Tinsel Town (2025)

It's no surprise to find that Tinsel Town is directed by Chris Foggin. He's done comforting family-friendly fare a few times now, and has at least one other Christmas movie under his belt. The surprise comes from the fact that this formulaic bit of fun needed at least three main writers, as well as additional material from three other contributors (apparently). Maybe that's why it's so inconsistent though. Some of the expected scenes fall flat, but a few moments really hit the spot. And I was pleasantly surprised to find the panto moments actually feeling like panto moments.

Kiefer Sutherland stars here as Bradley Mack, a movie star who has coasted along on the success of an action movie franchise for some time now. He's not viewed as a great actor though, nor as a great human being. In fact, he's lazy, entitled, and about to crash back down to earth when his agent send him for a theatre gig in England that is actually panto in a small village. There's no way out of it. Bradley can't afford the price it would cost to wangle out of the contract he signed without reading it. So he ends up grumpy in the company of Cassandra (Meera Syal), Jill (Rebel Wilson), a pair of ugly sisters (Asim Chaudhry and Jason Manford), among others. On the plus side, he can spend some quality time with his young daughter, Emma (Matilda Firth). If he can stop being so selfish and self-pitying for long enough.

There's certainly fun to be had here. The lead character being bamboozled by his English village surroundings, and the very notion of panto, allows for some chuckles, as does the occasional angry outburst. There's even an effective musical number for Sutherland, while his character is in his full costume for Buttons, his panto role. The expected transformation of our lead isn't handled very well though, it's more a series of sudden turnarounds than a gradual journey to a much better place, and a few elements feel like they should have some more impact on the plot. Danny Dyer is a local bad boy, Kieran, who antagonises people, but could have ultimately been left out of the movie. The same goes for a minor sub-plot about a number of local burglaries, which may or may not have been sanctioned by Kieran.

While Foggin directs well enough, the awkward screenplay leaves everything in the hands of the cast. Sutherland is a big plus in the main role, and game enough to fully embrace his panto turn (once his character finds out that there's no way out of it), Katherine Ryan has a few fun moments as the angry agent, and young Firth does well as the child who retains faith in a man that many others have long since given up on. Derek Jacobi also brings something special to the project, especially in a key scene that explains how someone can keep the theatre at the heart of their life. Wilson isn't so good, to put it mildly. Not only is she stuck delivering a standard dramatic turn, she's also required to do so (for some reason) with a Yorkshire accent. It's not a great delivery, and that choice feels like it could have been easily swerved with one explanatory line of dialogue. Chaudhry and Manford are fun, Lucien Laviscount and Savannah Lee Smith are pleasant enough, and Dyer does what Dyer does. Alice Eve and James Lance are sadly wasted though, and it's a shame that the actual Yorkshire setting isn't given more of a supporting role.

The good just about outweighs the bad, but it's a very close call. The extra writers seem to have tried to overstuff the runtime, the cast could all have been given pages for at least three very different films, and there's a disappointing lack of full-on Christmas sweetness for the majority of the runtime. It really nails that panto atmosphere at times though, and the final scenes are sweet, funny, and rewarding. Which means it should at least leave you with a smile on your face as the end credits roll.

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 

Gladiator II (2024)

While it's true that it may seem a bit too little too late when considering a sequel nowadays to Gladiator, there were a number of factors that could allow viewers some small sense of optimism. Ridley Scott back at the helm, and a cast including some hot stars of the moment, and a couple of people returning from the first film.

I couldn't really say whether or not that optimism ends up misplaced. Gladiator II is decent enough, there are some fun set-pieces and the focus is much more on the political scheming of one main character, but it pales in comparison to the 2000 movie that it is following. Maybe my opinion was tinged by watching both one after another, but what was I supposed to do when I wanted an excuse to work out my sound system while wearing a home-made toga (aka knotted bedsheet)?

Paul Mescal plays our hero this time around, a young man thrown into bloody battles after he has been enslaved during a Roman conquest of his home, in a sequence that shows him yearning for revenge after the death of someone very close to him. Pedro Pascal is General Acacius, the man who was at the head of that Roman horde, although we soon learn that he is weary of doing the bidding of Emperors Geta (Joseph Quinn) and Caracalla (Fred Hechinger), two twisted souls who seem to be leading Rome further and further way from the glory of what it once was. Lucilla (Connie Nielsen) is still trying to stay safe while positioned very close to the rulers, and there's a man named Macrinus (Denzel Washington) who will twist and turn around everyone I have just mentioned as he figures out a way to get himself into a position of great power.

Springboarding directly from the original movie, David Scarpa's screenplay does everything that everyone involved must have decided it needed. That's a bit sad, because what it apparently needed was plenty of callbacks to the first film, some unnecessary ret-conning that paints one or two people in an annoyingly different light, and fights that are all about entertainment and spectacle ahead of any sense of plausibility. Fair play though, the fights worked for me, but I can see why some would hate one or two of them.

As much as I like Mescal, and as good as he is here, he isn't quite good enough. There's some steely core missing, and he's not helped by the fact that the script doesn't give him much to work with. The same can be said about Pascal, another actor I tend to really like in the right roles. Washington gets much more to say and do, which at least makes everything easier to accept and enjoy as he steals scene after scene, and both Quinn and Hechinger are a lot of fun delivering a double dose of oddness (even if it feels a bit like someone went "Gladiator had one evil Emperor so we'll be twice as good because we'll have TWO!"). As for Nielsen. She's arguably more wasted than both of her male co-stars, and her journey, still intertwined with that of Gracchus (played again by Derek Jacobi), feels almost laughably overstuffed with coincidence and misfortune. 

None of the dialogue stands out this time around, apart from the lines that will make you either groan or laugh, the main arc for our hero feels more like a clumsy scribble than a satisfying straight line, and a bit too much obvious CGI gives it that problem that many other modern blockbusters have: a feeling of weightlessness and everything being of less consequence because so much of it is made up of computer programming. Sorry to sound needlessly snippy, but even the score from Harry Gregson-Williams fails to come close to the soaring Hans Zimmer music from the first film. 

Did I enjoy this while it was on? Yes. Did I feel the 148-minute runtime? Also yes. Will I rewatch this? Probably. Will I rewatch the original film ahead of this? Absolutely. That remains a bit of a modern classic. This is mildly diverting fun that may well be forgotten in a year or two (much like that sequel to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon . . . remember when that happened?)

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

Prime Time: Gladiator (2000)

It all seems so obviously destined for success now. An action epic directed by Ridley Scott. A lead role for Russell Crowe. Joaquin Phoenix as the second main character. Support from the likes of Connie Nielsen, Djimon Hounsou, Oliver Reed, Richard Harris, and Derek Jacobi, as well as numerous other familiar faces. Fantastic practical effects enhanced by some top-notch CGI. Gladiator was a huge success when it was released, but it's worth remembering that it was actually considered quite a gamble, especially because the "sword and sandals" movie seemed to be a thing of the past (or, more accurately, a thing now just used to fill up the schedule on the SyFy Channel).

But it's hard to find people who hate it, and, while it may not be a film that many have rushed to revisit in recent years, it's been able to retain a place in our collective consciousness thanks to some memorable lines of dialogue and a rich and full-bodied Hans Zimmer score.

Crowe is Maximus, a successful military man who does his best in the service of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris), but his situation changes drastically when the Emperor dies, to be succeeded by his son, Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix). His life ruined, although somehow not ended, Maximus ends up enslaved, which leads him to be pitted against others in fighting competitions. Showing a knack for combat tactics, as well as self-preservation, Maximus is soon on his way to becoming a bit of a celebrity on the gladiator world, a violent system that could lead to his freedom. Maybe he doesn't need his freedom though. Maybe he just wants another chance to be within sword-slashing distance of Commodus.

Starting with a grand battle scene before moving into a series of more personal fights, Gladiator is a genuine crowd-pleaser that works all the better for having no trace of concern about the whole thing being a mish-mash of familiar elements and top-quality ham. The fact is that everyone commits to their roles, as well as to the tone of the material, and they enjoy the ham with such lip-smacking relish that it becomes absolutely glorious. The script, written by David Franzoni, John Logan, and William Nicholson, helps with a good selection of great lines of dialogue, and Scott does all he can to ensure that the 155-minute runtime practically passes by like a light breeze through the fields of Elysium.

Crowe has rarely been better, giving a performance that puts his character in strong contention for a place in the cinematic heroes hall of fame, and I would say something similar about Phoenix, especially when we all know that a good hero needs a good villain to make the whole thing worthwhile. Harris is effective in his brief supporting turn, Oliver Reed livens up a character, a trader/gladiator trainer named Proximo, that could easily have been left to fade into the background, and Djimon Hounsou is one of two other main gladiators onscreen that we get to stay invested in throughout. Connie Nielsen has to repeat lines about living in fear a bit too often, but she also does well enough to be memorable in her role (Lucilla, sister of Commodus), and Derek Jacobi, David Schofield, John Shrapnel, Tomas Arana, David Hemmings, and Tommy Flanagan are all uniformly excellent in their respective roles.

Brilliantly bombastic, full of spectacle without feeling overstuffed or overdone, and reworking the essence of classic epics into something that somehow feels both comfortingly old-fashioned and enjoyably updated, Gladiator is superior blockbuster fare. And if you are watching it with anyone who hasn't seen it before then you get the added pleasure of jumping up while the end credits roll and shouting "are you not entertained?"

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, 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

Dead Again (1991)

Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson star in this enjoyable thriller/neo-noir that stars the former as a private detective, named Mike Church, trying to help the latter after she has lost her memory and voice. That's not all, however, as both stars also play characters who have shared a tragic event in the past. Has the trauma that occurred many years ago in the lives of Roman (Branagh) and Margaret Strauss (Thompson) somehow affected the mental state of the woman who needs help in the here and now? Perhaps a hypnotist (Derek Jacobi) can help. As revelations start to come to the surface, the young woman starts feeling more afraid, worried that the past will repeat itself.

As well as starring in one of the main roles, Branagh also directs the movie, and a fine job he does of it too. The script, by Scott Frank, is pretty well put together, with a number of very enjoyable twists en route to the grand finale and nice, easy transitions between the present and the past (although it helps that the past scenes are in black and white - a choice made after filming had been completed).

The cast are great, with Branagh and Thompson both enjoyable in the lead roles, despite affecting some horrible accents (a bit of a distraction). Jacobi is wonderful in his role, Wayne Knight gets to play someone likable, which is a rarity, Andy Garcia is very good as a reporter who covered the Strauss incident, and Robin Williams has a small, but highly entertaining role, as an ex-psychiatrist who can offer a second opinion on the condition of the leading lady. Campbell Scott appears onscreen for a moment or two, long enough to make quite an impression with his smooth, too good to be true, persona.

Dead Again is a fun film. It's enjoyably old-fashioned and full of many nice details. The more I think about it, the more I like and appreciate it, even with those horrible accents being used by Branagh and Thompson. I'm not sure if it all holds together perfectly, but I can't think of any huge plot holes that pulled me out of the viewing experience, and it develops the narrative strands - past and present - in a way that keeps things interesting, and surprisingly fresh, without getting too smug.

It may not be AS essential viewing as many other movies from this category, but it turns out to be well worth your time.

7/10

Available to buy here, but do NOT read the spoilerific product description if you haven't seen the movie - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dead-Again-Dvd-Kenneth-Branagh/dp/B00005UO5G/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1383844678&sr=8-1&keywords=dead+again

Hereafter (2010)

It sometimes frustrates me when it takes so long to get to films that I knew I might be interested in. Seeing Hereafter proved to be more frustrating than usual, mainly thanks to a first act that reminded me of a major recent release with one major difference. Hereafter did everything just a bit better. It's not a great movie, by any means, but there are moments that almost reach that level and that opening sequence, featuring a devastating tsunami, is one of them. The fact that it decided to go down a fictional path in order to best tell its story is the main reason for me preferring it to The Impossible, but it's not the only one.

I'd better clarify just now that the two films then go on wildly different trajectories. I simply couldn't help commenting on the similarities during the powerful first half hour of the movie because, well, that's what will spring to mind for many viewers nowadays. Now I'd better move on to the rest of the film.

Matt Damon plays a psychic, but he's a real psychic. It's not a gift that he has, it's a curse, and he's chosen to turn his back on it all. He doesn't want the money or any fame, he just wants to feel normal. His brother (Jay Mohr) keeps trying to convince him that he should be helping people, and making plenty of money, but "a life that's all about death is no life at all."
Cecile De France plays Marie Lelay, a journalist who finds herself caught up in that aforementioned tsunami and then, understandably, deeply affected afterwards.
George and Frankie McLaren play twin brothers who muddle through life together as their heroin addicted mother often leaves them to their own devices. When one twin is suddenly taken away in a fatal accident it all becomes a bit too much for the one who is left, a young man seeking answers and maybe just another chance to communicate with his brother.
These three people have all been touched by death in some way, but perhaps something good can come out of it.

Directed by Clint Eastwood, from a script by Peter Morgan, Hereafter is a strange mix of the jaded and the optimistic helped by a solid cast. It takes ideas of spirituality and plays them out in a completely straightforward, if sometimes slightly schmaltzy, manner.

I've been a big fan of Matt Damon for a number of years now and, whatever you think of the whole film, he's superb here as someone cursed with what some see as a gift. The scenes with him and Bryce Dallas Howard, as a woman he meets and wants to spend some quality time with, may be obvious and even a bit heavy-handed, but they're also quite affecting. Cecile De France has the least interesting journey in the movie, but she does fine in her role. George and Frankie McLaren are stand outs and the movie actually peaks during the sequence in which the boy visits a number of people who claim they can contact the dead and watches blankly as they go through different nonsensical procedures to convince him that they're communicating with "the other side".

Technically proficient, with a couple of absolutely superb set-pieces (one near the beginning and one at just about the hour mark), the biggest problem with Hereafter is the way in which Eastwood takes something that needs a more delicate touch and proceeds to make everything far too obvious and emotionally moving. It DID move me, but I'm a sucker when it comes to that kind of easy manipulation so all I can really do is warn others about it as it's already too late for me.

There are too many negatives for Hereafter to be a great film, not least of which is the way in which the central subject matter is treated (a way that will put many off), but it has some great moments within it. It's just a shame that they're placed in between scenes of much lower quality.

6/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hereafter-Triple-Blu-ray-Digital-Region/dp/B004MKNOGQ/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1360705539&sr=8-3