Tuesday, 14 October 2025

New tricks: "Good Boy"


The horror renaissance has developed such momentum that creatives, moneymen, distributors and exhibitors alike are being encouraged to take chances on complete curveballs. Ben Leonberg's debut
Good Boy has been positioned as Hallowe'en 2025's foremost novelty item: a film not only pieced together on a shoestring over 400 days in the woods of New Jersey - conjuring memories of the most notorious horror breakout of recent times, 1999's The Blair Witch Project - but also one that happens to feature in the lead role the writer-director's own dog, a retriever called Indy. Its set-up requires some feeling out, which is doubtless what happens when a film's protagonist can't bark exposition every five minutes. Indy's owner (played here by Shane Jensen) is a young man suffering from some form of lung disease who - seeking the fresh air, nature and quiet that might aid his recovery - relocates from the city to a cabin in the woods previously owned by his late grandfather. (Old home videotapes left behind reveal gramps is played by Larry Fessenden, the Jack Nicholson of low-budget horror cinema, lending his seal of approval to the project - while also setting us to worry what grim fate awaits the new arrivals.) Naturally, pooch is quicker than his doped-up handler to realise something's amiss: as if the creaky, dusty, generally underlit location weren't in itself enough to unsettle, we also learn it's hunting season out this way, and it's not long before a third party appears under the bed, Indy's preferred hiding spot. Put it like this: this is one of those productions where the boilerplate "no animals were harmed" disclaimer in the closing credits cues a bigger than average sigh of relief.

Looked at one way, the results aren't quite so novel: it was only a couple of years back that critics were cooing over a stoic donkey's turn in Jerzy Skolimowski's Bresson update EO, although that film was striving for sociological significance, where Leonberg is making spooky-season popcorn fare. Indy nevertheless gives a stronger, more expressive performance than many of the current cinema's better-paid leading men: Leonberg's handsome close-ups pick the dog's bright, sometimes worried-looking eyes and wet nose out of the cabin's faintly Vermeerish light. (Faced with this or Manson-eyed Jared Leto playing some kind of artificial intelligence, I know which screen I'm heading into.) Indy is, indeed, a good boy - playing scampering curiosity whenever his director asks him to, yelping loneliness when the situation calls for that - in a pet project assembled with visible love: one of the movie's passing achievements is that it explained to me, a non-dogowner, why dogowners get the way they do about their dogs, and - in certain cases - insist upon turning their cameras on their dogs. The surprise is how accomplished Good Boy is from a dramatic perspective: after a reel or so of hokey, bumps-in-the-night stuff, it develops into a potent little metaphor for the agonies of watching a loved one slip away from you when there's nothing much you can do about it. Indy is no sentimental Lassie figure, bounding through to save the day through sheer force of personality, although this script affords him a kind of ESP - or animal empathy - which permits Leonberg to trick this story out with Lynchian visions and nightmares. If the whole still falls on the spare side - 73 minutes, scant dialogue beyond "sit" or "stay", a cast of one man and his dog - it's effective and affecting, and certainly more effective and affecting than the technical exercise of Steven Soderbergh's Presence. Indy deserves a treat; so, too, does his owner.

Good Boy is now playing in selected cinemas.

Monday, 13 October 2025

Something wild: "Kantara: A Legend - Chapter 1"


A prequel that far outstrips its predecessor (2022's Kantara: A Legend), the somewhat confusingly titled Kantara: A Legend - Chapter 1 opens with a breathless gabble of ear- and eyecatching story prompts. Have you heard the one about the celestial wild boar? How about the tale of the baby found in a well, or the blacksmith whose hammer accidentally unleashed a cloud of hornets? It's as though once the original, a solid enough but comparatively self-contained attempt to update the long-running mythological dramas of the Indian stage for 21st century multiplex audiences, went beyond a certain figure at the box office, the floodgates in writer-director-producer-star Rishab Shetty's mind well and truly opened. You want stories?, Shetty now asks. I'll give you stories: about an overreaching king, about a people sold into slavery at the beginnings of the spice trade, about a hunt that goes disastrously wrong after the huntsmen anger the presiding spirit of the forest. The substantial profit the first movie turned has now been reinvested into a bid to tell all of the above stories - and many, many more - in one two-hour, fifty-minute go; it's mythomania writ dazzlingly large. (The indefinite article in the title shortsells it: here, most assuredly, be legends.) Malevolent-slash-protective spirit Panjurli has returned, still ending his every pronouncement with his signature "Woooooah!", much as that Trump guy concludes social-media posts with his own stock phrases. That's one element of reassuring continuity. Yet this time round, I was struck by how completely fucking batshit these stories are, owing as they do more to a free-roaming fantasist like Apichatpong Weerasethakul than they do to the rational beancounting and starry muscle-flexing of the Indian cinema mainstream. Chapter 1 is... out there. And then some.

In his capacity as actor this time round, Shetty's essentially expanding upon a footnote the first film tucked away in dispatches: the burly yet goodhearted Berme, foundling turned tribal leader, striving to guide his fellow forest dwellers through the chaos and carnage of the Kadamba dynasty. It's as a writer-director-producer that he most makes his presence felt, however, not least by ensuring the new film is by any measure substantially bigger than what's come before: huge sets, hundreds if not thousands of extras, a forest backdrop as detailed and inviting as Endor or Pandora. The first Kantara - which may have had to be somewhat guarded, being at once a commercial unknown and one of the first Kannada films to enter production after Covid - was to some degree standard-issue mass cinema: a single-track history with attendant blindspots and biases. The endlessly busy, admirably characterful follow-up adopts more of a compendium approach, throwing its muscular arms wide to embrace both a colossal setpiece involving a runaway chariot (wherever he is now, you sense Cecil B. De Mille looking on with envy, his fingers gripped to the armrests) and a deft editorial note or two from Mani Ratnam's recent Ponniyin Selvan features, although Shetty, being a moviestar of the people, insists his characters be at all points far less nobly inclined than auteur Ratnam's precision-sculpted chesspieces. In another era, the ruling elite Berme finds himself up against might well have inspired their own reality series: a sottish, workshy, arrogant prince (Gulshan Devaiah, inviting your boos), doomed from the moment he declares there can't possibly be spirits in the forest he's hoping to chop up for spices; a minister (Pramod Shetty) who loves the sound of his own voice; the prince's business-minded sister (Rukmini Vasanth) - very much the Kim K. of this operation - who can't help but catch the redblooded Berme's eye. Yet the underlying principle of this screenplay is decidedly Ratnamian: however mad things get, these figures from the distant past will prove every bit as horny, craven, muddle-headed, weak and/or opportunistic as people you and I could name today.

You could argue that, as with the first film, there's not enough Panjurli, now established as this series' resident lord of misrule. The difference is that this time round, Shetty barely needs Panjurli, so robust is his earthly characterisation; indeed, there's something admirable about Chapter 1's rejection of the formula a character like Panjurli represents. The Kantara films could very easily have become the spooky forest franchise the way, say, the Conjuring films have become this era's foremost haunted-house franchise: Shetty leans into this story's supernatural elements in the new film's intermission block, which features electro tribal beats, a vicious attack from a roiling sea of langurs, and one of the recent Indian cinema's better rendered CG tigers. But as well as this ghost story, he's also telling a love story, a social-justice story, a war story (with inspired use of flaming trees as biodegradable projectiles) and an environmental fable, and using this particular backdrop to generate both stirring action setpieces and superior gagwriting. (Heard the one about the two clowns who turn down access to a barrel full of finely aged grog on the basis they can't believe anyone would drink what they dismiss as "out-of-date booze"?) Yes, what these stories ultimately add up to is a structure off of which a grassroots hero can leap, thereby toppling an unjust regime, as so many filmi heroes have before him. Yet as embodied by Shetty's pop-eyed beardo, who spends around 75% of the new film's backend possessed and convulsing, there's a wildness about this particular retelling that keeps long stretches unpredictable and - at its very best - makes for rollicking, gloriously strange, sometimes outright headscrambling popular cinema. The Kantara films are the movies Villeneuve's dullard Dunes really ought to have been. Chapter 1 is what would have happened had Hollywood tapped Jack Black to make his own Dune.

Kantara: A Legend - Chapter 1 is now playing in selected cinemas.

Saturday, 11 October 2025

For what it's worth...




UK box office Top Ten (for the weekend of October 3-9, 2025):

1 (new) Taylor Swift: The Official Release Party of a Showgirl (12A)
2 (1) One Battle After Another (15) ****
3 (3) Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale (PG)
4 (new) The Smashing Machine (15) ***
7 (5) The Long Walk (15) ***
8 (new) Him (18) *
9 (10) The Bad Guys 2 (PG)
10 (re) Avatar: The Way of Water (12) ***

(source: BFI)

My top five:
1. Perfect Blue [above]

  
DVD/Blu-Ray/Download top ten: 

1 (new) The Naked Gun (15) ***
2 (4) How to Train Your Dragon (PG)
4 (13) A Minecraft Movie (PG)
5 (6) Superman (12)
6 (22) M3GAN 2.0 (15) **
7 (2) 28 Years Later (15) ****
8 (10) Wicked: Part 1 (PG) **


My top five: 
1. Battleship Potemkin
5. Elio


Top five films on terrestrial TV this week:
1. The Blair Witch Project (Friday, BBC One, 12.35am)
2. Ordinary Love (Thursday, BBC Two, 11pm)
3. A Knight's Tale (Saturday, Channel 4, 12.50pm)
4. Wallace & Gromit in the Curse of the Were-Rabbit (Saturday, BBC One, 2.15pm)
5. Housebound (Sunday, BBC Two, 12.50am)

Curses: "I Swear"


I Swear
 isn't the All-4-One biopic its title most immediately suggests, rather the British film industry circling back usefully to an earlier, impactful documentary. Produced and directed by Valerie Kaye and originally aired as part of the BBC's QED strand in 1989, John's Not Mad was a groundbreaking half-hour study of one John Davidson, a teenager from Galashiels who was succeeding in carving a life out despite an acute case of Tourettes that saw him cursing violently at anyone and everyone. It was poignant, but also funny enough to assume cult status - and Davidson himself was very much in on the joke, recognising the absolute howlers coming out of his mouth, usually (as per this syndrome's bizarre MO) the worst thing he could think of at the exact worst time to say it. Like Maureen Rees or Ozzy Osbourne, later megastars of what became reality television, he was above all else a great character - stricken, but sharp and self-aware - which was one reason the camera returned to him for two sequels-slash-updates: The Boy Can't Help It in 2002 and Tourettes: I Swear I Can't Help It in 2009. Now, by way of a third act, and after presumably many long years in development, there arrives this fictional reiteration, produced, written and directed by Kirk Jones, who made the genial Waking Ned way back when. The new film is two things simultaneously: a more robust refinement of the cosy cussing of 2023's busted awards contender Wicked Little Letters, further proof that we Brits remain the world's greatest swearers, especially when we don't mean to swear; and secondly, a supremely enjoyable rerouting of the latter-day superhero movie, centring a hero whose Tourettes is really an erratic power he must first learn to master, then use to help others.

Initially, Jones's film presents as a faintly banal coming-of-age story, no different from many others; it's only when the younger John (Scott Ellis Watson) encounters a Yeats poem at senior school that he explodes into paroxysms of facial tics and voluminous outbursts. (Poetry does that to some boys.) This being Britain in the Eighties, and then the Nineties, no-one - certainly not W.B. Yeats - has the right vocabulary for it: sweary John is dismissed as "a fucking freak" by his contemporaries and packed off by appalled teachers to receive the strap. I worried, early on, that Jones was going to use Tourettes as a generator of sniggering setpieces. Certainly, there are those here: a disastrous cinema date, frontloaded with the Kia-Ora and Flake commercials of yore; a game of blackjack that goes nowhere; later ribald bouts of courtroom effing-slash-jeffing and the worst imaginable introduction to any character played by Peter Mullan. (The framing device - assembled to reassure nervier viewers that nothing too dreadful will befall the film's subject - sees the adult John, played by Robert Aramayo, going to collect his MBE from Buckingham Palace; as those of you who've seen the trailer will already be aware, he's barely even entered the film before letting slip a strangulated shriek of "Fuck the Queen".) But Jones also quietly layers up the tragic aspects of this boy's life; you may find yourself in need of those route-one laughs to stave off gnawing despair. Davidson's father quits the family home; his mum (Shirley Henderson) withdraws into seclusion; there is a suicide attempt. Davidson's TV appearances made him a public figure, arguably a star, but even some way into adulthood, Tourettes rendered him a lonely boy, banished from polite society as his parents once sent him from the family dining table, and scared that his sudden lashings-out would drive potential new friends away. The life gets fleshed out; it's not merely cheap laughs.

Half of that job was, you'd say, done at the casting stage. As the younger and older Davidsons, Watson and Aramayo not only look the part - slipping effortlessly into John's shellsuits - but nail the violence of these convulsions: those of a young man attempting to pull himself together, fix the chemistry in his head, and bite down hard on the rudest of words. Jones surrounds these newcomers with safe hands who've realised this is a chance to talk (and laugh) about an underdiscussed condition. Henderson, dressed like a Scottish Widow, deftly sketches a small, guarded, hard life; Maxine Peake, as the mental health nurse who prescribes understanding and acceptance, gets to be cheerier and more expansive; and Mullan, as the caretaker who offers John work, talks Aramayo through a job interview that's at once hilarious and heart-in-throat terrifying. Something of these players' earlier work in social realism endures - and often pokes through - I Swear's jollier Britflick toplayer; you come away sensing this would be a tough existence even if your brain weren't going haywire. There's an obvious concession to the mainstream in the film's sporadic bouts of Britpop nostalgia, and I suspect one reason we're getting this story now is that John Davidson somehow transcends political correctness, as a man who bears no responsibility whatsoever for the terrible things he says. Yet the movie remains lived-in rather than calculated or sugarcoated, and its own chemistry is sound; it's a rare comedy-drama that balances the funny with the heartbreaking, the painful with the inspirational. Is it too eccentric to floor the awards circuit the way, say, Scott Hicks' Shine did thirty years ago? (I wonder if it isn't closer to Lee Daniels' Precious: a very special case.) Either way, the possibility of the real John Davidson cursing at Ryan Seacrest on the Oscars red carpet is a tantalising one - and in the coming months, we'll see far less compelling contenders for the title of this year's wee film that could.

I Swear is now playing in cinemas nationwide.

Cemetery man: "Corpse Bride" at 20


Back in 2005,
Corpse Bride was Tim Burton returning to something like creative first principles after a run of expensive live-action features (1999's Sleepy Hollow, 2001's Planet of the Apes, 2003's Big Fish, arguably even the same year's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) that hadn't sparked into quite as much life as everybody had hoped. Burton had made his money; now he did one for love, or for art at least. This was stopmotion, overseen by Mike Johnson (who'd worked on 1993's The Nightmare Before Christmas and 1996's James and the Giant Peach) for the newly emergent Laika, the Pixar rivals with the highest quality control; the voicecast drew on Burton's fetish actors (Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Michael Gough, with assists from Paul Whitehouse, Richard E. Grant and Albert Finney); the songs, of course, arrived care of Danny Elfman. It opens with a simple image, drawn from close personal experience: a pallid, nervy young man - the Depp-voiced Victor Van Dort - sketching alone at his desk. This weakling aesthete is in the process of being strongarmed by an overbearing mother (Tracey Ullman) into wedding a society belle (Emily Watson); yet stammering through a rehearsal of his vows in a cemetery, he accidentally draws the attentions of the lovelorn, maggot-eaten revenant of the title (Bonham Carter) and finds himself an accidental necrophile, newly entangled in a paranormal throuple. Amazingly, the film went out in matinee slots with a PG certificate, providing a generation of tots with their first introduction to this filmmaker's long-held fear of the conventional; two decades on, it plays as to Burton what Phantom Thread was to Paul Thomas Anderson, offering as much neurotic self-critique as spooky half-term fun.

For their part, the Laika artisans lent Burton's imaginings a melancholy beauty, as distinct from the more festive, Disney-backed Nightmare. The Bride, clad in her Havisham-like dress, turns circles in the moonlight; spectral footsteps left behind in the snow cue an inevitable "cold feet" joke. Savings were made on modelling clay: the film's Victoriana is set out in some version of black and white, and only when Victor breaches the underworld does the screen explode in juke-joint greens, purples and reds, anticipating the Day of the Dead tones of the later The Book of Life and Coco. There's only one world Burton wants to live in, and it ain't the one up top. Six feet under, limbs unscrew themselves, bodies split in two, and a worm assumes the voice of Peter Lorre; everything's mobile and flexible here, and nothing's as visibly set in stone as it is in polite society. If Elfman's score doesn't match the high bar the composer set for himself with Nightmare (nor, indeed, Burton's use of music in Beetlejuice), there are still moments of loveliness, like a harmonium duet for detachable hands. Even forgiving cinephiles would have to admit Burton's been variable this century; that he retains the goodwill he does is partly been down to his ability to balance out the impersonal business of IP renewal the studio system is now set up to facilitate (such as 2010's Alice in Wonderland and 2019's Dumbo) with pet projects like this and 2012's Frankenweenie. The Bride surely informed Monica Bellucci's ghoulish apparition in last year's Beetlejuice Beetlejuice: part scream queen, part (bad) dreamgirl. Kids will continue to thrill to the original as the nights draw in; for accompanying adults, this is the film that explains the most about Burton's dating habits in the years since.

Corpse Bride is now showing in cinemas nationwide.

Friday, 10 October 2025

Streetlife: "Urchin"


In his directorial debut
Urchin, the actor Harris Dickinson hands a contemporary a prime opportunity to inhabit a character for 100 minutes. The contemporary is Frank (son of Stephen) Dillane, a dishevelled cherub: part young Pete Doherty, part young Gary Lineker. The character is one Mike, a young homeless man adrift on the streets of London. At his sharpest, Mike is methodical as a means of keeping what little he has left together: you see it in the way he unrolls his sleeping bag for the night, or takes notes upon gaining entry to a halfway house. He has intelligence and ambition, announcing vague plans to operate his own chauffeuring business someday; he's not entirely woebegone, which gives us hope. Almost as compelling is the society the film begins to describe. If there's one director Dickinson has taken particular notes from over this opening stretch of his acting career, it's that sometime sociologist Ruben Östlund. Dickinson here redirects the observational realism of Östlund's early films, applying it not to score cheap points or easy laughs, but instead to plug his actors into authentic-seeming situations; that task achieved, he then starts to ask questions both of the society that allows its most vulnerable to descend to this level, and of the citizens who walk on by, ignoring Mike's pleas for help. Urchin isn't a documentary, rather a fiction inspired by its director's work with the dispossessed; even so, there are stretches, particularly early on, where you could be forgiven for thinking it was.

As a screenwriter, Dickinson wards off any piousness or sentimentality with a policy of (sometimes blunt) honesty. The film is nothing if not upfront about Mike's capacity for aggression: the title card has barely appeared when we witness him assaulting a good Samaritan so as to swipe his watch and wallet. Even if we're not immediately repelled, even if we rationalise this act of violence as that of a desperate man, we're then left in the company of a character who presents as something of an oddity, his hair untended and shaggy, his walk defensive and scampering, his musty harlequin wardrobe sourced either from bins or charity shops. Dickinson tosses in a curious erectile dysfunction anecdote, and curates one strangely memorable image: Mike walking along a street clutching a potted baby cactus, only just pricklier than its bearer. He's not woebegone, but he is a little on the eccentric side; faced with such a restless and unpredictable presence, you can well understand why some of his fellow humans choose to look the other way or cross the road entirely. Yet this struck me as a deeply empathetic move on Dickinson's part: the protagonist here isn't the waifish innocent the mind conjures upon exposure to, say, Phil Collins' "Another Day in Paradise", but a fellow unravelling at the seams, someone who risks confounding, exasperating or appalling those of us lucky enough to have roofs over our heads. Dickinson approaches Mike much as Agnes Varda shot the Sandrine Bonnaire character in Vagabond - sympathetically, but not flatteringly - while noting in passing that Mike is really no more eccentric than some of the guests at the hotel where he lands kitchen work. The boundary separating polite society from dereliction of some kind can be that thin and porous.

Urchin, too, moves (sometimes staggers) in strange ways. It's at its boldest in its rejection of neat, linear recovery arcs: there are no straight lines here, and the process of reassimilation is shown to be haphazard at best. Even sober, Mike takes one step forwards, then two steps back, followed by a sudden lurch sideways. All this shuffling does, however, throw up niggling, valuable, sometimes provocative truths. Mike seems consumed by a shame that relates to his past, tearing up amid a reconciliation exercise with the victim of his assault, and then again during a dance performance he stumbles into while high on ketamine. Dickinson takes great care to give the character an inner life, repeatedly cutting away to cave-like interiors that appear to represent both an escape from the urban environment and a pictorialisation of Mike's gnawing solitude. Urchin remains small in scope, scratching around in the margins and turning up sometimes actorly scenes of conflict and conversation; it's also guilty of deploying what's become a British arthouse trope, co-opting a popular hit (Atomic Kitten's "Whole Again") for the purposes of pseudo-profundity. (I can understand why: here's something easily stitched into the trailer for what might otherwise be a hard sell, a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down.) What expands is Dillane's central performance: Mike gets only more complex, more knotty, more troubling, moving beyond the consolations of pat psychology. (By the finale, he's broken clear of earthly concerns and can be observed floating in space, a universe in himself - or perhaps a black hole.) Hollywood would prescribe this boy a stock course of treatments to be ticked off in order; Dickinson recognises Mike as an individual who really needs individualised care and supervision. Such idiosyncrasies bode well for this hyphenate filmmaker's future: Urchin is what would have been called an intriguing debut in the days before everything had to be heralded as a major four- or five-star breakthrough.

Urchin is now showing in selected cinemas.

Monday, 6 October 2025

Foul play: "Him"


Everything the shuffling
The Smashing Machine gets right about pro sports is thrown into even sharper relief by what the insistently pumped-up, borderline berserk Him gets wrong about both pro sports and entry-level filmmaking. You can see where Justin Tipping's sophomore feature, brought to you by Jordan Peele's Monkeypaw Productions, is coming from: its not so very wild idea is to suggest that there's something fundamentally unhealthy, if not indeed outright evil, about the desire of those in competitive sports to groom, anoint, worship and exploit the next big thing. (I'm guessing Tipping and co-writers Zack Akers and Skip Bronkie weren't among those being picked first in P.E., despite having the first names Justin, Skip and Zack, but that shouldn't invalidate their point.) Wide-eyed gridiron prodigy Cameron Cade (Tyriq Withers) suffers a mysterious head trauma before the title pronounces him the next big thing, and is soon being pushed back towards the fray, even though doctors maintain another such injury risks torpedoing his career altogether. That last fact is utterly lost on merciless coach Isaiah (Marlon Wayans), who welcomes the recovering Cameron to the bootcamp he operates out of a bunker in the desert (uh-oh), and is soon putting our boy through weaponised practise drills, starting relatively light before building up to the true gruntwork of targeted concussions and cold-blooded murder. Wisely, at no point does anybody mention the NFL, the highly litigious, multi-million dollar organisation that also brought America O.J. Simpson, Aaron Hernandez and Michael Vick; this would appear Tipping's one coachable tactic.

Clearly, this director isn't going for Friday Night Lights realism, rather a baroque, promo-adjacent style that pours on the visual bijouterie like Hennessy and sets a cacophonous soundclash (thumping needledrops, exaggerated-eruptive Foley work) atop that. A kind of compositional sense is evident - think Wes Anderson symmetries, painted over by Tarsem Singh at his most sleepless - but, boy, is it splurgy and erratic: the X-ray effect the film sporadically resorts to would have been most potently applied when Cam and Isaiah are snapping each other's limbs amid the finale, but that's the only time in these 96 minutes that Tipping thinks to err on the side of restraint. Story and characterisation seem some way down the list of directorial priorities. Instead of actors, Tipping casts abrasive personalities: Aussie comic Jim Jefferies is mostly indifferent as the bunker's medic, while Julia Fox, styled after Gaga as resident PR/white witch, is the biggest giveaway Tipping's looking beyond his own narrative to the red-carpet premiere. (If the one legit criticism of One Battle After Another is that it may well prove Tarantino's film of 2025, Him dares to envision something worse: Kanye's film of the year.) Withers offers a buff, bright-eyed charm that might usefully be repurposed in happier circumstances, and it's nice to see Wayans back in the game, but neither performer is well-served by a futzing script that barely identifies who these people are, and undercuts any slyer comic or satirical intent with regular bouts of blunt-force carnage; the images are every bit as aggressive and noisy as these characters are about football. I haven't for some while seen a calling-card movie that so obviously resembles a career suicide note: even if you don't flee the room covering your eyes and ears, all this grotesque opulence permits you is the one response, and it's that you make while watching a clash of heads in slo-mo replay. Eessh.

Him is now playing in cinemas nationwide.