For It Is Man's Number: emily blunt

Showing posts with label emily blunt. Show all posts

Friday, 12 June 2026

Disclosure Day (2026)

Although it's a very different type of movie, Disclosure Day feels very much like a film that partners up with The Fabelmans. It's a film from someone very much looking back. It's director Steven Spielberg playing some of his hits. Unfortunately, the hits have since been overshadowed by, well, different hits from himself, as well as hits created by people who were influenced by him.

Josh O'Connor plays Daniel Kellner, a young man who is on the run. He has something, something so important that many agents, working under the direction of Noah Scanlon (Colin Firth), won't stop until he is captured. Kellner has his girlfriend, Jane (Eve Hewson), on his side, and he is given a number of supportive phone calls from Hugo Wakefield (Colman Domingo). Meanwhile, Margaret Fairchild (Emily Blunt) is a TV weather presenter who has an encounter with a red cardinal that lands on her table and then gains the power to communicate effectively with everyone around her, in any language. She can also know what they're thinking, which gives her a big advantage when it becomes apparent that she needs to connect with Kellner and help to enable Disclosure Day.

On the one hand, Disclosure Day is not very good. The 145-minute runtime is too long, there are a couple of characters sidelined who I would have preferred to see retained for more of the runtime, and a lot of the decisions made by people are quite inconsistent, to say the least. David Koepp's screenplay cannot keep everything balanced well, but that may stem from how much he has to twist himself in knots to develop the idea from Spielberg, which houses a number of his worst traits, but tries to cover them up with some action and tension in the first half.

There's certainly no blame to be put on the actors, with both Blunt and O'Connor doing absolutely fantastic work throughout. I'd even be tempted to say that this is one of Blunt's very best performances, certainly one of her best from the last decade anyway. O'Connor gets to stay quite wide-eyed and nervy throughout, which he does well, whereas Blunt changes in a number of interesting ways. Firth is excellent as the potential villain of the whole thing, although his character is notably restricted by the screenplay, almost like he's a videogame character only allowed into certain areas once enough time has elapsed. Domingo is very good, even if he's either facilitating, or delivering, a lot of the exposition, but he's also, as others have mentioned, very much an onscreen avatar for Spielberg himself aka the man putting all of the pieces into place and co-ordinating the action. Hewson is involved in a couple of the best scenes in the film, Wyatt Russell is very enjoyable in his supporting role, and Henry Lloyd-Hughes is impressively determined and threatening as the right hand man to Firth's character.

You get alien activity. You get a couple of good set-pieces. There's a John Williams score. There's more lens flare than even J. J. Abrams might feel comfortable with. To paraphrase a famous comedy skit from yesteryear . . . you get all the right notes, just not necessarily in the right order. Disclosure Day is a messy blockbuster, and the relative originality of it (compared to other recent blockbuster properties) and good intentions aren't enough to distract viewers from some inept plotting and numerous contradictions that are the result of either total laziness, temporary stupidity, or a mix of both.

Is it good to see a major release based around the idea that empathy is a super-power and that we shouldn't default to automatically fearing the unknown? Yes. But it would have been even better to see the messaging contained within a movie that had stronger structural integrity than a wet piece of tissue paper. Maybe the Spielberg of 20 or 30 years ago could have helmed that movie, or maybe we have to accept that thought-provoking sci-fi, whether optimistic or pessimistic, is now delivered better by those who spent years studying, and being in awe of, the mothership captain who will always cast a huge shadow over the sub-genre.

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

Tuesday, 12 May 2026

The Devil Wears Prada 2 (2026)

I wasn't a huge fan of The Devil Wears Prada. It was fine. It absolutely worked for the people it was aimed at. I just never liked the way it tried to mix the aspirational with a lot of elements that should never be acceptable in any tale of the "follow your dreams" variety. And that is what it was, despite the fact that some of the main characters had very different dreams.

Here we are though, twenty years later, and The Devil Wears Prada 2 has already had the kind of hugely successful opening weekend that makes any review, especially one that has been delayed by about a week, absolutely redundant.

It's good to see that pretty much everyone is back, both behind and in front of the camera. Writer Aline Brosh McKenna, who adapted Lauren Weisberger's novel for the first film, knows how to deal with these characters. Director David Frankel knows how to film everything, whether it's the dialogue or the moments that showcase the fashion. And Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Stanley Tucci, and Emily Blunt all feel exactly right for where their characters would be in life at about this time.

The plot is quite simple. Runway, the magazine that is very much an in-movie version of Vogue, is in trouble. A scandal has erupted, but it's only a scandal that hangs around long enough to get the main characters back together. Miranda (Streep) remains in charge, but other people believe that the magazine, now struggling with a lower budget and more focus on online content and catching the eyes of scrollers, needs someone who can refresh the brand. Andy (Hathaway) is a journalist looking for a job, and is equal parts shocked and intrigued when she's offered a chance to return to Runway. Nigel (Tucci) remains a calm and brilliant presence. As for Emily (Blunt) . . . she seems to have moved somewhere far less toxic.

I can't think of a way that this could have worked better for what it wants to be, a legacy sequel tapping into nostalgia while allowing the main characters to be pulled into some extra problems created by tech and the modern world, but I still can't say that I really enjoyed it. The fact is that this will work brilliantly for those who loved the first movie. It's quite faultless when it comes to pleasing fans. It just doesn't change anything to make things any more enjoyable for those who weren't won over by this mixture of vibrancy and venom the first time around.

The leads are all fantastic, slipping back into their roles with ease. As for the newcomers, standouts include Kenneth Branagh (playing the husband of Miranda), Tracie Thoms (a supportive friend), a hilarious Justin Theroux (the kind of rich man who seriously over-estimates his own intelligence at almost every opportunity), B. J. Novak (typical "new guard" type of businessman), and a sadly-underused Lucy Liu. Patrick Brammall is a bit disappointingly bland for a potential love interest, but Simone Ashley, Caleb Hearon, and Helen J. Shen are all very enjoyable as other individuals trying to survive in the Runway workplace jungle.

If you loved The Devil Wears Prada then you'll love this. As for me, sitting in the cinema in my supermarket jeans and movie-reference-covered-t-shirt, I was never going to be the target demographic for this.

6/10

Wednesday, 6 May 2026

Prime Time: The Smashing Machine (2025)

It's all well and good having a performance from Dwayne Johnson that surpasses anything else he has done on film to date, but there should still be a good enough film around that performance. The Smashing Machine isn't very good. It's not actually bad, but it certainly isn't as good as it should be, considering the footnote that basically reminds viewers of the impact that people like Mark Kerr (the character played by Johnson) made on the sporting landscape.

Essentially telling the story that many think was told well enough already in the documentary of the same name, this shows Kerr struggling to deal with the inevitable aches and pains that come from a career made in the world of wrestling and other styles of fighting. Those aches and pains lead to increased reliance on pain medications, which cause Kerr some big problems. He also has some problems in his relationship with Dawn Staples (Emily Blunt), but at least has the constant support of Mark Coleman (Ryan Bader), a man who has been his trainer, could occasionally be an opponent, and is always a good friend.

Written and directed by Benny Safdie, this is another recent biopic that seems content to deliver nothing more than superficial storytelling moments, instead of actual insight and substance. It's about a nice guy who makes a living in a way that doesn't look very nice, and there's also some relationship drama to go along with that, but that's really all. Which doesn't feel like nearly enough to justify the 123-minute runtime.

I don't want to take anything away from Johnson though. His performance here is great. It may not be as big a stretch for him as it would be for a non-wrestler, but he keeps trying his best to act and move exactly like Kerr. Blunt is given the less rewarding role, but she manages to make it work. Just. Bader is very good, helped by the fact that his own storyline develops nicely on the way to the final scenes, and there's a solid turn from Oleksandr Usyk that allows him to play a very worthy fighting opponent without turning him into a pantomime villain.

There's certainly a feeling throughout this that Benny Safdie clearly thought the story of Mark Kerr was one that needed shared with others via a feature film. The end result, however, falls down. Did I like Kerr by the end of this? I did, but not really any more than I liked him at the beginning. It didn't feel as if I'd been on a journey, none of the rare big moments here felt as if they had the weight they deserved, and it was only when some text came up at the very end of the film that I really understood the extra motivation for the telling of the tale. That underlines how disappointing and ineffective a lot of the film was, although others already armed with some knowledge of the people involved may react to it a bit more positively.

4/10

Friday, 7 June 2024

The Fall Guy (2024)

While I found enough in The Fall Guy to enjoy, and the metatextual layering should be especially delightful for fans of cinema and stunt work, it's easy to see why it didn't exactly set the box office alight. I was depressed by the amount of people reviewing this who felt the need to mention that they were unaware of the original TV show, a favourite in my household when I was a young boy, but failing to have enough "brand recognition" is really the least of this movie's problems.

Ryan Gosling plays Colt Seavers, a talented stunt performer who ends up leaving the business for some time to recuperate after one stunt went horribly wrong, seriously injuring him. He hides away from everyone, including the woman he was growing close to (Judy Moreno, played by Emily Blunt). Hollywood calls him back, however, when producer Gail Meyer (Hannah Waddingham) tells him that Judy wants his help in her feature directorial debut. He could also help her by locating her AWOL leading man (Tom Ryder, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson).

Directed by David Leitch, and written by Drew Pearce, this is a film that feels as if it has been crafted around three or four major set-pieces. There’s an impressive opening, a decent car stunt that shows our lead character fully back into the stunt life, a few enjoyable fight sequences, and a finale that almost works as a classic stunt checklist. It works well as a star vehicle that also serves to celebrate the stunt performers who are responsible for some of the great cinema spectacles.

Sadly, it doesn’t work well as an action romantic comedy, mainly because it doesn’t allow enough time for Gosling and Blunt to be onscreen together, but also because it is too cutesy in a way that I thought was a bit smug and irritating (prime example = a scene in which the leads are on the phone discussing the pros and cons of split-screen sequences . . . displayed via a split-screen sequence). It is also annoying to have the title be made so literal in at least two different ways, which makes a couple of the plot points more predictable and tiresome than they might otherwise have been.

Gosling is great in the lead role, but he is at his best when his character is quickly reacting to a dangerous situation whirling around him. He really shines in the second half, which is coincidentally when the action and daring nature of the stunts really appear to ramp up, but his presence is a boost for the whole film. Blunt, on the other hand, doesn’t fare so well. I like her as a performer, but she lacks whatever quality is needed to make her the best choice here. Maybe she’s just made to play things too cool. It’s a shame. Taylor-Johnson is fun, and hilarious when delivering his “film within the film” performance in a great Matthew McConaughey style, Waddingham does fine with a character who steers everything in a very obvious direction, and Winston Duke does well as a stunt co-ordinator and good friend to our reluctant hero. There are also small roles for Teresa Palmer and Stephanie Hsu, both completely wasted, and I am not sure why their characters were even kept in the film.

The pacing is helped by the building momentum, there’s a great soundtrack and score that is boosted by repeated riffs from “I Was Made For Lovin’ You”, and fans of stunt-work should love seeing how the staples of that discipline are constantly reworked and refreshed throughout this. It just doesn’t quite make one completely satisfying bit of blockbuster entertainment, despite being enjoyable enough. I would definitely rewatch it though, and a rewatch might get me to like it even more, especially when I consider how the small treats at the very end of the film kept me smiling as the long list of credits rolled.

6/10

Tuesday, 25 July 2023

Oppenheimer (2023)

A lot of the conversation around Oppenheimer has been as extreme as I thought it would be. Some are inevitably claiming that it is the best film yet from Christopher Nolan (which is saying something). While I wouldn't rush to agree with those people, I also wouldn't rush to disagree with them. This is the kind of polished and eye-popping cinematic experience that we've come to expect from Nolan, but it also contains a fair few "Nolan-isms", even if some work better here than they have in some of his past works.

Based on the book, "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer", written by Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin, Nolan uses his typical non-chronological approach to show us some key moments in the life of Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy). As fused with a man named Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.) as he is with the atomic bomb, Oppenheimer is portrayed as a complex and flawed figure, a man who didn't really treat the women in his life well, didn't bother to be discreet about opinions that would have had less valuable individuals ostracised, or worse, and didn't seem to fully keep the full ramifications of his actions in mind as he pursued a once-in-a-lifetime chance to turn theory into deadly reality.

Bizarrely, despite almost everyone onscreen here doing great work, the cast ends up being the aspect of this film warranting the least discussion. Murphy is excellent, giving a performance that could be considered the best of his career. Downey Jr. is also excellent, doing the kind of work that I last saw from him before he helped to kick-start the MCU. Emily Blunt and Florence Pugh also do well, although both have to work a lot harder to overcome a script that, accurately or not, boils them down to something akin to the grit helping to form the pearl. Matt Damon gets some great moments, playing the military man who essentially serves as the boss to Oppenheimer, Josh Hartnett continues his upswing (after impressing in his Black Mirror role, in the best episode of the most recent series), and Tom Conti is an absolute delight as Albert Einstein, but there are also supporting roles for the likes of Alden Ehrenreich, Jason Clarke, Dane DeHaan, Macon Blair, David Krumholtz, Kenneth Branagh (who may never act in anything close to his more natural accent again), and MANY others. It’s a veritable cornucopia of familiar faces, sometimes shown in unfamiliar ways, and it feels as if Nolan did this to ensure people stayed attentive throughout a film made up of scenes full of dialogue and mathematics.

Knowing what the film is about, and knowing how things ended up (spoiler - it doesn’t go well for the Japanese), Nolan actually does himself a great favour here by taking his standard non-chronological approach to the material. There are three main strands being woven together here - the one that everyone expects and two that may be much lesser-known - and it’s a testament to the screenplay that the ending is as gripping and cinematically satisfying as it is, considering that most of us would assume to know the ending.

The visuals throughout are clear and beautiful, although sometimes showing some moments of real horror as characters consider what has been born into the world, and I must single out cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema, who has been excelling in that role for over two decades now. Different visual styles are used for different plot elements, but each one is about as perfect a match as you could ask for.

Dialogue is also, and it brings me much joy to say this, clear throughout. Part of my problem with a few of the recent Nolan blockbusters has been his misjudged (in my view) attempts to use the audio mix in a way that sometimes makes the dialogue difficult to understand. That issue could have made Oppenheimer a chore to get through, as every exchange feels loaded with information and characterization, but there’s no need for concern. The audio is still used in interesting and impactful ways though, not least when explosions and aftershocks (literally and figuratively) are shaking viewers in their seats. There’s also another superb score accompanying the visuals, this time from Ludwig Göransson, who previously worked with Nolan on Tenet.

Despite some of the pre-release hype and marketing, I didn’t come out of Oppenheimer shaken and speechless. Nor did anyone else attending the packed screening I was at. I will give Nolan his due though, this was an experience that seemed designed to be both a front row seat to the moral quandary of the 20th century and a character study of someone who was almost equally respected and reviled. I certainly had to gather my thoughts for a while before even starting to write this review. The fact that it works so completely, and is an epic that many will want to rush to rewatch, is a brilliant achievement. Like the central figure, it’s imperfect, but impossible to dismiss. And if you don’t come out of it needing to spend some time fully considering the complexity and weight of what you have just witnessed . . . well, your cinema should still have more palatable entertainment available on a number of other screens.

9/10

Tuesday, 3 August 2021

Jungle Cruise (2021)

Look, not every film based on a Disney attraction is going to work. Just see The Haunted Mansion (or don't . . . I didn't hate that film and even I just rated it a 4/10). But the fact that it can work as well as it did with Pirates Of The Caribbean is probably good enough reason for film-makers to see what else they could adapt into a fun movie/franchise. And Jungle Cruise is definitely more in line with the latter than the former. It also has a very similar vibe to Fraser/Weisz The Mummy movies (no bad thing). And benefits from the absolute maelstrom of charisma that is Dwayne Johnson.

Emily Blunt plays Lily Houghton, a daring young woman who is determined to find a fabled tree that has leaves said to be able to cure illnesses. Having upset the proper establishment that doesn't believe in such things, and certainly won't accept such ideas coming from A WOMAN (this is the early 1900s, after all), Lily steals an arrowhead that may help her locate the tree, rushing off on an adventure with her brother, MacGregor (Jack Whitehall). The two get to South America, where they end up hiring a boat captained by Frank Wolff (Johnson). Danger lurks under every ripple of the river water, especially when they are being pursued by an obsessed and amoral German, Prince Joachim (Jesse Plemons), who also wants to find the tree. Oh, there are also some undead conquistadors (led by Aguirre, played by Édgar Ramirez) who want a chance to lift the curse placed upon them.

Jungle Cruise works as well as it does thanks to the wonderful interplay between Johnson, Blunt, and Whitehall. All three get a chance to show their comedic chops, and all three get to have at least one moment in which they show the real strength of their characters. Johnson gets to reel off a number of amusingly bad puns (the kind I always enjoy), and he's also a bit of a con artist, while Blunt has an impressively pro-active and savvy approach to her quest, even if she is given extra assistance from Johnson on a couple of occasions. There has been some praise for the fact that Whitehall's character is a young gay man in a Disney movie, but the House Of Mouse yet again make the minimum effort to show that they nowadays realise what a wonderful variety of human beings are out in the world.

The screenplay throws together Michael Green (who has worked on films such as Logan, Green Lantern, and Murder On The Orient Express) and Glenn Ficarra and John Requa (responsible for writing Cats & Dogs and, ummmm, Bad Santa). That mix ends up yielding a surprisingly cohesive result, with all three men obviously doing their best to please their Disney bosses, helped in developing the theme park ride into a movie idea by John Norville. There are a lot of little details that will please those who have been on the Jungle Cruise ride, the plotting is predictable in a way that doesn't make the adventure any less fun, and it's all just a perfectly-crafted, unabashed, blockbuster to enjoy on the big screen.

Director Jaume Collet-Serra is generally known for the films that he has directed in the horror and thriller genres (including House Of Wax, Orphan, and The Shallows), but he feels like a great choice to be helming this material, balancing the fun factor with the dark fantasy elements, particularly when the undead conquistadors take the centre stage. It may remain more of a Disney film than a Collet-Serra film, but that is what tends to happen with every Disney movie.

Aside from Johnson, Blunt, and Whitehall, there's a lot of fun to be had with the over-the-top villainy of Plemons, who seems to be having a ball, the nature-harnessing conquistadors, and Paul Giamatti, playing a character who is owed a debt by Frank Wolff that could lead to him taking ownership of Wolff's boat.

The runtime, just over two hours, fairly flies by, there's a decent musical score from James Newton Howard, and the only thing that drags this down is the feeling of "been there, done that" that permeates many of the major story beats. I'd recommend this as superior family entertainment, easily, but I'd also like to think that it doesn't need any sequels or spin-offs that I assume are already being planned.

8/10

Thursday, 10 June 2021

A Quiet Place Part II (2020)

I really enjoyed A Quiet Place. I wasn't the only one. It was very successful. I'm not sure how many people were wanting a sequel to it though, but here we are. Unsurprisingly enough, a sequel to a film that relied on tension and solid performances to distract you from the plot holes would seem to be an opportunity for more plot holes, considering the need to stretch out an idea that was really ideally suited to one movie. There are good moments in A Quiet Place Part II, but it does nothing to really justify existing, and may in fact cause some viewers to re-appraise just how much holds up in the first film.

After an unnecessary prologue sequence, seemingly designed to show one bit of sign language that will play into the third act, we join the characters who survived the first film. Evelyn (Emily Blunt) and her children (Regan, played by Millicent Simmonds, Marcus, played by Noah Jupe, and one tiny baby) have to move along after their home has been trashed by the alien beasties that stalk their pray by hearing their movements. They stumble upon the shelter of Emmett (Cillian Murphy), and things then jump from one bad decision to the next, mainly due to Regan having the idea of heading to a radio station to use her hearing aid in a way that can broadcast feedback on a certain frequency. Because these aliens are like insecure, arrogant males - they are caused confusion and pain by any kind of feedback.

Back in the director's chair, but this time taking on the writing duties solo, John Krasinski remains a reliable pair of hands. With the direction. It's just a shame that he doesn't take the time to make a sequel that slows things down further and patches up some of the holes in the first film. He instead opens things up, which just makes it easier to weigh up every moment, and every character decision, and find them wanting.

Blunt is once again very good in her role, as she always tends to be, and the younger cast members, Jupe and Simmonds, do a good job, with the latter continuing to be the big plus that she was the first time around. Murphy is also a consistent performer, but feels misused here, a character who is basically being proven wrong about how he has decided to settle for a life of safety and survival. Djimon Hounsou and Scoot McNairy get a few scenes, playing very different characters, and both are just fine.

The thing to admire most about A Quiet Place Part II is the fact that we're once again given a film that encourages people to be completely silent as they listen for, and are wary of, every sound. It's just a shame that the rest of the film is so carelessly constructed, with major injuries dismissed as minor handicaps for characters, reckless decisions that create needless peril for others, and also, perhaps worst of all, one or two main sequences that seem to misunderstand the way a creature could use acoustics to hear any moving prey.

A big step down from the first film, there are still some things to enjoy here (not least of which is the fact that this is a blockbuster horror flick not falling in line with some of the more common trends of the past decade), but you have to work harder to forcibly overlook the stuff that doesn't work.

5/10

Tuesday, 21 May 2019

Ani-MAY-tion: Sherlock Gnomes (2018)

I am going to start this review with a confession that probably won't shock many of you. I quite enjoyed Gnomeo & Juliet. I know, I know, the bright visuals, the puns, the Shakespeare references, the puns, the voice cast, the Elton John songs, and the puns. It was a strange mix that worked for me. So when they decided to bring out a sequel, utilising the influence of Sherlock Holmes, I figured that it would probably amuse and entertain me. That was not the case.

The plot is, at the heart of it, very simple. A load of gnomes are going missing throughout London, leaving the mystery to be solved by Sherlock Gnomes (Johnny Depp) and Watson (Chiwetel Ejiofor). This coincides with some tension between Gnomeo (James McAvoy) and Juliet (Emily Blunt) as the pair settle in to their new London home, alongside the other garden residents. When Gnomeo is also snatched away, Juliet has to team up with Sherlock, who is insufferably dismissive of those who help him. This crime must be the work of Moriarty (Jamie Demetriou), surely, despite the fact that he seemed to be squished/smashed in the opening sequence.

Sherlock Gnomes is bright and colourful, just like its predecessor, and it has some Elton John tunes here and there. That's where the similarity ends. The merging of the various elements just doesn't work well at all, leaving a bit of a mess that will satisfy none but the youngest viewers, who can at least be kept entertained by the main characters.

Director John Stevenson fails to wrestle the script, by Ben Zazove, into anything close to a decent adventure. The few set-pieces fail to impress, the humour falls flat, and, perhaps worst of all, the character of Sherlock is made into something almost unrecognisable. Okay, he LOOKS familiar, but that is it. I MIGHT have missed some references, but this also felt very lazy in the plotting and script, missing out on any opportunity to reference the great selection of cases that Sherlock Holmes fans would be aware of. It smacks of something put together without any enthusiasm or care.

Depp isn't actually bad in his voice role, although I am sure Holmes purists will balk at the very idea, and Ejiofor is equally good alongside him (although his Watson is even further removed from the character that we know and love, all for the sake of a lazy and obvious plot turn in the third act). Demetriou is fine as a non-menacing Moriarty, but you do get a couple of decent villains in the shape of a pair of gargoyles (voiced by Dexter Fletcher and Javone Prince) and Mary J. Blige as a female character named Irene. Blunt and McAvoy are good, once again, in the lead roles, and the supporting cast includes Ashley Jensen, Matt Lucas, Stephen Merchant, and Ozzy Osbourne.

And I almost forgot to mention the Elton John songs, but that's because the film feels as if it almost forgot to include any. You get snippets here and there, and musical motifs interspersed throughout the score, but this is done in a way that is much more jarring than it was in the first gnome-filled tale. That had two main focal points, the Shakespeare-inspired love story and the songs. This has the tale of two garden-dwelling lovers, the central mystery to be solved by Sherlock, and the songs. That may not seem like too many plates to spin but it's obviously one too many, leading to all three becoming more and more wobbly until they fall and smash on the ground.

While it didn't actually pain me to watch it, Sherlock Gnomes was a massive disappointment. And it could have easily been on a par with the first film, if anyone had cared about what they were making.

4/10

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

Sunday, 10 March 2019

Netflix And Chill: The Five-Year Engagement (2012)

Another offbeat rom-com from Nicholas Stoller (director and co-writer) and Jason Segel (star and co-writer), The Five-Year Engagement is a lot more fun, and a lot sweeter, than I expected it to be (considering the mixed opinions I had heard on it). The biggest problem it has, like so many other comedies from recent years, is a lengthy runtime. Having said that, I am not sure what I would cut out of it to slim it down. I just know that I was waiting for a suitable final act about thirty minutes before it was due to be delivered.

Segel and Emily Blunt play Tom and Violet, a couple who are very much in love, and so get engaged. As the title may suggest, things keep cropping up that extend their engagement again and again. They end up living in Michigan, which Tom resents, while others start to race forward with their own life plans (mainly Violet's sister, Suzie, and Tom's best friend, Alex). Nothing seems to get easier, which puts more and more strain on their relationship. Can they get through this problematic stage, or does such a lengthy engagement mean that it's just not meant to be?

The middle section of The Five-Year Engagement is the weakest part, as the film seems to relish piling on the misery for the two main characters and becoming far too sour for a rom-com (even for an anti-rom-com, which this seems to be for a while, before making amends in the final stages). There are still a lot of funny lines and moments, but everything is tinged with sadness, doubly so for viewers who like both of the leads (and I do).

Stoller directs capably enough. You get plenty of obvious, amusing, transitions, the soundtrack has some jangly guitar tunes on there, and he allows the cast to interact with one another in a way that feels natural without feeling like the extended improvisations you would get in a Judd Apatow film. But that's definitely the biggest problem here, the Apatow effect. There's just no need for a film like this to be over two hours long.

It's a good job that the cast are so enjoyable, making it easier to accept the inflated runtime. Segel and Blunt are fantastic in the lead roles, and you really root for them to stay together, and a lot of laughs come from Alison Brie and Chris Pratt, playing Suzie and Tom. Rhys Ifans is also good fun, playing a professor who supports Violet in a way that may creep beyond professional interest, and others joining in with the fun include Brian Posehn, Dakota Johnson, Mindy Kaling, Randall Park, Kevin Hart, Jacki Weaver, and more.

This is a fun film. It has enough laughs to be a good comedy. It has enough sweetness to be a good romance. It's a fantastic ninety minutes. Stretched to over two hours.

7/10

Pick it up here.
Americans can go buy it here.

Tuesday, 12 February 2019

Charlie Wilson's War (2007)

A comedy-drama based on the real events that saw a Congressman named Charlie Wilson building support, in terms of funds and supplies, for the Afghan people being decimated during the Soviet-Afghan War that lasted throughout most of the 1980s, Charlie Wilson's War is an interesting look at the fluidity of loyalty, certainly in comparison to how things stand today. It also underlines the importance of staying to finish a job if you're going to help out a country being ravaged by war, something that America didn't do for the Afghan people, arguably leading to the whole mess that we now find ourselves in.

Tom Hanks stars as Wilson, a role that makes use of his easy likability while refusing to hide the failings of the man (mainly drink and women, not necessarily in that order). Starting from a point of relative ignorance, his journey to Afghanistan, and what he sees there, begins a relatively speedy learning curve that connects him to a wealthy potential donor, Joanne Herring (played by Julia Roberts), and a talented CIA operative (Gust Avrakotos, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman). The three work hard to raise interest and money for something they view as a worthwhile war effort, and there are some startling results as Wilson digs his heels in to negotiate budget packages and effective plans.

The final film directed by Mike Nichols, this belongs much more to the writer, Aaron Sorkin. Sorkin is pretty much THE person to go to when you want to deliver lots of information in a comprehensive, and comprehendible, manner while also fleshing out a variety of main players. Adapting the book by George Crile, Sorkin appears to be in his element as he wrestles the complexities of the diplomatic and political proceedings into a narrative that manages to be both informative and entertaining. But he also makes time and space to give the leads some great moments (the lead role is a doozy for Hanks and the main scene introducing Hoffman's character is one of the funniest things that he's ever done).

Noticing the style of the writing more than the style of direction isn't to say that Nichols does anything wrong here. It's just that he is content to keep everything relatively simple when it comes to letting his impressive ensemble have fun with the script.

Having already praised Hanks and Hoffman, both giving standout performances in a career that isn't short of great turns from them, it's also worth paying compliments to Roberts (who has less screen time but still gets a couple of moments in which to shine) and Amy Adams (playing a dutiful assistant to Charlie Wilson). There are also very enjoyable appearances from Emily Blunt, Om Puri, Ned Beatty, Ken Stott, and others, all serving the script as best they can.

Given the quality of the various aspects, it's a shame that this doesn't quite become the sum of its parts. There's just something holding it back. A reticence to pick at the scab long enough, to take more moments to show the waters getting murkier and murkier, and a third act that doesn't underline the serious consequences of what is played out as a bit of a light romp for some of the main players.

This is a very good film, a smart one aimed at adults, but it could have been tweaked to be even better.

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

Thursday, 16 August 2018

A Quiet Place (2018)

Evelyn Abbott (Emily Blunt) and Lee Abbott (John Krasinski) try to live a simple life with their children, Regan (Millicent Simmonds), Marcus (Noah Jupe), and Beau (Cade Woodward). Regan is deaf, and so the whole family spend a lot of time communicating with one another using ASL. Their method of communication isn’t really a choice though, it’s all down to the fact that they are trying to survive in a dangerous environment that also contains deadly creatures drawn to sound.

Post-apocalyptic in tone, A Quiet Place is an interesting oddity that seemed to surpass many expectations with the level of success it attained in cinemas. It’s a horror film with heart, one that will appeal to anyone seeking some thrills and emotional turbulence to view in the company of loved ones. It may not appeal as much to people wanting better scares, or a decent amount of bloodshed, or a tight plot that doesn’t fall apart under closer scrutiny, but it definitely tries to please most of the people most of the time.

Directed by Krasinski, who also worked on the screenplay alongside story creators Bryan Woods and Scott Beck, A Quiet Place benefits from some very effective lead performances and a few moments of near-unbearable tension. It's just a shame that the level of care shown in those areas wasn't also shown when it came to crafting the backstory to the world we are shown, or even explaining the motivations behind certain behaviours displayed (characters being barefoot is one of the most obvious ones that seems to make sense until you think about it for more than five seconds).

But let's get back to praising those performances. Krasinski is solid in his role, but in some ways he is the least of the leads (not due to his lack of talent, simply due to the way he keeps the focus on the other characters). Blunt is excellent, remaining tough while she becomes more and more vulnerable, due to her state of pregnancy, and Simmonds and Jupe prove to be more than a match for their adult co-stars, and Woodward doing just fine in his smaller role.

It seems obvious to say that the sound design of the film is an essential component, but it's also strange to have to admit that it doesn't always seem to get this part right. This isn't anything to do with the actual technical side of things but is, once again, to do with a lack of care taken with the rules and backstory left underdeveloped in a way that leaves some seeming lapses in logic populating the screenplay like potholes in a fairly new road.

All in all, this is almost as good as many people will have already told you it is. While it's on, and while it's building the tension and taking you through a bit of an emotional rollercoaster. It's just not one that holds up as well as it could, once you start to think about the details more.

8/10

You can be quiet here.
Americans can be quiet here.

Tuesday, 13 January 2015

Into The Woods (2014)

From my very limited experience of Stephen Sondheim, I have to say that I'm not a big fan. I'm not sure what I'm missing that everyone else gets from his work, but I certainly seem to be missing something. Of course, I've not yet seen any of his works on the stage, where they may shine at their brightest, but this is my second time viewing a movie based on his work. The first time was Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street. I didn't love it. Yet I didn't dislike it either. It grew on me. The only thing I still don't love about it was, unfortunately, most of the soundtrack. I left the screening of Into The Woods trying hard not to hate it.

The story is as follows: a baker (James Corden) and his wife (Emily Blunt) are unable to have children. They are offered the chance to change the situation by a witch (Meryl Streep), and to appease her they must find a cow as white as milk, a cape as red as blood, a golden shoe, and hair as yellow as corn. The witch then disappears in a swirl of witchiness, leaving the baker and his wife to cross paths with Jack (Daniel Huddlestone), Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), Cinderella (Anna Kendrick) and Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy).

It's a star-studded affair, no doubt about it, with some lovely production values and competent direction from Rob Marshall. But it's also such a drab, lifeless affair that I can't see anyone being overjoyed by it, except perhaps fans of the stage show (and even they may be disappointed by the handling of the material - as can happen with anything being adapted into movie form). The script, written by James Lapine and Sondheim, seems to spend a lot of time wringing comedy from the fact that it's so amusing and sly and subversive when it's not. People have been reworking and twisting fairy tales almost as long as fairy tales have been around, and this plot throws everything around in pretty haphazard manner that never allows viewers to forget that different elements are being shoehorned in to fit alongside one another.

The cast all do a decent job though, so that's another plus point. Streep is a fun witch, Kendrick is suitably sweet as Cinderella, and Corden and Blunt do their best to make their characters likable (although it's a struggle). Crawford and Huddlestone both feel right for their roles, and they get their fair share of screentime, which is more than can be said for poor Mackenzie Mauzy. She's consigned to little more than a bit part, and is given very little to do when she IS onscreen. Chris Pine steals the show as a dashing prince, Billy Magnussen tries hard as another prince, Tracey Ullman is underused (playing Jack's mother), Johnny Depp has an enjoyable cameo, playing The Wolf, and Christine Baranski, Tammy Blanchard and Lucy Punch prove to be consistently entertaining as the evil family unit that Cinderella is stuck with.

Despite my own opinion of the film, it's worth noting that this is already a big success at the box office, and probably nowhere near its final total haul yet. So perhaps many other people are taking something away from it that I missed. Like an appreciation of Sondheim's talent.

4/10

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

Wednesday, 17 December 2014

Wind Chill (2007)

Playing out like a mix of Frozen and Dead End, Wind Chill is a decent supernatural horror movie that just lacks that certain something. Perhaps it's the thin characterisations, or perhaps it's the sensation of randomness that affects portions of the film, especially the middle third.

Emily Blunt is the girl who hitches a lift home for the Christmas break. The driver is a young man (Ashton Holmes) who, as it turns out, is really looking forward to spending some time with Miss Blunt. And who can blame him? Well, his passenger can blame him when he takes them along a back road that leads to an accident, leaving them stranded in the cold. The sub-zero temperature is bad enough, but the restless spirits that seem to congregate near their car prove to be even more problematic.

Written by Joe Gangemi and Steven Katz, this is a script that doesn't even name the two main characters. Seriously, they're called Girl and Guy. Thankfully, they seem to have spent more time on the rest of the story, and have paid particular attention to the well-crafted scares and shiver-inducing atmosphere (in terms of both spookiness and physical temperature).

Director Gregory Jacobs does well enough with the basic elements, although there are many times during which the screen feels slightly too dark. Other than that, however, the camerawork seems decent enough, the special effects work well, there's a decent score from Clint Mansell, and there's great use of the song "Rockin' Around The Christmas Tree".

Blunt is someone I always tend to like onscreen, and she manages to remain likable here, despite the fact that her character doesn't start off seeming very nice at all. She's quick to complain to the driver about his car, and then spends most of her time talking to someone at the other end of her mobile phone. The script, and Blunt's performance, prevent this behaviour from becoming too annoying, at least until she has genuine reasons to complain. Holmes takes most of this mild abuse in his stride, which becomes easier to understand when his motive becomes clear. He also gives the kind of performance pitched perfectly between sweet and creepy, which allows the movie to twist and turn when things start to wade further into outright horror territory. Martin Donovan is appropriately scary as a nasty Highway Patrolman, and Ned Bellamy is onscreen, seemingly, to pad the running time out by ten minutes or so.

A few people like this more than I did. It's one that I've seen recommended to horror fans every now and again, and most respond well to it. I liked it, and I wanted to like it even more. Unfortunately, that choppy, random middle section just dragged the whole thing down by a couple of points.

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

Friday, 30 May 2014

Bonus Review: Edge Of Tomorrow (2014)

Live. Die. Repeat. That's the tagline for Edge Of Tomorrow, a film most easily described as Groundhog Day meets Saving Private Ryan, with the sentinels from The Matrix movies added to the mix. Tom Cruise is the leading man, sharing the screen with Emily Blunt, for the most part, and director Doug Liman is the man doing his best to ensure that viewers get plenty of bang for their buck.

Cruise plays Cage, the hero of the movie, but you wouldn't know that from the first scenes featuring his character. Because Cage is not a soldier. He's a Major, yes, but one who has always managed to avoid being involved in any major battle with an invading alien force that has been waging war against humans for the past five years. When Cage defies a request to lead troops into a final battle that his military superiors predict will lead to victory he is arrested, demoted, and thrown in with a squad of soldiers who are all making final preparations a day ahead of going into the battle. When tomorrow comes along, Cage can't even work his battle-suit properly. He has no idea how to turn off the safety. He dies pretty quickly. And then wakes up again, handcuffed and about to be bawled out by Master Sergeant Farell (Bill Paxton). This happens again. And again. And again. It turns out that Cage has absorbed some power from the enemy, an ability to reset the day when he dies, but it's only a woman named Rita (Emily Blunt), a war hero who has, at one point, gone through exactly what Cage is experiencing. Can they use the power to change fate and win the war?

Based on source material by Hiroshi Sakurazaka (which goes by the better title "All You Need Is Kill" - the original title for the movie), Edge Of Tomorrow delivers everything that you expect from it. If you've seen the trailer then you won't be sold short. Many reviewers have already commented on the fact that this is the ultimate videogame movie and that's a good point. Cage has to learn with each journey, and whenever he's killed he ends up "respawning" back at the start, although viewers are saved the full journey on each occasion, joining the characters instead at every main junction to see how bad decisions are overturned, and how the main character develops his muscle memory on each attempt. The script, by Christopher McQuarrie, Jex Butterworth and John-Henry Butterworth, is sharp and witty throughout. You do get one or two scenes of exposition, of course, but they're perfectly done, brief and informative, before everyone gets back to battleground manoeuvres.

There will always be people who hate Tom Cruise, no matter what he does. Well, screw 'em is what I say. I've been a fan of the man for years, and he almost always delivers the goods when it comes to blockbuster fare of this type. This is another good performance. It's fun to see his character develop throughout the movie, especially in the first third, which makes it clear that he's not a soldier. He is, in fact, a bit of a useless coward. Cruise puts on his big grin, and isn't afraid (as he never has been) to twist it in a way that shows just how his character has managed to get to where he is without seeing combat. That grin brings a whole backstory that the writers don't need to make explicit. But when the grin disappears and the constant battling starts to reshape Cage into something he never thought he would be - a soldier - it becomes easy to root for him, and easy to believe in his transformation. Because Cruise makes it easy.

Nobody seems to hate Emily Blunt, and her performance here isn't likely to upset anyone. She's tough, likable, smart and naturally beautiful without ever being made into "the girl who needs saved" or any of that nonsense. Oh, there is added motivation for the character played by Cruise, but throughout most of the movie it is Blunt's character who plans and drives everything forward, reminding everyone who needs reminding that their lives are a small sacrifice if it means stopping the slaughter of the human race.

Elsewhere, Brendan Gleeson is enjoyable in his small role, Bill Paxton steals a couple of scenes as soon as he appears, and Noah Taylor is the scientist who provides some exposition. Jonas Armstrong, Tony Way, Kick Gurry, Franz Drameh, Dragomir Mrsic and Charlotte Riley are the main soldiers who end up stuck with the rookie in their midst. The main thrust of the storyline demands that these characters stay on the sidelines during many sequences, but the script does a great job of making them identifiable enough for whenever they get to move back into focus.

Liman spins a number of plates here and makes it all seem pretty effortless. The action moments are as intense as they need to be, but never headache-inducing, the plotting and pacing are perfect, and the humour running through almost every scene helps to offset the darker elements of the film. Cruise can't just fall asleep every night and then wake up again. He has to be killed. Remember: Live. Die. Repeat.

There are one or two big plot holes (almost always inevitable with this kind of material), but if you're sitting thinking of them while the movie is unfolding then you're a tough viewer to please. I was, admittedly, ever so slightly disappointed by the final few minutes, but this is superior sci-fi action fare, and I don't see why anyone should write it off because of some very minor flaws. On the contrary, I encourage all sci-fi movie fans to check this one out as soon as possible. Ironically, after the first trip you may even want to watch it again.

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

Friday, 16 November 2012

Dan In Real Life (2007)

There are parts of a nice movie hidden within Dan In Real Life. In fact, there are parts of a movie that the cast deserve a hell of a lot more than this one. Especially Steve Carell in the lead role.

Carell plays the Dan of the title. He’s a widower with three young girls who seem to test him more and more every day. He also writes a column in which he offers other people advice and helps them with their own family problems. If only he could sort out his own. He and the girls head off to a family gathering and it’s not long before Dan is encouraged to head off for a bit of time on his own. He heads to a local bookshop and, while there, meets the beautiful Anne-Marie (Juliette Binoche). The two of them have a wonderful time talking together and Dan gets her phone number as they go their separate ways. He’s shocked when he gets home and is introduced to the latest girlfriend of his brother (Mitch, played by Dane Cook). Yep, it’s Anne-Marie. So begins a family gathering from hell as Dan veers between playing things overly cool and letting his emotions cause no small amount of embarrassment.

Directed by Peter Hedges (who also co-wrote the movie with Pierce Gardner), Dan In Real Life benefits from an absolutely superb cast but doesn't give any of them enough moments in which to shine.

Carell is wonderful and Binoche is delightful but the great Dianne Wiest and John Mahoney are sadly underused while the not-so-great Dane Cook is sadly given plenty of screentime. Now, unlike some folks, I don't mind Dane Cook and have actually enjoyed a number of his movies and performances but he's not served well by the script here, his role being little more than harmless schmo oblivious to some rather obvious awkwardness between his new lady and his brother. If you like Emily Blunt then you may be disappointed to see that she's also given very little to do. In fact, her screentime amounts to little more than five minutes and her character is simply a bit of an antidote to all of the subtle treachery occuring while, let's face it, a guy tries to sabotage his brother's latest relaionship. Alison Pill, Britt Robertson and Marlene Lawstonare all quite good as Dan's three young daughters but even their characters aren't given all that much to do.

There were a couple of moments that made me laugh and many moments that made me cringe but I couldn't bring myself to rate the movie as something truly terrible. It's quite a disappointment but at least the performances are good.

4/10

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