Paramount Pictures - Screen Love Affair

‘Passenger’ Review – Don’t Stop for This One

Buckle up because today we’re reviewing Passenger, the latest from Paramount Pictures. The film was directed by André Øvredal and written by T.W. Burgess and Zachary Donohue. The film stars Jacob Scipio and Lou Llobell as Tyler and Maddie, two lovers leaving the big city and committing to van life. Unfortunately for Tyler and Maddie, a hitchhiking demon is not letting them live the van life alone. Verdict We like to give our verdict upfront so if you’re looking for just a quick recommendation, this is the review for you! Unfortunately, I can’t recommend this movie and Passenger gets a firm “hate” rating from me on the Heart-o-Meter. I saw the film at an early advanced screening, with a lot of free tickets given out to other people, and there was a lot of phone and watch checking going on. Not to respond to texts but to note the time, which is always a bad sign! If you want some more spoiler free thoughts about why I feel this way about the movie, let’s dig into that. My Thoughts My biggest issue honestly was the relationship story at the core of this movie. I’ve really ragged on the movie Abigail, and if you’re a long time listener of the Screen Love Affair Podcast, you’ll know that that’s a movie I pick on quite often because of the way it forces these serious beats in a movie that doesn’t really require them. This movie might be my new reference point for this though, because most of this film, which is supposed to be about a demon hitchhiker, is actually very serious. The relationship at the core of this movie is so prominent that I found it really hurt the pacing because I just never got to a point where I really cared enough about Maddie and Tyler to be invested in what happens to them in the film, let alone about their relationship and their problems. And I don’t mean to pick on the van life hippies, but they even forced serious themes about the van life thing into the film. They each explain how Tyler was raised in a home where maybe there was some abuse or at the very least that he didn’t have a good home life, while Maddie was a foster kid who constantly didn’t have a home. That leads to them having an argument about whether van life is good and how it’s his dream because of his trauma and it’s her nightmare because of her trauma. I understand functionally how this could be plausible, but I didn’t need this moment where we explored the deeper reasons for their disagreement about van life because it felt so forced and silly that I just felt like we were wasting time getting to the whole demon aspect of the film. Speaking of the demon, we can’t talk about Passenger with talking about The Passenger. Of course this name is given to him in the film during one of those obligatory bad horror movie research sequences where we’re reading books and we’re Googling stuff and landing on these websites with the blood red fonts to exposit all the lore. On the design side, The Passenger is kind of generic and feels derivative of a lot of other demonic spirits we’ve seen in other films. Functionally too, The Passenger barely felt like a threat. Two thirds of the kills in the movie happen in the cold open. There is very little in the way of horror sequences throughout the film and the movie itself doesn’t really reconcile with this either because it demonstrates that it can kill quickly and suddenly, but of course, because Maddie and Tyler are the main characters it just messes with them every once in a while. The kills themselves were not particularly great either, with only one standing out to me as even sort of memorable. I also want to talk quickly about the camera work here because there’s this part in the cold open where the camera rotates from inside the car and it’s a really effective shot that builds tension. Unfortunately, they clearly like that shot because they use it again later in the film in a parking lot. Unfortunately, the execution this time was significantly worse, whipping around way too fast so I couldn’t even see anything and instead of building tension, it just gave me a headache. I’m not a motion smoothing guy (please check if you have this enabled on your TV and disable it), but this shot almost needed it. I mentioned the pacing a bit earlier, but it was way off in this movie. It felt much closer to two hours but it was only 94 minutes long. That’s a real problem and all the things we’ve talked about contribute to that pacing; Minimal spooky sequences, barely any kills, and lots of time devoted to the relationship between Maddie and Tyler. Overall, this movie just felt like a really bad horror flick from the late 2000s or early 2010s and Paramount really dropped the ball releasing this a week after Obsession came out. If you’re reading this review because you’re considering a trip to the theater to go see a horror movie this weekend, go see Obsession instead.Also, if you’ve already seen Obsession, be sure to check out our episode of the Screen Love Affair Podcast from earlier this week, where we dive right into the spoilers of all of the things going on in that movie!

‘Passenger’ Review – Don’t Stop for This One Read More »

The Naked Gun (2025): Funny Enough to Walk Free

Reviews / Shea Angus

“Surely you can’t be serious! I am serious and don’t call me Shirley.” Long before I knew the movie, I knew that moment from the 1980 film Airplane. Airplane was a turning point in the career of fellow Canadian Leslie Nielsen, an established working actor known for playing more serious roles before playing Dr. Rumack in Airplane. The concept was simple: take serious actors and have them play their characters completely straight in an absurdist comedic movie. The movie was a hit and from this point on, Nielsen was known for his deadpan comedy and established himself as a comedic legend up until his death in 2010. Airplane was a smash hit and led to the short lived TV show Police Squad, which then became a film in 1988’s The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! The movie spawned two sequels and now in 2025 it’s been remade without Nielsen and with a whole new creative team. I absolutely adore Nielsen, Airplane, and the Police Squad/Naked Gun movies and shows, so to say I was skeptical about a Naked Gun reboot would be an understatement. We are in the IP era, where studios are seemingly petrified about taking risks to create the next new thing, and instead look for established names with goodwill from the audience to make their money. So, is this reboot criminally unfunny or does The Naked Gun get away with enough laughs to beat the rap? My Thoughts First, we need to talk about Liam Neeson, who plays Frank Drebin Jr., the son of Leslie Nielsen’s original Frank Drebin. Overall, I think Neeson is good in the role. Considering he was given a near-impossible task (in my opinion, anyway), good is probably the best I could have hoped for. The rest of the cast is also solid, including Pamela Anderson, Paul Walter Hauser, Kevin Durand, Danny Huston, and CCH Pounder. Although there’s a decently sized supporting cast, it’s really only Neeson, Anderson, and Huston that get much screentime. I would’ve loved to see more Paul Walter Hauser, but he did great in the moments he did have. Continuing with the positives, the movie is only 85 minutes long, and it’s crammed full of jokes. Even if some don’t land for you, the good news is you’ll be peppered with five more in the next minute, so you won’t even remember that you didn’t laugh at an earlier bit. The movie delivers a steady amount of chuckles and even got a few hearty belly laughs out of me, too. Without question, the movie is funny, and I think that most people that go and see this will have a great time with it, but I’m personally a bit more torn on it. On the surface, I enjoyed myself and I laughed quite a bit, but when the credits began (which have plenty of jokes in them too and, yes, there is a post-credits scene) I was just thinking about how much I love the originals. If you’ve listened to our podcast at all, you’ll know that we often talk about expectations and what can happen if you bring your own baggage into a movie. This is where the downside of the IP era really hits me, because despite my best efforts to leave my expectations at home, I can’t go into a movie called The Naked Gun and not think about Leslie Nielsen, the previous three movies, and the original show. For new audiences and young people that don’t have that attachment, this won’t register at all, and I don’t expect my experience to be what most people experience. For what it’s worth, I had friends with me that have seen and love the originals and had a more enjoyable time than I did. In that vein, this movie does mostly carry on the spirit of the Naked Gun, but it also leaves behind some of the charms of the originals, too. I read a few things ahead of the release that noted the filmmakers were trying to bring that “old school” kind of comedy to a new audience, and while I can respect that goal, the moderness of this new reboot was what I disliked the most. This manifests most noticeably for me in the visuals and the overall look of the film. It feels too digital, and I was craving more obviously created sets and gags related to that. Even when the classic “noir” jazz music was playing during driving and transition scenes, it just never felt right with the modern look of Los Angeles and because they did nothing creatively to make it feel old school or even funny. Perhaps they thought too much of an “old look” would be a deterrent to modern audiences or something, but when I have such a concrete sense of what a Naked Gun movie should be, if you make one that’s missing some of those same hallmarks, it stands out. Now you might be thinking “This guy is making a bit too big of a fuss over an 85-minute studio comedy” and that’s a totally valid criticism, but I don’t think it’s “wrong” to compare the new Naked Gun to its own namesake. If anything, watching this movie made me want to see this creative team do something original and bring that old school comedic thought to a more modern audience in a way that’s more relevant. When Police Squad first hit the airwaves in the 80’s, police procedurals were all over the place and incredibly prominent in the culture, and the idea was to parody and spoof them. Rebooting the Naked Gun in 2025 feels a little weird in an era when cop movies are just not really made that often anymore. Still, when all is said and done, The Naked Gun is better than I expected but not as good as I wanted it to be. Verdict I was incredibly torn on how to rate this movie, but after thinking it through,

The Naked Gun (2025): Funny Enough to Walk Free Read More »

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

Reviews / Shea Angus

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 »

‘Novocaine’ Review – Jack Quaid Takes a Beating in This Fun Action Comedy

Reviews / Shea Angus

R.E.M. told us that everybody hurts, but do they? Jack Quaid, who plays Nate in Novocaine, the latest release from Paramount Pictures, certainly doesn’t. Nate is a lonely, mild-mannered assistant manager at a local bank who has a rare disorder that prevents him from feeling pain. After falling for his co-worker Sherry, played by Amber Midthunder, their bank is robbed and Sherry is taken hostage. Fueled by love, Nate sets out on a mission to rescue the girl of his dreams. That’s all you really should know going into this movie. As always, I checked out the trailers after watching the movie and I definitely suggest you avoid them if you’re interested in checking this one out. It’s not the kind of movie with massive twists and turns, but so many moments that I enjoyed while I watched are shown in the trailer that I’m grateful I was able to experience the whole movie without knowing certain moments were coming. If you need a taste of the marketing, the best promo for this movie came from Jack Quaid himself at a Clippers game, where he looked more beat up as the night went on. The film was directed by Dan Berk and Robert Olsen and was written by Lars Jacobson. Quaid and Midthunder are joined by Ray Nicholson, Jacob Batalon, Betty Gabriel, and Matt Walsh who flesh out the supporting cast in this action comedy film. Nicholson (yes he’s Jack Nicholson’s son) plays one of the bank robbers, while Batalon plays Nate’s gaming buddy, and Gabriel and Walsh play detectives working to solve the case. So, did Novocaine leave me love-struck or did I wish I was numb to the whole thing? Let’s dive in! My Thoughts Honestly, it might have been a general lack of awareness about the marketing and pretty minimal expectations, but I had a lot of fun with this movie! First off, I’m a sucker for a good needle drop and this movie has some absolutely fantastic ones, including right at the beginning of the opening credits. From the opening titles though to one of my all time favourite songs from The Darkness, they absolutely nailed these song choices and they work so well at these certain points in the movie. It’s not a make or break kind of thing, but it can’t be overstated how much fun a stellar soundtrack can be. Anyway, song choices aren’t the only parts I liked. Jack Quaid as Nate was so perfect. I first saw Quaid in The Boys and most recently in Companion (not ‘The’ Companion, Brandon) and he definitely knows how to use his physicality (or, I guess, lack thereof) to his advantage in these different roles. In Companion he plays a dweeby bastard to perfection, but in Novocaine he’s much closer to his performance as Hughie in The Boys. He’s definitely a sheltered dork, but he has an undeniable charm and likability to him that made me immediately drawn to him and invested in his well-being. It’s because of this care I had for his character that makes what he endures so impactful as an audience member too. He may not be able to feel pain, but I felt some of that pain on his behalf as the movie progressed. This was another high point of the movie for me, too, because I was really impressed with how well they play with the premise and how well they build up the moments that genuinely had me and others in our audience audibly groan in anticipation of what’s going to happen or wincing when it finally does. Whether I was laughing, wincing, or groaning though, I was constantly engaged and invested in these moments and really had a lot of fun with them. I was a bit more mixed with some of the writing though. There were some nifty little moments that I won’t spoil here that surprised me and felt like clever little departures I didn’t expect the movie to make, but there were also moments where the cliches and some cheesy melodramatic lines made my eyes roll a little bit. It’s definitely a more middling script, but the main cast and their chemistry in particular elevated the material. Speaking of the main cast, I was blown away by how much I enjoyed the first act of the movie, particularly with how much I bought into Nate and Sherry. The chemistry between Quaid and Midthunder was fantastic and I thoroughly enjoyed their dynamic. I think this was so important for making the rest of the movie work, because if you really want him to save her, it makes you more engaged as the adventure unfolds. It’s not like I was deeply emotionally invested or anything, but I was eager as I was watching it and it definitely made a big impact on my viewing experience. I can’t say the same for all of the supporting cast though. At best, I thought Walsh and, to a lesser degree, Gabriel were fine as the detectives investigating the robbery. They don’t have crazy prominent roles or anything, I just didn’t really care for them much when they were on screen. I was also mixed on Jacob Batalon, as Nate’s gaming buddy. He had some good moments, but I found his comedic relief character was more distracting and less funny in a movie that didn’t really need his character to add more comedy. Nicholson unfortunately did absolutely nothing for me as the main bad guy. He didn’t draw strong feelings out of me either way, so I didn’t really hate his character or anything, but I also didn’t think he did anything to stand out as an over the top villain either. These gripes are all fairly minor though as Quaid and Midthunder were the most prominent roles and they definitely both nailed it. The only other real issue I had was with the runtime and pacing. The movie sort of stumbled into the credits as it lost some

‘Novocaine’ Review – Jack Quaid Takes a Beating in This Fun Action Comedy Read More »

September 5 Review — A Tense Look at the Munich Crisis Through the Eyes of the Media

Reviews / Shea Angus

The last of my coverage from the Austin Film Festival (AFF) is with this review for the upcoming film, September 5. September 5 was co-written and directed by Tim Fehlbaum, a Swiss film director in his first mainstream feature film. Moritz Binder and Alex David join Tim as co-writers. The film chronicles the 1972 Munich Olympic hostage crisis, but what makes this movie more unique is that it’s all from the perspective of the ABC Sports crew that was managing one of the first ever live coverage broadcasts. The cast that fills out that ABC Sports crew is an impressive one that includes Peter Sarsgaard (Jarhead, Batman 2022) and John Magaro (The Big Short). The supporting cast includes Ben Chaplin, Leonie Benesch, and Zinedine Soualem among others! So, should you tune in to September 5 or change the channel? My Thoughts September 5 is a solid movie that did a lot of things right. First of all, I was completely unfamiliar with the 1972 Munich Olympic hostage crisis and if you don’t know much about that incident, I assume the movie is a bit more compelling overall to you. With that said, the strength of the movie isn’t really in the hostage crisis itself, but the ABC Sports team that is in Munich to cover the Olympics. I really enjoyed this perspective as a way to make the movie feel a bit more unique than other movies like it. The added layer is that they were first a sports crew and not a news team, but also that this incident was a first of its kind with live footage being broadcast during the crisis itself. Something we’re all too familiar with in 2024. While this offers an interesting perspective, it’s also a pretty big risk because almost all of the movie takes place in the building the ABC crew is broadcasting from and so you can’t place the audience anywhere in the crisis itself, except for what the live cameras can show us in the room. I definitely think this risk pays off for the most part, especially towards the end of the movie. Without giving away any spoilers, as the hostage crisis concludes, the final location is completely dark both literally and in the sense that there are no cameras to really see what is happening. If, like me, you had no idea how the hostage crisis ends, you and the news team are left in the same position, wondering what is happening and struggling to balance reports about what actually occurred. Regardless of the narrative, for a movie like this to succeed, the cast needs to be incredibly strong, and they certainly were. The biggest standout for me was definitely John Magaro, who was effectively running the live coverage from the control room. His character starts his shift with some questions floating around about his qualifications to even call the coverage for the Olympics, but then as the hostage crisis unfolds, he’s forced to make some major decisions that will be seen by millions around the world. He really does carry the bulk of the movie on his shoulders, but everyone around him (especially Peter Sarsgaard, Ben Chaplin, and Leonie Benesch) does a fantastic job as their characters challenge and support him throughout the crisis. With all of that said though, the movie really struggled to elevate itself to something truly great for me. I did see this in the middle of a full day at AFF, but the movie ultimately struggled a bit with the pacing. I just felt a lack of momentum, especially as the ending built more to a confusing and unclear moment instead of something more concrete. This makes sense given that the ABC Sports crew was in the same boat as the audience is in terms of not knowing, but it just struggled a bit to build and maintain momentum for me. This is definitely part of the downside of the risk I mentioned earlier about keeping the focus so tightly on the ABC crew, when there were moments occuring that would have been more interesting to see outside the control room. To be clear, I’m not making a case of “Oh the movie would have been more interesting if it did something differently,”. Firstly, because I’m not sure that’s even true, but more importantly I don’t really believe in that kind of criticism. The idea that a movie is different than what you wanted or expected and is therefore not as good, is very hollow criticism to me. What I mean here is that I found my mind being more drawn to what’s actually happening in the crisis while the movie was trying to make me more compelled by what was happening in the control room. While I found the conflict in the control room interesting, it still wasn’t as interesting as the conflict they were covering. One thing I also feel compelled to mention is the apparent controversy that is already brewing ahead of the film’s wide release. For those unaware, without spoiling the movie at all, the hostages that were taken were Israeli coaches and athletes and they were taken by Palestinian terrorists. When I went to log the film on Letterboxd (you can follow Adriana and I on there) the top review said “I’m sorry, but it felt like watching Israeli propaganda.” Further, there was speculation that the film was rejected from the Toronto International Film Festival because of the ongoing Israeli and Palestinian conflict. For what it’s worth, I do disagree with the idea that this feels like Israeli propaganda, but it’s obviously hard to not think about the movie while ignoring the ongoing conflict. I think the movie itself is very focused on the time and the situation and it never felt preachy to me or anything like that either. It was very much about the ABC Sports crew and them having to pivot and cover the crisis. The text blurbs that appeared at the end

September 5 Review — A Tense Look at the Munich Crisis Through the Eyes of the Media Read More »