Love Hurts (2025)

On the one hand, it's unfair to dismiss a film because it compares unfavourably to another film it wasn't necessarily trying to compete with. On the other hand, I ended up watching Love Hurts soon after watching Fight Or Flight, and it was immediately obvious that the latter film seemed to get everything right that this film, sadly, gets wrong.

Ke Huy Quan plays a realtor, Marvin Gable, who seems very content with his life. He's a mild and cheery fellow, happy to have left behind a life that was surprisingly stuffed full of violence and death. But that life won't stay left behind, and Marvin finds his life upended when Rose Carlisle (Ariana DeBose) reappears. This leads to Marvin being hunted down by a number of killers employed by his brother, Alvin (Daniel Wu), which makes it very difficult for him to keep his past a secret.

I am not surprised that this is the first film directed by Jonathan Eusebio. I am also not surprised that writers Matthew Murray, Josh Stoddard, and Luke Passmore don't really have many other features of note to their name. That's the main feeling you get when watching Love Hurts, it's a film made by people ready to make the most of a talented stunt team in the hopes of distracting viewers from a very weak and very familiar plot. It's a shame that the stunt team didn't get the memo. 

There's a lot here to appreciate, and I am never going to claim that I could do even a quarter of the physical stuff that many of these performers can do, but Love Hurts is disappointingly repetitive and unimaginative when it should have been an opportunity for everyone to bring some crazy ideas to the table and see how many gags could be squeezed into every main action sequence. As many others said before I even saw this, Love Hurts is a film that you end up willing to do better for most of the runtime. And that's mainly down to Quan in the lead role.

Trying to make the most of his recent success and praise, Quan is someone who is very easy to like. He puts himself across as very sweet and unassuming, and he has a fantastic athleticism that deserves to be showcased in front of the camera. DeBose carries herself through the film with the kind of carefree and cool presence that makes the connection between the leads easy enough to believe in. As for the villains, they're a good mix of real menace (Wu) and quirky killers (Marshawn Lynch, André Eriksen, Cam Gigandet, and Mustafa Shakir). Lio Tipton also has a supporting role, playing a colleague who ends up caught up in the madness unfolding around our hero, but the way that the movie pushes her closer to the character played by Shakir is just far too silly. And it would be remiss not to mention the cameo from Sean Astin, which leads to a genuinely sweet and moving payoff, thanks to the baggage brought to the film by the shared legacy that he and Quan have as lifelong Goonies.

I liked Love Hurts, but I felt as if I had to work hard to like it in spite of itself. It's a mess, it's disappointingly unable to maintain any decent energy or momentum, and many of the fights feel like the same moves being used over and over again (not saying they ARE that way, but they feel like it). Maybe everyone can put their heads together and have another go at making something worthier of Quan's time and energy.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Live Free Or Die Hard (2007)

AKA Die Hard 4.0.

I always quite liked this fourth Die Hard movie. It remains a big step down from the classic first film, of course, but it also remains something that looks like an action movie masterpiece when compared to the dross that would follow it. 

Apparently based on an article by John Carlin, this was developed into a movie by David Marconi and Mark Bomback, the latter receiving the main screenplay credit. It was then up to Len Wiseman to sit in the big chair and call "action", but, knowing what we know now, he was probably often guided by the instincts of the franchise star, Bruce Willis.

Willis is John McClane, of course, and we first meet him while he's once again not having a great time. He's concerned about his daughter, Lucy (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), and hopes to ensure that no young man tries to get too fresh with her. Unfortunately, his unique parenting approach is interrupted by a request to pick up and escort a hacker (Matt Farrell, played by Justin Long) who might be able to provide authorities in Washington D.C. with some valuable information about a major cyber-attack. That attack is being carried out by people working under Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), and Gabriel is about to join the long list of people who discover that McClane can be a giant pain in the ass.

While I appreciate that this may not feel as much like a Die Hard movie as some of the other instalments in the series, I would argue that it's an enjoyable and natural progression. McClane doesn't have anyone to match him as he did in the previous film, but this time around he's in full-on protective mode when he starts to remember that the boy he's dragging around from gunfight to gunfight isn't exactly used to the full-on McClane experience. There's also his daughter to be protected, and that can be difficult and frustrating when the enemy seems so invisible and pervasive while making use of the tech that has become part of everyday life. He just needs someone to shoot and/or punch in the face, and the Die Hard films always work best when the villains are charismatic and entertaining. Thank goodness the casting director bagged Olyphant for that role.

Despite what many would view as a growing disinterest and laziness, although we now know that some of his later performances were sadly affected by aphasia what was later diagnosed as frontotemporal dementia, Willis strikes just the right balance here. McClane is very used to this kind of thing by now, but doesn't act like an indestructible superhero. Oh, he ends up doing some ridiculous things, especially in the finale, but he does them all with a shrug and an acceptance of what should be an instant shuffling off the mortal coil. Long is very good alongside him, believably wary and distressed at almost every turn, and he's a fun personality to pair up with our stoic hero. Olyphant, as he so often does, exudes a wonderful mix of charm and swagger, and even looks as if he might get away with his wild criminal plan if he just avoids making things personal with McClane. Uh oh. Maggie Q is also quite a fun baddie, Cyril Raffaelli showcases some of his physical prowess again, and you get decent little turns from Sung Kang, Cliff Curtis, and a before-their-relationship-soured Kevin Smith (okay, his turn is more fun than decent, but it's amusing to watch him work opposite Willis onscreen).

People might dismiss this because it's not on a par with some of the movies that preceded it. I think that's a bit harsh. They might dismiss it because of Len Wiseman directing. I think that's also a bit harsh. Wiseman isn't someone I would rush to defend as an unsung talent, but he had a few years when he did a perfectly good job with big stars in slick action movies (well, he had a couple of Underworld movies, this, and then it all went a bit squiffy with the Total Recall remake). This is one of those movies made during that time, and he does a decent job of trying to hold on to the essence of McClane while trying to escalate each big action sequence, and it all heads to a satisfying finale that leaves the big vehicles and tech burning in the background while the heroes and villains get up close and personal while viewers wait to hear the expected "yippee-ki-yay" punchline.

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Prime Time: Nickel Boys (2024)

Based on the acclaimed novel by Colson Whitehead, Nickel Boys is one of the films that would have easily passed me by completely if it hadn't been put in competition for the Best Picture in the 2025 Oscars. I had no idea what it was about, but a quick browse to check the reactions to it saw a lot of discussion about the shooting style making it a more emotional and impactful experience. I would have to respectfully disagree with a lot of those people.

Ethan Cole Sharp plays Elwood, a young black boy with a bright future ahead of him. That all changes when he is hitch-hiking one day and ends up in a stolen car. Although Elwood didn't know the driver, nor did he know that the car was stolen, he is convicted of a crime and sent to the Nickel Academy, an infamous reform school. With clear segregation in the school, and clear preferential treatment for the white students who live there, Elwood soon finds out that he'll be stuck there for a while. The school makes money by using the black students for labour. Elwood befriends Turner (Brandon Wilson), and the two try to keep their spirits up as they plan the time when they hope to one day be free, which may be a lot sooner for Elwood if his grandmother (Hattie, played by Aunjanue Ellis-Taylor) can scrape together the money for the right lawyer.

Directed by RaMell Ross, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Joslyn Barnes, Nickel Boys is a superb tale, and one that is very much worthy of a film that should stir up strong feelings and remind people of how stacked the US system is, and remains, against black people. This film does that, it cannot really fail to affect all but the stoniest of viewers, but it is rendered slightly less effective than it could have been with the choice to shoot things mainly from the POV of the main characters. Maybe it's just my own inflexibility, but that style in modern movies has been used too often for content that usually resembles videogame action, and having it here does the opposite of drawing you close to the characters, in my experience. I felt as if there was a barrier there, something always stopping me from feeling everything I wanted to be feeling. It was a distraction, and it didn't even feel consistent enough to be worth the technical effort.

I will say that Sharp, Wilson, and Ellis-Taylor do good work, but even the performances are difficult to fully judge through that mesh created by the shooting style. Hamish Linklater is effective as the sadistic man overseeing the running of the reformatory, and Jimmie Fails makes a strong impression as Mr. Hill, the schoolteacher who first sees how bright Elwood is, and tries to help him on the way to a better future, but too many other people are only half-glimpsed or shown bumping into the leads like some runaway balloons. That keeps the focus on Elwood and Turner, so it isn't a terrible decision, but I cannot help thinking, once again, that some different choices could have given us a richer, and even more powerful, experience.

I want to read the book this was based on, and (by sheer coincidence) I am currently enjoying something similar, albeit with a supernatural twist, called "The Reformatory", written by Tananarive Due, but I don't want to revisit this film. And while I would still tentatively recommend it to others, I know that they may have to keep working hard to look beyond the distracting shooting style in order to stay focused on the most important ups and downs of the main storyline.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

The Apprentice (2024)

I understand why people may be less inclined to check out this film right now. All of the warnings have been there for decades, and we've had even more time to watch Donald Trump showcase his incompetence, pettiness, and inhumanity over the past few years, but The Apprentice is a surprisingly fantastic watch, not just because it reminds us all of the fact that nothing the snake-oil salesman who bagged himself a return trip to the White House says or does nowadays is new. He's just repeating from a playbook that he's been using for most of the past half century, and that playbook was written for him by Roy Cohn.

While we all know the Donald Trump of today as a convicted felon, a bully who has been found guilty of sexual abuse, and someone who has allegedly been recruited as a Russian asset way back in the 1980s (according to a couple of different sources), he was once just a pathetic young man who wanted to impress his parents and be one of the rich people that others become desperate to spend time with. He already had his narcissism in place, and a weak nature that would see him beg for help from people until he could get enough leverage to keep his own place at the big table, but he wasn't yet the great monster that he is today. Enter Roy Cohn (Jeremy Strong). Cohn meets Donald Trump (played here by Sebastian Stan) in the 1970s, and they form a friendship and business relationship that basically shows Donald how to keep getting his way throughout his entire life. Attack, deny everything, and claim any loss as a victory. This is a Frankenstein tale, but there are many Victor Frankensteins here, and just as many monsters, each working to reconstruct the other in different ways. 

Although this is the second feature film written by Gabriel Sherman, I have decided not to hold the awfulness of Independence Day: Resurgence against him. This is so good that I absolutely forgive him, and look forward to whatever he's got lined up for future projects. It helps that director Ali Abbasi is at the helm, someone who has spent the past decade making features that range from very good to absolutely superb (I encourage everyone to also check out Border and Holy Spider). Abbasi knows how to handle material that dances between light and extreme darkness, and he puts that skill to very good use here. He also owes a huge thank you to those who helped to cast the film.

Stan is absolutely brilliant in a role that could have easily been mishandled. He somehow avoids being a clown who becomes a complete villain, although his performance is shaded with both. Nothing is shown here to excuse the behaviour of Donald, but there's a fascinating look at how some of his attitudes were shaped and how he would so often look up to, and put on a pedestal, people who many of us would view as absolute scumbags. Strong has an absolute blast playing one of the biggest scumbags, someone so monstrous that he initially makes little Donnie look like a pussycat, but it's interesting that this year saw both Strong and Kieran Culkin receive a lot of praise for film performances that weren't really too far removed from the personalities they had nurtured throughout five seasons of the superb Succession. Martin Donovan and Catherine McNally are the elder Trumps, Charlie Carrick is the lost brother, and Maria Bakalova adds to her impressive body of work with a captivating portrayal of Ivana.

Although we have much more recent history to learn from, people should really watch this to be reminded of just how much time Donald Trump has spent being an inexorably unpleasant and greedy narcissist who will do anything for a bit of power to wield against others. I doubt this will reach the right people, anyone choosing to watch it will probably not be a member of the bizarre cult he has developed in the past decade, but if there's a chance that even one of those people he managed to confound with his tired razzle dazzle routine can have their blinkers removed, or at least slightly damaged, then that would be a huge bonus. Mind you, the fact that it is out in the world, and making the small-minded bully angry and unable to do anything about it, is just as much of a bonus.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Mubi Monday: Mickey 17 (2025)

It should be obvious to many by now, but Bong Joon Ho isn't really interested in subtlety any more. His most recent movies, as great as they are, are a long way from his superbly uneven and nuanced Memories Of Murder. I still love pretty much everything that he does, but I also know that I don't mind when the lack of subtlety is so front and centre in a way that may put off others.

Mickey 17 is all about the titular character (played by Robert Pattinson), an expendable who is used by a deep space vehicle to take on the tasks that will result in death. Whether being exposed to dangerous amounts of radiation, being placed in environments that may contain elements harmful to humans, or just exploring terrain that is unstable and could house dangerous alien creatures . . . Mickey's your man. Whenever he dies, it's not long until he is simply "printed out"again, his memories uploaded into his brain, and made available for the next dangerous task. He's ended up with this life (these lives) due to being put in a sticky situation by a bad friend, Timo (Steven Yeun), but at least he has moments of happiness with his partner, Nasha (Naomi Ackie). Things become tricky, however, when the latest Mickey is assumed dead and a new Mickey printed out. Mickey 17 and Mickey 18 are both aware that there are strict rules against multiples, but maybe they can figure out a way to take turns dying while they piece together a relatively full life.

Based on a novel, "Mickey 7", by Edward Ashton, this is darkly comedic sci-fi fare with plenty to say about the exploitation of workers, the ways in which those in power continually keep those below them pitted against one another, and the hypocrisy and arrogance of those who decide to make a life elsewhere without proper planning or consideration for the territory they are invading. As you can imagine, it feels very timely, and some may not appreciate how closely it aligns to some current world events. It doesn't help that Mark Ruffalo and Toni Collette play their characters, Kenneth Marshall and Yifa, as arrogant idiots who would happily ruin lives and entire ecosystems just to keep maintaining their image of confident leadership. They're definitely doing what is asked of them, but the broad comedy of their performances is at odds with the real and awful repercussions we can see right now because of someone who works in almost exactly the same way. 

Thankfully, aside from the silliness provided by Ruffalo and Collette, everyone else is much better. Again, I don't blame those two stars, but they're apparently hampered by the direction of their performances. Pattinson has no such problems, and has a lot of fun in his multiple roles, specifically when he gets to show a marked difference between the two most recent Mickeys. Yeun is enjoyably sneaky, Ackie is a nice mix of tough and caring, and the rest of the supporting cast includes such familiar faces as Tim Key, Thomas Turgoose, Anamaria Vartolomei, and Patsy Ferran, some getting a fair amount of screentime and some just popping up for all-too-brief moments.

As expected, there's also some consistently excellent editing work and FX work throughout, as well as production design that creates a realistic world in which the building farce can unfold. It's all in service to the themes that Bong Joon Ho is exploring, and it's a shame when the tone occasionally clashes with the grime and verisimilitude of the onscreen world, but it's also loaded with little details that complement the main characters and their journey.

Not wholly satisfying, it spins so many plates that some inevitably fly off and smash before being quickly replaced, but Mickey 17 is still the kind of thing I would rather see ahead of another empty blockbuster with CGI distractions making up for a lack of any real substance.

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Netflix And Chill: Fracture (2007)

It's hard to deny that Fracture is quite ridiculous. It's actually not very good. I would also argue, however, that it's hard to deny that Fracture is also entertaining. It's a legal drama with a focus on fun ahead of any pesky stuff like plausibility or reality. Neither of the two leads, Anthony Hopkins and Ryan Gosling, are doing anything close to their best work, but they're perfectly in sync with the tone of the whole thing.

Hopkins is Ted Crawford, a man who we see at the start of the movie shooting his wife. He did it. He confesses to it. It should be an easy case. Gosling is Willy Beachum, a smooth and skilled lawyer who really likes easy cases. When he is asked to take on the case, despite readying himself for a move to a more lucrative private practice, he agrees, thinking it will be quickly dealt with. Complications soon arise though, and Crawford may be getting just as much satisfaction from playing with those around him as he got from killing his wife.

Director Gregory Hoblit has been involved with some landmark TV shows throughout his career, but his film work has been a bit more forgettable. There are some treats here and there, and most of his features actually came out between 1996 and 2008, but he's the kind of figure you would be more likely to describe as dependable rather than great. The same could almost be said of writers Glenn Gers and Daniel Pyne, although Pyne started strong with his first theatrical features at the start of the 1990s. It's clear that the draw here needs to be the cast, which is why we get Hopkins and Gosling.

Both of the leading men are working with accents that they would have been better to leave well alone, and both somehow play their parts well while also barely containing a smirk in response to how laughable everything is. Thankfully, there's a great supporting cast to help remind viewers of how actors can be great when not being pushed towards increasing silliness. Rosamund Pike, David Strathairn, Billy Burke, cliff Curtis, Bob Gunton, Fiona Shaw, Embeth Davidtz, and Xander Berkeley are the other names worth mentioning, although some do better than others, and some have much more screentime than others.

I cannot bring myself to make too many excuses for my enjoyment of this. The cinematography, editing, and other technical and production work stays decent throughout, but that's not enough to make up for the script and the hamminess. The script and hamminess are also part of the appeal though, and I have already watched this film twice while many much worthier films sit unwatched on my shelves. I won't rush to rewatch it, but I wouldn't speed by it if I was channel-hopping and saw it playing. Maybe that's down to the fractures in my own mind though.

5/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Shudder Saturday: Outpost (2023)

While looking to recover from a major traumatic event, a woman (Kate, played by Beth Dover) ends up hoping to enjoy some calm and isolation as a volunteer firewatcher at a fairly remote outpost, hence the title. But there are still interactions with others around her that cause her to fret, and her mental health may have suffered even more than she realised. 

The directorial feature debut from Joe Lo Truglio (arguably best known for his comedic acting work, particularly his portrayal of Charles Boyle on Brooklyn Nine-Nine), Outpost uses a fairly slim premise to look at aspects of trauma and the standard female experience. As well as directing, Lo Truglio is also the one who wrote the screenplay, and he makes a number of choices that show some genuine care and interest, as opposed to just stringing together a number of jump scares. Those are also present, but they are executed well, and keep us well-informed about the lack of real improvement in Kate’s mindset.

Dover is superb in the main role. Although there’s a very good supporting cast around her, she carries a lot of the movie on her shoulders and has to keep you rooting for her even as her behaviour seems to get progressively worse en route to whatever the finale has in store for her. Dylan Baker is as good as he always is, playing a “neighbour” who is quite far away from the outpost, but also closer than Kate is comfortable with, and there are equally strong turns from Ta’Rea Campbell (a concerned friend), Ato Essandoh (Kate’s new boss), and Becky Ann Baker (someone who appears to have gone through a similar experience to Kate).

Nothing stands out, in the technical side of things anyway, but that isn’t a major negative. Lo Truglio simply presents this (character/trauma) study in a way that best allows viewers to experience the range of emotions that our lead goes through, and it’s a checkmark in his favour that he doesn’t feel the need to pack the film with flourishes or obvious nods to his influences. The film is about Kate, something reflected on both sides of the camera, and everything is balanced between being cinematically satisfying and keeping everything nicely free of unnecessary distractions.

Maybe not one to easily recommend to horror fans, this is still worth the time and attention of those who don’t mind something so deliberately-paced and earnest in intention. Despite being written and directed by a man, it feels very knowledgeable of, and sympathetic to, how every small moment of tension and vulnerability is heightened when experienced by a woman.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Better Man (2024)

I was as bemused as everyone else when I heard that we were getting a Robbie Williams biopic, doubly so when it was revealed that Robbie himself would be presented in the form of a monkey. It’s no surprise to see how poorly this performed outside the UK, certainly not now I am aware of how relatively unknown the central figure is outwith the UK, but it is a pleasant surprise to find out that a) this is really good, and b) the whole gimmick really works in service of how the story is told.

The film has input from Robbie Williams himself, but also boasts a fine vocal performance from Jonno Davies (who, for the most part, gives us a singing monkey perfectly in line with how Robbie sounded in his heyday). We see most of his life, from his early days living with his gran (Alison Steadman) and being taught a dangerous lesson about the “gift” of celebrity by his father (Steve Pemberton) to his time in Take That, a time when he achieved huge fame at a very young age, to that difficult journey of re-establishing himself as a solo performer. And all through this rollercoaster, Robbie finds himself coping with a mix of excessive alcohol and numbing drug use. 

Directed by Michael Gracey (helmer of the very successful The Greatest Showman), who also co-wrote the screenplay with Oliver Cole and Simon Gleeson, based on the tale as told by Williams, this is an enjoyably wild and turbulent ride through the funhouse that is celebrity life. Viewers get to see the poisoned chalice handed to Williams, arguably tainted by his own father shaping his need for constant attention and validation, and the many familiar moments, for those who have followed even some of Williams’ career, are balanced with scenes of depth and darkness that were hidden away from the public eye while the singer was seriously spiraling. He has since been very open and honest about his lowest lows, but it is still shocking to see them displayed onscreen, even (especially?) with the main character being depicted in simian form.

The effects department do fantastic work, and that “casting” makes it easier for moments in which our lead glimpses various past incarnations of himself, but it’s still worth praising both Williams and Davies for their vocal turns. Steadman and Pemberton are also deserving of equal praise, playing the people who end up casting huge shadows over the life of Robbie. Where the film stumbles is in some of the other casting. I somehow didn’t mind the casting of Take That, or manager Nigel Martin Smith, perhaps because I could more easily accept them as one organic mass, but I was taken out of the movie slightly when a few scenes featured the likes of Nicole Appleton and the Gallagher brothers (the latter portrayed by actors who seem to be doing poor impressions rather than proper portrayals, although that is probably just down to the Gallagher brothers being just as constantly laughable as they have always appeared to me).

What really disappoints is the lack of impressive musical numbers though. Some of the expected Robbie hits do make an appearance, and they are suitably rearranged to match the visuals they are accompanying, but there are only one or two sequences that come close to fully realising the potential of the material. Rock DJ ends up being a highlight that is never matched, but there are some unexpectedly beautiful and moving moments soundtracked by ballads that could have easily been eye-rollingly cheesy. 

I would risk saying that, whether you are familiar with the main character or not, this is worth a watch. Fans, both past and present, will get a bit more out of it, but it does enough cinematically to make it interesting enough for those who might even just assume it is pure fiction. It’s kind of like those dark (and forgotten?) David Essex movies from the 1970s. But with a monkey.

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

 

Strange Darling (2024)

While other people do appear onscreen here and there, Strange Darling is essentially a taut two-handed that pits Kyle Gallner and Willa Fitzgerald against one another for most of the runtime. A lot of people loved it. I did not.

Fitzgerald plays a character just called The Lady. Gallner’s character is named The Demon. That sums up the apparent simplicity of what is being presented here, but it is a simplicity that is due to be subverted and toyed with, considering the non-chronological presentation of the various chapters in the story. 

There’s some good stuff here, especially when you consider that it is only the second full feature from writer-director JT Mollner. One or two moments have a nice layering of tension as we watch a couple plan and play with various roles in the bedroom, but they are too quickly forgotten when the film turns to what ends up being a far less interesting cat and mouse affair.

I can see why Mollner decided to play with the chronology of the screenplay, but I am not entirely sure that he made the best decision. This might have worked better in a more linear fashion, as long as one or two details were tweaked or moved around to wherever they could be most effectively revealed, as the appearance of the numbered chapters almost immediately clue film fans in to the fact that they are not necessarily being given the full picture.

It’s a major plus point that the leads are so good though. Gallner has been delivering fantastic performances in films for a good few years now, I look forward to his appearances (even in films not worthy of his talent), and Fitzgerald sinks her teeth into the kind of role that feels like an announcement of the next phase of her film career. Both actors do fantastic work with what they’re given, and I will mention how pleased I was to see small roles for Ed Begley Jr. and Barbara Hershey.

The biggest problem with Strange Darling is how easy it is to see the process. Mollner clearly had one or two key images in his mind, which he then developed into something he hoped would surprise, and possibly shock, viewers. But those familiar with any film like this will find the prospective surprises completely unsurprising, and there aren’t many major shocks when the direction of everything becomes clear. A good final scene helps though, but it’s not enough for me to love this as fully and fervently as many others seemed to.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Prime Time: Being The Ricardos (2021)

Written and directed by Aaron Sorkin, Being The Ricardos is a film I was keen to watch for the past few years. A look at the career and relationship between Lucille Ball (Nicole Kidman) and Desi Arnaz (Javier Bardem), I was interested in everything to do with this. Lucy and Desi were huge stars who helped to reshape the landscape of television comedy, the casting intrigued me, and Sorkin is often a brilliant writer able to convey a lot of information in entertaining and sharp dialogue. 

The framework here is quite simple. We are shown a hectic time, and an important time, in the lives of Lucy and Desi. We also cut to some footage of people in the present talking about what they remember from their days witnessing the power couple make their show. Alongside our main stars are a couple of important supporting characters (played by J. K. Simmons and Nina Arianda), there’s a young writer (Alia Shawkat) who looks up to Lucy, but also has an idealism that doesn’t always take into account the diplomacy sometimes required to get the show made, and Jess Oppenheimer (Tony Hale) keeps trying to find a balance between the instincts of his stars and the feedback from the money men.

I won’t say that this is a bad film. The structure is a good choice, the key moments stringing the plot together work well, and it manages to celebrate the two main characters while also showing their problems. It isn’t great though, and that comes down to both the casting and the writing.

I really enjoy Kidman in many of her movie roles, but there’s a reason why she hasn’t had much success when trying her hand at comedy. Admittedly, this isn’t a comedy, but you have to believe how funny Lucille Ball can be when you see some of her famous moments being recreated onscreen, and Kidman just cannot manage it. Perhaps wary of looking too silly, or maybe not directed well enough by Sorkin, Kidman never really feels like Lucy when she has to be LUCY, although she does a perfectly good job of showing us the woman behind the TV persona. Bardem has a similar issue, although he also feels a bit weak whether portraying Desi the performer or Desi the man. The better performances come from Simmons and Arianda, both convincing as people and comedic performers, and Shawkat, who spends a lot of time being depressed by the constant crush of reality as she attempts to convince those around her of the importance of their platform. Hale is fine, but his character is the least interesting of the main bunch.

Sorkin’s dialogue just doesn’t work here though, and perhaps he would have been wise to get the structure in place and then pass the framework along to someone else. Everything that reveals actual truth about our leads is often presented in a heavy-handed and underlined way, and the mention of how Desi helped to revolutionize the TV sitcom is so horribly shoe-horned in that it feels like a clumsy segue in an improvised skit. The direction is disappointingly flat and lifeless, ensuring that Sorkin can be blamed for this being far below par for almost everyone involved.

There are still moments that work, especially when everything starts to tie together on the way to the final scenes, and Lucy and Desi are certainly worthy of the 131-minute runtime, but I won’t ever want to rewatch it. Maybe a book or documentary will serve them better, and I intend to find out when I have the time (so any recommendations are welcome).

5/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Presence (2024)

While he has tried his hand at a wide variety of movies throughout his career, there was something that made me roll my eyes and say “of course he would do that” when I heard that Steven Soderbergh was directing a haunted house movie that was apparently presented from the POV of the spirit.

A family move in to a house. Some things start to move around, and some sensations are felt by the new occupants. Other things start to happen, complications in their lives and moments that create more danger for people, which makes it only a matter of time until we find out whether the presence is a friend or foe.

There is a screenplay here, and it’s one written by David Koepp, but you could be forgiven that this was an improv exercise used by Soderbergh to firm up an idea that would later be more fully developed. The biggest problem here is that it feels incomplete, it’s a schematic drawing that needs detail and colour added. None of the characters are interesting enough, the plotting is too little stretched too far, and it all leads to a finale that feels like some kind of parody of the genre. Maybe it is, and maybe that is what drew Soderbergh to the project, but it feels like a bit of a slap in the face to those not looking for the filmic equivalent of a shaggy dog story with a weak punchline.

Callina Liang and Eddy Maday are the teens at the heart of the story, Lucy Liu and Chris Sullivan are the parents, and there are roles for West Mulholland, Julia Fox, and Natalie Woolams-Torres, but they’re all asked to do little more than wander around the scenery until the gimmick is focused on them. There is no way to properly judge the performances that seem designed to simply fill the time in between specific camera moves.

No scares, no tension, not even any drama to feel invested in, Presence is a big bundle of nothing. It’s the kind of thing I would expect to come from a first-time director with misplaced confidence in his own skillset. The fact that it is helmed by Soderbergh is astonishing. He has made other movies that I haven’t liked, but I have always been able to appreciate his intentions. Not this time though. This time around it feels as if he has tried his hand at something he views as being a bit beneath him.

3/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

 

Mubi Monday: Caligula: The Ultimate Cut (2023)

Originally released in 1979, Caligula is not a film I would have seen back then. I know I seem old to many now, but I would have been three years old for most of 1979. It is a film I soon became aware of though, somehow. Pretty much damned by both the critics and those who acted in it, considering how displeased they were to see their performances surrounded by what was essentially a lavish and expensive bit if porn, I can only assume that it became something that people felt they had to see for themselves, in the comfort of their own home. And that is why they rented the VHS. Which is how I ended up seeing at least some of it at what was still a very young age. I don’t remember much, except a man being made to drink lots of wine before being killed and lots of bare breasts, but I remembered enough to keep interested in it over the intervening decades. I own a lovely multi-disc set, and now I have paid for a digital copy of “The Ultimate Cut”. But maybe it is telling that this is the first time I have watched any incarnation of the film since those VHS days.

Malcom McDowell plays Caligula, a Roman emperor who spends time coveting his sister (Ann Savoy) and his horse in equal measure. He is a dangerous manchild, made ruler by underhand means, and anyone he seems to have wronged him is often dealt with publicly and sadistically. This film shows his rise and fall, but it also shows a Rome far too easily swayed by the temperament of whoever is in the position of greatest power.

Written by Gore Vidal and directed by Tinto Brass, though who knows how much credit they want to take for it, even in this attempted restoration and repair job, Caligula is a messy and sprawling work, sometimes taking time with exploring Rome, and the ways in which the power moves through it, and sometimes determined just to wallow in the decadence and depravity of Caligula’s rule.

McDowell isn’t bad in the central role, although his performance feels wildly uneven (perhaps due to the chaos on the set), and Savoy works well as the sister happy in their incestuous coupling, but the real treats come from elsewhere. Despite his small amount of screentime, Peter O’Toole is a lot of fun, and a portent of everything to come. John Gielgud is wasted, but elevated one or two moments with his presence. And then there’s Helen Mirren, very believable as the woman who catches the eye of Caligula, and the one chosen to give him an heir to the throne. Everyone else is onscreen to bow, laugh, cry, and/or be mutilated and murdered, and their performances are often defined by their fates more than their actual acting talent.

It’s a shame that I cannot remember the original cut of this, because it would seem to be essential to compare and contrast this to it, but I can tell you that this doesn’t feel like the entirely new film it is being sold as. It may have more of a focus on the drama and acting, but that doesn’t make it much more interesting. In fact, dare I say, there’s a chance that a lavish and expensive porno is just as appropriate a way to present Caligula as this is. At least that feels like a bolder artistic choice, even if others would argue that artistry was the least of the concerns of those who delivered it to audiences back in 1979.

Occasional treats notwithstanding, this is a dull and rambling slog. But I won’t deny that I still want to revisit other edits to see how much more entertaining it might be with a greater sense of chaos and transgressiveness out front and centre.

4/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Netflix And Chill: Champions (2023)

We’ve all seen this kind of thing many times before. This is a film that has someone being forced to coach a team he initially has no interest in. The team don’t seem destined for greatness, but there’s a chance that the players may actually provide some valuable life lessons to their new coach. It’s all very predictable. It’s also very enjoyable and entertaining when done well, and Champions is done well.

Woody Harrelson plays Marcus, a man who ruins his career with the double-whammy of a big argument with his boss (Ernie Hudson) and then being caught for a DUI. Forced to do hours of community service, Marcus ends up coaching a basketball team made up of youngsters who are, well, quite different from your usual basketball players. Most of them have disabilities to deal with, but they can also work together to show Marcus that his negativity and stubborn attitude is just as big a problem for the team as any on-court aptitude. 

The first solo directorial outing for Bobby Farrelly (MUCH better than his second go, the odd Dear Santa), this is a remake of a Spanish film, “Campeones”, adapted into this screenplay form by Mark Rizzo. Although I am unfamiliar with the original, it’s easy to see what would draw Farrelly to anything that was close enough to this material. He has worked on a fantastic sports comedy before (and that also featured Harrelson as some kind of coach) and the Farrelly brothers have spent most of their careers trying to make room for disabled individuals, both behind and in front of the cameras. Champions has a lot of heart, and a good message being delivered, but it also doesn’t forget to be funny, and a large part of the humour comes from the supporting cast being given chances to shine around people who either underestimate or just want to ignore them.

Harrelson is great in the lead role, doing the kind of thing that he can do in his sleep. He is there to teach others, but only until he realised that he is the one being taught. Kaitlin Olson is equally good, playing the sister of a team member, as well as being someone who once hooked up with our main character for a one night stand. Hudson is underused, but good enough, as are both Matt Cook and Cheech Marin. It’s hard to resent them being sidelined though, because that just means more time to enjoy the company of James Day Keith, Kevin Iannucci, Madison Tevlin, Alex Hintz, and all of the other team players. They may not be familiar stars, but Farrelly allows them all to improve every scene and show how well they work with the material.

You get standard soundtrack cues, very obvious plotting, and moments to warm the coldest heart, but you get it all in a package that is so expertly constructed that nothing seems like a negative. This is fantastic stuff, likely to please anyone after some good cheer and constant laughs, and I highly recommend it to everyone seeking a break from watching the hands of the doomsday clock creep ever closer to midnight.

8/10

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

Shudder Saturday: Daughter (2023)

It may not always seem obvious, but I am always rooting for a film to do well. Always. There may be someone I really dislike starring in it, there may be a budget that could barely cover one day of catering on the last Christopher Nolan movie, and it may be about a subject I have no interest in (or even, very occasionally, find distasteful or repugnant). I'll still root for the film to do well though. It takes a lot of people to get a film made, and those people are often battling against overwhelming odds. 

I decided to watch Daughter because it had Casper Van Dien in a starring role. That made it easier to root for. I have been a fan of Casper Van Dien for some time. He has never been one of the best actors in the world, but he has been putting the work in for a good few decades now. Writer-director Corey Deshon, on the other hand, is quite new to feature films. And it shows.

What you get here is the story of Father (Van Dien) and Mother (Elyse Dinh) kidnapping a young woman (Daughter, played by Vivien Ngô) to be a worthwhile sibling for their beloved Son (Ian Alexander). That's it. Daughter doesn't want to be stuck in this new family, however, and needs to figure out ways to create some division that may afford her an opportunity to escape.

Deshon does well to keep things simple here, focusing on the one claustrophobic location, the mind games being played between the characters, and a selection of relatively still and lengthy takes. If he did better with the writing then this could have been a winner, but there's a disappointing lack of quality here, both in the dialogue and in what is unsaid. There's nothing that actually holds your interest, making the 95-minute runtime feel like quite a slog.

Van Dien tries his best in the pivotal role (the film could have arguably been called Father with one or two extra tweaks made to put him at the centre of a few more scenes), but he is unable to spin gold from the thin straw that he's given. The same can be said for Dinh, Ngô, and Alexander, although the two women have some moments that allow them to remain more intriguing and watchable than either of their male counterparts.

I want to say that I can at least praise Deshon for trying to give us something a bit more original, but even that isn't true. Yes, this is different from many other thriller or horror movies in the past couple of years, but there are many other movies that cover similar ground (whether it's the disturbing Bad Boy Bubby, The Bunker, or even, to some degree, The Baby, to name just a few that came to mind as I considered better options while this played out). You should check those out ahead of this, and then feel free to ask me for some more recommendations along the same lines.

3/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

The Brutalist (2024)

I can easily pretend that I am able to keep an open mind when going into every film I watch, but it's just as easy for me to admit that I didn't expect to enjoy The Brutalist. A serious movie, a seriously loooooong movie (it's 214 minutes, and includes an intermission), and a serious amount of Adrien Brody being all serious just doesn't thrill me. The Brutalist is REALLY good though.

Brody stars as László Tóth, a man who has to try and start his life over again after fleeing post-war Europe in the late 1940s. He wants to get everything back on track as quickly as possible, keen to reunite with his wife, Erzsébet (Felicity Jones), and the young niece she is raising (Zsófia, played by Raffey Cassidy). Things don't go well, initially, but the passage of time allows at least one man (the wealthy Harrison Lee Van Buren, played by Guy Pearce) to see László for the talented individual he is. Will that talent be enough to keep him safe and welcome though, or is László destined to be perceived through a filter of preconceptions and prejudices?

Working on a screenplay once again with Mona Fastvold, director Brady Corbet here helms his most impressive feature yet (even better than The Childhood Of A Leader). It's still going to be too slow and sedate for some people, but there's something important in every scene here, whether it's obvious or not, and Fastvold and Corbet justify the hefty runtime of the film with a density of thought-provoking material, as well as the ever-widening scope that viewers are presented with.

Nobody really puts a foot wrong when it comes to the acting side of things (although Jones is just a little bit weaker than the others, due to her performance feeling more like a full-on performance at times). Brody fully deserves the second leading actor Academy Award that this gave him, Pearce is as good as he's been in anything from the past decade, and Cassidy, Isaach De Bankolé, Alessandro Nivola, Joe Alwyn, Jonathan Hyde, and Stacy Martin all do well in smaller roles that could have seen them easily overshadowed.

There's also some beautiful cinematography by Lol Crawley and a superb score from Daniel Blumberg, as well as many other positives I could mention from the technical side of things.

It's the ideas that will stick with you for a long time though. We've seen this kind of thing before, but not necessarily being viewed from these new angles. The Brutalist looks at the upheaval and losses caused by war, and it serves as a reminder that a genocide reverberates far beyond the list of those murdered by their oppressors. People change who they are, deliberately or not, and artists and tradespeople end up seeing a lot, if not all, of their work consigned to some historical dustbin. We lose people in a war, physical bodies broken and destroyed, but we also lose many minds and souls. It's hard to come up with some kind of ultimate total cost, but it's inevitably always a lot more than it might appear to be on paper. 

9/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Fight Or Flight (2025)

There have been a pleasing number of films lately that feel like a showcase for member of the stunt team community, and Fight Or Flight is another one. It's all about a mercenary (Lucas Reyes, played by Josh Hartnett) who is assigned to track down a terrorist target on a plane. Nobody knows what the target looks like, although people are working on it, but the plane is full of other people also looking to catch them. There's a big bounty on their head. There's also a big bounty put on the head of Lucas. And everyone knows what he looks like.

Director James Madigan and writers Brooks McLaren and D. J. Cotrona may be relative newcomers to their roles, but you wouldn't know that from the final result onscreen. Fight Or Flight is a hugely entertaining way to spend 101 minutes, making the most of a simple premise to deliver fights and bloodshed that will amuse, entertain, and make you wince in equal measure. This is not for the faint-hearted, particularly in a third act that brilliantly escalates both the comedy and the kills.

While the film feels as if it has been string together between a number of inventive fight sequences (which, for all I know, is how it was constructed), it's worth noting that McLaren and Cotrona still do plenty to make you root for our desperate "hero". He has some past error or transgression that has to be fixed, and that also gives us an idea of his moral compass, and the style of the comedy mixes some great dialogue with physical gags in a way that works much better than us just being alongside someone ready with a quip after every kill. The script and direction also have enough style and energy to distract you from the factors used to work within what I imagine was a relatively modest budget.

It helps enormously that Hartnett brings his not-insubstantial charisma to the main role. He's having a lot of fun once again (as he did in the otherwise-disappointing Trap), and he feels very capable when it comes to the fight moves. Katee Sackhoff is the one delivering the mission parameters and instructions via telephone, and she's enjoyably ruthless, while other notable people on the plane are played by Charithra Chandran, Hughie O'Donnell, JuJu Chan Szeto, and Sanjeev Kohli. Julian Kostov is also very good, stuck alongside Sackhoff for most of the runtime, trying to manipulate the whole situation towards the most favourable outcome, which doesn't necessarily mean any good for the survival of our lead, and the majority of other performers look very ready to deal or receive some fatal battery.

There are times when you may want to catch up on all of the movies nominated for the Oscars, there are times when you just want something simple that aims to entertain. I've done the former already this year (well . . . almost). Then I was ready to watch Josh Hartnett punch a lot of people in the face. If only they'd managed some kind of crossover promotional campaign during the long and self-serving speech that Adrien Brody gave when he won the Best Actor award this year then it could have been a glorious blend of both worlds.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Prime Time: Magic Mike's Last Dance (2023)

I like Magic Mike. I also quite like Magic Mike XXL, although it's a lesser film. Magic Mike's Last Dance is an example of seriously diminishing returns. While I can understand some people returning to the series (Channing Tatum, writer Reid Carolin), it's strange that director Steven Soderbergh agreed to helm what is essentially a feature-length promo for the live stage show of the brand.

A lazy voiceover introduces us to where Mike (Tatum) is right now. He has lost his business, he's working as a bartender at various functions, and he's generally just trying to get by, in the same way as so many other people who took a financial hit during the global pandemic. Mike meets Maxandra Mendoza (Salma Hayek Pinault) while bartending at an event she is hosting, eventually gives her a sexy dance after saying that he no longer sexy dances, and ends up being employed by her to head to London and put on a show that will hopefully enable other women to feel what she felt while being gyrated upon and straddled by a hunky man.

Equal parts ridiculous and tedious, Magic Mike's Last Dance is also extremely lazy. I wouldn't mind it being so predictable if I cared about the main characters, but I didn't. Mike is defined by the fact that he keeps saying he no longer sexy dances . . . and then does a sexy dance (seriously, this is used to essentially bookend the main narrative arc of the film). Maxandra AKA Max is defined by wanting to get revenge on the husband she is due to divorce, as well as the glow she is meant to have gained from one night with Mike. Jemelia George has to roll her eyes as the teen daughter, Zadie, until the third act requires her to be completely on board with everything, and supportive in a way that is uncharacteristic, but that's what is in the screenplay so that's how it just is. Ayub Khan Din is fun, playing a butler/chauffeur/assistant named Victor, perhaps because he's only required to make minor alterations to his amusing grumpiness, and Juliette Motamed works well as an actress who jumps at the chance to move from some staid and old-fashioned fare to something much sexier, but the rest is a big shrug of a film, although I am sure many viewers will be pleased enough by watching some hunky men learn some choreographed routines.

Maybe I'm way off here, but it didn't even seem as if the leads had any chemistry together. Okay, their first main encounter starts well, but it all fizzles out as soon as it's supposed to be heating up. Tatum still has skill, no doubt about it, but his character is taken on a journey that no longer feels worth being invested in. It's a silly fairytale, which would be all well and good if it wasn't bolted on to that lengthy reminder that there's a stage show wanting to keep those ticket sales high.

I wanted something distracting and slick. What I got was horrible writing from Carolin (that intermittent voiceover is shocking), flat direction from Soderbergh, a seriously mixed bag of acting performances, and a potential love story between two people who don't feel as if they have any strong connection to one another. So many scenes end up being completely inconsequential, including a preposterous sequence showing the performers spying on a woman who deals with regulation paperwork that could seriously affect their prospects, and the 112-minute runtime seems to stretch out forever. But maybe it's fitting that a Magic Mike movie feels lengthier than it actually is.

3/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Companion (2025)

It can be very frustrating when a film comes along that a lot of people start praising, but also advising everyone to see before finding out anything about it. They tell you that there are some good twists and turns, and one or two are even given away in a trailer that should be avoided at all costs. So you end up trusting people you generally tend to share movie opinions with. That worked out well for me with Companion, but it could have been a different story.

Sophie Thatcher is Iris, the titular companion, accompanying Josh (Jack Quaid) for some time away with his friends. There's Kat (Megan Suri), Eli and Patrick (played by Harvey Guillén), and a gregarious Russian named Sergey (Rupert Friend) who made his fortune by getting his hands dirty. This isn't just a cheery get together for some friends though. There's a plan to make themselves quite wealthy. Iris is a very important part of the plan, but she doesn't know that yet.

The first feature written and directed by Drew Hancock, the important thing to clarify about Companion is that, contrary to how some people might have you believe, it's not a horror movie. I know that genre labels are flexible things anyway, and various individuals can have various interpretations, but I wouldn't like people to come away from a viewing of this feeling disappointed just because it ends up being something it never intended to be anyway. This is a subversive neo-noir with a fine vein of dark humour running all the way through it and some sci-fi touches to help it feel a step away from the many other movies it comes closest to. Hancock makes use of some cool tech to move the plot along, and the construction of the screenplay allows him to deftly hop around a number of interesting and timely thematic strands.

All of the cast do great work, but it's worth highlighting Thatcher, Quaid, and Gage, all excelling in different ways. All of them get to present more range than expected, and they all add to the fun and escalating craziness in different ways. And, yes, to say any more than that might spoil things for anyone yet to see the film, which means I have to join the ranks of people being frustratingly vague about the whole thing. Suffice it to say that Thatcher moves from passive to very non-passive, Gage likewise, and Quaid knows how to twist his sweet nature and megawatt smile into the all-too-familiar "nice guy" who genuinely believes that he is a nice guy, even as his actions start to contradict that description.

A film more about the dialogue and ideas than any gorgeous visuals or major set-pieces, although there are a number of shots that are impressively composed, Companion is smart and witty throughout, and it makes great use of some potential near-future tech to put a new coat of paint on some refurbished classic furniture. As long as you're not too squeamish when it comes to the occasional moments of bloodshed, this is fun, fun, fun. And, yes, you should see it before you find out too much about it.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Mubi Monday: Pepi, Luci, Bom And Other Girls Like Mom (1980)

I think I first saw Pepi, Luci, Bom And Other Girls Like Mom about 20-25 years ago, back when I wasn't quite so familiar with the filmography of writer-director Pedro Almodóvar. I thought it was a funky and odd film, quite the mix of melodrama, sex, and something enjoyably spiky and punk. I know that you could say the same thing about many other Almodóvar movies, but it's good to know that he seemed fairly fully-formed when he began to direct features. This is only his second full-length film, but it's standard Almodóvar through and through.

Carmen Maura plays Pepi, a young woman who we see quite early on being assaulted by an abusive policeman (played by Félix Rotaeta). Pepi decides to get revenge, but her initial plan doesn't work out as expected. So she sets her sights on Luci (Eva Siva), the wife of the policeman. Luci is quite the masochist, which makes it easier to lead her further and further down a path of hedonism and sexual freedom, much to the initial amusement of Pepi and her friend, Bom (played by Alaska, AKA Olvido Gara Jova). Things soon start shifting in the balance of the group though, and maybe it's not a great idea to try and hit back at someone by degrading a masochist. 

There doesn't seem to be too much to say about this though, although I accept that my lack of words may be down to my lack of critical thinking while being entertainingly bemused and distracted by the antics of the main characters. I know one thing I need to comment on first though. Some viewers may dislike the way Almodóvar seems to use sexual abuse so flippantly, especially if you've not seen any other movies from him, but there IS something being said about boundaries, control, and what different people seek from sexual encounters. I don't think it all entirely balances out, but the conversations and many other pairings throughout the film at least go some way towards showing some of the damage and consequences stemming from abuse.

Maura almost floats through the entire movie, despite being the one person who is treated in such an awful way that she ends up setting off the entire chain of events. Her indefatigable spirit is another reason the film works better than it otherwise would. Alaska is a lot of fun, scowling at many around her, but always ready to be right by the side of those she actually cares about while life keeps throwing mud in their eyes. Siva doesn't need to stay too quiet and prudish for long, and she's very good at portraying someone who throws herself into a new and exciting life while still feeling that strong pull to her old self. Rotaeta isn't allowed to soften any edges of his character, making his acting job easier as he moves from one victim to the next, always eager to bully and use people just long enough for him to get his kicks. The character is loathsome, the performance is great.

I still think that Almodóvar has done all of his absolute best work in the 21st century (well, from the late '90s and beyond), despite some other titles scattered throughout his filmography that many people like a lot more than I do, but this is a hell of a sophomore feature that encapsulates a lot of what he does so well. It doesn't have the polish of his later films, of course, but that works to his advantage, with the energy and aesthetic easily distracting from any of the potential negatives.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Netflix And Chill: The Machine (2023)

A star vehicle for Bert "The Machine" Kreischer, this comedy may be appreciated more by people who were aware of Kreischer's existence before watching it. I am not one of those people. To be fair, an opening sequence sets up both the character and the details that will set the main events in motion, but your reaction to it will still mainly depend on your reaction to Kreischer, who plays a fictional version of himself onscreen.

Having some problems with his family, largely stemming from a night when he got his daughter into some big trouble and live-streamed the whole thing, Bert is at a point when he knows that he needs to calm things down a bit. He needs to leave his past fully behind him, which makes the timing all the worse when his past, in the shape of a dangerous Russian named Irina (Iva Babic), comes to bite him on the ass. Whisked away, with his ever-critical father (Albert, played by Mark Hamill) also caught up in the mess, Bert has to delve into some hazy memories to find a way to make things up to some people he wronged twenty years ago. Are they right to feel wronged though, or has Bert just been exaggerating and lying about some of his drunken exploits for the sake of entertaining the crowds who enjoy his comedy?

I'm not sure how much faint praise I can keep laying on this before it collapses under the weight of it all, but The Machine was perfectly fine. It was better than I expected it to be, but I also know that I'll have forgotten all about it by the time the year ends. It works best when putting Bert and his father in serious trouble (there's a pretty great gag about an accidental gunshot that takes out numerous enemies), but it fails to maintain any consistent momentum, and 112 minutes is far too long for something built on so slight a conceit.

Director Peter Atencio has some great stuff tucked away in his body of work, and he's done action comedy material before with a great bias towards the comedy, but it seems as if everyone here is slightly hampered by having to keep everything on-brand for Kreischer. There's also attempts to have moments that are slightly more serious and heart-felt, which is all well-intentioned stuff, but doesn't work as it unbalances the movie even further away from the lighter tone it should have throughout. Writers Kevin Biegel and Scotty Landes pack in a lot of unnecessary extra flashbacks (at least allowing Jimmy Tatro to have fun as a younger incarnation of Bert), but these mis-steps would have been easier to forgive if there had just been more big laughs.

Kreischer is fine in the main role, shoe-horning his persona into something made to accommodate him, and Hamill has a few really good moments, although they are too few and far between, but it's Babic and Robert Maaser, as well as Martyn Ford, who end up being more memorable. They're enjoyably ridiculous villains written in a way that feels amusingly old-fashioned and over the top, as if we're being told this story, yet again, from someone who is keen to exaggerate the details and turn it from something major into something epic. Tatro is someone I like seeing appear in anything (I've been a big fan since his turn in American Vandal) and his inclusion here, despite being part of the extraneous scenes that strip away the ambiguity of just what happened on that big drunken night, is another plus point. Stephanie Kurtzuba does a good eye-roll as the long-suffering partner, LeeAnn, and Jess Gabor follows suit as the older daughter, Sasha, who has had her life negatively impacted by the antics of her father.

Fitfully amusing, helped by the fact that Kreischer is self-aware to know what people like about his persona, and what can be twisted as he moves towards some kind of redemption, The Machine will never be a top viewing choice for anyone, but I am sure there are some fans out there who will enjoy it a hell of a lot more than I did. The rest of us can forget all about it and focus on the many better comedies available to take up 90-120 minutes of our time.

4/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Shudder Saturday: Little Bites (2024)

This isn't the first feature film from writer-director Spider One (aka Michael David Cummings, brother of Robert Bartleh Cummings, who you may know best as Rob Zombie), but it's the first feature from him that I've managed to see. That's no comment on the quality of his work. It's just my busy schedule. And, after this, I'm keen to check out his previous films, Allegoria and Bury The Bride (both also featuring his partner, Krsy Fox, in a lead role, as is the case here).

There's quite a simple plot here, but it's one loaded with plenty to dig into. Fox plays Mindy Vogel, a woman who appears to be in the middle of a bit of a crisis. Her young daughter, Alice (Elizabeth Phoenix Caro), has been living with Mindy's mother (Bonnie Aarons), but it's clear that Mindy wants to be capable enough in the role of mother to have her daughter back home with her. That's made difficult, however, by a monster that also resides with Mindy, and the monster uses Mindy as his main food supply. 

Small in scale but pleasantly full of ambition, Little Bites is another fine genre film that makes use of the tropes to examine and subvert something much more grounded. This time around it's what mothers will do to keep their children safe, but there's also some intriguing hints at how easy it is to stretch out holes in the safety nets of society, and how much more difficult things can be when you don't have the full, or any, support of close family members.

Fox is excellent in the main role, managing to be both weak and strong, held captive by a beast she chooses to placate in an ongoing attempt to keep her daughter as safe as possible. Jon Sklaroff cuts an impressive figure as that monster, helped by some excellent makeup work and an audio mix that allows his voice to cut through almost everything else onscreen. Despite not having too much screentime, both Caro and Aarons do well, and there's room for a couple of cameos from horror legends Barbara Crampton and Heather Langenkamp, who are both used brilliantly instead of, as can sometimes occur, just being asked to show their faces so that their names can be added to the cast list and used in the marketing.

This really surprised me with how much it seemed to layer throughout it. I had an idea of what I was getting into from seeing a very brief plot summary, but the monster at the heart of it is only really half of the equation. The other half, arguably the more interesting half, is the responsibility of parenthood. It's about the sacrifices made to keep children safe, it's about the toll that can be taken on your mental health as you keep gritting your teeth and doing what simply has to be done, and it's about knowing the right time to allow youngsters to be informed and see the full picture.

The ending is a slight disappointment, enough to knock a point or two off my final rating of the film, but I certainly recommend Little Bites to horror movie fans who don't mind a slow burn.

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share