The Devil Wears Prada 2 (2026)

I wasn't a huge fan of The Devil Wears Prada. It was fine. It absolutely worked for the people it was aimed at. I just never liked the way it tried to mix the aspirational with a lot of elements that should never be acceptable in any tale of the "follow your dreams" variety. And that is what it was, despite the fact that some of the main characters had very different dreams.

Here we are though, twenty years later, and The Devil Wears Prada 2 has already had the kind of hugely successful opening weekend that makes any review, especially one that has been delayed by about a week, absolutely redundant. 

It's good to see that pretty much everyone is back, both behind and in front of the camera. Writer Aline Brosh McKenna, who adapted Lauren Weisberger's novel for the first film, knows how to deal with these characters. Director David Frankel knows how to film everything, whether it's the dialogue or the moments that showcase the fashion. And Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Stanley Tucci, and Emily Blunt all feel exactly right for where their characters would be in life at about this time. 

The plot is quite simple. Runway, the magazine that is very much an in-movie version of Vogue, is in trouble. A scandal has erupted, but it's only a scandal that hangs around long enough to get the main characters back together. Miranda (Streep) remains in charge, but other people believe that the magazine, now struggling with a lower budget and more focus on online content and catching the eyes of scrollers, needs someone who can refresh the brand. Andy (Hathaway) is a journalist looking for a job, and is equal parts shocked and intrigued when she's offered a chance to return to Runway. Nigel (Tucci) remains a calm and brilliant presence. As for Emily (Blunt) . . . she seems to have moved somewhere far less toxic.

I can't think of a way that this could have worked better for what it wants to be, a legacy sequel tapping into nostalgia while allowing the main characters to be pulled into some extra problems created by tech and the modern world, but I still can't say that I really enjoyed it. The fact is that this will work brilliantly for those who loved the first movie. It's quite faultless when it comes to pleasing fans. It just doesn't change anything to make things any more enjoyable for those who weren't won over by this mixture of vibrancy and venom the first time around.

The leads are all fantastic, slipping back into their roles with ease. As for the newcomers, standouts include Kenneth Branagh (playing the husband of Miranda), Tracie Thoms (a supportive friend), a hilarious Justin Theroux (the kind of rich man who seriously over-estimates his own intelligence at almost every opportunity), B. J. Novak (typical "new guard" type of businessman), and a sadly-underused Lucy Liu. Patrick Brammall is a bit disappointingly bland for a potential love interest, but Simone Ashley, Caleb Hearon, and Helen J. Shen are all very enjoyable as other individuals trying to survive in the Runway workplace jungle.

If you loved The Devil Wears Prada then you'll love this. As for me, sitting in the cinema in my supermarket jeans and movie-reference-covered-t-shirt, I was never going to be the target demographic for this. 

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

A Haunting In Venice (2023)

Another Poirot film starring, and directed by, Kenneth Branagh, this one based on a novel actually named "Hallowe'en Party", A Haunting In Venice feels a bit different from the previous two instalments in this particular continuity for the detective. It's a moody and atmospheric piece. It also feels disappointingly light on actual Poirot moments though, our hero generally feeling sidelined in favour of the camerawork and building spookiness.

Despite trying to enjoy his retirement, Hercule Poirot has his peace interrupted by a mystery writer friend, Ariadne Oliver (Tina Fey), who hopes he can expose a medium, Joyce Reynolds (Michelle Yeoh), as a fraud. She will be putting on a performance at the home of Rowena Drake (Kelly Reilly), a retured opera singer grieving the loss of her daughter, Alicia. Others who will be in attendance are Dr. Leslie Ferrier (Jamie Dornan) and Maxime Gérard (Kyle Allen), the former fiancé of Alicia.

On the one hand, it's commendable to have a Poirot film that feels a step removed from the other recent Poirot films. Branagh, working once again with writer Michael Green, seems intent on showing us that every Poirot tale can both follow a formula and also provide some nice variety, but he seems to struggle with the commitment required for the many scenes that don't focus on the main character.

It should also be said that the cast feels disappointingly lacking in comparison to the previous two features. Fey is a delight, as is Yeoh (the latter sorely underused), but Reilly isn't able to have any fun in her role, Allen is similarly stuck in a solemn mood for the duration, and Dornan is about as bland as he usually is (sorry, he may be a lovely guy, but he rarely works for me onscreen). Riccardo Scamarcio is an enjoyable presence playing Poirot's bodyguard, but you don't get much from the likes of Ali Khan, Emma Laird, Camille Cottin, and the young Jude Hill (playing the son of Dornan's character).

Everything feels as lush and gorgeous, albeit in a very different way, but there's certainly no doubt that the budget is lower than it was for the previous Poirot feature. We don't get to stray too far from the one main location, the cast is undeniably lacking some major star power (aside from the luminous Fey and Yeoh), and it just can't stop feeling, superficially, like an inferior adventure. The spooky fun helps a lot though, and allowed me to put this on a par with its predecessors, despite the shortcomings elsewhere.

Other plus points are the fact that it clocks in at 103 minutes, although it feels a bit longer than that, and a wonderful score from Hildur Guðnadóttir that I recommend, even if you ultimately choose not to watch the film.

Nothing great, nor truly memorable, but enjoyable enough while it's on, which can be said of every one of the Branagh Poirot movies to date. At least the man is consistent when it comes to his attempts to serve up tales of the famous Belgian detective. 

6/10

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

Death On The Nile (2022)

It took me long enough to get around to this, the second Poirot adventure starring, and directed by, Kenneth Branagh, and I was wondering if I should delay it any long as the earliest scenes played out (a sequence showing Poirot in wartime action that feels far too much like a superhero origin prologue). Things did not bode well. Thankfully, the rest of the film is much better, helped by a sprawling cast that has enough welcome performers to make up for those you may be less inclined to want on your screen.

Everything is basically summed up by the title. Poirot is invited to join the celebrations of a pair of newlyweds (Armie Hammer and Gal Gadot), as well as an assemblage of friends and acquaintances. There's trouble in the air though. An angry ex (Emma Mackey), who may be out for deadly revenge.

With Michael Green back for the job of adapting Agatha Christie's work into movie form, and Branagh very comfortable as the lead, there's very little here that should deter those who enjoyed Murder On The Orient Express. I would say that this is a more showy and beautiful film, helped in no small part by the setting, and Branagh has never been someone who could be accused of lacking confidence or the ability to add multiple cinematic flourishes to very traditional material.

Hammer is fine in his role, Gadot feels very much out of her depth, and Mackey is good fun, but the best moments come from many of the supporting players. Annette Bening and (returning) Tom Bateman are both on great form, a mother and son who both view Poirot in quite different ways. It's always nice to see Dawn French and Jennifer Saunders working alongside one another onscreen again. Rose Leslie does okay with a fairly anaemic role, and Russell Brand appears just often enough to make his inclusion feel unfortunate, but both Letitia Wright and Sophie Okonedo light up the screen with their presence. Branagh remains a lot of fun as Poirot, once the film moves beyond that unwanted opening sequence, and he's allowed, as usual, to showboat and relish his dialogue in the grand finale.

It doesn’t seem right to mention plotting in an adaptation of Agatha Christie, but fans should be pleased that this feels nicely in line with what you would expect from her. I haven’t read the source material (note to self, get back to exploring more Agatha Christie tales), but Christie is such a known institution that it would be very easy to tell when something felt . . . off.

Not great, not exactly cinematic throughout (despite Branagh trying his best), but comforting and enjoyable nonetheless. I may even get around to the next film very shortly, considering that has the bonus of Michelle Yeoh in one of the main roles. Or maybe I will take as long to get around to it as I took to get around to this one. After all, they don’t exactly set my little grey cells on fire with excitement.

6/10

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

Prime Time: Wild Wild West (1999)

When Wild Wild West was first released, I wasn’t familiar with the TV show it was based on. I just got excited at the prospect of another blockbuster comedy pairing up director Barry Sonnenfeld with Will Smith. I also liked Kevin Kline, a LOT, Kenneth Branagh, and any decent-sized role for Salma Hayek. That excitement may be long gone now, it started to dissipate during my first viewing of the movie, but little else has changed. I am still unfamiliar with the TV show this was based on, and I still like the main cast assembled for it.

Smith plays James West, a skilled and sharp-shooting special agent who ends up partnered with Agent Artemus Gordon (Kline). Gordon prefers to use inventions and disguises to help him achieve his aims, while West prefers a much more direct approach. Both men have to work together as they try to apprehend the devious Dr. Arliss Loveless (Branagh), a man who lost his legs during wartime, but makes up for that handicap with a number of inventions, from a “super-charged” wheelchair to a huge mecha-spider vehicle, that give him an advantage over his enemies. Oh and Salma Hayek plays Rita Escobar, a women who ends up accompanying West and Gordon for part of their journey.

Arguably most famous nowadays for featuring a creation mentioned in a Kevin Smith anecdote (one of the producers on this movie REALLY had a hankering for a giant spider to feature as a third act menace), Wild Wild West is a real oddity. Some of the comedy works, some of the action is nicely put together, and the steampunk element provides some cool visuals, but the very essence of the film seems to work against the charisma of all of the leads.

Smith constantly feels as if he is cosplaying, too cool to play his cowboy in a more straightforward way, Branagh does too much moustache-twirling while murdering his attempt at an American accent, and Kline doesn’t get enough moments to shine, which is even more annoying when you have scenes that fleetingly show just how funny he can be. Hayek is given no real arc, the movie would work just as well without her (although I, for one, am glad she is in it), while there is more care and attention given to supporting turns from Ted Levine, Musetta Vander, and Bai Ling.

There are, as expected, numerous writers credited with the end result here. You get the names of the people who delivered the TV show concept, but you also get S. S. Wilson and Brent Maddock (originators of a certain graboid hit), who then claim that their original screenplay was severely reworked by Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman (who only had a couple of other movie writing credits before this, but one of those was Who Framed Roger Rabbit). Whoever was most responsible for it, the end result is a mess, and Somnenfeld is unable to improve it.

The direction is competent, but weighed down by the script. There’s no decision to make someone a straight man, which just leads to the laughs being spread thinner amongst everyone (including Branagh), and thereby ever any real sense of danger. This is a romp, nothing more, and that in itself isn’t a terrible thing. It just also happens to have a few dull patches throughout the runtime, an inability to have more fun with the clash between the traditional Western ways and the technology available to the characters, and even the Elmer Bernstein score can’t help. At least you get to hear the funky Will Smith theme song over the closing credits.

Wild Wild West is a mess, but it is one I feel the need to check in on at least once a decade or so. I always suspect that I am misremembering it, that I like it more than most people. I’m not misremembering it, and I don’t. Although I might be a bit more generous to it than most.

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

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994)

A tale of an intelligent and powerful man unable to heed the warnings of people who want him to reconsider just how far he wants to push things in the pursuit of his main obsession, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is an interesting and entertaining movie, not least because of how the main storyline seems to run so nicely illustrate the unchecked ego (at that time) of director-star Kenneth Branagh. In fact, considering the lessons he may have learned along the way, I'd love to see what Branagh would do with this material today. Would he keep it much the same, albeit elevated with some superb CGI, or would we end up with a very different beast? I suspect the latter, but I'm not displeased to realise that Branagh could easily make all the same mistakes. Or even some all new ones.

I don't even need to summarise the story here, do I? No. Branagh plays Victor Frankenstein. Helena Bonham Carter is his beloved, Elizabeth. Robert De Niro is the Creature. And you have supporting turns from Tom Hulce, Aidan Quinn, Ian Holm, Richard Briers, John Cleese, Robert Hardy, and many others. Victor Frankenstein wants to conquer death, he wants to create new life, and the end result of his experimentation leads to a great deal of unpleasantness. That's all you need to be reminded of.

With Branagh having made such a big deal at the time of telling everyone that this was going to be a more faithful telling of the Frankenstein story, a film that would get closer to the source than any others that had come before it, it's easy to forget that the script is by Steph Lady (his first and only one, to date) and Frank Darabont. Structuring the whole thing to frame the main, more familiar tale, with bookends that have Victor Frankenstein explaining his woes to an Arctic explorer (Walton, played by Quinn), Lady and Darabont try their best to freshen up the well-worn formula. They're sadly fighting an uphill battle. Having the Creature be intelligent and able to speak, for example, may show us something closer to how things were in Shelley's novel, but it doesn't feel right here. There are over eighty years of Frankenstein on film to be pushing back on, and that's a hell of a lot of cinematic weight. Fortunately, Branagh is ready to take his shirt off and flex some muscles as he attempts to hold his movie as high as he can.

Jokes about his willingness to get shirtless as often as Matthew McConaughey aside, Branagh simply never feels as suited to the lead role as he should be. He's too interested in showing off the production design and making some nice speeches whenever possible, making it harder for viewers to see the gleam in his eyes and the overwhelming obsession that pushes every sane thought out of his mind. It would be silly to call Branagh a bad actor, in my opinion, but he should have, as director, given the lead role to someone else. There's a similar sense while watching De Niro, although he's hampered by the fact that he's depicting the Creature in a way so alien to film viewers. De Niro does quite well in the role, but it doesn't help that he always feels like what he IS - a version of Robert De Niro overlaid with a variety of prosthetic make up. Carter does well enough, and really sells her final moments in the film brilliantly, and Hulce is an enjoyable presence as a friend, ally, and someone hoping to save Frankenstein from himself once the full madness and terror is revealed. Quinn certainly has presence in his relatively minor role, Briers is sweet and likeable as a blind man, and everyone else does well with what they're given, including Celia Imrie, Trevyn McDowell, and a disappointingly underused Cherie Lunghi (as well as those already named above).

Quality emanates from every frame, from the practical production design to the CGI work, from the wonderful matte paintings to the sharp and impressive music from Patrick Doyle. It is, for the time, a remarkable achievement, in film-making terms. Where it falls down, sadly, is in the casting of the most important roles. Perhaps Frankenstein and his Creature need to be played by people who can fully immerse themselves in the roles. This is a very handsome adaptation of a classic tale, but it's not one that really shows Frankenstein and his Creature. It shows Branagh and De Niro in the middle of a wonderful playground. Which is all well and good . . . as long as you like Branagh and De Niro. And I do.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.

It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA

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

Artemis Fowl (2020)

Of course I'd heard all of the bad reviews. Of course I was aware that not one person who watched Artemis Fowl ended up having a good thing to say about it. Of course I thought I might find at least some small bits to enjoy.

Of course I was wrong.

Artmeris Fowl has the might of Disney behind it, but it's hard to think of a more misjudged and messy piece of family entertainment. Nothing works as it should. Nothing.

Let's start with the plot. Ferdia Shaw is Artemis Fowl, a young boy who ends up alone, having to defend his home, when his father (Colin Farrell) is whisked away by some shady villain. Artemis finds out that there's a whole world around him that he doesn't know about, and there's an item, the Aculos, that many seem to want to get their hands on. This leads to Fowl Manor being besieged, where Artemis works to defend it with the magical Holly Short (Lara McDonnell) and Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad), "Dom" Butler (Nonso Anozie), and Dom's niece, Juliet Butler (Tamara Smart). You also get Judi Dench appearing as Commander Julius Root, determined to get in to Fowl Manor and retrieve the Aculos.

Based on the popular novel by Eoin Colfer, Artemis Fowl is written by Conor McPherson and Hamish McColl, which may be where the the problems begin. McColl has a background that would make him seem suited to this kind of material, perhaps, but McPherson doesn't, and the mix of the two leads to a film that feels inevitably ill-fitting, in terms of the various plot elements. Director Kenneth Branagh also doesn't really feel like the right person to be sitting in the big chair, but it would be unfair to rule him out immediately (considering some of his surprising successes). Sadly, it turns out that he ISN'T the right person to be sitting in the big chair. In fact, he doesn't seem to have spent much time in the chair at all. This feels like something not directed by anyone with any vision, or even a sense of effective film-making techniques.

Then we get to the cast. Shaw is horrible in the lead role. It's not really his fault. His character is annoying, almost from the very first frame, and he acts accordingly. Gad is pretty annoying, although he at least gets to show some of his personality, unlike the majority of the cast. McDonnell is the highlight, a plucky and tough fighter with good intentions, but Anozie is also very good as the talented protector/butler. Judie Dench looks suitably embarrassed every now and then, and Farrell has the good sense to take on a role with such little screentime that I'm sure he was handsomely rewarded for what amounted to a day of work, at most.

Artemis Fowl isn't as bad as you've heard. It's worse. Characters are generally awful and unappealing, the plot is slight and impossible to care about, and the action sequences wouldn't have impressed most viewers a decade ago. It's mind-boggling to think of how many decisions were made by people who all tried to go for the worst possible options. It's only the fact that it had enough money thrown at it that saves it from being among the very worst I have seen. It's definitely one of the very worst blockbusters of the 21st century though.

3/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Murder On The Orient Express (2017)

There's nothing inherently wrong with this all-star version of Murder On The Orient Express, the classic whodunnit from Agatha Christie that has an ending already known to most people even if they haven't read the book yet (a large group that includes myself). It's rather fun, polished, and certainly throws enough stars into the mix to help things along.

Kenneth Branagh directs, and he also lets himself take on the lead role of Poirot, the greatest detective in the world (who isn't named Sherlock Holmes, I guess). Poirot ends up on the titular train, there's a murder, and he tries to figure out who did it. Everyone has a motive, it seems, and Poirot wants to discover the culprit before the train moves on to the next station. Because the train has also been derailed by a small avalanche, ensuring that the characters are unable to flee while the detective gets his little grey cells working on the case.

Working from a script by Michael Green, Murder On The Orient Express is a film both helped and hampered by how familiar and comfortable it all feels. It's easy to enjoy but not so easy to get properly drawn into. The snowy setting, the familiar faces, the family-friendly nature of most of the main scenes, this is something that feels more like a lavish BBC production scheduled for the Christmas holidays than a cinematic experience.

My other main complaint about the film is how the resolution comes about. It all makes sense, from what I can tell, but it would have been better to see a few more links being placed in the chain by Poirot as he started to formulate his main theory. This may be a case of elements from the book that were harder to put on film, or it may be a case of Poirot simply being a character who holds all of his cards close to his chest until he is ready to set them down. My limited knowledge of the character is gathering dust in a small recess of my memory banks, sadly. Either way, and I know it would have been difficult to balance the reveals with the attempt to keep the mystery intact until the end, one or two more pieces of information would have been appreciated as viewers watched Poirot put everything together.

I'm not going to pick apart every performance by the cast. I'll just say that all of them have fun at various points. Johnny Depp, Daisy Ridley, Michelle Pfeiffer, Leslie Odom Jr, Judi Dench, Willem Dafoe, Josh Gad, Penelope Cruz, Olivia Colman, Derek Jacobi, and Tom Bateman are the main players, but they all have to work under the long shadow of Branagh, clearly having a ball as Poirot.

If you're unfamiliar with the resolution to the story then be sure to see this before you have it spoiled for you. Also give it a watch if you like most of the main players (and why wouldn't you?). But it's surprisingly disposable and forgettable, especially considering the talent involved. I'll still end up watching the next adventure, however, teased at the end, and I'd even be tempted to watch some less famous mysteries featuring Branagh's take on the main character.

6/10

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

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit (2014)

Jack Ryan. At first he was played by Alec Baldwin. Then Harrison Ford took over the role for a couple of movies. And then Ben Affleck was given a shot. Now it's the turn of Chris Pine, having been handed the role for a film that plays out as a bit of an origin story for our main character.

The story isn't exactly complex. After an opening sequence that shows Ryan involved in a helicopter crash that seriously injures his spine, we see him work towards his recovery and fall for the woman helping him back on his feet (Cathy Mullan, played by Keira Knightley). He's then recruited by Thomas Harper (a decent supporting role for Kevin Costner) to work for the CIA. He is supposed to work as a covert analyst, a job that will allow him to inspect financial transactions and use the information to bust any criminal activity, but ends up out in the field, in Moscow to be exact, when he has to follow up a bad feeling he has about Viktor Cherevin (Kenneth Branagh trying on a Russian accent).

Data analysis may not sound like the most exciting thing to base an action thriller on, I agree. Thankfully, that's only the springboard to launch Ryan into an entertaining adventure. The script, by Adam Cozad and David Koepp, stays true to the central character, despite the youthful make-over, with the focus on intelligence rather than strength or fighting ability (although, it must be said, the first big challenge for Ryan when he enters Moscow is a physical one).

As well as portraying the villain of the piece, Branagh directs the film. He has shown over the years that he can work with popular entertainment just as easily as he can work with Shakespeare, and he puts together a nice slice of entertainment here for those who enjoy cat and mouse scenarios. The opening sequences aren't exactly full of promise, but that's only a minor wobble. Things improve considerably once we get past the obligatory detailing of just how much inner steel Jack Ryan has.

Pine is an actor I've enjoyed watching for years now, and he slips into the role of Ryan comfortably enough. Knightley isn't as well-served by the script, although she tries her best in a role that adds up to little more than "love interest who may need extra protection when things start to get more heated". Branagh is a lot of fun, even if he dances in and out of moments that feel like parody. His villain is the kind of cool, intelligent, cultured individual often seen mentally sparring James Bond, and that's no bad thing when it's done as well as it is here. Costner also has fun, just in a different way. He's the typical mentor here, giving Ryan the details without ever bullshitting him, and also helping the young man when he's struggling to deal with incidents that he remembers from his own past experiences.

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit may not have set the box office alight, but don't let that put you off. In fact, we should all know by now that box office figures are no sure-fire indicator of quality. The only reason I mention the performance of this movie here is to say that I hope we still get another instalment with these characters in place. I'd definitely see it, and I hope that others feel the same way.

7/10

http://www.amazon.com/Jack-Ryan-Recruit-Blu-ray-Digital/dp/B00AIBZMM2/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1420666622&sr=8-3&keywords=jack+ryan

You know how you can show your appreciation for bloggers? If you share and share then every additional reader helps. Connect through Google or Blogger or any way you can, and rest easy in the knowledge that you've made little ol' me a very happy man.

And/or you could also buy my e-book, that has almost every review I've written over the past 5 years. It's very reasonably priced for the sheer amount of content.

The UK version can be bought here - http://www.amazon.co.uk/TJs-Ramshackle-Movie-Guide-Reviews-ebook/dp/B00J9PLT6Q/ref=sr_1_3?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1395945647&sr=1-3&keywords=movie+guide

And American folks can buy it here - http://www.amazon.com/TJs-Ramshackle-Movie-Guide-Reviews-ebook/dp/B00J9PLT6Q/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395945752&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=TJs+ramshackle+mov

As much as I love the rest of the world, I can't keep up with all of the different links in different territories, but trust me when I say that it should be there on your local Amazon.

Dead Again (1991)

Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson star in this enjoyable thriller/neo-noir that stars the former as a private detective, named Mike Church, trying to help the latter after she has lost her memory and voice. That's not all, however, as both stars also play characters who have shared a tragic event in the past. Has the trauma that occurred many years ago in the lives of Roman (Branagh) and Margaret Strauss (Thompson) somehow affected the mental state of the woman who needs help in the here and now? Perhaps a hypnotist (Derek Jacobi) can help. As revelations start to come to the surface, the young woman starts feeling more afraid, worried that the past will repeat itself.

As well as starring in one of the main roles, Branagh also directs the movie, and a fine job he does of it too. The script, by Scott Frank, is pretty well put together, with a number of very enjoyable twists en route to the grand finale and nice, easy transitions between the present and the past (although it helps that the past scenes are in black and white - a choice made after filming had been completed).

The cast are great, with Branagh and Thompson both enjoyable in the lead roles, despite affecting some horrible accents (a bit of a distraction). Jacobi is wonderful in his role, Wayne Knight gets to play someone likable, which is a rarity, Andy Garcia is very good as a reporter who covered the Strauss incident, and Robin Williams has a small, but highly entertaining role, as an ex-psychiatrist who can offer a second opinion on the condition of the leading lady. Campbell Scott appears onscreen for a moment or two, long enough to make quite an impression with his smooth, too good to be true, persona.

Dead Again is a fun film. It's enjoyably old-fashioned and full of many nice details. The more I think about it, the more I like and appreciate it, even with those horrible accents being used by Branagh and Thompson. I'm not sure if it all holds together perfectly, but I can't think of any huge plot holes that pulled me out of the viewing experience, and it develops the narrative strands - past and present - in a way that keeps things interesting, and surprisingly fresh, without getting too smug.

It may not be AS essential viewing as many other movies from this category, but it turns out to be well worth your time.

7/10

Available to buy here, but do NOT read the spoilerific product description if you haven't seen the movie - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dead-Again-Dvd-Kenneth-Branagh/dp/B00005UO5G/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1383844678&sr=8-1&keywords=dead+again