Prime Time: Death Of A Unicorn (2025)

Despite the general negative reviews I saw for Death Of A Unicorn, I held out hope that I would enjoy it. There's a decent idea at the heart of it (some people hit a unicorn with their car, and it's not long until some mono-horned revenge seems to be on the cards) and a great cast. In fact, my hopes would have been even higher for this if I'd known in advance that it not only included Paul Rudd, Jenna Ortega, Téa Leoni, and Richard E. Grant, but also Will Poulter, Sunita Mani, Anthony Carrigan, and Jessica Hynes.

Rudd and Ortega play Elliot and Ridley, a father and daughter heading to an important weekend event which could improve Elliot's earning potential. He has to schmooze his super-rich boss (Grant) and his family (his wife, played by Leoni, and son, played by Poulter). Things are complicated by the fact that Elliot hits and kills a unicorn on the drive there. Well . . . he THINKS he has killed it. There's no time to mourn for the beast though, nor appreciate the majesty of it, when the assembled rich folk realise that unicorns have magical healing properties.

The first full feature helmed by writer-director Alex Scharfman, this is full of amateur errors, although it must also be said that Scharfman does well with the visuals and his ensemble cast. He cannot nail down the tone though, starting things off with an emphasis on black comedy, trying to then deliver some scenes of tension and gore, and then swerving back to the comedy, but not without shoe-horning in some unearned emotional moments in the third act. The 107-minute runtime makes the whole thing feel a bit baggy, most of the dialogue lacks a required sharpness, and the very end scenes add to a feeling of the whole thing just being ever so slightly pointless.

Rudd is good, even if he is asked to dull his light slightly, while Ortega strives to make more of her part than just being "moody girl who sees the truth ahead of everyone else". Grant and Leoni are effortlessly enjoyable in roles that they could do in their sleep, and Poulter has the most fun of anyone onscreen, playing his part with a hilarious mix of selfishness, stupidity, and attempted menace. Hynes is an interesting choice for her character, and I must admit to being so delighted to see her in such an unexpected role that she didn't have to do any more than be present onscreen to keep me happy, and both Mani and Carrigan are used to highlight the huge chasm that exists between the haves and the have-nots (aka the employees).

This could have been so much more. Some decent creature design aside, it's a visually unappealing film, the main message running through it has been conveyed so much better in a number of better movies released in the past few years, and I would even say that the music by Giosuè Greco and Dan Romer is sadly lacking something. All of the ingredients are here, but only one or two can still be tasted by the time the lacklustre end result is served up.

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 

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (2024)

Although I wasn't sure of what to really expect with Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, I was comforted by the fact that a number of key players were returning. Tim Burton was in the director's chair, and the central cast was anchored by the essential trio of Michael Keaton, Winona Ryder, and Catherine O'Hara. It's a shame that they weren't given something a bit better to work with after such a long wait.

The story may seem complicated, but it's all ultimately just an excuse for various scenes that feel disconnected from one another. Lydia Deetz (Ryder) is now a TV/internet personality, hosting a show in which she investigates hauntings. She is also in a relationship with her manager, Rory (Justin Theroux). Things have to be put on hold, however, when her mother (Delia, played by O'Hara) gives her news about the death of her father. The ladies then travel to pass the message along to Lydia's daughter, Astrid (Jenna Ortega), before heading back to the family home. Things get even messier as a funeral provides the setting for a marriage proposal, Astrid grows close to a young man named Jeremy (Arthur Conti), and Beetlejuice (Keaton) becomes the target of a vengeful ex (Delores, played by Monica Bellucci). 

It's hard to put a finger on what feels so wrong in this sequel. It just feels a bit overstuffed and disjointed, and there's an unfocused randomness to the different plot strands. The original also had some of that going on, but that somehow felt fun and anarchic, whereas this feels more slapdash and tiresome.

There are definite highlights though. Keaton is fantastic in his role, reprising an iconic character with an ease that belies his age, and the many decades since he last played him. Ryder and O'Hara are also both wonderful together, although there's an attempt to slightly rewrite their past that the film only gets away with because of how easy it is to believe that O'Hara's character would reframe their lives together. Ortega is a good addition to the core group, there are a number of scenes outright stolen by a character named Bob, and the finale has some choreographed insanity set to a brilliantly bonkers song that I've always had a soft spot for. 

There is, as expected, some lovely production design, it's impressive for the continuity of the visual style between the two films, and it's nice to hear Danny Elfman's score running through everything. The practical effects are also very enjoyable.

That's about it though. The script, written by Alfred Gough and Miles Millar (who have worked together for decades, and most notably, for this part of their career journey, played pivotal roles in the new Wednesday series) is a mess. Some of the dialogue works, but it's often more to do with the delivery than the words, while the messy plot keeps being tangled around too many characters and too many moments that many viewers probably won't care about, including Charles Deetz, who is initially used in a fun way that allows him to be there without re-using disgraced actor Jeffrey Jones, but then keeps popping up throughout the film in a way that feels egregiously unnecessary.

Aside from those already praised above, Theroux is a lot of fun as the poseur of the film this time around, Bellucci does well with her limited screentime, and Willem Dafoe is enjoyable as a deceased actor who played a cop so often that he basically believes that he is one nowadays. Conti is okay, and Burn Gorman is the local priest presiding over things, but they end up, much like Dafoe, being completely superfluous. The same can be said of Santiago Cabrera, who plays someone supposedly important to our leading ladies, until his scenes are finished with and he seems to be easily forgotten about. 

Did I hate this? No. It was very close though. The good aspects of it often come close to being great, but the negatives just keep dragging it down. Considering how great they are when onscreen together, Keaton, Ryder, and O'Hara deserved something a bit better. On the plus side, there has been a load of new Beetlejuice merchandise released lately that has allowed me to add some more movie-related items to my wardrobe. And I would still give everyone a chance to entertain me again if they make a third one.

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

Scream VI (2023)

For as much as I love most of the Scream movies, including the fun Scream 4, I was absolutely not a fan of Scream (2022) aka 5cream. That immediately became my new least favourite in the franchise (not including the first season of the TV show) and I wasn’t looking forward to this next instalment AKA Ghostface Takes Manhattan.

Thankfully, being a completist is sometimes a good thing. I am glad I watched Scream VI, and it’s already one of my favourites (with my provisional ranking just now being 1, 4, 6, 2, 3, and 5). It’s far from perfect, and I still have issues with the core cast, but the set-pieces and the general vibe of the film, which feels a bit more relaxed and less reflexive and defensive than the last outing, works really well.

The premise is simple. A bunch of people who survived the last film are now in New York. Ghostface is also in New York. People are going to start being stabbed. That’s it. Red herrings abound (or do they?) as our leads try to pinpoint who is doing the murdering, and maybe figure out a way to stop them.

Although there’s one notable omission from the cast (no Neve Campbell this time around), everyone returns to their main role behind the camera. Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett co-direct, and the script is from both James Vanderbilt and Guy Busick. While that may not seem like a good thing to anyone who disliked the last movie, and I realise I am very much in the minority with my dislike of that film, it’s good to see how much better everyone does while feeling less beholden to everything that came along beforehand. This generally seems more free to properly subvert expectations and play around with the rules viewers think they are so familiar with, as evidenced in an opening sequence that is the best opener since the classic start of the first movie.

It is easier to enjoy the cast a bit more too, having accompanied a number of them through the events of the last movie, but this is the biggest problem that the film has. The supporting players are the most enjoyable (Hayden Pannetiere makes a welcome return, Dermot Mulroney is decent, and Courteney Cox has a confrontation worthy of her character’s status), and both Mason Gooding and Jasmin Savoy Brown are fine, not to mention one or two others caught up in the midst of the killing spree by virtue of being friends with the targeted group, but Jenna Ortega is left with less to do than she deserves, and Melissa Barrera continues to just not be a very appealing nominal lead. Sorry, there’s no way around the fact that she’s dead weight at the heart of this rebooted phase of the franchise.

The other problem with the film is a sad lack of commitment to actually, well, killing off characters. So many people are savagely attacked here that you will be forgiven for rolling your eyes during the third act when you see how many actually make it to the end credits. There are fantastic sequences, but some of them feel ultimately inconsequential. I still hold out hope for the next film through. Considering how big a step up in quality this one was, I can only hope that everyone involved finds the bravery to start gorily whittling down the core cast next time around. And if that is caused by another “legacy” character, all the better, because these film-makers certainly seem to have taken note of fan theories and internet gossip.

There are at least four great sequences that help to make this a memorable Scream film, and the fact that I didn’t feel the rest of the film pale into comparison after such a strong start is about as good a compliment as I can give it. It’s an unexpected return to form, as playful and violent as you could hope, with the extra fun of watching the parallel strands between this new trilogy and the original three movies come into sharp focus in a way that provides one more layer to a film series known for being so self-aware and self-referential.

I cannot wait to rewatch this. And, AND, I may even finally work up some enthusiasm to rewatch the last film. Maybe I will like it a little bit more. Maybe.

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/UCErkxBO0xds5q_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

X (2022)

I have a strange relationship with film-maker Ti West, and I suspect I am not the only horror fan to feel this way. He has been working on his craft for just over two decades now and the good stuff is often very good, but there’s a feeling throughout some of his work that he just wants to mess with people. And let’s not even mention his dubious honour of delivering arguably the worst horror anthology segment I have ever seen (in The ABCs Of Death). This meant that I started watching X with some trepidation, despite it having a potentially great premise. There was no need to worry though, thank goodness, as X is easily the best thing that Ti West has ever done.

The plot is fairly simple. A group of people rent a small farmhouse property in the middle of nowhere. It is the late 1970s and the leader of the group, Wayne (Martin Henderson), wants to make a fortune in the world of porn, which he knows is possible with this location, the people around him, and the equipment that will allow them to make an immediate impact on the new and lucrative home video market. Wayne has two starlets with him, Maxine (Mia Goth) and Bobby-Lynne (Brittany Snow), as well as a well-endowed leading man, Jackson (Kid Cudi). Then you have the sound technician, Lorraine (Jenna Ortega), and RJ the cameraman (Owen Campbell). All bodes well for the group, except for the fact that the man they are renting from, Howard (Stephen Ure), takes an instant dislike to them, and there may be problems caused by his wife, Pearl, who doesn’t always have her mental faculties working as well as they should.

If you haven’t seen any of the X marketing yet then you may want to look away now. Just trust me, it is worth your time. For everyone else, you already know what the set-up is here (a porn film crew get themselves caught up in a bit of peril that could easily turn into a full massacre) and I can reassure you that West delivers on it.

Taking his time with the first half of the movie, what you get is a nice slow burn that, in a pleasantly surprising turn of events, really rewards patient viewers with a third act full of grisly deaths and enjoyable “punchlines”. West seems to be having a lot of fun, with recreating a period style and sneakily layering his script with some interesting commentary on beauty as a coveted commodity, and that fun is infectious. X will make you wince, but it will also make you grin as you enjoy one gory set-piece after another. And realising how the movie has been cast will make you think about the main point that West is making, helping to appreciate further a film that has some unexpected depth beyond the nudity and bloodshed.

The cast all do great work, with Snow and Goth being the ones who have to be the least inhibited. Both of those ladies are excellent, and very believable, but Goth also has some more to do in helping West get across his main point, and she deserves some extra kudos for that. Cudi is also very good in his role, playing his character with a mixture of confidence and wariness, considering the time period and the setting, and he is matched by Ortega and Campbell, who feel a bit like supporting players, despite the former being a bit more involved in things in the second half of the movie. Henderson is an easygoing charmer, or at least tries to be, and his energy helps a lot, and Ure portrays the typical sullen “farmer” type who can barely stand the presence of younger folks anywhere near him, let alone on his land. Having just the right mix of anger and sadness, Ure acts in a way, like everyone else here, that allows him to feel like more than just an archetype.

While not feeling overdone in a pointed way, the clothing and design of the film feel nicely of the period, there’s hair and make-up on the characters that is just spot on, and the editing, music, and other aspects of the film all contribute to a nice recreation of something that was filmed in the seventies before being spruced up and presented to modern audiences.

Obviously not for the prudish, X could well be the best horror movie of this year. It’s certainly a strong contender, thanks in no small part to the intelligence hidden away under the exploitation garb. The more I think on it, the more I loved it. Easily the best movie yet from West, and I hope many other horror movie fans check it out. You may end up as pleasantly surprised as I was.

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

Scream (2022)

Is anyone else getting as tired as I am of the formulaic way so many franchises have been "reinvigorated" over the past few years? Find some way to ensure the film connects to the original. Have at least one character from the first movie to help push those nostalgia/familiarity buttons. Make up for any weak plotting and poor scripting with some extra FX work. Oh, and have one big surprise, or death, that doesn't really feel all that surprising. Horror movies get a bonus for allowing a central character from the original to face their fear while showing how the trauma of being stalked by a crazed killer has affected their life. From the Star Wars movies to the Halloween movies, and now Scream, this is the way it works. I WAS looking forward to the next instalment in the wildly uneven The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise, but now I am not so optimistic. 

Scream starts, funnily enough, with a phone ringing. A young girl, Tara (Jenna Ortega), is attacked in her home. That attack brings her sister, Sam (Melissa Barrera), back home to Woodsboro. Sam is with her boyfriend, Richie (Jack Quaid), and she introduces him to a group of sort-of-friends that includes Amber (Mikey Madison), Wes (Dylan Minnette), twins Mindy Meeks-Martin (Jasmin Savoy Brown) and Chad Meeks-Martin (Mason Gooding), and Liv (Sonia Ammar). Everyone wants to survive the latest potential ghostface killings, but everyone is also a suspect. That's why Sam gets in touch with Dewey Riley (David Arquette), who subsequently warns Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) and Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox) to stay far away. 

The first film in the Scream movie series to be directed by anyone other than Wes Craven, and the second script not written by Kevin Williamson, this is a film that very much highlights the lack of both of these talents behind the camera. Not that directors Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett are bad. I've enjoyed most of their work before this, to varying degrees, and they stay firmly in control of the mechanics of the film, as it were, with the actual visuals and editing here being the least of the problems with the film. The overall feel of the film still lacks something though, that confidence and playfulness that Craven could wind through all of his better works. That is never more apparent than in a sequence that should be playful and fun, with the frame being blocked in ways that leads viewers to expect a jump scare at any moment, but instead ends up irritating and tiresome as it plays the same trick in a couple of different ways.

Never mind the directors though, especially when the writers, James Vanderbilt and Guy Busick, have to shoulder almost all of the blame for how bad this is. It's probably easier for me to list my criticisms of the script here in a series of bullet points.

* A distinct lack of tension. In attempting to feel fun and unpredictable, the writers made this arguably the most predictable, and therefore boring, entry in the series. So far.

* A killer so obvious that I really hoped my gut feeling was wrong. It wasn't. I saw the end of this thing coming a mile away. That's down to sloppy writing, whether it's to do with just dismissing characters until they start to become more prominent when you know the final reveal is due or interactions between characters that feel like they're pointing a neon-lit arrow at someone.

* The meta commentary here is awful, and I mean AWFUL. This is, in certain ways, very similar to The Matrix Resurrections, but that film showed how you could do super-smart commentary on events that also discuss the very film you are watching without feeling like a lecture delivered by idiots misunderstanding the appeal of their own source material.

* As subjective as it is, a lot of the humour doesn't work. I would also argue that a lot of the new characters don't work, but I'd say it's about a 50/50 with who I liked and who I didn't (although not liking the new lead is a big stumbling block).

* There's one character depicted in "visions" here, and it's a very bad move. It's usually best to leave that trope to Stephen King, who has used it so often that it's part of his comforting appeal when I read his stories.

* Putting even more emphasis on the Stab films, but without the wit or fun cameos that have been there in previous excerpts from the film-within-the-film series.

* As difficult as it is to confirm the feeling in my gut, the characters generally feel dumber in this film. Being so easily separated, being fooled by tech that should surely be avoided, and turning up somewhere after being specifically warned to stay away. These things have always happened in the Scream movies, and many other horror movies, but characters used to end up reluctantly "breaking the rules" as dangerous situations forced them to make difficult decisions in the heat of the moment.

Do the writers get anything right, in between silly moments like showcasing the "Randy Meeks Memorial Home Theater"? Yes. It's a shame that they can only deal with the characters of Sidney Prescott and Gale Weathers by merging them into some kind of symbiotic Laurie Strode-alike, but they do a lot better by Dewey Riley, giving Arquette some of the best scenes that he's had in the series. I also liked Quaid's character, the easy interplay between Brown and Gooding, and the fact that we had a bit more time with Sheriff Judy Hicks (played by Marley Shelton, reprising her character that I enjoyed in Scream 4).

Arquette is the heart of the film, which leads to the presence of Campbell and Cox feeling much more forced (despite it being obvious that they need to come into the picture at some point). Barrera and Ortega are disappointing, considering that viewers spend so much time with them. The former has to handle some of the more ludicrous moments, not really her fault, and the latter just doesn't feel like an important part of the cast once that opening sequence has finished. Quaid has enough charm and likability to make the most of his role, and I've just mentioned the enjoyability of Brown and Gooding in the last paragraph. Madison, Ammar and Minnette are there to make up the numbers, and there are a couple of enjoyable cameos to watch out for, as well as one awful one.

I won't deny that I enjoyed sitting in a cinema and hearing "Red Right Hand" accompanying some Woodsboro scenery, and there are a few bits of fairly graphic brutality that at least make Ghostface seem even more driven and vicious this time around, but I was very unhappy by the time the end credits rolled. Some have already been celebrating the fact that a sequel to this has already been greenlit. I would prefer if the series provided one last big twist, and just left an iconic killer to stay dead and buried now that the film-makers seem to have nowhere else to take the story.

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

Netflix And Chill: The Babysitter: Killer Queen (2020)

Everyone was surprised by just how good The Babysitter was. Despite my own ability to tolerate his work, even I could see why McG had become so hated by film fans. Perhaps now is the time for some to realise he's actually never been THAT bad. Although it doesn't change the fact that he credits himself as McG.

Anyway, this sequel to The Babysitter brings back all of the main players. That may surprise people who remember the events of the first film, but the trailer gives you all the info you need. There's a deal with the devil that allows the dangerous youngsters from the first film to return for one night and once again terrorise Cole (Judah Lewis). There are also some new extra characters involved in the madness this time, including an attractive and resourceful young woman named Phoebe (Jenna Ortega).

The approach may not work for everyone, but The Babysitter: Killer Queen has a lot of fun trying to cram in as much fun, and as many movie references as possible, into every scene. Whether it's a running comment about the very few sequels that surpass the originals, the use of "Apache" in one key scene, or the evocative score from Risky Business underpinning some scenes in which we see Cole both afraid and yet also enjoying his time with Phoebe.

Brian Duffield may not have returned to the writing duties, but Dan Lagana, Brad Morris, Jimmy Warden, and also McG himself, do well by all of the central characters, maintaining the tone of the first film, peppering everything with a mix of new gags and fun callbacks. This may not be better than the original, but it comes close enough to be rated on a par with it. It's just a shame that the excellent Samara Weaving has a lot less screentime this time around, understandably so.

The direction is as lively and irreverent as it was in the first film, with the subtitles returning when a point is being made, and some quick flashbacks for most of the main characters. It's not quite as successful this time, simply due to the familiarity with the form, but McG definitely seems to be having fun, which is passed on to viewers.

Lewis and Ortega are a decent pair of leads, with the former having the added characterisation now of working through the PTSD of a traumatic incident that so many people don't believe. Emily Alyn Lind is a lot of fun as Melanie, another girl that our lead character likes, even if his chances of anything actually happening with her look slim to none, and it's hard to pick a favourite from Robbie Amell, Hana Mae Lee, Bella Thorne, and Andrew Bachelor, who are all generally involved in some fun and gory death scenes. It's also worth mentioning the increased screentime for Ken Marino and Leslie Bibb, with the former managing to deliver many more laughs with his wonderful narrative strand.

It's not better than the first film, but if you liked that then you're bound to enjoy this. And patience is rewarded whenever Weaving appears. Her shadow falls over the whole movie, but it moves up a notch whenever she's there in person. I am glad we got a second outing for these characters. I hope they don't try to stretch things for a third outing though.

8/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews