Shudder Saturday: Late Night With The Devil (2023)

A lot has been said already about Late Night With The Devil, most of it hugely positive, and I am unlikely to add anything new to the conversation. I've never let that stop me before though, and here's my own full review of the film. Those not wanting to read too much more about it may be satisfied with this summary: "it's very good, but it's no Ghostwatch".

Presented as a previously-unseen final episode of a late '70s talk show, viewers are given a quick history of TV host Jack Delroy (Dabid Dastmalchian). The ratings for his show have been falling, he has suffered the loss of his wife, Madeleine (Georgina Haig), to cancer, and it starts to look more and more unlikely that he's nearing the end of his career. Or, at the very least, nearing the end of this phase of his career. Jack puts on a brave face though, and he thinks they may get some big ratings with an occult-themed episode for Halloween. Joined by his sidekick, Gus (Rhys Auteri), Jack is looking to impress the audience with a medium, Christou (Fayssal Bazzi), a former-magician-turned-debunker, Carmichael Haig (Ian Bliss), and a parapsychologist (June Ross-Mitchell, played by Laura Gordon) who is bringing along a young, supposedly possessed, girl named Lily (Ingrid Torelli). There should also be time for a musical guest to cheer everyone up at the end of the spookiness. It's not long until things start getting a bit strange, and we see more of the impact of that strangeness during moments that were filmed during the ad breaks as Jack and the crew try to keep everything running smoothly.

Co-written and co-directed by Cameron and Colin Cairnes, two brothers who already have a handful of movie and TV/short credits to their names, there's no denying that Late Night With The Devil gets a lot right, particularly when it comes to the casting. I just didn't see the authenticity and attention to detail that others have responded to. There's too little confidence being displayed, although this "episode" was filmed at a time when the host was showing his vulnerability and putting his fate in the hands of his viewership, there are too many times when it feels as if the programmers would cut away from everything and potentially take the whole thing off-air sharp, and there is an end sequence that discards the whole "rediscovered episode" format to allow the Cairnes brothers to show us some unsettling and fantastical sights. I didn't mind being shown the escalating tensions during the apparent ad breaks, but the last 5-10 minutes slightly soured me on this. If you have an idea that works best in a certain format then, dammit, you need to work as hard as you can to ensure that you can deliver everything you need to deliver IN that format.

I could be way off here, especially when others have complimented the film for how accurately it recreates that era of late-night TV chat show, but nothing drew me in to a world that I thought was realistic. It almost felt like a castelet, albeit a good one, with the cast all being unwitting puppets in a show destined to end in a way that cuts their strings, one way or another.

Dastmalchian is brilliant though, and I will be delighted if this lead role helps him receive the kind of offers he should have been inundated with before now. He's just the right mix of polish and awkwardness, the host striving to overcome any obstacle in the way of presenting a show that he hopes will put him back near the top of the TV ratings, and he delivers a performance that gives us a fully-rounded and brilliantly-nuanced lead character to root for. Auteri is also very good, playing the typical sidekick we've seen many times in this TV show format. Bazzi feels like a bit of comedy relief, but his appearance sets some interesting wheels in motion, and Bliss is enjoyably arrogant and sceptical as he offers up explanations for the "inexplicable". Gordon is given the least to do, even less than Haig (in some ways), but does well, as does the latter, and Torelli is quite perfect as Lily, constantly intriguing and unnerving in a way that stems from the subtlety and natural manner of her performance.

I wouldn't ever call this a bad film. It's good, and most people seem to think that it's very good, but that lack of authenticity spoils it for me, as does that complete turn away from the format at the very end of the film. Very few people, if any, will agree with me, and many think that it absolutely nails the look and feel it is going for, which makes me think that it's maybe my British lens not recognising a very specific American time and place, but it's all different strokes for different folks, eh. Considering what it gets right, and considering how many others love it, I would still recommend this to horror fans. I would just acknowledge that some people may, like myself, end up underwhelmed by it.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
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 

Gamera vs. Barugon (1966)

You would think that sending Gamera into space would have been enough to keep Earth safe, but Gamera vs. Barugon quickly shows that not to be the case. First of all, there are always new creatures that can suddenly come along and cause panic. Secondly, a travelling rocket being hit by a meteorite is enough to send Gamera back down to our planet. And that's really all you need to know.

There's a bit more to the plot, of course, and Barugon is a creature hatched from an egg that people mistakenly think is a large opal, but things only ever liven up when people are trying to figure out how to deal with a new monster menace. Barugon looks a bit goofy, Gamera still looks great, and the humans feel even less significant than ever.

Directed by Shigeo Tanaka, and written by Niisan Takahashi, this follows on from the first Gamera film in a way that is simple enough, and also a bit disappointing. The contrivance to get Gamera back on our planet feels a bit lazy, Barugon is far from the best big beastie we've ever seen onscreen, and there's a major void in the cast that isn't filled by anyone we can empathise or sympathise with.

Kôjirô Hongô, Kyôko Enami, Yûzô Hayakawa, Takuya Fujioka, and Kôji Fujiyama are the cast members I will mention here, but they're just there to look on in awe as the creatures do their thing, when people aren't squabbling over the "opal" that leads to the appearance of Barugon. They do what they're asked to do, but they're just not asked to do anything that helps them to feel worth spending time with.

Gamera is still great, and the reason this is worth your time, which makes the fact that the rest of the movie is so weak seem even more disappointing. It needed either a better foe for our "hero" to battle or just some more scenes showing Gamera doing what Gamera does best. All the rainbow rays and mirror traps in the world aren't enough to make up for the disappointing sidelining of Gamera in one of their own movies.

Knowing how much better the later Gamera movies are (the 1990s films, referred to as the Heisei era) is enough to keep me powering through these, but I am worried that I'll end up slogging through a lot of lesser fare until I get back to those more enjoyable features. I've watched a lot worse though, and every film has the inherent plus of the second-best kaiju in cinema (a point I am sure could be argued over by fans for a long, long time). There's also something about kaiju movies that somehow makes it impossible to rate even the lesser films as a complete waste of your time. There may be less moments of absolute brilliance, but there are always some small treats here and there.

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 

Immaculate (2024)

I have rarely had such a fast turnaround on my opinion of someone as I have experienced with my opinion of Sydney Sweeney. It was only a month or so ago that I said I would probably not be interested in many, if any, of her main acting credits and now I cannot wait to see whatever she does next. Whether the films are good or bad, and she has covered the spectrum in the past year or two, she seems intent on making the most of her moment in the sunshine, and that is reflected in the interesting variety of her projects.

Immaculate is a film you could basically label as “nunsploitation”. People might try to argue against that, but the dark heartbeat running throughout it, as well as the wild final moments, make it a film I could easily imagine slotting nicely aside many of the less mainstream titles in that particular sub-genre. In fact, add a bit of grime, dub our lead actress, and throw in a load of gratuitous nudity and this would easily feel like a ‘70s Euro-horror.

Sweeney plays Cecilia, a young woman who joins a remote convent in Italy. She is working hard to learn the Italian language, but seems to receive a relatively warm welcome from most of the convent residents. She is viewed differently, however, when she becomes pregnant, an apparently immaculate conception. Many are very happy with the news, including Father Sal Tedeschi (Àlvaro Morte), but some are not.

The fact that director Michael Mohan has worked with Sweeney before, with the two of them seeming to have got along great with one another, is unsurprising. This is the kind of film role that would be best performed under the guidance of someone you know and trust. It’s also no surprise to see that writer Andrew Lobel doesn’t have too many other credits, considering how far he is willing to go with the wilder aspects of his writing. 

Just to clarify, the majority of Immaculate is a low-key mix of tension and paranoia. It’s very well done though, and paves the way for a third act that I am going to call enjoyable ballsy. There’s a feeling of everything being ever so slightly off-kilter, largely thanks to the opening scene, and every plot development feels like it could allow the film to go off in any one of a dozen different directions. 

The supporting cast do a perfectly fine job, especially Morte, but this film works as well as it does thanks to Sweeney in the main role. Her character isn’t given too much detail, and she takes a while to unravel the odd reality of her situation, but her performance draws you in while she is vulnerable and confused, making her more pro-active moments less expected and much more satisfying. While many horror fans might lose patience with this, it is definitely a genre piece, and Sweeney shows that she can definitely hold her own with any of the legendary scream queens.

I really enjoyed this, as I’m sure you can tell. It’s a strange and quite bonkers tale that is told by people with confidence in their abilities to really sell it. For those who will end up disliking it, I hope you will at least be able to appreciate the fact that it was made. And if other big names are encouraged to have a go in movies with a similar vibe . . . all the better.

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

Prime Time: Cobweb (2023)

You have to be careful when working with horror material. Sometimes meeting expectations and delivering predictable plot beats becomes part of the fun. Sometimes you need to subvert things. It all depends on what you offer up around the most familiar elements. Cobweb, sadly, doesn’t offer up anything that feels truly worth your time. 

Written by Chris Thomas Devlin, who has one other writing credit so far (one of the writers who served up Texas Chainsaw Massacre), this is a fairly standard tale of some over-protective/maybe harmful parents (played by Lizzy Caplan and Antony Starr) and a young child (Woody Norman) who starts to feel the presence of someone else living in the walls of his home. There’s a concerned teacher (played by Cleopatra Coleman), a young bully (Luke Busey) who soon moves from the terrorizer to the terrorized, and a third act that becomes disappointingly unambiguous and underwhelming when you realise the squandered potential of the premise.

While director Samuel Bodin, making their feature debut, has a decent eye, they don’t have the ability to elevate scenes in a way that can help to distract from the fairly weak script. Devlin fills the runtime with tired dialogue and one ridiculous contrivance after another. I remember being excited to check this out last year, and then my enthusiasm started to wane as I kept seeing the advertising for it and feeling as if it had nothing new to offer. I could have been wrong, sometimes the trailers and marketing do hold back a surprise or two, but it turns out that I was right. And things are made worse by both Devlin and Bodin wasting the cast.

I am a huge fan of both Caplan and Starr, which made this an even more frustrating viewing experience. Both are asked to act quite ridiculously, because anyone acting normally would end the movie within minutes. Part of me wanted more screentime for them, part of me was glad they didn’t have to carry the whole film on their shoulders. That task goes to young Norman, who is okay, I guess, but has to overdo the nervy and fragile core of his character, which is his entire personality for the duration of the movie. Coleman comes out of this best, playing the standard caring adult who investigates further when she suspects something is amiss. 

The more I think about Cobweb, the less inclined I am to compliment it. I was angry as the end credits rolled. There are positives though. It has some eye-catching visuals, making good use of the shadows and darkness in the finale. There’s also . . . Well, it has . . . Actually, I think that is it. Some decent visuals, two great cast members (both wasted), and a good title. The rest is bad, as bad as any other mainstream horror I can think of from the past few years.

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

Abigail (2024)

I am going to have to make a decision here, whether to include some spoilers in this review or not. Although I would normally work hard to avoid spoilers, Abigail has arguably already been spoiled for you if you have seen the trailer or some of the alternate poster designs. I understand why. It makes more sense to draw in the horror crowd it is aimed at, which wouldn’t necessarily happen if it was sold to look like a straightforward crime thriller. So . . . I am going to discuss it as if it is a pretty straightforward crime thriller, but I am assuming that you will all be aware of the fact that it is more than that.

Things start with a kidnapping. Six people work together to snatch a little girl (Abigail, played by Alisha Weir) before driving to an isolated country home where they have to stay holed up for 24 hours. If all goes well then the payday is $50M. All isn’t about to go well though. It turns out that not only is Abigail’s father very rich, but he is also very powerful and dangerous. And Abigail may share a few of his traits. 

Written by Stephen Shields and Guy Busick, this is a very smart and funny horror comedy that makes a lot of things very obvious from the opening titles (for those familiar with the music cue). The twists and turns aren’t presented as major rug-pulls, nothing here will surprise fans of the tropes being played with, but they keep being thrown into the plot with a sense of glee, curveball after curveball for our main characters to deal with. With directors Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett at the helm (directors of the last two Scream movies, as well as the very enjoyable Ready Or Not), everyone going into this should have an idea of what they are getting into. It’s playful, it’s bloody, and it’s a fresh take on some very familiar material.

The cast are all on the same page, happy to fit into their archetypes and just allow themselves to be part of a group that descends into chaos as everything around them starts going wrong. Melissa Barrera is much better here than she was in the Scream movies, making for a great central character to root for, and Dan Stevens is having a whale of a time as the cold-blooded leader of the group. Kevin Durand and Kathryn Newton are much simpler, more sweet-hearted characters (relatively speaking), and both Angus Cloud and William Catlett do well in their respective roles, even if they seem less important to the group than some of the others. Everyone is a bag of clichés, but it doesn’t matter when they are being used in such a fun way. Weir is the star though, and proves more than capable at conveying the many different moods her character goes through during the unraveling of the kidnapping scheme. It is also worth mentioning a couple of excellent cameo turns from Giancarlo Esposito and Matthew Goode.

Unabashedly profane and bloody throughout, Abigail is the most fun I have had with a mainstream American horror movie in a hell of a long time. It’s well-paced, it looks gorgeous throughout (even as the sets become drenched in blood), it’s inventive, and there are numerous easter eggs dotted throughout that can be enjoyed or ignored without changing how you feel about the rest of the film. All in all, it’s a bloody good time for fans of those involved.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
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 

Mubi Monday: Shirley (2020)

While I didn’t hate watching Shirley, a film that is nicely put together around a talented cast who fit well in their roles, I must say that I wasn’t entirely won over by the central conceit, and it made me hanker for the portrayal of Shirley Jackson I enjoyed a bit more in Set Fire To The Stars. That is a bit unfair though, as it isn’t exactly comparing like for like, but I figured I would take a minute to recommend that little gem of a film.

Anyway, this film is based on a book by Susan Scarf Merrell, and it places the famous Shirley Jackson (Elisabeth Moss) and her husband, Stanley (Michael Stuhlbarg), in the middle of a load of drama, both past and present, that allows others to see the strange and damaging co-dependency locking them together in their relationship. Odessa Young and Logan Lerman play Rose and Fred Nemser, a young couple who end up in the Jackson household, and they unwittingly become the latest distractions for two people who seem to constantly struggle to find ways to occupy themselves (when not being creative, intellectually arrogant, or unfaithful).

Directed well enough by Josephine Decker, who has helmed a number of other films I have enjoyed (and one I just couldn’t stand), this uses the script by Sarah Gubbins to sketch out some characters that are then given the time and space to breathe and play around. Making use of real people in a fictional story is a strange balancing act, but it seems to me that this doesn’t do a bad job of using the main premise to examine the relationship between Shirley and Stanley, as well as looking at how they “played” with others. Some elements may be entirely unnecessary, but they still intertwine nicely with the idea of putting the Jacksons under the glare of a bright spotlight while their dynamic is dissected.

Moss is very good in the title role, as she tends to be in almost everything she does nowadays, and she’s unafraid to play her character in a way that shows her actively repelling people. She’s cold and cool, although occasionally moved by anger, and does well to avoid histrionics and tics. Stuhlbarg plays the less likeable of the two, and he also tackles his role without any hint of concern or softness. Lerman does well in a way that has him being the least memorable of the central quartet, but it’s Young who gets to be the heart of the film, playing the observer who becomes drawn further and further into a large and dangerous web. Constantly drawn to the see the creative spark while trying not to be burned, Young delivers an excellent performance, striking just the right balance of naïveté and strength, that helps her to remain much more significant than she is considered by any of the other main characters.

I just wish we didn’t need the fictional framing device here. It feels like there’s a great film to be made about Shirley Jackson, but this isn’t it. It’s very good, but it’s not great, particularly when it comes to the darker side of her life (her mental health, the dysfunctional marriage, and more). Not one I think I will ever revisit, but I would be interested to hear from others who know a bit more about the real Shirley Jackson, and whether that makes you like this film any more or any less.

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

Netflix And Chill: Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves (1991)

There are many things to remember about Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves, things that help you to forget other aspects of it. You probably remember Alan Rickman stealing most of the movie. You should remember the monster hit song from Bryan Adams. There's the "arrow-cam" shots. And, for better or worse, Kevin Costner in the lead role. You may well remember all of the fun you had with it, intentional or not, but you might forget what a slog it can be at times, the wildly varying quality of the acting, and how it generally fails in any attempt to be a proper swashbuckling action flick for modern audiences.

Both terrible and fantastic in equal measure, Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves is a film I hadn't revisited since owning it on VHS. It's one that kept randomly popping into my head though, especially when discussing Alan Rickman with a work colleague and trying to deliver amusing impressions of his iconic cinematic villain roles. I kept wondering if it was actually any good, particularly when I wasn't too won over by it back when that song had spent months dominating the British music charts.

The plot is secondary to the stars and the set-pieces. Everyone knows a bit about Robin Hood, especially if they have seen the classic Errol Flynn movie, or the animated Disney flick. He robbed from the rich to give to the poor, and he was the enemy of the greedy and conniving Sheriff Of Nottingham (played here by Rickman, of course). He had a band of merry men, and he had some chemistry with a woman named Marian (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio embodying her this time around). 

Written by Pen Densham and John Watson, two people with relatively limited experience (their previous film being one I have long wanted to see, Upworld AKA A Gnome Named Gnorm), and directed by Kevin Reynolds, this is a blockbuster that seems to have become successful through sheer force of will. You have to ignore some of the dodgy accents, you have to just grin while groaning at some of the dialogue (especially the lines uttered by Duncan, played by Walter Sparrow, who could just as easily slot into place in a Monty Python film), and you have to be patient during any scenes that fill time in between the stars being stars.

Costner isn't the best choice for the main role, but he somehow does enough to show why he gained his movie star status. The film belongs to Rickman, thankfully, but not at the expense of our hero, who benefits from his more laidback style being juxtaposed against the brilliant pantomime villain. Mastrantonio does a decent job in a role that tries to balance out the strength of the character with the need to have her in peril, and there's a lot of fun to be had with Morgan Freeman, Nick Brimble, and Mike McShane, the latter two playing Little John and Friar Tuck, respectively. Christian Slater stands out for being miscast in the role of Will Scarlett, but he tries, Michael Wincott is a very good Guy Of Gisborne, and you also get screentime for Geraldine McEwan, Brian Blessed, and a couple of star cameos.

Despite the flaws, and an overly earnest approach to many scenes is one of them, it's easy to see why many can love this. It's a fantastic blockbuster that seems to fall in line with what Costner loves to do: old-fashioned entertainment with just the right blend of drama, romance, and spectacle. You can sneer at it if you like, and I'm sure many do, but it makes up for being a bit of a mess by trying hard at every turn to be a hugely entertaining mess. I may not have loved it back when it was first released, but I cannot help having a soft spot for it now.

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

Shudder Saturday: The Third Saturday In October Part V (2022)

Bear with me, this opening paragraph may seem slightly complicated. Having watched The Third Saturday In October last week, and left underwhelmed by it, I decided to watch The Third Saturday In October Part V this week. I also, as per the advice of a producer who commented on my review last week, made time to watch this film before rewatching the first film, because that's the recommended viewing order. There are no other instalments in this series, both films simply being presented as rediscovered slasher movies from a long-forgotten series, and Part V is supposed to be watched before the first film, apparently. I must be missing the main joke/commentary, despite having now watched both films in the way they were supposedly intended to be watched.

The plot is simple, as you might expect. A bunch of people are all together in a house that is targeted by an infamous killer (named Harding). People get naked, people irritate one another, everything plays out while they remain mostly oblivious of the danger that they're in until they see a bloody and mutilated corpse in their immediate vicinity.

I hate to seem like I'm being rude to writer-director Jay Burleson, but I'm not sure I would have given the other/previous/second film a watch if I'd started with this one. It's very generic stuff, albeit with enough self-aware humour to let you know that it's not trying to establish itself as a modern classic, and even lacks the commitment to the aesthetic and atmosphere that infuses the other film. This is supposed to be set in the 1990s, but it never really locks that vibe in, sadly. Fair play to Burleson for making great use of his budget and resources, but both films needed to be considerably tightened up and fine-tuned at the writing stage, especially if viewers were supposed to get the most from watching them in a double-bill.

The cast don't do a bad job, but I would be lying if I said that anyone stood out to me by the time the end credits rolled (except for young Poppy Cunningham doing great work as PJ). Taylor Smith is a fun douchebag, Bart Hyatt and Tom Hagale have a couple of fun scenes, and Kansas Bowling, Autumn Jaide, Parker Love Bowling, and Devan Katherine are all decent final girl contenders.

I can appreciate some of what I think is being done here, a later slasher movie sequel that has tried to move with the times while also still delivering exactly what the fanbase wants from it, but it's not done as effectively as it could be. Perhaps Burleson will eventually give us a Part IX, set in space, and then he'll really be on to something, or a Part XIII, pitting Harding against some other unstoppable killer, because every main slasher movie series is equally about what new trend it incorporates as it is about what it tries to keep unchanged. Heck, I'd even appreciated a Part VIII in this series that shows Harding being able to make use of dial-up internet in order to start rebuilding himself from however he was destroyed at the end of Part VII, where he was torn apart by the many ghosts of his previous victims while a nu-metal soundtrack played out as he staggered around in an abandoned church. I'm not saying it's easy to turn those ideas into a script, and subsequently get a full movie made. I'm just saying that the main premise has the potential to lead to so much more.

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

Broken Arrow (1996)

When you think about watching Broken Arrow you might think about the fact that it isn’t the best film from anyone involved. It isn’t director John Woo’s best film. Both John Travolta and Christian Slater have starred in a number of better films. Even writer Graham Yost peaked a couple of years before this (having worked on the brilliant Speed). It’s a film destined to be overshadowed by so many others, and yet I tend to get the urge to revisit it every few years.

Travolta and Slater play Deakins and Hale, respectively. They are two pilots who find themselves battling against one another when one puts in motion a plan to steal some nuclear weapons. Terry Carmichael (Samantha Mathis) is a young park ranger who finds herself in the middle of a very dangerous situation, and it isn’t long until we get slow-motion moments, two-handed gunplay, and inventive action sequences that showcase a fantastic variety of stuntwork and gags.

As much as I enjoy Hard Target, the first American feature from Woo, it feels very much like a Van Damme movie that John Woo directed. Which is what it is. Broken Arrow, however, feels like a John Woo movie that could have started anyone in the main roles, but benefits from both Travolta and Slater upping their game to work with such a great action director. I hope that clarifies why I have always enjoyed this film a bit more than the enjoyable Van Damme flick.

The script may not be the best work that Yost has ever done, but he puts all of the pieces in place and gives some great dialogue to the main characters (one line even famously leading to the name of the kingdom of the now-disgraced Harry Knowles, “Ain’t It Cool News”). What it lacks in smarts and plausibility, it more than makes up for in action movie witticisms and simple fun, which is an approach supported by Woo’s enjoyable direction.

Travolta steals a few scenes, but both he and Slater fit well in their roles, and both seem equally capable at doing whatever their characters are required to do. Mathis is weaker, but it’s hard to figure out whether that is down to her performance or the fact that her character feels like a last-minute addition to the whole thing. Thankfully, the supporting cast includes Bob Gunton, Frank Whaley, and the always brilliant and captivating Delroy Lindo, each one of these familiar faces getting at least one great little moment to remind you of why you enjoy them onscreen.

Well-paced, with a fantastic set-piece just over the halfway point that remains awesome and impressive nowadays, and with a third act that really pulls out all of the stops, this remains a top-tier action film. You can really sense Woo feeling gleeful as he plays around with this huge toy set. It is also worth mentioning the score by Hans Zimmer, featuring a guitar refrain performed by Duane Eddy, which is so good that it was re-used and recycled in a number of different works.

I love this film, ever since I first watched, and rewatched, the trailer while it played at a cinema too far away from me to access. Everyone involved may have done better work elsewhere, but they all work together brilliantly here to deliver something hugely entertaining and enjoyable.

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

Invasion Of Astro-Monster (1965)

Right, someone should have really kicked my butt years ago to get me making my way through all of the Godzilla films. Each new favourite seems to be equaled by another new favourite lately, and I am just loving it.

The plot this time around concerns some spacemen who find alien life on Planet X. These aliens are humanoid, and have to shelter whenever the surface of their planet is being attacked by King Ghidorah. Knowing how he was defeated before, the aliens would like to “borrow” Godzilla and Rodan, only requiring them until Ghidorah is no longer a threat to them. That’s the starting point anyway, but there may be another reason for wanting access to the kaiju residing on our planet.

We’re back in the safe and capable hands of director Ishirô Honda here, working once again with writer Shin’ichi Sekizawa, and the end result is as much fun as you could hope for. Okay, some may prefer these movies to feel a bit more tense, the large scale of the threat somehow makes it all seem less likely to end badly for the main characters, but this is well-paced and full of unexpected delights, whether it is seeing Godzilla and Rodan airlifted through space or watching Godzilla shuffle around in front of Ghidorah like a fleet-footed boxer.

Akira Takarada and Nick Adams play the two astronauts who encounter alien life on a far planet (located on the other side of Jupiter), and the two men do a decent job of looking bemused while remaining determined to do whatever is in the best interest of humanity. Yoshio Tsuchiya is the apparent leader of Planet X, a role he plays well enough as he is viewed with suspicion, eventually accepted, and then in charge of the grand plan that relies on controlling the kaiju. Jun Tazaki is the requisite scientist, and Kumi Mizuno does a great job as the lovely, but perhaps untrustworthy, Namikawa.

The effects displaying the moments of destruction are perfectly fine, neither the best nor the worst seen in these movies, but this works as well as it does because of the personality of the creatures. Following on from the depictions we saw in the last movie, a slight softening of Godzilla and Rodan to make them more acceptable reluctant “heroes”, this underlines why so many of us film fans will always maintain a soft spot for the performers in the rubber suits who brought these creatures to life.

Perhaps it will slide down my rankings as I continue to make my way through the main Godzilla movie series, but I am happy, for now anyway, to rate Invasion Of Astro-Monster as another fantastic monster mash. 

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

Prime Time: Ricky Stanicky (2024)

I saw the trailer for Ricky Stanicky a couple of months ago and I wasn’t happy. First of all, it looked dire. Second, I knew I would still eventually watch it. And so here we are, but was it as dire as the trailer made it out to be?

After a childhood incident that requires some quick creativity, three friends realise how much they can help themselves by making use of an imaginary friend, named Ricky Stanicky. Ricky can be blamed for many  misadventures, he can be used to get out of other obligations, and life is just better with him available. That is, of course, until things are complicated by people wanting to meet Ricky. With the alternative option (coming clean after many years) not really an option at all, our main characters hire an adult entertainer/actor (John Cena) they met in Atlantic City. 

Starring Zak Efron, Andrew Santino, and Jermaine Fowler as the friends who keep the secret of Ricky Stanicky between them, this is a fairly enjoyable and predictable comedy that would have really benefited from pushing into much more outrageous and bawdier territory (which people might have expected from director Peter Farrelly, although he has certainly settled in to helming much mellower fare over the past decade). I enjoyed the leads well enough, but there should have been someone else on the mix, someone to help add laughs and elevate every scene. Santino is clearly positioned here as the most comedic of the cast, setting aside Cena for the moment, but he just isn’t good enough.

I am surprised that this doesn’t feel like a bigger mess though, considering at least half a dozen writers were responsible for the screenplay. While it lacks any big laughs, and even skimps on the milder chuckles, it works well for most of the runtime due to the potential of the premise. There’s also a very enjoyable second act that shows “Ricky” stealing the show and living up to his legendary reputation.

Efron has always been someone I enjoy seeing onscreen, and he is fine here as the man who desperately hopes to get through a busy time without being caught out for his many lies. Santino is okay, but not as funny as he should be, and the same can be said of Fowler, who is given a plot strand that never feels fully developed, making you wonder why it was included anyway. Lex Scott Davis and Anja Savcic have a few good moments, playing the partners of Efron and Santino, respectively, and William H. Macy is fun as their boss (accompanied in one or two scenes by Jane Badler, playing his wife). Cena is the star though, given another chance to showcase his comedy chops, and he tries hard to make up for the weaknesses elsewhere in the script, whether oozing confidence and knowledge about subjects that Ricky should be fluent in or being shown performing his act onstage as “Rock-Hard Rod”. He’s certainly game to give anything a go, and I appreciate how well he transitioned from one incarnation of his personality to the next, sensing an opportunity to turn Ricky into his big break.

The enthusiasm and talent of Cena isn’t enough though. This isn’t a good movie, although it also isn’t the horrible car crash I thought it might be. It’s just average. I was moderately entertained while it was on, but I am never going to revisit it. At least it doesn’t end in a way that seems to set up any sequel opportunities. There should only ever be one Ricky Stanicky.

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 

13 Ghosts (1960)

While I will mention the plot and the cast, while I will do my best to review 13 Ghosts in the same way I would review any other movie, a William Castle is a slightly different beast. The director was renowned for his gimmicks and showmanship, and it is important to bear that in mind when watching the films that best exemplify that (although it is good to remember that he also helmed a number of films that were a bit less sensational). 13 Ghosts was sold to people with the lure of Illusion-O and I will be getting back to that shortly.

Cyrus Zorba (Donald Woods) isn’t doing well. He is struggling to earn enough money to stop people from entering his family home, upsetting his wife (Hilda, played by Rosemary DeCamp), and taking away their furniture. Things look up when he inherits a house, one that may relieve the tension for his wife, daughter (Medea, played by Jo Morrow), and young son (Buck, played by Charles Herbert). The fact that the house is supposed to be haunted by numerous spirits is surely nonsense, right? Well, fortunately, there are also some special goggles that help people to see some of the spirits around them. 

While not on a par with his best movies (which both starred Vincent Price in two truly marvelous roles), 13 Ghosts is a fun time. I would have loved to have seen this in the cinema with the full Illusion-O experience. Patrons were apparently given a ghost viewer for the film, which allowed you to see or avoid the spooks, depending on whether you looked through the blue or red portion of the apparatus. It’s a simple way to filter the main image, and also allows Castle to present a number of phantoms that don’t have to stand up to very close scrutiny.

The script, written by Robb White (who collaborated with Castle many times), is disappointingly weak, but we know that it’s just a series of steps to move from one ghost to the next, perhaps even counting as we see each apparition. It lacks the wit and energy of other Castle movies, arguably hampered by the need to incorporate the USP throughout.

Thankfully, there’s a surprisingly enjoyable cast. Both Woods and DeCamp may be a bit weak, but they are often kept to one side as we spend time with Herbert (who manages to just avoid being too irritating as he happily seeks out the secrets of the house) and Morrow (who, to use a very well-worn phrase, positively lights up the screen). There’s also a good turn from Martin Milner, playing the lawyer who seems to be helping the family get things sorted, and a fun little role for Margaret Hamilton, with the most famous witch in cinema playing a housekeeper viewed as . . . a witch by young Buck.

There are good moments throughout this, even if you can see the strings moving things around onscreen, and the very last scenes are as devious and entertaining as they are predictable. I probably won’t revisit this one, apart from time I will spend checking out the wonderful wealth of bonus features on the blu-ray I own, but I enjoyed watching it while it was on. I have yet to see any William Castle film that I actively dislike. I hope things stay that way as I finally explore his other feature that I have had on my “to watch” pile for far too long.

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

Mubi Monday: Yannick (2023)

Writer-director Quentin Dupieux has been doing great work for some time now, using the medium of film to have lots of fun and probe at the boundaries between audience and artist. Often using some wonderfully surreal premises, he is an acquired taste I have tended to always enjoy.

The starting point for Yannick is a stage play. Our lead character, the titular Yannick (Raphaël Quenard) is unhappy with it. He has travelled to see it, made it the centrepiece of his day off from work, and it is not distracting him from his own issues. We know this when he stands up to inform the three stage actors of this. One thing leads to another, and eventually leads to Yannick holding the actors and audience hostage as they work together to improve the play and give everyone a much better experience.

Clocking in at just over an hour in length (67 minutes is the full runtime, which includes credits), Yannick is a smart and intelligent look at the relationship between, yes, the audience and the artist. Dupieux is looking at a different facet of that relationship though, and I couldn’t help but view this as an exploration of the many recent incidents we have seen where fandoms turn toxic. Being a fan of something, or even just wanting to be a fan of something that doesn’t live up to your expectations and/or standards, doesn’t entitle you to attempt any kind of hostile takeover. Feedback and collaboration are both important, but it should all be for the right reasons, and at the right time. That might just be me though, and it is a stance not necessarily supported by the third act of this film, which may show Dupieux simply underlining how creators shouldn’t be averse to contributions from those with different viewpoints.

Wherever he lands on the issue, Dupieux does a great job of presenting a scenario that gives viewers plenty to chew on. Feeling very much like a play itself, the film benefits from the short runtime, being so densely packed with great dialogue and ideas, as much as it benefits from the casting.

While Pio Marmaï, Blanche Gardin, and Sébastien Chassagne are all very good in their roles, the actors in the play who are frustrated, angered, and scared at various times throughout the process of reworking their material, Quenard does a fantastic job of making his character feel unpredictable, and potentially dangerous, without ever seeming despicable. I recently enjoyed Quenard’s performance in Junkyard Dog, but this very different role has shown me that he is someone I definitely want to see as a lead in more movies.

Typically playful and thought-provoking, Yannick is another excellent work from Dupieux that will easily please fans of his style. It might even work well as a starting point for those who have yet to explore his filmography (the dialogue and dynamic crystallizing his main themes in a way that is more digestible than it is in some of his other films). Highly recommended, but mainly to people who will already have at least some inkling of what Dupieux likes to do.

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

Netflix And Chill: Scoop (2024)

I didn't really have any interest in this project when I heard it was coming, but then I heard about the cast. For me, Andrew (and I won't refer to him by any title, considering the fact that he keeps trying to weasel back into royal duties he was supposed to be removed from) is someone who was, at the very least, guilty of something that made him pay out a considerable sum of money to settle a sexual abuse lawsuit with Virginia Giuffre, the young woman pictured alongside him in the photograph that would prove to be the major contributing factor to the fall from grace that he keeps trying to return from. I couldn't even watch the full interview, the clips I saw were just too cringe-inducing for me. But seeing how it all played out in a drama featuring performances from Gillian Anderson, Rufus Sewell, Billie Piper, and Keeley Hawes? Yeah, I became convinced that I might actually enjoy watching this.

And I did. There's not much to say in terms of a plot description here. This is based on the book by Samantha McAlister (played onscreen by Piper), the woman who arranged a number of great interviews for the BBC, and it shows how things all came together in time to provide us with one of the most incredible interviews of the last few decades. Sewell plays Andrew, Anderson is well-known BBC presenter Emily Maitlis, and Hawes plays Amanda Thirsk, an adviser to Andrew who ends up being convinced that a frank and full interview might just be the thing to end all of the speculation and rumours about him. 

There's only so much you can do with this to make it engrossing entertainment, considering most people will watch this with the knowledge of what was shown on TV. Although there's fun to be had from seeing Andrew being given enough rope with which to hang himself, all without breaking a sweat, it's arguably more interesting to see the tension and dynamics behind the scenes of the BBC, with equal attempts made to deliver relevant news content while simultaneously keeping an eye of the guests and conversation pieces that help to maintain decent viewing figures. The arguments that Sam McAlister has with her colleagues are reflections of how many members of the public have viewed the BBC in recent years (especially when they have so many guest appearances from the likes of Nigel Farage, for example, or try to spin old news into something a bit fresher), and her pivotal role allows viewers to feel like they are being guided around the environment by someone who recognises the flaws of the place, but still believes in how much good can be done there.

Written by Peter Moffat and Geoff Bussetil, and directed by Philip Martin, everyone here has the mix of experience that you'd expect, with nobody standing out for being awful or great. They are all competent and dependable pairs of hands, in my view, and they have excellent source material to work with (and, yes, I immediately bought McAlister's book, "Scoops", after seeing this). They also do themselves a massive favour by casting the leads pretty perfectly.

Although they have arguably the hardest jobs to do onscreen, both Anderson and Sewell are excellent in their roles, both capturing mannerisms and an essence of the famous people that they're portraying. Sewell is helped by a great make up team, while Anderson is helped equally by the fact that she's Gillian Anderson, although the make up team and costume designers also give her some assistance. Piper is equally good, in a different way. She shows the tenacity and daring that it took to get, and hold, the exclusive interview opportunity, as well as how hard she had to keep fighting to stay involved with the whole process. As for Hawes, it's odd to see her character become more and more sympathetic as she struggles to handle a situation that shouldn't really be within her job description. I wouldn't ever say that the real Amanda Thirsk wanted to help Andrew self-destruct on TV, but there's some hint of relief mixed in with the astonishment of what she ends up seeing and hearing during the interview. Maybe just a thankfulness that, one way or another, a certain chapter is over, even if it leads to a whole new mess for others to swarm in and deal with.

I won't rush to rewatch this, and I still can't bring myself to watch the original Newsnight interview (which the BBC have cannily started promoting again on their BBC iPlayer platform), but it's a well-crafted piece of work, acted perfectly by a bunch of people I tend to really enjoy watching onscreen. It's not going to rock your world, but it's a solid bit of entertainment that serves as a timely reminder of why Andrew should remain away from any public duties, and why he should have been completely cut off from the rest of the royal family by now. Maybe if he'd done something truly terrible, like fall in love with someone who wasn't 100% white (please note the sarcasm), then he would have been more strongly punished.

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 

Shudder Saturday: The Third Saturday In October (2022)

We have known for some time that nostalgia is a powerful tool when it comes to marketing and selling, and that has been a major part of many recent movie releases, from big blockbusters to the legacy sequels, and many horror movies that seem intent on recapturing that feeling you had when you went home with a videotape that contained some extra-nasty and traumatizing content. Sometimes that nostalgia takes the form of the kind of extreme splatter and practical effects that have been diluted and phased out by modern practices. Sometimes that nostalgia is presented via the entire aesthetic of a piece. The Third Saturday In October falls into the latter category.

It all starts with a scroll that explains the title. Not that the title needed more explanation, but maybe that is just me thinking that way. Anyway, an unrepentant killer is executed by the state, with only a couple of people turning up to witness the event. As this is a throwback to some old-school slasher fun, however, death is only a minor inconvenience in the journey of this killer. He is soon out to hack up unsuspecting victims, but there’s also time for people to goof around and start getting horny.

Having helmed a number of shorts and features throughout the past decade, he actually seems to have released his first film back in 2010, writer-director Jay Burleson uses the premise and concept here to show off how well he can commit to the grimy and endearingly crude replication of a special VHS horror find. It’s just a shame that he cannot do as well with the script and pacing, leading to the first two thirds of the film feeling like a bit of a slog.

Things are helped by the music and cinematography though, with compliments to Kevin Wooten and Chris Hilleke, respectively, for their work. This is definitely a case of some great audio and visual work in dire need of a much better framework to flesh out.

When it comes to the acting, you might say that everyone is in line with the material, but that’s not entirely correct. Some get to be a bit quirky and fun, such as Darius Willis in the role of Ricky Dean Logan, a character who insists on referring to the woman accompanying him on his hunt for a killer by her full name of Vicki Newton every time he speaks to her. K. J. Baker is a decent enough co-lead as the aforementioned Vicki Newton, but Lew Temple, Richard Garner, Libby Blake, Dre Bravo, Allison Shrum, and everyone else in the cast feels a bit underused or out of place. And Antonio Woodruff, in the role of the killer, Harding, is disappointingly blank throughout, playing a slasher so devoid of personality that they may as well have just put some kind of sports mask on his face and leaned further into the Friday The 13th vibe.

I have read some reviews of this that mention it is meant to be watched AFTER The Third Saturday In October Part V, but other reviews seemed to suggest that it didn't matter too much. There are no other instalments in between the two films, which adds to the fun of the main idea, so I will get to that one eventually (maybe even by next week), and I will try to figure out how the connections would work if the films were watched in reverse order. Who knows . . . maybe I will find elements there that help me to appreciate this a bit more. I am doubtful, but it could happen.

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 

Next Goal Wins (2023)

Presenting a fictionalised version of a story already presented to us in a documentary of the same name (a documentary I am now very keen to see), this is the story of the American Samoa football team and their attempt to turn their fortunes around after a brutal 31-0 defeat in the qualifying rounds for the 2002 World Cup.

Michael Fassbender is our lead, a washed up coach named Thomas Rongen. Rongen isn’t really known for his ability to shape winners. He is known for losing his temper. All that matters is that the American Samoa team feel like they are being given a shot though, even if the odds are majorly stacked against them. Rongen has to get used to the local way of life, and he has to get used to the idea that one of his better players (Jaiyah, played by Kaimana) is in a state of transition that everyone else accepts and appreciates.

I rattled off a quick bit of praise for this on social media as soon as the end credits had rolled, commenting on how much I enjoyed it and how it seemed to come along at a time when director Taika Waititi had/has fallen out of favour. To be clear here, whether or not you like this film doesn’t necessarily depend on your personal feelings about the Waititi, but this is, for me, a film that retains most of what I like about Waititi’s work without having too much of the baggage that now proves to be a bit irritating. For better or worse, he has become a celebrity director, which may explain why his cameo here feels like one of the weaker moments.

Overall, however, Waititi directs with his usual skill at handling the kind of gentle humour, weaving together predictable plot strands on the way to a third act where lessons are learned, obstacles are overcome, and viewers will be ready to smile, whatever the result of the final game of footie. The script, co-written by Waititi and Iain Morris, is everything you expect, although there’s the bonus of a real winning charm derived from the warmth and easygoing nature, and optimism, of the American Samoan people. The stakes aren’t too high either, which is pleasingly atypical, with the team still quite happy to celebrate their journey as they strive to score just one goal to show that they can.

Fassbender is very good in his main role, majorly grumpy and resentful of his lot in life as he hurtles to what we all hope will be a transformative experience. Kaimana is a delight, adding an important element to the team and the team spirit, her presence highlighting the focus on happiness and gratitude. Both Oscar Kightley and David Fane are great as individuals struggling to keep the football team as a viable entity, the former involved in a great little running joke that shows how many different hats he wears in his daily life, and Beulah Koale, Uli Latukefu, and the other main players get to have numerous memorable moments as they train hard to hopefully achieve a bit of on-pitch redemption. There are also small roles for the likes of Elisabeth Moss, Will Arnett, Rhys Darby, and Rachel House.

I really enjoyed this, but it’s something we’ve seen done in similar ways many times before. Think of any feelgood sports comedy drama and you will already know what to expect. It’s still worth a watch though, especially if you just want something easy to watch that will have you smiling throughout. 

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

Ghidorah, The Three-Headed Monster (1964)

There’s no reason for me to be cagey about this film. It was the most fun I had this week with my clothes on. It’s a new favourite kaiju movie, but I am starting to worry that I will be saying that for every film I am belatedly discovering for the first time. I cannot imagine fans of these movies disliking this though. It is quite simply, to use the proper cinematic term, absolutely awesome.

Bear with me as I rush through the main plot points, which are quite ridiculous. A meteor hits the Earth. A princess, being guarded by a detective, seemingly dies in a plane crash, but then returns while seemingly possessed by the spirit of a Venusian prophet. The mighty Ghidorah is due to rise up and cause some stress for humans, to put it mildly, but there is a chance that Godzilla and Rodan could work together and overpower this mutual enemy . . . if they can be persuaded that Ghidorah IS an enemy. That persuasion comes from a young Mothra, with translations offered to the audience by the fairy twins (once again played by Emi and Yumi Itô).

If that all sounds pretty bonkers then, trust me, it is. It is also hilarious and entertaining, particularly during one key scene in the third act that is the kaiju equivalent of kids being talked into moodily doing some housework. As is so often the case, none of the human characters make much of an impression, although the oddness of the tale helps them a bit, but this is all about the monster madness, which is delivered with gusto in the finale.

Director Ishirô Honda is working again with writer Shin’ichi Sekizawa, and both seem to make the most of the silly premise, adding plenty of humour throughout to let viewers know that it’s fine to grin and chuckle your way through this one. And grin and chuckle you surely will.

The effects seem a bit cheaper and more crude than some of the previous stuff we have seen, but that just adds to the feeling that this has been made with an emphasis on the daffy fun. 

I will mention Yôsuke Natsuki, Yuriko Hoshi, Hiroshi Koizumi, and Akiko Wakabayashi here. They all do fine in their roles, the latter particularly enjoyable as the aforementioned princess (who, let’s not forget, appears to become possessed by a prophetic Venusian), but they are, as expected, secondary to the monsters. And when the monsters are onscreen, well, the humans are quickly forgotten.

If these films keep being as good as this then I will just kick myself harder for not watching many of them years before now. Part of me hopes they are wildly inconsistent, but part of me is absolutely gleeful at the prospect of more features that are as much fun as this one.

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

Prime Time: Soul Survivors (2001)

I saw Soul Survivors when it first came out, when it hit the VHS rental market anyway, and I hated it. Even as a much younger horror movie fan, I saw it as something dull and tired. I never thought of it as a film I should revisit, but recently decided I should give it a second chance. After all, maybe I would respond more positively to it after years spent developing a tolerance for many bad movies. And writer-director Stephen Carpenter has been involved with other projects that I enjoy (including the wonderful Kindred). Damn me and my optimism. If anything, this was worse than I remembered.

I genuinely despair at the thought of even relating the plot here. A group of mopey young people just mope around, get into a car accident, and spend a lot more time moping around. This might not have been so bad if the cast didn’t include the lesser Affleck, the lesser Wilson, and the lesser Slayer, as well as a soundtrack and aesthetic that pretty much beats you over the head with how turn-of-the-21st-century it is.

If you wanted to be generous about Soul Survivors, not that I do, then you could accept the fact that it’s a very tame horror movie for teens who want to try out their first horror movie. It’s not scary, not gory, and the characters are almost all impossible to care about, but it’s a paddling pool for people to dip their toes into before they put on the water wings and start learning to swim, if they don’t mind the water temperature.

I don’t know what Carpenter was thinking though. He was either hampered by a studio wanting him to make the blandest and most predictable film possible, or he forgot every other movie made in the history of cinema and figured that he was making something cool and entertaining for teen viewers. There are episodes of “Goosebumps” and “Are You Afraid Of The Dark?” scarier than this. Not to deride those shows. I just mention those as their target demographic skews much younger.

The cast really don’t help at all. If I forget to mention anyone here then please know that it is because I forgot about them while the movie was playing. Melissa Sagemiller is the lead, and there’s probably a good reason why she hasn’t (as far as I’m aware) been front and centre of too many, or any, other major releases. She had a run of a few movies, her small amount of good luck was used up, and she’s now seen more often in various TV roles. Eliza Dushku, who was given the prime spot on the poster, has fared slightly better, with a couple of better movies under her belt, but I have never been a big fan of her presence. Luke Wilson purses his lips and looks sad-eyed, which is no stretch, Casey Affleck keeps appearing throughout the film (and I tend to hate him, but also, dammit, love some of his best performances . . . of which this is very much not one), and Wes Bentley is just about the only highlight, overpowering the weak script and direction with his essential Wes Bentleyness (aka the menacing doppelgänger of Donnie Darko). 

Some people out there will still have a soft spot for this, if only for the soundtrack, but I implore those people to leave this dead and buried, where it belongs. I can easily recommend them at least half a dozen movies that cover very similar territory in a much better way. When it comes to mainstream horror movies aimed at a teen audience, this is about as bad as you can get. Absolutely atrocious from start to finish, and please feel free to give me a slap if I ever start to wonder if I was too harsh on 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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Dune: Part Two (2024)

The film that fans of Dune: Part One were forced to wait an extra five months to see in cinemas, that delay seems to have done nothing to dampen the enthusiasm of those eager for more visually gorgeous sci-fi on the big screen. It certainly gave me time to FINALLY watch the first instalment and join those who were eagerly awaiting the concluding part of the tale. Except, and I feel it’s important to say this somewhere in this review, this isn’t really a conclusion to the tale. It’s another lengthy chapter, and I was disappointed as the end credits rolled after an ending that didn’t feel like a proper ending. It might be in line with the source material, and there is certainly more to come from Denis Villeneuve working in this world, but that didn’t help me when I was underwhelmed by the way in which things just started to move towards the next part of the epic tale.

I will give a brief, and very poor, summary of the plot. After the events of the first film, Paul Atreides (Tinothée Chalamet) and his pregnant mother, Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson), are living with the desert-dwelling Fremen on the planet of Arrakis. Powerful people still want to destroy the Fremen, all to control the spice and become even more powerful, but Paul may well be the secret weapon that helps to end the ongoing battles. Or he may well cause even more destruction and bloodshed. There are strong bonds forged, and broken, there is a prophecy that many start to doubt, and there is a need to learn how to walk without rhythm in order to stay safe from the giant sandworms.

Although a visual feast from start to finish, as well as an aural feast too (thanks to Hans Zimmer and everyone working in the sound department), Villeneuve and Jon Spaihts have once again done a magnificent job of compressing an epic tome into a digestible and entertaining movie. It has a slightly different tone from part one, mainly due to the fact that we are witnessing Paul exploring his true potential, but it’s often the equal of the first film.

The cast are perfect, as many of them already proved last time around. Both Chalamet and Ferguson get to be a bit stronger and meaner this time, which is an interesting change to their characters, Javier Bardem has a bit more fun in his role, and Zendaya gets to do a lot more than just be some mysterious woman in a vision. Christopher Walken and Florence Pugh are sorely underused, as is the wonderful Léa Seydoux, while the likes of Stellan Skarsgård, Dave Bautista, and Josh Brolin are given just time to stay involved in the ongoing plotting and scheming until Austin Butler comes onscreen and threatens to steal the entire movie away from everyone.

I have less to say about this than I had to say about Dune: Part One, but only because it is so perfectly in line with the groundwork set out a few years ago. Villeneuve is arguably one of the best directors around when it comes to creating an entire world in which to immerse viewers (imagine the worlds we could see if he ever worked alongside Guillermo del Toro), and this is incredible stuff. It’s grandiose, it seems to emanate dry heat from every frame, and the prospect of getting to spend more time in this world is the silver lining to the small cloud that is that non-ending.

Much like the spice featured at the heart of the tale, this is pure and powerful stuff. And that’s without even mentioning how depressingly it parallels events in our reality that have been ongoing for decades. 

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

Mubi Monday: Results (2015)

It is easy to view gym life as quite a cult. Those who work there tend to be positive and full of motivational mantras, and those who end up responding well to the lifestyle end up acting like someone who has been recently converted to some kind of new religion. I don’t say this with malice. I speak from experience, and that experience is ongoing as I try to remain committed to my own gym and fitness schedule. Results is a movie that has fun with this idea, especially in the way it presents two fitness instructors with two very different ways of viewing life.

Kevin Corrigan plays Danny, a man who wants to get into shape. He wanders into a gym and chats to Trevor (Guy Pearce), who ends up pairing him up with a trainer named Kat (Cobie Smulders). It turns out that Danny is quite rich. It also turns out that he finds Kat attractive. Furthermore, Trevor also has a thing for Kat. What follows is a constant clash of differing attitudes as every one of these three main protagonists is somehow helped by the others to correct their path through life.

Both Pearce and Smulders are great fun here, butting heads in a way that you know is just distracting them from a chance to see their relationship potential. Pearce has to be almost constantly optimistic and positive throughout, while Smulders enjoys being a bit more confrontational and carefree. Corrigan is an actor I have loved seeing in supporting roles for years, and his excellent turn here makes me wish he had many more people willing to give him this amount of screentime. Giovanni Ribisi is good fun in a small role, a partying lawyer, and Anthony Michael Hall feels as if he is channeling Dolph Lundgren whenever he appears onscreen as a kettlebell guru named Grigory.

Written and directed by Andrew Bujalski, who has helmed at least three gems in the last decade or so, Results is a well-constructed comedy drama that stays enjoyable throughout, even in the scenes that hint at darker or more cringe-inducing options. This is as much to do with the performances as it is to do with the script, but Bujalski clearly has a talent for dialogue and characterization that attracts some great actors to his projects. It is also worth noting that this isn’t a film making fun of those who enjoy fitness or gym life. It is saying that there is no one easy “fix” for any of us, whether in the gym or just in life, but nobody is mocked here for trying to better themselves, even while they struggle. As anyone who has been trying to get fit for a decent amount of time can tell you, you can learn just as much from failures as you can learn from success.

There might be some people who would have preferred this to be a sharper film, a meaner one, but I think Bujalski has judged it perfectly. It’s a typical look at some characters trying to sort out their problems and create a decent future for themselves. They just all happen to be connected by their ongoing attempts to develop healthy bodies and healthy minds.

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