For It Is Man's Number: emma laird

Showing posts with label emma laird. Show all posts

Thursday, 12 March 2026

Fackham Hall (2025)

All you need to know about Fackham Hall is that it's essentially a silly parody of Downton Hall fare. Imagine that kind of period piece drama given the Zucker/Abrahams/Zucker treatment and you're in the right area. Director Jim O'Hanlon has a pretty good body of work to his name already, including a couple of enjoyable Christmas movies and an episode of Hemlock Grove. (anyone else remember Hemlock Grove with fondness, or is it just me? and where the hell does Hemlock Grove "live" nowadays?)

The main cast members are Thomasin McKenzie, playing Rose, Ben Radcliffe, playing Eric, and Damian Lewis and Katherine Waterston playing Lord and Lady Davenport, respectively. Others onscreen are Tom Felton (as Archibald), Emma Laird (as Poppy), and Jimmy Carr, who also helped to co-write the screenplay, cameoing as a vicar who keeps breaking up his sentences in ways that make his speeches to the congregation hilarious inappropriate.

While there is a plot here, it's really all about throwing a lot of gags around and hoping that some of them land. The good news is that many of them do. They may not be the best gags, nor the most hilarious, but I ended up surprised by how much of the 97-minute runtime I spent consistently chuckling at the entertaining silliness being put before me. Jimmy Carr, Patrick Carr, Tim Inman, Andrew Dawson, and Steve Dawson are clearly comfortable, and skilled, when it comes to constructing a selection of jokes. The fact that the plot is slim enough to leave plenty of room for them, yet also constructed well enough to feel like the bones of a proper film, is impressive.

Considering some of his past work (especially having helmed a number of episodes of A Touch Of Cloth), it's no surprise to find that O'Hanlon has a good handle on the material. What is surprising is just how many of the leads trust themselves, and one another, to play things wonderfully straight in the midst of all the stupidity. McKenzie is particularly good in her role, as is Waterston, and they're rivalled by both Radcliffe and Lewis, although the latter can't resist adding a bit of extra ham to his performance at times. Felton almost unsettles things, but just stays within the perimeter of permissible parody behaviour, and things are quickly back on track whenever the focus moves to someone like Laird, Lizzie Hopley, Sue Johnston, or Tom Goodman-Hill (as Inspector Watt, called in when a corpse really puts a dampener on things for those at the titular hall).

It may rarely feel like a proper feature, more likely to be stumbled upon by viewers when it appears somewhere on a streaming service, but it does exactly what it sets out to do. If you know what to expect then you should laugh as much as I did. If you're after something a bit more clever and cinematic then I would encourge you to look elsewhere.

I started this review thinking that I would ultimately finish it off with a "good, but I won't rush to rewatch it" comment. In fact, thinking about how amused I was for the duration, and considering how that is a pleasant distraction from the madness of the real world, I might give it a rewatch soon. There might even be a number of little jokes that I missed the first time around. Which means I MAY one day return to edit this review/rating. I doubt it, but it could happen.

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

Friday, 27 February 2026

A Haunting In Venice (2023)

Another Poirot film starring, and directed by, Kenneth Branagh, this one based on a novel actually named "Hallowe'en Party", A Haunting In Venice feels a bit different from the previous two instalments in this particular continuity for the detective. It's a moody and atmospheric piece. It also feels disappointingly light on actual Poirot moments though, our hero generally feeling sidelined in favour of the camerawork and building spookiness.

Despite trying to enjoy his retirement, Hercule Poirot has his peace interrupted by a mystery writer friend, Ariadne Oliver (Tina Fey), who hopes he can expose a medium, Joyce Reynolds (Michelle Yeoh), as a fraud. She will be putting on a performance at the home of Rowena Drake (Kelly Reilly), a retured opera singer grieving the loss of her daughter, Alicia. Others who will be in attendance are Dr. Leslie Ferrier (Jamie Dornan) and Maxime Gérard (Kyle Allen), the former fiancé of Alicia.

On the one hand, it's commendable to have a Poirot film that feels a step removed from the other recent Poirot films. Branagh, working once again with writer Michael Green, seems intent on showing us that every Poirot tale can both follow a formula and also provide some nice variety, but he seems to struggle with the commitment required for the many scenes that don't focus on the main character.

It should also be said that the cast feels disappointingly lacking in comparison to the previous two features. Fey is a delight, as is Yeoh (the latter sorely underused), but Reilly isn't able to have any fun in her role, Allen is similarly stuck in a solemn mood for the duration, and Dornan is about as bland as he usually is (sorry, he may be a lovely guy, but he rarely works for me onscreen). Riccardo Scamarcio is an enjoyable presence playing Poirot's bodyguard, but you don't get much from the likes of Ali Khan, Emma Laird, Camille Cottin, and the young Jude Hill (playing the son of Dornan's character).

Everything feels as lush and gorgeous, albeit in a very different way, but there's certainly no doubt that the budget is lower than it was for the previous Poirot feature. We don't get to stray too far from the one main location, the cast is undeniably lacking some major star power (aside from the luminous Fey and Yeoh), and it just can't stop feeling, superficially, like an inferior adventure. The spooky fun helps a lot though, and allowed me to put this on a par with its predecessors, despite the shortcomings elsewhere.

Other plus points are the fact that it clocks in at 103 minutes, although it feels a bit longer than that, and a wonderful score from Hildur Guðnadóttir that I recommend, even if you ultimately choose not to watch the film.

Nothing great, nor truly memorable, but enjoyable enough while it's on, which can be said of every one of the Branagh Poirot movies to date. At least the man is consistent when it comes to his attempts to serve up tales of the famous Belgian detective.

6/10

Tuesday, 20 January 2026

28 Years Later: The Bone Temple (2026)

It's strange to find that every new instalment in what is now a fine horror franchise comes loaded with worry and curiosity about where things are going next. I was relieved when I ended up enjoying 28 Years Later as much as I did, but that wild ending had me wondering about how the next instalment would be handled. And then finding out that it was being directed by Nia DaCosta made me uneasy. I like DaCosta, I always want her to do well since she did such great work with Candyman, but "The Bone Temple" seemed to be moving further into dark territory that was also quintessentially British.

Whether or not DaCosta knew about every disturbing detail in her own movie, and I would hope that writer Alex Garland gave her a primer on one or two key elements, she proves to be a fantastic choice to helm this middle section of what looks set to be quite a brilliant and intriguing horror trilogy. It's already two for two at this point. Now I have worry and curiosity about how the final part will play out.

For those wanting a very brief plot summary, as long as you've seen the previous film, we rejoin this dangerous world as young Spike (Alfie Williams) is being initiated into the gang of Jimmys that saved him at the end of the last film. The leader is Sir Jimmy Crystal (Jack O'Connell), and they are on a mission to serve Old Nick. Meanwhile, Dr. Kelson (Ralph Fiennes) is still tending to his ossuarium, and he's also hoping to find a way to communicate with, and perhaps even cure, the infected alpha known as Samson (Chi Lewis-Parry). Kelson and Crystal have very different ways of dealing with the world around them, but fate may bring them together in a way that might force them to find some common ground.

If you enjoyed both Williams and Fiennes in the previous movie then you're going to find their performances equally enjoyable here, although Fiennes gets to do a bit more than the younger cast member. It's arguably O'Connell who steals the show though, embodying absolute evil with a smile and a winning way with words . . . and a real affinity for the antics of the Teletubbies, but Lewis-Parry continues to cast a hell of a large shadow in the role of Samson, particularly when in numerous scenes that have him interacting with Fiennes. Nobody disappoints, but the others worth highlighting are Emma Laird and Erin Kellyman, both standing out as the two female members of the Jimmy gang (named Jimmima and Jimmy Ink, respectively).

28 Years Later: The Bone Temple is two films perfectly intertwined. One is a study of evil, and also a look at how people working together can overcome the greatest obstacles. The other is a full-blooded selection of horror movie moments, with arteries cut, flesh torn, and innocent people dragged into sadistic games. And then it stops to deliver a show-stopping sequence that makes incredible use of a very well-known Iron Maiden song.

I cannot think of anyone being disappointed by this if they made it all the way through the previous film. DaCosta may struggle to put her stamp all over this, but there are choices and flourishes that are more in line with her aesthetic than the standard look of the series. It's commendable that she also maintains a consistency that allows the whole thing to feel like a natural extension of the unfolding storyline though.

I may have an obvious bias here. I enjoy every single entry in this film series. The fact that these new films have gone from being unnecessary titles that nobody seemed to want to important and fresh ways to examine the human spirit and expand the lore of the infected is incredible. And there are now three features that could easily be in contention whenever the time comes to pick an outright best film in the series. I will remain worried and curious until the third/final film is released, but that's just habit at this point. All of the evidence so far assures me that I should be optimistic and excited.

9/10