Netflix And Chill: Beowulf (2007)

While long the film has languished on my shelf,
I now picked it on Netflix to watch for myself.
Leaving the bluray inside its case,
A sign of my movie collecting addiction disgrace.

Ere I was soon feeling slightly remiss,
Being presented the vision of Robert Zemeckis.
An epic poem is translated for the layman,
By writers Roger Avary and that Neil Gaiman.

Things start with Anthony Hopkins and Robin Wright,
Crispin Glover plays Grendel, who gives them a fright,
There's also John Malkovich, and plenty of mead,
Then Ray Winstone comes along to portray our lead.

The epic tale is told with motion-capture animation,
Allowing Zemeckis to show us his grand imagination,
But the end result is a massive misfire,
Despite showing our heroes fighting monsters with ire. 

Brendan Gleeson is here, and Angelina Jolie too,
Alison Lohman plays Beowulf's secret boo,
But none of them work as well as they could,
The technical gimmickry not doing them good.

There's a decent score here from Alan Silvestri,
I'm not sure how to judge the cinematography from Robert Presley,
Darkness and light are used to impress,
But the technique's not perfected, it's a bit of a mess.

There's no real sense of grandiose scale,
Most viewers will mark this as one giant fail.
Zemeckis is now much more devoted to tech,
His film-making style now a glossy pile of dreck.

Here there be dragons, and golden men born of flame,
But it's lacking in thrills and the director's to blame.
I knew when I bought this years ago it was a bit of a risk,
But now I know it won't be long until I resell my disc.

3/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
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

Joker: Folie à Deux (2024)

I was one of many people who ended up enjoying Joker when it was released back in 2019. It was a divisive movie though, and many hated it. Surprising as it may seem, one of the people who seems to have hated it more than most is . . . director Todd Phillips. Well, to be more accurate, he seems to hate the character, and seems to hate how he has been held up as some icon of cool. And the people who use images of Joker and Harley Quinn to state "couple goals"? Yeah, Phillips hates you just as much, if not more so.

It's time for Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix reprising the role) to be put on trial. Having been imprisoned since the events of the last movie, Fleck has become a lightning rod for an uneasy population thinking they may have an anarchic hero to support and push forward like a giant wrecking ball. Arthur gets the attention of Lee Quinzel (Lady Gaga), the two sharing a love of daydreaming their way through some song and dance numbers, but this doesn't sit well with his lawyer, Maryanne Stewart (Catherine Keener). None of this growing unrest, nor the celebrity prisoner's growing popularity, sits well with prison officer Jackie Sullivan (Brendan Gleeson), which essentially paints a large target on Arthur's back.

EVERYTHING that was good about Joker is destroyed here. Everything. And when I say destroyed I mean fully torn apart, shredded, pulped, shredded again, set on fire, and the ashes packed into a small rocket that is fired directly into the sun. Did you like the visual style? It's here again, but somehow feels like the lazy choice this time around, especially when it invaded even the scenes that should make use of some colour and light. Did you like the nihilism and misanthropy? It's here, but it's so constantly in your face that it feels like an angry toddler pulling on your ears as it screams Nietzsche quotes at you. Did you like the central character? You shouldn't, not according to Phillips anyway. Joker is a weak and pathetic victim, unexpectedly elevated to a position of power that he is absolutely unprepared for.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that Phillips tries hard to make his disdain palpable in every scene. There are very few moments here that actually work in movie terms, and one of those atypical treats happens at the very beginning of the film (a bit of animation that hints at an anarchy and energy the rest of the film stubbornly refuses to revisit), and even the much-discussed musical numbers fall flat because a) Phillips refuses to commit to them, and b) they feel as if they're just present to deliberately repel anyone who enjoyed the first film. There's something slightly admirable about Phillips making use of the money and resources available to create such a huge Joker-topped pyre, but it also feels, well, just a bit rude.

At least there's a decent cast, and I don't really have any complaints about Gaga, Gleeson, Keener, Zazie Beetz, Steve Coogan, Harry Lawtey (as a rather bland Harvey Dent), and Leigh Gill. I do have complaints about Phoenix though, and the fact that he is still the main star means that his awful performance helps to damage the film in a way that I am sure Phillips actively encouraged. Phoenix is limp and lifeless throughout, except for the moments in which he deliberately chooses to overact and fool around. Everything he did so well in the first movie is alchemically transformed from gold to lead this time around.

Phillips, co-writing the screenplay once again with Scott Silver, does everything to ensure that this second film puts a handful of nails in the coffin of the main character. Both he and his leading man should be embarrassed by how bad this is, but I suspect they're already on to other projects without giving this a second thought. It's just fans who will be affected by it, fans of the Joker and/or fans of cinema. And Phillips couldn't be clearer about what he thinks of those people. Remember that the next time he works on something that he actually cares about.

3/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Netflix And Chill: The Guard (2011)

The directorial feature debut of the very talented John Michael McDonagh, The Guard is also a film that gives Brendan Gleeson one of his best movie roles. In fact, between himself and his brother, Martin McDonagh, Gleeson has spent the better part of the last fifteen years in roles that help to solidify his place in the list of all-time great actors. He was already a strong contender, as evidenced by pretty much any role he's taken on throughout his career, but his work with the McDonagh brothers have elevated him to another level.

Gleeson plays Gerry Boyle, an Irish policeman who spends his time getting through each work day with minimal effort. He's sharp though, no doubt about that, and also rarely bothered about the feelings of others. This causes some friction when FBI Agent Wendell Everett (Don Cheadle) comes to the area, on the trail of some serious drug smugglers. As Boyle and Everett work together on the case, the FBI man starts to realise that Boyle is hiding his talent and instincts behind a well-maintained wall of rudeness and derision.

It can be harder to review a film as good as The Guard, a film which could be discussed in nothing but a cavalcade of pleasant words and deserved compliments. Basically, don't think you're going to get anything here that's particularly eloquent or enlightening. I'll leave that kind of thing to people like the McDonagh brothers, who have given us some perfect scripts throughout their careers.

Although it feels like stating the bleeding obvious at this point, especially after my opening paragraph, Gleeson is great in the main role here. He gets to be at his grouchiest, but also delivers all of his dialogue with a twinkle in his eye, clueing viewers into the mischievous nature of his character that keeps others around him unbalanced. Cheadle works very well alongside him, trying to remain cool and professional while being occasionally flustered by what Gleeson blurts out. He also has some scenes on his own that mine humour from his "fish out of water" status on the isle. The supporting cast includes Liam Cunningham, Mark Strong, David Pearse, Rory Keenan, and quite a few others, and everyone has fun in roles that they feel perfect for.

Maybe not as emotionally resonant (or emotionally devastating) as some of the other movies that have paired Gleeson up with a McDonagh brother, The Guard just serves as a reminder that you don't always need to fill the screen with pain and emotional manipulation to make great cinema. This is great cinema, easily on a par with 100 other films that people would offer up as a peak example of the artform, and it is also great entertainment from start to finish. A lot of that is down to the script, full of so much comedy gold and so many great characters that make it eminently rewatchable, but a big part of it is also down to the stellar work of Gleeson.

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

Mubi Monday: Gangs Of New York (2002)

Despite owning Gangs Of New York for at least a decade, I have a strong suspicion that I haven't actually rewatched it since first seeing it on VHS back when it was first released. I believe my opinion was one shared by many other people then. Daniel Day-Lewis was brilliant as the main villain (well, sort of the main villain, I'll expand on that soon enough), Leonardo DiCaprio was good, but not great, and Cameron Diaz was the weakest of the stars onscreen. The film was typical Scorsese, forming another chapter in his ongoing series about violent people creating things that then become bigger than them. Goodfellas is about a man making himself into a mobster, and a monster. Casino is about the mob building Las Vegas. Gangs Of New York is all about the thuggery and violence that was used to shape, I'll give you two guesses, yep, New York.

DiCaprio plays Amsterdam Vallon, a man we see returning to the bosom of New York many years after watching his father be killed in a huge street battle. The man who killed him is Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting (Day-Lewis), a figure who basically runs the city. Amsterdam has to bide his time before avenging his father, which allows him to get closer and closer to Bill, but he also gets closer to a young woman named Jenny Everdeane (Diaz). It might take a village to raise a child, but it takes some rough time on the streets to make a man. Or something like that.

It's easy to see why director Martin Scorsese would have been drawn to this story/script, written by Jay Cocks, Steve Zaillian, and Kenneth Lonergan. It shows a bloody chapter in history that did just as much to help some people as it did to destroy many others. What is more surprising, especially when rewatching the film today, is just how it stealthily leads you towards an overview of a whole system that is imbalanced and riddled with injustice. People like Bill are able to hold on to their positions because they help those who are in official positions of power. Respectability is a mask, and often worn by those who can quickly call on others to do their dirty work for them, and for a ridiculously low price. And no matter where you think you are in the pecking order, your position is only there as long as those with much more money and power allow it.

Day-Lewis steals the movie, and rightly so. His character is a perfect blend of great writing matched by a flawless performance, and he's always a believable threat to those around him. While DiCaprio isn't as assured or memorable, he does enough to make his part work, and he just about manages to hold his own when sharing the screen with such a formidable co-star. Diaz isn't terrible, but she struggles to convince anyone that she was one of the best picks for the role, although she's not helped by a script that is much more confident with the many main male roles than it is with the lone woman. Elsewhere, the cast is stacked with great actors giving their best attempts at the accents (mainly Irish American). Brendan Gleeson and Gary Lewis are highlights, but you also get to enjoy John C. Reilly, Stephen Graham, Jim Broadbent, and Henry Thomas in some plum roles.

Where this succeeds is in the way it cuts into the corpses that helped to build a city, and also helped to build America, and then starts to show how even the strongest figures were so often puppeteered by those with limited patience for them. Where is falls down slightly is in the way it feels exactly like a film from the early 2000s. This comes through in the casting, it comes through in a score and soundtrack that is not up there with the best work of either composer Howard Shore or Scorsese himself (who often has a great ear for the best tunes to use), and it is there in a couple of moments that I would argue remain some of the most disappointing work from the usually flawless editor Thelma Schoonmaker. I am not a complete moron though, and there are still plenty of moments here where she shows off her consummate skill, but one or two big battle scenes are marred by editing choices - changes in the speed of the action, a lot of cross-dissolving and overlaid imagery - that feel very much from this time.

Despite these minor criticisms, and they are based on very conscious choices by the director, Gangs Of New York easily holds up as another absolute cracker from a director who has rarely put a foot wrong throughout a long and impressive career. And, despite very stiff competition, it’s quite possibly the best performance that Day-Lewis has ever given.

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

The Banshees Of Inisherin (2022)

If writer-director Martin McDonagh could do every one of his movies with lead roles for Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson then I would be a very happy camper. Seriously, one a year, one every few years, whatever the schedule allows, just have the words and direction from McDonagh and the main performances from Farrell and Gleeson. While The Banshees Of Inisherin may not be quite as good as the mighty In Bruges, it's a very close call. So close that I wouldn't waste energy arguing with anyone who wanted to rank McDonagh's movies in alphabetical order: [The] Banshees Of Inisherin, In Bruges, Seven Psychopaths, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. I will keep arguing with you if you decide to put "Three Billboards" at the top of the tree though, but different strokes for different folks.

What you get here is the tale of two friends who stop being friends. Farrell is the pleasant, but maybe a bit boring, Pádraic. Gleeson is a folk musician named Colm. Pádraic and Colm have been firm friends for a long time, keeping one another company as the time idly ticks away on the small Irish isle that they call home. The Irish Civil War is still going on, but the isle of Inisherin often feels as if it could be on another planet. Nothing much seems to change there, which is why it's such a strange upheaval to see Pádraic and Colm stop being friends, especially when Pádraic can't figure out why he's suddenly persona non grata with Colm. He wants to make everything right again, but that just ends up escalating the situation, leading to painful repercussions and a very tense atmosphere in the local pub. While Colm seems happy in his own company, Pádraic struggles, spending some more of his time with the empty-headed, but sweet, Dominic (Barry Keoghan), and trying to convince his sister, Siobhán (Kerry Condon), that she doesn't need to leave the island to have a good life.

A film so densely packed that it makes you worry slightly about discussing it in-depth with others, for fear of mixing up what is intended by McDonagh with what may be the result of viewer baggage projected on to the screen, The Banshees Of Inisherin is about the history of Ireland, about the need to have open communication with those close to you, and about the damage caused by trying to close down and ignore mental health issues. It's also about the avoidable damage that can be self-inflicted, and it's, most obviously, about the end of a relationship. Although we're seeing the end of a friendship in the movie, it could be any relationship ending, and it's a stranger and more painful experience for the person who doesn't want it to end.

Picking a best performance is a near-impossible task, with both Farrell and Gleeson on absolutely top form, and Keoghan giving a performance so great that I finally agree with people who have been praising him highly for the past few years. Condon is just as good as any of her male co-stars, standing out as the one islander recognising how far from idyllic island life is, and I have to praise Gary Lydon for his role as Peadar Kearney, the local policeman who is also the abusive father of Keoghan's character. Last, but by no means least, everyone should love Jenny, a donkey played by . . . Jenny the donkey. 

Equal parts hilarious and devastating, and as ultimately split between light and dark as a settled pint of Guinness, The Banshees Of Inisherin is smart, timelessly relevant, heartbreaking, and a contender for the best film of the year. One or two decisions hold it back from perfection, especially when things become even darker in the third act, but, like any solid and enduring relationship, dealing with the bad times helps you to appreciate all of the good.

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

Netflix And Chill: In Bruges (2008)

The first feature written and directed by the hugely talented Martin McDonagh, In Bruges is so good that the only similar films to give it serious competition over the last 10-15 years have been the other films written and directed by Martin McDonagh, or his equally-talented brother, John Michael McDonagh.

Colin Farrell is Ray and Brendan Gleeson is Ken. They are two hitmen who have been ordered to lay low in Bruges for a while, for reasons that become apparent as the film plays out. Ken is happy to take in some of the local sights and culture, but Ray needs a bit more stimulation. Although there is obvious friction between the two, there's also an obvious strong bond of friendship. This makes things very difficult for Ken when his boss, Harry (Ralph Fiennes), gives him instructions for his next job. It's also becoming difficult for Ray to keep himself out of trouble, especially when he is being distracted by the lovely Chloe (Clémence Poésy) and/or the drug-fuelled antics of the diminutive Jimmy (Jordan Prentice).

Although I have yet to see his most recent film (The Banshees Of Inisherin, which I have very high hopes for), this one currently remains my favourite from McDonagh. It is the film in which he most successfully blends together every element he does so well, from the comedy to the violence, from the superficial moments of purely wonderful cinema to the deep and rewarding layers that examine grief, loyalty, and so much more. It also helps that his small cast is formed around two leads giving performances that rank as career-best turns, or close enough anyway.

Farrell and Gleeson are brilliant. But anyone who knows those actors, and everyone SHOULD know those actors, would already know that. The bonus here is how well they work both separately and together, moving between the lighter moments into the unavoidable darkness with complete ease. The early scenes show the two acting in a way that is like a parent (Gleeson) tolerating a hyperactive child (Farrell), but things very quickly settle down as the two start to realise that there are other things going on around them that they should start taking notice of, whether it's pleasant company and drugs or another planned execution. McDonagh obviously, and rightly, has faith in his script, but he doesn't leave anything to chance. That's why he casts Fiennes in a relatively small, but also relatively major, supporting role. He delivers the kind of great performance you'd expect, Poésy is a believable distraction, Prentice is involved in a number of scenes that have some of the biggest laughs, and there is some great work from Thekla Reuten, Zeljko Ivanek, and Jérémie Rénier.

What has always helped to elevate McDonagh's material is his ability to present his ear-tingling scripts in ways that don't feel too focused on the script at the expense of everything else you want from a film. In Bruges has a great sense of place, as the title would suggest, and presents some lovely visual moments alongside the crackling script. The camera is as close or far away from everything as it needs to be, depending on how many people are being given some time to shine, and how any sequence is playing out, and it's also worth noting that the third act delivers some truly stomach-churning blood and guts, even if it's only seen for the briefest of moments.

This whole review, like so many reviews I write, is utterly pointless. If you have already seen In Bruges then you should already know that it's a modern classic. If you haven't seen In Bruges by now then dozens of other people have probably already told you that it's a modern classic. I encourage everyone to watch/rewatch it ASAP though. Because . . . it's a modern classic.

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

Mubi Monday: The General (1998)

Directed by the great John Boorman (who has also given us a number of not so great movies, but his wins far exceed his losses), The General tells the story of the life of Martin Cahill, an Irish criminal who spent a long time avoiding and frustrating the Garda throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. The fact that he is played here by Brendan Gleeson ensures that viewers are unlikely to hate him.

Things start off well enough. After being in and out of trouble from a young age, Cahill is shown steadfastly refusing to move from a site that has been scheduled for demolition. His reasoning? He wants a better choice of alternative accommodation, and he gets it. Good for him. But we soon see the other side of Cahill, the man happy to rob, threaten, and beat anyone he views as a target. He will depositing thousands of pounds into a bank account and then visit a local police station to have an alibi while his cronies rob the bank and get his money right back to him. He will wave guns under the noses of people, he will plant bombs to potentially kill professional witnesses, and he will even nail someone to a snooker table if he thinks they have been skimming profit from him. Meanwhile, his home life is a non-traditional, but happy, set-up with Frances (Maria Doyle Kennedy) and her sister, Tina (Angeline Ball), as well as the children he has fathered with each of them.

Although black and white when it was shown in cinemas, I saw it presented a visual palette so muted that it often seemed as if it was in black and white anyway, but the occasional patches of colour managed to catch the eye (particularly the aforementioned snooker table). Not being utilised for any big “wow” moments, the cinematography and colour (or lack of colour) simply keep viewers more easily in the time and place alongside the characters.

Boorman, adapting the book by Paul Williams, as well as including a reference to the time he himself was robbed by Cahill (a gold record stolen from his home), does a decent enough job at showing the criminal operation, as well as showing the continuing efforts of the police trying to get their man. Where he falls down is in the tone of the film, making Cahill a loveable rogue for most of the runtime, instead of the callous and opportunistic criminal that he was. I am all for any kind of “Robin Hood” character, but that’s not what we see here, although maybe those romanticising his life want to see him that way.

Gleeson surely relished this role, a perfect fit for him and one of his best lead roles (which is saying something). Whatever problems I may have with the material, Gleeson is faultless. He’s given great support from Kennedy and Ball, who are both allowed to feel like more than just “daft wee wimmen”, and there are good performances from Adrian Dunbar and Sean McCginley, as crooks, and Jon Voight, as the main cop butting heads with Cahill. Yes, Voight’s accent is far from perfect, but it’s surprisingly not all that bad for most of his scenes. Not bad at all.

It’s really hard to rate this. There were so many moments I really enjoyed, partly BECAUSE Boorman and Gleeson work hard to keep Cahill such a cheeky charmer, but the moments that troubled me, moments of violence and nastiness that were moved past all too quickly, helped to build up a bitter taste that I couldn’t rinse away, even hours after the film had finished. Maybe many people view Cahill the way that Boorman depicts him, and maybe I would be feeling different if this was some Scottish criminal I had grown up knowing, and viewed as a bad person who also did some good things, but the film errs in maintaining an apparent lack of judgement.

As a film, it works brilliantly. As a film about Cahill, it doesn’t do so well.

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

Lake Placid (1999)

Steve Miner has quite the varied filmography, but he's arguably best known for being the man who served up the second and third (3D) instalment of the Friday The 13th movie series. Having also given us Halloween H20: 20 Years Later and House, he's quite the horror franchise guy. Lake Placid is a different beast from those films, but the mix of humour and thrills is not entirely removed from the playfulness that Miner has often had in his best work. And I would put this up there as some of his best work.

The story is quite simple. There seems to be a big beast that has made home in a large lake in Maine. This becomes obvious when the beast attacks someone scuba diving in the lake, biting them in half. Sheriff Hank Keough (Brendan Gleeson), Fish & Game Officer Jack Wells (Bill Pullman), and a paleontologist sent along from the big city, Kelly Scott (Bridget Fonda), all get to work trying to figure out what is hiding in the lake. Hector Cyr (Oliver Platt), an expert on mythology and crocodiles, thinks that he already knows.

A creature feature that decides to focus on the interaction between the characters, as well as plenty of humour, Lake Placid might be a bit tame for some (there's only one truly memorable death scene, and it's in the first few minutes of the film), but it's a lot of fun, doesn't outstay its welcome, and features some superb special effects work. The big croc looks fantastic throughout, and feels like a very real, physical, threat to anyone nearby.

Writer David E. Kelly goes for quirkiness, and is helped by the casting. Profanity always sounds better coming from Betty White, and she gets to deliver a couple of truly memorable lines here. While we get the standard meet-cute moments between Pullman and Fonda, the better relationship is the one between Gleeson and Platt, two men who immediately start off butting heads before starting to grudgingly admire one another.

When it comes to Gleeson and Platt, two men I enjoy seeing in anything, this gives them some great dialogue to spout, making it an easy film to recommend if you're fans of their work. Pullman is doing his fairly bland, but likeable, schtick, and that's fine for this, and Fonda gives yet another very enjoyable performance that makes me remember how disappointed I was when she seemed to suddenly disappear from movies. White, playing an old woman who lives lakeside, and who may know a bit more than she's letting on about any possible nearby crocodile, is a joy every time she's onscreen.

It may not be as good as the amazing Alligator, but Lake Placid can easily make a claim to be the best killer crocodile movie. And with a runtime of only 82 minutes, it's almost impossible for you to feel as if you've wasted your time on it, even if you somehow end up not enjoying it as much as I do.

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

Paddington 2 (2017)

I try my best not to mix my own politics with film reviews, unless the films are making a strong political statement or something happens that I find so downright loathsome that I just have to say something. And yet here I am with this review of Paddington 2 and it feels as if I should start off with a bit of a statement.

Don't worry, I believe what I am about to say is actually quite bipartisan, but I suppose that really depends on how you're viewing the world around you. Because that world has been getting a bit crappier and crappier for most of the past few weeks, months, and years. Natural disasters, idiots and criminals in positions of authority, tensions between countries with nuclear weapons, business closures and job losses, murders and cowardly terrorist attacks, and the general downsizing of some of my favourite chocolate bars.

Why am I doing my best to make us all a bit depressed? Well, Paddington 2 is an undeniably fun and lovely film, but it's also the perfect kind of film to make you forget about global problems for a while, and I think the timing may be as much a key to its success as the quality of the film itself.

Returning to helm once more, after doing such a great job with the first movie, director Paul King (also co-writing again, this time with Simon Farnaby, who also has a hilarious cameo) crafts another perfect mix of comedy, sweetness, and sheer entertainment.

The plot revolves around a pop-up book. Paddington (voiced by Ben Whishaw) wants to save up his money and buy it as a great birthday gift for his Aunt Lucy. Which makes it very unfortunate when the book is stolen. And it's even more unfortunate when Paddington is mistaken for the thief, leaving him to spend some time at her majesty's leisure while the cunning thief (Hugh Grant, clearly having a blast) uses the book to decipher a code that he hopes will lead to a heap of treasure. Prison life leads Paddington to meet Knuckles McGinty (Brendan Gleeson), and an unlikely friendship develops. But is that enough to keep our little bear in good spirits while people outside the prison walls try to prove his innocence? Or will a prison break be necessary?

Watching Paddington 2, and enjoying it SO much, got me thinking about both of the Paddington films. They both have the same strengths. First of all, the cast. Most people return here to the roles that they had in the first film, and the cast includes Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins, Julie Walters, Peter Capaldi, Jim Broadbent, Tom Conti, and many, many more. Some scenes are a veritable who's who of British talent. Second, this is how you update a cute character who came to prominence in what might be labelled more innocent times. Paddington Bear isn't the type of youngster who has grown up with Twitter and Facebook, he doesn't have a smartphone in his pocket, and a lot of his values are as naive as they are admirable. But keeping him that way, almost a wide-eyed innocent often wrong-footed by the world around him, makes him a great character at the heart of these stories. And the fact that he never doubts himself, the fact that he always treats everyone the same way, makes it easier to accept those reciprocating his kindness and selflessness in a way that somehow doesn't feel too schmaltzy and annoying.

There are other reasons for the films being so successful, of course. The production design, the visuals, the CGI, the music, the pacing, every aspect of the film feels like it has been given due care and consideration. The script balances out the jokes with the emotional content, nicely weighting things on one end or the other through alternating scenes, and both major elements work. And I think I already mentioned Hugh Grant. He may be portraying a very different kind of villain from the character played by Nicole Kidman in the first film, but that doesn't make him less of a threat. He's the type that you want to boo and hiss at, even while laughing at his vanity and showiness (he plays a hammy actor who hasn't starred in a hit for quite some time - at least those costumes he has will help him in a variety of different disguises).

I haven't taken the time to rattle through the entire cast and sing their praises because this is an ensemble piece that brings the best out of everyone, whether they're onscreen for ten seconds or one hundred minutes. You don't view Hawkins, Bonneville, and co. as the supporting cast. You view them as the Browns. You don't spend the film contemplating how good Whishaw is in his voice role, you just accept that he's Paddington. And so on.

There's not much more I can say about it. I don't agree with some who think this sequel is superior to the first movie, but I couldn't say that it's inferior either. I rate both the same, and recommend picking up a nice double-bill immediately if you've somehow avoided either film until now. Buy the films, clear your schedules, make yourself a nice plate of marmalade sandwiches, and then sit down and press play. You'll thank me for it.

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 

Bonus Review: Edge Of Tomorrow (2014)

Live. Die. Repeat. That's the tagline for Edge Of Tomorrow, a film most easily described as Groundhog Day meets Saving Private Ryan, with the sentinels from The Matrix movies added to the mix. Tom Cruise is the leading man, sharing the screen with Emily Blunt, for the most part, and director Doug Liman is the man doing his best to ensure that viewers get plenty of bang for their buck.

Cruise plays Cage, the hero of the movie, but you wouldn't know that from the first scenes featuring his character. Because Cage is not a soldier. He's a Major, yes, but one who has always managed to avoid being involved in any major battle with an invading alien force that has been waging war against humans for the past five years. When Cage defies a request to lead troops into a final battle that his military superiors predict will lead to victory he is arrested, demoted, and thrown in with a squad of soldiers who are all making final preparations a day ahead of going into the battle. When tomorrow comes along, Cage can't even work his battle-suit properly. He has no idea how to turn off the safety. He dies pretty quickly. And then wakes up again, handcuffed and about to be bawled out by Master Sergeant Farell (Bill Paxton). This happens again. And again. And again. It turns out that Cage has absorbed some power from the enemy, an ability to reset the day when he dies, but it's only a woman named Rita (Emily Blunt), a war hero who has, at one point, gone through exactly what Cage is experiencing. Can they use the power to change fate and win the war?

Based on source material by Hiroshi Sakurazaka (which goes by the better title "All You Need Is Kill" - the original title for the movie), Edge Of Tomorrow delivers everything that you expect from it. If you've seen the trailer then you won't be sold short. Many reviewers have already commented on the fact that this is the ultimate videogame movie and that's a good point. Cage has to learn with each journey, and whenever he's killed he ends up "respawning" back at the start, although viewers are saved the full journey on each occasion, joining the characters instead at every main junction to see how bad decisions are overturned, and how the main character develops his muscle memory on each attempt. The script, by Christopher McQuarrie, Jex Butterworth and John-Henry Butterworth, is sharp and witty throughout. You do get one or two scenes of exposition, of course, but they're perfectly done, brief and informative, before everyone gets back to battleground manoeuvres.

There will always be people who hate Tom Cruise, no matter what he does. Well, screw 'em is what I say. I've been a fan of the man for years, and he almost always delivers the goods when it comes to blockbuster fare of this type. This is another good performance. It's fun to see his character develop throughout the movie, especially in the first third, which makes it clear that he's not a soldier. He is, in fact, a bit of a useless coward. Cruise puts on his big grin, and isn't afraid (as he never has been) to twist it in a way that shows just how his character has managed to get to where he is without seeing combat. That grin brings a whole backstory that the writers don't need to make explicit. But when the grin disappears and the constant battling starts to reshape Cage into something he never thought he would be - a soldier - it becomes easy to root for him, and easy to believe in his transformation. Because Cruise makes it easy.

Nobody seems to hate Emily Blunt, and her performance here isn't likely to upset anyone. She's tough, likable, smart and naturally beautiful without ever being made into "the girl who needs saved" or any of that nonsense. Oh, there is added motivation for the character played by Cruise, but throughout most of the movie it is Blunt's character who plans and drives everything forward, reminding everyone who needs reminding that their lives are a small sacrifice if it means stopping the slaughter of the human race.

Elsewhere, Brendan Gleeson is enjoyable in his small role, Bill Paxton steals a couple of scenes as soon as he appears, and Noah Taylor is the scientist who provides some exposition. Jonas Armstrong, Tony Way, Kick Gurry, Franz Drameh, Dragomir Mrsic and Charlotte Riley are the main soldiers who end up stuck with the rookie in their midst. The main thrust of the storyline demands that these characters stay on the sidelines during many sequences, but the script does a great job of making them identifiable enough for whenever they get to move back into focus.

Liman spins a number of plates here and makes it all seem pretty effortless. The action moments are as intense as they need to be, but never headache-inducing, the plotting and pacing are perfect, and the humour running through almost every scene helps to offset the darker elements of the film. Cruise can't just fall asleep every night and then wake up again. He has to be killed. Remember: Live. Die. Repeat.

There are one or two big plot holes (almost always inevitable with this kind of material), but if you're sitting thinking of them while the movie is unfolding then you're a tough viewer to please. I was, admittedly, ever so slightly disappointed by the final few minutes, but this is superior sci-fi action fare, and I don't see why anyone should write it off because of some very minor flaws. On the contrary, I encourage all sci-fi movie fans to check this one out as soon as possible. Ironically, after the first trip you may even want to watch it again.

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 

Calvary (2014)

Writer-director John Michael McDonagh made a pretty good impression, to say the least, with his first feature film, The Guard. A film mixing character study with Irish charm with police thriller elements, it was rightfully held up by many as one of the best from its year of release. Well, come the end of 2014, I expect Calvary to be in any such list.

Teaming up once again with Brendan Gleeson, McDonagh this time mixes entertainment with a scathing condemnation of the Catholic Church and a commentary on the state of Ireland as it is today, and the people who took it to that position. Yet, for all of the anger and cynicism in the script, everything is also offset, and beautifully so, by a message of positivity and forgiveness.

Let me actually get to the plot. Gleeson plays Father James Lavelle, a priest who hears a man in confession say that he’s going to kill him. But he’ll give the priest about a week to get his affairs in order. Killing a bad priest wouldn’t make much of an impact, but killing a good priest, that’s something. Such is the reasoning of the killer. Does this prompt Father Lavelle to rush to the police or flee? No. Instead, he goes about his duties in much the same way as before, all the while trying to help members of his parish (including the person that he knows is due to kill him). Father Lavelle is a good man. That much is made clear from the very beginning of the movie. He’s also a deeply flawed man, having battled with the demon drink through the years, but events in his past have made him what he is today, and that becomes obvious when he receives a visit from his daughter, Fiona (Kelly Reilly).

While I'd like to praise the entire cast here in a way that shows just how great everyone is onscreen, this is Gleeson's movie. As with The Guard, he takes a main character and makes him riveting to watch, even when there seems to be nothing happening. The fact that he's once again given such great support - this time by the likes of Reilly, Chris O'Dowd, David Wilmot, Killian Scott, Aidan Gillen, Orla O'Rourke, M. Emmet Walsh, Dylan Moran, Isaach De Bankole and Domhnall Gleeson (and one or two I have missed out, apologies) - is just a testament to the ability of McDonagh, or whoever he employs, to put together the perfect cast for his work.

While McDonagh also does a very good job with the direction, his strength lies in his writing. If Calvary was JUST an angry rant, using such great actors and providing such great entertainment, then I would still be praising the movie and writing a positive review. But it's so much more than that, and the realisation of the journey that the film has just taken you on will perhaps leave you stunned and moved as the end credits rolled. I can't stop getting a lump in my throat when I think about the film now, and I'm writing this review a day after seeing it. I can't recall the last time a movie affected me so profoundly.

It's not actually a masterpiece, and it may prove to be a very divisive film (when the central message seems to angry and skewed), but for me it's so close to perfect that it's getting the highest rating possible. I am keen to rewatch it soon, I am keen to own it, and I am keen for other people to give it a chance. And for anyone who does go along to view Calvary and finds it somewhat underwhelming, all I ask is that you don't give up on it until the whole tale has unfolded. Then decide how you feel about it.

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 

 

Dark Blue (2002)

It's April 1992. A turbulent time for Los Angeles, with all eyes watching the trial of the police officers accused in the beating of Rodney King. If those men are acquitted, the whole city might just burn. Kurt Russell stars as Eldon Perry, a policeman who was brought up by gunslingers and sees himself as a man who does a lot of things wrong to get the right results. His superior (Brendan Gleeson) agrees, he knows that whenever he wants ANY mess cleaned up he can ask Perry to get it done. Unfortunately, many other people view Perry as a monster including his wife (Lolita Davidovich), his young partner (Scott Speedman) and an officer (Ving Rhames) intent on uncovering the truth about a recent shooting incident and, in turn, corruption within the LAPD. In fact, as the movie unfolds, Perry starts to think about his own actions and how others view him. He starts to suspect that they may be right.

Written by James Ellroy and David Ayer, this is exactly the sort of thing you'd expect from the writers of L.A. Confidential and Training Day, respectively. Eldon Perry is a larger than life character, a bit of a bully and a braggart even to those he loves, and his moral compass has been thrown so far out of whack that it's unsure whether or not he can find his direction again. Ron Shelton does a great job in the director's chair, allowing for the actors to do their best with the material while he makes sure that all of the threads are winding together to complete the big finale.

Russell excels in the lead role, it's arguably his best performance from his 21st century filmography. He IS a bit of a monster and a horrible person, overall, but he's also a fully fleshed-out character with moments that show that he does have a heart (one scene with him being yelled at by Gleeson really starts to make him slightly sympathetic, while another involving Davidovich reading out a letter to him turns into something unexpectedly affecting). Speedman is okay in his role, he's young and acts naive enough and that's what's needed of him. Gleeson is superb, but Gleeson is always superb. In this movie, however, he's even more superb than usual, his performance sharpened by the gradual development of his true character. Ving Rhames, ahhhh Ving Rhames, he gives a subdued, sweet performance that reminds you of the actor who once seemed so great. Why did he ever start to take roles in every other Straight To Disc (or STD, if you will) piece of nonsense? I'll never know. Thankfully, there will always be performances like this one to look back on. Lolita Davidovich and Jonathan Banks have their supporting roles that allow them one or two moments to shine. And shine they do. Michael Michele may have the most thankless role, but she does okay with it.

Putting these characters together and seeing how things unfold makes for a solid drama. Setting everything on the brink of those 1992 L.A. riots makes for something much more. It's tense, it's incendiary and it's an unflinching reminder of just how easily corruption can insidiously filter through even the most well-meaning of people.

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