Reviews by PvtCaboose91

A festive movie offering from the United Kingdom, 2022's This Is Christmas is a pleasantly surprising gem that is destined to become a cherished holiday favourite in the same league as Nativity! and Love Actually. Despite the poster, title and premise suggesting another disposable Hallmark-like production, the resultant movie is a charming delight from start to finish, benefitting from a winning ensemble cast and a touching message. There are amusing moments, but This Is Christmas does not live and die by its comedy - it's not a frenzied, fast-paced slapstick affair that lurches from comedic set piece to comedic set piece. Rather, the pacing is measured and thoughtful, with strong and considered storytelling, and the movie is first and foremost about the story and its characters. Without a doubt, This Is Christmas is one of the best Christmas movies of the last ten years.

Idealistic advertising executive Adam (Alfred Enoch) undertakes a daily commute on a train from Langton to London for work, and always encounters the same group of passengers with whom he never converses. With Christmas approaching, an unexpected show of support from his fellow commuters towards Dean (Jack Donoghue) during a confrontation with the conductor (Steve Oram) inspires Adam to plan a Christmas party for the Langton to London cohort. Although the idea is immediately met with scepticism, Adam finds a kindred spirit in a chef, Emma (Kaya Scodelario), who volunteers to help plan and organise the party. As the date draws closer, the event motivates the passengers to begin talking and bonding with one another, learning more about these strangers they see on a daily basis.

Scripted by Alastair Galbraith (a long-time television actor), the message at the core of This Is Christmas is simple but worthwhile, underscoring the importance of getting to know people and not passing judgment on strangers. Everybody has their own lives and problems, and some people's personal circumstances might be less than ideal. It also posits that talking to strangers in your lives - such as your neighbours or fellow commuters - might lead to something great. Although This Is Christmas has its flights of rom-com fancy, the victories throughout the story are earned instead of contrived, making the clichés virtually invisible and preventing the narrative from feeling generic. Additionally, the characterisations and relationships that develop throughout the story are engaging, and it's easy to grow to care about this group of people. Most heartwarming is Dean's friendship with Ray (Timothy Spall), an older man with an intriguing past who is poised to spend another Christmas alone.

The immaculate execution separates This Is Christmas from similar productions - it looks thoroughly cinematic despite its meagre budget, with gorgeously slick and colourful visuals, while the story is grounded in reality. Director Chris Foggin (Fisherman's Friends) takes the material seriously, while cinematographer David Mackie likewise brings his A-game to the production. Even though production took place during warmer months, This Is Christmas effortlessly captures the feeling and atmosphere of the festive season; the sense of time and place is authentic, and it never looks like the action is occurring on cheap sets or backlots. The tender original score by Christian Henson (Triangle, Black Death) enhances the picture's emotion and sense of whimsicalness, and it does not lather on the Yuletide-flavoured music, which is refreshing for a Christmas movie. Naturally, a collection of Christmas songs pepper the soundtrack, and the selection is surprisingly thoughtful - it does not feel like the filmmakers chose obvious festive songs for their popularity. The construction of This Is Christmas is anything but slapdash, and it's a shame that the movie did not receive the major theatrical release that it richly deserves.

The casting is flawless across the board, with the endearing Enoch and Scodelario an ideal screen pair who share superb chemistry. More seasoned actors like Spall, Ben Miller and Rebecca Root contribute further gravitas to the production, elevating the material. This Is Christmas is not garishly sentimental or cheesy, nor does it feel like a cheap or nasty Christmas movie that was hurriedly thrown together to take advantage of the festive season. There is a genuine, thoughtful story here with ample relevance and emotional resonance, and it successfully depicts a variety of people during the holiday season of different backgrounds and ethnicities. Christmas is a vast and crowded cinematic arena, but This Is Christmas is worth your attention.

7.9/10

Another "alternative" Hollywood Christmas movie in a sea of festive romantic comedies from Hallmark and various streaming services, 2022's Violent Night situates an embittered, alcoholic Santa Claus (David Harbour) in a Die Hard scenario with satisfying, crowd-pleasing results. Although the one-joke premise is decidedly B-grade and suggests a cheap, trashy, straight-to-video distraction, Violent Night is a spirited and slickly-executed action-comedy that delivers ample violence and laughs without any unwelcome pretensions. Directed by Norwegian filmmaker Tommy Wirkola (Dead Snow, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters), the film does not take itself too seriously, as the director adopts a devilishly enjoyable tongue-in-cheek approach while exploring the premise's ludicrous potential. For viewers who wanted 2020's Fatman to be more action-packed, Violent Night is the Santa action movie you seek.

On Christmas Eve, Jason Lightstone (Alex Hassell) takes his estranged wife, Linda (Alexis Louder), and their daughter, Trudy (Leah Brady), to visit his extended family for the holidays. The celebration is at a luxurious mansion owned by Gertrude (Beverly D'Angelo), a powerful corporate titan and the family's matriarch who holds her wealth over everybody. The dreary gathering is interrupted by the arrival of Mr. Scrooge (John Leguizamo), whose crew of armed mercenaries kill the staff and seize control of the lavish estate, taking the family hostage as they work to unlock Gertrude's secret vault to steal the vast fortune stored inside. Their only hope for rescue is Santa Claus, who drunkenly visits to deliver gifts but is stranded when gunfire scares away his reindeer. With no other choice, Santa begins killing his way through Mr. Scrooge's crew one by one, fighting for his survival and the survival of the dysfunctional Lightstone family.

With a screenplay by Pat Casey and Josh Miller (Sonic the Hedgehog), Violent Night lovingly homages several Yuletide classics: plot points are reminiscent of Die Hard and Die Hard 2, the family dynamics are similar to The Ref, there are multiple references to Home Alone (including a terrific Home Alone-inspired set piece), Beverly D'Angelo's presence pays tribute to National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation, and the opening scene of Santa drinking in a bar invokes Bad Santa. With no originality to the story, it all comes down to the execution, and Violent Night is a sure-fire winner in this respect. Frequently fast-paced and brutal, the picture lives up to its title by lathering on the violence during the entertaining action set pieces, and it's pitched at precisely the right tone. After all, this is a movie about the real, magical Santa Claus fighting a group of terrorists - and the flick gleefully embraces the inherent ridiculousness of the premise.

With Wirkola at the helm, Violent Night has ample personality, which allows the movie to shine and feel like more than a lifeless Hollywood holiday offering. Wirkola brings his distinct European tendencies to the flick, particularly in terms of tone, and he even uses recognisable Christmas tunes during the action sequences. Dark humour permeates the action beats, with moments spotlighting Santa taking a leak off the side of his sleigh in mid-flight, and chastising the baffled terrorists as he rattles off their childhood Christmas wishes. Santa also uses his Christmas magic in creative ways, including going through his sack to find any toy he can use as a weapon. (Die Hard on Blu-ray is one gift that emerges from the magical bag.) Although the digital effects are a little rocky at times, Violent Night otherwise looks splendid, with colourful, vivid cinematography by Wirkola regular Matthew Weston that smoothly captures the carnage.

Clocking in at nearly two hours, Violent Night has room for the characters and story to breathe. The Lightstone family receive sufficient development, allowing the ensemble to feel like more than one-dimensional hostages, while several of the cannon fodder henchmen (with their amusing Christmas-themed callsigns) actually possess distinct personalities. It's a pleasure to see D'Angelo in anything, and she makes for a wonderful Gertrude, scoring many laughs with her acerbic wit. Cam Gigandet is another standout, clearly having a ball as a cheesy, over-the-top, self-serious action star named Morgan Steel, who has an inflated opinion of himself and his work. It's possibly the actor's best role. But the star of the show is Harbour, who's note-perfect as Santa. Violent Night presents a unique interpretation of the jolly old fat man, revealing his backstory as a brutal warrior who killed many people on ancient battlefields and who revives his barbaric tendencies in the action sequences here. Harbour receives confident support from Leah Brady as Trudy, who still believes in Santa and everything that Christmas represents. Essentially the Al Powell to Santa's John McClane, the two interact over two-way radios throughout the night, and the chemistry between the pair thoroughly sparkles. Also of note is Leguizamo, who was actually in Die Hard 2 in the early stages of his career, and who plays a fine, scenery-chewing villain.

In the tradition of Die Hard and Lethal Weapon, Violent Night works as a Christmas movie and an action flick, and it is enjoyable at any time of year. Although it's not exactly deep or meaningful, the film's ending is surprisingly touching, reinforcing the importance of believing in Santa to keep the magic of Christmas alive. Those who prefer sentimental and romantic Christmas movies should stay clear of Violent Night, but it's recommended viewing for those seeking a fun and funny festive offering with a unique take on the legendary Father Christmas.

7.8/10

"Life is about courage and going into the unknown."

Before Ben Stiller signed on to direct and star in 2013's The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, numerous esteemed filmmakers - including Gore Verbinski, Steven Spielberg and Ron Howard - were in talks to helm the picture. Stiller, therefore, is a peculiar candidate for the film considering his comedic background, but the director's attempt to expand his artistic horizons thankfully pays off. Loosely based on the short story by James Thurber (which was also adapted into a 1947 film starring Danny Kaye), The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is enchanting - a heartfelt, visually accomplished gem, and one of the most refreshing motion pictures of 2013. It feels like an authentic cinematic experience, offering gorgeous locations, a touching narrative, gentle humour, and some poignant underlying themes. I loved it.

The lonely and meek Walter Mitty (Stiller) is a negative assets manager for Life Magazine in New York City who's responsible for developing the images he receives from various photographers for use in the publication. His life is uneventful and adventure-free, but he's a chronic daydreamer, frequently slipping into elaborate fantasies to cope with his shortcomings, and he quietly crushes on his female co-worker, Cheryl (Kristen Wiig). With the magazine now led by a snobby executive, Ted (Adam Scott), Life is about to become an online-only publication, which means job cuts. As the team begins working on the magazine's final physical issue, Walter receives a roll of film from esteemed photojournalist Sean O'Connell (Sean Penn). Sean has an image in mind for Life's last issue that he believes captures the "quintessence of life," but the negative for the photograph is missing from the roll. Panicking, and with his job hanging in the balance, Walter seeks to track O'Connell down, setting off on a perilous multi-country odyssey to retrieve the image before the deadline.

Although The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is technically an adaptation of Thurber's short story and a remake of the 1947 film, this version is its own distinctive entity, with screenwriter Steve Conrad (The Pursuit of Happyness) plotting his own path to bring the tale into the 21st Century while retaining the same spirit. How amusing that one of the most refreshing and, frankly, original movies of 2013 is a loose adaptation of pre-existing material. Stiller's most notable directorial efforts tickle the funny bone (Tropic Thunder, Zoolander), but he dabbled in drama with Reality Bites in 1994, and The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is more of an adventure and a drama than a comedy. Conrad's screenplay concerns itself with weighty themes, as this is a touching meditation on not taking risks and letting fear hold you back in life. Nevertheless, humour is not absent from the picture, as some interactions are amusing - just see Walter's fantasies when he insults Ted, or a scene in Greenland of Walter talking to an alcoholic helicopter pilot (Ólafur Darri Ólafsson).

The sedate tone makes The Secret Life of Walter Mitty so enthralling: it feels like a proper film instead of a cheap Hollywood comedy, which is a testament to the talented creative team behind the picture. Stuart Dryburgh's cinematography is breathtaking, ensuring the movie always looks striking and expensive. Dryburgh marvellously captures the picturesque land and water locations, superbly showing off the natural beauty of countries like Greenland and Iceland. Gorgeously shot on 35mm film, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty looks gloriously cinematic, with a mature visual appearance adding genuine gravitas to the picture. With digital photography more prevalent than ever (especially in 2023), the decision to shoot on celluloid is enormously appreciable, resulting in a luscious filmic texture that digital cameras cannot satisfactorily imitate. Additionally, the special effects give vivid life to Walter's heroic fantasies and his actual exploits, including a tense shark encounter. One of the film's highlights involves Walter imagining himself battling Ted in the streets of midtown Manhattan with displays of superpowers - the set piece is as good as almost anything from big-budget superhero movies. Perfectly accompanying the accomplished visuals is the lovely soundtrack, a mix of gentle music composed by Theodore Shapiro, and a carefully curated selection of songs (including original songs). The remarkable music gives The Secret Life of Walter Mitty its most definitive touch. David Bowie's song Space Oddity also plays an essential role in the movie, signifying the moment when Walter's fantasies finally collide with reality.

Stiller tempers his over-the-top comedic instincts to play a restrained, grounded Walter, and it's hard to imagine any other performer taking on this role as effectively or as convincingly. It's tricky material that asks a lot of Stiller, but he is up to the task, generating crucial pathos and making the character relatable and sympathetic. He shares delightful chemistry with Wiig, who's quirky but credible as Walter's love interest, while Kathryn Hahn also makes a terrific impression as Walter's sister. The brilliant Shirley MacLaine provides further gravitas as Walter's mother; her performance is heartfelt and convincing despite her small role. Sean Penn, meanwhile, only shows up right at the very end, and his single scene with Stiller is worth the wait, leading to an extremely touching moment. The only downside from an acting standpoint is Adam Scott. Although Scott's performance might be what Stiller asked for, his role is too broad and cartoonish, giving the film an unnecessary and mean-spirited villain.

Not everything about The Secret Life of Walter Mitty gels, as the film seems a little bit too pleased with itself at times, and it never really soars to unimaginable heights, but these are minor foibles. It's a visually striking big-budget character piece that prioritises characters and themes over action or explosions, which is hugely refreshing in this cinematic landscape. Poignant and captivating, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is Stiller's most accomplished directorial work to date, making it all the more disappointing that he followed it up with 2016's borderline unwatchable Zoolander 2.

7.9/10

Arriving twenty years after the infamously terrible The Room, 2023's Big Shark is Tommy Wiseau's second feature film as writer, director and lead actor, and it's clear that he learned absolutely nothing about the art of filmmaking in the interim. Overwhelmingly incompetent and thoroughly nonsensical, Big Shark can only be viewed as an unintentional comedy since it's impossible to take any scenes or moments seriously. Indeed, just like The Room, Big Shark is the type of bad movie that cannot be deliberately manufactured - it must happen organically, masterminded by a filmmaker who genuinely believes in their vision. The flick ostensibly takes place in some alternate universe populated by aliens who have taken alien form and are trying to mimic human behaviour. For those in the right mindset, Big Shark is absolutely hilarious and is best experienced in a crowded theatre with others who respond to this brand of cinematic diarrhea.

Patrick (Wiseau), Tim (Isaiah LaBorde) and Georgie (Mark Valeriano) live together in New Orleans and work as firefighters. Soon after being hailed as heroes for saving two children from a house fire, a 35-foot shark begins a rampage, roaming the streets through flood waters to eat everybody in sight. The city's only hope is Patrick, Tim and Georgie, who are determined to kill the gigantic shark. They also acquire a treasure map from a mysterious old bar patron that shows where the shark sleeps and might be able to help them in their mission.

Despite Wiseau receiving a writing credit, the existence of an actual screenplay for Big Shark is highly debatable because there is no coherence to the story, and there is scarcely any cause and effect. Hell, in one instance, two versions of the exact same scene (with similar dialogue and the same characters) occur within 10 minutes of each other. Events happen that are not acknowledged, and the movie often cuts away in the middle of certain scenes to something completely different. For example, the central trio arrive to fight a fire at one stage, but an awkward cut gives way to another scene with the men now at home bickering over hot water usage. What happened to the fire? No idea. Additionally, vehicles change between cuts, which is especially noticeable since the film is full of driving scenes. Even in the midst of the Big Shark's rampage, characters still visit bars to drink beer and play pool, and nobody seems too fazed by the ever-increasing body count.

The pacing is all over the place, momentum is wholly absent, and the narrative lacks a cohesive rhythm, not to mention that there's no semblance of a three-act structure in place here due to the film's disjointed nature. Although the picture does drag a lot, it's at least livened by side-splitting scenes like the characters running around trying to catch squealing pigs or having a game of beer pong in slow motion. Other moments, such as a random basketball game, have no logical place in the story and are haphazardly thrown in. Although the military is apparently on the way to take control of the situation and fight the shark, they are never seen, and their absence is not explained. Hell, everybody seems to forget the military is on the way, as everybody quickly forgets this subplot. Given that the first teaser trailer for Big Shark landed in 2019 and there is scarcely any concrete production information, it's clear that pieces of the movie were filmed over several years whenever Wiseau had the financing to shoot something.

The cinematography is mostly acceptable, and things are in focus, at least, but whatever money was available for the cameras and lenses did not extend to the rest of the production. The sound mixing is particularly awful - some lines of dialogue are piercingly loud, while other lines are barely audible or are muffled by things like characters hugging. There is no consistency to background noises, either; an early scene in an auditorium is a mess, with the sounds of applause and cheering abruptly changing from shot to shot. Furthermore, it should almost go without saying, but the digital effects are awful, and Wiseau clearly has no clue how to stage CGI-heavy sequences effectively. In one scene, Wiseau uses the same shot twice, and this shot features different VFX assets in each iteration with no explanation for this discrepancy. The shark animation is reused often, especially when it rampages through the streets to eat people, and the shark seems to flee from its prey whenever it has an opportunity to eat any of the leads. There is no consistency to the shark's behaviour, either, which saps the movie of tension. In other scenes, the streets fill with water, but the water promptly disappears in the next shot. Indeed, even though New Orleans floods whenever the shark goes on a rampage, the water recedes within the space of a cut with no explanation for what the fuck is happening. Big Shark clearly did not receive any quality control before sneaking into cinemas.

The dialogue is clearly improvisation, as the actors frequently appear unsure of what to say, and conversations lack direction. Like The Room, the characters say bizarre non-sequiturs and random things. There is no convincing acting anywhere within the production, as the performers look and sound thoroughly unenthusiastic. Wiseau, of course, is the only enthusiastic one in the ensemble, and he fully commits to the material. Anybody familiar with Wiseau's acting approach, as depicted in 2017's The Disaster Artist, will better understand the sheer craziness on display throughout Big Shark. Unfortunately, even though Wiseau's The Room co-star Greg Sestero starred in the teaser trailer, he is not in the finished movie.

By Wiseau's own admission, many of Big Shark's odd creative decisions are direct responses to criticisms directed at The Room. For example, The Room was filmed on obvious sets and against green screen, so Big Shark was shot on location in New Orleans. In addition, The Room features atrocious ADR, so Big Shark only uses production recordings, with minimal (if any) foley and dialogue of wildly varying volume. The Room is full of horrendous dialogue, so Big Shark's dialogue was largely improvised. The Room is directionless and lacks plot, so Big Shark has more stakes and is about firefighters battling a shark. The resulting experience is undeniably unique. For better or for worse, you will never see another movie quite like this.

The editing mistakes throughout Big Shark are too omnipresent and noticeable to be accidental, but one supposes that Wiseau can rationalise each error with some peculiar logic. Your enjoyment of Big Shark relies entirely on your tolerance for bad movies. If you found no enjoyment in The Room, it's best you stay far away from Big Shark. But if Wiseau's brand of hilariously terrible filmmaking tickles your funny bone, Big Shark is an essential watch, particularly with an audience of like-minded people. I can say with absolute confidence that I have never laughed as frequently or as hard in a cinema before Big Shark, which left me rolling on the floor in fits of laughter with tears streaming down my face. I have no defence for the film's enormous errors and shortcomings, but it did make me laugh harder than any comedy.

4.5/10

In contrast to similar 2023 movies like Air and Tetris, director Matt Johnson's BlackBerry is not an upbeat underdog story with an uplifting ending about a successful company. Instead, BlackBerry is about the rise and fall of the once-popular smartphone, with the screenplay showing as much interest in the company's failures as its successes. Sharply scripted by Johnson and Matthew Miller, the movie was adapted from the novel Losing the Signal: The Untold Story Behind the Extraordinary Rise and Spectacular Fall of BlackBerry, and it's easily one of 2023's most unexpected gems. Brilliantly performed by a powerhouse ensemble cast and superbly executed by Johnson and his team, BlackBerry is a serious awards contender that deserves more attention.

In Canada in 1996, Research in Motion CEO Mike Lazaridis (Jay Baruchel) and co-founder Douglas Fregin (director Johnson) hatch an idea to create an integrated mobile phone which works like a computer. They pitch the idea to businessman Jim Balsillie (Glenn Howerton) who despises the pitch but believes the project has moneymaking potential, and buys into the company as Co-CEO to lead the group of gifted tech geeks who are clueless about the corporate world. Jim pushes the team to hurriedly build a prototype to show as a proof of concept, which leads to the birth of the "BlackBerry" phone. The phone rapidly takes off in popularity, but the company is not immune from the shady dealings of the corporate world, and the government soon begins to pursue them.

BlackBerry delves into several key periods in the company's history, with creative title cards to inform us of the year. After dealing with the company's beginnings leading up to the launch of its first mobile phone in the late 1990s, the script skips ahead to the 2000s when the cracks begin to show. Although the company manages to recover from the tech limitations of network providers in 2003, as well as an attempted hostile takeover, the 2007 launch of the iPhone immediately causes serious trouble, with the new smartphone quickly being perceived as the BlackBerry killer. By zeroing in on just three critical periods of time, rather than running through everything from the company's inception through to its collapse, BlackBerry does not feel like a fluffy Wikipedia biopic (see 2013's Jobs).

Armed with an R rating, BlackBerry is full of sharp, punchy, humorous dialogue, and the sense of authenticity is omnipresent as these characters walk and talk like real, fleshed-out people. A talky drama like this fundamentally lives and dies on the strength of the dialogue and cast, and BlackBerry is an easy home run in both of these departments. Howerton's powerhouse performance as Jim is the standout; he dominates every frame with his commanding, foul-mouthed portrayal of the unscrupulous businessman. This could also be Baruchel's most nuanced and adult performance to date, truly coming into his own as an actor after years of fluffy comedies. BlackBerry is primarily concerned with the clashes between the three poorly-matched central characters who are continually at odds with each other, and the movie undeniably soars thanks to the excellent casting. Outside of the leads, BlackBerry has further assets in veteran actors like Cary Elwes, Michael Ironside and Saul Rubinek who are sensational in their respective roles.

Despite being produced for a scant $5 million sum, BlackBerry never feels like a cheap television movie or even like a made-for-streaming affair. Instead, it feels cinematic and theatrical all the way through; the cinematography radiates immediacy and gravitas while the pulsing score drives the proceedings, ensuring that the picture is never boring or humdrum. Eclectic soundtrack choices provide the movie with more flavour, including songs from Joy Division, Moby and The Kinks. Furthermore, the era-specific recreations throughout BlackBerry are dead-on, with Research in Motion's original offices looking drab and dingy with a distinct appreciation for nerdiness as opposed to the flashy product of a Hollywood production designer. (Even when the company moves into a bigger office space, the walls remain adorned with film posters and the workers still engage in film nights.)

A story of genius and hubris, BlackBerry succeeds because it's all about great screenwriting, captivating acting and top-notch filmmaking in every respect. It's also a rare movie for adults that respects its audience. It's a bold move to produce something like this in 2023 for the theatrical market with multiplexes mostly full of expensive blockbusters, and the movie deserves to find a wider audience.

8.8/10

After overwhelmingly negative feedback towards 2019's Captain Marvel, and of Brie Larson's portrayal of the titular heroine, the character is sidelined here in her own sequel which does not even carry the title of Captain Marvel 2. Directed by Nia DaCosta (2021's Candyman remake) 2023's The Marvels is a world-building ensemble flick that feels like the worst kind of bland, formulaic, committee-designed, assembly-line blockbuster filmmaking, and it is the worst entry to the ever-weakening Marvel Cinematic Universe to date. A thorough debacle in every way (a more appropriate title would be The Debacles), it's a creatively bankrupt embarrassment to all involved and to Marvel Studios, showing that the bare minimum for the superhero genre (flashy action and a bloated budget) is no longer adequate. Despite being the shortest MCU title to date at only 105 minutes, The Marvels feels agonisingly long and boring, and it's obvious that it was aggressively cut down during post-production in an attempt to make it as palatable as possible. Without emotional weight, compelling characters or a thoughtful story, The Marvels is a sludge of CGI-soaked action scenes, atrocious digital effects, disjointed storytelling, tone-deaf humour and terrible screenwriting. It's even worse than Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania.

After Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel (Larson) destroyed the Supreme Intelligence on the Kree homeworld of Hala, a civil war broke out which left the planet devoid of sunlight, water and air. The new leader of the Kree, Dar-Benn (Zawe Ashton), seeks to harness the power of the Quantum Bands as part of her plan to re-energise Hala, but one of the bands is in the possession of Kamala Khan/Ms. Marvel (Iman Vellani). Dar-Benn manages to tear open a jump point in space by combining one of the bands with her staff, and this attracts the attention of Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) who brings in Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Parris) and Carol to investigate. When Monica interacts with the anomaly, it causes herself, Carol and Kamala to change places with each other, and this teleportation is triggered whenever they use their powers. This entanglement requires the three women to get together and work as a team.

Rumours of extensive reshoots swirled in the wake of the endless release date delays, and evidence of this is all over the final cut. The Marvels lacks a cohesive narrative and a clear story trajectory, plus character motivations are muddled and vaguely defined. The stakes are equally unclear, and there's never a burning sense of peril for any of the characters or the universe at large. A clear structure is also missing, with characters frequently managing to get from one planet to another in the space of a scene transition - there's no connective tissue. It's also unclear how Carol destroying the Supreme Intelligence managed to leave Hala in darkness, and why Carol needed to spend years away from Earth trying to fix her mistake when she can solve everything else so quickly. The Marvels ultimately feels like a six-episode streaming show that was fashioned into a 105-minute movie without paying attention to the requirements for a feature film. Whatever the case, it's clear that a lot was cut out of The Marvels, and it's clear that it was heavily rewritten and reshot in post-production.

Furthermore, The Marvels is devoid of meaningful character arcs to illustrate growth in its trio of protagonists. The closest it gets to character development is Monica resenting Carol for not returning to Earth as she was growing up, but this angle is half-hearted at best; it lacks a proper resolution and any emotional payoff. The Marvels does not have an agenda to push, but it is solely concerned with superficial "girl power" moments that mean nothing without clear stakes or characters overcoming obstacles. The women quickly form a team and practice doing menial things while dealing with the teleportation, and that's it. Even a scene of heroic sacrifice during the climax feels hollow rather than significant. Another issue is the dialogue, which is lacking in wit and mostly amounts to inconsequential noise. The performances do not help matters, with Larson still looking disinterested and sleepy as Captain Marvel. Suppressing all emotions and vulnerability, as well as any sense of nuance, Larson has a blank, stern look on her face all the way through. Parris, meanwhile, fails to make any sort of impact; she does not own the role, and it feels like Monica could have been played by any other actress. Equally nondescript is Ashton, who's as generic and one-note as they come. It's not Ashton's fault that the character is so underwritten (Dar-Benn is absent for the entire second act), but her scenes here are still far from impressive. Meanwhile, Jackson simply sleepwalks through the film as Fury, and there is scarcely a single memorable moment or dialogue exchange. The only actor who makes a positive impression is Vellani, who deserves credit for imbuing Kamala with gusto and energy. Her exuberance is occasionally exhausting, but Vellani seems excited and grateful to be part of the MCU, and it's a shame she has been saddled with projects like this.

DaCosta emphasises a strong comic tone throughout The Marvels, taking nothing seriously and always trying to force a laugh, which brings back painful memories of 2022's Thor: Love and Thunder. New cosmic worlds are introduced here but everything is bereft of awe and spectacle, which is incredibly deflating after James Gunn's masterful Guardians of the Galaxy trilogy. The movie's worst and most egregious scenes take place on the planet of Aladna where the citizens only communicate through singing and dancing. It's excruciating to watch, and one could even imagine Taiki Waititi cringing at this try-hard attempt to be whimsical and fun. The action sequences, too, are mostly awful, with jarring editing making certain events unclear, and with the 'changing places' gimmick rendering the action incomprehensible and lacking in flow. The characters consistently teleporting is interesting in theory, but the execution is disastrous in the hands of DaCosta who is simply not talented enough to make it work.

With reports emerging about Marvel's poor treatment of visual effects artists leading to subpar CGI, it's unsurprising that The Marvels looks awful from a visual perspective. The digital effects are appalling, from the phoney Flerken tentacles to the uniformly shocking green-screen compositing, and pretty much everything else. Even the best MCU flicks are not immune from moments of rocky digital effects, but their interesting visual design and, above all, their sense of style makes this aspect less bothersome. The Marvels does not have this to fall back on. The cinematography by Sean Bobbitt is mundane as hell, while the flick looks generic and cheap in all respects. Costuming, too, is unbelievably bad, with the central trio's new outfits looking worse than most amateur cosplayers. A movie costing in excess of $250 million should not look this hideous.

The Marvels is the cinematic equivalent of a nepotism baby; it coasts on the success of previous MCU titles, and those involved in the production ostensibly believe that even the laziest effort will still succeed and become beloved thanks to the Marvel brand name. This is perhaps why the film feels so passionless, incompetent and joyless; nobody felt they had anything to prove. The only positive thing about The Marvels is that it's mercifully short at a bit over 90 minutes before credits, but it still feels at least twice as long. It's clear that nobody knew what story they wanted to tell about these characters, with the notion of Carol, Monica and Kamala sharing the screen taking precedence over a compelling story. Indeed, The Marvels feels like a rough hodgepodge of ideas that exists only to give the protagonists a team-up film and to set up more MCU projects in the future. The mid-credits scene is one of the movie's only bright spots, and another positive is that there is no post-credits scene, meaning that audiences will not need to hang around in the cinema for any longer.

2.0/10

Nine years have elapsed since The Expendables 3 derailed the series with a miscalculated PG-13 misfire, and things do not quite feel the same with this delayed fourth instalment. Originally planned to be a Jason Statham-centric spinoff (with the subtitle A Christmas Story), The Expendables 4 (or Expend4bles, if you will) feels like a lower-budget, B-grade continuation of the franchise rather than a glorious return to form for the ailing brand. It restores the coveted R rating and delivers the bloodletting that the target audience craves, but it lacks the dramatic heft and gravitas of the first two pictures and offers the most underwhelming cast list of the series. With a script credited to Kurt Wimmer (Equilibrium), Tad Daggerhart (Black Lotus) and Max Adams (The Terminal List), Expend4bles has its flaws but it nevertheless manages to remain perfectly serviceable as a Jason Statham action vehicle. Indeed, the action sequences seldom disappoint, and director Scott Waugh (Hidden Strike, Need for Speed) keeps the picture chugging along at an agreeable pace. Gleefully violent, Expend4bles is an easy-going watch for genre fans, and it's a definite improvement over the heartbreaking third instalment.

Recruited by a C.I.A. operative named Marsh (Andy Garcia), the titular Expendables – led once again by the grizzled Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) – travel to Libya to prevent a mercenary, Suarto Rahmat (Iko Uwais), from stealing nuclear warheads and starting World War III. Joined by Lee Christmas (Statham), Toll Road (Randy Couture), Gunner Jensen (Dolph Lundgren) and newcomers Easy Day (50 Cent) and Galan (Jacob Scipio), Barney leads the squad into battle, but the operation is an abject failure and Rahmat escapes with the deadly devices. Marsh boots Christmas from the team and opts to lead the Expendables himself, recruiting fresh blood in the form of Christmas's girlfriend, Gina (Megan Fox), and C.I.A. operator Lash (Levy Tran). The nuclear weapons are loaded onto a ship headed for Russia, and the Expendables are ready to try stopping Rahmat again while also unmasking the mysterious Ocelot, the mastermind behind the conspiracy. Meanwhile, Christmas is not willing to let go, tracking and following his former team to join the fight.

The aesthetic of the Expendables series is ever-changing, and Expend4bles is no different. With yet another director and another cinematographer putting their stamp on the franchise, this sequel lacks a distinctive visual identity, appearing generic as hell from an aesthetic standpoint. Worse, for reasons that are entirely unknown to this reviewer, series composer Brian Tyler was replaced with (the presumably cheaper) Guillaume Roussel. Tyler's flavoursome compositions represent a big part of the franchise's identity, with recognisable themes and motifs that appear throughout the previous movies (even though The Expendables 3's score was mostly recycled from Tyler's existing works). Roussel's score is, frankly, awful - it's forgettable and generic, sounding more like a temp score than the final mix. Furthermore, shonky digital effects are not uncommon for the Expendables movies, and Expend4bles continues this unfortunate tradition. The film's second half occurs on a ship disguised as an aircraft carrier, and most wide shots of the vessel look distinctly phoney and digital, closer to a videogame than a big-budget theatrical experience. Although the attempt to add some scope to the series is admirable (the climaxes of the previous pictures mostly took place in cheap, dingy, dark locations), the execution is half-hearted at best. It is difficult to ascertain precisely where the reported $100 million budget went (one supposes that Stallone still commanded a large payday despite chastising Bruce Willis for his pay demands).

Unlike its predecessors, it's clear that Expend4bles was R-rated from the start. Even though the first two movies were R-rated, they were specifically filmed to allow for PG-13 edits of each, while the PG-13 Expendables 3 was a gargantuan mistake (a fact that Stallone even acknowledges). Expend4bles, on the other hand, is littered with profanity and excessive bloodshed – it is exactly the type of thing that fans have wanted since the beginning. The movie is at its best during the grounded action sequences, from an exciting vehicular chase to the team taking endless names in violent ways during the extended climax aboard the ship. For the most part, the carnage is captured smoothly and is easy to comprehend, which is particularly beneficial during the close combat fights. Amusingly, the only distracting moments of shaky-cam occur outside of the action sequences – there are some expositional scenes with egregious shaky-cam so severe that it appears the camera operator was in the early stages of a seizure. Another positive is the inclusion of several fun songs on the soundtrack, including the return of Thin Lizzy's classic rock track "The Boys Are Back In Town" for the closing credits to mirror the first movie.

The Expendables flicks have always been characterised by their impressive casts, but Expend4bles fails to add any genuinely exciting names to the roster. For the most part, only unknown or outright unimpressive names join the team, which is contrary to the franchise's core hook. Mustering up any enthusiasm for 50 Cent or Megan Fox is impossible, while Tran makes even less of an impression. Even though Garcia acquits himself adequately as Marsh, the casting feels like a missed opportunity considering that Harrison Ford and Bruce Willis played comparable roles in previous instalments. However, action fans will appreciate the addition of cult names Tony Jaa (The Protector, Ong-Bak) and Iko Uwais (The Raid), both of whom receive their moments to shine during the action sequences. Jaa getting in on the action is an especially giddy moment, and Statham's fight with Uwais does not disappoint.

Stallone vocally quit The Expendables 4 several years ago before ultimately returning here, but in a diminished capacity. Indeed, even though Barney was the true protagonist of the first three films, his role here amounts to a glorified cameo while Christmas takes over. This is a genuine shame since the central pairing of Stallone and Statham is one of the franchise's bright spots, and Expend4bles truly fires on all cylinders in its first half-hour when the action focuses on Barney and Christmas. Their banter sparkles during these early scenes, providing some of the most amusing dialogue of the entire franchise. In fairness, however, the screenplay sufficiently justifies Barney's absence and it is pivotal to the story – it does not feel like Barney's role was hastily reduced in a last-minute rewrite.

Once considered the "baby" of the team, Statham is now 56 years old here as he emerges as the new protagonist of the series. Like most classic action heroes before him, Statham is more of a presence than a proper thespian, but he is a perfectly capable performer and a charismatic lead. Only four of the six core Expendables team members make their return here, as both Jet Li and Terry Crews are missing in action. (To be fair, Li had one foot out of the door for years, as his role was much smaller in the second and third instalments.) On that note, all of the new actors from The Expendables 3 are similarly absent despite the likes of Antonio Banderas and Wesley Snipes having joined the squad. The best of the new team members is the charming Scipio as Galan, the son of Banderas's character. However, it is apparent that Galan is simply a Banderas surrogate, as he retains Banderas's mannerisms and personality.


Judging by its overwhelming critical and commercial failure, Expend4bles is almost certainly the swansong for the Expendables franchise unless the producers decide to start churning out cheap straight-to-video spinoffs with the occasional Dolph Lundgren or Randy Couture cameo. Luckily, the movie does not try to plan for the future by setting up another sequel with an end credits tease, allowing for a clean and adequately satisfying franchise capper. In 2023, there is still an appetite for simplistic, old-school action films reminiscent of the jingoistic genre classics that populated the multiplexes back in the 1980s, especially since 21st Century cinema has become so concerned with politics and agenda. However, it takes a little more effort than this to accomplish a home run, especially since flicks like John Wick: Chapter 4 deliver action with genuine style, visual panache and gravitas. Expend4bles is imperfect counterprogramming, and your mileage may vary depending on your expectations.

6.4/10

After six long years and several Marvel Cinematic Universe misfires across film and television, 2023's Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 is a powerful and timely reminder of why audiences fell in love with Marvel movies in the first place. Once again written and directed by the inimitable James Gunn (before he moves to DC Studios full-time), this is a rousing, visually arresting and hugely poignant threequel that represents a note-perfect farewell for our beloved Guardians. Gunn vehemently closes out his MCU tenure on his own terms; Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 is expectedly funny with deep pathos, but the film is also the most thematically taxing and even emotionally fatiguing instalment of the trilogy. Additionally, Gunn prioritises proper storytelling and thoughtful character arcs which do not always align with fan expectations. In short, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 is precisely what the MCU needed this early in Phase Five, especially after the dismal misfire of Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania, but it's unclear if this will prove to be a one-off hit or a promising sign of things to come.

After establishing their new headquarters on Knowhere, the titular Guardians are attacked by an artificially-created warrior named Adam Warlock (Will Poulter), who is charged with retrieving Rocket Raccoon (voiced by Bradley Cooper) but nearly kills the creature in the process. As the Guardians try to save Rocket, they discover a kill switch that prevents them from effectively treating his wounds, and promptly set out to find the override code. Thus, Peter Quill/Star-Lord (Chris Pratt), Drax the Destroyer (Dave Bautista), Nebula (Karen Gillan), Groot (voiced by Vin Diesel) and Mantis (Pom Klementieff) work to infiltrate a corporate space station containing all the information about Rocket's history, and are forced to enlist the help of the Ravagers in their mission. Soon joining the group is a variant of Gamora (Zoe Saldana), who now rides with the Ravagers and does not recall her history with the Guardians. The team finds that Rocket's past is tied to an unhinged scientist known as the High Evolutionary (Chukwudi Iwuji), who is determined to "perfect" the universe by creating a perfect society of peaceful lifeforms. Rocket's highly advanced brain is the key to the High Evolutionary's experimentations, and he remains fixated on retrieving what he believes is his property.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 feels more like a "men on a mission" story than its predecessors, as the narrative is focused on the Guardians finding a way to save Rocket, though Gunn doesn't neglect heart or emotion amid the spectacle. The emotional core of the first movie related to the feeling of family between the misfit Guardians, while Vol. 2 was all about fathers and sons. Vol. 3's emotional core derives from Rocket's tragic backstory, which was alluded to in the previous movies (but not gratuitously set up) and is finally explored with thorough clarity here. Gunn has a lot of material to work through over the movie's beefy two-and-a-half-hour runtime, with respective character and story arcs demanding attention, and, even though it does feel long, it's not boring. The first act is a touch clunky from a pacing perspective, but it does play smoother on repeat viewings, and the ending leaves you wanting more.

With the marketing emphasising that this will be the final Guardians of the Galaxy movie (with this team, at least), a sense of dread permeates the proceedings as it's unclear whether or not the main characters will survive. Gunn plays into this with relish, and the white-knuckle tension during many of the action set-pieces is almost unbearable. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 is the darkest of the trilogy, featuring unsettling imagery and intense thematic material that pushes the boundaries of acceptability for a PG-13 comic book movie. It's frightening and even upsetting, and some viewers online are complaining that the film is not acceptable for younger audiences, but it is commendable that Gunn sticks to his guns (heh) and does not dilute the darker material for easier consumption. Besides, darkness is nothing new for the MCU, as Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame were daring and dark, and were aimed more towards adults than children. Luckily, Gunn also successfully navigates the tricky tonal changes, delivering big laughs amid the mayhem and emotion. Gunn does occasionally go too far (Gamora sitting on the toilet feels cheap), but his comic timing is mostly spot-on, and he doesn't try to turn everything into a joke. Forced humour is ruining the MCU, making it all the more relieving that Gunn does not aim for a certain amount of jokes per minute. There are genuine stakes here, and the humour organically derives from the characters and their personalities. Whereas Thor: Love and Thunder felt like a cheap comedy, the story of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 is treated with sincerity and gravitas. Perhaps the most powerful scene involves the Guardians observing recordings of Rocket's heinous treatment at the hands of the High Evolutionary; Gunn conveys the horror through sounds as well as the Guardians' reactions, and the result is hugely affecting. Also of note are the scenes involving Rocket's anthropomorphic friends Lylla (Linda Cardellini), Teefs (Asim Chaudhry) and Floor (Mikaela Hoover). It's easy to become attached to these creatures, who were brought to life through miraculous motion capture technology, and their story is unspeakably poignant.

One of Vol. 3's key strengths is that it truly feels like a Guardians of the Galaxy movie instead of just another committee-designed MCU flick to continue the increasingly convoluted and frustrating multiverse story arc which was introduced during Phase Four. Gunn wrote the movie back in 2017 and 2018, and, by all accounts, the screenplay was fundamentally finished before his temporary firing. Luckily, Gunn avoids contrived MCU connections; instead, Vol. 3 is about the Guardians, their respective stories, and the main narrative, making it the most focused MCU production in some time. Equally welcome is the lack of agenda. Gunn could have dialled up Quill's innate goofiness and portrayed him as useless while bolstering the female characters, which is ostensibly Marvel's current modus operandi, but every character in the ensemble plays an important part in this story. Admittedly, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 does border on the preachy during its third act with themes relating to animal cruelty, but Gunn does not dwell on the messaging, and the execution is mostly well-judged.

For 2021's The Suicide Squad, Gunn was committed to practical effects, vast sets and authentic locations as opposed to computer-generated excess, and the result was one of the most visually unique comic book films in recent memory. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 finds the filmmaker returning to a more fantastical world, travelling between various planets and depicting aliens of all shapes, sizes and appearances. Naturally, there is a bigger reliance on CGI compared to The Suicide Squad, but Gunn still makes use of intricate sets, and there are plenty of prosthetics to bring the ensemble of otherworldly beings to life. (The production reportedly set a record for the most prosthetics used in a single motion picture.) The visual style is on-point with the MCU's established aesthetic, and the digital effects are a damn sight better than those glimpsed in the atrociously miscalculated Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania. Not everything looks wholly authentic, but the illusion is sufficiently convincing, with nothing appearing phoney to spoil the experience. The standout action sequence occurs during the climax and involves an extended hallway fight - everything, from the careful camera movements to the outstanding fight choreography and the spectacular CGI, fires on all cylinders during this set-piece.

It goes without saying, but the soundtracks are one of the biggest draws of the Guardians of the Galaxy movies, and this threequel confidently continues the tradition. Gunn assembles another delightful selection of songs for Vol. 3, including music from the Beastie Boys, Alice Cooper, Radiohead, and even Florence + the Machine. The use of the track "Dog Days Are Over" gives the ending of the movie even more emotional power, showing yet again that Gunn's song selection talents are second-to-none. Composer John Murphy (The Suicide Squad, Kick-Ass) replaces Tyler Bates here, and it's a seamless transition, with the score thankfully making astute use of the flavoursome Guardians theme. Although the background music is somewhat generic at times, Murphy's score is frequently on-point, underscoring the excitement as well as the sense of emotion.

Iwuji is the biggest standout as the High Evolutionary, who is the most intimidating and fierce Marvel villain since Thanos, and is possibly the most detestable bad guy in the MCU to date. An excellent actor who's well-served by the material, Iwuji commands every frame and oozes menace, rendering him more compelling and fascinating than Jonathan Majors' Kang. It would be a waste if Iwuji's High Evolutionary was confined to a single movie. Thankfully, there is scarcely a weak link among the ensemble, with the primary cast effortlessly slipping back into their respective roles. The authentic love and camaraderie between the Guardians is one of the primary reasons why these movies work as well as they do, and it also helps that each member has their own unique personality; it's easy to become invested in the team and their journey. A lot is asked of Pratt here, in particular, and he confidently rises to the task, nailing the complex emotional range in every scene while still retaining his innate charisma and likeability. This is likely Bautista's final appearance as Drax the Destroyer, and his performance is superb; he remains a comedic force to be reckoned with while also showing incredible warmth. Another standout is newcomer Will Poulter as Adam Warlock, who was teased at the end of Vol. 2 and plays a meaty part in this story. It's hard to shake the feeling that many of the other newcomers are Gunn regulars, including Jennifer Holland (The Suicide Squad, Peacemaker), Daniela Melchior (The Suicide Squad), Iwuji (Peacemaker), and, of course, Nathan Fillion (who played a CGI alien in the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie). However, none of them stand out as miscast.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 packs the MCU's most potent emotional punch since Avengers: Endgame back in 2019. At its core, this is a story about dealing with your baggage and deciding whether to move on or settle down in the face of change, while underscoring the importance of second chances. Given the richness of the material and how organic this story feels, it is hard to fathom that Gunn was not initially interested in writing or directing Vol. 3 after his work on the second movie, and Gunn was then temporarily fired from Disney before being reinstated after massive online support for the filmmaker. The audience benefits the most from Gunn returning to close out this trilogy, which marks the third time to date that a director has overseen an entire MCU trilogy (after Jon Watts' Spider-Man movies and Peyton Reed's Ant-Man trilogy). Considering that many were convinced that 2014's Guardians of the Galaxy would be Marvel's first flop, it's gratifying that the unexpected hit spawned a successful trilogy. Indeed, Guardians of the Galaxy is arguably the best MCU trilogy to date - it is certainly up there with the Captain America trilogy.

8.7/10

Arriving just five years after the disastrous Ghostbusters reboot in 2016, Ghostbusters: Afterlife is what happens when a movie is created out of genuine passion as opposed to commerce. Co-writer and director Jason Reitman (Juno), son of the late Ghostbusters director Ivan, deliberately avoided the franchise for years and vowed to never make a Ghostbusters movie, but hatched an idea for a legacy sequel that he secretly developed before penning a screenplay with Gil Kenan (director of 2015's Poltergeist remake). Happily, and perhaps unsurprisingly since Reitman built his career out of character-based independent movies, there is a beating heart at the centre of Ghostbusters: Afterlife, which prioritises characters over mindless comedy and action. Afterlife is tailor-made for longstanding Ghostbusters fans; it's an affectionate love letter to the franchise permeated with familiar sights and sounds, while Reitman also incorporates tender humour and boundless charm.

Broke and facing eviction, single mother Callie (Carrie Coon) elects to move to a dilapidated dirt farm that she inherits from her eccentric late father in the small town of Summerville, Oklahoma. Accompanying her are her two children; teenager Trevor (Finn Wolfhard) and the scientifically-minded Phoebe (Mckenna Grace), who becomes curious about the secrets held by the house and her mysterious grandfather who abandoned his family several decades prior. Phoebe begins to explore the property and solve puzzles which leads her to discover ghostbusting equipment, and she soon meets a summer school teacher (Paul Rudd) who shows her the strange seismic activity which occurs in the town every day. Despite her mother being reluctant to share information about the family, Phoebe finds out that her grandfather was the ghostbuster Egon Spengler, who moved to Summerville after foreseeing an apocalyptic event linked to a nearby abandoned mine. The end of the world might still be looming, which compels Phoebe to finish what her grandfather started.

A third Ghostbusters movie was in the works back in the 1990s, but Bill Murray refused to play ball after the critical disappointment of Ghostbusters II, continually reiterating his disinterest in another sequel. Although the successful 2009 video game reignited interest in a third instalment, nothing materialised before the premature death of Harold Ramis in 2014. Ghostbusters: Afterlife is fundamentally Ghostbusters III, but it is not pitched as a direct continuation of its predecessors; instead, Reitman concentrates on Egon's estranged family and their respective lives before bringing the paranormal stuff to the fore. However, even though Reitman and Kenan's script does more right than wrong, Afterlife is not free of narrative problems. Perhaps owing to Reitman's enthusiasm for talky indie movies, the second act does begin to drag and lose momentum, with sequences such as Trevor going to the mine to hang out with his new friends feeling like the film is on autopilot. Many have criticised the lack of originality since Afterlife's third act does rehash parts of the first movie, but the execution is mostly top-notch, and the film's strong sense of heart helps to compensate for these shortcomings. A strong connection to the first movie helps to effectively re-introduce the series, allowing the franchise to move forward in new directions.

After building a career from dialogue-driven, low-budget indies, 2021's Ghostbusters: Afterlife is Reitman's first major blockbuster, flaunting a comparatively modest $75 million price tag and featuring a selection of large-scale special effects sequences. With the various pandemic-related release date delays, Reitman used the additional time to polish the visuals and special effects, and the finished product reflects this. Whereas the special effects in 2016's Ghostbusters were astonishingly hit-and-miss, the digital spectres in Afterlife are incredibly convincing and tangible. However, it's the reliance on practical effects and large, intricate sets which gives the feature its distinctive aesthetic. The central farmhouse appears real and lived-in, the creatures aren't purely CGI, and the actors are standing on actual sets as opposed to relentless green-screen with digital backgrounds. Especially with modern blockbuster moviemaking increasingly eschewing practical effects and real sets, the sense of realism throughout Afterlife is highly appreciable, reflecting the way that the original Ghostbusters was produced in the 1980s. On that note, Rob Simonsen's music effectively emulates the style of Elmer Bernstein's original Ghostbusters score, incorporating many of the composer's recognisable themes and motifs to outstanding effect. (Elmer's son, Peter Bernstein, was a music consultant for the project.) Reitman's regular cinematographer, Eric Steelberg, also contributes to the production in a significant way; the flick looks consistently gorgeous, with eye-catching camera compositions to smoothly capture the dialogue and action scenes. There is an art to digital cinematography which is occasionally lost in modern cinema, but Afterlife walks and talks like a legitimate movie as opposed to a lazy or low-budget distraction.

Child actors are a mixed bag as they risk coming across as too broad or cloying, but the ensemble cast here is a winner in every respect. The obvious comparison here is Netflix's Stranger Things due to paranormal happenings and children at the centre of the story, but Ghostbusters: Afterlife feels like its own thing with a unique vision, even if it's inspired by the previous Ghostbusters movies. Mckenna Grace is the standout as the new lead, flaunting a dorky Ramis-esque haircut and earning big laughs with seemingly little effort. She effectively portrays the character's erudite intelligence and her social awkwardness with an easy-going charm, demonstrating why she is one of the most reliable child actors currently working. (She also sings the song "Haunted House" which plays over the end credits; a girl of many talents!) Also worth mentioning is the always-reliable Paul Rudd who infuses his character with an endearing, goofball charm, while Carrie Coon is delightful as the weary but sarcastic Callie. Another standout is Logan Kim, who's fun and affable as an enthusiastic young conspiracy theorist who calls himself Podcast. It's a big deal that the new characters are so likeable and endearing, as that's most of the battle in the field of legacy sequels.

From a casting standpoint, the most exciting aspect of Ghostbusters: Afterlife is the return of legacy cast members Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts and Sigourney Weaver. Whereas Ghostbusters II found the characters struggling to make ends meet, this sequel places them where we want to see them. Seeing three of the original ghostbusters in their old outfits with proton packs is an undeniable thrill, but Reitman is careful not to let them hijack the story or become a deus ex machina. Additionally, the film's tribute to the late Harold Ramis is indescribably touching and the digital recreation of the actor is truly staggering. An overly cartoonish or phoney-looking digital character would have ruined the experience, but, luckily, the computer-generated depiction of Egon is wholly convincing in every single frame, without any 'uncanny valley' effect. (The team responsible for the digital Egon also created the unfailingly convincing young Rachel in Blade Runner 2049.) The resulting sequence is slightly predictable and cheesy, but it's executed with sincerity - it works.

It is surprisingly rare for legacy sequels to respect the relevant franchise, respect the lore, respect the fans and respect the characters, but Ghostbusters: Afterlife manages to achieve all of the above. Those who make legacy sequels are largely obsessed with reinvention and subverting expectations, ignoring fan desires to merrily destroy an established IP with ham-fisted political and ideological agendas, but Reitman has no interest in such things, which makes Afterlife such a welcome and refreshing breath of fresh air. (The only unmotivated instance of fan service is the miniature Marshmallow Men; as fun as they are, their inclusion feels forced and contrived.) It's not as funny or as witty as the original Ghostbusters (let's face it, not many can top Ramis and Aykroyd at the peak of their '80s screenwriting prime), but there is ample humour which is not broad or over-the-top, and the sense of comedic timing is dead-on. Additionally, the emotional punch of the outstanding climactic ghostbusting sequence cannot be overstated, which gives it a more lasting impact than many other contemporary blockbusters. Ghostbusters: Afterlife successfully merges the franchise's mythology with the spirit of children's adventure movies from the 1980s, and the result is a hugely enjoyable movie boosted by nostalgia. It's such a thrill to see the Ecto-1 back in action again after all these years, and the return of the original ghostbusters is one of the most exciting things to happen in cinema during 2021. Be sure to watch until the end of the credits for two additional scenes, including a set-up for the upcoming sequel.

8.1/10

The Ripper is another true-crime documentary series from Netflix, which concentrates on the high-profile "Yorkshire Ripper" murders from the 1970s to the early 1980s. The Yorkshire Ripper, named after the infamous Jack the Ripper, initially targeted prostitutes before he began to kill any women walking the streets at night. The ensuing investigation was costly and expansive, eventually leading to the capture and conviction of Peter William Sutcliffe. Netflix maintains such a high standard with its true-crime documentary shows, from the worldwide obsession that was Making a Murderer, to the more recent Night Stalker, but The Ripper is without doubt the poorest that the streaming giant has produced to date. And that is a real shame, because the Yorkshire Ripper case deserves a quality, comprehensive docuseries, but the potential is thoroughly squandered with this wrong-headed, unfocused miniseries.

Admittedly, The Ripper is not all bad, as there are some positive qualities which would be prudent to cover first. As to be expected, there are interviews with many participants throughout the series to effectively tell this story, including police officers who worked on the case as well as the victims' families, and the show is produced with the requisite polish you come to expect from Netflix - this is a 4K, High Dynamic Range-enhanced series, after all. The wealth of archival material is also interesting; I liked seeing the locations where everything took place, and the inner workings of the police station during the investigation. The first couple of episodes are relatively engaging, too, but then it takes a rapid nosedive. Let's count the flaws:

1) Lack of focus. Simply put, the show cannot figure out what it wants to be. Alas, it's not a straightforward or linear account of the murders, investigation and trial, which is what it should've been and sometimes tries to be. It's also not a profile of the Ripper himself, Peter Sutcliffe, as we don't learn much about his family life or his background; in fact, the show doesn't tell us much at all about him beyond his profession and that his father used to hit his mother, making him hate women. Regrettably, the show is more interested in the political stuff, which is extremely uninteresting, but again it's not actually about that - instead, this series is an unfocused, lazy mishmash of all possible angles. It's a lazy mess, rather than feeling properly comprehensive. It could've been two episodes purely focused on the investigation and arrest of Sutcliffe, followed by an episode profiling him, and then an episode about the feminist political propaganda. Such a structure would be cleaner and more effective.

2) Loose threads. Primarily, the show doesn't give the hoax letters and tapes due consideration, and it's treated more like a footnote when it was a bigger part of the investigation. The person who sent those letters and tapes was later arrested and charged, which is not covered in the series. The perpetrator also phoned the police station at the time to say that it was all fake, as he feared his efforts had stifled the investigation and it had gone too far. You wouldn't know any of that information from watching the documentary, as the story thread is promptly dropped. Also, this series came out in December 2020, a few weeks after the Ripper died of COVID-19, but that detail is not included, making it feel incomplete. Would ten seconds of text be too much to ask for? On that note, Sutcliffe's prison life was worth exploring, but it's not touched upon.

3) Missing details everywhere. As previously mentioned, the hoax letters and tapes were not given proper consideration, but there are far more missing details which go deeper than that. For instance, the five-pound note found at one of the crime scenes led to a detective following the cash from manufacturing to distribution, leading to a list of possible suspects who could have come into contact with the note. And Sutcliffe was on that list. Sutcliffe was not immediately arrested, as implied by the documentary; instead, he was under the microscope for some time, going through endless interviews and interrogations, before finally cracking and being charged. I mean, his wife provided alibis for him and swore by his innocence. None of this is mentioned. It's not even mentioned that a "dream team" of investigators came in to provide recommendations during the investigation. Or the theory about where the killer lived, based on the geographical location of the murders. And when the show critiques the police investigation, it doesn't even touch on the extensive, damning report which was completed following Sutcliffe's incarceration (maybe because said report was written by a male and the show is so anti-male, y'know). There is far more to be learned about this case, making this feel even more like a missed opportunity. Again, the series feels incredibly incomplete.

4) The political agenda. And here's the big one, which positively derails the show. Halfway through the third episode (which was directed by a woman, naturally), the series devolves into a dishonest, politically-motivated feminist mouthpiece. Those who lives through the Yorkshire Ripper's reign of terror don't recall the feminism being so heavy at the time outside of the "Reclaim the Night" march, and I'm not convinced that the archival footage of marches is all authentic... Documentaries should be objective and unbiased, especially about polarising political material, but The Ripper is anything but. It paints the angle that the investigation was bungled because it was run by men, not because it was run by incompetent police. It states that the investigators weren't equipped to deal with the investigation...because it was run by men. It introduces the ludicrous notion that the investigation was a male conspiracy against women. Worse, this viewpoint is not discussed or dissected adequately; it's just presented, without any counterargument. Projecting contemporary third-wave feminism bollocks onto a bygone era (which, yes, did have problems in terms of social justice) is problematic and feels politically-motivated. One interviewee reads out law enforcement victim profiles with disdain, even though such profiles are purely factual with no actual judgment being passed. The series fails to mention that attitudes towards sex workers during the era were appalling from both genders. Yes, women judged sex workers harshly, leading to a lack of sympathy from the public as a whole from the outset. The political stuff is just too much and too biased. This team could've just made an hour-long documentary about the feminist angle, but it's forcibly shoehorned into the series, contributing to that lack of focus that was previously discussed. A more fitting title would be Feminism and The Ripper (a title I would've avoided).

All in all, The Ripper is an egregious waste of time and effort, which is a crying shame because the interview material probably exists to make something more focused and compelling. But with the feminist propaganda and the lack of focus, it's a real slog. The Casefile podcast team covered this case in much more detail across three podcast episodes, and it it far more worth your while.