I have already talked/written about my love for Bob’s Burgers (2011 – ?, my review here), and I still believe it is one of the best, if not THE best, animated family-oriented shows currently on air. I don’t want to get too much into why I think so, as I have already talked about it in the review above, but the main gist is the family element. So when we had the announcement of Bob’s Burgers: The Movie, I was equally excited and nervous. Because as is the case with many animated TV shows, they work well enough within 20 minutes episodes, but, often, their film might feel like a couple of episodes glued together. Luckily, this film doesn’t feel like that. Not only did they foreshadow one of the details in this film (you can see a couple of times in season 12 some people outside of their restaurant tripping because of the ground that is about to burst in this movie), but the creators managed to keep everything that makes this show so magical. The humour, the songs and most importantly, the family element.

Bob’s Burgers: The Movie (also known as The Bob’s Burgers Movie) has several storylines that tie so well together, which might not sound that surprising, but what if I told you one of those storylines is a murder mystery…? Yep, in this crazy, wacky, but mostly positive world, the murder mystery is one of the most noteworthy plot points of the film, and surprisingly, it works. Because they never go too dark with it, they always keep it light, or as light as you can with, you know, murder. This film is not “just” about that murder, hence another reason why the film works – the other storyline is about the Belchers needing to get more money to pay for their mortgage. Yep, that simple yet relatable stuff. Nothing big, fancy, no “giant” adventure just because they are in the film. That is something that hit me while watching this in the cinema and the reason this film and, ultimately, this TV show still works for me, twelve seasons in – unlike other animated families, this shows stays grounded.

There are no celebrity cameos. Don’t get me wrong, celebrities often do voicework on this show, but they are never “themselves”. They always play some character within the show. That is one way to keep your show about a family who struggles to pay their bills most of the time grounded. The other way is never to forget they are your “typical” middle-class family. Unlike other animated TV shows, they don’t suddenly have episodes travelling to Brazil, Europe etc., because that would not make sense. If they go on trips, it’s usually in their beat-up car, somewhere fairly close, and the same applies in this film. They could have easily made up a storyline for this film about how they suddenly came into more money they could have travelled and possibly, in the end, somehow lost the money just to make a “fancier” adventure, for the film to be “fit for the big screen”. But no, the creators never lose their way, neither in this film nor throughout the show. I think there is something delightfully charming about that decision, always keep things on the low, casual. It’s also clever as had the creators decided to “go big”, and then at the end of this film; we would watch them lose their money, it would be a significant cheat as that would make the movie pretty much pointless like it doesn’t matter for the show. But knowing Bob’s Burgers, there will be references to this film in the next season.

My only “complaint”, and I can’t believe I am saying that, would be the song numbers. I thought there were one too many song numbers in this film. And I am saying this as somebody who adores Gene’s ability to be himself and compose all kinds of weird, funky music. I don’t even think there was a song that wouldn’t work for me, but especially in the second half, when they broke into yet another song, it was the only time my mind wondered how much time was left. For full disclosure, I watched Everything Everywhere All At Once (2022, my review here) for a second time just before this movie, so I might have been simply “overstimulated” as that movie is pure perfection. I will 100% watch Bob’s Burgers: The Movie again at home to see whether this one complaint I have is valid or not.

Another thing that is worth mentioning is how self-contained this movie is. What I mean by that is it works for us, the fans of this show, because we get many inside jokes and callbacks to previous seasons/episodes. But I think if you have never seen a single episode of Bob’s Burgers, you would still have a blast because there isn’t any “baggage”, and many “inside jokes” still work on their own. Your knowledge of the show only enhances your experience but isn’t required. The creative people behind this film understand who Belchers are and how down-to-earth they are, and that understanding worked beautifully for this reason too. This film isn’t “nostalgia, the movie” or “for true fans only”, no. I can imagine a person who has never seen the show watching this film, understanding who everybody was, their relations to each other and being intrigued enough to go back and start this show from the first season. I would love to hear from somebody who had never seen the show yet somehow ended up watching this film whether they enjoyed themselves and were intrigued to go back and give this show a go.

Overall, Bob’s Burgers: The Movie was a delightful time at the cinema. The film takes the characters we know and love and polishes everything just a tiny bit more for those nice shiny colours to pop up more on the big screen, but it never goes into the “we need to have a bigger adventure because this is a film!” territory. I think for any fan of this funny, quirky and delightful show, this film is a must-see event, and for everybody else, I think you might have a great time with it too. I can’t wait for season 13 to start, and I am curious how will they reference this movie in it.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

I won’t lie – The Dead Don’t Die is one of those “not for everybody” movies because it is so… not even original, per se. It is a very quirky zombie movie with an extremely dry sense of humour. Think of the “driest” humour you can imagine and multiply by ten, and you might be getting close to this zombie flick that has a bit of everything.

I wasn’t prepared for the “meta-ness” of it all. How characters in the movie refer to the song The Dead Don’t Die by Sturgill Simpson as the “theme song” or how Adam Driver knows he is in a movie. There is this running joke throughout the film where his character says (repeatedly): “Oh man, this isn’t gonna end well.” And Bill Murray‘s character asks what he means by that, and Adam says something along the lines of: “Well, I have read the script.” To which Bill replies: “He (Jim Jarmusch) only gave me our scenes. I never saw a complete script. After all I’ve done for that guy, and it’s a lot that you don’t even know about. What a dick.“

And this is just a glimpse of what this film is all about. And I think if you imagine Bill Murray saying the above line in the driest way possible, it might be a good indication of whether this film might be for you or not because I loved it. Upon further rewatches, it might reach the 5/5 star rating, but I would understand people not liking it. On IMDb, the film currently has 5.4/10 on Rotten Tomatoes, the critic rating is also 54%, and the audience score is even worse at 38%. And although I have enjoyed this dry zombie comedy, I am not surprised or even shocked by these lower scores. You need to be in a certain headspace to enjoy this, and more importantly, you need to adjust your “dry humour meter” to a maximum capacity. Because literally, everybody plays it straight here the entire time.

I think that might have tripped many people how “serious” everybody is, how all actors in this film movie deliver all the jokes with such a deadpan stare and extra dry sense of humour. Imagine if Shaun of the Dead (2004) dialled up the dryness of its comedy to eleven. It would be a very different movie. And I think that is what many people might have expected from The Dead Don’t Die, Shaun of the Dead kind of film, directed by Jim Jarmusch. What he delivered, however, was a zombie comedy that’s a kind of drama, kind of parody and 100% Jim Jarmusch. I have not seen many films from him (a glaring omission from my cinephile journey I need to fix), but in those few movies I saw, I noticed he has an extraordinary view of our little world. And his films can be very hit or miss for many. I don’t know about you, but I would much rather see a director swing big and missed than try to play it safe and have the most average film ever made.

Since I have already mentioned some of the cast, let’s delve deeper into it because Jim Jarmusch is still a name many mainstream stars would love to work for/with, and it shows. Along with the already mentioned Adam Driver and Bill Murray, you can find here: Tom Waits, Chloë Sevigny, Steve Buscemi, Danny Glover, RZA, Rosie Perez, Carol Kane, Iggy Pop, Selena Gomez, Austin Butler and Tilda Swinton! Yep, the term “star-studded” doesn’t begin to cover this film, even though some actors on this list have more of a “cameo” than a proper role. Won’t tell you which one as that is part of the fun. But I need to talk about Tilda Swinton and her performance here.

This film might be one of the only movies she’s appeared in that acknowledges her Scottish ancestry, even if the movie has her as this samurai-like killing machine, wielding her katana with such precision that Toshirô Mifune would have been proud. Yes, you are reading this right – she plays a Scottish character with a pretty thick Scottish accent that goes into full samurai mode when shit hits the fan or zombies leave the ground. It was chaotic, random, and so much fun to witness. It might be the most “Tilda Swinton role” ever, and I loved every second of it.

The only reason I can’t give this movie the perfect score is actually not that simple. It was more about a feeling I had. Do you have that feeling when you watch a movie and have a blast, but something is missing? It feels like everything seems to be in place correctly, yet you have this nagging feeling like there is some element you are not enjoying 100%. It is one of those “maybe when I watch it next time; I will appreciate it a bit more” movies.

Overall, The Dead Don’t Die was a blast for me. And yet, it is hard to recommend it “universally” given its nature isn’t universal, and the film’s appeal is far from universal. It will only click with a small, niche audience (as proven by the IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes rating), but that audience will fucking love it. I can imagine this film getting “a second life” in about 15/20 years from now, where it would join those films that flopped and were critically panned when they came out, only for them to be appreciated much more later on. I hope this will be the case for The Dead Don’t Die, but honestly, I don’t care that much, as I have enjoyed it no matter the ratings. I hope more people will see and discover this film for themselves. Also, The Dead Don’t Die song is an excellent jam of a song that won’t leave you for some time (yes, you can hear it about ten times throughout the film, so that’s why).

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

As I have mentioned in my review for Downton Abbey: A New Era (2022, my review here), the only subgenre of films I tend to struggle with are these old-timey “fancy dresses” movies about people who lived “back in the day”, and tend to solve problems that would not be problems nowadays. I know it is not a logical way of looking at it, but alas, we all have something. That is why I didn’t see Little Women for a while, even though I’ve heard very positive things about it. Until one evening, I noticed it was on one of the streaming services I subscribe to, so I finally pulled the plug. And I am glad I have.

First and foremost, the direction and cinematography are excellent. Greta Gerwig is showcasing her storytelling talent; I liked how we would go back and forth between the past and the present and how it served and enhanced the story without making the story confusing. At least I never got confused about where I was in the story. The cinematography by Yorick Le Saux was also on another level. Sure, I might not appreciate many of these “old times films”, but they all seem to have one thing in common – stunning cinematography. And Little Women is no exception. I found it strange this film was nominated for several Oscars (and won one for Costume Design) but was not nominated for “Best Cinematography”.

I guess it got overshadowed by the performances? Because Little Women is an acting vehicle for everybody involved, especially our four titular performers – Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, and Eliza Scanlen. First of all, all four performers have the “sister” dynamic/energy down. The way this movie is shot and told, they often bicker/talk over each other as a real family would. It’s easy to believe that all four of these young actresses could be sisters in real life because they work together so well. Those scenes where they are all together were definitely the highlight of this film.

But here’s the thing – those four are “big names”, yet we aren’t done, not by far. This movie features many more great actors, from Timothée Chalamet to Chris Cooper, Laura Dern, Meryl Streep and Bob Odenkirk, among some well-known names. And they aren’t here just because of their name alone; they all make sense and play their parts superbly. Besides the four sisters, I would like to highlight Timothée and Laura Dern. Both had roles as significant as our main heroines and had to step up to keep up with them, and they have.

I need to admit – this is the first adaptation of Little Women I have ever seen. I know this book seems to be “reimagined” almost every generation, but I have not stumbled upon any other version of this film. From the little I know and understand about this movie, this seems to be the most exceptional adaptation of the book. As those time jumps are not something that was in the book or any other versions (at least not to my knowledge, but I am more than happy to be corrected!), that decision was fascinating to me as a first-time watcher. That narrative form (cutting from the present to the past and vice versa) suited this film exceptionally well.

And that narrative choice, plus the cast of impressive actresses and stunning direction/camera work, might be why I really enjoyed this film, almost loved it. Why almost? I couldn’t help but feel that occasionally, the movie drags on a bit. It is 135 minutes long film, so this might seem obvious, but for most of the movie’s runtime, the length didn’t bother me. Until some scenes/moments came (especially towards the end, where you can tell where everything is going, all cards are on the table), and those few moments slowed the film down just a tiny bit. But that would be my only complaint, and as you can see, it isn’t a significant complaint. I wouldn’t mind rewatching the movie at some point, especially knowing how many talented actresses appear here.

Overall, Little Women is a great movie that is anything but “little”. Every scene feels big, either in scope or the stakes. Sure, some scenes or moments might drag on a bit too long, but I don’t think there was a scene or subplot I wouldn’t like. Greta Gerwig certainly deserves much bigger praise for this film. She took a classic book that’s been done and adapted so many times and managed to make it unique. I can’t compliment her direction or the choice of changing the narrative timeline enough. And putting together such a vast number of actresses, making sure they all have their moment to shine, that’s also not a small task… I can see Little Women growing on me. It’s one of those films I can’t wait to revisit.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

Enough Said was a fascinating movie. We don’t get movies like this anymore, where if it’s a love story, there are mainly about two young people who are trying to figure out their life. I can’t remember the last time I watched a film where the main premise was about two middle-aged adults. Both with kids, both with baggage from previous marriages or relationships, trying to get back on the dating scene and how awkward that can get, no matter how old they are. That initial stage of getting to know the other person can be a bit awkward, no matter how old you are. And this film displays it well.

As with most of these romantic films, if you don’t buy the main’s duo chemistry, you don’t buy the movie. Luckily, here is the first thing this movie has going for it – Julia Louis-Dreyfus and James Gandolfini have that chemistry. And truth be told, I wasn’t expecting them to work so perfectly together, but they did. I think part of it was both were able to showcase something they were not known for per se. Let’s start with Julia, she is known to be one of the funniest women ever, and she has some funny moments in this film as well. But more than that, we see her in a more dramatic role, we see her more vulnerable, and that’s something we wouldn’t have seen on a show like Veep (2012 – 2019). The same goes for James; he was mainly known for being Tony Soprano in The Sopranos (1999 – 2007), where he plays the head of this mafia family who can be ruthless. And in here, he gets to show his “more real” side. As he would often say, he was nothing like Tony; he was more like “a 260 pound Woody Allen“. And more than that, in this film, you can see him being this goofy, vulnerable guy who has his flaws, but he means well.

Speaking of flaws, let’s talk about why I enjoyed this movie as much. I appreciated how it portrayed Julia’s and James’ characters as people. Let me explain, in these romantic films, you usually have one wrong person and the other one; who is pretty much correct/right. In Enough Said, you watch both of our protagonists making mistakes and questionable decisions. Neither Julia nor James are flawless, but neither of them is “horrible”. And we get to watch how this film deals with that and plays around with that aspect.

Take the core story in this film, where you quickly discover Julia’s new customer and soon after, a best friend (Catherine Keener) is, in fact, James’ ex-wife. Given this is stated in the official plot synopsis, I wouldn’t consider this spoiler. Julia’s character knows that situation is wrong because she is trying to build a relationship with her ex-husband, so she should say something, but she does not. And not only that, she starts to fish for more information about his annoying habits. Of course, that quickly seeps into her relationship with James’s character, as Julia’s character is now hyper-focused on all these tiny little quirks that might not even irritate her, yet now she knows they used to annoy somebody else. It is exactly like when you meet somebody new, you are having a good time, and then your friend would point out: “By the way, you don’t mind how they do x, y or z?” And it’s not like you would mind that, but by your friend simply mentioning those, you will focus on that and nothing else. It might reach a point where you stop taking the person for who they are and instead see them through another person’s lens.

Another aspect I appreciated about Enough Said was that even though it might be a bit predictable at times, it never seems to fall for the obvious traps at the obvious moments. If you have seen a movie or two, not many things will surprise you here, but what surprised me was how I thought this thing would happen and for it to happen, but later on, not right then. Also, the drama seemed (to me) resolved in a more adult way than most of these films, but that might be due to most of these films being romcoms with teenagers or young adults. These people were both middle-aged, so not only does it makes sense it fits with everything.

Overall, Enough Said is a lovely film that hits you most unexpectedly. I went in expecting a decent rom-com starring the late James Gandolfini, who died a year after finishing this movie, so he never even saw the finished film. To my surprise, I got an intelligent rom-com starring two “normal” looking people with actually relatable issues they have to sort out. Maybe that is why the film worked for me a bit more, because even though both are well-known actors, neither Julia nor James are/were “mainstream” famous and neither ever felt too “Hollywood-y” to me. Or maybe it’s just I miss James and think he died way too soon. I can see him on the strength of this performance alone having a second career in more serious films, where he could have stepped out of the “Tony Soprano” shadow and shown us his serious side rather than the “cold-blooded killer”. If you want to remind yourself that he was a talented actor and want to see Julia giving a superb performance in an intelligent movie, put on Enough Said.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

Ghostbusters might be one of the most random movies that became a franchise in Hollywood’s history. If you go back and rewatch the original Ghostbusters (1984), you will notice how it just tells you one singular story with a couple of quirky, sometimes inappropriate characters. It’s an excellent movie, don’t get me wrong, but to me, this is the perfect example of how movies can be and how some “random” films can start a franchise. And before we move on any further, I also like Ghostbusters II (1989), and when I was growing up, it was my preferred of those two films. I think I just liked it better because it was funnier to me (at least at that time). Now, I can see its flaws more clearly, but I still enjoy it for what it is.

Before moving on to Ghostbusters: Afterlife, let us discuss the elephant (or a ghost in this case) in the room (or a ghost trap?) The 2016 Ghostbusters film is a kind of a reboot, kind of a sequel where they (Ghostbusters) already existed, and yet all the original cast members are not playing themselves…? Yes, I was one of the many who didn’t like this film. But not because they were all women. I said even at the time, if this movie got made with the original cast, it would have still flopped because the script was awful. It had some of our brightest and funniest actresses, but unfortunately, they were all told to do the same thing, or at least that is how it came across. One day, I might rewatch it and make it into a full review, but for now, I wanted to clarify where I stand on that weird semi-reboot/semi-sequel that is neither. Another reason I mentioned the 2016 film is simple – in Ghostbusters: Afterlife, the filmmakers made some choices (almost like the studio has learned their lesson?), and most of them worked. To an extent, they had an “easier” job as they could see what people didn’t like about the previous film.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife is first and foremost proper sequel. Yes, we follow brand new characters but they have clear ties with the original films, so that’s one confusion cleared up from the get go. Also, it’s new, young generation and perfectly cast lead. And no, I am not talking about Carrie Coon even though I liked her in this film a lot. As to me, the lead of this film and the movie stealing performance was by Mckenna Grace. Her Phoebe is the perfect blend in between awkward humour and her showing us how brilliant and smart her character is. I don’t think it’s a spoiler to say Phoebe is granddaughter of the late Harold Ramis’ character in this film and she couldn’t have played it more perfectly. Mckenna plays her just perfectly on the edge of homage to Harold’s character (you can see his sense of dry humour, she is as intelligent as her granddad, possibly even more intelligent) and making that character something new and unique to her. I have enjoyed her performance and I hope this is the future of any potential Ghostbusters films, shows or whatever else they will throw at us. As long as Mckenna Grace is there as Phoebe, I am in.

This movie worked well for its overall majority as it was trying to establish itself first, rather than relying on the legacy of the previous films. That was until it stopped doing that. And for me to discuss it properly, I need to get to some spoiler territory, so…

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

Ghostbusters: Afterlife really tried its hardest to reference the previous movies only when needed at first. At least that was what I got from the beginning; it felt like it was only referencing the past films for us to understand who was who and how they were related to the original movies. That got slightly overboard in the last 20 minutes, where we, of course, not only get all the living Ghostbusters back but they are also suited up. And not just that, but we also get Harold Ramis’ ghost. Yep, you read that right. And that was the decision I still go back and forth on. Because the first moment he appears in the film, helping his granddaughter fight the final ghosts, that moment was kind of sweet. But his CGI ghost definitely felt a bit weird later on, not talking, just kind of being there. I understand it was supposed to be a delightful tribute to a colleague and a friend who died too soon (and his family gave the filmmakers their blessings so they could “revive” him), but ultimately, I don’t like when films bring back dead actors. But again, in this case, I could see at least some argument being made about how it wasn’t about anything else but paying tribute to a friend. That doesn’t change the fact his ghost was there for a bit too long.

Believe it or not, I would be totally fine if all living Ghostbusters didn’t show up (in their suits nonetheless) for the finale. If you want them in your movie, sure, get them before that, maybe a phone call or something like that where they can impart some words of wisdom to the “young guns”, but let the young guns have their moment, their finale. That was the only thing that “spoiled” the film for me a bit – I understand why they did it, but I wish we could have had our main heroes going up against “the big bad” all by themselves. Because this entire film tries really hard to make Mckenna, Finn Wolfhard, Logan Kim and Celeste O’Connor into the new team, and for what it’s worth, they work pretty well together. But it’s almost like there was this fear of them handling the finale “a bit too well on their own”, so we needed the old guys to come back for one last hurrah. As much as I love the first two films, I would prefer if they stayed on the sidelines.

But as a potential new chapter, a new story with new characters to play around with, in this Ghostbusters world, I liked it. I hope we all got the “fan service” out of our system, and if we ever get a sequel to this film, it will be all about our new protagonists. No more “old” Ghostbusters, they had their time, and they were great. If you want to make more Ghostbusters films, it is now time to build on the new characters without delving too deep into the nostalgia.

Overall, Ghostbusters: Afterlife was a fun ride that managed to establish new characters and, until the last 20 minutes, avoided the unnecessary over-reliance on the previous movies and characters. This film works because of its young cast, and, this can’t be overstated enough, Mckenna Grace might be one of the best casting decisions in recent years. Jason Reitman did the best he could, and I hope if there is a sequel, he gets the chance to return with just the “young guns”, Carrie and, yeah, Paul Rudd could return too, as he is always a delight to see. Also, I wondered why Gozer looked like Olivia Wilde, only to discover that was really her. What a weird yet oddly great decision.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

As I have mentioned in my review for The Peanut Butter Falcon (2019, my review here), I admire Daniel Radcliffe. Or, to be more precise, the way he took charge of his career after he was done with the Harry Potter franchise. If you think about it, he was the lead of a massive (and still to this day most successful) young adult franchise. He must have been swamped with different offers for many big, mainstream films. And he said, nah, let me just do something smaller for less money but with a more intriguing pedigree. Sure, he still does big movies every once in a while, but if you look through his filmography, he mainly does indie films, intriguing movies like Swiss Army Man (2016). That, by the way, is also a strong recommendation as that is a highly unusual yet surprisingly lovely little film. Anyway, Guns Akimbo is in the same vein as Swiss Army Man, as it’s a film with a smaller budget but an interesting idea behind it. And besides Radcliffe, there is another performer who seems to be almost a guarantee of a great movie every time I see her – Samara Weaving.

Did you see the movie Gamer (2009)? If yes, you might have a decent idea about what you are signing up for with Guns Akimbo, as those movies are pretty similar. Except here, Daniel’s character (Miles) isn’t an “avatar” somebody else is using to play a real-life “shoot ’em up” game he gets forced into playing by… well, being a bit of a dick on the Internet. The idea of this film is simple there is a company that streams people fighting to the death live on the Internet, almost like modern-day gladiators, except more violent, with guns and a much larger audience. And one evening, Miles is trolling their website, so they pay him a visit and bolt guns to his hands. So whether he likes it or not, he is now a part of the game as well. And, of course, he is on a schedule of kill or be killed. And Samara’s character (Nix) is the one who is killing it (in the game and literally). That’s the basic idea of the story.

And as you would imagine, it gets insane quite quickly. But that’s the thing, you either are with it or not, and the movie announces itself early on. I appreciate films that do this when they let you in within the first five to ten minutes, and you know what you are in for immediately. Guns Akimbo is a hyperactive action movie that is a simple, straight-up fun with two brilliant performers who are not afraid to go for it. Let’s talk about them a bit more, shall we?

Everybody on this planet knows Daniel Radcliffe. But I still remember many would discredit him simply due to his involvement with the Harry Potter franchise; they would say he would get forgotten right after that franchise was over. I am so glad they were wrong, and he is not only still relevant, but he’s choosing these smaller films, where he is “allowed” to go all out, balls to the walls. Not just in this film, but in the already mentioned Swiss Army Man, it’s insane how “game” he is for anything; as long as the movie comes out well, he’s there for the director(s). And it shows on the screen; he’s so easy to root for in any film he appears in.

I am somewhat familiar with Samara Weaving, but she seems to be on the same trajectory as Daniel, except she was never the star of a major franchise. But she doesn’t need it because something tells me her time will come. She is a talented actress who also seems to be down with anything. You could argue she’s continuing her trajectory from Ready or Not (2019, my review here) and appears in yet another original, not mainstream film where she proves (yet again) how talented she is. I would love for her to join MCU. Not because everybody has to but to cement her star power and get her name to be more known to a larger audience. Because I fear she is still fairly unknown, despite her being in many films and proving she has the acting chops necessary for anything.

The main reason I am talking about both performers is simple – they are the film. If you don’t buy what those two are selling, you won’t enjoy the movie. They work not only separately but altogether, they played really well off of each other, and I would love to see this pairing again on the screen. It doesn’t have to be a sequel to Guns Akimbo, but I would love to see both Daniel and Samara doing maybe a straight-up comedy? I think that could be hilarious. And don’t get me wrong, this film is funny, but it’s not a comedy per se. It’s a straight-up action madness that is concerned with looking cool; at all times. And for most of its runtime, it works. The only tiny issue with this movie was the third act I thought was “lagging” a bit. But not enough to sour my mood or enjoyment of this crazy film.

Overall, Guns Akimbo is a blast, at times, quite literally. It’s a hyper action movie focused primarily on two people; who are both excellent in this film. Sure, is the story predictable at times, mainly in the third act? Yes, yes, it is. But the movie managed to stay cool without being obnoxious about it. The best way I could describe it is this film is “sneaky cool”. If Guns Akimbo were a guy at the bar, he’d be the confidently quiet cool guy, knowing exactly; what he is and what he isn’t rather than the obnoxious loud guy telling you “he’s kind of a big deal”. And even though this film is anything but “quiet”, I believe my metaphor works because this movie is aware of what it has going for it, and it leans into it, for better or worse. If you want to see something new, exciting, original and, at times, insane, look no further.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke