The music was probably my favourite aspect of Sinners, it felt so intertwined and connected with the story that it blended seamlessly into the antics happening on screen. I felt the melodies in my bones, it felt transformative and it was like a pulsing call that I couldn’t help but be moved by and react to. It was performed superbly and really married up with what was visually happening on screen. Miles Caton blew me away in what is his first major acting role. He was amazing and really embodied every aspect of his character. His performance was magnetic and it felt special to watch him interact with the material and those he shared the screen with. A very impressive debut! Praise must also be given to Michael B Jordan, who has become a familiar face Ryan Coogler films. He played both twins well with just enough similarities as well as differences to be able to distinguish the two as their own characters. To be fair, the entire cast here did a great job. Hailee Steinfield, Wunmi Mosaku, Jack O’Connell and Jayme Lawson in particular really impressed me. I thoroughly enjoyed the exploration of, and Coogler’s take on, freedom, sin and temptation. The way this was told through music, love and community felt fresh and authentic. I also appreciated how spirituality was woven into the story and its themes. I love when movies explore those grey-area concepts so this definitely gave me a kick. The tone was nailed down perfectly - Sinners is a thriller/horror after all and the film stayed true to its word. It was suspenseful, tense, and yet still had moments of comic relief and humour which felt both natural and earned. To go hand in hand with the copious amounts of blood, Sinners is so sensual and horny that it felt intoxicating at times. For me personally though, I think Sinners took a while to pick up momentum and get going. I think this can be attributed to two things: 1. being introduced to a large amount of characters in a short space of time, and 2. nothing overly significant or important happens in the first act of the movie. However, once the film did pick up it flowed very nicely and I was locked in. Another small criticism I have is that the 2 post-credit scenes felt unnecessary in that particular format. All in all, I am glad I saw Sinners on the big screen and I would urge you to do the same if you haven’t already. A masterclass debut from Caton as well as sexy vampires and beautiful music makes a very good movie in my opinion.
One thing I seemed to recall, even though I never watched the film, was the public reception to the main character, Christian Wolff (Ben Affleck), having autism and the portrayal of this. Personally, I didn’t find the portrayal to be disrespectful, or wholly inaccurate, in any way. Autism is of course a spectrum and different people will fall in different places. In fact, there were a handful of moments that felt sincere and even recognisable. I liked how The Accountant worked to shine a light on particular traits of autism such as struggling to cope and/or adhere to “normal” social situations. To have the main character in an action flick use his autism as a super power was definitely very cool and inspiring. Likewise, it was refreshing to have an action film that centred around a normal, non-hero character. The Accountant, in many ways, plays out like a comic book movie, but Wolff is still your everyday guy which was nice to see. More generally speaking, The Accountant had some moments of true, effortless humour which made for an entertaining watch if nothing else. Affleck is known for his low-key approach so this suited him well. I think that Affleck was the perfect choice for the lead, he kept me engaged for the entire film which is a tough feat when you don’t actually have too much dialogue. Every movement or expression was calculated and said what it needed to. The cast as a whole was pretty great in my opinion. Jon Bernthal had just the right amount of charm, heart, and hopefulness for a character who could’ve very easily been your generic assassin. His shared scenes with Affleck showed off their natural chemistry so I’m excited for this to be explored more in the sequel. I also thought Anna Kendrick was great in the smaller role she had as well. All in all, I am glad I watched The Accountant and I am very excited for the sequel which comes out today (25th April). Ben Affleck delivers an effortless performance and shines a light on how tough being an accountant really is (yes, I can confirm this is what my day job looks like).
The production design was probably my favourite element of the film, and something I could focus on and enjoy while the rest of the film bored me and left me frustrated. The set design for the mansion felt classy, rich and very modern which suited its inhabitants well. There was a lot of variety between rooms, and throughout the movie we travelled a lot through the mansion and surrounding grounds. I also thought Death of a Unicorn was vaguely interesting (heavy emphasis on vague) with how it tried to spin a medieval/mythology thread into the story. This, at least, felt fresh and somewhat exciting in the few minutes it had some attention. That’s essentially where my positives end. The design of the unicorns was really bad, and not to my taste at all. The CGI was poor and quite noticeably did not blend in with the scenery. For a moment there I thought the cinema accidentally started screening the new ‘Minecraft’ movie… Every single beat Death of a Unicorn took was obvious and predictable. It’s just another movie saying “rich people bad” without offering anything new, or anything else at all for that matter. The message was so diluted and repetitive. Not even Will Poulter or Richard E. Grant’s often impeccable comedic abilities could have saved this movie. (Poulter did look great in those swimming shorts though…). I was hoping the comedy would elevate the material but this film was seriously unfunny. The humour just didn’t land at all, and Death of a Unicorn was seriously lacking in any charm or soul. Usually, you can count on Jenna Ortega to be the star of a movie and push it to greater heights, but she was so anonymous here and didn’t leave any lasting mark other than dissatisfaction. Similarly, Paul Rudd was uncharacteristically unlikeable and unremarkable. I’d say out of the entire, stacked cast, Poulter was the only one who came out unscathed and delivered a positive performance. To put it in layman’s terms, everyone else ****. All in all, Death of a Unicorn was a stinker from A24 that I wish I had avoided. Don’t bother watching this one!
Michael J. Fox is utterly charming and very energetic in his career-defining role as Marty McFly. Back to the Future would not have been half as successful if it wasn’t for the two amazing leads. Fox’s wit, charm, undeniable screen presence and comedic ability are just a few reasons why I loved this film so much. Opposite him is a fantastic Christopher Lloyd as Doc, and surely he was the only man who could’ve pulled this role off! He was unbelievably funny, while also nailing the more heartfelt scenes involving his character. The chemistry shared between Lloyd and Fox is unparalleled and easily puts them near the top of the list for most beloved duos. Back to the Future is fun, funky and fantastically 80’s in its design. The gadgets are all super cool, and looked just the right side of believable. And when we travel back to the 50’s, while you could tell it was the same area, the slight differences and era-appropriate tweaks was something I really enjoyed exploring. Visually, it was very appealing and showed great attention to detail. Unlike some time travel flicks, Back to the Future actually sticks to the logic it establishes. Sometimes the plot was a little hard to follow or completely understand, but the film is so committed to the cause and steadfast in its approach that you can’t poke any holes in its delivery. I really appreciated seeing the seemingly irrelevant one-liners or moments become relevant further down the line. That felt really special! The mixture of so many different genres could have easily become so muddled in less-capable hands, but here, the concoction of comedy, sci-fi and romance fuses so well and results in one of the greatest films of its time. Though, Back to the Future is far from being perfect. Maybe because I don’t have the nostalgia attached I could easily pick out some flaws. For one, I was confused at how Marty and Doc became friends. They never explain this which felt odd to me as they have quite an age-gap. The film has also aged, which is expected for an 80’s film, but nevertheless some of the characters attitudes, and the special effects, were not up to todays standard. I was willing to let the latter slide though. All in all, Back to the Future was an entertaining and memorable viewing experience. I regret casting this film to the side for as long as I did as I really did love it when I watched it recently.
Something that stood out to me almost immediately, and consistently throughout the film, was the impeccable sound design. Not only did it sound very crisp, there is an almost constant sound of reverberating gunfire and explosions. It was very immersive and definitely ramped up the tension during the film. As well as this, the score was quite emotional at points. Until the final third I found it to be fairly forgettable, but as the film built towards its climax it became very powerful and moving. Civil War offers a fascinating, but bleak, look into the extremes that war journalists will put themselves through to deliver content and information. Now more than ever this felt incredibly relevant and scary. It’s not surprising to me in the slightest that Civil War sits better with non-American audiences as opposed to American audiences. This film must hit close to home, especially in todays political climate. However, I thought the film successfully walked a very thin line between the thrill of reporting such catastrophic events and putting yourself in harms way along with the emotional impact and toll this would have on you as a human being. As you would expect with a war film, Civil War is a pretty tough watch. Multiple times throughout I felt very uncomfortable and even had to look away one time. My first instinct was to label this film as torture p**n as it is definitely gruesome, horrific and disturbing. Though I realised that this is the exact story Garland wanted to tell, and bring focus to the fact that the news we rely on is bought to us by people experiencing this day in and day out. Kirsten Dunst was truly remarkable in the lead as Lee. She was inspiring, and her performance was nothing short of devastating in a few crucial scenes. For such a cold, hard-faced character, Dunst was able to show off some very big emotions in a very realistic and even harrowing way. The main cast isn’t too large, but they all did a great job. Cailee Spaeny was a standout, as well as the fleeting cameo from a truly terrifying Jesse Plemons. All in all, Civil War was a very suspenseful and captivating watch. I found it hard to digest at times, but that comes with the horror of the subject nature. I enjoyed its ambiguity towards American politics, though I can understand why this would annoy some people.
Jack Quaid is slowly and surely becoming a household name, and rightfully so. He started off by carving himself a place within the horror genre (to great effect), and now he is turning his attention to the comedy-action genre. Unsurprisingly so, he fits right in and shows off some impressive comedic chops in the titular role. With impeccable comedic timing, and charm for days, Quaid presented a very enjoyable lead who you could easily root for and laugh along with. Novocaine as a whole has a very well-rounded and capable supporting cast who all elevate the material to the highest level of comedy available. Every single action scene in Novocaine was amusing and entertaining. Some of the fight sequences were quite innovative due to the nature of Quaid’s character. His condition meant that each fight got more creative and more over-the-top than the last, which was very funny. I enjoyed some action scenes more than others, but generally speaking I liked them all. Something I wasn’t expecting though was the body horror! This dial is turned to 100 here in Novocaine and it was equal parts shocking and hilarious. I even cringed a bit towards the end which shows how effective it was! The gimmick for Novocaine (the titular character cannot feel any pain) is unique and definitely something I was not familiar with. This premise kept the film feeling fresh and exciting. The editing is another strong point for the film because it is snappy and executed to perfection as to allow both the action and comedy elements to reach their full potential. However, Novocaine is definitely a movie you need to take at face value - I think that’s part of the reason I enjoyed it so much. It’s a fun time at the movies and that’s it! This is where my only real criticism comes in to play: just because Nathan can’t feel any pain, this doesn’t explain how he can survive the copious amount of very serious, and fatal, injuries he endures. If you think about this too much then it starts to bog the film down. All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed the whacky, hilarious, and even at times, sincere film that is Novocaine. Jack Quaid is a star and proves once again he is more than just a one-trick pony. I’d recommend checking this one out!
-Failure to Launch’s best element is definitely the cast. I think the leads (the aforementioned McConaughey and Sarah Jessica Parker) are cast very well in their respective roles. I enjoyed their performances - both were funny, had good comedic timing and have that undeniable star quality. The shared chemistry between the two was believable for sure, but I wouldn’t say it was anything special. The supporting cast were all fun to watch too, with the absolute scene-stealers being McConaughey’s onscreen parents Terry Bradshaw and Kathy Bates. The score in Failure to Launch was very romantic and **** and definitely set the tone for this rom-com. Overall, Failure to Launch has a very nostalgic, distinctly 2000’s feel. I can’t really explain what that is, but if you know, you know. Some of the comedy on display in Failure to Launch worked. Yet on the other hand, some of it didn’t. It was a really mixed bag for me. The slapstick/physical comedy scenes were the moments when the film felt truly unfunny. As well as this, both the main characters have questionable, some may even argue cruel, morals. I couldn’t get on board with a lot of the decisions made. All in all, Failure to Launch does what it says on the tin. It’s a cutesy romantic comedy which ties up nicely at the end without the stakes ever being too high. It’s a decent rom-com, but definitely not the best out there. If you like any of the cast then I would suggest giving this one a go, but if not then you can probably skip it.
Unexpectedly, Last Breath turned out to be quite a tough watch, and one that was very touching. The story was very compelling and mostly had me engaged for the entire movie. At just over 90 minutes, Last Breath is a very taut and controlled telling **** story. I think it was a good move for director Alex Parkinson, who also co-directed the documentary of the same name in 2019, to return and direct the movie. It meant he could approach this feature film with the same no-nonsense, no-thrills approach which widely benefitted the kind of story they wanted to tell here. During the crisis scenes in Last Breath, everything plays out in real time which was absolutely nerve wrecking. The countdown for the amount of oxygen left, and the count up for time without oxygen, was very effective in ramping up the tension and keeping you glued to the screen. The word suffocating definitely comes to mind! Paired with this nightmare-fuel of a story is a score that is very intense and dramatic. This alone will make your hair stand up on its end. It was very emotional at times too. The use of real footage here in Last Breath was really stark and moving, adding an additional layer of depth and emotion to the story on screen. The underwater footage in the film visually looked great, and succeeded in being very unsettling. The many cuts to security camera footage worked in tandem to remind everyone that this is based on true events and really grounded the story. Technically, Last Breath was superb. My only real criticisms for Last Breath is that it felt too much like a cliche - even though it is very true to the real events which occurred. Every character easily slots into obvious archetypes - Finn Cole’s Chris is the newbie striving to impress, Woody Harrelson’s Duncan is the veteran on his last job and trying to make the most of the thing he’ll miss the most, and Simu Liu’s David is the stoic and reserved captain who is very closed off but shows vulnerability towards the end of the film. All in all, I really enjoyed Last Breath and would go as far as to say it will be a hidden gem in 2025 releases. It is very simple but effective in its retelling of some horrific real life events and I would urge you to go and see this one!
It feels wrong to start anywhere but the films main star - Robert Pattinson. He is absolutely brilliant as the titular Mickey - he was quirky, funny and loveable. Even when multiple Mickey’s were on screen, Pattinson portrayed each version with enough variety to distinguish which was which. Honestly, Pattinson is so talented in his dual role showcasing different facial expressions, quirks and accents with the characters still being, well, the same person. I’m not sure how, but he manages to create chemistry with himself. Surely this is an Oscar nomination waiting to happen! Toni Collette and Mark Ruffalo also offer fantastic and enjoyable performances for their less-than-desirable characters (and the real-life figures they so obviously draw inspiration from). More so than the rest of the cast, these two are quite cartoonish in their approach, but I found that this more than worked with the material they were given. And once again, they provided a lot of the laughs. Something Bong Joon Ho excels at is inventing an environment which feels so like our own, while also being different. Mickey 17 is no exception. The production design for Mickey 17 was fantastic with the futuristic vibes and sci-fi elements while not being too dissimilar to what we know. The sets were very impressive and felt grand in scale despite the film primarily taking place onboard a ship. Visually, the film looked great with the cool, almost cynical, colour palette and the drab clothing most of the characters wore emphasised the themes present in the story. I found Mickey 17 to be very comical, and effortlessly so I might add. The script of course had comical moments written in, but the comedic abilities of the cast and their dedication to the absurdity of it all resulted in a hilarious viewing experience. I genuinely had tears running down my face multiple times throughout. The themes of capitalism, colonisation and classism (themes which Bong Joon Ho loves to implement in so many of his stories), were obvious without being too on-the-nose. If anything, Ruffalo’s character would be the thing that tipped the scales. This wasn’t an issue for me. On the contrary, I enjoyed what Mickey 17 had to offer and the commentary on such events. However, I didn’t give Mickey 17 a perfect score and here’s why: the ending dragged on just a little too long for my personal liking. As well as this, I thought that Steven Yeun’s side-story was unnecessary and uninteresting. It barely had any impact on the story as a whole, and it could’ve been cut out completely. All in all, I am so glad I finally saw Mickey 17 because I had such a great time with it. It was exponentially funny while still having serious moments and consequences within the story. Bong Joon Ho strikes again with another masterpiece, and I hope this film gives him another Oscar.
Even if you have not seen Jurassic Park, you are surely aware of its classic status because, and there’s no mincing of words here, it is an iconic film. Even though it came out 32 years ago, it is still one of the most beloved and talked about films of all time. Jurassic Park’s score is a great example of this. It is monumental, and capable of evoking such high levels of nostalgia even for people who haven’t watched the film. The sound design is also superb, with the deafening roar of the T-Rex sounding so crisp and intense it’s honestly quite scary! Technically, Jurassic Park is so impressive. Considering the films age, the special effects for the dinosaurs look surprisingly decent, and more than hold up compared to todays standard. So much so that the blending of special effects with physical effects and animatronics is pretty much seamless. The film as a whole looks beautiful. The cinematography is stunning at times, and offers such a rich and in-depth view of the world Steven Spielberg created. Jurassic Park is such a great blend of so many genres - action, sci-fi, comedy, and my personal favourite - horror. The way that horror is woven in to the story is so fun and really elevated this from just being a fantasy dinosaur flick. I personally would’ve preferred it to go further into the horror aspects, but understandably so, it is kept quite tame as to appeal to a wider audience. There are some really fun and ambitious set pieces in the film with quite creative set design and brilliant acting to play it all out. Additionally, we see a lot of dinosaurs (and a big variety too), over the course of the film which makes for a fun and enjoyable experience. From an acting standpoint, the performances are really solid. The main trio of Sam Neill, Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum are perfectly cast in their respective roles and give brilliant performances. They collectively, and individually, show off a lot of talent as well as harnessing harder-hitting emotions like strength, devotion and admiration. The young cast of Joseph Mazzello and Ariana Richards also do a great job and provide a lot of the comedic moments. All in all, Jurassic Park is a phenomenal masterpiece and one that cannot be missed if somehow you haven’t seen it yet. It’s a roarsome viewing experience!
The casting choices in Black Bag really excelled the vision Steven Soderbergh sought to create. Michael Fassbender has absolutely nailed the cool, calm and collected character who plays his cards so close to his chest they may as well be laid flat. He was the perfect choice to play the leading man. Opposite Fassbender’s George is the gloriously seductive Cate Blanchett as Kathryn. Their chemistry was palpable and every conversation shared between them sizzled with tension as it played out like a tennis match of wit and power. The ensemble cast are also very well suited to their roles and bring their A-game. All round, this was a very enjoyable group of actors to watch. Visually, Black Bag looked stunning. The first scene was a fantastic tracking shot and I knew then I would be in for a good ride. There are some really charming shots used throughout the movie with flashes of exquisite cinematography. Nothing too flashy, but more so elegant and sleek. It was delightful! Following on from this, the production design was so elegant and rich, as were all of the costumes. Black Bag was so beautifully crafted it was a pleasure to watch. The established time frame of one week ensured the pacing was kept brisk. This also helped to keep the tension simmering beneath the surface. The stakes were high so I found the story to be very gripping. Because there are no gun fights, and only one explosion, Soderbergh relies on pure wit and cunning dialogue to take you through this exhilarating journey which also offers a fun twist on a couple whose relationship is not only built on trust but the ability to lie to one another on a daily basis. Black Bag isn’t without its faults though. None of the supporting characters were particularly fleshed out more than the necessary amount. While this of course aids the mystery of it all, there is only a small handful of characters we follow so it would’ve been nice to know a bit more about all of them. This also leads into my next issue - while the “twists” were shocking at the time, they weren’t wholly unpredictable. I was so wrapped up in the story that this didn’t bother me too much, but it is worth noting all the same. All in all, Black Bag is a smart and sexy spy thriller with really solid acting and a sharp script. I’m so glad I ended up watching this one!
To get the obvious out of the way, La Dolce Villa is shot on location in Italy and it is absolutely stunning. There’s some incredibly picturesque locations on show which leads into some gorgeous cinematography. Multiple times throughout the film there are sweeping shots of the beautiful landscape and it not only sets the tone but matches the happy-go-lucky vibe the film has going on. The cast are pretty decent across the board and it is definitely a group of people I enjoyed watching. I love Maia Reficco and she was brilliant as the main character Olivia. Reficco played Olivia well, with depth and lots of charm. She had genuine chemistry with her on-screen father Scott Foley. Foley provided the majority of the films wit and he navigated the more emotional aspects of his character very well. The town and its folk in La Dolce Villa felt like a real community. The characters, while not really fleshed out much, had quirks, flaws and were funny. It was easy to slip into the film and most importantly see yourself fitting in to the town and its way of life. However, the film isn’t without its flaws. The dialogue, at times, could be very on-the-nose and even cringey at times. Though, that is part of the parcel with these films. Another point to make is that it doesn’t make sense that everyone speaks English most of the time. Olivia can speak Italian so it’s odd she only does it a handful of times. It’s lazy from Netflix. Also, for a rom-com, the romantic aspect of La Dolce Villa can be quite thin to the ground. All in all, La Dolce Villa is a sweet and endearing rom-com with a low-stakes plot and easy to like characters. A perfect film for a chill weekend!
I’ll get my one positive out of the way… Tatiana Maslany gives the best performance out of a very bad bunch. She was funny and the only actor I enjoyed watching. She was a lot better than the script she was given to work with. It’s a shame she didn’t have much screen time! That’s all of my positives out of the way! Speaking of the performances, Theo James did not impress me at all. He was too wooden and stiff for this “comedic” role. None of the cast (except Maslany) were particularly convincing or interesting to watch. The Monkey was clearly attempting to be as comical as it was frightening - it ended up being neither of these things. Lots of people are making connections to the ‘Final Destination’ franchise, yet this is such a poor imitation of those movies. At least the ‘FD’ films have tonnes of creativity and shock-value. Here, none of the kills were as whacky or inventive as the film believes them to be. On top of this, the gore and violence just did not deliver. I’m not sure if it’s because I’m de-sensitised to these things, or that I enjoy a lot of horror movies, but I watched every single kill in The Monkey with a straight, uninterested face. Granted, once or twice throughout the movie, I laughed. But this was at the expense of the film instead of laughing with it. My biggest issue with The Monkey was the poor script. I struggle to believe it wasn’t written by ChatGPT and/or a toddler - it’s that bad! There is a severe lack of any tension or build up to any of the events which unfold. It’s tragic. The tone was so muddled and confused to the point it failed at being a comedy and a horror movie. It just exists. At least in ‘Longlegs’ Perkins had style. Here, in The Monkey, every scene is badly lit and accompanied by uninspired and drab set designs and locations. All in all, The Monkey was a terrible film. The line “this ****” is said at least four times during the film and that’s all you need to know. Don’t waste your money!
I thought that both the film and Anthony Mackie’s performance showcased that Mackie is 100% ready to “be the new Cap”. He lead his first solo film very well. I was never really a fan of The Falcon (I never disliked him, more so preferred other characters), but this movie has changed my opinion on him. Sam’s relationship with Isiah Bradley, and indeed Mackie and Carl Lumbly’s chemistry, is really the heart of the movie and is the glue that holds everything together. Above everything else, this was sweet to witness. Harrison Ford also bought a lot of compassion and natural charm to any scene he was in. Ford is a massive asset for Brave New World. It would have been very easy, and lazy, had Marvel not addressed Sam’s reluctance to be Captain America as well as President Ross being responsible for the Sokovia Accords so I was glad to see these issues were prominent throughout. These days it always seems like new MCU films aren’t related/effected by previous events in the timeline, so this was much appreciated. I enjoyed the return to the political thriller-esque atmosphere similar to that in ‘The Winter Soldier’. Of course Brave New World doesn’t reach those heights, but it had flashes of tension and mystery that I really enjoyed. Considering the reports of extensive rewrites, as well as the number of writers credited, the plot felt coherent and the pacing was snappy. However, I do think Brave New World is missing something that all of the previous Cap films have in common - a brilliant villain for him to fight against. Even though it was heavily marketed, Red Hulk did not show up until the classic final act showdown. There’s definitely an argument to be made for keeping this character under wraps. I also thought that Giancarlo Esposito’s Sidewinder was the weakest aspect of the story. Honestly, it felt like a waste of Esposito’s talents and time. He was purely an exposition dump! Other small things to note: I loved Sam’s new and updated suit. It was very cool and provided some tasty visuals in the fight scenes. Typically speaking, I thought the CGI and special effects looked decent. At the very least they were definitely passable. I did have an issue with the action choreography though. It wasn’t entirely fluid or authentic, but again, it was decent enough. All in all, Captain America: Brave New World is (hopefully) a return (once again…) to Marvel being a fun time at the cinema! I think audiences are being too harsh on this movie as there are lots of aspects to find enjoyment in!
Visually, The Substance is absolutely stunning. The set designs are all fun and very colourful, paired with some incredibly vibey and gorgeous cinematography - this is such a visually appealing film. The use of a fish eye lens also injected some fun into a lot of scenes. The body horror on show was nothing short of brilliant. It was gory, disgusting and even sickening at times. I can confidently say I haven’t seen anything like it, and I enjoyed it so much! Overall, the hair, makeup, and prosthetics work was terrific. Demi Moore gives an astronomical performance in The Substance. She is bold, fearless and adventurous in a role which felt custom-made for Moore. She was absolutely phenomenal in every sense of the word. If I’m being honest, I’m struggling to put across all of my praise, she was simply magnificent in this film. Along side Moore was Margaret Qualley. Like Moore, Qualley is outstanding in her role and displayed an impressive talent. She put on a fantastic show and played her character to perfection. I thought that The Substance was very clever in its delivery. Not only was it gasp-worthy, the screenplay was very smart in the way it played out the underlying message of the movie. Even though the overall tone is very humorous, the emotional moments still packed a hell of a punch. The central message in The Substance is something all women, of any age, can relate to one way or another. Being a woman is hard, and this movie shows how detrimental that sick, all-encompassing desire to pursue youth, delay aging and achieve optimal beauty can be. It shoves this concept down your throat for a solid 2.5 hours to maximum effect. The only reason I haven’t given The Substance perfect marks is because I did find the pacing faltered drastically in the second half of the movie. I started to feel the effects of the runtime as the movie ran away with itself and it became more and more bizarre. All in all, The Substance is buckets of fun. Aside from it being a visual feast, the stellar performances and visual effects provided a tonne of entertainment.
Despite the ever-growing number of negative reviews, I went into Emilia Pérez with a fairly open mind. And while I thought the film descended into a catastrophic mess, it did start out okay. Here are my positives for the film: Zoe Saldaña really is the standout here. She carries the entire film for the entire runtime. Saldaña gives an amazing and heartfelt performance in a role which demanded a vast emotional range. For most of the film Gascón did not impress me. However, her performance at the beginning of the film, before Emilia transitioned, was very powerful, and at times very emotional. I can imagine that this could have been very triggering, or at least uncomfortable, for Gascón but she did a great job. It’s a shame this didn’t carry on into the latter half of the film. I also liked the focus on the ever growing problem of how many people continue to go missing in Mexico - an issue I wasn’t aware of. But, Emilia Pérez only scratches the surface. Despite the spotlight, the film never delves deep into the issue or offers any commentary apart from that it’s ‘bad’. Unfortunately, that is where my positives end. I thought it was asking a lot from the audience to excuse and ignore all of the horror implemented by Emilia before her transition. Going through her transition doesn’t magically make her previous wrongs right. On top of this, I thought the message behind transitioning was a dangerous and misguided one. It drew on the trope that people transition to be deceitful/escape their past as well as having silly and untrue connotations such as male voice when angry/female voice when happy, and smelling like ‘a male’. As well as all of this, Emilia gets deadnamed and misgendered in the emotional climax of the film. I can’t help but feel that sums up Emilia Pérez’s attempts at bringing trans into the spotlight - it f’s it up. Emilia Pérez really does not work as a musical either. Mostly, the songs are all poor and forgettable. I was not impressed by any of the choreography, and it all felt very same-y. I noticed that most (if not all) of the songs started with a whisper… They already sound bad enough and this just made it worse if I’m being honest. If you’re casting actors in a musical, make sure they can sing! Also, the movie as a whole is just ugly - the cinematography is plain and the set designs and costumes were all basic. All in all, while I am glad I ticked another Oscar movie off the list, I hate that it was this film. Aside from it being problematic, it is not a well-crafted film in the slightest.
As the score suggests, I did not enjoy A Complete Unknown. However, there are aspects I appreciated/were worth commending. For one, this is a really strong cast! My favourite performances were Edward Norton as Pete Seeger and Monica Barbaro as Joan Baez. Norton perfected his characters balance of warmth and generosity with the desire to be in control with expert precision. His portrayal was very sweet, and at times, reserved. I really enjoyed his performance. Similarly with Barbaro, I thought she bought some much needed emotional weight into the film, into the script and into her performance. Her signing was fantastic and was always very expressive. While I wasn’t enamoured with Timothée Chalamet’s portrayal of Bob Dylan, you have to applaud his commitment to the role and for performing all of the songs himself. Putting my personal taste aside, this was a bold movie which in the end probably paid off. It made his performance as Dylan more authentic and grounded. Chalamet could’ve easily hid behind Dylan’s own/someone else’s vocals so it was pretty gutsy for him to perform the songs himself. Based on Chalamet’s usual mannerisms and body language, I can only come to the conclusion that he has embodied Dylan rather well in A Complete Unknown - I can’t say for the certain though as I am not familiar with Bob Dylan. Now for my issues with A Complete Unknown. Clearly, I was not the target audience for this film as I was not familiar with any of the songs bar one which was slightly recognisable. I found the film to be a real slog - it was stale, boring and frankly uninteresting. The narrative wasn’t very clear either. Apart from Dylan arriving in New York, making it big and then cheating on his girlfriend, I can’t tell you what else happened in the near 2.5 hour film. I came out of A Complete Unknown having learnt nothing about Bob Dylan, so for me the film failed its primary objective. I’m not sure if this was intentional (again, I am not familiar with Dylan), but Chalamet was so hard to understand. He mumbled through every single line of dialogue and I was constantly using other peoples responses to gage what he was actually saying. Because Dylan is so unintelligible and emotionally shut off in the film, I failed to connect with him or Chalamet’s performance. To be blunt, I came away wondering how on Earth this film had got so many award nominations. All in all, the only thing I came away from A Complete Unknown thinking was that Bob Dylan was a horrible person. He was unlikeable, hard to understand and the film had a lot of issues. Unless you are a Dylan super fan I would say that this film isn’t for you.
I must preface this review by saying I had a stupendous and uproarious time seeing this in the cinema with my mum. The theatre was packed and this made for an even better viewing! (It’s a shame this movie has gone straight to streaming in the US - y’all are missing out). The gags, both old and new, are hilarious. And while the slapstick comedy of the first 3 movies has been swapped for a deliciously witty and sharp script, you will still be belly-laughing for most of the film. In the other moments you will be reaching for the tissues! In many ways, Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy is an exploration of grief and how to navigate life after a loss. This adds such a deep layer of emotion and grit to a previously very happy-go-lucky story. This pairs nicely, I found, with the older and more mature Bridget and co. Renée Zellweger is as hilarious as always back as Bridget which is, without a doubt, her career-defining role. She slips back into the character with ease, and is simply a joy to watch. Similarly, Hugh Grant back as Daniel Cleaver (missing from the franchise since 2004’s ‘Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason’) brings out the most laughs and makes a hell of a lot out of the limited screen time he is afforded. In fact, all of the returning cast make a lasting impression. BJ: MAtB brings in two newcomers though: Leo Woodall’s sexy Roxster and Chiwetel Ejiofor’s handsome Mr. Walliker. Both are fantastic in their own ways, but I must say I enjoyed one romance a lot more than the other. Ultimately, I was disappointed with who Bridget ended up with. Zellweger shared immense chemistry with the former interest and I was sad to see him disappear in the second half of the film. BJ:MAtB has a sprinkle of Easter eggs and nods to the original film, and the rest of the franchise, without it feeling overdone or pushy. They were all relevant and underplayed and I really enjoyed this. An area that lacked the usual finesse though was the soundtrack for the film. I personally found the lurch between ‘older’ hits and more modern song choices was rough and didn’t always fit the scene. Though, of course, there are some iconic choices woven in throughout. All in all, Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy was a fantastic end to an incredible and special franchise. It is a lot more emotional than previous entries (I lost count of how many times I cried), and offers a poignant message about love in later life as well as dealing with grief. I’m so sad to let these characters go, but it does feel like the right time to do so. So long, Bridget, thanks for all the laughs and hugs along the way. Alexa, play All By Myself.
Heart Eyes, above everything else, was a very entertaining watch. I laughed out loud multiple times throughout, as did the entire cinema crowd. The script is very self-aware and will appeal to everyone because it indulges in both the lovey-dovey side of Valentines Day, as well as appealing to those who are more cynical in their opinions. The kills are very creative which goes hand in hand with the clever set design to maximise joint effort and provide the killer with a lot of brutal and interesting weapons. This results in some intense, graphic, and very comical kills. Heart Eyes as a villain is also flashy and memorable which is a staple for a soon-to-be slasher icon. Heart Eyes takes every rom-com trope in the book and flips them on their heads with violent and hilarious twists. Very entertaining! Though, a big issue for me, was how similar the plot is to ‘Scream’ (1996), or in truth, any other slasher film. This only detracted from my enjoyment slightly, but it is still worth noting. I wouldn’t say this made Heart Eyes entirely predictable, but it definitely didn’t aid the mystery aspect of the story at all. The third act did end up losing me, and because of this I did find the killer reveal to be slightly underwhelming. Heart Eyes is lead by the equal parts charming and charismatic Olivia Holt and Mason Gooding. Both were very impressive in their respective roles, and their chemistry helped maintain the romance of for the film. I was completely invested in their story and rooting for them the entire time. The supporting cast were fairly brilliant, the stand outs being Gigi Zumbado and Jordana Brewster - with both of them clearly having a great time. Visually, Heart Eyes had a lot to offer. There were a few different camera perspectives which proved very entertaining - the best being a shot through a hole in a victims head. There were also other little details such as blood splatters on the camera after a kill which made for an extra fun time.
It would be a criminal offence to start anywhere other than the two beautiful, talented, gorgeous leads - Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey. Surely chemistry between stars was invented because of their connection in How to Lose…! Not only is it off the charts, but it is untouchable and feels so authentic. You can’t help but feel yourself fall into both of their traps, and root for both of them, for the entire movie. They are surrounded by a decent, but not entirely memorable, cast, all of whom do an okay job. Without a doubt though the real stars and scene stealers are Hudson and McConaughey. I laughed out loud a lot during How to Lose…, and it was proper belly-laughs. The comedy was silly and overly 00’s but that more than added to the charm. How to Lose… does use every trope in the rom-com book: characters participating in a bet, fake dating, fall in love (fake)/fall in love (real) etc etc. but the cast make this feel so special that I found myself not caring because I enjoyed it so much. You can genuinely see, and feel, the connection between Hudson and McConaughey which sets apart How to Lose… from your bog-standard rom-com. The soundtrack is like a time-capsule, full of old-school bangers and the costumes are so on-point as well. Let’s take a moment for THE outfit of the 00’s, Hudson’s iconic yellow dress. They just don’t make rom-coms like this anymore! It’s dumb, cheesy and predictable but incredibly heart-warming and mushy that you can’t help but have tonnes of fun!
Unlike BJ:TEoR, Bridget Jones’s Baby felt fresh and new, it certainly didn’t rehash the comedy and story of the first film. In fact, BJB felt very relevant and up-to-date both in 2016 and in todays world. The story may seem a little unrealistic - two potential fathers who both fight to stay in Bridget and baby’s life - but this does provide the heart of the film and it is a storyline which is 100% worthy for a Bridget Jones movie. The script, much like the first film, is witty, engaging and so, so funny. BJB leaves you feeling warm inside while also laughing so hard you may feel something warm running down your leg (🫣). Much different than the first two films, this rom-com revolves around a trio of middle-aged actors and it is all the better for it! Not only does it give a sense of nostalgia, but it gave the franchise a great boost having an instalment set in the 2010’s. I, for one, was able to catch my first Bridget film in the cinema which was a truly special moment for me. I’m sure this was the same for others. Emma Thompson is a welcome, and very comical, addition to the ever-growing supporting cast. She stole the show in every single scene she had. I loved her character! As always, Renée Zellweger is outstanding, I literally have no notes because she is perfect as Bridget. The only thing I will note is that, obviously, Hugh Grant did not return for this film and his departure is felt! Bridget with Mark vs Bridget with Daniel worked so well because there was evident chemistry between both pairs. Newcomer Patrick Dempsey did struggle in this area. Thier chemistry was nowhere near the level shared between Zellweger and Colin Firth.
I was very happy to see Sophie Thatcher in the leading role. I loved her in ‘Heretic’ so I was excited to see her in another horror role. Surely she is cementing herself as the new horror it-girl! She was fantastic and gave a truly compelling performance as Iris. For her character here, Thatcher really needed to nail certain characteristics, and I thought she did this with both ease and perfection. The fluidity of her acting, along with her impressive ability to act with her eyes as well as her comedic timing, proves she is a star in the making. She was easily the standout in a fairly well-acted cast. Opposite Thatcher, Jack Quaid was also exciting to watch. He turned out to be a great choice for his character. (I’m really trying to not give anything away here!) The script was a real strong point for me! Not only was it smart and funny, it provided a lot of commentary on social issues without ever feeling preachy or too on the nose. A fine line to walk, but Companion did it really well. Due to the themes it touches on (abuse, toxic masculinity, gender roles etc), it was a very emotionally charged film. Something I wasn’t expecting, but ultimately enjoyed as it benefitted the overall story. Crucial for a thriller, Companion kept me guessing until the very end, and I loved all the little details before the ‘big reveal’ which signified that something wasn’t quite right. The plot twists (there is more than 1) are paced nicely, not all dropped at once. Sprinkling them throughout the runtime meant that my attention was devoted to the screen the entire time. While I really enjoyed Companion, I did have a few, very minor, issues or nitpicks. Luckily, I had not seen any trailers beforehand, so I was pleasantly surprised while watching. That’s not the cast for many viewers though, which I imagine would take away some of the enjoyment, or at the very least the element of surprise. This is a film where you really need to go in blind! I also wasn’t blown away by the cinematography. Sure, there were some nice shots, but nothing blew me away. It wasn’t consistently great. As for personal preferences, I wish Companion leaned more into the horror aspects. I appreciated the comedic tone, but some scenes would’ve played out better, in my opinion, if the film really leant into the horror and violence more than it did.
Visually and technically, Nosferatu is a masterpiece. I really appreciated both the physical sets and practical effects used. The makeup and prosthetics design, especially for Count Orlok, was insanely good. Bill Skarsgård as the titular Nosferatu/Orlok looked unrecognisable in his role. It is with thanks to the makeup department, as well as the overall impressive work of the costume department, that really bought this character to life and looking as haunting as he did. The spooky, gothic and chilling score also helped set the tone of Nosferatu right away which carried on throughout the movie. This was a real highlight for me as it conjured up a grim and unsettling atmosphere that felt almost tangible. The grey and dreary colour palette only helped further the gorgeous cinematography. I could ramble on forever about how beautifully crafted this film was! Just with any vampire story, Nosferatu is brimming with sexual tension and desire. Of course, vampires have always been used as a symbol of forbidden lust, desire and love, but Robert Eggers really puts these themes at the forefront of his retelling. The tension between Orlok and Ellen (a brilliant Lily-Rose Depp) was palpable which in turn made the third act even more satisfying. The cast is the main reason for Nosferatu being such a great success. As I have touched on above, Skarsgård is equal parts scary and seductive - both important qualities for such a character. The constant reminder of him whether in the form of shadows, shallow focus or his voice calling out to Ellen, meant that he was always in the periphery of your mind. Depp was utterly fantastic and enjoyable in her role. I was continually impressed by her range and ability throughout. She completely sold the terror her character was enduring with perfect line delivery and body language. Nosferatu could have easily crumbled if not for such a convincing lead performance. Also crucial for her role was the chemistry shared between herself and Skarsgård. Frankly, their chemistry puts everyone else’s to shame - which, coincidentally, is one of the reasons I couldn’t give a perfect score. Other notable performances from the rest of the cast include: Simon McBurney and Emma Corrin. Unfortunately, I did not score Nosferatu a perfect 10/10 and here’s why. I thought the chemistry between Depp and her on-screen husband, Nicholas Hoult, was pretty lacklustre. I know this is intended to be inferior to her relationship with Orlok, but it made some parts of the story unrealistic. I also wasn’t a fan of the overly fluid camera movements in certain scenes. I know this was a deliberate choice, and it succeeded in making you feel uneasy and disorientated, but I wasn’t a fan! Some moments I felt as if I was watching a video game as opposed to a film.
BJD is a tale about being accepted for who you are. All of the qualities you don’t like about yourself could be the exact reason someone else falls in love with you - what a brilliant message! The way the film arrives at this message is dicey (fat jokes), they obviously should have chosen a different path. Though, BJD still succeeds in making me feel great and warm inside when I watch it. Bridget (portrayed perfectly by Renée Zellweger who is clearly having the time of her life), is funny, pretty, smart and most importantly, unapologetically herself. You can’t help but love her! Every girl watching can relate to at least one aspect of Bridget so you feel so seen when you watch her struggle through life. Undeniably, BJD is also universally loved because of the fantastic male leads - a very young and dashing Colin Firth and Hugh Grant. Both are dreamy and utterly irresistible as Bridget’s romantic interests. If, somehow, you are watching BJD for the first time then you will be taken aback. It definitely doesn’t hold up to todays standards, and it contains very outdated humour with a running theme that Bridget is fat. And while Bridget does grow as a character, I personally think the biggest arc/improvement she goes on is in the next film. If you are looking for a massive overhaul in her life/personality then this film isn’t for you, that’s just not the type of franchise that BJD is.
To get it out of the way, I thought Cocaine Bear was shockingly bad. But, for some positives, I thought the bear looked okay. I was expecting it to look a lot worse, anyway! It could’ve looked better, but it was definitely passable. There were also a small handful of moments that are initially shocking which in turn offered small moments of rest bite and were quite enjoyable at the time. If only for a split second. Unfortunately, that is where my positives end. I was banking on Cocaine Bear being funny, and for the silly moments to elevate this past being crap, but it didn’t even deliver on this! The humour just didn’t work for me so therefore the whole film failed as it had nothing else going for it. To be fair, Cocaine Bear had a promising premise, but it was executed poorly and ended up being boring and uninteresting. Despite the short 95 minute runtime, the film feels very drawn out and unbearable at times. There is one sequence involving an ambulance which was amusing, but aside from this the film was a complete borefest. I feel as though Elizabeth Banks was torn between wanting this to be a slapstick comedy or an intense thriller/horror and, as a result, has ended up with a muddled and baffling tone that doesn’t work nearly as well as it could have done. There is also a very underbaked, so bear it’s almost missing, anti-drugs message. But you have to squint really hard to find it! I honestly don’t know why Cocaine Bear was made, it’s terrible and not worth watching! I didn’t take the film seriously and I still didn’t have a good time.
Straight off the bat, I knew this was going to be a powerful, intense and heartbreaking film. It is all of those things, as well as one of the best romance films I have ever had the pleasure of watching. The ‘in another life…’ trope has me in a chokehold, so this really hurt!! The profoundness of it all is simmering away the entire time, until all of a sudden (and I should imagine this happens at different times for everyone), it becomes so all-encompassing and incredibly moving. The subtleness and quietness of the story leaves room for the big emotions you will feel while watching because Past Lives is so romantic and beautiful. I often found myself feel both sad and uplifted while watching. A combination of many things made Past Lives a very thought-provoking watch. Stretches of silence, long pauses, watching events unfold in real time, and lingering shots all worked in tandem to allow you to reflect and ponder on your experiences and how you can relate to what the characters are going through. The ending of Past Lives was absolutely perfect, delivering a proper gut punch. If I had to stretch to make a criticism (and it is a stretch), I would say that the aforementioned stretching of scenes can disrupt the pacing a little. For the majority it worked, but I felt that some scenes could have benefited from snappier editing. Past Lives would not have worked if it wasn’t for the powerhouse performances from the two leads: Greta Lee and Teo Yoo. I was impressed by both of their sincerity, devotion and nuanced body language. Yoo in particular was superb at conveying such deep and complex emotions through his body alone. Lee delivered some of the more touching and devastating scenes which wouldn’t have hit as hard if it wasn’t for her magnificent talent. John Magaro was also brilliant as supporting character Arthur. If it wasn’t for his meticulous delivery he could have become the villain of the story very quickly. ellynreviews on Instagram
Sydney Sweeney was a compelling lead as Sister Cecilia and definitely grew into the film as it went on. Her acting was quite decent, but it never verged on great, in my opinion. She was particularly convincing in the moments of high intensity, and proved to be an excellent scream-queen. However, it was the more quiet, day-to-day scenes where she seemed to suffer and came across as quite wooden or indifferent to her surroundings. I remember a lot of comparisons to ‘The First Omen’ when Immaculate debuted last year, and I have to admit there is an uncanny amount of similarities. I was expecting a lot of body-horror in Immaculate, but undeniably ‘The First Omen’ did it better. What we do get here is okay, but very minimal. I feel as if some savage gore could’ve elevated Immaculate past the slightly forgettable film it turned out to be. The opportunity was there, but was missed. Unfortunately, Immaculate suffers from being incredibly unoriginal. The script is littered with over-used and boring tropes, including: suspicious nuns, dodgy priests, the main character trying to escape her past, a rebellious sister etc etc. The only unique (at least for me), part of the story was the idea of trying to recreate Christ. I thought this was a brilliant and fresh direction to take a religious horror film, yet the film never dived into this. It was all very much surface-level. For another small negative, I thought that for the location and setting of Immaculate, it really ought to have had better imagery and cinematography. Don’t get me wrong, it was okay, but nothing special or memorable. Immaculate really lacked that gothic, grotesque atmosphere that you associate with this sub-genre of horror. ellynreviews on Instagram
ESotSM is not only a wholly original and intriguing plot, but it also touches on themes and circumstances everyone can relate to in some capacity. That makes this film a timeless classic. While the credits were rolling (as were the tears), I wrote this down: “The feeling of pain is only the reminder that the memories you hold were once moments of joy and ones you never wanted to forget. Now you look back on them and pretend they didn’t exist. And that is inherently sad. This movie explores the concept of erasing all memories of a certain someone (usually an ex) from your brain so you don’t have to feel the pain and you don’t have to remember. And at first you are quick to jump on the band wagon, of course you would do that right? You’d feel no more pain, no more loneliness, no more sorrow. But what about all the good times? What about the magnitude of memories where you were so in love. Why are we quick to erase those? The pain is only so unbearable because the love was so deep. That, to me, is worth remembering.” … and this perfectly sums up why I loved ESotSM ESotSM is a real editing masterclass. The slick transitions not only look seamless, but are edited so tightly that it is like watching real-life memories weave together. The often blue-tinged, cold colour palette only worked to enhance the themes of depression, hopelessness, sadness and grief. You could feel the love poured into every inch of the screen it was phenomenal. I wanted to give ESotSM a perfect score, but there were a few areas that knocked it down slightly for me. First, the non-linear format. While effective for this particular story it did grate on me as the film went on. I’m just not a fan of this style of story telling! Though, I can admit it was cleverly utilised here. Secondly, all of the characters had annoying and, frankly, unlikeable qualities. I couldn’t fully connect with any of them because I didn’t like them. I also didn’t initially buy into Clem (Kate Winslet) and Joel’s (Jim Carrey) relationship - they just seemed too different to ever make it work. All in all, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is equal parts satisfying and soul-crushing. It is a perfect tale of love, loss and everything in between with superb acting from the entire cast. It touches on subjects that are raw and real, and I’d urge anyone that hasn’t seen this yet to watch it!
It would feel wrong to start anywhere other than We Live in Time’s two fantastic leads - Garfield and Pugh. This love story, and film, succeeds because of these two beautiful and ever so talented actors. Their shared chemistry is dizzying and, quite frankly, puts everyone else to shame. You can feel their connection through the screen, and right from the very first scene you have the sense you’re about to witness something special. Both Garfield and Pugh take into their stride the sexier, funnier scenes balanced with the more heavy, emotionally draining ones. Pugh in particular has to do the most heavy-lifting, but Garfield’s efforts should not be written off either. Something that stood out to me while I was watching We Live in Time was the fact that both Tobias (Garfield) and Almut (Pugh) have real flaws - Almut often comes across as quite selfish in pursuit of her career/achievements and Tobias can quite often be passive aggressive and quick to cause arguments or disagreements. But these qualities not only work to make the characters relatable, they make the film feel more real, easier to watch and it presents us with such a raw tale of love and loss. Another aspect which stood out to me a lot was the very intimate camera angles used. It never felt claustrophobic, but it very much made you feel a part of their story and their life. This allows you to feel even more connected to them and swept up in their relationship. While I didn’t personally gel with the structure of the film - more on that later - I can appreciate that it was a very clever choice. In the sense that, when you look back and reflect on memories, they are never in chronological order but more a jumbled, random collection which is exactly how the film pans out and presents Tobias and Almut’s relationship. However, this non-linear structure is the main reason I didn’t give We Live in Time a perfect score. It just didn’t entirely work for me, and it took me a while to warm up to it and get to grips with their story. I think perhaps the film would be more effective had we followed their story in sequence and had the inevitable climax to the gut-wrenching ending.
For positives, I thought most of the musical sequences, particularly the Take That/Rock DJ one on Regent Street at the beginning of the film, were really impressive and mesmerising! It comes with the territory, but the soundtrack was banger after banger after banger! Even though the context for the songs were changed, somehow each song felt perfectly apt for each scene it played over. The Angels sequence near the end reduced me to tears. On another technical level, the CGI for the monkey (Yes, Robbie Williams is portrayed as a monkey and no, it is never touched on), is exceedingly good. I thought that Better Man offered an interesting look at the effects of fame on someone who has openly admitted they couldn’t cope with it. And while this was a refreshing and unique approach, towards the end it came across as quite self-pitying so the film felt like a sob story more times than not. As much as Better Man is truthful to Robbie’s story, you cannot deny that the drug misuse, working class upbringing, disappointing and absent father beats are classic biopic traits. I don’t think anyone who is finding the music biopic genre tiring is going to find anything to love in this film as it’s very similar to lots of others out there. Every biopic seems to walk the same path under all the glitz and glamour (and copious amounts of c0ke). My main issue with Better Man was that the story was not cohesive - I don’t think the film flowed very well at all. On top of this, some scenes seemed like they ended way too quickly (Knebworth for example) and some scenes dragged on for much longer than they should’ve. As a result of the incoherent story the pacing felt excruciatingly slow at points. I also changed my opinion on multiple times throughout on whether portraying Williams as a monkey worked. Take from that what you will!
