Netflix And Chill: Damsel (2024)

With a cast that includes Millie Bobby Brown, Ray Winstone, Angela Bassett, Robin Wright, and Shohreh Aghdashloo, and with Juan Carlos Fresnadillo in the director's chair, I went into Damsel with as much optimism as I could muster. That was tough though. The trailer didn't really win me over, and all of the reviews seemed to be fairly harsh. Sadly, most people who saw this before me were correct to warn others away from it. It's not good.

Brown plays Elodie, a young woman who is handed over by her father and stepmother (Lord and Lady Bayford, played by Winstone and Bassett) to be married to Prince Henry (Nick Robinson). This will end the money problems for the area ruled over by the Bayfords, but the marriage is not intended to last. It's not long until Elodie discovers that she is to be used as a sacrifice to appease a giant dragon (voiced by Aghdashloo). She's determined to fight back and survive though.

Despite already hearing a lot of negative talk about this, I hoped for something that might subvert some fantasy adventure movie tropes and allow Brown to be a badass able to draw on her courage and intelligence to face off against a terrifying enemy. That's not what writer Dan Mazeau is interested in though, and I should have known the screenplay would be a major weak spot, considering the previous two movies that he worked on. The problem with Damsel is summed up in a scene when the dragon compliments Elodie on being smart enough to stay quiet while it is trying to locate her, immediately followed by a sequence in which it seems as if our lead character makes as much noise as possible while trying to stay alive. Seriously, I wondered if it was going to tip over into parody at this point.

Director Fresnadillo isn't working at anywhere close to his best, hampered by a script that doesn't have enough substance to it and poor cinematography from Larry Fong (who may, in turn, blame others for leaving him stuck with little more than dark caves and tunnels to try and make interesting onscreen). The lighting is too low for most of the runtime, although I will say that things are much better in the scenes that AREN'T set in the dragon's lair, and this has a smothering effect on almost every other department.

Things could have been saved if the cast worked though. I think me saying that already indicates further disappointment though. Brown isn't engaging enough in the lead role, unhelped by a script that only seems interested in building up to different moments and lines of dialogue that are ultimately underwhelming, and Winstone, Bassett, and Wright are all sorely underused. The highlight is Aghdashloo, her unmistakable voice used brilliantly to realise a sly and fierce creature that is equally well-realised visually by the computer programmers working on the VFX.

Not helped by the fact that the few decent moments will remind most viewers of a very popular animated franchise, Damsel is a disappointing and unexciting trudge through familiar territory made by people who seem to think they are delivering something clever and subversive.

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

Shudder Saturday: The Strange World Of Coffin Joe (1968)

If I hadn't known that The Strange World Of Coffin Joe was an anthology horror movie before watching it then I might have been a bit disappointed, especially if craving more of the twisted madness of the previous two movies in this series. But I did know about the format of the film, and I am mentioning it here to ensure that other people are equally prepared.

There are three tales presented here, all within a runtime of 80 minutes, which ensures decent pacing throughout, and they are enjoyably simple. Each tale serves as a framing device for some dark and disturbing event, but the film suffers slightly from the fact that the first segment remains the strongest of the three.

First of all, a local dollmaker is celebrated for his beautiful and realistic dolls, but he ends up targeted by criminals who realise that he doesn't keep his money in a bank. With four beautiful daughters also at risk, the dollmaker seems destined to experience great loss and pain, but might find a way to turn the situation to his advantage. Second, a balloon seller becomes obsessed with a beautiful woman he sees every day, but her wedding day is looming.  Unfortunately, the wedding day is marred by tragedy, although the obsessive man is not deterred from trying to get close to the woman. Third, and finally, a professor discusses the theory that instinct will always overcome reason and love. To help prove this, he invites a rival professor, accompanied by his wife, to his home, where an extended episode of sadistic unpleasantness will be played out.

Director José Mojica Marins, who also stars as the evil professor in the third tale, is once again interested in showing the darkest parts of human nature alongside a small amount of philosophising to help provide an excuse for everything onscreen. The screenplay may be credited to Rubens Francisco Luchetti, who would work with Marins on quite a few more movies after this one, but there's no doubt that this is another showcase for the character namechecked in the title, even if he doesn't really get involved in any of the horrific tales (he basically serves as a host, although the evil professor feels like a character that could easily have been turned into Coffin Joe with only the slightest of adjustments).

While other cast members all do well enough in their roles, I'm not going to risk confusing and mis-spelling their names here, especially when I don't have exact cast details to hand (my fault, I have yet to really deep dive into the wonderful bluray boxset). And, with respect, it doesn't really matter. As the film title implies, this is all about the horror icon that is Coffin Joe, a figure casting his shadow over the proceedings even while not onscreen. Marins delivers another delightfully sinister turn when in front of the camera, but his direction maintains a voyeuristic and gleeful wallow in debauchery that retains the spirit of Coffin Joe for every minute of the runtime.

A step down from the two previous films I have seen from Marins, this is still enjoyable stuff, and it contains a number of startling images that help it to retain the sense of danger and madness that go wherever Coffin Joe goes.

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

Doctor Jekyll (2023)

Okay, I am going to start this review with a note. I will always strive to refer to people by their preferred names and pronouns. It's not being "woke", contrary to vocal idiots who keep crying about it. It's offering the basic level of politeness that we automatically tend to offer to anyone while not obsessing about what toilet facilities they want to use. With that in mind, Eddie Izzard is credited here as Eddie Izzard, and I'll be referring to them as such here.

A reworking of the classic Robert Louis Stevenson tale, Doctor Jekyll played well to horror film festival audiences last year, with many singling out the performance from Izzard as being well worth your time. I was eager for this to hit the VOD market, and made time for it this week when I was able to purchase a digital copy of it. I'm happy to have given it my support, but I am a bit surprised by those who heaped so much praise on it, suspecting this may be another case of the festival bump that can often occur when watching a new film with a like-minded group of genre fans (something I am sure I have been guilty of myself). Or maybe it was also helped by the love for the Hammer Studios name, who are behind the distribution of it here in the UK.

Scott Chambers plays Rob, a young man trying to get his life back together after serving some time in prison. He ends up being given a job caring for the enigmatic Doctor Nina Jekyll (Izzard). Doctor Jekyll seems to like Rob, keen to give him a chance even while her assistant, Sandra (Lindsay Duncan), just seems to want rid of him. As we all know, but our lead character here crucially doesn't, you tend to have a Hyde wherever you have a Jekyll. This particular Hyde (Rachel Hyde) has a plan, and Rob is an unwittingly vital part of it.

Written by Dan Kelly-Mulhern, his first and only credit so far, this is a decent reworking of the text that feels majorly boosted by the canny use of Izzard in the titular role. The thematic strands being explored, and tied together into a strong narrative rope, feel both timely and well worth including to modernise and rework the timeless tale of terror. Director Joe Stephenson isn't a complete newcomer, having previously worked on a number of TV shows and a previous film, Chicken, where he also worked with both Chambers and Morgan Watkins (who plays Rob's brother, Ewan), and he handles things here very well, keeping the focus on the performances without making it all feel hampered by the fairly limited locations and small cast.

I cannot overstate how great Izzard is in the lead role here, a casting coup so inspired that it makes it impossible to imagine the film without their presence. They weave between light and darkness in ways that anyone familiar with the tale should expect, and their eloquence and verbosity perfectly matches the way that the bifurcated character is written. It's a shame that Chambers, so good in the aforementioned Chicken, cannot come close to matching Izzard. His character seems a bit too resigned to failure in the first half of the movie, but then becomes far too easygoing and unguarded in time for the third act to play out. Watkins is fine in his role, Duncan is enjoyable for her limited amount of screentime, and Robyn Cara plays a figure from Rob's past who may end up jeopardising the job that he needs to keep hold of. Oh, there's also a cameo from Simon Callow, who is used well for his fleeting appearance.

This is very good stuff, although it's never as intriguing or transgressive as it could have been. It's messy, especially when it falls apart during the final scenes, but it's full of elements to admire, from the characterisations to the commentary on "big pharma", and recommended to those after something that nicely blends the familiar with a sprinkling of modern freshness.

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

Dogora (1964)

Another week, another Japanese sci-fi creature feature directed by the very capable Ishirô Honda. Dogora is a film about a giant space jellyfish creature, basically, but it’s a canny mix of monster movie and crime flick, managing to deliver a more interesting cast of characters than many of the other films it falls in line with.

You do get the space jellyfish creature, and it causes some confusion throughout the film, so at least this isn’t like some of the other Toho Studios films that simply add a monster into the final act. While some people are trying to figure out just what is going on, other people are more interested in diamond robberies. There’s an Inspector (Yôsuke Natsuki) after the criminals, a mysterious figure named Mark Jackson (Robert Dunham, billed as Dan Yuma) also taking a keen interest, and, of course, the robbers themselves. Surprisingly, the titular creature is also interested in diamonds, due to the carbon content it needs to devour.

Based on a story by Jôjirô Okami, with Shin'ichi Sekizawa back on screenplay duties, this is a very enjoyable genre blend that manages to let things unfold without doing a disservice to either of the main story strands. It may not have any major crash bang wallop moments, but the monstrous threat still looms large above our worried humans, and there’s enough damage caused to show what could happen if things get out of control. At the risk of repeating myself, Honda could direct these films in his sleep by now, and I don’t think I need to spend too much time here heaping more praise upon him.

Natsuki and Dunham are both very enjoyable in their roles, and they are featured enough to actually stay clear in my memory after the film has ended, but you also get Nobuo Nakamura as the standard scientist, Hiroshi Koizumi as a bonus secondary scientist, and Yôko Fujiyama as an assistant who obviously keeps herself in the middle of the conversations that deliver the required exposition. The gangsters are also good value, although I won’t name any of those performers here (they feel like one criminal unit, despite one or two having a specialist skillset).

Perhaps not as memorable as so many others, Dogora is a really fun film that I ended up enjoying a lot. I am not sure if that puts me in the minority, but I am sure that I could happily sit and rewatch this again already.

8/10

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

Prime Time: Road House (2024)

I was looking forward to Road House since I saw the first trailer for it, a trailer that showcased just how much time star Jake Gyllenhaal had been putting in at the gym. Yes, the original film is a beloved bit of cheese, but it’s no untouchable classic. Let’s not forget that it already has a sequel that very few people care for.

Gyllenhaal plays Dalton, a legendary figure who is hired by Frankie (Jessica Williams) to help sort out the trouble she has been having in her Florida bar. Dalton rolls in to Glass Key (the name of the area, and one of many fun little nods to other films) and starts cleaning house, but it isn’t long until he realised that there’s something more going on. Frankie’s bar is being targeted by thugs who work for a rich douchebag (Ben Brandt, played by Billy Magnussen). And if his thugs keep failing to achieve the desired result then it will soon be time for the much more dangerous Knox (Conor McGregor) to swagger in and start smashing everything up. A storm is brewing, but that doesn’t stop Dalton from making time to enjoy the company of a local doctor, Ellie (Daniela Melchior).

There are things to pick at here, and plenty of things that viewers may dislike, particularly when it comes to the way of staging and shooting some of the fight scenes, but I cannot think of any way this could have been a better remake/reworking of the original film. The tone is similarly fun, punctuated with brutal violence (of course), the lead character is always looking to defuse any situation before things get physical, and the plotting manages to replicate what we’ve seen before without feeling like a carbon copy.

Well done to relatively new writers Anthony Bagarozzi and Charles Mondry for crafting a script that changes enough to modernize the idea while also remaining respectful and admiring of the original film. The central concept may be nonsense, and our lead spends a lot of time smirking at people who don’t realise what is about to happen to them, but at no point are viewers made to think they are watching something outright laughable. Everyone is kept safe alongside a confident main character, but the danger keeps piling up around them, and his own darkness is something he doesn’t want to tap into.

Director Doug Liman handles the whole thing quite well. Aside from some computer trickery that doesn’t always work in the fight scenes, and a frustrating handful of night-time moments that don’t seem to be lit as well as they should, it’s generally slick entertainment, helped massively by Gyllenhaal being so committed to his role.

That commitment can be shown in every defined muscle, with the actor displaying a physique normally shown in anatomy textbooks that display the musculature of the human body. It is a hell of a look, and Gyllenhaal backs it up with a physicality and personality that I am sure Swayze would have liked to see. It’s a winning performance, and the best thing in the film. Magnussen is a lot of fun as the villain who doesn’t like to get his own hands dirty, the kind of person you know is failing as his hair becomes more messed up in the middle of some unfolding carnage, and McGregor . . . hmmmmm, I think he is good at doing what he is asked to do. It’s definitely a difficult performance to recommend though, as he is asked to be the kind of cocky and careless menace who is unleashed in the second half of the movie like an angry Rottweiler that has been flicked in the testicles and then let off the chain. Melchior is fine in the least interesting role, and the role that feels most like the writers tried a bit too hard to keep a template from the original film, Williams is good, if a bit underused, and there are decent supporting turns from Lukas Gage, Joaquim de Almeida, Hannah Love Lanier, Darren Barnet, JD Pardo, Arturo Castro (scene-stealing and hilarious), and even a cameoing Post Malone at the very start of the film.

I never thought this was going to surpass, or even equal, the first film, but it’s not as if everyone here got together to remake Citizen Kane. A little perspective is a good thing. I love Road House, but that is just as much to do with nostalgia and the unbeatable power of Sam Elliott’s beard as it is to do with the film itself. This remake lacks both of those ingredients, and also lacks a decent selection of soundtrack choices, but I still had a lot of fun with it. I think people should give it a chance, and I think it will be judged less harshly by viewers who can separate the concept from their sentimental attachment to the original film.

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

Argylle (2024)

The publicity and marketing for Argylle seemed to signify that it was going to be a fun spy romp for film fans. It would though, of course, because publicity and marketing is designed to get us all eager to buy whatever is being sold. Then the film was released, seemed to stumble at the box office (which may be putting it mildly), and one negative review after another started to make it clear that this wasn’t going to be a shining star in the 2024 movie calendar.

I am not sure why others seemed to hate this quite so much. I enjoyed it. I am not going to say that I loved it, and there are certainly moments that go a bit too far (in terms of the ridiculousness, the CGI, or both), but I had a fun time while it was on, and I would easily watch it again. It will never be top of my rewatch pile though.

Bryce Dallas Howard plays a writer, Elly, responsible for a successful series of spy novels about a special agent named Argylle. It is a world far removed from her own, where she simply likes to stay comfortable and spend time with her cat (Alfie), but worlds collide when she is approached by a real spy (Aidann, played by Sam Rockwell). People are after Elly, believing that she knows far too much about the world she is writing about, and there are twists and turns on the way to a final act that will ultimately reveal the true identity of “Argylle”.

It doesn’t matter if you are unfamiliar with writer Jason Fuchs, someone who has a limited number of full screenplay credits. The writing here is one of the least interesting components, and the plot is full of too many big holes throughout. This isn’t a well-constructed piece of work. It is a slice of silliness that seems designed to let director Matthew Vaughn have fun with some ridiculous set-pieces. That is how I saw it anyway, and that is how I managed to enjoy it. Not every action sequence works, but at least four of them kept me hugely entertained for the duration.

It helps that the cast is so good. Maybe I am missing a lot of the conversation happening around this, but I don’t think it can be underestimated how atypical Howard is for this kind of lead role. Does it make sense? No, but the way she is used here more than makes up for the lack of logic. She has to spend most of the first half of the movie looking dazed and vulnerable, but the second half gives her a lot more to do, and she acquits herself well. Rockwell gets one of his most fun roles in recent years, being the light-hearted and cocky pro that he does so well, and always ready to dance at any opportunity. Cavill is fun as the fictional avatar, even if he doesn’t suit the bad hairstyle he is given, and there is room for fun performances from Catherine O’Hara, Bryan Cranston, and, to a much lesser extent, and I do mean MUCH lesser, Samuel L. Jackson, John Cena, Dua Lipa, and Ariana DeBose.

I can see why this wasn’t a resounding success, mainly because of the plotting and the overuse of CGI, as well as a fairly lengthy runtime, and there are a few too many edits between Rockwell and Cavill as we are shown the action from the befuddled POV of our main character, but I just don’t see why it has been so lambasted. The big moments that work, in my view, work really well, including an action sequence on a train that is as energetic and inventive as I hoped it would be. Okay, the film doesn’t maintain that standard throughout, but it keeps trying, and Vaughn once again tries hard to complement his visuals with just the right soundtrack (although maybe it is obvious this time around that he is trying a bit too hard). 

Admittedly a bit complicated and needlessly confusing at times, which stems from the lack of proper plausibility in the plot, this is a good film that tries to be great fun, but only succeeds occasionally in that regard. It’s a mess, sure, but a messy film isn’t automatically a bad film, and I remain in the minority of people who will insist that this isn’t actually a bad film.

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

Mubi Monday: King Boxer (1972)

How do you properly review any Shaw Brothers movie? It can be difficult, it takes more work to just get the names right and explain some of the plotting, but you approach them like all other movies. It’s all about discussing the good, the bad, and everything in between, and avoiding any particular movies because they might be a bit tricky to write about just does a disservice to some potentially great movies. And discussing movies is often about more than just what ends up on the screen anyway.

When it comes to the Shaw Brothers movies, and a lot of non-American action films from the ‘60s, ‘70s, and ‘80s, we are in a bit of a golden time for fans. Much like the slasher movies from decades ago, it seems as if there isn’t a month that goes by without some previously-rare gem receiving excellent treatment on shiny disc from some boutique blu-ray label. Whether that treatment is deserved or not, well, that is a matter of personal preference. But if you haven’t yet picked up both of the Shawscope collections from Arrow Video then you should really rectify that oversight.

King Boxer is a typical tale of a young man (Chih-Hao, played by Lo Lieh) who is sent by his master to another school, a place where he will learn the deadly Iron Palm technique. That is all well and good, but there is a nearby rival school, of course, with an evil master at the helm. People get caught up amidst the feuding and fighting, and Chih-Hao becomes a target. He may even be rendered powerless if his hands are beaten to a pulp. Which would make it easier for the baddies to win the upcoming martial arts tournament.

This is really enjoyable stuff, and some may consider it a bit of a genre classic (an opinion I wouldn’t waste too much energy debating). Director Chung Chang-Wha, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Chiang Yang, paces everything perfectly, shoots the action well, and takes viewers on a fun journey that observes numerous expected treats and tropes.

Lo Lieh is a decent lead, believably strong, stoic, and capable, and his performance is boosted by a musical sting leading in to his special super-powered Iron Palm technique (one that will be familiar to fans of the Kill Bill movies, even if they have yet to see this). Tien Feng and Tung Lam are two of the villains, and both are a lot of fun, but they head up an enjoyably busy supporting cast of disposable scoundrels. The fact that there’s also a decent bit of screentime for Wang Ping is also a big plus, despite the fact that she doesn’t ever get to be in the heart of any action sequences.

There are other films in this style that I prefer, either due to the showcasing of the “Venoms” or some extra fantastical elements that allow them to be even more fun, but this is definitely up there with the cream of the crop. Part of me already wants to rewatch it, but I know there are so many other Shaw Brothers movies I have yet to get to.

8/10

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

Netflix And Chill: The Outfit (2022)

There are some films that suffer from the fact that they feel like stage plays, a showcase for actors without any real cinematic scale or flourishes. That isn't to say that those films are necessarily bad films. They just don't quite feel like full films. The Outfit often feels like a stage play, but it's not a bad film. In fact, it very much plays up to the idea of putting the quality of the screenplay and cast ahead of any unnecessary bells and whistles.

Mark Rylance plays Leonard, a tailor (actually no . . . he's a cutter, and there's a subtle difference between the two, as explained in the film) who has the misfortune of his shop being used by a group of mobsters. Trying to go about his business with the least amount of trouble, and giving due respect to those who view him as being beneath them, Leonard finds himself in real bother when Francis (Johnny Flynn) and Richie (Dylan O'Brien) make use of his store during a particularly eventful evening. Richie has been shot, and Richie is the son of the big boss, Roy (Simon Russell Beale). Everything will be fixed soon, however, as the two young men are about to uncover the identity of someone who has been informing on them. There's a rat, and everyone is a suspect, even Leonard's young shop helper, Mable (Zoey Deutch).

The feature debut from director Graham Moore, who also co-wrote the film with Johnathan McClain, this is a smart and sharp movie that impresses with the care taken at every turn, from the cast to the look of the whole thing, from the dialogue to the nicely-crafted plotting. There aren't any surprises here for people who have seen any of the many other films that wander through similar territory, but at no point to Moore and McClain feel as if they are trying to pull any kind of "gotcha" on viewers. They have faith in their tale, and faith in the people they have chosen to help tell it.

O'Brien and Flynn are a bit over the top in their roles, but it works well. They are the hot-headed youths who are used to having everything go their way, any problems being solved with threats or gunfire. I think both do a great job here, and they are nicely balanced out by the calm of Rylance, who is giving one his best turns in the lead role (and that is really saying something, considering how many great performances he has given us throughout his acting career). Beale is also much calmer, perfectly embodying the kind of person who knows that he doesn't have to shout or show off to get things done. He has held on to power for a long time, and everyone interacting with him knows the score. Deutch, the lone female for a large portion of the film, is enjoyably spirited and defiant, putting on a front while she (incorrectly?) assumes that she's not significant enough for any of the dangerous men to be bother about.

Yes, things need to keep running like precise clockwork to get to the ending that we get, but it never feels implausible. The characters stay true to how they are presented throughout, the backstories teased out through a number of conversations are intriguing snapshots of lives that have happened to converge at this exact time and place, and the whole film is just as unassumingly impressive as the lead character trying to stay safe at the heart of it.

A real treat, especially if you're one of the many sensible people who appreciate the talents of Rylance (and, to a lesser degree, the excellent O'Brien). You might call it . . . a cut above the rest.

8/10

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

Shudder Saturday: You'll Never Find Me (2023)

While I don't mean this as a major criticism, You'll Never Find Me is a feature debut that feels like a feature debut. Smart decisions have been made, such as keeping the action based in one location, and the emphasis is always kept on the actors and the screenplay, but most people will watch it and know, almost immediately, that they're being shown the debut film from someone.

Brendan Rock plays Patrick, a man who stays on his own in a trailer park home. We see him sitting up late at night, clearly troubled, when he receives a mysterious visitor (Jordan Cowan, credited simply as The Visitor). As the weather worsens and the two are forced to spend some more time together, things soon start to become mysterious and dark. What was Patrick really doing up at such a late hour, and why did this woman find her way to his door? Do both of these people have secrets they are hiding from one another?

Written by Indianna Bell, who also co-directed with Josiah Allen, this is a tricky film to rate and review. Everything onscreen is done well. The performances from the two main leads (and there are only one or two other people appearing very briefly) are excellent, the setting is deliberately turned into something claustrophobic and stifling, and the dialogue is very carefully chosen and delivered, especially for a film that has so many quiet moments.

There's one big problem though, the fact that it is leading you to a destination you can see from the very earliest scenes. While not the worst cinematic crime that can be committed, You'll Never Find Me doesn't have any big surprises, although the pacing and construction of the film seem to be building up to something revelatory and impactful. Because there are no real surprises, that impact is greatly reduced. There may even be many people, like myself, who came up with a number of potentially better ways in which the story could have gone. That's a shame, but I am not sure how it could have been avoided, although I think shaving 10 minutes or so off the runtime might have helped. But maybe that is why I haven’t made a movie and these people have, because everything here has been carefully considered and tweaked accordingly, including the slow pacing for the slow burn towards the pay off.

Perhaps it just didn’t find me in the right mood, or perhaps it was never going to be able to push too far beyond the obvious limitations imposed upon it. Rock and Cowan are both excellent, and attack their roles with the required subtlety or heightened emotions, depending on the scene, and it is hard to really think of other ways I would have wanted this put together. It just falters enough to stop it from being a great little horror movie though, but it stands up as a great calling card for everyone involved.

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

Mothra vs. Godzilla (1964)

Here we are again, wandering around in the land of kaiju, and if I already know what I am letting myself in for then there are millions of people in the world who can write about these movies much better than I do. But this is my review, documenting my journey through this wild and weird cinematic “zoo”, and I will continue to do the best I can.

This time around we have another giant egg, something turned into a money-making attraction by another opportunistic businessman, but people are once again warned off by two small fairies (the Shonijin, played here again by Emi Itô and Yumi Itô). As the title would suggest, Mothra appears, but it becomes a potential ally to the human race when an angry Godzilla re-awakens.

With Ishirô Honda back in the director’s chair, and writer Shin’ichi Sekizawa once again on the screenplay duties, this is familiar and hugely entertaining fare from people who could surely do this in their sleep. The plot and characters are perfectly fine, with everything put together well, and every viewer knows that it’s all building up to the titular confrontation. Mothra remains a wonderful creation, Godzilla is (for most people) the most lovable giant lizard to ever stomp on buildings, vehicles, and fleeing people, and the action is fun and inventive when it becomes the focus of the third act.

The human cast members all do fine, but I will always remember the two Itô sisters ahead of anyone else. You do get perfectly fine turns from Akira Takarada, Yuriko Hoshi, Hiroshi Koizumi, and others though, especially as our leads butt heads with the businessmen who want to value their own wealth over the interests of the people around them.

It’s also worth noting here that Mothra vs. Godzilla takes some time to specifically comment on the consequences of nuclear testing. The danger of nuclear power is obviously inherent in every Godzilla movie, considering the legacy of Big G, but the issues raised here somehow feel a bit more fresh and relevant, a reminder that it is not a problem consigned to a now-closed chapter of history.

I have omitted a few details here, hoping to keep a pleasant surprise or two in store for anyone else who may decide to finally watch this for the first time, but I highly recommend this as a superficially silly creature feature that, like so many other films of this ilk, manages to deliver fun action moments, as well as some thought-provoking musings on wielding power and working together for the greater good of the human race.

8/10

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

Monster (2023)

Director Hirokazu Koreeda is someone I have been a big fan of for some time. That doesn’t mean that I have made time for everything he does though, sadly. As time keeps running away from me, I still have a number of his films to explore, but I have loved almost everything that I have seen from him so far. If you haven’t heard of him before, I implore you to start working through his filmography (and I will happily make a few recommendations). Having already heard some praise for Monster, I was delighted to make time for it recently when it was showing at a cinema near me, and I am very happy I did.

Showing one main story from three different perspectives, Monster is initially about a single mother (played by Sakura Andō) who is concerned about her son (Minato, played by Sōya Kurokawa). He has had an encounter with a teacher that seems to have crossed a line and left him fearful. We then see things from the perspective of the teacher (Michtoshi Hori, played by Eita Nagayama), who believes that Minato has started to seriously bully another child in his class (Yori, played by Hinata Hiragi). Last, but by no means least, we see the full situation from the perspective of Minato.

While not necessarily the most radical way to create more drama, tension, and misdirection, the structure of Monster works brilliantly by teasing out one little detail at a time, leading to the reveal of a picture that appears like one of those Magic Eye things I could never see (seriously, I was basically the guy in Mallrats every time I looked at one of those bloody pictures). The delicate screenplay is written by Yûji Sakamoto, someone I am not at all familiar with (but will be keeping an eye out for in the future), and it requires a certain amount of patience from viewers until the various questions raised start to be answered. There is also an ambiguous ending that manages to be both uplifting and heart-breaking, no matter what way you interpret it, so be prepared to keep mulling this over for some time after the end credits have rolled.

Koreeda directs with his usual skill, working once again with the kind of material he seems drawn to, stories that heap some grit and danger around a core of love and warmth. It would be wrong to consider most of his movies infused with magical realism, but he usually allows for at least a portion of any film runtime to be viewed through a filter of wide-eyed innocence that helps viewers to see the potential best in any relationship.

The adult cast members do very good work, although both Andō and Nagayama have to play out their parts while they lack essential information about the situation they find themselves in, but it is young Kurokawa and Hiragi who are the real stars, playing their parts in a way that feels both completely natural, as absolutely uncomplicated as children often seem to be, and yet also in line with how everything plays out in the third act.

This may not be up there with the very best of Koreeda, mainly because a fair bit of the third act simply underlines what viewers find out by the end of the second “story”, but it’s still a great film nonetheless. I can’t imagine anyone being unmoved by the finale, and every minute of the runtime feels authentic and well-earned.

8/10

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

Prime Time: Wrath Of The Titans (2012)

I can understand why people got upset when the news broke that we were getting a remake of the beloved Clash Of The Titans. I still ended up watching it, and I didn’t mind it. In fact, I eventually bought the double-pack that included both that film and this film in fun 3D. I have had that set sitting on my shelf for at least five years, and this week I decided that I should finally watch the second movie. There was probably some subconscious reason for that, considering the fact that the film is . . . well, we will get to the full critique shortly.

Perseus (Sam Worthington) is trying to live a peaceful life with his son. That peace is ruined, sadly, when his father, Zeus (Liam Neeson), gets himself in big trouble. Hades (Ralph Fiennes) has seen the writing on the wall - gods losing power, the titans almost set to break back through to their realm - and wants to end up on the winning side. He also has help from Ares (Edgar Ramírez), the son of Poseidon. It is up to Perseus to ensure that humanity survives, and he is soon joined by another demi-god, Agenor (Toby Kebbell), and the fierce warrior queen, Andromeda (Rosamund Pike). They will have to fierce a variety of huge and deadly enemies, including a cyclops or two, a minotaur, and at least one of the intimidating titans.

Written by Dan Mazeau and David Leslie Johnson-McGoldrick (billed here as David Leslie Johnson), this should have been a much better, and much easier, film to craft. Moving a step or two away from the beloved original, all it had to do was take a handful of familiar characters and throw them into something spectacular and fun. I guess that is the aim here, but it just doesn’t work, mainly due to the weakness of the villains and the feeling that the structure is just a pale retread of the previous film. 

It doesn’t help that director Jonathan Liebesman is now at the helm. While far from the worst person to take on the role of director, he seems to bring nothing unique to any of his projects. He can sometimes emulate better films informing his own, at best, but he usually just delivers something that lacks any hint of style or proper authorship. If you are asked next week to name the director of this movie then I would put good money on you not being able to remember his name. And the same goes for every other film he has directed.

The cast is quite a mixed bag, but the good far outnumbers the bad. Unfortunately, the bad includes our leading man, Sam Worthington. I don’t mind Worthington, and he’s certainly not awful, but almost every other actor that he shares screentime with does a better job. Except Ramírez, sadly, which makes him a sorely unentertaining villain. Neeson and Fiennes have fun in their godly roles, Danny Huston is welcome for the minute he is onscreen, and both Kebbell and Pike are excellent additions to the ensemble. There’s also a very small role for Bill Nighy, who almost steals the entire movie with his wonderful turn.

There is an over-reliance on CGI once again, as expected, and the cinematography focuses on dirt and flames to the detriment of anything more visually interesting, but the runtime isn’t bloated, the pacing is brisk enough, and it’s always fun to see the creatures featured here that were previously so well-realised in a pre-CGI world by the legendary Ray Harryhausen.

I was still tempted to rate this as ever-so-slightly above average, because I didn’t hate it while it was on, but it’s just too forgettable, too bland, and disappointing for being a waste of such a good opportunity. So I will consider myself generous enough already by rating it as absolutely average.

5/10

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

Madame Web (2024)

This blog is a comfort for me. It helps me put my thoughts together, it contains a path of memories that can help me remember individual movies from the thousands I have watched, and it is sometimes the only thing that helps me endure a film that is mind-bogglingly abominable. As other people have already made clear, Madame Web is mind-bogglingly abominable. As the bad reviews started to pile up, I found myself wondering how bad it could be. It was even worse than I thought.

Okay, let me give a very quick plot summary, because anything more detailed would make me feel as if I did more work in writing this than anyone did on the script. Dakota Johnson is Cassie Webb, a woman who finds out that she has the gift of premonition. Initially assuming that she cannot change the future, a pigeon interfacing with her window helps her to realise that destiny is not set in stone. That puts her on a path to confront a powerful villain, Ezekiel Sims (Tahar Rahim), a man who is determined to kill three young woman (played by Sydney Sweeney, Isabela Merced, and Celeste O’Connor) he had foreseen being the cause of his own death. Emma Roberts is onscreen to play the mother of an un-named child people can figure out will be Peter Parker, Adam Scott is “uncle” Ben Parker, and the whole thing feels like a desperate attempt to profit from the Spider-Man universe without being able to feature Spider-Man in it.

Although it seems difficult to imagine anyone coming out of this well, it’s strange to see almost everyone sleepwalk through something so dire. The messy script, as inane as it is needlessly convoluted, was written by a whole load of people, including director S. J. Clarkson, and it never gathers any momentum. In fact, this is a film in which everyone feels as if they are wading through a pool of dark and thick molasses, either due to the direction or the cast being unable to work up any enthusiasm for it.

Johnson can do good work onscreen. That is not the case here. As bad as the film is, she matches it with a charmless lead performance. Sweeney, Merced, and O’Connor do a little better, although they get even less to work with (seriously, if you can tell me their names after the end credits, or even after any scene in which they have just been featured, then I will give you a chocolate treat). At least Scott and Roberts have enough presence to make their smaller roles feel like sips of water in a scorching desert. As for Rahim, it feels bad to blame someone for a performance that was so obviously reworked and redubbed when the plot was chopped and changed around, so I will just say that he needs to wipe this film from his C.V. and line up numerous future projects that can help us all quickly forget that he is in this.

Almost every main scene has at least one moment vying to be the worst moment of the film. I think a personal favourite of mine was Cassie being told “when you take on the responsibility, great power will come” (yes, really), but an entire book could be written detailing every flaw and misjudgement. If Clarkson has nothing else lined up yet, it may be some time until she gets to helm something of this scale. It may also be some time until she wants to ever try it again.

Memorable for all the wrong reasons, this is a new contender for the dubious honour of worst superhero movie of the 21st century. Someone should have seen that coming.

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

Mubi Monday: Drive-Away Dolls (2024)

Although Drive-Away Dolls is full of talent, some may say it's a bit too full (sickeningly so), it's hard to ignore the feeling that it's just not very good. Director Ethan Coen, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Tricia Cooke, seems to be a bit lost at sea, metaphorically speaking, and I am sure many will watch this and wish for Ethan to swiftly return to movies co-created with his brother, Joel.

Jamie (Margaret Qualley) and Marian (Geraldine Viswanathan) are two friends who fancy a bit of a break after various stresses in their lives. They pick up a car that needs to be taken to Tallahassee, blissfully unaware that the trunk contains something very valuable that means a couple of amusingly incompetent "heavies" end up trying to track them down. As destiny creeps closer and closer to them, Jamie and Marian start to break down the thin barriers between them, and decide that it may be time to transform their friendship into something else.

The fact that this film is such a mess, and squanders so much potential talent, makes it clear to me that every main issue I have with it stems from the script. It’s not as funny or quirky as it thinks it is, nor is it half as clever or subversive as the films that Cohen and Cooke are clearly trying to emulate, and it feels like one wrong decision after another was made in transitioning the material from page to screen.

I have enjoyed both Qualley and Viswanathan in other movies, but they struggle to impress here. The former is particularly irksome in a role that desperately needed some more work to help viewers appreciate her viewpoint and approach to life a bit more. Colman Domingo isn’t used enough, his smooth-talking head honcho trying his best to resolve a situation that just keeps getting messier by the hour, and Joey Slotnick and C. J. Wilson are inept henchmen without enough wit in their abrasive antagonism towards one another. Matt Damon pops up in a cameo that allows you to say “there’s Matt Damon”, Miley Cyrus pops up fleetingly and allows you to say “there’s Miley Cyrus”, and the only cast member who actually gets to be as good as they can be is Beanie Feldstein (playing an angry ex-lover who follows our main characters in order to hand back an unwanted pet).

I was really hoping to like Drive-Away Dolls, considering everyone involved, but it started off weak and then never really developed into anything worthwhile. In fact, the finale of the film feels like a punchline and rushed resolution offered up by someone who thinks they are being edgy and hilarious while the reality is that they’re about a decade or so out of touch. It’s all a bit lazy and misguided, at best, as well as being strangely prudish and conservative, considering the aim of the film-makers was to make something very much at the other end of that spectrum.

At least it has a fairly short runtime, even if it feels as if it drags on longer. Don’t bother hitching a lift with these ladies though. Wait to see whatever better films they star in further down the line.

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

Netflix And Chill: Irish Wish (2024)

I get it, I do. We brought some of this upon ourselves. Streaming services making their own movies leads to a larger selection of films that feel more obviously like "content" than proper movies, but that's not always a bad thing. People want content. They will happily accept some disposable fare that allows them to spend time with familiar stars or familiar genre tropes. Something like Irish Wish is worse though, because it really feels sub-par. In fact, it feels like the kind of Hallmark or Lifetime TV movies made before they honed their craft to what it is nowadays.

Lindsay Lohan plays Maddie Kelly, an editor who has a crush on her main client, author Paul Kennedy (Alexander Vlahos). She doesn't say anything though, and Paul doesn't appreciate her. He appreciates her friend, Emma (Elizabeth Tan), though, so much so that the two are eventually due to marry. In Ireland. That leads to Maddie sitting in a wishing chair and wishing that she was the one marrying Paul. Can you guess what happens next? Yes, Maddie wakes up to find that she is the one due to marry Paul. Paul may not really be the man she wants him to be though, and they may not be destined for a life together. There's something about the handsome photographer, James (Ed Speleers), hired to document the wedding though, and Maddie ends up connecting with him in a way that adds to the growing doubt she has about her wish.

This is the second film directed by Janeen Damian (her first was another recent Lohan vehicle in this vein, Falling For Christmas), but she has been a writer or producer on many movies almost just like this one. A lot of those movies were set at Christmas though, which allows viewers to forgive such silly and lightweight plotting. And if Irish Wish had also mixed in some festive trimmings then I would have allowed myself to be won over by this. There's none of that, sadly, which makes the script, written by Kirsten Hansen, feel lazy and charmless, and any enjoyment you may glean from this is all down to the gorgeousness of the setting and the work done by the main cast.

Thankfully, the main cast all do decent work. Lohan has to overdo her bemusement and wide-eyed sense of wonder whenever she is seeing new delights around her (in the Irish locale or in the people around her) and she does just fine with that, although I am also in line with the people out there who are just happy to see Lohan back on a decent career path after some time in the wilderness. Vlahos has to be selfish and inconsiderate, but is allowed to do so in a way that doesn't turn him into a complete panto villain, and he's a decent secondary male to Speleers, who has the charm and sensitivity expected of the man that our lead is ACTUALLY destined to end up with. Tan is fine, and is also spared from being turned into any kind of obvious villain, and there's a decent selection of little moments for Jane Seymour (playing the character of Maddie's mother, with all her scenes obviously having been filmed quickly and separately from everyone else).

I expected this to be cheesy, but I still hoped I would enjoy it. I knew it would be full of stereotypes, I knew it would be a predictable rom-com, and I knew how it would all end before it had even fully started. None of that would have been a problem if it didn't also feel so cheap (one taxi scene has truly dire greenscreen work) and forced into a template. It's a square peg in a round hole, sadly. Or maybe you could say it's a pint of Guinness served in a faded eggnog tumbler.

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

Shudder Saturday: First Contact (2023)

I may have mentioned them before, but there are one or two studios/distributors that have me rolling my eyes when I see their logo appear before any many feature. One of them is Wild Eye Releasing. The other is Uncork'd Entertainment. The latter distributor is the one attached to this movie, so my expectations plummeted not long after pressing play. I then saw, however, that this was another film written and directed by Bruce Wemple. Wemple may not be a name familiar to you, but he's an independent film-maker who has managed to deliver one or two gems throughout the last decade (including Monstrous, one of a few films made about a dangerous Sasquatch).

As the title may have already informed you, First Contact is about potential first contact with visitors not from this planet. Casey Bradach (Anna Shields) and Dan Bradach (James Liddell) are siblings trying to get to the bottom of just what their late father (Dr. Ian Bradach, played by Paul Kandarian) was obsessing over. What they discover may just be something important enough to share with the entire world. If they survive their journey.

I'll be brutally honest here, First Contact isn't very good. It certainly pales in comparison to the much more enjoyable creature features that Wemple used to focus on. Having said that, it's also far from atrocious, although I am sure that less forgiving viewers will give up long before the end credits roll and rush to name it as one of their "worst movies ever made". Wemple just cannot quite make things work, despite being a pretty dab hand at making the most of a low budget and limited resources. He needs a better selection of special effects and cast members for First Contact to work as well as it needs to. And some tweaking and editing to help the pacing wouldn't go amiss.

Shields and Liddell do okay, but they're unable to detract from the many moments that feel like too much filler in between the few better moments. Kandarian plays his part as expected, the typical genre doctor who seems to be talking nonsense until people get enough context to help them heed his warnings. Elsewhere, Chris Cimperman has fun being covered in decent make up, Caitlin Duffy does well with her lesser role, and the other supporting players all do what is asked of them.

The special effects are a very mixed bag, but some of them are all the more impressive when you consider what budget Wemple would have been working with, and the horrors of the scenario are presented in an effective way. It's not enough though. Sadly, Wemple covers territory here that has been much better-served in many other films (as well as on TV). It's uninspired, almost consistently dull, and everything leads to a final act that is hard to care about, despite what is at stake. 

I wouldn't say this is awful, and I will always make time for the efforts of Wemple. But, as I already stated a few paragraphs ago, it just isn't very good.

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

Atragon (1963)

Having now already managed to watch a good ten or twelve Toho movies this year that were all from the '50s and '60s, I am very comfortable with the ways in which they aim to entertain. Some of them have had a fantastic monster at the heart of the action. Others have had a sci-fi plot that features a cameo from whatever creature they place in the third act. Atragon falls into the latter camp, but it's still very entertaining stuff.

The surface of Earth is visited by an inhabitant of the underwater Mu empire (kind of like Atlantis, but without calling it Atlantis). The Mu empire wants everyone on the surface to meet their demands, which includes stopping any and all work on the Atragon submarine, Gotengo. The Gotengo is a threat to the empire of Mu, but it may also be the only way to protect everyone from potential invasion. There's tension between Captain Hachiro Jinguji (Jun Tazaki) and the others around him (including his daughter, Makoto), there's some nice underwater action, and you eventually get to see a wonderful underwater beastie named Manda.

It's Ishirô Honda once again in the director's chair, a man who deserves to be mentioned alongside many other greats of cinema due to his fine work on a number of the most enduring Toho classics, and he does just as well as you'd expect. The screenplay, by Shin'ichi Sekizawa, blends together a couple of different source novels to create something entertaining and surprisingly intriguing (especially throughout the opening act, in which the Mu agent keeps popping up as a mysterious stranger). Although it feels light and fantastical throughout, there's also an edge of very real threat to our main characters, and I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed the interactions between the humans here, to the point that I had managed to forget a big beastie was still due to appear onscreen some time before the end credits.

Tazaki is very good as the stubborn and determined Captain Jinguji, Fujiyama has a believably strained relationship with him after years of distance between them, and Tadao Takashima is very likable as Susumu, the photographer who ends up in at the heart of the intrigue and peril. Tetsuko Kobayashi and Hideyo Amamoto are very enjoyable playing, respectively, the Empress and High Priest of Mu.

If you like the Toho movies from this time then you'll enjoy this. I'd also recommend it, for obvious reasons, to fans of Stingray. It's lively, it's paced well throughout, and the eventual appearance of Manda is a real bonus, thanks to the design and the special effects showing it threatening the Jinguji-helmed submarine.

8/10

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

Saps At Sea (1940)

There are many Laurel & Hardy fans around the world, and rightly so. The two stand tall as one of the best comedy duos of all time. And I have barely scraped the surface of their filmography, despite treating myself to a nice boxset of their work some years ago. There are two reasons for that. First of all, so far, I don't love them quite as much as the other stars from that era (Chaplin, Keaton, and Harold Lloyd got to me first, and Abbott & Costello delivered verbal routines I am still impressed and amused by to this day). Second, they're not the easiest films to discuss and review. The plots are often very slight, and fans of the stars will already know much more about their work than I do.

As is so often the way, Stan and Ollie play, well, Stan and Ollie, this time around trying to keep themselves employed in a horn factory. Unfortunately, there's one horn that tends to drive workers into a nervous breakdown when it is tested too often, and this happens to Ollie, leading to a doctor ordering him to have a break. The two men treat themselves to some time on a small boat, but the peace is ruined by the presence of an escaped criminal.

Fans of the magnificent, and superior, Modern Times may already get the feeling that this is wandering through similar territory, and that's quite correct. That's not to say that one film was aiming to copy the other, however. It's just that factory roles made up a large part of the employment sector at that time. It's the same way now, although I hope that most people can work in slightly safer conditions, and watching films from this time can serve as a depressing reminder of how little progress we have really made when it comes to forcing workers to keep up with the optimum output of various machinery and automated processes.

With a quartet of reliable writers having worked on the screenplay, as well as input from our leads (of course), director Gordon Douglas, who did a lot of work with the "Little Rascals" before helming only a couple of Laurel & Hardy films, knows that he can generally sit back and relax while his stars make the material shine, and that's exactly what happens. Douglas doesn't do a bad job, and I don't want to minimise his contribution here, but a Laurel & Hardy movie rests on how often Laurel & Hardy create the laughs. This 56-minute feature has a very healthy gag rate.

As for the cast, Richard Cramer is suitably menacing as the dangerous escapee, Ben Turpin is good fun as a cross-eyed handyman, there's a goat added to the small ship's "crew" to add to the fun, and our leads are (as expected) effortlessly brilliant throughout. 

This is great fun for fans of the leads, but also could serve as a nice introduction for anyone who has yet to explore the rest of their filmography. I am not sure how it is viewed by those who are already familiar with the entire Laurel & Hardy filmography, but I thought this was pretty great.

8/10

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

Prime Time: Freelance (2023)

An action comedy that puts John Cena in the lead role, but forgets about giving him any decent action or comedy moments to work with, Freelance is the movie equivalent of a very wet raspberry blown in the face of unsuspecting viewers. I had already heard some negative opinions on it, but I made the common mistake of thinking "how bad could it be?" It was bad, very bad indeed.

Cena plays Mason Pettits, an ex-special forces man who takes on a routine job that should give him a large payday for very little effort. Yeah, like that always works out. He is escorting a journalist (Claire Wellington, played by Alison Brie) on her way to an interview with a dictator (Venegas, played by Juan Pablo Raba). Unfortunately, all three find themselves in trouble when they end up amidst a military coup. Pettits needs to keep people safe, despite wanting nothing more than deadly revenge against Venegas, due to the dicactor causing the death of a number of his military colleagues some time ago.

Although director Pierre Morel has been helming various action movies for the past two decades, he doesn't seem to have the ability to fix a weak script, and Jacob Lentz makes his feature film writing debut with one hell of a weak script. The characters are paper-thin (Pettits is unhappy with his later career choice while he is "just" a lawyer, and he has a wife and daughter to consider nowadays, while both Brie and Raba seem to have one main moment each, a point in their journey that changes the direction of their lives), the comedy is non-existent, and the plotting is lazy and careless. Not one of the action sequences impress, and it's generally impossible to care about main characters who seem quite invincible from their first moments onscreen anyway.

Cena is a fun and likable screen presence, and can also be very funny, but you wouldn't get that impression from this film. There are a lot more laughs gleaned from his role in the 2024 Oscar ceremony than there are gleaned from this. This is a laugh-free zone. Brie is someone I have enjoyed in a number of roles, but she struggles to do as well in feature films as she does on the small screen. Maybe I am forgetting some of her better work, maybe she just isn't a good fit for lead roles like this one. Raba is the most fun of the three, simply due to his character being so exuberant and unguarded, especially compared to how others expect hiim to be. Christian Slater has a couple of minutes of screentime, Marton Csokas is the coup leader, and Alice Eve and young Molly McCann play the wife and daughter, respectively, of our main character, with Eve reduced to being the kind of female who asks her husband to leave their home before spending most of their time worrying about when her husband might return safely.

Although I know that I'm exaggerating, I feel that I've taken at least just as much time and care writing this review as Lentz took in writing the script. It's not laughably incompetent, nor is it unwatchable. It's just thrown together, a collage of beige made from the paint samples left at the very back of the B & Q stockroom, and many viewers will struggle to even stay focused on it as it weaves a sleep-inducing spell.

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

 

Flora And Son (2023)

Writer-director John Carney has made his name with quirky and heart-warming modern musicals. They may not have any big song and dance numbers, and you may get to the end credits without thinking that you've watched a musical, but that's what they are. He knows that great songs, just like great movies, have the power to transport people, to help our emotions soar or plummet, and to boldly underline our lives if they occur at just the right time when we need them.

Flora And Son may be the weakest film yet from Carney, but that's not to say it's a bad film. It's just a testament to how great his other films have been. Eve Hewson plays Flora, a single mother having trouble keeping her young son, Max (Orén Kinlan), on the right path. Max's father, Ian (Jack Reynor), isn't helping, and her latest gift idea, rescuing a guitar that she finds being dumped, doesn't make the impact she hoped it would. Flora decides to use the guitar herself, picking an online tutor named Jeff (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). Despite Max not seeming at all interested, music does start to form a bridge (no pun intended) between mother and son. 

Although all Carney movies feel small in scale, they are about personal joirneys rather than world-altering events, Flora And Son suffers slightly from feeling smaller than usual. The fact that Flora and Jeff communicate throughout most of the movie via a computer screen feels like an easy option for Carney, although there are moments depicting the characters imagining themselves sharing the same space together, and it undercuts the usual sweetness and ultimately uplifting nature of his films by serving as a reminder of the recent pandemic time we all shared together trying to spend time with other people via our phone screens and computers.

Hewson does a very good job in her first role that feels like a full feature lead, although she has been acting in shorts, TV, and movies for well over sa decade now. She's good enough to keep viewers onside for most of the runtime, despite being quite unlikable and conniving at certain times, and watching her develop a better relationship with Gordon-Levitt's character as she develops a better relationship with music, and subsequently a better relationship with her son, is as satisfying as it is predictable. Gordon-Levitt has to look cute and capable of being passionate about music, not much of a stretch for him, and he's perfectly cast here. Kinlan manages to play his moody teen in a way that doesn't make him too unbearable, helped by a script that show how his circumstances/home life have massively affected him, and the natural charm of Reynor allows him to play his douchebag absent parent in a way that is similarly easier to tolerate than he otherwise could have been.

If you like the films of Carney then you will find plenty to like here. He works just as much to a formula as many other film-makers, but a movie formula is much easier to accept and enjoy while it keeps working (just look at the first decade or so of the MCU). While this is slightly more bitter than his previous films, it's still a (kind of) low-key musical that will have you smiling as the end credits roll.

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

Mubi Monday: Face (1997)

Another one of those films that I watched, enjoyed, and then almost immediately forgot about for well over two decades, Face is a British crime thriller that feels enjoyably removed from so many other British crime thrillers from this period. It helps that it appeared the year before Lock, Stock, And Two Smoking Barrels (a film that, for better or worse, would lead to many trying to replicate it), and the main cast are also a large part of the appeal.

The plot is simple enough. A group of career criminals work together for what should be a big payday. Unfortunately, the cash grabbed isn't as much as they had hoped it would be. That isn't the main problem though. The main problem is someone wanting to keep all of the cash, instead of sharing, which leads to theft, division in the group, and death.

Written by Ronan Bennett, this is a fairly straightforward film that feels like much more than that thanks to the writing of the characters and the central group dynamic. The people here all know what they're getting into, and all of them push back against the idea of being seen as any kind of enviable rebel, but they also continue to slightly delude themselves that they can enjoy the mythical notion of the "one big score".

Director Antonia Bird only helmed about ten features during her career, and most of those were TV movies, but everything she did was worth checking out (especially the film she would deliver immediately after this one, Ravenous). She does an excellent job here of turning a gritty Brit-flick into something interesting, and even occasionally surprising (especially during a face-off with the police that feels like a low-budget and small-scale homage to the brilliant shoot-out in Heat).

The cast certainly don't hurt either, with Robert Carlyle adopting an English accent and taking on the nominal lead role, heading up a crew made up of Ray Winstone, Steven Waddington, Phil Davis, and Damon Albarn. Yes, Damon "Blur/Gorillaz" Albarn, who I forgot was in this, but who also does a better job than many other singers who have tried their hands at acting. There's also a welcome supporting role for Lena Headey, who I will keep emphasising should have had many more rewarding film roles throughout her career, and small moments for Andrew Tiernan, as well as potential national treasures Sue Johnston, and Peter Vaughan.

Far from perfect, especially when there's a feeling that Bird is trying to force some ill-fitting style over the perfectly fine substance, Face is also pleasingly deceptive in the way that it moves from being fairly mild to a tiger with a burning tail for the third act. While I wouldn't make a case for it being a forgotten classic, it certainly deserves a bit more attention and appreciation than it has received over the past quarter of a century.

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