Supergirl (2026)

I don't know about others, but I was tentatively looking forward to Supergirl. I had been blown away by the latest cinematic incarnation of Superman, and I had some faith in James Gunn keeping a keen eye on quality control while allowing film-makers to deliver us an enjoyably eclectic mix of features making use of comic-book imagery in different ways. I also tend to enjoy the work of director Craig Gillespie, who seems to have recently settled into a pattern of stitching his movies together between a number of entertaining needle-drop moments.

Sadly, this isn't anywhere close to the previous Super-blockbuster from DC. And a large part of that is to do with Gillespie, who now feels like he's just being lazy and careless while always going for the easiest directorial choices.

Here's the very basic plot synopsis. Milly Alcock is Supergirl, a young woman who spends most of her time either playing with her dog, Krypto, or getting drunk (and perhaps secretly hoping for someone to pick a fight with her). Eve Ridley is Ruthye, a young woman out for revenge after her parents were killed by the vicious Krem (Matthias Schoenaerts). When Ruthye and Supergirl cross paths, Krem ensures that he will be chased down by both when he poisons Krypto. An antidote is needed, the clock is ticking, and there's bound to be a fair bit of mayhem and destruction, especially when Lobo (Jason Momoa) eventually swaggers into the picture.

Written by Ana Noguiera, this is a frustrating watch. Alcock is superb in the lead role, especially when showing her struggle to deal with her sense of loneliness and isolation. She has the perfect attitude to keep others away after accepting that her life seems destined to be one of solitude anyway. It's just a shame that Noguiera and Gillespie only afford her a couple of moments to really show what's going on beneath the surface, instead seeming content to offer viewers a collection of rehashed superhero movie tropes accompanied by some of those aforementioned needle-drops. You want someone almost at their very end, but able to gain a sudden burst of energy to keep them alive? You got it. You want the music to twirl and spiral up to someone opening their eyes to either show the power in them or shoot lasers? You got it. How about a sequence in which someone just gets to cut loose and have fun overpowering villains after spending some time being beaten down and restrained. Oh yes. What could have been a good mix of fun action and teen troubles is, sadly, pushed aside for one MOVIE MOMENT after another. If you want something more than surface-level slickness then you'll have to look elsewhere.

Aside from Alcock, Ridley is also good in her role, essentially providing motivation for the entire plot, as well as a potential redemption arc for our lead. Schoenaerts is buried under some decent makeup, but he does a good enough job of being a mean villain, and Momoa seems to be having a great time. This isn't a Lobo movie though, and nor should it be, and his brash and carefree approach to the situation that he finds himself in is very much at odds with the more interesting intertwining paths of our younger central characters. It's nice to see both David Krumholtz and Emily Beecham in small, but pivotal, roles, and any DC feature that makes room for a cameo from the current Superman is all the better for the screentime featuring David Corenswet.

I can see what is hidden away at the heart of this, and I admire the fact that this was given such a prominent position in the DC movie release schedule, but the good intentions are worn away and covered over by a writer and director who both seem unable, or unwilling, to take enough time away from the super-powered fighting and explosions to more fully explore what it would mean to be a grieving teen forced into the role of reluctant superhero, and how they might somehow manage to do the right thing even while working just as hard to keep their emotional walls up.

Thank goodness Alcock is another great casting choice in the DC universe, because this might have been a lot harder to watch without her presence. Oh, and I'm happy that they didn't overuse Krypto AKA the cutest super-dog and bestest boy.

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

Prime Time: The Covenant (2023)

Guy Ritchie has had a decent run of movies in the past decade, helped by writers Ivan Atkinson and Marn Davies. He definitely needs Atkinson and Davies though, which makes it all the more odd to see The Covenant also listed as Guy Ritchie's The Covenant. Okay, Ritchie has a certain style, a sensibility that pervades most of his movies, letting you know that you're watching a Guy Ritchie film, but he can also work on certain projects that don't feel as if they have been given any stamp of authorship. This is one of those movies. It's good, sometimes very good, but it just doesn't feel as if it needs sold on Ritchie's name.

Jake Gyllenhaal is John Kinley, a soldier trying to stay alive during his time serving in Afghanistan. Having lost his interpreter in a bombing, Kinley ends up being assigned a new man, Ahmed (Dar Salim). Ahmed is viewed with mistrust by some, as are many of the interpreters in Afghanistan, but he repeatedly proves himself a valuable asset as he keeps Kinley and his team safe from a number of traps and tricky situations. In fact, Ahmed ends up saving Kinley's life on a daring mission that sees both men struggling to get back to safety while being hunted by Taliban soldiers who view them as top-priority targets. Can Kinley get a chance to return the favour, or will he be safely back in the USA while his interpreter/lifesaver ends up trapped in Afghanistan with a large price on his head.

A modern spin on a boy's own adventure film, although there's a worthwhile point being made about those who helped soldiers in Afghanistan before being left to languish there and suffer the consequences, this is a surprisingly effective and tense action thriller that does well to balance the issues at the heart of the whole thing with the visceral moments of fighting and gunfire. Ritchie works very well in service of the script, which ultimately helps to turn the film into something much better than it could have been. It’s a bit of a tightrope act, and kudos to him for walking it well.

Gyllenhaal is a big plus in the lead role, as expected. He can do well in a military role, being convincingly sharp and fearless, and he does well in showing the emotional toll that is taken as he figures out how to repay a huge debt. Salim is equally good alongside him, and his character is shown to be just as smart and fearless, arguably even more so, despite being initially viewed with suspicion. The supporting cast all hang back, for the most part, but there are decent little moments for Emily Beecham, Jonny Lee Miller, Antony Starr, and Alexander Ludwig.

You can view this with cynicism, especially if you feel that there’s a bit too much jingoism running just below the surface, but I think it avoids the worst potholes it could have stumbled into. Or maybe I should have used a minefield metaphor, if that isn’t in bad taste. Which I guess depends on your view of this being made in the first place.

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

Mubi Monday: Little Joe (2019)

Emily Beecham plays Alice Woodard, a young woman working for a corporation that specialises in developing new species of plants. One of those plants, referred to as "Little Joe" in a reference to her own son (Kit Connor), is designed to respond to care and attention, much like a pet or well-behaved (and very stationary) child. Alice takes one home, although that's very much not allowed, and soon starts to worry about what the plant might be doing in order to ensure its continued survival. There are also co-workers acting strange, by either getting too emotional (in the case of Bella, played by Kerry Fox) or not seeming very emotional at all (in the case of Chris, played by Ben Whishaw).

The first film I have watched that was directed by Jessica Hausner, who also co-wrote the script with her regular collaborator Géraldine Bajard, this certainly won't be the last time I explore her filmography. Hausner and Bajard have taken an interesting premise, a quirky way to rework some material very reminiscent of the paranoid '50s sci-fi classics, and given themselves a huge boost by utilising a great cast in the main roles. It also helps that they have reframed the ideas in a very relevant, almost cutting-edge, environment. This is a film about plants, about emotions, about personality, and about the scientific ways in which all of those things can be manipulated.

Beecham, who I last saw in the excellent Daphne, is an excellent lynchpin for everything that occurs. She's very composed, but retains an ability to observe and empathise that some of the other main characters seem to lack. As her character reacts, or doesn't react, to various changes, it allows the viewer to consider just how things have the potential to be viewed in different ways as the situation develops. Whishaw is in his safety zone, very quiet and slightly uncomfortable when interacting with anyone else, but he's perfect in his role, and works very well alongside Beecham. Connor is a very good young actor, David Wilmot is very good in the role of Karl (basically . . . a team leader/boss), and Fox gives yet another of her many great performances as the alarmed and potentially paranoid Bella.

The beauty of Little Joe lies in, well, the beauty of Little Joe . . . and co. It's a visually gorgeous film, making use of sterile environments that contain some vivid splashes of colour, and both the shot composition and the ways in which the actors are placed/set to move throughout really provide a treat for the eyes, all while the intriguing ideas being sprinkled throughout the runtime provide a treat for those who enjoy intelligent sci-fi.

I can easily see many people hating this. Unlike the creation at the centre of everything, it's not an easy creation to love. And yet love it I did/do. Almost every scene has something to either draw your eye or get you thinking, and many scenes have both. And there's at least one moment that would easily rank for me as one of the best of the year. Hausner has assembled a hell of a collective to get this just right, and that ends up showcasing the fact that Little Joe sure can sing!

8/10

Basement (2010)

I give up, I really do. It seems that every time I waste my energy defending Danny Dyer in the face of overwhelming negativity he just comes along and shovels another load of manure on top of his increasingly implausible career. The fact that he still gets work at the moment does, I concede, beggar belief but here he is lending his standard geezer schtick to yet another awful British horror movie. This is the kind of movie that easily allows you to misspell his surname as "Dire".

The plot is all about five anti-war protestors who stop off in the middle of their journey home to allow Gary (Danny Dyer) to go and water the plants. That then leads to the group finding the entrance to some underground corridors and, of course, going in and wandering around aimlessly until they become trapped and then find themselves in danger. Never fear, there's a not-so-cunning twist that makes up for the hour or so spent watching people wander along the same bit of set shot from a number of different angles.

Asham Kamboj is the man responsible for directing this piece of rubbish and he also came up with the original idea, developed into the screenplay by Ewen Glass, so he can get most of the blame. The film may only run for about 75 minutes but it feels like it goes on for oh so much longer. Dialogue is, frankly, risible and characterisations are poor.

There's a slight chance that the material could have been lifted by a better cast but that's something that will never be proven, saddled as the film is with Dyer, Jimi Mistry (complete with an awful, exaggerated accent), Emily Beecham, Kierston Wareing and Lois Winstone. Christopher Ellison actually does a good job despite the awful dialogue that he's given but the rest of the cast range from the pretty poor to the downright awful.

There's almost absolutely nothing here to recommend this as a film to watch. One or two ideas would have been interesting if they were in a better movie, here they just crop up as unsurprising revelations after too much has already been revealed before the finale. There's no tension, no decent gore, no sign of intelligence and no real talent on display either behind or in front of the camera.

2/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Basement-DVD-Danny-Dyer/dp/B003QPTVOM/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1344965443&sr=8-3