Ten Major Issues with Modern Recruitment

Recruitment’s core purpose is to find the best person for a job. Sounds simple enough, but in today’s oversaturated job market, even the simplest of positions can receive hundreds of applications. To cope with this, recruiters have adopted new tactics to streamline the hiring process. While it's admittedly a smart move at first glance, many of these methods end up doing more harm than good, often failing to respect the time and effort that struggling yet very talented jobseekers put into their lengthy searches. As someone who’s spent years navigating this brutal market, here are 10 key problems I’ve noticed, notably within the creative industry.

#1 - Timing Hypocrisy

Recruiters often expect candidates to respond quickly to interview offers, application queries, or job offers, sometimes as quick as within 24 hours, especially when a role needs urgent filling. But that same urgency rarely goes both ways. Many eager candidates are left in the dark for weeks, maybe even months, for updates on their application. In one case, I received a rejection two months after applying; and to add insult to injury, it was naught but an automated message with no feedback, no explanation, nothing. I no longer recognised the company due to more opportunities since so didn't really care, but it certainly reflected badly on their recruitment process, and that's just one of many similar scenarios I've experienced. Candidates can’t afford to focus solely on one role; they’re often juggling multiple applications at once. A bit more mutual respect, with timely replies, basic communication, and less ghosting, would make the recruitment process a happier place for everyone.

#2 - AI Paranoia

The rise of AI tools, ranging from ChatGPT to Google Gemini, has sparked a widespread fear among some recruiters that candidates are using it to essentially “cheat” their way through applications by having it write out their CVs and cover letters, thus requiring little to no effort on their part. But AI isn’t something to oppose; in fact, it’s a valuable tool that can enhance the quality of many applications. It helps identify mistakes, find the right words, and refine a cover letter that might otherwise be just a tad too long or unclear. Relying solely on AI is lazy and easily identifiable, yes, but using it to simply polish up an application and fix hidden errors is not. Plus, when it comes to a face-to-face interview, there’s no AI assistance. If a candidate impresses you in person, does it really matter if they used a bit of AI to assist with their application? Many employers should rethink their use of AI detection methods, as they risk alienating genuinely talented applicants due to such misplaced fears.

#3 - Tedious Applications

You all saw this one coming. How many applications have you had to do where instead of just submitting your CV and cover letter, you're instead required to fill out your ENTIRE life story, often fleshing out every single bit of background information when it comes to your school, college and employment history in thorough depth. Such applications can take almost an hour, and may also require the creation of an account unique to the recruiter's website. Even the best of candidates, if not truly desperate, may ultimately abandon the application before completion due to how tedious and overlong it ends up being; one for me once took upwards of 45 minutes, and in the end I was simply ghosted. Thanks a lot for the reward, chaps.

#4 - Interview Knockout Tournaments

Multiple rounds of interviews might seem like a fair way to evaluate candidates at first glance, but in reality, it just drags out the hiring process, pits applicants against one another, and piles on more and more stress with each stage. It can leave even the strongest candidates exhausted or disillusioned by the end, and some may drop out entirely in favour of more streamlined and respectful opportunities. Plus, if a recruiter spots a near-perfect candidate early on, they risk losing them altogether due to unnecessary delays. One job I saw proudly listed four interview rounds and a test task stretched over a three month hiring process. Clearly efficiency wasn’t in their best interests.

#5 - Big Brands = Big Bias

Though it's not the worst issue on this list, it’s still common for recruiters to quickly skim through applications and quickly assume that anyone who’s worked at a big-name brand, such as BBC or ITV, must be the perfect fit. While experience at prestigious companies can carry weight, it doesn’t automatically equal skill or suitability. Take a moment to actually read what their role was; they may have simply been a runner or a cleaner. There's no shame in that, but it doesn’t make them ready to be a Senior Video Editor just because the BBC logo rests on their CV. Meanwhile, candidates from smaller companies, who’ve been hands-on and trained as specialists, often get unfairly dismissed simply because their employer isn’t well known. This kind of brand bias leads to lazy recruitment and missed opportunities to hire real talent.

#6 - Remote Work Refusals

With the growing advances in technology, remote work isn’t just a perk anymore, but in fact a norm for many roles. It not only saves companies buckets of money on office space, but also offers employees a healthier work-life balance. Granted, not every job can be done remotely, but in the creative sector and beyond, many absolutely can. Despite this, some employers still insist on “on-site only” roles, often due to outdated ideologies or a complete lack of trust. This hits disabled candidates, caregivers, and those living far from major cities the hardest. “Just search locally,” you say? But what if your local area isn’t as big a creative hub as your nation's capital? For me, that’s a 2–3 hour drive away (and I can’t drive due to a disability, so make that over 4–5 hours by public transport). Employers who outright reject remote work are cutting themselves off from a wide and valuable talent pool, all because they refuse to adapt.

#7 - The "Perfect Candidate"

Strong applicants may appear to meet every requirement on a job description, but that doesn’t mean they’ve stopped learning, for even the most acclaimed professionals are still evolving, expanding their skills, and adapting to new trends. Yet still, even today, some employers insist on clinging to the idea of a mythical “10/10” candidate who meets every single requirement with absolute perfection. It’s an obsessive, unrealistic approach that alienates countless talented people who could thrive with the right support and a chance to grow. Instead of training or nurturing this potential, these companies repost the same job endlessly, puzzled as to why no one quite fits. The answer’s simple: the person they’re looking for does not exist, and they never will. Nobody is perfect, but learning on the job is part of the journey. Quick and effective adaptability matters far more than ticking every box.

#8 - Discriminative Hiring

Many companies claim to be equal opportunity employers, but the reality is very different. Discrimination based on gender, race, and disability still persists today, despite it being something that belongs buried in the past. Often, it’s subtle or subconscious, with employers ghosting candidates they don’t want to confront, or hiding behind policies like “no feedback given” to avoid revealing their bias. As someone with epilepsy, I’ve faced this firsthand countless times. One employer (Youth Group) blocked me outright after learning I had it. Another (Little Dot Studios) gave me detailed, constructive feedback when they thought I wasn’t disabled, even suggesting a more suitable role, but once I reapplied and disclosed my condition, I was rejected within a day, and my follow-up e-mails were consequently ignored. Discrimination like this alienates skilled people for outdated, harmful reasons. Equality laws need to be enforced more strictly and transparently, or many talented individuals who "stand out from the crowd" will keep being unfairly shoved to the sidelines.

#9 - Compressed Jobs

A frustrating trend in today’s job market is companies trying to cut costs by merging multiple roles into one, before posting it under a misleading title. I’ve lost count of how many listings I’ve seen for a “Video Editor,” only for the description to reveal it also requires screenwriting, storyboarding, filming, motion design...basically the role of an entire creative team. Even when employers use the more honest but still dreaded term that is “Content Creator,” the same issue still applies. They expect demanding workloads to be fulfilled with full dedication, yet offer a salary that wouldn’t support a junior in London; sometimes as low as £18K from what I've seen, which is over £7000 below the city’s colossal cost of living. Roles like this lead to timely burnout, tremendous stress, and poor quality work, simply because one person can’t juggle five jobs a week. Expanding your skillset is one thing, but if a role demands the value of an entire team, then pay fairly (at least £50K) and be honest and supportive when it comes the workload. Anything less is exploitation. Case closed.

#10 - Unpaid Assignments

While a simple hypothetical scenario questionnaire is no real harm if brief and simple, many creative roles now demand unpaid assignments like editing videos or creative writing to assess an applicant's skills, which shows blissful ignorance towards the purpose of a showreel or portfolio. Such tasks are often painfully time-consuming, sometimes even requiring you to source your own footage etc, which just shows laziness on the employer’s part. If a company wants real work, they should pay for it - plain and simple. Sadly, desperation leads many (myself included) to comply with these "assignments", and this trend has also opened the door for scammers posing as recruiters to steal completed work and vanish, requiring employees to be extra vigilant when being asked to perform such tasks. If you’re not offering payment, don’t ask for assignments. Just review the candidate's portfolio like every fair employer should.

This isn’t an attack on every employer, for many are thankfully still caring and authentic. But a quick glance through social media, particularly LinkedIn, reveals just how widespread these issues are. Modern recruitment, both in creative fields and beyond, is in urgent need of reform. Too many employers follow outdated, harmful practices that not only overcomplicate the process, but also alienate strong candidates and burn out even the most dedicated of workers. The result? Talented people being left unable to secure roles they’re fully qualified for, all while the rising cost of living puts them in an increasingly painful position. Without change, this cycle will only worsen, and unemployment rates could rise to shocking levels.

Movie Review - Sonic the Hedgehog 3

I've said it before and I'll say it again; video games and movies don't often blend well, with even the best of video game franchises resulting in fairly weak cinematic outcomes. However, despite a poorly received debut trailer, the renowned gaming icon Sonic the Hedgehog appeared in a fairly respectable live action film back in 2020, with an equally well received sequel (albeit one I'm not too fond of) in 2022. It's certainly not easy to craft a live action depiction of such a cartoonish video game character, but the end results are nothing to sneeze at, and with this latest sequel now debuting to similar positivity, it's clear a bigger franchise is but among us from here.

The newest cinematic adventure of Sonic the Hedgehog (Ben Schwartz) has him clashing with the mysterious Shadow the Hedgehog (Keanu Reeves), an ultimate life form hidden away for decades only to finally escape when awoken by mad scientist Gerald Robotnik (Jim Carrey), the equally manic grandfather of Sonic's arch nemesis Ivo Robotonik (also Carrey), which leads to a mission for Sonic, joined by Tails (Colleen O'Shaughnessey) and Knuckles (Idris Elba), to save the world from their newest rival's vengeful plans before time runs out.

There's nothing truly groundbreaking in this latest sequel, it must be said; it was clearly written with simple and fairly formulaic ideas in mind, featuring familiar themes of friendship and judiciousness, and it's certainly a film that seeks to priortise action and humour above everything else. There's a lot of fun jokes and corny one liners, and while the leading heroic trio have their fair share of decent humour, it's easily Jim Carrey who carries the majority of the film's comedic weight, providing some of the best jokes in his perfectly performed dual role as the Robotniks, which are also edited together flawlessly to provide a convincing pair of characters depicted by one talented actor. The vocal performances from the leading trio are largely solid, with a notably energetic and funny one by Schwartz, but while Idris Elba is a very talented actor and does a decent job with what he has, I myself never found him to be a fitting voice for the character of Knuckles. Just a personal thought really.

Sonic's human friends Tom (James Marsden) and Maddie Wachowski (Tika Sumpter), who had somewhat greater importance in the previous films, find themselves hardly relevant this time round, to the point where the film would work just as well without them. They contribute very little to the overall plot, and they'll be among the last things you remember when leaving the cinema once the credits roll. It's not a serious issue as their presence was perhaps a little overdone in the previous sequel, and most viewers will of course want the focus to be on the eponymous blue blur; however, shunting them to the sidelines instead of involving them interestingly shows once more that not much thought was put into the film's overall plot and themes, instead focusing more on the action packed (and, to be fair, definitely impressive) visual set pieces and humourous tone.

Finally, there's newcomer Shadow; his backstory doesn't have much depth but is similar to its original basis from his debut appearance in Sonic Adventure 2. His backstory probably provides the film's most emotional moments, but none still tug on the heartstrings an awful lot simply because said scenes come and go and lack much depth. Keanu Reeves does his best with the material he's given, but his performance is far from award winning and at times quite bland, and once again it's mostly Schwart's Sonic and Carrey's Robotniks that demonstrate the best of the film's acting talent. The end result here is a reasonably fun and exciting adventure, with dazzling effects, impressive set pieces and a number of big laughs, but, like the other installments of its series, it's nothing truly memorable or consistently engaging.

Movie Review - Paddington in Peru

The first two Paddington films did great justice to an icon of British children's literature, delivering heartwarming, funny and loveable adventures that could provide entertainment for the entire family despite the younger target audience of the books. Paul King directed two masterpieces of modern British cinema, but steps down from the throne as director this time round, with Dougal Wilson taking over for the strangely named Paddington in Peru; this third addition to the series is arguably the most ambitious one yet, but sadly not in all the ways one would want.

As the title suggests, Paddington in Peru steers away from our traditional setting in London, and sees Paddington Bear (Ben Wishaw) travelling to his homeland of Peru with the Brown family upon learning of issues that are affecting his beloved Aunt Lucy (Imelda Staunton) at the Home for Retired Bears. Upon arrival, they find that Lucy herself has gone missing, and are forced to venture out in the jungles of Peru itself with the aid of explorer Hunter Cabot (Antonio Banderas) to rescue her based on any clues they can find.

Now while Paddington in Peru is once gain the most ambitious installment of the series, this ambition only really applies to the film's setting, cinematography and level of spectacle when it comes to its set pieces and special effects. Though beautifully filmed and visually resplendent, it's simply disappointing to see that other parts of the film didn't seem to have as much effort injected into them, with the final outcome suffering from many flaws including a forgettable "plot twist" villain who you can predict from the start, and one who can't compare to Nicole Kidman and Hugh Grant's villainous roles from the other two films. We also have some strange narrative diversions and weaker performances from the main cast, notably Ben Wishaw, who often sounds bored and lifeless in his eponymous role. Emily Mortimer takes over from Sally Hawkins as Mrs. Brown, but isn't anywhere near as funny or memorable, and in the end its Hugh Bonneville and Antonio Banderas who probably stand out the most, with both delivering a lot of the film's funniest moments and putting a lot of energy into their performances.

Paddington's latest adventure is still a lot of fun and not a bad film by any means, once again holding impressive merits including its dazzling special effects, exciting set pieces, as well as many moments of laugh out loud comedy, but these aren't enough to overpower the unfocused narrative, fairly bland new characters and weaker central performances. It was always going to be hard to rival, let alone top, the incredibly high standards set by the previous two films, and while Paddington in Peru tries hard in many respects, it ultimately comes off as little more than a simple and enjoyable family adventure that just doesn't feel as emotionally engaging or innovative. Those looking for such entertainment will find much to enjoy, but those looking for a story on par with the previous two may walk away a little disappointed. 

Movie Review - Deadpool & Wolverine

The latest installment to the beloved series of Deadpool movies finds itself as the first to be integrated into the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and sees the ruthless antihero teaming up with X-Men's iconic Wolverine. Certainly an entertaining concept, but the end result is arguably one of the strangest superhero films ever made in recent years, featuring all the bloody violence and adult humour diehard fans would come to expect, but offering little else to satisfy viewers looking for some more depth.

Now the core plot of Deadpool & Wolverine is confusing, it's fair to say; the film essentially parodies the many timelines Marvel has established with their countless film adaptations across various studios over the years, even those established before the MCU came to be. It sees Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds) in a quest to save his own universe from perishing, a fate triggered by the absence of its anchor being Logan/Wolverine (Hugh Jackman). The rest is really hard to explain without waffling on for ages or revealing crucial spoilers, but what goes on from there is arguably a jumbled mess that doesn't quite know what to do with its admittedly amusing premise.

It of course goes without saying that Deadpool & Wolverine offers a nice handful of entertaining and unrestrained action sequences, and they for the most part they all deliver a suitable mixture of thrills and humour. However, intertwined with all this is a largely repetitive array of overused jokes, from Deadpool's increasingly cheesy fourth wall breaks to Wolverine's drunken mannerisms. The earlier Deadpool films knew how to use these jokes effectively, and while Deadpool & Wolverine did make me laugh here and there, the overall tone still becomes excessive and samey, and even uses said jokes to quite often lazily cover up plot holes or allow for countless contrivances.

By the time the film's final act arrived, I simply had no idea what was going on; this is essentially an installment to the MCU that's parodying the MCU and Marvel in general, and so it doesn't quite feel like it truly knows what it wants to be. Is this a full on parody? A genuine installment? An awkward mixture of both? The latter is the closest answer I can really think of, and that's why it doesn't quite work most of the time. As a bit of harmless fun for the older crowd, Deadpool & Wolverine largely delivers, once again offering some funny jokes, some gripping action scenes and featuring solid performances from its main cast, but it otherwise has little else to offer and ultimately sticks out of the already degrading MCU like a sore thumb.

Movie Review - Inside Out 2

After a brief slump in their overall quality of films, Pixar's Inside Out was certainly a return to form for the iconic studio following its release in 2015, telling a beautiful story which deftly blended humour and honest emotional depth within a unique premise full of loveable characters. While the film didn't end with any definitive need for a sequel, the idea of one was always welcome considering how much more could be done with the material at hand; new emotions, new hurdles in life, the works. Nearly a decade later, Pixar have of course taken advantage of this and brought us Inside Out 2, an entertaining animated adventure within what many critics deem to be another slump for the historically acclaimed studio. 

Three years after moving to San Francisco, Riley Anderson (Kensington Tallman) faces new challenges in life as she enters her pubescent teenaged years, with her original five emotions of Joy (Amy Poehler), Sadness (Phyllis Smith), Anger (Lewis Black), Fear (Tony Hale) and Disgust (Liza Lapira) being driven out of headquarters by the overly paranoid Anxiety (Maya Hawke), herself joined by a cluster of teenage struggles including Envy (Ayo Edebiri), Ennui (basically boredom, played by Adèle Exarchopoulos) and Embarrassment (Paul Walter Hauser). Riley's quality of life begins to decline as a result, leading Joy and the other core emotions on a journey to save the girl they helm and love before its too late.

It goes without saying that Inside Out 2 is a visual treat, with animation just as gorgeous as its predecessor. It still boasts the same charming, colourful art style, though is somewhat darker this time to align with the more troubling themes. Said art style is then brought to life with beautifully rendered landscapes and characters, joined by strong vocal performances from the majority of the original cast and several newcomers, notably Hawke and Tallman in their roles as Anxiety and the teenaged Riley respectively. Pretty much everything when it comes to the visual and sound design is spot on, even if Andrea Datzman's score is perhaps less memorable than Michael Giacchino's music from the original.

With Riley entering her teenaged years and thus coping with a new range of emotions that such youths will struggle with when growing up, Inside Out 2 of course explores some strong themes, with Anxiety and her core actions and motives certainly being at the centre of all this. Riley coping with these clashing emotions as she grows up is something audiences of all ages can certainly relate to, with some perhaps even more touched by Riley's struggles and Anxiety's influence depending on their own experience with such emotions, making this a film with a deep core message that's also very flexible with its impact depending on the viewer. That said, this is still a film that knows when to cut back on the drama and embrace humour and charm, offering plenty of laughs approachable for a family audience.

But while Inside Out 2 has an emotional impact, it doesn't quite carry the same powerful tone of its predecessor, which at times left me genuinely tearful. This time round things can be sad, but aren't too heart wrenching, and it's fair to say that Anxiety is really the only one of the new emotions that most will remember; Envy, Ennui and Embarrassment don't have much of a, well, personality, and sometimes serve little purpose beyond being the subject of jokes which parody teenage livelihood. Perhaps the strongest emotional punch, however, comes with the film's ending, which I shan't spoil but will certainly commend for being poignant and thoughtful, and for addressing the influence Riley's emotional personas actually have on her actions and feelings in life in a way the original never even did. With all that said, Inside Out 2 finds itself being a worthy sequel to one of Pixar's best films, and enjoyable watch from start to finish.

Movie Review - The Super Mario Bros. Movie

As I've said many times before, and as most people certainly know, video games and movies don't often blend well; adaptations of even remarkably acclaimed games have led to the birth of some of the worst films ever made, with the original Super Mario Bros. film from 1993 being a notable example. It's clear the zany premise of Mario's universe wasn't apt for grim a live action setting, and so the next attempt at bringing him to the big screen is a colourfully animated affair; the end result is undeniably superior to the aforementioned atrocity from 30 years ago, but that's not saying an awful lot at the end of the day.

The story begins with our iconic protagonists Mario (Chris Pratt) and Luigi (Charlie Day) and their attempts to kickstart their own plumbing business within New York City, but things take an unexpected turn when one of their jobs results in them being transported to the magical Mushroom Kingdom, governed by the elegant Princess Peach (Anya Taylor-Joy) and under threat from the evil Koopa king Bowser (Jack Black), who also captures Luigi and locks him away as one of his many prisoners. Mario consequently finds himself on a mission to save his brother and put an end to Bowser's attempts to seize the kingdom as well as Peach's hand in marriage.

Pratt's casting was of course met with controversy, but in the end he actually does a decent job; let's face it, while Charles Martinet has always pronounced some of Mario's most iconic phrases with an equally iconic voice, it's a voice that works better in small doses, and probably not one you'd want to hear speaking lengthy lines of dialogue across a 90 minute film. Pratt brings Mario to life with a fitting accented voice which occasionally shifts to a higher pitch to resemble Martinet's iconic voice for certain iconic lines; while such moments are slightly crude, they're also fairly amusing. When it comes to the rest of the cast, Charlie Day does a decent job as Luigi, though it's a shame to see the character largely shunted aside for the majority of the film as naught but a cowardly hostage, and Jack Black is not bad as Bowser; however, I didn't find him to be as remarkable as most claimed, though it seems neither he or the majority of the supporting cast had overly rich material to work with due to the film's mediocre script.

The Super Mario Bros. Movie's perks only really stem from its aesthetics and humour; when it comes to storytelling and characters, there's a lot to be desired. Mario himself isn't too memorable and Luigi barely turns up, but the biggest offenders are perhaps Peach and Bowser, with the former merely being a cringeworthy attempt to tick all the feminist protocol boxes: sarcastic and overly badass, whose mighty skills put the men around her to shame. Certainly nothing wrong with trying to flesh out her character a little more, but the writer's attempts at providing her with some backstory come and go with no impact, making her once again just crude role model for insecure young girls. As for Bowser, he's simply there to make endless jokes about how much he loves Peach, and has no threatening appeal whatsoever despite Jack Black's best efforts. When it comes to the likes of Donkey Kong (Seth Rogen) and Toad (Keegan-Michael Key), they merely adopt a number of generic, overly silly and tired character clichés and consequently feel like parodies of their original selves that most will barely remember.

This isn't a bad film at the end of the day; it once again offers a number of amusing jokes (though also an excessive overuse of slow motion ones), some solid vocal performances, a decent soundtrack and clever references to the video games that inspired it, but such qualities will only garner the interest of younger viewers or Mario diehards. When it comes to people outside of this demographic, there's not much to really keep them hooked, and as the film goes on it ultimately becomes more and more boring and predictable. In the end I thought Sonic did a better job with his movie debut; it was no masterpiece, but certainly a lot funnier and more engaging than this amusing yet repetitive adventure.

Movie Review - The Batman

This latest live action depiction of the renowned caped crusader follows his extraction from DC's failed attempt at crafting a shared universe of their own, and now paves the way for a new series focusing purely on Batman as well as the many allies and enemies unique to his comic book saga. This time round, Robert Pattinson takes on the titular role, delivering a fitting, powerful portrayal within a narrative much darker than we've ever seen before, even when compared to Nolan's acclaimed Dark Knight trilogy.

Though The Batman is a reboot, it decides to branch away from merely being yet another origin story, instead dropping us into a world where Bruce Wayne has already spent two years battling crime and corruption within Gotham City, and interweaving necessary backstory into the main plot in a simple yet effective manner. The end result is a tale that readily establishes the origins of Batman and focuses on the development of his skills as a fighter and a detective lurking in the shadows, with his key opponent this time round being a menacing, sadistic serial killer simply calling himself the Riddler (Paul Dano).

Pattinson's casting was met with great hostility, and I myself certainly thought it was an odd choice for such a role; however, for the most part, his performance is one that nicely captures the core nature of the character. Pattinson's take on Batman is chilling and intimidating, thus nailing the persona that such a hero is known for, though his portrayal of Bruce Wayne doesn't do much to truly differentiate these two identities. The script itself inevitably burdens him with such limitations, so just don't expect to really see Bruce Wayne this time round. The darker Batman persona is what Pattinson adopts whether in costume or not, which can sometimes make his portrayal of Wayne himself a little bland and overly depressing. Zoë Kravitz also delivers a strong portrayal of Catwoman, while Paul Dano excels as the Riddler, making him an incredibly deranged, menacing villain who can be genuinely unsettling to watch.

The Batman is certainly a story aimed at an older target audience, thanks to a scary and eerie tone as well as some rather graphic fight scenes and intense set pieces; this is something that a large number of fans will appreciate given the similarly dark nature of many of the character's comic book depictions. The film's main flaw simply boils down to its near three hour runtime; there are multiple scenes that tend to drag on for a while which could've easily been condensed, and while it doesn't excessively jeopardise the story's overall strength and emotional weight, it will probably leave some viewers a little bored now and then. For the most part, however, this is an engaging watch and a strong superhero tale that breaks new ground with its overall vibe and intensity.

Movie Review - Spider-Man: No Way Home

Now the highest grossing Spider-Man film and one of the most successful within the already truck sized moneymaking machine that is the MCU, No Way Home is undoubtedly among the franchise's most ambitious outings simply due to its acclaimed reunion of many famous faces known for appearing within previous cinematic outings involving the renowned hero. Such faces include former web heads Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield, as well as the likes of Willem Dafoe, Alfred Molina, Rhys Ifans, Thomas Haden Church and several others as our central antagonists. The end result is a somewhat overcrowded yet largely entertaining and exhilarating superhero flick that has a unique novelty, albeit one it doesn't take full advantage of.

No Way Home uses snazzy sci-fi magic to bring all these characters together, with the safety of MCU's Peter Parker (Tom Holland) put at major risk following a revelation of his identity to the world. In the interests of both himself and those he loves, Peter consults Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) to rewrite time and make his identity a secret once more, though a flawed execution of this spell leads to the inadvertent mixing together of multiple alternate realities with largely disastrous results. Woops.

A key initial issue I have with this latest MCU offering is one I've felt has been a notable flaw with many MCU films to this day: an excessive focus on silly humour. Yes, a dark and gritty vibe only truly works for the heroes that demand it like Batman, but the first hour of this film is far too reliant on daft humour to the point where it reduces the ability to take certain things seriously, and ultimately becomes incredibly annoying incredibly quickly. It's funny, yes, but just doesn't know where to draw the line. The first half of the film also suffers from a fairly slow pace which leaves it quite boring and sluggish in the long run; thankfully, the second act picks up the pace very quickly and offers a handful of thoroughly entertaining set pieces as well as some genuinely touching and surprisingly dramatic moments.

While it's certainly great to see Holland fight alongside Maguire and Garfield, all three of whom deliver largely solid performances, a central flaw of the film's primary concept stems from its obsession with cramming so many villains into the mix. I occasionally kept forgetting some were actually present, not only due to the unnecessarily large lineup but also because many are shunted aside for lengthy periods of time; iffy development can also reduce them to an occasional laughing stock before our climactic end battle arrives. The actors portraying these villains do their best, but their character arcs aren't entirely satisfying; Molina's Doc Ock is nowhere near as intimidating as he was in Spider-Man 2, and while the Green Goblin has a great new look and is brought to life with another impressive effort from Willem Dafoe, his screentime is insultingly low. As for the others, they just come and go without much of an impact, which illustrates how their inclusion was fuelled more by a desire to add wow factor instead of narrative strength.

That said, this is a good film with an enticing second act once again, as well as an admittedly beautiful ending, but the aforementioned excessive silliness and a flawed execution of the overall concept leave quite a few things to be desired. Fans of the MCU won't be disappointed, as is already evident by the film's exceptional critical and fan reception, but for me it had nowhere near as much of an impact and is far from one of the best superhero films I've seen, let alone one of the best within the MCU itself. Do forgive me, MCU diehards.

Movie Review - No Time to Die

Daniel Craig's time as the iconic James Bond comes to a closure with this year's No Time to Die, which sees the eponymous MI6 agent on a high stakes mission to combat the evil Spectre organisation once more, with their newest scheme exploiting the works of an abducted scientist and the development of a bioweapon that jeopardises the world as we know it.

Craig's final Bond outing is certainly the ambitious action thriller one would expect, with a number of gripping set pieces that demonstrate a major development in scope when compared to those that came before it. Intertwined with these thrilling sequences is a story that, while certainly not on par with the franchise's best efforts, is effectively laced with interesting twists, threatening foes, and an intensive atmosphere that only escalates as more revelations come to fruition.

No Time to Die potentially qualifies as one of the best 007 films to date when it comes to action, with its set pieces once again boasting a major sense of scope and scale, which is apt for a conclusion to such a significant stage of the franchise. The truck sized budget is certainly put to good use to craft lavish special effects, superb production design, and relentless (if sometimes awkwardly shot) fight sequences which are both brutal and ruthless; all these merits are most apparent within the film's climactic battle, which is easily one of the most intense scenes that the whole series, let alone the film itself, has to offer.

It's a shame that the story, while interesting and heartfelt, perhaps goes a bit overboard with its unpredictability, which can sometimes leave it without a firm sense of direction. This becomes evident when a number of seemingly important characters abruptly come and go with little aftermath, notably when it comes to the antagonists themselves; yes, they're suitably threatening and sinister, but the jarring disposal of them once they've served their duty with narrative exposure can leave them rather forgettable. It can thus be hard to tell who the film's primary villain truly is throughout the bulk of the story.

The performances for the most part meet all expectations, with Craig delivering another caustic portrayal of Bond and the likes of Ralph Fiennes, Ben Wishaw, Naomie Harris, and Léa Seydoux shining in their crucial supporting roles. Christoph Waltz and Rami Malek, among others, do their very best as our key villains, but once again find themselves burdened by roles with a lack of substance. This is most evident with Malek as Lyutsifer Safin, whose efforts are undermined by a blandly written character which just doesn't serve as a fitting adversary for Bond to combat in this otherwise ambitious finale. No Time to Die is also home to some excessive goofy humour, but all this aside, it still provides the thrills and genuine excitement we need from such a key stage of the series, making it a largely satisfying closing chapter to Craig's time as 007.

Movie Review - Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings

Marvel continue to expand on their shared universe with another acclaimed installment, this time based on a protagonist who may not be as familiar to general audiences. Said protagonist comes in the form Shang-Chi (Simu Liu), whose own origin new story begins with his father Xu Wenwu's (Tony Leung) discovery of the mystical Ten Rings thousands of years ago. The powers they gift him he ultimately uses to seek vengeance against those who murder his wife, and trains Shang-Chi as a pawn in this goal throughout his childhood. Chi eventually flees from his father and starts a new modern life in San Francisco, but his dark history makes its way back in good time.

Shang-Chi seldom does anything to build upon Marvel's traditional formula, with a lot of pop culture humour, thunderous set pieces, and fairly standard emotional sequences. This won't have a negative impact on many viewers, especially Marvel diehards, but a failure to develop this trademark formula will allow a lot of people to predict what may come of certain scenes; this makes little room for interesting twists and surprises, which to be honest its intriguing premise could've really benefited from. The only fresh aspect of this narrative is inevitably the new origin story, but the flow of said story is largely quite predictable.

A Marvel film is of course going to host a number of gripping action sequences, and Shang-Chi is no exception. Its set pieces boast some stylish fight choreography, and their scale expands dramatically as the film nears its conclusion. Some are slightly overlong and can ruin their own tone with forced, unwanted gags, but they still make for a thrilling experience that most fans will certainly enjoy. The film also fails to disappoint when it comes to the visual effects, which are beautifully crafted and seamlessly integrated, and so bolster these action sequences even further. Most of the film's cast also do a good job in their roles, primarily Simu Liu as our leading protagonist.

So while Shang-Chi has has all the usual positives one would expect from a Marvel film, its still conjoined with a number of disappointing flaws, and it honestly should've done a lot more with such a complex premise. Its attempts to inject an emotional vibe into this narrative largely feel like an afterthought, and can often be ruined once again by a forced integration of daft humour; this is especially apparent with Awkwafina's performance, which is overly reliant on unfunny silliness. It's a story with many charming moments, but it should've taken its interesting premise a lot more seriously.

Movie Review - Luca

The core themes of Luca have certainly garnered the interest of many satisfied viewers, and such reception is arguably what most would expect from a motion picture crafted by one of this industry's leading animation studios. Pixar's newest feature tells the story of the titular sea monster (Jacob Tremblay) and his efforts in exploring the world above the ocean, which leads him to befriend Alberto (Jack Dylan Grazer), another young sea monster with the same aspirations that Luca himself has embraced and pursued over many years.

It's a story that's reasonably touching, but not quite as unpredictable as it may initially sound; while the core premise is certainly unique, it's hard to deny that the structure of the overall plot is fairly standard and formulaic. Charming visuals and passionate vocal performances from a talented cast help bring an appealing lineup of characters to life, but a lack depth (and a slightly bland protagonist) may leave them rather forgettable to some. It's by no means a bad narrative, primarily once again thanks to some surprisingly complex themes, but its overall structure perhaps just isn't as unique as such a strong and creative premise would demand.

A Pixar film released in 2021 obviously faces no risk of visual flaws, and Luca certainly delivers on the inevitably high expectations. It's brought to life with a colourful and lively aesthetic, and this appealing art direction is then superbly rendered and smoothly animated with excellent attention to detail. It meets all the standards one would expect from a high budget Pixar production, and is beautiful to look at from start to finish. There's really nothing one can fault with the film's overall aesthetic.

While the overall flow of Luca's story is indeed quite formulaic, it's still entertaining, with a fluent blend of humour and emotional warmth that allows it to effortlessly appeal to a family audience. Its heartfelt themes in regards to friendship and self acceptance, effectively conveyed in a reasonably subtle manner, help make it much more than just a piece of disposable, cliché entertainment. It's charming and inventive to an extent, but perhaps some work in the development of its characters and direction of the plot would've bolstered it that one step further and helped it rival more of Pixar's greatest efforts.