Netflix And Chill: Wake Up Dead Man (2025)

It's time for another Benoit Blanc mystery written and directed by Rian Johnson and this time around the murder mystery has repercussions that affect a small local church. There are more twists and turns, there's another stacked cast (although, with respect, maybe not as stacked as the previous two movies), and Craig feels as if he has become completely comfortable in a role that has most successfully allowed him to move further away from under the shadow of Bond. Is it any good though?

The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that Wake Up Dead Man is perhaps the most interesting and substantial Benoit Blanc mystery yet, but it's not necessarily as much fun as the previous instalments in the series.

A Monsignor is the murder victim this time, but he also might have enough belief in the idea of resurrection to make his death less permanent than some others (hence the title). The main suspects are a younger priest with a troubled past, loyal members of a small congregation, and . . . some divine retribution?

I expected to have fun with Wake Up Dead Man. I expected to enjoy the cast, which also includes sizeable roles for Josh O'Connor, Josh Brolin, Jeremy Renner, Andrew Scott, Thomas Haden Church, Glenn Close, Kerry Washington, Daryl McCormack, Cailee Spaeny, and Mila Kunis. What I didn't expect was a film that mixed a murder mystery with an exploration of organised religion, personal faith, and the good and bad aspects of both. Some of the cast members may suffer slightly as they wait on the sidelines for some of the runtime, and Blanc himself doesn't come into the movie until about the 40-45 minute mark, but it's impressive to see Johnson use the template for such a thoughtful and insightful conversation about how people can be guided, or misguided, by someone, or something, helping to direct their moral compass.

Both O'Connor and Brolin are superb in their roles, the former quiet and contemplative while the latter is keen to deliver some fire and brimstone fury in sermons designed to drive away those he disapproves of, and Close, Washington, and Scott are the highlights from the rest of the ensemble, although everyone does good work. Then you have Craig, having even more fun this time around with a character who is more comfortable in his own skin than anyone else onscreen. 

Johnson knows that he has people onside by this point. That gives him the space and time to wander around some new territory, always checking back in often enough to show us what is happening with the murder investigation. Patience is rewarded, no questions are left unanswered, and Johnson makes effective use of our goodwill without squandering it.

Some have already stated that this is their favourite Benoit Blanc mystery yet. I'm sure there are others who were disappointed. I'm also sure that it has at least done enough, in terms of audience numbers and conversations, to make a fourth outing very possible. Johnson seems to be very happy helming these, Craig seems to be just as happy to star in them, and viewers tend to be happy with the end result. I'm already curious as to what song title will be used next. 

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: Queer (2024)

I have some big problems with Queer, and writing this review may help me to figure out if the problems stem from myself or from director Luca Guadagnino and writer Justin Kuritzkes. Actually, it may be the fault of William S. Burroughs, who seems to have filtered elements of his life through his books in ways that become repetitive and self-cannibalising.

Daniel Craig plays William Lee, a slightly older American man who now lives in Mexico City and spends a lot of his time trawling bars for younger men he might enjoy some nights of sexual activity with. I have deliberately used the word "trawling" there because Lee is a man very much casting a wide net in order to catch the occasional prize specimen. He believes that he has found a winner in Eugene Allerton (Drew Starkey), the two of them ending up in a relationship that allows them to explore their bodies, take some drugs together that may help them explore their own minds and souls, and generally develop different kinds of dependence.

Hot and sweaty, and often soaked in booze, this is the kind of film that emanates a heat you can feel coming off the screen. Whether sitting in the humid bars or being naked and hungry in bed, the main characters always seem to be coated in a sheen of perspiration. This is what the film does well, conveying that sense of heat (both external and internal), and the feeling of someone moving through it with only occasional moments of real connection that distract them from their own repeating cycle of numbing alcohol and sometimes-equally-numbing sex.

Craig and Starkey are both very good in their roles, with the former managing to deliver an accent that he keeps just far enough away from his iconic cadence he has made part of his character in the Knives Out movies. The supporting cast doesn't have too many familiar faces scattered throughout, but there's room for Jason Schwartzman, Henrique Zaga, and Lesley Manville, as well as some fine work from those who are less recognisable.

I don't think the problem here lies with me, although that's not something I get to say too often. I think the main issue with the film is that everyone seems to be repeating themselves. Guadagnino has covered very similar territory in a number of his previous features, and Burroughs, well, his exploration of himself is less interesting, cinematically, than, for example, Charles Bukowski's exploration of others who end up sharing barstools alongside him, or Hubert Selby Jr.'s exploration of those chasing a high to block out the trashheap around them. And you can get a much more interesting journey through his hazy and fractured mind by choosing to watch/rewatch Naked Lunch, which I highly recommend.

There's some good atmosphere and some good performances, and I am sure that some will appreciate the themes of sexuality and looking for companionship, but there's just not enough here to recommend it ahead of many other films based on the works of those namechecked here, or even ahead of most other films from Guadagnino.

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, 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: 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

No Time To Die (2021)

I have to admit to being a bit Bond-fatigued by the time No Time To Die was released. It was a culmination of various factors. I was greatly disappointed by Spectre. I was as fed up as most people were by the seemingly constant whinging from Daniel Craig in between every instalment in the franchise. And, of course, the global pandemic meant that the release date was pushed back for quite some time. I decided that I would remain hopeful, but be prepared for disappointment.

Disappointment was certainly not forthcoming.

No Time To Die is immediately up there with the very best of the Bond films, vying for a top spot alongside On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and a couple of other superior 007 adventures, and it allows Craig to end his tenure on a real high note. It’s a film that gets so much right that it almost makes up for the stumbling steps that got us to this point.

The plot is simple. Bond is retired, he wants to get on with his life with Madeleine (Léa Seydoux). Retirement is interrupted by the pesky Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) being a sneaky schemer once again, and Bond eventually ends up looking to return to his old role when he learns of a deadly bioweapon that can be used to target not just individuals, but entire races. Bond being involved doesn’t make everyone happy. There’s a new agent using the 007 tag (Lashana Lynch) and M is under a lot of stress with the situation. Blofeld, still imprisoned, may actually welcome the chance to see Bond once more, especially as they both seem to have a common enemy, Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek).

Directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga, who also helped on the screenplay with Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge, this is a near-perfect Bond film that packs enough into every main sequence to distract you from the aspects that aren’t present. You don’t get Bond the womaniser, you don’t get a whole load of gadgets, and you don’t get gunfights and explosions without a lot of consideration and attempts at diplomatic diversions by those giving the orders.

You do get just enough of everything though. There are glamorous women around Bond. There are a couple of decent gadgets used in the midst of the action. And it’s interesting to think that, for all the growth of the character we have seen over the last couple of decades, Bond is shown as essentially the same blunt tool used when needed. The world may have moved on, but new and different problems can be solved with the same old solution.

Craig does well once again in the main role, all blue-eyed piercing stares and pouting. Waltz is underused once again, but also once again superb in his limited amount of screentime. Seydoux does well with what she's given, and she is able to play her part with some ambiguity as others try to figure out whether or not they can trust her. Lynch is a badass, and quickly shows why she was assigned the 007 number, so I wouldn't be averse to a spin-off with her character in it (or seeing her have a similarly strong presence in whatever we get next in the series). I also wouldn't be averse to seeing another main role for Ana de Armas, playing an agent named Paloma in a fantastic set-piece that takes place in Cuba. Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Ben Whishaw, and Rory Kinnear are as good as ever in the respective roles of M, Moneypenny, Q, and Tanner. But what of the main villains? Dali Benssalah is a good henchman, and has a memorable look thanks to his character having one electronic eye alongside one normal eye, and David Dencik is enjoyably cowardly and selfish as the scientist who has created a scarily effective weapon. Malek is really the only weak link, sadly as Safin, a character who isn't written well played in a way that is far too quiet and lacking any real sense of showmanship (which all of the best Bond villains have). Can Malek do anything other than the soft-spoken and kind of awkward character he has made his specialty over the last few years? I'm not seeing anything to prove otherwise, and I don't think he was the best person to put in this role.

Transplant a better villain into this and you could have had the greatest Bond film of all time. As it is, well, it remains a strong contender. Fukunaga directs like someone who simply knows how to run a well-oiled machine, from the sound design to the sets, from the wardrobe to the lighting, and on and on. It's also well worth mentioning the music by Hans Zimmer, providing a score that pieces together various motifs while always complementing the visuals (as any great score should). The stuntwork is superb, the pacing means that the hefty 163-minute runtime goes by briskly enough, and there's at least one moment that feels like one of the most unexpected and iconic moments in modern action cinema. 

By the time the end credits roll . . . you may very well be slightly shaken. 

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

Knives Out (2019)

Written and directed by Rian Johnson, Knives Out is a hugely entertaining murder mystery that actually doesn't bother too much to keep things mysterious. Johnson seems to expect viewers to be one or two steps ahead, allowing them to get extra pleasure from many of the incidental details along the way.

It all starts with the death of Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer). This death is investigated by a detective named Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig). Everyone seems to have a motive, and the fact that the death seems like an obvious suicide makes the whole investigation a rather strange affair. While the family bicker over what could be revealed in the will, Harlan's nurse (Marta, played by Ana de Armas) finds herself caught up in a lot of drama that she'd really rather do without. Monsieur Blanc views her as a valuable resource, however, due to the fact that she has a condition that makes it incapable for her to tell a lie without having to immediately vomit.

A whodunnit that quickly turns into a howdunnit, I cannot think of a major mainstream release that I enjoyed as much as Knives Out when I saw it in the cinema last year. Although not perfect, and murder mystery purists may be irritated by some of the decisions made by Johnson, it's a dream mix of a quality cast having fun with a smart and playful script. And everything is overlaid by Johnson making directorial decisions that help it all to retain the sheen of classic cinema while never distracting from the dialogue, the mix of characters, and the interplay between everyone.

With the likes of Plummer, Jamie Lee Curtis, Don Johnson, Michael Shannon, and Toni Collette playing members of the Thrombey family, you can rest assured that there are some great performances, but the real surprises come from those you might not expect greatness from. Craig, as much as I tend to enjoy him onscreen (especially as Bond), looks like he's having the most fun he's had in years, accent and all, and it's infectious, particularly while he is being supported by LaKeith Stanfield and Noah Segan. De Armas is so good in her role that this is surely her gateway to many more opportunities (I assumed she wouldn't be around much after Knock Knock, but her turns in both Blade Runner 2049 and this show that she is making some canny career choices). Chris Evans is a dick, and I love him for so happily sliding into that kind of role after so much time being decidedly non-dickish in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, especially when he's so good at that mix of charm and irritating arrogance.

Nobody puts a foot wrong, from the big stars to those who may only have one or two lines, and it's hard not to think that Johnson brought out the best in everyone with his plan to deliver something that manages to feel both fresh and traditional at the same time. From the opening scenes to the standard "assemble the suspects as the killer is about to be revealed" finale, this is pure Agatha Christie fare, through and through. It just has some more swearing, and a bit of vomit. You shouldn't let either of those things put you off.

9/10

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

Logan Lucky (2017)

Directed by Steven Soderbergh. Starring a cast of many familiar faces. Focusing on a big robbery. You could easily forgive the many reviewers who decided to describe this film as a blue-collar take on Ocean's Eleven. That's, basically, what it is.

Channing Tatum plays Jimmy Logan, a working Joe who finds out that he has to be let go by his employers, currently working on a job at Charlotte Motor Speedway. He's also upset by the news that his ex is about to move further away, making it tougher for him to have time with his daughter. So he visits the bar run by his brother (Adam Driver, his character is also a veteran who lost a hand in the war) and starts to formulate a plan to rob the Speedway. The plan relies on a number of skilled individuals, including a safecracker (Daniel Craig) who is currently serving time in prison. Do they actually have a chance of pulling this thing off?

Considering this is the kind of thing that Soderbergh has mastered over the past couple of decades, Logan Lucky is enjoyable enough, but also not as enjoyable as it could be. Unlike other Soderbergh ensemble films, few of the supporting characters make as good an impression as you'd expect. It's a major plus that Tatum, Driver and Craig make a very entertaining trio of leads, otherwise this might have been a complete bust.

The main problem lies with the script, written by a Rebecca Blunt (although the identity of the writer has been question by people who think it may be a pseudonym), which is never that funny, and also doesn't really feel that neat when it comes to the mechanics of the robbery. That may be the point, this isn't a group of smooth operators doing what comes naturally, but a heist movie still needs you to believe in the skill of those performing the main act, which doesn't happen here.

As well as the cast members already mentioned, who do great work, you also get performances from Riley Keough, Katie Holmes, Seth MacFarlane, and quite a few others. Keough and Holmes do as well as they can with their characters, while MacFarlane struggles to make his unnecessary character work at all (not his fault).

There's fun to be had here, in the performances and some of the dialogue. You just can't help feeling that, especially considering everyone involved on both sides of the camera, it should be a lot more fun.

6/10

Logan Lucky is available to buy here.
Or, if you're in America, get it here.

Is Spectre a Bond film that completely misunderstands Bond?

Unfortunately, what has set me back to the keyboard is a movie that has disappointed me. Well, not just disappointed me. Perhaps saying that it angered me would be closer to the truth. You see, many have decided to come out again in favour of James Bond, and many are heaping some great praise upon Spectre. And I, for the life of me, can't see how this is possible. From the perspective of a Bond fan, Spectre is a bad movie. It is, in my eyes, the worst instalment in the entire official series. And I've endured The Man With The Golden Gun.

For anyone interested, I have previously written about Bond movies here (Connery, with a hint of Lazenby), here (Moore), here (Dalton), here (Brosnan), here (Craig), and here (a couple of interesting movies that are never really considered "canon"). And I reviewed Skyfall here. I'm not linking to those reviews and articles to claim to be any kind of expert. I simply think that if you browse through those and share any of my taste then the following may be a bit easier to stomach. Otherwise, feel free to think of me as someone talking out of his posterior.

Now, although this won't be a full, standard movie review, I'd like to try to pinpoint a few aspects of Spectre that make it such a bad Bond movie. Let me try to highlight everything in, hmmmmmmm, 7 main points.

1) That opening. The opening sequence of Spectre has some great moments. In fact, up until a building collapses and Bond (Daniel Craig, once again totally at ease in the role) has to get to ground level, I was very happy. But then it simply reprises the opening minutes of Casino Royale. We've seen Bond do this before, keeping pace with a target through a busy, exotic locale. We've seen him do many things before, of course, but the familiarity of his drinking, his seduction of women and his one-liners are part of the appeal. Watching repetitive scenes, as opposed to repeated character traits, isn't the same thing. Then we have some great helicopter stunt work. Seriously . . . kudos to all involved. But was I the only person noticing one or two moments of green screen that were all-too-obvious? The 21st century equivalent of Roger Moore's stunt double taking up most of the screentime in his latter outings? The visuals were decidedly so-so, and a bit irritating in their incessant reminder of the events from the previous movies that have SHAPED our hero (don't you know), but I could have accepted them if they'd been accompanied by a decent song. Oh no. The worst Bond movie in the Bond-verse also has the worst Bond song. I don't think Sam Smith should ever be allowed to write jingles for breakfast cereals after his godawful slice of drabness put forward here.

2) The ladies. Bond has always been about the Bond girls as well as the man himself. And there was much talk about Monica Bellucci being a leading Bond girl. She is *gasp* 50. I love Monica Bellucci, and was looking forward to seeing her role in the movie. If anyone had told me that she was in it for about all of five minutes then the poor treatment she receives at the hands of the scriptwriters might have been easier to stomach. The other main Bond girl here is played by Lea Seydoux, who easily fares better than Bellucci. Sadly, the makers of the movie use her as a way to show a Bond developing a heart and feelings. You know, like he did in Casino Royale . . . . . . . . before events changed him into the figure we knew he had to become.

3) This is not a Mission: Impossible movie, but nobody told the writers that. Okay, Q (Ben Whishaw) is a younger man here than he ever was in the older movies, but we don't need an unnecessary scene putting him in some danger out in the field. We can watch Simon Pegg try to keep up with Tom Cruise for that kind of fish-out-of-water fun in an action spy franchise. And I know that the new M (Ralph Fiennes, who looks more and more like Leonard Rossiter with every performance he gives) has seen action in the field, but that doesn't make me want to watch him join in the battle either.

4) Stunt set-pieces are for the stunts and the gadgets. This is pretty much why every Bond movie exists. So it's weird to see a car chase occur in which Bond spends a large amount of the time speaking on the phone to Moneypenny (Naomie Harris). Or a fight sequence in which Bond faces off against a physically superior opponent (Dave Bautista) for no reason whatsoever. Seriously, you're supposed to think that there's always a reason for Bond and co. to be in physical danger, but the last 30-40 minutes contradict that, as it contradicts so many things.

5) Bond, as he is displayed onscreen, isn't the introspective type (bar occasional moments of brilliance, such as THAT final scene in On Her Majesty's Secret Service). Whether by choice or necessity, he acts and he moves on. Sometimes the consequences aren't as good as expected, but the alternatives are often a hell of a lot worse. Not here, however. Oh no. This is a thoughtful Bond. A Bond who looks as if he wants a bit of a holiday. Which isn't what you really want from your number one international secret agent.

6) The villain(s). A good Bond movie can be made or broken by the villain. Christoph Waltz is on hand here, another reason to rejoice. Until you realise that he's given a character who is completely mishandled. The big speeches never feel powerful enough, the threat only gets specific in a strange, and ill-fitting, torture sequence, and his development from the start of the movie to the end is as laughable as it is predictable.

7) Can I fit my problems into only seven main points? Oh, oh, I think I can. The biggest problem with Spectre is one that almost occured in Skyfall. Director Sam Mendes and co. seem unable to decide on just what to do with their lead character. One minute they're tearing down his established world, allowing him to rise again from the ashes like some kind of 00-phoenix. The next they're trying to shoehorn in familiar elements that they either want to reinvent for the modern era or they're adding unwanted touches from other movies that were themselves influenced by Bond (the shadow of Christopher Nolan seems to be a problem here, yet again).

Bond CAN be serious (Licence To Kill remains one of the best in the series, and it's also one of the darkest). He CAN be silly (look at most of those Moore outings). He can be an entertaining mixture of the two (as has been the case with most of the Brosnan and Craig films). But he always has to ultimately be Bond, and everything else should stem from that. Don't try to make a movie that you then use to shape James Bond. Let James Bond shape the movie that you're making.

 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 

Layer Cake (2004)

Layer Cake is an important movie for a number of reasons. Firstly, it's the film that saw the hugely talented Matthew Vaughn step out from the shadow of Guy Ritchie (he'd previously been producer on Ritchie's movies). Secondly, it showed Daniel Craig's leading man potential and even, yes, gives him a Bond moment. Third, it showed that British crime movies could still be fresh and entertaining without coming across as some pale Lock, Stock-wannabe. Fourth . . . . okay, I'm not sure if there are any more reasons so I'll stop there. But Layer Cake is certainly more, thanks to what it achieved, than just another UK gangster movie.

The story revolves all around Daniel Craig's smart drug dealer, a man who wants to make his million and get out of the business. Of course, anyone who makes the big shots a lot of money will always struggle to extricate themselves from the criminal lifestyle and that's exactly the case here. Avoiding the police, trying to stay alive and setting up a deal involving a million stolen pills, Craig really has his work cut out for him.

Mixing a smart script with great performances (Craig is superb but he's more than capably supported by the likes of Kenneth Cranham, Colm Meaney, Michael Gambon and everyone else who appears alongside him), cool visuals and an ideal soundtrack this film may not cover any new ground but it gives everything a fresh coat of paint with it's easygoing, effortless air of . . . . cool. This film has style in abundance. That's not to say that it glorifies the lifestyles shown or any of the violence we see, hell no. There are people here we'd never want to meet in real life and when things erupt into violence they do so with absolute brutality, impacting on the lives of those involved. There are no consequence-free, thoughtless actions here. Everything is weighed up and accounted for, even if it's after the fact.

It's an absolute corker of a film that has grown on me with each subsequent viewing. I'm sure that many others will still simply cast it aside as "yet another British gangster flick" but that's not the case and I hope that others give it a chance and end up enjoying it as much as I do.

9/10

 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Layer-Cake-DVD-Daniel-Craig/dp/B0006HIPOK/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1371682047&sr=8-5&keywords=layer+cake

The Invasion (2007)

It's a shame that The Invasion was either ignored or loathed by most people when it hit the cinemas because most of the reviews forgot to mention one little detail - it's actually very good. There may be some people that say we've already had enough adaptations, both official and unofficial, of the novel by Jack Finney ("The Body Snatchers") but I think that maybe it's a tale we need to keep reminding ourselves of. A sci-fi fairytale reminding us that we must keep our emotions and core humanity, no matter how far technology progresses or what the negatives are.

This time around the horror is all brought about by a virus that comes from outer space, a virus that takes hold and changes people when they fall asleep. The good news is that the virus is only spread through bodily fluids but the bad news is that those already infected do whatever it takes to spread their fluids as far and wide as possible (that sounds far worse than it actually is but at least you're now prepared for one or two gross moments). Nicole Kidman plays a psychiatrist named Carol Bennell who starts to get suspicious when she sees more and more strange behaviour and starts hearing about people not acting like their usual selves. As the epidemic becomes more obvious and more dangerous she sets out to find her young son, Oliver (Jackson Bond), who is spending some time with his father (Jeremy Northam). Thinking of a cure would be great but her son is her number one priority and Daniel Craig plays Ben Driscoll, the man who cares about Carol enough to help her even as society starts to break down around them and martial law takes effect.

Written by David Kajganic and directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel, the sad fact is that a lot more names were thrown in the mix at one point or another to "save" this movie when the studio wasn't happy with the result. That's a real shame because the general updating of the premise is very well done and I think that the others involved in changing the final product make it difficult for a reviewer to allocate praise and/or criticism.

For the sake of argument, let me just judge the movie based solely on the fact that David Kajganic wrote the script and Oliver Hirschbiegel directed the thing. Let's just forget about the interference of others because I have no specific details about what the added or took away from the finished film. Well, Kajganic provides a very good script that makes the premise more believable than ever while still keeping everything rooted in the more unsettling details of the original tale. The slow but inevitable development of events as more and more people are taken over is executed perfectly. Hirschbiegel directs capably enough, with a few flashy bits of editing here and there but his focus always staying on the ideas raised by the invasion and the continual battle that rages between emotion and intellect.

The cast are also very good. This may not be Kidman at her very best but she's still a great female lead and easy to root for. Daniel Craig is as likeable as ever, Jeremy Northam is excellent (as ever), Jeffrey Wright gets to relay the scientific mumbo jumbo, Veronica Cartwright is very good in her small role as a woman convinced that her husband has changed and young Jackson Bond is a talented young man.

Admittedly, this isn't as good as the past adaptations of the story but it IS a good film and it's nice to see that there's still a way to adapt it for modern audiences without everything feeling tired and overdone. I really enjoyed watching this and I know that I'm going to stay in the minority with this opinion but I'd urge other fans of intelligent sci-fi horror to at least check it out on the small screen because it's most certainly not deserving of the bad reputation it has.

7/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Invasion-Blu-ray-Region-Free/dp/B00102JLMU