Weapons (2025)

If you somehow went along to see Weapons without realising that it was written and directed by the man behind Barbarian then it wouldn't take you too long to figure it out. There may be less dark humour throughout (it's definitely there though), but it makes use of some horror elements to comment on some societal issues, it has moments of sudden and unpleasant violence, events are shown in main chapters that jump between timestamps and characters, revealing a bit extra with each subsequent section, and there's fantastic tense atmosphere that you could cut with a knife. Not that Zach Cregger is the only person capable of making films with these ingredients, but there are certainly touchstones here that show him using some familiar tricks as he tries to present audiences with something arguably more unusual and unsettling than his last film.

As infuriating as it might seem to those trying to decide on whether or not they want to watch Weapons, it's a film that shouldn't be described in anything but the vaguest terms. Things begin with almost an entire classroom of children leaving their homes at two seventeen in the morning, and none of the parents have any idea where they went. Alex (Cary Christopher) is the one child left behind. Justine (Julia Garner) is the teacher who starts to be viewed with suspicion by the worried parents. Archer (Josh Brolin) is one of those worried parents. Other people who end up involved in the main narrative are a police officer named Paul (Alden Ehrenreich), a petty thief/drug addict named James (Austin Abrams), and a visiting relative named Gladys (Amy Madigan).

Where Cregger excels here is not only in his use of the main concept to work as an analogy for an ongoing problem that has affected modern day life in the USA for a few decades now, but also in the way that viewers can put their own interpretative spin on things. Whether you are sympathetic to the general state of parents who find their children suddenly absent, moved by those who seek to point a finger of blame at anyone, because an easy answer is better than no answer, or afraid of the kind of events that have previously left classrooms as distressingly empty spaces in the real world, Weapons provides a lot of food for thought. But it also provides some great atmosphere, very effective jump scares, and a surprising selection of familiar horror movie moments that feel a bit fresh and unique because of the way they are dressed up.

While the cast all do good work, and I really couldn't fault any one of the main performers named up above (also worth mentioning are Benedict Wong, Whitmer Thomas, Callie Schuttera, and the narration from Scarlett Sher), this is a film that works as well as it does thanks to the care and skill of Cregger and his behind-the-camera collaborators. The score works brilliantly, the cinematography from Larkin Seiple remains gorgeous and keeps everything visible even in the darkest of scenes, and the constant mix of creepiness and shock is handled expertly by everyone involved.

I was worried that this wouldn't live up to the hype, because that has certainly been building since the advertising campaign ramped up a little while ago, but it absolutely does. People will have different moments they may find a bit less satisfying, and some will start to amplify their negative opinion if they want to push back against the majority who seem to love it, but I am struggling to find any fault with it. The runtime could have been trimmed down slightly, but I can't even think of where I would want some time shaved off. Okay, maybe I would have preferred some other kind of explanation for what is ultimately revealed during the finale, but it's easy for me to sit here and say that without thinking of anything that would have been better. Those are very minor things something stopping me from rating this as an absolutely perfect film. It comes damn close though.

9/10

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

The Fantastic Four: First Steps (2025)

Although they've never been my personal favourite superheroes, The Fantastic Four certainly hold a special place in the hearts of many comic book fans. They are, after all, often referred to as the "first family" of Marvel, and many other characters made their first appearances in Fantastic Four adventures. They've been ill-served at the movies though. In fact, most people can agree that the best Fantastic Four movie to date is actually The Incredibles. The Fantastic Four: First Steps hopes to change that though. It wants to be a fun slice of retro sci-fi adventure, establishing the main characters as new key members of the MCU.

So it's a shame that I left the cinema feeling more like shrugging than rushing to tell others to get along and see it. 

It's quite a familiar set-up, behind the camera anyway. The writing team (Josh Friedman, Eric Pearson, Jeff Kaplan, and Ian Springer) has a mix of old hands and newcomers. Director Matt Shakman has no other movies under his belt, but he has been honing his skills in the land of TV, and has clearly shown something that made him seem to be a good fit for this property. Maybe his handling of the family relationships explored in WandaVision.

There's no need to give a plot summary, but I will nonetheless. Marvel tries to pretend that we're not getting any origin story here, with a lot of the background related by Ted Gilbert (Mark Gatiss) on his TV show, but it still very much feels like one, considering the standard structure about our heroes coming growing into their roles as they face a new and major threat. The threat this time is the planet-destroyer known as Galactus (voiced by Ralph Ineson), and his coming is heralded by the Silver Surfer (Julia Garner). The timing of this encounter would never be good, but it couldn't be worse as Sue Storm (Vanessa Kirby) prepares to give birth to a baby. Not only is Reed Richards (Pedro Pascal) worried about the fate of the world, he gets very anxious as he tries to baby-proof their home. That means smoke alarms that go off whenever Johnny Storm (Joseph Quinn) flies by and safety gates that are far too easily broken by Ben Grimm (Ebon Moss-Bachrach).

There's nothing really wrong with this movie. The cast are generally good, and a good fit for their roles (although I suspect Joseph Quinn must say a prayer every single day for the Duffer brothers taking his career to a whole other level thanks to his Stranger Things character), the retro look and feel is appropriate and sweet, and the grand plan is played out well enough. It just doesn't ever really impress. Maybe it's a case of superhero fatigue, although I didn't have that feeling with the other big superhero movie released this month, or maybe the central quartet are just a bit too bland in comparison to so many other options we've had in recent decades.

Pascal, Kirby, and Moss-Bachrach are wonderful casting choices. Quinn does okay, but is arguably the weakest Johnny Storm onscreen yet (and, yes, I am including the Corman-produced film from 1994). Ineson and Garner are both brilliant, and there are also fine moments for Gatiss, Sarah Niles, Natasha Lyonne, and Paul Walter Hauser. Oh, and there's a cute little robot named H.E.R.B.I.E. Unfortunately, you get the usual tease during the credits, which is perhaps another reason for me leaving the cinema without the spring in my step that I have had after some other big movies from this year. 

There's a suitably fantastic score from Michael Giacchino, a smattering of humour that felt a step removed from the winking punchlines that became the MCU standard for a while, and some genuinely impressive spectacle in the second half, leading to a super-sized finale. There are no surprises though, and no risks. Marvel wants to recalibrate, to get fans back on board with their cinematic outings, and this feels like a very safe and tame way to do that. I have no major complaints, but nor do I have any major compliments. 

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 

Wolf Man (2025)

Why can the modern movie landscape somehow not give us a great new werewolf movie? We've had some very good ones, but it's an archetypal monster that seems unable to be redefined and refreshed in a way that gives it a place in modern pop culture alongside the many vampires, zombies, and even bandage-swathed mummies. Thankfully, here's Leigh Whannell to put things right. Or not, as the case may be. I don't want to beat around the bush here. Wolf Man is awful.

Christopher Abbott is Blake, a man who ends up heading back to the family homestead with his wife (Charlotte, played by Julia Garner) and young daughter (Ginger, played by Matilda Firth) in tow. The property is in the middle of nowhere, and most of the locals don't venture outside after night has fallen. So the family getting a bit lost and trying to continue driving after sunset isn't a great idea. There's soon some trouble when they encounter a wild humanoid creature that seems intent on putting the bite on them. Eventually trapped in a house, it soon becomes obvious that at least one member of the family has been wounded. And the wound is starting to change them.

While Whannell is the director here, it's maybe telling that this is a screenplay co-written by himself and his wife, Corbett Tuck. The latter is a first-timer in that role, which would explain a lot of the inherent weakness of this. It wouldn't explain it all, and I'm sure both Whannell and Tuck thought they had stumbled upon a great new hook when they decided to let everything basically play out over one long night, but this feels like a sorely under-developed piece of work. There's no solid lore, which means no way to use or break any rules established within the confines of the film, there are too few characters, meaning very few moments have any real sense of danger, and, most damningly, the third act simply serves as a reminder of the last time someone tried to reinvigorate this IP (in a film that was much better than this one, in my opinion).

I don't want to completely dismiss Abbott and Garner, but it's worth noting that Firth, the youngest cast member, seems to do the best work. That may be down to the adults being weighed down by the screenplay, or maybe I was just put in such a sour mood that I was unable to enjoy anyone onscreen, with the exception of the innocent child. Sam Jaeger, Ben Predergast, and Benedict Hardie also have some screentime, and I'm equally loathe to give them any praise (although none of them are bad, they're just trapped in this mass of awfulness like the bug in the amber at the start of Jurassic Park).

The music from Benjamin Wallfisch isn't bad, but the people I really want to praise are those working in the sound department. The one real strength of Wolf Man is the soundscape; all rustling branches, bass-heavy growls, and strange frequencies showing the difference in hearing between some of the main characters. That's offset by the embarrassment of the creature effects and make-up though, which delivers viewers a werewolf that is one of the very worst to be put onscreen. Seriously. Look, I HAVE seen a lot worse than this, of course, but not in a film with some actual money and studio resources behind it.

Inept in almost every way, even (especially?) in the final scenes, this is a huge disappointment for fans of Whannell and/or his cast. It's a huge step down from his work on The Invisible Man, although it's clear that he wanted to emulate that style of blending the archetype with some relevant social commentary. Maybe he should have been clearer on what he wanted to comment on (masculinity, perceived emasculation, family bonds, and communities maintaining dangerous secrets are all in the mix), or maybe he should have just forgotten about that to focus on something that would have been entertaining and satisfying for those wanting loud howls and hairy scares.

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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Apartment 7A (2024)

Stop reading this review right now if you want to enjoy ANY part of this movie. Seriously, I am not aiming to spoil anything, but Apartment 7A should be much more enjoyable for those who know absolutely nothing about it until they start to piece the familiar elements together for themselves.

Consider yourself duly warned.

Julia Adams plays a young dancer named Terry. Despite a hunger for career success, Terry ends up injuring herself in a way that could possibly spell the ruination of her dream. Terry, aiming to find ways to get herself in front of the right people and grasp whatever last opportunity she might get, does have one apparent stroke of good luck. She encounters an elderly couple (played by Dianne Wiest and Kevin McNally) who end up offering her somewhere to stay, as well as much more. But what do they want in return?

Directed by Natalie Erika James, who has done much better work elsewhere, and also co-written by James, Christian White, and Skylar James, this is a disappointingly unscary and predictable feature that is seriously hampered by the fact that viewers will know where things are going. If you somehow avoided the poster/marketing imagery, which clues you in on the fact that this is a prequel to what many view as a classic horror, and somehow don’t recognise the names and behaviour of the characters helping our lead, then there’s a chance that you might enjoy this a bit more. I suspect you will still find it quite dull though, and it’s a shame that none of the writers could figure out a way to make this anything more than a pale and insipid tribute to the film that birthed it.

Despite the weak material they have to work with, the cast are almost all doing very good work. Adams is a good lead, even if this isn't her best work, but a number of scenes are completely stolen by Wiest and McNally (with Wiest, in particular, reminding me of how much I miss her in major movie roles). Jim Sturgess is decent, playing the man who can make or break Terry's dancing career, and Marli Siu, playing a friend named Annie, gets to continue building a nicely varied filmography of interest to those who took notice of her about a decade ago.

There is at least one other recent horror movie that this reminded me of, and I didn't like that one either (The First Omen), BUT this is a slight improvement. Maybe it's because my memory of Rosemary's Baby is a bit hazy (yes, this is a prequel to Rosemary's Baby, I did warn you not to read further if you didn't know anything about the film before now), or maybe there were a handful of moments here that didn't feel like people just marking off a checklist. Either way, this was watchable, but who would choose to ever rewatch it when you can just revisit Rosemary's Baby?

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: The Assistant (2019)

A film very much stemming from, and in dialogue with, the #metoo movement of recent years, The Assistant is also a straightforward look at workplace toxicity and the attitudes that can lock individuals into miserable jobs for far too long.

Julia Garner is the assistant of the title, busy with telephone calls and appointments that all have to be figured out around the whims and moods of her boss. There are other people here, including a character played by Matthew Macfadyen, but it's Garner's character, Jane, who holds, and deserves, our attention as we're shown one typically terrible day in her job.

Written and directed by Kitty Green, who has a small, but very interesting, filmography I think is worth exploring, The Assistant feels oppressive and uncomfortably believable throughout the entire 87-minute runtime. Viewers get to see numerous assholes being placated and protected, all because of their high executive position, and because they are part of an entertainment industry that continues to have these self-contained cesspools where scumbags can have fun and thrive, as long as they keep making the right amounts of money for everyone else.

Garner is never excellent, never less than riveting in the way she uses her body language to show her constant struggle and the growing weight on her shoulders. Others who move around her also do well, and always do enough to add context and flavour to the ebb and flow of the workplace, but it's only Macfadyen who gets a chance to meet Garner at her level. His scene underlines the difficulties facing our lead, and he delivers some horrible dialogue with a calm tone and generally pleasant manner that makes it feel all the more sickening.

Some people who have experienced anything like this may be able to watch The Assistant and feel relief that they have moved on, but others may actually find the behaviour shown here quite triggering. Be warned. There may also be some people who are working, or have worked, in a place that they think is decent enough until they start to recognise some of the red flags shown here. Again . . . be warned.

Very effective stuff, and Green knows just how to pace the film and make great use of what can be inferred by viewers, this is a surprisingly gripping drama that some could easily argue stands on the very edge of horror movie territory. It's helped by that impeccable turn from Garner (who I am quickly becoming quite a fan of, having seen her in two features this week that have both benefited from giving her the lead role), as well as the fact that it reminds us all that change is still rippling through a number of industries thanks to those who started the ball rolling a few years ago.

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

Mubi Monday: We Are What We Are (2013)

A remake of a 2010 Mexican movie (which I have yet to see), We Are What We Are is a film I'd been hearing good things about for the past few years. I really wanted to see the original film first, but the timing didn't work out. That leaves me with this insular experience, nothing to compare and contrast it to, so anyone who has seen the 2010 movie should bear that in mind.

The Parker family are a strange lot. The father (Frank, played by Bill Sage) seems to spend a lot of his time reminding his daughters (Rose, played by Julia Garner, and Iris, played by Ambyr Childers) of the importance of their family traditions. There's also a younger son (Rory, played by Jack Gore) to be looked after. And the family are cannibals, which starts to come to the attention of a local doctor (Michael Parks) after he performs an autopsy on the dead mother. As the doctor is also looking for his missing daughter, he has a vested interest in finding out the truth, no matter how unpalatable it may be (no pun intended).

A family drama with occasional dollops of gore, this is a fairly tame and aesthetically-muted film from director Jim Mickle (who reworks the original into screenplay form with his favoured muse, Nick Damici, once again). Fans of his style will recognise his fingerprints throughout but it's impressive to see him create something that manages to feel like his work while also feeling removed from any of his previous outings.

The cast are uniformly excellent, even Gore as the youngest family member. Garner gets the most to do, and handles it all very capably, but Sage and Childers do great work, and Parks gives another of those performances that made him such an additional joy to watch in the latter portion of his career. There are also good supporting turns from Kelly Mcgillis and Wyatt Russell (both also effectively used by Mickle in previous films).

A cannibal movie more about the baggage that can be passed along from one generation to the next, We Are What We Are may prove slightly disappointing to anyone wanting blood-drenched gut-munching. But it should be a worthwhile viewing for those who go in expecting a quality drama with some thrills and a side dish of viscera.

7/10

You can chew on the movie here.
Americans can eat this.