For It Is Man's Number: July 2023

Monday, 31 July 2023

Mubi Monday: Return To Seoul (2022)

There are some well-known phrases that I just have no time for, and actively warn people against them when I can. The whole idea of “blood is thicker than water” and “you can make friends, but you can’t choose your family”. Ask anyone who has struggled to extricate themselves from a toxic family environment for years, probably decades, and I guarantee you that they were told the same thing over and over again. It’s a genuinely harmful false assertion, and being related to people doesn’t guarantee any life-long strong connection. If you are reading this right now while struggling with someone related, whether it’s a grandparent, parent, sibling, or even an adult child, do yourself a favour and make more distance between you and them. Or remove them from your life altogether. You will soon be able to monitor an improvement in your life.

I am revisiting this oft-visited well once again because of the plot of Return To Seoul, which shows the impact of adoption, and the attempts by one adult (Frédérique aka Freddie, played by Park Ji-min) to reconnect with her birth parents. Having been brought up in France, Freddie impulsively travels to South Korea to seek some answers, and is helped in her journey of discovery by a young woman named Tena (Guka Han). She can only be helped so far though, and the possible resolution will be decided by her parents, contacted by the adoption centre with a request they can acknowledge or ignore.

Mainly written and directed by Davy Chou, his second full-length narrative feature, Return To Seoul is largely informed by the life experience of Laure Badufle, who also helped shape the script, and the central performance from Ji-min, a visual artist making her acting debut. Those involved seem to have a real sense of material that needs carefully handled, and the film weaves between moments of great cinema and moments that show people struggling to communicate everything roiling around inside their hearts and minds.

It’s hard to discuss the most powerful aspect of Return To Seoul without spoiling anything, but let’s just say that the whole film plays thematically on what I just said in the opening paragraph here. A storyline involving adoption is a storyline that can show familial bonds being strenuously tested, as well as showing how that act can reverberate through the lives of everyone involved in the process. It also ponders just how much influence someone should have on your life if they have been absent from it for decades, and how difficult it is to figure out boundaries and relationship standards when there have been no previous examples to compare.

Ji-min is astonishingly good in the lead role, somehow managing to be strong, defensive, vulnerable, and cool all at once. I will be very surprised if she hasn’t already been picked for at least one or two more main movie roles. Everyone else does very good work, especially Han, Oh Kwang-rok (portraying the father who seeks reconnection with, and some understanding or forgiveness from, his daughter), and a surprisingly pivotal character played effortlessly well by Louis-Do de Lencquesaing. but they are all orbiting the shining star that is Ji-min. Kim Sun-young and Yoann Zimmer also deserve a namecheck here, both holding their own in at least one or two scenes that have them, obviously or not, confronted by Ji-min.

Although the score has some lovely motifs here and there, and the visuals throughout are clear and aesthetically-pleasing, this is a film that is very much focused on handling the subject material with maturity and sensitivity. Having picked the best person for the main role, Chou takes viewers on a journey that will prove to be bittersweet and full of small surprises. A couple of time jumps in the narrative may throw some, but they are announced immediately, and allow us to watch the main events in a substantial life chapter that is packed into just two hours. The more I think about it, the harder it is to find any fault.

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Sunday, 30 July 2023

Netflix And Chill: Riding High (1981)

1981 may not have been an absolute classic year for movies, but it was the year that saw film fans presented with the first Indiana Jones movie, The Evil Dead, Possession, Mad Max 2, Escape From New York, An American Werewolf In London, The Howling, Das Boot, Clash Of The Titans, Blow Out, Time Bandits, and many other notable titles. It was also the year in which Riding High was released. Riding High is a star vehicle for British motorbike stunt driver, Eddie Kidd, a young man who was marketed in the UK for a while as the British Evil Knievel.

Written and directed by Ross Cramer, developing a story idea from associate producer Derek Ford (arguably best-known for his sex romps of the '70s, although he would go on to write the brilliantly bonkers Don't Open Till Christmas), this is a simple and predictable tale of a local boy with a chance to achieve greatness that will turn him into, at the very least, a local legend. His chance is given to him by the brilliantly-named Judas S. Chariot (Bill Mitchell), but Judas will do anything to avoid actually paying this kid for a stunt that most people deem too difficult to even attempt.

Having started his motorbiking career at a very young age, Eddie Kidd is a credible young star here (he was about 22 years old when this was released). That's not to say that he's a natural onscreen performer, but he has the looks and charisma, to a degree, and has the skills that are showcased in a couple of enjoyable motorbike sequences interspersed throughout the storyline, all leading to a stunt so genuinely death-defying that it was filmed last, enabling the film-makers to create a positive or negative ending, depending on the outcome. If you're of a certain age, if you're familiar with the antics of Kidd, then there's definitely something here to watch. It's a fascinating time-capsule, and it helps that the soundtrack is full of some absolutely belting tunes, from a variety of acts including The Police, The Boomtown Rats, Chic, The Pretenders, Squeeze, Gary Numan, and more.

What doesn't help is the rest of the cast. Giving Kidd a central role would make you think that those making the film would surround him with distracting talent. That doesn't happen. The main cast seems to be full of people who were either available, affordable, or (most likely) both. Irene Handl is quite delightful, playing the typical and lovely Gran, and both Lynda Bellingham and Daniel Peacock are probably the most recognisable faces in supporting roles, but Mitchell overacts terribly, and the likes of Murray Salem, Marella Oppenheim, and G. B. Zoot Money can't overcome the weak script to make their characters more appealing and entertaining. Ken Kitson fares a bit better, playing The Halifax Hellcat, but this film was in dire need of a much better roster of names and faces to distract from the clunkiness of Kidd any time he's not on his bike.

Amazingly, as much as I assumed I was going to spend my time laughing through most of this, this holds up in a couple of different ways, much more than you might think. There's some great footage of some small British stunt shows, showing just how the amateurs and pros work together to keep crowds entertained, and you do get that typical feeling of the driving ambition that could hopefully take a young man from a small UK town to at least one moment of stardom. It's also worth stating, in no uncertain terms, that the final sequence is genuinely impressive, heart in your mouth, stuff. Yes, the main stunt is given enough coverage to be replayed about half a dozen times, but it's well worth the respect it's given, and you cannot tell whether or not Kidd will actually land his bike as it needs to be landed for a relatively clean finish.

This is unlikely to be remembered fondly by film fans in years to come, and I doubt it's remembered fondly by film fans now (it's wild to think that it's just over 40 years old, but somehow seems so much older), but it actually remains now what it was intended to be back then: a testament to the skill and courage of a young British man who set out to become a hugely famous stunt bike rider, and who may have inspired many to follow in his tyre tracks.

6 /10

Saturday, 29 July 2023

Shudder Saturday: Sharksploitation (2023)

I didn't want to spend this week writing about a documentary, but there were two reasons to do so. First of all, it was the latest release that I was most looking forward to watching on Shudder. Second, I figured that it was only fair to share my love of this documentary after indulging myself when I felt the urge to rant against certain other, much lengthier, documentaries.

In case you weren't immediately clued in from the title, Sharksploitation is all about the popular sub-genre of creature features that put sharks front and centre. There's an obvious "rosetta stone" for this, of course, and that is Jaws, a film that is impossible to set aside when discussing the shark movie, but Sharksploitation impresses most by not spending so much time discussing Jaws (which, as much as I love it, has been discussed plenty elsewhere) that other films are sidelined. Jaws is a very important date on a literal timeline that is shown onscreen, with the documentary reminding us that a few shark movies were even made before Jaws, but the big cinematic shark hunt really started after that landscape-changing blockbuster.

Writer-director Stephen Scarlata has had his fingers in various tasty movie pies for some time now, and even those genre fans unfamiliar with his name will find something of interest in his relatively small filmography, where he has a few writing and producing credits showing him carving out a decent career that allows him to harness his passion for cinema. This may be his directorial debut, but it’s the work of someone experienced and impressively informed on their subject matter.

The format doesn’t stray too far from what we might expect from this type of thing - a variety of talking heads, numerous clips, conversation contextualising various key movies and moments - but it is a perfect example of how to take a subject like this and cram anecdotes and information into a very entertaining and digestible runtime (this clocks in at 106 minutes, or approximately 1/12 of that bloody “In Search Of Darkness” trilogy). Similar clips from shark films are displayed onscreen at the same time, with the screen split into four quarters, as the tropes are discussed, entertaining tales from “behind the scenes” are relayed with humour and the benefit of hindsight, and it feels as if Scarlata has assembled together pretty much anyone who has ever helmed a film about swimming creatures trying to rip our limbs off.

Okay, Spielberg has probably said all he ever wants to say about Jaws, and it’s worth mentioning that he’s not here, but that feels more like a deliberate choice to not rehash every anecdote that you have already heard a hundred times before. It also helps to avoid that feeling of the documentary being too focused on the one film that continues to be held up as THE shark film, although you get input, in different ways, from Peter Benchley, Wendy Benchley, and those who appreciated the incredible underwater cinematography of Ron and Valerie Taylor. But you also get great moments with Joe Dante, Roger Corman, Anthony C. Ferrante, Johannes Roberts, Chris Kentis, and Mark Polonia, all responsible for various watery creature features, as well as commentary from film fans/writers who have an interest in the sub-genre, and a number of non-movie people involved in oceanography.

Shark movies can be great. They can be awful. They can be very realistic. They can be completely ridiculous. I still prioritise viewing any movie with a shark in it, and I know I am not alone. Sharksploitation feels as if it was put together by a group of people who all feel the same way. It is never mocking, it is never looking beneath the surface with rose-tinted glasses on, and it’s an absolutely perfect example of how this kind of thing should be done. I hope there will one day be some physical release with extended snippets and interviews included. Or maybe even a sequel . . . just when you thought it was safe to go back into the documentary section.

9/10

Friday, 28 July 2023

The Dungeonmaster AKA Ragewar (1984)

A 1984 anthology horror/fantasy movie that uses a sci-fi premise to frame the fantastical stories, The Dungeonmaster feels far less dated nowadays than you would expect, mainly due to the main character simply using his computer to give himself what we would now recognise as a fully-loaded smart home. He even wears smart glasses to help him when outside his home. I am not saying this is as prophetic as 2001: A Space Odyssey, but it does feel more ahead of the curve than many other films from this time, even if the tech is still quite slow and clunky.

Jeffrey Byron plays Paul Bradford, the tech whizz at the heart of this. He is very happy in life, and he’s ready to take the next step with his girlfriend, Gwen (Leslie Wing). Gwen knows she risks always coming second to his computer though, so she wants some understandable reassurances. The competition for Paul’s attention turns fierce when a dangerous figure drags our leads into another world, with Paul having to pass a number of challenges set by the dungeonmaster, aka Mestema (Richard Moll), in order to keep Gwen safe and alive.

Although this IS an anthology film, with many different segments written and directed by different film-makers, from Charles Band to Ted Nicolau, it doesn’t actually feel like an anthology film. There’s a steady through line that keeps each segment, bar one, feeling strongly connected to the overarching storyline, and our hero and main villain are a constant. But it still has the advantage that every anthology horror has . . . if you aren’t enjoying one tale then you shouldn’t have to wait too long until something comes along that you might like more.

It also helps that there are various creations from John Carl Buechler on display here. He helms one segment in the film, but his fingerprints are all over the thing, with some of the wonderful puppetry and texture that any fan of the man should find absolutely delightful.

While they are not troubling anyone for awards, all three main performers do a good job with the schlocky material. Byron is a likable dweeb discovering plenty of courage for the sake of the one he loves, and uttering ridiculous lines of dialogue with conviction en route to what he hopes will be an ending that has him victorious. Wing is often left to be the damsel in distress, but she also gets to have fun in one or two other incarnations, and she remains steadfastly plucky in the face of impending doom. Then you have Moll, clearly having a lot of fun as the deadly Mestema, strolling around the sidelines like a wrestling champ waiting for his opponent to be worn down before he enters the Royal Rumble melee.

If you are after a horror movie with genuine scares then this isn’t for you. If you want a fantasy film that aims for gritty and realistic violence in a world created with high production values then this isn’t for you. Want something that makes any sense? You should also look elsewhere. But if you want something that’s a lot of fun from start to finish, has decent performances, a great panto villain, and a segment that makes use of W.A.S.P. playing one of their songs while our hero tries to get through the concert crowd to save the woman he loves . . . you know what film you can rely on. While some may view this as not as polished, or as much fun, as something like Waxwork, I would say it’s comparable, and deserves to be just as appreciated by fans as that movie is.

8/10

Thursday, 27 July 2023

Prime Time: 1984 (1984)

I remember when I first read 1984, having heard of it as an essential text for many years. I thought it was impressively grim, but I also thought it was a bit far-fetched. That was almost 30 years ago, and I was younger and much more ignorant. Even if I had known about the various real-world factors that influenced the book, I probably would have shrugged with an attitude of “it would never happen here”. And just look at where we are now.

Written and directed by Michael Radford, based on the George Orwell book, this was filmed and released in 1984, allowing everyone involved to make use of the once-in-a-lifetime marketing opportunity. But a film needs more than just canny marketing, and 1984 sadly falters elsewhere.

Radford has taken a couple of great actors, and a timely release schedule, and seems to have neglected almost every other part of the film-making process. There’s no creativity on display, no strength put behind what should always be a gut-punch of a story, and no passion. I understand that the material might work against such an approach, considering how it’s all about breaking spirits and reshaping truth into whatever best serves the leader, but there’s no excuse to film something that feels just like a presentation by a local amateur dramatic society.

For those unfamiliar with the tale, John Hurt plays Winston Smith, a man who falls in love with Julia (Suzanna Hamilton). That love is dangerous, distracting both of them from their main roles, servants to the machine that is the totalitarian society ever-grinding around them. Things become more dangerous, and a happy ending looks increasingly unlikely, especially if anyone ends up in the dreaded Room 101.

Hurt is the best thing onscreen, followed closely by the commanding presence of Richard Burton, past his prime, but still undeniably riveting. Hamilton isn’t quite as good, although she does have the tougher main role, but there are some nice exchanges between herself and Hurt. One or two other familiar faces appear, including Gregor Fisher in a rare dramatic role, but the focus stays tight on our three leads for most of the runtime.

The downside to watching any standard interpretation of 1984 nowadays is that we have had a number of better versions of the tale from people who have used the novel as inspiration. Brazil is the obvious one to mention, but there’s also V For Vendetta, various episode of Black Mirror, The Matrix franchise, and even the gun-fu silliness of Equilibrium. Those are just the titles I can think of right now, but they are all better viewing options than this.

There is one thing about watching 1984 nowadays though, or anything similar to it. The fact that it all feels less like fiction with every passing day should serve as a reminder to call out manipulative nonsense like “alternative facts” and anyone attempting to rewrite even very recent history.

4/10

Wednesday, 26 July 2023

Barbie (2023)

Prime Time will be here on the blog tomorrow. This felt like it should be scheduled immediately after my Oppenheimer review.

"If you love Barbie, this movie is for you. If you hate Barbie, this movie is for you." That was the tagline being used in some of the advanced marketing for Barbie, a pink-drenched film based around a crisis for the titular doll. The people who came up with that slogan seem to have underestimated the extreme emotions that the film would create in film snobs who seem to be viewing this as a harbinger of the death of cinema. It was always going to be hilariously upsetting to viewers with fragile male egos, but I didn't expect to see such "righteous anger" from people who seem to think that Barbie is the blockbuster to take to task for marrying product placement to a central narrative. It's almost as if these people missed, well . . . *gestures to every other mainstream release from the past four decades*. Look, films sell other products. Arguably more than any other art form, they focus on the business in show business. And, yes, something like Barbie is more inextricably intertwined with a product that represents disposability and capitalism than most, but it's also very smart, very funny, and very much made for audiences who have already helped to turn it into such a special event (with a very positive knock-on effect for Oppenheimer that shouldn't be under-estimated).

Margot Robbie plays Barbie, living a very happy life in Barbie-land alongside a multitude of other Barbies, as well as a multitude of Kens (with the main Ken played by Ryan Gosling), and one Allan (Michael Cera). Oh, and Midge (remember Midge? she's played here by Emerald Fennell). Every day is wonderful, with the Barbies all happy to have done their part in helping to please and inspire women in the real world, doing their bit to dismantle the patriarchy and ensure equality for all. Yeah, you might have noticed something there that doesn't quite add up. We all know the reality of the world we live in, and it's far removed from how Barbie imagines our world. As things start to go awry for Barbie (her feet go flat, she starts to get cellulite), she is told that the only way to get everything back to the way it was is to visit the real world and help her "owner" to rediscover some positivity. Barbie, with Ken tagging along, commits to this journey, and she eventually meets Gloria (America Ferrera) and her daughter, Sasha (Ariana Greenblatt). She also meets sexism, capitalism, and a patriarchy that she thought she'd helped to end. It's not good for the women. Ken sees the upside of it all though.

Directed by Greta Gerwig, who also co-wrote the screenplay with her partner, Noah Baumbach, Barbie is an absolute delight from start to finish. It's the first film I have seen in the cinema in many years that ended with people giving it a round of applause. Not everyone will respond that way, of course, but even those who notice a few mis-steps should be able to view it as a resounding success. What could have been an easygoing and lightweight confection is instead a smart blend of celebration and condemnation of the figure at the heart of it. It's also just as much about Ken as it is about Barbie, and Ryan Gosling unexpectedly emerges as the real star of the show (his big musical number is one of the most enjoyable sequences I have watched in modern cinema, period). Gerwig sets up the characters and the rules quickly enough, helping herself with some witty and knowing narration from Helen Mirren, and the escalation of the surreal silliness feels very natural once you have accepted everything presented in the opening act.

It also helps that the cast are all fantastic, all feeling like a great fit for their roles, and all very much game to go with the camp and kitsch of the crowd-pleasing set-pieces. I could spend hours writing about Robbie and Gosling, but I would much prefer you to see the film and enjoy every little character detail that they include in their performances. Simu Liu is a lot of fun, playing a Ken who always seems to be ready to have beef with our lead Ken, and Cera gets to effortlessly steal a couple of scenes, even while he's just watching the main action from the sidelines. Kate McKinnon is another highlight, playing "weird" Barbie, and there are fun turns from Issa Rae, Alexandra Shipp, Emma Mackey, and others (including some fun cameos). As for the actual human characters, both Ferrera and Greenblatt are easy to root for, with the former allowed to deliver a barnstorming motivational speech that proves pivotal to the third act, Will Ferrell is a despairing Mattel CEO, and Rhea Perlman delights as Ruth (you should know who she is, but the film clues you in quickly enough).

With Mark Ronson and Andrew Wyatt taking care of the music, crafting a soundscape full of appropriately upbeat score and great pop songs, as well as those unforgettable Gosling moments, and everyone behind the camera doing flawless work when it comes to set decoration, makeup, costume design, and other artistic choices, there isn't much to be critical of. The only weaknesses are couched in the script, with an unnecessary chase sequence feeling a bit out of place and scenes featuring Mattel executives not quite landing the jokes as well as expected, but the good far outweighs the bad, and it's much easier to celebrate everything that Gerwig managed to slip into a mainstream blockbuster than it is to pick at the minor blemishes.

"If you love Barbie, this movie is for you. If you hate Barbie, this movie is for you." If you cannot get a chip off your shoulder, or feel that your masculinity is threatened by such a deluge of pink . . . well, maybe this movie isn't for you. But feel free to let the rest of us enjoy it without having to sneer and dismiss it, especially if you haven't actually seen the thing.

9/10

Tuesday, 25 July 2023

Oppenheimer (2023)

A lot of the conversation around Oppenheimer has been as extreme as I thought it would be. Some are inevitably claiming that it is the best film yet from Christopher Nolan (which is saying something). While I wouldn't rush to agree with those people, I also wouldn't rush to disagree with them. This is the kind of polished and eye-popping cinematic experience that we've come to expect from Nolan, but it also contains a fair few "Nolan-isms", even if some work better here than they have in some of his past works.

Based on the book, "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer", written by Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin, Nolan uses his typical non-chronological approach to show us some key moments in the life of Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy). As fused with a man named Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.) as he is with the atomic bomb, Oppenheimer is portrayed as a complex and flawed figure, a man who didn't really treat the women in his life well, didn't bother to be discreet about opinions that would have had less valuable individuals ostracised, or worse, and didn't seem to fully keep the full ramifications of his actions in mind as he pursued a once-in-a-lifetime chance to turn theory into deadly reality.

Bizarrely, despite almost everyone onscreen here doing great work, the cast ends up being the aspect of this film warranting the least discussion. Murphy is excellent, giving a performance that could be considered the best of his career. Downey Jr. is also excellent, doing the kind of work that I last saw from him before he helped to kick-start the MCU. Emily Blunt and Florence Pugh also do well, although both have to work a lot harder to overcome a script that, accurately or not, boils them down to something akin to the grit helping to form the pearl. Matt Damon gets some great moments, playing the military man who essentially serves as the boss to Oppenheimer, Josh Hartnett continues his upswing (after impressing in his Black Mirror role, in the best episode of the most recent series), and Tom Conti is an absolute delight as Albert Einstein, but there are also supporting roles for the likes of Alden Ehrenreich, Jason Clarke, Dane DeHaan, Macon Blair, David Krumholtz, Kenneth Branagh (who may never act in anything close to his more natural accent again), and MANY others. It’s a veritable cornucopia of familiar faces, sometimes shown in unfamiliar ways, and it feels as if Nolan did this to ensure people stayed attentive throughout a film made up of scenes full of dialogue and mathematics.

Knowing what the film is about, and knowing how things ended up (spoiler - it doesn’t go well for the Japanese), Nolan actually does himself a great favour here by taking his standard non-chronological approach to the material. There are three main strands being woven together here - the one that everyone expects and two that may be much lesser-known - and it’s a testament to the screenplay that the ending is as gripping and cinematically satisfying as it is, considering that most of us would assume to know the ending.

The visuals throughout are clear and beautiful, although sometimes showing some moments of real horror as characters consider what has been born into the world, and I must single out cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema, who has been excelling in that role for over two decades now. Different visual styles are used for different plot elements, but each one is about as perfect a match as you could ask for.

Dialogue is also, and it brings me much joy to say this, clear throughout. Part of my problem with a few of the recent Nolan blockbusters has been his misjudged (in my view) attempts to use the audio mix in a way that sometimes makes the dialogue difficult to understand. That issue could have made Oppenheimer a chore to get through, as every exchange feels loaded with information and characterization, but there’s no need for concern. The audio is still used in interesting and impactful ways though, not least when explosions and aftershocks (literally and figuratively) are shaking viewers in their seats. There’s also another superb score accompanying the visuals, this time from Ludwig Göransson, who previously worked with Nolan on Tenet.

Despite some of the pre-release hype and marketing, I didn’t come out of Oppenheimer shaken and speechless. Nor did anyone else attending the packed screening I was at. I will give Nolan his due though, this was an experience that seemed designed to be both a front row seat to the moral quandary of the 20th century and a character study of someone who was almost equally respected and reviled. I certainly had to gather my thoughts for a while before even starting to write this review. The fact that it works so completely, and is an epic that many will want to rush to rewatch, is a brilliant achievement. Like the central figure, it’s imperfect, but impossible to dismiss. And if you don’t come out of it needing to spend some time fully considering the complexity and weight of what you have just witnessed . . . well, your cinema should still have more palatable entertainment available on a number of other screens.

9/10

Monday, 24 July 2023

Mubi Monday: Laurence Anyways (2012)

Although I keep forgetting to bring him up in any conversation about consistently great modern film-makers, Xavier Dolan is a young and talented individual who has crafted a number of brilliant films exploring love, sexuality, and gender. Laurence Anyways is another excellent example of his work, and another character study that is typically sensitive to the fluid and complicated nature of his leads.

Melvil Poupaud plays Laurence, someone we first meet in a relationship with a woman who goes by the name of Fred (played by Suzanne Clément). It isn’t long until Laurence has to make a confession, telling Fred that they cannot keep living a lie. Laurence wants to live life as a woman. Initially confusing his transgender nature with homosexuality, Fred pushes Laurence away and spends some time away from them. Not long though. She soon realised that she can continue to help and support someone she loves, and Laurence is going to need a lot of help and support as others take time to accept their transformed physical appearance.

Dolan is a writer-director who knows exactly how to present memorable characters who are portrayed both sympathetically and realistically. Neither Laurence nor Fred act perfectly here, with the former particularly problematic as she stops considering the lives and feelings of others while finally living as her true self, but they whirl around one another like lively electrons, sometimes bonding in a way that seems unbreakable and sometimes charging themselves up and hurling themselves away from one another. Both have to draw on reserves of courage for different reasons, and both can be admired for some of the battles they choose (although, as you might suspect, there is sometimes no choice given at all).

Poupaud and Clément are absolutely superb in the main roles, both giving performances that feel genuine and convincing at all times, no matter what is going on around them. The film stays focused on them, or at least stays focused on Laurence (anyways), but still has room for a smattering of wonderful supporting characters, whether they come in for one scene or are in and out of the movie throughout the runtime. Everyone is deserving of equal praise, but Nathalie Baye is an amusingly aloof highlight (playing Julienne, the mother of Laurence).

There’s a pleasant score by Eduardo Noya, credited as just Noia, a handful of excellent tunes on the soundtrack, and a constant feeling of energy and vitality that helps to make the lengthy runtime (168 minutes, approximately) go by without it ever feeling like a slog.

If you are new to the films of Xavier Dolan then this is as good a place to start as any, and it might even be his best work yet. But I would then recommend exploring everything that he’s done so far, especially if you appreciate this as much as I did.

9/10

Sunday, 23 July 2023

Netflix And Chill: Silent House (2011)

When I saw Silent House available on Netflix I was reminded that I had never watched it before now. The fact that I wasn't even a fan of the original film it was based on had ensured that this was never a priority. But sometimes you are searching for a viewing option and decide to tick something off the list that has been on your radar for over a decade.

I wish I hadn't. As suspected, this was a simplistic and unnecessary remake of a film that was only ever remade because some people still stubbornly to accept that you can enjoy movies with subtitles.

Elizabeth Olsen is the lead this time around, playing Sarah, a young woman who becomes increasingly stressed and frightened, and disorientated, as she starts to feel terrorised in a lakeside home that she was due to help her father (John, played by Adam Trese) and uncle (Peter, played by Eric Sheffer Stevens) renovate. She also randomly encounters Sophia (Julia Chan, billed here as Julia Taylor Ross), someone who claims to be a childhood friend.

The main selling point of Silent House is the same selling point used for the original film. It's a horror movie that is all presented as if shot in one take. Just like the original film, however, it wasn't actually shot in one take. It's just presented that way. Other films have used the same gimmick, often to better effect, but this is a particularly poor experience, mainly because there's nothing more here to make the film worth your time.

Co-directed by Chris Kentis and Laura Lau (with Lau also adapting the original screenplay into something very similar, but subtly different), two people used to making use of a gimmick to hype up a movie, having previously given us Open Water, this is a sad step back for two people who have now, to date, not helmed another film in over a decade. I would assume that both Kentis and Lau went into this with an idea of making slight improvements to create something with more potential mass market appeal, but they completely drop the ball, arguably too focused on that "one-shot" USP to the detriment of everything else.

Olsen does well, emerging as the main reason to slog through this, but even her convincing performance isn't enough to make this actually worth your time. Trese and Stevens have limited screentime, and are used most effectively in the third act, but both do well enough with the material, and Chan tries her best with material that has her popping into the film in a way that will set off the spidey-sense of all but the most unobservant horror movie fans.

If you didn't like the original film then you won't like this. If you did like the original film then . . . you probably won't like this. It's a complete waste of time, although it's a bonus that the runtime is only about 86 minutes, and I wonder if Kentis and Lau have spent many years since this was released regretting the fact that they decided to sign on for it.

2/10

Saturday, 22 July 2023

Shudder Saturday: Quicksand (2023)

The fact that Quicksand is a thriller easily boiled down to one brief sentence - an unhappily married couple get trapped in quicksand - means that there isn't much room for it to falter. A simple concept requires the best execution, otherwise you could end up with a dire final product. I'm not going to condemn Quicksand completely by calling it dire, but . . . it's not good.

Carolina Gaitan and Allan Hawco play Sofia and Josh, respectively. The two enjoy a hike through a rainforest in Colombia, but things take a turn when they get back to their car and find someone trying to steal their stuff. Fleeing the gun-toting criminal, they end up in quicksand. Will someone find and rescue them in time? Will the experience make their fragile marriage better or worse? And what can be done when a snake starts to become more and more curious about what it may view as helpless prey?

Quicksand feels like a debut feature from those involved, but it isn't. Director Andres Beltran may have a filmography largely made up of TV work and shorts, but he has already helmed a few other features (one, titled Llanto Maldito, that has a plot description similar enough to this one that it would seem he is drawn to the added tension of people trying to save their relationship while unusual events make their situation worse). It's the first film written by Matt Pitts, who looks to have worked his way up to a main writer position from an entry-level gig of being an assistant to J. J. Abrams, but the fact that he has already worked on some relatively big shows (Fringe, Zoo, Westworld) means he should have a better idea of how to construct an enjoyable and tense thriller. This end result shows that he doesn't, sadly, and Pitts might want to go back to non-writing duties for a while, spending more time as a student. It's not that his script is awful, and he tries to add enough to the film to give us more than just two people stuck in quicksand for an hour, but the characters aren't easy to care for, and there are one or two stupid decisions made that make the main premise more irritating than tense. Let's face it, the fact that Sofia wanders into the quicksand before Josh JUMPS IN to save/be with her doesn't set up the central premise as well as it should.

Gaitan is a decent lead. Hawco isn't. Sorry to him for being so blunt, as if he would ever stumble upon this review and think I was right to criticise his performance, but he's not helped by being given all of the worst moments and dialogue. His character seems to make the wrong choice whenever possible, with some of his weaknesses revealed in ways that are just laughable, and Hawco doesn't have the charisma or screen presence to overcome the material, whereas Gaitan does. A couple of other cast members are involved in scenes that allow viewers to move away from the quicksand for a while, but nobody does standout work.

Between them, Beltran and Pitts have made something that's just disappointingly flat and lacking any real tension. The simplicity of the premise could have worked well, but neither man makes the most of it, and neither seems to have real faith in the strength of the concept (hence the moments that cut away to a parallel story thread developing elsewhere). Much like the titular substance, this is something to avoid.

3/10

Friday, 21 July 2023

Rye Lane (2023)

Rye Lane was a film that I started hearing good things about as soon as it was in cinemas, with both critics and general audiences seeming to agree on how well it manages to deliver a satisfying rom-com while also knowingly playing around with the familiar tropes. I agree with everyone already in agreement.

Dom and Yas are our main characters, both having recently broken up from their previous partners. Yas seems to be taking things in her stride, although she just might be better at hiding her emotions. Dom, on the other hand, is first seen hiding away in a toilet cubicle to allow himself some uninterrupted weeping time. Once these two people connect, they stick together while navigating a number of tricky social situations, discovering how different they are while, yup, realising what makes them a good match for one another.

Written by Nathan Bryon and Tom Melia, two men who have previously written for a number of different TV shows between them, this is a very funny and very sweet rom-com that adds enough spice or bitterness to each main sequence to avoid giving viewers an overdose of saccharin. Everything is mixed in in just the right amount, taking you through a full and effective journey even as you wait to see if the ending will deliver what you expect from a film within this sub-genre.

Director Raine Allen-Miller, making her feature debut after a handful of shorts, guides the whole thing with confidence. Making some strong choices when it comes to the visual style, Allen-Miller lets you stay close to eh characters, and get to know them, while also filling the frame with colour and culture that allows you to feel as if you are being whisked along by a friend on a whistle-stop tour of their favourite hidden treats in London.

Although I am unfamiliar with David Jonsson (Dom) and Vivian Oparah (Yas), both relative newcomers in terms of onscreen work, they are so perfect in their roles that I immediately became a fan, and hope to see whatever they do with the many upcoming opportunities that should be coming their way in the near future. The “heartbreakers”, although not onscreen for very long, are also well-played, with Karene Peter (Gia, Dom’s ex) and Malcolm Atobrah (Jules, the ex-partner of Yas) presenting enough flaws to show why a relationship was due to end, but never feeling like caricatures. Benjamin Sarpong-Broni is hilarious in a scene-stealing turn, a “friend” of Dom who is now with his Gia, and there is room for some enjoyable turns from Levi Roots, Llewella Giden, Gary Beadle, and a few others. Oh, there’s also a cameo so enjoyable that you should be legally allowed to smack anyone who spoils the surprise for you.

The only big problem with Rye Lane is that, despite having fun with the formula, it IS still very much staying within the confines of the sub-genre it belongs to. There’s nothing wrong with that, especially when everything is done this well, but others may decide to hold that against it. Not me though. I have a soul, and a small bit of warmth in my heart, and I absolutely loved this. Everyone should check it out ASAP. It’s hard to imagine anyone really disliking it, even if you don’t end up enjoying it as much as I did.

9/10

Thursday, 20 July 2023

Lola (2022)

A relatively low-budget and low-key sci-fi movie, Lola is an interesting way to riff on the whole “butterfly effect” that has featured in many a time-travel tale. I knew I had to see this as soon as I started hearing about it. I was very eager. I was optimistic. I was wrong.

It’s all about two sisters, Thomasina (Emma Appleton) and Martha (Stefanie Martini), who end up reaping the benefits of an invention, the titular LOLA, that allows them to view moments broadcast from the future. The year is 1940, war is breaking out and about to encroach upon their lives, but the girls are able to enjoy future treats such as the amazing music of David Bowie. It’s when they realise that they can use the machine to help end the war early that the sisters start to get into trouble though, setting off a chain of events that might be impossible to undo.

The feature debut from director Andrew Legge, this is perfectly in line with ideas he has been exploring for the past 15+ years, with most of his short films focusing on interesting inventions and/or manipulation of time. Having co-written this script with Angeli Macfarlane (who has a very different filmography back catalogue), Legge appears to have made his first feature without being quite up to the task. The brief runtime - it clocks in at just under 80 minutes - still feels overlong, there are numerous times when the plot feels as fragile as water-soaked paper, and the ending . . . well, I may have missed a minor detail, but it seemed to rely on a massive happy coincidence (someone tuning in to an exact moment being broadcast from one exact place).

While the opening scenes feel unique and visually striking, with everything being shown in black and white film that has been shot by amateurs making some home movies, even that soon becomes more of a chore than a delight. As later footage starts to feel a bit cleaner, and less authentic, viewers may start to wonder why Legge didn’t mix in some various stylistic choices.

Appleton and Martini both do fine in their roles, I guess, but it is hard to appreciate them as their characters are forced to change so severely between the start and end of the film. Neither are given quite enough to work with, and the film becomes weaker when they start to spend less time together (which happens far too early in the runtime). Rory Fleck Byrne plays a main supporting character, but he is allowed to show all the personality of a postage stamp, which makes me reticent to compliment or condemn his performance. He’s not very good, but he’s even more hampered by the material than either of the leads.

I still admire what Legge tried to do here, and I wouldn’t be averse to him trying again, perhaps with much more time spent on the script and an idea of how to subtly move from the crudity of the “amateur footage” to a more polished style underlining the unfolding horror of the second half. This doesn’t work as well as it should, but I will always give more kudos to an interesting failure than a lazy cash-grab. Lola didn’t work for me, falling apart quite quickly after an impressive start, but it’s certainly an interesting failure.

4/10

Wednesday, 19 July 2023

Prime Time: Robots (2023)

Another film that simply re-uses a title from a previous, better, film (although maybe I am the only person to think back fondly on the animated feature with the same name), Robots is a standard comedy with a sci-if twist. More problematic, it’s a film with a lead role for Jack Whitehall, who rarely works as well in movies as he does in his comedy gigs.

Set slightly in the future, our world now has numerous robots available to take over various jobs (e.g. cleaning, hospitality service, refuse collection, etc). It’s illegal to use one as a stand-in for yourself though. That illegality doesn’t dissuade Cameron (Whitehall), a selfish and lazy young man who uses his robot double to meet and charm women, taking over when it’s time to “seal the deal”. It also doesn’t dissuade Elaine (Shailene Woodley), a young woman who uses her robot double when the men she convinces to buy her lots of treats figure that it is time for them to get jiggy with it. Elaine and Cameron eventually cross paths, in robot/human form, and a standard mix-up eventually leads to both robots falling in love with one another and running away. That puts both our main characters in quite a predicament, which forces them to work together in order to fix the whole situation.

Based on a short story, “The Robot Who Looked Like Me”, by Robert Sheckley, this is co-written by co-directors Casper Christensen and Anthony Hines, two men with separate backgrounds in transgressive performance comedy (one having worked on Klovn/Klown on TV and film, the other having worked with Sacha Baron Cohen numerous times), but you wouldn’t know that from the end result. All you get here is familiar and tiresomely lazy plotting, a wildly varying selection of gags, and no one memorable moment to think back on and smile about after it’s all over.

Whitehall and Woodley actually don’t do a terrible job, and certainly work better together than they do apart, but neither feels good enough to actually carry the film. That wouldn’t be so bad if there was a fun supporting cast to help, but there isn’t. Paul Rust is moderately amusing as the robot creator, roped in to help Cameron and Elaine recover their property, and David Grant Wright is fine as a father concerned about the erratic behaviour of his son, but neither performer can do enough to make up for what is essentially a double-dose of Whitehall. And things aren’t helped by Paul Jurewicz in the role of Ashley, a man who prefers to be called Fat Ninja. While I am not laying the blame for the annoyance of the character entirely with Jurewicz, he is an unwelcome addition to the core cast.

If you don’t mind the opening act, where a few of the better jokes are placed, then you should find enough here to enjoy. It has a standard runtime of just over 90 minutes, which is a plus, and certainly doesn’t attempt to overtax the brain. It just doesn’t ever feel like a proper movie, but more like a slick pilot for an anthology show based around the central idea. And as for the horribly convenient ending, where everyone gets exactly the final moments that you expect them to get . . . it makes you want to turn the whole thing off, dismantle it, and ditch the parts in some nearby scrapyard. In fact, the third act is bad enough to cause me to lower my rating one whole point. Others may be a bit more generous.

3/10

Tuesday, 18 July 2023

The Flash (2023)

If there is a more redundant blockbuster that has been released in cinemas in the past few years then I am struggling to think of it. Even the underwhelming Black Adam at least felt as if it was trying to move pieces into place for the flailing DC cinematic universe. The Flash, on the other hand, changes almost nothing, one groan-inducing punchline aside, and feels like what it is: a placeholder spinning while everyone around it tries to scramble together a plan. The more time that passes with us being presented crap like this while Batgirl remains consigned to movie oblivion, the more resentful I become of WB and DC.

Here’s the plot summary. Please note, I will be mentioning details shown in the trailer, but don’t read further if you want to enjoy any of the best surprises that this contains. Barry Allen (Ezra Miller) is The Flash, often called into action for his superhero abilities when nobody else is available. He doesn’t mind helping Batman (Ben Affleck), but it feels as if he is just used to clean up any big mess. Barry also still spends a fair bit of time missing his dead mother (Maribel Verdú) and is tortured by the fact that his imprisoned father (Ron Livingston) cannot show proof that he wasn’t the murderer, even though they both know he didn’t do it. Realising he can run fast enough to go back in time, however, Barry heads back to try and fix the past. Teaming up with another incarnation of himself (also played by Miller), he aims to make one very small change. Before you know it, Zod (Michael Shannon) is back, there’s a Supergirl (Sasha Calle) where Superman might once have been, and Bruce Wayne/Batman now looks a lot like Michael Keaton.

Written by Christina Hodson (with input from a few other helping hands) and directed by Andy Muschietti, this is a horrible mess from start to finish. Considering how problematic the production was (just look up any news on Ezra Miller), the fact that it was even completed and released may seem miraculous to some, but it’s hard to think of anyone being pleased or satisfied by the end result. Yes, there are a number of fan-service moments here and there, but a film needs to do more than that. And this doesn’t. It REALLY doesn’t.

The special effects are wildly varying in quality, the depiction of the multiverse is an eye-watering mess, and there’s no consistency in the timing of how things work between our normality and superspeed (e.g. the opening sequence which has Barry waiting for a sandwich order, then being called to a falling hospital in Gotham, speeding there, taking to Batman and Alfred while rescuing people and babies, and getting back in time for his sandwich order being completed).

And don’t get me started on Hodson’s script, which is her weakest work by far (and I have enjoyed most of her other stuff). This is a script based around three things - the central paradox, a load of nostalgia, and one Back To The Future gag that is overused as soon as it is mentioned a second time). Only one of those things works well enough, the nostalgia, and that is more to do with the timeless greatness of Keaton than it is to do with the writing. Whether coincidental or deliberate, it's also worth mentioning that one or two lines are so on the nose that it occasionally feels a bit distasteful. The most egregious moment has Ezra Miller saying: "I understand that these events can be psychologically scarring! You should seek the services of a mental health professional, the Justice League is... not very good at that part yet. Trust me."Sheesh!

Miller is perfectly fine in their dual roles, certainly as enjoyable and fun as they were in their previous main outing as this character. They’re not good enough to be irreplaceable though, and it’s strange that they were kept on, especially when you consider the “escape clause” afforded by this premise. Keaton is the highlight of the film, still showing that twinkle in his eye that has kept him as my favourite Batman since he first started in the Tim Burton blockbuster, but Calle certainly makes a strong impression as Supergirl. I would give Shannon equal praise, but he is sorely underused, and that is a shame. Someone else sorely underused is Kiersey Clemons, involved in a few scenes that effectively frame the main storyline, but made to feel as if she was put in front of the camera after donating enough to a crowdfunding campaign that was offering a “featured role” as a reward. Clemons deserves better, but the same can be said for most of the cast members, as well as the viewers.

This needs to be the final nail in the coffin of the previous, constantly shifting, attempt to create a DC cinematic universe. In fact, it works best if thought of as a headstone, the shadow looming over a grave where creativity, intelligence, and dignity have been buried. We know about multiverses though, which means those things live on elsewhere, and you can see them in other blockbuster movies released this year. It remains to be seen whether or not they will reappear in the upcoming slate of DC movies.

I have added one extra point for some relatively fun cameos elsewhere in the movie, moments I won’t spoil here, but I almost immediately removed it when I remembered a multiverse sequence in the final act that almost made me throw up in my mouth. Some may like this a bit more than I did (even with the horrible score from Benjamin Wallfisch), but I can imagine only the most die-hard comic book fans will manage to love it.

4/10

Monday, 17 July 2023

Mubi Monday: The Boss Of It All (2006)

When Lars von Trier is good, he is very good indeed. The man has made some films I absolutely love, even if I don’t rush to rewatch them. But when he is bad, oh boy, I cannot stand his mix of misanthropy and pretentiousness. I haven’t enjoyed many of his movies from the past decade or so, despite the praise he has received from many others, but I have no preconceptions whenever I sit down to watch one of his movies. Considering I hadn’t even heard of The Boss Of It All before today, I REALLY had no idea about what I was in for.

Peter Gantzler plays Ravn, a man looking to sell his Danish IT company to an Icelandic buyer. But that means the big boss will need to be present to sign the paperwork. The problem Ravn has is that he is the big boss, but nobody in the company knows that. He created a fictional boss figure, who would usually only communicate via sporadic emails, giving him someone to blame for the unpopular decisions while he received praise for any positives. Ravn hires an actor (Kristoffer, played by Jens Albinus) to portray the big boss, which should allow the deal to go through smoothly enough. Unfortunately, Kristoffer cannot play the role without more fully inhabiting his character, which seriously complicates the situation.

Taking aim at both the corporate office world and the mindset of overly earnest method actors, The Boss Of It All IS very funny, which is what you hope for with any comedy. It’s also still very much in the Von Trier style, everything very naturalistic and minimalist, even interspersed with occasional narration from the director himself (mocking the film-making choices used). Other people could have taken this in a number of different directions, from outright farce to a feelgood “fish out of water” tale, but Von Trier has his fun while ensuring that it remains a Von Trier work.

Albinus is very funny in the main role, reaching for motivations and characterizations that are unnecessary, and always seemingly one step away from upsetting the whole plan, while Gantzler is hilariously resigned to the fact that he has put his faith in someone so determined to needlessly complicate things. Iben Hjejle and Mia Lhyne stand out as two female staff members who believe they have a different relationship with their boss, and Friðrik Þór Friðriksson is very funny as the buyer having his patience sorely tested.

Although feeling quite meandering and unfocused at times, The Boss Of It All is actually expertly put together. Almost every gag set-up has a worthwhile payoff, and the loose threads are all tied together in time for a satisfying and very funny finale. I may not have known what to expect, but I am pleased that Von Trier remembered to make a comedy film with actual humour running through it (because, knowing him, that was never guaranteed).

Whether or not you are familiar with other films from this director, I recommend this one. It’s both unlike most of his other work, yet also perfectly at home in his filmography. I am surprised that it isn’t more well-known, because I think it ranks alongside some of his better films.

8/10

Sunday, 16 July 2023

Netflix And Chill: Nimona (2023)

It's good to spend some time hearing about a fairly new release that was never on your radar. Nimona appeared on Netflix here in the UK a week or two ago, and it was never going to be a viewing choice that I prioritised, especially when I am yet to watch the alleged excellence of The Sea Beast (which I believe is also still tucked away somewhere on there). But people started to praise Nimona, and a few people I trust started to praise it highly. I figured that I should make time for it. Yep, those praising this film were right to do so, and I hope I can help some other people decide to give it there time.

Set in a futuristic world, but one that still holds on to the idea of knights being in place to protect the citizens, Nimona is all about one "common man" (Ballister Boldheart, voiced by Riz Ahmed) who has been given the chance to become a knight. This is a break from tradition, but the queen believes this is the way forward, and a good opportunity to show the people that anyone can reach such an exalted position. Things don't go according to plan, however, and Ballister ends up losing an arm and his reputation in a shocking turn of events that turn him into public enemy number one. Struggling to figure out a way to clear his name, and maybe find the real culprit, Ballister ends up befriended by a young girl named Nimona (Chloë Grace Moretz). Nimona has the power to transform into a variety of shapes and sizes, and she's much more willing than Ballister to hurt people seeking to hurt them.

I watched Nimona yesterday and agreed with a friend about how great it was. I just didn't think it was quite as great as they considered it, because the superb Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse was mentioned in the conversation. Pondering the entire film while writing this review though, it is increasingly hard to find fault with it. The animation is generally beautiful, although I could be picky and mention some of the more plain background environments, the energy and feeling of anarchy ensures that you're never too far away from a moment of great fun, and the life lessons are nicely woven around the action in a way that keeps them impactful without ever dragging everything to a standstill while things get serious and morose.

Things are helped enormously by the voice cast, with both Ahmed and Moretz excellent in the lead roles. Both have voices that perfectly suit their characters, and they interact brilliantly with one another. Eugene Lee Yang is also very good, playing a knight named Ambrosius Goldenloin who is also the partner of Ballister, a relationship shown and talked about in a more pleasingly overt way than the BS lip-service we have had in many other family movies from the past decade. Frances Conroy is cool and quietly menacing as The Director, the woman in charge who maintains a search for what she claims is the major threat against the people, and Beck Bennett is amusing as Sir Thoddeus Sureblade, a bit of a dolt who never liked Ballister from the very beginning, and is therefore most keen to be able to capture and punish him.

Based on the graphic novel by Nate Stevenson, writers Robert L. Baird and Lloyd Taylor, working with a few others to shape the story, have delivered something that directors Nick Bruno and Troy Quane have polished into what can only be described as quite a lovely gem. Full credit to all of the artists and grafters behind the scenes who worked together to deliver this, a delight all the more unexpected after the directors previously gave us the enjoyable, but underwhelming, Spies In Disguise (a film so forgettable that I actually forgot to rate and review it when I saw it a couple of years ago . . . *runs off to put it on the rewatch list). That was also co-written by Taylor, although I couldn't tell you how many other people worked on both that film and this one.

People might ignore this review, especially if they are adults who have for some reason decided to never watch animated features aimed at younger viewers, but that's their loss. I took note of the glowing praise that some people gave this, and I'm glad I did. If someone takes note of this glowing praise, and ends up watching and enjoying the film, then I can feel satisfied that I've done my good deed for the day.

9/10

Saturday, 15 July 2023

Shudder Saturday: Rose: A Love Story (2020)

For better or for worse, Rose: A Love Story feels like what it is, a directorial feature debut from Jennifer Sheridan. Written by Matt Stokoe, who also shares the lead duties with his real-life partner, Sophie Rundle, it's a nice and sedate little drama, tinged with horror, and everything is kept more controlled and manageable by generally never having more than three people onscreen at any one time. I'm not sure what others will make of it though, as it doesn't ever settle down to establish itself as one thing or another.

Rundle plays Rose, and Stokoe is her partner, Sam. The two live an isolated life in a cabin in the middle of some woods. They have very occasional deliveries of goods, avoid other people, and generally seem to be making the most of a bad situation. Something's up with Rose, but Sam does his best to care for her and keep her, and himself, safe. Unfortunately, the situation is jeopardised when a young woman, Amber (Olive Gray) accidentally stands in a trap that leaves her with a broken and bleeding leg. Sam wants her out of the way as quickly as possible, but Rose believes they should be as helpful as they can.

Although it isn't outright telling you everything as the movie unfolds, this is a film that isn't looking to shock or surprise you. It's very easy to figure out what's going on, and the atmosphere throughout gives you an idea of where it's all going to end. That's not necessarily a bad thing though. In fact, it's much preferable to other ways this material could have been presented. What you get here is a film focusing on the main performances, and characters unable to escape the dark clouds moving overhead.

Stokoe and Rundle are both very good in their roles, although the former has the easier task of being the more quiet and gruff type (showing that he loves his partner above everything else, but keeping a good distance between himself and anyone or anything else that could create some kind of connection). Rundle makes the wise decision to play her afflicted character without overdoing any signs of illness or weakness, and she has a bit more positivity in her outlook, helped by the fact that she never actually sees herself during her worst episodes. Gray is an excellent third participant, physically vulnerable from her very first scene, but strong and determined enough to want to get back to her normal life as soon as possible.

It's thanks to the acting that the film works as well as it does, because neither the direction or script are exactly ground-breaking. They don't have to be, of course, but there's something lacking here that could have helped to raise the whole thing. I'm not sure whether that's a bit more work on the characters, a few more moments of tension and drama, or some outright horror, but it needed at least one kick up the backside to give it a jolt. Others may disagree though.

Worth your time, but not necessarily one that will be remembered years down the line. I'd definitely be interested in seeing whatever Sheridan, Rundle, and Stokoe work on in the future though, whether they remain in collaboration or head their separate ways.

7/10

Friday, 14 July 2023

Dungeons & Dragons: Honour Among Thieves (2023)

While I never exactly got into Dungeons & Dragons when I was younger, I did explore some of the lore and the scenarios created for it. I enjoyed a number of RPGs, but would often spend more time reading the rule books (for stuff like Star Wars and the brilliant Paranoia) and settling back into the single-player fun of the Fighting Fantasy books. But there was a time when I certainly knew a gelatinous cube from a less harmful creation, and I had a selection of impressively unusual dice.

I had heard good things about Dungeons & Dragons: Honour Among Thieves since it first hit cinema screens a little while ago, and many people complimented it by saying that it somehow managed to evoke the atmosphere of a gaming session with friends. Many people were correct.

The plot is quite simple. Chris Pine and Michelle Rodriguez play bard Edgin and barbarian Holga, two people working together to escape their prison, assemble a group of people with various skillsets to help them, and defeat a villain who has been taking care of Edgin’s daughter for some time. The list of potential helpers includes Simon (Justice Smith), a sorcerer trying to get better with his powers, Doric (Sophia Lillis), a shape-shifting Druid, and Xenk Yendar (Regé-Jean Page), a Paladin who is mistrusted by Edgin.

Co-directed by John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Michael Gilio, this is a snappy and confident slice of genre work that may have benefited from those involved not having already worked with fantasy adventure material. The script balances everything well between the witty dialogue, the serious approach to the lore and world-building, and a number of brilliant little extra gags and references that those familiar to the game will catch, and the direction is polished and inventive enough to help make the 130-minute-plus runtime fairly fly by.

It also helps that the casting is actually about as perfect as can be. Pine turns his charm all the way up to full power, and that’s something almost impossible to resist, Rodriguez is as believably tough as ever, but with a good and loyal core making her easy to warm to, even as she is scowling at most of the people around her, and there’s yet another wonderfully roguish turn from Hugh Grant, who is seeming to have more fun at this time in his career than he has at any other time. Smith gives us a character with an endearing lack of confidence, Page is at the other end of the spectrum, and Lillis is often the coolest member of the group until she transforms into whatever shape is required to cause maximum havoc. Chloe Coleman is fine in the role of Kira, Edgin’s daughter, and Daisy Head is enjoyably sombre as a powerful wizard with a plan to plunge the world into a new age of darkness and misery.

There are a couple of great set-pieces, including a hilarious sequence involving some magic used to enable Edgin to question some corpses (trust me, it’s much funnier than it sounds), the score/soundtrack is a delight, every element of the production design, wardrobe, and FX work looks as if it has been worked on with genuine care and attention to detail, and there’s a strong chance that this contains at least one of my favourite cameos in recent years (not to mention the other main cameo, a star name placed in a delightfully amusing scene that provides a little insight into what Holga looks for in a partner).

I am already keen to rewatch this, and I hope others feel the same way. It may have underperformed slightly at the box office, but, trust me, it’s a critical hit.

8/10

Thursday, 13 July 2023

Prime Time: Living (2022)

Although his work has been remade many times, I am sure that the filmography of Akira Kurosawa is still a daunting monolith that many approach with a mix of reverence and nervousness. There are so many outright classics, films that already feel as if they have told that story as perfectly as it can be told. Ikiru is one of those classics, and I don’t think anyone was confident that this remake (although not the first remake of it) would come close to it’s brilliance. It does though, and there’s one reason for that. Bill Nighy.

Nighy stars as Williams, a bureaucrat who spends his hours accomplishing very little, save for moving paperwork along in a way that keeps certain projects in a limbo of Kafka-esque proportions. Williams seems to view his role as someone ensuring the wheels are greased, even if those wheels are spinning around and around with no hope of ever actually going anywhere. That changes when he receives a terminal medical diagnosis though, giving him a looming “expiry date”. Deciding to keep the news to himself, for the most part, Williams treats himself to some time off work, enjoys some socialising with a young colleague (Margaret, played by Aimee Lou Wood), and struggles to consider what might be left behind that shows he actually made any difference. There is that playground that some local women have been petitioning for.

Written by the hugely talented Kazuo Ishiguro, transplanting the material from Japan to 1950s London is the first of many smart moves that allow the film to tread very similar ground while feeling more rooted in the manners and mindset of the British. Duty is very important here, as is how someone is perceived by others, but those two things become the focus for many people, a stifling straitjacket, when they should be the by-product of a life lived well. While some scenes are full of revealing dialogue, many others tell you just as much without any characters speaking, and it’s a fantastic balancing act throughout.

Director Oliver Hermanus does a great job with the direction, keeping everything fairly muted and quiet, in line with the man character, and he is helped immensely by a beautiful score from Emilie Levienaise-Farrouch. Hermanus, who has previously directed a handful of films I am sadly unfamiliar with, knows that this isn’t material to rush through, nor does it need lots of distracting bells and whistles. He focuses on Nighy, Wood, and the stroke of luck that shows them making an unexpectedly strong connection.

The acting, although I might be edging into hyperbole here, is almost flawless, and Nighy gives what may be the best performance I have ever seen from him in a movie. It feels very much in his wheelhouse, admittedly, but that’s because he makes it look so bloody effortless. Starting off as dour and grey, his performance starts to reveal light, humour, and warmth as he heads toward his final days, and the ending is no less poignant for knowing where the story is taking us. Wood is a great match for Nighy, conversing with him in a way that shows off her appeal, with her mix of care and consideration, energy, and youthful talent of occasionally blurting out what others would never say. Other people do well, with Alex Sharp playing someone who could very easily become the next in a long line of Williams figures, or may be saved, but the film belongs to Nighy, with very strong support from Wood.

Although about 40 minutes shorter than the original, this doesn’t feel rushed or incomplete. Ikiru remains the better film, and the longer runtime helps to more easily emphasise how slow the bureaucratic machinery works, but Living is a satisfying and worthwhile watch, and I would not have been disappointed to see Nighy get more praise for it last year. Although he has been doing great work for a long time, this feels like a special achievement, and I think it is easily vying for a top spot when ranking his performances.

8/10