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

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

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

Army Of Thieves: Once You Have Seen One Heist Film You Have Seen Them All

2.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Ludwig Dieter, played by Matthias Schweighofer, returns in a prequel to Army Of The Dead, in which Dieter finds himself at the centre of a series of international heists revolving around famous safes.

I enjoyed Ludwig Dieter in Army Of The Dead, but this film felt excessive. I don’t know why you go from having it be a heist story in a zombie apocalypse, to suddenly just a heist film. I thought the whole point of this universe was the fact that it featured a zombie outbreak? Yet this film almost goes out of its way to hide it, only showing us brief scenes on news broadcasts, and telling us about it in throwaway dialogue.

By doing this and having it just be a heist movie the film cripples itself. This film feels indistinguishable from any other heist film, was that the point? Though we have the same character from the other film back, it couldn’t feel further apart. Rather than manic zombie action we get the same set of generic heist characters we have seen hundreds of times before, with the same backstories. We see the same twists and turns, and the same ending as well, there is nothing new here. You will only find this film original if you have never seen a heist film before.

The only reason this film is not getting lower is because there are still a few good laughs to be had here, Schweighofer is still funny. Moreover, Nathalie Emmanuel has a great presence on-screen and she really brings something to this film. I liked the romance between Ludwig and Emmanuel’s Gwendoline over the course of the film as I found it to be genuinely effecting.

Overall, a needless follow up made better by Emmanuel.

Pros.

It is watchable

It has a few funny moments

Emmanuel is on strong form

Cons.

We have seen it all before

It does nothing with the zombies

The ending feels far too tided into the first film

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Lamb: Don’t Think About The Origins

2/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A farming couple in Iceland are blessed or cursed when one of their lambs gives birth to a human/sheep hybrid that they take in, in place of their dead child.

This film is being mismarketed. Everything you have seen saying this film is a horror film is a lie, even with the creature antagonist, which turns out to be another hybrid sheep person, it is still not a horror film. A more apt genre assignment would be an off kilter drama, or perhaps something within the science fiction genre?

That aside I thought this film had major pacing issues. It feels double the run time and doesn’t use any of that time to do anything of note. Instead of giving us answers to any of the film’s various mysteries it instead just gives us yet another artsy shot of the landscape. Art house horror isn’t for everyone and yes often it can feel pretentious which I believe is the case here. The film only actually has about half an hour worth of plot, yet they stretch that out and out.

Noomi Rapace is perhaps the only silver lining of this film and her performance is strong. You believe the motherly relationship her character has with the sheep-child, and she is the only character you end the film caring about.

Overall, if people knew what this film is actually about rather than what the marketing is saying few would watch it and for good reason.

Pros.

Noomi Rapace

The ending

Cons.

It is not a horror film

It is stretched out and dull at times

It feels pretentious

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Billy Madison: Why Has No One Cancelled This Yet?

0.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A spoilt rich kid, played by Adam Sandler, must return to school despite being an adult.

I understand that to some this film is a comedy classic, I don’t see how that can be. I think this film highlights Sandler at his exploitative worst, early Sandler fare like this and The Waterboy want us to laugh at how dumb and stupid the central character is: which is cheap but done. However, where these films are particularly bad is Billy and Bobby, in The Waterboy, are almost certainly mentally handicap so the joke is no longer laughing at these characters because they are dumb but instead because they are disabled and that is sickening. We can also see this trend continue into later Sandler fare such as Sandy Wexler and Hubie Halloween.

Moreover, Sandler is at his most obnoxious here as well. There is no way in hell you will like the central character by the end of the film, whether it is the smug grin he constantly spouts, his dumb jokes or the voice Sandler does for the character. It is all grating.

Additionally, the romance between Sandler’s character and the teacher is problematic on a number of levels and feels to me like it is trying to play off the harmful fantasy of sleeping with the teacher, which is messed up for all kinds of reasons.

The humour of this film is just as grating as the rest of it, there is not one single funny line here and I know comedy is subjective, but unless you find disability and icky situations funny, you won’t be laughing much here. This film should be left in the rejects pile of the early noughties to die.

Overall, simply awful.

Pros.

It is short

Cons.

It is not funny

It feels exploitative towards those with disabilities

Sandler is incredibly obnoxious

The teacher student romance storyline needs to die

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Await Further Instructions: A Precursor To Lockdown Life

3.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A strained family spend Christmas together, however the day after they arrive they see themselves quarantined by a strange unknown entity that only communicates with them through the television.

I think part of the genius of this film is that it resembles so closely our own lives over the last few years entirely unintentionally. It adds to the dread and the horror that these ideas of isolating and illness have become our norm. If I were a different person I might be so inclined to say that the makers of this film had some kind of future knowledge as they reference pandemic life, yet I know that is just silly.

I enjoyed this films comments on conformity and believing a narrative without question, I thought it made a number of good points. The juxtaposition between the abusive for queen and country patriarch, played by Grant Masters, and the more free thinking son, played by Sam Gittins, couldn’t be more stark and in that lies the beauty.

My only complaint of the film would be that by the end the film demystifies itself and the answers it gives are unsatisfying. Throughout the film the key questions are what’s going on and who is doing it, then we get the reveal of the TV snake creatures, this in and off itself is not bad but then the film goes out of its way to show why they are doing it and tries to explain their existence, this didn’t work for me as I felt like the ending needed to be more open ended.

Overall, a surprisingly relevant horror film.

Pros

The dread

The unknown aspects of what’s going on

The comments on conformity

The performances

Cons.

The monsters

It loses its sense of mystery

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Women Is Losers: Societal Anger

3/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

The plot follows a young woman, played by Lorenza Izzo, as she deals with issues surrounding poverty and opportunity, whilst raising a child.

Generally I find the use of fourth wall breaking to be tired and played out, it hasn’t been cool or novel in several decades, yes Deadpool had some fun with it, but even then that got repetitive. However, here I found the film actually benefited from directly addressing the audience as it can better communicate its message, which is effectively that life for women in the Sixties was hard, and even now it is not wholly better. To this aim it draws attention to a number of issues and conversations that still need to be addressed in our own society, every day predatory behaviour or sexism.

I found the film to be very moving. Lorenza Izzo did a great job in the lead role and I really felt connected to her plight, I felt angry for her, angry at the men in her life, angry at the situation she was put in, angry that she was always put down. In many ways I think this film encourages us the audience to reflect on our own lives and makes us question our privilege.

Overall, a strongly topical and relevant watch, let down by a weak supporting cast and an ending that feels unsatisfying.

Pros.

Izzo

The message

The use of fourth wall breaks

Cons.

Simu Liu and the rest of the supporting cast are deeply underwhelming

The ending feels too nice and lacks authenticity

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

In For A Murder: The Real Crime Here Is A Terrible Marriage

2.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

The film revolves around a bored housewife, played by Anna Smolowik, as she becomes increasingly involved in trying to solve a murder.

This film was very eh for me, it had some moments of fun but for the most part it was just dull. The humour of the film was very much hit or miss and only made me laugh a few times, I don’t know if it is a different sensibility or something but it mostly didn’t work for me; humour is of course subjective.

I found the murder mystery aspects of the plot to be initially interesting but then quickly played out and stale. I think this is because the pacing of this film is wildly off and every scene feels a few minutes too long. Whenever the film presents you with an interesting idea it ruins it by overly exploring it.

In terms of acting I didn’t find anyone to be particularly either way, neither good nor bad rather just fine.

Overall, this film does have some moments of promise, however for the most part it is dull.

Pros.

Some promise to the murder mystery

A few funny moments

It’s watchable

Cons.

It is poorly paced

It becomes boring

The acting is all very flat

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Paranormal Activity Next Of Kin: Break On Through To The Otherside

4/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A young woman, played by Emily Bader, tries to find out more about her biological mother as such she travels to the Amish community she grew up in, bringing a film crew along for the ride because why not? However, once there things start to turn sinister.

Okay so this film won’t win any prizes for originality, but that is not to say that this film is bad quite the contrary. I will admit I soured on the Paranormal Activity franchise after the ending of Ghost Dimension all that build up and for what? Then the initial trailers for this didn’t look great, and I was worried that this film was going to taint the series reputation even further, but if anything it resurrects it.

This film isn’t quite sure whether it wants to be a sequel to the other films or a straight up reboot of the series, as such it goes in both directions there is no direct reference to the previous films either in terms of events or characters, however there is enough free space narratively that they could connect it up if they wanted to.

What I think is the best thing about this film is that it does the opposite of Ghost Dimension and actually delivers on the pay off of the film. The film ends with, spoilers here, a demon coming up to earth to begin a reign of terror, with seemingly no one able to stop it as it can jump from body to body. Not only did I think this was a terrific ending in terms of everything the film had been building to, but I also thought this was magnificent in what it sets up for the series, what’s next? The possibilities seem endless and that has me excited.

Overall, I would say this film is easily up there as one of the best of the franchise and you should check it out if you like all things spooky.

Pros.

The pay off

The set up for the future

A few good scares

Not being too lore heavy
Cons.

The characters are all fairly meh

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Last Night In Soho: Students Are The Worst

4.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Fashion student Ellie, played by Thomasin McKenzie, becomes wrapped up in a sinister world of sixties intrigue and murder after she begins boarding at a London bedsit. Each time Ellie goes to sleep she gets visions of a time before her own as she sees through someone else’s eyes, however as it progresses it no longer stays confined to the world of sleep.

This film is honestly masterful, Edgar Wright manages to go from lighter and more silly fare to dark and twisted horror with the ease that many of us find when opening the door in the morning. Though there have been many stories about a young starlet’s, played by Anya Taylor- Joy, downwards decline after the industry, nay the world, chews her up and leaves her for dead, none have been told as well as this. Whether it is the surprising misdirects, or the ultimate reveal the writing feels incredibly fresh and well-reasoned, for once I was not able to guess the twist.

I think the most powerful thing about this film is how it vocalises and raises awareness to the horrors women face on a daily basis. There is something of an anger within this film towards men, rightfully so I might add. This film shows just how perverse, cruel and ultimately maddening the world can be to a young woman, how toxic men can try and control them or coerce them, and truly that is the scariest thing about it. The real frightening thing about this notion is that the world as we see it in the sixties flashbacks is not so different from the modern world of Ellie, and us the audience.

From a filmmaking point of view everything about this film is sublime even down to the performances.

Overall, Edgar Wright magnificently manages to tackle a whole new genre with ease and create one of the strongest horrors of the year.

Pros.

The subversions

The ending

Anya Taylor-Joy’s sinister performance

The comments on society

Strong scares throughout

Cons.

One or two ideas needed development

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer