Friday, 31 January 2025

Conclave (2024)

I never thought that I would rate a movie all about religious figures trying to form a majority vote for the new pope as highly as I have rated Conclave. I don't care for religious institutions, especially not the greedy and notably-prone-to-moral-corruption Roman Catholic Church. I view that particular entity as an appalling blight on the modern world, considering the wealth it has amassed over the years and the abuses that it has covered up. So, before I started hearing good word on this, I initially thought that I would much prefer to watch The Pope Must Die.

Based on a book by the excellent Robert Harris, this is a surprisingly gripping and intense drama that makes great use of a very talented cast, all helped by Peter Straughan's superb screenplay (and a quick look through his filmography shows him to be, while far from infallible, a writer with a selection of features well worth your attention). Playing out like a legal drama, it also manages to comment on the image of the church, and what can be done to improve relations between those who want to best serve their god and the public who may no longer have trust in them.

Ralph Fiennes is Cardinal Lawrence, a man who ends up leading a sombre and vital voting session when the Pope dies of a heart attack. A new successor must be found, and they have to be in a good position to lead the church forward in the modern world. Top contenders are Cardinal Bellini (Stanley Tucci), a liberal choice, Cardinal Tremblay (John Lithgow), a moderate choice, Cardinal Adeyemi (Lucian Msamati), and Cardinal Tedesco (Sergio Castellitto). There's also a surprise addition in the shape of Cardinal Benitez (Carlos Diehz), someone the Pope seemed to favour, although nobody in attendance was previously aware of his existence.

While it would be almost impossible for director Edward Berger to surpass, or even equal, his previous film, he has at least managed to show that he's a consistently interesting and formidable talent. There's no world war onscreen this time, but we still get a number of important skirmishes between opposing factions. Making great use of some twists and reveals to help the pacing, as well as a sense of the outside world heating up in a way that reminds all of those present of just how important the church figurehead is, Berger allows the talented cast to enjoy Straughan's dialogue without needing to add too many bells and whistles to every scene. There's enough to keep viewers hooked in the performances and the small details of the process.

Fiennes is quite flawless in his lead role, a potentially one-note character turned into a well-rounded and fascinating heart hoping to keep life pumping through the veins of a body in serious need of the right medical treatment. Tucci is equal to him, all the more enjoyable for showing some of the frustration that Fiennes seems to somehow keep harnessed deep within himself. Lithgow livens things up a bit, and has a bit of fun with the development of his character, and Msamati, Castellitto, and Diehz all do well just to share the screen with some of the bigger names. Isabella Rossellini seems to be a bit unnecessary, but only until she isn't, and I'm glad there was room for even the smallest of female roles in this male-dominated space, and Brían F. O'Byrne does great work as the assistant to our leading man.

Quiet and contemplative for most of the runtime, but also punctuated by moments of blustery anger, Conclave is a confident and beautiful chamber piece. There's lovely music from Volker Bertelmann and beautiful cinematography by Stéphane Fontaine, but the whole thing really boils down to a talented cast making the most of a smart and interesting script. Some viewers may not appreciate the very last scenes, but I think it all felt like a wonderful way to illustrate the huge chasm that currently exists between the old ways of the church and the new world all around us. Highly recommended, as long as you know that you're going to be watching a film based around a group of men voting on who will be the next Pope.

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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
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

Thursday, 30 January 2025

Werewolves (2024)

If there's one classic monster that has been underserved by modern tech in movies it is the werewolf. Vampires can take on many forms, as can Frankenstein's creation. Zombies can look much more rotting and emaciated. But werewolves have always worked best when presented as a practical creation, which means we've seen far too many that have been ruined by attempts to harness CGI. That's why I kept my anticipation for this film in check, especially after watching a trailer that had me thinking it could easily be a SyFy Channel release. Not that it didn't look fun. It just didn't look as if it had the money to make the most of the fun central premise.

What you have here is, basically, The Purge with werewolves. A supermoon event caused most humans to turn into werewolves one night. Another supermoon event is about to occur, which isn't good for anyone who wants to stay indoors and avoid being eaten by the howling predators. Frank Grillo is Wesley Marshall, a military man who ends up out on the streets with Dr. Amy Chen (Katrina Law). The two of them have a spray that stops you getting hairy and wolfen for about an hour, and they have some weaponry they hope will help keep them alive as they head to the two people that Wesley cares about, his sister-in-law Lucy (Ilfenesh Hadera) and her young daughter, Emma (Kamdynn Gary).

Werewolves is a lot of fun when it's all about Grillo being tough and trying to work his way through city streets that could have werewolf danger around any corner. It's also pretty good when it makes things personal, in the shape of a neighbour who is turned furry and is identified by the body armour he is wearing. Matthew Kennedy can write in broad strokes, and director Steven C. Miller can deliver some treats for genre fans, but both of them get quickly out of their depth when things require either a little bit of intelligence from the main characters or a sequence which isn't full of lighting and lens flare that can guarantee headaches in all but the hardiest of viewers. Seriously, Kennedy seems intent on making Hadera portray the stupidest person to ever wander around a werewolf movie and Miller makes J. J. Abrams look positively anti-flare with his display here, and it never improves the visuals of the film. 

Grillo is as good as he usually is. I always believe that he can handle himself, he could certainly knock me into next week with one light slap, and he's allowed to play his part with skill and confidence. Law doesn't suffer too much alongside him, although she's clearly not allowed to outshine Grillo, and has to be saved once or twice (of course). Poor Hadera though, who has to go through most of the movie doing almost the exact opposite of what she has been told to do in the earlier scenes, and pretty much the exact opposite of anyone with a shred of common sense. Gary has to be sweet and vulnerable, which she manages, and she's excellent motivation for all of the adults willing to risk lycanthrope attacks as they try to keep her safe. James Michael Cummings and Lydia Styslinger do fine in supporting turns, as do the many performers credited as some of the various wolves.

The cinematography is bad, the effects aren't great (although one or two moments work well), and nothing in the movie really lives up to the potential of what we're shown in the first few scenes (all about the upcoming supermoon event and people creating various home defence systems), but there's still enough individual moments here to enjoy if you're after a werewolf movie that at least tries to show you one or two things that you may not have seen before. Or if you just want to see Frank Grillo ready to punch a werewolf in the snout.

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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
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

Wednesday, 29 January 2025

Prime Time: The Killer's Game (2024)

The second feature film directed by J. J. Perry (after the enjoyable Night Shift), I have to start this review by saying that there was a lot here that seemed to be appealing directly to me. I like both Dave Bautista and Sofia Boutella, who have main roles here. I like a lot of movies about hitmen, of which this is one. And I like a lot of people in the supporting cast, from Scott Adkins to Terry Crews, and from Alex Kingston to Pom Klementieff . . . and I suppose that Ben Kingsley does okay in the right role. So it's a shame that this was so awful. 

Bautista plays Joe Flood, one of the best hitmen in the business. He meets a beautiful dancer named Maize Arnaud (Boutella), and that makes him start to consider retirement. Retirement isn't always a luxury afforded to hitmen though, especially when they have been as busy and successful as Joe. But when he is given bad news by a doctor, Joe decides the best thing to do is to put a contract on himself. Unfortunately, he soon discovers that he has a big reason to renegotiate, but Antoinette (Klementieff) isn't interested. She's sent out the call and a number of flamboyant killers have answered.

Apparently based on a book by Jay R. Bonansinga, The Killer's Game has a screenplay, written by Rand Ravich and James Coyne, that is one of the most derivative and tired I have encountered in the past year or two. The hitman ordering a hit on himself is standard stuff now, as is the change of circumstances coming along too late to stop the onslaught of greedy mercenary murderers, and everyone involved having their own quirky style makes it feel like something that would have been much more fun about twenty years ago, before that choice was used in far too many other movies.

Crews is a lot of fun in his role, and Scott Adkins has fun putting on a Scottish accent to work alongside Drew McIntyre, but they are the only ones who liven things up. Okay, Dylan Moran is an unexpected delight in his small role, playing a priest who receives quite the confession, and Kingston has a couple of amusing moments, but nobody else seems to stay awake in front of the cameras. Bautista seems very stilted and slow, and he has no chemistry with Boutella, who is hampered by being the love interest kept in the dark for most of the runtime. Klementieff fails to make her potential villain truly menacing or memorable, Kingsley is so low-key that he seems to have wandered in from a much calmer movie, and that covers the people who actually made any impression on me. 

Perry can showcase some action that feels visceral and impactful, but he even undermines that aspect of the film by trying to make everything more fun and funky with each main fight sequence choreographed to some pop song that, at best, ensures the film has zero tension and, at worst, reminds you of whenever tht song was used in some other, much better, movie.

The pacing isn't bad, some of the scenes look nice enough, and I am easily entertained by groups of people descending upon one another to engage in a mass brawl, but this is generally not worth your time. It's a huge disappointment, and every single main cast member has a handful of better films that you could enjoy checking out instead of this.

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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
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

Tuesday, 28 January 2025

Kraven The Hunter (2024)

Now that I have FINALLY got into reading some of the many comics that have proven to be such fertile ground for Hollywood, I tend to know a number of the characters I would have never even heard of years ago. Which explains why I ended up looking forward to Kraven The Hunter, another of the Sony movies making use of a Spider-Man character without having Spider-Man actually in the movie. I have read the earliest comics to feature Kraven The Hunter, and I thought that he was an entertaining character who could be placed in a fun movie. Of course, that opinion was affected by knowing that he was to be played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson (I'm not really a fan), but I still decided that I would try to have some fun.

The plot is tosh, a mess of a script written by Richard Wenk, Art Marcum, and Matt Holloway (all the more disappointing because of how much I love some of Richard Wenk's directorial work), but it essentially gives us the origin story of the title character, someone who uses his powerful animalistic skillset to hunt poachers and villains. Once he sets his sights on someone, that person is as good as dead, and the highlight of this film is the determination and savagery with which Kraven despatches those who end up on his bad side.

Director J. C. Chandor isn't used to working with this kind of material, but he does a decent enough job with some of the action moments. Maybe I'm just worn down from the bad stuff that we've seen from Sony over the past few years, but this never seemed as bad as anything else they've given us. The CGI is uneven, but not completely awful, and Kraven feels as if he has proper teeth and claws. There just isn't enough here to distract people from a fairly wea script, and a large part of that is to do with the eminently forgettable villains (there are at least three, but only one works, and that's Russell Crowe, enjoyably hamming things up with another accent in the role of Aleksei Sistevich, the father of our "hero").

Johnson is okay in the role, trying to maintain a serious face in the middle of some ridiculous moments, but there's always someone better available for pretty much every role he gets. Someone with a bit more charisma, and maybe someone better able to convey humour, would have been welcome, although I'm not sure I could give any specific examples. As I've just said, Crowe is fun, but that's all the praise I can offer. Poor Ariana DeBose tries hard in a thankless role, as a woman named Calypso who ends up helping Kraven more than once, Fred Hechinger barely registers as Dmitri (Kraven's brother), and both Alessandro Nivola and Christopher Abbott play the other two main villains, forgettable as soon as they're offscreen).

This isn't great, but it's polished and entertaining in a way that the previous film in this flop-tastic movie series wasn't. I didn't have a terrible time, and the fact that this ended up taking even less at the box office than either Morbious or Madame Web feels slightly unfair. It's certainly not anywhere close to being as bad as the latter. I wish some better decisions had been made, but I also know that I could easily sit down and rewatch this without feeling the overwhelming urge to rip off my own head. How's that for a ringing endorsement?

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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
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

Monday, 27 January 2025

Mubi Monday: The Girl With The Needle (2024)

I only started to hear some good word about The Girl With The Needle a month or so ago. Since then, it seemed to be snowballing from one positive review to the next, making it a very high priority on my watchlist. I am very glad, however, that I didn't decide to put any stock into how some people were trying to categorise it. I would say this is a psychological drama, a dark film with moments that will upset some people, but please try to approach it without thinking about any particular genre you may want it to be.

Vic Carmen Sonne plays Karoline, a woman in 1919 Copenhagen who is struggling to make ends meet. She has tried to claim payment as a widow, having not heard from her husband since he left for the war, but that's made harder by the fact that he has not been declared dead. Finding some small happiness in a relationship with her boss, Jørgen (Joachim Fjelstrup), things are made even more difficult when Karoline falls pregnant. She and Jørgen have very different ideas on the viability of their relationship. As things become more and more dire for Karoline, she meets Dagmar (Trine Dyrholm). Dagmar may be able to help her. 

Director Magnus von Horn has an interesting filmography worth exploring, and The Girl With The Needle may well be his best film yet. Having helped to co-write it with Line Langebek Knudsen, there's a nice balance between the obvious darkness of unfolding events and how much viewers are actually shown. It's not heading toward any happy ending, clearly (and even more clearly to those familiar with the real-life inspiration for the tale), but there's still something about the placement of Karoline at the heart of everything that will have most people hoping for at least some silver lining in all of the gathering clouds.

While the performances are excellent across the board, with both Sonne and Dyrholm easily matched by young Ava Knox Martin (playing Erena, the daughter of Dagmar), it's a shame that Von Horn decided to keep the focus on the central strand of the story we follow to an inevitable conclusion that allows one character to deliver a brilliantly scathing comment about hypocrisy as they stand accused of the most heinous acts. I think the last scenes make the journey worthwhile, but there's also so much else that could have been done with the scenes that show Karoline and her husband (Peter, played by Besir Zeciri) in a world happy enough to use them up and then leave them on a fast-growing heap of discarded souls.

The cinematography from Michael Dymek is often gorgeous, but also offset with grit and darkness that befits the content, and everything onscreen feels authentic to the time and place being depicted. That sense of realism is essential, allowing viewers to think about everything in the context of everything else going on around the main characters, and the end credits will bring a palpable sense of relief too many who found themselves immersed in the film.

Falling just short of greatness, this is still very good stuff. I would recommend it to people who have an idea of what they're about to experience (and the title certainly implies something close to what you get, in my view). Possibly destined to fade away soon enough though. There's nothing here that's truly memorable enough to make me think that it will be cropping up in film conversations a year or two from now.

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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
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

Sunday, 26 January 2025

Netflix And Chill: Back In Action (2025)

A Netflix action comedy that stars Jamie Foxx and Cameron Diaz, the latter coaxed back out of retirement for it, Back In Action is the kind of glossy entertainment that seems designed to upset cinephiles while entertaining many who just want an easy option to start watching on a Saturday night. While it is silly, and very slick, it's also quite a bit better than the trailer would have you think, thanks to some fun casting and enjoyable running gags.

Foxx and Diaz play Matt and Emily, a couple of talented spies who end up in a relationship. Their latest mission goes spectacularly awry just after Emily tells Matt that she is pregnant. They decide to get out of the spying game, knowing that both could be assumed dead anyway, and start over for the sake of a calm and normal family life. Fifteen years later, that seems to be happening. They have two children, Alice (McKenna Roberts) and Leo (Rylan Jackson), and no worries, aside from how their kids view them. Alice is in a bit of a rebellious teen phase. Leo enjoys his videogames and just embracing his nerdiness. Then there's an incident, and Matt and Emily end up being shown around the internet, which brings trouble to their doorstep. 

There are certain things that you can expect from this type of fare nowadays. It's very easy to spot who the villain is. There will always be someone shown in a bad light who has something in their history that puts a different spin on things. At least one big stunt sequence will make use of technology that can make it seem as if our main stars are actually in the thick of the action (I miss the days when you could point out the huge differences between actors and the stunt performers who would take over for the more dangerous moments). Oh, and everything set up in the opening sequence will be brought back into the plot for the third act.

Considering that standard checklist, Seth Gordon and Brendan O'Brien do a decent job on this screenplay. Gordon is also the director, another role he handles well, and this is a huge step up from his last feature, Baywatch (not counting the TV movie he did back in 2018, Dan The Weatherman). It's often generally amusing, if rarely outright hilarious, and the action beats are surprisingly well-done and satisfying, if a bit prone to repeating one particular tag-team move that the main characters enjoy utilising.

Foxx and Diaz have a great rapport together, and they feel equally suited to the spy action as they do to the moments of being fretting parents. They're so good together that it almost makes you forget the fact that, once again, they can never share an onscreen kiss (because this is mainstream movie entertainment, and the USA would still be shocked to see a loving relationship that has a black man and a white woman kissing one another - sad, but true). Roberts and Jackson both do well as the children who end up majorly surprised by the skills of their parents, although the latter has a ridiculous sub-plot that makes no sense, unfairly positions him as being superior to his sister in one important way, and ultimately goes nowhere. Kyle Chandler is someone I enjoy seeing in movies, and he's fine here as the "handler" named Chuck, Andrew Scott is a British agent who is in pursuit of our leads, but also has a bit of an obsession with Diaz's character, and there are a few scenes stolen by Glenn Close and Jamie Demetriou. I'm going to mention Demetriou again because he's the person who provides most of the biggest laughs in the movie.

There are some decent tunes throughout the soundtrack, as well as a suitable score from Christopher Lennertz, and the mix of action and humour remains consistently distracting enough to help you avoid picking at any plot holes, including a huge misunderstanding of just what the Thames Barrier is used for. I had a lot of fun with this while it was on. I'm unlikely to ever rewatch it, but at least it meets that bar set for undemanding Saturday night entertainment featuring stars being stars.

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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
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

Saturday, 25 January 2025

Shudder Saturday: Hypochondriac (2022)

Look, I try to stay open-minded and ready to expect the unexpected when I watch any movie that comes on to my viewing schedule, but films like Hypochondriac are a good argument against genre labels. There's some good stuff here, although it's not all good, but none of that will be appreciated by people who have seen this labelled as a horror and will, understandably, sit waiting for some actual horror. There's a kind of horror running through this, the fear of illness being passed between generations, as well as a bit of body horror, but it's not packaged in a way that will please most. 

Zach Villa plays Will, a man who is struggling with some recent physical symptoms that correlate to extra stress in his life. He's in a fairly new relationship with Luke (Devon Graye), but his behaviour, and what may be hypochondria, is already putting a strain on things. Will has issues stemming from childhood trauma, which leads to him having visions of a wolf-like figure appearing during times of mental and/or emotional overload.

Villa is decent in the main role, if a bit reserved, and smoothly transitions between depressed stillness and manic agitation as the mindset of his character demands. Graye is also very good, going through an understandably difficult time as he tries to figure out a way to be supportive to someone who may not have a path towards any improvement to their situation. Although a few more characters come in and out of the narrative, it's only really Marlene Forte and Chris Doubek who make a strong impression, rather appropriate considering the fact that they play Will's parents.

Writer-director Addison Heimann doesn't do bad with his debut feature, on a technical level anyway. He has assembled a small cast of talented performers, helped himself a lot by hiring Dustin Supenchek to deliver some lovely cinematography, and ensures that every scene has a consistent level of quality that seems to exceed the limitations of the relatively low budget. There are one or two good ideas here, especially in the opening third, but it all starts to sag and fall apart once Heimann gets bogged down trying to disguise some of the more familiar elements with a couple of twists and some ambiguity. Those tactics don't serve the material well, and they don't even actually help to disguise anything.

Perhaps Heimann cannot bring himself to take the lead character far enough into a really pit of dark nightmares, or perhaps he thinks that what is shown here already is enough to keep things intriguing and impactful enough. He's incorrect, sadly, and this needed to depict some moments in the present that were more clearly hurting and scarring than what we saw, forming a stronger bond with the obviously upsetting past that is revealed as everything unfolds.

It's a tough one to figure out, in hindsight. Maybe Heimann was trying to be a bit too ambitious, but maybe he wasn't being ambitious enough. I really can't decide. A few moments of memorable imagery don't do enough to make up for the mis-steps elsewhere. Either way, he's tried to deliver something thought-provoking that will speak to those who have spent their lives rubbing nervously at scars they hope others don't notice. I don't think he succeeds, but I respect his intentions, and I hope to see him improve as his film career continues.

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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
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

Friday, 24 January 2025

Nightbitch (2024)

After being intrigued by whatever Nightbitch might be when I first heard about it (and I really didn't know exactly what it was, other than Amy Adams being a mother who seems to take a turn for the feral), I was dissuaded from making it a priority by the middling-to-poor reviews it got from many people I often feel in sync with. So it was a pleasant surprise to find out that it was actually really good.

Amy Adams plays a mother who starts to get a bit fed up of being in the box simply labelled "mother". This puts her at odds with her husband (Scoot McNairy), and it also causes some raised eyebrows from other mothers. But it also causes some envy, because a lot of women want the chance to remind themselves of who they once were, to celebrate themselves completely, and to admit the oft-unspoken truth that, as much as a mother loves her child, motherhood can also often suck.

Adapting the novel by Rachel Yoder, what you get here is a sharp and smart film from writer-director Marielle Heller that, much like the character at the heart of it, fights against being pigeonholed, and it feels as if that is part of the problem for many who watched it. The easiest way to describe it is as a comedy, but it's a very dark and wonderfully strange comedy. It's also a comedy that many will refuse to even smile at, considering what it says about the messy nature of parenting life and the many small (and large) ways in which women lose their own identity as they take on the roles of wife, mother, and basically whatever else fits around men who don't suffer from that same loss of identity.

Adams is fantastic in the lead role, really sinking her teeth (pun intended) into something that is far removed from the kind of thing shown onscreen in mainstream fare. Credited simply as "Mother", she's happy to show herself hitting a real low point before digging deep within herself to find a way back to the surface. She's generally always great, but this feels like something very different from any other performance she has given in the last couple of decades. McNairy also does a great job as the husband (credited as "Husband"), handling himself with good grace in the role that could have easily been performed as the main villain of the piece. Jessica Harper has a small, but important, role, and Zoë Chao, Mary Holland, Archana Rajan, and one or two others help to move along the conversation about the toll of motherhood and the ways in which society enables the constant erosion of women in service of the care of loved ones.

Don't take note of the people who are disappointed by this not being something that it never intended to be. It has also been marketed as a bit of a horror movie (something I would argue against, although there's an element of body horror running throughout it, which is in line with the equation of motherhood/marriage putting someone in a relationship with a parasitic entity they also end up in love with). Enjoy it for what it is, which is something quite unique and brilliantly scathing, and don't worry about what it isn't. I suspect that too many people have already done the latter.

Oh, and bonus points for use of "Dare To Be Stupid" on the soundtrack.

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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
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

Thursday, 23 January 2025

Gladiator II (2024)

While it's true that it may seem a bit too little too late when considering a sequel nowadays to Gladiator, there were a number of factors that could allow viewers some small sense of optimism. Ridley Scott back at the helm, and a cast including some hot stars of the moment, and a couple of people returning from the first film.

I couldn't really say whether or not that optimism ends up misplaced. Gladiator II is decent enough, there are some fun set-pieces and the focus is much more on the political scheming of one main character, but it pales in comparison to the 2000 movie that it is following. Maybe my opinion was tinged by watching both one after another, but what was I supposed to do when I wanted an excuse to work out my sound system while wearing a home-made toga (aka knotted bedsheet)?

Paul Mescal plays our hero this time around, a young man thrown into bloody battles after he has been enslaved during a Roman conquest of his home, in a sequence that shows him yearning for revenge after the death of someone very close to him. Pedro Pascal is General Acacius, the man who was at the head of that Roman horde, although we soon learn that he is weary of doing the bidding of Emperors Geta (Joseph Quinn) and Caracalla (Fred Hechinger), two twisted souls who seem to be leading Rome further and further way from the glory of what it once was. Lucilla (Connie Nielsen) is still trying to stay safe while positioned very close to the rulers, and there's a man named Macrinus (Denzel Washington) who will twist and turn around everyone I have just mentioned as he figures out a way to get himself into a position of great power.

Springboarding directly from the original movie, David Scarpa's screenplay does everything that everyone involved must have decided it needed. That's a bit sad, because what it apparently needed was plenty of callbacks to the first film, some unnecessary ret-conning that paints one or two people in an annoyingly different light, and fights that are all about entertainment and spectacle ahead of any sense of plausibility. Fair play though, the fights worked for me, but I can see why some would hate one or two of them.

As much as I like Mescal, and as good as he is here, he isn't quite good enough. There's some steely core missing, and he's not helped by the fact that the script doesn't give him much to work with. The same can be said about Pascal, another actor I tend to really like in the right roles. Washington gets much more to say and do, which at least makes everything easier to accept and enjoy as he steals scene after scene, and both Quinn and Hechinger are a lot of fun delivering a double dose of oddness (even if it feels a bit like someone went "Gladiator had one evil Emperor so we'll be twice as good because we'll have TWO!"). As for Nielsen. She's arguably more wasted than both of her male co-stars, and her journey, still intertwined with that of Gracchus (played again by Derek Jacobi), feels almost laughably overstuffed with coincidence and misfortune. 

None of the dialogue stands out this time around, apart from the lines that will make you either groan or laugh, the main arc for our hero feels more like a clumsy scribble than a satisfying straight line, and a bit too much obvious CGI gives it that problem that many other modern blockbusters have: a feeling of weightlessness and everything being of less consequence because so much of it is made up of computer programming. Sorry to sound needlessly snippy, but even the score from Harry Gregson-Williams fails to come close to the soaring Hans Zimmer music from the first film. 

Did I enjoy this while it was on? Yes. Did I feel the 148-minute runtime? Also yes. Will I rewatch this? Probably. Will I rewatch the original film ahead of this? Absolutely. That remains a bit of a modern classic. This is mildly diverting fun that may well be forgotten in a year or two (much like that sequel to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon . . . remember when that happened?)

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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
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

Wednesday, 22 January 2025

Prime Time: Gladiator (2000)

It all seems so obviously destined for success now. An action epic directed by Ridley Scott. A lead role for Russell Crowe. Joaquin Phoenix as the second main character. Support from the likes of Connie Nielsen, Djimon Hounsou, Oliver Reed, Richard Harris, and Derek Jacobi, as well as numerous other familiar faces. Fantastic practical effects enhanced by some top-notch CGI. Gladiator was a huge success when it was released, but it's worth remembering that it was actually considered quite a gamble, especially because the "sword and sandals" movie seemed to be a thing of the past (or, more accurately, a thing now just used to fill up the schedule on the SyFy Channel).

But it's hard to find people who hate it, and, while it may not be a film that many have rushed to revisit in recent years, it's been able to retain a place in our collective consciousness thanks to some memorable lines of dialogue and a rich and full-bodied Hans Zimmer score.

Crowe is Maximus, a successful military man who does his best in the service of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris), but his situation changes drastically when the Emperor dies, to be succeeded by his son, Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix). His life ruined, although somehow not ended, Maximus ends up enslaved, which leads him to be pitted against others in fighting competitions. Showing a knack for combat tactics, as well as self-preservation, Maximus is soon on his way to becoming a bit of a celebrity on the gladiator world, a violent system that could lead to his freedom. Maybe he doesn't need his freedom though. Maybe he just wants another chance to be within sword-slashing distance of Commodus.

Starting with a grand battle scene before moving into a series of more personal fights, Gladiator is a genuine crowd-pleaser that works all the better for having no trace of concern about the whole thing being a mish-mash of familiar elements and top-quality ham. The fact is that everyone commits to their roles, as well as to the tone of the material, and they enjoy the ham with such lip-smacking relish that it becomes absolutely glorious. The script, written by David Franzoni, John Logan, and William Nicholson, helps with a good selection of great lines of dialogue, and Scott does all he can to ensure that the 155-minute runtime practically passes by like a light breeze through the fields of Elysium.

Crowe has rarely been better, giving a performance that puts his character in strong contention for a place in the cinematic heroes hall of fame, and I would say something similar about Phoenix, especially when we all know that a good hero needs a good villain to make the whole thing worthwhile. Harris is effective in his brief supporting turn, Oliver Reed livens up a character, a trader/gladiator trainer named Proximo, that could easily have been left to fade into the background, and Djimon Hounsou is one of two other main gladiators onscreen that we get to stay invested in throughout. Connie Nielsen has to repeat lines about living in fear a bit too often, but she also does well enough to be memorable in her role (Lucilla, sister of Commodus), and Derek Jacobi, David Schofield, John Shrapnel, Tomas Arana, David Hemmings, and Tommy Flanagan are all uniformly excellent in their respective roles.

Brilliantly bombastic, full of spectacle without feeling overstuffed or overdone, and reworking the essence of classic epics into something that somehow feels both comfortingly old-fashioned and enjoyably updated, Gladiator is superior blockbuster fare. And if you are watching it with anyone who hasn't seen it before then you get the added pleasure of jumping up while the end credits roll and shouting "are you not entertained?"

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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
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

Tuesday, 21 January 2025

A Real Pain (2024)

Written by, directed by, and starring Jesse Eisenberg, A Real Pain is the kind of film that feels as if it could only be made by someone who decided that they had to make it. It covers subject matter that many will be able to identify with, but also feels like a personal journey for someone processing some of their own feelings in film form.

Eisenberg is David Kaplan, a slightly awkward and reserved young man now a million miles from how Eisenberg appears to be in real life. He joins his cousin, Benji (Kieran Culkin), to go on a tour through Poland, hoping to ultimately end up at the old house of their deceased grandmother. Benji is much quicker to express and discuss his emotions, and much quicker to be blatantly honest, which may make others uncomfortable as they explore a painful past, including wartime genocide and a concentration camp.

Although a low-key affair, and although not entirely unique, A Real Pain works, thanks in no small part to the juxtaposition of Eisenberg and Culkin. Both actors do very good work, although neither seems to be stretching themselves, and they're ably assisted by a supporting cast that includes Jennifer Grey, Will Sharpe, Ellora Torchia, Kurt Egyiawan, Daniel Oreskes, and Liza Sadovy. Grey, Egyiawan, and Sharpe are the highlights, the latter trying hard to deliver a tour that is respectful and informative, but everyone has at least one memorable moment around our main characters.

There's a tightrope being walked here, and some may view the film as a failure. Both David and Benji have their failings, and the latter will certainly be a bit too irritating for some people, but they are rendered rather insignificant by the weight of the history around them anyway. This isn't really about the main characters. It's about pain, as the title says. There's internal pain that doesn't always need an external factor, there's pain that comes through connection to loved ones and the times when those connections are severed, and there's pain that reverberates throughout generations, a scar on our world that some people feel more keenly than others.

I liked this a lot, and I responded to what was being presented at the very heart of it. It's not a great film though, in many ways, and some of the awards buzz it has been garnering may set people up for disappointment. People shouldn't flock to this to marvel at the writing or directorial skill of Eisenberg, and they may not even appreciate the performances as much as I did. I would hope that they find something worthwhile though. Something appreciably human. Sometimes all you need is the vague feeling that someone making art has even the smallest idea of your own journey running alongside their own. A Real Pain gives you 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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
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

Monday, 20 January 2025

Mubi Monday: The Man In The White Suit (1951)

There are certain breakthroughs that you suspect just wouldn't be allowed to happen. Society runs in a certain way, capitalism needs continuous meat put into the machine to make the sausages, and contentment and sustainability often get in the way of that. It's why there's so much money to be made in medicine, why so many struggle to get paid a living wage, and why, as The Man In The White Suit tells us, nobody wants a fabric that is indestructible and never needs cleaned.

Alec Guinness plays Sidney Stratton, a determined young scientist who keeps trying a variety of experiments and formulae in his quest to create a brand new fabric. Some view him as a liability, especially when his presence in any workplace increases the chance of a random explosion, but some see him as a brilliantly progressive thinker who just needs some time and space to turn his theories into a reality. The closer he gets, however, the more people start to think of him as a serious threat to the status quo. Because dirty and damage clothing ensures that people are repeat customers, not to mention the laundry and repair services that rely on such wear and tear.

Another Ealing comedy from director Alexander Mackendrick, who also worked on the screenplay with John Dighton and Roger MacDougall (creator of the original play), this is a slightly lesser, but no less enjoyable, title that often feels unfairly forgotten in the shadow of some films that have retained their status as being some of the very best of British cinema. There's less focus on quirky characters here, although our lead is amusingly nervy and naive throughout, and more time spent hammering home a commentary on the battle between scientific progress and ongoing business interests.

Guinness delivers another effortlessly wonderful performance, doing enough to hold your attention at all times as he turns from a minor inconvenience to a much sought after commodity. Joan Greenwood is a delight as the young woman who takes an interest in him, although her character also happens to be the daughter of a powerful factory owner (played by Cecil Parker), and both Michael Gough and Vida Hope stand out as two individuals on either side of the employer/employee divide.

Although it will be 75 years old next year, it's sad to think of just how insightful this remains. We just need to look around us to see how many of the super-rich are desperate to stop people from latching on to an idea that will save them both money and resources, from sustainable fashion items to methods of generating electricity, to name just a couple of main examples. The Man In The White Suit remains slightly far-fetched when it comes to the central invention, but it remains all too realistic and depressing when it comes to how the rich and the powerful would want to handle such a thing.

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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
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

Sunday, 19 January 2025

Netflix And Chill: The Water Horse (2007)

Directed by Jay Russell, who doesnt have too many titles standing out from his filmography, and written by Robert Nelson Jacobs, who has a similarly thin selection of memorable features under his belt, The Water Horse is perhaps best sold on the name of the author of the book it is adapted from, Dick King-Smith. King-Smith was a prolific and successful writer of children's books, and gave us the source material for what would become the wonderful Babe.

There is another major selling point here though, the gorgeous scenery of Scotland, but maybe that's my own bias showing through. I don't know though, it's hard to think of anyone looking out over Loch Ness and not being at least slightly awe-struck.

Yes, this is a Loch Ness story, and the titular creature is the Loch Ness "monster". The year is 1942, and a young boy named Angus MacMorrow (Alex Etel) is struggling with the fact that his father doesn't seem to be returning from the war. Angus lives in a large house with his mother (Anne, played by Emily Watson) and sister (Kirstie, played by Priyanka Xi), and they are soon joined by a large number of soldiers who have been allowed the use of the house by the Lord who owns it. They're also joined by a new handyman on the estate, Lewis (Ben Chaplin). All of this makes things more difficult for Angus as he tries to keep secret the fact that he is looking after a creature that hatched from a large egg he found on the shore of the loch. The creature, named Crusoe, grows at a rapid rate, meaning Angus soon enlists both Kirstie and Lewis to help him, and the sneaking around soon arouses the suspicion of Captain Thomas Hamilton (David Morrissey).

Cute and sweet would be the two words I would use to describe this movie. Framed by a sequence in which a twinkly-eyed Brian Cox relates the tale to a couple of tourists visiting Scotland, it's perfect family entertainment that aims for satisfaction and some tugging on the heartstrings. There are no surprises here, but most viewers won't want any. This is all about a magical feeling, and watching one young boy outwit most of the adults around him as he shows a degree of compassion and belief that many of them lack.

The screenplay by Jacobs is decent enough, and fairly straightforward, but the direction from Russell is complemented by some excellent special effects (both practical and digital), a lovely score by James Newton Howard, and acting from a selection of performers who all pitch things perfectly as they deliver something that manages to be quite innocent and moving without ever feeling too pandering.

Etel is easily able to carry the film on his young shoulders, helped by the fact that he has a number of scenes in which his energy is matched by Crusoe, and not only does everyone else do excellent work, but a number of the main co-stars (Mortimer, Chaplin, and Xi) do well enough at delivering their dialogue in a Scottish accent that didn't hurt my ears or have me wondering if they'd even heard of Scotland before taking on their roles. Morrissey is as good as ever, and becomes more stern and menacing as things come to a head in a finale that will force people to choose where they want to stand in relation to the sense of hope offered by some magic or the cynicism of the ongoing wartime conditions.

Although slightly held back by the lack of any real edge or risk, that also helps to make it the sweet treat that it is. It's not one to recommend as an essential viewing, but I cannot imagine many people checking it out and being disappointed that they gave it 112 minutes of their time. A perfect choice if you're stuck indoors with kids on a dreary day.

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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
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

Saturday, 18 January 2025

Shudder Saturday: Invoking Yell (2024)

Sometimes I watch a film and wonder what I missed as the end credits roll. That can be due to others giving it praise or criticism for aspects I have viewed differently, but it can also be due to simply processing something that left me feeling nothing more than the urge to shrug.

Invoking Yell is a film that fell into the latter category. Directed by Patricio Valladares, who also co-wrote the thing with Barry Keating, it's a horror film with very little horror in it, as well as being a film about black metal and the use of darkness and the paranormal for marketing purposes that ultimately has nothing to really say on the topic.

Macarena Carrere, María Jesús Marcone, and Andrea Ozuljevich are Tania, Andrea, and Ruth, respectively. They are recording as they decide to visit some creepy woods, with the ultimate aim being a finished demo tape. They will create more mystique by trying to pick up EVPs, detailing some of the dark history of the area, and even taking part in one or two black magic rituals.

The fact that this was shot in three days should be of no surprise to anyone who watches the finished product, and I would suggest that almost anyone could deliver something similar in such a short space of time. This is one of many "found footage" movies made with the emphasis on being cheap and careless ahead of being any good. The characters aren't interesting enough, there's no real building up of atmosphere, and the third act is tedious when it should be tense. If you can shoot a film in three days then maybe plan things better to give yourself a week or two instead. 

I don't blame Carrere, Marcone, or Ozuljevich for their work here. They just don't get anything to do. Show me them in a group photo right now and I couldn't tell you who was who, their personalities are so thinly-sketched as they move around simply being part of a trio that is destined to be separated and endangered. 

Despite it having a very particular aesthetic, the black metal aspect doesn't feel as if it matters. The fact that it is set in the late '90s doesn't matter either. The location is similarly unimportant. Nothing here matters, although I am sure that those who live in, or have an affinity for, Chile may at least appreciate the fact that this is from that neck of the woods.

I have already given this film more time and space than it deserves. It's crap. What's more, it's cynical and lazy crap. Described as "a love letter to both black metal and found footage", I would label it more as a love letter to belated cash-ins made with the least possible effort.

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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
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

Friday, 17 January 2025

Heretic (2024)

There's been an interesting trend in recent years for some horror movies to base themselves around the idea of social awkwardness/embarrassment. Maybe it was always there, to some degree anyway, but we've had recent films giving us horror that stems from two separate people accidentally being booked in to the same Airbnb, holiday friends who astoundingly take up the offer of an invite to spend more time together when the reality should have been to immediately lose contact once they were back in their respective homes, and now, and maybe worst of all, answering your door to people who are aiming to educate you on their religion.

Sophie Thatcher and Chloe East are, respectively, Sister Barnes and Sister Paxton, two young Mormon  women who end up knocking on the door of Mr. Reed (Hugh Grant). Mr. Reed welcomes them inside and is delighted to have a conversation with them, but it's not long until the women suspect that all is not quite right. They want to leave as soon as possible, which goes against their usual mindset. Mr. Reed has plenty that he wants to discuss though, and maybe even one or two sights to show them.

Co-written and co-directed by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods, Heretic was one of a number of horror movies to receive no small amount of praise from people in 2024. While I'm happy to see it so praised, and while a number of aspects deserve it, I have to say that I'm a bit puzzled by the amount of people who seemed to recommend it without a couple of important caveats.

So here are a couple of important caveats. Heretic really has to work hard to maintain any sense of plausibility as the central characters remain in one location for most of the runtime. It doesn't quite succeed, but that only becomes a problem until things take a more serious, arguably more genre-leaning, turn. Then everything gets quite interesting and fun again, right up until we have to endure a final 10 minutes that almost undoes all of the previous good work. Almost.

When it comes to the conversation between the three main characters in the first half of the movie, this is fantastic. Grant gets to relish every sentence and carefully-chosen word, moving from harmless and lonely old man to someone who seems more dangerous and predatory with every subsequent chess move against people who believe they are playing chequers, and both Thatcher and East eventually work hard on their rebuttals to the arguments that he makes. Then comes the motivation though, which is where the film falls down, and then you have to watch one apparently far-fetched incident after another, with writers Beck and Woods happy to throw in coincidences and ridiculousness in whatever way best serves themselves in their directorial capacity.

The performances are the saving grace. Thatcher and East do really well in their roles, fighting hard to present themselves as more than just paper-thin caricatures. Grant is given the best seat at the table though, and starts chomping his way through every scene as if he's just been served a huge platter of all of his favourite foods. I have always been a big fan of Grant, even when he was making his millions as the floppy-haired rom-com charmer, but it's undeniable that he's been doing some great work, and clearly having much more fun, in the past decade than when he first shot to stardom. His turn here is another in a steady stream of absolutely brilliant and entertaining performances that have made him a scene-stealing highlight in the films that have made use of him lately. There aren't really any other people worth mentioning, aside from Topher Grace (who has just one or two minutes of screentime), but that's no big loss when the three leads are so good.

I really enjoyed Heretic, despite what my criticisms here may have led you to believe, but I really enjoyed it because of the first half and the work of the leads. I was disappointed by the ending, but at least it tried to do something interesting. I'd still highly recommend the whole thing though, but with caveats.

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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
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

Thursday, 16 January 2025

The Wild Robot (2024)

I wasn't sure why I wasn't keen to make time for The Wild Robot, but the opening titles reminded me of my reasoning. This was a Dreamworks animation. As much as I enjoy a lot of their work, and I really love some of their stuff, they often feel like the kind of thing I have to be in the mood to watch. I assume that there will be lots of good gags, a certain visual style, and characters that will sell bucket-loads of merchandise for them. When I think of Dreamworks I think of Shrek, Madagascar, and Kung Fu Panda. They're all fun, and that doesn't begin to cover the range of Dreanworks Animation productions that you can, and should, check out, but I tend to know what I am going to get from them. I figured The Wild Robot would be the same, but then I started hearing more and more praise being heaped upon it. This is definitely not the same as many other films from Dreamworks, and I am already sorry that I didn't get to it even sooner.

A robot lands on a planet uninhabited by humans. That's how The Wild Robot begins. Wanting to be assigned a task, the robot (a ROZZUM Unit 7134, AKA Roz) tries to communicate with the many animals nearby, all of whom seem afraid of the thing that looks like it's been sent to kill them. Roz goes into a low power mode, listening to the many sounds around her and learning the languages of the many different animal species. Those language skills come in very handy when she ends up destroying a nest and then being imprinted on by a very cute, but also very vulnerable, little gosling. Roz gets advice from a fox, although whether or not she can trust this advice is another matter, and she ends up helping a lot of the animals around her as she aims to get her surrogate child ready to fly away before the weather becomes too inhospitable for the goose population. At least she won't have those pesky human feelings of loss and regret when her "child" leaves. Hmmmmmmm.

Based on a book by Peter Brown, this is written and directed by Chris Sanders, a man also responsible for helping to serve up three other animated movies I have loved (Lilo & Stitch, How To Train Your Dragon, and The Croods). If I had put two and two together sooner, and had a better memory for names, I would have had another bit of motivation to get to this before now. I really need to see his live-action feature, The Call Of The Wild, because Sanders is on 100% success rate with me so far.

The voice cast is worth mentioning now, before I get myself distracted by discussing the visual style, the music, and the ability this film has to reduce me to a blubbering wreck. Lupita Nyong'o is a fantastic fit for Roz, keeping her tone well-moderated throughout, with only the slightest inflections hinting at any possible changes in the way Roz views the world. Kit Connor is the goose who grows from the gosling, Brightbill, Pedro Pascal is the aptly-named Fink, the fox, and there is also some great additional work from Bill Nighy, Catherine O'Hara, Mark Hamill, Ving Rhames, Matt Berry, and Stephanie Hsu, as well as many others who aren't immediately familiar to me. 

Now I can once again allow myself to go on about the lovely visual style of the whole thing, the beautiful score from Kris Bowers, and the knack that Sanders has for pushing a button that seems to be directly attached to some tiny being that lives in my chest and is subsequently ordered to pluck my heartstrings like an expert harpist. I expect such emotional manipulation by the third act of many family films, but I was unprepared to be so fragile even before the halfway point. And once I'd been turned into a leaky-faced wreck, well, it was difficult to get through the rest of the runtime without at least feeling my lower lip quivering as I tried to keep myself composed.

I've used a lot of words here to praise this, and I am happy that I've now managed to compose my thoughts in a way that should be calm and understandable for all. This is beautiful, sweet, moving, and an essential new favourite for those seeking an evergreen family viewing choice. It's one of my favourites from 2024, and one of my new favourite animated movies of all time.

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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
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

Wednesday, 15 January 2025

Prime Time: My Old Ass (2024)

Here's the thing about My Old Ass, and I'll refrain from making any jokes that confuse the title with what I view as my actual old ass. It's a cute film. There's some nice comedy. There's also some decent emotional weight throughout. It's good stuff. But writer-director Megan Park set herself a very high bar with her debut feature, The Fallout. I would recommend My Old Ass to people after an enjoyable distraction for an hour and a half, but I would recommend The Fallout to anyone wanting to explore strong and intelligent cinema that ranks up there with the best films from the last decade.

Maisy Stella plays Elliott, a young woman looking forward to the time when she can soon leave home and start what her adult life. Before that time comes, however, she decides to have some fun time with her friends (Ruthie, played by Maddie Ziegler, and Ro, played by Kerrice Brooks) and has some magic mushrooms. That doesn't just lead to the usual strange and trippy experience. It leads to Elliott having a meeting with her older self (Aubrey Plaza). Older Elliott tries to get her younger self to start appreciating the time with her family more, and also warns her against spending time with a young man named Chad. That's okay, Elliott doesn't know anyone named Chad. And then, inevitably, Elliott meets Chad (Percy Hynes White).

It's worth noting here that Megan Park is 38 years old. So she may have been a bit younger than that when she wrote this screenplay, and she was even younger when she gave us The Fallout. You wouldn't know that from the final product though, with both films displaying a maturity and thoughtfulness that make both much better than they otherwise would have been. The fact that My Old Ass wasn't more focused on the potential comedy of the premise was a pleasant surprise to me, as was a finale that had equal respect for the wisdom that comes with older age and the fearlessness that can often be found in the young.

Stella, making her feature acting debut, is excellent in the lead role, just the right amount of energy and carefree spirit tempered with a good nature that stops her from being irritating. Plaza works well as her older incarnation, and she gives another solid turn, another in a growing list of performances that allows her to move a step away from the eye-rolling and morbid snark that looked in danger of becoming her entire range for a few years. White is very sweet, although viewers are wary of him throughout most of the runtime, simply due to him being named Chad, and Ziegler and Brooks are well-cast as the friends, with the latter having a bit more screentime, and always brightening up the screen whenever she's around. Elliott's family are played by Maria Dizzia (mother), Alain Goulem (father), Seth Isaac Johnson (brother), and Carter Trozzolo (younger brother), and all four do well as they loiter at the edge of the central narrative, eventually moving more towards the centre as our lead starts to appreciate them more and consider how she can still value what is around her while looking forward to her future.

There's nothing here that really stands out. The technique on display, the look and sound of everything, it's all just perfectly fine, working in service of a script that uses a cute idea at the heart of it without making things extra complicated. But Park writes with a great knack of being able to blend emotion and intelligence in a way that is satisfying for film fans without ever feeling too patronising. She also brings great performances out of her leads, perhaps due to her own time spent in front of the camera for projects that range from a Romero zombie movie to standard Christmas TV movie fluff. Cinema can take us to previously-unimagined worlds and show us great marvels, but it's equally enjoyable when it gives people a group of actors all working with quality writing. Park is two for two when it comes to features that she has directed. I hope she soon makes it three for three, whether staying in this kind of film or taking us on a tour of some more fantastical sights.

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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
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

Tuesday, 14 January 2025

Venom: The Last Dance (2024)

I sometimes forget how much fun I had with the first two Venom movies, considering how low my expectations were for either of them. Both are an enjoyably refreshing mix of anti-hero shenanigans and superhero-type stuff, and Hardy has loads of fun in the central role. It's a shame that this is the final outing for the character in this iteration, but it's also definitely time to call it a day. This is the weakest of the three movies, and it's even messier than anything else we've seen so far, but at least it feels like a proper ending (in as much as these kinds of movies can ever feel like they have a proper ending nowadays).

Eddie Brock is back in our world, with everything established in early scenes that may confuse anyone who had forgotten about the multiverse shenanigans teasing treats in the previous movie. He and Venom continue to have a pretty good relationship nowadays, always finding the best lowlife criminals to enjoy as a tasty snack, but trouble is coming their way. The fact that they are such a successful fusion makes them valuable to a major villain who sends the alien equivalent of sniffer dogs to find them, and there's also a determined military man, Strickland (Chiwetel Ejiofor), who believes that Venom needs to be destroyed. Dr. Teddy Paine (Juno Temple) thinks otherwise.

It's no surprise to see that writer Kelly Marcel has finally been rewarded for her contribution to the series with a directorial gig here, and it's also no surprise that this is her directorial debut. Having worked with Hardy on the story idea, Marcel is also responsible for the screenplay. That makes it easier to know who to blame for this whole mess, although I think Hardy has broad enough shoulders, and enough invested in the series, to share the burden. There are individual moments of fun, but the third act is particularly painful to the eyes, as well as being hard to stay patient with while you wait for all of the characters to figure out how to make use of Chekhov's . . . well . . . something that was surrounded by neon signs and arrows pointing at it as soon as it was first shown onscreen.

Hardy is still good in the main role, although always more fun when he is free and loose to avoid acting heroic, and he deserves to be given this vehicle to bid a fond farewell to a movie series that seemed to succeed more due to his sheer willpower than anything else. Ejiofor brings his usual excellence to his role, despite the fact that he is just there to be the human-shaped threat in amongst all of the alien monsters and, to use the technical term, squiggly-wiggly CGI. Temple connects various plot points and provides extra exposition, and there's some comedy provided by Rhys Ifans, playing a believer in aliens leading his family on what will end up being a very eye-opening road trip. Stephen Graham and Peggy Lu both return, and both are given far less screentime than they deserve, and it's strange that the latter is involved with a scene that seems to directly reference a heavily-derided sequence from Spider-Man 3.

Fans of more variety in their symbiotes will find plenty to enjoy in the third act, there are set-pieces that at least maintain the mix of action and humour that has been a positive aspect of the trilogy, and you get more amusing exchanges between Eddie and Venom as the two discuss their plans and the path that they cannot seem to avoid hurtling along. I still have to end this review by reiterating that the whole thing is a big mess, but it's an intermittently entertaining big mess, helped by a 110-minute runtime that allows it to feel a step removed from the longer and more bloated blockbusters we've become used to in recent years.

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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
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

Monday, 13 January 2025

Mubi Monday: Bird (2024)

I've seen all but one of the shorts and features directed by Andrea Arnold, although she has yet to helm anything better than her bleak and brutal feature debut, Red Road. There's never a guarantee that I will enjoy her work, but I am always hoping for something else that will blow me away. Maybe that's just the effect of those childhood years when I had a crush on her roller-skating persona of Dawn Lodge on the children's TV programme called No. 73.

Bird is a good film, anchored by a flawless performance from young newcomer Nykika Adams, but it's also one that has forced me to consider what exactly Arnold wants people to take from her films, and what exactly her motivation is. Because Arnold seems to write and direct characters that she doesn't fully understand.

Bailey (Adams) is not having the best time. Her father, Bug (Barry Keoghan), is too busy trying to plan his upcoming marriage to Kayleigh (Frankie Box). Her mother (Peyton, played by Jasmine Jobson) has ended up in a relationship with the violent Skate (James Nelson-Joyce). Bailey doesn't seem able to control anything around her, even her older brother (Hunter, played by another newcomer, Jason Buda) has a change in his circumstances that may grow the distance between them, but she might end up being able to help a man she encounters who says his name is Bird (Franz Rogowski). Bird is looking for his childhood home, hoping to find out some information about his mother and father.

Before I say anything critical here, I think it's important to praise those in front of the camera who deserve praise. Adams is the star, and she surely has a great career ahead of her, but both Keoghan and Rogowski are actors who rarely put a foot wrong, both doing more good work here, while Jobson, Box, Nelson-Joyce, and Buda all do exceedingly well to even just hold their own alongside such talented performers. There's nobody here I can complain about, which helps to make up for the strange and weak script from Arnold, who I'm not sure understands her own characters in the way that she should.

Bailey is great, and her character and actions seem nicely consistent with who we learn she is, at her core, as the film unfolds. I'd also say that Kayleigh is just as good, and perhaps this shows Arnold having a natural instinct towards writing her female characters so much better than the males. Peyton is a bit confused, but she still feels like someone who is a natural part of the world we're being shown. The men, on the other hand, all have big problems. Bug has some daydream about using slime from a toad to make enough money to pay for his upcoming marriage, which is a plot point apparently dropped in favour of a third act that just expects everyone to stop being invested in the outcome, and he's also interested in impressing his bride with the kind of song and dance number that feels absolutely pulled from some other movie. Maybe I have just never met enough people like Bug, but I've met a few in my lifetime, and none of the men cut from that particular cloth would even think of trying out the singing and the moves that Keoghan's character works on. Bird isn't as bad, helped by Rogowski being an even better fit for his role, but he's also the typical quirky interloper who brings about some education and change in the life of our lead. He feels quirky for the sake of being quirky, and I'd once again say that the central friendship between Bailey and Bird wouldn't be allowed to last longer than an afternoon once people around her saw the age difference and started to ask questions. As for Skate, he's a panto villain from his very first scene. He's believable though, scarily so, but his placement within the film doesn't really deliver the satisfying journey for anyone that Arnold must have been aiming for.

There are moments here that impress, and I enjoyed one turn in the third act that many others may find completely off-putting, but they never feel part of a satisfyingly cohesive work. Perhaps Arnold would have been better taking various characters and strands to weave into an anthology format, or perhaps spread everything over the kind of runtime afforded by a limited series. She opted to helm another feature film though, and it's her most disappointing work since her adaptation of Wuthering Heights.

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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
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

Sunday, 12 January 2025

Netflix And Chill: Emilia Pérez (2024)

I assure you that I had this scheduled for a viewing for some time before it came away as the big winner at the 2025 Golden Globes ceremony. Emilia Pérez ended up on my radar when it started to garner praise in the second half of last year, but I wasn't sure when I would get a chance to finally see it. That chance came around when it dropped on Netflix, but I ended up waiting a while as other feature films from 2024 continued to vie for my attention.

This is the story of the titular Emilia Pérez (Karla Sofía Gascón), who starts the movie as a cartel kingpin known as Manitas. Manitas wants to disappear, wants a whole new life, and wants their family to be safe. They enlist the help of a lawyer named Rita (Zoe Saldaña), and everything soon falls into place. Years pass, and Rita ends up working for her former employer once more, this time ensuring that her wife (Jessi, played by Selene Gomez) and children move in with her, offering the explanation that Emilia is a caring cousin of the apparently-dead Manitas. Emilia also looks to use her ill-gotten money to start helping those who have had their lives destroyed by crime and cartels, but things grow more complicated as she watches Jessi start moving on with her own life in a way that could lead to the family moving away.

There are a number of different elements here that are worthy of consideration. First of all, writer-director Jacques Audiard (although there are a number of other names involved here throughout the writing process) is someone who hasn't really made a bad movie yet, from the seven or eight that I have seen by now. Secondly, this is a musical. Third, and arguably the most important, is . . . well, I think I should use a whole new paragraph to discuss that.

As women try to make progress in Hollywood, and as other people start to push for representation in films and on TV, there's a reasonable argument made about leaving room for them to make mistakes. Equality will only be real when all film-makers have the same time and space as white male film-makers, who all tend to get another chance after delivering something that either under-performs or outright stinks. I would say that this also applies to the LGBTQ+ community, in general, and, to get to my point as it relates to this film, the portrayal of transgender characters. I wasn't really sure if Emilia Pérez really was about a trans woman, or whether it was about a criminal going to extreme lengths to move on from an old life. Both of those things could be true, or neither. Either way, Emilia Pérez isn't actually, from my own limited perspective, a film featuring a transgender lead character that stays focused on the transgender experience. It's actually very familiar territory, but that territory looks different with this main character at the heart of it. I would also say that it's not really that great a film, but I hope that it becomes one of many such films that keep pushing for equality and representation of those who would have previously not been so celebrated for their involvement, on either side of the camera, with these kinds of stories.

I cannot fault the cast, and particular praise should go to both Gascón and Saldaña. The former does a great job of showing how her new life provides a real mix of regret and relief, the latter goes through a very similarly turbulent journey for very different reasons. Gomez is also very good, but fares better when her character isn't as central to things as she becomes in the third act. Adriana Paz is the last person I have to mention, making a strong impression with her few scenes, showing a brilliant mix of vulnerability and self-protection that Emilia admires, and is moved by, and there's also a role for Édgar Ramírez that doesn't really let him do much.

The pacing works quite well for the 132-minute runtime, and the performances ensure that every scene has something compelling in it, but the songs never feel strong enough, moments of real creativity and visual flair are few and far between, and anyone who has seen more than a handful of films will know where things are going by the time we get to the halfway point (if not before).

Maybe that's why Emilia Pérez is worth celebrating though. Maybe it's a film with a transgender character at the heart of it that is happy to not be any kind of super-sharp and super-smart modern classic. Maybe it's progress to have a film like this that is just okay. Or maybe I'll need to revisit it one day, and perhaps see something more worthwhile in 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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
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