Bergman Island: A Marriage Falling Apart, The Same Story We Have Seen So Many Times Before

2/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A filmmaking couple, played by Vicky Krieps and Tim Roth, head out on a romantic getaway to the part of Sweden famous for housing Ingmar Bergman, however once they arrive there the lines between fact and fiction begin to blur and their relationship is tested.

I like Ingmar Bergman as much as the next film fan but this film really, really likes him. I will just state right now if you don’t know who Bergman then don’t watch this film as there are so many things you will miss. The odious grovelling at the feet of the famous director does get a little much, I understand what the film was going for but it badly loses it way.

Moreover, this film is a slog to get through. Partially because it is pretentious art house fare that is only enjoyable to a very small minority, and partially because it goes on and on and never seems to end. I think there is not enough story here to justify the length of the film and that it may have worked better as a short.

The leads are fine, which as most people know doesn’t mean anything positive. Neither Roth or Krieps are given anything to work with and as such only ever deliver deeply standard performances which squander their talent. The marriage falling apart storyline is nothing we haven’t seen hundreds of times before and goes exactly where you think it will.

Overall, pretentious, long winded, but trying an interesting concept with Bergman.

Pros.

I like Bergman

It has a few interesting moments early on

Cons.

It is far too art house

It is pretentious

It is hard to finish

If you enjoyed this review, then please head over to my Patreon to support me, I offer personalized shoutouts, the ability for you to pick what I review next and full access to my Patreon exclusive game reviews. Check it out!

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Red Notice: Gal Gadot Outshines Ryan Reynolds And Dwayne Johnson

3/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Two art thieves, played by Ryan Reynolds and Gal Gadot, and one former FBI Agent, played by Dwayne Johnson compete against one another in order to pull off a multimillion dollar heist.

I think there is something deeply generic about this film, however the charm of its leads is enough to keep you watching particularly Gadot. Gadot gets a lot of unwarranted criticism for one very obvious reason and that is the fact that she is from Israel and Jewish which is abhorrent and anti-Semitic. Honestly, Gadot is the highlight of the film and though used sparingly she really does a lot with the scenes she is included in.

Johnson and Reynolds have a good back and forth, as Hobbs and Shaw proved, however there is nothing new for either here. Though both are charming I would like to see them take more risks Reynold’s especially, I am starting to get bored of the Deadpool shtick. The scenes with all three performers are certainly the strongest.

In terms of the story there is nothing really new here. As I said in my review of Netflix’s Army Of Thieves once you have seen one heist film you have seen them all, and that is very true here. Almost everything that happens here has been done before.

Overall, a very mediocre film made better by its leads.

Pros.

The chemistry between the leads

Gadot

The ending

Cons.

It is very generic

There are no surprises

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Home Sweet Home Alone: Better Than You Are Expecting

4/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A child, played by Archie Yates, is left home alone and must fend off against perceived burglars, played by Ellie Kemper and Rob Delaney.

I went into this one expecting the worst and was more than a little bit pleasantly surprised by what I got out of it.

I enjoyed Archie Yates, I though he played the role well and was funny. Likewise I enjoyed that this film gave the burglars a backstory, made them human, and made us like them. I thought this film was far more feel good than the original and I liked the ending where everyone just talked it out.

However, due to the fact that we like the burglars and we know that the whole thing this time around is just a big misunderstanding makes it hard to enjoy the traps. A big part of what makes a Home Alone film is watching the baddies get torn apart by the leads traps, however, here because we like them this is less pleasurable viewing and instead just makes the lead look like a brat. There really are no villains here and the conflict itself is entirely avoidable, a conversation would have defused it.

That said I won’t go so far as to say this film is better than the original but it certainly is as good. I really enjoyed this film’s sense of humour and it made me laugh a number of times throughout. Moreover, I like that it referenced the original films and teased us with the return of Kevin, McCauley Culkin.

Overall, a strong hit for Disney + that might be a bit too sweet for some.

Pros.

The humour

The baddies

Archie Yates

The ending

Cons.

The traps are less enjoyable because we like the characters they are hurting

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Clifford The Big Red Dog: The Worst American Accent You Are Ever Likely To Hear

1.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

An unpopular girl, played by Darby Camp, becomes friends with a gigantic dog.

This was one of those times when you go into a film with low expectation and they are met. There are so many baffling issues with this film and in reality it was doomed from the beginning. Chief amongst these is why does Clifford, the gigantic dog, look like that?

Indeed, I don’t know if it is become of covid limitations or budgetary ones but Clifford looks bad, there is something about the CGI render of him that looks at best uncanny at worst like something out of the early nineties. As a result of this Clifford is always shot in a very specific way, which if you know what to look for with good CGI just shows how poor it is, and suggests that maybe the filmmakers were aware of it.

I think the greatest crime that this film commits is that it wastes your time. Basically there was no reason for this film to be made, the story wasn’t there and neither was the audience, it was a cynical effort to cash in on decades old IP and one that looks set to backfire badly.

What upsets me the most about this film is what it does to Jack Whitehall. Whitehall can be very funny and can be a good actor, look at Good Omens for proof of that but here…….. Firstly they give him a god awful American accent that really doesn’t work and that there is no reason for this as his character’s sister, played by Sienna Guillory, is English and has an accent reflecting that so why can’t he?

Overall, your kids deserve better than this so don’t take them to see it.

Pros.

It is short

Whitehall has one or two good jokes

Cons.

Whitehall’s horrid accent

There is nothing new about it and it has no reason to exist

The Clifford CGI

It is a slog to get through

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Father Christmas Is Back: Daddy Issues At 40

3/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A group of posh people come together to celebrate Christmas, however an unexpected guest throws things out of whack and causes emotions to fly.

I thought this film was good, for the first hour and a half and then it didn’t know when to end. Indeed, the first hour of this film is quite good, everyone is funny a lot of the jokes land, the actors have good chemistry and it doesn’t feel too overly semimetal. However, then the ending happens.

The final act of the film goes out of its way to redeem Kelsey Grammar’s absentee father character, having him basically be a saint and having left as he was a victim of infidelity. He even saves the day at the end of the film if that isn’t enough for you. I think the moral ground that this film takes in this regard is shaky and falls apart the more you think about it. Moreover, the finale just feels bloated so whilst it is doing all of this grandstanding you just want it to end.

Overall, one of Netflix’s better Christmas films for sure, but not one without its own share of issues.

Pros.

John Cleese

It is funny

Two thirds of it are very good

Cons.

The moralising

The ending and its bloat

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Big Mouth: Season 5 Overview

4/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

The kids face off against love and hate.

I thought after last season this was an improvement, that is not to say that last season was bad more that it went a bit too heavy on its themes of anxiety and future dread, this I felt did a better job as it tackled and did justice to its themes whilst keeping things moving at a fairly nice breezy pace.

Moreover, I thought the jokes were more on point this time around as it returned to the comedic ability of earlier seasons having me laughing quite a few times per episode. In terms of emotional weight I think this film tackles teenage love, unrequited love and hate all quite well having the characters go on believable journeys throughout the season. I enjoyed the scene where Nick, voiced by Nick Kroll, ventures into the monster world to find out who the boss is only for it to be the real life actor Nick Kroll, I thought the metaphor of you being in control and being the boss of your emotions was apt and quite poignant for the show.

If the show was going to end I would say that scene should have been the last of the show.

Moreover, I enjoyed the Christmas episode quite a bit as well. At first the idea of an anthology of stories seemed to be irritating as it was taking us out of the action, however it actually served as quite a nice pallet cleanser and had a number of great segments.

Overall, a strong season that saw a closer return to form for the show.

Pros.

It is funny

It is heartfelt

The Christmas special

The live action scene

Cons.

On occasion it belabours its points and drags them out for too long

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Dangerous: Lacking The Charm Of His Father

1.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A dangerous young man, played by Scott Eastward, goes on a killing spree after the death of his brother.

I just want to preface this piece by stating nice and clearly that you can like someone as an actor in films without condoning their real life actions, yes I am talking about Mel Gibson, I thought that was a fairly self-explanatory concept but some out there think it makes one a hypocrite- ah well.

I think Scott Eastward is going to struggle to ever be anything even remotely close to what his dad was/is in the action genre. He does not have his dad’s charisma in any way and frankly I just don’t think he is a good actor, he seems ill-suited to any role he is cast in, but hey nepotism so he keeps getting work.

On the whole I thought this was an incredibly cheesy, not in a good way, and generic action film. All of the characters have the depth of a shallow puddle and felt entirely made out of cliches, with Famke Janssen probably getting it the worst: nearly every line that comes out of her mouth is groan worthy here.

The one redeeming factor of the film is the performance from Mel Gibson who is being wonderfully odd and either intentionally or unintentionally hilarious. The film picks up whenever he comes back on screen.

Overall, this one is destined for the bottom of the bargain bin.

Pros.

Mel Gibson being strange

It is short

Cons.

Eastwood

It is generic

The dialogue is generally terrible

It is dull

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Bigfoot Famous: What One Has To Do To Stay Relevant

3.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

No longer famous influencer Coley, played by Steph Barkley, and her boyfriend and fellow influencer Jericho, played by Sam Millman, head out into the woods in search of Big Foot as a means of regaining the public’s collective attention.

I enjoyed this film far more than I than I thought I would, often when films revolve around influencers doing things it is usually done in a gimmicky way, that is either ‘oh look at how stupid kids are today’ or ‘aren’t we down with the kids’, I found this to be neither of those and actually be in possession of some real heart.

I thought Barkley did a great job in the lead and made Coley more than two dimensional. I thought the film examining her relationship with Jericho was interesting as it allowed her to be more vulnerable and get beyond the influencer mask. I thought the emotional core of this film was actually quite strong as a whole.

My one criticism of this film would be that often the humour didn’t work for me. Now obviously humour is subjective so what didn’t work for me might work for you, however I found this film to be painfully unfunny each time it tried to go for a laugh.

Overall, a film with a lot of heart but not a lot of laughs.

Pros.

Using the influencer characters in a non-gimmicky way

The heart

Steph Barkley

Cons.

The humour

The ending and its message

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Wildland: What Would You Do For Your Family

4/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

An orphan, played by Sandra Guldberg Kampp, moves in with her aunt, played by Sidse Babett Knudsen, and her sons only to later find out that they are a crime family and that she is now in over her head.

For the most part I enjoyed this film. I thought the film plays with the meaning of family in an interesting way, dissecting the ideas around how far you would go for them and what would you do if the threat came from within the family unit? I found multiple scenes to be incredibly tense and I think that is one of the film’s great strengths, it can turn fairly innocuous dialogue scenes into uneasy experiences where you know something bad is just about to happen and you’re on edge waiting for it.

I thought the actors all gave good performances and you believed that they were indeed a family. Moreover, you also believed they were all gangsters as they carried the roles well and had the right level of menace and coldness to pull it off.

My only real complaint with this film would be that I didn’t like the ending, to me it felt rushed and out of place with the rest of the film. I was left at the end of the film thinking ‘wait what, is that it?’ as it just ends without a satisfying conclusion to the events of the film, but maybe that was the point?

Overall, an interesting crime film that digs a little deeper than most, however the ending could have been better structured and executed.

Pros.

Good performances

A strong sense of threat and tension

Trying to do something different with the gangster genre

Questions around the meaning of family

Cons.

The ending is weak

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Chucky: Little Little Lies

4/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

The kids do battle with Chucky, voiced by Brad Dourif, and think that they have killed him how wrong they are.

I enjoyed that this episode brought back not just Tiffany, played by Jennifer Tilly, but also Nica, played by Fiona Dourif. It is nice to see the series tying into the wider Child’s Play universe hopefully we will also get the return of other characters from previous films as well.

I thought Fiona Dourif did a terrific job of playing a possessed Nica, she was both chilling and also endearing when she momentarily broke free. I am interested to see where the series is going to take her and see how she will become a bigger part of the narrative- I have high hopes.

I thought that this felt like a very middle of the road sort of episode, it was nice to see the kids get there moment of victory even if we all knew that it was never going to last as there is always another doll body for Chucky. However, it was nicer still when all hell broke loose during the assembly and everyone learnt things were far from over.

Overall, a strong episode with a lot to love for fans of the franchise, maybe a little slow in parts but great for the most part.

Pros.

Brining back Nica and Tiffany

Fiona Dourif

The wider Child’s Play universe

The ending

Cons.

A little slow in parts, the parent’s storylines are just not interesting

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer