Prime Time: Mercy (2026)

The film may be called Mercy, but the easiest way to let you know my opinion on it is to clarify that no mercy is shown to any viewers who manage to sit through this absolute dross. I've seen some movie mis-steps, and I've already sat through more films trying to make AI a main plot element than I ever wanted to, but this is easily one of the worst star vehicles I've seen in quite some time.

Set in the near future, Chris Raven (Chris Pratt) wakes up to find himself in the Mercy court. He's a detective, but he's accused of murdering his wife. All of the evidence points to him doing it, but the AI Judge Maddox (Rebecca Ferguson) still allows him 90 minutes "trial" to attempt to prove enough reasonable doubt. The clock is ticking. Chris cannot move, but he can access all of the phones and recordings available to the AI system, and he can try to maintain communication with his partner (Kali Reis), his sponsor (Chris Sullivan), and his daughter (Kylie Rogers) while following the slimmest of leads that he hopes will lead to proving his innocence.

It looks as if director Timur Bekmambetov, once an interesting and impressive talent, has been seduced by the dark side. Translation = he seems to have become obsessed with films about tech or plots that can be played out in the "screenlife" form. I won't blame him entirely for this mess though. The majority of the blame needs to be put at the feet of writer Marco van Belle. This is only his second produced screenplay, the first belonging to a film that he also directed back in 2015, but I already believe that people should do their utmost to stop him from writing a third. 

It would be bad enough if it just went through the standard motions of an unimaginative thriller, lacking any proper tension and almost entirely predictable from the first minute to the last. It gets so much worse though. Van Belle seems to have lost focus of his own writing, and instead decided to throw in awful dialogue and clichés that make no sense in the context established onscreen. That's the only explanation I can think of for a film that turns a knowledgeable and smart AI entity into something more akin to an alien or clumsy robot learning about the human race. I wasn't exactly invested in the thing at any point, but I struggled to keep myself from checking out entirely when Pratt says that he's working on a hunch and Ferguson has to keep a straight face while asking "what is a hunch?". I can neither confirm nor deny the rumour that I stood up and yelled "you're an AI entity, you can just find out the definition of what a hunch is in a fraction of a second!" before slamming my face repeatedly into the nearest wall. And that's before the unfeeling and impartial judge starts becoming surprisingly . . . partial, working hard to help our hero get the answers that he needs before the timer runs out/film ends.

It was always going to be difficult to impress people with a film that required Pratt to be the emotional character and Ferguson to be an impassive avatar, and the end result plays out as expected. Both are miscast, and both suffer, but it's Pratt who does more to unbalance the whole film, unconvincing for almost every minute that he's onscreen (and, sadly, he's onscreen for the majority of the runtime). A few supporting cast members do better, but that's not hard.

I'm not sure how much it cost to make Mercy, online sources put it at about $60M, but I can guarantee you that giving that money to ten different film-makers could have given us ten much more interesting slices of science fiction. And any of them might have featured a leading man capable of some proper emoting.

2/10

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

The Bride! (2026)

On the one hand, kudos to Maggie Gyllenhaal for taking such a bold approach to what you could arguably classify as the full-bodied legacy of Mary Shelley. On the other hand, maybe she should have taken some more time to ensure that her bold approach and mix of ideas could be bundled up into something that would work as a satisfying and cohesive movie experience. This absolutely fails, and the bigger failings help to obscure any of the more praiseworthy elements.

Christian Bale plays Frank (the monster, having taken the name of his creator). He walks into the workplace of Dr. Euphronious (Annette Bening) and asks for her help in creating a companion. He's desperately lonely, and so unique that only another creation similar to himself will offer him any hope of a relationship. Enter the corpse of Ida (Jessie Buckley), a woman who ended up being shot by horrible gangsters mere moments after she was possessed by the spirit of Mary Shelley (also portrayed by Buckley). While struggling to figure out whether or not they can have any kind of proper relationship, especially when trying to accept how it has all begun, Ida and Frank quickly become a notorious pairing, for their unique look and their behaviour. Seemingly unable to stop calling attention to themselves, although often due to calling out the behaviour of others, Frank and The Bride soon find themselves pursued by strangers, determined police, and some gangsters who are very surprised to see that Ida has somehow not stayed dead.

While a very divisive movie, I know there are some people out there who have really liked this. I don't know many of them, but I know one or two. So it works for some people. And I can see some of the appeal. It's very admirably bonkers, almost punk in the way that it makes use of some famous genre archetypes to crash through some other archetypes, all while commenting on misogyny and the constantly overlooked misbehaviour of men. Just typing out that sentence has made me wonder if I am about to be too harsh on the thing. But, alas, no. The ingredients aren't mixed together well enough, and the social commentary is picked up and dropped so casually that it may as well be a toy discarded by an over-stimulated child.

I guess that some of the visuals work, and the cast is full of considerable talent and/or people that Gyllenhaal knows well enough to get on board, but the overriding feeling is that this is a feature barely shaped into a tolerable form by someone seriously overreaching.

Some people appreciate the performance from Buckley, especially when considering the variety of personas that she ends up portraying, but I thought it was never nailed down. Perhaps that is the fault of the screenplay and direction, but Buckley certainly suffers most from the material given to the leads. Bale is okay, if a bit disappointingly low-key. The most interesting main character is actually portrayed by Bening, which makes it all the more frustrating when she is so underused. Jake Gyllenhaal brightens things up a bit with his role, playing a movie star from the era, but I cannot say the same for either Peter Sarsgaard or Penélope Cruz, who are disappointingly weighed down by the fact that their characters are more avatars carrying around some of the central themes than proper characters.

Some may love this, and I am glad that the movie exists for them. I suspect that most will dislike it though, and many will absolutely hate it. I find myself closer to that last grouping, and it's only the ambition and confidence of Gyllenhaal, however it was improperly channelled, that has me rating this just a bit higher than I otherwise would. 

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.
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

Mubi Monday: Something Wild (1986)

Despite the wealth of new movies to discover (as well as the wealth of *urgh* content out there), it can do you good to revisit films that you haven't seen for quite some time. That gives you an opportunity to either change your opinion on something or, hopefully, reaffirm your love for it. You might sometimes also reaffirm your dislike of something, but films that you majorly dislike are probably least likely to be at the top of any list of potential rewatches. 

I don't think I've seen Something Wild in about twenty years, and I first saw it after hearing from many other films about how great it is. I enjoyed it, but was slightly put off from loving it by the ever-darkening tone that creeps in as things start to spiral. Rewatching it today, that commitment to the danger of many moments is what I like most about it.

Jeff Daniels plays Charles Driggs, a successful young man who has no idea what a turn his life is about to take when he decides to leave a diner without paying for his meal. This brings him to the attention of Audrey (Melanie Griffith), currently spending some time going by the name of Lulu. Audrey/Lulu sees someone dipping their toes in the water of recklessness, and she decides to immediately drag him into deeper waters. The two might be able to have a good time, depending on how long they can keep the real world away from their little bubble. And how long they can avoid the intense and dangerous Ray (Ray Liotta).

If you've never been anywhere close to the kind of situation that Daniels finds himself in here then you may well find Something Wild to be a film that starts off light and fluffy, albeit with some added petty crime and handcuffs, before turning into something sharp and toothy. Those who have made some mistakes on their way through life will start to worry very early on, however. The lead character is worryingly innocent, making it very easy for many viewers to see how far he's about to fall way before he comes to that inevitable conclusion. This is someone who thinks that committing a dine 'n' dash is the height or acceptable craziness and immorality. It's someone who thinks that they can enjoy a bit of party time. It's someone, in other words, who quickly finds himself out of his depth when encountering people who live in territory that he has tried to tiptoe through as a tourist.

E. Max Frye really came out of the gates at a hell of a pace, this was his first screenplay turned into a full feature, and it helps that director Jonathan Demme has the confidence to play around with every scene in a way that keeps upping the temperature while one or two of the characters remain as oblivious as the fabled frog placed in a pot of cold water that is then incrementally raised to boiling point. 

Daniels is very good in his role, managing to stay well-intentioned and easy to like, despite the relatively privileged life that his character has clearly enjoyed. It's Griffith who gives the star turn though, and every time I see one of her more celebrated film roles I always remind myself that I should explore more of her filmography (I will, I will, honest, this time I will). As for Liotta, he comes into the film at just the right time, delivering a shot of adrenalin that keeps everything charged up all the way to the end credits. Other familiar faces to keep an eye out for include Charles Napier, John Waters, and Jack Gilpin.

Something Wild is a film that could have been presented in any number of different ways. We have seen those other movies. They're usually not quite as good, nor quite as interesting, as this. We should be thankful that Frye and Demme set out to make something so unique, even if there are a number of films that could be considered close touchstones around it, and thankful that the three main cast members were so perfect for their respective roles.

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

Netflix And Chill: Thrash (2026)

If you saw, and enjoyed, Crawl then you're likely to enjoy Thrash, which is almost the exact same movie, but with sharks in place of alligators. A town is flooded, which is the first big piece of the disaster movie puzzle. Then large predators move into the streets that shouldn't be there. They're bull sharks, for the most part, but there's also something even bigger roaming around.

Written and directed by Tommy Wirkola, Thrash seems to have a sense of fun as it throws together a variety of characters in an increasingly perilous situation. You get the flood. There's a young woman with agoraphobia (Dakota, played by Whitney Peak) who ends up trapped in her house. There's a pregnant woman (Lisa, played by Phoebe Dynevor) who ends up trapped in her car. There are also three foster siblings (played by Alyla Browne, Stacy Clausen, and Dante Ubaldi) who might end up benefiting from the horrible situation. A marine researcher (Djimon Hounsou) is on his way to help, and he happens to be the uncle of Dakota. There are other people onscreen who may as well be labelled "chum". Oh, and there's a huge tanker full of blood and meat that ends up being broken up, releasing the contents into the water. Because of course there is.

While I wouldn't rush to call this a good movie, the acting isn't great and the plotting is frankly ridiculous, this is pretty much exactly what you expect it to be. Once the first fins appear, Wirkola doesn't skimp on the shark action, keeping them close enough to the main characters to be a constant threat, and also delivering the occasional moment of gory fun. The CGI is generally good, certainly more consistent than the acting performances, and a few scenes stand out for highlighting the strangeness of watching a shark move through a flooded house environment.

It could all have been much better though. More characters scattered throughout could have allowed for even more blood and guts, some more inventiveness would have been welcome, and the enjoyable ridiculousness of the final act could have somehow been weighted a bit more towards the enjoyable than the ridiculous. 

Hounsou is the best of the onscreen performers, and the film does well to cut back to his story strand often enough as he tries to make his way to Shark City, and Dynevor does her best with a character defined by the looming birth that we all know is now destined to be a water birth. Browne, Clausen, and Ubaldi become easier to tolerate after their first scenes, thanks to the fact that we're shown how mean their foster parents (played by Matt Nable and Amy Matthews) are. It's a real shame that Peak is so bad, considering she feels like a contender for the lead if her performance had been stronger. Everyone plays second fiddle to the sharks, but she's not noticeably worse than everyone else onscreen.

I had fun with this, despite all of the flaws, but it had potential to be much better than it was. Maybe they'll make some smarter choices if they ever decide to make a sequel. 

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.
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

Shudder Saturday: Relaxer (2018)

Intrigued by the premise of Relaxer, I enthusiastically decided to watch it as what I thought was a fairly new release, ignorant of the fact that it was actually first released about eight years ago. That doesn't mean that it was always in this final form, of course, but it certainly seems to have spent some time "in the wild" before receiving any kind of wider and more mainstream release. I don't think there will be too many people who view it as any kind of hidden gem.

Joshua Burge plays Abbie, a man who has been challenged by his brother, Cam (David Dastmalchian), to stay seated on a couch until he has defeated a mythical, apparently unbeatable, final level of Pac-Man. Oh, it's also coming up to Y2K, which surely means an apocalypse is looming. Or maybe the apocalypse will be on a much smaller scale, perhaps just a sofa covered in soda stains and bodily excretions.

Written and directed by Joel Potrykus, Relaxer is, ironically, so relaxed about presenting any kind of narrative that it gives viewers nothing to be invested in. The main character could have been amusingly laid back and surrounded by some kind of force field of calm, but he instead comes across as nothing more than a whiny man-baby, locked in a situation of his own making and somehow doing everything he can to make his environment as bad as it can be.

Things start well enough, I guess, with Dastmalchian and Burge having a good bit of interplay, one brother constantly ribbing the other one while he attempts a challenge on a Tony Hawks skateboarding videogame, but it all goes downhill very quickly once Dastmalchian leaves the screen, leaving viewers alone with Burge, who isn't able to add anything interesting to his character. One or two others eventually appear onscreen, but all they do is indulge the behaviour of someone who really needs to be given a swift kick up the backside.

It's obvious that Potrykus thought he came up with an amusing premise, and clearly figured that keeping things set in the one apartment would be good for the budget, but it's not enough to sustain a feature. Not even close. The 91-minute runtime feels as if it overruns by at least an hour. This should have been an anthology segment, at most, or simply tweaked to create a better reason for Abbie having to stay rooted to his sofa (an accident, a trap, anything other than just "that's the challenge").

There's a decent little "punchline" at the very end of the film, but it doesn't make up for the time spent watching so little happen throughout the rest of the runtime. Even the actual videogaming itself never feels realistic, which might seem a petty thing to complain about, but feels crucial as it's such a major factor in the slight plot.

Awful stuff. *insert Pac-Man dying noise here* 

2/10

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

Good Luck, Have Fun, Don't Die (2026)

There's no way that this should have been as bad as it was, considering the talent involved. I have enjoyed a couple of other recent movies from writer Matthew Robinson, and I've also been a fan of Gore Verbinski. A cast that includes Sam Rockwell, Juno Temple, and Zazie Beetz? Sign me up. Alas, this is a half-developed decent idea in search of a much better movie.

Rockwell plays a man who bursts into a diner, reveals that he's wired up to explode, and claims to be from the future. Everything has gone horribly wrong in the future, but Rockwell just needs to find the right group of people to help him save them all from a powerful AI overlord. That group of people ends up including Susan (Temple), Ingrid (Haley Lu Richardson), Mark (Peña), Janet (Beetz), Scott (Asim Chaudhry), Marie (Georgia Goodman), and Bob (Daniel Barnett). Each one of these individuals has something to make them an essential part of the plan, hopefully.

There are so many interesting ways this could have gone. You have potential timeloops, you have evil tech that might be able to tap into unlimited power, and you have Sam bloody Rockwell in a starring role. Unfortunately, the only one of those three things to work here is Rockwell, who gives another performance so enjoyable that I wish he would get more star vehicles worthy of his considerable talent.

Robinson does very little with the screenplay, apparently ensuring that the whole thing can be made with a reasonably low budget. I understand his thinking there, especially when the premise is so bonkers that you know it's not going to be breaking any box office records, but limited resources is no excuse for limiting creativity. Just look at any great sci-fi or horror movie made by people who often had a lot less to work with.

Verbinski doesn't seem to know what to do. It's been a while since he's had to show some self-restraint, perhaps he's forgotten how to do it. Perhaps he was never able to do it in the first place. There are certainly some moments in the second half of the film that show him making some horrible decisions that highlight failings in the screenplay. Robinson may have handed in a weak framework, but Verbinski moves it all around and ensures that it will collapse under the weight of his directorial additions.

Aside from Rockwell's winning turn at the centre of the madness, Temple, Richardson, Peña, and Beetz all do very well with what they're given, as do Chaudhry, Goodman, and Barnett, although they are given a bit less. Tom Taylor is also good, and given the chance to show a fair bit of range with the events that befall his character, while many others fill out the supporting cast without being given any chance to make a strong impression amidst numerous scenes that are often too busy and chaotic.

The 134-minute runtime is overlong, especially with a final sequence that proves to be so unsatisfying, and I struggle to think of anything to recommend here, the cast notwithstanding. I guess the title applies just as much to viewers as it does to the film, but it's only the last two words that I suspect most people will be able to follow as instructions.

3/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Cold Storage (2026)

Director Jonny Campbell has done a lot of great TV work throughout his career. He doesn't have as much success when it comes to feature films though, with his only previous theatrical release being the strangely mishandled Alien Autopsy, a film that tried (and failed) to capitalise on the popularity of the two leads. Cold Storage has more than just one or two gimmicks to help it along, and it's helped by a screenplay from David Koepp. It still manages to show that Campbell may be best suited to TV work though.

Joe Keery and Georgina Campbell play Teacake and Naomi, two employees looking after a self-storage facility. They don't know that the building also houses a secret lab area. Nor do they know that there's a dangerous and infectious fungus stored there. It's parasitic, it's very quick at spreading itself around, and it's just broken out of the sealed containers that held it for decades. Teacake and Naomi will face threats from a number of visitors, but if they can hold on long enough then they might get some major help from a grizzled miltary veteran (Liam Neeson) who has seen how dangerous the fungus can be first-hand.

This might be a fungus, it might try to keep a lighter tone throughout, and there are one or two quirks added to the lead characters, but it's otherwise business as usual. It's a zombie film, and it's not an especially good zombie film. It's certainly not terrible, thanks to some diverting sequences and a few good special effects scattered throughout, but it's not very good. Maybe I'm projecting, but Koepp's screenplay feels as if he thinks he's too good for a sub-genre that he can't quite get a handle on.

Keery and Campbell ARE good, and they deserve a better film that would make better use of their talent. Both are appealing leads on their own, but it's a big boost for the film that they have great chemistry together when sharing the screen. Neeson coasts along in his role, but it's nice to see him in something that isn't beating the dead horse that is his Taken persona (even if he retains a better skillset than most of us), and it's good to have a couple of fun supporting roles for Lesley Manville and Vanessa Redgrave. Ellora Torchia works well as someone who provides remote support for Neeson's character, Aaron Heffernan is a problematic ex, and there's even more varied characters in the shape of Gavin Spokes (a bad boss), Richard Brake (a bad military type), and a few random critters that help to spread the fungus.

All this needed was a bit of tightening up (the runtime may only be 99 minutes, but even that feels just a bit too long), a bit more creativity in the set-pieces, and some more characters to help boost any potential bodycount. That would have been enough to make this an easy one to recommend. As it stands, it's fine. Those after something easy to watch, and something that plays within the horror genre without being too intense or scary for adult viewers, should enjoy themselves. It's the cinematic equivalent of a fast food meal. But those wanting a tasty steak dinner should look elsewhere. 

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

Prime Time: Crime 101 (2026)

I doubt there will be any other movie this year that will have a more suitable descriptive title than Crime 101. It's not a terrible film, but it's very easy to figure out as you watch every piece being slowly moved into place. 

Chris Hemsworth plays Mike, a man who has become very adept at committing non-violent robberies within the general area of the 101 freeway. Nobody else really suspects all of his crimes are connected, apart from one determined cop (Mark Ruffalo). There's a big job looming on the horizon, one that could be classed as one last job, but Mike will need the help of a disgruntled insurance broker (Halle Berry), as well as a good bit of luck. His fence (Nick Nolte) is also working against Mike at this point, trying to make use of a young violent lad (Barry Keoghan) who has a very different approach to his work.

Written and directed by Bart Layton, based on a novella by Don Winslow, this is, as I am sure you have seen mentioned elsewhere, very much Heat-lite. You have the professional criminal, the flawed but dogged cop, the woman (Monica Barbaro) who comes into the life of the criminal and makes him consider what he might do with the next stage of his life, and the unhinged crook able to turn a good thing into a huge mess with one bad decision. There's a bit more to it, but nothing that is any further removed from the pages of a book entitled "Writing Crime 101". Of course.

I would say that everything here is fine, when it comes to the actual production, but that wouldn't be strictly true. Layton knows the tropes that he wants to make use of, but he doesn't put enough care into crafting them. When Hemsworth starts to become interested in Barbaro's character it quickly becomes harder to believe than any of the well-executed criminal plans. The same goes for the numerous moments that show our main character making far too obvious mistakes for someone who has maintained a successful streak for so many years.

Hemsworth is decent in the main role, often going through the motions with very little going on behind his eyes. He's focused on the jobs, or focused on not being caught after the jobs are done, and his behaviour conveys that, whether he's being flustered or managing to maintain his cool. Ruffalo plays the kind of Columbo-esque character that I feel he's already played quite a few times before this, whether as a part of the police or in the world of journalism, and he can do it effortlessly. Keoghan is great, despite how irritating and careless his character is, and Berry has a couple of scenes that really allow her to sink her teeth into things in a way that is missing from the rest of the film. Barbaro is pleasant enough, Nolte does what Nolte does, and there's just about enough time for scenes that include Tate Donovan, Corey Hawkins, Paul Adelstein, and Jennifer Jason Leigh, the latter in the film for such a bewilderingly short amount of time that I admit I spent a good 5-10 minutes asking myself "WAS that Jennifer Jason Leigh?"

There are a few decent vehicle stunts and a satisfying resolution for most of the characters, but the 140-minute runtime is a bit of a slog, especially when you get to the point where you can see how all of the characters are going to interconnect and affect one another during the final act.

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.
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

"Wuthering Heights" (2026)

I admit to being wary of "Wuthering Heights", but possibly not for the same reasons some others were wary. I didn't like the last big adaptation of the tale, the version directed by Andrea Arnold, and I had yet to read the source material (although I am very familiar with the tale, and I'll definitely get around to it one day, cross my heart, honest I will, pinky promise). I also had doubts about both Robbie and Elordi in the lead roles.

The first thing to say about "Wuthering Heights" is just how often everyone seems to have forgotten about, or ignored, the quotation marks around the title. Having now finally seen the film, that completely astounds me. It's clear that writer-director Emerald Fennell wants to present her very own interpretation of the material. She has spent a lot of time telling people that she wanted this to convey her teenage reaction to her discovery of the tale. But it wouldn't be right to title this Emerald Fennell's Wuthering Heights. The quotation marks show the ownership though, and the very specific perspective being served up. They're even onscreen, where the words are created from hair in a stop-motion sequence that mixes the very skilled and the childishly crafty in a way that helps Fennell to announce her intent. And that continues when you hear some sounds that you assume may be coming from someone having sex . . . only to then have a much darker reveal when the visuals appear. Sex and darkness, love and obsession, childishness and the responsibilities of adulthood, things continually clash against one another here in a heady brew that I can imagine Fennell serving to people with a big grin on her face.

I'm not going to spend time here summarising the plot. You either know it or you don't, but the main thing to bear in mind, as a viewer, is that this is not a straight adaptation of the book. It focuses on Cathy (Margot Robbie) and Heathcliff (Jacob Elordi), from brief scenes showing their childhood meeting (where they are played by Charlotte Mellington and Owen Cooper, respectively) to the time spent messing one another up until their impossible situation leads to an inevitable downturn in the final act. Other people dragged into their messy situation are companion Nelly (Hong Chau), a wealthy merchant (Edgar Linton, played by Shazad Latif), and his ward (Isabella, played by Alison Oliver), but everyone else fades into the background when Cathy and Heathcliff are in the same space together.

While this is the least impressive feature yet from Fennell, that's more a comment on how great her first two features were than how bad this is. This is not bad at all. In fact, it's pretty great, and I find a number of the criticisms levelled at it quite bewildering. A lot of them seem to be made by people ignoring those aforementioned quotation marks. I understand it from people who may not have taken note of any of the press or marketing, but if you know what this is meant to be then it absolutely delivers. It's not aiming to be subtle, it's not aiming to be sophisticated, it's just the cinematic equivalent of a love-lorn teen sitting in a warm bath while listening to a mixtape and then hating their unfair life before remembering that some masturbation may make them feel better. Okay, some may not appreciate that, but I thought it turned the source material into something slightly more interesting and connected to modern viewers than another straightforward adaptation.

Robbie and Elordi work very well in their roles, even if they would never have been the first casting choices for many. They both handle the accents well enough, which is one big stumbling block, and certainly do a great job of looking as if they would much prefer to spend the rest of their days with their limbs intertwined as they writhed around on the damp and muddy moors. Mellington and Cooper are both very good in the few scenes they have, Chau is fantastic, Latif does very well with what could have been a very thankless role, and Oliver steals a number of scenes in the second half of the movie, although it's worth noting that she is also involved in moments that may unnerve and disturb some more than anything else in the movie. Martin Clunes also does great work, playing the gambling and alcoholic Mr. Earnshaw (father of Cathy, and the man who brings young Heathcliff home to live with them after another big night out). Clunes has been a well-liked actor for many years now, but I would say that this is easily the best film role that he's ever had (although maybe I've forgotten one or two other highlights). 

Things start off quite dark and dreary, but Fennell soon takes the opportunity to make each shot as memorable as possible, helped by the production design, locations, and cinematographer Linus Sandgren. Once you get to a montage showing the passage of time just before the halfway mark, it's hard to pick one favourite image from the collection of visually stunning moments. There's also wonderful music by Anthony Willis and a great soundtrack provided by Charli xcx, and I would be remiss if I didn't also praise the costume designs by Jacqueline Durran, as well as everyone working in the hair and makeup department.

Those wanting Wuthering Heights can easily find it. The book is there for you to read and re-read to your heart's content, and some of the other film adaptations should serve you well. Those wanting the tale as something cinematic and wonderfully overcooked, filtered through the lens of a teenage girl drawn to some elements more than others (the angst and eternal love and corruption and depravity and the allure of the forbidden), should find a lot to enjoy here. It's not necessarily Wuthering Heights. But it most certainly is "Wuthering Heights". 

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

Mubi Monday: A Regular Woman (2019)

Hatun Sürücü was a young Kurdish woman living in Berlin when she was shot near her apartment. She was 23 years old. Her "crime"? Not wanting to stay in an arranged marriage, and subsequently doing everything possible to become a capable single mother and someone able to provide a life for herself and her loved ones. She was near the end of her training to become an electrician. Because of this, and because of the way she dressed and acted, she was shot in the head. Three times. By at least one of her brothers.

A Regular Woman depicts a potted history of this young woman's life, from her returning to an unsupportive family after leaving her husband to the court case that took place after her death. Not only was it far from a given that any one would be prosecuted, but there was also the fact that Sürücü wouldn't want her family to take custody of her son.

Adapted into a screenplay by Florian Öeller, from a book about the real events, this is the kind of powerful film that is so impactful and memorable that it makes me immediately want to seek out everything else helmed by director Sherry Hormann. I seem to have seen nothing else from her filmography, and that really needs to change. This is dark and upsetting material treated in a respectful and careful way, allowing viewers to celebrate the life being shown and to reacquaint themselves with the kind of abuse, misogyny, and injustice that can occur every single day, especially to anyone who just wants to be "a regular woman".

Almila Bagriacik is fantastic in the lead role, and I can only imagine the weight that she carried on her shoulders throughout the filming (there's also a little bit of real footage used in the film). The actors playing her brothers also do very good work, with Rauand Taleb playing the one who arguably seems more incensed by his sister than anyone else, and there's also excellent support from Lina Wendel, Lara Aylin Winkler, and one or two others lucky enough to play people who played an important part in seeking something close to proper justice for Sürücü.

This is not an easy watch, nor is it telling us a tale that we can dismiss as an unfortunate one-off. That just makes it all the more worthy of your time though, especially when the message is delivered in a way that balances the senselessness and horror of the tragedy with celebration of a life lived in defiance of archaic patriarchal oppression. Hormann seems to be someone I need to become more familiar with, and I am certainly pleased to have been made more familiar, via this movie, with the brilliant spirit that was Hatun Sürücü.

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

Netflix And Chill: 30 Days Of Night: Dark Days (2010)

I first watched 30 Days Of Night: Dark Days about ten years ago, and I remembered it being okay. It just wasn't 30 Days Of Night. That's fine. There's no need to compare a movie to any movie it is remaking or sequelising. Usually. I wasn't feeling as kindly towards the film this time around though. It may not be 30 Days Of Night, but it really wants to use that film to gain some goodwill that it cannot earn by itself.

Starting off immediately after the events of the first movie, Stella (now played by Kiele Sanchez) is spending her time trying to inform the public of the vampire menace, and she has an effective way of dealing with any that may turn up to see her at any of her speaking engagements. There are still too few people who believe her, but she's eventually approached by Paul (Rhys Coiro), Amber (Diora Baird), and Todd (Harold Perrineau). They know how things really are, and the big threat is coming from a powerful vampire named Lilith (Mia Kirshner).

Co-written by Steve Niles and director Ben Ketai, the former also being a main creator of the comic and the latter having worked on some of the different TV shows developed from the property, this is a disappointingly dull affair. It aims to stay true to the tone of the first film, but has neither the budget nor the talent to even come close to it. I don't know why they didn't just decide to use the name recognition on something that could have been a blend of entertaining and over the top bites and bloodshed.

There are some great people in the cast here, and every single one of them is sadly wasted. Sanchez cannot make up for the fact that she's not Melissa George, but Coiro, Baird, and Perrineau deserved much better. The same goes for Kirshner, hampered by the vampire makeup required for her character. There's even a small role here for Katharine Isabelle, but viewers will forget she was in it by the time the end credits roll. That's no way to treat Isabelle. Ben Cotton is treated better, playing a vampiric ally named Dane, and Troy Ruptash is good value as Agent Norris, someone working on behalf of Lilith and co.

When it comes right down to it, there's nothing here that will appeal to those lured in by the 30 Days Of Night "branding". Everything, from the production design to the score to at least one of the lead performances, is disappointingly lacklustre. Everyone involved had a chance to do something interesting, but they went for the safest option instead. Hell, I would have given this a bonus point if it had just taken us right back to Alaska and shown us a complete underground city of vampires all biding their time until the next extended period of night-time.

Ironically, the only thing here that comes close to feeling like 30 days is the 92-minute runtime. Toothless and worthless, although I'll always give bonus points for some of the cast members (Baird, Kirshner, Perrineau, and Isabelle). 

3/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

 

Shudder Saturday: Deathstalker (2025)

Despite the enduring love for the series, there are few people you could find who would tell you that the original Deathstalker is a great movie. It's even surpassed by the first sequel it had. So to say that this reworking of the property is better than the first film is quite easy. Yet it has something that still holds it back slightly, just a feeling that . . . well, I can't quite put my finger on one specific fault, but hope to mention a number of factors in this review.

Daniel Bernhardt plays the titular hero this time around, and he certainly looks the part. He's soon joined by a small creature named Doodad (voiced by Patton Oswalt) and a young female thief named Brisbayne (Christina Orjalo). Their fates are all tied together by a magical amulet that is desired by Nekromemnon (Nicholas Rice), and he expects his right hand man, Jotak (Paul Lazenby), to retrieve it from our hardy little band of heroes.

Written and directed by Steven Kostanski, who has been responsible for one of my all-time favourite genre movies of the 2020s (Psycho Goreman), there's a lot here that should be expected, if you're familiar with his work. Plenty of impressive practical effects, a decent amount of blood and guts thrown around, and clear affection for the source material.

The cast all work well in their roles too, which is a big help. Bernhardt has both the muscles and the attitude, Oswalt's voice is a perfect fit for his character, and Orjalo, Lazenby, Nina Bergman, Conor Sweeney, and John Clifford Talbot all feel well-suited to the onscreen environment. Rice is hidden under a lot more make up and prosthetics, as are both Jon Ambrose and Troy James, but the physicality is spot on.

Nobody could accuse the Deathstalker movies of striving for any kind of realism, and they were made with low budgets and limited resources, but this particular Deathstalker movie feels just as limited in one or two other ways. I'm surprised to say that part of that is due to how it lacks a specific charm, perhaps due to the knowledge that everyone involved is very much clued in on the kind of film they want to make. Original films of this ilk were made by people trying to present a fantastical world and a mad menagerie of monsters with whatever they had to hand. This is made by people trying to present a slightly more polished version of an older movie, and part of the charm of the older movies often stems from seeing the tape holding the cardboard together at the very edge of the frame, metaphorically speaking. I also can't help thinking that there's a bit of gentle mockery mixed in with the affection here, a feeling of Kostanski saying "you know this is silly, we know this is silly, but let's enjoy it nonetheless". It's not an overriding sensation, but I could feel it just underpinning almost every scene, and that was enough to stop me from loving this as much as I had hoped to. The Deathstalker movies were not without humour, but it was a very basic and genre-specific kind of humour (aka very '80s humour). This film doesn't have that, and it's the absence of THAT humour, the way that Kostanski tries to allow everything to be played quite straight, that paradoxically makes me sense some of the other humour layered throughout. 

Maybe I am being too sensitive, maybe I am responding to something that wasn't intended the way I am viewing it, but I cannot help thinking that many other Kostanski films have been made with the feeling that they're loving homages that couldn't possibly rival the impact of the original films that inspired them, despite how those original films are viewed with disdain by those who just don't understand the way to the heart of a horror fan who grew up through the halcyon days of VHS madness. Deathstalker somehow makes a major mis-step by being better than the 1983 original, which makes even the slightest wink or smirk feel like it's "punching down" at a beloved film series.

Still, when it comes to the film-making basics, there's no denying that what is onscreen here is done well. I'd love to hear from others, whether to help me better word my opinion or just tell me that I am talking nonsense, but, in the meantime, I still have to rate this as an enjoyable bit of sword 'n' sorcery entertainment. It's just not great, and left a slightly sour taste in my mouth as the end credits rolled.

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Mike & Nick & Nick & Alice (2026)

Mike (James Marsden) is looking to quit his job. He's enjoyed it for some time, but wants to move on. He doesn't want to be "Quick Draw" Mike any more. He's not sure if his boss, Nick (Vince Vaughn), will take the news well, but it's an easier conversation to have than the inevitable one about confessing to being in love with Nick's wife, Alice (Eiza González). Not that Nick and Alice have any real happiness left in their marriage. The thing that Mike doesn't realise is that Nick already knows everything, about Mike wanting to quit and him being in a relationship with Alice. He was initially pretty angry about it, which is why he framed Mike as a grass. Mike now has a hired cannibal killer after him, thanks to a job ordered by Sosa (Keith David). He also has Nick on his side though. Future Nick. Yes, this is a time travel movie, and things start to become complicated when Future Nick requests the help of Mike in capturing Present Nick, all with the aim of saving Mike's life and putting a number of things right.

Written and directed by BenDavid Grabinski, Mike & Nick & Nick & Alice is a lot more fun than I expected it to be. I liked the concept, and generally like the leads, but I assumed I would be watching yet another straight-to-streaming movie that might hold up, at best, as a fun time-waster. It's better than that, and I'd happily watch something that reunited everyone involved in this. 

What Grabinski does so well is to ensure that every different genre component works well enough. The comedy may not be hilarious, but it's constantly amusing, particularly when certain characters are interacting with one another (there are some great exchanges between Vaughn and Marsden, but it also helps that Jimmy Tatro has a main supporting role, and does the kind of oblivious idiocy that he does so well). The sci-fi aspect is good enough to keep the plot moving, but nobody gets bogged down by the details or potential paradoxes. And there are a couple of gunfights that are excellently staged and maintain a real sense of danger for our leads.

Vaughn is a bit less motor-mouthed than usual, and works surprisingly well in his two roles. It helps a lot that he's paired up with Marsden, who has become a very dependable talent lately when it comes to portraying characters with a strong moral core of goodness. González is positioned well between the two of them, showing her distance from one and closeness to the other without it becoming some melodramatically overdone soap opera. Keith is believably fearsome, Tatro (as mentioned) does his usual schtick, and there's also room for fun performances from Emily Hampshire, Stephen Root, and what amounts to cameo appearances from Ben Schwartz and Dolph Lundgren. Yes, Dolph Lundgren.

There's a chance that I am overrating this because of going in to it with such low expectations, but there's also a chance that this is just a really good bit of genre-blending fun, helped by a great cast all doing great work. I would rewatch this already, I'll hold out some hope for a sequel or spin-off, and I recommend it to everyone else.

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

Splitsville (2025)

Written by stars Michael Angelo Covino and Kyle Marvin, and directed by Covino, Splitsville is a low-key comedy drama that feels, for the most part, like a lot of other movies made in the same independent spirit, but then provides some pleasant surprises in the form of some of the funniest moments you will have seen in recent years. There was one scene here (set at a funfair) that had me crying with laughter.

Carey (Marvin) finds himself spiralling when his partner, Ashley (Adria Arjona), explains that she wants to separate. He spends some time with his friends, Paul (Covino) and Julie (Dakota Johnson), and is surprised to learn that they have an open relationship. Which eventually leads to Carey and Julie sleeping together, which complicates things slightly. Will it stop Carey from wanting to get back together with Ashley though, or will this new approach to life give him the ability to better understand what she may have felt was missing from her life.

Moving from a very twisted and funny opening scene to one small set-piece after another, Splitsville does a fantastic job of delivering both laughs and food for thought. At the heart of it is an exploration of love, monogamy, and levels of self-confidence that can affect both of those things, but the silliness builds up in a number of ways, all leading up to a finale that is almost a complete farce, but feels slightly more refined and nuanced thanks to the more laid back energies of everyone involved.

Marvin is very easy to like in his lead role, and Covino makes himself very easy to dislike, which is important as it figures into the plot more during the second half of the film. Both are equally believable, and both do well at playing things straight, even during the sillier moments. Johnson and Arjona are also excellent, the former feeling much more at ease in this kind of role than some of the more profitable jobs she has taken throughout her career. It could be said that both of these women are way out of reach of the men partnered with him, but that is also a factor that informs the material. Young Simon Webster is absolutely fine as Russ, the son of Julie and Paul, and there are a handful of very enjoyable supporting turns from others, as well as a bit of scene-stealing from Nicholas Braun in the third act.

Covino and Marvin have worked together a few times now in the past decade. I'd like to check out their previous feature, The Climb, and I really hope that this finds enough of an audience to encourage them to work together again on something that could be equally enjoyable. 

I don't want to oversell this though. It's not the kind of film that will play to everyone as some kind of laugh-a-minute cavalcade of comedy. But for some, like myself, it will end up being consistently amusing and entertaining once it's got a hold on you. I was often grinning at even the small dialogue exchanges onscreen, and I very much appreciated the big laughs that were interspersed well throughout the 104-minute runtime. 

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

Prime Time: Pretty Lethal (2026)

When I heard that Pretty Lethal was an action movie with ballerinas at the heart of it, and when I saw the poster with the tagline "blood, sweat and tutus", I mistakenly assumed that this would be something along the lines of, well, Ballerina. I already had the film playing out in my head. A group of innocent-looking ballerinas working together to successfully complete one deadly mission after another, probably using their skillset and grace to their major advantage. I was a bit off, but not entirely incorrect.

Pretty Lethal DOES have ballerinas using their skillset and grace to their advantage, but these are actual ballerinas. They're not trained killers. They just end up in a situation that forces them to become inventive and fight back against a large number of armed and menacing men.

It all starts with a bus breaking down. Our featured dancers end up sheltering in an inn, one owned and run by Devora Kasimer (Uma Thurman). A bad man is embarrassed by a woman, which leads to death, and that's what leads to the ballerinas all being kept in place until it's time to get rid of them. Once they realise how serious their situation is, however, the ballerinas find a way to dance around some of the baddies and weaponise their ballet moves.

With two women at the helm, (this was written by Kate Freund, who also has a small role in front of the camera, and directed by Vicky Jewson) there's definitely something running through Pretty Lethal that allows it to feel just a bit different from the many other films it could have been. It's bloody and violent once everything kicks off, but it's also very much about women supporting one another, and reminds viewers more than once about the pain and dedication required to become a celebrated ballerina. There's a really nice balance of the masculine and feminine here, perhaps inevitable due to the main premise, but also nurtured by both Freund and Jewson.

The cast all help too, particularly the youngsters who have to fight for their lives while wearing tutus and looking woefully out of their depth . . . until they show a natural talent for despatching brawny henchmen. The main five are played by Maddie Ziegler, Lana Condor, Avantika, Millicent Simmonds, and Iris Apatow, and they're all fantastic at being believably frightened, but also determined to fight back, for the sake of themselves and those right alongside them. Thurman has a lot of fun portaying a heavily-accented villain with a real appreciation for the discipline of ballet, Tamás Szabó Sipos is the main instigator of all the trouble, and easy to hate as he spends a lot of time trying to stay protected under the cloak of his father's reputation. 

If someone else hadn't already described this as "reasonably en pointe" then you know that I would have rushed to use that great pun. I was too late, unfortunately, and I don't think anyone is waiting to hear this referred to as Tutu Fast Tutu Furious. It's maybe not quite as packed with violence and death as some would like, but it does maintain a good amount of energy and momentum once everything kicks off. If you're looking for a new action flick to help you pass just under 90 minutes then you shouldn't be too disappointed if you give this your time. 

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Ready Or Not 2: Here I Come (2026)

Anybody keen to be served up a sequel to Ready Or Not is going to be kept happy enough with this, a film helped by the fact that everyone returns to their main roles, both in front of and behind the camera, and by the fact that it seems to be even more gleefully sadistic.

Things pick up immediately from the end point of the first movie. Grace (Samara Weaving) is taken to hospital, soon to be visited by an unhappy estranged sister (Faith, played by Kathryn Newton), who only ends up there because Grace forgot to change her main emergency contact. Nobody believes Grace about the shocking events of the past day, but the worst part of it all is that her ordeal isn't over. Grace AND Faith are snatched, terms are explained by a lawyer (Elijah Wood), and it's time for a whole new bunch of rich and entitled psychopaths to hunt some human prey. They're headed up by Ursula (Sarah Michelle Gellar) and Titus Danforth (Shawn Hatosy), and they are happy to use Faith as leverage to keep Grace in line.

It's clear that Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett returned to this premise because they figured they could have more fun with it. That's exactly what they do, adapting a story about two sisters into something that writers Guy Busick and R. Christopher Murphy could easily fit into the Ready Or Not world. It's a classic case of "here's what you enjoyed, but a little bit more of it", for the most part, and the direction keeps the focus on fun in a way that makes the slightly longer runtime (this is 108 minutes compared to the 95 minutes of the first film) feel just right.

Weaving slips back into her (iconic?) character with ease, and believably becomes more badass and dangerous as she becomes more desperate to stay alive, and keep her sister in the same condition. Newton is a great addition, entertainingly unhappy with her sister, but also soon showing how much they are cut from the same cloth when things start getting bloody and deadly. Gellar and Hatosy have a lot of fun in their roles, and the former always seems very aware of, and respectful of, the genre baggage she will forever carry into any project. Wood is fun, a calm presence in the middle of a lot of madness, and there are good moments for Dan Beirne, Olivia Cheng, Nestor Carbonell, Kevin Durand, Varun Saranga, Nadeem Umar-Khitab, Antony Hall, and even a cameoing David Cronenberg.

Much like the first film, there are no scares here, and there's very little actual tension, but you get some inventive kills and a whole lot of bloodshed. One or two sequences are drawn out into a showcase of violence and pain, many others are all about the hilarity of how quickly some people can be killed when they're not hidden away in a protective bubble. Everything is very enjoyable for those who were eager to rejoin Weaving in another bit of deadly gameplay.

And special recognition has to go to costume designer Avery Plewes on the outstanding dress that makes an important appearance in the very last scenes. You'll know what I'm on about when you see it. It's a stunning look, but also nicely in line with the journey that the main character has been on.

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Mubi Monday: Tom At The Farm (2013)

Xavier Dolan has, to date, directed something like 8 feature films, unless my counting is incorrect. He's also helmed some shorts, music videos, and TV work. I have seen almost all of his feature filmography. I would not hesitate to recommend his films to other film fans who are open to exploring less mainstream cinematic territories.

Also acting in front of the camera, as he does for most of his movies, Dolan plays the Tom of the title. The farm that he ends up at belongs to the family of his recently-deceased lover. There's a devastated mother (Agathe, played by Lise Roy) and an angry brother (Francis, played by Pierre-Yves Cardinal). Skirting around his own relationship, simply referring to himself as a close friend, Tom soon finds himself in an awkward and scary position when Francis makes it clear that he knows exactly who he is, and he also doesn't want his mother to ever find out. In fact, he created a fictional girlfriend for his dead brother, which plays a big part in the story later when Tom convinces another friend (Evelyne Brochu) to visit in the guise of that fictional partner.

Looking at the very real problem that many can encounter when they lose a loved one who wasn’t necessarily able to be honest with family about their sexuality, and even when they lose a loved one who was honest, but can have things completely reframed by those who want to erase that part of them, Tom At The Farm is a spiralling nightmare that works as well as it does because of the many main plot beats that feel very much grounded in reality. Despite everything that goes on, one thing worth remembering is just how Tom is unable to even show the full depth of his grief in the way he might want to. That may be the least of his worries, but it really serves as a reminder of how members of the LGBTQ+ community are oppressed and restricted in many ways, even from those not threatening them with violence. And then there’s the very real and constant threat of violence, shown here in the character of Francis.

Dolan is as savvy in front of the camera as he is behind it. He knows what’s happening around him, and acts in a way that shows how much he has learned to balance his defiance and his instinct for self-preservation. Both Cardinal and Roy are excellent, playing people who have very different ways of trying to maintain a connection with a lost loved one. Brochu has a lot less screentime, but does well enough, despite her character taking a bit of a turn that didn’t feel satisfying to me, although wasn’t necessarily delivered as a huge rug-pull.

Having worked on the screenplay with Michel Marc Brouchard, who wrote the original play, Dolan excels at looking after the main themes being explored, maintaining a sense of tension and dread throughout, and also avoiding a static and dull approach that would have focused on the words and ideas ahead of any film techniques. Dolan is interested in a lot of things, but, first and foremost, he’s undoubtedly interested in making films. This stands as one of his 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.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Netflix And Chill: Woman Of The Hour (2023)

Based on the strange true story of a woman being matched up with someone on a TV dating show who turned out to be hiding a lifestyle of horrible rape and murder, Woman Of The Hour is the directorial debut of Anna Kendrick, who also takes on a lead role, and it's good enough for me to already want to see much more from her.

Kendrick plays Sheryl Bradshaw, an actress struggling to find any job opportunities in the 1970s. She doesn't want to conform to what every male studio exec seems to be looking for though, which means it may be time to give up on her dream. Her agent convinces her that appearing on a TV dating show will be a bit of a boost for her, at least getting her onscreen and raising her profile slightly. That also requires conforming to certain expectations, however, and Sheryl soon annoys show host Ed (Tony Hale) when she starts to cut loose and have more fun questioning her potential suitors, highlighting their weaknesses and misogyny with wit and intelligence. One man manages to stay ahead of the others though. That's Rodney Alcala (Daniel Zovatto), but a female audience member (Laura, played by Nicolette Robinson) believes that he is responsible for the rape and murder of someone she used to know.

What could have been an enjoyable, but fairly simple, idea - woman meets man on dating show without being aware of his horrible crimes - is turned into something much more, thanks to both the screenplay by Ian McDonald and the direction by Kendrick. This isn't just a look at a horrible series of crimes, nor just an exploration of circumstances that led to a now-infamous TV appearance. It's a look at double standards and sexism, and how those things have contributed to, and continue to contribute to, the abuse and deaths of so many women.

Kendrick allows viewers to notice and become bothered by every slight dig, every micro-aggression, and every moment of discomfort, laying down a path that she clearly illustrates can take someone vulnerable right into major danger. I cannot think of one man here who comes out of this looking like a good guy, but that's very likely to be something that can be said by most women, particularly back in the 1970s, but also here and now.

Playing to her strengths in front of the camera, Kendrick allows herself to become stronger as she becomes emboldened by one or two supporting comments and reactions from others. Her character has clearly gone beyond some kind of breaking point when it comes to her mistreatment at the hands of men, and it's a cheering victory to watch her make some guys squirm while she starts asking them questions with more depth and challenge than the usual TV show fluff. Zovatto is chilling in his role, but also able to turn on some charm for moments that have him getting close enough to his victims until he's ready to strike. Hale is an enjoyable bundle of 1970s prime-time misogyny, Robinson does a great job of portraying her traumatic reaction to the reveal of the dating show contestants, and both Matt Visser and Jedidiah Goodacre do a very good job as the other two bachelors made to look bad by Rodney. It's also worth mentioning the fantastic performance from Autumn Best, playing someone who was pivotal to the eventual case made against Alcala.

I knew about the main "hook"for this film, and hoped I would enjoy it. I ended up being pleasantly surprised by how well it showcases and criticises the many every day pitfalls of the female experience. And it really helps that Kendrick plays her role in a way that allows her to subtly move further offscreen as we eventually get to know someone who is equally deserving of the spotlight and the honorific title used by the 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

Shudder Saturday: The Mortuary Assistant (2026)

When I saw the trailer for The Mortuary Assistant a few weeks ago I thought it would be something I would enjoy. It looked enjoyably creepy and entertaining. I had no idea that it was based on a videogame of the same name. To be fair, it doesn't feel like a videogame movie. I am mentioning the source material here for those who may be even more inclined to see it due to an already-established connection.

Directed by Jeremiah Kipp, who has already helmed a few other features in amongst the many shorts that make up the majority of his filmography, this is the tale of a young woman, Rebecca (Willa Holland), who starts a new job in a mortuary and soon finds herself surrounded by dark and demonic forces aiming to hurt and destroy her. The situation seems to be known to her boss (played by Paul Sparks), and it's almost like a rite of passage if she can survive her first night on the job.

Co-written by Tracee Beebe and Brian Clarke, the latter responsible for the videogame, what you get here is an atmospheric horror film that spoils things by moving far too quickly between what could be real and what could be imagined. Horror can often make use of vivid imaginations in an effective and tense way, especially when a character is so disorientated that they end up walking themselves into potential danger, but it needs to be done with care, and I think it works best when used sparingly, unless the overall effect is one of spiralling insanity. The Mortuary Assistant starts the shenanigans so quickly, and refuses to let up with them, that it quickly becomes impossible to care about anything that is happening onscreen. There's some decent imagery, and the lead remains someone you hope will survive the ordeal, but wondering if everything is real or none of it is real just leaves you shrugging as yet another scary moment occurs.

Holland does a good job in the lead role, and her ability is especially important while she carries the film for the majority of the runtime, but she's weighed down by a screenplay that gives her an all-too-familiar tragic backstory without enough full context and detail regarding her daily life as it is now. Sparks never feels like more than a creepy figure delivering exposition (funnily enough, he's a bit like a videogame guide), and there's not enough for the likes of Keena Ferguson Frasier, Emily Bennett, Mark Steger et al., to get their teeth into. 

There's enough to enjoy here if you're after something that feels entertainingly spooky. It's just a shame that it's also so hard to be invested in. I stopped caring about how the film would end as soon as things started to go bump in the mortuary. The more the main character was confused, yet also not reacting as strongly to the things happening around her as I would, the less I cared about where it was all going.  

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.
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

Ella McCay (2025)

Written and directed by James L. Brooks, and with a cast that includes Emma Mackey, Jamie Lee Curtis, Albert Brooks, Jack Lowden, Julie Kavner, Woody Harrelson, Jack Lowden, Kumail Nanjiani, and Ayo Edebiri, I was hoping to enjoy Ella McCay. I'd already heard some luke-warm reviews of it, at best, but still thought that it couldn't really be bad with the talent involved. Not for the first time . . . I was wrong.

This is all about a young woman (McCay, of course, played by Mackey) about to become the governor of her state. She's idealistic and hoping to effect some real change, but events conspire against her. Problems loom large with the reappearance of her father (Harrelson), the unhappiness of her husband (Lowden), and the ongoing depressive state of her younger brother (Casey, played by Spike Fearn). There are some good people on her side (her aunt, Helen, played by Curtis, and her secretary, Estelle, played by Kavner), but they may not be able to help Ella when she finds herself becoming cornered by a very determined and scheming reporter who wants to blackmail her into giving him some priority access.

I don't have the enthusiasm to go into too much detail here. Ella McCay feels sadly pointless. It gives us a character who should clearly be supported, and celebrated, but then spends most of the runtime breaking down various parts of her life as if proving some kind of point about how good she remains in the face of overwhelming awfulness. Bizarrely, despite the relatively light and fluffy way the material is presented, this is as much a film about someone shaped by past traumas and present abuses as more extreme films I could start to list here. It's not really a bitter pill with a sugar coating, but more of a teeny tiny sugar core in the middle of a horribly bitter pill.

I know the main point that Brooks wants to make here, and it's one well worth making in the current climate, but he lacks the ability to navigate through territory that needs a much steadier hand at the wheel. I know that's an unexpected thing to say about his direction, but not only is this a comedy lacking enough laughs, it's also a commentary on the modern political landscape without the courage to get close to any of the targets it takes aim at.

Mackey is okay in the lead role, although it's not the best performance from someone who has yet to fully win me over. Lowden suffers from the fact that his character is so easy to dislike, even when he's apparently trying to be nice. Both Curtis and Kavner fare much better, and both benefit from receiving some of the best moments in the film, and Harrelson is very enjoyable as the man who can't convincingly apologise to people when his actions fail to back up his words. Nanjiani is a highlight, even if sorely underused, as is Edebiri. Albert Brooks is good fun, Fearn does well with his scenes, and there are one or two other supporting players who manage to stealthily steal a scene away from the main stars.

I almost forgot that I disliked this, that's how much the cast helps the material, but I really didn't have a good time. It's forgettable, at best, and I suspect many will like it even less than I did. At least it clocks in at just under two hours (the runtime is actually 115 minutes). That's about the most positive note I think I can end on. It's saved by the cast, and it clocks in at just under two hours.

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.
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

Send Help (2026)

It's always good to see Sam Raimi having fun with his directorial work, and if there's one way to describe Send Help it's fun. It's not great, nor is it in the top 5 (maybe even top 10) of Raimi films, but it's definitely fun.

Rachel McAdams plays Linda Liddle, a put-upon employee who has to once again swallow her disappointment when passed over for promotion by her new boss, Bradley Preston (Dylan O'Brien). That promotion had been promised to her by Bradley's father, but he's more interested in helping his buddy, Donovan (Xavier Samuel), progress his career. And as long as they can still get Linda to do the actual maths and the work then it should be a win-win situation for them. Which is how Linda ends up on a flight with them en route to Bangkok. The flight doesn't get there though. It crashes, and Linda and Bradley end up on a deserted island. Luckily, Linda is a huge fan of Survivor, and knows how to make the best of their bad situation. Unluckily (for Bradley), this seriously inverts the balance of power between the two of them.

Written by Damian Shannon and Mark Swift, a duo who have delivered a couple of very enjoyable horror movies, and then the not-so-enjoyable Baywatch movie, Send Help works best when it's focused on the conversations between the two leads. Both of them often have an agenda, whether it's proving a point or trying to push an escape plan, and watching them tip-toe around their words as they strive to maintain the fragile co-dependency that might be essential for them is delightful. Surprisingly, and despite the moments that run far too close to similar moments in Triangle Of Sadness, those interactions are more delightful than any of the expected Raimi-isms.

Raimi doesn't care if things are a bit rough around the edges, considering he's done some of his best work with creativity and energy far outweighing budget, but viewers may not feel the same. From the plane crash to an angry wild boar, from scenes that have people in peril on a crumbling high path to a particular bit of pain delivered in the finale, the varying quality of the CGI is a bit too distracting, even when it's being used to get things more in line with some familiar Raimi beats. One dream sequence feels particularly unnecessary, pretty much just an excuse to have a sequence that would be better off in another Tales From The Crypt movie, and even a bit of propulsive camerawork fails to amuse because of it feeling awkwardly shoe-horned in. It's almost as if Raimi had to mark off a checklist of his own trademark touches, but his heart wasn't in it.

McAdams and O'Brien ensure that they do more than enough to make you appreciate when the focus is back on them, however, and both are in fine form. McAdams enjoys transforming from timid pushover to strong survival queen, and makes herself believable at both ends of that spectrum. O'Brien doesn't have the same kind of arc, but he is consistently amusing as the kind of inconsiderate asshole boss that you would never want to be working for. Samuel is equally inconsiderate, and equally amusing, Dennis Haysbert is sadly only here for a cameo turn, and Edyll Ismail gets a fantastic feature acting debut, playing the persistent fiancée of Bradley who, for unfathomable reasons, really wants to find him alive and safe.

I enjoyed many different parts of this. The performances, the Danny Elfman score, the too-infrequent moments that felt like Raimi being gleefully sadistic. It's just a shame that it never really came together into something completely satisfying though. Having said that, it's hard not to stay chuckling and think back on it fondly enough when you're treated to a cheeky and ridiculous final shot that acknowledges how silly it's all been. Sometimes silly is just fine. Sometimes it's what you need to distract you from the less silly events that can fill up your day.

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.
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