Reviews

'Hellraiser III: Hell On Earth (1992)' constantly encourages a single thought: how the hell/ on Earth did we get here? It feels far more like a lesser 'A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984)' sequel than a follow-up to the excellent 'Hellraiser (1987)'. It's significantly worse than 'Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988)', which itself is significantly worse than the first film, and it's honestly a bit baffling. I mean, who thought it was a good idea to turn Pinhead into a slightly more well-spoken Freddie Krueger, complete with maniacal cackling and sardonic quips? No longer beholden to the Lament Configuration (or the realm it acts as a doorway to) for vague and fairly limp reasons, the agony-obsessed antagonist regresses into total slasher villain territory and sets out on a bland mission to take over the world. He aims to show humanity their supposed true desires by torturing and/ or killing people in increasingly horrific ways, which is theoretically in character but is actually emblematic of the screenplay's total misunderstanding of what actually makes him such an iconic baddie. Although I can understand why one might think that giving him access to - and the desire to hurt - everyone on the planet will increase his scariness (after all, now he can get you), doing so only undermines the key aspects of what made him so unsettling in the first place: the fact that he must be summoned and can only ever turn up only when invited (unwittingly or otherwise), that he does his violent duty in a totally nonchalant and dispassionate way which we could never truly understand, and that he will not leave until he takes with him what he came for (or a suitable substitute). Perhaps it was inevitable that putting him at the centre of the piece would lead to a dilution of his necessary impartiality, but I'd like to think that there is a way of having him be the sole antagonist without reducing him to a shadow of his former self. He's incredibly difficult to take seriously, but the movie kind of wants you to. At any rate, it isn't some sort of tongue-in-cheek horror comedy that purposefully makes its villain into a bit of a goof, albeit a nasty one. No, it seems to have done that entirely by accident, and is therefore not even funny.

Although there is some entertainment to be had when things go hog wild and an entire club's worth of patrons are torn to pieces with just about anything Pinhead has to hand, most of the movie is honestly rather boring. There's no real sense of atmosphere (at one point, the villain shows up in broad daylight, lit totally flat in a static mid-shot) and nothing in the experience is ever even close to being scary. It loses that taboo combination of sex and violence, of lust and revulsion, of pleasure and pain that makes the first film as distinct and effective as it is. There is a fair amount of gore, but gore alone isn't frightening. Nothing here gets under your skin, nothing here plays on fears that run deeper than "I wouldn't like to be killed like that". It's all just a bit silly, really. That isn't inherently bad, I suppose, but silly pictures sort of need to be fun to work. This isn't fun, it's just dull. Plus, it follows two features that aren't silly in the slightest, despite the frankly absurd elements that both contain. It just goes to show that anything can be taken seriously if it's done well enough and is treated with enough respect that it implicitly demands the same from whoever sees it.

I will say, though, that there are some elements here that work fairly well. A couple of the pseudo cenobites introduced in the third act are fairly visually interesting and enjoyable in their own way (although Camerahead and Pistonhead are just awful, far too cheesy for their own good). The ridiculousness of some of the violence is kind of amusing, and the goopy special effects are mostly as convincing as you'd like them to be. While there is some terrible acting throughout the affair, there are also a couple of comparatively strong performances. Doug Bradley seems to be having fun chewing up the scenery as this new interpretation of his iconic character. While his work here isn't exactly good, I don't think it's really - or, at least, exclusively - his fault considering that the script really does shaft him. Paula Marshall actually does really well considering this was her first movie. She isn't delivering Oscar-worthy work, but she certainly outperforms her co-stars and is believable in her role (which sadly falls by the wayside after a certain point; a shame considering the character is one of the picture's most interesting).

Ultimately this is a real disappointment. It's a terrible sequel and a below average film. There are some things to like about it and it does provide some limited entertainment, but it lacks any real semblance of substance or style and is fairly dull overall.

This interview with Sean Chapman is appropriately named, because the actor is unafraid to say how he really feels about 'Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988)'. After discussing how he came onboard the project, Chapman openly talks about how he doesn't think the movie is as creative as the original and how it veers more into slasher territory (which he uses derogatively) when it comes to his character. He also recalls not really receiving any direction as it was expected he'd play the character in the same way he had done previously. It's true that Frank isn't developed at all during his cameo appearance and he's very much a snarling monster, but what did the actor expect when he got the script and read his only scene? Still, it's refreshing to see his honesty when it comes to the success of the sequel. He doesn't sound particularly malicious and seems to have had an amicable time during production, even though he does claim that his experience made it clear he no longer wanted to be associated with any future sequels. One thing he does like, and is eager to bring up, is that - unlike in the first film - his vocal track was used this time. Good for him, I guess. Ultimately, this is a fun interview because of how unafraid Chapman is to say how he really feels, even if it seems a little out of place on the Arrow boxset considering it's a collector's item meant for people who presumably like the movies within it.

This informal interview with Doug Bradley is focused on the actor's time playing Pinhead in 'Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988)'. He talks in relaxed fashion about getting involved with the sequel, the process of applying and removing the required make-up and his understanding of a few rumoured occurrences (such as the time a harsh critic of the first film was cornered by Clive Barker during a visit to set and berated for belittling a British horror movie). A lot of the chat is dedicated to describing a scene which wasn't included in the any cut of the film but appeared in still form on the back of the unrated release, giving fans the impression it was too disturbing even to be included on that extended version. The truth is that it was abandoned during production for practical reasons and much of it was never shot (the scene actually appears on the latest Arrow release but has 'scene missing' cards where the incomplete footage would have gone). While interesting, this isn't engrossing enough to be worthy of such a big chunk of the conversation; it means that there isn't time for a deeper dive into other aspects of production. In general, the interview is very cursory and only gives an overview of certain areas of production. You get the sense that Bradley is fairly fond of the movie, but he never truly gets into how he feels about certain things and I wish he was a little more candid at times. Still, it's an entertaining behind-the-scenes peek into what it takes to portray a horror icon in his second appearance.

'Being Frank: Sean Chapman on Hellraiser (2015)' is an honest interview with the actor who portrayed Frank in 'Hellraiser (1987)'. Chapman has no qualms with telling the sometimes brutal truth, something which becomes more apparent in the counterpart to this that discusses on 'Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988)', and it's refreshing to see an open chat with someone who just seems like a normal, down-to-earth guy. He covers quite a wide range of topics, beginning with how he first got involved with the film and moving on to his experiences during production. He shares a few insightful stories and generally seems to enjoy the movie in which he appeared (as well as his memories making it). The piece allows him to talk for quite a while when answering the questions, which allows him to naturally find his way to moments he deems insightful to share. One sticking point for him is the fact that the filmmakers opted to dub his performance with another actor, likely - it seems to me - so that there would be more consistency between Frank in his skinned and unskinned forms (either that or it was done during the movie's late-game setting swap from England to some vaguely American location). Chapman clearly believes the removal of his original track flattens the character, and feels as though his voicework brought to life some of the grey morality that drew him to the character in the first place. It's interesting that the voice isn't his, as I always assumed it was him dubbing the two versions of Frank, and I do agree that the character's voice sometimes seems a little one note. Nevertheless, he doesn't seem to bitter about it (even if he mentions it a couple of times) and he doesn't let it dampen what otherwise seems like a brief but enjoyable experience. Having such a detailed chat with a relatively smaller player is a really intriguing idea and it's a lot of fun to see. It's informal, loose and highlights how these iconic movies really are created by regular people. It's a solid interview with plenty of nice tidbits for fans of the film it focuses on.

Although it's undeniably not very in-depth, this relatively brief talking-head documentary offers a peek behind the curtain of 'Hellraiser (1987)'. 'Hellraiser: Resurrection (2000)' presents an insight into the iconic movie's conception, production and reception, featuring interviews from a variety of people who worked on it. The interviewees sometimes only appear for what feels like a few seconds; I would have loved to have heard more from each and every one of them. However, it's nice to get a few words from people often overlooked in this sort of behind-the-scenes stuff. Along the way, we're treated to excerpts from the source novel (read by Doug Bradley himself) and conceptual sketches by Clive Barker. We also get a look at some of the make-up effects in the workshop, along with a discussion of how the actors felt about the process of having them applied, and a nearly shot-by-shot breakdown of the iconic reforming sequence. There are some nice tidbits included in here and the people who appear are unafraid to voice their true feelings (it's not like any of them have anything bad to say about the piece or their time working on it, but some of them are open about their fatigue with discussing that part of their lives or their discomfort with the make-up process they were required to undergo). We also get a bit of a nod towards the often overlooked Christopher Young, whose score includes one of the best horror movie themes of all time. Even though he doesn't go into his process, it's a treat to see him included here. That's pretty much what it's like for everyone involved: it's nice to see them even though they don't actually say all that much. The overall experience is competently put together and is enjoyable for its duration. It isn't particularly informative, but it is interesting.

This interview with Doug Bradley, the actor who portrays Pinhead in 'Hellraiser (1987)', is relatively cursory overview of what it was like to appear in an iconic horror movie. Shot in a relaxed, talking-head fashion, Bradley talks about various aspects of production, with a large focus being on the experience of undergoing six hours of make-up each morning. He talks about his time on set with fondness, and he answers each unheard question in a fair amount of detail. It's clear he has respect for the franchise he helped make so iconic, and a particular love for the first entry. He alludes at various times to the decreasing level of quality the series is quite openly known for, without airing out any dirty laundry or anything like that. He seems like an amiable fellow, and the chat has the same sort of vibe you might expect from an encounter at a fan expo. However, the interview doesn't really get into the nitty gritty aspects of the production of 'Hellraiser (1987)', primarily because it's only twelve minutes long. It's good enough for what it is, though, and is an enjoyable glance behind the scenes of a brilliant horror movie. It's also really nice to see Bradley out of costume, and his appearance here dispels any notion that he may be as mean as his pain-provoking character.

Originally slated to be directed by Guy Ritchie, Matthew Vaughn's feature debut retains its expected feel despite its change of director. 'Layer Cake (2004)' is the typical slightly twisty, stylishly achieved, fast-and-loose London gangster flick that you'd expect from the former director, but it's somewhat of an oddity coming from the latter. It doesn't really feel like a film from the twisted mind of the man behind 'Argylle (2024)'. However, it has all the hallmarks that would come to define his career, chief among them a confident sense of style that permeates the entire experience. There are a lot of unconventional choices being made within a fairly conventional framework and it's all rather fun to see. The narrative is occasionally somewhat confusing, centred around a series of reveals mostly conveyed by people talking about other people whose names we haven't quite put to their faces by the time they depart the piece for good. It's not incomprehensible, though, and it certainly all makes sense. It's always entertaining, often surprisingly so, and it isn't negatively affected by its occasionally obscured storytelling. It helps that the flick moves at a zippy pace and constantly strikes the right balance between sincerity and self-awareness. It also helps that its cast are all really enjoyable in their roles, no matter how small those roles may be. The movie is reportedly what landed Daniel Craig his signature part of James Bond, and it's easy to see how his proficiency in portraying a suave, suit-wearing drug dealer would prove that he could portray a suave, suit-wearing secret agent. He gives a strong central performance that balances cool with can't catch a break, and he rises above the sometimes monotonous delivery of his narration with some stand-out moments that bring more humanity to his constantly calculating character. Colm Meany, George Harris and Michael Gambon are the highlights of the supporting cast, but you can't discount the one-step-above cameos of Sally Hawkins, Dexter Fletcher, Tom Hardy, Sienna Miller, Ben Whishaw and Burn Gorman. Ultimately, although it starts to stall a little towards the end of its second act and it sometimes tries to be too clever for its own good, this is an entertaining crime drama that's visually interesting and nicely acted. Its ending is also subversive in all the right ways. It's a really solid effort.

Although it's aesthetically similar to 'Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)', 'Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga (2024)' is a different beast entirely when it comes to its narrative. Structurally, tonally and even viscerally distinct from its predecessor, this revenge epic has a much less frenetic atmosphere than you may expect. At times, it's almost serene. With an episodic format that splits the story into vignettes (more so than even its five chapter breaks would suggest), the feature depicts the origin of its eponymous badass while also widening the world that surrounds her. Indeed, much of the movie is dedicated to world building rather than propulsive action, but that's not to imply that there are a lack of set-pieces. In fact, pretty much the whole movie is a set-piece; even the simplest of lore-extending scenarios are told with such striking visual grandeur that you'll practically be drooling for the film's entire duration. Plus, there are several more traditional yet utterly jaw-dropping action scenes - including a meticulous fifteen-minute War Rig defence that may just be the movie's highlight. It's difficult to describe how epic even the most intimate moments of the affair feel, and the budget has been put to fantastic use to set this relatively small-stakes story amidst a backdrop of bizarre post-apocalyptic societies and ruthless wasteland power struggles. There's so much depth to each and every aspect here, and most of it is conveyed entirely visually (Furiosa herself probably only has about the same amount of dialogue as the notoriously quiet protagonist of 'Mad Max 2 (1981)'). Anya Taylor-Joy brings a palpable determination to the role, her eyes telling a story of long-burning pain and quiet desperation, and Alyla Browne holds her own as the younger version of the character (the transition between the two actors is so seamless it's hard to actually pinpoint the exact moment it occurs*). The most showy role in the flick definitely goes to Chris Hemsworth, whose Dr. Dementus is a verbose maniac with just enough depth and charisma that his evil nature is almost too easy to downplay - especially in a world in which decency seems to have died a long time ago. He's a really entertaining villain, and it's enjoyable to see a new faction in the wasteland rather than just expanding on the one we've seen before (Immortan Joe and his blindly loyal War Boys). While I personally don't think it drags or anything, the movie is arguably a little too long. However, it's also arguably too short. It kind of acts as a 'greatest hits' of its hero's life, starting when she's a child and finishing just before her actions at the beginning of 'Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)'. As such, there's a lot of stuff that gets glossed over - or, rather, skipped entirely - so that the movie can maintain its purposefully elliptical pacing. A lot of the stuff that it moves past feels like it would be really interesting, so I kind of wish it was fleshed out more and maybe the film was done as a two-parter. I know that's technically a criticism, but it's also kind of a compliment. After all, it's not often you wish a picture was longer, let alone split into two parts, which should indicate just how successful George Miller's effort is. The feature truly is spectacular, an exceptional epic with almost unparalleled aesthetic beauty and pristine direction of the highest order. It's wonderfully weird for a blockbuster, and I really hope it does well enough for Warner Bros. To greenlight another trip to the wasteland. While I don't like it as much as 'Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)', it's just as sturdy and substantial. Because it's so different, it doesn't even require a direct comparison. It's great.

*the use of AI to achieve this effect is somewhat disturbing, but it's unclear exactly how the tool was used (i.e. To help a human artist or to replace one) so I'm not confident in fully condemning it just yet.

'Rabbit Hood (1949)' may be somewhat light on the zany sight gags, but it more than makes up for it with the various ways Bugs Bunny manages to outwit the Sheriff of Nottingham after he catches the rabbit trying to pinch one of the King's carrots. The short has several classic Bugs reversals - in fact, it's essentially a string of these gags that escalate in embarrassment for the Sheriff - and it's a really fun time. It's amusing on more than one occasion and has a bright, bouncy aesthetic that nicely counteracts the generally more 'grounded' humour. It's a little brutal on occasion, too, as it isn't afraid to show its hero getting violent to avoid the rack. It's perhaps a tad repetitive and its final gag isn't as satisfying as it could have been, although it is enjoyable on a more meta level. Still, it's a really good effort that will keep you smiling throughout.

'Knighty Knight Bugs (1958)' is the only Bugs Bunny short to win an Oscar. It's nothing especially special when compared to other films featuring the rascally rabbit. However, it's still an entertaining experience with several enjoyable sight gags and an amusing central premise that sees Bugs take on Yosemite Sam in Arthurian England. Most of the short features the former holding up in a castle while the latter unsuccessfully attempts to siege the place so that he can get back the sword that has been stolen from him. It doesn't have the strongest of narrative drives and its gags are sometimes a little weak, but there are a handful of funny moments that elevate the piece from its initially somewhat humdrum status. To be fair, that status might be based entirely on the bias that comes when watching something that's been deemed worthy of an Oscar; it creates an unfair expectation that this is going to be something truly special. If you don't hold it to too high a standard, the short is undeniably no less successful than most of its 'Looney Tunes' peers (and is actually better than a lot of them). It's an entertaining, chucklesome effort that remains fun for its duration.

'Robin Hood Daffy (1958)' casts Daffy duck as the titular folk hero and has him try to prove his identity to a mocking Friar Tuck, as played by Porky Pig. It's part of that era in which its protagonist isn't so much a manic, mischievous trickster as a hopelessly down-on-his-luck, perpetually trying-to-prove-himself sap. The short is dripping with unmistakably Chuck Jones style, with distinctly sharp character designs and zippy movements that lend a specific rhythm to the slapstick. It is, in essence, a one-joke short, but the variations of that joke never cease to be at least somewhat amusing. It's not the best 'Looney Tunes' of its kind, primarily because it isn't as visually inventive or packed with wall-to-wall sight gags. Its ending is satisfying, but it's slightly too abrupt for my liking. However, this is a more-than-solid effort overall that keeps you smiling throughout. It's fun and aesthetically pleasing.

'An Egg Scramble (1950)' is a 'Looney Tunes' short about an old hen who finally produces an egg (or so she thinks) and decides that she isn't going to hand it over to farmer Porky Pig. After he forcibly takes it from her, she soon finds herself on a citywide adventure to recover her baby and keep it safe. The short is a little on the light side when it comes to humour. As you'd expect, there are some nice sight gags here and there, but it generally feels rather tame in terms of wacky antics or clever visuals. The designs of its human characters are a little unsettling, too (especially a housewife who tries to boil the protagonist's precious egg). Still, it's ultimately an enjoyable, easy-to-watch experience that provides ample light entertainment in a brisk package. It's not the best in its series, but it's definitely not the worst.

'Bye, Bye Bluebeard (1949)' starts with Porky Pig attempting to rid himself of a mouse who wants to eat some of the plentiful banquet he's tucking into, but soon morphs into something of a fight for survival as a radio announcement brings the news of a vicious serial killer on the loose. It's weird to see Porky's life genuinely in danger, especially since the short is clear that all the cartoon logic in the world won't save him if the baddie gets his hands on him, and it's also strange to have a murderer as a villain in one of these films. It feels quite nasty, in a way. That's not to imply that the piece itself is particularly scary or, even, unnerving, but its out-of-place concept certainly carries with it a strange feeling that's hard to shake. At any rate, this is still primarily concerned with being fun. It features some enjoyable moments and is told with lively animation. One of its jokes seems to have served as direct inspiration for an excellent gag in 'Barry (2018 - 2023)', unless parallel thought was at play (the two were created over fifty years apart, after all). It's an enjoyable experience overall.

There's a convention in town and Porky Pig can't find a place to stay. A lone vacancy opens up at a nearby hotel, but the catch is that the room will have to be shared. That wouldn't be a problem if the other person wasn't Daffy Duck, who barges in at God-knows-what time with his invisible kangaroo friend and wakes Porky from his much-needed slumber. 'Daffy Duck Slept Here (1948)' is all about the conflict that arises when Porky realises just how unlikely he is to actually get some sleep when sharing a bed with his hyperactive roommate. It has plenty of goofy, usually absurdist gags and operates on a distinctly cartoon logic that provides plenty of opportunity for laughter. It really makes you understand just how annoying Daffy Duck truly is, as his behavior is directed solely towards a sympathetic character. We identify more with Porky than with Daffy, so it can be a bit grating to see him act so unreasonable. It's lucky, then, that Porky ends up getting the last laugh, which leaves things on somewhat of a high note. Overall, this is an enjoyable, if occasionally frustrating, short that has plenty of amusing moments sprinkled throughout.

'Porky Pig's Feat (1943)' is great. This 'Looney Tunes' short is packed wall-to-wall with chaotic, side-splitting sight gags and an unrelenting energy that's simply infectious to behold. When Porky Pig and Daffy Duck are saddled with an unreasonably hefty hotel bill by an intimidating manager, the duo try everything they can think of to get out of the building without paying a single penny. It's a really fun experience that feels as though it could go on forever, never running out of steam even as it approaches its final gag. Its set-pieces are all vital and amusing, mixing pure visual bliss with delightfully 'contemporary' (now dated) references that really sell the personality of its lead characters. Mel Blanc's impeccable voice work also does that; there really is no substitute for the impossibly talented actor when it comes to injecting life into shorts like this. Overall, this is just a fantastic effort that's one of the best 'Looney Tunes' I've seen so far. It's a total blast.

'Pigs In A Polka (1943)' is a 'Merrie Melodies' short set to the tune of 'Hungarian Dance no. 5' by Johannes Brahms, with each on-screen movement timed perfectly to the classic piece of music. Its story is that of the three little pigs, and it follows that well-established narrative pretty much to a tee. Although it's amusing to see the smooth animation speed up and slow down as dictated by the score, the film lacks strong comedic gags and feels a little bit standard when it comes to its slapstick. It's not bad, by any means, but it does feel a little bit lacking when compared to the zany freneticism usually associated with 'Merrie Melodies' and 'Looney Tunes'. It's a solid short overall, however, and its animation is consistently good.

'Pigs Is Pigs (1937)' is a 'Merrie Melodies' short that's surprisingly grotesque in its own way, focusing on a greedy little piggy who experiences a harrowing nightmare in which he's force-fed food by a variety of complex machines until he's ready to burst. Essentially, the piece depicts piglet torture and it's really bizarre to see. What's worse is that it isn't even all that entertaining. Although there are some inventive, if cruel, visual gags, the majority of the film is just a bit boring. It's moralistic, too, but it doesn't stick the landing in terms of driving its message home. It's just a bit weird, really, and it isn't all that pleasant to watch. It's interesting to see that this is basically where 'The Simpsons (1989-)' got that gag about Homer being force-fed all the donuts in Hell and still being hungry for more, though.

After a more pleasant last outing, 'Fraidy Cat (1942)' reestablishes the iconic duo's entirely antagonistic relationship by having Jerry fall directly into his role as initial aggressor (as he would so often be in later films). Here, he decides to terrify Tom when he sees the cat shaking in his fur while listening to a spooky radio broadcast. Using an old nightgown and a vacuum cleaner, the mischievous mouse sets about pranking his unsuspecting prey. Of course, Tom eventually gets wind of the wind-up and fixes to do more than just scare his opponent to death. The flick has some funny sight gags and its animation is as scrumptious as you'd hope from these earlier shorts in which Tom is more cat-like and raggedy. It's a well-animated outing that's lively and has a lot of spirit to it. However, it just feels fairly standard overall. The premise isn't particularly clever and the piece lacks a satisfying ending to tie things together. It also features some off-screen animal abuse (which sounds to be more than the typical feline-on-rodent slapstick we all know and love) which leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Having said all that, it's still an entertaining effort overall. It isn't one of the pair's best outings, but it's definitely not one of their worst.

Based on the anime of the same name (itself based on the manga of the same name), 'City Hunter (2024)' tells the origin of its source material's focal detective team. After a tragedy, a sex-pest private eye is hassled by the sister of his ex-partner until he agrees to help her find out who is responsible for the death that has torn her world apart. The film is definitely a live-action anime, and it feels like something ripped straight from two-dimensions in the best possible way. Although I'm not familiar with the specific anime it adapts, it definitely reminds me of a lot of other anime that I've seen and you can tell that its idiosyncrasies all lovingly stem from its inspiration. Because it's being told with real people yet operating on a cartoon logic, it has this distinct unreal feel to it that makes it seem quite unhinged at times. That's not a bad thing, though, as its off-kilter atmosphere goes hand-in-hand with its inventive filmmaking to absolutely nail the aesthetic it's going for. It's really fun, despite being rather rough around the edges and featuring a protagonist who's as creepy as he is good with a gun. The narrative is all rather rote (although it does have a fairly big surprise towards the beginning) and the character work is done in the broadest of strokes, but the flick is typically enjoyable and is often rather funny as well. It features some excitingly well-choreographed, highly stylised action set-pieces, too. You can tell it's a bit of a low-budget production (it is Netflix, after all), but it wears its heart on its sleeve and it's hard not to like on at least some level. It may not be groundbreaking, but it's definitely entertaining enough for what it is.

It's easy to see what 'Trail Of The Screaming Forehead (2007)' is going for, and to be fair there are times when it achieves it to amusing results. However, the novelty of this 1950s B-movie creature-feature pastiche wears off incredibly quickly. "It's only 88 minutes long" has never been so misleading. It's a one-joke movie and it drags because of it. Despite nailing its intended aesthetic, its narrative is just really dull. It has some charm and its filmmakers clearly put a lot of love into it, but it's very hard to sit through - let alone recommend. There's not much more to say about it, to be honest. I can't condemn it too harshly, purely because it's undeniably a passion project and even has some limited success, but it is pretty bad, even if its heart - and forehead - is in the right place.

Taking place generations after 'War For The Planet Of The Apes (2017)', 'Kingdom Of The Planet Of The Apes (2024)' is said to be the start of a new saga which acts as a bridge between the recent prequel trilogy and the original series of Apes movies (or, at least, their world). The film follows a young ape who encounters a smarter-than-usual human on his journey to find his abducted clan. Essentially a post-apocalyptic picture that focuses on what has emerged in the wake of humanity's self-destruction rather than on humanity's last efforts to survive the consequences of its actions (as is more typical for the genre), the film is visually stunning from its first moment to its last. Although it might not look quite as good as its predecessor (maybe that's mainly down to the cinematography), there isn't a single second that makes you doubt you're actually watching a bunch of primates walk and talk. It really is spectacular. Although the picture is perhaps a little too long for its own good, it's an entertaining experience throughout. The narrative is surprisingly unconventional in a couple of key ways, primarily in how it retains the grey morality of its predecessors. It's able to craft something that's genuinely interesting in how unwilling it is to assign attributes like 'good' and 'evil' to its characters, and the underlying sense of sadness inherent to this series is just as potent as ever - even as we move further and further away from a world we recognise. Not only is it never silly, it's actually quite dark on occasion (for example, there's one particularly nasty death scene that feels like something straight out of an R-rated affair). There story contains some unexpected twists and turns, and its betrayals are allowed to carry the weight they're meant to simply because they aren't undercut by an out-of-character change of heart. You aren't quite sure who to trust and it's really engaging. Noa makes for a strong protagonist, a sheltered ape who undergoes a journey of discovery that allows him to begin to contend with his - and his species' - place in the universe. The lessons he learns aren't as simple as you'd expect, either. This is further proof that the piece, rather refreshingly, feels no need to talk down to its audience and is unafraid to explore the real ramifications of the world it has created. It honours what has come before (and what is yet to come) in a believbable and compelling way, feeling like a logical addition to its franchise. While I'm not sure I totally dig the direction it teases for its sequel, I have no doubt further films will continue to surprise with their thrillingly unconventional tone and messaging. There are so many potent ideas in this piece that a lot of them unfortunately feel underexplored, so hopefully further efforts will be able to focus in on specific points outlined by this entry point into a new Apes era. The dangling-thread nature of a lot of the concepts in this is certainly one of its weaker aspects, and the film often feels like it wants to be about so many things that it struggles to truly be about any of them. However, it just about stops before it reaches that unruly precipice and thankfully feels mostly cohesive on the whole. While it does have slightly uneven pacing and some unfulfilling segments, it's a really enjoyable and intellectually stimulating film. It makes you think about its various conflicts and the actions of its characters, which isn't something that can often be said about big blockbuster movies. Like the recent trilogy before it (which it isn't as good as), it's still very much a thinking person's blockbuster (however pretentious that may sound). It respects its audience, and earns their respect in return. Plus, it's pretty cool to see evolved apes climbing and fighting and screeching their way through a post-apocalyptic world. It's really good.

'Lift (2024)' is literally nothing. There's no part of it that I didn't dislike. It's such a made-by-committee, more-formulaic-than-formulaic exercise in capitalist cynicism. The epitome of 'made for streaming' as a pejorative; all the worst things about Netflix movies rolled into one uninspired, uninteresting and unenjoyable mess that practically calls you a sucker to your face for having clicked on it. It might just be the first feature not to have an aesthetic. It's total trash disguised as inconsequential fluff. The worst part about it is that it isn't completely incompetent, it isn't painfully boring and it isn't bafflingly bizarre. It's just soul-crushingly bland, the kind of thing that seems "fine" simply because it exists and you couldn't care less about it. It would be easy to mistake it for something bang average, to write it off as something middle-of-the-road and utterly harmless, simply because it's such a blatantly passionless project that it just sort of happens before your eyes. It doesn't just require you to turn your brain off, it actively turns it off for you and it doesn't bother to even try and pass as "fun" while it does. It exists purely to devour engagement, to inflate statistics, to play on your television while you do something, anything else. It's the opposite of art, a product not dissimilar to the NFT it prominently features in its opening movement. It has no charisma, no charm, no... anything. It's as hollow as they come. Maybe it's not that deep. Maybe it's not worth getting worked up about. Maybe it's no worse than the thousands of others just like it. But enough is enough. We have to stop letting them get away with this. We have to make a stand and demand entertainment that actually entertains, art that is actually artful. We can't let this auto-play drivel be the future of film. Am I still watching? No, Netflix. No, I am not.

'Ricky Stanicky (2024)' is a bit of an oxymoron, in that it's somehow both exactly what you expect and way better than you'd think it would be. Peter Farrelly's latest comedy is about three best friends who have been lying about a supposed fourth since childhood in order to get out of trouble by scapegoating the imaginary rascal or get some time away from their families by saying they're going to see him. When the time comes for the fake friend to finally show up to a family function, the trio hire a down-on-his-luck actor - who moonlights in Las Vegas as a crude parody lyricist - to step into the impossibly big boots of the eponymous Ricky Stanicky. Luckily for them, the guy's feet are plenty big enough - both because he's played by the enormous John Cena and because he's somehow the best, yet most overlooked method actor in the entire world. The film isn't hilarious, but it has its fair share of funny moments. Although not all of the jokes land, or even seem appropriate, most of them are decent enough to keep you entertained even when you aren't chuckling. The feature also has a somewhat strong emotional core, even if the way everything wraps up kind of undercuts it and a lot of the narrative could play as a horror if the tone was tweaked just slightly. It's an oddly paced experience, though, that feels really front-loaded. There's a lot of interesting stuff in the back half - or, rather, the potential for interesting stuff - that gets completely overlooked because of how fast the flick needs to speed towards its climax after spending so long on Stanicky's first real-life appearance. Unfortunately, it totally whiffs its third act, too. Not only does it do everything it can to excuse and absolve the bad behaviour of its heroes (a problem with a lot of male-driven comedy), most of it is dedicated to a boring news broadcast that doesn't even tell us anything we don't already know. It's a bizarre choice that really takes the steam out of the affair. To be honest, it lands with a total thud. Thankfully, the first two acts are a lot better. They're not great, and they're as generic as they come, but they're enjoyable enough. It helps that the performances are pretty solid across the board, with Zac Efron comfortably slipping back into a comedic role after his excellent dramatic work in 'The Iron Claw (2023)' (which is on another level to this, obviously) and John Cena continuing to charm with his particular brand of bumbling innocence. Ultimately, this is total fluff that lacks any real bite, but it's far more pleasant than you'd expect it to be. It's entertaining enough for what it is, despite its weak third act and general complacency, and it's often fairly amusing. It's a surprisingly solid effort.

'Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)' is simply spectacular. This visually stunning action film totally reinvents the aesthetic of its series, injecting it with chrome-infused blood and gleefully watching it run wild. George Miller makes everything he's done before seem decidedly quaint, swapping the tactile griminess of 'Mad Max 2 (1981)' for something altogether more unhinged and unreal. Yet, for all its purposeful aesthetic absurdity, the picture remains remarkably tangible, a near perfect blend of practical and visual effects that crafts a seamlessly sweaty, sandy, petrol-soaked world that feels as though it's been baked in the post-apocalyptic sun for so long that every last morsel of it has gone certifiably insane. This is an incredibly impressive picture, the kind of thing that seems incomprehensible to dream up, let alone actually create. It's basically one long chase, but it ebbs and flows so nicely that it never even threatens to outstay its welcome. Filled with colourful characters, creative vehicle designs, and jaw-dropping set-pieces (the image of Max dangling from a pole as a huge orange explosion lights up the background is still seared in my mind), the feature remains entertaining from its first frame until its last. The ominous yet exciting music gets you pumped up for the edge-of-your-seat action, which is so high-octane that it's a miracle you can follow every single second of it as well as you can. It's truly a thrilling picture that puts so many of its peers to shame. It's an unconventional experience in many ways, and its weirdness makes it all the more enjoyable. It really is a blast, the best in its series by far. If you haven't seen it in a while, you'll have forgotten just how stunning it is. It's glorious. What a lovely film!