Mubi Monday: Kes (1969)

Memory is a very funny thing. I'm sure I have mentioned that before. No, that is not a joke about my own memory. I've always known of Kes, but I had never seen it. It's just always been there, part of British culture that I knew I had to get around to one day. And I expected it to seem a bit dated, a bit rough compared to more modern feature films, but I also somehow remembered it as being such a major work that it made an impact in the mid-1970s, repercussions from it rippling all the way through my childhood. But Kes isn't a mid-1970s work. It debuted in 1969, and was an adaptation of a novel published just one year before, before going on wide release in the first half of 1970. So my memory of Kes, despite having never seen the actual film itself, was already wrong. I did worry when I finally sat down to watch it that I would also be wrong in assuming that it would remain an impactful experience.

That assumption was fine. Kes is quite brilliant, although there have been enough minor changes throughout our society to soften the blow of it slightly. It's the tale of a young boy, Billy Casper (David Bradley), who seems to be killing time at school until he's eventually placed in a harsh and unforgiving manual job that will, if he's lucky, pay him enough to get by and enjoy some time in the local pub. Things change for Billy when he gets himself a kestrel that he aims to train, giving himself something that creates a time out from the continual drudgery of his everyday life. Some may appreciate the fact that he's taking an interest in something, but many may view the development with resentment.

Directed by Ken Loach, who also adapted the book ("A Kestrel For A Knave") with author Barry Hines and Tony Garnett, Kes is absolutely a quintessential Loach movie. He may be credited here as Kenneth Loach, and it may only be his second feature, but this is the typical unflinchingly honest look at people not often given any decent representation in modern cinema. Film is an escape, I get that. It's also equally important that film, like any art, is a mirror held up to society. Loach has held that mirror up for six decades, often showing people reflections that they spend most of their time trying not to notice. 

Not every performance here works quite as well as it could, which I suspect is down to Loach aiming for authenticity ahead of everything else, but young Bradley doesn't really put a foot wrong as he portrays a character who manages to be captivating without having to sand off all of his rough edges. Freddie Fletcher is also very good as the older brother, Jud, who can be an idol or a terror, depending on how his day has gone, and you have the brilliance of people like Lynne Perrie, Brian Glover, and Colin Welland filling out the main cast. Astonishingly, this is the first credited film role for all three of those performers, but it's already evident here that they had the potential for greatness ahead of them, particularly a scene-stealing Glover. I would also like to point out one other actor, but am sadly lacking the knowledge of his name. There's one schoolkid who is supposed to take a message to a teacher, ends up being asked to hide cigarettes in his pockets while some other kids are punished, and ends up getting himself in as much trouble as anyone else alongside him. It's a hilarious and infuriating scene, and the young boy plays it brilliantly throughout.

I can see now why Kes endured for so long, and endures now. I thought it was about a boy and his kestrel. It's not. That's just a way to show someone being able to see beyond the life seemingly allowed for them by those in positions of authority. It's about class, it's about an education system that too often works as a placeholder for children being prepared for a thankless life of hard work ahead, and it's about the importance of seizing on even just one, any, opportunity to spark some passion in those who may then be able to strive toward something previously-unseen beyond the classroom walls and industrial work environments surrounding them.

Give it another ten or twenty years and my memory of Kes may be wrong in different ways. I may go back to thinking it's a simple tale of a boy and his kestrel. I hope not though. It's a hard film to watch at times, especially for those who have the personal experience of the working class life, but, like some of the other superb films from Loach, it's a much harder film to forget.

9/10

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

Netflix And Chill: Frankenstein (2025)

Everyone knows that writer-director Guillermo del Toro wanted to make Frankenstein for many years. It was already such a thematic through-line in so many of his movies (the perceived monsters overshadowed by actual monstrous humans) that maybe it was assumed that he'd managed to get it out of his system, but no. So it's good for us that people gave him over $100M to finally deliver his vision of the classic text. Maybe we will yet get his version of At The Mountains Of Madness.

Bookmarked by scenes set in the Arctic, this gives us Victor's Tale in the first half and then The Creature's Tale in the second, both announced by title cards. Young Victor may be played by Christian Convery, but things really get going when we meet the adult Victor (Oscar Isaac), a man consumed by the idea of conquering death, much to the dismay of many, including his own brother, William (Felix Kammerer). William and Victor aren't exactly close, but William is still excited to have his brother meet his fiancée, Lady Elizabeth Harlander (Mia Goth). This proves to be quite the fateful encounter, almost as fateful as Victor's encounter with Elizabeth's uncle, Henrich Harlander (Christoph Waltz), a wealthy man who wants to fund Victor's experiments. Then it's all body parts and lightning storms until you can cry out "it's alive, it's alive" and we get the creation of a creature (Jacob Elordi). Victor isn't actually prepared for his role as "new father" though, which makes things very difficult, to say the least.

With lovely cinematography from Dan Laustsen, a fine score from Alexandre Desplat, and great use of some well-dressed locations (it's always nice to see even a heavily-disguised Edinburgh onscreen), it's no surprise that Frankenstein is a feast for viewers. It may be a slightly overdone feast, considering the hefty 150-minute runtime and the moments that have a bit too much CGI in the mix, but it's a feast nonetheless. The biggest problem would seem to be that Del Toro is too close to the whole thing, and has been allowed to indulge himself with every decision, for better or worse. This is most obvious during the many times he seems to be pointing at a massive hand-painted sign that says "It's Victor who is the real monster, get it?", as if we haven't been reminding ourselves, and others, of this for many many years now.

Isaac is decent in the role of Victor, enjoyably single-minded and callous, and I am sure the film was helped to find some extra viewers by the moments that have him working feverishly on his creation without any care for the state of his clothing. Goth is a wonderful Elizabeth, and it was canny casting to also have her playing another pivotal role in the earlier scenes of the film. Elordi is the highlight though, giving an interpretation of the creature that shows the full range of his life, from the new-born confusion to his education, from his vulnerability to his rage. Helped by an interesting, if not altogether successful, make up job, Elordi feels as if he's giving his all to portray a definitive take on the creature that manages to feel both very traditional and quite modern. Waltz is used well, Kammerer less so, and there are good scenes for the likes of Lars Mikkelsen, David Bradley, and Charles Dance in supporting roles.

People seem to want to give us the "definitive" Frankenstein every few decades, but it hasn't really happened yet. This is certainly close though. Some scenes use too much digital trickery (let's not mention the imperfect wolves in one key sequence), and Del Toro has a strange way of turning the creature into something like a superhero at times (he's very Incredible Hulk throughout, which I'm sure we've all seen as a modern blend of Frankenstein/Jekyll & Hyde over the years anyway), but the overall feeling is one of care and quality. You know that you're in the hands of someone who really wants this to deliver on all of his promises, even if he unsubtly hammers home one or two of the key messages of the tale. Although, for all of Del Toro's good intentions, ending his own adaptation of Mary Shelley's touchstone text with a quote from Lord Byron is a major mis-step that may leave viewers slightly soured as the end credits roll.

This is very good. And there are some pleasantly surprising bursts of gore and real horror too. It's not great though, perhaps due to the fact that Del Toro put himself under pressure to cram in everything he'd ever envisioned for the project. He has, somewhat ironically, given birth to something that he explored and experimented on for many years. It's not a monstrosity, but I don't think it will ever be as beloved as some of his other "children". 

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: Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget (2023)

Making a sequel to Chicken Run seemed like a bad idea. While it may not quite hit the heights of the wonderful Wallace & Gromit movie, the first film remains quite a beloved animated feature. What could be gained in revisiting that world, especially when someone felt that both lead voices needed recast? Thankfully, Chicken Run: Dawn Of The Nugget proves a worthy successor to the original film. It's not quite as good, but it's another fantastic adventure that's crammed full of fowl humour.

Some time has passed since the events of the first film. The characters are living happily in their own little free-range paradise. Ginger (now voiced by Thandiwe Newton) and Rocky (now voiced by Zachary Levi) have had a child, Molly (Bella Ramsey). Both parents are, understandably, a bit over-protective, but Molly ends up wandering out of the accepted safety zone, befriending another chicken (Frizzle, voiced by Josie Sedgwick-Davies) and being too curious for her own good. Molly and Frizzle end up in Fun-Land Farms, a place depicted as a delightful playground for chickens. But Fun-Land Farms has a dark and disturbing secret, and Ginger and Rocky have to assemble a team to break in and rescue their daughter, and a whole new group of chickens.

Directed by Sam Fell, who has previous credits that include the equally-excellent, but very different, ParaNorman and Flushed Away, and written by Karey Kirkpartrick, John O'Farrell, and Rachel Tunnard (as well as numerous other contributors, ensuring a great big sachet of flavouring spices sprinkled all over the film), this is an impressively fresh and funny adventure that manages to craft another worthwhile escapade for some recognisable characters. It may not seem as cine-literate as the first film, but it continues to throw around a lot of fun gags and great ideas, and impressively avoids changing the personalities of the main characters to fit into this new scenario.

All of the new voices work well enough in their feather-covered roles (even if I agree with the many others who questioned exactly why Sawalha wasn't asked to voice Ginger once more), and Ramsey is a perfect fit for the young and impulsive Molly. David Bradley feels like a great replacement for the late Benjamin Whitrow, voicing Fowler, and it's great to have Lynn Ferguson, Jane Horrocks, and Imelda Staunton back for their respective characters. Sedgwick-Davies also does well, and both Romesh Ranganathan and Daniel Mays effortlessly take over the voices of two helpful rats, Nick and Fletcher. Elsewhere, but just as important for this kind of thing, the vocal talents of Peter Serafinowicz, Nick Mohammed, and Miranda Richardson (another returning cast member) are put to great use as the looming threats to our plucky cluckers.

I'm generally an easy mark for any Aardman Animation projects, and I went into this with a sense of optimism after enjoying the trailer for it. Despite the gap of time in between the two films, this is an excellent sequel to a modern classic. The fact that it isn't quite as good isn't surprising, considering the greatness of the first film. The fact that it's as good as it is, well, that's the surprise. And I hope others enjoy it as much as I did. We now have two features that can be paired together for an eggs-ellent double-bill. You knew that pun was going to appear here at least once.

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

Prime Time: Your Christmas Or Mine 2 (2022)

I enjoyed Your Christmas Or Mine? and I have to start this review by stating that I quite enjoyed Your Christmas Or Mine 2. It’s not as good as the first movie though, despite getting so many people to reprise their roles, both behind and in front of the camera. There’s a very specific reason for that, a notable flaw that becomes clear as things move into the third act, but I will get back to that momentarily.

The plot is simple enough. James (Asa Butterfield) and Hayley (Cora Kirk) are setting off on another Christmas holiday, but this time they intend to remain together. And their respective families are joining them. Unfortunately, a slight mix-up at their destination leads to Hayley and her family ending up in a super-lush and expensive hotel while James and his family end up in what amounts to little more than a large shed. This isn’t enough to sustain the whole movie though, and it’s only the first half of the movie that keeps the two families separate. The rest plays out with a number of misunderstandings, personality clashes, and talk of people living in different worlds. Can James and Hayley soldier through another holiday mishap, or will this be enough to make them call it quits?

Director Jim O’Hanlon once again does well in terms of the straightforward visuals onscreen here, and in the way that he allows every member of the large ensemble cast to capitalize on at least one moment that allows them to shine. There’s nothing spectacular or unexpected here, but it has a fluidity and polish that many other non-theatrical Christmas movies lack.

Writer Tom Parry, on the other hand, seems to stumble slightly. He’s able to come up with some fun moments for the supporting cast, but there are times when it feels as if one or two people are being written in a way that serves the plot, as opposed to feeling natural and in line with how they have previously behaved.

Kirk suffers worst at the hands of Parry, and the grand finale relies on her being a bit less reasonable and willing to listen. She still remains a character you root for, but that is more thanks to her onscreen glow than it is thanks to the script. The same can be said of Angela Griffin (returning as Hayley’s mother), who is given a moment or two when she reacts to someone irritating her with a sharpness and anger that feels at least slightly misdirected. Butterfield gets to be a bit awkward and nervy again, and his character doesn’t seem to change much, which leads to him having a much easier task. Elsewhere, Daniel Mays, Alex Jennings, David Bradley, and Natalie Gumede help to add the most humour to the film, with newcomer Jane Krakowski also a welcome addition, and a running joke about her best-selling book creating exponentially more giggles every time it is mentioned. Ram John Holder (Hayley’s granddad) has some wise words at the right time, and the two youngest characters once again amuse themselves while the adults go through their different dramas. I suppose I should also mention Rhea Norwood as Bea aka Plot Obstacle B.

Skiing mishaps, a goat to be wary of, thoughtful Christmas gifts, an evening of excessive alcohol intake, and more fun elements guarantee that most people will at least enjoy this. It just doesn’t quite add up to a wholly satisfying picture though, and I think many looking for the right balance of Christmasiness, comedy, and romance will end up revisiting the first movie again before this one. 

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: Your Christmas Or Mine? (2022)

Hayley (Cora Kirk) and James (Asa Butterfield) are a young couple in love. They have been dating for a couple of months, but have to separate for the Christmas holidays. Hayley is heading to see her family (including her grandparents, some young, lively, brothers, an aunt embracing the her potential cougar status, and her mum and dad, played by Angela Griffin and Daniel Mays). James will be reuniting with his father (Alex Jennings). Except he won’t, because he decides to leave his train and join Hayley . . . who had decided to leave her train and join James. The two end up with very different experiences, and also learn about the secrets they have been withholding from their families, as well as one another, while lessons are learned and the weather keeps disrupting plans for them to get to their respective homes.

Your Christmas Or Mine? is a lot of fun, benefiting from a better budget and cast than most, but still resolutely selling itself as a typical Christmas film in many ways. There’s a lot of snow, you have at least one fun montage, different people share their different holiday traditions, and, most importantly, some people end the film in a radically different place from where they started. There’s at least one grumpy “Scrooge” who doesn’t embrace the spirit of the season, and one dead parent who plays a defining role in the lives of some of the main characters.

There are also some big chuckles here. Nothing that will necessarily top any “greatest comedy of all time” lists, but writer Tom Parry allows a number of abrupt and cheeky moments that may occasionally make you choke slightly on your mince pie and cocoa as you enjoy a well-placed insult, surprise, or implied naughtiness. Everything stays fairly family-friendly, but Parry knows exactly how far he can go with the warm banter and rude words.

Director Jim O’Hanlon is equally assured, and it shows how well both writer and director have honed their craft over the years spent working on a wide variety of TV projects. O’Hanlon paces everything perfectly, using the obvious transitions and manipulative shot choices to play viewers like a fiddle, and the effective score by Paul Saunderson only assists with the emotional manipulation. Did I know how everything would play out? Yes. Were one or two small surprises enough to keep me even more engaged during the 95-minute runtime? Yes. Did I still get a lump in my throat at various times during the third act, despite knowing where this was all going? I couldn’t possibly confirm or deny that.

Butterfield and Kirk are a winning combination in the lead roles, even if the former still needs to somehow stop his big eyes seeming to take up half the screen. Although I am not familiar with Kirk, I hope to see her in more movie roles soon. She has an easygoing likability and works best when her character is allowed to remain cheery and optimistic. Griffin and Mays also work very well together, having a lovely chemistry onscreen that makes them feel like a genuine married couple, warts and all. Jennings has to be the stiff-lipped and grim character, certainly for most of his screentime, and he does very well in that role. In fact, his delivery of lines that show him teetering on the edge of being more emotional ended up moving me more because of his refusal to ever fully show any “weakness”. There are also enjoyable performances from Harriet Walter, Natalie Gumede, June Watson, Ram John Holder, Lucien Laviscount, David Bradley, and Mark Heap, as well as Aston Wray and Harris Kiiza, playing those aforementioned young brothers.

Probably due to be viewed as just as disposable, ultimately, as many other films made for the Christmas TV schedules, Your Christmas Or Mine? deserves a bit more attention and appreciation. It may work with a familiar template, but it’s certainly miles away from, and much better than, the kind of thing we see rolling off the Christmas movie production line at this time of year. If my final rating doesn’t seem to reflect that, it’s worth noting that I am actually rating it AS a movie, and not just as a Christmas movie.

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

Prime Time: Jolt (2021)

I saw the trailer for Jolt and I was immediately interested. But I was also wary. It looked like another riff on John Wick, but this time starting Kate Beckinsale in the main role. That seemed good enough to me. It turned out that it wasn’t.

With a voiceover explaining things to us, we meet a young girl named Lindy. Lindy has a condition that means she absolutely loses control of her temper when she sees anyone doing wrong. Young Lindy grows up to be Kate Beckinsale, a woman still trying to figure out how to live with her condition. The latest solution is a vest that delivers electric shocks to her system when she presses a button. It makes life harder. It certainly makes it a lot tougher to date people, and she may not make it through her first date with Justin (Jai Courtney). Justin is special though, so they end up managing more than one date. Then tragedy strikes, which means Lindy needs to embrace her rage and exact some revenge. A couple of cops (played by Bobby Cannavale and Laverne Cox) want to stop her from creating a large bodycount, and her therapist (Dr. Munchkin, played by Stanley Tucci) doesn’t want any small amount of progress completely undone.

Jolt has a decent helping of humour alongside every moment of violence. The main character has been let down by people at every turn, which adds to the inability to cure her condition, and that leads to moments that have her happily ignoring her therapy while she punches and kicks people who thoroughly deserve it.

Directed competently enough by Tanya Wexler, I guess, the problems with Jolt lie mainly with the script, from first-timer Scott Wascha. Wascha keeps the tone consistent throughout, ensuring that there’s always a sense of fun throughout, but a) the main concept is flawed, and b) the pacing is just a bit off, even if it clocks in at roundabout the ninety minute mark, which is a pleasant surprise nowadays. Having Lindy control herself with the use of the electric vest, except in the moments when she doesn’t want to stay calm, isn’t the way to set the ball rolling. What should have happened was something that would forcibly propel the character violently throughout a plot that could then have Beckinsale battling baddies while trying harder not to hurt innocent bystanders. Imagine if, for example, Lindsay had an early fight with someone that led to her being thrown against a fuseboard, electrocuted, and having the vest then malfunctioning while fused to her muscles/skin. Way more fun could be had there, and that is the first idea I came up with while watching the film play out.

Beckinsale is a solid lead, and she can do the physical stuff well, and the other big plus here is Tucci. Cannavale and Cox both do fine, although the former feels like he’s been used as a strong supporting player so often recently that his roles all seem to blend into one another (even if he is sometimes a villain and sometimes a nice guy). David Bradley is good fun in his few onscreen moments, and Courtney benefits from the fact that he’s not in the movie all that long. He’s not my favourite actor, by far, but does okay here.

Best when it is allowing the main character to revel in delivering painful justice to people who deserve it, Jolt is an easy way to kill an hour and a half. The fights are okay, the thin storyline moves well enough from one set-piece to the next, and the third act is as predictable as any slick action thriller you have ever seen. I’d watch a sequel to this, but I would also hope that lessons are learned and the sequel makes significant improvements on the foundations laid down here.

6/10

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

Netflix And Chill: Await Further Instructions (2018)

Family gatherings are always a trying time, and many movies have been based around them. Await Further Instructions starts off with the usual stress and strain, everything heightened by the fact that it's Christmas, and then dives into the realm of the dark and mysterious, with the family suddenly trapped in their home and being given instructions through the TV set. Not knowing exactly what has gone on outside (some kind of viral epidemic, terrorist attack, or whatever else it could be), the family seem to have no choice but to trust the messages being relayed to them, and to act upon them. Some start to think differently, however, and the cracks that were already there under normal circumstances start to widen, potentially leading to more extreme arguments and reactions that could endanger their lives.

Sam Gittins is Nick, the young man visiting home with his girlfriend, Annji (Neerja Naik). He hasn't been home in a while, which is surprising when you see how lovely his mother, Beth (Abigail Cruttenden), is. It becomes less surprising when you meet his father, Tony (Grant Masters). And then you have the racist grandfather (David Bradley) to put up with, as well as a pregnant sister (Kate, played by Holly Weston) and her partner (Scott, played by Kris Saddler), who both seem intent on banding against Nick when he tries to ensure everyone acts like civil adults. Everyone survives the first night, barely, and the next day is when they find themselves shut inside their home, having messages delivered to them via their TV.

A lot of this movie works REALLY well, because you have a cast doing solid work with a decent script from Gavin Williams (who has one TV movie and a number of shorts to his credit before this). Williams ignores the usual pitfall of this kind of thing (how many times have we watched a slim premise like this padded out by repeated scenes and circular dialogue?) because he's developing things further in between each main set-piece, and there are some enjoyably tense ones here. Sadly, it slips up in the third act, where ambiguity is replaced by a bit too much explanation, although Williams still deserves kudos for firming up a wild idea that he manages to play out in a fairly plausible and intriguing way.

Director Johnny Kevorkian does a good job too, especially considering this is only his second feature.  This could have easily been a number of annoying scenes strung together, all full of characters arguing against one another, and it obviously cannot avoid those moments here and there, but people are allowed to move away from one another, they're allowed to keep trying to think of all the possibilities available to them, and the simple deviousness of the instructions given effectively reveal a hell of a lot about those having to respond.

The women fare better than the men, in the acting stakes, with Naik and Cruttenden the most likeable of the main cast members. Gittins is fine, if a bit bland, and Saddler is given a surprisingly enjoyable character arc, but both Weston and Masters are a little bit too cartoonish with their bad attitudes, and Bradley is sadly underused in his role.

A lot of Await Further Instructions makes you think about what you would do if stuck in a similar situation. That's the beauty of it. It's simple and highly effective. When it starts to become more complex, and ambitious, is when it may lose some viewers. But there are worse cinematic sins than trying to become more complex and ambitious than you need to be, and this still deserves to find an audience.

7/10

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

The Lodgers (2017)

Bryan O'Malley can do atmosphere. He proved that with the enjoyable Let Us Prey. And he proves it again with The Lodgers, a film literally dripping with wet and gloomy atmosphere in a number of memorable scenes. He's helped himself this time around by also casting a better selection of actors for the main roles. Sadly, this time around sees him hampered by a weak script and some strange choices made that allow the film to simultaneously feel as if it is revealing secrets and moving forward while at the same time not really showing us anything or going anywhere.

The plot revolves around twins named Rachel (Charlotte Vega) and Edward (Bill Milner), living in their family home in Ireland. It's one of those big houses in the middle of nowhere, of course, and Rachel and Edward have to abide by rules set out in a very simple rhyme. Those rules include not letting others into the house, staying together, and being in bed by midnight. Yes, as you can maybe guess, those rules end up being broken, leading the pair into danger.

With nice turns from Vega and Milner in the lead roles, the latter having to be almost permanently morose throughout, and solid supporting work from the likes of Eugene Simon, Moe Dunford, and David Bradley, The Lodgers is a horror film that has had obvious care taken with almost every aspect. It's a brooding mood movie, more akin to something like Crimson Peak than, for example, The Quiet Ones, and not just because of the period setting. This is old-fashioned gothic melodrama, something that was closely bubbling under the surface of Let Us Prey, and that seems to be what O'Malley prefers in his horror (no bad thing).

Unfortunately, all of the good work from the actors, and all of the atmosphere, is undone by a weak script from David Turpin. It looks to be a first feature from him, which makes sense. Turpin is so caught up in the moodiness and vague sense of creepiness here and there that he forgets to underpin the events with anything more tangible, even as he takes the time to create friction between our two main characters and the locals (with Dunford woefully underused as a potential threat, more's the pity).

And yet . . . The Lodgers isn't BAD. It's not a film trying to be overly pretentious, or even trying to peek out from below genre robes and show that it's not really a horror at all. It's just a decent tale undermined by some weak writing, which bodes well for the day that O'Malley finally matches up his talent with a talented cast and the right script for him. He keeps doing good work, and I know that he's creeping closer to giving us something great.

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 

Harry Brown (2009)

Daniel Barber's first full-length feature could, at a casual glance, be seen as a lazy way to fast-track him into the growing collection of great UK film-makers such as Shane Meadows, Danny Boyle, Christopher Smith, Neil Marshall, Guy Ritchie (YES, I said Guy Ritchie), Michael Winterbottom and others. It's a crime movie, it's done with a measured amount of gritty realism and it's got Michael Caine in it. So far so seen-it-all-before. But Harry Brown brings a bit more to the mix than just that.

Michael Caine IS Harry Brown, an old man living on a rather dilapidated council estate, spending his time either visiting his ill wife, playing chess with his friend Leonard (David Bradley) or simply filling the lonely, bleak hours in between such little moments of pleasure while, around him, the local area is going to ruin thanks to local teenagers playing with knives, guns and drugs and terrorising those who try to get on with their daily lives. When things happen that directly affect Harry he is then forced into making a decision he never thought he would make . . . . . . and to start cleaning up the estate. But it's not long before one good policewoman (Emily Mortimer) starts to suspect Harry's hand in the latest, bizarre events.

Michael Caine is an icon, an untouchable living British legend who can get by simply by being Michael Caine nowadays. Which is why it's been all the more impressive to see him put in damn fine performances in recent years and his portrayal of Harry Brown is one of his very best. Vulnerable and weak one moment, tough and dangerous the next, it's all believable thanks to Caine's performance. It helps that he's surrounded by the likes of Emily Mortimer, Liam Cunningham, Sean Harris and a group of young actors who all put in excellent acts, even while playing people you hope to never, ever meet in your life.

The character motivation feels real enough, the twists and turns don't leave you feeling cheated and the script stays truthful (sometimes disturbingly so) within the environment created for the movie so that's a success for writer Gary Young and director Daniel Barber that goes beyond any that a mix of standard crime antics and flashes of style could have provided.

The overall experience may be a little bit cold and bleak for some viewers but this is still a movie worth seeing, one that both entertains and makes you wince while also raising a number of moral questions as events move towards the climax.

8/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Harry-Brown-Blu-ray-Michael-Caine/dp/B002XWV3C2/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1372487268&sr=8-2&keywords=harry+brown