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

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

Love Hard: Make Better Films Netflix It Is Getting Embarrassing

1/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A young woman, Nina Dobrev falls in love online only to later realise she has been catfished, the catfisher promises to set her and this guy up if she pretends to be his girlfriend during the holidays.

When I saw from the makers of Holidate I knew this was going to be bad, much like the previously mentioned film this again has a bad message and iffy morals. By making Jimmy O. Lang’s catfishing character in any way redeemable this film almost feels like it is saying his behaviour is okay, it is not just in case you were wondering. I wish romantic comedies would stop pushing these icky narratives and toxic messages it’s time to move on, catfishing someone is not a valid or acceptable way to try and get a relationship.

Moreover, every line in this film is cringe. By that I mean the film thinks it is so cool and trendy in a lot of the things it says, sometimes directly towards the audience, but it is not. Best case it is saying supposed insightful points that other films have spouted before or at worst it feels like an out of touch executive trying to be down with the kids and failing horribly.

Overall, this is why people think Netflix films are usually trash because they put out far too much content like this.

Pros.

Nina Dobrev is trying

Cons.

The writing is stilted

It is horribly cringe

The romance feels forced

The premise is deeply flawed

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Dawn Of The Dead: Fighting Zombies In A Mall, Where Have I Seen That Before

3/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A group of survivors of a zombie plague must fight for their continued survival.

In a sea of faceless, samey zombie films this one actually manages to have a decent amount of heart in it. Over the course of the film I found myself actually caring for the characters, the film did a good job of evolving the characters over time to so they felt like real people who grew with time and experience rather than a group of cliches and stereotypes.

Though that is not to say that this film does not fall back on genre tropes because it does. Truly the worst thing about this film is that it feels played out, there is nothing particularly new or interesting to the story it has been done before and it will be done again: this is more of a critique on the zombie sub-genre but it is a key issue for this film.

I thought the performances were good for the most part with one or two side characters letting the side down a bit. I would say Ving Rhames is the standout star of the film as he is the heart and soul of the piece and feels the most human out of the characters on screen.

Overall, this is a good zombie film sadly though that is not enough and because of how played out this film feels and how afraid it seems to be to hit new ground it stifles itself out of being anything better.

Pros.

The heart

The characters for the most part

The ending

Cons.

A few weak side characters

It feels played out and done before

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

The Trip: Three Violent Criminals Saving A Marriage

4/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A husband and wife duo, played by Aksel Hennie and Noomi Rapace, head up to their cabin with plans to murder one another, however these plans are thwarted when three escaped prisoners show up and take them hostage.

I don’t think this film wins any awards for originality, I have seen this premise before, a husband and wife who hate each other being forced to defeat a threat and then coming back together at the end with the troubling events having saved their relationship. However, it is done well here.

Both Hennie and Rapace are terrific and I enjoyed the game of one-upmanship they have. Neither of their characters knows the other is plotting against them and I enjoyed seeing their plans run into each other with each thinking they had the advantage over the other only to later have that stripped away.

Moreover, I also really liked this film’s sense of humour and I found myself laughing a number of times throughout. Obviously the humour here is quite dark and won’t be to everyone’s taste, but I found this to be one of the funniest films I have seen in a while.

My only real criticism of the film would be that there are a number of scenes that I think go too far and maybe start to cross into bad taste. I am of course talking about the attempted rape scene, many films have these sort of scenes in them as they apply to the story however here I found it to be far more intense and graphic than what we normally see and as such it made me feel very uncomfortable, the camera often lingered for too long.

Overall, a terrific dark comedy film, minus a slight bit of bad taste.

Pros.

The humour

Hennie

Rapace

The ending

Cons.

It goes too far for my sensibilities

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

The Eyes Of Tammy Faye: Preaching To The Converted

3/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

This film details the rise and fall of televangelist preachers Tammy Faye Baker, played by Jessica Chastain, and Jim Baker, played by Andrew Garfield. Based on true events.

For the most part this film is an interesting look into the world of televangelists, showing a behind closed doors look into their world of power, abuse and infighting. It also has a few strongly emotional scenes that do land well, and strike chords within you. However, that is not to say this film is great by any means, there certainly are issues with bias and pacing throughout.

The performances are strong from the central duo, with Chastain giving one of the best performances of her career, and Garfield having some really strong moments of quiet intensity. Moreover, Vincent D’Onofrio steals scenes as Jerry Falwell and is incredibly menacing whenever he is on screen, he is well cast in the antagonist role to the Bakers.

Something I noticed whilst viewing it is this film is very favourable to Tammy Faye, so much so that I was expecting it to have been produced by some of her relatives. I find it hard to understand why the film is so content to go after everyone else involved in this greedy story yet leave her blameless. I think by making her into this blameless angel the film risks losing any kind of realism and instead becomes an effort in aggrandisement.

Moreover, the pace is quite off here. There is no real reason for this film to be on for over two hours, as it could be wrapped up nicely in a tight hour and a half, the only reason I can see for this bloated runtime is because the film likes to indulge itself. A good example of this is the botched ending that sees Tammy sing again for the first time in years, and we see how in her head there is a backing bad and a flag and various other elements, and the song just goes on and on. The film doesn’t know when to end.

Pros.

Chastain

Garfield

D’Onofrio

Cons.

The ending

The bias

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

The Eternals: The New Gods Of The MCU

4.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A race of space faring beings known as Eternals have been on Earth for thousands of years and now they are finally stepping out into the limelight in order to save the world, naturally.

Major Spoilers Incoming

The trailers for this film did it no favours. Then the critics reviews came in and savaged it for the most part. I went in with incredibly low expectations, however I was pleased to say this might have been one of the best MCU films so far.

To address the main concern up front the action in this film is used sparingly, as in to say there is less here then in other Marvel films, however what is here is used well. The action scenes often carry with them a large amount of tension and stakes that help them to feel more than just the standard mashing of two CGI figures together. A good example of this is the jungle action sequence in which the Deviants have tracked the Eternals down and ambush them this feels incredibly tense.

A lot of people have said that this film has pacing issues, is too long, and is too talking heavy. I disagree with all of those statements. I enjoyed the character focus, it was a nice change from the bang bang nature of most MCU films, the conversations were mostly always incredibly impactful either to establish MCU lore, which this film does beautifully, or to create a connection between us the audience and the characters.

Speaking off, every character here is done well and you become attached to them. Over the course of the film you really do become enamoured with the character drama and are excited to see where it goes. Even bit characters like Kit Harrington’s Dane Whitman aka Black Knight are given moments to shine. Speaking off make sure to stick around until the second post credits scene as there is an incredibly exciting one teasing out the future of Harrington’s character and Blade?

My one complaint of this film would be the Deviants. This complaint is threefold, firstly the Deviants all look the same, bland CGI heavy baddies that feel cut and paste with a deeply uninspired design. Secondly, the film does nothing interesting with them, midway through it plays with the idea of Deviants being a sentient race who are just trying to stay alive, just like the Eternals themselves which creates a nice dichotomy however the film does nothing with it. Thirdly, in the final act of the film they just abruptly kill off their leader and that is the end of the Deviant threat as other characters and beings rise up to become villains of the piece.

Overall, one of the most meaningful and impactful films in the MCU a real gem in its hat, if only the Deviants could have been used better.

Pros.

The characters and performances

The post credits scenes, mainly the final one

The emotions and the powerful dialogue scenes

Using action in a smart way

Breaking the MCU formula

Cons.

The Deviants

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Christmas Inheritance: The Big City Will Turn You Evil

1/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Highflying CEO to be Ellen, Eliza Taylor, must go and deliver a letter to her uncle in small town America in order to complete her training and take over from her father. Naturally going to this town forces her to see how morally corrupt big city life is and how she has had the wrong priorities all her life.

And so we begin, it is quickly becoming the time of the year where I review Christmas films- the good, the bad and the overly moralistic. This film is somewhere between those latter two, as it preaches the values of ‘real America’, and suggests that modern big city living is evil and causes people to lose touch with their humanity. This is nothing new from these type of Christmas films, and this plot has been recycled over and over again.

The romance here, as they always have to have the big city woman ditch her current boyfriend and find love in the small town, is poorly done. The trope as a whole is not helpful, and here it is particularly unbelievable as the characters have no chemistry so their whirlwind romance feels blatantly fake.

The only reason this film isn’t getting lower is because of Eliza Taylor. Taylor is clearly trying her best to give this role some personality and warmth and that shows, sadly what she is given to work with boxes her in and leaves her with nothing to work with. However, she still manages to be charming.

Overall, yet another samey, questionable Christmas film. Is small town America really this magical, or is this over romanticised in the extreme? Let me know.

Pros.

Eliza Taylor

Cons.

It is the same story you have seen before

The morals

It feels sexist

The central romance doesn’t work

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

The Meyerowtiz Stories: Adam Sandler Can Act

3.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

This film tells the story of three children, played by Adam Sandler, Ben Stiller and Elizabeth Marvel who are brought back together after the sudden illness of their father played by Dustin Hoffman.

I genuinely do think that when he is trying, and not just trying to goof off with his friends and call it a film, Adam Sandler is a talented dramatic actor. You can see my point here as the film is far more of a character study and drama rather than a comedy film, there are jokes thrown in here and there but for the most part it plays it straight and Sandler excels. Sandler plays the often overlooked and taken for granted son well and you buy his complicated relationship with his dad, you can see the conflict going on within the character. Likewise, I think Ben Stiller also really rises to the dramatic mark here and nails the performance.

I appreciated what this film tried to do in an emotional sense, I thought it was very resonant and that the struggles and situations shown will ring true for a lot of people. I thought the film did justice to the bond between parent and child, showing just how messed up it can be, but that ultimately you can’t change it and can only make peace with it. I found the film to be effecting and it certainly knew how to work my heart strings and make me feel something.

Overall, a strong film proving that Adam Sandler can be a good actor when he wants to be.

Pros.

Nailing the emotion

Sandler

Stiller

Marvel

Cons.

Pacing issues

Hoffman’s father character is a bit one note

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

The Harder They Fall: Who Is The Quickest Draw?

4/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Wild west outlaw Nat Love, played by Johnathan Majors, rides again to take down the man who killed his parents when he was a child.

I thought this was the most interesting western, both visually and plot wise, that I have seen in a long time. The cinematography is beautiful here, the shot composition is both reflective of classic western tropes whilst also trying to reinvent and do something new with how the western looks. I thought it did a number of very interesting things that worked well in the context of the film and really made me take notice of the cinematography.

Moreover, the film was expertly paced which is a big help for me considering it is on for more than two hours. The film never slowed down to have a dull moment, instead moving along at a healthy pace making the most out of every second it had; honestly I can’t think of a wasted scene.

The performances across the board were great, I would say Idris Elba really stuck out in the latter portion of the film and did a lot of strong facial acting, as well as delivering an incredibly strong emotional twist at the end of the film. However, everyone was strong. The one thing I would draw attention to is that this film did cast Lakeith Stanfield, which I find in bad taste after the whole anti-Semitism thing, though I tried to ignore that whilst watching.

Overall, I thought this was one of the best Netflix original films I have seen in a long time.

Pros.

Strong performances

Well-paced

Engaging and fun

The emotion

Cons.

The ending wrap up feels a bit rushed

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

The Amazing Spider-Man: Why Do The Police Always Hate Spider-Man?

3.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

You all know the story by now, Peter Parker, played by Andrew Garfield, gets bitten by a genetically altered spider and becomes Spider-Man, this time facing off against the Lizard, played by Rhys Ifans.

I would say that of all three of the big screen adaptions of Spider-Man these films are probably the ones that the least amount of people like. That is not to say they are bad films, this one certainly isn’t, but really they never could live up to the Tobey McGuire films and that is what killed them.

Many people say that Andrew Garfield is too cool for the awkward nerdy role of Peter Parker, however I think he does fine. I enjoy his outsider/loner persona and think he does a good job of nailing both the heart and the comedy of the character. I thought Garfield’s Spidey had a number of good one liners that land well. Moreover, I think that Peter and Gwen Stacy, played by Emma Stone have terrific chemistry, better even than McGuire and Kristen Dunst did in the previous version of the character. I think Stone really makes the character her own and I would like to see her show up in the MCU through multiverse shenanigans.

It is nice to see this film move away from using the Green Goblin, even though the sequel would, and instead feature a lesser known Spidey baddie in the Lizard for the film’s villain. I thought the effects of the Lizard were quite good, and I enjoyed the fact that the finale had more to it then just a big CGI punchout.

However, that is where the positives end.

This film has a real issue with pacing, I know they were trying to cram a lot in but honestly watching this film in one sitting is oppressive, it doesn’t feel like two hours and a bit instead it feels more like five. I am left asking did we really need to see Uncle Ben’s, played my Martin Sheen, death again so soon after we saw it in the McGuire films? Surely there must have been ways to trim this down.

Overall, a good Spider-Man film but no one’s favourite.

Pros.

Garfield

Stone

The Lizard

The heart

Cons.

Uncle Ben’s death again

Pacing issues

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer