Bridget Jones: Mad About The Boy

 

This review may contain spoilers!

Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy is the fourth film in the Bridget Jones series and explores Bridget Jones's life one year after the loss of Mark Darcy. Here she faces the challenges of being a single parent, of grief, of returning to work and of course, learning how to find love again.

The quality that has always worked for the Bridget Jones films is still present here in abundance, and that is just how relatable Bridget is as a character. Watching Bridget feel awkward about how she dresses, stumble through dating apps, feel the pain of being ghosted, and judge her parenting based on the 'successful' parents around her really resonates with the viewing audience. It's nice to see a character with similar experiences to our own, even if it is still through the heightened view of a Hollywood romantic comedy.

The score is usually light and whimsical, yet it plucks gently at the heartstrings during the more morose moments. I was entirely thrilled by the soundtrack, which either batted for the 9s to match a scene's comedy or greeted us with a real empowerment ballad that lifted Bridget up alongside the viewer.

Mila Jankovic, who played Mabel, is such a hilarious young performer; Jankovic is a bit more wild and spontaneous than her on-screen sibling which results in some fun scenes. Hugh Grant, who played Daniel Cleaver, is out here running circles around this cast; Grant has a dry wit that is effortless and he plays his role's feelings of regret around his own son superbly. Colin Firth, who played Mark Darcy, might not be very present in this film but he does a lot with a little; gently reminding us he is the soul of the beautiful family at the centre of the story. Emma Thompson, who played Dr. Rawlings, does nothing but give herself over fully to comedy this time and it is gold; Thompson's deprecating remarks are often hilarious and always land. Neil Pearson, who played Richard Finch, is a welcome return of a classic cast member; Pearson's nonchalant and blunt TV producer role is the perfect way to introduce Bridget Jones back into the world of TV. Jim Broadbent, who played Colin Jones, really showed up for his big scene; it's quite an emotional one in which we see a father give his last thoughts to his daughter before passing. Leo Woodall, who played Roxster, is very charming and more than a little aloof; Woodall and Zellweger had decent chemistry and the moment of hesitancy he played to worked extremely well. Nico Parker, who played Chloe, was quite a bit of fun as the overly perfect nanny; Parker's over-earnest and detailed manner made her a fun quality of this film.

However, the best performance came from Chiwetel Ejiofor, who played Mr. Wallaker. This is the first time in a long time I've really seen Ejiofor cut loose and have some fun in a role. Just last year he was in one of my least favourite theatrical releases with the third Venom and didn't lend a lot to that production. But he has found something genuinely wonderful here. When first we meet Ejiofor as the high-strung Mr. Wallaker, he seems this by-the-book, overly strict teacher. Ejiofor dashes about on school duty reprimanding the kids and blowing his whistle, really commanding the little school set. As we come to know this role we see him as very matter-of-fact and reasoned, but brimming with empathy. Watching him emotionally connect with Bridget and her son, Billy, over the subject of loss is one of the greater emotional beats of the film. Though his third-act romantic chemistry with Zellweger comes so late, it is still so very charming and marks Ejiofor as a fine successor to Firth.

I might not have loved Bridget Jones's Baby but it was a fine end to a trilogy at the time and put a neat bow on things. After watching the movie that made all this a quadrilogy, I'm still scratching my head over the why. This film shatters a neat ending with Darcy to once again frame Bridget as being alone, needing someone else to fill the void left behind, and wedging in every cameo possible from the past three films (shy of Patrick Dempsey). The whole way Darcy is exited feels sad but is quickly played off for either humour or to advance Bridget's quest for romance. It's a strange choice to erase a nice moment of closure for another spin of the wheel. It also results in Bridget Jones weirdly talking about God and Heaven and the afterlife more than a movie of this calibre really warrants. It becomes a serious conversation point these writers aren't equipped for and is very jarring in a romantic comedy. This film is stuffed to the brim with subplots and extra characters, it gets far too busy at the best of times and the scenes are poorly shared unless you're the two biggest names in a given scene. The movie watches like something where a lot has been hacked and slashed out of it, to pull focus all the way back to Bridget. But, the result is a very disjointed film at times. The romantic storyline is the most one of these movies has felt like unrealistic wish fulfilment, like picking up and reading a $7 Mills & Boons novel. The final romantic interest is pretty predictable from his first scene, yet the film takes forever to even make him much of a contender. In fact, a lot of the final romantic plotline doesn't happen until all at once in the third act. It feels like they knew they weren't making another after this and overcrowded the film with as much content as they could, completely losing the main storyline somewhere in the middle.

The way this film is shot is very messy, but that's not too surprising. The nature of the Bridget Jones series has never been to be the flashiest-looking theatrical release and it doesn't hold that here either. The shots don't capitalise when they are on-location, cameras barely move within a set and the lens loves a nice, safe mid-shot. The editing is also quite slow at times, this is a long film and the pacing really lurches about.

Renée Zellweger, who played Bridget Jones, used to lead these films brilliantly and now she can barely show range in her facial expressions; Zellweger's high-pitched narration just grates on me at this point and I feel she has passed her time as Bridget. Casper Knopf, who played Billy Darcy, loses a lot of emotion in trying to present a similar serious edge to Firth; Knopf really struggles being given a more dramatic storyline to work through. Sally Phillips, James Callis and Shirley Henderson, who played Shazzer, Tom and Jude respectively, just feel like they've been pushed further and further to the back with each film; this group is supposed to be Bridget's closest friends and yet they are barely present. Gemma Jones, who played Pamela Jones, seems a bit confused and out of place in her scenes; she barely even engages with Bridget in a mother/daughter dynamic. Sarah Solemani, who played Miranda, was thrilling and fun as a new friend to Bridget but seems to have the spotlight off her this time; Solemani is given barely anything to work with making her role easier to disregard. Leila Farzad, who played Nicolette, is quite a tacked-on minor antagonist for Bridget; the uppity PTA Mum who rules the school role doesn't exactly break new ground here. Josette Simon, who played Talitha, is quite a relaxed and non-descript figure for a TV show talk host; Simon comes across as lazing her way through scenes which doesn't leave much of an impression.

Real evidence that there was never a need for a fourth Bridget Jones film. I would give Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy a 4/10.

Captain America: Brave New World

 

This review may contain spoilers!

Captain America: Brave New World is the 35th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the fourth Captain America movie. In this feature, political tensions boil over the 'Celestial Island' in the Indian Ocean, the source of a rare element known as 'adamantium'. A figure in the shadows pits Captain America and President Ross against one another as the world races towards a potential war.

I actually really admired the ambition of this film to lean into the political thriller genre style, it's a complex thing to weave into a major blockbuster. In the past, Marvel has successfully woven political thriller elements into other Captain America films, notably Winter Soldier and aspects of Civil War. Yet this feels like Black Widow's more contained nature despite the scale at play. I also really liked the mounting mystery at play here, there is an antagonist at work who pulls the strings and I enjoyed seeing the film steadily bring his machinations to the forefront. The mystery fuels the conflict brewing between the two American pillars in the film: Cap and President Ross. Watching this film really dig into Ross and analysing his character flaws, redemption and hubris is a substantially satisfying sub-plot.

The style of this movie is quite impressive, assaulting with dark colours, sudden flashes and harsh beiges to link into the genre work. Yet the way this film shoots action is entirely impressive, particularly the effects shot of the Indian Ocean aerial fight sequence and the Red Hulk final fight. The special effects are absolutely fantastic; I look again to the Indian Ocean fight sequence in which protagonists hurtled through the skies in bodysuits, fighter jets careened and aircraft carriers fired anti-missiles. I also loved the design for Red Hulk, it really rivalled what the MCU has been doing with the Hulk characters for years. The score here has the inspirational tones of a Captain America epic but with discordant tracks woven in to uplift the moments in which we steer focus to the antagonist's plan. The soundtrack has a few solid tracks too, the "Mr Blue" song weaves a good callback to a past film while the chosen Kendrick Lamar tracks really transition us to the new Cap nicely.

Anthony Mackie, who played Sam Wilson, is a phenomenal lead and a great new Captain America; the scenes in which Mackie has to reason against those he stands against are surprisingly some of his very best moments. Danny Ramirez, who played Joaquin Torres, was a sidekick figure I wasn't sure of at first but who really came to grow on me; Ramirez is extremely earnest and exuberant in this which makes him a rising hero worth watching. Carl Lumbly, who played Isaiah Bradley, is stoic and gruff which befits a super soldier whose country wronged him; where Lumbly really captures your heart is the misery he portrays when his character is faced with prison once again. Tim Blake Nelson, who played Samuel Sterns, is a delight to see back in this role after so many years; Nelson really pours the venom into his hatred for Ross while simultaneously crafting a character who feels like the smartest in a room. Sebastian Stan, who played Bucky Barnes, has incredible chemistry with Mackie that results in one of the better scenes in the film; Stan gives a very cool and steady pep talk while also allowing for friendly humour that fits the Barnes/Wilson dynamic nicely.

However, the best performance came from Harrison Ford, who played President Thaddeus Ross. There is something really respectful done by Ford in taking the role of Ross onwards from the late William Hurt. I found his deep regret and sorrow over his estrangement from his daughter, Betty, to be one of the more emotionally impactful moments of his performance. Ford's Ross is a man who has developed into a diplomatic politician, someone who seeks desperately to unify the world and his internal American allies. Yet, there is something immensely satisfying in watching Ford's natural gruff demeanour feed into Ross' mounting fits of anger. Seeing Ross spiral out of control as Sterns's manipulations become clear shows Ford's incredible range. The seeds are perfectly sown by Ford to Ross' transition into the Red Hulk; the character is so well realised that Ross' character journey is the fuel of success for the feature.

Captain America: Brave New World is a new venture for audiences; introducing a new Captain America, Adamantium and the political landscape post-Avengers: Endgame. I sat back and felt that this movie asked a lot from the viewing audience. This is the first time I have watched a Marvel movie and felt like I was watching something that expected a lot of prior knowledge. This movie is a sequel to three notable projects; Falcon and the Winter Soldier, The Incredible Hulk and Eternals. All of these blended together is quite an unusual and unexpected combo on paper and it is a jarring first act at times. This should be quite a grand-scale narrative due to the nature of the Celestial Island and the global resource war but it's often quite contained. The film keeps throttling itself into a more personal skirmish which inadvertently lowers the stakes. While there is a good mystery to be had here, the characters often feed information or are fed information relatively easily one scene after the other - this is a particular issue in the first half. Characters don't have to work hard to advance their understanding of the mystery which softens how engaging the introduction to the film is.

I'm used to the MCU movies being of a high calibre across the production, but this had one glaring point that was lacking for me. The fight sequences, lifted up by visual effects, are immensely satisfying, but the first half of this film has some disappointing fight choreography. Once the fights get hand-to-hand, they are paced extremely slowly, and the reliance on more regular slow-motion material to break up the sequence tells the audience the fights aren't going to be as slick as past instalments.

Shira Haas, who played Ruth Bat-Seraph, is about as unconvincing as you can get when it comes to depicting a former Black Widow; Haas' has a nasally delivery that makes her quite an annoying addition to the main cast. Giancarlo Esposito, who played Sidewinder, is an actor I usually love but he is absolutely wasted in this glorified henchman role; Esposito dashing about like a mercenary with a gun is quite underwhelming and poorly realised. Xosha Roquemore, who played Leila Taylor, feels like a presidential aide who isn't strictly needed to push the film forward; if she and Ford had held some chemistry there might have been something interesting but this wasn't the case. William Mark McCullough, who played Commander Dennis Dunphy, is a soldier-type role that's really just around to feed exposition; he was oddly placed to be accessible only to Captain America and otherwise, he served no purpose. Liv Tyler, who played Betty Ross, isn't really missed nor needed to fulfil the end of the film; Tyler seems to give an airy delivery that doesn't leave you wanting more of the Ross family dynamic.

A really decent blockbuster to kick 2025 off with, but perhaps not the best start for a new Captain America. I would give Captain America: Brave New World a 7/10.

September 5

 

This review may contain spoilers!

September 5 is a biopic that documents the 1972 Munich Olympic Games and the hostage situation that transpired through the eyes of the ABC network team that broadcast it all. 

I really admired the way this biopic presented itself in terms of storytelling. This is a very matter-of-fact feature in how it presents the historical event, there is an almost clinical and methodical approach to conveying the audience information. By taking us through the perspective of the ABC journalists on the ground attempting to capture the event, we gained and developed the knowledge ourselves. The urgency of the unfolding situation came from wanting to know more, to stay ahead of the story or move with the story. It felt surreal because this is a sports news team previously not equipped to deal with 'breaking news' but entirely pivoting and committing to the situation within the moment. I greatly admired the reflection upon the actions of the news team here, it showed the resourcefulness on hand alongside the moments of error. It was a narrative presentation style that worked to keep information delivery engaging and gripping.

Peter Sarsgaard, who played Roone Arledge, really grabs the focus of an entire scene if he so needs it; Sarsgaard crafts a leader here who is entirely passionate about what they are trying to achieve and keeping the story with his team. John Magaro, who played Geoffrey Mason, is a surprisingly solid lead in this; Magaro commands with a frantic but sure-handed energy which fits his newsroom lead perfectly. Leonie Benesch, who played Marianne Gebhardt, is definitely the emotional weight of the feature; Benesch portraying the struggle of a woman in the industry trying to be taken seriously while also being the sole translator for the team is fascinating.

However, the best performance came from Ben Chaplin, who played Marvin Bader. This is a role that often feels like the conscience of the feature, Chaplin's tirades are all caught up in journalistic integrity and what the moral onus is in the situation. Bader really runs close to the top here and Chaplin marks this through a very commanding presence, someone who can be very curt and direct. The scene in which Chaplin really goes to task over whether they have confirmation around the status of the hostages is an inspired moment of acting. This is a very fast-paced role, the delivery is quick and it is often biting. I really enjoyed Chaplin here, he was in good form.

This film presents the story well, but that doesn't mean it isn't missing elements that would have improved it. I wasn't very emotionally stimulated by this feature, in fact, emotional stakes leave this movie feeling a bit dry at times. The film could have implemented a perspective closer to the action of the Olympic Village hostage situation or even taken us inside the hostage room itself, just to find an easy empathetic link. However, this film is more focused on the press, but it's foolish to think we couldn't have allowed for some more emotionally charged scenes to really ramp matters up. I also found there seemed to be a slight bias towards a more modern theme and conflict with this film and how it was told that I didn't really appreciate as a viewer.

The way this film is shot feels like it was starved for an aesthetic angle. Most of the movie covers a newsroom full of monitors and hallway conversations, making the entire feature look very plain. It is also quite dark and devoid of anything interesting in terms of colour palette. The editing moves at a sluggish pace, which is really surprising given just how short this film runs. The score is really barely a player in the movie, with no great musical accompaniment to set the tone. The fact the soundtrack awkwardly shoved 'Fortunate Son' in there feels insane given the wider context of the film.

Zinedine Soualem, who played Jacques Lesgards, is quite a quiet player in the main ensemble; Soualem's character has a unique perspective like Benesch's but there's no room really given to play with that here. Daniel Adeosun, who played Gary Slaughter, is an ensemble player who moves very swiftly into the background; Adeosun is here in a physical presence capacity and less an acting one.

This is an extremely well-detailed and thorough depiction of the ABC network team that captured the hostage situation at the 1972 Olympic Games. I would give September 5 a 6/10.

Companion

This review may contain spoilers!

Companion is a sci-fi thriller about a Companion Android called Iris, and how her owner/boyfriend, Josh, sets her up for murder.

I really liked the dark humourous side of Companion, it does this dark comedy quality about what a world with Companion Androids would look like well. One of the better scenes in the film is when Josh first receives Iris. At first glance, the scene packages a lot of exposition at you, but it's really very funny. The transactional nature of this figure who is basically being bought to fill a sexual desire and an emotional hole is both alarming and hysterical. Pair that with the salesperson talking through the 'set-up' process, and the user agreement and speculating on the ways Josh might use Iris is quite fun. I think this quality of the Iris/Josh relationship is the most interesting, how he both owns Iris and relies on her to fulfil him. It is a strange, selfish and narcissistic cycle that builds Josh into an antagonist well. While the film doesn't put a massive lens to it, I was really impressed by the Eli and Patrick romantic subplot. I was so onboard with seeing a true love story genuinely shine through in all of this, and the tragic bend it takes only enhances the greater film.

I really enjoyed the style of this, the very bold and beautiful contemporary style of the piece made it all feel so real while heightening the luxury of the setting. This is a film that captures the violence and gore neatly with these very aesthetic shots you would expect from a domestic thriller. the score is a blend of light and boppy to downright panic-inducing at times, yet the soundtrack really came through that cut to 'Emotion' by Samantha Sang and the Beegees at the end hit home smoothly. 

Jack Quaid, who played Josh, does a steady push into narcissistic antagonist quite well over this; Quaid leans into the nice guy meet cute at first but really drags up this horrible nightmare boyfriend by the very end. Rupert Friend, who played Sergey, is quite an oddball character but a very fun caricature of a Russian business mogul; Friend also lends a quality to Sergey that makes you and the characters wonder if you should fear him.

However, the best performance came from Lukas Gage and Harvey Guillén, who played Patrick and Eli respectively. This film starts with our classic 'band of friends' at the trusty lakeside house. But there are numerous hints this isn't the typical gathering we might expect. Yet, while that drama plays out in the foreground my eyes kept getting diverted to subjects held more in the back. Guillén and Gage craft this immediate chemistry, their roles are quite cute together and I was pulled in by their bond steadily. It is clear Guillén is here as a comedic tour de force. His strong reaction to the murder plot is really funny and he just seems to dance circles around the rest of the cast when it comes to delivering the funniest line. Yet, he is evidently more than this. The scene in which Guillén and Gage declare their love for one another and Gage's role declares that he knows he is an android is just the single best moment of the film. It felt true, there was so much passion in it and it suddenly drove some very real stakes into the film that the audience cared about. As the film goes along Gage really showcases he can bounce between being the loving and affectionate boyfriend and the cold android. Gage's final scene in which he realises his grief hits you like a punch and marks this duo performance as the reason to watch.

 In a world post M3gan we have had a few of these AI/android horror stories now. These repetitive movies about the idea of a family member being replaced by a machine, or an AI house or whatever other technological nefarious plot cranks out a script. This is just another one of many girlfriend/wife is actually an android type films and all the same notes are hit. That is ultimately what is so disappointing about Companion. It's just another tech scare film paired with the obvious abusive relationship theme, which might have done well as a subtle vehicle. But the main plot around Josh being a bad boyfriend who mistreats Iris gets simpler and simpler until they're shouting simplistic dialogue while punching one another in the climactic scene. It's really hard to stand apart in a crowd, but in a film that has a 'make your robot girlfriend smarter or dumber' slider I just don't think that happens. The first act I found to be a very hard sell, having all of these people congregate at a Russian business mogul's lake house because he is sleeping with one of the party is threadbare. The fact this threadbare connection pushed us into the kookiest murder/robbery story makes the whole film feel like it's pulling at straws to stay together at times. This film is riddled with exposition about how to stop the androids and how they work, it's even exposition delivered to nearly every character in the film. The fact there are multiple times where this movie could end if it coloured within its own lines made this a hard film to suspend belief within. Iris could have been reset and destroyed a couple of times and the fact this doesn't happen feels like a flaw in how the script was considered.

The editing in this film is atrocious. As a thriller, it should have an excellent sense of timing, but it does gravitate towards slowness. I never felt any urgency because scenes were quite happy to unfold at a snail's pace. 

Sophie Thatcher, who played Iris, really lets the film down in a big way for me; Thatcher just plays her part like a human portraying a machine and it becomes hard to actually buy into the core concept of the film. Megan Suri, who played Kat, is content being little more than the token 'mean' character; Suri tosses out a couple of brutal lines but seems bored often.

An uninspired leading performance and a plot riddled with holes make for a scary artificial intelligence misstep. I would give Companion a 5.5/10.

We Live In Time

 

This review may contain spoilers!

We Live In Time is a romantic drama that follows Almut and Tobias' relationship through different points in their lives. We journey in a non-linear manner through their meeting, discussions around having children and Almut's struggles with ovarian cancer.

There's a lot that defines a great romance, and it all rarely hinges on familiar elements of style like other genres. Here it's all on the chemistry. Almut and Tobias are two characters gravimetrically pulled into one another's orbit, they make so much sense. The little moments of tenderness, seeing them fall in love, the hard conversations, how their personal lives intersect with their lives as a couple, their move towards parenthood and even facing the finality of death. It all makes sense through how these characters share in one another's existence; in this way, We Live In Time is one of the more grounded romance films I have seen in a long time. The film revels in the levity of life with moments like how Tobias and Almut meet or the birth scene in the gas station (my favourite scene). It pairs beautifully with moments of tragedy dealt with in a familiar manner: parents struggling to explain cancer to a child in a family restaurant or talking about getting a dog to offset the grief explaining cancer might involve. I was sincerely moved by the hard moments of the film too; watching the battles with sickness was very hard, or the grief Tobias and Almut shared when they had to cancel their wedding or even the argument held over Tobias talking about kids too soon. This film is so raw in how it impacts you because it only knows how to be completely sincere in the narrative it wants to weave.

Director John Crowley has reached a new visual threshold with the style of this film, it feels very lively and picturesque all at once. I loved how the film blended gentle, vibrant colours with contrasting moments of greys and blues, showing the see-saw of emotion this story presents. The editing sets a neat pace and makes the non-linear storytelling easy to follow. I was a big fan of the heart held within the film score, the music within this reads the emotional tapestry and paints colour to it. The soundtrack is a real treat, some gentle ballads give this more of an indie romance vibe I enjoy.

Florence Pugh, who played Almut, is a phenomenal lead who has to present a woman at one point going through pregnancy and another ovarian cancer; it is a raw physical performance that is so resilient and will leave you feeling hollowed out by the end. Grace Delaney, who played Ella, is such an adorable child actress; she really quietly resides in scenes and lifts them up with positivity. Lee Braithwaite, who played Jade, is clearly a bit amateur but does well in their role; there's a portrayal of fierce loyalty and camaraderie with Pugh which I admired. Douglas Hodge, who played Reginald, is quite a neat fit as Garfield's on-screen Dad; he shares this beautiful story of love at one point that really moved me and speaks to Hodge as a character actor. Nikhil Parmar and Kerry Godliman, who played Sanjaya and Jane, are the finishing touches on the ensemble of the gas station scene; without these two that scene wouldn't be my favourite part of the film.

However, the best performance came from Andrew Garfield, who played Tobias. This is a gentle character, a man who seems very earnest and reserved all at once. Garfield's portrayal of him as a man struggling with the imminence of divorce in a comedic yet sad way was brilliant. Through this moment we see the truth of Tobias, he grapples with big points of conflict in his life but really quietly or awkwardly navigates them. His initial nervousness and charming approach to a relationship with Almut (Pugh) is very sweet. In fact, across the whole thing, their chemistry is what this film lives or dies on. And wow, does it live. Even how he argues changes from abrupt moments of confrontation to gentle anger boiling below the surface; all of which he manages without ever feeling aggressive. I also treasured his portrayal of grief, his grief for the wedding they would never have and his grief for Almut. More than anything, I gotta applaud every single second of the gas station scene it was a real win for me that Garfield dominated.

This film almost flirts with being a slice-of-life film at times. Showcasing the lives of two very likeable, almost healthy individuals can make it hard to find tension. The film feels downright sluggish in sections of the second act because there's no bite to be had here. This is a film content showing the mundane, which can lead to some mundane scenes, which can lead to a bored audience. Then in the final act, it really pivots a bit too harshly, by making Almut the one sparking the conflict. Almut hides she has been competing in her culinary field, she has decided they will cancel the wedding and the parallels to Tobias' first wife and how she left him are all there too. It's all a bit harsh and makes the audience question whether Almut is selfish in a way that feels a bit too cruel in terms of tone.

Adam James, who played Simon Maxson, feels like the piece that doesn't fit in this; the whole celebrity chef pushing ambition thing real was an odd flavour in this mix.

It's an intertwined snapshot of life that equally fills you with love and a warm kind of sorrow. I would give We Live In Time an 8/10.

Wolf Man

This review may contain spoilers!

Wolf Man is the latest remake of the 1941 film of the same name. In this iteration, Blake and his family return to his father's homestead after news that Blake's father has legally been declared dead. However, en route, they are attacked by a creature that wounds Blake; and before his family's very eyes...he begins to change.

This movie builds tension well, in those scenes where it wants to build us up to a point of fear it excels. The film opens with a father and son hunting in the woods; the father is volatile and the kid is distracted and likes to run off. But they become hunted by something much more powerful than them. That build as these two have to run for shelter, as the boy cowers in his father's arms and the father raises his gun, hoping, praying that he makes the shot...It doesn't get much better than that. The film is filled with these neat little moments that build to a fine reveal; one of my favourites is the late film reveal of Blake's final form as he stalks through the entirely darkened house. I also point to a strong opening act, it introduces us to the main threat and our leading family pretty well. What I most liked is that we come to understand that Blake and Charlotte are feeling distant from one another, and Charlotte from her daughter. This is a family struggling, which is a great set-up for a horror feature.

Leigh Whannell's Wolf Man has crisp visuals, with beautiful Midwestern forest settings turning into powerful backdrops. The colour palette or descent into darkness within a scene is a sign that the cinematography is one of the film's real strengths. Benjamin Wallfisch is becoming something of a creative legend for the horror film score scene; the way he has several tracks here blend in the inspiration of wolf howls and the stomping of wolves is quite powerful.

The best performance came from Benedict Hardie, who played Derek. This is a pretty classic character performance needed to enhance the environment of the horror. Hardie's job is to present a figure who has been living in werewolf country, a haunted expert who knows it's not quite safe 'in these parts'. I really enjoyed how off-kilter and shell-shocked Hardie played his role, you couldn't really tell if he had been so mentally traumatised by where he lived or was just rattled by new people showing up out of the blue. The character renting with an old friend in Blake (Abbott) is a strange but fascinating dynamic. There's familiarity there but the distance of time and place too. Hardie made a character that you didn't know you were safe with, but who seemed sincere and genuine for the most part. He brought us into the inciting moment for the film nicely and I only wish we could have had more of him.

Leigh Whannell is no stranger to remaking horror/monster movie classics. He made a perfectly fine but not especially memorable take on The Invisible Man back in 2020, and has decided to play even more supernatural here. The issue fast becomes the script we have on offer here is one of the worst I've seen from Whannell, second only to Insidious: Chapter 3. By and large, this film is about a family, a family who is on the rocks at the moment. There's some interesting stuff here like Blake being a Dad who gentle parents but struggles to be assertive, or Charlotte who feels she's a bad Mum because she's so much better at tying herself to her work. Now we know Blake is going to go werewolf, and the hope is his bond with his daughter might be a plot thread that sees things through or that this experience might bring Charlotte closer to her daughter. However the film offers no room for character development or growth, and these character relationships are barely explored again after they are introduced in the first act. There's a plot thread about Blake's relationship with his father, Grady, but it keeps getting forgotten about in the detritus of a poorly paced creature feature. The film tosses out some very jarring body horror without prepping you much for that sort of content. The real meat of the movie, of course, is the werewolves and Blake's transformation. But the transformation happens extremely fast that it's difficult to call the supernatural elements anything but disappointing. The way the creatures look like humans lumbering with prosthetics is a bit embarrassing too, the film struggles to immerse the viewer at every turn. The final conclusion to the film and the werewolf adversaries is a real letdown and won't satisfy audiences that stuck around to the end.

The special effects used throughout this film look cheap. The transformation effects are pretty simplistic in design and result in an ugly and underwhelming werewolf. The 'werewolf vision' effect looked like an expensive Snapchat filter and should have been better considered.

Julia Garner, who played Charlotte, couldn't have shown less emotional range; Garner barely lends herself to a scene and has no chemistry with Abbott or Firth. Christopher Abbott, who played Blake, is a wilting and ineffectual lead for the titular character; Abbott really struggles with dialogue delivery and some of his big lines are delivered laughably. Sam Jaeger, who played Grady, gives a pretty generic angry Dad performance; he said lines like he had memorised them but hadn't found meaning in them. Matilda Firth, who played Ginger, couldn't really escape the limits of her age but showed some potential; Firth was promising but lost her footing in the final act hysterics.

One of the worst casts I've seen for a horror film in a while paired with a script that lacks character. I would give Wolf Man a 4.5/10.

Conclave

 

This review may contain spoilers!

Conclave is an adaptation of the Robert Harris novel of the same name and follows the conclave that transpires after the death of a Pope. This is framed as a political/religious thriller with the cardinals vying for what is a position of power, while Cardinal Lawrence attempts to solve the skeletons that are starting to tumble out of closets.

I love a good thriller script that leaves you guessing. There are significant points in this film where I wondered if it might turn into a murder mystery. However, the tale being told here is far more complex and engaging than the mystery of a dead man. Rather, this is a collection of cardinals who hold great ambition for the papacy, but many of them are trying to hold back secrets that would prevent them from getting voted in. The deceased Pope had a selected head of the Conclave, which falls to Cardinal Lawrence. Lawrence is a very steady and calm man, not outspoken but with a clear moral code and as an audience, we learn to trust him early on. It's really interesting to see Lawrence take it upon himself to ensure the best possible man to be Pope is selected, even compromising some of his values as the film forges on to do so. It's a film that raises the moral question of who deserves to be Pope and how can we be assured political ambition isn't the driving motivation behind this seat. Conclave handles a flow of narrative twists and turns extremely well, offering some great surprises and suspenseful scenes. I even reached a point where I lost trust in Lawrence, which shows the layers this thing brought to the screen. This is a whirling thriller that leaves you unsure who is right, and hoping that Lawrence is a man we can put our trust in. The pursuit of that outcome was great, the runtime of this feature just flew by.

Edward Berger really is one of those grand directors, he is becoming the sort of name I would be looking out for in a cinematic release. The visual style of Conclave is so reverent of the majesty of these deep-seated religious spaces, while also capturing the mundanity of them. That human element that permeates it with cigarette smoke, the latest iPads and designer suitcases. The intense close-ups and mid-shots peppered throughout to drum up the suspense and mystery are very effective. the score used throughout is swift and flitters through, it evokes grandeur in the right moments and inner anxieties in others.

Lucian Msamati, who played Adeyemi, is a real powerhouse in this; Msamati is one of the charismatic greats but has an enormous scene in which he has to capture loss so beautifully. Stanley Tucci, who played Bellini, is a very resolute figure who consistently sticks by his principles; I like that Tucci is so outspoken in this while also simultaneously proving to not be the fighter everyone wishes him to be. John Lithgow, who played Tremblay, is quite a gentle figure for someone so suspicious; I loved how Lithgow played his whole world dropping out from under him later in the film. Thomas Loibl, who played Mandorff, is a more quiet and restrained role but he stood out to me; an aide figure to Fiennes who is at the centre of delivering information that incites the mystery. Isabella Rossellini, who played Sister Agnes, is a very mysterious and distrusting character; her big scene of support for Fiennes in front of the other cardinals is a favourite of mine. Sergio Castellitto, who played Tedesco, is quite an amusing character for such a despicable figure; Castellitto balances moments of charisma with moments of belligerent narcissism. Carlos Diehz, who played Benitez, is a very goodly character that stands for principles many of the other roles fail to employ; Diehz really makes a role that feels humble and sincerely likeable.

However, the best performance came from Ralph Fiennes, who played Lawrence. This is one of those great awards-worthy leading roles. It is a masterclass in what an actor brings to a film when they understand the script and know how to enrich it. Fiennes has always been a master of the craft and this demonstrates that more than most. Lawrence is a calm and balanced figure at first, fraught with his grief over the death of the Pope. Yet Fiennes lends duty to him well, crafting a stalwart figure determined to oversee a worthy conclave. There are scenes of passion where he allows Lawrence to speak from his heart, to earnestly pursue his morals that I adored. Yet what I most found interesting was his frantic descent into achieving what is 'right'; discovering the right man for the papacy. Fiennes takes Lawrence down a wild, and stressful investigation that leaves the viewer questioning his place in all this. There were even times I questioned Lawrence and his ambitions. To evoke a character with that level of complexity is unparalleled, and I sincerely applaud Ralph Fiennes for achieving it.

I do wonder if the last twist delivered in the final act was necessary. It is an important topic that almost trivialises the ending more than it needed to. I would have loved a film that discussed this issue but to give discussion to a small scene at the end with only a little set-up felt undeserving and clouded the conclusion for the film. Conclave just wanted to point out one last time that all these characters carried secrets, but I am not convinced evoking this big of a topic right as the curtain was closing was the appropriate move. I also felt this film lost its grounding in the religious setting at times, even pushing the boundaries of realism around what this Catholic space might look like. It held the aesthetic in places, but I often found myself wondering if it lost sight of the Catholic bearing the film was rooted in.

The editing for this film could really have been tighter, it often lingered a bit too long on a shot and while the script moved at a captivating pace the cutting didn't always match up.

Jacek Koman, who played Wozniak, portrays a very simple and over-the-top form of grief; Koman's role is a desperate figure of intrigue but he fails to excite or engage the audience.

This film really had so many engaging twists and turns, all led by the incomparable Ralph Fiennes. I would give Conclave an 8/10.