Don’t Worry Darling (Olivia Wilde, 2022) Review

Spoiler Warning: This discussion has very few spoilers: some set up from the first act, a general idea of the narrative at hand.

Rating: 2 out of 5.
"What is the opposite of progress?

Olivia Wilde’s Don’t Worry Darling hit the press for all the wrong reasons (more than once). It feels like it has been next to forgotten as the product that caused the Florence Pugh and Olivia Wilde drama, the Harry Styles acting pursuit, and the bizarre festival run. Evidently, there’s a reason for that – the film is a mess. There’s no other word for it; it’s a sloppy, surface-level take on an idea done a million times better in other places. It’s not without its individual efforts, hardly the worst film of the year, but it’s easy to see why everyone was talking about the conflict and not the film itself.

The most rewarding experience is Florence Pugh’s performance. She never fails to impress, already one of my favourite actresses working right now; even if the screenplay limits this from being close to her turns in Midsommar or Little Women, her leading role is the only substantial reason to give this a chance. Harry Styles, on the other hand, in his first major speaking role, hovers between the quality of a British soap star and the okay supporting actor you see billed seventh in a Hollywood ensemble every year. The guy isn’t an actor, and regardless of how simple Lady Gaga made it look, the transition here isn’t smooth. There are dramatic sequences that are pivotal to the entire film that fall apart because he’s not buyable. The few angry outbursts that the screenplay calls for are embarrassing to watch, especially when he’s alongside Pugh or Chris Pine – your spectacular professionals who save this from being a total heap of manure. Nobody besides those two is great – even Wilde herself feels like she doesn’t understand the text with her performance, which makes no sense when she’s the figurehead behind the entire vision.

The screenplay is an utter catastrophe. Within the first act, there are multiple hanging threads that incite the entire narrative, which never get answered, which isn’t even annoying; it’s just confusing. The middle third is a whole lot of nothing – an entire thirty-minute period where the film goes absolutely nowhere, including a painfully extensive scene of Harry Styles dancing badly intercutting with Florence Pugh having something of another mental breakdown. The third act is where one or two of the more obvious metaphors and ideas come to fruition, but there’s nothing exciting about those because, well, they’re remarkably noticeable from the off and oddly conceited – like Wilde is a genius for coming up with the idea of an unsettling suburbia. The grand reveal is followed up with a garbage action sequence filled with enough cliches to make you think the film became a parody. Everyone involved is so above the material here; it’s hard to believe that the same filmmaker did something as naturally stylistic and original as Booksmart when this is the follow-up feature.

I could sit here all day and tell you that Don’t Worry Darling has gorgeous cinematography or Oscar-worthy production design for its 1950s setting, costume, and make-up. I could say I like the do-wop soundtrack and some of its performances. However, when when the real intrigue about the film is this mystery it weaves, none of it means much when all that comes of it is a decades-old criticism of society with a podcast twist. It’s messy, and no amount of patio-door claustrophobia can change that. A cool idea, but it’s poorly executed, with leaps in narrative logic far too large to create any lasting final impact. If you want a 2022 cinematic spectacle that keeps you guessing until the last moment, go and watch Nope.

Check out the soundtrack here:

House of Gucci (Ridley Scott, 2021) Review

Spoiler Warning: This discussion features no narrative spoilers. You can see it as more of an objective take on the quality of the text in question.

Rating: 2 out of 5.
"It was a name that sounded so sweet."

I’m not entirely sure where to begin with House of Gucci. On paper, this should be hitting strikes with everything it throws. You’ve got Ridley Scott, Adam Driver, Lady Gaga, Jeremy Irons, and Al Pacino, for God’s sake. Yet all we got is an underbaked battle for who can do the most distracting Italian accent. The award is Jared Leto’s to claim, by the way. There isn’t an element of this that couldn’t have been better. Nobody is operating at their best, from the cast to the soundtrack compiler.

I never really want to think about this again; it’s everything I hate about this kind of filmmaking. Sensaltionalised drama for the mass audience with talented people who don’t live up to expectations. Is this the worst film of 2021? Undoubtedly not, some of it is fine and even shows promise, but realistically it isn’t even the best Ridley Scott and Adam Driver collaboration of 2021. Jared Leto’s turn as Paolo Gucci wouldn’t be out of place in The Room – for all I know, it is Tommy Wiseau underneath all that make-up. It’s not like he’s in a cast of iconic roles here either; almost everyone is lukewarm at best.

Ridley Scott has his cruise control set to ten below the speed limit for the entire runtime despite stepping on the gas for a sequence occasionally. In the long run, for a 160-minute movie, it’s painfully bland, relying so heavily on a true-life narrative that may well have been considerably more interesting in the hands of a highly-competent documentary filmmaker. So I guess this is entertaining in the same way that listening to someone recall historical events is. It’s fine; I don’t hate it, but it merges with 1000 other texts that do the exact same thing with a quarter of the budget and experience that House of Gucci has behind it.

The film also has a tendency of destroying sequences with musical choices that I should love. I like the pieces of Italian string orchestrations that match the grandiosity of this family mob mentality that attempts to shred on the likes of The Godfather. However, it also sets a wedding sequence to Faith? Throws in Blue Monday, Heart of Glass and Ashes to Ashes with the consistency of the British weather. I love all of those songs deeply, but here they feel like a hideous growth on the back of a film that never planned to include them.

I hope to never see House of Gucci again with total honesty. It reminds me of someone who wants you to know their bag is Gucci or their shoes are Gucci – shallow and highfalutin for absolutely no reason. It’s certainly indescribably bad in spots – here’s looking at you: Jared Leto spouting his confusion between shit and chocolate. However, it’s not the worst movie of all time, and I am sure some audiences might find some fun in it, even just for attractive people having sex and good costume.


Men (Alex Garland, 2022) Review

Spoiler Warning: This discussion has very few spoilers: some set up from the first act, a general idea of the narrative at hand.

Rating: 2 out of 5.
"What are you?"

Alex Garland’s first film in almost five years, Men has been highly anticipated in my mind from the sheer number of times I’ve seen the trailer alone. A24 have been a studio I rely on for high-quality productions, and their last collaboration with Garland in the shape of Ex Machina was one of my favourite movies of a jam-packed 2015. It’s a shame then that despite Garland’s compelling concept and consistent stellar vision that Men has been my least favourite cinema experience of the year so far.

I don’t think it’s an outright disaster, particularly in its visual horror with imagery I’m not sure I ever signed up to see. Alas, the problem with Men is that it never truly utilises the power of its terror, coming across as an obnoxious and self-important slog of tepid themes from the perspective of someone that could not ever understand those struggles. I spent a lot of time after the film finished questioning why all the men were portrayed by Rory Kinnear other than it being a creepy idea and the answers I came up with were either complete nonsense or not supported by anything the film showed me. I felt a little tired of trying to give this the benefit of the doubt, which is why, despite liking the odd sequence, I’ve gone pretty cold on the text as a whole.

Jessie Buckley is an excellent actress, and I think she shines here in a film that does her no favours character-wise. She’s a nobody, dragged through this story with no real idea of who she is or why we should like her apart from the obvious trauma angle. I’m not saying the audience roots against Harper (Buckley), but there’s certainly very little actual connection between character and spectator here. She is but a vessel for a thinly veiled metaphor and a victim of injurious horror. It’s so bland and dull, persuading the audience to do all the hard work. Rory Kinnear is mysterious as the face of every man here (though his primary role as Geoffrey reminded me all too much of Boris Johnson). Again, he isn’t asked to do all that much outside of Geoffrey other than to get naked, put on prosthetics and act as the face of yet another poorly concocted conceit.

I admire some of the ideas in Men. I like the visual print it leaves, even if it isn’t spectacularly fresh. I respect the attempt at a near-dialogue-less finale with almost twenty minutes of silence, even if I’ve seen it done better. It is only my opinion that none of it comes together well. Creepy and disgusting in dashes, but this splutters to a final sequence you can see coming a mile off with no pay-off.


Why Him? (John Hamburg, 2016) Review

Spoiler Review: This discussion features some important narrative information that could spoil the text for you. It does not necessarily spell out the film’s conclusion, but it does talk about events in detail.

Rating: 2 out of 5.
"Family baby, fuck yeah."

I’m still not entirely sure what made me watch Why Him?, because I realised about 5 minutes before the end I had already seen it (which says a lot), and it is not an altogether well-regarded comedy. To absolutely nobody’s surprise, not even my own, I found this to be bitterly flavourless with a few subtle hints of taste when Cranston was given the chance to shine. This was a vehicle for improv, and it’s just a shame that much of it was not particularly impressive.

The elephant in the room is also that it stars James Franco does place a serious level of discomfort throughout every minute of his presence. I think it only makes it worse here because he doesn’t play much of a character – he looks, sounds, and acts like Franco would interviews. It’s a shame because I love Bryan Cranston, and it’s rare he gets to do comedy; I adore Zoey Deutch in pretty much everything I’ve seen her in. There’s just nothing to back them up.

I usually don’t mind John Hamburg’s writing – Zoolander being one of the funniest comedies of the noughties and I Love You, Man being a pleasant surprise. However, this one doesn’t come close to either of those movies. It relies much too heavily on boring body comedy: James Franco has balls, for example, and countless gags that you can see coming a mile off. What’s that, a dead moose suspended in a large glass case in its own urine? You could have put your house on someone falling in. You’d have kept your house of course, and then had the ultimate displeasure of seeing a child actor teabagged by that same dead moose. It’s as bad as it sounds.

Why Him?, despite featuring KISS shredding I Was Made For Loving You down a Michigan suburban street and the use of the word “double-dicker” in a major motion picture, should probably be forgotten. It’s hardly the worst comedy on the face of the planet, but I can think of literally 1000 films I have seen better than this.


Cocktail (Roger Donaldson, 1988) Review

Spoiler Warning: This discussion contains some spoilers. It could be an entire gag from a comedy or in-depth conversation concerning events in the second act.

Rating: 2 out of 5.
"I am the last barman poet."

Cocktail is one of those rare 1980s star vehicles that we rarely see these days, with Cruise named before the title card and barely a frame without him in it. I like Cruise more than most, but this is only just after Top Gun; all he had at that point was ‘cocky pretty boy’, and that’s all that the film provides him.

It doesn’t pay off because the excitement in Top Gun comes from Tony Scott’s incredible action filmmaking, and as much as Roger Donaldson may try, you can’t make Top Gun with cocktails. This is the kind of cocaine-fuelled studio project that you never see anymore – if someone suggested a high-concept bartending movie in 2021 – you’d get laughed out the door. It should have been laughed out of the door in 1988, in fairness, because minus a fairly amusing first act, it’s a tonal trainwreck.

I’ll admit that the last barman poet stuff and early friendship between Cruise’s Brian and Bryan Brown’s Doug Coughlin were funny in places, exuding this harsh 80s masculine energy that worked for the environment. It was cute and, despite its mediocre writing, made for a charming little 80s comedy full of yuppies and New York wannabes.

I wish it had stayed that way. However, Cocktail tried to do for the 80s what Saturday Night Fever did for the 70s. It tries to keep the light bartending element light and introduces some pretty dark drama, with an underlying romance at its heart. It is a shame then that the drama is forced, and the romance is atrocious because the screenplay creates two protagonists you couldn’t hate more. It’s all downhill from the moment they go to Jamaica; Elisabeth Shue and her poor character deserve better.

Cocktail is a pretty grim 100 minutes of your time, outside of the opening half an hour, that provides Cruise the time to be a charismatic and funny leading man; there’s nothing here. The third act is laughably bad, the narrative is predictable, and it’s really hard to get on board with a film surrounding characters you would punch in real life. It’s an incredibly self-centred movie made before Cruise ever got a real handle on his talent. There are a million better rom-coms, there are a billion better romantic dramas – and I still don’t know which of those this is.


Eternals (Chloé Zhao, 2021) Review

Spoiler Review: This discussion features no narrative spoilers. You can see it as more of an objective take on the quality of the text in question.

Rating: 2 out of 5.
"When you love something, you protect it."

Chloé Zhao’s follow-up to her highly successful Best Picture winner, Nomadland, happened to be a Marvel blockbuster aiming to buck all of the trends the studio has established in the thirteen years. Does it succeed? Personally, I’d say no, if not for lack of trying. Eternals feels like a colossal mess, with two entirely separate films grinding up against each other in a very ugly, unsatisfying manner.

I don’t know how this film could be made successfully, given the obscurity of the source material and relative lack of depth to the characters in the film itself. There are, count it, ten main characters to introduce here and none of them gets the time and treatment they likely deserve. Gemma Chan receives top billing, but I could barely tell you a thing about her character. The same goes for the rest of this extremely talented cast of actors, who all just seem pretty wasted.

The film suffers from an exposition-heavy plot, somewhat required in order to convey the threat the heroes must face, but also reinforce the different relationships between characters and how they differ. This mainly leaves Zhao shooting her characters in semi-circles or around tables talking about themselves for 80% of the film. It’s boring. It’s also very strange knowing that Zhao is shooting with natural lighting, implementing sex scenes, attempting an artistic framework for the film, but completely juxtaposing that with tasteless, stock action scenes. The styles clash painfully, and it damages the action scenes when you don’t particularly care about the characters in them.

Marvel is going to continue producing films like Eternals if they try to tell stories with these niche characters without adding something exciting about them like Guardians of the Galaxy did. The jokes don’t land here; it feels like Zhao is fighting a losing battle in composing a cerebral family superhero picture; I can see now why Eternals obtained such a mixed reception on release.


Free Fire (Ben Wheatley, 2016) Review

Spoiler Warning: This discussion has very few spoilers: some set up from the first act, a general idea of the narrative at hand.

Rating: 2 out of 5.
"You take what you want, girl."

British black comedy Free Fire has been in my peripheral vision ever since its trailer dropped almost seven years ago now. The stellar cast, 70s setting, view for the violent, and simple narrative set-up called my name, yet not everything hits the mark here. In fact, I found this to be consistently strong in a couple of areas but so incredibly unconvincing in its primary mode of storytelling that it all falls apart.

What I mean by this is that director Ben Wheatley has a particularly difficult time in establishing the geography of his single setting, and the characters within that single setting also. There’s never truly a point in the film where you understand who is shooting at which character and what direction they are shooting them from. It’s incredibly harmful to the film as an action-comedy when all of the action is pretty much incoherent. There are moments where the spatial geography is easily understood because the characters have closed the distance, and these are easily the most memorable stunt pieces. However, the long-range gun battles that occupy 85% of the runtime are baffling throughout. Even the wide shots don’t help; it’s a visual catastrophe.

Why don’t I hate this more then? How could I have even found any of the film bearable if it was so confusing to watch? It’s because, frustratingly, the performances and dialogue are actually rather impressive – leagues beyond the standard of visual storytelling on display. The comedy lands as it should and when it should. Brie Larson, Cillian Murphy, Sharlto Copely, Jack Reynor, Sam Riley, and (unfortunately) Armie Hammer round out a consistently amusing ensemble.

There’s just not much here other than that. It’s a decent enough screenplay that delivers somewhat on the weaving character play of a 70-minute Mexican stand-off. There’s violence aplenty, but ultimately, the charm is lost by the visual impotence. Free Fire loses so much of the momentum from the opening act through the fact that you spend much of the second act trying to establish a floor plan. A real shame, because this could have been great if it was handled just slightly differently.


Space Jam (Joe Pytka, 1996) Review

Spoiler Warning: This discussion has very few spoilers: some set up from the first act, a general idea of the narrative at hand.

Rating: 2 out of 5.
"You got a lot of… a lot of… well, whatever it is, you got a lot of it."

1990s time capsule, Space Jam works best as just that. For 90s kids, this is going to be a nostalgia trip, reminiscing on the untouchable cultural cornerstone that was Michael Jordan. In 2021, it falls flat as a rather bizarre combination of one popular athlete and a smorgasbord of Americana.

The filmmakers, and let’s face it, the studio behind the film, are so focused on making a star of Jordan, playing on the ins and outs of his transitions between basketball and baseball that they forgot to make a real film. The narrative is beyond sloppy, more a montage of sequences that executives thought would work well. The Looney Tunes stuff is fine, but much of Jordan’s narrative leans towards his family. It’s a text that seems to be made for his own kids, who are brought into this more frequently than you might expect. It ends up as a semi-autobiography for half of the film and a fantasy basketball game for the other.

It doesn’t help that the basketball sequences are shot without much grace, with editing that only compounds that aesthetic. It feels strange to criticise a Michael Jordan-Buggs Bunny film this way, but kids film or not; I’d still like to be able to see what’s going on. I’m not going to rag on the special effects for the simple fact it was so long ago, even if there were 1996 films that were technically far more competent.

The rewatch did kill a little bit of my inner love for Space Jam, but I don’t identify as much with it as 90s babies do. I still have fun with this; its general lack of sense and great soundtrack only adds to the insanity of the project. It is clear to see why Jordan didn’t become a film star off the back of this, but it’s not like he needs it. A film so strange it becomes charming, Space Jam remains a cultural landmark just for its pure ridiculousness.

Check out the soundtrack here:

Zack and Miri Make a Porno (Kevin Smith, 2008) Review

Spoiler Warning: This discussion has very few spoilers: some set up from the first act, a general idea of the narrative at hand.

Rating: 2 out of 5.
"Other people have options and dignity, which we do not have, which puts us in an amazingly advantageous position."

Kevin Smith’s Zack and Miri Make a Porno is a culmination of all of Kevin Smith’s worst attributes as a comedy writer-director. This is coming from someone who cherishes Kevin Smith films more than the next person. Zack and Miri, average as it may be, is insulting for that very reason.

I’m not in the business of criticising films for a purpose they never intended to fill. So, in the case of Zack and Miri Make a Porno, I won’t say this is lacking a strong performance. The novelty is the vulgarity and concept. Rogen and Banks are fine choices for the lead roles and do respectable work with the screenplay at hand. The same goes for the supporting cast, including Smith’s Clerks collaborators: Jason Mewes and Jeff Anderson. Brandon Routh and Justin Long have a very amusing cameo. But, they all succeed from the base level of comedy required to make a studio comedy.

Instead, the casually prejudiced jokes that linger throughout the screenplay, for the sheer amusement of Smith’s option to write them, do take a good amount away from this film. You have one genuinely amusing moment that is so vile; you either laugh or vomit. Otherwise, it’s just Smith laughing at big boobs and swinging dicks; nothing more, nothing less. The ‘actual’ plot here, about two people who fall in love whilst making a porno to save themselves from bankruptcy falls beyond the wayside. It feels like a subplot that had vital sections cut for a tighter runtime in their own film.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno is a low-end Kevin Smith project. Rom-coms need one of its two main ingredients to make a splash, to forgive the lack of the other. The romance has no function, feels rushed and twitches in and out of narrative tropes for no given reason. The comedy doesn’t land enough to overlook the lack of strong characterisation or intelligent writing. The Clerks nostalgia is fun, but it wears off soon enough when it’s crowded with irritating characters delivering perfunctory dialogue.


Kick-Ass 2 (Jeff Wadlow, 2013) Review

Spoiler Warning: This discussion contains some spoilers. It could be an entire gag from a comedy or in-depth conversation concerning events in the second act.

Rating: 2 out of 5.
"Try to have fun. Otherwise, what's the point?"

Originally, I wasn’t going to watch Kick-Ass 2, because I distinctly remember not liking it. However, I watched the first entry last night and liked it more than I thought I would, so I wanted to give it a second chance. It was not worth the time.

If the first film managed a dubious pass in certain categories, like pulling off a pretty ambitious tone and pulpy comic book dialogue, this iteration fails spectacularly. The best things to be found in this are Jim Carrey who is leagues above everyone else here comedically and some intensely violent action here and there. Again, that’s not saying much these days, it’s just far more entertaining than the drivel that comes out of the characters’ mouths.

The quite obvious problem that this film faces is a lack of Matthew Vaughn. The tone and I cannot state this enough, fails miserably. The first one achieves a light-heartedness whilst maintaining a certain dignity when it came to the severity of the violence. Here, we’re looking at: Mean Girls stuffed into half of a second act, a pretty senseless attempt to cash in on the popularity of superhero teams after The Avengers, and a comic book comedy. Wadlow as director and co-writer simply has no idea how to combine the three successfully. The comedy can range from simultaneous vomiting and diarrhoea, which is about the worst gag the film has, to The Motherfucker failing to rape one of Kick-Ass’ companions, which is about as black as comedy can get. It also happens to one-up the vomit-shit stick to be the worst ‘joke’ this has to offer.

The dialogue is absurdly bad in places; platitudes that make you wince they’re so cringey; jokes that at best summon a chuckle and lines so obviously lifted from a comic book it’s painful. There needs to be an element of adaptation; otherwise, you end up with this. The high school portions are so derivative and tired. To make matters worse it also happens to waste the most interesting part of the first film in the process. That being said, even Hit-Girl isn’t half as impressive in this feature, it’s just far less radical when Moretz has clearly aged beyond the far-too-young-to-be-involved range. Taylor-Johnson is fine here too, but again, not as effective as he was in the first film, although he is maybe the most sexualised character here, which is a nice change.

Kick-Ass 2 is not worth your time. The first film holds up just fine, and you don’t need to continue the story with this one. Wadlow flounders behind the camera, offering the vaguest of presences in action sequences and nothing at all in any long stretch of dialogue. This is clunky pretty much everywhere, but its fatal mistake is that it thinks it can get by showing some dismemberment, crude violence and young people swearing. It can’t and doesn’t. There’s a Nic Cage sized hole here, and nobody fills it in.