Netflix And Chill: Enola Holmes (2020)

AKA The Adventures Of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Sister. Okay, maybe not quite. But that's what they're going for sometimes.

Millie Bobby Brown plays the titular character, younger sister of Sherlock and Mycroft, in this adventure mystery based on a book by Nancy Springer. There's the obvious source material from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to be acknowledged, but writer Jack Thorne delivers a screenplay that keeps the focus on the spirit of sleuthing and being curious, instead of staying far too beholden to the many exploits of Sherlock himself.

Things really get going when Enola's mother (Eudoria Holmes, played by Helena Bonham Carter) goes missing. Once her brothers have returned home and made little effort to solve what appears to be a great mystery, Enola decides to set off and find her AWOL parent. That's how she ends up encountering a young man named Tewkesbury (Louis Partridge), which brings her to the attention of some dastardly villains, particularly the murderous Linthorn (Burn Gorman).

Director Harry Bradbeer works well enough with easygoing escapism that relies on the star power of Brown, as well as the familiar faces in supporting roles (Henry Cavill is a considerate Sherlock, while Sam Claflin plays the more abrupt Mycroft). The runtime is predictably nudging right against the two hour mark, but it has just the right levels of energy and fun to make everything pass by briskly enough. 

And a large part of that energy and fun comes from Brown herself. I am not always a big fan of her work, and think she got lucky to land her Stranger Things role that fast-tracked her to stardom, but she’s very good here as a young woman with the brains and strength to make things very complicated for the many men who would rather she just stayed quiet and stayed out of their way. Partridge is a good pairing for Brown, the two work well enough in the scenes that they share, and Gorman makes a reasonably fun baddie. While Cavill is a bit too caring and considerate for a typical portrayal of Sherlock, he does well enough to make his casting work, and Claflin is enjoyably aloof as Mycroft. Carter is enjoyable in her relatively short amount of screentime, and you have support from the likes of Frances de la Tour, Susan Wokoma, Claire Rushbrook, and Adeel Akhtar (playing the familiar character of Lestrade).

I had fun with this while it was on, but it doesn’t quite do everything it sets out to do. The puzzles are a bit too easy to figure out, the action is never as thrilling as it could be, and viewers have to accept the fact that the main character often breaks the fourth wall to deliver extra details and exposition. I doubt I will rewatch it any time, but I am definitely happy enough to watch the sequels.

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. All links are HERE.
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

Netflix And Chill: Ladies First (2026)

If Ladies First had been made in the 1980s then it might seem like something fun and harmless. It could make use of some comedy stars to have some fun with the deep-rooted problems in a patriarchal society that would seem ripe for an overhaul. As a film released in 2026, however, it's just a depressing reminder of how little progress has been made throughout modern history. And it doesn't have the right lead actor needed to make it an amusing enough distraction.

Sacha Baron Cohen plays a male chauvinist pig named Damien Sachs. Working for a company that needs some better optics, he promotes the talented Alex Fox (Rosamund Pike), but doesn't really want to take note of her good ideas. He doesn't really want her input on anything at all, because he and his colleagues are used to completely ignoring women unless they're trying to sleep with them. That becomes a big problem when Damien hits his head and wakes up in a world where the roles are reversed. Women are in charge, and he will be trapped there until he can figure out a way to get into a top management position.

I actually wondered why I didn't have more fun with this, but writing out that plot summary has clarified things for me. This is a Netflix film based on another Netflix film, "Je Ne Suis Pas Un Homme Facile", which may not seem like a great idea, but there's just about enough talent behind and in front of the camera to make it work. If only anyone involved actually made some effort.

Director Thea Sharrock doesn't do much to liven things up, settling for a reliance on numerous production design gags (various ads using males in very little clothing, Burger Queen, etc.), and writers Natalie Krinsky, Cinco Paul, and Katie Silberman seem so busy having fun with the role reversal concept that they forget to pack in more gags or any storyline that viewers may actually care about. Everything about this, from the obviousness of the jokes to the character names (male character names Sachs, female is Fox, and even a character our lead needs to pursue as he tries to get promotion is named Chase), is lazy.

There are better performances from most of the other players, but Cohen cannot make his main character work, which is a big negative. He can be cocky and rude, believably sexist for most of the runtime, but there's nothing tempering that, either because of the writing or because Cohen cannot manage to add a touch of honey to his sharpness. Pike is much better, but even she is unable to do anything truly great with what she's given. Fiona Shaw presents a riff on a character that she's done a number of times before (she's very good at being the polite Brit who also happens to be struggling to contain a burning passion), Richard E. Grant is amusing enough as he portrays "Pigeon Man", and there are decidedly okay turns from Emily Mortimer, Tom Davis, Charles Dance, Bill Paterson, and Kathryn Hunter, to namecheck the main faces I recognised.

I had heard bad things about this before I pressed play, but I figured that it was just being dismissed by people who weren't in the mood for some silliness. I was wrong. Silly isn't bad. Silly and lazy and unfunny is bad. Did I smirk a couple of times? Yes. Did I laugh enough times to be able to rate this as a comedy? Not even close.

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

Mubi Monday: Hot Milk (2025)

Not every celebrated arthouse movie is going to be appreciated by every film fan, which is obviously part of the reason why they don't have the crossover into mainstream levels of exposure and success. Of course, the world of arthouse and/or independent cinema is where you can find some of the more interesting explorations of the human experience. That's what I was hoping to get from Hot Milk. I got something else instead.

Emma Mackey and Fiona Shaw are Sofie and Rose, respectively. Rose has an illness that she can't seem to find a cure for, although that may change as she spends time in Spain to be examined by Dr. Gomez (Vincent Perez). Sofie seems a bit lost, both within herself and how she connects to a mother she views as being affected by an illness that may or may not be psychosomatic. The central relationship is defined by a lot of pushing and pulling, a mother claiming to want her daughter to be free and living fully in one breath before reminding her of just how much she relies on her in the next breath. Things obviously start to get tense.

Director Rebecca Lenkiewicz may be helming a feature for the first time here, but she has a fantastic selection of screenplays in her filmography already. Considering she also wrote this, based on the book by Deborah Levy, I was expecting something that would keep me engrossed and intrigued throughout. While that didn't happen, the very end of the film is strong enough to raise a lot of great questions and keep you thinking about things after the end credits have rolled.

Shaw is fantastic in her role, a twist on the kind of thing that she has played so many times in other movies. She seems to have been given increasingly better characters to play in recent years and I am delighted to see her effortlessly becoming such a grand dame of cinema. Mackey is equally good in her role, although a lot of her character moments are played out more internally. Perez is good in his few scenes, and Vicky Krieps plays a woman named Ingrid who ultimately doesn't create the turbulence that you might expect from her.

While there aren't films exactly like this one, which is something I will give it credit for, there are a number of films that have similar elements. And many of those films are a bit better than this. Hot Milk is a real disappointment, especially when you think of those who worked to get it made. One or two scenes pack a punch, but it needed more, and Shaw, Mackey, and Krieps deserve more. I'm interested in eventually reading the source material one day, another sign that there's definitely something worthwhile here buried under the many mis-steps and fumbles. And that ending really does make up for a lot.

5/10

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

Echo Valley (2025)

Although I have seen at least one other film directed by Michael Pearce, I couldn't say that his name was one that I would be keeping an eye out for. The same goes for writer Brad Ingelsby. But give me a cast that includes Julianne Moore, Sydney Sweeney, Domhnall Gleeson, and Fiona Shaw and I'm happy to give up some of my time. This is why I eventually got around to watching Echo Valley.

Moore plays Kate Garretson, a woman who has given up almost everything in her life as she has struggled to help her daughter, Claire (Sweeney). Claire is an addict. She has cost her mother a lot of money over the years, and perhaps even created a weight that led to divorce from Richard (Kyle MacLachlan). It's hard with loved ones who are addicts though, which is why Kate once again hopes for things to turn out for the best when Claire arrives on her doorstep again. She's had a row with her latest boyfriend, Ryan (Edmund Donovan), but has also inadvertently thrown away some expensive "stock" that belonged to the very dangerous Jackie Lawson (Gleeson). 

While I wouldn't rush to recommend this to people, it's a worthwhile film that tries to balance two very different strands. One is an emotional, painful even, look at how much hurt can be inflicted by those ruled by addiction. The other is a straightforward and dark thriller, one that makes great use of Moore and Gleeson facing off against one another in a number of tense scenes. It's admirable that both Pearce and Ingelsby try to add a bit more substance to the standard thriller movie moments, but it's also obvious that the film works best in a third act that moves further into more standard and satisfying cinematic fare.

Moore is a great choice for the main role, delivering that combination of vulnerability and strength that she has shown in so many other roles. She's the one constant, trying to keep herself anchored as a few different characters do their best to untether her from a life that she has fought hard to create. Sweeney may not be doing her best work, but she's good at flipping between many different moods, depending on how good or bad she is feeling. Gleeson is decent when he gets to be properly menacing, although the script only gives him a couple of moments when he can show the real darkness of his soul. Although only onscreen for a couple of main sequences, Shaw makes a really strong and positive impression, playing the kind of good friend who will turn up and help deal with a crisis without asking too many questions.

It lacks a bit of impact, especially in a middle section that sets up a few plot points that don't all feel paid off by the time we get to the very end, but there's nothing here that I would single out as being bad. The performances all work, and the finale makes up for a lot of the minor flaws elsewhere. I was also happy that it was all wrapped up within 104 minutes, which felt like a nice change from the many movies that seem to need a minimum time commitment of two hours. 

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 

Netflix And Chill: Fracture (2007)

It's hard to deny that Fracture is quite ridiculous. It's actually not very good. I would also argue, however, that it's hard to deny that Fracture is also entertaining. It's a legal drama with a focus on fun ahead of any pesky stuff like plausibility or reality. Neither of the two leads, Anthony Hopkins and Ryan Gosling, are doing anything close to their best work, but they're perfectly in sync with the tone of the whole thing.

Hopkins is Ted Crawford, a man who we see at the start of the movie shooting his wife. He did it. He confesses to it. It should be an easy case. Gosling is Willy Beachum, a smooth and skilled lawyer who really likes easy cases. When he is asked to take on the case, despite readying himself for a move to a more lucrative private practice, he agrees, thinking it will be quickly dealt with. Complications soon arise though, and Crawford may be getting just as much satisfaction from playing with those around him as he got from killing his wife.

Director Gregory Hoblit has been involved with some landmark TV shows throughout his career, but his film work has been a bit more forgettable. There are some treats here and there, and most of his features actually came out between 1996 and 2008, but he's the kind of figure you would be more likely to describe as dependable rather than great. The same could almost be said of writers Glenn Gers and Daniel Pyne, although Pyne started strong with his first theatrical features at the start of the 1990s. It's clear that the draw here needs to be the cast, which is why we get Hopkins and Gosling.

Both of the leading men are working with accents that they would have been better to leave well alone, and both somehow play their parts well while also barely containing a smirk in response to how laughable everything is. Thankfully, there's a great supporting cast to help remind viewers of how actors can be great when not being pushed towards increasing silliness. Rosamund Pike, David Strathairn, Billy Burke, cliff Curtis, Bob Gunton, Fiona Shaw, Embeth Davidtz, and Xander Berkeley are the other names worth mentioning, although some do better than others, and some have much more screentime than others.

I cannot bring myself to make too many excuses for my enjoyment of this. The cinematography, editing, and other technical and production work stays decent throughout, but that's not enough to make up for the script and the hamminess. The script and hamminess are also part of the appeal though, and I have already watched this film twice while many much worthier films sit unwatched on my shelves. I won't rush to rewatch it, but I wouldn't speed by it if I was channel-hopping and saw it playing. Maybe that's down to the fractures in my own mind though.

5/10

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

Netflix And Chill: That Christmas (2024)

If you rolled your eyes and had to stop yourself from vomiting when you heard that there was another Christmas movie coming from Richard Curtis, and one that yet again made use of different intertwining and intersecting storylines, then you wouldn't be alone. There are many people who will probably never forgive him for Love Actually (although I quite like that one, mainly thanks to Hugh Grant and Bill Nighy), but maybe this animated feature will allow you to view him in a slightly better light.

Based on children's books written by Curtis, collaborating with illustrator Rebecca Cobb, this has a screenplay co-written by Curtis and Peter Souter and direction from Simon Otto. There's also a voice cast that includes Brian Cox, Guz Khan, Fiona Shaw, Bill Nighy, Lolly Adefope, Rhys Darby, and Jodie Whittaker, as well as many others (familiar and not so familiar). If you're interested already then you shouldn't end up disappointed.

The main story is told to viewers by Santa (Cox). He's visiting a small community that could potentially be about to have a very bad Christmas. A number of children have been left alone while their parents are stranded elsewhere, one young lad (Danny, voiced by Jack Wisniewski) is upset by the fact that he won't see his dad, as well as his mum (Whittaker) having to head off to her nursing job, and a stern teacher (Mrs. Trapper, voiced by Fiona Shaw) might have her own sadness and problems buried underneath a stern and prickly exterior.

Curtis has been quite vocal over the past few years in agreeing with criticisms of his own work. He doesn't exactly present anything very diverse, and most of his characters have been white and privileged. While That Christmas tries to show more variety, as do the storybooks, there's still a feeling that it's impossible for Curtis to figure out how to show the true range of human experiences, whatever the age, in modern Britain. Whether he cannot consider them, or whether he is simply unable to fit them into something that he wants to keep essentially cosy and sweet, he has never been able to present a character who doesn't have a safety net and support in place. This is a movie aimed at younger viewers, of course, and it's fine to keep things cosy and sweet. It just feels strange to see Curtis strive to some kind of halfway marker and think he's conquered his personal Everest. Or maybe that's just me projecting.

Anyway, the script from Curtis and Souter is perfectly fine, albeit also perfectly predictable. It would have been nice to have some more tension and surprises, and a few more laughs in between the emotional manipulation would have also been welcome, but it succeeds as it is intended. Think of it as a moving slideshow of various Christmas cards strung up above your fireplace and you won't be far wrong.

Otto directs everything well enough. The visual style is quite lovely throughout, and especially good when presenting aerial shots or just showing off the geography of the small town. It may not be at the very best level of animation we have seen in recent years, but it suits the material. Otto knows that he's in charge of a delicate ornament, and he treats it with the care and tenderness it needs.

A number of child actors do good work, including Wisniewski as the nominal young lead, but it helps to be able to recognise the many great names I mentioned earlier. Cox is a very good Santa, Khan is amusing as his main reindeer, Darby, Adefope, and others provide more of the comedy, and both Whittaker and Shaw add to the emotional heart of the whole thing.

This is a great, easy, choice for family viewing time. It's very Christmassy, very playful, very bright and twinkly, and full of the kind of snow-blanketed landscapes that we rarely see here in the UK. It also feels very disposable though, and I doubt it will endure for as long as the previous major Christmas movie penned by Curtis.

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, 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

IF (2024)

I don't have anything against John Krasinski. I quite enjoy the work of John Krasinski, especially when he is onscreen in the right roles. But I was as surprised as most people when IF was marketed as being "from the imagination of John Krasinski". I didn't think that John Krasinski was known for his wild imagination. It turns out that I was right, and IF is actually the work of someone disappointingly unimaginative.

Cailey Fleming plays Bea, a young girl who is going through a hard time. Her father (John Krasinski) is in the same hospital where her mother lived her last days, she is back living with her grandmother (Fiona Shaw) for a while, and may well have already left her childhood innocence behind. Until she meets the upstairs neighbour, Cal (Ryan Reynolds), who is busy dealing with a load of personalities that nobody else can see. Well . . . nobody else except Bea. It's time to meet a string of Imaginary Friends (IFs) and figure out a way to reunite them with the adults who have long forgotten them.

The idea of IF isn't bad. It's not original either, of course, but it isn't bad. I saw the trailer months ago and figured it might be the kind of thing to keep me easily amused. That wasn't the case, sadly, and the blame lies squarely with Krasinski, who decides to go for the schmaltziest option at every turn, and plots the story out with a complete lack of that imagination that viewers were told about in the marketing. There were moments here that had me rolling my eyes and wondering how Krasinski could have thought he was filling the screen with great ideas.

Rules are established, but then thrown away as soon as it doesn't suit. Characters are presented with the sole purpose of being bright and weird (based on the idea of kid's creations, which I get, but you need more than that, especially with such an excuse to go as wild and whacky as possible), and nothing feels as if any one scene leads smoothly and naturally on from the one preceding it.

The cast aren't terrible, but some of them aren't half as good as they should be. Fleming is great in her role, and equalled by young Alan Kim, stealing the few scenes that have him portraying a child in the same hospital as Bea's father, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge once again proves to be an excellent pick for a voice role. Fiona Shaw is made to use some kind of accent, but overcomes that with her natural excellence, and Liza Colón-Zayas does well as a caring nurse. Reynolds isn't used well though, and feels very awkward for every minute of his screentime, and I was disappointed by the voice performances from Steve Carell, Awkwafina, Bradley Cooper, and many of the other stars lending their familiar tones to the many IFs. Some work, and Louis Gossett Jr. is a great fit for the kindly Lewis, but very few of them feel like the best fit.

There's enough here for children to enjoy, especially in a scene close to the halfway point that indulges in a musical fantasy sequence that certainly feels like the kind of scenario a child could easily create in their mind, and that may be enough to keep Krasinski happy. That may well have been his aim, and he'll view this as a success. Sadly, many others will feel disappointed. Some nice design work, a lovely score from Michael Giacchino, and the cinematography of Janusz Kaminski are all wasted on a film that suffers from being a self-indulgent doodle that Krasinski seems to want us all to metaphorically hang on our fridge doors.

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

Shudder Saturday: Lizzie (2018)

 

"Lizzie Borden took an axe

and gave her mother forty whacks.

When she saw what she had done,

she gave her father forty-one."

Is it even possible to write something about Lizzie Borden without quoting that macabre little rhyme? I think not.

There are a couple of reasons why I decided to watch Lizzie this week, and place the review here. First of all, it's a good story of intrigue and murder. Lizzie Borden surely remains the most famous, alleged, axe murderer in history (unless I am forgetting any other obvious choices). Second, although I have not loved all of the movies that she has been in, I have started to enjoy different performances from Kristen Stewart in recent years. She's actually been as eclectic in her choices as her past co-star, Robert Pattinson, but has received not a quarter of the praise. Is she his equal? I am not going to say. All I know is that my opinion on her changed after seeing her performances in a couple of Olivier Assayas movies (Personal Shopper being a real highlight) and enjoying her flair for the comedy in Charlie's Angels.  With the upcoming Happiest Season (a LGBTQ+ Christmas movie featuring Stewart in a lead role), it's clear that she has been picking and choosing her projects based on an instinct that has allowed her to both enjoy her post-Twilight career and show some more sides of her personality. 

Stewart plays Bridget Sullivan, a new member of staff to the Borden household in this tale. The titular Lizzie is played by Chloë Sevigny. Things start with the discovery of a hacked corpse, and then it is time to wind back and look at the days and weeks leading up to the murders, with the two main victims being Abby (Fiona Shaw) and Andrew Borden (Jamey Sheridan). You have standard family tensions, chemistry between Lizzie and Bridget, and creepy, predatory, abuse from Andrew. There's also an ongoing dispute over the potential family fortune, something that John Morse (Denis O'Hare) wants to keep an eye on.

Written by Bryce Kass and directed by Craig William Macneill, with neither individual having many other full movies to their credit, it's easy to see why Lizzie was viewed as quite an easy tale to make into a solid little biopic/crime drama. Most people tend to be familiar enough with the story, it doesn't need a whole lot of fancy bells and whistles, and there's the enduring allure of it being an "unsolved crime", mainly thanks to how things were handled in the immediate aftermath.

The thing is . . . Lizzie doesn't sell any of that angle. It settles for being a salacious telling of the crime that people think they already know. Want to know that Lizzie definitely committed the crimes? Sure thing, here you go. Blood on her clothing? Hell no, we'll make her naked. A look at the various conflicting and cocked-up evidence that wasn't properly used? Nope. But look . . . naked woman with axe. This is a film that seems to have been written from a basic notion of the crime, everything that has been assumed for years by people who haven't read even a little bit more on the case. I COULD be wrong, but they even seem to get Lizzie Borden's age wrong when the end title card notes her death years later.

Sevigny is very good in the main role, and Stewart works well enough alongside her. They may not give their best performances, but they're saddled with a script that wants to make this nothing more than a fairly standard tale of sex and violence. Shaw and Sheridan also do good work, with the latter having to play up every bad part of his character until he's almost a pantomime villain by the third act (if pantomime villains were also a bit rapey), and O'Hare is fun in his scenes. Kim Dickens isn't given much to do, playing Lizzie's sister, Emma, and the same goes for Jeff Perry, playing Andrew Jennings, the defense attorney for Lizzie.

Considering the various aspects, this isn't a bad film. The acting is good, the look and feel of the film works, even if it tries to make the most of the budget by being made up of mostly interior shots (which is fine, considering the story showing us the growing tension within one household), and it does a good job of depicting the actual act of the murders. It's just a shame that the script feels so sloppily put together, and takes no interesting turns.

5/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Mubi Monday: Colette (2018)

It seems that I am behind the times when it comes to Keira Knightley, having placed her in the "I tend to enjoy her but she's usually not that good REALLY" category some years ago. This may have all been because of the long shadow cast by her horrible turn in Domino, or maybe I just have such a bad memory that I forgot every time I'd actually praised her work while somehow remembering . . . that horrible turn in Domino. Look, it's basically all the fault of Domino. As long as that's clear, let's move on.

Anyway, let's get to Colette, a film in which Knightley plays the title role. She is a country girl when the film begins, until she moves to Paris with her husband-to-be (Dominic West). And this begins a series of fortunate and unfortunate events that eventually lead to Colette developing into the famous and celebrated writer that she remains to this day. Sadly, her writing is all published under her husband's name, because that was more appropriate for the time and he had a brand to sell. Colette causes quite the stir throughout France, and starts to enjoy it even more, especially as she begins to explore her sexuality. As society seems to work ever harder to restrict her and keep her "in her place", Colette finds more ways to ruffle feathers and ensure she cannot be ignored or silenced.

Many people have already commented on Colette being a film that feels incredibly timely right now (the battle for sexual equality rages on and men still seem to have the position of having value to their names that women rarely get) and it is. It's an interesting, passionate, film that condemns the treatment of the leading lady, and also the treatment of many others. But that isn't the only thing that Colette is putting under a magnifying glass. As Knightley and West play out their complicated love/hate relationship throughout the film, it's equally an interesting study of the way in which people choose to believe various fictions, be they myths about the differences in gender, the power of artistic creations, or choosing to hope that a horrible and abusive relationship is anything other than that.

Director Wash Westmoreland, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Richard Glatzer and Rebecca Lenkiewicz, sets everything out in a traditional way, picking out the most important moments from a life that must have had many highlights to choose from. The score may be a bit generic, for this kind of thing (in my view), but the camerawork is given one or two moments to shine, such as the sequence that allows it to glide through a crowded room alongside Colette as she takes in the various displays of excess and "sophistication".

Although the script is a good one, and there are a couple of brilliant speeches that Knightley must have read on the page with sheer delight at the prospect of getting to deliver them, it's the cast who raise everything up. In case you were in any doubt, Knightley is excellent. Really excellent. This may be the best performance she has given in her career so far, relishing a role that allows her to be strong, sharp, funny, eloquent, sexual, and generally downright inspiring. She's equalled by West, who manages to do so well in his role that it's only much later in the film that you realise just how shitty he has been to his wife for so much of their marriage. Neither speak French, or attempt an accent, despite the nationality of their characters, and nor do many of the other cast members, which is a decision made for the better. The environment is enough to remind you of where everyone is living, and the writing (the heart of the film) is shown to be in French, as it obviously would be, while characters sometimes read out the prose in English. Other important characters are played by Denise Gough, Eleanor Tomlinson, Julian Wadham, Al Weaver, and Ray Panthaki, and everyone fits well in the role they're given (although both Gough and Tomlinson ARE given certain specific accents, with the former faring much better than the latter).

Oozing quality from every frame, Colette is superior drama, bringing a slice of history to life and exploring some issues that resonate just as much today as they did back at the end of the 19th century. Despite the pretty, perhaps what some may even call quaint, packaging, it manages to make things more palatable to observe and mull over without ever feeling as if it has held so much back that it warps the reality that it is all based on.

8/10

The disc will be available here.
Americans may want to order here.

Super Mario Bros. (1993)

Mario Mario (Bob Hoskins) and Luigi Mario (John Leguizamo) are a pair of plumbers who don't seem to be having much luck lately. After losing out on another job to a competitor they end up stopping when their van temporarily breaks down. And that's when Luigi meets Daisy (Samantha Mathis), a young woman working on an archaeological dig. Move forward a couple of scenes and, for reasons I won't go into right now, Daisy has been whisked away into an alternative dimension, and Luigi and Mario set out to rescue her in a strange land overruled by the harsh, power-hungry King Koopa (Dennis Hopper).

It's hard to pin down just where Super Mario Bros. went so wrong in the transition from videogame to big screen outing, but the main thing to point out, surely, is that the film does absolutely nothing to please fans of the game. Taken just as a film, it's an interesting failure. Taken as a film version of the Nintendo property, it's just a failure.

Leguizamo is the better of the central pairing, having some fun as the open-minded and optimistic Luigi, while Hoskins does okay, wobbly accent aside. He at least looks the part. Mathis is there to be put in peril, and she does that. Thankfully, Hopper livens up every scene that he's in. Film fans know that Hopper can be a great villain, and this is a family-friendly baddie that he portrays with gusto. Fisher Stevens and Richard Edson both provide some amusement as a couple of idiotic goons, and Fiona Shaw is just as good as she always is in the role of Lena, the woman by the side of Koopa who also has plans of her own.

Perhaps it's because this was the first major theatrically released movie based on a videogame, but it's hard to think of what writers Parker Bennett, Terry Runte and Ed Solomon were thinking when they cobbled this script together. Yes, there are videogame elements incorporated into the movie, but they're not prominent enough and at no time does this film actually feel like Super Mario Bros. It may have been difficult, admittedly, but the groundwork for more creativity was easily laid out when the premise involved throwing the characters into another dimension.

Directors Rocky Morton and Annabel Jankel don't help. Super Mario Bros. may well be one of the drabbest, ugliest "big" movies to ever see the inside of cinemas. The design, the colour scheme, even the shot choices, almost every decision just feels wrong. It's all so wrong that it's hard to believe that Morton and Jankel weren't on some kind of mission to sabotage their own movie.

But that cast, thank goodness for that cast. There IS fun to be had here. Yes, you have to sit through a lot of rubbish to get to the good bits, but I disagree with anyone saying that this movie is entirely worthless. It's bad, no arguing with that, but it's not unwatchable. If only I'd been writing this blog back in 1993 perhaps I could have allowed them to quote me on the posters: "Bad, but not unwatchable".

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