Ella McCay (2025)

Written and directed by James L. Brooks, and with a cast that includes Emma Mackey, Jamie Lee Curtis, Albert Brooks, Jack Lowden, Julie Kavner, Woody Harrelson, Jack Lowden, Kumail Nanjiani, and Ayo Edebiri, I was hoping to enjoy Ella McCay. I'd already heard some luke-warm reviews of it, at best, but still thought that it couldn't really be bad with the talent involved. Not for the first time . . . I was wrong.

This is all about a young woman (McCay, of course, played by Mackey) about to become the governor of her state. She's idealistic and hoping to effect some real change, but events conspire against her. Problems loom large with the reappearance of her father (Harrelson), the unhappiness of her husband (Lowden), and the ongoing depressive state of her younger brother (Casey, played by Spike Fearn). There are some good people on her side (her aunt, Helen, played by Curtis, and her secretary, Estelle, played by Kavner), but they may not be able to help Ella when she finds herself becoming cornered by a very determined and scheming reporter who wants to blackmail her into giving him some priority access.

I don't have the enthusiasm to go into too much detail here. Ella McCay feels sadly pointless. It gives us a character who should clearly be supported, and celebrated, but then spends most of the runtime breaking down various parts of her life as if proving some kind of point about how good she remains in the face of overwhelming awfulness. Bizarrely, despite the relatively light and fluffy way the material is presented, this is as much a film about someone shaped by past traumas and present abuses as more extreme films I could start to list here. It's not really a bitter pill with a sugar coating, but more of a teeny tiny sugar core in the middle of a horribly bitter pill.

I know the main point that Brooks wants to make here, and it's one well worth making in the current climate, but he lacks the ability to navigate through territory that needs a much steadier hand at the wheel. I know that's an unexpected thing to say about his direction, but not only is this a comedy lacking enough laughs, it's also a commentary on the modern political landscape without the courage to get close to any of the targets it takes aim at.

Mackey is okay in the lead role, although it's not the best performance from someone who has yet to fully win me over. Lowden suffers from the fact that his character is so easy to dislike, even when he's apparently trying to be nice. Both Curtis and Kavner fare much better, and both benefit from receiving some of the best moments in the film, and Harrelson is very enjoyable as the man who can't convincingly apologise to people when his actions fail to back up his words. Nanjiani is a highlight, even if sorely underused, as is Edebiri. Albert Brooks is good fun, Fearn does well with his scenes, and there are one or two other supporting players who manage to stealthily steal a scene away from the main stars.

I almost forgot that I disliked this, that's how much the cast helps the material, but I really didn't have a good time. It's forgettable, at best, and I suspect many will like it even less than I did. At least it clocks in at just under two hours (the runtime is actually 115 minutes). That's about the most positive note I think I can end on. It's saved by the cast, and it clocks in at just under two hours.

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

Freakier Friday (2025)

I've seen most of the other incarnations of the bodyswap premise in recent cinema (although I am overdue a rewatch of many of them). In the 1980s alone I was often enjoying a steady rotation of VHS favourites that included Freaky Friday (1976), Like Father Like Son (1987), Vice Versa (1988), and 18 Again! (1988). There were also the films that provided a slight variation on that main theme, whether that's Big (1988), All Of Me (1984), or, ummmmm, Dream A Little Dream (1989). The fun and anarchy of the idea has ensured that it regains popularity with film-makers every now and again. While not the earliest example, the fact that Vice Versa started off as a novel published in 1882, and a successful play starting a run just a year later, shows how enduring the concept is. I could list so many other films from recent years that worked with the central idea, some great and some not so great, but it's only necessary to consider the success of the 2003 Freaky Friday, the film that allowed Lindsay Lohan and Jamie Lee Curtis to have fun in the lead roles.

Which brings us to Freakier Friday. Curtis and Lohan are mother and daughter once again. They are Tess and Anna Coleman, respectively. Anna has her own teen daughter by now, Harper (Julia Butters). Harper ends up in an ongoing rivalry with a young British girl at her school named Lily (Sophia Hammons), which leads to Anna having to head in one day for a meeting with the Principal (played by X Mayo) and Lily's father, Eric (Manny Jacinto). Much to the dismay of Harper and Lily, Anna and Eric fall in love, eventually planning to marry. Tensions start to rise, which is when another bodyswap situation is created. Harper ends up in the body of Anna, Lily ends up in the body of Tess, and vice versa. There's detention to be navigated, a job that revolves around planning a concert for a big pop star, a distracting game of pickleball, and numerous other complications.

Written by Jordan Weiss, who had Elyse Hollander to help come up with the story, this is a rare feature directorial gig for Nisha Ganatra, who has been doing very good work on a number of different TV shows over the past decade or so. Maybe this will lead to Ganatra doing more features, but it's hard to say when so much of the joy comes from the cast appearing to have so much fun.

Alongside Lohan and Curtis, you get time for Mark Harmon and Chad Michael Murray to return, and there's even room for Pink Slip before the end credits roll (which have some very entertaining bloopers to guarantee you leave with a smile on your face). Despite the years that have passed since the previous film, everyone slips nice and easily into their old roles, and it's a major bonus that both Butters and Hammons are so good in their main roles. Jacinto doesn't have as much fun, but his job is to be earnest and increasingly bemused, while looking very handsome, and he does very well with that. 

The main problem this film has is that it feels more like a Disney Channel product than a proper movie at times. You get the constant bright colours throughout every scene, you get a very lively score and soundtrack selection, and the first act may have you feeling, as I did, that you might have been better off just waiting until it arrived on Disney's own streaming service. Things do improve though, in how it adds some rough edges and complexity to the situation and how things are presented on the way to a predictable and satisfying finale.

This is definitely going to please fans of the 2003 movie that it follows, but it also does a really good job of being updated and fresh enough for newcomers who may well find themselves with a new favourite bit of family entertainment. While I am not sure if I'll enjoy it as much on a rewatch, I am quite sure that I WILL rewatch it before I go back to any of the films that sequelize or remake Mean Girls. 

7/10

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

Mubi Monday: The Last Showgirl (2024)

There are many times when others praise things that make it easy for me to agree with them, be it a piece of art or an artist, or something that occurs in the world outside of my entertainment/art bubble. I would say that most of the time I tend to find my views aligning with the majority. Not all of the time though, and The Last Showgirl is one of those times when I am very much at the opposite end of the general consensus.

Pamela Anderson plays Shelly, a showgirl who finds herself with a big problem when the show that she has been part of for decades is due to close forever. Despite the dwindling audience numbers and various struggles, this news seems to be a huge shock to Shelly, Mary-Anne (Brenda Song), Jodie (Kiernan Shipka), and the other women in the show. Not sure of what she will do in the future, Shelly starts to also consider what she has given up in the past, including a relationship with her daughter, Hannah (Billie Lourd). 

The first screenplay feature credit for Kate Gersten, The Last Showgirl is a disappointing and muddled look at choices made in youth that reverberate through an entire lifetime, as well as being an obvious exploration of how anyone racing against the clock of natural ageing is always going to be in danger of losing their place in an industry that values youth and beauty above almost everything else. While not a great film, it also has the misfortune of being released very close to the much superior The Substance, which explores similar themes in a much more interesting, and a much smarter, way. It's hard not to keep comparing the two, considering how they also position a "past their prime" actress in the lead role, surround them with one or two relative newcomers, and underscore the main narrative with a mixture of sadness and disappointment in the lack of progress made in the two main industries being looked at.

Director Gia Coppola obviously believes that casting Anderson in the lead role is a great way to play into the material, but that would only work if Anderson was good enough. Sadly, she is not, and the fact that she plays her character with some constant faux-Marilyn Monroe affectation in her speech doesn't help her show a big enough difference between her stage persona and her personality when not performing. Song and Shipka aren't given enough to do, with the latter also unable to make her character work when required to perform a dance that is supposed to get close to something sexy, and the only moments worth your time involve either Dave Bautista (as Eddie, a producer who has a past with Shelly), Jamie Lee Curtis (as Annette, a former showgirl now working as a cocktail waitress), or Billie Lourd (as Hannah, Shelly's daughter).

There are some parts of this that are admirable, but they're overshadowed by a lead actress who cannot make the most of her role, a couple of trips into fantasy sequences that derail the central narrative focus, and a third act that is equal parts unsatisfying and surprisingly empty. I'm not going to say that the whole thing ultimately lacks enough . . . substance, but that wouldn't be an incorrect summary. I don't know who to blame - writer, director, or star - but surely they didn't want people to watch this and just wish they had rewatched Showgirls instead.

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 

Borderlands (2024)

A sci-fi action movie based on a videogame I haven't played from a director who usually does his best work in the horror genre, and starring Kevin Hart in a role that would seem to be ideal for almost anyone other than Kevin Hart? I couldn't work up any enthusiasm to see Borderlands when it landed in cinemas, after a very long delay, and the disappointing box office performance and many negative reviews made me believe that I had been right to keep it low on my list of priorities. I knew I would get to it eventually though. And today was the fateful day. Maybe I should have delayed it by another few weeks or years though.

Cate Blanchett plays Lilith, a bounty hunter who ends up joining a group of people who all end up on a quest to locate and open a secret vault on the planet of Pandora. There's Roland (Hart, trying to be the leader of the gang), Krieg (the strong and silent type, played by Florian Munteanu), a small robot named Claptrap (voice by Jack Black), and the destruction-loving Tiny Tina (Ariana Greenblatt). They will eventually be joined, at least temporarily, by Tannis (Jamie Lee Curtis), and someone named Atlas (Edgar Ramírez) who may be hiding his true motivation for wanting to stay close to the crew.

There may be lots of little details here for fans of the videogames, (I don't know) and there may be some production design and character arcs that have been directly translated, (again . . . I don't know), but what there IS here is some horrible plotting, a complete lack of any excitement, and a couple of action set-pieces that do nothing to justify the time spent enduring the rest of the film. Because it is an endurance test. Few of the cast feel well-suited to their roles, and the film itself is exactly in line with a trailer that gave many people the idea of making a meme joke in the format that ends with the line "we have Guardians Of The Galaxy at home" and then shows the poster for this as the aforementioned lesser substitute option.

None of the characters here have anything really going on below the surface, but Blanchett manages to make her own involvement rewarding to those who can enjoy her simply swaggering around onscreen with a fantasticaly-sculpted bright red hairdo atop her head. Hart is never convincing, Greenblatt has a higher energy level that keeps her out of sync with the rest of the group, and makes her slightly annoying for most of her screentime, and Jack Black's vocal performance is the equivalent of being stuck beside the most annoying "office joker" for the entirety of the big annual night out. Munteanu is decent, helped by the fact that he doesn't really have much to say, Curtis has some fun in her thankless role, and there's a fun cameo from Gina Gershon. As for Ramírez, he's one of the weakest movie villains in recent years. Not allowed to make a strong enough impression, his character fails to cast the required shadow over the movie, leaving the actor struggling to be remembered as soon as the end credits roll.

Movies based on videogames nowadays should no longer be dismissed as quickly as they used to be, but this seems determined to take up a place alongside the worst of the game-to-screen adaptations we have seen over the years. I cannot say if there is still enough here to please fans of the game series, but I can definitely say that there's nothing here to please fans of Eli Roth. In fact, there's no real indicator of his involvement, unless you count the fact that he apparently cannot direct decent action set-pieces to save his life (seriously . . . how do you mess up the chance to choreograph a big fight sequence to the Motorhead song "Ace Of Spades"?). Having also written the screenplay with Joe Abercrombie, it's obvious who is most to blame here, but it's also obvious that he might be able to shake himself off and move on quickly enough, having his own credit overshadowed by the brand name that he was given the responsibility of turning into a hit movie.

I would advise those who love the game of Borderlands to keep playing it, rather than giving this movie their time. On the plus side, maybe some confusion will lead people to a very different movie named Borderlands (renamed as Final Prayer in some territories). I give this some bonus points for how much I enjoyed Blanchett here, but others wouldn't be half as kind.

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

Mubi Monday: Blue Steel (1990)

It is a happy coincidence that I have spent the past few months hankering for a rewatch of Blue Steel and it has now appeared on the MUBI streaming service. I couldn’t remember many details, but I remembered liking it. I hoped it would hold up as a solid thriller.

It does.

Jamie Lee Curtis stars as Megan Turner, a young woman who we see at the start of the movie finally achieving her dream of becoming a cop. She is barely on the streets for a few hours when she foils an armed robber in a store (a small turn from Tom Sizemore). One of the customers lying terrified on the floor is Eugene Hunt (Ron Silver), a man impressed by Megan, and also impressed by the gun dropped by the robber. Taking the gun away for his own personal use, Eugene complicates the situation for Megan, who is subsequently investigated for shooting an “unarmed” man. And things get even more complicated when people turn up dead, shot with bullets that literally have the name of our heroine on them. What could make the situation even worse? Maybe Megan and Eugene becoming romantically involved with one another?

Co-written by director Kathryn Bigelow and Eric Red, Blue Steel is a 1990 thriller that feels as if it belongs in a later part of the decade. It has everything you expect from this type of thing, including a supporting cast of characters containing one or two people you know aren’t going to make it to the end, but one or two elements that help it to stand out from the crowd.

The first USP here is Ron Silver’s villain, equal parts charming and completely psychopathic. Silver is the kind of actor I miss nowadays, we don’t have a modern equivalent, and he is superb here, especially once he drops any facade and reveals his true nature, at a surprisingly early stage in the proceedings.

The second USP here is the brilliant commentary on the fetishization of guns. From the title to the opening credits, from the motivation of the villain to the changing power dynamics that depend on who is or isn’t armed at any one time, Blue Steel isn’t just a typical thriller with gunfights here and there. It’s a film that uses the broken mind of one man to show just how strange and dangerous the typical American “gun-worship” mindset is.

Curtis is fine in the lead role, if a bit unconvincing, but her main reason for being onscreen is to look attractive while holding an attractively alluring weapon (in the eyes of the villain anyway). Elizabeth Peña is the best friend, which immediately puts her in danger, and Clancy Brown is a gruff detective who enlists the help of our lead, which immediately puts HIM in danger. Kevin Dunn is a standard superior officer, reminding our lead of the rules and her duty, and there’s an enjoyable little turn from Richard Jenkins, the sharp lawyer defending his “innocent” client, as well as welcome, albeit brief, performances from Louise Fletcher and Philip Bosco, playing the parents who view the career choice of their daughter in very different ways.

Although it feels a bit flat during the final scenes, and those thinking Bigelow would throw more action scenes into this will be disappointed, Blue Steel works as well as it does because it never loses focus. It’s about a dangerous man falling in love with a woman, but he falls in love with her only because he sees her attached to a gun. And it’s a gun that drives almost every decision in this film, by being present or being absent.

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

Haunted Mansion (2023)

Is there really any point in discussing the plot of Haunted Mansion? I am going to say no. The whole thing is summed up by the title. Most people are aware of it, either from the previous movie version or the theme park ride, or both, and all you need is a good enough reason to trap a group of characters, both living and dead, in the titular location.

Writer Katie Dippold and director Justin Simien may not seem like the first choice for this kind of thing, but they work together brilliantly to deliver something that has the perfect mix of heart, humour, and ghostly delights. A lot of this is thanks to the cast (and this is a movie that even finds a role for Jared Leto without making him seem so obviously Jared Leto), but there should be an equal amount of praise given to everyone behind the camera, from the costumers and special effects teams to the production designers, sound crew, and beyond.

Rosario Dawson and Chase Dillon are the mother and son who end up in the haunted mansion, enlisting the help of others when they realise that they cannot leave. Well, technically, anyone who sets foot in the mansion CAN leave, but they end up taking a ghost home with them, being haunted and spooked until they return themselves to the mansion. That happens to the characters played by LaKeith Stanfield, Owen Wilson, Tiffany Haddish, and Danny DeVito, each one becoming coming along to the hub of paranormal activity with some of their own baggage in tow.

Each to their own, but I am surprised that this seems to have been dismissed, and even disliked, by so many. I cannot help wondering if more people need to actually sit down and watch this, perhaps letting their opinion of the film be tainted by the previous one. I admit that I also found enough in that Eddie Murphy vehicle to enjoy, but I am starting to think less of it now that I have had so much fun with this version. If you have younger viewers who are already wanting some spooky viewing choices then this gets things pretty spot on, with the ghostly goings on nicely tempered by moments of humour that don’t unbalance and upset the atmosphere.

Stanfield is a very good lead, working hard to portray someone equally mystified, scared, and buoyed by the idea of such active spirits. Viewers know from very early on that he has been drowning in grief, and the mansion may give him a way to deal with that. Dawson is in protective mother mode, Wilson does his familiar optimistic schtick, and both DeVito and Haddish add to the fun in a way that keeps things lively without ever stealing the focus away from the main characters. Dillon is the one most likely to steal any focus, giving a performance that is sweet and entertaining, and his nervousness is often the funniest part of the first half of the film. Leto gets to be the villain of the piece, a ghost scarier and meaner than the others, and Jamie Lee Curtis is a good casting choice for the role of Madame Leota (mainly seen as the head in a large crystal ball).

I had a great time with this. The more I think about it, the less I can think to criticise, and this is coming from someone who isn’t exactly a big fan of Leto or Haddish. The emotional manipulation works, the ghosts are a perfect mix of phantasmagorical fun and age-appropriate scariness, and the comedy kept me chuckling away when it was supposed to. All in all, this is great family entertainment for those brave enough to wander through the mansion.

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

Halloween Ends (2022)

If you loved Halloween Ends then you should probably just skip this review entirely. I really disliked it, although my hopes weren’t that high after also disliking Halloween Kills, and I will specify my reasons here. But before I do that, as divisive as this film has proven to be, let me say that a) I don’t dislike a film for doing something different, and b) I don’t judge any Halloween film based on the screentime for Michael Myers. A lot of people have already labelled detractors of this movie as typical genre fanboys who cannot accept change (there have been a lot of tiresome exclamations of “5cream was so right”). I am sure some viewers have their mindset stuck in that rut, but others may have valid criticisms of a film that seems to undo whatever this trilogy, and it is hard to even call it a trilogy at this point, was aiming for.

Things start well. The shadow of Michael Myers still looms large, and young Corey (Rohan Campbell) is a babysitter who finds his evening ending in the worst possible way. Skip forward by a few years, Corey is trying to get on with his life. His reputation precedes him though, sadly. Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis, as if you need reminding) had meanwhile somehow found a state of peace, helped by the fact that she is now writing down her story. Her granddaughter, Allyson (Andi Matichak), lives with her, and hangs about until she starts to become interested in Corey. Resentment burns through the young couple, a fire so strong that they wouldn’t mind seeing Haddonfield turned to ash, and Corey may be unable to contain his rage. And then there’s Michael Myers, coming perilously close to living the last of his days out as a Chris Farley character, ready to regain his energy enough for another showdown with Laurie. Because we were all shown it in the trailer, and those involved in these films pretend to be daring only until they revert to the fan-pleasing scenes they inevitably squeeze into each instalment.

The biggest problem here is a script that seems to want viewers to forget everything that we saw in the last movie. Remember the mob mentality that was immensely damaging to a town unable to heal its wounds? That’s gone. The grit and awareness of Laurie, someone who lived their life ever-ready for a battle they knew was always upcoming? Gone. Individuals defined by their encounters with the boogeyman? Yes, the leads still have that aspect, but everyone else seems to have moved on in a way that totally dismisses the past few years. Paul Brad Logan and Chris Bernier both join Danny McBride and director David Gordon Green in the writing department for this finale, but it’s difficult to pin any blame on them. This franchise “reinvigoration” has been in the hands of McBride and Green since it first started to take shape (no pun intended), and this fumbled ending shows that they never really considered how to make something consistent and cohesive.

There are some interesting choices made here, not least of which is the focus on Corey, but Green and co. are unable to commit to those choices. They don’t do right by the interesting idea at the heart of this, which should have been a study of a community making a whole new boogeyman, and subsequently waste the opportunity to also give Curtis more to do, while her character could have been the only one to see, and perhaps try to heal, the potential damage that she could see happening to someone not already beyond saving. This may have also helped to maintain a sense of the menacing presence of Myers, a character who can cause almost as much terror and tension by being offscreen as he can when on the rampage, instead of sidelining him and having his infrequent appearances feel ever so slightly patronizing.

The things that work are the things that work in every Halloween movie. Curtis, the music, and the quiet streets of Haddonfield. And I have to say that Campbell was a great choice to play Corey. Oh, and the opening title sequence is superb, and would have been even better if certain elements had been used more effectively (see last paragraph), which I do think was their initial aim. Sadly, nothing else feels good enough. There are only one or two impressive “bodycount” moments, the wild plot tangents aren’t taken far enough, and the predictable and inevitable ending is, by this point, just sadly laughable and pathetic. Poor Andi Matichak is also a negative, her flat performance not helped in the slightest by a script that asks her to do nothing more than fall very quickly for a boy who never really gives her a good enough reason to stick around and put faith in him. Which can happen in real life, I know, but it doesn’t help this movie.

Being divisive isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and many artists would prefer that you love or hate something they have done, as opposed to just sitting right in the middle, so I am still pleased to see that this has created so much discussion and passion. I have heard, and understood, people who really liked the decisions made here. I just strongly disagree, and I think this review clearly explains why I feel the way I do.

I will never bring myself to absolutely hate any Halloween movie, it is my favourite horror movie franchise (despite so few of the films being great), but this sits alongside Halloween Kills, for me, as the worst of the lot. I am glad this “era” is over, and I hope whoever has the next crack at it will take a bit more care, or at least be willing to move much further away from the comfort zone collage of nods, winks, and fan-service that we had here.

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

Everything Everywhere All At Once (2022)

I hope you have already heard from other people raving about just how good Everything Everywhere All At Once is. That will make up for my own poor attempt to convince you to see it. Because it is an easier film to experience than to discuss, but it is a strong contender for film of the year (and, arguably, a strong contender already for film of the decade). It isn’t for the faint of heart though, and I am sure that many casual film fans will be put off by the unrelenting craziness of it all.

Michelle Yeoh stars as Evelyn Wang, a woman who is at a low ebb. She runs a launderette with her husband (Waymond, played by Ke Huy Quan), and both a full tax audit and possible divorce looms on her horizon. She also struggles to find a strong connection with her daughter (Joy, played by Stephanie Hsu), and uses her critical father (James Hong) as an excuse to avoid non-judgemental acceptance of Joy’s lesbianism. Evelyn doesn’t mean to be hurtful, she is just projecting from her own life experience. And here’s where things get complicated. It turns out that there are an infinite number of multiverses, and Evelyn is suddenly asked to harness the power of various incarnations of herself in order to protect them. This is done by acting in the most illogical way, allowing the “jump” to the access point, and absorbing the skillset from the person in the alternative timeline. Why is Evelyn required to do this? Someone is out to destroy every timeline, and Evelyn may be the only one able to stop them.

I know, trust me, that the paragraph above is a bit dense and odd. It’s also a decent enough summary of the opening 15-20 minutes of this movie. All you need to know is delivered in one main info-dump, spoken by Ke Huy Quan, and other details are noted as everything becomes more action-packed.

Written and directed by Daniels (Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert), this is a tour de force of consistently inventive and astonishing film-making. The editing alone is an absolute masterclass (I don’t often namecheck editors, just because I focus on the “front of house team” most of the time, but Paul Rogers definitely warrants a mention here), but the script and direction lead to an end product so brilliant that it will be hard for Daniels to top this. In fact, it could be argued that it will be hard for anyone to top this. 

They help themselves greatly with the casting. Yeoh is someone who film fans should have been in love with for years already. If that isn’t the case, change it now. She has always been a massive talent and this gives her the role(s) of her life. Showing so much range, in terms of the characters portrayed and her ability to move from comedy to action to heartfelt emotional moments, Yeoh is one important chamber of the heart of the movie. Quan is another important chamber, and I cannot think of a recent movie moment that has made me happier than the sequence in which he beats up some security guards with a small fanny pack. He makes for a sad, tired, figure in many other scenes, but he also provides a reserve of strength that others use, and it is all conveyed with a quiet, unassuming, performance that is absolutely pitch perfect. Hsu is yet another chamber, and she gets to move between massive highs and massive lows with her character. She is dreadfully unhappy in a way that feels like every “lost” teen ever, but also symbolises unfulfilled potential and dashed hopes just as much as anyone else onscreen. The fourth chamber, ensuring the strong heartbeat that powers the whole film, is made up of both Hong and Jamie Lee Curtis, the former playing the formidable tax auditor. Both are painted as villains at different times, both are much more than that, and both do their bit to ensure that there is not one weak link in the lead acting chain. In an ideal world this would lead to every award everywhere all at once. Maybe in another universe.

There are great action scenes, great moments of absurd humour (highlights include googly eyes, a riff on Ratatouille, and a universe in which people have somehow evolved to have hotdogs for fingers), and simply great moments that will have you grinning from ear to ear. Did I keep track of the timelines and the science? Not quite. Do I think it all fits perfectly together? Not quite. But it is, like a number of other movies, something so magnificent that one or two minor quibbles don’t stop it from feeling perfect. And it is worth noting that, aside from the fighting and silliness, pushing the brain-melting science out of the way, this is a film about love and support. It is important that you have people who give you that love and support, and it is equally important that you pass that same love and support along to those you care about.

Although I know many people who would absolutely hate this, I consider it unmissable. And those who cannot enjoy the full experience it delivers are, quite frankly, missing out.

10/10

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

Halloween Kills (2021)

Here's a bit of a shocker. I wasn't a big fan of Halloween (2018). Despite my problems with it, however, it was impossible for me to deny that it was an attempt to set right a franchise that had so often gone off into choppy waters, to put it mildly. Halloween Kills is worse than the film that preceded it. The big surprise is that I think it is arguably worse than every film that preceded it. 

Following on immediately from the end of the previous film, Halloween Kills is the tale of Michael Myers getting out of a burning house and killing a whole load of people on his way to wherever he may want to be heading. Is that wherever Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) is? Is it his childhood home? Is it somewhere he can face off against an angry mob who rally around the chant that "evil dies tonight"? Wherever it is, events are interrupted by numerous flashbacks to scenes that show the aftermath of that fateful night all those years ago. The night he came home.

David Gordon Green is back in the director's chair again, and he co-wrote the script with Danny McBride and Scott Teems (the former also returning to the same role he had on the last film). So let me start by saying what this film gets right. Entertaining scenes of mayhem and death. This feels like the Halloween movie with the biggest bodycount yet, and the kills have a decent mix of variety and brutality. Michael Myers is as unstoppable as ever when he's all revved up for a major killing spree. 

The other thing the film gets right is the score, making plenty use of classic music cues in the right places.

That's it. That's all this movie gets right, and that's why it manages to do what I thought was impossible, become a new low point for the series.

Now let's go through the many things that the film gets wrong. 

The cast. They're either not that good (Andi Matichak still fails to make much of an impression as young Allyson, granddaughter of the legend that is Laurie Strode), unceremoniously sidelined because they need to be held back for the next - final - instalment (Jamie Lee Curtis), or forced to make one bad decision after another on the way to an ending that treats them as badly as any minor supporting character. This applies to Judy Greer, Robert Longstreet, and Anthony Michael Hall, among others. The fact that Hall is playing Tommy Doyle, joined here by Lindsey Wallace (Kyle Richards reprising her role), makes the misuse of his character arguably more egregious than the misuse of any other characters.

The many nods to other movies that everyone wants to pretend doesn't exist in this timeline. This has been a pet peeve of mine before, but it's even worse this time when so many details seem to have been included for fans to point out as nods to previous visits to Haddonfield.

Leading on from the previous point, there is almost no scene in Halloween Kills that doesn't highlight either some dialogue, character, or scene from the 1978 movie. It makes up what feels like the majority of the runtime, and it's bloody infuriating. This is a film that shows a flashback of Michael Myers clambering over a car just to allow the film-makers to feel smug when they show a near-identical shot of Michael Myers clambering over a car. There is a big difference between dropping in references to please fans and making your film little more than a collage of those references.

The many scenes that are supposed to show the events of Haddonfield in the 1970s generally look well, but they are a) totally unnecessary, and b) full of choices made by people who wanted to recreate certain moments and characters without considering whether or not they should. This leads to intrusive camerawork and some terrible audio that can take viewers out of the movie.

Any commentary on trauma and mob mentality is undermined by the weak script. Why bring so many characters back if you’re only going to use them to make the same mistakes that everyone makes in these movies? They even mistake someone else for Michael Myers, which I think it the third or fourth time that idea has been used in these movies. There are individual moments that have characters showing how affected they have been by the night that terrified the entire town, but they are disappointingly brief. And none of the mob mentality stuff works, with no real feeling of “angry villagers with torches” ever coming close to actually causing a problem for the monster they want to drive away.

Halloween Kills has worked for a hell of a lot of people, and it seems to have been a big hit at the box office already, so you may end up at the opposite end of the spectrum from me. Some people have heard the film criticised and wondered what viewers were expecting. I’ll tell you. All this had to do was be true to the characters, true to the idea of making it a worthwhile story branching directly from the events of the original movie, and full of good kills. At least the kills are good. 

Sadly, any other film in the series manages to do what it sets out to do better than this, which even keeps our favourite scream queen so far away from most main scenes that it’s akin to watching a cut of Aliens re-edited to keep Ripley in stasis for most of the runtime.

Worst. Halloween. Ever. (so far)

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

Knives Out (2019)

Written and directed by Rian Johnson, Knives Out is a hugely entertaining murder mystery that actually doesn't bother too much to keep things mysterious. Johnson seems to expect viewers to be one or two steps ahead, allowing them to get extra pleasure from many of the incidental details along the way.

It all starts with the death of Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer). This death is investigated by a detective named Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig). Everyone seems to have a motive, and the fact that the death seems like an obvious suicide makes the whole investigation a rather strange affair. While the family bicker over what could be revealed in the will, Harlan's nurse (Marta, played by Ana de Armas) finds herself caught up in a lot of drama that she'd really rather do without. Monsieur Blanc views her as a valuable resource, however, due to the fact that she has a condition that makes it incapable for her to tell a lie without having to immediately vomit.

A whodunnit that quickly turns into a howdunnit, I cannot think of a major mainstream release that I enjoyed as much as Knives Out when I saw it in the cinema last year. Although not perfect, and murder mystery purists may be irritated by some of the decisions made by Johnson, it's a dream mix of a quality cast having fun with a smart and playful script. And everything is overlaid by Johnson making directorial decisions that help it all to retain the sheen of classic cinema while never distracting from the dialogue, the mix of characters, and the interplay between everyone.

With the likes of Plummer, Jamie Lee Curtis, Don Johnson, Michael Shannon, and Toni Collette playing members of the Thrombey family, you can rest assured that there are some great performances, but the real surprises come from those you might not expect greatness from. Craig, as much as I tend to enjoy him onscreen (especially as Bond), looks like he's having the most fun he's had in years, accent and all, and it's infectious, particularly while he is being supported by LaKeith Stanfield and Noah Segan. De Armas is so good in her role that this is surely her gateway to many more opportunities (I assumed she wouldn't be around much after Knock Knock, but her turns in both Blade Runner 2049 and this show that she is making some canny career choices). Chris Evans is a dick, and I love him for so happily sliding into that kind of role after so much time being decidedly non-dickish in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, especially when he's so good at that mix of charm and irritating arrogance.

Nobody puts a foot wrong, from the big stars to those who may only have one or two lines, and it's hard not to think that Johnson brought out the best in everyone with his plan to deliver something that manages to feel both fresh and traditional at the same time. From the opening scenes to the standard "assemble the suspects as the killer is about to be revealed" finale, this is pure Agatha Christie fare, through and through. It just has some more swearing, and a bit of vomit. You shouldn't let either of those things put you off.

9/10

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

Halloween (2018)

Horror fans. At heart, we're easily pleased, according to some anyway. And we're an optimistic lot, at least when it comes to films that aren't cynical remakes. Time and time again, we have been given assurances about remakes and reboots. This time they're going to get things right. It's going back to the spirit of the original. This will be a film for the fans. And that's what we were told with Halloween. Indeed, early word on the film was fantastic, and a lot of fans are very happy with it. I am just not too sure what they have seen in it that I have missed.

Here's the plot. When a couple of true-crime podcasters get to visit Michael Myers in the sanitarium that has been his home for forty years they do their best to get a reaction from him, seemingly to no avail. The podcasters then go to visit Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis returning to her iconic role), now living a sheltered existence, staying locked inside her own home, to the detriment of her relationship with her daughter (Karen, played by Judy Greer) and her granddaughter (Allyson, played by Andi Matichak). And it's only a short while from then until Michael *gasp* escapes and *shock* heads to find Laurie once again.

Okay, there's something off about Halloween that I can't put my finger on. Something to do with the way that those involved insisted it would work as a sequel to the original film, while ignoring all of the other movies that came along after it, yet not quite nailing a consistent tone throughout, not seeming to handle the manners of Michael correctly, and not managing to give fans a finale worthy of the wait. What should have been a potential last hurrah ends up instead being a bit of an eye-roll and a shrug.

Director David Gordon Green doesn't do a bad job when he allows himself time away from the main characters and plotting. That one tracking shot, shown in preview clips that were used to advertise the movie, is pretty great, allowing us to watch Michael mingle with unwitting trick or treaters as he wanders around and commits a couple of impressively short 'n' sharp kills. And there's a decent sequence that features a scared child and a babysitter who assumes that it's all down to imaginary terrors. Unfortunately, Green does worse with a number of scenes that seem to warp the characters for the sake of a fresh start in the series. The script, co-written by the director with Jeff Fradley and Danny McBride, has just as many silly moments as many of the other sequels it is so desperate to erase from the canon, and, worst of all, it doesn't do justice to the characters that deserve better treatment. Those characters would fare a lot worse if they weren't played by such good actors. And did I mention that everything is kicked off this time by true-crime podcasters? Yes, it may lack Busta Rhymes and webcams, but let's not pretend that this isn't as gimmicky and mistakingly attempting to be trendy in the same way as, oh, Halloween: Resurrection was. Things lift up when scenes don't feel like they're either reacting to trends or dishing up fan-service but, sadly, most of the film seems to be stuck in those two camps.

The cast help immensely, and it goes without saying that Curtis gives another great performance. Greer is good, although playing the overly-tense character that she's been stuck with many times before, and Matichak is a likeable younger potential final girl who could easily carry on the Strode legacy, as far as I'm concerned. The wonderful Will Patton is . . . wonderful, if sorely underused, in the role of Officer Hawkins, and Haluk Bilginer tries to fill a Loomis-shaped gap, but is let down by the writing in the second half. Virginia Gardner, Dylan Arnold, Miles Robbins, and Drew Scheid all do well as teens who may find themselves in peril, and Jefferson Hall and Rhian Rees are those pesky podcasters.

Is this a bad horror movie? No. There are some good kills, and an attempt to craft some iconic Myers moments. It just isn't a masterpiece, not in comparison to many other horror movies and not even in comparison to the preceding films that those involved view as lesser instalments in the series. A lot of the characters here do typically dumb stuff to get themselves in a position to be picked off, a number of moments feel like they bring the luggage of the other movies that have been ignored/discarded, and the ending doesn't feel true to the characters.

But that doesn't matter whenever Michael grasps hat knife handle and starts walking towards his next victim while that classic music plays. Because us horror fans, well, we're easily pleased sometimes. I know I am.

6/10

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

Prom Night (1980)

There's not a lot that can be said about Prom Night that hasn't been said before. It is, in many ways, a very standard slasher movie, yet it also follows the standard template so slavishly that it moves beyond the ordinary into something that is all the more enjoyable precisely because horror fans can see everything being marked off the slasher movie checklist.

The plot is almost summed up in the title. There's going to be a prom night. That's it. Which makes the timing perfect for some victimisation and killing by a mysterious figure. Jamie Lee Curtis is the main girl, Kim, but it's Jude (Joy Thompson), Kelly (Mary Beth Rubens), and Wendy (Eddie Benton) who start receiving strange phone calls and cryptic messages/threats. Oh, and all of this is happening a number of years after a tragic death that viewers are shown in the opening sequence.

Written by William Gray, from a story by Robert Guza Jr, this is an effective horror movie that relies on pilfering bits and pieces from other movies and putting them together in a well-paced narrative that delivers what most genre fans will want to see, although a bit more of the red stuff being splashed around would have been welcome.

Director Paul Lynch is fairly pedestrian in his approach, taking the material and not really doing much to elevate it. He instead relies on his cast, the tropes of the subgenre, and viewers willing to have patience as they're taken towards a decent, over the top, finale.

The first familiar face viewers will see is Leslie Nielsen, playing a grieving parent alongside his wife (played by Antoinette Bower), but he's not given too much screentime. That is reserved for the younger stars already mentioned, as well as Casey Stevens, David Mucci, Michael Tough, and Sheldon Rybowski, and one or two other young men. Everyone does just fine with what they're given, but one or two scenes highlight the fact that Curtis is the star, including a memorable disco dance interlude.

Not quite the absolute classic that some make it out to be, Prom Night is a competent slasher movie with plenty of enjoyable individual elements that never add up to more than the sum of their parts. I would call it an essential film for anyone with even a passing interest in this subgenre, and it's one that I never mind revisiting, but there are at least a couple of dozen slasher movies that I would place ahead of it, in terms of sheer entertainment value.

Also, avoid the "remake" like the plague.

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

Trading Places (1983)

John Landis is a great director. Well, he WAS. It's been a while since we saw him working at his prime, but Trading Places is one of his best movies. In fact, if Landis hadn't also given us a classic werewolf flick and The Blues Brothers then this could well have been his crowning achievement.

The story is quite simple. Two rich old men (the Duke brothers, played by Don Ameche and Ralph Bellamy) make a bet over the effects of nature vs. nurture. To test their theory, they take their shining employee Louis Winthorpe III (Dan Aykroyd) and ruin his life. Louis loses his job, his fiance, his money and most of his self-respect in a series of humiliating trials all set up by the Dukes. At the same time, Billy Ray Valentine (Eddie Murphy) is plucked from his hustling, hand-to-mouth lifestyle and offered almost everything that Louis had. The two have traded places, hence the title of the movie. Will Billy Ray become a success, or will he abuse his position to make even more money for himself? And will Louis turn to crime as misfortune piles upon misfortune?

Although it runs for almost 2 hours, with editing never being a strong point for Landis, this zips along at a cracking pace, with quality gags written into every scene, some subtle and some front and centre. This is partly thanks to the script, by Herschel Weingrod and Timothy Harris, but equally thanks to the performances from everyone involved.

Murphy is at his best, the early '80s was arguably the peak of his career, and he delivers almost every line with confidence and sass. Aykroyd just about avoids making you hate him during the opening scenes of the movie, although it's a close call, and it gets easier to enjoy his company as things unravel for him at greater and greater speed. Ameche and Bellamy are delightfully horrid schemers, playing brilliantly off one another from start to finish. Denholm Elliott also does well as the butler who starts off attending to Aykroyd and is then told to take care of Murphy instead, and Jamie Lee Curtis set many hearts a-flutter as Ophelia, the "hooker with a heart" who takes pity on Aykroyd and tries to help him out of his current jam. Paul Gleason is as good as he always is, James Belushi monkeys around in the third act, Kristin Holby is the fiance ashamed of Aykroyd's downward mobility, and there are a couple of cameos worth keeping your eyes peeled for (as usual with a John Landis movie).

For getting the best out of his cast, and treating the material so well, Landis has to be credited with doing a good job here. He certainly had a knack, at one point, of getting great scripts into the hands of the right people for the roles, which does half of his work for him, in my book. There's nothing spectacular here on the technical side, but it's all smooth and well put together. Most importantly, it's all constructed perfectly around the performances and the gags.

If you haven't yet seen this movie then I implore you to get to it as soon as you can. It's an enduring comedy that hasn't lost any of its power in the past few decades. And it then provides you with an extra laugh whenever you get around to watching Coming To America.

9/10

http://www.amazon.com/Trading-Places-Blu-ray-Eddie-Murphy/dp/B00AEBB8EM/ref=sr_1_1_twi_2_twi_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1418340244&sr=8-1&keywords=trading+places

April Fools: A Fish Called Wanda (1988)

A Fish Called Wanda is a great comedy. A modern classic, in my opinion, thanks to the mix of dialogue, cast, characters and situations. Unfortunately, it also seemed to start the advertising trend that plagues British hits to this day. Every comedy that came along after it would find someone able to say that it was "the best British comedy since A Fish Called Wanda". Until Richard Curtis came along, at least, and then Four Weddings & A Funeral took over, soon superceded by The Full Monty and, well, every other big British success at the box office since then. But let's get back to Wanda.

It's the story of a daring robbery, and a little double-cross by some members of the team. The lovely Wanda (Jamie Lee Curtis) is the woman with the grand plan, and she will use all of her feminine wiles to get what she wants. Her partner is Otto (Kevin Kline), a man pretending to be her brother. Otto is a great man with a weapon, but he's not as smart as he thinks he is. Just don't call him stupid. Wanda and Otto are working together to find out where the diamonds from their big robbery have been hidden. George (Tom Georgeson), the man who planned and led the robbery, has been arrested and, funnily enough, doesn't trust anyone. He has moved the loot, and only Ken (Michael Palin) has the key to use whenever the location is revealed. Meanwhile, Archie Leach (John Cleese) is the man defending George in court. He's the one George may tell about the whereabouts of the diamonds if he needs to make a deal, so he's the one that Wanda needs to get close to. Very close.

Directed by Charles Crichton, with a script written by Cleese, this is a film that stands up alongside his earlier classics such as The Lavender Hill Mob. In fact, it's hard to think of a more fitting final film for the man, so perfectly does it mix the old with the new by juxtaposing the repressed Brits alongside the more outlandish Americans. There aren't too many flourishes, but the material doesn't need it.

The cast are all clearly having a lot of fun (with Kline even snagging a surprising Oscar for his supporting role - the Academy often overlooks/dismisses such comedic material, in my experience) and the clash between Curtis and Kline whenever they're onscreen alongside Palin or Cleese is always as entertaining as it is exaggerated. Georgeson has less to do, but is just fine, while Maria Aitken is excellent in a rather thankless role, playing the rich, self-absorbed, wife of Leach. She's a reminder of what happens to people who allow their dreams and energies to die for the sake of a good place in society and a nice house.

Full of so many great lines and moments, from the many stupid sentences spoken by Otto, to the attempts made by stuttering Ken to kill a key witness (Patricia Hayes), to the famous sight of John Cleese stripping off while speaking in a foreign language, to the even more famous sight of Palin with chips up his nose, this is a film that still proves as rewatchable and laugh-inducing today as it did when first released.

9/10

http://www.amazon.com/Fish-Called-Wanda-Two-Disc-Collectors/dp/B000IONJJ2/ref=sr_1_4?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1397829319&sr=1-4&keywords=a+fish+called+wanda

Christmas With The Kranks (2004)

Tim Allen and Jamie Lee Curtis star as the Kranks in this enjoyable Christmas comedy from director Joe Roth that is adapted, surprisingly, from a novel by John Grisham entitled Skipping Christmas.

After waving their daughter, Blair (Julie Gonzalo), off at the airport the Kranks head home and start a new chapter in their lives. It's not long until Luther Krank has what he thinks is a brilliant idea. Instead of spending the $6000+ that they spent on Christmas last year he wants to go on a Caribbean cruise and just . . . . . skip Christmas. His wife, Nora, is tempted and agrees only after Luther promises that he'll match the main charity donations that they included in their Christmas spending the previous year. When Luther informs his colleagues of his plan to skip Christmas he is labelled a Scrooge and sense no small amount of resentment but that's nothing compared to the feelings of his neighbours, who are marshalled by do-gooder Vic Frohmeyer (Dan Aykroyd). It's not long until the Kranks have upset many of their friends, their neighbours, the Christmas tree salesman, their local priest and even a couple of police officers who raise money each year by selling their own calendar. Can the Kranks actually skip Christmas or is there no escaping the festivities?

Everything you associate with a Christmas movie is here (the tree, the decorations, the songs, the need for certain foods, the monetary cost and stress, the life lesson about the real meaning of Christmas) but it's nicely inverted for a good 2/3 of the film. The Cranks do only have themselves to blame as the pressure and pressure builds for them to join in with the fun but they also get some sympathy due to the fact that Christmas should be up to what any individual wants to make it.

Director Joe Roth keeps things moving along nicely and the script from Chris Columbus only really starts descending into his usual mawkishness during the last 10 minutes or so. Everything before then is coated with cynicism and the feeling of an ongoing war so that makes it more digestible than many other, overly sweet, Christmas movies you could take a look at.

I've been a fan of Tim Allen for a long time and he does his usual schtick here. I like it, some folks don't. If you don't like him then, obviously, you're not going to enjoy the movie as much as I did. Jamie Lee Curtis is a lot of fun as the wife struggling to keep her resolve in the face of mounting festive pressure and the supporting cast is full of many great stars: Dan Aykroyd, Austin Pendleton, M. Emmet Walsh, Elizabeth Franz, Cheech Marin, Jake Busey and even young Erik Per Sullivan (who is probably best remembered from Malcolm In The Middle).

Christmas With The Kranks is a lot of fun and does, deliberately or not, make some of the usual points about the yuletide season. It's not all about the materialism and the money spent but it's also not a time to skimp on anything that may put a smile on the faces of others.

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 

Going To Pieces: The Rise And Fall Of The Slasher Film (2006)

Far from the definitive overview that the praise claims on the DVD cover, this documentary is still a pretty entertaining primer for a subgenre often frowned upon by movie lovers. If horror is a genre barely tolerated by some who seek to dismiss it whenever possible then the slasher film is the subgenre often most easily held up as an example of all that is wrong with "those types of movies". Of course, the movies that fall under this classification are as varied in quality as movies from any other subgenre and this documentary at least shows off the variety available to audiences.

Based on the book of the same name (which I've heard great things about but, sadly, never read), this is one of many documentary features that seems to be very much "damned if they do, damned if they don't". The subgenres and the springboards for discussion are just too deep and full of potential to be quickly skimmed over. Of course, the usual suspects are here (the tentpole movies from John Carpenter, Wes Craven and Sean S. Cunningham) but there are also a few notable titles missing. Black Christmas was probably the main one that I found conspicuous in its absence. I think that it did appear briefly onscreen but I don't recall too much discussion about it and I felt a bit cheated to be hearing so much about Halloween without the Bob Clark movie being given due respect. Strangely enough, I've never been the biggest fan of Black Christmas while Halloween has long been one of my favourite horror movies of all time so I can only imagine how disappointed real fans of the film will be.

Then we have the fact that everything discussed is discussed in so much detail (in terms of plot points and twists) that you can't help wondering just who would get the most from it. Beginners will have far too many movies ruined for them while fans who have already seen a large portion of the movies mentioned will feel that not enough films are given due attention. Translation = "damned if they do, damned if they don't".

It's a nice collection of clips and reminiscences about the slasher movie subgenre but nothing essential for those who already know their Crystal Lakes from their Elm Streets.

6/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Going-Pieces-DVD-John-Carpenter/dp/B000PMLDPO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339949552&sr=8-1