Minions And Monsters (2026)

I have heard some people recently wonder just who Minions And Monsters is for. It takes the well-liked animated characters and puts them in a film packed with jokes and references to the entire history of cinema. Personally, I think many younger viewers will still enjoy the jokes for the simple silliness of the minions, but if there's one specific demographic being catered for then I'd have to say . . . it's me.

Bookended by scenes that show people wandering around a movie studio and being given information by a tour guide (Allison Janney), this starts off with familiar scenes from the past showing us the minions seeking the most appropriate horrible master to serve. Things don't go to plan, as ever, and the minions end up gate-crashing a movie production in the 1920s. Their anarchy and energy leads to them becoming major movie stars, but that stardom, as happened with people in real life, is threatened by the advent of sound becoming a fixture of movies. Maybe the minions can boost their careers by making a great monster movie. Especially when they have a powerful book of spells to help them create a proper monster.

I am absolutely aware of the fact that my opinion here may run contrary to so many others, but this is easily the best minions movie yet (and there have been a lot of fun adventures featuring these small and servile "crash test dummies"). The animation throughout it wonderful, the plotting and pacing are both perfect for the 90-minute runtime, and writer-director Pierre Coffin continues to excel as the main vocal performer, and the expert on speaking the cute gibberish that is Minionese.

Coffin is joined in the writing duties by Brian Lynch (who has worked on a number of these movies, including the almost equally good Minions). Both of them seem to relish a chance to add some mayhem and cute catastrophes to iconic movie moments, and it helps that the animated form allows for a whole heap of wonderful cameos and caricatures.

It's not just all down to the writing, direction, and voice work of Coffin though. There's a fantastic mix of other celebrities willing to lend their voices to the onscreen silliness, from Janney to Christoph Waltz (a director who feels very much based on the likes of Otto Preminger, Josef von Sternberg, etc), Jeff Bridges (two powerful studio execs) to Zoey Deutch (Debbie), as well as Trey Parker (a cute monster) and Jesse Eisenberg (a cute robot named Dort).  

Whatever the joke, whether it's the standard silliness or something a bit smarter, Minions And Monsters always feels as if it has been made with care and genuine love for cinema. Every main sequence has at least one fantastic homage, and many squeeze in multiple references without feeling as if the film is losing any energy or momentum. I know that some will keep wondering how this is supposed to be aimed at children who won't be aware of most of the references, but I think they'll still have fun with everything on a surface level, and will hopefully develop a sense of curiosity that will actually make it a lot easier to  introduce them to a lot of classic cinema in non-animated form.

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. All links are HERE.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Prime Time: Dracula (2025)

I have seen worse films than this. I've also seen films that seemed more pointless. I just can't think of too many of them right now. Dracula AKA Dracula: A Love Tale, as it was titled when writer-director Luc Besson was trying to pretend that this wasn't just a pale imitation of Francis Ford Coppola's movie, is a disappointing mess for all involved. I'll mention them all individually very soon.

The story is one that everyone should be familiar with by now, to a certain degree. There's a deadly and sometimes charming vampire (Caleb Landry Jones), there's a woman who bears more than a striking resemblance to the past love that he thought was gone forever (Zoë Bleu), and there's a priest who knows about the vampire menace and knows how best to deal with them (Christoph Waltz). There are a few other characters allowed to take up some screentime here, none of them very interesting, you get some unnecessarily lively gargoyles, and there's a sequence at the end that helps to lift it above some other, even worse, films making use of the Dracula name, but only just. And it's just too little too late.

I wasn't sure what to expect when I first heard that Besson was giving us his version of the classic vampire tale, but I certainly didn't think it was going to be as dull as this. Although he has moved far away from the peak of his career (you could argue over a few different titles, but probably wouldn't argue that his best work was at least a few decades ago now), Besson remains someone I think of as stylish and willing to take some risks. Dracula has one or two decent visuals, but is mainly quite dull. It's also disappointingly risk-free. I would have much preferred to see something bold that would divide audiences, but instead we get something so safe and tame that it barely feels like a Dracula film. It certainly lacks . . . well, you know how this sentence should end.

Jones is an interesting choice for the lead role, and he tries his best to showcase his talent, but he's rarely given anything truly worthy of him. I could say something very similar about Waltz, and Bleu is just an utter bore for most of her screentime. Nobody decides to throw a curveball here, there are no big performances, and it's clear that Besson wrote the screenplay with his focus on a couple of half-decent ideas ahead of any proper characterisations. Despite the variety of the main character roles, nobody has a distinct voice. 

One scene saves it, one that moves from some enjoyable action to a provocative and philosophical conversation about good and evil, and what is done by people in the name of god. Unfortunately, that's about five minutes, give or take, in a film with a 129-minute runtime. I'll have forgotten it all in a day or two, and I suspect many other people will feel the same way about it. Even those involved in making it.

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

Netflix And Chill: Frankenstein (2025)

Everyone knows that writer-director Guillermo del Toro wanted to make Frankenstein for many years. It was already such a thematic through-line in so many of his movies (the perceived monsters overshadowed by actual monstrous humans) that maybe it was assumed that he'd managed to get it out of his system, but no. So it's good for us that people gave him over $100M to finally deliver his vision of the classic text. Maybe we will yet get his version of At The Mountains Of Madness.

Bookmarked by scenes set in the Arctic, this gives us Victor's Tale in the first half and then The Creature's Tale in the second, both announced by title cards. Young Victor may be played by Christian Convery, but things really get going when we meet the adult Victor (Oscar Isaac), a man consumed by the idea of conquering death, much to the dismay of many, including his own brother, William (Felix Kammerer). William and Victor aren't exactly close, but William is still excited to have his brother meet his fiancée, Lady Elizabeth Harlander (Mia Goth). This proves to be quite the fateful encounter, almost as fateful as Victor's encounter with Elizabeth's uncle, Henrich Harlander (Christoph Waltz), a wealthy man who wants to fund Victor's experiments. Then it's all body parts and lightning storms until you can cry out "it's alive, it's alive" and we get the creation of a creature (Jacob Elordi). Victor isn't actually prepared for his role as "new father" though, which makes things very difficult, to say the least.

With lovely cinematography from Dan Laustsen, a fine score from Alexandre Desplat, and great use of some well-dressed locations (it's always nice to see even a heavily-disguised Edinburgh onscreen), it's no surprise that Frankenstein is a feast for viewers. It may be a slightly overdone feast, considering the hefty 150-minute runtime and the moments that have a bit too much CGI in the mix, but it's a feast nonetheless. The biggest problem would seem to be that Del Toro is too close to the whole thing, and has been allowed to indulge himself with every decision, for better or worse. This is most obvious during the many times he seems to be pointing at a massive hand-painted sign that says "It's Victor who is the real monster, get it?", as if we haven't been reminding ourselves, and others, of this for many many years now.

Isaac is decent in the role of Victor, enjoyably single-minded and callous, and I am sure the film was helped to find some extra viewers by the moments that have him working feverishly on his creation without any care for the state of his clothing. Goth is a wonderful Elizabeth, and it was canny casting to also have her playing another pivotal role in the earlier scenes of the film. Elordi is the highlight though, giving an interpretation of the creature that shows the full range of his life, from the new-born confusion to his education, from his vulnerability to his rage. Helped by an interesting, if not altogether successful, make up job, Elordi feels as if he's giving his all to portray a definitive take on the creature that manages to feel both very traditional and quite modern. Waltz is used well, Kammerer less so, and there are good scenes for the likes of Lars Mikkelsen, David Bradley, and Charles Dance in supporting roles.

People seem to want to give us the "definitive" Frankenstein every few decades, but it hasn't really happened yet. This is certainly close though. Some scenes use too much digital trickery (let's not mention the imperfect wolves in one key sequence), and Del Toro has a strange way of turning the creature into something like a superhero at times (he's very Incredible Hulk throughout, which I'm sure we've all seen as a modern blend of Frankenstein/Jekyll & Hyde over the years anyway), but the overall feeling is one of care and quality. You know that you're in the hands of someone who really wants this to deliver on all of his promises, even if he unsubtly hammers home one or two of the key messages of the tale. Although, for all of Del Toro's good intentions, ending his own adaptation of Mary Shelley's touchstone text with a quote from Lord Byron is a major mis-step that may leave viewers slightly soured as the end credits roll.

This is very good. And there are some pleasantly surprising bursts of gore and real horror too. It's not great though, perhaps due to the fact that Del Toro put himself under pressure to cram in everything he'd ever envisioned for the project. He has, somewhat ironically, given birth to something that he explored and experimented on for many years. It's not a monstrosity, but I don't think it will ever be as beloved as some of his other "children". 

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 

Alita: Battle Angel (2019)

Hey, I am as surprised as you might be to be saying this, but maybe more people should check out Alita: Battle Angel. It's not necessarily going to become your new favourite movie, it's certainly not going to placate you if you've been spending some time recently seeking out quality cinema with great actors delivering ear-tickling dialogue, but it's a fantastic bit of escapist fun, set in a world full of cool little details and wonderful production design.

The film starts off with Christoph Waltz, playing a Dr. Dyson Ido (and his surgical work now involves a lot of engineering or robotic parts), finding a discarded cyborg body that he then rebuilds and reactivates. The cyborg is Alita (Rosa Salazar), a young woman who strives to remember her past, and who ends up having a number of much bigger cyborgs tasked with ending her life.

Based on a manga (Gunnm AKA Battle Angel Alita) by Yukito Kishiro, Alita: Battle Angel comes to the screen courtesy of a screenplay by James Cameron and Laeta Kalogridis and direction from Robert Rodriguez. As ridiculous as it may seem, considering some of their achievements throughout their careers, none of these names are the draw they once were. People tend to actively mistrust Cameron nowadays, with good reason, considering how many times he has done his bit to sell us on Terminator sequels of ever-diminishing quality. Everyone is on good form here though, and it's refreshing to see Rodriguez back at the helm of something that is looking forward rather than trying to emulate the past (he does the latter well, but it's a well he's gone back to a few too many times throughout his career).

The cast help to sell everything, especially Salazar in a role that transforms her into the wide-eyed central character and Waltz as the fallible human who kicks things off. Jennifer Connelly and Mahershala Ali are enjoyable as the people who are manipulating events to direct Alita towards dangerous confrontations, Keean Johnson is the pretty male/potential love interest, and a couple of the main mean cyborgs are played entertainingly enough by Ed Skrein and Jackie Earle Haley.

But don't go thinking I am praising this as a near-perfect cinematic experience. While it delivers on the eye candy, and it really does (I was relieved to see that Rodriguez could still do well with action scenes), it's also full of good quality cheese. The script is silly and clunky, especially in the few moments in which it tries to have characters showing some real emotions. It's easy to forgive, however, as we're taken from one gorgeous sequence to the next (whether it's just a crowded street scene or a violent sporting tournament).

I'm not sure if we'll ever get any other instalments after this one, it didn't seem to do as well as expected at the box office, but I do know that I'll try to catch them on the big screen if we do. For sci-fi action blockbusters that enjoy pretending they have some depth to them, this is one of the better examples we've had in recent years.

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 

Downsizing (2017)

The latest film from Alexander Payne, who directed and co-wrote the script with Jim Taylor, is a very odd piece of work. In fact, it seems as unsure of itself as the main character, messily mixing together a sense of fun with some mixed messages about the way in which the human race can best move forward while attempting to undo the harm it has caused to this planet.

The basic plot revolves around the fact that science has perfected, pretty much, the ability to shrink things. Materials, products, even humans. And not only is that great for the environment, it can allow the humans to have a better quality of life. Which leads to Paul Safranek (Matt Damon) and his wife, Audrey (Kristen Wiig), wanting to give it a go. Things don't quite go to plan, and Paul finds himself in the downsized world with a telemarketing job, a fairly lonely life, and a sense that he isn't doing all that he wanted to do, despite not knowing what that is. An encounter with his more carefree neighbour (Dusan, played by Christoph Waltz) starts to open his eyes to ways in which he can improve his life, and the lives of others in the smaller communities.

Despite good performances from everyone involved, with Hong Chaun portraying the other main character not yet mentioned (a political activist who was downsized and now works as a house cleaner), Downsizing just can't overcome the fact that it is lacking focus. The opening sequences of the film show a sense of wonder, while also showing the division that also comes about from such major social change. The middle shows Damon adjusting to his situation and has a bit of fun with the fact that he is, ironically enough, still not thinking of the big picture. And then things get looser and more meandering as we move towards a finale that feels unsatisfying and, well, lacking any real impact or risk.

The script tries to get viewers to look at moments that it deems meaningful and important, and Payne directs in line with this, but it doesn't ever feel as if those moments really deserve the attention they get. And that's a shame for the likes of Damon, Waltz, and Chaun, all acting above and beyond the limitations of the whole thing. There are also enjoyable small turns (no pun intended) from Udo Kier, Jason Sudiekis, James Van Der Beek, Neil Patrick Harris, Laura Dern, and more. It's also a shame that the visuals aren't allowed to be as dazzling and impressive as they could be. This isn't a film about being shrunk down and looking at the giant world around you in awe. It's a film about being shrunk down and living in an environment that often matches that. But there still could have been one or two more moments that emphasise the wonder of it all.

As it stands, Downsizing is a lesser film from Payne. It fails to live up to its potential. Ironic.

6/10

Here is a link to order the American disc.

Is Spectre a Bond film that completely misunderstands Bond?

Unfortunately, what has set me back to the keyboard is a movie that has disappointed me. Well, not just disappointed me. Perhaps saying that it angered me would be closer to the truth. You see, many have decided to come out again in favour of James Bond, and many are heaping some great praise upon Spectre. And I, for the life of me, can't see how this is possible. From the perspective of a Bond fan, Spectre is a bad movie. It is, in my eyes, the worst instalment in the entire official series. And I've endured The Man With The Golden Gun.

For anyone interested, I have previously written about Bond movies here (Connery, with a hint of Lazenby), here (Moore), here (Dalton), here (Brosnan), here (Craig), and here (a couple of interesting movies that are never really considered "canon"). And I reviewed Skyfall here. I'm not linking to those reviews and articles to claim to be any kind of expert. I simply think that if you browse through those and share any of my taste then the following may be a bit easier to stomach. Otherwise, feel free to think of me as someone talking out of his posterior.

Now, although this won't be a full, standard movie review, I'd like to try to pinpoint a few aspects of Spectre that make it such a bad Bond movie. Let me try to highlight everything in, hmmmmmmm, 7 main points.

1) That opening. The opening sequence of Spectre has some great moments. In fact, up until a building collapses and Bond (Daniel Craig, once again totally at ease in the role) has to get to ground level, I was very happy. But then it simply reprises the opening minutes of Casino Royale. We've seen Bond do this before, keeping pace with a target through a busy, exotic locale. We've seen him do many things before, of course, but the familiarity of his drinking, his seduction of women and his one-liners are part of the appeal. Watching repetitive scenes, as opposed to repeated character traits, isn't the same thing. Then we have some great helicopter stunt work. Seriously . . . kudos to all involved. But was I the only person noticing one or two moments of green screen that were all-too-obvious? The 21st century equivalent of Roger Moore's stunt double taking up most of the screentime in his latter outings? The visuals were decidedly so-so, and a bit irritating in their incessant reminder of the events from the previous movies that have SHAPED our hero (don't you know), but I could have accepted them if they'd been accompanied by a decent song. Oh no. The worst Bond movie in the Bond-verse also has the worst Bond song. I don't think Sam Smith should ever be allowed to write jingles for breakfast cereals after his godawful slice of drabness put forward here.

2) The ladies. Bond has always been about the Bond girls as well as the man himself. And there was much talk about Monica Bellucci being a leading Bond girl. She is *gasp* 50. I love Monica Bellucci, and was looking forward to seeing her role in the movie. If anyone had told me that she was in it for about all of five minutes then the poor treatment she receives at the hands of the scriptwriters might have been easier to stomach. The other main Bond girl here is played by Lea Seydoux, who easily fares better than Bellucci. Sadly, the makers of the movie use her as a way to show a Bond developing a heart and feelings. You know, like he did in Casino Royale . . . . . . . . before events changed him into the figure we knew he had to become.

3) This is not a Mission: Impossible movie, but nobody told the writers that. Okay, Q (Ben Whishaw) is a younger man here than he ever was in the older movies, but we don't need an unnecessary scene putting him in some danger out in the field. We can watch Simon Pegg try to keep up with Tom Cruise for that kind of fish-out-of-water fun in an action spy franchise. And I know that the new M (Ralph Fiennes, who looks more and more like Leonard Rossiter with every performance he gives) has seen action in the field, but that doesn't make me want to watch him join in the battle either.

4) Stunt set-pieces are for the stunts and the gadgets. This is pretty much why every Bond movie exists. So it's weird to see a car chase occur in which Bond spends a large amount of the time speaking on the phone to Moneypenny (Naomie Harris). Or a fight sequence in which Bond faces off against a physically superior opponent (Dave Bautista) for no reason whatsoever. Seriously, you're supposed to think that there's always a reason for Bond and co. to be in physical danger, but the last 30-40 minutes contradict that, as it contradicts so many things.

5) Bond, as he is displayed onscreen, isn't the introspective type (bar occasional moments of brilliance, such as THAT final scene in On Her Majesty's Secret Service). Whether by choice or necessity, he acts and he moves on. Sometimes the consequences aren't as good as expected, but the alternatives are often a hell of a lot worse. Not here, however. Oh no. This is a thoughtful Bond. A Bond who looks as if he wants a bit of a holiday. Which isn't what you really want from your number one international secret agent.

6) The villain(s). A good Bond movie can be made or broken by the villain. Christoph Waltz is on hand here, another reason to rejoice. Until you realise that he's given a character who is completely mishandled. The big speeches never feel powerful enough, the threat only gets specific in a strange, and ill-fitting, torture sequence, and his development from the start of the movie to the end is as laughable as it is predictable.

7) Can I fit my problems into only seven main points? Oh, oh, I think I can. The biggest problem with Spectre is one that almost occured in Skyfall. Director Sam Mendes and co. seem unable to decide on just what to do with their lead character. One minute they're tearing down his established world, allowing him to rise again from the ashes like some kind of 00-phoenix. The next they're trying to shoehorn in familiar elements that they either want to reinvent for the modern era or they're adding unwanted touches from other movies that were themselves influenced by Bond (the shadow of Christopher Nolan seems to be a problem here, yet again).

Bond CAN be serious (Licence To Kill remains one of the best in the series, and it's also one of the darkest). He CAN be silly (look at most of those Moore outings). He can be an entertaining mixture of the two (as has been the case with most of the Brosnan and Craig films). But he always has to ultimately be Bond, and everything else should stem from that. Don't try to make a movie that you then use to shape James Bond. Let James Bond shape the movie that you're making.

 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 

Horrible Bosses 2 (2014)

The biggest thing going against enjoyable comedy sequel Horrible Bosses 2 is that it, inevitably, pales in comparison to the first movie. But the biggest thing going for it is just how close it comes to providing as many laughs and great lines for anyone, like myself, who really liked the first movie.

All of the main players return for this meander through familiar territory. Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis and Charlie Day are now about to go into business for themselves, hoping to make a success of their Shower Buddy invention. They're made an offer by Rex Hanson (Chris Pine), which they refuse. They're immediately made a more attractive offer by Rex's father, Bert (Christoph Waltz), and they seize that one with both hands. But things aren't quite what they seem, which sees our incompetent trio attempting to turn to crime once again, this time with a spot of kidnapping on the agenda instead of murder.

Director Sean Anders, who also helped to write the screenplay with John Morris, has done a surprisingly decent job here of avoiding the usual pitfalls of comedy sequels. Yes, it replicates the beats of the first movie, but it does so in a way that never feels as if it's trying to desperately outdo what came before. Perhaps downgrading the main crime from murder to kidnapping dictated the planned perimeter of the gags, or perhaps everyone involved was just so busy having a good time on set that they had faith in the humour being infection, instead of planning the film around a few set-pieces.

Arguing over walkie-talkies about potential codenames, Bateman distracting a group of people by talking about pretend sex addiction, Jonathan Banks being a tenacious cop, a wonderful moment bringing people together with the power of Predator - these are just a few of the highlights.

As well as the lead trio, Kevin Spacey also returns to raise a few laughs as the "original" horrible boss Dave Harken, Jennifer Aniston brings more filthy chuckles as sex-pest dentist Julia Harris, and Jamie Foxx has more fun as "Motherfucker" Jones. They all come back on top form, and are given a few great scenes each. On the other hand, Waltz is sadly wasted in his role. He does well enough, but is only really a motivating factor for the plot and nothing more. Pine, who gets much more screentime, makes up for that slight disappointment with his performance, which is hilarious at times. The biggest laughs, however, come once more from Day. Bateman and Sudeikis get their share of funny lines, although once again Bateman is stuck trying to be the voice of reason at times, but it's Day who seems to always make the most of every line/reaction to events.

Let's not mince words here. This is glossy, mainstream stuff. It's aiming to be a crowd-pleaser. That's an aim that I think it succeeds in achieving. There aren't many BIG laughs, although many of the gags had me laughing out loud every few minutes, and anyone who doesn't like it can write it off as yet another lazy sequel. Yet I think fans of the first movie will easily find plenty to enjoy here. It's a no-brainer, which I realise is another criticism that anyone disliking this movie can level at it.

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