Don’t Breath: You’ll Never Look At A Turkey Baster The Same Again

3.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A group of troubled youths break into the home of a blind man, Stephen Lang, expecting an easy pay day; what they get however is far more than they could have ever bargained for.

The issue with this film, and others like it, is that it suffers from a lack of likeable characters. There is no tension to a situation when both the ‘hero’ and the ‘villain’ are both bad people as you don’t really like either, so you don’t care who wins. Yes Jane Levy’s Rocky is as close to a good character as you get in this film, but even then she is hardly a character you root for.

I think the mid-film twist works wonders to recontextualise the situation, changing the robbers from the bad guys to the victims, and having the Blind Man be the real villain of the piece. What’s more this is the film that really made me take notice of Stephen Lang as an actor, he is terrific here this is his film, and he sells both the threat and the action hard.

Moreover, the most impressive feat of this film is that it manages to maintain its tension consistently throughout, with their being close to no lulls throughout. This is a strong asset of the film as it keeps you engaged and pardon the cliché, on the edge of your seat.

Overall, Stephen Lang is terrific, and the tension is well maintained. The issues come from a lack of any clear likeable lead which takes away from the impact of events.

Pros.

Stephen Lang

The tension

The mid-film twist

Cons.

No likeable characters

The ending is ridiculous in a bad way

If you enjoyed this review, then please head over to my Patreon to support me, I offer personalized shoutouts, one on one Q and As, 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

Rise Of The Footsoldier: The Worst Parts Of Britain

2.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

We learn the story of Carlton Leach’s rise to power in the Essex underworld.

The issue with this film along with many others like it is that it glorifies these loathsome and frankly evil human beings. These films try and make us relate or even root for the protagonist, as they rise to power, and though in some cases rooting for a bad guy can be fun with the real world implications of this film it just seems wrong.

Furthermore, unlike something like Vendetta that I reviewed recently, this film does not have a charming, if slightly goofy, performance from Danny Dyer to make it slightly more enjoyable. No most of the performers here are just trotting out the same collection of macho man, tough guy cliches and weak gangland tropes.

I found numerous scenes in this film hard to watch and thought that the film has a bad habit of overly indulging in grim and needless subject matter. I understand what sort of film this is, and yet this film often does go that bit too far, especially with how it treats and frames female characters that honestly not only feels needless but also feels quite exploitative.

Overall, watchable yet you will need a shower after it is over.

Pros.

It is watchable

The split choice ending/mystery is interesting

Cons.

It is overly grim

The way it treats women

It glorifies bad people

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Dirty Harry: A Troubled Classic

3.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Unorthodox inspector Harry Callahan, Clint Eastwood, tries to catch a sniper that is roaming the streets of San Francisco gunning down innocent people.

I have had this on my watch list for some time and now that I have I can see why people think it is a noir classic. All the elements of the film come together in such a way to really give this film a classic noir feel, the cinematography, the editing, even the colour choices are all very evocative.

Eastwood is strong in the role and has a number of memorable moments and catchphrases. I think his is the only performance that stands out of the film, and your feeling towards him are mixed. He can be both the cheer worthy hero and also the detestable villain, I’m talking about when he punches the jumper.

There are several lines that age poorly, and that would be offensive when viewed by today’s standards. I tried my best to ignore them whilst watching, but they did put me off it as it was fairly recurrent. Before you counter that by saying oh those were the times, racism has never been okay.

Overall, a slick film that looks a little more dirty when viewed in today’s framing.

Pros.

Clint Eastwood

A very memorable moments

It is slick

Cons.

The racism

The condoning of police torture

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

6 Days: A Police Negotiator, The Most Thankless Job You Can Have

3.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

This is based on the true story of the 1980 London Iranian embassy siege. Where the SAS gather to storm and the negotiators try and avoid a bloodbath.

This was a surprisingly good thriller. Netflix based on a true story thriller films have a reputation for being terrible, but this was actually good.

The film managed to maintain a sense of tension consistently throughout, as the events keep you on the razors edge: not knowing what is going to happen. This is masterfully conducted by Mark Strong who plays police negotiator Max Vernon. Strong easily captures a wide variety of emotions and conveys them with a facial expression when best effecting the scene.

However, I find where this film trips itself up is with the rest of the cast. Jamie Bell and Abbie Cornish are both talented performers in there own rights, but unlike Strong they are given very little to do here, especially with Cornish, and it becomes a clear waste of talent as the film progresses.

Overall, surprisingly watchable and tense with a good performance from Strong. However, the usual Netflix problems, poor side characters with famous faces, drags this film down and makes it less than it could have been.

Pros.

Strong

The tension

The ending

Cons.

They waste the rest of the cast

It has pacing issues

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

71: Surviving The Troubles

3/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

This film follows Gary Hook, Jack O’Connell, a young soldier who becomes separated from his unit and finds himself having to survive the night in Northern Ireland during the Troubles.

I enjoyed this film a fair bit, it kept me entertained throughout. I thought the film did a good job of maintaining its tension and it never allowed you to feel safe, or to feel like the character was safe, which also adds to the realism of the film.

In many respects this is quite a hard film to watch, there are a number of scenes that are very visceral and graphic and that will leave and impression on you afterwards. The sudden and random death of Hook’s fellow soldier early in the film being one of them, in many ways it perfectly manages to capture the murky and unpredictable nature of that part of Irish history.

Moreover, Sean Harris as the morally dubious covert intelligence officer Captain Browning is a revelation. Harris always shines through whatever he appears in and adds an uncertain edge to proceedings. I would say he comfortably out acts O’Connell here, with the latter’s rough boy charm sometimes clashing with the character he is trying to portray. For example when Hook is taking his younger brother out for the day he becomes very angry at the doorman for no explained reason, this doesn’t work when later in the film he is portrayed as the ordered and controlled soldier who would never lose his temper in a yobish sort of way. It becomes a clashing personality over the film.

Overall, a good film though more character work was needed with the construction of the lead, a fixed personality was needed rather than one that jumps around.

Pros.

Harris

The tension

Not knowing what was going to happen next

Cons.

O’ Connell

A few plot threads that are unanswered and also go nowhere

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

The Visit: The Grandparents Aren’t All Right

4/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Two children who have never met their grandparents before are send to go and stay with them for a week, however, once they get their they start noticing their Grandparents behaving strangely- this quickly escalates.

In my mind this is Shyamalan’s best film, easily. Yes, there will be many out there that will make a case for Signs or The Sixth Sense, but I truly believe this is the man at his finest. Every aspect of the film works in perfect harmony, with the film feeling like something other than the twist is being built to. This is a common issue with Shyamalan’s work as often the films feel built around the twist and as such can’t function without it, which is bad writing, however, here the events of the film could work without the twist and the twist itself feels like it only enhances the strangeness further.

I enjoyed the tension and the slowly growing unease throughout. I thought the film showed great promise when it made seemingly every day activities that anyone would do with their elderly relatives feel some how off-kilter, this is of course ramped up as the film continues but never ends up feeling over the top.

The performances are mostly good. With Child actors one never goes in expecting much, but I thought both leads were passable. The one thing I will say is Ed Oxenbould does have moments where he becomes annoying, such as the rapping scenes or when he has to call out a female singers name instead of swearing, though there is some unintentional comedy in there to.

Overall, probably my favourite Shyamalan film.

Pros.

The twist

The tension in the seemingly ordinary

The ending

A few solid jokes

Cons.

The rapping is annoying

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Old: Live Your Life In An Afternoon

3.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A group of people find themselves on a mysterious beach where they age rapidly and seem incapable of leaving.

Other reviews of this film have been very mixed, and mine will only add to that.

The premise for this film is very interesting the concept of rapidly aging is fairly unique from a cinema standpoint and it does hold up throughout the film. The film does a lot of interesting things with aging its characters, we see many deaths and a birth, though the less said about that the better.

However, where things fall apart for me is with the big twist. As with every Shyamalan film there is a twist here, however I think it ends up disrupting and ultimately ruining the film. I won’t spoil what it is here, but I will say this, it is underwhelming and what you want to be happening isn’t….. It is far more mundane and generic than that. My issue with the ending of this film is that it is overly simplistic, it is too neat. The film ends with a surprising amount of it’s questions answered with little left to think about, what’s more the aging beach is seemingly forgotten about and no answers for it are given. In short it both gives you too many answers and too few.

The performances across the board are good, if sometimes a little eclectic and eccentric. I think that Rufus Sewell is by far the standout of the film as his characters slow descent into mental illness is both saddening and terrifying, and he does manage to feel quite threatening towards the end of the film. I also thought that Alex Wolff was strong as the families young child stuck in the body of a twenty year old, he brings a lot to the character.

Overall, a fascinating hook is pulled off course by a weak twist/ ending.
Pros.

The premise

The questions

The performance

The tension

Cons.

The ending

The twist

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Settlers: The Fight For Survival Is Bleak

3.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

In a post-apocalyptic future settlers on Mars must fight for their survival and that of their species.

This film is heavy and gets very dark. I am adding that here at the start of the review as I think it is very important to bare that in mind when starting this film, there is a scene right near the end that is quite an intense rape scene that is very hard to watch and that I found to be deeply distressing.

As a wider piece I actually found this film quite interesting to watch. The concept is interesting, and they leave out just enough context about how these people arrived on Mars and what Earth is now like to make the film have some mystery to it which helps immeasurably.

I thought the tension and feeling of subtle threat throughout was done very well, as there are moments where you yourself question which side the antagonist is on and indeed whether they are even an antagonist at all, but then you are clearly reminded.

Visually I thought the film was quite addressing and impressive. I thought the effects and wider look of the film shows how far technology has come, with the vistas we are treated to looking startlingly real and well actualised.

The main thing I would criticise this film for is wasting a very talented cast. This is essentially a two person film, however there are others cast in it: Sofia Boutella and Johnny Lee Miller. Both of these are very talented performers; however, they are killed off before the film even reaches the forty five minute mark with their inclusions ultimately feeling like a waste in the end.

Overall, despite some harrowing scenes and wasting it’s supporting cast this film still manages to be a strong science fiction thriller with an interesting concept and very well done effects.

Pros.

The tension

The effects

The premise

The ending

Cons.

It wastes Miller and Boutella

It is very hard to watch at times

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Gunpowder Milkshake: In Search Of A Soul

2.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A hitwoman finds herself the target of a number of underworld characters after she botches one of her hits and finds herself in the company of her victim’s child.

I am mixed on this. One the one hand I thought the concept and the action to be good. I enjoyed the world this film sets up; I thought The Firm and the Librarians were both interesting groups rife for further exploration. In addition I thought the action choreography was spot on, and many of the scenes feel very real: making the bone crunching all the more impactful.

However, the characters themselves for the most part were entirely devoid of any kind of personality or charm and were instead defined by their role in the narrative. The previous mentioned Librarians don’t really have any kind of personality beyond their job and a previous connection to one of the other characters. Moreover, Karen Gillan’s lead literally barely speaks at all and has no charm or personality either, she remains a mystery throughout though in this case that is a bad thing.

The feminist aspects which this film displays front and centre and that will no doubt annoy some, as many are looking to be offended these days, are clear and present throughout. Whilst many of the things this film is saying on that front are good, the issue comes from the fact that these characters are almost not written as people rather as tools to make certain points, this surely undermines the cause and provides a flaw in the film’s presentation.

I didn’t think the child acting was very good, but I won’t belabour that point as it is low hanging fruit.

Overall, it has potential, but some real character work is needed if this film does indeed return for a sequel.

Pros.

The world

The action

The message

Cons.

The characters are devoid of personality

It feels a little bit too familiar at times

The child acting

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

The Ice Road: The Most Obvious Conspiracy In Human History

2/5

Written by Luke Barnes

The premise of ice road truckers having to carry heavy items over sheets of sheer ice is tense and interesting enough on its own, it doesn’t need to be overly complicated.

Therein lies the problem of this film, Ice Road Truckers proves there is an audience that wants to see big rigs carrying goods over ice that could break any minute. However, this film did not get the memo, or maybe doesn’t care as clearly it does not think this premise is entertaining enough to get people to watch so they have to force in a conspiracy as well. Of course this conspiracy storyline is entirely needless and adds very little.

Liam Neeson and Laurence Fishburne try their best to give this film some soul and personality yet one gets killed off early into the film and the other is mostly side-lined. Yes, even though Neeson features heavily on the posters and the marketing for this film it is really not his.

From a writing perspective this whole film feels very played out and overly familiar. They try to write in twists and turns but it just goes exactly the way you would expect it to, the way it is telegraphed to go from the beginning you know who the actual villain will be because it is all just so obvious.

Overall, Liam Neeson needs a better agent or maybe just to retire from action films as it is starting to reach a point now where even his charm can’t save these films from themselves

Pros.

Neeson

Fishbourne

Cons.

It is incredibly predictable

The villain is obvious

It is overly complicated

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer