Prime Time: I Care A Lot (2020)

The easiest, and most flippant, way to summarize I Care A Lot is to make some joke about how I didn’t really care for it. I enjoyed it enough while it was on, and the central casting helps a lot, but the whole thing lacks any plausibility, which means it lacks any real bite it should have.

Rosamund Pike plays Marla Grayson, a woman who has built up a very successful business around becoming guardian to numerous elderly individuals. This allows her to drain their assets, bill them for hours spent dealing with their cases, and generally profit from the misery of someone spending the last of their days in a care home environment. Unfortunately, Marla targets Jennifer Peterson (Dianne Wiest), a woman who is connected to the very dangerous Roman Lunyov (Peter Dinklage). This puts Marla and her partner, Fran (Eiza González), in mortal danger.

Written and directed by J Blakeson, this is a film that feels like it wants to be a few different things. It could be a comment on how we treat the elderly. It could be a taut and entertaining thriller. It could be a damning indictment of a system that leaves people with nothing as they simply aim to remain healthy and alive in a society that has already deemed them as having no (or very little) value. The fact that it fails to fully commit to any of these aims means that it ends up an unsatisfying middle of them all, with no one aspect handled as well as it should be.

It all looks clean and cool throughout, although I wouldn’t even say there’s anything particularly standout about the visuals, and the score from Marc Canham is decent, but there’s a distinct air of everything being competent, as opposed to actually good.

The only area of excellence is the cast, and Blakeson really stops the film from being a complete disaster by having such a great selection of main cast members. Pike is superb in a role that feels very similar to one of her best cinematic performances (you will know what one I am on about), and Dinklage is an excellent menacing presence. Wiest is the most pleasant surprise though, making the most of her small amount of screentime to remind everyone that she still excels in any role she is given. To be clear, the surprise isn’t her level of talent, it is seeing her get a couple of real moments to shine in a role that could have easily been no more than a fleeting cameo. González is fine, although not given much to do, and there is some excellent scene-stealing by Chris Messina (playing a slick lawyer) and Macon Blair (playing the son of someone scammed by Pike’s character).

It loses points for having the most ineffective onscreen killers not wearing stormtrooper uniforms, it loses points for not using the obvious Faith No More song choice, and it loses points for an ending that doesn’t feel half as pointed and/or clever as Blakeson may think it is. In fact, the entire third act is more silly than anything else.

I Care A Lot? Nope. And I doubt others will.

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

Noirvember: Black Widow (1987)

It’s a classic premise, a number of men experience a bad case of very sudden and unexpected death not too long after marrying a beautiful bride. The title is the big clue, of course, but nobody seems to think there’s anything worthy of further investigation. Nobody except an agent named Alexandra (Debra Winger). Determined to find the mystery, and possibly very deadly, bride, Alexandra keeps digging around, eventually becoming friends with her prime suspect, Catharine (Theresa Russell).

Directed by Bob Rafelson, who started the ‘80s with a film that was viewed as one of the steamiest erotic thrillers of the era (the remake of The Postman Always Rings Twice), Black Widow probably isn’t what you expect it to be. That is not a bad thing. What could have been one of many identi-kit thrillers from the decade ends up, instead, as a fascinating look at female friendship, as well as a character study of a very dangerous, and very cunning, sociopath (although there’s maybe another descriptor tag that fits better, I am not a trained medical professional).

Rafelson directs with his usual level of competence - he’s delivered a number of great movies without ever positioning himself as the defining author of the work, in my experience - and he does well by the script, written by Ron Bass. Characterization is valued above everything else, and having such great leads helps to compensate for the fact that this isn’t just schlocky entertainment with some gratuitous nudity throughout. And, please don’t get me wrong, I sometimes love schlocky entertainment with some gratuitous nudity throughout. This becomes a more interesting, and more rewarding, experience though, and everything is also helped by some great supporting turns.

Terry O’Quinn is a boss who keeps trying to creep over personal space boundaries, and he helps make his character bearable just by being Terry O’Quinn, and James Hong excels as a private contractor investigator who finds himself caught between the two leads. Diane Ladd and Lois Smith have one or two scenes, and the selection of endangered husbands includes Dennis Hopper, Nicol Williamson, and Sami Frey. Everyone is a pawn though, unwittingly caught between an intense and 4-D chess match being played by Alexandra and Catharine, and both Winger and Russell are fantastic in those roles, both developing realistically, whether separately or intertwining their lives together, and impressively staying away from any urge to add too many histrionics and/or knowing camp. Those interpretations could have been fun, but I think what we get here is more interesting because of how relatively low-key it is.

If you’re a fan of either Russell or Winger then you should definitely see this. And why wouldn’t you be a fan of Russell or Winger? The same goes for O’Quinn and Hong. Just remember that this isn’t just a film about a woman who may be killing off her husbands. It’s about friendship, about trust, about people becoming obsessed with something they have a natural talent for. It’s about the idea of how others view your life, whether it is something they covet or something they want you to change. AND it’s about a woman who may be killing off her husbands.

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

Mubi Monday: Vic + Flo Saw A Bear (2013)

A film about the difficulty facing those who are looking to go on with their lives after, or even still during, serving a sentence for a criminal act, Vic + Flo Saw A Bear is an interesting look at two intertwined subjects that becomes arguably more important with every passing year: rehabilitation and forgiveness. If you believe in the legal system that we have in place, and someone serves a sentence for whatever crime they have committed, then there has to be some kind of future in which they are able to put that part of their life behind them. That doesn't always happen though, does it? Some crimes are too heinous to ever fully forgive, that's understandable, but there are a lot of people who cast their own judgement on others without considering the full facts and context available to them. 

Anyway, let me summarise the fairly simple plot first. Pierrette Robitaille plays Victoria, a woman who has been released from prison. She aims to live in a woodland shack with her girlfriend, another ex-con named Florence (Romane Bohringer), but that will also mean that she cares for her elderly and frail uncle, Mr Emile Champagne (George Molnar). Distracted by a chance to truly start living again, Vic + Flo aren't really the best people to care for Emile, but they're not trying to do anyone harm. Under the watchful eye of a frequently visiting parole officer, Guillaume (Marc-André Grondin), the two women seem to be doing well. Some locals may not want that though, and there may be a complication provided by the presence of the friendly Marina (Marie Brassard), someone Vic takes a liking to while Flo starts to wonder about just how solid their relationship is.

Although I am not familiar with the work of writer-director Denis Côté, he is someone I have become more aware of in the last few weeks, mainly due to his movies appearing on streaming services I use. On the back of this film alone, I will certainly be interested to see more from him. Vic + Flo Saw A Bear expertly blends together some drama, dark humour, thoughtful commentary on the themes being explored, and even some surreal touches to help offset some of the more downbeat moments. Côté allows everyone onscreen to feel natural and at ease, and the cast reward him with winning performance all round.

Robitaille and Bohringer are fantastic together, and it’s fascinating to watch how they react to different ways in which their pairing expands into a trio, whether that is due to the presence of Grondin’s character (who starts off acting like your typical hardass guardian, but soon shows some empathy and support) or the stranger played by Brassard. Praise should be spread equally among the members of that quartet, and I would also single out the brief, but equally great, turn from Olivier Aubin, playing someone quick to voice his displeasure at Victoria staying in the area.

There may not be an obvious “hook” here, with how you react to the film depending largely on how you react to the central characters, but I would still risk recommending this to anyone interested in watching something that will engage the head and the heart in equal measure. Côté and his cast work perfectly in sync to deliver something that feels surprising and special, if also just erring on the side of caution when it comes to the lightness of touch used throughout.

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

Netflix And Chill: The Pledge (2001)

There's an interesting history for the source material of The Pledge, written by Friedrich Dürrenmatt, and I would very much like to check out It Happened In Broad Daylight, a previous film working with Dürrenmatt's story, but I am not here to present an overview of that journey. I'm just going to review the film I saw, but I wanted to make people aware of other ways to discover this story.

Jack Nicholson plays Jerry Black, a police detective due to retire. Plans for a happy send-off are disrupted by the discovery of a child's corpse in the local area, and Jerry becomes determined to end his career by solving this case. Someone must be brought to justice. An evil individual must be stopped. Perhaps that can happen when Toby Jay Wadenah (Benicio del Toro) is brought in for questioning, or perhaps this case will haunt Jerry for a long time, warping his mind as he obsesses over every detail and remains determined to find a killer he believes is still at large.

The third feature film directed by the po-faced agitator known as Sean Penn (a man who probably smiled when that bloody U2 album was automatically downloaded to his iTunes account, and still listens to it weekly), The Pledge is a superb film for a number of reasons, including Penn's confident direction throughout. The writing gives you everything you need without feeling patronising, but also allows for a lot of quieter moments without testing your patience. The screenplay was co-written by Jerzy Kromolowski and Mary Olson-Kromolowski (a husband and wife writing duo), and they do a great job at making the most of the source material.

Another big plus, arguably the biggest, is the performance from Jack Nicholson. Nicholson is a much-celebrated actor, and has delivered a number of truly iconic performances, but it's hard to argue against the fact that his roles throughout the past few decades most often felt like he was playing some version of himself. Like a number of other actors I could mention, Nicholson became all too easy to view as a parody at times, but he does work here that reminds you of just how great he can be with material that doesn't ask him to rely on his usual tricks and manic twinkle in the eyes. He's surrounded by an excellent selection of people supporting him, no matter the size of their roles, including the aforementioned Del Toro. Others stepping up to the mark include Aaron Eckhart, Robin Wright, Helen Mirren, and Tom Noonan. 

Full of dread and despair throughout, this certainly isn't a film to watch when you're not prepared for something that will put you through the emotional wringer. There is a middle section that provides just enough temporary respite, but that only makes it slightly easier to battle all the way through to an ending that may or may not provide some kind of resolution for the central characters. Or, in other words, be prepared to walk under dark grey clouds, even if you get some time when you're not being rained on.

You may not want to revisit this, I myself have only just given it a second viewing for this review, but you'll be glad that you watched it. And that's my pledge to you.*

*not legally binding.

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.
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: Blood Relatives (2022)

Written and directed by Noah Segan, who also stars in the lead role, Blood Relatives is a comedy/horror/drama with the emphasis much more on the drama than anything else. There are a couple of bloody moments, but the focus is kept on a central father-daughter relationship, two people getting used to one another, and figuring out how best to live their lives together.

Segan is Francis, a wandering vampire who has one constant in his life: his car. He is, in the way of so many other "good" cinematic vampires, fussy about who he drinks blood from, seeming to target those who are, well, let's just say they're not the nicest people in the world. That can cover a wide range though, from criminals to those who close their business 5 minutes early and stop Francis from picking up an essential car part. Things change when Jane (Victoria Moroles) comes along though. Jane claims to be the daughter of Francis. She has the fangs. She has an aversion to bright sunlight. And she likes her meat very rare. She needs guidance though, and Francis doesn't think he is the right person to give that.

Having made his way behind the camera previously with his segment in Scare Package, Segan now seems to have found the right way to make his full feature debut. I think I agree with his choices here. Although far from perfect, Blood Relatives is a good way to use some genre trappings in a way that doesn't constrain him too much. The whole thing generally looks nice, especially when you consider the relative low budget (I assume), and the father-daughter relationship is played beautifully between the two leads, staying away from many of the more obvious gags that must have been up for consideration.

That's what may ultimately disappoint some viewers though. This isn't interested in keeping you laughing, nor is it interested in spraying blood all over the place. The humour tends to come from the family dynamic being given a vampiric twist, and the very occasional moments of gore underline the "growing pains" of Jane. I enjoyed the fact that this was mostly a film about a father and daughter learning how to share the same space.

As an actor, Segan has been someone I have enjoyed onscreen now for almost 20 years (I believe I first took note of him in Brick). He's consistently interesting, a great screen presence, and his performance here is in line with everything else he's done. Moroles isn't someone I have seen in anything else, but she's equally good here, arguably helped by the fact that almost all of her scenes have her alongside Segan while the two bond/fight/live together. The film often feels like a two-hander, but there are also very good supporting turns from Akasha Villalobos, who is involved in an amusingly surprising scene, C. L. Simpson, who gives a bit of exposition and clarification, and both Ammie Masterson and Tracie Thoms appear to offer advice from different perspectives.

There's no major highlight, and nothing here that makes it feel unmissable, but that doesn't mean you should immediately dismiss it. Blood Relatives is well-made, it tries to mix a number of familiar elements into something that feels a bit more original, and it gets in and out in just under 90 minutes. The third act being the weakest part doesn't help, but I still tentatively recommend it, especially to anyone who likes Segan as much as I do.

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.
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

Noirvember: Key Largo (1948)

If you are going to swim in the murky waters of noir at any point then you are going to encounter either Humphrey Bogart or Edward G. Robinson, both men having started in some absolutely classic movies. Key Largo is a film that has them both cast in main roles, which makes it pretty much essential viewing. I had already seen it decades ago, but it was one I had been meaning to revisit for decades.

Bogart plays Frank McCloud, a man who has decided to pay a visit to the family of an old war buddy. He knows the hotel they run, situated in Key Largo, and that is where he ends up. Unfortunately, the hotel has been taken over by a gang of crooks, headed up by the notorious Johnny Rocco (Robinson). Frank needs to figure out a way to get out of there, but he also needs to help Nora (Lauren Bacall) and her father-in-law, James (Lionel Barrymore), who were, respectively, the wife and father of his old buddy.

Clocking in at about the 100-minute mark, Key Largo is a film that has a hell of a lot going on, yet never feels rushed. You get some great scenes for some of the supporting characters (a real highlight being Gaye, a drunk ex-nightclub singer, played by Claire Trevor), a sub-plot about some other fugitives on the run, giving an excuse for some vigilant police in the area, and a literal storm brewing that works for the plot and the atmosphere in equal measure.

The screenplay, by Richard Brooks and director John Huston, capably adapts the play by Maxwell Anderson and allows it to feel like a showcase for the actors, yet also allows it to feel less stagey than it so easily could have been. A handful of scenes showing events happening outside the hotel help, as does the brilliant finale.

Huston knows what he’s doing here, and he certainly already had a well-established working relationship with Bogart by this point, so it’s no surprise to find that this is consistently competent throughout, at the very least. I would still think of it as a slightly lesser-recognised film noir, however, especially when it comes to titles that could be named by more casual film fans, and that’s why many might be surprised by just how great this is. Because it is. I would personally sit it alongside many other titles that might usually be ranked ahead of it.

Bogart is his usual greatness, cool and calm under pressure, while Robinson is a hugely entertaining villain, purporting to be cheery and unperturbed even as problems keep arising that may upset his grand plan. Bacall is mesmerising yet again, and mentioning the chemistry between her and Bogart is like mentioning how we stay alive by breathing the air around us, and Barrymore works well in between the main characters, playing someone who is trying to hang on to pride while also trying to just get things back to normality. I have already mentioned Trevor as a highlight, she deservedly won an Academy Award for her performance, and there is also very good work from Thomas Gomez, Harry Lewis, John Rodney, and Monte Blue (the first two playing crooks, the latter two playing law enforcement).

My main criticism of the film would be in reference to the first 10-15 minutes. It’s an unsteady start, with Bogart entering the hotel akin to that familiar moment when strangers walk into a pub and somehow make every head turn as the jukebox dies, but once everyone is settled into the situation then it quickly improves, and it just keeps getting better and better, all the way to those superb final scenes.

I love it. I suspect those who have seen it will agree with me, but I also suspect that more people need to see it.

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.
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

Noirvember: Payback (1999)

An enjoyable remake of Point Blank (well, a retelling of the tale that Point Blank was based on anyway), featuring Mel Gibson in the lead role of the wronged man out for revenge, and his half of a criminally-acquired stash of money, Payback is a rough ‘n’ tough bit of entertainment that tries to stand out from the crowd by having more ruthless behaviour and bursts of violence than you might expect from a film with such a big star name attached.

Gibson is Porter, a man shot and left for dead after being betrayed during a job that also involved his wife (Deborah Kara Unger) and his best friend (Gregg Henry). Once he starts on his quest to get the money owed to him - not the full amount stolen, just his half - Porter soon finds himself in more and more danger as he has to approach increasingly powerful members of a large criminal organisation.

Directed, for the most part (the production wasn’t exactly smooth sailing), by Brian Helgeland, who also wrote the screenplay, subsequently reworked by Terry Hayes, it’s hard to see why people viewed this as something that needed rescuing. And when I say people I mean “Hollywood suits”. What is here isn’t for everyone, but the same could be said for Point Blank. The fact that the main character is such a shitty person makes it more interesting, especially when you realise that he still has a certain moral code that makes him one of the least shitty people in a world full of much bigger scumbags who inhabit the world he lives in.

Dialogue may not be sharp, and the dour colour palette isn’t exactly a big plus, but plotting is clear, characters are nicely sketched, and Helgeland does some excellent work, knowing what viewers need to see and what they don’t. The unfolding chain of events may be grim, but it’s also somehow still fun . . . right up until it isn’t. And when the fun stops, well, you know the ending is close. You just don’t know if it’s going to be a good or bad ending.

Helgeland helps himself a lot by casting such a great selection of faces. Gibson is great in the main role, doing the kind of tough and unpredictable schtick he could do in his sleep, and Henry has a knack for playing the kind of character you just know could double-cross you at any moment. Unger is sadly underused, but there are two excellent, and very different, turns from Lucy Liu and Maria Bello that more than make up for the brevity of her screentime. There are also roles for David Paymer, Bill Duke, William Devane (one of the most sorely-undercelebrated actors of his generation, in my view), James Coburn, and Kris Kristofferson, as well as one or two others you should recognise. I cannot single out any one of these actors for praise, but that’s because they all get to be equally brilliant at different times in the movie.

I really like this. It’s not as good as the original work it is based on, some better visuals and a more interesting blend of score and soundtrack could have helped (although the opening music from Chris Boardman, playing over the extended credit sequence, is superb), but I think it’s an enjoyably lean, mean, neo-noir that always seems willing to go one step further than viewers might expect. I recommend 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.
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

Prime Time: The Counsellor (2013)

After all of these years hearing about The Counsellor, about how awful and bonkers it is, I finally got around to watching it. It is certainly bonkers, but it's also consistently entertaining throughout, simply giving viewers a great combination of a director and cast having fun with material that always seems poised to go in a dozen different directions at any one time.

Written by Cormac McCarthy, best known for writing the novels that both No Country For Old Men and The Road were based on, this is the tale of a counsellor (obviously) who decides to get involved with a potentially-lucrative drug deal. Things don't go according to plan, however, and the counsellor soon finds out that some actions can never be undone. He had been warned by people around him, but he assumed that there weren't any risks. How wrong he was.

Directed by Ridley Scott, this is a wild ride that clocks in with a runtime just shy of two hours. It doesn't need to be that long, a 90-minute movie would probably have worked just as well, but there's nothing here that isn't either intriguing or visceral and brilliant. I wanted to rewatch this as soon as the end credits started rolling. Although sometimes messy, it's always ready to show you something nasty in the most cinematic way possible, whether that is by keeping certain elements offscreen to make everything more palatable or by showing you some imagery that feels like it hasn't been depicted in movies before.

It also helps that the cast are very game in their performances, with Cameron Diaz seeming to have the most fun she's had in a long time, playing a character who is always a number of steps ahead of the other main characters around her. She's also involved in the weirdest and wildest scene in the film, as Javier Bardem's character watches her "make love" to his car windscreen, and I have to give kudos to her for committing to a script with that moment in it. Bardem is hilarious in that moment, as well as being fairly amusing in many of his other scenes. Fassbender plays the titular counsellor, excellent at being all cool and confidence until things start to unravel, and Penélope Cruz is perfectly fine in the rather thankless role of his unwitting partner, Laura. Brad Pitt has a decent little role, someone who is also involved in the drug deal, but who seems much more aware of the high stakes, and there are excellent moments for Rosie Perez, Sam Spruell, Richard Brake, and some other familiar faces.

I can't quite explain why I loved this so much though. The script isn't great, not in terms of the actual dialogue anyway, and the randomness detracts from what should have been a coiled spring of a dark thriller, but it all worked. Maybe my low expectations helps (I try to keep things balanced, but it's difficult when a film has a solid reputation already, good or bad), or maybe the majority of people just didn't recognise this for the slice of brilliance that it is. Yeah, it must be that. There's no other possible explanation. I'm not sure I would recommend this to others, but I hope some people give it a chance, and maybe they'll unexpectedly love it as much as me.

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

Noirvember: Confidence (2003)

It sometimes strikes me as wild that Edward Burns had (has?) a decent acting career, to the point where he was considered a viable leading man for some movies that have very strong supporting casts. I don’t hate Burns, that would be far too strong a reaction, but he is never someone who I would consider a first choice for any movie role, even the ones that he wrote and directed himself. There’s just a whopping great lack of charm, which makes it even harder to accept him in his lead role here, playing someone supposedly smart and charming enough to lead a con team on a number of successful jobs.

Burns is Jake, the leader of a group who have honed their craft over a number of years. His crew includes Gordo (Paul Giamatti), Miles (Brian Van Holt), Al (Louis Lombardi), and even a couple of cops (played by Donal Logue and Luis Guzmán). Things get sticky when the team con someone out of a load of money that actually belongs to a crime boss named King (Dustin Hoffman). Coming up with a way to appease King isn’t easy, but Jake thinks he can manage it, with the help of a woman named Lily (Rachel Weisz). There are so many ways things could go wrong though, especially with federal agent Gunther Butan (Andy Garcia) snooping around.

If you have seen any con movie then you will know how this film plays out. I could easily name you a dozen con films right now that are better than this, but that isn’t to say that this is a bad film. Director James Foley and writer Doug Jung may feel as if they are just going through things mechanically, but the mechanics of any con movie can end up being the most appealing aspect. Knowing how things are playing out just keeps viewers closely onside with the con artists, which is satisfying enough when they are trying to get one over on someone who deserves to be fleeced. A lack of surprise in a con movie doesn’t automatically equate to a lack of enjoyment, not for me anyway.

With the exception of Burns, the cast all help to make this more enjoyable than it otherwise would be. Hoffman is an enjoyable villain, and just about manages to feel like a real threat, and both Giamatti and Weisz are easy highlights. There are more people to keep an eye on though, including Morris Chestnut, Tom Lister Jr, Robert Forster (sadly onscreen for seconds), John Carroll Lynch, and Leland Orser. Alongside the other supporting players already mentioned, it’s almost as if someone was savvy enough to realise that a lot of talent was required to compensate for the bland leading man.

Nobody here will put this at the top of their C.V. This is a lesser film in almost every department. It manages to avoid being bad though. That is mostly due to the cast, but it is also partly due to the innate charm of the con movie format, which always tends to appeal to me. You could even say that I’m a sucker for them.

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.
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

Mubi Monday: Make Up (2019)

Whether intentional or not, writer-director Claire Oakley has made an interesting comparison here between relationships and small seaside holiday areas in the UK. You can spend so long looking forward to your mini-break that the fantasy becomes something almost impossible for the reality to match. And when you are there, perhaps having to put up with some typically bad British weather in between days of sea and sunshine, it’s all too easy to start thinking about other possibilities. People keep striving for an ideal, it’s what they have in mind, but that can stop them from enjoying what they already have. On the other hand, the seaside holiday area cannot expect to keep people happy if it just sits there, being a seaside holiday area with minimal effort made to retain some of the magic it once had.

Molly Windsor plays Ruth, a young woman who heads along to visit her boyfriend, Tom (Joseph Quinn). They’ve been in a relationship for a little while already, but this is their first time really sharing one another’s space. There is that “honeymoon period” glow for them, but it soon starts to fade. While working at the holiday site, Ruth befriends Jade (Stefanie Martini), someone Tom warns her to stay away from.

Having helmed a number of shorts over the past few years, Oakley comes to her feature debut with a vision and confidence that many other film-makers would do well to emulate. This may feel like a character study, and it is, but it is also a look at the phases of a relationship, the ways in which people can either move closer together or further apart while floating together in the rocky waters of what they hope could be a worthwhile love.

Both Windsor and Quinn are excellent in their lead roles, very effective at portraying two young people who aren’t sure quite how to act when their relationship ideals are tested by reality. Martini is easily on the same level as them, a wonderful lightning rod, shining brightly while becoming potentially dangerous for anyone who gets close enough. Theo Barklem-Biggs had a small, antagonistic, role, and there are a couple of very small, but solid, turns from Lisa Palfrey and Elodie Wilton.

Subtle and quiet without being too bleak, Make Up is actually a more uplifting film than any summary or review might lead you to believe. It is about someone finding happiness, despite the fact that it takes them a while to find out what their happiness really feels like. Moving from the straightforward reality depicted to one or two moments that use an air of surrealism to add some more cinematic elements, with one highlight mixing eroticism and horror in an unsettling and intriguing way, this is the kind of film that makes you excited to have discovered it. So don’t just take my word for it, go and discover it for yourself.

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.
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

Netflix And Chill: Memento (2000)

I am not the first person to note this, not at all, but Christopher Nolan is obsessed with time. How much people want to hold on to it, how we're all so often working against it, and how it can be manipulated in so many ways for cinema. Memento may not be his first feature film, but it may well remain his most perfect rumination on time, and on how we cannot ever avoid the consequences of it, whether we're moving forward normally, figuring out things in reverse chronological order, or actively working to rewrite the memories that have caused the most pain.

Guy Pearce is Leonard, a man with a peculiar condition. He cannot retain any short-term memories. This has been the case ever since his wife was assaulted and killed in their home, and Leonard has been determined to get revenge ever since that life-shattering night. He is being helped by a man named Teddy (Joe Pantoliano), and ends up being given some important information by a woman named Natalie (Carrie-Anne Moss). But the thing about having short-term memory loss is that it's almost impossible to trust people.

I have been a big fan of Memento since the first time I saw it, although I must say that the first time I saw it was the end result of trying to fully watch it three times. It's not a film you can watch without fully concentrating on it, but it rewards viewers for giving it their undivided attention. Watching it today, probably a good 12-15 years since I last watched it, I like it just as much as I did during that first viewing. The script and direction from Nolan, working from the short story, "Memento Mori", by his brother, Jonathan Nolan, is already at the high standard that he has maintained throughout most of his career, but without any of the sense of self-importance that has become problematic in some of his more recent films.  While it is a puzzle-box of a film, it's a puzzle that rewards viewers numerous times before getting to the finale. And it's easy enough to enjoy, and be moved by, even if the initial viewing leaves you a bit disorientated and confused.

Pearce is excellent in the lead role, his usual acting skills accompanied by a bleached-blond hairdo and numerous tattoos all over his body (this is how the character keeps possession of pertinent facts), and he's very ably supported by both Pantoliano and Moss, who have a lot of fun in roles that somehow feel both in their wheelhouse and yet also a step removed from the kind of characters you might expect them to portray. Mark Boone Junior is also a welcome addition, playing a hotel clerk named Burt, and there is some screentime for Jorja Fox and Harriet Sansom Harris, among others. The unsung hero of the film, however, is Stephen Tobolowsky, portraying Sammy Jankis, someone with the same condition as Leonard, and arguably a key to unlocking the slippery truth of the film. Tobolowsky gives a performance that is absolutely beautiful and heart-breaking, and it's always good to have an excuse to mention him as so much more than just the man who was so brilliant at exclaiming "bing!" in Groundhog Day.

Maybe just a bit too interested in the construction of the plot ahead of anything else, which is a criticism you could level at almost every movie Nolan has ever directed (to date), Memento does a great job of delivering familiar neo-noir moments with a twist. It's hard-boiled, it's full of moments of dark humour, and it poses an interesting question about the ability of people to let time heal their wounds when they don't have our shared concept of time passing normally.

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.
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: Slash/Back (2022)

The directorial feature debut from Nyla Innuksuk, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Ryan Cavan, Slash/Back is a fun film that benefits from a central cast of great young talent. It's just a shame that it's not all as well executed as it could be, but I will get to that soon enough.

Set in Panhnirtung, an Inuit hamlet in the Qikiqtaaluk region of Nunavut, itself a part of Canada, this is the tale of some young girls banding together to face an alien menace. The two nominal leads are Maika (Tasiana Shirley) and Uki (Nalajoss Ellsworth), but their group also includes Leena (Chelsea Prusky), Jesse (Alexis Wolfe), and Aju (Frankie Vincent-Wolfe). A mix of ages and interests means some tension between the girls, whether it's about a boy that more than one of them is attracted to or being tasked wih caring for a sibling. They all have to work together, however, when an alien invades their small community, the timing especially inconvenient while almost every adult seems to be away at some local dance.

If this film didn't have such winning performances from the leads, as well as some excellent special effects throughout, then it wouldn't be getting some of the praise that I've been seeing it receive recently. Cavan and Innuksuk have written something that shows, at best, a good does of naiveté and, at worst, a lack of ability or care. First of all, getting almost every adult out of the way feels like a bit of a stretch, although it may not seem that way to people who have grown up in such a small, tight-knit, community. Second, the actions of the alien creature(s) seems completely randomised, viewers being shown that it can kill a man in a second, but doesn't act so dangerously when facing the retaliation of young girls. Third, there's no genuine tension here. It all disappears when the alien becomes known to our leads, which is surely the opposite of how this should play out.

There are also choices made with the supporting performances, as well as the audio mix, that feel very odd, with the more bizarre elements of the film being reacted to in a way that just feels far too calm and low-key. The first main set-piece aside, none of the action feels exciting or visceral enough, and the final face-off is a proper anti-climax, considering how many different directions this could have gone in.

That cast though, Innuksuk needs to thank their lucky stars that they got that cast in place. All of the youngsters are good, all have a certain screen presence, but Shirley and Ellsworth give the kind of performances that you suspect/hope will signify the start of a lengthy career in the acting world. Shaun Benson is the best of the adults, playing a horrible local policeman, Officer Lefebvre, who turns into an even bigger threat when the girls most need help.

Other things the film gets right are some enjoyably unsettling visuals, one of the best scores/soundtracks I have heard in some time (credit due to Michael Brook and The Halluci Nation there), and a nice look at the conflicting feelings of a generation encouraged to embrace their heritage, which they view as weighty anchors, while they are experiencing the standard teenage desire for more freedom.

Slash/Back isn't a bad film, and people should have fun if they decide to give it 86 minutes of their time, but it's a close call. In fact, it's much closer than it should be, and I have to put the blame for that on director Nyla Innuksuk. It will be interesting to see how much they improve by the time they make their sophomore feature.

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.
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

Noirvember: Point Blank (1967)

In case you somehow missed the memo, Lee Marvin is one tough sonofabitch. If you didn’t know that before watching Point Blank then you should sure as hell know it by the time it’s finished. This is a film that starts with Marvin’s character, Walker, being shot multiple times and left for dead, but it doesn’t take him long to get back on his feet and start on a path of bloody revenge.

Based on a novel, “The Hunter”, by Donald E. Westlake (who has had a number of his works adapted into movie form), this is an enjoyably simple tale of one man cutting a large swathe through a criminal organisation as he looks to collect his share of a rewarding plot that he was a vital part of. He isn’t being unfair, yet everyone seems to think that as they try their best to avoid giving him what he is due.

Director John Boorman, working from a script written by Alexander Jacobs, and David and Rafe Newhouse, delivers what could well be a perfect mix of violence, intrigue, and ultra-cool in this classic neo-noir. It is another film I regret not seeing sooner, especially since I already saw Payback (the Gibson-starring remake from the late ‘90s) a couple of decades ago.

The script is brilliant, if often economical with words (Boorman adds so much with visual details, and excellent editing from Henry Berman, throughout), and you have a mostly excellent cast getting themselves in trouble while a fine, dreamy/nightmare-ish, soundtrack from Johnny Mandel accompanies their actions.

I would say this is Marvin’s best role, but that would suggest I have seen him in many other movies (I haven’t, he’s a bit of a blind spot for me). It’s tough to think of anyone doing better work here though, and he’s a perfect mix of smooth and rough. A young John Vernon is enjoyably spooked, knowing that his betrayal could cost him his life, and there are enjoyable performances from Keenan Wynn, Carroll O’Connor, and Lloyd Bochner. Although very male-centric, both Angie Dickinson and Sharon Acker get to be front and centre in a couple of surprisingly impactful scenes.

Having enjoyed this from start to finish, I am now struggling to find any fault with it at all. Maybe I have been too generous with my ratings lately, or maybe I have just finally got around to watching some classics that should have been marked off the list a long time ago. I think the latter is correct. People may not like how brutal and “ugly” Point Blank is, I can understand that, but I loved it. A large part of that is to do with Marvin, playing his character like some ever-moving shark that has sensed blood in the water and knows that it’s time to eat, but there’s nothing here I would change. 

I will now plan to rewatch Payback next week, and I’m interested to see what I think of that nowadays.

10/10

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

Noirvember: The Kneeling Goddess (1947)

The mistake that many film fans can make is to think they have seen everything. Nobody actually means that literally, but I can guarantee that you have heard those words, “seen them all”, while talking to someone who has asked you to recommend some movies to them, whether they were looking for films from a specific genre or just anything on Netflix. Many people may feel they have seen every film noir, but they most probably haven’t. They may have seen all of the top-tier film noirs, but there are many other gems to discover. The lesser titles can provide a lot of fun, and there’s a large world cinema pool to explore. Which brings me to The Kneeling Goddess AKA La diosa arrodillada, my first foray into some classic Mexican noir.

Arturo de Córdova plays Antonio, a man who is slowly and surely bewitched by the beautiful Raquel (María Félix), an artist’s model. Initially aiming to divorce his wife, Elena (Rosario Granados), Antonio ensures that Raquel will stay in his mind when he buys a statue that she modeled for, The Kneeling Goddess. Being driven mad by his conflicted feelings, Antonio plans some foul play, but will he get rid of Raquel or Elena? And will everything go to plan?

There are about four or five names here in the writing department, including Edmundo Báez, Alfredo B. Crevenna, Tito Davison, José Revueltas, Ladislas Fodor, and director Roberto Gavaldón, but there’s no obvious impact on the quality of the final product. The plotting and dialogue are both what you would expect, with the film basically having the most fun when adding more problems for the struggling Antonio to bear on his thin shoulders.

Gavaldón keeps everything enjoyably clear throughout, both visually and in terms of who may be privy to secrets that others don’t know about, with the exception of one key sequence, a set-piece that is revisited during a deliciously tense and dark finale. This may not have people literally living in the shadows, but they certainly do feel as if a lot of light is blocked out by some looking misdeeds from their past.

Córdova is good enough in his role, even as he has to, at one point, show a swift descent into drunken depression. Granados, given the smallest of the three main roles, is very effective in eliciting sympathy for her innocent character. Everything revolves around the character of Raquel though, and Félix is perfectly cast. She’s alluring one moment, distant and calculating the next, and starts to look like a deadly spider somehow becoming stuck in her own web at times. Whether Raquel has planned a long con or has just made herself as potentially vulnerable as Antonio is a question that makes the middle section of the movie more interesting than it otherwise would be. 

Some may roll their eyes at my naïveté, but I was pleasantly surprised by the twists and turns that this took in the second half. I didn’t expect things to play out as they did, although it was easy to see where it would end up as the final scenes began to play out. It’s a film full of melodrama, barely-restrained lust, and excellent, if obvious, mise-en-scéne showing the mindsets of the characters, and I had a great time with it. It may be my first classic Mexican noir, but it won’t be my last.

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

Prime Time: Scandal Sheet (1952)

Similar to at least one or two other fantastic film noirs, Scandal Sheet is based on a novel, “The Dark Page”, by Samuel Fuller, and there’s an extra edge to it that allows the whole thing to feel like a Fuller movie, despite him not being involved in the direction, or even in adapting it from page to screen.

Broderick Crawford plays Mark Chapman, a man who has changed the fortunes of the newspaper he is in charge of, mainly by choosing to capitalize on scoops and any chance to sensationalize the worst crimes they cover. Steve McCleary (John Derek) and Julie Allison (Donna Reed) both work for the paper, which puts their own relationship through some ups and downs, and they seem more than up to the task when they’re tasked with investigating the murder of Charlotte Grant (Rosemary DeCamp). We viewers know something that they don’t know, however, and that is the identity of the murderer. It’s their boss, Chapman.

Written by Ted Sherdeman, Eugene Ling, and James Poe, three writers with numerous separate credits that  you should check out, Scandal Sheet manages to bounce along between the main plot points with a lightness of touch offsetting the more unpleasant aspects. Maybe it’s due to the behaviour of the newspaper staff seeming somehow more repugnant than the people they are trying to bring to justice, clarified in an opening scene that shows McCleary and a photographer (Biddle, played by Harry Morgan) deceiving a grieving woman into giving them some juicy info. Or maybe it’s just the pacing, with momentum building throughout the second half of the movie towards a very satisfying final sequence, punctuated by a wonderfully cynical “punchline”.

Director Phil Karlson may not always be on top form, but his work is well worth your time when he is, as is the case here. Helped by the script, and some great leads, Karlson delivers something fun, but not without moments of tension to remind everyone that the main characters are getting closer to danger as they get closer to discovering the murderer they are trying to track down. The busy newspaper office environment helps, lulling you into a false sense of security before scenes set later on in the evening, when the rest of the staff have gone home, leaving only the people most heavily involved in trying to crack the case.

Derek and Reed are good enough in their lead roles, although the latter is the one who shines much brighter than the former, and you become more invested in their safety as they become more determined to solve the murder. Crawford is excellent, a brooding presence always doing his best to stay one step ahead of his employees. Having maintained a facade for many years, he becomes meaner and more desperate as the net closes in around him (metaphorically). DeCamp is very good in the one or two scenes she has, and Morgan is a welcome addition (although that’s more to do with Morgan as an onscreen presence, rather than his character). There is also a great turn from Henry O’Neill, playing a down-on-his-luck/alcoholic former reporter named Charlie Barnes who may end up inadvertently discovering the truth before anyone else.

Like many (the best?) film noirs, this gets everything done within a relatively brisk runtime - about 82 minutes - and has a brilliantly bittersweet resolution. It has also made me want to hunt down the source material, and any more writing from Sam Fuller that I can check out.

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

Noirvember: Night Moves (1975)

While I often spend my time trying, hopelessly, to catch up on many of the bigger movie titles that I have somehow avoided over the years, some of those films feel a bit more notable than others. Night Moves was something I have been aware of ever since knowing the term “neo-noir”, but I just hadn’t ever got around to watching the thing. That has finally changed now, and (as is so often the case) I wish I had seen this years ago.

It’s an absolutely classic premise, in many ways. Gene Hackman plays Harry Moseby, a detective tasked with locating a young woman named Delly (Melanie Griffith). This brings him into contact with Delly’s troublesome boyfriend (played by James Woods), a couple of stunt performers, before he eventually finds her living with her stepfather, Tom (John Crawford), and his girlfriend, Paula (Jennifer Warren). Things become more complicated as Harry investigated further, and the case he has been hired for may actually lead to him stumbling on to something much more dangerous.

Written by the immensely talented Alan Sharp (I haven’t got time to list everything in his filmography but I highly recommend the two most recent feature films that he worked on, for starters), Night Moves is an entertaining crime drama that leads viewers, slowly but surely, into increasingly dark waters. The first half is full of cynicism and bitterness laced with humour, but the finale removes any of the mirth. Viewers will root for Harry, mainly because it is always easy to root for Gene Hackman (even when he isn’t being a very nice guy), but it’s also easy to see that things may not lead to a satisfying conclusion for many, or any, of the main characters.

Director Arthur Penn also has a filmography well worth your time, although maybe focus on the ‘60s and ‘70s when exploring his back catalogue, and he makes great use of all his assets here. The script, the cast, the cinematography that moves between sunshine and shadows with equal clarity, the pacing of the unfolding plot, and a third act that cuts through everything that preceded it with unwavering commitment.

Hackman has always been superb onscreen, but this is one of his best roles. He’s a smart man who may sometimes be too smart for his own good, but he’s also quite selfish and blinkered (in a way that he feels is necessary for his job). Griffith is a delightful presence in her few scenes, and Warren has a chemistry with Hackman that has you sensing an extra complication due to arise. Crawford is fine, Woods perfectly embodies the kind of young guy that Hackman would dismiss as a punk, and there are excellent supporting turns from Susan Clark (playing the neglected wife of our “hero”), Anthony Costello and Edward Binns (two stuntmen who may be involved in something suspicious), and Janet Ward (the woman who hires Harry to find her daughter).

One of the films often mentioned by people who revere the seventies as the greatest ever decade for cinema (it’s undoubtedly great, and with a notable sea change at certain points, but every decade has highs and lows), Night Moves is a gritty classic, more effective because of the lightness of touch throughout the first half of the movie. I would highly recommend it to everyone, but I also suspect that everyone else has already seen it.

10/10

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

Mubi Monday: The African Desperate (2022)

Sometimes you just have to accept that a film isn’t really made with yourself as the main viewer demographic. That isn’t a bad thing. It allows for cinema to have the potential to reach everyone. And a film not being aimed squarely at me (as a standard white male, it’s bloody rare to find American films that aren’t) doesn’t mean that I cannot enjoy individual moments from it.

The African Desperate is the tale of Palace Bryant (Diamond Stingily) and the day in which she graduates from her art studies. She spends some time in the company of her friend, Hannah (Erin Leland), and a maybe/maybe not love interest names Ezra (Aaron Bobrow).

The debut feature from director Martine Syms, co-written with Rocket Caleshu, The African Desperate is much more successful at examining racism, identity, and the strength in being as honest and open with people as possible, even if it makes them uncomfortable. It is less successful when it comes to skewering the art world, whether it’s looking at those who critique or those who try may be creating art without knowing quite what they have to say. That just feels like a much easier target, and the comedy and commentary feels a bit too smug in those moments. Unfortunately, there’s a balance between the two, one that is maintained from start to finish.

Stingily is excellent in the lead role, perfectly portraying someone who is, to put it bluntly, done with all the bullshit. Her character can be hypocritical at times, but there’s something very satisfying about the scenes in which she unflinchingly calls people out on their behaviour, whether that was a conscious or subconscious part of them. Leland is fine, and plays off Stingily nicely, and there’s also a fun turn from Ruby McCollister (who I recognised from The Scary Of Sixty-First). Then there’s Bobrow, playing the “cool and sexy” guy who can oh-so-quickly be disassembled by a woman who doesn’t react to him exactly as he expects. The main scene in which Bobrow and Stingily are conversing in a car is both hilarious and thought-provoking.

As you can tell, I found enough to enjoy here, but they were individual moments from a film that others may appreciate a lot more. The opening scene was a highlight, and one that the film rarely got close to during any other part of the runtime, but, ironically, most of this film feels like a director who hasn’t quite found their voice. Experimenting with different choices throughout, some work and some don’t, Syms undermines her work with a lack of required focus. The few really sharp moments hint at what could have been, but they’re too infrequent.

An interesting score is worth mentioning, but that’s the only other part of the film, other than the lead performance, that feels as if it REALLY works with the material. Would I pass this if I was grading it as a final art project? I am not sure, but, and it bears repeating, it’s not really aimed at me.

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

Netflix And Chill: In Bruges (2008)

The first feature written and directed by the hugely talented Martin McDonagh, In Bruges is so good that the only similar films to give it serious competition over the last 10-15 years have been the other films written and directed by Martin McDonagh, or his equally-talented brother, John Michael McDonagh.

Colin Farrell is Ray and Brendan Gleeson is Ken. They are two hitmen who have been ordered to lay low in Bruges for a while, for reasons that become apparent as the film plays out. Ken is happy to take in some of the local sights and culture, but Ray needs a bit more stimulation. Although there is obvious friction between the two, there's also an obvious strong bond of friendship. This makes things very difficult for Ken when his boss, Harry (Ralph Fiennes), gives him instructions for his next job. It's also becoming difficult for Ray to keep himself out of trouble, especially when he is being distracted by the lovely Chloe (Clémence Poésy) and/or the drug-fuelled antics of the diminutive Jimmy (Jordan Prentice).

Although I have yet to see his most recent film (The Banshees Of Inisherin, which I have very high hopes for), this one currently remains my favourite from McDonagh. It is the film in which he most successfully blends together every element he does so well, from the comedy to the violence, from the superficial moments of purely wonderful cinema to the deep and rewarding layers that examine grief, loyalty, and so much more. It also helps that his small cast is formed around two leads giving performances that rank as career-best turns, or close enough anyway.

Farrell and Gleeson are brilliant. But anyone who knows those actors, and everyone SHOULD know those actors, would already know that. The bonus here is how well they work both separately and together, moving between the lighter moments into the unavoidable darkness with complete ease. The early scenes show the two acting in a way that is like a parent (Gleeson) tolerating a hyperactive child (Farrell), but things very quickly settle down as the two start to realise that there are other things going on around them that they should start taking notice of, whether it's pleasant company and drugs or another planned execution. McDonagh obviously, and rightly, has faith in his script, but he doesn't leave anything to chance. That's why he casts Fiennes in a relatively small, but also relatively major, supporting role. He delivers the kind of great performance you'd expect, Poésy is a believable distraction, Prentice is involved in a number of scenes that have some of the biggest laughs, and there is some great work from Thekla Reuten, Zeljko Ivanek, and Jérémie Rénier.

What has always helped to elevate McDonagh's material is his ability to present his ear-tingling scripts in ways that don't feel too focused on the script at the expense of everything else you want from a film. In Bruges has a great sense of place, as the title would suggest, and presents some lovely visual moments alongside the crackling script. The camera is as close or far away from everything as it needs to be, depending on how many people are being given some time to shine, and how any sequence is playing out, and it's also worth noting that the third act delivers some truly stomach-churning blood and guts, even if it's only seen for the briefest of moments.

This whole review, like so many reviews I write, is utterly pointless. If you have already seen In Bruges then you should already know that it's a modern classic. If you haven't seen In Bruges by now then dozens of other people have probably already told you that it's a modern classic. I encourage everyone to watch/rewatch it ASAP though. Because . . . it's a modern classic.

10/10

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: Mandrake (2022)

It's weird that Mandrake, a blend of folk horror and rumination on rehabilitation, regret, and resentment, feels like the first film for everyone involved, because it isn't. It's the first feature from director Lynne Davison, but writer Matt Harvey has already written a few other movies, and the cast is made up of people with a wealth of experience between them. It's all put together well enough, I guess, but it also feels incomplete. Someone had one or two interesting ideas, but they didn't realise that they didn't have enough to fill out an actual feature-film runtime.

Deirdre Mullins plays Cathy Madden, a woman who works for the parole board in Northern Ireland. She ends up taking on the case of Mary Laidlaw (Derbhle Crotty), a woman with a notorious reputation in her local area, and given the nickname of "Bloody Mary" after the murder of her husband years before. Mary doesn't seem too intent on showing contrition for her past. She may actually believe that her past actions were right, and she can do something to improve Cathy's lot in life.

I could say a lot more about Mandrake without worrying about spoilers, because there's plenty given away by the title, the poster, and any other marketing of the movie, but I'll stop there. And the paragraph above basically summarises the best of the movie, all of which happens in the opening third. What could have been an interesting character piece, full of tension and creepiness, perhaps making use of an air of ambiguity to keep viewers thinking twice about everything they are watching. Sadly, that's all pushed aside, with everything becoming a lot less interesting as soon as it is all overtly shown onscreen.

Mullins and Crotty are both very good in their roles, and their scenes together are easy highlights as they do their best to work with a script that seemingly tries hard to undermine their performances. What the two women can say without speaking is often then also accompanied by dialogue underlining what the movie wants viewers to pay attention to. The rest of the cast also do good work, but there’s a strange lack of naturalism throughout other parts of the film, making every interaction that isn’t between Mullins and Crotty feel forced and slightly irritating.

Davison directs well enough, and there are a couple of nice visuals here and there, but I think she need a much better script. Although Harvey knows where he is going with the main narrative strand, there’s a lack of confidence throughout, either in his own abilities or the intelligence of potential viewers. I am not exaggerating when I say that this started so strong that I thought it was going to be a new firm favourite, a horror gem to recommend to other genre fans. Watching it all start to unravel was quite the depressing experience, especially as tension ebbed away when it should have been building up towards an impactful third act.

This is probably a classic case of “would have worked much better as a short”, and I look forward to whatever the people involved do next, especially if a few lessons have been learned from making this. There’s not enough in Mandrake to make it anything more than a huge missed opportunity, but I am sure that at least one or two other people will enjoy it much more than I did. If you do, feel free to point out anything you think I have not given due credit.

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.
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

Noirvember: The Locket (1946)

First of all, before I forget to mention this, The Locket is a film that I would love to see paired up with Marnie. Both films take a similar central idea, but they diverge to go on wildly different journeys. Or maybe they aren’t so wildly different. It has been far too long since I last watched Marnie. Either way, I would love to hear from anyone who either tries this double-bill or at least views the two films within fairly close proximity to one another. In fact, add Laura into the mix and you would be in for a very satisfying evening of entertainment with numerous connecting thematic strands.

Structured in a slightly convoluted way, showing flashbacks within flashbacks as we learn more and more about the main character, The Locket is all about a man (John Willis, played by Gene Raymond) who is all set to marry a lovely woman named Nancy (Laraine Day). Nothing can spoil the big day, but one Dr. Harry Blair (Brian Aherne) aims to do just that, forcing himself into the household to warn Willis against a huge mistake he is about to make. Harry knew Nancy for quite some time, and he knows that she has some big secrets hidden away in her past, including the way in which a past relationship (with an artist named Norman Clyde) played out.

Director John Brahm and writer Sheridan Gibney are both unfamiliar to me, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t worth knowing. Every day is a school day, right? That certainly applies here, especially after seeing what else these two people had a hand in crafting. Brahm has numerous films and a lot of TV work to his credit, but I am automatically inclined to like him most because of the dozen episodes he directed for The Twilight Zone. Gibney, rewriting something that was first developed into a screenplay by Norma Barzman, also seems to have some titles tucked away in their filmography that I will get to at some point, especially after enjoying this. There may not be a load of zippy dialogue, but the characters are sketched out nicely enough, and the flashbacks and shortcuts to various moments in time are effective at making viewers feel as bombarded and slightly disorientated as the character being told an entire life story in one go. It doesn’t all make sense, considering how various characters receive information, but things are so well put together that you don’t overthink anything until after the end credits roll.

Aherne and Raymond are both fine, the latter having barely any decent amount of screentime though, considering the way in which things are presented, and there’s a typically great turn from Robert Mitchum, as the artist who starts to see behind the perfect mask that Nancy wears, but it’s Day who shines the brightest, as you would expect. She is a near-constant bundle of carefree happiness, and often honest when confronted by people who decide to call out the worst aspect of her personality, and it’s a performance that keeps viewers onside, even as other characters suffer in her wake. It is also worth mentioning Sharyn Moffett, the young actress who does a very good job of portraying Nancy as a child.

Watching this after it was recommended to me, and recommended by someone who viewed it as a favourite underseen noir, I am happy that I found this so enjoyable. I didn’t love it, there’s nothing here that elevates it to a level of greatness, but I could see why someone would feel strongly enough about it to encourage others to seek it out. I will now do the same. Seek it out. You may well enjoy it even more than I did.

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.
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

Noirvember: Blow Out (1981)

This was long overdue. I have been meaning to watch Blow Out since I bought it on Blu-ray a few years ago. But I just never found myself in quite the right mood for what I assumed was just going to be a remake of Blow-Up. I was, once again, a bit foolish. Not only is Blow Out far removed from the movie that it is reworking, although there are very strong features that clearly mark them out as siblings, but it is up there with the very best of Brian De Palma’s work.

John Travolta plays Jack, a man who has a career supplying sound effects for movies. One night, while out alone recording some ambient noise, Jack witnesses a car careen off a bridge. He dives in, rescuing a female passenger (Sally, played by Nancy Allen). Everyone is quick to label the whole thing a tragic accident, but Jack knows that he heard something different. The car may have suffered a tyre blow out, but there was a noise before that, and that noise strongly suggests foul play. Things get more troublesome when the identity of the other car occupant is revealed, and Jack and Sally struggle to get the truth out there as things start to get more dangerous. 

I barely know where to start with the praise I want to heap on Blow Out so I will actually just start by namechecking the main cast members. Travolta is superb, as obsessive as numerous other De Palma characters, but with a much more innately likable personality, as well as a healthy amount of self-awareness. Allen gives a performance that might be her most appealing, acting cute and ditzy enough to show why she was picked for her role in the unfolding events, while also keeping you rooting for her as things grow increasingly dangerous in the grand finale. Dennis Franz does his usual good work, playing Manny, a man who also claims to have witnessed, AND recorded, the accident, but who might have some extra inside knowledge that should net him some cash reward, and John Lithgow is one of the great murderers in cinema, equal parts smart and unhinged, choosing a number of extra innocent victims just so that he can cover up the motive for the death of his main target.

I have always said that De Palma does his best work when his bravura style is matched by the quality of the material he is working with. That still applies here, but I would also say that Blow Out somehow strikes the perfect balance, his film-making techniques used throughout are so consistently brilliant that they simply work in delivering every scene in the best way possible. One or two absolutely jaw-dropping highlights aside, nothing here is distracting. It’s form and content in perfect harmony, with the visual panache really just helping to emphasise the importance of the audio throughout, as strange as that may sound.

Blow-Up may have been a dark and cynical film, but it was dressed in the carelessness and fun of the “swinging sixties”. Blow Out has no such disguise. Everyone knew the party had been over for some time by the start of the 1980s, and this is the shroud that is wrapped around the whole film.

Add a great Pino Donaggio score, a good selection of supporting cast members who help to widen the scope of things (reminding viewers of the importance of Jack’s potential evidence of foul play), and what could well be one of the greatest (both dark and bittersweet) endings of this decade, and you have a film that is hard to find fault with.

So I didn’t. This is a masterpiece, and I will happily debate that status with anyone who thinks otherwise.

10/10

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

Prime Time: Crime Of Passion (1956)

If you are looking for a great film starting Barbara Stanwyck, Sterling Hayden, Raymond Burr, or Fay Wray, then I could point you to at least a dozen better viewing options. But if you are looking for a not necessarily great film starring all four of these people then you may, like me, find plenty to enjoy in Crime Of Passion, a light noir that is elevated by the cast.

Stanwyck is Kathy, a successful woman who leaves her newspaper job to become the happy housewife of a policeman named Bill Doyle (Sterling Hayden). Unfortunately, it turns out that the role of happy housewife isn’t really enough for her, especially as she sees her husband unable to climb further up the career ladder. Sharing her frustrations, and her hopes, with Tony Pope (Raymond Burr), Kathy also starts to consider that being nice to Tony, who already IS higher up that career ladder, might be a way to help Bill. But Tony is married to Alice (Fay Wray), which means that Kathy’s plan could potentially destroy a number of lives.

Directed by Gerd Oswald, this is a perfectly decent movie in a safe pair of hands. Oswald had a good run at this time (other movies from him including A Kiss Before Dying and Screaming Mimi) and would then go on to direct various episodes for numerous TV shows. As enjoyable as this is, it feels like a film directed by someone ready for a long career in TV (although he did deliver some more feature films towards the end of his career, after work on the likes of Gentle Ben, Bonanza, Daniel Boone, etc).

Writer Jo Eisinger has another couple of greats to their name (namely Gilda and Night And The City), but they seem happy to write this as something that simply simmers away while the cast enjoy themselves in their roles. Nothing ever becomes too explosive, nor is it ever too tense (even when things happen in the finale that change everything for the main characters), but it is never dull or unenjoyable, thanks to the excellent lead turn.

She may not be subtle for most of her scenes, particularly in the second half of the film, but Stanwyck is hugely entertaining here. The film seems to take a perverse pleasure in showing the contentment/boredom creating a rot that eats away at her character from the inside. Hayden gives another one of his stoic and dependable roles, the kind of thing he easily did so well, and he remains someone to root for, even if others are due to pay a hefty price while he dutifully gets on with his job and life in a way that suits him best. Burr is amusingly shady, the script helping to ring alarm bells in the minds of viewers as soon as he appears, while Wray plays the kind of sweet and content housewife that Stanwyck’s character never really wants to become.

It’s not really cinematic, there are no major twists and turns in the plot, and the title tells you exactly where things are going, but I still liked this. There’s a good enough framework here, nicely fleshed out and given a nice sheen by the cast, and any fans of the stars should have some fun.

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.
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