Mubi Monday: Shanghai Blues (1984)

It's 1937. War is beginning. One man (Kenny Bee) decides to leave his performing arts job to become a soldier, but he still has a joyful meeting with a woman (Sylvia Chang) as they shelter together under a bridge during an attack on Shanghai. They agree to reunite in ten years, which will be proof of their commitment to one another. Life has other plans though, of course, and Shanghai Blues shows us the struggle as these two try to reconnect, often not realising their close proximity to one another. And things are further complicated by another young woman (Sally Yeh) who takes a shine to our male lead.

Directed by the legendary Tsui Hark, who has an eclectic filmography full of superb hits and fun misses, Shanghai Blues is a strange blend of melodrama and slapstick moments. The comedy sequence generally don't work, although I am saying that as someone who has never warmed to the particular style of comedy often found in films from Hong Kong and China, but there's a light touch throughout that proves to be surprisingly effective as it allows viewers to watch things play out with the feeling that things don't have to end in disaster. 

Writers Chan Koon-Chung, Szeto Cheuk-Hon, and Raymond To work together well, each one apparently bringing their own "specialty" to the mix (romance, action, and comedy) to craft something well-paced, full of energy, and jumping from one comedic beat to the next. While I should note that this is not an action film, it has a number of individual moments and elements that make use of choreography and threat in line with some action movie set-pieces, not least of which is the returning soldier who is there to step in when a young woman is being harassed by grabby potential rapists.

Bee, Chang, and Yeh all do well in their roles, although they're hampered by a screenplay that forces them to remain oblivious to crucial developments until everything is set up for the big finale. There are a number of other characters revolving around, and affecting, our leads, but they always feel like nothing more than temporary roadblocks to be moved out of the way by the third act.

The 103-minute runtime helps, as do the score and cinematography. It may be far from perfect, but this is a romantic drama that feels lush and grandiose throughout, as well as being well-balanced between moments of peril and a feeling of safety and cosiness. If you don't mind the particular style of comedy displayed in numerous scenes then you'll like it a lot more than I did, but I can still say that I had a good enough time with this, thanks mainly to the likability of the leads and the fun and frantic events unfolding around them to ensure that things don't go smoothly en route to a fine romance.

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 

Netflix And Chill: Superbad (2007)

Did I have any specific reason for suddenly wanting to revisit Superbad? Yes. I wanted a reminder of the time when I enjoyed the work of Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg. The pair of them have been receiving a fair bit of praise recently for their latest TV show, The Studio, and I don't know what others have seen in that show that I am missing. It's smug, absolutely relies on some great cameos to make it work, and feels like what you would get if someone wanted to make The Player, but with no teeth and someone in the lead role who has 1000% less charisma and presence than Tim Robbins. But I seem to be in the minority with that opinion. Ah well, I knew I could revisit Superbad with a sense of optimism. It may have been some time since my last viewing of it, but I hoped that it held up.

Phew. It holds up. There are issues with some of the language and attitudes, but that's par for the course with almost every teen movie. This holds up a LOT better than many others I could mention.

Seth (Jonah Hill) and Evan (Michael Cera) are besties about to go on different life paths after high school. That inspires them to do try their hardest when they get a surprise invite to a party that should have both alcohol and girls present. Although they have to supply some of the alcohol, which they hope to do with the help of their friend, Fogell (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), owner of one fake ID that has him named as McLovin. As they try to get the alcohol and make their way to Becca (Martha MacIsaac) and Jules (Emma Stone), our young leads end up plagued by problems. There's a robbery, a couple of friendly cops (played by Rogen and Bill Hader), and a guy named Francis (Joe Lo Truglio) who drives as poorly as he interacts with others in his own age group. 

There's nothing really special about Superbad. It's a typical teen movie, in many ways, but also avoids feeling too familiar because of the moments that choose to focus on the co-dependent nature of the friendship between Seth and Evan. It IS funny though, which is a big bonus, and the timing worked out well for it becoming a fantastic showcase for a wide variety of performers. Although not his first feature, director Greg Mottola also did a lot of TV work, some of which had him working with a number of the main individuals featured here.

Hill and Cera have a great rapport with one another, the nervous energy and crudity of the former nicely complementing the quiet anxiety of the latter.  Mintz-Plasse is almost a combination of the two of them, with an extra helping of unfounded confidence added in to the mix, and having the three of them approach their teen troubles in their own unique ways helps to make the film more interesting and fun than it otherwise would be. Rogen and Hader are a blast as the friendly young cops, MacIsaac is sweet enough, Stone is very cool and adorable, and Lo Truglio is a lot of fun as he helps to fill out a large supporting cast that also includes Kevin Corrigan, Dave Franco, Martin Starr, Clark Duke, and a few other familiar faces.

If you don't like any of the main players involved with this then I would advise you to give it a miss, especially if you have somehow never got around to seeing it before now. If you think you don't like some of the main players, but also remember a time when you might have found them much more enjoyable and entertaining than they are today, then you may want to put it on your viewing schedule. I'm glad I did, and I could happily rewatch it any time. It almost felt like a cool drink of water after tolerating the disappointing comedic desert of The Studio.

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: Dead Mail (2024)

I really enjoyed Dead Mail. REALLY enjoyed it. I have two main concerns that make me hesitant to recommend it to everyone else though. One, it's a bit too similar to some other films released in the past few years (in terms of style and structure). Two, it's one of those films that will suffer from being pushed on people as a horror when I'm pretty sure it's much more in line with some standard thriller fare. Of course, I am often the first one to push back against genre labels, viewing them more as handy indicators of what type of film you may be getting instead of rigid parameters that something needs to stay inside, but it's always worth pointing out the subtle distinction that may lead to a film being less appreciated by people who maybe expect it to be something that it isn't.

The second feature to be both co-written and co-directed by Joe DeBoer and Kyle McConaghy, and it features a number of cast members they clearly seem to enjoy working with (considering many of them featured in their feature debut, and a number of them feature on the subsequent film solo directed by McConaghy), this is an intriguing and stylish thriller that makes use of a non-chronological approach to keep viewers interested in seeing how the various pieces fit together.

Everything starts with a man (Josh, played by Sterling Macer Jr.) crawling towards a mailbox. He is chained, clearly being held as a prisoner by someone. His scrawled message gets collected before his captor can get to work on the mailbox, which leads to the "letter" being investigated by Jasper (Tomas Boykin), a man with a reputation for great detective skills that often return lost or mis-sent items to their rightful owners. Some may assume that the message is a hoax, but Jasper soon starts to suspect that there's something to it.

Playing out like many other detective thrillers, with the one main difference being that it's a postal worker attempting to unravel things here, Dead Mail is an enjoyable journey through the minds of the various characters who get involved with the central mystery. Boykin's character is a conscientious and smart man who does his job with little fanfare or reward, aside from personal satisfaction. Macer Jr. gets to portray someone obsessed enough with his own project that he doesn't notice a selection of red flags that someone else starts waving in his face. Micki Jackson and Susan Priver are enjoyably typical workers/colleagues who eventually end up picking up on a few clues left behind by someone else, and John Fleck brings an entertaining extra serving of strangeness to the whole thing.

I'm still hesitant to recommend this to others though. But, because I should "put my money where my mouth is", I'll overcome that hesitation by simply recommending it to everyone who has had their interest piqued by this review. If you like detective work shown in films, if you like some retro aesthetics, and if you might enjoy a plot that also makes room for a look at developments in the world of synthesiser sounds . . . you could end up enjoying this as much as I did.

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 

Sinners (2025)

As everyone knows, certainly everyone who grew up in the 1980s and was so educated by Footloose anyway, singing and dancing can be sinful. Some people would rather that we didn't do it, especially when we can instead spend time being thankful for the meagre morsels of happiness that life allows us. I was awaiting one such morsel when I sat myself down to finally see Sinners, a film I knew I wanted to see on as big a screen as possible, especially after that lovely video from Ryan Coogler that discussed both aspect ratios and his absolute love of film. The fact that I didn't love this as much as so many others shouldn't stop you from also going to see it on the big screen. It's certainly a spectacle, it's often a real audio and visual treat, but it's also apparent that there's ambition here unmatched by the final product.

William B. Jordan takes on two roles here, playing twins named Smoke and Stack. After making some money in Chicago, they have returned to their hometown to open a juke joint, where they will encourage people to drink and dance, accompanied by the music of Delta Slim (Delroy Lindo) and their talented cousin, Sammie Moore (Miles Caton). The opening night looks to be eventful enough, with Stack being confronted by Mary (Hailee Steinfeld), Smoke reconnecting with Annie (Wunmi Mosaku), and Sammie hoping to get time to connect with the married Pearline (Jayme Lawson). It's going to get more eventful, however, when Remmick (Jack O'Connell) and a few cohorts turn up, looking to connect their fangs with the jugular veins of those inside the juke joint.

Written and directed by Coogler, Sinners is a bit of something for everyone. If you're a fan of Michael B. Jordan then you get double the Michael B. Jordan, and he's great in both roles. If you want some vampire action then you get it. If you want some energetic music sequences then, oh boy, you really get it. It's a shame that Coogler didn't just dive right into making this a musical. It comes very close to being one anyway, but you can tell that people seriously considered the balance of everything here. There's also some solid drama, as well as a comment on those who have been othered by society banding together to become stronger and less afraid. The problem that Sinners has is that Coogler doesn't quite get the mix right. This feels like an accomplished first or second feature, considering how much he tries to cram in to the film. There's even a coda that would have arguably worked better as an extra short provided as some supplementary treat when they film hits the home market.

It gets a lot right though, and delivers satisfyingly adult content in a world that seems intent on diluting every work of art in order to appeal to that mystical four quadrant demographic. Sinners is sexy, occasionally very sexy. It's intelligent. It's thoughtful. There are some good gore effects deployed when we get the vampire action. And it has a rhythm and bass thrum running through it that allows the score and soundtrack to help propel the narrative in a way I haven't felt since the equally-admirable-but-less-successful Babylon, which, interestingly enough, feels like it would make a nice bacchanalian pairing with this. There's one sequence that is already a strong contender for scene of the year, and I say that as someone who doubts that this film will make my own personal Top 10 when such things are due to be considered.

It helps that there isn't a weak link in the cast. Jordan easily holds his own alongside Jordan, and it was perhaps inevitable that in a film like this he would be the only one capable of matching his own cool and charisma. Caton, a young singer (and now also a guitarist, after learning it for this role) making his acting debut, stands out as a talent to keep an eye on, especially if he keeps getting roles that allow him to win over audience with his amazing voice. I always feel that Lindo is overlooked by too many directors out there, with the exception of Spike Lee, and I'm glad to see that he's typically great in a role that makes very good use of him. Steinfeld and Mosaku bring different ways of showing their strength opposite different Jordan characters, both getting at least one impactful emotional beat, and Lawson feels authentic in how she responds to the music and energy around her. O'Connell gets the most obviously fun role, which he does well with, and the rest of the cast includes Saul Williams, Yao (AKA Thomas Pang), Helena Hu, Li Jun Li, Omar Benson Miller, and David Maldonado.

Sinners wants to be so many things, including a decades-spanning epic in the style of at least one other sexy vampire tale I could mention. The fact that it doesn't hit every target that Coogler is aiming at doesn't make it a bad film, and doesn't make it a waste of your time. It's just a shame that it may end up leaving some people (like myself) a bit unsatisfied when thinking of the many ways the ingredients could have been adjusted to improve the end result. Although, having just said that, I was VERY satisfied with a certain moment that happened near the very end of the movie, something that felt cathartic and also clearly underlined a point about monsters not needing to be fanged and/or supernatural.

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 

Gemini Man (2019)

Three years before Will Smith spectacularly self-harmed Will Smith in front of millions of viewers, Will Smith starred in a film which had him trying to avoid being caused harm by . . . Will Smith. Many might have tried to call Gemini Man a prescient film when it was released, but nobody could have seen just how prescient it ended up being.

A high concept written by David Benioff, Darren Lemke, and Billy Ray, and directed by Ang Lee, Gemini Man is an action thriller based around the sci-fi idea of cloning a top assassin to then kill and take over from that assassin when they have come to the end of their usefulness. Smith plays Henry Brogan, and younger images of him are used to portray Junior (aka the clone). Brogan ends up being targeted when he's due to retire, and he ends up on the run with an agent named Danny Zakarewski (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) as they attempt to stay one step ahead of the soldiers under the command of the ruthless Clay Verris (Clive Owen).

Although this film would have benefited from keeping the central idea a bit more of a mystery (I have mentioned it here because it's on the poster and was all over the marketing), it still manages to be quite good fun when delivering on the action front. Okay, viewers may get a bit impatient while they wait on Brogan to accept the strange reality of his predicament, but Lee and the writers try to keep everyone distracted with a fine opening sequence, a great late-night attempted ambush, and an extended gunfight that is inventive and thrilling. And that's without even mentioning the great moments that have Owen chewing the scenery in a turn that has him one step removed from Dr. Robotnik.

Smith is great in the lead role, and his familiar visage is used well for the younger version of himself. He's always convincing, and this feels like an a-list star doing their best to elevate b-list material. It's a gimmick film, but that gimmick is boosted by Smith's presence. Winstead is very good, and convinces in the action set-pieces, although she has to rely on Smith, sadly, and I still think she deserves a full-on action lead role with franchise potential (Kate came closest, but also seemed to quickly get lost in the sea of wannabe-Wickflicks). As for Owen, see my previous comment about him. It's no criticism. I love his performance here, and he seems to be having loads of fun in his role. The other person worth mentioning is Benedict Wong, playing a good friend/facilitator named Baron who wants to help keep our leads breathing.

It doesn't really matter how good the acting or the action is though. What matters is how convincing the film is when old Will Smith comes face to face with young Will Smith. I would say that, for the most part, it works well enough. Using a variety of tricks to hide his face for certain sections of the film, Smith the younger looks decent enough when finally allowed to be front and centre. There are a few moments that have him looking like a paused videogame character compared to the fully real humans alongside him, but they don't really unbalance the film. Until the very last scenes. I'm not sure if this was shot in reverse order or if the technology couldn't handle showing us this character in full daylight, but the very end of this movie has the worst computer imagery of the entire film, which makes it hard to get through the end credits while remembering the earlier highlights.

There are other mis-steps. Both main Smiths are a bit over-emotional when you consider their occupation, the timeline never feels quite right, and some turns in the third act feel a bit too hasty and implausible. I still rate this as a fun time though. It's not great, but it's good enough to help you pass a couple of hours.

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 

Prime Time: Identity (2003)

Sometimes people forget some really great movies. They're still around, and they're not derided, but they're not celebrated for being as great as they truly are. Identity is one of those films. It's a great film from James Mangold. It has a great cast. It's a whole load of fun. And you could argue that it was a precursor to the fancier and more sophisticated whodunnits that have achieved more success, and critical acclaim, in recent years. Am I implying that part of the reason for Identity being forgotten/overlooked nowadays is sue to a certain snobbery? Maybe. The film is trashy, but it's absolutely happy to revel in the trashiness while proving to be consistently entertaining for a perfect 91-minute runtime.

A bunch of people all end up at a motel on a dark and stormy night. They don't know one another, but someone seems to know them. People start to die, and each corpse has a motel room key assigned to it. Not necessarily the room that the deceased was occupying. The room keys signify a countdown. 10, 9, 8, you get the picture. The killer seems intent on getting their way until you can state "and then there were none."

Written by Michael Cooney, who seems to have been figuring out the best way to tell this story before he took a hard left turn into writing/directing movies about a killer snowman (Jack Frost and Jack Frost 2: Revenge Of The Killer Mutant Snowman), Identity is a load of pulpy clichés all treated with care and unnecessary seriousness by Mangold and his cast. And, let's face it, as good a director as Mangold is, his cast here take everything to another level.

Who should I spend time praising first? John Cusack before he stopped caring about his work? Ray Liotta having a fine old time, especially when he responds to any potential threat by reassuring those around him that he will shoot anyone or anything coming for them? Amanda Peet being sassy until she starts to pine for some orange grove that she hopes to see in the near future? John Hawkes getting much more screentime than John Hawkes usually gets in something so mainstream? Rebecca De Mornay? Clea DuVall? John C. McGinley? Alfred Molina? Jake Busey? Pruitt Taylor Vince? Nobody does a bad job, even if (in fact . . . especially if) they're allowed to chew the scenery for a while. The material can handle such grandstanding melodramatics, and everyone in the cast is happy to oblige. There are also small roles for Holmes Osborne, Marshall Bell, Leila Kenzie, Carmen Argenziano, William Lee Scott, and one or two others.

I know that I started this review by stating how great this is, and I know that people will have assumed that was hyperbole. They'll be waiting for a bit of balance here, some criticisms to show that I still have my faculties intact. Sadly, that's not ever guaranteed when it comes to me. If the big finale had been played out in a way that felt serious or earnest then the film would have failed completely (just look at something like Serenity), but Mangold and Cooney don't make that mistake. The ending is ridiculous. They know it's ridiculous. They also know that ridiculous can be ridiculously entertaining.

I love the script, I love the music by Alan Silvestri, I love the cinematography by Phedon Papamichael, I really do love everything about this. While I don't expect many to love it quite as much as I do, I implore you all to revisit it. Or, at the very least, remember it for the fine filmic fun it is. With respect to the fine Kenneth Branagh, I'll take this over any star-laden Poirot remake any day of the week.

9/10

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

Black Bag (2025)

Here's another film from the long-retired director Steven Soderbergh. Coming along so soon after Presence, which was also written by the writer of this, David Koepp, it would be interesting to consider just how many movies we would get from him if he hadn't decided to duck out of the industry years ago and spend time resting on his laurels. 

George Woodhouse and Kathryn St. Jean (Michael Fassbender and Cate Blanchett, respectively) are a married couple who are both in the spy business. Their marriage is enviably solid, but things may get tricky when it looks as if Kathryn has been up to some treachery. In order to get to the bottom of things, George ropes in a number of friends (played by Tom Burke, Marisa Abela, Regé-Jean Page, and Naomie Harris) to help him. He'll either ask them for favours or interrogate them with a polygraph attached, but he'll do whatever is necessary to untangle the whole messy situation.

One or two moments aside, and even those could be tweaked, Black Bag is the kind of film that you could easily envision as a stage play. The plotting is smart, yet also keeps things slightly confusing in a way that is nicely in line with the murky world of spycraft that we're dropped in the middle of. Keeping track of everything should show you how it all works out plausibly, but it's one that I think may well require at least one or two rewatches to fully unpick.

Koepp does well to deliver a mix of characters who feel enjoyably different from one another while also feeling capable of doing what their job entails. He also ensures that the dialogue feels authentic for everything that our protagonists are discussing. I'm not saying that it IS, but it feels that way to a layman onlooker like myself.

Soderbergh loves a challenge, which is what I assume drew him to both this and Presence (that one being a haunted house movie from the POV of the presence, this one being a spy thriller with the emphasis on conversations and a look at the mindset of those who take on such work), and it's a good job that he is often up to the task of meeting those challenges. He has times when he misses, and I am one of those people who really disliked Presence, but his hit rate is pretty impressive, and there's usually always at least something of interest in even his weakest features.

Fassbender and Blanchett are both as excellent as you'd expect, and there's a nice little role for Pierce Brosnan that allows him to lift the film momentarily with a perfect mix of menace and that typical Brosnan charm, but it's interesting to see how well the supporting cast do to hold their own alongside the two more established stars. Burke, someone who doesn't always impress me, is brilliant, providing some of the funniest moments of the film in a way that doesn't move everything too far away from the main tone of the whole piece, Abela projects the image of someone very capable, but perhaps trying too hard to disguise her own intelligence, and both Page and Harris sink their teeth into roles that could have easily been all-too-forgettable.

Low-key throughout, but no less thrilling for it, this is top-tier cloak and dagger stuff. It might not be the very best example of this kind of thing, and I suspect one or two loose plot points that I may or may not be satisfied with on a rewatch, but there are times when it comes very close. 

8/10

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

Mubi Monday: The Last Showgirl (2024)

There are many times when others praise things that make it easy for me to agree with them, be it a piece of art or an artist, or something that occurs in the world outside of my entertainment/art bubble. I would say that most of the time I tend to find my views aligning with the majority. Not all of the time though, and The Last Showgirl is one of those times when I am very much at the opposite end of the general consensus.

Pamela Anderson plays Shelly, a showgirl who finds herself with a big problem when the show that she has been part of for decades is due to close forever. Despite the dwindling audience numbers and various struggles, this news seems to be a huge shock to Shelly, Mary-Anne (Brenda Song), Jodie (Kiernan Shipka), and the other women in the show. Not sure of what she will do in the future, Shelly starts to also consider what she has given up in the past, including a relationship with her daughter, Hannah (Billie Lourd). 

The first screenplay feature credit for Kate Gersten, The Last Showgirl is a disappointing and muddled look at choices made in youth that reverberate through an entire lifetime, as well as being an obvious exploration of how anyone racing against the clock of natural ageing is always going to be in danger of losing their place in an industry that values youth and beauty above almost everything else. While not a great film, it also has the misfortune of being released very close to the much superior The Substance, which explores similar themes in a much more interesting, and a much smarter, way. It's hard not to keep comparing the two, considering how they also position a "past their prime" actress in the lead role, surround them with one or two relative newcomers, and underscore the main narrative with a mixture of sadness and disappointment in the lack of progress made in the two main industries being looked at.

Director Gia Coppola obviously believes that casting Anderson in the lead role is a great way to play into the material, but that would only work if Anderson was good enough. Sadly, she is not, and the fact that she plays her character with some constant faux-Marilyn Monroe affectation in her speech doesn't help her show a big enough difference between her stage persona and her personality when not performing. Song and Shipka aren't given enough to do, with the latter also unable to make her character work when required to perform a dance that is supposed to get close to something sexy, and the only moments worth your time involve either Dave Bautista (as Eddie, a producer who has a past with Shelly), Jamie Lee Curtis (as Annette, a former showgirl now working as a cocktail waitress), or Billie Lourd (as Hannah, Shelly's daughter).

There are some parts of this that are admirable, but they're overshadowed by a lead actress who cannot make the most of her role, a couple of trips into fantasy sequences that derail the central narrative focus, and a third act that is equal parts unsatisfying and surprisingly empty. I'm not going to say that the whole thing ultimately lacks enough . . . substance, but that wouldn't be an incorrect summary. I don't know who to blame - writer, director, or star - but surely they didn't want people to watch this and just wish they had rewatched Showgirls instead.

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: The Passion Of The Christ (2004)

It's all well and good to dismiss Mel Gibson nowadays, and I certainly wouldn't force anyone to check out any of his movies if they have been disgusted by some of his rants and behaviour over the past couple of decades, but it's also interesting to revisit some of his major features, now that we know even more about what wildfires have occasionally raged across the surface of his brain.

I watched The Passion Of The Christ many years ago, back when it was first available for home viewing, and my one takeaway from that experience was how bored it made me. It shows us the last few hours in the life of Jesus Christ (played by Jim Caviezel), which makes it an experience filled with pain and bloodshed. I think I remember people complaining about it being a Jesus-centric slice of torture porn, but I was unimpressed by the choices made when it came to what we saw onscreen.

This revisit left me similarly cold on the thing, especially when you consider how many people who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus would be the ones denying his power and turning to some flashy false idol instead. Personal faith is a wonderful thing, as I have said many times before, but organised religion seems to be used more as a baton to hurt and keep down others. Just look at . . . well, almost everyone in America today who claims to be Christian. Having also worked with Benedict Fitzgerald on the screenplay, director Gibson clearly equates this religious tale/lesson with the idea of pain and penance being as important to the heart of things as love and kindness. The entire film is a shock tactic, a reminder of what was sacrificed, and it's admirable that he made something that somehow managed to appeal to a great number of people who would be disgusted by this kind of content in any non-religious film. Despite being both R-rated and subtitled, this was massively successful at the box office, proving how well Gibson knew how to sell his vision to like-minded fans.

The cast don't get much wiggle room though, of course, and Caviezel is an actor I have come to like less and less throughout the years. He has always seemed far too self-serious and limited in his abilities, an image that this role does nothing to dispel. Most of the performance is felt through the special effects, and the many moments that Caviezel cries out in pain. Maia Morgenstern is okay in the role of Mary, and Monica Bellucci doesn't get enough to do as Magdalen, but there are good moments for both Mattia Sbragia and Hristo Naumov Shopov, as, respectively, Caiaphas and Pontius Pilate. Rosalinda Celentano also makes a strong impression as Satan. Maybe it's a point of interest that Satan still gets some of the best moments in a film about Jesus.

It's hard to fault the film, technically, with Gibson making great use of a relatively low budget to tell the story (one or two flashbacks allow us to see a pre-persecuted Jesus doing some good deeds) and a lush score from John Debney accompanying the visuals, but it's hard to think of this as something that people will choose to revisit. Other religious films may not be as faithful, and they may not be as graphic in their depiction of what Jesus went through, but not every church-goer wants to spend a couple of hours being presented with so much torture and pain (not outwith a passionate sermon anyway). Sometimes they just want to enjoy a stellar cast holding your attention for over 4 hours in The Greatest Story Ever Told. I think I might also prefer that. So I already know what I am lining up to watch next Easter.

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 

Shudder Saturday: Doomwatch (1972)

A feature film based on a popular BBC drama series that ran between 1970-1972, Doomwatch is a strange mix of tame thrills, overcooked acting, and a central concept that arguably feels even more relevant to day than it felt back at the start of the 1970s.

Ian Bannen is Dr. Del Shaw, a scientist from the Doomwatch organisation (a group monitoring our environment with the hope of keeping it clear of any problems that would affect us) sent to the island of Balfe. An oil tanker sank just off the coast of the island some time ago, and Dr. Shaw needs to find out if things are clearing up. He ends up finding something else in the water, however, and it may have been affecting the island residents for some time.

Clive Exton is credited with the final draft here, but Kit Pedler and Gerry Davis are the writers responsible for the series that provides a lot of the main framework. It's hard to figure out whether the film assumes that viewers will have knowledge of the series or whether it's just written in a way that crams enough information into early scenes before delivering some of the expected drama and tension, but there's certainly a clumsiness to some of the exposition and the interactions between our leading man and the many people who are hostile to his presence.

Director Peter Sasdy isn't the best of the British directors working consistently at this time (having delivered a few Hammer movies, as well as many other works on TV, before this Tigon production), but he tries to do his best with material that could easily veer between silliness and sensationalism. The fact that it often feels removed from either extreme may disappoint some film fans, but it's an admirable approach to the whole thing.

Bannen is perfectly fine in his role, and Judy Geeson stands out as Victoria Brown, a lovely young woman who ends up caught up in the unfolding horror. John Paul, Simon Oates, Jean Trend, and Joby Blanshard reprise their roles from the TV show, which helps with the continuity for anyone who also watched the show (I have not, and I believe it's one of those shows that now has a number of sadly lost episodes), and there's a cameo appearance by the always wonderful George Sanders.

While it may be too restrained, and perhaps just a bit too quaint, for many modern viewers, Doomwatch is very much worth your time. If anything, the problems of environmental pollution being caused by, and worsened, by those in positions of power who keep trying to maintain a cover-up while denying any harmful consequences is absolutely on par with a lot of what we see around us today, from the pollution of many lakes and rivers in the UK to every avoidable move to keep using fossil fuels that are contributing to the growing problem of global warming. There may have been a time when this film seemed to be nothing more than a cute curio from the past. It's now sadly a very prescient look at how a handful of individuals have to struggle to change the ways of corporations, as well as changing the mindset of people who have just become used to living with what they deem an acceptable level of harm, as long as they get to live in relative peace.

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

The Saint (1997)

There are many films you could choose to watch if you're in the mood to remember the great talent of the late Val Kilmer, who we lost just a couple of weeks ago, but I decided to finally watch The Saint. Having not given it much thought throughout the decades since it was released, I picked up a digital copy of the movie ages ago for less than the price of a cup of coffee. Now seemed as good a time as any to finally get around to watching it. 

Kilmer is the titular character, AKA Simon Templar AKA a variety of false names always referencing saints. He's a master thief, as well as a master of disguise, and aiming to hit the magic number of $50M in his bank account to afford him a relaxing life of retirement. That's why he takes on a lucrative job that requires him to steal the ground-breaking work of Dr. Emma Russell (Elisabeth Shue) and help a powerful Russian (Ivan Tretiak, played by Rade Serbedzija) monopolise the modern miracle of cold fusion. Things are complicated by pesky feelings though, and it becomes clear that Mr. Templar will struggle to get to the end of this particular adventure with his halo intact.

There's some talent here, certainly when it comes to the people behind the camera. Writers Jonathan Hensleigh and Wesley Strick have been responsible for a wide variety of films that, whether good or bad, have often been interesting, at the very least. Director Phillip Noyce can do tension and intelligent thrillers, and was coming off a great run of features helmed between the late '80s to the mid-1990s, but none of his skill is on display here. It's obvious that the script isn't strong - it's muddled, lacking action, and even fails to make Templar appealing beyond the natural charm of Kilmer - but very disappointing that Noyce couldn't figure out how to create something that would be able to distract us from that big problem.

Kilmer cannot carry the film alone though, but he's forced to. As much as I enjoy her work, Shue is not served well by having to portray someone smart enough to turn the theory of cold fusion into a reality, yet also silly enough to be taken in by Templar in one or two of his more ridiculous disguises. She needs to be both the valuable "asset" and the standard love interest, although I will admit that it was a pleasant surprise to see a third act in which Kilmer's character only survives thanks to her assistance. Serbedzija is stuck playing a dull villain, in line with the dullness of almost everything else in the movie (from the visuals to the other characters), Valeriy Nikolaev gets to have a bit more fun as the angry son/henchman, and Alun Armstrong, Tommy Flanagan, and Emily Mortimer all appear onscreen just long enough to look slightly embarrassed about being there.

There's a decent score from Graeme Revell, although even that pales in comparison to a soundtrack that includes tracks from Sneaker Pimps, The Chemical Brothers, Daft Punk, David Bowie, and Orbital (delivering a superb reworking of the familiar theme tune), and a couple of nice moments just before the end credits roll that will leave you wishing that the rest of the film played more into the iconography of the character. That's all I can compliment though, aside from Kilmer. 

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 

Captain America: Brave New World (2025)

I don't know why, but I felt as if Captain America: Brave New World was going to be the fresh start that we needed for the MCU. It didn't have to be weighed down with the baggage of a whole load of other movies. It didn't have to necessarily be setting up numerous future adventures. It could simply . . . be, allowing fans to appreciate what they got onscreen while still remaining calm and unfazed about whatever was coming along next.

It almost worked.

Anthony Mackie is Sam Wilson, now Captain America, having been bequeathed the iconic shield some time ago. He has a few extra gadgets to help him, but no super-serum. Harrison Ford is President Thaddeus Ross, a powerful man who may be ready to empathise and compromise with superheroes who are now necessary to keep countries, and even the world, safe. Things might work out well, but not if the likes of Samuel Sterns (Tim Blake Nelson) and Sidewinder (Giancarlo Esposito) have their way.

There's enough to enjoy here. Mackie is excellent as a leading man, Ford is a great addition to the MCU, and there are some very enjoyable supporting characters. Danny Ramirez is likable enough as Joaquin Torres, someone who wants to be the next Falcon, Carl Lumbly is very good as Isaiah Bradley, a previous Captain America, and Shira Haas is certainly memorable as a leading security advisor to the POTUS. Nelson is also great, and benefits enormously from receiving more time and attention than Esposito, who is sadly wasted (and this is the second of the 2025 movies I have seen that sadly wastes Esposito).

Director Julius Onah, who also worked on the screenplay with four other writers, doesn't embarrass himself. He delivers some good images, keeps the tone impressively serious without being too sombre and gloomy throughout, for the most part, and handles the action well when we get some action. That is arguably the biggest problem with this though, a disappointing lack of action. It feels caught between two places, with some of the paranoid political thriller vibes of the excellent second Captain America film and then some belated crash bang wallop moments to keep fans happy just before the credits roll (and, yes, we’re back to waiting around to see what a post-credits scene will hint at).

It may be a return to form, certainly in terms of the overall look and feel, and there may be a focus that seemed to be lacking from the MCU during the past couple of “wilderness years”, but there’s nothing that makes it feel as entertaining, bombastic, or just outright fun as the better movies under the Marvel umbrella. Much like the titular hero, however, it does give some hope for the future.

7/10

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

Prime Time: G20 (2025)

The fact that it took four writers to come up with this - a film essentially summed up as "Die Hard at the G20 summit" - is bewildering. G20 is yet another film that has tried to emulate Die Hard throughout the past four decades without really understanding what makes that film such an enduring classic.

Viola Davis plays President Danielle Sutton, someone who handily comes from a military background. While attending the G20 summit with her family, Sutton has to call on her past skillset to stay one step ahead of some pesky terrorists (headed up by Rutledge, played by Antony Starr). She is helped by Agent Manny Ruiz (Ramón Rodriguez), but we all know that things are leading to a face-to-face battle between the terrorists and a lone Sutton.

Director Patricia Riggen seems to make the mistake of relying on a very weak script here. Writers Caitlin Parrish, Erica Weiss, Logan Miller, and Noah Miller don't really know what they're doing, sadly, when it comes to the movie template they have to work with. They know how to make something that feels like a standard survival-action videogame, especially in the third act (which will feel familiar to anyone who has repeatedly battled Wesker in the Resident Evil game series), but they don't know how to make a fun action movie full of characters that you care about, or that you believe to be in genuine peril. 

It doesn't help that the whole thing also feels like a streaming film, as opposed to something with an aim to be more than just content to add to the constant stream of content. There's a flat ugliness to the visual style, a presentation that feels paradoxically expensive and cheap at the same time (don't ask me exactly how, but I'm sure other film fans will know what I mean), and every main plot beat is predictable and quite safe. Aside from some villains and one or two disposable characters, nobody orbiting the central storyline ever feels in real danger. This is complete escapism, fair enough, but a lack of thrills means that you should expect to see some impressive action sequences, at the very least, and that does not happen.

Davis is fine in the lead role though. Capable and strong enough to let you fleetingly believe that America would actually consider voting in a black woman as POTUS, when we all know that in reality they would find reasons to besmirch and reject her. Anthony Anderson is also fine as her loving husband, and both Marsai Martin and Christopher Farrar do well as their kids, the former being the tech wizard who could prove useful after proving her credentials in some very early scenes of rebellious teenage behaviour and the latter being an extra factor to plan around when it is time for the bullets and bloodshed. Rodriguez does what is asked of him, although he has to get out of the way at some point for our brave POTUS to start doing full-on brave POTUS stuff. As for Starr, you can see him poised to chew the scenery and have a blast, but he's never let off the leash, which is a great shame. He could have helped to lift this up, but his character feels disappointingly sidelined until a big finale that has him fairly neutered. Douglas Hodge is amusing, as a stuffy and pig-headed Prime Minister, but there's nobody else who stands out from a supporting cast that could have easily made room for one or two scene-stealers.

I'm sure many people here did their best, including the cast. It's hard to see that though, considering how bad both the writing and direction are (Riggen may do well with certain material, but an action director she is not, sadly). This is the kind of easy viewing choice that makes you resent giving it your time, and I hope others avoid it. If you're after something in this vein then just ask me, let me know what streaming services you have available, and I'll happily give you at least half a dozen better options.

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 

RoboCop 2 (1990)

I really cannot recall whether or not I actually saw RoboCop 2 when it was released years ago. I had either forgotten it completely, which is entirely possible, or I didn't bother with it after hearing that it was no good, which is equally possible. It's also very possible that people telling me it was no good were just plain wrong. RoboCop 2 is pretty great. Just like many sequels, the biggest problem it has is not being as good as the film that preceded it.

Peter Weller is back in the main role, and Nancy Allen is still his partner, Lewis. Detroit isn't any safer, sadly, and the latest threat to people is a powerful and highly-addictive drug named Nuke, with a man named Cain (Tom Noonan) being at the very top of that lucrative supply chain. Will RoboCop be able to deal with the problem, or will it be time to unveil RoboCop 2?

Written by Frank Miller and Walon Green, and directed by Irvin Kershner, the first thing that many will notice about RoboCop 2 is just how much it wants to keep the dark humour running through the nihilism and violence. That is obvious from the first scene, thankfully, and it sets the scene for a film that nicely balances out the thrills and violence with ongoing commentary about businesses over-extending their reach across society, especially when it comes to crime prevention and policing of cities. Kershner is a very capable director, and not afraid to tackle a sequel to a massive hit, and he tries to keep everything on track here, despite the plot strand that takes some time to explore the humanity of our hero before simply making use of it as an additional strength when he once again faces off against a potentially deadlier robo-foe.

Weller and Allen are a good fit, and (as evidenced in the next instalment in the series) it's hard to really think of anyone else as RoboCop. Allen gets less to do this time around, but she's still a loyal and capable partner, and she is still willing to keep fighting back against overwhelming odds when other robots get that urge to kill. Noonan is as watchable as ever, and a lot of fun in the role of Cain. He doesn't get to be as mean and fun as Kurtwood Smith in the first movie, but he brings that patented Noonan menace to his role. Dan O'Herlihy is entertainingly conniving, Belinda Bauer is enjoyable as another person thinking that they have a great idea to progress the profitability and innovation of the company, and it's worth mentioning how good Gabriel Damon is in the role of a vicious criminal kid named Hob. Others to namecheck are Galyn Görg (a bit of a moll, essentially), Willard Pugh (the Mayor), Stephen Lee (corruptible cop), Mark Rolston and John Glover (both with barely any screentime, but just there enough for you to start thinking about where else you know them from).

Maybe I like this a lot more now than I ever would have if I'd seen it back when it was first released. I am more familiar with the main cast members, I can appreciate the humour even more, and I have a really comforting warmth of nostalgia when I see actors positioned in front of matte paintings and rear projections in a way that we rarely see nowadays. It's not able to present the kind of perfectly-realised vision that can be done with computer effects now, but that just adds to the charm. If you have a choice then you should always choose to (re)watch the original film, but this is far from the worst way you can spend more time with these characters in this world.

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: September Says (2024)

I've seen a bit of praise for September Says already, and I can understand some of it. Co-written by Daisy Johnson and Ariane Labed, with Labed also taking on feature directing for the first time, this is a dark and interesting psychological drama. I've also seen some people refer to this as unique though, and that just isn't correct. I actually defy any seasoned film fan to start watching September Says and not soon figure out where it is going to end up, generally speaking.

Rakhee Thakrar is a mother, Sheela, and our young leads are July (Mia Tharia) and September (Pascale Kann). July often takes part in a game called September Says, which will be familiar to anyone who has ever played Simon Says. Unfortunately, despite September often trying to support and help July, there are times when a game of September Says can quickly turn dark and dangerous. Oh, they're also on holiday in Ireland, which allows them to feel more like outsiders struggling to fit in with those around them.

Although this could go in a multitude of different directions, allowing it to move from drama into something more genre-heavy, Labed isn't interested in that. That's fine, of course, and she can choose to take her own movie in whatever direction she wants. It's ultimately disappointing though, mainly because it soon becomes clear that neither Labed nor Johnson have anything new or interesting to say. Movies don't have to say anything new or interesting, but that harms a movie when there's not much else to appreciate.

The main performances are good, although the cast sometimes struggle with the idea of expressing themselves within their own little bubble. Thakrar, for example, is playing an interesting and complex figure, but there are only one or two scenes that help to make her more than just a bundle of quirks and nerves. Tharia and Kann work really well together, despite being weighed down by material that thinks it is being much more interesting and clever than it actually is.

What could have been an interesting exploration of the harm that loved ones can do to one another, or just a look at the ups and downs of any sibling/friend relationship, ends up being a waste of time, sadly. There's not enough substance to flesh it out, but it also lacks the artistry to make it the kind of viewing experience that you can at least appreciate for the aesthetic while everyone dances around the slim narrative.

Decent. Occasionally interesting. Dark. I already know that some will appreciate this a bit more than I did, and I can understand that. I still cannot view it as anything unique though, and the thing that stops it from being unique is one important aspect that is almost completely mishandled throughout.

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 

Netflix And Chill: Unfrosted (2024)

Please feel free to read the following in the style of an exaggerated Jerry Seinfeld impression. What's the deal with non-bread breakfast that you put into the toaster? We have bread for that. Oh, you want fruity goodness too? Put some jam on top. Got a sweet tooth? Add chocolate spread. Want it all feeling as if you have some kind of acceptable hot pocket to start the day with? Just fold it over. But no, someone had to go and invent Pop-Tarts, a filled pastry product made by popping it into your toaster.

A satirical look at the breakfast cereal landscape, and the creation and marketing of the Pop-Tart, Unfrosted is directed by Jerry Seinfeld, stars Jerry Seinfeld in the main role of Bob Cabana, and was written by Seinfeld, Spike Feresten, Andy Robin, and Barry Marder. While it doesn't really help anyone to understand the landscape of breakfast brand creation and marketing, it certainly helps people to understand why Seinfeld seems to have spent the last few years going on about people not being able to just be funny any more. While constantly bemoaning a cultural landscape that he believes is restricting and throttling comedians, Seinfeld has really been signifying to us all that he is just no longer all that funny. And Unfrosted proves that.

Look, I'm no comedian (successful or otherwise), and I have had nowhere near the amount of experience that Seinfeld has. But has Seinfeld actually done much on his own to allow himself to be positioned as some wise commentator on the state of society as a whole, and how it has specifically affected comedy? I am going to say no. Seinfeld is a half-decent stand-up comic who has had his greatest achievements due to the work of other people, whether that is Larry David behind the scenes or the co-stars that we all think of when we think of Seinfeld. And that's a show named after himself.

But let's get back to Unfrosted, as unfunny and charmless as it is. Aside from Seinfeld in his main role, the cast also includes Jim Gaffigan, Amy Schumer, Christian Slater, Melissa McCarthy, Cedric The Entertainer, Thomas Lennon, James Marsden, Tony Hale, Hugh Grant, and many more. Everyone gets a moment, with the slight and silly plot just used as a framework to jump from one selection of gags to the next, but only a select few can do enough to rise above the material. Schumer isn't bad, McCarthy is as much fun as she usually is (I'm a fan, but that statement will also help those who dislike her usual schtick know that they can avoid this), Slater is a lot of fun as a threatening milkman, and Bill Burr is very funny in his portrayal of JFK. It's Grant who steals the film though, looking slightly shame-faced as a classical actor hiding away inside the suit of Tony The Tiger, that well-known breakfast cereal mascot who assured us all that the bowl we were served every morning tasted "grrrrrrrrrreat."

I'm sure that everyone involved in this had fun. There are so many people popping up for one or two scenes, so many different ideas and gags added to the mix, that it feels as if someone came up with the premise to simply gather friends together and have a lot of fun. Good for them. It doesn't translate to a fun viewer experience though. Did I laugh a few times? Yes. Did I hate the whole thing? No. It just all seemed so random and pointless though, and as smug as many other Seinfeld appearances I have seen in recent years (whether he's having coffee in cars with someone much funnier than himself or being interviewed about how he and his peers can no longer deliver jokes to audiences who just don't recognise comedy any more).

People can still very much recognise comedy. It's just that people no longer recognise some of Seinfeld's material as being very funny. Maybe it never was, considering how he has spent his career surrounding himself with layers of other people's talent, or maybe I'm just judging him too harshly after having wasted 97 minutes of my time on this nonsense.

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: Hostile Dimensions (2023)

A lot of people became huge fans of writer-director-star Graham Hughes when he delivered the found footage-adjacent horror Death Of A Vlogger. I liked the film, and it's one that I have enjoyed rewatching since buying a digital copy, but still don't love it as much as many other people. This film, similar in both style and the various tricks used, feels like a slight improvement on his previous feature, but there is a leaning towards sci-fi that may displease those hoping for a delicious selection of oddities and frights.

In a concept that will be familiar to many, but especially familiar to those who have watched Monsters, Inc., or have read (and probably re-read) The Dark Tower series by Stephen King, Hostile Dimensions shows people being presented with a number of doors that don't work according to the known laws of our universe. The doors don't necessarily have to be fitted into a wall, for starters, and opening them up can allow you to step into a very different world. That would be okay if every doorway took you into Narnia, but the title might clue viewers in to the fact that safety is far from guaranteed for those who decide to step over the threshold. Josie Rogers plays Emily, a young woman who disappeared after checking out one such door, and Ash (Joma West) and Sam (Annabel Logan) decide that it might be worthwhile making a documentary about her disappearance. Things take a turn for the interesting/dangerous when they start to piece together what could have happened to Emily. And the same thing might happen to them.

Paced well enough, and with a couple of genuinely great scares sprinkled throughout the thing, Hostile Dimensions is an entertaining slice of oddness that only suffers from never coming close to fully realising the potential of the concept. Hughes does well with his budget, but there are times when his limitations are obvious, especially in the different dimensions that seem to be home to polygons that have escaped from an old Spectrum 48K.

The cast will be familiar to those who saw Death Of A Vlogger, but everyone seems to have become more accustomed to the style, and what is required of them. Hughes is arguably the weakest of the main cast members, although I am not saying that he’s bad, but West, Logan, and Rogers are all very good, and Paddy Kondracki benefits from the fact that he’s not needing to be as over the top and comedic this time around.

Apparently the second in a planned trilogy of movies in this style, this is certainly enough to win over some more fans of Hughes, and to please those who were impressed by his previous feature. I tend to like the fact that we can still see the rough edges and flaws that show his vision and ambition staying ahead of what he has to work with. Others may not view the end product so kindly, and I am sure that I am in the minority for preferring this to the last film helmed by Hughes. 

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 

It Ends With Us (2024)

People may be more interested in the behind-the-scenes drama than the onscreen result now that It Ends With Us is way beyond the marketing and all-smiles-for-the-release phase, but it's a film that I actually saw before the release of the full details of what allegedly happened while it was being made. So I'll try just to judge it on what we get within the film.

It's a strange mix, and ultimately not a great film.

Blake Lively plays Lily Bloom, who is the latest fictional character in a long line of those who prove the idea of nominative determinism when she gathers up the courage and funds to open her own florist shop. She becomes firm friends with Allysa (Jenny Slate), which also leads to her dating Allysa's brother, Ryle (Justin Baldoni). Lily also ends up reconnecting with someone from her past, Atlas Corrigan (Brandon Sklenar), and this causes tension between her and Ryle, which highlights the problem that Ryle has controlling his temper. 

Adapted from the Colleen Hoover book by Christy Hall, and directed by Baldoni, there's something worthwhile, and even admirable, about It Ends With Us. The third act presents a surprisingly impactful and pointed look at the many ways people can excuse, and even justify, red flags/violence/abuse in their loved ones, often until it is far too late to get themselves into a much safer situation. The fact that it's all dressed up in so prettily, just like a standard romantic movie, is both a plus and a minus for it. I understand that it's a way to sell the film, as well as being a way to present the rose-filtered glasses that people can have on while trying to hold on to a relationship that isn't worth their time, but it undoubtedly works against the more serious thematic strand that is the main thrust of the film.

Lively is a really good lead, she can do gritty and strong as well as she can do soft and mushy, and this role needs her to do both. Slate is also a big plus, portraying someone who seems to be a really good friend, but takes time to fully step up when things are taking a turn for the worse. As for Baldoni and Sklenar, they're both here more for their looks than their acting talent, from what I can tell, but the latter certainly has more of an appealing screen presence than the former, and that clearly helps with how the story wants to pan out. You get decent supporting turns from Hasan Minhaj (partner of Slate's character), Kevin McKidd and Amy Morton (parents of a young Lily, who is played well by Isabela Ferrer), and Alex Neustaedter (young Atlas), but anyone moving around onscreen tends to be there in service of the unfolding stories of Lily, Ryle, and Atlas, and the film moves in and out of interactions always ready to get right back alongside one of the leads.

I am not familiar with the source material (and I don't think I'll ever want to dive into any Colleen Hoover books, as upsetting as I'm sure that is for her to hear as she cries into her millions), but I can't help thinking there was a better way to adapt it into a film. It's only the third act that stands out, and that's only thanks to the use of a metaphorical bright marker pen underlining the real message of the movie, and even making it feel very like a love triangle seems to be a disservice to a lot of women who will watch this and recognise some disturbingly familiar moments. 

Considering the relative success, I'm sure we'll see more attempts to adapt Colleen Hoover novels in the near future. You could say that it's unlikely to end with this. Maybe the others will be less problematic. We'll just have to wait and see.

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

The Monkey (2025)

When I heard that we were getting a movie version of "The Monkey", a short story by Stephen King, I immediately tried to remember how the tale panned out. I've read a LOT of Stephen King work, including almost all of his superb short story collections, but I could not remember "The Monkey", even after being reminded of the fact that it featured in the fantastic Skeleton Crew. I somehow kept confusing it in my mind with "Chattery Teeth", a story from the enjoyable Nightmares & Dreamscapes collection.

Theo James plays twins Hal and Bill (the younger incarnations played by Christian Convery), men who have very different views on a cymbal-bashing monkey that they took possession of for a brief, but memorable, part of their childhood. Piecing things together, they eventually reached that the conclusion that the monkey would always signify the sudden death of someone close by. Hal would be happy to never see the thing again. Bill, on the other hand, thinks he might be able to make use of such a unique power.

Written and directed by Osgood Perkins, who had great success penetrating the  last year with Longlegs, this looks as if 2025 is the year that allows him to cash in on all of the goodwill he gained in 2024. While still not necessarily for every mainstream horror fan, this is easily the most accessible film that Perkins has directed. As many others have already mentioned, it's a horror comedy with a number of deaths that would easily nestle alongside those showcased in the Final Destination series.

James isn't the best choice for a leading man, but he doesn't do a bad job with his two roles. There are better moments for Convery though, and Colin O'Brien (playing Hal's son, and someone he has kept at a distance in order to keep him safe) brings a better energy to things. Tatiana Maslany is very good as the mother of the twins, and there are very entertaining cameos from Adam Scott and Elijah Wood. Rohan Campbell also has fun in a supporting role, hard to recognise underneath a hairstyle that makes him look like a member of a Ramones tribute act, and I also have to mention Sarah Levy, Perkins himself (giving himself a small role that allows him to almost steal one scene in the movie, Tess Degenstein, and Danica Dreyer.

Everything is decently put together, from the score to the gore gags, from the dialogue to the pacing of the main plot points, but what matters most is that monkey, and I'm pleased to say that it's exactly as it needs to be. Designed to somehow remain completely impassive, yet also oozing menace whenever it's onscreen, the monkey is a brilliant, and unexpectedly effective, "villain". 

Perkins cannot quite navigate the tonal dancing required, but the fact that he gives it a go shows how good his instincts are when it comes to adapting the source material, which really wouldn't work if handled with complete seriousness. The end result is a bit of a mess, but it's an entertaining mess that manages to stand out from a crowd of neater, safer, mainstream horror choices. And I don't need my entertainment to be safe and neat and tidy.

7/10

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

Prime Time: Hellboy: The Crooked Man (2024)

A new Hellboy movie that has both a new actor portraying Big Red (Jack Kesy takes on the role this time) and a new director at the helm (Brian Taylor, he of the fun Neveldine/Taylor film-making duo), I was prepared to seriously dislike this. I have enjoyed previous Hellboy movies, but they had directors and stars I was more interested in. This seemed to be destined to disappoint me, considering the lack of major names and what looked to be, from the trailer anyway, a restrictively low budget.

I ended up not being disappointed.

To boil the story down to the core of the premise, Hellboy and Bobbie Jo Song (Adeline Rudolph) end up in a remote area where they discover someone in need of their help. Tom Ferrell (Jefferson White) has been put in a very difficult position, which makes him a target for a witch (Leah McNamara), and also has him apparently owing a debt to the titular crooked man (Martin Bassindale). 

With Mike Mignola helping to adapt his own comic book, joined by Taylor and Christopher Golden, this is a decent little slice of supernatural action that, as I have been assured by fans of the Hellboy comics, actually feels more in line with the source material than previous live-action films. I still have a soft spot for Perlman in the role, and the fact that his Hellboy was surrounded by the gorgeousness of Guillermo del Toro world-building, but there's actually nothing here to be overly critical of.

Yes, this cast and crew seem to be working with more limited resources, but that doesn't stop them from presenting a nicely-constructed number of set-pieces that allow Hellboy to face off against supernatural beings with his usual mix of brute strength and an inability to be too fazed by anything. The opening sequence, involving a speeding train and a troublingly large spider, may not inspire the most confidence, but things improve once we then move to the start of the main storyline.

Kesy is alright in the main role, and perhaps his performance only seems slightly lacking due to my own bias. He certainly does well with what he's given, and the character has the right weight and attitude for almost every minute of his screentime. Rudolph often feels like she's just around to be placed in danger, but the same could be said of others who have shared the screen with Big Red in past adventures. White is enjoyably shaky, even as he tries to stop showing how worried and tortured he is, and both McNamara and Bassindale are a lot of fun as two of the main entities causing trouble for our leads. Hannah Margetson and Joseph Marcell also do well, playing two people caught up in the unfolding events in different ways that could lead to them sharing a very similar fate.

I started to happily recommend this to like-minded friends as soon as I'd seen it. That doesn't mean that I think it's great, but I definitely think it is better than many (including myself) would expect it to be. I keep describing it as being akin to a one-shot comic, which makes sense when you consider the source material, and I suspect that fans of the main character will end up as pleasantly surprised as I was.

7/10

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