Pinocchio (2022) - Cheap Thoughts

In front of every film there is a question to be asked, “What is the point?”. This can be anything from to entertain, to educate, to experiment, to empathise, there are a multitude of answers. The answer to every one of these live action Disney remakes is “To make money”. Which is why Pinocchio’s existence is so confusing. It is a straight to Disney+ film, and it’s difficult to see who exactly benefits from that. Do they really see people signing up for the platform just to watch a remake of Pinocchio? Well, perhaps that’s not the actual answer, perhaps there is just a genuine inspiration to remake the film, to modernise it and tell a new version of the tale…No.

With each passing live-action remake Disney have been putting less and less effort into creating any sort of distinction between the clone and the original. 2019’s The Lion King stole the script verbatim, and now 2022’s Pinocchio is cloning the exact visuals of the original, everything from the character designs to the bloody entrance to Gapetto’s shop, smearing it all in unfinished CGI from likely overworked and underpaid artists. Meanwhile Robert Zemeckis returns to his motion-capture filmic style of gently gliding the camera through the scene at a breezy pace with no sense of motion or purpose, just pure visual noise to keep things going, as if the camera was strapped to an escalator by accident. The film steals the visuals-because yes, this is theft-regardless of it being owned by the same company, the crew of the original film are the artists that brought it to life and are now seeing their work ripped-off and made worse-while losing any sort of character. Classic Disney films have a tendency to rely on their visuals, they lack narrative cohesion because they never really strived for it, you’d simply see characters walking down the street and appreciate the slow, relaxing pace and detailed animation painstakingly drawn by hand. Modern films are too busy, everything has to be made fast and move fast-yet simultaneously take longer in a paradox of incompetence-which if you’re adapting a visual focused picture like Pinocchio, you can’t rush through that and hope the narrative you’re copying will carry it for you.

Speaking of, who thought it was a good idea to copy the narrative yet remove any of the spine that gave the original film a point? 1940’s Pinocchio may not have had much for character arcs or textbook loyal plot points, but it was a film blunt and heavy in its messaging for kids. Pinocchio lies and his noes grows, lying=bad. Yet this film decides to use this ability as a method of the wooden boy escaping his cage, so…lying=good? How about Pleasure Island, where in 4kids style censorship they have replaced beer with root beer, removed all reference to smoking and gambling, and now have Pinocchio realising that this place is bad and never once gives into temptation. This is despite the fact the whole point of Pleasure Island is that Pinocchio learns the dangers of temptation, that’s what temptation is; something that feels good in the moment but has negative consequences long-term (Being turned into a Donkey), that’s why they used alcohol, cigars and gambling, very common addictions that have a divisive appeal. If Pinocchio is never tempted, then he has no indulgence, and thus no reason to be punished. It’s amazing how the original film can be so incredibly on the nose about these lessons and yet the grown adults who wrote this film missed them entirely.

This is becoming the worst aspect of these live-action works of theft, they steal the scripts, steal the visuals, yet leave behind the themes and morals that gave the original works any sort of spirit and meaning. It is as hollow and transparent a film can get, it doesn’t deserve to be referred to as a film, it is a nothing, an empty shell, a meaningless display of noise and colour that will leave no signature it ever existed.

-Danny

Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Movie – Cheap Thoughts

One of the greater strengths of the Ninja Turtles property is its versatility. There have been dozens of adaptations since their comic debut in 1984, and the majority of them bring their own flavour to the franchise. In truth there is no one way to present the Turtles. That being said, to give some of my own history with the series, I have been a fan of them since I was a child and have watched most of the shows and films, with the only exception unfortunately being the series this film was based on, besides a few spectacularly animated fight scenes, Rise is a version of the Turtles I am unfamiliar with, so was going in as a mostly newcomer, which would explain my more complicated feelings towards this version.

The first thing of note, I like anyone who has a passing knowledge or more of the Rise series would have gone in with great expectations over the animation, after all if they can achieve great feats on a television budget and schedule, surely they can do even more with a film? The short answer: Yes. Not just with the action sequences which are as spectacular as one could hope, but every scene is wonderful to look at, thanks to the detailed character animation, beautiful lighting and fluid movement.

It also has the best version of the Krang I’ve ever seen, genuinely making them a threat and dare I say…intimidating? Yeah, who would have ever thought the Krang could be describes as intimidating, but here we are. Krang being turned into John Carpenter-esque body horror visually toned down for younger audiences while keeping the psychological trauma it unleashes to its characters, and who doesn’t love watching a film knowing it could scar children?

This leads us into the biggest issue with the film…Ben Schwartz as Leo. Look, if Ben Schwartz wants to spend his career playing the same character, that’s fine, many actors do that, and he’s good at it. I would ask you do it with new characters and not ones with pre-established characterisation that has to be thrown out for your benefit. Leo is traditionally the noble leader of the group who has to ground the others. All other adaptations have stuck to this principal while finding ways to expand on the character in their own distinct ways. Yet here we have a Leo who is arrogant and childish is having to be grounded by Raphael of all people. Who would have ever thought we’d see the day when Raph was the level-headed one!?

They’ve taken it so far that this version of Leo literally has the same arc as Schwartz’s version of Sonic seen earlier this year in Sonic 2. A powerful yet cocky and childish wannabee hero who has to learn to respect the responsibility needed to be a true hero. Even down to their opening scene involves both characters chasing after thieves in a speeding truck and in their efforts to save the day cause just as much chaos and destruction due to their own hubris. If I had a nickel.

It doesn’t entirely ruin the film as the other 75% of the Turtles are the perfect blend of staying true to their counterparts while doing something different to make them stand out, but when your main Turtle who takes up the most screentime is the complete opposite of who he’s supposed to be, you have to ask what is the point in adapting this property if you’re going to ignore everything that came before it?

-Danny

Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero – Cheap Thoughts

Irrelevancy is the number one concern for any Dragon Ball character not named Goku or Vegeta. A long running series with a multitude of characters means some get left to the wayside, particularly in a series obsessed with power scaling, if you can’t keep up, you get left behind. It has taken 4 movies and 131 episodes of modern Dragon Ball to figure out how to rectify this problem.

Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero (Yes, that naming is awkward) is not only a film for fans – of course that statement is true, no modern Dragon Ball movie has been made for anyone but the fans – but specifically for the fans of the supporting characters, the underdogs, the unrepresented pillars of this universe. With Goku and Vegeta off-world training with Broly (a great continuation from the previous film), it is down to Piccolo to act as Earth’s mighty defender, very much begrudgingly as he would rather anyone else deal with the problem so he can be left alone in peace. The return of the classic Red Ribbon army now building up their own forces to take on Capsule Corp and the Z Warriors, recruiting new hero-themed androids who have been fed propaganda representing our protagonists as threats to the Earth (to be honest, they’re not far off) and now seek to prove themselves as heroes by defeating these alien threats.

It's always a delight to be reminded of how far Piccolo has come as a character, from enslaving demon king to protector of Earth by night, and uncle babysitting the adorable Pan by day. However, he would certainly wish Gohan would take more of an active duty in raising his child instead of obsessing over his hobbies and improving himself in those fields (Like father like Son-Gohan). Gohan on the other hand is a more difficult character to say where his character arc should go. From early Z he was hinted to one day be the greatest fighter on Earth and become its main protector, by the end of the Cell Saga, this goal was achieved. However his story didn’t end there, as his mother also dreamed for him to thrive academically and live a happy normal life. Come the Buu saga this character arc seemed to have come to fruition, and Gohan would live out his life as a scholar, loving father and retired fighter. All well and good, except the story kept on going, a story all about fighters, and if Gohan doesn’t fight, then what does he do here? Not much really. Super Hero brings him to the foreground and challenges this identity, though to questionable success when it is no longer a choice of Gohan’s to make whether he will become a fighter or a scholar, but instead others trying to force him into one specific side. It ends in questionable success, though to be honest, just seeing Gohan actually be given any kind of character development is a blessing at this point, let’s be thankfully for what we get.

The fanservice does not end there, as this may also be the funniest Dragon Ball film released so far, filled with plenty of references both obvious and subtle, character-based humour, meta-commentary and even basic things as characters modernise themselves for current audiences (Piccolo struggling to hold a smartphone will be funny every time).

There is some hesitancy amongst the fans over the animation style, being the first fully 3D animated Dragon Ball film and considering the franchise’s history with CGI people were…sceptical. Thankfully those fans can take a sigh of relief, the film looks great, the character designs mostly translate well into the new style (Saiyan hair can look somewhat wonky in 3D) and it’s great to see the series experiment in new ways, both with its writing and the style of animations.

That sums up this film perfectly. Dragon Ball is a very old franchise in terms of anime and yet is still going strong to this day, and is even making new fans with the younger generations, this is despite no easy entry point besides going back to the original anime from 30 years ago, and yet people go through it, and they stick around because of these newer films that offer them something they still haven’t seen before. Broly offered the best fight scenes the series has ever seen, Battle of Gods expanded the universe into scopes yet undiscovered, Resurrection F…well you can’t win ‘em all. Super Hero continues that trend by not only experimenting with the animation, but offering the supporting cast a chance to shine and even bring in new characters to the ensemble. This film is a welcome edition into the canon and a breath of fresh air into a very old franchise.

-Danny

Lightyear - Cheap Thoughts

No one should be surprised when a spin-off film based on a literal toy franchise feels like nothing more than a big advert for toys, yet that doesn't make the feeling any less hollow. The Toy Story trilogy are 3 of the greatest films in modern animation, they literally birthed the format that every animated feature partakes in, meanwhile they took traditional animation down to the river and shot it in the back of the head. They were certainly profitable through supplementary products, no one's denying that and no one's judging either, they are literally toys, of course they took that and ran. Yet there is only so much you can do before milking this franchise dry, they learnt this with Toy Story 4, a film that has much of a right to exist as a malignant tumour. Rather than continue to whore out their beloved entourage of Andy's former toys, they decided on a spin-off, featuring the "real" Buzz Lightyear, a premise so confusing they have to open the film with it just to explain how this film can possibly exist.

Lightyear like its predecessor has no reason to exist and is just here to make money, but that’s not upsetting, because this is not the Buzz Lightyear we all know and love, this is just…some guy. Some guy who looks similar to him, just enough that they can sell him again as a new toy, but familiar enough people will want him, he also travels around with a toy cat pretending to be a robot, but looks very much like a toy cat for very obvious reasons.

Again, this shouldn’t be surprising to anyone, wanting to make a profit through merchandise is not the sinful anti-art message some would deem it so; but when there was clearly no other motivation behind it. Nobody ran into the Pixar office one day begging to make a Lightyear film because they had the passion and the story the world needed to hear. They were told to make another Toy Story film so they could sell more toys and they worked backwards from there, and what we have is a sloppy narrative held together by tape and gum.

Lightyear sees Buzz (Again, not the one we already know, a different guy in the same suit) go on an adventure to save the day and hopefully along the way learn the value of teamwork and relying on others, except this theme shared throughout the narrative is as clumsy as one can expect in a film that was forced into the world. The film opens with Buzz (Chris Evans) and his Commander (Uzo Aduba) exploring a new world with a Rookie Space Ranger-something Buzz actively dislikes-and disaster strikes while Buzz tries to save the day with the help of his Commander, while actively refusing the help of the Rookie and eventually failing.

Later and in a large chunk of the narrative we see Buzz team up with a ragtag group of untrained misfits to save the day and earn Buzz his redemption and learn the value of teamwork. Except no, Buzz very clearly does understand the value of teamwork, he trusts and respects those who are competent in their positions, such as the Commander or his robot partner Sox (Peter Sohn) and works well with them. The people he doesn’t work well with are the Rookies, the people unprepared for the mission and any responsible officer would make the correct decision in leaving them behind as taking them aboard would make them a danger to themselves and everyone else.

The film naturally is a beauty to watch, Pixar continue to improve on their detailing and lighting engines far beyond what anyone could expect, once you think they’ve reached their peak they somehow top themselves. In fact while many complain (rightfully) that Turning Red should have gotten a theatrical release being the better of the two films, to be perfectly honest Lightyear earns that honour as well as it’s visuals are stunning on a cinematic scale.

This isn’t anything new, no matter what the plot of a Pixar movie is, they are never going to disappoint on the technical aspect. Where this film is a disappointment begins and ends with the narrative…which is sadly rather important to most films.

-Danny

The Bob's Burgers Movie - Cheap Thoughts

When the news broke that Bob’s Burgers was getting a movie it seemed…odd. Not due to the show’s lack of quality or popularity, but the fact it’s not a very “cinematic” series. Bob’s Burgers is a series about a working-class family in a small town running a struggling business. The conflicts are always small and relatable, the show in both tone and plot was grounded, there was no rubber band logic of other animated hits turned into films like The Simpsons or South Park. You were never going to see Bob Belcher fly into space, but you will definitely see him worry about how he’s going to pay rent this month. Then there is the whole aesthetic of the show, which is very minimal and to be honest, ugly. It certainly has it’s charm but it’s not exactly silver screen worthy, the most they can do to improve upon their presentation is the typical transition of TV Cartoon to Movie Cartoon: Characters now have shading. Even the more cinematic element of the show’s identity, their passion for music is underplayed in a seemingly missed opportunity when the film opens with a catchy number implying a full blown musical but it fizzles out after the second song.

This is all a very negative introduction to what is honestly a good film. The Bob’s Burgers Movie is sure to please all fans of the series, it maintains their trademark good sense of humour, family friendly and consistently chuckle worthy from beginning to end thanks to talented writers and equally talented voice cast. It’s unlikely to cause any belly buster laughs but that was never what Bob’s Burgers was as a franchise, it’s comfort food. It is something to relax to, know you’ll be comfortable and have a jovial time for the next twenty minutes, only this time it’s stretched out to an hour and a half yet maintains that momentum (however glacial it may be).

If you have never seen Bob’s Burgers, it’s safe to say you’ll get just as much enjoyment out of this picture as any long-term fan. Heck, you might even get more out of it by hopefully becoming a fan and now having 9 seasons worth of television to enjoy. It’s as simple as that, The Bob’s Burgers Movie is an enjoyable quick picture for all audiences, fans or otherwise.

Elvis - Cheap Thoughts

Musical biopics have risen in popularity over the past few years. With the baffling success of Bohemian Rhapsody it seems it opened a floodgate for more (and better) films of the genre. 2019’s Rocketman framed the narrative as a traditional musical, and this year’s Elvis approached it with Baz Luhrmann’s trademarked maximalist style of fast editing, loud visuals and an awful lot of passion. Everything you could want from a Luhrmann picture is found here, his rapid pacing, sweaty emotional outbursts from characters and a bricolage of styles and aesthetics coming together to somehow make a cohesive vision.

Luhrmann’s style is definitely a welcome approach to the subject matter, it is the films beating heart to prevent it from becoming stale, as on a script level this is still as standard a musical biopic as you can get. Show their childhood, their influence, their rise to fame, their inevitable downfall and end it with one final great performance to show their comeback. The film tries to add something new of a framing device formed from the perspective of Elvis’ (Austin Butler) manager Colonel Parker (Tom Hanks), traditionally viewed to be the bad guy of the King’s story that we’re told through a Salieri style narration. The man who destroyed Elvis presents his side of the story…except not really. It is very clear from minute one that Parker is the villain, that all of his actions are manipulative, selfish and damaging to Presley and his family. There is no debate or discussion, no presentation of an unreliable narrator, just a man claiming he is not the bad guy, only to spin you a yarn in which he makes no attempt to present himself as anything other than the irredeemable monster of the narrative.

Hanks’ performance is somewhat of a divisive nature, there is a level of goofiness to it, after all its Tom Hanks in a fat suit putting on a cartoonish Dutch accent, in itself fine and fitting for a Luhrmann film, but when contrasted with Butler who is putting in a career defining performance is where the issue lies. Delivering nuance and depth to a performance that could easily fall into a cheap impression, after all people have made entire careers out of being Elvis impersonators and in comes Butler to dance on that line, only to act across the cartoon character Hanks has developed.

If Biopics are here to stay then it’s nice to see developments in the styles these films approach the tales, but if there are truly going to stick around then it is imperative they all find new ways to approach the narrative structure on a script level. If any screenwriters out there are writing their big biopic on a classic musician, ask yourself if your script shares any similarities with Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story, then maybe rethink your plot.

-Danny

RRR - Cheap Thoughts

This is as far removed from a picture as I can be. My experience with Indian cinema, culture and history is astonishingly small, and all information I do know about this film and it’s cultural context comes from secondary sources, so this is practically my entry point that came to me entirely through word of mouth. This is important context to establish when discussing RRR because my god, what a film to start with.

If you’ve heard anything about RRR it’s most likely been hyperbolic praise claiming that everything the film does is simply…the most it could be done. Every action, every emotion, every camera movement is as bombastic and grandiose as it could be, which is very much the truth. There is no ambiguity or room for personal interpretation, the film is determined to make sure you not only understand exactly what the characters are feeling, but they are feeling the most of that specific emotion than anyone possibly could. If two people are friends, they are frolicking in fields with glee, if someone is heartbroken, they are screaming their heart out and flooding their home with tears, if there is a fight scene they strike with so much adrenaline and power the Earth will tremble at their presence. The film follows the story of two men who quickly become best friends, not realising they are on opposite sides of a war, and we follow the tale of their friendship and their inevitable clash of ideology as well as fists. The two are described as the friendship between a storm and a volcano, and they absolutely earn those comparisons, these men Bheem (N. T. Rama Rao Jr.) and Raju (Ram Charan) do everything with the passion and force that alters the world around them.

These large personalities aren’t just limited to their macho violence but in their love for one another, their sympathy for those around them and their utter joy when dancing together, oh yes because this film is also a musical, they really put everything in here and somehow do it all excellently. This is the true beauty of RRR, yes everything is dialed up to 11, but it never loses the passion and love that focuses the picture, everything the characters do is not for their hatred of the enemy, or the external desire of the actors to look cooler than everyone else, but on Bheem and Raju’s love for their people, for their families and for one another. They will move Heaven and Earth for them and the talents of director S. S. Rajamouli gives them the girth and gravitas to make it happen.

RRR is a little bit of everything, actually, no, it’s a lot of everything, it is the most of everything and it is the best of everything. A Maximalist Modern Masterpiece.

-Danny

Top Gun: Maverick - Cheap Thoughts

Pete ‘Maverick’ Mitchell is a fossil, a pilot of a bygone era that doesn’t have a place in modern society. That is how he is described early on in the film, that his character and his way of doing things is a relic of the past. This is also how Tom Cruise could be described as a movie star, in fact his entire filmography of the 21^st century is something of an outlier. Cruise is often described as the last true movie star, he’s a name that draws an audience and he also retains creative control over a lot of his productions, and with that power he commits anything and everything towards making the film. Cruise doesn’t half-arse anything, if he is making a film where he is a fighter pilot, he is going to learn everything he can about the jets, he will have his team learn everything they can about the jets, and they will film as much of it practically and realistically as possible. Forget “They don’t make movies like this anymore” they just simply don’t make movies like this, anywhere, at any time. Unless of course you’re Tom-Bloody-Cruise, the most committed man in Hollywood to the craft.

It doesn’t take long for the film to leave you jaw-dropped, with an early flight sequence of Cruise making it to Mach-10 not even 10 minutes into the film and the absolute power you feel from the jet, the beautiful scope of planet Earth as Maverick takes it in and even he can’t help but be awestruck at the view. The film takes that level of adrenaline and never loses it, and not just in the flight sequences-all of which are just stunning in their practicality, choreography and weight-but all these impossibly beautiful people dramatically posing in front of a never-ending sunset before driving away on a cool motorcycle, there is such an attitude to the film that it’s hard to argue it doesn’t earn.

More so than just aesthetic or production being against the grain of modern blockbusters is the attitude of the picture. Top Gun is one of the most stylised, personality driven action films of the 80s, it is also incredibly corny by modern standards. In a post-modern sarcasm ruling world, it’s amazing that there is not a hint of snark to be found anywhere in this film. No cringing of their younger selves, no pointing out the newer hotter models of old characters; no irony, no cynicism, no mockery to be found, just honest heartfelt storytelling. That exact attitude is what the film lives and dies by, because no one is going to argue the film has a complex story exactly, it is very simple Unnamed Bad Guys^tm have weapons that are hard to get to, Good Guys need to train to destroy them and hopefully overcome their emotional barriers on the way. Simple, smooth, slick. That’s Top Gun: Maverick baby.

-Danny

Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers - Cheap Thoughts

You know why Who Framed Roger Rabbit was successful? Because it wasn’t the cartoon references, that might certainly have gotten people into the seats, but that’s not what has kept people coming back to it for 40 years. It’s because of the effort. It’s because you notice how much time and detail went into every fraction of that movie, how the live-action actors interact with their 2-Dimensional counterparts, how the sets and props will do the same, how the film is designed to accurately function as a pastiche of 40s noir thrillers, and so on, and so on. It also does all this while telling its own story and keeping the references to simple set dressing.

You might say it’s unfair to begin this review by comparing one film to another made a long time ago, but that’s the thing, this film isn’t interested in being a real film, it just wants you to remember things. A self-referential irony plagued pop-culture nostalgia bate that offers nothing in terms of legitimate story or jokes, just plenty of pointing at the screen and saying “hey I remember that thing!”. You know what the worst part is? It’s not even the worst film amongst this genre. It’s still been beat out by Space Jam: A New Legacy as the most self-indulgent drivel that’s lucky a literal pandemic had to happen to stop it from being the worst thing to happen to cinemas. Yet somehow that makes this worse, it’s not even a film bad enough to worth getting angry about.

Everyone did the bare minimum, they showed up, did their bit, went home and thought nothing of it. Everything from the pathetically shallow performances that never convincingly have you believe these live-action actors and animated characters are ever sharing the same space, to the jokes that again all consist of “Hey remember this thing” except sometimes sprinkled in with “Hey remember this thing, we’re gonna have it be pathetic now”. Bit of advice for you filmmakers, if one of the big plot points of your film is that one character is traditionally animated and the other is computer generated, perhaps have the former be traditionally animated and not computer generated trying to look traditionally animated? But of course, doing that would require any kind of thought, or effort, or style, you know, the things needed to make a movie?

This is definitely a bare-bones lazy review, but this is a very lazy movie, it doesn’t deserve effort being put into discussing it because no effort was put into making it. It’s bad, of course it is, so let’s go home and think nothing of it.

-Danny

Everything Everywhere All At Once - Cheap Thoughts

There’s nowhere to begin with this movie. It goes everywhere and encompasses everything. Comedy? Action? Existentialism? Family? The film becomes everything and leaves nothing except…nothing. Which is in itself the question, when you have everything, when you experience everything, what is left except nothing? Describing the plot is a little hard, to describe the themes is to address everything. A grandiose piece of philosophy and godhood, what matters? Does anything matter? Does it matter if nothing matters? Did you file your taxes properly?

Within all those questions is simply a mother regretting her life, a father unable to fight for what he loves and a daughter feeling unseen and unheard. How can you matter to the universe if you don’t matter to your mother? Can you fight for what you love without fighting at all? Is every decision you made the wrong one? Artists and philosophers have asked these questions and their variants since history began. We’re a species obsessed with finding purpose in a universe of random events and our attempts to find answers simply leaves us feeling smaller and less significant with every development.

Directors Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert somehow find a new way to ask these questions. They present us not with a filmed thesis but with a multiverse hopping action-comedy that sees average joes become martial art stars, sausage fingered humans, infinity bagels and googly eyed rocks. The adrenaline fuelled nonsensical creativity is a staple of The Daniels style as seen in their directorial debut Swiss Army Man, another film that layers deep introspective questions over farcical comedy and vulnerable people. The film is a joke, it is ridiculous down to the bone but doesn’t act like it. It’s silly to us, but not the characters, this is their lives, their norm, there is nothing to laugh at and so they will commit everything and present it with just sincerity it’s amazing how well they blend these ludicrous set-ups with such genuine human emotion (Human being optional). This allows the action to flow with such intensity and violence, it makes for some truly wonderful fight scenes. Likewise the comedy is creative and highly entertaining, after all who wouldn’t find a woman using a dog as a pair of nunchucks hilarious? Then finally throughout all that, the sci-fi jargon, the stellar action and the surreal premises, it’s simply a film about a family, a family trying to find purpose, to find meaning and to find love.

We are so small, and we are getting smaller every day and one day all of us will be gone. But a thing isn’t beautiful because it lasts, or because it’s big or because it’s easy. You do not have to be the most important thing in existence to be important, you just need to be important to someone, that is what makes you matter. So what does the film suggest we do to make that happen?

Be Kind.

-Danny

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness - Cheap Thoughts

It’s hard to feint excitement for a new MCU product, not because they always lack quality, but because they are on an endless conveyor belt of content you never go any time without them. The final episode of Moon Knight came out on Wednesday and this movie came out on Thursday. You can’t anticipate something that is omnipresent. What we can be excited for and haven’t seen in a very long time is a new film from the one Sam Raimi. 9 Years since his last directorial feature and it’s with the biggest corporation in the film industry, considering this man has been burnt by studio’s before, all the way back with his sophomore (and underrated) feature Crimewave, to the infamous studio meddling of Spider-Man 3, to the watered down and voiceless Oz The Great & Powerful, it wouldn’t be a surprise if the man swore off any studio film for the rest of his life…so yes let’s say interest was certainly peaked when this production was announced.

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (Yes that is the best title to any Marvel movie) is certainly the most vocal a director has been behind the camera. His distinct style and voice is definitely there, the use of horror, the over the top presentation, the wonky camera movements, everything you would expect, but it is still Raimi being reserved. Marvel doesn’t just hire this man because he’s a marketable name, but because he does have a genuine style they want to utilise, they also know it has to be held back and blended with the style of the MCU and frankly, on that level, this might be the best studio film Raimi has ever made. Not in terms of plot, style or creativity, but in production. There is no clash to be felt, purely compromise on both ends, as any good collaborative experience should be. Raimi gets to bring his toys to the playground but doesn’t force everyone else to play with them.

The unexpected yet best collaboration to come from this production is that of Elizabeth Olsen, the longest running cast member of this film, who has certainly grown as a performer with each instalment and yet does her best work here working with Raimi (Yes, even more than WandaVision). It’s hard to pin down why, certainly a lot of it is for the legwork done by other productions to develop her character, but there is a physicality and lack of restraint to this performance. Olsen is an unstoppable force and Raimi is steering her in all the right directions, absolutely the scene stealer of the film.

If you’ve been around the block and you know how this modern Hollywood system works, you can probably tell what’s coming next. It’s unthinkable that Sam Raimi would spend nearly a decade of not making movies, only to come back for a studio production where he had to restrain himself without something promised in the pipelines. The trend of directors promising to make a billion dollar movie for a studio so they can get a blank check on their next passion project is clockwork, which means it won’t be long before we get a true unchained Raimi flick in the next couple of years and if so then we truly have something to look forward to, and as far as compromise films go for better productions later on? Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is certainly in the upper echelon.

-Danny

The Northman - Cheap Thoughts

For nothing else Robert Egger commits to the bit, whatever work of supernatural historical fiction he is working on, it feels like you are being transported back to that time and place. The Northman is the latest in this line, with vicious, animalistic Vikings who seek bloodshed, honour and kinship. Half the time you will not understand the words being spoken due to their archaic dialect, and yet every emotion is felt with such ferocity, everything that needs to be understood will be.

This commitment doesn’t just lie within the violence, but within every fibre of its being. The cultures being represented, the dialogue being spoken, the outfits and make-up on the actors. There is no shame even in the more ridiculous parts because why should there be? This may be a film being shown to 21^st century audiences but it does not act like it is. This is a retelling of these people and their rituals and their lifestyle, it shall not compromise itself for your modern sensibilities, either come along for the ride or get off.

That being said, the plot itself is relatively easy to follow even if the presentation does not always act like it is. It is a simple revenge tale supposedly based off of real world events, but has been adapted and influenced multiple times across the past thousand years many people can catch on simply due to osmosis. If you’ve seen Hamlet, The Count of Monte Cristo or The Lion King, chances are you will understand this plot with ease, and can simply be carried by the immaculate vibes of the production.

To list everything good about The Northman is to simply list everything about it, every actor gives wonderful performances, no one holds back, they bare their bodies and souls quite literally for the sake of the film. The visuals are gloriously spectacular, the camera is slow and methodical for most of the picture, it is unnerving with its movements, and yet has such an aggression during the action scenes, there is a dynamism to every frame, in simple terms it is a very cool looking movie even when it’s not trying to be.

It is rare a treat for someone like Eggers to be given such a large film, it is an epic in every sense of the word and few films are like it. Many historical epics still feel the need to modernise themselves for the sake of audiences desires, which is certainly not a bad thing, there is a place for them, but to have such an authentic feeling experience on the big screen on a large budget is a treat that should not be taken lightly. Egger’s prior films also had this authenticity, but they were on the smaller scale forced onto them if they wished to exist.

The Northman combines the best of all features. A basic plot, a unique vision and a strong emotional thread to carry the film. Those three things fused offer one hell of a picture, you’re sure to leave the film with your adrenaline pumping and ready to fight your mortal enemy by the gates of Hel, and if you don’t have a mortal enemy, by Odin’s beard you’ll wish you did.

-Danny

The Lost City - Cheap Thoughts

It’s hard to not route for a comedic adventure flick. They exist purely to entertain the eyes of every family member. They are harmless, light-hearted and joyful. They’re also somewhat of a rarity these days as audiences can allow their irony poisoned minds and cynical perspective to want to bully and mock them, despite them being one of the oldest genres cinema has to offer. The Lost City is not entirely immune to this, there is a level of self-awareness and winking to the audience as if to say we’re all in on the joke, but the film shines best when it doesn’t rely on that. When it allows the natural comedy and charisma of its leads hold up the film, which is what they do. It’s rather impressive considering where Channing Tatum started out in his career where Hollywood wanted to make him the next cool and badass pretty boy, and yet he truly shines best when he gets to play the imperfect yet enigmatic golden retrievers, and this film sees him as both of those. Lampooning his initial presentation yet highlighting that likeable goofball energy he exudes in works such as the Jump Street films or Hail Ceasar! Which is not to say he doesn’t work great in other roles such as Magic Mike and Foxcatcher, but it’s clear this is his peak as the well-meaning, clumsy himbo.

The same can be said for Daniel Radcliffe who is eating it up as the villain, he has spent the last decade riding that Harry Potter money and committing himself to weird, loud and inscrutable characters across a variety of films. In this case the 2-Dementional adventure serial bad guy, a shallow egomaniac who behaves more like a spoilt brat than a business tycoon and Radcliffe is enjoying every moment of it.

To save Sandra Bullock for last might make it seem like she brings the least to the film and while this is technically true as she acts as the straight man against these grown children, it should never be undervalued the talents of a good straight man. Bullock has been playing these type of characters for several decades now, she slips into them with ease and she is always a delight to watch on screen.

Beyond the leads there is not much else to the film, it has a standard story, basic visuals and sometimes groan worthy supporting cast, but it is aware of what it is, sometimes too much so. It is light, fluffy entertainment that shall be consumed for brief joy and moved on with. It is a sugary snack of a film, which we need from time to time.

-Danny

Sonic The Hedgehog 2 - Cheap Thoughts

It’s strange how audiences can book end a pandemic between the two Sonic the Hedgehog movies. This is despite the fact the pandemic has not actually ended but everyone is acting like it is cause we’re all bored of it and are pretending everything has gone back to normal. With that being said, has Sonic the Hedgehog 2 learnt anything in that time and changed their approach to telling these stories? Well, yes but…that’s a very soft yes.

For one thing the franchise no longer seems as afraid to commit to the brand as it was in the prior film, the majority of the focus is on the Sonic characters and the film originals (I.e., The Humans) receive far less screentime than they did in the prior instalment. To be fair this is an issue that has played the Sonic franchise across all media, they never seem to catch on that-excluding Robotnik-no one cares about human characters in Sonic, that’s not what they want to see, they want to see cartoon animals with superpowers go on adventures and fight each other, which this film certainly delivers on. Infamously the original film had an awful character design for a “realistic Sonic” and only after fan backlash did they commit to a more faithful design, but it was clear it was too late to change the rest of the film to fit a more cartoonish tone. This time round we mainly follow Sonic (Ben Shwartz) and Tails (Colleen O'Shaughnessey) go on a globe trotting adventure against Knuckles (Idris Elba) and a redesigned and more faithful Dr Robotnik (Jim Carrey), with the humans intentionally being sent off on vacation to be absent for most of the picture.

So with this lesson seemingly being learnt, why on Earth did the creators decide to commit most of the 3^rd act to following exclusively the human characters? Had they really not learnt their lesson? No one cares about whatshernames wedding or the whatchamacallit cop, they are not interesting characters, and they certainly don’t offer anything in terms of legitimate comedy, when all they do is pull silly faces and make pop-culture references. An extended sequence of Rachel (Natasha Rothwell) who if you need to be reminded is the protagonists parental figure’s sister…so as deep into tertiary characters as you can get, has a dedicated 10 minutes of the film exclusively following her, her wedding and her relationship, when none of the actual main characters are present, and this has nothing to do with the main plot, was there no one in the room to point out in this 2 hour movie that literally not a single audience member gives a damn about this character or their relationships?

Of course this is not the only unfunny sequence of the film, because the entirety of the film lacks any sense of comedic talent being present in the writing process, where nearly every single joke consists of solely pop-culture references. Not making any witty observations or pastiches, but just acknowledging when something is like Batman, or Ghostbusters, or name-dropping Oprah or Dwayne Johnson because people recognise these things and that is the entirety of the joke. The blame here is entirely on the writers because much of this cast have done good comedy work before, and the problems with the script don’t stop there.

Yet again the writers feel the need to baby their audience by spelling out every lesson, arc or change in case the 3-year-old on their iPad was confused on what was happening. Early in the film Sonic’s arc is established of trying to become a hero, but to do so he will have to make a truly selfless action, which they refer to as “his moment” and several times in the film when any progress in his arc is made, he points it out by verbalising “This is my moment”. Seriously, show even the slightest bit of respect for your audience, they will understand what a character arc is, it’s a plot for a Sonic the Hedgehog movie, it is very basic and easy to understand and predict, they did not need it spelling out for them.

To keep it blunt, as it’s what this film would prefer, Sonic The Hedgehog 2 is…better than the original. The focus is mainly on the right characters, the tone and story are better suited for it, but better does not translate to good, and unless they actually get some competent writers behind these films I don’t think they ever will be, because they seem contempt with offering some of the laziest, pandering and unfunny scripts possible for these films.

-Danny

Turning Red - Cheap Thoughts

Puberty sucks. It sucks for everyone, the only thing that could make it infinitely worse is if you transformed into a giant monster at the sign of any strong emotion so…good thing teenagers don’t experience any of that. Turning Red is built on a lot of foundations that have come before in other Pixar/Disney films, a rebellious teenager who goes against her parents wishes for the sake of her own identity, face off against many obstacles, the main of which being their own internal dilemma taking a physical manifestation. Yet fewer Disney films take such an analytical approach to the subject matter as Turning Red does. The act of rebellion is not just an act for the sake of it, but it is one built up out of a burning desire to be one’s own person, even when that person goes against their own parents’ ideal version of oneself. Our main character Mei (Rosalie Chiang) is not necessarily lying to her parents in who she is, the part they see is still a part of her, but that active repression of her other side that she gets to be with her friends makes it an escape from a family that requires all the success but offers none of the trust. We were all different with our friends than we were our families, in some ways that felt more like the real version of us, and if that’s not something you relate to then really question what kind of childhood you had.

The film also allows Pixar to experiment more with their own animation style. Truth be told Pixar have always felt weightier and more realistic on their designs and animation. This has allowed for some truly breath-taking and impressive looking films but is limiting in the opportunities provided by the medium of animation. Turning Red is expressive, it’s rubbery, it’s exaggerated and all in the favour of creating one of (if not) the most visually hilarious films Pixar have ever made. It’s certainly a shame that the three latest Pixar films which all happen to be some of their most creative, smart and emotionally nuanced films have all been straight to streaming, when the inarguable cash grab that will be Lightyear still receives the theatrical release. Pixar are one of the few major studios that still make original features that appeal to broader audiences, it’s saddening to see their work be relegated like this.

Turning Red is going to mean a lot to a lot of people, it’s a subject matter that can be connected with and rarely gets discussed this deeply, and yet it never loses its sense of personal identity. In the broader scale this is a story of a teenager struggling with their identity between their friends and their family. On a personal scale it is still the story of a 13-year-old Chinese Canadian girl hitting puberty and anyone who can connect to any of those nouns, this is a unique experience of seeing themselves in a major motion picture, and no one can take that away.

-Danny

The Batman - Cheap Thoughts

There is always far too much to say about a Batman movie, contextualizing it within the grander scheme of the superhero genre, the DC (Sometimes shared) Cinematic Universe and just the Batman franchise as a whole is a very exhausting task. Despite often being portrayed as the darkest and grittiest of all the dark and gritty superheroes, Batman is possibly the most versatile in tone that you can get. There is room for all interpretations, for the realistic crime dramas of the Nolan films, to the gothic arthouses of the Burton films and the absurdist comedy of the 60s film or LEGO Batman. To describe one version as “understanding Batman” is a vague and unhelpful term, there is no one Batman, but there will always be another Batman.

The Batman offers up a delectable meal of a film, it is visually stunning in every matter, the production design of James Chinlund presents Gotham of a cesspool of corrupt power-hungry men forcing the crowded disenfranchised into a life of crime or poverty while also creating the exact world a Batman can both feed on and be needed for. Director Matt Reeves and DoP Greig Fraser know the importance of bringing a new angle to the character in a very literal sense by presenting the action from perspectives we have not scene before. Not quite as dramatic as Burton, or as realistic as Nolan, but a nice in-between point. The cast is all top notch performances but the highlights are easily Robert Pattinson in the lead and Zoe Kravitz as Catwoman, these two beautiful gothic drama queens who are as violent as they are horny, functioning on the same wave length making them arguably the best pairing of the two we’ve ever seen. The only exception to this stellar cast is sadly Paul Dano who seems to have fallen into the trope of thinking shouting at the top of your lungs is the same as character acting. Colin Farrell may be chewing the scenery, but at least he’s munching on the scenery for the film he’s in, Dano seems to think he’s in a very different film than everyone else.

Running at roughly 3 hours it’s easy for the film to become somewhat convoluted in its story, by which it seems the film begins by asking a question and by the end is answering a completely different one. Bruce Wayne is a non-existent character, he has committed himself fully to being The Batman, and it is that denial of this part of his identity that acts as the initial character arc set up, Bruce ignoring his Wayne heritage and the weight that legacy holds comes back to bite him, and yet this never goes onto be solved, despite many negative consequences coming because of it. Instead the film answers what the importance of Batman is, how he best functions and what his relationship is with Gotham…okay, but you didn’t ask that, you asked how important is Bruce Wayne compared to the Batman (Turns out, very important) and you didn’t give any kind of solution.

To discuss this film fully in detail would be both spoiler heavy and also require a lot of energy to discuss, so let’s just leave it at this. The Batman is a good film, it is however, just another Batman film. It does not do enough to prove why another interpretation was needed, and it becomes so indulgent in a mystery that ultimately did not matter that it does not earn its run time. It is a technically well-made film with great performances but loses itself along a very long path.

-Danny

Uncharted - Cheap Thoughts

It’s hard to be excited for a feature when the disingenuous nature of its existence is presented right in its male lead. Nathan Drake is not the most complicated character in videogame history, really any white man with an obnoxious yet charming charisma could play him, and throw a stone in any direction in Hollywood and you’ll hit an actor with that exact persona. Thus the casting of Tom Holland shows right from the beginning this was never about faithful adaptation, but name recognition. The celebrity draw might be a smaller pool than it once was, but Holland is definitely a name that draws younger audiences, and he’s certainly provides plenty of entertainment to the screen, he is more the awkward funny man who thankfully is able to perform his own stunts than he is a Nathan Drake fit. Not to mention he has permanent baby face forcing this to be an origin story meaning the rest of the cast has to be infantilize along with it. Mark Wahlberg as Sully only solidifies this as name brand casting rather than accuracy, and just slap the Uncharted name on for brand recognition.

Uncharted as a videogame franchise was always more heavily targeted towards entertaining characters and big spectacle action scenes. What made it work was the talents of Amy Hennig’s direction and the wonderful chemistry of the cast as characters with established relationships who know each other well. So having that all undone with an entirely new cast all of whom don’t know each other so there are no established bonds and thus a lot of hesitancy and betrayal amongst the ensemble and there is so much back and forth of characters working together, betraying each other, working together again, all switching between them like a light. Trust is the theme of the day with this film, with its protagonist Nathan Drake (Tom Holland) being the only one willing to trust everyone as he’s new to the treasure hunting business while everyone else betrays one another with every other blink and hopefully along the way they’ll learn to trust except they don’t. These alliances change so rapidly with no clear momentum being built on who is friends with who that in the end people trust or don’t trust one another simply because the script says so, with no clear reason for the characters because no relationship is consistent enough to build a rapport.

As for the bombastic action scenes, likewise it is something that is lost but that is more due to changing of mediums. People have often said that Uncharted would work well as a film but truly that is only because structurally there is nothing too solidified in videogames as the only medium these stories could be told, however the spectacle is where it specialised. It’s one thing to watch Tom Holland on a green screen pretending to be thrown from a plane, it’s another thing entirely for you the audience to be the one thrown from a plane as you’re the controller of the narrative. That type of immediate empathy created so rapidly that only videogames can is what made Uncharted a success. You weren’t watching these great adventures, you were the one experiencing it.

Not to say films can’t have that kind of spectacle, they very much can, and this film had that opportunity, but sadly it was squandered. If Venom proved anything it’s that Ruben Fleischer is a mediocre director at best, but absolutely not someone who can properly handle a blockbuster size film. Considering the climax of the film has an absolutely absurd yet entertaining setting for an action scene, with the wonderfully talented Chung-hoon Chung as Director of Photography and a lead actor who famously does his own stunts and yet it is such a dull, lifeless and poorly sequenced action scene, as most of them are.

There is no spectacle to be found in this adventure film, no charisma to the found in its cast, no purpose in adapting this property. It is a soulless cash-grab so elegantly designed to grab as much of said cash as possible, if only it put that much effort into making a good film.

-Danny

Marry Me - Cheap Thoughts

How nostalgic. A simple mid-budget rom-com starring two decently popular celebrities in hopes of entertaining audiences for just under 2 hours, a staple of a bygone era. Even giving itself the increased absurdity of its premise, Marry Me is a charming romp that fulfils the basic desires sought out within its genre. Owen Wilson and Jennifer Lopez have decent chemistry even if it’s a relationship that is intentionally tricky to pull off, they are meant to be from “completely different worlds and not fit together except surprisingly they do” and that’s actually pulled off quite well without question. The majority of the film consists of scenes with them simply bonding and building this slow relationship from the absurd starting point as they get to know each other, better each other and make on another happy as all healthy relationships should do.

That starting point if you’re unaware is that J-Lo plays an international celebrity (So herself) who was supposed to marry her equally famous partner live during a concert, however he is caught cheating minutes before, so in a state of panic, humiliation, and confusion, she picks out a random member of the audience to marry him instead. That man just happens to be our leading boy Owen Wilson, a social media hermit who has no idea who she is, he was only in attendance for the sake of his preteen daughter, and him also now being thrust into a state of confusion goes along with it and they will try to build a relationship from there, so she doesn’t seem too insane to the general public. If you can accept that wildly silly premise, then you’re likely in for a charming time.

Despite tonally being very inline with a 2000s romcom, it does still take a modern approach with its story, very aware of the presence of social media in our everyday lives, and how much of pop-culture is centred around it. It has the power to turn an average joe into an international celebrity overnight entirely by accident, but it also becomes something you are chained too and can dictate how you run your life, you’re not actually living your life for you, you live it for the views. Wilson’s character not being online makes him somewhat of a modern-day caveman considering how little he knows about pop-culture and how social interactions has changed. The film doesn’t delve too deep into this para-social nightmare, that’s not it’s place, it uses it as a tool to show the difference of worlds Wilson and Lopez lives.

It’s cute. What else could you want? A charming film for Valentine’s Day to guarantee you’ve got something romantic planned.

-Danny

Belle - Cheap Thoughts

Hosoda has always had an interesting perspective when it comes to the internet, not only by having a unique visual language to present the digital space but how he presents both the positive and negative aspects of this young system that has changed societal culture on an international scale. Belle is a story of how we present our online personas, in this universe everyone’s persona is crafted for them based on their physical features and their personal strengths, to give them a second life and a second chance, however that version of them is merely a reflection, a fabrication, to truly grow you have to accept the lesser sides of you and find ways to embrace, grow or forgive them. Suzu (Kaho Nakamura/Kylie McNeill) is a timid and awkward teenage girl unable to come to terms with a traumatic experience early on in life, however in the world of ‘U’ the online space she is able to become a worldwide celebrity due to her beautiful singing voice while also benefit from the anonymity the internet provides, to hide her pain. That is until she comes across a Beast (Takeru Satoh/Paul Castro Jr.) who wears his trauma on his sleeve and makes it his entire identity. For both of them to better themselves they have to help each other find a middle ground, to neither ignore your trauma or be consumed by it.

There’s an emotional honesty to Belle, a fragility in every aspect, from the character animation, the performances and the music. It doesn’t hold back the darker aspects but it is by no means a dark film. This master of tone and presentation is something Hosoda has handled in the best of his films, and he often builds on what he has made in the past. There are certainly similarities to be found between his and his other films (Most notably his 2009 hit Summer Wars, which in itself was him remaking his work on Digimon) and yet it never feels lacklustre of half-baked. Even when he copies his own work, he works to make it better from the last, and even then, no one is doing it like Hosoda, it’s a style contained to his own filmography that you just don’t tire of.

What does become lacklustre is when he lifts from work besides his own. You probably already caught on to the direct references between this film and Disney’s Beauty and the Beast, and no, he’s not just referencing the classic tale, but making direct parallels to specifically the 1991 version. While the basic homage works to create a framework and strengthen the themes of the film, there are times where it becomes more indulgent and distracting that it actually takes away from the film. When the audience is no longer just thinking about this film but thinking about another film made by entirely different people and wondering why they’re watching someone’s sci-fi fanfic about it. Thankfully these moments are only a handful, so it doesn’t detract too much, but it’s a noticeable distraction.

With all that being said, Belle is another wonderful feature from Hosoda, the waves of emotion that wash over you will leave you long after the credits, it lives up to its title as a beauty.

-Danny

Nightmare Alley - Cheap Thoughts

If you’re a surveyor of Guillermo Del Toro’s work for long enough, there is plenty to expect from him. He has a fascination with the macabre, to pull back the veil, to sympathise with it and bring it dimension. He finds beauty in the horrific, and with that talent he was able to take this story of a decrepit person, a manipulator and con-man, to have us see his life, his point of view and slowly witness his downfall and all those he would hurt along the way, and yet at no moment do you want to look away, bar the gore perhaps, but story-wise, it’s as enthralling as ever. Arguably this is the toughest sell of a character Guillermo has had to present. In the past it’s always been with very literal monsters but what do you do with a man? A broken man, to his core, his soul is poisoned and those who get close to him will only be poisoned in the process. He may have the handsome exterior and the charm of Bradley Cooper, but this man is more damaging than any other monster in Guillermo’s films.

Complimenting this wonderfully is the visuals, which of course should be no surprise to anyone that they are gorgeous, that Del Toro creates a modern-noir filled with dark shadows yet bright spotlights, a truly enthralling world and atmosphere that you become sucked into, you believe it’s real and you want to spend time there despite the nature of this world presented to be cold and cruel. Del Toro has transported us to worlds many a times and it is a talent that has not wavered in the slightest. There is nothing supernatural about what he offers us yet he is making magic happen on screen purely down to talent.

This is all very aggrandising of Del Toro’s talents but truth be told amongst his filmography this still could be seen as one of his weaker ones. Combining it’s length and it’s nihilistic content it’s certainly one of his less rewatchable ones, and everything stated above could easily be reworded to claim it’s more of the same, if you’re familiar enough with Del Toro’s work then this is hardly something that would reinvent the wheel. Then again why would you want to? He’s a master, one of the most talented filmmakers of our generation, him simply giving us more of the same is still leagues above what the majority are giving us. There is still challenge in there but it’s more so in the details than with the big picture. He brings out the best of his camera, his cast and his subject matter. To be standard is to be stellar, to ask for anything more feels selfish, it’s like asking a fish to be a better swimmer.

-Danny

Scream (2022) - Cheap Thoughts

Scream should not have made it this far. It was created to be a pastiche of slasher films of the 80s and 90s and yet somehow has stayed relevant through 4 decades despite the constant changes the horror genre has undergone in that whole time. Scream 5 (Let’s just call it that for clarity) continues this impressive winning streak. Satirising all modern aspects of horror such as the trend of ‘requels’, the concept of elevated horror, and toxic fanbases, Scream 5 is an unsubtle yet critical as its brethren while being one of the more violent of the collection, so basically everything you could want from a Scream film.

At this point in the meta-textual wormhole of self-referential storytelling the film has entered a state of immunity on being able to guess the killer, we’ve now reached a point where the most obvious suspect is the least obvious but that turns back around to make them the most obvious but has that been twisted again to make them the least obvious?…It is this type of thinking that only a franchise this deep into can get away with, and it’s reflected in the characters as once again everyone is a suspect because there is no such thing as too obvious or not obvious enough, yet once the film is over and the killer is revealed, you think back on how many clues were left out in the open to suggest the killer’s identity. In the meantime, it results in a lot of character pointing fingers at each other over the slightest suspicion, much like the audience.

An underrated aspect of the Scream franchise that honestly sets them apart from the same slasher films they satirize is they often have interesting ensembles of future victims. One of the elements of slasher films that made them entertaining was the characters were simply body bags to see get creatively dismembered, but Scream makes a habit of making them appealing, well developed and expressive, so the audience doesn’t actually want to see them get stabbed to death, bringing back that genuine sense of terror. Scream 5 might have the best ensemble of the bunch, giving them backstories, a variety of interests and a mix-match of personalities to make them all standout. Combine that with the return of the legacy trio of Syd Prescott (Nev Campbell) Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox) and Dewey Riley (David Arquette) who have been through this process so many times they know all the right moves to make and yet have never become less interesting or vulnerable because of it.

In fact, let’s take a moment to highlight Dewey, as out of the trio he gets the most screentime and has had the biggest changes since the last film. Dewey might be the best character in this whole series, he started out as the deputy of a small town who faced no real danger, only to be assaulted and traumatised consistently in each film; and yet, despite that, despite his naturally soft and awkward demeanour, despite the disability he developed from his injuries; he never runs away, he always makes protecting others his priority and will take on as many Ghostfaces as he has to. With this film probably putting him through the ringer more than others, with each other film showing his life slightly improving after the events of the prior, this is the one that has him at his emotional rock-bottom from the beginning, just adding another level of disaster to his life, and yet what does he do when push comes to shove? He takes what he’s learnt in the past, he risks his life, and he protects others at all costs. God bless you Deputy Dewey.

There is no such thing as a bad Scream film, and yet here we are 5 films deep, with new directors and a mostly new cast, and yet this feels like the only one that can go toe to toe with the original. It hits all the beats you want while also staying relevant, adapting for the times and being a suspenseful, violent massacre. Great film to start the year.

-Danny