Fackham Hall (2025)

All you need to know about Fackham Hall is that it's essentially a silly parody of Downton Hall fare. Imagine that kind of period piece drama given the Zucker/Abrahams/Zucker treatment and you're in the right area. Director Jim O'Hanlon has a pretty good body of work to his name already, including a couple of enjoyable Christmas movies and an episode of Hemlock Grove. (anyone else remember Hemlock Grove with fondness, or is it just me? and where the hell does Hemlock Grove "live" nowadays?)

The main cast members are Thomasin McKenzie, playing Rose, Ben Radcliffe, playing Eric, and Damian Lewis and Katherine Waterston playing Lord and Lady Davenport, respectively. Others onscreen are Tom Felton (as Archibald), Emma Laird (as Poppy), and Jimmy Carr, who also helped to co-write the screenplay, cameoing as a vicar who keeps breaking up his sentences in ways that make his speeches to the congregation hilarious inappropriate.

While there is a plot here, it's really all about throwing a lot of gags around and hoping that some of them land. The good news is that many of them do. They may not be the best gags, nor the most hilarious, but I ended up surprised by how much of the 97-minute runtime I spent consistently chuckling at the entertaining silliness being put before me. Jimmy Carr, Patrick Carr, Tim Inman, Andrew Dawson, and Steve Dawson are clearly comfortable, and skilled, when it comes to constructing a selection of jokes. The fact that the plot is slim enough to leave plenty of room for them, yet also constructed well enough to feel like the bones of a proper film, is impressive.

Considering some of his past work (especially having helmed a number of episodes of A Touch Of Cloth), it's no surprise to find that O'Hanlon has a good handle on the material. What is surprising is just how many of the leads trust themselves, and one another, to play things wonderfully straight in the midst of all the stupidity. McKenzie is particularly good in her role, as is Waterston, and they're rivalled by both Radcliffe and Lewis, although the latter can't resist adding a bit of extra ham to his performance at times. Felton almost unsettles things, but just stays within the perimeter of permissible parody behaviour, and things are quickly back on track whenever the focus moves to someone like Laird, Lizzie Hopley, Sue Johnston, or Tom Goodman-Hill (as Inspector Watt, called in when a corpse really puts a dampener on things for those at the titular hall).

It may rarely feel like a proper feature, more likely to be stumbled upon by viewers when it appears somewhere on a streaming service, but it does exactly what it sets out to do. If you know what to expect then you should laugh as much as I did. If you're after something a bit more clever and cinematic then I would encourge you to look elsewhere.

I started this review thinking that I would ultimately finish it off with a "good, but I won't rush to rewatch it" comment. In fact, thinking about how amused I was for the duration, and considering how that is a pleasant distraction from the madness of the real world, I might give it a rewatch soon. There might even be a number of little jokes that I missed the first time around. Which means I MAY one day return to edit this review/rating. I doubt it, but it could happen.

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

Mubi Monday: Queen Of Earth (2015)

I get it, not every film can be Persona. Or Repulsion. Or any other absolute classic that revolves around the psychological unravelling of a lead female character. That doesn't mean that people should give up though. There are lots of very interesting films that aren't classics. None of those very interesting films seem to come from writer-director Alex Ross Perry, although I am making this sweeping statement after having seen only two of his movies. Maybe I'll change my mind on him soon. Maybe not.

Elisabeth Moss plays Catherine, a woman who is at a real low point in her life, having ended a major relationship and lost her father (who committed suicide). Katherine Waterston is Virginia, Catherine's closest friend. The two are spending some time together at a lake house, somewhere they have spent many times together in the past, but things are strained by Catherine's mental health, as well as a man (Rich, played by Patrick Fugit) who seems to enjoy antagonising Catherine while he keeps popping round to spend time with Virginia. Things move between the past and the present, with nothing really impacting on the characters in a way that feels meaningful.

It's not that Queen Of Earth is irredeemably bad. The script has some good lines, and Perry certainly helps himself by picking two women who do a good job in the lead roles. But that doesn't give the film a free pass. Those good lines are like small pieces of gold in a whole lot of muddy river water, and no one speech or exchange holds up as an entirely satisfying piece. 

Moss gets to be at her most erratic, sometimes child-like in her mannerisms and sometimes looking ready to kill someone. She does well, and obviously relishes delivering the best lines given to her. Waterston has less motivation for some of her behaviour (she's depicted as being quite the unfriendly "friend" in some of the flashbacks that show her reacting to Catherine's relationship), but she commits to the performance. I've never been the biggest fan of either actress, which means other people who enjoy their work more may well like this film a lot more than I did. As for Fugit, he's given a character who is irritating for almost every moment he's onscreen. It's nothing that even a great actor could work to improve, and Fugit, although decent enough in the right roles, is not a great actor.

The fault here lies squarely with Perry, who fails to make the most of his assets. If he'd been more confident with the tonal shading, if he'd laced the script with some more intriguing details, and if he'd just been a bit more focused, then this could have been a good film. The cast would have had a chance to really shine. But Perry does none of those things, and it's only thanks to the cast that any of it is tolerable.

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 

Mubi Monday: Mid90s (2018)

Jonah Hill moves from star to writer-director with this nostalgic look at the life of a young boy who finds his place among some skateboarding kids who, let's try to be polite here, mostly don't seem to have any clue about the work-life balance attitude they will need to get through approaching adulthood.

Sunny Suljic plays Stevie, the young boy who spends a lot of his time trying to avoid being beaten up by his older brother (Ian, played by Lucas Hedges). But as well as being afraid of his sibling, Stevie obviously looks up to him, and that may well be the male figure he tries most to emulate on his way to finding himself, until he starts to hang around with some boys who enjoy spending their time skateboarding and generally trying to impress one another. A couple of the group members have ideas about things they want to do well in life, another couple can't really see themselves beyond the image they have established within the group. Such is teenage life.

The influences on Hill are obvious throughout his feature directorial debut, which is at least accomplished and more mature throughout than many might expect. Although nostalgia is at the heart of things, this is a film that feels more like a patchwork of other films than the semi-autobiographical experience it's supposed to be. Kids is a big touchstone, as is This Is England (both acknowledged by Hill as some of the main influences). In fact, despite the skateboarding aspect of the plot, this hews a lot closer to This Is England than any other film that Hill decided to use as a "template" for his tale.

Unfortunately, there's nothing new here, which would be fine if it didn't all feel slightly stale and overdone. For me, if I want to watch some skateboarding teens then I will watch some of the fine documentaries that have been released over the years. If I want to see turbulent teen years onscreen then I can pick from literally hundreds of other movies. And if I want something to identify with then, well, I'll obviously be looking at the home-grown UK films that seek to capture snapshots of past decades. Mid90s is perfectly fine, for what it is, but there's no single aspect of it that can't be found, in a better form, in many other movies.

Suljic is good in the lead role, and I hope to keep up with whatever he does after being impressed by his last few movie roles, and the rest of the teens he befriends do fine. Na-kel Smith fares the best, thanks to the script, but the performances from Olan Prenatt, Gio Galicia, and Ryder McLaughlin are all on the nose. Alexa Demie is the one young girl featured in the cast, she does well, and Katherine Waterston puts in another performance that fails to convince me why she is ever the first choice for any role, aside from her surname. But it's Hedges who is actually given the best role, which makes it more disappointing when his character is not explored further. He's more complex than his younger brother, and has seen more that is only mentioned in passing once or twice. His past would seem to make a better film than the main character's present, but that's not the movie we are given.

Despite what I have said here, in terms of my own ultimate ambivalence towards the film and my preference for the Shane Meadows work it got me thinking of, I can see why this will obviously appeal more to American viewers who can have their own teen experiences to feel nostalgic for, accompanied by an appropriate selection of tunes from that era. It didn't work that well for me but, then again, I am not the target audience.

6/10

Americans can already buy it here.

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald (2018)

LOOK AT HOW MUCH MONEY WE SPENT!

That's the main thing I took away from Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald, a film that proves, in no small measure, that the Wizarding World movie universe, once a consistent stream of brilliant blockbuster entertainment, has now turned into a turgid trickle of diminishing returns. Remember the uproar about the casting of Johnny Depp in this movie? He's the least of its problems.

LOOK AT EVERYTHING WE THREW INTO THIS SCENE!

Starting as it means to go on, there's an action sequence that shows Grindelwald escaping from his imprisonment. I think, given the title of the movie and the advertising, it's not a spoiler to reveal that. This could have been a good action sequence. It's lively, imaginative, and sets up the villain perfectly. It's also far too busy, messily edited, dark, and hard to find engaging. I must warn you now that every main action sequence in the rest of the film follows this pattern (well, okay, most of them are lighter so at least you can see more of what you can't really see, if you know what I mean). The plot sees Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) trying to get hold of a young man (Ezra Miller) who may hold the key to his plans regarding the uprising of the magical folk. Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law, ill-advisedly attempting some accent that I guess is meant to remind you that Richard Harris played the first elder incarnation) wants Newt Sacamander (Eddie Redmayne) to get to the young man first. Dumbledore cannot battle Grindelwald himself, for reasons that become apparent as the plot unfolds. Newt doesn't want to pick sides in whatever trouble is brewing, but it eventually becomes apparent that he won't have a choice.

LOOK AT THE BUDGET ALL OVER THIS SEQUENCE!

Sometimes I make myself sandwiches to eat for lunch at work. And sometimes I make them the night before, to save me being cold and bleary-eyed and miserable in the morning while I butter bread and throw stuff together. A tuna mayonnaise sandwich is a tasty treat. But if you make it the night before, and if you like as much mayo in there as I do, then it's a cold, soggy, squishy mess by the time you try to eat it for your lunch. Sadly, that sandwich still holds more warmth and appeal than most performances from Eddie Redmayne. It's not that he's a bad actor, and he seems like a lovely person when I have seen him interviewed, but he seems unable to exude any real charm or sweetness in his roles, including this one, where those traits are pretty vital. The problem may not lie with the cast, however, as very few people make a good impression here. Depp is excellent in his role, Law does a decent job, and Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol are once again very enjoyable in the roles of Jacob and Queenie, but Miller isn't allowed to feel like anything other than a plot device, Katherine Waterston maintains her record of putting in a performance that barely registers, Zoe Kravitz is stifled, Callum Turner is bad enough to make a suitable brother to Redmayne's character, and the less said about the casting of one or two other characters we have seen in the Harry Potter movies the better. Claudia Kim and Poppy Corby-Tuech both do better than most of the bigger names, a pleasant surprise considering their characters are really just cohorts of the main characters being pursued by our gang of "heroes". 

LOOK AT WHAT WE DID JUST BECAUSE WE COULD DO IT!

J. K. Rowling wrote the script for this and, while I wouldn't deign to pretend I know my way around a page of words better than one of the best-selling authors in the world, she seems to have lost her way. I'm not sure if it's down to this tale being stretced out beyond breaking point or if she just enjoyed losing herself in her own world so much that she forgot to edit, or think of how certain changes to her world for the sake of this series would change what fans already know (and if you ever think you have a good head for trivia then just try to outwit a Harry Potter fan and see how long you last). There are so many diversions here that are completely unnecessary, fan service that will only irritate who know what should and shouldn't be possible, and adding to a 2+ hour runtime in a film that should really be looking to pare down anything that doesn't keep the kids enthralled enough to forget about how they need the loo every 30 minutes.

LOOK AT ALL OF THE STUFF! WE DID THAT! WE PAID FOR THAT! LOVE US!

If Rowling is being rather self-indulgent and careless, director David Yates is enabling her every step of the way. There's not one scene here that doesn't feel ridiculously overstuffed with . . . things, be they CGI creatures, effects-filled environments, too many small characters who didn't need to be in shot, and sauce and garnish on things that would be arguably more effective served up without them. This is a hat that has a band placed around the brim. And that brim is given a pinned flower in the front. Then the rest of the hat has a full bouquet placed on the top. That bouquet has fake bees attached by wires, to look like they're buzzing around. And birds are placed higher up. There's still a hat in there somewhere, but nobody can tell whether or not it's a well-made model underneath all of the artistic additions.

IT'S ALL POINTLESS BUT LOOKS GREAT, RIGHT?

Ultimately, there's a basic level of competency here, and spectacle, that still merits giving the film some plus points. But it's very difficult to imagine anyone coming out of this with a sense of complete satisfaction. Younger viewers will get a bit bored, I suspect. Older viewers may also get a bit bored, and find some bits just too childish. Dedicated fans will find details that annoy them. Casual fans will wonder why the film is full of so many diversions that they may not appreciate. And film fans will be generally displeased that they sat through a magical fantasy film that a) didn't feel as magical as it should have, and b) ultimately ended up being fairly pointless filler, considering how things end compared to how they started.

You'll go and see it anyway, and it will make loads of money, but I don't recommend it. I still want a niffler though.

4/10

You will also be able to buy the movie here.
Americans will be able to get it here.