Knock At The Cabin (2023)

Taken on a purely superficial level, director M. Night Shyamalan has kept to his usual remit over the past few years. He has delivered thrillers that are centered around an intriguing idea, pleasing or displeasing viewers with his approach to executing the material. Dive under the surface though, which is easy to do when the surface level doesn’t seem anywhere near as emotional or complex as his best work, and you start to see some worrying ideas (almost propaganda) at the heart of them. I am not here to point these aspects out to everyone, but I do think that Shyamalan is now focusing on his subtextual messaging ahead of straightforward storytelling, which makes it necessary to start acknowledging where he seems to be expending more of his energy.

Knock At The Cabin is a tale of four people who arrive at a cabin and request entry. They are headed up by Leonard (Dave Bautista). The people already in the cabin are Eric (Jonathan Groff), Andrew (Ben Aldridge), and their adopted daughter, Wen (Kristen Cui), and they are blissfully unaware that there is an impending apocalypse, apparently. Leonard and his cohorts have had visions. They don’t want to harm people, but they have been asked to knock on this cabin door and ask those inside to make a sacrifice. If they can choose a loved one to sacrifice then they can save the whole world. That’s hard to believe though, obviously, and the film is essentially a lengthy dialogue in which the believers try to convert the non-believers to their cause.

Adapting a book by Paul Tremblay, Shyamalan and co-writers Steve Desmond and Michael Sherman certainly have their work cut out for them, dealing with an implausible scenario that is mostly confined to the one location. They give it an admirable attempt, helped by a cast that deliver on the acting front, but there just isn’t enough mixed in to the plot to distract viewers from the ridiculousness of the central idea. At the risk of moving further away from the source material, this needed to have characters more fleshed out, more debate about the choice to be made, and more ambiguity in the third act.

Shyamalan directs competently, happily keeping viewers in the cabin with the main characters, and I was pleased that he didn’t require his cast to deliver some of their worst performances this time around (as he did with Old), but he doesn’t elevate the middling script. This would arguably work better as a stage play, allowing a focus on the ideas and conversation, but Shyamalan wants a film. He manages to do that, only just, but the end result, if being ranked, sits almost right in the middle of his filmography.

Bautista is quite brilliant in his role, a gentle giant who is as sad about his actions as he is determined to carry them out. He is flanked by Rupert Grint, Nikki Amuka-Bird, and Abby Quinn, who all do good work. It’s a shame that they aren’t given more screentime, but Bautista is the spokesperson for the group, and that’s how he ends up being the most impressive onscreen presence. Groff and Aldridge are also very good, required to spend most of the movie in a state of fear, and young Cui is a very sweet little girl that you hope will be kept safe from any harm, be it interpersonal or global.

I enjoyed this while it was on. The cast make it work, often being good enough to improve dialogue that could have seemed goofy and ridiculous. That’s all there is to it though. It’s an acting showpiece, directed by someone who seems too distracted to make the most of what could have been a much more impressive, and much more tense, killer thriller premise.

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: Gregory's Girl (1980)

There are some films that you immediately love, some films you grow to love, and some films that you not only grow to love, but also grow to appreciate rewatching, because of everything it delivers throughout multiple viewings. Gregory’s Girl isn’t a film I immediately warmed to, mainly because I saw it before I had gone through a number of moments that would make it more relatable. I grew to love it though, and every subsequent viewing has made me love it a little bit more.

It focuses on Gregory (John Gordon Sinclair), a Scottish teenager going through the usual trials and tribulations of any schoolboy in the 1980s. His main interests seem to be football and girls, which leads to him feeling very conflicted when it looks as if he might lose his place on the school football team to Dorothy (Dee Hepburn). Dorothy is both attractive and very good at football, but will she take a liking to Gregory? Will Gregory, meanwhile, notice that Susan (Clare Grogan) has taken a liking to him?

Feeling both wonderfully surreal and yet beautifully observed and authentic, Gregory’s Girl is one of many brilliant works from writer-director Bill Forsyth that uses specific characters and locations to tell a story that appeals to a high percentage of viewers. We may not have all grown up as a teenager in Scotland (okay, I did, but I appreciate that many others didn’t), but we’ve all navigated those tricky years of trying to engage with members of the opposite sex while also being absolutely terrified of them. Some manage it better than others, but it’s a scary time.

While Sinclair, Hepburn, and Grogan all do well in their roles, and are supported in scenes by equally  wonderful turns from Robert Buchanan, Caroline Guthrie, and Allison Forster, Forsyth allows time for some of the older cast members - Jake D’Arcy, Chic Murray, Dave Anderson, and Maeve Watt - to get involved with some of the highlights of the film. If I start making scenes then I won’t stop, but one early treat is the conversation that Gregory has with his dry-witted father during a driving lesson (Gregory is outside the car, having caused the young man that his father is teaching to have to conduct an unplanned emergency stop).

Whether you’re watching a young boy waddle around the school dressed as a penguin, learning about the amount of cornflakes that are driven daily along the busiest road shown in the film, or just watching a young man put his school shirt back on before applying deodorant to the material beneath his armpits, Gregory’s Girl is full of treats from start to finish. Local Hero may be the film that many view as Forsyth’s best work (helped by the gorgeous location and that beautiful score), but it’s Gregory’s Girl that does the better job of mixing film moments with plenty of details that resonate with authenticity. The only reason I don’t rate it as a perfect film is because I eagerly await what extra details I will notice during my next viewing.

Great performances all round, a script that may well be perfect, and unfussy direction from Forsyth. It may seem very dated now, in some ways, but Gregory’s Girl has themes at the heart of it that are, for better or for worse, quite timeless. And it makes me SO glad that I never have to be a teenager again.

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: The Strays (2023)

As much as I love the internet at times, and have been positive about it here a few times recently, it also manages to occasionally depress me. Take The Strays, for example. It's a film that leads to an interesting, thought-provoking, ending. It's not ambiguous though. So it is disheartening to see a number of articles all appearing with headlines that claim to be helpful in explaining the ending. If you need the ending of The Strays explained then you aren't old enough to have watched the movie. I'm not being rude. The ending of the film is THAT unambiguous. 

Let's begin at the beginning though. Ashley Madekwe plays a black woman we see leaving a bad situation. She has placed a note on the fridge door, an excuse buying her some time, and she's gone. Years later, Neve (the named that Madekwe's character is now using) seems to have a perfect life. She has a loving husband, Ian (Justin Salinger), a teenage son and daughter (played by Samuel Small and Maria Almeida, respectively), and a prime position of authority and respect in her community. It seems to come at a price, however, as Neve works hard to cover up aspects of her appearance that highlight her race, and she becomes more and more unnerved by people who seem to be very interested in observing her well-maintained "perfect" life.

The feature debut of writer-director Nathaniel Martello-White, The Strays is a fascinating and brilliant look at race, class, and unconscious bias. It's such a slow burn that viewers may not realise just how affecting it is until the very last scenes, but it's meticulously put together in a way that maximises the impact of that finale. There are a couple of obvious big movie touchstones, by directors as diverse as Douglas Sirk and Michael Haneke, but it does a great job of blending a couple of familiar central ideas into something that feels new and fresh. The commentary is clear throughout, but not in a way that gets in the way of the unfolding plot, which Martello-White presents in a non-chronological way to allow for some playfulness before things get darker and darker on the way to the end credits.

Madekwe is so good here that I'll definitely be looking forward to seeing her in other lead roles. I'm not familiar with anything else that she's done, as far as I'm aware, but she's quite flawless here. Salinger, Small, and Almeida are all very good, and all believably alarmed by the potential breakdown of Madekwe's character. Then there are the two characters played by Bukky Bakray and Jorden Myrie, perhaps "the strays" of the title, or perhaps the title means much more than that. Both Bakray and Myrie are effectively unnerving, and yet both get a chance to explain why they are acting the way they are acting, which makes them more interesting than the kind of mysterious strangers you could find in films with a similar third act to this one.

I wouldn't recommend this to anyone looking for easy entertainment. This isn't a standard thriller or chiller. It's a heady mix that creates tension from the constant nervousness and insecurity that viewers see being controlled (sometimes) by the main character. I'd also like to temper my praise with some criticism though, because The Strays is sometimes turned into a tougher viewing experience, a bit of an endurance test in places, than it needs to be. Everything is just right, technically, but there are one or two strands that are stretched close to breaking point, with the performances doing enough to compensate for Martello-White's misplaced idea of exactly how far he can/should push things. 

Ultimately worth your time, and the ending (that ending that doesn't need explained) is good enough to underline and amplify everything that the film has said throughout the rest of runtime, The Strays is an impressively confident feature debut that marks out Martello-White as an intelligent and exciting new director to keep a very close eye on.

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

Shudder Saturday: Nocebo (2022)

Director Lorcan Finnegan has been delivering quality movies full of strangeness for a few years now. I wasn't a big fan of Without Name, but I did like the wild ride that was Vivarium. I also recommend the short film he did just over a decade ago, Foxes. Knowing that he was once again working with long-time collaborator Garret Shanley, who has been his main collaborator as far back as that aforementioned short, and that there was a central role for Eva "I don't really do sane" Green, I was optimistic about this one.

Green plays Christine, a fashion designer who has spent some time suffering from a mysterious illness. It makes her home life difficult, where she lives with her husband, Felix (Mark Strong), and their young daughter, Bobs (Billie Gadsdon). So everyone should be relieved when some home help arrives in the shape of Diana (Chai Fonacier), a Filipino woman that Christine cannot recall actually hiring. Diana seems to be able to help Christine, but Felix suspects that she's up to something. As the story is fleshed out, viewers also start to wonder about her, but it's hard to keep track of what the truth is, especially as Christine suffers from episodes where she cannot trust her own mind.

Standard stuff in many ways, especially when you think of the classic psychological thrillers that are centred on a "hysterical" woman, Nocebo is a solid script by Shanley that is turned into a slippery and twisty fever-dream by Finnegan, making use of nightmare imagery mixed with elements that are shown to be very deliberate choices by the time the grand finale comes around, and what a finale it is. I can understand people being put off by the confusion of the middle section, a lot of ambiguity and subterfuge without any apparent motivation or endgame in sight, but I'd encourage everyone to simply enjoy the oppressive and disorientating atmosphere on the way to a very satisfying payoff.

Green does so well in the kind of role that you'd expect her to do so well in, allowed to occasionally lean hard into the kind of physical acting and raw emotional outbursts that she has shown us a few times already. Strong is a good choice for the husband role, being an anchor trying to keep his wife safe during turbulent times, but also bringing with him the baggage of his filmography. I am always happy to see Strong appear onscreen . . . but trusting him is another matter entirely. Fonacier is excellent, acting overly sweet and delicate for a lot of the runtime, but showing a steely determination and strong will when she has to. As for Gadsdon, she gets better as the film allows her to move from bratty child to understandably perplexed and worried child.

Although I wish that this went further, with both the scares and the thematic layering, there's another part of me that thinks, yes, both Finnegan and Shanley knew exactly what they were doing. That is why they made this movie, and why I am just sitting here writing up my thoughts on it. I still prefer the more extreme strangeness of Vivarium, only slightly, but Nocebo is another excellent film that allows Finnegan to remain someone that film fans should always be valuing for his growing body of thrills and horror. 

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

The Munsters (2022)

Yes, the trailer for The Munsters was terrible. Yes, having Rob Zombie at the helm meant that many people were wary of the project. Yes, I knew I would have to watch it one day anyway. That day was today (theoretically . . . reviews are sometimes scheduled a long time after particular viewings). While I would never class this as a new favourite, and while I wouldn't put it at the top of any ranked list of Rob Zombie movies, I had much more fun with The Munsters than expected. Love or hate it, Zombie has delivered something more in line with the spirit and tone of the TV show than any other attempts to reboot or revamp it over the years. 

The film is split into roughly three sections. First of all, Lily (Sheri Moon Zombie) seems unable to find someone decent to fall in love with, despite the advice of her father, The Count (Daniel Roebuck). Meanwhile, Dr. Henry Augustus Wolfgang (Richard Brake) and his assistant, Floop (Jorge Garcia), are busy working on what the doctor hopes will be an astonishing creation. That creation turns out to be Herman Munster (Jeff Daniel Phillips), a bit less astonishing than hoped, due to the fact that his piecemeal body has been reanimated with a less-than-stellar brain implanted in his skull. The second section has Lily and Herman falling in love, all thanks to Herman charming her with his mix of rockstar attitude and entertainingly lame "dad jokes". Third, it's time for The Munsters to find a new home, and fans may already know the address they will end up making their own.

This isn't necessarily going to win over people who dislike the films of Rob Zombie, and it's not guaranteed to change your mind if you decided to give it a chance after hating the awful trailer, but I'll take a chance on saying that fans of The Munsters may be pleasantly surprised by how much this gets right. The cast, with one notable exception, feels pretty perfect, helped by superb make-up on everyone, and the script is unashamedly cheesy and creaky in a way that emulates the TV show without being slavishly obsessive about trying to deliver a carbon copy.

There's plenty of people ready to criticise Sheri Moon Zombie, a woman who has her husband to thank for the great majority of her acting career, but she's not actually a bad fit for the role of Lily. She makes some strong choices in her performance, a lot of hand movement being the most obvious, and she's the weakest of the leads, but she works quite well. I also enjoyed her small secondary role, as I enjoyed the secondary roles for Phillips (who actually plays three characters here), Roebuck, and Brake. Moving from the weakest to the strongest, Roebuck is so good as The Count that you can imagine Al Lewis giving his blessing to the performance. Phillips arguably has the toughest task, nobody can ever truly replace the beloved Fred Gwynne, but his version of Herman Munster is an enjoyable mix of the familiar - his childishness and sense of humour - and the ever-so-slightly new - the performer - that still embodies the spirit of Herman. Brake has a lot of fun (particularly as Count Orlock, in some scenes throughout the first act that are some of the funniest moments in the film), Jorge Garcia and Sylvester McCoy are the kind of assistants/employees you expect to be alongside these characters, and there are some enjoyable cameos from Catherine Schell, Cassandra Peterson, and a few others you really have to keep your eyes, and/or ears, open for.

Feeling more like a TV movie than a, well, non-TV movie, The Munsters cannot ever make you forget that you're watching something quite cheap. That's fine though. Adapting the show into a film doesn't mean throwing money at it. Zombie and co. make use of well-dressed stages, plenty of accessories you would find in any Spirit Halloween store, and a nice selection of brightly-coloured lights, including some fun neon signage (and I'm referring to Count Orlock again). Everyone involved knows that they're not trying to make a classic slice of cinema. They're trying to make a Munsters movie. While not getting every single decision right, they largely succeed.

Would I watch this over the original TV show? No. Would I rush to rewatch this? Also no. I would rewatch it though, and I suspect I will enjoy it a bit more during a repeat viewing, especially knowing that I don't have to worry about anything being as bad as that trailer implied.

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

Blood And Bone (2009)

Sometimes there is an upside to scrolling the internet and viewing random video clips. Yes, there are the movie snippets that are appropriated by people who try to present them as some real incident with an underlying moral message. Yes, TikTok is full of fake laugh tracks and people filming themselves reacting to other popular videos. But sometimes you see something good, whether it is a clip of sloths being washed and dried, a very gnarly bit of skateboarding, or a moment showing how hard Michael Jai White can kick various people in the face. When I saw that last clip, a highlight from Blood And Bone, I knew that I had to see the movie. I was already a fan of White, and this film looked awesome.

Directed by Ben Ramsey and written by Michael Andrews, two men who seem to have peaked with this violent action flick (and that isn’t a backhanded compliment, this is a hell of a peak), Blood And Bone tells the tale of an ex-con named Isaiah Bone (White). Bone ends up getting involved in a dangerous underground fighting scene, guided from fight to fight by a friendly hype man, Pinball (Dante Basco). Bone’s strength and skill soon get him noticed by James (Eamonn Walker), a middle-man crime figure who would rather be positioned higher. James thinks he can make good use of Bone, which may be exactly what Bone wants.

I could namecheck a lot of action movies from the ‘80s and ‘90s, anything throwing a tough, but noble (sort of), hero in to a fighting tournament, but any action movie fan will already know the main reference points. One or two of them involve Jean-Claude Van Damme. All you need to know is that Blood And Bone easily ranks alongside any of those other movies. It’s well-paced, the storyline does enough to give a purpose to the fighting without feeling as if it is keeping viewers away from the violence for too long, and White easily looks capable of every move he delivers.

There are a number of highlights dotted throughout White’s filmography, but this is definitely one of his best. The film uses him in the best way, showcasing his martial arts prowess and allowing him to effortlessly fill every scene he’s in with his watchability and forceful presence. Walker is a great kingpin, and you know that he will be ready to change the rules any time a fight looks to be going the way he doesn’t want it to go. Basco adds some humour, there’s an entertaining small role for Julian Sands, and Nona Gaye and Michelle Belegrin play women who both end up admiring our muscular hero as they realise that he is up to more than just trying to beat people up. Bob Sapp is the other performer worth mentioning, playing a huge fighting opponent named Hammerman. These movies always need huge fighters who feel like a viable threat, and both Sapp and Walker do that in different ways.

There’s nothing here that is special, not in cinematic terms, and those not after action movie thrills might not want to rush to this one, but, and this is a big but, the fights are frequent, and the choreography and shot choice maximizes the visceral entertainment of each encounter. So if you want a film full of superb fights then this is one for you. And if you’re a big fan of Michael Jai White then you should already have this one marked off your list. It isn’t a great film, in many ways, but in other ways . . . it’s a GREAT film.

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: Shock Waves (1977)

If ever there was a film I should have seen before being in my mid-40s then Shock Waves is it. Underwater Nazi zombies that seem to be powered by their goggles. A big “ghost ship”. Peter Cushing in a small role. A lead turn from Brooke Adams. There’s nothing here that I dislike.

The feature directorial debut of Ken Wiederhorn, who only has a handful of features to his name (although all of them seem designed to appeal to me), Shock Waves is fully explained by my first paragraph. You should already know whether or not you want to see it. It’s ridiculous, but it’s ridiculous AND well handled.

Things begin with some general spookiness. A boat is struck by another, larger, boat, during the night and everyone is bemused the next morning by the disappearance of the captain. Heading off to a nearby small island, because action is required due to the small boat being damaged, people start to wander around and get themselves noticed by a threat they could never have imagined - underwater Nazi zombies.

Aside from the small roles for Cushing and John Carradine (as the captain who goes awol), the main recognisable star here, for most people, will be Adams, playing a woman named Rose. Adams has to be bemused and afraid for most of the runtime, Cushing provides the explanation for all of the horror, and everyone else is there to be stalked and (possibly) murdered by the waterlogged baddies.

The screenplay, credited to John Harrison and Wiederhorn, works much better than you would think. The central idea is treated in a straightforward way that allows the movie to avoid feeling campy, and the expository moments are kept to a minimum, leaving plenty of time and space for the effective sequences that show characters being terrorised.

Alongside the script and eerie visuals, and kudos for keeping the eerie atmosphere throughout a film set largely on a sun-bathed island, there is an enjoyably odd score from Richard Einhorn. The entire soundscape helps to maintain the consistent spookiness, and I will keep my ears open for the other soundtracks that Einhorn worked on (not many, but he did work on Don’t Go In The House, which I will revisit one day with the aim of being more attentive to the score, and fans of Blood Rage and The Prowler will already know some of his work).

As odd as the premise is, I struggle to think of any part of Shock Waves that I disliked. It’s a brilliant little horror movie, and one that I suspect many people, like myself, may have decided not to prioritise on any viewing list. If you are one of those people, please change that situation. You won’t (or shouldn’t) regret 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

Long Time Dead (2002)

Some days I remember the younger me as an idiot. That is true in many different ways (and the younger me can be the me of decades ago or the me from the last time I drank alcohol), but I am sometimes reminded of it unexpectedly. Take Long Time Dead, for example. This is a British horror film I was looking forward to revisiting, having enjoyed it on VHS when it was first released and remembering it fondly over the intervening years. I believe I have probably mentioned it whenever people have asked for lesser-known horror gems. So getting to rewatch it was a treat. Then I remembered that the younger me was an idiot. Long Time Dead is not good.

Directed by Marcus Adams, someone with only a small selection of features interspersed throughout the many music videos he has helmed, Long Time Dead has a decent, and simple, idea at the heart of it. A group of relatively young and carefree people play around with a home-made ouija set-up (using an upturned glass and letters written on pieces of paper) and unleash something supernatural and dangerous. The problems start with the mix of annoying characters, but things get worse when the writers, and it took about four people to write this thing, decide to complicate their story by making the leads suspect that the killer entity could be a djinn.

Joe Absolom, Marsha Thomason, Lara Belmont, Melanie Gutteridge, James Hillier, Alec Newman, Lukas Haas, and Mel Raido make up the core group, with Absolom, looking to move from TV into movies, given what feels like the central role, but jostling alongside Thomason and Newman as the film-makers shift focus and spend the runtime turning what should have been a lean and entertaining horror into something that feels baggy and loose, and occasionally even laughable.

I am not going to name all of the writers, none of them have the biggest filmographies worth exploring, but the script certainly feels like too many chefs spoiling the broth. There are a couple of great moments - one highlight, although it may not sound as good written down here, shows the exterior of a house where some lights are being turned on by someone fearing for their life, only to see them being turned off again - but they are very few and far between. And even when the script is working well, the dark visuals can make it hard to enjoy what should be a nice bit of tension.

There’s one great death scene, as entertaining as it is preposterous and illogical, but everything becomes tiresome by the time the third act starts to play out. Revelations don’t feel surprising, repeated sequences of characters being stalked just become boring, and there’s nobody who feels worth really rooting for. 

Is it unwatchably awful? No. It’s just not worth your time. It clocks in at just over the 90-minute mark, which is a plus, but it feels like it runs longer than that. I still like that central idea though. Someone should take it, strip away all the fat, work with a better visual palette, and give us a much better end result.

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.
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: Los Bastardos (2009)

An early film from Amat Escalante (director of The Untamed), co-written with Martin Escalante, Los Bastardos is the cinematic equivalent of a short, sharp shock the body. It’s a relatively quiet film, and doesn’t seem troubling or disturbing until things take a very sudden turn into a third act that is positioned in much more dangerous territory than anything else preceding it.

Jesus Moises Rodriguez and Rubén Sosa play Jesús and Fausto, two undocumented immigrants trying to work in the USA. They have financial obligations (we hear conversation about a loved one who needs help), but they also don’t want to devalue themselves, nor any of the other workers who wait at the same spot every day to pick up jobs. The capitalism machine keeps trying to cheapen lives, however, so it can constantly grind bodies down into the fuel it needs to keep running. Things turn troubling when Jesús and Fausto enter the home of Karen (Nina Zavarin).

There isn’t much to say about Los Bastardos, on the surface. It has a short runtime, a number of scenes feel as if nothing is really happening, and the Escalantesn refuse to offer a clear and clean explanation of everything. Character motivations are implied, but only when leads are asked questions that create a narrative they decide to go along with. Whether that narrative is true or not is a different matter entirely, although some viewers may watch this and happily accept everything onscreen as it is presented. Perhaps the ambiguity is something I added to the film, but I find the whole thing much more interesting when motives aren’t entirely clear.

The small cast do well in their roles, especially when having to act out some of the more uncomfortable moments, to put it mildly. Rodriguez and Sosa, both non-professional actors, feel completely natural and real for every minute of the movie. The decision to use non-professionals in those roles could have easily backfired, but it works brilliantly. Zavarin, on the other hand, has an acting career that spans over two decades, and she is the one performer required to show absolute vulnerability and helplessness, something she does admirably.

Without too much here, if anything, that feels cinematic, Los Bastardos is best approached as something akin to a filmed stage play. It would be just as easy to dismiss it entirely as it would be to read too much into it, and I tentatively recommend it to those who don’t mind something that provides more questions than answers. Perhaps, and I realise this may be a stretch, the focus of the film isn’t really the narrative. Perhaps it was created to challenge how viewers perceive immigrants, to show how humans who are treated as disposable and discardable may view the lives of others as having the same pitifully low value. 

Whatever you think of the film, you will think about it. That doesn’t guarantee that you will like it though.

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

Netflix And Chill: Pride (2014)

This is the kind of thing that we get every so often in British cinema. A little gem of a film that works as well as it does because of the way in which various characters manage to maintain a sense of humour in the face of overwhelming derision/hatred from others. Having finally reminded myself to give Pride a watch, my timing could not have been any better. Remember that saying about those not remembering history being doomed to repeat it? I hope more people watch Pride this year. Not only is it a wonderful and satisfying viewing experience, it's a reminder of why those being held down and pilloried by authorities should help to support one another, hence the importance of unions, and also serves as an important reminder of the attitude people used to have towards gay people, a rush to demonise someone unknown because they weren't familiar with the concept in their own life. There's a LOT that is shown in Pride that still goes on today, the only differences are the main targets.

Anyway, let's get to the crux of the tale. It's the mid-1980s. The miner's strike is taking a huge toll on small mining villages all over the country. The LGBTQ+ community are busy trying to be treated like the normal human beings they are, something about to be made even harder by the rise of AIDs (which was seen by many as a "gay disease", and I suspect many still think that way). Seeing how the UK government have directed their resources and threats towards the miners, when it had previously been so busy crusading against the imaginary gay agenda, one young man (Mark Ashton, played by Ben Schnetzer) has the idea of supporting the miners and raising some money for them. Others don't immediately see the point of his campaigning, especially as the many small towns that would have mining at the heart of them would tend to be most unwelcoming, and outright hostile, to gay people. Mark keeps at it though, eventually getting more and more people on his side, and the charity group he heads up soon start to make a positive impact on a struggling Welsh town. Dai Donovan (Paddy Considine), a main spokesman for the miners in that town, is very happy to meet and thank them, and invites them to be thanked by the rest of the townspeople. The rest of the townspeople, however, aren't as eager to admit that they are receiving a lifeline from the gay community.

While director Matthew Warchus may not have an extensive filmography, he tends to aim for quality over quantity, and while this is the first screenplay by writer Stephen Beresford to be made into a film, Pride couldn't feel much more comfortable and assured. A large part of that is down to the casting, which I will get to shortly, but Beresford knows how to make the most of the laugh out loud lines that he intersperses throughout the film, Warchus moves viewers swiftly through the timeline of events without giving anyone whiplash, and the whole thing manages to maintain a constant bittersweet tone throughout, especially if you have any idea of how things ended for the main characters. This is a "feel good" film, but that's an impressive achievement when you consider just how many things aren't necessarily going to lead to a happy ending.

Is it all factually accurate? I doubt it. I'd imagine that the heart of the story is true, and some liberties have been taken to give us a better mix of characters and some dialogue that emphasises what everyone was striving for, be it tolerance from others or an ongoing attempt to smash through the iron fist of Margaret Thatcher. Yes, it helps that this often aligns with my own political leanings, and it's a very political film that offsets that with a focus on the humans at the heart of the machine being turns by cogs of government and the law, but it's hard to think of anyone watching this and absolutely hating it. 

Schnetzer is fantastic as the lightning rod for everything that unfolds, helped by the fact that he is surrounded by so many familiar faces. The Welsh accents are all fairly well executed, and you cannot go wrong with a cast that includes Considine, Imelda Staunton, and Bill Nighy, all of whom are doing absolutely fantastic work, and all of whom have fun with their new allies. Menna Trussler and Jessica Gunning are also wonderful, being inspired to do a bit more with their time as they see how the LGSM (Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners) live their lives, while Lisa Palfrey gets her teeth into the role of Maureen Barry, a character used as a personification of the intolerance and ingratitude that the LGSM come up against. George MacKay is Joe Cooper, a young man getting to grips with his own sexuality, and the film is helped by often placing viewers in a position to see his nervousness giving way to a sense of purpose and happiness, Dominic West steals a few moments, playing the flamboyant and carefree Jonathan, and there's also excellent work from Andrew Scott, Joe Gilgun, and Faye Marsay, the latter two portraying other core members of the LGSM.

What else can I say? There's a very good soundtrack, featuring a number of songs you'd expect to accompany this story, a hefty emotional weight to everything, and a real feeling of, well, pride in watching what can be accomplished by people connecting and working together instead of letting their lives be defined by what makes them different from one another. And there are few things funnier than Imelda Staunton's sharp retort to someone trying to be a smartass while she drives a bus donated to the community by the LGSM, but I won't spoil it by quoting it here. Enjoy it for yourself, and do it as soon as you can.

 8/10

Here is a link to Switchboard (the LGBT+ helpline).
And here is a link to the website for the Durham Miner's Association.

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: Let The Wrong One In (2021)

Note: Shudder is occasionally glitchy, offering me films that then appear to be there by accident (clicking on the title for info brings up the "this movie is not available in your region" message), but I pressed play and the film played . . . so I hope it's there for most of you to enjoy. 

A lot of people seemed to really enjoy Let The Wrong One In, including people I normally tend to agree with, and I was in the mood for something light this week. Something clearly infused with horror tropes, but without the need to put viewers through the wringer. If that is something you might be interested in then I can recommend Let The Wrong One In.

Sadly, I cannot recommend it if you're after a very good horror comedy. It's okay, but nothing more than that.

Karl Rice plays Matt, a young man who ends up with a big problem on his hands when he lets his older brother, Deco (Eoin Duffy), back into the family home while their Ma (Hilda Fay) is out. Deco has been bitten and turned into a vampire, despite trying to explain away his lack of any reflection by claiming that a mirror must be broken, and Matt wants to figure out how to help him. The first thing to do is call the doctor, which prompts the arrival of Henry (Anthony Head). Henry seems to know a lot about the situation, and it turns out that he has turned himself into a vampire hunter ever since his fiancé (Sheila, played by Mary Murray) was turned while out on her Hen party.

Written and directed by Conor McMahon (no stranger to the horror comedy, having delivered the very enjoyable Stitches about a decade ago), this is a film that I kept willing to get better. I wanted more jokes, more excessive jets of blood, and more ridiculousness. It just never settles into a proper groove, as it were, and what you end up with is something that is intermittently amusing, but nowhere near as much fun as it should be. McMahon is the one to blame, because the biggest problems lie with the script and the pacing (the runtime is 100 minutes, this should have had at least 10 minutes cut from that, easily).

Rice and Duffy are decent leads, with the latter particularly good fun in his portrayal of a vampiric lad who doesn't seem too far removed from his usual self (aka a dodgy guy always looking tired, mindless, and/or after his next hit). Despite not knowing what accent he was aiming for, Head is fine in his role, although it's an obvious piece of stunt casting that seems to work against the film. If you're looking to easily cut anything from this then you'd probably start with the character played by Head. David Pearse is a lot of fun as a neighbour who ends up in danger when he realises that his pet rabbit has gone AWOL, both Murray and Fay do just fine, and Lisa Haskins makes a good impression with what I believe is her feature film debut (even if it's hard to believe that her character, Natalie, would actually be in a relationship with Deco).

The highlights here include some decent lines peppered throughout the script and a running gag about the possibility of vampires being able to transform into bats and fly, and you get a couple of extra moments during the end credits that should leave you with a smile on your face, but there's a lot more that doesn't work, whether it is the variable FX work throughout, the strangely flexible approach to vampire lore, or the clumsy attempts to layer the laughs with a message about family and supporting one another. I really wanted to like this one, but I didn't. It feels like McMahon came up with a great title and then tried to make a film to live up to it. He didn't succeed.

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

Haunted Honeymoon (1986)

A tribute to some classic horror comedies from yesteryear, and also a tribute to the wonderful world of radio drama, Haunted Honeymoon stars Gene Wilder in a vehicle that he also directed and co-wrote (with Terence Marsh). It is unabashedly old-fashioned at times, in style and humour, but therein lies the charm of it, for those willing to embrace the central conceit.

Wilder is Larry Abbot, a radio star who is about to marry the lovely Vickie Pearle (Gilda Radner). All could be blissful in his life, except for the fact that he is prone to debilitating episodes of extreme nervousness. As is the way in movieland, a doctor (Paul L. Smith) recommends that those around Larry conspire to frighten him out of his wits while he spends some time visiting the expansive home of his Aunt Kate (Dom DeLuise). But while some want to scare Larry into a cure, some others may be wanting to scare Larry to death.

Like a few other movies I could mention, Haunted Honeymoon is a film that I always remember with fondness, thanks to the stars involved and one or two memorable moments, but then end up disappointed by whenever I revisit it. It’s not a bad film, the look and feel of the whole thing is nicely in line with what Wilder is aiming for. The unfortunate thing about it is that it just isn’t that funny, despite some fine effort from the cast.

Wilder and Radner work well together, and are especially good in the opening scenes, and DeLuise is wonderful in a role that he actually plays quite straight for much of the runtime. Both Bryan Pringle and Ann Way, playing the main household staff, are scene-stealers of the highest order, and you get Jonathan Pryce, Jim Carter, and Eve Ferret joining in with the shenanigans. They all seem to have fun as they ham things up in a classic “old dark house” setting.

While he directs well enough, having already been in the big chair for a few other movies (this would be his last directorial effort), Wilder seems to forget to mine every sequence for comedy. He and Marsh decide to let things play out with a balance between the laughs and the thrills, but I cannot help thinking that packing more gags in would have been a welcome plus, especially when viewers will go in with reasonable expectations of what they would like to see from the leads.

There’s fun to be had here - the opening is great, most scenes with the house staff prove to be highlights - but there’s also a middle section that sometimes feels unforgivably dull. Those are the moments that you forget, rightly so, when thinking back on this with affection. Watch it if you haven’t seen it before. Maybe revisit it if you remember nothing about it. But then leave it to fade into a pleasant memory. It’s for the best.

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

Smile Before Death (1972)

The joy of being a movie collector is knowing you have many potential gems to watch whenever you are in the mood for something completely different, which is how I decided to finally sit down and watch Smile Before Death, a film I bought some time ago without knowing very much about it. I knew that it was an Italian thriller, although I couldn’t recall if it was classed as a giallo or not, and that was good enough for me.

The whole thing begins with the death of Dorothy (Zora Gheorgieva). That may lead to her estate being left to her husband, Marco (Silvano Tranquilli), which should be good for him and his lover, Gianna (Rosalba Neri). There’s only one problem. Dorothy’s daughter, Nancy (Jenny Tamburi, credited here as Luciana Della Robbia). She will be the first in line to any inheritance, which leads to Marco and Gianna plotting to get her out of the picture. Tensions soon rise as Marco seems to start becoming attracted to Nancy.

An enjoyably light and ridiculous work, Smile Before Death works best when it shows some bad and untrustworthy people realising that they have paired themselves up with someone equally bad and untrustworthy. Nobody will ever pick this as an essential Italian thriller, but it has everything you might want from this kind of thing. You get a few deaths, although two main scenes bookend the movie, you get bickering and scheming, there are one or two fun reveals, and Tamburi plays a young woman with a healthy and carefree attitude to whether she needs to be clothed or not.

Director Silvio Amadio also co-wrote the film with Francesco [Orazio] Di Dio and Francesco Villa, with a story credit for Francesco Merli, and there’s a consistently playful tone throughout that allows everything to work better than it otherwise would. And if you ever forget what tone the film is aiming for, do not fear, the ridiculously repetitive, erotica-tinged, coquettish main theme from Roberto Pregadio (credited as Bob Deramont) is played every few minutes to remind you.

Tamburi, Tranquilli, and Neri all do perfectly fine in their lead roles, with Neri being the best of the three, largely thanks to her being the one who is more often trying to plan things a couple of steps ahead of anyone else, and there’s also a fun little performance from Dana Ghia, playing a housemaid named Magda who starts to suspect that something is amiss in the household.

I really liked this, and I happily recommend it to others. It’s lighter than many others you could choose though, arguably much more of a black comedy than anything else. If that sounds like something you might enjoy then get to this ASAP. If you need some more grit, and are in the mood for some blood and gore, then (re)visit one of the many other Italian films that focus on those elements. THEN make time for this one.

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: Catherine Called Birdy (2022)

England in medieval times. It isn’t great fun. Especially if you’re a 14-year-old girl being prepped for marriage. Catherine aka Birdy (Bella Ramsey) is in that exact position. She doesn’t want to get married, especially to the kind of people who come courting, but her parents (particularly her father, played by Andrew Scott) need her to marry someone who will add a substantial amount to the family coffers.

Directed by Lena Dunham, who also adapted the source material, by Karen Cushman, into screenplay form, Catherine Called Birdy is a superb, pointed, comedy that uses the time period and attitudes to make a number of pertinent points alongside many moments that should give most viewers a hearty laugh. It’s a film about the ripples of change that can come from one person holding tight to their feminist ideals, but it is also about bonds of friendship, the good and bad aspects of being part of a family unit, and trying to come up with the most enjoyably florid insults.

If you don’t want to see a period film full of anachronisms (in terms of the film technique, sensibilities and self-awareness, and reappropriated modern music) then you should avoid this altogether, but I would recommend it to everyone else. It has enough of a proper narrative to join together every enjoyable “episode”, it manages to sneak some real drama alongside all of the humour, and the cast is chock full of great people doing great work.

Ramsey is perfect in the lead role, continuing to capitalise on her youthful appearance to convincingly play child characters with adult strength and/or smarts. Scott is also very good, a dad who can make lame jokes one minute and angrily lay down the rules that need to be obeyed in the next, and his scenes with Billie Piper (also excellent, playing the role of Catherine’s mother) show a warmth and love that many people would like to aim for. Paul Kaye is an unpleasant, but very rich, suitor, and is lots of fun, and there are great moments for Lesley Sharp (nanny), Ralph Ineson (a helpful peasant), Sophie Okonedo (a rich woman who marries Catherine’s Uncle George, played by Joe Alwyn), and Isis Hainsworth (Catherine’s BFF).

I haven’t seen a lot of Dunham’s work (and being unimpressed by Tiny Furniture meant that I wouldn’t rush out to check the rest of her C.V.), but this film is good enough to make me much more willing to check out other projects she decides to helm. I might even belatedly watch “Girls” one day, over a decade after everyone else was won over by 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

.com For Murder (2002)

The more I see of his work, the more I am convinced that genre film fans have been tricked into seeing any value in the filmography of director Niko Mastorakis. Sure, Island Of Death is a twisted hoot, but nothing else he has done even comes close to it. It seems that he cannot make a straightforward thriller or horror movie that manages to be above average. When I saw this film from him marketed as a techno-thriller riff on Rear Window I knew that I definitely wasn’t going to see anything even remotely close to that masterpiece.

The first clue was Mastorakis being in the director’s chair, of course.

The second clue was the cast. Nastassja Kinski and Nicolette Sheridan? Fine. Jeffery Dean? Never heard of him, but okay. Melinda Clarke? Yes! Kim Valentine? Sure. Roger Daltrey? Uh oh. Huey Lewis?? Oh, come ON.

The third element to get my “Spidey-sense” tingling was the fact that this wasn’t just a techno-thriller . . . it was a techno-thriller from 2002. Those things usually age about as well as a specific prediction from a spiritualist.

Kinski plays Sondra, a woman who has been temporarily disabled by a skiing accident. Her patronizing boyfriend, Ben (Daltrey), shows her how to work the super-computer that can control his home and then heads off for work-related stuff that will keep him absent for the rest of the movie. Sondra suspects that Ben has been chatting with women online so she immediately accesses the one and only dating forum on the internet, guesses Ben’s password with unbelievable ease, and is soon chatting to a mystery woman (Valentine). This brings both of them to the attention of a killer (Dean), who then tells Sondra about his plans for murder, and sets up a live feed directly to her screen. Unable to help, Sondra and her friend, Misty (Sheridan), eventually get connected to Agent Matheson (Lewis), who sets out with his partner, Agent Williams (Clarke), to stop the killer.

That plot summary is more in-depth than I intended, and it’s arguably more time and effort than this film deserves. There’s a decent, if familiar, core idea in place, but the script, co-written by Mastorakis and Phil Marr, alternates between characters delivering dialogue that thumps on the ground like lead balloons and horrible attempts to visualize people interacting with computers in scenes completely lacking the tension or thrills that Mastorakis seems to think he’s injecting.

It’s a shame that the cast are such a mixed bag, and most don’t feel like the best choice. I like Kinski, but she’s unable to do anything with what she’s given here. Sheridan is equally hampered, being directed in most of her scenes to look at the same monitor as Kinski and look worried. Valentine does well, but isn’t in the movie enough, an issue which you can multiply for Clarke, although Clarke may feel relieved that she didn’t get even more scenes to deliver “internet guide for dummies” exposition. Daltrey and Lewis are both distracting, neither do good enough to make you stop wondering why they were cast. Then you have Dean, stuck playing a character who feels like a parody of psycho killers. He doesn’t ever feel menacing, but he does get to speak and type a lot of pretentious and poetic twaddle to make people think he is working on some higher plane to us mere non-killers.

I am not sure if this is bad enough to call incompetent, it’s generally just dull throughout (the 96-minute runtime seeming to stretch out to at least two hours), but it’s definitely bad enough to prove that Mastorakis fails as a movie director much more often than he succeeds. Ctrl-alt-delete.

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.
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: An Angel At My Table (1990)

It is time for me to change my opinion on Jane Campion. Having always known of her as a celebrated director (mainly due to this film and The Piano), I couldn’t see what everyone else saw. Sadly, I was basing my opinion on the one film I had seen from her, In The Cut. Although many can argue otherwise, In The Cut is a poor film. The Power Of The Dog, on the other hand, is quite superb. As is this film. And, yes, I can already hear many film fans rolling their eyes at me and saying “duh”.

Based on the autobiographies of Janet Frame, a talented writer from New Zealand who was misdiagnosed with schizophrenia at a young age, An Angel At My Table is a dramatic retelling and celebration of a quite extraordinary life. Frame is played by three different actresses showing her at different ages - Alexia Keogh, Karen Fergusson, and Kerry Fox - and one of the best things about the film is a sense of consistency throughout. All three actresses feel as if they are showing us moments in the life of the same person. That may sound easy, obvious even, but the narrative flows so well in between major life events that I didn’t always notice when the central performer had changed. 

With such apparently rich source material to work from (and it is material I have now added to my reading list), writer Laura Jones allows viewers to watch someone unique go through a life that often comes perilously close to sniffing out their talent. Whether she is being blissfully ignorant of just how much danger she is in or whether she is shown to have learned enough about her own life to start righting some major wrongs, Frame is a fascinating character who wins people over without ever changing her slightly peculiar ways. Indeed, it’s the fact that she arguably cannot change a lot of what makes her what she is that adds to the fascination about her.

Campion directs with a delicate touch, taking great care to show pain and troubles defining a life without turning the whole thing into a bleak wallow in complete misery. Frame may often deserve better treatment from those around her, but her optimism and unique view on the world allows everything to be framed (no pun intended) in a different, more heartening, way than viewers might expect.

Although everyone is very good here, whether they are playing Frame or one of the many people she encounters on her road to becoming an acclaimed writer, the shining star is Fox, delivering the kind of performance that would stand out from anyone’s filmography like a grand monolith. Everyone gets to deliver some pitch-perfect work, with Campion and Jones maintaining a wonderful balance of tone throughout, but Fox benefits from having the most screentime, and arguably going through the biggest changes.

I know that I am once again way behind the curve on this, telling people something that they already know, but An Angel At My Table is a beautiful (or maybe ugly beautiful is the best descriptor, considering the visual style) testament to a talented woman who absolutely warrants the admiration shown to her. 

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: Meet The Blacks (2016)

I can only think of one reason that Meet The Blacks exists, considering how unfunny I found it, and that is to show that black people can deliver comedies just as bad as anything from Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. Although this isn't a parody exactly in line with their movies, it similarly misunderstands how to turn the main premise into something truly funny.

And that main premise is very simple. Mike Epps plays Carl Black, a man who has suddenly come into a large sum of money, which allows him to move his family into a lovely new home in Beverly Hills. Not only will that give them a daily boost of happiness, it will also allow them to stay safe and avoid the perils of purge night (the one night when all crime is legal). Oh yeah, this is a movie set in a USA that has a purge night, allowing the film-makers to spoof The Purge. Unfortunately, Carl is about to have numerous encounters with people who want to act aggressively towards him. On purge night.

I am once again depressed by my shocking lack of quality control when it comes to the movies I choose to watch. I saw Meet The Blacks available, I remembered thinking that the trailer I saw a number of years ago left me wondering if it might be a worthwhile satire, and I made a snap decision that I started to regret within the first 5-10 minutes of watching the movie. Everything begins with a clumsy explanation delivered in voiceover, and it only gets worse from there.

Director Deon Taylor can receive most of the blame, considering they also helped to co-write the screenplay with Nicole DeMasi. Taylor doesn't have too many directorial credits to his name, although he did also give us a sequel to this film (good grief, I already weep as I realise that I will one day watch that sequel), and DeMasi has an even smaller résumé, with their screenwriting work before this consisting of two TV promo pieces for Ella Enchanted and one short film. Perhaps not having much experience behind the camera should have had people trying to cast the best people in front of the camera, but that is far from the case.

Epps isn't a good lead. He cannot improve a script which leaves him playing someone unfunny, uncaring, hard to sympathise with, and never really changing from beginning to end. Zulay Henao, Alex Henderson, and Bresha Webb make up the rest of the Black family, and they fare a bit better than Epps, mainly because they are often sidelined for many of the supporting, much less enjoyable/funny, players. I'll mention Lil Duval, Charlie Murphy, Andrew Bachelor, Phil Austin, Kate Enggren, and Gary Owen, but I'm not going to insult anyone by specifying how good or bad each one is. Suffice to say that most tend to be bad. But at least you get cameos from George Lopez and Mike Tyson, right? To be fair, the Tyson cameo was the moment that did make me come closest to chuckling, and others may enjoy that scene as much as I did.

Maybe I just wasn't in the target demographic for this one. I didn't like the main character, I didn't care about how any of the plot unfolded, and none of the parody worked. The whole thing felt lazy, amateurish, and insulting to viewers who deserve better. Which, due to me watching this just one day after watching Skinamarink, now makes me two for two during a hugely disappointing weekend for my viewing choices.

2/10

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: Skinamarink (2022)

Close your eyes and imagine, if you will, an exhibition based around horror and fear. You might have some life-sized replicas of the archetypal monsters of the horror genre. There could be displays featuring the most common phobias, from spiders to heights, and a number of clowns randomly dotted around. And you could explore areas that depicted fears rooted in different stages of life. Older people worry more about mortality, as well as holding on to their mental faculties. Children have a lot more on their plate, from abandonment issues to imaginary boogeymen. The section depicting childhood fears could be quite a freaky blend of imagery turning even the most mundane objects into strange and menacing night-time terrors. And on one wall, perhaps at the very end of a long, dark, corridor, you could have Skinamarink projected on to a screen. Because that is what Skinamarink is. It’s a work of art to be incorporated into an exhibition. It’s certainly not a satisfying, or effective, horror movie experience.

Written and directed by Kyle Edward Ball, his feature debut after a couple of shorts that fans of this will be happy to check out, what you have here, apparently, is a tale of young children being watched, and sometimes spoken to. by a menacing presence. 

That might sound good, and there is definitely potential in presenting a horror movie very much from the POV of young children, but the execution is awful. And I really mean that.

The camera is pointed at various parts of a house. You see part of a ceiling. You see a hallway with a dark doorway at the end of it. You see toys, including some LEGO bricks strewn around. You also see very brief images that are unnatural and scary. If you cannot quite figure out when you are supposed to be scared by what is onscreen, don’t worry, the ambient noise suddenly being punctuated by an audio sting fifty decibels louder than anything else in the scene should ensure that you are tricked into an involuntary jump.

There’s no point in mentioning the acting, and I resent wasting any of my time trying to think of any visual highlights (because this is an aggressively ugly and murky film from start to finish), but some of the audio work is decent. That is why I am willing to double my initial rating for this, which allows me to give it one point for some of the audio work and one point for the idea at the very heart of it. It still feels like one of the worst films I have had to slog through in recent months though, and I will be very surprised if I see anything else this year that makes me so frustrated and angry.

2/10

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

Alice, Darling (2022)

Anna Kendrick stars as Alice, a young woman who heads off for a girls-only break with her best friends, Tess (Kaniehtiio Horn) and Sophie (Wunmi Mosaku). If that sounds like the start of many other Anna Kendrick movies you could watch then let me try to convince you otherwise. Alice, Darling soon starts to reveal more and more about the central character, and specifically starts to peel away at the layers of her relationship with Simon (Charlie Carrick).

The feature directorial debut from Mary "yes, daughter of Bill" Nighy, Alice, Darling is one of those films that just gets everything right in a way that allows it to become quietly impressive, leaving a strong impression in your mind long after the end credits have rolled. This is partly to do with the script by Alanna Francis, which starts from a very recognisable place before moving towards darker and scarier territory, although the dark and scary parts will still be recognisable to a number of viewers, and it's partly to do with the excellent performances.

Kendrick initially seems to be doing the kind of thing that Kendrick does so well, but she gets to show a lot more range as the film unfurls like some kind of pretty, poisonous, flower. Perfection and happiness are on the surface, but the cracks are visible, and there are deep fault lines running underneath them. Horn and Mosaku are both very good in their roles, dealing with their friend in different ways, but always coming from a place of good intentions. Mosaku is calm and mature, whereas Horn seems to be much more confrontational and seemingly irresponsible. Then there's Carrick, playing a man who is ever-present even when he's not onscreen. He's at the end of a text message or phone call, he's the elephant in the room for a huge chunk of the film. Carrick may overdo things slightly, but his performance is there to highlight the central theme of the film, showing what many people will tolerate while they consider themselves in a loving and strong relationship.

Alice, Darling covers a lot of ground, especially when you think of how slight the main premise is, and both Nighy and Francis should be commended for that. There are moments when this could almost be a full-on horror movie, but there are also moments that just show the pain and anxiety of a woman who has allowed herself to be changed so much that she is unsure of whether or not she can recapture the essence of who she once was. Red flags, boundaries, controlling behaviour, confrontational behaviour, self-care, and self-belief are all examined, and the whole movie serves as a reminder of just how little you often really know about someone’s life and someone’s relationships. You may not come away from this with a big grin on your face, but you will have plenty of food for thought. And perhaps a new-found appreciation for Kendrick.

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

Puss In Boots: The Last Wish (2022)

I may be out of the loop, but I didn’t think people were crying out for another Puss In Boots movie. Mind you, I didn’t think people were crying out for the first Puss In Boots movie, or a fourth Shrek movie, both released over a decade ago, so what do I know? Not a lot, that’s for sure. 

Despite this film feeling completely unnecessary, I figured I might enjoy it. The character IS fun, the voice cast could work well, and I wanted something light and pretty to watch for a while. In that regard, Puss In Boots: The Last Wish seemed to fit the bill.

The story is enjoyably simple, although more characters are added in the mix to ensure that it stays busy. Puss (Antonio Banderas, once again being a perfect fit for the role) realises that he is on his ninth, and final, life. This makes him very afraid, which leads to him sheltering in a home full of normal house cats (and one small dog, Perrito, voiced by Harvey Guillén). But there’s a chance for Puss to get more lives, if he can find his way to a fallen star that will grant someone one wish. That means snatching a map from Jack Horner (John Mulaney), staying ahead of Goldilocks (Florence Pugh) and the three bears, and potentially pairing up with, or competing against, Kitty Softpaws (Salma Hayek Pinault).

Written by Paul Fisher and Tommy Swerdlow, Puss In Boots: The Last Wish is a lot more fun than I thought it would be. I actually prefer it to the first movie, because it feels as if it focuses on the central characters and themes more than twisting classic nursery rhyme moments into punchlines. Taking away the natural bravura of Puss puts him on the obvious journey of finding it again, which makes him more interesting (although he has always been entertaining enough).

Directors Joel Crawford and Januel Mercado do well, packing the first act with most of the better jokes before allowing things to balance out on the way to a third act that plays out as you expect. There’s also a LOT of positive messaging going on in the script, and Crawford and Mercado wrap that up in a way that saves it from being sickeningly sweet or tiresome. It’s an excellent bit of family entertainment.

Banderas, Pinault, and Guillén are an enjoyable trio to spend time with, and both Mulaney and Pugh seem to be having a lot of fun in their roles, the latter conversing with bears voiced by Ray Winstone, Olivia Colman, and Samson Kayo. The fact that I am not having to reel off a list of more celebrity names, cameos crammed in for the sake of having cameos, is also a plus. There are some other supporting characters who add to the fun, but this is all about our leads, and the characters pursuing them.

I am still not convinced that this was necessary, or wanted. I guess children of the perfect viewing age may have been watching the previous adventures of Puss In Boots at home, although many might see this first (it works well enough as a stand-alone film) and then work backwards from it. I’m glad it was done though. I liked it well enough, anyone else liking it is just a bonus.

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

Prime Time: Wild Wild West (1999)

When Wild Wild West was first released, I wasn’t familiar with the TV show it was based on. I just got excited at the prospect of another blockbuster comedy pairing up director Barry Sonnenfeld with Will Smith. I also liked Kevin Kline, a LOT, Kenneth Branagh, and any decent-sized role for Salma Hayek. That excitement may be long gone now, it started to dissipate during my first viewing of the movie, but little else has changed. I am still unfamiliar with the TV show this was based on, and I still like the main cast assembled for it.

Smith plays James West, a skilled and sharp-shooting special agent who ends up partnered with Agent Artemus Gordon (Kline). Gordon prefers to use inventions and disguises to help him achieve his aims, while West prefers a much more direct approach. Both men have to work together as they try to apprehend the devious Dr. Arliss Loveless (Branagh), a man who lost his legs during wartime, but makes up for that handicap with a number of inventions, from a “super-charged” wheelchair to a huge mecha-spider vehicle, that give him an advantage over his enemies. Oh and Salma Hayek plays Rita Escobar, a women who ends up accompanying West and Gordon for part of their journey.

Arguably most famous nowadays for featuring a creation mentioned in a Kevin Smith anecdote (one of the producers on this movie REALLY had a hankering for a giant spider to feature as a third act menace), Wild Wild West is a real oddity. Some of the comedy works, some of the action is nicely put together, and the steampunk element provides some cool visuals, but the very essence of the film seems to work against the charisma of all of the leads.

Smith constantly feels as if he is cosplaying, too cool to play his cowboy in a more straightforward way, Branagh does too much moustache-twirling while murdering his attempt at an American accent, and Kline doesn’t get enough moments to shine, which is even more annoying when you have scenes that fleetingly show just how funny he can be. Hayek is given no real arc, the movie would work just as well without her (although I, for one, am glad she is in it), while there is more care and attention given to supporting turns from Ted Levine, Musetta Vander, and Bai Ling.

There are, as expected, numerous writers credited with the end result here. You get the names of the people who delivered the TV show concept, but you also get S. S. Wilson and Brent Maddock (originators of a certain graboid hit), who then claim that their original screenplay was severely reworked by Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman (who only had a couple of other movie writing credits before this, but one of those was Who Framed Roger Rabbit). Whoever was most responsible for it, the end result is a mess, and Somnenfeld is unable to improve it.

The direction is competent, but weighed down by the script. There’s no decision to make someone a straight man, which just leads to the laughs being spread thinner amongst everyone (including Branagh), and thereby ever any real sense of danger. This is a romp, nothing more, and that in itself isn’t a terrible thing. It just also happens to have a few dull patches throughout the runtime, an inability to have more fun with the clash between the traditional Western ways and the technology available to the characters, and even the Elmer Bernstein score can’t help. At least you get to hear the funky Will Smith theme song over the closing credits.

Wild Wild West is a mess, but it is one I feel the need to check in on at least once a decade or so. I always suspect that I am misremembering it, that I like it more than most people. I’m not misremembering it, and I don’t. Although I might be a bit more generous to it than most.

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