Shudder Saturday: The Spine Of Night (2021)

I tried to watch The Spine Of Night before, but things conspired against me. I ended up busier than expected, had to stop the film, and then just never got back to it. I always thought I was missing out, and I figured that the film might be something I would love. A year or so later, I discover that I was completely wrong. The Spine Of Night is a boring waste of a great cast.

Described on IMDb as an "ultra-violent, epic fantasy set in a land of magic" that "follows heroes from different eras and cultures battling against a malevolent force", this is all about a powerful woman (Tzod, voiced by Lucy Lawless) who battles to retain possession of a mystical flower known as the Bloom. It, or something akin to it, has been guarded by others over many years (with one of those guardians voiced by Richard E. Grant), but it has fallen into the hands of a major baddie named Ghal-Sur (Jordan Douglas Smith).

Co-written and co-directed by Philip Gelatt and Morgan Galen King, this rotoscoped dark fantasy has a number of obvious influences feeding into it, and anyone who enjoys those influences should find something to like here, but they will struggle to maintain that enjoyment as the film makes one mis-step after another. Although the runtime is only 93 minutes, the pacing makes it feel much longer, and makes it feel like quite a slog at times. The characters are hard to care about, the environments shown onscreen feel like disconnected backgrounds, as opposed to a real world, and the central quest never becomes as interesting or involving as it should be.

The animation style also works against it slightly. I appreciate some good rotoscoping, but it works best when it feels like a vital component. This is a choice, and an ill-advised one. There's nothing here that couldn't have been improved by either a different style of animation or, perhaps, a live-action presentation of the unfolding events.

As for the cast, both Lawless and Grant are great picks for their roles, Smith does well as the villain, and there are roles for Patton Oswalt, Joe Manganiello, and Larry Fessenden, as well as quite a few others, but nobody is given good enough material to work with. I don't mind something that mixes in plenty of familiar elements, there's a comfort and fun in enjoying ingredients mixed into a new recipe, but this feels, perhaps as intended, like a tale that was written back in the 1970s and dusted off for modern audiences without any extra re-writing or polishing of the material.

I could recommend you plenty of animated movies to watch ahead of this, from the fantasy, sci-fi, and horror genres, and some of those show a much better way to make use of rotoscoping. I'm sure The Spine Of Night has some fans, but I'm never going to want to revisit it, and I'll probably forget it exists at all within the next few months.

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

Ani-MAY-tion: Cars 2 (2011)

While I was pleasantly surprised by my recent, long overdue, viewing of Cars, I knew that I shouldn’t get my expectations too high for either of the sequels. Although I have forgotten the full conversation, I remember hearing that one was dire and one was a pleasant surprise. I hope the third Cars movie is a pleasant surprise, because this one wasn’t very good.

When Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) rises to the challenge of racing Francesco Bernoulli (John Turturro) he ends up unwittingly amidst a scheme that could lead to the death of many cars. It’s all to do with selling fuel, but a couple of secret agents (voiced by Michael Caine and Emily Mortimer) are on the case. Unfortunately, a misunderstanding leads to them thinking that Mater (Larry The Cable Guy) is working alongside them. There are chases, there are death traps, and there are many moments that have Mater defying the odds to make progress in his “mission”.

While I understand the need to avoid a complete replay of the first movie, Cars feels like a movie series with a limited number of plot options. And, let’s face it, many successful franchises have managed to repeat a formula over and over again, with minor tweaks, including a certain other huge Pixar title. Kids are especially pleased by repetition, which makes the road taken here (no pun intended) all the more bizarre.

Writer Ben Queen does what he can with the premise, presenting a kid-friendly James Bond adventure with Mater being the accidental hero of the piece, but he ends up delivering something incredibly weak. The main lesson feels overwhelmed by the secret agent shenanigans, and the secret agent shenanigans pale in comparison to almost any other film in this vein that you can think of. It doesn’t help that co-directors John Lasseter and Bradford Lewis don’t seem to have any interest in elevating the material, relying on the voice cast to make up for the many weaker elements.

That would be okay if the voice cast was better, but it’s not great. Caine and Mortimer ARE great, but they are absolute highlights here. Wilson is fine, but sidelined in favour of everything else going on, Turturro is equally undone by his relatively limited dialogue (he is fun when he gets time to chatter away), and the likes of Eddie Izzard, Joe Mantegna and others are wasted in supporting roles that don’t give them enough to do. The person who gets to do plenty is Larry The Cable Guy, who is enjoyable enough as Mater, but also quite an acquired taste (although there’s a chance that younger viewers will just lap up everything he says and does).

I didn’t absolutely hate this, mainly thanks to the slick visuals and a couple of small gags that made me chuckle, but it was very disappointing. Am I wrong for wanting another plot that saw Lightning McQueen having to learn some new tactics for a different kind of racing? Probably. Could that have been better than this bit of silliness though? Probably. It gets bonus points for the casting of Caine though, who is the best thing about it.

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

Ani-MAY-tion: Robot Dreams (2023)

It’s pretty hard to think of much to say about Robot Dreams, but I am going to try anyway. Sometimes I get going and it all becomes easier as I write. Sometimes I struggle and struggle, staring at the screen for the better part of an hour as I limp from one word to the next. I hope that’s not the case here, especially when the film itself brought me so much joy.

The plot is very simple. Dog is lonely. He buys himself a robot friend, which he then takes out and about. The two of them have a wonderful time, and it feels like the good times may go on forever. Unfortunately, a day at the beach leads to Robot becoming rusted and stuck. When Dog goes to find a solution, he returns to find the beach closed. The two are separated, but is it just for a season or two, or will it be a permanent split?

I had heard a lot of praise for Robot Dreams over the past year, and one or two people encouraged me to schedule it for this month of animated movie viewings, but I really didn’t know what to expect from something that seemed to have such a slight premise, but also still had a full feature runtime of just over 100 minutes. 

Writer-director Pablo Berger adapts a graphic novel by Sara Varon, and all I can tell you is that I am keen to see a lot more from either of those two individuals. I don’t think I have encountered their work, in any form, before this, which is particularly frustrating when I realized that Berger also helmed Blancanieves (a film I have owned for about a decade now, but never got around to watching).

With animation that is clean and beautifully detailed, and with a few central characters who are well-realized and easy to empathize with (despite being anthropomorphic robots and animals, with no main humans to be seen), Robot Dreams is a real treat for the eyes. Despite very little (if any) spoken dialogue, it’s also pleasing to the ears, with the full soundscape of the world being played out around the characters, punctuated occasionally by a brilliantly uplifting disco song.

Last, but certainly not least, Robot Dreams is a genuine treat for the heart. It looks at how people deal with loneliness, what is gained from true friendship, and how to process pain and loss. Both Dog and Robot change one another, and those changes will be part of the rest of their lives forever, whether they manage to reunite or not. 

Genuinely tense at times, because most viewers will be willing Dog on as events seem to conspire to thwart him getting back to his friend, genuinely heartwarming and smile-inducing, and genuinely beautiful and wonderful, Robot Dreams is odd, cute, and sweet, without being overly sugary. It is, in fact, a genuine modern classic.

10/10

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

Prime Time: Animal Farm (1954)

When I saw that the animated version of Animal Farm was available online I figured that it wouldn’t really be worth my time. I last saw this film when I was at school, I believe it was one of the choices shown to us one day when the TV/VCR combo was wheeled into class, and I remember it being a fairly basic adaptation of the classic George Orwell tale. But then I started to think about it more, to think of the lessons in the story, and I decided that it might be time for a revisit.

The plot summary is quite simple. A number of farm animals plot to overthrow their human “leader”, aiming to improve their lot in life with some valuable rules, a system that aims to make everything more fair for the hard workers, and full democracy. Of course, as many of you will already be aware, things don’t go according to plan. Rules change, some workers end up doing far more than others, and a leader starts enjoying the many perks of leadership.

Keeping everything quite simple, with narration by Gordon Heath and animals voiced by Maurice Denham, this is an impressively harsh work. Despite the form, it isn’t specifically aimed at younger viewers, although anything too graphic is kept offscreen. This is a message movie, and the message was so valuable that digging around for production information quickly reveals that it was funded, at least in part, by the CIA, who also worked out a new ending to more effectively condemn the ideology at the heart of the tale. Considering how relatively quaint the whole thing is, that piece of information left me reeling. I never knew that I had once been in a classroom where I had witnessed some CIA-endorsed “propaganda”, and it makes the end result, which makes a good fist of carefully adapting the source material, and getting the tone just right, all the more impressive.

Joy Batchelor and John Halas are the directors, another also working with a few other writers in getting the story from page to screen, and they do a very good job. Animal Farm doesn’t really start in a place of sunshine and roses, and it just gets darker and darker on the way to an inevitably bleak conclusion (Orwell gave us some classics, but they’re not cheery tales). The fact that this blends the animation with a growing sense of oppression (both tonally and literally), yet keeps the character interactions and plotting paced perfectly to keep viewers intrigued, is an impressive feat, and Batchelor and Halas should be applauded for such a balancing act.

If you haven’t reminded yourself of the tale in some time, or you haven’t ever given it your time, then now is as good a time as any to rectify that. Much like his other prescient masterpiece, Animal Farm feels like an important lesson being shouted at people who are deliberately plugging up their ears with cotton wool. It’s a scenario playing out all around us nowadays, and one that has been ongoing throughout much of our history. I am not sure if there is any way to break the cycle, but it’s always worth at least reminding ourselves of why we spend so much time feeling frustrated and angry at those who never make the most of any opportunities for real change. Even if that kind of thinning wouldn’t necessarily be approved by the CIA.

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

Ani-MAY-tion: The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out Of Water (2015)

While the first SpongeBob SquarePants movie was both wonderful and hilarious, it was a pretty straightforward quest narrative. This sequel is also, at the very heart of it, a quest, but it’s a quest that takes some twists and turns, including a magical book that allows characters to literally write their own fate, and a little bit of time-travel. I didn’t expect it to be as good as the first film, which was released just over a decade before this one, but I was hoping to have some more fun.

The whole thing begins with a theft, and it’s a theft committed in live-action form by a pirate (played by Antonio Banderas). We then move to another theft, this time one committed by Plankton, once again aiming to get his hands on the magical Krabby Patty recipe. But things soon get weird, so weird that SpongeBob ends up helping Plankton escape, with the two of them working together to find the lost recipe before Bikini Bottom is irrevocably changed by the loss.

First thing’s first, this isn’t as enjoyable or hilarious as the first movie. That’s not that surprising, I guess, but it still does enough to keep you smiling throughout . Most of the best gags appear in the opening third, but the finale has the additional pleasure of seeing the characters made “real” and interacting with elements of the world around us. I realise that me saying that implies a weak middle act, but that’s not the case. It just isn’t on par with the sections that bookend it.

Everyone is back for the main voice roles. No SpongeBob SquarePants adventure would be the same without hearing from Tom Kenny, Bill Fagerbakke, Clancy Brown, Rodger Bumpass, and Mr. Lawrence, as well as the other regulars. They all do the usual great work, and Banderas, as the main newcomer, and main non-animated character, is equally fun as Pirate Burger Beard.

While creator Stephen Hillenburg sits a bit further away from the main duties this time around, I’m sure he was keeping a close eye on everything. He wouldn’t have to worry too much about director Paul Tibbitt (or Mike Mitchell, responsible for the live-action sequences) though, or the lead writers, Jonathan Aibel and Glenn Berger. They all know what is needed, and they deliver.

While it’s not quite as good as the first feature film, this does well to avoid already feeling tired and stale. Whenever the gag rate dips slightly, there’s more than enough inventiveness and anarchy to make up for that. I had another very enjoyable visit to Bikini Bottom, and I am already looking forward to heading back there very soon.

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: Phantom Boy (2015)

On the surface, Phantom Boy is a very familiar tale, and maybe the kind of tale that people suffering from superhero-fatigue might choose to avoid at the moment. There's a young boy who finds that he has a special power, allowing him to move quickly, and unseen, around a city that is being threatened by a wannabe-supervillain named The Face. There's more to it than that though, and I would recommend this to people who don't mind trying something a bit different, even if it mixes in many familiar elements.

Leo (Gaspard Gagnol) is the lead character, the titular "phantom boy". Leo has to go into hospital to be treated for cancer, with the one silver lining to that cloud being a new-found ability to astrally project himself around the city. He cannot stay away from his physical body for too long though, otherwise his spirit will begin to disappear. When he ends up sharing some space with a wounded police officer, Alex (Edouard Baer), Leo explains his new super-power, and gives an effective demonstration. This leads to him helping Alex, who is in turn helping an investigative journalist named Mary (Audrey Tautou), who is trying to expose The Face (Jean-Pierre Marielle).

The big attraction here is the lovely animation style. It's clean and detailed, and has a great retro feel, a modern-day adventure with the vibe of something from the 1940s or '50s. From the opening credit sequence to the old-fashioned methodology of the criminal gang, this keeps finding effective ways to round off the corners of what could otherwise have been a more difficult film to enjoy (considering the one-two punch of cancer and child endangerment at the heart of it).

Co-directed by Jean-Loup Felicioli and Alain Gagnol, working from a script written by Gagnol, this is a film that manages to feel both refreshing and comfortingly familiar. Take away the fantastical element and you could easily imagine this being a Tintin adventure. The fantastical elements adds so much though, and it's more than whatever is overtly depicted onscreen. Leo has the constant worry revolving around being able to return to his physical body, and he there is an upside and downside to being able to view others who are unaware of his presence (not unlike those who are ill in a hospital bed, but able to hear the concerned conversations of the loved ones sitting around them). The stakes feel high when it comes to the lives of others being affected, but it's certainly not world-ending stuff, and the desperate need for Leo to help out seems to show his need to stay distracted, and to engage in a battle with an enemy that he can see in front of him.

The voice cast all do very well, a great fit for their roles (n.b. I did watch the original version of this, a dubbed version is also available . . . and Vincent D'Onofrio in the role of The Face seems like an excellent choice there), and the script does enough to make their interactions and character development believable, despite the main premise.

I haven't seen the previous feature from Felicioli and Gagnol, the celebrated A Cat In Paris, but I can assure you that it's been bumped up my list of "ones to watch" after finding so much to appreciate in this. Sweet, tense, and constructed with real care and tenderness, this is highly recommended, especially to those who may have dismissed it based purely on the title.

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

Netflix And Chill: Arrietty (2010)

An animated take on The Borrowes from Studio Ghibli, Arrietty (also known as The Secret World Of Arrietty) is, as you might have guessed already, yet ANOTHER film I had meant to see quite a few years ago. Why wouldn't I be interested in it? I love both The Borrowers and Studio Ghibli, so it seemed like a wonderful marriage.

Arrietty is the youngest member of the Clock family, tiny people living in the home of normal-sized humans. They survive by going on occasional quests to "borrow" what they need from the house before returning to their own living space, tucked away under the floorboards. Borrowers shouldn't be seen by humans, that's a pretty good rule to live by, but Arrietty ends up contemplating the idea of a friendship with Shô, a teenage boy who has arrived at the house to rest up before he is due to undergo heart surgery. Things soon become dangerous for Arrietty and her family, and it's harder for them to continue living their lives in secret, which means that it soon becomes time to see whether Shô will end up helping or hindering them.

The first film directed by Hiromasa Yonebayashi, who followed this up with the wonderful When Marnie Was There, this is the kind of thing that Studio Ghibli does so well. It takes some fantastical elements, grounds everything in a world that throws some very real problems at the main characters, and allows the animation team to impress everyone with visuals that are as beautiful and delicate as any other work of fine art you might choose to enjoy. Hayao Miyazaki and Keiko Niwa are responsible for the screenplay, adapting the Mary Norton novel (and, sadly, I cannot say how close to, or far from, the source material it is), and they know exactly what they're doing when it comes to balancing out the magical realism and the tension, with Miyazaki already having plenty of experience on many of his own directorial outings.

Although I am very often firmly against such choices, Arrietty, like many Studio Ghibli movies, is available in multiple versions. I still prefer to go for the Japanese audio, to hear the original cast members in their roles, but those opting for the dubbed version could, depending on their choice/territory, hear the likes of Bridgit Mendler, Amy Poehler, Will Arnett, and Carol Burnett, or Saoirse Ronan, Tom Holland, Olivia Colman, and Mark Strong, among others. I enjoyed the work of Mirai Shida (in the main role), Ryûnosuke Kamiki (as Shô), Tomokazu Miura and Shinobu Ôtake (as the parents of our lead), as well as Keiko Takeshita and Kirin Kiki. I'm not going to pretend that I keep these names filed in my brain when viewing various Japanese movies, but they may well be people I have ecnountered before, considering the lengths of their respective filmographies, and it's the least I can do to namecheck them here for their valuable contribution to the film.

There's no denying that Studio Ghibli movies are all about the artistry though, and this aims for the high standard that they are known for. It may not be quite as inventive or stunning as a number of more magical titles I could mention, but it's a treat for the eyes, and as well-realised and fluidly animated as the best of them. I loved it, and it even made me nostalgic for the other feature film version of this material that I have vague memories of. I hope that most people will agree with me, but especially those seeking out a suitable family viewing choice. In fact, you need to be putting all of the Studio Ghibli movies in steady rotation if you have any younger film viewers in your household.

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

Shudder Saturday: Infested AKA Vermines (2023)

I am majorly arachnophobic. I know it makes little sense, especially living in the UK (where we tend not to have many deadly spiders), but my brain is just wired that way, and it seems to have got worse and worse over the years, as spiders that wander into my eyeline seem to have grown in size. Admittedly, that might be my imagination. I'm not sure of any scientific data backing me up on that. 

I also like to face my fears occasionally though, especially via the medium of movies, which is why I watch so many shark movies. Is a fear of sharks some kind of phobia, or just a very understandable longing to keep all of your limbs attached to your body? When I saw the trailer for Infested, and also started to hear the good word about it, I knew I'd end up watching it. I also knew there would be moments to make me very itchy and nervous. I steeled myself, did a quick peripheral check for any creepy-crawlies that might try to surprise me during my viewing experience, and then pressed play.

Set in a run-down apartment building in France, Infested introduces us to Kaleb (Théo Christine), a young man who has a whole room full of exotic animals. That seems to be his main interest, when he's not trying to make extra money from selling designer sneakers to customers in his local community. Kaleb buys a poisonous spider from someone, takes it back home, and ends up endangering everyone in the building before you can say "incy wincy". The spider quickly starts reproducing, and all of the offspring are big, vicious, and deadly.

The feature debut from director Sébastien Vanicek, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Florent Bernard, there's a lot to appreciate here, especially in the first half of the film. Vanicek knows how to make the most of the premise as he builds up to the expected third act madness, and the pacing is great as viewers are introduced to various characters while we see their situation start to turn from good to bad, and then from bad to worse. He has a couple of scenes that really ratchet up the tension as people are unwittingly approached by a cluster of the deadly spiders. Unfortunately, a lot of that good work is undone by the second half of the film, where tension starts to dissipate as the spiders become bigger and greater in number, and the final scenes are really hard to care about, even downright laughable when it should be most intense.

The cast all do well, and well done to them all for the scenes that have them involved with real spiders amidst the many CG creations, but they're left floundering once the group dynamic has been established. Christine is a decent lead, and both Sofia Lesaffre and Lisa Nyarko do well alongside him (the latter playing his exasperated sister), but I can't say that I was all that invested in any other member of the core group. Jérôme Niel, Finnegan Oldfield, Abdella Moundy, Mahamadou Sangaré, Marie-Philomène Nga, and Xing Xing Cheng play a variety of supporting characters (some being part of the main group, some appearing long enough to add to the bodycount). They do a decent job, but it's only Cheng who manages to overcome the weak character development with her fun performance.

A lot of other people loved this, and it’s certainly hard to argue against how effective it is when that first half exploits a common fear in a way that is both nerve-wracking and playful (a scene showing spiders getting unto a bathroom is the absolute highlight of the film), but I think it’s a film of two halves. The first half is about as good as you could hope for. The second half goes downhill fast, and ultimately self-destructs in a finale that feels very hard to care about. Whether you view it as a standard arachno-horror or a metaphor for the discrimination people experience in France (and elsewhere around the world), Infested disappoints. The whole thing is still worth a watch, but be prepared to start losing interest once you get beyond the halfway mark.

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 

Ani-MAY-tion: The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie (2004)

I cannot say that I am overly familiar with SpongeBob SquarePants, but I know enough about him to enjoy this movie. He lives in Bikini Bottom. He works at an underwater diner named the Krusty Krab. And he has a loyal friend named Patrick. I have somehow absorbed all of this information without ever having watched a full episode of the TV show, as far as I am aware. I have watched this movie before though, but I remembered nothing about it.

There are a number of enjoyable diversions here, but the core of the plot concerns SpongeBob and Patrick embarking on a long and dangerous journey to reclaim and return Neptune’s crown. Succeeding in this quest will save the life of their boss, Eugene Krabs, and foil the scheme of the nefarious Plankton, who also gets busy turning the residents of Bikini Bottom into mindless zombies (not the full-on horror type, just devoid of their own willpower and easily controlled by Plankton).

Bookended by scenes that show a rowdy gang of pirates hoping to enjoy the animated feature, SpongeBob SquarePants: The Movie is just about as much fun as you could expect it to be. It seems to keep the essence of the show and characters, increases the scale just enough to make it feel worth adapting into a movie, and delivers plenty of surreal hilarity in both rhe visuals and the dialogue.

Directed and co-written by SpongeBob creator Stephen Hillenburg, with many others helping to knock the script into shape (and Mark Osborne credited for the live-action sequences), this feels like the kind of brilliant anarchy that you only get from someone who has negotiated their way to a place where they get to protect their vision with a final say on anything that will be delivered to the viewing public. Maybe that is exactly what happened, or maybe it is just a coincidence that Hillenburg had turned down numerous requests to turn his show into a movie before finally helming something that moved from the small screen to the big screen with such apparent ease.

The cast are mainly familiar to those who enjoy the show. Tom Kenny is SpongeBob, Bill Faggerbakke is Patrick, Rodger Bumpass is Squidward, Clancy Brown is Mr. Krab, and Mr. Lawrence is Plankton. All of them are superb, and they are joined by Jeffrey Tambor and Scarlett Johansson (playing Neptune and his daughter, respectively), Carolyn Lawrence and Jill Talley (both also reprising characters from the show), Alec Baldwin, and even the world’s most famous TV lifeguard, who pops up for a hilarious cameo that allows him to steal a couple of scenes.

I cannot think of anything here I would fault. While it may not make me rush off to watch every episode of the show, that is only because of me having only so many hours in each day. I will certainly be aiming to watch the other movies, at the very least, and I hope they come close to being as much fun as this one, which had me laughing pretty heartily from start to finish. I know that the silliness here isn’t for everyone, but I am certainly happy to be a goofy goober.

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 

Ani-MAY-tion: Cars (2006)

I heard about Cars being made. I wasn’t interested. I saw the trailer for Cars. I wasn’t interested. Cars came and went at the cinema. I wasn’t interested. So why do I own all three Cars movies? Well, I decided I would get them for free when Disney still offered a decent reward scheme on their website. I used points on them, but still couldn’t work up any enthusiasm to actually watch any of them. That changes now. I am determined to watch all three this month, for better or worse. Considering how much I enjoyed this, it may be for the better.

Owen Wilson voices a car named Lightning McQueen, a cocky young racer who is frustrated when his latest race ends in a 3-way tie. The winner will be decided in another race in California, which means a long journey across the country. There’s an unplanned diversion though, and McQueen ends up stuck in the small town of Radiator Springs, where the pace of life is quite a bit slower. Taking things a bit slower can give you plenty of time to learn more and plan ahead better, but that isn’t how McQueen views the situation, despite the patience and determination of the locals.

Directed by John Lasseter and Joe Ranft, who also co-wrote the screenplay with a handful of other writers, Cars isn’t the sharpest Pixar movie, nor is it the wittiest. That’s a high bar though, and I will usually find plenty to enjoy in every one of their animated treats. The main pleasure here comes from the different characters surrounding our misguided lead, voiced by the likes of Paul Newman, Bonnie Hunt, Larry The Cable Guy, and Tony Shalhoub. There’s also a gorgeous visual style throughout, as you would expect, with the characters and environment in perfect simpatico, presenting a world that is so well-realised that viewers can easily accept everything onscreen without any questions, at least until after the end credits have rolled.

Wilson is a good choice for the lead role, his particular vocal style softening the edges of a character that could have been much more annoying throughout the first half of the film. Newman is used well as the elder who offers some sage advice to someone who needs to start listening to others. Both Bonnie Hunt and Larry The Cable Guy are great in main supporting roles, the former being very sweet while the latter delivers plenty of laughs, and Shalhoub gets to steal one or two scenes as Luigi, a huge fan of Ferraris. There are also delightful performances from Paul Dooley, Michael Keaton, George Carlin, Edie McClurg, Richard Kind, and John Ratzenberger (in what I would say is his biggest Pixar role, and allows him to deliver a superb set of meta gags over the end credits).

The pacing is slightly off, just slightly, and there’s an uninspired soundtrack, as well as a clumsy attempt to shoehorn in an extra narrative strand about the small towns that have suffered when new road developments were planned to bypass them, but the sweetness and humour always work well enough to keep you smiling as you wait for the predictable, and rewarding, finale. AND you get a number of cameos that should please motor-racing fans.

It may all be downhill from here, I have heard bad things about at least one of the sequels, but I am now temporarily optimistic about finally making time for this trilogy. I recommend this one to Pixar fans, but (as ever) . . . mileage may vary.

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 

Prime Time: Postman Pat: The Movie (2014)

I don’t know why I decided to watch Postman Pat: The Movie this week, but watch it I did. Maybe it was my brain being more alert than ever to Royal Mail, considering how much time and space it has taken up on the news and TV lately (and this movie could have been very different if it reflected any real-life events), or maybe I decided to revisit a character I hadn’t spent any time with for about four decades. It was probably just my usual roll of the dice, consider my willingness to give anything a chance, but I wasn’t exactly over the moon as I pressed play.

The plot is enjoyably simple. Postman Pat (voiced by Stephen Mangan) is disappointed to hear that he won’t be receiving a pay bonus that he was looking forward to, which means no holiday to Italy for the family. He doesn’t want to let them down though, considering how keen they are, so he ends up entering a talent contest that could keep everyone happy . . . if he wins. His main competitor is a young man named Josh (Rupert Grint), managed by someone (Wilf, voiced by David Tennant) who isn’t above using some dirty tricks to ensure that his star client wins. Meanwhile, Edwin Carbunkle (Peter Woodward) has a plan to make the mail delivery system more efficient and profitable, all thanks to robot versions of Pat and his cat, Jess.

Being unfamiliar with director Mike Disa and writer Nicole Dubuc, Postman Pat: The Movie was a film I thought I might end up enduring, as opposed to enjoying. The characters and antics would obviously be aimed at a MUCH younger demographic (I know I can be accused of immaturity, but I am not actually as childish as I sometimes seem) and I figured that the animation would lack the polish and detail of the movie output seen from more renowned studios.

Fortunately, I ended up finding a lot to enjoy here. Yes, it is very definitely made for younger viewers (although none of them will laugh at how inappropriate it is to see Pat reading “The Postman Always Rings Twice” to his young child), but the enjoyably simple plot allows for a great mix of small and big gags in every main sequence. The animation may not be the very best, but it feels like a nicely updated version of the character and the world that he inhabits. Maybe this is just ported over from later TV episodes, or maybe it isn’t (I wouldn’t know as I haven’t watched it since the early 1980s), but it’s a good mix of the old and the new.

It’s also helped enormously by a voice cast all feeling perfect in their roles. Mangan is great as Pat, trying to stay upbeat even in the face of overwhelming odds, Grint is enthusiastic and pleasant as Joshua, and Tennant seems to relish arching his eyebrows and rubbing his hands together as he acts like the panto villain of the piece. As for Woodward, playing the more harmful villain, he delivers his dialogue with a cool hint of menace underlining almost everything he says. Susan Duerden and Sandra Teles play Pat’s wife and son, respectively, and both feel just right in their roles, and you get to hear Jim Broadbent, Ronan Keating (providing the singing voice for Pat), and a hugely entertaining Robin Atkin Downes, playing the talent show judge, Simon Cowbell.

I doubt I will ever watch this again, unless I am babysitting younger children in my home, but I enjoyed it while it was on. It provides a fun adventure for a beloved character without having to change or mutate the essence of the show, the whole community becomes involved in the unfolding drama, and there are good lessons learned before the end credits roll. I genuinely enjoyed it . . . although maybe that just shows that I AM as childish as I sometimes seem.

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 

Love Lies Bleeding (2024)

Having made her feature debut with the highly accomplished and confident Saint Maud, Rose Glass put herself firmly on the radar of those who were rightly impressed by that film. It was going to be interesting to see how well she could follow up that film, and hearing about the cast and premise of Love Lies Bleeding just made many of us more intrigued. 

Set in the late 1980s, this is the story of a travelling bodybuilder (Jackie, played by Katy O'Brian) who ends up in a relationship with a gym manager (Lou, played by Kristen Stewart). Jackie is aiming to win a competition in Las Vegas, but things are soon made more complicated by her urge to help protect Lou from people who are hurting people she loves. Lou also has a hard time dealing with her father (Lou Sr., played by Ed Harris), a formidable and dangerous man who sees an opportunity to manipulate the whole situation for his benefit.

There are so many moments in this film that could have been ridiculous. There are also so many moments that could have been presented in a way that everyone would describe as “Coen-esque”. The fact that it avoids both of those labels is a testament to Glass, making every decision throughout to ensure that the script (co-written by herself and Weronika Tofilska) is translated to the screen in a way that aligns with her unique style and vision. Every main strand - drama, romance, crime, a little sprinkling of something else - is given equal time, mixing together in a recipe that would have ended in disaster if just one ingredient was incorrectly measured.

As for the leads, both Stewart and O’Brian are excellent. The former has been delivering one great performance after another throughout the last decade, and those still not aware of that should really start exploring her filmography, while O’Brian is a bit of a revelation in a role that utilises her emotions and physicality to make Jackie an unforgettable main character. Harris is as brilliant as he usually is, and he is used sparingly, but appears often enough to exude an air of menace, Dave Franco and Jena Malone do well in their supporting roles, and Anna Baryshnikov impresses as Daisy, someone who seems quite sweet, but also isn’t averse to a bit of manipulation if it can help her to get what she wants.

Once again delivering an ending that will divide viewers, and once again delivering a movie that is more than JUST that one talking point, Glass is currently two for two. I was hoping this would be good, but I really had no idea how it might all play out. It was brilliant, every aspect (from the production design to Clint Mansell’s score, from the make up to the visual effects, and lighting, editing, etc.) was fashioned to interlock perfectly with everything around it, and I will now just have to wait patiently to see what Glass does next. Whatever it is, I will be doing my best to get to it ASAP.

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 

Mubi Monday: Our Body (2023)

I don’t often review documentaries, something I think I mention every time I end up reviewing a documentary, but there are some that I watch and end up wanting to recommend to others, for a variety of reasons. Our Body is an important and timely film, especially when you consider the current climate that has turned the female body into a political battlefield and the sexual and gender identity of individuals into ammunition being used in a preposterous and damaging “culture war” (placed in quotation marks because, let’s face it, there’s no such thing . . . it’s just all tied to reactionary measures from people scared of what they don’t understand).

Our Body looks at the bodies of those who are female and female-identifying. Director Claire Simon positions herself in a French gynecology department, sitting in on a variety of conversations and procedures, from gender reassignment journeys to childbirth, and so much in between.

The first two main encounters here will ensure that viewers know what they are in for. One shows a young woman who wants to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. The other shows a trans man preparing himself for the chance to fully transition once they have turned eighteen. Both of these topics are contentious and divisive for many, even if they shouldn’t be, and both are shown here in the way that they should be shown, with a patient and doctor discussing the situation and the range of options available. As the ignorant are ironically quick to spout when they think they have some smug extra knowledge they once found on a Reddit post, “facts don’t care about your feelings.” The reality, the medical reality, is that people on both sides of the doctor’s office are often trying to find a solution that makes use of both facts and feelings to help someone match their inner and outer selves.

A few moments show surgery, but the focus here tends to be on the conversations and consultations that highlight what women have to go through as they seek help with their issues. It’s not all straightforward and positive either, with Simon filming a protest by women who feel abused and violated by the system, but the overwhelming message seems to be about people trying their best to help others, no matter what is going on in the outside world, or what headlines are being used to try and turn individuals against one another.

Our Body may be all about women, but it’s about all of us. It highlights the understanding and compassion that we should all have, especially while not knowing what those around us might be going through. You don’t need to be a doctor to help the women in your life. You just need to listen, empathize, and be supportive while they journey down some dark and scary paths that men never have to step on.

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

Netflix And Chill: In The Land Of Saints And Sinners (2023)

I'm not one to usually worry about films being offensive. Nothing much bothers me, I'm in the main demographic for characters who aren't used as punchlines, and I've watched far too many Troma movies to be bothered by tastelessness or mishandling of potentially sensitive issues. So I hope you understand how much thought I gave it before I decided that In The Land Of Saints And Sinners feels offensively bad in the way it uses the Troubles in Ireland as a backdrop for what becomes yet another standard Liam Neeson thriller. It didn't personally bother me, but I have a lot of friends over the water I can imagine may be a bit irked by this, to put it mildly.

Neeson plays Finbar Murphy, a man who lives in County Donegal, working as a contract killer for a local crime boss (played by the superb Colm Meaney). Murphy starts off a violent chain of events when he voluntarily helps an abusive prick shuffle off this mortal coil. Unfortunately, that abusive prick was the brother of a strong-willed terrorist (Doireann, played by Kerry Condon), which leads to her, and her accomplices, working to find the killer, no matter who else gets caught up in the crossfire.

While this feels like an accomplished debut from director Robert Lorenz, it isn't. He may not have too many credits to his name, but Lorenz has been around long enough to hone his skills. The same can be said of writer Terry Loane. It's co-writer Mark Michael McNally who is the first-timer, which makes me wonder if he was the person who came up with the sorely-misjudged main premise (although maybe I am just viewing it that way because it feels a bit closer to home than other films that have used similar backgrounds for some kind of redemption story arc).

The cast all do good work, with both Condon and Neeson on top form, and emanating an undeniably powerful energy in the scenes that have them facing one another. Meaney is always a great presence onscreen, Jack Gleeson does a great job in the role of a young man who doesn't consider how he might end up one day regretting his actions, and Ciarán Hinds is a friendly local Garda officer. There are also good performances from Desmond Eastwood, Niamh Cusack, Michelle Gleeson, Sarah Greene, and everyone else filling out the cast of supporting characters.

I'd be very interested to hear from others who watched this, and especially any of my pals over on the Emerald Isle. Am I wrong for wanting this to have been better, for wanting it to justify the use of the events used as the background to the story? It could have been tweaked so easily, and I don't think there would have been anything lost (especially if Neeson had the same background to his character). In fact, it could have possibly even been improved by setting it in the here and now, showing people who refused to let go of some old tactics while the older and wiser heads remembered how many lives were shattered and destroyed by their actions.

Competent, technically-speaking, but fairly incompetent when you consider the decisions made at the writing stage, this is somehow more egregious than the dozen or more Neeson movies that simply try to replicate the success of the Taken series. Or maybe it's just me thinking that way.

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: Late Night With The Devil (2023)

A lot has been said already about Late Night With The Devil, most of it hugely positive, and I am unlikely to add anything new to the conversation. I've never let that stop me before though, and here's my own full review of the film. Those not wanting to read too much more about it may be satisfied with this summary: "it's very good, but it's no Ghostwatch".

Presented as a previously-unseen final episode of a late '70s talk show, viewers are given a quick history of TV host Jack Delroy (Dabid Dastmalchian). The ratings for his show have been falling, he has suffered the loss of his wife, Madeleine (Georgina Haig), to cancer, and it starts to look more and more unlikely that he's nearing the end of his career. Or, at the very least, nearing the end of this phase of his career. Jack puts on a brave face though, and he thinks they may get some big ratings with an occult-themed episode for Halloween. Joined by his sidekick, Gus (Rhys Auteri), Jack is looking to impress the audience with a medium, Christou (Fayssal Bazzi), a former-magician-turned-debunker, Carmichael Haig (Ian Bliss), and a parapsychologist (June Ross-Mitchell, played by Laura Gordon) who is bringing along a young, supposedly possessed, girl named Lily (Ingrid Torelli). There should also be time for a musical guest to cheer everyone up at the end of the spookiness. It's not long until things start getting a bit strange, and we see more of the impact of that strangeness during moments that were filmed during the ad breaks as Jack and the crew try to keep everything running smoothly.

Co-written and co-directed by Cameron and Colin Cairnes, two brothers who already have a handful of movie and TV/short credits to their names, there's no denying that Late Night With The Devil gets a lot right, particularly when it comes to the casting. I just didn't see the authenticity and attention to detail that others have responded to. There's too little confidence being displayed, although this "episode" was filmed at a time when the host was showing his vulnerability and putting his fate in the hands of his viewership, there are too many times when it feels as if the programmers would cut away from everything and potentially take the whole thing off-air sharp, and there is an end sequence that discards the whole "rediscovered episode" format to allow the Cairnes brothers to show us some unsettling and fantastical sights. I didn't mind being shown the escalating tensions during the apparent ad breaks, but the last 5-10 minutes slightly soured me on this. If you have an idea that works best in a certain format then, dammit, you need to work as hard as you can to ensure that you can deliver everything you need to deliver IN that format.

I could be way off here, especially when others have complimented the film for how accurately it recreates that era of late-night TV chat show, but nothing drew me in to a world that I thought was realistic. It almost felt like a castelet, albeit a good one, with the cast all being unwitting puppets in a show destined to end in a way that cuts their strings, one way or another.

Dastmalchian is brilliant though, and I will be delighted if this lead role helps him receive the kind of offers he should have been inundated with before now. He's just the right mix of polish and awkwardness, the host striving to overcome any obstacle in the way of presenting a show that he hopes will put him back near the top of the TV ratings, and he delivers a performance that gives us a fully-rounded and brilliantly-nuanced lead character to root for. Auteri is also very good, playing the typical sidekick we've seen many times in this TV show format. Bazzi feels like a bit of comedy relief, but his appearance sets some interesting wheels in motion, and Bliss is enjoyably arrogant and sceptical as he offers up explanations for the "inexplicable". Gordon is given the least to do, even less than Haig (in some ways), but does well, as does the latter, and Torelli is quite perfect as Lily, constantly intriguing and unnerving in a way that stems from the subtlety and natural manner of her performance.

I wouldn't ever call this a bad film. It's good, and most people seem to think that it's very good, but that lack of authenticity spoils it for me, as does that complete turn away from the format at the very end of the film. Very few people, if any, will agree with me, and many think that it absolutely nails the look and feel it is going for, which makes me think that it's maybe my British lens not recognising a very specific American time and place, but it's all different strokes for different folks, eh. Considering what it gets right, and considering how many others love it, I would still recommend this to horror fans. I would just acknowledge that some people may, like myself, end up underwhelmed by it.

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 

Gamera vs. Barugon (1966)

You would think that sending Gamera into space would have been enough to keep Earth safe, but Gamera vs. Barugon quickly shows that not to be the case. First of all, there are always new creatures that can suddenly come along and cause panic. Secondly, a travelling rocket being hit by a meteorite is enough to send Gamera back down to our planet. And that's really all you need to know.

There's a bit more to the plot, of course, and Barugon is a creature hatched from an egg that people mistakenly think is a large opal, but things only ever liven up when people are trying to figure out how to deal with a new monster menace. Barugon looks a bit goofy, Gamera still looks great, and the humans feel even less significant than ever.

Directed by Shigeo Tanaka, and written by Niisan Takahashi, this follows on from the first Gamera film in a way that is simple enough, and also a bit disappointing. The contrivance to get Gamera back on our planet feels a bit lazy, Barugon is far from the best big beastie we've ever seen onscreen, and there's a major void in the cast that isn't filled by anyone we can empathise or sympathise with.

Kôjirô Hongô, Kyôko Enami, Yûzô Hayakawa, Takuya Fujioka, and Kôji Fujiyama are the cast members I will mention here, but they're just there to look on in awe as the creatures do their thing, when people aren't squabbling over the "opal" that leads to the appearance of Barugon. They do what they're asked to do, but they're just not asked to do anything that helps them to feel worth spending time with.

Gamera is still great, and the reason this is worth your time, which makes the fact that the rest of the movie is so weak seem even more disappointing. It needed either a better foe for our "hero" to battle or just some more scenes showing Gamera doing what Gamera does best. All the rainbow rays and mirror traps in the world aren't enough to make up for the disappointing sidelining of Gamera in one of their own movies.

Knowing how much better the later Gamera movies are (the 1990s films, referred to as the Heisei era) is enough to keep me powering through these, but I am worried that I'll end up slogging through a lot of lesser fare until I get back to those more enjoyable features. I've watched a lot worse though, and every film has the inherent plus of the second-best kaiju in cinema (a point I am sure could be argued over by fans for a long, long time). There's also something about kaiju movies that somehow makes it impossible to rate even the lesser films as a complete waste of your time. There may be less moments of absolute brilliance, but there are always some small treats here and there.

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 

Immaculate (2024)

I have rarely had such a fast turnaround on my opinion of someone as I have experienced with my opinion of Sydney Sweeney. It was only a month or so ago that I said I would probably not be interested in many, if any, of her main acting credits and now I cannot wait to see whatever she does next. Whether the films are good or bad, and she has covered the spectrum in the past year or two, she seems intent on making the most of her moment in the sunshine, and that is reflected in the interesting variety of her projects.

Immaculate is a film you could basically label as “nunsploitation”. People might try to argue against that, but the dark heartbeat running throughout it, as well as the wild final moments, make it a film I could easily imagine slotting nicely aside many of the less mainstream titles in that particular sub-genre. In fact, add a bit of grime, dub our lead actress, and throw in a load of gratuitous nudity and this would easily feel like a ‘70s Euro-horror.

Sweeney plays Cecilia, a young woman who joins a remote convent in Italy. She is working hard to learn the Italian language, but seems to receive a relatively warm welcome from most of the convent residents. She is viewed differently, however, when she becomes pregnant, an apparently immaculate conception. Many are very happy with the news, including Father Sal Tedeschi (Àlvaro Morte), but some are not.

The fact that director Michael Mohan has worked with Sweeney before, with the two of them seeming to have got along great with one another, is unsurprising. This is the kind of film role that would be best performed under the guidance of someone you know and trust. It’s also no surprise to see that writer Andrew Lobel doesn’t have too many other credits, considering how far he is willing to go with the wilder aspects of his writing. 

Just to clarify, the majority of Immaculate is a low-key mix of tension and paranoia. It’s very well done though, and paves the way for a third act that I am going to call enjoyable ballsy. There’s a feeling of everything being ever so slightly off-kilter, largely thanks to the opening scene, and every plot development feels like it could allow the film to go off in any one of a dozen different directions. 

The supporting cast do a perfectly fine job, especially Morte, but this film works as well as it does thanks to Sweeney in the main role. Her character isn’t given too much detail, and she takes a while to unravel the odd reality of her situation, but her performance draws you in while she is vulnerable and confused, making her more pro-active moments less expected and much more satisfying. While many horror fans might lose patience with this, it is definitely a genre piece, and Sweeney shows that she can definitely hold her own with any of the legendary scream queens.

I really enjoyed this, as I’m sure you can tell. It’s a strange and quite bonkers tale that is told by people with confidence in their abilities to really sell it. For those who will end up disliking it, I hope you will at least be able to appreciate the fact that it was made. And if other big names are encouraged to have a go in movies with a similar vibe . . . all the better.

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: Cobweb (2023)

You have to be careful when working with horror material. Sometimes meeting expectations and delivering predictable plot beats becomes part of the fun. Sometimes you need to subvert things. It all depends on what you offer up around the most familiar elements. Cobweb, sadly, doesn’t offer up anything that feels truly worth your time. 

Written by Chris Thomas Devlin, who has one other writing credit so far (one of the writers who served up Texas Chainsaw Massacre), this is a fairly standard tale of some over-protective/maybe harmful parents (played by Lizzy Caplan and Antony Starr) and a young child (Woody Norman) who starts to feel the presence of someone else living in the walls of his home. There’s a concerned teacher (played by Cleopatra Coleman), a young bully (Luke Busey) who soon moves from the terrorizer to the terrorized, and a third act that becomes disappointingly unambiguous and underwhelming when you realise the squandered potential of the premise.

While director Samuel Bodin, making their feature debut, has a decent eye, they don’t have the ability to elevate scenes in a way that can help to distract from the fairly weak script. Devlin fills the runtime with tired dialogue and one ridiculous contrivance after another. I remember being excited to check this out last year, and then my enthusiasm started to wane as I kept seeing the advertising for it and feeling as if it had nothing new to offer. I could have been wrong, sometimes the trailers and marketing do hold back a surprise or two, but it turns out that I was right. And things are made worse by both Devlin and Bodin wasting the cast.

I am a huge fan of both Caplan and Starr, which made this an even more frustrating viewing experience. Both are asked to act quite ridiculously, because anyone acting normally would end the movie within minutes. Part of me wanted more screentime for them, part of me was glad they didn’t have to carry the whole film on their shoulders. That task goes to young Norman, who is okay, I guess, but has to overdo the nervy and fragile core of his character, which is his entire personality for the duration of the movie. Coleman comes out of this best, playing the standard caring adult who investigates further when she suspects something is amiss. 

The more I think about Cobweb, the less inclined I am to compliment it. I was angry as the end credits rolled. There are positives though. It has some eye-catching visuals, making good use of the shadows and darkness in the finale. There’s also . . . Well, it has . . . Actually, I think that is it. Some decent visuals, two great cast members (both wasted), and a good title. The rest is bad, as bad as any other mainstream horror I can think of from the past few years.

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 

Abigail (2024)

I am going to have to make a decision here, whether to include some spoilers in this review or not. Although I would normally work hard to avoid spoilers, Abigail has arguably already been spoiled for you if you have seen the trailer or some of the alternate poster designs. I understand why. It makes more sense to draw in the horror crowd it is aimed at, which wouldn’t necessarily happen if it was sold to look like a straightforward crime thriller. So . . . I am going to discuss it as if it is a pretty straightforward crime thriller, but I am assuming that you will all be aware of the fact that it is more than that.

Things start with a kidnapping. Six people work together to snatch a little girl (Abigail, played by Alisha Weir) before driving to an isolated country home where they have to stay holed up for 24 hours. If all goes well then the payday is $50M. All isn’t about to go well though. It turns out that not only is Abigail’s father very rich, but he is also very powerful and dangerous. And Abigail may share a few of his traits. 

Written by Stephen Shields and Guy Busick, this is a very smart and funny horror comedy that makes a lot of things very obvious from the opening titles (for those familiar with the music cue). The twists and turns aren’t presented as major rug-pulls, nothing here will surprise fans of the tropes being played with, but they keep being thrown into the plot with a sense of glee, curveball after curveball for our main characters to deal with. With directors Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett at the helm (directors of the last two Scream movies, as well as the very enjoyable Ready Or Not), everyone going into this should have an idea of what they are getting into. It’s playful, it’s bloody, and it’s a fresh take on some very familiar material.

The cast are all on the same page, happy to fit into their archetypes and just allow themselves to be part of a group that descends into chaos as everything around them starts going wrong. Melissa Barrera is much better here than she was in the Scream movies, making for a great central character to root for, and Dan Stevens is having a whale of a time as the cold-blooded leader of the group. Kevin Durand and Kathryn Newton are much simpler, more sweet-hearted characters (relatively speaking), and both Angus Cloud and William Catlett do well in their respective roles, even if they seem less important to the group than some of the others. Everyone is a bag of clichés, but it doesn’t matter when they are being used in such a fun way. Weir is the star though, and proves more than capable at conveying the many different moods her character goes through during the unraveling of the kidnapping scheme. It is also worth mentioning a couple of excellent cameo turns from Giancarlo Esposito and Matthew Goode.

Unabashedly profane and bloody throughout, Abigail is the most fun I have had with a mainstream American horror movie in a hell of a long time. It’s well-paced, it looks gorgeous throughout (even as the sets become drenched in blood), it’s inventive, and there are numerous easter eggs dotted throughout that can be enjoyed or ignored without changing how you feel about the rest of the film. All in all, it’s a bloody good time for fans of those involved.

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: Shirley (2020)

While I didn’t hate watching Shirley, a film that is nicely put together around a talented cast who fit well in their roles, I must say that I wasn’t entirely won over by the central conceit, and it made me hanker for the portrayal of Shirley Jackson I enjoyed a bit more in Set Fire To The Stars. That is a bit unfair though, as it isn’t exactly comparing like for like, but I figured I would take a minute to recommend that little gem of a film.

Anyway, this film is based on a book by Susan Scarf Merrell, and it places the famous Shirley Jackson (Elisabeth Moss) and her husband, Stanley (Michael Stuhlbarg), in the middle of a load of drama, both past and present, that allows others to see the strange and damaging co-dependency locking them together in their relationship. Odessa Young and Logan Lerman play Rose and Fred Nemser, a young couple who end up in the Jackson household, and they unwittingly become the latest distractions for two people who seem to constantly struggle to find ways to occupy themselves (when not being creative, intellectually arrogant, or unfaithful).

Directed well enough by Josephine Decker, who has helmed a number of other films I have enjoyed (and one I just couldn’t stand), this uses the script by Sarah Gubbins to sketch out some characters that are then given the time and space to breathe and play around. Making use of real people in a fictional story is a strange balancing act, but it seems to me that this doesn’t do a bad job of using the main premise to examine the relationship between Shirley and Stanley, as well as looking at how they “played” with others. Some elements may be entirely unnecessary, but they still intertwine nicely with the idea of putting the Jacksons under the glare of a bright spotlight while their dynamic is dissected.

Moss is very good in the title role, as she tends to be in almost everything she does nowadays, and she’s unafraid to play her character in a way that shows her actively repelling people. She’s cold and cool, although occasionally moved by anger, and does well to avoid histrionics and tics. Stuhlbarg plays the less likeable of the two, and he also tackles his role without any hint of concern or softness. Lerman does well in a way that has him being the least memorable of the central quartet, but it’s Young who gets to be the heart of the film, playing the observer who becomes drawn further and further into a large and dangerous web. Constantly drawn to the see the creative spark while trying not to be burned, Young delivers an excellent performance, striking just the right balance of naïveté and strength, that helps her to remain much more significant than she is considered by any of the other main characters.

I just wish we didn’t need the fictional framing device here. It feels like there’s a great film to be made about Shirley Jackson, but this isn’t it. It’s very good, but it’s not great, particularly when it comes to the darker side of her life (her mental health, the dysfunctional marriage, and more). Not one I think I will ever revisit, but I would be interested to hear from others who know a bit more about the real Shirley Jackson, and whether that makes you like this film any more or any less.

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: Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves (1991)

There are many things to remember about Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves, things that help you to forget other aspects of it. You probably remember Alan Rickman stealing most of the movie. You should remember the monster hit song from Bryan Adams. There's the "arrow-cam" shots. And, for better or worse, Kevin Costner in the lead role. You may well remember all of the fun you had with it, intentional or not, but you might forget what a slog it can be at times, the wildly varying quality of the acting, and how it generally fails in any attempt to be a proper swashbuckling action flick for modern audiences.

Both terrible and fantastic in equal measure, Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves is a film I hadn't revisited since owning it on VHS. It's one that kept randomly popping into my head though, especially when discussing Alan Rickman with a work colleague and trying to deliver amusing impressions of his iconic cinematic villain roles. I kept wondering if it was actually any good, particularly when I wasn't too won over by it back when that song had spent months dominating the British music charts.

The plot is secondary to the stars and the set-pieces. Everyone knows a bit about Robin Hood, especially if they have seen the classic Errol Flynn movie, or the animated Disney flick. He robbed from the rich to give to the poor, and he was the enemy of the greedy and conniving Sheriff Of Nottingham (played here by Rickman, of course). He had a band of merry men, and he had some chemistry with a woman named Marian (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio embodying her this time around). 

Written by Pen Densham and John Watson, two people with relatively limited experience (their previous film being one I have long wanted to see, Upworld AKA A Gnome Named Gnorm), and directed by Kevin Reynolds, this is a blockbuster that seems to have become successful through sheer force of will. You have to ignore some of the dodgy accents, you have to just grin while groaning at some of the dialogue (especially the lines uttered by Duncan, played by Walter Sparrow, who could just as easily slot into place in a Monty Python film), and you have to be patient during any scenes that fill time in between the stars being stars.

Costner isn't the best choice for the main role, but he somehow does enough to show why he gained his movie star status. The film belongs to Rickman, thankfully, but not at the expense of our hero, who benefits from his more laidback style being juxtaposed against the brilliant pantomime villain. Mastrantonio does a decent job in a role that tries to balance out the strength of the character with the need to have her in peril, and there's a lot of fun to be had with Morgan Freeman, Nick Brimble, and Mike McShane, the latter two playing Little John and Friar Tuck, respectively. Christian Slater stands out for being miscast in the role of Will Scarlett, but he tries, Michael Wincott is a very good Guy Of Gisborne, and you also get screentime for Geraldine McEwan, Brian Blessed, and a couple of star cameos.

Despite the flaws, and an overly earnest approach to many scenes is one of them, it's easy to see why many can love this. It's a fantastic blockbuster that seems to fall in line with what Costner loves to do: old-fashioned entertainment with just the right blend of drama, romance, and spectacle. You can sneer at it if you like, and I'm sure many do, but it makes up for being a bit of a mess by trying hard at every turn to be a hugely entertaining mess. I may not have loved it back when it was first released, but I cannot help having a soft spot for it now.

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