Author: fenrisfil

Alien: Earth (2025) Episodes 1-3

Posted on by fenrisfil

While I don’t normally review TV shows, I simply have too much to say about the new Disney Plus Alien franchise show from Noah Hawley, to just let it slide. So this will be a discussion and review of the firsts three episodes. I may do an update after episodes 4-6 have landed. This will have spoilers, but nothing major (Because there isn’t really anything major to spoil yet).

Alien: Earth is the tenth and latest live action entry in the Aliens franchise (Including the two Predator crossover movies). This is a franchise that really doesn’t feel like it’s on it’s tenth entry, but it’s worth noting that SIX of these entries are prequels. Five entries are set before the original Alien movie and one is set in between that and it’s sequel, Aliens. To be fair, two are the Predator crossovers and those are very much in a different continuity (Especially since Xenomorphs shouldn’t exist before the events of Prometheus). However we still have four prequels and the issue that the franchise hasn’t actually moved forward in time since “Alien Resurrection” in 1997. Ridley Scott’s prequels at least had a reason to be prequels.

Synopsis

So following on from the mild box office success and equally mild viewer disappointment of “Alien:Romulus” (Set between Alien and Aliens), we have another prequel. This time set before any of the main series films, including the original. Technically this TV show is the follow up to Alien: Covenant (Set 16 years after the events in that film). The story begins with a Weyland-Yutani space ship crashing down to Earth after the dangerous alien lifeforms it was transporting for study break out of containment and cause havoc. The vessel crashes into a territory controlled by a rival corporation, immediately causing a conflict.

The rival corporation, “Prodigy” (A bit of an on-the-nose name for a new corporation created by a child prodigy), seems to be primarily interested in creating androids with human consciousness. Their technology limits them to working with children and so they take terminally ill children and effectively grant them immortality by giving them adult android bodies. Sticking with the painfully on-the-nose theme, their research center is called “Neverland” and the first child transferred to an android is named “Wendy” (Sydney Chandler). Of course the story of Peter Pan was about children not wanting to become adults, while here the children are forced into adulthood early and for all eternity. But no doubt they thought they were being clever with the reference.

The Global Mega Corporations

It’s worth noting the Weyland-Yutani Corporation has a very minimal presence in this story despite it being their space craft. The focus is far more on the new Prodigy corporation invented for this show. This of course gives the writers a chance to explore new ideas without impacting canon too much. However it must be noted, it does still impact canon and they would have had far more freedom had they simply not made this a prequel. So while the movies focus on Weyland-Yutani’s story, the awkwardly named “New” corporation will now have a retrospective presence throughout the first four Alien films and Romulus.

It’s also worth noting that the exposition thrown in to the opening scene is an major lore change for the Aliens universe. Previously while corporations were obviously powerful and dangerous in this universe, the Earth wasn’t ruled by “The five mega-corporations”. This is a new (Somewhat generic) Dystopian addition to the lore of the universe and it does significantly re-frame the previous movies. Now the blue collar crew of the Nostromo were never just regular working people, they were people oppressed by a mega corporation that routinely sacrificed human life for the corporate good. In that regard the actions of their android Ash are no longer surprising in any way.

Aesthetics

Exposition dump and lore change aside, the opening scene of the first episode is actually a high point. The scene displays the effort that has gone into set design and wardrobe. This pairs off well with a soundtrack clearly inspired by the original Alien. This was a very good start even if I found the exposition a bit too obviously. I also noticed the “One of everything” diversity in the casting, this is present throughout the show. Not a deal breaker for sure, but even in the future it seems unlikely every group of people will have an exact balance of gender and ethnicity. Overall the opening was good up until the point the Xenomorph appeared. The problem here was it really moved like a human being and looked non-organic.

Now I am fairly certain this is a CGI alien, so the movement must come from the motion capture and it’s odd how they must have gone to a lot of effort to have the Alien totally fail to move in an alien like manner. Why even do motion capture for such a creature? The fact that when you see the Alien up close it looks like it’s made of rubber and the end result if you have a CGI Xenomorph that looks like a dude in a rubber suit. Not good. He brute forces his way around the place like Jason Voorheese. It is rare in this show (So far) that the Alien actually acts like the Alien monsters we know.

Creatures and Characters

What does add some welcome variety to the show though is the presence of additional aliens and for me, while their CGI effects are also somewhat lacking, they are the most interesting aspect of this show. Outside of the Engineers and proto-xenomorphs, we haven’t seen other alien lifeforms in the Aliens series. It’s also not something that is likely to damage canon . I especially liked the Eyeball Spider thing that pops up in episode two. It’s worth noting though none of these creatures are very much sidelined in the story. By the third episode it seems their role may even be totally done with for the series now. If that is the case, that would be a waste.

Character wise I am only really interested in Timothy Olyphant android scientist and Babou Ceesay cyborg (And sole agent for Weyland-Yutani). I don’t find the human children in android bodies at all interesting, nor do I care about Wendy and her still human brother Joseph. Those two are meant to be the shows protagonists but they have very little chemistry or conflict (With Joe accepting Wendy as his sister very quickly). They are both fairly bland characters with little in the way of agency outside of Wendy’s desire to reunite with and protect her brother. I find the whole idea of having android’s with human consciousness as your primary focus a bad idea as it essentially turns this into superheroes vs Aliens.

Superheroes Vs Aliens

The biggest problem with the show is there are no real stakes. As a result there is little to actually generate fear or tension. The show has to entirely rely on the atmosphere it can generate with the aesthetic because they neutered the story. As a prequel, we know this isn’t the end for The Earth. Indeed we know that it had so little impact that Ripley and friends had no knowledge of the incident. This leaves the show caught between plot holes and being too neatly wrapped up. Neither is good. But add to that how most of the people now facing the Aliens are superhuman android hybrids and we have very little actual threat at all. This reduces tension and fear. Last but not least, I simply don’t care about these characters. All I have left is enjoying the aesthetics.

The first episode featured most of the good material so far. I was dazzled by the set design. The hybrid android stuff dragged the pace and the episode felt generally slow, but it was a solid start. The Xenomorph was a bit strange, but at least we got to see it. The second episode was a step down. Directing became sloppy and the Alien continued to look and act wrong. A couple of good scenes avoided total disaster, but overall it was disappointing. Episode three improved marginally and we actually got a lot of character development. But it also had a Xenomorph dealt with far too easily and totally off screen. The creature is still moving like a guy doing motion capture. Most annoyingly though, just as it was looking like things were going to really kick off, instead they hit a reset button and slowed things down again.

Conclusion

It’s now clear these first three episodes are effectively a prologue. Which means the pace is very unlikely to pick up. Alien: Earth is a mixed bag. They have definitely got some things right, but they got a lot wrong too. The pacing is a big issue, but somewhat expected as a TV series. A larger problem is the decision to make this a prequel. “Alien Resurrection”, which is still the last Alien film continuity-wise, ended with a ship with Aliens on crashing to Earth. This series could have been a direct follow up to that with only minimal changes. Instead they made it a prequel and that seems to add nothing of value while making almost every creative event in the show a canon violation, many of which will be deal breakers for fans.

The one thing I can never accept is when a new franchise entry does something that diminishes the original and most loved films. Those original franchise entries that everything else is built on top of. This show appears to do that. But we won’t really know how bad until it is over. For now it is just above the line where I am willing to stick with it. The set design is great. The world building is interesting, though often feels like a different science fiction series and not Alien (It’s very Cyberpunk). That world building also becomes a negative when it messes with canon. By episode three the characters are actually starting to develop some personality, though I can’t say I like them just yet.

Ratings and Recommendation

In my view if you are a more casual fan, you may well enjoy this show. Providing you don’t mind the slow pace. If you are a big Aliens fan though, you may want to hold off for a bit until the series is all available. Then we can assess just how badly it violates canon and if the Xenomorphs finally start acting more like the cunning, stealthy monsters they are. My ratings for the episodes so far:

Episode One – 6.5/10 – Mostly good due to the aesthetics, but some questionable effects, plot choices and pace.
Episode Two – 5.5/10 – Sloppy Seconds, still slow, but getting goofy in places too. Cool eyeball spider though. Lots of gore.
Episode Three – 6/10 – Disappointing fight between android and Alien concluding off screen. The show is getting even slower, but at least the characters are showing some personality.


Series Average = 6/10 – Slow and inconsistent with major canon issues. However excellent set designs and aesthetics and a plot that I am at least curious to see where it goes will keep me watching… for now.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

The Naked Gun (2025)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Hollywood rarely does original these days and comedy reboots are becoming increasingly common. So it was only a matter of time before someone tried to reboot “The Naked Gun” (1988). I hear you saying “Reboot the naked Gun? Surely you can’t be serious?” and to which I say “That gag doesn’t work in text form very well”. Anyway, filling the shoes of Leslie Neilson in the movie franchise that made him a household name is not an easy task. Initially I wasn’t even going to watch this. I just couldn’t see anyone making a reboot movie that was even a touch on the original. On top of this, the 2020’s is not a decade that has been very kind to comedy. My hopes were rock bottom. Then I saw the trailer and it was actually funny. I decided it was worth a shot.

So stepping into those shoes is veteran Actor Liam Neeson. Not because he has the same initials, but because he’s a serious actor that has shown he can do comedy with a relatively straight face. The casting makes sense. Neeson though is very hit and miss with his movies. He’s not someone that can make an underwhelming script shine. Every now and then though he drops a gem. He is joined by Pamela Anderson, continuing her comeback story. Another casting choice that makes sense for a reboot. This is not a remake though, nor is it a true sequel. It’s a reboot that is set in the same universe as the original. Neeson is playing Frank Drebin’s son (Frank Drebin jr). Given his age, this only really makes sense if he was from a past relation before the original film. Not that these things matter in a comedy like this.

The New Version

The movie is directed by former Saturday Night Live writer Akiva Schaffer. I’m not familiar with his work but he’s had some success. Seth MacFarlane is the lead producer and was responsible for taking the Naked Gun series from David Zucker who had been making his own pitch for a continuation. Zucker’s version would have featured a younger son who wouldn’t be a cop, but would inadvertently get caught up in a spy story. MacFarlane was more after a straight reboot as he’s been a very vocal fan of Zucker’s comedy style for many years. Family Guy has endless “Airplane!” references. MacFarlane is not scripting this however. Instead Schaffer is joined by Dan Gregor and Doug Mand.

Our story opens with the bank raid from the trailer. Drebin heroically foils the robber but is unaware that the real target was a safety deposit box. It’s contents, an electron device labeled “P.L.O.T. Device” has already been removed from the bank before Drebin’s heroics. His next case sees him investigating the death of a Software Engineer and introduces him to the engineers sister Beth (Anderson). The two cases end up related and Frank finds himself trying to stop a megalomaniac from causing a type of Armageddon. Through all this, Frank is trying to find his own place in the world and make his deceased father proud.

But Is It Funny?

So, is this movie funny and how does it compare to the original? First, yes the movie is funny. It’s not a classic. Many of the jokes don’t land. A couple are dragged out beyond their welcome and become boring. Many of the better jokes were spoiled by the trailers. But there are some jokes that land and for a modern comedy it has a pretty solid laugh per minute ratio. However, The Naked Gun movies are some of the funniest ever made. No so much the third, though it is fine. But the first two have an insane laughs per minute ratio, probably only beaten by the comedy masterpiece that is “Airplane!” (1980). After viewing this relaunch I went home and watched the original. Seven minutes in I realized I’d already laughed more than I did for the entire of the 2025 movie. Not good.

The funniest scene in the movie is partially spoiled by the trailer and appears to be a knock off of an Austin Powers joke. That didn’t stop me laughing at it. There is also a a great scene in a nightclub that was obviously inspired by “Airplane!” and I’m okay with that little nod. There’s a few good car jokes thrown in too and a recurring coffee gag. All of which had me laugh. That may seem like a lot of praise but if I made a list like this for the original Naked Gun It’d take me a year to complete. The originally had some lesser jokes, but none fell flat. There is a lot here that had me roll my eyes. The worst joke here is an overly drawn out gag that I can only described as a misplaced Family Guy cutaway. I was bored.

Liam and Pamela

But what about the actors? Liam Neeson is actually quite good at comedy and he was a good choice to attempt to fill Leslie Neilson’s boots. The problem is, those shoes cannot be filled. It’s like trying to replace Peter Sellers in “The Pink Panther” franchise. It is doomed to fail. They’ve actually failed twice already with replacing Sellers and now Eddie Murphy is going to try (And no doubt fail). If anything replacing Neilson is an even more impossible task. The man had a unique gift of being able to deliver virtually any form of comedy as if he is in the most serious of dramatic movies. Neeson meanwhile overplays it. Where Leslie’s comedy felt almost accidental, Liam’s feels like an intentional parody. On the other hand Pamela Anderson is every bit as good as Priscilla Presley and I really hope she does more comedy. She nailed it.

The rest of the cast is pretty much inconsequential. It’s not the actors fault, they just aren’t given anything to work with. The new Nordberg doesn’t even have a part beyond the OJ Simpson joke that was in all the trailers. The new Ed is just goofy and sort of hangs around with little to do but drink coffee. The villain, played by Danny Huston about as generic villain as you can get. He’s certainly no Ricardo Montalban (His counterpart from the original). I couldn’t help but notice that the entire villainous plot is ripped off of “Kingsman”. It wouldn’t have been so bad had they actually done a parody of the infamous church scene. Sadly original is the last thing anyone would describe this film as.

Conclusion

Criticism aside though, did I enjoy the film? Mildly. I think ultimately this was a bad idea. Some actors can’t be replaced, Leslie Neilson is one. There’s also only so many jokes you can make about an old maverick ass kicking cop. David Zucker pitched a very different Naked Gun sequel that involved taking the film in a different direction. I really wish we’d gotten that film instead. But it is what it is. The good news is that a lot of the comedy here is the kind of thing that many thought you could no longer get away with. While that is good, if we are going to get a resurgence in the genre, it needs to also find some originality. I’m not sure that will happen. Instead we’ll get another “Scary Movie” film, “Space Balls 2”, and a third attempt at a “Pink Panther” reboot.

As for this movie. It is worth watching. It is funny. But it’s no classic. Frankly, this is not worth a trip to the cinema. But catch it when it is on streaming for a spot of nostalgia and a few good laughs. If you find you enjoy it, stay for the credits as there are jokes in them and a post credit scene. Best I can give this is a 6/10. Mild recommendation.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

Superman (2025)

Posted on by fenrisfil

The moment has finally come for James Gunn’s relaunch of the shared DC cinematic universe. Starting like the previous incarnation with the introduction of Superman. Unlike Snyder’s version and unlike the MCU, this isn’t starting with a world that doesn’t know superheroes. Marvel built up slowly from Iron Man, bringing in heroes one by one. In later years they’ve retconned heroes to have been around longer and begun to flood their world with them. It’s easy to forget how slow they started. Snyder’s DCEU however started with a world new to superheroes, but post “Man of Steel” it rushed them in with a determination to reach an “Avengers” level pay off as fast as possible. That method failed. Gunn however decided to start with a world well aware of meta-humans. The big names will still get their introductions though and Superman, the most powerful hero, is still a game changer.

A lot is riding on this movie. We are in an era of superhero fatigue. In 2006 when “Superman Returns” came out, you could be sure to hit near the half billion mark with a superhero movie, without much concern. By the time “Man of Steel” came around that was close to a billion. But times have changed. The superhero frenzy, mostly driven by Marvel, peaked with End Game and then fell off a cliff. Covid impacted things too, making movie goers fussier about what they pay to see in theatres. The quality declined with superhero movies and TV shows and yet their numbers continued to grow. The market was saturated and the audience got bored of it all. The DCEU failed and attempts to course correct failed worse. There is only room for one more shot at a DC cinematic universe and this is it.

A New Era

Enter James Gunn, departing Marvel after a somewhat rocky relationship. Unfortunately, Zack Snyder’s fan base wasn’t going to take this lying down. They’ve gone out of their way to cast doubt on this new venture. Hard to say if it has caused real damage. It has however earned them the reputation of most toxic fanbase on the internet (Few fandoms genuinely deserve the “Toxic” label, this is one). Gunn has not helped sell the movie either, making too much of the promotion about himself, instead of focusing on the charismatic appeal of David Corensweat. The trailers also gave the wrong impression on a lot of aspects of the movie that the Snyder Bro’s took advantage of. Still, it wasn’t all bad. Most people went in thinking the movie could go either way and the pressure was definitely on.

Gunn decided to write and direct this movie personally instead of give this huge responsibility to another party. Whether he’ll be as hands on with the DCU in future remains to be seen. But here it made sense. Even if some were concerned that Gunn would make it too comedic. Long time Gunn collaborators Henry Braham and John Murphy take on cinematography and compositional duties respectively. Murphy shares credits with David Fleming and it has to be noted a good part of the music is a reworking of John Williams “Superman March”. Sensible choice given how well recognised that theme is. David Corenswet takes on the cape as Superman/Clark Kent. Rachel Brosnahan becomes the latest in a long tine of actresses to play Lois Lane. Last but not least, Nicholas Hoult steps into the roll of Lex Luthor, previously played by Kevin Spacey, Jesse Eisenberg and of course Gene Hackman.

Up Up And Away!

After a brief summary of events prior to the movie (Metahumans being common, Superman’s arrival on Earth and revealing himself to the public), we are launched right into the action. Superman has stopped a military incursion of what appears to be an Eastern European nation into a third world country. As a result a previously unknown hero from that country has launched an attack on Metropolis with the intent of fighting Superman. Shockingly, Kal-El is having his ass kicked. Don’t worry, this will all make sense in time. After a brief rescue by a badly behaved Krypto the super-dog, and rejuvination in his fortress of solitude Superman returns to the fray. This isn’t his only battle. The controversy of his decision to intervene in other countries affairs has given him a political backlash along with a growing one one on social media.

Of course the megalomaniac Lex Luthor is behind this. The evil genius is working two simultaneous plans, the most significant one being the destruction of Superman. Lex wants to destroy him both in name and in person. As a private contractor he offers the US government with the means to incinerate the man of steel, he just needs the excuse to do it. This is where we get into spoiler territory, so all I will say is that the story is simple, but the world is complicated. It’s a personal journey for Clark, pushed by Luthor’s obsession, but this is more than a head to head. Superman isn’t alone in this world, other “metahumans” also exist. These include a Green Lantern (Guy Gardner, played by Nathan Fillion), Hawkgirl (Isabela Merced), Mr. Terrific (Edi Gathegi) and “Metamorpho” (Anthony Carrigan).

Best Since 1978?

First off, the casting here is superb. There are some strange decisions, such as Nathan Fillion’s bowl cut, but as far as the personalities on screen and the characters they are portraying goes they did a great job. David Corenswet, above all else is the best Superman we’ve seen since Christopher Reeve. He truly embodies the character on and off screen. This is a more emotional Superman than some may like, but given the personal journey he goes on it would diminish the story to make him too stoic. The important thing is that he holds back where he needs to, is always representing the best of humanity, doesn’t want to kill and wants to bring out the best in others. He gives you that sense of hope and when he shows emotion it is for good reason and helps to humanize him.

Luthor will be a bit more divisive. You are meant to dislike the villains, but some are so good as characters it’s hard to avoid romanticizing them. Here, Lex is a vile, nasty man with no redeemable characteristics. Personally, I find it refreshing. Why should every villain have to be “misunderstood” or even “Think they are the hero”? This Luthor iswell aware of who and what he is and embraces it. Some won’t like that. Hoult is a good actor and does the role justice, second only to Gene Hackman. Great work. Lois Lane is a real stand out too. The last two cinematic versions of the character fell so wide of the mark it was embarrassing. Brosnahan is the best in the role since Teri Hatcher’s TV series run (And Hatcher had most of the focus of that series).

The New DCU

It doesn’t stop there though. It is worth mentioning Jimmy Olsen (Skyler Gisondo) and Eve Teschmacher (Sara Sampaio). Neither have a large amount of screen time but both play a pivotal roll. Teschmacher of course was a character invented by Richard Donner for his movie, she since found her way into the comics and is a welcome return to the screen. Olsen, while a slightly different take to the comics, fits perfectly into this new world and is instantly recognizable as Jimmy. Perry White is race swapped (Nothing new, Laurence Fishburne played the character for Synder), but Wendell Pierce gets the character across with almost no screen time, so job done. The Justice Gang are the highlight of the supporting cast however. Hawkgirl is a little bit “Just there”, but Guy Gardner and Mr Terrific are a joy to watch whenever they are on screen.

No one lets the side down here. If there is a weakness, it could perhaps be derived from the simple, yet dense plot. But the thing is, it works. It does what it needs to in both establishing the world and giving superman an arc. More importantly it is an origin for Superman, in a way. Here’s the thing, there’s always a debate on showing origins for superheroes. We’ve all seen the capsule arrive on Earth, we’ve all seen Batman’s parents killed, we’ve all seen Peter Parker get bitten by a spider. But the thing is, the important part of a superheroes origin is not what gave them powers, it is what drove them to be the people they are. Gunn avoided rehashing the Donner Superman movie, but he still spent this first movie establishing to the audience why Superman is who he is. That’s the real origin story.

Comic Book Action

The “Justice Gang”, don’t get an origin. But they are as fleshed out as they need to be for supporting roles. Over time they will no doubt be replaced by more established characters that do get the solo treatment. This is a new way to a shared universe (Compared to MCU’s and DCEU) and it seems to work. It adds, not so much a realism, but a very lived in feel to the universe. This isn’t a realistic world though, this is a comic book world and it follows comic book rules. No surprise for those that know Gunn’s movies. He has always embraced the sillier aspects of the comics and made it work. Guardians of the Galaxy and The Suicide Squad are both evidence of this and it’s a refreshing approach. You will never get a superhero movie that feels ashamed to be a superhero movie under Gunn.

The action and cinematography follow suit. There is a lot of action, with a great deal of variety and heavy CGI. Giant monsters, buildings falling, tears in the fabric of the universe. All that fun stuff. If you hate CGI, this may be a turn off, but it’s done well. The comic book aesthetic helps here and really shows why this is a better approach than trying to make things dark and gritty. Each action scene has a purpose and tells it’s own story, none feel inserted just for the sake of it. The score is well done too, with regular references to John Williams theme from the 1978 movie. We get a blend of old and new and being a Gunn film, naturally a couple of songs in the mix too.

Back Down To Earth

There is one negative with the movie and this is spoiler territory so I won’t say too much on it. But, it involves a major change to Superman’s Kryptonian parents. In the film itself, things are left open ended due to how the information is revealed. However James Gunn has confirmed in interviews his intention and it is something that will be divisive with fans. What I will say about it though is within the story it serves a purpose and essential to Superman’s story arc. To me this wasn’t a deal breaker, but it is one story beat I did not like. During the epilogue we meet Supergirl, who will be the focus of the next DCU movie. We will likely find out more about Krypton, then so we can determine if this change is a mistake or just something different.

One thing I do note though with the story arc related to this plot twist. That is, Gunn has repeated Starlord’s story arc from Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. The truth is, this was better done in that movie and that does impact the final score. Overall though, this is one of the best superhero movies I’ve seen for a long time. Of course it still remains to be seen if this is too little too late, but it is as good a launching point for the DCU as you are likely to get. This is what a comic book movie should look like. More importantly though, David Corenswet has been universally praised and accepted as our new Superman and hats off to him, he nailed it. See this in theatres if you can! 7.5/10

Rating: 7.5 out of 10.

28 Years Later (2025)

Posted on by fenrisfil

These days it is never considered too late for a sequel. So it’s not a shock to see Danny Boyle and Alex Garland dig up their “28” franchise. Its been 23 years since the pair launched the series with “28 Days Later” in 2002. The first sequel “28 Weeks Later” came out in 2007. Boyle and Garland were largely uninvolved as they were busy filming “Sunshine” (2007). With an 18 year gap between sequels, they have opted to go straight for 28 years later and skip past the obvious “28 months” option. The thinking seems to be that after such a long period they can effectively give the series a solid reboot. Unsurprisingly everything you need to know about this world is explained in the movie. You don’t have to watch either of the previous movies.

Also returning alongside Boyle and Garland is cinematographer Anthony Dodd. Not returning however is composer John Murphy, who has been replaced by progressive Hip-Hop group “Young Fathers”. I’ve actually seen them live, supporting Massive Attack (Another group known to dabble in soundtracks). Unsurprisingly there are no returning characters (Though since this is a planned trilogy, rumour is there will be returns down the line). Instead this movie stars a young Alfie Williams as “Spike”, Jodie Corner as “Isla”, Spike’s mother and Aaron Taylor-Johnson as “Jamie”, Spike’s father. Support comes mostly from Raph Fiennes as the eccentric “Dr Ian Kelson” and Edvin Ryding as “Erik” a Swedish soldier.

Survival

28 years after the outbreak of the “Rage” virus a group of survives have built a community on a small island isolated from the mainland (Except at low tide). The rage virus turns humans into feral killers, but after such a long time the infected have begun to evolve somewhat. The most notable of these changes is the appearance of “Alpha’s”, far stronger monsters that are especially hard to kill. The Paris outbreak reported on in 28 Weeks Later appears to have been retconned. Instead the UK is the only place effected and as such has been placed in permanent quarantine. A naval blockade surrounds the country shooting down anyone attempting to flee. The survivors are truly alone.

Living on this island is Spike and his parents. His father Jamie is a scavenger, tasked with braving the mainland to find supplies. A dangerous job and Spike is set to follow in his father’s footsteps. Despite his young age, he is ready for his first foray out into the dangers of the mainland. Spike’s mother, Isla is suffering from a mysterious illness and appears to be on her deathbed. The island has no Doctor, so there is not much that can be done. After narrowly surviving his first trip outside, Spike discovers that there may be a doctor on the mainland that could potentially save his mother and so he sets out with her to find him, whatever the risk.

Three Unequal Parts

This is a movie of three distinct sections. The section is effectively an epilogue and lead in to the next movie. Fortunately that section is short because it doesn’t fit with the rest of the movie and is frankly… stupid. The entire tone shifts gratingly and we go from a dark, thoughtful apocalyptic movie to outright B-Movie action cheese and ridiculous parody in the blink of an eye. It’s a bit like if you watched “The Road” (2009) and then in the last five minutes it turned into “Turbo Kid” (2015). Two great movies, but their tone doesn’t mix well. I have no idea what Boyle and Garland were thinking, but I don’t have high hopes for the sequel.

Now, that out of the way it’s important to let you know the rest of the film is actually good. The other two main parts are Spike’s journey with his father and then his more personal one with his mother. The two journeys contrast nicely and in it’s own way the movie examines the very different roles of fatherhood and motherhood. The latter provides a far more emotional journey and is the highlight from an acting perspective. Both Alfie and Jodie are remarkably good in their very demanding roles. By contrast, the first half where Jamie is trying to train Spike is both a very solid father/son story and much more of what you would expect from a zombie movie.

Bones To Pick

Despite the emotional pay off of the second half of the movie, it does start to have issues with consistency. The tone starts to get a bit more silly with the introduction of a Swedish soldier, whose boat has sunk and is now stranded. It wasn’t a big issue, but given what was to come it probably was a warning sign. Another issue here is just how well and how quickly Spike went from panic and struggling to shoot straight when out with his dad to a confident mainland survivor. There is also one plot event that just felt… unlikely (But no spoilers). It’s not a deal breaker though and I still enjoyed this section. For most though I think the film will peak early.

One thing I definitely approve of here is that the zombies (I mean “Infected”) are not just a colourful background to post-apocalyptic humans being generally awful to each other. That is something that is so overdone in zombie stories (Largely thank to the endless stream of Walking Dead shows). The original 28 Days later had a fair bit of this itself, but was relatively well balanced. That’s not to say the film focuses on the infected, they are still somewhat of a backdrop but the story is a much more personal one. For me, a zombie film needs to have an element of tragedy to it and making the story smaller and more personal allows for that.

Conclusion

Despite the horrendous misstep at the end, this is still a good story with enjoyable action. The visuals are good (Zombie wangs aside, I could have done without those), the acting is superb and the pacing is decent. The zombie evolution reminds me of a cross between Romero’s “Land of the Dead” (2005) and a video game like “Left 4 Dead”. I’m not sure how much it really added to the story. The first half of the movie is a good 7/10, the second a 6.5/10 and the final 5 minutes a 4/10. Fortunately the story is effectively over before the epilogue so it doesn’t ruin it. I’m giving this a strong 6.5/10

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Review Roundup – May 2025

Posted on by fenrisfil

Spring quite definitely here. I had a quiet month in April here on Screen-Wolf. I didn’t want to touch Snow white with a barge pole and Minecraft seemed more meme than movie. May is likely going to be quiet too. However, I’ve still got a few recent releases to look at. These are all pretty entertaining and just goes to show what you can find when you look under the surface. So let’s crack on with it!

Black Bag

“Black Bag” (2025) is the latest movie from director Steven Soderbergh and writer David Koepp. Soderbergh is what I would call a reliable mid-tier director. His movies are usually good, but not exceptional and while he has some misses he doesn’t have any major clangers to his name. Koepp meanwhile has credits to some exceptional movies along with a couple of clangers (The last two Indiana Jones movies). The pair have worked together previously on “Kimi” (2022) and “Presence” (2024). Soderbergh regular David Holmes provides the music and Soderbergh takes cinematography and editing duties (Under aliases). Michael Fassbender takes the lead role, with Cate Blanchette as primary support.

The plot involves a conspiracy within the British intelligence community. Lead by a directive to find a traitor that may have compromised a top secret project known Cerberus, George Woodhouse (Fassbender) is given a list of suspects and the task of determining who the traitor is. The big catch is that one of the suspects is his own wife Kathryn St. Jean (Blanchett), also a high ranking intelligence officer. As Woodhouse digs into the conspiracy he finds out that a more complex game may be being played. The game will test not just his skills in determining the truth but also test the strength of his relationship with his wife.

We’re Going to Play a Game

This is a pretty unique spy drama. There’s almost no action here, so don’t expect James Bond. This is all about the deception and about the characters. The first act largely plays out like a strangers in a room play as Woodhouse invites all the suspects around for a dinner party, where he cunningly stirs the pot encouraging conflict within the group. It’s a pretty good act in itself but it also gives us a great introduction to the characters and gets us straight in to the game of trying to figure out who the traitor is. Unfortunately when all is revealed at the end it’s not really something anyone would have likely guessed, but it still makes for an interesting first act.

After a purely character based first act, we move in to a far more plot based middle act which seems most of the actual events of the story play out before returning once again to a more contained final act. These two acts play out a lot like a murder mystery, with all the players returned the dinner table for a final “Game” where the murderer is revealed. By the end of the film they are literally a murderer too so it is basically a murder mystery within the setting of the British secret service. The spy stuff is all basically in the middle act, but it’s still very much a character based, dialogue heavy story.

Conclusion

Your millage will likely vary depending on expectations. If you want action you will be very disappointed. You may also be a little disappointed if you want a complex mystery with twists and turns, as it’s not really the mystery that makes this film. If however you like a group of interesting characters having conversations and playing psychological games with each other through conversation then you are on to a winner. That is the vast majority of the film. But it is also about how a husband and wife who’s careers are based on lies and deceit find a way to make their relationship work. So it’s a romance too. Personally, I enjoyed the film. This is a high 6.5/10 and a recommendation.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Working Man

Working Man (2025), is the latest in what appears to be a growing partnership between director David Ayer and action star Jason Statham. The pair had a solid amount of success last year with The Beekeeper (2024) and clearly work well together. This is an adaptation of legendary comic book writer Chuck Dixon’s novel “Levon’s Trade”, the first of a series of novels following the character “Levon Cade” (Played here by Statham). Potentially, given the reasonable level of success Statham could return to this character several times over. Interestingly Sylverster Stalone is also involved in both this movies script and it’s production. Shawn White provides cinematography and Jared Michael Fry provides the music. Statham is supported by Arianna Rivas, Jason Flemyng, Merab Ninidze, Eve Mauro and Emmett J. Scanlan.

The story folllows Levon Cade is a former Royal Marine ex commando that specialized in counter-terrorism. Now retired from that life and working as a construction foreman, while fighting for custody of his daughter “Merry” (Isla Gie). When his bosses daughter, “Jenny” (Arianna Rivas), is kidnapped, Cade is asked to find her. The apparently random kidnapping leads him to the trail of a rogue son of a Russian Mob family. However tangling with the Russian Mafia is never simple and creates a situation that puts not just him at risk, but also his own daughter.

Hard Boiled Action

This is a movie that definitely feels like something based on a novel written by a comic book writer. I don’t mean that as a negative, it’s just that each character is a lot more colourful and over the top than you would expect in this kind of movie. But while the comic influences are there, the plot is more complicated than you would expect if it was a comic being adapted and not a novel. The movie feels like what you would get if you took Philip Marlowe, mixed with him Rambo and moved him to a modern day version of Batman’s Gotham. Given the involvement of not just Chuck Dixon, but also Sylvester Stallone this is pretty much what I would expect.

The question is, does it work? Well… Mostly. It has a lot of charm and feels relatively unique despite being a Jason Statham action movie. However, the plot seems to feel both more complicated than it needed to be and also a little rushed. It also suffers from what has become a standard Jason Statham issue. Namely, you never once feel he is actually in any danger. This was the same issue I had with The Beekeeper last year. Fortunately here there are still stakes thanks to situation of the daughter and that part of our story does keep you on edge. The action scenes themselves are pretty satisfying and there are plenty of them.

Conclusion

Ultimately this is an entertaining movie, but one that will likely be forgotten in the years to come. Lost in the vast sea of Statham action movies. Though a lot may depend on if Statham does revisit the character or not. Compared to the Beekeeper this is slightly weaker but I still had a good time with the movie and it is a recommendation. If you like action films you can’t go too far wrong with this. 6/10

Rating: 6 out of 10.

Locked

Trapped is, excuse the pun, a vehicle for actor Bill Skarsgård, with the vast majority of the film taking place inside a car. Directed by James Gunn protégée David Yarovesky, and produced by Sam Raimi. Locked is an American remake of the Argentinian film “4×4” from 2019. Michael Dallatorre provides cinematography and the music is scored by Tim Williams. Bill Skarsgård is supported almost entirely by Anthony Hopkins. There are other actors, but there roles are tiny compared to Bill and Anthony, with the latter only on screen in the final act.

Eddie (Skarsgård) is struggling to make ends meet. He can’t even afford to have his van repaired so he can pick up his daughter. As a result he starts a run of petty thefts. This culminates in breaking in to an unlocked “Dolus Luxury SUV” to steal any valuables inside. After coming up empty though, he finds he cannot get out of the car and so he attempts to force his way out, even shooting at the windscreen. The car however is bulletproof and his shot ricochets and hits him in the leg. Bleeding and out of desperation he answers the call from “Answer Me” on the cars terminal. He is greeted by “William” (Hopkins), the owner of the car. William has decided to punish Eddie for his transgression. He is in the wrong place at the wrong time, but this is about to get very personal.

I’ve not seen the original movie, so can’t compare quality. However I have read the plot, so I know there are significant changes. The most significant is that Eddie, has very much had the Hollywood treatment to make him a sympathetic and redeemable character. In the Argentinian version, the thief “Ciro” has killed several people, usually during robberies. Eddie however is good at heart and while he is down on his luck and resorting to theft he is not a killer. In my view this makes the story a little less interesting, since there is no debate on if he deserves this kind of treatment. Instead William is portrayed as a touch psychotic and despite his trauma, very much in the wrong. It’s a shame to lose the gray morality.

What we do have going for the Hollywood version though are two very fine actors. Good job, because without that this kind of movie would collapse. A guy trapped in a car for an hour and a half could be quite tedious after all. Not here. The dialogue could perhaps be a little sharper but it’s fine. The run time helps too here as does the addition of a spot more action. Including a tense scene where William’s remote control of the car takes his abuse of Eddie to a whole new level. In places it is edge of the seat stuff.

Conclusion

This is a straight forward premise, well played out in a timely manner but lacking a lot of the morally grey arguments presented in the Argentinian original. It is however a compelling and relatively original 90 minute movie. As a vehicle for Skarsgård it won’t do his career any harm even if it doesn’t quite know where to park itself for much of the film, suffice to say your mileage may vary. Yes all those puns were intentional. I’ll get my hat. But before that I’m giving this a 6/10. See you next time!

Rating: 6 out of 10.

Electric State (2025)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Today I am reviewing the huge £320m budget “Electric State” movie from the Russo brothers on Netflix. It’s worth noting as these Netflix movies usually go straight to streaming or just have a limited release. That means they don’t need to spend the extra 50% of the production costs for P&A. This may explain why they are happy to pay so much up front, however without a full theatrical release the movie can only find value on the streaming service itself. I won’t be too critical of the business model because Netflix are by far the most successful streaming service, so they seem to know what they are doing. Plus, they are actually making original content. Even if it’s only because they don’t own many IP’s of their own, it’s still a good thing.

Anyway, the Russo’s are of course the directors behind some of the biggest MCU movies. They are returning to that franchise for “Doomsday” and “Secret Wars”. No doubt Marvel hopes they will change the MCU’s flagging fortunes. “Electric State” is based extremely loosely on the 2018 graphic novel by Simon Stålenhag. Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely provide the screenplay, Stephen F. Windon cinematography and the music is by Alan Silvestri. The cast includes Millie Bobby Brown, Chris Pratt, Stanley Tucci, Anthony Mackie, Woody Harrelson, Alan Tudyk, Holly Hunter, Giancarlo Esposito, Brian Cox and many more. The huge cast of relatively famous actors may explain part of the budget. Anyway, let’s dive in.

Man Vs Machine

The movie is set in an alternative 1990’s, after a war between humans and robots in the 1980’s. The aftermath of that war sees the robots all contained in one particular area “The exclusion zone”. Meanwhile the “Neurocaster” technology used to defeat them, which allows humans to jack into a global network and take control of their own robot drones, has gone mainstream. In this future the majority of people are happy to live most of their lives in a vegetative state while controlling their robot drones. Our protagonist Michelle (Bobby Brown) lives an unhappy life with her foster father after her parents and brother are killed in a car accident during the war.

One day a robot turns up at her house claiming to be controlled by her brother and asking her to go and find him. She leaves determined to find out the truth about what happened to him. To do so she has to find a way into the exclusion zone. The only person that may be able to help her is a black marketeer (Pratt), that has a business smuggling items out of the zone. What they find though is a scandal that could unravel society as she knows it. Something Ethan Skate (Tucci,), CEO of the company that created the neurocaster device and drones will do anything to prevent.

The Abused Robot

While this movie is visually imaginative, there is little truly original here. There is no real depth to the setting or story. The first thing of note is the robot sentience and war. There are basically two versions of a war between robots and humans you see in 99.99% of science fiction movies/tv. The first type is basically the Skynet version, where an AI goes rogue and just randomly decides to wipe out or dominate humanity. The trope predates The Terminator, but that franchise did it the best. The second version is the abused robots fighting for their civil rights. This is actually the more common trope and includes things like The Matrix (Revealed in the third movie), the Kaylon from the Orville and the Geth from Mass Effect. It’s worth noting, this generic trope was not in the source material. In that, it was a civil war between human factions both controlling drone robots.

The setting in the 80’s/90’s is however in source material. But here it feels very much like a gimmick. Ultimately, it doesn’t feel that different to the 50’s aesthetic of the Fallout franchise. Again, we’ve seen this before. It does give an excuse to play some 80’s/90’s tunes on the soundtrack, but they don’t really add much outside of being retro. Soundtracks like that are actually trickier to pull off than you may think. James Gunn does it well, as does Tarantino. Usually when someone imitates the vibe, it feels like they picked tracks at random off “Greatest hits of the decade” compilation albums. This is the case here. Random 80’s and 90’s songs thrown in just because. The goofy style of the robots meanwhile is just an 80’s version of Fallout. It’s fine, but there is nothing fresh here.

The Popcorn Factor

It’s important to note, none of the above is a deal breaker. The film is still entertaining. This is a family adventure movie with a sci-fi setting. These movies don’t really need to be ground breaking. Unique would be nice, but entertaining is more important. The characters here are all likable, if a little shallow. The robots do look good and the environment is well designed. The action is reasonable and there is a little bit of humour in the mix too (Mostly supplied by MCU Alumni Pratt and Mackie). The due is really the best thing about the movie. It does get a little strange at the end… but mostly it works. Pratt effectively plays the same character he plays in everything, but that’s most of Hollywood these days.

Giancarlo Esposito also plays generic Giancarlo Esposito. Woody Harrelson meanwhile plays a giant peanut, which ends up a lot less interesting than you may imagine. Both are descent in the roles, but you would expect that (At a bare minimum). Like much of this film it is uninspired, but well polished. Millie Bobby Brown is okay as the lead, certainly better than she was in Godzilla Vs Kong. I’m not convinced she should be leading a big budget blockbuster, but she did fine. Ultimately, this is a movie that kids should enjoy and parents won’t hate. It’s not great, but it’s a lot better than some reviewers have suggested. What it isn’t however is inspired, original or worth $300m. I give this a fairly strong 5.5/10.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

The Gorge (2025)

Posted on by fenrisfil

“The Gorge” comes to us from Skydance and Apple TV and is from horror director Scott Derrickson and action movie writer Zach Dean. Derrickson has a strong pedigree in horror with films such as “The Black Phone”, “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” and “Sinister” to his name. He also did pretty well with the first “Doctor Strange”, but was kicked off the second for wanting to go too far over to the horror side. I can only wonder what his sequel would been like. Anyway this film stars Miles Teller and Anya Taylor Joy with support from Sigourney Weaver. Cinematography is from Dan Laustsen and the team of Atticus Ross and Nine Inch Nails’ Trent Reznor provide a juicy soundtrack.

The movie tells the story of two elite snipers with pasts that haunt them. For personal reasons they have opted to take on a top secret job at an isolated location for an entire year. They are not given any information in advance, but on arrival are given the task of guarding two sides of a mysterious gorge and preventing the things inside from getting out. Despite their physical distance, the two form a bond and the beginnings of a romance. Eventually though they are plunged (figuratively and literally) into the mysteries and horrors of gorge below. Now they must face both the dangers within and from those that want to keep it a secret.

The Exposition Files

First and foremost “The Gorge” is a character driven romance movie. It is however set with a horror/sci-fi backdrop and one that is very well presented. The special effects here look great, especially the creature effects. The movie relies far too much on darkness though, often leaving the action scenes hard to make out. That seems an artistic choice, since they really didn’t need to conceal any of those creatures for them to be scary. The characters are good and the romance is well constructed. Anya Taylor Joy continues to impress me. Sigourney Weaver however is typecast and plays exactly what you expect. Fortunately her role is brief.

The sci-fi/horror plot is sadly somewhat generic and occasionally descends into outright cliché. Indeed at one moment they find an old film reel revealing everything you probably already guessed in an overdone exposition scene via old video. Figuring exposition into a movie is often a challenge and while I prefer this to dropping in a character to deliver all the exposition and then get killed off, it is still a cliche. Fortunately, none of this really matters for this character based movie. Clearly this is intended to be a romance, with a macabre backdrop. It’s not what most people were probably expecting, but it does work and it is original.

Conclusion

Don’t expect a deep story or big twists here. The plot is the weakest element. It is fairly generic and full of holes that many reviewers are unable to look past. What you should expect however are great creature effects and a strong character based romance. The action scenes that aren’t too dark to view are pretty solid too. The movie just about lands as recommendation and a narrow 6.5/10. It may not be a classic, but it is one of the better genre films of the year.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Mickey 17 (2025)

Posted on by fenrisfil

“Mickey 17” is the latest movie from writer/director Bong Joon-Ho. It is his first feature as sole writer, though the movie is an adaption of the novel “Mickey 7” by Edward Ashton. According to Ashton the director made a lot of changes to the source material and those changes are not hard to figure out. Cinematography is provided by Darius Khondji and music by Jung Jae-il. The movie was originally scheduled to come out in 2024, but was delayed due to the strikes. The timing ended up being unfortunate because it’s pretty clear early in the film they thought the 2025 would look quite different….

Robert Pattinson stars as “Mickey Barnes”, a passive, low intelligence deadbeat loser. Mickey is dragged into trouble by his association with lowlife grifter “Timo” (Steven Yeun). After finding the need to flee Earth to avoid a loan shark’s vengeance Mickey signs up to be an “Expendable” for a colonization mission. This uses cloning and memory upload technology to effectively grant him immortality at the cost of having to do all of the jobs on the mission where death is all but guaranteed. His life would be bad enough but it is further complicated when an accident leads to a new clone being printed while the old one is still alive. This is considered a major crime. The colonization mission meanwhile is complicated by a first contact situation and the stupidity of the missions leader.

Afternoon Nap of the Clones

This movie is a major disappointment. The best moments are in the trailer. What isn’t in the trailer is all the cringe and really anything to do with the actual plot. Cloning ends up not really being key to any of it. Nothing to do with the cloning leads to either Mickey’s contact with the planets native species or the downfall of the movies antagonist. Rather it is just a gimmick, and as such is there to trick you into watching a largely unrelated film. Now to be fair, the first act is pretty focused on Mickey’s various deaths, but they are all in the trailer (Which mostly focused on this first act) and barely factor into anything. Mickey doesn’t develop as he goes on, instead his “Printing” just occasionally throws up personality quirks.

The question “What is it like to die?” seems something reasonable to ask Mickey. Yet we are told that he uploads his memories to a backup periodically, not on death. He shouldn’t remember any of his deaths or really any of the trauma involving his deaths. This presents many nasty plot holes and the movie doesn’t help itself by bringing constant attention to it with that recurring question. Indeed, it never really explores the technology at all. We are meant to believe they discovered immortality and instantly banned it for fear of duplicates. It’s pretty flawed logic. Having one expendable on the crew never really made sense. They use him for experiments and to cure a virus they could almost certainly cure via other means, but when another expedition member dies people seemed shocked that Mickey can’t just take all the risk all the time.

Two Dimensional Characters

None of these characters have any kind of depth to them. Mickey (1-17) shuffles through life (And death) like a zombie letting everyone else make every decision for him. He is passive and non violent, painfully stupid. His character barely evolves through the story and by the end he’s still letting others make decisions for him. His more renegade clone is the opposite as far as passiveness goes, he takes matters into his own hands at every opportunity. He is however, still and idiot. His girlfriend, Nasha is a walking cliché. Totally lacking any kind of charm, narcissistic, selfish, constantly horny and better at everything than everyone else. She controls every aspect of Mickey’s life that isn’t controlled by the company he signed his life to. Nasha and Mickey 18 are the actual heroes of this story and neither of them are likeable.

Steven Yeun’s “Timo” had potential to be an interesting character, but is pushed so far into the background you will probably need to remind yourself who he is half the time. The scientists are all largely cartoon characters, comically goofy or detached. The worst characters though is the painfully obvious Donald Trump stand in, horribly overplayed by Mark Ruffalo. As a primary antagonist, choosing a real life figure the writers clearly despise and have no respect for means that the villain of the story is also the biggest idiot. This gives the story no stakes as he literally just defeats himself. His wife does all his thinking for him and she too is an idiot. All these characters are idiots, but you do notice the women are always the less stupid and more capable. It’s as current year as you can get.

Any positives?

Robert Pattinson does deserve credit here. Pattinson is thoroughly convincing in this role. It’s just a shame his main character is the dampest of nothings to ever be in a movie. Where his talent comes through is in the contrast between Mickey 17 and 18. They are polar opposites of characters (Though neither are very bright) and they really feel like different people through his performance. Frankly Pattinson deserves to be in much better movies, but given the actor got his break from the “Twilight” series, I guess he is used to that. Sadly the rest of the casts performances range from barely passable to catastrophic.

This movie had a budget of $118m, which is at least visible on screen. The environment does look good and the alien (*Ahem*, sorry, “Native”) species looks both sufficiently “Alien” and relatively original. Sadly, the species is largely used for laughs. Their plot treds it’s most obvious path and fills up the final and most predictable act of the film. The confrontation is never offered any real tensions and certainly no stakes. The audience is fully aware of the species intentions and things are only escalated by the unbelievably over the top level of stupidity from Ruffalo’s Trump parody and his advisors.

The cloning concept would also be a positive, but it is barely explored, mostly used for laughs and ultimately just an excuse to have Pattison play two characters. It eats up the entire first act and while this is the best part of the movie it is also, as previously mentioned, perfectly summarized by the movies trailer. The brief look at the history of the technology gives a glimpse at a different story, one frankly far more interesting than this.

Post Mortem

The novel this movie is based on is more focused on the relationship between the two Mickey’s. The other characters are very much in the background and lacking the extreme cringe of the film. Mickey isn’t a complete idiot in the novel either. Instead he spent his youth studying History, something his world no longer considers a skill. That Mickey would have been a far more interesting character. The novel does examine what it means to be immortal in such a disposable way and goes a lot deeper into the perils of colonization. Basically, it is actually a science fiction story. The film however is not genuine sci-fi. It fails to ask questions and just spams the viewer with things that have already aged badly. It could just as well be any low tier genre TV show or movie of the last 10 years.

Sadly, this has taken over from “Wolf Man” as the most disappointing movie I’ve seen in 2025. I wouldn’t say it is worse than that film, but I had higher expectations. This was after all from an Oscar winning director, but then the Oscars aren’t what they used to be. However, I’ve enjoyed several of his movies before. Directors can have missteps, but this isn’t just a bad movie. It is filled with every modern day cliché you can shake a stick at. Worst of all, the film is painfully boring! This doesn’t give me much hope for future films from the director. This is a low 4/10. When the trailer is better than the movie, all you have is a missed opportunity.

Rating: 4 out of 10.

Companion (2025)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Companion is the feature film debut of writer/director Drew Hancock. The movie stars Sophie Thatcher and Jack Quaid with support from Lukas Gage, Megan Suri and Harvey Guillén. A near future sci-fi/horror about AI sex companion “Iris” (Thatcher) that becomes self aware. This happens after her owner (Quaid) hacks her systems to encourage her to kill the rich, lecherous Russian Sergei (Rupert Friend). Iris wasn’t aware she was a “Companion”, but now must deal with the shocking reality of her situation. Not only this but also the fact she has been set up to take the fall for her owners crime. The reveal of Iris being an android is early in the movie, so I don’t consider this a spoiler. I think it was pretty obvious from the trailer too.

Over the last half century we’ve seen several films and TV shows about androids that pass for humans. The trend began in the 1970’s with movies like “Westworld” (1973) and “The Stepford Wives” (1975). The latter of which clearly had a big influence on this movie. Here though the “Perfect partners” are male and female and commonplace. While the Westworld androids achieved some kind sentience, it wasn’t treated sympathetically. For that we need to head to 1982 and “Blade Runner”. Rachael from that film has to deal with suddenly finding out her entire life is a lie. Combine that with the Stepford Wives and you basically have “Companion”. In the last few years there’s been flood of androids gone rogue movies including “M3gan”, “Tim” and “Subservience”. It’s into this overly saturated sub-genre we get “Companion”.

AI Horror

The movie is a reasonably entertaining ride. It is well shot and has a good pace. The acting is passable, but I can’t say I was convinced by Sophie Thatcher as a character whose entire world has turned out to be a fabrication. That may be more down to the script than the actress though, it just didn’t seem that interested in dealing with the trauma. Sadly, this film is riddled with plot holes and things that simply don’t make any sense. The movie relies on you not questioning any of it. For a start, the scheme required super rich Sergei to attempt to rape Iris (Which is a bit like stealing a strangers inflatable sex doll) and for Iris to accidentally kill him using a planted knife (Despite having the strength/speed of a regular human).

While Iris attempts to escape her situation, at no point does the film deal with the consequences of a rogue Android wandering around. Yet logically, her freedom would be short lived, making her struggle a little pointless. Indeed a big problem with this film is the lack of world building around the androids. The androids can be easily hacked and turned into killing machines and yet there is nothing in place to police this (No “Blade Runners”). As is all too often the case with this kind of sci-fi, the movie feels set in the present day and yet there are perfect AI replications of humans everywhere. Straight out the door this presents a nonsensical world and it’s done simply because androids are cheap and easy. In many ways it reminds me of the TV series “Humans”, which struggled with similar issues.

Conclusion

Ultimately, there is nothing original here. This is just a modern Stepford Wives riding the recent wave of android horror movies. The truth is, these are lazy movies. When the only sci-fi element are android and they are just awkwardly inserted into the modern day, it severely limits possibilities for both the story and subtext. Everything that can be achieved with that has already been done in Blade Runner, done far better and within an actual futuristic environment. To do anything more, you need world building and these android horrors never find the time or budget for that. However, the movie is fairly entertaining and well made. My final verdict is a narrow 5.5/10. Decent enough for its run time, but a movie that’ll be forgotten as soon as the next android horror comes out.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

Werewolf Triple Bill – Part II

Posted on by fenrisfil

The full moon is up again here at Screen-Wolf, so it’s time for another werewolf triple bill. I think I’ve finally washed the bad taste of “Wolf Man” (2025) out of my mouth, so this will be the last one for now. Here are three more reviews of this difficult to pull off sub-genre of horror. Tonight I present you with “Bad Moon” from 1996, “Wolf Cop” from 2014 and “The Wolf of Snow Hollow” from 2020. One thing these all have in common is they are all from writer/directors (In the case of Snow Hollow also the star). So these are very much one man’s vision, yet each vision is radically different. I love the posters for all three of these by the way. It’s always nice to not have to share generic giant head posters. Anyway, let’s take a bite out of these movies shall we?

The Wolf of Snow Hollow (2020)

“The Wolf of Snow Hollow” is from actor/writer/director Jim Cummings, who also stars in the movie. This black comedy horror is his second feature, after his acclaimed “Thunder Road” (2018) debut. He is supported by Riki Lindhome, Chloe East, Jimmy Tatro and Robert Forster (In his final performance). Cinematography is from Natalie Kingston and music is provided by Ben Lovett. The 2020 indie movie was made for a mere $2 million and clocks in at only 84 minutes. Cumming’s plays Jon Marshall, a Deputy Sheriff and struggling alcoholic with anger management issues and young daughter.

After a vacationer discovers the mangled body of his girlfriend at their rental house in Snow Hollow, the police begin a manhunt for her killer. Deputy Sheriff Marshall takes the lead. When a second victim is found with her head and arm torn off and wolf fur found at the scene the investigation takes a turn for the macabre. Marshall refuses to believe this can be a werewolf. He is hampered though by his struggle with alcoholism and his conflicts with those around him, including his daughter. No one seems to have faith in Marshall’s ability to solve this case, least of all himself.

Anger Management

This is one of those horror comedies that forgets to be either funny or scary. As a dark comedy, you expect this somewhat as usually the humour comes from quirky characters and odd situations. Here though it seems the comedy is meant to come from the incompetence of the police, and it just doesn’t land for me. Dark comedies are tricky though, as are werewolf movies, so they set themselves a difficult task here. The movie also falls prey to a lot of the cliches of more recent film making. None of the characters are likeable and the movie seems to be trying to present a message about toxic masculinity. It’s not preachy, but it is a bit too on the nose. Possibly the problem is the movie is a little too focused on it’s lead (and writer/director).

That said, the movie has some positives. The attacks are well filmed (For the budget). The cast is reasonable and the identity of the killer isn’t obvious. The only problem was the character wasn’t really involved in the plot much, so you had no reason to suspect them. Honestly I didn’t actually care who it was by the end. This tends to be a problem with “Guess the Werewolf” films. There is another twist in regards to the werewolf that was a bit more predictable, given the nature of the film. Ultimately the ending fell flat for me. The rest of the film I’d call solid, except for actively disliking the protagonist. Creatively that is fine, but it is harder to like a movie when you think the protagonist is a dick. Anyway, this is a solid 5/10. Not terrible, but not a recommendation.

Rating: 5 out of 10.

Wolf Cop (2014)

“Wolf Cop” is a low budget Canadian horror comedy from writer/director Lowell Dean. Staring Leo Fafard and Amy Matysio. It is very much a Saskatchewan production, shot entirely in Regina, Saskatchewan, largely featuring natives of the area and with a soundtrack from “Shooting Guns”, an instrumental Metal band from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. The production budget of $1 million was granted through a canadian film contest. The concept won through social media engagements and fan votes against nearly 100 rivals.

The movie follows “Lou Garou” (Fafard), an alcoholic cop in the small town of Woodhaven. Lou is mocked and disrespected by most of the locals, especially the criminals. He spends most of his time sleeping or at a local bar (Even when on duty). After investigating a report of devil worshipers he stumbles upon the murder of a local politician and is knocked out. He awakens later with no memory and a pentagram carved into his stomach. That isn’t the only change as his facial hair is now rapidly growing and his senses are heightened. That is just the start of it as eventually Lou finds himself turning into a Wolf Man. Not a feral beast though, but one that is still very much Lou – A alcoholic and a cop. As he looks into what happens he begins to discover a vast conspiracy.

It’s the Fuzz

If the name was not a give away, this is very much on the “Fun B-Movie” side of horror films. It is fully aware of what it is, but doesn’t go so overboard. They avoid falling into the trap of trying too hard to be bad. The movie actually starts out somewhat like The Wolf of Snow Hollow, with a small town, a washed up alcoholic cop as the lead, a more competent female deputy and a Sheriff that is largely uninvolved for most of the movie. That’s where the similarities end though. The comedy in this movie is obvious, the gore over the top and the identity of the Werewolf… well, it’s in the title of the film! The film offers few surprises but generally delivers exactly what you would hope for.

Unsurprisingly they have gone for more of a “Wolf Man” werewolf instead of something more wolf-like or monstrous. That approach is usually chosen to allow a little bit more humanity in the character. This is the case here, however it’s not for sympathy but rather to allow Wolf Cop to deliver the occasional one liner and to use his gun. Yes, this film features a werewolf that shoots people. It’s also the rare situation of a werewolf that is basically good, even in monster form. The movie still provides monstrous villains however. Despite the comparatively straight forward make up job of the “Wolf” form they actually do put effort into a unique and impressive and quite funny transformation. This is a fun movie that is much better than it probably had any right to be. Shockingly, I’m giving it a solid 6/10.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

Bad Moon (1996)

“Bad Moon” comes from writer/director Eric Red. Eric is best known as a writer and penned the horror classics “The Hitcher” (1986) and “Near Dark” (1987). This is another Canadian movie, this time from Morgan Creek Productions and with a significantly higher budget (Especially with inflation) of $7 million. It is based on the novel “Thor” by Wayne Smith. The movie stars Mariel Hemingway, with support from Michael Paré and Mason Gamble. All reasonable mid tier actors that never quite made it to the big time. Paré is all over genre entertainment and usually safe casting, so no surprise to see him here. Cinematography comes from Jan Kiesser and the score is provided by Daniel Licht (Who is most famous for scoring the TV series “Dexter”).

During an expedition to Nepal, photographer Ted Harrison (Paré) and his girlfriend are attacked by a werewolf. Paré survives but as a result now carries the curse. He returns home and hides away in his remote lakeside cabin to try and find a way to cure his condition or live with it. After reaching out to his remaining family, his sister “Janet” (Hemingway) and her son “Brett” (Gamble) he agrees to move his trailer to the back of their house and stay with them. While he struggles with his condition in secret, the families dog “Thor”, suspects the truth and instinctively wants to protect his family from the danger.

Man’s Beast Friend

Of this round of reviews “Bad Moon” is undoubtedly the most traditional werewolf story. We know who the werewolf is from the start and he transforms into the standard “Howling” style beast. The creature actually looks pretty good, better than I expected. But then, back in 1996 there were a lot physical effects masters around and no drive to use CGI (For this kind of film anyway). Although we see a bit of the tragedy of the cursed lycanthrope, the focus is more on his sister and nephew. It’s not really their story either though and that is the real twist with this movie. The lead of this movie is the families’ dog “Thor”. It’s a novel approach that isn’t without issues, but it did make this werewolf movie stand out from the pack.

The plot itself is stripped down and straightforward, but it didn’t really need to do anything more complicated. The characters are likable enough and have a little depth, mostly from the conflicted nature of dealing with a loved family member turning into a monster. The tragic aspect of the story could have had a little more to it. Ted flips at some point from a sympathetic character to an outright villain and the change is a little jarring. Part of the reason for this is that he isn’t the focal character. Janet fairs a little better and you do feel her internal conflict in the situation. Thor though is the star, but even this could have been explored a little more thoroughly. The truth is this straight forward movie does just enough to make it work. Not outstanding, but just about worthy of a 6/10.

Rating: 6 out of 10.