Dogma (1999)

Writer-director Kevin Smith has a filmography that can be rated and ranked in a number of different ways. You can pick his best film, which will always be Red State for me. You can pick his funniest film, which is where I may end up going for the wonderful silliness of Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back. Or you can pick his most fully-formed and cinematic film. That is where Dogma comes in. Very cleverly having fun with some aspects of organised religion without necessarily making fun of those who have faith, Dogma is smart, funny, and has a couple of sequences that show Smith able to deliver more than just great dialogue.

Linda Fiorentino plays Bethany, a woman who is very surprised when she is visited in the night by Metatron (Alan Rickman) AKA the voice of god. Metatron tells Bethany that she must go on a quest, one to stop two angels (Loki and Bartleby, played by Matt Damon and Ben Affleck) being allowed to reclaim their places in heaven. If Loki and Bartleny manage such a thing, only made possible by a Cardinal (George Carlin) who has stupidly offered absolution to everyone entering his church, then it will prove God to be fallible. And if God is proven to be fallible then, well, that will destroy everything. Literally. Bethany finds herself accompanied on her quest by two unlikely "prophets" (Jay and Silent Bob, played, as ever, by Jason Mewes and Smith), an apostle named Rufus (Chris Rock), and the delightful Serendipity (Salma Hayek).

At 130 minutes, this is also the longest narrative feature from Smith, but it doesn't feel it. Taking time to get all of the pieces in place during a number of opening scenes that don't start to fully intertwine into a full main throughline until some time later, Smith remembers to keep the comedy dotted throughout until he can then relax and have the most amount of fun when everyone has been introduced and set on their respective journeys. Things step up a notch whenever Rickman, Damon, or Affleck appear onscreen, but it's also fun to watch the whole thing derail momentarily when the characters of Jay & Silent Bob barge their way into the story.

While the dialogue is still clearly the area in which Smith is most comfortable, he surrounds it in this film with a number of great ideas and a real sense of everything building towards a grand and satisfying ending. The execution is imperfect, arguably hampered by what I am sure were limitations that were placed on budget and resources for a film that many would start to protest even before it was released, but Smith tries hard to deliver some set-pieces that keep viewers aware of much more happening just outwith the edges of every frame. 

Fiorentino may not be the best lead, but she does well enough as someone both confused and hesitant to keep doing what she's being told must be done. It's the rest of the supporting cast who shine though, particularly the stars who you either wouldn't normally think of as being part of a Kevin Smith film (Rickman, Carlin, Hayek, and Rock) or stars who are very much well-suited to delivering his writing (Damon, Affleck, a delightfully devilish Jason Lee). Almost everyone feels as if they're having a LOT of fun, and that fun emanates from the screen. Elsewhere, film fans will enjoy seeing small roles for Bud Cort, Brian O'Halloran, Janeane Garofalo, Jeff Anderson, and Alanis Morissette. 

It seems fitting that Smith wrote and directed a movie that could at times feel like his most mature and smartest work, and at other times had some of the main characters battling against a demon made of poo. Dogma is very often crude, in both the dialogue and the film-making tricks used to get Smith's vision onscreen, but it holds up well because the intention is always clear. Faith is good, the wide spectrum of humanity is often also good, and the worst thing to happen to religion stems from the humans who decided to twist and wield it to suit their own agenda. 

I still love many of Smith's rougher comedies. I still love Red State. This remains his greatest cinematic achievement though. Amen. 

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

Prime Time: Relay (2025)

A slightly different look at the world of whistleblowing, and a slightly different way to create an enjoyably tense and entertaining action thriller, Relay is the first produced screenplay from writer Justin Piasecki, and it bodes well for what he may give us in the future.

Riz Ahmed plays Ash, a young man who helps whistleblowers, but not necessarily in the way that you might expect. He helps them when they want to put a stop to any intimidation tactics and threats to their lives, helping to negotiate a big payday that will leave his main client safe and a bit better off while the big business goes back to whatever status quo it previously enjoyed. The latest client sent to Ash is Sarah (Lily James), and there are some people who are increasingly desperate to cut off her "escape" options.

Directed by David Mackenzie, someone who has built up an interestingly eclectic filmography throughout the first quarter of this century, Relay is fascinating and intelligent stuff. The title refers to the phone messaging service used by Ash to communicate with his clients, trying to ensure that the two never make direct contact, and that their conversations are private and safe from even the most determined snoopers. A lot of the film, certainly in the first half, plays out through those phone conversations, with Ash also hiding his voice by using a telecommunications device normally thosed by people with hearing or speech issues.

Ahmed is great in the main role, believably smart and determined, seeming to come alive when in the thick of more "gameplay" with the dangerous people wanting him to fail. James is very good, and her attempts to develop a rapport with an anonymous caller feel believable, coming from someone who has had to become very solitary in a very short space of time. Sam Worthington is the main villain of the piece, just following orders from his corporate overlords (of course), and he does well, flanked by Willa Fitzgerald and Jared Abrahamson.

You get one or two very good chase sequences, you get a real sense of increasing danger as the net starts to close around our two leads, and you get enough small set-pieces and enjoyable moments to make the 112-minute runtime fly by. There's also an interesting attempt to consider the price being paid for the peace of mind that Ash gives to his clients. Is their personal safety worth more than the safety of so many others who may have been protected by the information that should have been put out into the world? Relay doesn't give a clean and easy answer, but I'm glad it even took the time to raise the question? 

Those after an action thriller would do well to give this a go, as long as you know that it's not aiming to provide you with gunfights and loud explosions. It's still propulsive, it's still got some physical confrontations, but this is a world removed from a Tom Cruise star vehicle or a Jack Reacher yarn. Personally, I thought that just added to the appeal. 

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

You Must Be Joking! (1965)

A British "treasure hunt" movie that makes use of a very entertaining ensemble cast, You Must Be Joking! is a fun time. It's just not really on a par with some other non-British movies that would otherwise match the same description.

The main reason for the treasure hunt here is a test of various military men. Five are selected (played by Michael Callan, Lionel Jeffries, Denholm Elliott, Lee Montague, and Bernard Cribbins), given a list of very British items that they have to collect, and are then asked to start their mission in the middle of a large hedge maze. Once the timer begins, the men have very different approaches to the mission. Some seem a bit more desperate, some are much calmer, and there's one who looks destined to remain stuck in the maze for the duration. Expected hijinks ensue.

Although most well-known for some very non-comedic movies nowadays, director Michael Winner still has an interesting and varied filmography that I would encourage people to check out, especially in the earlier part of his career (before he became known as "Mr. Death Wish", basically). The screenplay, written by Alan Hackney, based on Winner's story idea, may not be the best, but it does what is needed when it comes to stringing together a variety of little set-pieces that allow the cast to shine in their respective roles. And it allows Winner to show off his skill during moments that mix laughs and danger, thanks to some excellent stunt work and controlled vehicular madness that I hope was all executed a lot more safely than it appears onscreen.

Callan is the nominal lead, the cool and relaxed man who can charm and scheme his way around the many obstacles. He's not the most appealing though, especially for British audiences, but he absolutely delivers in a wonderful sequence that has him unexpectedly performing an energetic dance routine in a TV studio. Elliott is wonderfully dry and quintessentially "keep calm and carry on" in his approach, and his nonchalance really works well juxtaposed alongside the others. Jeffries is the most fun though, always ready to stand to attention and delivering his dialogue in a decent approximation of a fine Scottish brogue. Montague feels like he's making up the numbers, but at least he gets to do more than poor Cribbins, who is involved in a great running gag about his failed attempts to extricate himself from the hedge maze. Patricia Viterbo plays a European pop starlet, The Cherokees appear onscreen in lieu of a better-known hit band from the era, and there's fun to be had from the likes of Wilfrid Hyde-White, Terry-Thomas, James Robertson Justice, Leslie Phillips, Irene Handl, Clive Dunn, and Arthur Lowe.

This may not be a forgotten classic, but it's good enough to recommend to fans of lesser-known comedies. The cast alone make it worth your time, but there are also some genuinely inventive and enjoyable escapades, as well as a comforting warmth from the symbols that are earmarked as being quintessentially British. Some of the groovier aspects weren't great, admittedly, but that would only be a big problem if the laughs weren't there. Thankfully, the laughs are there. They were for me anyway. 

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: The Secret Agent (2025)

Knowing the praise and awards recognition it received throughout the past year or so, I went into The Secret Agent with a few expectations. I'm pleased to say that it still managed to surprise and impress me, and there may be quite a bit more to it than you've already heard.

It's 1977, Brazil. Wagner Moura plays a man forced to change his identity and keep himself relatively hidden away. He was once a professor, but has found himself caught up in something that puts him seriously at odds with people who have power, money, and the means to dispose of anyone resisting them. That's really all you need to know about this.

Written and directed by Kleber Mendonça Filho, who always impresses me with his features while never really doing as well in his short films, The Secret Agent is a masterful look at the ingenuity and connections of people doing their absolute best to survive, and fight back against, any dangerous regime that makes use of co-opted military and corrupt police forces to persecute those who find themselves marked as an enemy simply because of their opposing ideas. It has a gorgeous texture throughout that keeps viewers very much grounded in the time and place, and makes great use of Moura in a role that could very convincingly be chosen as his best yet (from his movie roles anyway).

Moura is impossible not to root for, helped by the fact that his character seems intent on trying to do the right thing without endangering too many others around him. He's cautious, but ultimately tries to live a normal life in extraordinary circumstances.  Luciano Chirolli is very believable as one of many bad men who isn't used to things not going his way, Robério Diógenes is the kind of corrupt authority figure who believes he is a friend to many, and others trying to maintain a strong resistance are played by Tânia Maria, Maria Fernanda Cândido, and Hermila Guedes.

The 161-minute runtime may put off some viewers, but it never once felt as if it dragged. This is a film that carefully guides viewers into territory that becomes increasingly dark and dangerous, allowing them to acclimatise to the way life is lived by those onscreen, and then keeps offering small slices of hope even as things become more dangerous.

The structure shows the importance of keeping history known, and how we have to rely on the people who work hard to connect all of the dots and dive deeper into family histories and personal stories that intersect with crucial moments of political strife, to put it midly. It's a look at state-sanctioned violence that inevitably leaves scars across at least one entire generation, but it's equally a look at the light sometimes so hard to make out when it's at the end of such a long tunnel. And it has moments involving a dismembered leg that will have some scratching their heads, but it all makes complete sense if you know about the time period, or if you do a bit of research once the film is over. I did the latter, and am glad that I did.

I might not think to rewatch this often, especially considering the extended runtime, but if I ever do . . . I'll enjoy it just as much, inspecting every sequence for more details and nuances that help to make the whole thing feel absolutely authentic without ever dulling the brilliantly cinematic storytelling on display.

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: Tu Yaa Main (2026)

Have you heard this one before? A man and a woman are spending some time in a pool where they fail to notice that the water level is getting lower and lower. Once stuck at the bottom, with no easy way to get back out, they then end up facing the extra danger of a big crocodile. Yes, this is a remake of The Pool (2018), and I was happy to be aware of that before selecting it as my main Netflix feature choice for this week. I enjoyed The Pool when I saw it, but it felt as if there were a number of extraneous moments that worked against the simplicity of the idea.

Tu Yaa Main, on the other hand, benefits from being an Indian movie release, which means I expect more to be packed in there. I am always happy to admit my failings and blind spots, and would in no way label myself an expert on Indian cinema (despite having seen a few treats from Bollywood, Tollywood, and possibly some other "woods"), but they often certainly pack in a greater mix of elements than movies from elsewhere. You get conflict, you get romance, you get a highlighted song or two, there's maybe some action, and you get some commentary on class and status. Tu Yaa Main has all of those things throughout the 143-minute runtime, and it somehow feels all the better for it.

Adarsh Gourav is Maruti Kadam and Shanaya Kapoor is Avani Shah. Both of them are content creators, one being a rapper and the other being a well-liked influencer. Despite their very different backgrounds, when they finally start collaborating on social media then they start to develop a relationship. Things seem to keep getting in their way though, whether it's the huge gap between their socio-economic states or . . . a hungry crocodile.

Written by Abhisek Arun Bandekar (and Himanshu Sharma and Aanand L Rai), based on the 2018 film, this is an enjoyable and engaging exploration of a relationship that moves back and forth in time to keep teasing out the main croc problem in between the highs and lows of everyday life. Director Bejoy Nambiar keeps everything nice and neat when it comes to the various characters, and the many time jumps are easy to keep track of because, well, most of the depicitons of the present take place in and around the swimming pool. It maybe runs out of steam slightly while the third act plays out, especially when a potential escape plan is considered, but the overall experience is one of solid entertainment.

Both Gourav and Kapoor are eminently watchable, and both have great chemistry with one another. I'm not going to pretend that I kept track of everyone else onscreen, but they're all very good at portraying the mix of friends and family around the two leads, as well as one possible life-saving cop (Shrikant Yadav). The crocodile is another key character though, and I'm pleased to say that a variety of techniques were blended together to ensure it always looks real enough (including risky scenes when it actually IS real, despite the director being warned against that approach).

Because people will ultimately choose this for the croc content, it won't satisfy everyone who makes time for it. I had some idea of what to expect going in, which allowed me to be pleasantly surprised when expanding the story and the runtime helped it to become much better than a film I notably criticised for unnecessarily padding out scenes around a brilliantly simple central idea. 

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: Pet (2016)

For some reason, and I genuinely don't know why, I have owned Pet for years. I think it may have just been on sale for a cheap enough price that I bundled it with some other purchases, perhaps having heard some good word on it from horror movie fans. It never really appealed to me though, not as a viewing choice to put ahead of the many other films I have still to get to. I changed that this week, and I'm actually glad that I did. 

This is good stuff. It's more interesting and better than the last movie I saw from this director (Apartment 143 AKA Emergo). And maybe my willingness to now recommend it to others reflects those who once recommended it to me.

Dominic Monaghan plays Seth, a young man who works in an animal control facility. He's a bit strange and awkward, to put it mildly, and turns a chance encounter with a former high school crush (Holly, played by Ksenia Solo) into a time for some obsessive and stalkery behaviour. He's not exactly subtle with his attempts to encounter Holly, and seems to want to take her away from the world and keep her as his pet. There's a bit more to it though, as revealed when Seth discusses exactly what he has seen during his observations, and Holly admits to past traumatic events involving her on-off boyfriend, Eric (Nathan Parsons), and her friend, Claire (Jennette McCurdy).

Writer Jeremy Slater does not have the most inspiring filmography. You could charitably call it a bit of a mess, with his best work coming from his TV output, where he has worked on both The Exorcist and The Umbrella Academy. Pet is his best feature to date though, and it benefits from great plotting throughout that allows the characters to be shown as so much more as villain/victim or captor/captive. It's always clear that Seth is dangerous, but equally clear that Holly is the one person who would be most capable of shocking him back to some kind of sanity.

Carles Torrens directs everything without having to overdo the bloodshed or shocks. This isn't focused on torture or sadism, although those elements appear. It's a character study, with the two main characters facing up to what they each see reflected back at them from the other person. It would work in a number of different ways, but Torrens can be thankful that he also had some main cast members able to work so well with the material.

Monaghan is very good in his role, managing to seem creepy and dangerous even as he battles his own insecurities and nerves. Solo is excellent opposite him, trying to figure out the best way to react to the man who has her caged, and soon showing that their respective appearances don't necessarily represent their actual power dynamic. McCurdy is a welcome presence, although not around for very long, Parsons does just fine, and the other people to note are Da'Vone McDonald (playing a security guard named Nate) and Sean Blakemore (a detective who has to ask Seth a few questions as suspicions start to arise about someone who goes missing from his workplace).

Starting off like a hundred other movies you could list, Pet turns into something much smarter and darker than expected, thanks to Slater's screenplay and the work of everyone involved in getting everything onscreen. It's an impressive, and impressively nasty, little film that doesn't just go down the expected dark alleyways. I encourage everyone to give it a watch. 

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

Hard Boiled (1992)

Is Hard Boiled the peak of pre-CGI-enhanced action cinema? When you sit down to watch it, or rewatch it after a gap of far too many years, it soon becomes hard to argue against that position. Considering how beloved it remains by action movie fans, I seriously considered not even writing a review. What can be said about Hard Boiled that hasn't been said already? Nothing, but I still want to add my own praise to the mass of positive words you can already read about it elsewhere.

Chow Yun-Fat plays 'Tequila', a good cop with a very good aim. Others say that he never wastes a bullet, but that claim may be tested when he is surrounded by more and more gun-toting criminals looking to push him right off the end of this mortal coil. The head villain is Johnny (Anthony Wong), but he's helped out by a deadly killer named Mad Dog (Phillip Kwok) and a young man (Tony Leung) who might be keeping a big secret that could compromise a lot of people.

With a screenplay by Barry Wong and Gordon Chan, Hard Boiled has everything you could expect from this kind of movie in this time period. There's our hero clashing with the Chief Superintendent (Philip Chan). There's some awkward comedy, and relationship tension between our hero and the woman he is involuntarily separated from (Teresa, played by Teresa Mo). And you have the moral fluidity of the heroes and villains, depending on what is at stake and who is caught up in the middle of the action. And there are guns. Of course. Lots and lots of guns.

The influence of John Woo, often referred to as the father of "bullet ballet", cannot be under-estimated, and Hard Boiled is a modern action movie source text that so many other moments of great cinema stem from. The two main stars are suitably bright, but they're also happy to share scenes with the actual main star of the show, all of the weaponry and firepower that Woo presents in a number of increasingly impressive and audacious set-pieces. 

Aside from Chow Yun-Fat and Tony Leung, both unable to be any cooler unless they were dipped in liquid nitrogen, it's a pleasant surprise to find Wong and Kwok able to make any kind of impression at all. The fact that they both manage to be as riveting as the leads, albeit in very different ways, is downright miraculous. I cannot say the same about Chan or Mo, but they do well enough with what they're given, particularly while playing their parts in the third act.

It's far from perfect, a lot of the less violent moments fall a bit flat, but when moving from one gunfight to the next . . . Hard Boiled is very hard to top. In fact, I may not see an action movie as good as this until I check out another John Woo movie from this part of his career. And I hope to be doing that quite soon.

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

Sonic The Hedgehog 3 (2024)

Working nicely in line with the central attitude of "the fast and non-furious", the Sonic The Hedgehog movies have turned into a very entertaining series that stress the importance of family units (not blood family, but any family unit that you make for yourself, which is an important difference) and just keep adding more and more characters to each instalment. I'm absolutely shocked that Vin Diesel hasn't tried to engineer some kind of crossover event yet.

The plot this time around sees our spiky blue hero (Ben Schwartz staying on voice duty) threatened by a powerful stranger (Shadow, voiced by Keanu Reeves). Sonic has Knuckles (voiced by Idris Elba) and Tails (voiced by Colleen O'Shaugnessey) by his side, as well as Tom (James Marsden) and Maddie (Tika Sumpter), but he may need the help of someone else. Someone unexpected. Someone who used to be an enemy. Enter Dr. Robotnik (Jim Carrey). But there may be more than one Robotnik on the scene today. Which is bad news for Sonic, but good news for fans of Carrey.

Also maintaining a number of the same people behind the camera, mainly director Jeff Fowler and writers Pat Casey, Josh Miller, and John Whittington, this third Sonic movie somehow conveys the sense that every one of the main players had just as much fun as they want viewers to have. The 110-minute runtime flies by, thanks to the extra characters being introduced, or at least teased, quite early on. There are also so many gags and silly little asides that the sheer quantity more than makes up for the varying quality.

Schwartz remains a great voice for the speedy hedgehog, Elba is very fun as the group member always aiming to be more serious and wary than everyone else, and O'Shaugnessey balances him out by being light and upbeat throughout most of her scenes. Reeves delivers someone angsty and dangerous, and feels like a very welcome addition to the core cast. Then there's Carrey, serving up more Carrey than ever before, and having a ball doing so. Whether he's being engrossed in a Spanish soap opera, delivering the expected snark, or performing a hilariously unnecessary choreographed dance number to a Chemical Brothers track, Carrey proves that he's still damn good value when it comes to delivering big laughs. Marsden and Sumpter may not be given much to do, but they still get a couple of good moments that make them just as welcome as the other returning players.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't any kind of modern classic. It wouldn't end up topping any charts (unless it was a chart consisting of movies centred around speedy blue hedgehogs), but it's absolutely perfect entertainment for those who enjoyed the first two movies. Some might think it slightly better than the previous movie, which would make this a series that has continually improved with every instalment, but I am going to settle for calling it an equal to its predecessor.

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: 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