Mubi Monday: The Mastermind (2025)

There are many things to enjoy in the filmography of writer-director Kelly Reichardt. She has been delivering movies for some time now that seem to find a unique perspective of a variety of different genre staples. The Mastermind is her own particular take on the heist movie (although you could argue that First Cow could also be considered in the same vein). I was eager to see this, especially when hearing some praise for it and knowing that currently hot property Josh O’Connor was in the lead role.

O’Connor plays James Blaine Mooney, a man who figures out that a local art gallery should be quite easy to rob. He cannot do it alone though, and needs to borrow some money from his mother (Hope Davis) as he tries to get the right people in place for the job. As many will already know from other heist movies, however, committing the theft is often the easiest part. Things get trickier when trying to ensure that you stay free and unobserved while trying to offload the loot.

A deliberately loose and jazzy film, in stark contrast to the many heist films that focus on precision and constant forward momentum, The Mastermind may appeal to those who settle into the vibe of it, but it ultimately proved disappointing for me. Reichardt wants to build a little bit of tension, but also wants to show how pointless the whole thing is the grad scheme of things, especially as the 1970 time setting allows for her to show many people busy protesting the ongoing Vietnam War. Inspired by some classic films and a real art robbery that took place in the early 1970s, Reichardt delivers a film that is inarguably in line with the rest of her body of work. It just doesn't really work as well as other times she has given her own interpretation of traditional genre fare.

O'Connor is very good in the lead role, although I think he's being inevitably carried along by the heat and energy of the spotlight on him right now. He's definitely an interesting and captivating lead though, and his delicate and precise mannerisms help to make the film more interesting than it otherwise might have been. Both Sterling Thompson and Jasper Thompson are a delight as his young sons, and I'd nominate them as real standouts ahead of almost anyone else in the cast. Alana Haim continues her film acting career here, playing Mooney's wife, despite having yet to prove herself the best choice for any of the roles that she's had thus far, and Bill Camp and Hope Davis excel in the few scenes they have, portraying the mother and father of our main character. Eli Gelb, Cole Doman, and Javion Allen are hired to help commit the crime, although none of them really make any strong impression, and John Magaro and Gaby Hoffmann are friends who may be necessary accomplices/allies after the heist.

I cannot fault the technical side of things here. Reichardt has a fantastic eye. The score by Rob Mazurek is also wonderful, perfectly in line with the bobbing and weaving nature of the narrative. I seem to be in the minority with my lack of love for this. I liked elements of it, but never felt immersed enough in the world to care about where things would go after the enjoyable opening scenes. Mooney is either too naive or too stupid as a criminal "mastermind" (and I understand the title and tag being an ironic one), but the film gives us too many real consequences for others caught up in his orbit to make it easy or satisfying to laugh at his constant lack of preparation or criminal savvy. 

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

Den Of Thieves (2018)

If you're going to emulate a modern crime thriller then Heat is one of the best that you could aim for, and that's exactly what Den Of Thieves does. The opening crime is a barrage of high-powered gunfire, and then things settle down a bit as we watch a number of professionals try to do what they're best at doing.

Pablo Schreiber plays Ray Merrimen, a professional robber about to lead a team on the biggest score of their lives. It's an audacious job, and he'll be helped by the likes of Enson Levoux (50 Cent) and Donnie Wilson (O'Shea Jackson Jr.). Donnie is the wheelman, but he's also the weak spot, having had his collar felt by 'Big Nick' O'Brien (Gerard Butler). First being shown at a crime scene where he takes a doughnut from a blood-spattered box, Nick is the kind of cop who will let his life fall apart around him while he focuses on getting his man. Ray Merrimen is determined not to go back to prison though, but he starts to feed Nick information about their upcoming score. Is he that confident, or is it all a bluff?

Written and directed by Christian Gudegast, making his debut in the big chair, Den Of Thieves often feels like a film that shouldn't work. And yet it does. The main character is quite ridiculous, as is the game being played between him and the villains, there are a number of implausibilities that build up as everything plays out in the third act, the 140-minute runtime is too long, and there should be some more familiar faces sprinkled throughout the substantial amount of supporting cast members. The main players seem to be relishing their roles though, and that goes a hell of a long way to helping make this worth your time.

Butler is a lot of fun, playing someone who is only one or two steps away from an irredeemable Bad Lieutenant (although, crucially, he always seems to be attempting to do his job properly, albeit in unorthodox ways), and he's the main draw here, but Schreiber is very watchable and intense, Jackson Jr. continues to build a good selection of acting performances, and Curtis Jackson (AKA 50 Cent) proves himself able to work well alongside the leads. Evan Jones, Brian Van Holt, Mo McRae, Dawn Olivieri, and Cooper Andrews are also worth mentioning.

Created by Gudegast and Paul T. Scheuring with no attempt to be coy about their main influences, this feels somehow both like a standard action thriller and something quite a bit more bonkers than that. There's a vein of sly humour running throughout many of the scenes, and the very end is enjoyably amusing for how much it seems to directly lift from another classic '90s movie (which I won't mention here, that would spoil the impact). I'm not sure I would choose to rewatch this, but I am sure that I had a pretty good time while it was on. And, as much as I love McAvoy in the role, it kind of makes me wish that Butler had been given the lead role in Filth, because some of the same rules apply to his character here that apply to that reprobate. Oh yes, the same rules apply.

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, 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: Emilia Pérez (2024)

I assure you that I had this scheduled for a viewing for some time before it came away as the big winner at the 2025 Golden Globes ceremony. Emilia Pérez ended up on my radar when it started to garner praise in the second half of last year, but I wasn't sure when I would get a chance to finally see it. That chance came around when it dropped on Netflix, but I ended up waiting a while as other feature films from 2024 continued to vie for my attention.

This is the story of the titular Emilia Pérez (Karla Sofía Gascón), who starts the movie as a cartel kingpin known as Manitas. Manitas wants to disappear, wants a whole new life, and wants their family to be safe. They enlist the help of a lawyer named Rita (Zoe Saldaña), and everything soon falls into place. Years pass, and Rita ends up working for her former employer once more, this time ensuring that her wife (Jessi, played by Selene Gomez) and children move in with her, offering the explanation that Emilia is a caring cousin of the apparently-dead Manitas. Emilia also looks to use her ill-gotten money to start helping those who have had their lives destroyed by crime and cartels, but things grow more complicated as she watches Jessi start moving on with her own life in a way that could lead to the family moving away.

There are a number of different elements here that are worthy of consideration. First of all, writer-director Jacques Audiard (although there are a number of other names involved here throughout the writing process) is someone who hasn't really made a bad movie yet, from the seven or eight that I have seen by now. Secondly, this is a musical. Third, and arguably the most important, is . . . well, I think I should use a whole new paragraph to discuss that.

As women try to make progress in Hollywood, and as other people start to push for representation in films and on TV, there's a reasonable argument made about leaving room for them to make mistakes. Equality will only be real when all film-makers have the same time and space as white male film-makers, who all tend to get another chance after delivering something that either under-performs or outright stinks. I would say that this also applies to the LGBTQ+ community, in general, and, to get to my point as it relates to this film, the portrayal of transgender characters. I wasn't really sure if Emilia Pérez really was about a trans woman, or whether it was about a criminal going to extreme lengths to move on from an old life. Both of those things could be true, or neither. Either way, Emilia Pérez isn't actually, from my own limited perspective, a film featuring a transgender lead character that stays focused on the transgender experience. It's actually very familiar territory, but that territory looks different with this main character at the heart of it. I would also say that it's not really that great a film, but I hope that it becomes one of many such films that keep pushing for equality and representation of those who would have previously not been so celebrated for their involvement, on either side of the camera, with these kinds of stories.

I cannot fault the cast, and particular praise should go to both Gascón and Saldaña. The former does a great job of showing how her new life provides a real mix of regret and relief, the latter goes through a very similarly turbulent journey for very different reasons. Gomez is also very good, but fares better when her character isn't as central to things as she becomes in the third act. Adriana Paz is the last person I have to mention, making a strong impression with her few scenes, showing a brilliant mix of vulnerability and self-protection that Emilia admires, and is moved by, and there's also a role for Édgar Ramírez that doesn't really let him do much.

The pacing works quite well for the 132-minute runtime, and the performances ensure that every scene has something compelling in it, but the songs never feel strong enough, moments of real creativity and visual flair are few and far between, and anyone who has seen more than a handful of films will know where things are going by the time we get to the halfway point (if not before).

Maybe that's why Emilia Pérez is worth celebrating though. Maybe it's a film with a transgender character at the heart of it that is happy to not be any kind of super-sharp and super-smart modern classic. Maybe it's progress to have a film like this that is just okay. Or maybe I'll need to revisit it one day, and perhaps see something more worthwhile in it.

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

Mubi Monday: Brother (2000)

Another Japanese gangster directed by, written by, and starring Takeshi Kitano, Brother is a decent little character study that soars when the focus stays on the two leads at the heart of it, but stumbles when it has to work through the criminal acts and violence affecting their lives.

Kitano plays Yamamoto, a Japanese gangster who escapes to Los Angeles after his boss is killed. He has some connections there, mainly Kato (Susumu Terajima), who accompanied him on his journey from Japan, and his half-brother, Ken (played by Claude Maki). Putting a new "clan" together, largely made up of friends of Ken, Yamamoto eventually proves himself to be a strong and ruthless leader, able to deal easily with most enemies trying to stop him from growing his territory and influence. He also becomes firm friends with Denny (Omar Epps), despite the fact that their first meeting didn't go well. Unfortunately, anyone looking to profit from crime in America eventually comes up against one of the biggest gangs of them all - the Mafia.

Although Kitano is a consistently interesting and enjoyable film-maker, and I wouldn't dismiss Brother as a bad film, this seems much weaker when compared to his directorial efforts before and after. The third act, in particular, feels similar to other, better, features helmed by Kitano, despite the culture clash element putting a slightly different spin on things.

There are some nice individual moments throughout, and some sharp dialogue here and there, but nothing feels fully-formed when it comes to the central narrative strand showing the growth of the gang and the effectiveness of their tactics. The editing doesn't help, nor does the strange tone, often juxtaposing threats and murder with a flippancy or humour that lessens the impact of those acts.

For all his faults in the big chair, Kitano does better in front of the camera. He's as watchable and wonderfully laconic as he has been in many other roles, and any scene involving him and Epps together proves to be a highlight, with his co-star proving to be a perfect counter-balance, and a small window through which to glimpse what could be another road through life. The supporting cast also do well, but they essentially feel like they're surplus to requirements whenever Kitano and Epps deliver the best moments.

Whatever Kitano does is worth your time, but some of his work is more worthy of your time than others. I would still recommend this to people, especially fans of either star. It's just not one I think will be remembered a few weeks down the line. And I certainly wouldn't be rushing to revisit it.

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

Prime Time: City Of Industry (1997)

Writer Ken Solarz has seen a movie or two. It’s easy to remember this when he keeps throwing so much onscreen that should be familiar to even the most casual viewer of crime movies. City Of Industry is chock full of dialogue and situations that have been in hundreds of other movies, and it doesn’t manage to put a fresh spin on anything being regurgitated throughout the 97-minute runtime.

A group of guys do a robbery, one big score that could set them up for a good life ahead (of course), but things soon go wrong when someone gets greedy, leading to a betrayed individual plotting some bloody revenge.

Director John Irvin mistakenly puts his faith in others here. He has a great cast to work with, but very few of them are able to improve the material. In fact, one or two (mainly Stephen Dorff and Harvey Keitel) seem to lean into the idea that the characters were written in a way all too similar to some of their previous work.

Aside from Dorff and Keitel, although they aren’t awful (they just seem stuck in a certain lane that the script puts them in), the cast also includes Timothy Hutton, Wade Dominguez, Michael Jai White, Lucy Liu, Dana Barron, and Famke Janssen. It’s the women who do much better, maybe because they have to work harder in roles that would be completely forgettable with less capable performers.

Derivative and uninspired, this feels like exactly what it is - a 1997 crime thriller that wants to be Tarantino-esque without having any actual Tarantino talent attached. So we’re left with thin characters, laughably tired dialogue, and a plot that tries to twist and turn slightly while heading towards a very predictable third act. Not recommended, especially when I can point you towards at least a dozen other “Tarantino-lite” crime thrillers that work better than this.

3/10

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

Mubi Monday: Face (1997)

Another one of those films that I watched, enjoyed, and then almost immediately forgot about for well over two decades, Face is a British crime thriller that feels enjoyably removed from so many other British crime thrillers from this period. It helps that it appeared the year before Lock, Stock, And Two Smoking Barrels (a film that, for better or worse, would lead to many trying to replicate it), and the main cast are also a large part of the appeal.

The plot is simple enough. A group of career criminals work together for what should be a big payday. Unfortunately, the cash grabbed isn't as much as they had hoped it would be. That isn't the main problem though. The main problem is someone wanting to keep all of the cash, instead of sharing, which leads to theft, division in the group, and death.

Written by Ronan Bennett, this is a fairly straightforward film that feels like much more than that thanks to the writing of the characters and the central group dynamic. The people here all know what they're getting into, and all of them push back against the idea of being seen as any kind of enviable rebel, but they also continue to slightly delude themselves that they can enjoy the mythical notion of the "one big score".

Director Antonia Bird only helmed about ten features during her career, and most of those were TV movies, but everything she did was worth checking out (especially the film she would deliver immediately after this one, Ravenous). She does an excellent job here of turning a gritty Brit-flick into something interesting, and even occasionally surprising (especially during a face-off with the police that feels like a low-budget and small-scale homage to the brilliant shoot-out in Heat).

The cast certainly don't hurt either, with Robert Carlyle adopting an English accent and taking on the nominal lead role, heading up a crew made up of Ray Winstone, Steven Waddington, Phil Davis, and Damon Albarn. Yes, Damon "Blur/Gorillaz" Albarn, who I forgot was in this, but who also does a better job than many other singers who have tried their hands at acting. There's also a welcome supporting role for Lena Headey, who I will keep emphasising should have had many more rewarding film roles throughout her career, and small moments for Andrew Tiernan, as well as potential national treasures Sue Johnston, and Peter Vaughan.

Far from perfect, especially when there's a feeling that Bird is trying to force some ill-fitting style over the perfectly fine substance, Face is also pleasingly deceptive in the way that it moves from being fairly mild to a tiger with a burning tail for the third act. While I wouldn't make a case for it being a forgotten classic, it certainly deserves a bit more attention and appreciation than it has received over the past quarter of a century.

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

Netflix And Chill: Lift (2024)

I don't dismiss every movie that debuts on a major streaming service. I believe, at least most of the time, that people keep trying to do their best to make a proper movie, and if their budget for it comes from a major streaming service then so be it. But there are some times when the films feel much more like "content" than actual movies. Lift is content, and it feels as if it has been worked on to cover every possible main demographic quadrant that Netflix wants to lure in.

Kevin Hart stars as Cyrus, a master thief leading a team of talented, but good-hearted (of course), criminals. Cyrus is so good that he is always three steps ahead of everyone, never getting caught with his fingers in the cookie jar, until he's caught with his fingers in the cookie jar. And he's caught just in time to be forced to conduct a major robbery on behalf of a government agency looking to screw up a deal being brokered by a dangerous criminal named Jorgensen (Jean Reno). Looking to get some extra insurance for his team, Cyrus agrees to take on the job as long as they are also joined by Abby (Gugu Mbatha-Raw), an Interpol agent he has some history with. And blah de blah de blah blah blahhhh.

The second film written by Daniel Kunka, who started his film career with the screenplay for the mediocre 12 Rounds (although maybe I will be more favourable to that film if I revisit it one day when in a better mood), this is flat and predictable throughout. Every time some obstacle cropped up to throw off the plan, I was able to figure out how it had already been considered, and incorporated, by our lead, because this is the kind of film in which the main character is always the smartest person in the room and the best person to be beside when the journey gets turbulent AKA the kind of role that Vin Diesel loves to play.

Although slightly better than the awful Heart Of Stone, the fact that F. Gary Gray is the director means that I should warn people that this is even worse than The Italian Job remake from 2023 (a film I know many people actively dislike, although I don't mind it). The action isn't staged well, the massive implausibility of each main sequence is glossed over with the standard editing techniques you'd expect and moments of the characters being cool, and a lot of the comedy falls flat.

Hart can be a lot of fun in movies, but it all depends on who he spends most of his screentime with. Put him alongside Dwayne Johnson and you get some great blockbuster entertainment. Put him in the midst of this motley crew and . . . not so much. Mbatha-Raw is a welcome presence, but saddled with the thankless role of being the authority figure who has a love/hate relationship with our lead. The other women (Úrsula Corberó and Yunjee Kim) are also slightly underused, with better moments written for the likes of Vincent D'Onofrio, Billy Magnussen, and David Proud. Jacob Batalon also does well, thanks more to his sheer force of personality than anything in the screenplay, but Sam Worthington, Jean Reno, Burn Gorman, and Paul Anderson all seem to be present to do nothing more than mess up the robbery in ways that Hart's character has already accounted for.

I'm sure that this will be an easy viewing choice for people who are browsing their many options and looking for something simple, fairly inoffensive, and entertaining. It's certainly simple, but I would argue that it's offensive in how it treats the viewer, and it's sadly not that entertaining. But I'll be generous with my rating, taking into consideration how much I enjoyed some of the smaller moments for the supporting cast members.

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

Mubi Monday: The Golden Glove (2019)

Look, I wanted to keep the Christmas train rolling. I am sure many others wanted me to keep the Christmas train rolling. But Mubi options can be slim sometimes, especially when you're trying to keep things within a certain theme. So here we are. From Christmas cheer and loads of fake snow to a grimy serial killer movie that will make you want to bathe in bleach once you've watched it.

Hamburg in the 1970s doesn't seem like a nice place to be, not if you're going by the squalor and misery depicted in The Golden Glove, a cinematic look at the opportunism and madness of serial killer Fritz Honka (Jonas Dassler). The film is named after the drinking establishment that Honka would frequent, spending time with others looking to drown their sorrows and maybe give one another companionship, and it's where he picked up a number of his victims. Uncomfortable and grimy throughout, this is the kind of film that I would class as both an essential watch, for those who can handle the subject matter, and something that you will never want to revisit, despite the strength of the main performances.

Based on the book by Heinz Strunk, detailing the crimes of Honka, writer-director Fatih Akin (known to me already for the excellent In The Fade) doesn’t waste any time in dragging viewers by the scruff of the neck into an extremely unpleasant and dangerous environment, showing the first fatal assault within the very first scenes of the film. Everyone knows who the dangerous predator is from the beginning, which allows us to feel sympathy for those around him who are oblivious to the awful truth.

With prosthetics used to disfigure his face, Dassler gives a perfect performance in the lead role, showing someone who is both pathetic and full of rage at all times, only able to feel powerful and focused when dealing with someone even more pathetic than himself. There are a number of victims shown, one or two lucky enough to escape, but the most memorable is Gerda, played by Margaret Tiesel. Tiesel is almost as good as Dassler, and her character is so sad and lonely that her potential fate feels all the more upsetting. We see her being used, manipulated, and simply kept around until Honka decides that she can’t do any more for him, but her passive nature and desperate attempt to avoid loneliness stops her from realising how dangerous the situation is.

It’s hard to write more about The Golden Glove without feeling as if you’re going to infect everyone else with the unclean and abrasive nature of the material, but that’s testament to how Akin has presented everything. Almost every interaction between characters is uncomfortable, whether it is Honka after his next victim or younger people who end up drinking in a place they would be best avoiding, and viewers get to watch events unfold in a way that, as is so often the case with the benefit of hindsight, makes it strange to consider how it took so long to catch the killer.

Compelling, disturbing, and brilliant, this is a film I highly recommend to those with the stomach for it. It doesn’t sensationalize things, it doesn’t go too far in how it makes Honka a fully fleshed-out character, and it serves as a reminder of how the more vulnerable and dismissed members of our society so often fall into the hands of exploitative and deadly men.

9/10

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

Drive A Crooked Road (1954)

Although a fairly lightweight film noir (which viewers may already suspect is the case when they see Mickey Rooney in a lead role), Drive A Crooked Road is an enjoyable, if predictable, bit of entertainment that benefits from a couple of the main performances being much better than I expected.

Rooney plays Eddie Shannon, a car mechanic/occasional racer who spends a lot of his workday being ribbed by his workmates about his lack of experience with women. That looks set to change when he meets Barbara (Dianne Foster), who seems to take a real liking to him. Barbara then introduces Eddie to one or two others (including Steve, played by Kevin McCarthy) and it isn’t long until Eddie is being invited to assist with a criminal plan that will rely on his outstanding driving skills. 

While it isn’t a big surprise to see that this was directed by Richard Quine (a dependable helmer with a few gems in his filmography), it is slightly more unexpected to see that Quine worked on the screenplay with Blake Edwards, adapting a story by James Benson Nablo. It is also unexpected to realise that the screenplay isn’t very good. This is a film that works because of the main characters, not because of any great plotting or snappy dialogue. I enjoyed it, but it isn’t a classic noir I would rush to recommend to others.

Rooney is fun in his role, a sweet sap you just know is going to be manipulated by those around him. He still feels more like Rooney than a fully-developed character though (a style that suited him well throughout most of his career). Foster does well in the lone central female role, believable as a potential femme fatale or as someone just as manipulated as Eddie, depending on how you view the journey of her character. But it’s McCarthy who lifts the movie, entering the action like a breath of fresh air, believably persuasive and charming before showing himself as equally believable when threatening or mistreating those who try to go against him.

While the runtime is a shade over 80 minutes, I expected this to be even shorter. It’s barely a film, often feeling more like a 4-page comic book storyline, but there’s enough to enjoy for those who aren’t looking for any kind of gold-plated classic. I had fun with it, largely due to the performance of McCarthy, and I suspect other film fans will get some enjoyment from it, even if it’s more disposable and forgettable than many other crime films from the period.

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

Mubi Monday: The History Of The Pink Trunk (2005)

Although there’s a mystery at the heart of this, and it isn’t just the mystery of how it actually got made, The History Of The Pink Trunk ends up not being about that central mystery. Not really. I mean . . . it IS, but it equally isn’t. I don’t want to namecheck anyone that would lead to unfair comparisons, but this will start to feel familiar to those who have enjoyed other murder mysteries in which the focus has often wandered to peripheral characters and their developing relationships while caught in the spiderweb of mystery.

Edgardo Román plays Detective Corzo, a man tasked with figuring out what happened when the body of a young girl is found in a pink trunk. He finds his work hampered by a busy journalist, Hipólita Mosquera (Diego Vélez), but also starts to enjoy the company of the lovely Martina (Dolores Heredia).

I am not familiar with the filmography of director Libia Stella Gómez, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Federico Durán, and I am not entirely sure if I want to see more from them after checking this out. Hampered by a low budget and an inconsistent cast, Gómez still tries hard to fill the movie with neo-noir style and tropes, playing around with the latter on the way to the final scenes, but cannot quite deliver what the material really needs.

Román is okay in his role, but he is the least interesting of the central trio. While Vélez plays someone a lot less likeable, he is eminently watchable, cocky and brazen enough to assume he can write articles that will at least keep the police on their toes. Heredia is the highlight though, a female character who does what she can to keep those around her thinking of their responsibility and the power afforded to them. Heredia gets to be sweet and strong, and the film works best when you get to see her character have a positive effect on the men in her orbit.

I struggled to get into this, with the first third of the movie feeling like a real chore, but then I started to settle into it. I started to realise how the main characters were being positioned and where more friction was starting to develop, and I stopped being so bothered about whether or not the central mystery would be solved. I don’t think I will ever revisit it, and I wouldn’t rush to recommend it to others, but I did enjoy the second half a lot more than the opening. 

World cinema fans will appreciate this more than most, but it’s not a film that should ever be prioritised against the many others that are probably always jostling around the top half of any “to watch” list.

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

The Asphalt Jungle (1950)

Although it can be daunting to have an ever-growing “to watch” list, with every main movie title reminding me of at least three or four other movies I have still to get around to, I love any time when the film conversation flows around certain genres or topics in a way that leads to me being encouraged to check out something considered a classic by many. And that is how I came to belatedly watching The Asphalt Jungle recently.

It’s a simple tale. A group of people are put together to commit a robbery, but the job is endangered by the potential for misfortune and treachery. People start to suffer, but the moral core of the film means that viewers will be expecting a downbeat finale from the very opening scenes.

Based on a novel by W. R. Burnett, this is a screenplay co-written by Ben Maddow and director John Huston that nicely blends the prep and execution of the crime with moments showing us some more background of some of the key players. Huston keeps things paced perfectly, and benefits from an excellent cast.

Sterling Hayden is the nominal lead, Dix Handley, and he tries hard to keep a cool head, even as others start to panic. Sam Jaffe is the man with the expertise required to pull off the robbery, allowing himself to trust in the men who make up the brawn surrounding his brain. James Whitmore and Anthony Caruso play Gus and Ciavelli, respectively, the other two men making up the core team. Everyone does good work, but Hayden and Jaffe stand out, helped by the fact that we get to spend a bit more time with their characters. There’s also a great selection of supporting players, allowing us to enjoy great performances from Louis Calhern and Jean Hagen, the former as slippery and untrustworthy as the latter is sweet and dependable. I could reel off many other names, each deserving a mention for their part in making this a consistently gripping tale, but you should just see them all for yourself. Oh, and Marilyn Monroe shines in one main scene (the merest hint of what was to come with her star ascending).

It goes without saying that Huston is a great director for this material, and those familiar with any of his films will know what to expect here. The Asphalt Jungle shows a number of people who end up stuck between a rock and a hard place, some holding on to their own moral code while others are willing to make bigger sacrifices if it gets them an escape route, and it may well have you rooting for one or two people that you wouldn’t normally root for. 

A classic, but most people know that already.

9/10

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

Netflix And Chill: Bull (2021)

I doubt he remembers it, but I had a lovely meeting once with writer-director Paul Andrew Williams that I believe has helped inform my approach to reviewing over the past decade. It was a timely reminder that, whatever you think of a movie, people are often working together with the best of intentions to put something onscreen that they believe in, something that they hope will connect with others. The fact that he granted me an interview before I even had a smartphone is also as sweet as it is embarrassing (I can still remember frantically scribbling down notes on a jotter that encapsulated the gist of our all-too-brief conversation).

Anyway, this is all preamble, and it doesn't explain why I took so long to get around to watching Bull. Perhaps it does though. And perhaps it also explains why I have yet to watch his 2012 movie, Song For Marion. I wanted to maintain an opinion of his filmography that remained weighted towards the positive (having enjoyed both London To Brighton and The Cottage) and Williams certainly isn't someone afraid of making bold choices in his film-making.

Bull stars the excellent Neil Maskell in the main role, a man who is apparently "back from the dead" to get revenge on those who wronged him. He wants to know where his ex-partner, Gemma (Lois Brabin-Platt) and son are currently living, and he'll destroy anyone who gets in his way. Numerous flashbacks show us what happened before everything went to pot for Bull. There are some happy times, but it's soon a slow slide towards misery as Gemma starts having an affair behind his back, using heroin, and then wanting to take their son away from Bull. He doesn't want this to happen, of course, but Gemma is the daughter of local crime lord, Norm (David Hayman). Norm is also Bull's boss, basically, and that makes things very difficult when Bull starts to fight for the right to keep custody of his son.

Not for the queasy, Bull is a film that shows terrible, and realistic, violence from the very first moments. And it only gets worse from there. The central character, played with impressive focus and barely-contained rage by Maskell, doesn't care about those he kills. If they're in his way then they have to be removed, and if their death can also be turned into a message then all the better. Williams threads together plenty of impressive moments, helped by a cast who all feel very believable in their roles, and there's also a brooding score by Benjamin Stefanski AKA Raffertie, as well as impressive cinematography from Ben Chads and Vanessa Whyte.

With the main premise being a feared figure coming back into their home town to cut a swathe through the local criminal gang as he gets bloody vengeance that starts to seem more and more unavoidable, it's natural to compare this to the masterful Dead Man's Shoes. It's also a bit unfair though. Few films are as good as Dead Man's Shoes, in my opinion, but Bull actually comes damn close. Although many will disagree, I started to appreciate it even more as it turned into something a bit stranger and less predictable in the third act, heading towards an audacious and brilliant ending that I know some people absolutely loathed. As I said just above, Williams certainly isn't someone afraid of making bold choices in his film-making.

Maskell is as great as ever here, and it's always great to see him get a rare lead role (he should get a lot more of them), and Hayman is equal to him, albeit portraying someone apparently just as dangerous in a quieter and more dishonest way. Brabin-Platt is good, even if her character is turned into someone you can boo and hiss at by the midway point, and I was pleased to see both Tamzin Outhwaite and Kellie Shirley in minor roles, although both are sorely underused. Kevin Harvey, Jason Milligan, Yassine Mkhichen, David Nellist, Jake Davies, and Jay Simpson make up the rest of the main players, and all do well at being suitably unnerved, and/or prepared to be violently murdered, by our lead.

I can't find much to fault in this. I thought it was a great story, told with the help of a great cast, and the ending felt as if it somehow made complete sense, and somehow fit perfectly in line with all that had already happened. I realise others feel different about it, but I would certainly encourage everyone to watch it at least once. Now, excuse me, I'm off to buy the limited edtion blu-ray from Second Sight.

9/10

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

Mubi Monday: The Limey (1999)

A very familiar tale of a tough crook visiting somewhere to avenge the death of a young loved one (it's impossible to watch The Limey without feeling that it's under the large shadow cast by Get Carter for most of the runtime), this stands out from many other modern gangster movies for three main reasons. There's the script by Lem Dobbs, the direction by Steven Soderbergh, and, arguably the most important component, a central role for Terence Stamp that allows the film-makers to reference his past via a few well-chosen film clips from the earlier years of his filmography.

Stamp plays Wilson, an Englishman who turns up in L.A. to find the man he figures is responsible for the death of his daughter (Melissa George, shown in flashback, in a non-speaking role). He befriends Ed (Luis Guzmán) and Elaine (Lesley Ann Warren), two people who knew his daughter while she was living in that area, and starts to doggedly pursue a man named Valentine (Peter Fonda). It's pretty clear to him that Valentine caused the death of his daughter, but Valentine is always being protected, by a number of armed goons, as well as his right hand man/head of security (Avery, played by Barry Newman). It soon becomes clear that there may not be enough protection available to him though, Wilson is moving ever closer to him like an unstoppable force.

Although I used to own this movie a few years ago, I never got myself in the mood to sit down and watch the thing. As controversial a statement as it may be, I have never been the biggest fan of Stamp (his wonderfully menacing, and yet also slightly camp, turn as General Zod aside). I haven't actually seen many of his films though, including Poor Cow (which is the film used here to show Stamp in his youth). I should probably make time for Billy Budd,  The Collector, and something like The Mind Of Mr. Soames (especially after enjoying his mesmerising turn in Theorem, which I coincidentally caught on the same day I watched this). Anyway, as everyone else already knows, Stamp certainly has something that makes him very watchable onscreen, and he's a superb choice for the lead role here, even if his performance seems to border on the parody at times, in terms of his full-on cockney speaking style that some other characters struggle to decipher.

As well as Stamp, you get superb supporting turns from Guzmán, Warren, and Newman, as well as one superb scene for the brilliant Bill Duke. George is shown in dreamy visions, and I always like to see her onscreen (although it would have been nice to have more of her, despite her probably being saved from trying to attempt a cockney accent). Amelia Heinle is also a welcome presence, playing Adhara (a new female companion spending time with Valentine). The weak link is Fonda, who is arguably often picked for film roles based on his name and legacy ahead of his actual acting talent. He's just not very good, and that's all the more obvious when he's in conversation with the excellent Newman, who is the first one to realise how dangerous Stamp's character is.

The script by Lem Dobbs is quite relaxed and free-flowing, complemented by Soderbergh's usual low-key approach to the material. Cross-cutting, fantasy sequences, and jittery chronology abound, and there's plenty of sequences that have characters speaking over imagery that either adds some emotional resonance to what is being said or delivers some extra information, either about the history of the characters or the planned revenge. And I don't think I need to mention how good the Cliff Martinez score is.

The Limey lacks something though. Or, I should say, that I thought The Limey lacked something. Until the very last scenes. And that's when it all clicked into place. This isn't just a blend of cinema style and grim nihilism, and it's not just a slice of cool for an elderly Stamp to show how easily he can still strut his stuff. It's actually a look at what can happen when an ever-moving individual full of a drive for revenge realises that the target he is pursuing may show him a refracted reflection of his own past. That's when I was completely won over by it. Having fairly enjoyed most of the journey, the final destination was the undoubted highlight.

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

Prime Time: The Misfits (2021)

The continuing disappointment of mediocrity from director Renny Harlin continues with this film, a comedy crime caper that takes a pretty good cast and spends too much time not making the most of their talents. Some people can overcome the flimsy script, Pierce Brosnan having the lead role is a big plus, but it’s a shame that the overriding feeling once the end credits roll is that you’ve just watched something quite lazy and carelessly thrown together.

The title almost tells you everything you need to know. A group of criminals are put together for a big job. They have various skills, and they are happy to be called The Misfits. The target is a man named Schultz (Tim Roth), someone who has made his fortune by building prisons, but has used one such building to house a secret stash of gold. How? Why? Those questions don’t matter. You just need to know that this heist somehow seems overly complicated and ridiculously simple at the same time.

Harlin directs competently enough, this is a light-hearted caper that he can just have some fun with, ensuring that his cast always looks good and there are shots of expensive lifestyle accessories showing the rich pickings around our “heroes”, from lovely watches to lovely supercars. It’s the script that provides all the problems, too preoccupied with banter and wit to actually remember that there should be at least a small bit of tension here and there. It’s no surprise to find that the script was co-written by someone who has previously delivered mainly comedic fare - Robert Henny - and someone who can do enjoyably stupid or just stupid stupid - Kurt Wimmer.

Brosnan seems to be having a ball in his role though, and that enthusiasm is infectious enough to help make the film a lot more tolerable. As for the others in the team, they’re all likeable enough. There’s Nick Cannon, Jamie Chung, Mike Angelo, and Hermione Corfield (playing the daughter of Brosnan’s character), each playing someone bringing their own particular skillset to the group, and you also get fun supporting turns from Rami Jaber, Qais Qandil, and one or two others who are proving to be a help or hindrance to the main plan. Roth is a standard mark - two steps behind, and with plenty of reasons to make his loss justified and more satisfying - and he does what is asked of him, but sadly never feels as dangerous as he should.

It’s slick and bathed in sunshine, but The Misfits is also absolutely disposable. Which isn’t a crime, it just makes it a film that you should never prioritise ahead of many better viewing options you might have. But for something to watch when you don’t want anything overlong (this clocks in at just over 90 minutes), overly complicated, or overly emotional, this absolutely fits the bill. It’s a simple slice of entertainment, benefiting hugely from the star power of Brosnan.

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

Netflix And Chill: Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery (2022)

When Rian Johnson gave us Knives Out a few years ago, he served up a delightful murder mystery that made great use of some excellent plotting, provided numerous laughs, and allowed for everyone in the ensemble cast to have at least one or two moments to shine. I loved it, and I was far from alone in loving it. I'd say that a lot of people were looking forward to this follow-up, another case for the talented detective Benoit Blanc (Craig David) to crack.

Edward Norton plays Miles Bron, a super-rich tech "genius" who is gathering a number of people together on his island to take part in a murder mystery weekend. Most of the guests are his friends, but most of them also have a reason to relish his potential demise. They include Birdie Jay (Kate Hudson), a fashionista and social media personality, Duke Cody (Dave Bautista), a famous idiot who has found an audience for his idiotic agitation, Lionel Toussaint (Leslie Odom Jr.), a tech guy who actually ends up doing the work that Bron can then take credit for, and Claire Debella (Kathryn Hahn), a woman making moves in the world of politics. Janelle Monáe also turns up, not necessarily a friend, but certainly an integral part of the group, and there are a couple of other people present (Peg, the assistant to Birdie Jay, and Whiskey, the partner of Cody). The most important guest, however, is Blanc. And things take a turn for the mysterious when it is revealed that he wasn't actually invited. Who is really orchestrating the events of the weekend, and who will wind up dead?

It's hard to think of people hating this film. The cast and the quality of the film-making should please most viewers. It's also hard, however, to see how fans of the first film can consider this a superior mystery. Before getting into detail, it's overlong (by a good 10-15 minutes, and most of the opening act could be trimmed down easily), it's not as engaging or clever when it comes to the plotting, and most of the cast are sadly wasted.

Craig is clearly having a wonderful time in the central role, and that emanates from the screen, which is a big plus. Hudson also has a lot of fun, it's good to see Norton not in full serious mode (especially in the flashback scenes that have him sporting hair stolen from Magnolia's Frank T. J. Mackey), and Monáe sinks her teeth into a script that gives her a chance to shine bright, which she does with aplomb. Unfortunately, that leaves the rest of the cast floundering. Bautista can't do much with his underwritten character, nor can Odom Jr., and wasting Hahn this painfully should be punishable by public flogging. Henwick manages to shine in her supporting role, but that's more to do with her presence than the writing (for comparison, just look at the way Cline feels almost non-existent), and Noah Segan has no need to be in the tiny role that he's given.

I like Johnson, he's a film-maker who often mixes in just the right amount of cine-literacy (and he's been very open about this film being influenced by The Last Of Sheila) and sheer fun, but this feels like a mis-step, as if he's already forgotten, or didn't actually realise, what made the first film work so well. This lacks bite, it lacks enough solid laughs, and it lacks that important feeling of satisfaction that viewers should get when all of the pieces lock into place during the final act. Some of the silliness is deliberate, especially when Johnson is underlining the idea of people mistaking wealth for intelligence and class, but some of it feels out of place, almost as if Johnson was worried about people becoming bored. Which, ironically, leads to a few scenes which may leave some viewers bored.

Generally well-made, and with some delightful cameos, this is a nice bit of escapism for the swollen runtime. It's just a bit disappointing, especially when stood alongside the brilliance of the first film in the series, although it's not essential to have seen that before diving into this one. I'll still look forward to the next Knives Out mystery though, and I wouldn't be too pained if I was ever made to rewatch this.

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

Prime Time: I Care A Lot (2020)

The easiest, and most flippant, way to summarize I Care A Lot is to make some joke about how I didn’t really care for it. I enjoyed it enough while it was on, and the central casting helps a lot, but the whole thing lacks any plausibility, which means it lacks any real bite it should have.

Rosamund Pike plays Marla Grayson, a woman who has built up a very successful business around becoming guardian to numerous elderly individuals. This allows her to drain their assets, bill them for hours spent dealing with their cases, and generally profit from the misery of someone spending the last of their days in a care home environment. Unfortunately, Marla targets Jennifer Peterson (Dianne Wiest), a woman who is connected to the very dangerous Roman Lunyov (Peter Dinklage). This puts Marla and her partner, Fran (Eiza González), in mortal danger.

Written and directed by J Blakeson, this is a film that feels like it wants to be a few different things. It could be a comment on how we treat the elderly. It could be a taut and entertaining thriller. It could be a damning indictment of a system that leaves people with nothing as they simply aim to remain healthy and alive in a society that has already deemed them as having no (or very little) value. The fact that it fails to fully commit to any of these aims means that it ends up an unsatisfying middle of them all, with no one aspect handled as well as it should be.

It all looks clean and cool throughout, although I wouldn’t even say there’s anything particularly standout about the visuals, and the score from Marc Canham is decent, but there’s a distinct air of everything being competent, as opposed to actually good.

The only area of excellence is the cast, and Blakeson really stops the film from being a complete disaster by having such a great selection of main cast members. Pike is superb in a role that feels very similar to one of her best cinematic performances (you will know what one I am on about), and Dinklage is an excellent menacing presence. Wiest is the most pleasant surprise though, making the most of her small amount of screentime to remind everyone that she still excels in any role she is given. To be clear, the surprise isn’t her level of talent, it is seeing her get a couple of real moments to shine in a role that could have easily been no more than a fleeting cameo. González is fine, although not given much to do, and there is some excellent scene-stealing by Chris Messina (playing a slick lawyer) and Macon Blair (playing the son of someone scammed by Pike’s character).

It loses points for having the most ineffective onscreen killers not wearing stormtrooper uniforms, it loses points for not using the obvious Faith No More song choice, and it loses points for an ending that doesn’t feel half as pointed and/or clever as Blakeson may think it is. In fact, the entire third act is more silly than anything else.

I Care A Lot? Nope. And I doubt others will.

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

Noirvember: Confidence (2003)

It sometimes strikes me as wild that Edward Burns had (has?) a decent acting career, to the point where he was considered a viable leading man for some movies that have very strong supporting casts. I don’t hate Burns, that would be far too strong a reaction, but he is never someone who I would consider a first choice for any movie role, even the ones that he wrote and directed himself. There’s just a whopping great lack of charm, which makes it even harder to accept him in his lead role here, playing someone supposedly smart and charming enough to lead a con team on a number of successful jobs.

Burns is Jake, the leader of a group who have honed their craft over a number of years. His crew includes Gordo (Paul Giamatti), Miles (Brian Van Holt), Al (Louis Lombardi), and even a couple of cops (played by Donal Logue and Luis Guzmán). Things get sticky when the team con someone out of a load of money that actually belongs to a crime boss named King (Dustin Hoffman). Coming up with a way to appease King isn’t easy, but Jake thinks he can manage it, with the help of a woman named Lily (Rachel Weisz). There are so many ways things could go wrong though, especially with federal agent Gunther Butan (Andy Garcia) snooping around.

If you have seen any con movie then you will know how this film plays out. I could easily name you a dozen con films right now that are better than this, but that isn’t to say that this is a bad film. Director James Foley and writer Doug Jung may feel as if they are just going through things mechanically, but the mechanics of any con movie can end up being the most appealing aspect. Knowing how things are playing out just keeps viewers closely onside with the con artists, which is satisfying enough when they are trying to get one over on someone who deserves to be fleeced. A lack of surprise in a con movie doesn’t automatically equate to a lack of enjoyment, not for me anyway.

With the exception of Burns, the cast all help to make this more enjoyable than it otherwise would be. Hoffman is an enjoyable villain, and just about manages to feel like a real threat, and both Giamatti and Weisz are easy highlights. There are more people to keep an eye on though, including Morris Chestnut, Tom Lister Jr, Robert Forster (sadly onscreen for seconds), John Carroll Lynch, and Leland Orser. Alongside the other supporting players already mentioned, it’s almost as if someone was savvy enough to realise that a lot of talent was required to compensate for the bland leading man.

Nobody here will put this at the top of their C.V. This is a lesser film in almost every department. It manages to avoid being bad though. That is mostly due to the cast, but it is also partly due to the innate charm of the con movie format, which always tends to appeal to me. You could even say that I’m a sucker for them.

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

Noirvember: Point Blank (1967)

In case you somehow missed the memo, Lee Marvin is one tough sonofabitch. If you didn’t know that before watching Point Blank then you should sure as hell know it by the time it’s finished. This is a film that starts with Marvin’s character, Walker, being shot multiple times and left for dead, but it doesn’t take him long to get back on his feet and start on a path of bloody revenge.

Based on a novel, “The Hunter”, by Donald E. Westlake (who has had a number of his works adapted into movie form), this is an enjoyably simple tale of one man cutting a large swathe through a criminal organisation as he looks to collect his share of a rewarding plot that he was a vital part of. He isn’t being unfair, yet everyone seems to think that as they try their best to avoid giving him what he is due.

Director John Boorman, working from a script written by Alexander Jacobs, and David and Rafe Newhouse, delivers what could well be a perfect mix of violence, intrigue, and ultra-cool in this classic neo-noir. It is another film I regret not seeing sooner, especially since I already saw Payback (the Gibson-starring remake from the late ‘90s) a couple of decades ago.

The script is brilliant, if often economical with words (Boorman adds so much with visual details, and excellent editing from Henry Berman, throughout), and you have a mostly excellent cast getting themselves in trouble while a fine, dreamy/nightmare-ish, soundtrack from Johnny Mandel accompanies their actions.

I would say this is Marvin’s best role, but that would suggest I have seen him in many other movies (I haven’t, he’s a bit of a blind spot for me). It’s tough to think of anyone doing better work here though, and he’s a perfect mix of smooth and rough. A young John Vernon is enjoyably spooked, knowing that his betrayal could cost him his life, and there are enjoyable performances from Keenan Wynn, Carroll O’Connor, and Lloyd Bochner. Although very male-centric, both Angie Dickinson and Sharon Acker get to be front and centre in a couple of surprisingly impactful scenes.

Having enjoyed this from start to finish, I am now struggling to find any fault with it at all. Maybe I have been too generous with my ratings lately, or maybe I have just finally got around to watching some classics that should have been marked off the list a long time ago. I think the latter is correct. People may not like how brutal and “ugly” Point Blank is, I can understand that, but I loved it. A large part of that is to do with Marvin, playing his character like some ever-moving shark that has sensed blood in the water and knows that it’s time to eat, but there’s nothing here I would change. 

I will now plan to rewatch Payback next week, and I’m interested to see what I think of that nowadays.

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: 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

Noirvember: Deep Cover (1992)

Starting with a couple of scenes in a row that should startle any viewer, Deep Cover is a crime thriller/neo-noir directed by Bill Duke (a badass actor arguably best-known for his roles in a couple of prime Schwarzenegger action movies) that provides two brilliant roles for the lead actors. And when those lead actors are Lawrence Fishburne and Jeff Goldblum, both proving to be perfect fits in their roles, then it doesn’t take long to realise that you’re in for a fantastic time.

Fishburne plays Russell Stevens Jr, a cop who is deemed a perfect candidate for undercover work. If he hadn’t become a cop then he could have easily become a criminal. Quickly repaying the faith put in him, Russell soon works his way up the ranks of the drug-dealing organisation that he has been ordered to infiltrate. He ends up forming a strong bond with David Jason (Jeff Goldblum), a slick lawyer who has started to take on more and more work from his superior, Barbosa (Gregory Sierra). Unfortunately, Barbosa also seems to resent their success. 

Deep Cover isn’t interested in plausibility or reality. The central character is an undercover officer who commits various crimes, including murder, without regard for any attempts to remain within some recognisable moral framework that would show him to still ultimately be on the side of good. And yet, despite the slick movie moments and the brilliant thrills, there’s a strong core message about the ramifications of the drug trade, and how people are left with n a bad position by officials who can change their priorities, and allegiances, at the drop of a hat. As the misdeeds pile up, to put it mildly, it clarifies how far a good man is willing to go in order to effect some real change.

Duke directs well, helped by the fact that both leads are effortlessly cool and photogenic, and Michael Tolkin and Henry Bean give him a great script to work with. This may well be the best movie written by either man, despite a great variety of projects in their respective filmographies.

Fishburne and Goldblum are both on top form, and the film is energised by a middle section that allows some time for viewers to see a strong friendship between them. Sierra is easy to hate, a menacing figure overshadowing both the lead characters, but also an obstacle in the way of Fishburne’s character moving one more place up the ladder, and his network of cronies allows for some great little turns from Roger Guenveur Smith and Sydney Lassick. Clarence Williams III is excellent, playing a detective who keeps trying to help someone he just thinks is a regular drug-dealer who might still be able to get his life in order, and there are a couple of great moments feature James T. Morris and Alisa Christensen, a duo working in tandem to claim ownership of drug-dealing territory. Victoria Dillard is Betty, a young woman who is able to launder money, and she does good work, despite feeling as if her character is just there for Russell to take a shine to. And I cannot believe that I almost forgot to mention Charles Martin Smith, the man who almost steals the entire movie, brilliant as the cop in charge of the undercover operation, and the man responsible for giving the job to our “hero”.

Deep Cover has everything you could want from an early ‘90s crime thriller. The cast is a great mix of ascending talent and established faces, the pacing and dialogue are pretty perfect, the soundtrack is banging (as I believe the kids might say . . . joking here, but the soundtrack is genuinely excellent, complemented well by Michel Colombier’s score), and it never loses sight of what it’s really about, even if viewers temporarily forget it while being thrilled and entertained. The good is always there. It’s just obscured under deep cover.

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