A Complete Unknown (2024)

Here are the things I know about Bob Dylan. His video for Subterranean Homesick Blues is quite brilliant. A number of his songs have been covered by artists who have sometimes managed to eclipse the original. And his voice is somehow both pleasing to the ear and not unlike a musical vacuum cleaner. Those are the things I know about Bob Dylan. So I wasn't in a rush to watch A Complete Unknown, although the people involved ensured that I would get around to it eventually.

Timothée Chalamet plays Dylan, a young man we first see arriving in New York City as a talented 19-year-old on a pilgrimage to visit a hospitalised idol, Woody Guthrie (Scoot McNairy). Dylan meets Pete Seeger (Edward Norton) while visiting Guthrie, and this proves to be one of the first stepping stones on his path to great success. He also gets involved with Sylvie Russo (Elle Fanning), finds a strong connection with the fantastic Joan Baez (Monica Barbaro), and becomes more and more selfish as he commits himself to the lyrics and music that will transform him from a complete unknown to an enigmatic musical icon.

Based on a book by Elijah Wald, adapted into screenplay form by Jay Cocks and director James Mangold, A Complete Unknown manages a fine balance of showing the man behind the music while not actually showing you the man behind the music. It quickly becomes clear that Dylan wants his work to speak for him, and there's no denying that he has quite a sizeable discography from which to pull statements from. Mangold is a very capable director, able to turn his hand to a variety of genres, but this is one of his best works, although it come after a decade of him delivering one great film after another (albeit films not necessarily right in line with this one).

Everything is helped by Chalamet being so good in the lead role. Instead of delivering what could have been a clumsy impression, Chalamet really does seem to embody the spirit of the musician that he's portraying. He also convinces with the singing and guitar-playing, however that is performed onscreen. Norton is so good in the role of Seeger that it's a reminder of how good it is to watch Norton in the right role, and I feel as if we have missed some fine work from him for too long. Both Fanning and Barbaro are just as good as anyone else onscreen, and do very well to avoid being overshadowed by the man who ends up, to some degree, being the centre of the musical universe for many. McNairy doesn't get much to do, but does it well, Boyd Holbrook has fun as Johnny Cash, and many more secondary characters are played by a selection of pretty flawless supporting players.

There's not much more to say about this. It's quite standard biopic stuff, even if it is only looking at one key part of Dylan's life. The moments that are tweaked to make them more cinematic retain a core of authenticity, the many truths throughout the film are compelling and thought-provoking, and the decision to keep an air of mystery swirling around the figure being observed works for both the film and the enduring legend of Dylan.

Did I feel as if I knew a lot more about the man once the end credits rolled? Not really, and you could call that a failing. I wouldn't though. I decided that I appreciated the small amount of extra context that gave me even more appreciation for a body of work that I'm now keen to explore. Let's face it, I liked the film so much that I didn't spend this entire review trying to insert a load of Bob Dylan songs and puns. I guess the times they are a-changin'.

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 

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

Rounders (1998)

Not actually a film about the British game that resembles a kindergarten version of baseball, Rounders is actually another fun film basing most of the action around card tables. It's all about poker, and the people who make their living from it. It's also helmed by John Dahl, a director who very rarely put a foot wrong for his first full decade or so of moviemaking, before he then started picking up much more work int he world of TV (helming episodes of shows as varied as Fear Itself, Breaking Bad, True Blood, Justified, Ray Donovan, House Of Cards, and Yellowstone).

Matt Damon plays Mike McDermott, a promising young law student who has a pretty good life. He has a lovely partner, Jo (Gretchen Mol), and has decided to try and leave his days of poker behind him, after losing a BIG chunk of money in a foolish move to earn himself a route to the World Poker Championship. Abstaining from the lure of poker proves to be almost impossible, sadly, when Mike welcomes his old friend, Worm (Edward Norton), back into his life. Worm has just finished a prison sentence, and he immediately wants to make up lost time and earnings. Not trusting the playing method of Mike, Worm is happy to win via some underhanded methods. He's also happy to borrow a lot of money with Mike as his guarantor. 

Considering what it is, poker makes for a fair amount of fun and tension, cinematically. Part of that is because movie poker often has people sitting around a table with hands that are often astronomically near-impossible to have dealt from the deck in the same game session, let along the same tense head to head, and part of that is to do with the interesting ways in which great poker players can be shown to be able to read their opponents and quickly calculate odds. Writers David Levien and Brian Koppelman make the most of this latter aspect, having Damon's character be quite the card savant. This is best illustrated by a superb scene in which he helps a judge (Martin Landau) bet high against his colleagues, explaining who is holding what cards in their hands. The use of Worm is another way to make things more exciting though, ensuring that the card games have real stakes. More than just chips and pride, a loss could lead to a lot of pain. And Worm's approach to the game, trying every grift possible to ensure a win, helps to make the lead character seem more like a true sportsman, an expert looking to relearn some lessons after being humbled by a major loss.

Dahl knows what he's doing here, easily keeping things lively and fun for viewers. You get to see cards, you get a peek at the mechanics of some of the trickery, and voiceover narration from Damon keeps everyone informed about the rules, the odds, and the methodology. The film maintains an energy and level of cinematic cool for almost the entire runtime.

While the lead role isn’t really a stretch for Damon, he does well playing another brand of genius without the social lubrication to keep a position in an upper-class world. Norton is very easy to dislike, also doing well as the kind of character destined to forever try too hard for success in a way that guarantees failure after failure. Mol is as underserved here as she has been so often, but she gives a performance so good that it makes you wonder why she never seemed to get a bigger break that others got, although she has built up a great body of work over the years. Landau steals the few scenes he has, John Turturro gets to play a fairly nice guy, for once, and John Malkovich is fun, with an added accent, as Teddy KGB, the big poker player who needs beaten on the way to a complete turnaround of fortune. There is also a small role for Famke Janssen, who is always welcome, and a cameo from poker superstar Johnny Chan.

It’s quite easy to see where this is going, and the lack of any major surprises in the third act is a bit of a shame, but Rounders doesn’t want to be a gritty and bleak film. It is a by-the-numbers sports movie, a tale of someone having faith in himself as others fall by the wayside. That sport may be poker, as opposed to any number of more energetic pursuits, but every other trope and story beat you expect is right here. Which ends up being a good thing, because this is one of the better sports movies I have watched in a while, but that may be to do with my love of poker.

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

Birdman (2014)

or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance).

There are times when it's hard to simply sit back and watch Birdman. It's so busy, so layered, and so consistently technically accomplished that the experience becomes slightly exhausting. This is, however, another fine example of form perfectly matching content.

On the surface, Birdman is about actor Riggan (Michael Keaton) trying to gain respect and attention through a new play that he has written, directed, and will also star in. He is supported in this endeavour by a great suppporting cast: Lesley (Naomi Watts), Laura (Andrea Riseborough), and talented-but-infuriating Mike (Edward Norton). There's also his friend, and right hand man, Jake (Zach Galifianakis). And his personal assistant/daughter, Sam (Emma Stone). These people all want the play to succeed, but don't always seem to be on the same page as Riggan. To be fair, that may be due to Riggan's many flights of fancy, involving him hearing advice from the superhero character that both made him his fame and fortune and then kept hanging around his neck like a dead weight, the titular Birdman. This film could have just as easily been titled Albatross.

Created to look almost like one continuous take, Birdman is dazzling and dizzying in the technical department. The edits are all hidden away, and many scenes are filmed with camera angles that shouldn't be possible (e.g. any showing characters conversing in front of a mirror as the camera moves around them). Yet it's this mix of long takes, great acting, and skilled camerawork and editing that helps to hammer home both the similarities and differences between actors and stars, between worthy works of art and entertaining movies. Director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu shows that one doesn't necessarily rule out the other.

The script, written by Inarritu, Nicolas Giacobone, Armando Bo and Alexander Dinelaris, is as sharp as can be, mixing in some fantastic one-liners with no small amount of melancholy and great characterisations. It's smart too, packing every scene with huge amounts of information and detail without ever feeling too dense.

But nothing would work without the central performances lifting the whole thing from the great to the sublime. A lot of praise has already been heaped upon Keaton, and rightly so. He carries most of the movie with a performance that riffs on a public perception of him, playing the vanity and vulnerability with equal accomplishment, and often glee. Norton also riffs on a persona that, rightly or wrongly, he has been given over the years, and he easily holds his own alongside Keaton, although he also benefits from being allowed many of the bigger laughs. Watts and Riseborough both play women who seem to want very different things, but in very similar ways, and Stone gets to do her best stroppy young lass act, putting up defensive barriers when there really isn't anything, or anyone, out to hurt her at this time. Galifianakis joins the long line of comedic performers who can step up to the mark when called upon to try something more dramatic. His role isn't without humour, none of the roles are, but it's far removed from anything else we've seen from him in recent years. Which is a very good thing.

Birdman looks at ego, art, criticism, the difference between being famous and being famous for something notable. It looks at delusion, even illness, and doesn't necessarily write it off as a bad thing. There's nothing wrong with fantasising about flying high up in the air. As long as you don't rush to dive out of the nearest window.

9/10

http://www.amazon.com/Birdman-Michael-Keaton/dp/B00PLG8LFY/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1419853285&sr=1-1&keywords=birdman

You know how you can show your appreciation for bloggers? If you share and share then every additional reader helps. Connect through Google or Blogger or any way you can, and rest easy in the knowledge that you've made little ol' me a very happy man.

And/or you could also buy my e-book, that has almost every review I've written over the past 5 years. It's very reasonably priced for the sheer amount of content.

The UK version can be bought here - http://www.amazon.co.uk/TJs-Ramshackle-Movie-Guide-Reviews-ebook/dp/B00J9PLT6Q/ref=sr_1_3?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1395945647&sr=1-3&keywords=movie+guide

And American folks can buy it here - http://www.amazon.com/TJs-Ramshackle-Movie-Guide-Reviews-ebook/dp/B00J9PLT6Q/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395945752&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=TJs+ramshackle+mov

As much as I love the rest of the world, I can't keep up with all of the different links in different territories, but trust me when I say that it should be there on your local Amazon.