Reviews (1,134)

  • You know you're in good hands when a film begins with Laurence Fishburne being used to explicitly shout out Lawrence of Arabia (I see what you did there, movie).

    John Wick: Chapter 4 is more John Wick. It is likely exactly what you're expecting it to be, but if you're like me and you had high hopes for this fourth installment, you're likely to be pleased by what the film delivers, even if it doesn't entirely blow expectations away. The title character is once again put up against plenty of people who want him dead. The story is designed in a way to get him to travel to various locales, all of which are well-utilized in the action scenes. And when it comes time for those action scenes themselves, they're largely spectacular.

    Things manage to escalate even more from the gleefully over-the-top Chapter 3, but I will say, the opening half-hour to 45 minutes of this proves to be surprisingly restrained. The momentum never slows down too much, but to some extent, it takes its time to get all the pieces in place. After that's done, things don't let up much at all, and I was glad to see the non-stop energy and fighting of the third film's opening act replicated here, except this time it plays out during the final act, and in a new location.

    There were other key details I really liked. One action scene is shot in a way that looks like a live-action version of Hotline Miami, and the results are pretty great. There's also some really good music used throughout, including Justice's Genesis (not the only on-the-nose music choice, given they're a French House duo and the scene it plays during takes place in Paris, but it fits the heightened style of the movie).

    You do feel the length at some points, and I don't think it's the best-paced recent blockbuster with a three-ish hour-long runtime. Still, it delivers stylish action, a high-stakes, kind of goofy, but engaging and simple story, and Keanu Reeves and a talented supporting cast all doing their thing. The creativity and stuntwork found in the action sequences are great, and it all adds up to what might be the best entry in the whole series (beating out Chapter 3 by a hair for me).
  • I guess "challenging" is the word I keep coming back to when thinking about Eureka. It's a 3.5-hour-long movie with a completely sepia color scheme that follows three survivors of a deadly bus hijacking as they navigate life in the wake of such a traumatic event. It doesn't sugarcoat anything, and there's absolutely nothing easy or "Hollywood" about it. The film is mostly about these three people feeling stuck in place, and even when they try to go on a road trip to physically escape where they've been, it just creates further problems mentally and emotionally for the lot of them.

    It looks bleak, the story is bleak, and it's likely to make you as a viewer feel bleak. I think the emotional state it conjures up is unique, or if not entirely unprecedented, I think it's fair to say that few films about grief create a sensation exactly like this one does, while also sustaining such an unpleasant, uneasy feeling for so long. That makes Eureka the kind of movie that's hard to recommend, and I don't think I even really "liked" it - but I think I got something out of it, even with the pacing, length, and very blunt (and sustained) emotional content making it a difficult watch.

    It reminded me a little of the 2018 film An Elephant Sitting Still. I think that one's a good deal better (and a little longer, from memory), but that's a film where dramatic, tragic events are built to throughout the film. Eureka's a film where the most intense event in the film happens right away, and then much of the three hours that follows is about what happens afterward. But in following a small group of characters who're all going through a harrowing time in their lives, there are some similarities between the two, and I think Eureka + An Elephant Sitting Still could make for one of the most intense and emotionally taxing (as well as almost eight-hour-long) double features in existence.
  • Brendan Fraser fever is still going, even post-Oscars. Made me realise I'd never seen The Mummy in full before.

    It's fine? Starts and finishes with its two best action set pieces at least. Some of the humour works, but some of the movie's attempts to be funny are kind of terrible. The pacing felt weird, especially in the film's second act, where scenes don't really seem to flow together all that well. I'm glad mainstream movies seem to have moved on from characters like Beni Gabor.

    But the leads are good, and I think these special effects are pretty good by late 1990s standards. It's a watchable movie that borrows a lot from Raiders of the Lost Ark and a decent amount from Army of Darkness, but ends up being not nearly as good as either.
  • There's been a lot of hype around Puss in Boots: The Last Wish recently, which made me apprehensive to check it out. Having finally watched it, I think it largely lives up to its reputation. It's an entertaining and consistently engaging animated film, and even if it ultimately feels like it's a two-act story more than a three-act one, I think it's still a great two acts worth of movie. Its odd structure and abundance of antagonists made me feel like it was missing a little something by the end - as well as feeling a tad scattershot - but what the actual movie ultimately delivers is still undeniably strong.

    Though it's got some flaws, at the end of the day, the animation is incredible, and the core story's willingness to tackle the topic of mortality is admirable and likely to be fairly intense for younger viewers. The central antagonist is literally Death himself, and any scene featuring him is very effective.

    The action is also compelling, the emotional moments hit fairly well, and the humour hits more than it misses. It all adds up to a very good animated film, and joins the likes of Marcel the Shell with Shoes On, Del Toro's Pinocchio, and Turning Red (haters gonna hate when it comes to the last of those) as another great animated movie released in 2022.
  • All the Beauty and the Bloodshed can join Fire of Love in the club of Oscar-nominated documentaries from 2022 that would have been more worthy winners than Navalny. It's admittedly a small club, but I feel like both of those movies have moments that demonstrate documentary filmmaking at its best.

    In the case of All the Beauty and the Bloodshed, it's probably the final 15-20 minutes that shines the brightest. It can be a slow and somewhat uneven feeling documentary at some points, but it builds to some phenomenal and emotionally hard hitting final scenes. The rest of the documentary still tends to hit far more often than it misses, but I did get the sense it may have been a tiny bit too long, and while I respect the choice not to tie together its two primary narratives more explicitly, part of me was waiting for them to collide more directly at a point. Still, leaving some of that up to the viewer felt like a deliberate choice, and I can respect that.

    It follows Nan Goldin, with the film both recounting her life story from the 1950s to the 1990s and detailing her activism against the Sackler family and their role in the opioid epidemic in the 2010s. The latter might be more interesting narratively, but the former has the more interesting presentation, seeing as Goldin's an accomplished artist/photographer, and the documentary frequently relies on her work to serve as visuals.

    It's a heavy and often sad documentary, dealing with mental illness, addiction, corruption, censorship, the AIDS crisis, discrimination, and domestic violence. It might be upsetting to some viewers as a result, but I think it was best not to pull punches (so long as people know what they're in for before deciding to watch it). It's a largely powerful documentary that I think will stick with me. Not perfect, but it has some amazing sequences that were very striking and moving.
  • It's hard to review an anthology movie like this, as it's essentially 33 short films that all go for three minutes or less, and each is done by a different director. There are some recognizable names here (like David Cronenberg, Lars Von Trier, Takashi Kitano, and Jane Campion), and then a few I didn't recognize. Some of the shorts from filmmakers I know I really liked, and some really didn't do it for me at all. I feel like the cast members are generally a little less famous, but there are still a few big names in there from the world cinema scene.

    Each short film has to revolve around a cinema in some way, and even with the uneven quality, I guess it is interesting to see how many different approaches all the filmmakers have to tackling such a broad concept. Some shorts are incredibly abstract, at least one was super self-indulgent and just terrible, and others are charming in their simplicity and bluntness (I think Lars Von Trier might have had the best of the lot for this reason - it was one of the only ones that got a real reaction out of me... also, Cronenberg's was a highlight).

    It's hard to recommend something like this. It's creative and interesting, but also tedious in parts, and I'd say one-third of these shorts feel pretty disposable. Like, Gus Van Saint's is so weird, and I usually like his stuff. Same for Campion - not sure what was she thinking or trying to say there?

    I think it would be fun to watch and react to with a friend who's also a huge, possibly slightly pretentious film buff. It's quite fascinating, but I don't really know many people who I could watch and discuss something like this with, but thank you for reading my ramblings; it's the next best thing I guess!
  • I was wondering how they'd make a sequel when the main character of the first movie was basically an invincible warrior by the end. The solution is equal parts clever and baffling; it definitely wasn't what I was expecting.

    It's far more comedic than the first 36th Chamber of Shaolin movie, and though it features Gordon Liu again, he's not exactly doing what you'd expect (I'll leave it at that; I feel like it's almost a twist, the way this movie subverts expectations when it comes to even its core premise).

    It's amusing, but also a little unsatisfying as an action movie. Sometimes, when it recreates elements of the first one, it falls a little flat. It's a messy, odd sequel, but certainly a novel one that I can respect in an odd way.
  • I'll admit, Navalny wasn't really on my radar until it won Best Documentary at the most recent Oscars. While I don't think it was necessarily better than Fire of Love - one of the other nominees - I understand why it won, and still think it was overall a pretty good documentary.

    It is a timely documentary. It's about a story that's still going, in a way, following someone who's gotten on the wrong side of some very powerful people - including Putin itself, it seems - in Russia. Given everything that happened concerning Russia in 2022, it's no wonder that something like this has been successful and acclaimed, and perhaps seen as even more relevant and important.

    The story is overall interesting, and I think that as far as the filmmaking side of things is concerned, Navalny is competent, but not exceptional. There are some great sequences that are well-constructed, but other times it does feel a little uneven and kind of by the numbers. Again, it's not like that all the time, thankfully, but it's certainly not flawless when it comes to pacing and the technical side of things, and certain sections of the film prove more moving and intense than others.

    It'll likely serve as a good snapshot of the state of things in Russia during the late 2010s/early 2020s in future years, and I'm not sure whether that will make it more or less interesting to viewers in the future. It could be historically fascinating, or it could just seem heavily of its time in a less compelling way. Time always tells; it just ironically likes to take its time sometimes.
  • If I was in my late 60s and watched/loved Get Carter in my teenage years, this would probably be my favourite movie.

    Alas, I am not in my late 60s, and therefore was not a teenager when Get Carter was released. As such, Harry Brown is not my favourite movie.

    These stars are mostly for Michael Caine, who does good work with a beyond barebones screenplay. I also appreciated how the movie was not very long.

    It feels overall regressive and overly simplistic, especially when it comes to its depiction of the criminals the title character lashes out against. It's not awfully made or acted, but I think what the film was trying to say made me feel uneasy.
  • This was the second film in a Kubrick double feature I saw at my local cinema tonight. Unlike with the first film, A Clockwork Orange, I feel like seeing Full Metal Jacket on the big screen (and a few years older than last time I watched it) made me like it a lot more.

    Long story short, I used to love the first half of this film and like the second half, but felt confused about how they connected. It seems obvious now, but this time around, it felt like one coherent movie. Key parts of the first half echoed in the second, and it overall shows how soldiers are dehumanised and traumatised before they even reach the frontlines of a war. It's a big, ugly machine, and Full Metal Jacket shows it's just as ugly whether you're being trained to kill or being made to kill.

    It gets into the heads of its fairly straightforward characters, and it's as much a psychological drama as it is a war film. Part of me wishes Joker had a little more to do as a main character, but he still works well to anchor the whole thing, and is ultimately a changed person by the end.

    The actual transition between the first and second halves still feels a little jarring to me, but other than the specific point where they join, Full Metal Jacket now feels like a complete film, rather than a scrambled collection of great scenes. Maybe that's me getting older, or maybe seeing it in a cinema helped. Maybe it's both, and I'm just trying to make a comment on the duality of man or something...
  • Got to see this on the big screen as part 1 of a Kubrick double feature (Full Metal Jacket was the second).

    A Clockwork Orange has long been my favourite of Kubrick's films, and seeing it in a cinema therefore didn't make me love it much more. It couldn't really make a 10/10 more of a 10/10. It's already up there as one of the best of all time, for my money, but was more than worth revisiting.

    I do think I understand it a little more, though don't think it went over my head entirely when I was younger. I think I just better appreciate what it's trying to say, and how pessimistic its ultimate outlook on the world is. Criminals commit violence, and the State retaliates, committing its own kind of violence against criminals (or those it designates as criminals). Neither side as depicted in the movie can be described as sympathetic, but the conflict and questions that come from it are still compelling.

    A Clockwork Orange raises troubling and difficult questions around law, justice, crime, punishment, and morality. That it also does so while being a visual spectacle (on a fairly low budget) with amazing music and memorable performances from the entire cast makes it a classic. It's challenging and disturbing, especially early on, but I think it has good reasons for confronting and terrifying its audience.

    Through its unique premise, it asks some questions we still don't have answers to. That plus the fact it's a near-perfect film technically ensure it endures as an iconic classic.
  • Another character-focused drama from Yasujiro Ozu, and while I don't think it's among his very best, I still found plenty to like here.

    It's mainly about a married couple who've been through some tough times, and I believe are in their mid to late 30s. The husband begins feeling interested in a young woman, but it doesn't play out the way you might expect; it feels a whole lot more real, and without melodrama.

    I feel like the film as a whole tries to capture those final few confusing years before middle age definitively starts. It's not something I can relate to wholeheartedly, but give me 10 years and a rewatch of this and we'll see.

    145 minutes felt a little long, but it's still well-made and has rewarding moments for patient viewers. There are always a couple of sections (sometimes more) in an Ozu film that take me off guard emotionally, often by a character expressing some kind of surprisingly profound personal insight. It's those key scenes or even just seconds of film that always stick in mind, and make Ozu a continually engaging filmmaker to watch, even if his films sometimes feel a little slow and overlong (not always 100% in a bad way!)
  • Just the kind of breezy, relaxed, funny, and even heartwarming film I needed tonight. Supermarket Woman is quite simply about a savvy middle-aged woman helping to revive a struggling supermarket, who are under extra threat by a new, larger store recently opening up nearby.

    It's a very low-stakes movie, but you still come to care for the characters and the story. It's just never stressful or feels like it's playing much for drama, which is nice. Tonally, it's just about all comedy, but it never pushes things too far too often to the point where it feels like it's taking place in another reality entirely.

    It's terrible to read about what happened to the director - he was apparently killed by the yakuza because of how he featured them in one of his movies. I've liked everything of his I've seen to some extent, but Supermarket Woman might be up there as his best or second best (personally speaking), and it's definitely his most consistently funny and entertaining.

    It might help to have worked in a supermarket at some point before watching this, too. There are quite a few moments sprinkled throughout that feel very relatable.
  • Akira Kurosawa's penultimate film, Rhapsody in August, is a family drama that's mostly about various people dealing with the 45th anniversary of the atomic bomb being dropped on Nagasaki. Letterboxd lists it as a comedy/drama, but I'd disagree. The first half is tonally a little lighter than the second, but neither feels like it's trying to be particularly comedic.

    It's a solid movie, and I think it works better in the second half and the first. Surprisingly, Richard Gere is in it for a bit, and once you get over the surprise of seeing him rock up in a Kurosawa film, he's pretty good.

    It's typically well acted and nicely shot, as you'd expect from Kurosawa. Its pacing is particularly slow, and I think that's what keeps me from liking it as much as his other 1990s films, but it's still a worthy entry in his fantastic filmography. It also ends on a strange but memorable note - one of those endings I can't make perfect sense of, but it feels appropriate somehow.
  • This makes Bones and All - a more recent artsy romance movie involving cannibalism - look like a walk in the park, both because Trouble Every Day is more graphic and feels a little less accessible.

    It follows a recently married couple who go on a honeymoon to Paris, though the husband seems to have an ulterior motive for travelling there. Eventually, what he's looking for introduces cannibalism into the plot, and basically no punches are pulled when it comes to the level of violence.

    Some of it's absolutely sickening, and one scene in particular made me feel genuinely nauseous. So as a horror movie, it's effective. The core story is a slow-burn but a pretty good one - there's a decent narrative hook and something of a mystery, which I wasn't expecting from a Claire Denis film, because I usually feel like she doesn't seem so concerned with telling a relatively direct narrative.

    I guess that all means Trouble Every Day is a good film overall. It's well-made, blends a few genres together nicely, and it's relatively interesting, if a little slow in its first half. Despite it being good, I don't know if I enjoyed watching it, but can't deny it's got some strong elements that make it worth watching for strong-stomached folk out there.
  • I always feel like a bit of a jerk watching this kind of anime movie. It's very sentimental and melodramatic, and it almost works for me, but not quite. It just lays things on a tiny bit too thick for my liking. If it was restrained a little more, I think it would have been more moving (personally). Also, if I'd watched this as it currently exists 5-10 years ago, I think I also would have felt more positively towards it.

    It follows a young guy who meets a girl who seems to be able to control the weather. Circumstances drive them apart, and he realises he can't be with her, yada yada, power of love, love conquering all, lots of dreamy visuals with saturated colours, bombastic, overly emotional music that still sounds pretty nice... it's one of those types of anime films, and works great for what it is. What it is isn't my exact kind of thing, but I definitely don't hate it or anything.

    I liked veteran Japanese actress Chieko Baisho having a voice role in this. One of her first roles was in a 1960s movie called The Sunshine Girl, and that's the name given to the character in this who can control the weather. I hope her involvement here was a reference to that movie, but who knows.... (I know a weird amount about Japanese cinema at this point, but I can't stop, I'm sorry).
  • Reviewed and complained about The Man with the Iron Fists a couple of nights ago, and thought that throwback martial arts movie could have been good even with a muddled storyline if it had just had neat action and no distractingly bad digital effects.

    Golden Swallow feels like that hypothetical martial arts movie with a messy narrative yet still delivering on the action and martial arts movie charms. Of course, it's not a throwback, and was made at a time when the martial arts genre in Hong Kong was thriving, but it still goes to show that an action movie like this can work simply by having good... well, action.

    It feels like there's almost more time spent on action scenes than there is time spent on non-action scenes. I'm a sucker for any martial arts sequences, but ones where one person fights through a dozen or more other people with ease I'm particularly a sucker for, and there's some stuff like that here.

    The melodramatic romance is a bit underwhelming, and the story is all over the place, but the fighting is exciting and fun, and that's the most important thing. Great fighting and a good story might make a martial arts movie great, which isn't the case here... but the movie's at least good, thanks to it having frequent and entertaining fights.
  • Starts off feeling a little bit like a cross between Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs in terms of it being a crime/police procedural mixed with a psychological thriller, but it becomes something different and far harder to describe or compare to anything as it goes along.

    It never entirely lost me, thankfully, and it was consistently interesting to see where it would go next. You get the sense wherever it's going it bound to be dark and twisted, but it's never easy to work out how it's going to shock or surprise you as a viewer next.

    If there's any complaints I had, I guess I wish it had been a little tighter/shorter, but still pretty good either way.
  • Returned to this after almost a decade, because I thought it might be worth revisiting after getting really into samurai/Japanese films in the past few years. I guess Lady Snowblood would technically qualify as a samurai movie? Maybe? The title character is more of an assassin/warrior than a samurai or ronin, and I guess the samurai age ended closer to the middle of the 1800s, and this film's set right at the end of that century... but I mean, all the action is very samurai-esque, with high-pressure blood-spurts, limbs flying every which way, and plenty of swordplay. It's got that samurai feel to it.

    It's all very satisfying, and comparing it to other similar action films from Japan released around the same time, it's certainly one of the stronger ones. I think it's about on par with some of my favourite Zatoichi films (that series isn't nearly as popular as Lady Snowblood, and deserves a little more love), but I think I might personally prefer the Lone Wolf and Cub series. Those movies feel like they go a step further with their crazy action sequences, and the dynamic of a man getting into violent adventures with his infant son by his side is always weirdly compelling.

    But Lady Snowblood is very good, and an overall well-oiled action/drama/revenge movie. It sets the story in motion in an interesting way, and uses flashbacks quite boldly throughout. There's not a ton of action, but just the right amount so that it never runs the risk of overstaying its welcome. It's also extremely bloody, and another stand-out aspect is Meiko Kaji in the lead role. She's really cool and scary at the same time, and it's easy to see why this is probably her most well-known role (the Female Prisoner #701 series she starred in is also worth checking out for fans of Japanese genre movies).
  • I'm not a gargantuan fan of the first game, but played it some years ago and liked it a good deal. I think this was a strong adaptation overall, and about as good as you'd expect. There is less action and the violence is toned down, but I think that was to be expected, because seeing frequent action and violence would get a little boring in live action.

    Episodes 1-3 are very strong. There are some people who don't like episode 3, but I don't really understand them. Episodes 4-7 were a little shaky for me (besides a great action sequence in episode 5). Episode 7 was particularly rough; I think that and the character of Kathleen were the two main misfires (she's just not a particularly strong leader; I buy Marlene and David as leaders of their respective groups, but not Kathleen). Thankfully, episodes 8 and 9 bring it all home strong. I am curious about how season 2 will look; that's not a game I've played, but I'm quite familiar with the narrative and why it's controversial.

    The production value's excellent. Pedro Pascal and Bella Ramsey are both consistently great in the lead roles. I think most of the changes to the game work well. I'm not a huge fan of the middle chunk of episodes, and they really hold it back overall, but still, the first season of The Last of Us starts and ends strong. I think it's pretty easy to recommend to most people, whether they're fans of the game or not.
  • This is sort of just cinematic gibberish.

    I was hoping that the low ratings were because people weren't familiar with the sorts of classic martial arts movies this is a throwback to, but nah, it's just not a very good throwback/homage.

    It's also a frustrating movie, because with just a few small changes, I think it could have honestly been solid:

    • No digital effects. I don't care how cheesy the practical effects or real blood sprays look. Commit to the throwback nature of it all by avoiding CGI.

    • Have the whole thing use Chinese dialogue throughout. Keep Russell Crowe in the movie. Have him obviously dubbed Spaghetti Western style. Would be amazing.

    • No narration. It's constant and the muddled plot still barely makes sense even with the voiceover trying to explain everything. No matter what, the story's nonsense, so just keep it out of the movie (again, I'm not sure I can think of any classic Hong Kong martial arts movies that use narration like this).

    Positives? I think it begins well, so I was enjoying it for a couple of scenes. The action/stunts can be alright when the editing doesn't get in the way. And the use of music is good for the most part (RZA's got that down pat).

    But uh yeah, still not very good. Suppose it could've been worse, but I'd still find it hard to recommend to most people.
  • I do have to admit, I found this film quite hard to follow. It moves very fast and also feels like it changes tonally on a scene by scene basis. Eventually, I just had to accept that it was an espionage movie with like five main characters (three women and two guys, though the female characters are ultimately given the spotlight most of the time) doing various spy things, at first for their own reasons, and then more or less for similar reasons? Maybe? I got what they were doing, but the why was a little fuzzier.

    Thankfully, it was still a fun time, even if it was also a bit overwhelming and sometimes confusing. It balances all its different genres and tonal shifts well, and that's something that can be appreciated even without following the story beat for beat.

    It's also got some very good action scenes, which I was hoping for, given the director, Tsui Hark, is known for mastering the action genre (I've seen his Once Upon a Time in China movies, which were really good from memory).

    And overall, I feel pretty confident in saying Peking Opera Blues was good. If it got a remaster with slightly better subtitles one day, I'd happily rewatch it, because I also think some of my confusion came from the English subtitles not being the best.
  • Absolutely atrocious. It's easily one of the worst animated movies I've ever seen. Makes me question whether I've actually ever liked a Kevin Smith movie.

    I wasn't aware it was written by Kevin Smith initially and was shocked to learn it was actually written by him. Not that he's always an outstanding writer (I think some of his movies are funny but whatever), yet this is even lazier than Yoga Hosers and Jay and Silent Bob Reboot. It's arguably not as bad because it's only one hour long, instead of 90 minutes, but it's still easily one of his worst, with those 60 minutes feeling much longer.

    Even big fans of Kevin Smith need to steer clear of this.
  • So I have very little to say about Taira Clan Saga. It is dreadfully paced and very unengaging, though it looks nice and the acting is good. It has inspired a rant, however, which I'll lay out in lieu of a revieu.

    This film was directed by Kenji Mizoguchi. He's made some very good films, including Sansho the Bailiff (my personal favourite).

    Now, I've been writing for Collider for a while now. I did an article recently on great Japanese directors who aren't Akira Kurosawa or Hayao Miyazaki. I got to shout out any 10 great filmmakers, many of whom aren't household names outside the West.

    And some guy gave me grief for not including Mizoguchi. He was on my shortlist of 15-20 directors. I'm only allowed to write about 10 entries per most lists. People have to be cut, and Mizoguchi was cut.

    "But was I wrong to cut him?" I thought. It inspired me to watch a deep cut like Taira Clan Saga. It wasn't very good. I feel even more confident in my list.

    To anyone offended: it wasn't hard, from personal experience, to find a freelance movie writing job. Apply for one and talk about Mizoguchi to your heart's content. Or... blogs still technically exist. No one reads them because it's not 2005 anymore, but you can still put your Mizoguchi admiration out onto the internet for "all" to see.

    If you don't want to do any of those things, shut up and be thankful that there even is an article about brilliant yet underappreicated Japanese directors at all. Of course there's more than 10 great ones. But I picked my 10 because I couldn't pick more than 10. Deal with it and be happy that anyone on a Western-centric site like Collider is talking about Yoji Yamada, for example!

    *Gob from Arrested Development voice* "COME ON!"
  • Who's Singing Over There takes place on the eve of the Germans attacking Serbia. It follows a group of eccentric characters who need to make a long journey by bus. Everyone's personalities clash, and there are constant obstacles along the way, making it clear that this is always going to be about the journey rather than the destination.

    And given it's set at a specific point in 1941, there's a constant threat of war breaking out, which keeps things uneasy. Also anxiety-provoking: the crazy, music, which I wasn't a big fan of at all.

    But other than that, I found a good deal to like about this offbeat movie that's largely silly and gleefully chaotic until it very suddenly and quite effectively isn't. The tone and the humour took a while to get used to, but I eventually got on board (intended that there pun) with it all. I think it does a very good job at building distinct characters in a short amount of time as well, seeing as the movie's only 86 minutes long and has a decent-sized cast.

    It's the kind of thing that feels like it would resonate a lot more with people more familiar with the culture, but I still thought there was a solid amount to enjoy without much background info or context. Definitely a watchable road trip/comedy/drama/war film.
An error has occured. Please try again.