Prime Time: Daredevil (2003)

While most people really seemed to dislike the film when it came out, I've always had a soft spot for Daredevil. It has since been overshadowed by a superior small-screen interpretation of the character, but it still retains a certain charm, feeling even further removed nowadays from the many other bombastic superhero movies that always seem to pit the main characters against either god-like enemies or potential world-destroying threats.

Written and directed by Mark Steven Johnson, this is the tale of Matt Murdock/Daredevil (Ben Affleck), a blind man who works as a lawyer by day and serves up any extra justice required by night. Things are getting tougher on the streets as Wilson Fisk/Kingpin (Michael Clarke Duncan) starts to tighten his stranglehold on the criminal network. At least there's a beautiful woman, Elektra (Jennifer Garner), to get to know. But there's also the dangerous and quite bonkers Bullseye (Colin Farrell) looking to push in for his own particular dance.

It's hard to think of a film that feels more absolutely 2003 than this, from the cast to the stylistic choices made for the visuals, from the soundtrack to the attempts at grittiness. If you haven't seen the film in a while then I tentatively recommend giving it a go, especially when you get to the early scenes that show our hero happier than most to push some villains right off the mortal coil.

Affleck isn't the best fit for the lead, sadly, although he tries. This was during a time when he seemed a bit too smooth and smug, traits that seep into his portrayal of a character who is much more captivating when worn down and roughed up (as they try to make him by the third act). Garner isn't given much to work with, and I think she fares much better in the spin-off movie, but she tries to make the most of a couple of moments that allow her to flex her action skills. Duncan is superbly imposing as Fisk, really helping to lift the movie up on his broad shoulders, and Farrell . . . well, Farrell is an absolute blast for every moment that he's onscreen. He just seems to be in a different movie from everyone else, but that's the more fun and entertaining movie. Jon Favreau is an amusing "sidekick", and the cast also includes Ellen Pompeo, Joe Pantoliano, Leland Orser, David Keith, and Erick Avari, as well as one or two other familiar faces (and, yes, there's also a Stan Lee cameo here). 

It's a shame that the tone wasn't consistent throughout. The same can be said for the action. The film works best when it has some darkness and weight onscreen, but other times (a playground "flirt fight") are almost painful when trying to be a bit too cute. And once Bullseye appears onscreen then it's game over. He's the one you really want to see for the rest of the runtime.

There's still plenty to enjoy here, including the way we're shown Daredevil's reading of the environments and a good musical score from Graeme Revell, but this remains more of a miss than a hit. It's neither as slick or visually-impressive as many other modern spectacles, nor is it as entertaining and brutal as the more recent take on the character. I'll retain a soft spot for it, but I probably won't revisit it again for another decade or so, if ever. 

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

Netflix And Chill: Ballad Of A Small Player (2025)

I don't want to be rude about Colin Farrell, someone I have loved onscreen more and more with every step he moved away from typical blockbuster lead roles, but I am more impressed with his role in Ballad Of A Small Player for his ability to portray what, at times, would seem to be a past incarnation of himself. Farrell has been sober for many years now, and massive congratulations to him for that, but he's been very open about the many wild nights in his past. I wondered if he was experiencing déjà vu here whenever his character would wake up groggy and anxious after some time spent spending too much money and drinking too much alcohol. I mention this not just because of the behaviour displayed onscreen. It's the tone. Ballad Of A Small Player is all about a man who believes that one lucky break is just around the corner, yet also knows that he is being driven by desperate addictive impulses that could just as easily lead to him dying before he gets the chance to see any uptick in his fortunes.

Farrell is Lord Doyle, if we're to believe how he presents himself. He's a gambler who enjoys placing large bets and living the high life. He's had a recent run of bad luck though, which forces those around him to place a timeline on some debts. Doyle encounters kindness and generosity from Dao Ming (Fala Chen), but he has to make a decision on whether to accept her help to move away from his life of gambling or to make use of her kindness to facilitate his path to that one big win he can sense heading his way. It doesn't help that he's also being watched by Blithe (Tilda Swinton), someone who has been tasked with tracking him down and reclaiming some major past debt.

Adapted into screenplay form from Lawrence Osborne's novel by Rowan Joffe, Ballad Of A Small Player actually has a lot in common with one or two other gambling films I could mention, but just mentioning those might allow you to start predicting how things will end for the main character. So I'm not going to do that. There's a whole lot of anxiety running throughout the film, and even any unexpected victories in the casinos feel fragile and temporary, considering the nature of the main character. 

Director Edward Berger is three for three when it comes to the features that he's helmed over the past five years, and I'm keen to see if he can keep up this hot streak to put himself in contention for the director with the most consistently superb output throughout this decade. While it's ultimately a slightly lesser film than his previous two outings, being an inessential character piece, as opposed to a rumination on the hell of war or a murder mystery aiming to shake the pillars of Catholicism, Berger treats it with no less care. This is grandiose, operatic even, and every viewer is masterfully taken through a variety of ups and downs as if attached by a safety wire to some member of Cirque du Soleil.

Despite the occasional (apparent) lapse in his upper-class British accent, and nothing here is without an explanation, Farrell is superb in the lead role, all flop-sweat and faux-graciousness as he keeps looking around his environment for various escape routes and gambling opportunities. He's the star, and his charisma is put to great use throughout. It's impressive that Chen makes such a strong impression, considering how often she has to share the screen with Farrell while she's the calming presence to his manic aura. Swinton gives one of her fine supporting turns, and is especially delightful in the third act, and both Deanie Ip and Alex Jennings are worth mentioning as individuals who may succeed in tempting Farrell's character to make the one bet that finally destroys him.

I enjoyed this, I was stressed out by it, and I am conflicted by the ending, which is actually a better outcome than the one I expected. It's a small-scale and low-key film that feels huge and bombastic. It taps into that rollercoaster of highs and lows that I am sure every gambler knows is the rhythm of their life, for better or worse.

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 

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

Netflix And Chill: Ava (2020)

It feels as if everyone lately has been wanting a shot at portraying a highly-skilled assassin, very possibly due to the great success of a certain Keanu-led franchise, but not all of them manage to do enough to stand out from what has fast become a very crowded field. Ava is a film that not only doesn't stand out, it becomes so well-camouflaged by the cliches and tired tropes it is wearing that it's pretty much the John Cena of the skilled assassin movie sub-genre.

Jessica Chastain is the titular Ava. She is very good at her job, killing people, but has started to wonder what people have done to prompt her being hired to put an end to them. This makes Ava a potential liability, despite the fact that she still (literally) executes her orders. Her "handler" (Duke, played by John Malkovich) still has faith in her though, but others want her retired. And retired means dead.

Writer Matthew Newton seems to think that anyone watching Ava will not have seen any other movie like this, which is the only explanation for a script that is so consistently lazy from start to finish. Ava is given three defining characteristics - her questioning nature, her history of addiction, and her deadly skillset - and some messy family tension (with a mother in hospital and a sister now dating her ex-boyfriend), but she never feels like a fully-realised lead character. It isn’t as if we cannot accept assassins who are defined just by how good they kill people, but there isn’t enough information given to us to explain why Ava has started to ask more questions, or why she has kept such strong connection to her family while still in a job that would seem to make that a very risky proposition.

Director Tate Taylor manages to get everything onscreen competently enough, helped by the fact that Chastain is as committed to the physicality of the role as you would expect, but he doesn’t ever do enough to elevate the script. Some fight scenes are decent, some have to be over-edited. Sadly, none of the moments of straightforward drama work, with characters chopping and changing their moods, depending on what exposition is required or how any scene is leading everyone towards the inevitable climax.

Chastain is good in the central role, even if she isn’t quite good enough to make the film worth watching, and Malkovich excels in a supporting cast that also includes Colin Farrell (good value), Geena Davis (always welcome in any movie), Jess Weixler, Common, Diana Silvers, and a badass Joan Chen. Nobody does a bad job. They’re just stuck dealing with that lame script that leaves them hung out to dry.

On the plus side, the pacing isn’t bad, the runtime clocks in at just over 90 minutes (from opening scene to the start of the closing credits), and you can, with some hard work blocking out the worst elements of the script, accept it as a mildly diverting action thriller. I would always be ready to recommend 100 other movies ahead of this though, easily.

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

Prime Time: Thirteen Lives (2022)

If you try to keep up with major news events then you will know the story that Thirteen Lives is based on. In fact, even being tangentially aware of major headlines should have you knowing enough about this before it starts to play out. This was a huge story in 2018, with many people gripped by the plight of those involved, a group of young male footballers and their coach stranded in a water-filled cave system in Thailand. You might even think that there’s no point in dramatizing there story and presenting it to people who may have those headlines still relatively fresh in their minds. I’d politely say that you would be wrong.

At approximately two and a half hours in length, this is a film that takes just the right time needed to set up the main premise, bring in the main characters (the rescue mission ended up being headed up by two British cave divers, Rick Stanton and John Volanthen), and show the many people who came together during this time. From the Navy Seals who may underestimate the conditions they need to work through to the person hoping to divert rainfall away from the openings that lead to the cave system, from the distraught parents to the farmers who agree to have their crops flooded.

Director Ron Howard, working with writer William Nicholson (a dab hand at this kind of thing, and helped with the story development by Don Macpherson), makes this an incredible viewing experience, crafting a film that presents plenty of data, context, and tension while giving equal time to the main characters. The boys needing rescued don’t have too much screentime, understandable as they simply had to wait while others struggled to figure out a workable plan, but Stanton and Volanthen go through a real variety of emotions, as do the people working with them, and the local governor who is kept in place to take the blame when the expected, “unavoidable”, deaths occur.

With Viggo Mortensen and Colin Farrell playing Stanton and Volanthen, respectively, and their main team being filled out by Tom Bateman, Paul Gleeson, and Joel Edgerton, it would be all too easy to make this a film about a rescue mission in Thailand that focuses purely on the white men who were brought in because of their niche expertise. So it’s a good job that Howard allows time to show the work of the local Navy Seals, and the ultimate responsibility placed on Sahajak Boonthanakit (playing Governor Narongsak). Vithaya Pansringarm is also a formidable presence, as General Anupong, and it would be remiss of me to not highlight the optimism and energy delivered by Nitipoom Khachatphai, aiming to help divert as much water away from the cave system as possible.

Everyone gives a very good performance, but hats off to both Mortensen and Farrell for also putting on decent English accents. The two men apparently took their roles very seriously, often performing their own diving for most of the shots, and they slip into their characters so well that you very easily forget that it IS actually Viggo Mortensen and Colin Farrell you’re watching. Bateman and Edgerton are the other actors to single out, both bringing different elements to the story, and both seeming very much out of their comfort zone in different ways. 

A good documentary could give you all of the information presented here, and there is at least one good documentary already made about this incident, but a good drama can somehow deliver the same information to you in a more effective way, when it is done as well as this anyway. Distances, timings, the co-ordination between so many different groups of people, the weight of every decision, the technical details that are discussed, everything is here, and it is all improved by viewing it from “behind the scenes”, warts and all, and being reminded of the rollercoaster journey that everyone went through while the tick of the clock grew louder and louder.

Thirteen Lives is a fantastic telling of a story that deserves to be told in full. The hefty runtime flies by, and by the time it all ends you feel as if you have watched something great, but also something that succeeds in properly honoring the amazing achievements of everyone involved.

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 Batman (2022)

Here are some things that Matt Reeves seems to really like, based on what he presents to viewers in The Batman. "Something In The Way", by Nirvana, Seven, putting a camera as close to someone as possible so you can be right beside them as they grapple hook up to a roof/BASE jump off a building/crash a car/etc, Seven, Zodiac, and . . . Seven. Oh, and shots of people riding motorbikes. If you took out every moments of someone riding a motorbike here than you might have a film that would clock in at a much more reasonable runtime, instead of the hefty three hours we get.

Here's the story, boiled down to essential elements. Batman (Robert Pattinson) is being given the runaround by Riddler (Paul Dano), a criminal determined to expose the secrets of Gotham City. As he tries to get information from the underworld that essentially rules Gotham, Batman deals with Penguin (Colin Farrell), Carmine Falcone (John Turturro), and is helped in his investigative work by James Gordon (Jeffrey Wright) and Catwoman (Zoë Kravitz). People are placed in deathtraps, forced to admit to their weaknesses and crimes, and a whole master plan is in place, with the Riddler moving pieces around the city, perhaps including the Batman himself.

There's a lot to like here, a lot that is easy to enjoy if you're a fan of Batman (and so many people are). Despite the darkness of the colour scheme, it's often a visually impressive film. The score is decent, although hampered by those that have come before it, and Reeves and Peter Craig have crafted a screenplay that attempts to provide a perfect mix of the cerebral and the visceral. The biggest problem is how often it defers to past movies, be they other Batman movies, Seven/Fight Club/Zodiac, or Taxi Driver (you could say that the entire finale of this film shows a real rain coming along to wash away the scum).

The pacing of the film is helped by the action set-pieces. They're generally of a high standard, although that close-up camera trick spoils a number of moments, and it's good to see consistency in the way Batman uses skill, strength, and confusion to take on groups of henchmen. There’s nothing new here, and it would be nice to have a Batman/Bruce Wayne who isn’t wrestling with his own guilt and self-doubt for a while, but it is given, for the most part, a decent makeover. I didn’t personally like the reinterpretation of the Riddler, nor do I think a tiresomely inevitable cameo bodes well, but it all works within the film that Reeves set out to deliver.

The cast are, by and large, almost perfect. Pattinson has to be a bit too dour as Wayne, although he doesn’t spend a lot of screentime without the mask and cape on, but he really suits the Bat attire, and has a good voice that doesn’t wander too far towards Bale-growl territory. Dano is disappointingly underused, seen largely through phone screens and computer monitors, but his performance is excellent, and he is allowed to believably posit himself as someone much smarter than everyone around him. I have seen people say that Farrell is also underused, but I think his character is crucially involved in a number of moments that help him make an indelible impression. Wright is a perfect choice for Jim Gordon, and Kravitz stands out as the best Catwoman since Michelle Pfeiffer played the role so memorably back in Batman Returns (I like Anne Hathaway, I just don’t think she was as good when asked to portray this particular character in The Dark Knight Rises). Strong, athletic, smart, sexy, and believing she has extra lives to make use of, Catwoman is once again a very believable and viable yin to Batman’s yang (get your mind out of the gutter), and Kravitz is perfect for the role. Turturro makes a great Falcone, the criminal kingpin who controls so much of the city, and the famous Alfred is played this time around by Andy Serkis. As good as he is in the role, Serkis has to play a character who is basically forgotten, aside from a few small scenes, which feels strange in a film with so much runtime to fill.

The good far outweighs the bad, and a lot of that is thanks to the canny casting, but it’s sometimes hard to view this favourably when it constantly indulges in such obvious plundering and cannibalism. The ending feels especially dull, and familiar, considering how it basically turns a great villain into a sad totem for . . . well, just wait and see for yourself what you think of the “grand finale” and big reveals.

This is a good way to reconfigure the character (although it would have been nice to not keep referring to dead parents as a main plot point again), and I was surprised by how much I didn’t care for the runtime as things moved from one impressive sequence to the next, but it still doesn’t quite equal the best of the Bat-flicks. It’s very good though, despite the flaws.

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 

Mubi Monday: Tigerland (2000)

A Vietnam war movie with a difference, this focuses on a group of soldiers who are being trained at an infamous area named Tigerland. Standing out from the group, Pvt. Bozz (Colin Farrell) is clearly not wanting to be there. He won't get himself out of the forces, however, but does annoy the higher-ups by helping to get some other solders their freedom. This makes him about as popular as a sneeze in a supermarket in 2020, as you can imagine, but he's tough enough to take all of the negativity aimed his way. He's not bulletproof though, which makes it a lot more difficult when one soldier (Wilson, played by Shea Wigham) has a building level of rage that would make it best for him to be kept away from all guns and ammo.

Directed by Joel Schumacher, this is the film that first sold Colin Farrell as a star leading man, basically. He would spend the next decade or so being misused in all kinds of roles that just weren't right for him (Farrell is actually an excellent character actor with the looks and charisma of a blockbuster star), but revisiting Tigerland allows you to see just what Schumacher saw in him. He's confident, charming, smart, witty, and elevates what is already an excellent premise.

A million miles away from his usual slick, over the top, approach, Schumacher relies on a cast of quality actors and a great script by Ross Klavan and Michael McGruther, both newcomers to screenwriting (in terms of credited jobs anyway). Klavan and McGruther know all of the standard war movie moments that we've seen so many times before, and they use the character of Bozz to navigate and subvert most of them, whether it's the angry instructor picking on someone who can't keep up the pace or a butting of heads between soldiers and a leader who seems to often make the wrong decisions while parroting the lines about duty and military ways.

I've already said enough about Farrell, and it's slightly unfair to let his performance completely overshadow everyone else, but the other cast members generally do just as well. Matthew Davis is Paxton, the one who observes Bozz for the majority of the runtime, and the one narrating the full story. Davis is a bit bland, but that's fine for how his character is used. He's the observer. Clifton Collins Jr. has a great character arc, playing Miter, someone who resents Bozz while he's trying to keep the rest of the squad in check, and Whigham is brilliantly loathsome for most of his scenes, moving from a standard nasty asshole to full-on "Private Pile" by the third act.

There are a number of unbelievable moments here and there, including a heart to heart between Bozz and a tough leader who gives him some time to explain his perspective (when you just know that time would have been spent with the latter chewing out the former), but the grounding of the drama, and the setting of the training area itself, makes it all feel a bit less cheesy and cliché-ridden.

8/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Artemis Fowl (2020)

Of course I'd heard all of the bad reviews. Of course I was aware that not one person who watched Artemis Fowl ended up having a good thing to say about it. Of course I thought I might find at least some small bits to enjoy.

Of course I was wrong.

Artmeris Fowl has the might of Disney behind it, but it's hard to think of a more misjudged and messy piece of family entertainment. Nothing works as it should. Nothing.

Let's start with the plot. Ferdia Shaw is Artemis Fowl, a young boy who ends up alone, having to defend his home, when his father (Colin Farrell) is whisked away by some shady villain. Artemis finds out that there's a whole world around him that he doesn't know about, and there's an item, the Aculos, that many seem to want to get their hands on. This leads to Fowl Manor being besieged, where Artemis works to defend it with the magical Holly Short (Lara McDonnell) and Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad), "Dom" Butler (Nonso Anozie), and Dom's niece, Juliet Butler (Tamara Smart). You also get Judi Dench appearing as Commander Julius Root, determined to get in to Fowl Manor and retrieve the Aculos.

Based on the popular novel by Eoin Colfer, Artemis Fowl is written by Conor McPherson and Hamish McColl, which may be where the the problems begin. McColl has a background that would make him seem suited to this kind of material, perhaps, but McPherson doesn't, and the mix of the two leads to a film that feels inevitably ill-fitting, in terms of the various plot elements. Director Kenneth Branagh also doesn't really feel like the right person to be sitting in the big chair, but it would be unfair to rule him out immediately (considering some of his surprising successes). Sadly, it turns out that he ISN'T the right person to be sitting in the big chair. In fact, he doesn't seem to have spent much time in the chair at all. This feels like something not directed by anyone with any vision, or even a sense of effective film-making techniques.

Then we get to the cast. Shaw is horrible in the lead role. It's not really his fault. His character is annoying, almost from the very first frame, and he acts accordingly. Gad is pretty annoying, although he at least gets to show some of his personality, unlike the majority of the cast. McDonnell is the highlight, a plucky and tough fighter with good intentions, but Anozie is also very good as the talented protector/butler. Judie Dench looks suitably embarrassed every now and then, and Farrell has the good sense to take on a role with such little screentime that I'm sure he was handsomely rewarded for what amounted to a day of work, at most.

Artemis Fowl isn't as bad as you've heard. It's worse. Characters are generally awful and unappealing, the plot is slight and impossible to care about, and the action sequences wouldn't have impressed most viewers a decade ago. It's mind-boggling to think of how many decisions were made by people who all tried to go for the worst possible options. It's only the fact that it had enough money thrown at it that saves it from being among the very worst I have seen. It's definitely one of the very worst blockbusters of the 21st century though.

3/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

The Gentlemen (2020)

I absolutely understand that Guy Ritchie movies aren't necessarily designed for anyone other than Guy Ritchie fans (and I'm not talking about his studio work here, I am talking about GUY RITCHIE movies), and I also absolutely understand that another crime comedy from him will be about as appealing as a smack on the back of the head from an irate Jason Statham, but The Gentlemen actually ends up being a lot of fun. Ritchie is confident enough in his own abilities, and he seems to relish the chance to get down 'n' dirty with a great cast who will help him create his most blatant homage yet to The Long Good Friday.

Matthew McConaughey is Mickey Pearson, the mastermind behind a superbly profitable drug business. It's pot he sells though, which means we can still view him as a good guy compared to other criminal types onscreen. Charlie Hunnam is Ray, Mickey's trusted right hand man. Mickey wants to retire, which sets off a twisted and violent chain of events as people try to nominate themselves as worthy successors. The prime buyer would seem to be a savvy businessman named Matthew (Jeremy Strong), but Dry Eye (Henry Golding) is an up-and-coming boss/thug who wants to get a big piece of the pie. We learn all of this through a lengthy conversation between Ray and a bloodhound journalist named Fletcher (Hugh Grant).

The Gentlemen is a film that does everything well, and is elevated by the cast. From those just mentioned, the only performer I didn't really enjoy was Strong, who delivers a performance that feels just a bit too weak and lacking in confidence for his character (despite his character being the kind of brain who outsources to brawn).McConaughey is his usual cool self, and very laid-back until he has to pounce on someone, Hunnam is the best I have seen him be, Golding is enjoyable in a role that thankfully doesn't have him yet again showing all of us men up as inferior and unromantic souls, and Grant has an absolute ball playing the kind of unscrupulous journo he has often publicly berated while working in support of Hacked Off, a campaign group set up to hold members of the tabloid press to account over their illegal tactics of phone hacking to gain private information that would provide them with juicy tabloid gossip. Michelle Dockery is a fitting queen to McConaughey's king, Eddie Marsan has fun in a small role that leads to a punchline both hilarious and appalling, and Colin Farrell once again proves that he can be relied upon to do his best work when not constrained by the packaging of a mainstream star vehicle.

There are only two main problems, and they're problems you find in most Ritchie movies (although I hadn't realised it before). First of all, every character feels like a character written by Ritchie. Nobody has their own voice here, although Grant almost overcomes this with the strength of his performance. Secondly, the large selection of characters inevitably delivers some that you wish weren't given much screentime (in this case it's a bunch of amateur criminals who upload their exploits to YouTube).

Those with sensitive ears will want to give this a miss, because the word "cunt" is bandied about more than it would be at a Christmas night out with a bunch of gynaecologists, and those who prefer their tales of crooks and crime to be told in a more straightforward fashion may also be a bit peeved, especially during the indulgent moments that allow for some playful unreliable narration from Grant's character. Everyone else should have a great time.

8/10

Netflix And Chill: Dead Man Down (2013)

As prone to the whims of Netflix as many others who browse the service, I saw that Dead Man Down was on there are remembered that someone had once told me it wasn't a bad little crime thriller. It was, according to some of the ways I had seen it labelled, actually a neo-noir, which made this month as good a time as any to check it out. And whoever told me that it wasn't a bad little crime thriller was quite correct.

Colin Farrell plays a man working for crime boss Alphonse (Terrence Howard). These are bad people who do bad things. But Farrell has more secrets than most. And that allows him to end up in a position where he can be blackmailed by Beatrice (Noomi Rapace), a neighbour who wants suitable punishment to be administered to the man who disfigured her in a road accident. Farrell is working on a masterplan that is now due to be complicated, Rapace grows closer to him as they prepare to deliver the payback she feels that she needs, and Howard and his crew (including Darcy, played by Dominic Cooper) start to "draw the wagons into a circle" as they deal with someone trying to cause division and death among their ranks.

Perhaps wrongly marketed at the time of release, I recall a lot being made of the fact that this from the director of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (which gave Rapace her star-making turn) and I think there was a trailer that emphasised some of the action moments, which is what trailers do. I liked The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, but didn't love it. And I wasn't willing to rush out and see Colin Farrell in another action thriller that wasted his talents in the middle of some bland mess. I believe others may have felt the same way (and we can all be thankful that we've had so many better performances from Farrell over the past decade since people stopped trying to sell him in those roles), but don't let that put you off.

Niels Arden Oplev does another good job in the director's chair, giving the film a similar look to his previous outing, but with more rays of light shining through here and there. The script, by J. H. Wyman, who has more experience with TV work than movies, is as good as it needs to be. Based around that old chestnut of "if you set out for revenge then you'd best dig room to serve two cold dishes", or something, the central pairing of Farrell and Rapace works well enough to have you worrying as it looks less and less likely that anything will lead to a happy ending.

Speaking of the two leads, they both do very good work here, even working at various times with various accents. It also helps a lot that the supporting cast has some great players mixed in. Howard and Cooper have large roles, but there are also smaller turns for Isabelle Huppert, F. Murray Abraham, and the always entertaining Armand Assante. A lot of the other cast members are generic gang member types, but that is perfectly fine when you are just waiting to see the bodycount go up and up on the way to a tense third act.

Not an easy film to assume that others will enjoy as much as I did, I still recommend checking it out. The 2-hour runtime flies by quickly enough, the familiar plot is handled well, and there are some surprisingly satisfying moments of violence as soon as the motivation for everything becomes clear.

7/10

You can buy the movie here.
American friends can pick it up here.

Mubi Monday: Widows (2018)

Based on the TV series by Lynda La Plante, Widows has been successfully transferred to America and updated to be quite a bit more than it originally was, a group of women who took on "jobs for the boys". Not that the original was bad, and I am not going to praise this movie while criticising the TV series (which I never actually watched, I just have vague memories of it being advertised when first screened), but director Steve McQueen, who worked with Gillian Flynn to adapt the material into this screenplay, uses the premise to explore issues of race, abuse, and the way wheels turn and keep society the way that many want it kept.

Viola Davis plays Veronica, a woman left in a very sticky position after her professional thief husband (Liam Neeson) and his crew die in a botched robbery that seems very unlike his usual modus operandi. When Veronica is threatened by the man that her husband stole from (Brian Tyree Henry), she sees no way to fix the situation. Until she finds a notebook left by her husband, a book with plans and details for one last job. Enlisting the help of some of the other widows (Michelle Rodriguez and Elizabeth Debicki), and eventually a fourth woman who can help them and help herself (Cynthia Erivo), Veronica masterminds a robbery that she hopes will allow her to settle the debt, and allow the women to start new lives.

When I first saw the trailer for Widows I wondered why McQueen, best known for his serious films looking at difficult subject matters, was drawn to the material. My curiosity dissipated within the first few scenes, intimacy between Davis and Neeson that underlines a major aspect of the screenplay. Despite not being, at least on the surface, a film as worthy as some of his other movies, Widows comes close to being McQueens best movie yet, thanks to the way it marries some important themes with visceral thrills. 12 Years A Slave may remain his most important directorial work, but this has a  sugar-coating makes the bitter pill easier to swallow.

Davis is a superb lead, given great support from Rodriguez, Debicki, and Erivo. All of them are doing excellent work, and all of them grow believably into their roles within the team. There's also a small, but characteristically brilliant, turn from Jacki Weaver, as a mother who wants her daughter to have a better life, no matter what it costs her in terms of her identity and integrity. There may not be many good men onscreen (excepting one played by Garret Dillahunt) but they're also all portrayed brilliantly. Neeson casts a large shadow over the proceedings, Henry is a quiet threat, as are the father and son political figures played by Robert Duvall and Colin Farrell, and Daniel Kaluuya almost walks away with the entire film, so brilliant is he as a merciless and violent individual being barely held in check by Henry.

In a way, the heist that everything is leading up to is the least important part of the film, which may explain why McQueen isn't at his best during that sequence. It's almost as if, with the resolution so close, he loses interest, knowing that he has already covered the plot points that he was most fired up about. The third act does have a peak, and a driving sequence to equal that of the opening scenes, but it starts to go downhill fast after that, leaving the viewer with a lot of unanswered questions and a feeling that something important is missing. Some extra details, some annoying loose ends. It's not enough to spoil the film, and most of it is deliberate on the part of McQueen and Flynn, who did so well with majority of the screenplay, but it's a shame that it ends with a whimper after the bang.

Despite my problems with the ending, and a few minor issues scattered throughout the main plot, Widows holds up as a cracking action thriller that mixes intelligence, tension, and a small amount of humour to great effect. And there's also one of the cutest dogs I've seen in a movie in years.

8/10

You can buy the original show here.

The Killing Of A Sacred Deer (2017)

Colin Farrell plays a surgeon named Steven Murphy. He seems to have the perfect life. A lovely wife (Anna, played by Nicole Kidman), a teenage daughter (Kim, played by Raffey Cassidy), and a younger son (Bob, played by Sunny Suljic). He also has a rather strange friendship with a young boy named Martin (Barry Keoghan), and it's this relationship that starts to change things in his life, leading to a disturbing and thought-provoking third act.

Directed by Yorgos Lanthimos, who also co-wrote with his regular collaborator Efthymis Filippou, The Killing Of A Sacred Deer is yet another brilliant slice of cerebral oddness from the Greek provocateur. It's even more potentially divisive than his last film, the absolutely brilliant The Lobster, and a number of stylistic choices may aggravate viewers who aren't drawn in by the macabre central ideas that come to the fore as the narrative unfolds.

Farrell gives another fantastic performance (if he decides to work with Lanthimos every other year then I'll be very happy with that), as does everyone else involved, but the speaking style is very strange and almost as if these people are struggling to weigh up the impact of every word they speak, even in the most innocuous of sentences. Kidman, Cassidy, and Suljic all seem a bit more passive, although that's not necessarily the case as you see everyone struggle with the main choice forced upon them, and Keoghan is a wonderful mix of childishness and quiet intensity. Fans of Alicia Silverstone might be surprised by her small role, but I was just happy to see her in a film again, having not seen her in anything for many years (has she been in much lately?).

Less immediately appealing than his previous movie, Lanthimos consistently fills this film with characters who interact in a way that very rarely allows for any actual warmth and humanity. The behaviour is matched by the environment and shooting style, with the situation demanding a fair share of hospital shots, for example, and a detached and clinical camera. What we are shown, and how we are shown it, makes the experience much more voyeuristic and discomforting than many other movies from the past year.

If you have seen some of the previous films from Lanthimos then you will know, to a degree, what to expect here, although that doesn't mean that you will be guaranteed to like it. It has less dark humour than many of his other features, which makes it slightly less entertaining but no less intelligent and interesting. I recommend it to everyone, and I'll be just as happy to hear from the people who hated it as I will be to hear from those who share my own opinion.

8/10.

You can buy it here.
Americans can buy it here.

Roman J. Israel, Esq (2017)

There are good things in Roman J. Israel, Esq, quite a few good things, not least of which is the lead performance from a superb Denzel Washington. It's just a shame that the film suffers from a real lack of clarity. Does it want to be a character study, or a magnifying glass hovering over some of the biggest flaws in the American justice system, or a look at the slippery slope you can end up on when you make a wrong moral choice even just the one time?

Denzel is the titular character. He's a man who knows the legal system inside out, he has almost total recall of court statistics and numbers, and he's a good man to have on your side if you're ever in trouble. He doesn't appear in court, however, because he does the work behind the scenes while his partner makes the court appearances. That's an ideal situation until his partner has a heart attack, and when Roman turns up to court it doesn't take long to see why he's normally hidden away behind the scenes. He has no filter, which can lead to trouble for himself, and perhaps even his clients.

Trials are expensive. The American system is designed in a way to minimise people actually going to trial. So lawyers will offer plea bargains. Go to trial and risk a sentence of 25-30 years if found guilty, plead without going to trial and we'll give you 5, you can get out in 3 with good behaviour. That kind of thing. Which means, on a lot of occasions, people are too scared to even take a gamble on their RIGHT to a trial, even if they may actually be innocent of the crime.And that's what writer-director Dan Gilroy seems to want to look at here. Then he wanders over to a different area. Then back to the right to trial idea. And then somewhere else. He looks at it, and goes away and comes back to look at it some more, but not as pointedly. It leaves viewers feeling exactly how my wife feels when she sees me hovering around a nice new movie boxset I want to buy, going to other parts of the store before going back to it, making my pleading face until she caves in and says I can buy it. The frustrating thing is that Gilroy doesn't need our permission to commit to his idea, he just thinks that he does. Or he doesn't think he can make a whole movie from it, so he mixes in other ideas that just don't feel as if they belong there.

The great shame is that this confusion, this muddying of the waters, will lead to a lot of people missing one of the better Washington performances in recent years. Despite some of his familiar tics appearing here and there, this is far removed from the usual confident and cocky turns Washington has given us over the past couple of decades. There's also two fantastic supporting performances from Colin Farrell, playing someone who seems like an enemy to Roman but is actually a slick lawyer looking for a chance to improve things somewhat while still working well within the system, and Carmen Ejogo, a young woman who is inspired by Roman, as he is in turn further inspired by her.

In terms of actual dialogue, the script works well. Characters are fleshed out, exchanges are sharp and smart, and interesting ideas are drip fed throughout the main narrative. Again, it's just the meandering lack of focus and structure that undoes a lot of the good work. Viewers don't really get a feel for the time and place, the events take place over three weeks and yet it all feels as if it stretches out for much more than that, and instead of provoking more thought the jumble of elements simply results in a bit of a disinterested shrug.

But those performances make it worth your time. They are THAT good. You also get a very good soundtrack, some cracking songs interspersed by a decent score from James Newton Howard, and at least things move along quickly enough that the 2-hour runtime feels slightly brisker than it otherwise might.

6/10

Americans can buy it here.

Sci-Fi September: Total Recall (2012)

A lot of people love Total Recall, the 1990 movie directed by Paul Verhoeven that provided Arnold Schwarzenegger with another hit at the box office. I am one of those people. Which makes me one of the many people who groaned when they heard news of a remake. To be directed by Len Wiseman. Now, I actually quite like Wiseman's work. He makes glossy entertainment, and I think now that people have seen the godawful A Good Day To Die Hard we can all agree that the fourth movie doesn't actually seem THAT bad. Okay, I might still be on my own there, but the point I am making is that I was willing to give this one a go.

Colin Farrell stars as Douglas Quaid, a factory worker who starts to have strange dreams involving fighting, escape attempts, and a beautiful woman (Jessica Biel). He doesn't seem satisfied with his life, which is a bit strange considering that he's married to Kate bloody Beckinsale. It must be to do with the fact that he lives in The Colony, while all of the better opportunities go to the people from the United Federation of Britain. These are the only two living spaces left on Earth, after a period of chemical warfare, and The Colony is packed with citizens viewed as the lower/working class. Quaid decides to visit Rekall, a company that can insert memories into your brain, and opts for a memory that will give him an exciting adventure as a secret agent. Unfortunately, things don't go according to plan. It turns out that Quaid may already have some false memories creating a conflict within him.

Total Recall starts off quite well. The world displayed onscreen is nicely realised and textured, Farrell, Beckinsale and Biel are all good enough for their main roles, and there are fleeting glimpses of some great actors who you just know will appear later on in the film (Bryan Cranston, and Bill Nighy). The action is solid, there's an interesting layer to the movie that focuses on class and societal manipulation, and I started to consider that this was starting to prove itself as a decent remake. A retread of material - both movies are based on "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" by Philip K. Dick - that was able to offer up more than just a reprise of what we already enjoyed years ago.

But then it starts to lose steam. Not a major problem, at first, but after the first hour has gone by and the movie settles into a dull cycle of action-chase-paranoia-repeat then it becomes tiresome. In fact, by the time both Nighy and Cranston eventually appear it's too late. Neither man gets to make a decent impression because viewers are too busy concentrating on trying to stay awake. This kind of material shouldn't be so unexciting.

A lot of people had a hand in the writing of the movie, with Kurt Wimmer and Mark Bomback credited as the main writers, but that's not reflected in the final product. The exposition is fine, and needs to be with such ideas about identity and paranoia, but everything else is found lacking, from the lines uttered in the thick of any action to the ineffective characterisations. This is a film populated by decent actors as opposed to any good characters.

Wiseman does his usual solid job in the director's chair, revelling in the effects and showing off when he gets the chance. There's a one-shot fight sequence that manages to impress, although it doesn't make up for the lack of energy elsewhere. If only he could have maintained the quality of that first 40 minutes, this could have been a very pleasant surprise. Alas, it wasn't to be.

Beckinsale steals the show, her husband (Wiseman) knows how to utilise her well in movies, and the movie moves up a notch whenever she's onscreen. Farrell is solid in his role, putting himself across as a capable everyman with an undercurrent of Jason Bourne. Jessica Biel is, unfortunately, the worst person in the movie. It's not her fault, and I love seeing Biel in anything, but her character is horribly underdeveloped and neglected. It's almost as if she was added as an afterthought. She may be a worthy companion during the fights, but any other interactions she has with Farrell could be consigned to the rubbish bin with very little impact on the movie. Bokeem Woodbine does alright with his small role, John Cho sports a fun, blonde hairdo, and I've already mentioned the main problems for Nighy and Cranston, although the former also struggles with an American accent.

There are worse movies you could pick when you fancy a bit of sci-fi action. There are also many better ones, including the original film that this is based on.

4/10

http://www.amazon.com/Total-Recall-Blu-ray-Colin-Farrell/dp/B0092QITO2/ref=sr_1_3?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1409479079&sr=1-3&keywords=total+recall