the same time he is asked to be a journalist and interview a former actor/director who is suffering from dementia. 

The term fish out of water seems perfect to describe Phillip. Like Phillip with our Western sensibilities, the idea of pretending to such a degree seems dishonest  but as the film progresses those ‘concerns’ seem to disappear as it is a matter of whether you see them as dishonest if the people hiring them know that they are not genuine. By the film’s end the agency has become more honest and it seems like Phillip has unconsciously been a force for good change. 

The subplot with Mia and Phillip pretending to be Kevin works because of the relationship between the two.  Mia does come across a bit brat-like at first but soon warms to ‘Kevin’ and when the truth is revealed, you do end up feeling sorry for Mia and i thought that Shannon Marina Gorman did a very good job of making Mia seem like someone who has is the way she is for a very good reason and when she has her scene with Phillip at the end of the film it felt like a nice way to end that subplot.

Brendan Fraser is very good in this film. I think the last time I saw him in a film was back in 2023 in ‘Killers of the Flower Moon’ although ‘The Whale’ is the one that won him the Oscar and it feels like he is at his best when he is a flawed person because Fraser has such a charming personality that you want things to well for him and knowing that he had some bad years in his private life means that winning the Oscar was his way of showing him back on top and it allows him to take on roles like this that perhaps aren’t going to earn him the big bucks but at least show his acting warmth. I thought that Akira Emoto was the star of the film. The portion of the film where Phillip and Kikuo break out of his house to go on a journey to Kikuo’s house that he used to have when he was a young man  was so sweet and sad because Emoto’s performance was stunning.  It was such a risky and sweet thing for Phillip to do and out of the two subplots this was the more interesting.

I enjoyed this film. I can sort of understand why the four people walked out because it does take quite a long time to get going and if you're expecting an action packed thriller then you are going to be disappointed. I thought once it did get going then it did keep my attention. It did make me think about ‘Lost in Translation’ (in a good way). I thought Hikari directs the film with a lot of love and attention and it lets things play out in their own way and even though the film could have done with losing about 10 minutes or so the characters were all really interesting and showed their own flaws such as the owner of the agency Shinji who appears to have a wife and son but towards the end its revealed that they are ‘fake’ and this is when his character has a change of heart and becomes more likeable. I doubt that this film will be seen by many people because it has such a strange premise but if you do get the chance then its worth it for Brendan Fraser showing that he isn’t just going for the Marvel sized paychecks now he has an Oscar and it also worth seeing for Akira Emoto’s heartbreaking performance.

Marty Supreme (2025)

My first cinema experience of 2026 . I am hopeful that this will be a strong year because cinemas need some big hits but Marty Supreme isn’t necessarily going to be a blockbuster but I saw this at 4:20pm on New Years Day and there were about 30 people which is more than I was expecting. This is directed by the other half of the Safdie brothers. Benny gave us the mildly interesting The Smashing Machine and what we get with Josh’s take on a confident if somewhat flawed sportsman.

The film tells the story of Marty Mauser who is someone who is quite good at table tennis and believes he could be the greatest ever. He just needs money to get him to the world championships in Japan but on his way there he comes across a comedy of errors that seems to come up to stop Marty from achieving his destiny. Whenever he talks about asking money from people he talks like his victory is a foregone conclusion.

As good as Timothee Chalamet is, it is quite hard to really like Marty. Yes he is confident and is good at table tennis, the way that he treats people around him is not the greatest. The way that he reacts when Rachel says that she is pregnant and Marty immediately says that it isn’t his. Like he is trying to dismiss it quickly so he can focus. His arrogance when he is speaking to Milton means that he sort of deserves what comes to him later on in the film.  Odessa A’zion is quite good as Rachel although her character is rather limited but A’zion manages to make her seem more interesting than she actually is. She really only gets something emotionally substantial when she is in the hospital bed after being shot and given birth and Marty is prepared to be a father. A’zion has good chemistry with Chalamet and it feels like their characters belong together because they seem to have the same flaws and aspirations.

Kevin O’Leary is technically the villain of the movie as Milton. Being the rich businessman who after being disrespected by Marty is at one point only willing to pay the airfare for him to get to Tokyo if he can spank Marty with a table tennis paddle. You can sort of see things from Milton’s perspective and especially with the knowledge that Marty is knowingly sleeping with Kay. Gwyneth Paltrow plays Kay who is married to Milton and pops up every so often to have a sex scene with Chalamet but like Rachel, the character of Kay is made to be more interesting because of Paltrow. Rachel is having an affair and you would expect that there would be some confrontation between Milton and Marty but there isn’t and so it does feel like Kay is in the plot to give some romantic stuff for Marty to do.

This film does come across a bit too Oscar-bait like for me but time will tell whether it worked or not. I suspect Chalamet, Paltrow and A’zion will at least get nominations but I think that it will certainly be in the conversation and rightly so. Marty Supreme is a strong start to the year. The idea that Marty is a real person but some if not most of the events were made up or exaggerated is an interesting spin of this type of movie. You are using real people but not restricting yourself to a set of people or events. I could grow to like this sort of film.