Netflix And Chill: The Thursday Murder Club (2025)

Okay, let me state this very clearly from the beginning, books and movies are very different things. You have to accept that they just cannot deliver the same experience. Liberties need to be taken when it comes to adapting something from the page to the screen. Having said that, I believe I made a mistake in rushing to read The Thursday Murder Club, a very successful murder mystery novel that started the lucrative fiction writer phase of Richard Osman's long and healthy career in the world of media and entertainment.

Let's get to the film anyway, and what it gets right. The Thursday Murder Club is set in a fairly luxurious retirement home, in which a few residents work together to see if they can find solutions to various cold cases. The club used to include an ex-PC named Penny (Susan Kirkby), but she is currently barely hanging on to life in the hospice wing. The main members are now Elizabeth (Helen Mirren), Ron (Pierce Brosnan), Ibrahim (Ben Kingsley), and, relative newcomer, Joyce (Celia Imrie). Each brings their own set of skills to the group, but Elizabeth appears to be the one with a past that has her most prepared for anything that can be thrown at them. And what ends up thrown at them is a new murder, a lot of suspects who seem very bleeding obvious, and ties between the past and present that recontextualize friendships and relationships. Oh, and then there's another murder.

Turned into screenplay form by Katy Brand and Suzanne Heathcote, The Thursday Murder Club would seem to be a hard film to get wrong. Chris Columbus is in the director's chair. The cast includes the four leads just mentioned, as well as Naomi Ackie and Daniel Mays as a couple of investigating officers, Henry Lloyd-Hughes and Tom Ellis as younger men who find themselves entangled in the creeping spiderwebs that the murder creates, and Jonathan Pryce, David Tennant, Geoff Bell, Paul Freeman, Ruth Sheen, and Richard E. Grant. It's a real pick 'n' mix of delightful performances.

So why does it feel like such a slog?

The dialogue generally works well, helped by the fact that it's being delivered by people who feel almost perfect in their roles (let's just not mention the accent that Brosnan uses), but the mystery feels half-baked and hard to care about. Having said this, I wonder if I feel that way because I just read the book. While I still stand by my opening statement, there are choices here that feel very odd, including a detail revealed in the very opening scenes that is actually held back in the book until a finale that shows all of the pieces finally falling into place. I can understand some things being omitted, one other plot strand would have required the runtime to have at least 5-10 minutes add on to what already pushes up close to the 2-hour mark, but that just makes it a bizarre experience for those who know the material well enough to know that certain characters and moments are only being hinted at while never being given the time and attention that they deserve.

Both the direction and writing feel trapped by a prison of their own design. They're either too beholden to the book, or they make strange decisions to veer away from elements that could have made the film a much more rewarding experience, for both readers and non-readers alike. And, as much as I complain about it as a new standard, would anyone be bothered if the runtime had been just over, instead of just under, two hours? Those ten extra minutes could have given us a very brief overview of two whole other lives, and those whole other lives feed into the main themes of aging, regret, and the repercussions of different choices made at crucial junctures.

Still, it's easy enough to forget the many mistakes and mis-steps made here when any scene revolves around Imrie having a twinkle in her eye and Mirren having a glint in hers. The cosy and easygoing feel of the whole thing will certainly appeal to those after something that feels like the movie equivalent of a comfortable pair of slippers. I just wish we'd been given nicer slippers. Slippers that stay warm and comfortable for the duration. Not the cheap kind that fall apart after one month of regular use. 

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 

Mubi Monday: Caligula: The Ultimate Cut (2023)

Originally released in 1979, Caligula is not a film I would have seen back then. I know I seem old to many now, but I would have been three years old for most of 1979. It is a film I soon became aware of though, somehow. Pretty much damned by both the critics and those who acted in it, considering how displeased they were to see their performances surrounded by what was essentially a lavish and expensive bit if porn, I can only assume that it became something that people felt they had to see for themselves, in the comfort of their own home. And that is why they rented the VHS. Which is how I ended up seeing at least some of it at what was still a very young age. I don’t remember much, except a man being made to drink lots of wine before being killed and lots of bare breasts, but I remembered enough to keep interested in it over the intervening decades. I own a lovely multi-disc set, and now I have paid for a digital copy of “The Ultimate Cut”. But maybe it is telling that this is the first time I have watched any incarnation of the film since those VHS days.

Malcom McDowell plays Caligula, a Roman emperor who spends time coveting his sister (Ann Savoy) and his horse in equal measure. He is a dangerous manchild, made ruler by underhand means, and anyone he seems to have wronged him is often dealt with publicly and sadistically. This film shows his rise and fall, but it also shows a Rome far too easily swayed by the temperament of whoever is in the position of greatest power.

Written by Gore Vidal and directed by Tinto Brass, though who knows how much credit they want to take for it, even in this attempted restoration and repair job, Caligula is a messy and sprawling work, sometimes taking time with exploring Rome, and the ways in which the power moves through it, and sometimes determined just to wallow in the decadence and depravity of Caligula’s rule.

McDowell isn’t bad in the central role, although his performance feels wildly uneven (perhaps due to the chaos on the set), and Savoy works well as the sister happy in their incestuous coupling, but the real treats come from elsewhere. Despite his small amount of screentime, Peter O’Toole is a lot of fun, and a portent of everything to come. John Gielgud is wasted, but elevated one or two moments with his presence. And then there’s Helen Mirren, very believable as the woman who catches the eye of Caligula, and the one chosen to give him an heir to the throne. Everyone else is onscreen to bow, laugh, cry, and/or be mutilated and murdered, and their performances are often defined by their fates more than their actual acting talent.

It’s a shame that I cannot remember the original cut of this, because it would seem to be essential to compare and contrast this to it, but I can tell you that this doesn’t feel like the entirely new film it is being sold as. It may have more of a focus on the drama and acting, but that doesn’t make it much more interesting. In fact, dare I say, there’s a chance that a lavish and expensive porno is just as appropriate a way to present Caligula as this is. At least that feels like a bolder artistic choice, even if others would argue that artistry was the least of the concerns of those who delivered it to audiences back in 1979.

Occasional treats notwithstanding, this is a dull and rambling slog. But I won’t deny that I still want to revisit other edits to see how much more entertaining it might be with a greater sense of chaos and transgressiveness out front and centre.

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, 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 

Mubi Monday: Gosford Park (2001)

There are many things that could be compared to Gosford Park. It was basically responsible for the hugely successful TV show you may have heard of, Downton Abbey, it explores the class divide in a way that has been a staple of British entertainment for decades (I am sure many came beforehand, but I always view this kind of thing as a relative of the wonderful Upstairs Downstairs), and it shows people bickering and veering off into conversations as they figure out who they are obliged to be nice to and how they can maintain, or improve, their own social standing. I couldn't help thinking of another unlikely comparison point though, and that was Blow-Up. There's a murder at the heart of the plot here, but is it as important as the ongoing hustle and bustle of everyone trying to go on about their lives?

The plot here is quite simple, although things get a bit more complicated in the third act. It's the 1930s. A group of rich and famous (some famous in the arts, some just famous for being rich) gather at a large estate for a weekend of relaxation and shooting, two things that many other people wouldn't assume go hand in hand. Many of those in attendance have their own agendas, whether they are part of the posh crowd or part of the serving staff, and there are one or two people doing their best to portray themselves as something they're not.

If there is anyone in the cast list that you dislike, don't worry about that. Like an anthology movie, this is so stuffed with variety that you just need to wait a moment or two until you get to something more suited to your personal preference. I won't summarise every character, and will undoubtedly forget to mention a couple of notable names, but this cast includes the excellence of luminaries such as Maggie Smith, Helen Mirren, Richard E. Grant, Michael Gambon, Kristin Scott Thomas, Kelly Macdonald, Stephen Fry, Jeremy Northam, Bob Balaban, Tom Hollander, Clive Owen, and Ryan Phillippe (don't be too put off by his accent, it's a deliberate choice). Everyone is doing absolutely stellar work, possibly boosted by their chance to work with the celebrated Robert Altman.

As well as directing, Altman gets himself a writing credit alongside Balaban and Julian Fellowes, although it certainly feels as if the majority of the groundwork was put in place by Fellowes. There's the usual busy dialogue, with many conversations continuing as the camera moves to and from wherever it seemingly decides to wander in each scene, and everything is pieced together incrementally to eventually give viewers more information about each of the most central characters and the deadly development that causes the weekend plans to be derailed.

Please don't come to this if you are looking for an intricate and well-plotted murder mystery. Although it has that element at the heart of it, and that was at the heart of the marketing (from what I recall), Altman and co. are much more interested in the relationships between all of the characters, the fragile spiderwebs that wrap around a huge room, sticking together in some places and easily snapping apart in others. 

Much like a wedding at some large country venue, this is a gorgeous affair that gives you time and space to wander around and admire your surroundings, eavesdrop on numerous conversation and make snap judgements about people, and then be stuck there while arguments start to develop and you become increasingly anxious and uncomfortable as nerves fray and composures crack. Not literally, but it does a great job of bringing those feelings to the surface as you watch things unfold from the comfort of your safe viewing environment.

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

Shazam! Fury Of The Gods (2023)

Try as I might, I could not muster up any enthusiasm for Shazam! Fury Of The Gods. The trailer was perfectly fine, the cast seemed decent enough, and I had enjoyed the first movie. There was just nothing making me feel like it was unmissable on the big screen. Then I had a long weekend to enjoy and some time to spend at the local cinema. So I figured maybe I was wrong to be so hesitant.

I was right.

This isn’t a terrible film. It just lacks any weight, and has been released at an odd time in this current phase of DC movies. We know that there is going to be an attempt to reboot a number of properties, which makes it even harder to invest in something that is still trying to play around in a slightly different sandbox, but keeping connections with a larger universe that has just lurched in another direction.

Our hero (Zachary Levi) cannot seem to do much right lately. He and his super-friends, nicknamed the Philadelphia Follies by locals, might save lives, but never in a way that is as polished and successful as other superheroes we could mention. Then some Ancient Greek sisters come along, repair the powerful staff broken at the end of the first film, and start causing havoc, culminating in a third act that brings in some fun creature designs and large-scale destruction.

With director David F. Sandberg returning, as well as writer Henry Gayden (joined by Chris Morgan, who wrote SEVEN of the Fast & Furious movies), and most of the main players reprising their roles, from Levi to Djimon Hounsou, as well as at least one canny cameo, Shazam! Fury Of The Gods could have fared better if released by someone more stable and consistent than DC. I don’t think it would have been viewed as any kind of classic, but both Shazam! movies, much like the goofy big kid at the heart of the picture, just want to please as many people as possible. While the direction and writing are competent, there are moments when it feels as if those involved couldn’t agree on which way to take the film, and the compromise allowed everyone to add their personal preferences.

Levi is fun in the main role, Adam Brody is enjoyable as the hero who wants to enjoy his time in the limelight, and everyone else in the main family unit, whether a child actor or their adult counterpart, does a good job. There are a few too many characters to ensure that everyone gets their big moment, but the film tries hard to share out the treats. Mirren does the kind of thing she can do so well, she has steely willpower, a wry smile, and grace to go along with her villainy, while Lucy Liu has fun moving from a potential threat to main big baddie. Rachel Ziegler does an excellent job in her pivotal role, reminding me that I still need to see her in West Side Story, and she joins a number of characters I would love to see again, if there was ever a third film in this series (which currently looks highly unlikely).

A collapsing bridge sequence is a highlight, the final face-off is great, and the central message here is as sweet and positive as it was in the first film. It’s just a shame that the whole thing feels so horribly chaotic, bringing in elements that feel as if they have been pillaged from Harry Potter and Harryhausen, with varying degrees of success. People lose and regain their powers as if playing a game of tag, the tone sometimes swerves unexpectedly towards moments of real grimness, and the very last scenes will have most viewers just impatiently waiting for what they know should happen before the end credits roll. There’s also the usual extra bits to keep watching for, but they suffer from the same problem we’ve seen before; what is set up to be consequential and impactful now just feels pointless, because the suspicion is that nothing more will come of it.

Arguably hamstrung before it hit cinemas, Shazam! Fury Of The Gods is absolutely okay. It does nothing new, it’s pretty inoffensive, and there’s a big dragon that looks pretty awesome at times. If you feel like you’re in the mood for that then give it a go. There are so many better films you could choose though, and that includes a number of “under-performing” superhero movies.

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

Netflix And Chill: The Pledge (2001)

There's an interesting history for the source material of The Pledge, written by Friedrich Dürrenmatt, and I would very much like to check out It Happened In Broad Daylight, a previous film working with Dürrenmatt's story, but I am not here to present an overview of that journey. I'm just going to review the film I saw, but I wanted to make people aware of other ways to discover this story.

Jack Nicholson plays Jerry Black, a police detective due to retire. Plans for a happy send-off are disrupted by the discovery of a child's corpse in the local area, and Jerry becomes determined to end his career by solving this case. Someone must be brought to justice. An evil individual must be stopped. Perhaps that can happen when Toby Jay Wadenah (Benicio del Toro) is brought in for questioning, or perhaps this case will haunt Jerry for a long time, warping his mind as he obsesses over every detail and remains determined to find a killer he believes is still at large.

The third feature film directed by the po-faced agitator known as Sean Penn (a man who probably smiled when that bloody U2 album was automatically downloaded to his iTunes account, and still listens to it weekly), The Pledge is a superb film for a number of reasons, including Penn's confident direction throughout. The writing gives you everything you need without feeling patronising, but also allows for a lot of quieter moments without testing your patience. The screenplay was co-written by Jerzy Kromolowski and Mary Olson-Kromolowski (a husband and wife writing duo), and they do a great job at making the most of the source material.

Another big plus, arguably the biggest, is the performance from Jack Nicholson. Nicholson is a much-celebrated actor, and has delivered a number of truly iconic performances, but it's hard to argue against the fact that his roles throughout the past few decades most often felt like he was playing some version of himself. Like a number of other actors I could mention, Nicholson became all too easy to view as a parody at times, but he does work here that reminds you of just how great he can be with material that doesn't ask him to rely on his usual tricks and manic twinkle in the eyes. He's surrounded by an excellent selection of people supporting him, no matter the size of their roles, including the aforementioned Del Toro. Others stepping up to the mark include Aaron Eckhart, Robin Wright, Helen Mirren, and Tom Noonan. 

Full of dread and despair throughout, this certainly isn't a film to watch when you're not prepared for something that will put you through the emotional wringer. There is a middle section that provides just enough temporary respite, but that only makes it slightly easier to battle all the way through to an ending that may or may not provide some kind of resolution for the central characters. Or, in other words, be prepared to walk under dark grey clouds, even if you get some time when you're not being rained on.

You may not want to revisit this, I myself have only just given it a second viewing for this review, but you'll be glad that you watched it. And that's my pledge to you.*

*not legally binding.

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

Yule Love It: The Nutcracker And The Four Realms (2018)

Here's another film that wants to tell you "the story you know" in a fresh reworking, allowing them to advertise it as "the story you think you know", or some such. It's a visual treat, in places, and you hear familiar musical refrains throughout, of course, but this take on The Nutcracker is ultimately a Christmas confection that looks sweet but has nothing decent at the centre of it.

Mackenzie Foy is Clara, a young woman who is upset on Christmas Eve, first by a gift left for her by her deceased mother, a puzzle egg that she can't figure out, and then by an argument with her father, stemming from her refusal to dance with him. But everything changes when Clara ends up being taken to a different world by Captain Philip Hoffman AKA The Nutcracker (Jayden Fowora-Knight). There are four realms, and Sugar Plum (Keira Knightley) tells Clara that they are all currently under threat of attack from Mother Ginger (Helen Mirren). Things happen. Characters fight. Everyone looks like they just lost a wrestling match with a Christmas tree.

Initially directed by Lasse Hallström, and then a month of reshoots were overseen by Joe Johnston, The Nutcracker And The Four Realms was a film I was looking forward to, despite the poor reception it had at the box office. I like both directors involved, I like a number of the main cast members, and you should know that I certainly like me a Christmas movie. The fact that this ended up so poorly handled is a surprise, because all of the elements would seem to be in place to make it quite the magical adventure.

The script, by Ashleigh Powell, isn't terrible, but is perhaps a shaky foundation upon which the movie rests. The plotting feels as if Powell was constantly wary of making sure that she checked off everything we would expect from the story, while she was also striving to make it feel a bit fresh. It turns out that trying to manage both isn't possible, at least not in this instance.

But a script that may lack some confidence can be overlooked while you are being treated to some razzle dazzle in the visual department. Weirdly, this looks nice throughout, but never fully embraces the look and feel of the season in the way that the main characters do. The costume designer knew what to do, but it seems that others were afraid of giving everything a sprinkling of magic and stardust. There's some, and it's good, but not enough.

Foy is a decent enough, if rather bland, lead. Fowora-Knight is the same. Thankfully, Knightley has a lot of fun in the role of Sugar Plum, and Mirren delights as Mother Ginger, simply because she's Helen Mirren. There are fun little roles for Omid DJalili, Jack Whitehall, and Richard E. Grant, while Matthew Macfadyen, Meera Syal, and Morgan Freeman portray the main adults that we see in the real world, with Macfadyen the father just hoping to dance with his daughter.

Ironically enough, this could work like so many Hallmark movies do, as something pretty to have on while you wrap presents and do other Christmas Day prep. But unlike those movies, it wasn't designed for that purpose. It was supposed to be one of those films billed as "a classic tale, reinterpreted for a new generation". And it isn't. It's just a slightly-below-average fantasy film.

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

Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019)

Anyone who knows my view on the Fast & Furious franchise should predict that I was optimistic, yet also very cautious, about this spin-off. The car-based core series has often entertained me, they peaked with the mix of action and ridiculousness in the sixth and seventh instalments, and then eight just went too far over into the kind of silliness that kept taking me out of the movie. This film, pairing up Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham for their own action-packed adventure, looked enjoyably silly from the first trailer I saw.

And it is. Which was a huge relief for me. This film makes it obvious from the very beginning that the central characters are almost superhuman and your brain shouldn't spend too much time calculating the odds of all of their plans and stunts being physically possible.

Written by Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce, the story concerns a deadly virus, a cybernetically-enhanced supervillain (Brixton, played by Idris Elba), and a young woman named Hattie (Vanessa Kirby) who has already tried to defeat Brixton, but finds herself defeated. Fortunately, Hattie is the sister of Shaw (Statham), which is why he is asked to help, along with the one person he really doesn't want to be paired up with, Hobbs (Johnson). This isn't a one-man job though, and working together may be the key to any chance of success, which would also basically save the world.

Directed by David Leitch (who previously did such good work on Deadpool 2), this is big dumb fun that runs for just over two and a quarter hours (do any major action movies nowadays manage to come in at a brisk 90 minutes?) and manages to entertain from start to finish, thanks to the comedic tone of the script, the charisma of everybody with a major role, and the pacing. The set-pieces are enjoyable loony, with as many challenges as possible thrown at our heroes while they generally outrun, out-think and out-fight everyone around them.

If you enjoyed the interplay between Johnson and Statham in Fast & Furious 8 (which, let's be honest, was at its best when they were onscreen) then I don't see any way that you wouldn't enjoy this. They remain amusingly antagonistic towards one another, and competitive when it comes to who can despatch the most disposable henchmen, and both men get an equal amount of time to show off. Elba is a fantastic villain, and he appears to be having a lot of fun in the role, and Kirby is as good as, if not better than, anyone else onscreen, with a tough attitude and a badass skillset ensuring that she can hold her own in any of the major action sequences (including a scene in which she believably takes on Johnson). Helen Mirren reprises her role, as the mother of the Shaws, and entertains once again in her one main scene, and Eddie Marsan is good value in a small supporting role, a Russian Professor who may be able to help ensure the virus can't harm others.

Plenty of punches are thrown, you get a few moments of vehicular mayhem, there are a couple of fun cameos (which I won't spoil here), and those who are patient enough to sit through the end credits will be rewarded with numerous little extra scenes, which are also a lot of fun. I doubt anybody is going to spend too much dissecting this, or searching for hidden meanings or metaphors, because it's absolutely not that kind of film. But I am pretty certain that it will please most action movie fans, and be on regular rotation when it comes to the home media market later in the year. I know I'll be getting it, and am already looking forward to a rewatch.

8/10

Winchester (2018)

The more I have thought about Predestination, the more I can overlook the flaws. It's an interesting film that is easy to forgive mistakes in because of the story it is trying to tell. I mention it now because in my review, written after my first viewing, I claimed that it was the weakest film from the Spierig brothers. That may still be the case, but that doesn't mean it's a terrible film, by any means. Actually, I should say that it WAS the weakest directed by the Spierig brothers. That title has now been taken by Winchester, and taken fairly easily.

This horror movie is all about the famous Winchester mansion, a sprawling home that was always being developed and enlarged at the request of troubled owner, Sarah Winchester (Helen Mirren). Mrs Winchester was the widow of the man who manufactured the Winchester rifle. Believing herself to be cursed by the spirits of the many people who died at the hands of that gun, Mrs Winchester would come up with bizarre ways to confuse spirits (stairs that lead nowhere, decoy rooms, doors and windows in odd places, etc) and this film explores the house, and her character, by depicting a visit from a doctor (played by Jason Clarke) who is to determine the mental state of the widow.

There's a great story to be told about Sarah Winchester, her life, and the mansion that she wanted to keep adding more and more rooms and features to, and I encourage everyone to check out the wonderful Sarah Winchester, Phantom Opera, a short film from 2016 that mixes the story with ballet in an effective and beautiful way. This film, sadly, feels like it doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of things.

The script, written by the directors and Tom Vaughan, is decidedly . . . limp for most of the runtime, with uninteresting character moments punctuated by well-signposted and ineffective jump scares. That would be easier to overlook if the brothers were once again working with their usual cool visual style, but even that side of things proves to be disappointing. Everything is competent, which saves the film from being unwatchable, but flat and unimaginative. In fact, it's the combination of the weak script and surprisingly weak and uninspired direction that undermines the handful of decent moments you get throughout.

Cast-wise, Helen Mirren is fine in the lead role, Clarke is adequate, and Sarah Snook (playing the niece of Sarah, named Marion MArriott) does okay, I suppose, but every single member of the cast is ill-served by that script, a creation that seems to have been dashed together with no real care or thought given as to how the story could be made more interesting and more focused without having to lead viewers to a cliche-ridden and preposterous finale.

As a horror movie fan, I know not to put too much stock into the words "based on actual events". I know that it's a licence to scare people even more, allowing them to think that something really happened when the only grain of truth in a film might be, for example, that the family living in some supposedly haunted house did once have a milkman named Terry, but it's frustrating when a story as good as this one is mishandled so badly.

4/10

You can buy Winchester here.
Americans can get it here.

Arthur (2011)

A remake of the much-loved 1981 movie, this time around drunken, childish Arthur is played by Russell Brand, Hobson is played by Helen Mirren and the love interest has become Naomi (played by Greta Gerwig). Luis Guzman is the chauffeur, Jennifer Garner is Susan Johnson and Nick Nolte is her scary father.

A quick reminder of the plot. Arthur is a drunk but a very, VERY rich drunk so that’s fine. The fact that he’s always in the news isn’t so fine and so his mother (played by Geraldine James) tells him that he must marry Susan Johnson or be cut off from the money. This happens, annoyingly enough, just as he meets and falls for the lovely Naomi.

Written by Peter Baynham (with plenty of lines and spirit, pun intended, lifted from the original) and directed by Jason Winer, Arthur could have been something really enjoyable. Russell Brand can do an eccentric drunk in his sleep so everything else should have fallen into place, right? Wrong. For some reason it was decided to make Arthur less of a staggering drunkard (though he’s drunk a lot of the time) and more of an outright man-child in this version, meaning that we have to suffer through an appalling performance from Brand that has him putting on a very childish voice and acting just like someone who’s been doped up with drugs. I’m sure this choice was made so that the film wouldn’t be seen to be deriving fun from alcoholism in these PC-infested times but it’s a bad choice and throws off the whole film. 

Everyone else is good and that’s a great shame because it simply highlights the poor performance from Brand, someone who I have so far always enjoyed in movie roles. Mirren makes a more than adequate replacement for John Gielgud and the bond between Arthur and Hobson is more obvious and easier to understand this time around. Gerwig does just fine as Naomi and Garner certainly does well as Susan Johnson, who is a colder and more calculating character in the remake than she was in either of the 80s movies. Guzman is very funny and Nolte is believably fear-inducing.

There are individual moments of fun, and a nice selection of movie cars, and the main character eventually gains your sympathy as the movie winds towards a predictable finale but this is inferior to the original and inferior to many other comedies released this year. 

5/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Arthur-Triple-Blu-ray-Digital-Region/dp/B004Q9SYYA/ref=sr_1_8?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1371664113&sr=1-8&keywords=arthur