The Forgiven: Repentance At What Cost?

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A hit and run in the mountains of Morocco changes a man’s’, played by Ralph Fiennes, life forever.

I think this film is quite odd and won’t be what a lot of people are expecting. The trailer for the film gives off somewhat of a thriller vibe, but it is far more meditative than that. This film touches on notions of greed and culture clash as well as the value of life, in many ways this is far more of a tense drama film than anything else.

Fiennes is terrific, as he often is, and is flanked by a sea of other talented faces with Jessica Chastain, Matt Smith and Saïd Taghmaoui also being outstanding. However, I think due to the vast cast some of the other performers are somewhat overlooked and not given much to do, which is a shame.

Widely, I really enjoyed the weighty themes of this film and the message it was trying to hammer home. Moreover, I thought the juxtaposition of extreme wealth as encapsulated by the party and extreme poverty as captured by the nomad village really spoke to society more broadly and certainly left you with something to think about.

Overall, not quite what was advertised, but something that is equal parts layered and smart.

Pros.

The subtext

The themes explored

The performances

The ending

Cons.

Some of the wider cast is wasted

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

Persuasion: Watching A Book Burning Would Be More Entertaining Than This

0.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Netflix uses a beloved classic novel as toilet paper.

I could have told you the exact second this was announced that it would be awful. Netflix has proven they lack any kind of sensibility that would allow them to properly pull off an Austen adaption, think of Emma from a few years ago now Netflix would never make a film like that. No, rather instead Netflix has to modernise, Netflix has to Americanise and crucially Netflix has to turn any period piece they try and adapt in to Bridgerton. All three of these things combined lead this film to be truly abysmal.

Moreover, wherein Austen’s words are timeless the script presented here not only doesn’t know what it wants to be but does decide on being cringe at every available opportunity. In addition whilst diversity is always a welcome thing, here it is quite clearly cynically forced into proceedings just for the sake of no one trying to cancel them. This again feels like a very American move.

In addition whoever is Dakota Johnson’s agent needs to be fired right sharp, as her being in this just as the memory of those awful Fifty Shades Of Grey movies is starting to fade from people’s minds is entirely not what she needs at all. Worse yet she isn’t even very good in this mess of a film.

The one silver lining of this film is that it features Henry Golding and he is always charming and watchable, sadly he is having his time wasted here.

Overall, Netflix really, really need to revaluate their content output.

Pros.

Golding

Cons.

It doesn’t understand Austen or her sensibilities at all

It bastardises the characters and story as a whole

It is generic

It feels incredibly American

Johnson

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

The Black Phone: Ethan Hawke Takes Off His Belt

4/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

After being abducted a young boy, played by Mason Thames, must fight to escape armed only with the past experiences of his abductor’s other dead victims.

What is it with Scott Derrickson and dead kids? Whether its Sinister, Deliver Us From Evil or this, the director seems to use dead children as his main horror gimmick, however, I am not complaining they work incredibly well in a creepy sense. I would say the horror here is a mixture of supernatural elements along with the obvious fear surrounding a man abducting and killing kids and for the most part it works well and is incredibly effective. Moreover, for once I didn’t see the jump scares coming and the few that this film does employ made me jump each time.

I think the performance from Ethan Hawke is terrific, despite only being in the film for a short amount of time his character’s impact is felt in all areas and Hawke really does a good job of bringing The Grabber to life and rounding him out as a character. I also think Thames does a good job as the lead, which is saying something as usually child actors give distractingly bad performances, however, that was not the case here.

My only complaint would be that the sub-plot surrounding the Sister, played by Madeline McGraw, and her prophetic dreams feels a bit too filler like for my tastes. I suppose it does bare fruit in the end as it results in the police finding the boy, however, all the scenes of her on her knees calling out to Jesus feel almost a little silly.

Overall, a very enjoyable horror film boosted to no end by Hawke.

Pros.

Hawke

Thames

The scares

The ending

Cons.

The sub-plot with the sister feels like filler

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Firestarter: The Remade Stephen King Universe

3.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A remake of Stephen King’s Firestarter. The plot follows Charlie, played by Ryan Keira Armstrong, a young girl hunted down for her supernatural powers.

A lot of reviewers out there are giving this film very low scores and personally I can’t see why. I don’t know if they were very attached to either King’s original novel or the previous film, but I haven’t read or seen those so I can only judge this film based on its own merits and not compare it to anything else.

I thought for the most part this film was good, the tension was well done and I got vibes of Doctor Sleep in this regard. I thought John Rainbird, played by Michael Greyeyes, was fantastic until the final 10 minutes, he gave off a strong amount of supernatural intrigue as such you constantly wanted to know more about his character but the film didn’t reveal anything which I thought was a smart move. Moreover, Zac Effron also did a great job here further proving his serious acting chops, I thought during the psychic battle sequences he was incredibly.

Another highpoint for me was the score composed by John Carpenter, his son Cody Carpenter and David Davies. It felt like the perfect 80’s call back mixed with just the right amount of excitement and intensity.

However, it wasn’t all roses. I thought the CGI fire effects were poor, to make matters worse whenever Charlie used her powers the camera would cut to a close up of her face with the fires happening off screen which felt cheap and obvious. In addition, there were several moments in this film were it became unintentionally hilarious and made me laugh out loud in the cinema, I don’t think that is what the filmmakers were going for. Finally the ending of Charlie forgiving Rainbird and then going with him despite all the trauma he has inflicted upon her makes no sense and just seems forced in so that the film can have a happy ending.

Overall, above average and certainly with redeemable elements despite not being a great film.

Pros.

The score

Effron

The mystery of Rainbird

The tension

Cons.

The ending

The cheap CGI

It is unintentionally hilarious

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

The Rings Of Power: The Question Of 21st Century Fantasy

1.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Several old faces from Carly’s past return in an effort to end her web show.

My, my how do you go from a first episode that by all accounts was very good and pushed the show as a whole forward to this? Quite frankly, this second episode might be one of the worst of the revival.

The most egregious thing is just how badly this episode wants to milk nostalgia, bringing back all of these old familiar faces to try and sue Carly, played by Miranda Cosgrove, thereby forcing in member berries in a way that couldn’t be more blatant. The court trial simply serves as a means to be like oh remember this person from this episode? Remember?

Moreover, this is only added to by the worst ending of an episode of iCarly possibly ever, whereby when it looks like Carly might have to face some consequences for her past misdeeds Spencer, played by Jerry Trainor, just buys her way out. The reason why this sucks is because it could have been an actual emotional moment which could have led to some character development for Carly or at the very least a shift in perspective, but no.

Additionally, this episode forces in a Harper, played by Laci Mosley, and Millicent, played by Jaidyn Triplett, side-plot that is the definition of time wasting. It goes nowhere and undoes a lot of the great Harper work the first episode does, reducing her back into the loud, obnoxious stereotype.

Overall, a sorry state of an episode made worse by the fact it followed such a good one.

Pros.

A few funny jokes

It is watchable

Cons.

The nostalgia baiting

The terrible ending and message of it

Reducing Harper back into a stereotype

Seemingly doing it best to stop any kind of character development

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

The Witcher Season Two: The Grey Tide Of Netflix’s Efforts Into Fantasy, How Not To Adapt.

Written by Luke Barnes

In a break from my reviewing tradition I want to take a minute today to talk about season two of the Witcher on Netflix, and why I couldn’t make it to the end of it despite being a fan of the books and the games.

So straight off the bat we have to debate whether this show even is the Witcher, like it is called that and has characters which bare the same names as those who appear in the books and the games but in most other ways it is devoid of the wider franchise and feels far closer to generic fantasy. Whether it is the fact that show choose to cut out so, so much from the books or the fact it changes so much of what it does keep there is just something about this show that just doesn’t feel like the Witcher to me.

Clearly this show is hell bent on appealing to the Twitter brigade, we all know who I am talking about, they have race swapped a number of key characters and are constantly queer baiting a relationship between Geralt, played by Henry Cavil, and Jaskier, played by Joey Batey. I am surprised more people aren’t annoyed about the queer baiting on this show as it is quite obviously leading to nothing and is a poor stand in for any real LGBTQ+ representation on the show. Moreover, the race swaps could have been used well, maybe even played some sort of role in the new story the show wants to tell, but no, they were done for no reason other than for the people behind the show to preach about how diverse their cast is. Yikes.

In addition, the effects are often quite poor, yes every now and again they get one sequence where the effects come together well but more often then not it doesn’t work. This might sound bias against Netflix, which is humorous as many people have called me a Netflix shill in the past, but there is a hue of their trademark cheapness to this show that really shows up more often than it should.

The scene that finally killed this show for me was when Eskel, played by Basil Eidenbenz, was turned into a monster and killed just for the random shock value of it despite only just being introduced and being important in the wider lore. They could have handled this scene in any number of better ways but they did it to prove their independence from the successful books the show is based on and show how there is no element of Sapkowski’s universe that this show won’t ruin.

If you enjoyed this piece, 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

Death On The Nile: Cancel The Gal Gadot Cleopatra Film Right Now

3/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Hercule Poirot, played by Kenneth Branagh, is back and this time he is trying to solve a murder that takes place on a steamboat.

To address the elephant in the room first, obviously it is unfortunate that this film features alleged cannibal sexual predator Armie Harmer in such a large role, but it is what it is and they filmed it before the allegations came to light so for the most part I just tried to ignore it.

This was a mixed bag of a film. To the film’s strength it boasts a terrific performance from director/ star Branagh who really taps into the emotion of the character and gives us a peak behind the curtain in a way the first film never did, the latter stages of the film really highlight this. Moreover, newcomer Emma Mackey is also terrific and steals a lot of the scenes she appears in.

However, to its detriment the pacing is awful and it feels like the film has been on for hours before the plot-forwarding murder even happens. This is a result of the first act dragging horribly, it is also wildly inaccurate to the time period with music and dancing that belongs in a different era entirely, Branagh seems to be growing bored with the period setting here.

Worse yet, the film features some incredibly on the nose product placement for Tiffanies, perhaps on the same level as Crispy Kreme in the Power Rangers film everyone has forgotten about now.

The worst thing about this film is Gal Gadot. I have defended Gadot against a lot of in my opinion unfair criticism, I think she makes a fine Wonder Woman, however here her serious lack of acting chops really shows, as she is unable to do any accent other than her own, or emote, basic stuff. When she is finally removed from play, midway into the film, you are grateful as she was quite clearly miscast.

Overall, a fun if flawed second film.

Pros.

Branagh as Poirot

Mackey

The mystery

Cons.

The pacing made worse by the awful first act

Gadot

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey: Greed Is Not Limited To Dragons

3/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

The Lord Of The Ring’s disappointing cousin.

As some of you may know The Lord Of The Rings is one of my favourite trilogies ever, so much so that I may never review them: as even the concept of having to think critically about something I care so deeply about seems hard. However, the Hobbit and it’s various sequels are fair game.

Like many people when I watched An Unexpected Journey in the cinema for the first time I was mixed, and then in the short term afterwards I grew more negative towards the film. However, with time I found within me a fondness for this trilogy so I decided to go back to it, and after all these years I can honestly say that this film was okay, not great, not terrible.

This film has a lot going for it Tolkien’s fantastic world, strong source material and a good cast with the likes of Martin Freeman, Aiden Turner and Richard Armitage and for the most part these factors stop the film from being awful and even create positive feelings towards the Hobbit trilogy, then you get to the ending and yeah…….. Then you remember why everyone dislikes the Hobbit films.

The rather obvious issue with these films as many have pointed out in the past is the pacing. Now I have nothing against the long run times of these films, but I do take umbrage when I feel the audience is being exploited, as in to take a short story contained within one book and then turning it into three films. When we reach the end of the film and realise that we aren’t even going to see Smaug basically at all, it feels as though you have been cheated. It feels like a smack in the face and an executive laughing at you saying, ‘oh better come back for the sequel’.

This clear mentality is what I think really harms this film and its sequels.

Overall, exploitative but not without promise.

Pros.

The cast

The world

There is fun to be had

Cons.

The pacing

The unmistakable feeling of corporate greed

Pam And Tommy: Drilling And Pounding

1/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

An opening episode with all the depth and nuance of a puddle of sick, which often revels in its crass vulgarities thinking that simply by being shocking the series can be entertaining.

Honestly, I can’t understand why this show is getting good reviews? I am bemused by it. Within the first episode I found nearly all the characters to be so loathsome and unpleasant that I had trouble finishing it. If Tommy Lee, here played by Sebastian Stan, did indeed behave like that in real life he should be in prison, and if not he should sue this show for defamation.

Moreover, I am no prude, but this episode was needly vulgar every step of the way, I don’t know why it needed to be. Did the show think this would make it funny? Is it trying to make some kind of comment on the lifestyles of the rich and famous? Is it supposed to be shocking? I don’t know the answers to these questions dear reader, but I do know that after the hundredth ‘oh yeah do you like that’, that it becomes cringe and feels like it is trying too hard.

Also I have not seen the whole series yet so I can’t comment fully, but it seems to me that in the little we see of Lily James’ Pamela Anderson here, she is being sexualised. Which maybe they will do more with her over the course of the series and they will give her some nuance, but I doubt it. Objectification very clearly on display.

I also think it is worth noting that the real life Anderson, did not want this show to be made. So it is a show about a deeply intimate and embarrassing moment of her life being made without her consent. Ponder that.

Overall, I don’t think I’ll be returning for episode two.

Pros.

At least they didn’t have alleged sexual predator James Franco staring in it like they were going to

Cons.

Everyone in it is deeply unlikeable

It is trying to hard to be gross out and adult

It is vulgar

Lily James’s Anderson is being objectified

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

The Tragedy Of Macbeth: One For The Art House Crowd And Not Many More

2.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A retelling of Macbeth with Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand in the leading roles, no more is needed.

I am sure the art house attendees will love this film; I however was decidedly less impressed. I think the performances from Washington and McDormand are good, not Oscar worthy but good, and the style of the film is cool to look at, but really other than that I struggle to see what is so impressive about this film.

It does little different to any other Macbeth adaption you have seen and though it tries to differentiate itself with its style it is only partially successful. Furthermore, the language choice of old Shakespearian English will be a barrier to entry for some, just as it was with the Fassbender adaption that tried a similar thing only a few years prior; and is probably the better of the two.

Perhaps I am a philistine but through most of this film I was bored. I had seen it all before and though Washington and McDormand are good they are not good enough to get me to invest in something I have already seen before. Moreover, despite clocking in at less than two hours this feels much, much longer and will test the patience of most moviegoers.

Overall, don’t believe the hype.

Pros.

Washington and McDormand

The style

The story is a literary classic

Cons.

There is little new here

The style doesn’t add enough

It is badly paced

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer