The Sheep Detectives (2026)

I received funny looks from people last week every time I mentioned the fact that I was heading to the cinema to see The Sheep Detectives. Nobody seemed to think that it sounded like an enjoyable and watchable film. That's their loss. The Sheep Detectives is sweet, funny, and manages to hang everything on a central murder mystery that feels as well-constructed as it is comprehensible for younger viewers who may have a lot less experience with the template being used.

Hugh Jackman plays a shepherd/farmer named George Hardy, happiest when spending time with his sheep. He reads mystery novels to them every day, oblivious to the fact that the animals actually understand everything he's saying, and often have their own conversations about the plot when he's then taken himself off to bed for the night. Which ends up being good practice for them all when George is found dead one morning. Murdered. It's doubtful that the local nice-but-dim policeman, Officer Tim Derry (Nicholas Braun), will crack the case, which means it's up to the sheep. Lily (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) is arguably the smartest one, but she's helped by the likes of Mopple (Chris O'Dowd), Wool-Eyes (Rhys Darby), Cloud (Regina Hall), Sir Ritchfield (Patrick Stewart), Zora (Bella Ramsey), and Sebastian (Bryan Cranston). There are enough suspects in the local village, and the population has a few extra bodies in the shape of George's daughter, Rebecca (Molly Gordon), a lawyer named Lydia Harbottle (Emma Thompson), and a small-time journalist hoping for a big break (Nicholas Galitzine).

Based on a novel, "Three Bags Full", by Leonie Swann, this has been adapted into screenplay form by the talented Craig Mazin. He knows what people will want from this, and he delivers. The central investigation doesn't seem to cheat, there's a satisfying reveal and explanation that would make Agatha Christie proud, and you get plenty of moments that just have lambs being cute, sheep being amusingly sheep-ish, and a perfect mix of entertainment that displays danger one minute and cosy safety the next.

Director Kyle Balda has spent the last 15 years or so helming animated shorts and features, which makes him a good pick for something that relies on a flock of main characters created by, or enhanced with, top-notch computer work. You could tell me that 90% of the sheep onscreen here were entirely CGI and I would believe you. You could also tell me that 90% of the sheep onscreen here were entirely real and I would believe you just as readily. The impressive thing is that it's hard to see any "join", and a lot of that comes from the steady guiding hand of Balda.

While the voice cast all do great work, many of them are such a good fit for their characters that I suspect many viewers will struggle to place them until the end credits roll. Aside from those already mentioned, and lead duties are roughly shared between Louis-Dreyfus, O'Dowd, and Cranston, there's also a very enjoyable performance from Brett Goldstein, pulling double duty as the voices of Reggie and Ronnie, two sheep happiest when given permission to ram into things. Thankfully, the live-action cast members do enough to justify stealing screentime away from the sheep. Gordon is as easy to like as she usually is, Thompson is a lot of fun, Galitzine gets to upset a few people with his questions, and Braun manages to be sweet and amusing, AND maintains a pretty decent English accent throughout.

It takes a little while to acclimatise to how everything is presented, but most viewers will find that they soon start ignoring the artifice in favour of the characters and the unfolding mystery. There's a helpful, and lovely, score by Christophe Beck, decent pacing that makes the 109-minute runtime pass by quickly enough, and a perfect handling of tone that allows for some timely tears and tension in between the frequent chuckles. I hope that more and more people will eventually be convinced to give this a go, and it may well turn out to be the most delightful feature film of 2026.

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

Save The Green Planet! (2003)

I have been meaning to see Save The Green Planet since it was first released over 20 years ago. It was one of those titles that became available during the wave of J-horror and South Korean films that contained some real modern classics, encouraging movie fans to keep exploring more and more films from those territories. It just kept being pushed down my list of priorities though, and was only brought back to my attention when I realised that Bugonia (which I am also yet to see) is a remake of it.

Was it worth the wait? Sort of. I think I would have been more disappointed if I'd watched this back in the early 2000s, perhaps with the hope that it would have many more moments designed to unnerve or disturb viewers. It's actually a strangely melancholic film, one that could be viewed as a study of someone with mental health issues acting in a way that eventually endangers everyone around them.

Shin Ha-kyun is our lead character, a man who becomes obsessed with the idea that a well-known pharmaceutical executive (played by Baek Yoon-sik) is actually an alien. It's very soon time for a kidnapping, and then some torture to get the alien scumbag to drop the human disguise and admit the truth. Which is only a solid plan if the alien kidnapee is actually an alien.

Written and directed by Jang Joon-hwan, who apparently wanted to present a film about kidnapping that would allow viewers to have some sympathy for the kidnapper, Save The Green Planet! is a bit of a muddled mess. A lot of individual moments work, and the last third is particularly good, but it struggles to stay focused and engrossing throughout the first hour, especially when showing us the work being done by a couple of detectives on the case.

The leads both do good work, and Hwang Jeong-min is enjoyable in the role of Su-ni (an accomplice/girlfriend who also seems to be viewing the unfolding events without really comprehending the dangerous reality of what is happening), but this is a film that struggles to keep the humanity front and centre. It's a strong idea, one that is carried along to an intriguing conclusion, but not quite strong enough to justify the 118-minute runtime.

It's impressive to watch a movie that constantly pushes against whatever you think it may be, and that's what works for Save The Green Planet! Unfortunately, it also works against it. Jang Joon-hwan is so busy ensuring that the film is strange and unpredictable that he keeps viewers slightly distanced from all that is happening, when it's clear from the chosen POV that he wanted to bring everyone right into the world and the headspace depicted.

I wouldn't call this an interesting failure though. It has enough scenes that work as intended. I'd call it a testing journey that asks for patience from viewers before rewarding them with some powerful moments and highlights delivered in the third act. 

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

Prime Time: Worldbreaker (2025)

I thought I knew what I was getting into when I decided to press play on Worldbreaker. It looked like a low-budget and dubious sci-fi action movie. It had a main credit for Milla Jovovich. Yes, I've been here before, and I made my choice. Sadly, things were much worse than I expected.

I would explain the slight plot, but I fear that it would send us all plunging into a comatose state. There are nasty wee things attacking humans, and they can infect others with their scratches and bites. It's mainly men who end up transformed though, with women largely more resistant to whatever causes the dehumanisation. Willa (Billie Boullet) is a young woman being protected and trained by her father (Luke Evans), the two of them trying to survive on a small island, all while Willa's mother (Jovovich) is kept busy offscreen trying to lead the fight back.

I don't know what's happened to director Brad Anderson to take him so far from the heights of his earlier works, but I doubt anyone could do much to improve the screenplay from Joshua Rollins. This is lazy and careless stuff, with nobody able to do anything worthwhile with the central idea (armies of women leading a charge against an enemy that is much more harmful to the male population). The two biggest names in the cast are wasted in different ways, there's never any proper tension, and any action and/or bloodshed is hampered by an obvious lack of budget.

Boullet is the lead, and she tries her best with weak material. The performance from Evans highlights just how bad things are, with most of his dialogue so inane and risible that it feels as if it would work better in a spoof of this kind of thing. As for Jovovich, she was clearly available for one or two days, and the film is unable to stretch out the footage in a way that makes her feel like the formidable presence she is clearly supposed to be. Mila Harris plays the other main character, Rosie, but, like everyone else, she's also not really given enough to do.

Worldbreaker is a short film idea that needed much more work to flesh things out fully. Neither Rollins nor Anderson seem to have considered that, and neither of them do even half of the work required to turn things into a worthwhile feature. There's not one element here, from the score to the cinematography and editing, that manages to overcome the inherent flaws of the material, and would discourage anyone else from making time for this. Bad movies don't have to be unenjoyable. Low-budget movies don't have to be bad. This feels like a film made by people who didn't care enough to try and make the most of what was available to them, and they certainly didn't manage to make anything good or enjoyable.

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

Obsession (2026)

There was a big part of me that was resistant to Obsession, a horror film that not only completely won me over throughout the runtime, but one that will certainly be battling for a spot near the very top of any list when I rank my favourite films of this year. I'm glad I didn't let my biases stop me from getting along to enjoy a fantastic cinema experience with this one, and maybe it's time for me to accept that people who started on YouTube have simply spent time in a decent training ground for their journey into making movies. Although I'll always be wary whenever something gets hyped up as the latest must-see horror movie of recent times. Sorry, I've just been burned too many times by the hyperbole.

Having said that, ummmmmm, Obsession is actually the latest must-see horror movie of recent times. It's genuinely great in a number of ways, and I'd even allow it to be credited to writer-director Curry Barker as an outstanding feature debut (because Milk & Serial, as good as it was, just about crawled over the one hour mark, and feels like an important bridge between shorts and features).

Michael Johnston plays Baron AKA Bear (a nod to the popular opinion of women so often rushing to take a chance with a bear ahead of a man?), a young man who is in love with his long-time friend, Nikki (Inde Navarrette). Unable to tell her his true feelings, he instead makes use of a novelty named the "One Wish Willow". Obviously. Wishing for Nikki to love him more than anyone else in the world, he is stunned when his wish comes true. That's not necessarily the good thing he thought it would be though. Not at all.

Walking a very fine line between constant unpleasantness and darkly comedic entertainment, Obsession is a film that is all the better for the fact that it could have easily been so much worse. My one problem with it was the sound mix, with Rock Burwell's score rising so high at times that some dialogue is very hard to hear. I understand the decision though, and that sound mix works to add to the oppressive atmosphere, but it's the one thing that didn't work for me. Everything else is pretty much perfect.

Johnston and Navarrette both do brilliant work in the lead roles, the latter going through an impressive range of emotions, in the kind of performance that would be more recognised by critics if not placed in a horror film, while the former tries to keep playing up his "niceness" as it becomes increasingly clear just how problematic and bad his character actually is.  Cooper Tomlinson and Megan Lawless are also very good, playing two friends who become concerned by the situation they see playing out before them.  

The person to praise most is Barker though, considering how well he puts the pieces together in order to remove any ambiguity here. Despite how fantastical the premise is, and where it goes, things are grounded in a reality that will be recognised by many, and there are numerous reminders that what we're watching is an example of someone "nice" making the most of an opportunity to be with someone he desires without gaining consent from them. It's specifically mentioned in different scenes, but there are also a couple of important plot details that underline exactly who the main villain is, and how their actions go from bad to worse, creating a spiral that will undoubtedly turn things hellish and deadly for everyone around them.

Obsession will have you tense and laughing at the same time. It will have you thinking about what's playing out onscreen in a way that inevitably puts the idea of consent at the forefront of your mind. It will have you considering what Navarrette will do next to showcase her major talent. You might just end up loving it more than any other film in the world. For a while, anyway. 

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

Mubi Monday: Mermaids (1990)

While there have been a few stinkers helmed by actor-turned-director Richard Benjamin, his filmography is also a good place to hunt around for a few gems. He certainly tried throughout the 1980s and 1990s to provide audiences with a wide variety of entertainment. Some were star vehicles, some were quirky movies wanting to win you over with their heart. Mermaids is a bit of both. And I'm as guilty as everyone else for forgetting all about it. I don't think I have revisited Mermaids since it was on VHS.

Despite missing that certain Patrick Swayze factor, Mermaids is a film that pairs up very well with Dirty Dancing. It's a period piece. It makes great use of many enjoyable '60s tunes. One main storyline concerns a young girl hoping to get herself into a compromising situation with an older man. And there are a couple of scenes that sprinkle some real grit and pain throughout the comforting fluff.

Based on the novel by Patty Dann, Mermaids has Cher as Mrs. Flax, mother to Charlotte (Winona Ryder) and Kate (Christina Ricci). Mrs. Flax believes in living in places for a good time, not a long time. She's used to that life, always happy to move after a bad experience or another ruined relationship, but her daughters sometimes struggle with the many moves. Especially Charlotte, who spends her time thinking about major religious figures, and how she can live a life of virtue. Kate is generally easier to please, especially once she's joined up with any local swim team. Things might be different in their latest home though, with Mrs. Flax perhaps meeting her match in the sweet and compassionate Lou Landsky (Bob Hoskins). Charlotte seems happy that they have moved close to a convent, but that doesn't stop her from having many impure thoughts about a local man named Joe (Michael Schoeffling).

One of just a handful of screenplays by June Roberts, this is a film that benefits from absolutely perfect casting, allowing for every line of dialogue to be delivered in a way that elevates the whole movie. Whether it's Cher being as entertainingly sassy as Cher can so easily be or Ryder narrating her wildly erratic thoughts as they veer from holy to sinful, Mermaids consistently delivers a whole lot of superb dialogue in every scene.

Benjamin handles everything well enough, keeping everything feeling just right for the period without spending too much time on the details at the expense of his stars. He knows what people should really want from their time with the film, and it's time spent in the company of memorable characters played by people who feel as comfortable in their roles as they do in their own skin.

Cher brings her confidence and self-assuredness to a role that would feel seriously hampered without it, and she makes Mrs. Flax someone who feels as well-intentioned as she is selfish. She isn't about to let herself be hurt, and her strength is obvious throughout, but that strength, that ability to erase her past and just move on, ends up becoming a problem when it becomes clear that things could be greatly improved by just a bit of compromise and work in her latest relationship. Ryder does a great line in melodramatic teen angst, with every minor embarrassment becoming something major in her eyes. Ricci may have the least to do, certainly in terms of character development, but she's properly adorable, and helps to make up a central trio that you don't want to see pulled apart. Hoskins may be the sweetest that he's ever been, and I was often chuckling at his reactions to Cher, whether he was obviously approving of her sexiness and bold demeanour or being confused by her antagonism. Schoeffling does enough to make his character seem pleasant and sweet, for the most part, despite the serious problem with how he ends up reacting to Ryder's youthful yearning for him.

Almost entirely forgotten by so many nowadays, apart from small sparks of memory that fire up whenever The Shoop Shoop Song (It's In His Kiss) is heard on some radio station, Mermaids deserves to be revisited and remembered. It's absolutely delightful, and I would argue that it's a real film career high point for all of the four leads. They might not agree with me, but I would still try to make the case. 

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: Bumblebee (2018)

While it has certainly happened before, mainly in horror franchises, I wish more people would take the opportunity to use familiar IP in a way that still allows for films that feel more fresh and fun than whatever formula has been decided upon throughout a number of previous movies. Bumblebee not only does just that, but it does so brilliantly.

The story is quite simple. It's the second half of the 1980s, and transforming robot Bumblebee ends up on Earth. While in the guise of a Volkswagen Beetle car, Bumblebee is taken to the home of Charlie (Hailee Steinfeld). He eventually reveals his true form, and the two bond as it becomes clear that some danger is heading their way. That may be in the shape of other robots, and it may also be in the shape of a military man named Agent Burns (John Cena).

The first live-action feature from director Travis Knight, who also helmed the superb Kubo And The Two Strings, this is exactly the kind of enjoyable entertainment that you should expect from a film that has a young woman befriending a big robot. Writer Christina Hodson may not always attach herself to the best projects, but she has proven throughout her career that she can often write witty and satisfying blockbuster fare. This is her best work yet, mainly thanks to the whole load of heart that is allowed to take up so much of the screentime. A lot of the plot points may be obvious (Charlie missing a dead parent, Bumblebee figuring out just what is needed to complete an important mission, angry military types threatened by powerful tech), but they're mixed together well enough around characters that viewers should enjoy spending time with.

Steinfeld is great in the lead role, as she has been in pretty much everything that she's done so far, and she's given great support from Pamela Adlon and Stephen Schneider (playing her mother and stepfather, respectively), as well as Jorge Lendeborg Jr. (a guy with a crush on her, which leads him to also finding out about Bumblebee). John Ortiz has a small role, one that benefits from having his familiar face there, and Cena is good value as the determined man out to deal with what he perceives to be a major threat.

The 114-minute runtime, like everything else here, feels relatively bright and breezy in comparison to other Transformers movies, and there's a great pop soundtrack, as well as references to a number of iconic 1980s movies, whether in recreated moments or just film posters hung on the walls of our main character's bedroom.

Every set-up is paid off, there are a good selection of running gags (one of the best being about Bumblebee's inability to hide), and it's all just a genuinely heart-warming and fun teen movie that happens to have one of the awkward teens being played by a Transformer. I can imagine most people choosing to watch this again ahead of so many other entries in the franchise, and I don't blame them. In fact, I include myself amongst them.

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

Shudder Saturday: Godless: The Eastfield Exorcism (2023)

There's a good movie at the heart of Godless: The Eastfield Exorcism. Like the desperate soul of someone claiming to be possessed, it's in there. Somewhere. But it's almost impossible to find though. You can catch glimpses of it, and the final moments underline a very serious point that isn't handled as well throughout the rest of the runtime, but it's trapped by something horrible.

Based on a true story, which should ensure that most seasoned viewers still treat everything shown with a large pinch of salt, this is the story of a young woman (Lara, played by Georgia Eyers) caught between two individuals who have very different approaches to her health issues. There's Dr. Marisa Walsh (Eliza Matengu) on the one side, trying to have uncomfortable conversations and force some kind of breakthrough. Then there's Daniel James King (Tim Pocock), a man who seems to believe that he can help Lara by performing an exorcism.

Directed by Nick Kozakis and written by Alexander Angliss-Wilson, there's definitely something satisfying about this kind of tale being presented in a way that is totally antithetical to all of the propaganda nonsense we've been served up by the hugely-popular The Conjuring movies. While I have enjoyed those movies, I have always been very aware of the major lies at the heart of them, and I have always worried about other people taking them at face value. This film shows the damage that can be done by charlatans seizing opportunities offered by desperately ill individuals, but it still spends too much of the runtime trying to present the material as standard horror movie fare. Personally, I wanted more moments that juxtaposed the lies and the truth in a way that could prove more jarring to anyone not caught up in the immediate drama and confusion of the whole situation.

Eyers gives the kind of central performance that you need for something like this. It's powerful stuff, and as physically-demanding as it is emotional, and she's very capable of doing everything that needs to be done. Dan Ewing does okay in the role of her partner, someone complicit in everything that happens once science is refused in favour of a faith-based "solution", and Pocock has the kind of confidence and charisma that makes it clear to see how easily he can delude himself, as well as everyone else around him, as he tortures an already-tortured soul. A few other people help to fill out the cast, including John Wood as a detective, but most of the film focuses on a central triangle formed around an apparent battle for one soul, with even Matengu underused as her character is sidelined and pushed out of the way by those unwilling to accept her approach to the situation.

It's a shame that a film based on this kind of tragedy still needs to make use of horror movie moments. The victims mentioned deserve better. Like I said, there's a good movie at the heart of this. It's only visible in the briefest of glimpses though, moments when something real and human gets to reach the surface before being pulled back down by dark and smothering awfulness.

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

How To Make A Killing (2026)

I really like Glen Powell. He can manage to look like a blockbuster movie star one minute and early 2000s Zack Ward the next. I am happy to see him continue to make career moves as he tries to be a reliable leading man in an interestingly varied selection of movies. It's clear, however, that he's sometimes a bit desperate to show a wide range of his abilities in every role. And if you're wanting something that allows you to present many different facets of your acting prowess then a remake of Kind Hearts And Coronets would seem to be a great showcase. So I can see what would draw Powell to something that many would consider a fool's errand. I'm not sure others will be so understanding though.

Powell plays Becket Redfellow, the offspring of a young woman who was disowned from her obscenely wealthy family when she wouldn't choose them over a relationship that they could not endorse. Becket is still in line to collect a large inheritance though, but only if all of his other living relatives die before he does. After the passing of his mother, Becket decides to see what he can do about positioning himself into a much more favourable position. Yes, this involves getting rid of a number of relatives, but most of them are so narcissistic and horrible anyway that it's easy to keep rooting for our lead to successfully prune the family tree.

Written and directed by John Patton Ford, who makes use of an original screenplay that is obviously a fantastic template to work with, How To Make A Killing is certainly good fun, and has moments that revel in the dastardliness of Becket as he starts to find a talent for killing, but, as is so often the strange way with some modern remakes, it lacks any real bite. Those unfamiliar with the original will probably appreciate everything here a bit more, but others will be disappointed as everything winds toward a finale that seems to signpost the fact that it's not wanting to be quite as dark or twisted as that film. Because mainstream movies aren't allowed to be as dark or twisted as they used to be.

Powell carries the film well though. He might not have won over everyone, but I've accepted him as a very appealing film star for a few years now. Various family members are played by Raff Law, Bill Camp, Zach Woods, Topher Grace, Ed Harris, and others, with both Woods and Grace being highlights. Two important women are played by Margaret Qualley and Jessica Henwick, and they both get to make much more of an impact than any of the pathetic male characters sprinkled throughout the supporting cast.

It's relatively sharp and relatively smart, for the most part, but this is a film that should have also been a whole load of fun. I had some fun with it, but not as much as I hoped for. It's almost as if Ford kept thinking about the Coen brothers and forgot that he was mining gold from a classic Ealing comedy. Passable entertainment, and moderately amusing, but this is a one-time watch for me, whereas the original film is a 10/10 classic that I could happily watch again and again on any given 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

The Drama (2026)

While there were moments in The Drama that I enjoyed, I am sad to say that it mainly left me cold. Not only that, I didn't think either Zendaya or Robert Pattinson were on top form. 

Written and directed by Kristoffer Borgli, who gave us the wonderful Dream Scenario, this is a film about a few different things. Emma (Zendaya) and Charlie (Pattinson) are due to get married. Things are seriously derailed, however, when they're encouraged by Rachel (Alana Haim) and Mike (Mamoudou Athie) to confess the worst thing that they've ever done. Everyone has made mistakes in their past, but it seems as if some mistakes are easier to forgive than others. Something is revealed that changes everyone present, and it may even lead to the whole wedding being called off.

There's something here that could have worked well, especially when looking at how people can react when learning something new about a loved one, but it's all overshadowed by the fact that the main revelation feels like something Borgli used purely because of the shock value. The best moments in the film juxtapose imagination with the reality of wedding preparation, and there are some laughs created by the editing and dialogue, but there could, and probably should, have been much more done with such weighty subject matter. Or maybe things should have revolved around something else entirely.

Pattinson is occasionally amusing when looking so dazed for most of the runtime, so at least he gets to benefit from the material in that way, but he doesn't feel believable in so many other ways. Zendaya never really feels believable at all, especially when you consider just how literally anyone would accept the challenge of "tell the worst thing you ever did" without considering the consequences. Haim gets the best moments, but her performance is undermined by her character trying to maintain the moral high ground after confessing her own awfulness (which I understand, that's one of the points being made, but it still doesn't help her), and Athie is good, but a bit underused. Hailey Gates makes a strong impression in her small role, Sydney Lemmon does well portraying a potential wedding DJ, Jeremy Levick is very funny as another potential wedding DJ, and Zoë Winters provides perhaps the best moments in the whole film as a wedding photographer trying to work with two people who are far from enthusiastically smiling subjects.

I really wanted to like this, considering how much I have enjoyed the leads in other features, and how much I liked the previous film from Borgli, but it just couldn't find the right path through some tricky terrain. Again, as I have said about one or two other movies in recent years, nothing is off limits when it comes to good and thought-provoking art, but you need to shoulder some extra responsibility when it comes to certain topics, whether you're trying to be serious or mine some very dark comedy from things.

Everything is decidedly okay, superficially anyway, but this needed to be much better than okay. Fans of confrontational work always deserve much better than okay.

5/10

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

Prime Time: Good Fortune (2025)

Written by, directed by, and starring Aziz Ansari, Good Fortune is a film that wants to explore the adage about money not being able to buy happiness. As you may already be aware, many people would rather "struggle" with a huge bank balance to support them than struggle through soul-sapping days of relative poverty and repetitive drudgery.

Ansari plays Arj, a young man keeping himself busy with a number of jobs. He's struggling to make ends meet, but that could all change when he lands a job with the rich and friendly Jeff (Seth Rogen). Things don't quite go to plan though, but an angel (Gabriel, played by Keanu Reevs) decides to try helping Arj by showing him how unsatisfied he would be if he had Jeff's life. Unfortunately, Arj realises that he would absolutely love to be Jeff. He doesn't want to go back to his old life, which leaves both Jeff and a now-Earthbound Gabriel stuck.

Good Fortune works best when it is giving time to the cute ideas that set up the plot beats. Gabriel is an angel who usually keeps an eye on people who are texting while driving. A hand on their shoulder at just the right time can help avoid some unpleasant accidents. The "bodyswap" sequence provides some fun. And having Keke Palmer in a supporting role is always an easy way to gain some more goodwill.

Where it doesn't quite work is in the scenes that try to highlight just how horrible and worker-unfriendly the "gig economy" is, and how everyday life can become a much more arduous experience for people who keep having to think about where they will find the money for rent, travel, etc. I couldn't help thinking that Ansari initially wanted to make more of a comment about the modern job market and gross inequality, but he seems to have then been understandably conflicted between making some important points and delivering the expected comedy. 

Ansari doesn't stretch himself too much in his main role. It feels very much like the kind of character we've seen him play in full-on hustle mode before, albeit with less at stake. Rogen is also doing familiar schtick, just an appropriately toned down version, Reeves is perfect to play a kind angel who makes a big mistake he may not be able to fix, Palmer is as delightful and welcome onscreen as she usually is, and Sandra Oh is entertaining in her small role.

Enjoyable, if unspectacular, this is certainly another success when it comes to showing Ansari being as capable behind the camera as he is in front of it. I'm not sure it's destined to be remembered a year or two from now, and the third act feels like a bit of a wasted opportunity, but I am glad that I finally got around to watching it. Maybe it's time for Ansari to move out of his comfort zone though, which would mean delivering a feature that was either a full-on comedy or a very serious drama highlighting the frequent inequalities and injustices that are everyday realities for so many people.

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

The Devil Wears Prada 2 (2026)

I wasn't a huge fan of The Devil Wears Prada. It was fine. It absolutely worked for the people it was aimed at. I just never liked the way it tried to mix the aspirational with a lot of elements that should never be acceptable in any tale of the "follow your dreams" variety. And that is what it was, despite the fact that some of the main characters had very different dreams.

Here we are though, twenty years later, and The Devil Wears Prada 2 has already had the kind of hugely successful opening weekend that makes any review, especially one that has been delayed by about a week, absolutely redundant. 

It's good to see that pretty much everyone is back, both behind and in front of the camera. Writer Aline Brosh McKenna, who adapted Lauren Weisberger's novel for the first film, knows how to deal with these characters. Director David Frankel knows how to film everything, whether it's the dialogue or the moments that showcase the fashion. And Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Stanley Tucci, and Emily Blunt all feel exactly right for where their characters would be in life at about this time. 

The plot is quite simple. Runway, the magazine that is very much an in-movie version of Vogue, is in trouble. A scandal has erupted, but it's only a scandal that hangs around long enough to get the main characters back together. Miranda (Streep) remains in charge, but other people believe that the magazine, now struggling with a lower budget and more focus on online content and catching the eyes of scrollers, needs someone who can refresh the brand. Andy (Hathaway) is a journalist looking for a job, and is equal parts shocked and intrigued when she's offered a chance to return to Runway. Nigel (Tucci) remains a calm and brilliant presence. As for Emily (Blunt) . . . she seems to have moved somewhere far less toxic.

I can't think of a way that this could have worked better for what it wants to be, a legacy sequel tapping into nostalgia while allowing the main characters to be pulled into some extra problems created by tech and the modern world, but I still can't say that I really enjoyed it. The fact is that this will work brilliantly for those who loved the first movie. It's quite faultless when it comes to pleasing fans. It just doesn't change anything to make things any more enjoyable for those who weren't won over by this mixture of vibrancy and venom the first time around.

The leads are all fantastic, slipping back into their roles with ease. As for the newcomers, standouts include Kenneth Branagh (playing the husband of Miranda), Tracie Thoms (a supportive friend), a hilarious Justin Theroux (the kind of rich man who seriously over-estimates his own intelligence at almost every opportunity), B. J. Novak (typical "new guard" type of businessman), and a sadly-underused Lucy Liu. Patrick Brammall is a bit disappointingly bland for a potential love interest, but Simone Ashley, Caleb Hearon, and Helen J. Shen are all very enjoyable as other individuals trying to survive in the Runway workplace jungle.

If you loved The Devil Wears Prada then you'll love this. As for me, sitting in the cinema in my supermarket jeans and movie-reference-covered-t-shirt, I was never going to be the target demographic for this. 

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

Mubi Monday: City Hall (2020)

There are many differences between the United States of America and the United Kingdom, particularly when it comes to the agendas that can sway major political decisions. There are also many similarities though, particularly when it comes to city councils, and the many small decisions made at that level to try to improve the lives of many citizens.

Having had my eye on this Frederick Wiseman documentary for some time, despite the hefty 282-minute runtime (about 4 1/2 hours), I wasn't sure exactly when I would make room in my viewing schedule for it. Then we had a whole lot of local elections throughout much of the UK last week, with the big picture at the end of it proving to be a particularly depressing one. People turned out to show their great displeasure at the government, and most of that is down to a hugely unpopular current Prime Minister, but many voters seemed to believe that their vote would create a national change that would create all-new policies and approaches to what they have been told are the main reasons for their unhappiness and relative poverty. City Hall is an opportunity to remember what local politics is really about, and shows people who seem to really have the interests of others in mind, as opposed to people who seem to be self-serving and profiteering manipulators.

There's not much to say about how things play out. Some viewers will still find this far too long, and they won't be convinced that it is worth their time, but it's a fascinating look at different aspects of local government. There are scenes that show co-operation with the local police, scenes that show traffic management, and a variety of meetings. One such meeting is considering a proporal to increase the enrolment numbers for a local school, although that will also lead to the school requiring more space. This is a big headache, but also (as almost everyone speaking on it notes) a good problem to have. It all stems from the school doing such a good job. Another meeting has some business owners meeting with local residents who are voicing their concerns and opinions about the nature of the new business premises being proposed. This highlights the importance of open and informed dialogue, while some present also try to make a case for further meetings and dialogue with local citizens who have been unable, for a number of reasons, to attend the meeting. There's also a sequence that shows someone trying to help a man who may have a rodent problem, but what starts off as a simple evaluation of a pest control situation soon reveals much more about the life and health issues of the man trying to keep his home as a habitable space for himself.

Whatever you think about recent events, and wherever you believe yourself to be aligned, politically, City Hall is a heartening look at what happens when people keep remembering that they are elected to serve the people who voted them into their roles. The real value of the political process comes long after the campaigning and sloganeering. It's the work that is done by people working together for the common good. Many seem to have forgotten that lately, whether they're voters or actual politicians. City Hall is a timely reminder. I cannot think of a better time to watch it. 

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: Burnt (2015)

Do you remember when Chef was released back in 2014? It was a delightful little film about someone rediscovering their passion for the thing they do best, and it seemed to have been made by someone rediscovering their passion for the thing they do best. There were moments of fiery anger, and moments of frustration, but it delighted many viewers because it was, at heart, a very sweet and optimistic tale about reconnecting with loved ones, and the world at large, via a passion for food.

Burnt came out a year later. Whatever the intention, and I may be a bit kinder towards it now that I know Steven Knight is one of two people who helped to co-write the screenplay, it feels like a cynical and soulless attempt to rework Chef. If that film was the comforting plate of Cubanos, this is a more expensive plate throwing various ingredients together in a way that simply doesn't make you salivate. There's probably some infused foam on the side.

Bradley Cooper plays Adam Jones, a chef who once had the world at his feet. He disappeared though, after burning many bridges with his addiction issues and his bad behaviour. Now he's back. That doesn't mean that everyone will forgive him, and he still has some debts to pay, but he wants to put a team together good enough to help him get a third Michelin star. Looked at favourably, this is a film about someone figuring out how his behaviour affects others, and how everyone needs to help one another on a journey for perfection. But it's really just about a chef who spectacularly ruined his reputation and career now believing that he deserves to be crowned as one of the very best of the best.

Knight and Michael Kalesniko get a lot of the kitchen chatter right, and they mix in enough mildly interesting characters to help the 101-minute runtime pass by quickly enough. They falter when it comes to the passion though. One or two moments try to remind us of why great chefs love to cook, but they don't work. It's much more believable to simply view Cooper's character as a bloody-minded and hyper-focused narcissist who is ready to throw a tantrum any time things don't go perfectly for him.

It's notable, although perhaps entirely coincidental, that this is the last feature film directed by John Wells, who has spent most of the last decade helming episodes of some fantastic TV shows (including the highly-praised The Pitt). Maybe he also wanted some time enjoying meals made with love instead of meals made to boost someone's ego. Again, it may just be entirely coincidental.

Cooper is fine in the role of Jones, I guess, but is unable to soften him enough to make him a central character that you really care about. Things will either go well or not. Either way, it never feels as if he is the one with the most to lose. Sienna Miller plays a very capable chef, Helene, who suffers throughout the movie by becoming more and more like our lead. Other chefs are played by Omar Sy (who is pretty great), Sam Keeley (who doesn't get enough to do), and Matthew Rhys (playing a discontented rival). Daniel Brühl is good in the role of Tony, the man who ends up bank-rolling the latest restaurant and team of staff, but he allows himself to be far too easily used by someone he should have said good riddance to a long time ago. Uma Thurman is sorely underused, as is Emma Thompson, Alicia Vikander, and Lily James, and, perhaps worst of all, none of the featured dishes ever look like stars in their own right. 

The famous saying goes that "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen", but Burnt proves that you may want to stay out of that area if you also can't stand anything lukewarm and lacking any real flavour. The supporting cast all try hard enough to save this from being a complete waste of your time, but they can't overcome the problem of such an uninteresting core premise and central character. Chef made me hungry for both the food and the passion on display throughout. Burnt made me want to avoid over-priced and over-complicated menus made by narcissistic technicians who often forget simple pleasures in their pursuit of what they perceive to be greatness. 

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

Shudder Saturday: Heresy (2024)

With a runtime of approximately one hour, Heresy (aka Witte Wieven, which translates to "white women") is a great example of a film made by people who know what they want to say, then proceed to do so without overstuffing the thing with a number of unnecessary tangents and diversions. It may have been part of a series of Dutch TV movies, but it doesn't feel restricted or undermined by the standard limitations of the medium. (such as budget, permissible content, etc.)

Anneke Sluiters is Frieda, a woman unable to conceive a child. It must be all her fault, of course, and nothing to do with her husband, Hikko (Len Leo Vincent). Which leads to Frieda inevitably diving off into the woods and meeting some demon women who may help her in her battle against a patriarchy that wants to condemn her for being apparently infertile.

Written by Marc S. Nollkaemper and directed by Didier Konings, two individuals who don't exactly have the most experience in their respective roles (although Konings has worked on some huge movies in the fields of art and/or special effects), Heresy keeps things simple, doesn't shy away from showing the main supernatural elements, and aims for a satisfying and entertaining third act, as opposed to something ambiguous and maybe more focused on atmosphere. Almost every film can be read in multiple ways, it's all only ever a complete piece when taken in and processed by each individual viewer, but Heresy feels like a tale happy to be accepted as literally as possible. The standard horror isn't anything to be questioned here, which leaves viewers free to keep questioning the violence and repression on display, connecting it to common abuse and attitudes still sadly prevalent today.

Sluiters is very good in the main role, and it's good to see her enjoying some moments in the finale after so many scenes of pain and upset. Vincent is also good, especially as his character clearly views himself as someone trying to be helpful and kind, when he's very much the opposite of that. Some people will be uncomfortable at how familiar the main elements seem, despite the time period, and that's absolutely the point.

Still, despite the relatively brief runtime, the film still feels slightly ill-suited to one hour. I believe it could have benefited from being either expanded or further trimmed, giving audiences the chance for an even more atmospheric and thought-provoking journey on the one hand, or a fast and frenetic "thrill-ride" on the other. This is good enough as it is, but may have been even better in a different format.

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

Roofman (2025)

This may not be the kind of film you'd expect from director Derek Cianfrance, but, to be fair, it's also not the kind of film you expect from pretty much anyone nowadays. It's a mix of drama and comedy that allows the main cast members to be as charming as possible, it's fairly low-to-mid-range when it comes to budget (for modern budgets anyway), and it's not using an established IP or an abundance of explosions and CGI to win over those with short attention spans.

Based on a true story, the film takes viewers on a journey with Jeffrey Manchester (Channing Tatum). Jeffrey has a particular way of seeing the world. It doesn’t help him with job prospects, but it does help him when he decides to try his hand at robbery. Entering through the roof, trying not to hit anyone, Jeffrey soon has a reputation as “roofman”. The police soon come calling though, which leads to Jeffrey settling into a hiding space that is in the middle of a large toy store. And that's how he gets to know Leigh Wainscott (Kirsten Dunst).

A tale that would be impossible to believe if it wasn’t actually true, this is a very pleasant way to spend a couple of hours. You get to appreciate some of the resourcefulness of the main character, you get enough supporting characters to be equally interested in, and there’s a real bittersweet nature to hoping that the truth will out during the final act while also hoping that people are spared some broken hearts. The screenplay, co-written by Cianfrance and Kirt Gunn, certainly keeps the focus on Tatum's character, but it makes plenty of time and space for Dunst, as well as characters played by LaKeith Stanfield (a man who can help create false identities for people who can afford them), Peter Dinklage (the manager of the toy store), Ben Mendelsohn (a friendly pastor), and Lily Collias and Kennedy Moyer (the teen daughters of Leigh). 

Whatever you think of the real-life events adapted into film form here, none of this would work if it didn't have the right people being used in the right ways. Tatum gives one of his best performances in some time, making the most of his charm and his willingness to sometimes look foolish. Dunst is a sweet and lovely presence who manages to enjoy a strong connection with a new man in her life without seeming like a blinkered idiot. Collias and Moyer give very naturalistic performances, whereas Dinklage enjoys going in the other direction, and each artistic choice fits nicely with the respective roles. Stanfield is always good, Mendelsohn feels kind and caring without seeming too false, and the only downside of their inclusion is that they don't get even more screentime.

It's not a film that will have many people shouting about it from the rooftops, no pun intended, but Roofman is a low-key feature full of low-key delightful moments. The many scenes that could have felt too cutesy or saccharin are always balanced out by the constant reminders of sour ingredients that are lying in wait to infuse the third act. I would easily recommend this to people who want something entertaining that isn't tied to an extended cinematic universe, isn't making use of some currently popular genre trends, and feels somewhat original, especially when compared to so many other mainstream titles released in the past few years. 

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

They Will Kill You (2026)

As anyone who has been keeping track of my movie viewings will know, this is the reason I recently revisited Why Don't You Just Die! I had enjoyed the trailer for this movie, and wanted to see how director Kirill Sokolov would do with macabre fare that seemed to be aimed at a more mainstream audience (aka his English-language debut). The verdict? He doesn't do a bad job. I wouldn't call They Will Kill You great, but it certainly has one or two moments of greatness in it.

It's a familiar tale, at least on the surface. A group of rich and powerful people need to kill someone in order to retain their status. They're all inhabitants of one large building, and Asia Reaves (Zazie Beetz) is the new housekeeper who ends up being their new target. Asia has a hidden agenda though, and she's also very good at staying alive while dealing savagely with anyone silly enough to attack her.

Co-written by Sokolov and Alex Litvak, this may have underperformed at the box office, perhaps due to how close it was released to what seemed a very similar film (Ready Or Not 2: Here I Come), but I hope people will give it their time at home. There are a couple of twists and turns that make it much more fun than expected, and the violence on display is often as entertaining and inventive as it is savage and bloody.

Beetz is a very good lead, easy to root for and easy to believe as someone capable and deadly. It helps that the ensemble cast also includes Patricia Arquette (dubious accent choice and all), Paterson Joseph, Heather Graham, Tom Felton, Angus Sampson, and the voice of James Remar. There are many others too, including Myha'la, playing a character who provides the main motivation for the leading lady. Not everyone is at the same standard when it comes to the performances being delivered, but those who add to the fun far outweigh the few who don't.

I admit to not being won over by this from the very beginning. It seemed like it was a half-baked idea that would barely hold my interest for half an hour, let alone a full 94 minutes. The first couple of twists and turns were executed well enough to perk me up though, and then I was delighted by some superb gore gags and wonderfully-choreographed fight scenes until the curtain was pulled back for a final act that keeps delivering more of the same, but also adds even more insanity to the mix.

Sokolov proves himself as someone to absolutely keep an eye on. He has a great sense of the cinematic, is able to create stylish mayhem on a relatively low budget, and accompanies his visuals with some appropriately driving soundtrack choices. I may have been keen to see this, but I'm just as keen to see whatever he ends up doing next. And I wouldn't be disappointed if it was some contrived sequel to this. Maybe titled They Will Still Kill You. 

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

Prime Time: The Smashing Machine (2025)

It's all well and good having a performance from Dwayne Johnson that surpasses anything else he has done on film to date, but there should still be a good enough film around that performance. The Smashing Machine isn't very good. It's not actually bad, but it certainly isn't as good as it should be, considering the footnote that basically reminds viewers of the impact that people like Mark Kerr (the character played by Johnson) made on the sporting landscape. 

Essentially telling the story that many think was told well enough already in the documentary of the same name, this shows Kerr struggling to deal with the inevitable aches and pains that come from a career made in the world of wrestling and other styles of fighting. Those aches and pains lead to increased reliance on pain medications, which cause Kerr some big problems. He also has some problems in his relationship with Dawn Staples (Emily Blunt), but at least has the constant support of Mark Coleman (Ryan Bader), a man who has been his trainer, could occasionally be an opponent, and is always a good friend. 

Written and directed by Benny Safdie, this is another recent biopic that seems content to deliver nothing more than superficial storytelling moments, instead of actual insight and substance. It's about a nice guy who makes a living in a way that doesn't look very nice, and there's also some relationship drama to go along with that, but that's really all. Which doesn't feel like nearly enough to justify the 123-minute runtime.

I don't want to take anything away from Johnson though. His performance here is great. It may not be as big a stretch for him as it would be for a non-wrestler, but he keeps trying his best to act and move exactly like Kerr. Blunt is given the less rewarding role, but she manages to make it work. Just. Bader is very good, helped by the fact that his own storyline develops nicely on the way to the final scenes, and there's a solid turn from Oleksandr Usyk that allows him to play a very worthy fighting opponent without turning him into a pantomime villain.

There's certainly a feeling throughout this that Benny Safdie clearly thought the story of Mark Kerr was one that needed shared with others via a feature film. The end result, however, falls down. Did I like Kerr by the end of this? I did, but not really any more than I liked him at the beginning. It didn't feel as if I'd been on a journey, none of the rare big moments here felt as if they had the weight they deserved, and it was only when some text came up at the very end of the film that I really understood the extra motivation for the telling of the tale. That underlines how disappointing and ineffective a lot of the film was, although others already armed with some knowledge of the people involved may react to it a bit more positively. 

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

Michael (2026)

There have been few celebrities to cause the kind of reactions that Michael Jackson managed to cause throughout various stages of his career. Then there's the scandal that overshadowed the last decade or so of his life. It's a very odd and complicated situation (even those who believe him entirely innocent would have to admit that nobody would be asking for more evidence if it was Old Jimmy from round the corner building a park in his garden and inviting kids over for sleepovers). I always try to separate the art from the artist, I know that some seem unable to do that (for specific examples anyway), and Michael Jackson was quite a big part of my youth. I made multiple trips to the video rental store to rent the tape that had the full Thriller video, as well as The Making Of Thriller. I, like so many others, have tried to moonwalk. And, also like many others, I have failed spectacularly. I was about twelve or thirteen when Bad was released, and I spent some of my birthday money on a special set that had the album on cassette, and a branded pencil and notepaper.

Michael Jackson ruled the world for a number of years. I'm still not sure his fame wasn't the absolute pinnacle of that kind of thing for a solo artist. Maybe I was just more aware of it because of my own fan status. He was a genius, but he also had a best friend chimpanzee. He worked with top-tier directors to deliver astonishing music videos. But he also gave us Moonwalker. He was a big kid, but he should have been able to at least accept how his lifestyle and choices would look to a constantly watching public.

This movie gives a glimpse at the star that was Michael Jackson, but it's no more than the very smallest and superficial look at his life. Legal rulings meant that the film had to be reworked, at no small expense, and writer John Logan seems to think that viewers will be happy with a number of song-creating scenes that wouldn't feel out of place in Weird: The Al Yankovic Story. I don't envy Logan his position, but he must have known what he was getting into when he took the job.

Jaafar Jackson takes on the main role (with Juliano Valdi playing the younger Michael in the earlier scenes), and he does what is asked of him. It's not a great acting performance, but it's a very good impression of Michael Jackson. It's a tribute act, which you could also say about the whole film. Colman Domingo is very good as the tyrannical Joseph Jackson, Nia Long is enjoyable as Michael's mother, Katherine, and the others worth mentioning as KeiLynn Durrel Jones (playing the main security guard assigned to Michael), Miles Teller (a strong-willed agent), and Mike Myers (playing a powerful exec who proves pivotal in getting MTV to change their policy on how much airtime was allotted to black music artists).

There's not much more to say. I'm surprised that Antoine Fuqua decided to direct this. I'm surprised that it runs for 127 minutes and feels like it gives you nothing of actual interest. Michael didn't have a great childhood, as the family were trained and exploited to make as much money as possible, but that's not a revelation. There's nothing here showing Michael leaning into his own imagination, perhaps because it was belatedly decided to end things just as Bad became a huge success. So we don't get any idea about the creation of Moonwalker. What's worse is that we don't get any look at the purchase of the property and development work that would become Neverland (that's a whole movie in itself, surely). Sadly, we also have to miss out on learning anything about the development of We Are The World, the hit charity song that Jackson wrote with Lionel Richie in response to the British Band Aid hit. There's also no mention of any women in his life. Okay, his marriages happened later, but I assume that neither Tatum O'Neal nor Brooke Shields wanted to be part of the story. Despite being part of the story. But, hey, at least there's screentime for "Bubbles". 

If you LOVE Michael Jackson and want to spend a couple of hours remembering some of his hits then this might be for you. I don't understand how even fans will be satisfied though, unless they specifically wanted something that was split evenly between depicting his victimhood and saintliness. With some time devoted to reminding us all about that Pepsi incident, that I admit I didn't realise was as serious and damaging as it seems to have been.

Maybe the life of Michael Jackson is best explored through books and documentaries, almost all of them with their own bias. Maybe it takes a lot more effort to weigh up his entire life, to consider everything he did for fans over the years and everything that then started to overshadow his public persona. I recommend a lot of other sources for those wanting to learn more. All you will learn here is how spineless and lacking vision the film-makers are. Although I'm sure they're figuring out how to prep a sequel already.

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 

Mubi Monday: Sound Of Falling (2025)

Maybe I'm being a bit dense, but I watched Sound Of Falling while wondering what the title actually meant. Just for a while. Then I started to consider that it might mean multiple things. There's a literal moment that it refers to, someone landing on the ground floor of a barn, but it could also refer to falling through time, as the film takes viewers between the lives of some girls and women who are often separated from one another by a timespan of three or four decades. There are "idols" that have fallen from their elevated position, some individuals falling for the charms of others, and family units falling apart.

Directed by Mascha Schilinski, who also co-wrote the film with Louise Peter, this is a look at different families living in the same farmhouse throughout the past century. The family living there in the 1910s have a great deal of death and hardship overshadowing their daily lives. The family living there in the 1940s live in the shadow of events from the past thirty years. In the 1980s, young Angelika (Lena Urzendowsky) feels like a nexus between the past and the future. Last, but not least, is Lenka (Laeni Geiseler), a young girl who befriends, and starts trying to emulate, Kaya (Ninel Geiger).

While very stylistically formal, and absolutely deliberate in every point being made, Sound Of Falling manages, thanks to the shifting between time periods and the shot choices, to feel like a collaborative visual poem for many scenes, as opposed to a standard narrative feature. The German title apparently translates to "Looking Into The Sun", which I think is a lesser title, but certainly ties in with the idea of forcibly looking at something that people often ignore, despite feeling it as a constant presence in life. There's a lot going on here, yet Schilinski and Peter make it all more digestible and thought-provoking by guiding us viewers gracefully in between the assembled characters and onscreen years as if we were ghosts trying to check in on family members and loved ones. It's quite a unique experience, initially disorientating, but gradually more manageable as one or two characters become rocks to cling to while the waves of time keep trying to pull us down into dark undercurrents and eddies.

While nobody gives a poor performance, Urzendowsky is the absolute highlight of the film. A cheeky and warm presence looking horribly likely to be damaged by others who cannot give her the space for her journey through typical teen adventures, she shines brightest and subsequently has the darkest shadows around her. Claudia Geisler-Bading is also fantastic in this strand, playing her mother, and both Konstantin Lindhorst and Florian Geißelmann play, respectively, a man and a boy who look poised to pin down the butterfly in their midst. Geiseler and Geiger are also very good, and Luise Heyer does very well in the role of Christa, the mother of Geiseler's character. There are a number of other important individuals (such as Fritz, played by two different actors to show him at two different ages, young and inquisitive Erika, a maid named Trudi, and a sombre and cold mother named Emma), all playing their part in this chrono-tapestry, but the film peaks with the scenes showing the life of Angelika and her mother.

Unaware of how the subject matter would be presented, and knowing that the runtime was a hefty 155 minutes, I admit to being a bit daunted as I went into this one. I'm glad I decided to press play. Not only was it a great surprise, it's absolutely in contention to be one of the best films of 2025. I recommend it to all other film fans, and I'm surprised that I hadn't heard much more about it before now. It's hard to imagine Schilinski equalling or bettering this with her next feature, but I'll absolutely be ready to give her my time and attention nonetheless.

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: Roommates (2026)

I have said it many times before, but there's nothing necessarily wrong with a movie not being quite what you expect it to be. In fact, a number of movies have been greatly appreciated by many because of their defiance of expectations, for want of a better phrase. Roommates isn't the film I expected it to be, fair enough, but it's also not good when it is being the film it actually is. Which left me quite disappointed.

Things start with a fight between dorm roommates Luna (Storm Reid) and Auguste (Ivy Wolk). The fight is so bad that Dr. Robyn Schilling (Sarah Sherman) intervenes, deciding to offer them a valuable lesson in the form of a tale about Devon Weisz (Sadie Sandler) and Celeste Durand (Chloe East). Devon hopes that college life will be a big improvement on her school years, and that looks possible when she meets, and becomes instant firm friends with, Celeste. It's not long until a few warning flags appear, however, and the expected smooth cruise through college turns into a very bumpy journey indeed.

Written by Jimmy Fowlie and Ceara O'Sullivan, two people who have some shared work on roughly 60 episodes of SNL, this is a film that works better when the writers remember to have some funny dialogue in between the more dramatic moments. It also works better when there's some ambiguity. Unfortunately, both of those elements are missing when the film needs it most, instead relying on Sandler and East to carry viewers through the entire movie. They're not up to that task.

I'm not familiar with anything else from director Chandler Levack, but this certainly hasn't convinced me to rectify that situation in any great hurry. She seems to have been picked by Adam Sandler to help advance the separate career of a daughter who has spent the majority of the past two decades picking up credits for smaller roles in her father's films. That's certainly a job, I guess, but it's not one that everyone would be happy with.

The big stumbling block here IS Sandler. She delivers an eye-rolling bit of "teen angst" that would be fine in a smaller supporting role, but doesn't work well for a lead character. She's not a terrible performer. She's just not good enough for a role that needs someone much better in it to make up for the failings elsewhere in the film. East does a bit better, but she suffers more at the hands of the writers, especially once the film reaches the halfway point. Natasha Lyonne and Nick Kroll are very welcome as a pair of decent parents, Carol Kane is a delight as the grandmother, Gigi, and there are entertaining cameos from Janeane Garofalo and Megan Thee Stallion. Aidan Langford is pretty good as Devon's supportive brother, and Billy Bryk and Martin Herlihy do quite well playing two very different types of loser. As for Sherman, Reid, and Wolk, they're weak enough to make their few scenes together even worse than anything in the main narrative being presented.

A drama presented in the form of a comedy, but also trying to play everything in the same light and inconsequential way as many other Happy Madison films, Roommates could have been a film of simple pleasures. Some may admire it for trying to do something else. I cannot. It doesn't really seem to know exactly what it wants to do, and subsequently fails to do anything worthwhile.

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: Dolly (2025)

I didn't expect much from Dolly. I was hoping for something grimy and entertaining, and maybe interspersed with some impressively brutal violence. What I got, unfortunately, was absolute trash. There's nothing here for most horror fans to enjoy, one good gore gag aside, and at least one particular element is so implausible and laughably mishandled that I wondered at one point if I would have enjoyed the whole thing more if I viewed it as a comedy. 

Macy (Fabianne Therese) and Chase (Seann William Scott) are in an isolated woodland area when they encounter the titular character of Dolly. Dolly wears a porcelain mask, likes to abuse and kill people, and also wants someone she can treat like a baby. Macy is the latest person she wants to coddle. That's all you need to know.

Directed by Rod Blackhurst, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Brandon Weavil, Dolly seems to be an expansion on their 2022 short, Babygirl. Although I haven't seen that yet, I'd be surprised if I didn't prefer it to this tiresome attempt to overstretch something that doesn't really have enough meat on the bones to make it worthy of a feature runtime. This may only clock in at 83 minutes, but every minute of it is a painful experience, and not in a good way.

Therese doesn't get to do anything good with her character, being put into the role of the struggling victim far too early, Scott struggles to overcome the inherent silliness of what happens to his character throughout the film, and all Max the Impaler has to do, in the role of Dolly, is ensure the mask stays on and they're grimly determined to maintain a situation that keeps them happy, even while anyone else around them is miserable. Ethan Suplee tries to do a bit more with what he's given, but he's unable to make viewers forget that his character has been portrayed much better in a number of other films in this vein.

I cannot stress enough how worthless this film is, and I'd be very surprised to hear from anyone outwith the cast and crew who decided to champion it. There's no originality, scenes seemingly designed for pure shock value end up being as hilariously mishandled as so many other elements, and it's almost as if Blackhurst and Weavil approached the material with a complete feeling of disdain for those who would be most likely to check it out.

I'll give it a couple of points for the fact that it was made, and made with a general level of technical competence, but that's it. Almost every decision, from the development of the main killer to the pointless structuring that presents the tale in a number of different chapters, is wrong. You can make the right decision by choosing not to watch it.

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