Netflix And Chill: Train Dreams (2025)

I made some time for Train Dreams this weekend because it is one of the few films nominated in the main categories at the 2026 Academy Awards. There was no other reason. I didn’t even really know what it was about, but I suspected it might be one that didn’t impress me. Joel Edgerton is someone I am still wary of, despite the fact that he has quietly delivering brilliant performance after brilliant performance now for at least the better part of ten to fifteen years. And even people who praised the film seemed to avoid mentioning what it was actually about, which made me think it was going to be less than captivating.

Happily, I was wrong again. Edgerton plays Robert Grainier, a man who just happens to be born at a time when American is starting to build railroads and hurtle towards a momentarily gleaming and awesome future. But the hard work must be done before the celebrations can begin. Rail tracks are laid, gangs of men are left in the wilderness to work hard and risk death every day, and few of the jobs helping to create a transport infrastructure are without major risk. Robert can keep thinking about his wife (Gladys, played by Felicity Jones) while he sees the pain and death around him, but it isn’t long until his own life starts to be overshadowed by tragedy.

Adapted from a novella by Denis Johnson, this screenplay by Greg Kwedar and director Clint Bentley (who also co-wrote Bentley's first feature about five years ago) is an enjoyable look at the many changes one man can see happening in a particular lifetime. Robert may seem to be a background character, in many ways, but he is a witness to a very interesting chapter in history, as well as being an important part of the machinery used to build and shape the USA, in more ways than one. Bentley takes in everything around the main character, but the narrative and Edgerton's presence, as quiet and still as he is, stops viewers from forgetting who is the essential jigsaw piece completing the big picture.

Edgerton is a calm and stoic lead, as good here as he has been in any other role he's had throughout his career. He has the right face for showing endurance and growing tiredness. Jones has a lot less to do, in many ways, but works perfectly as the woman so beloved by him that her presence is felt reverberating through everything else that he does. William H. Macy is delightful in a bittersweet supporting role, and there are great moments for Clifton Collins Jr., Paul Schneider, John Diehl, and Kerry Condon. Everything is also helped by the superb narration from Will Patton, who has the perfect voice for this story.

At once both small and vast, this is an epic tale told through the prism of one "bystander". It's a timely reminder that, however much we want to participate or stay out of things, we are all a constant part of history. We can add something worthwhile, we can allow horrible things to happen without intervening, but we all play our part. And if that isn't something that everyone needs reminding of right now then I don't know what is. 

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  

The Running Man (2025)

I am always excited for any new Edgar Wright movie, and when I heard that he was remaking The Running Man, with a starring role for Glen Powell, I was intrigued to see how he would approach the material. For as much as I enjoy the Arnold action flick, the source material (a novella by Stephen King, published under his Richard Bachman pseudonym) was a much darker and more cynical piece of work. Wright, for all of his good points, doesn't necessarily seem capable of dark and cynical.

And it turns out that he isn't. This IS a bleaker film than the original, and there are a number of moments here that show Wright trying to add an edge that has been absent from his past features, but he still can't help aiming for a message that is ultimately a positive one, taking the ending of the novella as a starting point for a slightly different direction that should actually please both fans of the story and fans of films that don't ruin your whole week.

Powell plays Ben Richards, a man with a strong moral code and a bit of a temper, which has made things a bit problematic when it comes to his relationship with exploitative employers. Desperate to get the medicine that his daughter needs, Ben heads along to a TV studio to sign up for one of the many shows that offer cash prizes. He's happy to try most of them, except The Running Man, which sees contestants being hunted, until almost inevitably trapped and killed. Unfortunately, his attitude and capabilities make him a perfect choice for The Running Man. It's time to start running.

Powell is great in the lead role, far removed from Arnold, of course, but physically capable and suitably charismatic. He's grim and determined, but able to start having fun when he starts to figure out the best way to play the game. Colman Domingo is great value as the flamboyant host, Bobby T, Josh Brolin is enjoyably slick and shark-like in the role of Dan Killian, the head manipulator who creates the perfect storylines for viewers to lap up, and Emilia Jones turns up in time to play a pivotal role in the third act. There's also room for fun little turns from Katy O'Brian, William H. Macy, Lee Pace, and an enjoyably manic pairing of Michael Cera and Sandra Dickinson (featured in the most memorable sequence in the film).

It's been interesting to watch Wright's career as he has stepped further away from the Cornetto trilogy that proved to be so enduringly popular. I think he's maintained a remarkable consistency throughout a varied selection of treats, although I know some people have stopped being impressed by his particular style. Another attempt to show he can do more than just gags and homages, The Running Man works well, for the most part, although it's jarring on the few occasions when you do notice the standard "Wright-isms" (e.g. a Y/why gag, the foreshadowing, soundtrack choices, etc.) in the mix. 

Having also worked on the screenplay with Michael Bacall, there's great care taken here to present a vision of a horribly depressing future that doesn't feel too far removed from the here and now without leaving viewers depressed at the thought of it all looming up to ruin our lives.

For as bleak and as brutal as this can be, it's also a lot of fun. Some purists may balk at that idea, considering how things play out in the Bachman book, but it's a perfectly-blended end result that proves why Wright was a great choice to bring us another interpretation of the tale. It's just a shame that he didn't hire Harold Faltermeyer to deliver another fine electronic score, which would have been the best thing to carry over from the older film. 

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 

Kingdom Of The Planet Of The Apes (2024)

Let's start this review with a reminder that no film is strictly necessary. When people say that a film is completely unnecessary then they are usually referring to some remake or sequel, but films are made by a bunch of people who just want to make films. And often those behind the scenes who just want to make money. Now that we've established that premise, Kingdom Of The Planet Of The Apes certainly feels less necessary than almost any other film I can think of in recent years. We've had the original movie series, we've had animated and live-action TV shows, we've had a Tim Burton interpretation, and we've had the hugely successful blockbuster trilogy that started with Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes and ended back in 2017 with War For The Planet Of The Apes.

This film takes place a few generations after the last time we joined the apes. Caesar is long gone, but his legacy lives on, although different apes have very different ideas about the way forward. Noa (Owen Teague) is part of a peaceful group, but his whole life is upended when he is targeted by an ape, Proximus Caesar (Kevin Durand), aiming to be a new ruler over all. Noa is smart, Proximus Caesar is strong, and a young girl named Nova (Freya Allan) ends up trying to survive in between their negotiations.

Writer Josh Friedman has a very mixed filmography, but I'm not sure that he can be fully blamed for the screenplay here. It feels as if he was restricted within certain parameters, and one or two scenes are there just to showcase the apparent realism of the computer-generated apes. Still, having agreed to take on the job, he could at least have tried to give us a more interesting lead and some supporting characters who make a strong impression. William H. Macy aside, who is here in human form, this has neither.

Director Wes Ball is best known for his work helming the enjoyable The Maze Runner trilogy (note to self - I STILL need to watch the third one), but his apparent step up the Hollywood ladder here looks to have turned him into someone far too cautious to deliver anything other than bland medicority with occasionally pretty visuals. As with Friedman, he's arguably hampered by what needs to be done to launch a whole new chapter in this modern incarnation of Apes movies, but there's no excuse for it all feeling so lifeless and limp. There's no real tension here, partly because it all feels so familiar and partly because there aren't any characters you really care about, and the most fun to be had comes from enjoying moments that harken back to some of the lesser-appreciated instalments of the original movie series . . . and then belatedly admiring that film even more for taking the kind of risks that this film so adamantly avoids.

Durand is an excellent presence, and the star ape here, but Teague sadly isn't. Peter Macon, Lydia Peckham, and Travis Jeffery are perfectly fine, but it's really only Macon, playing a wise orangutan, who gets to deliver a performance that comes close to being memorable. Sadly, the only other performances worth mentioning are those from Allan and Macy, the former playing the typical spirited human who wants to upset the status quo, the latter stealing a number of scenes as an educated man aiming for self-preservation ahead of anything else. It's a real shame that the two main humans visible onscreen are the ones you may remember most when the end credits roll. Previous entries in this franchise, whether good or bad, at least left you wirh a strong impression of the simian characters, first and foremost.

I'll rewatch this one day, and maybe I'll be kinder to it then, but I'm not in any rush. Nothing stands out, and the 145-minute runtime is a hell of an investment for something that offers so little reward. I would put it at, or very close to, the very bottom of any ranked list of the Apes movies, but the apparent box office success of it seems to put me firmly in the minority. I'll be very interested to see what happens with any plans for future instalments though, because I suspect people will have at least cottoned on to the idea that each prospective new feature could offer sadly diminishing returns.

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

Prime Time: Ricky Stanicky (2024)

I saw the trailer for Ricky Stanicky a couple of months ago and I wasn’t happy. First of all, it looked dire. Second, I knew I would still eventually watch it. And so here we are, but was it as dire as the trailer made it out to be?

After a childhood incident that requires some quick creativity, three friends realise how much they can help themselves by making use of an imaginary friend, named Ricky Stanicky. Ricky can be blamed for many  misadventures, he can be used to get out of other obligations, and life is just better with him available. That is, of course, until things are complicated by people wanting to meet Ricky. With the alternative option (coming clean after many years) not really an option at all, our main characters hire an adult entertainer/actor (John Cena) they met in Atlantic City. 

Starring Zak Efron, Andrew Santino, and Jermaine Fowler as the friends who keep the secret of Ricky Stanicky between them, this is a fairly enjoyable and predictable comedy that would have really benefited from pushing into much more outrageous and bawdier territory (which people might have expected from director Peter Farrelly, although he has certainly settled in to helming much mellower fare over the past decade). I enjoyed the leads well enough, but there should have been someone else on the mix, someone to help add laughs and elevate every scene. Santino is clearly positioned here as the most comedic of the cast, setting aside Cena for the moment, but he just isn’t good enough.

I am surprised that this doesn’t feel like a bigger mess though, considering at least half a dozen writers were responsible for the screenplay. While it lacks any big laughs, and even skimps on the milder chuckles, it works well for most of the runtime due to the potential of the premise. There’s also a very enjoyable second act that shows “Ricky” stealing the show and living up to his legendary reputation.

Efron has always been someone I enjoy seeing onscreen, and he is fine here as the man who desperately hopes to get through a busy time without being caught out for his many lies. Santino is okay, but not as funny as he should be, and the same can be said of Fowler, who is given a plot strand that never feels fully developed, making you wonder why it was included anyway. Lex Scott Davis and Anja Savcic have a few good moments, playing the partners of Efron and Santino, respectively, and William H. Macy is fun as their boss (accompanied in one or two scenes by Jane Badler, playing his wife). Cena is the star though, given another chance to showcase his comedy chops, and he tries hard to make up for the weaknesses elsewhere in the script, whether oozing confidence and knowledge about subjects that Ricky should be fluent in or being shown performing his act onstage as “Rock-Hard Rod”. He’s certainly game to give anything a go, and I appreciate how well he transitioned from one incarnation of his personality to the next, sensing an opportunity to turn Ricky into his big break.

The enthusiasm and talent of Cena isn’t enough though. This isn’t a good movie, although it also isn’t the horrible car crash I thought it might be. It’s just average. I was moderately entertained while it was on, but I am never going to revisit it. At least it doesn’t end in a way that seems to set up any sequel opportunities. There should only ever be one Ricky Stanicky.

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 

Mubi Monday: Psycho (1998)

Well, I guess I owe an apology to quite a few people. I used to spend some of my time online defending this ill-advised remake of the Hitchcock classic. This recent revisit, the first time I have watched the film since I caught it on a rental VHS copy, quickly had me reconsidering my view. So many elements are awful. And yet... yet... there is still something here that leaves it ad a fascinating experiment. Not a satisfying movie, and not a remake that comes anywhere close to the original, but something worth viewing as a way to strengthen the case of how many different elements come together to make a movie a timeless classic.

You know the story, basically. Unless you don't. If you don't, I am not going to spoil any potential twists and turns, even if you've seen the original film. Anne Heche is Marion Crane this time around, a woman who is left in charge of a large sum of money by her boss and, in a moment of madness, heads off to use the money as a chance to start a better life with her boyfriend (Viggo Mortensen). Tired from the drive, but so close to her destination, Marion pulls in to get a room for the night at the Bates Motel, where she meets Norman (Vince Vaughn). He seems like a nice young man, in stark contrast to his angry mother.

Based on the exact same shooting script as the 1960 original, written by Joseph Stefano, and with many shots replicated as closely as possible to the way Hitchcock already did them, it's understandable that many people cite this as an example of a remake that is completely pointless. I was tempted to think the same thing as the end credits rolled this time around.

And yet . . . there's definitely a lot to be gained from viewing this as an academic exercise. Director Gus Van Sant knows how pointless it is to try and remake such an acclaimed masterpiece, and he makes a great effort to highlight the futility of the exercise. Before you even see one bit of the performances on display, just watching the opening credits is enough to put you off. They're exactly the same as the original credits. They're just now in colour. Seconds into the film and it's already not as good, the colour seems to serve as a final flag raised up before the viewer. "You were warned," it seems to say, "and now the reality of the situation is here in front of your eyes." This continues throughout the entire movie. Even the moments that are staged as best as they can be (the sequence between Marion Crane and a highway patrolman, this time played by James Remar) just don't ever feel as good because, well, they're just not.

It's a shame that the cast don't do better though, even if they were given a thankless task. Heche is hard to warm to in the role of Marion, and Mortensen gives one of his worst performances as her beau. Vaughn is given the biggest shoes to fill, and I still find a lot to admire in his performance. It doesn't work, his laugh is too jarring and his quick-talking manner feels unlike the Norman Bates we're used to, but I still appreciate the way that he tries to make himself seem smaller and a bit more timid than he seems in most of his other roles. Julianne Moore, as much as I like her, is quite awful as Marion's sister, not helped by the pointless addition of headphones she is given to wear (as if the character was written to be some spirited, resourceful teen), but William H. Macy at least manages to make up for her presence in the second half of the film, easily outshining both her and Mortensen in his scenes as the detective, Arbogast.

And yet . . . there's STILL something here. Something in the heart of the story, something that pulls you towards it, even as the performances and the new colour scheme put you off. Van Sant knows this, he knows that YOU know it, and your growing appreciation for the original movie in direct correlation to your anger at the audacity of this remake just goes to prove the point that he decided to make when he took on this project.

4/10

You can buy the movie here, if you really want to.
Americans can buy it here.

Spartan (2004)

As enjoyable and smart as any of his other works, Spartan is another great script by David Mamet that's backed up with his solid direction. It may feel more open than many of his previous works, but it's still very much a character piece full of the cool dialogue and twisty turny mindgames that populate all Mamet movies.

Val Kilmer plays the lead character, Scott, a top military man who helps find out just who has what it takes for life in the tougher roles. He is asked to help out when the daughter of someone very important goes missing, but as the investigation uncovers a number of uncomfortable details it soon becomes clear to some people that Scott may end up causing embarrassment for some. When the case comes to an end, Scott then finds himself in a very strange situation. The mind that was so valued by the military, and his country, has now put him in a lot of danger.

There's nothing here that's really original, especially to viewers who have enjoyed the wealth of American TV detective shows in recent years (from the C.S.I to Monk, as the best examples), but what is here is given a thin coating of just enough paint to make it seem nice and new. The direction, also by Mamet, is unspectacular, but it's probably no coincidence that Mamet the director knows how best to serve the material provided by Mamet the writer.

Kilmer is great in the lead role, it's certainly one of his best performances in the past decade (which, admittedly, isn't saying much since he started to slide downhill in his career, sadly . . . . . I am still holding out for a great comeback though). The supporting cast features Clark Gregg, William H. Macy, Derek Luke, Kristen Bell, Aaron Stanford and Ed O'Neill, and all of them do good enough work, despite Bell being the weak link. Macy is particularly good fun, while the twists and turns make every performance worth closer scrutiny than usual.

It's not quite up there with some of Mamet's better movies, but this is still a very good film indeed, and one that deserves to retain a loyal fanbase through the years.

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