Film Reviews by The REAL Film Cricket

LX 2048 was made on a low budget and released in 2020 which it means in the making and it’s writing was probably over 7 years or even more ago. With that in mind director and writer Guy Moshe was not that far wrong!

The earth is devastated by the sun; you cannot go outside during the day and most people do not – if they do they have to wear almost warzone type protective clothing…. that’s enough said in 2026.

Work, life, almost everything is done online, in your own home wearing headsets/phones. Wow can you imagine that?

Clearly there is full on science-fiction items – clones of humans are probably not around the corner but if they are they will not be for the character’s Adam and Reena in the real world that is for sure. Having said that, the explanation, the reason, makes logical and stressful sense for the characters and indeed the run of the story.

James D’Arcy as Adam it has to be said is superb. A science fiction ‘hero’ in the story that is neither tough, super clever, or indestructible and he does not spend too much of the film shouting and yelling at the top of his voice either.

This could be the reason the film is not popular with a lot of people.

Adam is the version of person that could be me or you. So, he talks a lot, explains things and does not resort to angry violence. Superb in a modern film. Sorry but this type of storytelling appeals to me. We get logical explanations why someone is doing something, and they are not super popular or nice, but neither are they evil. Even then he has a gun and it gets waved about and he swears at people and shouts – so those films fans should be a little happy.

The actual message, the world is on its way to destruction due to us and we are just sat at home ‘online’ for everything, AI sex girlfriends, slightly better clone replacements of people, which I hope never happens because a lot of use will be gone, and everything is between us and modern technology, is close to being spot on.

Let’s be frank it is happening. A current ‘look at how much money I’ve got’ multi-millionaire has said democracy needs to change as businesses soon will no longer need to give ‘vouchers’ to have human employees – it was said and was serious. LX 2048 is a fictional film!

The acting throughout this tale is engaging and Anna Brewster was clearly given instructions to make Reena, Adam’s wife, less appealing and likeable so the finale was more effect. Any criticism from me is the end of the film, the female AI and wife part sort of took over from the rubbish world they lived in. The plans drawn by characters were shocking and unpleasant but it sort of narrowed the terrible world down to one problem which was not where the whole tale seemed to be leading. This of course is a personal opinion, and many others felt the ending was the stronger section.

Overall LX 2048 is probably worth a watch or two, you will see a few things you missed on a second viewing, and I will criticise the back-and-forth timeline at the beginning which was not clearly signalled and confusing. The acting is good and the look is good – and the predictions are very, very close, unfortunately.

Definitely worth a watch – do not ask AI if it is, just watch it.

The Thicket is a Western and I have a history with Westerns, despite being born and brought up in the reasonably lawful and quiet United Kingdom I loved the raw violence, riding horses and problems that Western threw at me on the screen.

Serge Leone helped this obviously but I was influenced and enjoyed many films set in the ‘Wild West’ from before when Mr. Eastwood and his pals took over the genre when I saw them as a little boy and young man.

So, The Thicket has a lot of good competition to challenge but it is always going to be watched by me. Plus, I really enjoy Peter Dinklage and the films and shows he is in. The Thicket was no exception – he walks into roles and for some reason he always works in them. Does not matter about the story, the film, the character he seems to fit smoothly into his role. I enjoy watching him.

Unfortunately The Thicket was not as enjoyable as Peter.

Set in or around the early 20th century – we have cars and motorbikes – but in the seemingly middle of nowhere – hence ‘The Thicket’ location – things start off a bit oddly and never really pick up.

A girl stands in the middle of a sort of road and watches someone ride at speed at her from miles away on a motorbike – I think we are supposed to realise she does not really know what it is – and just watches as it appears to be going to hit her head on. It seems our early ‘hero’ is a bit stupid or unaware I guess. Which she is as she gets dragged around the area and causes all the problems…

We then get to see Juliette Lewis as the ‘cartoon baddie’ who just snarls and grumps and looks evil and mean all the time and kills people for the fun. There is no nuance, no real need to seriously act, no character, just a cartoon baddie – and thus the story goes on.

Most of the ‘victims’ are stupid, get caught out easily and seem to make the worst decision they can. The baddies kill everyone they can and the mooch around in the middle of nowhere, so no real life, no point in stealing things or killing people.

And on we go. The film is definitely filmed in ‘realistic locations’ but it is very dark and makes some scenes difficult to see what is happening, and everyone seems mean – was it really like that? The dialogue is hard to catch at times and often makes little sense to what is happening.

Peter Dinklage’s character at least gives reasons for his actions and what he is planning to do – you might think it is pointless, but it does sort of make sense. The only character that does.

As I trailed through the stupid rambling story it struck me that as a Western they decided it must be super violent, have lots of murders and violent deaths and virtually everyone was mean and horrible. If they seemed not to be they died at some point.

The F-word was not used at this time – the dialogue is modern, not sure if that was done on purpose, but it was noticeable, swearing and shocking people was taking the Lords name in vain. Maybe this part of the writing was done to get modern younger audiences onside?

Also my big bugbear was there again – any action, any excitement, make sure everyone screams and shouts. Every film nowadays has only one answer for action and ‘excitement’ – scream and shout and loads of noise.

It is so predictable and boring

Having been unable to remember if the young werewolf/vampire/monster obsessed me had watched this 1944 film I took to watching it again. In all honesty the title did not ring a bell, but I loved Karloff in nearly every film he was in, and I loved Chaney as Larry Talbot so watching this black and white ‘horror’ was not a task.

Truth be told the history behind The House of Frankenstein is nearly as odd as the actual story and film. Originally it was going to have a host of monsters in it, also it seems to be a sequel to Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman but this never seems to be mentioned in any writing I could find.

Once the writing and budget had been settled, I’m never playing the monster again Karloff rocked up as Dr Niemann and really wins the trophy for everything in the film. He is believable, evil and nasty without over playing it or even seeming it as he goes along. There are modern writers, actors and directors who could look at that and maybe take a few points. So Mr. Karloff immediately made the whole film watchable.

J. Carrol Naish is also good as his ‘servant’/fellow prisoner Daniel and is also believable as someone who just wants out of his physical problems and sees the exit in front of him.

So, no matter they tale and writing fire in two good lead actors and things improve by 25% immediately.

Being 1944 the film is not full of gore or on score blood and horror and to be frank it is better for it as many modern films could be. The actions of Karloff and Naish build towards unpleasantness and you know they are not going to take any prisoners. Sometimes the nastiness does not have to be upfront on a 10-foot-high banner.

The first strong week point is probably the introduction of Dracula which sort of does not drive the story on and seems to be only getting Dracula into the tale. Truth be told I like the fact he drank blood from his victims as a big old’ bat as that seemed to make sense to me and John Carradine, another experienced and good actor, was okay, not outstanding but okay. The problem was this Dracula was frankly a bit weak and rubbish as an ‘evil vampire’ and he did not last very long.

One of my favourite monsters as a young boy was the werewolf. I loved Lon Chaney Jnr as Larry Talbot it he films he rocked up in and here he walks through role with ease. Considering the amount of stick this late actor has got over the years from horror film aficionados Talbot’s broken heart and utter pressure to not be a werewolf was believable. Which considering the film and period is impressive acting to my mind.

The scenery, stage locations and so forth are impressive for a film that is 82 years old and nothing on the screen stuck out like a glowing in the dark sore thumb. It was good and all of those late folk that were involved can be proud.

Criticisms? Well, there are plenty. The story itself was bit daft, considering the characters, what they were doing and getting up to. A lot of it did not even get within a mile of commonsense even back in those days.

Elena Verdugo as lovely and as good as she is, was entirely unbelievable and seemingly out of place in the story to my mind. It was as if the writer just said, ‘we have to have love interest, and I don’t care how we get it’ and then took his pen up.

The ending wrapped everything up too neatly and easily and finally poor old Glenn Strange jumping in as Frankenstein’s monster for a few scenes at the end, was given pantomime style comic make up and he genuinely looked funny to me. He also was rather easy to defeat to be fair. Everything about the monster seemed to be a poor decision and idea.

Overall, the black and white made during the war horror tale is fun enough to watch. The established actors are very good in odd roles and make the film better than it probably deserves to be. The weakness is most definitely the story

Minutes into the film and KoKo playing Red Dog obviously is going to be, and is, the real star of this film. You cannot help but smile at him and laugh at the things he does and instigates. This is the positive part of the film/story for me.

Unfortunately, ‘Red Dog’ very quickly clicked my mind into ‘you are being manipulated’ mode. For starters, the tale is based on a true ‘Australian Legend’ about a dog that rocked up in a heavy working community and did so much to ingratiate himself that he was never forgotten. The film makers obviously researched and knew the story – well I hoped they did.

Herein, like a lot of ‘true stories’, lies the rub, most of what happens in the film, that twists your emotions, makes your bottom lip quiver did not happen in real life. So it is lies told to manipulate you emotionally. No other reason. Cynical and dare I say done in the hope of getting a lot of money from big audiences.

Same reason that an American was the lead character and the love of Red Dog’s life. Who is the trying to win over – what huge audience are you trying to get?

Then top this off with other annoying stereotypical working-class men and I was already frowning. Believe it or not I have worked in a similar style work environment, thousands of blokes grafting on a huge site, working 14 hour days for 7 days a week. I never saw any fist fights or any men running around like some drunken body-building wrestler. Just chaps working hard, earning money and going home for a few days every other weekend. Nearly all of the ones I worked with were nice and would help you out as much as they could. Does not suit this stereotype though does it?

Boring and predictable? Yes, that vision of working men is.

The film is very episodic and tries to show how Red Dog effected people’s lives, even with romance and life changing events. They all seemed a bit over-the-top wishful thinking moments for me and thus any realism or concern as you viewed the screen faded away quickly.

Then, spoiler alert, the dog travels around the world, looking for his owner – somehow the people working at Dampier know where he went, but brush that aside, we then have a truly cartoon style fight with a cat. Honestly it was so unrealistic, so well out of place, it looked as it if was from Tom and Jerry, just not as much fun.

So Red Dog is another film that is very popular amongst its audience and I can understand why. If it were a work of fiction, I would be a little more easy going but this is a true tale that is entirely and clearly made up.

The acting in some places is okay, but I did get extremely bored of the macho men. Hardworking building industry men are not all like that. KoKo as Red Dog was fun. Also, the ending of the story is awful, mawkish and utter nonsense. I am adult for goodness sake.

Overall, I watched Red Dog, I am now not interested in the real story and I would never watch this film again. Funnily enough after watching The Penguin Lessons recently which is very similar to this tale you can see how writing and performing a story about the effects of a real animal on people that is fairly fictional can be made and it will still affect you in good way and will enjoy it.

Shame it took someone 13 years to get it right.

Not made on a huge budget, a Spanish-Italian coproduction shot in the north of England in 1973-74 I can understand the limitations the problems and the failings a film like this would produce. Nevertheless, this hugely admired film, including one comment ‘the greatest zombie film ever made’ is not just poor, or not very good, it is utterly rubbish.

The beginning, Manchester City centre, a shop owner jumping on his Norton motorbike and riding off – with a cloth cap on – to the Lake District, started off well and actually caught my attention and gave me a trip back to when I was a lad. Okay a shapely lady suddenly drops all her clothes and runs naked through the street as he is in traffic, no reason, no one bats an eyelid, but it is a movie so all good.

The part that dropped this film into the bottom of the sewer was the first proper ‘acting’ part. George stops to get some petrol in a Lake District local garage and ‘Edna’ reverses over his motorbike; it has to be fixed. This is how we introduce our ‘heroes’ and that is okay, unlikely, but okay. Unfortunately, this the point where I immediately no longer cared what was in front of me on the screen. I know it was 1974 and I know Ray Lovelock’s George had to be macho and leading but the way he talks to Edna the way he treats her and what he actually does, on top of her allowing him to do it, is utterly ridiculous and one-hundred years out of date even at that time. From this point the premise is ruined because the main characters would not be where they were if they had behaved like normal humans of the time. Add in the introduction of the ‘living dead’ and what happens and I felt the story was written by a twelve-year old at best.

The only good part was how the writers decided the dead came back to life – okay scientifically nonsense but most films do that – but it gave a reason and sort of made sense.

How the rest of the dead coming back to life unfolded was poor, very poor to be honest, the roles of the police…. I nearly do not have words for it. The chief police office in the film is actually played by Arthur Kennedy, who was in Lawrence of Arabia, here he plays some sort of Irish version of a New York tough guy cop from the same era. Except it is north England in the 1970s. He even has a thousand bullet capacity handgun he carries tucked in his trousers that he kills people with seemingly no consequences. Did the makers do any research or study films from the UK before they wrote and made the film?

The film is shot in annoying semi-dark for a lot of the time, nearly every character is an idiot or does not behave how someone doing that job would. The acting is poor or average at best. The characters are all unpleasant, rude and idiotic. I was bored very early in the film.

I will never watch this film again. I have read about it for decades too and was looking forward to seeing a film that was around at the same time as George A. Romero was making the zombie-genre something to get into and make great films about. Watch Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, even the later Day of the Dead to clear you mind of this film and show you how to make a story about human beings, how they behave, that just happens to have living dead people in it trying to eat them as well.

Just my opinion of course.

The story behind The Choral is definitely valid and certainly is a tale to make you think, my problems with it from the start is it felt lightweight with some of the more heavier aspects of the story; the huge, huge weight of World War 1 was projected onto the characters and you the viewer, gave me the impression of a ‘television show’ rather than a film. Put in some of the good actors, Alun Armstrong, Mark Addy and a few others who could do their roles without even concentrating and for me there definitely was something missing from The Choral.

The problem I would have writing this is trying to clip in the overbearing WW1 problems, being gay, and a choral project. That’s three topics that the film could 100% concentrate on and make it a ‘film about xxxxx’ but it does not but instead flitters between the topics. Nothing entirely wrong with that but for me in this film it does not fully work.

Add in Ralph Fiennes easily portraying his character, to underline his acting ability and skills, and this takes the story up a few levels. The young lads were believable as men ready for call up but I would say historically I think the attitude in 1916 to the war was a tad different to what was displayed. Not that it made a big difference, but it could had pushed the film in a different direction.

The main stumbling block was the makers definitely wanted the organising and outright ‘fantasticness’ of the choral project to be the main topic and I think this might have been a slight mistake. The film tries to highlight various points and in this case it seems to flop onto one, flop off it again, and some are never picked up, or are let go in a very slack manner. Definitely a longer running TV series might have worked better.

Another problem for me – and yes I know the title of the film – but the music type has no interest for me and never has. So, I couldn’t buy into the desperation to be ‘great’ and sing wonderfully and so forth, I enjoyed parts of it, but it was not a type of music that would hold me with fascination.

All in all, a story about a gay man who lived in Germany trying to help a choral project in World War 1 could have been one film – and the hefty responsibility and what happens when you are a young man waiting to be called up and possibly join the rows and rows of bodies in Europe could have been another.

Put them together and they dilute a bit too much for me.

If you read the outline and few other short and undetailed summaries of this film, I can imagine a lot of serious, or looking for something with more clout, film viewers will bypass The Penguin Lessons.

To be fair if you have a genuine interest in films and you see Steve Coogan and Johnathan Pryce in lead roles trust me you should watch the film.

The first thing you need to realise and be amazed at is this film is based on a real story. Okay Tom Michell was roughly 23 years old when the events happened and Steve Coogan is 58, but for me this makes no difference. What I liked about the film is the title, the apparent storyline makes you think you are watching a cute, fun animal centred film. In a way you do but….

The story the film tells is that one change, one different thing in anyone’s life can make you positive, change your perspective more than you thought possible. In reality a writer could have made a fictional tale about a man falling in love with a woman and how much that changed his life – and these stories have been done.

This is different, very different.

To be fair Steve Coogan could probably sleepwalk this role, it is so suited to him, so much up on his strengths I knew that I would enjoy his role in the film if nothing else. Then you add in Jonathan Pryce, strongly cast in a role he can do in his sleep, and you definitely have something worth watching.

The weakest in a story like this would be the supporting cast, but in my opinion, the not so well known amongst us Brits cast, were superb, believable, and just added strong foundations to the tale.

Björn Gustafsson is great as the ‘Finnish’ teacher who supports Tom, and my wife worked with a Finnish company for a decade and was nodding her head throughout, yes we know Bjorn is Swedish. You’d be shocked to know Vivian El Jaber was an actress and not a cleaning lady and those young lads were very good.

Add in the centre of the tale, the penguin, a fantastic and lovely creature and even if you do not like the tale or way the story is presented, I cannot imagine anyone disliking it intensely.

Large parts of the film are fictional, to create tension and give a path to Tom Michell, which some viewers were upset about and I understand that. Michell clearly never had a 13-year-old daughter – due to his real age – and the daughter of the cleaning lady did not exist in real life. In my opinion without Sofia it would be harder to underline and highlight the despicable people that were in charge of Argentina at that time and that is an important part of the film.

If there is any criticism due, and I am patient so it did not create too much of a problem for me, the story is definitely slow going, especially at the beginning, I can see this as good platform to push on the three stages of Michell’s life and how and why he changed, but in modern day entertainment a lot of audiences want at bit more pace.

Again, I find it good that the hideous and frankly murderous behaviour of the Argentinian regime at that time is hinted at and spoken but not graphically shown. When these things happen those that witness it often never get past it and The Penguin Lessons is not in this genre of film.

This actually makes it stronger for me. Steve Coogan’s Tom, apart from being a clever English teacher, would probably behave like most of us would in the same circumstances if we are honest.

The story is heart-warming, lovely, fun and in this current time of 2026 a tad scary for some of us. The acting is very good, and dare I say superb, and believable from the main characters right down to supporting cast. Then you add in a penguin that you cannot fail to fall for and you have a slightly fictional tale based on a real story that is entertaining, fun and can pose a few questions for you.

I would recommend The Penguin Lessons but if you like fast violent action and running from point to point, and screaming laughter, it may not be the film for you.

The Ballard of Wallis Island would seem like a comedy film with the two of the main actors Basden and Key being well-known British comic actors, but to be fair what could be a silly played entirely for laughs story has more depth to it. The actors, who wrote the story based off an original short film and true-life experiences, have definitely dug deep below the surface of an eccentric, and for most of us unbelievable ‘gig’ for performers.

Here lies the problem with the film, anyone not knowing the background but seeing those two names in the making and acting of the story, alongside the always good Carey Mulligan, might think hilarious, silliness from start – especially if they do not read up or research the making of films, and many people do not, which is probably the best way to go into watching a film being honest.

The story starts with Charles, played by Tim Key, being a silly remarks, sort of daft bloke, and it reminded me of me! When I talk to people in shops or companies on the phone, I am often like that. The musician, played by Basden, was another version of me, less happy, wanting to know exactly what is happening all the time, not smiling or laughing much.

These two characters, the way they were introduced, due to this, made me laugh. I can imagine many others watching would not be so amusingly entertained. I can see why many would feel the start, the introduction was slow to get going. Particularly the large part of the story, the past and the present cannot always resolve or mix, took a while to get going.

The always good Carey Mulligan rocks up in the same manner, not quite knowing what is going on, with husband in tow, as Basden’s character’s ex-partner in the musical and romantic sense of the word.

This is the clash, the past, which was both good and stressful, being introduced to the present, similar but now, and trying to reproduce the good times. An interesting concept and the answer the film gives is correct I would say 90% of the time.

The outcome is actually realistic, fun, poignant and entertaining. I would say perhaps the tale did drag a bit slow at times, but the film was interesting, and a different watch to a lot of films. Almost something you might see in the fifties or sixties than you would now, which is no bad thing.

The acting as expected was good. Mulligan was utterly convincing in her role as was Sian Clifford as Amanda the only other female role, both seemed natural and much like people you might have met or know.

Akemnji Ndifornyen as Nell’s husband Michael was convincing too but I did feel he was introduced as the potential problem factor and then quickly and rather too conveniently shipped off out of the action so the tale could go in the direction it wanted. A tad obvious and very ‘film making’ in the process.

The two main actors, friends in real life and the writers, definitely had a chemistry and ease working with each other and were fun to watch. If I were to criticise any of the performance it would these roles, and particularly Tim Key, they were bit too caricature like, but being kind this was probably done on purpose to underline certain points and ideas.

Overall I would say The Ballard of Wallis Island is entertaining, fun and sad. Any points that were a problem for me – and when I say this I mean just for me, not everyone – was the reason for the ‘concert’ I worked it out in seconds, the convenient disappearance of the husband, and the tale definitely was padded out to make the film longer so it dragged a bit and at time my attention wandered, perhaps some other issues or paths could have been added.

The Ballard of Wallis Island is a good film, but it is definitely a ‘your taste’ tale, some won't like it. For me it just managed to tip over into the ‘like it’.

Viewed with the privilege of not being involved in World War 2 and the aftermath, it could be said that the comedy To Be or Not to Be, made in 1941 but released in 1942 after the USA joined the war, is, or was, a bit tasteless. But if you go back to that time, it is perfect jab and the Nazi regime and sympathisers. In particular, the constant ‘Heil Hitlering’ and what the two pilots do at the end of the film when ordered to by ‘Hitler’, it gets right to the crux of the whole evil cult.

The argument on the other side is that what the Germans and their allies were doing was evil, barbaric, and not something to be laughed at. But I am on Mel Brooks (who remade this film) side here, laughing at these people, pointing out the idiocy, even if it is evil, really works and is remembered by people. Writing in 2025 I have to say it used to be remembered to be fair.

Ernst Lubitsch, who created the film was clearly in love with acting and theatre and had a great hatred and sadness for Hitler and his acolytes, so this film, from this point of view is perfect.

To Be or Not to Be is not expensive looking and plays a serious subject for laughs but somehow Lubitsch manages to eke out some genuine fear and edge of the sit worries for the audience whilst popping in laughs and mickey-taking along the way. Overall, it is well done, coincidences and stupidity help the protagonists along but sometimes in life that happens.

As a story on the screen, what you see, I found it enjoyable and laughed aloud or said ‘Oh dear’ more than once so from the mists of 1941, with the cast now all gone, this film still works.

Jack Benny is funny as the vain actor who seems to be a comic anti-hero to start with, but turns out the hero, and his put-upon acting troupe, including his wife, all add to the film. The tragic and gone to soon (weeks after filming ended) Carole Lombard is in good form as the only female lead and it is easy to see how any character, Nazi or Allied, could fall for her. Supporting our two leads are Lionel Atwill as a hammy actor and various other supporting cast, playing supporting cast, and to be fair, the troupe as you see them and learn about them, works. A young, and unrecognisable, Robert Stack, plays the handsome Polish pilot and is probably the part of the film that does not work the best, but it is passable.

To be honest To Be or Not to Be references and points to the Nazi barbarity and evil amongst the jokes and silly situations. It shows the creative and artistic as being as important in a time of war and strife as the military, albeit exaggerated.

Black and white, made in 1941, with stage style humour and silliness, making fun of a very serious time in history and a murderous and hideous ideology and regime, I can see how some, even in this day and age, might not like To Be or Not to Be, but if you put yourself in black and white world and think about what was going on in that time, then I am sure you will see the humour, fun, silliness and seriousness of the film.

The War of the Worlds: Next Century will drag in a few lovers of HG Wells novel (I loved it) and the films made from that source and even the video games, but we have to be honest, as this was a Polish film made in 1981 you have to replace Martians with ‘Soviet Russian Bastards’ because that is what it is.

This is no criticism and there are many US citizens and other around the world who should watch this. Put a group of people in charge, make them more or less immune from consequences and this film is what you get. Writing this on May 13th, 2025, what you see on the screen is not even exaggerated.

There seems to be some unreserved praise for this Polish film from film lovers and although it must have been brave to make the film in the country and the time it was made, so in context you have to understand what you are seeing on the screen, it is not perfect or ‘unbelievably fantastic’.

There is a dedication to Orson Welles at the beginning of the film and it has to be remembered what Welles did with his radio play of the story, what is alleged to have happened. Therefore, what you see happening in front of you asks one big and important question. Is the Martian invasion true or is it a deception to allow authoritarians to move up a level unchallenged? That is the brilliant premise of the film.

Unfortunately the culture I was brought up in, my experience in life, means that acting does not click with me. The late Roman Wilhelmi seems mainly fed-up at most, despite the scales eventually falling from his eyes, and with what happens to his wife you would have thought there might be some genuine anger.

The authoritarians are vile and corrupt but to what end? It is infuriating that they seem to be doing it to just be mean.

In this day and age using small people to be Martians dressing them up a bit strangely and painting them silver is clearly off but at the time of the film’s making, a deceptive government would probably have done just that, if indeed that is what is happening in the story.

The gratuitous and oddly strange sex in the film is out of place, does not drive the story forward and seems almost cut and pasted in – but hey-ho.

So, the look, for 1981, of The War of the Worlds: Next Century is passable, the acting average, but despite any of its faults, the message that it gets across, is especially important.

A message wilfully and ignorantly ignored many times since the film came out – I mean it was banned in Poland for two years on its release.

Leigh Whannell reimagined The Invisible Man and updated the tale from the older film and here with Wolf Man he has at least stayed consistent. I have not seen the remade Invisible Man for reasons I will not go into here so I cannot comment on it but in general it has garnered positive opinions in general. So, modernising and giving his own slant on 1941’s The Wolf Man would seem promising.

I must first add that as a young lad Lon Chaney Jnr as the tortured Larry Talbot was my most favourite ‘horror’ film and stuck with me on my journey into adulthood. So much so I was fascinated with werewolves for decades. Therefore, my feelings and judgement on this outing might be somewhat slanted and biased.

The story itself is very self-contained and I have to applaud the slow burn build-up in this day and age of flashing lights and explosions from the opening minute, although I have to say despite my genuine admiration, I did find the early parts boring and long-winded. In fact I had to pause the Blu Ray to do something and I was convinced twenty or so minutes had passed but it was in fact around seven!

Perhaps it was the script or acting but neither Blake, Ginger or Charlotte appealed to me and I was not looking forward to being in their company early on.

Eventually we moved to part of the story where the action happens and suddenly we are plunged into gloomy darkness and difficult to see moments – again.

Without just repeating the story scene for scene I was disappointed in a director repeat horror film tropes, who supposedly was re-writing them and giving them a modern, different slant. Not even good tropes either. My biggest sore-thumb gripe is in American films where we see when something jumps out into the road in front of a driver they never apply the brakes but swerve off the road causing a massive accident. This has actually happened to me recently and I avoided the deer and stopped in the road. I did not drive into the loch by the side of the road screaming.

Talking of screaming, I am sure a lot of ladies reading this do not default to loud screaming the moment there is problem in the dark.

The horror part of the story, which was in a way meant to tug at your heartstrings slightly, was disappointing and for me actually dull. The creature’s behaviour, and filming from their points of view, was dull and illogical and the make-up, praised by many, was once again a slightly bald half naked man – keeps clothes on though – with bad teeth and long fingernails.

Call me a moany old man, but 1941’s The Wolf Man was actually sadder and more wistful than 2025s with Lon Chaney Jnr actually a hairy wolf monster (admittedly he keeps his clothes on but it was 1941) and he is tormented and terrified of what he is over the course of the film, not one night. It was more involving and more emotional.

I like hairy werewolves that look like proper monsters, and the effect they have on their world, not two other people.

I think Whannell’s intentions were genuine and he made a good effort but something was not correct with Wolf Man. It was not scary and go sillier the more terrifying it was meant to be and to be frank way before the ending I was bored. I was not emotionally attached to survivors or scared and saddened by the victim.

It does not end well for Blake the Wolf Man in the murky darkness of pretend Oregon and he is left behind and finished, same for this film I am sorry to say. I will never watch this again, unless by accident.

Apparently, parts of this film, particularly the shop, are based on The Lobby a video store owned by the star of the film Kevin Martin. With that knowledge it is easy to see what was already really obvious. The Last Video Store is a love-letter to that time when video shops popped up all over the world and renting video tapes of films was the thing to do. I can remember riding my motorbike into Romsey and perusing the shelves to get two films for the weekend for months, nay years, on end. It was a fun time.

With this in mind this story some of what happens and is mentioned will confuse viewers and mean nothing to as many, much like Nyla played with easy confidence by YaaYaa Adams. So, for a few younger viewers it will not appeal. Clearly made on a budget with a small cast and one set The Last Video Store works within in its limits with confidence and is fun and engaging.

I particularly enjoyed the fictional films referenced that were clearly pastiches of films that are still watched to this day. This was done with affection and love for those movies but also aware of their shortcomings. Much like this attitude, the film is at times, scary, gory in a cheap way and funny but with skilful balance. Referencing 90s thrillers and horror means that the CGI could look like that and this works perfectly whilst probably making the budget more manageable, which to my mind is bordering on genius.

The screenplay and acting are great, particularly the chemistry between Kevin and Nyla which at the start of the story was not meant to be there. The story obviously is silly, but in a fun way, which it is meant to be and for a cheaper made film with mainly two characters in a one location at no point during the run time could I say I was bored. I really wanted to see what happened to Kevin and Nyla.

For a nostalgic romp in my past of renting horror films from video shops this was perfect and well made. If you are a video rental veteran like me then I can see this very much being your cup of tea. Some will not like it, but I say embrace silly horror, low budgets and some decapitations and enjoy yourself.

If you are ever wondering what a good example of style over substance would be, then Le Samourai would be it. I don’t mean this in a derogatory manner either because it is clear the film, the script/screenplay, the acting was first and foremost meant to project, promote if you like, a style of film, a mood, something that would make you say ‘Ah it’s one of those movies’ and it worked beyond all expectations.

Jean-Pierre Melville allows scenes to sit in silence before his protagonists do anything; his main one played by the handsome Delon, hardly speaks for the first third of the film and hardly for the rest. This is a risk and went against the grain of most films of the time and since to be honest. Basil Exposition was clearly not born at the time Le Samourai was made and those watching it have to concentrate, figure out what is going on, all the while no one on screen explains it to them. For me, this is nirvana.

Another great point made by Melville’s story, clearly, he was influenced by the noir of the 40s and 50s from the USA, is no one is likeable, no one is a hero. Jo Costello, played with relish, but not showy relish, by Delon, does not really have friends, male or female, uses people for his own ends and kills people for money. The police, clearly hardworking, are not beyond prodding people and doing ‘favours’ to get their way.

There are some clearly stupid things done by characters and although some might think it is a fault of the screenplay, I have a feeling that Melville and his fellow writers, Joan McLeod and Georges Pellegrin, made Costello do foolish things that made the audience go ‘huh?’ Perfect in my mind.

But as I have stated, the story is not the important part, it is the style, the look and the feel of La Samourai that is important. Melville clearly had his influences but just one viewing of this film and you can reel off at least hundreds of well-known later films that have lifted characters, looks, even plot-points from this French/Italian crime-noir. Many famous and talented directors directly reference the film when interviewed or through their own work.

I was particularly enamoured with Nathalie Delon’s character, Jane, who provided the false alibi for her husband’s, at the time, character being strong and tough in front of provocation and lies, realising they were lies. This film was made in 1967, remember. Some directors could do with watching Le Samourai to see how a ‘lady of the night’ can still be a character in a story without resorting to the stereotypical norms.

François Périer the opposite side of the same coin as Alan Delon’s character is equally as good, seemingly professional and on top of the case, he realises that Costello is the murderer and will do anything to collar him, bending the rules as he sees fit, all the while presenting a professional and clean-cut visage.

I have to say I love seeing the well-shot and grubby cinematography in Paris too, not romanticism here.

Le Samourai is an immensely popular and loved film from the minute it turned up on the screens in the 1960s until now. Does it have problems or faults? Sure, the story is not the greatest, the mistakes professional hitman played by Delon makes are laughable bad, characters are flat and are what they are on the screen, you can’t imagine them having a life leading to the film’s story and in particular the final scene is both implausible and at odds with the preceding build up.

But, and it is a big but, did I like Le Samourai? Yes, I did, just looking at Paris from fifty-eight years ago made me smile, both Delons cheered me up and so many scenes made me chuckle ironically. It was great, and even if it does not sound like the sort of film you think you like or normally watch, I recommend watching this at least once before you go to the last nightclub we all go to

The Wild Robot is based on a book by Peter Brown, which is very popular and this DreamWorks adaptation proved to be very popular too. DreamWorks output is mainly for children but made in such a subtle and clever way adults can equally enjoy the story. To my mind, The Wild Robot is definitely slanted to younger children at the expense of adults and thus for me I did not find it as engaging.

I am not saying this is a badly made film or a boring story but as it unfolded in front of me on the screen the niggling thought inside my head was ‘this is very simple and childish’.

The message is a positive and important one. We must all work together for the better of everyone, although the current world in 2025 would very much say no one is listening or cares about this, which of course will colour your view.

The voice acting and therefore characterisation of the animal characters is very good and generally funny, Lupita Nyong’o, and Pedro Pascal, definitely lead the cast but they are ably supported by Kit Connor, Catherine O’Hara and every reliable Bill Nighy. So, all good. The animation is lovely and at times beautiful, the animals are recognisable as animals but have human characteristics, which is always a tough task for animators, the standard is high here.

What is a bit odd is how the story unfolds. At the start the animals behave like animals, they eat each other, steal and generally compete to survive. As ROZ influences them, changes them, they cooperate and help each other, particularly in the harsh island winter. The first thing that came into my mind at the end of the story, and I can’t be the only one, is what do they eat and do later on? Make factories to make vegetarian food for everyone? It is just ignored for cuddly loveliness at the end, but in the beginning, you saw the same characters killing and eating other animals. Hmmmm? Have I overthought it, perhaps? But you are doing a disservice to children if you think a few of them cannot latch onto that.

Further to this the ending for ROZ made one word pop up in my mind – ‘What?!’ Open-ended I suppose but confusing considering what was implied that was going to happen to the robot when they first came to remove it from the island.

So all in all The Wild Robot is a well-made animation, with some fun and emotional moments but the story seems to be purely made to tug at the heartstrings and give a lovely positive message with little to no thought behind that. It is definitely for young children.

Shame, I found it disappointing just because of that.

I believe this is the first and possibly only mainstream film ever made as an adaptation of any of Michael Moorcock’s books. I have read some but never the series featuring Jerry Cornelius so my knowledge of the origin story is zero and therefore I cannot get as angry as Moorcock or his legion of fans did and have done since The Final Programme was released into the public sphere fifty-two years ago.

Therefore I watched the film as a film I had never seen before or even knew anything about prior to firing up the Blu-Ray player. In retrospect this is probably the best way to view The Final Programme. It has left a lot of angry and fed-up people out there.

Firstly for a film set in an alternate near future that is dystopian and ending, probably around now if the 1973 created year is to go by, I have not seen a film in some while that screamed ‘1970s’ at top volume. Neither a good thing nor a bad thing but unlike some recent 70s films I have watched it has not survived as well as it gets older.

Secondly, I did appreciate the dated way the story refused to hold my hand from the opening minutes to the end of the film. So often in modern films everything has to be explained and foreshadowed or Basil Exposition-ed or you get hordes of people saying, ‘I don’t get it’. This was refreshing, and confusing, so confusing.

But once I settled in, relaxed, at let the nonsense and weird plot holes wash over me I enjoyed what I was watching. Mainly because of the old-school British actors on display, with Graham Crowden deliciously ‘Graham Crowdening’ ever scene. Also, we had Sterling Hayden, Patric Magee, Harry Andrews, Hugh Griffiths, et al, dumped in our lamps for a jolt from the past and bringing a smile to your face. Fair enough they could act too, so no bad thing.

Jon Finch, a man who philosophy on acting would be mine if I had any talent (read his quote it is so honest) is definitely the glue that holds the story together and keeps you watching. A less charismatic actor would be an attention loser. I have heard a lot of anger for the film is his playing of Cornelius as a ‘James Bond figure’ but really he as was more like a grubbier but less dozy Mike Myers, and all the better for it.

Finch is funny and makes a big showy role believable as does Jenny Runacre, a less experienced actor at the time, who takes him on in the baddy role, I’m guessing, and is nearly as charismatic. They definitely had on-screen chemistry.

The story itself does meander and look cheap, especially at the beginning, but once the focus is on what the plans are for the microfilm and Miss Brunner, things seem to click into place and what is happening in front of is easier to follow, and funny. Not in a stomach-holding way but in a snorting head-shaking way.

With the newfound freedom of the seventies, we get to seen completely naked ladies but oddly no real sex-scenes. There is some action running about and shooting with futuristic pistols that is strangely realistic and dull.

Overall the story is daft, the acting is fun and strong, especially Finch, the look and locations all good but the pace and the way we get from A to B definitely feels unfocussed and little haphazard.

The Final Programme is a bizarre and very 1970s weird, science-fiction like, futuristic tale, it is not great, and lot of you reading this will definitely hate it, but I would say it is not boring.