Netflix And Chill: Train Dreams (2025)

I made some time for Train Dreams this weekend because it is one of the few films nominated in the main categories at the 2026 Academy Awards. There was no other reason. I didn’t even really know what it was about, but I suspected it might be one that didn’t impress me. Joel Edgerton is someone I am still wary of, despite the fact that he has quietly delivering brilliant performance after brilliant performance now for at least the better part of ten to fifteen years. And even people who praised the film seemed to avoid mentioning what it was actually about, which made me think it was going to be less than captivating.

Happily, I was wrong again. Edgerton plays Robert Grainier, a man who just happens to be born at a time when American is starting to build railroads and hurtle towards a momentarily gleaming and awesome future. But the hard work must be done before the celebrations can begin. Rail tracks are laid, gangs of men are left in the wilderness to work hard and risk death every day, and few of the jobs helping to create a transport infrastructure are without major risk. Robert can keep thinking about his wife (Gladys, played by Felicity Jones) while he sees the pain and death around him, but it isn’t long until his own life starts to be overshadowed by tragedy.

Adapted from a novella by Denis Johnson, this screenplay by Greg Kwedar and director Clint Bentley (who also co-wrote Bentley's first feature about five years ago) is an enjoyable look at the many changes one man can see happening in a particular lifetime. Robert may seem to be a background character, in many ways, but he is a witness to a very interesting chapter in history, as well as being an important part of the machinery used to build and shape the USA, in more ways than one. Bentley takes in everything around the main character, but the narrative and Edgerton's presence, as quiet and still as he is, stops viewers from forgetting who is the essential jigsaw piece completing the big picture.

Edgerton is a calm and stoic lead, as good here as he has been in any other role he's had throughout his career. He has the right face for showing endurance and growing tiredness. Jones has a lot less to do, in many ways, but works perfectly as the woman so beloved by him that her presence is felt reverberating through everything else that he does. William H. Macy is delightful in a bittersweet supporting role, and there are great moments for Clifton Collins Jr., Paul Schneider, John Diehl, and Kerry Condon. Everything is also helped by the superb narration from Will Patton, who has the perfect voice for this story.

At once both small and vast, this is an epic tale told through the prism of one "bystander". It's a timely reminder that, however much we want to participate or stay out of things, we are all a constant part of history. We can add something worthwhile, we can allow horrible things to happen without intervening, but we all play our part. And if that isn't something that everyone needs reminding of right now then I don't know what is. 

9/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share  

Prime Time: Oh. What. Fun. (2025)

One of the bigger Christmas movies to appear at the end of 2025, Oh. What. Fun. has a wealth of talent on both sides of the camera. It's directed and co-written by Michael Showalter, comedy fans should already be familiar with his name, and makes use of the likes of Denis Leary, Felicity Jones, Jason Schwartzman, Chloë Grace Moretz, Dominic Sessa, Joan Chen, and Eva Longoria. All while boasting another leading role for the great Michelle Pfeiffer.

Pfeiffer plays Claire, a mother and wife who is starting to feel very unappreciated. All she wants from her grown children is a nomination that will get her some recognition and an appearance on her favourite daytime TV show (hosted by Zazzy Tims, played by Longoria). Sammy (Sessa) is too busy feeling sorry for himself after recently being dumped by his girlfriend (Mae-bell, played by Maude Apatow), Taylor (Moretz) is distracted by her latest new love, Donna (Devery Jacobs), and Channing (Jones) is considering how to transition to some new holiday traditions with her own family. There's also a perfect neighbour (played by Joan Chen) adding some pressure to the holiday season, and things snowball until Claire just decides that she has to take a break from her family. On Christmas.

This is a strange one. It will be enjoyable enough for some, and you would think it could hardly fail with everyone helping to fill out the cast list, but, contrary to the title, it's not really any fun. And, yes, I am aware that the title is supposed to be ironic. The tone of the film isn't though. It's supposed to be a mix of comedy and drama that does what pretty much every Christmas movie does: deliver a seasonal message about kindness and love. It just rarely works as well as it should.

First of all, despite the very true statements made by Pfeiffer about how many Christmas movies (and, let's face it, movies in general) are made about men/boys needing help in comparison to movies that celebrate all that women do . . . the fact that the central character here is seemingly motivated by her own need to be seen as so much better than others around her doesn't help to make her a very sympathetic lead. In fact, and maybe I am risking some wrath here by just commenting as a clueless bloke, Pfeiffer's character isn't very pleasant to her family, doesn't seem to have any friends to help her let off some steam, and generally demands some specific rewards and recognition for doing a decidedly average job, at best, of being the family matriarch. Her husband and children may be a bit selfish and inconsiderate, but so is our lead, despite her actions trying to prove otherwise.

Second, it's neither very funny, nor is it very Christmassy. Many won't mind the lack of laughs, but I was hoping for something to compensate for the lack of real drama (and I do mean a LACK of real drama, with a few things being presented here that end up being completely inconsequential as things quickly move from one scene to the next . . . try to argue with me on that point and then tell me why we had that shoplifting scene, and what that added to anything). There are Christmas decorations, of course, and some pleasant chilliness in the air, but the lack of any sweet centre, and an apparent reticence to fully lean into all of the holiday trimmings, stop this from feeling like something designed specifically to be appreciated in the run up to Christmas.

Sessa and Schwartzman give the two best performances onscreen, which is a real shame when you consider who should be the shining stars. The latter plays Doug, husband of Channing, and his general mistreatment in the family home is another mark against the film, especially when he's shown struggling to connect with Channing's siblings, but always willing to turn up and do his best for family time nonetheless. Another enjoyable turn comes from Havana Rose Liu, playing a cool daughter of Chen's character. Pfeiffer struggles with the unhelpful material, as do both Jones and Moretz. Leary fares a bit better, but is, much like his character, able to coast along without making any major effort. And as for Eva Longoria, she does almost well enough to make you forget her small role in War Of The Worlds. Almost.

The first screenplay from Chandler Baker, adapted from her own short story, Oh. What. Fun. just has far too many things wrong with it to get even close to feeling right. Whatever Showalter thought that he could bring to the material isn't clear. All he's managed to do is helm a feature that will rank as one of the worst mainstream releases for all involved. And that is saying something when you think of the collected filmographies of the leads.

3/10

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 

The Brutalist (2024)

I can easily pretend that I am able to keep an open mind when going into every film I watch, but it's just as easy for me to admit that I didn't expect to enjoy The Brutalist. A serious movie, a seriously loooooong movie (it's 214 minutes, and includes an intermission), and a serious amount of Adrien Brody being all serious just doesn't thrill me. The Brutalist is REALLY good though.

Brody stars as László Tóth, a man who has to try and start his life over again after fleeing post-war Europe in the late 1940s. He wants to get everything back on track as quickly as possible, keen to reunite with his wife, Erzsébet (Felicity Jones), and the young niece she is raising (Zsófia, played by Raffey Cassidy). Things don't go well, initially, but the passage of time allows at least one man (the wealthy Harrison Lee Van Buren, played by Guy Pearce) to see László for the talented individual he is. Will that talent be enough to keep him safe and welcome though, or is László destined to be perceived through a filter of preconceptions and prejudices?

Working on a screenplay once again with Mona Fastvold, director Brady Corbet here helms his most impressive feature yet (even better than The Childhood Of A Leader). It's still going to be too slow and sedate for some people, but there's something important in every scene here, whether it's obvious or not, and Fastvold and Corbet justify the hefty runtime of the film with a density of thought-provoking material, as well as the ever-widening scope that viewers are presented with.

Nobody really puts a foot wrong when it comes to the acting side of things (although Jones is just a little bit weaker than the others, due to her performance feeling more like a full-on performance at times). Brody fully deserves the second leading actor Academy Award that this gave him, Pearce is as good as he's been in anything from the past decade, and Cassidy, Isaach De Bankolé, Alessandro Nivola, Joe Alwyn, Jonathan Hyde, and Stacy Martin all do well in smaller roles that could have seen them easily overshadowed.

There's also some beautiful cinematography by Lol Crawley and a superb score from Daniel Blumberg, as well as many other positives I could mention from the technical side of things.

It's the ideas that will stick with you for a long time though. We've seen this kind of thing before, but not necessarily being viewed from these new angles. The Brutalist looks at the upheaval and losses caused by war, and it serves as a reminder that a genocide reverberates far beyond the list of those murdered by their oppressors. People change who they are, deliberately or not, and artists and tradespeople end up seeing a lot, if not all, of their work consigned to some historical dustbin. We lose people in a war, physical bodies broken and destroyed, but we also lose many minds and souls. It's hard to come up with some kind of ultimate total cost, but it's inevitably always a lot more than it might appear to be on paper. 

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 

Inferno (2016)

Despite knowing how they are generally viewed by many other people, I am a BIG fan of the previous movies featuring the character of Robert Langdon. Having read most of the books written by Dan Brown, I knew the way he created the contrivances and characters, and the movies managed to move along at a brisk enough pace to make me forget the increasing incredulity of the set-pieces (almost). I was looking forward to Inferno, remembering the high stakes and the tense final act.

Sadly, this is the weakest of the cinematic trilogy, and it's easy to see why. The source material just isn't as easy to translate into cinematic entertainment, and there's also the small problem of each subsequent film highlighting just how many times Brown reaches for the same bag of tricks. Director Ron Howard cannot do much while tied to the novel, and writer David Koepp doesn't want to take any risks in his adaptation of the work.

Hanks returns once again to play the hero, who this time starts things by waking up in an Italian hospital with what seems to be a very bad case of amnesia. He barely has time to try and remember who he is before Dr. Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) is helping him to evade a deadly assassin. The two of them then race against the clock to hopefully stop a madman from releasing a virus that will cut the population of the entire planet in half.

It's hard to work up any enthusiasm for Inferno, it's such a mediocre and disappointing movie, especially coming after two much better films. Things start promisingly enough (there's the suicide of the madman who has already put his plan in motion, there's Langdon having a nightmarish vision of people burning to death around him), but that is all soon forgotten as the plot starts to trudge along from one weak set-piece to the next. Even the travelogue aspect isn't all that enjoyable, with the camerawork and visuals surprisingly dull throughout. How the hell do you make Venice look anything less than eye-poppingly gorgeous??

Hanks is yet again a comfortable fit in the role, and Felicity Jones is an enjoyable co-star for him, hampered by the material, but buoyed by the fact that she's Felicity Jones. Omar Sy is okay, but equally hampered by the material, and there are unmemorable supporting turns from Irrfan Khan, Sidse Babett Knudsen, and Ana Ularu. Ben Foster stands out, despite his limited screentime, thanks to his role in one or two of the most intriguing scenes.

Others might end up enjoying this more than I did. If you haven't read the books, or seen the other movies, then you may have a better viewing experience. I found it a big disappointment, especially following on from the two movies that preceded it.

4/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

The Theory Of Everything (2014)

It's a biopic. It's British. It features someone striving to battle a debilitating disease. And the lead performance is one that could be called transformative. Yes, The Theory Of Everything is one big chunk of tasty Oscar-bait. That doesn't mean that it's great.

Eddie Redmayne stars as Stephen Hawking, arguably the most famous scientist of the 21st century. When diagnosed with Motor Neuron Disease, at the age of 21, he was only given about two years to live. That was in 1963. This film shows his life, from horsing around with his university chums to meeting Jane (Felicity Jones), the woman who would become his wife, and developing his theories on black holes, time and our entire universe. It is a potted history of someone who has changed the way we view both outer and inner space.

Adapting the book written by Jane Hawking, Anthony McCarten takes all of the moments that you'd expect to find here and places them exactly where they should be. There's a distinct lack of imagination and flair on display here, with the exception of one or two pleasant surprises. Overall, the film has the air of a TV movie, albeit one with a sizable budget.

Director James Marsh seems content to let his cast take on the heavy lifting, as it were, and translates the screenplay by McCarten into equally lacklustre visuals. You get snapshots of the English countryside, there's a fitting score that's always ready to swell whenever an emotional moment needs highlighted, and any bad feelings are hastily covered over or thrown into the back of a pantry, where they are left to grow and fester until they can no longer be ignored.

There's no denying, however, that the cast DO elevate the material, with Redmayne giving quite a superb physical performance as Hawking. He's cheeky, charming, stubborn, pained, and much more besides, often all at once. Jones also does very well in her role, although she suffers from the fact that her character is landed with most of the heavy-handed, emotional fare. Sorry, that should say "most of the heavy-handed, EMOTIONAL fare". David Thewlis is a delight in his supporting role, playing a teacher who also becomes a friend to Hawking, Charlie Cox is nice enough, and Maxine Peake livens things up slightly in the last third of the film, playing the nurse who would make Hawking lovestruck again.

The Theory Of Everything is a pretty poor film. It's predictable, it's bland, and it doesn't even feel as if it goes deep enough into the minds of the main characters. Those central performances help to lift it just above the realm of average, with Redmayne doing such a great job that I wish he'd had a better movie to star in.

6/10

http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Everything-Blu-ray-DIGITAL-UltraViolet/dp/B00QFSIIFK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1419928566&sr=8-1&keywords=the+theory+of+everything