You Can See Everything

 

This review may contain spoilers!

You Can See Everything is an A24 documentary directed by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim. The subject matter is Elizabeth Holmes, the infamous CEO behind Theranos. The crew was given permission to film within her family environment 34 days before she was incarcerated.

Sometimes a film can come along and be a singular force unto itself. You Can See Everything is one of those movies that is entirely unique and a masterclass in crafting something unique for the big screen. The very premise at the core of this is pretty astounding; the concept of any film crew being allowed so near Elizabeth Holmes, Billy Evans and their family in those final few days before Holmes' incarceration seems like an unbelievable moment. But it's the access that Fielder and Oppenheim get from the very start of this film. It's the hook to what winds up being a much bigger beast than it seems on the surface. You will be pulled in by the main subject: Elizabeth Holmes. This film starts you off by asking the obvious question around whether or not she is innocent. This point seems to be the thing the film is least interested in proving, however. We understand that by now, Theranos is a bad product. There are many points in the film that suggest the idea of Theranos continuing under Billy Evans' guidance as another dark descent into medical technology malpractice.

There are many reasons this film is so much bigger than the basic question of whether or not Elizabeth Holmes is innocent. The moment this film tried to interpret Elizabeth's character, I became absolutely fascinated by the many threads that got pulled upon. Elizabeth does not have a regular communication style; it is difficult to ascertain if this is innate in her nature or if there is something performative for Filder and the camera. Across the film, we get these wide-eyed confessionals that bear everything in what are quite simplistic, values-driven statements. Holmes seems genuinely thrilled by entrepreneurship; it energises her and gives her a sort of life that we only ever see in exclamations of love she shares for Billy or her children. She is very committed to the idea of Theranos, holds her testimony, but claims that there is a perception around her explanation that is wrong. A point in which she claimed something true that others have painted as her spinning a lie. This leads to a really compelling scene in which Nathan Fielder plays Elizabeth and Billy an old Abbott and Costello sketch titled 'Who's on First?'. The skit leads with the premise around miscommunication, parties talking around one another; both Abbott and Costello are justified in thinking what they are saying is common sense, but it leads to a conflict between the pair of them. Holmes identifies the humour and the cause, but struggles to understand the miscommunication itself or how it applies to her situation. Fielder and Oppenheim point to this a couple of times, pondering whether Holmes is not a manipulator but rather a victim of her own inability to communicate with others.

There's a deeper layer to Holmes' situation from Theranos to the shooting of this documentary. There is the matter of Sunny Balwani, Holmes' former boyfriend and business partner, and Billy Evans, her current partner. Whilst watching The Dropout with Fielder and Billy, Elizabeth has quite a visceral reaction to a scene depicting a more intimate moment between her and Sunny. It feels like there's trauma there, but at the same time the subjects of the film often point the crime away from Elizabeth wherever relevant. There is a marked depiction of Billy in a controlling position also. He takes over for Elizabeth often, speaking her mind for her and even extending that control to how he talks to the film crew. It is often Billy who shuts down the microphones and cameras; he cuts an interview between Fielder and Elizabeth's Dad short. We also watch as he listens to basic biology and chemistry videos on 2x speed, as if that will help him skyrocket Theranos 2.0 whilst Elizabeth is in prison. Billy is a fragile, yet controlling figure. We see him steer the camera crew towards him working out, even getting a glimpse of him naked in the shower at one point. Yet, on the other end of the spectrum, he holds a wall around Elizabeth once she's in prison, seemingly barring Fielder from contact until he understands the context behind the contact better. When it later gets revealed that Billy has power of attorney over Elizabeth, this argument takes a darker turn. It grows worse watching him brag about using her social media whilst she's incarcerated or using her likeness in AI programs.

The film reaches the inevitable point where Elizabeth Holmes is imprisoned. Around this point, most documentaries would do their closing retrospective, and we'd wind down. But this is You Can See Everything. Fielder and Oppenheim pull in Amanda Seyfried, who portrays Elizabeth Holmes in the Hulu series, The Dropout. This moment almost feels like a falter; for a moment we watch as a famous actress reacts to what we've already seen. We start to see her begin her role as re-enacting Elizabeth, this time through the lens of the documentary creators. I wondered if this was going to start providing a level of artifice. But as Seyfried drew some laughs and steadily became the stand-in for the audience perspective, I eased back on my criticism. However, it became surprisingly relevant once again. Artifice, or the truth behind the narrative, very quickly becomes the subject of the back half of the film. Suddenly we learn that Billy asked to be paid for their involvement in the documentary via a strong reenactment from both Amanda Seyfried and Christopher Abbott. It brought Elizabeth's values into question once again; it muddied the validity behind the documentary itself, and it made you wonder if the true message of the documentary could even be found anymore. Fielder spends those last moments of the film making the audience question if Elizabeth knew she would be paid for this documentary, or if Billy would retract his request to be paid at all. Even the way Fielder and Oppenheim have stitched this thing together gets called into question in some very pointed ways. Amanda Seyfried has been a useful tool until she reacts with vitriol to Elizabeth's opinion of her work on The Dropout. Nathan Fielder's motives for presenting a documentary about Elizabeth Holmes' character come into question as we are asked whether he cared too much for Elizabeth to remain objective.

What is achieved here is nothing short of monumental, even if it's not a film that has been made to provide answers. It leaves you asking questions in a manner that I think is increasingly rare in the media we consume. Oppenheim, Fielder and the crew behind this capture one of the more visually striking films of the year, with these square frames that are arresting and hold your attention for the complete three hours. There's barely a moment of film that doesn't feel like a clever piece of cinematography that has been expertly cut together to provide an engaging pace. That pensive, pondering score used throughout seems melancholy and transportive.

I watched this film wondering if Elizabeth Holmes had done it, if she was the guilty one. But I left questioning everything about her identity. There was a part of me that felt she had been carved up by so many people that what we had left was the person constantly living under the mask. Had her life been so traumatic that Billy had been her life preserver and the Elizabeth Holmes we now saw was the role she just had to play? It felt increasingly more difficult to predict deception as the film went along, which I felt was to the strength of the feature. I also really liked the way this whole thing pivots and becomes this clear demonstration that control of a narrative can result in unreliable narratives. We see that first through Elizabeth, and later Billy. But the You Can See Everything creatives used the financial demands of Billy Evans as a means to show that they too could be exploiting the narrative. The questions are for the viewers to answer; some things will feel clearer than others. This is not a documentary about innocent or guilty; this is a movie about following a narrative and wondering who is behind it.

Sometimes you go to the cinema and watch lightning be captured within a bottle. It's a rare feat, and it lies before you in this feature. I would give You Can See Everything a 9.5/10.

How To Rob A Bank

 

This review may contain spoilers!

How to Rob A Bank follows a group of mysterious social media influencers who carry out bank heists and radicalise their followers to do the same. As the FBI closes in on this viral crew, we start to see this class war as something personal.

Heist films are some of my guilty pleasures. If there's one genre of film that I have a lot of time for, it's something that involves a crew conducting a series of elaborate thefts. How to Rob A Bank is David Leitch's latest feature, which immediately led me to expect high-stakes action and really zany characters and set pieces. But this is quite different to some of Leitch's previous work; it's certainly not chasing the recent high of Bullet Train or The Fall Guy. This film feels like a movement more than anything; it feels a little angry and rebellious. It's that punk rock singer screaming "Fuck the system" into the microphone at a gig. Because while there's some scattered heart here to connect with, what this film really wants to convey is the injustice that is perpetuated by living in a capitalist society. It really points out how systems like banks and loan sharks exploit the vulnerable to build profits. I think this movie is deeply flawed, but you'd be wrong to say it doesn't spark at least some indignation as a viewer, since you get caught up in the events of the film.

Yet even with that barely contained rage sizzling across this film, How to Rob A Bank still comes away feeling a bit empty. And I'm not just saying that because this is an anti-capitalist heist film funded by Amazon Studios. This film does a really bad job of connecting you with the main characters. In the first half of the feature, we barely get to see beyond the surface of the main criminals. They have a fun chemistry that works well within the heist scenes, but their backstories are held back. I struggled to understand why this was, maybe an effort to preserve the mystique of these characters. But the ultimate result is that a lot of the heart of this film is held back, and we're left wondering who we should be rooting for. This film makes a strange decision to centre the FBI agent and the hacker he has conscripted more than the actual figures of the heist. This means we get a real unwavering black-and-white approach to the film. The heist guys are bad, even if they think they're doing good. The heist guys see the law as a failure because they are tools of the capitalist system. It's a cycle that goes around and rarely results in the audience caring about anyone more. The film ends on an optimistic turn, but it takes a very long time to get there. In fact, the second-to-last scene of the film is a lengthy monologue of exposition, a summary of where everyone is now delivered by the lead FBI agent to his conscripted hacker buddy. How to Rob A Bank knows what it wants to say and how it wants you to feel, but it really struggles with actually making you care and connect with the story delivering that.

Some of that disconnect comes from the characters and the cast themselves. For example, despite being poorly written, the cast of heist members actually winds up being some of the strongest performances in the film. I haven't seen Pete Davidson in much, but he really stands out here. His role of Vince is quite a tough smartass, a veteran and a caring father. He also has the most tragic turn of the film, and I think that winds up being one of the strengths of the feature. Nicholas Hoult is kind of the protagonist here, but it can be hard to remember that. Hoult does these flashy social media promos to camera across the film that are lively and entertaining. But you don't really see the nature of his character till much later. Those tearful moments where you see how crushed he is by the grief of his dead four-year-old son actually reveal Hoult, and I'd probably say secure his performance as one of the best in the film. Throw Rhenzy Feliz in the mix as the lovable hacker/video editor, and you have a pretty good heist crew all up. You even have a good adversary in a slimy bank Ceo, Christian Slater. 

Where things start to go wrong in the film are instances such as I described before, where the FBI angle seems to lead the film. John C. Reilly does his best to hold things together as a grizzled agent who believes in the law and doing the right thing. But he doesn't seem like the perfect pick to play the straight-laced agent at all times. One issue is that he's paired with Zoё Kravitz, who seems wildly miscast as this aloof computer hacker. But the issue goes a bit further: Kravitz and Reilly don't really have enough chemistry to lead as much of the story as they are given. The cop story winning out over the robber story feels like the creatives behind the film don't understand what works in their own creation. I also really felt like this was a bad film for women; none of the main actresses had roles worth their talent. I've spoken a bit about Kravitz being miscast, but the other two lead actresses were essentially defined by their roles as girlfriends/wives. Tati Gabrielle is just the stay-at-home mum/wife for Davidson and their daughter and isn't allowed to express much personality. Anna Sawai plays Emi, who is a part of the main heist crew, though she feels quite removed. Sawai's role in this film is to be Hoult's partner and to be left behind. She gets benched while the boys set out to do the noble final heist. It feels like more time could have been spent with these characters to make something worthwhile.

This film really moves fast when it's a big set piece. Leitch knows how to revel in the action and make the adrenaline pump. Heist sequences absolutely race across the screen from start to finish, and the final heist is an absolute battle of a riot. There's slick car chases to be had, and melancholy final shootouts. The way this film cuts together is really nice; it's like watching film burn and stagger into the next big scene. The social media videos also feel fresh and like they'd function online; it's refreshing to see a film about social media that isn't a little tone deaf as to how social media functions. Yet, when these key aspects of the film aren't front and centre, I found myself being a bit disappointed in the camera work. There's some poor framing and tracking, and dialogue scenes get pretty blocky. Yet I found that Leitch manages to leave a mark of rebellious style on this feature. The soundtrack really serves that feeling of rage, cockiness and awe quite well. Even the inclusion of a Billy Eilish track for our lead sweethearts doesn't jar things too badly. The score isn't as present as I might like, but it has a discordant edge that suits How to Rob A Bank nicely.

A relatively clumsy heist film that isn't without a bit of bite. I would give How to Rob A Bank a 6.5/10.

Wild Horse Nine

 

This review may contain spoilers!

Wild Horse Nine follows CIA agents, Chris and Lee, as they vacation on Easter Island. Having recently set up a military coup in Chile, the pair now grapple with Chris' ailing health and his exit from the agency he has committed his life to.

If nothing else, watch this film because it is probably one of the last titanic performances we'll see from John Malkovich. He's irreplaceable in this, and he is acting leagues beyond anything you'd expect. At its core, Wild Horse Nine is about legacy, passing the torch, and the reconciliation of a life lived. The character of Chris is an older agent who has done a lot of wrong in the name of service to his country; he has destabilised numerous nations and was the principal assassin of John F. Kennedy. He is also an older man who forgets a lot and who is dying from the same cancer that killed his mother. He has no family that cares for him anymore, and the only person in the world that he shares a connection with is his fellow agent and friend, Lee (Rockwell). When we start, Chris is a bit psychotic, cantankerous and aloof. He openly throws protocol out the window, and it almost seems like he willfully enjoys antagonising those around him. But there's this incredible undercurrent of fear, penance and atonement from Malkovich across this whole film. He wants to see the big heads because that was the only thing he wanted to achieve before his death upon Easter Island. He documents his life, but he is always returning to thoughts about Heaven and who is actually allowed within. The way he tries to unspool years of misdeeds by finally speaking the truth of his work to Alicia, a young socialist Chilean student and then saving her life later on speaks to his desire for redemption. There's this beautiful scene where he finally speaks to his brother after years of silence; it's not a scene in which things are fixed but in which a beautiful goodbye is had by Malkovich and Tom Waits, who plays the brother role. Watching Chris end the film by sacrificing aspects of himself so that Lee's life might carry on is this painful, yet intimate moment of brotherhood that will leave you feeling a sincere note of grief this film works hard for.

Martin McDonagh is a storyteller who just knows how to hit some incredible notes. Wild Horse Nine has that beautiful focus on Chris, as I mentioned. It is undeniably a film about a man racing towards his death and finding beauty in the final moments. I loved seeing the wild horses of Easter Island presented as a response to Chris' internal struggle, resulting in what I thought was one of the saddest animal deaths of 2026 cinema. McDonagh also says a lot here about American autonomy beyond borders and the sort of hypocrisy and hubris that comes with it. Chris and Lee are killers at the end of the day. They operate on a leash that is held by MJ, played unswervingly by Steve Buscemi. There is a real ruthless quality here about tearing other nations apart; it's talked about casually like this is a Tuesday. It's almost staggeringly unhinged as real historical events are pointed at, moments where United States involvement has been documented. This film points out the nature of this in our history, in our current state of life. The way men like MJ, who teeter about on smack, hold so much power to dismantle entire nations. That agencies like this have run operations within their own borders too. It points to a darker side of American intelligence and security entities, while also making a mockery out of them. That latter point is significant, because there are instances where America has shattered something to no value for itself or even to its own harm. Wild Horse Nine is ready to show you a couple of bumbling idiots for you to laugh at, but you also can't forget that the guy making jokes about the big heads having hats is also the guy that just destabilised Chile.

Visually, this film is McDonagh on top form. The whole time on the island feels like this splendid place, while also feeling like a sort of purgatory. It's a setting that feels so vast, and yet it has rhythms of similarity that make you feel like this is a final waiting place. I also adored the inclusion of that grainier footage to stand in for the camera Rockwell is carrying along across the film. Seeing the final moments of Malkovich with the horses being caught from that lens in particular was just plain good visual storytelling. Wild Horse Nine just zips along too; for a movie that is so contemplative and steady, it is spectacularly well-paced. I found the score to be really melancholy; the soundtrack did some work to ground us in the setting. But there were a couple of tracks, 'I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry' by Hank Williams and 'Both Sides Now' by Joni Mitchell, that just felt like such significant cornerstone pieces for the characters.

It's a really small cast, which works neatly for this. It's drawn out one of Malkovich's stronger performances in his career. Sam Rockwell is absolutely killing it in this; he's a charming hero you want to root for. Parker Posey, who plays Margie, really has a hilarious antagonistic edge to set off against Rockwell. While there isn't much to say about Mariana di Girolamo, her constant scene partner Ailin Salas really stands out. Salas is a figure of good who finds herself caught up in a darker world; watching her fight and escape is a shining light that really taps into a more noble quality of the Wild Horse Nine script. As always, I think it can be hard to find the rhythm amongst some characters that are tough to like; but McDonagh has always done that particular trick better than most.

Martin McDonagh continues to be one of my all-time favourite filmmakers, with another phenomenal big swing. I would give Wild Horse Nine a 9.5/10.

Primetime

 

This review may contain spoilers!

Primetime is a thriller biopic documenting the heyday of the reality TV show 'To Catch a Predator', starring Chris Hansen.

This is a pretty unflinching descent into the obscene, a world where the worst kind of crimes are caught and privatised for entertainment. At its core, Primetime points out that a production like this, in which a TV show had the means to capture sexual predators in real time, staggers belief. The whole conceit is that horrible sex offenders get catfished by the show, Chris Hansen shows up, reads them the riot act and then they are subsequently arrested. Watching the film posit the idea of responsibility here is interesting in two ways, the one avenue I felt was really well discussed was that these arrests and crimes were treated as entertainment spectacles. The film was constantly trying to up the ante, and the motivation was more around that 'primetime' slot for those on the show than it was to do with the justice they were delivering. There's a scene in which one of the Decoys (Phoebe Bridgers) nearly walks off the show when their official merch page starts selling thongs. It is this internal conflict the existence of the show generates that really had me hooked.

Where I think what this film had to say, and what I personally felt as a viewer diverged was on the subject of the morality of 'To Catch a Predator'. This film really graphically reminds you that these individuals are quite twisted and that their intention is to find underage people online and engage them in sex. It's pretty reprehensible stuff; there's a character who suggests to Hansen in the film that surely he would want to "bleed them". To which Chris suggests that what they do is perhaps worse. Which is quite a powerful and profound moment if the film is right there along with you, but this is a film so ready to talk every possible point of view that you can't help but feel a little disappointed with this thing thematically. There are a lot of scenes here that make you wonder why the film is trying to cast child predators in a more sympathetic light. When a District Attorney kills himself, and the show is subsequently ended, the only person painted in a damning light is Hansen and his producer. As if someone in an extreme position of power exploiting children should not feel the consequences of their own actions. Even earlier in the feature, when Chris Hansen is really falling prey to his ambition, we get this moment in which the child predator they 'catch' is a physically disabled man. The film plays this as uncomfortable or like a low point for the show, but knowing the crime this individual intended to commit didn't exactly make me want to feel the sympathy that the narrative was pushing so hard here.

Lance Oppenheim directs a film that feels positively psychedelic at times. Primetime is brimming with inventive frames that expose characters' internal struggle without needing a hint of dialogue to back it up. The way this whole thing is grounded in the age of 2000s TV while also feeling like it's on some kind of visual rollercoaster is quite impressive. I love how this movie was paced; everything felt really fluid and evenly paced. There is a big part of me that could not gel with just how oversaturated most shots had to be; that was where something really well caught could lose some appeal. The score also didn't really gel with me that much; it was a bit too lively and cartoonish for the subject matter at hand, although Phoebe Bridgers' 'On Video' rounding this thing out hit the right note.

A lot of what works for this film is Robert Pattinson playing Chris Hansen as this absolutely manic, insecure guy. This take on Hansen is a man who is fuelled by nothing more than his work; something that he treats as an almost higher calling. Pattinson taking Hansen and turning him into this damning figure, this perfectionist who is entirely relentless, makes Primetime the feat that it is. Although Pattinson is not the only performer taking a big swing here. Skyler Gisondo has found what might possibly be his best role to date in Dan Plum. Dan's storyline really exposed the long-lasting damage working on this show had to the cast and crew who were so wrapped up in it. Merritt Wever also deserves a shoutout for her incredible work battling it against Pattinson as his producer. While I had complicated feelings about this portrayal, Alex Winter actually took Bill Conradt to a very human place.

There were some performances that felt a bit more adrift here. Matthew Maher was playing Xavier Von Erck, who hunted the predators online for the show. I felt like Maher was in that part to present a sort of bumbling doofus, an eccentric oddball that was weirdly positioned to elicit laughter. Beyond Winter, none of the key predator performances mattered much. Revolori's intro scene could have been played by anyone, and Bob Ari's was a moral low for the film. Eric Rahill didn't really achieve anything as Dan's friend; he certainly didn't make Dan a more interesting character by having a presence. Casting Anna Faris as Pattinson's wife felt like one of the worst casting decisions here. Even odd Hollywood cameos like Jeff Zucker playing himself or filmmakers playing some of the captured predators really muddy what this film is trying to achieve.  

A highly stylistic venture that really grapples with its own moral compass. I would give Primetime a 7/10.

Klara and the Sun

 

This review may contain spoilers!

Klara and the Sun is an adaptation of the Kazuo Ishiguro novel of the same name. In this sci-fi tale, we follow Klara, an artificial friend who is bought and adopted by Josie and her mother. However, when Klara sees a new friend and home that is struggling more than it seems on the surface, she endeavours to help.

I felt quite torn about this film, particularly in the first half. This is a film brimming with dark themes through a light lens, which is so often Waititi's strength. His best feature, Jojo Rabbit, absolutely soared because it balanced this perfectly. From the outset, Klara and the Sun feels like something worth your curiosity merely due to Klara herself. This film has a brilliant lead in Jenna Ortega, and it is absolutely nothing without her at the centre. Klara is this being of pure radiant joy; her own naivety gives her an optimistic lens on the world around her. Things like the sun charge her, give life, and are therefore things she holds love for. Giant cleaning trucks or harvesters that spew smog into the air and blot out the sky draw a fearful reaction from her. Klara is built to find the beauty in life, in the world around her, and that's what she achieves. Her relationship with Josie is one that really challenges her and forces her worldview to become more complex. Yet ultimately, she inspires life and makes a choice that chooses humanity over the machine way of being.

Yet I really struggled with the delivery in this film. The way Klara and the Sun is presented to us felt like being a child having a picture book read aloud to you. It constantly just told you what to know and signposted a lot of the theme messaging. It was a story that didn't trust the viewer to be smart, and so it just gave a very simplistic narrative. I felt Klara and the Sun often held a lot of potential, but it might also have been limited by the very infantile viewpoint of the lead character in that respect. This film also suffers because it is meant to indicate that the nature of what Klara is here to heal is Josie. Yet, there's a point about halfway through the feature where Josie starts disappearing from the story substantially. This really means the film loses itself a lot; it's hard to feel the emotional weight of these connections and what they represent when you're only telling one half of the story. Josie's story also concludes when she rejects an artificial continuation of her life and instead chooses the people around her who love her. An aspect of this is around reconciliation with her Mum, which is a tough pill to swallow if you're actually watching this film. Mia Tharia is absolutely brilliant as Josie, who lives quite an embattled life. Josie's Mum, Chrissy, by contrast, is a pretty poor performance from Amy Adams. This character goes from markedly detached to making extremely problematic decisions around the future of her daughter's life. Watching Adams play against Steve Buscemi, talking about the opportunity of replacing human life, just felt like a low point that did nothing but bring certain characters down. The film kind of points at grief as a theme and says, "see? you understand." But it's actually quite a dark path. There's even an extreme moment of rage from Chrissy when she tries to strangle and drown Klara in a reservoir, and yet we're expected to view her as a redeemed figure by the end of the feature.

As is so often the case with a Waititi film, there is a decent stake in comedy. I really enjoyed the humour centred around Klara; she felt like a strong vehicle to provide a lighter touch to the feature. Some of the other artificial friends (Curnow and Greenwood) often felt like they were overselling their android roles and fishing for laughs. Performers like Rachel House, who regularly overlap with Waititi, are just the sort to really yank you out of a scene. Jesse Griffin, who played the Scarecrow, hits that sweet spot of an unconventional, humorous role with a dash of sadness that you buy into. That is sort of the point here; those characters with a bit of heart clearly shine through. Natasha Lyonne and Aran Murphy both play characters with chips on their respective shoulders about the state of the world but who nurture those they believe in.

I know that Taika Waititi can be capable of some really artistic cinema when he pours himself into it. There are flashes of that here, shots of the sun descending into its 'house', or the first couple of times we see Klara calibrate from her point of view. Even scattered moments in the soundtrack or Giacchino's beautiful, whimsical score awaken beauty in this feature. But a lot of this film is dialogue scenes or interior house shots, and it winds up looking remarkably plain. Watching Waititi go from beautiful exterior sequences to the most drib drab interiors really takes the visual intention of the film down a few notches.

Taika Waititi's mediocre ability as a film director continues. I would give Klara and the Sun a 4.5/10.

Wildwood

 

This review may contain spoilers!

Wildwood is a stop-motion animated film based on the Colin Meloy novel of the same name. It follows a young girl, Prue, who ventures into the Impassable Wilderness to rescue her baby brother after he is kidnapped by crows.

I love animated films; they are a medium that often shows tremendous artistry in cinema. There is often a real line between animated films that try for creativity and films that want to show a Minion for the sixteenth time. Wildwood is the sort of animated film that sits in a camp unto itself. It shatters any and all expectations and soars above into something awe-inspiring. For Laika Studios, this was a 16-year labour of love, with numerous stop-motion figurines and puppets delicately hand-crafted to give you a film experience unlike anything else you will see this year. In a world where faster 3D CG animation is the new norm, this is what animation as art truly looks like. The level of detail in the design is absolutely unreal, from facial expression movements, right through to multi-figure battlefield sequences that must've taken years and years. There are whole frames of this feature that I would quite comfortably say no other animated film has ever found the sort of beauty that could possibly compare. If you are a fan of animation alone, Wildwood isn't merely a good film to watch out for this year. This is a must-see.

But Wildwood isn't just a feast for the eyes; it is a beautiful story too. It makes me think of a fairy tale or folklore epic, a classic fantastical journey I would have read as a child. This film takes us to Portland, where it shows a tremendous love for the city and paints it as this charming cultural hub. Our protagonist is Prue, a young girl who is left responsible for her brother Mac one day while her parents are out. But after a supernatural flock of crows kidnaps her brother, she ventures into the Impassable Wilderness with her friend Curtis to rescue him. This character journey is a real odyssey into a fantastical world of talking creatures, living forest and magic. Prue must navigate the unusual factions in order to locate Mac, and along the way inspire the denizens of the Wood to join her in opposing the Dowager-Governess. Peyton Elizabeth Lee voices Prue, and it is one of those witty, charming, leading roles that really sets this world apart and makes you fall in love with what you're being presented. I loved the finer details of the world, with more passable sage wisdom from Prue's father (Johnson) contrasting with the conduit to this natural world in the mystics (Cardinal) or the solemn leadership of Owl Rex (Grant). There is a layer of charming comedy, from the more overt cowardly turncoat (Day) right through to the Governor and his aide vying for control (Clements and Jackson). While not every character threaded the same connection (such as Maya Erskine as the Mum, or Tom Waits as Maksim), all contributed to the tapestry that was this living world.

This film does have a lot to impart, which inevitably means the flaw of Wildwood can be a couple of slow pacing points due to exposition. But if you are prepared to be swept along and go with the current of the narrative, you are going to be rewarded for it. If nothing else, the absolute powerhouse musical score that accompanies Wildwood will take your hand and guide you through the wilderness itself. For my money, it's one of the best pieces of music in film this year.

Wildwood has so much to impart upon the audience. At its very core, there is a story here about grief, how all-consuming and divisive it can be. The main antagonist of the film, Alexandra (Mulligan), is a shell of herself that has become completely consumed by her own grief; it has become so destructive that the very wood has been torn apart. Watching her radicalise the coyotes and the crows against the very people who first had ownership of the woods brings forth an interesting parallel to other indifferent powers that have destroyed native land. Mahershala Ali and Amandla Stenberg really lead this subplot and give it a fierce, noble edge. Prue's journey is often about her having to claim responsibility and be her own hero, often moving past authority figures like her parents in order to save her baby brother. Across the film, characters like the majestic General (Bassett), gentle Septima (Awkwafina) or the Bandit King all fall or falter, leaving the duty to the younger heroes to save themselves and the wood. I loved that this was such a story of bravery discovered; there wasn't a magical switch that went off. These young heroes had to be guided to stand up for what they believe in. Curtis (Tremblay) goes from quite a cowardly place to someone who takes a life-altering step in order to save his friend Prue's life. This is the sort of writing that comes around so rarely, it feels entirely complete and fulfilled.

This is one of the greatest animated films I have seen in years. I would give Wildwood a 9.5/10.

Clayface

 

This review may contain spoilers!

Clayface adapts the comic book villain of the same name. In this body horror feature, actor Matt Hagan finds his life destroyed after he is mutilated by a Gotham gang. After opting into an experimental human drug trial, Hagan slowly faces the monster within as he embarks on a path of revenge.

I went into this film thinking to myself, "Who is actually out there asking for a Clayface movie?" I love when a movie then proceeds to turn around and really challenge my expectations. We have had a few comic book villain movies in recent years; pretty much all of them have been complete burners. Clayface manages to stand out from the crowd and achieve something really impressive. When we start the film, we meet Matt Hagan, a young actor on the cusp of great success. He has overcome his underdog roots and emerged as a real up-and-comer. Then he takes one poorly timed step off the path. He sleeps with a mobster's girlfriend and pays the price for a moment of hubris. Hagan's face is scarred beyond compare, and he is subsequently ruined financially. He grows wild, desperate for something to save him and latches on to Caitlyn, a scientist who is developing a restorative A.I. nanobot for body degenerative diseases. Hagan becomes obsessive, even as the treatments change him past the point of human. His very nature starts to shift, and his own sense of self becomes dependent on two things: his connection with Caitlyn and his drive for revenge upon those who ruined his life. Watching Matt give over to the changes, to hold power so that he can massacre his way through his enemies is gripping and horrifying. The line inevitably becomes blurred for him, and keeping Caitlyn is solved through violence in the same way that taking revenge is. Ultimately, Matt doesn't let the treatment save him; that isn't enough. He needs his rage to be sated, which inevitably gives him over to the monster.

Tom Rhys Harries is performing on another level with this role; it's going to be a real career-defining role for him. He has an easy-going, humble charisma to him when we first meet. But he strips Hagan back and really shows those moments of wild rage and desperation. What becomes fascinating is that as Hagan loses his sense of self, Harries really plays into that. Suddenly Matt Hagan feels like the performance, and the monster feels like the true thing. It's a shift that subtly transpires, but it really tilts the whole performance in such a fascinating way. I was also blown away by Naomi Ackie (as I so often am). She has her own role in shaping Mark into a monster. For the most part, she is a grounding force - an external conscience for Hagan to listen to and return to. But she is also an enabler; she is morbidly fascinated by the scope of her work and what it is doing to her subject. You watch it in one of the more unnerving scenes of the film in which she watches Matt shapeshift into her as he sleeps. The path to revenge yields some interesting characters for Matt Hagan to work through. David Dencik is perfect as a Gotham mob head; he has that ruthless edge down. But there's plenty of fun Gotham goons here; Squillino Jr. looks to be having the time of his life, almost as much as Rob Brydon's talk show host role. But I was perhaps most captured by what Joshua James brought to Corey, Hagan's best friend. Their arc goes from one of brotherhood to betrayal; it's one of the more tragic aspects of the film.

I don't think Clayface is always out here running perfectly; it does struggle with bridging between acts. The first act is rather condensed, and the descent into ruin has to happen rather quickly so that we can get onto the main event. But this capacity to gloss through things in the first act means we don't get to connect with Hagan as who he was for very long. It also means the film really airbrushes past Caitlyn's experimental science experiment, which sounds painfully made up in any scene that lingers on it for too long. Which bridges into the next flaw: Clayface can get a little cartoonish at times. There are some points where watching him kill one person at a time, sometimes with a lousy quip at hand, feels a bit grey in terms of tone. There will be a long sequence where he's comedically pretending to be a mobster, followed by a funny dance number that then crashes into a killing spree. The cohesion isn't always there. The payoff around seeing Hagan take on the Clayface form is also not really there; he's quite easily defeated, which takes a bit of bite out of the film itself. Giving us a bit more time with the monster wouldn't have hurt anything, but the film almost seems afraid of that scenario. This is also a real character actor film, which means there are some wider cast performances that don't really land. Carroll and Marsan serve as Hagan's talent management but often fall into the background; a particular waste of a performer like Marsan. Max Minghella really doesn't feel much like a cop, and his relationship with Ackie needed to be fleshed out. I also felt like Ribeiro was only really there to play the adultress, rarely actually having character moments that fleshed her out further.

James Watkins really worked to make a stylistic horror in a year that is already brimming with some horror heavy-hitters. The camera is a light presence at times, but it holds tight to Hagan and his transformation like an examiner's lens. I was most impressed by the blend of practical and visual effects that went into crafting the creature design. Watching the facial prosthetics that Harries had layered over him was brilliant, a real grotesque approach that led to me feeling transfixed by the screen. The moments where CGI was deployed for transformation were also well-balanced; the final form was quite a strong realistic take on the Clayface monster. The soundtrack has a bubbly, peppy vibe that felt like it was intended to contrast, but also sometimes confused the tone of the film. However, Bertelmann provides a chilling film score that cuts to the darker tone of Clayface nicely.

Probably the most ambitious thing out of DC since The Penguin miniseries. I would give Clayface a 7.5/10.