Mubi Monday: The Nest (2020)

Writer-director Sean Durkin has been doing great work for about two decades. He's not the most prolific artist, but anything he puts his name to tends to be worth your time. The Nest is no exception, and the title might clue you in to the tone. A nest can be a lovely thing, something you see up high as birds come and go, but it can also be something dark and dangerous, like a nest of vipers. The setting here could go either way, depending on how the characters opt to live a lie or accept a number of harsh truths.

Jude Law is Rory O'Hara, a risk-taking entrepeneur who moves back to England with his American family. His wife, Allison (Carrie Coon), is tiring of a life that seems to be all a facade as they struggle to regain financial stability, and the children (Sam, played by Oona Roche, and Ben, played by Charlie Shotwell) have their own standard problems, exacerbated by the fact that their parents are tarred with the brush of "new money vulgarity". If money can't buy happiness, pretending to have more money than you actually do is a recipe for even more misery than usual.

I would say that we've all been in situations when we pretend to be financially okay. Whether it's getting Christmas presents sorted for loved ones, trying to fudge the numbers while applying for a loan or mortgage that we pretend isn't going to be an absolute life-line, or just having that big night out with friends just a week or two after the last big night out that the bank balance has yet to recover from. Things are on a different level for those who have had large amounts of money though. There are wealthy people who are often cash-poor (I THINK that is the right phrasing), and any small financial bumps are too often dismissed while they can continue to access their friends and social circles that allow them access. Someone who is as poor as so many in the world today are will panic and scrabble to find one extra pound. Someone who is rich will often only start to sweat when they're no longer afforded entry to the private member club that keeps allowing them to ring up a hefty bar bill while they entertain potential clients. And they'll still have a hundred more ways to get some immediate cash than someone in dire need.

The Nest looks at this, and does it by brilliantly presenting us with someone who looks every inch a success. It's Jude Law. How can Jude Law have the appearance and confidence of Jude Law while not being a resounding success? Well, one bad decision after another can create a lot of changes behind the scenes. But he's determined to fake it until he once again makes it. The fact that he is somehow relishing the challenge while Coon's character has grown completely exhausted, and disgusted, with the whole charade shows a dynamic that I suspect has played out in a number of households featuring similarly inconsistent incomes. 

Law is very good in the main role here. His desperation starts to show more clearly as the film progresses, but he's always trying to regroup and redirect things if he can, ready to set up the one big deal that he needs to get things back on track. Coon has much more fun. The fact that her character is so unhappy for most of the runtime makes it all the more enjoyable when she dispenses with politeness and pretence to pointedly undermine her husband. She's brilliantly blunt and cutting, and her dwindling amount of care for how they are perceived by others is a refreshing breath of fresh air amidst the stifling atmosphere of business chat and displays of wealth. Both Roche and Shotwell do well, and their inclusion lets Durkin show how the actions of Law continually impact more than just himself, even if he doesn't want to acknowledge that fact.

Not an easy watch, and not exactly a happy-go-lucky time, The Nest is nevertheless a gripping drama that takes some interesting twists and turns on the way to a surprisingly satisfying final scene. It's a slow burn, and some may not want to spend time alongside the main characters for 107-minutes, but it's a fascinating exploration of the mindset and character of someone who has had a taste of the good life and subsequently never wants to let it go. 

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 

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024)

Ghostbusters is forty years old now. Forty years old. It is, in my view, an enduring classic, and one of my favourite blockbuster comedies. And yet . . . the fact that it IS now forty years old makes it all the stranger to see how much of it is repeated and/or repurposed in this latest release, officially the fifth movie in a franchise that has maintained a presence in our pop culture thanks to the various movies, videogames, toys, cartoons, etc.

FIRE STATION!

There is probably a right way and a wrong way to write a proper review of Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire, but I hope doing things in the wrong way will highlight how the film itself was so mishandled.

SLIMER!

Some time has passed since the events of the last movie. Our main characters (played by Finn Wolfhard, Mckenna Grace, Paul Rudd, and Carrie Coon) are now based in New York, much to the chagrin of the current mayor (played by William Atherton, reprising the character of Walter Peck, of course). But the containment system is perilously close to being overloaded, a big new threat is looming, and the character played by Grace ends up spending a lot of her time with a friendly ghost (Melody, played by Emily Alyn Lind).

LIBRARY GHOST!

Co-written once again by Gil Kenan and Jason Reitman, with the former also being allowed to direct this time around, it’s easy to see why certain choices were made here, and just as easy to see how this film could have been greatly improved. It’s too busy creating moments that will remind you of the first movie that it forgets to make good use of most of the main characters, and the decent finale is a case of too little too late when viewers have slogged through the mess preceding it.

DAN AYKROYD!

There’s some good stuff here, much better than the return of a familiar villain we got in the last movie. The opening sequence is great, everything looks set to be spectacular and thrilling, and then it is all largely abandoned in favour of callbacks and cameos, which is all the more frustrating when you get a treat like the new character, Lars, played by James Acaster with a hairstyle not entirely dissimilar to the one sported by Egon Spengler in The Real Ghostbusters. I also have to say that Lind is fantastic as the forlorn and regret-filled Melody.

STAY-PUFT MARSHMALLOW MAN!

It is hard to give my opinion on a cast who are so often wasted in their roles. Grace remains a very watchable talent, but her sub-plot here ensures that her character is unwisely kept moody and lonely until the third act. Acaster is a fantastic addition, it’s nice to see some more of Ernie Hudson, Patton Oswalt comes along to be Mr. Exposition, and Kumail Nanjiani isn’t given a chance to be as funny as we all know he can be. As for the other familiar faces, they are all pretty unnecessary.

BILL MURRAY!

This is a series that seems intent on restricting itself to tales that are now just frames to hang a load of nostalgia on. It’s not a good approach, and this review emulated the structure of the film. You have everything punctuated by a cameo that is supposed to bring some extra happiness to the viewers, but it doesn’t work when there is no other reason for those cameos to happen. It’s the equivalent of some SNL sketch being hate-crashed by a celebrity who just comments on their own celebrity and their bemusement at being on SNL. That could be amusing, but you would soon tire of it if it was every SNL sketch. And you will soon tire of it here.

BILL MURRAY AGAIN!

Each time I think this movie series cannot get any worse I end up being proven wrong. It has become a depressing cycle of ever-diminishing returns now, and I am always sucked in by the trailer and the optimistic idea that “maybe this time they will get it right”. This is the worst yet, and actually feels embarrassingly desperate at times.

I will still watch another one, but you may as well search for my spark of hope in the ecto-containment unit, because that is well and truly dead after watching this.

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021)

It's no wonder that mainstream moviegoers are so often given the same product recycled again and again and again. It would seem that many, understandably, crave the comfort of familiarity over any attempts to strike out on some new directions. Sold on the line that "this is the sequel that the fans deserved"and "this is what fans really wanted", Ghostbusters: Afterlife is, essentially, a clumsy rehash of elements from the first movie. It relies so much on nostalgia, and has a plot that comes perilously close to simply being "evil dies tonight", that it's arguably closer in form to Halloween Kills than the first Ghostbusters movie.

I'm going to try to avoid spoilers here, but you can all rest easy in the fact that there are a number of satisfying cameos in this film. One such cameo is Egon Spengler. Well, it's the spirit of him. Due to Harold Ramis having passed away a few years ago, the writers of this film (Gil Kenan and director Jason Reitman) decided to kick things off with the death of his character, allowing for plenty of extra button-pushing and emotional manipulation throughout. With Spengler deceased, his property is handed over to his estranged daughter, Callie (Carrie Coon), and her children, Trevor (Finn Wolfhard) and Phoebe (Mckenna Grace). Things start to get spooky, old equipment is discovered (including the ECTO-1, of course), and there's a local teacher, Mr. Grooberson (Paul Rudd), who can provide exposition and become directly involved in the whole escapade. 

I enjoyed many parts of Ghostbusters: Afterlife, and that includes many parts that worked for me by simply making reference to the first film. It's fun to see people practising their aim with a proton pack. It's great to see the engine of the ECTO-1 starting up. And a decent part of the plotting actually works well as a direct continuation of previous events. The good work, however, is undone by the feeling of laziness, smugness, and disrespect by the time everything if thrown at the screen in the third act to placate viewers who deserved much better. A large part of the problem is the reliance on the spirit of Egon, which would have worked better if it was just, as it is in much of the movie, a vague and undefined thing. There are another couple of major issues though, and they will be brought up shortly.

Cast-wise, everyone is fine. While I am not the biggest fan of Wolfhard, and he is the least of the younger players here, he doesn’t do a bad job. Celeste O’Connor does a bit better, playing a girl who catches his eye/heart. Rudd gets to play the character who is the most amusing and Coon has to simply be “the parent”, which she does fine with. But it’s the younger cast members who shine, with Logan Kim great fun as a young podcaster, imaginatively named just Podcast, and Grace being the best new Egon type since Kate McKinnon in the last Ghostbusters movie (oh stop pretending it doesn’t exist, it is a better idea overall film than this one). Grace is so good that she makes up for a lot of what Reitman and Kenan get wrong.

Directorially sound, everything wrong here stems from a script that is desperate to remind viewers of the original without the writers themselves remembering, Yes, people love the characters and the equipment, and we all want ghosts and beasties to create havoc at times, but there should also be a lot of laughs (which this is lacking). There IS, at times, a sense of fun, and it is often blended with that warm glow of familiarity, but there are very few actual laughs. What you also used to have were movies that stemmed from a legacy of films mixing chills and humour, so it wasn’t necessarily entirely original, but it felt entirely original. What we have here is a film that cannot go for more than a few minutes without repeating a well-known beat or referencing the cinematic past of the Ghostbusters business. That doesn’t seem so bad when it all feels effective (references to Shandor work well, and some returning faces feel like a logical choice for a big villain). It fails when you realise that it’s the height of laziness (cute they may be, and in the final trailers, but there is no reason for the mini-Stay Puft characters here, except for easy bonus points and merch).

It didn’t pain me while it was on. There are some nice shots, the soundtrack works well, and uses a number of familiar cues, and one or two set-pieces feel enjoyably cinematic and able to remind us all that “bustin’ makes me feel good”. It’s not a great film though, and I would argue that it’s the weakest Ghostbusters film yet. Maybe a sequel that doesn’t feel too beholden to the original film will work better. I hope we get to find out.

5/10

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. All links are HERE.
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

Gone Girl (2014)

Gone Girl is a good film. At times it's a very good film. It also turns out to be the weakest one yet from director David Fincher. It's as if the opportunity to direct this came along when he wanted to coast slightly, matching his style and meticulous craftmanship to material that never really seems to deserve it. This is, let's be honest here, daytime TV movie stuff, given some added spice and edge to make it more of a talking point.

Ben Affleck plays Nick Dunne, the husband who goes home one day to find that his wife (Amy, played by Rosamund Pike) has gone. He calls in the police, and soon finds that he is the main subject of their investigation. As the evidence starts to pile up against him, Nick begins his own investigation. And he starts to suspect that perhaps he didn't really know his wife at all.

Written by Gillian Flynn, adapting her novel for the big screen, this is a film that seems to think it's always one step ahead of the viewer. It's not. Yes, there are one or two moments that will wrong-foot those wondering whether they are watching a real version of events, or something created by either of the main characters, but even those moments are easy to dismiss if you pay close enough attention to what's going on. There are a couple of BIG shocks, I guess, but even those are so heavily signposted that their impact is sorely muted.

Thankfully, none of the weaknesses in the source material cause any problems for the cast. Pike and Affleck deliver two fantastic performances, with the former able to enjoy a real variety of roles (depending on how she is being viewed by others) and the latter making the best use yet of that certain smug quality his detractors often accuse him of having. I've never had a problem with Affleck, but even those who tend to dislike what they view as his persona may end up liking his turn here, seeing him turn on charm for the sake of cameras and crowds while constantly having a large finger of suspicion pointed in his direction. Kim Dickens is great as the cop determined to crack the case, and Patrick Fugit tries his best alongside her, despite the fact that he seems trapped in a state of perpetual adolescence. Carrie Coon is the twin sister of Affleck's character, and very good she is in her role, Tyler Perry impresses as a hotshot lawyer willing to act in defence of a man who is starting to look guilty as sin, Neil Patrick Harris is an ex-lover who may or may not have information, and both Sela Ward and Missi Pyle have fun playing two TV celebrities, both with differing approaches but the same aim.

There's also the bonus of having Fincher at the helm, even if he IS on auto-pilot (or so it seems). The cool colour palette, the music by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, the slow and steady camerawork, the pitch-black humour. I seem to spend half of my time saying that familiarity breeds contempt with the other half of my time appearing to be a bloody hypocrite when I say that familiarity can often be an easy, comforting layer used in movies. This movie falls in to the latter camp.

It's not often that a film can overcome weak source material. This one manages it. But there's only so much that can be done, which is why it ends up being merely a good film, as opposed to a great one.

6/10

http://www.amazon.com/Gone-Girl-Blu-ray-Tyler-Perry/dp/B00Q5996EQ/ref=sr_1_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1419685676&sr=1-2&keywords=gone+girl