The Family Plan (2023)

It is frustrating for me that my dislike of Mark Wahlberg appears to be in inverse proportion to how often I watch his features. Whatever you think of him, or of his acting skills, he often ends up in entertainment that appeals to those after some silly and fun distraction.

The Family Plan is interchangeable with a whole heap of other movies we have seen in recent years about family men forced to confront a past in which they were super-skilled and deadly. Wahlberg is that man, of course, and he has a whole family unit (his wife, Michelle Monaghan, two teens, Zoe Colletti and Van Crosby, and a baby) completely unaware of his dangerous history. Can Wahlberg keep his family in the dark as various people start trying to kill them while they head off on an unexpected road trip?

Writer David Coggeshall knows what he needs to do here, and he does it. This is a take action comedy, but it’s equally a star vehicle for Wahlberg. If you think that Wahlberg isn’t going to emerge victorious then you haven’t seen any other Wahlberg movies recently. While there aren’t any truly memorable exchanges, nor any surprises in the plotting, the screenplay sets everything up and moves along quickly enough to stop viewers from asking too many questions.

Director Simon Cellan Jones has, as of today, made his most recent three films with Wahlberg in the lead role, which would make him appear to have been favoured by the one-time head of the Funky Bunch. He shows an affinity for the decidedly average, ensuring that everything here will be forgotten mere days after you have watched it. And I speak from experience, having already watched the sequel (stay tuned, review pending) while constantly confusing this with Back In Action.

Wahlberg is as Wahlberg is. I am not sure anyone would consider themselves a big fan of the star nowadays, aside from maybe his immediate family, but he at least feels like a decent casting choice here. Monaghan is unsurprisingly left with a bit less to do, but she is still able to have fun in a few scenes that allow her to actively participate. Colletti and Crosby are both okay, Maggie Q plays a character unable to surprise viewers due to the fact that she is played by Maggie Q, and Ciaran Hinds is effectively heavy-handed and gruffly menacing as the villain with a very strong motivation for getting his best employee back.

I can’t deny that I had some fun with this, and a couple of the action beats were more fun than any of the attempts at comedy. I won’t ever rewatch it though, and it is just one more piece of Mark Wahlberg “streaming content” to put in the big pile that already includes the likes of Spenser Confidential, Arthur The King, and Play Dirty, to name just the first lot that sprung to mind.

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 

Netflix And Chill: In The Land Of Saints And Sinners (2023)

I'm not one to usually worry about films being offensive. Nothing much bothers me, I'm in the main demographic for characters who aren't used as punchlines, and I've watched far too many Troma movies to be bothered by tastelessness or mishandling of potentially sensitive issues. So I hope you understand how much thought I gave it before I decided that In The Land Of Saints And Sinners feels offensively bad in the way it uses the Troubles in Ireland as a backdrop for what becomes yet another standard Liam Neeson thriller. It didn't personally bother me, but I have a lot of friends over the water I can imagine may be a bit irked by this, to put it mildly.

Neeson plays Finbar Murphy, a man who lives in County Donegal, working as a contract killer for a local crime boss (played by the superb Colm Meaney). Murphy starts off a violent chain of events when he voluntarily helps an abusive prick shuffle off this mortal coil. Unfortunately, that abusive prick was the brother of a strong-willed terrorist (Doireann, played by Kerry Condon), which leads to her, and her accomplices, working to find the killer, no matter who else gets caught up in the crossfire.

While this feels like an accomplished debut from director Robert Lorenz, it isn't. He may not have too many credits to his name, but Lorenz has been around long enough to hone his skills. The same can be said of writer Terry Loane. It's co-writer Mark Michael McNally who is the first-timer, which makes me wonder if he was the person who came up with the sorely-misjudged main premise (although maybe I am just viewing it that way because it feels a bit closer to home than other films that have used similar backgrounds for some kind of redemption story arc).

The cast all do good work, with both Condon and Neeson on top form, and emanating an undeniably powerful energy in the scenes that have them facing one another. Meaney is always a great presence onscreen, Jack Gleeson does a great job in the role of a young man who doesn't consider how he might end up one day regretting his actions, and Ciarán Hinds is a friendly local Garda officer. There are also good performances from Desmond Eastwood, Niamh Cusack, Michelle Gleeson, Sarah Greene, and everyone else filling out the cast of supporting characters.

I'd be very interested to hear from others who watched this, and especially any of my pals over on the Emerald Isle. Am I wrong for wanting this to have been better, for wanting it to justify the use of the events used as the background to the story? It could have been tweaked so easily, and I don't think there would have been anything lost (especially if Neeson had the same background to his character). In fact, it could have possibly even been improved by setting it in the here and now, showing people who refused to let go of some old tactics while the older and wiser heads remembered how many lives were shattered and destroyed by their actions.

Competent, technically-speaking, but fairly incompetent when you consider the decisions made at the writing stage, this is somehow more egregious than the dozen or more Neeson movies that simply try to replicate the success of the Taken series. Or maybe it's just me thinking that way.

4/10

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

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

Netflix And Chill: The Rite (2011)

You would think that Anthony Hopkins would be well-suited to the role of a priest who can conduct exorcisms in a firm, and seemingly non-traditional, manner. In a way, didn't he already play just that kind of role, and superbly, when he took on the famous character of Van Helsing? So The Rite, a handsomely-mounted horror/drama about a younger priest full of doubt (Michael Kovak, played by Colin O'Donoghue) learning much from a stoic elder (Father Lucas Trevant, played by Hopkins), would seem to be an easy winner. Sadly, that is not the case.

Based on, possibly very loosely, on a book of the same name by Matt Biaglo, this is a "true story" that ticks almost every exorcism movie cliché off the list, and that's always a tricky proposition. Because if you're going to do that, especially if you're pairing up an older priest with a younger priest who is starting to doubt his faith, then you need to be pretty bloody special. Because there's one movie that casts a hell of a long shadow over all of these movies.

All of the characters are sketched out and put in place quickly enough. Michael feels like someone it is easy to root for, and we see plenty of backstory involving his relationship with his father (Rutger Hauer). He is asked to go to Rome to attend a course in exorcism, which will either help him to find his faith once more or convince him that his journey on this particular path is at an end. Father Trevant is a force of nature, and a bit of an expert in exorcisms (of course), and remains convinced that he always does whatever is necessary to save any tortured souls. And Angeline (Alice Braga) is someone else attending the course, which means she can have conversations with Michael as he continues to feel doubt over any other sensation.

It's no surprise to look through the filmography of screenwriter Michael Petroni and see that nothing stands out, with the exception of the wonderful, and disappointingly underseen, The Dangerous Lives Of Altar Boys. Petroni has, for most of the past two decades, been specialising in writing films seemingly destined to be forgotten. And this is coming from someone who quite liked The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader.

Director Mikael Håfström has a slightly better success rate, especially around this time (1408 was a few years before this and Escape Plan was just after), but this feels like a movie where his hands were tied. It is an exorcism movie for a mainstream audience, meaning the horror element is never really satisfying and it is all far too safe and predictable.

Hopkins is the highlight, and selling the movie on his presence alone is no bad thing. Hauer is also very good in his much smaller role, and it's a shame that he isn't used to much greater effect. Braga, through no fault of her own, feels completely superfluous, an addition for the sake of having a female character who isn't just a possible victim of possession. The weakest cast member is O'Donoghue though, who just doesn't feel very convincing at any point. I wouldn't say he was actually bad, but he certainly feels as if he's been miscast, unable to sell viewers on him being a doubtful priest OR a worthwhile leading man. Ciarán Hinds and Toby Jones have very small roles, but I will mention them as the other main positives in a film in need of all the help it can get.

Easily the worst of the mainstream exorcism/possession movies from the last few decades, this is eminently forgettable and unworthy of your time. In the same way that multiplying two negatives leads to a positive, it turns out that numerous wrongs can add up to a rite. 

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