Netflix And Chill: Atlas (2024)

It would be nice to have a week when some movies don't feel all about A.I. They're either using A.I. as a threat (existential, physical, or both) or they are put together in a way that has people being far too quick to accuse the film-makers of using A.I. to bash together their slick, but ultimately empty, feature. Atlas falls into both of these camps, from the online discourse I have seen about it. I actually think it's a decent little sci-fi action movie, however, and those looking to insult and dismiss it are being a bit harsh. I may well forget all about it within the next six months, but I don't regret having watched it just now.

Simu Liu plays the big baddie here, an A.I. being named Harlan Shepherd who sees the end of humanity as the solution to all of life's major problems. He may not be completely wrong, but plenty people want to stop him. Heading to the planet where he has based himself after fleeing Earth, Atlas Shepherd (Jennifer Lopez) is the one person who has been trying to warn everyone around her of just how dangerous Harlan is. Whatever attacks are planned, Harlan will always be a step or two ahead. Unwilling to use tech that can be all-too-easily hacked, Atlas is forced into a difficult situation when the soldiers around her are quickly taken out of action. Yes, she has to clamber into a mecha-suit that has a built-in A.I. core. Can Atlas trust the tech around her? Can the tech adapt well enough to the situation to truly help our leading lady? It's not hard to see where things will go, but it's a pleasant enough journey as we head to the predictable third act.

Written by Leo Sardarian and Aron Eli Coleite, this checks every box that you expect to be checked. Thankfully, it has a cast that are all capable of carrying viewers through the weaker moments, has an impressive visual palette throughout, and Lopez has enough screen presence to hold your attention while she spends a lot of time panicking while confined in an unwieldy mecha-suit. Liu is an impressive and plausible villain, Abraham Popoola is a decent secondary villain, and Gregory James Cohan is a good choice for the voice of the suit. While both Sterling K. Brown and Mark Strong are always welcome, both are largely wasted in their supporting roles.

Director Brad Peyton can do well with silly and spectacular entertainment, as he has shown with the likes of San Andreas and Rampage, and a few other less successful outings, but this shows that he can handle more serious fare equally well. The premise is still quite silly, at the heart of it, but it's all crafted with enough seriousness and attention to detail to draw viewers into the world and keep them invested in the plot. The script sets everything up with an impressive economy, and Peyton uses the framework to deliver a satisfying smorgasbord of fireworks and meditative moments. 

I am once again in the minority here, a lot of people have rushed to declare this as yet another stinker from the Netflix movie stable, but there's nothing here that made me angry, and I was never bored. Compared to the last Netflix movie I watched with J-Lo in the lead role (The Mother), this was a pleasant surprise. It didn't stop me from wishing for the day when we'll stop having so many movies focused on the looming threat of A.I., but it entertained me well enough for most of the 118-minute runtime.

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

Prime Time: Miss Sloane (2016)

Although essentially a drama about a very skilled lobbyist being put in a tight corner by people wanting to render her powerless, Miss Sloane could equally be described as a con movie. Then again, maybe that is very much part of the point. Viewers are shown how lobbying is often a con game, and the system is open to equal amounts of abuse from the good and the bad, with both sides often believing that they are on the right side of a worthwhile political cause.

Jessica Chastain is the titular (Miss) Elizabeth Sloane, a successful and shrewd lobbyist who decides to jump ship, heading to join “the other side”, when there’s another bill being proposed to help improve gun control laws. Her passionate opposition to this makes her a target, which leads to her being requested to testify at a congressional hearing about her behaviour, and ethics, throughout her time working in politics. As she seems to make one or two minor mistakes, potentially bringing a house of cards crashing down upon her head, it becomes clear that the hearing is all part of the battle between two teams on opposite sides of the gun control debate.

Although writer Jonathan Perera doesn’t spoonfeed viewers, Miss Sloane just about manages to convey everything it needs to convey in a smart and concise manner. There are other approaches to the material that might have worked equally well, or even better, but Perera relies on getting us to trust a main character that, above all else, seems to be all too aware of the consequences of her actions. When things become a bit too busy or confusing, never mind, we are always right alongside someone who is convinced that they are doing the right thing.

Director John Madden has faith in the script and cast, and rightly so, as well as the patience of viewers. A lot of this movie is made up of people debating in rooms of various sizes, but it’s intelligent and snappy enough to be entertaining without any unnecessary bells and whistles added to it. Every aspect of the production seems to have been handled with care, the camera is set, and the cast get to give their best. Which they certainly do.

I have recently come to appreciate Chastain more and more onscreen, and this is one of her best roles. She is brilliantly relentless and smart, often acting in a way that would turn you off a main character, but helped by the fact that her considerable intellect and determination is aimed squarely at the gun lobby. Mark Strong is his usual dependable excellence, playing a boss who has to trust his new employee as she looks set to head further and further into deep and dangerous waters. John Lithgow is the senator chairing the hearing, and it’s a fine turn from him, while there are equally great roles for Michael Stuhlberg (a standout for him, playing a “shark” on the opposing team), Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Alison Pill, Sam Waterston, and Jake Lacy. Everyone seems to be using others or being used, but it’s something that feels more like acceptable collateral damage in the fight for the greater good.

It isn’t always pleasant to see how often the plans of government are actually crafted by those hidden away behind the main figureheads, but it’s important to remember it. Knowing the system can lead people to more easily hold the system to account, which could, perhaps, improve it. Maybe I am just being far too optimistic there. Regardless, Miss Sloane is a worthwhile watch, both informative and entertaining, and it’s a reminder that politics is like playing chess with a panicking pigeon; sometimes only one person knows the game, but the winner can still end up covered in shit.

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

Netflix And Chill: The Guard (2011)

The directorial feature debut of the very talented John Michael McDonagh, The Guard is also a film that gives Brendan Gleeson one of his best movie roles. In fact, between himself and his brother, Martin McDonagh, Gleeson has spent the better part of the last fifteen years in roles that help to solidify his place in the list of all-time great actors. He was already a strong contender, as evidenced by pretty much any role he's taken on throughout his career, but his work with the McDonagh brothers have elevated him to another level.

Gleeson plays Gerry Boyle, an Irish policeman who spends his time getting through each work day with minimal effort. He's sharp though, no doubt about that, and also rarely bothered about the feelings of others. This causes some friction when FBI Agent Wendell Everett (Don Cheadle) comes to the area, on the trail of some serious drug smugglers. As Boyle and Everett work together on the case, the FBI man starts to realise that Boyle is hiding his talent and instincts behind a well-maintained wall of rudeness and derision.

It can be harder to review a film as good as The Guard, a film which could be discussed in nothing but a cavalcade of pleasant words and deserved compliments. Basically, don't think you're going to get anything here that's particularly eloquent or enlightening. I'll leave that kind of thing to people like the McDonagh brothers, who have given us some perfect scripts throughout their careers.

Although it feels like stating the bleeding obvious at this point, especially after my opening paragraph, Gleeson is great in the main role here. He gets to be at his grouchiest, but also delivers all of his dialogue with a twinkle in his eye, clueing viewers into the mischievous nature of his character that keeps others around him unbalanced. Cheadle works very well alongside him, trying to remain cool and professional while being occasionally flustered by what Gleeson blurts out. He also has some scenes on his own that mine humour from his "fish out of water" status on the isle. The supporting cast includes Liam Cunningham, Mark Strong, David Pearse, Rory Keenan, and quite a few others, and everyone has fun in roles that they feel perfect for.

Maybe not as emotionally resonant (or emotionally devastating) as some of the other movies that have paired Gleeson up with a McDonagh brother, The Guard just serves as a reminder that you don't always need to fill the screen with pain and emotional manipulation to make great cinema. This is great cinema, easily on a par with 100 other films that people would offer up as a peak example of the artform, and it is also great entertainment from start to finish. A lot of that is down to the script, full of so much comedy gold and so many great characters that make it eminently rewatchable, but a big part of it is also down to the stellar work of Gleeson.

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

Netflix And Chill: Murder Mystery 2 (2023)

As many people will already know, I have been a Sandler apologist for much longer than most people. I understand that a lot of his comedy vehicles over the past few decades have been neither big nor clever, and he leans heavily into choices that guarantee people will love or hate him, but I still tend to find enough in them to have a few chuckles. There have been a couple of absolute stinkers, but I can generally go into a Sandler movie with the knowledge that I'll at least not hate it. Judge all you want. While he may no longer tickle the funny bone as well as he did with the likes of Happy Gilmore, Billy Madison, and The Waterboy, Sandler still aims to please his fanbase, usually while he assembles a group of people that he enjoys spending time with and gets them a paid vacation in some beautiful and sunny foreign climes.

Starting off with some narration that briefly recaps the first movie and shows viewers what Nick (Sandler) and Audrey (Jennifer Aniston) have been up to for the past few years, Murder Mystery 2 then allows our characters to head off on another, long overdue, vacation, this time as special wedding guests of their friend, the Maharajah (Adeel Akhtar), who is delighted to introduce them to his bride-to-be, Claudette (Mélanie Laurent). Unfortunately, the wedding is ruined by the Maharajah being kidnapped, and the circumstances of the kidnapping lead Nick and Audrey to suspect a small handful of other guests. There's Claudette herself, a womanising ex-footballer named Francisco (Enrique Arce), the Maharajah's sister (Saira, played by Kuhoo Verma), and Countess Sekou (Jodie Turner-Smith). There may be others involved in the scheme though, and a super-agent named Miller (Mark Strong) comes along to show everyone how an investigation and hostage negotiation should be done.

While it's now Jeremy Garelick in the director's chair, who had what I would consider a moderate success with his previous comedy, The Binge (hey, it did well enough to get a sequel), writer James Vanderbilt returns, the leads are reunited with a familiar face or two from the first film, and there's a feeling of nobody wanting to upset what they obviously consider as having worked well enough the first time around.

Sandler and Aniston once again work well together, the latter continuing to deliver the kind of genuinely great comedic performance that it's all too easy to forget she can do (despite her biggest success being in quite a well-known sitcom) and the former feeling believably, but lovingly, held in check during times when he might otherwise get carried away. It's a shame that the supporting cast isn't as much fun this time around, although everyone works with what they're given. Laurent and Verma aren't given enough to do, and Turner-Smith, her character accompanied by a toadying sidekick (played by Zurin Villanueva), is out of the picture far too soon, but both Arce and John Kani (returning to the role of Colonel Ulenga, now with one less arm than he had last time we saw him) deliver some good lines, and Strong has a lot of fun in the kind of role that is as familiar and obvious as it is entertaining. Akhtar is, of course, onscreen for a lot of the runtime, which isn't a bad thing if his character grates on you slightly, and Dany Boon returns as Inspector Delacroix in time for the third act.

It's been a while since I watched Murder Mystery (hey, I may not hate Sandler movies, but there aren't many that I rush to rewatch lately), but this sequel feels as if it is trying to deliver a bit more action and spectacle. From a lovely wedding dance sequence to an impressive high-speed drive through Paris, not to mention a surprisingly satisfying and memorable final set-piece, there's a better sense of balance between the gags and the actual central mystery being solved.

Very few people will agree with me here, and many won't even bother wasting their time with another Sandler vehicle, but I liked this a little bit more than the first film. Considering I liked the first film more than most, you may just want to discard my whole opinion on this one. It's entirely up to you, but you'll miss some wonderful scene-stealing from Aniston.

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

Shudder Saturday: Nocebo (2022)

Director Lorcan Finnegan has been delivering quality movies full of strangeness for a few years now. I wasn't a big fan of Without Name, but I did like the wild ride that was Vivarium. I also recommend the short film he did just over a decade ago, Foxes. Knowing that he was once again working with long-time collaborator Garret Shanley, who has been his main collaborator as far back as that aforementioned short, and that there was a central role for Eva "I don't really do sane" Green, I was optimistic about this one.

Green plays Christine, a fashion designer who has spent some time suffering from a mysterious illness. It makes her home life difficult, where she lives with her husband, Felix (Mark Strong), and their young daughter, Bobs (Billie Gadsdon). So everyone should be relieved when some home help arrives in the shape of Diana (Chai Fonacier), a Filipino woman that Christine cannot recall actually hiring. Diana seems to be able to help Christine, but Felix suspects that she's up to something. As the story is fleshed out, viewers also start to wonder about her, but it's hard to keep track of what the truth is, especially as Christine suffers from episodes where she cannot trust her own mind.

Standard stuff in many ways, especially when you think of the classic psychological thrillers that are centred on a "hysterical" woman, Nocebo is a solid script by Shanley that is turned into a slippery and twisty fever-dream by Finnegan, making use of nightmare imagery mixed with elements that are shown to be very deliberate choices by the time the grand finale comes around, and what a finale it is. I can understand people being put off by the confusion of the middle section, a lot of ambiguity and subterfuge without any apparent motivation or endgame in sight, but I'd encourage everyone to simply enjoy the oppressive and disorientating atmosphere on the way to a very satisfying payoff.

Green does so well in the kind of role that you'd expect her to do so well in, allowed to occasionally lean hard into the kind of physical acting and raw emotional outbursts that she has shown us a few times already. Strong is a good choice for the husband role, being an anchor trying to keep his wife safe during turbulent times, but also bringing with him the baggage of his filmography. I am always happy to see Strong appear onscreen . . . but trusting him is another matter entirely. Fonacier is excellent, acting overly sweet and delicate for a lot of the runtime, but showing a steely determination and strong will when she has to. As for Gadsdon, she gets better as the film allows her to move from bratty child to understandably perplexed and worried child.

Although I wish that this went further, with both the scares and the thematic layering, there's another part of me that thinks, yes, both Finnegan and Shanley knew exactly what they were doing. That is why they made this movie, and why I am just sitting here writing up my thoughts on it. I still prefer the more extreme strangeness of Vivarium, only slightly, but Nocebo is another excellent film that allows Finnegan to remain someone that film fans should always be valuing for his growing body of thrills and horror. 

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

Tár (2022)

Written and directed by Todd Field, with the main role specifically earmarked for Cate Blanchett, Tár is a character study and a murky psychological thriller that claims to be making a statement about abuse and manipulation, but seems to sadly muddy the waters of a conversation that still doesn’t seem to be allowed to fully unfold without numerous caveats and attempts to put a different angle on things. I will get back to this point later, but please bear it in mind.

Blanchett plays Lydia Tár, a phenomenal musician and composer who is aiming to present a symphony she believes may well be her greatest triumph. Lydia has a loyal assistant (played by Noémie Merlant), a supportive wife (played by the incredible Nina Hoss), and numerous students and peers all ready to bask in the glow of her talent and heap more praise upon her. She also has a history of manipulation and exploitation of her position, whether it is intentional or not. The death of a former student, and the circumstances surrounding her relationship with Lydia, leads to the start of a whirlwind change of events that may see the maestro feeling more in the pits than on the podium.

There’s no denying that this is an interesting film, paced slowly to draw viewers into the world of the main character, and featuring a superb core cast all doing great work. I would argue that both Blanchett and Hoss are two of the best actresses working today, and they are joined onscreen by the talented Mark Strong, Julian Glover, and others I am less familiar with, but who were certainly bringing their A-game while orbiting such a flawless lead performance. Because Blanchett, whether conducting an orchestra, playing piano, or shredding apart a student for letting their modern day morality affect their choice of music to work with, IS flawless here. She can do cold and calculating as well as she can do confused and flustered, and she seems to relish playing someone we get to see, at one point, menacingly threaten a child.

Field knows what he is doing, constantly framing the film around Blanchett’s imposing figure, with most of the scenes showing passionate and dedicated musicians doing their work in displeasingly dark and cold environments, unless relishing the times when playing to an audience. There is an ugliness here, from the visual palette to the light levels, but it feels like a reflection of the world that Lydia has created for herself, one that is only lit up by a few different elements.

Getting back to the conversation this is part of though, Tár would seem to be a film originating from the #metoo movement, making it another important part of an ongoing process that hopes to make our world safer and more transparent for women (not exclusively women, but predominantly so), but that is where it feels least valuable. This feels, to me, like a “not all men” movie, but the phrase has been contorted into the equally-redundant “see, women do it too”, which doesn’t really feel as helpful, in the grand scheme of things, as something that could have been more complex, more subtle, and ultimately more effective, which I feel is owed to any viewer affected by the issues at the heart of the film.

I guess, rightly or wrongly, I viewed this with a raised eyebrow because it is a story I feel should have been left at the back of a queue for a while. I don’t think we have had enough films properly showcasing other scenarios yet, whether it is more powerful men being held to account or other common victims having their voices heard (the statistics regarding assault and abuse of trans people, for example, always seem to be omitted from this bleak landscape).

Tár has one towering performance, and sterling work from others onscreen, but it doesn’t actually have enough beneath the surface to make you feel that it is worth 2 1/2 hours of your time. I would still recommend it, and think Blanchett will continue to receive a lot of well-deserved credit for her portrayal of such a sharp and “jagged” character, but it’s not actually a great film.

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

Cruella (2021)

It's very much the norm now. After milking most of their properties with multiple sequels and spin-offs, and those constant "live-action" remakes, Disney have now figured out another way to sell product. They retell a story from a different angle, which mainly allows them to turn classic villains into strong anti-heroes. This approach didn't really work for me when they gave us Maleficent, mainly due to the fact that I felt the central character was reshaped too much to fit in with the new spin they wanted to give her, but it delivers a better result here, thanks mainly to the central cast and the fun spirit of the main set-pieces.

Starting with a sequence that shows a young girl named Estella (a wonderful turn from Tipper Seifert-Cleveland) being a bit troublesome for her mother, Catherine (Emily Beecham), viewers soon learn a few important details. When her troublesome side comes out, Estella refers to herself as Cruella. And one particularly lively escapade ends with her mother dying. We then move swiftly on to a montage that shows Estella meeting Jasper and Horace, living a life of opportunistic thievery, and then *voila* it's time to join the characters as young adults. Estella (now played by Emma Stone) wants nothing more than a chance to become a great fashion designer. Jasper (Joel Fry) and Horace (Paul Walter Hauser) may be able to help her achieve that dream, or they may just muck things up as they plan everything with an angle for an easy payday. Everything seems to be looking up, however, when Estella is noticed by The Baroness (Emma Thompson), and her eye for design gets her some rare praise. But some details soon come to light that make Estella realise she has been living a lie for some time, and the best person to set things right is . . . Cruella.

There's a lot to like in Cruella and, despite the overlong runtime (why must every major movie lately be over two hours long?), it's one that should keep many viewers happy. There's a fun, punk-lite, approach to the material that gives it an energy and vibe I cannot recall in any other Disney movie. It also manages to make the central character likeable without changing her completely, mainly because the events depicted here feel as if they take place quite some time before the events depicted in 101 Dalmations. As predictable as the plotting is, the actual character interactions and dialogue make things feel fresh and fun throughout. 

That's also down to the cast. Stone is clearly having a ball for every minute that she's onscreen, and she gets to showcase a number of different looks and fashion styles (all of them pretty stunning and cool). Alongside everyone else onscreen, she pitches her performance perfectly, showing both the monstrous personality that will come to the fore in a few decades time and the twitchy girl quick to survey any situation to size up the potential loot and escape routes. Although more one note, Thompson is absolutely wonderful as The Baroness, a woman with a villainous manner who inadvertently helps Estella to put more of her faith in Cruella. Fry and Hauser are both fun as Jasper and Horace, although it's fair to say that both are also outshone by a small dog named Wink in any scenes that feature him. No slight on their performances, it's just that very few people could manage not to be outshone by Wink. John McCrea also gets to have a lot of fun, and costume changes, as Artie, a Bowie-esque young man who takes a liking to the style of both Estella and Cruella. As much as I love him, and I do, the only cast member who feels out of place is Mark Strong, maintaining his usual level of earnestness and gravitas in a film that wants to be a bright and funky cartoon.

Director Craig Gillespie was a good choice for directing this, based on his track record, but I'm less sure about the pairing of Dana Fox and Tony McNamara in the writing department. Fox has a number of so-so romantic comedies to her credit, but McNamara has the likes of The Favourite, "The Great", and the excellent (you should check it out) The Rage In Placid Lake to his credit, all of which seem more suited to writing a script about the formative years of Cruella de Vil. At least someone saw the working script for Birds Of Prey, but I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing.

What is a bad thing is the excessive use of music throughout. I'm not exaggerating when I say that the intrusive needle drops are on a par with Suicide Squad. The songs here may feel more relevant for every main scene, but I can only assume that music supervisor Susan Jacobs was told "get a song for every single scene . . . we'll decide the ones we don't need later". It spoils a lot of the movie, especially when you hear just enough of the score from Nicholas Britell to appreciate his work, and want more of it.

I personally liked most of the set-pieces, mainly a couple of heists and the big finale, but the aesthetic throughout works both for and against the material. What works one minute can grate the next, simply because of the unrelenting cacophony of music and camera moves. There's also the problem, inherent in most Disney movies, of knowing exactly how things will turn out. That's highlighted here with a sentence delivered in the opening scenes that you know cannot be taken as literal truth, which immediately undermines the ways in which the script tries to be a bit more clever and subversive.

You'll have a fun time watching Cruella, and almost any scene involving both Stone and Thompson is a pure delight. It's nothing great though. Maybe cinematic greatness is almost impossible when Disney keep raiding their own history, as opposed to creating some entirely new heroes/villains/anti-heroes to take us on pathways we haven't already walked over at some point.

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 

1917 (2019)

Directed by Sam Mendes, who also co-wrote the thing with Krysty Wilson-Cairns, 1917 is that WWI film that looks as if it is all made in one shot, with some of the hidden cuts easier to spot than others as you follow the main characters on a quest to the front, to deliver a message that will stop a load of soldiers from falling into a trap laid for them by the enemy.

That's really all there is to it. Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay play Lance Corporal Blake and Lance Corporal Schofeld, respectively, the two soldiers sent through dangerous territory to deliver the message. And the cast also includes small roles for Colin Firth, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong, and Benedict Cumberbatch. The more recognisable faces seem to help mark various chapters in the journey, with most of the other people onscreen either unrecognisable or just featured as one part of the military unit they're enlisted in.

There was a time when I considered attempting to write this review in one long ramble, hence that lengthy opening paragraph. But then I decided that would be too painful to read. It's a gimmick that would work worse on this blog than it does onscreen, and it doesn't work that well onscreen. Maybe war isn't the best subject for gimmickry, or maybe this technique (one shot/long scenes without cuts) already feels slightly overused, thanks to some recent great examples.

That's the main thing about 1917. It's quite dull. The acting is just fine from everyone involved, the cinematography from Roger Deakins is pretty glorious, and the music by Thomas Newman is there to ensure that you never forget how important and impressive the film is. That's in line with every other aspect of the film.

Considering the main message of the film is one we have seen many times before (which, in itself, is no reason to NOT make a film), and considering we don't get to learn as much about many of the main characters, 1917 is a film that turns out to be all about itself. It's all about that pretend one shot, it's all about Mendes marshalling everyone to get his vision onscreen, it's all about nothing more than how it all looks.

That wouldn't be so bad if it was also thought-provoking or interesting. It isn't. 1917 is a very dull war movie. And war during wartime is far from dull, I'm sure, which leaves me thinking that Mendes has somewhat let down the many people he had set out to honour. There are a couple of cinematic moments that do make it worth your time, for the scale and skill of the visuals, but that's the best thing I can say.

5/10

Shazam! (2019)

If they hadn't been quite so desperate to catch up on the huge success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, DC could have helped themselves immensely with a much better release schedule. Instead, they just had to get their crossovers in place as soon as possible, leaving more lightweight films, such as this one, relatively sidelined. And Shazam! could have easily been one of their first big releases in this wave of movies, with the main story feeling enjoyably standalone. If you have seen this already, imagine what a great impression it could have made if released before any of the other major DC movies, with the nods to other characters and a fun cameo right before the end credits.

For anyone, like myself, who is unfamiliar with this comic book character, Shazam is a powerful man who seems pretty invincible, can throw bolts of electricity out of his hands, has super-strength, and can possibly fly (he's still figuring things out in this origin tale). This movie also has him starting off as a teenager named Billy Batson. When Billy has the power bestowed upon him by an elderly wizard type, he can transform by saying his name. Saying the name again takes him back to his everyday child form, where he is residing in a foster home alongside a young boy named Freddy, who is the only one to initially be made aware of Billy's new superpowers. There's also a major villain, of course, and that is Dr. Thaddeus Sivana, who was once given a chance to claim the powers of Shazam but was found unworthy.

Cast-wise, this is absolutely wonderful. Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer are both excellent as Billy and Freddy, respectively, and Zachary Levi is an absolute blast as the adult-on-the-outside Shazam. The villainous Dr. Sivana is played by Mark Strong, who is as brilliant onscreen as he usually is, and it's perhaps telling that one of the better DC villains in recent years is also one that doesn't feel able to immediately destroy the entire world in a fit of rage. Djimon Hounsou does well in a small, but vital role, and there are solid performances from the likes of Faithe Herman, Grace Fulton, Ian Chen, Jovan Armand, Marta Milans, Cooper Andrews, and the always-welcome John Glover.

The third feature film from David F. Sandberg (who spent years crafting some great shorts, including the one that would be developed into his first full-length film, Lights Out), this is a solid, and enjoyably comedic, superhero adventure. It's a small film, in many ways, with the more important moments being grounded in the personal story of Billy and his new family. The script, by Henry Gayden, has the usual lessons about responsibility and what it really takes to be a hero, but it also provides a very positive message to those who need to learn, or be reminded, that your family isn't necessarily made up of blood relatives. You can grow close enough to good friends that you make your own family unit, but forming those attachments means that you also impact on their lives more, and vice versa.

It may lack some of the huge set-pieces that fans of superhero movies have been getting on a regular basis over the past decade or so, and some of the more fun sequences could have crammed in a few extra gags, but this is a highly entertaining family film that delivers the expected cape-wearing moments alongside a healthy dollop of Big (which is given an amusingly obvious nod at one point). Sometimes you don't need to see the whole planet put in peril. Sometimes it's a lot more satisfying to watch a kid realise how he can easily have something life-enriching that he'd always previously thought out of his reach.

7/10

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

Robin Hood (2010)

So I thought I knew what I was getting into when I went to see Ridley Scott's take on Robin Hood at the cinema. I was in safe hands, surely. Russell Crowe in the central role (who does well but provides a strange Geordie/Glaswegian accent for the part), Cate Blanchett as "Maid Marion" (excellent), the fantastic Mark Strong as the baddie, other roles given to the likes of Max Von Sydow, Oscar Isaac, Eileen Atkins, Léa Seydoux, William Hurt, Matthew Macfadyen, Danny Huston, Kevin Durand, Scott Grimes and Mark Addy amongst others. All of them are at least very good, most of them are excellent. A screenplay by Brian Helgeland. It all seemed so good. I mean, good grief, there isn't one Ridley Scott movie I can think of from the past 30-40 years that I've actually disliked.

Which makes it all the more disappointing that this movie was a bit of a misfire. Its greatest strength (the talent behind and in front of the camera) proves to be its biggest drawback. This movie coming from anyone else would have been alright. But coming from people I expected so much from means that, despite one or two great moments here and there, it just doesn't cut it. No sir.

The story, for those unaware, is all about how the man we came to know as Robin Hood actually became the famed outlaw we all love to this day. This is not a tale of daring archery contests, no cocking a snoot at some panto baddie here, this is an origins tale.

Which is a great shame because when the movie gets close to some swashbuckling fun it then pulls back just when things are about to get entertaining. Does this make me a shallow audience member or am I simply suffering because Ridley Scott wants to have his cake and eat it in so many ways? He wants the "reality" of the story yet laces it with wonderful, cinematic moments. He wants actual characters instead of caricatures and then makes the decision to portray Marion (after such a good number of scenes pitching things perfectly) as a much-too-progressive spirited fighter. Not to mention the bizarre inclusion of "the lost boys" for reasons best known to himself.

As good as it gets in places, and it does get very good, it all feels like a movie that had to be made just to get a greenlight for the sequel, a film featuring all of the antics and swashbuckling fun we love about Robin and his men in tights (surely).

It's definitely not the Gladiator 2 that many lazy critics tagged it, neither is it an actual, fully fledged, Robin Hood movie. Ironically, this feels very much like Robin Begins.

NB. The Bluray, as expected, is a nice package. While there's not enough in the mix to make it worth a purchase if you hated the movie, there's plenty to enjoy if, like me, you liked parts of the film, and wanted to like it more.

6/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Robin-Hood-Extended-Directors-Blu-ray/dp/B003DZ1328/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1388850998&sr=8-2&keywords=robin+hood+blu+ray

Babylon A. D. (2008)

Directed by Mathieu Kassovitz, who also helped to co-write the shambolic screenplay, Babylon A. D. is a movie that I sincerely hoped to enjoy. I'd heard/read a number of bad reviews when it opened back in 2008 but there are many times when I feel that critics forget to consider the comfort value of some mindless entertainment. Unfortunately, everyone who warned viewers away from this film did so with good reason. It's a mess, it borders on being completely incompetent in a number of places and it is, worst of all, dull as ditchwater.

Vin Diesel plays Toorop, an experienced mercenary who takes on the job of delivering a package from Eastern Europe to America. That package is a young girl, Aurora (Melanie Thierry), accompanied by a religious guardian named Sister Rebekah (Michelle Yeoh). Toorop is determined to get the job done, something he will manage by trusting nobody around him, but he starts to think more and more about the consequences of his actions as various parties try to get a hold of the girl. Is she some kind of saviour? Is she a weapon? She may be neither, but Toorop vows to decide her fate if he discovers that others can use her to cause some major death and destruction.

Based on the novel Babylon Babies, by Maurice G. Dantec, Babylon A. D.  is a messy bag of cliches and bad decisions, unhelped by the fact that none of the main characters are all that likeable. Vin Diesel tries hard in a lead role fairly similiar to many of his other lead roles, but Michelle Yeoh is stuck with embarrassingly bad material to work with and Melanie Thierry is shockingly bad from her first moment to the last. Gerard Depardieu is fun, but not in the movie for long enough to make a big enough difference, Mark Strong is as good as ever and Charlotte Rampling doesn't do her C.V. any favours. The appearance of Lambert Wilson simply serves to remind viewers that he was in two of The Matrix movies, sci-fi action films that hold up as the exact opposite of this trash.

Fans of the movie will insist that there's a vision amidst the mess worth struggling to recognise. Mathieu Kassovitz, by all accounts, certainly didn't have an easy, pleasant experience getting this made. But I can't help thinking that the film is SO bad, riddled with so many errors and poor choices, that nothing could be salvaged from it. Action scenes are badly edited and painfully boring, the dialogue is often either cringe-inducing or completely laughable and all of the flaws are made worse by the fact that the film takes itself so seriously and seems to think that it's full of clever, thought-provoking stuff.

It's not.

2/10

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