Prime Time: Dracula (2025)

I have seen worse films than this. I've also seen films that seemed more pointless. I just can't think of too many of them right now. Dracula AKA Dracula: A Love Tale, as it was titled when writer-director Luc Besson was trying to pretend that this wasn't just a pale imitation of Francis Ford Coppola's movie, is a disappointing mess for all involved. I'll mention them all individually very soon.

The story is one that everyone should be familiar with by now, to a certain degree. There's a deadly and sometimes charming vampire (Caleb Landry Jones), there's a woman who bears more than a striking resemblance to the past love that he thought was gone forever (Zoë Bleu), and there's a priest who knows about the vampire menace and knows how best to deal with them (Christoph Waltz). There are a few other characters allowed to take up some screentime here, none of them very interesting, you get some unnecessarily lively gargoyles, and there's a sequence at the end that helps to lift it above some other, even worse, films making use of the Dracula name, but only just. And it's just too little too late.

I wasn't sure what to expect when I first heard that Besson was giving us his version of the classic vampire tale, but I certainly didn't think it was going to be as dull as this. Although he has moved far away from the peak of his career (you could argue over a few different titles, but probably wouldn't argue that his best work was at least a few decades ago now), Besson remains someone I think of as stylish and willing to take some risks. Dracula has one or two decent visuals, but is mainly quite dull. It's also disappointingly risk-free. I would have much preferred to see something bold that would divide audiences, but instead we get something so safe and tame that it barely feels like a Dracula film. It certainly lacks . . . well, you know how this sentence should end.

Jones is an interesting choice for the lead role, and he tries his best to showcase his talent, but he's rarely given anything truly worthy of him. I could say something very similar about Waltz, and Bleu is just an utter bore for most of her screentime. Nobody decides to throw a curveball here, there are no big performances, and it's clear that Besson wrote the screenplay with his focus on a couple of half-decent ideas ahead of any proper characterisations. Despite the variety of the main character roles, nobody has a distinct voice. 

One scene saves it, one that moves from some enjoyable action to a provocative and philosophical conversation about good and evil, and what is done by people in the name of god. Unfortunately, that's about five minutes, give or take, in a film with a 129-minute runtime. I'll have forgotten it all in a day or two, and I suspect many other people will feel the same way about it. Even those involved in making it.

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

Project Hail Mary (2026)

If you don't know what to expect from Project Hail Mary then you've never watched any other movie that presents the fate of the entire world resting on one smart individual who has to dig deep into reserves of courage that they never even knew they had. You've also never watched The Martian, the previous sci-fi blockbuster success adapted from source material by writer Andy Weir. That film also shared the talent of Drew Goddard, deftly working to ensure that the film maintained a fine balance between the science and the entertainment.

Phil Lord and Christopher Miller direct this particular tale, and it's all about a teacher, Ryland Grace (Ryan Gosling), who ends up a hell of a long way from his home planet. Not prepared for any kind of space mission, as we learn from seeing his present learning curve and numerous flashbacks that show how he ended up there, Grace nonetheless wants to succeed in a mission that could hopefully stop Earth from losing the sun. That's all you need to know. Grace is on his own, he seems ill-suited to the role, but maybe he can be helped on to the greatness that others already know lies within him.

While this works best if you go into it knowing as little as possible, I suspect that ship has sailed. The trailer gives too much away, and promotion of the film has decided to lean into certain aspects that would have been better kept hidden away for viewers to enjoy while watching the film. I'm not going to add to all of that noise though, which may hamper me slightly. You're just going to have to trust me when I say that Project Hail Mary is, very much like The Martian, a science fiction movie that uses a science-heavy premise to tell a story that's all about humanity and heart.

Lord and Miller are a fine choice for the direction here, comfortable with material that allows for a surprising, but not unwelcome, amount of comedy. This is material that needs to keep that light touch, considering what is at stake and the journey that our lead character is on, both literally and metaphorically, and Lord and Miller make very good use of a sharp screenplay and winning performances to ensure that most people should be entertained and amused without ever feeling as if they're watching an outright comedy.

Gosling hasn't been able to do any wrong throughout most of his film career, and he continues that streak here. He's perfect as the smart teacher who eventually becomes a reluctant potential hero after resisting his fate in the strongest way he can. Sandra Hüller is also fantastic, playing someone who is in charge of the mission that she knows will cost a few lives in exchange for saving the population of Earth. She's tough, but not without empathy and understanding for those who may often be a step or two behind her while she looks at the big picture. Lionel Boyce has his best movie role yet, and one that I hope serves as a stepping stone for him as he looks to capitalise on the goodwill afforded to him thanks to his outstanding work in The Bear. Ken Leung and Milana Vayntrub do well in very small roles, but the other cast member who needs singled out for praise is James Ortiz, giving a delightful vocal performance that is as essential to the film as any of the visuals.

I wish the score from Daniel Pemberton had a bit more oomph to it at times (yes, that is the technical term), and the cinematography from Greig Fraser is often dictated by some major environmental factors that stop the imagery from being as clear and impressive as I sometimes wanted it to be, but those are minor nitpicks in a film that reminds you of how great it is when you can enjoy a blockbuster that can appeal to the majority of cinema audiences without feeling too dumb or patronising. And I may even change my mind on these issues when I get to revisit the film in the comfort of my own home.

9/10

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

Mubi Monday: No Other Choice (2025)

If you can remember the last time that director Park Chan-wook delivered anything less than a brilliant feature then you have a better memory than I do. Or maybe you just have more discerning taste. I'd be willing to bet on the former though. Has Chan-wook ever been underwhelming? I think not. And No Other Choice  is another winner.

Lee Byung-hun plays Man-su, a papermaking company employee who finds himself in financial dire straits when he is laid off. It's not long until his wife (Mi-ri, played by Son Ye-jin) takes charge of the situation, explaining to Man-su and their two children that they'll have to cancel a number of extra-curricular activities, temporarily rehome the family pets, and sell their home before it is taken away from them by the bank anyway. Man-su doesn't want to lose the home he worked so hard to own. He eventually comes up with a plan to find his main competitors in the job market . . . and kill them.

What you may think is simply a thriller with a rich vein of dark comedy through it is actually a damning look at the treatment of workers by companies consistently chasing cheaper working methods and bigger profits. It's also a thriller with a rich vein of dark comedy through it, and many viewers may be surprised to find that it's based on a novel, "The Ax", by Donald E. Westlake, but the scenes that bookend the film really hammer home a point about the mistreatment of people by the bosses who end up wielding far too much power over them. 

As well as his usual excellent direction, Chan-wook also once again collaborates on the screenplay with Jahye Lee, as well as being joined by Lee Kyoung-mi and Don McKellar this time around. Despite the 139-minute runtime, it feels perfectly paced, allowing time for Man-su to be sorely impacted by his downturn in fortune, time for him to come up with a deadly plan, and plenty of time to show him working out how best to deal with each potential victim. Everyone gets treated equally, which helps, and we're shown how Mi-ri is affected by things, how the children deal with the situation, and even how each of the victims spends their time, whether they're in a good place or not.

Byung-hun is as good as you'd expect him to be in the lead role. If you've seen him in any other role then you will already know his talent. Ye-jin is equally good alongside him, and both Woo Seung Kim and So Yul Choi do well as the younger family members. Lee Sung-min and Yeom Hye-ran are interesting and entertaining as a married couple who end up targeted by our leading man when he starts putting his plan into action, Cha Seung-won is enjoyable as a more timid character, and Park Hee-soon has fun as the kind of individual you really hope to see get their comeuppance before the end credits roll. 

The cinematography from Kim Woo-hyung has some moments that allow for a helping of beauty alongside some of the macabre developments, the music from Jo Yeong-wook is wonderful throughout, and every little detail, whether it's vital or not, helps to make the whole film feel cared for and classy. I loved it, and I could happily rewatch it immediately. Like almost every other Park Chan-wook film I could mention.

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: Double Jeopardy (1999)

In case you didn't know, double jeopardy is a legal term that, apparently, means you cannot be arrested and judged for the same crime twice. There's more nuance to it than that, and I am in no way offering any kind of legal advice here, but that's what this film wants you to believe. So, for example, if your husband framed you for his murder while he disappeared and started a whole new life then you could, once out of prison, track him down and shoot him in the middle of a crowd without anyone being able to do a damn thing about it. Apparently. And that is the premise for what turns out to be a very enjoyable thriller from the late '90s.

Ashley Judd plays Libby, a woman who has her world rocked when she wakes up one morning to find blood everywhere, a knife nearby, and no sign of her husband (Bruce Greenwood). She is found guilty of his murder, and serves six years of a prison sentence before showing enough contrition to get herself out on parole. She knows that her husband isn't dead though. She wants to find him, and she wants to reunite with her son, Matty. All that her parole officer wants, however, is a peaceful life, and the fact that her parole officer is played by Tommy Lee Jones ensures that Libby would be unwise to start breaking any rules.

Directed by Bruce Beresford, who has a lengthy film career stretching back decades, but may still hold this film up as a real highlight, Double Jeopardy is very enjoyable nonsense. The fact that it has some level of self-awareness, thanks to the screenplay by David Weisberg and Douglas Cook, helps a lot, especially when you start to wonder about certain repercussions that are then shown mere moments later (almost as if the writers allow you to have a moment to consider things before winking and letting you know that they've given some thought to keeping the whole thing both entertaining and at least slightly plausible).

It also helps that Judd and Jones are both fantastic in their lead roles. Judd moves from entirely sweet and innocent to righteous and tenacious, and everyone watching will want to see her succeed, while Jones gives us the kind of gruff and "slowly and surely" hunter that he basically perfected in The Fugitive. Greenwood is enjoyably smarmy and dangerous, and there's an enjoyably pivotal role for Annabeth Gish, who ends up committing the major error that sets Judd's character on her determined quest for revenge/reparation.

A third act set in New Orleans helps to keep things interesting and lively, there are a number of scenes that have a surprisingly good dollop of wit in the mix (our lead being hit on by someone who helps her with an internet search is perhaps the first example, and made me properly chuckle), and the whole thing may just make you nostalgic for these smaller, but still star-powered, movies that we sadly don't seem to see any more. It's also a reminder of how good Judd was in the prime roles she was given throughout the 1990s and 2000s.

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: Bodycam (2025)

I have liked a number of movies from Brandon and Ryan Christensen (Brandon being the director, Ryan being a co-writer on a number of their past few features). Bodycam is easily their worst film yet, and it's almost insultingly bad in a number of ways. I'm annoyed with myself for being mildly impressed by the trailer that I watched last month. That didn't really misrepresent anything. I just allowed myself to think that it was a good concept that might be executed well. I was wrong on both counts.

What you have here is a tale of two cops. There's Officer Bryce (Sean Rogerson) and Officer Jackson (Jaime M. Callica). Their shift quickly goes from bad to worse when they're called to a domestic disturbance that leads to the accidental killing of a baby. Bryce is the one who could end up in major hot water, and he wants to figure out a way to change the narrative. That would mean figuring out a way to get rid of their bodycam footage though. Not only does that seem unlikely, the bodycams soon start showing more and more disturbing events as the two officers are manipulated and terrorised by numerous individuals who seem to be serving some malevolent deity.

I have mentioned it many times before, and will undoubtedly do so again, but there are certain warning signs to keep an eye out for when watching any "found footage" film. Bodycam doesn't manage to stay true to the nature of the format, which is actually one of the warning signs, but that would be the main descriptor for it. Many of the early scenes use torchlight, there are hardly any moments that don't have the action being obscured by the movement and unsteadiness of the camerawork, and the third act feels based around one or two main jump scares. I won't namecheck the far superior horror movie that this made me think of, but some imagery in the last scenes may have a lot of people thinking of the same one. (and thinking "I wish I'd watched *insert the title here* instead of this rubbish") 

It's hard to really rate the performances of Rogerson and Callica, who both do well enough at hitting their marks, but are hampered by the constantly painful hyperactivity of the pacing and the camerawork. Catherine Lough Haggquist, playing the mother of Callica's character, isn't as obscured, although her performance feels so weak that I wish it had been. Some others onscreen do quite well, despite the fact that they're simply moved around hither and thither in service of the central concept.

Are there some moments to give you chills? I guess so, but nothing that wouldn't work better packed into a short. This isn't an effective feature. It's a potentially enjoyable V/H/S segment, at best. The attempts to build atmosphere don't work, a lot of the first half feels like a waste of time as our two main characters go around in circles trying to cover up something that feels impossible to cover up, and the details littered throughout, meant to create a bigger picture of a dark world pushing at the membrane of our own, feel more tiresome than interesting. 

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

Snow White (2025)

There's something really annoying about watching a movie that has had the critical conversation around it hijacked by people frothing at the mouth while they misuse the word "woke" and then finding out that, sadly, it really is awful. Not for the reasons that the raving racists and misogynists would claim, but it's still very hard to defend.

Snow White isn't just bad. It's consistently awful in a way that feels designed that way. From the casting of Gal Gadot as the Evil Queen to the horrible CGI/motion-captured dwarfs, it's a live-action remake that serves no purpose, other than to drive viewers back to enjoy the animated classic once again. 

Everyone knows the story. I am not going to repeat it here. Rachel Zegler is Snow White, and she's the best thing in this. I'm not going to name those voicing the dwarf roles. The only other cast member to mention is Andrew Burnap, playing Jonathan (a replacement for the bland prince in the original movie).

Written by Erin Cressida Wilson, who has a number of much better movies to her credit that you should check out ahead of this one, and directed by Marc Webb, who also has a number of better movies you could choose ahead of this (hell, if Neil Breen worked on this then I would even be recommending a number of his past features), this is such a mishandling of the classic tale that it's only saved from being the worst of the worst by Zegler. There's no charm to it, no improvement offered by the move from animation to live-action, and it stands as the best argument yet against Disney rushing to remake so many of their classic works.

Zegler is a great talent, as she has also shown in a number of other recent projects. She also absolutely looks the part, and kudos to the make up and costuming department for their work on both Zegler and Gadot here, with them being allowed to impressively recreate some iconic looks. Someone else really needed to be cast as the Evil Queen though. Gadot isn't just bad, she's mistakenly given a musical number that also proves how ill-suited she is to anything that requires a bit of singing. I would rather listen to her joining other celebrities on another horrible and patronising rendition of "Imagine". As for Burnap, he's simply fine, if forgettable. I don't want to spend any time critiquing the dwarf characters, mainly because I am hoping to wipe them from my memory as quickly as possible.

It brings me no joy to be so scathing here. The backlash against this meant that I was rooting for it, particularly when that backlash was often most passionately supported by those who were just looking to push their own agendas, but if it quacks like a duck and tries, but fails, to walk like a duck then it is, in fact, a lame duck.

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

Ghosted (2023)

A mix of action and rom-com starring Chris Evans and Ana de Armas in the lead roles, Ghosted should have been an easy success. The familiar faces, the familiar plotting, and a succession of cameos make it an obvious choice for some straightforward entertainment. There's a reason that it's pretty much been forgotten already though. It's not good. It's hard to describe as truly awful, although I am sure some will, but it's certainly as bland as some vegetable that has had all of the flavour boiled out of it.

Evans plays Cole Turner, a young man who falls hard for Sadie Rhodes (De Armas). He thinks that it might be a good idea, after spending one day with her, to pay her a surprise visit in London. Things don't go according to plan though, with Cole soon abducted by people who believe him to be an infamous CIA agent known as "The Taxman". Can you guess who is actually that agent? Bickering, gunfights, and various hijinks soon ensue.

Written by the not-insubstantial-quartet of Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick, Chris McKenna, and Erik Sommers, Ghosted is what happens when you believe that your film has enough star power to ignore things like proper wit, pacing, and characters with some depth. There is nothing to this when you remove the stars. Nothing.

Director Dexter Fletcher is often a capable talent, but he is clearly hamstrung here by the demands of delivering such studio fluff. The action doesn’t have any weight or impact, there’s a surprising, and debilitating, lack of chemistry between the two leads, and nothing is done to make things more interesting around the superficial glossy smoothness of everything.

Evans and De Armas have rarely been worse. They can be charismatic, they can be convincing with action beats and physical work, and they can be fun, but you wouldn’t know that from watching this. Adrien Brody is a main villain, but feels like the wrong choice in every scene focusing on him. It’s either him just cashing a big cheque or not able to find his way into a performance that should just be a bit ridiculous and entertaining. Nobody else makes much of an impression, and the many cameos that crop up feel like a desperate and lazy attempt to please Marvel fans. They are smug and unfunny, like so many other parts of the movie.

I still won’t describe this as truly awful, there were one or two moments I enjoyed before completely losing any optimism about it improving, but it is bad. Very bad. It deserves to be as forgotten as it already is, and I am sure the main cast members are happy to see it fade from memory so quickly.

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

Prime Time: The Bluff (2026)

I like Karl Urban. I also tend to like Priyanka Chopra Jonas. And, good job for me, I like pirates. Despite the plot summary accompanying the thumbnail imagery of this one online, I didn't realise that The Bluff was a film set in the pirate-filled past until it started. Thankfully, Urban is such a good pirate that I soon knew I would have a good time with this.

Jonas plays Ercell, a woman with a disabled young son (Isaac, played by Vedanten Naidoo) and a strong-willed younger sister (Elizabeth, played by Safia Oakley-Green). She wants to keep both of them safe and protected when her home island is invaded by Captain Connor (Urban) and his crew. They're after some hidden treasure, of course, and they believe that Ercell is the one who has it. Maybe it was hidden away somewhere by her husband, T.H. (Ismael Cruz Córdova). Or maybe she did it herself, and is more than capable of defending it from those who would seek to steal it from her.

Co-written by Joe Ballarini and director Frank E. Flowers, there are no major surprises here in The Bluff, especially when you consider the billing order of the stars, and the only thing to differentiate from a hundred other similar movies are the stars and the setting. Those two factors are enough to make it feel a bit better than many other viewing choices though, especially when the pirates get busy delivering their pirate violence to those they consider to be standing between them and their payday.

Jonas is convincing when it comes to the physicality, very quickly asserting her skills and deadliness in an impressive sequence that shows her turning the tables on two home invaders, and she's good enough to keep viewers on her side as things ramp up and she has to become more and more resourceful and capable, and also a little bit fortunate. Urban growls and scowls in his usual manner, looking damn good in the pirate garb and being as entertaining as ever. Oakley-Green and Naidoo may be there to add some vulnerable people needing protection, which they do well enough, but there are more enjoyable supporting turns from Temuera Morrison, David Field, and those having fun using their cannons, muskets, and swords.

The action is depicted clearly enough, and there's a nice mix of smooth cinematic moves and occasional grisliness, and the 103-minute runtime feels just right, allowing for just enough character development in between the numerous set-pieces. Flowers may not be any kid of master of cinema, but he handles things well enough, and at least knows how to make the most of the two biggest names heading up his cast. The only major disappointment by the time the end credits roll is regret that Urban has never been cast as Blackbeard in a movie. Someone needs to get on that.

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 Master (2012)

After the success that Paul Thomas Anderson enjoyed at the Oscars this year, it seemed like a good enough time to finally check out one of his celebrated movies I had somehow never made the time for before now.

Joaquin Phoenix plays Freddie Quell, a Navy veteran struggling to return to any kind of normal life after his time spent in service during WWII. Dealing with a number of issues, many of which we would nowadays connect to PTSD, Freddie ends up meeting Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Dodd is the leader of a movement known as "The Cause", which seems to focus on interrogating people and psychologically breaking them down before helping them to rebuild into some better version of themselves, apparently. Not that Dodds is medically qualified for whatever he's doing, but he and Freddie seem to make quite the effective team. Until they don't.

Although there are a number of different inspirations for The Master, it's hard to view it as anything other than a thinly-disguised exploration of Scientology. The methodology seems familiar, Dodd also writes a number of books that may fall a bit short of literary greatness, and, well, he generally feels like someone you don't want to end up getting entangled with.

Phoenix is very good in his role, although he's played the confused and tortured individual so often by now that it would arguably be more interesting to watch him play someone simply content and dealing with more everyday problems (like trying to remember which day is bin day, for example). Hoffman is fantastic, giving a performance that ranks up there with his very best, which is really saying something. Amy Adams is excellent in her main supporting role, and the cast also includes Laura Dern, Jesse Plemons, and Rami Malek, as well as Kevin J. O'Connor, Jillian Bell, and a few other familiar faces.

I must say that I was surprised to find I didn't love this though. I was never drawn into it, never completely engrossed while Phoenix was playing another of his twitchy and angry men, and never entirely convinced that the story was being told in the best possible way. Because there is a great story here, but that story revolves around Dodd. A number of scenes work because of him at the heart of them, but there are too many moments that take viewers elsewhere, mainly keeping them alongside the less interesting and less complex character of Freddie.

There's a typically great selection of music from Jonny Greenwood, fantastic cinematography from Mihai Mǎlaimare Jr., and the standard skill and confidence you'd expect from the writing and direction of Anderson, but it never all comes together as it should. Ironically, the 137-minute runtime feels too short, yet certain moments drag when there's no riveting presence of Hoffman onscreen.

Everyone else seems to absolutely love this, rating it as one of Anderson's best, and one of the best films of 2012. I thought it was good, but it wouldn't crack my personal top 5 list of PTA movies.

7/10

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

Mubi Monday: It Was Just An Accident (2025)

The latest feature from celebrated Iranian film-maker Jafar Panahi, It Was Just An Accident takes a familiar premise, someone believing that they recognise an individual who was once their jailer/tormenter, and uses it to take viewers on a complex journey that makes space for people dealing with shared trauma, obstacles in the shape of standard societal "protocols", and even some comedy mined from the fact that our lead character isn't cold and callous enough to ignore those in need of help while he already has quite a lot on his plate already, to put it mildly.

Vahid Mobasseri plays Vahid, a mechanic who is approached by Eghbal (Ebrahim Azizi) when his car is in need of repair. Vahid believes that he has encountered Eghbal before (mainly due to the noise of his walk, due to a prosthetic leg), which leads to him following the man, kidnapping him, and aiming to take revenge. There's still a shadow of doubt though, which leads Vahid to enlist the help of Shiva (Mariam Afshari), Goli (Hadis Pakbaten), Ali (Majid Panahi), and Hamid (Mohammad Ali Elyasmehr). 

I could say more, particularly when it comes to a couple of other figures who end up impacting the plot, but that would spoil the many delights and surprises of this film. It's a tough watch, particularly in the third act, but Panahi, who collaborated on the central ideas for the story with Nader Saïvar, Shadmehr Rastin, and Mehdi Mahmoudian, does a superb job of making everything consistently entertaining, despite the uncomfortable subject matter. It's also interesting to watch this kind of material, used many times before in darker genre fare, and be convinced that revenge (usually so cinematically satisfying) would not be the best outcome here.

Mobasseri is excellent in his main role, and Afshari easily matches him, but nobody falters. Azizi goes through a wide range of emotions as he reacts to the situation, especially when concerned about his family, and Pakbaten, Panahi, and Elyasmehr do excellent work making up the rest of the potential vigilante group. 

Although I have not seen nearly enough of Panahi's filmography, this feels like as good a place to start as any. Maybe watch This Is Not A Film to get a bit more of an insight into the risks that Panahi has taken over the years to make his movies, as it perfectly illustrates his intelligence and good humour while providing context to his reputation, but definitely make this one a high priority when it comes to making your way through the essential films of 2025.

10/10

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: War Machine (2026)

When I saw War Machine pop up on the main page of Netflix I admit to being slightly confused. I remembered it being something I'd seen advertised some time ago, with Brad Pitt in a main role, but I didn't know why it was getting a renewed push now. Maybe it was to do with Alan Ritchson also having a main role, and his star being on the rise was reason enough to ensure some extra interest in something that has passed many people by when it was first released. Or maybe, as it turned out, this was just a new Netflix movie with the same name as a previous Netflix movie. You can still hunt around on Netflix to find War Machine (2017), which I still want to get around to one day, but it's a lot easier just now to find this War Machine (2026), a sci-fi action movie with Ritchson in the lead role.

The premise may sound very familiar to most of you. A group of soldiers on a mission (albeit a training mission) end up being noticed by a deadly alien. That's all there is to it, and that's all it needs. These people are looking to complete their training to become U.S. Army Rangers. Most of them will struggle as they reach their limits, but Ritchson's character already went beyond that point a few years ago, when he was in Kandahar with his seriously-wounded brother (Jai Courtney). Once they realise that their training mission has turned into something very real, and very deadly, the squad must work together to try to survive, and hopefully warn others of a potential invasion.

This is predictable and cheesy entertainment, but it's also a good bit of fun. In fact, I'd argue that it's the best thing Patrick Hughes has done since his excellent film from 2010, Red Hill. It's certainly good enough for me to try not holding his past few films against him any longer. Hughes also worked on the screenplay with writer James Beaufort, delivering something that unabashedly works through a number of military movie tropes while adding an impressively deadly antagonist into the mix. It helps that the cast is based around Ritchson as the central lynchpin, a man who looks as if he could do everything that the movie requires of him, no matter how difficult or far-fetched.

Certainly more suited to this kind of material than his ill-judged attempt at comedy, Ritchson keeps a straight face while delivering a performance that ticks off everything you might write down on some kind of stoic war hero bingo card. He's good enough to root for nonetheless, and any scenes with him trying to outwit the enemy are easy highlights. Stephan James, Blake Richardson, and Alex King are the other main squad members to get decent screentime, although James spends a lot of the film incapacitated, and all of them do well enough, Courtney makes a strong enough impression in his few scenes, and stereotypical military leaders are portrayed by Esai Morales and Dennis Quaid, just as happy as everyone else to accommodate every cliché you might expect from this sort of thing.

The special effects and sound work are impressive, the action is generally shot well (although one sequence with a vehicle being chased gets a bit too frenetic and hard to watch), and there are some surprisingly gory wounds and deaths filling up the screen. This is not for the faint-hearted, certainly not when it introduces the main threat anyway, and those after something that seems to epitomise a "no guts, no glory" attitude should be easily placated by this.

It's not great, especially when you consider how derivative and stuffed full of tropes it is, but it is a solid viewing choice that at least feels, and looks, better than many other movie choices that often feel like content instead of proper movies. 

6/10

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

Shudder Saturday: The Last Horror Film (1982)

I've heard a wide range of opinions on The Last Horror Film, and now that I have finally seen it I can at least say that, well, it sure was something. Whether it's something good or bad is something I hope to settle on by the time I reach the end of this review.

Joe Spinell plays Vinny Durand, a New York taxi driver who dreams of one day making a great horror movie starring the wonderful Jana Bates (Caroline Munro). There's no need to go the traditional route though, obviously, so Vinny heads to the Cannes Film Festival, where he sets out to get rid of some competitors and put Jana in his movie, even if she doesn't want to do it.

I knew what I was in for here when we had gratuitous toplessness within the first thirty seconds. This was going to be a bit sleazy, it was going to be unconcerned with good taste, and it was going to deliver some very standard 1980s horror movie moments. Would it have any surprises for me? Sadly not, although there's a moderately enjoyable layering of self-awareness and meta commentary as it turns into something increasingly self-reflexive on the way to an ending that whimpers when it should be bellowing out a primal scream.

It's not up there with the best work from either of the leads (Spinell has been even sweatier and more disturbing in Maniac, whereas Munro has her Hammer and Bond highlights), but both are cast for what they obviously bring to their respective roles. That's more than can be said for the likes of Glenn Jacobson, David Winters, or Judd Hamilton (although Winters and Hamilton being in control behind the camera explains why they cast themselves in front of it).

Winters directs with a lack of any notable style, happy enough to fill out the runtime with snatched footage from Cannes in between a few disappointingly tame death scenes. There are some good lines scattered throughout the screenplay (co-written by Winters, Hamilton, and Tom Klassen), but nothing truly clever or memorable enough to make the most of the concept at the heart of the film. 

It may not be essential viewing, not even close, but there’s still enough here to make it one that horror movie fans should want to check off their watchlist. I am glad that I finally got around to it, but I doubt I will ever want to give it a rewatch.

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

The Roses (2025)

If you have forgotten The War Of The Roses (1989) then I encourage you to revisit it. Based on the book by Warren Adler, directed by Danny DeVito (who also gives himself a fun supporting role), and starring Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner, who are both clearly having a blast in their main roles, it's about as dark and twisted a black comedy as you could hope for. Don't watch it if you're planning to check out The Roses though, which is a "reimagining" starring Olivia Colman and Benedict Cumberbatch in the lead roles. 

The Roses isn't bad. It just doesn't hold up when you compare it to the original film. 

The story is all about a married couple who seem to fall out of love. A lot has changed since they first met, and resentment grows into something that eventually makes them toxic and dangerous to one another. Some may want them to stay together, but many eventually realise that they'd be better separating. The lawyers (played by Allison Janney and Andy Samberg) look set to be the only real winners though.

It's odd that this was written by Tony McNamara, who must have seemed like a great choice after his recent work with Yorgos Lanthimos. In fact, I'll take the rare opportunity now to recommend the wonderful The Rage In Placid Lake, his directorial feature film debut, adapted from his own stage play. While this is passable entertainment, I can't really recommend this. It lacks real bite, which is even more of a shame when you get the feeling that both Colman and Cumberbatch would have enjoyed leaning even further into anarchy and viciousness.

While they're not on top form, I cannot blame either of the leads for their work here. They both do quite well with what they're given, although Colman easily outshines her male co-star in the second half of the film. Janney is very good fun as the out-for-everything lawyer, Samberg is fairly amusing as a more timid member of the legal system, and there's some fun to be had with Sunita Mani, Ncuti Gatwa, Zoë Chao, and Jamie Demetriou. The actors who play the Rose children also do well enough, but their characters are generally passive observers to the disintegration of the relationship between their mother and father. The biggest disappointment comes from Kate McKinnon, someone I often enjoy seeing in comedies. Her character here feels like she's been dropped in from a completely different movie, or (more accurately) a very weak SNL skit.

The main person I blame for this being such a disappointment is director Jay Roach. Roach can do comedy, but he has come unstuck before when trying to add some edge to the laughs. The fact that he also doesn’t have strong enough comedic talent here (with no offence intended to the leads) just undermines his decision to try to keep things more fun and funny until lurching sideways for the grand finale. 

Casual viewers should find enough to enjoy here, especially if you like either of the leads, and, despite my criticisms, I really cannot call it a bad film. It just feels completely neutered and toothless, which is something that could have been avoided with a bolder individual at the helm.

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

Fackham Hall (2025)

All you need to know about Fackham Hall is that it's essentially a silly parody of Downton Hall fare. Imagine that kind of period piece drama given the Zucker/Abrahams/Zucker treatment and you're in the right area. Director Jim O'Hanlon has a pretty good body of work to his name already, including a couple of enjoyable Christmas movies and an episode of Hemlock Grove. (anyone else remember Hemlock Grove with fondness, or is it just me? and where the hell does Hemlock Grove "live" nowadays?)

The main cast members are Thomasin McKenzie, playing Rose, Ben Radcliffe, playing Eric, and Damian Lewis and Katherine Waterston playing Lord and Lady Davenport, respectively. Others onscreen are Tom Felton (as Archibald), Emma Laird (as Poppy), and Jimmy Carr, who also helped to co-write the screenplay, cameoing as a vicar who keeps breaking up his sentences in ways that make his speeches to the congregation hilarious inappropriate.

While there is a plot here, it's really all about throwing a lot of gags around and hoping that some of them land. The good news is that many of them do. They may not be the best gags, nor the most hilarious, but I ended up surprised by how much of the 97-minute runtime I spent consistently chuckling at the entertaining silliness being put before me. Jimmy Carr, Patrick Carr, Tim Inman, Andrew Dawson, and Steve Dawson are clearly comfortable, and skilled, when it comes to constructing a selection of jokes. The fact that the plot is slim enough to leave plenty of room for them, yet also constructed well enough to feel like the bones of a proper film, is impressive.

Considering some of his past work (especially having helmed a number of episodes of A Touch Of Cloth), it's no surprise to find that O'Hanlon has a good handle on the material. What is surprising is just how many of the leads trust themselves, and one another, to play things wonderfully straight in the midst of all the stupidity. McKenzie is particularly good in her role, as is Waterston, and they're rivalled by both Radcliffe and Lewis, although the latter can't resist adding a bit of extra ham to his performance at times. Felton almost unsettles things, but just stays within the perimeter of permissible parody behaviour, and things are quickly back on track whenever the focus moves to someone like Laird, Lizzie Hopley, Sue Johnston, or Tom Goodman-Hill (as Inspector Watt, called in when a corpse really puts a dampener on things for those at the titular hall).

It may rarely feel like a proper feature, more likely to be stumbled upon by viewers when it appears somewhere on a streaming service, but it does exactly what it sets out to do. If you know what to expect then you should laugh as much as I did. If you're after something a bit more clever and cinematic then I would encourge you to look elsewhere.

I started this review thinking that I would ultimately finish it off with a "good, but I won't rush to rewatch it" comment. In fact, thinking about how amused I was for the duration, and considering how that is a pleasant distraction from the madness of the real world, I might give it a rewatch soon. There might even be a number of little jokes that I missed the first time around. Which means I MAY one day return to edit this review/rating. I doubt it, but it could happen.

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: Melania (2026)

Considering the fact that Melania is nothing more than a sickening and slick propaganda piece, it would seem inappropriate to review it in a standard way. You cannot watch Melania, if you watch it at all, and not be aware of how much it is just yet another shiny trinket in the overstuffed temple that is the "cult of personality" that has been used by the Trump family to grab power, make themselves richer, and offer up their uneducated and ignorant opinions on platforms that amplify and empower them.

In a world where truth is an increasingly flexible thing, when it really shouldn't be, here are some absolute truths about Melania.

It's a vanity project. Focused on Melania, but also allowing her husband to have a moment or two where he tries (and fails) to come across as a normal human being, all while director Brett Ratner sycophantically bends the knee and shows how much he knows what side his bread is buttered on.

Because, lest we forget, Brett Ratner went very quiet for years, mainly due to a number of women who accused him of sexual assault during the height of the #METOO movement. Separating from Warner Bros., it looked as if Ratner's career might have been all over, but accusations of sexual assault are water off a duck's back when someone is able to become POTUS for a second time after being found guilty of sexual abuse by a jury having to veer just enough away from the word "rape". In fact, a statement from Judge Kaplan did actually affirm that Trump had raped E. Jean Carroll, which makes it seemingly inevitable that Ratner would now find favour in a festering and toxic White House.

There's a lack of self-awareness here that would be laughable if it wasn't so sickeningly contributing to an infection that is turning our entire planet into a broken and bleeding shell that may bear the scars for decades to come. Melania claims that her husband has gone through more than anyone else in history (you'd think he was Joan Of Arc by the way she talks about him). She also takes the opportunity to remind everyone that she loves her family, in a really standard way that doesn't feel alien and robotic at all (honest). She is desperate to save the children, and happily serve the people of America. And did I mention that she thinks her husband is a great man? Because he's apparently a great man. The greatest. 

This is a horror movie, for the most part, and I cannot recommend it to anyone who is outwith the horrific cult of personality that we've seen developed over the past decade or so. All Trump has done since getting the throne he so clearly coveted for many years is fail. His crowds are never as big as he wants them to be, his negotiating "skills" show why he couldn't even make a success out of a casino empire (seriously, it's quite a feat to do that), and his narcissism, xenophobia, and misogyny are impossible to deny, yet we have to watch an entire "documentary" in which Melania acknowledges no imperfections, big or small, in either herself or any part of her family.

Considering how much money Amazon paid for this, and how they are now platforming it, I would implore all of you to once again think about how you use the site. I am currently figuring out how to be a bit more ethical in where my money goes, and made sure to watch this via a portal that would not give Amazon the click or traffic it would use as any metric of viewer numbers, and I encourage you all to do the same. It may now be impossible to extricate ourselves from such an online behemoth, but it's clearly now a moral imperative to work against anyone who considers this a worthwhile investment. 

1/10

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

  

Shelter (2026)

I'm sure you won't be too shocked when you hear that this latest Jason Statham movie has our lead portraying someone who was an extremely valuable, and deadly, asset, in a life lived before he then decided to get off the grid. You also shouldn't be surprised to find out that he has a good moral compass, despite the murky waters he used to swim in, and he ends up having to put his particular skills to good use again when he ends up caring for a young girl (Jessie, played by Bodhi Rae Breathnach) who suffers a great loss while trying to deliver supplies to his remote home.

That's how this all starts. You then get numerous armed men trying to trap The Stath, there's one main enemy (Bryan Vigier) more skilled and persistent than all of the others, and a couple of politically-motivated individuals (Naomi Ackie and Bill Nighy) start to approach the situation from two very different directions. Will Statham be able to keep Jessie safe while he punches, kicks, and shoots his way through the swarms of bad guys? What do you think?

Written by Ward Parry, who doesn't have too many other credits so far, this is a very basic action vehickle for Statham. Some may be disappointed by the relative lack of variety throughout the main action set-pieces, and there's a steadfast refusal to commit to a tone with more lightness or more grit and gore, but there's certainly enough here to appeal to the core demographic (aka Statham fans).

Director Ric Roman Waugh has spent a lot of his time recently helming Gerard Butler vehicles, which might make you think that his familiarity with formulaic action fare should stand him in good stead for this job. That's not the case though. He does a perfectly fine job, but it never turns into anything more than that. Fine.

Statham does what he usually does, and he knows what he's capable of. Given the right story, Statham can easily be one of the best of our modern action heroes on film. He always looks as if he knows what he's doing, he has heaps of charisma, and he never feels the need to wink or undermine the material (although this is where I yet again mention how much I wish he would also be used in more comedic roles after doing such a great job in Spy). Vigier also looks like a very capable baddie, Ackie and Nighy are allowed to enjoy roles they could play with their eyes closed, and there's a decent little bit of screentime for Daniel Mays. The other main person I have to mention is Breathnach though, who does a great job of being both a bit tough and vulnerable as she tries to rush around while staying within close enough proximity to the safety zone that is Statham.

All of these words are just a long way of saying that people predisposed to this will enjoy it. They probably won't love it though, and I don't think it is up there with the better Statham action movies. Some people will view that as a complete condemnation, depending on their view of his filmography. I view it as one to hesitantly recommend to those after some violent entertainment best accompanied with yours snacks and beverage of choice. 

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: Thelma & Louise (1991)

It's very easy to remember parts of Thelma & Louise, particularly that ending that someone somewhere in Hollywood still thought could be reworked to provide people with a sequel, but it's also easy to forget a number of big positives.

Although directed by Ridley Scott, this is a film that feels impressively in tune with the female leads, helped mainly by the performances of Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon, as well as the screenplay by Callie Khouri. It also has an enjoyable selection of male actors happy to provide a snapshot of the range of men that our leads deal with, and any film that has "The Ballad Of Lucy Jordan" gets a bonus point from me.

Davis is Thelma, Sarandon is Louise. The two head off on a road trip. Thelma is happy to get some time away from her uncaring and self-absorbed husband, Darryl (Christopher McDonald), and Louise wonders how her Jimmy (Michael Madsen) will cope without her around. Unfortunately, the trip takes a serious turn for the worse when Thelma becomes a victim of the abusive Harlan (Timothy Carhart). One quick decision turns both women into fugitives, soon to be pursued by a cop (Hal, played by Harvey Keitel) who senses there's something more to the story than what the evidence will tell them. Things soon become more serious, and more desperate, but Louise can at least ask Jimmy for some help. Meanwhile, Thelma makes time for some fun with a hot young hitch-hiker named J.D. (Brad Pitt)

I've always liked both Davis and Sarandon, and both have done great work throughout their entire film careers, but there's no denying that Thelma & Louise is the film that took their careers to another level. One may have continued to get more onscreen work than the other, but both women remain hugely impactful figures in the industry to this day. The fact that they both have such great chemistry here, with one another and with others they interact with, is a vital part of the film's success. I'm sure others could have made this work, but Davis and Sarandon make it all easy to believe, and be invested in. Their performances being so light and enjoyable also helps when it comes to sugar-coating the bitter pills that the film forces viewers to swallow down.

While men are very much the root of the main problems here, and many women will agree that the film reflects reality in that main thematic strand, it’s also a pleasant surprise to revisit this and remember how many of the men are shown in quite a good light. Keitel wants everything to end as quickly and safely as possible, Madsen shows, perhaps a little too late, how much he really loves Sarandon, even if that means having to watch her leave his life, and Pitt plays a real charmer who just happens to have a very bad habit that ruins any of the chemistry between himself and Davis. Carhart is suitably loathsome, and horrendous enough to make his fate feel satisfying, while McDonald is loathsome in a different way, and always does so brilliant in that kind of role that I would love to meet him in real life one day and be shocked by how nice I am sure he actually is.

No performance hits a wrong note, and there are still too few films like this to this day. Not comedic, not trying to be cool and sexy, not balanced perfectly with the good and the bad. This is just two strong women who have had enough of the crap heaped upon them by a patriarchal world, and the ending manages to be as equally uplifting and sad as anything in the rest of the film.

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 

Netflix And Chill: The Untouchables (1987)

Perhaps enough time has passed now, perhaps I was just being a bit too harsh and/or swayed by the opinions of others years ago, but I have finally reached a certain level of acceptance when it comes to The Untouchables. I always enjoyed the movie itself, and it's another great example of just how great director Brian De Palma can be when able to put considerable resources alongside his not-inconsiderable talent, but it's time to finally admit that I think, yes, Sean Connery actually deserved his Oscar for his performance here. Is that admitting that he's great in it? Is he giving the best performance of his career? No. There are a number of other roles to look at in that regard. But he's the absolute highlight in a film that is stuffed full of treats, and he's the one you remember for a long time after the film is over and done. It also helps that he gets most of the best lines of dialogue from writer David Mamet.

Kevin Costner is the legendary Eliot Ness, a Treasury agent looking to battle against those breaking the prohibition laws, and someone unafraid to go up against the ruthless Al Capone (Robert De Niro). Not knowing who he can trust, especially after being burnt during what should have been his first major operation, Ness assembles a small and capable squad that includes beat cop Jim Malone (Connery), an agent who also does accountancy (Oscar, played by Charles Martin Smith), and a hot shot youngster from the Police Academy (George, played by Andy Garcia). They intend to disrupt Capone's operations until they can bust him, but that gets them a lot of unwanted attention. As well as a number of anonymous threatening individuals, a dangerous man named Nitti (Billy Drago) aims to get rid of Ness and his colleagues, and aims to show that they're most certainly not "untouchable".

It's hard to think of where to start when praising The Untouchables, almost every individual element is as good as you'd expect. Mamet's script is snappy and entertaining, the camerawork and visuals are as wonderfully lush and stylish as they always are in any De Palma movie, and the score from Ennio Morricone feels like some kind of collage of the wonderful work he did over the years with director Sergio Leone. Production design is gorgeous throughout, and there are a couple of fantastic set-pieces that I am sure people have thought about way before getting to this part of my review.

The casting is spot on, for the most part, although I have never been completely convinced by De Niro in the role of Capone. He's fine, but it feels too close to a number of other roles he's already closely identified with. If he'd managed to nail the accent, Hoskins (the second one signed on when De Niro initially couldn't play the part) could have perhaps given us a more interesting portrayal. Hey, at least Hoskins got to enjoy a large paycheck for not doing anything. Costner is a good solid figure at the heart of everything, the kind of thing he has excelled at in a number of features, and he's somehow able to get the focus back on himself after spending time sidelined by more interesting supporting characters. Connery is brilliant, as I've already said, and both Smith and Garcia liven up scenes by bringing very different energies into their performances. Drago is entertainingly villainous, and I'll also mention how much I enjoyed seeing Patricia Clarkson, despite the fact that she's given little more than a token role of "worried wife of the hero".

(Re)watching a great Brian De Palma film always reminds me that I should make the time to watch his entire filmography. They're not all absolute greats, and not all as good as this one, but his best work is enough for me to never begrudge giving some time to the films that didn't work half as well. And I can always come back to something like this if I end up disappointed by too many others.

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 

Shudder Saturday: Crazy Old Lady (2025)

An elderly person losing their grip on reality has been used as a premise for more than one horror movie by now. It's an idea rich with potential, but one that should be handled with some sensitivity and grace, in my view anyway. Crazy Old Lady, as you may have gleaned from the title, is not really interested in sensitivity and grace. It works surprisingly well though, especially when not ever letting you figure out if the main character ever has any control over their own actions.

Written and directed by Martín Mauregui, this is the tale of a man (Pedro, played by Daniel Hendler) who finds his night going from bad to worse when his ex-partner (Laure, played by Agustina Liendo) asks him to check in on her elderly mother (Alicia, played by Carmen Maura). Alicia hasn't been seeming too well lately, and Laura is worried after some phone conversations with her while travelling elsewhere. She is right to be worried, and Pedro has no idea what he is letting himself in for, which starts to become clear as Alicia continues to identify him as someone else. She also has plans for him that he really won't enjoy.

His second full feature after a couple of shorts at the turn of the century, Mauregui shows no signs of inexperience or a lack of confidence here. This is a horror film that makes good use of dark and atmospheric visuals, a premise that throws one main character into a deep hole of confusion, hopelessness, and pain, and a fantastic performance from Maura.

While it may seem distasteful to some, and it somehow manages to keep crafting moments that become increasingly difficult to watch, Crazy Old Lady retains an effective mix of nastiness and emotional pain. Those who have lost anyone to Alzheimer's disease, or any condition that similarly affects the brain and memory banks of a loved one, will know how unsettling it is to look into the eyes of someone you know and see, well, someone who appears to be a stranger. This film gets that right, and also flips the viewpoint occasionally to let us stay close to Alicia when she comes back to herself, albeit temporarily.

Maura is the big reason that this works as well as it does, pitching her performance absolutely perfectly. She's sweet and lovely one minute, conniving and ruthless the next, and both of her main personalities are convincing, as well as both being very separate incarnations of herself. Hendler has to keep looking perplexed and then very worried, which he does well. He blurts out whatever Alicia wants to hear at any given moment, his desperation clear as he keeps trying to free himself, and his understandable nerves work opposite the calm of his co-star to make this a great two-hander for most of the runtime. Liendo has one or two scenes that treat her well, young Emma Cetrángolo is a cute granddaughter, Elena, making a very effective surprise appearance at one point, and there are a couple of other characters who come into our lead's orbit very briefly, adding some more tension before heading back offscreen.

I cannot speak for everyone, but I THINK this does well enough to justify the central idea. There are awful things depicted here, but there's always the feeling that Alicia is being used and abused by her own brain, resulting in a loss that she'll suffer from for a long time, whenever the more recent memories bubble back up and jostle alongside the fragmented older memories causing her so much confusion.

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 

Keeper (2025)

A nice weekend away. A cabin in the woods. A man (Malcolm, played by Rossif Sutherland) and a woman (Liz, played by Tatiana Maslany). It's a standard horror movie premise, but director Osgood Perkins and writer Nick Lepard try to deliver something a bit different. It's just a shame that they didn't try to deliver something really good.

Made cheaply and sneakily during a time when major strike action delayed the planned shooting schedule of The Monkey, this is a film that feels exactly like what it is. It's slight, it's unimpressive, and it was probably a lot more fun to make than to watch. 

When Malcolm and Liz arrive at their romantic destination, it doesn't take long for things to become slightly unsettling. There's something a bit off between the two of them, but neither seem to acknowledge it. Viewers might think they're watching two people play parts they don't really understand, which isn't something that should ever happen onscreen, unless it's very intentional. Everything gets even stranger when Darren (Birkett Turton) turns up, accompanied by his current partner, Minka (Eden Weiss). I've mentioned them here purely for the sake of the plot summary, but they're never more than occasional irritants.

It should be clear to anyone who has seen more than one Osgood Perkins movie by now that he has a very particular approach to the horror genre. There's often a focus on atmosphere over logic, but he's also become much more comfortable with mixing in some comedic elements. I can only assume that's what appealed to him about this idea, which would have been much more effective if allowed to be a much more straightforward horror. I'm not sure how much of this was fleshed out by Lepard (who did such great work on Dangerous Animals), but it feels like something that was workshopped and tweaked to cater to whatever the actors wanted to do on any given day.

Maslany is normally a great presence onscreen, and she has such fantastic range, but her performance here is not good. It's over the top and artificial in a way that calls attention to the weakness of the screenplay, and she's not helped by the others being equally bad. Sutherland, Turton, and Weiss benefit from me not expecting anything much from them, and they deliver . . . nothing much, to put it as nicely as I can.

People desperate for some folk horror may enjoy this, but only if you've avoided the many other folk horrors from the past few decades. It may not be awful in every department, but it's hard to remember that when so many individual moments stink so badly. Perkins has earned enough goodwill for me to keep looking forward to whatever he does next, but I'm not sure how long it will remain. 

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 

Eternity (2025)

When people think of the afterlife they usually think of some idyllic place where they will be reunited with loved ones. That's the afterlife that Eternity presents. You head to a short-term stay area initially, allowing you to get your head around your death, and then you pick whatever kind of setting you want to spend eternity in. Some people will choose to wait around for a loved one. Some people have had more than one love in their life.

Barry Primus and Betty Buckley are the first people shown to viewers here, playing Larry and Joan, a loving couple getting on in years. They don't have long left, although none of them know exactly how little time they have left, and Larry hastens his own demise due to his constant pretzel habit. When he ends up in the afterlife he's a much younger version of himself (played by Miles Teller), and Joan (now played by Elizabeth Olsen) soon joins him in her own youthful incarnation. Unfortunately, Joan's deceased husband, Luke (Callum Turner), has been waiting over 60 years to see her again, assuming they will spend eternity together. 

Co-written by Pat Cunnane and director David Freyne, Eternity is a sweet and entertaining romance that should please those who don't mind going along with the fantastical premise. At the heart of it is an examination of the difference between a love that is inextricably linked with the ups and downs of everyday life and the essence of love that can be locked within rose-tinted memory bubbles. A romance without the baggage of life attached to it is a fantasy, but fantasy can always tempt people away from the optional realities available to them.

Both Teller and Olsen do great work here, working together nicely and also feeling like older souls in young guises, and Turner is allowed to be viewed as perfect by others around him while he loudly denies it, which helps to make his character more than just an obstacle for Larry and Joan. There may be some predictability here, but keeping Turner an honest and decent bloke throughout is a good way to keep viewers on their toes. There aren't too many other cast members, but Da'Vine Joy Randolph and John Early are both very entertaining as afterlife coordinators, and Olga Merediz is delightful in the one or two scenes that allow us to learn a little bit about her character.

Although it's often fairly amusing, this is not something I would classify as a standard rom-com. The emphasis is more on the rom than any com, and Cunnane and Freyne have created a very nice cinematic springboard for conversations about what love really means. It can be threatened by the idea of perfection, because a loving relationship is very rarely ever perfect.

It's a bit too low-key, never really taking time to really have fun with the main setting, but Eternity has a surprisingly strong screenplay, fantastic lead performances, and a wonderful, and playful, score from David Fleming. You might forget it in a few weeks, but you should enjoy it well enough while it's on. And her . . . who says that Eternity has to mean forever?

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 

Prime Time: Spy Game (2001)

When Robert Redford died about six months ago I ended up seriously procrastinating when it came to deciding on the movie I wanted to revisit to be reminded of his talent. There were a number of greats, some of which are all-time classics (especially when he was paired up with an effective co-star, best illustrated by his work with Paul Newman), but I was more familiar with those than with some of his other films. Sneakers was very tempting, especially as I don't think I have rewatched it since I owned it on VHS, but Spy Game was another one I couldn't stop considering. I'm glad I made time for it this week.

A sharp script from Michael Frost Beckner and David Arata shows us the last day on the job for Nathan Muir (Redford), a top CIA operative looking forward to relaxing in his retirement. Unfortunately, his last day becomes more problematic when he hears that his past protégé, Tom Bishop (Brad Pitt), has been caught while trying to extricate someone from a Chinese prison. Because he was there on a personal matter, and because of some upcoming deal being negotiated, the U.S. government decides that Bishop will have to be left in the hands of the Chinese. Muir doesn't like that thinking, but he'll have to use every trick in the book if he wants to keep Bishop alive, which is all the more difficult while he remains in a building full of suspicious colleagues and peers.

Although you can still recognise this as a Tony Scott film, from the visual style and editing, it's one of the less frenetic of his films, making good use of his technique to provide a full backstory to the relationship of Muir and Bishop, as well as ensuring that the camera can move around and focus on details that are also being spotted by our smart and scheming main character. Nothing detracts from the more cerebral aspects of the film, and it feels like the consistent level of intelligence throughout is something that undoubtedly would have appealed to Redford, as well as the commentary on the shifting morality and landscape of the spy games on display.

Redford is effortlessly cool and calm throughout, making use of his undeniable charisma and charm with just enough of self-deprecation on the side to keep people off his scent while he tries to circumvent those officially in charge of a politically-charged situation. Stephen Dillane and Larry Bryggman are two other main players alongside Redford, and both do very good work in their roles. Pitt may have the lesser of the main roles, but he's good at being idealistic and just vulnerable enough to make his mentor stay invested in him, even as they start to strongly disagree on rules of engagement and what collateral damage is worthwhile for the greater good. Marianne Jean-Baptiste is wonderful as Gladys (a secretary and very strong ally), and is room for enjoyable performances from David Hemmings, Benedict Wong, Omid Djalili, and Charlotte Rampling. Cathering McCormack is a bit disappointing, but the rest of the writing and characters do enough to make up for that weak spot (which is more to do with the screenplay than McCormack's acting).

If you're looking for a classic Robert Redford movie then you're obviously going to go elsewhere, but if you're looking for something that feels like it epitomises the blend of entertainment and intelligence that he so often delivered then I highly recommend this. Everything is done well enough to keep it plausible and grounded, relative to a number of other movies in the same vein anyway, and it's an even better Redford-Pitt project than A River Runs Through It (and you can all hush now . . . I LIKE A River Runs Through It). I'm sure I'll make time for Sneakers soon, and maybe a rewatch of The Last Castle, as well as a few other Redford treats.

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