Prime Time: Spy Game (2001)

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

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

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

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

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

8/10

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

Weapons (2025)

If you somehow went along to see Weapons without realising that it was written and directed by the man behind Barbarian then it wouldn't take you too long to figure it out. There may be less dark humour throughout (it's definitely there though), but it makes use of some horror elements to comment on some societal issues, it has moments of sudden and unpleasant violence, events are shown in main chapters that jump between timestamps and characters, revealing a bit extra with each subsequent section, and there's fantastic tense atmosphere that you could cut with a knife. Not that Zach Cregger is the only person capable of making films with these ingredients, but there are certainly touchstones here that show him using some familiar tricks as he tries to present audiences with something arguably more unusual and unsettling than his last film.

As infuriating as it might seem to those trying to decide on whether or not they want to watch Weapons, it's a film that shouldn't be described in anything but the vaguest terms. Things begin with almost an entire classroom of children leaving their homes at two seventeen in the morning, and none of the parents have any idea where they went. Alex (Cary Christopher) is the one child left behind. Justine (Julia Garner) is the teacher who starts to be viewed with suspicion by the worried parents. Archer (Josh Brolin) is one of those worried parents. Other people who end up involved in the main narrative are a police officer named Paul (Alden Ehrenreich), a petty thief/drug addict named James (Austin Abrams), and a visiting relative named Gladys (Amy Madigan).

Where Cregger excels here is not only in his use of the main concept to work as an analogy for an ongoing problem that has affected modern day life in the USA for a few decades now, but also in the way that viewers can put their own interpretative spin on things. Whether you are sympathetic to the general state of parents who find their children suddenly absent, moved by those who seek to point a finger of blame at anyone, because an easy answer is better than no answer, or afraid of the kind of events that have previously left classrooms as distressingly empty spaces in the real world, Weapons provides a lot of food for thought. But it also provides some great atmosphere, very effective jump scares, and a surprising selection of familiar horror movie moments that feel a bit fresh and unique because of the way they are dressed up.

While the cast all do good work, and I really couldn't fault any one of the main performers named up above (also worth mentioning are Benedict Wong, Whitmer Thomas, Callie Schuttera, and the narration from Scarlett Sher), this is a film that works as well as it does thanks to the care and skill of Cregger and his behind-the-camera collaborators. The score works brilliantly, the cinematography from Larkin Seiple remains gorgeous and keeps everything visible even in the darkest of scenes, and the constant mix of creepiness and shock is handled expertly by everyone involved.

I was worried that this wouldn't live up to the hype, because that has certainly been building since the advertising campaign ramped up a little while ago, but it absolutely does. People will have different moments they may find a bit less satisfying, and some will start to amplify their negative opinion if they want to push back against the majority who seem to love it, but I am struggling to find any fault with it. The runtime could have been trimmed down slightly, but I can't even think of where I would want some time shaved off. Okay, maybe I would have preferred some other kind of explanation for what is ultimately revealed during the finale, but it's easy for me to sit here and say that without thinking of anything that would have been better. Those are very minor things something stopping me from rating this as an absolutely perfect film. It comes damn close though.

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 

Gemini Man (2019)

Three years before Will Smith spectacularly self-harmed Will Smith in front of millions of viewers, Will Smith starred in a film which had him trying to avoid being caused harm by . . . Will Smith. Many might have tried to call Gemini Man a prescient film when it was released, but nobody could have seen just how prescient it ended up being.

A high concept written by David Benioff, Darren Lemke, and Billy Ray, and directed by Ang Lee, Gemini Man is an action thriller based around the sci-fi idea of cloning a top assassin to then kill and take over from that assassin when they have come to the end of their usefulness. Smith plays Henry Brogan, and younger images of him are used to portray Junior (aka the clone). Brogan ends up being targeted when he's due to retire, and he ends up on the run with an agent named Danny Zakarewski (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) as they attempt to stay one step ahead of the soldiers under the command of the ruthless Clay Verris (Clive Owen).

Although this film would have benefited from keeping the central idea a bit more of a mystery (I have mentioned it here because it's on the poster and was all over the marketing), it still manages to be quite good fun when delivering on the action front. Okay, viewers may get a bit impatient while they wait on Brogan to accept the strange reality of his predicament, but Lee and the writers try to keep everyone distracted with a fine opening sequence, a great late-night attempted ambush, and an extended gunfight that is inventive and thrilling. And that's without even mentioning the great moments that have Owen chewing the scenery in a turn that has him one step removed from Dr. Robotnik.

Smith is great in the lead role, and his familiar visage is used well for the younger version of himself. He's always convincing, and this feels like an a-list star doing their best to elevate b-list material. It's a gimmick film, but that gimmick is boosted by Smith's presence. Winstead is very good, and convinces in the action set-pieces, although she has to rely on Smith, sadly, and I still think she deserves a full-on action lead role with franchise potential (Kate came closest, but also seemed to quickly get lost in the sea of wannabe-Wickflicks). As for Owen, see my previous comment about him. It's no criticism. I love his performance here, and he seems to be having loads of fun in his role. The other person worth mentioning is Benedict Wong, playing a good friend/facilitator named Baron who wants to help keep our leads breathing.

It doesn't really matter how good the acting or the action is though. What matters is how convincing the film is when old Will Smith comes face to face with young Will Smith. I would say that, for the most part, it works well enough. Using a variety of tricks to hide his face for certain sections of the film, Smith the younger looks decent enough when finally allowed to be front and centre. There are a few moments that have him looking like a paused videogame character compared to the fully real humans alongside him, but they don't really unbalance the film. Until the very last scenes. I'm not sure if this was shot in reverse order or if the technology couldn't handle showing us this character in full daylight, but the very end of this movie has the worst computer imagery of the entire film, which makes it hard to get through the end credits while remembering the earlier highlights.

There are other mis-steps. Both main Smiths are a bit over-emotional when you consider their occupation, the timeline never feels quite right, and some turns in the third act feel a bit too hasty and implausible. I still rate this as a fun time though. It's not great, but it's good enough to help you pass a couple of hours.

6/10

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

Doctor Strange In The Multiverse Of Madness (2022)

As many of you already know, Marvel have been setting up the multiverse for a little while now. And here we are, once again showing the possibilities and the dangers of the multiverse.

It all starts with an action sequence that shows Doctor Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) dying while trying to help a young woman, America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez). America can jump from from one multiverse realm to the next, but doesn’t know how her power works, and she eventually ends up in what seems to be our world, where she is saved from a giant monster by . . . Doctor Stephen Strange, assisted by Wong (Benedict Wong). Powerful forces seem intent on destroying America, which leads to Doctor Strange asking for the help of Wanda Maximoff aka The Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen) . . . which actually ends up making everything worse. An ancient text could provide the key to fixing the whole situation, but that might need some more travelling between universes.

With the kaleidoscopic imagery throughout, elements of celestial horror, a nice line in macabre humour, and an inevitable Bruce Campbell cameo, Sam Raimi fans should be delighted by his return to directing superhero fare. The material, revolving around a quest for an ancient book that may save or damn mankind, feels like a natural fit, and there are a couple of genuinely glorious moments in the third act that show just how much Raimi was allowed to retain his Raimi essence. I can easily say that I enjoyed this more as a blockbuster Raimi movie than as a superhero movie.

The screenplay, written by Michael Waldron, does a good job of explaining the situations, characters, and rules without bringing everything to a grinding halt. Waldron has experience with multiverse-based entertainment, having been a writer on both Loki and Rick & Morty, and he excels when it comes to clarifying concepts that are then complemented by Raimi’s directorial decisions. He also does well while exploring an aspect that was kept out of a lot of the advertising on the lead up to the release of the film, something I won’t spoil here, and I was pleased to find that this was another Marvel movie that opted to question decisions made by main characters over the years, and to muse over who gets to decide what is ultimately good and bad.

Everyone does well in their main roles, with some people (mainly Cumberbatch, Olsen, and Rachel McAdams, once again playing the lovely, and beloved, Christine) clearly having some fun portraying multiple versions of their characters. And Cumberbatch can do the magic-creating finger/hand movements in his sleep by now, surely.  Gomez is a great new addition to the cinematic roster of Marvel main characters we have had so far, playing her character with a lovely mix of sadness, strength, and sass, and Wong has been one of the best supporting players in any of the MCU movies since his first appearance (although there are a number of actors who would deserve to be in contention alongside him). Chiwetel Ejiofor also needs to be mentioned here, with his character, Baron Mordo, being used in a way that allows him to do more than just be another potential enemy of Strange.

I’ve saved my main criticisms until the end though, because this is far from perfect. Some scenes are just too overstuffed, some of the dialogue, already embraced by a large part of the fanbase, is too hokey and trying too hard to become instantly quotable, and it’s easy to say that this isn’t the best recent multiverse movie release (which would be Everything Everywhere All At Once). It’s not even the best recent Marvel multiverse movie release though, with Spider-Man: No Way Home proving to be a much more satisfying end product. The reason? Cameos.

Yeah, let’s end this review by talking about cameos. Not Bruce Campbell. He is welcome in every Sam Raimi movie. And Spider-Man: No Way Home showed just how enjoyable the right cameos could be. Unfortunately, Marvel haven’t realised what they got so right there, cameos that allow them to work some interesting story strands together from their recent history into something that felt much more satisfying, and like closure for many, and go back to making the mistake of using cameos as obvious set up for whatever path they want to lay ahead. One major character aside, someone seen in the recent animated “What If?” show, all of these cameos made me roll my eyes and wish that I didn’t recognise any of the faces onscreen. It’s irritating, feeling like a way to tease people or test reactions to potential future (re)casting. And it sadly makes up what feels like a decent portion of the middle of the movie.

None of the negatives are enough to stop this from being a good time. There’s enough money and talent here that it would seem almost impossible to make something truly awful. But, as the film itself shows us, there are infinite possibilities.

7/10

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

Shang-Chi And The Legend Of The Ten Rings (2021)

The past couple of years have proven to be quite challenging for the Marvel Cinematic Universe, as they have proven to be quite challenging to numerous movie productions and companies. But Marvel seemed to be in a more precarious position than most, already having many people voice their concern over where things would go after the massive success of the films that ended the superb, long-running, storyline that culminated in "the snap" from Thanos.

Let's not spend too much time worrying about them though. Despite a mixed reception, they have still spent the past couple of years releasing films like this one, Eternals, and Black Widow, and making a great mix of TV shows such as Loki, WandaVision, Captain America And The Winter Soldier, and Hawkeye. Whether you love or hate them, they keep making blockbuster entertainment with a consistent minimum standard of quality, in my view, and they keep managing to set things in place to give them many options of whatever path they choose to take in the years ahead.

Take this film, for example. This is another Marvel movie that now happily mixes in the magical and mythical with the sci-fi elements. It all starts when Xu Wenwu (Tony Leung) discovers ten mystical rings, allowing him eternal life and superpowers. He then meets, and falls in love with, a woman. Children are born. Love wins. Temporarily.
That happened some years ago. Back in the here and now, Shang-Chi (Simu Liu) is a bit of a loveable loser who enjoys spending time with his friend, Katy (Awkwafina). He's not special, at least not in the eyes of most people around him. That all changes when members of the Ten Rings, the army headed up by Wenwu, attack Shang-Chi, desperate to gain ownership of a pendant given to him by his mother. Shang-Chi immediately heads off to warn his sister, Xialing (Meng'er Zhang), because she has a similar pendant. They soon realise that their father, because Wenwu IS their father, wants the pendants to find the mystical village his deceased wife lived in, convinced that he can be with her once again. But the messages he is hearing are lies, delivered to his mind by something that needs his help to break free.

It's pretty redundant to review a decent Marvel movie nowadays. Obviously there are more interesting words to say about the best and worst of their output. They know what they're doing, they have a great team of people working on each film, and they often get their casting pretty perfect. Such is the case here. Shang-Chi And The Legend Of The Ten Rings may lose steam in the third act, where it suffers from that blockbuster mis-step of big CGI battling big CGI, but there's easily enough here to please fans of this kind of fare. The extended action sequences which have Shang-Chi battling the Ten Rings are the highlights, leaving the film a little adrift when nothing else can top them, but you also get some good humour and a nice running commentary on determinism and real power. 

As good as Liu, Awkwafina, and Zhang are, and they are excellent (with both Liu and Zhang doing very well with the physical side of their roles), the real treat here is seeing the likes of Leung and Yeoh (for a second time) getting a small piece of that Marvel pie. It's also fun to see another small turn from Benedict Wong, reprising the character of Wong, and one other returning main character proved to be a very pleasant surprise, and had more of an involved role than the last time he was used onscreen in these movies. There's nobody doing bad work here, at all, but I do need to single out Florian Munteanu, who makes a strong impression as the aptly-named Razor Fist, a main henchman wielding a red-hot machete blade where his right hand should be.

Director Destin Daniel Cretton helped to write the screenplay with Dave Callaham and Andrew Lanham, and the team work together well. They may have the might of Marvel behind/helping them, but there's nothing here that shows Cretton feeling out of his depth with his sudden leap from smaller fare such as Just Mercy, The Glass Castle, and Short Term 12. It might be easier to get this kind of thing right with a whole army of people ready to ensure you stay in line with the overall vision of the brand,  but that is no guarantee that the end result will show that. This gets much more right than wrong.

The interconnectivity remains the best thing that Marvel worked on, however, and that's why I know so many people will already know whether or not they are going to watch this. If, like me, you have been on the complete journey so far then you can't just stop, cold turkey. Things keep being set up that you know will pay off, be it this year, next year, or maybe a decade down the line. If you managed to resist the allure of the polished MCU product when they were a bit less practiced at lining up all of their cinematic stepping stones then you checked out by the time you read the title of this review.

I really wish the final act had been better, but I can't deny that the rest worked well for me. And the fight sequences at least have a fluidity and choreography that puts them on par with the best of Hollywood martial arts (which is still, lest we forget, rarely on a par with actual martial arts depicted in non-Hollywood movies).

8/10

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

Annihilation (2018)

Alex Garland does great work in the sci-fi genre, and some feel that he is particularly good when it comes to the movies that he has so far directed (mainly, well, Ex Machina and this). His films are smart, visually arresting, and packed with intriguing ideas. It's just a shame that this film seems a bit overstuffed and unsure of exactly what is being said.

Natalie Portman plays a biologist, Lena, who ends up on a dangerous exploratory mission when she is trying to discover what happened to her husband, Kane (Oscar Isaac), on his last military mission. She accompanies four other women through an area surrounded by "the shimmer", an unknown phenomenon that seems to mark the growing boundary of an environment fatal to almost all who enter. Everyone knows the risk, but they are all hoping to at least discover some answers before their time is up.

Based on the first book in a series by Jeff Vandermeer, Annihilation is definitely something you can see easily appealing to Garland. It's a sci-fi tale, much like Ex Machina, in which the characters are constantly trying to wind their way through areas of murky morality. What constitutes life, and what gives others the right to assert themselves as the unassailable final step in evolution? Because the shimmer causes pain and damage, yet also creates new life, often in a surprisingly rapid manner.

The material is boosted by the cast, with Portman joined by Jennifer Jason Leigh, Gina Rodriguez, Tessa Thompson, Tuva Novotny, and Isaac appearing largely in flashback scenes. All of the characters are carrying their own baggage (otherwise why go on such a mission?) and the performances match the flawed personalities.

The problems with the film don't lie with the cast, they lie with the script. Sadly. Garland seems to have been won over by the potential of the ideas here, so much so that he tries to overstuff the film, losing focus during times when he should be building a much clearer picture. The structure highlights this, with scenes that are flashbacks stuck on to other flashback scenes, and a lot of moments that don't feel like anything more than unnecessary filler.

To sum up then, Annihilation is a solid sci-fi film with a very capable cast, and one or two memorable moments, that doesn't ever become a completely satisfying work. Which was perhaps the aim of Garland, considering the core premise.

6/10

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