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

Why Don't You Just Die! (2018)

Look, sometimes you have to remember that when people give their opinion on a movie it is more than just their opinion on a movie. It can include their opinion on a whole manner of different topics. It can also include their frame of mind, as well as any baggage attached to the movie (a fond memory, a bad memory, the circumstances of the viewing experience). This is my way of saying that I have already watched Why Don't You Just Die! I never reviewed it though, and I didn't watch it with a clear head. I watched it almost six years ago, on a night that I really wish hadn't happened. It was the last night I ever drank alcohol, and I only wish I'd opted for the sober life at least one day sooner. Anyway, that made me quite wary of revisiting this. Would I be able to view and review it without it being tainted by that horrible memory? Thankfully, six years seems to be a big enough time gap. Just.

With that said, let's get to the film. The feature debut from writer-director Kirill Sokolov, this is a tale that starts with a young man (Matvey, played by Aleksandr Kuznetsov) visiting the father of his girlfriend. The father (Andrey, played by Vitaliy Khaev) is a police officer with more than a few secrets he wants to stay hidden, but is one of those secrets the abuse of his daughter? (Olya, played by Evgeniya Kregzhde) It's not long until things turn violent, people start to unpick some lies, and at least one main character, as per the suggestion of the title, proves a lot harder to kill than expected.

As unafraid of some bloodshed and violence as he is of some lively camerawork, Sokolov takes the dark (and darkly comedic) premise and wrings every ounce of entertainment from it. Although the main action takes place in one location, a few flashbacks take viewers elsewhere, stopping the film from feeling too restricted or claustrophobic. This isn't someone looking to make you feel trapped and anxious. It's someone looking to throw characters together in a violent clash that keeps delivering pain around a twisting and unstable narrative.

Kunzetsov is a very good main character to stay alongside, despite first seeing him with a hammer held behind his back as he enters the home of someone he intends to seriously harm or kill. It helps that Sokolov doesn't leave it too long to show how he has been manipulated, allowing viewers to feel sympathy for someone who may be well out of his depth. Khaev is suitably gruff and grim, entertainingly unpleasant, but not necessarily the monster he's made out to be. Or maybe he is. Either way, he's a formidable foe, and a memorable movie character. Kregzhde is given enough screentime to show how she put the pieces of this showdown into place, Elene Shevchenko is her bewildered mother, and Mikhail Gorevoy does quite well when he comes along at a vital juncture to add more stakes and backstory to the unfolding drama.

Enjoyably over the top, in both the plotting and the bodily harm, Why Don't You Just Die! is blood-soaked fun that should appeal to anyone with a penchant for neo-noir handled with a light touch. Sokolov has marked himself out as someone to keep an eye on, and my belated rewatch of this was inevitable before I finally made time to check out his third feature, and first English-language film, They Will Kill You. I only hope I enjoy that one as much as I enjoyed this.

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Rocky II (1979)

Although this was a major step in turning Sylvester Stallone into the '80s icon that he would become, Rocky II sees the star still some short distance away from being fully-formed at the end of the 1970s. While tough and strong, Rocky Balboa is far from the sculpted man-mountain he would become in later instalments, and there's still more time for character development and relationship moments that help to make Rocky more than just the standard "action hero" seen in so many other Stallone vehicles.

Set in the immediate aftermath of the first film (with the opening scenes replaying that fight between Rocky and Apollo Creed), this shows our main character dealing with his new-found success, trying to make the best of things, and considering how to make the most of his boxing reputation without having to dive straight back into the ring. Apollo, on the other hand, is being mocked and insulted by those who believe he received a hiding from someone who never should have been allowed to go the distance with him. There has to be a rematch, but that means that Rocky needs to learn a few new tricks. Meanwhile, he's very happy to be starting a family with Adrian (Talia Shire), but Adrian knows that she'll eventually have to see him fight again.

Once again written by Stallone, who also decided to direct this time around, this is a full and engaging character piece that stands toe to toe with the original. It continues the story of Rocky in a way that doesn't feel like a complete retread, although it ultimately ends up in the same place, but looking at it in hindsight, knowing what comes along after it, makes it easy to see the different parts of the formula falling into place.

Stallone is once again very good in front of the camera, remaining a gentle giant who is often held back by himself more than those directly around him. Shire gets to do a bit more than just be timid and quiet, developing her character into the motivating and supportive partner she would remain for the rest of the series, whether for or against whatever upcoming boxing match looms ahead. Carl Weathers is still a crackling and very worthwhile antagonist, his fighter desperate to reclaim his reputation while also admiring the strength and grit of his opponent. Burt Young pops his head into enough scenes to keep his character a part of the core group, Burgess Meredith still does wonderful work as Rocky's trainer, Mickey, and both Tony Burton and Joe Spinell once again do enough in their brief moments of screentime to make a good impression.

It may not be distilled to the purity of what we think of now when we think of this franchise, but the iconic theme plays often enough, there's a training montage, the final act is all about the big fight, and this nicely ends one story arc that is then reworked to form a strong throughline that would hold together the very best of the later instalments. 

8/10

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

Prime Time: Greenland 2: Migration (2026)

With most people back in their main roles, both in front of and behind the camera, Greenland 2: Migration is an unexpected sequel to Greenland, obviously. Considering that film was about an Extinction Level Event (ELE), you would suspect that the story was all done. Not so. There may be some hope for those who found a way to survive. Especially if you're the Garrity family (made up of Gerard Butler, Morena Baccarin, and Roman Griffin Davis, the latter replacing Roger Dale Floyd as the youngest family member).

It is five years after the events of the first movie. A number of people are living in an underground bunker, but more trouble is coming. The environment is still harsh and dangerous, which forces people to come up with a plan to move. There's rumour of a habitable environment at a major comet impact point, but getting there will be a hell of a challenge. Your odds seem greatly improved when Gerard Butler is the head of your family unit though.

Mitchell LaFortune joins Chris Sparling on the writing duties this time, and the two of them have a fairly easy task. Remind viewers of the current situation, put the latest events in motion, take characters on a journey that keeps putting a number of obstacles in between them and the potential safety and optimism of their final destination.

Director Ric Roman Waugh feels very much at ease with his job. He knows what needs to be done, and he keeps most of the scenes focused on the star, Butler. It's a shame that he doesn't do much else though, with the experience of watching this movie akin to the trudgery that the onscreen characters go through. You could argue that nothing in the rest of the movie is as intense or entertaining as the opening scenes, and that makes the 98-minute runtime drag out as it becomes a case of waiting for what seems like an inevitable finale.

Butler does fine in his role, once again being enjoyably stoic and a very capable, if reluctant, hero. Baccarin gets less to do, but remains alongside him in a pretty thankless role. Davis has one or two moments that show him struggling to stay adjusted to post-comet life, but it feels like lip service to something that would surely be much more intense and difficult to process. There are a few other characters allowed to pop in and out of the narrative, but things stay pretty firmly held on the fate of the central family unit.

If you liked the first movie then you'll find some moments to enjoy here, but it's a big step down. There's no real sense of urgency, aside from the moments in the first act, and it's hard to feel truly worried about people we last saw surviving "the end of the world". Fingers crossed that we don't get a third movie, although that would probably involve a war for Greenland between the people living there and the inane 47th President of The United States.

5/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share  

Reminders Of Him (2026)

I don't quite know how it happened, but I think I have now seen all of the recent movies that have been adapted from Colleen Hoover novels. If you don't know the kind of tales that Hoover writes, think Nicholas Sparks, but with . . . ummmm, no, actually, just think Nicholas Sparks. That should be enough for you.

This one stars Maika Monroe as Kenna Rowan, a young woman who tries to restart her life after spending a number of years in prison. She was in there because of her involvement in the death of her boyfriend, Scotty (Rudy Pankow), and that makes it very difficult to try and find a way to connect with her daughter (Diem, played by Zoe Kosovic), who is in the care of her grandparents, Grace (Lauren Graham) and Patrick (Bradley Whitford), and is also doted on by Scotty's friend, Ledger (Tyriq Withers). Grace and Patrick firmly believe that Kenna killed their son, and they have no reason to let her near her daughter, who was born near the start of her prison sentence. Part of Kenna agrees with them, but she eventually forms a connection with Ledger that allows him to learn a bit more about how the worst night of her life unfolded, and why she maybe shouldn't be judged so harshly.

The first screenplay by Lauren Levine, working with Hoover to adapt her novel, Reminders Of Him is a typical slice of tragi-romance, all presented with soft lighting, plenty of rainfall to keep the leads looking wet and ready to be warmed up, and an excessive selection of country music soundtracking it all. While I'm unfamiliar with director Vanessa Caswill, her filmography has a few other titles that would seem to make her a solid choice for this kind of thing. It's all very predictable stuff, and helped enormously by the casting.

Monroe is always welcome in a lead role, no matter how good or bad the movie itself is, and I wasn't as bothered as I otherwise would have been by the fact that her character had to spend most of her time onscreen looking sad and/or angry. Withers is decent alongside her, very much acting like a gentle giant in a way that I assume will keep many viewers happy. Both Graham and Whitford are good in their roles, although I wish they both could have had a bit more screentime. Elsewhere, there are enjoyable supporting turns from Monika Myers and Nicholas Duvernay. As for Kosovic, I wasn't a big fan, but try not to spend too much time being critical of child actors.

If you've seen the other major movies that this sits alongside then you'll find enough to enjoy here. The predictability is part of the comfort, everyone generally handles the material well, and it all ends in a way that should leave viewers satisfied. I can't say that I enjoyed it, personally, but I can see why others might. I thought it needed just a little bit more, but there are one or two good lessons at the heart of the narrative, and it's worth remembering that I am far from the target demographic.

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

 

Mubi Monday: Offside (2006)

It seems like rarely a week goes by lately without me watching a Jafar Panahi film. As much as I enjoy his work, that's more to do with a number of titles being collected together on one particular streaming service than it is to do with me actively seeking out his films. I'm not complaining though. He's a smart and insightful film-maker, and even his lesser films contain elements that make them worth your time.

This is all about a number of young women who all struggle to make their way into a football stadium to watch Iran play in a match that could see them heading to the World Cup. That's it. The fact that women are not allowed inside football stadiums is the major obstacle that needs to be overcome, but the premise is really just an excuse to look at the silliness of such an arbitrary gender divide, and shows how easy it could be to just let all football fans enjoy their fandom alongside one another.

Although I won't pretend to have kept track of the various cast members portraying the characters, as very few (if any) are actually names, I'll do my best here to credit some of the people I enjoyed onscreen. Sima Mobarak-Shahi and Shayesteh Irani are two of the main female characters, both doing good work as they react to their situation in different ways, and Mohammad Asarian plays someone who could be viewed as both enemy and ally to the women, afraid to be seen defying any orders, but also doing his best to protect them while they're in an area they shouldn't be in.

While it may seem like a very slight film, this is exactly the kind of thing that has kept Panahi singled out as an artist that Iran disapproves of, to put it mildly. He uses art to pick at the rules and restrictions of Iranian life, sometimes picking up threads from the history of the area and sometimes just staying absolutely in the here and now, but he always does so in a way that usually mixes standard entertainment with his pointed commentary. Offside is about football fandom, but it's also very much about the treatment and separation of women in Iran. BUT, thanks to a deft screenplay by Panahi and Shadmehr Rastin, it really is also about football fandom. 

Capturing the kind of enjoyably naturalistic performances that he's so often able to elicit from people. Panahi keeps the important football match playing out in the background for most of the runtime, which is approximately match-length, and you just know that there's a lot of emotional outbursts due whenever the final whistle blows. The gameplay is as consistently present for viewers as it is for the main characters, and it would take someone more cold-hearted than myself to not be rooting for the fans to find a way to keep up with the scoreline. 

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

Netflix And Chill: Apex (2026)

The last film that I saw from director Baltasar Kormákur was the disappointing effort that had Idris Elba fighting against an angry lion. If I had remembered that he was responsible for that then I may have been a bit less excited to see Apex, but I was excited by a trailer that showed me Taron Egerton working with an Australian accent and telling Charlize Theron that he was about to hunt her. Thankfully, while nothing spectacular, Apex just about does enough with the main premise to make it an enjoyable and satisfying thriller. It's very predictable, almost everything in the first main sequence is used to set up moments later in the movie, it skirts around the darker elements, and most of it really stretches the limits of credulity, but it's tense and fun throughout.

Theron plays Sasha, an adventurous woman who ends up in a particularly perilous part of Australia. After trying to ignore some local hunters (who claim that they're just being nice, of course), Sasha meets the pleasant and friendly Ben (Egerton). And then Ben turns a bit less friendly.

The first feature screenplay from Jeremy Robbins, this is a solid slice of entertainment that benefits from decent stunts, good special effects, and a willingness to skirt much closer to some surprisingly dark content than I expected. It also helps that Theron and Egerton are the focus for 90% of the runtime. 

Director Baltasar Kormákur has a filmography that shows him trying to deliver a popular hit every 4 or 5 years, and this is the right time for his latest attempt to appeal to a large mainstream audience. The 95-minute runtime allows for it to be paced well, and you get a classic opening sequence that sets up a main character and one or two challenges you know will be revisited before the end of the movie, and the central premise is handled with just the right mix of danger and excitement. I was enjoyably dizzy during some of the more vertiginous sequences, and that sensation was helped by the thought of both leads being capable of at least trying some of the daring climbing and swimming on display.

Theron can do this kind of thing easily, and she does. She's tough and capable throughout, but also carries a core of pain and insecurity stemming from that tense opener. There may be one or two times that you want to shout at the screen while her character misses some opportunity to stay ahead of the game, but she's generally working with patience and intelligence to give herself the best chance of survival. Egerton has a blast, and doesn't do too bad with the Australian accent either. Whether being nice and pleasant in his earlier scenes, dancing to his tunes while he gives Theron's character a head start, or spitting out dialogue that enforces the idea of him being far removed from sanity, he's a great movie villain.

There could have been a few things added here (maybe some animal encounters, a bigger selection of potential victims, etc), but I generally appreciate what we got. It's an enjoyable thriller that sets everything up, allows it all to play out as you generally expect, and then cuts to the end credits before overstaying its welcome. 

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

Shudder Saturday: Shiver (2012)

Some people really seem to spend a lot of their time squandering a lot of goodwill. I understand that people in the film industry don't always have the luxury of ensuring the quality of the work that they're involved with, but it would help if they at least did their part. There are some people here who feel as if they're going through the motions, and unable to even do that minimum amount of work well. I would name and shame them, but I worry that I'm misjudging people based on the poor writing and direction.

John Jarratt plays Franklin Rood, a talkative serial killer who targets women and believes that he is always poised to save them. When his latest victim (Wendy Alden, played by Danielle Harris) finds the courage to fight back, he actually feels quite pleased with himself. Wendy may have needed him to make her into the strong woman hidden away inside herself. He's probably still going to have to kill her though, especially while a couple of detectives (played by Casper Van Dien and Rae Dawn Chong) are closing in on him.

Based on a novel of the same name by Brian Harper, Shiver has been adapted from page to screen by Robert D. Weinbach. I'm not familiar with anything else that Weinbach has written, but I'm not surprised to see that he doesn't have a large filmography. There are a couple of upcoming projects that he is penning. I won't be rushing to see those.

Neither Harris nor Jarratt are at their best here, far from it, but I can see why they were picked for their respective roles. It's just a shame that they were then given nothing good to do by the clumsy and tired screenplay. The same goes for Van Dien and Chong. Neither may be at the top of the acting game, especially the former (who is, however, lovely, and I'll always have a soft spot for him due to the time he would happily answer various questions on the IMDb message boards that used to exist), but both are still usually a lot better than they are here. A few others appear in supporting roles, but the focus is on these four characters, even if they're just moving around in between scenes that contain either horrible violence or horrible (for different reasons) speechifying.

I like director Julian Richards, despite his filmography not giving me many reasons to. It may have been over 20 years now since he helmed the dark and enjoyable The Last Horror Movie, but I'll always hope that he can find his way back to something that inventive and twisted. This certainly doesn't come close, and I can only imagine it being enjoyed by the most easily-pleased horror movie fan looking for another chance to watch Harris battling against a fictional psychopath.

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

Working Girl (1988)

Although I am taking my sweet time in doing so, my attempt to finally get around to watching more Melanie Griffith films is continuing. She was someone I never really rated while actually delivering some of her best work (I was too young to fully appreciate most of her movies, and I mistakenly equated her choice of projects not tailor-made for me with a lack of talent), but looking back on the heyday of her career is an interesting experience. Not only did Griffith pick some great projects, it's fascinating to watch her own the screen and be treated like the beauty she so clearly is, yet also look at how she represents the kind of female sexuality and presence that is so rare to see onscreen in more modern movies, after years of developments in the world of fillers, implants, sculpting, and physical training regimes.

Working Girl is probably the biggest star vehicle for Griffith, certainly in the way it keeps her front and centre for most of the runtime, and allows her to work alongside a couple of star names comfortably leaning into their star status. The fact that it's a more adult reworking of The Secret Of My Success (which I'm sure was probably based on at least one or two previous tales) is neither here nor there. The main thing is that it's very enjoyable stuff. 

Griffith plays Tess McGill, a secretary who works for her boss, Katharine Parker (Sigourney Weaver), under the mistaken impression that she will be recognised and rewarded for all of her hard work. Seeing how she has been betrayed when her best idea is passed along by Katharine without giving her any credit, Tess decides to make some major moves when Katharine has to be absent for a while. She moves into the main office, upgrades her wardrobe, and starts seriously impressing Jack Trainer (Harrison Ford).

Working Girl has a decent script by Kevin Wade, which remains arguably the best he ever wrote, and solid direction by Mike Nichols. It's a great snapshot of the time, and makes a nice companion piece to the much more testosterone-heavy Wall Street, which was released the year before. The two films show people striving for great success, but with very different ideas of just what exactly that success looks like, and they both feature main characters who seem equal parts inspirational and monstrous, depending on how well they maintain their charming facade while holding on to their power and position.  

It's the cast who really make this shine though. Griffith is perfect in her lead role, and her transformation works as well as it does because they're only aesthetic choices that help her in her "fake it until you make it" mission. Weaver has a lot of fun as the big boss, enjoyably selfish and narcissistic, but deflecting any criticism by using a fake bond of feminist sisterhood and talk of long-term plans. Ford is playing the straight man to the two leading ladies, and he's well-suited to being someone as charming and charismatic and laconic as Ford can be. There's also room to have fun with Alec Baldwin, Joan Cusack, Nora Dunn, and Oliver Platt, and the likes of Kevin Spacey, Olympia Dukakis, and Timothy Carhart are scattered throughout the supporting cast.

I'm happy to have revisited this film for the first time in a looooooooong time, but I'm even more excited to eventually make time for a number of lesser-known titles that starred Griffith in a main role. Few may hit the same heights as this, but I hope they all at least showcase someone I am finally appreciating onscreen almost four decades after they were at the peak of their career.

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