GREETINGS & SALUTATIONS
In this edition:
Wey aye! That was Summer!
Facehuggers gonna hug face!!
Capote vs. The Swans: FIGHT!!!
The six-week holidays are over, and that awful crunch of gears is the sound of the next few days/weeks, trying to get back into the swing of things. It was a lovely time with great memories made: Me ‘n the fam ventured up to County Durham for a couple of weeks, which was tranquil and a different pace of life. (More of this, please.)
Whilst there we visited Beamish, the living museum of the north. And what an amazing place it is. If history isn’t your thing, there’s still plenty to marvel at. The vision to create such a place is just astounding: The transportation of existing structures brick-by-brick and recreate a Truman Show-esque world of days gone by just blew my mind. It’s like The Sims made real, ye olde-style! You would never get such a thing on that scale down in Essex or London - purchasing that amount of land alone would be far too expensive. Honestly, if you’re ever up north, go check it out! (We went back three times because it really is that big.)
We also visited Newcastle Upon Tyne for the first time, which is an amazing city with a good energy (not to mention a Forbidden Planet and our new favourite shop, Miniso!), as well as Hadrian’s Wall and Kielder Observatory, situated in the remote Kielder forest. And when I say it is remote - it is RE-MOTE. But if you’re going to build an observatory it needs to be away from the light of cities! The talks on space made my jaw drop, and I left feeling even more tiny and insignificant than usual!
Alas, the summer hols are now over, and I’m back in Essex, with its constant whoosh of traffic noise and air pollution (welcome back, hayfever!). Bagh.

JUST ONE MORE THING…
I’m currently working on what I intend to be a YA novel (working title Midnight/Sun), a survival fantasy about tribes of migrants who have to stay out of the sun or else die. I’m in the ideas stage right now, but I’ve got the overall story arch figured out; currently doing the world-building stuff. Feels like it’s got some interesting things to say.
CINEMA
ALIEN: ROMULUS
Bjorn Again. Dread Zeppelin. The Counterfeit Stones. Tribute acts and cover bands. You love them because they play the hits. It’s not the real thing, but it bridges the gap because of your love/nostalgia for the originals. Well, welcome to the cinematic equivalent of The Faux Fighters! Alien: Romulus is the seventh instalment of the Alien franchise (Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Alien Resurrection, Prometheus, Alien: Covenant and now, Romulus), and is set between Alien and Aliens. Things kick off in promising form, with an intriguingly GOOD IDEA within the opening, then introduces the main character, Rain, and her android “big brother”, the child-like Andy (expertly played by David Jonsson). Andy is the real star of the show, and has the most fascinating character (which isn’t bad for an android): He’s essentially Lenny to Rain’s George.
The first crunch point arrives, forcing Rain to take a risky gamble, setting off into space with her characterless friends for a defunct space station. Then it’s a real-time race against the clock to survive.
The writers need the characters to get from A to B, fair enough, but the reasons don’t always feel the strongest, or the most logical. But the biggest distractor is the endless nods and winks to the rest of the series, which jarringly took me out of the action. Lines of dialogue, plot points, music cues, and even an old character are all here to let you know the filmmakers have watched all of the other alien movies, ultimately rendering it as fan fiction. The life cycle of the alien has also sped up dramatically (presumably because the writers wanted to crack on with things?), so it’s a pacey, gory hark back to the original’s horror-house in space, but without any of the deep emotional ride of the first three movies.
VERDICT: I can't lie about your chances. But you have my sympathies.
IT ENDS WITH US
Promoted as a romantic drama, the trailer for IEWU didn’t give anything away, to the point where I had a slither of an idea what the story was about but couldn’t be certain. Blake Lively plays Lily Bloom, who naturally opens a flower shop with her quirky and loud pal Allysa (Jenny Slate). Lily reconnects with Allysa’s brother Ryle (with whom she had almost hooked up weeks/months before. Following this?), and the two begin dating. Meanwhile, the story flashbacks to Lily’s first love, Atlas, and fills in the blanks on Lily’s physically abusive Dad.
It’s all immaculate hair, cosy autumnal fashionwear and pumpkin-spice lattes until Lily chances upon Atlas, all these years later. There are passionate kisses and all the things you would expect from a romantic drama… BUT. The film teases: which moody and potentially awful boyfriend will lash out at Lily first? Yep, it romanticises abuse.
Now, there are plenty of films about abusive relationships - and not all of them have to be gritty realism, like Nil By Mouth. Sleeping with the Enemy presented the abuser as the bad guy to run away from from the get-go, and how Julia Roberts tried to move on with her new life. With IEWU, you know it is going to go sour, but from what angle? I found myself waiting for the moment where Lively’s character would be hit - which is a very odd “reveal” to have to wait for, not to mention tasteless.
Screencraft recently wrote about It Ends With Us:
“The excitement for audiences comes from the unknown—where a story might go or how a relationship can flourish despite a haunting past that slowly gets revealed.”
“Excitement?” This is meant to be exciting? Anticipating abuse?
The film walks a tightrope of suggestion which is where the problems lie: it tries to empathise with an abuser, to explain the reasons why they are the way they are. But: just because you may have had a bad time at some point in your life it isn’t a justification to continue the pattern, as much as someone who has experienced abuse is doomed to forever be a victim or form attachments to abusers. This film rides on making you guess who the abuser is: is it the old boyfriend or the new one? Or both? Or none? Ooh, the excitement. And the ending had me shaking my head.
VERDICT: Nah, thanks.
DESPICABLE ME 4
Gru and the Minions are back, and it is business as usual. An improvement on the third instalment, DM4 sticks firmly to the template which has served it well until now: A bit of story, some minion stuff, family issues for Gru, minion stuff, story, rinse and repeat. Gru and his family are targeted by a villain, so they go into a witness protection deal where they assume new identities. Hilarity ensues.
Laughs were had (but then I laugh at the minions, regardless), and the story was fine, but there is a sense that the filmmakers aren’t seeking to break the mould. DM4 stays firmly in its lane and delivers what it does best, but maybe DM5 could set its sights a little higher.
VERDICT: Bello!
HAROLD AND THE PURPLE CRAYON
The reviews for this movie would be enough to put anyone off, but I gave it a go anyway - mostly because it features Flight of the Conchords’ Jemaine Clement as the baddie. And, y’know what? It’s fine. It’s nowhere near as bad as everyone has been making out. If you’re under ten, you’ll probably find it a pleasant enough time-passer. As an adult, I had a nagging feeling that a) if 1980s Tom Hanks had played the lead and b) this movie had been released in the 1980s, sour reviewers may have felt slightly warmer to it. Zachary Levi does the grown-up man-child thing he did in the Shazam movies, and he’s okay - but had it been someone a bit younger with more energy and innocence then Harold would have been more engaging as a lead. Levi gives it all he’s got, but he looks too old and forced for the part.
Also miscast is Zooey Deschanel in a thankless Mum role, which could have benefited from a more animated performance (Poor Zooey looks a bit emotionless/bored for the entire film). Faring better in the supporting roles are Lil Rel Howery and Tanya Reynolds as Harold’s sidekicks Moose and Porcupine, but the star player is Jemaine Clement as Gary the librarian, playing a role similar to Chevalier in Gentlemen Broncos (A conniving frustrated author). Clement makes me laugh whatever he’s doing, and he saves the film whenever he’s on screen. The movie is fine: It has imagination and is inoffensive - not exactly laugh-out-loud, but for a kids’ movie it does the job.
VERDICT: Jemaine: Priznt.
BLINK TWICE
There has been a recent slew of movies about eating the rich: Infinity Pool, Get Out, Don’t Worry Darling, The Menu, Saltburn, Triangle of Sadness, Knives Out… films about evil, rich and white power-abusers doing evil things, usually in a satirical style with lashings of social commentary.
Blink Twice came with an onscreen trigger warning, perhaps necessary, but also tips the audience off somewhat. Blink Twice is a mix of Me Too at Epstein Island, with the ensemble cast drinking lots and doing drugs all day long while the audience soaks up the eerie atmosphere.
There’s Christian Slate, there’s Geena Davis, there’s Kyle McLachlan, mostly wasted AND wasted. Haley Joel Osment is the stand-out, who is given a smidgeon of character. You’re waiting for it all to go bad, for the ugliness and horror beneath the surface to explode. It does - eventually - but it takes its time getting there.
The use of heightened sound effects like corks popping, water splashing and toast crunching is meant to make things feel intense and uncomfortable, enhanced by deliberately choppy editing. And it did succeed at making me feel stressed because I’m sensitive to sound. (It was nails on a chalkboard for me.)
The story deals with mind and memory, what’s real and what’s not, all the while coming over like an experimental, improvised fever dream. Some may enjoy it, regarding it as edgy or mind-bending. There’s an exaggerated, heightened approach to the storytelling, presumably to justify the many plot holes - which CAN work (e.g. Heathers), but with a cast of self-indulgent morons, there wasn’t anyone to feel invested in or to care about their plight, other than the unmentionable things which later occur. (If you’re the sort of person who questions things then you will not get on with this.)
It’s ludicrous, violent, infuriating. I didn’t find it amusing, just a hard watch that doesn’t deliver anything we haven’t seen before.
VERDICT: There’s no forgiveness, just forgetting.
CINEMA CATCH-UP
THE GARFIELD MOVIE
Thankfully showing on Kids Cinema (i.e. cheap tickets), this was a one-note played-repeatedly adaptation of comic strip favourite Garfield. It kicks off with the sort of stuff which would appear in print: Garfield is lazy, likes eating Italian food, has a loyal friend/co-pet Odie and an owner named Jon, and we see how they all came together. THEN INSERT GENERIC WHO-CARES PLOT WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GARFIELD. The slapstick stuff is fine, and the dialogue aims to please adults (because I couldn’t see most kids having the first idea what Garfield’s quips were about), but it’s empty sass all the way. Chris Pratt is miscast as the titular feline (I would say it needed Jack Black, had he not done all those Panda movies). It’s distinctly okay, but had it gone all-out zany with the “Mission: Impossible”-heist-type plot (like Despicable Me or Madagascar 3, for instance), this could have felt fresher. Instead, it’s mostly blah, with its sights trained firmly on “that'll do”.
VERDICT: Neutered.
TELEVISION
ONLY MURDERS IN THE BUILDING: SEASON 4
I’ve only seen one episode of this so far, but as season 4 begins they have announced S5, which poses the question: How much steam is left in OMITB? S4 knows this is an issue, as it plays around with the idea of yet ANOTHER murder. So far it has kept the ball rolling, albeit knowingly, and as much as I enjoy seeing the central trio bounce off each other, the first episode was light on actual laughs and more about cosy familiarity. I’ll be watching the rest, of course, and I hope they can ground it in S1 character-rich territory as opposed to the more showy S3.
VERDICT: Cosy slippers.
THE ACOLYTE
Can someone explain the hate for this show? Actually, don’t: I couldn’t care less. The Acolyte features some fresh and fascinating characters, unusual blurring-of-lines regarding the Jedi and Sith, and some of the best edited fight scenes.
Amandla Stenberg is a solid lead, but it’s Squid Game’s Lee Jung-jae who has the standout performance as Sol, a conflicted Jedi who gives Liam Neeson’s Qui-Gon Jinn a run for his money in the stoic stakes. Also excellent is Dafne Keen as Padawan Jecki, but Carrie-Anne Moss is sadly under-used considering her prominence in the advertising of this series. I would have been very happy to see a second series, but it seems Disney has no backbone these days. This is a shame because The Acolyte was taking Star Wars into a more interesting place, posing some big questions about right/wrong/good/bad and those grey areas which Star Wars was built upon (i.e. Obi-Wan not being entirely honest with Luke, Darth’s big reveal in Empire etc.). Shame on you, Disney.
VERDICT: Ignore the haters, they’re morons. Watch it.
FEUD: CAPOTE VS. THE SWANS
2024 has been an exceptional year for television, and I thought I had seen the best thing this year in One Day, but it has been nudged into second place by this masterpiece of a (belated) second series. (The first season dealt with the conflict between Bette Davis and Joan Crawford; also well worth a watch.)
The star-studded cast, mostly unrecognisable, is on top form across the board and deserves to win all the awards. To tell a story about the largely despicable and petty behaviour of Truman Capote and the socialite Swans AND make you care is no small feat. It’s just a masterclass in writing, acting, direction, editing, costume and design.
VERDICT: Exquisite taste.
Finally, here’s what musical picks have been on rotation this month:
Thank you for reading Short People!
It would greatly help if you could share this post on your socials. If you’re a writer on Substack, please could you add Short People to your recommendations.
If you enjoyed Short People, please spread the word!