Backrooms (2026)

Coming along so soon after the breakout success of Obsession, Backrooms is the most recent low-budget horror movie to be embraced by those claiming that the model for successful cinema releases is changing. That's a good thing, and I'm always happy to see horror once again being hailed for what it can do to the landscape of cinema (remember . . .  the horror genre has saved various pockets of cinema on multiple occasions). Backrooms isn't great though, despite the profit it has made.

Everyone knows the origin story by now. Kane Parsons, director of this, spent some time making short films online that explored the backrooms, spaces just behind the veil of our own reality that are abandoned and eerily silent. Until, more worryingly, they maybe don't seem so abandoned and silent. Either way, liminal spaces are a great fit for horror.

This particular story has Clark (Chiwetel Ejiofor) finding some backrooms in a space behind his furniture store. This is just another problem for Clark, who is trying to process the failure of his marriage and his alcoholism with a therapist, Mary (Renate Reinsve). It could also become a problem for young Kat (Lukita Maxwell) and Bobby (Finn Bennett), two youngsters who Clark ropes in to helping him explore this strange and unnerving new environment.

The look and feel of Backrooms is the big plus. This is a film designed to unsettle and confuse viewers, a film that would have benefited from a narrative as strange and upsetting as the environments on display. Unfortunately, writer Will Soodik either misunderstands the main appeal of the concept or just doesn't have enough faith in how strong it is. This leads to him instead offering the kind of explanation and clumsy psychological insight that I can't imagine impressing those who have been a fan of Parsons for the past few years.

Ejiofor and Reinsve are both great choices for the lead roles, but neither is given the kind of material they can really sink their teeth into. They certainly help to sell the dialogue, but I wish they'd been allowed to do more. All of their main scenes feel incredibly basic, as if they were asked to work with placeholder dialogue that would be greatly improved later in the process, and the resolution is disappointing, at best, and non-existent if you're not willing to grasp on to the smallest grace note. As for both Maxwell and Bennett, neither are given enough to do, which is also a great shame. Mark Duplass also stars in a supporting role, but I cannot separate his character from another major weakness in the screenplay, which means I didn't appreciate his performance here at all.

There are moments here that work. The production design is impressive, as is the idea at the heart of it. Sadly, and in a way that is horribly ironic, what you get to see feels like just a hint of what you might want to see. Backrooms doesn't actually spend anywhere close to enough time pulling viewers into the titular spaces. It just presents one glimpse after another of anomalies that hint at a much better film hidden away behind this one. 

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.
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 Life Of Chuck (2025)

Based on a short story by Stephen King, The Life Of Chuck is adapted into screenplay form and directed by Mike Flanagan. For those expecting horror, however, you should be warned. As made clear by the marketing, this is actually one of the non-horror treats from King, and Flanagan has taken the opportunity to revel in an onscreen world full of optimism and, well, love.

Things work backwards, chronologically, but the main thing to know is that, as the title suggests, this is all about Charles 'Chuck' Franz (played at various points in his life by Cody Flanagan, Benjamin Pajak, Jacob Tremblay, and Tom Hiddleston). Chuck grew up with his grandparents (played by Mia Sara and Mark Hamill), likes dancing, and eventually gets used to the comforting idea that we each contain multitudes. We are the sum of everyone and everything we've ever experienced, even if it can seem as if we haven't done very much with our lives.

It's hard to hate The Life Of Chuck, and it could be argued that this is the kind of fantastical escapism that people need right now (considering the state of things here in 2025 . . . note to any time travellers reading this, SEND HELP). I was surprised to not really love it though. The first act leads up to an obvious enough reveal, even for those who haven't read the source material, and it was a mistake to try to play things off like a big mystery.

Narration from Nick Offerman helps a lot, and his voice is as wonderful as ever, but the rest of the cast is quite a mixed bag, aside from everyone playing Chuck (standouts being Pajak and Hiddleston). Chiwetel Ejiofor is wonderful as a teacher, Marty Anderson, but Karen Gillan isn't so good as his ex-wife, a nurse named Felicia Gordon. Mia Sara is lovely as the grandmother, Hamill overdoes things slightly as grandpa. Then you have many others who are just sorely underused, including Rahul Kohli, Matthew Lillard, and Annalise Basso. There's time for some superb drumming from The Pocket Queen AKA Taylor Gordon though, and Trinity Jo-Li Bliss is a winning presence to convincingly motivate our lead to keep enjoying his talent for dance.

One big set-piece at the halfway point is what you're ultimately left with here. The messaging of the movie is very good, but it's a fortune cookie homily that is somehow paradoxically given too much of the screentime and yet not enough of it. That one set-piece ties everything together so beautifully that it still works though, and thinking of that moment should make most viewers smile and appreciate the beauty and connections of life. It's just not quite enough. Reminding us that we contain multitudes should be done with much more of an emphasis on the multitudes. The Life Of Chuck tries to tell be grandiose and intimate at the same time, which leads to it feeling caught in between the two, and not being as successful in either approach as it could have been if Flanagan had figured out another way to present the material.

I enjoyed this while it was on. I would probably rewatch it. I didn't love it though, although it seems to have worked much better for a lot of other film fans. Maybe it will grow on me whenever I do end up giving it a rewatch.

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 

Bridget Jones: Mad About The Boy (2025)

Coming along after three movies of varying quality (the superb "Diary", the lacklustre "Edge Of Reason", and the enjoyable "Baby" adventure), Bridget Jones: Mad About The Boy has been pitched as a welcome return of a beloved female character that all women are eager to catch up with. It's more than that though. This is the return of a British institution, an iconic British woman (albeit played by an American) who yearns for a dash of the kind of romance that often feels left in the past while striding bravely through every pitfall of the modern world. Each movie is, at the very least, a great mix of comedy and comfort, and there's a fantastic selection of British acting talent on display (many of them reprising their roles here, even if only for a brief moment).

Time has moved along, and life continues to deny Bridget Jones (Renée Zellweger again, as if there could be a replacement for her at this stage) any kind of permanent happiness, or so it seems. She now has two children (Mabel, played by Mila Jankovic, and the older Billy Darcy, played by Casper Knopf), but her life has a Mark Darcy-shaped hole in it. There's still the occasional flirting from Daniel Cleaver (Hugh Grant, once again at his caddish best), but things finally start to look up when Bridget tries out Tinder and meets a young man named Roxster (Leo Woodall). Meanwhile, the children aren't always doing well, especially Billy, and this leads to a number of uncomfortable encounters with a new teacher, Mr. Wallaker (Chiwetel Ejiofor).

While the director of To Leslie doesn't really feel like a natural fit for this material, it turns out that making that assumption would just make an ass out of us and Michael Morris. Morris has the good sense to not get in the way of a talented cast all having fun with the screenplay co-written by Dan Mazer, Abi Morgan, and, of course, Helen Fielding, adapting her own novel. There's everything you want in terms of amusing embarrassments, satisfying swearing, and fine comedy moments, but Morris does a great job of balancing everything out with a more serious central strand exploring loss and how to keep moving forward when the destination ahead seems to have nothing there for you.

Zellweger continues to shine in the role that she'll be identified with for all time, and she seems natural and effortless onscreen in a way that seems to convey her own love for the character. Jankovic and Knodf are solid child actors, the former involved in more of the sequences that cause our heroine to get a red face, and everyone else onscreen, old or new, feels like a perfect addition to this (final?) chapter. Woodall is helped by the fact that he has scenes that show off the affect he has on others around him, especially in a sequence that has him arriving late to a party just in time to act the hero, Ejiofor is playing the typical hard-shelled individual with the soft centre, and both Firth and Grant continue to be delightful in their respective roles. Emma Thompson, Sally Phillips, James Callis, Shirley Henderson, Neil Pearson, Jim Broadbent, Gemma Jones, Joanna Scanlan, Celia Imrie, Nico Parker, Claire Skinner, Sarah Solemani, Josette Simon, and Leila Farzad are all wonderful, not one of them letting the side down, and I'm probably still forgetting one or two people I will later kick myself for not mentioning. It's a shame that Isla Fisher is only seen for mere seconds, and I suspect some of her work may have ended up on the cutting-room floor, but such an abundance of riches makes that much easier to accept.

I went into this hoping to enjoy it. I came out of the cinema knowing that it was easily my second favourite of the foursome. I can imagine many other people will feel the same. What could have felt lazy and by-the-numbers instead turns out to be as surprising, in terms of the themes being satisfactorily explored, as it is satisfying and eager to meet all expectations. The only downside is that I would now welcome another cinematic journey through a new Bridget diary, but I also know that this is just about the most perfect ending that we could all have wished for.

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, 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 

Venom: The Last Dance (2024)

I sometimes forget how much fun I had with the first two Venom movies, considering how low my expectations were for either of them. Both are an enjoyably refreshing mix of anti-hero shenanigans and superhero-type stuff, and Hardy has loads of fun in the central role. It's a shame that this is the final outing for the character in this iteration, but it's also definitely time to call it a day. This is the weakest of the three movies, and it's even messier than anything else we've seen so far, but at least it feels like a proper ending (in as much as these kinds of movies can ever feel like they have a proper ending nowadays).

Eddie Brock is back in our world, with everything established in early scenes that may confuse anyone who had forgotten about the multiverse shenanigans teasing treats in the previous movie. He and Venom continue to have a pretty good relationship nowadays, always finding the best lowlife criminals to enjoy as a tasty snack, but trouble is coming their way. The fact that they are such a successful fusion makes them valuable to a major villain who sends the alien equivalent of sniffer dogs to find them, and there's also a determined military man, Strickland (Chiwetel Ejiofor), who believes that Venom needs to be destroyed. Dr. Teddy Paine (Juno Temple) thinks otherwise.

It's no surprise to see that writer Kelly Marcel has finally been rewarded for her contribution to the series with a directorial gig here, and it's also no surprise that this is her directorial debut. Having worked with Hardy on the story idea, Marcel is also responsible for the screenplay. That makes it easier to know who to blame for this whole mess, although I think Hardy has broad enough shoulders, and enough invested in the series, to share the burden. There are individual moments of fun, but the third act is particularly painful to the eyes, as well as being hard to stay patient with while you wait for all of the characters to figure out how to make use of Chekhov's . . . well . . . something that was surrounded by neon signs and arrows pointing at it as soon as it was first shown onscreen.

Hardy is still good in the main role, although always more fun when he is free and loose to avoid acting heroic, and he deserves to be given this vehicle to bid a fond farewell to a movie series that seemed to succeed more due to his sheer willpower than anything else. Ejiofor brings his usual excellence to his role, despite the fact that he is just there to be the human-shaped threat in amongst all of the alien monsters and, to use the technical term, squiggly-wiggly CGI. Temple connects various plot points and provides extra exposition, and there's some comedy provided by Rhys Ifans, playing a believer in aliens leading his family on what will end up being a very eye-opening road trip. Stephen Graham and Peggy Lu both return, and both are given far less screentime than they deserve, and it's strange that the latter is involved with a scene that seems to directly reference a heavily-derided sequence from Spider-Man 3.

Fans of more variety in their symbiotes will find plenty to enjoy in the third act, there are set-pieces that at least maintain the mix of action and humour that has been a positive aspect of the trilogy, and you get more amusing exchanges between Eddie and Venom as the two discuss their plans and the path that they cannot seem to avoid hurtling along. I still have to end this review by reiterating that the whole thing is a big mess, but it's an intermittently entertaining big mess, helped by a 110-minute runtime that allows it to feel a step removed from the longer and more bloated blockbusters we've become used to in recent years.

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, 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 Old Guard (2020)

Based on a graphic novel series written by Greg Rucka (and illustrated by Leandro Fernandez), who adapted his own work into screenplay form, The Old Guard is a fantastical action movie that is helped immensely by the casting of the ever-reliable, and believable, Charlize Theron in the lead role.

Theron plays Andy, one of four immortal warriors who spend their time trying to help the human race. The other members of her group are Booker (Matthias Schoenaerts), Joe (Marwan Kenzari), and Nicky (Luca Marinelli). There have been one or two others fighting alongside them at times, but at a certain time, undefined and unpredictable, the gift of immortality can simply disappear, leading to the opportunity for a standard death. I describe that as an opportunity because it is a better option than their biggest fear, being trapped and imprisoned. Andy and her group have to move fast when they realise that someone else, a soldier named Nile (KiKi Layne), has just discovered their own immortality. Nile needs to be educated about her new role, and the group need to avoid the stretching grasp of a big pharma company that is wanting to make use of them for experiments in modern medicine. The pharma company is headed up by Merrick (Harry Melling), but his dirty work is done by a squad under the command of Copley (Chiwetel Ejiofor).

Directed by Gina Prince-Bythewood (note to self, I am still very keen to see The Woman King), what you get here is a well-paced and fun film that also puts a slightly different spin on the standard trope of the melancholy vampire while also exploring how fluid the concepts of morality and courage are when it comes to fighting for the good of humanity. While the early scenes may have you questioning just how brave our main characters are (yes, this particular concept had me thinking of a certain confrontation between Batman and Superman that crystallised this concept), the third act shows how the potential threat of mortality doesn't have our cast wavering for a moment, which underlines how much the villains misunderstand the guft bestowed upon our heroes.

Everyone gets a handful of good moments, with Kenzari and Marinelli a real delight as the warriors who have found long-life-partners in one another, but it's unsurprising to find that the focus keeps moving back to Theron, Layne, and Schoernaerts (considering they are arguably the two biggest names in the cast, and Layne's character allows her to receive exposition helpful for viewers), and all three have great onscreen presence. The same can be said of Ejiofor, who gets a nice little character arc here as he starts to debate whether or not he is doing the right thing, which makes up for the blandness of Melling and those playing his heavies (Joey Ansah being the main disappointment, providing no real sense of menace or capability in the face of The Old Guard).

I was advised to give this a chance by a friend (Christianne, her excellent/superior blog is here) after bashing the last movie I watched with Greg Rucka's name attached to it (the dire Heart Of Stone), and I'm glad I was prompted to give it a go. It's a film that feels fresh and fun, despite taking on some serious themes and working with characters we've basically seen as archetypes in many other movies, and it's clear that those behind the scenes knew how to make the most of the concept. It's technically sound throughout, and the stunt work is often excellent, and I happily recommend it to anyone else who kept dismissing it as readily as I did.

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

Doctor Strange In The Multiverse Of Madness (2022)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7/10

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

Ani-MAY-tion: Sherlock Gnomes (2018)

I am going to start this review with a confession that probably won't shock many of you. I quite enjoyed Gnomeo & Juliet. I know, I know, the bright visuals, the puns, the Shakespeare references, the puns, the voice cast, the Elton John songs, and the puns. It was a strange mix that worked for me. So when they decided to bring out a sequel, utilising the influence of Sherlock Holmes, I figured that it would probably amuse and entertain me. That was not the case.

The plot is, at the heart of it, very simple. A load of gnomes are going missing throughout London, leaving the mystery to be solved by Sherlock Gnomes (Johnny Depp) and Watson (Chiwetel Ejiofor). This coincides with some tension between Gnomeo (James McAvoy) and Juliet (Emily Blunt) as the pair settle in to their new London home, alongside the other garden residents. When Gnomeo is also snatched away, Juliet has to team up with Sherlock, who is insufferably dismissive of those who help him. This crime must be the work of Moriarty (Jamie Demetriou), surely, despite the fact that he seemed to be squished/smashed in the opening sequence.

Sherlock Gnomes is bright and colourful, just like its predecessor, and it has some Elton John tunes here and there. That's where the similarity ends. The merging of the various elements just doesn't work well at all, leaving a bit of a mess that will satisfy none but the youngest viewers, who can at least be kept entertained by the main characters.

Director John Stevenson fails to wrestle the script, by Ben Zazove, into anything close to a decent adventure. The few set-pieces fail to impress, the humour falls flat, and, perhaps worst of all, the character of Sherlock is made into something almost unrecognisable. Okay, he LOOKS familiar, but that is it. I MIGHT have missed some references, but this also felt very lazy in the plotting and script, missing out on any opportunity to reference the great selection of cases that Sherlock Holmes fans would be aware of. It smacks of something put together without any enthusiasm or care.

Depp isn't actually bad in his voice role, although I am sure Holmes purists will balk at the very idea, and Ejiofor is equally good alongside him (although his Watson is even further removed from the character that we know and love, all for the sake of a lazy and obvious plot turn in the third act). Demetriou is fine as a non-menacing Moriarty, but you do get a couple of decent villains in the shape of a pair of gargoyles (voiced by Dexter Fletcher and Javone Prince) and Mary J. Blige as a female character named Irene. Blunt and McAvoy are good, once again, in the lead roles, and the supporting cast includes Ashley Jensen, Matt Lucas, Stephen Merchant, and Ozzy Osbourne.

And I almost forgot to mention the Elton John songs, but that's because the film feels as if it almost forgot to include any. You get snippets here and there, and musical motifs interspersed throughout the score, but this is done in a way that is much more jarring than it was in the first gnome-filled tale. That had two main focal points, the Shakespeare-inspired love story and the songs. This has the tale of two garden-dwelling lovers, the central mystery to be solved by Sherlock, and the songs. That may not seem like too many plates to spin but it's obviously one too many, leading to all three becoming more and more wobbly until they fall and smash on the ground.

While it didn't actually pain me to watch it, Sherlock Gnomes was a massive disappointment. And it could have easily been on a par with the first film, if anyone had cared about what they were making.

4/10

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

Mubi Monday: Children Of Men (2006)

The first time I saw Children Of Men I wondered what everyone else saw in it that I didn't. It was a good film but everyone else seemed to love it. And now I know why. What once felt like a low-key sci-fi movie that I could never warm to now feels like the kind of sci-fi tale warning us of what could be just around the corner. To be fair, it was probably always that way, it's just that when I first saw it I wasn't taking as much notice of the world around me.

Clive Owen stars as Theo, a man trying to keep his head above the dangerous waters of a society on the brink of collapse. There hasn't been a child born for almost two decades and the UK is dealing with an immigration problem by basically capturing them and keeping them in camps until they can come up with an excuse to send the military in to solve the problem with deadly efficiency. Theo also used to be a political activist, information that is used by his ex-wife (Julianne Moore) when she needs someone she can trust to assist a valuable young woman (Kee, played by Clare-Hope Ashitey) in escaping the country.

Directed by Alfonso Cuarón, who also co-wrote the screenplay with a number of other people (incorporating feedback and ideas from Owen), Children Of Men is a wonderful film that mixes hope and despair in a delicate and thoughtful mix. This is mainly thanks to the central character, an understandable cynic, being constantly surrounded by people who cling on to the smallest silver lining as the clouds gather overhead. It's also thanks to the fact that we can still watch the movie and, I sincerely hope, view it as a low point that we would never want to reach. We're already precariously close to it, in places, but I have faith that those with more common sense and empathy will always outnumber the small-minded bigots and xenophobes who keep trying to drag us further and further down into the mud.

Based on a novel by Ps. D. James (yes, THAT P. D. James), this story layers on the horrible  revelations and realisations as we keep moving towards the grand finale, not sure if this will be able to give us a happy ending, considering the overwhelming odds that keep mounting up against the main characters. There are a number of moments that let the action unfold in a number of impressive tracking shots, contributing an effective air of immediacy akin to the found footage format without really showboating in a way that takes viewers out of the movie (it's worth noting that I didn't notice these the first time I watched the film, I was so engrossed, and it was only in the intervening years that I saw them praised and then knew to look out for them on a rewatch).

Owen is superb in the lead role, he's an actor that is rarely given his due and this is one of his very best roles. Grim and determined, he is dragged into the situation in stages, always resisting right up until he realises that he's the only one who knows how to do the right thing at the right stage in the journey. Ashitey is very good in her role, similar to Owen in the way that she's often passive until the moment when she has to put her foot down, and there are strong supporting turns from Moore, Pam Ferris, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Charlie Hunnam, Danny Huston, and Peter Mullan. There is also a fantastic turn from Michael Caine, playing Jasper, a man who deals cannabis and tries to keep himself hidden away from the urban madness until the day when he hopes things start to get better.

If you think Children Of Men is just a dystopian thriller disconnected from the events of our daily lives then see how you feel during the scene in which the characters discuss how an upcoming major event could be manipulated and "improved" for the public by replacing the face of an immigrant with the face of someone white. Prescient sci-fi? This almost feels like a documentary nowadays.

9/10

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