Tag: movies

  • The Life And Death Of Colonel Blimp (1943)

    The Life And Death Of Colonel Blimp (1943)

    All of Powell and Pressburger’s films are, in my opinion, quite strange to modern eyes (even compared to their contemporaries) with unusual tones and pacing, but for me this is absolutely the strangest yet (and that’s including A Matter Of Life And Death, which is completely bonkers.)

    On the surface, our Colonel Blimp, Clive Wynne-Candy, reads as hero, played, as he is, by the iconically charming Roger Livesey. But The Life And Death of Colonel Blimp is also a harsh criticism of him–and the actions of the British Empire–when read more deeply and with historical context. It’s asking a lot of the audience to come to the film with that, and what I find most strange about The Life And Death of Colonel Blimp is how much it tries to have its cake and eat it: Candy is a fool, but he is still portrayed as a good person, the protagonist you root for, and the ultimate feeling of the film is one of apologia. I’m not sure that’s fair; or rather, I’m not sure it’s fair that audiences ever walked out feeling sorry for him.

    Based on a newspaper cartoon that satirised the reactionary opinions of the British establishment, if you understand background such as the British behaviour in the Second Boer War(!) Candy comes across as not so much foolish as in outright denial even as a young man–he ends up in a duel with a German officer over dastardly Hun propaganda about the existence of concentration camps, which, of course, there were.

    He’s also deeply emotionally stunted, and this is shown by him being haunted by the woman he loved and lost like he’s Francesco Dellamorte in Cemetery Man, as she re-appears as every new woman in his life. And each time he struggles, his emotional outlet is murdering exotic animals as some sort of a balm (I’m sorry but if you murder an elephant you’re a grade-A cunt.) I’m not quite able to fully translate the metaphor to the British Empire’s stymied ambitions across the early twentieth century, but it probably works.

    If you see Candy as such, the true hero of the film is Candy’s pal, German officer Theo Kretschmar-Schuldorff, played by the incredible Anton Walbrook. This must have been an intense role for Walbrook, who himself escaped from the Nazis, and as Kretschmar-Schuldorff he shows the kind of insight–borne from loss–that Candy never seems to attain. The sequence in which he pleads his case as a refugee is undoubtedly one of the greatest in all of cinema, and I understand why his sympathetic portrayal was considered so controversial in the era. It’s too good. The British public might have had their minds opened and the establishment needed to make sure they’d stay snapped shut.

    You can also read satire, I think, when Kretschmar-Schuldorff is sat with Candy and the British empire’s regional dictators, all stuffy old white men who swear blind they’ll do the best for Germany while they extract what they can without a care from their own fiefdoms (while, of course, leaving Germany to its ruin.) There’s something very prescient, too, about the way Candy says “I wasn’t in a foreign country, I was in Jamaica”–it reads as patently absurd and paternalistic, even though Jamaica wouldn’t achieve independence until 1962.

    This does make The Life And Death Of Colonel Blimp sound like a laser-focused, forward-thinking satire, but the film takes a leisurely pace across its nearly three hours, and what’s there is a lot more subtle in context than I make it sound. The moments I have described are just part of a film that otherwise puts a lot of effort into impressing on us that Candy is, in general, a stand-up guy who believes in, and tries to do, what’s right. And the film pushes towards the apparent conclusion that he (and therefore, Britain) are only flawed in so much as they have slowly–stuck in their ways–fallen out of doing what needs to be done. That they’re trying to be too honourable, when they should instead [checks notes] fight the Nazis like… the Nazis would?

    This is, in my opinion, a strange conclusion for a film that shows such incredible empathy and understanding via Kretschmar-Schuldorff, and there’s a sour taste to it in the light of the film’s own satire–and ultimately what we know now about the Allies’ conduct during the war (the bombing of Dresden would happen just a couple of years later.)

    The thing is, I understand the argument that can be made against what I’ve just written–films are allowed to be complex; even contradictory–people absolutely are (I take some pleasure that The Life And Death of Colonel Blimp’s Criterion essay seems just as confused about the film as I am.)  We don’t, and can’t, live only in a world of basic morality tales, of perfect good via evil, and it is a bit sad that our major cinema has so devolved to that. And The Life And Death Of Colonel Blimp is a beautiful film, full of every touch we know Powell and Pressburger for, and a performance from Walbrook in particular so good that it makes the Oscars look like a joke because he never received one.

    Indeed, I think it’s telling that Churchill–an odious racist who knew everything the British were willing to do–reacted in such fury to this film. He could see what lay beneath the surface. But even with that, I can’t quite square the movie’s apparent understanding that the British Empire was not honourable in the least with the implication that it needed to plunge farther into barbarism. If I’m charitable, maybe it was simply a call for it to stop lying to itself about what it was.

    Follow Mathew on Letterboxd.

  • Frankenstein (2025)

    Frankenstein (2025)

    Guillermo del Toro seems like a lovely guy who cares about the craft of cinema, but if it wasn’t clear by now, Frankenstein hammers home once and for all that he has absolutely no sense for story at all. At all!

    Even though it’s been adapted so many times before, I’ll give him that Frankenstein is a bit of a weird one to adapt because it has a layered structure to rival Inception, where at one point you’re reading a letter in which a sea captain is explaining the story that Victor Frankenstein told him based on the story that the creature told him. There’s a reason most adaptations don’t bother with this naive storytelling style, and it’s because it’s immediately absurd when a character tells another character their entire life story full of what would (in context) be irrelevant detail, and del Toro doesn’t help himself by picking and choosing when to be faithful to Mary Shelly and when to not. Frankenstein tells his life story to a sea captain? Check. This happens after the creature goes beast mode on the crew like you’re watching a fucking Marvel movie? Uh… check?

    There are just so many bizarre and wrong-headed decisions here that it’s hard to know where to start. There’s a lot of waffle in Mary Shelley’s original novel, but Frankenstein at least creates his creature in, like, the fourth chapter. Here, del Toro shuffles all the component parts so he can spend spend literally an hour and a half on a new build-up where Elizabeth is Frankenstein’s brother’s fiance and her father (an invented character, not in the original book) is bankrolling his experiments… for his own nefarious reasons! 

    Even once the creature shows up, we get more invented scenes where Frankenstein abuses it because [auteur klaxon] del Toro needs to make sure we love the monster. Even though the creature’s already existing story is there to do that!

    Del Toro called Frank Darabont’s script for Kenneth Branagh’s adaptation “pretty much perfect”–a version that is far closer to faithful than this, but which is reviled because it’s completely over the top–and considering Darabont has so publicly made a point that Shelley’s original work was “subtle” it’s genuinely hard to understand why del Toro has changed so many things to make them more obvious (I hope you enjoy seeing “Chekhov’s escape flume”) and then thought Oscar Isaac should in turn chew scenery with such gusto and only offer him glasses of milk to wash it down with.1

    Look. It’s an adaptation, and del Toro can do what he likes, but I think that ultimately these changes add up to something that at points is so wrong that I’m not sure that del Toro is able to see anything beneath the surface. Del Toro seems determined to make anything that could be subtle unsubtle, anything quiet loud. A character literally tells Frankenstein that (gasp) he is the monster. I hope audiences cheered when that happened.

    Maybe it’s just that del Toro falls so in love with the monsters and the set decoration and doing stuff that’s cool in his eyes that he loses sight of honouring the original work. In the original Frankenstein, the creature longs to be accepted but isn’t because of his appearance. He is rejected by Frankenstein, then accepted by the blind patriarch of a family that he hides from while learning from, only to be chased away by the family when they actually see him and are terrified.

    Here, instead, we see the creature find the blind father killed by wolves who he then kills in an omg epic fashion before the family find him with the father’s corpse, misunderstanding things and so he has to run off. This is not the same!!!2

    It seems like this is all there so [auteur klaxon] it can be clear that the only person who truly sees the monster for who they are is… a beautiful, intelligent, lonely woman. Who could have foreseen this!

    I suppose what’s funny about that is the auteur touch doesn’t even really matter, because the whole thing is leading to an ending so unbelievably unearned, so forced that I almost couldn’t believe it. Frankenstein recognises what he means to the creature and they have a meaningful ~father and son~ moment. That doesn’t sound that bad but it plays out only a step below the film ending with them heading up to the ship’s deck to play catch. 

    Don’t get me wrong, I understand what del Toro is trying to do, but it’s like every instinct he had was wrong, completely blinded by how much he falls in love with his own vision rather than trying to make something that speaks to anyone who isn’t already fully bought into it. His Victor Frankenstein is such a relentless, one-note villain, his creature so over-the-top vicious at points yet infantile and innocent at others, that there’s no ring of truth to it. No meaningful closure. No tragedy.

    No tragedy, I guess, other than del Toro believed this to be his dream project, his pinnacle, and then this is what he made.

    Follow Mathew on Letterboxd.

    1. What is the deal with Oscar Isaac? He’s so good in so many things, but then he shows up in this and things like Moon Knight with absurd, unbalancing energy. Is this what the directors want? If so… why? ↩︎
    2. And while I’m here, and I know this is a personal bugbear, but wolf attacks are historically rare, and it’s so fucking lazy to portray them as insanely dedicated, vicious killers. And it’s especially disgusting to do that so you can show the monster you want to fuck killing them graphically (which would be even worse if it didn’t look so brutally CGI.) You’ve got all this imagination to come up with coffins with face windows and you can’t come up with something better than fucking wolf attacks? ↩︎

  • Without A Dawn (Makkonen, 2025)

    Without A Dawn (Makkonen, 2025)

    Developed/Published by: Jesse Makkonen
    Released: 19/05/2025
    Completed: 14/10/2025
    Completion: +++ +++ +++ +++ +++

    [This article includes a major spoiler for Without A Dawn and reference to self-harm. It’s short, so you may wish to play it first, though I will admittedly go on to explain that I don’t recommend you do.]

    Vibes.

    Horror is so much about vibes.

    I know that’s is pretty much baby’s first media literacy, but I was lucky enough to see a work in progress of Joe Meredith’s latest film, Harvest Brood, as part of my buddy Justin Decloux’s 24-Hour Horror Movie Mind Melter, and I’ve been thinking about it because I was so blown away by Meredith’s careful curation of vibe. Despite an obviously low budget, the film uses the SOV (“shot on video”) aesthetic to mix imagery of post-industrial suburban America, “true-crime” documentary talking heads/rostrum camera, and goopy lo-fi gore to create something genuine and unsettling. Something that lingers; a perfect movie to watch in the wee small hours, eyelids drooping, losing connection between what’s real and isn’t. Drifting off, perhaps, into your own reverie of deserted strip malls at dusk, or the feel of damp leaves underfoot as you trudge past suburban homes decked out in Halloween decorations, only to awaken confused or distressed.

    This feeling–the space between the real of the awake and the disordered unreality of sleep, is explored in Finnish developer Jesse Makkonen’s visual novel Without A Dawn, and a preoccupation he’s had across his releases in titles such as Silence Of The Sleep and Afterdream. The visuals, however, of Without A Dawn are immediately arresting, with stark, limited palette pixel art filtered to appear as writhing ASCII art, not so much “All I see is blonde, brunette, redhead” as symbolic of the fog of slumber, that our visual processing can be so easily scrambled by our own systems.

    But vibes are not visual alone.

    A short game–I was surprised to find it the shortest I’ve played this year, even when compared to games such as Cyrano–Without A Dawn concentrates on an unnamed character who has cut themselves off and retired to a remote cabin as a form of escape, but finds themselves troubled, unable to sleep, questioning: did I see something? Is something strange happening, or is it all in my head?

    There are a variety of styles of visual novels, and Without A Dawn takes the most restrictive path, as a nearly completely linear experience with no major branching. There are only a couple of situations in where you even get a choice that doesn’t lead straight back to the same options if you don’t select the “right” answer, and while I do think it’s intentional–the game is about a creeping inevitability, about the illusion of choice–even in such a short game it’s quickly transparent that your choices are meaningless and it’s immediately unrewarding to even have to do them (real “why bother asking if you know what the answer is?” hours.) 

    I think it more than edges the game towards problematic, too, because what it treats as inevitable is… suicide. Now, whether or not it is I think you could debate–perhaps it’s no more real than anything else–but I think it’s just as easy to say I’m soft-pedalling here, it reads clearly as such and even goes so far to reward the player with a climax with an abstract beauty, ultimately telling them this was the “right choice”.

    It feels dangerous. Even if you retry, the game makes it clear that you will, ultimately, never be able to resist or escape it. The only thing the protagonist is allowed to do is end it.

    Like VILE: Exhumed, Without A Dawn struggles with the problem horror often does: what are you actually trying to say? Vibes are not just aesthetic; it is to find a frequency that harmonises with our understanding of the world, and in horror it must find that frequency to create the discord that unsettles us. In Without A Dawn, the inevitability feels false, it feels authored, because it gives the player no real way to fight it. It simply doesn’t ring true, and as a result the game collapses. Particularly disingenuously, as soon as the game ends, the developer appears–still clothed in the game’s creepy aesthetic–to directly ask you if you’ve enjoyed the game and if you’ll give it a review. It’s utterly immersion-smashing, and makes you feel like he hasn’t taken anything he’s shown you seriously. Horror vibes and suicide chic as product, first and foremost, rather than being about anything at all.

    When writing about a smaller game, I want to err towards forgiving. But Without A Dawn isn’t merely hollow, or frustratingly uninteractive; it’s ill-considered to the point of negligence. 

    Will I ever play it again? Absolutely not.

    Final Thought: I hope that Meredith will be able to complete and release Harvest Brood soon, a work where vibes are in service of an exploration of a uniquely American decay. I also hope the trailer convinces you to keep it on your radar:

    Update (28/10/2025): Harvest Blood is available online now, and you can watch it, in full, on Youtube for free!

  • One Battle After Another (2025)

    One Battle After Another (2025)

    Been thinking about this one a lot since I saw it, rolling it around and considering if it’s worth giving my take on it, but I keep coming back to my frustrations with it in the face of what feels like a weirdly universal uncritical praise, so I guess I can’t keep my mouth shut.

    The thing I keep thinking about, really, is how incredible the middle of this film is. The entire segment where we see real community action at work, as Benecio Del Toro’s Sergio St. Carlos leads us through their worst case scenario–an aggressive immigration raid–with efficiency, thought and care right down to his interactions with individuals. It is beautiful, moving, a masterful piece of film-making, and I think almost certainly going to be one of the very best things I saw this year.

    It’s what makes it so frustrating to me that the rest of the film’s treatment of activism and fascism is so… hacky, and that it’s been given such a pass. Paul Thomas Anderson is a filmmaker who doesn’t mistake setting for story, but here I do think he does our current moment a disservice, whether or not the reflection is mere happenstance.

    I feel like Anderson views (for example) the opening sequences of revolutionaries as “inspired by” or within the spectrum of the blaxploitation era, but I find something so… unpleasant about a well-off, successful white man writing black revolutionaries as largely ineffectual thrill-seekers who get off on their notoriety, considering the actual era contained movies of revolutionary power such as The Spook Who Sat By The Door (a movie Anderson must be familiar with.) I’m not offended by the image of him giggling behind his MacBook as he writes out a character called “Junglepussy” but isn’t it just sort of… embarrassing to sit there watching the result, however well made?

    Potentially not as embarrassing for all involved as his later treatment of the “revolution”. Look, I know we all hate two-factor authentication but the password stuff has to be some of the direst “student revolutionaries should get a job” hack comedy possible. Absolute fucking baby food for the smug middle-class cunts that are the general audience for a Paul Thomas Anderson movie. And the “Christmas Adventurers Club” stuff isn’t much better. We were all happy to see Kevin Tighe, but abdicating the responsibility for fascism to small groups of white men in hidden backrooms when we know it happens via large groups of white men in front of our fucking eyes sucks. As many people have pointed out, the most chilling character in the movie is the military guy who dispassionately, chillingly dismantles a group of teenagers, and he’s a non-professional actor who was actually in Homeland Security.

    [takes breath]

    Anyway, while I’m at it, and while you’re potentially  rolling your eyes at how humourless I am, facial disfigurement as a punchline can also fuck off. And the ending being our main characters enjoying consumerism and a weak sort of “it’s up to the next generation” beat? What was I saying about baby food for middle-class cunts?

    It all, ultimately, makes the claim that this film is some sort of actual political statement feel like wish-casting from both the leftist cinéaste and the right wing chud. It’s the setting for a story about family, and that’s about it. I wish it wasn’t so ironic and detached, but at least it’s not about how much he wanted to fuck his art teacher again.

    But as I said, I think about the middle of this movie all the time, and I loved the payoff in the climax (even if I did get a little tired of the undulations, sorry.) I respect the craft, but I guess with PTA for me it always comes down to if I’m buying what he’s selling rather than just appreciating what he’s doing. Here? Not so much.

    Follow Mathew on Letterboxd.

  • Still Family #11: Fast X

    Still Family #11: Fast X

    To view this content, you must be a member of exp. magazine’s Patreon at $1 or more
    Already a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to access this content.
  • Evil Puddle (2025)

    Evil Puddle (2025)

    When introducing Evil Puddle as the first film in his pre-TIFF Midnight Dankness screening (which raised over $4000 for PCRF and Islamic Relief Canada!) Peter Kuplowsky compared it to Eddington as a work of post-COVID cinema, and it is, I think, an excellent lens to view it from.

    Eddington is a cynical film that, if it argues anything at all, argues that we are all deeply alone–enveloped by our solipsism so completely that there is no such thing as community, and catastrophe only exposes our urge to self-preservation above all. That we are, ultimately, trapped in our own minds. Unable to see that we’re prey for higher powers and forces that we don’t–and couldn’t–understand.

    To me, this is the worst kind of satire–the kind that allows you to be smug because you’re clever enough to know how bad things are and clever enough to know there’s nothing to be done about it. A self-fulfilling inaction.

    Evil Puddle argues, instead that community is very, very real, in both narrative and form. From Matt Farley, Charlie Roxburgh and the cast of locals and fans that pitch in to play roles in their movies, Evil Puddle is a 1970s folk-horror disaster movie by way of community theatre in which some unlikely events lead to a small town’s water supply becoming, er, evil.

    Heavily featuring a magic rock, I’m unclear if after Magic Spot Farley and Roxburgh are creating a new thematic series of “magic rock” movies to follow their earlier, triumphant series of Druid movies, but the water which kills you instantly but otherwise looks completely normal and benign (you know, like, say, air with a virus in it) is the key factor here. Like classic disaster movies, the film flits between disparate characters who all face peril in different ways due to their predispositions. So, for example, you see some kids who have been using a hose to clean off rocks for a new tranquillity garden. You see a group of ne’er-do-well’s who seem to do little other than hang around a pizza parlour complaining about the free tap water. You see, er, a dance instructor and his student who happen to be learning close to a sprinkler (I think you get where this is going.)

    The movie doesn’t linger on punishing characters for their hubris–refusing to trust experts, or attempting to exploit others in their time of weakness–instead choosing to celebrate the characters who work together in even the smallest ways. Evil Puddle is unique in making one of its most rousing sequences about how sometimes the best thing you can do is accept some mild inconvenience rather than put yourself or others at risk.

    That this movie has been made by a community is what makes it all so dense with meaning. If you’ve followed the Motern Media universe for any length of time, it’s genuinely moving to see how the actors you know have aged and changed but that they’re still showing up, because that’s what people do. 

    It’s easy to be cynical. It’s unarguable that the tools that we use every day are being warped by big tech to isolate us ever more. But AI ain’t going to show up when you need help and it ain’t going to make a movie a tenth as good as this one, made with friends and family when they’ve got spare time, where it’s obvious when they’ve shot several scenes in single afternoons. Because you can’t replace community, you can only participate. Rather than inviting the audience to wallow in their smug inaction, it inspires. You could do this too. You can do anything you want. Someone probably wants to help!

    And the beautiful thing about Evil Puddle is that just by watching it, even if you have no idea where to start, you already get to join a community: the community of Motern Media fans. Hell, you can call Matt Farley right now if you want (his phone number is 603-644-0048. Give him a call, tell him this review sent you.) Why be smugly alone? Join us, it’s much nicer here.

    Follow Mathew on Letterboxd.

    Update (31/10/2025): Evil Puddle is available for purchase on Vimeo now!

  • Superman (2025)

    Superman (2025)

    This has been out for a while, so pretty much every position on it that can be taken has, and I don’t think mine is going to be that revelatory. But still.

    To start with the de rigeur “me and Superman” background, as a British person who didn’t get into American comics until they were a teenager and holds all the usual boring opinions about him (“he’s too powerful! Where’s the peril! Get me a loser like Peter Parker, etc.”) my entire experience of the lad is (obviously) almost completely All-Star Superman, but probably less obviously that one issue of Hitman and then that Superboy arc where he’s an apartment super (get it?) because that was drawn by Hitman artist John McCrea.

    Interestingly (maybe) if you’re really into comics you’ll already have clocked why Superman (2025) has really worked for me, because “that one issue of Hitman” where Superman shows up dwells on Superman failing (badly) and then being picked up by having it spelled out pretty directly that he’s an immigrant trying to make the best of it, and there’s really nothing more you can do than your best.

    I mean… James Gunn has to have read that one, right? Because he gets it. Superman is made as real and as vulnerable as possible here, understanding that just because you’re invincible doesn’t mean you can’t be beaten, and that Superman has no more emotional armour than anyone else. While I’ve read some criticism over just how badly Superman gets his ass kicked in this, that it comes from both directions and that Superman reacts so genuinely–so humanly–to it all is what makes it work. There are stakes: you feel your fist tightening because they stole his dog. You are right there with him all the way.

    Some of Gunn’s predilections are a bit unbalancing to the movie as a whole though. Some of the gags fall flat. He can push peril a little too far when it comes to the defenceless, and his penchant for eye trauma rivals Lucio Fulci’s. But the real issue with the film is that the big action climax doesn’t work. It’s obvious that the thematic arc of the movie is always going to end in a (largely) non-violent confrontation between Superman and Lex Luthor (played with a genuinely incredible seething hatred from Nicholas Hoult) but the other villains (well, bar one) fall completely flat, and the big “why can this guy beat Superman?” mystery is concluded in the most boring way possible. For a movie that digs up so much stuff from the DC Universe (look, I’ve got no idea who Mr. Terrific is) it’s weird that they resorted to the kind of thing we’d expect at this point from the completely shagged-out MCU. But it doesn’t put too much of a pallor on things, because in every other respect, this movie’s heart is in the right place.

    Speaking of, the movie’s much talked-about Israel/Palestine allegory is… astounding. It’s absolutely not the center of the movie, but it goes so much harder than you could ever expect when it appears. Look, we’ve all learned by this point that satire doesn’t do much. But Superman said free Palestine, and in this miserable fuckin’ world, that means something.

    Follow Mathew on Letterboxd.

  • Coolie (2025)

    Coolie (2025)

    Oh good lord. I will, of course, refer you to my review of War 2 first (which scheduling, unfortunately, placed first in my double bill of contemporary Indian cinema at the weekend) so I don’t need to go over my entire “what the fuck do people want” line of inquiry again in relation to this, Rajinikanth’s latest slog which has, somehow, outperformed it both critically and commercially.

    Look, I’ll admit it–I’m nonplussed by Rajinikanth. I basically haven’t seen anything where he wasn’t at least in his sixties, so I don’t have this long history where I can recognise his every twitch and pop for it, and I can’t really fail to notice that he’s deeply, deeply limited by being an elderly man. I don’t think there’s any shame in this! I mean Robert De Niro couldn’t pull off youthful in The Irishman, he’s in good company.

    But listen, with Lokesh at the helm, I wanted to believe. While his films tend to have a lot of build up, they eventually go absolutely bananas, and I loved Kaithi, Vikram, even Leo a lot. But I have never been so thankful that a movie wasn’t in a shared universe. Because this is absolute drivel.

    Now, the last Rajinikanth I was able to catch, Jailer, was almost unwatchable, but at least it was genuinely insane. This is just death. The setup is so neat and simple: a guy’s pal dies, so he has to investigate. Based on the title (which… listen, it’s weird that they named the film a slur) and the fact that it all revolves around a dock, you’d assume he’d go undercover as a dock worker and that would be the movie’s backbone.

    No. He pretends that he knows how to use the cremation chair(?) that his friend invented(??) but which he couldn’t get a patent for(???) so that he can get close to the baddies, who specifically need to be able to get rid of bodies faster than normal for… reasons. Alright!

    Meanwhile, the main baddie’s son is a customs officer in a love affair, and the baddies’ main enforcer is seeking out undercover cops, but maybe he’s also got secrets of his own. Oh and Rajinikanth owns a boarding house for students and his past relates to the docks… sort of. 

    Coolie is full of these overlaid tangled paths for what should be simple threads and every single one ends frayed and unsatisfying. I legitimately cannot tell you why his pal died. I understand the circumstances surrounding it, but not the why, and I genuinely think everyone making this movie forgot.

    Still, it’ll be fine because the songs and action will be good, right? [Padme meme face]

    The solution for Rajinikanth’s limited abilities… not elegant. Dancing is reduced to “putting a handkerchief in his mouth and waving it about.” Fighting? They resort to the ol’ “Steven Segal”: he stands still, waves his arms and baddies go flying. This is not entertaining. Well, there’s a couple of other dudes on the poster, right? They’ll be in the movie and do cool stuff?

    Well… let me just say I do think it should be illegal to put someone on the poster if they don’t have some sensible amount of screen time, or, like, any character at all. Kannada star Upendra appears to… stand still and punch dudes so they go flying (while Rajinikanth just stands there!) And it’s not so much that you could blink and miss Aamir Khan’s cameo so much as you’ll wish you had your eyes closed during it. Again: they’re on the bloody poster!

    Even if I was all in on Rajinikanth’s screen presence, it feels impossible to overlook that his character seems to have absolutely no plan and just dodders about. He basically creates every problem that occurs after the intermission by being a huge dumbass (then gets drunk?) and seems to only get hurt at one point because he’s just standing around looking confused.

    It’s not much better when he’s not on screen, though. The most tense and interesting part of this film I can best describe as “What if the Terminator had been played by Danny DeVito in a dog collar?” and it’s really not as good as it sounds.

    Coolie is a bloated, confused mess, and I’d have had more fun if I’d just seen War 2 twice in a row. Hell, I’d rather have watched Jailer again than this–and that’s saying something.

    Follow Mathew on Letterboxd.

  • War 2 (2025)

    War 2 (2025)

    Looking at the general opinion of this, which is, at best, middling, if not openly hostile, I’m for some reason reminded of the track KP Snacks, by obscure Scottish comedy rap act Bin Men. The one that’s not Romeo Taylor waxes lyrical about how the UK’s best mass producer of crisps and chocolate dip is “the realest fucking business out there” and concludes: “if you disagree… you’re a fucking idiot.”

    I obviously cannot bring across in text how perfectly his tone and phrasing reflects how I feel when people are being fucking idiots, so you might want to listen to 00:18 to 00:21 to understand how I stand in vicious judgment of people trying to dunk on War 2.

    Because what the fuck do you people want?

    Look, there’s plenty of reasons you might not like War 2, but they’re all the sort of thing where you shouldn’t be going to the cinema in the first place. You don’t like action films. You’re uncomfortable with your sexuality. You hate fun. But if you’re showing up at the cinema for the fucking sequel to a ridiculous, over-the-top bromantic actioner and you walk out of this without a smile on your face… I mean what is actually fucking wrong with you?

    And listen, I know what I’m talking about. I sat through Mission Impossible: The Final Reckoning, which is but three minutes shorter than this, as obsessed with making you believe its hero(es) are godlike via complicated set-pieces, and completely fucking boring.

    By comparison, in War 2 everything is at a fever pitch. The movie seems to even rush through its establishing shots to make sure that it never, ever stops being entertaining. The classic post-intermission flashback? You’re in, you’re out, lets you know everything you need to know. The comedy sidekick? Which one? There isn’t one, we don’t need them, NTR Jr’s got the jokes and (for some reason) acronyms for you.

    I mean War 2 opens with Hrithik Roshan being so awesome that he tames a wolf just by looking at it, before he fights a bunch of ninjas and a helicopter—a sequence that would be the climax of basically any other film. Sounds too generic? While War 2, like its predecessor, wears its inspirations on its sleeve, it again proves that no country on earth is making action films like India, always providing a twist that I’ve never seen before. NTR Jr—who Western audiences will most likely have last seen in RRR—appears in a rescue sequence where he does something so funny and so clever with a wrecking ball that I legitimately refuse to spoil it. And a sequence involving a plane-jacking is genuinely unique.

    So War 2 goes hard. And I mean… hard. Fellas, is it gay to have a male friend? War 2 says: yes. And it’s fucking awesome. If War was a one-sided love story—poor wooden Tiger Shroff’s doomed adoration of Roshan—War 2 gives us star-crossed, uh, “good friends” in a situationship where boundaries are not respected, and everything is driven to the kind of heights that haven’t been seen since Vernon Wells’ Bennett screamed “we don’t need the girl, John” at Arnold Schwarzenegger’s John Matrix in Commando.

    If you remember the conclusion to that film—where Schwarzenegger literally “lays pipe” in his opponent—things go exactly as allegorical here, as our heroes take turns penetrating each other. You know, with weapons and that.

    There is a sequence in this movie featuring the female lead Kiara Advani, that is so aggressively sexual that I have to assume that censors required it because they feared the lights would come up after the film and it would look like the cinema was a bathhouse.

    *ahem*

    Wait, what was my point? My point is that War 2 is completely guileless in its attempt to push everything, literally everything, as far as it will go. It’s ridiculous, it’s not even asking you to take it seriously, it’s just trying to entertain you. Sure, maybe it goes a bit too far. Maybe it’s got some blindspots. But ultimately?

    War 2 is the realest fucking movie out there. And if you disagree? You’re a fucking idiot.

    Follow Mathew on Letterboxd.

  • The exp. Dispatch #7

    The exp. Dispatch #7

    The triumphant return of the Dispatch after a week off because I was too busy. Sorry! Still, it means a bumper crop of article and zine links.

    This fortnight on exp.


    Subscriber Post: Firework Thrower Kantaro’s 53 Stations of the Tokaido (Sunsoft, 1986)

    A game I didn’t expect any reaction to but I’ve already had a few people saying they’ve played it as well and like me at least found it interesting.

    Unlocked Post: Paradise Killer (Kaizen Game Works, 2020)

    Unlocked Post: DAIVA Story 6: Imperial of Nirsartia (T&E Soft, 1986)

    From The exp. Archive: Mirror’s Edge (DICE, 2008)

    From The exp. Archive: Resident Evil 5 (Capcom, 2009)

    exp. Du Cinéma


    The Naked Gun (2025)

    Watching this in the theatre, I was struck by just how sad it was that it felt so unusual to be watching a broad comedy with an audience. You could almost feel everyone tense up initially when the movie started being intentionally illogical: “can they do that? I’m only used to nominally funny things occurring between CGI action sequences.”

    Once everyone was able to relax, this was incredibly funny, managing—for a while, at least—a return to the rapid-fire nonsense of the great spoofs with a similar hit-rate (not every one a winner, but the next one is quick enough that it doesn’t matter.)

    There are a couple of all-timer sequences in this, and my critique is going to feels harsh because I think we’re all so willing for this to succeed and for movies like this be allowed to exist again, but The Naked Gun’s problem is that it simply runs out of steam. There’s an incredible peak that it can’t seem to follow, and while it’s not like I’d want the movie to be longer (85 minutes? *chef kiss*) the jokes suddenly get a bit weaker, more sparse, and the narrative feels not so much underbaked—which would be fine, it’s a spoof—but missing entire ingredients. The climax is so limp, in fact, that I have to question if it’s what was originally intended, and it (sadly) had me thinking a bit too long about the film in general: “you know, they could have gone harder on that joke… they should have built on that gag more… there was a good chance for a callback there.. man, Paul Walter Hauser went underused…”

    It’s not the end of the world that they didn’t completely nail it, and I still think everyone should go and see this and let some joy into their life in this sick, sad world. And if you didn’t go and see Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping, go twice to make up for that.

    Also reviewed this week: KPop Demon Hunters

    Other Zines


    Forgotten Worlds #6. The Sega issue

    “100+ pages of dedicated to classic Sega magazines … , with exclusive interviews and insights from the people who were there.”

    VGHF Acquires Early Game Magazine Computer Entertainer

    “The magazine, which ran from 1982–1990, has been released into the Creative Commons for anyone to use.”

    Summer Sale: ON: Volume One – Now 50% Off! Ends Sunday

    “ON is the ultimate celebration of gaming’s past, present and future. We give the very best writers in the industry freedom to write their dream feature and combine those words with bold and experimental design in a luxury journal.”

    Pound the Pavement #15: Handala

    “This is a slightly-updated reprint of a small zine I created for the Librarians and Archivists With Palestine Box Set that was compiled for Booklyn back in 2014. Previously it was unavailable outside of this exclusive box set. The zine itself is a compilation of 29 photos of cartoonist Naji al-Ali’s Handala character painted, pasted, stenciled, and screenprinted around the Palestinian Occupied Territories.” (via Tiny Cartridge)

    And Finally…


    There’s been a lot of debate over what this year’s “song of the summer” is, but I’ve got no idea why, Neil Cicierega has got it completely sewn up. Sing it with me, everyone! Blankets… blankets… blankets…

    Next week on exp.: A game for the current moment.