‘Redux Redux’ Review: A Standout Thriller at Fantasia 2025

Fantasia International Film Festival, Reviews /

The 29th Fantasia Film Festival is well underway and we’ve been on the ground every day to cover everything you need to put on your radar! Make sure you’re checking out the Screen Love Affair Podcast and follow us on Instagram to keep up with all of our coverage. With that aside, one movie I needed to write about was Redux Redux. I talked a little about it on our Instagram, but I wanted to write an official review of it on the website too to dive a bit more into it.  It’s a family film, in that it was written and directed by Kevin and Matthew McManus and stars their sister Michaela McManus. It also stars Stella Marcus and Jeremy Holm, who we will definitely talk about in more detail later. I know I say this a lot, but I really do mean this here: This is the kind of movie that is best enjoyed knowing as little as possible. Like, I don’t even want to tell you the genre because it can give something away. This review is spoiler-free too, so don’t worry about reading on.  I can say that this is a revenge thriller, just to give you a sense of what to expect, but beyond that, mum’s the word!  So, is Redux Redux just another revenge flick or does it burn with something deeper beneath the surface? My Thoughts Redux Redux starts off incredibly strong and basically doesn’t let you go until it’s all over. We kick off with our lead, Irene (Michaela McManus) at a fire and then we jump around to her doing some different things that the audience doesn’t fully understand. It’s particularly for the first act that I am being light on the spoilers. You’re immediately dropped into situations and the movie hits the ground running. It slowly becomes a bit more clear what is happening, but I was enjoying the mystery at the beginning quite a lot, even if I already read about the movie so I knew what was actually happening.  Jeremy Holm plays the target of Irene’s revenge, and Holm is very solid in this role. He plays the different sides of his character very well, especially when he has to be more imposing and menacing. Holm and McManus are both great, but the biggest standout for me here was Stella Marcus as Mia. Mia and Irene come together as the movie progresses and it’s really once they come together that the incredibly strong emotional core of this movie starts to shine.  Their pairing reminded me a little bit of Terminator 2: Judgment Day, but as people motivated by grief and revenge, and at very different stages of their journeys with those two things. It’s a perfect pairing because not only do they manage to flesh out their own individual stories well, but their own relationship developing is as compelling as anything else happening and every moment spent with the two of them was a blast. Another strong point is the script. I often talk about how movies can struggle to balance their own tone and themes in an organic way that doesn’t feel like the movie is grinding to a halt for a monologue. I’m very glad to report though that no such moment exists in this movie. The more somber moments and beats all work and feel natural for the characters in those moments, which makes this movie feel so refreshing when so many mainstream movies struggle to do this part well.  This was my first experience with the McManus brothers, but I was really impressed with it. They did an absolutely amazing job with a more limited budget, but with such a strong script, I would be really curious to see what they could do with a bigger budget.  Verdict We’re only halfway through the festival, but I’m certain this movie will end up on my Best of the Fest list! Redux Redux is an easy movie to recommend. The violence and action are solid, but it’s really the core characters that shine the most here and make the movie more memorable. It tackles serious themes, but in a way that was more unique and organic than it’s been done before. I was very impressed by everyone involved, but I suspect that you’ll be seeing much more of Stella Marcus in the years to come!

‘Redux Redux’ Review: A Standout Thriller at Fantasia 2025 Read More »

‘Materialists’ Review – The Most Cynical Rom-Dramedy of the Year is a Baffling Mess

Reviews /

Following up Past Lives was always going to be difficult in my estimation. That movie is one that remains near and dear to my heart. It’s a movie that has affected me emotionally in ways I’m almost embarrassed to admit. So it’s conflicting to come away from Celine Song’s second feature Materialists feeling so . . . conflicted.On the one hand, I like that it pulls a fast one on its audience. The way the film is marketed, the premise, the cast of beautiful actors playing beautiful people living in New York City—all of these things set you up to expect a classic rom-com, the kind that were everywhere in the 1990s and early 2000s. I expect a lot of people who watched the trailer for this and went in thinking they would get just that will be sorely disappointed. Rather than a light, airy rom-com, Materialists is, in some ways, interested in subverting the tropes of the traditional rom-com. These are the parts of the movie I quite liked. It’s refreshingly honest about the vapidness of modern dating, the way that relationships have always been rooted in a sort of transactional exchange, be it financial, social, or otherwise. Despite that, we still have to believe that love—true love, the kind we’ve been conditioned to expect from the kind of movies this one appears to be at first glance—is possible. It’s an absurd thing that I think Song is interested in exploring. How can relationships be materialistic, value-based, and quantifiable, yet love, the driving force behind most of them, remains completely intangible and unpredictable? Dakota Johnson, I’d argue, is perfectly cast as Lucy, an emotionally inscrutable woman who works as a matchmaker and believes that love is just a mathematical problem, an equation that can be solved. She wants material comfort, and that’s where Pedro Pascal’s Harry comes in. He’s rich, handsome, but also kind—what they call a unicorn in Lucy’s profession. But, in classic rom-com fashion, she’s faced with another romantic option in the form of her broke, wannabe-actor ex, played by Chris Evans. The irony of the film, of course, is that while Lucy ostensibly trades in love, she has no idea what it really is. Love is the one thing that can upset her worldview, because it’s not quantifiable or predictable or about checking boxes on a sheet of paper. This is quite interesting, and I suspect the movie’s view of modern dating and love will resonate with a lot of people. However, while the potential to explore these questions and ideas is high, the movie fumbles in its execution. Whereas Past Lives was quiet and understated and subtle, Materialists hits you with its themes over the head. Despite that, I couldn’t quite get a lock on what the movie wanted me to take away. It’s in many ways deeply deeply cynical about dating and our ability to connect through a consumerist approach to relationships that places value and material qualities over everything else. Yet, the ending seems to go back and reinstate the rom-com fantasy of love without irony. There’s some ambiguity there, but it’s not enough to make the film feel cohesive based on what was presented to us earlier. I couldn’t tell if the characters were intended to be broad cyphers to prove the film’s point, with performances to match—or if they were just poorly written and poorly acted. Or maybe it’s that the movie is simply more interested in philosophizing about modern dating and love and the role of value in romantic relationships than it is in creating believable fully realized characters. You’d think a romance would offer more insight into the inner lives of its characters, yet we hardly know anything about them beyond their professions. Ironically, the movie seems to treat them sort of like merchandise, despite its thesis supposedly being that people can’t be reduced to a marketable list of features. It’s quite likely I went into this movie with too-high expectations, and that impacted my viewing experience. But it’s also a very inconsistent and, in many ways, strange and inscrutable movie. There are tonal shifts that don’t completely work. The movie’s sense of humour is subtle and largely worked for me, but then it’s also quite serious and there’s a heavy subplot that feels very underserved, which largely didn’t work for me. Despite all these criticisms, I didn’t hate the movie. There’s a lot here that I did like and thought was smart, and the movie is undeniably nice to look at (beautifully shot on film). But the more I sit with it, the more confused I am about what it’s actually trying to say. Verdict As someone who adored Past Lives, I wanted to love Materialists so badly. But the predominant feeling I left the theatre with was confusion. I think there are elements here that are very compelling, and at least the movie is trying to do something interesting with age-old formulas and themes. However, the baffling tonal shifts, odd performances, and unclear messaging make the overall package hard to buy into. If you want to hear more, check out our Materialists podcast on YouTube, Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts.

‘Materialists’ Review – The Most Cynical Rom-Dramedy of the Year is a Baffling Mess Read More »

’28 Years Later’ Review – Somehow Still Alive… and Better Than Ever

Reviews /

28 Days Later hit theatres in 2002 and has loomed large in the lexicon of horror fans everywhere. Even before I saw the full film, I knew the haunting image of Jim (played by now-Oscar winner Cillian Murphy) wandering the empty streets of London. To this day it remains one of the most striking and impactful sequences I’ve ever seen. Directed by Danny Boyle (Trainspotting, Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Hours, Steve Jobs), the film also marked the debut of screenwriter Alex Garland (Ex Machina, Annihilation, Civil War, Warfare). 28 Years Later marks the return to the franchise for both Boyle and Garland and is the first of a planned trilogy of new movies. This movie picks up, as the title suggests, 28 years after the initial outbreak of the “Rage” virus in the UK. Title cards at the beginning tell us that the virus has been eradicated from continental Europe, but the British Isles remain in indefinite quarantine. Alfie Williams plays Spike, a 12 year old living on a small tidal island with access to the mainland only possible during low tide.  So was this franchise worth revisiting 23 years later or is it just another case of the legacy sequel virus? My Thoughts I have to say, this movie might be the biggest surprise of the year for me. I had a list of movies I wanted to see these last few weeks and going into them all, this is the movie I expected the least from. I knew very little details, but I did see the teaser trailer a few times. Nevertheless, I found myself rolling my eyes a bit at yet another legacy sequel. 28 Days Later is still an all time classic for me, but the sequel 28 Weeks Later, was decidedly inferior than the original movie and was criminally generic, especially when contrasted with the lo-fi visual style of the original. However, both Garland and Boyle were not involved in that sequel so that was at least an intriguing notion.  But as an ardent film lover, despite my reservations, I capped off my week of movies with 28 Years Later and an open mind. And as the credits hit, it was clear to me that 28 Years Later is undoubtedly one of my favourite movies of the year so far.  Why? Well first I have to start with the visual style. In today’s world of film, with flat grays, awkward lighting, and just a general boring visual style, it can be easy for a movie to stand out as long as it does even one small thing differently. 28 Years Later really remains true to its roots and is one of the most distinct and visually impressive movies I have seen in a while. I don’t want to give any of the specifics away, but even this behind the scenes shot of an infected shows you the kind of toys they were playing with.  Trust me, Boyle is absolutely firing on all cylinders here.  He’s not alone either because Alex Garland delivered (in my opinion, anyway) his best script since 2014’s Ex Machina. When I tell you that 28 Years Later is one of the most emotional and moving films I have seen all year, I promise you that I’m not lying. Garland’s script is so great at every level. On the surface, there is an amazing coming-of-age story and also a meditation on life, death, and love. That alone is worth the price of admission, but if you care to scratch a little bit deeper, there is more depth here than even I realized on my initial watch. This movie has sparked plenty of discussions about isolationism, Brexit, cultures stuck looking backwards instead of forwards, and so much more. None of these themes are essential to understand or to appreciate the film, but I think that’s what I find so brilliant about the script. The layers here are truly impressive and it’s able to deliver something for everyone that may wander into the theatre to see this movie.  Of course, for a movie to be this good, it needs a rock solid cast and 28 Years Later has that, too. We definitely need to start with Alfie Williams. What an incredibly impressive feature film debut, especially for someone who was 13 years old at the time of filming. I only bring up his age because of how much more impressive it is. In some movies, I will often caveat performances from young actors by saying it was a great “child performance,” but I am making no such caveats here. This whole movie hinges on Alfie’s lead performance and it’s one of the best of the year so far. He’s not alone, though, in this movie. Even the supporting characters absolutely shine. Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Jodie Comer play his parents and both of them are incredible at every point. The biggest powerhouse performance though for me comes from Ralph Fiennes, who isn’t in much of the movie, but is critical for the story and evolution of these characters. Fiennes is incredible at balancing the duality of his character, and without Fiennes, the story just wouldn’t come together nearly as strongly.  As a whole package, I was kind of floored by this movie. It starts off gritty and raw and I was thoroughly enjoying the experience which includes some very cool and gnarly gore and kills, too. As it progressed though, the emotional story sort of snuck up on me and absolutely cut me to the core.  There has been much discussion about the ending, which I won’t talk about at all here (stay tuned for a spoiler-filled episode of The Screen Love Affair Podcast to hear about that), but as long as you keep an open mind, I think you’ll love the ending as much as I did.  Verdict I didn’t expect to love 28 Years Later, in fact, I was ready to write it off like so many other legacy sequels. But I couldn’t

’28 Years Later’ Review – Somehow Still Alive… and Better Than Ever Read More »

‘The Life of Chuck’ Review – A Quiet, Beautiful Reminder of Why I Love Movies

Reviews /

My first experience with Mike Flanagan came in 2016 when I watched Hush, a horror slasher with a deaf protagonist. This was a very simple movie, but felt incredibly fresh and inventive. Afterwards, Flanagan went on to make Ouija: Origin of Evil (aka the good Oujia movie), and a few series for Netflix, like Haunting of Hill House, The Haunting of Bly Manor, Midnight Mass, among others. By far his most impressive feat in my opinion though was Doctor Sleep, a sequel to The Shining. With this movie, Flanagan had the impossible task of not only following-up one of the most legendary films of all time (that also departed from its source material), but he had to do it by adapting another Stephen King book. In short, this was a movie doomed to fail and yet, it didn’t! I was actually impressed with the film and how much I enjoyed it and my Gram, who also loved The Shining, felt the exact same way.  From that day forward, I’ve been preaching the gospel of Mike Flanagan. Midnight Mass was one of the last shows I ever watched with my Gram and I’ll always adore Flanagan for all of his horror films and shows that connected my Gram and me together.  Life of Chuck is something of a departure for its writer/director Mike Flanagan. While based on a Stephen King short story, it’s not one in the horror genre. As always, I like to give as little detail as possible, but this movie has such a great synopsis that gives you just the right amount of information: “Charles “Chuck” Krantz experiences the wonder of love, the heartbreak of loss, and the multitudes contained in all of us.”  So is Flanagan better off sticking to his horror roots, or is The Life of Chuck proof that his true genre… is greatness? My Thoughts Simply put, I’m so glad to see this departure for Flanagan. Something about his style just allows for the feeling and emotion to ooze out of every scene. The story is told in reverse and it makes the movie really come together beautifully. It’s not just a gimmick to be different, it serves the story so well.  Chuck is played by various actors including Tom Hiddelston, who plays Chuck as an adult, Cody Flanagan (7 year old Chuck), Benjamin Pajak (11 year old Chuck), and even Jacob Tremblay (17 year old Chuck). Each iteration of Chuck is excellent, but I want to give credit to Benjamin Pajak who was the biggest standout for me. It’s these moments in Chuck’s formative years that so much of the emotion enters the movie and contextualizes everything we’ve seen and experienced so far. Pajak’s acting and his dancing were absolutely spectacular and without such a capable performance, the whole movie could have failed to reach the highs that it did.  Perhaps it was because of my expectations, but the only thing I really felt missing was a bit more time with Tom Hiddelston as adult Chuck. Make no mistake, he makes the most of his time, but I felt like there was a piece missing to really dial up the emotions as the whole story came together. We will definitely get more into this when we talk about this movie on our podcast, so if you’re not worried about spoilers and want to hear more, make sure to check that out! Another standout for me was the music. The score was a bit simplistic at times, but it was always incredibly effective. Complementing the score though was the soundtrack. Dancing is a big component of this movie and the songs they use in this at every turn felt absolutely perfect. The dance numbers and the emotion they pour into them made me feel so much that I was kind of shocked. I am decidedly not a dancer, but I was so moved by these moments that it made me envious of the experience and the impact they have on the people that get to experience it.  The supporting cast here, which is absolutely loaded with Flanagan regulars, all deliver in their own ways, some bigger and smaller than others. It didn’t detract from the movie or anything, but I’m worried that in the future the group of regulars can feel more like a spectacle on their own. For example, in this movie there are so many of them, and some of the roles are small enough that it could feel almost like cameo fatigue. Now make no mistake, I’m not implying that’s what is at all happening here. None of the appearances amount to cameos (except for a flash of Flanagan himself) and the movie doesn’t want us as an audience to pop in excitement at the mere appearance of a familiar actor. Each character has a crucial role to play in the story and all of them excel, but I couldn’t help but feel a slight amount of me getting temporarily pulled out of the movie when these familiar faces would appear.  As a whole though, this movie is absolutely beautiful. I would describe it as happy/sad in all the best ways. It drew plenty of emotion out of me, even getting me to tear up a little bit at times. If anything, I really wanted the movie to have a moment where the dam would break and the tears would pour out of me. I’m curious if on a second watch that I can reach the emotional catharsis the movie really primed me for. Verdict To answer my own question: yes. The Life of Chuck proves that Mike Flanagan’s true genre is greatness. Honestly, after reflecting throughout this review, I came to the realization that boxing Flanagan in as a horror filmmaker doesn’t do justice to his body of work. Sure, they usually have your typical horror elements, but what sets Flanagan’s horror work apart from all the rest is the characters and the heart that permeates all throughout his

‘The Life of Chuck’ Review – A Quiet, Beautiful Reminder of Why I Love Movies Read More »

‘Bring Her Back’ Review – It’ll Make You Squirm, But Will It Stick With You?

Reviews /

Bring Her Back is the sophomore effort from Danny and Michael Philippou, after the critically and commercially successful release of their first film Talk To Me. Danny and Michael are twin brothers from Australia who you may know from their successful YouTube Channel RackaRacka. Bring Her Back stars Billy Barratt, Sora Wong and Sally Hawkins.  You know we like to avoid spoilers here at SLA, and luckily the synopsis for this movie gives you just the right amount of setup: “A brother and sister uncover a terrifying ritual at the secluded home of their new foster mother.” So is Bring Her Back a welcome addition to the family, or one you’ll want to disown? My Thoughts First, I think it makes the most sense to start with my feelings about Talk to Me because overall I feel pretty similar about both movies.  I was a little less excited by it than most people were. I was definitely impressed by how solid the movie was considering it was their first crack at a feature film, but when the movie ended I was just left feeling like something was missing.  Unfortunately, I felt something similar with Bring Her Back. However, I still think overall that I liked this one more!  One of the best parts about it for me was Sally Hawkins. Without getting into details, she was perfectly casted as someone that has such a sweet and innocent look to them, but also was believable when she’s doing much darker things too. Genuinely, this was perfect casting.  Billy and Sora play Andy and Piper, the brother and sister duo and our main characters. They were both solid in their roles. Jonah Wren Phillips, who plays Oliver, a child that is living with Sally Hawkins’ character Laura, probably has a tougher assignment here given the oddities of that character, but he’s also very solid.  Outside the characters though, the movie shines brightest when it starts playing more with some of these horror elements. Particularly the sound design. It’s been a few days now since I saw the movie, and one moment in particular hasn’t left my head and it makes me shudder when I think about it.  But for my money, I didn’t feel like there was enough of these moments. Because they’re so effective and well done, it become noticeable when a bunch of time would pass and nothing too creepy or unsettling would happen.  At the same time though, I didn’t feel the movie was too heavy about its themes either, specifically as it relates to grief and losing family members. They’re definitely there and prominent enough, but I don’t feel like we were focusing on too many moments to reaffirm these themes at the expense of these more tense and gnarly horror moments.  And really, this is where my feelings about the movie leave me a little stumped. I was enjoying this ride but ultimately, when we get to the ending, I couldn’t help but shake this feeling that something was missing. I think the biggest issue with both of these movies is that they don’t wrap up in a way that feels totally satisfying.  I really like when a movie fades to black for the end credits and I feel stuck in my head. Either I’m blown away by what I just saw, or I’m left speechless contemplating the feelings the movie has elicited from me. But this movie just left me feeling a bit more hollow.  Verdict Even with my lack of feelings as the credits rolled, I still had a good time and I think many of you will, too. The journey hits harder than the destination, packed with enough sharp horror beats to make even a genre veteran like me wince and squirm with the rest of the crowd. Writing this, I kept thinking about something Brandon and I discussed on Talkies about how Final Destination movies (to me at least) are just attempts at forgettable fun built on a great hook. Bring Her Back could’ve landed in that same category, but there’s real talent behind the camera here. It might not leave a lasting mark, but I’ve seen plenty of movies with much bigger budgets and none of the guts, skill, or sharp edges this movie brings.

‘Bring Her Back’ Review – It’ll Make You Squirm, But Will It Stick With You? Read More »

‘Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning’ Review: This Is Why We Go to the Movies

Reviews /

I’m going to state my biases upfront: I think Mission: Impossible is, without a doubt, one of the most impressive film franchises of all time. If you listened to the latest episode of Talkies, you already know I think it’s only gotten better with age too. We recorded that episode the day after watching all seven previous movies back-to-back in a single day, a 16.5-hour marathon with only brief breaks for snacks and bathroom trips. Worth it!  Based on the 1960s TV series, the first Mission: Impossible film hit theaters in 1996 and marked a major turning point for Tom Cruise. Not only did he star in it, but he also took on the role of producer for the first time in his career. What’s made this franchise stand out over the decades is its evolving creative leadership. Each of the first five films had a different director: Brian De Palma, John Woo, J.J. Abrams, Brad Bird, and Christopher McQuarrie. Starting with Rogue Nation, McQuarrie took the reins as both writer and director, a role he’s continued through to today’s entry: The Final Reckoning. The mission we’ve chosen to accept here at Screen Love Affair is to give you a spoiler-free review that still delivers the key takeaways. So if you’re worried about plot reveals, rest easy, no intel will be compromised here. And for those eager to dive deeper into the classified stuff, don’t worry! We’ve got a full spoiler-filled episode of Talkies on the way, where Brandon, Adriana, and I break it all down.  So without further ado: does The Final Reckoning light the fuse and go out with a bang or just fizzle out? My Thoughts Unsurprisingly, I have a TON to say about this movie and I’ll save most of it for our spoiler chat on Talkies, but let’s kick this off with the obvious part: the big set pieces.   Holy moly. I’m not going to even talk about what they are (though if you’ve seen the trailers or the posters, you’re probably aware of at least one), but the first major set piece really surprised me. I didn’t expect this particular sequence to even really be such a significant one. Oh, what a fool I am. Frankly, I should’ve known better. As someone that lives and breathes the franchise, I’ve listened to hours and hours of interviews with Cruise and McQuarrie about their approach to these films.  One such point was how they challenge themselves through challenging the characters. For example, in Dead Reckoning, there is a car chase sequence in Rome. But in classic Mission fashion, we can’t just have a great car chase sequence in Rome. Ethan (Tom Cruise’s character) has to be handcuffed to another person as well! That, in essence, is how Crusie and McQuarrie approach Mission. Anyway, you’ll know the sequence when you see it because it will absolutely fry your nerves. Adriana and I both watched it while holding our breath and wincing. And this isn’t even the sequence that’s all over the marketing materials! I have to admit, by the end of that first set piece, I was welling up too. Something about Ethan Hunt’s sheer determination fused with the movie magic unfolding on screen hit me hard. This is why I go to the movies! My only real gripe with the set pieces is that there just weren’t enough of them. For a movie that runs close to three hours, I wouldn’t have minded one or two more standout moments. That’s probably just me being greedy, though because the two we do get are arguably among the best in the franchise, and honestly, some of the best ever put to film. I mentioned Dead Reckoning earlier, and that brings up another point worth clarifying for those that might not be aware. Initially, the title of the last film was Dead Reckoning: Part One, but eventually the “Part One” was dropped. However, that doesn’t mean these movies aren’t still part of the same story, because they very much are. From the key that was the focus of Dead Reckoning, to the Entity and Gabriel, all of those elements are back. But it’s not *just* a Dead Reckoning sequel. It’s very much focused on the whole franchise, and I think this is where the movie stumbles a bit for me.  In those hours of interviews and podcasts, one thing I’ve heard McQuarrie say is that he never wants an audience member to have to experience other movies in order to enjoy this one. With Mission 5-7, I think this was executed brilliantly, but in The Final Reckoning, they struggle to fit all of these links to the previous films in a more organic way. Especially in the first act, the movie really feels bogged down by the implications of its title and it struggles to weave a natural thread through all seven previous movies. Many of the previous movies are very distinct in their own right, and are part of a franchise that has resisted the urge to be a more serialized entity (pun intended).  There’s even a montage of the earlier films near the beginning and much of the table setting in the first act is to ensure a new audience could be brought up to speed for The Final Reckoning, even if you haven’t seen the seven other movies that preceded it. Unfortunately, this is the first time I felt like my experience as a longtime fan was compromised in favour of accommodating a less invested audience. Now, I will say, as clumsy as some of this table-setting is, some other aspects callbacks are perfect. On the bad side, this amounts to a bit of a bloated first act and a moment in particular that just didn’t work for me, that felt more akin to an MCU-esque moment that surely only old fans of the franchise would even care about (which I guess makes my MCU comparison even more apt). On the positive side, the use of

‘Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning’ Review: This Is Why We Go to the Movies Read More »

‘Clown in a Cornfield’ Review – A Slasher That’s More Corny Than Clever

Reviews /

It’s no secret that I love the horror genre. From classic slashers to the more modern era of “elevated horror” (not my favourite term), there’s so many interesting and unique things to experience in the genre.  When I saw the trailer for Clown in a Cornfield at the theatre I was intrigued, but skeptical. I was a big fan of Tucker and Dale vs Evil, a horror comedy directed and co-written by Eli Craig, who is the co-writer and director for this. But the trailer lacked some of that originality or self awareness that Craig’s previous movie had and looked like a very generic horror slasher with a clown.  The film stars Katie Douglas, Aaron Abrams, Carson MacCormac, Kevin Durand, and Will Sasso. Douglas is our lead, Quinn, who moves from Philadelphia to the small town of Kettle Springs, Missouri. The psuedo town mascot is Frendo the clown, the actual mascot for the Baypen factory that historically has been the economic lifeblood of the community before it recently burned down.  So, is Clown in a Cornfield a-maize-ing fun, or just another corny catastrophe? My Thoughts Unfortunately, some of my instincts about this one were spot on. It’s not all bad though, and I’ll start with what I liked!  The Fendo costume and the kills were solid. They were a bit more gnarly than I was expecting (complimentary) and a bit more bloody too. So much of the movie takes place in the dark though, so much of that gore is hidden away by that.  There were also some jokes I liked throughout. There were flashes of smart humour, particularly around the Gen Z and baby boomer divide that were funny.  The cast in this was fine, too. Nobody stood out as incredibly good or bad, but this is also where I’m going to pivot to the negatives. While I didn’t think performances were bad, the characters on the page were definitely worse. The dialogue, especially at the beginning, was super clunky and inorganic, and the characters we’re introduced to really are paper thin and cliched horror movie characters.  Speaking of cliches, this script was absolutely FILLED with them. Now, I admittedly haven’t read the book this is based on to have an opinion on it as an adaptation, but as a movie on its own, I struggle to think of experience I’ve had that was more basic and by the numbers than this was. The narrative “twists” (and I never had used that term this loosely before) are so obvious and apparent from the outset basically that it gave me the feeling as if I had actually read the books and knew what to expect. Beyond that though, it’s all in here. We got city folk moving to the small town, we got the rowdy young kids and the grumpy boomers, we got a killer clown, we got a final girl that was forced to move here against her wishes (which of course is causing conflict with her dad), we got weird neighbors, we have sudden emotional backstories delivered via exposition, we’ve got small town parades, we’ve got a mayor (I think, anyway) delivering the big speech about small town values, we’ve got jocks, highschool bullies, and yes, parties in a barn out by the cornfield. By no means is this list comprehensive either. I’m intentionally not listing other cliches that would spoil parts of the film.  However, this on its own isn’t a point of negativity. Lots of movies, especially in the horror genre, are formulaic. However, the biggest sin this movie commits is that it does absolutely nothing, outside basically a single throwaway line, to acknowledge this or do anything with it. Tucker and Dale vs Evil was so funny, particularly in the first two acts, because it played with those stereotypes in a unique and fun way. My only issue with that movie is that the third act becomes a very generic horror movie, and unfortunately that’s where Clown in a Cornfield starts and ends.  As always, I want to keep details as vague as possible so as to not give things away, but the last point I needed to mention is the Gen Z vs Boomer dynamic of it all. I’m a millenial, so I’m not in either camp here, but the heavy handedness at points about this dynamic made my eyes roll out of my head. Delivering a big speech about how a generation is destroying the planet while the other has no respect for tradition at climatic moments just didn’t work for me at all and it screamed inauthentic, surface, and hollow.  Verdict Clown in a Cornfield has a few solid kills and the occasional laugh, but it’s buried under so many clichés it might as well be six feet deep. Unless you’re brand new to horror, you’ve seen this all before. Still, if you’re Gen Z and the premise still grabs you, it’s playing in theatres now!

‘Clown in a Cornfield’ Review – A Slasher That’s More Corny Than Clever Read More »

‘Final Destination Bloodlines’ Review – Death Is Back and Better Than Ever

Reviews /

It’s been 14 years since the last Final Destination movie and I, for one, thought the franchise was dead and buried. Thankfully, Final Destination Bloodlines, the sixth instalment in the series, brings some fresh blood to the lineage. I have a fondness for the Final Destination films, particularly the first three. As a kid, I spent a handful of summers at a cottage near Otter Lake. There was a small convenience store nearby that rented out DVDs. Our cottages came equipped with a DVD player, so us kids would trek over to the store and peruse the shelf and bring back the latest horror movies they had. This is how I watched most of the Saw franchise and the first three Final Destination movies. I was definitely too young to be watching these movies, and the gruesome mass accidents stayed with me. For the longest time, I couldn’t pass by a log truck on the highway without flashing back to the opening sequence of Final Destination 2. The idea that you could die horrifically in a freak accident tapped into some primal fear that I, and probably many others, had about the arbitrariness of death. Don’t get me wrong, these are not “good” movies. There’s nothing elevated about the horror in the Final Destination films, but that’s what makes them so fun. If you’ve seen one, you know exactly what you’re going to get with the rest. Someone gets a premonition of a gnarly freak accident with mass casualties and then stops it, narrowly evading Death, who subsequently comes knocking to claim the lives of those who escaped him one by one in increasingly elaborate and unlikely Rube Goldberg-like machinations involving everyday objects and scenarios. Bloodlines doesn’t reinvent the formula, but it doesn’t have to. After 14 years, something as silly and fun as this is a welcome change in the horror landscape. It scratches a similar itch as The Monkey did, which I aptly compared to Final Destination in the over-the-top silliness and gore of its deaths. If anything, Bloodlines feels right at home in the 2000s sensibility of the early Final Destination movies. It lacks any sense of specificity, and I say that as something that works in its favour. If the movie mentioned a specific city in which it was set, I can’t remember it. Aside from modern-looking cell phones and cars, there’s little sense that it takes place in a specific time, either. But it all works, because no one is coming to Final Destination for astute socio-cultural commentary—we’re here to see a bunch of people we don’t really care about die in creatively gruesome ways. The biggest compliment I can give Bloodlines is that it understands the assignment. The opening sequence is excellent, right up there with the best of the franchise, with a cheeky knowingness and humour that sets the tone right off the bat. While I said there’s nothing revolutionary here, what Bloodlines does bring is a sense of self-awareness that brings the franchise into a new era and makes it fit for horror audiences who have seen it all. The movie plays with expectations in a way that feels satisfying for both fans and newcomers, with a number of great pay-offs and subversions. The cast is also refreshingly made up largely of unknown or little-known actors, who all do a solid job. Among them, Richard Harmon’s Erik stands out as the snarky piercing-laden, tattoo-clad comic relief character. The late, legendary Tony Todd (Candyman, Final Destination), in his final film role, also brings some gravitas in his brief but memorable appearance. If I have one gripe, it’s that the movie could have benefitted from a slightly tighter runtime and a less rushed finale, but it never felt like it dragged too much. Ultimately, this is just a very fun movie. It’s not too serious, it’s clever and funny and gory, if a little too reliant on CGI blood. While it tries to make us care a little about the characters and their dramatic backstories, it undercuts those moments of seriousness in just the right ways. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen any of the other films in the franchise, but if anything, Bloodlines might even be the most polished movie in the series to date. Verdict Go see Final Destination Bloodlines with a group of friends in the most packed theatre you can find, and I guarantee you’ll have at least a fun time. For a largely dead franchise’s sixth entry, Bloodlines is surprisingly on the ball, with a fresh take on the formula, a great sense of humour and of audience expectations, and a game cast that gets to die in ridiculous(ly fun) ways.

‘Final Destination Bloodlines’ Review – Death Is Back and Better Than Ever Read More »

‘Sharp Corner’ Review – Ben Foster Shines in This Solid Slow-Burn Thriller

Reviews /

Listen, when I read about the premise of this movie on Twitter, I thought it seemed silly, but when I realized Ben Foster was the lead, I was much more interested.  Sharp Corner is about a family that moves into a new home located right on the bend of a very, wait for it, sharp corner where horrific car accidents keep happening. As many of you may know, I try to get as little information as possible about a movie before going in and I really don’t like trailers, but to help set some expectations, this is much more of a descent into madness type of thriller that’s darker tonally than the silly premise might suggest.  Ben Foster, like I mentioned before, is what really drew me to this movie. You may have seen Foster in movies like the 2007 remake of 3:10 to Yuma or Hell or High Water. He’s fantastic in everything I’ve seen him in, but especially in Hell or High Water and this role gives him a chance to play someone unlike other people he’s played.  So does Sharp Corner deliver thrilling turns, or should you steer clear before it wrecks your night? My Thoughts Let’s start with the obvious part. Foster absolutely kills it in this movie. He plays Josh in the film, a mild mannered guy with a wife and son (played by Cobie Smulders and William Kosovic, respectively) that seems very happy to more or less sit back in life. Foster sells this meekness so well in the earliest parts of the movie and gives an authenticity to a character that we’ve seen plenty of times before.  As he becomes increasingly affected by these accidents that are happening at his home, he shines with subtle changes and tweaks to the performance that feel true to the character were introduced to. While he doesn’t get much in the way of any crazy over the top kind of moments, which I really love, I also really appreciated the restraint to not go in that direction.  Foster really is the star of the show for this movie and it relies heavily (or almost even exclusively) on his shoulders, and he more than makes this movie worth a watch for his performance alone.  Keeping with the positives, I really loved the sound mixing in this movie! After the first accident we see, a lot of time is spent in the house and the background noise from the road is constantly heard. We could be eating dinner, talking in the kitchen, or whatever, but we hear every time a car approaches that corner. This builds a sort of tension, where at any minute an accident can plausibly occur.  Having only seen the movie once, I’m not sure if it was something they did, or if I just noticed it more as the movie went along, but I felt like it became more prominent as Josh’s obsession with these accidents grows. Whether it was because it was getting louder or more noticeable or because I was becoming more focused on another potential crash, this was an amazing touch that really made the movie draw stronger feelings out of me.  Moving on, I felt it was paced pretty well overall, but it definitely felt a bit slower as we approached the ending. I felt like this could have worked even better with 10 less minutes of it. It’s not even 2 hours long, so the pacing issues didn’t hurt it too badly or anything.  Once the movie gets going though, you immediately know where things are going and more or less how they will end up. For this movie, I think that’s fine. It doesn’t need some crazy twist or reveal or something weird for it to work. Between the interesting set-up and the performance from Foster, it’s enough to keep you engaged even if you’re not going to be surprised along the way.  Ultimately, what held me back the most from this movie was that despite the great performance, I just never got to a level where my emotions felt very strong about the movie itself. The stakes are relatively small throughout and we don’t get enough from the family at the beginning, or really as the movie progresses, to bring out any strong emotional attachment to them. So when things start going bad, I felt that I was more interested in it than I cared about it.  Verdict When it’s all said and done, I liked this movie! While it didn’t reach any kind of emotional highs, I was compelled enough by Ben Foster’s performance to be interested in the story and Josh’s obsession and descent into madness as the movie went on.  The technical side of the movie was very solid and enhanced the immersion effectively. This is only the second feature film for Canadian director Jason Buxton, and I was wholly impressed by him.  Sharp Corner is in theatres now, so grab your tickets and check this one out! 

‘Sharp Corner’ Review – Ben Foster Shines in This Solid Slow-Burn Thriller Read More »

‘No Experience Necessary’ Review – Everhard’s Talent Isn’t Just Emerging, It’s Arrived

Reviews /

I’ve got a confession: I used to scoff at short films. I never even watched the Oscar-nominated ones. But writer/director Emily Everhard has shown me how wrong I was. Shorts aren’t just stepping stones, they’re vital training grounds for fresh voices and bold ideas. Whiplash, The Babadook, and Napoleon Dynamite all started as shorts. In a world where every seemingly every movie costs $150 million, short films are where creativity thrives. And thanks to Emily, I’m officially done sleeping on them. You might remember Emily from my previous review of Special Delivery, an incredibly funny short film about a foley artist that falls for porn star during an ADR session. I absolutely loved it and when I was given the chance to review No Experience Necessary, Everhard’s latest short, I couldn’t say no.  No Experience Necessary premiered at the 35th Aspen Shortsfest, an Oscar-qualifying film festival recognized as one of the premier short film festivals in North America, and received the Jury Special Mention in Comedy! Does it reaffirm my newfound love for short films though, or was it a short-lived affair? My Thoughts No Experience Necessary, stars Brenda Wehle as Agatha, an elderly widow with two left feet (literally) who rediscovers joy when she enrolls in a dance class.  There’s two things that stick out to me most in Emily’s work: how funny they are but also how sincere they feel. The humour in this is a bit more understated than in Special Delivery, coming mostly from the radio or her answering machine in this one, but what it lacks in big laughs, it more than makes up for with genuine heart.  Brenda Wehle is excellent as Agatha who can convey so much emotion with just a look. Despite being a certified grandma’s boy, the fact I was so bought in was all due to the performance and the perfectly crafted moments in this short. Speaking of the craft, this looks top notch. Some shorts can lack visual polish just by their nature, but this just looks so clean. Emily’s confidence behind the camera is evident and it allowed me to quickly jump into the story without being distracted by any technical issues or imperfections.  I’m also impressed with the writing here. It’s not super flashy or anything, but my god is it clever and effective. It’s crazy how effortlessly I can completely fall into the wavelength of both of Emily’s shorts. It avoids feeling too melodramatic, which is often something that short’s rely on to try and draw out some feelings from the viewer, but in No Experience Necessary, the sincerity and authenticity shines through. It also manages to perfectly balance the sincere moments with the humour, so you don’t experience any tonal whiplash, which is all the more impressive when you remember this is a story where the main character has two left feet and signs up for a dance class. More than anything else though, I’m just so glad to watch something so genuine, optimistic, and uplifting.  Verdict Someone give Emily Everhard some money and let her COOK! I’ve seen two of her shorts now, and both blew me away. As someone who watches hundreds of movies a year, I’m constantly craving something that feels fresh, and Emily delivers it like it’s effortless.  I’ve talked a lot, both in reviews and on Talkies, about movies that give us a flash of boldness but fall back on clichés and manufactured emotion that create something that ultimately feels disjointed. Emily’s work avoids these issues completely though. She seamlessly weaves absurdity, comedy, and heart with a confidence that feels rare, even amongst big budget features. No Experience Necessary isn’t just a strong short, it’s proof that Emily Everhard is ready to take the next step into features. And when she does, I’ll be the first in line to watch it!

‘No Experience Necessary’ Review – Everhard’s Talent Isn’t Just Emerging, It’s Arrived Read More »