Netflix And Chill: How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days (2003)

It had been quite some time since I had seen How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days. The last time was certainly before the transformation of Matthew McConaughey from rom-com lead to versatile actor in more critically-appreciated fare. And here's the main thing I couldn't help thinking about while watching the movie; McConaughey is doing work here that is as good as work he has been doing in recent years. It's just a very different kind of performance, one that makes use of his innate charm and his ability to handle light comedy. I'm actually keen to check out a number of other McConaughey movies from this period, to see for myself whether or not I was being a bit unfair to just ignore them while the man was cashing those paychecks and laying the foundation for years in which he could make some more daring choices.

McConaughey plays Ben, an advertising executive who wants to be in charge of a large campaign selling diamonds. Ben doesn't seem to understand women, however, because he hasn't had a relationship that has lasted more than a few days. If he can meet a woman, and get her to fall in love with him, before a big event party then his boss may just let him head up the campaign. He is told to make his move on the lovely Andie (Kate Hudson). What he doesn't know is that Andie writes a "How To" column in a popular woman's magazine, and her latest project is "How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days". Andie is about to test the waters, using every major faux pas committed by women who become too needy, clingy, and overbearing. Despite their agendas, Ben and Andie really start to warm to one another, and you know there will be a standard rom-com third act full of revelations, confrontations, and a race-against-time to fix some major damage.

Based on a book by Michele Alexander and Jeannie Long, subtitled "The Universal Don'ts Of Dating", How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days is a self-aware and clever entry in the rom-com subgenre. The screenplay, by Kristen Buckley, Brian Regan, and Burr Steers, is very happy to hit all of the required beats while also letting the central characters try to push each other further and further apart as they feel themselves growing inexorably closer, emotionally.

Director Donald Petrie has a good handle on things (his varied filmography doesn't show this as a given, but he had a great double-whammy of Miss Congeniality and then this movie in the space of a few years) and he's helped by the assembled cast, with a number of wonderful supporting players orbiting our charismatic leads.

Hudson is perfect here, having a lot of fun as she goes more and more over the top in her "girlfriend from hell" guise and still radiant when her character is allowed to relax and not work on her agenda. McConaughey is his usual charming self, all abs and gleaming teeth and gentlemanly politeness and respect. Bebe Neuwirth and Robert Klein play the bosses of Hudson and McConaughey, respectively, and there are fun moments for Kathryn Hahn (the unlucky-in-love friend of Hudson, and inspiration for the article), Adam Goldberg, and Thomas Lennon (the latter two friends of McConaughey, hilarious when they get to look on and comment on their friend's disrupted "new life").

You can act snobbish and dismiss films like this easily enough. Okay, they are formulaic and predictable. But that doesn't mean they aren't enjoyable, especially when you have stars who so easily emanate such an air of, well, stardom. Sometimes it's a treat to watch actors you know disappear into roles that explore various facets of the human experience, and sometimes it's a treat to watch stars be stars.

7/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

The Gentlemen (2020)

I absolutely understand that Guy Ritchie movies aren't necessarily designed for anyone other than Guy Ritchie fans (and I'm not talking about his studio work here, I am talking about GUY RITCHIE movies), and I also absolutely understand that another crime comedy from him will be about as appealing as a smack on the back of the head from an irate Jason Statham, but The Gentlemen actually ends up being a lot of fun. Ritchie is confident enough in his own abilities, and he seems to relish the chance to get down 'n' dirty with a great cast who will help him create his most blatant homage yet to The Long Good Friday.

Matthew McConaughey is Mickey Pearson, the mastermind behind a superbly profitable drug business. It's pot he sells though, which means we can still view him as a good guy compared to other criminal types onscreen. Charlie Hunnam is Ray, Mickey's trusted right hand man. Mickey wants to retire, which sets off a twisted and violent chain of events as people try to nominate themselves as worthy successors. The prime buyer would seem to be a savvy businessman named Matthew (Jeremy Strong), but Dry Eye (Henry Golding) is an up-and-coming boss/thug who wants to get a big piece of the pie. We learn all of this through a lengthy conversation between Ray and a bloodhound journalist named Fletcher (Hugh Grant).

The Gentlemen is a film that does everything well, and is elevated by the cast. From those just mentioned, the only performer I didn't really enjoy was Strong, who delivers a performance that feels just a bit too weak and lacking in confidence for his character (despite his character being the kind of brain who outsources to brawn).McConaughey is his usual cool self, and very laid-back until he has to pounce on someone, Hunnam is the best I have seen him be, Golding is enjoyable in a role that thankfully doesn't have him yet again showing all of us men up as inferior and unromantic souls, and Grant has an absolute ball playing the kind of unscrupulous journo he has often publicly berated while working in support of Hacked Off, a campaign group set up to hold members of the tabloid press to account over their illegal tactics of phone hacking to gain private information that would provide them with juicy tabloid gossip. Michelle Dockery is a fitting queen to McConaughey's king, Eddie Marsan has fun in a small role that leads to a punchline both hilarious and appalling, and Colin Farrell once again proves that he can be relied upon to do his best work when not constrained by the packaging of a mainstream star vehicle.

There are only two main problems, and they're problems you find in most Ritchie movies (although I hadn't realised it before). First of all, every character feels like a character written by Ritchie. Nobody has their own voice here, although Grant almost overcomes this with the strength of his performance. Secondly, the large selection of characters inevitably delivers some that you wish weren't given much screentime (in this case it's a bunch of amateur criminals who upload their exploits to YouTube).

Those with sensitive ears will want to give this a miss, because the word "cunt" is bandied about more than it would be at a Christmas night out with a bunch of gynaecologists, and those who prefer their tales of crooks and crime to be told in a more straightforward fashion may also be a bit peeved, especially during the indulgent moments that allow for some playful unreliable narration from Grant's character. Everyone else should have a great time.

8/10

Noir-vember: Serenity (2019)

Serenity is, in a way, kind of wonderful. It's terrible, and I really can't think of anything I've seen with worse plotting that hasn't been buried in the recesses of the darker pockets of the internet, but it's the kind of terrible that makes you wonder why nobody took people aside at any stage in the film-making process and said "look, this isn't working, we need to start over".

Matthew McConaughey is Baker Dill, a fishing boat captain who enjoys a fairly tranquil life on a small island. He's obsessed with catching a large yellowfin tuna, which he names "Justice", and sometimes even moves paying customers out of his way when the fish comes within catching distance. Things take a turn for the worse when Baker's ex-wife, Karen (Anne Hathaway), approaches him with an offer. She wants him to kill her abusive new husband (Jason Clarke), an act that would improve the life of both her and their son.

Written and directed by Steven Knight, who previously surprised me by making a film about a man driving his car and planning a major concrete transporting job (Locke), this reflects poorly on him, and also everyone involved with it. The script is a mess, with the best moments coming from the scenes that provide unintended laughs, and the direction complements it perfectly. Knight doesn't settle on any style. If you want something dark and shady to match the mystery at the heart of things then you're going to be disappointed. Similarly, anyone hoping to at least get a hot and sweat-soaked thriller reminiscent of Body Heat and The Mean Season will also end up disappointed. In fact, it's hard not to think of anyone who won't be disappointed by this.

The cast at least look as if they're having fun, for the most part. Hathaway is the one with the least to do, despite how she sets the chain of events in motion, and suffers from a script not savvy enough to either drag her down to a sleazier level or keep her above it all. McConaughey is enjoyably over the top, more invested in catching one big sea creature than anyone else I can think of (aside from Ahab or Quint, obviously). Clarke's character is so awful that it's fun to watch him swagger about onscreen and act oblivious to the immediate dislike that others have for him. Djimon Hounsou works well in a supporting role, he's the first mate to McConaughey's character, but the same cannot be said of Jeremy Strong or Diane Lane, who is completely wasted in the couple of scenes that she has.

There may well be individual aspects of this movie that some people end up enjoying. Maybe you like the standard noir idea at the heart of the plot. Maybe you just like McConaughey and/or Hathaway. Maybe you like seeing footage of people on a boat as they wait for a fish to take some bait. Whatever you find to enjoy here, I defy you to hold on to that enjoyment as everything gets sillier and sillier in the second half, leading to a finale that it's pretty much impossible to care about.

I have spent a lot of time since watching this movie trying to think up ways of how I could have turned it into something worse. I am so far drawing a blank.

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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Mubi Monday: Mud (2012)

Written and directed by Jeff Nichols, Mud is a film that takes some obvious influences and then fails to shake them up and turn them into something fresh and exciting. Not to say that it's a bad film. There's enough here to enjoy, mainly the central performances, and Nichols proves a dab hand at taking plenty of small moments and putting them together to create something that feels appropriately bigger than the sum of its parts.

Tye Sheridan is Ellis and Jacob Lofland plays Neckbone, two young boys who encounter a hiding fugitive named Mud (Matthew McConaughey). He wants to get back together with his alleged true love, Juniper (Reese Witherspoon), but are his motivations pure, and does Juniper want to be with him?

Mud looks good throughout, with Nichols finding a perfect balance between the daily grime and the sun-baked freedom that the two child stars seem to have through most of their days. These kids are able to have their adventure, but it's an adventure that isn't necessarily as safe and innocent as other tales that might spring to mind. Fortunately (or maybe not), they already have enough experience to be on the look out for other dangers, even as they take a risk by befriending Mud and trying to help him out of his current predicament.

The cast are the main strength here. Sheridan and Lofland give the kind of performances that surely signal bright futures ahead for both (although it's Sheridan that seems to have more easily moved onwards and upwards). McConaughey is great, once again using his charm to soften the edges of a character who might not be as friendly and trustworthy as he tries to appear. Witherspoon does well in a smaller role, although it's hard to say that she stands out in a supporting cast that also includes talent like Bonnie Sturdivant, Joe Don Baker, Ray McKinnon, Sarah Paulson, Sam Shepard, and Michael Shannon.

The fact that this film feels more lightweight than expected isn't an unforgivable crime against cinema. It is just enough to drag the film down from great to very good. The script has a few real gems in the dialogue and exchanges but they're too few and far between, which is a real shame. Instead of having this cast deliver gold from one scene to the next we instead watch them carry a lot of the film in between the fleeting moments of greatness. But we can at least be thankful that Nichols can always spot the best talent when it comes to casting his movies.

7/10

You can buy it here.
Americans can get it here.

Bonus Review: Interstellar (2014)

It sounds like a cliche, it's the kind of thing that all fans seem to say at one point about their cinematic heroes, but I really wish Christopher Nolan would move back to the smaller movies that he showed so much promise with years ago. Because I DO really like the guy, he always puts moments onscreen that make for great cinema, but he's in danger of taking away every ounce of goodwill that I have left for him. Interstellar is his most unsatisfying movie yet. Like the wildly overpraised The Dark Knight Rises, it suffers from an excessive runtime, a selection of ideas that are never treated as well as they could be, and a real lack of actual entertainment value.

The place is Earth. It's the future. There have been wars. There are environmental problems that affect the growth of crops. It doesn't look good for the future of the human race. One man (Cooper, played by Matthew McConaughey) ends up piloting a spaceship on a mission that everyone hopes will provide a solution, or at least provide an alternative home for the general population. Cooper is accompanied on the mission by Brand (Anne Hathaway), Doyle (Wes Bentley), Romilly (David Gyasi), and a couple of smartass robots. As they venture further into their mission, travelling through a wormhole and dangerously close to a black hole, it soon becomes clear that the most important resource they have is one that they can do very little to manage: time.

Where to begin? Where, where, where? Perhaps I should start by clarifying that my biggest problems with Interstellar don't lie with the science, which many are quick to state is considered to be quite sound. I'm no scientist, so I'm not going to fight that fight, even if I have my doubts about some of the speculation. I will, however, say that the ideas presented here are never explored to anywhere near their full potential, which left this particular viewer frustrated and wishing that Nolan had at least created a film with the full courage of his convictions. He didn't. He sets up what could be an interesting tale of the human spirit flying into the unknown abyss of outer space and then simply neuters the whole thing. Which is a great shame.

Perhaps I'm skipping ahead. My first problems with this movie cropped up within the first few scenes. First of all, Nolan set up a world that I didn't believe in. An Earth blighted by such problems (no military, extra health issues, the potential for mass hunger) shouldn't, in my view, seem like our Earth as it is now, albeit with an extra coating of dust over everything. But this is the world that we're presented with. Then I started to get an idea, an inkling that I knew how things were going to pan out. This was within minutes of the movie starting, mind you. For a movie that clocks in at just under three hours, that's not a good thing. It's even worse when the whole thing plays out exactly as envisioned.

Are there ANY surprises? Yes. Well, it may be better to say that there are one or two decent diversions. I can't go into any more detail because they feature people and situations that you'll enjoy more if you have no advance notice. It's just a shame that those good moments are adrift in a sea of horribly manipulative codswallop, surprisingly lacklustre special effects, and an audio mix that ranks among the very worst I've had to endure from a blockbuster cinema release. Seriously, Hans Zimmer may have enjoyed being given so much screentime to score by Mr. Nolan, but there were times when I would have much preferred to hear what the main characters were actually saying. You may think I'm joking, but there were at least one or two moments when I strained to hear dialogue that was obscured by Zimmer's ruckus.

The film never falls below average, which is unsurprising when you consider just how good at the technical stuff Nolan is. He's also helped by a decent cast, all doing their best to distract viewers from the clumsier elements of the script. McConaughey continues his hot streak, giving a performance that distils all of the best of humanity into one strong-willed protagonist. Hathaway is also very good, somehow able to waver between supporting McConaughey and trying to equal him. Bentley and Gyasi may be given less to do, but both men acquit themselves capably. Michael Caine and John Lithgow both make the most of their supporting turns, while Jessica Chastain once again proves that she'll never stop ACTING her heart out to show you how hard she is ACTING. She could take some notes from Mackenzie Foy, a young actress who steals every scene that she's in.

Many people will love Interstellar. It seems that every film Nolan makes nowadays is able to find a large, loyal fanbase. Who wouldn't want such bankability? I certainly didn't love it, and there were many times when I didn't even like it. It's a mess. It never feels plausible, despite the science all being as accurate as possible (allegedly). It's massively self-indulgent. Worst of all, it never feels like great cinema, even as it clearly strives to prove that it is.

Maybe, just maybe, Christopher Nolan should come back down to Earth. And soon.

5/10

Here's the science part - http://www.amazon.com/Science-Interstellar-Kip-Thorne/dp/0393351378/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1415650031&sr=8-4&keywords=interstellar+movie

Oscar 2014 Predictions.

Yep, I'll be brave and put up my choices.

Best Film:
12 Years A Slave - reviewed here.

Best Actor:
Matthew Mcconaughey - for Dallas Buyers Club, which is reviewed here.

Best Actress:
Amy Adams - for American Hustle, which is reviewed here.

Best Director:
Alfonso Cuaron - for Gravity, which is reviewed here.

Best Foreign Language Film:
The Great Beauty

Best Performance By An Actress In A Supporting Role:
Lupita Nyong'o - for 12 Years A Slave.

Best Performance By An Actor In A Supporting Role:
Michael Fassbender  - for 12 Years A Slave.

Her for best original screenplay and The Wolf Of Wall Street for best adapted screenplay (though Philomena, which I saw today, IS great). And then it's Frozen for best animated feature.

A worthy Oscar tome is available here - http://www.amazon.co.uk/85-Years-Oscar-Robert-Osborne/dp/0789211424/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1393628675&sr=1-1&keywords=oscars