The End Of Oak Street feels like director David Robert Mitchell attempting to prove himself as a blockbuster director, a director who can reliably put out a summer smash-hit. Though not his first film, Mitchell raised to success after the release of 2014’s It Follows, a low-budget horror feature which become a critical and commercial success. His follow-up, being released 4 years later, Under the Silver Lake, did not fair as well in either regard, and though gaining a cult following years after release, it seemed to stagger this talented director’s career. Eight years later, and he is back, with a clearly more commercial, Spielberg-inspired family adventure film. Usually making a director go from small independent features to big blockbuster is a gamble, and can feel like a loss of creative vision, but it truly works here. The End of The Oak Street is a breathe of fresh air, and harkens back to a simpler time in family blockbusters. The End of the Oak Street follows the events of a neighbourhood which is sent back in time to the Jurassic era, with a central family attempting to stick together, survive and find a way home.
Dinosaur movies have been a genre that has long needed more entries outside of the Jurassic franchise, a franchise that feels like it has a monopoly on the very concept. Jurassic Park and other classic Spielberg features feel like the main inspirations of Mitchell here, with the film doing a excellent job at recreating that classic Amblin feel. There is a charm and simplicity to the film, but also a compelling amount of realism and maturity in its themes and how brutal the film can get. The movies that it is irking off are charming and classics, but they also have a level of brutality and maturity to them that a lot of family films lack nowadays. The End of Oak Street gives you all the child-like wonder of the mystery and the dinosaurs, alongside a healthy amount of humour, but there is also some engaging use of gore, with the dinosaurs genuinely feeling like a threat.
The character work is also schmaltzy but honest and truthful at the same time, Anne Hathaway and Ewan McGregor are given a lot of material to chew on in their relationship dynamic. Hathaway, who has had a very busy year, easily walks away with the most memorable performance. There is a deep message around the loss of identity once you have become a parent and the sacrifices you make to provide for your children.
The movie falters slightly in character decisions, with the movie falling into obvious pitfalls of character’s becoming dumber to keep the film going, and to place them into danger. Maisy Stella and Christian Convery are easily the weakest part of the central cast, playing the daughter and son of the leads, with the script giving them some of the weakest lines. There is a lack of explanation into how the characters have time travelled, which may be a detriment for some interested viewers, and the way the film wraps up these science-fiction elements is very sloppy. However, the film also features one of the most brilliant and shocking sequences of the year, a twist that truly leaves you on the edge of your seat. The pure power of the film comes from the lean 90 minute runtime, it is a fast blast of a film. It has an excellent amount of set up, with the actual action happening as fast as you would want.
Michael Giacchino has become one of the hardest working composers of the modern day, with him doing scores for films like The Batman, the Mission Impossible franchise, Spider-Man’s MCU features and even the Jurassic World franchise. Here, he really brings the Amblin inspirations to life in his score that mixes the whimsical adventure feel with a level of pure mystery and a bit of hidden sinister nature. This score really brings the movie together, and helps to blend the various elements together. The fast paced nature of the film would not work as well if it was not for the excellent score.
The End of Oak Street is a great return to the big screen for David Robert Mitchell. It might not hit the same heights as his prior works, but it does not feel as commercialised as you would expect. It is filled with personality, and holds its inspirations in a honest manner. It has been a long time since a film has been able to so perfectly feel like a classic 80s film, but Oak Street has knocked it out of the park. There is some pitfalls with character writing, but it more than makes up for its dumb character decisions through its pure chaotic dinosaur action, a must watch for sure.
The Marvel brand is not the same juggernaut it was when Tom Holland’s previous Spider-Man film released in cinemas in 2021, Spider-Man: No Way Home was a massive success, and could be credited as the saviour of cinemas during the initial COVID-19 pandemic. Last year’s Marvel releases did not fair amazingly at the box office, with Captain America: Brave New World, The Thunderbolts and Fantastic Four: First Steps proving the days of Marvel making big cash with every movie is out the door. 5 years later from the previous big screen Spider-Man release, and only less than a week after release, Spider-Man: Brand New Day has already become the highest-grossing film of the year, and looks on track to potentially hit the 2 billion target. Named franchises are what makes money these days, and Spider-Man seems to be a loved franchise, and it helps that this fourth Holland-starring movie is a fantastic one.
Set five years after the events of the previous adventure for Peter Parker, which left Peter forced to remove everyone’s memory of him across the world, the hero has never been more alone. Protecting the city as his masked hero, but refusing to live his life outside of the mask, the choice comes with mutated consequences. Alongside this new life change, a mystery of a mind-controlling new villain leads Peter to cross paths with the vigilante known as The Punisher, the Avenger’s The Hulk and his former girlfriend and best friend.
One of the best things that this film has done is how much they have changed from the previous MCU Spider-Man features. The previous films had a feel of fakeness to them, down to the overabundant use of green-screen and special effects, to the point that the suit itself was hardly ever real. The constant use of green screen also led to the movie looking both artificial and drab in its cinematography, lacking a vibrant colour palette. The movies were also incredibly concerned with connecting themselves to the wider Marvel mythology, and attempting new ground-breaking things. Spider-Man was in adventures that you would not expect him to take part in, and outside of Spider-Man: Homecoming, the movies lacked the human charm that the character and Raimi’s initial trilogy excelled at. The strongest decision in the creation of this film was a change in director, with former trilogy director Jon Watts being swapped out for Shang Chi-director, Destin Daniel Cretton. Cretton has a keen eye for making a superhero film pop, the costume is real, the film uses real sets and on-location shooting, and the colour palette is warm and engaging. The film returns to that former charm of the Raimi features, Spider-Man is swinging across the city, and the film focuses heavily on Peter’s impact on the city and his interactions with civilians.
The film definitely still feels like a important part of the Marvel universe, but handles those connections and cameo characters in a pure comic-booky way that feels more natural compared to the prior films. Mark Ruffalo’s The Hulk appears in some small sequences and a major action sequence which is the highlight of the film, but never outstays his welcome. Jon Bernthal, who has played The Punisher across both Daredevil and Daredevil: Born Again, and his own self-titled show, makes his big-screen debut as the character and really rules every scene he is in. He is essentially the film’s main secondary character, and they play up a great buddy-cop dynamic with Spider-Man, with Bernthal and Holland sharing great chemistry in various scenes where they bicker. There is a level of toning down of the character to fit the more mainstream appeal of these movies, compared to the more R-focused television projects, but if a viewer can allow themselves to embrace this change, it is a fun character for sure.
The bravest choice for the film comes from both how small-scaled it is and how character-focused it is. There are a notable amount of less over-blown action sequences, and the film only really features around four major action moments. The movie instead seeks to explore the isolation and loneliness of its main character, as he loses control over his powers in one of his lowest moments yet. Tom Holland puts in a incredible performance as the character, a film where you can finally say the character is truly Holland’s own. He plays Spider-Man with a pure everyman kindness, added with a lot of maturity that makes his interactions notably different than his prior three movies. The movie makes some very mature story-telling decisions that follow-up the ending of the previous film, but does not tie everything up in a neat bow. Zendaya and Jacob Batalon have very minimal screen-time compared to their roles in the prior films, but their scenes are used effectively to make the film as powerfully heart-breaking as it can be. The film’s exploration into loneliness and isolation, and how that can make you become the worse version of yourself is a very mature theme for these summer blockbusters to cover, and it is a theme that connects all characters.
The way Peter’s story connects with the villain is one of pure genius, and comes from a script that was seemingly written and rewritten until perfect, based on the villain only coming on board when Cretton did as well. One of the biggest mysteries from the trailers has been who the villain is, and the mystery of who Stranger Things’ Sadie Sink is playing in the film. No spoilers featured here, but this character’s identity is easy to guess based on the immediate internet reaction to the casting, and this character’s inclusion causes the film to struggle slightly in the third act. The film becomes a backdoor pilot for a separate team of Marvel characters who will soon return to the big screen, and the film manages to keep Spider-Man relevant as much as he can be. Sink is excellent in the role, playing the character in a way she has never been seen before, and the way the movie mirrors her trauma, grief and isolation with Peters’ is incredibly heart-breaking. Tramell Tillman’s character, who is heavily used for set up for this upcoming spin-off, is wasted in a cartoonish role that doesn’t seem to fit in a Spider-Man movie. The movie peppers in various obscure Spider-Man villains throughout to make up for a largely Spider-Man-less focused main villain, with The Hand featuring in a epic fight sequence, and the welcome return of Michael Mando finally playing the Scorpion.
Spider-Man: Brand New Day is easily the best Spider-Man film to come out during Holland’s reign as the character. There is something so down-to-earth and human about the script that finally places Peter Parker back into the driving seat, rather than his costumed alter-ego. The film captures the comic book crossover of a hero operating in a hero-centric New York more authentically than any Marvel movie before, with the Punisher and The Hulk not overshadowing the lead but having memorable roles. Tackling mature themes, and with a film direction that feels real and palpable, it is a memorable return to the feel that made the original Raimi trilogy so great. The film may stumble near the finish line with a set-up heavy finale, but it manages to hold steady well enough that it closes out for a promising future for this character.
While Disney is currently winning at the box office with the overwhelming success of the 5th entry in Pixar’s Toy Story franchise, they are also taking a major hit in the continued slippery slope of their live action remakes. Moana has released in cinemas, a live action remake of a film only ten years old, and is immediately being seen as a disaster at the box office. Holding a massive 250 million dollar budget, the film fumbled in its opening weekend, and has only grossed 115 million so far, with Deadline reporting that the film could lose Disney between 100-125 million in the end. Live action movies under Disney used to be a certified cash cow, standing alongside their biggest hits in crowded years like 2019. 2019 was a massive year for the company, holding 7 out of the 10 highest grossing movies of the year, with Aladdin and The Lion King hitting one billion each. This would truly be the highest point for their live action endeavours, and would be what they have clearly been striving to recreate in the years since.
Disney have made live action remakes of their classics for years, most notably the Glenn Close-starring 101 Dalmatians and 102 Dalmatians from 1996 and 2000 respectively. Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland and the villain-centric update of Sleeping Beauty, Maleficent, would move the concept into the 2010s, and would not take off completely until Jon Favreau’s The Jungle Book in 2016. The Jungle Book was the first monumental success of this trend, grossing nearly a billion dollars and receiving excellent reviews, and the following year featuring the billion-dollar grossing, The Beauty and The Beast made this a money-making scheme. Disney could see that this could be a ticket to success, there is no need to risk money on original ideas, when the company can repackage their old classics in a new lens, they already have the blueprints right there. That is what these remakes boil down to, Disney’s beloved classics reheated like a microwave meal, with the same plot beats but feeling like a mirror image, where something is deeply off.
This seemed like it could be a scheme that could last forever, but they have been unable to recapture the success of the three-line hit of Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King. The COVID-19 pandemic led to their reimagined and critically panned Mulan remake hitting streaming instead of cinemas, and the same case with Emma Stone’s starring feature, Cruella. Robert Zemeckis’ Pinocchio remake and David Lowery’s Wendy focused remake of Peter Pan were never even planned for the big screen, and made their home immediately on Disney+. Streaming has been a curse to many franchises, and even genres, accommodating audiences to expect and wait for films to hit streaming rather than experiencing the theatrical experience. Their next remake would suffer because of this, The Little Mermaid would be admis with controversy over its African-American lead, and would suffer at the box office, only to become a hit on streaming. 2024’s Mufasa, a prequel to their Lion King remake would walk to the finish line in slowly becoming profitable, but paling in comparison to its predecessor. Rachel Zegler and Gal Gadot starred next in Sam Raimi’s Snow White remake, which faced a increasing amount of internet conversation, but still managed to lose the studio 170 million in the end.
The predecessor to this newest Disney live action remake is the one that shocked the system, and presumably made Disney confident that Moana could be a success. The billion dollar gross of Lilo and Stitch was a obvious success, it is a Gen Z focused property and has a more clear nostalgia factor compared to more earlier Disney animated features like Snow White and The Little Mermaid. Moana’s live action remake seems to have been fast-tracked mainly because of star Dwayne Johnson, being formely announced only seven years after the original film’s release. Even if the original animated feautre is immensely popular, and is consistently the most watched film on Disney’s streaming service, the film is still too recent to be able to bank on nostalgia. The biggest successes from these live action endeavours comes from the fact that the original films are old enough to be nostalgic, but not old enough that parents will have not been born either when they released. Moana lacks a nostalgic angle, no one who saw the movie in 2016 will be returning to watch the newest feature with any new members of a newer generation. Still, Dreamwork’s How to Train Your Dragon remake was massively popular last year, which came only 15 years after the original animated film. However, this franchise had breathing room, with six years in between the ending of the animated series and the beginning of the live action.
The live-action take on Moana is also following-up the sequel to the animated film that only came out two years prior. Moana 2, which was a reworked pilot for a Moana television series, released into cinemas and made a billion dollars quickly, even after receiving mixed reviews from critics. With a 3rd Moana film in development, it could easily be construed that a fatigue has set in for the franchise, and the close proximity of a follow-up and a re-tread of the original would lead to one falling behind. With a mixture of the current streaming expectation, the fatigue from Moana and live action adaptations, and the lack of nostalgia facing the movie, it was bound to become a box office flop. It is also however, just a massive showcase of the weakness of these live action redo’s.
What is the point of watching these reimagining’s of classic movies when you can just watch the original? They never add anything massively different from the original, not even bothering to provide a reason for their existence, and crafting a product that feels inferior to the original. 2026’s take on Moana is a fine movie, down to it essentially being the same script as the original, but it is a mess visually. The reason these movies were originally so beloved is because of how visually impressive they were, the animation complemented the incredible scripts, and fleshed out characterisation with vivid character animation. These are lost in these live action remakes, Lion King loses any emotion from its characters from making them realistic and makes it visually more like a nature documentary. However, also when remaking a film like Moana, which is set mostly at sea, it is trading in one animation for another. The entire film is layered in visual effects, that can range in quality throughout, with Dwayne Johnson and newcomer Catherine Laga’aia interacting in a void of green screen effects that can look gaudy on screen. A lot of the stylised character designs from the original look very different in live action, and lose some of their visual connection to the audience. It is even worse with the musical sequences, the vocals and the song-writing is there, but the sequences are visually lazy and disjointed compared to the vast superior lyrics and performances.
Dwayne Johnson in Moana
Johnson, who serves as producer on the project, feels like he has aged out the role that was designed for him. Sporting a muscle body suit and a wig that makes the film look like a SNL skit, Johnson looks old and tired in every sequence, with not a inch of the fluidity or liveliness that was present in the animated depiction of Maui. Catherine Laga’aia is the one shining light, with a genuinely authentic performance that brings out the child-like wonder of the original character, feeling like the character brought to life. There is something distinctively different at least to a new actor acting out lines made for another, compared to the constant actors reprising their roles and reading the same lines out again. Jermaine Clement reprises his role as Tamatoa, brought to life as a visual effects character, and his performance, which should have been the same, feels restrained and tired, going through the motions as he reads out the same lines again.
There is a confusing question of why would they pick this movie to remake out of all the possible options? It comes out as a live action remake that is still mostly animated through its visual effects, filling a world that is colourful, lively and brimming with personality into a grey and realistic world which is brimming with anything but personality. Lilo and Stitch was a happy fluke across this dying trend, audiences seem to have become aware of the middling quality of these movies, with no remake getting good reviews since the peak of these movies in 2019. Moana just continues to show that these movies are no longer profitable, and that Disney is not in the place they were 7 years ago when every movie they released could crack a billion. Various live action projects have been shelved in the last couple of years, from a sequel to Guy Ritchie’s Aladdin to a sequel to The Jungle Book. A live action take on the Aristocrats was announced to be cancelled last year, alongside the cancellations of live action takes on Bambi, Robin Hood and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Currently only a Hercules film from Guy Ritchie, a sequel to billion-dollar grossing Lilo and Stitch and Tangled are slated for release.
Tangled is the true showing of if this brand can continue to stick. The original film will be 18 years old on release, and should be far enough removed from the original to allow true nostalgia and to be a hit with Gen Z audiences like Lilo and Stitch. Either way, the heights of this trend has long since gone, and if Disney wants to keep it alive, they need to pick their projects more carefully on what stays with audiences the most. The box office has changed since the pandemic, and now audiences are accustomed to staying at home and waiting for streaming. Watching a movie that has already released in animated form, and is available at home on streaming is a more cost-free method than paying money to watch a inferior version of that very film on the big screen. Moana is not a terrible film, but it is just the continued status of the laziest trend in Hollywood.
It has been a year since the beginning of James Gunn’s rebooted take on the DC Universe, with the release of his successful Superman reboot. The week of the release of that film, the marketing began for the follow-up feature, Supergirl, following the titular character after her cameo appearance in Superman. The character has had a tricky time in live action, outside of her successful six season tenure on TV on the CW, but her big screen appearances have been far from popular. 1984’s Supergirl, starring Helen Slater, is held up as one of the worst superhero movies, and a forgotten child of the Christopher Reeves-era of Superman features. Set in the same universe, but with Reeves refusing to appear in the film, with the characters only sharing the screen eventually in the CG-heavy Flash Movie. Sashe Calle would play a new version of the character for that movie, and was meant to become a new star for the former DCEU, but after a regime change at DC and the movie bombing, another Supergirl was left in the dust. This newest film has been marketed as a direct adaptation of the Tom King-written comic, Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow, with the film originally even sharing that title. Both the comic and film follow the lead character, Kara Zor El, who is dealing with her trauma from seeing her home destroyed on Krypton. She becomes involved in a revenge plot when young girl Ruthye recruits her to avenge her family and kill the murderous Krem of the Yellow Hills.
One of the most bizarre things about this second DCU feature is how much it deviates from the original comic, when it was marketed as a straightforward adaptation. There has been various headlines talking about director Craig Gillespie refusing to read the comic when creating the film, but the truth is that the director based his idea of the film off the screenplay, and then read the comic once he had already formed an idea for the visual language of the film. This shows completely in how visually bland the movie is, the movie is very clearly inspired by Star Wars and Blade Runner, and attempts to emulate the grimey and dark visual palette of those films. However, it is based on a comic which is so colourful and brimming with style, and to replace that with a film that looks just like any other comic book movie made these days is a let down. There is no attempt to deviate the visual style based on planets, the film retains its grey style throughout. It is a real shame after how colourful Gunn’s Superman was, setting up a clear visual style for this universe. As the first DCU project not created by Gunn, it sets a worrying standard for projects outside of the set style.
Milly Alcock and Eve Ridley in Supergirl
The deviations continue in the film’s narrative, as the film collapses the episodic and adventure-focused narrative of the comic into a more streamlined under-two-hour film. Removing so much of the narrative leads to many of the narrative swings feeling rushed and underdeveloped. The adventure allows Supergirl and Ruthye to rub off on each other, as Supergirl loses her faith and Ruthye finds a home in kindness and loses her need for revenge. Their relationship develops from the adventure of tracking down Krem, and the movie’s development between the two feels underdeveloped. Kara seems to be annoyed by her the entire movie, and suddenly during the third act comes to care for her. Eve Ridley is doing her best in a very stilted and underdeveloped shift, which has boiled down her character, Ruthye, into screaming the same lines about revenge and thats it. The addition of Jason Mamoa’s Lobo, who is absent from the original comic, feels like a waste of a role. Mamoa is great to watch on screen as the fan-favourite character, but the character is superfluous to the entire story, and leaves the plot changing nothing.
Matthias Schoenaerts in Supergirl
Krem of the Yellow Hills, the main villain of the comic and film, is retained fairly faithfully from the comic, outside of a design change. The character is easily the weakest part of the comic, serving as a fairly generic antagonist for our heroes to invoke their anger on. He remains the same here, a very boring and generic villain, and one that the film does not attempt to breathe any life into at all. The strongest part of the film is Supergirl herself, lead actress Milly Alcock delivers a very multi-layered performance as the character. It is not a simple character to pull off, she is a fearless warrior who is rude and a mess, dealing with her grief without truly confronting it, but still attempting to be kind and heroic. Her journey does have hiccups, but Alcock’s performance grounds this aspect of the film and allows it to have some level of emotion. The flashbacks to the destruction of Krypton is one of the most brutal aspects of the film, a section of the film that should have been expanded upon greatly. The effects, outside of some unremarkable green screen work, is well done and the action is entertaining. The movie manages to make Supergirl’s action feel distinctively different to Superman’s, even with the same power-set.
Supergirl is the fourth entry in Gunn’s new universe, and the first project not to be helmed by Gunn. The animated series, Creature Commandos, and Peacemaker’s second season served as the other two projects, removed from just Superman. As the first project without Gunn behind the creative chair, it shows a worrying chance that this universe will not be able to float without Gunn. It is also shows that Gunn needs to work hard as a leader, and not just a director. Gunn praised this script as one of his favourites, and has hired Ana Nogueira to work again on the scripts for their upcoming Wonder Woman and Teen Titans features. There needs to be a level of creative control behind the scenes to make sure a film this sloppy does not release again from the studio. Supergirl is not terrible, it has a enjoyable energy to it, and a great central performance, but it misunderstands its source material and makes all the wrong decisions in trying to adapt it. It is a disappointment for a universe that started off so strong
A24 seemed to have immense confidence with young filmmaker Kane Parsons when announcing that his YouTube web series, known as the Backrooms, would be adapted into a big-screen film. The original concept was formed on 4chan threads and Reddit posts, forming a liminal space where an alternate reality resembles empty office buildings, a forever growing and moving maze which would become more developed when people like Parsons would craft web series around the concept. Parsons’ series, which consists currently of 24 episodes, starting in 2022, expanded the world of the concept, introducing worldbuilding, entities that called the liminal space home and new locations outside of the regular, yellow-tinted office spaces. It is unusual for a big studio like A24 to take such a popular concept like the Backrooms and hand full creative control to one of its creators, Sony never gave any creative control to Eric Knudsen when transferring his creation, Slender Man to the big screen in 2018, so this is a very surprising move. Parsons, who was only twenty years old on release of this film, was given the reigns to direct the film, work with screenwriter Will Soodik on the screenplay and work with composer Edo Van Breemen on the score. This level of control over the film shows a great deal of confidence the studio had in this new filmmaker, and how much they believed in the concept, and this confidence really pays off in a creatively impressive feature.
The film stars Chiwetel Ejiofor and Renate Reinsve as Clark and Mary, two people dealing with their own separate trauma while Mary works as a psychiatrist and Clark as her patient. Clark, who owns a furniture store, finds the Backrooms dimension through his store’s basement, which brings the two together in a fight for survival. The first thing to note really with the movie is how wonderful these two central performances are. Soodik’s script is very barebones on characterisation, seemingly on purpose to allow the dream-like nature of the film to take shape. Much of the characterisation comes from imagery, or the performances. Some character changes may come unnaturally but the performances handle that uncertainty well, Ejiofor does a lot of heavy lifting as the Backrooms takes a handle on his mind, but he delivers it well. There is a lot to read about the characters from their actions, and from what is not specifically shown on screen, it is a subtle approach conveyed from the script. It is certainly not your traditional Hollywood horror feature, its symbolism and character growth can come off unnatural or confusing to a general audience, but if it gels with an audience, it really works. Reinsve herself, who has just come off an academy award nomination as best actress for Sentimental Value, is perfect as a therapist who is holding so much resentment and inner turmoil deep down. Her character journey, as subtle as it is, is handled very well.
It has been a long time since a director has been able to convey the dream-like nature of a David Lynch film, but Parsons nails it perfectly. The setting is conveyed in such a bizarre way, a bright and warm location that is still so eerie and claustrophobic, and one so bright that when the movie enters any dark locations, the horror hits even deeper. The unsung hero of this film is easily the crew behind the set design, they have nailed the location, and the exploration angle of the film is easily one of its best, the second act could have went forever and no one would have minded. Each location feels so alive and different, Parson’s expansion of the location into various other designs and colours allows the film to feel different from act to act, without the location ever feeling samey. Parsons has also just got an incredible grasp behind the camera, the film looks wonderful throughout, with beautiful cinematography from Jeremy Cox. There are some incredible shots in here from a big-budget first time director, he has an excellent handle on angles and there’s a great amount of transition shots here. There is an excellent use of found footage here as well, which harkens back to the YouTube series that started this, and works as the highlight of the film, both creatively and in a horror sense.
Renate Reinsve in Backrooms
The shared score between Parsons and Breemen really sells the dreamy nature of the film and helps the transition between dream and nightmare. The horror comes from the uncanny, and the eventual monster that chases our protagonists is easily going to be divisive for some audiences, but it works on a thematic angle, and its booming footsteps work for wonderful sound design. There could maybe be one or two jumpscares rooted out from the film, but the film has enough genuine intense sequences that a couple of lazy scares can easily be let off. The ending is where the film draws a line that very clearly sets up for a sequel, it is an abrupt and explains a little too much for a film that worked so well on uncertainty.
There could have been a better way to tie up some dangling threads and connect it back to the original web series, but what we get, while sloppy, still feels better than nothing. Mark Duplass’ character feels superfluous to the entire plot and could easily have been stripped from the movie to make room for a larger second act, with more character exploration and location exploration that seems to be saved for a sequel. Backrooms promises more and promises that Parsons can only improve from here. It is a confident debut feature, that feels like a proof of concept of where this Lynch-inspired filmmaker can go. It is intense, scary and imaginative in its filmmaking, and truly a much watch in this new modern horror landscape.
The Mummy is an outlier in the Universal Monsters brand, with all the monsters being reinvented consistently but usually in the same basic genre conventions. Horror is the common home for these monsters, and only some entries deviate from that genre. However, The Mummy stands as a franchise where each entry completely reinvents the wheel and becomes something incredibly different. The original Universal Monsters era focuses on horror, with gothic backdrops mixing with the archaeology angle, and completely leaving the desert setting by the final entries. Hammer horror brought the franchise back between 1959 and 1971, the only time the reboot matched the original in horror conventions, and by the time they brought the franchise back in 1999, it birthed a new life for itself as an action-adventure franchise. Starring Brendan Fraser, and easily the most popular era in the franchise, the films became Indiana Jones-style swashbuckling adventure films, with minimal horror moments, with three entries mixing out the horror for a focus on special effects, comedy and a central romance. The third film would become a critical dud, and following an animated spin-off series and a spin-off trilogy focused on original character, The Scorpion King, it came time to reinvent again in the 2010s. This saw another massive swing, as Universal rebirthed the franchise as the starter of a Cinematic Universe, the Dark Universe where the classic horror characters would become almost-superheroes. Outside of a successful box-office run-in China, the Tom Cruise-starring special effects blockbuster was a critical and commercial dud and destroyed the Dark Universe before it could even take-off, leading to all follow-ups being cancelled instantly. Now, we have arrived to 2026, and its time for Warner Bros and Blumhouse Productions to attempt another version of The Mummy, this time with director Lee Cronin attached.
Cronin got his start with the 2019 A24 feature film, The Hole in the Ground, but would gain massive success after directing the newest entry in the Evil Dead franchise, 2023’s Evil Dead Rise. Originally conceived as a streaming exclusive, the film got a larger theatrical release and became a box office success. Approached by producer James Wan, and offered his next project, here we come to Lee Cronin’s The Mummy. The production of this film has been at-times more interesting than the actual movie, from the troubled test screenings, the internet rumour that Warner Bros were looking to bury the film and release it under a new name as The Resurrected, and the choice to include Cronin’s name in the title to differentiate it from the recently announced fourth entry in the Brendan Fraser-starring The Mummy franchise which will hit theatres next year. It is a long-troubled road, but the film is finally on the big screen. The film follows a family who lose their daughter while on a work-trip in Cairo, only to be reunited with the daughter eight years later. Found in a sarcophagus, the mummified daughter comes back changed and wreaks havoc on her family.
Veronica Falcon in Lee Cronin’s The Mummy
The biggest problem that faces this version of The Mummy, which transforms the franchise into a modern horror gore-fest, is that it’s a hodgepodge of ideas that have done better in other films. It is essentially a remake of the Exorcist and then becomes a full-blown Evil Dead movie in its third act. Cronin turned down making a sequel to his smash-hit Evil Dead Rise to do this film, and what he has essentially done is trade out one Evil Dead film for another. Evil Dead Rise worked because it embraced the franchise’s focus on humour, riding the line perfectly as a horror-comedy, but this film attempts to do the same, but feels more like a parody film. There are some comedic moments, but the film takes itself incredibly seriously and takes all its ridiculous plot beats as emotional moments that it’s hard to judge if the comedic is on purpose.
The times when the Cronin of Evil Dead Rise shines through is when the film is at its best, the gore effects are intense and exhilarating, and the third act becomes a completely different film which makes the previous two acts feel like a chore for a better film. Cronin’s directing style is also stylish and impressive, he loves slanted angles and long-take pull back shots, he feels like an Evil Dead director. There is a massive Sam Raimi-feel to the entire film, it is just a massive shame that the film’s colour grading is so terrible at times. For a film that looks so cinematic and filled with detail, the colours are moody and grey in a way that even a horror movie should not be, it is hard to see anything, and even the daylight scenes look too moody. It is a modern problem for the entire Hollywood blockbuster, and it plagues this film increasingly. It plagues many films, but when there is an interesting narrative, it is easy to overlook these faults, but here, that’s just not the case.
Cronin’s script is messy in various ways, from the character-writing, the dialogue and especially the way the movie conveys its central mystery. The film was marketed under the mystery of what happened to Katie, and besides the title of the film obviously giving it away, and the film answers this question in its opening couple of minutes. However, the film still treats it as a mystery, and over-explains the mystery in the third act, when the characters finally learn, but the audience already knows and it feels like superfluous information. The film’s characters are also just incredibly irritating; Cronin seems to understand horror tropes more than anyone and is using each of them as a ticking box. Dumb character decisions are a staple of horror cinema, they complained about consistently in audience discourse, but they exist so a story can continue, no horror film would happen without some characters being dumb.
This film takes it to the next level however, each character feel like they share a single brain cell, and the parent’s over-the-top want to help their daughter and their belief there is nothing wrong with her is laughable throughout. The film mixes the daughter doing the most heinous acts, with the parents insisting to a comedic degree that she is fine, it would feel on purpose on something like Scary Movie, but the movie is attempting to have an emotional crux of its narrative, so it feels laughable in all the wrong ways. It does not help as well that the central characters are not given anything to do, and the very little characterisation they have been given is eyerolling at best. Jack Reynor and Laia Costa give very unconvincing performances as the parents of the family, but the question is really if it is down to themselves or the half-baked script, they have been given. Natalie Grace does a splendid job as the possessed Katie, and Billie Roy is very good as the family’s youngest child, Maud, but the possessed nature of the film just comes across as an attempt to just do the Exorcist again. Cronin has described the film as having an influence by Se7en, and that comes from a side-story featuring May Calamawy as a detective, looking for what really happened to Katie. It is easily the most entertaining part of the film, with a compelling shoot-out sequence, but it feels unnecessary, when the mystery is obvious and it is just conveying information that the audience already knows. It could have easily been extracted from the film to make more time for the family drama, or to develop the emotional ending of the film that never feels earned. The film is way too long, sitting a little over two-hours, without needing to be that long.
Natalie Grace in Lee Cronin’s The Mummy
The Mummy is a strange case; it is a film that it feels like it barely wants to be what the title is advertising. Any staples of the franchise, from tomb-raiding to an actual mummified corpse, is all thrown out for a generic possession film. It is a poor attempt to mix the possession angle of The Exorcist, the family grief drama of Hereditary, and then becomes a comedy in its finale as a homage to the Evil Dead. It’s a movie where every idea has been done better somewhere else, where it relies on so many generic tropes to tell its story. The characters are unengaging and deliver groan-inducing dialogue in every sequence, making the only rewarding part of the experience the excellent direction and the great gore. The third act is delightfully absurd, but to get there, you must drift through a horrendous first two acts.
Video game movies seem to be a hot commodity in Hollywood these days, with so many games being translated to the big and small screen, from HBO’S The Last of Us adaptation, Tom Holland starring in Uncharted, to the now trilogy of Sonic the Hedgehog movies. With the clear downtrend in the superhero genre, this seems to be the new trend, and it’s a certified way to make money, with movies like A Minecraft Movie making close to a billion dollars, even with a very lukewarm word of mouth. These movies really seem critic proof, people are fans of these properties and will come out in droves to see them adapted. Nintendo, easily the biggest video game company on the planet, would not be expected to so quickly join this trend, especially with how protective they are of their intellectual property. Nintendo already attempted to go to the big screen in 1993, with a live action take on the Super Mario Brothers, a film which seemed to burn them for a long time about ever putting their properties back on the big screen. The film was a commercial and critical failure, and remains a laughingstock by its cast and crew, becoming a cult classic by the modern day.
Fans would be surprised then when a new take on the beloved Nintendo property would be announced in 2020, a animated film from Despicable Me creators, Illumination, and would be further surprised when the cast become a major online discussing point, from Chris Pratt as the lead character, to Jack Black as super villain Bowser, to Seth Rogen as Donkey Kong. These casting choices would become memes, and would cause genuine internet discourse, but when the film came to release, these critiques were for nothing, as the film generated over a billion dollars and became the second highest grossing film of the year. A beautifully animated film but one devoid of anything substantial outside of making references to the games themselves, the film seemed created as a reference machine, an easter egg hunt for characters you recognise, leaving behind many typical narrative or characterisation elements that you would need in a film. The success however clearly led to renewed interest in Nintendo crafting big screen content, with a live action Legend of Zelda being in production, and Illumination’s Mario sequel hitting the big screen this week.
The Super Mario Galaxy Movie, based on the game that it shares a title with and its sequel, picks up after the events of the previous film. Mario and Luigi are now protectors of the Mushroom Kingdom, and Bowser is imprisoned and attempting to make amends. However, the two brothers, Princess Peach and Toad must go on a new adventure into outer space to save the intergalactic princess Rosalina. The princess has been imprisoned by Bowser Jr, who seeks to free his father and help him take over the universe. Along the way, the characters will run into various other references that the previous film did not manage to get to.
In a similar way to the first film, the movie’s focus is the constant iconography it can throw in your face, the unrelenting number of cameos and references to every game in the franchise could be fun for the fans, but for anyone else, it is exhausting. The first film however was an origin story and had the smallest semblance of a narrative going on, with at least a hero’s journey for its title character. This time around, there is a narrative to hinge references on, but no character goes for an arc, there is very little time for any interesting plot, it essentially exists to act as a rollercoaster, travelling from one reference to the next. The characters in this movie do not feel like actual characters, each element feels so committee-managed, and like that Nintendo committee feels scared to even give its most famous characters some sort of flaws. Mario goes through no character arc in this film, he begins and ends the film the same, it is a video game movie at the end of the day, but when translating from one medium to another, you would expect at least plot-less games like the earliest Mario games to be translated into a actual narrative for a big-budget feature.
The main problem with the narrative comes from how incredibly fast-paced the movie is, at slightly over 90 minutes, the film does not allow its characters or audience to breathe for one second. It feels like a film designed for the TikTok audience age, moving at a blistering pace to keep the audience’s attention, and throwing enough new at the audience in each scene to further keep that attention. This short-runtime and fast pace however leave every character somehow feeling lost in their own film, Mario feels like a secondary character in his own film, you could probably count on two hands the number of lines the character says across the film. There are so many characters running around that there is no focus given to any of them, and attempts at character arcs fall flat because of how fast they are resolved. Bowser attempts to redeem myself, and then falls back into villainy across two scenes, with his turn back to the dark side feel laughable how quickly it happens.
Casting celebrity voices as these characters was a massive mode of contention when the first film was announced, with mostly all the cast delivering solid performances across that initial feature. Falling back into the cameo-fest notion, the casting of various new characters was the focus of the marketing of this film, with some of these castings really showcasing the marketing machine that Nintendo is. The announcement of Glen Powell portraying Star Fox, a Nintendo character outside of the Mario Universe, felt like a strange announcement when it’s a late-game cameo in the movie. The knowledge however that Nintendo is supposedly creating a new Star Fox game and setting up a shared Nintendo universe, which could lead to a Super Smash Bros movie, makes the film’s choice to stop halfway through to include the character feel incredibly obvious. Powell is good in the role however, but he feels out of place, and feels more like an IP mine in hopes of also getting his own standalone film.
The rest of the new cast are very solid, Donald Glover makes noises as Yoshi, and the character will walk away being one of the highlights of the movie. Benny Safdie is surprisingly great as new villain Bowser Jr, a winy and obnoxious performance as a petulant child, it really works. Brie Larson feels wasted as Princess Rosalina, a character central to the narrative but only in the characters attempting to save her. Returning actors Charlie Day and Keegan Michael Key deliver good performances as Luigi and Toad, feeling like the actors who are easily fitted to their roles the most. Jack Black, who walked away with a hilarious song and a memorable performance last time, walks away feeling from this with a very wok-man like performance as Bowser, there is nothing really to say about his performance. Chris Pratt and Anya Taylor Joy are really the weakest parts of the cast, as the main characters Mario and Peach, they feel asleep behind the wheel voice-acting wise and clearly not interested in the material. You cannot help but feel bad for them though, when they are acting out such uninteresting material, where the movie essentially allows them the privilege to not even try.
It is all a massive shame as well however, because the animation is truly excellent, this is the best-looking Illumination movie ever made, and all the visual noise of references still manages to look pretty. The worlds look fleshed out and nice, and the movie does manage to be fun because of so. It is a film that will entertain its target demographic of children and super-fans of the franchise, but it does not offer much else outside of that. The comedy misses more than it hits, and the best parts of it feel like the bizarre casting choices that led up to its release. The first film was not the best but at least had a barebones plot for a general audience to latch onto, this one is just visual noise designed to mine as much IP as possible from this property. There are certainly worse ways to spend 90 minutes, but god only knows how much worse the next one could possibly get
Currently in cinemas are two films that could be easily mistaken for each other, with Radio Silence’s follow-up to their breakout hit Ready Or Not releasing last week, and They Will Kill You starring Zazie Beetz also opening in a close time. Both films follow characters being hunted by rich socialites in a game of sport or a game of life and death, with a supernatural twist, focusing on a working class versus upper class dynamic. The differences come down to setting, but there mix of horror, thriller and comedy makes them feel like sister-films, it is not hard to see They Will Kill You being inspired by Radio Silence’s original Ready or Not. With how similar these films are, it is only appropriate to tackle a review of these films in one article, appraising them for their similarities and differences.
They Will Kill You
Starting with the original feature, They Will Kill You follows an ex-convict who starts working as a housekeeper at a mysterious New York high-rise. She soon realises she has applied to a job run by a community of rich socialites who are involved in a series of disappearances. The biggest problem of this film is how derivate it is, after a central twist which was hidden in the marketing, the film falls back into the common conventions of these survival action-horrors, and the narrative becomes incredibly predictable. After this initial supernatural twist, which the marketing hid by showcasing most of the first act as the main footage in those trailers, the film enters a great rhythm that gets slowed down heavily until an utterly bizarre third act. Besides it’s obvious inspiration from Ready or Not, the film very clearly holds its influences from films like Evil Dead, The Raid and John Wick very earnestly, as its bloody action feels stylized in a way that recreates the video-gamey decisions made behind the camera for the newest John Wick feature.
Inspirations from Tarantino also appear commonly, namely in the very first action sequence which feels very Kill Bill-Esque. The action is easily one of the highlights of the film, playing every action beat so comedically and with so much stylisation behind the camera that you can very easily forgive some of the pitfalls the movie falls through. Director Kirill Sokolov has made a career for making darkly comedic action films, and he clearly knows his way around a camera, there are so many dynamic camera movements here that make the action feel alive and fluid, tracking shots are a highlight of this very feature. There are some visual effects that feel out of place in the carnage, but it strangely gives the film a campy effect, something that makes it feel very rooted in tone to Evil Dead 2. The action is bloody and violent, with some excellent kills, and a great final sequence which is lit by inflamed fire axe, and the film delivers a great balance between serious gore with comedic sequences featuring those kills. The films’ supernatural twist allows for some hilarious moments where the insanity of the plot becomes a goldmine for physical comedy. A great score from Carlos Rafael Rivera and a great use of hip-hop backing track gives the action some great rhythm and movement.
It is the characters which really hold this film back from being anything other than solid. These horror-action films can really be defined by how memorable its group of characters are, from its protagonist to the group of villains that are designed to either be comedic foils or beyond evil and designed to make you want them to be killed. The villains here are so surface level and undeveloped that an audience will feel nothing when their narrative is wrapped up. They exist to hunt our protagonist and that is it, the only one who is given anything to do is Patricia Arquette’s lead villain. Arquette seems to be playing the same character she plays in Severance, with an inconsistent accent and a backstory which feels like an afterthought with how very little it gets brought up.
Her connection to another character feels surface-level and shows that such a brisky 90-minute film could have maybe done with an extra ten minutes of runtime to develop some of the background characters. Zazie Beetz is really the star of the film and is holding the entire narrative on her back. She has proven herself as an action star starring as Marvel superhero Domino in Deadpool 2, and she continues to impress as a leading woman here. She is burdened by a superfluous family plot, which feels so tropey for these types of films, that even Ready or Not 2 does the same thing and feels so barebones. Beetz manages to bring out some level of emotion from that plot, but it all feels a little empty when you must look at anything over than the action and gore
Ready or Not 2: Here I Come
Moving onto the sequel to the inspiration for They Will Kill You. The original Ready or Not was a surprise hit when it came out in 2019, a fun and refreshing survival film where a woman must survive until dawn while being hunted by her new in-laws on the night of her wedding. The movie skyrocketed the directing duo Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett and their production company Radio Silence into major success, as they were instantly given the opportunity to make two Scream movies, and their upcoming project is a new sequel to Brendan Fraser’s Mummy franchise. A sequel to their breakout hit would have been the obvious next step along the way, and here we have it. Ready or Not 2: Here I Come picks up instantly after their original feature, as Samara Weaving’s Grace is recovering from surviving the brutal game of hide and seek that led to the death of her entire new family. Surviving the game has triggered a power-play with the elite families that run the games, leading them to use Grace in a new game, where she must protect her sister in a familiar situation.
That is easily the biggest problem with this sequel, everything feels very familiar. It feels like a typical 80s or 90s sequel, a Ghostbusters 2 or Beverly Hills Cop 2, where they are essentially the same films beat for beat as the original, just with new villains. The only big difference is their attempts to go bigger, and Ready or Not 2 does go bigger. It benefits from the fact that the supernatural elements are out of the bag now, they were a closing twist in the original, but now the film gets to run with that supernatural angle, and it allows for some very compelling visuals and kills. The main way however that the film decides to go bigger is through both the multiple families hunting the protagonists, and through the addition of Grace’s sister, meaning there is two being hunted this time rather than just one.
The addition of multiple families’ facilities the same plot being laid out, just with more characters now hunting than just one family, but the film does do something that They Will Kill You failed to do, make its villains interesting and compelling. The various families all have interesting quirks and play off each other in compelling ways, all out for themselves, whether it makes them scary or pathetic, leading to tension and comedy. Elijah Wood plays a fun role as the lawyer for each family, a man just concerned with the game and nothing else, and Sarah Michelle Gellar and Shawn Hatosy deliver great performances as the film’s central antagonists. Hatosy delivers a very chilling performance in the final act, but a performance that isn’t scared to lean into zaniness at the same time.
Kathryn Newton plays Grace’s sister, Faith, as the film develops Grace more as an estranged sister. Newton and Weaving have great chemistry, but their arguing and cliché family relationship can get tedious after a while. It feels like a plot thread in They Will Kill You, but this film gives more time to develop that relationship, even if does feel incredibly cliché. Weaving continues to shine as a scream-queen, and you cannot help but enjoy her banshee-like scream, and her commitment to being covered in fake blood and taking part in ballsy action sequences. The film is more comedy focused than its predecessor, relying a lot more on the comedic aspects of the bloody action, and the comedic twinge allows it to standout. The editing in this is immaculate, with great comedic timing throughout, and the action is consistent throughout. It loses the claustrophobic nature of the original film’s setting, but that might be a good trade-out for a sequel with double the laughs, a bigger body count, more blood and a bigger cast of characters to work with. It will never hold a candle to the original, but Ready or Not 2 is still a very good time
Writer Andy Weir has already gotten one of his famous novels to hit the big screen and to tremendous success, with 2015 seeing the release of the big screen adaptation of his novel, The Martian. Directed by Ridley Scott, the film followed an astronaut who must survive after being left behind on a mission to Mars, a drama-filled and emotionally focused survival film which became the 10th highest grossing film of the year. The film was nominated for seven awards at the year’s Academy Awards, including the notable awards for Best Picture and Best Actor for leading man Matt Damon. This saw a clear hunger for studios for more of Weir’s work, and when his 2021 novel, Project Hail Mary, was purchased for a film adaptation by MGM before it was even released, it clearly showed that Weir’s work was made for film.
The novel was picked up for film in 2020, with Ryan Gosling already set to star and produce, with Phil Lord and Chris Miller attached to direct, famous directors and producers who had created such iconic franchises, as the Lego Movies, Cloudy with A Chance of Meatballs, the animated Spider-Man Spider-Verse films and 21 and 22 Jump Street. Drew Goddard would return as screenwriter, after previously writing the screenplay for The Martian, and the massive changes between scripts is remarkable. 5 years after the release of the novel, and the film has hit the big screen, with the film currently making a major profit in its box office journey. The film follows Gosling as schoolteacher and former molecular biologist Ryland Grace, who wakes up adrift in space with no memories of how he got there. Alone and confused, he slowly pieces his past back together as he realises, he has been sent on a mission to save the world, and more specifically the sun, and the problem only becomes more complex as he runs into an unlikely ally.
The biggest praise that could be given to this film is that it certainly feels like a film Spielberg could have made during his blockbuster days, it may be derivative in various aspects, but it wears its influences on its sleeve in the most earnest way. It’s a crowd-pleasing blockbuster which feels more comedic and imaginative than The Martian, that film feels very based in science and drama, a awards-pleaser, this feels designed to be incredibly broad in its appeal to a general audience, and to be more focused on spectacle and entertainment. This type of film could come off as cookie-cutter and safe, but Phil Lord and Chris Miller are excellent directors, who have played with genre filmmaking a lot through their careers, making every simplistic moment feel awe-inspiring and classically imaginative. There is a pure wit to the film that comes from Lord and Miller delivering dialogue handed to them from Goddard’s multi-faceted script, dialogue that feels so snappy and like their Jump Street films that it is insane that they were not involved in the scripting phase of the film. The third part of why the script comes alive in such a snappy way is because of Ryan Gosling, a naturally charismatic leading actor who is always reliable in every film he is featured in. The actor has been having a very interesting last couple of years, mainly focusing on starring in action movies and blockbusters, whether it is the Barbie movie or the film adaptation of old Hollywood series The Fall Guy, and soon the upcoming Star Wars film, Star Wars: Starfighter.
Ryan Gosling in Project Hail Mary
Even if he has been starring in mainly franchise material, he is always committing to putting in an incredible performance and really stands out as the highlight of each film he is in. This film, with its amnesia plotline, really allows Gosling to flex his acting skills, as he essentially plays two separate characters. The film plays out its plot through flashbacks, as the amnesiac Ryland recalls his past, with the film flashing back and forth between the present storyline and the events that lead up to these moments. It is a genius idea that helps the film to feel incredibly tightly paced, stopping the audience from a slow first act where you build to Gosling travelling to space, and instead those moments help to alleviate tension and become great snapshots of character work. Gosling’s earth-based moments showcase a nervous and un-heroic character who is more contained in his science, a man who has potential but is too scared to face that potential. The version of Gosling that populates the main sections of the narrative is more like his normal film persona, he’s witty and confident, but still with the smarts and some of the insecurities that come from his past. Gosling also just knows how to play with an audience’s emotions, and he works tremendously well with the emotional moments, with the film’s feel-good and positive mentality working hand in hand with this performance. The performance would be nowhere as good if he wasn’t working off his co-star, an alien named Rocky. Rocky is a second act reveal and will not be discussed too heavily here in the review for spoilers, but he is featured in the trailers, so it is only right to briefly discuss.
Rocky serves as Gosling’s best friend, and the dynamic between the two is electric on screen. Rocky will easily become one of the most favourite characters of the 2026 film season, he was designed to be popular, with a cute design, and a great sense of humour. It should be applauded how easily Gosling is able to act against nothing, in a film where he is essentially on-screen by himself, and how perfect Goddard’s script is in breathing life into a talking rock and making every scene with him feeling so palpable and real. The heart of the film is the dynamic between Ryland and Rocky, and the film pulls it off masterfully.
If there is one downside to the film, its that the side characters in the earth segments feel slightly under-developed. The flashback segments are crucial, for building Ryland’s hero-journey and showing the scale of the threat, but it mainly is enjoyable because of Gosling. Sandra Huller, fresh from her massive-scale new global prominence from her two films of 2023, Anatomy of a Fall and The Zone of Interest, is the standout of the supporting cast. She has a great solo singing sequence, which stands as one of the emotional centres of the flashback, but the rest of the cast are given virtually nothing, Ken Leung and Milana Vayntrub play the roles of co-pilots on the spaceship and the film’s synopsis gives more away than anything for how small their roles are going to be. Essentially the film serves as a one-man show, between a man and his rock friend, and the flashbacks serve to make those sequences hit even harder. These scenes are also paired with some of the most impressive effects that’s been in a blockbuster in years. Special effects are taken for granted now, when most films are covered in special effects, or filmed entirely on green-screens, and for this film to deliver such incredible sequences which is directed so perfectly, even if its all visual effects, it shows how groundbreaking these sequences can still be.
There is a warmth to this film that is hard to see in many modern-day blockbusters, an earnest positivity that is palpable on the screen. The film roots its narrative in science and real-world drama, but never gets stuck in gloominess or paranoia, and instead leans back on comedy and a perfect dynamic between Gosling’s Ryland and Rocky, a dynamic which holds the film together perfectly. Gosling has truly proven himself as a great leading man, a capable and charming actor who can literally act opposite a rock, and this is a film worthy of such a strong performance
Adaptations of Mary Shelley’s classic 1818 horror novel Frankenstein has been a hot commodity in the last couple of years in Hollywood, as various directors have put their own two cents on the classic novel. From Guillermo Del Toro’s long-standing adaptation finally seeing the light of day on Netflix last year, to the horror-comedy inspired by 2009’s Jennifer’s Body, Lisa Frankenstein. Yorgos Lanthimos’ Poor Things, an adaptation of the novel of the same name, takes a lot of inspiration from the Frankenstein story, and does everything what this year’s newest Frankenstein adaptation tries to do. The Bride, Maggie Gyllenhaal’s sophomore feature after her smash-hit The Lost Daughter, attempts to take a feminist approach to the original text, and put its own spin on Universal’s classic sequel, 1935’s The Bride of Frankenstein.
A feminist take on the material is a confusing order of events when the text itself is incredibly feminist and written by a woman at the end of the day. However, there was a chance to craft something new and modern with the material, but what Gyllenhaal has delivered is a hodgepodge of ideas from other films, from Joker, Bonnie and Clyde, Natural Born Killers to Poor Things in a mess of a feature. The project was originally developed for a Netflix release but was bought out by Warner Bros when Netflix dropped the picture after a budget dispute with the director, and this purchase allowed the director more freedom behind the camera and led to an expensive film being made. It is always important for a director to realise their vision, but there are times when a director needs to be reined in and limited in scope, and that comes as one of the biggest problems of this feature. The film stars Jessie Buckley and Christian Bale, as the titular character and Frankenstein’s Monster respectively, as Buckley’s character becomes possessed by the spirit of Mary Shelley, starting a journey into the true story that the author ‘wanted’ to make. The Monster, known as Frank, revives Buckley’s Ida to find love in his lonely life, only to cause a series of events which lead them on the run from the law.
Christian Bale and Jessie Buckley in The Bride
Jessie Buckley and Christian Bale are easily the highlights of the film, two committed actors who are giving performances that this film does not deserve. Buckley is currently the front-runner for the best actress award for her role in Hamnet at this year’s Oscars, and her performance here is a complete blast. The material feels lesser to such a talented actress, but she pulls it off. The addition of the possession of Mary Shelley, who appears in black-and-white also played by Buckley, comes as the only negative to this performance. The inclusion comes across like the character has a form of Tourette’s, with Buckley twitching and suddenly switching to a British accent, and saying something ‘smart and sophisticated’, which usually means random rhyming that has little to do with what is going on. It becomes irritating by the tenth or eleventh time it is done in the film, and the inclusion of these lines comes across incredibly pretentious and becomes even more ridiculous once they are dropped by the third act and become irrelevant. Bale and Buckley share great chemistry, and Bale delivers a performance that feels incredibly more vulnerable and layered compared to anything he has done in the last couple of years. Annette Bening also deserves a strong shoutout for committing to an incredibly goofy and strange character but is severely missed whenever she is not on screen.
It is everything else in the film that forms the film into an incredible mess, a tonal and genre mess that does not know what it wants to be. There is an incredible musical sequence half-way through the film, where the film leans heavily into the zany and over-the-top nature of the story, and it’s magnificent to watch unfold. However, it is the only time that the film does something like this, there’s moments where Frank sees himself in movies, dream sequences almost in black-and-white photography, conveying a connection between the monsters and the arts but it feels like something that is not developed on at all. The film constantly moves between feeling dark and serious, and zany and goofy, and each time it pings pongs back and forth it is incredibly jarring to watch. Bale feels like a living cartoon at times, but then it is paired with incredibly sexual imagery, and scenes focusing on sexual assault and the tone becomes incredibly jarring. One of the film’s biggest problems is how it refuses to commit to a genuine tone, narrative or message, instead feeling like a grab-bag of everything that the director could have made across multiple films. A Bonnie and Clyde story focused on Frankenstein and his bride is a remarkable idea, but then you also must deal with a villainous mob boss, a police corruption storyline with two investigators following our lead’s crimes, and a female uprising against sexual and domestic abuse.
Jessie Buckley and Christian Bale in The Bride
The themes of femicide and power dynamics in relationships are very important, but they are not developed enough and instead feels like window-dressing or a prop that was meant to be developed later. Women taking to the streets in a violent mob in protest feels like a carbon copy of Joker, where the same happens after the lead character’s appearance on TV, while there it was a burning catalyst to a movie’s worth of exploration, here it thrown in and forgotten about instantly, a fun idea that just exists. The biggest theme seems to be an exploration into the controlling of women, femicide and sexual abuse against women, but the film explores this so sloppily that it comes across as toxic itself. Every time our lead gets in danger, it’s Frank that gets here out of the trouble, how are we meant to get the film’s message of women being strong and independent if the main character does not reflect this message. It only gets worse when the film is so inept in trying to convey its message, that there is an entire scene where the lead conveys the message of the film verbally, spelling out what the film is attempting to convey to the audience, in the sloppiest way possible.
What the film really needs is to pick a lane and keep with it, every time Bale and Buckley are on screen the film is magnificent, and whenever the film leaves those two characters, it truly dips. The exploration into how film connects these two characters, and how the escapism of those films helps them deal with their lives is very compelling, but every time you get lost in that, the film cuts back to the police officers, or the mob storyline. The police storyline itself feels like one of the easiest cuts the film could have made, with Peter Sarsgaard and Penelope Cruz working together to hunt Frank and The Bride. Cruz is the subordinate in the relationship, Sarsgaard’s assistant who is not allowed on the force but is the one who has the true detective instinct, as Sarsgaard claims the credit. It could have been a good storyline, but it feels like a loose part in a story not about them, and the dialogue between the two is some of the most heavy-handed writing in a big-budget film in a long while. It is a film that has messages but deploys them so sloppily and by using Mary Shelley to make them seem preachy and pretentious, but it’s writing does not hit the same marks that the film thinks it is reaching.
Jessie Buckley and Christian Bale in The Bride
Director focused passion projects are important, and Maggie Gyllenhaal very clearly had a lot of passion when crafting this film. It has gorgeous looking cinematography, and some very striking sequences, alongside three great central performances. However, the film is just a mess of ideas that leave it feeling anything but cohesive. Cuts needed to be made, and the film needed to become more focused, but in its current state, it feels like a film that is basically about everything but nothing at the same time.
Rhys Reviews 