A Film Review & Discussion by Kate O’Brien. 

There will be spoilers ahead – You’ve been warned! 

J.M Barrie’s Peter Pan has widely been hailed as the children’s literature classic text for a long time, & the figure of Peter Pan is often the icon used when it comes to encapsulating & celebrating the freedom of youth & the idyllic nature of childhood. 

There are many interpretations of the tale of Peter Pan … some say it is a story that celebrates the magical nature of childhood, others say it is a cautionary tale about what we miss out on if we refuse to grow up, some have even added a horror twist to the tale, imagining that the character of Peter Pan is an angel figure who guides children who have died very young to Neverland, which is a kind of heaven-like place. All of these different readings make the text one that can be returned to often. There are many imaginings & readaptations of the tale, the latest one being Disney’s Peter Pan & Wendy, directed by David Lowery. The film was just released on Disney + (April, 2023). 

I’ve made no secret of the fact that I felt disappointed with some of Disney’s latest releases. I felt that Hocus Pocus 2 lacked any real stakes & I was looking forward to Disenchanted as I loved the original when I was little, however I was disappointed by the plot & some of the lazy tropes that were employed. As someone who loved the original Disney animated version of Peter Pan when I was little & as someone who studies children’s texts often, I was excited when I first saw the trailer for Peter Pan & Wendy, however I do remember thinking, “They better do this well.” 

I was pleasantly surprised by this readaptation. I didn’t read any other reviews before sitting down to watch it. The only feedback that I’d heard before watching the film for myself was that, “Jude Law had fun with the role of Captain Hook,” (paraphrased) . A comment like this is usually code for, “The film was just okay, and the actor was okay, but he had fun,” however I came away from this film feeling like Jude Law stole the show. This version of the story focused more on Wendy & Captain Hook rather than on Peter Pan himself, & while this decision did have some minor drawbacks that I will expand upon in further points, I felt that this was a really great decision overall. Captain Hook in this readaptation was a wonderful, compelling, highly fleshed out character & he had some brilliant lines. In fact, Captain Hook uttered my favourite line in the entire film. “You find me a child who truly knows the difference between right and wrong. And I’ll show you a man who can’t remember why it mattered in the first place.” 

This readaptation focused a lot on Wendy & her readiness to grow up. At the beginning of the film she does not feel ready, which prompts her to wish to go to Neverland in the first place. 

I thoroughly enjoyed this modern take on Wendy. The character of Wendy in the original is a young girl who is quite looking forward to growing up & she is happy to envision herself as a mother to the Lost Boys, she also looks forward to being like her own mother & having a family some day. It is important to remember that the original version of this tale was prominently popular in the 19th century so Wendy’s wishes reflect the societal view of what was appropriate for women to aspire to at that time. In this version, Wendy is still maternal in the sense that she loves her younger brothers & she cares for them. She also comforts & sings to the Lost Boys, but in this readaptation, Wendy confidently states that she’s not even sure if she wants to be a mother someday. I found this refreshing as the change didn’t strip Wendy of her maternal nature altogether, as one can be maternal if they are not a mother & one can care for children without wanting their own, but this change did not rule out the possibility of her ever wanting children in the future as she has yet to grow up to see what the future holds & how she feels. It felt remarkably nuanced & nuance is something that these Disney readaptations in particular often lack. I also felt like her apprehension around going off to boarding school & growing up felt authentic. She was excited about all that there is to come, but she was also nervous about the impending changes & this felt extremely realistic. 

As I said above, this version gives audiences a more fleshed out Captain Hook, one that was once a friend of Peter Pan’s. The two boys played together & shared  adventures around Neverland until Captain Hook, who back then was simply James, decided that he missed his mother. He was just a boy after all. James wanted to go home, so he was banished by Peter Pan, but he never made it home. Instead he was found & raised by pirates & eventually he grew up to be the infamous Captain Hook. I’ve said it in a point above, but it is worth repeating, Jude Law stole the show. He played the part with great depth & I was drawn in by his performance.

When this film began, I predicted that the pirates may be my favourite & I was right. 

The atmosphere created on the pirate ship was fantastic. The fact that this film incorporated sea shanties was brilliant. The music was fantastic. The singing, chanting pirates created a rich, magical atmosphere & I must say that seeing Skull Rock was brilliant. 

Now I have arrived at the point of Peter Pan himself. While I enjoyed that this film focused on Wendy & Hook, & Tigerlily to a certain extent (she plays a huge role in helping Wendy in the final battle), there were, in my opinion, some drawbacks that came with this choice. 

Alexander Molony played the role of Peter Pan & while I think he did a good job with the material, I felt like he was largely absent for quite a lot of the film & when he was onscreen, I felt that he didn’t command my attention in the way that the role of Peter Pan needs to. 

I’m not sure what age Molony was during filming, but his version of Peter Pan felt very young & he seemed really childish in certain scenes – which could have been a direction choice & if so, this would make sense due to what this version did with the character, but I’ll admit that while watching I could not help but think of Jeremy Sumpter. 

Jeremy Sumpter played Peter Pan in the 2003 live action adaptation of Peter Pan. I can admit that I may be biassed as this was the version of the story that I grew up watching, & Sumpter may have been older, but I just felt he was so much more commanding in the role. Peter Pan is a mischievous, somewhat spoiled, idealistic, heroic, freedom loving character & he is supposed to be charming & hopeful even though at the end of the story, Wendy & the others are always meant to return home. Molony’s delivery was quieter. I will restate that this could have been a director decision so I am not blaming the actor as that would be unfair. He looked great in the role & he played his key scenes with a quiet, gentle sincerity, especially towards the end of the film, however there were some moments that this quieter approach just did not work. A great example is the iconic sword fight scene between Captain Hook & Peter Pan that takes place at the film’s climax. Captain Hook & his pirates have taken Wendy, Tink, & the Lost Boys captive, we as the audience are supposed to feel like all is lost as Peter Pan has been beaten, but then when Peter Pan arrives to fight Hook, we’re supposed to be thrilled to see him. We’re supposed to cheer. Our excitement should mirror the excitement of Wendy & the Lost Boys, but in this version, Wendy was given a much more active role in the sword fight, she grabs a sword herself & tackles some pirates so when Peter Pan arrives again, I couldn’t help but feel slightly underwhelmed. Instead of cheering for him, I kind of felt like Wendy was doing fine on her own & I’d rather the film allow her to have this fight for herself since the plot focused more on her anyways. Having Peter Pan come back to fight Captain Hook felt slightly out of place. It felt like the film was going in a fresh direction, but then someone said,  “No wait, we have to have the iconic fight scene between Peter Pan & Captain Hook.” 

This point leads me to the one other critique I have about the plot. As I’ve already stated, this readaptation focused more on Wendy & Captain Hook, especially Hook as his backstory felt tragic & misunderstood instead of downright evil. Wendy talks a lot about the idea of “growing up wrong,” as Peter Pan insists that if you grow up, you’ll end up evil like Captain Hook, & this mode of thinking highlights his immaturity. Wendy realises that growing up does not automatically mean that one will end up like Captain Hook, she states that he grew up wrong. Again, this is a very nuanced take from Wendy & it felt like the plot was leading up to an interesting plot point – Captain Hook grew up to be a resentful, bitter adult because of being banished by Peter Pan & because of being raised by pirates. The focus on having Wendy & Captain Hook discuss his banishment from Neverland, all because “he dared to miss his mother,” (paraphrased), & the fact that Wendy tells Captain Hook that he was just a boy & it was only natural that he missed his mother felt like the film was setting up Peter Pan to be the bad guy as there are subtle hints that the Lost Boys also miss home, & miss their mothers, but Peter Pan shuts the conversation down whenever it arises. He is also upset & angry that Wendy does not love Neverland. She wants to grow up, she wants to be more than she is now & Peter Pan cannot accept that. 

In my opinion, it seemed like the film was gearing up to be much more nuanced overall in tone, with Hook not being a villain just for the sake of it & instead having him be hurt & angry about Peter Pan’s actions, while also perhaps highlighting that Peter Pan & Neverland are not as wonderful as they seem. I won’t go as far as to say that the film was going to call Peter Pan the bad guy outright, but the film was definitely gearing up to state that he was not totally innocent in his feud with Captain Hook. It felt like the film’s narrative was being set up to go in one direction, but then perhaps this idea about a more nuanced take didn’t get a green light further on in the production process, because while watching it felt like the film was gearing up to do something different, but ultimately had to allow Peter Pan to return at the end to fight Hook & have his iconic sword fight in which he is cheered on as the heroic, hopeful figure. 

Now I will say that there is a moment where Peter Pan does apologise to Captain Hook for hurting him, & the film ends with Peter Pan returning to Neverland as always & he & Captain Hook share a knowing smirk. Their game will begin again because it must, it always does, for there is no Peter Pan without Captain Hook & vice versa. On one hand I like this idea, I like imagining that these two know what their roles on Neverland are & they play them out each time, but underneath it all there is a fondness that comes with knowing someone such a long time – for as the story goes, generations of Wendy’s family return to Neverland again & again, each of them having their magical adventure before returning home to grow up so the story of Peter Pan & Captain Hook will inevitably play out over & over again too. I like this thought because at the end of the film, there is an implication that Wendy’s own mother has been to Neverland too because when asked “who is that boy?,’ she, with a knowing smile, says, “Peter Pan.” 

So yes, on one hand I like the idea that Peter Pan & Captain Hook know their roles on Neverland & choose to play them accordingly, however on the other hand, part of me wishes that the film had have been able to commit to going with a darker, more nuanced tone overall, simply because an entirely fresh take would have been extremely interesting. 

The themes of Peter Pan & Wendy, naturally, were all about the idea of growing up & being ready to do so. The film discussed ideas around the fear of growing up, while also discussing the idea of looking forward to all that comes with maturity – the classic themes that are always discussed when the tale of Peter Pan is told. Due to the backstory between Peter Pan & Captain Hook, the film also delved into themes of loss & betrayal. Peter Pan felt betrayed by Captain Hook & vice versa. Captain Hook felt an immense sense of loss because he missed his mother & then he never made it home again, so all these years later he is still missing her. He is also angry & hurt because of the way he was treated by Peter Pan.

 I would argue that the film hinted at discussing the idea of nature vs nurture because there is an emphasis placed on how Captain Hook “grew up wrong.” I think this would have been interesting if they had gone into more details when discussing how Captain Hook really could not have escaped becoming the man he is today due to being found & raised by pirates as people are usually products of their upbringings & it can be hard to break out of cycles/habits that we’ve been taught all our lives. I think it would have been interesting if Captain Hook had have let Wendy & the Lost Boys go rather than proceed to make them walk the plank as this would have shown him breaking the cycle & stepping away from his archetypal, preformulated role in this story – however a notion such as this might be too complex for what this film was, which was a Disney readaptation. I do not say this in an insulting way, but there are certain boundaries that Disney films must abide by whereas a different production company could have afforded to perhaps take more risks with the tale & try new things that would inevitably go in a somewhat darker direction. 

A point that I really enjoyed was Wendy’s personal growth. At the beginning of the film when she is hesitant to grow up & embrace the changes that are coming her way, when she thinks happy thoughts in order to be able to fly, all of her thoughts are memories of when she was little. She envisions herself as younger, as she considers her past to be the happiest time in her life, but then, at the film’s climax when she is forced to walk the plank, she never hits the water because her happy thoughts allow her to fly. This time though, all of her happy thoughts are looking forward, she envisions herself growing up, going to school, making new friends, having a joyful home, and the last image she sees is one of her as an older woman with a smile on her face. This scene made me emotional. I thought it was a really well done, poignant moment because while life is full of ups & downs, & change can be scary, life is long & you never know what is around the corner. I thought that a scene that showed a young woman looking forward & being so excited about it was really lovely. This moment, this use of showing her happy thoughts was also the perfect way to illustrate & show, not tell us as the audience how Wendy has grown. 

Overall I would recommend this film. I had fun watching it. I believe that Peter Pan & Wendy is the best Disney readaptation that has graced the screens in a long time. It was fun, there was a great atmosphere, & the cast was very strong. It was a familiar, beloved story retold with some welcomed changes & even though I do wish that the plot could have followed through with some of the more nuanced ideas that I believe it was setting up, I really enjoyed this take on the story anyways. I loved what they did, I just wish they had gone even further with it. 

Follow me on Instagram @katelovesliterature if you don’t already for updates about all that is to come here on Katelovesliterature.com

The Banshees of Inisherin. 

A film review & discussion by Kate O’Brien. 

This film was directed by Martin McDonagh. It was released in October of 2022. 

Spoilers Ahead – Consider yourselves warned. 

I will also say now that I believe this review and discussion may be slightly more serious in tone, simply because of the themes that are explored in The Banshees of Inisherin. 

I found this film very moving. I found it very emotional. I was crying silently while sitting on my sofa and then a few moments later, another scene had me chuckling. I’ve heard some people say that they dislike this film, some said they found it too long, or boring, and I understand that. I will say now that I would consider this film to be one of those films that you either really enjoy, or you really hate. Personally I loved it. I thought it was extremely thought-provoking, and full of some really beautiful, and subtly poignant performances. 

I’ll admit, I’m probably slightly biassed, but I thought that the cast was brilliant. 

I’m already a fan of Colin Farrell’s work, but I think this could go down as one of his very best roles. I thought his performance was beautiful, and I will be discussing a key scene later on in this review. 

The film stars Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson as Pádraic and Colm. Set on the fictional Inisherin, an island off the west coast of Ireland, at the end of the Irish Civil War in 1923, this film follows Pádraic in his devastation when he learns that Colm does not want to be his friend anymore. 

I want to pause here for a moment so that I can talk about this idea. This idea of an entire film being about the breakdown and loss of friendship, particularly the friendship of two grown men, is what drew me in and made me want to watch this film in the first place. Friendships can be essential relationships. We see so many stories about romantic relationships, about family dynamics, but friendships are a really interesting dynamic. You can have lifelong friends, and these people can become as close as family, making new friends, especially as an adult can be challenging, it can also be really exciting. It can be difficult to maintain friendships, especially when you move beyond school or college because you’re no longer in the same place every single day. It is hard to see people when you live far apart, or if you have conflicting work schedules, or if you’re trying to balance family life with work life, friendships can silently slip into the background and this can be very sad. 

The idea of living in a remote place, where everyone knows everyone and every day is the same and having a lifelong friend tell you that they just don’t like you anymore, is a concept that I think is brilliant. At its core, that is what this film is about. Colm tells Pádraic that he just “doesn’t like him no more.” Pádraic has not done anything to him. He has not said anything to him. He has not offended him in any way, but Colm has decided he just does not want to be friends anymore. It is so simple, and yet, this core idea allowed The Banshees of Inisherin to explore some really poignant themes. 

Pádraic lives with his sister Siobhán. Siobhán is played by Kerry Condon and I must say that she played this part wonderfully. They live a quiet, lonely life in Inisherin. Their parents have passed away so the pair only have each other. Pádraic is kind and well-liked. He is a hard worker. He loves his little donkey Jenny and to Siobhán’s dismay, he even lets her inside their small cottage. 

He is not a perfect person, but he is honest and kind. Colm says he is dull and dim, and Pádraic worries that he is in fact dull and dim, but ultimately he is a kind, earnest man. 

Colm is a musician. He lives alone with his dog and he has decided that he would like to spend the rest of his days peacefully composing music. Colm wishes to leave a legacy. He wishes to be remembered when he is no longer on this earth. This longing to be remembered is what prompts him to tell Pádraic that he does not want to be friends anymore. Colm’s character is challenging to write about because I am conflicted. In the beginning, I thought that he was being rather harsh, but I could understand where he was coming from. Everyone has a right to live their life in the way that they see fit. Colm has decided that he has about twelve years of life left and he would like to spend them peacefully. He has the right to decide he does not want to be friends with Pádraic anymore, we all have the right to decide who we spend our time with, but as the film went on, I found myself deeply disliking Colm as a character. I find him arrogant and rude, and very mean at times. I think he is a great character in terms of discussion, his actions and his beliefs open up the themes explored in this film. His actions prompted a brilliant discussion when the film was over so I do think his character serves an excellent purpose, but I don’t like this kind of character. 

I need to mention Barry Keoghan because he stole this film in my opinion. He played the role of Dominic Kearney, the son of Garda Peadar Kearney (A police officer for any readers not from Ireland.) Dominic is a character who I would liken to Sammy in Willy Russell’s Blood Brothers. 

He is the kind of character who never really had a chance. Dominic is not the brightest torch, he does not always say the right thing. Sometimes he can be infuriating because of how badly he puts his foot in his mouth, but he has no malicious intentions. He tries to be a friend to Pádraic. He tries to help him through the devastation of the loss of Colm’s friendship. He has a schoolboy crush on Siobhán and he earnestly admits this to her even though he knows that she will never return his feelings. This scene between these two actors was beautiful. My heart went out to Dominic when he confessed his feelings because you could see it all over his face that he already knew he would be rejected, and the way Kerry Condon played Siobhán in this scene was so lovely. She was so kind and so gentle, and she let him down with such grace. She did not laugh or scoff at him, she did not recoil. She just very simply, and very kindly told him that she doesn’t feel the same way. It was a really touching scene. Dominic is abused by his father, and this seems to be a known secret in Inisherin. People feel sorry for Dominic, but his father holds all of the power. I found Keoghan’s performance incredibly earnest and endearing. My heart went out to Dominic and I was devastated by how his arc played out – I’ll return to this in a later point. 

Before diving into discussing the themes of this film, I want to talk about the backdrop of the Irish Civil War. I believe this setting is crucial to the film. I don’t think that this film would be the same without the heaviness of war going on in the background. The island is safe. It is far away from the mainland. We see the bright flashes of shots being fired from across the sea, but the Civil War is on the mainland. We are given this idea that Inisherin is a place that belongs to itself. It is removed from the frontlines. If you wanted to,  I’m sure you could pretend the Civil War was not happening, but news from the mainland is always a source of curiosity. There is a present fear lurking underneath it all, and I think this is essential to the film. Life is changing. People are fighting. People are dying. People are reevaluating what they want and what is important to them. The tensions and the dangers and the fighting is likely what caused Colm to reevaluate his time and the meaning of his life in the first place. I don’t think the film would have the same impact without this setting. 

Let’s discuss the themes of this film. I believe that the themes of this film are ideas of friendship and loss. Ideas of legacy and exploring one’s sense of self. Ideas of loneliness and departure, and ideas of the importance of being remembered vs the importance of being kind. I also think that there is a King Lear quality to both Pádraic and Colm. Pádraic really struggles to accept that Colm does not want to be his friend. He desperately wants things to go back to the way they once were. He cannot understand or accept Colm’s rejection, and his desire to be friends again becomes more and more desperate as the film goes on and he becomes more and more frustrated. 

At times viewers may think “My God, just leave the man alone,” but it is not that easy to be rejected for no reason at all. It is also clear to see that this sense of loss and the grief that Pádraic feels causes him to suffer with depression. He is lonely and he is hurt, and nothing can fill that void. 

The loneliness gets worse when Siobhán moves to Dublin. Siobhán has nothing left on Inisherin. She loves her brother but her life is empty and lonely. She decides to do something for herself and take a library job in Dublin. The scene where she gets on the boat is a lovely moment. She is wearing a bright yellow coat, which visualises how hopeful she is as it is such a bright colour. This is a great example of how visually stunning this film is. It is full of wide shots of very scenic landscapes. The island feels broad and open, yet sparse all at once. 

Siobhán is nervous but excited as she leaves and even though she is sad to leave Pádraic behind, she knows that this is something she must do. Pádraic tries his best to be happy for her, but at night he cries in his bed and wishes she would come home. The emptiness of Pádraic’s days are really emphasised, which only adds to his desperate need to make up with Colm. 

Colm’s arc is also one that slowly descends into madness. At the beginning of the film, he seems to be the sensible one even if he seems a bit harsh. He just wants to play the fiddle and compose a song, and as the film goes on he becomes increasingly angry and frustrated that Pádraic cannot seem to just leave him alone. He tells Pádraic that every time he bothers him again, he will take his shears and chop off a finger. Pádraic thinks that he cannot be serious, but Colm was extremely serious. When yet another attempt at reconciliation goes awry, Colm does indeed take his shears and he chops off a finger. He leaves the finger at Pádraic’s house. The film keeps moving and Colm loses all of his fingers. This is where I would liken his arc to the arc of King Lear as Colm is a man who is so obsessed with his own ideas, with his own self-importance, that he is actively destroying himself to make a point. He can no longer play the fiddle, and this is not Pádraic’s fault. Colm’s decision to actually chop off his fingers in order to prove that he is serious is no one’s fault but his. He did not have to go so far, he did not have to be so violent, but he is obsessed with leaving a legacy and being remembered. Being the man who cut off limbs to prove a point is a sure way to make sure that you’re remembered. 

I want to talk about a key scene. There is a moment where Pádraic is furious and he decides to confront Colm in the pub. Colm is sitting with Peadar, Dominic’s father who is excited to go to the mainland to witness an execution. Pádraic confronts Colm, he demands to know what is going on. This is when Colm tells Pádraic that he is dull. He is dim, and his conversations bore him. Colm wants to be great, he wants to be remembered. He is a music lover and he wants to be like Mozart, he wants his music to be played centuries later and he won’t build that legacy if he is having dull conversations with Pádraic. Pádraic tells him that he is not nice. He used to be nice, but now he worries that he was actually never nice at all. 

Colin Farrel delivers a brilliant performance. It actually moved me to tears. He says that he may be dull, but he is nice, he says his sister Siobhán is nice and he’ll remember her. He remembers his parents, they were nice. He asks Colm what does it say about him if he would rather sit with Peader, a man who beats and molests his own son than him? Colm is unmoved by Pádraic’s words, he says that no one will remember Siobhán because she has not done anything great. He wants to be great. It is a mean and nasty thing to say and I was cheering for Siobhán when she corrected Colm and told him that Mozart toured in the 18th century, not the 17th as he had said. 

If he is going to so arrogantly proclaim that he wants to be like Mozart, he should at least get the century right. 

This is why I disliked Colm, despite appreciating how his role functioned in the story. I do appreciate how his arc has allowed me to explore some very poignant themes. I don’t like the way Colm decided that his longing to be “great” gives him the right to treat people poorly. He so arrogantly declared that Pádraic is dull, but as Pádraic rightly pointed out, he was happy to still sit beside a man who brashly and brutally beats his own son. I can tell you which man I would rather sit beside, and I’ll give you a hint, it certainly is not Peadar. 

There was absolutely no need to be so nasty to Siobhán and declare that she is not important enough to ever be remembered. All of Colm’s actions are focused on the after. He wants to be remembered when he is gone, he wants to leave a legacy, but he never stops to think about the way he is behaving in the present. His actions and his words are causing grief and pain in the present, and this idea that he suddenly had about wanting to be great does not surpass the importance of treating people with kindness and respect. I can appreciate that if this happened then there would be no film, but I am discussing this character in depth, so I will say that there was no reason as to why Colm could not have still been friends with Pádraic and treated him kindly. He could have drank with him less. He could have told Pádraic that he does not want to drink every day, he could have said that he wants to spend more time on his music. He could have still composed his song without being so extreme – however if he did this then there would be no plot, but hopefully you understand the point that I am making. 

Peadar is furious that Pádraic announced the way he abuses his son to everyone at the pub. He plans to kill him. He intends to beat him severely, but on his way to Pádraic’s house, he is stopped by Mrs O’Riordan.

 I am calling Mrs O’Riordan the banshee of Inisherin. Banshees are an important part of Irish folklore. They are said to be female spirits who announce when to expect a death, as they shriek or wail. If you hear a banshee wailing, someone will die soon – so the legends say. 

Mrs O’Riordan is an old woman in the village who always wears black. She is a mysterious figure who seems to just observe all that is going on. Colm writes a song entitled “The Banshees of Inisherin.” Pádraic says there are no banshees on Inisherin. Colm says he thinks there are, only they don’t wail. They stand back watching everything, quiet and amused. It is a great description and it is one that fits Mrs O’Riordan perfectly. 

Mrs O’Riordan interrupts Peadar when he is on his way to beat/kill Pádraic. She brings him to the lake and when Peadar looks into the water, he is looking down at the body of his son Dominic. He is lying faceup, dead in the water. His eyes are wide open and around his neck there is a hook. In Dominic’s first scene, he is showing Pádraic this hook, saying that it is a great hook that can be used for hooking all sorts of things. Peadar seems to be filled with emotion when he sees his dead son, although we never get verbal confirmation that he regrets mistreating him. 

Dominic’s death broke my heart. I wanted more for him. I wanted him to find happiness. I thought his arc was one of a lifetime of sadness. He never had a chance. Again, Barry Keoghan’s performance was fantastic. It was subtle, and quiet, and so devastating. It is a complex part and it could have easily been a really annoying one. This young lad who always seems to put his foot in his mouth could have been a character that we dreaded seeing, but instead Keoghan played Dominic in a really nuanced way. He does want to be Pádraic’s friend, he does try to help, he does say the wrong thing a lot, but he is kind. He is trying. He just wants some warmth and some love. He is devastated when Pádraic lets him down, he says that he thought Pádraic was different, but he is just like all the rest. There was a deep sadness to Dominic and Keoghan portrayed that beautifully. A part like this could have slipped into the background but Keoghan’s portrayal of Dominic stood out and it stuck with me for a long time. 

The thing that brings things to a head is when Pádraic’s donkey Jenny dies because she choked on one of Colm’s fingers. Pádraic is devastated and he is furious. He says that it is time to make things even. Colm has gone too far. He tells Colm that he is going to burn down his house while he is in it. He tells Colm to leave his dog outside, because he has nothing against his dog. 

Jenny’s death highlights how out of line Colm’s actions are. His actions and his obsession with leaving behind a legacy has hurt and killed a living thing. He has caused extreme despair in Pádraic’s life. Colm goes to confession, and he asks if God cares about little donkeys. 

The priest says that he fears God doesn’t care about little donkeys. Colm says he fears that is where everything went wrong. This is a fantastic line, it is a really poignant moment. Colm wins me back slightly in this moment because he realises that he has done wrong, and he is genuinely sorry about what happened to Jenny. He realises that his longing to leave a legacy was not worth hurting Pádraic this much. 

Pádraic does burn the cottage down and he does take the dog, sticking to his word to not do the dog any harm, but he does not actually commit murder because Colm is alive and well standing on the beach the next day. He thanks Pádraic for looking after his dog and he apologises for what happened to Jenny, he says that he really is sorry about that. It seems they have come to a truce. 

The film ends with the two men commenting that it seems as though the Civil War is coming to an end, and along with it, it seems that their feud has ended too. 

This film moved me. I thought it was beautiful. It made me think about the importance of relationships in my life. I thought about how much I think it is important to be present in the moment, because if we are too focused on the after then we can miss things that are happening in the present. It is absolutely fine to want to do great things. It is fine to have passions, it is fine to want to leave a legacy, but arrogantly deciding that some people are not worth your time is not okay. Being kind and being a decent person is always important. People talk about “being kind,” online all the time, to the point that it can sound flippant, but it is important. I would rather be remembered as someone who was kind and warm, instead of being remembered as someone who was good at xyz, but not that nice. 
The Banshees of Inisherin is a beautiful, moving film that brings human emotions to the surface and lays them bare. In many ways, it is so simple, and yet it is a film that dives into very complex themes. It is a poignant story told by a talented cast. It is storytelling at its finest.

Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery. 

A film review and discussion by Kate O’Brien. 

This review is the second part of my two-piece review set of Knives Out and Glass Onion. 

As I said in my Knives Out review, these pieces were intended to complement each other, however they can also be read independently as I consider the films to be stand-alone pieces.

You do not have to watch Knives Out to understand Glass Onion, however I feel that Glass Onion steps beyond Knives Out. 

This is a phrase I used in the first part of this review set, and it is a phrase that I will explain and expand upon now in part two. 

Glass Onion was written and directed by Rian Johnson. 

The film was released in September 2022. 

I am going to talk about the plot, the characters, the themes, and I am going to talk about whether or not I prefer one film over the other. As always, these discussions are intended to be in-depth so there will be spoilers ahead. Consider yourselves fairly warned. 

The only character to return to our screens is Detective Benoit Blanc. He is just as larger than life as he was when we were first introduced to him. I will admit now that I really like this character. 

Glass Onion brings to our screens one of my favourite plot devices of all time – Get a group of people with wildly different personalities and trap them in a single location. Allow chaos to ensue. 

This film takes place on a private island in Greece, owned by the ultra rich Miles Bron. 

The plot is set into motion when he sends mysterious invitations to his friends. They are to join him on his private Greek island for a murder mystery party weekend where they will compete to solve his “murder.” Miles throws these kinds of parties every year, and the group seems delighted to receive invitations. 

This brings me to breaking down our cast. 

We meet Claire, the governor of Connecticut. She is running for the US Senate. She is uptight, and as the film plays out, we learn that every decision she makes is made with politics in mind. 

We meet Lionel. Lionel is a head scientist who works at Miles’s company. Lionel’s co-workers appear to be questioning Miles when the film begins, and Lionel agrees that Miles and his ideas can be out there. Some lead to nothing, but some lead to massive success, and that is why he has the company. Lionel seems to be loyal to Miles and his ideas as he is hoping that the next seemingly “crazy” idea will be the next huge success. 

We meet Birdie Jay. Birdie is a ditzy supermodel who is pretending to be a designer in Manhattan. Birdie prides herself on “telling it like it is,” and she doesn’t care if she says things that are politically incorrect and very offensive. She just wants to drink and enjoy herself in Greece. 

Peg is Birdie’s assistant. She is trying her hardest to keep Birdie from ruining herself. She takes Birdie’s phone and attempts to dissuade her from posting awful things online. Peg is unfortunately in a bad position herself as her CV largely consists of working for Birdie, and because Birdie is so offensive, she and her CV are not popular either. 

Duke Cody is a streamer and a self-proclaimed men’s rights activist. He gets a thrill out of upsetting people online by saying things that are considered wildly offensive and at times, downright misogynistic. In reality, he lives with his mother and she is not afraid to give him a smack if he attempts to give her cheek. 

Whiskey is Duke’s girlfriend. She also works for him on his streaming platforms. As the film plays out, audiences learn that Whiskey is a lot smarter than people likely gave her credit for when the film began. The film wants audiences to believe that she is a “dumb blonde” when the film begins, and Whiskey also knows that this is what people assume about her, so she leans into the stereotype so that it will serve her while she is attempting to build a career. 

The last two characters, the main characters whom this film revolves around are twin sisters, Helen and Andi. We’ll talk about them later. 

All of these characters arrive on the island excited to participate in the murder mystery weekend.

Blanc, who has been itching for a new case is also delighted to be invited, only the plot thickens when Miles reveals that he did not send Blanc an invitation. 

Now we must ask two questions. 

Who sent Blanc the invite? Why did they send Blanc the invite? These are two key questions, as Blanc tells Miles that an anonymous invite is not to be messed with. Blanc observes the group and how they all know each other. The key piece of information to take note of is the fact that each member of the group is linked monetarily to Miles. He has financial control over each and every one of them. Blanc sees this power dynamic for what it is, and he tells Miles that everyone in the group has a reason to hurt him. He declares this is like “Putting a loaded gun on the table and turning the lights off.” 

At dinner, Miles is giddy to kick off the murder mystery. He hired an author to write the mystery. He is so excited for everyone to take part. He keeps declaring that it will take them the entire weekend. Blanc debunks the mystery in two minutes, before the fake arrow has a chance to pierce Miles in the heart. It is a very funny scene. Blanc then declares that he wants to solve the real mystery, who invited him and why? 

With the weekend-long mystery now solved, the group are deciding whether or not they will stay the entire weekend or if they will go home early. Miles wants them to stay, they can still have a great time. The music blares, the drinks are flowing. Birdie is dancing. Everyone is drunk and enjoying themselves, happy to stay and just have fun. The real plot begins when things take a horrible turn. Duke dies. At first everyone thought that he was choking, but there was nothing in his throat. He dies. He had just been drinking from a glass, so the next thought is what if he was was poisoned? 

Another twist – Duke had taken a drink from Miles’s glass and not his own. 

The two glasses were very similar. This means that Duke was not the target. Miles was. 

Now Blanc’s original observations take the spotlight again. All members of this group have a motive to want Miles dead. So now Blanc must investigate who attempted to kill Miles. 

Andi is the most likely suspect. Andi was Miles’s business partner and the co-founder of the company. When Andi did not agree with a business decision Miles was making, she threatened to walk away and take half of the company with her. Miles tampered with the contracts, causing her to lose her position entirely. Andi tried to sue, as she created their company and sketched out the plans on a napkin in their local bar years ago. Unfortunately, because she could not find the napkin before the trial, this was her word against his. The rest of the group corroborated Miles and his version of events, lying on the stand because of his monetary control over them. Andi lost the case, and lost everything with it, so it would be easy to assume that she wanted Miles dead as a form of revenge. 

Before moving on to discuss the murder itself, the whodunit, I want to dive into the themes that this film explores. I would suggest that the main themes of Glass Onion are ideas of money and power, and ideas of relevance and integrity. 

Miles is a figure who holds an enormous amount of power and wealth. He continuously uses his wealth to get his way, and his wealth allows him to exert power over the people in his life. 

Miles is cocky and greedy, and he is a sinister type because he wants to come across as so chill, as so relaxed, as someone who loves his friends and just wants to have a good time. Underneath the chill exterior, there is a sinister level of control. What he says goes, because he is the one who funds everyone and everything, and he can make people’s lives come crashing down if they don’t do what he wants. Miles has a gigantic ego. He wants his name to go down in history beside the Mona Lisa. He wants to be immortal. He not only wants this, but he feels he deserves this level of glory. 

The group is very interesting and the dynamics of the group make it very easy for the plot to explore these kinds of themes. They call themselves “the disrupters.” This is a group of people who pride themselves on causing disruption. They’re proud of themselves. They consider themselves to be a group of brave, unique people who are unafraid to disrupt the status quo. 

They tell it like it is, they push the system, they step out over the edge. They’ve got guts! 

They are frauds. Andi’s sister Helen says it best. “They call themselves disruptors, they’re shitheads!” (This is a paraphrased line.) 

This point brings me to mentioning Andi’s twin sister Helen. What could be better than incorporating identical twins into a whodunit plot? Ah the hijinks that can ensue. 

Hijinks do ensue. We learn that Andi is not Andi after all, instead Helen has taken her place on the trip and it was her who brought Blanc the invitation because she needed his help. 

Through a series of flashbacks we learn that Andi is dead, and her death was ruled a suicide. 

Helen is suspicious, she does not believe that her sister would kill herself. So she has a look on Andi’s computer. In court, Andi’s case fell through because she could not find the napkin that she drew the original idea for the company on. Miles lied and said he drew that napkin, and everyone else in the group lied on the stand. After the case, Andi found the original napkin, one that has the old bar’s logo embossed on it. This is a detail that the fake napkin Miles drew up does not have. This detail will prove that Andi was right and she will take Miles down. Before her death, Andi sent an email to everyone in the group to let them know that she found the napkin. 

After this email, she ended up dead. Helen believes she was killed and she wants Blanc to help her uncover the truth. 

I’m jumping between plot and themes, similar to how I did in my review of Knives Out.

The film jumps back and forth in time, and so I feel that the best way I can talk about the themes and how they are highlighted by the twists in the film is by jumping back and forth in my writing. I mentioned earlier that integrity is a major theme in this film. 

Helen, Blanc, and Andi have integrity. Miles has none, and the rest of the disruptors have none for the majority of the film. 

Miles wanted to get big bucks quickly, despite there being safety concerns and tests that need to be done. The huge idea that he wants to put forward is Alpha’s alternative fuel. Andi didn’t want this to go ahead because of the safety concerns. Lionel and Claire don’t want to launch just yet because there is still two years of testing to be done, Miles wants to introduce “Klear” to the world and he wants to do it now. He tells the group that his Greek island is running off the alternative fuel already so there is no need to do more tests. 

Lionel and Claire are angry with Miles, but they are going to end up doing as he says because Lionel wants to keep his job, and Claire’s political career is bankrolled by Miles, and if she does not go along with his ideas, he will endorse her opponent. People’s safety is going to be compromised because this billionaire has no patience and he is determined to get his way. 

Birdie has no integrity. She has no concept of follow-through. She is a “designer” who made bank after being cancelled during the pandemic, but it is all going to come crashing down because it is going to be revealed that her products were being made in a terrible sweatshop. 

Miles has convinced Birdie to take full responsibility for this, as doing so will mean she takes the public fall and it would hide the fact that he was a major investor. Peg is desperately trying to get Birdie to reconsider, and we can see from their chats that Birdie really did not understand the full impact of what a sweatshop actually is. Birdie is ignorant, but she is willing to be cancelled and painted in a terrible public light because Miles is paying her off. She wants the money, she does not care if her character and reputation is ruined or if Peg’s is ruined with her. Birdie’s integrity is for sale. 

Duke just wanted to be on Alpha news. He knows he says controversial and offensive things, but controversy is publicity, and he wants people tuning in. He doesn’t care if what he says hurts others, offends others, or teaches younger viewers problematic things. He is in this game for himself. Whiskey is the same. 

This film really highlights how money can make people abandon their personal integrity. 

When the disruptors lied on the stand, they could not even look Andi in the eye. So they knew what they were doing was wrong, but they sold their souls and morals to Miles a long time ago. 

Helen just wants the truth. She wants to know what happened to her sister. 

Blanc wants to help Helen find the truth, but he warns her that he may be unable to get her justice. The two form a plan. He will use his connections to stop Andi’s death from being in the press straight away, buying them some time. She will come to the party with him, and she can snoop. Someone there is Andi’s killer, and Blanc warns Helen that they will know straight away that she is an imposter. He is not a bodyguard, he warns her that this is a dangerous plan, but they decide the truth must be found. 

Let’s talk about whodunit. 

Miles did it. Are we shocked? I don’t think so. This entire film is about deceit being in plain sight. The entire film is an illusion of smoke and mirrors, and details being shown plainly to our faces. When the dancing started and Birdie was spinning around in her dress, Miles told everyone to look at the amazing colours in her dress. When everyone was distracted and looking where Miles told them to look, he handed Duke his glass. Something that I was impressed by, because yes, we did rewind the film to check, was that this was not done in later shots. This happened the first time we saw this scene. The glass never touches the table, Miles does hand his glass to Duke, but it is done silently and quickly while our attention was purposely directed to something else. Duke died due to an allergic reaction. There was pineapple juice in the drink, and he is allergic. Duke tells audiences this at the beginning as the group are getting on the boat. It is a throwaway moment, he makes sure there is no pineapple in the health shot they are being given because “Duke don’t dance with pineapple.” This is such a great line because it could simply mean that he does not like pineapple. This casual phrase does not illustrate how severe his allergy is. Whiskey clarifies later that he can’t even have a drop. 

“It’s so dumb it’s brilliant!” Birdie shouts. 

Blanc shouts back. “No!!!! It’s just dumb!!” 

This might be my favourite exchange. 

Miles is the killer twice over. It was him who killed Andi when he found out that she would expose him with the napkin. The news broke while the group was dancing. Duke saw the news on his phone, and leveraged the information so that Miles would have to put him on Alpha news. 

Miles could not have this, so he gave Duke a drink that he was severely allergic to. Then he took Duke’s phone and his gun and turned off all the lights. This was Blanc’s idea. This action highlights what an absolute fraud Miles really is. He stole Andi’s idea. He bullies everyone financially even though he does the least amount of work. He hired a writer for his murder mystery, and then he stole Blanc’s idea about the gun and the lights to create panic and distraction. He also shot Helen, but thankfully the bullet missed. Playing dead gave her the opportunity to find the original napkin. 

When Helen does find the napkin that was hidden in plain sight in a picture frame, she returns to the group to expose Miles. Miles, cocky as ever, burns the napkin. This destroys the only proof that Helen has. Helen attempts to stand up to Miles, she says everyone saw him burn it, but Miles says that nobody saw a thing, and everyone reluctantly agrees. They say they saw nothing. They are cowards. This is quite a dark moment in a darkly funny film, because this moment highlights how many real life situations sadly play out. The person with the money can bully and intimidate people into singing their tune, and everyone else is forced into the role of the coward who must forfeit their morals and their integrity because they need the money. Helen goes mad. She angrily destroys sculptures, and she sets the Mona Lisa on fire. 

The world as Miles knows it comes crashing down. His fuel destroyed a priceless, globally renowned piece of art. Helen granted his wish. His name will always be remembered alongside the Mona Lisa. He is ruined. The disruptors stand up to Miles. They say that they did see the napkin before he burned it, highlighting that they will not be his puppets any longer. 

Helen gets to go home feeling satisfied that she got justice for her sister. 

I said earlier that this film steps beyond Knives Out. 

What do I mean by this? Knives Out brought a classic whodunit to our screens. It was eccentric, it was quirky, it was a bit out there, but at the end of the day it was a revival of the classic whodunit murder mystery movie. It was set in the big creepy house on the hill and the story revolved around the rich, dysfunctional family. Glass Onion steps beyond what this first film does. It is bigger. It is even more out there. I would liken it to the theatre of the absurd. It takes place on a private island that is run by a new form of fuel. Shots fired into one’s mouth means that everyone could have a Covid-free, safe time. The place has an abundance of riches. It seems surreal. It is why I love the line that it is not brilliant, it is just dumb. This film does not do anything that is particularly genius. It all boils down to greed, ego, and parlour tricks. It is just dumb! That is why it is so much fun. It is a film that shows the plot right in front of our eyes, hidden behind smoke and mirrors, and then the entire illusion is shattered. Con men of the past would get people to fall for their schemes by using slights of hand, tricks of the eye, and most importantly, they would gain people’s confidence. Miles was the puppet master. He told everyone to look at the pretty spinning colours and they did, and if it was not for the presence of Blanc, it is likely that he would have gotten away with it because the gang were so taken in by his control. 

I also said that I would decide if I preferred one film over the other, 

I would have to say that Glass Onion is my favourite of the two films. I thought the plot was very clever and fun. I thought it was very funny. I enjoyed the new set of characters. I loved how out there and almost absurd the plot was. I loved how the film was shot. I loved the breakdown of how everything happened in plain sight, and I adored the irony of Miles getting his wish. He was knocked off his greedy, rich, controlling, cocky high horse and his name will forever be linked to the Mona Lisa. He got his dream, but now it is his nightmare and this was a fantastic moment. I loved seeing Blanc again and I look forward to seeing him in another film although I am curious about what the plot will be. There are only so many ways that you can tell a story like this, however I am intrigued to see where Blanc will go next. With all of this being said, I must say that even though I do prefer Glass Onion, I don’t think this film could have stepped into this wonderfully absurd arena without having the foundation that was laid down in Knives Out. 

Knives Out subverted the tropes just enough, but there were classic murder mystery elements to the plot. That film laid down the groundwork, introduced audiences to Blanc and how he works, and that groundwork and our understanding of him as a character allowed him to step even further out there in Glass Onion. 
Overall I would highly recommend Glass Onion. I think it is a wonderfully absurd mystery that explores some really interesting themes. It is an extremely entertaining watch.

Disenchanted: Adaptation Issues & Tired Tropes. 

The movie is fun, kids will enjoy it, but I found the plot setup tired. 

A film discussion by Kate O’Brien. 

Disney’s Enchanted, the beloved film that brought the charming Giselle to our screens, came out in 2007, so it is safe to say that Disenchanted is a long-awaited sequel. If a sequel was needed at all is a different question altogether.

Before diving into what I liked, and what I didn’t like about Disenchanted, first I’d like to express why I’ve been disappointed with some of the latest Disney releases. 

I have made it no secret that I have felt let down by Disney sequels and adaptations recently. 

I feel as though something is always missing and the films just don’t hit the mark the way I want them too. Some may argue that I am looking back at the originals with nostalgic, rose-tinted glasses, and while I am the first to admit that the films I grew up watching are not perfect, I feel that there was a sense of overcoming adversity and actually triumphing over evil that is missing from the sequels and adaptations that we see today. Villains are just not villains anymore. They’re either completely watered down, or they’re changed completely. The “villain is not actually a villain because of their tragic backstory” trope is becoming all too common and while yes, backstories can lead to someone becoming a villain, I don’t want every story to be a villain redemption tale. Sometimes we just need a bad guy, and the stakes need to feel real. That is my main problem with some of these newer releases, the stakes just don’t feel real. 

I also find that there is a need to correct and modernise the fairy tales of the past, as they’re often dubbed outdated and sexist. I won’t pretend that some of the fairy tales that are called classics are not not outdated and/or sexist in some way, shape, or form. Many of them express ideas about people and about roles in society that are outdated today, but I do think that context is important, and it is important to remember the times in which these stories were written. Thankfully attitudes have changed along with the times, but I still think context is important when reading old fairy tales in modern day, because while one can still dislike and critique the outdated ideas, it is still important to remember that they were written in a different time.

 In my opinion, it is too easy to call a female protagonist weak. It is too easy to say “this character waited to be saved.” I think critiques like this too often ignore the fact that these stories were often written in a time where women did not have personal agency. They were not allowed to. They could not just do as they pleased, when they pleased. It is an uncomfortable fact, but a fact nonetheless, that there was a time when women were considered property. There was a time when women were not allowed to vote, and there was a time when a woman had to leave her job if she got married, and of course stories written in this time will reflect those attitudes, this includes fairy tales. 

Many fairy tale heroines do the best they can within the situations they find themselves in, and this reality of making the best of a situation that you had no control over would have been very relatable to women existing in those times. Women having personal agency and control over their own lives, and their own minds, and their own autonomy is a battle that is still being fought today in 2022. Some people are of the opinion that they can decide what a woman can and cannot do with her own body. It is frightening to see what is happening in different parts of the world, but the point I am making is that even though times have changed, the idea of people being limited by societal rules is an idea that still exists today, and so to dismiss the outside factors that limit a heroine’s choices and simply say she is weak and has no agency at all is unfair. 

This leads me to the issue with modern retellings or sequels trying to “correct” the mistakes of the past fairy tales. There is a huge attempt made to give female characters more agency, to prove they don’t need a man, to prove that “love at first sight” is a notion to be forgotten, and while I am all in favour of giving female characters agency, and portraying more realistic relationships, and of course I want stories that are empower young viewers, I still think it is important to pay attention to the details, otherwise you have stories that contradict the point they are trying to make. 

Take the 2015 live-action adaptation of Cinderella as an example. This version wanted to correct the mistake of having Cinderella and the prince fall in love with each other after just one night at the ball – now there are countless versions of Cinderella, many of which involve several meetings, and this adaptation wants to highlight this idea, so the film has Ella and Kit meet in the woods. He meets her as an “honest country girl” instead of as a princess at the ball. He is smitten by her even though she is wearing her rags and has soot on her face so see! He loves her for her! He fell in love with her. Great. Another idea this adaptation had was to give Ella some “spunk.” The shock on her stepsisters’ faces when she answers them in fluent French after they teased her for being unable to speak French is comical. See! This adaptation gives audiences a Cinderella who does not blindly do as her stepfamily says. She’s got spunk. She showed them, except she didn’t, because the rest of the film has her obediently trying to please them. She does not understand why they’re so cruel to her, and despite it all she does her best to be kind. 

Disclaimer – I have said it before and I’ll say it again, I love the story of Cinderella and I have always interpreted it as a story about a girl who survives being trapped in an abusive household, so even in the story’s original form, I have never thought of Cinderella as a weak character who has no agency. I’ve always considered her to be incredibly brave and strong. Strength comes in many forms, and it does not always involve being permanently sarcastic and rejecting authority. 

Ella in the 2015 adaptation has one “spunky” moment as the film wanted to correct previous critiques of the story, by showing an Ella who can speak back. My issue with this is that she only does it once, and it really serves no purpose at all. The frustrating thing is that this film still faced the same critiques. Audiences still called Ella passive, especially because she chooses to forgive her stepmother at the end. I’ve always watched this scene differently, I viewed it as a gracious act. Ella is stating that she forgives her stepmother as she heads off to a happy life with Kit. She will not suffer due to her stepmother anymore, she is free of her, whereas her stepmother who is now banished, will likely think about Ella forevermore. 

What is even more frustrating is that the deleted scenes show that the film originally was going to have Ella write a letter to Kit, telling him who she really is. She manages to sneak out, and get the letter to the palace, only for it to be intercepted and thrown into the fire by the Duke. 

I still don’t understand why a film that was trying to give Cinderella more agency would cut out that scene. It would have been far more impactful than the French speaking scene. Imagine if audiences could have seen Ella decide to take ownership of the fact that she has feelings for Kit. Imagine how exciting it would have been to watch her boldly decide to act on her desire, because she has decided she deserves to, and write a letter to the man she loves telling him the truth. We could have then watched her sneak out of her abusive home and gallop on her horse to the palace, and the Duke intercepting the letter and throwing it into the fire would have been far more infuriating, because we would have seen all of the effort Ella went to, to try and get to Kit. We would have been rooting for her. Instead that entire section was cut and I will always be disappointed by that. Details are important, and if you want to update a story, or modernise it, you can but it has to be done in a way that makes sense. 

This point very nicely brings me to Disenchanted as this sequel became Cinderella for a while, despite the film clearly trying to nod to all fairy tales, another point that I will talk about because while nods to other movies are fun, there is still a way to go about doing them. 

Adam Shankman directed the 2022 film Disenchanted. The film follows a disheartened Giselle who is struggling with the stress and realities of everyday life. Giselle misses the ease of her life before New York, and so she wishes for a “fairy tale” life, but her wish goes horribly wrong. 

Soon the town becomes a fairy tale, but it is not what Giselle pictured. She is a stepmother now and in traditional fairy tales, stepmothers are evil so now Giselle must fill that archetypal role whether she wants to or not. There is only so much time for the spell to be undone, for if it is not reversed then it will become permanent, and Andalasia will cease to exist for Giselle will have taken all the magic from her hometown and brought it to her new world. 

I’m going to start off by discussing all of the things that I would have changed, and while it may seem like I am nit-picking, I really felt like this film had great ideas, but the execution was sloppy. 

 I think that details are important. Following that, I will talk about what I enjoyed, because despite not being 100% wowed by the film, I did have fun, and while I will always be honest and express my opinions, I don’t want my thoughts to only be somewhat negative, because there is no nuance in that. 

I want to talk about the setup. I did not like it. Specifically, I don’t like how the film moves us to Giselle being desperate enough to make her wish. The biggest issue I have is the way the film treats Morgan. 

A pet peeve of mine is when stories treat teenagers as if they are just difficult, impossible to understand beings by default. “You know how they are at this age.” “That’s teenagers for you.” 

I can’t stand it. Adolescence is a time that is filled with changes and pressures. Puberty, relationships, school pressures, exams, college decisions, job decisions. It can be a difficult, and embarrassing, and stressful time, and yes, mood swings can occur, but it bothers me in stories (and in real life) when a group of grown adults can’t seem to extend any empathy or ask what is going on, instead they roll their eyes and proclaim “Teenagers! They’re miserable!” 

Even worse, when adults do ask what is going on, but dismiss the answer as “not that serious.” 

The beginning of Disenchanted places Morgan in the stereotypical, miserable teenager role, and I was very disappointed by this. I understand why the writers did this, as it does tie into the movie’s ending, a point that I will get to later. 

Warning – there will be spoilers. 

Having some tension between Giselle and Morgan was needed for what the writers wanted to do, however I wish they had gone about it in a different way. I feel like the “awful teenager” narrative is overdone and at this point, I find it lazy. 

The plot is centred around Giselle and her feelings. She is dismayed because life is harder than she imagined it would be. As in fairy tales, finding your happily ever after is the hardest part. 

Now Giselle is in the real world, she is married to Robert, they have a new baby. She is exhausted, and her relationship with Morgan is becoming more difficult to navigate. So Giselle is certain that moving house will solve all her woes. There is nothing better than a fresh start after all.

Morgan, naturally, is upset about the move. She is leaving her home, her school, and all of her friends, but none of her feelings are valid, of course not. She is a teenager, and therefore she is moody for no reason. It has nothing to do with her entire life being upended. Not at all. 

Morgan has grown up. She is no longer a little girl, and while she still loves Giselle, she finds her constant reference to fairy tale life a bit exhausting, and honestly, I don’t blame her. 

A running gag in this movie is the fact that Giselle has no idea what sarcasm is or how it works. This is another reason why she finds Morgan’s teenage years so difficult. She looks back to the days when Morgan was little, when she would ask for princess stories every night. She says it was so easy then. Everyone tries to reassure her that it is just a phase, this is just how teenagers are, and I became quite frustrated by this line. This is not “just how teenagers are.” The fact is that Morgan is not six anymore. She is a young woman, in highschool, so of course her interests have changed. It is unfair for anyone to expect Morgan to be exactly the same as she was when she was a little girl. 

I think the scene that I disliked the most was the scene where Giselle sets up a cupcake stall to encourage Morgan’s new school peers to vote for Morgan to be princess of the festival. Giselle has good intentions, but I was still bothered that Giselle could not see why Morgan would not want this. Morgan does not want to be a princess. She just wants to fit in at her new school and make some friends after having to leave her old school and her old friends behind, something that the always chirpy, always singing Giselle does not make any easier. Morgan is laughed at by everyone, but again her feelings are dismissed because “Giselle was just trying to help.” 

I think the problem is that the character of Giselle was beloved in the first movie. She is iconic. She was naive, charming, and romantic. She was a real-life princess. This worked so well because the plot was that she got literally shoved from her fairy tale life into New York. She had no idea how anything worked. She was fascinated by everything, and her openness and genuine nature allowed Robert to break out of his cynical box. Naturally Disney wanted to bring that Giselle back to our screens, the Giselle that everyone knows and loves. The problem is that this Giselle does not work anymore. It was as though Giselle did not change one bit despite all the time that has passed. She has lived in New York for years, she has built a life there, but we are still expected to believe that she understands nothing about how the “real” world works. 

There is a difference between a teenager being unreasonably snarky, and Morgan being frustrated because her mother has uprooted her entire life, and opened her up to endless ridicule from her new classmates. Morgan is the new kid in town, and the new kid in school, which is hard enough as it is, but Giselle makes this even harder, and then she gets upset when Morgan does not react the way she did when she was little. It was frustrating to watch.  

This tension with Morgan, alongside the troubles they face in their new home, is what prompts Giselle to make a wish for a fairy tale life. Her wish gets complicated however, when she turns into an evil stepmother. This was clever, if a little on the nose. In archetypal fairy tales, stepmothers are traditionally cruel. Giselle is Morgan’s stepmother. So when she wishes for a fairy tale life, Giselle unknowingly gives herself the role of the villain, because as time passes, she takes on more stereotypical stepmother traits. 

The plot becomes Cinderella for a while. Giselle destroys Morgan’s dress, she locks her in the attic, she forbids her from attending the festival, and she even quotes the famous stepmother speech from the 1950s animation. I enjoyed the nod, but I felt that the plot was messy because it was not clear who the protagonist was. It should have been Morgan, but it wasn’t. Giselle was sort of the protagonist, but the movie wanted a twist so they made her the antagonist, as well as having another villain. So we had two villains, battling to see who could be the most wicked. 

I would have preferred it if Morgan was the true protagonist. I would have preferred more screen time with her, as she tries to figure out what is happening, what is going on, why is everyone around her, including her becoming more and more of a storybook caricature? 

Funnily enough, despite modern movies trying to stray away from the “damsel” critiques, Giselle’s wish takes away all of Morgan’s bad feelings about the move, and she becomes a permanently smiling, singing, ideal storybook fair maiden who is trying her very best to gain her stepmother’s approval. I’m not critiquing Morgan, I enjoyed her scenes, and I enjoyed her singing, but I just think it is ironic that Disney placed her in the role that so many adaptations constantly try to “correct.” 

Before anyone says I’ve taken the movie too seriously, I am aware it is a Disney movie. I am aware that it is for children, however I still think the plot was messy, and that kids deserve plots that are well developed. While I was irritated, I did not completely hate this movie. I just wish it was better. 

Let’s talk about the positives. 

I enjoyed the songs. It was very bright. The costumes were beautiful, everyone looked as though they jumped out of a storybook, as they should. I absolutely loved seeing the Irish locations. 

I’m biassed of course, but I am Irish, and I think that Ireland is beautiful, so it was great to see a movie that takes advantage of Ireland’s natural beauty. The cast were fantastic. I love Amy Adams. It is clear that she loves this role, and despite my frustrations with this sequel, I do love her in this role. No one else could play Giselle, however this time around, Giselle’s character didn’t impress me the way she did the first time. 

I do want to talk about the final scene between Giselle and Morgan, because despite my issues with the movie’s setup, I really loved this moment and I feel like it is a really heartwarming, and important scene. When it all comes down to it, Morgan is the only one who can undo Giselle’s wish. Morgan fears she won’t be able to, for the magic states that only a “true daughter” can use the wand. Morgan fears all hope is lost. She is not from Andalasia. She is not from a magical world. She can’t use the want. Giselle tells her that yes she can use the wand, she can do it, because she is a true daughter. “You’re my daughter Morgan.” 

This is a beautiful moment, and it is an important one. The movie talks about how bonds don’t have to be biological to be strong. In a time where many children have stepparents, I felt that this theme was a very poignant and significant one. Morgan did feel insecure about not being a “true daughter of Andalasia.” She did feel insecure when her father and Giselle had a child of their own. I feel like this would be a very realistic thing, especially when the age gap is so big. Babies get doted on naturally, but this can add to insecurities when the relationship changes in your teenage years. Giselle raised Morgan, she has always been there for Morgan. She loves Morgan. Morgan is her daughter. Their bond is true, and loving, and valid, and Morgan needed to know that. She needed to hear that. All parents need to reassess their relationships with their children as they get older, because as a child grows, they change, and this does not automatically have to be a bad thing. I loved this scene, and I understand why the writers chose to lead up to this moment the way they did, I understand why they created friction, I just wish it was done a bit differently. Very differently. 

My ideal version of this sequel would have removed the tired “teenagers, ugh” trope. 

I would have had Giselle feel homesick, because having a new baby is tiring, it is hard. 

The move could have still taken place, and Morgan still could have felt sad about leaving her friends and school, because those are valid feelings. Robert having to adjust to commuting could have stayed, because that is a realistic stress factor. I would have removed Giselle trying to get everyone to vote for Morgan as festival princess, but left in the other kids scoffing at Morgan and not being overly kind to the new kid, because again, that is realistic. 

All of these combined would have still led to Giselle yearning for the ease of Andalasia, because things just are not working out how she expected them to. As for the tension between Giselle and Morgan, I would have removed the constant badmouthing of Morgan and instead, I’d have had her naturally not being as interested in Giselle’s fairytale stories. I would have had Robert reassuring Giselle that Morgan loves her, but it is natural for kids to want to do their own thing more as they get older. Giselle could have still struggled with this change, as that is realistic. It is normal for parents to have to adapt when their kids are getting older. The relationship changes because it has to, so that distance between Giselle and Morgan would still have been there, but it would have been done in a way that was not tired, overdone, and frankly unfair. 

After Giselle’s wish goes wrong, I would have had Morgan be the clear protagonist. 

I would have liked to see her trying to figure out what was going on, and how to fix it, and this way Giselle could have been the clear antagonist as the curse would have made her more and more wicked as time passed. I feel this would have been really fun, and the clarity of who is the protagonist, and what they are trying to overcome would have made the stakes and triumphs much more satisfying. 

Overall I think that Disenchanted was fun. It is clear that the cast had a ball. The songs were great, it was bright and lively. The movie was filled with references to other fairy tales so Disney lovers will appreciate all of these moments. I’m sure kids will enjoy this movie, I just wish it had been written slightly differently. I would have loved to see a tad more nuance, and some fresh stories instead of repeating tired tropes that I’m really getting sick of seeing. 

Know who your protagonist is. Know who your antagonist is. Be clearer about everyone’s motivations, and allow characters to mature. 

Sometimes movies should be left alone, as a sequel is not really needed, but that is a discussion for another time.

An eerie, slow-burning film about violence, obsession, and the idea of becoming a spectacle. 

A review by Kate O’Brien. 

NOPE was released in July of 2022 and the film was directed by Jordan Peele. 

I watched NOPE for the first time a few days ago and while it is a great choice of film to talk about during #spookyseason, this film is one that will stay with me for a long time. 

If you’re a new reader here at Katelovesliterature.com, you may not know that despite pushing through and watching anyways, I am not the biggest fan of horror. 

I used to say that as a blanket statement –   “I don’t like horror.” 

I’ve realised that this isn’t true. Horror intrigues me. I can like horror and often do, the problem is that I am jumpy and squeamish. I hate blood, the sight of it makes me nauseous and so the idea of many horror films make me squirm, however if I am interested enough in a concept, I have found ways to get over my fears and watch anyways. I will begrudgingly admit that despite covering my eyes during certain scenes, I usually enjoy the films I watch overall and I am often filled with many thoughts. 

NOPE is a film that I really enjoyed. I was assured that there are only two bloody/gory scenes that I would be fairly warned about and the rest of the film is a slow, suspense-filled, slow-burn. 

This is true. While there are some tense scenes, it is not a gore fest and there is only one jump-scare that was quite mild, and that is coming from me. So, if you’re like me and you hate blood but you’re curious about this film, I would recommend it. The first scene that I had to look away from happens very early on, when a character gets injured. The second scene that I had to look away from happens much later on. This movie is separated into acts with title chapters so – spoiler alert- 

When the Gordy section begins, I would recommend covering one’s eyes as this section opens with a long-panning, quite graphic, gory scene, but once this scene has passed, that is it. There is no more gore or shocking injuries for the rest of the movie. The third-act actually moves at a very quick pace and it even felt like an action movie at times, but I am getting ahead of myself. 

All of my thoughts and opinions, and interpretations are my own, so as with any film, I may have a completely different take on it compared to someone else’s, but I would suggest that this is a film that is talking about violence, and an audience’s obsession with violence and how we can make a spectacle out of things if we don’t respect them enough. 

Spoilers below. 

Daniel Kaluuya and Keke Palmer star as OJ and Emerald, siblings who come together after their father dies. Their father, Otis Haywood Sr., taught his children the family business of training horses for films and television. Otis is on a horse when a mysterious coin falls from the sky, hits him in the eye and kills him. OJ and Emerald are grieving together and trying to keep the business going after their father’s death, but their family ranch has become home to an unknown presence. OJ and Emerald experience strange power outages and they also see something – they don’t know what, in the sky. The plot follows OJ and Emerald as they set out to capture video evidence of this mysterious object in the sky that appears to be eating things, including people.

I think that this film has done something really interesting, because in my opinion, this film has used alien film tropes to its advantage in order to explore various themes. As I was watching the film and trying to figure out what I think it means, there came a moment when I said, “this is an alien film.” 

In some ways, it is an alien film and I’ve even heard that some people interpreted NOPE to stand for “Not of planet earth”, but according to Peele, this is coincidental. It is an alien film in the sense that the main protagonists are attempting to capture footage of of extraterrestrial beings on camera, to prove that the strange happenings that are occurring at their home are actually real, and in the process of doing this, they find themselves in danger, but I think that this film is more than an alien film. I think this is a film that uses alien plot point tropes to tell a bigger story. 

I want to talk about the setting. This film is set out in the middle of nowhere on the Haywood ranch. There are some absolutely stunning visuals in this movie. There are big, sprawling, panning shots that show beautiful star filled skies, sprawling mountains, and a horizon that stretches and stretches. The Haywood’s house is a perfect backdrop for a horror film. It is a big house on a hill on a ranch out in the middle of nowhere. It is beautiful and eerie all at once. It is hard to get to and more importantly, hard to get away from. I would also argue that there are some gothic elements to this film. A very common trope in gothic literature is the idea that home becomes a place of danger rather than a place where one finds safety. In NOPE, the Haywood’s childhood home becomes the sight of odd occurrences and instead of feeling safe there, the Haywood’s are now at the mercy of whatever is in the sky. That is, they are at its mercy until they figure out what it is, and how to tame it. 

In films, lighting and sound can be used in really impactful, evocative ways and in this film, the light is very important. Whenever something unsettling is about to happen, the power goes out. Lights go out, any music that is playing trails off in a rather jarring way that it is unsettling to the ear. When the thing in the sky is gone, the lights come back on and this is a signal to the audiences that our protagonists are safe – for now. 

I want to talk about what I think the film’s themes are. I would argue that the film’s themes are the  ideas of watching and looking, the idea of how people can become obsessed with violence and violent acts, the idea of how obsession can lead to danger, and I would also argue that the film touches on ideas about control, the want to control other beings, or the want to control the narrative etc. 

This is also a film about family. OJ and Emerald are brother and sister and this is a film about them coming together and working together to defeat something. The two characters go on a journey together. If you strip away every other element, this is a film that is about grieving siblings who come together to face adversity, and that is beautiful. It’s touching. Their story really pulled on my heartstrings throughout the entire film. 

Filming is a topic that comes up a lot during this film. After his father’s death, OJ takes a horse to a shoot for a commercial, but the shoot doesn’t go well because the people on set do not listen to his safety demonstration and they do not treat the horse with respect. This leads to the horse getting spooked, and even though no one was hurt, OJ loses the job. Times have been tough on the ranch and some horses have had to be sold in order to make ends meet. This leads us to meeting Ricky “Jupe” Park. Jupe was a child actor who worked on the sitcom “Gordy’s Home.” Now the adult Jupe runs a western theme park and he has been buying Haywood horses. He even offers to buy the ranch. Jupe is very proud of the work he did as a child on “Gordy’s Home”, but the thing he talks about the most, the story that he exploits, is the tragedy that happened on set. Jupe recalls the story and tells Emerald and OJ how one day, one of the chimps playing Gordy attacked several co-stars on set, and that tragic event is the reason why chimps are not used on sets anymore. Jupe witnessed this entire tragic event play out and it has had a profound impact on him as an adult, but this is a point that I will expand on later. 

OJ contemplates Jupe’s offer, and Emerald encourages him to accept it, and while mulling this over, more strange events start occurring on the ranch, prompting OJ and Emerald to want to capture it on film. An important thing to note is that they want to be the ones to capture the evidence on film, because they don’t want anyone else to find out about the events on the ranch and film it, pushing the Haywood’s out. It is their family home, and they want to be the ones to tell this story, and I think this is an important point to keep in mind when thinking about who tells stories and the way that stories are told. 

When OJ and Emerald go to buy camera equipment, they meet Angel at the store. Angel is a tech enthusiast and he sets up the equipment at the house. He becomes a supportive friend to OJ and Emerald and as the film plays out, he helps them capture footage of what is eventually called a UFO. 

I don’t think this film has a villain, although out of everyone’s actions, Jupe’ are arguably the worst. It becomes obvious that the tragedy on the “Gordy’s Home” set had a profound impact on Jupe because now as an adult, he is obsessed with violent acts. He is obsessed with the idea of a spectacle. 

The thing in the sky, the UFO, is actually animal like. It is a predator. OJ is the one who figures this out. This makes sense, seeing as it is his family that has knowledge of animals, how to train them, and also, they respect them. The film takes time to teach audiences about what not to do around horses. No loud noises, no sudden movements, don’t look them in the eye, don’t get too close. Doing these things can spook a horse. OJ figures out that the thing in the sky is predator like because it is being territorial over the ranch, and one way to stay safe is to not look up. Don’t look it in the eye. 

The predator in the sky gets hungry, it scours for prey, it eats horses and sometimes it eats people, and then spits out things it can’t eat, hence the coins falling from the sky. We as the audience, learn that Jupe has become so obsessed with the spectacle that this thing creates that he has been buying the horses from OJ to use as bait to lure the thing in the sky out. 

The last character I need to mention before I talk anymore about the themes is Antlers Holst. Holst is a cinematographer who Emerald calls because she wants his help getting footage of the thing in the sky, the thing that she has named Jean Jacket, referring to a horse she didn’t get to tame when she was a child. I am mentioning Holst because he has a line that I feel really captures the entire message of the film. 

Holst is all about getting “the shot.” Holst warns Emerald that this thing that she is chasing, the dream that will take her to the top of the mountain, it is endless. It is a dream that “you never wake up from.”  

This line is really important. This idea of chasing this dream, this idea of being obsessed with “getting the shot, the shot” is ultimately Holst’s undoing. 

Holst has vast experience when it comes to capturing the extraordinary on film, and he uses manual cameras so the power outages do not mess with his footage, but he falls prey to the very thing he warned Emerald about. He got the shot. He captured Jean Jacket on film, but he wanted more, he wanted a better shot, so because he was so obsessed with getting the shot, he ignored all warnings and put himself in harm’s way. He ended up getting devoured by Jean Jacket, he died for the shot. 

This is extremely significant, because I feel like this moment sums up so much of the rest of the film. Jupe is obsessed with the idea of a spectacle, so much so that he uses horses as bait, endangering them and other people too, all because he is so fixated on seeing the chaos come to life. This obsession is a direct result of what happened to him when he was on set as a child. The tragic day where so many people get extremely hurt has become a spectacle. People don’t treat it with the respect that it deserves, instead people have become obsessed with watching the clip online. People are obsessed with how awful it was, so much so that is has become almost entertaining in a very twisted way. Jupe thrives off of telling the story, even though he is still haunted by it. He loves talking to people about that day because he loves how invested and engaged people are in the story. This is why he wants to lure Jean Jacket out of the sky. He wants a spectacle, and it never seems to occur to him that by doing this, he is endangering and disrespecting other people, and the horses.

He’s not thinking about them, they’re simply part of his spectacle. 

I think it would impossible to watch this film and not at all think about what it implies about animals in performance capacities. The Haywood’s care for their horses and respect them. They want their horses to be safe and healthy. Not everyone on set feels that way, Jupe doesn’t care about the horses when he is using them as bait, OJ and Emerald and Angel are the only ones who take Jean Jacket seriously. They respect the fact that the thing in the sky is a predator. It is a threat. It is not something that Jupe should be making a circus out of. Obviously times have changed compared to years and years ago, and where once upon a time large animals were used in theme parks and in circuses in unnatural habitats, this is a notion that is hugely controversial now as more and more people are against animals being held in captivity this way. 

I think this idea is impossible to ignore as it perfectly ties into the idea of making a spectacle out of something that should not be one. 

As we approach the end of the film, a journalist gets wind of the strange things that are happening at the Haywood ranch, so he arrives with a video camera. OJ, Emerald and Angel already have a plan set in motion about how to tame Jean Jacket so that no-one else gets hurt. This plan gets put at risk when the journalist shows up. Emerald tries to shoo him away, but he is invested and determined to get his shots. Just like Holst, he dies for the sake of filming. OJ did his best to save him but it was too late, and he too gets devoured by Jean Jacket. In his final moments, he is screaming about making sure this is filmed, make sure his death is caught on camera, so even in his final moments, he’s not thinking about his life, he’s thinking about getting his shot. 

While I can’t say for certain that this was Peele’s intention, this film really made me think about social media culture and how far we will go to get the shot. How far will we go for appearances? Do we put ourselves in harm’s way by doing too many performative things? 

Obviously this is quite extreme. I’ve always held the opinion that social media can be nothing more than lighthearted and fun as long as you behave responsibly and remember that so many things are created and altered so it cannot be viewed as the be all and end all, but as in all horror movies, this idea is taken to the extreme and forces audiences to question things. 

I’ve talked about it before, but there is this idea that the morbid is curious. Violence can be very intriguing. I’ve written about violence onscreen in an academic setting, and the idea that really resonated with me is the idea that when something seems so unimaginable, it is fascinating. 

It is the idea of wanting to look away but being unable to do so. Audiences enjoy experiencing violence from afar, in a safe way. Watching violence is intriguing because it poses no threat to us when we are safe on our sofas, but there does come a point where you have to think about what you’re doing. Are you viewing the victims of the violent acts as people? Are you feeling sympathy for them? Are you empathising with them? Or have they become part of a spectacle? Have their feelings been forgotten entirely? It is a very interesting, and complex topic because sadly violence does occur, and to pretend it doesn’t happen ever in the media that we take in would be insincere. 

How violence is contextualised is very important, and I would suggest that NOPE is a film that prompts audiences to think about the ways in which we view violence and violent acts onscreen. 

Despite this movie being unsettling, I would say that it ended on a hopeful note. 

I am going to spoil the ending because I want to talk about how I felt that the film had a full-circle structure. 

I am very happy that OJ and Emerald both survive. I was worried that we would lose one of them, but I was pleasantly surprised when this wasn’t the case. The film ends with Emerald capturing the shot and Jean Jacket gets destroyed. OJ and Emerald work together the entire time, but in the end, Emerald is the one to “tame” Jean Jacket and I found this to be very poignant. Emerald didn’t get to train or tame the horse when she was a child, because the horse got booked for a job and because OJ was older, he got to go to work with their father, but OJ always looked back at Emerald. Now, we come full-circle. Emerald is an adult, and even though she and OJ are always there for each other, always looking back at each other, she is the one who gets to tame this Jean Jacket, and the film ends with her and OJ smiling at each other, thrilled that they are both okay as photographers and journalists start arriving with their cameras, all wanting their shot. 

The cycle starts again. Something happens and we always want to make a spectacle out of it. We want the details, we want the story, we want to know because we’re morbidly fascinated by the events that have occurred, because they seem so unimaginable. I feel this will always be the way it works, because we do need news, we do need to be informed, but it is important to remember to respect the people who actually experienced the event and view them as actual people, rather than figures for our own entertainment. 

NOPE is a brilliantly paced, slow-burning film that is deeply unsettling and extremely thought provoking. It is bright yet there is this constant, underlying tension that something isn’t right, something is wrong, and that sense of danger and urgency continues to build and become more intense, and then the final act moves at a very swift pace. It is perfect. It mirrors the sense of urgency that we feel as viewers. The characters must act now. The plan has to work. 

It is unsettling without being excessively gory. The score is stunning, and some of the visuals are almost like a painting. Overall I would say that NOPE is an extremely evocative film, and I would highly recommend it. 

Have you watched NOPE?