Nobody 2 (2025)

I had an absolute blast with Nobody when it was released. The fact that I haven't rushed to rewatch it in the intervening years is just a sad reminder of how packed my viewing schedule is for the foreseeable few decades (at the very least). I couldn't bring myself to rush to the cinema to see Nobody 2, but I knew I'd want to give it a whirl when it came to home viewing platforms.

All of the main characters are back, with the main plot concerning Hutch Mansell (Bob Odenkirk) trying to enjoy some family holiday time with his wife, Becca (Connie Nielsen), and children (Brady, played by Gage Munroe, and Sammy, played by Paisley Cadorath). The holiday is soon soured, unfortunately, when Hutch stumbles into the middle of the best-laid plans of the dodgy Sheriff Abel (Colin Hanks), who does a lot of dirty work for the powerful and ruthless Lendina (Sharon Stone). As Hutch tries to keep his family safe and aims for a showdown, he once again has to utilise the talents of a couple of family members (played by Christopher Lloyd and RZA). 

With all of the main players returning in front of the camera, it's comforting to see that Derek Kolstad has also returned for the writing duties (joined this time by Aaron Rabin). The only main change is Timo Tjahjanto taking over the directorial duties, and that feels like a big plus, considering the fantastic and savage action that he's delivered throughout his career.

Let's start with the good stuff. Odenkirk and co. are all still great in their roles, and the film feels better for keeping the family all in the loop this time around. RZA and Lloyd still get to shine in third act moments that super-charge their presence, but Nielsen must have been very happy to see that the screenplay made her capable of handling the unexpected pressure, as well as a gun. Hanks is a pretty good villain, John Ortiz is a middle man who could go either way, depending on who he trusts to protect him and his son (played by Lucious Hoyos), and Stone is enjoyably willing to chew some scenery in her few scenes. It's just a shame that she isn't in the film for longer. I would have liked more of her, even if that meant just watching the growing shadow of her character looming over everything from the earliest scenes.

There are decent fights throughout, and the runtime is a zippy 89 minutes. I also quite liked the humour, largely tied to the exasperation of Odenkirk's character when forced to do what he does best.

That's about it for the good stuff though. Tjahjanto really falters when it comes to the fights, disappointing with repeated moves and numerous coincidences ensuring that our lead survives until the big final battle. It also doesn't help that, despite the family holiday premise, Kolstad and Rabin are happy to have written a screenplay that comes very close to just rehashing everything from the first movie. The wrong people get upset, assets are destroyed, and the third act is full of booby traps, even more overwhelming odds, and some vital support from other experienced killers. 

I could watch this again, Odenkirk almost ensures that I could rewatch pretty much anything he's involved with, but I doubt I would ever pick it if it was sitting right alongside the original. That's a much better film, and this suffers in comparison to it. It should have been much better, and it's easy to see where improvements should have been made (giving Stone more screentime, making better use of the amusement park, varying the fights more). There's still some fun to be had with it though.

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 

The People's Joker (2024)

It happened. At long last. I had been wanting a way, any (legal) way, to watch, and support, The People's Joker since I first heard about it last year. The opportunity finally came my way with a limited online event, allowing me to rent both the film and a Q & A between writer-director Vera Drew and Grant Morrison. I hoped it would live up to my expectations, and I am happy to say that it exceeded them.

Working around the main line of "you want to know how I got these emotional scars?", The People's Joker is a wild and brilliant exploration of gender, self-expression, and the very obvious appeal to those who feel "othered" of comic book characters who spend a lot of their time processing their own trauma while writhing around in leather and/or latex. It has been said many times lately, because it is very true, but when others are trying to erase your existence from the world then simply living your life is a wonderful act of rebellion. Vera Drew, portraying the lead character of Joker The Harlequin here, embraces that ethos, and uses the meta-layering of the film to present an astonishingly authentic and anarchic version of a character others have sometimes struggled with.

Co-written by Drew and Brie LeRose, this is a film as defiant as the woman at the helm of it. Considering all of the legal ramifications and constant dancing around (and over and under) copyright, all of which is acknowledged at both the start and end of the film, this feels like a bizarre collage that shouldn't exist. Drew claims "fair use", a canny tactic as her appropriation of the famous DC characters are being used to depict and explore her journey through life, but I have to think that she's also been allowed to keep her vision intact thanks to those who saw the film and recognised the brilliance of the central conceit. There are a number of intertwining main strands here that intertwine on the way to the final scenes. We see Drew struggling to communicate her feelings to her mother (Lynn Downey). We see Drew figuring out, and deciding whether to embrace or smother, her persona, Joker The Harlequin. The character also falls for a certain Mr. J (Kane Distler), who comes with a large number of red flags. And then there's an ongoing worry about the long-term effects of Smylex, the "miracle drug" that definitely has no insidious side-effects whatsoever.

It's hard to praise this without sounding hyperbolic, but it's an interconnected series of insightful skits that feels absolutely masterful in how it weaves together comedy, pathos, commentary, and IP. A few of the jokes may seem a bit obvious, but most of them are smart and genuinely funny. All of the performances work as they need to with the material, with Drew being a fantastic anchor for the whole thing, and highlights include Downey, Lister, Nathan Faustyn (as Penguin), Trevor Drinkwater (The Riddler), and a very special cameo from one Mr. Boop. Various goons make trouble, "Batsy" (voiced by Phil Braun) is amusingly mocked, and Lorne Michaels (voiced by Maria Bamford) seems to fit nicely alongside anyone else who could be perceived as either a superhero or super-villain.

The effects all work well, whether being obviously fake and cheesy or being used to complement the main action as seamlessly as possible, there are some impressive bits of animation, and the end result feels exactly like what it is - a collaboration between many artists and like-minded individuals in service of one unifying vision. It's also worth mentioning the superb score from Justin Krol and Quinn Scharber, but I'll also compliment Laura Wheeler (costume design), Nate Cornett (cinematography), Courtney McIntosh (production designer), and everyone else who came together to deliver us a brilliantly unique experience.

You may not love this as much as I did, but I'm pretty sure you won't have seen anything else like it. I really hoped to enjoy this. The more I think on it, the more I view it as a modern masterpiece. 

10/10

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

Nobody (2021)

When a family are terrified by a home invasion one night, and the youngest member of the family loses her favourite kitty bracelet, the man of the house, Hutch Mansell (Bob Odenkirk) decides to head out and get some revenge. This leads to him being on a bus at the same time as a group of assholes who are harassing a woman, and Mansell decides that he can take out his rage on this group. This gets him noticed by the wrong people, mainly the very powerful Yulian Kuznetsov (Aleksey Serebryakov), and that means that people start to realise his past life was spent being the last person that many people ever saw.

Pretty much sold to people as another John Wick kind of movie, but with "Saul Goodman" in the lead, Nobody will definitely please fans of that series. The fun comes from the fact that Wick reluctantly returned to his killing ways while Mansell is actually keen to let out some rage that has been kept locked away during years of a steady 9-5 grind (a dreary life of routine shown in a montage at the start of the film). The only reason he doesn't want to start back down that path is because he knows how much he's going to enjoy the journey, and he knows how good he is at killing people.

Written by Derek Kolstad, who wrote the first John Wick movie, this is a smart and funny action flick with some impressive violence in the fight scenes. It's hard not to feel a sense of glee as Mansell slides comfortably back into his former habits, and he makes great use of every environment around him to remove the advantage that his opponents usually think they have.

Director Ilya Naishuller is no stranger to this kind of thing, having started his directorial career with an impressive POV short  ("Bad Motherfucker" for Biting Elbows) that would lead to him helming Hardcore Henry. Although I couldn't get on board with that POV gimmick for a whole feature, Naishuller certainly showed that he was happy to revel in gunshots, bone-breaking melee fights, and the kind of forward momentum that should keep most action movie fans pleased.

Odenkirk is superb in the lead role here, believably strong without having bulked up to seem huge. A great actor in pretty much everything I've ever seen him in, it's great to see him have fun in a role that seems so far out of his wheelhouse. I really hope more people see this and become Odenkirk fans. Serebryakov is the standard big baddie, and is just fine in his role, overseeing an army of henchmen who will all likely fail in their attempts to kill Odenkirk's character. RZA has a small role, which he does just fine with, and Christopher Lloyd is a real treat, playing David Mansell (father of Hutch), someone with a similar past. Connie Nielsen is a very understanding wife, Michael Ironside has a small role as a boss/father-in-law, and Colin Salmon has a nice little moment as "The Barber".

All in all, this is everything you could want it to be. The action satisfies, the plotting is good enough to make it all seem plausible (within the movie world), and the sense of humour throughout makes it feel even more suited to Odenkirk having the lead role. Everybody should see Nobody.

9/10

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

Mubi Monday: Little Women (2019)

Considering the range of movies from around the world that Mubi provides, I did not expect it to get in the way of this Japanuary train I am on. And yet . . . here we are. So, with time of the essence, and nothing Japanese available from their selection just now, I have decided to take the opportunity to review a very recent movie that was the Mubi Go ticket for last week. Little Women.

Adapted from the source novel by Louisa May Alcott, of course, this is a near-perfect working of the tale from writer-director Greta Gerwig, providing a film that is as entertaining as it is thought-provoking, and showing that Ladybird was no fluke. In fact, although some may think I was a bit too flippant in my criticism of Ladybird, Little Women shows a huge improvement in almost every regard, and we should all appreciate that Gerwig gave herself the fairly daunting task of working on something far from guaranteed to give her more success. But more success she has gained, and rightly so.

I'm NOT going to cover the overall storyline of Little Women. Suffice to say, it is basically about four sisters (played here by Saoirse Ronan, Florence Pugh, Emma Watson, and Eliza Scanlen), their mother (Laura Dern), a charming young man (played by Timothée Chalamet), and ANOTHER charming young man (Louis Garrel). There is a framing device used here that takes the literary talent of Jo (Ronan, the lead character) and allows for some more playfulness than usual, in terms of both addressing attitudes of the time and also working with the audience expectations.

I'm going to mention the very small negative here first. It is an issue I have with the source material, therefore it's not something to blame on Gerwig and co. Beth March (Scanlen's character) is just one of those inherently irritating characters. Her only role is to be the vulnerable one who always seems to be weak or ill. I don't care how good she is at playing the piano, she's the most annoying member of the March clan, which is really saying something when you consider the actions of selfish Amy (Pugh).

Otherwise, there's nothing here I want to criticise. And, trust me, I have been giving it lots of thought since I left the cinema, wondering if my initial delight would settle down and allow me to reconsider anything. There's no need. Nothing to reconsider.

Not only has Gerwig given herself a great gift with her own screenplay, she has ensured it was all delivered exceptionally well by a near-flawless cast. Ronan is about as perfect a Jo March as you could hope for, Pugh is good enough to make Amy bearable during even her worst moments, Scanlen looks suitably fragile, and/or ill, and Watson does just fine as Meg, although she's perhaps stuck with the weakest moments in the film, mostly reduced to being overly earnest and only making one mistake on the road to finding her place in womanhood. Dern has to be 100% goodness and light, which she does admirably, and her sweetness is countered by the sharp tongue and mind of Aunt March (Meryl Streep on top form). Considering the focus of the tale, it's pleasantly surprising to find that all of the men are equally well-cast, and all of them get at least one or two great moments apiece. Chalamet is the charming and safe young star of the moment, and he's perfect here, while Garrel makes a strong impression with his small amount of screentime. Chris Cooper also makes the most of his role, Mr Laurence (the neighbour, and grandfather of Chalamet's character), James Norton plays a character who is perhaps the most grounded of everyone onscreen, Tracy Letts is a lot of fun as the editor who accepts Jo's writings, and Bob Odenkirk is always a welcome presence onscreen, albeit a bit surplus to requirements here as the mainly-absent patriarch of the March clan.

I can't think of a better way Gerwig could have handled this material. It has every main element from the book, of course, and yet it also feels fresh, full of energy, and completely relevant to today. Think of other adaptations of classic novels from the 1800s and they tend to have one main aim for the women, to find true love and marry into a happier life. Little Women has that notion in there, which was probably unavoidable, but it offsets that by showing the many and varied ways that everyone can follow their instincts to make themselves happy, make others happy, and make their own path through life, no matter where others may try to push them. It's a full, rich, experience that embodies the best of cinema, something that you can happily take as pure entertainment, and also something that gives you a lot of moments to think over and discuss with others.

I may have only caught up with it on the 1st January 2020, but this is easily my pick for the best film of 2019.

10/10

You'll be able to buy it here.
Americans will be able to buy it here.

Long Shot (2019)

Director Jonathan Levine has worked with Seth Rogen on a couple of other movies (both 50/50 and The Night Before), and the two seem to work well together. So it's no surprise that adding the wonderful Charlize Theron to the mix, and working from a script by Dan Sterling and Liz Hannah that effectively flips The American President around, and adds some obligatory drug gags, makes for a film that, while no classic, is at least amusing and enjoyable throughout.

Rogen plays Fred Flarsky, a journalist with principles, doing his best to stand by his work in a world that is making it harder and harder for individuals to maintain their integrity. In fact, he walks out of his job when the company he works for is taken over by a manipulative media mogul named Parker Wembley (an unrecognisable Andy Serkis). This leads to him being at a party with a friend (Lance, played by O'Shea Jackson Jr) and reuniting with Charlotte (Theron), a woman he last saw when he was a teen, and someone he was in love with even before she turned into her final Theron form. Charlotte is about to throw her hat in the ring as a presidential candidate, and she figures that Fred may actually help her with his writing ability. But more develops between them.

Here's the thing about Long Shot. Much like most other Seth Rogen movies, this will be more or less enjoyable depending on how you can handle Rogen. I tend to enjoy him onscreen but there's no denying that he's very often the same "lovable stoner" character in almost all of his films. You get the occasional statement about drugs helping people be relaxed and happier, you get him laughing his recognisable laugh, and you get him being wide-eyed and incredulous as events unfold around him that leave viewers in the same way. There's more to enjoy here, but it will still depend on whether or not you can put up with Rogen in the lead role.

Although the heart of the film is a romantic comedy, Sterling and Hannah do a good job of mixing in a strong strand about the slippery slope of compromising your beliefs, and the realities of getting results while you're trying to build support for something that may seem fresh and radical to some. The film isn't exactly bogged down by the politics, really just trying to milk the whole scenario for more laughs, but it does enough throughout to ground the laughs, certainly never feeling as ridiculous or unbelievable as it could.

A lot of that is also down to Theron. I don't know about you, but I would vote for her. She's smart, witty, passionate about her chosen main cause, and also Charlize Theron. Rogen being paired up with her seems very unlikely, but it works better than it should because of him finding it as hard to believe as everyone watching the film. Bob Odenkirk is a lot of fun as the current POTUS, who landed his position after years of TV work and now wants to move on to a career in movies, June Diane Raphael and Ravi Patel are both a lot of fun as advisers to Theron's character, and Jackson Jr does just fine as the supportive friend. Another highlight is Alexander Skarsgård, playing a handsome Canadian Prime Minister (or, I guess, just a Canadian Prime Minister, the handsome part comes from him being Alexander Skarsgård) who is always looking to enjoy the company of Theron's character, and their chemistry together seems to often provide a small boost in their approval ratings.

Surprisingly sweet at times, Long Shot is a well-made rom-com that hits all of the expected notes throughout, yet also feels a bit different, thanks to the raunchier and more outlandish moments (Theron being unexpectedly called into an emergency military negotiation is a VERY funny sequence). Levine works well with Rogen, as well as everyone else involved, and this is an amusing diversion, managing to somehow avoid overstaying its welcome, despite clocking in at about two hours. It also has the funniest . . . orgasm fluid . . . gag I have seen since There's Something About Mary.

7/10

You can buy the movie here.
Americans can buy the movie here.

The Post (2017)

Based on real events of the 1970s, The Post shows viewers the battle that the newspapers, and specifically The Washington Post, went through as they attempted to publish extracts from classified documents that revealed damning details of politicians and presidents who led America, step by step, right into the folly that was the Vietnam War.

Lots of people are giving love to The Post, partly because it has a typical level of technical expertise you would expect from director Steven Spielberg and partly because the battle between the press and the White House resonates with a lot of people watching the current events that have given us terms such as "alternative facts" and "fake news". If ever there was a time for this movie then that time is now.

Unfortunately, and let me say I have thought about this long and hard, it really isn't that good a film.

It works as a statement, as a piece of art created specifically to fire a reminding warning shot to those who think that the press is just expected to relay soundbites without questioning people in positions of authority, but it doesn't work as a satisfying cinema experience, for two main reasons.

First, you have the script by Liz Hannah and Josh Singer. It's a strangely messy tangle of different strands, from the investigative journalist who first broke the story to boardroom meetings about The Washington Post moving from private ownership to a company with public shareholders, from the relationships between the various writers and staff to the truncated snippets of the trial that would prove so important for the freedom of the press.

Second, you have the cast. Meryl Streep is as good as ever, playing Katharine Graham, owner and publisher of The Washington Post, and Tom Hanks is also his usual reliable self in the role of Ben Bradlee, editor in chief at the paper, but the rest of the cast is either wasted (Sarah Paulson, Alison Brie, Jesse Plemons) or made up in a way that will take you out of the movie as you figure out who is under the heavy make up (Bruce Greenwood, David Cross, Bradley Whitford). Bob Odenkirk and Tracy Letts are two other exceptions, both given decent scenes without having to be heavily disguised.

Third, and perhaps most damaging of all, the film feels too busy being smug when it could be spending more time dissecting the core issue. Those who know the tale, or are aware of The Washington Post, should know the outcome, and they should know, considering the time period, what comes next, so that could have been the background to something looking more closely at how the battle built up on both sides of the divide. Replace all of the talk of the stock market with scenes instead showing meetings in the White House laying out their opposition, perhaps even spitballing ideas that they realised they wouldn't be allowed to follow through on, and the whole thing may have felt more intense.

Maybe it's just me. The film has already garnered a lot of love, and I might remain in the minority here. But I still advise people to approach with trepidation. It's a decent story, and there are some great performances, but Spielberg doesn't create the magic you would expect. Very disappointing.

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