imaxxing

Lots of potential to do well but this turned out to be very formulaic and very generic. The magic was very wishy-washy and sloppily written on the whole.

I unfortunately didn't find this mind-blowing or impressive - as you'd expect to find a clever band of top brass magicians or illusionists to be; because the tricks had little actual rhyme or reason to them, they weren't rooted in believable illusions, only in the very loosest sense if I'm being generous (but typically not at all). It all felt rushed; not much substance at all in terms of plot.

Jesse Eisenberg was quite good, but most of the characters were just sort of 'there'. Rosamund Pike was okay, but an uninteresting script made her character an unconvincing villain with a South African accent crossed with hints of her native British accent.

Mixing magicians and heists is okay, not that I recall anybody really asked for someone to go out of their way to make three movies featuring this niche concept. There are already shows like the 'Real Hustle' showing how much more impressive real world criminal trickery can be. Taking it to an exaggerated fictional form as we see here is an interesting angle, but only if it's rooted in ruses with real, plausible method.

The closing explanation of the ruse arc in this film was really convoluted and a huge stretch at best to believe. They were asking a lot expecting the audience to buy into it.

The Conjuring: Last Rites certainly offers moments of visual beauty, with cinematography that leans into the gothic and atmospheric tradition of the genre. The film often cloaks its characters in shadow or bathes scenes in dim, natural light, clearly aiming for a sense of dread and authenticity. Yet, at times, this feels more like a stylistic obligation than an organic choice. The heavy reliance on near-darkness, combined with the almost ritualistic appearance of storms and thunderclaps, borders on cliché. While it contributes to mood, it also risks feeling forced, as though the film is ticking off a list of expected horror tropes rather than building something genuinely unsettling.

From a practical perspective, the lighting choices also stretch believability. If one were truly besieged by supernatural forces in a haunted home, it seems unlikely they would choose to stumble around in near darkness. The characters' lack of self-preservation in this regard occasionally breaks immersion, making the horror feel less convincing.

Unfortunately, the core scares do not rise above the familiar. The film leans heavily on predictable jump scares, many of which can be spotted well before they land. By revealing too much too early, the tension fizzles rather than builds, leaving little room for lingering unease or post-screening reflection. One of the strengths of the earlier entries in The Conjuring universe was their ability to keep audiences on edge, second-guessing what might be around the corner. Last Rites, by contrast, shows its hand too quickly and struggles to sustain momentum.

That said, the film is not without merit. The performances are consistently strong, with the cast delivering grounded portrayals that anchor the supernatural spectacle. The family dynamic, in particular, feels authentic to the period setting and helps establish an emotional core amidst the horror. These elements prevent the film from collapsing entirely under the weight of its formulaic structure.

In the end, The Conjuring: Last Rites is a polished but uninspired entry in the franchise. It looks good, it is competently acted, and it delivers exactly what fans of mainstream horror might expect. Yet for viewers hoping to be unsettled, surprised, or left pondering after the credits roll, the film offers little that feels fresh. The result is a handsome but safe addition to the series-one that entertains in the moment but leaves no lasting chills.

Bar some exceptions, Happy Valley depicts the old 'cops and robbers' premise focusing on lousy garden variety criminals, rather than serious criminality within the force itself and high places, bar some exceptions.

Truly high stakes crime carried out by organised and effective criminals is seldom examined. Crimes of politicians, oligarchs, industry stakeholders, organised criminals, not a fig - bar some low level examples, are depicted.

Spineless loose ends and liabilities who aid and abet are allowed to run rampant, often used to lazily move the plot along.

They lean into the saying that there is 'no honour amongst thieves' - well, yes, perhaps the ones that are caught and turn eachother in; the ones who aren't organised or effective. What about those in high places, who can pull strings?

In the first season we do see a subplot with a low level government official bypassing police scrutiny, but it's a drop in the ocean if what they could be doing to raise awareness of injustices like this.

The force is shown as the intelligent, unstoppable, and largely 'good' side, while criminals, often white and male, are shown as stupid, emotional, and barbaric in most instances, as this categorical 'other' that will always be defeated in the end. Some moral ambiguity is shown, but not always enough.

Where's the due acknowledgement that the biggest crimes are within the policing service itself and amongst the powerful stakeholders who can and do influence them? The police are mainly crowd control working wittingly or unwittingly for a rich and corrupt class of people, focusing on low to medium level crime to keep society stable and the system running unchallenged. Crime in high places? Crime in the royal family? It goes largely unaddressed. It amounts to propagandising by the BBC.

Sergeant Catherine Cawood is likeable in some regards but a loathsome jobsworth in others, yes her passions and prejudices can come through in her policing on occasion but she's largely depicted in an overly favourable light. She's principled, forthright, determined, and flawed too. But ultimately a lackey who acts as a cog in a machine, glorified for her selflessness and humanity despite her inability to robustly question her place in the bigger picture. Perhaps then this is an accurate example of the average person working in policing, trying to just follow orders and make a living, not daring to question above their station.

Just being good at your job and being able to show some grit, vulnerability and humanity is not a nuanced and accurate insight into policing and the true state of criminality in modern Britain. Even if this fictional individual has some good qualities.

In terms of acting, across the board it's quite good but emotions are clearly exaggerated a bit, in some cases approximating a soap like Eastenders. Many adults are whiny, emotional, argumentative, childish, and reactive, in more cases than they should really be. Emotions should be shown, but proportionally and realistically.

The tone of the drama conveys a depressing and grey northern England. Natural lighting is often used and the atmosphere they create is cold and gritty. Sometimes this goes overboard and the cold northern towns feel almost too cold and inhospitable. It follows on from the showrunners overdoing emotionality, the same can be said of the colour palette and visual approach at times, they create a misleading atmosphere.

The UK can absolutely be a joyous and vibrant place outside of the underworld of crime, they should have shown glimpses if this normal life beyond the trials and tribulations of law enforcement. Not least for the sake of representing the north of England in a fair way.

7/10.