28 Years Later (2025)

With Danny Boyle back in the director's chair and Alex Garland back on writing duties, it's safe to say that 28 Years Later was one of the films I was most looking forward to seeing this year. That level of expectation also brings some anxiety though. What if it just ended up being not very good.

28 Year Later is not very good. It's pretty brilliant. And it's nice to see marketing that, for once, ends up helping to mislead people and tie in to the main themes being explored (perception and misplaced faith being the elements that stood out to me).

It is, as you'd guess from the title, 28 years since the rage virus first took hold of people in the UK, as shown in a wild and horrific opening sequence. Europe managed to fight it back, leaving the UK as an isolated infected zone. Small pockets of people have come up with ways to survive, including one group living on Holy Island, which is separated from the mainland by a causeway only usable when the tide isn't high. This is where young Spike (Alfie Williams) lives. He's about to be taken to the mainland by his father figure, Jamie (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), and he'll go through the ritual of his first kill. Meanwhile, Spike's mother, Isla (Jodie Comer), is very ill. Maybe Dr. Kelson (Ralph Fiennes) can help her. But Dr. Kelson seems preoccupied with gathering corpses and burning them. Everything also depends on Spike surviving his "hunting trip".

Although I haven't seen any Danny Boyle film that I've not enjoyed, 28 Years Later feels like a bit of a statement announcing his return to bold and adult content after the sweetness and light of Yesterday (a film I enjoyed way more than most people). The opening sequence alone is more disturbing than many other horror movie moments, and there are more grisly times ahead. That's all front and centre, however, as Boyle and Garland start to guide viewers on a journey that moves from the visceral horror to more emotional moments. Rage remains all around, sometimes visible and sometimes not, but the vacuum it creates is soon filled with memories and sadness. And memories aren't the same for everyone, depending on how you have viewed certain events.

I could spend hours dissecting a number of key scenes here, but let's just say that it's a testament to the power of the work that this proves to be so moving and thought-provoking, after ensuring that the requisitie scares and tension have been delivered. Not everyone will appreciate the directions that the movie goes in, but it's impossible to deny the confidence and boldness of the vision.

Williams is basically the lead of the film, and he's absolutely fantastic in every moment that he's onscreen. Strong when he needs to be, but vulnerable as he's pushed along a very steep learning curve, he's simply a great choice to be the heart of the film, newcomer or not. Taylor-Johnson is fine, and it's certainly easier to appreciate his casting when his character becomes a bit less likeable (I just can't put my finger on it, but Taylor-Johnson would rarely be my first choice for most of his acting roles). Comer works hard around a wobbly accent that wasn't really necessary for her character, but the rest of her performance is as good as you'd expect, and Fiennes gets to enjoy portraying a character who looms large over events even before people actually get to meet him. Most of the other performers play infected individuals, and play them well, although Edvin Ryding has a good couple of moments as a soldier named Erik and Jack O'Connell turns up in a scene that will ensure viewers either love or loathe how this instalment ends.

You get some fun camera tricks (although I couldn't help thinking that one gimmick feels like the same kind of thing that had Uwe Boll being harshly criticised just over 20 years ago), a great selection of music supplied by Young Fathers, and production design and set decoration that consistently help you to view the UK as a place with a very low population and a very high threat level. While I also enjoyed the second movie in this series, this feels like a return to the high of the first film. I'm intrigued to see where things go next.

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 

Nosferatu (2024)

I'm not going to start this review of Nosferatu with any plot summary for Nosferatu. If you're a horror movie fan then you should already be aware of it. And if you don't think that you're aware of it then, rest assured, if you're at all familiar with the classic tale of Dracula then you're aware of it. The names are changed, but the essence of the tale (a vampire heading overseas to deliver death and destruction as he also seeks out a woman he loves) remains the same.

There have been at least two previous Nosferatu movies (a 1922 film directed by F. W. Murnau and a 1979 film from Werner Herzog being the two main features referenced by fans), but this version comes courtesy of Robert Eggers. That means some stunning visuals, of course, and maybe one or two ingredients added to the recipe that haven't been used before. Maybe.

Cast-wise, Lily-Rose Depp and Nicholas Hoult play the ill-fated Ellen and Thomas Hutter, newlyweds who find their marital bliss interrupted when Thomas is asked by his workplace to head overseas for the benefit of a treasured new client, Count Orlok (an unrecognisable Bill Skarsgård). While Thomas is away, Ellen resides in the home of Anna and Friedrich Harding, played by Emma Corrin and Aaron Taylor-Johnson. Ralph Ineson is a local doctor, Willem Dafoe is a Professor with some unorthodox ideas (aka the Van Helsing of this escapade), and Simon McBurney is Knock, this film's version of Renfield. Most of these people do very good work. Hoult fits his part well, as do both Ineson and Dafoe. Taylor-Johnson is also very good with the role given to him. Corrin isn't quite as comfortable here, but that may be tied to the fact that she has a number of scenes with Depp, who is sadly the weakest performer onscreen. Although Skarsgård does more than enough to make up for the dullness of the woman his character is supposed to covet, it's hard to watch this and not think of how greatly it would have been improved by any number of other actresses in that main role.

It's worth mentioning the efforts of everyone involved in bringing such a sumptuous version of this tale to life, but I have to single out the music by Robin Carolan, the editing by Louise Ford, and the beautiful cinematography by Jarin Blaschke. They, and many others, have worked hard to present something that is both very much a Nosferatu film and also a Robert Eggers film.

What else does Eggers bring to the mix though? What are those extra ingredients that he has added? Actually . . . nothing. And that's where the film falls down slightly. This is 132 minutes of very familiar moments (even the scenes showing Orlok travelling by sea to his new lair just made me remember how much I recently enjoyed The Last Voyage Of The Demeter). While it may be worth watching for the visuals alone, Eggers is enraptured by the source material(s) in ways that leave him hamstrung. This is often incredibly cinematic, but it's also, in a number of ways, the safest and tamest film we've had from someone who has previously managed to both entertain and challenge viewers with all three of his previous features.

Not a bad film, but it sits behind the versions from Murnau and Herzog, and it ultimately feels a bit redundant. I'll certainly rewatch it a number of times though, and I wish all redundant movies were this much of a treat for the senses.

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

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").

Taylor-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

The Fall Guy (2024)

While I found enough in The Fall Guy to enjoy, and the metatextual layering should be especially delightful for fans of cinema and stunt work, it's easy to see why it didn't exactly set the box office alight. I was depressed by the amount of people reviewing this who felt the need to mention that they were unaware of the original TV show, a favourite in my household when I was a young boy, but failing to have enough "brand recognition" is really the least of this movie's problems. 

Ryan Gosling plays Colt Seavers, a talented stunt performer who ends up leaving the business for some time to recuperate after one stunt went horribly wrong, seriously injuring him. He hides away from everyone, including the woman he was growing close to (Judy Moreno, played by Emily Blunt). Hollywood calls him back, however, when producer Gail Meyer (Hannah Waddingham) tells him that Judy wants his help in her feature directorial debut. He could also help her by locating her AWOL leading man (Tom Ryder, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson).

Directed by David Leitch, and written by Drew Pearce, this is a film that feels as if it has been crafted around three or four major set-pieces. There’s an impressive opening, a decent car stunt that shows our lead character fully back into the stunt life, a few enjoyable fight sequences, and a finale that almost works as a classic stunt checklist. It works well as a star vehicle that also serves to celebrate the stunt performers who are responsible for some of the great cinema spectacles.

Sadly, it doesn’t work well as an action romantic comedy, mainly because it doesn’t allow enough time for Gosling and Blunt to be onscreen together, but also because it is too cutesy in a way that I thought was a bit smug and irritating (prime example = a scene in which the leads are on the phone discussing the pros and cons of split-screen sequences . . . displayed via a split-screen sequence). It is also annoying to have the title be made so literal in at least two different ways, which makes a couple of the plot points more predictable and tiresome than they might otherwise have been.

Gosling is great in the lead role, but he is at his best when his character is quickly reacting to a dangerous situation whirling around him. He really shines in the second half, which is coincidentally when the action and daring nature of the stunts really appear to ramp up, but his presence is a boost for the whole film. Blunt, on the other hand, doesn’t fare so well. I like her as a performer, but she lacks whatever quality is needed to make her the best choice here. Maybe she’s just made to play things too cool. It’s a shame. Taylor-Johnson is fun, and hilarious when delivering his “film within the film” performance in a great Matthew McConaughey style, Waddingham does fine with a character who steers everything in a very obvious direction, and Winston Duke does well as a stunt co-ordinator and good friend to our reluctant hero. There are also small roles for Teresa Palmer and Stephanie Hsu, both completely wasted, and I am not sure why their characters were even kept in the film.

The pacing is helped by the building momentum, there’s a great soundtrack and score that is boosted by repeated riffs from “I Was Made For Lovin’ You”, and fans of stunt-work should love seeing how the staples of that discipline are constantly reworked and refreshed throughout this. It just doesn’t quite make one completely satisfying bit of blockbuster entertainment, despite being enjoyable enough. I would definitely rewatch it though, and a rewatch might get me to like it even more, especially when I consider how the small treats at the very end of the film kept me smiling as the long list of credits rolled.

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

Bullet Train (2022)

A comedy action movie, emphasis on the comedy, starring Brad Pitt as a professional criminal who wants nothing in his life but good vibes, Bullet Train has a lot going for it. On paper. Directed by David Leitch, starring Pitt, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Brian Tyree Henry, Joey King, Michael Shannon, and Hiroyuki Sanada, and mixing action and comedy on the titular bullet train, what’s not to love?

Pitt is on a simple mission. He is given the codename “Ladybug” and tasked with retrieving a briefcase from the bullet train. Ideally, he should get on, grab the case, and then get off at the next stop. Meanwhile, Lemon (Henry) and Tangerine (Taylor-Johnson) are looking after someone they are supposed to keep safe, in exchange for a decent payday. Meanwhile, Prince (King) wants to get revenge on a number of people, as does Wolf (played by Bad Bunny. MEANWHILE, others start to board the train with their own deadly agendas. Ladybug shouldn’t even be there, as he is filling in for an agent named Carver, and it isn’t long until he wishes he hadn’t taken the job.

Based on a book by Kôtarô Isaka, turned into a screenplay by Zak Olkewicz, this is a bizarre throwback to a time when every other film was trying to rip off Tarantino or Guy Ritchie. I am not sure if the problem lies with the source material, having not read the book, but there’s a smugness throughout that isn’t matched by the dialogue or plotting. Everything feels far too much like a Rube Goldberg machine, an excessive amount of moving parts and complications leading to a very underwhelming final result, and the eclectic cast isn’t good enough, overall, to help it all along.

Leitch, who has spent the last five years directing films that mix action and comedy better than this one, fails to find the right way through the dense plotting. There aren’t enough moments of impressive action, the comedy always feels like a separate component, rather than an intertwining strand, and any sense of entertaining spectacle is undermined by the overuse of CGI. This is a busy movie in so many ways, often painfully so, and I only felt that working in its favour during an enjoyable finale that somehow managed to tie up every strand and provide a punchline for every running gag (so fair play to Olkewicz for saving his best work until the end of the movie).

Pitt is fine in the lead role, playing a character we have seen a version of in a number of different movies now. The main thing that allows him to stand out is what he views as a constant string of bad luck, something that allows the script to keep getting bigger and wilder, but there’s a moderately interesting idea tucked away here about perspective, and how bad luck in one way may be good luck in the long run. Taylor-Johnson is bad, I just didn’t like him in this role (and I can only imagine how much this movie could have been improved with someone else there), but Henry does a bit better, helping to make their scenes together more bearable. I don’t want to rate every single main player, especially when I can spend some time highlighting just how good both Shannon and Sanada are. Both get in on the action for the third act, and both take this movie up an entire notch or two. King is okay, Bad Bunny is . . . okay, Zazie Beetz is great, but sadly underused, and there are a few cameos that properly amused me.

It certainly tries to keep the momentum going for most of the 2+ hour runtime, I will give it that, and the soundtrack has some great choices, although I wanted even more. I MIGHT revisit and reappraise this at some point, to see if I enjoy it more while spending less time trying to unpick the various plot threads, but for now I have to tell people that it’s not recommended. It’s tonally very messy, it’s comedically very hit and miss (but one hit, a sequence showing two men tallying up the numbers killed in their most recent job, is superb), and it spends a lot of time going off the rails before sorting itself out just in time for that enjoyable finale.

4/10

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

Bonus Review: Godzilla (2014)

Let me start this review by reminding people that I was in the minority when it came to Monsters, the cinematic feature debut of Mr. Gareth Edwards. I thought that the film was good, but not great. Edwards had the potential to do much better, I thought. When the news came that he’d been handed Godzilla, I was as excited as anyone else. And as the hype machine started to gather speed I was definitely eager to be wowed by this movie. I paid extra for IMAX tickets, I picked the best seats available, and I slipped on the 3D glasses.

And two hours later I walked out of the cinema with a feeling of disappointment.

What’s the plot? Well, after a fantastic credit sequence, we get to see Joe Brody (Bryan Cranston) trying to figure out what to do about tremors that he fears may cause problems for the Japanese nuclear power station he works at. Those tremors do cause problems. Major problems. Fast forward by fifteen years and Joe is still obsessing over just what happened. The area is, apparently, dangerously radioactive, but Joe thinks that something is being covered up. When he’s arrested for trespassing, while trying to access his own home (abandoned in the middle of the disaster, it has some of his work/research that he desperately needs), it’s up to his son, Ford (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), to travel to Japan, pick him up and try to keep him out of further trouble. Ford had just started to enjoy some leave time from the military, settling down with his wife (Elizabeth Olsen) and son (Carson Bolde), but picking up his dad will soon be the least of his worries. It’s not long until a MUTO – Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism – shows up and starts to make a mess, to put it mildly. And then, well, it’s only a matter of time until the titular creature makes an appearance.

Godzilla is not a BAD film, and many fans of the big guy have expressed their absolute delight with the final product, but it’s a film that highlights just how small the bag of tricks is that director Edwards is working with. Most of the movie can be summed up in this way – camera looks at character, character looks awestruck, camera then moves to reveal part of whatever is inspiring reaction. Seriously, remove every shot just like that and you could probably shave ten minutes off the runtime. Some have complained about the slow build, but that really didn’t bother me. Patience is a virtue, and it’s fair enough to make people wait and wait for the main event. It’s a shame, however, that an early trick/gag of cutting away from some monstrous action is then repeated on so many occasions that you start to suspect that the whole thing is one big leg-pull. The big third act was interrupted a few times, each time cutting away to scenes that seemed painfully boring compared to what viewers knew they were missing out on.

It’s also a shame that everything felt as if it was taking place in a large studio lot, as opposed to a city full of people. I know that evacuation measures were put into place, but I find it hard to believe that the location of the final battle would be cleared out so quickly. The end result is something that feels impressive, but also feels as if it is taking place in a vacuum. This is a failing highlighted by just how potentially great the mid-point sequence in Hawaii is, but that set-piece is one of those just used to tease the audience on the way to the grand finale.

The acting from everyone concerned is just fine for the film. I thought Taylor-Johnson was decent enough as the rather bland military man who ends up stuck in the middle of a monster mash, Cranston is the human highlight of the cast, but isn’t around for long enough, and Olsen has to look concerned a lot of the time, which she does. Ken Watanabe gets a few choice lines, he’s a man who knows what Godzilla is and how he should be respected, while Sally Hawkins hangs around beside him and isn’t given all that much to do at all. And then there’s David Strathairn, who does well as the Admiral trying to save as many lives as possible. While nobody, Cranston aside, is on their best form, complaining about the acting in a Godzilla movie is like complaining about there not being enough sex and violence in a Pixar film. The two don’t really go together, so just sit back and enjoy it for what it is.

The other main stars are pretty superb, it must be said, with Godzilla looking the best that he’s ever looked. He may be a CG creation, but he feels real, he has weight, and his appearance mixes new touches with the established, classic template. Similiar praise can be heaped upon any other creatures onscreen, although it’s a shame that the main MUTO feels a bit too much like a blend between the creature from Cloverfield and Super 8.

The script by Max Borenstein is okay, bringing a seriousness back to the franchise that was missing in the much-maligned 1998 movie (a film which most like to dismiss, but I enjoyed). But giving the movie a serious tone and forgetting to include ANY sense of fun are two very different things. Aside from one cheeky gag – a big showdown being played on a news report – the film is a pretty po-faced and humourless affair. Thankfully, it does include plenty to appease fans, and at least consistently tries to deliver spectacle on a grand scale.

Last, but by no means least, I have to mention the superb audio work. The score, by Alexandre Desplat, is almost flawless throughout, and I’ll happily admit that there have been few sounds to impress me in the cinema half as much as hearing that mighty Godzilla roar.

Even if you end up as disappointed as I was, this is a film to see on the big screen, accompanied by a superior sound system. Although it falls down on a number of main points, there are also still many great moments in the movie. Edwards has done what he set out to do. Put Godzilla back on the big screen, atomic breath and all, in a movie that gives him the respect he deserves. Maybe next time he’ll also respect the audience a little bit more.

6/10

While waiting for the Bluray further down the line, quench your kaiju thirst with this collection - http://www.amazon.com/Godzilla-Collection-Yuriko-Hoshi/dp/B000VXWK86/ref=sr_1_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1400613055&sr=1-2&keywords=godzilla