MrDHWong

Just saw "Bob Marley: One Love", a biographical drama film directed and co-written by Reinaldo Marcus Green ("Monsters and Men", "Joe Bell", "King Richard"). Starring Kingsley Ben-Adir in the lead role, it is a blandly sanitised biopic that fails to properly address the most important details of its main subject.

In 1976, Jamaica is experiencing an ongoing political conflict between right-wing and left-wing factions. As an attempt to ease tensions, local musician Bob Marley (Kingsley Ben-Adir) decides to perform a concert that will promote peace among the community. While making preparations, Marley and his wife Rita (Lashana Lynch) are shot a group of would-be assassins but both manage to make a full recovery before the concert can take place. Upset by the deplorable violence enacted upon him and his wife, Marley ventures away from Jamaica to the United Kingdom with his band while Rita and the children stay in Delaware, United States. During their time in the UK, Marley and his band brainstorm ideas for a new album, eventually deciding to take inspiration from the movie "Exodus", with Rita later joining them for the recording sessions.

If there were ever one person who could be solely credited with popularising reggae for the entire world, it would undoubtedly be Bob Marley. Throughout his lifetime, Marley and his band "The Wailers" recorded twelve studio albums, with his signature vocal style and deep lyrics cementing him as one of the most important musicians of the twentieth century. Even more than 40 years after his death, Marley still continues to inspire and influence musicians around the world, spanning a wide variety of genres that are not strictly limited to the reggae his music originates from. Being a subject this significant, Marley's life is certainly a prime topic for a cinematic biopic, but in "Bob Marley: One Love", all we get is a watered down, compromised look at only the surface level achievements of this man's legacy.

Given what an interesting life Bob Marley lived, it comes as quite a surprise that this film chooses to glance over so many notable things that he accomplished during such a pivotal time in his career. Granted, we do see some basics outlined to us, like how Marley considered his music apolitical in a heavily politically divisive Jamaica, but they are never properly explored in real detail. In addition to this, Marley was known for incorporating his Rastafarian beliefs into his music, however, we are never shown how he managed to make this work so well. The whole time throughout this film I wanted to see Bob Marley's clever ability to fuse all of these heavy-handed themes into his music, yet all we ever get are just brief glimpses at what could have been instead. Taking into account how Marley's talents have had such a huge impact on the way the entire country of Jamaica is viewed by the rest of the world, I couldn't help but feel cheated whenever the film teased us with all these seemingly important moments that ended up going nowhere.

On that note, one of the biggest artistic issues with this film is its terrible pacing and editing. For instance, the film establishes that Marley was already well known within his native Jamaica, yet the audience is never made to feel as though his local fame is anything significant. We are only ever shown brief scenes of him interacting with his wife and children, recording music with his band, and giving press conferences regarding his upcoming concert. Before too long, and without any real build-up, Marley and his wife Rita are shot and rushed to hospital in a scene that is so hastily edited together that you can barely comprehend what just happened. To complicate matters further, the film then inserts an oddly placed flashback to Marley and Rita when they were younger as an arbitrary way to show the enduring strength of their relationship. After this scene has concluded, the film then cuts to a recovered Marley returning to rehearse with his band, without any indication of how much time has passed or whether the attempted assassins were apprehended. It's hard to care about the subject of this biopic when so little care has been put into crafting out this particular timeframe, and if you can even get that right within the first 15 minutes, you're in big trouble.

Despite all of these major issues, the film at least has a nice soundtrack, which should go without saying since it is about the most iconic reggae musician of all time. Practically all of Bob Marley's most famous hits can be heard here, ranging from "I Shot the Sheriff" to "Get Up, Stand Up", all of which give the film a bit more personality than it would otherwise lack. I also liked watching the scenes where Marley is shown coming up with some of his best known songs, like how spending time with his sons inspired him to write "Three Little Birds" and how "Redemption Song" is actually a reworking of a track he wrote when he was much younger. Though it is clear the film is taking an artistic licence regarding the origins of these tunes, there is at least some emotional weight behind moments like this, which is more than can be said for most other parts of the story that constantly feel dead on arrival.

In the lead role as the film's main subject, Kingsley Ben-Adir does a decent enough job playing Bob Marley. I thought the scenes where Ben-Adir shone the most were the ones where he is performing at concerts, where he efficiently mimics Marley's stage mannerisms and his ability to keep the crowd invested in both the melody and the lyrics. It's a shame the rest the material he has to work with is so painfully weak, especially during the repetitive dialogue scenes which consist of him either questioning the sanctity of his marriage or telling his bandmates what song he's going to write next. It also doesn't help that all of the supporting cast are so vastly underwritten that you'd be struggling to remember the name of anyone significant besides Marley's wife Rita. With that said, I would say Ben-Adir's performance is one of the better features of this otherwise lacklustre biopic.

Considering the enduring popularity of Jamaica's most famous musician, it's exceptionally disappointing that "Bob Marley: One Love" has fallen so short of telling the full story about this fascinating individual. There are several missed opportunities for this film to have explored Marley's life in such great detail given the magnitude of his contribution to music, as well as the overall reputation of Jamaica itself. Instead, all we get is this mediocre autopilot biopic that barely scratches the surface of everything Bob Marley and his songs were all about. Thankfully, the timeless quality of Bob Marley's music will escape unharmed from this and continue to bring joy for many generations to come. It's too bad the same can't be said for the film itself.

I rate it 5/10.

"Anyone But You" is a romantic comedy film directed and co-written by Will Gluck ("Easy A", "Friends With Benefits", "Peter Rabbit"). Starring Sydney Sweeney and Glen Powell in the lead roles, it is a safely predictable romantic comedy that gets by on the watchability of its two stars.

In Boston, law student Bea (Sydney Sweeney) meets investment banker Ben (Glen Powell) in a coffee shop and the two decide to spend the day together. After falling asleep on his couch, Bea sneaks out of Ben's apartment without waking him, only to have second thoughts and return later that day. However, upon returning, Bea overhears Ben talking about her to his friend Pete (GaTa), where he disregards her as nothing more than a casual fling. Six months later, Bea and Ben unexpectedly cross paths once again when Bea's sister Halle (Hadley Robinson) becomes engaged to Pete's friend Claudia (Alexandra Shipp), with the wedding due to take place in Sydney, Australia. Despite their mutual animosity, Bea and Ben choose to maintain a ruse that they are actually a loving couple so as to appease the feelings of all the wedding guests and the brides to be.

Something that I really enjoy watching in virtually all forms of media is contemporary adaptations of the works of William Shakespeare. From the film and stage musicals of "West Side Story" (Romeo and Juliet) to Disney's animated classic "The Lion King" (Hamlet), many of us have likely viewed at least one form of entertainment that originates from Shakespeare's plays, whether we're aware of it or not. There's certainly something to admire about how the Bard's work can still be told in a modern context without losing anything important regarding its core meaning or overall impact. In a loose retelling of Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing", the 2023 film "Anyone But You" has a lot going for it on the surface, but once you strip away these factors, all you end up with is another by-the-numbers romantic comedy that squanders its full potential.

Even from the very beginning, it's easy to tell exactly how this film is going to play out. When our two lead characters Bea and Ben first meet each other, it seems like love at first sight, with the pair spending the day affectionately strolling through a park and later heading back to his apartment for some home cooking. Eventually, the two realise that they don't really love each other all, with a series of misunderstandings causing them to "break up", despite not being a real couple to begin with. Later on, circumstances arise where they are forced to be around one another once again for an extended period of time, eventually deciding to put up with each other for the sake of keeping up appearances. There are no prizes for guessing the direction this story is going to take from here, as anybody who is familiar with the romantic comedy genre can figure out that these two will end up together at some point later on. This is where the appeal of the genre proves polarising, since there are many viewers who find enjoyment in that predictability whereas there are numerous others who hate it for the very same reason. It all depends on what you consider entertainment, but I personally don't care for this approach at all.

As a contemporary take on a Shakespearian story, the film still follows the same basic plot with certain updates added to make it feel better suited for today's audiences. For instance, the location of the wedding is now in Sydney, Australia, as opposed to the Sicilian city of Messina. In addition to this, the main characters' names from the play have been shortened down, with Benedick becoming "Ben" and Beatrice becoming "Bea". However, the dialogue is the modern vernacular without any of the "Old English" sentence structure that Shakespeare plays are best known for. Though I did approve of most of these changes, some of the miscellaneous Easter eggs and references to the original story felt very tacked on. In some scenes, we see lines from the original play graffitied on a wall that a character walks past or on a sign at a wharf where a large group of wedding guests are all getting ready for a cruise. The only one of these references I kind of liked was a boat named "Sigh No More", which alludes to a notable song from the play.

Since the film takes place in Australia, I expected there to be some gags about this group of Americans feeling out of place in a foreign country, yet there are barely any comedic moments that truly made me smile. In one scene that goes on longer that it should, Ben and Bea are pretending to be feel each other up intimately in front of the other wedding guests, even though everyone else is distracted by a nearby koala. It is here where Ben discovers that a large Huntsman spider has found its way into his pants, leading to him frantically taking off all his clothes and throwing them off a cliff. Why he decided to throw them somewhere he cannot get them back so easily is unknown, but it appears to have been done to set up for a rather contrived scene where he is now naked in front of Bea and the others. The fact that this scene has such an obvious punch line from the start should indicate the level of weak humour this film has going for it, as it would appear the writers found this hilarious enough to drag it out for nearly five minutes straight.

That's not to say the film is completely unfunny, because there are a handful of moments that raised a snicker out of me. I liked this running joke about the Americans thinking that Australian coffee is "amazing" due to how much more powerful it is compared to what they have back home. Without giving away too much, this actually led to one part that came close to making me laugh out loud. There is also a character named Beau who looks and acts exactly like your modern stereotypical Aussie bloke. He has long blond hair, is often shirtless, loves surfing, and speaks with a thick Australian accent while using slang that most Americans won't understand. Admittedly, Beau did make me smile at the idea of how us Australians must look in front of foreigners, but unfortunately he wasn't featured enough in the story to be considered a scene stealer.

Though their characterisation was rather bland, the performances of both Sydney Sweeney and Glen Powell as Bea and Ben are what saves this otherwise routine romantic comedy from sinking without a trace. There's no denying these two have solid chemistry, even during moments where they are hurling verbal abuse at each other. Sweeney has this specific look on her face that allows her to hold the audience's attention long enough to wonder how she will react to a certain situation, whereas Powell is a decent straight man who is capable of giving her solid material to work with. I just wish these two had more interesting character traits other than being the stock boy and girl who need to fall in love with each other simply because the plot demands it. Aside from this, there is very little else worth mentioning about their contribution to the story.

Considering how much it seemed to have going for it, "Anyone But You" does little to elevate itself above being yet another mediocre romantic comedy among many others. Its attempt at retelling a classic Shakespearian story leaves a lot to be desired, featuring only the bare bones of the original plot and some uninspired modern references shoehorned in for good measure. If it weren't for the charismatic leads and a few nice shots of the Australian scenery, I wouldn't give it the time of day. In the end, you can only really view this film as one of those cookie-cutter modern romantic comedies that just so happens to come with a Shakespeare paint job. Of course, if that's more than enough to keep you entertained then the film may just be worth your time. As for me, I think the Bard deserved better than this.

I rate it 6/10.

"Road House" is a remake of the 1989 cult classic action film of the same name. Directed by Doug Liman ("The Bourne Identity", "Mr. & Mrs. Smith", "Edge of Tomorrow") and starring Jake Gyllenhaal in the lead role, it serves no real purpose other than to prove that modern remakes of popular 80s films will always be inferior to the original product.

Since retiring, former UFC fighter Elwood Dalton (Jake Gyllenhaal) has made a living scamming fighters within the underground circuit, attracting plenty of notoriety in the process. One night, Dalton is approached by a woman named Frankie (Jessica Williams), who offers him the job as the head bouncer at her disorderly roadhouse located in Florida Keys. Despite some initial reluctance, Dalton accepts the job and heads over to Frankie's roadhouse known simply as "The Road House". Upon beginning work, Dalton soon learns that his job is going to be much harder than he had anticipated, as the local area is filled with violent motorcycle gangs, corrupt law enforcement, and greedy businessmen intent on making life difficult for anyone unfortunate enough to cross their paths.

If there were ever a definitive decade for guilty pleasure movies, most would agree it would have to be the 1980s. From the overindulgent special effects of David Lynch's "Dune" to the cheesy love story laced with synthesiser music of "Top Gun", the 80s aesthetic of "so-bad-it's-good" remains unmatched even to this day, with many of these films attaining loyal cult followings for this very reason. One such movie that fills this role perfectly is 1989's "Road House", a Patrick Swayze-led project that has gone on to become a quintessential 80s guilty pleasure movie, containing just about everything that is ridiculous about cinema from this decade. In yet another attempt to cash in on people's nostalgia of the 80s, the 2024 remake of "Road House" tries to replicate all of the original's over-the-top qualities to appeal to a modern audience, but like all the others it fails in every way possible.

The most notable reason why this film just doesn't work is in its failure to understand why audiences found the 1989 version so entertaining in the first place. You can say what you will about the overall quality of the original film from a critical standpoint, but it at least knew how to set up its lead character and invest us in what could happen to him throughout the story. For the first two thirds of this film, instead of spending time developing its characters and establishing its plot, all we get are repetitive fight scenes that begin and end the exact same way. Someone causes trouble in the Road House, Dalton tries to prevent things from escalating further, the problematic person ignores Dalton and tries to fight him, Dalton quickly gains the upper hand and ejects the person from the premises. Rinse and repeat.

Although the original film did contain scenes just like this, they at least had some build up and an element of fun to help you look forward to watching Patrick Swayze's Dalton handling himself efficiently in hand-to-hand combat. Here, all of the fights seem like copy-paste versions of each other, only with different thugs each time. It's as if the screenwriters for this remake watched the original and assumed that the only reason people liked it was solely for the fight scenes, but that's simply not the case. Audiences like myself enjoyed watching Swayze's Dalton form a connection with the staff of the Road House before getting into the nitty-gritty fist fights he is known for. Unfortunately, this film does nothing like that with Gyllenhaal's Dalton, preferring to keep him emotionally distant from everyone he comes into contact with, at least until we're already 60% into the film's runtime. As a result, it's near impossible to care about anything that happens to this version of Dalton, as we just cannot relate to him on any personal level.

To add insult to injury, none of the fight scenes this time around are framed efficiently enough to leave any lasting impact. One of the reasons people enjoyed the fighting in the original was how realistic these scenes looked, as they all seemed as though they were happening right in the very moment at the actual location in question. In this film, there were several instances where it was obvious that CGI and green screen was being used to make it look like the people were fighting somewhere they obviously weren't. Though this may be excusable in other movies, it felt completely unnecessary here considering most of the fights took place inside the Road House as opposed to somewhere exotic like the inside of a volcano.

This leads to another major problem with the remake, the lack of grit and an appealing atmosphere. The excessive use of CG effects causes all of the fight scenes to look so clean and sterile, as though the actors are obviously performing within a controlled environment without any sense of danger from their surroundings. Because of this, there is little to no excitement in watching people fight one other since everything plays out in the same safe and predictable style each time. At least the original film gave off the impression that the characters are in places that could pose a threat to their safety, but here I never once felt as though anybody was in the location they were supposed to be due to the lacklustre special effects. When you can't even get the fighting scenes right in a "Road House" remake, you know you've messed up somewhere.

The film also fails to elicit any real laughs, which is something that helped the original attain the cult status it still holds today. Sure, there are moments that are clearly intended to make the audience laugh, but they all feel poorly integrated into the story. For example, when we are introduced to Conor McGregor's character, he is shown proudly wandering around an Italian town completely naked after being forcibly ejected from a woman's bedroom. As he searches for clothes at a nearby market, he decides to headbutt an innocent passerby to steal his outfit and later burn down the market immediately afterwards. Normally I would laugh at the excessiveness of a scene like this, but instead it felt like it was trying too hard to be funny and edgy rather than add something important to the story, or lack thereof. Then again, it's not like the original film didn't have similar ridiculous moments as well, so what didn't make me laugh just might make several others guffaw in disbelief.

None of the characters are interesting enough for us to care about in the long run, coming off as one dimensional caricatures of who they are all supposed to be. Even the otherwise watchable Jake Gyllenhaal has very little to do other than fight people in the exact same repetitive style from beginning to end. Though Gyllenhaal tries his best with the material given to him, there's no denying that he lacks the iconic charisma and screen presence of the late Patrick Swayze. Had Gyllenhaal's Dalton been written better, I would say that the film would be worth watching just for him, but I'm struggling to remember anything remotely important about his character other than that he's simply good at fighting.

Additionally, the two lead villains are just so cartoonishly absurd that they feel as though they were plucked right out of the 80s and made to interact with the world of the 2020s. For instance, the main antagonist is a wealthy real estate developer who runs a drug empire and wants to expand his development onto the land where the Road House is located. The actions of this character are so bizarre, like when he requests to be shaved with an old blade on his boat while traversing rough seas. If you can consider that character to be the brains, then the brawn would have to be Conor McGregor in his first acting role. However, all McGregor does in this film is punch things and pick fights simply because he feels like it, all while brandishing a menacing grin on his face. It's hard to tell if all these creative decisions were added as an ironic attempt at leaving a lasting impression on today's audience, but it just comes across as woefully desperate in my point of view.

For an already unnecessary remake of a popular guilty pleasure, this 2024 version of "Road House" just cannot find a way to distinguish itself any more than as a poor imitation of an arguably better original. The 1989 film might be considered bad by some, but it at least has a certain charm that has allowed it remain in the "so-good-it's-bad" category even after more than three decades. On the other hand, while this remake is indeed a bad film, it is bad in an uninteresting way; the kind that leaves you scratching your head as to why it was even made in the first place other than to capitalise on nostalgia. I cannot imagine this version ever achieving cult status like its 80s counterpart, but I could be wrong considering the general public's tendency to find appeal in almost anything. With that said, I believe it will be the original film that future generations choose to keep in high esteem.

I rate it 4/10.

"Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire" is the sequel to 2021's "Godzilla vs. Kong" and the fifth film in Legendary Pictures' "MonsterVerse". Once again directed by Adam Wingard and starring Rebecca Hall, Brian Tyree Henry, and Kaylee Hottle, it delivers what it promises for fans of Kaiju action with a handful of pleasant surprises along the way.

Following the events of "Godzilla vs. Kong", both the giant ape Kong and the giant reptilian Godzilla have agreed to keep their distance from one another, leading to a safer world as a result. Kong has since made his home within the depths of Hollow Earth while Godzilla continues to swim the surface world's oceans only occasionally emerging to attack any invasive Kaiju. One day, Kong ventures deeper into Hollow Earth where he discovers something huge that could threaten the very existence of not only his species but all life on the surface. Quickly realising that he cannot handle this threat alone, Kong attempts to form an unlikely alliance with his fierce rival Godzilla before both Hollow Earth and the surface world is destroyed.

Ten years since its debut, Legendary Pictures' "MonsterVerse" has managed to give western audiences their own cinematic universe of giant monsters, with Japan's iconic Kaiju Godzilla leading the way in his own self-titled 2014 film. Joining this colossal reptilian from the east is the equally famous King Kong (or just "Kong" for short) from the west, who also had similar success after first appearing in 2017's "Kong: Skull Island". It was inevitable that these two Kaiju would face off against one another, which is exactly what happened in "Godzilla vs. Kong", marking the first time since 1962 that both monsters have appeared in the same movie together. After that fight ended in a decisive draw, it seemed uncertain what direction things would head from there, but in "Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire", we see the pair working together in an entertaining follow-up that once again showcases great special effects and that signature Kaiju destruction.

Rather than focus on two separate stories at once, this time the plot is mostly centred around Kong by himself. Though he is a powerful and respected figure among the inhabitants of Hollow Earth, Kong still needs to assert his dominance whenever necessary. Much like any gorilla, he demonstrates this through physical combat and by roaring loudly while pounding his chest. However, like any primate, curiosity gets the better of him as he decides to explore further into Hollow Earth to find out what lies beneath. Of course, what he ends up discovering poses a threat to his position of power, which later leads to some interesting lore about the origins of both Kong and the other Kaiju who call this planet home. These scenes are what I would consider to be the best parts of the film, as they allow us to see that Kong isn't just a mindless monster who wants to destroy everything he sees, but in fact a curious animal with a natural instinct to remain at the top of the food chain.

Maybe it's the better special effects or maybe it's the better way the mythology is handled but I actually found myself more invested in this story than I did with the previous film. This is likely due to the way the film is told primarily from Kong's perspective, as when we see him learn more about ancient life in Hollow Earth, we are learning along with him. From his surprised expressions to his determination to defeat his opponents, the visuals do a fine job at clueing us in to how Kong must be feeling on this journey into unknown territory. As a result, Kong is a surprisingly relatable character this time around, at least by giant gorilla standards.

On the other hand, Godzilla's role in this story has been significantly sidelined in favour of his mammalian rival. Whenever we see him on screen, Godzilla is either fighting off any large miscellaneous Kaiju that dare to appear on the surface or he is swimming around looking for another place to rest. Humorously, it would seem that Godzilla has taken a preferential liking to curling up inside the Roman Colosseum to sleep in the same way a dog might curl up in its own fluffy bed. In any other case, I would be annoyed that the "King of the Monsters" has been reduced to playing second fiddle to Kong, but remembering that he has already had two other solo movies that adequately established all we need to know about his character, I wasn't nearly as bothered.

As is usually the case with giant monster movies, there are plenty of action sequences and scenes of chaotic destruction that are sure to keep audiences satisfied with what they've paid to see. For example, we see Kong punching his way though large, mysterious creatures who attack him and we watch Godzilla smashing through skyscrapers and other landmarks to destroy any other Kaiju that threaten his territory. Out of all these parts, I found the scenes with Kong to be the most exciting due to him being the more emotionally sympathetic of the two monsters. That's not to say I didn't enjoy Godzilla's scenes at all, as he certainly has some memorable moments too, especially during the film's climax. It's worth noting that most of the time Kong is merely defending himself from opposition while Godzilla is usually the instigator of his large-scale fights.

Regarding the human characters, they all serve their respective purpose to the story and nothing more. I didn't really care much for Rebecca Hall or Brian Tyree Henry's roles in the story other than for them to quote exposition that Godzilla and Kong cannot verbally communicate to the audience. Though they were far from annoying, I just wish there was a way for them to have had a more memorable impact on the story other than being the stock humans with scientific knowledge on the titular monsters. It is clear that these two human characters are only there to set things up for the next action scene involving either Kong, Godzilla, or both of them at once, meaning that practically anybody could have played their roles.

The closest the film comes to having an emotional moment with a human character is with the deaf girl Jia (Kaylee Hottle), who is able to communicate with Kong using sign language. Without spoiling too much, there is one scene with her and Kong that I found quite touching, which is more than can be said for all the other human characters whose names I can barely remember. At the end of the day, this lack of human drama doesn't really matter because as I said once before; we don't pay to see a monster movie for the human characters the same way we don't go to McDonalds to order a filet mignon. Then again, if "Godzilla Minus One" was able to accomplish greatness along these lines, then the potential was certainly there at least.

For yet another giant monster movie filled with gratuitous destruction and chaos galore, "Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire" is a worthy addition to the decade old "MonsterVerse" that promises to entertain with its great visuals and plentiful action scenes. As I said about the film's predecessor, you shouldn't expect anything less from a movie that has Godzilla and Kong's names in the title, and once again that's just what we get. I'm curious to see what direction the franchise will head in from this point forward, as there are a number of ways this story could continue with its already established mythology. Until then, I'm satisfied with simply watching these giant monsters beat the hell out of each other for our own amusement.

I rate it 7/10.

"Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire" is the sequel to 2021's "Ghostbusters: Afterlife" and the fourth film in "Ghostbusters" franchise. Directed and co-written by Gil Kenan ("Monster House", "City of Ember", "A Boy Called Christmas"), it falls short of its predecessor in a mediocre follow-up that proves the series has now run its course.

Two years after the events of "Ghostbusters: Afterlife", Callie Spengler (Carrie Coon) and Gary Grooberson (Paul Rudd) decide to move their family from Oklahoma to New York City. Setting up home in the old Ghostbusters' firehouse, the Spenglers work alongside the original team members Ray Stantz (Dan Aykroyd), Winston Zeddemore (Ernie Hudson), and Peter Venkman (Bill Murray) in an underground research lab that holds all of their captured ghosts in specially modified enclosures. One day, local resident Nadeem (Kumail Janjiani) discovers an ancient artefact that unleashes an evil supernatural energy capable of trapping the entire world in a permanent ice age. With the fate of the living now in turmoil, both the new and old Ghostbusters must set aside any generational differences to save the Earth from becoming frozen solid.

After decades of patiently waiting, fans of the "Ghostbusters" franchise were finally treated to a third film in the series with "Ghostbusters: Afterlife". This legacy sequel, which served as a belated continuation of the original two films, managed to find ways to appeal to the current generation while simultaneously paying respects to the older fans who made the series popular in the first place. Though not without its faults, fans such as myself found the film to be a satisfactory follow-up that left us with a good feeling after watching, which is exactly what I had hoped for leading up to its release. If it were up to me, I would have chosen to end the series here on a high note but considering its success at the box office, it was inevitable that Sony Pictures would produce more films somewhere along the pipeline. In the year of the franchise's 40th anniversary, we have "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire", a sequel to a legacy sequel that fails to milk any fresh or exciting ideas out of this beloved series.

Admittedly, the film does begin on a promising note, which I initially assumed was setting the mood for the rest of the story. In a fun opening scene, we watch as the Spengler family chase a large dragon ghost throughout the streets of Manhattan in the Ecto-1. As the spectre weaves its way through the various buildings, the Spenglers hastily try to catch it using an array of devices, including a drone with a ghost trap fitted to the top. Upon successfully bringing the creature's rampage to an end, the Spenglers are reprimanded for the collateral damage they caused in the process, later receiving a lengthy scolding from a certain environmental agent. From this point forward, the film takes a decidedly dour tone, with a general lack of excitement beyond the odd nostalgic references to the older movies. Each of the original two films had a nice blend of humour and horror that helped them become memorable staples of 80s pop culture. With this entry, however, I failed to remember even one remotely amusing part of the film once the end credits started rolling.

This brings us to one of the film's biggest problems; the poor attempts at humour. Whether it's a case of weak direction, a subpar script, or a combination of both, every one of the film's comedic moments fell flat. For example, in one scene Gary tries to motivate Callie during a time where she is depressed and feels unable to continue working. He does this by quoting the lyrics to the "Ghostbusters" theme song, a tune anyone with even a passing knowledge of the series has heard at some point. What could have been an affectionate homage to the franchise's iconic theme becomes an awkward moment that drags on longer than it should. All the potential was there for this scene to be funny, but something felt off about the overall delivery from both Paul Rudd and Carrie Coon. The film is littered with misfired comedy just like this, which certainly puts a hamper on its already downbeat tone. In other words, what should have been cringe comedy is instead simply cringe on its own.

Another problem with the film is its uninteresting story. As mentioned above, the film focuses around an ancient artefact with the ability to bring about an apocalyptic series of events. On paper, this sounds like a perfectly fine plot for a "Ghostbusters" film, but the execution is handled very poorly. For instance, the backstory regarding the artefact is told to the audience in a rather clunky, forced manner; by having a random character played by Patton Oswalt explain it through lengthy exposition accompanied by artistic visuals reflective of that era. Even with all that information provided, we never really feel like this is a genuine threat throughout the whole film. There's no sinister build-up, no sense of real danger, and no reason for the characters to be worried about the long term consequences of them failing their mission. As a result, I found it near impossible to become fully invested in the story this time around.

However, perhaps the film's most notable undoing is in the mishandling of its characters old and new. There are simply too many character subplots intertwining at the same time that the whole film becomes cluttered. If you are going to have a film with such a large cast of characters, you better find an appropriate way to use them within the story. Unfortunately, the film fails at that in every way possible, as we are instead subjected to irrelevant plot elements that go nowhere and characters whose presence is only there for fanservice purposes only.

Like in its predecessor, the film's protagonist is Phoebe (Mckenna Grace), the bespectacled young girl who follows in her grandfather's footsteps using her intellect to help capture ghosts. Yet in this film, Phoebe hardly changes all that much throughout the story, save for her desire to be taken more seriously due to her being labelled as too young to be a Ghostbuster. Her interactions with others are nothing more than surface level complaints about her age, meaning that we never really feel sorry for her on a deeper level. I assume Phoebe's character was supposed to have a more detailed arc but it was likely abandoned in favour of focusing on less important creative aspects like nostalgic fanservice.

The three original "Ghostbusters" actors; Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Ernie Hudson, also return for another outing as their respective characters. Unfortunately, the trio seem quite unenthusiastic to be here and each look as though they are phoning in their performances. I cannot go into too much detail about their roles in the film without giving away spoilers but I felt underwhelmed by each of their contributions to the story. Still, I will admit that it is nice to see them put on their old Ghostbusters uniforms at least one more time for us, especially after four decades since their debut. There's no denying these three are only doing this film for the paycheque, so hopefully they got their money's worth out of their participation.

From the perspective of a longtime fan, "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire" is a sad reminder that some IPs are doomed to be milked for all they are worth by their distribution companies. Had the story ended at "Afterlife", I would have been satisfied to call the film series a trilogy, but its success has now opened the door to more byproducts of corporate greed like this one. According to some research, there are more films planned for release in the future, which has me concerned as I believe there is little else in the way of "Ghostbusters" lore to draw inspiration from. In my humble opinion, Sony should have quit while they were ahead, but so long as "Ghostbusters" remains a profitable name, things will continue in this direction for a long time.

I rate it 5/10.

"The Iron Claw" is a biographical sports drama film written and directed by Sean Durkin ("Martha Marcy May Marlene", "The Nest"). Starring Zac Efron in the lead role, it presents an interesting yet undeniably tragic look at one of the greatest wrestling families in the history of the sport.

In 1979 in Texas, former professional wrestler Jack "Fritz" Von Erich (Holt McCallany) owns and operates the wrestling company "World Class Championship Wrestling" (WCCW). Fritz is married to his wife Doris (Maura Tierney) and has five sons; Jack Jr, who died in infancy, Kevin (Zac Efron), David (Harris Dickinson), Kerry (Jeremy Allen White), and Mike (Stanley Simons). Following in their father's footsteps, Kevin and David choose to wrestle professionally, with the former eventually being crowned the Texas Heavyweight Champion. After Kevin starts a relationship with a local woman named Pam (Lily James), he informs her of the "Von Erich curse", which is believed to have started after the unfortunate death of his older brother Jack Jr as a young child due to his father changing the family name Adkisson to his mother's maiden name. Over the course of the following decade, the Von Erich brothers experience several misfortunes and accidents that give weight to this theoretical curse, but the family remains determined to preserve their legacy for all the right reasons.

Whether you believe in curses or not, it's hard to ignore the alarming amount of bad luck the Von Erich family have experienced since their foray into the world of wrestling. Without going into too much detail, it is clear that the legacy of the Von Erichs will be somewhat tarnished by a series of unfortunate events that almost destroyed everything the family patriarch Fritz had built over several years. In spite of so many things going wrong for them, the Von Erich family still managed to leave a notable impact within the sport of wrestling, as even to this day they remain a force to be reckoned with. Named after the family's signature wrestling move, the film "The Iron Claw" delves into the Von Erich dynasty by examining their achievements and the tragic circumstances that befell them during their prime.

As is necessary in any family drama, the film is told to us from the different perspectives of the Von Erichs during certain points of the story. For instance, in the beginning, we see how Fritz views the life choices his sons wish to make regarding their respective career paths. Though initially reluctant to have them do what he did, Fritz decides to support and later train Kevin and David to be the very best wrestlers capable of carrying on the family legacy. It is here we see Fritz balancing his fatherly duties with that of a determined coach, pushing his sons to the very limits of their wellbeing while also trying to remain a positive paternal figure in their lives. In most other sports dramas, the father character is often abusive and neglects the personal feelings of his children for the sake of his own gain, but here it is refreshing to see that Fritz is a genuinely loving parent who never forces his sons to do what they would never want on their own terms. Instead, he allows them to work out any of their differences in more constructive ways rather than destructive.

Similarly, we also watch Kevin, who is now the oldest child by default, take on his elder brotherly duties by working to make a name for both himself and the rest of his family. Being a firsthand witness to the damage this curse is capable of causing, Kevin understands how important it is for him to work extra hard to prevent any further misfortune from occurring to his younger siblings. In addition to this, he constantly feels the pressure to become the World Heavyweight Champion, not only from his father, but also out of personal obligation to overcome his family's alleged curse. Though things seem to be going alright at first, a tragic chain of events start to take place that almost derail everything he had worked towards up until that point. This is where the film shifts its primary focus from Fritz over to Kevin, with the latter finding it increasingly difficult to simultaneously stay focused on wrestling while all of these family tragedies are taking place around him. To make matters worse, other competing wrestling companies start to emerge that pose a major threat to the Von Erich's presence within the community.

At first, you might be forgiven for assuming this film is only about the Von Erich's time in the spotlight as a powerhouse wrestling family, but as the film progresses it becomes a far darker tale of emotional heartbreak. Director Sean Durkin handles this story with the utmost care, never allowing it to descend into a repetitive mess of sad moments and sentimentality. Instead, Durkin chooses to focus on the tight-nit family unit of the Von Erichs, keeping the wrestling aspects of their personal lives to a minimum. This is mostly shown to the audience through the eyes of Kevin, whose mental state is often tested with every passing issue he and his family end up facing. Because of this, the audience feels like they are actually part of the family, suffering along with them as more problems arise. As someone who doesn't follow professional wrestling, I was pleased to see that Durkin chose this approach and that I was able follow this story without any prior knowledge of the sporting jargon or terminology. With that said, Durkin is highly effective at showing how the Von Erichs rely heavily on this sport to support their livelihood, which becomes problematic as further tragedies start to mount.

Continuing his streak of playing interesting characters, Zac Efron is a major standout in the role of Kevin Von Erich, which is easily one of his best performances so far. It's truly heart-wrenching to watch as Kevin grapples with not only maintaining his tough wrestler image but also fighting through his depression as a result of having so many terrible things happening around him at the same time. Each of Kevin's brothers face multiple problems after another, leading him to believe that the Von Erich curse might just be real after all. Efron does a great job showing Kevin's conflicted emotional state, ranging from suppressed sadness to a fleeting optimism that his luck may eventually improve. Without spoiling too much, Kevin and the rest of his family have a bittersweet conclusion that is sure to evoke strong feelings of sadness in even the most hardened viewer.

Worth mentioning as well is Holt McCallany as Fritz, the Von Erich patriarch whose influence over his family has helped them remain relevant even to this day. As mentioned earlier, I was pleased to see that Fritz is actually depicted as a mostly positive role model for his sons, always supporting their chosen career paths and never giving up on them whenever things turn ugly. However, as a compromise, he does not allow the boys to show any outward sadness if something awful ever happens within the family, causing them all to bottle up their emotions instead. This leads to some rather heated scenes that arise from the boys' inability to properly express their grief, which add to the increasing problems the family must deal with in relation to the curse. Regardless, Fritz is still the best possible father to be in this position of power, and McCallany's believable performance is one of the key reasons the character works so well in this film.

Even if you aren't a fan of wrestling, "The Iron Claw" still functions on its own as a gripping family drama that manages to hit all of the right emotional cues. Although it remains up for debate whether the curse is actually real, there's no denying the Von Erichs have had their fair share of catastrophes over the years, to the point where it could even be considered an epidemic. At the end of the day, it was their own resilience that allowed them to rise above these obstacles to become one of the most respected families in the entire sport of wrestling. If that's not a subject worthy of a film, then I don't know what is.

I rate it 8.5/10.

"Poor Things" is a dark comedy drama film based on the 1992 novel of the same name by Alasdair Gray. Directed by Yorgos Lanthimos ("The Lobster", "The Killing of a Sacred Deer", "The Favourite") and starring Emma Stone, Willem Dafoe, and Mark Ruffalo, it is an appropriately surreal odyssey of one woman's exploration into her true potential.

In an alternate Victorian London, eccentric surgeon Godwin Baxter (Willem Dafoe) successfully resurrects a recently deceased pregnant woman (Emma Stone) by transplanting the brain of the unborn baby into her skull. Naming the woman "Bella" and caring for her as his own daughter, Godwin later hires medical student Max McCandles (Ramy Youssef) to observe Bella's behaviour around the workplace. Max soon finds himself falling in love with Bella, captivated by her childlike demeanour as a result of her infant brain, and decides to propose to her at Godwin's insistence. Although she immediately accepts Max's proposal, Bella's intelligence quickly develops over time, which causes her to become increasingly curious of the outside world. One day, Bella becomes acquainted with Godwin's sleazy lawyer Duncan Wedderburn (Mark Ruffalo), and he convinces her to run away with him to explore the world on an adventure to completely change her perspective of everything she had known up to that point.

Nowadays, it seems there aren't too many filmmakers left that are able to leave an impression on the viewer based solely on their own unique point of view. In recent years, however, Yorgos Lanthimos has emerged as one of the most interesting examples of a director who can hold full creative command of his films to take his audience on a journey into the worlds he creates and the mindsets of the characters that inhabit them. This could possibly be attributed to the fact that Lanthimos is Greek and the Greeks are renowned for their epic storytelling abilities, which was made known thanks to Ancient Greek poets like Homer. In a similar vain to Homer's poems "The Odyssey" and "The Iliad", the film "Poor Things" shows a layered, sometimes bizarre journey of its lead character, in a story that is guaranteed to shock, amuse, but nonetheless wildly entertain the audience from beginning to end.

Perhaps the closest work of modern fiction to compare this story to would be Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", particularly through the way it shows its naive main character gradually learning what lies beyond her basic knowledge of everything around her. When we first meet Bella, we see she has the mental capacity of a toddler who only just learned how to talk, communicating through broken sentences and the odd temper tantrum. Her childlike innocence of how the world works can be seen in her finding amusement in smashing dinner plates and a cruel streak with her asking to kill a frog she found in a pond. Later, we see a turning point for Bella's character when she goes through something of a second puberty, causing her to view life and other people with a more mature viewpoint.

As she observes the actions of all the people she meets, Bella allows herself to become better informed of what she is capable of, leading to a desire to break away from her confined lifestyle and experience things on her own terms. Upon befriending Duncan, Bella quickly learns she has now acquired a convenient outlet for exploring the unknown, despite remaining blissfully unaware that his corrupt worldview is far more perverse than he had been leading her to believe. Once Bella has been taken out of her comfort zone, the film becomes far more philosophical in tone, as she begins to feel bad for the less fortunate. This leads to her performing what she considers to be good deeds at the expense of her own dignity, including selling her body for others to have their way with. There's a certain tragic element explored through Bella's character here, as while she is clearly an adult on the outside, her mind still retains a level of ignorance that only a child could harbour in situations like this.

Much of Bella's development throughout the story is told to us not only through the dialogue, but also through the film's distinct visual style. Yorgos Lanthimos's eye for detail can be seen in the way he depicts Bella's world opening up to her from a small, restricted laboratory to the large, sprawling cities she finds herself travelling to on her journey. One of the more notable creative directions Lanthimos takes here is in his use of colour, or lack thereof. For instance, the beginning the film is shown almost entirely in black-and-white, save for a flashback scene explaining how Bella died and was resurrected in the first place. Later on, as Bella journeys from one place to another, bright colours and saturation are used to reflect her mood depending on the specific location and what she is experiencing at that time. I interpreted this as a young child learning that their view of the world is more than the simple black-and-white they start out with and that as they grow older, a more interesting and colourful existence awaits them.

The parts that stood out to me the most were when Bella is walking along the deck of a cruise ship and the time of day is used to show her fluctuating optimism. At night, Bella sees everything in dark blue with only a distant island illuminating the murkiness while during the day she sees it all in a troubling yellow, which is intended to show the poor living conditions of the people on the mainland. Lanthimos frames each of these shots like a painting, with the characters and objects positioned in very precise spots to emphasise Bella's state of mind without the need for her to verbally communicate her thoughts to the audience. The stunning visual ambience used here is comparable to filmmakers like Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Terry Gilliam, both of whom are known for immersing their characters in distinct worlds that allow the viewer to understand a character's train of thought at certain points in the story.

Something that will prove off putting to some viewers is the film's excessive use of graphic sex scenes. Although most of these parts do serve a purpose to the story, their explicit nature is guaranteed to make many people feel uncomfortable whenever they are featured on screen. The best way to interpret scenes like these is to assume that we are watching Bella learn more about her physical desires on her journey, which comes as a result of her exploring the type of person she is growing into along the way. Regardless, I do think there were some moments where these sex scenes teetered dangerously close towards sensationalism rather than as a genuine way to make an artistic point about something.

In what I would call her best role to date, Emma Stone plays Bella with such a masterful degree of confidence that it's almost scary. Throughout the film, we watch Bella change from naive and child-like to experienced and mature, not simply by what happens on the journey itself but through the true potential she had hiding inside her from the very beginning. Though her infant mind limited her functionality at the start, we can see that some of her original personality before she died had been preserved during the swapping of brains. This would have been an incredibly tricky role to play given the amount of opportunities for it to descend into a caricature of a mentally handicapped person, but Stone manages to maintain a respectable level of subtlety that allows her to pull off playing both an adult with the mind of a child and adult with real world experience.

The supporting cast also provide different perspectives to Bella's journey, with Mark Ruffalo and Willem Dafoe being the clear standouts. Ruffalo's performance as Duncan is quite unlike any role he usually plays - he is debaucherous, crude, and holds a pessimistic view of the world. This is in stark contrast to the naively innocent Bella, which allows him to take advantage of her as an excuse to corrupt her mind with his own toxic beliefs. Despite this, Duncan does show some concern for Bella whenever she tries to do things on her own without his consent, as he is aware of how dangerous the world can be for an ignorant, attractive young woman like her.

On the other hand, Willem Dafoe is his usual eccentric self as Godwin, the surgeon responsible for bringing Bella back to life with a brand new brain. From a man whose past work involves surgically swapping the heads of animals with unrelated ones, it is obvious he considers reviving a human from the dead to be his crowning achievement. He interacts with Bella like she's a real child in his care, disciplining her whenever she acts out of line and observing how fast her intellect is growing over time. As odd as he may seem on the surface, Godwin is actually shown to be nurturing at heart, as being unable to father biological children of his own is the main reason why he chooses to treat Bella as his adoptive daughter.

As an odyssey in the strongest sense, "Poor Things" succeeds at taking its audience on an absurd yet fascinating adventure with its cast of interesting characters and some great visuals to complement things nicely. Though its approach to storytelling may prove challenging in certain areas, one thing's for sure, it never forgets to entertain. This is easily Yorgos Lanthimos's best film so far, as well as another great opportunity for Emma Stone to demonstrate her wide range as an actress. For these reasons alone, it's hard not to be excited for whatever future projects lie on the horizon for these two. If they're anything like this, we're in for a real treat.

I rate it a solid 9/10.

"Dune: Part Two" is the sequel to the 2021 science fiction film "Dune", based on the 1965 novel of the same name by Frank Herbert. Directed and co-written by Denis Villeneuve ("Incendies", "Prisoners", "Arrival", "Blade Runner 2049") and starring Timothée Chalamet, Zendaya, and Rebecca Ferguson, it brilliantly continues this highly engaging story without ever once letting up on what made the preceding film so great in the first place.

After the fall of House Atreides at the hands of the House Harkonnen, Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) and his mother Lady Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson) find themselves joining up with a native Fremen tribe on the desert planet of Arrakis. In an effort to gain the Fremen's trust, the two undergo a series of challenges, with Paul learning their language and taming the large sandworms, and Jessica drinking from the Water of Life to replace the tribe's dying Reverend Mother. Over time, Paul develops feelings for Chani (Zendaya), a young Fremen woman whom he had been seeing in his visions, and the pair start working together to prevent the Harkonnen from harvesting all of the spice on Arrakis. It soon becomes clear that the Harkonnen will stop at nothing to steal all of Arrakis's most prized resource, and while Paul wrestles with his personal emotions, he plans an effective way to stop them before the entire universe itself is placed in mortal danger.

Without any doubt, the 2021 film adaptation of Frank Herbert's first "Dune" novel has proven to be one of the most engrossing science fiction movies to be released in the past few decades. Cleverly alluding to the real-world history of trade, this film takes that very concept and places it into a futuristic outer space setting with the underlying social commentary that hostility between different cultures will always remain a problematic concept. Due to the sheer scale of the story being told, it would be impossible to tell this epic tale within the confines of a single film, which resulted in it being split up into two parts. In this long-awaited second half of the story, the plot continues in an incredibly well-made science fiction masterpiece that retains everything great about the original and more.

Like its predecessor, this film does a fantastic job of captivating its audience within the first ten minutes and maintaining that level of intrigue the entire way through. We watch as Paul and his mother Jessica work together with their new Fremen allies to overcome a potential ambush from a group of Harkonnen soldiers. Rather than attacking the enemies up close, the Fremen are observed sniping them from a safe distance, using their own wits to dispose of them without drawing too much attention to their location. Later, as Paul and Jessica strive for acceptance among the Fremen, we are shown each of the painstaking ways the pair try to exert themselves to win their favour.

Paul's taming of the skyscraper-sized sandworms proves to be a challenging task, but once he masters it, the audience is treated to an incredibly exciting sequence that is certain to leave a lasting impression. This later leads to him bonding with Chani, who admires Paul for his commitment to the right cause and the two start to harbour romantic feelings for each other. On the other hand, Jessica's journey is more of a spiritual one, with her taking on the role of the Fremen's new Reverend Mother. By consuming the mysterious "Water of Life", Jessica gains the ability to hear the memories of all her ancestors, allowing her to become an important figure for both her son and the rest of the Fremen. The two contrasting journeys to enlightenment are balanced perfectly alongside each other, allowing for a necessary emotional undercurrent for the thought-provoking themes scattered throughout the main story.

We also learn more about the Fremen themselves, whose lifestyles were only hinted at in the first film. Far from the uncivilised "rats" that they are labeled as by the Harkonnen, the Fremen are an interesting group of natives who have learned to adapt to the hostile environment of Arrakis and live in harmony with the other dangerous creatures. However, it is also established that there are some disagreements between the Northern and Southern tribes over which lifestyles they should all be following. I interpret this as the film's way of alluding to real world religious disputes over how someone's personal beliefs will always clash with others, which is shown to still be a problem thousands of years in the future.

If the story doesn't invest you right away, then the film's amazing visuals are sure to do the trick. All too often, I see films that use CGI as a way to distract the audience from its faults but here it is all implemented flawlessly as a method of advancing the story forward. I often found myself in awe at the fantastic use of cinematography for even the most trivial of scenes. For example, as a way of showing how small the human presence on Arrakis is compared to the planet itself, there are moments where we see the large building settlements being dwarfed by the size of the huge sand hills in the background. And if that isn't enough to get the point across, the even larger sandworms just might pop up from underground to devour anyone or anything unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Also, despite being a desert planet, the appearance of Arrakis is never a dull sight. Spice glimmers brightly in the hot sunlight and the film's creative colour palette allow it to effectively reflect the particular mood of a scene that would have otherwise become straining to the eyes. But it's not just Arrakis that is impressive to look at, as there are other locations that brim with visual brilliance as well. The Hardkonnen homeworld of Giedi Prime has noticeable shades of black-and-white that give the planet a militaristic vibe in the vein of a World War II propaganda film, complete with marching soldiers wielding emblematic flags. Additionally, during some sword fights, the film even starts to resemble a classic samurai feature, in particular those by the legendary Akira Kurosawa. Just when I thought I was becoming desensitised to dazzling visual effects, this movie has proven me wrong.

But perhaps the best part about all of this is the film's pacing and editing. Even though it clocks in at a whopping 167 minutes, at no point does the film ever drag or contain any unnecessary filler. Director Denis Villeneuve has masterfully used his skills to combine all of the film's aforementioned strengths into a perfectly paced story that is able to simultaneously wow the audience with its great visuals, immerse them in the atmosphere of a faraway planet, and keep them invested in what happens to each of the characters. One scene where this is prominent is during Paul's attempt to tame a sandworm. Here, Paul places a device into the sand that is used to attract them to his location and waits patiently for one to appear. The suspense of whether or not a sandworm is going to suddenly appear out of the ground without warning is so cleverly done that I could not take my eyes off the screen during this whole sequence. There aren't many filmmakers capable of pulling off a scene like this, but Villeneuve is clearly more than qualified in this particular area of expertise.

As I said about him in the previous film, Timothée Chalamet is perfect in the role of Paul Atreides, whose importance in the story has increased significantly since last time. Watching Paul grow closer to the Fremen through Chani is a solid emotional anchor for his character, and helps him become more sympathetic to the audience. As Paul learns more about the Fremen, the audience is learning along with him, and the film never skimps on the details regarding what he needs to do to win their trust. Even Paul's character arc is more interesting this time around, as we watch him wrestle with his conflicting emotions and the stoic pragmatism he trained for all his life.

Zendaya also stands out as Chani, who has a more prominent supporting role teaching Paul everything he needs to know about her people. Though Chani is more than capable of handling herself in combat, she and Paul nonetheless make a great team together, allowing the two of them to grow closer romantically. Rebecca Ferguson plays a larger role in the story as Lady Jessica, not only as the mother of Paul but also as a new maternal figure among the Fremen. Without revealing any important details, Jessica's character provides an almost supernatural quality to an otherwise grounded story as a result of her consuming the Water of Life.

Much like last time, this second part of the story that began with 2021's "Dune" has found a way to go all out to entertain its audience at every opportunity. It draws you in with its fantastic visuals, keeps you invested in its intriguing plot, and also provides some insightful commentary on the general nature of human behaviour. This film is an epic in every sense of the word; both in scale and narrative. There are still five other "Dune" novels written by Frank Herbert with the potential to be adapted into feature films, so I remain hopeful that this one is not the end. Judging by the success of both this film and its predecessor, there is a bright future ahead of us.

I rate it a very high 9.5/10.

"The Zone of Interest" is a historical drama based on the novel of the same name by Martin Amis. Written and directed by Jonathan Glazer ("Sexy Beast", "Birth", "Under The Skin") and starring Christian Friedel and Sandra Hüller, it shows a disturbing analysis of evil from a fascinatingly banal point of view.

In 1943 in Poland, Nazi SS officer Rudolf Höss (Christian Friedel) lives with his wife Hedwig (Sandra Hüller) and five children in a nicely maintained house directly neighbouring the Auschwitz concentration camp he presides over. As he enjoys being stationed in this convenient location, Höss soon starts facing problems when he realises his work life and family life are beginning to intertwine. Things become especially complicated for Höss after he is given a promotion that will require him to move his family away from the very home they have all become so personally attached to. While trying to reach a compromise with his superiors regarding his family, Höss continues his work as per usual, transporting several Jewish prisoners to Auschwitz for execution.

If it hasn't already been made clear by now, the Holocaust was one of the deadliest mass genocides in human history. The horrific events that took place during this time period have been heavily preserved throughout the media, including but not limited to art, literature, and of course film. Many feature films have showcased the raw brutality and purely evil acts that occurred at this time, which serve as a reminder of why it is important that the general public never forget this monument to inhuman cruelty. Due to the shocking nature of what happened, most films understandably focus on the more sensationalistic side of the Holocaust, but in "The Zone of Interest" we see a more nuanced perspective of what was going on, which nonetheless achieves its intended goal of bringing attention to these atrocities.

What this film does that separates it from other Holocaust related media is that it focuses on the more mundane side of what was happening during this time. For instance, we see Rudolf Höss, a man who was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Jews at Auschwitz, happily spending time with his family and interacting with close friends. While Höss relaxes in the backyard of his idyllic home, meanwhile over the large, grey wall, a genocide is being carried out at his orders, with faint screams in the background being a common sound. It is made clear to the audience that both Höss and his family are used to these otherwise horrifying sounds, with them all going about their daily routine like it is business as usual.

Later, Höss is seen talking with his two co-workers in the living room where they show him the plans for a bigger, more efficient crematorium to be implemented into the camp. As the three men interact with each other, it's jarring to watch how casually they treat the potential deaths of several hundred people as some kind of normal business decision. The most disturbing part is how this whole situation plays out in a manner more befitting to discussing something innocent like new labels on jars of peanut butter, even though the conversation in question involves the destruction of human life. A scene like this proves that true evil is actually in the smaller details rather than what is located at surface level.

Where I think this film truly shines is in its clever cinematography, which director Jonathan Glazer frequently uses to juxtapose the horror of the Holocaust with the simple, everyday life that Höss and his family have built for themselves. Throughout the movie, Glazer shows scenes with Höss enjoying the luxurious house he lives in with his family, mirroring how one in the 1940s might have spent their free time at home during this era. In one scene, Höss's children are seen happily playing in the garden pool with the looming concentration camp in the background. Oblivious to the barely audible gunshots, burning furnaces, and screams of terror, the kids happily continue to play in blissful ignorance. Similarly, Höss's wife Hedwig tends to her flower garden, remarking at the beautiful sight of what has finally started to bloom. A short time later, the family gardener cleans up what appears to be excess dirt near the wall, only to reveal that this "dirt" is actually something far more sinister. Glazer frames this shot with the bright garden greenery on the left and the dark threatening camp wall on the right, which I interpret as a juxtaposition of life and death in a twisted state of balance.

In addition to this, Glazer opts for a more simplistic approach to his storytelling technique as an effective way to showcase the "ordinary" activities happening around Rudolf Höss and his family. Rather than just focusing on Höss himself, Glazer instead decides to go for a more fly-on-the-wall point of view, often featuring Höss at a considerable distance away from the camera. For example, in one scene we see Höss taking his children fishing in a nearby river, where the kids innocently play together close to shore while Höss notices something that resembles a bone in the water. Glazer shoots this scene from far away so that the audience can hardly recognise what Höss pulls out from the river until the last minute, which in turn makes this scene more distressing in nature. In effect, it also prevents the viewer from garnering any sympathy for Höss and how this unsettling discovery has ruined his family's fun at the river, as we are kept at a distance from the character both literally and emotionally. It is clear that Glazer does not want anyone to ever empathise with a Nazi, even if he is doing something otherwise honourable like being a good father.

Though the individual cast members are not supposed to be the main focus of the story, each of the two lead actors did a decent job in their roles. Christian Friedel plays Rudolf Höss not as a caricature of a Nazi but as a seemingly regular man working to provide for his family. Unfortunately, that job Höss works just so happens to involve the genocide of a large group of people, which the film makes sure to remind us of whenever we may feel like identifying with him. Höss may seem like a nice enough guy when he's around his family and friends, but when you remember what he shamelessly does at his job on a daily basis, he's actually an irredeemable monster.

Likewise, Sandra Hüller's approach to playing Hedwig is that of a supportive wife who only wants what's best for her husband and children. She wants to stay where she and the family feel most comfortable, and is understandably upset when she learns that they all might have to move away. In most other cases, someone like Hedwig could be viewed as a good wife for Höss with a moral compass that the audience can find themselves supporting throughout the film. However, it is quickly made clear that Hedwig is fully aware of what her husband does for work, and choosing to remain married to him with that in mind makes her an equally terrible person.

As another important reminder of one of the deadliest mass murders in history, the approach taken by "The Zone of Interest" helps it stand out not through conventional shock but rather through its subtly evil undertones. Though it may not induce the same level of trauma as other more notable Holocaust films, it nonetheless leaves an impression on the viewer in different ways. It's easy to forget that sometimes the devil is in the details, as all of the horrible things that occurred during this dark event didn't simply happen all at once, they were intricately planned out over a period of time. There aren't too many movies that examine a topic like the Holocaust in such a sophisticated manner, so for that reason alone the film is commendable.

I rate it 8/10.

"Madame Web" is a superhero film based on the Marvel comic book character of the same name. Directed by S. J. Clarkson and starring Dakota Johnson in the title role, it continues Sony's complete lack of creativity in carving out their own superhero cinematic universe in another dull, forgettable origin story.

In 2003 in New York City, Cassandra "Cassie" Webb (Dakota Johnson) works as a paramedic saving lives and driving patients to the hospital in an ambulance. One day, Cassie finds herself involved in an accident which causes her to develop psychic abilities that allow her to see into the future. With her new clairvoyant powers, Cassie learns that three young women; Julia Cornwall (Sydney Sweeney), Mattie Franklin (Celeste O'Connor), and Anya Corazon (Isabela Merced) are now being hunted by the dangerous Ezekiel Sims (Tahar Rahim) and vows to protect them from him at all costs. While the quartet are on the run, Cassie soon realises she must confront her own troubled past in order to ensure that the three women don't fall victim to Ezekiel's influence.

It's pretty clear at this point that Sony have no clue what direction they are heading in with their superhero IPs. Not only is their shared timeline with Disney's Marvel Cinematic Universe a convoluted mess, but it also seems that they are unsure how to handle the characters inhabiting the very universe they created themselves. The public's reception of these films appears to reflect this as next to no one can be bothered investing their time in something they have little interest in watching in the first place. Following suit from the failure of "Morbius" two years earlier, "Madame Web" attempts to introduce more characters into Sony's pitiful "Spider-Man" Universe but like last time it is dead on arrival.

From the way this film started, I could already tell it just wasn't going to work. Here, we see a pregnant scientist in 1973 searching the jungles of Peru for a rare spider that is supposed to have mysterious properties in its venom. It should be noted that this information is not conveyed to us here through what the characters are experiencing but rather through awkwardly worded exposition that feels like it was added to the script at the last minute. Immediately after, the scientist announces she has discovered the spider and is soon shot and left for dead by one of her fellow explorers. Flashing forward thirty years, the film then shows our protagonist Cassie rushing to the scene of an accident without any real context of what happened within those three decades, instead choosing to shelve this important plot element for much later on in the story. The jumbled, poorly edited way the film tries to set up its plot within a short time frame makes it hard to care about anything else that happens afterwards because if a solid storytelling foundation cannot be done in just the first 10 minutes then it's clearly going to be all downhill from here on out.

To make matter worse, the action scenes, if you can call them that, are never exciting. There were only about two scenes throughout the entire movie that could be considered "action packed" in the loosest sense and even then there wasn't any enjoyment to be had from any of them. In one, we see Cassie trying to defend the three girls from the advancing Ezekiel on a subway train, only for the scene to end almost as quickly as it started. I couldn't help but feel cheated after this sequence concluded, as it gave the impression it was going to be an intense demonstration of skills between hero and villain. But instead, the scene simply moves onto the next one as though we are supposed to forget about everything that just happened. Because of this, the film's general lack of excitement makes it quite boring to watch most of the time, especially considering some of the weak dialogue the characters are made to speak.

Though not quite as bad as in "Morbius", the film's visuals and editing definitely leave a lot to be desired. What is supposed to be the film's way of showing Cassie using her powers is seen through a series of quick-cut shots of something bad taking place clumsily inter-spliced with repetitive seizure-inducing flashes. At first I didn't mind this creative technique, but as the movie continued on it really became irritating to watch each time Cassie showed her signature abilities. This is problematic since it is the backbone for her entire character's superhero gimmick, and when that starts to wear you down, you know your film is not working the way you had intended. What I would have done instead is focus on the very thing Cassie is looking into the future for an indeterminate amount of time before cutting back to the present, as the constant flashes are an unnecessary addition to this visual style.

In the role of Cassie, Dakota Johnson looks like she's trying her best with the awful material she has to work with, even if it was probably all for nothing. It can't be easy making such a bland character seem somewhat likeable, but Johnson puts on a brave face and powers through the mediocrity of the film's script. There's not a lot of depth to Cassie as a character, other than that she is socially awkward and has a caring nature. One thing I was relieved to see is that Cassie is not depicted as a man-hating "girlboss", as has been the trend in many female-led films released in the past few years. For the most part she appreciates all the male help she receives, especially from her co-worker Ben (Adam Scott), which is one of the reasons her character is a bit more endearing to the audience.

On the other hand, I found myself struggling to remember anything remotely substantial about the three other women in the cast beyond what is seen on the surface. Sydney Sweeney's Julia is an introverted nerd who wears thick rimmed glasses and has difficulty interacting with others, Celeste O'Connor's Mattie is a short tempered skeptic who flips people off when they get in her way, and Isabela Merced's Anya does little more than act like a third wheel among this trio. Without doing any extensive internet research on these characters, this was all that came to my mind when thinking carefully about them. Given their supposed importance to the story, this is pretty sad when you think about it.

In addition to their poor development, it would seem that these three each aren't very bright either. One scene where this is evident to audience shows the trio hiding out in a diner where they are told by Cassie to keep a low profile. A short time later, the three of them walk over to a group of high school boys where they proceed to climb onto the table and dance to "Toxic" by Britney Spears, alerting Ezekiel to their presence. It's hard for me to like characters who do such brazenly stupid things like this for no other reason than for a cheap attempt at comedy.

However, where the film really falters in terms of character development is in its villain Ezekiel, and Tahar Rahim does little to add anything noteworthy to his performance. At no point did Ezekiel feel like a genuine threat since there's nothing interesting about him as a character. It is established that Ezekiel has the same powers as Cassie but they only ever seem to work whenever the plot demands it. What could have been an interesting adversary for Cassie is instead a one dimensional bad guy who wants the three girls dead because he had a brief vision they were going to kill him. This leaves many unanswered questions regarding his purpose in the story. Why do these specific girls play a part in him dying? Why is he so easily avoided despite his pursuits taking place in broad daylight? Why doesn't he see some kind personal connection to Cassie as they share the same abilities? Being a rich as he is, why couldn't he just hire someone else to deal with the girls instead of doing it himself? When the movie leaves you in the dark this much about a villain and his motives, you tend to lose interest in wanting to see what happens to him in the end.

With such a poor track record so far, Sony doesn't seem to be learning any lessons regarding the state of their own Marvel Cinematic Universe. Like "Morbius" before it, "Madame Web" is simply a bad product, not bad as in the cheesy fun kind, but rather a forgettably boring type of bad, which is debatably worse. Previously, I said that the poor reception of "Morbius" should serve as a wakeup call for the company, although judging by the quality of this film, it would appear that yearning has fallen on deaf ears. I wish plenty of good luck to all future additions to this cinematic universe, because they are definitely going to need it.

I rate it 3/10.

"American Fiction" is a comedy drama film written and directed by Cord Jefferson, based on the novel "Erasure" by Percival Everett. Starring Jeffrey Wright in the lead role, it stands as one of the best written, most damning satires about racial stereotypes to hit movie screens in a very long time.

In Los Angeles, literature professor Thelonious "Monk" Ellison (Jeffrey Wright) is placed on mandatory leave by his university after frequently arguing with his students over differing opinions on racial issues. Wishing to spend this time off with his family, Monk travels to Boston to meet up with them and later decides to attend a literary seminar taking place nearby. Monk's Q&A panel receives very little attention due to most of the attendees choosing instead to watch an onstage interview with author Sintara Golden (Issa Rae), whose novel "We's Lives in Da Ghetto" has become a number one bestseller. Surprised at how much Sintara's book panders to African American stereotypes yet receives such glowing praise from readers, Monk decides to write his own novel in the exact same style, titling it "My Pafology" and loading it up with every cliche imaginable for a black writer. Under the pen name "Stagg R. Leigh", Monk sends his completed novel to various publishers out of spite and is soon shocked to discover that he is now being offered $750,000 and a movie deal for the rights to his story.

It can be difficult for creative people to compromise their vision for the sake of pandering to others. All too often, many writers, artists, performers, and other similar folk are at the mercy of company executives forcing them to make changes to their work as a result of wishing to keep up with the times. Of course, this can yield mixed results, as while the creators in question will likely profit greatly from their amended product, a major part of their true selves may have been severely altered in the process. This is especially the case with the current political climate, with many people being forcibly made to acquiesce to modern views on race, sexuality, and gender identity whether they agree with any of it or not. The film "American Fiction" is an excellent example of how it is possible to satirise the world's view on stereotypes without once resorting to sensationalism or condescension.

From the very opening scene, you can immediately tell what direction this movie is going to take with its satirical point of view. We watch as Monk, a well educated African American university scholar, has an argument with one of his white female students regarding the title of a book he is teaching the class. The book in question, whose title contains a racial slur, offends the young student with hair dyed neon green, prompting her to question why he isn't offended along with her. Monk tells the student that if he is capable of understanding the proper context of what is being taught, then she can as well, which he soon learns the hard way is not the case at all. The scathing yet humorous look at the way modern teachers have to deal with these types of students, especially from an African American perspective, is one of the many reasons this movie works as well as it does. This is because it allows the audience to see the hypocrisy of virtue signalling, which calls attention to the subconscious racism on display by the very ones who claim to be against it.

Later on when Monk writes his book, we watch as he dumbs down every element of his otherwise intelligent storytelling technique. Gone is his sophisticated writing style and in its place is the stereotypical African American street vernacular spoken by violent gun-wielding criminals as the main characters. Coming from a man with such a highly educated background, it becomes obvious to the viewer that it is a painful experience for Monk to compromise what could have been a clever in-depth story about two black friends, but he forcefully presses on to prove his point about pandering. To his surprise, Monk's experiment works a little too well, and he finds himself offered a large sum of money just for the publishing rights alone. On that note, perhaps the best way to describe this film is that it's like a combination of Mel Brooks's "The Producers" and Spike Lee's "BlacKkKlansman", as each involve some kind of deceptive plan that goes horribly right for the protagonist.

In addition to the sharply satirical humour woven throughout the story, the film also has its fair share of deeply emotional moments, primarily shown through members of Monk's immediate family. Although it is shown that Monk had a respectable upbringing, his family has still been subjected to various ups and downs that have essentially shaped him into the person he is today. For instance, his mother Agnes (Leslie Uggams) suffers from early stages of Alzheimer's disease, causing her to forget most of the great achievements he and his other siblings have accomplished throughout their lives. Because of this, Monk is forced into an ultimatum; move her into an expensive nursing home with his own money or let his siblings sort things out for a cheaper price.

Also, Monk's estranged brother Cliff (Sterling K. Brown) has been living a hedonistic lifestyle after divorcing his wife, frequently engaging in drug use and sexual encounters. We later see that Cliff, whose divorce was the result of him coming out as gay, is now at odds with Agnes due to her homophobic views on family values, putting a strain on his relationship with her. I was highly impressed with the way director Cord Jefferson was able to juggle all of Monk's family issues so smoothly while simultaneously keeping the core satirical elements at the forefront of the story. Most first time filmmakers would greatly falter in this department, but Jefferson strikes the perfect balance between darkly comical and touchingly dramatic without ever using cheap jokes or unearned sentimentality to get the point across.

In his best film performance to date, Jeffrey Wright does a fantastic job in the role of Monk. Several times throughout the film, we witness Monk react to all of the bizarre, sometimes frustrating things that end up happening to him, and Wright's facial expressions and body language certainly shine during these scenes. In the previously mentioned opening, it's easy to understand how irritated Monk must be at dealing with socially ignorant people like his offended student, and the repressed annoyance he shows is both funny and relatable just by the level of self control he has during this situation. I've always found Wright to be an underrated actor who has never become a household name despite starring in several on screen productions over the years, so it's nice to see him finally receive some mainstream acknowledgement for his work in this film.

Worth mentioning as well is Sterling K. Brown as Cliff, Monk's estranged homosexual younger brother. What I liked most about Cliff as a character is the way in which he acts as a reminder to Monk of the importance of staying true to himself. In one scene, which I won't discuss in too much detail due to spoilers, we see Cliff and Monk talking about the long term impact of doing things to appease others rather than yourself. This introspective chat about living life your own way is among the most emotionally affecting parts of the film, and Brown definitely holds his own alongside Wright during this particular moment. You are really given the sense that these two brothers now share a common ground, despite all of their past disagreements.

Taking into account its timely subject matter, Cord Jefferson's "American Fiction" stands triumphantly as one of the cleverest, funniest satirical films to be released in many years. It's so rare to see a brand new filmmaker get everything right on their first try while at the same time create something that has the potential to be a talking point for generations to come. Of course, Jefferson could not have accomplished any of this without the help of the film's cast, whom he has given them all great material to work with thanks to his excellent screenplay. With all that said, Jefferson has now established himself as a filmmaker to watch and I eagerly await any future projects he may have on the horizon.

I rate it a very high 9.5/10.

"Argylle" is an action spy comedy film co-produced and directed by Matthew Vaughn ("Kick-Ass", "X-Men: First Class", the "Kingsman" series). Starring Bryce Dallas Howard, Sam Rockwell, Henry Cavill, John Cena, and Bryan Cranston, it takes great pleasure in that signature manic energy one would expect from a Matthew Vaughn film for better and for worse.

After concluding a promotional tour for her fourth book about the fictional spy Aubrey Argylle (Henry Cavill), novelist Elly Conway (Bryce Dallas Howard) is about to put the finishing touches on her follow-up when she suffers from sudden writer's block. Later, Elly decides to visit her mother (Catherine O'Hara) by travelling on a train where she meets Aidan (Sam Rockwell), a real-life spy who informs her that plot points in her Argylle stories have seemingly uncovered the top secret activities of a sinister underground organisation known as the "Division". With her life now in serious danger, Elly is taken by Aidan to London where the pair search for an elusive master key believed to contain information that could bring down the Division for good. Along the way, Elly's awkward, introverted nature causes the duo numerous problems and she soon starts to suspect that Aidan is not everything he says he is.

It can be a lot of fun losing yourself into the world of a good novel. Unlike watching a movie, reading a story via text can allow for a more personal experience as it allows someone to envision things specifically to their own imagination, which is often the reason why books are widely considered better than the film adaptation. Spy novels in particular have remained popular over the years, as the casual reader is exposed to what would normally be a world they could never enter by conventional means, especially when the novelists meticulously research vital information to be used in their stories. Matthew Vaughn's latest film "Argylle" tells a tale of espionage from the perspective of a soft-spoken spy novelist in a fun, albeit all too familiar manner that is befitting to his technique.

By now, anybody who has watched most of Matthew Vaughn's recent films should be aware of what to expect. In the opening scene in a Greek nightclub, we see the smooth, confident James Bond-esque spy Argylle work his way over towards an attractive woman (Dua Lipa) for a stylistic waltz on the dance floor. Immediately after, the lady is revealed to be a femme fatale, leading to a chase sequence that wouldn't look out of place in any recent action film, complete with excessive gunfire and collateral damage to nearby buildings. Eventually we see that this whole scene was in fact a product of the imagination of author Elly Conway, whose withdrawn disposition is in stark contrast to the bombastic action she wrote about in her novel. From this point on, the film shows Elly's relatively banal, mundane routine writing her novels, which are done through online research rather than from her own actual experiences.

Once Elly meets Aidan, the story turns into something of a fish-out-of-water buddy comedy, with Elly's shocked reactions to the real spy Aidan becoming the backbone of this film's humour. While some of these jokes worked well within certain contexts, I found most of the notable comedic moments were very hit-and-miss. For instance, in one scene Aidan teaches Elly the correct way to deal with an enemy who has been knocked out cold, requiring her to act in a brutally violent manner. What then follows is a scene where the meek Elly is too squeamish to carry out something this destructive, leading to Aidan stepping in to take care of business on her behalf. In any other case, this scene could have been hilarious, but instead it came across as predictable and cliched. This could be because I've seen so many other set-ups like this in other spy comedies that have done it so much better, including in Vaughn's own "Kingsman" series, which is why they just didn't work for me this time around.

Weak comedy aside, the film's action scenes are quite exciting and are shot very well. If there were one thing Matthew Vaughn always seems to enjoy putting in his films, it would be the parts where a character has to fight off a large number of enemies in one fell swoop, and this movie is no exception. There were a few fun scenes where we watch the juxtaposition of both the fictional Argylle fighting his way through many adversaries in Elly's imagination and Aidan protecting her from the real world assassins bent on killing her for knowing too much. Here, Vaughn uses single takes and brisk editing to show how the fantasy and reality worlds are being blurred in Elly's mind, which is a clever way for us understand how confused she must be feeling at that very moment. Best of all, it's easy to follow along what is happening during these scenes due to there being great fight choreography to distinguish who is fighting who, as well as no shaky-cam to ruin the whole experience.

As the lead of this film, I really enjoyed watching Bryce Dallas Howard take on a role like Elly, who seems like a good fit for an actress like her. Though Elly's character may not seem like much at first, as the movie progresses we learn more about how she has such an extensive knowledge on spies and the way in which she applies it to her novels. Howard strikes a good balance between mild-mannered and quick thinking, allowing for some interesting information regarding her character to be revealed much later on in the story. I also liked watching her interact with Sam Rockwell as Aidan, whose appearance and demeanour make him an unlikely candidate for a spy. Elly's vision of spies being sophisticated, handsome gentlemen in her books have now been forcibly replaced by Aidan's crass, sociopathic personality, shattering the high esteem she held them in for so long. Rockwell and Howard have great chemistry with one another, and watching them work together is one of the key reasons this film was so watchable.

Despite only appearing in Elly's imagination, it's fun to watch Henry Cavill play the role of a suave spy like Aubrey Argylle, who may as well be his own personal take on James Bond. At this point, it's hard to say if Cavill will ever be cast as the famous 00 agent in the future, but if he doesn't then we will at least have this film to show he does have what it takes. John Cena was also amusing to see as Wyatt, the man responsible for helping out Argylle from a safer distance away from the action. Whether or not this is an inside joke referencing Cena's "You can't see me" wrestling catchphrase is a matter of debate, but I thought it was kind of funny seeing how he could appear at the last minute to help out Argylle whenever he finds himself in a pinch. The rest of the cast, which includes Bryan Cranston, Catherine O'Hara, Ariana DeBose, Samuel L. Jackson, and singer Dua Lipa also round things out pretty well, but since most of their roles in the story contain spoilers I will not be discussing them here.

Although Matthew Vaughn has definitely made much better films in the past, "Argylle" is still a decent addition to his catalogue that does promise to entertain. If the film had played it less safe with its comedy and perhaps went for a slightly darker tone, I would be inclined to give it a wider recommendation. Regardless, if you like what you've seen so far in Vaughn's "Kingsman" film series, then you'll probably find some of that same level of fun here to keep you occupied for 139 minutes. For that reason alone, I would be willing to call the film a minor success.

I rate it 7/10.

"Anatomy of a Fall" is a legal drama film co-written and directed by Justine Triet ("Age of Panic", "In Bed with Victoria", "Sibyl"). Starring Sandra Hüller in the lead role, it works as both a highly involving legal procedural and as an intriguing analysis of a family in crisis.

In Grenoble, France, married writers Samuel Maleski (Samuel Theis) and Sandra Voyter (Sandra Hüller) live in a secluded cabin with their partially blind son Daniel (Milo Machado Graner) and their dog Snoop. After walking Snoop one morning, Daniel returns home to discover Samuel's dead body at the bottom of the cabin near where the attic window is located. Shortly after, a police investigation is launched to determine whether Samuel's death was accidental or if foul play is suspected. When no other DNA evidence is found at the scene, Sandra finds herself accused of pushing Samuel out of the window and is soon forced to stand trial. As a lengthy legal battle ensues, Sandra vehemently maintains her innocence but various factors start to arise which only add to the confusion, taking a toll on her motherly relationship with Daniel in the process.

I can only imagine how it must feel to be accused of a crime you didn't commit. Even if you end up being acquitted of any wrongdoing, you still run the risk of carrying the heavy burden of false accusations for the rest of your life. This certainly isn't something I would wish on anybody unfortunate enough to land themselves in such a position, especially in this day and age where someone is usually guilty until proven innocent, instead of the other way around. The French film "Anatomy of a Fall" deals with one woman's struggle to clear her name in the aftermath of her husband's unexpected death, in a film that efficiently balances family drama with damning courtroom exchanges in a way that is bound to leave audiences entertained.

Where this film excels at predominantly is in the effective characterisation of its lead subject and those she interacts with. As the film introduces us to Sandra, we see that she is a writer whose growing reputation has led to her being interviewed by a local journalist at her home. However, as the journalist conducts this interview, Sandra's husband Samuel blasts loud music on repeat upstairs, to the point where the interview can no longer take place due to the blatant noise pollution. Instead of correcting this problem herself, Sandra instead brushes off her husband's actions as merely being part of his eccentric personality, asking the journalist to come back another time when Samuel is less disruptive. This opening scene confirms to the audience that Sandra and Samuel's marriage is a strange one, which later sets things in motion once Sandra is informed of Samuel's untimely death.

To complicate matters further for Sandra, her son Daniel's near-blindness makes him an unreliable asset for her to use in court. As the young Daniel tries desperately to recall the important events leading up to his father's death, the police find that they are unable to use much of his testimony to help Sandra in the long run. This is due to him giving conflicting reports over where he was located at the time, as being near-sighted prevents Daniel from confirming the precise spot where he first heard things taking place. It is from here we see all of the bizarre and sometimes sad events unfold that ultimately lands Sandra in legal trouble, as there is seemingly no hard evidence to prove she wasn't responsible for the death of her husband. Thanks to the way these moments are set up, I found myself heavily invested in what was going to happen to both Sandra and Daniel since it seemed like things could definitely go either way.

Despite clocking in at just over two-and-a-half hours (152 minutes to be precise), at no point was I ever bored watching how this entire court case was playing out. I believe we have director Justine Triet's consistent use of editing and her solid script to thank for all of that. Each time I thought I'd figured out everything there is to know about a certain character's actions, something else would come along to blow it all out of the water and add more intriguing layers to this mystery. To that effect, I really enjoyed assembling all the pieces of this puzzle together to gain a better understanding of how someone like Samuel could have died in the way he did. Triet clearly knows how to properly weave her audience along for the film's long duration without ever resorting to repetitive filler or scenes that go nowhere. Every bit of information conveyed to the viewer felt as though it could be considered important to the conclusion of the story, whether verbal or visual. With that in mind, it is important to pay attention to all of the conversations happening between the characters, no matter how insignificant they may seem on the surface.

In the lead role, Sandra Hüller proves herself to be a highly watchable actress, as I was hanging onto virtually everything she had to say. Hüller does a fine job expressing the various emotions necessary for her character, ranging from genuine shock at the sudden loss of her husband to remaining calm under pressure when being questioned in court. Something else noteworthy about Hüller's performance is the way she swaps between speaking English and French so seamlessly during the courtroom scenes, which is even more impressive considering her native language in real life is actually German. It's no easy feat to take the centre stage for a film like this, especially one with such a lengthy runtime, but Hüller pulls off this near impossible task each time she is on screen.

Additionally, I think Milo Machado Graner is worth mentioning too as Daniel, whose interactions with his onscreen mother provided some of the film's most emotional moments. Watching a young boy come to terms with not only losing his father but also dealing with the very real possibility that his mother could end up in jail framed for his murder must be nothing short of heartbreaking from his perspective. To top it all off, he also has the handicap of being almost completely blind and unable to help his mother if the absolute worst case scenario ends up happening. The combination of both Hüller and Graner's performances is one of the key reasons this film is so interesting to watch, and without giving away spoilers, it all amounts to a satisfying conclusion.

If you like legal dramas, family crisis stories, or layered crime mysteries, then I'm sure "Anatomy of a Fall" has you covered on all fronts. What could have been another generic crime flick is in fact one of the most involving films of its kind to be released in a long time. It's rare to see a film balance each of its different genres together in such a smooth fashion while also making 152 minutes go by so quickly. For those reasons alone, this film has not only achieved its goal, but it has opened the door for more like it in the future. At least I can remain hopeful that will end up happening.

I rate it a solid 9/10.

"Next Goal Wins" is a biographical sports comedy drama film directed and co-written by Taika Waititi ("What We Do In The Shadows", "Thor: Ragnarok", "Jojo Rabbit") based on the 2014 documentary of the same name. Starring Michael Fassbender in the lead role, it treads familiar underdog story territory with little more than its good nature to maintain one's interest.

In 2001, the American Samoan soccer team is subjected to a humiliating loss against Australia's Socceroos with a score of 31-0. Thirteen years later, things have not improved as American Samoa has since become the lowest rated team on the ranking board and with the World Cup fast approaching, it seems that they will fail to qualify. To mitigate this problem, disgraced Dutch American soccer coach Thomas Rongen (Michael Fassbender) is recruited to lift the team's spirits and help them all become better players in the process. As he trains the team to the best of his ability, Thomas also deals with his own personal issues that have caused him problems in the past, including his failed marriage and short temper.

Something the general public seems to love seeing in movies is a good old fashioned underdog story. This is likely due to the fact that many people such as myself enjoy watching our hero or heroes get ahead from where they started because it's easy for just about everyone to gravitate towards that kind of success. These types of stories are most commonly seen in sports movies, as they allow for a simple, predetermined path for the underdog(s) to win at a game and prove that they are more than capable of coming out on top. The film "Next Goal Wins", which is based on the true story of the American Samoan soccer team's attempt to redeem themselves of their past failures, follows the classic underdog formula, which means that there are little to no surprises in how everything is going to play out.

Opening on a brief introduction by an eccentric priest played by Taika Waititi himself, the film then cuts to the infamous soccer match between American Samoa and Australia where the latter team completely annihilated the former by a whopping 31 goals to nothing. Flashing forward another ten years, we see that the American Samoans have since become the worst ranked team in the world at number 204. Jump cutting another three years, we see that the team now desires to enter the World Cup, but due to their consistently poor performance, this goal seems greatly out of reach. No matter how hard the team tries, they just cannot seem to get better, as even scoring a single goal is an incredibly difficult task for this group of players.

The president of the country's football federation soon realises that their local coach is too nice to the players, and instead decides to seek out a successor from an outside source. It is here we are introduced to Thomas Rongen, a Dutch American coach who is given the ultimatum of either being fired or becoming the coach of the American Samoan team. Of course, Thomas chooses the latter option. You don't need to have watched the original event to know exactly how things are going to happen from here on out; the outsider coach arrives in a new exotic location, fish-out-of-water culture shock antics ensue, the team is terrible but later improves thanks to his training methods, and the coach develops a fondness for the players and their country over time. Although there's no denying the film's honourable intentions here, that is simply not enough to prevent this story from feeling decidedly cliched and predictable.

In true Taika Waititi fashion, the film has his signature quirky New Zealand humour littered throughout the story. The most obvious comedic point of interest would be the country's small population and everyone's close proximity to each other. In this one scene that I actually chuckled at, we see Thomas being pursued and pulled over by a cop for driving at a speedy 35 miles per hour(!) As the policeman relays his course of action back to the station, we learn that the person he is talking to in dispatch is none other than his own mother, with whom she thanks like any loving maternal figure would. After the two become better acquainted, Thomas realises this large police officer could make a great addition to the team, and so recruits him. It turns out that the other players are not happy with this decision, as we learn it was this same cop who previously scolded them for playing on private property. This echoes similar jokes Waititi made in his earlier films, as it seems the neighbouring Pacific Islands have a near-identical approach to comedy. It's a shame most of the film's other jokes don't ever land this well, but they are told in a likeable enough manner to make you forgive their shortcomings.

Through this, we also learn a few mildly interesting things about American Samoan culture. A recurring habit that the locals all adhere to is prayer time, when everybody stops in position at a certain time of the day to bow their heads and pray in silence for a brief moment. Being a non-religious outsider, Thomas has no idea what is going on and so he confusingly looks around at the local people switching off in front of him, sometimes right in the middle of a conversation. The film could have taken the easy route of outright mocking these people for their strange customs here but I liked the way that it always shows them in a respectable light. Though these beliefs may seem odd to us, it is because of them that the American Samoan people are able to maintain a positive and laidback view of the world, even if things don't always go according to plan.

As the typical lead character in these types of movies, Michael Fassbender does the best he can with the material given to him, however there isn't much to work with that distinguishes him apart from other similar people in his situation. Granted, Thomas has some worthwhile character traits that he needs to change about himself, like his short temper and closed-minded attitude, but while he was addressing these issues it never really felt as though he was becoming a better person on his own terms. The whole time it just felt like the film was using every underdog trope to benefit Thomas's character growth merely for the sake of telling a story rather than from him actually learning new things by himself. With that said, Fassbender at least makes the film considerably more watchable in this role than if a lesser known actor was playing the character.

For hardcore fans of Taika Waititi's brand of humour, "Next Goal Wins" just might be able to hold your attention for a simple afternoon's viewing and nothing more. Unfortunately, its cookie-cutter plot and blatant quirkiness may prove a challenging watch for viewers expecting something with a bit more substance in their movies. Still, it's hard to truly hate a film that wears its good intentions so proudly for a country that defied the odds against all those who doubted them . After all, if that strategy worked for some Jamaican bobsledders then it can certainly work for some American Samoan soccer players.

I rate it 6/10.

"Saltburn" is a psychological thriller film written and directed by Emerald Fennell ("Promising Young Woman"). Starring Barry Keoghan, Jacob Elordi, Rosamund Pike, and Richard E. Grant, it attempts to draw the audience in with its intriguing twists and turns but only barely manages to pull through in the end.

In 2006, middle class Oliver Quick (Barry Keoghan) enrols in the University of Oxford where he struggles to fit in with the rest of the upper class students. One day, Oliver meets Felix Catton (Jacob Elordi), a popular student who comes from a wealthy family, and the two eventually bond and become close friends. Upon hearing about the sudden passing of Oliver's father, Felix invites him to stay at his family's large country estate, "Saltburn". After arriving at Saltburn, Oliver meets Felix's eccentric family members; his parents Sir James (Richard E. Grant) and Lady Elspeth (Rosamund Pike), his sister Venetia (Alison Oliver), and his American-raised cousin Farleigh (Archie Madekwe). Oliver quickly earns the respect of the Catton family, to the point where they even decide to throw a party for his upcoming birthday, but he soon realises that their intentions may not be as honourable as they seem on the surface.

Since her filmmaking debut in 2020, Emerald Fennell has definitely established herself as a name to keep an eye on. Her film "Promising Young Woman" was one of the most unique revenge thrillers to grace our screens in a long time, with a clever script that avoided cliches in favour of an effective social commentary on victimhood and injustice. Fennell also demonstrated a visually creative side as well, as she understands the importance of cinematography in making a scene even more memorable than it should be. In her follow-up film "Saltburn", Fennell tries her hand at a satirical psychological thriller, which tries to poke fun at an easy target like class hierarchy but becomes too lost in its own sensationalistic plotting to properly achieve its goal.

The main issue here is that the story is too overstuffed with moments that are clearly intended to disgust and disturb the viewer rather than make a valid point about something. When Oliver first meets Felix, it is made clear to the audience that he likes him more than just a friend, often seen observing his new classmate affectionately from a safe distance. Here, we get a glimpse into Oliver's anti-social personality, as it becomes apparent that he realises befriending Felix is his ticket to fitting in with others. Later when he has made himself at home on Saltburn, Oliver's seemingly innocent crush on Felix turns into straight up perversion as he watches the object of his unrequited affections engaging in a sexual act in the bathtub, leading to Oliver doing something so disgusting that it actually made me dry retch.

To make matter worse, this isn't the only instance of Oliver engaging in depraved acts as there are several other scenes like that littered throughout the whole movie. One such scene involves Felix's sister Venetia and the full moon, where we learn of the disturbing things Oliver intends to do with her that night. Although I understand the need to show Oliver's contrasting middle class personality with the upper class, none of these scenes add anything of substance to his character beyond the fact that he is twisted. Once you've established Oliver's perverted nature the first time around, it just feels unnecessary showing all of these other moments that only really serve the purpose of obligatory shock value. Normally I would have been able to let one vulgar moment slide, but there are so many of them that are relentless in their gross-out nature that I can't help but assume Fennell is using them simply as a way to provoke controversy as opposed to making a constructive statement about class structure.

These bizarre plotting decisions aside, Fennell does somewhat make up for this with her keen eye for visual greatness. I particularly liked her use of cinematography during even the most repulsive scenes, which almost but not quite makes them tolerable to watch. For example, in the previously mentioned scene involving Oliver and Venetia, the characters are shown lit only by the moonlight with a minimal amount of natural light used to help the audience properly see where they are. While the shocking act is taking place, Fennell frames the shot from different angles, ranging from extreme close-ups on their faces to a mid shot that reveals the disgusting actions at play. As a result, Fennell becomes something of an auteur for this kind of depravity, which makes the audience feel both sickened and curious at the same time.

As the lead character, Barry Keoghan demonstrates the range he has as an actor, going from a fresh-faced social outcast to a desperate pervert determined to win the affections of his crush. Although there aren't too many surprises regarding the character of Oliver himself, I did appreciate the way Keoghan was able to effectively carry himself through all of his best and worst moments. Without giving away spoilers, there is one part near the end that completely saves the movie from failing at delivering its message. In this scene, Oliver's whole character arc is revealed to the audience in a way that puts the whole story in perspective, and without revealing what it is, it actually does make sense. Keoghan is the ideal actor for this type of role, as someone else may not have been able to have played a character like Oliver anywhere near as effectively

The rest of the supporting cast, which includes the likes of Jacob Elordi, Richard E. Grant, Rosamund Pike, Archie Madekwe, and Alison Oliver were all decent additions to film's narrative, although some stood out more prominently than others. Elordi is believable as the popular Felix, who has no problem being altruistic to people of a lower social standing despite being surrounded by his family who think otherwise. In spite of his generally good intentions with Oliver, it would appear that Felix can't help but humble brag about his family's immense wealth when giving him a tour of their estate. Then again, this may just be his way of making a guest like Oliver feel amazed at the place he will be staying at compared to the middle class housing he is used to.

Richard E. Grant is rather nuanced as the Catton family patriarch Sir James, who holds a firm grip on their finances. It seems that Sir James is the one responsible for the Catton's strange lifestyle choices, so much so that he even attracts the ire of others who disagree with his personal opinions. Aside from Elordi, the one other supporting cast member I found the most interesting was Rosamund Pike as Lady Elspeth, Felix's mother who takes an immediate liking to Oliver. There are a small handful of scenes that involved Oliver and Elspeth interacting with each other that clued me in to how the movie was going to end, and sure enough I was right. I cannot talk too much in detail about Alison Oliver as Venetia and Archie Madekwe as Farleigh due to their key roles in the story being spoiler-heavy, but they each contributed something important that made a difference at the film's conclusion.

Although I admire the film on a creative basis, I just can't bring myself to recommend "Saltburn" to any casual filmgoing audience. Due to its superfluous use of cheap gross-out moments in addition to a predictable target for ridicule, it falls short of matching the same level of ingenuity as Emerald Fennell's previous film. With that said, there probably are people out there who will be able to find some enjoyment in watching it, as its visuals and characters are at least memorable for both good and bad reasons. After all, a film this unique in its execution must have done something right.

I rate it 6/10.

"Ferrari" is a biographical drama film based on the biography "Enzo Ferrari: The Man, the Cars, the Races, the Machine" by Brock Yates. Directed by Michael Mann ("The Last of the Mohicans", "Heat", "Collateral") and starring Adam Driver, Penelope Cruz, and Shailene Woodley, it shows the intriguing inner dealings of man through both his business ventures and his private life.

In 1957 in Italy, sports car manufacturing company Ferrari is facing major financial difficulties. While coping with this predicament, the company's founder, Enzo Ferrari (Adam Driver), is also dealing with his own personal problems, with the recent death of his first son Dino, the deterioration of his marriage to his wife Laura (Penelope Cruz), and his double life with his mistress Lina (Shailene Woodley) and his second son Piero. As these issues grow further out of control, Enzo decides to gamble the entire company's future on entering his elite racing team into the Mille Miglia, a 1,000 mile summertime race that stretches around the roads of Italy. With the race fast approaching, Enzo works around the clock to get his team ready for the big day, all while trying to maintain stability within his private life.

It is common knowledge that Ferrari often ranks high on the lists of companies that are generally well regarded by luxury sports car enthusiasts. Since their first line of road cars went into production in 1947, Ferraris have endured on in popularity even to this day, particularly due to their frequent participation in numerous notable racing events. The founder and namesake for this company was racing-driver-turned-businessman Enzo Ferrari, whose intense management decisions were what helped the company out of some early financial strife. The story of what took place during this time is told to us in Michael Mann's film "Ferrari", a stylised biopic that shows this man working tirelessly to keep his company afloat.

The film's most notable strength is in the way in which it depicts Enzo Ferrari not as some perfect messianic hero but instead as a flawed human being with dubious morals. At the beginning, we see Enzo travelling to a cemetery to visit the tomb that holds his deceased young son Dino, who had only died a year earlier. While he mourns his child, we see Enzo make a promise to both Dino and himself to ensure the legacy of their family name enduring on for the longest time. Afterwards, we are shown that Enzo is living a double life; firstly with his marriage to Laura, who has grown to resent him due to her husband's failing business, and secondly his relationship with his mistress Lina, of which has produced another son, Piero. The film makes it clear that Enzo is not a morally sensible person, wishing to keep up the charade of a stable marriage while still maintaining an affair with a younger, more relatable woman. In most other cases, it would be hard to feel any sympathy for someone like Enzo, but as the film progresses we see that his behaviour has come about as the result of the unorthodox managerial practices he has created for his company.

Desperate to save his brand from bankruptcy, Enzo resorts to more extreme methods of putting the company name on the map. With the Mille Miglia only six months away, Enzo enters his team of racers in this prestigious event, which requires them all to work harder than they have ever worked before. We watch as Enzo's racers are pushed to their limits, driving at top speed around custom made tracks, often putting themselves in danger of overshooting a corner and crashing. Without revealing too much here, there were a number of incidents that actually required some medical assistance for many of Enzo's unluckiest drivers. Yet despite these setbacks, Enzo remained determined to keep his drivers in the race, even if that meant some of them going home in a body bag. The interesting thing here is that none of these racers seem to complain about the dangerous working conditions and go along with their boss's wishes anyway. This appears to indicate that they have a huge amount of respect for Enzo's company and are even willing to risk their own lives to help it succeed.

Under Michael Mann's direction, the dialogue scenes are handled with the reasonable amount of care, although things do tend to feel a bit soap opera-ish at times. For instance, there are a number of parts where we see Enzo and his wife Laura arguing over what direction he should be taking the company, whether it involves him doing his own thing or following her advice the whole time. Through this, we see why Enzo and Laura's marriage is failing, as they are often at each other's throats disagreeing over various things. Mann uses minimal lighting during these argument scenes, perhaps to show that their once happy marriage is a dark shadow of its former self. This is a common directorial trademark of Mann's films, as he has utilised this to his advantage in many of his previous works, like "Heat" and "Collateral". The problem here is that these scenes aren't featured enough in the story to leave their desired impression. I never felt like I properly understood why Enzo and Laura were often disagreeing with each other, aside from the usual sexist jabs at her being a woman.

Another thing Michael Mann does well here is the way he shoots the racing scenes. Though they aren't as intense as your typical "Fast and the Furious" affair, they are still quite entertaining to watch. I enjoyed watching as each racer tried to pass the other in a more realistic fashion, as though they are actually trying to make it to the finish line in record time. There's also the added risk that a car could flip over and crash or overshoot a corner and fly off a cliff, especially with the less safe engineering available in that decade. What's interesting is that Mann appears to be conveying that Enzo is treating these races like they are a business decision rather than a pleasurable form of entertainment. In other words, what others perceive as fun is a more serious state of affairs to a hard-thinking entrepreneur like him. This is an unusual departure from your usual movie with fast car racing, but it nonetheless works in the film's favour.

In the lead role, Adam Driver does a fine enough job as Enzo Ferrari, a man whose business life and private life did not balance out the way he may have hoped. He stands out primarily during the parts where he is trying to keep his secret affair with Lina away from his wife Laura. Driver's performance is never too intense nor is it too subdued, he shows just the right amount of emotion whenever it is needed of him. One scene where I thought this worked well was when he is talking to Lina about how much he fell in love with her, even though he is still married to Laura. Here, he reveals that although he already has a wife, Enzo's true love is for Lina and what his spouse cannot give him on an emotional level is what drives him to keep this affair going behind Laura's back. At his core, while Enzo is doing some morally terrible things that would cause most of us to dislike him, he is still a vulnerable human being with emotional desires that he wants fulfilled.

However, I think Penelope Cruz steals the show in every scene she is in as Enzo's wife Laura. Each time she is on screen, Cruz seems to be an intimidating presence looming over Driver, as she plays Laura like a determined businesswoman, reluctant to blindly go along with her husband's ideas to save the company. In one scene, she displays a complete lack of fear by pointing a gun at her husband, which he ironically states he gave to her as a gift to protect herself from anything that can be considered dangerous. Though some of her dialogue was a bit repetitive, especially during the film's third act, Cruz definitely made the most of all the material given to her and outshone her co-star many times.

I just wish the same could be said about Shailene Woodley as Enzo's mistress Lina, who does very little in the film other than look happy to see him and ponder how long he can keep her a secret from his wife. There aren't nearly enough moments of Enzo and Lina together that convinced me why he picked her over Laura. Sure, Lina is more mellow than Laura, but she doesn't seem to have any other emotional connection that would cause him to become attracted to her other than her physical appearance. Had the film delved deeper into Enzo and Lina's relationship, it could have made for a great love triangle with the backdrop of racing cars. Instead, it's a standard story about a failing business and failing marriage.

Although it doesn't quite stick the landing in the way it could have, "Ferrari" still manages to provide some entertaining moments thanks to its lead cast and impressive directorial decisions. The performances of both Adam Driver and Penelope Cruz in addition to Michael Mann's direction during the racing scenes all make this film very watchable even during its weakest moments. I suppose the blame can be placed on Troy Kennedy Martin's subpar screenplay, who according to some research actually died in 2009, making this a posthumous release. Regardless, if you're enthusiastic about Ferrari and a brief history of their initial hardships, then this film may be worth at least one viewing.

I rate it 7/10.

"May December" is a romantic drama film directed by Todd Haynes ("Far From Heaven", "I'm Not There", "Carol"). Starring Natalie Portman and Julianne Moore, it proves to be an uncomfortable yet rather fascinating watch for any curious viewers.

In 2015 in Savannah, Georgia, actress Elizabeth Berry (Natalie Portman) arrives to do research on local resident Gracie Atherton-Yoo (Julianne Moore), whom she will be playing in an upcoming feature film. More than twenty years earlier, the then-36-year-old Gracie was caught having sex with then-13-year-old Joe Yoo (Charles Melton), causing a media sensation and subsequently landing her in prison. In the present day, Gracie has since been released from prison and is now happily married to Joe with three children. Over the course of her stay, Elizabeth interviews Gracie and Joe about their personal lives and whether or not their relationship is genuine, assuring the pair that she will portray a true account of their story. Eventually, Elizabeth decides to do further research by interviewing the other family members of Gracie and Joe, learning that there is more to this story than what the public has been told.

Throughout recent decades, there have been a number of statutory rape cases that have made the news where an older woman has had sexual relations with an underaged male colleague. One of the more notable instances of this was the case of Mary Kay Letourneau, a 34-year-old school teacher who served a lengthy prison sentence for having a sexual relationship with her 12-year-old male student. You would think that a contentious matter like this would be difficult to make into a film due to the taboo nature of this topic but there have been a number of successful features that have covered this issue in a mature way, like 2006's "Notes on a Scandal" for example. The 2023 film "May December" is loosely based around the case of Mary Kay Letourneau, and while it may be hard for some to sit through, it still provides an interesting, third party look into the aftermath of such a distressing subject.

What I believe makes this film work where others would fail is in the outward looking in approach to its storytelling. This means that rather than by seeing things occur from the perspective of the perpetrator, we are actually witnessing an unrelated third party character learning about the events that transpired from her viewpoint instead. When the film introduces us to Elizabeth, we see that she is method actor who takes her job very seriously, going to great lengths to understand the characters she portrays. She has no prior personal connection to Gracie and her knowledge of what happened is limited to what she learned from various news sources, meaning she only knows the superficial side to this story. As Elizabeth digs deeper into the lives of this controversial couple, she discovers that there is more to what happened than simply a forbidden relationship. Elizabeth soon notices many other factors that led to this scandalous affair taking place, and at the same time she is learning, we the audience are learning along with her.

As the film progresses, we watch Elizabeth interview and strike up casual conversations with other people involved in this case. There is one scene in particular that stood out to me where Elizabeth talks with Gracie's first husband Tom (D. W. Moffett) in a cafe, as he is opening up for the first time in years about their failed marriage. Tom states that while he initially thought their relationship was stable, he was just as shocked as everyone else to discover that his wife was having an affair with someone more than half her age. To make matters worse, Tom first learned about this from the resulting media frenzy instead of through Gracie's confession.

What I found so interesting about this scene is the array of emotions that Tom displays here. It is clear that he is suppressing his sadness while fighting back tears mentioning how great things once were between him and the woman he once loved. Additionally, his mature acceptance of everything that occurred is shown when he puts on a brave face to wish the couple all the happiness in the world. Watching Elizabeth absorb information like this to understand things from the perspective of the scandal's victims are among the film's highlights because it is clear she is taking this all into account when depicting Gracie in her film.

The film also benefits from some of the efficient creative decisions made by director Todd Haynes. It is obvious that Haynes has made great use of the modest production values to give the film an independent, yet unsettling tone distinguishable from the other big budget Hollywood features. Even though most of the film is either Elizabeth interviewing people or Gracie and Joe examining the current state of their marriage, Haynes shoots these scenes in such a down-to-earth manner that it almost comes across as documentary-like. What could have been scenes of basic exposition become insightful conversations about why a character has a particular opinion on this scandalous affair. All of this is enhanced by Marcelo Zarvos's piano-heavy musical score, which strengthens the emotional impact of the information being conveyed in every scene. It goes to show that solid direction, an interesting script, and a memorable score are three key elements to creating a successful movie.

The performances of the cast are all first rate as well. Natalie Portman yet again demonstrates her range as an actress in the way she plays Elizabeth. Throughout the course of the film, we watch as Portman delves into Elizabeth's determination to learn about everyone and everything that resulted from Gracie and Joe's affair, from the people involved to even the exact location where it all took place. She leaves no stone unturned in her desire to learn about the character she is about to play in a movie, even at the cost of her mental and physical health. On that note, a point of interest regarding Elizabeth's health is that she is shown to be asthmatic, indicated by her carrying an inhaler and a nebuliser wherever she goes. This actually serves a purpose to the story because it is used to set up for crucial scene later on in the film.

Likewise, Julianne Moore has plenty of great material to work with in the role of Gracie. Moore has always been an actress with the uncanny ability to delve into her character's state of mind, and someone like Gracie fits her like a glove. I really enjoyed watching the way Moore shows Gracie's widely conflicted side, often demonstrating vast mood swings that prove she at least has some subconscious remorse for her actions, despite stating otherwise. Though the scandal that rocked her and her family to core was decades ago, it's pretty clear that Gracie still has a lot to answer for how she handled things.

I also think Charles Melton deserves a special mention for his role as Joe, whose character is arguably the most important in the whole story. There are numerous instances throughout the film where we see Joe displaying some regret for throwing away his childhood for a woman old enough to be his mother, especially considering he was at an age where he cannot legally give consent to make life-altering decisions like that. Although he is now in his 30s, it's obvious Joe has had the mentality of his teenage self stunted during his development, which clouds his judgement and puts a strain on his marriage to Gracie. Melton manages to hold his own alongside Portman and Moore, which isn't an easy task given how much these two shine in their respective roles.

For a film with subject matter designed to make the audience feel uncomfortable, "May December" nonetheless remains a compelling viewing experience. It would have been easy to overly sensationalise a story like this, especially considering it is loosely based on true events, but its relatively straightforward approach prevents things from spiralling out of control too much. If anything, the film actually condemns the very sensationalistic approach it could have taken, given the unfavourable view of the media it depicts at certain times. There wouldn't many other movies like this that are able to delve so deep into the mindsets of all these characters without overdoing it, so for that reason I would call it a success.

I rate it 8.5/10.

"Wish" is an animated musical fantasy film produced by Walt Disney Pictures. Featuring the voices of Ariana DeBose, Chris Pine, and Alan Tudyk, it is the perfect way for Disney to cap off their worst year ever in an animated feature that sums up their recent creative bankruptcy.

A long time ago on a lone Mediterranean island, the kingdom of Rosas is founded by King Magnifico (voiced by Chris Pine) and his wife Queen Amaya (voiced by Angelique Cabral). King Magnifico teaches himself the ability to grant other people's wishes, choosing to grant the wish of a single subject of his kingdom at a major ceremony each month. As the time draws near for the next ceremony, 17-year-old Asha (voiced by Ariana DeBose) asks King Magnifico to grant her 100-year-old grandfather's wish, but the King denies her request and sends her away. Desperate for another solution, Asha decides to make her own wish on a star, which results in that star falling from the sky and taking on the form of a small, anthropomorphic light ball. The star has the magical ability to give life to the animals of the nearby forest, as well as the power to allow them to talk, most notably Asha's pet goat Valentino (voiced by Alan Tudyk). Soon after, King Magnifico senses the star's presence in his kingdom and turns to dark magic to stop it from threatening his sovereignty.

It's quite obvious that 2023 has been a terrible year for Disney in terms of the success of their movies. The once blockbuster generating studio has been struggling behind other more profitable movies, with almost all of their features failing to break even at the box office. In fact, this is the first year since 2001 that the top 3 highest grossing films are neither sequels, remakes, reboots, or superhero movies, all of which Disney once held a significant monopolised stake in for the longest time. To rub salt into the wound, this is supposed to be Disney's 100th anniversary, making these failures hurt them even more than usual. What better way to conclude a disappointing year for the studio than with an equally disappointing animated film in "Wish", a bland, paint-by-the-numbers musical that offers nothing new from the likes of Disney.

From the way this movie presents itself, it is clear that the filmmakers had no interest in telling an interesting, original story and have instead chosen the most generic plot line imaginable. At the very beginning, the plot is laid out to us through an old storybook complete with a voiceover, which you'd think is just Disney paying tribute to their classic animated films, but you'd be wrong. In reality, this sets the uninspired tone for the rest of the film, as every other moment actually instils a feeling of deja vu rather than a sense of wonder in the viewer. We see that this magical kingdom is ruled by a megalomanical king who is jealous of the young protagonist's abilities and so takes desperate measures to keep that enchanted power to himself at the cost of the protagonist's life. If that plot doesn't sound familiar, then you have clearly not watched enough Disney films as this echoes virtually every fantasy movie in their library verbatim.

Worse still, the characters are so forgettable that I had to look up most of their names after my initial viewing. When we are first introduced to Asha, we see that she is young, ambitious, and a shining light among her circle of friends. In any other case, I would consider her a well-rounded protagonist, but the problem here is that we never properly see her struggle against opposition throughout the story. Because of that, I found Asha to be about as boringly pedestrian as she comes; she has no major personality flaws, she handles herself perfectly against others, and she makes no notable changes to her character over the course of the film. Asha may be likeable within the context of the story, but being an affable hero is not nearly enough to make the audience care about what happens to her in the long run.

Artistically, the film is quite pleasant to look at thanks to its unique approach to the animation. The film's CG has been rendered in such a way that it almost resembles the traditionally hand-drawn art style that Disney made famous many decades ago. The use of lighting and shadows helps make the characters stand out nicely from the background and are very appealing to the eyes. If every other Disney film released in the past ten years didn't already look better than this, then I'd say this film is visually gorgeous but for the most part it just feels like old wine in new bottles.

Similarly, being a musical, the film is filled with many songs that are intended to advance the story forward and give an insight into a character's motivations. Although none of the songs are what I would consider terrible, most of them aren't all that memorable either. Only two songs really left an impression on me; "This Is The Thanks I Get?", and "Knowing What I Know Now". I liked the first song mainly because it does a fine job of showing the King's true intentions, and the atmosphere during this scene compliments it well. The second song, without giving away spoilers, felt like a decent culmination of everything that has happened up until that point in that story. While these songs may have been standouts here, neither of them felt on the same level as other Disney classics and will likely be forgotten about in a matter of years.

The voice acting is fine, but like just about everything else in the film, there is nothing particularly noteworthy about any of it. Ariana DeBose voices Asha like every other Disney female protagonist; a likeable, altruistic young woman who wants to defy the odds to triumph over evil. But as mentioned earlier, this does not work in the film's favour, reducing her to a generic protagonist without any interesting personality. Though DeBose isn't bad by any means, she doesn't really stand out all that much in her performance. She fulfils her purpose, which is to voice the character to the best of her ability, and nothing more.

On the other hand, I suppose Chris Pine does deserve some credit for the way he voices King Magnifico. I should note that that this isn't so much due to what Pine adds to the character but for the way in which he voices him. With that in mind, Pine's performance is the only one I actually kind of liked, because out of every other actor in the film, he seems to be the only one having some fun with his character. Whether it's his over-the-top mannerisms or his seething greediness, Pine is clearly revelling in the opportunity at playing this film's evil villain, which at least gives the film something memorable to talk about.

I think Alan Tudyk's talents go to waste here as the voice of Asha's pet goat Valentino. The voice Tudyk chooses for this character bears a striking resemblance to that of Patrick Stewart, with a deep, authoritarian tone that wouldn't sound out of place in a Shakespearian stage performance. Unfortunately, once the novelty of his unexpected voice wears off, Valentino quickly becomes another boring addition to the already forgettable supporting cast. In other Disney films with an unusual talking sidekick, they add something important to the story but Valentino is quite useless most of the time. After being bestowed with the ability to speak, Valentino contributes next to nothing to the plot and only ever says one-liners or is made to look cute for the camera. It would appear that Valentino was included as little more than a merchandising opportunity, as I cannot think of any other logical reason for him to be in this movie at all.

With such a poor track record over this past year, "Wish" does not do Disney any favours in helping them recover from their downward spiral. The film is simply too derivative of their other works to stand out and lacks the necessary staying power to be a hit with audiences. For that reason alone, I cannot recommend it even to the most hardcore Disney fans, and I'm saying this as a fan myself. Normally, I would be sad to see the downfall of a legendary company like Disney, but considering that all of their recent problems are self-inflicted, I can't help but feel a sense of schadenfreude instead. Of course, there's always a chance they'll bounce back stronger than ever, but for now I'm enjoying watching the karma unfold in all its glory.

I rate it 5/10.

"One Life" is a biographical drama film based on the non-fiction book "If It's Not Impossible... The Life of Sir Nicholas Winton" by Barbara Winton. Directed by James Hawes and starring Anthony Hopkins in the lead role, it is a simple human interest story that carries itself as humbly as its lead subject.

In 1938, British stockbroker Nicholas "Nicky" Winton (Anthony Hopkins) visits Czechoslovakia to assist with matters regarding the Jewish population. While there, Nicky works hard to rescue large numbers of children to be transported back to England before the Nazis can have them sent to concentration camps. Throughout the rest of his life, Nicky is encouraged by his family to make his deeds known to the public, but he instead chooses to keep them to himself. In 1988, Nicky's wife discovers a scrapbook in their attic detailing all of the children and their families he helped save, and subsequently sends it to the media. As a result of this, Nicky's heroism receives wider acknowledgment, but is he prepared for all the attention he could garner from this?

Thanks to the efforts of one man in particular, there are over 6,000 people in the world who are alive today because of his actions. That man in question is Nicholas Winton, a stockbroker who risked his life to rescue 669 children from becoming victims of the Holocaust, earning him the nickname "The British Schindler". However, it wasn't until half a century later that Nicholas's humanitarian work was made known to the public, when the media caught wind of his good deeds and reached out to the children and the relatives of those he saved. In the 2023 film "One Life", we are presented with a straightforward, respectful look at Nicholas's life in a way I am sure he would most likely approve.

The film is presented to us in a fairly conventional manner, which is fine as this can be seen as a reflection of Nicholas himself, who was a relatively humble man. When we are first introduced to Nicholas, he is an elderly man in the late 1980s sifting through papers he chooses to keep hidden away from his family. Immediately afterwards, the film flashes back to 1938 where we see a twenty-something Nicholas arriving in Czechoslovakia to undertake work among the local Jewish community. It is here that Nicholas meets some of the Jewish children, with whom he forms a friendly, albeit brief bond with when he shares his chocolate bar with a select few. From here, Nicholas becomes inspired to focus his efforts on helping these children, even if it comes at the risk of attracting attention from the advancing Nazi threat.

James Hawes's direction is effective at conveying Nicholas's emotional state whenever the film needs to showcase it. For instance, in one scene where we see Nicholas browsing through his scrapbook, all of the photographs and descriptions of the children are seen reflected in his glasses. The camera then zooms in on his face to show how much emotion he is filled with as he recollects all of the youths he saved and, rather tragically, the ones he could not. We see how conflicted Nicholas is in his reminiscing, as while it is true he managed to rescue so many children, he cannot escape the guilt of the ones who were far less fortunate. I was pleased to see that the film tackled this angle to Nicholas as a person as it would have been easy to only examine the positive aspects of his deeds while completely disregarding the negative. The fact of the matter is that Nicholas has always had to deal with this emotional burden, and making it public knowledge may not be what he needs to overcome his feelings of self-doubt.

As the lead character, Anthony Hopkins once again proves that he's one of the best actors currently working today as he perfectly depicts the elderly Nicholas throughout all of his emotional states. Most of the time, it isn't through Hopkins's line delivery or his reaction to things, but through his body language that helps his performance leave the most impression. Aside from the aforementioned scene with the scrapbook, I also really liked this one part where Nicholas is sitting quietly in a chair by his pool overcome with the emotion of reminiscing about what he did fifty years earlier. Here, he simply sits there staring off into the distance fighting back tears until his wife arrives to comfort him. In the hands of a lesser actor, this scene may have been forgettable but Hopkins shows his ability to act using his body rather than simply through words during this scene, which gives a moment like this considerably more impact than it should.

However, this is clearly a one man show, and while that does make sense in the long run, it seems like kind of a waste to include all these other notable actors and do very little with them. Helena Bonham Carter plays the young Nicholas's mother, who essentially taught him the selfless value of doing good deeds for the sake of others. Unfortunately, she is only in the film for about five minutes and these are exclusively during the flashback scenes. Similarly, Jonathan Pryce appears as the older version of one of the people whom Nicholas worked with to rescue the children. His screen time is even less than Carter's and didn't really add anything particularly important to the film. Regardless, I still appreciate that all of these actors each wanted to be part of a film that helps preserve the legacy of someone important like Nicholas Winton.

Although the film can hardly be considered groundbreaking from a creative viewpoint, "One Life" still has moments of poignancy that are well worth your time. The subject matter alone warrants at least one viewing, as it is rare to hear about such great deeds being enacted by an uncommonly humble individual. In a world full of fake charitable people who only do nice deeds to stroke their egos, it's refreshing to know that there are people out there like Nicholas Winton who choose to do the right thing out of the kindness of their hearts. The world definitely needs more people like that, and if you can't find someone like that, be someone like that.

I rate it 8/10.

"Rebel Moon - Part One: A Child of Fire" is a science fiction action film co-written and directed by Zack Snyder ("Dawn of the Dead", "300", "Watchmen"). Starring Sofia Boutella and Ed Skrein, it embodies all of the typical Zack Snyder tropes one would expect for better and for worse.

In a faraway galaxy, the militaristic empire known as the "Motherworld" has ruled over the galaxy's systems for centuries. The Motherworld send their military leader Admiral Atticus Noble (Ed Skrein) to the farming colony on Veldt in an effort to strike a deal with the inhabitants of a small village to sell some of their grain. After the village elder (Corey Stoll) declines the offer, a farmer named Gunnar (Michiel Huisman) disagrees with his decision, which prompts Noble to beat the elder to death and instead demand all of the village's grain before he returns. A lone villager named Kora (Sofia Boutella) reveals to the others that she is a former high-ranking member of the Motherworld's soldiers and teams up with Gunnar to assemble a group of warriors from other worlds to defend Veldt from Noble and his troops.

If there were ever a more sharply divisive director to have worked in the past twenty years, it would be Zack Snyder, whose very name conjures up mixed opinions among audiences and critics alike. Throughout his career, Snyder's style of filmmaking has won him many fans while also earning him his fair share of detractors in the process. Whether you love him or hate him, there's no arguing that Snyder has definitely made a name for himself in the cinematic world. With Snyder's latest film "Rebel Moon - Part One: A Child of Fire", the controversial filmmaker attempts to tell his own version of "Star Wars", but instead it feels more like his take on "Jupiter Ascending".

A common criticism among most of Zack Snyder's films is their weak character development, and this one is no exception. When we are first introduced to our protagonist, Kora, we see that she acts distant from the other villagers regarding her origins and won't go into detail about why she is staying there in the first place. Later when something bad happens in front of her, Kora demonstrates her physical strength on those causing trouble and is then hailed as a hero by the village. Normally, this type of characterisation works in a film's favour, but I found Kora hard to connect with due to how derivative she is of other protagonists in similar films of this genre. Kora seems like a slap-dash amalgamation of so many other heroes in extraordinary situations that I already knew how events were going to play out for her in the end, and that's exactly what happens.

Similarly, when we watch the ironically named villain Atticus Noble demonstrate his cruel streak, he comes across as cartoonishly simplistic in his motivations. This may have been done to make him seem like a personification of evil rather than a potentially redeemable tragic villain, but aside from that there's nothing about Noble that makes him all that interesting as a character. There are other supporting characters littered throughout the story as well that either have little significance to the plot or are just there to peddle exposition to the audience in the most flat way possible. Practically everyone feels like a stock character, only there to fulfil the purpose of a particular scene and nothing more. Aside from Kora and Noble, I struggled to remember the names of any other character in the film that I even slightly cared about.

Additionally, there are also major problems with the structuring of the plot. There's never enough time given to any world-building elements before the film cuts away to a completely unrelated scene afterwards. For instance, in one part we see Noble and his soldiers invading another system demanding to know where they are hiding any rebels. What follows is him briefly interacting with the system's leader with the latter begging not to have his people slain, a request that quickly falls on deaf ears. I would have liked to have known the significance of why Noble had chosen this specific planet during his search but before we properly learn who these people are, he's already given the order to wipe all of them out. Most of the film functions this way, with only glimpses of the different species of the galaxy's inhabitants that are reduced to being little more than cannon fodder for the villains.

On a more positive side, the film does have some nice visual effects to go along with its otherwise flawed presentation. As brief as they were, I did appreciate seeing the way that the varying types of worlds looked throughout the story, as they had areas that seem to hint at what they were like before the Motherworld took over. There was this city that actually resembles a once bustling civilisation that has now been reduced to a ghetto-like slum and another desert-like planet that looks as though it has been left abandoned for some time. Had the film focused more on combining these great visuals with proper world building, then it could have been a more appealing story.

Also, some of the action scenes were quite exciting at times, mainly during the third act. If there's one great thing that Zack Snyder movies usually contain, it's a thrilling climax and this film certainly has just that. Without giving away spoilers, I enjoyed the showdown near the end, as it was among the few parts of the story that actually had me invested the whole time. The cinematography was on point and the character motivations made sense within the context of what was happening. Even Snyder's signature slow motion is used quite effectively here too. It's just a huge shame this is the only instance where I truly cared about what was happening in the story, as virtually nothing else in the film elicited this type of reaction from me.

As mentioned earlier, the characters are all rather uninteresting and poorly developed. I didn't really care much for Sofia Boutella as Kora, as she lacks the charisma for a leading role like this. Although she's more than capable of handling the action sequences, when it comes to the dialogue she falls flat. Boutella's accent hinders her delivery of certain lines to the point where it doesn't sound natural. It also doesn't help that her character has only one major role in the story; to recruit other people who would be potentially better at leading this film than her, like Djimon Hounsou, Charlie Hunnam, and even Anthony Hopkins as the voice of a robot.

If I had to pick just one character that left the most impression on me, it would be the villain Atticus Noble. Though his character lacked important development, I guess it was just Ed Skrein's performance that made him more appealing to watch over everyone else. Skrein, whom most people know as Ajax from "Deadpool", definitely has the screen presence for this type of villain, which is part of the reason why I was curious to see what he'd do next. Though this may also be to do with the fact that he's literally dressed as a Nazi SS officer (minus the Swastikas) for the majority of the film that makes it seem like he really means business.

For the beginning of a new franchise, "Rebel Moon - Part One: A Child of Fire" leaves a poor first impression on viewers that allows little excitement for what else is to come. So far, none of the characters have any true staying power and the universe it exists within is exceedingly dull. However, there is the possibility that all of these issues could be amended in the following sequels, so perhaps I shouldn't speak so soon. Until then, all I can say is approach this film like you would any other Zack Snyder movie; as either mindless entertainment or just plain mindless.

I rate it 5/10.

"Maestro" is a biographical drama film based around the life of composer Leonard Bernstein. Directed, co-written by, and starring Bradley Cooper in the lead role, as well as Carey Mulligan, it is a mostly conventional biopic that contains some solid performances and music.

In 1943 in New York City, 25-year-old Leonard Bernstein (Bradley Cooper) is suddenly made head conductor of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra after the original leader is taken ill. Leonard's conducting debut is met with rave reception, and he quickly builds a reputation for himself as a result. While attending a party, Leonard meets Costa Rican actress Felicia Montealegre (Carey Mulligan), and the two start dating and eventually get married. As his celebrity status grows over the course of the 1950s, Leonard finds himself frequently thrust into the public spotlight, which soon starts to take a toll on his marriage to Felicia after compounding rumours surface regarding his sporadic homosexual tendencies.

One of the most famous composers and conductors of the 20th century is Leonard Bernstein, whose influence can still be felt even to this day. Bernstein's work encompasses a wide range of mediums, such as Broadway musicals, film scores, operas, and even ballets. But what some people may not be aware of are certain aspects of Bernstein's personal life, primarily the homosexual relationships he indulged in before and during his marriage to actress Felicia Montealegre. The 2023 biopic "Maestro" touches on most of the surface level topics regarding Leonard Bernstein and his accomplishments, but doesn't quite achieve the level of greatness it is striving to reach.

Although we are informed of all the necessary backstory on Leonard Bernstein's rise to fame, the film never really explores what motivated his musical side in the first place. In the opening scene, we see an elderly Bernstein being interviewed in his home where he discusses the impact his wife Felicia had on the direction his musical career took him in. After discussing her at length, the film then immediately flashes back to the 1940s when a young Bernstein is given the job of conducting the New York Orchestra for the first time. At this point, it is shown that Bernstein was having homosexual relations with another man, which is later counteracted when he falls in love with Felicia upon meeting her at a party. While I did like the way the film portrayed Bernstein's genuine love for Felicia and how she turned him from gay to bisexual, this only concerns the timeframe after he became famous and not before. We are never properly shown why Bernstein wanted to become a composer from a young age, as the film skips this important detail in favour of the superficial biopic cliches like the pressures of fame and drug abuse.

The directing in this film yields mixed results as well. Although Bradley Cooper does handle the dialogue scenes very effectively, he tends to struggle with some of the artistic decisions that relate to the time periods of Leonard and Felicia's relationship. For most of the first half, Cooper shoots the film in black-and-white and in a 4:3 aspect ratio, which I assume is supposed to give the film a retro feel. Once we reach the second half, the film switches to colour but maintains the same aspect ratio as before. Though the film does at least look presentable this way, I'm still trying to figure out why this was done at all. There's nothing particularly appealing about keeping the film in this type of ratio, as nothing else warrants things looking this way from a creative standpoint.

Additionally, we don't really see enough scenes of Felicia's influence over Leonard that supposedly convinced him to turn his back on sexual relationships with men. After the two marry, we see that Leonard still continued to have affairs with other men, some of which she was fully aware. Yet, there's no logical explanation given as to why she chose to stay with him and defended his actions, outside of the fact that she admires him for his musical talents. It is also shown that Felicia turns a blind eye to her husband's drug use, which is what becomes the straw that finally breaks the camel's back. Without giving away spoilers, this leads to one of the best scenes in the entire film, where the very sanctity of their marriage hangs in the balance. Unfortunately, the impact of this scene is later diminished by events that take place during the film's third act, and with little explanation as to why.

In spite of these narrative issues, the performances of the cast were all spot on. Bradley Cooper does a solid job capturing Leonard Bernstein's mannerisms, from his body language to his voice. Having watched footage of the real Leonard Bernstein conducting symphonies and giving his insight in interviews, I can say that Bradley Cooper clearly did his research as this man was such a unique individual that he'd be very difficult to imitate effectively. But Cooper goes beyond simply mimicking the famous conductor and actually attempts to bring out a vulnerable side to his character. Although he doesn't always succeed at this, when he does it's like watching a real maestro at work, except this time in the field of acting.

But the real highlight would have to be Carey Mulligan as Felicia Montealegre, the one woman who left the biggest impact on Leonard Bernstein's life. It's no easy task to overshadow the main subject of a biopic, but Mulligan manages to make Felicia seem just as important as her husband in the way he presents himself. It would seem that Felicia wishes to keep a lid on her husband's antics, shielding him from any potential public scorn he could end up facing. On that note, I think Carey Mulligan nailed this type of role as the concerned but supportive wife, making this one of her best performances to date.

Considering everything it had going for it, it's a shame that "Maestro" never quite succeeds at examining its subject beyond a mostly superficial glance. I was hoping the film would delve deep into the psyche of Leonard Bernstein and why he is revered as a genius, but all we really get instead is a mere surface level look at his personal issues in a way that a typical biopic would have covered anyway. This film has six producers, who in addition to Bradley Cooper himself, also includes Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese, so perhaps this is another example of there being too many cooks spoiling the broth. Regardless, I would say that the film is worth seeing just for the performances of the cast and the fantastic music, as you'd have a hard time finding quality content like that anywhere else.

I rate it 7/10.

"The Holdovers" is a comedy drama film directed by Alexander Payne ("Election", "About Schmidt", "Sideways"). Starring Paul Giamatti in the lead role, as well as Dominic Sessa and Da'Vine Joy Randolph, it makes great use of its talented cast and excellent script to create a potential future holiday classic.

In December 1970 in New England, Paul Hunham (Paul Giamatti) works as an ancient history teacher at Barton Academy boarding school. Due to his strict, uptight nature, Paul is widely despised by both his students and his fellow staff members. With Christmas fast approaching, Paul is forcibly tasked with supervising the "holdover" students who are being left on campus over the holiday break. Much to Paul's annoyance, the only student who ends up remaining is Angus Tully (Dominic Tessa), a troublemaker known for causing problems in the past. Joining them is the campus cook Mary Lamb (Da'Vine Joy Randolph), who is still in mourning over losing her son in the Vietnam War. With the three of them stuck on school grounds for the next few weeks, Paul, Angus, and Mary each try their best to get along with one another, an undertaking that proves much easier said than done.

During the holiday season, I'm sure it's a tradition for many people to watch at least one popular movie set around this time. Some like to watch Kevin McCallister setting traps for burglars in "Home Alone", some like to watch George Bailey learn the value of his life in "It's A Wonderful Life", and some like to watch Clark Griswold's family mishaps in "National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation". As for me, I'm one of those few who like to watch John McClane save people from terrorists in "Die Hard". What can truly define a "Christmas Classic" is open for interpretation but after watching "The Holdovers", I have a strong feeling this film could very well fit that bill in a few years time.

The film expertly plays into each of the personality traits of this trio of characters. Of course, out of the three, it would have to be Paul Hunham who is clearly intended to be the lead protagonist. Paul embodies just about everything you could dislike in a teacher; he frequently grades his students harshly and he is tactless in the way he handles their feedback. Overall, he is a very unpleasant person to be around, and other members of his faculty seem to be in mutual agreement with the students. But where Paul's character becomes interesting is in how he interacts with the two others he is forced to spend time with. It is here Paul starts to open up for the first time, and we learn that beneath his mean exterior is in fact a vulnerable, lonely man who has never been shown any real love his entire life. He secretly yearns for affection but after a lifetime of pushing people away he has no idea how to make others truly like him for who he is.

Similarly, we are also shown that Angus has his own insecurities to deal with. Throughout the first act, we watch as Angus makes things difficult for Paul and the class, often interjecting with blunt questions regarding Paul's teaching methods, attracting the ire of others in the process. Like Paul, Angus is not very popular either but he has plenty of time to mature as he grows older, which is something Paul has failed to do. We later see that Angus acts the way he does as a coping mechanism for the lack of attention he receives at home. Angus longs for a family to spend time with, as his father is no longer in his life and his mother has chosen to leave her son behind over Christmas in favour of an impromptu second honeymoon with her new husband instead. As a result of all this, Angus lacks a true parental figure to show him love whenever he needs it, which has him living a directionless life.

Rounding things off is Mary, the bereaved school cook who is struggling to move on from her son's recent passing. Since this story is set in the early 1970s, a time when the Vietnam War was still a contentious issue among the public, it is shown that Mary is receiving little support for her loss due to her son's involvement in an unpopular conflict. Because of this, Mary is apathetic towards most others and feels dejected from the world around her. In spite of that, Mary nonetheless continues to work efficiently at her job as a way of keeping her mind off painful memories, demonstrating a stronger level of emotional intelligence than the other two. However, she is not above breaking down in front of others if someone makes an insensitive comment regarding her methods of grieving.

All three of these characters are each given their own individual arcs and thanks to David Hemingson's superb script, there are so many great dialogue scenes that allow for them to really come into their own. I particularly loved watching Paul and Angus interact with each other, almost like they are a bickering father and son unable to make sense of what makes the other one tick. There is also this scene that takes place in a bar that really shows how much they are growing as people. Here, we see Paul commit his first altruistic deed in preventing a physical fight from escalating between Angus and a drunk patron. He accomplishes this on the basis of intellect rather than brute force, which is heavily reflective of his character up to this point. Additionally, throughout the film, Mary serves as a necessary mediator between the two if things turn hostile. This is her way of demonstrating maternal instinct toward her two male acquaintances, as her son is no longer around for her to enact her usual parental duties. Each character relies on the other at some point in the story, and part of the fun is watching the ways in which one of them may assist in helping another become a better person.

Thanks to director Alexander Payne, the film also has a very distinct look to reflect the time period. Although the film was shot digitally, Payne uses a specific grainy colour grading scheme to make it look like it has been shot on film reels from the 1970s, something that helps enhance the atmosphere of many important scenes. Even the opening titles use the old Universal Studios and Miramax logo from this era, which is a perfect way to establish the film's retro setting. It's also worth noting that Payne has shot the film on location, using real buildings and schools that resemble a place you'd visit in this particular decade. Numerous scenes that take place inside small bars and school kitchens are appropriately cramped along with the characters inhabiting them, which allows the audience to better understand how they must be feeling at this time.

Each of the three actors all gave fantastic performances, but I think Paul Giamatti is the real highlight due to how much his character grows over the course of the film. There aren't too many actors who can play a completely unlikeable character that can change into a sympathetic hero, but Giamatti does a wonderful job here. Giamatti has always been one of those actors who adds at least one memorable thing to the films he is in and this just so happens to be one of his best roles to date. Newcomer Dominic Tessa also shines considerably as Angus, who carries his role with the right level of maturity and sincerity. For his first film role, Tessa knocks it out of the park as a troubled young man who craves love from a real family. However, my one complaint is that Angus is supposed to be fifteen but the 21-year-old Tessa clearly has a visible five o'clock shadow on his face throughout the whole film. Da'Vine Joy Randolph is also a nice addition to the cast, managing to hold her own alongside the other two. Many times throughout the film, Randolph plays into Mary's grief and depressed state, never once coming off as someone wishing to thrive on other people's sympathy. She knows she needs to move on from her son's death, but is also aware of the long and arduous healing process until that can happen.

If you're craving something beyond the usual onslaught of holiday movies, then "The Holdovers" might just be the film to satisfy your needs. It stands tall among most other films set during the Christmas season thanks to the combined efforts of its great cast, assured direction, and first-rate screenplay. In my eyes, this film has already earned its place as a modern holiday classic, although the reach of its popularity will dictate whether or not future opinions will agree with me. At this point, only time will tell.

I rate it a solid 9/10.

"Godzilla Minus One" is the 37th film in the Godzilla franchise and Toho's 33rd film overall. Written and directed Takashi Yamazaki and starring Ryunosuke Kamiki in the lead role, it pulls off the near impossible task of balancing harrowing human drama with that signature Godzilla mass destruction.

In 1946 in Japan, kamikaze pilot Koichi Shikishima (Ryunosuke Kamiki) returns home to a ruined Tokyo after failing to stop the giant lizard-like monster Godzilla from killing the inhabitants of Odo Island. Still overcome with guilt, Koichi takes up a job as a minesweeper to support himself, as well as a homeless woman named Noriko (Minami Hamabe) and the orphaned baby Akiko she rescued. Meanwhile, Godzilla has become more mutated and powerful as a result of America's nuclear tests in Bikini Atoll, and is now heading directly towards Japan. One year later, Koichi and his crew are given the task of preventing Godzilla from reaching the Japanese mainland, and despite some initial success, Godzilla quickly breaks through their blockade. Upon making landfall, Godzilla unleashes a fury of destruction on the city of Ginza, killing tens of thousands of people in the process. Shocked by the carnage left in its wake, Koichi vows revenge against Godzilla and soon find himself working on a plan to take out the gargantuan monster once and for all.

If there were ever a more iconic giant movie monster that didn't come from Hollywood, it would have to be Godzilla of course. For almost seven decades, this colossal reptilian has stomped its way through cities around the world and battled other large monsters ("Kaijus") of similar size using its physical strength and atomic breath. But what many may not know is the real reason why Godzilla was created at all, and that was for it to serve as an allegory for the misuse of nuclear weapons post-World War II. This metaphor is at the forefront of the 2023 film "Godzilla Minus One", which not only features some clever social commentary regarding Japan's future in the nuclear age, but also a lineup of well-written characters and great special effects to help things along nicely.

Separating itself considerably from most other movies of its type, this film actually has a three-dimensional human protagonist for the audience to support. Our hero Koichi is World War II kamikaze pilot, whose job was to fly his plane into the enemy, killing himself in the process. However, Koichi cannot bring himself to go through with this literal suicide mission and upon returning home is labelled as a dishonourable coward by those around him. Throughout the film, we see Koichi experiencing survivor's guilt due to him being indirectly responsible for many deaths at the hands of Godzilla, and he finds himself in constant conflict with his emotions.

A set-up like this is particularly interesting, because it shows a unique perspective of what the Japanese perceive as courageous. In their culture, the Japanese believe that surrendering to an enemy victory is an act of cowardice, so in addition to his PTSD of letting others die, Koichi also has the burden of his country's high expectations to once again prove himself worthy to their cause. By watching Koichi work desperately to overcome both his guilt and shame, we see him grow as a person over the course of the film, allowing for a rather in-depth character arc that is not usually seen to this extent in giant monster movies. Because of this, the audience now has a believable, sympathetic main character for them to cheer for against all opposition.

Something else worth mentioning here is that it is not just Koichi who has a lot to benefit from growing throughout the story, but also the plethora of supporting characters he comes into contact with. For instance, many of Koichi's minesweeper crew are former members of the Japanese navy, who are each trying to rebuild their lives in the aftermath of their country's bitter defeat in World War II. One crew member never even had the chance to see combat but still wants to help out wherever he can. With so much to prove after losing the War, all of these brave men work tirelessly around the clock to protect their homeland from an outside threat, only this time from a giant lizard creature instead of a global superpower. I couldn't help but admire the sense of public duty each of these men have for their country, which is not often seen outside of a typical war film, and watching it demonstrated so effectively in Godzilla movie of all things is nothing short of impressive.

Of course, aside from all these heavy-handed themes and character motivations, it just wouldn't be a Godzilla film without what everyone pays to see in the first place - the chaos and destruction. For any doubters, there are still plenty of scenes of the iconic monster crashing its way through buildings, biting into warships like they were food, and blasting away large areas with its signature atomic breath. It's worth noting that this Godzilla is a bit smaller than other incarnations, as it still relatively young and hasn't yet grown to full size. Despite that, I still really liked Godzilla's design and the film's special effects used to bring it to life. Essentially, Godzilla is treated like a force of nature acting on its youthful animalistic instincts rather than as a calculating villain, with anyone or anything in its path likely to meet an untimely end.

As the film takes place just after World War II, the human weaponry to fight back against Godzilla is exclusively limited to that particular time period, with no modern day artillery available at their dispersal. To make matters worse, despite being responsible for its creation, the Americans refuse to assist Japan in stopping Godzilla at the risk of causing tension with the nearby Soviet Union. This leaves Japan with no other choice but to fight Godzilla all by themselves, with only their intellect and home field advantage as their aces in the hole. Because of that, you really get the sense that the Japanese are the underdogs in this fight, exacerbated by the fact that they are still in the process of rebuilding their country after World War II.

For a character like Koichi, Ryunosuke Kamiki brings an appropriate level of dimension to his performance in the main role. As mentioned earlier, Koichi is not just battling Godzilla, he is also grappling with his own inner turmoil. Often times he is haunted by his past mistakes and the longing to fix them before he completely loses his mind. Kamiki does a great job showing the array of emotions Koichi is going through, ranging from reserved shame for his past actions to intense anger for what Godzilla has done to those he cares about. He holds a personal vendetta against Godzilla, and like Captain Ahab hunting Moby Dick, he becomes obsessed with destroying the giant Kaiju as a way to achieve peace of mind. Watching Koichi develop throughout the story is one of the film's biggest strengths, and it is balanced out near-flawlessly with the usual scenes of Godzilla destroying things.

From the viewpoint of a casual fan, "Godzilla Minus One" ranks among the most entertaining and emotionally deep monster movies ever made. Having only watched a handful of movies in the series, I have to admit it's quite refreshing to find one this well-made with likeable, interesting human characters in addition to everything else one would expect. To my surprise, this movie was made on a budget of less than $15 million, far lower than most of the Hollywood features rushed out to theatres these days. Western movie studios should take note because this is clearly how action films should be made instead of the same over-produced and over-priced content they continue to churn out every year. After all, if the Japanese can do it, then surely the west can follow suit.

I rate it a solid 9/10.

"Priscilla" is a biographical drama film written and directed by Sofia Coppola ("The Virgin Suicides", "Lost in Translation", "Marie Antoinette") based on the memoir "Elvis and Me" by Priscilla Presley and Sandra Harmon. Starring Cailee Spaeny and Jacob Elordi, it presents an often overlooked perspective of an iconically complex romance.

In 1959 in West Germany, 14-year-old Priscilla Beaulieu (Cailee Spaeny) is staying with her family at a U. S. military base where her father has been stationed. One night, Priscilla attends a party on the base where she meets the famous singer Elvis Presley (Jacob Elordi), who was recently drafted into the military. Despite being ten years her senior, Elvis takes an instant liking to Priscilla, believing she is far more mature than her age and the pair begin dating in secret. After completing his service, Elvis returns home to the United States and eventually loses contact with Priscilla, which leaves her heartbroken. In 1962, Elvis reaches out to Priscilla, requesting that he comes to live with him at his estate in Graceland. Priscilla accepts Elvis's invitation, and she travels to meet with him where the two become a couple once more. Over time, the pressures of both Elvis's fame and Priscilla's worsening mental state begin to grow, which takes a toll on their outwardly perfect relationship.

It's a safe bet that anyone with even the most basic knowledge of music knows who Elvis Presley is. During his lifetime, Elvis redefined rock and roll as we know it, rightfully earning himself the nickname "The King" as a result. But what many people may not realise was the complexity of Elvis's relationship with Priscilla Beaulieu, whom he met when she was only 14 and later married after an almost eight-year-long courtship. Sofia Coppola's film "Priscilla" delves into an interesting side of this relationship from a viewpoint that other forms of media tend to omit altogether.

From the way this film is presented, it's obvious that Priscilla's vision of a fairytale romance with the world famous singer will not to go the way she had envisioned. When she first meets Elvis, he makes it abundantly clear that their age difference is going to play a major factor while they are dating. Yet despite this, the two nonetheless choose to continue their relationship with each other, regardless of what others think. Later on when Priscilla moves in with Elvis, it seems things can only get better for her as he showers her with lavish gifts and money, as well as the most comforting thing of all; the hospitality of his family.

However, cracks soon start to show in Priscilla's new life, changing her from a starstruck fan to an ostracised member of society. It is here that the film does a clever job of showing how Priscilla is unable to live normally under these new circumstances, including how she faces the scorn of the staff at the Catholic school she attends due to her boyfriend's "evil ways". The tragic part here is that Priscilla now knows full well that she can never go back to her regular life, forever having the stigma of being in close affiliation with someone as controversial as Elvis Presley. To make matters worse, she is still technically a child at this point, meaning she still has her whole life ahead to cope with her mounting problems.

Thanks to Sofia Coppola's subtle direction, the film never feels overly sensationalised in its execution. Unlike Baz Luhrmann's 2022 "Elvis" biopic, which revelled in its bombastic nature, this film is content with its slow burning, refined tone. One scene where I thought this was particularly evident is when the young Priscilla is in school trying to get on with her studies, only to be leered at by her fellow students and teachers due to her personal associations. Instead of playing this part up like some cliched teenage drama, Coppola uses this opportunity to showcase Priscilla's ostracisation via some artistic choices. For instance, Coppola chooses to slowly zoom in on Priscilla's sad face as she deals with constant ridicule to show that this is an internalised conflict she must overcome, as well as giving off the feeling that the whole world is closing in her. Additionally, there are also some creative choices in lighting during similar scenes to symbolise her bright future becoming dark as a result of all her problems. In the hands of another director, the nuances of Priscilla's life may have been glanced over in favour of the spicier details but Coppola understands the need to focus on certain details in order to properly humanise her subjects.

As the title character, Cailee Spaeny does a convincing job showing Priscilla Presley's (née Beaulieu) youthful naiveté at all the right moments. Spaeny's performance is especially a stand out as she is able to convey a great deal of information about her character to the audience through more than just dialogue. In one scene, we see Priscilla standing inside her large bedroom filled with expensive furniture and artwork, somewhere many would consider rather luxurious. However, it is clear that Priscilla herself is unable to enjoy where she currently is because of her husband's absence, which is shown through her reserved body language. As this film is executive produced by the real Priscilla Presley, I can safely assume that she approves of her depiction in this movie, even if her late daughter Lisa Marie reportedly did not.

I think Jacob Elordi's depiction of Elvis is definitely worth mentioning as well. In this film, Elvis is less like a rock star and more like a vulnerable man who loves his family, to the point where he desperately wants to welcome someone like Priscilla into it. He seems like a person who wants a real partner to share all his fame with, but cannot form a real connection with anyone other than Priscilla. Of course, her being underage is a major elephant in the room so it's hard to really want to support a relationship that would be considered statutory rape in any other context. Nonetheless, Elordi's portrayal is a worthy one that compliments Spaeny's quite nicely.

If anyone was put off by the exuberant stylings of Baz Luhrmann's Elvis film, then "Priscilla" provides the appropriate antidote you might be looking for. It achieves what it was going for not via sensationalism, but rather through the subtle behaviour of its subject matter. Rarely have we ever gotten a film about the most important people in Elvis Presley's life that doesn't make him the centre of attention, but this one does a nice enough job of respecting his influence while also keeping the focus away from him and on the actual person in question. For that reason alone, the film has done something right.

I rate it 7/10.

"Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget" is the sequel to the 2000 Aardman Animations film "Chicken Run". Featuring the voices of Thandiwe Newton, Zachary Levi, Bella Ramsey, and Miranda Richardson, it is an amusing, albeit unnecessary follow-up to the original film that still manages to be entertaining.

Sometime after the events of the first film, the freed chickens of Mr. And Mrs. Tweedy's Farm have all settled into their new lives on an island far away from humans. Ginger (voiced by Thandiwe Newton) and Rocky (voiced by Zachary Levi) have since become a family after their daughter Molly (voiced by Bella Ramsey) hatches from an egg. As she grows older, Molly becomes more curious about life outside the island, and one night decides to ignore her parents' warnings and sneak out across to the mainland. The next day, Ginger and Rocky learn of Molly's disappearance and set out with a group of other chickens to look for her. Meanwhile, Molly has been captured and taken to Fun-Land Farms, a technologically advanced chicken farm operated by Mrs. Tweedy (voiced by Miranda Richardson) and her new husband Dr. Fry (voiced by Nick Mohammad). Upon learning of this, Ginger, Rocky, and the rest of their team quickly conspire a plan to break into the heavily guarded farm and rescue Molly before she is turned into chicken nuggets.

One notable animation style that I think ages well is claymation, which when done right can give the product in question a timeless presentation. The British studio Aardman Animations has been using this particular technique since their founding over 50 years ago, producing many short films, advertisements, and opening titles for TV shows. In 2000, Aardman created their first feature length film "Chicken Run", a story about a group of chickens who plot an escape from their farm before their tyrannical owner can turn each of them into pies. Even more than 20 years later, "Chicken Run" still holds the record for the highest grossing stop-motion animated film of all time, and remains a favourite among viewers of all ages. In 2023, Aardman released a sequel titled "Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget", which retains most of the charm of the original, despite having little reason to exist in the first place.

For those who haven't seen the original, things were wrapped up pretty nicely at the end so it seems like a strange decision to want to continue things from there. With that in mind, this sequel does a decent enough job of establishing a follow-up story to justify another film. We see that the chickens are now living in a carefree utopian society, and Ginger and Rocky are now parents to the inquisitive Molly, who has no idea about life outside of their current peaceful existence. It is here we learn that Ginger suffers from PTSD related to the events of the previous film, making her reluctant to talk to her young daughter about what lies beyond their idyllic island home. As a result, Molly's curiosity grows even stronger, frequently relying on information about the outside world from the chickens' rat associates Nick and Fetcher. I liked that the film told things mostly from Molly's perspective, reflecting that younger generations often have no idea how much easier they have it than their parents in some regards, and her interest in finding out for herself helps set the plot in motion.

As mentioned earlier, Aardman films are renowned for their claymation art style, and this film is one of their best looking yet. Nearly every frame of this movie is so bright and colourful that it's hard to look away at times. Best of all, the set-design was crafted by hand in a studio as opposed to CGI added in post-production, which of course makes the film look even better. I also found myself observing all of the everyday items that were being used as props, like a spoon as a shovel (which was also done in the original film) or an egg holder as a drinking cup. Like all of Aardman's productions, the film has a distinctly British feel. The humour is dry and witty, and the quirky personalities of the chickens allows for the odd chuckle at the expense of the situations they land themselves in. It pleases me that Aardman have always stayed true to their British roots, never allowing any blatant Americanisation of their work to compromise their vision.

Although the voice acting was very good all round, I still can't help but feel sad that some of the main characters from the original film had their actors recast. Thandiwe Newton has replaced Julia Sawalha as Ginger, and while I did like the level of emotion Newton brought to the role during her parental scenes with Molly, it would have been nice if Sawalha had returned to the part instead. Allegedly, Sawahla was replaced due to her sounding "too old" for the character, which is why it seems weird that the filmmakers cast Newton over her, who is only four years younger and sounds slightly different. To add to the confusion, there are flashback scenes to the first film that have dialogue from Sawalha's Ginger that cut back to modern day with Newton's Ginger, making the vocal differences particularly noticeable.

Similarly, Zachary Levi takes over from Mel Gibson as Rocky, who also does a reasonable job but doesn't reach the level of charisma as his predecessor. Gibson has always had a unique style of confidence that shone through in his depiction of Rocky, which Levi unfortunately is unable to replicate. Of course, it makes sense for Gibson to have been replaced considering his controversial past, but that just means Rocky will never feel the same way as he once was. Other actors have been replaced as well, like David Bradley voicing Fowler instead of Benjamin Whitrow, who passed away in 2017, as well as Timothy Spall as Nick and Phil Daniels as Fetcher, who are now voiced by Romesh Ranganathan and Daniel Mays, respectively.

Fortunately, Jane Horrocks, Imelda Staunton, Lynn Ferguson, and Miranda Richardson all managed to return to reprise their respective roles as Babs, Bunty, Mac, and Mrs. Tweedy. If there were one other cast member I'm most glad was able to come back, it would be Miranda Richardson, as it was her intimidating performance as Mrs. Tweedy in the first film that made her such a memorable villain in the first place. This time, her hatred of chickens feels more personal as a result of the events that took place previously. She's much smarter and more conniving than before, fully aware that the chickens are not as dumb as she initially thought, which is notably reflected in the scenes where she fights back against Ginger. It's worth noting that Mrs. Tweedy has a different husband in this film, which means that she and Mr. Tweedy either got divorced or he died off-screen somehow (Mr. Tweedy's voice actor Tony Haygarth died in 2017 so the latter reason is plausible).

However, it's not all bad news regarding the cast as I did enjoy Bella Ramsey's performance as Molly, the adventurous daughter of Ginger and Rocky. It was quite cute to see Molly taking an interest in the world around her and Ramsey helps bring a likeable curiosity to this character and why she wants to step outside her comfort zone. At first, I was concerned that Molly would be another perfect "Mary Sue" type protagonist, but she actually struggles throughout her journey quite often, learning that things aren't always going to go her way and that she needs to work hard to overcome any adversity she faces. Some of the film's best scenes are with Molly and her mother, the latter of whom understands what it is like to long for a different life beyond where she is now.

For a belated sequel that didn't really need to exist, "Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget" is a fun ride that fans of the original can appreciate for its impressive claymation effects and signature sense of humour. Though it could have been better in places, there's no denying that the film's appeal is more than enough to reach both children and adults alike. It's crazy to think that people like myself who were kids when the original came out are now old enough to have kids of their own, so any Millennial-aged parents showing this film to their children are sure to have an enjoyable time watching this one together as a family. And for that reason alone, I would say the film has accomplished its goal.

I rate it 7.5/10.