Heretic (2024)

There's been an interesting trend in recent years for some horror movies to base themselves around the idea of social awkwardness/embarrassment. Maybe it was always there, to some degree anyway, but we've had recent films giving us horror that stems from two separate people accidentally being booked in to the same Airbnb, holiday friends who astoundingly take up the offer of an invite to spend more time together when the reality should have been to immediately lose contact once they were back in their respective homes, and now, and maybe worst of all, answering your door to people who are aiming to educate you on their religion.

Sophie Thatcher and Chloe East are, respectively, Sister Barnes and Sister Paxton, two young Mormon  women who end up knocking on the door of Mr. Reed (Hugh Grant). Mr. Reed welcomes them inside and is delighted to have a conversation with them, but it's not long until the women suspect that all is not quite right. They want to leave as soon as possible, which goes against their usual mindset. Mr. Reed has plenty that he wants to discuss though, and maybe even one or two sights to show them.

Co-written and co-directed by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods, Heretic was one of a number of horror movies to receive no small amount of praise from people in 2024. While I'm happy to see it so praised, and while a number of aspects deserve it, I have to say that I'm a bit puzzled by the amount of people who seemed to recommend it without a couple of important caveats.

So here are a couple of important caveats. Heretic really has to work hard to maintain any sense of plausibility as the central characters remain in one location for most of the runtime. It doesn't quite succeed, but that only becomes a problem until things take a more serious, arguably more genre-leaning, turn. Then everything gets quite interesting and fun again, right up until we have to endure a final 10 minutes that almost undoes all of the previous good work. Almost.

When it comes to the conversation between the three main characters in the first half of the movie, this is fantastic. Grant gets to relish every sentence and carefully-chosen word, moving from harmless and lonely old man to someone who seems more dangerous and predatory with every subsequent chess move against people who believe they are playing chequers, and both Thatcher and East eventually work hard on their rebuttals to the arguments that he makes. Then comes the motivation though, which is where the film falls down, and then you have to watch one apparently far-fetched incident after another, with writers Beck and Woods happy to throw in coincidences and ridiculousness in whatever way best serves themselves in their directorial capacity.

The performances are the saving grace. Thatcher and East do really well in their roles, fighting hard to present themselves as more than just paper-thin caricatures. Grant is given the best seat at the table though, and starts chomping his way through every scene as if he's just been served a huge platter of all of his favourite foods. I have always been a big fan of Grant, even when he was making his millions as the floppy-haired rom-com charmer, but it's undeniable that he's been doing some great work, and clearly having much more fun, in the past decade than when he first shot to stardom. His turn here is another in a steady stream of absolutely brilliant and entertaining performances that have made him a scene-stealing highlight in the films that have made use of him lately. There aren't really any other people worth mentioning, aside from Topher Grace (who has just one or two minutes of screentime), but that's no big loss when the three leads are so good.

I really enjoyed Heretic, despite what my criticisms here may have led you to believe, but I really enjoyed it because of the first half and the work of the leads. I was disappointed by the ending, but at least it tried to do something interesting. I'd still highly recommend the whole thing though, but with caveats.

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, 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

The Wild Robot (2024)

I wasn't sure why I wasn't keen to make time for The Wild Robot, but the opening titles reminded me of my reasoning. This was a Dreamworks animation. As much as I enjoy a lot of their work, and I really love some of their stuff, they often feel like the kind of thing I have to be in the mood to watch. I assume that there will be lots of good gags, a certain visual style, and characters that will sell bucket-loads of merchandise for them. When I think of Dreamworks I think of Shrek, Madagascar, and Kung Fu Panda. They're all fun, and that doesn't begin to cover the range of Dreanworks Animation productions that you can, and should, check out, but I tend to know what I am going to get from them. I figured The Wild Robot would be the same, but then I started hearing more and more praise being heaped upon it. This is definitely not the same as many other films from Dreamworks, and I am already sorry that I didn't get to it even sooner.

A robot lands on a planet uninhabited by humans. That's how The Wild Robot begins. Wanting to be assigned a task, the robot (a ROZZUM Unit 7134, AKA Roz) tries to communicate with the many animals nearby, all of whom seem afraid of the thing that looks like it's been sent to kill them. Roz goes into a low power mode, listening to the many sounds around her and learning the languages of the many different animal species. Those language skills come in very handy when she ends up destroying a nest and then being imprinted on by a very cute, but also very vulnerable, little gosling. Roz gets advice from a fox, although whether or not she can trust this advice is another matter, and she ends up helping a lot of the animals around her as she aims to get her surrogate child ready to fly away before the weather becomes too inhospitable for the goose population. At least she won't have those pesky human feelings of loss and regret when her "child" leaves. Hmmmmmmm.

Based on a book by Peter Brown, this is written and directed by Chris Sanders, a man also responsible for helping to serve up three other animated movies I have loved (Lilo & Stitch, How To Train Your Dragon, and The Croods). If I had put two and two together sooner, and had a better memory for names, I would have had another bit of motivation to get to this before now. I really need to see his live-action feature, The Call Of The Wild, because Sanders is on 100% success rate with me so far.

The voice cast is worth mentioning now, before I get myself distracted by discussing the visual style, the music, and the ability this film has to reduce me to a blubbering wreck. Lupita Nyong'o is a fantastic fit for Roz, keeping her tone well-moderated throughout, with only the slightest inflections hinting at any possible changes in the way Roz views the world. Kit Connor is the goose who grows from the gosling, Brightbill, Pedro Pascal is the aptly-named Fink, the fox, and there is also some great additional work from Bill Nighy, Catherine O'Hara, Mark Hamill, Ving Rhames, Matt Berry, and Stephanie Hsu, as well as many others who aren't immediately familiar to me. 

Now I can once again allow myself to go on about the lovely visual style of the whole thing, the beautiful score from Kris Bowers, and the knack that Sanders has for pushing a button that seems to be directly attached to some tiny being that lives in my chest and is subsequently ordered to pluck my heartstrings like an expert harpist. I expect such emotional manipulation by the third act of many family films, but I was unprepared to be so fragile even before the halfway point. And once I'd been turned into a leaky-faced wreck, well, it was difficult to get through the rest of the runtime without at least feeling my lower lip quivering as I tried to keep myself composed.

I've used a lot of words here to praise this, and I am happy that I've now managed to compose my thoughts in a way that should be calm and understandable for all. This is beautiful, sweet, moving, and an essential new favourite for those seeking an evergreen family viewing choice. It's one of my favourites from 2024, and one of my new favourite animated movies of all time.

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, 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

Prime Time: My Old Ass (2024)

Here's the thing about My Old Ass, and I'll refrain from making any jokes that confuse the title with what I view as my actual old ass. It's a cute film. There's some nice comedy. There's also some decent emotional weight throughout. It's good stuff. But writer-director Megan Park set herself a very high bar with her debut feature, The Fallout. I would recommend My Old Ass to people after an enjoyable distraction for an hour and a half, but I would recommend The Fallout to anyone wanting to explore strong and intelligent cinema that ranks up there with the best films from the last decade.

Maisy Stella plays Elliott, a young woman looking forward to the time when she can soon leave home and start what her adult life. Before that time comes, however, she decides to have some fun time with her friends (Ruthie, played by Maddie Ziegler, and Ro, played by Kerrice Brooks) and has some magic mushrooms. That doesn't just lead to the usual strange and trippy experience. It leads to Elliott having a meeting with her older self (Aubrey Plaza). Older Elliott tries to get her younger self to start appreciating the time with her family more, and also warns her against spending time with a young man named Chad. That's okay, Elliott doesn't know anyone named Chad. And then, inevitably, Elliott meets Chad (Percy Hynes White).

It's worth noting here that Megan Park is 38 years old. So she may have been a bit younger than that when she wrote this screenplay, and she was even younger when she gave us The Fallout. You wouldn't know that from the final product though, with both films displaying a maturity and thoughtfulness that make both much better than they otherwise would have been. The fact that My Old Ass wasn't more focused on the potential comedy of the premise was a pleasant surprise to me, as was a finale that had equal respect for the wisdom that comes with older age and the fearlessness that can often be found in the young.

Stella, making her feature acting debut, is excellent in the lead role, just the right amount of energy and carefree spirit tempered with a good nature that stops her from being irritating. Plaza works well as her older incarnation, and she gives another solid turn, another in a growing list of performances that allows her to move a step away from the eye-rolling and morbid snark that looked in danger of becoming her entire range for a few years. White is very sweet, although viewers are wary of him throughout most of the runtime, simply due to him being named Chad, and Ziegler and Brooks are well-cast as the friends, with the latter having a bit more screentime, and always brightening up the screen whenever she's around. Elliott's family are played by Maria Dizzia (mother), Alain Goulem (father), Seth Isaac Johnson (brother), and Carter Trozzolo (younger brother), and all four do well as they loiter at the edge of the central narrative, eventually moving more towards the centre as our lead starts to appreciate them more and consider how she can still value what is around her while looking forward to her future.

There's nothing here that really stands out. The technique on display, the look and sound of everything, it's all just perfectly fine, working in service of a script that uses a cute idea at the heart of it without making things extra complicated. But Park writes with a great knack of being able to blend emotion and intelligence in a way that is satisfying for film fans without ever feeling too patronising. She also brings great performances out of her leads, perhaps due to her own time spent in front of the camera for projects that range from a Romero zombie movie to standard Christmas TV movie fluff. Cinema can take us to previously-unimagined worlds and show us great marvels, but it's equally enjoyable when it gives people a group of actors all working with quality writing. Park is two for two when it comes to features that she has directed. I hope she soon makes it three for three, whether staying in this kind of film or taking us on a tour of some more fantastical sights.

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, 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

Venom: The Last Dance (2024)

I sometimes forget how much fun I had with the first two Venom movies, considering how low my expectations were for either of them. Both are an enjoyably refreshing mix of anti-hero shenanigans and superhero-type stuff, and Hardy has loads of fun in the central role. It's a shame that this is the final outing for the character in this iteration, but it's also definitely time to call it a day. This is the weakest of the three movies, and it's even messier than anything else we've seen so far, but at least it feels like a proper ending (in as much as these kinds of movies can ever feel like they have a proper ending nowadays).

Eddie Brock is back in our world, with everything established in early scenes that may confuse anyone who had forgotten about the multiverse shenanigans teasing treats in the previous movie. He and Venom continue to have a pretty good relationship nowadays, always finding the best lowlife criminals to enjoy as a tasty snack, but trouble is coming their way. The fact that they are such a successful fusion makes them valuable to a major villain who sends the alien equivalent of sniffer dogs to find them, and there's also a determined military man, Strickland (Chiwetel Ejiofor), who believes that Venom needs to be destroyed. Dr. Teddy Paine (Juno Temple) thinks otherwise.

It's no surprise to see that writer Kelly Marcel has finally been rewarded for her contribution to the series with a directorial gig here, and it's also no surprise that this is her directorial debut. Having worked with Hardy on the story idea, Marcel is also responsible for the screenplay. That makes it easier to know who to blame for this whole mess, although I think Hardy has broad enough shoulders, and enough invested in the series, to share the burden. There are individual moments of fun, but the third act is particularly painful to the eyes, as well as being hard to stay patient with while you wait for all of the characters to figure out how to make use of Chekhov's . . . well . . . something that was surrounded by neon signs and arrows pointing at it as soon as it was first shown onscreen.

Hardy is still good in the main role, although always more fun when he is free and loose to avoid acting heroic, and he deserves to be given this vehicle to bid a fond farewell to a movie series that seemed to succeed more due to his sheer willpower than anything else. Ejiofor brings his usual excellence to his role, despite the fact that he is just there to be the human-shaped threat in amongst all of the alien monsters and, to use the technical term, squiggly-wiggly CGI. Temple connects various plot points and provides extra exposition, and there's some comedy provided by Rhys Ifans, playing a believer in aliens leading his family on what will end up being a very eye-opening road trip. Stephen Graham and Peggy Lu both return, and both are given far less screentime than they deserve, and it's strange that the latter is involved with a scene that seems to directly reference a heavily-derided sequence from Spider-Man 3.

Fans of more variety in their symbiotes will find plenty to enjoy in the third act, there are set-pieces that at least maintain the mix of action and humour that has been a positive aspect of the trilogy, and you get more amusing exchanges between Eddie and Venom as the two discuss their plans and the path that they cannot seem to avoid hurtling along. I still have to end this review by reiterating that the whole thing is a big mess, but it's an intermittently entertaining big mess, helped by a 110-minute runtime that allows it to feel a step removed from the longer and more bloated blockbusters we've become used to in recent years.

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, 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: Bird (2024)

I've seen all but one of the shorts and features directed by Andrea Arnold, although she has yet to helm anything better than her bleak and brutal feature debut, Red Road. There's never a guarantee that I will enjoy her work, but I am always hoping for something else that will blow me away. Maybe that's just the effect of those childhood years when I had a crush on her roller-skating persona of Dawn Lodge on the children's TV programme called No. 73.

Bird is a good film, anchored by a flawless performance from young newcomer Nykika Adams, but it's also one that has forced me to consider what exactly Arnold wants people to take from her films, and what exactly her motivation is. Because Arnold seems to write and direct characters that she doesn't fully understand.

Bailey (Adams) is not having the best time. Her father, Bug (Barry Keoghan), is too busy trying to plan his upcoming marriage to Kayleigh (Frankie Box). Her mother (Peyton, played by Jasmine Jobson) has ended up in a relationship with the violent Skate (James Nelson-Joyce). Bailey doesn't seem able to control anything around her, even her older brother (Hunter, played by another newcomer, Jason Buda) has a change in his circumstances that may grow the distance between them, but she might end up being able to help a man she encounters who says his name is Bird (Franz Rogowski). Bird is looking for his childhood home, hoping to find out some information about his mother and father.

Before I say anything critical here, I think it's important to praise those in front of the camera who deserve praise. Adams is the star, and she surely has a great career ahead of her, but both Keoghan and Rogowski are actors who rarely put a foot wrong, both doing more good work here, while Jobson, Box, Nelson-Joyce, and Buda all do exceedingly well to even just hold their own alongside such talented performers. There's nobody here I can complain about, which helps to make up for the strange and weak script from Arnold, who I'm not sure understands her own characters in the way that she should.

Bailey is great, and her character and actions seem nicely consistent with who we learn she is, at her core, as the film unfolds. I'd also say that Kayleigh is just as good, and perhaps this shows Arnold having a natural instinct towards writing her female characters so much better than the males. Peyton is a bit confused, but she still feels like someone who is a natural part of the world we're being shown. The men, on the other hand, all have big problems. Bug has some daydream about using slime from a toad to make enough money to pay for his upcoming marriage, which is a plot point apparently dropped in favour of a third act that just expects everyone to stop being invested in the outcome, and he's also interested in impressing his bride with the kind of song and dance number that feels absolutely pulled from some other movie. Maybe I have just never met enough people like Bug, but I've met a few in my lifetime, and none of the men cut from that particular cloth would even think of trying out the singing and the moves that Keoghan's character works on. Bird isn't as bad, helped by Rogowski being an even better fit for his role, but he's also the typical quirky interloper who brings about some education and change in the life of our lead. He feels quirky for the sake of being quirky, and I'd once again say that the central friendship between Bailey and Bird wouldn't be allowed to last longer than an afternoon once people around her saw the age difference and started to ask questions. As for Skate, he's a panto villain from his very first scene. He's believable though, scarily so, but his placement within the film doesn't really deliver the satisfying journey for anyone that Arnold must have been aiming for.

There are moments here that impress, and I enjoyed one turn in the third act that many others may find completely off-putting, but they never feel part of a satisfyingly cohesive work. Perhaps Arnold would have been better taking various characters and strands to weave into an anthology format, or perhaps spread everything over the kind of runtime afforded by a limited series. She opted to helm another feature film though, and it's her most disappointing work since her adaptation of Wuthering Heights.

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, 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

Netflix And Chill: Emilia Pérez (2024)

I assure you that I had this scheduled for a viewing for some time before it came away as the big winner at the 2025 Golden Globes ceremony. Emilia Pérez ended up on my radar when it started to garner praise in the second half of last year, but I wasn't sure when I would get a chance to finally see it. That chance came around when it dropped on Netflix, but I ended up waiting a while as other feature films from 2024 continued to vie for my attention.

This is the story of the titular Emilia Pérez (Karla Sofía Gascón), who starts the movie as a cartel kingpin known as Manitas. Manitas wants to disappear, wants a whole new life, and wants their family to be safe. They enlist the help of a lawyer named Rita (Zoe Saldaña), and everything soon falls into place. Years pass, and Rita ends up working for her former employer once more, this time ensuring that her wife (Jessi, played by Selene Gomez) and children move in with her, offering the explanation that Emilia is a caring cousin of the apparently-dead Manitas. Emilia also looks to use her ill-gotten money to start helping those who have had their lives destroyed by crime and cartels, but things grow more complicated as she watches Jessi start moving on with her own life in a way that could lead to the family moving away.

There are a number of different elements here that are worthy of consideration. First of all, writer-director Jacques Audiard (although there are a number of other names involved here throughout the writing process) is someone who hasn't really made a bad movie yet, from the seven or eight that I have seen by now. Secondly, this is a musical. Third, and arguably the most important, is . . . well, I think I should use a whole new paragraph to discuss that.

As women try to make progress in Hollywood, and as other people start to push for representation in films and on TV, there's a reasonable argument made about leaving room for them to make mistakes. Equality will only be real when all film-makers have the same time and space as white male film-makers, who all tend to get another chance after delivering something that either under-performs or outright stinks. I would say that this also applies to the LGBTQ+ community, in general, and, to get to my point as it relates to this film, the portrayal of transgender characters. I wasn't really sure if Emilia Pérez really was about a trans woman, or whether it was about a criminal going to extreme lengths to move on from an old life. Both of those things could be true, or neither. Either way, Emilia Pérez isn't actually, from my own limited perspective, a film featuring a transgender lead character that stays focused on the transgender experience. It's actually very familiar territory, but that territory looks different with this main character at the heart of it. I would also say that it's not really that great a film, but I hope that it becomes one of many such films that keep pushing for equality and representation of those who would have previously not been so celebrated for their involvement, on either side of the camera, with these kinds of stories.

I cannot fault the cast, and particular praise should go to both Gascón and Saldaña. The former does a great job of showing how her new life provides a real mix of regret and relief, the latter goes through a very similarly turbulent journey for very different reasons. Gomez is also very good, but fares better when her character isn't as central to things as she becomes in the third act. Adriana Paz is the last person I have to mention, making a strong impression with her few scenes, showing a brilliant mix of vulnerability and self-protection that Emilia admires, and is moved by, and there's also a role for Édgar Ramírez that doesn't really let him do much.

The pacing works quite well for the 132-minute runtime, and the performances ensure that every scene has something compelling in it, but the songs never feel strong enough, moments of real creativity and visual flair are few and far between, and anyone who has seen more than a handful of films will know where things are going by the time we get to the halfway point (if not before).

Maybe that's why Emilia Pérez is worth celebrating though. Maybe it's a film with a transgender character at the heart of it that is happy to not be any kind of super-sharp and super-smart modern classic. Maybe it's progress to have a film like this that is just okay. Or maybe I'll need to revisit it one day, and perhaps see something more worthwhile in 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, 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

Shudder Saturday: Mind Body Spirit (2024)

Another horror movie presented in something close to the "found footage" style, and another horror movie joining the growing field of films about people trying to make it as an influencer, it's easy to see why many might take a dislike to Mind Body Spirit, a film that shows what can happen when your yoga goes so wrong that you end up more of a chakra can't than a chakra can. I ended up really liking it though, although there are some issues with the presentation.

Sarah J. Bartholomew plays Anya, a young woman who wants to succeed as an online yoga instructor/influencer. She doesn't seem to have any grand plan though, apart from asking for some collaborations with the savvy Kenzi (Madi Bready). Things change when Anya finds some interesting rituals that were written down by her estranged grandmother, leading her to embrace what she views as part of her Russian heritage and try out some peculiar practices that she thinks should win over people looking for something a bit different from the usual downward dogs and warrior poses.

Co-directed and co-written by Alex Henes and Matthew Merenda, with a story credit for Topher Hendriks, this is a feature debut made by people who know how to work well within certain limitations. It's all mostly set in one space, which is a good way to save on the budgets, and has a very small cast. They throw in a couple of fun clips to break up the potential monotony though, reinforcing the competitive and profitable world that our leading lady is trying to break into. 

Despite moments that feel like minor mis-steps, this generally gets things right when it comes to the general aesthetic and vibe that you'd expect from this world. Characters are, for the most part, careful to remain pleasant and positive at all times, using the right words and trying to give off the right air of confidence and authority that will allow them to "fake it until they make it". Anya may make the mistake of showing a bit too much of her learning process, but that feels in line with someone who isn't really cut out for the fakery and almost inhuman self-control that people often seem to convey when they achieve a state of internet celebrity/guruship.

The whole film depends on the performance from Bartholomew, and she is more than up to the task of carrying everything on her shoulders. Emotionally and physically, Bartholomew convinces at depicting every step of her journey, whether she's being insecure and stumbling or more assertive and determined due to growing (misplaced?) confidence. It's yet another one of those performances that would be given much more praise if seen by more viewers than just us horror fans. The few other cast members also do good work, with Bready enjoyably convincing as the established online yoga pro, and Anna Knigge doing very good work with the little time she gets portraying Anya's mother, Lenka.

While it makes use of a certain style for most of the runtime, Mind Body Spirit never really commits to something that could completely restrict the film-makers. I wouldn't be happy about this if it seemed to be trying to selling itself as something it isn't, but the format makes sense in showing the box that Anya wants to place herself in, and the elements that work outwith the expected boundaries allow things to move in and out of the featured space, as if watching a subject that is being expertly moved in and out of focus while being examined under a microscope.

There's some crisp cinematography from Blake Horn, a nice selection of music from Sean Thatcher Hubrich, and some impressive makeup and effects work, some subtle and some not-so-subtle. There are many who will hate something so slight and relatively tame, but it's all constructed with great care. And the few proper scares delivered are delivered with aplomb. Namaste.

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, 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

Blink Twice (2024)

Some may roll their eyes at Blink Twice starting with a pretty serious trigger warning, but I don't have a problem with it. The subject matter here is something that needs to be carefully navigated, and if any film warrants a trigger warning at the start of it then it's this one.

Naomi Ackie plays Frida, a young woman who cannot believe her luck when she and a friend (Jess, played by Alia Shawkat) end up blagging themselves into the exclusive company of super-rich Slater (Channing Tatum) and his friends. When I say super-rich, I mean that he has the kind of money that allows him to have his own private island, and that is where everyone goes. It's a remote paradise, with everyone enjoying plenty of food, drink, and a variety of illicit substances. But Frida starts to worry when she realises that she has lost track of time, and she has no idea when, or how, she will get home.

This is an impressively bold feature directorial debut from Zoë Kravitz, who also co-wrote the film with E. T. Feigenbaum, but I have already had conversations with people who really disliked what she ended up delivering. I think, personally, that there's an important balance here between things we know to align very closely to real people and events and things that work as a bit of cinematic wish-fulfilment. If you've been reading some of the dark and depressing news headlines of the past decade then you will know who is being (not so) loosely represented onscreen, and the whole film serves as a reminder that justice still needs to be served, as well as being a conversation-starter about the behaviour, entitlement, and different perceptions of abusers and victims.

Although it feels best to start with the female cast members here, for obvious reasons, I am going to praise Tatum for his willingness to take on a role that paints him in such a bad light. He's still charming enough for most of the runtime, which helps a lot in showing the women being seduced by the combination of the setting and the company. Alongside Tatum, making up his inner circle, are Christian Slater, Haley Joel Osment, Simon Rex, and Levon Hawke, and they all do well as fellow party-goers who spend a lot of their time making sure that everyone else remains smiling and blissfully ignorant of any dark undercurrent. Geena Davis also deserves to be highlighted, with her character easily as important as either of our leads, in terms of her part in the proceedings and how she creates another big part of the post-film conversation. Ackie is the real star though, and a great lead to stick close to. She's absolutely brilliant, and the script allows her to enjoy herself for a long time before cracks start to show in the idyllic environment around her, but it helps that she's supported by Shawkat, as great as usual with her portrayal of the ride or die bestie that every woman wants in her life. Adria Arjona also does great work, and actually gets some of the best development of any of the characters, and both Liz Caribel and Trew Mullen do well to avoid getting lost in the busy mix as the party slides towards a close. 

The more carefree moments are soundtracked by the kind of tracks that go with that cool party vibe, but there's also a superb score from Chanda Dancy running throughout the whole thing, and Adam Newport-Berra keeps the visuals light and vibrant until that glow of contentment starts to disappear. I thought this worked on a couple of different levels, and Kravitz has surrounded herself with people who are able to help her walk a very tricky tightrope (including editor Kathryn J. Schubert, and all of those responsible for the whole look and feel of the luxurious playground where we spend most of our time). I know that others disagree, but that disagreement is almost as valuable as agreement with something like this. It's all about the conversation, and keeping that conversation going is one way to stop people from forgetting how these horrors keep being perpetuated.

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, 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

Smile 2 (2024)

Despite the fact that one of the best scare moments was unwisely shown in the trailer for the movie, Smile was a horror movie that I quite enjoyed when it was released a couple of years ago. I haven't ever revisited it, and I didn't think it needed a sequel, but I was more than happy to get to Smile 2 whenever the opportunity arose. It took a while, but the opportunity finally arose.

Naomi Scott plays Skye Riley, a pop star about to embark on a major world tour after some time spent recovering from some major troubles (including a car crash that left her scarred, but lucky to be alive). Things start to get tricky when she ends up as the next in a chain of people who have all been targeted by the demonic entity that drives people insane as they see sinister smiles everywhere.

With Parker Finn back for the writing and directing duties, and making use of one main character from the last film to create a solid continuity leading into this story, this should have been a way to take things in some interesting and creative directions. Sadly, Finn seems more interested in ensuring that there's a bottle of Voss water visible in every main sequence. I wish I was joking. Take a shot of your preferred strong spirit of choice every time someone grabs or drinks a Voss and you will be lapsing into unconsciousness by the halfway point, easily. Are there some good moments here? Yes, but there aren't enough of them to warrant the lengthy runtime, considering how many other moments are disappointingly predictable and staid.

A couple of impressive death scenes will make most viewers jump and wince, and there's a sequence that has a large group of people performing an evil and twisted riff on a dance routine shown much earlier in the movie, but this thing clocks in at 127-minutes. That's too long, especially when the third act feels far too close to the third act of the first film.

Scott makes it watchable though. She's absolutely fantastic for every minute of her screentime, convincing as a pop superstar, and just as convincing when offstage and struggling to keep her celebrity responsibilities at bay as she becomes more vulnerable and scared. Rosemarie DeWitt is also very good, playing her mother/manager, and there are solid performances from Miles Gutierrez-Riley, Lukas Gage, Dylan Gelula, and Peter Jacobson.

This should have been something special. It should have been wild, it should have been a big step up from the original, and it should have left you feeling that Finn had a clear reason, aside from money, to revisit this territory. Sadly, it's just toothless. And that's not usually a good thing for any smile.

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, 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

Prime Time: The Sword And The Sorcerer (1982)

I have fond memories of The Sword And The Sorcerer, all based on one time I probably saw about half of the film and was impressed by both of the titular elements. In fact, let me rephrase that slightly. I HAD fond memories of The Sword And The Sorcerer. I was so convinced that it was a minor classic that I recently purchased a shiny new physical disc release it received from 101 Films, and then I saw that it was also tucked away on Prime Video. Fate was ensuring that I get around to it ASAP.

I'm not going to describe most of the plot, but things start with Cromwell (Richard Lynch) being assisted by a resurrected sorcerer (played by Richard Moll) as he violently places himself at the head of a kingdom. He then betrays the sorcerer, but may wish to have his power helping him once more when a skilled warrior (Talon, played by Lee Horsley) looks to change the status quo. 

Directed by Albert Pyun (who also co-wrote the screenplay with Tom Karnowski and John Stuckmeyer), this is enjoyable enough fantasy fare, and it certainly delivers on what the title is selling. It doesn't hold up as well as numerous other beloved (well . . . beloved by some) barbarian films from this time though, and struggles to hold interest throughout the first half.

Pyun can do a hell of a lot with very little, but he's not a miracle worker. The action here is about as good as you can expect from something relatively low-budget (about $4M, apparently) that presents such a great bit of practical FX and makeup work in the early scenes that showcase the sorcerer. The sets and production design feel like a mix of inventive crew members and camerawork that can recycle the same backdrops with a variety of angle changes and crop off all of the sawdust and plywood just on the edge of each frame. And the acting is based almost as much on who can look muscular and capable in the costumes as it is based on those who can actually act (although, to be clear, Lynch and Moll are definitely in the latter category).

Horsley, in his first feature role, comes close to being a decent lead, but doesn't quite manage it. He's just missing that indefinable star quality, leaving him to undermine a script that tries to give him the perfect recipe of charm, toughness, and wit. Lynch is much more watchable, as he so often is when onscreen with anyone, and he's a very entertaining main villain. Although sidelined for most of the movie, Moll makes one hell of an impression whenever he gets the chance, helped by the people behind the camera who transformed him into such an impressively imposing (even more so than usual) character. Kathleen Beller makes for a fine damsel in distress in the role of Princess Alana, George Maharis is enjoyably scheming and untrustworthy in the role of Count Machelli, and I'll avoid saying anything too negative about Simon MacCorkindal, Anthony De Longis, Robert Terrier, Anna Bjorn, and anyone else joining in the fun. They more or less do what is asked of them, and the sense of enthusiasm and proper fun makes up for the lack of polish.

There's also decent music from David Whitaker, fun (if ridiculous) design work on a couple of featured swords, and pacing that tries to keep viewers interested with either some fighting or gratuitous nudity every 10-15 minutes. The script may struggle to clarify how individuals are related to the central battle for the throne, but the other distractions help you to forget bothering about the minor details. It's easy to see why this has remained a bit of a nostalgic favourite amongst those who first saw it back when it was in cinemas and on VHS. Even as I write about it now, I am smiling and wondering when I will revisit it. Which wasn't the frame of mind I was in when I started this review.

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, 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

Wicked (2024)

I am fortunate to have seen the musical Wicked live on stage in Edinburgh. It's one of those musicals that almost everyone has seen nowadays, or so it seems, but there's also a prohibitive price element to live musical theatre that makes any major movie adaptation an appealing option to those unable to afford the time and money of a big trip to a live show. I'm not making any major complaint here, by the way, but just putting forward a reason why this film would seem like such a great idea in the first place. You have a built-in fanbase and you have a whole group of people who may be converted into fans once they finally get the chance to experience it.

Cynthia Erivo plays Elphaba, a young Oz resident with green skin who has a natural talent for magic. That puts her on a path that will one day lead to her being known as the Wicked Witch Of The West, of course, but we end up seeing the start of her main journey at Shiz University, where she ends up sharing a room with the vain and slightly ditzy Galinda/Glinda (Ariana Grande). Elphaba also has a wheelchair-bound sister (Nessarose, played by Marissa Bode) that she cares about more than anyone else in her immediate vicinity, although she soon starts enjoying her time being privately tutored by Madame Morrible (Michelle Yeoh). She's doing so well that she may end up actually gaining an audience with The Wonderful Wizard Of Oz (Jeff Goldblum). There's also an anthropomorphic goat (Dr. Dillamond, voiced by Peter Dinklage) teaching history classes, a young man who thinks life is better for those who don't bother applying themselves to their studies (Fiyero, played by Jonathan Bailey), and a munchkin (Boq, played by Ethan Slater) who finds himself spending time with Nessarose for the sake of impressing Galinda.

Written by Winnie Holzman and Dana Fox, adapting the book by Holzman (with music by John Powell and Stephen Schwartz, the latter having written the music and lyrics for the stage version), itself adapted from the book by Gregory Maguire, stemming from the evergreen classic fantasy tale from L. Frank Baum, Wicked is helped by a great blend of wit, earnestness, and eye-catching choreography that allows everything to gather momentum on the way to a final act that makes the film feel much shorter than the 160-minute runtime. Director Jon M. Chu is also a valuable asset, and this is a reminder of just how many times he has done excellent work with major song and dance elements, either in his features or in his many music videos. It's a shame that I don't have time to list off every other main contributor though, because this has great care and attention to detail running throughout every scene, from the gorgeous costuming and accessories to the sets, the shot choices and framing, the makeup, and so much more.

Then we have the cast. Erivo has been a huge talent to keep an eye on for some time now, which makes it no surprise that she's such a great choice for her role. Grande, on the other hand, is making a huge leap here, but she does absolutely fantastic work for every minute that she's onscreen. Obviously able to handle the singing and dancing, she shows a great knack for playing the naïveté and comedy of her character. Bailey also provides a good bit of comedy, as well as obvious complications when everyone starts having feelings that aren't necessarily reciprocated, while both Bode and Slater try to do their best in characters that may yet become more important before the full tale is told. Because, yes, it's good to remember that this is only the first of a two-parter. Dinklage does his Game Of Thrones voice well, with a layering of goat noises, Goldblum is a perfect choice for the charming charlatan that is the Wizard, Yeoh is her usual regal and imposing greatness, and there are very satisfying, and unobtrusive, cameos from Idina Menzel and Kristin Chenoweth (AKA Elphaba Prime and Glinda Prime).

I was worried during the opening scenes, struggling to remember how the stage musical began and when I might recognise a memorable song, but things improved massively once the opening titles came up. The characters start to interact in fun and interesting ways, and the music really starts to have the desired effect by the time our leads belt out "What Is This Feeling?" Other highlights include "Dancing Through Life", "Popular", "One Short Day", and, of course, "Defying Gravity". Not every number is great, but the better ones more than make up for those that don't quite hit the highest heights.

I put this viewing off for far too long. I won't be making that mistake when part two is released. This is a very rewarding and rewatchable musical treat. Fans of all things Oz-related should find plenty to enjoy, and newcomers should also end up being won over as they watch the familiar story of a young woman being villainised simply for refusing to be passive and controlled. There is wickedness on display here, but it doesn't come from who might be the most likely candidate in your own preconceptions.

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, 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: Omen (2023)

There's a chance that I am talking out of my backside here, there's always a chance of that though, but it feels as if the advances in technology that have allowed more and more people from more varied backgrounds to make movies has led to an increase in stories about individuals in the modern world dealing with the weight and repercussions of beliefs and traditions that stem from decades and centuries ago. I can sense some of you rolling your eyes and saying "thank you, Captain Obvious", but it's fascinating to see the number of creative talents who look to be striding towards a bright future making time to contemplate the path of history that has brought us all to where we are now.

Omen is, as I am sure you won't be surprised to learn after that ill-conceived opening paragraph, a film in which the main character, Koffi (Marc Zinga), returns to his birthplace, Kinshasa, where he struggles to maintain his sense of normality and self in the face of family members who give a lot of credence to beliefs that he has long tried to stay away from. A couple of coincidences don't help him, nor does the fact that he is now in a mixed-race relationship with a woman named Alice (Lucie Debay), who is also about to make him a father to twins. Will Koffi be able to convince people that he's not the devil some would think him, or should he just resign himself to the fact that some opinions can't be changed?

The feature directorial debut from Baloji Tshiana (billed as just Baloji), who had some help in the writing department from Thomas van Zuylen, this is an interesting and insightful character study, with one big problem. That problem is a surplus of characters worth studying, leading to most of the intertwining story strands feeling a bit unsatisfying, which is a real shame. Things work best in the many scenes that have Koffi and Alice at the heart of them, but there's an equally tantalising story to be told about Koffi's sister, Tshala (Elian Umuhire). We only get snippets though, as if we have eavesdropped on a conversation between people moving in and out of range. 

Zinga and Debay both do brilliant work, struggling to maintain a brave face and a united front as those around them grow more openly hostile towards them. Viewers can easily feel that they're deserving of the happiness they shouldn't have to ask permission for. The same goes for Umuhire, who is affected in a more direct way by teeth of expectation that feel as if they have bitten down harder on her for attempting to avoid fully conforming to the lifestyle shared by many around her. Yves-Marina Gnahoua is an intimidating figure as Mama Mujila, and also does well, as does Marcel Otete Kabeya, but he is the one to suffer most from being surplus to requirements, in terms of the structure and pacing of the film.

While very culturally specific, Omen works as well as it does thanks to that universal experience of trying to re-adjust whenever heading back to family. Despite any other major issues, it's always a disorientating experience to visit people who may have you locked in their memory in a certain way while you have lived your life and grown and moved far away from what you once were. It's a battle to try and present your latest incarnation without upsetting those who may have preferred the old you, but it's important to avoid being dragged far back into your past.

If you've seen the short that Baloji did before this, an excellent 15-minute piece titled Zombies, then you will already have some idea of his style and intelligence. I'll be doing my best to check out the few other shorts that he has made, but I'll be very keen to see his next feature, whenever that comes along.

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, 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

Netflix And Chill: Carry-On (2024)

Taron Egerton plays Etahn Kopek, a young TSA agent who ends up having a very difficult shift in a busy airport on Christmas Eve. It's all thanks to a mysterious stranger (Jason Bateman) who ends up threatening Kopek to let a piece of luggage through the security system that really shouldn't be anywhere near an airport. Kopek doesn't want to co-operate, of course, but there's also another villain (Theo Rossi) keeping an eye on his pregnant partner, Nora (Sofia Carson). Meanwhile, one detective (Elena Cole, played by Danielle Deadwyler) senses something unusual about the latest case she is working on, and her investigation may eventually lead her to the same airport where our hero is desperately trying to stall for time.

Sometimes I watch a film and have such a strong reaction to it (whether positive or negative) that looking around online to see myself being very much in the minority makes me wonder if I missed something major. Despite what many others may tell you, Carry-On is awful, and not often in a fun way. I've seen people praise it as a throwback to simple action thrillers of the '90s, but that is just being rude to the simple action thrillers of the '90s. I've also seen people go on about how it's just a bit of fun that allows viewers to switch their brain off and enjoy the ride. There's switching your brain off and then there's being placed into an induced-coma to stop you asking too many questions. This film would have to do the latter to be considered anything more than an insulting mess.

Let's start with that dire script, written by T. J. Fixman, who unsurprisingly has a history made up of various Ratchet & Clank projects, as well as one other videogame. I don't always mind films that set everything up in entirely obvious ways, offering a comforting familiarity with how predictable it all is, but there's no finesse here at all. Even worse, there's absolutely no attempt to make things feel plausible. The main plan is silly enough, once you think about it for more than a moment, but would be perfectly fine if the rest of the film didn't try to find a breaking point for anyone suspending their disbelief. Want to warn your loved one about a potential sniper threatening their life? Do it in front of the biggest set of windows possible, as opposed to a backroom that has already been described as a total blindspot earlier on in the film. We're told many times at the start of the movie how busy the airport will be on this particular day, which doesn't seem to matter when people are looking for other airport staff or members of the security team. And let's not even waste energy rolling eyes at how amazingly quiet the airport car park becomes when someone is being chased by a van, and then a gun-toting killer who vacates said van. Those are just the "highlights", but you get the idea. None of the dialogue feels natural and flowing, and everyone is hampered by the silliness of the central idea.

As for director Jaume Collet-Serra, he represses any of his style and skill to deliver something that simply sits alongside numerous other "identi-kit" features paid for by Netflix. Okay, he no longer always shows off the eye he had while making the likes of House Of Wax and Orphan, but I defy anyone to watch this without credits and then name him as the director. 

I wish I could say that the cast at least work to improve the material, but they don't. Egerton is someone I normally enjoy watching onscreen, but he has to spend a lot of his screentime here responding to a voice speaking to him via an earpiece. How does he show his worry and stress? A twitchy left eye. It's distractingly overdone, and he isn't helped by the fact that his character has to wade further into the waters of implausibility than anyone else. Bateman is decent, but not entirely convincing as the manipulative criminal mastermind. Carson and Deadwyler are both slightly underused (although Deadwyler ends up involved in what is arguably the worst sequence in the film, an eye-wateringly bad stunt sequence involving cars soundtracked to "Last Christmas" on the radio), Rossi never feels as competent as he should, and everyone else, from Logan Marshall-Green and Dean Norris to Sinqua Walls and Curtiss Cook, is completely wasted.

I liked some of the very end scenes, but even that felt like some small consolation after expecting another twist that didn't happen. I wasn't just unhappy as the end credits rolled, I was bloody annoyed at once again being won over by a trailer for a film that turned out to be, while harmless and fairly inoffensive, another slick and empty waste of time (for both myself and those involved in making 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, 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

Shudder Saturday: Inugami (2001)

Based on a novel by Masako Bando, which itself makes use of some well-known Japanese folklore (all to do with possession by the spirit of a dog), Inugami is another one of those horror movies that is only pigeonholed into the genre because of one or two core elements. There are things here that will please those who want something tinged with the supernatural, but the majority of it plays out like a very standard drama with some thought-provoking commentary on tradition, the damage caused by people holding on to certain beliefs, and abuse within small communities.

Akira (Atsuro Watabe) is a new schoolteacher arriving in a small town. He quickly makes a connection with Miki (Yûki Amami), an older woman who is skilled in the art of papermaking. As that connection starts to grow stronger, Akira finds out that Miki has a reputation in the community for being part of a family responsible for looking after a spirit known as inugami. Nobody is too bothered when everything is going well, but they look to point fingers and blame Miki when people start disappearing. Are they right to feel threatened by her, or has the behaviour of Miki been influenced and directed by the treatment from those around her?

Despite his fairly lengthy filmography, this is the first film I have seen from director Masato Harada. It won't be the last. Harada isn't concerned with checking any genre boxes, nor is he bothered by the need to interrupt the flow of this tale with unnecessary shocks or surprises. He's completely invested in telling the story in the best way possible and allowing the characters to gain more and more substance as things move towards a finale that doesn't look as if it's going to be all sunshine and rainbows. The screenplay is impressively grounded, and it's hard not to feel sympathetic to the main characters as they are harassed and pushed around by those around them. Taken at the most basic level, this shows the damage that can be caused to individuals and relationships by the unwanted opinions of everyone else around them, but adding the layer of inugami, as well as one or two other plot points that are revealed in a surprisingly low-key way to stop them from being presented as a huge "gotcha", adds more sinister and dangerous layers to everything.

Watabe is pleasant and easy to root for in his main role, but it's Amami who carries the movie, especially as we get to see various moments from her life that have shaped her character into who we see in the here and now. Kazuhiro Yamaji also makes a hell of an impression, helped by the fact that his character often acts reprehensibly to poor Miki, and there are very good performances from everyone else onscreen, including Eugene Harada, Shiho Fujimura, Kanako Fukaura, Shion Machida, and Ken'ichi Yajima.

I wasn't sure if I was going to like this as the early scenes played out and I wasn't sure of where the main storyline would go, but I ended up loving it. It's such a bittersweet and poignant look at the crushing weight so many people try to endure for the sake of their family traditions and their position within the community, yet there is, for both the film and the main character, the shadow of the inugami looming over everything for the entire runtime.

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, 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

We Live In Time (2024)

I knew that I wanted to see We Live In Time because I tend to want to see everything that stars either Florence Pugh or Andrew Garfield, and they both play main characters here. Aside from that, all I knew about the film is that it showed a relationship in non-chronological order. That's been done before, a number of times, and I was worried that We Live In Time might end up feeling too familiar to me, but I'm happy to say that it manages to avoid making you think of anything else while it all plays out. Viewers are, hopefully, far too invested in the onscreen couple, and what they're going through, to spend too much time thinking about any similarities with other movies.

Andrew Garfield is Tobias and Florence Pugh is Almut. The two meet just as Tobias is going through a divorce. Almut is a successful chef, and she's about to open her first restaurant. Making a strong connection immediately, they then have to navigate their way through conversations about whether or not to have children, career paths, and serious health issues that come along to spoil the party. It's all quite standard stuff, shaken up slightly by the non-chronological presentation, and elevated by both Garfield and Pugh being two people you can easily believe in their roles.

While I'm not familiar with the work of writer Nick Payne, who only seems to have written a couple of features and a decent selection of TV work before this, I am now happy to check out whatever he does next. We Live In Time may not deliver any surprises or stunning insights, but it's nicely crafted in a way that allows most of the scenes to feel as if they're built around a kernel of truth. 

Director John Crowley has been doing very good work for the past couple of decades (he received a lot of love for Brooklyn, but I still highly recommend his debut feature, Intermission). He's not the sort of person to cover a film with his own fingerprints though, and I strongly suspect that his biggest talent is casting the right people as leading players.

There's a chance that other people could have made this work, but it's undeniable that it's hard to imagine anyone else doing as well as Garfield and Pugh. The former is unbelievably sweet and lovely in a way that aligns with what we've seen from Garfield in some of his real-life moments (interactions with fans, chat show conversations, etc), and Pugh gets to show a strength and determination that has been in the DNA of many of the characters she has played while making a hell of a name for herself since she started her movie career back in 2014. Lee Braithwaite does fantastic work, playing a supportive colleague/chef named Jade, Grace Delaney manages to be a cute child without ever being too irritating, and the rest of the cast includes familiar faces such as Aoife Hinds, Adam James, Douglas Hodge, Niamh Cusack, and Kerry Godliman, as well as the less familiar, but no less welcome, Nikhil Parmar, who certainly deserves a mention for being involved in a sequence that provides a perfect mix of tension, humour, reality, and ridiculousness.

There will be many who already know that they don't want to see this, and the ongoing sub-plot about a painful medical diagnosis won't be an easy watch for anyone who has had to watch a loved one go through anything similar, but I'd encourage most to give it a go. It takes you through a wide range of emotions, uses the time jumps to try and play around with your expectations, and ends in a way that feels thoughtful and satisfying.

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, 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

Joker: Folie à Deux (2024)

I was one of many people who ended up enjoying Joker when it was released back in 2019. It was a divisive movie though, and many hated it. Surprising as it may seem, one of the people who seems to have hated it more than most is . . . director Todd Phillips. Well, to be more accurate, he seems to hate the character, and seems to hate how he has been held up as some icon of cool. And the people who use images of Joker and Harley Quinn to state "couple goals"? Yeah, Phillips hates you just as much, if not more so.

It's time for Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix reprising the role) to be put on trial. Having been imprisoned since the events of the last movie, Fleck has become a lightning rod for an uneasy population thinking they may have an anarchic hero to support and push forward like a giant wrecking ball. Arthur gets the attention of Lee Quinzel (Lady Gaga), the two sharing a love of daydreaming their way through some song and dance numbers, but this doesn't sit well with his lawyer, Maryanne Stewart (Catherine Keener). None of this growing unrest, nor the celebrity prisoner's growing popularity, sits well with prison officer Jackie Sullivan (Brendan Gleeson), which essentially paints a large target on Arthur's back.

EVERYTHING that was good about Joker is destroyed here. Everything. And when I say destroyed I mean fully torn apart, shredded, pulped, shredded again, set on fire, and the ashes packed into a small rocket that is fired directly into the sun. Did you like the visual style? It's here again, but somehow feels like the lazy choice this time around, especially when it invaded even the scenes that should make use of some colour and light. Did you like the nihilism and misanthropy? It's here, but it's so constantly in your face that it feels like an angry toddler pulling on your ears as it screams Nietzsche quotes at you. Did you like the central character? You shouldn't, not according to Phillips anyway. Joker is a weak and pathetic victim, unexpectedly elevated to a position of power that he is absolutely unprepared for.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that Phillips tries hard to make his disdain palpable in every scene. There are very few moments here that actually work in movie terms, and one of those atypical treats happens at the very beginning of the film (a bit of animation that hints at an anarchy and energy the rest of the film stubbornly refuses to revisit), and even the much-discussed musical numbers fall flat because a) Phillips refuses to commit to them, and b) they feel as if they're just present to deliberately repel anyone who enjoyed the first film. There's something slightly admirable about Phillips making use of the money and resources available to create such a huge Joker-topped pyre, but it also feels, well, just a bit rude.

At least there's a decent cast, and I don't really have any complaints about Gaga, Gleeson, Keener, Zazie Beetz, Steve Coogan, Harry Lawtey (as a rather bland Harvey Dent), and Leigh Gill. I do have complaints about Phoenix though, and the fact that he is still the main star means that his awful performance helps to damage the film in a way that I am sure Phillips actively encouraged. Phoenix is limp and lifeless throughout, except for the moments in which he deliberately chooses to overact and fool around. Everything he did so well in the first movie is alchemically transformed from gold to lead this time around.

Phillips, co-writing the screenplay once again with Scott Silver, does everything to ensure that this second film puts a handful of nails in the coffin of the main character. Both he and his leading man should be embarrassed by how bad this is, but I suspect they're already on to other projects without giving this a second thought. It's just fans who will be affected by it, fans of the Joker and/or fans of cinema. And Phillips couldn't be clearer about what he thinks of those people. Remember that the next time he works on something that he actually cares about.

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

Prime Time: Kneecap (2024)

Kneecap are an Irish band made up of rappers Naoise Ó Cairealláin, Liam Óg Ó Hannaidh, and a DJ named JJ Ó Dochartaigh. This film is, as far as I can tell, a fictionalized tale of how they achieved whatever level of success they now have. For the purpose of this review, I'll be referring to the stars by their stage names (and they play up to those personas onscreen so there's no need to maintain any major distinction). So here's a review of the musical stylings of Móglaí Bap, Mo Chara, and DJ Próvai.

Directed by Rich Peppiatt, who also co-wrote the screenplay with his musical stars, this is, at heart, a fairly standard tale of people struggling to find appreciation for their talent. While Móglaí Bap and Mo Chara have been treading water for some time, they end up being able to take their ambition up a notch when they encounter a teacher who can help create beats for their lyrics. That teacher will become known as DJ Próvai. Aside from the familiar elements, you also get a look at the struggle of growing up in Belfast, and the struggle to pull away from a history that keeps so many weighed down, as well as a campaign to keep the traditional Irish language alive.

I've seen one or two people compare this favourably to the many films that came out in the wake of Tarantino's success. That's fine, but I don't think it's actually correct. This is a film that feels more in line with the best works of Danny Boyle, and it delivers visuals and music with an energy and passion that make it an impactful statement of intent for all involved.

Funny, rebellious, violent, and exuberant all at once, Kneecap works as both a movie, and one with some important messages in it, and an advert for the wit and music of the featured band. Did I head straight to my main music streaming service as soon as the film was over to add the band to my ever-growing list of favourites? Yes. And I suspect others may do the same, whether you know the Irish language or don't.

The three band members are enjoyable and charismatic performers, particularly when jumping around on a stage to energise and entertain the masses. I won't single anyone out, but the film knows how to use their varying strengths and weaknesses, and also surrounds the central trio with people such as Josie Walker (playing a determined and tough detective), Fionnuala Flaherty (also heavily invested in promoting the use and preservation of the Irish language), Jessica Reynolds (a love interest with a very twisted kind of dirty talk), and Simone Kirby and Michael Fassbender (parents who are both absent, in different ways, until the crunch point when viewers hope they will actually step up and help their son).

I've been a bit cautious in writing this review, lacking knowledge of the band while ensuring I word things in a way that doesn't seem problematic outwith the context of the film (because Kneecap certainly don't care about tip-toeing around the feelings of those who don't own their own place in either the here and now or the there and then), but the main thing I want to convey is how much I enjoyed this. I laughed out loud on a number of occasions, I turned the volume up for the music, and I hope to see and hear more from everyone 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, 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

When Harry Met Sally... (1989)

As much as I have always enjoyed When Harry Met Sally..., I would also slightly dismiss it as a film very much in the shadow of Annie Hall. I'm not wrong to mention that touchstone, I don't think so anyway, but revisiting this has reminded me of how wrong it is to dismiss it. This is a rom-com that easily delivers on both the rom and the com fronts, as well as providing some great autumn/winter atmosphere in a number of great sequences.

Billy Crystal is Harry Burns and Meg Ryan is Sally Albright. The two first meet as they ride-share to New York. It doesn't exactly seem like the start of any long-term friendship. Harry certainly doesn't help when he, unprompted, discusses his theory that men and women can never really be friends because of sex getting in the way. Anyway, time passes and Harry and Sally keep crossing paths, ultimately becoming friends, despite what Harry said during their first encounter. Or is there still a chance of sex mucking everything up for them?

Writer Nora Ephron may not have a filmography full of all-time greats, but she certainly managed an excellent hat-trick of star vehicles for Ryan between 1989 and 1998 (no, I'm not including Hanging Up from 2000 because, well, it's not in the same league). Director Rob Reiner, on the other hand, didn't really put a foot wrong throughout the 1980s, and he came to this after a quartet of features that could easily be said to include three absolute classics. With Ephron having mined material from Reiner and Crystal, as well as her own life, everything was aligned to create a film that allows everyone involved to have fun without ever losing focus of that vital central relationship.

While Crystal is a lot of fun here, and tends to get more of the witty lines as he provides commentary on human nature, and the important differences between men and women, the film belongs to Ryan. This is the film that firmly placed her, for a few years anyway, as "America's sweetheart", and it's easy to see why. She's cute, she does well with the comedy, she's someone to sympathise with at times, and the film allows everyone to fall completely in love with her in sync with her co-star. Carrie Fisher and Bruno Kirby are also great though, playing friends (Marie and Jess, respectively) who allow our leads to discuss their problems and differing perspectives. There are some other people who pop up here and there, particularly in a number of interludes that have people relating stories of how they fell in love, but most of them are surplus to requirements. We only really want to spend time with four people. In fact, we only really want to spend time with two people, but the two others orbiting their lives are funny and interesting enough to help avoid the leads being stuck in any kind of vacuum.

What else do you need to know? There's lovely cinematography from Barry Sonnenfeld, great work from Harry Connick Jr. throughout the soundtrack, and you get a handful of genuinely wonderful quotes to carry in your heart as you go through your own ups and downs in life (and that's not including THAT line, which caps the most memorable scene in the film). The only real criticism I have is the fact that Crystal gets carried away with his schtick a few too many times, which may be more of a problem for anyone who doesn't like him as much as I do, but there's very little else to pick at. It's a comforting, cosy, lovely, funny, rom-com that still sits within nudging distance of the very best.

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, 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: Occupied City (2023)

Settle down, people, settle down, and make yourselves comfortable. Because it's time for one of those reviews that can feel more like a bit of a rant mixed with a bit of a lecture. I know, I know, you can barely contain your joy.

I debated whether or not to view and review Occupied City. It's always harder to review a documentary than it is to review a traditional narrative feature, and the subject matter here doesn't seem like one that would make for an enjoyable distraction for those who may read it during this holiday season. But sometimes it's not about making things enjoyable, or more palatable. Sometimes making people uncomfortable is necessary, especially as we look around us at a world that is having fires stoked by ill-advised beliefs in all opinions being equal and every story having two sides.

Directed by Steve McQueen, based on the book by his wife, Bianca Stigter (a Dutch culture critic and author, and also the director of Three Minutes: A Lengthening, which feels very much like a precursor to this), Occupied City is a look around modern-day Amsterdam while a narrator (Melanie Hyams) relates many tales of a community ruined and many lives lost in the city. That's all it is, and that's all it needs to be.

I don't like to single out others, and it's good to remember that all film opinions are subjective, but looking at the negative reviews for Occupied City helps to show why it is important, although I appreciate that some may only benefit from it when the full context is hammered home to them. People just think this is a boring and aimless look at a city while someone tells you what happened decades ago, without any connection between the past and the present. Those are the people that should be forcibly sat down and made to watch this again and again, at least until they see that there's no way to disconnect the past and present. Our present, in a number of small and large ways, is formed by the past, and it's becoming harder and harder to remind people of that, as it is also becoming harder to convince people that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

There's a hefty runtime to deal with here, the standard version is 266 minutes (although I remember hearing about a much longer version that was part of an installation somewhere), and there's no change to the format throughout, but it's once again important to understand that THAT is the point. Viewers quickly become relatively immune to the catalogue of horrors, maybe being startled again by an unexpectedly unpleasant detail here and there, but it goes on and on and on. It seems as if it will never end, as I am sure it seemed that way to the people living through WWII. There's a fine short film by Alan Clarke, Elephant, that uses a similar, but not identical, approach to a different bloodshed-filled chapter of history, and I appreciate this way of presenting evil in a way that also shows how banal and boring it can be for those who can be constantly hearing about it without being directly affected by it. That happens today, it happens to many of us almost every day, and if Occupied City makes just one person remember to speak up in protest against any kind of bigotry, abuse, or dehumanisation then it's worth the four and half hour time investment. Actually, it's worth that investment anyway. 

The present is getting away from us in a way that is scarily quick and scarily regressive. Become more familiar with the past, especially while we have people who are allowed to tell us about it without trying to reframe any of the major villains.

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, 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