The Drama (2026)

While there were moments in The Drama that I enjoyed, I am sad to say that it mainly left me cold. Not only that, I didn't think either Zendaya or Robert Pattinson were on top form. 

Written and directed by Kristoffer Borgli, who gave us the wonderful Dream Scenario, this is a film about a few different things. Emma (Zendaya) and Charlie (Pattinson) are due to get married. Things are seriously derailed, however, when they're encouraged by Rachel (Alana Haim) and Mike (Mamoudou Athie) to confess the worst thing that they've ever done. Everyone has made mistakes in their past, but it seems as if some mistakes are easier to forgive than others. Something is revealed that changes everyone present, and it may even lead to the whole wedding being called off.

There's something here that could have worked well, especially when looking at how people can react when learning something new about a loved one, but it's all overshadowed by the fact that the main revelation feels like something Borgli used purely because of the shock value. The best moments in the film juxtapose imagination with the reality of wedding preparation, and there are some laughs created by the editing and dialogue, but there could, and probably should, have been much more done with such weighty subject matter. Or maybe things should have revolved around something else entirely.

Pattinson is occasionally amusing when looking so dazed for most of the runtime, so at least he gets to benefit from the material in that way, but he doesn't feel believable in so many other ways. Zendaya never really feels believable at all, especially when you consider just how literally anyone would accept the challenge of "tell the worst thing you ever did" without considering the consequences. Haim gets the best moments, but her performance is undermined by her character trying to maintain the moral high ground after confessing her own awfulness (which I understand, that's one of the points being made, but it still doesn't help her), and Athie is good, but a bit underused. Hailey Gates makes a strong impression in her small role, Sydney Lemmon does well portraying a potential wedding DJ, Jeremy Levick is very funny as another potential wedding DJ, and Zoë Winters provides perhaps the best moments in the whole film as a wedding photographer trying to work with two people who are far from enthusiastically smiling subjects.

I really wanted to like this, considering how much I have enjoyed the leads in other features, and how much I liked the previous film from Borgli, but it just couldn't find the right path through some tricky terrain. Again, as I have said about one or two other movies in recent years, nothing is off limits when it comes to good and thought-provoking art, but you need to shoulder some extra responsibility when it comes to certain topics, whether you're trying to be serious or mine some very dark comedy from things.

Everything is decidedly okay, superficially anyway, but this needed to be much better than okay. Fans of confrontational work always deserve much better than okay.

5/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Firestarter (2022)

As much as I have enjoyed his work over the years, Stephen King is very hit and miss when it comes to his work. Anyone so prolific is going to be. And filmed adaptations of his work have been even more hit and miss. Yes, we got The Shining, Carrie, and the likes of Stand By Me. But we also got The Mangler and The Langoliers (which I mention here as an oft-cited example, despite my own affection for it). Firestarter was originally adapted for the screen back in 1984, and most people would agree that it was an imperfect little film, at best. Drew Barrymore did well in the lead role, David Keith was great, but it couldn't do justice to a story that wasn't the strongest in the first place. And George C. Scott is, well, interesting to watch. This is all my way of saying that, yes, Firestarter was something that was arguably worth having another shot at. I'm not sure this end result was really the way to go though, especially as it is hampered while trying to stick so closely to the source material.

Directed by Keith Thomas, who made a strong impression on many people with his horror feature debut, The Vigil, this casts Ryan Kiera Armstrong in the important central role, the pyrokinetic Charlie McGee, and Zac Efron and Sydney Lemmon as her parents, both trying to protect Charlie from anyone taking an interest in her powers while also trying to protect themselves from any temperature-raising accidents. There's definitely interest from a Captain Hollister (Gloria Reuben), who has permitted an "agent" named Rainbird (Michael Greyeyes) to hunt down the family and take possession of Charlie.

Written by Scott Teems, Firestarter is a film that is completely competent, and improves on the original in a couple of ways (not least of which is replacing Scott with Greyeyes). It somehow lacks part of the goofy charm of the original though, which also had room in the cast for Heather Locklear, Martin Sheen, Louise Fletcher, and Art Carney (his role played in this adaptation by the excellent John Beasley). Maybe it’s because it cannot replicate just that image of Barrymore looking moody as her hair is blown around and flames start to develop, an image so brilliantly spoofed by Barrymore herself in a wonderfully memorable SNL skit. Or maybe it is because Teems was so set on a faithful adaptation that he didn’t feel as if he could try anything that might improve things further. This is a safe horror movie. I cannot think of anyone who would outright hate it, but I also cannot think of anyone who might end up loving it. The opening third has all of the best moments, and then it just slides down and down from there.

Armstrong is good in the role of Charlie, and she does well with the necessary “look sternly at things until it starts to heat up” expressions. Efron also does well, and gets to have a couple of good moments using his own skill to "push" people, something that is inevitably causing him a bit more damage every time he does it. Lemmon isn't necessarily bad, but she's given the least to do from the main cast members. Greyeyes is a formidable hunter, Reuben does well as the standard head of operations who gravely underestimates the situation, Kurtwood Smith is as good as ever in his small role, and I've already intimated how good Beasley is.

I'll be very surprised if many people can remember this film once the end credits have rolled. Thomas directs in line with the script, safely and competently, and nobody involved gets to put any strong fingerprints on the material, including King. Anyone somehow unaware of the original, novel or film, would probably watch this and think of it as a pale imitation of something that King would come up with. There's no energy to it, no real feeling of people living their lives in this world. No . . . spark.

Maybe someone else will have a go at this material in 30-40 years. Meanwhile, there are many other movies riffing on this kind of thing that are easier to recommend than this, and I would suggest films as varied as Brightburn, Freaks, and Looper for starters.

5/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews