Prime Time: Locked (2025)

A remake of an Argentinian thriller, 4x4, that I haven't seen, Locked was a film that ended up reminding me that, no matter how much older I get I can always be suckered in by a decent trailer. I was convinced that I was going to have a good time with this. Then it soon became clear to me that there was a big problem at the heart of the story that couldn't be overcome.

Bill Skarsgård plays Eddie Barrish, a petty criminal who is trying to get part of his life in order. Unfortunately, he needs money that he doesn't have to get his van repaired. He thinks there may be something valuable in a luxury SUV that he finds unlocked in a quiet parking lot though, and that's when his troubles really begin. The SUV is owned by William (Anthony Hopkins), a man who has rigged the whole thing with surveillance equipment, remote-controlled systems to make life as comfortable or uncomfortable for whoever is inside, and a whole lot of reinforcements on the body and windows. Eddie is trapped, and his only way out is to convince William that he's not the criminal that he appears to be.

Although I am not sure how closely this sticks to the screenplay by Mariano Cohn and Gastón Duprat, writer Michael Arlen Ross shows no real imagination or care, and he probably thanked the day that both Skarsgård and Hopkins signed on to play the two leads. Director David Yarovesky has kept me highly entertained with his last couple of features (Brightburn and Nightbooks), but he obviously needs a decent script to work from. This isn't it, mainly due to the fact that once Eddie is in the SUV everything becomes a series of circular moments until we get to the inevitable final act in which our anti-hero has been shown to have just enough goodness within him to allow a potential reprieve . . . depending on who the movie sides with in the final scenes.

Skarsgård tries his best here, and it's the kind of role that he has done in a few other movies from the past few years, but he's as trapped by the script as his character is trapped by William. Hopkins is allowed to have a bit more fun, as expected, but even he is let down by a screenplay that is forced to give too much baggage to both leads, steadfastly aiming for a middle ground between the two that should allow for viewers to enjoy some self-reflection and conversation after it's all over, but sadly just leaves it feeling like it was neutered to appeal to the widest possible range of opinions. We know Eddie is a bad guy, but he wants to become better for his daughter. We know William is a bad guy, but he's doing all of this in the name of someone he once loved. The more potentially interesting conversations that could be had, about the growing chasm between the very rich and those living in poverty (for example), are given brief lip service before we get to another sequence showing Eddie trying to outwit his tormentor. I understand why this was done, it's a thriller and not a social commentary piece, but I think adding more commentary would have made it more worthwhile. At least it would have felt as if it had something to say.

It can be difficult to make a movie all set in one location. While this isn't exactly that, the fact that so much of the runtime involves Skarsgård stuck in a car and talking on the phone to Hopkins makes it feel like a one-location film. And all of the added tech contained within the car cannot make up for the fact that it's not a very good one. The engine goes flat after the first 15-20 minutes, and any attempt to jump-start things before the end credits roll is just too little, too late. I give it a generous bonus because of my appreciation for the two star names.

4/10

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

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

It: Chapter Two (2019)

It's still Andy Muschietti in the director's chair here, but the writing duties have now fallen to Gary Dauberman alone for this continuation of the tale that pits the Losers Club against a supernatural entity that often takes the form of a clown named Pennywise. Is that a good thing? Many people probably think not. I'm in the minority, and I think Dauberman does a fantastic job of filling this hefty 169-minute runtime with excellent scares and moments of dark surrealism.

In some of the most perfect casting to be committed to film, the youngsters from the first film are now shown in their adult forms, but also reappear in a number of flashbacks that tie events of the past and present together. Here is where I will credit both actors portraying them. You have Bill (Jaeden Martell/James McAvoy), Beverly (Sophia Lillis/Jessica Chastain), Richie (Finn Wolfhard/Bill Hader), Mike (Chosen Jacobs/Isaiah Mustafa), Ben (Jeremy Ray Taylor/Jay Ryan), Stanley (Wyatt Oleff/Andy Bean), and Eddie (Jack Dylan Grazer/James Ransome). And against this steadfast group is the constant source of terror that is It AKA Pennywise (Bill Skarsgård being as brilliant here as he was in the first part of the story). There are other characters who come in and out of the narrative, some just as important as any of our leads, but the heart of the film remains a group of close friends helping one another to battle their greatest fears.

Perhaps it was inevitable that this would pale in comparison to the successful first instalment, especially when many people would agree that the story of the adults just isn't as engaging or entertaining as the story of their childhood experience, but Muschietti and Dauberman work together to try their hardest at making this work as well as it can. Making liberal use of the child actors is one way that they help themselves. Continuing to let Skarsgård steal pretty much every scene he is in is another.

As far as I can tell, nobody likes this film as much as I do. People like it, and there are individual moments that they can point to as highlights, but the runtime and tone seems to have put many off. You can certainly feel the runtime, but I would still argue that it's not necessarily bloated, considering the many extra treats littered throughout. As for the tone, it's a bit lighter at times than the tone of the first film, but I don't think it ever strays too far away from some proper horror for too long. This is never going to be incorrectly labelled as a horror comedy, despite some of the levity and one-liners. It just shows adults using laughter as an essential release valve from an enormous build-up of stress and fear. I guess that some viewers were disappointed by moments that they thought were too silly to be scary, but I also enjoyed that aspect of the whole thing. This is a film that never forgets that the thing taking on the guise of Pennywise is much more than that, and every form it takes is designed to put victims into a "more succulent" state of fear. Yes, some moments are quite bizarre, and illustrated by suitably wild special effects, but they're all part and parcel of the shape-shifting horror that wouldn't be out of place in any Lovecraft tale.

While not as uniform as the first instalment, the acting here is generally top notch. One or two minor quibbles aside, mainly stemming from the writing more than the performances, everyone does great work, and there is a particular joy in watching the adults feel like such a natural development from the children that already made such a strong impression in the previous film.

Arguably even more visually impressive, and arguably even more ambitious, this is a horror movie that benefits from those involved believing that they can now fully embrace the disorderly and manic nature of the beast depicted. I love that about it. I love that it shows how to make your fears small and manageable. I love that there is as much time given to the ideals of friendship and hope as is given to the darkness and danger. I might be overcompensating slightly, considering how many others consider it the lesser work, but I consider this equal to the first film. There are different strengths and weaknesses, but the whole thing works perfectly to deliver a satisfactory ending without spending too much time repeating the exact same scares that we got the first time around.

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

It (2017)

Adapting what is, for many, a formative reading experience into a movie is always a challenge. Attempting to do that after there's already been a fantastic, and beloved, TV movie adaptation that many still view as definitive and iconic would seem to be a fool's errand. It's happened before with Stephen King works though, and I have no doubt that it will happen again. I'm not sure I would mind if they all turned out as well as this.

It, and it's worth mentioning for those who may be unaware that this is the first, albeit nicely self-contained, part of an enjoyably sprawling horror story that is spread out over two movies, is all about a group of youngster who help one another survive an extremely deadly summer in Derry, Maine. They all end up being affected by a creature that can take on the shape of their fears, although it mostly catches victims while in the shape of Pennywise the clown (Bill Skarsgård, doing such a great job that he somehow manages to equal the nightmare-inducing performance given by Tim Curry in the 1990 TV movie). That's all you need to know. Seven children, a lifelong bonding experience, and a killer clown.

Having very recently rewatched this, I am sure that I was a bit harsh on It during my first viewing experience. I did praise certain elements, particularly the mix of scares and bloodshed without a reliance on either, but I also mentioned some unnecessary CGI used, a slightly weak script, and the fact that the main characters weren't really. Well . . . present me disagrees with the past me (although I still think there are one or two bits of CGI work that didn't have to be done that way, or maybe even done at all).

With Chase Palmer, Cary Fukunaga, and Gary Dauberman figuring out the best ways to turn King's major tome into a satisfying screenplay, Andy Muschietti can stay focused on direction. The screenplay is a great blend of coming-of-age episodes and well-executed scares, even if a number of them are jump scares, and Muschietti serves the material well. The film is, in many ways, a mood piece, a painting by someone who wants to depict growing pains and common anxieties in the same picture. And, in that regard, it works. In fact, it works brilliantly, constantly evoking a growing sense of nostalgia, the blossoming of dark petals of sadness, and an impressive sprinkling of dread over every main sequence.

There are no weak performances to critique, which makes it easy for me to simply namecheck all seven members of "The Loser's Club" here; Jaeden Martell (Bill, credited here as Jaeden Lieberher), Sophia Lillis (Beverly), Jeremy Ray Taylor (Ben), Finn Wolfhard (Richie), Chosen Jacobs (Mike), Jack Dylan Grazer (Eddie), and Wyatt Oleff (Stanley). All of these characters get enough time and space to feel like more than just a scared victim, and the cast members are all perfectly cast. Nicholas Hamilton and Owen Teague are also very good, although they are given the unenviable task of playing typical King bullies who are, and Jackson Robert Scott does well enough in the role of young Georgie to cast a suitable little shadow over the entire film. As for Skarsgård, he's a creepy and brilliant delight in ways that I cannot even begin to list here. Whether pretending to be innocent and fun or showing a hint of his true evil nature, he's always an interesting depiction of a monster never quite comfortable enough in any one form to fully convince people that there's no threat nearby.

The 135-minute runtime ticks over without any pacing issues, those responsible for the adaptation from page to screen have great instincts for what to show, what to imply, and what to completely excise, and the whole thing is just about as good as you can get, certainly in the realm of modern mainstream horror. It's still hard to watch without thinking of the novel, or thinking of that beloved TV movie, but it's easily up there with the very best King movies (and the top of that particular tree has some real classics nesting there).

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

Boy Kills World (2024)

It always happens. One great success leads to numerous imitators. That can lead to other successes, as has happened in recent years with a certain kind of action cinema. It can also lead to the occasional mid-step, at best. Boy Kills World is a mis-step, although it’s one that I know plenty of people enjoyed more than I did.

Bill Skarsgård plays our main character, a mute man who narrates his own life in an inner voice (H. Jon Benjamin) that he used to enjoy hearing in one of his favourite videogames. He is living in a strange dystopian world, one in which the rulers occasionally just pick people to kill/sacrifice, and his own loss drives him on a wild and bloody quest for revenge.

What you get here, when it works, is an enjoyably creative killing spree centering on a main character who is skilled and fortunate enough to deal with waves of disposable villains. The action is certainly fun and energetic, and everything is underlined by a streak of hunour that many will enjoy (although it didn’t work for me).

Director Mortiz Mohr, making his feature debut, feels like someone making a feature debut. This has a great idea at the heart of it, it’s trying to boil down a pure and simple action movie aesthetic into something even more pure and simple, but the end result is too messy, with a muddled plot, clumsy tonal movement, and characters that you don’t ever care about, even if Skarsgård has an innate likability to him.

The script, fully fleshed out by Arend Remmers and Tyler Burton Smith, is a mess. I never once believed the world depicted onscreen, and the attempt to add some twists and turns were altogether unsuccessful. Either keep things rooted in pure action madness or try to deliver plotting that people will care about. This moves between both, and that caused it to leave me unsatisfied with both aspects.

Skarsgård makes up for many failings though. His wide-eyed turn is very enjoyable, and he looks more than capable when in full-on rage fighting mode. That’s a good thing indeed, because almost everyone else here is wasted. Michelle Dockery, Sharlto Copley, Brett Gelman, Famke Janssen, all wasted. It should be a crime to waste Janssen this badly. Jessica Rothe is also wasted, as is the fantastic Yayan Ruhian, although he gets a few good moments throughout, and it’s at least good to see him in a fairly central role.

I really wanted to enjoy this. I expected to enjoy it. While I didn’t hate it, I was surprised by how poor it was. Is it worth a watch one evening when you want some bloody entertainment to accompany snacks and drinks? Yes. Is it worth a rewatch at any point, and will it stay long in your memory once you go on to many of the other action movies from the past few years? Absolutely not.

4/10

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

Barbarian (2022)

Written and directed by Zach Cregger, Barbarian is an excellent horror film that may put off many viewers with a structure that almost places it in the category of anthology movie. Jumping between various points in time, and various main characters, the first viewing may leave you feeling a bit bewildered until everything starts to knit together, but stick with it and you will be rewarded with a very dark and twisted piece of work.

Things start with Tess (Georgina Campbell) turning up to stay at a house she has rented, only to find that the property has also been rented to someone else by mistake. That person is Keith (Bill Skarsgård). He seems lovely and considerate, but he also brings the baggage of being Bill Skarsgård, and this whole section has Cregger using lighting and camera angles to keep viewers as wary as Tess. Once this episode plays out, we then join AJ (Justin Long), a cocky actor who finds out that his career is about to suffer from an accusation of rape. Desperately pooling his money and resources for the legal battles ahead, AJ travels to a property that he has had an agency renting out on his behalf. Yep, it’s the house that Tess and Keith stayed in. The neighbourhood seems to have gone to pot, but AJ’s house could still have some value. One more jump back in time shows us a previous resident of the house (played by Richard Brake) and then it is time to connect everything together for an intense and entertaining final act.

Mixing a number of familiar horror movie standards into something that feels new and bang up to date, Cregger proves himself a smart and confident helmsman with Barbarian. You get tension, scares, and some great gore moments, but you also get thought-provoking commentary on gentrification, class division, abuse, and the danger in the world around us that just keeps encroaching on any lone female. None of this stuff brings the film to a halt, and the fact that it’s all woven so well through the script is testament to Cregger’s talent, although his cast also help with pitch-perfect performances.

Campbell is a very likable lead, and viewers are on her side as soon as things start to feel tense (which happens within the first few minutes). Skarsgård is also very likable here, his manner and thoughtfulness at odds with the threat we perceive in him, which is how Tess perceives him. Then you have Long, delivering a brash and unpleasant turn that has you rooting for his character to meet a sticky end. Although he isn’t a good person, he is there to provide a very interesting juxtaposition and comparison point with someone even worse (Brake, doing well with his short amount of screentime).

It’s hard to write about this while preserving the element of surprise. Those who have already seen the film will know the elephant in the room that I haven’t tried to describe. Those yet to see the film may not be convinced by my selective summary, but I hope you give it a go and enjoy a surprise or two. There are a couple of moments here that sit quite high on any list of great moments from horror movies released within the last few years, and Cregger paces everything perfectly as viewers are moved between gruelling moments of unpleasantness and more entertaining bits of horror movie “fun”. Absolutely brilliant stuff.

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

John Wick: Chapter 4 (2023)

Keanu Reeves is back as John Wick, with Chad Stahelski once again directing, and writer Shay Hatten (who worked on the last film) now joined by Michael Finch, and many people are saying this is the best film in the series. I would disagree, but the third act has a number of major sequences that easily jostle for a spot amongst the action highlights of all four films.

Still looking for a way out of his predicament, John Wick is coming to the inevitable conclusion that he may just have to die. He won’t go down without a fight though, and aims to at least try to take down everyone who is sent after him. The armed goons are being sent in their droves by a determined Marquis (Bill Skarsgård), but the biggest threat comes from a skilled assassin who was once a friend (Caine, played by Donnie Yen) and a tracker (Shamier Anderson) who wants to keep Wick alive until the bounty on his head reaches his desired amount. 

I have complained about some other films that start at a point not allowing for any decent sense of escalation, and you might think that John Wick Chapter 4 would have the same problem, considering the first half of the lengthy runtime, but don’t worry. While there is a risk of fatigue setting in, considering how many fight moments consist of people shooting at one another while lifting up their Kevlar jacket collars to protect their face/head, there is just enough inventiveness and style to keep you entertained until you get to the moments that truly feel as if they are taking things to another level. Every main action set-piece set in Paris, whether it involves the busy traffic going around the Arc de Triomphe or some fluid overhead camerawork showing our hero destroying numerous enemies with a gun that fires out incendiary ammo, sets the bar about as high as it can go for this kind of thing. And I cannot tell you how many times I winced during a battle on some steep steps that saw one stuntman after another take many painful tumbles.

Reeves is still perfect in the lead role, more action than words (but able to show both his determination and tiredness while leaving piles of corpses in his wake), and all of the returning players, such as Laurence Fishburne, Lance Reddick (RIP, his role here is all the more poignant), and Ian McShane, continue to have great fun in their supporting roles, with the latter once again effortlessly stealing some scenes with a raised eyebrow or delightful turn of phrase. Yen is a formidable opponent, and brings with him the legacy of his entire body of work (I hope those new to his skills will hunt down some of his greatest hits), and the same can be said for the great Hiroyuki Sanada, in a relatively small, but pivotal, role. Anderson is good fun, and he gets to give orders to the talented killer dog in this movie (which is great, but sadly not as entertaining as the dogs owned by Halle Berry in the previous instalment). Then there’s Bill Skarsgård, playing his main villain - or, arguably, just the new boss charged with re-enforcing rules and fixing what was broken by Wick’s rampage - with a smug air of superiority, a general lack of concern for what he sees as the inevitable outcome that will go his way, and an entertainingly overdone French accent. There’s also room for Clancy Brown (always welcome onscreen, here lending his talents to the role of Harbinger), Rina Sawayama (playing the daughter of one main character, and someone who may end up on a revenge mission of her own one day), Scott Adkins, Natalia Tena, and the lower half of Marie Pierra Kakoma’s face as she DJs at a radio station named WUXIA.

The soundtrack is another corker (Tyler Bates and Joel J. Richard also having been a part of the series since the first film), the production design throughout keeps things well-balanced to show us bright colours and neon lighting in between moments of stealth in more shadowy areas, and there’s an equally fine job done, as ever in this series, of blending the editing and special effects with an overview of the frenetic action.

I doubt the series will end here, but I will not be unhappy if it does. It’s hard to think of what they could do to top this. You have all of the violence and death, all enjoyably creative, you could hope for, but there are also a couple of thematic strands running through the whole thing that give it some more weight, and keep you remembering what everyone has at stake. And you shouldn’t underestimate the glee you can experience from watching our hero repeatedly smack someone in the head with nunchucks. It’s almost downright cathartic.

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

Netflix And Chill: Villains (2019)

Co-written and co-directed by Dan Berk and Robert Olsen, who I didn't exactly love for their previous movie, Body (2015), Villains takes a now commonplace idea of two bad people stumbling into a household owned by some much worse people and has some twisted fun with characters all willing to do horrible things to one another in the name of self-preservation.

Bill Skarsgård and Maika Monroe are Mickey and Jules, respectively. They are small-time crooks, shown in the very first scene committing a messy and amateurish robbery. Making their getaway, it isn't long until their car runs out of fuel. That leads them to a seemingly empty house, one in which a little girl (Blake Baumgartner) is chained up in the basement. When the owners, George (Jeffrey Donovan) and Gloria (Kyra Sedgwick), come home then it's time to see who can keep the upper hand and resolve the situation in the way that suits them best.

Helped by the fact that they have a bit more to play with this time around, Berk and Olsen maybe viewed Villains as the movie that they would have made their debut, if only they had made the connections and extra resources back then. It's obviously a central idea that they saw potential in, and this comes much closer to achieving that potential than their last film did. The only big thing working against it is the fact that it's a bit of an overused trope nowadays. It's still fun, but we've seen it so many times throughout the past decade or so, from The Cottage to Monster Party, from Don't Breathe to The Owners, and many more. Some of these films are much better than others, and a big part of the success or failure depends on just how well the plot mixes in the dark comedy, nastiness, and characters to root for.

They can also depend on the central cast, which is a big plus here. Skarsgård and Monroe are excellent as the young crooks who find themselves suddenly way in over their heads, with the former an especially likeable doofus, and Donovan and Sedgwick are so ready to turn from absolute calm to absolute madness that you suspect they already have a number of bodies hidden away under the foundation of their house. The most fun is had whenever Donovan tries to remain calm and composed in the face of increasingly brash and stupid escape attempts by the youngsters.

Although I had fun with this, and REALLY appreciated the lead performances, Villains doesn't manage to be quite as good as most of those other titles I just mentioned above. And I am sure there are some other movies that I have forgotten to name-check that are in the same ballpark. But I'd find this an easy one to rewatch. There just happens to be many others that I would prioritise ahead of it.

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

Assassination Nation (2018)

Have I ever mentioned how much I dislike the Scissor Sisters? It's not really them that I dislike, they had a couple of hits that were fun and annoyingly catchy, but the way they seemed to be viewed as the pinnacle of naughtiness and wit by middle-aged, middle-class people who viewed leaving their socks on during an unplanned quickie as the ultimate in sexual kinkiness. I know that's an unfair generalisation to make. I also know that I've met far too many people who would seem to be in that category.

I mention that now because Assassination Nation is a film I view as similarly mistaken for cool and edgy, when it is often just desperate and juvenile. It wants to be shocking, clearly, but it's a film that feels tame and out of date already.

Odessa Young is Lily Colson, a young woman living in Salem. She has a boyfriend (Bill Skarsgård), and is also having a lot of fun, to put it one way, with a married man she calls "daddy". Lily starts off as a relieved bystander when a hacker starts to reveal sensitive private information belonging to town residents, but it's not long until she, and most of her friends, becomes a target. Everyone has their secrets, some have more than others. And all of this dirty laundry being washed in public eventually leads to emboldened and angered men becoming abusive, and assholes thinking they should make everything right by punishing those they see as being most immoral and/or causing the situation.

The second feature to be both written and directed by Sam Levinson, Assassination Nation has a few good individual moments. It's just a shame that they are drowned out in the hyperactive mess that makes up the rest of the film. And one of those better moments basically plays out over the end credits. Levinson obviously wants to comment on our modern habits (all of that data that can be out there for every one of us, be it text messages or emails or photos, jumping to the wrong conclusion about something and not listening to reason if it doesn't suit our argument), but he undercuts everything by appearing to run through a checklist of trigger warnings that are provided at the very start of the film. You get a great sequence, for example, of a man trying to explain why pictures of his young daughter in the bath don't make him a pedophile, all while a large crowd is baying for his blood, but you also get a plot point about Lily being fed up with her boyfriend's refusal to go down on her. There's a guy secretly hooking up with someone who is transgender (in scenes that reminded me of Cruel Intentions), the constant threat of being targeted by seemingly-brilliant hackers (see a LOT of movies and TV shows from the past decade, not least of them being Mr. Robot), and an escalation of heated emotions as more and more secrets come out (in scenes that reminded me, oddly enough, of the third act of Needful Things). Assassination Nation is far from original. It's also just a bit silly, certainly by the time it is pushing things even further for the big finale.

Hey, I mistrust the general public, when being coerced into one mass sway of opinion, as much as the next person, but even I couldn't buy into just how quickly things went from 0 to 100 here. The film may be a heightened experience, with everything deliberately ramped up to dangerously excessive levels, but that doesn't make it work any better. I probably would have enjoyed this more as a live piece of theatre, something that really COULD have felt more intense and daring, depending on how uncomfortable the audience was made to feel. As a film, however, it starts to fall apart during the opening scenes.

Young is fine in the role of Colson, and she makes more of an impression than any of her co-stars (with the exception of Hari Nef, and kudos to Levinson for having an actual transgender actress playing someone transgender). Skarsgård adds another toxic male role to his list of them (he does them so well), Colman Domingo is superb in his role as the school principal, and Joel McHale tries, and fails, to overcome the silliness of the script with his performance.

It's made well enough, and the good amongst the bad makes it just about worth your time, but Assassination Nation totally drops the ball. I get what Levinson was aiming for, and there's an argument to be made for the style matching the content, but the most important points are too easily drowned out by the cacophony of irritating excess.

4/10

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