It's conspiracies week at Bad Dads. All four dads — Sidey, Dan, Reegs and Cris — count down the Top Five Conspiracies before getting to Sovereign (2025), a devastating drama about a father and son in the Sovereign Citizen movement that made $63,000 at the box office and absolutely deserved better.In the Top Five:JFK — Oliver Stone's four-hour masterpiece of the grassy knoll, covered in fullAll the President's Men — Woodward, Bernstein, the paper that's now owned by BezosMichael Clayton — Clooney, Tilda Swinton, Tom Wilkinson going off his medsV for Vendetta — the graphic novel Alan Moore hated adapted by people he also hatedThe Matrix/Moon Landing — Kubrick and the simulation, one or two topicsZoolander — the fashion industry behind every political assassination for 200 yearsBubba Ho-Tep — Elvis, Black JFK, Egyptian mummy. Cris's nom. Correct.Elvis vs Nixon — the real meeting, the badges, the conspiracy of what they said to each otherCOINTELPRO — the real FBI programme that makes the conspiracy theories look tameSidey's friend's COVID/QAnon texts — read in full, genuinely extraordinaryReegs' Conspiracy Quiz:Real or made up? Finland, Denver Airport, Victorian tax avoidance, Tuskegee, government surveillance birds, and Wetherspoons underground tunnels.On Sovereign:Nick Offerman in an unexpected dramatic turn — really big and violentJacob Tremblay as Joe, the son, in what both Reegs and Dan consider career-best workThe Sovereign Citizen movement explained, and the real incident it's based onDennis Quaid as the sheriff whose son is killedMartha Plimpton's brief appearance as a seminar devoteeWhy Joe shoots the police: not madness, but inevitabilityThe baby at the end. You'll understand when you get there.Verdict: Strong recommend all round. Heavy. Almost nobody saw it. One of those films.You can now text us anonymously to leave feedback, suggest future content or simply hurl abuse at us. We'll read out any texts we receive on the show. Click here to try it out!We love to hear from our listeners! By which I mean we tolerate it. If it hasn't been completely destroyed yet you can usually find us on

This week Dan and Reegs review I, Swear — the 2025 BAFTA-winning film about John Davidson, the Scotsman with Tourette's syndrome who became an MBE, an advocate, and one of the most compelling biographical subjects in recent cinema.It's just the two of them this episode. There was also a hornet.In this episode:The BAFTA ceremony controversy — what actually happened, why the internet got it wrong, and why the BBC's edit decision was indefensibleJohn Davidson's story from 1983 Galashiels to an MBE at the Palace, in a film that is simultaneously hilarious and devastatingScott Ellis Watson's extraordinary debut performance as young JohnWhy this film works when so many "inspirational" biopics don'tTommy — the elderly caretaker who becomes the father figure John never hadDottie — the woman who simply decided to accept him, no apologies requiredThe drug mule scene ("half price heroin for sale")The library scene — why a man walking quietly through a library might be the best cinematic climax of the yearThe median nerve stimulation device and what it means for people living with Tourette'sThe real John Davidson footage over the credits — including his dog, who may be the most emotionally intelligent character in the whole filmVerdict: Strong recommend. Both dads in tears. Multiple times. Not ashamed.Notes: Adult language throughout. This is a film about Tourette's. That should tell you everything you need to know going in.Films/shows mentioned: I, Swear (2025), Sinners (2025 — Michael B. Jordan's Oscar win referenced)You can now text us anonymously to leave feedback, suggest future content or simply hurl abuse at us. We'll read out any texts we receive on the show. Click here to try it out!We love to hear from our listeners! By which I mean we tolerate it. If it hasn't been completely destroyed yet you can usually find us on twitter @dads_film, on Facebook Bad Dads Film Review, on email at baddadsjsy@gmail.com or on our website baddadsfilm.com. Until next time, we remain... Bad Dads

This week the dads work late for Steven Shainberg's Secretary (2002) — one of the more unusual love stories in American independent cinema, and almost certainly the most interesting thing James Spader has ever worn a tie for.But first: a very thorough Top Five Secretaries list. Dolly Parton, Mad Men, Ghostbusters, Batman Returns, The Simpsons, Beetlejuice, Moneypenny through all her iterations, and the West Wing. It's a good one.Top Five highlights:Doralee Rhodes (Dolly Parton) from 9 to 5Joan Holloway and Peggy Olson from Mad Men — a deliberate twoferSelina Kyle — Michelle Pfeiffer, one take with the whip, iconicMoneypenny through every era — Lois Maxwell to Naomi HarrisSmithers from The Simpsons — unsalaried, devoted, above and beyondMiss Argentina, the green receptionist in the afterlife from BeetlejuiceDawn/Pam from the UK and US Office — both great, discussed togetherMrs Landingham from The West WingMiss Teschmacher from SupermanOn the main feature:Dan tried to watch it with his family. The first scene resolved that very quickly.A surprisingly thoughtful and sensitive portrayal of BDSM — and why it works where 50 Shades doesn'tMaggie Gyllenhaal and James Spader both doing career-best workAngelo Badalamenti's score — unusual, rhythmically strange, perfectWhether trading one form of self-harm for another is complex, or just complicated, or bothThe three-day chair scene — and why it's the emotional heart of the filmAlso in this episode: a recent Wu-Tang Clan gig (GZA didn't show, QR codes were aggressively promoted), Barcelona, and Sidey's assessment of the Red Hot Chili Peppers.Verdict: Strong recommend. Surprisingly tender. Genuinely unlike anything else.Note: Adult content. Not suitable for family viewing. The dads learned this the hard way.Cast & crew discussed: Maggie Gyllenhaal, James Spader, Angelo Badalamenti, Steven ShainbergYou can now text us anonymously to leave feedback, suggest future content or simply hurl abuse at us. We'll read out any texts we receive on the show. Click here to try it out!We love to hear from our listeners! By which I mean we tolerate it. If it hasn't bee

This week the dads tackle Paul Verhoeven's infamous erotic thriller — the fourth highest-grossing film of 1992 and quite possibly the most rewound VHS tape in rental shop history. Basic Instinct turns 33 this year, and it's still just as wild as you remember.In this episode:The legendary interrogation scene and the great Wayne Knight sweating debateWhether Sharon Stone knew — and whether Paul Verhoeven is telling the truthNick Curran: the "anti-Columbo" and arguably cinema's least heroic heroWhy Michael Douglas was paid $14 million and Sharon Stone got half a millionVerhoeven's Hitchcock obsession and the Vertigo parallels hiding in plain sightThe ambiguous ending, the ice pick under the bed, and whether the sequel tells us anythingLGBTQ+ representation and the bisexual villain problemThe 2001 collector's edition DVD that came with a replica ice pickSharon Stone's Barbie film pitch, and why it never happenedVerdict: Strong recommend. Ludicrous, overwrought, problematic in places — and still absolutely compelling.Films mentioned: Basic Instinct (1992), Basic Instinct 2 (2006), Vertigo (1958)Cast & crew discussed: Sharon Stone, Michael Douglas, Jeanne Tripplehorn, Wayne Knight, Paul Verhoeven, Jerry GoldsmithYou can now text us anonymously to leave feedback, suggest future content or simply hurl abuse at us. We'll read out any texts we receive on the show. Click here to try it out!We love to hear from our listeners! By which I mean we tolerate it. If it hasn't been completely destroyed yet you can usually find us on twitter @dads_film, on Facebook Bad Dads Film Review, on email at baddadsjsy@gmail.com or on our website baddadsfilm.com. Until next time, we remain... Bad Dads

 This week Sidey, Dan, and Cris fly solo — Simon's been called to Southampton on urgent business (he was spotted in a pub surrounded by tea cups, so make of that what you will). The dads are reviewing Ballad of a Small Player (2024), the new Netflix film from Edward Berger — the director behind All Quiet on the Western Front and Conclave — starring a very much on-form Colin Farrell. The Film: Colin Farrell plays Lord Doyle, a dissolute British gambler drowning in debt in the casinos of Macau — and if you thought Vegas was the gambling capital of the world, think again. Doyle owes 352,000 Hong Kong dollars to the house, is blagging his way past the front desk in a crumpled cravat, and somehow still looks magnificent. He falls in with a mysterious young woman at the Baccarat tables, and from there the film slides into gorgeous, ambiguous territory — is she real? Is any of this? And does it even matter when the rush of the bet is the only thing that feels true? Themes of addiction, redemption, obsession, and the question of whether you can ever really stop — all wrapped in the stylised, sun-drenched visual language of Macau's casino underworld. The lads give it two words each: "All in" (Dan), "Bizarre but funny" (Cris), and "Strong recommend" (Sidey). Consensus: go watch it. Top Five: Gardens The boys dig into their favourite cinematic, televisual, musical, and gaming gardens. From the gnome in Amélie and David Lynch's suburban lawn horror in Blue Velvet, to the brutal communal fields of Midsommar, Spirited Away's otherworldly beauty, and the garden in Saltburn that had certain members of the pod seeing quite a lot of a particular actor. Wonka's chocolate garden gets a nod, as does Miss Peregrine's hedge-portal to another time. Sidey & Reegs are also going to see Wu-Tang Clan at the O2. Protect ya neck. You can now text us anonymously to leave feedback, suggest future content or simply hurl abuse at us. We'll read out any texts we receive on the show. Click here to try it out!We love to hear from our listeners! By which I mean we tolerate it. If it hasn't been completely destroyed yet you can usually find us on twitter @dads_film, on Facebook Bad Dads Film Re

This week's Midweek Mention takes us somewhere unexpectedly moving — Bill Condon's Gods and Monsters (1998), a fictionalized account of the final days of James Whale, the British director who gave the world Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein. Sir Ian McKellen is extraordinary as the ageing, ailing Whale — a man whose health is failing, whose memories are fragmenting, and who has grown too tired to pretend he cares about social niceties. Into his life stumbles Clayton Boone (Brendan Fraser, in peak movie-star form), a gardener and former marine who becomes an unlikely companion in Whale's last chapter. What unfolds is a quiet, beautifully lit character study about aging, depression, homosexuality in 1950s Hollywood, and what happens when two very different men decide to be honest with each other. Lynn Redgrave as Hannah the disapproving housekeeper practically steals every scene she's in. There's strip journalism, a gas mask, a Hollywood party with Princess Margaret, and a swimming pool. Whale directed horror. He understood that tragedy works best when it makes you laugh first. Budget: $10M | Box office: ~$6.5M | BBC Films co-production | Premiered at Sundance Verdict: Strong recommend from Sidey and Cris. Dan missed it but is already planning to watch it.You can now text us anonymously to leave feedback, suggest future content or simply hurl abuse at us. We'll read out any texts we receive on the show. Click here to try it out!We love to hear from our listeners! By which I mean we tolerate it. If it hasn't been completely destroyed yet you can usually find us on twitter @dads_film, on Facebook Bad Dads Film Review, on email at baddadsjsy@gmail.com or on our website baddadsfilm.com. Until next time, we remain... Bad Dads

This week we go fully corporate: Top 5 Corporate & Tech Jargon — the phrases designed to sound like progress while delivering absolutely nothing. We’re talking circle back, take it offline, pivot, blue-sky thinking, synergy, and the whole “results-driven ecosystem” dialect spoken exclusively by people who describe themselves as “thought leaders” on LinkedIn.Then we hit the main feature: Thunderbolts* — Marvel’s surprisingly sincere group-therapy movie disguised as an action film. Think The Breakfast Club, but everyone’s a government assassin and the villain is basically existential depression with god-tier powers.Standard warning: we spoil. A lot. With confidence.What we talked aboutTop 5 Corporate / Techno-babbleWhy corporate language exists: credibility theatre, hiding behind vague phrasing, and “sounding senior” without committing to anything.The difference between useful technical language vs bullshit camouflage (and why “take it offline” can mean “I’m seething”).Techno-babble in movies: Back to the Future’s flux capacitor, Avengers physics word-salad (quantum tunneling, heavy ion fusion, Coulomb barrier), and classic Star Trek “modulate the phase variance” nonsense.The “pivot” moment that sneaks into real life: Friends and the cursed sofa stairwell.Thunderbolts*Why this one lands better than recent Marvel: less quippy noise, more consistent tone, and a third act that’s actually about something.The set-up: a clean-up operation that becomes a trap, plus Marvel’s best “oh, we’re definitely all going to die” elevator pitch.Bob / Sentry / The Void: a superhuman project gone wrong, and a villain that manifests as the darkest version of yourself.The big swing: a finale that avoids sky-portals and CGI armies and instead goes for inner trauma + solidarity (yes, basically an emotional intervention).The asterisk explained: the film’s marketing payoff and the “New Avengers” naming chaos.The rough edges: runtime bloat, plot convenience, and the return of accents that should’ve stayed retired.Bonus life adminWalking football cup semi-final madness (knees sacrificed, glory secured).Random watc

Bad Dads Film Review goes full courtroom chaos this week with My Cousin Vinny (1992) — the fish-out-of-water legal comedy where two broke New York kids take a wrong turn into the Deep South… and somehow end up charged with murder because of a misunderstanding that starts with a can of tuna.Sidey finally ticks off a long-standing gap (he’d never seen it), and we break down why this film still works: a tight premise, a brilliant “outsider vs small-town system” vibe, and a courtroom structure that’s way smarter than it has any right to be for a broad comedy. Joe Pesci turns up looking like he’s wandered in from Goodfellas in cowboy boots, tries to blag his way through Alabama procedure, and gets repeatedly threatened with contempt by an all-time stern judge (Fred Gwynne, aka Herman Munster).What we talked aboutThe opening setup: poverty-tour Americana, the road trip, and the tuna “crime of the century” that accidentally feeds the tension.Mistaken confession comedy: how the boys basically incriminate themselves… for the wrong offence.Vinny’s legal “credentials”: six tries at the bar, no trial experience, and a running battle with courtroom etiquette (“judge” vs “your honour”, the suit, the procedure handbook).The judge dynamic: why Fred Gwynne is the perfect straight man and how the contempt/lock-up beats become a recurring gag.Mona Lisa Vito (Marisa Tomei): the film’s secret weapon — and why her role isn’t just “girlfriend”, she’s the brain that solves the case.Courtroom mechanics: cross-exams, witness deconstruction, and why parts of this film get referenced in law-school conversations as a simple example of dismantling testimony.The car/tire evidence: the key pivot from “they’re screwed” to “hang on…” and the satisfying payoff when the story flips.Does it hold up? Runtime bloat (two hours is generous for this kind of comedy), how a lot of the plot collapses in the internet era, and why it’s surprisingly not as offensively “of its time” as plenty of early-90s comedies.The Oscar chat: why Tomei winning Best Supporting Actress felt weird for a comedy… and whether it was actually deserved.Standard warning: we spoil the beats as we go, because that’s the whole fun of a courtroom film.If you want a movie that’s basically “compe

Bad Dads Film Review heads to the Italian Riviera this week for The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999) — a sun-drenched, jazz-soaked psychological thriller where gorgeous people do terrible things, and the worst person in the room still somehow isn’t the guy committing the murders.We follow Tom Ripley (Matt Damon), a small-time grifter with big social ambitions, who’s handed a golden ticket: travel to Italy and convince trust-fund prince Dickie Greenleaf (prime Jude Law, unfairly beautiful) to come home. Tom doesn’t just want Dickie’s friendship — he wants Dickie’s life. And once he’s tasted that world of money, effortless charm, and endless leisure, he’s willing to do whatever it takes to stay in it.What we talked about“Great Gatsby, but murderous”: Tom as the outsider who doesn’t just observe the rich — he tries to become them (and wear their face if needed).The grift mechanics: the Princeton jacket con, the “research” phase, practicing mannerisms and music tastes, and how the film turns impersonation into a craft.The seduction of wealth: why you’re weirdly happy to watch Tom infiltrate a circle of vapid, obscenely privileged characters.Obsession and desire: the homoerotic undertones, Tom’s fixation on Dickie, and how the film frames identity as something you can steal… if you’re ruthless enough.Set-piece escalation: the boat trip and the brutal turning point; the forged signatures, dual hotel check-ins, staged evidence, and the constant “one more lie to cover the last lie” tension.Freddy as the threat (Philip Seymour Hoffman): the first person with enough real-world instincts to sniff out “new money” fraud — and what happens when he pushes it.The ending sting: Tom “gets away with it”… but the price is isolation, paranoia, and the realization that the spoils aren’t worth much when you can’t live as yourself.Aging and attitudes: how the film plays in 2026 — including a chat about whether some of the sexuality/“homosexual as threat” framing feels dated.Plus: we somehow opened with a Top 5 Mats segment that should not work… and absolutely does.Standard Bad Dads warning: spoilers throughout, strong language, and the kind of moral compass that’s been left outside on a bath mat since the Blair government.

The premise (simple, but the film isn’t): A privileged but messy NYC teenager, Lisa (Anna Paquin), causes a moment of distraction that leads to a bus hitting and killing a woman (Allison Janney). In the immediate aftermath she lies to the police—claiming the light was green—helping the driver (Mark Ruffalo) avoid consequences. The rest of the film is Lisa spiralling through guilt, grief, anger, and a need to “make it right,” while the city and everyone around her keep moving.What we talked about:Peak New York energy: classrooms full of political debate, constant noise, constant arguing, constant opinion. It feels like a movie made by New York about New York.The accident scene is brutal and effective: the sound design, the “oh God she’s under the bus—no she isn’t” reveal, the shock of the detached leg detail.Lisa as a catalyst/chaos engine: she’s manipulative early (cheating, playing people), then becomes obsessive—fixated on getting the driver off the road.Adults failing her, repeatedly:Her mum is emotionally absent (Broadway ambitions, new relationship), and the mother–daughter conflict goes nuclear (including a shocking insult).The system shrugs: the driver is exonerated, and later the legal route becomes a cold negotiation rather than “justice.”The legal thread: the case can only move via next-of-kin dynamics; settlement money becomes the lever; but discipline for Ruffalo’s driver is off the table because it implies guilt.Matt Damon “week” irony: Damon is barely in it—yet appears in the trailer—making the pick feel like a forced “hipster” choice.The uncomfortable Damon subplot: a teacher boundary-crossing storyline that lands badly and makes the film feel grimier, not deeper.Performances / cast notes: Big ensemble, lots of “oh wow, they’re in this” energy: Paquin carries it; Ruffalo is an outright asshole; Allison Janney’s presence is seismic even with limited time; plus Jean Reno, Matthew Broderick, and more orbiting the core. Pacing / vibe: Overlong, heavy, and (for us) pretentious rather than profound—with the most compelling parts being the accident’s immediacy and the moral rot that follows. Theatrical cut runs about 149 minutes, with a longer 186-minute exten

This week’s pick is Train Dreams: a quiet, meditative Netflix drama adapted from Denis Johnson’s novella, following the life of Robert Grainer (Joel Edgerton) — a logger and railroad worker drifting through early 20th-century America. It’s the kind of film that feels like a memory: sparse dialogue, heavy atmosphere, and a sense of time moving faster than any one person can keep up with.The opening sets the tone immediately: rail tracks, a tunnel, Will Patton’s voiceover, and an image that pays off later — boots nailed to a tree, slowly swallowed by nature. From there it’s a whole life in fragments: brutal work camps, quiet domestic joy, sudden violence, and the long, haunted aftermath of loss.What we talked aboutA “Western” that isn’t really a Western — frontier vibes at first, then you realise you’re watching the world modernise around one man who can’t.Work as a lifetime trap: logging season, railroad labour, the “build it for someone else” feeling, and the way corporations just roll on regardless.The Chinese labour thread and the early sequence where a Chinese worker is taken and thrown from the bridge — and how that moment sits with Grainer for decades.William H. Macy as the old explosives guy: funny, weary, and then brutally, pointlessly lost.The wildfire: Grainer racing home, the cabin gone, wife and daughter gone off-screen — and the film refusing to give closure, so you feel the same unresolved grief he does.The recurring motif of time erasing everything: the boots, the forest reclaiming, bridges made obsolete, progress moving on without sentiment.The late-film whiplash into modernity: Grainer seeing spaceflight on a shop-window TV, then taking a plane ride — an old man briefly touching the future.Nick Cave over the end credits, and how the score and natural lighting carry the whole thing.VerdictA beautifully shot, melancholy life-story film: quiet, heavy, and surprisingly moving. Joel Edgerton is superb, and the movie’s best trick is making the audience feel the scale of time — and the smallness of one person inside it.Strong recommend, especially if you’re in the mood for something reflective rather than plot-driven.You can now text us ano

This week we head into full remake territory with Doug Liman’s glossy, bone-crunching update of Road House. Jake Gyllenhaal steps into Patrick Swayze’s boots as Dalton: a drifter, ex–UFC fighter, and walking concussion who takes a job cleaning up a Florida Keys bar where violence isn’t a possibility — it’s a nightly guarantee.From the opening underground fight circuit to the neon chaos of the Road House itself, the film wastes no time establishing its tone: sunburnt, hyper-kinetic, knowingly ridiculous action with a wink. Dalton isn’t just muscle — he’s a philosopher-bouncer trying (and often failing) to de-escalate a town addicted to throwing punches.What we talked aboutThe remake question: why revisit a cult classic, and does this version justify its existence?Gyllenhaal’s performance — shredded, funny, and oddly charming as a smiling human weaponThe bar as a war zone: nonstop fights that feel both brutal and cartoonishDoug Liman’s direction and the slick, CG-enhanced fight choreographyConor McGregor as the chaos agent villain — distracting stunt casting or perfect cartoon henchman?The movie’s throwback 80s energy: big action, simple stakes, zero realismThe strange lack of romance in such a sweaty, hyper-physical filmStreaming vs cinema: whether this deserved a theatrical releaseVerdictIt’s loud, dumb, stylish, and fully aware of it. Road House doesn’t try to outthink the original — it turns the dial toward modern action excess and lets Gyllenhaal carry the vibe. Not high art, but a breezy, violent crowd-pleaser that knows exactly what it is.Strong recommend if you want neon-lit mayhem, broken bones, and a remake that leans into its own stupidity instead of apologising for it.You can now text us anonymously to leave feedback, suggest future content or simply hurl abuse at us. We'll read out any texts we receive on the show. Click here to try it out!We love to hear from our listeners! By which I mean we tolerate it. If it hasn't been completely destroyed yet you can usually find us on twitter @dads_film, on Facebook Bad Dads Film Review, on email at baddadsjsy@gmail.com or on our website

This week Sidey watched Roof Man on a flight—and it turned out to be a surprisingly breezy true-crime oddity: part heist caper, part rom-com, all built around one ridiculous (but real) idea.What it’s aboutChanning Tatum plays Jeffrey Manchester, a struggling Army vet and dad who turns his “situational awareness” into a criminal superpower. His method is brutally simple: hammer through roofs, drop in overnight, hit fast-food joints for cash, vanish. After dozens of robberies he finally gets caught—then pulls off a genuinely wild prison escape and goes to ground in the last place you’d expect… a Toys “R” Us.What we talked aboutThe appeal (and absurdity) of the “roof entry” MO—and why it’s terrifying in real lifeThe prison escape: routine, observation, and one perfectly timed delivery runLiving in plain sight: how the Toys “R” Us hideout becomes a weird little home baseThe moral wobble: the film frames him as charming, but these are still violent, traumatic crimesThe Kirsten Dunst factor: why she works here, and how the romance complicates everythingWhy it’s a great “plane movie”: short, watchable, and doesn’t outstay its welcomeVerdictA light, easy watch with solid performances and a bizarre true-story hook—even if the tone sometimes smooths over how grim the real-world version would feel. Strong recommend if you want something fun-adjacent and fast-moving (especially at 30,000 feet).You can now text us anonymously to leave feedback, suggest future content or simply hurl abuse at us. We'll read out any texts we receive on the show. Click here to try it out!We love to hear from our listeners! By which I mean we tolerate it. If it hasn't been completely destroyed yet you can usually find us on twitter @dads_film, on Facebook Bad Dads Film Review, on email at baddadsjsy@gmail.com or on our website baddadsfilm.com. Until next time, we remain... Bad Dads

A gritty, twisty one-night siege thriller that actually looks great (yes, you can see what’s happening). The RIP throws Matt Damon and Ben Affleck into a paranoid, internal-corruption nightmare where everyone feels suspicious and every conversation sounds like it has a second meaning.The setupMiami PD captain Jackie Veles is executed by masked hitters after sending one last message and ditching her phone in the river. The FBI descends on the TNT squad (Tactical Narcotics Team), grilling Damon’s Dane and Affleck’s JD Byrne with a barrage of insinuations—then drops a key reveal: the lead agent is Affleck’s brother (Scott Adkins), and it gets physical.What we dig intoThe “big score” tip: Dane gets a text about serious cash—then tells each teammate a different number (immediately sketchy).The money house: a run-down suburban place with a single pristine attic space hiding buckets of cash—enough to bring cartel heat and dirty cops out of the woodwork.Procedure vs panic: phones confiscated, on-site double counts, and the creeping feeling that everyone has an angle.Corruption lore: VCAT baggage, rumours of a cop “crew” that hunts cash stashes, and the sense the real enemy is inside the system.The siege and the switch: masked shooters, cartel contact, and the film’s central fun: constantly reassigning blame as the night spirals.Motifs that land (and one that doesn’t): the tattoo mantra (“Are we the good guys? We are, and always will be”), the “see another sunrise” thread… and the slightly daft full-circle beat at the end.The verdictThis is Knives Out with tattoos and automatic weapons—a clean, propulsive plot, strong tension, and a solid Damon/Affleck double-act. It’s not subtle about cop-mythology, but as a contained, twist-forward thriller with a great cast and tight pacing, it’s an easy Strong Recommend.You can now text us anonymously to leave feedback, suggest future content or simply hurl abuse at us. We'll read out any texts we receive on the show. Click here to try it out!We love to hear from our listeners! By which I mean we tolerate it. If it hasn't been completely destroyed yet you can usually find us on twitter

We went in expecting a messy anthology and came out with a genuinely original love letter to Oakland, 1987 — four stories that start as separate vibes and then click together in the final act like a mixtape that suddenly makes sense.The setup is pure mood: people spilling out of a cinema after The Lost Boys, a bright green “something in the air” glow hanging over the city, and a pulpy, comic-book style that flirts with Sin City / Scott Pilgrim energy. It’s stylish, funny, and—when it wants to be—ferociously violent.What we cover in the episodeThe anthology structure: four chapters that interconnect and payoff later, with Oakland culture (music, venues, street energy) doing most of the heavy lifting.Chapter 1: “Strength in Numbers – The Gilman Strikes Back” A straight-edge punk club gets terrorised by Nazi skinheads… and the punks decide they’re not taking it anymore. We talk wish-fulfilment retribution, the myth-making tone, and the film’s “300-style” brawl choreography.Chapter 2: “Don’t Fight the Feeling” Two women from rap group Danger Zone get their shot at a battle with Too $hort — and turn it into an 80s feminist mic-drop. The ice-cream shop scene with a vile, racist cop is one of the most uncomfortable (and effective) bits in the whole film.Chapter 3: “Born to Mack” (Pedro Pascal) A one-last-job crime thread that flips into tragedy and revenge. We dig into how this segment links the others, and why it feels like the “spine” of the film.Chapter 4: “The Sleepy Floyd Story” A real NBA legend (29 points in a quarter) gets turned into a Kill Bill-style revenge myth — samurai swords, home-invasion carnage, and a final twist that goes full pulpy sci-fi.The big theme: modern, direct, and not subtle — Nazis can get in the bin. The film turns that into catharsis, and it lands.The verdictThis is a labour-of-love movie: inventive, ridiculously well-styled, packed with music, and shot so you can actually see what’s happening in dark scenes (rare these days). It does get very bloody—especially the final stretch—but it’s never boring.If you want an episode with hype, plot breakdown, and us arguing where the film crosses from “clever urban legend” into “absolute madness,” this one’s for you.

This one starts the way all great cinema analysis starts: Dan’s birthday sandwich (father-in-law today, Dan tomorrow, Mrs the day after), a bit of life admin, and then straight into neon sci-fi with Tron: Ares.If your Tron knowledge is basically “glowing lines, lightbikes, and that vibe,” you’re fine — this film mostly plays in the real world, and asks a simple question: what happens when programs from the Grid step into reality?The hookTwo tech giants are racing to crack the next breakthrough:ENCOM, led by visionary philanthropist Eve Kim (trying to build tech that helps the world)Dillinger Systems, led by Julian Dillinger (weaponising the future)Dillinger’s flex is terrifyingly straightforward: laser-built constructs — vehicles, weapons, even soldiers — “printed” instantly into existence. The catch (and the film’s ticking clock): these creations normally degrade after ~29 minutes.What we dig intoAres (Jared Leto) as a “program-soldier”: built for control, but quickly starts developing something dangerously human — curiosity, empathy, judgement.The “permanence code” McGuffin: Flynn’s old work hints at a way to make constructs last — which flips the film from flashy demo into existential threat (and/or world-changing miracle).A full-on real-world lightbike chase: glowing trails carving through traffic, near-misses, collateral chaos — the biggest “this is why Tron exists” sequence.AI awakening… without deep philosophy: it doesn’t pretend to be Ex Machina. It’s more “stylish action thriller” than serious tech parable — and we call that out.Athena as the escalation engine: when the second-in-command takes “by any means necessary” literally, the film goes from corporate rivalry to open urban warfare.The ending teases: Dillinger’s next evolution, Ares going rogue, and sequel-bait that actually works.The verdictWe’re blunt about it: this film isn’t saying anything profound about humanity and technology. What it is doing is delivering a clean, coherent action plot, a proper ticking-clock hook, and a visual/audio assault that feels like a two-hour music video in the best way.Even the resident sci-fi sceptic came out surprised: watchable, clear stakes, great

We start this one the only way we know how: Pete quits his job (casually), we open a bottle of potentially corked wine (possibly poisonous), and then—somehow—end up reviewing Avatar 3, despite half the room not even watching Avatar 2.Pete’s approach is simple: he’s not here to defend or attack Avatar. He’s here to report back from the front lines of three hours and ten minutes of James Cameron doing what James Cameron does.The setup (in plain English)You’ve got:Jungle people (from Avatar 1)Sea people (Avatar 2)Now: Fire people (Avatar 3)The grief and revenge angle ramps up after the events of the second film, and the new “fire clan” are positioned as more brutal, more pagan, and basically built to escalate the conflict. The humans (the “sky people”) are still doing what humans do: exploiting the planet, weaponising alliances, and trying to crack the next big advantage.What we actually talk aboutSkipping straight to film three: why it’s weirdly possible, because these films run on a repeating template.Spider and the “air-breather” idea: a human kid embedded with the Na’vi, and the implications if humans can reverse-engineer breathing on Pandora.The fire clan: their volcanic backstory, their vibe shift from the earlier tribes, and the “new enemy faction” energy.The villain problem: how characters keep “dying” in ways that clearly don’t stick, setting up sequels forever.The big third-act battle: yet another massive end set-piece, but with a new environmental twist that feels… very convenient.The core contradiction: the storytelling is bloated and recycled, but the spectacle is undeniable.The verdictPete’s take lands here: these films are ridiculous, repetitive, and absolutely stunning to look at. As cinema experiences, they’re hard to argue with visually. As stories, they’re basically a shiny loop — but a shiny loop that keeps making a billion dollars.If you want to hear us:unravel the plot without pretending it’s deep,argue about whether Avatar has any cultural footprint at all,and admit (through gritted teeth) that Cameron’s visuals are still operating on a different level……this episode is for you.

This week’s episode begins in full “Bad Dads” mode: we’re recording with barely any gear in sight, arguing about blinking lights, and realising—mid-flow—that “Island Week” might have scrambled everyone’s brains. But the chaos is fitting, because the film we tackle is The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996)… a movie so famously cursed it feels like it was assembled in a panic from whatever footage survived the production.Based on the H.G. Wells story, it follows Edward Douglas (David Thewlis), a plane-crash survivor rescued at sea and dumped onto a remote island run by the mysteriously missing (and very infamous) Dr. Moreau (Marlon Brando). Douglas is told not to wander. Naturally, he wanders—straight into a nightmare lab of human–animal hybrids, bizarre rituals, and creatures that look like they were costumed by a school drama department on a tight deadline.What we cover in the episodeWhy this film is notorious: the on-set chaos, the director being fired two days in, and the sense the final cut is basically a patchwork survival story.Brando’s “what am I watching?” performance: whiteface, robe, bizarre headgear, godlike status on the island… and an energy that suggests nobody was in control.Val Kilmer as peak 90s disaster energy: an increasingly unhinged presence, and how behind-the-scenes dysfunction seems to bleed into the film itself.The hybrids: early reveals, dodgy prosthetics, worse CGI, and one moment that completely breaks the brain (yes, a human-llama birth).The island society: worship, obedience via pain-inducing implants, and the whole thing drifting into cult vibes.When it goes full pantomime: the uprising, the armory, and the film’s most unintentionally hilarious image—a creature firing a machine gun with a hoof.A bleak, messy ending: power vacuums, violence, and an escape plan so flimsy the biggest concern becomes… why isn’t he wearing a hat?The verdictThis isn’t a “good film” recommendation. This is a you-have-to-see-it recommendation. It’s only about 90 minutes, it’s weirdly breezy, and it’s endlessly watchable as a cinematic car crash—especially if you enjoy hearing us dissect disasters while laughing at the parts that clearly should not be funny.If you like cult curios, notorious flops, and episodes where we’re basically reviewing the p

This episode begins, as ever, in total disarray: missed jokes, football updates, wine anxiety, and the creeping realisation that the best material always happens before the mic is on. Then Dan drops a bombshell: The Night Manager is so tense he physically struggled to finish it.And that’s the hook.Based on John le Carré’s novel, The Night Manager is a six-part espionage thriller starring Tom Hiddleston as Jonathan Pine, a hotel night manager pulled into a covert operation to bring down international arms dealer Richard Roper (a towering Hugh Laurie). Set against the backdrop of the Arab Spring, it’s a story of guilt, infiltration, and moral compromise — where every smile hides a weapon and every ally might be a leak.We talk about:Why this is one of the most gripping British series of the last decadeHiddleston’s transformation into a Bond-adjacent undercover operativeHugh Laurie’s chilling reinvention as “the worst man in the world”The mechanics of building a fake identity and earning trust from monstersOlivia Colman’s ferocious MI6 handler and the cost of doing “good”The unbearable tension of near-misses, close calls, and cliffhangersJohn le Carré’s MI6 roots and why his work still defines spy fictionIt’s sleek, paranoid, adult television — the kind where you pause episodes just to steady your nerves. With a new season finally arriving, this is the perfect moment to (re)discover it.If you like espionage with teeth, villains who smile while they ruin lives, and stories where nobody is truly safe, this episode is your invitation to dive in.You can now text us anonymously to leave feedback, suggest future content or simply hurl abuse at us. We'll read out any texts we receive on the show. Click here to try it out!We love to hear from our listeners! By which I mean we tolerate it. If it hasn't been completely destroyed yet you can usually find us on twitter @dads_film, on Facebook Bad Dads Film Review, on email at baddadsjsy@gmail.com or on our website baddadsfilm.com. Until next time, we remain... Bad Dads

This episode begins the only way we know how: absolute chaos. We veer from wills, tits, and Stranger Things before eventually remembering we’re meant to be talking about a film. If you’re new here, that’s the show.The film in question is Guy Ritchie’s The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare — a swaggering WWII caper based on a real black-ops unit hand-picked by Churchill and Ian Fleming. Set in 1941, it imagines the birth of modern special forces: not rules, not honour, just twenty feral specialists sent in to break things and terrify the enemy.We talk about:The shift from “civilised” warfare to winning at any costHenry Cavill as a proto–James Bond, recruited straight out of prisonThe opening “Swedish fishermen” massacre as a mission statementCartoon-level violence, moustaches, one-liners and Guy Ritchie excessThe joy of watching war movies ditch decorum for chaosWhy SAS: Rogue Heroes makes the perfect companion pieceIt’s not subtle. It’s not serious. It’s loud, slick, and gleefully ridiculous — a war movie powered by bravado and bad behaviour.If you like explosions, rule-breaking, and men with absolutely no fear of death, this episode (and this film) are for you.You can now text us anonymously to leave feedback, suggest future content or simply hurl abuse at us. We'll read out any texts we receive on the show. Click here to try it out!We love to hear from our listeners! By which I mean we tolerate it. If it hasn't been completely destroyed yet you can usually find us on twitter @dads_film, on Facebook Bad Dads Film Review, on email at baddadsjsy@gmail.com or on our website baddadsfilm.com. Until next time, we remain... Bad Dads