Sunday, January 4, 2026

Review Roundup: December 2025

Happy New Year, all! We've reached the end of 2025, which means we have one last month of the year with reviews in need of rounding up. It's not been the most active month of film viewing for me, but the few things I have watched have prompted some very interesting pieces of writing, with a considerable portion of it concerning a certain blue-related franchise in more ways than one. So, with all that, let's round up the last bunch of reviews from 2025!

 

THROWBACK: Dances with Wolves (Kevin Costner, 1990) - reviewed 02/12/2025

    "With Avatar: Fire and Ash releasing soon, I will inevitably be revisiting the first two films in preparation this December. Since we sadly live in a world where many people online love nothing more than to complain about how seemingly derivative my beloved franchise is, I thought now would also be a good time to finally check out some of the frequently cited sources of inspiration for myself, and as Dances with Wolves has always had a presence within this conversation (as well as being a film I’ve generally been interested in watching for a while), it was the one I opted for first. Unable to find it readily available on a streaming site, I ended up buying a lovely DVD with the film spread across two discs, resulting in a very unique home viewing experience! I believe that what I saw was the Extended Edition, 226 minutes according to the back of the DVD cover, definitely not the 181 minutes listed here on Letterboxd. It can be difficult to squeeze in a behemoth like this amid day-to-day life, but hey, the more cinema to enjoy, the merrier! While watching this, I was admittedly primarily fixated on how it operates as a precursor to James Cameron’s films, and this is what most of this review will concern. When taking the film on that front, there are undeniably many similarities to be found, however, unlike what Avatar detractors would likely take away from such, I find this to actually be a very rewarding aspect that may have increased my enjoyment of the texts in question overall. Of all the films that the 2009 original has been often unfavourably compared to over the years, Dances with Wolves would easily be the most apt and fair comparison in my eyes. On a purely narrative level, there is a lot of resemblance between the two, both following a protagonist initially belonging to a colonial system who begins to question his values on being familiarised with the world and community that is slowly being marginalised, ultimately siding with the oppressed and standing against the people he was once a part of after finding a fulfilling sense of purpose among the former. Beyond that, both are quintessentially American texts in terms of how they execute this concept, and there’s a similar sense of scope and tactility that defines how the cinematic spaces are constructed in each case. Upon closer inspection, though, there are plenty of differences at hand that enable the two to complement one another. Dances with Wolves follows John Dunbar, a Lieutenant in the Union army, who begins the film firmly intent on personally experiencing the frontier space in all its glory before the effects of colonisation have become to drastic, or as he puts it, “While it’s still there”. His faith in the system seems relatively modest from the beginning, and swiftly diminishes further after he is seemingly abandoned at his new post, before he has had any encounter with the native people. On finally being acquainted with such in the form of the Sioux tribe, the gradual connection he goes on to form with them feels organic, as their sense of community and compassion is stronger than any relationship he is established to have had with his own people, and his openness to the natural beauty of the frontier equally aligns with their values and ways of life. Costner adds a slightly pathetic quality to the character, emphasising his naivety in approaching both the expansive frontier and the Sioux despite his good intentions, demonstrating an inherent weakness about men in his position when framed against the native inhabitants. On the other hand, Avatar’s Jake Sully begins his film blinded by system at hand, following orders without question and having no sense of self beyond his place as a loyal soldier. When deployed into Pandora out of pure obligation, it is crucially only on being familiarised with the Na’vi and understanding the space as they do that things begin to change for him, finally finding a sense of purpose and self in something other than where he originated and in turn choosing to betray the system that once had complete control over him. While pathetic at times too, he’s more defined by his outright ignorance and lack of character at first, vices that are gradually overcome as his values are both reassessed and discovered. The central conflicts for both films’ protagonists have varying urgencies; Dunbar is occasionally reminded of his place as a white settler among native people yet is increasingly unaffected by such as he integrates further, with tension there only properly arising towards the third act as he is unwillingly reunited with his original superiors and seems significantly removed from the man he once was, then facing the consequences of what appears to be a betrayal. Conversely, Sully is constantly shown to be aware of his mission to infiltrate the Na’vi and how this clashes with his newfound values from living among them, namely due to quite literally switching between different states of being that represent his contrasting sides throughout the film up until the very end. Sure, there’s more that these characters have in common than they don’t, with one common part of the execution being them serving as narrators throughout the respective pictures via a diegetic journal, written for Dunbar and through video for Sully, but the things that make them unique are not to be missed, and play a significant role in making Dances with Wolves and Avatar the distinct texts that they are. As mentioned, both films are decidedly American in their approaches to their similar concepts, but with crucially varying tones given where their interpretations land in time. Dances with Wolves is melancholy in a reflective manner as a depiction of the frontier and its natural wonder during what is eventually revealed to be some of its final years before succumbing to colonial rule. It is intrinsically tied to this national context and largely derives its meaning from that connection, arriving at its bittersweet tone by being celebratory of the people and nature that once defined the frontier while also accepting the sad reality of such having been ultimately undermined and exploited. As a critique of Western colonialism, it’s rather implicit by preoccupying itself with showcasing the beauty of what once was instead of indulging in the tragedy of what it became, letting the evils of the system speak for themselves in the process. On the contrary, Avatar is far more cynical and overtly critical of both colonialism and in turn the cycles of humanity refusing to learn from history. Taking place in an imagined and heightened future context, it examines the destructive tendencies of our species at large, showing us taking control of and exploiting the natural resources of a whole new space and marginalising another native community, with upfront depictions of these elements. It essentially asserts that evils from our history, much like that which Dances with Wolves involves, will not be learned from and will instead persist into the future as long as we continue to exist in some form, the pessimistic suggestion being that this may simply be an innate part of human nature. It crucially uses American iconography to represent humanity’s most vicious attributes, namely with the antagonistic Quaritch and destructive machinery all having a distinctly American military quality about them, thus implying that colonialism as it has existed within the USA best exemplifies this. Consequently, there’s added profundity to Avatar, with its act of directly drawing upon Dances with Wolves, a text so rigorously involved with a specific context, revealing much nuance about its depiction of humanity in the future with essentially American elements. What only enhances how both films get their respective ideas across and are able to complement each other is the masterfully immersive and epic filmmaking in both cases. Costner lets the enormous natural phenomenon that is the American frontier in its prime have all the necessary breathing room, with an abundance of gorgeously composed wide shots that signify its great expanses of pure beauty, juxtaposed with an equal amount of more intimate moments where characters closely interact with the numerous facets of which it is composed. You truly feel all the natural elements at hand, be it the grass, the dirt, the water, or the fur on the animals, making the space feel real and alive alongside seeming larger than life amid being reconstructed on film. I’d previously only seen last year’s Horizon: An American Saga - Chapter 1 when it came to Costner’s directorial outings, and seeing this only makes me less a fan of that film, as while it also features plenty of lovely on-location sets to construct its version of the frontier, its sense of scope is so insular and doesn’t come close to the deft balancing act in this film. I had numerous occasions here where I simply thought to myself, “THIS… IS A FILM”, because that’s really all you can say when faced with something so expertly crafted. Cameron does the same with Avatar, arguably more impressively in dealing with a fully digital space that nonetheless retains much of the necessary heft, and its use of more advanced technologies distinguishes it further from Costner’s film and fits the overarching theme of exploring a similar concept in an imagined futuristic context as opposed to one that is based in truth and history. To summarise, my experience with Dances with Wolves was rather terrific. I went in knowing it pertains to a film I love and eager to understand where the similarities lie, and not only did I sufficiently register those, but they have changed the way I perceive that film for the better. Between these two objects concerning similar topics, one seeks to realise a once real place in time and showcase its majesty for all its worth before it was lost to an evil system of rule, while the other imagines a potential future in which the same system does the same damage in a similar light despite being so far removed temporally. In short, one celebrates what once was, and the other criticises what is and may continue to be, thus making them a very rewarding pair on this matter." 8/10

 

NEW: Train Dreams (Clint Bentley, 2025) - reviewed 03/12/2025

    "There’s something terribly off about this film. Some really solid cinematography here, great composition and elegant editing, but it’s also quite jarring at the same time. What’s with the frame rate? An attempt to seem hyper realistic? Perhaps to signify a removal from reality? There’s an elusive quality about the presentation as a whole that is constantly negotiating with the grounded and gritty settings and situations, but why capture everything this way to get that across? Whatever the intent, it massively took me out of the film and hindered any proper emotional investment. Similarly, I love the detailed texture and grit about the image, but why so much shallow focus? There seems to be a lot of emphasis on environments, notably how they change with time, so why are so many of the shots heavily foregrounding the subjects instead of positing them within a well defined cinematic space? These are just a few small creative choices that, despite being insular in the grand scheme of things, gradually piled up and contributed to a rather distracting and dull experience. Shame really, I love a lot of the ideas at play and the focus on Americana is something I always find makes for rich narratives, but some questionable decisions here and there about the look and feel prevented it from having any meaningful impact. Don’t even get me started on that [REDACTED] awful narration either, dialogue really is a curse on cinema we’ve become all too accepting of." 6/10

 

THROWBACK: Pocahontas (Mike Gabriel / Eric Goldberg, 1995) - reviewed 04/12/2025

    "In my book, an easy way to tell if someone’s opinion is not worth my time is if they refer to Avatar as ‘Pocahontas in Space’ or ‘Blue Pocahontas’ or something else of the sort. I mean, of course if you have two films that concern vaguely similar subject matter, then surely whichever came second is automatically derivative of the first, right? I know this film is mostly compared to the latter as a joke, but I am so tired of hearing it brought up in an attempt to diminish its value because it’s so painfully reductive if you actually pay attention to what’s going on in both texts. Pocahontas is primarily a love story, a forbidden romance where two individuals from opposing sides fall for one another and struggle to be together as desired due to their circumstances. Moreover, in dealing with the conflict of Native Americans and British Colonists, it makes the questionable decision to draw parallels between the two sides and indicate how each are in the wrong to some extent, supposedly due to both being blindly driven by hatred and refusing to cooperate with one another. Not only is this a misguided and insensitive creative choice given the context at hand, but it’s nothing like how this sort of conflict is presented in Avatar; that film is very firmly critical of colonialism and how it represents the worst of humanity, and even though Pocahontas does treat that side as broadly antagonistic, such is mainly only reserved for the figurehead of the group, who is treated as anomalously cruel and ignorant compared to his colleagues. It is true that Avatar also has a romance within its narrative, but to me at least, it is absolutely not the main through line as it is in this film, as that instead lies in the introspection about the protagonist as he finds himself increasingly at odds with both the person he began as and the system he belongs to. Sure, I won’t act as though there’s no resemblance whatsoever between these two films in a general sense, but claiming Avatar is a rip-off of this is simply inaccurate and lazy, as it is wholly distinct in its approach to similar themes and topics on very basic levels and can even be said to make up for certain wrongdoings. If you’re an Avatar hater and want to insist on a seemingly derogatory comparison, you’re honestly better off citing FernGully than this." 6/10

 

THROWBACK: The Secret of NIMH (Don Bluth, 1982) - reviewed 09/12/2025

    "Oh this is it. This. Is. It. This is everything I’ve wanted to see from a Don Bluth film based on all that I’ve gathered about him and his legacy over the years. After only seeing some of his later works, which come across as poor attempts to replicate Disney at their most successful, this feels like something made by someone who is frustrated with that system and its creative restrictions during the most stagnant years, breaking away and crafting the most perfect radical alternative in just about every sense. I love how seriously this takes itself, with so many dark and gruesome elements and refreshingly quite a light amount of comedic relief to balance things out. It avoids the tonal whiplash that Disney often succumbs to, where despite them not being afraid to touch on darker, more mature areas, there’s almost always seemingly an obligation to flippantly throw in some comedy or light-hearted qualities so nothing registers too heavy for the likely young audience members, resulting in some very frustratingly confused pieces. This is absolutely not the case in The Secret of NIMH, and it’s not just that it’s dark in that it respects the weight of its themes such as death and animal cruelty, it goes all out in reaffirming its heaviness so to distinguish itself from the frankly cowardly squishiness of Disney. We’ve seen plenty of rodent-centric films from the latter company, and though the characters here may resemble the usual cutesy designs from such films as Cinderella or The Rescuers, the film prides itself on subverting what is traditionally associated with such through their implementation, with the usual cartoony squash-and-stretch mannerisms being strikingly downplayed and the environments they’re situated within being outstanding due to how intimidating and frightening they consistently are, with an emphasis on darkness and shadows mixed with a bold colour palette of foreboding reds, alluring greens, and mysterious blues, among various others. Bluth does not reserve these visual qualities for the odd moment where all is intended to seem hopeless and terrifying, rather they are the rule, and the more expected cosy and comfortable visuals are the clear exception. On top of that, it leaves little to the imagination when exploring its subject matter, substituting the conventional implicit approach to dark concepts in family entertainment for far more upfront and graphic detail. Characters are killed, and we see it happen; a haunting flashback depicting the tragic fate of mice failing to escape a research lab shows them helplessly being sucked into the dark void of an air vent, and the villain meeting his inevitable demise involves a stabbing where the impact of a blade is shown and the subsequent pain is strongly felt. All throughout, the heroes are also regularly shown to bleed and deal with the realistic consequences of what antics they partake in, denying them the pseudo-invincibility that defines much of animated violence in classic works such as Tom & Jerry. I was reminded a lot of Martin Rosen’s Watership Down here, which similarly does not shy away from the grittier elements of its source material in the execution of its animated depiction. In fact, the narrative here contains quite a few similarities to that story, following more small creatures as they struggle against somewhat menial acts of mankind that, for them, have a devastating impact. However, what I think NIMH might do even better than Watership Down is how clever and inventive the construction of its world is, initially seeming to unfold in a sweeping fantastical space but ultimately revealed to be within the confines of a completely ordinary, and rather contained, space in the real present world. I love this because it offers a wildly alternate perception of otherwise mundane locations, highlighting how differently they can appear to creatures far smaller than us. Just a farm consisting of a house, a few fields, a rundown mill, and a rose bush, is equivalent to a fantasy world such as Tolkien’s Middle-Earth for the critters navigating it. The 2D animated space is key to bringing this out, heightening the seemingly ordinary mis-en-scene with a fairy tale esque storybook aesthetic filled with plenty of unique flair such as the aforementioned colours and shadows as well as an array of exciting and diverse lighting effects. I am simply in awe of almost everything going on here, and it’s night and day compared to much of what Disney accomplished in the 1970s and 80s. Don’t get me wrong, I do really like some of their films from that time, such as Robin Hood or The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, but to say they advanced the company or the animation scene into new territory would be inaccurate, and it just happens that something of that sort was desperately needed at the time. The Secret of NIMH absolutely does this when considered it in terms of the landscape in which it emerged, and I think its significance on those grounds in turn helps to indicate why Bluth’s output gradually became less appealing with time. Once the Mouse got back on its feet in the 1990s, there was clearly less of a desire for the alternative he once succeeded as, thus all that was left to do was try his hand at what the other half was doing so well, resulting in tedious and hollow pieces like the absolutely awful Thumbelina and the rather bland Anastasia, both of which strike me as half-hearted tries at the Disney Renaissance formula from an outsider. While those failed to convince me of Bluth’s brilliance and importance, this single-handedly says it all. Easily my favourite of his films, truly the only ‘great’ one I’ve seen so far, and maybe one of the best animated pictures of all time too." 9/10

 

NEW: Rental Family (Hikari, 2025) - reviewed 11/12/2025

    "Got to see this early and alongside a Q&A with both director Hikari and Brendan Fraser himself, and what an experience it was! I don’t have much personal attachment to Fraser as I know others do, but I’m always thrilled to see famous individuals in person, especially when they’re as delightful a presence as he was. Genuinely humbled by the adoration of everybody in the audience, thoughtfully answering each and every question he received no matter how simple or complex, and also just really funny and charming wherever possible. You could easily tell how well he got on with Hikari, who was also extremely insightful to listen to with how elegantly she spoke about the various aspects of her film. Definitely a filmmaking talent to keep an eye on in years to come. As for Rental Family itself, it’s precisely the film you think it will be, and I mean that in the best possible sense. A sweet and wholesome story about loneliness and making unlikely connections with those around us, in turn prompting all the laughs, smiles, and tears you’d imagine. It does well with integrating the unique cultural context regarding the titular service in Japan, which carries a lot of unique implications about how people interact with the world to make a living and was particularly of note to me from an outsider perspective. I didn’t know too much about the film beforehand and initially got Lost in Translation vibes from it, but it quickly fostered a distinct identity and became wholly its own thing by the end. You need a film like this every so often, it will leave you feeling nice and cheerful, and maybe also wanting to give Brendan Fraser a hug!" 8/10

 

NEW: Avatar: Fire and Ash (James Cameron, 2025) - reviewed 19/12/2025

    "Alongside Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning, this was probably my most anticipated film of 2025. I love the Avatar franchise, always enjoying the spectacular action and immersive worldbuilding on display in them, and on my most recent viewings coming to appreciate much that is thematically rich about them. When it comes to this third entry, though, while much of the strengths from before continue to flourish, I fear we’re reaching a point where the series finds itself perhaps a bit too comfortable with repeating the formulas to be found in the previous entries despite the prospect of advancing things into a more distinct place. When looking to the first two films, the original is a largely intellectual piece, constructing an imagined, futuristic space in which the evils of colonialism from human history persist as our species continues to persevere beyond Earth, in turn forming a firmly pessimistic stance towards human nature and its cyclical qualities, and drawing upon older texts such as Dances with Wolves to make this outlook more refined. Its protagonist, Jake Sully, is torn between his loyalty to humanity and the ways of the natural world he is introduced to, eventually breaking away from the colonial system and taking a stand for himself, the film suggesting that the only way patterns of human history repeating themselves can be broken is if individuals seemingly blinded by controlling systems are willing to think for themselves and stand against them, which I find fascinating. The sequel, The Way of Water, substitutes this tone for a less nuanced and more emotionally driven story, with Jake seeking to protect his newfound family and the villain pursuing them, Colonel Miles Quaritch, now having a decidedly personal conflict with him instead of being reducible to a figurehead for the colonial system. Despite having a less cohesive thesis, it works well on that emotional level while also being interesting as a late career object for James Cameron, neatly incorporating bits and pieces from across his filmography in its visuals and narrative. At a glance, Fire and Ash seems in a position to be the best of both worlds in continuing the Avatar saga, with both intellectual and emotional aspirations by way of a seemingly refreshing narrative. With the introduction of Varang as a new antagonist, the film sets up a false prophet theme surrounding Eywa, questioning her place as an all-powerful, all-loving goddess in Pandora and potentially affecting the ways in which the protagonists perceive the world around them. This coincides with the Sully family in a key moment of grief following the events of The Way of Water, at times doubtful of Eywa’s abilities as hatred consumes them in various forms. There’s much potential here for advancing things in a new yet equally compelling way, however, the film doesn’t capitalise on these elements as effectively as it could have. Much of it comes down to how Varang is handled as a character, as she honestly feels wasted here. Her design is striking and Oona Chaplin is excellent in the role, particularly with her line delivery and the physicality she provides beneath the motion capture, but the character isn’t as much of a key player in the narrative as I expected. Quaritch and the rest of the RDA remain the primary antagonists, and instead of having Varang’s motivation act as something that affects the protagonists in a new way, it’s instead just used as an excuse for her to join forces with the former and further that familiar conflict. The suggestion of Eywa as a false prophet suitably comes across through her, but never in a way that is able to greatly affect the protagonists nor get the better of them at their most vulnerable, as their belief is hardly challenged and there’s no real reckoning with the possibility of it being fallible, which is disappointing as that would’ve been a profound development. Instead of Varang serving to actively challenge the existing worldview of Pandora and potentially alter such, the film concludes that she is merely misguided in her denial of Eywa while the protagonists are noble and in the right for continuing to insist in her ways no matter what. This resolution is sound, as the heroes overcoming their hatred is clearly a virtue that Varang is unable to acquire, and I like the symbolism of fire reflecting such in a similar manner to how water was used in the last film, but I think it would’ve been more powerful if it was perhaps concluded that Eywa actually isn’t what she was previously thought to be. After all, it’s proven in each of the films that the enduring willingness of the Na’vi to stand their ground against humanity is what will ultimately save them and Pandora at large, and having them realise that their own will is more reliable than their insistence on an omnipotent being to come and save them would’ve been both refreshing and apt, expanding on and reaffirming the emotional through line of the previous film. Conversely, the story is one of continuing to have faith that the ways of the almighty will continue to provide even in the most hopeless of times, which is comparatively quite safe, not to mention overly reminiscent of how the first two Avatar films resolved their conflicts. Because of this, Fire and Ash is plagued with too great a sense of repetition. Its conflict unfolds in a very similar manner to the previous films, and its resolution merely reiterates what was established before instead of seeking to reach a new place. The Way of Water also had a sense of repeating things from its predecessor, but not only did its emotional tone come across adequately unique, but the fact that it arrived over a decade later sort of justified a sense of familiarity on bringing audiences back to Pandora after so long. Here, it’s only been three years since that last outing, and nothing has dramatically changed since then, so opting for a more distinct narrative would’ve been welcome to keep things engaging, and it’s frustrating that it doesn’t really do so given that all the pieces are here but just aren’t taken advantage of. That said, there is enough different about Fire and Ash to make it feel like its own thing in the landscape of the Avatar series, even if it doesn’t really do anything too novel. This can mainly be observed in the additions to the worldbuilding, which is one of the greatest strengths of the franchise in general, not just being visually stunning but feeling thorough in how its numerous facets are outlined and operate. While Varang doesn’t get the chance to serve as a truly compelling villain, seeing an antagonistic Na’vi clan was memorable, with their introductory showdown in particular being very thrilling. We also get to see a new side of the human settlement in this film with a fair bit of action unfolding there, and I found the set pieces designed around that mechanical, industrial environment to be a neat change of pace from the natural spaces of the forests and oceans elsewhere. I also enjoyed seeing how Jake has become known as an infamous traitor among the people living there, a neat inclusion on the human side of the story. Additionally, while it may not satisfyingly amount to anything new thematically, the film does feel like a worthy amalgamation of the Avatar universe up to now in other ways, especially in the third act, which successfully integrates the many different sides of Pandora established across the films, such as Toruk Makto returning, the Tulkun elders joining the fight, and the swarms of both forest and ocean Na’vi clans going up against the various human ships and submarines as well as the fire clan’s creatures. While the first two films limited themselves to the elements of their primary environments in their respective climaxes, this one feels like a culmination of all that has been introduced up to now, which I appreciated. What’s also worth highlighting is that the threat underpinning humanity’s exploitation of Pandora gets a new angle here, where despite featuring further deforestation and Tulkun hunting, there’s a crucial development as the character Spider becomes capable of breathing the air and connecting with the wildlife, something the other humans instantly seeks to replicate. Speaking of Spider, the film attempts to make him the emotional core of the story in some ways, creating a moral dilemma by having Jake and Neytiri disagree over whether to continue protecting him as one of their own or to potentially make a sacrifice for the good of Pandora as a result of the new development. Personally, I wasn’t completely invested in this, as while I don’t mind Spider, he’s more good as a plot device than a character of his own. In contrast, I found Lo’ak’s journey here to be far more interesting, struggling to live up to his father’s legacy and to find a sense of belonging as Jake once did, all the while struck with guilt from Neteyam’s death. Given that he narrates the picture, it seems like positing him at the emotional centre would’ve been more warranted and meaningful, as with Spider it feels more forced than anything. As for some other characters, I found Quaritch to maybe be at his best here, as while The Way of Water nicely alluded to parallels between him and Jake on placing him in his own Na’vi avatar, this film furthers that thread by showing how he is unable to embrace his new state of being as Jake did due to being blinded by his duty for humanity, where even on engaging more with the Na’vi through Varang, he ultimately continues to exploit them for the good of his mission. Kiri also gets a lot to do in the film, but she would’ve been a lot more compelling if the aforementioned false prophet theme was developed more given her integral spirituality and close connection to Eywa. As is to be expected, Fire and Ash doesn’t drop the ball as a piece of filmmaking. I won’t go on about this since it goes without saying by now, but suffice to say, Cameron continues to construct Pandora as a truly epic and thoroughly intricate space, vast in its scope yet also having practically every small detail refined. It’s endlessly beautiful, with so much depth to the image and plenty going on in each frame, this franchise really is a peak of digital cinema, and in spite of whatever shortcomings the films may have, no part of me is unsatisfied by taking it all in on an aesthetic level. While formally mostly solid, I do find the editing quite jarring; this is a recurring issue among all three of the Avatar films, where despite the hefty runtimes, they’re generally quite excessively efficient in ensuring that no scene goes on for too long, to a fault in my eyes. I don’t find any of them to drag, rather they bizarrely fall on the other end of the spectrum by being a bit too flippant in moving from one scene to the next. The best example across all three would be their denouements, which progress from the explosive and extensive final battles to the end credits in what feels like a matter of minutes, rushing to the finish line despite the fact that a glacial progression towards such would be justified and welcome given all that happens. Here it was the most detrimental of the bunch, as since this sees the largest conflict thus far (and could also be the final entry in the series), it doesn’t feel like an adequate amount of time is dedicated to letting everything be properly registered and sink in. Regarding the future of Avatar, I’m a bit conflicted. On the one hand, we now have ourselves a very solid trilogy, and that is often a nice, round number to cap a franchise off at. Given what seems like a refusal to switch things up drastically in the narrative, it might be sensible to call it a day now because another entry that continues to retread familiar ground as this does might begin to test my patience. On the other hand, this isn’t the most satisfactory as a conclusion, and I feel like we need at least one more entry, specifically one designed with the intention of providing closure instead of being another stepping stone, in order to get that. I’d be very happy for more if it’s done with good reason, but if that doesn’t prove to be the case, I’d also be willing to stick with what we’ve currently got, so it’s a tricky situation. Perhaps we’ll just have to let Cameron make the call, he ought to know what’s best. If you’re a fellow Avatar enjoyer, you’ll undoubtedly have a good time with Fire and Ash. For all my complaints, sitting and experiencing it all in IMAX 3D was an absolute pleasure as I love this world and any time spent in it is going to go down well at the very least. I wish it moved matters in a more unique direction than before given that the stage was perfectly set for such to be the case and that it seems to be what’s needed most at this point in the series, as doing so would’ve made the experience completely satisfying. As it stands though, Avatar remains a key cornerstone of 21st century cinema in my mind, and we now have a trilogy of intermittent brilliance to show for it, so I can definitely walk away from this feeling somewhat fulfilled." 7/10

 

NEW: It Was Just an Accident (Jafar Panahi, 2025) - reviewed 21/12/2025

    "I spent the last few months getting into Jafar Panahi in preparation for this film, and I’m so glad I did. Following the density and self-reflexivity of No Bears, the director returns to his narrative roots yet still makes clear how far his career has progressed all the while. What we have is another story of people looking to achieve nothing more than a particular goal, and the journey they subsequently undergo revealing much about who they are and the world they live in. The White Balloon concerned a little girl seeking nothing more than to buy a goldfish with what money she had, being faced with the question of whether what she desires is of any real significance given how everyone around her doesn’t respect what it means to her due to seemingly more important matters of their own. In It Was Just an Accident, a similar narrative unfolds, but with much higher stakes and resulting in a much more striking statement. A man seeks to enact vengeance on a person who hurt him, and realises how much the acts of that person go beyond what happened to him, be it because they did the same to many others, or because their actions merely reflect a larger system. It makes clear how a goal of this sort isn’t quite as simple as it may seem in the movies, as there are obstacles of all sorts along the way, ranging from the mundane such as one’s car running out of petrol, to the extreme where an innocent family is without a father during a desperate and pivotal time. Panahi does this the way he knows best, with his signature realist, on-the-ground lens that gives the illusion of watching real people in real situations. He expertly extracts all the expression he can from the seemingly incidental mis-en-scene, whether it’s making our protagonists and their struggles seem minuscule compared to towering hills and vast deserts they find themselves in, or bathing them in the red light of a car during key moments of anger. His reliance on dialogue to get points across is perhaps a bit too great, but his elegant composition and rich style generally account for that excess. I will always be in awe of how this man tells his stories, and learning what lengths he goes to for them to be told only increases that admiration." 8/10

 

THROWBACK: The Polar Express (Robert Zemeckis, 2004) - reviewed 25/12/2025

    "This year, for what feels like the first time ever, the Christmas season really hasn’t meant much to me. It makes complete sense when thinking about it; as a child, Christmas meant time away from school and receiving things on an endless wishlist, and the last few years, while at uni, it meant coming back home and being around my family again after time away from both. But this year, there’s no greater meaning to it all. I’ve just been getting on with things as usual these last few weeks, right up until Christmas Eve, which I partially spent working. As such, the season has flown by, and I barely feel like I’ve had any time to get into the spirit, let alone soak up all the festive joy that comes with it. It’s sad really, Christmas used to be my definite favourite time of the year, but now it feels like an obligation, something that just happens and provides a little joy here and there. I say this here because Alan Silvestri’s score for this film is perhaps the first thing that comes to mind whenever I consider Christmas in a slightly negative light, namely the opening of the track ‘Seeing Is Believing’, which perfectly encapsulates the melancholy of Christmas as it once existed in my mind being a thing of the past as a new state of cynicism has taken its place. In fact, this whole film does well in capturing that mood. I was previously always entranced by it, the mysteriousness and ambiguity, the excitement and thrills, the real but not-quite-real nature of the visuals. It has an aptly dreamlike quality that I am always in awe of, perhaps a byproduct of dated animation, but nonetheless effective to the film’s overarching thesis. While I still enjoy all those things, what that might stand out the most as an adult is how it depicts the journey of overcoming that cynicism and rediscovering what it means to feel joy at Christmas. Questioning whether Father Christmas exists is simply a reflection of not quite feeling the festive spirit, and the notion of all that unfolds here being a dream in the protagonist’s mind on Christmas Eve allows the physical journey undertaken to serve as a reflection of his psychological rediscovery of all that is magical about Christmas. The idea of ‘hearing the bell’ is bigger than just whether one believes in Father Christmas, as it rather indicates whether they are at one with the essence of Christmas at large. I like to think that I’d still just about be able to hear it ringing, but I’m almost certain I wouldn’t at this point. But, I suppose that’s what’s valuable about this film as an object. It transports me right back to the time when the exact opposite would be true, all the while reminding me that those days as I knew them may be over. It’s bittersweet in that sense, which is what many of the best Christmas films tend to be. It’s a Wonderful Life, Meet Me in St. Louis, The Holdovers, and Tokyo Godathers to name a few never let the fact of Christmas disguise the truths of the season we may want to otherwise ignore. Christmas isn’t the easy source of joy it may have once been and is all too often made out to be, and it’s better to recognise that if one wishes to replicate such through art. I will keep trying my best to feel the magic of Christmas as my childhood years drift further away, and I’m glad I’ll always have things like The Polar Express to recapture the feelings I once had all the while signifying that they don’t exist as they once did." 8/10

 

NEW: Wake Up Dead Man (Rian Johnson, 2025) - reviewed 26/12/2025

    "A very funny and entertaining time with a strong ensemble, as is the case with the previous Knives Out films, but still feels wholly its own thing in its vibe and subject matter. It’s also nice that this looks and feels like an actual film and has some inventive formalism, Rian Johnson really is too good for Netflix. Something bizarrely Wes Anderson about parts of this at times, mainly in the opening movement, and I also love a good Carrie homage whenever I see one. I do think it would be cool to see Johnson make something outside of this series for his next project, as between the three films so far he’s done plenty with the whodunnit genre and I want to see him try his hand at something different given what an excellent and versatile filmmaker he is. Not to say that there’s nothing more to be done nor that this feels like it’s stretching a point, quite the opposite as it actually finds more new ways of reinventing familiar tropes as its predecessors did, here specifically by using the theme of religion as a means of depicting such things as revelations and confessions in a different light. But, that being said, I’m perfectly fulfilled by the series thus far and, much like how I felt about the latest Avatar film, rounding it off at a nice round trilogy for the time being would be neat. Either way, I’m there for whatever comes next from him." 8/10

Sunday, December 7, 2025

Review Roundup: November 2025

It's time once again for another round of Review Roundup, showcasing my best bits of writing regarding the things I've watched in the last month. This November has been quite interesting, namely with a lot of notable new releases I've seen that have all raised many fascinating ideas. As a result, some of the reviews in this roundup are very long and in-depth, at least compared to the usual standard, so I hope you're sitting comfortably! With that in mind, let's waste no more time and have a look at them!

 

NEW: The Choral (Nicholas Hytner, 2025) - reviewed 09/11/2025

    "A sweet little story about the importance of the arts during the most difficult times and the way new meaning can and ought to be found in certain pieces based on the new contexts in which they are interpreted. The individual characterisation is slightly weak with many members of the ensemble blurring into one another for me, but the sense of community that defines much of the film is nonetheless very solidly conveyed. Some may dismiss this as nothing more than standard Sunday afternoon fare, but to me there’s always a time and a place for these sorts of films. While they may not seek to redefine cinema or boldly challenge their audience, their consistent earnestness in approaching their given topics never fails to charm me. This may not be as effective as something like The Ballad of Wallis Island from earlier this year, but it more than did its job and went down very well with the large audience I saw it with this Remembrance Sunday." 7/10

 

THROWBACK: Last Night in Soho (Edgar Wright, 2021) - reviewed 11/11/2025

Click here to read my original review on this blog from 31/10/2021  

    "With a new Edgar Wright film on the near horizon, I thought the time was right to revisit something from him, and I ended up going with his previous (and most divisive?) film. I’ve never been completely keen on Last Night in Soho, I can vividly remember my first viewing of it at the cinema, which was very exciting since I considered Wright my favourite director at the time and this was the first film of his that I was there to see during its initial release since I became a fan in my mid-teens, and I while I enjoyed the film a lot, I couldn’t help but feel an absence of what I’d come to love about the director. I’ve watched it on only one subsequent occasion since then, and my thoughts generally stayed the same, considering it a suitably enjoyable watch overall but rather disappointing coming from Edgar Wright. It’s been nearly four years since that last viewing and since then a lot has changed in terms of my knowledge of cinema, so the film was inevitably going to sit somewhat differently with me on revisiting it now (after all, I regard Last Night in Soho quite significantly for being released during my first semester of studying film at university, and I have since graduated). Most notably, I have a newfound admiration for what Wright was going for here in terms of his inspiration, specifically in drawing upon the Italian Giallo. This was an area of film I was only introduced to about a year ago, and on being familiarised with it I can vaguely recall Last Night in Soho being mentioned as a text that takes after Giallo in a modern context, which made sense given how I understood the style / aesthetic combined with my broad memory of the film. Revisiting it, however, it’s blatantly obvious where the inspiration lies, with Wright implementing all the typical outlandish narrative twists and turns and greatly indulging in film artifice amid constructing the film’s visual identity. There’s definitely a lot of Suspiria (which I only watched for the first time recently) in here, having a narrative involving a young woman travelling to study in a daunting new environment where a sinister mystery is slowly unravelled, even down to featuring a similar establishing scene with the protagonist, Eloise, uneasily sat in the back of a taxi. These qualities are things I enjoyed on a basic level beforehand (simply because bold colours are pretty and mystery narratives are engaging) but today I found myself greatly appreciating them as clear points of influence from what is now sadly a generally bygone style. Moreover, what I think is particularly strong about Last Night in Soho on these grounds is how it specifically utilises the implications of the Giallo style in conveying its ideas, rendering it something of a uniquely Neo-Giallo piece. With the film crucially involving a disjunct between present and past that is increasingly blurred, Wright uses the greatly heightened and nightmarish Giallo worldview to define his vision of 1960s London, strikingly so as such is able to function as both a twisted portrait of the given era heavily removed from the present as well as a clear subversion of the idealised, nostalgic understanding that is initially upheld by Eloise. As temporal boundaries begin to blur, the Giallo-infused imagery of the past making its way into the present space helps to articulate the suggestions of everlasting trauma felt by women who have suffered abuse and exploitation alongside the notion that little has changed on that front in London over the years. Essentially, Wright has taken the Giallo and found a way of implementing it so to benefit his overarching thesis, leading to a perhaps richer use of the style than what it was once known for. As much as I love something like Suspiria, its Giallo qualities don’t carry a great deal of nuance, expertly amounting to an eerie dreamlike atmosphere but suggesting little further. This isn’t a problem because, especially in that case, the style is all the necessary substance, but it nonetheless renders Last Night in Soho a clear evolution, a film arising at a time when what made the Giallo so radical and was able to carry its loose narratives is no longer considered groundbreaking and thus it is integrated for a greater purpose. This isn’t to say that the film is perfect in drawing upon Giallo, as there are some missteps that weaken its use of the style. The first and most frustrating would be the heavy reliance on CG artifice instead of more practical alternatives. The relentless swarms of ghostly figures would be the most outstanding example, very clearly digital creations and lacking the degree of grit and heft that can be seen in the artifice of classic Giallo. Going back to Suspiria, there are scenes in that film where characters are attacked by creatures such as dogs and bats, very overtly involving puppets of the respective animals though not to a fault as their particular tangibility delightfully fits the overarching artificial nature of the film. Sure, you can say similar things about these creations, but not only do I find CG artifice far less appealing, it also more often than not doesn’t feel as though it’s done with the intention of seeming artificial, instead usually being merely a byproduct of poor visual effects work, which may have been the case here. It’s a distracting sort of fakery, not a charming one. The same goes elsewhere at times, with some instances of blood splatter or sweeping shots of 1960s London seeming fake in an undesirable, weightless way. You could argue that this is more aligned with the modern cinematic context to which the film belongs, but considering how faithfully it evokes Giallo elsewhere, also being shot on film and featuring plenty of manual / practical effects elsewhere, this does stand out as a weakness. The other issue I would raise is that it does generally feel as though Wright is holding back in ways that filmmakers like Dario Argento never seemed to. There are no throwaway shots in films like Suspiria, almost every frame has the most potential for heightened visual expression completely extracted and put on display, and that relentlessness is a large part of why those films are so entrancing. Here, for every memorable shot there are also several more workmanlike ones that relax the extreme Giallo tendencies, reserving such for particular moments that go all out. I understand that the scenes of the present are supposed to seem less striking than that of the past (at least to begin with), but even within the latter there’s a consistent unevenness regarding making the most of the image as the Giallo is known to do. That said, these can be taken as nitpicks in the long run as I think the film is overall successful as a modern approximation of the Giallo, not necessarily being a product of the aesthetic but undoubtedly using it well to enhance its own meaning. On that basis, it would seem I enjoy Last Night in Soho more as a Giallo text than as an Edgar Wright film. However, this only seems true if what defines Wright is heavily reduced; as an eighteen-year-old, I liked his films primarily for such basic factors as their strong sense of humour combined with his distinctly hyperactive and energetic formalism. He was one of the first filmmakers I understood for having a certain style, which makes sense since that style as I once understood it was very memorable and easy to register. This is why the film had previously never sat completely right with me, as at a glance it seems to be a departure from the Wright I knew and loved. That said, looking to what the director accomplishes on a grander scale reveals that much of what he is highly regarded for remains somewhat intact here. Sure, you don’t get many of Wright’s signature infectious quick cuts and zooms here, but what those techniques can be taken as at large are instances of his films calling attention to themselves and their constructed-ness, and given that Last Night in Soho draws upon Giallo, a style crucially defined by its emphasis on artifice, what we can observe here is Wright finding different means of doing the same thing compared to what we usually expect from him. The colours of the 1960s being considerably more heightened and saturated than the decidedly muted present is an obvious factor, but there’s also the occasional unnaturally long take that signals the subjective perspective about the film, and many stark cuts between the different points in time as the boundaries at hand become less defined. You can even observe this on a more myopic level, such as one instance of a sneaky split diopter (something that definitely would’ve gone over eighteen-year-old me’s head), thus proving how this characteristic of Wright can still be noted even if it’s more downplayed than usual. Although, what I will say as another minor critique here is that this downplaying does in part feel like a missed opportunity; returning to my point about Wright seemingly holding back as director, plenty of classic Giallo films feature frantic cuts and zooms much like the aforementioned ones seen throughout his films, so the relative lack of them and other specific Wright-isms here does seem a little questionable as I don’t think they’d have come across as ill-fitting in this landscape, and they certainly would’ve been fun to see in a non-comedic piece. [...] On a similar note, something else I’ve always loved about Wright is his overtly British approach to certain material, mainly when done for comedic effect. The best examples of this are obviously to be found in the Cornetto Trilogy, which are easily his best films for me, all applying a satirical and distinctly British twist to genres typically associated with mainstream Hollywood, in the process crafting some extremely effective and witty humour. While this film is absolutely not a comedy, you can still observe that same sense of taking something from one national context and applying it to the United Kingdom, in this case the Giallo, which both originated and was popularised in Italy. That doesn’t mean that what the film is getting at isn’t applicable elsewhere, but it clearly makes an attempt to specifically be about what London as a location means for certain groups of women and how this may contradict the way younger generations of British women understand the city and its heritage, and by extension exploring how the past is perceived at large. Once again, this wider trait about Wright’s style can still be observed. To summarise, Last Night in Soho is a far more interesting object than I ever gave it credit for. I’ve always enjoyed its playful horror attributes but I now see what significance they hold beyond being superficially fun, and it has increased my admiration for the film. More importantly, as someone who was once underwhelmed by the seeming lack of the traditional Edgar Wright style here, the new light in which I understand the film has in turn revealed that his place in the director’s seat is more evident and crucial than I previously thought. Wright remains one of my favourite filmmakers to this day, and while this may not showcase what I consider his greatest strengths, its general divergence from his usual output has helped to demonstrate what is to be enjoyed about him and his approach from a broader perspective. Sometimes a viewing like this can change your perception of a figure you once admired for the worse, but I’m glad to say that such was not the case here and that one of the most formative filmmaking figures for me remains someone worth paying attention to." 8/10

 

NEW: Frankenstein (Guillermo del Toro, 2025) - reviewed 14/11/2025

    "I had minimal anticipation for this, not being particularly amazed by the trailers and even slightly ticked off by the way things looked, but I’m glad to say that despite being a bit uneven it ultimately won me over by the end. As the tale commences with Victor Frankenstein at the centre, many of my initial reservations were realised, namely the pretty poor visuals. Despite the obviously talented Guillermo at the helm, this began as one of the ugliest loads of digital slop I’ve seen all year, every environment feeling weightless and failing to immerse, and the image being so overly smooth and polished, lacking any kind of grit despite the generally gruesome and gritty content. While I’m always glad to hear people rightfully criticising Netflix for their refusal to give their films traditional theatrical releases, I absolutely did not feel like what I was watching here would’ve been any better on the big screen, in fact it felt designed for home viewing in spite of the prestige about its presence. The main thing holding it together was Oscar Isaac, whose committed and boisterous performance was extremely engaging and simultaneously captured the Frankenstein character rather well all the while feeling unique to him (incidentally reminiscent of the character he played in Ex Machina, funnily enough). I was hooked on what the film offered concerning him but just could not get behind how unpleasant the visual presentation was. When the narration shifts to that of the Creature, however, things get a lot better in very curious ways. Not only are we treated to an equally strong and unique performance from Jacob Elordi, but it becomes evident exactly what the film is about, humanising this character and in turn drawing a compelling contrast between him and his creator in ways that previous cinematic renditions seldom have (for context, I’ve never read the original novel, so I can’t comment on how this compares to that nor how it functions as an adaptation). Rather than the lifeless and plodding machines that come to mind from the likes of Boris Karloff and Christopher Lee, Elordi’s Creature is a frightened soul overwhelmed by the world it has been carelessly brought into, who tries to see it for its beauty but is constantly beset by the violent and destructive tendencies of mankind, much like that which gave way to his creation. While Frankenstein’s end of the story has a frantic pace as his maniacal ideas relentlessly buzz around and are then desperately and spectacularly realised regardless of their horrifying implications, the Creature’s is more glacial as the world is constructed so that it can be appreciated for what it is and have its natural ways respected, which makes it all the more painful when those with similar attitudes to Frankenstein hold this worldview back with their aforementioned behaviours. As this shift occurs, the overall look and feel of the film also changes for the better. Everything seems less artificial, it feels like watching real actors interacting with real spaces rather than against green screens where they’re merely plopped into whatever the VFX artists can conjure up. I suddenly felt like I was in fact watching something made by the same guy that did 2022’s Pinocchio, one of the most wonderfully tactile films in recent memory. Consequently, the themes of this portion (as well as the central divide about the film at large) were much more effectively articulated, and this was successfully sustained for the remainder of the runtime. In hindsight, part of me is then left wondering if this was intentional, that Guillermo specifically sought to portray the world according to Victor as hollow and superficial by way of extensive CG elements, and to reserve a greater level of authenticity for what is seen from the Creature’s perspective through an increased emphasis on more practical alternatives, as both means of constructions are generally sound with their respective characters and worldviews and enhance their contrasting natures in execution. I love films that negotiate with the inherent artifice of the medium in some way, so this seemed like a thoughtful approach to this material. That said, this is a Netflix film, and bland digital imagery is their trademark style at this point, so I would not be surprised if this is instead simply another product of that undesirable form with the occasional bit of soulfulness from its auteur director slipped through the cracks wherever necessary and possible. Regardless of what the intent was, the film suitably left an impression and I found myself increasingly intrigued and impressed as it panned out. I can’t say with complete certainty whether or not I think it succeeds in its project, but it’s nice to at least be left considering how that could easily be the case rather than altogether doubtful as I initially feared I would be." 7/10

 

NEW: The Running Man (Edgar Wright, 2025) - reviewed 18/11/2025

    "I was interested in this film on the basis that it was a collaboration between Edgar Wright, one of my favourite filmmakers growing up, and Glen Powell, one of my favourite actors at the moment. I didn’t have the highest hopes for it to be anything remarkable, I was just looking forward to an outing with efforts from these two in one place, and while it suitably delivered on that front, there is a fair bit going on beneath the surface with varying degrees of success that has got me thinking. About a week ago, I revisited Wright’s Last Night in Soho, a film I was previously underwhelmed by for not having enough of what I enjoyed about his earlier works. On rewatching, however, it became apparent that there was actually plenty of what the director typically achieves in there if one were to look beyond basic features of his style, such as his quick cuts and zooms as well as his witty sense of humour, both things that I and many others seem to have a tendency to reduce him and his filmmaking to [SEE ABOVE]. This has been more or less confirmed to me by some reactions I’ve seen to The Running Man, with many noting a lack of the usual Edgar Wright-isms and thus passing it off as a blandly made piece. Having seen the film for myself, though, I would have to disagree with this assertion, as I feel there is once again plenty of Wright in here and even in some unexpected ways. First of all, even if we are to reduce Wright’s style to the aforementioned basic attributes, there are a sufficient number of instances where those can be observed. Many of the action scenes are frantically yet satisfyingly edited together and feature a suitably fast pace with oddly elegant choreography about how all the moving parts interact, similar to what can be seen in Hot Fuzz, and there are plenty of clever transitions courtesy of dynamic cinematography, reminiscent of such films as The World’s End and Shaun of the Dead. It’s also pretty funny too, not a comedy by any means but still successful in slipping a few clever quips and gags in there every so often. Sure, these aspects aren’t as prominent here as they may be elsewhere, but to deny the place of them altogether is a bit ignorant. Secondly, as I mentioned in my reevaluation of Last Night in Soho, a more overarching quality of these basic Wright features is a sense of his films calling attention to themselves in their construction, often to enhance the thesis at hand. In that film’s case, the Giallo-inspired visuals amount to a significant indulgence in artifice that greatly benefits the depiction of blurring boundaries between different points in time about the narrative and its thematic implications. In the Cornetto Trilogy, the hyperactive editing and camerawork greatly juxtaposes the mundanity of the essentially British contexts and thus reaffirms the absurdity of the situations by complementing the integration of heightened narrative elements into such. In The Running Man, we have perhaps one of the most intriguing instances of this, with a narrative set in a dystopian totalitarian state that addresses manipulation in the media and the highly constructed nature of entertainment and newsfeeds as a result of government intervention, and Wright aptly emphasises the pieces that contribute to these deceptive practices in his formalism. The main element would be how screens are used, with in-universe screens being regularly seen within the frames and occasionally becoming our sole window into the action. There is a clear contrast between how the events are presented to diegetic viewers of The Running Man television show and us real-life viewers of The Running Man film, with some moments where what we see is completely different as the ability for the villainous network to alter video footage as they see fit becomes a plot point, incidentally an uncomfortably resonant aspect in the current age of manipulative AI-generated content. This form of emphasis on elements of cinematic construction as Wright is known to do therefore aligns with this one of the film’s key projects. However, this does lead onto my main issue with the film, as I think it sort of fumbles in being completely cohesive with that project. As my description may have suggested, Wright seemingly uses the non-diegetic camera as a vessel for the truth, where despite the narration generally being restricted to central character of Ben Richards, it is largely an omniscient lens that shows what actually happens so to make the contrast between the network’s alterations more striking and thus convey the message more effectively. This works to an extent, but it could have gone a bit further by recognising the inherent subjectivity about the camera behind the film as a whole. Instead of drawing a contrast between truthful images and false ones, the film could’ve been underpinned by a broad sense of ambiguity regarding whether any of what we’re seeing is faithful to what happens in-universe or not. After all, The Running Man as a film is just as much a piece of constructed entertainment as the in-universe The Running Man television show (though obviously not due to any kind of government interference), so I think it would’ve been extremely effective if Wright instead sought to emphasise the construction of what his real-life audience is seeing and indicate how this may resemble certain diegetic elements. For example, a recurring plot element involves Richards recording video tapes that are sent to the network and shown on television. On some occasions, we see Richards in the process of producing these recordings and later how they’re presented on television, sometimes with a clear difference between the two as it is indicated that we initially saw what was actually said and later what was altered, which is then solidified by Richards’ reactions. As mentioned, this works well enough, but imagine if we perhaps only saw what the network showed alongside how Richards reacts, the uncertainty about whether what the film has shown is the truth would demonstrate the inability to trust such deliberately constructed pieces of media, a fact that would be enhanced by some of Wright’s deft, self-aware filmmaking. This issue becomes a bit more prevalent towards the ending which, no spoilers, initially seemed to be going in the direction of deliberate ambiguity but instead settles for a more conventional resolution where everything is more or less clarified, and despite the satisfactory pay off there, it feels like a missed opportunity. Nevertheless, what the film lacks in having a coherent thesis it more than makes up for in being wildly entertaining. Glen Powell continues to prove that he is one of the most likeable and enjoyable screen presences at the moment, and in the role of Richards is given more to work with than previous vehicles such as Top Gun: Maverick or Twisters. He holds his own in the action scenes expectedly well, and even has some solid emotional moments too. I can’t wait to see more of this guy, he’s got all the qualities of a traditional movie star / leading man that the industry currently doesn’t have enough of, and I just can’t get enough of him. Seeing a trailer for one of his upcoming films beforehand only made the experience better. Additionally, similar to the other dystopian Stephen King adaptation from this year, The Long Walk, the seemingly monotonous premise here never becomes tiring; after a point it is reducible to merely Richards quite literally running from one action set piece to another and meeting various characters at each stage, but there’s plenty of variety in terms of how things unfold to keep matters engaging, and the setting feels well realised and diverse too. While the film may not be wholly successful in executing some of its theses, it doesn’t fail in terms of approximating the intensity and relentlessness about the in-universe game show and iterating what is shocking about it, which is essential to the themes of the story. Overall I had a great time with this. While I can envision a better and richer film in here somewhere, that doesn’t devalue what fun there is to be had with what’s already here. Whether it’s the curious facets of an auteur going into more new territory or just the Glen Powell-shaped eye candy, you can certainly do a lot worse than with a film like The Running Man, so it’s an easy recommendation from me. Oh, and it’s way better than the ‘87 version." 8/10

 

NEW: Wicked: For Good (Jon M. Chu, 2025) - reviewed 20/11/2025

    "WickedForGood… where does one even begin here? Seeing this back-to-back with the first film was an experience to say the least, not the most insane or overwhelming time I’ve had at a cinema, but it would probably be up there. As I left the screening room after all five hours of Wickedness, I knew I would have to give it at least a day before even attempting to get any of the thoughts buzzing around my head into words. Now that the dust has sort of began to settle, allow me to try and wrap my head around what I experienculated [...] First of all, a necessary update regarding where I stand on Wicked (2024) - it’s good. I’m not super familiar with the stage version but I think the film does a solid job of feeling like a uniquely cinematic take on the material, sufficiently using the distinct apparatus for expression well despite some drawbacks here and there. It’s a great crowd pleaser with some endlessly entertaining performances that do justice to the music and characters where the construction elsewhere may not, and having seen the film three times now I can safely say I enjoy it a lot overall. In my original, more cynical review, I criticised the structure as an inelegant feature-length take on merely the first act of the stage musical, a point I actually disagree with now as I instead find it to be structurally sound, flowing relatively smoothly without seeming stuffed with filler, and ultimately reaching a concrete conclusion that lets it stand firmly on its own and not seem too incomplete. Is it perfect? Not entirely, but it has a discernible enough arc and works independently despite technically being one half of a greater whole, and it also sets the stage perfectly for this next instalment to fly in and tie everything together. So, the question remainifies, does what we’ve ended up with do just that? Here’s the thing, given that this film and its predecessor were made simultaneously, I wasn’t expecting a considerable change in the overall quality, and the fact is that much of what can be said about the first Wicked film is also applicable here, so there wasn’t much new of note for me to pick up on in many general areas. Consequently, my main curiosity about Wicked: For Good wound up being in what this particular portion of the material has to offer when put to film, and I was specifically intrigued by its narrative elements and what the implications of the cinematic construction are there, as the contents at hand reveals certain qualities that weren’t as apparent previously. Broadly speakifying, I really enjoy the alternate approach to the Oz universe in Wicked as a whole; my understanding of this franchise at large is primarily derived from 1939’s The Wizard of Oz, and while I love that film enormously, I like what Wicked does in expanding on as well as revising what it establishes. In that film, everything is presented on a purely surface level, with the fantastical nature of Oz being overtly striking in its distance from reality, and the people encountered by the protagonist, Dorothy, having only their basic exterior characteristics registered, such as the Wicked Witch of the West (known here as Elphaba) seeming unambiguously evil and sinister while Glinda the Good seems completely pure and kind. However, these things really only seem this way according to Dorothy’s perspective as an outsider who has randomly been dropped into this world, as she never gets the chance to be properly familiarised with everything going on in Oz, in part due to her main focus on getting home swiftly. In reinterpreting matters, Wicked crucially understands this by offering a more all-encompassing and nuanced take on the world of Oz, most obviously in how the central duo of Elphaba and Glinda are characterised. It’s made clear how much more there is to both of them and their motivations than was previously depicted, Elphaba being misunderstood in her noble intent to expose the fraudulent Wizard and Glinda conversely being questionably complicit in his manipulative ways. In addition, the setting around them is more fleshed out, with the different factions of Oz and the ways they interact being properly acknowledged and explored too, notably the pseudo-fascistic implications of the Wizard being a trickster seeking complete power and control along with wrongly oppressing the animal population. This is particularly important in the case of For Good because it involves an extract of Wicked that takes place during the same events as the 1939 film, showing them from an alternate angle and thus allowing the greater complexity at hand to be reinforced more so than was achieved in its predecessor. These merits can’t entirely be attributed to the film as much of them are no doubt qualities of its source material, but, the intent regarding how the film specifically goes about executing things on this front is extremely interesting, and circles back to another issue I once had. On my initial viewing of the first Wicked film, I was a bit ambivalent about the choice to construct Oz in a photorealistic manner, pointing out that cinema as a medium doesn’t necessarily equate to realism and citing The Wizard of Oz as an example of how this franchise has been more attractively interpreted on film in the past by way of emphasising film artifice. On my second viewing, I was a bit more lenient as I instead appreciated that it was taking the chance to offer a new visual interpretation of the universe that distinguished things from the 1939 film. Having seen For Good, which features the aforementioned direct parallels with the latter, I now consider this creative choice to actually be especially fitting and even somewhat rich. In The Wizard of Oz, the iconic attention on artifice in the production design, costumes, and more amounts to a larger-than-life, magical atmosphere that completely aligns with and complements its worldview of being based around Dorothy’s superficial, subjective perception. Wicked, being a more grounded and in-depth approach to this world and some of the same events, thus demands a different style, and the choice to construct Oz in a photorealistic way thus helps to reflect the added nuance. So, I actually appreciate this decision now, where even if it is admittedly less attractive than those good old fashioned, colourful painted backdrops and extravagant artificial costumes, I can’t deny that it helps make the universe feel more complex in a way that the specific interpretation here requires. That said, constructificating a cinematic world in a way that feels truly real and lived-in requires a certain level of care about the formalism, and this is something that both Wicked films sadly aren’t completely successful with, instead adhering to many common faults about modern filmmaking that keep them unintentionally feeling like the mechanical, artificial objects that they are. The depth of field is often aggressively shallow and foregrounds the subjects to the extent where they feel removed from whatever space they’re meant to be inhabiting, the editing features some excessive and unmotivated cutting that frustratingly prevents the audience from being able to take in certain environments as their attention is kept solely on the subjects (and usually specifically what they are saying / singing), and the lighting is regularly uninspired and lifeless. While I can praise the intent to construct Wicked’s take on Oz as more realistic in taking it to film, the particular way this is executed doesn’t completely extract all the potential that comes with it. On the topic of the varying portrayals of similar events across these different versions, I have to mention Wicked: For Good’s handling of Dorothy as a character, specifically how lacklustre it is given that most of what she does occurs off-screen. I don’t recall Dorothy’s role being significant in Wicked on stage, and I understand the choice to minimise the time spent with her since we already have a film regarding such and the audience can most likely fill in the necessary blanks themselves, but her involvement is nonetheless crucial to how things pan out here, so keeping it deliberately limited devalues this as an individual text, rendering it overly reliant on what has come before in prior iterations to hold its meaning. I’m not saying Dorothy needed tons of focus, but at least showing the key steps of her journey (meeting Glinda on arrival, encountering the other characters along the Yellow Brick Road) would’ve been enough, and could also be achieved all the while upholding the choice to hide her face, something I’m not opposed to in itself but adds to the jarring quality about the character in her current form. As is almost never the case with me, I weirdly wasn’t so interested in what Wicked: For Good had to offer as a musical, largely because, as alludulated to, it was simply more of the same shenanigans as the last film that I’ve already devoted a great deal of thought to, hence why I inserted became more preoccupied with considering what was going on narratively. However, there are a few musical moments worth highlighting, some of which might even make the film a slight improvement over its predecessor in terms of being wholly cinematic in crafting such. One of the most memorable scenes in the film was the song “The Girl in the Bubble”, consisting of a series of long takes that suitably outlined and respected an expansive, tangible cinematic space, with satisfying transitions through the use of mirrors to create an enchanting fluidity and enhance the sense of close introspection. I’ve since learned that this song was actually written for the film, and that makes sense as it feels like it was designed in tandem with the accompanying visuals, not being a case of one clearly having come first. I also enjoyed the way that many of the ensemble numbers here, such as the opening and finale, utilised the simple filmic ability to cut between different spaces and perspectives with ease quite neatly, in a way that I don’t feel could be quite as refined on stage. It’s simple things like this that can make a film adaptation feel like its content belongs in the new medium just as much as it did in where it originated, and there are plenty of nice examples across these two films. That said, when thinking about the connotations of the more realistic depiction of Oz in the Wicked films, one can’t help but wonder what this means for them as musical pieces. Overall, I don’t think it does the musical angle any great favours, as while it does well to distinguish this new interpretation of this world and narrative on film, it doesn’t incisively align with the nature of adhering to musical form in a similar way. Jon M. Chu is a talented director in this genre for sure, easily capable of crafting dynamic and engaging musical sequences in a vacuum, but there’s not always a clear alignment between what he does there and what the thesis of the film he’s working within is. For comparison, I’d say his film adaptation of In the Heights is a far more cohesive marriage between style and themes, as the overarching realistic, down-to-earth worldview of that film makes its occasional heightened musical moments all the more outstanding and magical, thus perfectly solidifying the theme of finding things to appreciate and celebrate amid everyday struggles. With both Wicked films, the best I can say is that the musical form helps to reaffirm the place of Oz as a fantastical space in spite of how real and lived-in it strives to be elsewhere. Although, once again comparing it to the 1939 film, I suppose it could be argued that the more elaborate melodies and lyricism here compared to what that film contained in its musical numbers can be taken as another means of conveying the added complexity in Wicked, though that is something more to be praised of the stage musical than this as merely an adaptation. When considering other factors from the first film that remain applicable here, I think it goes without saying that this cast is rather spectaculatory. Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande are wonderful and feel so intrinsically connected to these roles by now, which I think is testament to how excellently they both achieve the delicate balance of embodying the characters while also making them their own. Jeff Goldblum has a lot more screen time here compared to the first film, and that was very welcome as he’s also very enjoyable and well suited to the role of the Wizard. On the other hand, I really hate to say it, but Michelle Yeoh is honestly quite an outstanding weak link; I didn’t love her in the previous film, and sitting through her practically identical performance here made it clear how stilted and almost out of place she is in both. She’s a great actress as we all know, but feels oddly miscast here for some reason. Also, this isn’t a major criticism, but I can’t help but feel a bit disappointed by Colman Domingo as the Cowardly Lion, a casting choice I was very excited for going in only to discover that he had all of about four lines of dialogue in the end. I appreciate that the character isn’t the most prominent, but after all the buzz regarding his surprise last minute casting, I thought maybe there’d be more going on for him here. Obviously he made the most of what he was given, but I definitely wanted more, which could have been the case if Dorothy’s antics didn’t mostly happen off-screen as previously noted. I suppose the one final thing to discuss is how these two films ultimately function as two elongated halves of one overarching narrative now that all is said and done. Thankfully, this second half of the pair is paced and structured more or less as well as the first, not coming across bloated and feeling sufficiently worth existing as its own thing. Furthermore, there’s a sense of scope across the two that I really enjoyed, and watching them back-to-back helped bring that quality out. There is a fair passage of time between Acts One and Two of Wicked, and these respective film adaptations take advantage of that to make the journey and growth within feel as epic and impactful as it ought to on the screen. As the conclusion rolls around, the amount of time spent on this story feels worthwhile, with callbacks to the opening of the first film being satisfying only because of how distant they now feel and just how much new insight it seems as though we’ve acquired since then, much of which reframes what came before. This is something that I genuinely don’t think would have been as effective had this just been one film, which you would rarely find me arguing as I’m usually a huge advocate for narrative films being as self-contained as possible since that’s one of the things I like most about storytelling in cinema. Although, in line with how I ended my original review of Wicked from this time last year, this should absolutely not become the common practice for musical theatre adaptations on film. Wicked is an exception for a multitude of reasons, whether it’s just because the insane popularity of the musical can be said to grant it the right to be more expansive and self-indulgent in the process of adaptation, or because of how distinct the first and second acts are in their arcs and tones that enables them to better be taken as individual entities. Only something of this scale, status, and style can get away with individual adaptations for its two halves, and unlike how potential future adaptations of other properties may be conceived, here it feels like it came from a place of sincerity on behalf of the filmmakers, who hold a clear amount of respect for the source material and what a cultural cornerstone so many of its facets are, not necessarily being fixated on the chance to increase profits. As such, I can let this one slide, but otherwise, stage adaptations should stick to finding ways of being efficient and effective within the cinematic medium as they always have in the past. To concludify, I think Wicked: For Good is, well, good. While in many ways retaining the exact strengths and weaknesses of its predecessor and thus bringing little new to the discussion, the particular portions of the material that it spans reveal some qualities that I previously didn’t consider, and while not always completely cohesive or successful in exercising these, I’m at least left with some new elements worth admiring about the films, both as singular texts and as a combined entity. On a more personal note, however, I am on the whole very grateful for the existence of these in their current forms, for all that may be wrong with them. They’ve been the catalysts for raising a lot of issues about cinema and specifically film musicals that are now key to how I understand my feelings towards such, and that is a valuable feature of any object regardless of its flaws. Beyond that, though, my various viewings over the last year have also simply been some of the most memorable and formative experiences I’ve had with films in recent times, as while I can sit here in retrospect and deconstruct them as the complicated texts that they are, when I’m in the moment of watching them I simply can’t ignore the desire to be swept up in all the crowd-pleasing musical joy and wonder they so effortlessly deliver. They will likely always be imperfect in my mind, and I’ll probably always prefer the likes of Judy Garland when I want to spend time in the land of Oz, but I will equally likely always have a soft spot for them that won’t be going away any time soon. With all that being said, I suppose you could say that, because I saw these films, I have in fact been changed, for good!" 7/10

Sunday, November 2, 2025

Review Roundup: October 2025

I'm starting to think we've been here enough times that no introduction is needed, but just to be safe, welcome to another edition of Review Roundup, this time with my best bits of writing across the month of October. We've seen and written on plenty of new and widely talked about films this month, as well as a few spooky ones to fit the Halloween season. Let's get started!

 

THROWBACK: Tron: Legacy (Joseph Kosinski, 2010) - reviewed 05/10/2025

    "I’m most definitely not going to bother seeing Tron: Ares when that releases soon, but its existence did make me curious enough to revisit this for the first time in about a decade just to double check if there was anything in this franchise I’m particularly enthusiastic about. It’s alright, Kosinski does really well making the most of The Grid as a cinematic space in a far more visually refined and dynamic form than what was achieved in 1982, but I think the film might be a bit too reliant on how starkly that contrasts the original film’s construction of the same space to convey its ideas about the ever-changing and evolving technological world. If you know and love the original Tron (which I don’t, even after similarly revisiting it for the first time in a while this time last year), Legacy’s greatly augmented depictions of the same elements are probably very impactful, but for me, it really just communicates the bare minimum of what it’s getting at. This is interesting to me because legacy sequel shortcomings of that sort are precisely what Kosinski’s Top Gun: Maverick expertly avoided, as there’s a film that strikes a perfect balance of taking the time to honour and respect the original film and its characters, building on the legacy they’ve amassed, all the while elsewhere reaffirming the broad appeal that was essential to its predecessor’s success to make sure no one out of the loop is alienated. My indifference to the original Tron is comparable to how I feel about the original Top Gun, yet Maverick is a film I love and would even consider to be one of the best of the 2020s so far. There’s much I can enjoy about Legacy in isolation, with its inventive action set pieces, stellar neon-minimalist aesthetic, and atmospheric score all being highly praiseworthy, but there’s only so much it can do for me beyond that as someone with minimal attachment to what came before. Maybe it’s unfair of me to hold that against the film since I know Tron has a significant cult following and thus this is primarily here to satisfy those in that sector, but when you have the legacy sequel gold standard that is Maverick out there, literally made by the exact same director, you have to wonder if that’s a completely credible excuse anymore. Needless to say, Ares remains an easy skip for me." 6/10

 

NEW: The Smashing Machine (Benny Safdie, 2025) - reviewed 08/10/2025

    "I’ve always been a fan of Dwayne Johnson. No matter how much rubbish the guy has been in, I just can’t bring myself to not be charmed whenever I see him in anything. I always enjoy his performances and, contrary to popular opinion, I find a fair few of his films to genuinely be great fun, even if they are often far from perfect. However, at the same time, I’ve always wanted to see him try something a little more risky, to change the trajectory of his otherwise mostly safe career in the same way that similar actors like Dave Bautista have been able to do (okay, there was Southland Tales and he was great in that, but that’s something of an anomaly in the grand scheme of things). Because of this, I was very excited at the prospect of him taking on a more serious role here, and it turned out to be one of the most rewarding cinematic experiences of the year for me. Johnson is really terrific here, essentially everything I could’ve hoped for, very much giving his all to this cinematic interpretation of real-life UFC fighter Mark Kerr. Sure, you’re always conscious of the fact that it’s him on screen, but it’s equally always clear how much he’s trying to immerse himself in the role, not relying on his usual charismatic qualities and letting a different side of his physicality be at the forefront. I really enjoyed how Benny Safdie constructed Kerr here, displaying two juxtaposing sides of the character and having them collide in various ways to make him especially compelling. There’s expectedly his UFC persona which we observe in all sorts of sporting violence, something Johnson is a natural fit for and is made extra effective here due to the careful sound design and camerawork, but then there’s his day-to-day self, many scenes of which see him possess an endearing ‘gentle giant’ quality. Just the sights of him delicately handling medicine or wearing a cosy jumper in his everyday life were so oddly captivating, likely because it’s the sort of thing we wouldn’t initially expect to see from Johnson, which Safdie is absolutely aware of and expertly capitalises on. There’s also an unpredictability about Kerr outside of the ring that is enthralling, namely his sheer size and presence coming across as downright scary yet simultaneously not always able to cover up his vulnerability as seen in the more emotionally cathartic moments, and Johnson sells all of this perfectly. It is true that this is one of those films where much of its impact hinges on the central performance, as there isn’t always much dramatic richness about Kerr’s story to sustain the necessary narrative momentum, but because that central performance was the main point of interest for me, I was mostly engaged with things the whole way through. Emily Blunt was also as great as ever, but it’s of course less striking to see a powerful dramatic turn from her as she’s done plenty of this sort before. While I don’t care about awards, I can’t deny that it would be satisfying to see Johnson get at least some nominations for this, as you can sense the passion at hand and can tell he wants to be taken more seriously as an actor, which is so wonderful as a fan of his. It’ll probably be a while before the general public’s perception of Johnson is greatly changed, but, that being said, it probably seemed unlikely at one point that Robert Pattinson would be regarded as anything more than the guy from Twilight, yet now people (myself included) consider him one of the most interesting performers currently about. While I haven’t seen it for myself yet, it was seemingly the Safdies that set him on that path with his role in Good Time, so hopefully the same applies here and we’ll gradually see something similar come Johnson’s way as his career continues." 8/10

 

THROWBACK: Offside (Jafar Panahi, 2006) - reviewed 11/10/2025

    "Everyone wants to feel proud of where they come from, but sometimes there are things that prevent us from being able to do so in good faith. I’m English, and I don’t feel the slightest bit proud of that fact, least of all at the current moment where I’d even go as far as saying I’m ashamed. But, there are moments in life where, in spite of what holds us back, we and our fellow people can come together and have something to take pride in, and sport has always struck me as something most capable of such. Whenever a widely accessible event such as the Olympics or World Cup comes on, I know I suddenly forget everything I resent about my country and instead feel an urge to proudly support those representing us for the world to see. There’s nothing quite like the national unity and shared excitement that can arise from sport, however occasional and temporary it may be, and what Jafar Panahi does here is show how that special feeling can manifest in even the most turbulent of situations. A group of Iranian women put everything at risk to illegally see a decisive football match in person and are promptly caught and contained for the game’s duration. It’s a bleak snapshot of how women are unfairly treated in their country, yet even when faced with reason to be upset and angry with the system they belong to, the success of their national football team is enough to have them enthusiastically cheering such patriotic statements as “Long Live Iran!”. Even the soldiers tasked with detaining them are swept up enough to engage in discussions about the game with their prisoners and let them have their moment of celebration due to also enjoying such for themselves. As the film goes on, the sense of unity grows stronger, amounting to a climax of pure collective joy as eclectic groups eagerly huddle around televisions and radios, further chants are loudly boasted in unison, sparklers are lit and passed around, food is warmly shared, and handcuffs are flippantly removed. Much like his mentor Abbas Kiarostami, Panahi uses the realist lens to subtly guide the audience into a certain point of view by cleverly suggesting the absence of conventional cinematic construction, as the film is carefully structured to increasingly distance those watching from the harsh truths of Iranian society that are established at the beginning and eventually leave them with a portrait of a united and endlessly proud community, maintaining the illusion of truthfulness throughout. While those joyful scenes towards the end are real and felt, they are ultimately a distraction from the greater truth, as when the dust has inevitably settled around these exciting sporting achievements, reality always sets back in, something the characters here are conscious of despite the film never showing it. But, cinema is a medium of moments, enabling an everlasting presence for even the most fleeting of such, so it only feels right that what unfolds here is able to exist for all it’s worth. What a powerful and rewarding experience this was." 8/10

 

THROWBACK: Saw (James Wan, 2004) - reviewed 16/10/2025

    "A film of two halves, with one being considerably more interesting than the other. Loved the way this began, the contained environment, the eerie atmosphere, and the uncertainty about the situation. It reminded me a lot of early [M. Night] Shyamalan, not dealing upfront with its horrific elements but instead letting the suggestion of such (in this case larger unknown forces orchestrating events) be what ultimately makes things so unsettling, and it was mostly quite captivating. However, things take a bit of a turn once the plot beyond that main setting starts to unravel, with the filmmaking becoming a lot more hyperactive and explicit, the tension a lot less heightened, and the scares a lot more conventional. The film remains very enjoyable, with Wan injecting plenty of unique flair into every twist and turn, particularly the moody and distinct lighting as well as the playful editing and camerawork, but part of me wishes things stayed locked to that initial environment for more of the runtime and that the uncertainty at hand was sustained for longer than it got. The concept of two strangers desperately trying to piece together a deadly puzzle all the while us audience members are just as in the dark and confined as they are sounds perfect for a unique horror experience, so it is a small shame that this potential is undermined by functioning that concept into a more standard mystery thriller. But, as discussed, the supposedly more standard fare that Saw gradually devolves into doesn’t disappoint in terms of being adequately thrilling and fun, never feeling workmanlike in its execution and providing plenty for a sensitive soul like myself to be repulsed by, in the best possible way. What I will say in praise of the film, though, is that I was somewhat struck by how relatively well behaved it was. This is my first proper experience with the Saw franchise, and from an outsider perspective, the series has always been defined to me by its extreme bloody violence / torture porn as well as an occasional touch of social commentary. What was most insightful about finally watching this inaugural feature film was noting how it really took its time before engaging in the violence I was expecting, dotting bits and pieces of it throughout until the climax goes all out. This is actually one of the film’s greatest strengths, as when you have that glacial and suggestive opening movement, the eventual arrival at an explosive and explicit catharsis is all the more engaging, and feels fitting given the gradual psychological breakdowns experienced by the two protagonists over the course of the narrative. It wouldn’t surprise me if the never ending stream of sequels this film got slowly forget this aspect and just consist of violence for its own sake, in turn prompting the broad, overarching understanding I initially had of the franchise, but it’s nice to see it began from a place of some nuance. Overall this was a solid watch, with a lot more interesting elements than I first imagined even if such are eventually substituted for more of what I perhaps anticipated." 7/10

 

CATCH-UP: KPop Demon Hunters (Chris Appelhans / Maggie Kang, 2025) - reviewed 26/10/2025

    "I admittedly put off watching KPop Demon Hunters for the longest time because… it’s a film called KPop Demon Hunters? An admirably blunt and to-the-point title, but not one that left much room for intrigue and thus didn’t do much to convince me to watch. That might be shallow reasoning, but I’m also just a bit tired of western mainstream animation at the moment and have had plenty of occasions recently where a film in that sector has gone down well with others but not done a lot to me, and I suspected this would be a similar case. Despite this, the immense popularity this has acquired on social media gave me enough reason to finally check it out, and as much as I’d like to say I was proven wrong, I really wasn’t. I love Into the Spider-Verse, but I fear we’ve now reached a point where the style that film pioneered is getting old. After Beyond the Spider-Verse has inevitably released, we seriously need to move on from every other animated film consisting of the same sort of over-the-top, heightened visuals and hyperactive action scenes involving jumps in frame rates and frantic camera movements paired with an equally fast-paced and exaggerated sense of humour. It’s not that this is anything inherently bad, it’s just become so ubiquitous in the last five or so years that simply adhering to it isn’t enough to stand out anymore. It was exciting and bold when Spider-Verse did it back in 2018, but now following the likes of The Mitchells vs The Machines, The Bad Guys, and Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, it’s just kind of average. Still good for what it is, just not remarkable. Where KPop Demon Hunters is similarly unremarkable is in its narrative. The distinct cultural aesthetic is welcome and makes matters more memorable than they otherwise could’ve been, but there’s very little that stood out to me elsewhere. A generic if serviceable message about being true to oneself achieved through a series of lies and secrets that are conventionally laid out and revealed, it really just does the bare minimum and feels like no more than a functional vessel for the musical numbers. I did enjoy the songs on a superficial musical level and found the sequences based around them to be some of the most striking, but in terms of their overarching implementation it’s the frustrating backstage shenanigans where narrative efficiency is mostly prioritised over letting the distinct form of expression at hand have its time to shine, something that really annoys me in modern musicals. Maybe I’m being too harsh, I realise I’m absolutely not the target demographic here, and I’m sure plenty of young people who seek no more than bright colours and catchy tunes will be perfectly engaged with what’s going on here and eat up everything it has to offer, which is fine because, for better or worse, there’s always a place for that sort of content. Going back to my opening point, it’s a film called KPop Demon Hunters, and having seen it for myself, nothing about that title is the least bit inaccurate, so best to just take it for what it’s worth." 6/10

 

NEW: Shelby Oaks (Chris Stuckmann, 2024) - reviewed 31/10/2025

    "I’ve been watching Chris Stuckmann since I was around 13 years old. Along with the likes of Mark Kermode and Doug Walker, he was definitely a formative figure for younger me when it came to my early interest in film criticism, especially on the more amateur level you’d expect from YouTube. As such, I’ve been aware of Shelby Oaks ever since Stuckmann first announced that he’d secured a feature film deal however many years ago, and I’ve gone on to follow each subsequent stage of the process, be it the crowdfunding portion, filming, post production, added involvement of Mike Flanagan, all the way to its debut screenings and what reactions came about. All throughout, I was intent on showing up to see the film when it eventually released, not because it sounded particularly good (if anything it’s actually the sort of thing I usually wouldn’t bother with since I’m not the biggest fan of horror, a fact not helped by the trailers making it look awfully generic), but rather because I just knew I had to experience the surreal feeling of seeing Stuckmann’s name on a real film I was watching at the cinema. Like him or not, it is impressive how he’s made it to this point, and it’s somewhat satisfying for me given that I’ve been there almost every step of the way. The word ‘somewhat’ is quite important in that sentence because what prevents this from being a wholly satisfying experience is that Shelby Oaks sadly isn’t very good. I would’ve loved to walk away very enthusiastically given all that preamble, but instead I’m just underwhelmed. The main issue is that, considering how eager Stuckmann has been to enter the world of filmmaking, this film is shockingly devoid of any distinct directorial voice. Sure, it’s a feature debut, it’s unlikely to be the most refined or assured piece of work, but what I expect from a new filmmaker’s first outing is at least a degree of promise regarding what sort of career they may go on to have and what their directorial project may come to be. This doesn’t have much of the sort, undeniably displaying a clear level of influence taken from other filmmakers but without much new being made of such. It feels like a melting pot of horror tropes and techniques we’ve seen here, there and everywhere before, and that’s coming from someone who, as I mentioned, really isn’t that adversed in this genre. The heavy focus on found footage and vague supernatural forces is very reminiscent of The Blair Witch Project, and the investigatory angle, small town America setting, and ‘Who Took Riley Brennan?’ motif feels extremely Twin Peaks / ‘Who Killed Laura Palmer?’ inspired. Most frustratingly, Stuckmann is known to be a large M. Night Shyamalan fan, and a lot about this is straight out of Signs in particular, what with the endless scouring of archival footage and the slow uncovering of some mysterious entity. However, in taking after Shyamalan’s film, Stuckmann rather ironically retains the few issues I have with it and even makes them more egregious. Specifically, my one main problem with Signs is the final act’s unsatisfying pay off to the unsettling suggestion of the alien creatures throughout most of the film by simply showing them upfront on screen, thereby undercutting a lot of what makes the film unique elsewhere. In Shelby Oaks, we similarly go from mysterious forces being merely suggested only to end up with far more explicit (and consequently more uninteresting) on-screen depictions, except here it’s an issue that plagues most of the second half rather than just the final ten to fifteen minutes. I do like seeing filmmakers draw upon each other, but really only when, one, the influence amounts to something broader and refreshing instead of just being apparent in itself and, two, when the weaker qualities of previous works are accounted for, because even if you idolise someone, their work can still have its flaws. The best thing I can say about Stuckmann’s presence here is that there is a mildly distinct theme about the film, that being its implementation of YouTube as a plot point. This obviously feels in line with where the director has come from, and at times it does sufficiently differentiate matters from the aforementioned comparisons, but it also feels like that is the extent of its place and that it isn’t explored for all it’s worth. The film as a whole doesn’t really have anything to say on that front, at most being vaguely critical of how figures on the platform are unfairly dismissed in the wider media landscape, even though that sentiment doesn’t feel so applicable in the given context of 2008 YouTube, a time when, from what I remember, the site was just a hub for funny cat videos and other frivolous material. Honestly, after a point this aspect feels incidental; given the timeline of the film, it could’ve commented on how YouTube as a platform has changed over time in its content and influence and factored that into the narrative, but it ultimately just utilises the basic feature of YouTube being able to serve as a source of video evidence in an investigation, thereby leading to the film seeming derivative as discussed. All that being said, even on putting everything about Stuckmann to one side for a minute, Shelby Oaks just isn’t a particularly engaging watch in a vacuum. It’s not scary in the least, mostly relying on conventional jumpscares and the odd superficially shocking visual, but doing little to construct a rich overarching horror atmosphere. It’s formally solid and passable enough, the low budget definitely being apparent but not rendering the film visually poor nor preventing the occasional decent visual from shining through. It’s fairly admirable and noteworthy how it feels like a legitimate film and not some kind of amateur student endeavour, which may sound like damning with faint praise but was genuinely something at the forefront of my mind while watching considering the small scale and also the fact that there’s a YouTuber at the helm. The general vibe I got from this is that it’s clearly made by someone who likes films and wants to exercise their passion for the medium at large as well as the specific texts they have reverence for, but at the same time still has a lot to learn in terms of doing the job well, namely by adding something valuable to this area. All the best filmmakers have added something to cinema, maybe not immediately, but at least in a way that’s partially visible from early in their careers. If Stuckmann is to continue after this, he needs to sit down and think about what he wants to add to the medium. He talks about wanting to inspire the next generation as someone like Shyamalan did for him, but that’s not enough to aim for when something like Signs remains readily available to watch and could easily be seen and obsessed over by an aspiring filmmaker today. Once he has something down on that front, maybe he could prove to have a successful career and we’ll find ourselves looking back on Shelby Oaks as an archaic object that signifies just how far he’s come. Writing from this point in time, however, one can’t be too sure of that." 5/10

Sunday, October 5, 2025

Review Roundup: September 2025

It's time for another edition of Review Roundup. I've watched a fair amount of stuff this September and have written quite a few reviews, and gathering some of the best ones here has made me realise that, oddly enough, issues of adaptation seem to be a recurring theme. So, on that topic and more, here are some writings about various things I've watched and reviewed!

 

NEW: The Life of Chuck (Mike Flanagan, 2024) - reviewed 09/09/2025

    "An exceedingly faithful adaptation of a curious short story, though slightly to a fault as there’s almost a sense of laziness about how the latter is put to the screen here. Rather than recognising the cinematic medium as a distinct form of storytelling and extracting as much potential for a unique conveyance of the given meditations on predetermination and the scope about one’s own existence, Flanagan more often than not settles for realising the bare essence of [Stephen] King’s descriptions and then letting overbearing narration that practically recites verbatim extracts of the original text do all the heavy lifting in terms of articulating the ideas at play, thereby greatly disregarding the power of the image as its own form of expression. This is a shame because there are glimpses of a ‘show don’t tell’ mentality here and there, but they never get the chance to properly thrive because they exist alongside painful barrages of perfunctory, on the nose construction elsewhere. While it remains impressive how neatly the film brings to life almost every small detail of the source material, the end result feels a tad hollow as an adaptation, doing little with the new space to make this story compelling from an alternate perspective. I still enjoyed the film and all the themes I found compelling about the original short story are all here, but I can’t say it completely takes advantage of its place as a cinematic interpretation of such." 6/10

 

THROWBACK: War of the Worlds (Steven Spielberg, 2005) - reviewed 11/09/2025

    "The height of post-9/11 cinema. The sheer terror and anxiety that radiates through every scene, the gritty sequences of destruction from the perspective of helpless civilians unable to rationalise on what danger lies before them, be it where it came from or what they should do next. [Tom] Cruise is our lead, yet even his character is overcome with shock and fear, a memorable spin on the usual persona we associate with him that adds to the tension. Moreover, here we have an adaptation of a classic text (which I regretfully have not read yet) that recognises what timeless qualities exist about its essence and functions them into a distinct context to create something altogether more striking. Mankind may have felt helpless when faced with great threats during [H.G.] Wells’ time, rendering the thought of extraterrestrial invasion a terrifying prospect, and while one would like to think that over a hundred years later we’ve guaranteed ourselves a greater sense of security and control over what threats come our way, September 11th, 2001 would be one instance that seemed to prove otherwise. But, consider this, what happened on that day remains a completely man made act of violence, one that emerged from within our collective existence, and it created a completely new wave of paranoia and hysteria in the modern world. With that in mind, just imagine what kind of response would come of a threat from beyond our world, even for us today. What Spielberg does here is give you a feel for precisely that, and it’s nothing short of horrifying. Maybe we will always be a helpless species, no matter how far we seem to progress, and that truly is a scary thought. We all know how in 1993, Spielberg directed both Jurassic Park and Schindler’s List. One was the cosy summer blockbuster that inspired awe and wonder in all those who saw it, and the other was a bleak, unforgiving portrait of one of the most disturbing atrocities in human history. In 2005, however, while Munich saw the acclaimed director leave his audience with more harsh truths about real-world conflicts in the landscape of another slow, challenging piece, War of the Worlds is more than the accessible, escapist antidote of the same year. It doesn’t disappoint when it comes to spectacle, but the way such registers in the audience is wholly unique. There’s a desirable heroic story at its core, but one that is only achieved after the turbulent world outside of the cinema is subconsciously recognised and reaffirmed." 8/10

 

THROWBACK: The Great Gatsby (Jack Clayton, 1974) - reviewed 18/09/2025

    "Recently seeing The Great Gatsby musical reminded me that I still needed to check this version out, and Robert Redford unexpectedly passing away earlier this week finally got me to sit down and watch it, thankfully at a time far removed from my own “younger and more vulnerable” A Level English days when the thought of anything Gatsby related made me want to bash my head against my desk. That said, I probably would’ve appreciated seeing this back at that time as it probably is the ideal adaptation. The casting and characterisation are on point, and its execution of the main narrative points and motifs are relatively sound. Furthermore, as a film, it does a decent enough job of uniquely using the cinematic apparatus to convey the same themes that Fitzgerald did through writing, namely by downplaying Nick’s internal monologue as the guiding force of critique and instead using the subjective viewpoint of the camera to get the same points across, whether that’s in letting the images of 1920s excess framed in a certain light speak for themselves, or, more incisively, signifying to the audience that here they are the spectators in Nick’s position perhaps intrusively looking in on the lives of others and unfairly passing judgement, regularly reinforced by the zooms in on the characters from a distance during their most vulnerable or intimate moments. Despite these efforts, the film can’t quite escape feeling a little… dull? I think the absence of a clear authorial stamp seems to do it a disservice, as while its wholly cinematic approach to the material sufficiently distinguishes it from Fitzgerald, the directorial voice about the film as a whole isn’t especially refined or memorable, which feels odd for a film from the 1970s, a time when auteur filmmakers were becoming more commonplace in the Hollywood scene. While I don’t really like Baz Luhrmann’s 2013 take on Gatsby, primarily for his signature maximalism inadvertently and obnoxiously aestheticising much that the original novel aims to critique, I can’t deny how Luhrmann successfully made the material his own, which I suppose is really the key to adapting timeless pieces of literature. When a text finds itself so well established within the collective consciousness, an adaptation should seek to foreground a particular artist’s own interpretation of it if they want to leave a lasting impression. This is no doubt a better adaptation than the 2013 version since it comes across as better aligned with the essence of Gatsby, but the lack of a clear and unique identity outside of its occasional creative flourishes consequently renders it a lot more forgettable." 6/10

 

CATCH-UP: Elio (Domee Shi / Madeline Sharafian / Adrian Molina, 2025) - reviewed 21/09/2025

    "Since Cars came out in 2006, I’ve seen every theatrically released Pixar film at the cinema. However, that streak ended with Elio earlier this year. In line with what the esteemed ‘animation is cinema’ crowd would suggest, is this because I don’t want to see original animated films? No, of course not. I’ve gone out to see plenty of original animated films at the cinema this last year, be it Memoir of a Snail, Savages, or the Oscar-winning Flow, all of which peeked my interest for their striking visual styles, intriguing tones, and distinct voices. On the other hand, Elio just looked to me like the most tame and predictable kiddy schlock, with superficially impressive visuals but a dull sounding narrative and a cringe inducing sense of humour. So, even as a Pixar completionist, I simply could not justify going out of my way to see it, especially now that we’ve been conditioned to expect new Disney releases to be readily available on our home screens not long after their theatrical debuts anyway. If you’re one of the people who thinks my decision here lessens my credibility as an animation enthusiast (or something else of the sort), I encourage you to try looking at the state of our beloved medium at large, particularly outside of the cosy, family-friendly Western scene. So what if Elio failed commercially and Pixar’s upcoming slate consists of mostly pointless sequels? There will always be original stories being made by smaller studios and less prolific filmmakers (whose interests lie outside of making as much money as possible) out there for you to enjoy, much like the one that literally won the latest Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, what matters is whether you are curious enough to look for them beyond your usual comfort zone. If the extent of the animation world for you ends at the likes of Disney / Pixar / DreamWorks / etc, that’s entirely your own fault. All that being said, this is the perfect example to get my point across because my suspicions were proven completely correct. Elio is not a terrible film, it just isn’t a particularly good one. The narrative has all the usual Western animation cliches, whether it's the generic quirky outsider protagonist, dead loved ones being a large part of what shapes their personality, fish out of water scenarios involving them to create comedy, and a series of misunderstandings and ‘liar revealed’ situations for them to navigate. It’s about as ‘been there, done that’ as you can get for this sort of film, and even the particular science fiction context at hand had trouble standing out. I liked the overarching sentiment about finding a sense of belonging in the universe, but the emotional catharses and reconciliations that come as a result similarly aren’t able to escape that same feeling of familiarly. It has its heart in the right place, but that’s not enough to make it especially compelling. When it comes to the animation, it’s not that it’s bad in any way, but despite the immense talent on display, it’s remarkably quite bland. While Pixar absolutely built a reputation for telling great stories during their golden years, what also undeniably secured their status as one of the best in the industry was the fact that they significantly pioneered the use of CGI and all the detail that comes with it. After all these years, it’s clear they continue to rely on this as a main selling point of their visual construction, but the fact of the matter is that I don’t think anyone is really that impressed by realistic water physics or meticulously detailed surfaces anymore, even though such obviously takes a great deal of work to achieve. Even I, someone who almost always fixates on tiny background elements when watching any animated piece, have become rather desensitised to the care and attention that goes into a modern Pixar production given how ubiquitous their sort of thing is nowadays. What I think we’re all keen to see more of at this point are distinct styles in animated aesthetics; take Flow as an example, there’s something so magical about the look and feel of that film, as its adherence to grounded physics and behaviours combined with a simplistic, heightened design about its characters and landscapes amounts to a bold and striking atmosphere that perfectly complements its philosophical aspirations. I don’t want to act as though the work behind Elio’s animation was technically perfunctory or that the end result is visually unappealing, but I do feel like the whole Pixar brand of animation has sadly lost a lot of its charm and novelty by now and no longer feels ambitious. As I said, this isn’t a bad film. It was adequate viewing for ninety minutes and there were plenty of moments that made me chuckle or put a smile on my face (that Alien reference in particular was really cute and clever), but it’s more proof that mainstream Hollywood is not the place to look for exciting animated endeavours at this current moment. On that note, I’ve been meaning to watch the increasingly popular KPop Demon Hunters ever since it started blowing up on social media, and while I have more hope in that than I had in Elio given that it seems more stylistically inventive, there’s a reason I’ve not got around to watching it just yet, because I more or less know what I’m going to get out of it, likely just a solid, briskly enjoyable time. That may sound dismissive of me, but I’ve been underwhelmed by similar films enough times by now to know I’m probably better off lowering my enthusiasm. Thankfully, films like these two are not the be all and end all when it comes to modern animation, so here’s to more unexpected animated outings that pop out from the unlikeliest of places and leave a far greater impression!" 6/10

 

THROWBACK: Lady Windermere's Fan (Ernst Lubitsch, 1925) - reviewed 24/09/2025

    "It took some time for this to click with me, but when it did, it revealed itself as yet another significant stepping stone in the career of Ernst Lubitsch. Previously, The Marriage Circle saw him rein in his usual over the top expressive tendencies, instead locating the traditional Lubitsch absurdities in the context of a more grounded story; he loves his complicated romantic relations and almost always derives a lot of delightful chaos from the ways in which they interact, but there was a film that constructed more everyday scenarios in which such could be observed and was thus more nuanced in its formalism and performances. Lady Windermere’s Fan, adapted from an Oscar Wilde play of the same name, is a very logical next step, as it continues on a similar trajectory of visual expression, but accounts for the key thing that The Marriage Circle lacked, that being a strong emotional core. Narratively, this is achieved through the subversive focus on a forbidden mother / daughter relationship instead of being purely about romance. It’s engaging to watch as the older Mrs. Erlynne navigates a harsh social order to connect with her completely unknowing child, the titular Lady Windermere, who has achieved a much more privileged status through her marriage. It then becomes even more compelling as the entry into her daughter’s life prompts a series of unfortunate but ultimately logical misunderstandings and complications, testing the boundaries of the relationships at hand and eventually requiring great sacrifices for mutual wellbeing. As with any Lubitsch film, there are plenty of funny moments, namely in his visual representations of the gossip among the upper class individuals, but what was especially striking here was just how effectively he made the more dramatic side of the film work. There’s a particular moment near the end during a pivotal climactic scene where the simple actions of several characters slowly unfolding was a perfect mixture of satisfying and chilling, you’ll most likely know it if you’ve seen it. This is most curious because, in the case of Lubitsch’s Anna Boleyn, the more dramatic tone was a key part of what weakened the film for me, the director feeling restricted at the helm since he’d mostly done comedic efforts up to that point and thus didn’t feel best suited to the more serious material. But, as this film arrives at an aforementioned point in Lubitsch’s career where he has developed a more subdued approach to visual storytelling, it works really well. You feel that signature absurdity is in there, but rather than striving for pure irreverence, it emphasises all that is a lot more emotionally profound." 8/10