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

Mubi Monday: Adaptation. (2002)

I remember when I first saw Adaptation. Like many people, I loved it. Another collaboration between Charlie Kaufman and Spike Jonze, a great dual role for Nicolas Cage (playing an onscreen version of Kaufman and a fictional twin brother, Donald), and a cast that also includes Meryl Streep, Chris Cooper, and Tilda Swinton, as well as one or two other very familiar faces. What’s not to love?

As almost everyone knows by now, Adaptation. is a film that stemmed from severe writer’s block. Charlie Kaufman was struggling to adapt The Orchid Thief from page to screen, and eventually creates something, with the help of Jonze, that explored his painful creative journey, full of personal insecurity, frustration, and a checklist of things he wanted to avoid.

Here’s the thing I need to say now, ripping the band-aid off (as it were). Adaptation. isn’t actually as great as I remembered it. I am not saying that everyone will agree with me, but there may be a reason why it tends to be forgotten/overlooked in conversations about the respective filmographies of Jonze and Kaufman. It’s not a terrible film, but it’s arguably the least interesting feature to come from either of the main creative forces behind the camera here.

There’s a fine line between making use of something to explore and have fun with various ideas, turning the negatives into major positives, and simply giving yourself an easy option by commenting on everything that you are doing, or are about to do. The former is smart and insightful. The latter is often called “lampshading”, I believe. Revisiting Adaptation. two decades after I first saw it, it simply feels like Lampshade: The Movie. Others may strongly disagree with that, but knowing where the film goes makes all of the dialogue and commentary feel much less enjoyable on a repeat viewing.

At least the cast are well worth your time though. Cage is great, giving a couple of performances that serve as a reminder of why so many people stuck by him through some difficult years. This plays to his preference for nervous energy, but one of his characters is also offset by the circumstances grinding him down. Streep and Cooper both have a lot of fun, playing various versions of their characters that show us written fictions compared to complete “reality”. Alongside the ever-reliable Swinton are the equally excellent Maggie Gyllenhaal, Brian Cox, Judy Greer, and Cara Seymour, to name but a few welcome additions.

There is still a lot to enjoy here, not least of which is the brutal and hilarious honesty in the moments that have Kaufman showing his worries and struggles while facing a typewriter. I still like this, and would watch it again. I just don’t love it, and I don’t think it’s a truly great work any more.

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

Netflix And Chill: Don't Look Up (2021)

People denying facts that are literally about to hit them in a major death-strike, a three word slogan rallying round those who decide to politicise a major problem for the entire human race, and media that is complicit in helping to keep the masses placid and uninformed. Don't Look Up is a comedy that foregoes subtlety in an attempt to present something that is horribly close to the truth of our present times.

Written and directed by Adam McKay (from a story co-created by David Sirota), who has made a number of superb comedies in the past decade that use humour to probe major societal problems with surgeon-like precision, this may be an obvious allegory for the many people trying to deny climate change, but it's also yet another McKay movie clearly showing how so many ills of our world are rooted in the same place as every evil, money. A news team (Cate Blanchett and Tyler Perry) want to keep their audience happy for the ratings. A president (Meryl Streep) and her son (Jonah Hill) want to stay high in the polls, and nothing upsets people more than a potentially Extinction Level Event. There's also Peter Isherwell (Mark Rylance), a Steve Jobs/Mark Zuckerberg/Elon Musk amalgamation, a very rich man with just enough scientific knowledge, and smart people on his payroll, to think he has all the answers.

The two lead characters, however, are scientists. Kate Diblasky (Jennifer Lawrence) spotted comet, which is then named after her, and Dr. Randall Mindy (Leonardo DiCaprio) helped to work out the trajectory of it. It is these two people who spend the movie trying to warn everyone of their impending doom, helped by Dr. Teddy Oglethorpe (Rob Morgan), but hindered by so many other people who have their own take on things, in defiance of the truth.

As well as those already mentioned, this packed cast includes roles of varying sizes for Melanie Lynskey, Timothée Chalamet, Ron Perlman, Ariana Grande, Himesh Patel, Michael Chiklis, Robert Joy, and Paul Guilfoyle. Everyone is doing great work here, but the leads are surprisingly perfect in their roles. DiCaprio is allowed to be a very nervy individual, prone to anxiety attacks and a lack of confidence whenever he is in the spotlight. Lawrence's character is less nervy, but also less "media-trained", which works against her trying to warn people of impending doom. She doesn't care about who people are, she doesn't care about who gets upset, and her spiky demeanour is very funny, especially when she is arguing against a typically couldn't-give-less-of-a-shit Hill (who is both the son of the POTUS, and her Chief Of Staff). Morgan is the old hand at playing the game, as frustrated as the other scientists, but able to think up more strategic options to get the message out there. Streep isn't bad, she's certainly a lot of fun, but her character is the one who suffers most from the writing. She's a bit inconsiderate, trying to spin things the best possible way, but the comedy would have been strengthened by making her a complete idiot who couldn't stop herself from saying the dumbest stuff every time she had an opportunity to talk to scientists and people making serious plans. I guess sometimes you can't write anything stranger/funnier than reality. Blanchett is excellent, all super teeth and hair, and I must say that I was pleasantly surprised by Perry working so brilliantly in his co-anchor role, showing a real talent for being able to play comedy well by simply playing it straight (unlike the style of histrionics on display with his Madea character). Lynskey is a sweet and calm presence whenever she's onscreen, Rylance is amusingly unsettling in his constant awkwardness, and Chalamet is a great addition to the second half of the movie, as sweet and calming as Lynskey, in a way. Grande enjoys herself, and has a very amusing main scene talking to a character played by Kid Cudi, Perlman is hilarious in his very small role, and Patel is, well, his character feels completely extraneous, but he's as good as ever.

There's a decent score by Nicholas Britell and a number of songs that work well in the soundtrack, although the best one is the fake "Justt Look Up" song by Grande, as well as excellent sound design throughout, but this is a film mostly about the visuals, from the first sighting of the comet to the unavoidable ending. It's also a film about having your own kind of faith, something that McKay makes a hell of a case for in the third act.

The news keeps telling us how we can do better in our daily lives, with recycling, going vegetarian, using our car less, etc. Don't Look Up serves as a reminder that individuals aren't the big problem. The big problem comes from those with the money, with the power, and it is reassuring to think that their long-term plan for money to buy their way out of everything is a delusion. Because it is. That's not to say that we shouldn't all play our part in trying to ensure that we avoid being the species to destroy the entire planet. It's just that, as well as doing our small household part, we really do need to do whatever it takes to create a massive shift away from the unrelenting damage being done by companies headed up by people who will never make enough money to satisfy them. The irony being that this review will be shared on Facebook and Twitter after I wrote it on my beloved Macbook Pro, and you can all choose to read it on your smartphone of choice. But at least I have never been flown by private jet to a climate change conference. So, y'know, everything in moderation.

But I digress. This is a great comedy that consistently stays on point when it comes to the serious issue at the heart of it (the nonsensical equality that has developed between opinion and facts). A lot of the cast are giving brilliant performances, with the two leads absolutely perfect in their roles, and McKay continues his run of great films that have started to make his filmography a real treat for fans of comedy and social commentary.

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. All links are HERE.
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

Stuck On You (2003)

The Farrelly brothers had a reputation that they had to uphold at the turn of the 21st century. After scoring big with Dumb & Dumber and There's Something About Mary (and Kingpin should have been just as huge, but I don't recall it making much of an impact until discovered by fans in the comfort of their own homes), they were the ruling kings of bad taste comedy. If a set-piece could be planned around some body functions, they could make it the best possible. In fact, they seemed to falter when seeming to try being a bit gentler in their approach (as happened with  Shallow Hal). Which explains why they gave audiences Me, Myself & Irene (a film with a lead character who has a severe dissociative identity disorder) and this, a comedy that focuses on a set of conjoined twins.

Matt Damon is Bob Tenor, and Greg Kinnear is Walt Tenor. The twins are fairly beloved in their local community, and they can also make the burgers in their dining establishment so quickly that anyone challenging the timer to get a freebie is usually left most disappointed. Walt wants to be an actor though, while Bob is a bit more shy. Anyway, they end up heading to Hollywood, for Walt to take his chance, and that leads to Walt eventually landing a part in a TV drama opposite Cher (played by . . . Cher, of course). This leads to another conversation about the twins perhaps taking a chance on the operation that could separate them, but can they work as well apart as they do together?

There's enough here to keep comedy fans entertained, and the central premise (as is often the case with the Farrelly brothers, deceptive little rascals that they are) allows us to view the main characters as others around them do, good-hearted individuals who happen to be different from many others, but a lot of the fun this time around comes from the casting. The runtime is just under two hours, yet it just about manages not to overstay its welcome, thanks to the final scenes featuring some wonderful pay-offs.

Damon and Kinnear work really well together, chatting to one another like two best friends who just happen to be a lot physically closer than most, which is pretty much what they are. Cher is a lot of fun, initially viewing Walt/Bob as a way to ruin a TV show that she is contractually obliged to, and shows herself willing to play up various perceptions of her image (from man-eater to diva, from wanting to be taken seriously as an actress to wanting to be left alone by people). Eva Mendes is also wonderful here, giving the kind of comedic turn that makes you wish she did it more, and there are great supporting turns from Seymour Cassel, Griffin Dunne (playing Griffin Dunne), and even Meryl Streep, as well as numerous celebrity cameos, both credited and uncredited.

It may lack the big set-pieces that there more successful movies contain, which may partially explain why this seems to stay so overlooked, but Stuck On You keeps the chuckles coming fairly consistently from start to finish, with a large proportion of the jokes avoiding the pitfall of laughing AT the lead characters.

I am sure I will stay in the minority for being a fan of this one, but that won't stop me from trying to get others to give it their time. It's not an all-time great, and not even one of the top three from the Farrelly brothers, but it deserves to have a few more fans.

7/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Mubi Monday: Death Becomes Her (1992)

Although you may worry whenever you hear the words "a film directed by Robert Zemeckis that also serves as an FX showcase", there's really no need. In fact, it's worth remembering that Zemeckis spent many years perfectly marrying entertaining concepts to the latest technology that would help him best present things. Then he got a bit carried away with himself.

Death Becomes Her is the tale of a man (Dr. Ernest Menville, played by Bruce Willis) who leaves his girlfriend (Helen Sharp, played by Goldie Hawn) to embark on a life with a famous and beautiful actress (Madeline Ashton, played by Meryl Streep). This changes all three individuals for the worse. Ernest becomes bitter, and drinks excessively while he works on dead bodies. Madeline is afraid of ageing, and seeks solace in the company of at least one younger man. And Helen is just miserable at what she lost, and wants some revenge. When the day comes for that revenge to take place, everything is complicated by the fact that Madeline has managed to get her hands on a potion that will give her immortality. But being immortal means you really need to look after the one body you have.

Written by Martin Donovan and David Koepp, this is a wonderful black comedy that blends The Picture Of Dorian Grey with no small amount of Sunset Blvd. Although these three characters could have been from any walk of life, the fact that one is a doctor and one an actress allows for some more pointed digs at the notions of vanity, the pressures on so many in the entertainment industry to have cosmetic surgery, and the attitudes and failings of people who cannot find themselves content with all of their blessings in life.

Zemeckis does a great job here. Using the first half of the film to weave lots of fun jokes in between the character development (there's not much, but it's there) before treating the halfway point as a turnstile into the FX-laden second half, which leads to plenty of superb visual gags working alongside the dialogue. The special effects, a mix of practical gags and computer work, hold up brilliantly. Almost thirty years later, this is better than even some major films released in the last decade.

Although she didn't enjoy the experience of working with all of the special effects, Streep is on top form in her role. All three leads are great, with Willis being atypically schlubby and Hawn a bit more calculating and sharp than usual, but Streep stays just a little ahead of everyone, thanks to it being quite a different role for her and the fact that she's the focus of many of the memorable effects. Ian Ogilvy also raises a smile in his brief appearance, and Isabella Rossellini is the mysterious and alluring woman who offers up the chance of immortality before belatedly adding words of caution.

Not entirely dissimilar to many short tales that have warned us against the perils of trying to gain immortality (from the many miserable vampires who have found the experience lacking to the kind of stories you get from Ray Bradbury and Tales From The Crypt, to name just a couple), Death Becomes Her is slick, macabre fun that also proves to be eminently rewatchable.

7/10

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

Mubi Monday: Little Women (2019)

Considering the range of movies from around the world that Mubi provides, I did not expect it to get in the way of this Japanuary train I am on. And yet . . . here we are. So, with time of the essence, and nothing Japanese available from their selection just now, I have decided to take the opportunity to review a very recent movie that was the Mubi Go ticket for last week. Little Women.

Adapted from the source novel by Louisa May Alcott, of course, this is a near-perfect working of the tale from writer-director Greta Gerwig, providing a film that is as entertaining as it is thought-provoking, and showing that Ladybird was no fluke. In fact, although some may think I was a bit too flippant in my criticism of Ladybird, Little Women shows a huge improvement in almost every regard, and we should all appreciate that Gerwig gave herself the fairly daunting task of working on something far from guaranteed to give her more success. But more success she has gained, and rightly so.

I'm NOT going to cover the overall storyline of Little Women. Suffice to say, it is basically about four sisters (played here by Saoirse Ronan, Florence Pugh, Emma Watson, and Eliza Scanlen), their mother (Laura Dern), a charming young man (played by Timothée Chalamet), and ANOTHER charming young man (Louis Garrel). There is a framing device used here that takes the literary talent of Jo (Ronan, the lead character) and allows for some more playfulness than usual, in terms of both addressing attitudes of the time and also working with the audience expectations.

I'm going to mention the very small negative here first. It is an issue I have with the source material, therefore it's not something to blame on Gerwig and co. Beth March (Scanlen's character) is just one of those inherently irritating characters. Her only role is to be the vulnerable one who always seems to be weak or ill. I don't care how good she is at playing the piano, she's the most annoying member of the March clan, which is really saying something when you consider the actions of selfish Amy (Pugh).

Otherwise, there's nothing here I want to criticise. And, trust me, I have been giving it lots of thought since I left the cinema, wondering if my initial delight would settle down and allow me to reconsider anything. There's no need. Nothing to reconsider.

Not only has Gerwig given herself a great gift with her own screenplay, she has ensured it was all delivered exceptionally well by a near-flawless cast. Ronan is about as perfect a Jo March as you could hope for, Pugh is good enough to make Amy bearable during even her worst moments, Scanlen looks suitably fragile, and/or ill, and Watson does just fine as Meg, although she's perhaps stuck with the weakest moments in the film, mostly reduced to being overly earnest and only making one mistake on the road to finding her place in womanhood. Dern has to be 100% goodness and light, which she does admirably, and her sweetness is countered by the sharp tongue and mind of Aunt March (Meryl Streep on top form). Considering the focus of the tale, it's pleasantly surprising to find that all of the men are equally well-cast, and all of them get at least one or two great moments apiece. Chalamet is the charming and safe young star of the moment, and he's perfect here, while Garrel makes a strong impression with his small amount of screentime. Chris Cooper also makes the most of his role, Mr Laurence (the neighbour, and grandfather of Chalamet's character), James Norton plays a character who is perhaps the most grounded of everyone onscreen, Tracy Letts is a lot of fun as the editor who accepts Jo's writings, and Bob Odenkirk is always a welcome presence onscreen, albeit a bit surplus to requirements here as the mainly-absent patriarch of the March clan.

I can't think of a better way Gerwig could have handled this material. It has every main element from the book, of course, and yet it also feels fresh, full of energy, and completely relevant to today. Think of other adaptations of classic novels from the 1800s and they tend to have one main aim for the women, to find true love and marry into a happier life. Little Women has that notion in there, which was probably unavoidable, but it offsets that by showing the many and varied ways that everyone can follow their instincts to make themselves happy, make others happy, and make their own path through life, no matter where others may try to push them. It's a full, rich, experience that embodies the best of cinema, something that you can happily take as pure entertainment, and also something that gives you a lot of moments to think over and discuss with others.

I may have only caught up with it on the 1st January 2020, but this is easily my pick for the best film of 2019.

10/10

You'll be able to buy it here.
Americans will be able to buy it here.

The Post (2017)

Based on real events of the 1970s, The Post shows viewers the battle that the newspapers, and specifically The Washington Post, went through as they attempted to publish extracts from classified documents that revealed damning details of politicians and presidents who led America, step by step, right into the folly that was the Vietnam War.

Lots of people are giving love to The Post, partly because it has a typical level of technical expertise you would expect from director Steven Spielberg and partly because the battle between the press and the White House resonates with a lot of people watching the current events that have given us terms such as "alternative facts" and "fake news". If ever there was a time for this movie then that time is now.

Unfortunately, and let me say I have thought about this long and hard, it really isn't that good a film.

It works as a statement, as a piece of art created specifically to fire a reminding warning shot to those who think that the press is just expected to relay soundbites without questioning people in positions of authority, but it doesn't work as a satisfying cinema experience, for two main reasons.

First, you have the script by Liz Hannah and Josh Singer. It's a strangely messy tangle of different strands, from the investigative journalist who first broke the story to boardroom meetings about The Washington Post moving from private ownership to a company with public shareholders, from the relationships between the various writers and staff to the truncated snippets of the trial that would prove so important for the freedom of the press.

Second, you have the cast. Meryl Streep is as good as ever, playing Katharine Graham, owner and publisher of The Washington Post, and Tom Hanks is also his usual reliable self in the role of Ben Bradlee, editor in chief at the paper, but the rest of the cast is either wasted (Sarah Paulson, Alison Brie, Jesse Plemons) or made up in a way that will take you out of the movie as you figure out who is under the heavy make up (Bruce Greenwood, David Cross, Bradley Whitford). Bob Odenkirk and Tracy Letts are two other exceptions, both given decent scenes without having to be heavily disguised.

Third, and perhaps most damaging of all, the film feels too busy being smug when it could be spending more time dissecting the core issue. Those who know the tale, or are aware of The Washington Post, should know the outcome, and they should know, considering the time period, what comes next, so that could have been the background to something looking more closely at how the battle built up on both sides of the divide. Replace all of the talk of the stock market with scenes instead showing meetings in the White House laying out their opposition, perhaps even spitballing ideas that they realised they wouldn't be allowed to follow through on, and the whole thing may have felt more intense.

Maybe it's just me. The film has already garnered a lot of love, and I might remain in the minority here. But I still advise people to approach with trepidation. It's a decent story, and there are some great performances, but Spielberg doesn't create the magic you would expect. Very disappointing.

4/10

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

Into The Woods (2014)

From my very limited experience of Stephen Sondheim, I have to say that I'm not a big fan. I'm not sure what I'm missing that everyone else gets from his work, but I certainly seem to be missing something. Of course, I've not yet seen any of his works on the stage, where they may shine at their brightest, but this is my second time viewing a movie based on his work. The first time was Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street. I didn't love it. Yet I didn't dislike it either. It grew on me. The only thing I still don't love about it was, unfortunately, most of the soundtrack. I left the screening of Into The Woods trying hard not to hate it.

The story is as follows: a baker (James Corden) and his wife (Emily Blunt) are unable to have children. They are offered the chance to change the situation by a witch (Meryl Streep), and to appease her they must find a cow as white as milk, a cape as red as blood, a golden shoe, and hair as yellow as corn. The witch then disappears in a swirl of witchiness, leaving the baker and his wife to cross paths with Jack (Daniel Huddlestone), Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), Cinderella (Anna Kendrick) and Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy).

It's a star-studded affair, no doubt about it, with some lovely production values and competent direction from Rob Marshall. But it's also such a drab, lifeless affair that I can't see anyone being overjoyed by it, except perhaps fans of the stage show (and even they may be disappointed by the handling of the material - as can happen with anything being adapted into movie form). The script, written by James Lapine and Sondheim, seems to spend a lot of time wringing comedy from the fact that it's so amusing and sly and subversive when it's not. People have been reworking and twisting fairy tales almost as long as fairy tales have been around, and this plot throws everything around in pretty haphazard manner that never allows viewers to forget that different elements are being shoehorned in to fit alongside one another.

The cast all do a decent job though, so that's another plus point. Streep is a fun witch, Kendrick is suitably sweet as Cinderella, and Corden and Blunt do their best to make their characters likable (although it's a struggle). Crawford and Huddlestone both feel right for their roles, and they get their fair share of screentime, which is more than can be said for poor Mackenzie Mauzy. She's consigned to little more than a bit part, and is given very little to do when she IS onscreen. Chris Pine steals the show as a dashing prince, Billy Magnussen tries hard as another prince, Tracey Ullman is underused (playing Jack's mother), Johnny Depp has an enjoyable cameo, playing The Wolf, and Christine Baranski, Tammy Blanchard and Lucy Punch prove to be consistently entertaining as the evil family unit that Cinderella is stuck with.

Despite my own opinion of the film, it's worth noting that this is already a big success at the box office, and probably nowhere near its final total haul yet. So perhaps many other people are taking something away from it that I missed. Like an appreciation of Sondheim's talent.

4/10

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

It's Complicated (2009)

A romantic comedy written and directed by Nancy Meyers, this is pretty much in line with every other romantic comedy written and directed by Nancy Meyers. It has the added "bonus" of allowing viewers to watch Meryl Streep get frisky and Alec Baldwin act like a horndog (I didn't want to use the word but, believe me, it's the most appropriate one) while it meanders from start to finish.

Streep and Baldwin play a long-divorced couple who rediscover the spark between them. At first it seems great, but it doesn't bode well for Baldwin's current wife (played by Lake Bell) or the man (Steve Martin) who is showing interest in Streep. Hence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . it's complicated.

Okay, there's an intended demographic here that I'm not part of, yet, but that's still no excuse to make a movie quite as poor as this. It may have some older leads, but it could at least have the decency to show them at their best. Instead, this is just wastes the talents of all involved.

At least Streep and Martin get to have fun in a sequence that sees them acting like a pair of stoned teenagers (because, well, they're stoned), but the rest of the movie leaves them adrift in a sea of mediocrity. Baldwin is as good as ever, despite the fact that I could live my life happily without seeing him parading around with so few clothes on. Lake Bell is stuck with a character that we're not supposed to like, and does a good job, and there are a few scenes for Mary Kay Place and Rita Wilson to . . . . . . . . . not do much at all. Nice to see them anyway. John Krasinski is the most fun, playing the future son-in-law who accidentally discovers what's going on between Streep and Baldwin.

If you can find anything in the script or direction that comes as a surprise then you've clearly been living in a monastery for the past fifty years. Meyers, as she so often does, walks the path to commercial success on a carpet of cliches and harmless, bland moments. If a boxset of her work was ever released it could be tagged "The Beige Collection."

But what do I know? This was another big hit at the box office. People lapped it up. I won't encourage anyone to seek it out, but you probably won't hate it if you ever do give it a watch. Even I could only muster up the energy to slightly dislike it.

4/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Its-Complicated-DVD-Meryl-Streep/dp/B003155YXY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1378718898&sr=8-1&keywords=it%27s+complicated

The Iron Lady (2011)

There are many times when I watch a movie because I am keen to see it, many times when I just watch a film that I know nothing about and many times when I watch something that has been recommended to me and sit there, hoping that I will like it as much as whoever gave me the heads up. The Iron Lady is a film that I didn't really want to watch, but circumstances have kind of pushed it up my "to view" list and I decided to bite the bullet and give it a go.

It stars Meryl Streep, almost unrecognisable at times, as Margaret Thatcher (played in her younger incarnation by Alexandra Roach), the Conservative MP who became the first female Prime Minister of Great Britain and changed the country, for better or worse (I know how I feel about her changes, but I'm going to do my best to avoid getting into any potential heated debate here). Jim Broadbent plays her husband, Denis (younger version - Harry Lloyd), and Olivia Colman is daughter, Carol.

Anyone expecting a warts 'n' all look at the life of a highly controversial figure will end up highly disappointed. This is a film designed to show its main character bathed in a warm glow, showing her as a tough woman who may have made some mistakes, with emphasis on the word "may". In fact, it skirts around so many big moments that there are many scenes which may leave you wondering just what the point of the film is until you remember that the point is to remind everyone of how great Margaret Thatcher was.

Streep is superb in the main role. She nails the voice - though anyone who has read my review of Lincoln will know that I don't rate any performance that I feel is JUST an impression - but also gets the mannerisms and strength of character just right. In fact, she made me like the character (which I certainly didn't expect). Broadbent is a cheery supporting figure throughout, giving a typically Broadbentian (which is now a word) performance. Olivia Colman does well and the supporting cast contains great names such as Richard E. Grant, John Sessions and Anthony Head.

The script by Abi Morgan is safe and sweet at every turn, and the direction from Phyllida Lloyd goes exactly the same way. This is a film made by people who watched The King's Speech a few too many times and just decided that they could insert Margaret Thatcher into the template and get away with it. Well, that's easier than actually making something that actually has some substance and thought-provoking moments. The end result doesn't impress, certainly not this viewer anyway.

I'm sure that this will play well in America, where people seem to love this portrayal of Britain onscreen (the absurdity of British politics, the conversations that take place with tea and biscuits, etc). It will also play well to fans of Margaret Thatcher. But it won't appeal to those who don't like the woman all that much and it won't appeal to fans of great movies. Because it isn't one. Streep deserves all of the praise heaped upon her performance, it's just a shame that she wasn't given a better film around her.

4/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Iron-Lady-Blu-ray-Meryl-Streep/dp/B008MUJ9S4/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1366083248&sr=8-3&keywords=the+iron+lady

Silkwood (1983)

Based on a true story, Silkwood is all about a woman who works at a plutonium processing plant. Her name is Karen Silkwood and she starts to make some trouble for the management of the plant when she becomes directly involved with the union and starts doing her damnedest to blow the whistle on the numerous dangerous practices that happen around her and her colleagues every day.

It may not be the most exciting story in the world, and the lead character isn't put across as the most likeable person in the world, but Silkwood certainly has a fine pedigree. The script was written by Nora Ephron and Alice Arlen and Mike Nichols has the directorial duties. Then there's that wonderful cast. Meryl Streep plays the titular character, though it's not her best performance by a long shot, while Kurt Russell plays her on-off lover and Cher does well as her good friend. If you don't like any of those folks then how about Fred Ward, David Strathairn, Bruce McGill, Ron Silver or Craig T. Nelson? All, in my view, mighty fine actors. Even the people with names you probably won't know, such as Diana Scarwid and Sudie Bond, give very good performances and Bond is involved in one of the most harrowing scenes in the entire movie.

It's the real horror of the material here that raises it up for me, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to score the film above average. The dangers of radiation are very well known nowadays but it wasn't all that long ago when people were being misinformed and basically used up, as is the case here. Management and business owners needed results and that meant exposing employees to some serious potential health risks. Best case scenario = they really weren't aware of just how damaging it could be. Worst case scenario = they knew, they knew all too well and would go to any lengths to keep their dirty little secrets hidden away. Silkwood tends toward the latter scenario but there is some ambiguity in the first half, at least, to avoid making the company villains absolute monsters.

The film, as a whole, just didn't work well enough for me but I know that I won't forget certain moments. The character played by Sudie Bond being hauled off and cleaned down after exposure to radiation is as upsetting a scene as any that I can recall from any genre, made all the more effective by Bond's heartbreaking performance in her supporting role. Surprising as it may seem, I have to suggest that Streep is actually the weakest link here. Perhaps there was only so much she could do with her character as it was written or perhaps, as I suspect, it just so happens that someone else would have been much better for the role. I don't know who that actress would be but I do know that when I think of the likes of Margot Kidder or JoBeth Williams in the lead role I feel more intrigued about what could have been. And those are just two choices off the top of my head.

Do watch the movie to see something powerful and distressing and to see some actors doing great work but don't watch the movie just to see Streep in the main role because you may find yourself disappointed.

7/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Silkwood-DVD/dp/B001EJW0SG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1354035513&sr=8-1